Author Topic: Homeland Security, Border, sabotage of energy, transportation, environment  (Read 991095 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18288
    • View Profile
Re: Homeland Security, Border Deniers
« Reply #2050 on: January 07, 2019, 06:58:53 AM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18537
    • View Profile
Re: Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom
« Reply #2051 on: January 07, 2019, 07:59:54 AM »
 "Border Deniers"

In the words of Donald Trump Jr. :

"love it!"  :))

Also can be said of "immigration crisis deniers"


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
Re: Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom
« Reply #2052 on: January 07, 2019, 09:38:02 AM »
"Border Deniers"-- heh heh, I like that.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18288
    • View Profile
Homeland Security, Border Protection, Border Barrier, Wall, Victor Hanson, VDH
« Reply #2053 on: January 08, 2019, 08:42:30 AM »
Relevant today as President Trump promises to talk about this to the nation.  I thought this was already posted but could not find it in searches.

It Was Always about the Wall
By VICTOR DAVIS HANSON
December 20, 2018
 
U.S Border Patrol officers stand near the border fence between Mexico and the United States in Tijuana, Mexico, November 25, 2018.   (Hannah McKay/Reuters)
A high wall would end the border patrol's reliance on dogs and tear gas when rushed by would-be border crossers throwing stones.
There was likely never going to be “comprehensive immigration reform” or any deal amnestying the DACA recipients in exchange for building the wall. Democrats in the present political landscape will not consent to a wall. For them, a successful border wall is now considered bad politics in almost every manner imaginable.

Yet 12 years ago, Congress, with broad bipartisan support, passed the Secure Fence of Act of 2006. The bill was signed into law by then-President George W. Bush to overwhelming public applause. The stopgap legislation led to some 650 miles of a mostly inexpensive steel fence while still leaving about two-thirds of the 1,950-mile border unfenced.

In those days there were not, as now, nearly 50 million foreign-born immigrants living in the United States, perhaps nearly 15 million of them illegally.

Sheer numbers have radically changed electoral politics. Take California. One out of every four residents in California is foreign-born. Not since 2006 has any California Republican been elected to statewide office.

The solidly blue states of the American Southwest, including Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico, voted red as recently as 2004 for George W. Bush. Progressives understandably conclude that de facto open borders are good long-term politics.

Once upon a time, Democrats such as Hillary and Bill Clinton and Barack Obama talked tough about illegal immigration. They even ruled out amnesty while talking up a new border wall.

In those days, progressives saw illegal immigration as illiberal — or at least not as a winning proposition among union households and the working poor.

Democratic constituencies opposed importing inexpensive foreign labor for corporate bosses. Welfare rights groups believed that massive illegal immigration would swamp social services and curtail government help to American poor of the barrios and the inner city.

So, what happened? Again, numbers.

Hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants have flocked into the United States over the last decade. In addition, the Obama administration discouraged the melting-pot assimilationist model of integrating only legal immigrants.

Salad-bowl multiculturalism, growing tribalism and large numbers of unassimilated immigrants added up to politically advantageous demography for Democrats in the long run.

In contrast, a wall would likely reduce illegal immigration dramatically and with it future Democratic constituents. Legal, meritocratic, measured and diverse immigration in its place would likely end up being politically neutral. And without fresh waves of undocumented immigrants from south of the border, identity politics would wane.

A wall also would radically change the optics of illegal immigration. Currently, in unsecured border areas, armed border patrol guards sometimes stand behind barbed wire. Without a wall, they are forced to rely on dogs and tear gas when rushed by would-be border crossers. They are easy targets for stone-throwers on the Mexican side of the border.

A high wall would end that. Border guards would be mostly invisible from the Mexican side of the wall. Barbed wire, dogs and tear gas astride the border — the ingredients for media sensationalism — would be unnecessary. Instead, footage of would-be border crossers trying to climb 30-foot walls would emphasize the degree to which some are callously breaking the law.

Such imagery would remind the world that undocumented immigrants are not always noble victims but often selfish young adult males who have little regard for the millions of aspiring immigrants who wait patiently in line and follow the rules to enter the United State lawfully.

More importantly, thousands of undocumented immigrants cross miles of dangerous, unguarded borderlands each year to walk for days in the desert. Often, they fall prey to dangers ranging from cartel gangs to dehydration.

Usually, the United States is somehow blamed for their plight, even though a few years ago the Mexican government issued a comic book with instructions on how citizens could most effectively break U.S. law and cross the border.

The wall would make illegal crossings almost impossible, saving lives.

Latin American governments and Democratic operatives assume that lax border enforcement facilitates the outflow of billions of dollars in remittances sent south of the border and helps flip red states blue.

All prior efforts to ensure border security — sanctions against employers, threats to cut off foreign aid to Mexico and Central America, and talk of tamper-proof identity cards — have failed.

Instead, amnesties, expanded entitlements and hundreds of sanctuary jurisdictions offer incentives for waves of undocumented immigrants.

The reason a secure border wall has not been — and may not be — built is not apprehension that it would not work, but rather real fear that it would work only too well.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18537
    • View Profile
John Funds recommendation to Trump
« Reply #2054 on: January 08, 2019, 08:56:47 AM »
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/trump-border-wall-construction-pentagon/

For a political appearing win it is sound
From a practical point of view less so because of eminent domain .

The Democrat Lawyer mob will find every property owner on the border they can and offer free services to block implementation .

( with promises of even being able to get on CNN) 

Suddenly the Dems are big supporters of eminent domain protections from Federal policy makers just the opposite it was with the greatest human who ever walked the Earth.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18537
    • View Profile
immigrant/border deniers
« Reply #2055 on: January 08, 2019, 09:34:39 AM »
already out in force even before the speech.
and of course the msm will have multiple Dem politicians giving their crises denying and immoral compassionate etc propaganda speeches ready to fire immediately after Trump closes his mouth at the end of his speech:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/9-things-know-trump-starts-090003864.html

If the Republican party has Any hope we need to stop this madness now 
though probably already too late. 

Ryan's weakness on this issue probably cemented the end of the Can Party as we know it.

I feel our only hope is Trump to win in 20 and for us to win back the House.  But I cannot fathom how that can happen now the u to 1.4 million felons can vote in Florida

Of course Mitt thinks he will win their hearts and minds over with his integrity . 

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18288
    • View Profile
Re: Homeland Security, Border Protection Issue
« Reply #2056 on: January 09, 2019, 07:28:54 AM »
Mollie Hemmingway fact checking the fact checkers (media issue also)

http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/09/medias-angry-response-to-president-trumps-oval-office-speech-comes-up-short/

When they can't call it false, they call it misleading.  Why do they insert their opinions in "fact" checking?

Washington Post:  266,000 illegal aliens arrested in the last two years for committing crimes is true but misleading because it includes all crimes.

Politico rated Trump's claim there is a crisis at the border as - Not True.

Politico rated Not True that Schumer “has repeatedly supported a physical barrier in the past” even though that’s absolutely true.  He voted for a barrier in 2005 and gave a speech on it in 2009.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijLJSTGA3hs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdAyn89hFIo
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Daily Signal documents and eleborates on each of these true claims:  https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/01/09/fact-checking-5-of-trumps-claims-in-border-speech/?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTVdReFpEVmxZV1ZoWldRMSIsInQiOiJJM294VzVwVGJMSDI2bUVzQ3NaXC9DQjdHVG9tYURpSktYZXJyQmNFd2xlVXhGY0EwQjJxZjY4QmZjWEk5eER1eCtTUlVnaFBPck5FUVZFK3F0UzM4TkVPe

1.  “All Americans are hurt by uncontrolled illegal migration. It strains public resources and drives down jobs and wages. Among those hardest hit are African-Americans and Hispanic Americans.”   - True

2. “Sen. Chuck Schumer–who you will be hearing from later tonight–has repeatedly supported a physical barrier in the past, along with many other Democrats. They changed their mind only after I was elected president.”

3. “Every week 300 of our citizens are killed by heroin alone, 90 percent of which floods across from our southern border.”   - True

4. “One in three women are sexually assaulted on the dangerous trek up through Mexico.”    - 80% in some reports.

5. “In the last two years, ICE officers made 266,000 arrests of aliens with criminal records, including those charged or convicted of 100,000 assaults, 30,000 sex crimes, and 4,000 violent killings.”   - True

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18288
    • View Profile
Marc Thiessen: Trump won the day, Schumer and Pelosi lost
« Reply #2057 on: January 09, 2019, 07:41:02 AM »
One voice of sanity and balance in the Bezos Bulletin:

Trump won the night. Schumer and Pelosi lost.
Marc Thiessen 

President Trump did something Tuesday night (Wednesday AEST) that he has rarely done since taking office: He used the presidential bully pulpit to reach beyond his hardcore base of supporters to make his case to the American people as a whole.

Speaking from the Oval Office for the first time during his presidency, Trump embraced our country’s tradition as a nation of immigrants, declaring “America proudly welcomes millions of lawful immigrants who enrich our society and contribute to our nation.” He then offered a cogent explanation why he believes we face what he called “a humanitarian crisis — a crisis of the heart and a crisis of the soul” along our southern border.

He pointed out the human cost of our broken system to illegal migrants themselves, expressing compassion for the “children [who] are used as human pawns by vicious coyotes and ruthless gangs” and the “women [who] are sexually assaulted on the dangerous trek up through Mexico.” He shared heartbreaking stories of Americans killed by criminal aliens who had no right to be here — including a police officer in California who was murdered, a 16-year-old girl who was brutally stabbed in Maryland, and an Air Force veteran who was raped and beaten to death.

“I’ve held the hands of the weeping mothers and embraced the grief-stricken fathers,” Trump declared. “I will never forget the pain in their eyes, the tremble in their voices, or the sadness gripping their souls.”

And he laid out his solution, which he explained was “developed by law enforcement professionals and border agents” and includes funds for cutting-edge technology, more border agents, more immigration judges, more bed space and medical support — and $5.7 billion for a “physical barrier” that he called “just common sense.” Without naming her, Trump responded to the absurd charge from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that a wall is “immoral.” Democrats voted repeatedly for physical barriers until he was elected president, he noted. If a wall is immoral, Trump asked, “why do wealthy politicians build walls, fences and gates around their homes? They don’t build walls because they hate the people on the outside, but because they love the people on the inside.”

US President Donald Trump delivers a televised address to the nation from his desk in the Oval Office.© REUTERS/Joshua Roberts US President Donald Trump delivers a televised address to the nation from his desk in the Oval Office.
The president did not unilaterally declare a national emergency. Instead, he called for compromise and said, “To those who refuse to compromise in the name of border security, I would ask: imagine if it was your child, your husband, or your wife, whose life was so cruelly shattered and totally broken?”

He was, in short, presidential.

Democrats insisted on equal time, which is highly unusual for presidential addresses other than the State of the Union. It was a mistake. In contrast to Trump, Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) came across as small and intransigent.

While Trump spoke calmly and rationally from behind the Resolute Desk, the Democratic leaders accused him of “pounding the table” and having a “temper tantrum.” While Trump told human stories, they complained about process. They accused him of arguing that the women and children at the border were “a security threat” when he had just explained to the American people that they were victims, too. They charged him with using the “backdrop of the Oval Office to manufacture a crisis, stoke fear and divert attention from the turmoil in his administration.” They were partisan and petty, while Trump came across as reasonable and even compassionate.

To normal Americans watching in the heartland, and who are not steeped in Trump hatred, the president must have seemed like the adult in the room.

And, most important, Pelosi and Schumer failed to use the one word that millions of Americans were longing to hear — compromise. But Trump did. That is why the president won the night. Schumer and Pelosi appealed to their base, while Trump made an effective appeal to persuadable Americans.

Until now, Trump has owned the 18-day government shutdown that prompted this address, because he’s the one who started it. But if Democrats continue to attack him, and won’t entertain any compromise, soon the shutdown will be all theirs — because they’re the ones who have refused to end it.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/world/opinions-trump-won-the-night-schumer-and-pelosi-lost/ar-BBRZLKt

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom
« Reply #2058 on: January 09, 2019, 07:50:52 AM »
The "Elites" like Nanzi and Scummer live behind walls and are protected by guns. We are not worthy of the same in their eyes.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18537
    • View Profile
the wall is only a start; Trump - four thumbs up!
« Reply #2059 on: January 09, 2019, 08:37:57 AM »
I thought the speech was overall good.

Glad he listened to our advice and gave it .  Certainly this is the way he should be making his cases  instead of emotional tweets.

Another disgusting talking point of the Dems is "most illegals are not crossing our sudden borders , they are overstaying their visas "  Then after they say that is dead silence.

Even if that were true then why are we not addressing this too?

These people should be arrested and deported.  Even if they are while they are here having anchor babies.

Yet the Dems while I have seen recently trying to divert attention away from the border wall , leave themselves wide open with the neglect of this form of immigration abuse.

Time to start calling them on it as well as these visa law breakers.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
National Emergencies Act
« Reply #2061 on: January 09, 2019, 12:44:40 PM »
second post

 PorkyPricklyPants
PorkyPricklyPants
1 day ago
10 U.S. Code § 2808 - Construction authority in the event of a declaration of war or national emergency
US Code...(a) In the event of a declaration of war or the declaration by the President of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) that requires use of the armed forces, the Secretary of Defense, without regard to any other provision of law, may undertake military construction projects, and may authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to undertake military construction projects, not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces. Such projects may be undertaken only within the total amount of funds that have been appropriated for military construction, including funds appropriated for family housing, that have not been obligated.
(b) When a decision is made to undertake military construction projects authorized by this section, the Secretary of Defense shall notify, in an electronic medium pursuant to section 480 of this title, the appropriate committees of Congress of the decision and of the estimated cost of the construction projects, including the cost of any real estate action pertaining to those construction projects.
(c) The authority described in subsection (a) shall terminate with respect to any war or national emergency at the end of the war or national emergency.

What constitutes a national emergency is open to interpretation, but generally, it is seen as an event that threatens the security of the people of the United States.

According to the Congressional Review Service, a 1934 Supreme Court majority opinion characterized an emergency in terms of “urgency and relative infrequency of occurrence as well as equivalence to a public calamity resulting from fire, flood, or like disaster not reasonably subject to anticipation.” Through federal law, when an emergency is declared, a variety of powers are available to the president to use. Some of those powers require very little qualification from the president for their use.

 The Brennan Center for Justice lists 136 special provisions that become available to a president when he declares a national emergency.

A CRS report states, "Under the powers delegated by such statutes, the president may seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens.”

However, under the National Emergencies Act, the president must name the specific emergency power he is invoking. According to U.S. law, a president can divert funds to a federal construction project during a declared national emergency.

In the case of the border wall, the money could come from the budget for the Department of Defense under something called “un-obligated” money. Under federal law, un-obligated money in the Department of Defense's budget may be used by the military to fund construction projects during war or emergencies.

Department of Defense spokesman Jamie Davis said in a statement that, “To date, there is no plan to build sections of the wall. However, Congress has provided options under Title 10 U.S. Code that could permit the Department of Defense to fund border barrier projects, such as in support of counter drug operations or national emergencies.”  Congress can end a president’s call of a national emergency with a joint resolution. A joint resolution is a legislative measure that requires the approval of both the House and the Senate. The resolution is submitted, just as a bill is, to the president or his or her signature, making it a law. A joint resolution is usually used for continuing or emergency funding.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
Illegals with diseases: TB, pneumonia, flu, parasites
« Reply #2063 on: January 09, 2019, 06:32:31 PM »
Fourth post

   

“Crisis” of Seriously Ill Migrants Slams Border Patrol — TB, Pneumonia, Influenza, Parasites

Weeks after mainstream media outlets reported that illegal immigrants don’t bring disease into the United States, the Border Patrol reveals that it is getting slammed daily with dozens of illegal immigrants carrying “serious illnesses.” This includes tuberculosis, influenza and pneumonia. In fact, a Guatemalan migrant who died in U.S. custody on Christmas Eve had Influenza B, a virus that causes respiratory infections.

Federal agents are referring 50 illegal immigrants a day for urgent medical care, according to figures obtained by Washington D.C.’s conservative newspaper. Authorities say “it’s unlike anything they’ve ever seen before.” Many of the migrants have tuberculosis, parasites or the flue, the feds confirm.

There are also lots of pregnant women about to give birth. The article quotes Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner Kevin McAleenan saying that most of the illegal immigrants were sick when they arrived at the U.S. border. “Many were ill before they departed their homes,” McAleenan said. “We’re talking about cases of pneumonia, tuberculosis, parasites. These are not things that developed urgently in a matter of days.”

A separate story published by a mainstream newspaper on New Year’s Eve discloses that in the last few weeks of 2018 more than 450 illegal immigrants required medical attention for illnesses. More than half were children. In the piece CBP Commissioner McAleenan refers to the situation as a “crisis.”

Here’s an excerpt from the article: “The ill migrants have been arriving with all kinds of ailments, many with flu or pneumonia that can be particularly pervasive and dangerous this time of year.” It proceeds to reveal that 17 illegal immigrants have been hospitalized and that the Coast Guard has been deployed to help, sending medical teams to Border Patrol sectors getting bombarded with sick migrants. They include Yuma and Tucson, Arizona as well as the Rio Grande Valley.

It’s unbelievable that a “news” narrative can change so quickly in just a few weeks. Right before Christmas the mainstream media proclaimed illegal immigrants don’t bring disease into the United States. In various articles reporters took it a step further by claiming that migrants actually help fight disease.

One story, published by NBC news and reiterated by various other outlets, focused on a study commissioned by a medical journal. One of the researchers received lots of print for declaring that migrants spreading disease is a “false argument” used to keep them out. The editor of the medical journal that conducted the study was quoted saying this: “In too many countries, the issue of migration is used to divide societies and advance a populist agenda.” The biased coverage marked a great example of the mainstream media distorting information to promote a liberal agenda.

Judicial Watch has interviewed medical experts that confirm illegal immigrants do indeed pose a serious public health threat to the U.S. by bringing dangerous diseases into the country. This includes tuberculosis, dengue and Chikungunya.

After returning from covering the Central American caravan along the Guatemala-Honduras border, Judicial Watch spoke with a prominent physician in a border state who warned that the migrants will undoubtedly bring infectious diseases into the U.S. Among them are extremely drug resistant strands of tuberculosis and mosquito-borne diseases such as dengue and chikungunya that are widespread in the region.

The same week Judicial Watch published the story about the caravan health threat a major newspaper reported on the health crisis created by the influx of Venezuelans fleeing to neighboring countries. The migrants are spreading malaria, yellow fever, diphtheria, dengue, tuberculosis and AIDS throughout South America. Many of the diseases had been considered eradicated in the neighboring Latin American countries, according to government officials cited in the article, which states that “contagion from Venezuela’s economic meltdown is starting to spread to neighboring countries—not financially, but literally, in the form of potentially deadly diseases carried among millions of refugees.”

As an example, the story reveals that “measles reappeared with a vengeance” in a Brazilian city near the Venezuelan border that had declared the highly contagious airborne disease “vanquished” nearly two decades ago. “Measles is already spreading beyond the Brazilian Amazon to other Brazilian states, as well as Colombia, Peru and as far south as Argentina, according to recent Pan American Health Organization reports,” the article states. “Other diseases racing through communities in Venezuela are now crossing borders and raising concerns among health authorities as far away as the U.S.”

Years ago, when Barack Obama let tens of thousands of illegal immigrant minors into the country, health experts warned about the serious hazards to the American public. Most of the Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) came from Central America, like the current caravan, and they crossed into the U.S. through Mexico, in the same way that the caravan expects to. Swine flu, dengue fever and Ebola were among the diseases that the hordes of UACs brought with them, according to lawmakers and medical experts interviewed by Judicial Watch during the influx. At the time, a U.S. Congressman, who is also a medical doctor, told Judicial Watch about the danger to the American public as well as the Border Patrol agents forced to care for the UACs.

The former lawmaker, Phil Gingrey, referred to it as a “severe and dangerous” crisis because the Central American youths were importing infectious diseases considered to be largely eradicated in this country. Many migrants lack basic vaccinations such as those to prevent chicken pox or measles, leaving America’s young children and the elderly particularly susceptible, Gingrey pointed out then. To handle the escalating health crisis the CDC activated an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) that largely operated in secrecy.

 





G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Illegals with diseases: TB, pneumonia, flu, parasites
« Reply #2064 on: January 10, 2019, 12:42:47 AM »
Sasha and Malia aren’t going to be sitting in a class next to an illegal with drug resistant TB. So it’s not a problem.


Fourth post

   

“Crisis” of Seriously Ill Migrants Slams Border Patrol — TB, Pneumonia, Influenza, Parasites

Weeks after mainstream media outlets reported that illegal immigrants don’t bring disease into the United States, the Border Patrol reveals that it is getting slammed daily with dozens of illegal immigrants carrying “serious illnesses.” This includes tuberculosis, influenza and pneumonia. In fact, a Guatemalan migrant who died in U.S. custody on Christmas Eve had Influenza B, a virus that causes respiratory infections.

Federal agents are referring 50 illegal immigrants a day for urgent medical care, according to figures obtained by Washington D.C.’s conservative newspaper. Authorities say “it’s unlike anything they’ve ever seen before.” Many of the migrants have tuberculosis, parasites or the flue, the feds confirm.

There are also lots of pregnant women about to give birth. The article quotes Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner Kevin McAleenan saying that most of the illegal immigrants were sick when they arrived at the U.S. border. “Many were ill before they departed their homes,” McAleenan said. “We’re talking about cases of pneumonia, tuberculosis, parasites. These are not things that developed urgently in a matter of days.”

A separate story published by a mainstream newspaper on New Year’s Eve discloses that in the last few weeks of 2018 more than 450 illegal immigrants required medical attention for illnesses. More than half were children. In the piece CBP Commissioner McAleenan refers to the situation as a “crisis.”

Here’s an excerpt from the article: “The ill migrants have been arriving with all kinds of ailments, many with flu or pneumonia that can be particularly pervasive and dangerous this time of year.” It proceeds to reveal that 17 illegal immigrants have been hospitalized and that the Coast Guard has been deployed to help, sending medical teams to Border Patrol sectors getting bombarded with sick migrants. They include Yuma and Tucson, Arizona as well as the Rio Grande Valley.

It’s unbelievable that a “news” narrative can change so quickly in just a few weeks. Right before Christmas the mainstream media proclaimed illegal immigrants don’t bring disease into the United States. In various articles reporters took it a step further by claiming that migrants actually help fight disease.

One story, published by NBC news and reiterated by various other outlets, focused on a study commissioned by a medical journal. One of the researchers received lots of print for declaring that migrants spreading disease is a “false argument” used to keep them out. The editor of the medical journal that conducted the study was quoted saying this: “In too many countries, the issue of migration is used to divide societies and advance a populist agenda.” The biased coverage marked a great example of the mainstream media distorting information to promote a liberal agenda.

Judicial Watch has interviewed medical experts that confirm illegal immigrants do indeed pose a serious public health threat to the U.S. by bringing dangerous diseases into the country. This includes tuberculosis, dengue and Chikungunya.

After returning from covering the Central American caravan along the Guatemala-Honduras border, Judicial Watch spoke with a prominent physician in a border state who warned that the migrants will undoubtedly bring infectious diseases into the U.S. Among them are extremely drug resistant strands of tuberculosis and mosquito-borne diseases such as dengue and chikungunya that are widespread in the region.

The same week Judicial Watch published the story about the caravan health threat a major newspaper reported on the health crisis created by the influx of Venezuelans fleeing to neighboring countries. The migrants are spreading malaria, yellow fever, diphtheria, dengue, tuberculosis and AIDS throughout South America. Many of the diseases had been considered eradicated in the neighboring Latin American countries, according to government officials cited in the article, which states that “contagion from Venezuela’s economic meltdown is starting to spread to neighboring countries—not financially, but literally, in the form of potentially deadly diseases carried among millions of refugees.”

As an example, the story reveals that “measles reappeared with a vengeance” in a Brazilian city near the Venezuelan border that had declared the highly contagious airborne disease “vanquished” nearly two decades ago. “Measles is already spreading beyond the Brazilian Amazon to other Brazilian states, as well as Colombia, Peru and as far south as Argentina, according to recent Pan American Health Organization reports,” the article states. “Other diseases racing through communities in Venezuela are now crossing borders and raising concerns among health authorities as far away as the U.S.”

Years ago, when Barack Obama let tens of thousands of illegal immigrant minors into the country, health experts warned about the serious hazards to the American public. Most of the Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) came from Central America, like the current caravan, and they crossed into the U.S. through Mexico, in the same way that the caravan expects to. Swine flu, dengue fever and Ebola were among the diseases that the hordes of UACs brought with them, according to lawmakers and medical experts interviewed by Judicial Watch during the influx. At the time, a U.S. Congressman, who is also a medical doctor, told Judicial Watch about the danger to the American public as well as the Border Patrol agents forced to care for the UACs.

The former lawmaker, Phil Gingrey, referred to it as a “severe and dangerous” crisis because the Central American youths were importing infectious diseases considered to be largely eradicated in this country. Many migrants lack basic vaccinations such as those to prevent chicken pox or measles, leaving America’s young children and the elderly particularly susceptible, Gingrey pointed out then. To handle the escalating health crisis the CDC activated an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) that largely operated in secrecy.

 










Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
Re: Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom
« Reply #2069 on: January 12, 2019, 12:35:02 PM »
BD:

What did you make of my two citations in my Post #2065?


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
Re: Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom
« Reply #2070 on: January 13, 2019, 11:16:48 AM »
I need citations on the effort a year or two ago to make a wall/DACA deal.  The way I remember it, Trump made a far too generous offer but the Dems turned it down.  I need a citation or two of this to shut someone up.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom
« Reply #2072 on: January 13, 2019, 06:00:48 PM »
I need citations on the effort a year or two ago to make a wall/DACA deal.  The way I remember it, Trump made a far too generous offer but the Dems turned it down.  I need a citation or two of this to shut someone up.


https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/26/trump-daca-deal-is-a-dream-come-true-for-democrats-commentary.html

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18537
    • View Profile
media denies the truth
« Reply #2073 on: January 14, 2019, 04:48:32 AM »
He is right .  The workers do not have to come to work and they get paid anyway so in that regard they ARE better off
so to heck with your Huffcompost:

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/trump-adviser-suggests-unpaid-government-032510246.html


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18537
    • View Profile
Re: Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom
« Reply #2075 on: January 15, 2019, 03:07:51 PM »
as for photo above

that will work!

« Last Edit: January 15, 2019, 03:26:55 PM by ccp »


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Soron's wall
« Reply #2077 on: January 16, 2019, 01:21:55 AM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18288
    • View Profile
Re: French build wall around Eifel Tower
« Reply #2078 on: January 16, 2019, 07:10:44 AM »
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44502949?SThisFB&fbclid=IwAR3nKXffIG9483-sTdokZ7GcbGoCxDhSPjG5J97GC6Bycdcj7LlRmoCDUrs

Too bad to need that.  Walls work.  Vehicle barricades need that.  The wall should be around France; just let the people in who don't blow up monuments.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18288
    • View Profile
Re: Soron's wall
« Reply #2079 on: January 16, 2019, 07:55:53 AM »
https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/13/walls-across-america-george-soros/

Unbelievable.  Hard to hide hypocriy. 

General Secretary Soros, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity, if you seek open borders: Come here to this gate! Mr. Soros, open this gate! Mr. Soros, TEAR.DOWN.THIS.WALL!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=u3YfjPe9JH0  [Youtube link from post above.]

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
All not welcome at Nanzi's estate?
« Reply #2080 on: January 16, 2019, 02:40:22 PM »



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
Back story on Obama's head of Border Patrol Mark Morgan
« Reply #2083 on: January 26, 2019, 01:24:15 PM »
Mark Morgan has been making something of a splash on The Wall as Obama's former head of BP yet supporting Trump.  Here's some inside scoop on his background.

"The important takeaway from this video (in my opinion) is that Mark Morgan was the Border Patrol Chief during the Obama Administration. He came over to the Patrol from the FBI and replaced a Chief who had gotten himself in something of an administrative jam and was forced into early retirement. Morgan was a smart guy and very willing to listen to the boots in the dirt opinion from the frontlines. But unfortunately he was the first BP Chief who was never a Patrol Agent (and that never sat well with the Patrol). Additionally he ran contrary to the BP Union on occasion. All in all, he was a pretty decent Chief, but was put in the position by an unpopular administration (by BP standards). He was removed/replaced as Chief by the Trump Administration (...assumed as a favor to the BP Union President). Morgan’s picture still sits a little lower than the other Chiefs on the wall at HQ. All that being said, Morgan has absolutely nothing to gain by lending his support to Trump’s Border proposal. It is a testament to Morgan’s character as someone who does the right thing because it is the right thing to do."


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
Re: Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom
« Reply #2088 on: February 12, 2019, 10:49:23 AM »
Not seeing anything there about this , , ,

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
WSJ: Diminishing returns
« Reply #2089 on: February 12, 2019, 07:21:56 PM »
Trump’s Wall Crumbles Under the Law of Diminishing Returns
The president needs to avoid the sunk-cost fallacy and take what he can get on border security.
By Jason L. Riley
Feb. 12, 2019 6:45 p.m. ET

In economics, the law of diminishing returns describes the shrinking benefits associated with additional capital expenditures. Beyond some point, the disadvantages of increasing your investment start to outweigh the advantages. Alas, there is a political corollary to this concept that the White House has been ignoring but maybe shouldn’t.

We all agree that illegal immigration was the defining issue of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. At rally after rally, he promised his supporters that he would construct a “beautiful” wall along the southern border and make Mexico pay for it. Mr. Trump is convinced that his hard-line stance is a big reason he won, and there’s a case to be made that immigration played a larger role in 2016 than in any presidential race in recent memory.

For decades, conventional wisdom held that immigration restrictionism was a political loser. People might like to complain about the undocumented population, but exit polling showed that they ultimately voted on other issues. This included Republicans, who repeatedly rewarded pro-immigration candidates in national elections. Ronald Reagan spoke dismissively of “the illegal alien fuss” and wanted to “make the border something other than a locale for a 9-foot fence.” He quipped that Hispanics are “Republicans who don’t know it yet.”

George W. Bush—first as governor of Texas and later as president—channeled Reagan’s big-tent Republicanism and worked to portray the GOP as racially and ethnically inclusive. In 2004 he won more than 40% of the Hispanic vote en route to a second term. Even GOP presidential hopefuls since who were nominated but lost, such as John McCain and Mitt Romney, were well to the left of Mr. Trump on how to handle immigration and border security.

Mr. Trump, by contrast, has attempted to make illegal immigration a wedge issue on par with abortion and guns. Some of his supporters care about little else, and the president has gone to great lengths to ensure that their concerns are heard. Putting aside the merits of placing additional physical barricades on the border, the question now facing the administration as another government shutdown looms is whether the political capital being invested in this issue is still producing positive returns for the president. Or has his wall rhetoric become counterproductive?

The first signs of trouble for the White House were the midterm elections. Mr. Trump made border security a dominant theme, yet Republicans lost 40 seats and control of the House. Last November, public opposition to a new border wall stood at 59%, according to a CBS News poll. Today, it’s 60%, according to a Gallup survey released earlier this month. Given how hard the president has worked over the past two months to make the case for a wall, it’s remarkable how few minds he has changed.

In December Mr. Trump shut down the government to stress the importance of border security. During negotiations, he gave a national address from the Oval Office that graphically detailed violent crimes committed by people in the country unlawfully. The State of the Union speech was another attempt by Mr. Trump to sell the country on a wall. Yet and still, the Washington Examiner reported last week that “the nation is getting in line behind Democrats in their fight with President Trump over a border wall and amnesty.” Citing the recent Gallup poll, the paper said “the bottom line is that Democrats, and not the president, have the edge in the immigration debate.” Either voters have tuned out the president on border security or they find his arguments unpersuasive. In any case, an issue that helped elect the president may now be helping his opponents.

If the president cuts a deal with Democrats for less than he’s asking, his mainstream media antagonists will mock him while his supporters on talk radio and cable news will carp. But he’ll be doing his party a favor and his base will stand by him, no matter what Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter say.

Mr. Trump promised to be a deal-maker, not a conviction politician. What matters most to his core supporters is what he symbolizes—what he represents—not the purity of his policy accomplishments. Trump loyalists understand that Congress is a coequal branch of government and that the votes to fund a big, beautiful wall simply aren’t there. They may understand this better than the president himself does.

Congressional leaders struck a tentative deal this week that would provide $1.38 billion for more physical barriers on the border, far less than the $5.7 billion the president has been seeking. Mr. Trump must decide whether to declare a minor victory and move on for now or double-down on a strategy that by all appearances is producing diminishing political returns for him and his party.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18537
    • View Profile
deal or no deal?
« Reply #2090 on: February 14, 2019, 08:59:28 AM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18537
    • View Profile
Re: Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom
« Reply #2091 on: February 15, 2019, 01:57:59 PM »
https://www.westernjournal.com/trump-predicts-will-sued-border-security-case-will-make-scotus/

likely will go to SCOTUS .
i am NOT confident in Roberts.
we should have 5 -4  majority .  Instead we have another Kennedy on the Court.

also the census question - are you a citizen - simple - but no.  isn't this clearly in the Constitution ?

but again Roberts is not courageous in his decisions .  Too worried about his legacy as being a centrist I guess

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom
« Reply #2092 on: February 15, 2019, 02:02:05 PM »
https://www.westernjournal.com/trump-predicts-will-sued-border-security-case-will-make-scotus/

likely will go to SCOTUS .
i am NOT confident in Roberts.
we should have 5 -4  majority .  Instead we have another Kennedy on the Court.

also the census question - are you a citizen - simple - but no.  isn't this clearly in the Constitution ?

but again Roberts is not courageous in his decisions .  Too worried about his legacy as being a centrist I guess

Or worried about what the deep state has to blackmail him with.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18537
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
Re: Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom
« Reply #2094 on: February 16, 2019, 12:48:30 PM »
I caught his press conference the other day where he announced all this.

What a bumbling incoherent presentation of the case for Emergency order!!!   :x :x :x  UGH.

Here is what the other side is saying:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/a-weak-and-rambling-president-declares-a-fake-national-emergency?utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Daily_021619&utm_medium=email&bxid=5be9d3fa3f92a40469e2d85c&user_id=50142053&utm_term=NYR_DAILY_ACTIVE

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18537
    • View Profile
Re: Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom
« Reply #2095 on: February 16, 2019, 05:54:29 PM »
"It will be interesting to see what the courts make of Trump’s admission that, when it came time to declare a national emergency, he didn’t “need to do this.”

surely what he meant is that Congress should be enforcing immigration law.

he certainly didn't need to fuel the Left's speculation he gets his strategy from Limbaugh and Hannity.

OTOH Brock had no problem having celebrities coming to his WH to pay homage to him and surely give him strategic suggestions.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18288
    • View Profile
Re: Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom
« Reply #2097 on: February 18, 2019, 08:29:24 AM »
I caught his press conference the other day where he announced all this.

What a bumbling incoherent presentation of the case for Emergency order!!!   :x :x :x  UGH.

Agree.  [Strange that it followed a 90+% very excellent state of the union address.]

Why wouldn't he try to make the case that an emergency exists when he is announcing an emergency order certain to end up in the courts?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom
« Reply #2098 on: February 18, 2019, 08:39:55 AM »
So, the president can have a drone fire a hellfire missile to kill anyone globally, but doesn’t have the power to block illegal aliens from streaming over our border.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18537
    • View Profile
Re: Homeland Security, Border Protection, and American Freedom
« Reply #2099 on: February 18, 2019, 10:12:31 AM »
"So, the president can have a drone fire a hellfire missile to kill anyone globally, but doesn’t have the power to block illegal aliens from streaming over our border."

Maybe fire a few hellfire missiles near the border.