‘TERRORISM’ AT THE SOUTHERN BORDER

February 14th, 2019

 

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Case of terror suspect caught sneaking into U.S. roils immigration debate

By Stephen Dinan   January 21, 2019

Zabi-Ullah Hemmat wasn’t just one of 415,816 illegal immigrants caught at the southwest border in fiscal 2016. Nor was he just another of the 84 people from Afghanistan apprehended by Border Patrol agents that year.

What made Mr. Hemmat of special interest to authorities is that when he was snared by agents after 11 p.m. on a chilly November night and they ran his name through federal databases, he came back listed on the no-fly terrorist watch-list.

Mr. Hemmat is one of the terrorism suspects caught trying to sneak into the U.S. from Mexico — a category of people that is very much part of the current debate over illegal immigration, with President Trump insisting his border wall would deter people from being able to reach American soil and Democrats saying there’s no real danger.

Mr. Hemmat’s case suggests both may be wrong.

He was indeed on U.S. terrorism lists, linked to both the Taliban and a plot somewhere in North America, according to Department of Homeland Security documents. But after he was caught, wandering in southern Arizona with two Mexican guides and five other men from Afghanistan and Pakistan, he said he had sneaked in by crawling under an existing border fence near Nogales, Arizona.

Democrats say the number of potential terrorists who do try to enter via the land border is negligible, and several news reports over the last week say the numbers amount to the low double digits each year.

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen says the exact numbers are too sensitive to release, but she says it’s on the increase.

Homeland Security does say it “encountered” more than 3,000 “special interest” migrants — people whose nationalities and travel patterns made them potential national security concerns — at the southern border in 2018.

“I am sure all Americans would agree that one terrorist reaching our borders is one too many. These are just the terror suspects we know about who reach our border,” Ms. Nielsen said on Twitter, defending the White House’s claims.

The Washington Times has not been able to independently verify a total number of terrorists who have entered via the southwest border, but it has spent several years tracking cases such as Mr. Hemmat‘s, where someone with terrorist connections was nabbed after sneaking in.

Among those were four Turkish men who claimed ties to a Marxist insurgency known by the acronym DHKP/C, who paid $8,000 apiece to be smuggled into the U.S. They traveled from Istanbul via Paris to Mexico City, then shuttled to the border where they were caught in 2014.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share

VOTE ON THE GREEN NEW DEAL

February 13th, 2019

 

www.wsj.com/articles/vote-on-the-green-new-deal-11549931107

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Vote on the Green New Deal

Every Member of Congress should step up and be counted.

Editorial Board     February 12, 2019

Democrats rolled out their Green New Deal last week, and by all means let’s have a national debate and then a vote in Congress—as soon as possible. Here in one package is what the political left really means when it says Americans need to do something urgently about climate change, so let’s see who has the courage of those convictions.

Thanks to the resolution introduced last week by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey, there’s already official language. While it’s nonbinding, the 14 pages give a clear sense of direction and magnitude in calling for a “10-year national mobilization” to exorcise carbon from the U.S. economy.

President Obama’s Clean Power Plan looks modest by comparison. The 10-year Green New Deal calls for generating 100% of power from renewables and removing greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and transportation—to the extent these goals are “technologically feasible.” Hint: They’re not.

The plan also calls for “upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort and durability, including through electrification.” That’s all existing buildings, comrade.

Millions of jobs would have to be destroyed en route to this brave new green world, but not to worry. The resolution says the government would also guarantee “a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.” Good that they’re starting small.

Sorry to mention unhappy reality, but renewable sources currently make up only 17% of U.S. electric-power generation despite enormous federal and state subsidies. Wind and solar energy have become more competitive over the last decade as costs have plunged. But without subsidies, solar costs remain about 20% higher than natural gas while offshore wind is two-thirds more expensive. The bigger problem is solar and wind don’t provide reliable power, so backup plants that burn fossil fuels are required to run on stand-by.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share

AUSTRALIA – A CAUTIONARY TALE OF A GREEN NEW DEAL

February 13th, 2019

 

The first article tells the the revealing story of Australia’s fatal  experiment with trying to maximize energy efficiency.  The second article encourages a vote on the new green energy deal to put Democrats on record for supporting this fantasy land proposal.  It is truly fascinating to watch this spectacle unfold of a party self-destructing right in front of our  very eyes.   Nancy      
 
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Green New Deal: A Cautionary Tale

Australia’s costly and fatal 2009 effort to upgrade houses for energy efficiency.

By Tim Blair    Mr. Blair is an associate editor at Sydney’s Daily Telegraph.
February 12, 2019

Sydney

The Green New Deal—introduced in Congress last week and immediately endorsed by several Democratic presidential candidates—calls among other things for “upgrading all existing buildings in the United States . . . to achieve maximal energy efficiency.” We’ve tried it in Australia—on a much smaller scale—and it didn’t go well.

On Feb. 3, 2009, Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and his treasurer, Wayne Swan, announced the Energy Efficient Homes Package. “To support jobs and set Australia up for a low carbon future the Rudd Government will install free ceiling insulation in around 2.7 million Australian homes,” declared a press release from Mr. Swan’s office.

“For a time-limited period of two and a half years, from 1 July 2009, owner-occupiers without ceiling insulation will be eligible for free product and installation (capped at $1,600) simply by making a phone call.” At the time, A$1,600 was worth about US$1,280.

In many cases those calls weren’t necessary. At the Daily Telegraph, where I work, we discovered something was amiss when our chief of staff ordered a pizza. To her surprise, the delivery man also offered an insulation quote.

There were only 250 registered insulation businesses in Australia when the package was announced. That number quickly blew out to 7,000 because the government was handing out free money to installers. Pizza drivers could pick up more in one insulation job than from a month’s worth of tips. They received their rebates directly from the government rather than from homeowners, who therefore had little incentive to check if the work had been done well or even at all. Some ceilings ended up with a mere handful of insulation batts thrown around. Others featured only shredded paper. Almost every insulation job went right up to the $1,600 cap, regardless of size or ceiling area.

The insulation army worked at frantic speed, eager to cash in while they could. When the difference between five jobs done reasonably well and eight jobs done in careless haste is $4,800, a short amount of time represents a lot of money.

Then the deaths began. Four young men were killed while installing insulation under the government’s program—three by electrocution and one from hyperthermia during the Australian summer. Dozens more workers, most of them inexperienced, suffered injuries and heat stroke.

Nearly 100 houses caught fire. Environment Minister Peter Garrett, whose hits as Midnight Oil’s lead singer included 1987’s “Beds are Burning,” subsequently announced the planned deregistration or suspension of 5,000 installers.

Those suspensions were never required. In February 2010, a year after the Energy Efficient Homes Package was announced, it was abandoned.

Mr. Blair is an associate editor at Sydney’s Daily Telegraph.

Share

DIVERSITY DELUSIONS AT NORTH CAROLINA

February 11th, 2019

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Diversity Delusions at North Carolina

Like Harvard, the school has trouble defending an admissions policy that ill-serves minority students.

Feb. 11, 2019

The University of North Carolina campus in Chapel Hill, N.C.
The University of North Carolina campus in Chapel Hill, N.C. PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES

Harvard isn’t the only university defending its discriminatory admissions policies in court. Its nonprofit adversary, Students for Fair Admissions, filed a similar complaint against the University of North Carolina in 2014. UNC’s initial defense, submitted last month, is a case study in the willful ignorance underlying the racial-preference regime in higher education. Above all, schools like Harvard and UNC have deliberately ignored the negative effects of preferences on their supposed beneficiaries.

UNC told the court it needs to employ racial double standards in admissions because “certain classes, fields, or areas of campus” lack black and Hispanic students. Though UNC didn’t elaborate, the subjects deficient in underrepresented minorities undoubtedly include science, technology, engineering and math—the so-called STEM fields.

UNC has it backward: Racial preferences aren’t the solution to black and Hispanic underrepresentation in STEM, they are a cause of it. Admitting students with academic qualifications significantly below those of their peers puts them at a disadvantage, whatever their race. Students who are catapulted by preferences into schools for which they are academically mismatched struggle to keep up in classrooms where the teaching is pitched above their level of preparation. Studies have shown that African-American and Hispanic freshmen in preference-practicing schools who intend to major in STEM switch into softer majors at a high rate once they realize their fellow students are much better prepared to do the work. Had those students enrolled in schools that matched their level of preparation, they would be more likely to graduate with a STEM degree.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share

VIDEO -BRIT HUME – FOX NEWS – THE RISE, FALL AND FUTURE OF CONSERVATISM

February 9th, 2019

 

Share

“I SURVIVED COMMUNISM” A WARNING TO CANADA AND THE U.S.

February 9th, 2019

 

A very sobering article that was written as a warning to Canada  but also applies to the U.S regarding Communism and Socialism.  Key words that we have been  bombarded with from the Left for years are becoming louder – Socialism, Social Justice, Global Warming/Environmentalism, Equality, Save the Planet, Indoctrination of our children in the educational system, redistributing wealth, eliminating fossil fuels, Medicare for All (controlled by the government, of course).  This article addresses them all and warns what they lead to.  Thanks to Steve Bishop for sharing this article.    Nancy   

“I Survived Communism – Are You Ready For Your Turn?”

SPENCER FERNANDO JANUARY 3, 2019

The article below was written by Zuzana Janosova Den Boer, who experienced Communist rule in Czechoslovakia before coming to Canada. She said, “Having recognized all-too familiar signs of the same propaganda in my adopted country of Canada, I felt obligated to write the article below ( I survived communism – are you ready for your turn?)– because I do not want my adopted country to suffer the same fate as the country from which I emigrated (Czechoslovakia).”

Her warning is something all Canadians need to see. That’s why I’m sharing her article in full on SpencerFernando.com, and I encourage you to share it:

“I Survived Communism – Are You Ready For Your Turn?”

By Zuzana Janosova Den Boer

It was scientifically proven that communism is the only social-economic system providing the masses with justice and equality – 100% of scientists agree on this. The topic is not up for debate!”, so proclaimed my professor during one of his lectures on the subject ‘scientific communism’, while the country of Czechoslovakia was still under communist control. I was reminded of his blustery pronouncement the first time I encountered the spurious claim that “a consensus of 97% of scientists agree global warming is man-made.” Most people don’t question scientific statements because they think they are facts. They do not understand that scientific statements must always be challenged, because Science is not about ‘consensus’ideology is.

In March of 2007, the website WorldNetDaily published an article entitledEnvironmentalism is new communism. In it, the former Czech president, Vaclav Klaus, stated: “It becomes evident that, while discussing climate, we are not witnessing a clash of views about the environment, but a clash of views about human freedom.” He goes on to describe environmentalism as “the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity.” Klaus has also written a book: “Blue planet in green shackles”, in which he states communism and environmentalism have the same roots; they both suppress freedom.” He also warns that any brand of environmentalism calling for centralized planning of the economy under the slogan of ‘protecting nature’ is nothing less than a reincarnation of communism – new communism.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share

LATE TERM ABORTION – BEWARE GRAPHIC VIDEO AND TWO ARTICLES

February 8th, 2019

 

There are two articles and one video link in this email.  All deal with late term abortion.  The video is an animated video of how a late term abortion is done and is really very upsetting.  The first article is ” It is Never Necessary to Kill Baby for Health, Life of Mother ” where doctors and nurses speak out on this issue.
The second article is regarding the bill that was introduced by Republicans  in the House to give medical aid to a baby that survives an abortion.  Democrats blocked that bill.   How much lower can the Democrats go ?   
Thanks to Cindy Chuey and Charlie Hendrix for sharing these articles and video.  Nancy

OB/GYNs, Nurses Speak Out Against NY Abortion Law: It Is Never Necessary to Kill Baby for Health, Life of Mother

By Heather Clark on  January 28, 201936 Comments

A number of pro-life obstetricians and nurses nationwide have spoken out against the New York Reproductive Health Act signed into law by Gov. Andrew Cuomo last week, which not only codifies the “right” to an abortion, but also allows mothers to obtain an abortion past the 24-week mark and without limitation if the child in their womb is not expected to survive, or to “protect” the mother’s health or life.

“Every individual who becomes pregnant has the fundamental right to choose to carry the pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to have an abortion,” the Reproductive Health Act, signed into law on Tuesday, reads in part. “A health care practitioner … may perform an abortion when … the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient’s life or health.”

The language reflects the 1973 Supreme Court ruling of Roe v. Wade, in which Justice Harry Blackmun, nominated to the bench by Republican president Richard Nixon, wrote, “If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability [written in the ruling to be as early as 24 weeks], it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.”

“I want to clear something up so that there is absolutely no doubt,” Dr. Omar Hamada of Tennessee, who outlined that he has delivered more than 2,500 babies, wrote on social media on Wednesday. “There’s not a single fetal or maternal condition that requires third trimester abortion. Not one. Delivery, yes. Abortion, no. There is absolutely no medical reason to kill a near term or term infant. For any reason.”

“If there’s a problem—and there are problems in the third trimester, both with the babies and with the mom that require delivery—just deliver the baby. We don’t have to kill it,” Hamada further explained to Fox News.

Dr. David McKnight, also of Tennessee, likewise said that if a concern arises, the baby is simply delivered via C-section. There is no need to kill the child to save the mother.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share

VIDEO – CORRUPTION AT THE DEPT OF JUSTICE – MARK LEVIN AND SIDNEY POWELL

February 7th, 2019

 

 How can we possibly have trust in our Justice Department after hearing the information in this video ?   Nancy
VIDEO – SIDNEY POWELL AND MARK LEVIN ON DOJ CORRUPTION

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk-3uaGZsM8

Sidney Powell  –  bio

Sidney PowellSidney Powell was a federal prosecutor in three districts under nine U.S. Attorneys from both political parties, then in private practice for more than 20 years. She is past-president of the Bar Association of the Fifth Federal Circuit and of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers. A veteran of 500 federal appeals, she published LICENSED TO LIE: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice, the true inside story of the corrupted prosecutions of Ted Stevens, Arthur Andersen LLP, Merrill Lynch executives, and many others. In addition to practicing law, Ms. Powell is now Senior Policy Advisor on Justice Reform for America First and a Senior Fellow of the London Center for Policy Research.

The book LICENSED TO LIE focuses on abusive prosecutors—all of whom rose to very powerful positions in the government. The book’s most prominent villain now leads Robert Mueller’s task force investigating the 2106 presidential election. It has recently been discussed by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich on Cavuto, Hannity, Fox & Friends, with Bill Hemmer, on MSNBC, and on NPR. The book was also featured by John Stossel in a segment of one of his shows on Washington Overlords.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share

MLK WAS A REPUBLICAN – GREAT HISTORY OF REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT HISTORY

February 6th, 2019

 

This article was written in 2006 but contains a tremendous amount of history about the Democrat and Republican parties  Please share with your email lists.   Democrats have been very successful at rewriting history but this article exposes them.  Nancy

Why Martin Luther King Was Republican

frice | Wednesday Aug 16, 2006 12:00 AM

It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.

During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman’s issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

Read the rest of this entry »

Share

VIDEO WHY YOU CAN’T ARGUE WITH LEFTISTS

February 5th, 2019

 

VIDEO PRAGER U

Why You Can’t Argue with a Leftist

372.3K Views
Feb 4, 2019

When two people share the same goals, they can disagree – even strongly disagree – and still have a productive discussion about how to reach those shared objectives. As comedian and author Owen Benjamin explains, the problem with America today is we no longer share the same goals, and that’s tearing us apart.

 

 

Share
Search All Posts
Categories