Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

News

Immigrants Just Showed Up To Libs’ Massive Trump Protest And Immediately Proved Them Wrong

Published

on

Crowds took to the streets of cities across the nation on Saturday in response to the mainstream media propaganda mouthpiece pushing the narrative of “Families Belong Together.” After ignoring the border crisis for decades and previous administrations pass laws for immigration reform and then refusing to implement them a toxic situation was created.

More than 600 marches across the country, from cities with sanctuary policies like Portland and Los Angeles and New York City and those looking to implement sanctuary policies like Nashville gathered under the banner Families Belong Together.

Trending: Rapper ‘50 Cent’ Had Enough Of Joy Behar’s Race-Baiting And Dismantles Her On Live TV

Approximately two months ago, the Trump administration chose to end the “Catch and Release” program by placing children in safe homes while detaining their parents who illegally cross the border. The “zero tolerance” policy has been a source of much controversy since Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the plan last month.

Crowds took to the streets of US cities Saturday to demand “Families Belong Together” nearly two months after the Trump administration implemented its “zero tolerance” policy toward undocumented immigrants, prompting the separation of thousands of children from their parents.

The main rally was in Lafayette Square in Washington, but hundreds of marches, protests, and rallies were underway across the country to call for the immediate reunification of migrant families and an end to family detentions and separations. Much of the funding and support for the protest was supplied by leftist progressive groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, MoveOn.org, the National Domestic Workers Alliance and The Leadership Conference.

According to organizers, protesters have three demands:

They want separated migrant families to be reunited immediately.

They want the government to end family detentions.

And they want the Trump administration to end its zero-tolerance policy.

The “zero tolerance” policy seeks to deter further illegal immigration by detaining migrant parents from crossing the border illegally rather than releasing them into the U.S. Migrant children are then housed separately for their safety as well as working to separate children from potential traffickers. While the mainstream media has spread a ton of lies about thousands of helpless children being “ripped from their parents” at the border, the new policy essentially seeks to deter further illegal immigration by detaining parents who cross the border illegally rather than releasing them into the U.S. interior.

This issue is really two-fold in that these minor children must be placed with foster parents, shelters, or other sponsors within 20 days, rather than being held indefinitely while awaiting an immigration hearing. This is per a 21-year-old agreement known as the Flores settlement which prohibits authorities from detaining immigrant children for more than 20 days, even with their parents. Federal and state courts, particularly on the Ninth Circuit, have repeatedly stated that children should not or cannot be detained at all. This means that if the U.S. government wishes to detain parents in an effort to enforce immigration laws, then legally speaking they must separate families.

The only other option would be for President Trump and his administration to choose not to prosecute illegal immigration at all, which is what the left is demanding. Any legislative fix would require an express provision that children should be kept with their parents while detained, which Attorney General Jeff Sessions has requested.

Section 3(e) of the recent Executive Order recently signed by President Trump has Sessions petitioning the Los Angeles court to modify Flores to allow the government “to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings.”

However, the groups that showed up under the Families Belong Together banner on Saturday were the usual suspects, anti-Trump folks with all sorts of grievances or gripes with the Trump administration, either real or imagined, and they are quite happy to use this immigration issue as their soapbox of the moment.

What these folks fail to understand is that according to the Center for Immigration Studies, minorities, particularly Hispanics prefer enforcement of immigration laws. In a poll of Hispanic, Asian-American, and African-American minorities, there is some support for legalization but the overwhelming majority prefers enforcement and for illegal immigrants to return home. Moreover, significant majorities of all three groups think that the current level of immigration is too high

Among the findings:

In contrast to the leadership of many ethnic advocacy groups, most members of minority groups think immigration is too high.

Hispanics: 56 percent said it is too high; 7 percent said too low; 14 percent just right.

Asian-Americans: 57 percent said immigration is too high; 5 percent said too low; 18 percent just right.

African-Americans: 68 percent said it is too high; 4 percent said too low; 14 percent just right.

Most members of minority groups do not feel that illegal immigration is caused by limits on legal immigration as many ethnic advocacy groups argue; instead, members feel it’s due to a lack of enforcement.

Hispanics: Just 20 percent said illegal immigration was caused by not letting in enough legal immigrants; 61 percent said inadequate enforcement.

Asian-Americans: 19 percent said not enough legal immigration; 69 percent said inadequate enforcement.

African-Americans: 16 percent said not enough legal immigration; 70 percent said inadequate enforcement.

Most members of minority groups feel that there are plenty of Americans available to fill unskilled jobs.

Hispanics: 15 percent said legal immigration should be increased to fill unskilled jobs; 65 percent said there are plenty of Americans available to do unskilled jobs, employers just need to pay more.

Asian-Americans: 19 percent said increase immigration; 65 percent said plenty of Americans are available.

African-Americans: 6 percent said increase immigration; 81 percent said plenty of Americans are available.

When asked to choose between enforcement that would cause illegal immigrants in the country to go home or offering them a pathway to citizenship with conditions, most members of minority groups choose enforcement.

Hispanics: 52 percent support enforcement to encourage illegals to go home; 34 percent support conditional legalization.

Asian-Americans: 57 percent support enforcement; 29 percent support conditional legalization.

African-Americans: 50 percent support enforcement; 30 percent support conditional legalization.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

News

Colorado Christian Cake Shop Owner Exonerated By Supreme Court Just Got Really Bad News

This is outrageous!

Published

on

Here we go again. I’m sure you are familiar with the Colorado Christian cake shop owner who just won a huge case in front of the Supreme Court this last June. Jack Phillips is the Christian baker who made history by prevailing in front of the High Court after he refused to create a custom wedding cake for a gay couple on the basis of religious beliefs. Most of America celebrated with Phillips when he won the case and it provided a glimmer of hope for religious freedom once again here in the United States.

At the time of Phillips case, the Supreme Court admonished the state’s attorney who was standing against the baker for religious intolerance. He allegedly made a number of comments that gave the court pause on First Amendment grounds. The Supreme Court issued a powerful rebuke to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for its “religious hostility” toward Christian baker Jack Phillips. They were right to think that and it has been proven even more to be true this week as this baker just got really bad news. Phillips just filed a lawsuit in federal court late Tuesday against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. From what I am seeing he is being set up to be taken down in a different legalistic move… this time it involves gender issues.

Phillips and his attorneys from the Alliance Defending Freedom contend that the Commission has revived its campaign against him following June’s High Court decision, singling Masterpiece Cakeshop out for disparate treatment on the basis of their religious beliefs. It’s like deja vu all over again.

“The state of Colorado is ignoring the message of the U.S. Supreme Court by continuing to single out Jack for punishment and to exhibit hostility toward his religious beliefs,” said Kristen Waggoner, who is an Alliance Defending Freedom attorney that represents Phillips. “Even though Jack serves all customers and simply declines to create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events in violation of his deeply held beliefs, the government is intent on destroying him — something the Supreme Court has already told it not to do.”

The person allegedly behind all of this is an attorney named Autumn Scardina. She reportedly called Phillips’ shop the day the decision in his favor was rendered and asked him to make a cake celebrating a gender transition. The caller asked that the cake be blue on the outside and pink on the inside. Over several months after that, Phillips received requests for cakes featuring marijuana use, s******y explicit messages, and Satanic symbols. He’s convinced that Scardina was the one who made all of the requests to set him up for legal action.

From PJ Media:

“To forestall a second round of litigation, ADF filed suit against the commission in federal court. Jeremy Tedesco, ADF’s senior counsel and vice president of U.S. Advocacy and Administration, told PJ Media his firm would “preemptively file a lawsuit in federal court to try to stop what the commission is doing.”

“‘We think the circumstances are uniquely aligned to do that,” Tedesco explained.

“Especially since the Supreme Court ruled that the commission had treated Phillips unfairly on the basis of his religion, thus violating his right to free exercise, this follow-up round seems particularly noxious. “It seems like another round of targeting him and putting him through this very difficult process simply because he wants to be faithful in his business in what he creates through his art,” Tedesco said.

“The commission could have decided not to pursue this second case against Phillips. The ADF lawyer explained that, when a Colorado citizen thinks he or she has been discriminated against, they file a complaint with the Civil Rights Division, which then conducts an investigation and determines probable cause.

“When Autumn Scardina filed this complaint, Tedesco would have expected the civil rights commission to reject it. “After Masterpiece came down from the Supreme Court, we expected Colorado to take that into account and realize that it was a bad decision to keep targeting Jack for his religious convictions,” the lawyer explained. “Instead, they found probable cause.”

“‘He’s going to be fully investigated again, there will be hearings from an administrative law judge,” Tedesco said. “It’s restarting the entire scenario.”

“‘It’s appalling,” the lawyer declared. “It’s unconscionable that they would go after him again right on the heels of losing a case because they were openly hostile to his religious beliefs.'”

Scardina has now filed a complaint with the civil rights commission. She is alleging discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The complaint was held aside while the Supreme Court ruled in Phillips’ other case. Just three weeks after Phillips won his case, the commission issued a probable cause determination, finding there was sufficient evidence to support Scardina’s claim of discrimination. This sure looks as though it was all planned out this way. “Colorado has renewed its war against him by embarking on another attempt to prosecute him, in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s ruling in his favor,” Phillips’ lawsuit states. “This lawsuit is necessary to stop Colorado’s continuing persecution of Phillips.”

The freedom of religion is sacrosanct in this nation as a First Amendment right. Weaponizing lawfare to take it apart is not only unconstitutional but unconscionable. I sincerely hope that Phillips prevails once more and that a more solid ruling by the Supreme Court puts an end to this form of religious bigotry.

Continue Reading

News

Judge Who Let Compound Muslims Walk Free Before Trial Exposed For What Else She Did

She supported Obama of course!

Published

on

The New Mexico judge who on Monday set a ridiculous $20,000 bail for five defendants arrested at a remote New Mexico compound where authorities say children were being trained to conduct school shootings seems to have a history of issuing low bail to violent offenders, especially when it comes to crimes against children.

Judge Sarah Backus (let’s remember the name), who is an elected Democrat is the judge who ordered the two men and three women to wear ankle monitors, have weekly contact with their attorneys and not consume alcohol or own firearms while on bail, after paying the 20k. And what’s possibly the worst part of all this is she actually said that although she was concerned by the “troubling facts” in this case, prosecutors failed to make the case for any specific threats to the community. What????

Here is more on this case via NBC News:

“A 3-year-old boy died — allegedly during a religious ritual. Children said they were being trained to commit mass shootings. A large weapons cache was found, with practice targets.

On Monday, prosecutors detailed horrifying allegations against five adults who were found with 11 starving children in a makeshift compound in Taos County, New Mexico — but the judge said they weren’t backed by enough evidence to keep the defendants behind bars as they await their trial.

“The state alleges that there was a big plan afoot,” state District Judge Sarah Backus said in court. “But the state hasn’t shown to my satisfaction, in clear and convincing evidence, what that plan was.”

The decision stunned many, and prompted threats against Backus. But experts say the move is the result of a series of recent changes to how the state treats defendants before their trials, with “clear and convincing evidence” of being a danger to the community a legal requirement for pre-trial detention with no bail.

“These people have been charged. They have not been convicted,” said Leo Romero, a law professor emeritus at the University of New Mexico and the chairman of a committee that made recommendations on reforming cash bail in the state, which were adopted by the state Supreme Court in 2017.

“So you’re balancing individual rights versus safety of the community, and the judge is weighing that when she is determining the evidence presented by the prosecutor,” he said.

New Mexico is part of a wave of a states that, in recent years, have re-examined how they handle bail and pretrial detention.

In 2014, the state Supreme Court, in New Mexico vs. Walter Ernest Brown, deemed that even if someone is charged with a serious offense, a judge has to make an individual determination on whether to detain the defendant before trial.

“Just because someone is charged with first-degree m****r or first-degree sexual assault, that by itself is insufficient,” Romero said. “The court’s got to consider other evidence of whether the person might be a danger or a flight risk, such as the nature and circumstances, which is different than the charge itself.”

Authorities have “no excuse,” said Jason Badger, who reported seeing missing boy months ago.
And in 2016, an overwhelming number of voters agreed to a constitutional amendment that moved the state away from the traditional money-based bail system to an evidence-of-risk-based system of release and detention, in an effort to bring more fairness. The new system took effect last year.

Backus would not comment on the case because it is still pending. Barry Massey, a spokesman for the New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts, said that “what she said in court yesterday is as much explanation for her decisions as she can provide.”

“Prosecutors have to file a motion, and then they have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that no other conditions of release will reasonably protect the public’s safety,” he said. “What the judge said yesterday is that they didn’t meet that burden.”

While Backus agreed to release the defendants from jail to house arrest, she required them to wear GPS ankle monitors and to check in weekly with their attorneys, plus cooperate with the New Mexico Children Youth and Families Division.

The decision not to hold the defendants spurred a backlash on social media, with some calling for Backus to resign. The New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts said the judge had also received threatening phone calls and emails.

State Rep. Bill Rehm, R-Albuquerque, a former law enforcement officer, said he felt Backus had not been tough enough.

“There’s the remains of a young child found here,” he said. “Someone should be charged with some kind of homicide or m****r. Whoever did that clearly is a violent person, and so they should be detained.”

Bail was set at $20,000 for each defendant, but Backus said she would allow the defendants to walk out on what’s called a signature bond — in which case they don’t have to post any cash.

The case has yet another twist: While the five were released to house arrest, because they were living on a makeshift compound on someone else’s property, they don’t technically have a house to go to.

Massey said that had been solved by offers from residents in Taos County to let them stay with them.

Marie Legrand Miller, a public defender for one of the defendants, Hujrah Wahhaj, confirmed her client had received such offers, but would not say from whom, other than to say the residents didn’t have any criminal problems and were in good standing.

“My client would like to obviously get out of jail and she has no desire to go back to the compound property,” Legrand Miller said. “The judge has ordered that they not return there, and she has no desire to return there.”

Fox News has reported that this isn’t the first time judge Backus has pulled a stunt like this. Just last month, she set a $10,000 bond for 24-year-old Rafael Orozco from Taos who was accused of beating his girlfriend, his newborn child and even a healthcare worker at Holy Cross Hospital in September 2016. He then prompted a lockdown at Holy Cross Hospital after allegedly attacking those 3 individuals.

Police later confirmed that Orozco prompted the lockdown at the hospital after punching his girlfriend as she breastfed their newborn in front of a male doctor, grabbing the mother by the throat and slapping the baby. Orozco then fled the hospital and was arrested in Rio Arriba County a few months later.

During his time in prison, Orozco was accused of other crimes, including obtaining Suboxone, an opioid medication, and pulling a fire alarm. A year later, he and his brother, Cristian Orozco, were charged with assaulting and threatening a guard. In September, Backus approved an order to incarcerate Orozco at the Lea County Correctional Facility until his trial.

Orozco’s defense attorney recently filed a motion arguing for his release and last month, Backus ruled in his favor.

Of course, with a little research, we here at RWN found that Judge Backus apparently gave money to Barack Obama for his 2008 campaign for president.

Figures.

Continue Reading

Thanks for sharing!

We'd like to invite you to become a RWN insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Send this to a friend