One of the leaders behind the latest migrant caravan to depart from Central America has been arrested by local authorities, who discovered he had been convicted of raping his child cousin, and had been fleeing justice.
Honduran media reports that migrant caravan coordinator Juan Carlos Molina was arrested by Honduran Border Police after they realized he matched the description they had for a man convicted of child rape in 2015.
Molina either did not carry identification with him, or carried fake paperwork, causing the police to fingerprint him and discover that he was a convicted child predator meant to be serving 15 years in prison.
The man was able to be convicted while remaining a fugitive was made possible due to the fact that the victim, his minor cousin, produced a child from the assault who shares his DNA.
The Criminal Enforcement Court of the Judicial Section of San Pedro Sula confirmed that the detainee is a convicted person and was a fugitive from justice. He faces 15 years in prison. The court issued the arrest warrant on August 31, 2015.
On April 23, 2015, Chamber 5 of the Sentencing Court sentenced Juan Carlos Molina, who was found to be criminally liable for the crime of special violation against a minor and was found to be civilly liable to respond with compensation for the moral damages caused to the victim.
According to the facts, in September 2010, when the child under 12 was in the house, at night, she left the door ajar for her mother to enter and who arrived was Juan Carlos Molina, who took advantage of the minor, who was his cousin, covering his mouth raped her.
Big League Politics has followed the progress of the latest caravan to depart from Central America since its inception. We now know that the caravan is being encouraged by an organization that receives money from globalist financier George Soros, and that Congress has received information suggesting terrorists may have embedded themselves in the latest caravan.
Tensions at the U.S.-Mexico border continue to mount, as Democrats seek to deny President Donald J. Trump the ability to construct a wall of steel or concrete to stem the tide of violent crime coming across the border. Just last week, a pile of 20 or more corpses was found near the border, justifying Americans’ increasing desire to see the wall constructed.
It’s no secret that since his election in 2016, powerful elements in the US political and media establishment have been running a non-stop campaign to remove Trump from the White House. Lately, the stakes have been raised.
Spearheading the media effort to defenestrate Trump are the New York Times and Washington Post. Both have been prominent purveyors of the “Russiagate” narrative over the past two years, claiming that Republican candidate colluded with Russian state intelligence, or at least was a beneficiary of alleged Russian interference, to win the presidency against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.
Congressional investigations and a probe by a Special Counsel Robert Mueller, along with relentless media innuendo, have failed to produce any evidence to support the Russiagate narrative.
Now, the anti-Trump media in alliance with the Democratic leadership, the foreign policy establishment and senior ranks of the state intelligence agencies appear to have come up with a new angle on President Trump – he is a national security risk.
Ingeniously, the latest media effort lessens the burden of proof required against Trump. No longer has it to be proven that he deliberately collaborated with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump could have done it “unwittingly,” the media are now claiming, because he is a buffoon and reckless. But the upshot, for them, is he’s still a national security risk. The only conclusion, therefore, is that he should be removed from office. In short, a coup.
Over the past couple of weeks, the supposed media bastions have been full of it against Trump. An op-ed in the New York Times on January 5 by David Leonhardt could not have made more plain the absolute disdain. “He is demonstrably unfit for office. What are we waiting for?”
Follow-up editorials and reports have piled on the pressure. The Times reported how the Federal Bureau of Investigation – the state’s internal security agency – opened a counterintelligence file on Trump back in 2017 out of concern that he was “working for Russia against US interests.”
That unprecedented move was prompted partly because of Trump’s comments during the election campaign in 2016 when he jokingly called on Russia to release Hillary Clinton’s incriminating emails. Never mind the fact that Russian hackers were not the culprits for Clinton’s email breach.
Then the Washington Post reported former US officials were concerned about what they said was Trump’s “extraordinary lengths” to keep secret his private conversations with Russia’s Putin when the pair met on the sidelines of conferences or during their one-on-one summit in Helsinki last July.
The Post claimed that Trump confiscated the notes of his interpreter after one meeting with Putin, allegedly admonishing the aide to not tell other officials in the administration about the notes being sequestered. The inference is Trump was allegedly in cahoots with the Kremlin.
This week, in response to the media speculation, Trump was obliged to strenuously deny such claims, saying: “I have never worked for Russia… it’s a big fat hoax.”
What’s going on here is a staggering abuse of power by the US’ top internal state intelligence agency to fatally undermine a sitting president based on the flimsiest of pretexts. Moreover, the nation’s most prominent news media outlets – supposedly the Fourth Estate defenders of democracy – are complacently giving their assent, indeed encouragement, to this abuse of power.
The Times in the above report admitted, in a buried one-line disclaimer, that there was no evidence linking Trump to Russia.
Nevertheless, the media campaign doubled down to paint Trump as a national security risk.
The Times reported on January 14 about deep “concerns” among Pentagon officials over Trump’s repeated threats to withdraw the US from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The reporting portrays Trump as incompetent, ignorant of policy details and habitually rude to American allies. His capricious temper tantrums could result in the US walking away from NATO at any time, the newspaper contends.
Such a move would collapse the transatlantic partnership between the US and Europe which has “deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years,” claimed the Times.
The paper quotes US Admiral James Stavridis, the former supreme allied commander of NATO, calling Trump’s withdrawal whims “a geopolitical mistake of epic proportion.”
“Even discussing the idea of leaving NATO — let alone actually doing so — would be the gift of the century for Putin,” added Stavridis.
The Times goes on to divulge the media campaign coordination when it editorialized: “Now, the president’s repeatedly stated desire to withdraw from NATO is raising new worries among national security officials amid growing concern about Mr Trump’s efforts to keep his meetings with Mr Putin secret from even his own aides, and an FBI investigation into the administration’s Russia ties.”
Still another Times report this week reinforced the theme of Trump being a national security risk when it claimed that the president’s Middle East policy of pulling troops out of Syria was “losing leverage” in the region. It again quoted Pentagon officials “voicing deepening fears” that Trump and his hawkish National Security Advisor John Bolton “could precipitate a conflict with Iran”.
That’s a bit hard to stomach: the Pentagon being presented as a voice of sanity and peace, keeping vigilance over a wrecking-ball president and his administration.
But the New York Times, Washington Post and other anti-Trump corporate media have long been extolling the military generals who were formerly in the administration as “the adults in the room.”
Generals H.R. McMaster, the former national security adviser, John Kelly, Trump’s ex-chief of staff, and James Mattis, the former defense secretary until he was elbowed out last month by the president, were continually valorized in the US media as being a constraining force on Trump’s infantile and impetuous behavior.
The absence of “the adults” seems to have prompted the US media to intensify their efforts to delegitimize Trump’s presidency.
A new House of Representatives controlled by the Democratic Party has also invigorated calls for impeachment of Trump over a range of unsubstantiated accusations, Russian collusion being prime among them. But any impeachment process promises to be long and uncertain of success, according to several US legal and political authorities.
Such a tactic is fraught with risk of failing, no doubt due to the lack of evidence against Trump’s alleged wrongdoing. A failed impeachment effort could backfire politically, increase his popularity, and return him to the White House in 2020.
Given the uncertainty of impeaching Trump, his political enemies, including large sections of the media establishment, seem to be opting for the tactic of characterizing him as a danger to national security, primarily regarding Russia. Trump doesn’t have to be a proven agent of the Kremlin – a preposterous idea. Repeated portrayal of him as an incompetent unwitting president is calculated to be sufficient grounds for his ouster.
When the Washington Post editorial board urges a state of emergency to be invoked because of “Russian meddling in US elections”, then the national mood is being fomented to accept a coup against Trump. The media’s fawning over the Pentagon and state intelligence agencies as some kind of virtuous bastion of democracy is a sinister signal for a military-police state.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Obama’s former Housing and Urban Development secretary Julian Castro wants to be America’s next president, and he has some bold new ideas on how to fix the problems plaguing the country.
Castro, a former mayor of San Antonio and youngest member of Obama’s cabinet from 2014 to 2017, announced his intent to run for POTUS in 2020 on Saturday.
The grandson of a Mexican immigrant, Castro told CBS News’ “Face the Nation”he would take a different approach than the Trump administration to folks crossing the southern border illegally, though he’s apparently unaware that his bright idea is already in use.
“What I believe we could do and what the Obama administration did do, I believe, toward the end of its tenure, was to look at things like ankle monitors so that you’re able to monitor where people are in the country,” he told the news station, according to the Washington Examiner.
Rather than detain those who break the law, Castro would treat them as probationers and reward those who cooperate with citizenship.
“We also need to be serious about recognizing the right of people to seek asylum, and the president is playing games with this, blocking people’s right to seek asylum. I would change that,” he said. “I would make sure that we push as hard as possible for comprehensive immigration reform, so that for people who are already here, if they’ve been law abiding, if they pay a fine, that they can get an earned path to citizenship.”
The problem is, ankle monitors aren’t a bold or new idea, and apparently they don’t work.
The Associated Press reported in August that the federal government is issuing thousands of ankle monitors to illegal immigrants and the devices work great to get people to show up to court, until deportation proceedings begin.
After that, many illegal immigrants ditch the devices and run.
According to the AP:
As of early July, there were nearly 84,500 active participants in ICE’s Intensive Supervision Appearance Program, or alternatives to detention — more than triple the number in November 2014. Around 45 percent of those were issued GPS monitors.
ICE spokesman Matthew Bourke said immigration court attendance is strong for immigrants in intensive supervision, but that ankle monitors and other measures are “not an effective tool” after deportation orders are issued. There isn’t reliable information on the number of ankle monitor recipients who remove them and flee, but many say it’s high.
“People can just cut those things off if they want to,” said Sara Ramey, a San Antonio immigration attorney whose asylum-seeking clients are routinely assigned ankle monitors.
Potential presidential candidate makes stunning claim
Paul Joseph Watson | Infowars.com – JANUARY 16, 2019
Potential presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke has stunningly suggested that the United States should ditch its own Constitution.
During an interview with the Washington Post, the Texas Congressman openly mulled whether the rapidly changing nature of the world meant that the founding document of the country was out of date.
Throughout the two-hour interview — which was often interrupted by bystanders urging him to run for president — O’Rourke boomeranged between a bright-eyed hope that the United States will soon dramatically change its approach to a whole host of issues and a dismal suspicion that the country is now incapable of implementing sweeping change.
When asked which it is, O’Rourke paused.
“I’m hesitant to answer it because I really feel like it deserves its due, and I don’t want to give you a — actually, just selfishly, I don’t want a sound bite of it reported, but, yeah, I think that’s the question of the moment: Does this still work?” O’Rourke said. “Can an empire like ours with military presence in over 170 countries around the globe, with trading relationships…and security agreements in every continent, can it still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago?”
The bizarre quote is sure to come up again should O’Rourke decide to run for president, a scenario that looks more likely in the aftermath of his Senate challenge, which O’Rourke almost certainly knew he would lose but embarked upon anyway to increase his name recognition.
Some analysts think that Beto is more likely to seek a spot on the 2020 ticket as the Democratic vice presidential candidate, but with views like this, many conservatives will want him nowhere near the White House.
Democrats failed to get the two-thirds vote needed to re-open the federal government through February 1 without funding President Donald Trump’s border wall on one of their attempts Tuesday.
House members favored the measure — which was under suspension — by a 237-187 vote, but that was not enough votes to pass.
The House is trying to get their mission accomplished through a different continuing resolution Tuesday.
Democrats’ failure to even get the H.J. Res 27 bill to the Senate further underscores how President Trump has all the leverage in these negotiations.
President Donald Trump could save enough money to pay for his entire southern border wall with change to spare if he chooses not to sign a bill guaranteeing back pay for furloughed government workers. It would only take three pay periods over six weeks for the government to save more than $6 billion, more than the $5.7 billion Trump is asking for to build the Wall.
The mainstream media is reporting that Trump is prepared to sign the back-pay bill that went to his desk days ago, but Trump has not signed anything, and to do so would knock out some of his leverage over Schumer and Pelosi — which does not seem like it would be in line with “Art of the Deal” policy.
The shutdown — in which 800,000 workers are not working– is saving taxpayers more than two billion dollars for every two-week pay period, but the savings will only count if Trump chooses not to give them back pay.
Here is a chart on the savings, courtesy of the Center for American Progress:
Hundreds of migrants have set off for the US from Honduras, the latest ‘caravan’ to try and enter the country. With focus once again on his planned border wall, President Trump has accused Democrats of “playing political games.”
“A big new Caravan is heading up to our Southern Border from Honduras,” Trump tweeted on Tuesday. “Tell Nancy [Pelosi] and Chuck [Schumer] that a drone flying around will not stop them. Only a Wall will work. Only a Wall, or Steel Barrier, will keep our Country safe! Stop playing political games and end the Shutdown!”
The US government has been partially shut down for over three weeks, as Trump has so far failed to secure $5.7 billion in funding for a border wall from House and Senate Democratic Leaders Nancy Pelosi (California) and Chuck Schumer (New York). Despite several rounds of negotiations, Pelosi and Schumer have outright refused to fund the wall, preferring what Pelosi called a “technological wall” of drones, infrared sensors, and security cameras along the 2,000-mile border with Mexico.
Trump has countered that a wall or physical barrier is simple and more effective than an array of sensors and devices.
As the partisan bickering in Washington drags on, the members of the latest caravan gathered in the Honduran city of San Pedro Sula on Monday, preparing to set off on a journey of over 2,500 miles that will take weeks or months. Migrant rights group CIPRODEH is accompanying the caravan, and reported some 500 members, including pregnant women, disabled people, old age pensioners, “children and unaccompanied girls,” gathering in San Pedro Sula.
Of the three caravans or more that left Honduras for the United States last year, the migrants have always given the same reasons for making the journey. Fleeing Honduras’ lawlessness and sky-high murder rate, they set off for the US seeking jobs and stability. President Trump, on the other hand, has characterized the caravans as an “invasion,” and warned the migrants to stay at home and apply for asylum legally.
Building a wall along the Mexican border was one of Trump’s core campaign promises, and one that he has thus far been unable to achieve. The last caravan approached the border before November’s midterm elections, and Trump’s daily tweets about its progress helped drum up support for his hardline immigration policies, including the wall.
Images of the migrants pulling down fencing and swarming onto US soil were used by Trump to argue his case for the wall, while the sometimes heavy-handed response of Customs and Border Patrol agents was used by Democrats to attack Trump’s policies.
Congressional Democrats on Tuesday rejected President Trump’s invitation to a lunch meeting at the White House to discuss border security, in the latest sign that both sides of the government shutdown standoff remain entrenched in their positions with no compromise in sight.
A senior administration official told Fox News that the president had invited Democrats to join his lunch with members of Congress in the Roosevelt Room shortly after noon. But moments before the session, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement that nobody took them up on the offer.
“The President has a proposal on the table that includes additional technology at ports of entry, allows minors from Central America to seek asylum in their home country, and physical barriers between ports of entry made of steel instead of concrete,”she said. “Today, the President offered both Democrats and Republicans the chance to meet for lunch at the White House. Unfortunately, no Democrats will attend. The President looks forward to having a working lunch with House Republicans to solve the border crisis and reopen the government.
“It’s time for the Democrats to come to the table and make a deal.”
She said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer“refuse to negotiate.”
Trump, however, did not invite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, instead reaching out to rank-and-file Democrats including centrist Democrats from districts where Trump is popular. A Pelosi aide reportedly said she gave lawmakers her blessing to attend, telling her leadership team that other congressional Democrats can see what she and others have dealt with during the shutdown.
Pelosi predicted that after meeting with Trump, the lawmakers would want to make a “citizen’s arrest,”according to the aide.
But the lawmakers ultimately decided not to attend. The meeting boycott leaves unclear how and when both sides might negotiate a resolution to the partial shutdown, which was triggered when Trump demanded nearly $6 billion for a border wall and Democrats refused — and is now the longest in U.S. history.
The last meeting with Democratic leaders did not end well. Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., sat down last week with Trump, but Schumer said it ended when the president “just got up and walked out.”
“He asked Speaker Pelosi, ‘will you agree to my wall?’ She said no. And he just got up, and said, ‘Well, we’ve got nothing to discuss,”Schumer said last week.
Pelosi, after the meeting, said the president was “petulant,” and Schumer added that Trump slammed his hand on a table in frustration and had a “temper tantrum”—a move Trump, Vice President Pence and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy later denied.
Trump rejected the account, tweeting that “Cryin’ Chuck” Schumer “told his favorite lie when he used his standard sound bite that I ‘slammed the table & walked out of the room. He had a temper tantrum.’ Because I knew he would say that, and after Nancy said no to proper border security, I politely said bye-bye and left, no slamming!”
Trump initially requested $5.7 billion in funding for security and construction of the wall, citing the “humanitarian crisis” and “invasion”at the border as reasons. Democrats have vowed to block any type of spending package that would involve funds to build a wall along the Southern border.
But Trump has continued to press for wall funding, tweeting Tuesday: “A big new Caravan is heading up to our Southern Border from Honduras. Tell Nancy and Chuck that a drone flying around will not stop them. Only a Wall will work. Only a Wall, or Steel Barrier, will keep our Country safe! Stop playing political games and end the Shutdown!”
Fox News’ Matt Leach and John Roberts and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Tom's Blog 