Report: Military Holding Drills To Prepare For Massive Immigration Crisis: ‘Hundreds of Soldiers… Millions of Dollars’

While President Donald Trump prepares a new Executive Order for curbing refugee migration from the middle east and directives to deal with securing the southern border from unfettered illegal immigration, the U.S. military, Department of Homeland Security and other agencies are gearing up to hold a massive training exercise designed to deal with a large-scale influx of migrants and refugees.

Hundreds of U.S. forces are rehearsing a migrant crisis this week at the U.S. Navy base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, a massive multimillion dollar drill that envisions the United States capturing huge numbers of people in the Caribbean bound for the United States — and how the military, State Department and Homeland Security would collaborate on handling it.

At the Southern Command, Army Col. Lisa Garcia said the military was contributing 400 troops and spending $2.5 million on its portion of the month-long exercise, to include transportation and airlift. (Miami Herald)

Citing 9/11, the Boston Marathon bombing and other instances, Joe Joseph of The Daily Sheeple notes that it is often the case that the government prepares for such scenarios just days or weeks before they actually happen. Could it be that intelligence agencies and analysts have identified the potential for economic or political crises in Central America or the Caribbean region, and they are now preparing assets and response scenarios in the event it plays out in the near future? Joe Joseph weighs in:

How would a President Trump respond if there was a real or manufactured humanitarian crisis in the Caribbean… We’ve seen Haiti in recent years being ravaged by plague, storms and political coups… you’ve got Venezuela, which is down to its last $10 billion in reserves… after that they default… a lot of people suffering… and a lot of it’s happening down in the southern Americas and it’s not getting any attention…

And then, of course, the whole drill thing plays into it… how have we seen drills play into these events in the past? A couple days before the Boston Marathon bombing they had a terror drill… just before 9/11 they had a terror drill of planes flying into the World Trade Center… Normally when you see a drill go down, often times it’s a precursor to the real event…

Watch  Joe Joseph’s full news brief via The Daily Sheeple Youtube Channel:

Article reposted with permission from SHTF Plan

Self Deportation Beginning Ahead of Schedule

Yesterday, in the first segment of my weekly podcast, I recalled for the listeners, a story over which I simply switched on my TV. Therein, I saw, on Fox News, Bill O’Reilly speaking with Geraldo Rivera about illegal immigration and deportation. You may listen here.

He retold, in brief, the story of Guadalupe García de Rayos, a Mexican illegal alien who was recently deported. You may read a more detailed account here.

Geraldo said, quite correctly, that this spectacle was all over the news. Everyone was covering it. He then turned to Bill and said that this incident was only one of 11 million. He explained that this leaves 10,999,999 to go. He asked O-Reilly if America is ready and willing to witness the tragedy of millions being deported every day on the evening news and thousands of websites.

In my podcast, as well as many articles I’ve written on the subject, I exclaimed that this will not occur. It didn’t occur when President Eisenhower oversaw the deportation of millions of illegals and it won’t occur this time. I’m certain of it.

During his career in Real Estate, the Trumpster took pride in projects coming in under budget and ahead of schedule. It looks like he’s doing it again.

The leftist media are all broadcasting scenes of illegal men, women, and children hiking over the border in waist-high snow and sub-freezing temperatures (thanks a lot global warming), from the United States to Canada.

Each one of these sites regales the reader with tales of woe of “undocumented migrants” having to brave the elements and hoof it to Canada, rather than get swept up in the Trump dragnet.

And this is the funny part. I don’t mean it’s funny that these people put themselves and their families in danger of the elements. It’s not funny ha, ha – it’s funny fascinating. I find it incredible that, so far, I have not found a single lefty site that sees the irony of what they are reporting. They are making our case for us. This is exactly what I and many others have been preaching for years.

If you build it, they will come. If you provide free refuge (and everything else), they will come. If you take it away, or even threaten to in a manner they will believe, they will go, of their own accord.

It’s called SELF-DEPORTATION, folks, and the left, in their blind ignorance, is documenting these successes virtually every day. It’s priceless.

Doing just a cursory search of the interweb, I found page after page of accounts, documenting (pardon the pun) the march of illegals making the trek into Canada to “seek asylum” from that fiend Trump. reported on February 19 that, “Reuters photographer Christinne Muschi has captured several scenes of people trekking through snowy woods to cross the U.S.-Canada border by foot and enter Hemmingford, Quebec. Among her subjects are people from Yemen and Sudan trying to get into Canada after losing hope of obtaining legal status in the U.S.” They added that, “On Friday [02/17], eight people, who said they were from Sudan, made it across the border to Canada, as U.S. Border Patrol tried to stop them…”

May I ask why? Why in the heck are we trying to stop them? I suppose one reason might be that we suspect, as Trump says, they are “bad dudes,” and may attempt reentry later. But other than that – just let them go.

The Washington Post reports that in January alone, there were 452 claims of asylum on the Quebec border. That’s almost four times the amount of the same time last year. They added that “with so many migrants willing to traipse through the ice and snow to reach Canada, there are concerns that numbers could soar with the advent of spring.” Well – let’s hope so.

Now I don’t know whether this was predicted and planned this way, but Trump’s plan is working better than I had hoped. Just look at what little he has had to do.

Trump talks tough about a crack down on illegals and a step up of deportations. ICE goes out, does a few raids and deports a few illegals, and the dolts in the press publicize it everywhere, wholly unaware that they have become unwitting allies of Trump. Illegals witness the hysteria in the press and decide to turn tail and run.

If this was planned – it is a masterful stroke!

A Day Without Illegal Immigrants

You may have heard that yesterday was nationwide, “A Day Without Immigrants” day.

NPR Reported that, “In cities around America, thousands of construction companies, restaurants and other businesses are bracing for ‘A Day Without Immigrants,’ a combination boycott/strike that highlights the contributions of immigrants to U.S. business and culture.”

“The movement is a response to President Trump’s immigration agenda, which includes a pledge to seal the U.S. border with Mexico and a travel ban on citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries (which is now on hold),” NPR added.

Demonstrations in many major cities throughout the U.S. took place. By sheer coincidence, most of the cities involved just happen to be of the sanctuary persuasion.

Interestingly, and 100% predictably – of the dozen or so articles I read regarding the “massive” walkouts, from construction companies to schools and restaurants – not one even attempted to make a distinction between legal and illegal immigration.

And isn’t that the point and end for the left – to purposely blur the line between the two – repeat the narrative so often that the two effectively become indistinguishable. Always remember: those who control the language, control the narrative.

Is it really the case that all these companies employ this many illegals that they were forced to close for the day? If that is truly the case, the Trump immigration authorities should really take notice. When the time comes to begin mass deportation proceedings, a list of these facilities will make I.C.E. agents’ jobs a lot easier in locating them.

But seriously, this got me thinking about a day without immigrants, or more precisely, a day without illegals – and just who might be, or who would certainly have been glad to see a day without illegal immigrants.

July 1, 2015, would have been a great day without illegals. That’s the day that the scum bag illegal, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, murdered Kate Steinle. I’m sure all the family and friends of Kate would have been thrilled to have celebrated “no illegals” that day.

January 31, 2016, would been another good day for the celebration of no illegals. That was day that Sarah Root was killed by Eswin Mejia, an illegal alien from Honduras, who was street-racing. He is still out there somewhere, due to Douglas County Nebraska’s sanctuary policy. Sarah had just graduated college with a 4.0 GPA and was preparing to begin her life, when Mejia snuffed it out.

How about January 22, 2015. A day the Ronnebeck family would have enjoyed celebrating no illegals day. That was the day Apolinar Altamirano, an illegal alien from Mexico, murdered Grant Ronnebeck in Mesa, Arizona. Altamirano was out on bond when he murdered Grant over a pack of cigarettes while Ronnebeck was working his shift at a convenience store.

I could continue for days just listing the American citizens who would be overjoyed to have celebrated a day without illegals, but you get the point.

Now how about some facts regarding these oh-so-crucial members of American society.

The Daily Wire, with the help of Fox News, compiled these stunning statistics regarding our beloved “illegal” population.

Illegals make up 3.5% of America’s population, yet commit 13.6% of all crimes in the country. They account for 12% of all murders and 16% of all drug and human trafficking sentences. Almost 50 percent of all federal crimes are committed near the Mexico border, and illegal immigrants accounted for nearly 75% of federal drug sentences in 2014.

“Of the 61,529 criminal cases initiated by federal prosecutors in 2015, more than 40%—or 24,746—were filed in court districts neighboring the Mexican border,” but I’m sure this is just coincidental.

So let us join with all the thousands of victims throughout the nation and celebrate a day, a week, month, year – no – a lifetime, without the scourge of illegal immigrants.

Immigration, The 9th Circuit Court, and Virtue Ethics

Forward: As a student in a social work program, I found myself involved in many debates concerning immigration. I could never wrap my head around the idea that the students around me actually believed people had the right to immigrate here while foregoing any responsibility to assimilate to our culture. This, however, is exactly what they believe because our entire system of morality and philosophical thought is being changed from within, and it is affecting the way laws are passed. One day, a professor of mine – a left wing zealot mind you – acknowledged the fact that if you cross into Mexico, you will not be treated the way we treat immigrants when they come here. She asked a simple question: “What kind of country do you want to be?” At this point, it dawned on me that students are being trained to argue from an emotional standpoint and their ability to reason is being replaced by a thought process based on feelings as opposed to fact. The students did not want to feel like they were prohibiting people from being able to pursue better lives, so they became advocates for open borders because it made them feel good.

Americans continue to watch in absolute bewilderment as the left fights tooth and nail to put a wrench in the Trump administration’s agenda. The recent ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has shown that they are firmly committed to carrying on with the Obama agenda insofar as attempting to change the demographics of our nation. Rush Limbaugh often points out that labeling the left as hypocrites has little to no affect, as no one seems willing to take them to task. Not only were the seven countries in question regarding Trumps ban identified as terrorist hotspots by the Obama administration, the former president himself is on record saying illegal immigration will hurt the wages of blue collar workers in our country. How was it that Obama had such a shift in immigration policy, and what basis does the developing narrative on the President’s authority to issue executive orders regarding immigration have to do with actual law? The right is arguing that the court’s ruling ignored the constitution as well as an established precedent; and the left – well, as usual, the left is arguing from a position of moral superiority while claiming the president’s order is unconstitutional. Some on the left even believe that people have the right to immigrate to the United States.  Unfortunately, when it comes to illegal immigration, not many are familiar with what the law really is, nor are they prepared to fight back against the alleged moral superiority argument so often played by the those on the left.

According to Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, the powers over naturalization rest exclusively in congress. In 1965, the U.S. congress passed a law, which was signed by Lyndon B. Johnson, that drastically changed immigration and set America on a course that would change her demographics forever. This law was known as the Immigration Act of 1965. Up until this law was passed, immigration was based on a quota system. Immigrants from around the world were let in based on the percentage of people from that part of the world already in the U.S. This was known as the National Origins Quota and was passed into law in 1924, in order to slow the massive migration into the United States and protect our cultural identity. This was later considered a racist policy, as most of the immigrants were coming from European countries. The Immigration Act of 1965 was written to change the demographics of America by opening immigration up to the third world.

The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, abolished an earlier quota system based on national origin and established a new immigration policy based on reuniting immigrant families and attracting skilled labor to the United States. Over the next four decades, the policies put into effect in 1965 would greatly change the demographic makeup of the American population, as immigrants entering the United States under the new legislation came increasingly from countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, as opposed to Europe.

This bill grew out of the growing civil rights movement. Whereas new laws preventing discrimination based on skin color were being passed, pressure was also mounting to change the laws related to how America took in immigrants. Immigration to America literally became a human rights issue. According to Lawrence Auster, author of The Path to National Suicide: An Essay on Immigration and Multiculturalism, the new immigration law was the manifestation of the civil rights movement on the world stage. Opponents of this bill were labeled as racist and bigoted for standing in opposition because the bill itself was an extension of the civil rights laws being passed in the U.S. Edward Kennedy, who was serving as the chair for the senate subcommittee hearing this bill, claimed that the number of immigrants coming into the country would not increase and that our country’s demographic make up would not change, as opponents of the bill argued they would. According to the Center of Immigration Studies the number of immigrants coming into the country tripled over three decades, with over 18 million coming from Latin American and Asian countries. Furthermore, the education gap between native born Americans and those immigrating also widened significantly. This created a strain on the system because America is a high tech society who now had a large population of people unable to compete in those jobs and, therefore, live their lives courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. This 18 million does not represent the untold millions of illegal immigrants who have also crossed our borders and taken advantage of the system.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is most likely basing it’s ruling on the immigration act of 1965. They call it unconstitutional because the law itself made the issue of immigration one of universal human rights; people now have the right to immigrate to the United States. This is ridiculous. There is no human right to immigrate to the U.S. and live off of the taxpayer. The left, arguing from an emotional standpoint, believe they have a superior “moral virtue” and that they are more compassionate than the rest of us. They are basing their argument for unfettered immigration on virtue ethics.

Virtue ethics is based purely on the idea that it is the intentions behind an action that are more important than the consequences. This is why the left so effortlessly gets away with anything because the intentions behind their actions are based on the superior virtue of their character: they acted out of love and compassion, therefore, consequences don’t matter. Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret Anscombe was a British philosopher who argued that philosophical thought should do away with making decisions based on what was once understood as morally correct. Her argument suggested that morals were derived from an established law made by legislatures and that this was an outdated system that should be done away with. Instead, Anscombe’s idea on virtue ethics suggested that the good of man should come first. A concept known as eudaimonia, which translates as human flourishing, or the highest human good, has replaced traditional moral thinking with a moral code that is based purely on what makes those making the rules feel good. In other words, it doesn’t matter if there are potential terrorists in the midst of refugees and other immigrants, it is for the greater good of mankind that borders be eliminated and people move freely, with no responsibility to their host nation. To the liberals, the idea that people have to assimilate and follow a legal process of becoming a citizen flies in the face of their morally superior belief that all people have the right to immigrate here. In the end, any victims of potential terrorist attacks are but a statistic in the never ending quest for Utopia.

Article reposted with permisssion from In Defense of Our Nation

The History of Refugee Exclusion in America, Keeping America Safe

President Trump’s move to restrict people coming into our land from seven Mohammedan countries in the Middle East has sparked widespread controversy. Most Americans are well aware that our current  immigration system is conducted in such a way that there is no economic benefit for most American citizens. But the President’s decision was not for purposes of economic protection for our country.

As I spoke in Saint Louis to the Educational Policy Conference 28 this past weekend on the Bible in the Constitution, there were many speakers who highlighted the history of Mohammedanism and the current dangers it presents to our Christian Constitutional Republic. Jihad is a real danger to us all: to our lives, liberties and our property.

The President is charged in Art II Sec 3 of our Constitution with “taking Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…” We know that, for multiple decades now, our immigration laws have not been faithfully executed by any sitting President, nor by his administration. We also know from the history of immigration to our land that our Constitution absolutely permits us to restrict or to even cut off immigration from any country in the world.

Consider what was done “in 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which, per the terms of the Angell Treaty, suspended the immigration of Chinese laborers (skilled or unskilled) for a period of 10 years. The Act also required every Chinese person traveling in or out of the country to carry a certificate identifying his or her status as a laborer, scholar, diplomat, or merchant.” So our Federal government certainly can Constitutionally place broad, country-specific restrictions on immigration. It seems to me that President Trump is simply fulfilling his oath of office, “taking Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

Jihad is for real and has serious consequences. The persecution of the church has ramped up worldwide at an astonishing level. Open Doors Ministry has documented 1207 Christian martyrdoms world wide in 2016, and expects that number to rise this year. North Korea and nine Mohammedan countries made their top ten list of the worst persecuting countries.

Gordon Conwell’s Center for the Study of Global Christianity estimates that 900,000 Christians have been killed for their faith in the past ten years. The report noted that 30% of the martyrdoms took place at the hands of Mohammedan terrorists. The study also found that Christians are the most despised people group in the world. But there is another side to the story.

A Wind in the House of Islam by David Garrison is the story of the nine geo–cultural variants of Islam around the world – what the author calls ‘rooms in the House of Islam’ – and how the Wind of God’s Spirit is blowing through every one of them. Garrison spent three years traveling 250,000 miles through every corner of the Muslim world to investigate reports of Muslims turning to faith in Christ.

In his research, he collected the stories of over 1,000 former Muslim who’ve become Christians, asking them the question: “What did God use to bring you to faith in Jesus Christ? Tell me your story.” The result is an unprecedented look into the greatest turning of Muslims to Christ in history; stories of men and women who have sacrificed everything – home, family, even their lives – to follow Jesus. His account tells of men and women from Africa to Indonesia and everywhere in between; how God is at work through answered prayers, and through dreams and visions, and through technology (Internet, satellite television, video and audio tools).

What we need to see in all this is that no matter how hard Satan tries, he cannot defeat the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ; the gates of Hell shall never prevail, and ultimately, Christ Jesus shall rule over all as King of kings and Lord of lords.

The main takeaways are these: 1) Christianity is growing today as never before on earth; 2) There is great need for sound Biblical teaching among new converts, for syncretism and pseudo-Christianity are rampant.

Those take aways are exactly parallel to what Paul was writing to his disciple Titus regarding for the work of ministry committed to his care. We do well to learn these same principles at this juncture of history as they clearly apply in our day.

Learn more about your Constitution with Pastor David Whitney and the “Institute on the Constitution” and receive your free gift.

Xenophobe President Slams Immigrants: “All Americans Are Rightly Disturbed By The Large Numbers Of Illegal Aliens Entering Our Country”

The hits to illegal immigrants just keep coming.

From the President of the United States:

All Americans, not only the states most heavily affected, but in every place in this country are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country.

The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants… the public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers… that’s why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more… by hiring a record number of border guards… by cracking down on illegal hiring… by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens…

…We will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes.

We are a nation of immigrants… but we are also a nation of laws.

It is wrong and ultimately self defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years and we must do more to stop it.

The President’s words were met with a standing ovation in Congress.

But if you thought it was President Donald Trump, think again.

These are the words of President Bill Clinton in his 1995 State of The Union address:

Article reposted with permission from SHTF Plan

Trump’s Wall

President Trump proposed a 20 percent tariff on imports from Mexico in order to pay for the wall he plans to build on the southern border. It is assumed that the 20 percent tariff is a negotiating starting point. A tariff is a tax on imports which will make a product more expensive and favor domestically produced goods over imports, while raising revenue for the government of our country.

Tariffs were a major government revenue source during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries but today we are a low tariff country, with a few exceptions. Other countries protect their domestic industries by charging heavy tariffs and some as much as 100 percent.

A tariff helps those companies and countries that can supply goods most cheaply, presumably because they are more efficient, but some governments provide their companies with export subsidies in order to allow them to reduce the selling price of their goods on foreign markets.

Dan Lombard argued that “a 3% transit tax over three years would pay for a wall.” Infuriated by the economically illiterate commentators who claim that the tariff would be passed on entirely to the consumer, Lombard said that a $700 washing machine crosses the border with a price tag of $400, but time transit charges, warehousing expenses, sales commissions, overhead markup, and profit are added onto the $400 price, pricing the washer at $700 but the tariff is applied onto the $400 price tag. Customers will pay a certain amount more for that brand produced in Mexico but the company that makes the washing machine “will absorb the cost as the price of doing business.”

What exactly does Mexico export to us?

According to government trade data, Mexico exported $295 billion worth of goods to the U.S. in 2015: autos (74 billion), electrical machinery (63 billion), machinery (49 billion), agricultural products (21 billion), fuels (14 billion), plastics (17 billion), optical and medical instruments (12 billion).  In the agricultural products category Mexico exported to the U.S. corn, soybeans, dairy products, pork and pork products, beef and beef products.  

On January 27, 2017, President Trump tweeted that “Mexico has taken advantage of the U.S. for long enough. Massive trade deficits and little help on the very weak border must change, NOW!”

A trade deficit with Mexico is the excess of our imports over exports. U.S. goods trade deficit with Mexico was $58 billion in 2015 and U.S. services trade surplus with Mexico in 2015 was $9.2 billion. Mexico was the third largest supplier of goods to the U.S. in 2014 and supplied services in transportation, travel, and intellectual property (software).

U.S. foreign investment in Mexico totaled $107.8 billion in 2014 by nonbank holding companies, manufacturing, and finance/insurance.

Texas Congressman Louis Gohmert told Fox News that billions of dollars had been appropriated for a virtual wall on the southern border during the Bush administration but Janet Napolitano disregarded Congress and “we let her get away with disobeying the law.”  

According to the Daily Caller, “The transition team is planning big spending negotiations with Congress, which will include money for the wall.” President Trump “plans to make Mexico pay for the wall directly or indirectly by increasing fees on visas and border crossing cards, enforcing trade tariffs and taxing money transfers abroad.” The pre-cast concrete wall will be 35-50 feet tall, costing an estimated $8-$12 billion. Of the 2,000 mile border with Mexico, 650 miles are already fenced and illegals have no problem climbing the existing barrier. 

It is obvious to any traveler that Mexico must repair their own country and must stop using the United States as their social security blanket at the expense of American taxpayers. Drug cartels operate across the border back and forth unimpeded, and illegals send home billions of dollars of untaxed money to Mexico.

As many have suggested, a tax should be levied on money wired to Mexico via Western Union, Money Gram, etc. On the average, money wires are only charged a service fee of $10.99 to transfer a few hundred dollars.

Most illegals, who do work hard and long hours, request to be paid in cash which means that they evade paying state and federal income taxes, Social Security taxes, etc.  At the same time, they benefit from our free medical care and other forms of welfare. As they consume goods and services in this country, they do pay sales taxes.

Some Illegals pay tax via ITIN (Individual Taxpayer Identification Number) also known as W7. The earned income tax credit they receive based on reported income on W7 is far greater than the actual state and federal taxes they pay. Some even claim children who are not even theirs or do not reside in the United States. Tax refunds amount to $4.2 billion according to a 2011 audit by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. 

Let’s assume that the 11 million illegal aliens that apparently have not grown in numbers in 20 years since the MSM has championed their cause, send home south of the border $1,000 per month, a sum total of one billion untaxed income earned while illegally in the U.S., a cool $12 billion a year. Some may send less, some may send more. To save money, several illegals rent one apartment and use one common van as transportation. The money sent to Mexico support their families left behind for years and helps them save for building a nice home.

Michael Savage made the argument on his radio show that you cannot and should not deport law-abiding illegals (although when they cross the border of another country illegally, technically they are not law-abiding), that only criminal illegal aliens should be deported. Quoting data from the Government Accountability Office, 25 percent of the prison population is made up of illegal aliens and “criminal illegal aliens are arrested on the average 7 times.” 

One of the reasons Savage cited for not deporting “law-abiding” illegals was that many work diligently and very hard in construction and in restaurants. “Who is going to wash the dishes,” he asked rhetorically. “And who is going to pick the crops? You?” This argument is weak as humans no longer need to pick crops, there are machines that can pick any kind of crop – back-breaking manual labor is no longer necessary. 

The assumption is also made that millions of low-skilled Americans who are unemployed are either too educated for the job, lazy, or are unwilling to work in the restaurant business or construction industry.

But, for every illegal alien who is gainfully employed, if they are not here alone, he has a wife and children at home who are dependent on Medicaid and some or all of the thirteen U.S. Welfare Programs, costing American taxpayers plenty. And anchor babies make their parents eligible to stay in the U.S. and eventually the extended family.

The welfare programs include:

    • Negative income Tax (Earned Income Tax Credit or EITC, and the Child Tax Credit)
    • SNAP (food program, formerly food stamps, but is now a debit card which is often abused)


  • Housing assistance


    • SSI (cash to low-income individuals)
    • Pell Grants (up to $5,500 in grants to students from low-income households)
    • TANF (cash for individuals moving from welfare to work)


  • Child nutrition


    • Head Start (pre-school program to low-income families)


  • Job training programs


  • WIC (healthy food to pregnant women and children up to five years of age)
  • Child care (block grants to states and private agencies who administer child care programs to low-income families)
  • LIHEAP (Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program for heating and cooling)
  • Lifeline (Obama Phone) – discounted phone service to low-income individuals.

Savage argued that Americans must tread lightly in withdrawing these benefits to Mexicans as it would destabilize their economy and would create a vacuum of financial support of the population, leaving it open perhaps to a country like China to become the Big Brother provider which might not be in the best interest of the United States.

Even though Democrats and their leftist cohorts are lobbying against the southern border wall, and shrieking that it cannot be built, that it is inhumane, that it is being escalated anyway, that it would take a long time to build, and states like Texas, California, and New Mexico are rightfully Mexico’s anyway, they build tall security armed fences around their mansions and properties. The wall worked for China and it works for Israel. A former Mexican president even went as far as saying that Mexico is wherever there are Mexicans. However, if anyone crosses their borders illegally, they go straight to jail.

Mass Deportations Loom: 7 Ways To Get Kicked Out Of America If You Are Here Illegally

As of this writing there are reportedly scores of individuals being detained at airports across the country because they originate from countries on President Trump’s “ban list.” Though the ban is indefinite for refugees from war-torn Syria, the White House’s Executive Order stops short of permanently restricting access for those in other predominantly Muslim countries on the list. The purpose of the order based on its language is to ensure that the United States has extensive screening and biometric procedures in place prior to opening our borders again. The process, according to the order, should be completed within 120 days, something that seems to have been under reported by the mainstream media, likely in order to fuel further tensions such as the widespread protests we are seeing at international airports in the United States. Further, the Trump administration has now made it clear the holders of green cards are legal immigrants and will not be affected by the order.

The tensions we are witnessing today across the country will likely be raised significantly in coming days because in addition to the Executive Order banning immigration from certain countries, the Trump administration has also enacted an order to deal with illegal aliens who are already in the United States. It was a major position for the President in the run-up to the election and now Trump looks to be making good on his promise to deal with illegal immigration head on.

Dubbed Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, this Executive Order outlines numerous guidelines for dealing with undocumented immigrants who are in the United States illegally.

The order uses a sweeping definition for “criminal” activity, likely threatening millions of people with the real possibility of deportation, even if they have lived in the United States for many years. What’s more, it appears that a single immigration officer now has the power to make the determination for who can or can’t stay in the country.

If you are an illegal alien in America, here are seven ways you can be deported should you be detained by law enforcement.

Sec. 5.  Enforcement Priorities.  In executing faithfully the immigration laws of the United States, the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) shall prioritize for removal those aliens described by the Congress in sections 212(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(6)(C), 235, and 237(a)(2) and (4) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(6)(C), 1225, and 1227(a)(2) and (4)), as well as removable aliens who:

(a)  Have been convicted of any criminal offense;

(b)  Have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved;

(c)  Have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense;

(d)  Have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or application before a governmental agency;

(e)  Have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits;

(f)  Are subject to a final order of removal, but who have not complied with their legal obligation to depart the United States; or

(g)  In the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security.

Full Text

In short, this means that anyone who has committed a criminal offense, including fraudulently claiming public benefits, can be immediately deported. As well, if you are deemed to be a threat to public safety for any reason, you’re gone.

We suspect that many of the initiatives in Trump’s Executive Orders will come under legal fire, and as we saw in the last 24 hours, will be amended or struck down by the Judicial branch.

However, the Executive Branch does have power over immigration and because illegal aliens have already broken Federal law by entering the United States, there are likely not many legal protections which can be afforded them.

Moreover, it appears that a single immigration officer now has the power to initiate deportation procedures, so the vast majority of people will likely already have been returned to their home country before attorneys have a chance to get involved.

The protests taking place today are nothing compared to what will happen when tens of thousands of immigrants living in the United States start getting sent back home. 

We urge our readers to get prepared for mass chaos from coast to coast. The protests and riots will be unprecedented.

Article reposted with permission from SHTF Plan

Economics, Immigration and Terrorism: Europeans “Could See Civil War, Unrest And Utter Chaos”

Are we witnessing the end of the EU as we know it?

Things have become so utterly unstable in the European forecast that experts are now expecting to see full on clashes, and eventually, even civil war in the streets.

The pressure of increasing terror attacks in major EU countries, a populist revolt against economic tyranny and the ongoing refugee crisis have been threatening to bust open the seams of order.

Europe is said to be “on the brink,” as things are coming to a head, and drastic measures are being considered to keep order and maintain EU authority against a tide of uprisings.

The European Union itself could fall under votes against its authority, now in the UK and in Italy.

via the UK Daily Star:

It comes after months of warnings from experts – including top military brasses – that massive economic issues, mass immigration, and terrorism will lead to a full-scale crisis.

They have predicted this will affect the entire continent, eventually leading to civil war on the streets.

It seems that Switzerland’s Lieutenant General and Chief of the Armed Forces, André Blattmann, has foreseen what is to come. He warned last year:

[T]he combination of hybrid wars, the economy, and the refugee crisis would have “unforeseen dimensions”.

He then claimed social unrest was something Europe’s leaders and armies had to be prepared for.

The Swiss might be historically neutral, but they aren’t blind to the upheaval that could threaten stability both at home in their independent nation, and surrounding them on the rest of the European continent.

The Swiss population is armed and trained; meanwhile, disarmed countries, including Germany and Austria, are buying up pepper spray and other self-defense tools, while their governments are warning them to be prepared for domestic war, and to keep at least 10 days of storable food on hand along with other emergencies supplies.

The situation is, and has been, very serious. And things are only escalating from there.

Of course, the agenda of Muslim and extremists is only driving more populist pressure to restrict immigration, and restore nativist and nationalist policies – which is making the whole cycle more grandiose, and more destined for a clash.

Terrorists incidents have been particularly shocking over the past several years, with gunmen, vehicle drivers and the like carrying out random attacks, and often killing dozens or even hundreds in the commission of their crimes.

Some experts in Europe are even claiming that members of ISIS and other Muslim extremists are carrying out violent attacks with the express purpose of inciting widespread hatred against Muslim immigrants, and thereby sparking a bigger reaction, a greater division and the rise of a Caliphate to create a new order out of the chaos:

French scholar of Islam, Gilles Kepel, told German newspaper Die Welt that the eventual goal of Islamic terrorism was not to simply murder western people in Europe.

He explained the purpose of bloody and vicious attacks on innocent people is to incite hatred among the general population of Muslims in general… encourag[ing] more young believers to take up arms against westerners which would eventually lead to civil war on the streets.

This is madness… and there is no sign of its stopping!

Rapefugees attack and wound Swedish policeman

European CIVIL WAR – Europe vs Islam – Islam vs The World

Lawless Berlin Where invaders and Rapefugees are terrorizing


Read more:

Article reposted with permission from SHTF plan

French Report Points to the Desired End of Muslim Migration

We have all heard the fear mongering that some have done concerning Muslims. They are going to form rape gangs. They are going to have success in converting large numbers of our children and students. They will outbreed us and eventually take over our country.

I have always thought that these things were happening already. And if we do not stop playing games and look to our duty, we will lose, regardless of how many Muslims move here. We also have the understanding that we have the truth. If we understand what “truth” is, we have no fear. Truth always defeats falsehood. This is the reason that Christ referred to His gospel as light. Darkness can overpower us, but it can never overpower light.

And one truth is the results of unchecked and un-evangelized Islamic migration.

Breitbart reports:

Women are invisible in public spaces and are unwelcome in cafés and bars in France’s migrant-heavy suburbs, a shocking report broadcast on France 2 last week revealed.

Reporting from Saint-Denis, a commune where 36 per cent of residents were born overseas, journalist Caroline Sinz narrates: “The café terraces and the streets have something in common: women seem to have been erased. In some neighborhoods, men occupy public places, and women suffer.”

The cause of such a situation is the lack of real faith in France. There are few, if any, Christians left. And I even mean that in the general sense of the word. If you are confessing Christ and believe that without him, you face hell for eternity, you are counted. There is less than two percent Protestant in France. And only forty-six percent of that two percent even read their Bibles at least once a month.

In this environment, we can have little or no hope of evangelism of the incoming Muslim population. These Muslims were not assimilated into the French culture and had built their communities to match what they left in their former homes. But who could expect otherwise, as it is all that they know (another proof that our societies grow out of our worldviews).

This is the aim of the left, as they seek to overrun us with Muslims. If we are smart, this can be turned on its head. They have seen the Muslim used to bring down other nations and destroy true liberty. This can be avoided here if we seek to know and love the Muslim. If we seek to share truth with him, the truth will win out.

Truth always trumps a lie.

Article reposted with permission from

Immigration Can Kill the Democrat Party

The specter of identity politics is haunting the left. It shows up at teary-eyed election parties in Berkeley, debates over craft beers in Williamsburg and the editorial pages of the big opinion shaper papers.

No less an icon of the left than Bernie Sanders has been grumbling that his movement needs to reconnect with working people again. He even tentatively denounced identity politics. “It is not good enough for somebody to say, ‘I’m a woman, vote for me.’” Bernie bears a grudge. That’s obvious. But the old Socialist has a history of spouting the old Socialist working class denunciations of immigration.

Bernie is really arguing that the Democrats ought to emphasize class more and race less. Similar left-wing squeaks have popped up in a handful of editorials. But they aren’t likely to travel very far.

The Democrats are losing the Rust Belt, just like they lost the South, because they have become an urban political machine. Identity politics is just urban organizing with a lot of left-wing lipstick on top. Bernie’s state is 95% white. Even Burlington hovers somewhere in the high eighties. Bernie can only organize around class because a coalition of minorities wouldn’t get him to the nearest post office.

Identity politics beat Bernie in the Democratic primaries. But it might have cost Hillary the election. And now Trump is in a position to end the Democrats by cutting their immigration lifeline. The Dems have burned their bridges with the working class by gambling everything that they have on demographic change. If they change doesn’t materialize, then they are trapped at the dead end of a short alley.

That’s the big problem the Democrats face. Identity politics with its hysterical outbursts of rage and specialized vocabulary of victimhood (privilege, victim-blaming, microaggressions) is toxic nationally, but dominates the academic and big city political populations that are its base. The Obama coalitions of millennial college leftists and disaffected minorities are passion voters whose turnout is unreliable and when they don’t turn out, then the aspirations of the Dems become sand castles with a storm coming in.

Democrats went into this election convinced that the tide of demographic change was on their side. That tide depends heavily on immigration. If Trump secures the border, deports illegal aliens and revamps immigration to serve national interests, then the Democrats lose their demographic future.

And they realize it. They’ve gambled their political future on immigration. If immigration can’t deliver the demographic changes that the left touted, then they will become a minority party.

The left used to oppose immigration. The Socialist Party inveighed against, “the immigration of strikebreakers and contract laborers, and the mass importation of workers from foreign countries brought about by the employing classes for the purpose of weakening the organization of American labor, and lowering the standard of life of American workers.”

But the left shifted away from working class regions and toward urban areas. Its political organizing was no longer based on experiences rallying coal miners or fruit pickers, but bullying college students. Identity politics was ideal for big campuses where identity coalitions were even more powerful than in big cities. Voter turnout is laughably light. Those who do vote are more likely to carry political agendas.

Under Obama, campus politics went national. The Dems made the final shift from class to culture war. When Hillary first ran for the White House, she could juggle the traditional three races appeal. This time around she had to incoherently appeal to a bewildering range of angry identity groups.

The Obama coalition ran on passion politics. The minority half of the coalition needed someone representative. The campus half wanted hip inspiration. Hillary Clinton couldn’t deliver either one.

But the lessons of her defeat aren’t lost on Democrats aspiring to higher office. Paying lip service to diversity is no longer enough. The only way to ensure minority turnout in national elections might be to have a minority politician at the top of the ticket. The future would belong to the Obama clones.

Bernie certainly understands the implications of that even if some Democrats don’t. He could very well be the last white male with a serious shot of entering the White House as a Democrat. And he’s strongly hinting that he would like to run again in 2020. That’s why he has to question identity politics.

Class over race means Bernie could still become the Dem nominee. Race over class could lock him out.

That’s also why Obama has reassured Dems that identity politics will eventually pay off, even if there might be the occasional setback along the way. Nevertheless the country will still be transformed. Bernie however has questioned whether a permanent Democratic majority would even be possible.

Without the prospect of a permanent majority through mass migration on the horizon, the Democrats have to consider abandoning identity politics and returning to tried and true class warfare.

But a retreat from identity politics may not even be possible.

Intersectionality is worlds away from the old racial pandering. The culture of identity outrage dominates left-wing messaging. The opposition to Trump leans heavily on victim politics rather than class. We are incessantly lectured on all the Muslim and illegal alien kiddies who go to bed crying because of him. This performance of passive aggressive victimhood has only disgusted even more of the country.

Identity politics is tethered to outrage and therefore is inherently unstable and alienating. It’s based on a subjective experience that is deemed inaccessible to those with more “privilege” and yet it is an experience whose emotional outcomes are meant to govern our lives. It’s a selfishly anti-intellectual creed that cannot be reasoned with because it derives from the recesses of personal emotion.

It’s not an intellectual exercise, but a performance of personal suffering and outrage. And there’s no way around it without jettisoning the crust of political correctness that makes victimhood sacred. Those who suffer the most are morally superior. Their whims and wishes must dominate the Dem agenda.

An older left could have made a compelling case for the victimhood of the unemployed coal miner, but no such creature exists in campus politics where there are 63 gender identities, but no white working class. The left has defined victimhood as the alienation experienced by those who are different. There is no room for oppressed majorities, only minorities. An ideology that once defined itself by labor is far more interested in charting the erratic emotions of unstable college kids than in the real problems of working people. It can relate to the former, but not the latter.

Democrats have to choose between identity politics and the working class. Abandoning identity politics would be a painful process while abandoning the working class has proven to be painless and disastrous. But identity politics without mass migration and social transformation is unworkable. Immigration determines the future of the Democrats. This election is forcing Democrats to make a choice.

Obama’s identity politics preached that Republicans had to embrace identity politics or lose their ability to win national elections. But if the Democrats can’t sustain the rate of demographic change that they need, their lost grip on the working class white vote may lock them out of the White House.

Article reposted with permission from Sultan Knish

Immigration Group Shielding Known Gang Members And Blocking Trump From “Deportation Database”

It seems that politics is blocking common sense, and the enforcement of immigration law yet again.

With President-elect Trump’s promise to deport criminal illegal immigrants with records involving gang activity and violence, many pro-immigrant groups are concerned that he will cast too wide of a net. So, they are attempting to block Trump from being able to gain access to the CalGang database, California’s extensive records on known gang members, many of whom are undocumented immigrants.

It seems that this group would prefer these criminals to run rampant, rather than allow Trump to curb immigration and attempt to address the blowback from unlimited migration, and in influx of crime that has followed sketchy border policy over the past several decades.

via Breitbart:

Immigration advocacy groups are asking California Attorney General Kamala Harris to “block federal access” to the database containing names of gang members in the state.

The goal is to block access before President-elect Donald Trump is sworn in, thereby preventing his administration from seeing the names of individuals who could find themselves on a the deportation short list

VOC put it this way: “In some cases law enforcement agencies put individuals in the database without adequate evidence, failed to purge CalGang records that had not been updated within five years, and poorly implemented a state law requiring that juveniles and their parents are notified before the minor is placed in the database.”

Advocacy groups fear that Trump would sift through the names on the database in a search for immigrants who have amassed a criminal record in the US, only “to deport…[illegal] immigrants who’ve been erroneously labeled as gang members.”

In a post-election 60 Minutes appearance, Trump “vowed to immediately deport as many as three million undocumented immigrants, specifically those with criminal records such as gang members and drug dealers.”

Basically, if successful, the group would have the state to aid and abet the influx of illegal immigration, while blocking due process to remove known criminal elements from the country at the federal level and enforce the law. It is bizarre and telling of the mindset that they hold.

Trump’s appointment of Sen. Jeff Sessions has been interpreted as  a signal that his administration will follow through and indeed be tough on illegal immigrants. Keep one of his key campaign promises would give a boost in his approval ratings from the base that elected him.

Meanwhile, opponents of this policy are ready for a full-scale fight over immigration. And while California is keeping its database of criminal gang members secret, the state of Texas has already estimated that more than 100,000 illegal immigrant gang members  exist in the state, and have contributed to a wave of crimes that could be reduced by sending these individuals back.

As Michael Snyder reported:

Texas state Senator Dan Patrick said there are at least 100,000 illegal immigrant gang members in the state.

On Monday’s The Laura Ingraham Show, Patrick, who is also the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, said from 2008 to 2012, 143,000 illegal immigrant criminals were arrested and jailed in Texas. He said these were “hardened criminals, gang members, and other criminals that we identified as being in Texas illegally.”

We charged them with 447,000 crimes, a half-million crimes in four years, just in Texas, including over 5,000 rapes and 2,000 murders,” Patrick said. “We estimate we have 100,000 gang members here illegally.”

The people of the United States have overwhelmingly sounded off in favor of reduced immigration and tighter controls over how to handle undocumented aliens. But, it is as if the system won’t let that happen.

Clearly, the problem won’t be fixed over night.

Article reposted with permission from SHTF Plan

Trump Confirms Mass Deportations Are Imminent: “2 To 3 Million Undocumented Immigrants With Criminal Records… They’re Going To Be Gone”

If you are an illegal immigrant in America with a criminal record your days are numbered, according to President-elect Donald Trump.

Following up on his campaign promise to build a security wall on the southern border and deport any undocumented immigrants with criminal records immediately upon taking office, Trump sat down with 60 Minutes on Sunday to reiterate his plans.

President-elect Donald Trump has said he plans to deport two to three million undocumented immigrants with criminal records from the country immediately– and has insisted that he will build his wall.

In his first extensive interview since he won the White House, Trump is reassuring his supporters that he will deport or incarcerate up to three million ‘gang members’ and ‘drug dealers.’

‘What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, where a lot of these people, probably two million, it could be even three million, we are getting them out of our country or we are going to incarcerate,’ Trump said.

‘But we’re getting them out of our country, they’re here illegally.’

As the Commander-In-Chief, Trump will have the power to enforce existing immigration laws, which among other things call for the deportation of individuals entering the country illegally. Under the Obama administration millions of immigrants were allowed to enter the country without recourse and Border Patrol agents from Texas to California were told to stand down and do nothing.

Trump and others have said that undocumented workers pose a direct threat to the national security of the United States because with current immigration policies, which require no documentation whatsoever, it is impossible to know who is entering our country and from which country they originate. It’s been reported that numerous individuals with ties to terrorism have been apprehended on the border, and that potentially scores of others have already been smuggled into the United States by Mexican drug cartels.

Though the President-Elect has promised to either deport or incarcerate millions of illegal immigrants with criminal records, he stopped short of claiming that all undocumented immigrants living in the United States would be deported:

‘After the border is secure and after everything gets normalized, we’re going to make a determination on the people that they’re talking about who are terrific people, they’re terrific people but we are gonna make a determination at that,’ Trump said.

‘But before we make that determination…it’s very important, we are going to secure our border.’

Watch Trump make his promise to deport criminals in a September 1, 2016 Immigration Speech:

Day one, my first hour in office, those people are gone. You  can call it ‘deported’ if you want… the press doesn’t like that term… you can call it whatever you want… they’re gone.

Their days have run out in this country… the crime will stop… they’re going to be gone. It will be over.

If you think Anti-Trump protestors have gone off the rails following Hillary’s loss, just wait until Trump starts nationwide mass deportations.

We encourage you to consider the implications of this policy and prepare for widespread violence now, because this could quickly escalate to open warfare on the street of America.

Article reposted with permission from SHTF Plan

DHS Memo Acknowledges the Fact that Refugee Fraud is Happening

If you read many of my articles concerning refugees, you would get the idea that I am anti-immigration.  You could get the idea that I think we should wall everyone out of the country or that I am a Xenophobe.  But this is not true at all.

I believe that this country is a country of immigrants and we should continue to accept immigrants of all nationalities and religions.  I believe that Christians have the truth and will win the culture war (when they actually start realizing they are supposed to be fighting to win) because truth always wins out.

My problem is the situation we have with the current administration and us losing the war on terror.  Syria is a hotbed of terrorist activity.  And while we have found it nearly impossible to vet the refugees, we continue to allow them to come here.

And now the truth has been revealed.

The Washington Post reports:

Refugee fraud is “easy to commit” and much tougher to detect, Homeland Security officials acknowledged in an internal memo made public by members of Congress Thursday that challenges the department’s own assurances as it seeks to increase the number of refugees from dangerous countries.

The U.S. has relaxed requirements for refugees to prove they are who they say they are, and at times may rely solely on testimony. That makes it easier for bogus applicants to conspire to get approved, according to the department memo, which was obtained by the House Judiciary and Oversight committees.

“Refugee fraud is easy to commit, yet not easy to investigate,” the undated memo says.

The memo said there are clear instances where “bad actors … have exploited this program,” gaining a foothold in the U.S. through bogus refugee claims.

Now, this is not a call for a shutting out of all refugees.  Rather what is needed is a serious attempt to keep out the terrorist.  To do otherwise looks like suicide.

Article reposted with permission from

Did You Know that Over 7700 Terrorists Were Encountered Trying to Enter the Country?

If you were to ask the average American how many terrorists have been caught trying to sneak into the country, you would probably get a small response. The average American would not think that it was a very common thing to find terrorists sneaking in because they have not heard of any being caught.

But even if you asked a pessimistic person, they are likely to get it wrong. Again, this is because no one is hearing about the apparent wave of terrorists trying to get into America via our Southern border.

According to Breitbart:

Leaked documents with sensitive FBI data exclusively obtained by Breitbart Texas reveal that 7,712 terrorist encounters occurred within the United States in one year and that many of those encounters occurred near the U.S.-Mexico border. The incidents are characterized as “Known or Suspected Terrorist Encounters.” Some of the encounters occurred near the U.S.-Mexico border at ports-of-entry and some occurred in between, indicating that persons known or reasonably suspected of being terrorists attempted to sneak into the U.S. across the border. In all, the encounters occurred in higher numbers in border states.

So, what this tells us is that there are a lot of terrorists using the same routes to enter our country as the illegal immigrants. And we have caught 7712 of them either as they enter or right after.  Who would have thought that such a thing could happen?

As I have said before, this does not mean that we cut off all immigration; that is not the answer. But, there is a good case to be made for tightening things up. What will it take for us to wake up to this problem?

Article reposted with permission from

The Danger and Cost of the Broken U.S. Immigration System

While our country has long prided itself on being a “melting pot” by welcoming people from other countries and assimilating them into our society, there are some areas that need to be addressed within our current immigration system.  Many Americans may not know precisely how large, dangerous, and costly our immigration problem has become.

First of all, we have laws regarding immigrants—how they are to be selected, what they must do to qualify as immigrants and eventually as citizens, and exact procedures for coming into the U.S.  Unfortunately, many of these laws are being broken or blatantly ignored. Why are those breaking the law not punished and why are those in positions of authority ignoring the enforcement of these laws?  

Second, the accurate immigration tallies show our system is being crushed under the weight of the actual influx. Many in Washington would like to see these immigration numbers grow even bigger, projecting the social services needed for these immigrants will require more tax dollars so government can gain more control, and of course, more potential votes in exchange for these handouts.

Third, we as a country have abdicated our control over to the United Nations by treaty, and now defer to their policies of deciding which immigrants, re-classified as “refugees,” can enter the US. The FBI and Dept of Homeland Security have repeatedly stated it is impossible to successfully vet these refugees.  Yet many States have given “non-profit” volunteer organizations control over administering their refugee processing programs, which are ultimately paid for by our tax dollars based on each refugee processed. The number of projected refugees has been pushed higher from areas of the world that have a greater potential to import terrorism. CNN reports the US plans to take in 110,000 refugees next year, up from 85,000 in 2016. And ISIS has promised they will infiltrate the refugee population sent to the US. Furthermore, after three months, refugees are instructed to find work anywhere they can, are free to roam about the country at will, and are not tracked.

Let’s begin by looking at expanse of legal immigration in the US and why we need to change the way it is working.  According to January 2016 “Chart Book” from the U. S. Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest: “The majority of immigration to the US is the result of our visa policies.  Each year, millions of visas are issued to temporary workers, foreign students, refugees, asylees, and permanent immigrants for admission into the United States.  The lion’s share of these visas are for lesser-skilled and lower-paid workers and their dependents.”  This report goes on to note that many of these workers are added to the labor pool made up of Americans—both employed and the unemployed.  But, because they have been admitted to the US on legal immigrant visas, most of them can count on a wide-range of taxpayer-funded benefits as well as being able to take jobs that otherwise would go to American workers.

The subcommittee also states that the most significant of all immigration documents issued by the US is the “green card.”  Department of Homeland Security statistics show that 5.25 million green cards were issued by the US in the last five years—giving us 1.05 million new permanent legal immigrants annually.  The importance of the green card are the benefits it imbues to the recipients:  lifetime work authorization, access to federal welfare, access to Social Security and Medicare, the ability to obtain citizenship and voting privileges, and it allows them to bring in family members as additional immigrants.  At the current pace, the US will issue more green cards over the next decade than the combined populations of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.  At this pace, in the next 50 years for every new American added to the population by birth, immigration will add 7 more.  This means we will add 14 million Americans by birth in the next 50 years while immigration will add 103 million people.

The fact of the matter is that this unsustainable rate of increasing legal immigration does not need to continue.  There is a remedy. The numbers added can be adjusted with a new federal law, but the majority of Americans are unaware of these numbers and have not looked at the impact they bring to our workplaces and our society in general.  So why are these numbers not being changed?  Who limits these numbers?  Congress.  How do our elected officials vote?  They usually vote to benefit their biggest financial contributors; and in this case it is to benefit of the large corporate donors to bring in more “cheap” labor – not to reduce or restrict this flow.

As stated by Senator Jeff Sessions, subcommittee chairman, “We should not admit people in larger numbers than we can reasonably expect to vet, assimilate, and absorb into our schools, communities, and labor markets. It is not compassionate but uncaring to bring in so many people that there are not enough jobs for them or the people already here. As Coolidge said: ‘We want to keep wages and living conditions good for everyone who is now here or who may come here.’”

A statement from the Federation of Americans for Immigration Reform (FAIR) proposed a more reasonable course of action: “Reduce overall immigration to a level that is more manageable and which more closely reflects past policy. Reducing legal immigration from well over one million presently, to 300,000 a year over a sustained period will allow America to more sensibly manage its growth, address its environmental needs, and maintain a high quality of life.”

On top of the large numbers we see in legal immigration, there is the matter of illegal aliens, which has become a very controversial issue in recent years.  There are estimates ranging from 11 million to 40 million illegals already residing in the United States.  By definition, “illegal” means the breaking of a law.  So the question becomes: Why have we allowed this to happen and what steps are being taken to enforce the laws going forward?  Congress has failed to address weaknesses in our immigration system for years and the only thing they seem to propose, for the most part, is some form of amnesty program, which is opposed by the vast majority of Americans.

Even more disturbing has been the negligence of the federal government to enforce existing law. Instead, they attempt to enforce “decrees” they wish were in place and not the laws enacted by Congress that really are.  This virtually guarantees that most of the illegal aliens residing in the US will not be deported unless there is a change in administrations and a return to rule by law. Of course, we cannot blame the federal government alone. According to The Washington Times in October of 2015, over 340 sanctuary cities in the US ignore federal law when it comes to prosecuting illegal immigrants.

So what is the economic and social impact of ignoring immigration laws?  In 2010, FAIR examined the cost of illegal immigration on US taxpayers, and in particular, to the individual states.  FAIR concluded that “illegal immigration costs taxpayers approximately $113 billion each year.  An astounding $84 billion is paid for by state and local governments, while the federal burden is less than $29 billion.  FAIR’s study examined the fiscal impact of illegal immigration in several key areas, including the cost of education, health care, justice and law enforcement, public assistance, and general government services. Of all the categories, education for the children of illegal aliens constitutes the single largest cost to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion. Nearly all of those costs are absorbed by state and local governments.” Studies by The Heritage Foundation and others confirm this astounding cost of allowing illegal aliens to remain at the expense of American taxpayers.

As citizens of a free nation, if we are to secure our rights, we must enforce our laws. If we are not a nation of laws, we are no nation at all.  As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently put it in the Declaration, “…for this reason, Governments are instituted among Men…”

*Article by Warren L. Grover

Illegal Aliens Help Social Security – Not

Yahoo News posted an article by the Atlantic attempting to defend and legitimize illegal aliens by trying to convince the reader that illegals are actually a net asset for America, as they pay billions into the Social Security system and get little in return.

“Every year, the Social Security Administration collects billions of dollars in taxes that it doesn’t know who paid. Whenever employers send in W-2 forms that have Social Security numbers that don’t match with anyone on record, the agency routes the paperwork to what’s called the Earnings Suspense File, where it sits until people can prove the wages were theirs, allowing them to one day collect retirement benefits,” the article claims.

Stephen Goss, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration, estimates that about 1.8 million immigrants were working with fake or stolen Social Security cards in 2010, and he expects that number to reach 3.4 million by 2040. He calculates that undocumented immigrants paid $13 billion into the retirement trust fund that year and only got about $1 billion in benefits.

“We estimate that earnings by unauthorized immigrants result in a net positive effect on Social Security financial status generally, and that this effect contributed roughly $12 billion to the cash flow of the program for 2010,” Gross concluded, in a 2013 review of the impact of undocumented immigrants on Social Security.

Okay – so around 2 million illegals (six years ago) are using fake and stolen Social Security numbers? Is this not a felony? If a citizen like you or me were to do that, would we not end up in prison? But it’s okay because illegals are supposed to be a net positive? Isn’t that just fabulous! Of course, we also know this is a lie. The current estimate is that illegals cost us well over $113 billion a year. And why are they even getting one dollar in benefits, much less $1 billion? That was rhetorical – we all know the answer.

But the Atlantic story is a fantasy on its face. Even if the working criminal alien class is a net positive, it would make no difference, as they fail to explain the Ponzi scheme that is Social Security.

It has been explained dozens of times, I’m sure, but let’s go through it again.

Employers send to the government a regular lump sum payment consisting of income, social security, and medicare payroll taxes. Most believe the Treasury then breaks up these tax revenues and forwards the portion to the Social Security Administration (SSA) to pay benefits. WRONGO!

FedSmith explains that, “The Treasury both receives the payroll taxes (and income taxes that higher-income retirees pay on their Social Security benefits) and pays monthly benefits on behalf of the Social Security Administration (SSA). The money stays in the Treasury’s hands until it is either paid out as Social Security benefits or otherwise spent by the government [for other programs]. In fact, no money ever goes into the trust fund,” nor does the SSA ever see a dime. One could therefore logically conclude that the SSA is a useless government department.

Treasury estimates the difference between what was supposed to go into the “trust fund” and what was paid out as benefits. Any money (which has already been spent on other programs) left over after benefits have been paid is then converted into bonds, which are called “special issues of the Treasury.” That’s a fancy term for an IOU. These phony bonds are the only thing in the SSA trust fund.

Unlike other Treasury notes or bonds, which can be traded or sold on the open market, these “special issue bonds” have ZERO market value. They are strictly an accounting gimmick. Even the interest that Treasury is supposed to be paying on what they “borrow” from the SSA is in the form of these special and worthless bonds. Every dime in the SSA trust fund has been long ago spent and replaced with non-marketable government IOUs. They could not be sold to anyone, even for a penny on the dollar.

In 2012, the Social Security Trustees Report estimated “that the gap between revenue and the cost of full benefits will be $53.2 billion this year [2012], $95.0 billion in 2020, and a whopping $318.7 billion in 2030. This means that the government will have to find $318.7 billion in its tight budget, and transfer it to Social Security, in order for full benefits to be paid in 2030.”

Yet, Yahoo and the Atlantic want us to believe that the paltry $13 billion of which criminal aliens kick in will make a difference.

See? Government Can be Efficient – When It Comes to Admitting Muslim Refugees

So the federal government really can be efficient – when it wants to. I guess it just must not want to very often.

I suppose we could say that August is a banner month for the government. Yesterday, I wrote that Barack’s plan for Obamacare was for it to collapse under its own weight, to then be replaced by a utopian single-payer, entirely-government healthcare system – that this was the plan of the progressives all along. Obama said years ago that he thought might take 10 or 15 years or more to get to that point, but, as I wrote – here we are, a mere six years in, with a system already imploding far ahead of schedule. That’s progress!

Today, we hear of yet another milestone for the government: they are at least a month ahead of schedule on another major Obama project. Is it rebuilding our infrastructure? No. Is it putting people back to work? Nope. Is it reeducation camps for constitutionalists? No – none of those.

It was announced yesterday that the Obama administration reached its goal of admitting 10,000 Middle Eastern refugees into the United States. Hooray! That’s six times more than in 2015. Hooray again!

Earlier this year, it didn’t look very promising to get anywhere close to the goal. By the end of January 2016, only 841 refugees had been relocated to the States. That’s a far cry from 10,000, with only 8 months to go to meet the goal of admitting them all by the end of FY 2016, September 30.

Things were still progressing slowly through the next three months. In February, only 114 were processed; March, it was up to 330; and April had jumped to 451. Then, something happened. The administration put the processing of refugees into high gear, as the number in May leaped to 1069, and in June, it vaulted to 2406. Of the 2406, eight were Christian – 2389 were Sunni Muslim. Each month since, the number has increased.

So what happened? Well, the details are unknown. We may never know, as they didn’t end up on Hillary’s server. That’s too bad.

But somehow, Barack and John Kerry were able to find a way to drastically decrease the time to properly vet and process the refugees at the center in the country of Jordan before heading to the U.S., without sacrificing any security of any kind.

The normal and historic processing time for Middle Eastern refugees has been 18-24 months. This was not acceptable, so Kerry’s State Department set up an elite “Resettlement Surge Center” in Amman, Jordan, which cut the processing time to three months. From two years to three months. They have assured us that no security protocols have been sacrificed to achieve the 87.5 percent efficiency improvement. I know I believe them. How about you?

The fact that two of the ISIS terrorists who attacked Paris posed as refugees to enter France should be of no concern now that the Kerry State Department is on the case – or the fact that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that ISIS was “taking advantage of the torrent of migrants [entering Europe] to insert operatives into that flow.”

I mean – just looking at the success Obama and Kerry have had in dealing with Iran should put your mind at ease.

Another thing that should give us NO pause is that of the 10,000 refugees admitted, 47 were Christian – or less than one half of one percent. Well over 9,700 are Sunni Muslim, 85 are Shi’a, and the rest “simply identified themselves as Muslims.”

Well that’s great news. What can possibly go wrong, as almost 10,000 “thoroughly vetted” Muslims are quietly shuttled off to about 180 cities across the nation?

Candidate Trump on Immigration – Which One do We Believe

Trump said he will follow the immigration laws. Actually – no he didn’t. Trump stated in his town hall interview with Sean Hannity: “We wanna follow the laws. You know we have very strong laws…in this country…and I don’t know if you know but Bush and even Obama sends people back. We can be more aggressive in that, but we want to follow the laws.” Want to and will are not synonymous.

Before I go any further, I wish to state that this is not a bash-Trump article. Readers know I am not a Trump guy, but I am not treating Trump any differently than I would any candidate, on either side. I am only attempting to be intellectually honest and consistent.

I was all for Trump’s original immigration policy. I’m thankful he brought it up in the first place. And we constitutionalists are still in favor of his original policy. If you are here illegally, you must go – period. There was no time frame attached to his original claim – nor is there a statute of limitations in the myriad of immigration laws on the books.

If The Donald does what he originally said he would do, which earned him the nomination and the dedicated following he has, he would, in fact, be adhering to the immigration laws. And he would be the first one since Eisenhower in 1954 to do so. On this, I defended Trump about this time last year.

However, the policy he is beginning to roll out–the kinder-gentler Jeb Bush immigration policy–is not what his followers/supporters signed on to, and, in my opinion, he would not have won the nomination with such a softened policy.

Yet, his supporters say he’s just saying this to get elected. But isn’t that what we hate about politicians – they’ll do and say anything just to get elected? How is this any different – because this time, the people believe him? To me, this is neither consistent nor intellectually honest.

Yet it appears to me that some may have too much invested in Trump to back out now or suffer buyer’s remorse. So instead of questioning their choice, they choose to excuse what he is saying now, in favor of the hard line they heard at the beginning of the campaign.

Therefore, in my opinion, his supporters are projecting onto Trump their own values, choosing only to believe that, if elected, Trump will stand by his original immigration positions – build the wall and deport the illegals.

If we are to take Trump at his word – if we are supposed to “believe him” that he will do what he says – then which Trump are we supposed to believe? Because there is more evidence we should believe the softer Trump of today than the hard-nosed Trump of months ago.

In post election 2012, Trump criticized Mitt Romney’s too-tough stance on illegal immigration, when he said: “He had a crazy policy of self deportation which was maniacal. It sounded as bad as it was, and he lost all of the Latino vote,” Trump notes. “He lost the Asian vote. He lost everybody who is inspired to come into this country.”

The GOP has to develop a comprehensive policy “to take care of this incredible problem that we have with respect to immigration, with respect to people wanting to be wonderful productive citizens of this country,” Trump said. Comprehensive?! Isn’t that another one of those politician-speak danger words?

Sorry, folks, but to me – what he said in 2012 and what he is currently saying sounds more like Jeb Bush and his “they come “out of love” comments.

So, Trump supporters – I want to understand why and how you believe a candidate (any candidate) who has changed his position on a key issue three times in less than four years – because I don’t get it.

How America’s Polygamy Ban Blocked Muslim Immigration

A hundred years ago, Muslims were furious over an immigration bill whose origins lay with advocacy by a headstrong and loudmouthed Republican in the White House.

The anti-immigration bill offended the Ottoman Empire, the rotting Caliphate of Islam soon to be defeated at the hands of America and the West, by banning the entry of “all polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.”

This, as was pointed out at the time, would prohibit the entry of the “entire Mohammedan world” into the United States.

And indeed it would.

The battle had begun earlier when President Theodore Roosevelt had declared in his State of the Union address back in 1906 that Congress needed to have the power to “deal radically and efficiently with polygamy.” The Immigration Act of 1907, signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, had banned “polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.”

It was the last part that was most significant because it made clear what had only been implied.

The Immigration Act of 1891 had merely banned polygamists. The newest law banned anyone who believed in the practice of polygamy. That group included every faithful believing Muslim.

The Ottoman Empire’s representatives argued that their immigrants believed in the practice of polygamy, but wouldn’t actually take more than one wife. This argument echoes the current contention that Muslim immigrants may believe in a Jihad against non-Muslims without actually engaging in terrorism. That type of argument proved far less convincing to Americans than it does today.

These amazing facts, uncovered by @rushetteny reveal part of the long controversial history of battles over Islamic migration into America.

Muslim immigration was still slight at the time and bans on polygamy had not been created to deliberately target them, but the Muslim practice of an act repulsive to most Americans even back then pitted their cries of discrimination and victimhood against the values of the nation. The Immigration Act of 1907 had been meant to select only those immigrants who would make good Americans.

And Muslims would not.

In his 1905 State of the Union address, President Theodore Roosevelt had spoken of the need “to keep out all immigrants who will not make good American citizens.”

Unlike modern presidents, Roosevelt did not view Islam as a force for good. Instead he had described Muslims as “enemies of civilization,” writing that, “The civilization of Europe, America and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization,” praising Charles Martel and John Sobieski for throwing back the “Moslem conquerors” whose depredations had caused Christianity to have “practically vanished from the two continents.”

While today even mentioning “Radical Islam” occasions hysterical protests from the media, Theodore Roosevelt spoke and wrote casually of “the murderous outbreak of Moslem brutality” and, with a great deal of foresight offered a description of reform movements in Egypt that could have been just as well applied to the Arab Spring, describing the “mass of practically unchained bigoted Moslems to whom the movement meant driving out the foreigner, plundering and slaying the local Christian.”

In sharp contrast to Obama’s infamous Cairo speech, Roosevelt’s own speech in Cairo had denounced the murder of a Coptic Christian political leader by a Muslim and warned against such violent bigotry.

Muslims had protested outside his hotel, but Teddy hadn’t cared.

The effective implementation of the latest incarnation of the ban however had to wait a year for Roosevelt’s successor, President Taft. Early in his first term, the Ottoman Empire was already protesting because its Muslims had been banned from the country. One account claimed that 200 Muslims had been denied entry into the United States.

Despite these protests, Muslims continued to face deportations over polygamy charges even under President Woodrow Wilson. And polygamy, though not belief in it, remains a basis for deportation.

Though the law today is seldom enforced.

American concerns about the intersection of Muslim immigration and polygamy had predated Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson. The issue dated back even to the previous century. An 1897 edition of the Los Angeles Herald had wondered if Muslim polygamy existed in Los Angeles. “Certainly There is No Lack of Mohammedans Whose Religion Gives the Institution Its Full Sanction,” the paper had observed.

It noted that, “immigration officials are seriously considering whether believers in polygamy are legally admissible” and cited the cases of a number of Muslims where this very same issue had come up.

A New York Times story from 1897 records that, “the first-polygamists excluded under the existing immigration laws were six Mohammedans arrived on the steamship California.”

To their misfortune, the Mohammedans encountered not President Obama, but President Herman Stump of the immigration board of inquiry. Stump, an eccentric irascible figure, had known Lincoln assassin John Wilkes Booth and had been a wanted Confederate sympathizer during the Civil War.

In the twilight of his term, Stump had little patience and tolerance for either Islam or polygamy.

The Times story relates the laconic exchange between Stump and the Muslim migrants.

“You believe in the Koran?” asked President Stump.

“Thank Allah, yes,” responded the men in chorus.

“The Koran teaches polygamy?” continued the Inspector through an interpreter.

“Blessed be Allah, it does!”

“Then you believe in polygamy?” asked Captain George Ellis.

“We do. We do! Blessed be Allah, we do,” chorused the Arabs, salaaming toward the setting sun.

“That settles it,” said President Stump. “You won’t do.”

President Stump’s brand of common sense has become keenly lacking in America today.

None of the laws in question permanently settled the issue. The rise of Islamist infiltration brought with it a cleverer Taquiya. The charade that Muslims could believe one thing and do another was dishonest on the one hand and condescending on the other. It was a willful deception in which Muslims pretended that they were not serious about their religion and Americans believed them because the beliefs at stake appeared so absurd and uncivilized that they thought that no one could truly believe them.

Theodore Roosevelt knew better. But by then he was no longer in office.

Unlike today’s talk of a ban on Muslim migration from terror states, laws were not being made to target Muslims. Yet Muslims were the likeliest group of foreigners to be affected by them. Even a hundred years ago, Islam was proving to be fundamentally in conflict with American values. Then, as now, there were two options. The first was to pretend that there was no conflict. The second was to avert it with a ban.

A century ago and more, the nation had leaders who were not willing to dwell in the twilight of illusions, but who grappled with problems when they saw them. They saw civilization as fragile and vulnerable. They understood that the failure to address a conflict would mean a loss to the “enemies of civilization.”

Debates over polygamy may seem quaint today, but yet the subject was a revealing one. Islamic polygamy was one example of the slavery so ubiquitous in Islam. The enslavement of people is at the heart of Islam. As we have seen with ISIS, Islamic violence is driven by the base need to enslave and oppress. Polygamy, like honor killings and FGM, is an expression of that fundamental impulse within the private social context of the home, but as Theodore Roosevelt and others understood, it would not stay there. If we understand that, then we can understand why these debates were not quaint at all.

American leaders of a century past could not reconcile themselves to Islamic polygamy. Yet our modern leaders have reconciled themselves to the Islamic mass murder of Americans.

Thus it always is. When you close your eyes to one evil, you come to accept them all.

Article reposted with permission from Sultan Knish

Shock Poll Proves Americans Overwhelmingly Demand: “Reduce Immigration and Improve Jobs”

Immigration is more than a touchy subject, and discussing it is often clouded by sentiment and disinformation. But a new poll makes clear that Americans have had enough of the unlimited swarm of immigration, at least in terms of its impact on American jobs.

The poll, conducted by Gravis Marketing, shows overwhelming opposition to increased immigration – a sticking point that impacts Americans across the board, regardless of all the race baiting the system tries to foster to keep people divided.

The bottom line is that mass immigration affects ALL Americans. Black. White. Hispanic. Democrat. Republican, and everyone else.

And it is a potent issue that Donald Trump could take up and ride all the way to the White House – particularly if voters see the issue in the stark terms that the poll lays out.

As Breitbart, who commissioned the poll, reports:

– By a nearly 6 to 1 margin, U.S. voters believe immigration should be decreased rather than increased.

Every three years, the U.S. admits a population of new immigrants the size of Los Angeles. Sixty three percent of voters said that this figure is too high, whereas only a minuscule 11 percent of voters said that number is not high enough. Only 13 percent of Democrats and Independents— and only 7 percent of Republicans— said immigration should be increased.

Seventy five percent of voters believe American workers should get U.S. jobs, whereas only 3 percent of voters believe foreign workers should be imported to fill U.S. jobs.

– Roughly three out of four voters— including nearly three out of four Democrat voters— believe that “instead of giving jobs and healthcare to millions of refugees from around the world, we should rebuild our inner cities and put Americans back to work.”


The number of immigrants in the U.S. is currently at a record high of 42.4 million…

In the 1920s, the last time the foreign-born share of the population reached a record high, then-President Calvin Coolidge hit the pause button for roughly fifty years, producing an era of explosive wage growth and allowing immigrants already in the country to assimilate.

As the polling data suggests, a majority of U.S. voters would be supportive of similar measures to reduce immigration and improve jobs, wages and benefits for the domestic population.

Hillary Clinton has long campaigned on a big tent, pro-immigration stance, but will be very vulnerable if Americans are reminded that she and her husband ushered in NAFTA and have contributed significantly to the destruction of the country, and the living standards of Americans, regardless of race. Though Hillary pretends to oppose the TPP now, she has spend years promoting it, and will side with the corporatocracy when push comes to shove

Minorities, who are so frequently given lip service by the Dems, are hit hardest by the competition for jobs against waves of immigration. Lower wages have resulted from the clash, and the working classes have been forced into subservience with government assistance instead of being able to support themselves and join the middle class.

The hard realities of immigration as a devourer of jobs and wages fueled the Brexit vote and the nationalists sentiments in Europe, and may raise Trump into the Oval Office here at home.

As Breitbart notes, it could destroy Hillary’s campaign if the immigration issue becomes a central focus of the 2016 election and is framed in terms of its importance to employment:

New polling data shows that it would be virtually impossible for Hillary Clinton to win the general election if the Republican nominee were able to frame the immigration issue in populist terms that emphasize reducing the overall amount of immigration into the country and protecting jobs, incomes, and benefits for the domestic population.

“The poll shows that instead of dividing Americans, immigration is an issue where Americans have reached the consensus that it is a problem, maybe the problem,” said Doug Kaplan, the managing partner of Gravis Marketing.

The polling data suggests that the Republican Party could see overwhelming electoral success if it were able to portray Clinton’s immigration policy as a corporatist attempt to flood the labor supply with foreign workers in order to drive down wages and incomes for American workers.

Of course the Washington establishment has been offering little else as a choice. Both parties have sold out the American people, and Hillary Clinton represents a clear intensification of that trend – both in rhetoric and in deeds.

Trump is playing not just the outsider, but the savior of the American way.

Article reposted with permission from SHTF Plan

Donald Trump, Behavioral Manipulation and Forcing Change You Wouldn’t Accept

In an interview with 60 Minutes, Donald Trump said that the Constitution is not always relevant, and in many instances, such as immigration, it may have to take a back seat to his policy initiatives. He is arguing, as many Supreme Court justices have in the past, that the Constitution’s attempt to guarantee liberty does not allow the nation to commit suicide to do so. In other words, he is seeking the power to override the Constitution where he sees fit, whether you agree with him or not. Granted, many people are likely to agree with Trump on the issue of immigration, particularly from Muslim nations; however, this does not change the text of the Constitution. For instance, The Fourteenth Amendment, as we all know, guarantees that those born in the United States are born natural citizens, and Article 1, Section 8 states that the legislative branch is responsible for determining who is or who is not able to be naturalized as citizens of the United States. To put it in another way, Congress is responsible for determining immigration law, not the president. These are important issues to think about, considering the fact that millions of Americans believe that Donald Trump is the candidate that will uphold the Constitution. Not that Hillary Clinton would, God forbid she should become president; however, it is increasingly obvious that Donald Trump is not the conservative hero that millions are anticipating.

What we are witnessing in the 2016 presidential race is a social change strategy designed to push the attitudes of the Republican Party further to the left, in acceptance of the Democrat agenda. Donald Trump has expressed support for many policy initiatives of the left, such as gay marriage and the transgender issue. If you remember, the left has long pushed the opinion that, in order for Republicans to be relevant, they have to embrace these changing norms. Virtually the whole country has come to terms with the fact that there is very little difference between Republicans and Democrats. There are differences, though they are becoming less clear. Donald Trump, for example, has stated that he is pro-life; however, he also advocates for abortion in the case of unwanted pregnancies. He also supported Bill Clinton’s assault weapons ban and advocated for longer wait periods to purchase a gun, despite the fact that he is now running as a pro gun candidate. Let’s not forget the fact that, in 2015, he said he identifies as more of a Democrat and he also stated that the economy does better under Democrats.

Many people believe that he simply changed his position on the gun issue but it is more likely, in this author’s opinion, that he will change his position under pressure. After all, he did say the Constitution does not give us the right to commit suicide as a nation. So, it is highly probable the continuing violence against police will be used by Trump to revert to the gun policies he once supported, despite what he says about the Second Amendment now.

Many people are voting for Trump because they believe that he will adhere to the Constitution; however, what they are really doing is supporting another candidate that will use the power amassed by the executive branch to pass executive orders that support their worldview. It’s not the president’s job to determine immigration policy, nor is it the president’s job to make law, but the masses will accept this if it supports their view. How is that adhering to the Constitution? Many people make the argument, and it may be true, that the Fourteenth Amendment only applied to free slaves, and not people who happened to be born to people who immigrated here. Well, the left argues that the Second Amendment means that only a body regulated by the government has the right to bear arms, despite what the text actually says. So what’s really happening is that we are being forced into arguments about what the Constitution really means while the environment around us is being changed in a way that forces us to look at the possibility that it may need to be changed or that we may need to accept that it is not relevant in certain circumstances.

Is it possible that the real purpose of the mass immigration is to get us to accept dictatorial powers to solve it in much the same way that the shootings are being used to change people’s opinions about the Second Amendment? Well, whether you are Trump supporter or not, and whether you agree or disagree with the immigration issue, the fact that millions of people will accept him signing executive orders when the reason they are allegedly voting for him is to stop Obama’s executive tyranny answers that question. To understand this fully we need to once again refer to the quotes of B.F. Skinner and how a changing environment can control a person’s behavior.

Autonomous man is not easily changed: in fact, to the extent that he is autonomous, he is by definition not changeable at all. But the environment can be changed, and we are learning how to change it. The measures we use are those of physical and biological technology, but we use them in special ways to affect behavior. (Skinner Beyond Freedom and Dignity, pp. 101)

In this author’s educated opinion, this is proof of the points being made. The environment is being changed to force people to accept the false idea that our Constitution is no longer relevant and that, in order to fix some drastic problems, it will have to be ignored in favor of some form of dictatorial power. Sorry, folks, but in so many words, this is what Donald Trump said in his interview, and it is what Barack Obama has pushing for the past eight years.

To find further evidence that suggests this theory is true we have to look no further than Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Everybody knows that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are disciples of Alinsky. Clinton personally knew the man and wrote her college thesis “There is only the Fight” on his radical methods, and Obama taught the principles of Rules of Radicals as a community organizer. For instance, consider the following quote, which is probably the most convincing piece of evidence to suggest that we are being manipulated to accept things we normally wouldn’t.

There’s another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. (Alinsky, Rules for Radicals)

This is exactly what has happened. We have been brought to the point of absolute desperation while living in a state of complete hopelessness about the future of the nation, and we have accepted Donald Trump as a candidate, in the hopes that he will fix everything. In all honesty, people’s attention shouldn’t be on Donald Trump, it should be on the idea that our environment is being manipulated to manufacture hopelessness in an effort to control our choices. This, however, is giant leap for many people because they fear being labeled as conspiracy theorists.

Another point to consider from Rules for Radicals is the eighth and ninth rule of tactics, which state the following:

Rule number 8: Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
Rule number 9: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

Is it possible that the social controllers know that there is little chance another Democrat would win in 2016, and, in effort to ensure portions of their agenda are carried forward, they deliberately showed us the depths of corruption concerning Hillary Clinton so that we would easily accept Trump in her place? People will balk at this idea because they are so certain that Donald Trump is the conservative that will fix everything. If you’re one of those people, just remember that Donald Trump donated money to the Clinton Foundation, claimed that Democrats do better with the economy, supported a gun ban, supports the transgender issue, and believes that the Constitution should be ignored to solve certain problems. To further elaborate on this thesis, consider the Project New American Century. This is the battle plan, written during the Clinton Administration, which enabled George Bush to launch his wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. The full plan included the overthrow of several Middle Eastern Countries, including Syria, Libya, and Egypt, among others. If you haven’t noticed, Barack Obama has carried on with these wars and successfully completed the overthrow of Libya. There was virtually no way that the American people were going to accept another president that was going to send us into more wars, and, at this point, people were convinced the Republicans were nothing but war mongers, so they invented the Barack Obama personality. It’s funny because Obama has been so successful in blinding the American people that he has carried on the same wars that were originally planned in the Project New American Century documents, but because he spent his entire presidency rabble-rousing against Republicans, no one would believe it, no matter what evidence one provided. Such is the effectiveness of psychological manipulation.

Either way, the America we have known is finished. We have been brought to accept the idea that having a president who issues executive decrees to suit our needs is fine and dandy, and it is because, behind the scenes, there is a power manipulating world events in a manner which forces people to change their behavior and attitudes towards change.

Muslim Migrant Sexual Attack Crisis Comes to America: ‘Refugees’ Threaten Minnesota Community with Rape

Did anyone with a modicum of common sense expect that what was happening in Europe would not happen here? They are suffering more deeply, of course, because they imported millions of Muslims. The US moved more slowly, but Obama is accelerating the process. So expect the same kind of Islamic terror in American neighborhoods with high Muslim populations.

This news reporting is astonishing. First, because of the obvious. These vicious Muslim gangs are parading through unprotected neighborhoods shouting threats and rape warnings while destroying the property of homeowners. And their actions are escalating. Secondly, no big media is even talking about it. The little media coverage it got scrubbed the “Muslim” (Somali) out of it. But if someone leaves bacon in front of a mosque, it’s a national news story accompanied by cries and wails of “a plague of Islamophobia raging across the country,” “Muslims fear for their lives” … and all those outrageous lies designed to shut us up.

“Muslim ‘refugees’ threaten Minnesota community with rape,” By Leo Holmann, WND, July 6, 2016 (thanks to Nina):

Local media ignore incident or leave out vital details

Screen shot of KTSP TVreport in Minneapolis reveals ‘Somali males’ entered and harassed neighbors near Lake Calhoun. No mention of ‘Somalis’ appeared in the verbal or written TV reports and the city’s largest newspaper, the Star-Tribune, ignored the story.

A mob of up to 30 young Somali men paraded through one of Minneapolis’ more upscale neighborhoods last week, yelling disparaging comments and threats against homeowners.

Screen Shot 2016-07-06 at 2.03.11 PM

A female resident of the neighborhood, obviously shaken in a TV interview, related how she was screamed at by a Somali man who threatened to kidnap and rape her.

“They were screaming at the house that they were going to kidnap you and they were going to rape you,” one Minneapolis resident told KSTP TV. “It was a very traumatizing experience.”

Somalis living in Minneapolis are almost all Sunni Muslims, and residents of the Lake Calhoun area say this isn’t the first time a group of Somali men has made an intimidating march through their neighborhood, which is filled with million-dollar homes.

No hate-crime charges are apparently being considered by either the Minnesota authorities or the Obama Justice Department headed by Loretta Lynch.

Police were called to the scene on June 28 about 9:30 a.m. and are investigating the incident as a potential case of terroristic threats. No arrests have been made, and the Minneapolis media appear to be largely uninterested in reporting on the mob threats.

According to a Minneapolis police report, between 20 and 30 young Somali men showed up in front of a woman’s house about 9:30 in the morning and started shouting insults. “The comments turned to threats,” the report said.

Nearly all Somalis living in Minnesota are either refugees or children of refugees. They form a burgeoning Muslim enclave created by the U.S. government’s long-term refugee policy.

The U.S. State Department, working with the United Nations, has permanently resettled more than 132,000 Somali ”refugees” into dozens of American cities since 1983, according to federal data collected by the State Department.

Over the last decade, the feds have resettled an average of 7,000 Somali refugees per year into the U.S., with Minneapolis-St. Paul receiving the largest number, followed by Columbus, Ohio, San Diego, Seattle and Atlanta. Maine, Texas, North Dakota, Tennessee and even Alaska have also received dozens if not hundreds of Somali refugees.

The most shocking part of the incident may be the Minneapolis media’s coverage of the incident – or lack thereof.

A check of the Star-Tribune website, Minneapolis’s largest newspaper, did not turn up a single story about the June 28 terror-threatening run through the Lake Calhoun neighborhood.

KSTP Channel 5, an ABC affiliate in Minneapolis, never mentions that those making the alleged terroristic threats were Somalis. The station’s video report by Brett Hoffland, however, zooms in on a police report highlighting that the suspects were “approximately 20-30 Somali males” who were making “comments” that turned to “threats.”

“Multiple young men have been harassing them,” Hoffland reported.

“We couldn’t get them out,” a woman tells Hoffland from behind shadows, her voice digitally altered to protect her identity. “We didn’t know what to do.”

When the shouts of “We’re going to rape you” rang out, “it was just a very traumatizing experience,” the woman said.

The Somalis were driving onto the sidewalk and onto the homeowners’ lawns, “all while shooting off bottle rockets and screaming” their threats, she said.

“It’s a scary thought especially for those who have young children.”

Multiple neighbors took cell-phone videos of the roaming gang of young Somali men.

It’s not the first time they’ve showed up, but on June 28 the threats were “much more personal,” the female resident told KSTP.

The Minneapolis Police Department told KSTP it has opened an active investigation, and police were taking it “very seriously.”

Minneapolis mayor submits to ‘Little Mogadishu’

The Somali refugee program has been among the most widely criticized of all refugee programs for the lack of assimilation that the Somalis have exhibited over the past 30 years. At least three-dozen Somali men from Minnesota have been charged since 2007 with trying to leave the U.S. and join overseas terrorist organizations including the Islamic State and al-Shabab. Others have been convicted of providing material support to terrorist organizations. That prompted the state’s U.S. Attorney Andrew Luger in April 2015 to admit that “Minnesota has a terror recruitment problem,” but he stopped short of saying the “S” word.

Minnesota politicians and media have for the most part toed the line of political correctness whenever crimes or terrorist activity surfaces involving Minnesota’s Somali community, say local activists.

The Cedar Riverside area of Minneapolis is often called “Little Mogadishu” for its swelling Somali community. The city’s mayor, Betsy Hodges, has in the past showed up for meetings with leaders of the local Somali community dressed in a hijab – the headscarf worn by Muslim women as a sign of their submission in a male-dominated society governed by Shariah law.

Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges shown here at a meeting with Somali Muslims wearing a hijab in April 2014.

Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges shown here at a meeting with Somali Muslims wearing a hijab in April 2014.

Last year, Ami Horowitz of the David Horowitz Freedom Center filmed a series of interviews on the streets of Minneapolis’s Cedar Riverside community, and the vast majority of Somalis he spoke with said they preferred Shariah law over U.S. law, WND previously reported.

Governor tells critics of multiculturalism to ‘find another state’

Yet Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton, a Democrat, has let it be known his commitment to the multicultural model, the same model followed by the European Union which is now breaking apart, is unwavering.

Last October, Dayton told those attending a town-hall meeting in St. Cloud that those Minnesotans not comfortable with the arrival of Syrian refugees and the state’s expanding Somali population “should find a new state” because Minnesota’s economy “cannot expand based on white, B+, native-born citizens. We don’t have enough.”

The PowerLine’s Scott Johnson posted a blog on the Lake Calhoun incident titled “Minnesota men at play,” in which he mused:

“This has become a familiar story out of Europe, but it is something new under the sun in Minneapolis. Although it is big news, I can’t find any evidence of the story in the Star Tribune (please let me know if I missed it) – another element that gives the story a European dimension.”

Congress 100% on board with Obama refugee policy

Congress squawked over President Obama’s Syrian refugee plans and said nothing about the Somali program that has been going on for 30-plus years. House Speaker Paul Ryan ended up negotiating a deal that fully funded all of Obama’s refugee plans, including those from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Uzbekistan, Burma and other jihadist hotspots.

Refugee watchdog Ann Corcoran said the vast majority of Americans have no clue what is going on with refugees until they start arriving in their communities. And even then, the quality of local news reporting is often focused on flowery feature stories about refugees getting a new start after escaping war in their homeland. The underlying costs, in terms of the tax burden and risks to public safety, never make into local news reports.

“I guess we should be grateful that at least the broadcast version of the KSTP story used the ‘S’ word,” said Corcoran, author of the blog  Refugee Resettlement Watch.

“This should be on the national news,” Corcoran wrote. “Just envision this happening in your neighborhood. How are Americans ever going to be prepared and proactive if we don’t even know what is happening in the next city, let alone the next state?”

Corcoran says it’s important to remember the Somalis didn’t just “make their way” to Minnesota. They have been permanently resettled there for three decades by the U.S. State Department and three major contractors – Catholic Charities, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service and World Relief. (Additional contractors have moved in since.)

“The ‘youths’ harassing homeowners at Lake Calhoun were born here or came as very small children,” she said.

Article reposted with permission from

Pamela Geller’s commitment to freedom from jihad and Shariah shines forth in her books