Archive for the ‘South America’ Category

WARREN’S BANANA REPUBLIC

Thursday, January 23rd, 2020

 

This woman is definitely a danger to our liberties.  Nancy
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Warren’s Banana Republic

She promises to investigate Trump officials after she wins.

Editorial Board   January 23, 2020

Think the fog of partisan Trump investigations will lift once the President leaves office, either in 2021 or 2025? Not if Elizabeth Warren has anything to say about it. With the Iowa caucuses approaching and her campaign fortunes flagging, Senator Warren now says that as President she’d launch an open-ended criminal investigation into her predecessor and anyone who worked for him.

Ms. Warren’s latest “anti-corruption” plan says she would create “a Justice Department Task Force to investigate corruption during the Trump administration and to hold government officials accountable for illegal activity.” She would order Justice to look for violations of “federal bribery laws, insider trading laws, and other anti-corruption and public integrity laws” as well as immigration-enforcement offenses.

“This will be no ordinary transition between administrations,” the document says ominously. Team Warren won’t be satisfied with taking control of the executive branch in an election. They also want scalps of choice ex-officials. The plan links to news articles about Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, White House Adviser KellyanneCon way and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson.

If there is evidence of a crime by a former Administration official, it should be investigated through the normal channels. Ms. Warren is proposing something different: A law-enforcement task force dedicated to searching for wrongdoing only by political opponents. This would be familiar in Latin American dictatorships where the party that loses an election may be jailed as retribution.

Pundits said Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign threat to investigate Hillary Clinton for her email mismanagement was a chilling breach of democratic norms. We opposed such an investigation but at least the alleged misconduct was limited to specific conduct by one official, whereas Ms. Warren wants investigations of all Republican officials for any political offenses.

Despite all the apocalyptic think-pieces and high-minded books, America has not become an “autocracy” three years into Donald Trump’s Presidency. The opposition party won the House in the midterms, proceeded to impeach the President, and its leading candidates are ahead in the head-to-head 2020 presidential election polls.

Yet in polarized times the temptation to criminalize political differences is stronger than ever. It will be especially strong for Democrats once they are back in control of the Justice Department. Down Senator Warren’s road lies a real threat to liberty.

 

Share

5 TIMES OBAMA PUT CONDITIONS ON FOREIGN AID AND DEMOCRATS DIDN’T CARE

Saturday, January 18th, 2020

 

The hypocrisy of the Left when it comes to  protecting Obama or Biden is  simply amazing that  they get away with it.    It is up to the conservative media to expose them.  Nancy

 
 PJMEDIA.COM

Five Times Obama Put Conditions on Foreign Aid and Democrats Didn’t Care

By Matt Margolis  Matt Margolis is the author of Trumping Obama: How President Trump Saved Us From Barack Obama’s Legacy and the bestselling book The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama. You can follow Matt on Twitter @MattMargolis
 December 10, 2019

The hypocrisy of the Democratic Party over this impeachment nonsense knows no bounds. Last week I noted five examples of Barack Obama obstructing justice that they had no problem with. Sadly, there’s plenty more hypocrisy to point out.

Democrats have been so desperate to paint Trump’s actions as unprecedented, they’ve even argued that any time conditions are put on foreign aid that’s tantamount to an illegal quid pro quo. When White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney noted that conditions are put on foreign aid “all the time,” the media and the Democrats blew up, claiming this was an admission of a corrupt quid pro quo because, obviously, any condition for aid can’t be anything but. Right?

Of course, everyone knows that Mick Mulvaney was substantively correct. Conditions are put on aid all the time. In fact, some 2020 Democrats are calling for conditions on aid to Israel. Where were the allegations of a quid pro quo? It has already been established that there are legitimate reasons to want to investigate Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election, and even the Democrats’ own witnesses in the impeachment inquiry have acknowledged that Hunter Biden’s role at Burisma raised legitimate questions.

So, let’s get back to the issue of conditional aid. Quid pro quo or standard operating procedure? Well, if Democrats want to argue that conditional aid is a quid pro quoby default, then I guess Barack Obama should have been impeached. Here are five examples of Barack Obama placing conditions on foreign aid to align with his political agenda that Democrats didn’t have a problem with.

5. Colombia

Despite years of giving Colombia military and economic aid, in 2016, Obama made that aid conditional on the Colombian government negotiating a peace treaty with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), a terror-group backed by former Cuban President Fidel Castro. FARC has “slaughtered and tortured hundreds of thousands of civilians, pumped unfathomable amounts of cocaine into the United States, kidnapped and raped children, and much more.” Yet thanks to Obama’s pressure, nearly half a billion in American taxpayer dollars went toward putting FARC terrorists in the Colombian government without ever being held accountable for their crimes.

4. Nigeria

 

Obama threatened to cut off aid to Nigeria over anti-gay legislation in the country in 2011. At the time, Obama had yet to publicly declare support for gay marriage in the United States, and certainly, his attempts to strongarm Nigeria over anti-gay legislation had the potential for personal political gain back home, right? Interestingly enough, Obama again made conditions for aid with Nigeria in 2013 over corruption issues.

(more…)

Share

SOLEIMANI’S LATIN AMERICA TERROR

Wednesday, January 15th, 2020

 

www.wsj.com/articles/soleimanis-latin-america-terror-11578863631

Soleimani’s Latin America Terror

President Trump’s decision to kill him is good news for the Western Hemisphere.

By Mary Anastasia O’Grady   January 12, 2020

The death of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani is a blow to the theocracy’s efforts to assert its power across the Middle East. By taking out Soleimani, President Trump also did Latin America a big favor.

As if to make the point, Cuba’s military dictatorship quickly condemned the U.S. action. The dead general was also mourned by the drug-trafficking terrorist group Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, members of the Venezuelan dictatorship, and Iranian proxy networks in Brazil, Peru, Argentina, El Salvador and Mexico.

A hero of hemispheric criminality has been lost, and the gangsters are sad. They may also be worried. It has been a mistake to let Iran’s incursions into the region during the last two decades go unanswered. If the end of Soleimani is the beginning of a more muscular U.S. policy toward Tehran, it’s good news for Latin America.

Iran plays the long game in its effort to undermine U.S. leadership and expand its influence around the world. In the Western Hemisphere, the regime’s Ministry of Intelligence has taken the lead by establishing “cultural centers” in many urban areas, from which it can spread propaganda, proselytize, radicalize converts and recruit locals as spies.

But intelligence gathering has a deeper purpose, which is to support operations that follow. This is where Soleimani, the head of Iran’s Quds Force, came in.

The force handles foreign assignments for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, engaging in asymmetric warfare through weapons trafficking as well as assassinations and attacks on enemy targets. In other words, it exports terrorism.

(more…)

Share

MEXICO’S SOARING MURDER RATE PROVES GUN CONTROL IS DEADLY

Friday, October 25th, 2019

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Mexico’s Soaring Murder Rate Proves Gun Control Is Deadly

Its laws are among the world’s least permissive. And most criminals don’t get weapons from the U.S.

 

Oct. 22, 2019

 

Another month, another record number of murders in Mexico. For the first nine months of 2019, Mexico had 25,890 murders—almost six times as many murders per 100,000 people as in the U.S. Does Mexico need stricter gun control?

No. Its gun laws are among the least permissive in the world. For decades Mexico has had only one gun store in the entire country, a military-run establishment in Mexico City. The store’s prices are very expensive, and the most powerful rifle that you can buy there is a .22 caliber. There’s no “gun-show loophole”—any person-to-person firearm transfers are illegal without an “extraordinary” permit that never seems to be issued. One may sell a gun only to the government, and then the government has to decide to sell it to someone else.

Getting permission to purchase a gun is a feat in itself. Background checks take six months to complete and require fingerprints and an evaluation of the buyer’s employment history. Only 1% of Mexicans possess a license to own a firearm. When I testified before the Mexican Senate a few years ago, members of the chamber, who have faced death threats, told me that even they found it impossible to get a concealed-handgun permit.

It wasn’t always this way. Mexicans had a right to own guns until 1971, when the constitution was amended to give the federal government total control over firearm access. In 1972 the government passed strict gun-control measures. Now Mexicans can’t transport guns outside their homes without a permit from the Secretariat of National Defense—even if the gun is lawfully registered, unloaded, in a locked container, and going from one residence to another.

(more…)

Share

MAKING FUN OF THE LEFT’S HYPOCRISY

Saturday, June 22nd, 2019

 

Tucker Carlson is a master at making fun of the Left’s hypocrisy 
Enjoy !  Nancy

Why Won’t Left-Wing Sanctuary Cities Welcome The Diversity Of Asylum Seekers?

June 20, 20193:33 PM ET

What if someone you hated offered to pay off your mortgage or put your kids through college? You’d be suspicious at first, of course. Why is an enemy giving you the gift of a lifetime? But in the end, if you were smart, you’d take it. It would be too good to pass up.

Something very much like that happened in Washington, D.C., recently. The Trump administration debated moving some of the thousands of migrants now massing through our southern border into various self-proclaimed sanctuary cities across the United States.

 

Talk about great news for blue America. The left tells us that all immigration is good. More immigration is better. There is no distinction between legal and illegal varieties of immigration. If you disagree with any of this, you’re a white nationalist. That’s what they’ve said almost every day for the last two years.

And now, completely out of the blue, comes the man they despise most in the world, Donald J. Trump, offering them what they want more than anything: more immigrants, immediately, delivered right to their door at federal expense. It must have been like Christmas morning. (RELATED: Border Patrol Union President Says It’s ‘Absolutely Legal’ To Drop Illegals In Sanctuary Cities)

But that’s not how they responded. The left wasn’t happy about Trump’s offer. They were shocked and enraged. You know what this is, they said? It’s dumping. The headline on Mother Jones read, “Donald Trump Wanted to Dump Asylum Seekers on Streets of Democratic Cities.” In the view of The Daily Beast’s Harry Siegel, “The White House wanted to dump refugees in sanctuary cities.” He called that idea “nasty.” At the same time, almost simultaneously, both CNN and MSNBC ran headlines accusing the White House of wanting to “dump” migrants into cities.

 

 

What’s the message here? Immigrants are trash? If you wanted to defile someone’s pristine city, you’d “dump” immigrants on it? Hmm. That sounds a little … searching for the word here … racist  a lot racist, actually. But Nancy Pelosi agrees with it. She immediately issued a statement: “The extent of this administration’s cynicism and cruelty cannot be overstated. Using human beings  including little children  as pawns in their warped game to perpetuate fear and demonize immigrants is despicable.”

(more…)

Share

BORDER CRISIS – TEXAS TOWN OVERRUN WITH CRIME AND DISEASE

Monday, June 17th, 2019

 

The article below concerning  the immigration crisis at our southern border is a good  example of the Cloward-Piven Strategy of targeting and overwhelming a system until it is destroyed.

Cloward–Piven strategy

The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a socialist system of “a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty”.

Nancy

BORDER CRISIS – TEXAS TOWN OVERRUN WITH CRIME AND DISEASE
June 11, 2019/by Daniel Horowitz

“From my standpoint, I don’t even know why we have federal elected officials,” said Uvalde, Texas, Mayor Don McLaughlin in an exclusive interview with CR.

Uvalde, Texas, is a small town of 17,000 inhabitants, and they are now overrun by illegal immigrants and an international cartel smuggling operation. Uvalde is 40-60 miles from the border, but it might as well be right at the border. “We are in no man’s land. The state is not doing anything; the federal government is not doing anything,” said the mayor, who is begging the politicians to get involved. “We are getting nothing. I’ve lived here all my life and have never seen anything like this. The people in the communities are getting scared. What is coming that we don’t see? Who knows? People up north and in D.C. have no clue what is going on here. They don’t realize that these people are not being screened for diseases. We’re fed up.”

Situated at the crossroads of major highways coming up from border towns in the Laredo and Del Rio border sectors, Uvalde has now become a dumping ground for migrants coming north. And they are not just coming from Central America. Del Rio has received hundreds of African migrants in recent weeks. Uvalde has a Border Patrol holding facility, and according to McLaughlin, whenever it is full, if the city doesn’t take charge, many immigrants are released in a Walmart parking lot. Mayor McLaughlin said his city must pick up the tab to have them bused to San Antonio. On Friday, local media reported how San Antonio has now received hundreds of African migrants.

(more…)

Share

VIDEO – TREVOR LOUDON – OPEN BORDERS

Tuesday, June 11th, 2019

 

VIDEO – The Epoch Times   

 

Communism Expert on What’s Behind the Push for Open Borders

An interview with Trevor Loudon, author of “The Enemies Within: Communists, Socialists, and Progressives in the U.S. Congress”
May 29, 2019 Updated: May 31, 2019
Share

‘TERRORISM’ AT THE SOUTHERN BORDER

Thursday, 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.

(more…)

Share

TECHNOLOGY VERSUS THE WALL

Monday, February 4th, 2019

 

Has anyone suggested “armed drones”  ?  They would certainly get the attention of
those who are illegally crossing our border !   Nancy

Democrats who killed Bush’s ‘virtual fence’ now back ‘technological wall’ at border

by S. A. Miller

January 13, 2019
Bush’ ‘virtual fence’ killed by Obama

The Department of Homeland Security spent seven years and more than $1 billion trying to create a wall of technology at the border — or, as President George W. Bush called it, a “virtual fence.” It was a bust.

Now the idea has returned as the main ante for congressional Democrats in the border security spending fight. Opposed to President Trump’s physical barriers, they say drones, sensors and other electronics are all the tools needed — a “technological wall,” in the words of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat.

The Obama administration in 2011 pulled the plug on the Bush-era Secure Border Initiative Network, or SBINet, which was envisioned as an integrated system of radar, sensors and video cameras along the entire U.S.-Mexico border.

Democrats at the time cheered the decision to cancel the contract with Boeing for the long-troubled program.

Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat who was the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, called SBINet a “grave and expensive disappointment” for squandering a little more than $1 billion to achieve just 53 miles of coverage on the border in Arizona.

Mr. Thompson, who now chairs the committee, said last week that he is ready to try again rather than spend on Mr. Trump’s corrugated steel fence.

“I have been engaging the tech community. They are telling me that they are developing modern technology that will help us identify those vulnerabilities. I would like for us to go in that direction,” he said on “PBS NewsHour.”

He said U.S. Customs and Border Protection already have high-tech sensors that just need to be used in a better way.

The Washington Times asked Mr. Thompson’s office what had changed since 2011 and whether he fully backed Mrs. Pelosi’s “technological wall.”

“He does support proven and effective technology to be used at the border where appropriate. SBINet simply did not work, was not deployed correctly and was overly ambitious,” said Thompson spokesman Adam Comis.

The border security debate and Mr. Trump’s demand for $5.7 billion for a border fence are at the heart of the standoff between the White House and Democrats that has kept the government partially shut down for more than three weeks.

Border security analysts agree that the technology has improved by leaps and bounds since 2011, but they disagree on whether sensors and remote imaging can substitute for physical barriers.

Jay F. Nunamaker Jr., director of the National Center for Border Security and Immigration at the University of Arizona, had no doubt that technology could replace walls and fences.

“The combination of all the cameras, night vision cameras, you could see people walking through marshes and streams like it was bright daylight,” he said, recalling a 2013 visit to a border security command center set up at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson.

“Technology has only improved since then,” he said.

National security scholar James R. Phelps, co-author of the 2014 book “Border Security,” said the question isn’t whether the technology works in detecting border jumpers — it does.

“The question then becomes, ‘Do they actually stop anybody?’ The answer to that is no,” he said. “It is definitely not a substitute. It works in conjunction with physical barriers.”

A big difference between sensors and fences, he said, is where Border Patrol agents apprehend smugglers or illegal immigrants. The high-tech sensors and video cameras don’t prevent or hamper illegal border crossings.

“Once they are on U.S. soil, inside the United States of America, you now have to go through all the legal processes and administrative processes,” said Mr. Phelps. “You have to determine if they are here legally or illegally, collect the biometrics to put through the criminal check systems, detain them or arrest them, set them up for a deportation hearing, put them in front of a judge, potentially house them, treat them medically. The list goes on and on and on — with all the expenses associated with that person once they set foot in the United States.”

The scenario also depends on Border Patrol agents apprehending border jumpers after they appear on video screens.

“It does no good to detect illegal crossings unless someone is available to track them down, and fairly quickly, before the crossers disappear into the many private homes, farms, businesses, vehicles and natural hiding places that are in the border areas, often very close to the border,” said Jessica M. Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies. “Technology by itself does not prevent anyone from crossing the way a real wall or fence does.”

(more…)

Share

VIDEO DON’T CRY FOR ME, ARGENTINA

Tuesday, January 15th, 2019

 

VIDEO 

Don’t cry for me Argentina, Cuba, Venezuela, America…….

 

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=33i_BAhuiE0

Share
Search All Posts
Categories