Now, who didn’t see this one coming?
After doing what no world leader had been able to do since the Korean War President Trump was able to secure peace in the Korean Peninsula and officially bringing the war to an end it. These accomplishments made the President a shoe-in for next years Nobel Peace Prize. But today those hopes unfairly came to an end for President Trump when a member the Norwegian Nobel Committee condemned President Trump for the “zero tolerance” immigration policy that has resulted in the separating of families. He even went as far as to add that the president is “no longer the moral leader of his country or the world.”
Here is more on this via The Hill:
“A member of the Norwegian Nobel Committee is condemning President Trump for the “zero tolerance” immigration policy that has resulted in separated families, saying that the president is “no longer the moral leader of his country or the world.”
“What is happening at the border where he is separating children from their parents is a sign that he is no longer the moral leader of his country or the world,” Thorbjorn Jagland, who is also the secretary general of a human rights watchdog, Council of Europe, said, according to Agence France-Press.
“He cannot speak on behalf of the so-called free world,” he added.
Many lawmakers previously supported the idea of Trump being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in convening a meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un earlier this month. But Jagland and many other heads of human rights groups have spoken out against Trump this week for his immigration policy.
Trump is facing outrage from Democratic and Republican lawmakers over the policy, which led to the separation of approximately 2,000 children from their families from mid-April to the end of May, according to The Associated Press.
The House and Senate are both moving forward with legislation that would end Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy, though it remains unclear when it may emerge through Congress.
Jagland also said that the decision to withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday is another example that shows Trump “does not want to be part of international treaties or international cooperation-based organizations.”
But what all these people calling Trump amoral and Nazi are missing is one simple fact. This law has been on the books and implemented since President George W. Bush signed it. In fact, President Barack Hussein Obama had no issue whatsoever in using it in 2014. But back then no one had an issue with what was happening. In fact, the liberal mainstream media was 100% silent about it.
Let’s compare 2014 to the present crisis:
But Former President Barack Hussein Obama still has his Nobel Peace Prize!
Here is more on this via Breitbart:
Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump were both faced with the issue of unaccompanied minors and family units following the passage of a law by a Democrat-controlled Congress and signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. The law, intended to curb human smuggling, became a magnet for families and children to the U.S. border.
“The most obvious and direct cause of the flood of children from Central America is the 2008 human trafficking law that ended the rapid deportation of unaccompanied minors who come illegally from countries other than Mexico and Canada,” the Washington Post wrote in July 2014. “The law, which cleared both houses of Congress by unanimous consent and was signed by George W. Bush in his final days in office, was bipartisan and well intentioned — but it was exploited by the very traffickers it was meant to target, who encouraged this huge emigration of children from Central America.”
The Trump Administration could not agree more with the Post’s article.
“Once again it is Congress’s job to change the law. We’re calling on them to do exactly that,” White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters on Monday in response to criticism of President Trump’s policies regarding families and minors at the border by former First Lady Laura Bush, Breitbart News’ John Nolte reported.
“And, frankly, this law was actually signed into effect in 2008 under her husband’s leadership, not under this administration,” she added. “We’re not the one’s responsible for creating this problem; we’ve inherited it. But we’re actually the first administration stepping up and trying to fix it.”
The manner in which Presidents Obama and Trump handled what became an overwhelming crisis stands in sharp contrast.
Creates magnet for families and minors with the implementation of the DACA Program.
Expands magnet with the implementation of DAPA for parents.
Keeps news of surging migrant families and minors quiet until June 2014.
Warehouses large numbers of families and minors in overcrowded and unsafe conditions.
Implements “Catch and Release 2.0,” program to release minors and families into U.S. interior.
Prohibits media and congressional leaders from photographing conditions in detention centers.
Orders deployment of National Guard to supplement border security efforts.
Rescinds DAPA program.
Orders end of DACA program and urges Congress to find a permanent solution.
Issues order to stop migrant family “caravans” at the border to prevent overcrowding at shelters.
Issues “zero-tolerance” policy for first-time border crossers.
Orders increased prosecution of repeat border crossers.
Implements policy to remove minors from parents being prosecuted for illegally crossing the border.
Improves the quality of living conditions for detained minors.
Orders deployment of National Guard to supplement border security efforts.
Proposes border walls and fencing to replace decaying infrastructure and increase border security.
Invites media and congressional leaders to tour new family and minors detention and processing centers.
Shortly before President Obama’s re-election in 2012, he introduced a program that allowed some young people who were brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents to remain in the U.S. without fear of removal. The administration action became known as the Deferred Action Against Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The impact on the southwest border was immediate as scores of families and unaccompanied minors began to move to the southern border with hopes of being included in similar programs in the future.
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Southwest Border Migration Reports began to show a sharp rise in the apprehensions of migrants. This stood in sharp contrast to the years of decline in border apprehensions from 2000 to 2012.
A surge of unaccompanied minors and families began to cross the U.S.-Mexico Border, mostly in Texas, following the Obama Administration’s adoption of catch and release procedures.
News of this surge remained mostly unreported until June 5, 2014 when Breitbart Texas Editor-in-Chief Brandon Darby published leaked Border Patrol images revealing the true numbers of UACs crossing the border, overwhelming federal agencies tasked with processing and “warehousing” these “children.”
During a debate on the Senate floor in July 2014, Senators agreed the law signed by George W. Bush appeared to be the cause of the wave of migrant children and families, the Post article continued. Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) called it “the root of it or the main part of it,” while Senator John Cornyn said, “We need to change that 2008 law” because it creates a perception that “these immigrants who come across will not be detained.”
This is truly sickening. When Barack Hussein Obama was president no one even batted an eye for these kids. But today it’s being branded as a crisis worse than the Holocaust. And where is the blame for the parents in all of this? President Trump didn’t force them to send their unaccompanied minors over the border illegally. And why do we, the American Taxpayer need to cloth, house and feed these kids? Isn’t it about time we start to worry about those minors living in the thousands of tent cities which have popped up all over the nation’s big cities instead of the children of foreign nationals?
Colorado Christian Cake Shop Owner Exonerated By Supreme Court Just Got Really Bad News
This is outrageous!
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.
Judge Who Let Compound Muslims Walk Free Before Trial Exposed For What Else She Did
She supported Obama of course!
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.
Michelle’s Closest Allies Just Turned On Her Hard After Trump Exposes Her Huge Lie
Michelle Obama will be furious over this.
Trump Just Dropped Big Surprise On Maxine Waters On Her 80th Birthday
We have all seen how the crazed Congresswoman from the looney state of California has acted since Donald Trump beat...
Free On Bail New Mexico Muslim Extremist Just Immediately Proved He Should Have Been Held [Video]
He's just proven why he should have been locked up in the first place!
New Mexico Judge Who Let 5 Extremists Go Just Became A Victim Of Terrorism [Opinion]
This judge just found out how it feels to become a victim herself!
[VIDEO] 2nd Stolen Plane In A Week After Man Flies It Into His Own House For A Reason
What is going on?!