Friday, June 29, 2018

A Lawyer Story : Pride And Justice Renewed(Humor?)


I think this has been around the block before on several occasions but still a hoot. Any time we can enjoy a story where a lawyer take it where it hurts the most, his pride, we have to relish the time spent even if it was a repeat.

Best Lawyer story of the Year

This actually took place in Charlotte, North Carolina.
A lawyer purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars, then insured them against, among other things, Fire.

Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of these great cigars,the lawyer filed a claim against the insurance company. In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost 'in a series of small fires'.

The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason, that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion.

The lawyer sued and WON!

Delivering the ruling, the judge agreed with the insurance company that the claim was frivolous. The judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer held a policy from the company, in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure them against fire, without defining what is considered to be unacceptable "fire" and was obligated to pay the claim.

Rather than endure lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000 to the lawyer for his loss of the cigars that perished in the "fires".

NOW FOR THE BEST PART...
After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON! With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case being used against him, the lawyer was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and was sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000 fine.

This true story won First Place in last year's Criminal Lawyers Award contest.


New FAA Controller Requirements : Barrrack Says No Requirements Needed -

Walter, this is about doing what feels good and decent. It has nothing to do with air traffic control. And that it will place thousands of innocent people at risk of death is of no concern. The progressive liberal strategy is not having strategy at all that conflicts with the socialist agenda of destruction of the American civil society built on individual freedom. Socialism only demands you do what you are told to get all the free stuff.

Just imagine the chaos at air ports of having controllers that didn't show up for class most of the time but had to hire them anyway just to satisfy Porgressive democrats in Washington.

Never vote democrat, death will stalk your door, especially if you have to fly on a regular basis. Hell, if you or your family fly at all. It's dangerous enough just being a Republican now on the streets.

The Disastrous Initiative to Hire Air Traffic Controllers Based on Diversity, Not Talent

My column a fortnight ago, titled “Diversity and Inclusion Harm,” focused on the dumbing down of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics curricula to achieve a more pleasing mixture of participants in terms of race and sex.

Heather Mac Donald, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, wrote about this in her article titled “How Identity Politics Is Harming the Sciences.” Mac Donald quoted a UCLA scientist who said, “All across the country the big question now in STEM is: how can we promote more women and minorities by ‘changing’ (i.e., lowering) the requirements we had previously set for graduate level study?”

The National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health are two federal agencies that fund university research, are consumed by diversity and inclusion ideology, and have the power to yank funds from a college if it has not supported a sufficient number of “underrepresented minorities.”

In recent years, the Federal Aviation Administration has also become consumed by diversity and inclusion. Prior to becoming so, the FAA worked with about 36 colleges to create the Air Traffic Collegiate Training Initiative. The colleges offered two- and four-year nonengineering aviation degrees requiring basic courses in air traffic control and aviation administration. Graduates of these programs became qualified candidates for training as air traffic control specialists. The FAA gave hiring preferences to veterans, those with AT-CTI program degrees, references from administrators, and high test scores.

In 2013, President Barack Obama-appointed FAA Administrator Michael Huerta deemed that these hiring standards had not produced a pleasing mix of air traffic controllers when it came to race and sex. He announced plans to “transform the [FAA] into a more diverse and inclusive workplace that reflects, understands, and relates to the diverse customers” it serves.

The FAA discarded its longtime use of the difficult cognitive assessment test and implemented instead a new, unmonitored take-home personality test—a biographical questionnaire. Among the questions asked are: “The number of high school sports I participated in was … ” “How would you describe your ideal job?” “What has been the major cause of your failures?” “More classmates would remember me as humble or dominant?”

In other words, the FAA opened air traffic control training to “off-the-street hires”—any English-speaking citizen with a high school diploma—despite the fact that most high school diplomas are fraudulent documents.

All air traffic control applicants are required to complete the biographical questionnaire. Those who “pass” are deemed eligible. The questionnaire gives more points to an applicant who answers that he has not been employed in the previous three years than it does to an applicant who answers that he has been a pilot or is a veteran with an air traffic control-related military background.

Michael Pearson, an air traffic controller for 27 years who is suing the FAA, said, “A group within the FAA, including the human resources function within the FAA—the National Black Coalition of Federal Aviation Employees—determined that the workforce was too white.” In an act of cowardice, a Republican-controlled Congress during Obama’s second term cut a deal allowing the FAA to hire half of new controllers based on race.

Led by its president, William Perry Pendley, the Mountain States Legal Foundation has brought a discrimination suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in behalf of Andrew J. Brigida against U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao—although, when this suit began, Anthony Foxx was the secretary of transportation. (When Chao became the secretary, she was automatically substituted as the defendant.)

All Americans should hope that the Mountain States Legal Foundation suit is successful in preventing the FAA from using race and sex as criteria for hiring. Passengers’ lives, regardless of sex and race, depend upon there being proficient air traffic controllers.

COPYRIGHT 2018 CREATORS.COM

Abolish ICE Is The Cry of Socialist democrats : Open The Boarders!

Again, this is about Barrrack's jihad for ''fundamental change and transformation'' of the America's civil society. He promised he would do this and laid the foundation for civil chaos and conflict that we are seeing now.

But Barrrack isn't letting go just because he isn't president any longer , his organization Organizing for Action is front and center leading with instructions on how to attack citizens were the live and where they work. They are funding this chaos as well as well many Hollywood stars and other progressive socialist liberal democrats from around the country and world.

‘Abolish ICE’ Zealots Show Left’s True Beliefs on Borders

“No ban. No wall. No borders at all.”  That is the radical rallying cry of the Democratic Socialists of America. Waving desecrated U.S. flags, grubby fists, and ratty anarchy banners, DSA’s professional protesters are targeting Trump administration officials, threatening immigration enforcement agents, and blockading detention facilities and processing centers nationwide.

On a similar note, Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., proudly marched in a parade last week with a T-shirt emblazoned with “Yo No Creo En Fronteras”—Spanish for “I don’t believe in borders.”

These are abjectly unserious people, operating in bad faith, who pose a serious threat to our nation’s well-being.

In New York, DSA rabble-rousers took over a loading dock used to transport immigrants at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement processing center on Varick Street. Genius move. Now, detainees whose bond hearings were canceled because of the protest disruptions face another six or more extra weeks in detention.

In Portland, Oregon, DSA operatives shut down a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement office after preventing workers from exiting the building.

In Detroit, organizers disrupted ordinary processing and appointments at a downtown ICE field office and plan to camp out there 24 hours a day until the end of the month. “Our short-term goal is to shut down operations at this particular center,” ringleader Robert Jay explained.

“Our long-term goal is to abolish ICE entirely.”

This reckless, simpleton sentiment doesn’t belong to the fringe of the American left. It is the center. Across the country, supposedly mainstream Democrats, activist groups, and entertainers are pushing to “Abolish ICE.” To be clear, if the hashtag didn’t clue you in: They don’t just want to reform or reduce the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which was created by merging existing immigration entities after the 9/11 attacks to better coordinate enforcement against alien lawbreakers inside the country.  They want it gone. Zapped. Poof.

An informational flyer lists the agenda of the ICE breakers:

A moratorium on deportations.

End all forms of immigration detention.

Reimagine Border Patrol as a humanitarian force that rescues migrants, rather than destroying their water supplies to hasten their deaths.

It seems these hysterical extremists were too busy stalking Republicans at restaurants and blocking roadways to notice the Border Patrol agents in Arizona who rescued 57 illegal immigrants, men, women, and children (as young as 1), abandoned by smugglers in 108-degree heat in the Tucson sector this weekend. Or the Border Patrol agents in Texas who rescued a pregnant immigrant woman who nearly drowned while attempting to cross the Rio Grande River illegally.

If the Kumbaya leaders of the Abolish ICE campaign were limited to ragtag millenials demanding the whole world operate like an Oberlin College co-op or Fantasy Island, it would be easy to dismiss. But their ranks are spreading:

Organizers of the Women’s March, endorsed by celebrities, journalists, and Democrats, announced this week that the “call to #AbolishICE is a call to eliminate the agency that has been terrorizing immigrant communities for 15 years. Women from all backgrounds must take up @conmijente’s call to #FreeOurFuture.”

Mijente, a Latino activist group leading the Abolish ICE movement, proudly displays on its Twitter homepage a huge “Chinga La Migra” banner. (Translation: “F— the Border Patrol.”)

Endorsing the movement, The Nation magazine dubbed ICE a “mass-deportation strike force is incompatible with democracy and human rights.”

Reps. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore.; Jim McGovern, D- Mass.; Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash.; and nearly 20 Democratic congressional candidates have all called for eliminating ICE. Boston-area Democratic congressional candidate Ayanna Pressley wants to defund ICE because it’s an “existential threat” to “immigrant communities.”

And New York actress-turned-Democratic gubernatorial candidate Cynthia Nixon declared that “ICE is a terrorist organization.”

Silly Cindy is campaigning to destroy ICE’s entire 20,000-person workforce, which handles not only enforcement and removal operations, but also homeland security investigations combating criminal organizations illegally exploiting our travel, trade, financial, and immigration systems. That includes international smugglers of women and children, drugs, weapons, and cash.

So, how exactly do these ICE-melters propose to deal with criminal alien fugitives, such as the estimated 300,000 deportation absconders who’ve been ordered by immigration judges to leave the country?

How about the 40 percent of illegal aliens, from the pool of between 11 million and 30 million immigration lawbreakers, who overstayed their visas and are on the loose doing heaven knows what?

And when will these noble 21st-century abolitionists be stepping up to open their homes to the members of the ICE Most Wanted list, which includes illegal aliens wanted for murder, aggravated homicide, narcotics and human trafficking, and membership in terrorist organizations?

I don’t just question their patriotism. I question their sanity.

COPYRIGHT 2018 CREATORS.COM




Porgressive Liberal democrat Deutsch : Trumps Voters Are Nazis

Photo
The face of total hate. A soul rotted by an ideology of hate.

Welcome to the real world of progressive liberal democrats. 

If it wasn't for complete ignorance, stupidity and a total break down in mental abelites to be recognized as members of the greatest country in the world, one would have to have, in the words of that famous Secretary of State,  a ''willingness to suspend disbelief'' that the democrats actually hate America and everything that she stands for.

Hate can never become less. Hate feeds on itself and must be reinforced. The mains stream media is a perfect example.

A Monster by any other name is still a monster and still progressive democrats that want to do all harm. Never vote for democrats ever again. There is now cure for this disease.

Comparing the Border Situation to Nazi Germany? That’s a Form of Holocaust Denial.
Dennis Prager / /

Last week, on the MSNBC show “Morning Joe,” MSNBC contributor Donny Deutsch said that every American who votes for President Donald Trump is a Nazi. His exact words: “If you vote for Trump, then you, the voter—you, not Donald Trump—are standing at the border like Nazis going, ‘You here. You here.'”

Now, as virtually every Jew of Deutsch’s generation knows, a Nazi saying, “You here. You here,” refers to guards at Nazi extermination camps sending Jews to gas chambers or to work the barracks.

Also last week, Gen. Michael Hayden, a former director of the CIA (a fact that, among other things, gives credence to the increasingly widespread realization that our intelligence elites have been morally and intellectually compromised) tweeted a photo of the tracks leading into Auschwitz-Birkenau, the most infamous Nazi extermination and concentration camps, with the caption: “Other governments have separated mothers and children.”

Deutsch, Hayden, and the myriad other fools who compare Trump to Hitler and the Nazis have utterly trivialized the Holocaust. As everyone who isn’t on the left knows, there is nothing morally analogous between the way the last three presidential administrations dealt with some children of immigrants who are in the country illegally and what the Nazis did to Jewish children.

American children are routinely separated from their parent when that parent is arrested, and if the arrestee is a single parent, the child is taken into government custody until other arrangements can be made. With regard to immigrants who are in the country illegally, the only way to avoid separation is to place the children in detention along with their arrested parent(s).

But this was expressly forbidden by the most left-wing court in America—the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals—if detention lasts longer than 20 days, as it nearly always does when either a not-guilty plea or an asylum claim is made.

Moreover, as awful as separation from a parent is, these children were not treated like animals in cages but transferred to the care of relatives or foster homes, or housed with other detained children where they were provided with room, board, education, sports facilities, etc.

By contrast, Jewish children separated from their parents by Nazi guards were sent to gas chambers to die a gruesome, painful death by their lungs being filled with poisonous gas. And their parents almost always eventually suffered the same fate unless they were worked, starved, or tortured to death.

Comparing the two is not only a trivialization of the Holocaust; it is actually a form of Holocaust denial.

If Jewish children were treated by the Nazis the same way Central American children have been by America, then everything we know about the Holocaust is false.

Jewish children weren’t subjected to torturous medical experimentation, and they weren’t gassed and cremated. They were simply separated from their Jewish parents for a finite period of time, sent to stay with Jewish relatives or provided for by foster families while their parents were detained pending due-process legal proceedings.

According to Deutsch, Hayden, and all the leftists comparing America and Trump to the Nazis, Jewish children weren’t gassed; they played soccer while waiting to be reunited with their parents.

What is even more depressing than Deutsch and Hayden is the reaction—or silence—of most American Jewish organizations.

The Anti-Defamation League, which once defended Jewish interests, is becoming just another leftist interest group. I looked for some condemnation of Deutsch or Hayden and found none. Instead, in the words of the left-wing Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the Anti-Defamation League “made a direct comparison to the Holocaust.”

It tweeted: “Children separated from their parents during the Holocaust speak out about the trauma it has caused. How can anyone defend such inhumane policies?”

The only criticism the Anti-Defamation League could muster was this: “People need to be extremely careful in drawing comparisons to the Holocaust and the Nazi regime in whatever context it is used.” But it offered no condemnation of those who actually made this odious comparison.

Leftism has poisoned much of American Jewish life. That is the primary reason, as reported in the just released American Jewish Committee poll, American and Israeli Jews are so divided on so many issues.

There were rabbis who announced they fasted when Trump was elected. Non-Orthodox synagogues around America sat shiva (the religious mourning period for a deceased immediate family member) when Trump won. And the Hebrew Union College, the Reform Jewish movement’s rabbinical seminary, had an Israel-hating writer as this year’s graduation speaker.

If you support Trump or Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, or hold almost any traditional Jewish worldview—like God creating the human being as male and female—you must either hide your opinion or risk being ostracized at almost any non-Orthodox synagogue.

To their credit, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Zionist Organization of America, and a few other organizations did condemn those who equate America under Trump with Nazi Germany. But most Jewish organizations kept quiet, offered tepid caution, or actually echoed the sentiment.

In other words, at this time, many American Jewish organizations are bad for the Jews, bad for Judaism, and trivialize the Holocaust in order to score political points.

If it’s any comfort (and it isn’t), things are no better in mainstream Protestantism or at the Vatican.

But here is real comfort: If the left keeps on smearing nearly half its fellow Americans as Nazis, it will assure more Republican victories this coming November.

COPYRIGHT 2018 CREATORS.COM



The Disastrous Initiative to Hire Air Traffic Controllers Based on Diversity, Not Talent
Walter E. Williams / @WE_Williams / June 27, 2018

In 2013, President Barack Obama-appointed FAA Administrator Michael Huerta deemed that these hiring standards had not produced a pleasing mix of air traffic controllers when it came to race and sex. He announced plans to “transform the [FAA] into a more diverse and inclusive workplace that reflects, understands, and relates to the diverse customers” it serves.

The FAA discarded its longtime use of the difficult cognitive assessment test and implemented instead a new, unmonitored take-home personality test—a biographical questionnaire. Among the questions asked are: “The number of high school sports I participated in was … ” “How would you describe your ideal job?” “What has been the major cause of your failures?” “More classmates would remember me as humble or dominant?”

In other words, the FAA opened air traffic control training to “off-the-street hires”—any English-speaking citizen with a high school diploma—despite the fact that most high school diplomas are fraudulent documents.

All air traffic control applicants are required to complete the biographical questionnaire. Those who “pass” are deemed eligible. The questionnaire gives more points to an applicant who answers that he has not been employed in the previous three years than it does to an applicant who answers that he has been a pilot or is a veteran with an air traffic control-related military background.

Michael Pearson, an air traffic controller for 27 years who is suing the FAA, said, “A group within the FAA, including the human resources function within the FAA—the National Black Coalition of Federal Aviation Employees—determined that the workforce was too white.” In an act of cowardice, a Republican-controlled Congress during Obama’s second term cut a deal allowing the FAA to hire half of new controllers based on race.

Led by its president, William Perry Pendley, the Mountain States Legal Foundation has brought a discrimination suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in behalf of Andrew J. Brigida against U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao—although, when this suit began, Anthony Foxx was the secretary of transportation. (When Chao became the secretary, she was automatically substituted as the defendant.)

All Americans should hope that the Mountain States Legal Foundation suit is successful in preventing the FAA from using race and sex as criteria for hiring. Passengers’ lives, regardless of sex and race, depend upon there being proficient air traffic controllers.

COPYRIGHT 2018 CREATORS.COM

My column a fortnight ago, titled “Diversity and Inclusion Harm,” focused on the dumbing down of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics curricula to achieve a more pleasing mixture of participants in terms of race and sex.



Heather Mac Donald, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, wrote about this in her article titled “How Identity Politics Is Harming the Sciences.” Mac Donald quoted a UCLA scientist who said, “All across the country the big question now in STEM is: how can we promote more women and minorities by ‘changing’ (i.e., lowering) the requirements we had previously set for graduate level study?”



The National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health are two federal agencies that fund university research, are consumed by diversity and inclusion ideology, and have the power to yank funds from a college if it has not supported a sufficient number of “underrepresented minorities.”



In recent years, the Federal Aviation Administration has also become consumed by diversity and inclusion. Prior to becoming so, the FAA worked with about 36 colleges to create the Air Traffic Collegiate Training Initiative. The colleges offered two- and four-year nonengineering aviation degrees requiring basic courses in air traffic control and aviation administration. Graduates of these programs became qualified candidates for training as air traffic control specialists. The FAA gave hiring preferences to veterans, those with AT-CTI program degrees, references from administrators, and high test scores.

America Ranked 10th Worst for Violence Against Women : What?

Photo
Goodness. This author has to know that the ''experts'' that are condemning the United States of being the 10th worst country in the world for violence against women are doing so not because of facts, they are doing this because they believe the United States is inherently a bad place to live.

And what better way to destroy America then to lie and deceive the people.

Little wonder so many in our country, progressive socialist liberal democrats are fighting to have ''fundamental change'' made in civil society where all things for all people will be determined by people that know what is best for everyone.

And what we see today from the progressive socialists on television raging and ranting, fearing how individual freedom is taking over casting aside the socialist liberal ideology of centralized all powerful tyranny, is only the beginning of a hate filled last ditch effort to stop the actual people from deciding their own fate. 

Violence used now by democrats is their last ditch weapon for change.

Imagine the progressive democrats winning in November. What could possibly go wrong with that???

‘Experts’ Rank US in Top 10 Most Dangerous Countries for Women—Almost as Bad as Nigeria

Suggesting that many of the world’s most grave problems have been solved, experts in women’s rights from around the world rank the United States among the 10 most dangerous countries for women. Sadly, however, issues such as female genital mutilation, arranged marriage, rape as a weapon of war, honor killings, and maternal mortality haven’t stopped.

Rather, leading “experts” in their fields appear to have lost any perspective, categorizing the U.S. as almost as dangerous as Nigeria, where Boko Haram militants kidnap, rape, and sexually exploit women and girls.

The ranking was compiled by the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the philanthropic arm of Reuters, “the world’s largest news and information provider.” The foundation asked 548 “women’s rights experts” to name the most dangerous countries from among the 193 United Nations member states in health care, access to economic resources, customary practices, sexual violence, and nonsexual violence and human trafficking.

The results came in as follows:

India
Afghanistan
Syria
Somalia
Saudi Arabia
Pakistan
Democratic Republic of Congo
Yemen
Nigeria
United States

Notably missing from the Reuters list:

—South Sudan and Central African Republic, where the armed forces systematically rape women as a weapon of war.

—Mauritania, where an estimated 40 percent of the population is enslaved, presumably many of them women.

—North Korea, where tens of thousands of women are trafficked and trapped in prison camps.

—Iran, where women are arrested for taking off their hijabs and protesting an oppressive regime.

—China, where millions of baby girls were murdered under the country’s one-child policy.

—And Myanmar, where a genocide is happening under our watch.

I could go on. But somehow, it’s the U.S. where women are doomed.

If living in the United States is more dangerous for women than living in a country where boy’s and men’s bodies are used to create bonfires while women are raped and baby girls are grabbed by the leg and thrown into the fire to burn, then forgive me—I must be missing something. As far as I was aware, women in the U.S. face injustices, but we still have equality before the law.

The same can’t be said for these nine other countries, or the dozens of others that didn’t make the list of most dangerous countries for women.

The inclusion of the U.S. in this group demonstrates the level of ignorance among “women’s experts,” and why so many of them shouldn’t be trusted. It reflects the dangerous “victimhood” ideology that’s pervasive among college students, and shows how selfish American feminism has become.

Harvey Weinstein, after all, does not equate with Boko Haram.

In explaining the decision to rank the U.S. as the 10th-most dangerous country for women, the Thomson Reuters Foundation said:

''The United States shot up in the rankings after tying joint third with Syria when respondents were asked which was the most dangerous country for women in terms of sexual violence including rape, sexual harassment, coercion into sex and the lack of access to justice in rape cases. It was ranked sixth for non-sexual violence.''

The survey was taken after the #MeToo campaign against sexual harassment went viral in October last year as Hollywood movie mogul Harvey Weinstein was accused of sexual misconduct by more than 70 women, some dating back decades. Hundreds of women have since publicly accused powerful men in business, government and entertainment of sexual misconduct and thousands have joined the #MeToo social media movement to share stories of sexual harassment or abuse.

Specifically, experts ranked the U.S. the third-worst country for the category Sexual Violence, “including rape as a weapon of war; domestic rape; rape by a stranger; the lack of access to justice in rape cases; sexual harassment and coercion into sex as a form of corruption.”

That puts us just between Syria and Congo, the latter once called “the rape capital of the world.”

The U.S. also ranked sixth in Non-Sexual Violence, “including conflict-related violence and forms of domestic physical and mental abuse.” That leaves us just before Saudi Arabia, where women recently gained the right to drive.

#MeToo was a long, overdue movement, and the good news is that it’s creating change. Men who do wrong are being held accountable, and more women feel empowered to speak up. Yes, there’s still a lot of work to do. But the majority of our #MeToo cases don’t compare to women’s cries in the Middle East. Nor do our injustices hold water to the inequalities of women in the developing world.

We might face sexual harassment, assault, and even violence, but it’s not systematically used as a weapon of war. And sure, some of us don’t like our leader, but our government isn’t gassing its own people.

Speaking in relative terms, women in the U.S. are safe.

For anyone who’s perplexed about the level of outrage in America today, look no further than the results of this survey. According to “women’s experts,” there are 183 countries where women are better off living than the U.S.

To be fair, the U.S. does allow women to be thrown out of restaurants, and Democratic leaders call on their supporters to harass political opponents. But even so, women here have it pretty good. So good, in fact, that our borders are overwhelmed with people dreaming of calling this place “home.”

To pretend that life in America is more dangerous than so many other countries is nothing short of sad, insulting, and ludicrous. Because let’s be clear: Women are far better off living in the U.S. than they are in places like Myanmar.

“Women’s experts,” of all people, should know this.

Thursday, June 28, 2018

Boarder Crossings : Politics Run A-Mock

First and most important aspect of this ''suffering'' situation on the boarder is the truth. What is actually happening and who is responsible. Until we know what is actually happening in all circumstances, it make good sense to shut down the boarder to all crossings.

No one is allowed  into the United States until the boarder can be secured.

It's way past time for Mexico to take responsibility for all of those that are waiting on their side of the boarder to enter our country. They allowed them to enter their country on their southern boarder, so why won't they take responsibility for them while they are still in Mexico?

What is the answer here? Common sense says we cannot allow millions of new immigrants to enter our country. We are broke. These immigrants will cost us $ 100's of billions of tax dollars over the next decade if not much, much more. Who will pay the bill?

Or is it really all about the politics for taking advantage of a bad situation of human suffering and ignorance? One has to believe there are people on both sides of the boarder that will use these immigrants as tools to gain power, even if it means many will die in the process and the United States citizens will suffer dire consequences.
What Congress Can Do to End Suffering at the Border
Sen. Mike Lee / /

It is a searing image. A toddler in pink shoes, a pink jacket, and jean shorts staring up at her mother, who is talking to a U.S. Border Patrol agent. She is afraid. She is in tears.  She could be any of our daughters.

This young girl quickly became a symbol for opposition to President Donald Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy of prosecuting all illegal border crossings. That policy, due to a 1997 federal court decision, also necessitates separating parents from children when families are arrested for crossing the border illegally.

Millions of Americans were horrified by the image of the crying girl in pink, as well as many similar images that came out over the past week. Progressive activists claimed that the thousands of Central American migrants crossing the border illegally were fleeing gang violence in their home countries.

The violence in Central American is so bad, we were told, that these families deserved asylum in the United States. Any federal detention of these families, we were told, would be inhumane; so all of them must be released into the United States until their asylum cases can be adjudicated.

This is a compelling argument. No one wants to separate families—ever. We also desperately want to help families fleeing violence in their home countries. And Trump did issue an executive order Wednesday announcing his intention to challenge the federal court decision that requires children to be separated from their parents if the parents are detained for longer than 20 days.

But not all of the story that progressives are telling about the border crisis is true.

Turns out the girl in pink, who has since been put on the cover of Time magazine, was never separated from her mother. Furthermore, it turns out her mother was not fleeing Honduras because of violence at all.

Her husband says the woman paid a human trafficker $6,000 to smuggle her and her youngest daughter (she has two other children) to the United States because she “had always wanted to experience the American dream.” Life in Honduras was “fine but not great,” the husband told the Daily Mail, adding, “It’s hard to find a good job here and that’s why many people choose to leave.”

Now no one can blame a mother for trying to better the life of her child. But seeking better economic opportunity is not a valid basis for refugee status. And the number of migrants coming from Central America claiming asylum has skyrocketed.

According to data from the Justice Department, the number of asylum claims from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador increased 234 percent between 2014 and 2016. More individuals applied for asylum from these three countries in those years than in the preceding 17 years combined.

And the percentage of asylum-seekers from these countries that are actually granted asylum are not high; in 2016 less than 16 percent of affirmative asylum-seekers from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras actually received asylum.

Why are so many thousands of Central Americans paying smugglers to bring them to the U.S. to apply for asylum if so few of them are granted asylum? Because they know if they can just get into the country, our border law enforcement infrastructure has been so overwhelmed that it is highly likely they will be released into the country. And then they can skip their court date and just wait for a Democratic president to grant them amnesty or deferred action status.

This is not an acceptable or humanitarian outcome. It only creates more heart-wrenching scenes like the one depicted on the cover of Time magazine.

It is time for Congress to act. We can’t fix this problem entirely, but we can definitely start to make it a little better. Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Thom Tillis, R-N.C., introduced separate pieces of legislation that share some commonsense solutions to help address our border problem.

Both bills both require and authorize the Department of Homeland Security to keep migrant families together. Both bills authorize creation of new facilities to house migrant families together while their asylum claims are adjudicated. And both authorize hundreds of new immigration judges so that families can have their asylum claims adjudicated in a timely manner.

These bills, if passed, will not solve our immigration crisis entirely. But they would allow for more humane law enforcement at our nation’s border. We would all be able to sleep easier knowing that parents will not be separated from their children.

Wednesday, June 27, 2018

Sarah Sander Attacked With Violence : democrat Strategy of Hate Increases

Photo
Sander attacked with violence  by democrats just for the
opposition.

When all else fail to deliver the needed and demanded power that is the only alternative for existence is denied, the jump to violence against the opposition is an easy and easy bridge to cross.

Progressive socialsit leftist democrats have a history of violence when conditions are not favorable for them to get and keep power.  

During the past election campaigns of Republican Donald Trump, we witnessed mass violence in and around venues were Republicans in 2016. How about the democrats attacking a man in a wheel chair at a Republican gathering?
Remember the mob violence in 1968 democrat convention in Chicago? This is who they are! 

Never vote democrat if you want civility and the rule of law. It a rule. Disobey this rule will result in loss of liberty and individual freedom.

The Flawed Red Hen Analogy Shows Liberals Still Don’t Understand Christian Baker Case
Monica Burke / /

After a Lexington, Virginia, restaurant, the Red Hen, refused service to White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Friday, commentators on the left immediately seized upon a false analogy.

They likened that incident to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, the case of the Christian baker in Colorado who refused to craft a custom cake for a same-sex wedding. That attempt at an analogy reveals that the left still does not understand the Supreme Court’s ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Jack Phillips, the baker, serves all customers, but cannot serve all events. He declined to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple not because of their identity, because he could not communicate a message that violated his religious beliefs. He even offered the couple any other item in his store.

Watch the video : https://youtu.be/oLMBT6zNgN8

Meanwhile, the Red Hen denied service to Sanders precisely because of who she is. They did not refuse to create a custom order that would have endorsed views they disagreed with. They denied her service, period.

The false analogy also reveals the hypocrisy of the left’s position. They accuse people like Phillips, who serves everyone regardless of who they are, of discrimination, but herald institutions like the Red Hen for denying service because of who someone is.

Robert P. George, a philosopher and Princeton University McCormick chair of jurisprudence, explained the problem with the analogy in tweets:

 ''If you want to analogize--even roughly--the Red Hen to Masterpiece Cakeshop, Sarah Sanders has to ask Red Hen to create custom food items for a celebration (perhaps at her church) of the Zero Tolerance policy. And RH has to be willing to serve her on its premises, sell her off the shelf food items that she can use for any event she likes, and provide custom-designed food items for her for birthday parties, holiday celebrations, and other events that Red Hen's owners don't object to on moral grounds.''
5:02 PM - Jun 23, 2018


Linccoln Knows Maxine Waters : Mob Violence Is Criminal

Photo
Look no further then Maxine Waters not as the new face of the progressive socialist liberal democrats, but the real face that has always been their but only now that the people have rejected them and their ideology of progressive socialism, they have come out of the shadows to reveal who they actually are.

Before you pull the lever for a democrat this November, remember Maxine Waters and her words advocating violence against fellow citizens just because her ideology was defeated in a fair election. 

It's called sedition. It's called subversion and insurrection. It is un American and criminal. Nothing good can come from her actions to destroy our country.

What Lincoln Foresaw Would Occur If Maxine Waters, Others Got Their Way With Mob Justice

In 1836, at the Young Men’s Lyceum in Springfield, Illinois, a 28-year-old lawyer named Abraham Lincoln delivered one of his finest addresses. Lincoln condemned the sharp increase of mobs in America, which had exploded in number as the debate over slavery and regional animosity intensified. “Accounts of outrages committed by mobs, form the every-day news of the times,” Lincoln said.

Many of these mobs had turned violent and subverted the law. They were undermining free government.

Calls for civility are sometimes vapid excuses to shut down political dissent. But what’s occurring now in America is not just heated debate at political rallies, it’s a surge in mob activity directed at political opponents in everyday life. In just the past few weeks we’ve seen the harassment of a Trump Cabinet member, Kirstjen Nielsen, at a District of Columbia restaurant.

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, a Republican, was, somewhat ironically, accosted as she left a movie about Fred Rogers, or “Mr. Rogers,” the nationally beloved children’s show host famous for welcoming people to his fictional neighborhood.

These incidents were bad enough, but some are calling for much more.

Over the weekend, the owners of a Virginia restaurant booted White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders because of her association with the Trump administration. This incident provoked the debate over freedom of association, but then Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., stepped into the fray and made the situation worse.

At a rally Saturday, the Los Angeles congresswoman called for mobs to go after political opponents wherever they may be. “Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd,” Waters yelled.

Waters also said in an interview with MSNBC: “I want to tell you, these members of [Trump’s] Cabinet who remain and try to defend him, they won’t be able to go to a restaurant, they won’t be able to stop at a gas station, they’re not going to be able to shop at a department store.”

Some activists have grabbed hold of these recent incidents to call for more radical action. One writer on a left-wing blog, Splinter, went even further than Waters. In an article titled “This Is Just the Beginning,” he took the next big leap to essentially condoning outright violence:

''Read a recent history book. The U.S. had thousands of domestic bombings per year in the early 1970s. This is what happens when citizens decide en masse that their political system is corrupt, racist, and unresponsive. The people out of power have only just begun to flex their dissatisfaction. The day will come, sooner that you all think, when Trump administration officials will look back fondly on the time when all they had to worry about was getting hollered at at a Mexican restaurant.''

Of course, Lincoln in his Lyceum address begged to differ.

“There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law,” Lincoln said. “In any case that arises, as for instance, the promulgation of abolitionism, one of two positions is necessarily true; that is, the thing is right within itself, and therefore deserves the protection of all law and all good citizens; or, it is wrong, and therefore proper to be prohibited by legal enactments; and in neither case, is the interposition of mob law either necessary, justifiable, or excusable.”

Some, even on the left, have been a little unnerved by calls for mobs, whether violent or nonviolent, to attack political foes in everyday life.

“Those who are insisting that we are in a special moment justifying incivility should think for a moment how many Americans might find their own special moment,” The Washington Post said in an editorial. “How hard is it to imagine, for example, people who strongly believe that abortion is murder deciding that judges or other officials who protect abortion rights should not be able to live peaceably with their families?”

Her fellow Democrats have voiced some condemnation of Waters’ demand for mobs to harass political opponents. Much of this criticism has been muted, though. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., did take to Twitter, calling such language “unacceptable,” but ultimately blamed President Donald Trump for the “provoked responses.”

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., said that “there’s nothing wrong” with confronting Trump administration officials, but people should do it in a way that “leads with love.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., offered the strongest condemnation of Waters, saying that calling for harassment of political opponents is “not American.”

One would hope that mob law and mob justice don’t become the norm, but we’ve already seen a steady uptick in the mentality that leads to that point. We’ve seen it with the mobs that descended on historic statues to illegally pulverize them in the name of social justice. Now the mobs are coming for living people. This kind of ugliness is a bad sign for our future.

Lincoln explained to his Springfield audience what could ultimately destroy the United States.
“Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow?” Lincoln asked. No, never.

“At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected?” Lincoln asked again. “I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”

Passionate debates are good and healthy in a republic. There was never a “golden age of civility” when all Americans got along, nor should we necessarily desire one.

Nevertheless, the ability to live together as free citizens in large part necessitates a respect for civil relations among us, where we look to persuasion and ballots to put our ideas in action, not brute intimidation of opponents.

The constitutional system the Founding Fathers built is strong, but it can’t survive when citizens en masse are ready to come to blows with one another on a semipermanent basis, are ready and willing to gin up mobs to go after one another for political disagreements.

That system shattered in 1860, and ended with the bloodiest period in our nation’s history.

This sort of crackup may, in fact, be what some want, but it’s unlikely to end well for those who believe in free institutions in the United States.