President Asshat Released Illegal Alien Children To Criminals, Including Child Molesters And Human Traffickers

Obama Administration Released Illegal Immigrant Children To Criminals’ Homes – Washington Times


The Obama administration released thousands of illegal immigrant children to sponsors with criminal records, including arrests on charges of child molestation, human trafficking and homicide, a top senator charged Tuesday.

If true, it would be a stunning black mark on President Obama’s immigration record, according to analysts, who said the first job of the government was to protect the children from dangerous situations – and it apparently failed.

At least 3,400 children were placed in homes where sponsors had criminal records, said Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, citing information from a whistleblower.

“Allegedly, proper screening is not taking place and children are paying the price,” the Iowa Republican said in a letter demanding answers about the procedural breakdown from Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell.

HHS didn’t deny the numbers but said it does try to prohibit those with “serious” criminal records from sponsoring children and does conduct some level of background checks on all sponsors.

The accusations were made just as the Border Patrol confirmed another surge of illegal immigrant children along the southwestern border, with nearly 5,000 unaccompanied minors and 6,000 more women and children traveling together streaming across in October.

Those are huge increases over last October, when 2,500 unaccompanied children and fewer than 2,200 family members traveling together were caught at the border.

Customs and Border Protection officials said they were “closely monitoring this situation” and blamed smugglers for enticing would-be migrants to make the perilous journey by promising they can earn “permisos,” or free passes, once they reach the U.S. The permisos are the court appearance documents that the Border Patrol issues before releasing them into the interior of the U.S., where they can easily disappear.

In the case of unaccompanied children, the Border Patrol turns them over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is part of HHS. That office then houses the children in dormitories until sponsors can be found for them.

But the pressure to handle tens of thousands of children at a time overwhelmed the office last year. As a result, the office handed over children to sponsors who were not properly vetted, according to Mr. Grassley and other analysts.

“They were so overwhelmed with cases they were more interested in processing them quickly than in making sure it was done safely,” said Jessica Vaughan, policy studies director at the Center for Immigration Studies. “They seemed to be operating under this delusion these were harmless kids being reclaimed by well-meaning relatives and there was nothing to worry about. And that is truly delusional.”

She said conducting background checks has become routine even for youth sports coaches and library volunteers and it’s stunning that the Obama administration doesn’t require that for someone who is taking full custody of a child.

HHS spokeswoman Andrea Helling said the department does try to vet the people it allows to sponsor children.

“It is not the practice of the Office of Refugee Resettlement to place unaccompanied children with sponsors who have serious criminal convictions. The safety of the children is our primary concern, and any allegation of even potential harm is taken seriously and will be investigated,” she said.

Under the Obama administration’s interpretation of the law, children caught crossing the border illegally without parents are deemed “unaccompanied alien children,” or UACs. They are supposed to be processed quickly by the Border Patrol and then turned over to HHS, which puts them in juvenile homes until they can be reconnected with relatives or placed in foster families.

That often meant placing them with relatives who themselves were in the U.S. illegally.

HHS, faced with nearly 10,000 children a month at the peak last summer, cut corners, including no longer requiring that all sponsors go through fingerprint checks. Fingerprints are required if a sponsor is not a parent or legal guardian, and in cases in which a child is considered particularly vulnerable.

HHS does conduct a background check that includes running a sponsor’s name through criminal databases, and they listen to see whether a sponsor “self-reports” a criminal history during the vetting process.

As of August, HHS also now conducts follow-up visits 30 days after a child is released to a sponsor. In May, HHS began accepting calls to its hotline for children or their sponsors to report on disruptions, including conflicts that could endanger the safety of a child.

Immigrant rights advocates involved in monitoring the children’s cases could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

But last year, at the height of the surge, one nonprofit estimated that as many as 10 percent of the children were sent to live in unacceptable or dangerous conditions.

Mr. Grassley said Tuesday that the whistleblower, whom he did not identify, raised his concerns with the Obama administration in August, yet the children identified as having been put in jeopardy have not been removed from those homes.

The whistleblower saw information on just a subset of 29,000 children, and 12 percent of them were placed in homes where sponsors had records. Extrapolating across the nearly 110,000 unaccompanied children caught at the border over the past two years, that could mean nearly 13,000 children may have been placed in dangerous situations.



Obama State Department Admits Iran Didn’t Even Sign Nuke Deal, And It’s Not Legally Binding

State Dept Admits Iran Didn’t Even Sign Iran Deal And It’s Not Legally Binding – Right Scoop

Just when you think Obama’s Iran deal couldn’t get any worse, his own State Dept. reveals that Iran didn’t sign the deal nor is it ‘legally binding’. It’s just a set of ‘political commitments’ or something:

NRO – President Obama didn’t require Iranian leaders to sign the nuclear deal that his team negotiated with the regime, and the deal is not “legally binding,” his administration acknowledged in a letter to Representative Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) obtained by National Review.

“The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,” wrote Julia Frifield, the State Department assistant secretary for legislative affairs, in the November 19 letter. Frifield wrote the letter in response to a letter Pompeo sent Secretary of State John Kerry, in which he observed that the deal the president had submitted to Congress was unsigned and wondered if the administration had given lawmakers the final agreement.

Frifield’s response emphasizes that Congress did receive the final version of the deal. But by characterizing the JCPOA as a set of “political commitments” rather than a more formal agreement, it is sure to heighten congressional concerns that Iran might violate the deal’s terms.

“The success of the JCPOA will depend not on whether it is legally binding or signed, but rather on the extensive verification measures we have put in place, as well as Iran’s understanding that we have the capacity to re-impose – and ramp up – our sanctions if Iran does not meet its commitments,” Frifield wrote to Pompeo.

Of course we couldn’t trust Iran in the first place, but for Obama, who touted this deal as the only way to keep Iran from getting nukes, to not even get their signatures attesting to their ‘commitment’ to this so-called deal seems ludicrous. And for his State Department to then say it’s not legally binding? Just what assurances did Obama think he was getting from the Iranians to even make the guarantees he made and his numerous statements defending this deal?

Here’s the letter obtained by the NRO:





Ignorant Leftist Media Update: Ben Carson Was Right About Jefferson And The Constitution

Jefferson’s Constitution: Ben Carson Got It 100% Right… DC Media Got It 100% Wrong – Big Journalism


Anyone at all familiar with Thomas Jefferson is well aware of our third president’s vital influence on the crafting of the American Constitution. While Jefferson is primarily known as the chief author of the Declaration of Independence and James Madison is primarily known as the early architect of what would become our Constitution and the prime mover behind the Bill of Rights, the two men were close friends, lived not very far apart in Virginia, and kept regular correspondence.

Jefferson and Madison were of like political minds, and during the Constitutional Convention, while Jefferson was across an ocean as U.S. Minister to France, the two men enjoyed an intense and productive correspondence about what the U.S. Constitution should look like.

My media hero of the week (more on this below), USA Today editor David Mastio, accurately sums up the rest of the story:

After the Constitution Convention was over, Jefferson had this other idea called a “Bill of Rights,” which you might have heard is a part of the Constitution. Jefferson sorta played a key role in all that First Amendment, Second Amendment stuff. If you don’t believe me, go ask the American Civil Liberties Union, which is big on rights like free speech and freedom of religion.

Saith the ACLU: “The American Bill of Rights, inspired by Jefferson and drafted by James Madison, was adopted, and in 1791 the Constitution’s first 10 amendments became the law of the land.”

The ACLU even quotes Jefferson’s argument: “A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse.”

To get the basics of Jefferson’s role in the creation of the Bill of Rights, which are, as I mentioned, a pretty important part of the Constitution, all you have to do is read the Spark Notes version. Or you can get it in easy Q&A format from the U.S. Archives.

Not to take anything away from Mr. Mastio, who did a righteous thing defending Ben Carson, but none of this is a secret, or hidden history. It’s not even deep-dive history. Anyone who has picked up a biography of Jefferson or Madison is well aware of this.

Apparently, the following news outlets – CNN, Politico, and the Washington Post – have not picked up that biography, or they are intentionally smearing Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson… again.

During a Monday appearance on C-Span, Carson said, quite correctly, that he admired Jefferson primarily for his role in helping to craft the Constitution:

But I’m particularly impressed with Thomas Jefferson, who seemed to have very deep insight into the way that people would react and tried to craft our Constitution in a way that it would control people’s national tendencies and control the natural growth of the government.

The reaction from the DC Media on Twitter was not just instantaneously ignorant, it was fantastically ignorant. Within moments my Twitter stream was buried in smug reporters laughing and dehumanizing the black apostate conservative who doesn’t – har, har – know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Except, as Mr. Mastio points out, they are all wrong.

One-hundred percent wrong.

Rather than crack open a book or use that Google-thingy right in front of them, Politico, The Washington Post, and CNN actually went so far as to publish stories claiming Carson got it wrong.

Worse still, but to no one’s surprise, all three outlets have refused to properly correct their provable errors.

Politico’s Nolan McCaskill:

Carson says, wrongly, that Thomas Jefferson crafted the Constitution…

The problem: Jefferson crafted the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. In fact, Carson noted Jefferson’s absence in his book, “A More Perfect Union,” writing that he was “missing in action” during the birth of the Constitution as he served abroad as ambassador to France.

I’ve reached out to McCaskill to ask if he is going to correct his post. As of now, he has not responded. This is the same Politico that admitted to lying (only after being caught) about Carson’s West Point story.

CNN’s Gregory Krieg:

Carson flubs Thomas Jefferson’s role in the Constitution…

But as the Washington Post noted Monday morning, Jefferson was a no-show at the Constitutional Convention and was instead an ocean away in Paris as Minister to France, while his North American-based colleagues were crafting the foundational document.

I’ve reached out to Krieg to ask if he intends to correct his story. As of now, he has not yet responded. This is the same CNN that published racially-motivated serial lies about key elements in Carson’s biography.

Via Twitter, Mastio tells me CNN did update the piece. Nevertheless, the incorrect headline remains.

Washington Post’s Fred Barbash:

Ben Carson, author of book about the Constitution, incorrectly states that Thomas Jefferson crafted it…

That did not stop Carson from praising Jefferson in a C-Span interview Sunday as one of the most impressive of the Founding Fathers because he “tried to craft our Constitution in a way that it would control peoples’ natural tendencies and control the natural growth of the government.”

I’ve reached out to Barbask to ask if he intends to correct his story. As of now, he has not responded. This is the same Washington Post that lied about Carson comparing Syrian refugees to rabid dogs.

When the entire media has risen up and proclaimed that This Is The Narrative, it cannot be easy for one of their own to say, “Actually, uhm, you’re 100% wrong.” The USA Today’s David Mastio deserves enormous credit for publishing the truth and doing so using the mockery deserved.



Conservative Maine Government Doubles Down On Successful Welfare Reform Policies Despite Leftist Whining

Maine Doubles Down On Welfare Reform Despite Media Backlash – Daily Signal


Mary Mayhew, commissioner of Maine’s Department of Health and Human Services, knows her politics aren’t always popular.

“I can’t stress enough what an attack campaign it has been from the media for four and a half years,” Mayhew said Thursday at an anti-poverty forum in Washington, D.C., hosted by The Heritage Foundation.

Then there are the more personalized critiques: “There is a poet, or he calls himself a poet, and he sends me poems all the time,” she added. “They are not nice poems.”

Mayhew claims that detractors – who mostly take issue with welfare reforms enacted by Gov. Paul LePage, a Republican, since his election in 2011 – have gone so far as to call her “Commissioner Evil,” and her and LePage’s policies a “War on the Poor.”

The irony, according to Mayhew, lies in the fact that her and LePage’s efforts actually aim to empower Maine’s poorest citizens. She says a third of the state is on welfare.

“The welfare hurricane doesn’t just destroy one family; it destroys generations of them,” Tarren Bragdon, president and CEO of the Foundation for Government Accountability, said at the event Thursday. “This work is about giving children a better chance for a future.”

To illustrate that point, Mayhew told a story of one of her first days on the job as DHHS commissioner, spent touring a substance abuse treatment facility for adolescents:

I was taken aback by one of the youth who came up to me – it was actually several youth, who were just completely focused on whether I could help them get disability. These were 15-year-old, 16-year-old young men clearly battling addiction, but they had decided that the answer for them was to pursue disability. And, frankly, as we all look at that pathway, that truly is committing individuals to a lifetime of poverty.

Since LePage assumed the governorship, Maine has reduced enrollment in the state’s food stamp program by over 58,000; currently, according to Mayhew, there are 197,000 people on food stamps, down from a high of 255,663 in February 2012.

Mayhew says the decline is due to eliminating the waiver of the work requirement previously attached to food stamps, as also witnessed in Kansas. Under the new legislation, recipients would need to work 20 hours per week, volunteer for about an hour a day, or attend a class to receive food stamps past three months.

LePage and Mayhew have also rolled back Medicaid eligibility through a series of battles Mayhew called “fierce.”

With a population of roughly 1.3 million, Maine had 357,000 individuals receiving Medicaid benefits when LePage took office. Today, 287,000 people are on Medicaid, according to Mayhew.

“What we have done truly has taken the arguments to the public to underscore what has been lost as that program grew out of control, never mind that the resources that had to be devoted to Medicaid were being taken away from education, infrastructure, and reduced tax burden on the state of Maine,” Mayhew said.

In August, Maine DHHS announced they planned to redirect $3.24 million in welfare savings to fund home care services for elderly citizens as well as the Meals on Wheels program.

Lastly, Mayhew touched upon Maine’s efforts to retool the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card programs, stating that Maine had over 15,000 open TANF cases when LePage took office. That number is down to less than 5,000.

LePage’s and Mayhew’s policies, as Mayhew herself highlighted, have not been without controversy.

Earlier this week, amid an ongoing dispute over EBT cards being used to wire money abroad, critics accused the LePage administration of using last Friday’s terror attacks in Paris to justify reforms.

“This proposal is really an example of fear-mongering at its worst,” Robyn Merrill, executive director of Maine Equal Justice Partners, told MPBN News.

But Mayhew does not plan to back down – especially if it means reducing her own influence long-term, and shifting that responsibility to local non-profits.

“I can’t underscore enough that part of the issue is government is too big, my agency is too large, and people are trying to preserve their jobs,” she said.

“We have got to reduce the size and scope of these agencies if we are going to have communities really take on the responsibility of supporting these families and these individuals on those pathways [to independence].”



Over 80 Percent Of Illegal Aliens Shielded From Deportation By President Asshat

Under Obama More Than 80 Percent Of Illegals Shielded From Deportation – Big Government


While the courts have blocked President Obama’s sweeping executive amnesty programs, other aspects of Obama’s immigration edicts have served to shield more than 80 percent of the illegal immigrant population from deportation, the Washington Times reports.

According to reporting by Stephan Dinan, the implementation of other executive actions on immigration announced exactly a year ago Friday – specifically the administration’s changes to “priorities” for enforcement – has essentially served to order “agents not to bother deporting nearly all illegal immigrants.”

The changes saw the Department of Homeland Security revamp the immigrants it prioritizes for enforcement to include mainly just serious criminal aliens, gang members, national security threats and recent border crossers. As Dinan reports:

The changes are already having a major effect. Deportations, which peaked at nearly 410,000 in fiscal year 2012, dropped to about 230,000 in fiscal year 2015, which ended Sept. 30. But Mr. Johnson said more of those being deported are the serious criminals and safety threats he wants his agents to worry about.

Indeed, if agents adhere strictly to his priorities, some 9.6 million of the estimated 11.5 million illegal immigrants in the country have no real danger of being deported, according to an estimate this year by the Migration Policy Institute.

Dinan notes that the changes to enforcement priorities were not the only actions that have made life easier for immigrants in the U.S. and those seeking admission.

The actions – often mislabeled by the press as executive orders – also included changes to the legal immigration system, such as making it easier for spouses of guest workers to also find jobs; allowing foreigners who study science and technology at U.S. universities to remain and work in the country longer; pushing legal immigrants to apply for citizenship; and waiving the penalty on illegal immigrant spouses or children of legal permanent residents so they no longer have to go to their home countries to await legal status.



Refugee ‘Religious Test’ Is ‘Shameful’ And ‘Not American’… Except That Federal Law Requires It (Andrew C. McCarthy)

Refugee ‘Religious Test’ Is ‘Shameful’ And ‘Not American’… Except That Federal Law Requires It – Andrew C. McCarthy


As I argued in Faithless Execution, the principal constitutional duty of the chief executive is to execute the laws faithfully. President Obama, by contrast, sees his principal task as imposing his post-American “progressive” preferences, regardless of what the laws mandate.

In his latest harangue against Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas) and other Americans opposed to his insistence on continuing to import thousands of Muslim refugees from Syria and other parts of the jihad-ravaged Middle East, Obama declaimed:

When I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which a person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted… that’s shameful… That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.

Really? Under federal law, the executive branch is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum. Under the provision governing asylum (section 1158 of Title 8, U.S. Code), an alien applying for admission

must establish that… religion [among other things]… was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.

Moreover, to qualify for asylum in the United States, the applicant must be a “refugee” as defined by federal law. That definition (set forth in Section 1101(a)(42)(A) of Title , U.S. Code) also requires the executive branch to take account of the alien’s religion:

The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality… and who is unable or unwilling to return to… that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of… religion [among other things]… [.]

The law requires a “religious test.” And the reason for that is obvious. Asylum law is not a reflection of the incumbent president’s personal (and rather eccentric) sense of compassion. Asylum is a discretionary national act of compassion that is directed, by law not whim, to address persecution.

There is no right to emigrate to the United States. And the fact that one comes from a country or territory ravaged by war does not, by itself, make one an asylum candidate. War, regrettably, is a staple of the human condition. Civil wars are generally about power. That often makes them violent and, for many, tragic; but it does not necessarily make them wars in which one side is persecuting the other side.

In the case of this war, the Islamic State is undeniably persecuting Christians. It is doing so, moreover, as a matter of doctrine. Even those Christians the Islamic State does not kill, it otherwise persecutes as called for by its construction of sharia (observe, for example, the ongoing rape jihad and sexual slavery).’

To the contrary, the Islamic State seeks to rule Muslims, not kill or persecute them. Obama prefers not to dwell on the distinction between the jihadist treatment of Muslims, on the one hand, and of Christians, Jews and other religions, on the other hand, because he – like much of Washington – inhabits a world in which jihadists are not Islamic and, therefore, have no common ground with other Muslims… notwithstanding that jihadists emerge whenever and wherever a population of sharia-adherent Muslims reaches critical mass. But this is sheer fantasy. While there is no question that ISIS will kill and persecute Muslims whom it regards as apostates for refusing to adhere to its construction of Islam, it is abject idiocy to suggest that Muslims are facing the same ubiquity and intensity of persecution as Christians.

And it is downright dishonest to claim that taking such religious distinctions into account is “not American,” let alone “shameful.” How can something American law requires be “not American”? And how can a national expression of compassion expressly aimed at alleviating persecution be “shameful”?



*VIDEO* Trey Gowdy Verbally Bitchslaps President Asshat Over Muslim Refugees



5 Pakistanis And 1 Afghan Caught Illegally Entering Arizona From Mexico

6 Men From Pakistan, Afghanistan Busted Illegally Entering Arizona From Mexico – Big Government


A highly trusted federal agent working under the umbrella of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has confirmed to Breitbart Texas that a group composed of 5 Pakistani men and 1 man from Afghanistan was captured by U.S. Border Patrol agents after having illegally crossed the porous U.S.-Mexico border in the Tucson Sector of Arizona.

The six men were traveling in a group and were captured roughly 16 miles into the state of Arizona, specifically, near the small picturesque town of Patagonia, Arizona.

The apprehension of the group occurred late on Monday night, November 16, 2015.

Border Patrol agents were unable to do extensive interviews with the six Middle Eastern men because the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) took over the matter. The aliens were immediately transferred to Tucson where the FBI took custody.

On Wednesday evening, Breitbart Texas disclosed a report by other federal agents claiming that 8 Syrian illegal aliens were captured while attempting to enter the United States in the Laredo Sector. The Department of Homeland Security has now confirmed our exclusive report.

Earlier on Wednesday afternoon, Breitbart Texas reported that 5 Syrians were arrested in Honduras cutting their travel plans to the U.S. short. Those 5 Syrians entered Honduras by air and were headed towards the Guatemalan border. All five of the Syrians were said to be young males and were all carrying stolen Greek passports.

While the release of information relating to these type of high-profile illegal aliens is usually closely guarded by CBP officials, Breitbart Texas was able to confirm an earlier arrest of a Syrian woman who attempted to enter the U.S. illegally. She was charged with using a passport belonging to someone else. The woman, Walaa Alrehawi was initially charged with misusing a U.S. passport in Hidalgo, Texas. For an unknown reason, the Department of Justice dismissed the charges “with prejudice” (charges cannot be re-filed) against the woman and her brother-in-law Mohammad Ziad Alzalam who she was traveling with. The only explanation given was the dismissal was “in the interest of justice.”

Breitbart Texas has traveled extensively in the Tucson Sector of Arizona and reported extensively from the region.



Number Of Governors Refusing To Allow President Asshat To Flood Their States With Muslim “Refugees” Hits 32

UPDATE: Total Number Of Governors Refusing To Allow Syrian Refugees Into Their States Hits 32 – Weasel Zippers




Clinton Crime Update: Embassy Classified Information Unprotected Under Hitlery

Beyond Emails: Embassy Classified Info Unprotected Under Hillary Clinton – Breitbart


Just when she thought she had skated by on Benghazi and her email infractions, it now appears that Hillary Clinton’s woes on these issues may be far from over.

There is a largely unknown security scandal emerging, which centers not on the doomed U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi, but on the American Embassy in Tripoli about 400 miles away.

This scandal, combined with classified information on Clinton’s private server and sensitive material looted from the dangerously unprotected Benghazi compound, may spell trouble in Hillary Clinton-land, especially in regard to the presidential candidate’s national security credentials.

The larger stack of evidence, presented here by Breitbart Jerusalem, shows the astonishing scope of the Clinton State Department’s apparent failure to protect highly sensitive – at times classified – national security secrets.

In at least one case, sensitive information was likely obtained by our terrorist enemies in Libya, as a federal indictment charges.

In another case, classified communications equipment and hard drives housed at a dangerously insecure U.S. embassy reopened by Clinton were protected, embarrassingly, by a female office manager and other staffers – not by U.S. marines.

Forget Benghazi… take a look at Tripoli embassy security

The U.S. diplomatic facility in Tripoli was first upgraded to embassy status in 2006. Due to security concerns, Clinton temporarily shut it down during the 2011 revolution that toppled Moammar Gadhafi’s regime. In September 2011, after Gadhafi fell, the embassy was reopened.

The story begins in 2012, immediately after the embassy received notice of the first assault on the Benghazi mission.

Largely ignored in the firestorm surrounding the Benghazi attacks is the fact that – like the Benghazi mission – the U.S. embassy in Tripoli did not meet the State Department’s minimum security standards for a diplomatic outpost established without a security waiver from the Secretary of State.

These security standards were established by the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999, or SECCA, which was passed in the aftermath of two embassy bombings in Africa in 1998.

Rep. Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), a Benghazi investigator who was the fifth highest ranking member of the House GOP leadership, declared on the House floor on January 15, 2014:

It was known in the State Department and at the highest levels that neither facility in Libya – the one in Tripoli or the one in Benghazi – met the minimum physical security standards set after our embassy was attacked in Kenya in 1998. Who made the decision to put so many American diplomats in those facilities that did not meet that standard?

Eric Allan Nordstrom, a former regional secretary officer in Tripoli who is now the supervisory special agent with the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, confirmed that the Tripoli embassy did not meet the minimum standards.

At an October 10, 2012 congressional hearing on Benghazi, Nordstrom said:

Neither the buildings in Benghazi nor the buildings in Tripoli met those standards, nor was there a plan for the next phase of construction, what was called the interim embassy, would they meet the standards either. That interim embassy was scheduled to be on the ground for approximately 10 years. That was a major cause of concern, and that was the main physical security issue that we continued to raise.

Contrary to a misleading claim propagated by Clinton herself, there was no Marine Security Guard (MSG) contingent protecting the Tripoli embassy during the 2012 attacks. They were only deployed in the aftermath of the fatal Benghazi assault.

In her 2014 memoir, Hard Choices, Clinton claims there were marines guarding the Tripoli embassy:

So while there were Marines stationed at our embassy in Tripoli, where nearly all of our diplomats worked and which had the capability to process classified material, because there was no classified processing at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, there were no Marines posted there.

But the former head of Africa Command, General Carter Ham, testified before Congress on June 26, 2013 that “There was no Marine security detachment in Tripoli.”

Breitbart Jerusalem has confirmed with the press office of the U.S. Marines that no marine contingent was deployed in Tripoli on September 11, 2012.

These details are relevant because the primary duty of the MSG is to protect classified information and equipment vital to U.S. national security.

So who was safeguarding the classified information processed by U.S. officials in Tripoli under Clinton’s watch? In one case, it seems, one guard was a female office manager.

‘She was smashing hard drives with an ax’

In May 2013, Gregory N. Hicks – the No. 2 at the Tripoli embassy the night of the attacks – testified before Congress that about three hours after the first attack on the Benghazi mission, his staff in Tripoli was alerted to Twitter feeds asserting the terror group Ansar al-Sharia was behind the attack. Other tweets warned of a pending attack on the embassy in Tripoli.

Hicks described a scene in which the office staff began to destroy classified materials for fear of an attack.

“We had always thought that we were… under threat, that we now have to take care of ourselves, and we began planning to evacuate our facility,” he testified.

“When I say our facility, I mean the State Department residential compound in Tripoli, and to consolidate all of our personnel… at the annex in Tripoli.”

Hicks said he “immediately telephoned Washington that news afterward and began accelerating our effort to withdraw from the Villas compound and move to the annex.”

He recalled how his team “responded with amazing discipline and courage in Tripoli in organizing withdrawal.”

Continued Hicks: “I have vivid memories of that. I think the most telling, though, was of our communications staff dismantling our communications equipment to take with us to the annex and destroying the classified communications capability.”

“Our office manager, Amber Pickens, was everywhere that night just throwing herself into some task that had to be done. First she was taking a log of what we were doing,” he said.

“Then she was loading magazines, carrying ammunition to the – carrying our ammunition supply to… our vehicles, and then she was smashing hard drives with an ax.”

The vivid scene, however, was not mentioned once during Clinton’s Benghazi testimony last month or during her testimony on the subject in 2013. This despite Clinton being directly asked about the response by the Tripoli embassy during last month’s testimony.

The dramatic incident in Tripoli was also not referenced in the State Department’s own Accountability Review Board probe of the Benghazi attack.

Terror kingpin obtains sensitive documents… why not classified?

Major questions linger about why Hillary Clinton’s State Department did not classify the reportedly sensitive documents and material that ran through the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi. The material was clearly not adequately protected, as the assault on the mission summarily exposed.

During Clinton’s Benghazi testimony to lawmakers last month, Clinton claimed that unlike the Tripoli compound, Benghazi did not house classified material. She conceded that some unclassified material was left behind after the attacks.

It is instructive to focus on what materials were housed in Benghazi, especially in light of a November 2012 report by Fox News quoting sources in Washington and on the ground in Libya, including a witness, confirming computers were stolen during the Sept. 11, 2012, attack.

Also, two days after the compound was looted, the London Independent reported documents inside the U.S. mission were said to “list names of Libyans who are working with Americans, putting them potentially at risk from extremist groups.”

And the Washington Post three weeks later reported documents inside the U.S. mission contained “delicate information about American operations in Libya.”

The Post revealed that one of its own journalists visited the vacated facility weeks after the attack and personally found scattered across the floors “documents detailing weapons collection efforts, emergency evacuation protocols, the full internal itinerary of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens’s trip and the personnel records of Libyans who were contracted to secure the mission.”

Stevens’ itinerary at times also reportedly passed through Clinton’s private email server, including his exact whereabouts and movements while he was stationed in the Libya danger zone.

The 2012 Fox News report also divulged that after the U.S. mission was looted, some of the Libyans employed there received death threats via text message. It is unclear whether the threats were prompted by the stolen documents and computers.

Some of the sensitive information was obtained by the Ansar al-Sharia terrorist group, which was implicated in the Benghazi attacks.

Breitbart Jerusalem reviewed the 21-page, 18-count federal indictment against Ahmed Abu Khatallah, the Benghazi-based leader of Ansar al-Sharia.

The extensive indictment charges that Khatallah stole “documents, maps and computers containing sensitive information” from the Benghazi mission. The charge sheet further accuses Khatallah of conspiring to “plunder property from the Mission and Annex, including documents, maps and computers containing sensitive information.”

In other words, according to the federal indictment, Khatallah was partially motivated to storm the Bengahzi compound in order to obtain sensitive documents – materials that were ripe for the plundering in the unsecured Benghazi mission.

Echoing her e-mail controversy, during her Benghazi testimony last month Clinton was confronted about her seemingly ambiguous definition of sensitive and classified materials stored at the Benghazi mission.

One particular exchange on the matter may be telling:

CLINTON: We know it through our own investigation about what documents were at Benghazi, and there were no classified materials, to the best of our information.

POMPEO: Yes, ma’am. Do you know if there was sensitive information?

CLINTON: I suppose it depends on what one thinks of as sensitive information. There was information there and some of it was burnt, either wholly or partially. Some of it was looted. And some of it was recovered eventually.

POMPEO: Madam Secretary, do you know where that material that was looted went? Do you know into whose hands it fell? And do you know the nature and contents of that material? You seem very confident it wasn’t classified. I don’t share your confidence. But nonetheless, do you know where that material went?

CLINTON: I think that it – it is very difficult to know where it ended up. But I want to just reiterate the point that I made. This was not a facility that had the capacity to handle classified material. And there was, to the best of our information, Congressman, no classified material at the Benghazi facility.

POMPEO: Ma’am, the fact that it wasn’t capable of handling classified material doesn’t mean that there wasn’t any classified material there. Is that correct?

CLINTON: Well, the procedure is not to have classified material at such a facility. And again, to the best of our knowledge, there was not any there.

POMPEO: Yes, ma’am. You’re not supposed to have classified e- mail on your private server either.

CLINTON: And I did not, Congressman.



French President Says Saint-Denis Terrorist Raid Proves We Are At War With ISIS

French President Hollande: Saint-Denis Raid Proves We Are At War With ISIS – Daily Signal


This morning 100 French police officers raided two apartment blocks in the Parisian suburb of Saint-Denis, just days after the Paris terror attacks resulted in at least 129 deaths.

After a dramatic seven hour gunfight in a residential building, two terror suspects have been killed and seven others wounded and captured. One man, yet to be identified, was shot dead by police.

A woman, thought possibly to be the cousin of Abdelhamid Abaaoud – the assumed ringleader of the Paris attacks – blew herself up with a suicide vest.

Five police officers received minor wounds and one police dog was killed. The operation is over and the area is secured.

The identities of those killed and captured have not been released – and French authorities are comparing the DNA of those killed and captured to intelligence databases. It has been reported that the target of the raid was Abaaoud.

It was initially thought that Abaaoud conducted the attack from Syria. However, French security sources have told the media that recent phone surveillance and testimony helped authorities determine that he is, in fact, in Paris. The same phone surveillance and testimony also led French authorities to believe that another major attack in Paris was imminent.

The location of the raid is no surprise. Saint-Denis is a relatively poor suburb of Paris. Saint-Denis is also home to a sizable immigrant population and an estimated 20 percent of the population is of North African descent. It is worth pointing out that Abaaoud is a Belgium of Moroccan descent so he would have felt quite comfortable holding up in the area.

Saint-Denis was one of several hotspots during the infamous 2005 French riots which saw hundreds of cars and several government buildings burned by local immigrant groups. The location of the police raid is not far from the national stadium Stade de France – one of the main targets in last weekend’s terrorists attacks.

This raid comes on the same day that two Air France planes, originating from the U.S. and travelling to Paris, had to make emergency landings due to bomb threats. Thankfully, these were false alarms and no bombs were found, but the incidents, along with the raid, shows why France and her allies need to remain vigilant.

French President Francois Hollande announced that the police raid in Saint-Denis is proof that “we are at war” with ISIS. The question is: what is France going to do about it?



*VIDEO* Rudy Giuliani: ISIS Is A Product Of Obama’s Vacuous Foreign Policy

H/T Media Research Center



GOP Primary Update: Another One Bites The Dust

Jindal Drops Out Of White House Race – The Hill


Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) on Tuesday announced he is suspending his campaign for the White House.

“I’ve come to the realization that it is not my time,” Jindal said during an early evening Fox News interview with Bret Baier. “I am suspending my campaign for president of the United States.

“I cannot tell you what an honor it has been to run for president of the United States,” he added.

Jindal’s campaign failed to resonate with voters since his entrance into the 2016 race last summer.

He never appeared in a main stage GOP presidential debate based on his low polling numbers, which often have registered at or below 1 percent.

During the Fox interview, Jindal declined to immediately name a GOP rival that he would support. Fourteen candidates remain in the Republican race.

“Going forward, I believe we have to be the party of growth and we can never stop being the party that believes in opportunity,” Jindal said in a statement on his decision.

“We cannot settle for The Left’s view of envy and division. We have to be the party that says everyone in this country – no matter the circumstances of their birth or who their parents are – can succeed in America,” he added.

Jindal is the third Republican presidential candidate to drop out of the race, after former Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

Perry dropped out of the race in September after the first GOP debate, while Walker dropped out later that month after the second debate.

Jindal, who leaves office in January, said that he would return to the America Next think tank that he established.

Jindal, a Christian and fierce advocate for religious liberty, had hung his long-shot bid on winning Iowa, but he never gained traction with conservatives in the Hawkeye State.

On Tuesday, Jindal sat at just over 3 percent in the polls there, according to the RealClearPolitics average, despite spending as much time in the state as anyone. He raised just more than a half-million dollars last quarter, making it very difficult for him to last until the first votes are cast in early February.

Jindal was largely relegated to the margins in the GOP race as Ben Carson, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and others vacuumed up support from the social conservatives and Evangelicals that Jindal needed in his camp.

His rivals will not miss his presence on the campaign trail, as he frequently slammed the other GOP contenders for being all talk and no action. Jindal also often took aim at Republican leadership in Washington as being spineless and “Democrat-lite.”

Jindal regularly pointed to his record as governor in Louisiana to back up his criticism of the other contenders.

He sued the federal government to rid his state of Common Core, signed a controversial executive order meant to protect religious liberty in the state after similar legislation in other states provoked huge backlash, and has said Louisiana will not accept Syrian refugees in accordance with an Obama administration plan.

Jindal also has perhaps the most hawkish fiscal records of any governor running for president, refusing to raise taxes even as his state scrambled to fill holes in the budget.

But ultimately Jindal could not cut through the huge and fractured GOP field, leaving a very small imprint on the race. Many believe he was running to angle for a Cabinet slot in a future Republican administration.

Perry praised Jindal’s decision Tuesday evening in an Instagram post.

“Bobby Jindal [is a] great governor, standup friend, loyal American,” he wrote. “We’ve not seen the last of this serious public servant.”

Retired neurosurgeon and GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson echoed Perry’s compliments.

“Thank you to @BobbyJindal for being a conservative governor and running a campaign he should be proud of,” Carson wrote. “Wishing the Jindal family well.”



Well Over Half Of U.S. States Now Refusing To Take Syrian “Refugees”

Here Is The Map Of All States Defying Obama And Refusing To Take ‘Syrian Refugees’ – Top Right News


More than half of U.S. states are now refusing to cooperate with Barack Obama’s insane importation of 200,000 so-called ‘Syrian Refugees’ in the wake of the Paris terror attacks.

As public outrage has exploded since revelations that at least two of the Paris terrorists came into Europe as “Syrian refugees,” the number of governors opposing Obama’s plan has increased almost hourly on Monday, from just one – Michigan – overnight, to at least 27 at this hour… including one Democrat in a tight race (Maggie Hassan, NH).

As Top Right News has reported, at least two of the Paris terrorists entered Greece posing as so-called “Syrian refugees” in September – and were able to make their way to France to prepare, arm and execute a massive terrorist attack just 90 days later. This, after a Syrian informant revealed over 4,000 ISIS fighters have already been smuggled into Western nations – “hidden among innocent refugees.”

Obama’s own DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson actually said “we don’t know a whole lot” about Syrian refugees coming into America, and that DHS has “no active protocol” for properly screening them.

Yesterday, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) announced that, to protect the safety of his citizens, he would BLOCK any future importation of Muslim “refugees” to his state. A virtual avalanche of U.S. governors quickly followed suit. And although Federal law gives Obama the ability to import refugees as he sees fit, through the Jimmy Carter-era Refugee Act (1980), the states are essential parts of the settlement process. Without their cooperation, few if any refugees are likely to be moved to those states.

In a press conference this morning in Turkey, Obama said that ‘the United States has to step up and do its part,’ while chiding those in the opposition party for suggesting there be a ‘religious test’ for entry into the United States.

Clearly, the American people do not agree, and the brutal Paris attacks were the critical mass that has spurred massive political action.

The White House is furious at the growing revolt of the states:
Liberal News

White House blasts Republican states for rejecting needy Syrian refugees, says “Xenophobia is not the answer to terror” #paris

11:47 AM – 16 Nov 2015

Here is a map of the states currently defying Obama on his Muslim importation program (updated hourly):


As of 11/17/2015 3:00EST


Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire (D), New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin

UPDATE: Gov. Susana Martinez (R-NM) is opposed to the resettlement of Muslim migrants. This remains missing from all other internet maps/lists hours later, for some reason.

UPDATE: We have Alaska in green because its Republican Gov. Bill Walker (I, former R) said he “can’t be bothered” to address this issue due to other concerns, angering many Alaskans who want him to oppose it.

UPDATE: Gov. Jay Nixon (D-MO) has refused to bar Obama’s refugees from Missouri, despite 105 of 114 counties being opposed to it.

Is your state welcoming any of the 200,000 so-called “refugees” Obama is demanding be imported into the heart of America, despite there being no “effective protocol” to properly vet them for ISIS ties?

If so you may wish to contact your governor at THIS link.


Related articles:

Third Of Syrian Refugees ISIS Sympathizers, 13 Percent Support – Gateway Pundit

A poll released in November but ignored by the mainstream media shows a third of Syrian refugees do not want the Muslim terrorist group ISIS defeated. The survey results buttress concerns by the dozens of U.S. governors who have announced opposition to President Barack Obama’s plan to import 10,000 Syrian refugees over the next year.

The poll shows thirteen percent of Syrian refugees have a completely positive opinion of ISIS with another ten percent having mixed feelings on the terror group, suggesting that nearly one quarter are open to recruitment by ISIS.

Factoring the survey results with the 10,000 Syrian refugees Obama plans to bring to the United States means Obama will bring in 1,300 ISIS supporters and a total of 3,100 who do not want the US to defeat ISIS.

The Obama administration imported about 1,600 Syrian refugees in the past fiscal year. That means around 200 Syrian refugee ISIS supporters and a total of nearly 500 Syrian refugee ISIS sympathizers are already in the country.

The telephone poll of 900 Syrian refugees was conducted by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies as part of a larger survey of six hundred people in each of six Arab nations and the Palestinian territories about ISIS. The group surveyed Syrian refugees in “equal proportion” located in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. The survey also covered residents of Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Palestinian territories.

The poll has a margin of error rate of plus or minus four percent.

The survey result for the other Arab countries show similar levels of support for ISIS which ought to prompt a reevaluation of the U.S. policy for immigrants and refugees from the Middle East. The sole exception is Lebanon where less than one percent have a positive view of ISIS.

At the other end of the spectrum, even more supportive of ISIS than the Syrian refugees, are Palestinians.

The survey shows twenty-four percent of Palestinians have a positive view of ISIS with another thirty-six percent only having a somewhat negative opinion of ISIS. The survey also shows Palestinians as the only group where less than fifty percent (48) support the defeat of ISIS .

A Google News search shows only Investors Business Daily and The Blaze have reported on the survey. In Canada, which has pledged to take in 25,000 Syrian refugees, it appears only The Rebel has reported on the survey.


Obama Admin ‘Lied’ About Vetting Syrian Refugees – WorldNetDaily

The former chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence says President Obama has no coherent strategy to defeat ISIS, and he alleges one of Obama’s top advisers “lied to the American people” to perpetuate a misguided program allowing tens of thousands of refugees into the U.S.

Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes appeared on multiples Sunday morning news shows. When asked whether the news that one and possibly two of the Paris terrorists came to Europe as refugees would alter the Obama administration’s plan to accept tens of thousands of refugees, Rhodes said there would be no re-evaluation.

“No, Chuck,” Rhodes told “Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd. “We have very extensive screening procedures for all Syrian refugees who would come to the United States. There’s a very careful vetting process that includes our intelligence community, our National Counterterrorism Center, the Department of Homeland Security. So we can make sure we’re carefully screening anybody who comes to the United States.”

Peter Hoekstra spent 18 years in Congress and spent much of his time focused on intelligence matters. He is now with the Investigative Project on Terrorism and is the author of “Architects of Disaster,” which outlines the failure of the Obama administration’s policy in Libya.

“I think (Rhodes) basically lied to the American people,” Hoekstra told WND and Radio America. “He said we’ve got a good vetting process in place where we can vet those that are coming from Syria into the United States.”

He continued, “No we do not. The records don’t exist in Syria, especially after you’ve had five years of civil war. We don’t have a relationship with the regime. It’s an ungoverned area. We don’t know who these people are. Ben, shame on you for even implying that we’ve got a good vetting system. We’re lucky if can get the names right.”

In fact, even before the terrorist attacks in Paris, Hoekstra said the idea of bringing in tens of thousands of refugees was a fool’s errand. As such, he said the announcements from a growing number of governors that they won’t accept refugees is a good sign.

“I think it’s a good decision,” he said. “I wasn’t quite sure why we were ever welcoming these folks in. We are a welcoming nation to refugees and to these kinds of individuals, but only after they’ve been vetted.”

Hoekstra said spreading all these refugees around the Western world does nothing to solve the real problem.

“This problem is not solved by accepting refugees into Europe and the United States,” he said. “This problem is solved by eliminating ISIS and bringing some stability back into the Middle East. You’ve got to wipe ISIS out.”

The issue is taking on additional scrutiny after the European Union revealed only one-fifth of the refugees it has accepted (or about 44,000 of some 213,000 total) are actually from Syria.

But the refugee issue is just one element of the Obama administration’s approach to ISIS that baffles Hoekstra. On Monday, Obama told reporters at the G-20 Summit in Turkey that the Paris attacks would not alter the U.S. strategy toward ISIS. Hoekstra said the existing strategy is a proven disaster, as evidenced by Yemen and Libya turning into lawless wastelands and both Syria and Iraq getting increasingly unstable and deadly to Christians, Yazidis and others.

“I’m not sure what strategy this president is looking at that he believes it working,” Hoekstra said. “When you’ve got at least four countries that are no longer governed and are failed nation-states and are home for the planning and training and preparation for attacks against the West, that is not my view of success.”

Another statement from Obama in Turkey is getting even more attention. After announcing he was sticking with his existing strategy toward ISIS, Obama slammed those who want to America taking a more decisive role.

“What I’m not interested in doing is posing, or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning or whatever other slogans they come up with that has no relationship to what is actually going to work,” Obama said.

Hoekstra was stunned.

“This message is clear: When the president says, ‘I have no intention of following or implementing a strategy about America leading’ or whatever slogan they may come up with, it is clear that this president does not have a strategy in place for America leading in Northern Africa, the Middle East or, for that matter, any other place in the world,” Hoekstra said.

And he said America’s credibility is taking a beating as a result.

“I hate to be that critical of this president, but America is at risk,” Hoekstra said. “We are in danger, and we’re in danger of losing our influence in the world. We’ve been a voice of stability, security, democracy and human rights. We are just losing all credibility throughout significant portions of the world.”

In addition to his frustrations with the Obama administration, Hoekstra is alarmed at how unprepared the intelligence communities were for the Paris attacks.

“What I’m hearing is that there was some general awareness that there were some attacks or an attack was imminent in Europe,” Hoekstra said. “That was out there, but again no tactical insight into exactly where the attack would take place or when it would take place.”

He said the truth is, it’s really hard to find these small plots before they happen.

“It just tells you that ISIS and these radical jihadist groups in a country of 80 million people or in a country of 300-plus million people like the United States, it’s not that hard to hide and organize and prepare to carry out an attack like this,” Hoekstra said.

So what can be done to improve America’s odds of stopping future attacks?

“We need closer intelligence sharing between our agencies,” Hoekstra said. “We need to push the technology envelope as quickly as we can, and we need to improve our human intelligence.”

Intelligence experts say efforts to infiltrate ISIS have essentially “gone dark,” partly due to former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden exposing tactics for tracking terrorist suspects.

Hoekstra said this confirms what everyone should have known about Snowden from the outset.

“As I said at the time, this was not an American hero protecting American liberties,” he said. “This was an American traitor that was giving away some of America’s secrets that would make us more vulnerable to these kinds of groups and these kinds of individuals and these kinds of attacks.”



*VIDEO* Dangerously Delusional Democrats And The Threat Of Islam



French Interior Minister Calls For Mosques To Be Shut Down

French Official Calls For Mosques To Be Shut Down – Right Scoop


The French Interior Minister said that more Mosques will have to be shut down in the wake of the awful terror strike.

From Huffington Post:

The interior minister of France has called for the dissolution of “mosques where hate is preached” following a string of attacks that left at least 129 people dead across Paris. Bernard Cazeneuve made the comments during an interview on French television, according to a report by MSNBC.

The minister has long been an advocate for addressing the concerns of the country’s five million Muslim residents, particularly after January’s attacks at the Charlie Hebdo office. But Cazeneuve has also made significant efforts to curb homegrown extremism. France increased surveillance at religious and cultural centers earlier this year and has been cracking down on supposed radicalization in prisons.

Around 7.5 percent of the country’s inhabitants are Muslim, but some 60 percent of prisoners are, according to a 2014 report.

France has also deported 40 imams – Islamic spiritual leaders – since 2012 for “preaching hatred.” Nearly a quarter of those deportations happened in the first six months of this year.

“Foreign preachers of hate will be deported [and their mosques] will be shut down,” Cazeneuve told Agence France-Presse earlier this year.

Now of course the liberals will howl and screech at the cessation of civil liberties, but after such a horrific attack that was obviously motivated by Islamic extremism, it’s hard to deny a civilization’s right to self-defense.



Related article:

Trump Tells Morning Joe He Would Consider Shutting Down Mosques – Right Scoop

This morning, Donald Trump was interviewed by phone on MSNBC’s Morning Joe and said something that, of course, has started a cascade of hand-wringing and whining on Twitter: that he would shut down mosques. But is that what he said?

The Joe hosts were discussing the French stating that they would consider shutting down mosques that have “radical leadership” and that they can determine have “very specific ties’ to terror. Then Joe asks Trump’s opinion.

Joe: Donald Trump, the French are talking about that. Is that something that you would consider doing as President.

Trump: Well I would hate to do it but it’s something you’d have to strongly consider, because some of the ideas and some of the hatred, the absolute hatred is coming from these areas.

He adds:

It’s something that many people, not me, it’s something that many people are considering and many people are going to do.

Leading up to that point, Trump talked about how previously New York City was monitoring mosque activity but have stopped under De Blasio.

Contrary to the panic on Twitter, Trump did not say, “hey let’s go close all mosques everywhere and also burn down the Koran” or anything like that.

Any reasonable nation would consider monitoring and then shutting down any institution that was a recruitment center or intelligence center for domestic terror or a foreign enemy. It is called self-preservation. Trump’s words this morning on Morning Joe are just a reiteration of something that would be obvious to any idiot. But apparently, not to any lefty looking for their Nobel Prize for Sanctimony.



Governors Of Michigan And Alabama Refuse To Accept Syrian “Refugees” Into Their States

Snyder Suspends Syrian Refugee Effort In Michigan – Detroit Free Press


Gov. Rick Snyder’s decision to suspend efforts to bring Syrian refugees to Michigan in light of the deadly terrorist attacks in Paris on Friday has sparked controversy and launched the state into the national debate of how to protect U.S. citizens while providing a haven for those who desperately need help.

Snyder’s office released a statement Sunday saying the state would not be accepting any Syrian refugees until the U.S. Department of Homeland Security fully reviewed its procedures.

“Michigan is a welcoming state and we are proud of our rich history of immigration,” Snyder said in the statement. “But our first priority is protecting the safety of our residents.”

More than 120 people were killed in Paris on Friday night, and hundreds more injured, in a series of suicide bombings and attacks that officials say were orchestrated by the Islamic State, a terrorist group with a stronghold in Syria. News agencies have reported that a Syrian passport found at the scene of one of the attacks matches a refugee who traveled through Greece. Now in its fifth year, the war in Syria has devastated the country, sending millions of people abroad in search of a new life.

Snyder’s announcement Sunday is a step backward from recent efforts and comments from his administration offering to aid refugees. In September, Snyder said he was working with the federal government to determine the process for accepting refugees from the ongoing crisis in Syria and the Middle East.

“Isn’t that part of being a good Michigander?” he asked at the time, while stressing that the refugees would have to be carefully screened to assure they were not security threats.

His reversal drew immediate and divisive reactions across the nation on Sunday, but especially in metro Detroit, home to one of the largest Middle Eastern populations in the nation.

“Good decision,” state Rep. Tim Kelly, R-Saginaw Township, posted on his Facebook page.

“We expect more from you,” and “this sends the wrong message,” Rashida Tlaib, a former state representative from southwest Detroit, countered on her Twitter account.

Local Arab-American leaders and refugee advocates said Sunday they understand the governor’s concern about security, but argued the Department of Homeland Security already does extensive security checks before allowing any refugees into the U.S.

“The United States should be a safe haven,” said Dr. Yahya Basha, a Syrian-American advocate from West Bloomfield who has family members who are refugees. He was at the White House recently to discuss the Syrian refugee crisis with U.S. officials: “We should welcome them.”

Basha said he doesn’t mind the scrutiny before allowing refugees in but doesn’t think their arrival should be prevented.

Maged Moughni, a Dearborn attorney and Arab-American advocate, agreed, saying “it’s uncalled for… I think it’s really unfair.”

“It’s doing what ISIS wants… He’s just basically buying into what ISIS wants: Muslims against the West… Gov. Snyder is buying into the rhetoric.”

“I can understand being cautious, but to suspend it is wrong,” Moughni said.

A spokesman for the Michigan and Ohio branch of the Department of Homeland Security referred questions about Snyder’s move to the national office, which did not return an e-mail seeking comment late Sunday.

Sean de Four, vice president of child and family services with Lutheran Social Services of Michigan, said the U.S. has a moral obligation to help with what he called “a humanitarian crisis the world has not seen since World War II.”

The agency has helped resettle about 1,800 to 2,000 refugees in Michigan over the past year; about 200 of them are from Syria and many others are from Iraq, another war-torn country.

“I certainly understand and appreciate Gov. Snyder’s desire to be cautious and put the safety of Michiganders first,” de Four said. But “the State Department already uses an overabundance of caution in its screening of refugees before they gained entry into the United States. In fact, refugees spend an average of five to seven years in refugee camps being screened and background checks before access to any country.”

More Syrian refugees were expected in coming months, but Snyder’s decision could bring an end to that.

“He could make it very difficult, next to impossible for refugees to come here,” de Four said, pointing out that two-thirds of Syrian refugees are women and children. “It’s really unfortunate.”

Snyder has been known for his pro-immigrant views, in contrast to strong anti-immigrant sentiment heard on the national level in the Republican Party during the presidential race.

Two weeks ago, Snyder visited Hamtramck, which has the highest percentage of immigrants among all cities in the state, telling a crowd of Bangladeshi Americans: “I believe I’m the most pro-immigration governor in the country.”

Amid criticism from some conservatives over city voters electing a Muslim-majority city council, Snyder praised the city.

Then came Friday’s attack, prompting state Rep. Gary Glenn, R-Midland, to issue a statement Saturday night calling on Snyder to “reverse his call to relocate Syrian refugees in the state.”

“We should not rush to offer an open door to the high-risk importation of individuals from a known hotbed of Islamic extremism,” Glenn said, disputing assertions that the refugees can be safely vetted.

Snyder decided to halt the refugee program on Saturday, after consultation with legislative leaders, prior to Glenn’s statement, spokesman Dave Murray said.

It’s true that earlier efforts to bring Syrian refugees to Michigan “were contingent on proper security vetting, which is an extensive process that takes up to a year or more,” Murray said.

However, “in light of the terrible situation in Paris, Gov. Snyder has asked that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security complete a full review of those security procedures and clearances.”

Asked whether Syrian refugees who have been through the current vetting process and want to settle in Michigan should be prevented from doing so, Murray said he’s not aware of any refugees who fit those criteria, but would check.

On Sunday, U.S. Rep. Candice Miller, R-Harrison Township, issued a statement applauding Snyder: “I support Governor Snyder’s decision to suspend efforts to relocate Syrian refugees to Michigan, and have cautioned against the Administration’s decision to increase the number being admitted into the U.S…. The fact is, as evidenced by Friday’s horrific attack in Paris, terrorist organizations like ISIS are looking for any and every opportunity to exploit a nation’s hospitality to carry out their barbaric attacks against the innocent. Anyone who says we can adequately and safely vet these refugees is wrong because there is no database in Syria and no way to identify who’s who.”

“America has a long, proud history of helping refugees from across the globe, and we will continue to help. However, in doing so, we must make certain that we are not jeopardizing the safety of our citizens.”


Related article:

Alabama Governor: Syrian Refugees Can’t Come To Alabama – Weekly Standard


Alabama governor Robert Bentley is refusing to allow Syrian refugees to relocate to Alabama.

“After full consideration of this weekend’s attacks of terror on innocent citizens in Paris, I will oppose any attempt to relocate Syrian refugees to Alabama through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. As your Governor, I will not stand complicit to a policy that places the citizens of Alabama in harm’s way,” Governor Bentley says in a statement released by his office.

“The acts of terror committed over the weekend are a tragic reminder to the world that evil exists and takes the form of terrorists who seek to destroy the basic freedoms we will always fight to preserve. I will not place Alabamians at even the slightest, possible risk of an attack on our people. Please continue to join me in praying for those who have suffered loss and for those who will never allow freedom to fade at the hands of terrorists.”

The office of the governor of Alabama says that no Syrian refugees have come through Alabama and that there are no current threats to the state.

“The Alabama Law Enforcement Agency is working diligently with the FBI, DHS and federal intelligence partners to monitor any possible threats. Law enforcement presence has been increased at major gathering events in Alabama to further insure the safety of citizens. To date, there has been no credible intelligence of any terrorist threats in Alabama,” reads a statement from the governor’s office.

“Alabama currently has one U.S. State Department approved refugee processing center in Mobile. There have been no Syrian refugees relocated in Alabama to date, though neighboring states have processed a number of refugees.”



*VIDEO* A Veterans Day Message From A REAL President Of The United States



*VIDEO* Fox Business GOP Presidential Primary Debate (11/10/15)



President Asshat’s Scheme To Shield 5 Million Illegals From Deportation Thwarted By Federal Appeals Court

Appeals Court Rejects Obama Plan To Shield 5 Million Illegals From Deportation – Washington Times


President Obama’s effort to grant up to 5 million illegal immigrants work permits and amnesty from deportation suffered a major blow late Monday when a federal appeals court ruled it was likely illegal, in yet another move by the courts to set limits on this White House’s efforts to stretch presidential powers.

The 2-1 decision by the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting in New Orleans, instantly forces the issue to the fore of the presidential campaigns, where all three top Democratic candidates had insisted Mr. Obama’s actions were not only legal, but vowed to go beyond them and try to expand the amnesty to still more illegal immigrants. Republican candidates, meanwhile, had vowed to undo the moves.

The decision is a huge win for Texas and 25 other states who had sued a year ago to stop the president after he declared he was done waiting for Congress and announced he was acting to “change the law” on his own.

Writing for the majority, Judge Jerry E. Smith said that statement by Mr. Obama weighed heavily against him, since only Congress has the power to rewrite the Immigration and Nationality Act.

“The INA flatly does not permit the reclassification of millions of illegal aliens as lawfully present and thereby make them newly eligible for a host of federal and state benefits, including work authorization,” Judge Smith wrote.

The ruling does not mean those illegal immigrants will be deported – indeed, the judges affirmed that the administration has a lot of leeway to decide who does get kicked out on a case-by-case basis. But the decision means that while leaving them alone, the Homeland Security secretary cannot proactively go ahead and grant them work permits, Social Security numbers and a prospective grant of non-deportation for three years into the future.

The ruling also does not alter Mr. Obama’s 2012 policy granting a similar deportation amnesty to so-called Dreamers, or young adult illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children. Texas did not challenge that policy.

But the decision does halt the 2014 expansion Mr. Obama announced, which would have lifted the age limit on the 2012 policy so it applied to all Dreamers, and would have extended the grant of amnesty to illegal immigrant parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent resident children. Estimates have placed the number of people who would have qualified at up to 5 million.

Mr. Obama had repeatedly insisted he was within the law, and pointed to smaller grants of “deferred action” taken by previous presidents.

The majority of the court, however, said this waiver went far beyond that scope, with Mr. Obama attempting to convert major classifications of illegal status.

Mr. Obama had argued his move, known officially as “Deferred Action for Parental Arrivals,” or DAPA, was not a major new policy, but rather a setting of priorities. He argued that Congress doesn’t give him enough money to deport all illegal immigrants, so he is within his rights to use discretion about whom to deport – and then to grant limited benefits to others who might eventually have a claim to legal status under existing laws.

Judge Carolyn Dineen King, who dissented, agreed with the president’s reasoning.

“Denying DHS’s ability to grant deferred action on a ‘class-wide basis’… as the majority does, severely constrains the agency,” she wrote.

She also agreed with Mr. Obama that the courts had no business even getting involved in the case, saying that the president alone has discretion to make deportation decisions and judges are not allowed to second-guess that.

The judges heard oral arguments in the case in July, calling it an expedited appeal because of the seriousness of the matter. That made the three months it took to issue the ruling all the more striking – and Judge King chided her colleagues for taking so long.

“There is no justification for that delay,” she said.

Courts have not been kind to Mr. Obama, a former constitutional law scholar at the University of Chicago. His move to expand recess appointment powers in 2012 was swatted down by a unanimous Supreme Court, while several environmental moves have also been blocked.

And a federal court in Washington, D.C., has ruled the House of Representatives has standing to sue over the president’s moves to try to spend money on Obamacare that Congress specifically withheld.

The immigration ruling joins those rulings as yet another instance where conservatives have turned to the courts to referee a dispute over Mr. Obama’s claims of executive power.

Immigrant-advocacy groups had been anxiously watching the case, and were devastated by the ruling.

“This is a huge setback,” said Voto Latino President Maria Teresa Kumar. “There is a shortage of justice as families live in constant fear of being torn apart from their loved ones and uprooted from their communities.”

She said she was “confident” the Supreme Court will overturn the ruling, if the case gets there.

Mr. Obama announced the amnesty as part of a series of steps last Nov. 20 designed to work around Congress, where House Republicans had balked at passing a legalization bill.

The president said that if they wouldn’t cooperate with him, he was going to take unilateral action to streamline legal immigration and to halt deportations for as many as 9 million of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country. Those steps all remain in place.

But he also wanted to go beyond that and grant some tentative legal status and benefits to about half of those illegal immigrants – chiefly by giving them work permits, which allows them to come out of the shadows, hold jobs and pay taxes above board.

Granting work permits also entitled the illegal immigrants to driver’s licenses in every state in the county, and to Social Security numbers – which meant they were even able to start collecting tax credits. In addition, some states granted them in-state tuition for public colleges.

But the money states would have to spend on issuing driver’s licenses proved to be the plan’s downfall. Texas argued that meant it would lose money under the plan, which meant it had standing to sue.

Once the judges decided that, they turned to whether Mr. Obama followed the law in making the changes. The majority concluded that he because he never sought public review and comment, which is standard for major changes of policy made by agencies, he broke the Administrative Procedures Act.

Immigrant-rights advocates demanded the Obama administration fight to the Supreme Court, but also said they’ll force the issue into the political realm as well.

Ben Monterroso, executive director of Mi Familia Vota, called on Hispanics and other voters to punish Republicans at the ballot box over the lawsuit, saying “anti-immigrant conservative politicians… are to blame.”

“We cannot control the courts, but we will have a say in political outcomes. It is now up to us – Latino voters and groups like ours that are working every day to grow our vote in the 2016 national election – to elect candidates who respect our communities and will commit to working on our issues and treating us fairly,” he said.