RUTHFULLY YOURS

Forget all the nervous gasps.

When President Trump tweeted that his measure to protect Americans from Islamic terror was a “travel ban” and that it should never have been watered down, he was right.

Calling it a pause hasn’t appeased a single of the radical judges abusing their authority. It doesn’t matter what the lawyers call it, when courts insist on referencing President Trump’s campaign rhetoric instead. Watering down the ban achieved nothing. The judicial coup can’t be appeased with a “moderate” ban.

Stripping Iraq from the list of countries undermined the effectiveness of the measure considering that the vast majority of refugees being investigated for terror links in this country are Iraqis.

Most of the rest are from the other countries listed on the travel ban.

And the failure to protect Middle Eastern Christians by prioritizing them as refugees is a left-wing war crime. The lawyers, activists, media bosses and judges responsible for it have blood on their hands. Even as they mouth hollow platitudes about compassion, they have become complicit in Islamic genocide.

Maybe the Supreme Court will uphold the Constitution. Maybe it won’t. The track record has been decidedly mixed. And this is an area where the courts had no actual right to intervene.

There are legitimate debates about the limits of presidential authority in every administration. It’s fair to question whether any president, of any party, should be able to engage in military action without Congress because the Constitution grants the legislative branch the authority to declare war.

But there can be no doubt whatsoever that President Trump is acting within his legal authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act which grants him the authority to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants” for as long as he thinks it’s necessary. Obama made use of this power to temporarily halt Iraqi migration. So have other presidents in the past.

Immigration is in the hands of Congress and the White House. It is not up to judges to decide who can come to America. Our entire system of immigration “discriminates” based on religion and national origin. It allots visas and refugee status based on national origin and membership in persecuted religious groups. If the judicial coup succeeds, elected officials will lose their authority over immigration.

And that means that the American people will lose all control over immigration.

The implications go far beyond the travel ban. Judge Derrick Watson, an Obama pal, didn’t just go after the ban, but asserted that he had the authority to decide how many refugees should be allowed in. It’s a short hop and a skip from there to judges deciding that they have the constitutional authority to set the annual number of refugees and immigrants to prevent “discrimination” by the elected branches.

If you want to imagine the end of America, that’s a good place to start.

Federal courts have been unconstitutionally treating states like this for far too long, intervening in everything from elections to prison populations, but now they’re using the general anti-Trump hysteria to assert judicial supremacy over the elected branches of government.

If this judicial coup is allowed to stand, anything that any White House official or member of Congress says at any time in the past, can and will be used by Federal courts to seize control over any policy.

This special edition of The Glazov Gang was joined by Jim Simpson,
author of The Red-Green Axis.

Jim came on the show to discuss Refugees, Immigration and the Agenda to Erase America, unveiling the sinister goal of the Red-Green Axis.

Don’t miss it!

And make sure to watch Jamie say: Thank You President Trump for the Travel Ban, where he expresses a heartfelt appreciation for a leader set on protecting America and American lives:

In spite of its well-deserved reputation for wastefulness (and other foibles), Congress does have a “recycling program,” wherein failed legislative efforts are recycled by our politicians in Washington.

The ENLIST Act (H.R. 60), currently under consideration, failed to pass in 2014 but is back again.

The term “ENLIST” is an acronym for “Encourage New Legalized Immigrants to Start Training.”

Here is the summary of this bill as it appears on the Congressional Website:

This bill authorizes the enlistment in the Armed Forces of aliens unlawfully present in the United States on December 31, 2012, who: (1) have been continuously present in the United States since such date; (2) were younger than 15 years of age when they initially entered the United States; and (3) are otherwise eligible for original enlistment in a regular component of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard.

The Department of Homeland Security shall adjust the status of an alien enlisted under such authority to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence under provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act applicable to aliens who entered the United States prior to January 1, 1972.

The bill rescinds such lawful permanent resident status if the alien is separated from the Armed Forces under other than honorable conditions before serving the term of enlistment.

The text of the bill provides additional important information.

On the face of it, H.R. 60 seems reasonable.

Joining the military is the ultimate act of patriotism, to go in harm’s way on behalf of the United States.

Foreign nationals, including aliens who were illegally present in the United States, have joined our military to defend our nation and some have made the “ultimate sacrifice” as a result of their service to our nation while others were seriously wounded.

I don’t seek to impugn their integrity or in any way demean their service or their loyalty to America.

Once again terrorists have attacked and wounded and killed innocent civilians in London, England.

On June 3rd a terrorist attack at London Bridge and Borough Market was carried out by three apparent Jihadists who used a rented van to mow down pedestrians, whereupon the three emerged from that van and attacked still more victims with their knives.

The terrorists have applied to their attacks the principle behind Occam’s razor, that postulates that in attempting to understand how something is accomplished, the simplest solution is most likely the correct solution.

In the case of terrorists, using a simple strategy and crude weapons such as motor vehicles and knives that are readily available, decreases the likelihood that such plots can be discovered and prevented before they are carried out.

While the TSA, was created in the wake of the terror attacks of 9/11 and its FY 2017 Budget of $7.6 billion and more than 42,000 employees exist to safeguard transportation, with particular emphasis on airliners, most terror attacks do not involve airliners.

Continuing with the concept of Occam’s razor, the United States needs to do whatever is possible and reasonable to prevent international terrorists from entering the United States in the first place.

All vulnerabilities must, therefore be effectively addressed.

If an ounce of protection is worth a pound of cure, preventing the entry of such terrorists represents a ton of cure.

As I have noted in a recent article, Border Security Is National Security.

A recent headline blared: Secretary of Homeland Security head says terror situation is scarier than you know.

However, the situation at the Department of Homeland Security that the Trump administration inherited when it took office is so dire, that I refer to the DHS as the “Department of Homeland Surrender.”

Unquestionably the Obama administration did incalculable damage to the security of our borders and the enforcement of our immigration laws, however, for decades a series of administrations, led by presidents from both parties, have sought to undermine national sovereignty in their push for globalism.

In my judgement, many components of the immigration system have been rendered dysfunctional with the intentional purpose of flooding America with ever increasing foreign tourists, foreign students and a veritable army of cheap and exploitable labor that displaces Americans workers and drives down the wages of those Americans fortunate enough to keep their jobs.

This is not only in the economic bottom rung jobs but, increasingly, within the high-tech industries as well.

I support my claim by providing at the end of my article, outrageous findings of the Office of Inspector General who lays out, in has May 23, 2017 report, information about a level of dysfunction in a component of national security that could not be created by accident or incompetence.

But before we get ahead of ourselves, the very structure of the DHS, as implemented by the administration of President George W. Bush, in the wake of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 appears to have been designed to hobble any efforts to secure our borders and/or enforce our immigration laws.

On May 5, 2005, approximately 44 months after the attacks of 9/11, the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims conducted a hearing on the topic, “New “Dual Missions” Of The Immigration Enforcement Agencies.”

There is a parallel that must be drawn in considering that the hearing was conducted 44 months after the attacks. It took the United States and its allies 44 months to defeat the Axis nations during the Second World War.

In order to achieve that incredible success our nation and its allies built fleets of aircraft of brand new designs that had not existed before. Fleets of ships and even nuclear weapons with brand new and un-proven technology.

On September 11, 2001 nineteen terrorists, barely out of their teens, were able to cause more casualties than did the Japanese fleet at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Yet tracking the arrival and departure of aliens who were legally admitted into the United States is beyond the grasp of the nation that more than 40 years ago repeatedly launched astronauts to the moon and returned them all safely to the earth.

The excruciating facts keep on coming in. Twenty-two are dead, many of them children. About five dozen others are wounded, such that the death-toll may climb. The Islamic State jihadist network, having exhorted its willing Western-based recruits to attack in place, has claimed responsibility. And now comes the revelation that the suicide-terrorist, Salman Abedi, is yet another known-wolf—a young Muslim man in Britain who was on the radar screen of security services as a potential threat.

The 22-year-old bomber was a British-born son of Libyan refugees, who grew up in the Whalley Range neighborhood outside Manchester—an area that became notorious when two girls, honor students at the local high school, moved to Syria to live under Islamic State rule. Abedi carried out the atrocious bombing of an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester with an improvised explosive device that sprayed high-speed nails at his victims. The bomb type is commonplace in what Muslim terrorists like to call “the fields of jihad”—Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and so on. It is too soon to tell what kind of paramilitary training Abedi may have had. What we do know is that he roamed free because he was judged by the British government not to pose an “immediate” peril.

Once a Western society is infiltrated by a critical mass of sharia supremacists, there are barely enough investigative resources to cover the immediate perils—especially when inquiries into their ideology are condemned as racist “Islamophobia.”

Sharia supremacism, which demands that societies be governed by classical, repressive Islamic law (sharia), is a totalitarian political ideology under a religious veneer. It should not be regarded as a merely religious belief system as that concept is understood in our law.

It was to confront head-on that self-defeating approach that, following the San Bernardino jihadist attack that killed 14 Americans, candidate Donald Trump announced his much-derided intention to impose a temporary ban on Muslim immigration. As night follows day, Trump was branded an Islamophobe―a classic demagogic slur developed by the Muslim Brotherhood precisely to thwart examination of sharia-supremacist ideology. But the candidate’s intention was never to bar all Muslims from entering the United States; what he had in mind was a temporary measure until a workable policy solution could be devised (“until our elected representatives can figure out what is going on,” as he put it).

The policy solution Trump arrived at was enhanced vetting (which he at times calls “extreme vetting”). I know this not just from the now-president’s plethora of statements on the matter; I served on the commission (put together by Trump campaign adviser Rudy Giuliani) that counseled Trump. The point was never to ban Muslims, as has been misrepresented in press coverage and legal arguments over Trump’s so-called “travel ban” orders. The point was to ban those beholden to what Trump has called “radical Islamic” ideology (I prefer the more precise description “sharia supremacism”).

The strategy is based on what should be a widely known fact but, after a generation of willful blindness, remains obscure: Sharia supremacism, which demands that societies be governed by classical, repressive Islamic law (sharia), is a totalitarian political ideology under a religious veneer. It should not be regarded as a merely religious belief system as that concept is understood in our law.

Once this core premise is accepted, the legality of heightened vetting is plain to see. The United States has a long history of barring admission to political radicals who seek to overthrow our constitutional system. Indeed, to this day the oath taken by naturalized citizens requires a pledge of loyalty to our Constitution.

Virtually all criminals lie.

Lying is a common tactic used by criminals to conceal their identities, their backgrounds and their crimes. They lie to cover their tracks, to evade detection and to escape from the reach of the “long arm of the law.”

This is why suspects who are taken into custody are fingerprinted and photographed, to attempt to make certain that the name the suspect provides is truly his/her name. Often criminals use multiple false identities whether by committing identity theft or fabricating altogether fictitious identities.

In point of fact, the 9/11 Commission found that in the aggregate, the 19 hijackers who participated in the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, used more than 300 false identities or variations of false identities to conceal their identities and their movements as they went about their deadly preparations.

The 9/11 Commission also identified other terrorists who had entered the United States in the decade leading up to the attacks of 9/11 and found that the majority of all of these terrorists engaged in multiple forms of immigration fraud. This was the starting point for my recent article, Immigration Fraud: Lies That Kill.

The act of lying is, itself, a crime when it is done in furtherance of other criminal activities. A section of federal law, 18 U.S. Code § 1001, addresses this crime. Here is how this statute begins:

Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

Please notice that the statute cited above noted the potential nexus between false statements and terrorism.

Getting back to immigration, aliens who enter the United States without inspection or who enter the United States legally but then violate the term so their immigration status may lie to authorities about their names, their countries of birth and/or countries of citizenship in order to evade detection by immigration law enforcement, to create the appearance that they are entitled to various public assistance programs or to be able to be employed in the United States and to achieve other illegal goals.

Such false claims to United States citizenship is a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 911. The description of this crime and the punishment for this violation of law is contained in this brief sentence:

Whoever falsely and willfully represents himself to be a citizen of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

The primary goal of illegal aliens is to not be arrested and deported (removed from the United States).