[Ed. – Pretty much.]
The Venezuelan government’s decision to arm civilians to defend the country’s socialist revolution amid growing unrest is rekindling fears of terrorists and criminal organizations acquiring part of the nation’s arsenal, which include a large stockpile of shoulder-fired, surface-to-air missiles.
Experts and U.S. policy makers are concerned about the risk that some of these missiles — as well as thousands of modern assault rifles and banned anti-personnel mines — might fall in the hands of criminal groups under President Nicolás Maduro’s regime, with its rampant corruption, its lack of internal controls and the country’s rapidly deteriorating conditions.
“Maduro is a dictator with close ties to terror-sponsoring regimes, and is now promising a ‘gun for every militiaman’ as his thugs counter the Venezuelan people’s peaceful pro-democracy protests with violence and lethal force,” Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said. …
Though the militias are being armed with rifles, not land-to-air missiles, experts worry that the military gear could make its way to civilians eventually.
Caracas’ possession of the portable, infrared-homing Igla-S has been a source of concern in the U.S. for some time, given the socialist regime’s cozy relationship with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, and with Lebanon’s Hezbollah, groups classified as terrorist organizations by the U.S.
[Ed. – Another of those things young punks think twice about, if their targets are likely to be carrying.]
The incident — the first of its kind in recent memory — occurred around 9:30 p.m. Saturday at Coliseum Station.
According to a police officials, witnesses said 40 to 60 juveniles flooded the station, jumped the fare gates and rushed to the second-story train platform. Some of the robbers apparently held open the doors of a Dublin-bound train car while others streamed inside, confronting and robbing and in some cases beating riders.
The juveniles “committed multiple strong-arm robberies of bags and cell phones,” said a police summary prepared after the incident. “At least two victims suffered head/facial injuries requiring medical attention.”
Alicia Trost, a BART spokeswoman, said Monday that seven robberies had occurred — with victims losing a purse, a duffel bag and five phones. Six people were robbed inside the train car, with a seventh confronted on the platform, she said.
The attack was quick, police reported, and the teenagers were able to retreat from the station and vanish into the surrounding East Oakland neighborhood before BART officers could respond.
As noted in these pages earlier this month, “pussy hats” — the iconic fashion statement of January’s Women’s March on Washington — have been greatly devalued now that the protesters have returned home. Next up for the overstock bin is the hat of choice of yesterday’s March on Science.
Say hello to the “brain hat,” a pink-and-white numbers worn by marchers to affirm their belief in global warming.
According to CNN via KRTV:
Many referred to the crocheted hats as “thinking caps,” saying the headgear represents critical thinking, a cornerstone of science.
“People don’t look at both sides of an issue. We have the Trump administration, which runs on a lack of critical thinking,” said critical care nurse Craig Wright from Gainesville, Florida.
Sherry Annee, who just marked 25 years as a science teacher, decked out her brain hat with messages related to education, like the elements of the periodic table spelling out her school: B-Re-Be-U-F. (That’s boron, rhenium, beryllium, uranium and fluorine to you non-scientists.)
The hats were also ripe for jokes: “We are brain friends, a brain trust,” joked a father with his daughter and a friend.
The biggest joke of all is on the people who gullible enough to think they looked more intelligent by wearing these silly hats. Maybe for their next march — whatever the cause — they can repurpose the cone-shaped hats that a few of the older hands remember from their school days:Credit: Doconomics.com
A moderate to heavy swell is building in the infosphere around the Monday morning article at Politico headlined “Obama’s hidden Iran deal giveaway.”
Not unnaturally, a lot of media outlets on the right are picking up on it. The post cites government officials – some of them on the record – complaining that in his quest to get the JCPOA “deal” with Iran in 2015, Obama had counterproliferation cases quashed and investigative work shut down.
Trails, we are told, have gone cold, after 21 people – most of them located outside the U.S. at the time – were let off the hook for their prohibited proliferation activities. Seven of them were the individuals released by the U.S. in January 2016, as part of the cartel-like “prisoner exchange” with Iran. The other 14 were no longer subject to Interpol warrants for charges in American courts.
Federal employees were discouraged to see their work, in some cases years of it, go for naught. And officials in the Obama White House, along with Loretta Lynch, are implicated directly.
Indeed, the tone of the first dozen paragraphs of the article is unrelievedly critical of Obama. Since that is notably uncharacteristic of Politico, I found it curious, and wondered why we were being given this specific story, at this specific time.
After all, we already knew Obama gave away years of case-building work against the 21 characters in question. That came out at the very time it happened. We’d had hints of the cases being inexplicably dropped as far back as 2013, when the first interim “agreement” with Iran was implemented (in November of that year). In the fall of 2015, opponents of the JCPOA testified to Congress about the ill effects of the negotiation process for U.S. counterproliferation efforts. Close observers of the counterproliferation program were already warning that the Obama Justice Department was inhibiting its own activities, in order to appease Iran and keep the “deal” process going.
For all but four of the Iranian proliferators, media outlets were able to construct the facts of each individual case in the first weeks after the January 2016 prisoner swap, using nothing but previous news reporting. We knew who these guys were, what they were accused of, how long we had been pursuing them, and what some of their key global connections were. We understood what was being “given away,” and we understood it at the time.
So why make a big deal of it now? Especially when it shows up Obama in such a bad light?
An inkling of the reason comes starting in paragraph 19 of the Politico piece:
The saga of how the Obama administration threw a monkey wrench into its own Justice Department-led counterproliferation effort continues to play out almost entirely out of public view, largely because of the highly secretive nature of the cases and the negotiations that affected them.
That may be about to change, as the Trump administration and both chambers of Congress have pledged to crack down on Tehran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Last Wednesday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced a government-wide review of U.S. policy toward Iran in the face of “alarming and ongoing provocations that export terror and violence, destabilizing more than one country at a time.”
On Thursday, President Donald Trump declared that even if Iran is meeting the terms of its deal with the Obama administration and other world powers, “they are not living up to the spirit of it, I can tell you that. And we’re analyzing it very, very carefully, and we’ll have something to say about that in the not-too-distant future.”
The two key points: the “highly secretive nature of the cases,” and the fact that the Trump administration is quite probably restarting the motor on them.
The cases may have been highly secretive before. But after the Politico article gets through, they aren’t anymore. The balance of the piece reads like an exposé of our investigative methods and agent activities. It also describes the level at which, prior to January 2016, we understood connections in the globally linked world of arms proliferation.
See this passage, for example:
At the time, those investigations were providing U.S. officials with a roadmap of how, exactly, Tehran was clandestinely building its nuclear and ballistic missile programs and maintaining its military with the unwitting assistance of so many U.S. weapons parts and technology companies. The cases were also providing key operational details of how the Iranian procurement networks operate, and who in Tehran was calling the shots.
And this one:
The National Counterproliferation Initiative, created with much fanfare a decade ago, has suffered greatly, many participants said, even as they acknowledged that metrics are hard to come by. Much of the work is done in secret, and in long-range efforts that can’t be publicly disclosed, much less measured in annual arrest or conviction statistics. …
At least six times in the run-up to the nuclear deal, federal investigators scrambled to get Justice and State Department approval to lure top Iranian targets into traveling internationally in order to arrest them, according to one top Obama administration Justice Department official and other participants.
David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security, a physicist and former weapons inspector … said he witnessed many instances since late 2014 in which important investigations and prosecutions were hindered. Albright, who serves as an expert witness in Justice Department Iran trafficking prosecutions, added that federal agents have told him of numerous cases of “lure memos” and other requests never approved by the State Department. …
“They had wanted all of these things prosecuted, they were on a roll, they were freaking out the Iranians and then they were told, boom, stop,” Albright said of the Obama administration’s counterproliferation efforts. “And it’s hard to get them back again. We are shooting ourselves in the foot, destroying the infrastructure that we created to enforce the laws against the Iranians.”
The further you go in the Politico piece, the more specific some of the information gets. You can read it for yourself. There’s no need to act as a repeater for it here.
What in the world could be the reason for pumping this article out now, just as the Trump administration looks like it will be restarting the counterproliferation effort against Iran, and putting teeth behind it again?
The Clinton Foundation quietly parted ways with its top fundraiser “earlier this year,” the foundation’s spokesman told The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group, while knowledgeable outsiders questioned why she was ever hired in the first place.
Danielle Stilz, whose official title since 2015 was chief development officer, is still listed on the foundation’s website, and the foundation has yet to publicly acknowledge the change in personnel.
Stilz, who now has the odd distinction of being at the center of two federal corruption investigations, also served from 2005 to 2007 as chief fundraiser for former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
The boyish-looking Democrat, who is more popularly known as “Blago,” is now serving a 14-year federal prison sentence on corruption charges, including 11 counts related to his attempt to sell then-President-elect Barack Obama’s former seat in the Senate.
Stilz testified at Blagojevich’s corruption trial that she left the governor, eventually thinking his fundraising goals “were unrealistic.”
She hit heavy weather again in the months since former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election to Donald Trump. The Clinton Foundation has announced no new major initiatives other than a wastewater and biomass project in the Seychelles, according to a review by TheDCNF.
Importantly, the foundation has delayed its normal first quarter 2017 contributions. As TheDCNF previously reported, in the fourth quarter of 2016, the foundation gained only five new donors.
A spokesman for the foundation told TheDCNF Sunday that Stilz left the foundation, but did not reveal when she left, the circumstances of her departure, or where she is currently employed. She was hired in 2012 as deputy to Dennis Cheng, who raised record sums for the Clinton group.
Stilz became development director in 2015 after Cheng resigned to join Clinton’s campaign as national finance director. Financial analyst and charitable expert Charles Ortel, who has closely studied the foundation, told TheDCNF that he was dumbfounded Stilz was hired at all.
“Given the degree under which the Clinton Foundation had been under scrutiny, how prudent was it of the trustees of the Clinton Foundation to hire this person in the first place?” Ortel asked, adding, “I think it’s indefensible decision to even consider this person for the foundation based on known facts.”
During Stilz’s tenure with Blagojevich, the investigation and trial revealed, the governor was caught shaking down executives for money in exchange for preferential treatment. She was also a contracting officer for Illinois state government contracts.
As a key aide in Blagojevich’s “inner circle,” Stilz was deputy director of his inaugural committee and then finance director for what would become the governor’s central “pay-to-play” operation, the “Friends of Blagojevich.”
Ortel believes Stilz had to be in on the discussions involving the sale of Obama’s seat.
“When the discussions began about selling Obama’s seat, this woman was perhaps the most important person in the room other than Blagojevich,” he said.
Stilz also testified that she attended many meetings with the governor in which she would review databases of contributors with him. “He had intimate knowledge of these numbers,” she testified. “He knew them better than I did.”
Blagojevich would call her with updates on donations from individuals, and, she testified, he “sometimes cursed and yelled when he felt a fundraiser was falling short.”
The Chicago Tribune reported she attended meetings with the governor up to a month before the FBI started to interview him.
This report, by Richard Pollock, was cross-posted by arrangement with the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Most pro-abortion advocates contend that religion should play no role in the debate. Abortionist Willie Parker, on the other hand, cites Christianity in support of his position that taking the lives of unborn children should remain legal. He kills for Jesus, you see, so take your Bible-thumping somewhere else.
Parker, who is employed at the only abortuary left in Mississippi, was recently interviewed by Rolling Stone magazine, that known paragon of journalism, about his recent book “Life’s Work: A Moral Argument for Choice.”
“…I decided to exercise Christian compassion not by proxy, but with my own capable hands,” writes Parker. And by Christian compassion he means tearing human bodies limb from limb. I’m convinced that abortionists write drivel like this just to get under religious people’s skin. This isn’t honest disagreement, he’s just trolling us.
In addition to Jesus Christ, Parker cites both Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr., as his inspirations:
The courage that’s necessary to assert yourself on behalf of human dignity, [Malcolm X and King] modeled that for me, despite risk…. I was well aware what happens when you go against convention and dogma and custom…. They modeled that for me, and I took courage and took note. While if you skim the surface of their writing, you think they were coming from completely different places, but they were complementary pieces of the same quest for justice. I see this work that I do, although in a different context, as no different from the work they did.
Parker’s words reflect a barely concealed desire to legitimize his own sordid work by projecting it upon our society’s most hallowed figure: Martin Luther King, Jr. He’s taken the mantel of MLK as his own and it’s easy to see why — King is so idolized in our society that it’s nearly impossible to take a position opposite him. Nearly everyone wants to claim that he is on their side, just so they can be on his.
One person who certainly wouldn’t be pleased to hear Willie Parker invoke MLK’s name is King’s own niece, Dr. Alveda King. She’s made something of a name for herself as a pro-life activist, taking advantage of the kinship ties that fell upon her by happenstance in an attempt to claim her fair share of Uncle Martin’s (unearned) moral authority. She would like to believe that her famous relative shared her conviction that abortion is an atrocity. She latches on to some of his more abstract quotes about justice to prove her point. None of these quotes explicitly mention abortion, but Alveda King reads into them what she wants to hear. For example, she understands her uncle’s famous words “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” to mean that he opposed abortion which is unjust in her opinion and in mine. According to Alveda King:
I know in my heart that if Uncle Martin were alive today, he would join with me in the greatest civil rights struggle of this generation – the recognition of the unborn child’s basic right to life.
Except he probably wouldn’t. On this point, Alveda King is wrong and Willie Parker is right. MLK was the recipient of the 1966 Margaret Sanger Award, named in honor of Planned Parenthood’s founder, a genocidal racist who wanted at very least to reduce the black population, if not eliminate it entirely. Sanger founded her organization for the express purpose of eliminating undesirables from the general population, which included the handicapped, Italians, Jews, and of course blacks. She even chartered a “Negro Project,” which brought “family planning” services right into black ghettos.
She was quoted in a 1923 New York Times article saying:
[Birth control] means the release and cultivation of the better racial elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extirpation of defective stocks — those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.
Does anyone really believe that a white woman speaking in 1923 believed that blacks represented “better racial elements?”
Sanger understood that she would require the black community’s active cooperation if she would succeed in reducing their proportion in society. “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities,” she wrote. “The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
A ”colored” minister with a social services background and an engaging personality? That description fits Martin Luther King to a “T.” It seems that Planned Parenthood found precisely the pitch man they were looking for to sell extermination to the black community.
Sadly, his niece Alveda is in deep denial about this. She claims that MLK’s acceptance speech, which his wife Coretta delivered in his absence, was ghost-written. Her only evidence for this assertion is that it doesn’t sound like his style. That wouldn’t prove much of anything, of course, because plenty of his speeches were written with the “assistance” of other people including the Stalinist-holdover Stanley Levison. But so what if he didn’t write it? King certainly gave the speech his seal of approval, thus allowing himself and his moral authority to be placed in the service of evil.
Alveda King’s other defense of her uncle is that Planned Parenthood was not yet an abortion mill when he accepted their award. They may have been the apparatus by which a genocidal racist carried out her plan to reduce or eliminate the black race, but they did it with other, non-lethal forms of birth control.
“In 1966, my uncle Martin Luther King, Jr. received the Margaret Sanger Award … from Planned Parenthood,” she explained in an interview. “He was proclaiming that he supported them and they were non-violent in their fight to advance birth control rights for women. And all of that sounded really good because in 1966 birth control was natural family planning in the eyes of most people.”
Well, no, not if she means the rhythm method. By 1966 Planned Parenthood had been promoting many methods of birth control for almost fifty years, none of which were “natural.” When most people thought of birth control in those days they thought of oral contraception and for good reason — “the pill” had been approved by the FDA in 1960 at the behest of Margaret Sanger.
In any case, Planned Parenthood’s supposed opposition to abortion, which had always been a farce, was by this time wearing very thin. Yet Alveda King still clings to her belief that Uncle Martin’s acceptance of the award did not amount to an endorsement of abortion. “So Martin Luther King, believing that he was adding his voice to a helpful cause, accepted the award. He was assassinated in ’68; all during that time, abortion was illegal in every state in America.”
Nope, wrong again. California legalized abortion in 1967, but MLK did not rush there to protest the killing of children. He cared more about a garbagemen’s strike in Memphis than he did about ending abortion.
Might King have been callous to the plight of the unborn because he was a philandering womanizer? I’ve known a few of those in my life and they’ve all been “pro-choice.” It’s easy to see how King, an ordained minister, would have perceived abortion as an insurance policy against public exposure as a hypocrite. What if he had impregnated one of his casual sex partners? What if she had been white? His whole world could have come crashing down with the birth of a single “love child.” The fact that no such offspring have ever been found despite King’s voracious sexual appetite suggests that he was quite skilled in the use of birth control, whether abortion or another method.
No amount of evidence seems to persuade Alveda King and many pro-life conservatives that MLK was pro-abortion, likely because the idea makes certain unsettling conclusions unavoidable. If it’s true, and I would say it is, King cannot be considered non-violent. He refused to fight with policemen of course, but they have guns and batons. He supported violence as long as it was against the most helpless among us — the unborn — and as long as it facilitated his sex life. Furthermore, he wasn’t really a friend to black people. Martin Luther King was the accomplice of an evil organization founded by a woman who wanted to wipe out the black population. Nor was he a devout Christian. He may have read the Bible on occasion but he certainly didn’t believe any of that stuff about “Thou shalt not kill.”
King’s support for abortion doesn’t make abortion right; it makes King wrong. It’s time we had the courage to say that MLK does not deserve all of the adoration we heap upon him.
If there were any doubts about the sanity of Kim Jong-un, North Korea’s chubby little despot, this should eliminate any doubt that the guy’s crayon box is missing a few colors. Kim, who last week threatened to sink a U.S. aircraft carrier, is now flexing his muscles in the direction of his country’s only remaining ally and one of the strongest nations in the world: China.
The North Koreans made the threat via an op-ed written by one Jong Phil, of the official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), apparently as a reaction to China’s threats of sanctions should Kim test a nuclear device.
Not a single word about the U.S. act of pushing the situation on the Korean peninsula to the brink of a war after introducing hugest-ever strategic assets into the waters off the Korean peninsula is made but such rhetoric as ‘necessary step’ and ‘reaction at decisive level’ is openly heard from a country around the DPRK [North Korea] to intimidate it over its measures for self-defense,” the commentary’s introduction in English read.
“Particularly, the country is talking rubbish that the DPRK has to reconsider the importance of relations with it and that it can help preserve security of the DPRK and offer necessary support and aid for its economic prosperity, claiming the latter will not be able to survive the strict ‘economic sanctions’ by someone.”
“If the country keeps applying economic sanctions on the DPRK while dancing to the tune of someone after misjudging the will of the DPRK, it may be applauded by the enemies of the DPRK, but it should get itself ready to face the catastrophic consequences in the relations with the DPRK,” it said.“ [Emphasis added]
It’s an interesting threat considering that if it wasn’t for the Chinese government, more of the North Korean people would starve.
In a related story, President of China Xi Jinping came close to wetting his pants when he heard the North Korean threat — not out of fear but because he couldn’t stop laughing.
Cross-posted at The Lid
West Virginia State Police say they’ve arrested two people after they allegedly beat a 17-year-old juvenile and and recorded it on a cell phone.
The parents were arrested Saturday night.
The dad, Freddie Gray, Jr., is charged with child abuse serious bodily injury, conspiracy, domestic battery and domestic assault.
The stepmom, Jamie Gray, is charged with child neglect creating risk of injury, conspiracy, domestic battery and domestic assault.
According to the criminal complaint, troopers were dispatched to a domestic disturbance on Smith Drive near Huntington.
When WVSP arrived, Freddie and Jamie were arguing over the juvenile, who was trying to leave the residence. When troopers asked why the victim wanted to leave, the juvenile stated Freddie had beaten the victim with a belt on Thursday and Jamie recorded it on her cell phone.
Troopers say Freddie beat the juvenile with a belt 29 times.
Officers observed multiple whelps and bruises on the victim’s legs.
The criminal complaint states during an interview, Freddie admitted the punishment was excessive and he shouldn’t have taken it that far.
So here’s just how fast technology is accelerating. We haven’t even nailed down self-driving cars yet, and now the buzz is all about flying cars.
In fact, the dogged pursuit of an airborne escape from traffic has been with us for more than half a century, from the limited-edition Aerocar of the 1950s to the host of contemporary companies now taking pre-orders for their airborne vehicles.
Dutch startup PAL-V announced last week that it was taking $10,000 deposits for its $400,000-and-up two seat Liberty flying car, while Slovakia-based AeroMobil began doing the same for its $1 million-plus machine due out in three years. Both models would require a runway and a pilot’s license.
Other big players include Massachusetts-based Terrafugia, whose XF-T looks like a car with wings folded by its sides and, notably, can take off and land vertically, using so-called VTOL technology. The company’s site claims flying an XF-T won’t require a full pilot’s license.
That’s the same approach taken by Germany’s Lilium Aviation, which just conducted a successful unmanned test flight of its VTOL craft with wheels.
President Trump not only invited imprisoned aid worker Aya Hijazi to the Oval Office after securing her release from an Egyptian prison, but he used an interview with the Associated Press to throw shade at former President Obama on her fate.
According to a transcript released Sunday evening by the AP, Mr. Trump asked reporter Julie Pace before she could flesh out a question about his first 100 days in office, “did you see Aya,” who had been detained in Egypt since 2014.
When asked if he could describe how the release had come about, Mr. Trump said No, just — you know, I asked the government to let her out.”
“You know Obama worked on it for three years, got zippo, zero,” Mr. Trump said.
He denied striking any kind of deal with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi during his visit to the White House earlier this month, saying “No. No deal. He was here. I said, ‘I really would appreciate it if you would look into this and let her out.’”
The question included an anecdote of how the young girl’s mother cried on election night and how she is personally worried that her friends may be deported. She asked the congressman if she should be worried about her future.
“I think you should be concerned,” DeSaulnier responded. “This is dangerous stuff. I’ve said a few times, the most dangerous person in America isn’t a terrorist, it’s the person who’s president of the United States.”
This week’s edition of Time Magazine named former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick to its list of the 100 Most Influential People.
The list breaks down the chosen 100 into five categories: Pioneers, Artists, Leaders, Titans, and Icons. Kaepernick appears in the Icons group.
In the Time Magazine profile, former SF 49ers Coach Jim Harbaugh praised the controversial quarterback’s protest last year of the Star Spangled Banner, “when he boldly and courageously confronted perceived inequalities in our social-justice system by refusing to stand for the national anthem.”
Harbaugh made no mention of Kaepernick’s penchant for wearing socks denigrating law enforcement officers with pictures of pigs dressed in police uniforms.
The disgruntled quarterback’s biological mother Heidi Russo criticized her son for failing to stand for the National Anthem in a pre-season game against Green Bay last August when he was protesting “black oppression” in the United States.
“There are ways to make change w/o disrespecting & bringing shame to the very country & family who afforded you so many blessings,” she messaged on her Twitter account. The biracial Kaepernick was given up for adoption at birth and raised by white parents.
The Mexican government said Thursday the U.S. ignored its own immigration rules when it deported two illegal aliens back to Mexico.
The Secretariat of Foreign Relations, known in Mexico as SRE or the Chancellery, called the deportations of a so-called “Dreamer” and a mother of four a “violation” of immigration policy because neither had a criminal past.
“With respect to U.S. law, the Chancellery points out that the cases of Mrs. [Maribel] Trujillo and Mr. [Juan Manuel] Montes Bojorquez represent a violation of the expressed rules of deportation in that country,” SRE said in a statement. “Neither of the countrymen represented a risk to the security of American society and neither of them has a criminal background.”
SRE reaffirmed its promise to defend the “rights of Mexicans in the United States, among them the right to due process, regardless of their immigration status.”
Mexican citizenship extends to both legal and illegal immigrants living in the U.S., who come from Mexican descent.
The case of Montes Bojorquez provoked public outcry after USA Today reported Tuesday that the 23-year-old was detained and summarily deported by Customs and Border Protection officers in February. Montes had previously received temporary legal status under former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. DACA shields certain illegal immigrants — known as “Dreamers” — from deportation unless they commit a crime or leave the country without prior authorization.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) disputed the USA Today report, telling the The Daily Caller that Montes was deported after Border Patrol agents caught him illegally crossing a border fence into Calexico, Calif. DHS conceded that Montes had renewed his DACA status, but said the protection was voided when he left the U.S. without advanced notice.
Trujillo Diaz was deported Wednesday after exhausting her appeals with U.S. immigration authorities. She came to the U.S. illegally in 2002, petitioning for asylum because of drug cartel violence in Mexico, The Hill reported.
“Ms. Trujillo-Diaz’s immigration case underwent review at multiple levels of our nation’s legal system and the courts uniformly held that she had no legal basis to remain in the United States,” a spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement told The Hill. “In 2014, the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed her legal appeals and she became subject to a final order of deportation.”
SRE said that both examples were a violation of previous rules, possibly referring to Obama’s DACA order and a 2014 directive from former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson that instructed immigration authorities to exercise greater “prosecutorial discretion” on deportation cases.
President Donald Trump reversed or modified enforcement of those policies in a January executive order, which directed DHS to consider anyone in the U.S. illegally as a potential target for deportation. While Trump has not formally rescinded DACA, he has not explicitly placed “Dreamers” off-limits from detention and removal either.
“DACA enrollees are not being targeted. I don’t know why this individual was picked up,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said about the Montes Bojorquez case on Wednesday.
Sessions was clear, however, that any illegal alien could face deportation under the new immigration rules.
“The policy is that if people are here unlawfully, they’re subject to being deported,” he said.
This report, by Will Racke, was cross-posted by arrangement with the Daily Caller News Foundation.
While appearing on CNN’s “New Day Saturday,” self-styled “science guy” Bill Nye demonstrated that he’s as knowledgeable about the U.S. Constitution as he is about scientific method.
“If you suppress science, if you pretend climate change isn’t a real problem, you will fall behind other countries that do invest in science, that do invest in basic research,” he said during a discussion on the so-called “March for Science.” He then added:
And it is interesting to note, I think, that Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution refers to the progress of science and the useful arts. Useful arts in 18th Century usage would be what we call engineering or city planning or architecture.
But the Constitution’s Copyright Clause, which is what Nye was citing, actually reads:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
In other words, the clause is in no way a blueprint for government-funded science, as Nye is implying, but rather a legal framework for protecting intellectual property rights.
Nor is this the first time Nye has misquoted the Constitution. Per The Daily Caller:
Nye’s used the argument before to underscore how “unpatriotic” it is to not have the federal government hand out billions of taxpayer dollars to universities, corporations and research institutions.
“Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says the government shall ‘promote the progress of science and useful arts,’” Nye told Vox in 2015 — Vox didn’t correct him or fact check his claim.
“So if you’re a politician looking to derail the progress of science, I think you’re not doing your job,” Nye said.
And, like last time, he’s 100 percent incorrect.
Keep in mind that Nye once suggested that those who don’t believe liberal dogma on global warming should be thrown in jail.
While violent incidents of antisemitism dropped 12% worldwide in 2016, US campuses saw a surge of 45% in antisemitism, according to data released on Sunday.
The Kantor Center for the Study of Contemporary European Jewry at Tel Aviv University, in collaboration with the European Jewish Congress, released its Annual Report on Antisemitism for 2016 during a press conference held at the university.
A total of 361 antisemitic violent incidents were reported worldwide, down from 410 in 2015.
The decrease in the number of all types of antisemitic incidents, as monitored by communities and governmental agencies, is most evident in France, where the interior minister announced a 61% decrease in incidents, as well as in Belgium, which witnessed a 60% decline.
The report credited this drop to increased security measures, including the heavy presence of soldiers and police outside Jewish institutions, as well as the fact that an increasing number of Jews avoid appearing in public spaces while easily identifiable as Jews, for example by no longer wearing kippot on the street or in public transportation.
In contrast, English-speaking countries saw a rise in antisemitic incidents: The UK saw an increase of 11%, though the rate of violent incidents decreased by 13%, while antisemitic incidents in Australia increased by 10% last year.
[Ed. – How does she walk and chew gum simultaneously?]
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was a guest on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday morning with Chuck Todd and was asked to spout off about the wall that President Donald Trump wants to build along the southern border. She called it “immoral, expensive and unwise” before saying it was a sign of “weakness” to have to build a wall to protect the border.
— Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) April 23, 2017
Wether or not building a wall is the solution, there is a beyond serious problem on the border, and it has to be addressed. One of the reasons Trump won was that he actually proposed a tangible idea about how to curtail the surge of illegal immigration. Calling an effort to secure the border a sign of weakness has to be the worst possible argument against a wall.
Former Minister of the Economy, the 39-year-old Emmanuel Macron took 23.7% of the vote for his progressive political movement, En Marche, in the first round.
Marine Le Pen, the leader of the Front National, came in second in the opening round, polling 21.5% nationally.
high turnout in close race
Right up until the first-round vote, pollsters thought the race was too close to call between Macron, Le Pen, Republican Francois Fillon, who took 19.9% of the vote, and far-left Jean-Luc Melanchon, who took 19.6%.
Turnout was high at 78%, though slightly down on the 2012 participation rate of 79.48%, with nearly 47 million votes counted overall.
Le Pen in the North
In Marion [sic] Le Pen’s northern stronghold in the Pas-de-Calais, she accounted for over 34% of the vote.
Within Le Pen’s own Henin-Beaumont constituency, reactions to her triumph in the first round were mixed.
Pope Francis has urged governments to get migrants and refugees out of holding centres, saying many have become “concentration camps”.
During a visit to a Rome basilica, where he met migrants, the Pope told of his trip to a camp on the Greek island of Lesbos last year.
He met a Muslim refugee from the Middle East there, who told him how “terrorists came to our country”.
Islamists had slit the throat of the man’s Christian wife because she refused to throw her crucifix on the ground.
“I don’t know if he managed to leave that concentration camp, because refugee camps, many of them, are of concentration [type] because of the great number of people left there inside them,” the Pope said.
The American Jewish Committee (AJC) later urged the Pope “to reconsider his regrettable choice of words” for using the term concentration camp.
“The conditions in which migrants are currently living in some European countries may well be difficult, and deserve still greater international attention, but concentration camps they certainly are not,” the AJC’s head, David Harris, said in a statement.
A wide majority of voters who supported Hillary Clinton in the November presidential election say they would vote for her again despite her loss, according to a new poll.
An ABC News/Washington Post poll released early Sunday found that 85 percent of Clinton’s supporters said they would vote for her if the election were held again today.
A larger percentage of President Trump’s supporters, 96 percent, said they would vote for him again.
The 15 percent of Clinton voters who said they would not vote for Democratic nominee again are split between who they would support for in another election.
The poll found only 2 percent of those voters would vote for Trump.
Four percent of those voters would now pick former Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson, and 2 percent for Green Party candidate Jill Stein. Another 7 percent, the poll found, would pick another candidate, have no opinion or would not vote at all.