Wednesday, November 30, 2016


Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to Sanctuary Cities: 

You Will ‘Comply With the Law’

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Texas Governor Greg Abbott (shown) has said he’ll sign a law banning sanctuary cities in the Lone Star State. In a November 27 reply to an inquiry from a Twitter user who asked whether he would respond to overtures from political candidates who want Travis County to stop cooperating with ICE agents and make Austin a sanctuary city, Abbott tweeted back: “I'm going to sign a law that bans sanctuary cities. Also I’ve already issued an order cutting funding to sanctuary cities.”
Abbott criticized Dallas County Sheriff Lupe Valdez in October 2015 after she said she would no longer comply with immigration hold requests for people accused of minor offenses, saying: “Your decision to not fully honor ICE’s requests to detain criminal immigrants poses a serious danger to Texans. These detainers provide ICE with the critical notice and time it needs to take incarcerated immigrants into federal custody.”
Sanctuary cities essentially are those that refuse to cooperate in enforcing federal immigration law and refuse to hold illegal aliens arrested on minor charges until ICE agents can pick them up. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may issue an immigration detainer to another federal, or to a state or local law-enforcement agency, to inform the agency that ICE intends to assume custody of an individual and to request that the agency notify ICE prior to the time when the individual would otherwise be released. It is this type of cooperation that the sanctuary cities refuse to engage in.
On November 15, Texas State Senator Charles Perry (R-Lubbock) filed a bill (S.B. 4) to end “sanctuary cities” in Texas and force compliance with Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers.
Courthouse News Service (CN) reported on November 18 that S.B. 4 requires local law-enforcement officers to provide notice to a judge or magistrate that an arrested person is in the country illegally if he or she cannot prove a legal right to be in the country within 48 hours.
The law would allow people to file complaints with the Texas attorney general if local authorities carry out sanctuary city policies that discourage enforcement of federal immigration laws.
The attorney general would then have authority to pursue the alleged violations in court, and the local municipality would be denied state grant money for the following year.
Perry explained his bill as follows:
Put simply, sanctuary city policies are any policies that prevent law enforcement from enforcing immigration laws already on the books. This can include, but is not limited to, prohibiting officers from inquiring about immigration status of suspected criminals or ignoring immigration detainers in our corrections system
CN cited Perry’s statement that more than 204,000 criminal aliens were in Texas jails between June 1, 2011 and October 31 this year.
“Of those, 66 percent were identified as being in the U.S. illegally at the time of their last arrest,” Perry said. “These arrests include 1,101 homicide charges, 65,118 assault charges, and 5,745 sexual assault charges.”
The Texas Tribune reported on August 31 that the Democratic candidate for Travis County sheriff, Constable Sally Hernandez, had promised to remove U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, from the county jail. She promised that, if elected, she would not hold illegal-alien inmates for ICE when the federal agency seeks to deport them.
“I just don’t think you solve the criminal justice process by deporting them,” Hernandez told the Texas Tribuneduring an interview in her office during the last week of August. “We talk about being progressive. I believe we need to lead the way.”
Hernandez’ Republican opponent, Joe Martinez, favored cooperating with ICE by holding immigrants the agency wants, as did the current sheriff of Travis County, Democrat Greg Hamilton.
“How can you release somebody back into the population to do more harm? Where is it going to stop? When you hurt or maim and kill somebody? An American citizen or another immigrant? The federal government has a job to do,” the Tribune quote Martinez as saying. “Let’s let them do their job.”
However, Hernandez won the race for Travis County Sheriff, whose jurisdiction includes the city of Austin, by a landslide, winning 60 percent of the vote to Martinez’ 32 percent.
It was probably this event that prompted the individual who tweeted Abbot to ask what he intended to do about Texas cities who declared themselves to be “sanctuary cities.”
The rise of sanctuary cities is a phenomenon that has appeared across the United States, especially in areas dominated by liberal Democratic-controlled city governments. A November 15 AP report noted several mayors who said they will resist President-elect Donald Trump’s plan to increase deportations of illegal aliens and refuse to cooperate in enforcing federal immigration laws. These include New York’s Bill de Blasio, Chicago’s Rahm Emanuel, and Seattle's Ed Murray.
“Seattle has always been a welcoming city,” the report quoted Murray as stating on November 14. “The last thing I want is for us to start turning on our neighbors.”
Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck told the Los Angeles Times that he will stick to a longtime hands-off policy on immigration issues. L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti supports that position, but stopped short of calling L.A. a sanctuary city because he said the term is “ill-defined.”
And, noted AP, Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney restored sanctuary status to the city when he took office in January and said last week that the city would “protect” its residents, presumably from federal enforcement measures.
During the presidential campaign, Trump gave a speech in which he promised to “end the sanctuary cities” and said those “that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities will not receive taxpayer dollars.” He blamed such policies for “so many needless deaths.”
While Trump’s promise to enforce our nation’s immigration laws is commendable, there is a good chance that most of those taxpayer dollars he threatened to withhold should not have been sent to the states anyway. If Trump aspires to be a constitutionalist president, he will do well to remember the words of James Madison, who has been called the father of our Constitution:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.
An ideal solution to ending sanctuary cities, therefore, might be to forget about granting or withholding federal funds to them, and supporting governors such as Greg Abbott who will do what needs to be done at the state level.
Related articles:


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The “tolerant” Left continues to flail in the weeks following the presidential election. Clinton supporters have already made headlines over their petulant and in some cases violent reactions to the election results, but after their kicking and screaming has failed to make any change, they’ve resorted to bullying and threats. According to, disgruntled individuals and groups have reached out to Electoral College voters not only to persuade them to switch their votes to Hillary Clinton, but also to threaten them with violence if they refuse.
The Electoral College will convene on December 19 so that the electors can cast their votes for Trump or Clinton, and all electors have pledged to vote for the candidate elected by their state.
But Clinton’s supporters are reaching out to the electors in states wherein it is not illegal for electors to change their votes. WND writes, “If Clinton’s supporters can get enough of the 163 electors from states where Trump both won and votes can legally be switched on Dec. 19, Hillary Clinton becomes the next president of the United States.”
In the history of the Electoral College, it is extremely rare for electors to vote against the candidate elected by their state. According to, there have been 157 electors since the founding of the Electoral College who changed their vote, of which 71 were changed because the original candidate died before the Electoral College cast its votes, and three chose to abstain from casting their vote for any candidate. No faithless elector has changed the outcome of an election.
Therefore, Clinton’s supporters are resorting to escalating threats to convince electors to violate their duties to vote for the candidate chosen by the state. According to BuzzFeed, the #NotMyPresident Alliance released the personal information of dozens of Electoral College members in states that went to Trump in an effort to encourage disgruntled people to reach out to and sway the electors.
One such harassed elector is Michael Banerian of Oakland County, Michigan, who told the Detroit News that he has received numerous threatening e-mails demanding that he vote for Clinton instead of Trump, despite it being illegal for Banerian to change his electoral vote in Michigan. “You have people saying ‘you’re a hateful bigot, I hope you die,'” he said. “I’ve had people talk about shoving a gun in my mouth and blowing my brains out. And I’ve received dozens and dozens of those emails. Even the non-threatening-my-life emails are very aggressive.”
“I’ve just gotten a lot of ‘you’re a hateful bigot and I hope you die,’ which is kind of ironic,” Banerian said, “that they’re calling me hateful and yet wishing for my death. They don’t even know me.”
Banerian is not the only one, according to the Michigan Republican Party. “Hearing from them that they are also receiving threats, I’m interested in getting a consensus from the group … and seeing if it’s something that we should report to the police,” Sarah Anderson, the Michigan Republican Party spokeswoman, told theNews. “It’s obviously something that we’re taking very seriously.”
Electors in Arizona are also being harassed, Fox News reports. “Arizona’s presidential electors are reportedly being hit by a flood of emails and phone calls demanding they defy the voters in their state and choose Hillary Clinton instead of President-elect Donald Trump — as part of a last-gasp bid to overturn the election,” Fox reported.
Georgia’s electors too are being bullied and threatened by Clinton supporters, as indicated in a statement by Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp. “The Presidential election is over but, unfortunately, the vitriol remains,” said Kemp. “Our office has received numerous reports of individuals hurling insults and threats at Georgia’s Electors because they are unsettled with America’s choice for President of the United States. This is absolutely unacceptable and those participating in or encouraging these efforts should stop. The electoral process in America has worked, and everyone — Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and others — should respect the will of Georgia’s voters and the Electors who represent them.”
In Texas, Republican Alex Kim said he and his fellow electors have been bombarded with e-mails and phone calls asking them to switch their votes to Clinton. “At first, everyone was kind of enchanted by it,” Kim told NBC5 in Dallas-Fort Worth. "Now all the electors are starting to get beaten down. There are some electors who have been threatened with harm or with death.”
Two Democratic electors are leading a movement called #HamiltonElectors to encourage members of the Electoral College to “vote their conscience” and dump Trump, the Washington Times reports.
Additionally, over four million people have signed a petition on asking all of the 538 electors to vote for Clinton instead of Trump. The petition reads like the rant of an angry bunch of sore losers:
On December 19, the Electors of the Electoral College will cast their ballots. If they all vote the way their states voted, Donald Trump will win. However, in 14 of the states in Trump's column, they can vote for Hillary Clinton without any legal penalty if they choose.
We are calling on the 149 Electors in those states to ignore their states' votes and cast their ballots for Secretary Clinton. Why?
Mr. Trump is unfit to serve. His scapegoating of so many Americans, and his impulsivity, bullying, lying, admitted history of sexual assault, and utter lack of experience make him a danger to the Republic.
Secretary Clinton WON THE POPULAR VOTE and should be President.
 Hillary won the popular vote. The only reason Trump "won" is because of the Electoral College.
But the Electoral College can actually give the White House to either candidate. So why not use this most undemocratic of our institutions to ensure a democratic result?
There is no reason Trump should be President.
"It's the 'People's Will'"
No. She won the popular vote.
"Our system of government under our Constitution says he wins"
No. Our Constitution says the Electors choose.
"Too many states prohibit 'Faithless Electors'"
24 states bind electors. If electors vote against their party, they usually pay a fine. And people get mad. But they can vote however they want and there is no legal means to stop them in most states.
The irony, of course, is that the petition calls Trump a bully when the same people who support the petition are in fact bullying electors to vote for the person they want.
Meanwhile, the ire over the Electoral College as seen in the petition results from a fundamental lack of understanding of what it means to be a constitutional republic versus a democracy. It is a sad testament to the fact that public and higher education is failing to teach Americans the history of the republic and the government that was created by the Founding Fathers. Those who support the Electoral College understand that it was designed to protect the smaller states from being dominated by the more heavily populated ones.
For some, however, it's more important to get their way than to protect everyone under the Constitution. They are still reeling from the fact that their safe spaces have failed to protect them from the blow that the election dealt.

Tuesday, November 29, 2016


John Allison


Trump’s Pick Could End the Fed
Published on Nov 30, 2016
Now is not the time to go to sleep. Trump’s cabinet picks — the good, bad, the ugly — could make America great, or let the establish co-opt the new administration. On Monday, Trump interviewed a former CEO of regional bank BB&T & member of Cato Institute’s Board of Directors. Hopefully, Trump will pick Allison, but even if he doesn’t, Allison deserves to be heard. Here’s a sample of what he said...


EXCERPT: "Art Sisneros had a plan when he signed up to be a Republican elector from Texas: “causing chaos.” A self-described member of the “liberty movement,” Sisneros says he was recruited precisely to cast his electoral vote against Donald Trump. He told POLITICO he considered casting his electors vote for Trump’s running mate Mike Pence, a creative way to subvert the process while still fulfilling the oath he took to support the “Trump-Pence” ticket. But he shelved the plan when other like-minded elector candidates failed to win GOP seats. Part of his effort, he said, was to highlight the fact that the Electoral College has been reduced to “rubber-stamping” the popular vote rather than its original intent: the body constitutionally charged with selecting presidential candidates in the first place."

"If Trump is not qualified and my role, both morally and historically, as an elected official is to vote my conscience, then I can not and will not vote for Donald Trump for President. I believe voting for Trump would bring dishonor to God. The reality is Trump will be our President, no matter what my decision is. Many are furious that I am willing to have this discussion publicly. Personally, I wish more civil officers would be honest about their convictions. Assuming a Trump Presidency is their ultimate goal, they will get that. The problem is, that isn’t what they want. They want a democracy. They will threaten to kill anyone who challenges their power to vote for Skittles for dinner. That is evidence alone to prove that our republic is lost. The shell may remain, but in the hearts of the people and functionality of the system our republic is gone. I also believe that a pledge is a man’s word that he will follow through on something he committed to. God’s Word is clear we should all “let our ‘yes’ be ‘yes’ and our ‘no,’s ‘no.”[20] I believe to resign is to honor the intent of the pledge as it relates to the people of my district. Since I can’t in good conscience vote for Donald Trump, and yet have sinfully made a pledge that I would, the best option I see at this time is to resign my position as an Elector."
SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

DAYTON, Texas — An elector in Texas has announced that he has chosen to resign his position rather than vote for Donald Trump as an electorate.
“I do not see how Donald Trump is biblically qualified to serve in the office of the presidency,” Art Sisneros wrote on Saturday in his blog “The Blessed Path: Delighting in the Law of the Lord.” “Of the hundreds of angry messages that I have received, not one has made a convincing case from Scripture otherwise. If Trump is not qualified and my role, both morally and historically, as an elected official is to vote my conscience, then I cannot and will not vote for Donald Trump for president.”
Sisneros had also outlined earlier this month that he does not believe in voting for the lesser of two evils, and pointed to the biblical qualifications for rulers as outlined in Exodus 18:21, 2 Samuel 23:3 and Deuteronomy 1:13.
“God has given us a standard for our civil rulers. They are to be men that fear Him and are to rule justly according His law. This has implications for both the rulers and those choosing them,” he wrote. “The Bible knows nothing of situational ethics; God and His Word do not change. If God tells us we must choose (vote for) a righteous man that fears Him, we are not free to attach an ‘unless’ to the end of that command.”
According to reports, Sisneros had previously been considering being a “faithless elector” after expressing objection to Trump, meaning that he would not cast his vote for Trump despite the candidate’s victory in the state. But he recalled that he had signed a pledge that he would vote for the winner, and regretted doing so, stating that it is “immoral” and “unlawful” that the GOP makes electors sign such an agreement.
“I was wrong in signing this pledge and not communicating to the body when I ran that my conscience would not be bound by it,” Sisneros wrote. “I honestly did not have the convictions about the original purpose of the Electoral College or the biblical qualifications until after I was an elector. The Bible calls this a rash oath and warns against making them.”
“The heart of this issue now is, does honoring the pledge cause me to sin? If it does, then I am obligated not to honor it. If it doesn’t, then I am obligated to honor it,” he said.
Sisneros concluded that the best choice would be to resign since he has objections to the way the Electoral College is run, and believes that it would be dishonoring to God for him to vote for Trump.
“Since I can’t in good conscience vote for Donald Trump, and yet have sinfully made a pledge that I would, the best option I see at this time is to resign my position as an elector. This will allow the remaining body of electors to fill my vacancy when they convene on Dec 19 with someone that can vote for Trump,” he wrote. “The people will get their vote. They will get their Skittles for dinner. I will sleep well at night knowing I neither gave in to their demands nor caved to my convictions. I will also mourn the loss of our republic.”


Published on Nov 28, 2016
On December first, 2016 the Spy State will slip a 4th Amendment violating procedure into the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Notice the term procedure. According to an article released by the Electronic Frontier Foundation back in April “the amendment to Rule 41 isn’t procedural at all. It creates new avenues for government hacking that were never approved by Congress.

The proposal would grant a judge the ability to issue a warrant to remotely access, search, seize, or copy data when “the district where the media or information is located has been concealed through technological means” or when the media are on protected computers that have been “damaged without authorization and are located in five or more districts.” It would grant this authority to any judge in any district where activities related to the crime may have occurred. The first part of this change would grant authority to practically any judge to issue a search warrant to remotely access, seize, or copy data relevant to a crime when a computer was using privacy-protective tools to safeguard one's location.”

All of those using a vpn service or those denying GPS location of their devices through a map app for example are subject to be implicated by the little known procedural amendment. And while Federal Hackers are hacking your device or computer with malware, malicious hackers with far better experience hacking bot net devices will be hacking the Federal government. Causing any and all of your private data to be exposed simply because you were exercising your right to privacy. Which is apparently a crime now. And all of it done with zero public debate.



Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely

Convicted Criminal David Petraeus to Represent US at Bilderberg
Published on Nov 29, 2016
After Trump voters appealed to Trump NOT to select Romney as Sec of State, Trump met with General Petraeus today as Trump’s team said he was a strong contender for the position. Trump needs to hear quickly from his supporters about this globalist successor to Kissinger & Brzezinski.

“After America Comes North America,” 

Gen. Petraeus Boasts

Gen. Petraeus Reveals 'North American Union' Progress
Published on Jun 30, 2014
JBS CEO Art Thompson's weekly news video update for June 30 - July 6, 2014. In this week's analysis behind the news video, JBS CEO Art Thompson discusses how Gen. Petraeus is openly revealing just how far along we've progressed regarding the merger of the United States with Mexico and Canada to form the North American Union; how contradictory U.S. policy appears to be in the Mideast; and how the Christians in the Mideast have been the big losers from U.S. military and diplomatic intervention in Iraq and other Mideast countries.

Petraeus: North America: "Time for a New Focus"

EXCERPT: "Former CIA Director David Petraeus is in attendance at the 2013 Bilderberg Group conference to help construct the “big data” spy grid, which is set to become the new frontier of clandestine statecraft as Internet connectivity becomes ubiquitous." "Petraeus had previously hailed the “Internet of things” as a transformational boon for “clandestine trade craft”. In other words, it will soon be easier than ever before to keep tabs on the population since everything they use will be connected to the web, with total disregard for privacy considerations. The spooks won’t have to plant a bug in your home or your vehicle, you will be doing it for them." (through your dishwasher).
Petraeus with Paula Broadwell in July 2011.
"In April former CIA director and retired general David Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of handing over classified information to his mistress and biographer, Paula Broadwell. He was sentenced to two years probation and a $100,000 fine. Petraeus had passed on several 5-by-8 inch black notebooks containing classified information to Broadwell. Despite his conviction, the former general remains a trusted adviser to the White House on its strategy in Iraq."
EXCERPT: (Bilderberg summit): "Of course, key establishment media operatives are also invited to attend, but only under conditions of strict secrecy. Along with the “journalists,” editors, propagandists, and media magnates were prime ministers, foreign ministers, defense ministers, top globalist bureaucrats, a president, CEOs, royalty, and even some convicted globalist criminals (anti-U.S. sovereignty fanatic Gen. David Petraeus) for good measure."   




General David Petraeus- American or Globalist?

Petraeus Affair: CIA Director, Biographer Paula Broadwell, Jill Kelley Affair Sex Scandal

Socialite Who Revealed Petraeus Affair Scandal Finally Breaks Her Silence

Jill Kelley Opens Up on Gen. David Petraeus, CIA Sex Scandal


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Officials in several Central American countries have said that Donald Trump’s victory in the recent presidential election has prompted a new surge in migrants from their countries headed toward the U.S. border. The migrants, who fear that Trump will follow through on his promises to secure the border and to deport illegal immigrants, hope to enter the United States and apply for asylum before the new president takes office on January 20.
The story was reported by the Reuters news service, which quoted a statement from Maria Andrea Matamoros, Deputy Foreign Minister of Honduras. “We’re worried because we’re seeing a rise in the flow of migrants leaving the country, who have been urged to leave by coyotes telling them that they have to reach the United States before Trump takes office,” said Matamoros. “Coyotes” is the name given to criminals who smuggle people for profit.
Reuters also interviewed Carlos Raul Morales, Guatemala’s foreign minister, who said people were leaving Guatemala in large numbers before Trump becomes president.
“The coyotes are leaving people in debt, and taking their property as payment for the journey,” said Morales.
Humberto Roque Villanueva, Mexico’s deputy interior minister for migration, told Reuters the day after the U.S. presidential election that Mexico is prepared to lobby the U.S. Congress or use other “legal means” to oppose Trump’s plan for blocking remittances being sent home by Mexican citizens living in the United States. Trump has suggested impounding those remittances as one way to pay for building a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border to keep out illegal immigrants.
The foreign ministers of Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala met in Guatemala City on November 21 to plan a strategy to protect migrants from their countries living in the United States.
At the meeting, the foreign ministers asked the Mexican government for assistance in creating a migrant protection network, to act in a liaison capacity between the countries and U.S. authorities, and to meet regularly for regional talks.
Mexico and Guatemala announced plans to expand immigration services at their many offices in the United States.
In a joint statement directed the illegals in the United States, the nations of the “Northern Triangle” — El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras — said:
The foreign ministers made a call to Guatemalans, Salvadorans and Hondurans, to continue observing and respecting the laws of [the United States], to stay calm and not make hasty decisions that endanger their personal safety, carry the necessary documents and approach their consulates for services and consular protection.
Mexico is apparently offering diplomatic services to nationals of those nations in the United States, according to the Spanish news site El Pais, which stated: “The Northern Triangle countries will rely on ... Mexico [to serve] its nationals in the 50 consulates [it has] in the United States.”
A report in the Washington Examiner on November 25 summarized the above strategy being planned by Mexico and the “Northern Triangle” nations as follows:
Foreign ministers of Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras met this week to address concerns about President-elect Trump's plan to deport illegals, mostly those with criminal records. Their goal: Calm the fears of illegals, help them avoid deportation, and keep the flood of money they send home going.
As Mexico and the Central American countries plan to help illegal aliens in the United States from south of the border, representatives of several groups that have advocated for legal status for illegal immigrants met with Obama White House officials last week to lobby for the release of thousands of Central American women and children who have been detained for entering our nation illegally.
As we reported in our article posted on November 22, a Bloomberg report cited the Women’s Refugee Commission and the American Immigration Lawyers Association as being among the groups whose representatives met with Obama administration officials. The report stated that one of the issues discussed was the fate of about 4,000 Central American detainees who crossed the border illegally after fleeing violence in their home countries. The detainees have been housed in detention centers in Texas and Pennsylvania, some for more than a year, as they wait for immigration officials to process their asylum applications.
Immigration advocates asked the president to either end the practice of detaining families altogether or to direct Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to release families on their own recognizance after issuing them a “notice to appear” before a judge.
During fiscal year 2016, the United States detained nearly 410,000 people along the border with Mexico, a number that is up by about one quarter from the previous year. The vast majority of these illegal migrants came from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras.
Trump’s announcement that he will nominate Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) for attorney general confirms that he intend to follow though on the tough stand on illegal immigration that was a cornerstone of his campaign for the White House.
During his time serving as a senator, Sessions has been one of the most outspoken members of Congress on the subject of the Obama administration’s loose immigration policies and lack of border enforcement.
“Instead of removing illegal immigrants, the President has expended enormous time, energy, and resources into settling newly arrived illegal immigrants throughout the United States,” Sessions wrote in a January 2015 “immigration handbook” for Republicans.
Sessions has repeatedly blamed the non-enforcement and amnesty policies of the Obama administration for the uncontrolled surge invasion of illegal aliens coming across our borders. In response to that surge, he posted a statement on his Senate webpage on June 3 carrying the headline: “President Obama is personally responsible for ‘rising crisis’ at border.” His message began:
The rising crisis at the border is the direct and predictable result of actions taken by President Obama. He and his Administration have announced to the world that they will not enforce America’s immigration laws, and have emphasized in particular that foreign youth will be exempted from these laws. The world has heard the President’s call, and illegal immigrants are pouring across the border in pursuit of his promised amnesty. President Obama is responsible for this calamity, and only by declaring to the world that our border is no longer open — and that the law will be restored — can this emergency be stopped. 
There is little wonder that illegal aliens in the United States and potential illegal border crossers still in their home countries have seen the handwriting on the wall and are worried that the free pass across U.S. borders will end, come January 20. 
Related articles: 

Monday, November 28, 2016


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Obama will continue to destroy and dismantle until his very last day in power. Obama is expediting the importation of Muslims who were rejected by Australia.
Let’s hope Trump sends these invaders back to their jihad lands.


News Now, November 26, 2016 (thanks to Religion of Peace):
Fast-tracking the Obama administration’s plan to accept hoards of Islamic migrants from terrorist nations who were turned down by Australia, United States Secretary of State John Kerry worked out a covert deal to bring around 1,800 illegal aliens to the U.S. – ahead of schedule.
Many high-ranking government officials are upset over the secret negotiations that many believe will put American citizens in danger – and be unlawful.
“The chairmen of the House and Senate judiciary committees are demanding the Obama administration provide details of a secret resettlement deal in which the U.S. has agreed to take up to 1,800 mostly Muslim asylum seekers who have been rejected by Australia as illegal aliens,” WND reported. “Congress only learned of the deal through media reports two weeks ago and – according to a letter sent to administration officials by [lawmakers] Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) – the deal is not only a matter of grave national security concern, but it could be illegal.”
When held up to the U.S. Constitution the lawlessness of the clandestine dealings becomes clear.
“[The deal] amounts to an international treaty that Secretary of State John Kerry negotiated without consulting or notifying Congress, according to Article II, Section II of the U.S. Constitution, according to the letter, sent by [Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and House Judiciary Committee Chair Bob Goodlatte on] Nov. 22 to Kerry and DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson,” WND’s Leo Hohmann explained.
Inviting danger?
Many of the safety concerns are rooted in the fact that the origins of the rejected Islamic migrants are rooted in the jihadist hotbeds of Iran, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan.
“Nearly 2,500 of them were interdicted off the coast of Australia in 2013, in accordance with that country’s policy of not accepting any of the wave of ‘refugees’ streaming out of the Middle East,” Hohmann pointed out. “Unlike Europe, Australia effectively said ‘no’ to the United Nations’ plan to open up Western democracies for millions of refugees fleeing not only the Syrian civil war, but conflicts in Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan and even countries like Pakistan that are not at war. Germany alone has accepted 1.5 million Muslim refugees and subjected itself to thousands of sexual assaults on its women and girls.”
Australian officials never extended the welcome mat to the Muslim migrants attempting to seek asylum in the Land Down Under.
“They were rescued by the Australian coast guard from their unsafe vessels and taken to off-shore camps on the islands of Papua New Guinea and Nauru, where they have remained ever since,” Hohmann informed.” The United Nations stepped in and is looking for countries that will take the asylum seekers.”
Knowing the Obama administration’s pro-Muslim stance, the U.N. successfully appealed to the U.S. to take in the potentially hostile illegal aliens.
“Kerry confirmed he had reached a deal to take an undetermined number of the 2,465 aliens for permanent resettlement in the United States,” WND announced. “Goodlatte and Grassley said they have since found out that up to 1,800 of the boat people could end up being distributed to U.S. cities and towns. But very little information has been released about the aliens – or how many will end up in which American cities.”
The lawmakers asserted in their letter that Kerry and the Obama administration acted above the law and beyond their authority by single handedly moving forward with the plan – essentially skirting the system of checks and balances by which they are obligated to abide.
“This situation is concerning for many reasons,” Grassley and Goodlatte’s letter reads. “First, your departments negotiated an international agreement regarding refugees without consulting or notifying Congress. Such information was not disclosed to Congress during the annual refugee consultation that occurred on September 13, 2016, even though your staff confirmed that the agreement had, at the time, been negotiated ‘for months.’ Second, the agreement and the number of refugees to be resettled has been deemed by your departments as classified, thus the American people are left in the dark as to the rationale for this agreement. Third, the individuals who will be resettled are coming from countries of national security concern. In fact, two of the countries are officially designated by the State Department to be State Sponsors of Terrorism. Finally, it begs the question why Australia and other countries refuse to admit these individuals, what other countries are doing to help alleviate the situation, what kind of precedent this sets for future refugees interdicted at sea by Australian forces and prevented from entering Australia, and how a similar situation will be prevented in the future.”
Blind acceptance
Shocking to both conservatives and liberals alike, the Obama administration went ahead and brokered the deal without knowing what they would get, as information about the incoming Muslim migrants was not sought until after the secretary of state signed the dotted line.
“No details have been released as to how many from each country would be considered for resettlement in the U.S., what cities or states they would be sent to, the breakdown of men, women and children, or the state of their health,” Hohmann stressed. “The U.S. sent teams to begin screening the aliens almost immediately after the deal was brokered by Kerry, according to the letter.”
Tougher under Trump
It is argued by Refugee Resettlement Watch’s Ann Corcoran that Congress’ hard stance against the Obama administration – as exhibited in the letter – is a huge indicator that it is being tougher on America’s lax acceptance of refugee. However, she notes that the U.S. shows no indication of being as hard on immigration as Australia.
“There are many important concerns in this letter, but one issue in particular caught my eye – the idea of setting a precedent, which is something I’ve been hammering for years,” Corcoran wrote in her blog.
The refugee watchdog emphasized that agreements like the one Kerry just signed to forward the State Department’s refugee program are by no means uncommon, as the U.S. is in the practice of regularly agreeing to accept migrants –migrants who more security-savvy nations outright reject.
Come on over …
Laying out the welcome mat for potentially dangerous migrants is a policy that the Obama administration has employed for some time.
“[The] U.S. has been accepting illegal African migrants from Malta for years,” Hohmann maintained. “For instance, the U.S. has for years been admitting Libyans and Somalis who arrive on the Mediterranean island of Malta.”
Corcoran says the security issues with accepting these illegal aliens are astronomical, insisting that the U.S. should not open its arms to the problems other nations are looking to pawn off on it – as it has done during the last two administrations.
“Surely these people are undocumented with only their personal stories to rely on,” Corcoran contends. “But we have been transforming them into refugees and placing them in your American towns ever since the Bush Administration. These are Europe’s illegal aliens and not our concern. Just as this new batch is Australia’s problem.”
“Congress and the new president can quickly plug this hole, and we must stop these foolish ‘deals’ wherever they are occurring.”
Of course, a “deal” implies that the United States will get something in exchange.
“But what we get is never clear,” Corcoran said.