Texans Living Over 70 Miles North of Border Terrorized by Illegals, Cartels

Tuesday, April 02, 2019

Terrified residents desperate for border wall, protection

Americans living roughly 75 miles north of the Mexican border are being terrorized by foreign gang members and illegal aliens, according to a resident of Encino, Texas, who says a border wall is needed to protect U.S. citizens.

A woman identified only as “Soila” told NBC affiliate KVEO that “hundreds” of illegal aliens pass through her neighborhood on any given day, while Mexican cartel members threaten her family and friends — and even attempt to invade her property.

“We no longer can go out without a gun; you can’t go for a walk,” Soila said. “My neighbor and his daughter were chased by men with masks. She was riding her 4-wheeler down 281 — they saw her and they jumped the fence and started chasing her.”

“Huge groups — and we’re not talking 10 or 15, we’re talking about 40, 70 — and the last few months it’s getting worse. They really need to go after the coyotes because we have seen so many abandoned families, women with children just left out there. These people are not educated — they don’t know east or west, they don’t know where the sun rises and sets. You ask them, ‘Have you ever seen a map of Texas?’ They don’t even know how big Texas is.”

Soila tells of multiple confrontations between her husband and gang members who use intimidation to silence and control opposition, adding that her neighbors are scared to call Border Patrol due to threats.

“12 young men dressed in black — my husband automatically stops, and they just put a finger to their lips and it’s like, ‘You better not say anything,’” Soila said. “They know what we drive, they know where we live.”

“There was a young man, [my husband] kept telling him to stop right at the gate, but he kept coming. My husband cocked the gun, and right on his left-hand side, 12-15 more pop out. They were trying to get in towards the house.”

Soila says a border wall is desperately needed, and that those who oppose it are foolish or protecting their short-term financial interests.

“Whoever tells you there is no danger out here and we don’t need the wall, they have no idea what they’re talking about,” she said. “They don’t care as long as the businesses keep thriving in McAllen or Brownsville.”

ARMED MOM SAVES DAUGHTER FROM MUSLIM KIDNAPPER IN SHOPPING MALL ABDUCTION ATTEMPT

Armed Mom Saves Daughter From Muslim Kidnapper in Shopping Mall Abduction Attempt

Mohamed Fathy Hussein Zayan from Egypt released child when mom pointed gun at him

 | Infowars.com – APRIL 2, 2019

A mom armed with a pistol saved her 5-year-old daughter from being kidnapped at a West Virginia mall Monday night.

The incident happened in Old Navy at the Huntington Mall in Barboursville around 6PM as Mohamed Fathy Hussein Zayan, 54, from Alexandria, Egypt, “grabbed the child by the hair and attempted to pull her away,” reports WYMT.

“Police say the mother then pulled out a handgun and told the suspect to let go of the child. The mother told police the man then let go of the girl and ran out of the store into the mall.”

Zayan was taken into custody after he was located walking near the food court.

“The woman helped police track the man down in the mall,” reports WSAZ’s Melanie Shafer.

Screen Shot 2019-04-02 at 6.03.33 PM

According to WYMT, a magistrate has revoked Zayan’s passport and an Arabic language phone translator was needed during his arraignment.

Image credit: WSAZ.com

His bond is set at $200,000 on a felony charge of attempted abduction, and a preliminary hearing has been set for April 8.

Democrat Presidential Candidate Julián Castro: Open the Borders

By Neil Munro

The Associated Press

Democratic presidential hopeful Julián Castro is hoping to win primary voters by urging an open-borders policy, even though his plan would likely shrink wages and spike rents for the party’s base of lower-income voters.

Castro, a former housing secretary in President Barack Obama’s cabinet, announced his innovative promise to cut voters’ wages via a friendly interview in the Washington Post:

Democratic presidential candidate Julián Castro offered a far-reaching plan to remake the nation’s immigration policy Tuesday with a new call to end criminal penalties for migrants entering the country without permission and a plan to remove detention as a tool for most immigration enforcement.

By repealing the criminal code that allows the Trump administration to prosecute people who enter the country, Castro would remove the mechanism that previously allowed the administration to separate asylum-seeking parents and children after detention. Trump has since stopped those prosecutions, though single adults continue to face criminal penalties. Castro said he would impose a civil legal process for sorting out refu­gee applications and deportations, with an emphasis on jailing and removing those with criminal records.

Castro also wants to amnesty the population of at least 11 million illegals in the United States, to accelerate the chain-migration of foreigners into the United States, to boost the inflow of refugees, and to end construction of a border barrier. He would also block the power of ICE to enforce the nation’s immigration laws, so further reducing the already small threat of repatriation for the growing population of at least 11 million illegals in the United States.

Overall, Castro’s policy would explode the population of non-Americans in the United States and so further expand opportunities for Latino politicians and power-brokers. In February 2019, Breitbart reported Castro’s political roots in Latino identity politics:

Castro’s mother, Maria del Rosario Castro, or Rosie Castro, was a major leftist organizer who co-founded La Raza Unida, an extremist third party separatist group in the 1970s. La Raza Unida literally translates to “The Race United,” and the group sought to create a new country in the American Southwest called Aztlan. Breitbart News has run a number of pieces over the years on this group and the Castro family’s connections to it, but perhaps the most interesting thing about Castro’s presidential campaign launch is that he did not shy away from this radical upbringing; he embraced it.

The Washington Post reporter, Michael Scherer, did not ask Castro how Americans voters would gain or lose amid of flood of blue-collar and white-collar labor. The reporter did not address how a massive rise of the immigrant population would help lower-income Americans keep their homes in neighborhoods that are already seeing rising real-estate prices, such as New York and Los Angeles.

Instead, Castro and Scherer treated the migration issue merely as a matter of the migrants’ welfare. This skew hides the greatest economic impact of migration — the transfer of blue-collar wages and white-collar salaries earned by ordinary Americans and legal immigrants up to wealthy, older recipients, including investors, CEOs, and real estate owners.

Also, Castro and Scherer treated the migration as only a humanitarian crisis, and portrayed the migrants as helpless victims, which are described as “asylum-seeking families.” Castro told Scherer that “We see this administration’s approach to immigration is a total failure. Instead of marching forward with cruelty, I believe we should choose compassion.”

That approach dismisses the strong evidence that the migrants are rationally exploiting the many legal loopholes which are being held open by Democrats, judges and business lobbyists, to win jobs and residency for their children in the peaceful, prosperous United States.

Scherer did not reply to questions from Breitbart News.

The focus by Castro and Scherer on the migrants’ welfare and on humanitarian concerns also echoes the bipartisan claim that the United States is a “nation of immigrants,” not a nation of and for Americans.

Screen Shot 2019-04-02 at 3.52.17 PM

The voting public is likely to strongly oppose Castro’s open-borders and cheap-labor policy.

Each year, roughly four million young Americans join the workforce after graduating from high school or university. But the federal government then imports approximately 1.1 million legal immigrants, refreshes a resident population of roughly 1.5 million white-collar guest workers and roughly 500,000 blue-collar visa workers, and also tolerates about eight million illegal workers.

This federal policy of flooding the market with cheap white-collar graduates and blue-collar foreign labor is intended to boost economic growth for investors. This policy shiftsenormous wealth from young employees towards older investors, widens wealth gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts children’s schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines millions of marginalized Americans, including many who are now struggling with fentanyl addictions.

But the Washington Post article also put a racial, class, and regional skew on the rational public opposition to elite support for cheap-labor migration:

Some Democratic strategists are wary of turning off white voters in swing states of the upper Midwest who Trump has been able to sway with anti-immigration rhetoric.

Those views of “white voters” have been validated by President Donald Trump’s “Hire American” policy which has raised wages in 2018 by limiting the inflow of new workers in 2017 and 2018:

Screen Shot 2019-04-02 at 3.53.11 PM

Amnesty advocates rely on business-funded “Nation of Immigrants” push polls to show apparent voter support for immigration and immigrants.

But “choice” polls reveal most voters’ often-ignored preference that CEOs should hire Americans at decent wages before hiring migrants. Those Americans include many blue-collar Blacks, Latinos, and people who hide their opinions from pollsters. Similarly, the 2018 polls show that GOP voters are far more concerned about migration — more properly, the economics of migration — than they are concerned about illegal migration and MS-13, taxes, or House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

Exclusive: Tom Cotton Pushes IRS to Investigate Southern Poverty Law Center’s Tax-Exempt Status ‘the SPLC’s defining characteristic is to fundraise off of defamation’

By Matthew Boyle

Screen Shot 2019-04-02 at 3.39.22 PM

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) is pressing the IRS to investigate the tax-exempt status of leftist group Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an organization that has been mired in scandal.

Cotton argues that a series of recent reports regarding the leftist group’s patently political activities are troubling, and in a letter to the head of the IRS provided to Breitbart News exclusively ahead of its public release questions whether these actions warrant removal of the group’s status as a nonprofit organization.

“I am writing to urge you to investigate whether the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) should retain its classification as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization,” Cotton wrote in the Tuesday letter to IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig. “Recent news reports have confirmed the long-established fact that the SPLC regularly engages in defamation of its political opponents. In fact, the SPLC’s defining characteristic is to fundraise off of defamation.”

2019 SPLC Cotton Letter VF by Breitbart News on Scribd

Cotton noted in the letter to the IRS commissioner, citing SPLC financial documents, that the leftist organization has made lots of money by targeting conservative groups with allegations that they are hate groups–regardless of the veracity of such allegations.

“This business model has paid well. The SPLC has accrued more than $500 million in assets,” Cotton wrote. “According to the group’s most recent financial statement, it holds $121 million offshore in non-U.S. equity funds. The SPLC uses these assets to pay its executives lavish salaries far higher than the comparable household average.”

Cotton’s letter cites a number of recent investigative reports by the media into SPLC’s standards and culture, including a recently-published CNN exposé where staff alleged racism and sexism running rampant throughout the leftist group’s organizational structure.

“Famous civil rights group suffers from ‘systemic culture of racism and sexism,’ staffers say,” was the headline in CNN’s March 29 article by Nick Valencia and Pamela Kirkland.

“Some employees at the Southern Poverty Law Center say the legendary civil rights nonprofit group suffers from a ‘systemic culture of racism and sexism within its workplace,’” Valencia and Kirkland wrote. “The SPLC, which has been on the front line of the fight against racial inequality and injustice in the United States since 1971, has been thrust into chaos after allegations over its treatment of minority and female employees. The claims have been followed by changes in its leadership and a company-wide review.”

Cotton also cites New York Times report from Alan Blinder published on March 22 that Cotton noted described the SPLC as “in turmoil” while citing SPLC employee claims that the organization and its leadership are “complicit in decades of racial discrimination, gender discrimination, and sexual harassment and/or assault.” Both Richard Cohen, the organization’s president, and Morris Dees, the organization’s co-founder, have been pushed out in recent days amid these scandals — and the SPLC has named an interim president to lead the group for now.

“Based on these reports, and in the interest of protecting taxpayer dollars from a racist and sexist slush fund devoted to defamation, I believe that the SPLC’s conduct warrants a serious and thorough investigation,” Cotton wrote to the IRS commissioner. “Engaging in systematic defamation is not a tax-exempt purpose: Federal law requires nonprofits classified as 501(c)(3) organizations to comply with IRS guidelines and have a ‘tax-exempt purpose.’ While IRS guidance lists several examples of tax-exempt purposes, engaging in defamation as a business model is of course not one of them. The SPLC defames other organizations in several ways.”

From there, Cotton cites Washington Post piece by David Montgomery published in November 2018. The piece in the Post notes how the SPLC, which used to simply target hate groups like the KKK, Neo-Nazis, Black Nationalists, White Nationalists, and others, has expanded in recent years its so-called “hate map” to target mainstream conservative organizations to tarnish their reputations in order to push a leftist agenda.

“Today the SPLC’s list of 953 ‘Active Hate Groups’ is an elaborate taxonomy of ill will,” Montgomery wrote in the Post on Nov. 8, 2018. “There are many of the usual suspects: Ku Klux Klan (72 groups), Neo-Nazi (121), White Nationalist (100), Racist Skinhead (71), Christian Identity (20), Neo-Confederate (31), Black Nationalist (233) and Holocaust Denial (10). There are also more exotic strains familiar only to connoisseurs: Neo-Volkisch (28; ‘spirituality premised on the survival of white Europeans’) and Radical Traditional Catholicism (11; groups that allegedly ‘routinely pillory Jews as ‘the perpetual enemy of Christ’ ‘). Then there are the more controversial additions of the last decade-and-a-half or so: Anti-LGBT (51), Anti-Muslim (113), Anti-Immigrant (22), Hate Music (15), Male Supremacy (2). Finally, the tally is rounded out by a general category called Other (53) — ‘a hodge-podge of hate doctrines.’”FB

Montgomery noted that the SPLC hate group list for many years — decades, he says — “was a golden seal of disapproval, considered nonpartisan enough to be heeded by government agencies, police departments, corporations, and journalists.”

“But in recent years, as the list has swept up an increasing number of conservative activists — mostly in the anti-LGBT, anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim categories — those conservatives have been fighting back,” Montgomery wrote. “[General Jerry] Boykin, of the FRC, recently sent a letter to about 100 media outlets (including The Washington Post) and corporate donors on behalf of four dozen groups and individuals “who have been targeted, defamed, or otherwise harmed” by the SPLC, warning that the hate list is no longer to be trusted. Mathew Staver, chairman of the Christian legal advocacy group Liberty Counsel, told me 60 organizations are interested in suing the SPLC.”

Conservatives’ efforts to expose the SPLC as a fraudulent group that does not represent an honest arbiter of what is a hate group and what is not have been effective, Montgomery noted.

“There are signs the campaign is having an impact,” Montgomery wrote. “Last year GuideStar, a widely consulted directory of charitable organizations, flagged 46 charities that were listed by the SPLC as hate groups. Within months, under pressure from critics, GuideStar announced it was removing the flags. The FBI has worked with the SPLC in the past on outreach programs, but Attorney General Jeff Sessions has signaled a very different attitude. At a meeting of the Alliance Defending Freedom in August, Sessions said, ‘You are not a hate group,’ and condemned the SPLC for using the label ‘to bully and to intimidate groups like yours which fight for religious freedom.’”

In his letter to the IRS leader, Sen. Cotton noted that the SPLC regularly defamed reputable conservative groups in its hate map designation–which runs as he already detailed contrary to IRS regulations and federal statute regarding nonprofit status for organizations.

“Each year, the SPLC publishes a so-called ‘hate map,’ which ostensibly identifies hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Nation of Islam. But under the guise of its ‘hate map,’ the SPLC also lists its mainstream political opponents and faith-based groups, including reputable organizations such as the Family Research Council, the Alliance Defending Freedom, and the Center for Immigration Studies,” Cotton wrote.

Cotton also noted that the SPLC has regularly engaged in defamation of individuals, citing reports from the Washington Examiner‘s Emily Jashinsky and National Review‘s Douglas Murray.

“The SPLC also defames individuals. It labeled the civil-rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the British political activist Maajid Nawaz as ‘anti-Muslim extremists,’” Cotton wrote. “Last June, the SPLC agreed to pay Nawaz – who is himself Muslim – $3.375 million following a defamation lawsuit.”

Cotton noted too that the leftist group’s defamation of conservatives has real-life serious consequences as well, citing the shooter who attacked the Family Research Council in 2012.

“The SPLC’s defamation has not just damaged the reputation of these mainstream organizations and individuals by lumping them in with the Ku Klux Klan and Nation of Islam; it has resulted in injury and the threat of the loss of life, including an attempted mass murder,” Cotton wrote. “In 2012, Floyd Lee Corkins entered and shot up the Family Research Council’s headquarters, while carrying fifteen Chick-fil-A sandwiches that he planned to smear in his victims’ faces. Corkins told investigators that he selected the Family Research Council because the SPLC labeled the organization as a ‘hate group.’”

Cotton cites a 2013 CNN report on Corkins’ trial, where Corkins admitted he targeted the FRC–a leading mainstream conservative group–because of SPLC’s false labeling of it as a “hate group.”

Cotton then turns to how the organization has abused its tax-exempt status to enrich its leadership, including the now-removed leader Dees. To make these points, Cotton cites New Yorker investigation into Dees and the SPLC published on March 21, as well as the SPLC’s own financial documents including the group’s 990 form filed with the IRS and a report from the Nonprofit Times.

“The SPLC operates as a tax-sheltered slush fund to enrich its leadership: In addition to failing to have a tax-exempt purpose, the SPLC’s peculiar financial situation warrants your attention,” Cotton wrote. “Federal law prohibits tax-exempt organizations from inuring to the benefit of any private individual. Yet the SPLC has accrued more than $500 million in assets as of October 31, 2018. Reportedly and inexplicably, $121 million of these assets are parked in offshore accounts. In 2017 alone, these funds were used to pay the organization’s founder and longtime leader, who was recently removed for unspecified inappropriate conduct, more than $400,000. This payment came despite reports that Morris Dees, in addition to allegedly engaging in sexual misconduct, had ‘ratchetted down his involvement with the organization.’ This is more than nine times the median household income for Montgomery, Alabama, where the SPLC is headquartered.”

Cotton concludes the letter by asking Rettig, the IRS commissioner, to take “immediate action.”

“Perhaps the SPLC was founded for noble purposes and decades ago performed some good work, but what is left of the SPLC is no longer operating in a manner consistent with IRS guidelines and applicable law,” Cotton wrote. “Based on this concerning information and the flood of recent reports, I encourage you to take immediate action.”

Kirsten Gillibrand Wants To Abolish Electoral College To ‘Restore’ A Fundamental American Principle. There’s Just One Problem.

By Ashe Schow

Maybe it was an April Fool’s Day joke, because that would be the kindest explanation for presidential candidate Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s (D-NY) tweet on Monday claiming we need to “abolish the Electoral College” in order to “restore” the principle of “one person, one vote.”

She put out the tweet and included a link to a Daily Beast article about Democrat senators introducing a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College (because their supporters live in big, populous cities and a popular vote will ensure they’re elected).

“Our democracy is built on the principle of one person, one vote. It can’t function until we restore that principle. It’s time to abolish the Electoral College,” Gillibrand tweeted.

Screen Shot 2019-04-02 at 2.57.06 PM

The problem with the tweet, as Mark Hemingway and others pointed out, is that there is no “principle” to “restore” by eliminating the Electoral College. It’s in the constitution. It is a principle on which our “democracy” (constitutional republic) was built.

Screen Shot 2019-04-02 at 2.59.33 PM

The Electoral College is described in Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

In 1804, the states ratified the Twelfth Amendment, which supersedes the paragraph after the one quoted above. Originally, the person with the most electoral votes would be president, and the person with the second highest would be vice-president.

The Twelfth Amendment changed that by making president and vice-president two separate elections.

The national popular vote was never an American principle, or at least not the way Democrats want it to be now. The Electoral College results from a popular vote – in each state and the District of Columbia. It is 51 separate popular votes, although two states award proportional electoral votes.

Democrats don’t like the way elections are currently done because their party lost in 2016 and 2000 due to electoral votes when they won the popular vote. So, naturally, because the system didn’t work for them, they want to abolish it.

Republicans run using the Electoral College. Then-candidate Donald Trump visited states he thought he could win to increase his electoral votes. Hillary Clinton visited some states she knew she wouldn’t win in order to increase her vote totals so she would not only be the first female president, but also the president with the most votes ever.

This strategy, of course, did not work out in her favor. She ignored states she assumed would give her their electoral votes (like Wisconsin), assuming the Electoral College was a lock for her. She was wrong.

Now Democrats are upset that their strategy to win the election didn’t work, and they think that because Clinton won the national popular votes, that a national popular vote would result in total Democrat control.

Republicans don’t run on the national popular vote. If they did, maybe they would win it. It’s a chance Democrats seem willing to take.

Pelosi: Biden’s Unwanted Touching Doesn’t Disqualify Him In Run For President

By Joseph Curl

Screen Shot 2019-04-02 at 11.30.45 AM

It’s all cool, bro.

Former Vice President Joe Biden is getting a lot of headlines lately, and not exactly the kind you want to get when you’re thinking about running for president. He’s also earning a new nickname — Handsy Joe — for all his touchy-feeliness with women over the years.

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a woman, doesn’t think the new allegations should prevent Biden from moving into the White House.

Asked on Monday if she thinks the claims from two women should prevent Biden from being president, Pelosi said: “No. No, I do not.”

“I don’t think that this disqualifies him from being president,” the California Democrat said. “Not at all.”

On Tuesday, though, she had some advice for Biden: No more touching.

“Join the straight-arm club,” Pelosi told a breakfast hour Washington event on Tuesday, the Associated Press reported.

“Just pretend you have a cold and I have a cold,” Pelosi said.

Pelosi, D-Calif., told the event, which was sponsored by Politico, that Biden “has to understand that in the world we are in now people’s space is important to them and what’s important is how they receive it, not necessarily how you intended it.”

Democrats have a huge tolerance for misogynist men — as long as they’re Democrats. Liberals fiercely defended then President Bill Clinton after he had an affair with a White House intern his daughter’s age and lied under oath about it, saying the whole story was “just about sex.” Clinton’s alleged sexual promiscuity was long reported, including affairs with lounge singers and accusations that he raped or sexually accosted at least three women.

Meanwhile, Democrats became enraged over allegations that Brett Kavanaugh, then a nominee for a seat on the Supreme Court, had supposedly once pushed girl onto a bed at a drunken high school party 35 years ago.

Last week, Lucy Flores, a former Nevada Democratic assemblywoman who was running for higher office, came out with allegations that Biden inappropriately touched her during a campaign rally in 2014, saying she felt uncomfortable and demeaned by his touching.

Then on Monday, another woman came forward with new allegations. Amy Lappos told the Hartford Courant that “Biden touched her inappropriately and rubbed noses with her during a 2009 political fundraiser in Greenwich when he was vice president.”

“It wasn’t sexual, but he did grab me by the head,” Amy Lappos told The Courant. “He put his hand around my neck and pulled me in to rub noses with me. When he was pulling me in, I thought he was going to kiss me on the mouth.”

And she said Biden crossed the line. “There’s absolutely a line of decency. There’s a line of respect. Crossing that line is not grandfatherly. It’s not cultural. It’s not affection. It’s sexism or misogyny.”

Biden’s fellow Democrats, especially the ones who are already running for president, have let him twist in the wind — or pounced on the allegations outright.

“I believe Lucy Flores,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said in Iowa on Sunday. “And Joe Biden needs to give an answer.”

When Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont was asked if Flores’ allegation disqualifies Biden from running for president, he said: “That’s a decision for the vice president to make.”

Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, also a 2020 candidate, said Biden’s actions were cause for concern. “Certainly, I think it’s very disconcerting and I think that women have to be heard and we should start by believing them.” And another candidate, Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota said she has “no reason not to believe” Flores.

“I think we know from campaigns and politics that people raise issues and they have to address them, and that’s what he will have to do with the voters if he gets into the race,” she said on Sunday.

CAP

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑