Former First Lady Laura Bush spent years saying nothing. Eight long years of silence through one of the most corrupt administrations the United States of America has ever had the misfortune to go through. Then yet another year through an election where Laura was silent rather than speaking up about the character of the man that would be her husband’s predecessor.
Like her husband and her in-laws, Laura sat silently by while Barack Obama followed through on his promises to fundamentally change America into a country that many Americans no longer recognized. When Officer Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown in the line of duty as Brown fled the scene from a robbery attacking Wilson and riots ensued in Ferguson, Missouri over the false narrative of “Hands up, don’t shoot” Laura was silent. When the events in Ferguson spawned the Black Lives Matter movement spewing racial hatred from coast to coast, blocking highways, damaging property and businesses, and attacking police officers, Laura was silent.
She was silent about the deaths of four brave Americans killed in Benghazi while the Obama regime peddled the fiction that a YouTube video caused these acts of violence. When Bill Clinton was repeatedly accused of sexual assault and even outright r**e against other women, Laura was silent. Not only was Laura silent, but she and her husband, the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush, actually embraced him as an adopted son of sorts. During the highly contentious 2016 presidential election as Hillary’s crimes were revealed in all their glory, rather than speak out against them, Laura chose to vote for Hillary, effectively endorsing the criminal actions.
Now Laura is choosing to speak. Now that America has at long last a president willing to follow through on securing American borders and actively working to fix America’s broken immigration policies, Laura has finally found her voice and is using it condemn these policies. Policies that many Americans overwhelmingly support. According to Numbers USA, the chart below reflects how midterm voters across the board would like to see a significant reduction in illegal aliens flooding America’s borders:
Meanwhile, Laura chose to pen an op-ed that appeared today in the Washington Post. In the article, Laura speaks of President Donald Trump’s zero-tolerance policy on illegal aliens calling it “cruel and immoral”.
Her op-ed states in part – “On Sunday, a day we as a nation set aside to honor fathers and the bonds of family, I was among the millions of Americans who watched images of children who have been torn from their parents. In the six weeks between April 19 and May 31, the Department of Homeland Security has sent nearly 2,000 children to mass detention centers or foster care. More than 100 of these children are younger than 4 years old. The reason for these separations is a zero-tolerance policy for their parents, who are accused of illegally crossing our borders.
I live in a border state. I appreciate the need to enforce and protect our international boundaries, but this zero-tolerance policy is cruel. It is immoral. And it breaks my heart.
Our government should not be in the business of warehousing children in converted box stores or making plans to place them in tent cities in the desert outside of El Paso. These images are eerily reminiscent of the Japanese American internment camps of World War II, now considered to have been one of the most shameful episodes in U.S. history. We also know that this treatment inflicts trauma; interned Japanese have been two times as likely to suffer cardiovascular disease or d*e prematurely than those who were not interned.”
I live in a border state. I appreciate the need to enforce and protect our international boundaries, but this zero-tolerance policy is cruel. It is immoral. And it breaks my heart.https://t.co/he1uw1E96A
— Laura Bush (@laurawbush) June 18, 2018
I guess I missed the part where all of the sudden laws about illegal immigration no longer applied. Especially considering President Trump is simply obeying a law that has been in place in 2002 during her husband’s own administration in the DHS Security Act of 2002 as Paula Wood so eloquently reminds her via Twitter.
Was Laura out of the country when her husband’s own creation – the Department of Homeland Security was soundly criticized in a 2005 report by the House Appropriations Committee for separating illegal alien children from their parents? From the report – “even as young as nursing infants, are being separated from their parents and placed in shelters.”
And then from MigrationPolicy.org – “Operation Streamline, launched in 2005 by the George W. Bush administration in Texas’ Del Rio border sector, aimed to increase immigration prosecutions in response to an uptick in non-Mexican border crossers. DHS increasingly had to release these migrants from detention due to space limitations. Between 2003 and 2005, criminal prosecutions of first-time unauthorized crossers for illegal entry more than quadrupled, from 4,000 to 16,500. By 2010, they had reached 44,000, an 11-fold increase from 2003, while prosecutions for other immigration charges increased just 9 percent (excluding illegal re-entry, which tripled in that time). Previously, CBP had mainly referred for prosecution migrants who had prior criminal convictions or those suspected of smuggling.
Streamline continued through the Obama administration, and remains in place today. Criminal immigration prosecutions reached a peak of 97,000 in FY 2013, although first-time crossers were not prioritized.”
The New Yorker reported in 2005 of her husband’s policies on illegal immigration – “The detention of immigrants is the fastest-growing form of incarceration in this country, and, with the support of the Bush Administration, it is becoming a lucrative business.”
By the end of 2006, there were some 14,000 people in U.S. government custody for immigration law violations in a patchwork of detention arrangements including rental space rented out by hundreds of local and state jails, as well as seven freestanding facilities run by private contractors. Year over year statistics shows that this number increased by 79% from 2005 to 2006. This increase was directly attributed to the actions of Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, which runs the Immigration and Customs Enforcement division.
In 2005, Chertoff announced the end of “catch-and-release” -the long-standing practice of allowing immigrants caught without legal documents to remain free inside the country while they waited for an appearance in court. Since illegal aliens were not monitored in any way, the rate of no-shows for court was predictably high. With no punitive measures in place to enforce compliance, there was no incentive to comply. Predictably the New Yorker reports of how this practice increased anti-immigration sentiments.
As with the implementation of this policy, when immigration detentions began to rise and even climb post-9/11 the private prison for profit system eagerly offered up their beds, revitalizing the industry.
It seems Laura’s hypocrisy knows no bounds.
As MigrationPolicy.org reports regarding the challenges of increased family migration –
“As families have begun to make up a larger share of unauthorized flows, the government has faced two barriers to ending “catch and release”: strict legal protections for child migrants and insufficient detention capacity. The 1997 Flores v. Reno court settlement, which remains in effect, requires the government to release children from immigration detention without unnecessary delay to, in order of preference, parents, other adult relatives, or licensed programs willing to accept custody. If children cannot be released, Flores requires the government to hold them in the “least restrictive” setting available. The 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) codified parts of the settlement into federal law.
In 2015, U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee of the Central District Court in California ruled that the Flores requirement applies to both unaccompanied minors and children apprehended with their parents, meaning that all minors must be released from detention if possible. Gee also ordered DHS to release parents detained along with their children. An appeals court in 2016 affirmed that Flores applied to all children, but reversed the ruling that parents should be released as well.
Though myriad factors drive migration, many have suggested that the 2015 Gee decision contributed to a spike in apprehensions of people traveling in families, which jumped from 40,000 in FY 2015 to 78,000 in FY 2016—a 95 percent increase. The surge in family flows meant that there were not enough detention beds available to hold families even for the 20 days allowed under the court settlement, causing many to be released.
By referring parents for criminal prosecution—funneling them into the Justice Department’s correctional system, separate from ICE detention—the Trump administration may bypass the limitations of the family detention system, which currently has the capacity to hold just 2,700 people at a time.”
Dem Lawmaker Wants To Make Criminals Out Of People By Making A New ‘Hate Crime’
There seems to be some Constitutional issues with this
As the most reliable and balanced news aggregation service in the world, RWN offers the following information published by DownTrend
Well, I guess this is one way to cut down on the number of black people in jail. A New York State lawmaker is proposing making it a hate crime to call the police on black people. If you think I’m making this up or overreacting to something, check out this headline from The Patch, which says the same:
And the article backs that headline up:
New Yorkers who call 911 on law-abiding people of color are committing hate crimes and should be prosecuted, according to a state senator who was recently reported to police for campaigning in his own district.
State Senator Jesse Hamilton, who represents Brownsville, Crown Heights and Flatbush, proposed new legislation a week after a self-described Trump fan called police to report him for speaking to constituents in public. It would criminalize 911 calls against people of color without evidence of malice.
“That’s gonna be a hate crime. This pattern of calling the police on black people going about their business and participating in the life of our country has to stop,” said Hamilton.
Try to guess the race and political party of this guy. If you said white and Republican you were way off.
The deal is, there have been a handful of incidents in which white or non-black people have called the police on black people for doing things that were determined not to be a crime. The natural knee-jerk reaction is to make a law for something that isn’t even remotely a problem.
The law however would be a huge problem. If people know they could get slapped with a hate crime charge, they would be reluctant to ever call the police on a black person no matter what kind of heinous crime they appear to be committing. The onus should not be on average citizens to determine the guilt of a person they think is committing a crime. The easiest solution is for 911 operators to weed out the silly calls and not send police when someone reports something that very clearly is not a crime.
I have more than a few questions about this proposed law: Would it still be okay to call the police on white people. I’m assuming yes. Could black people call the police on other black people? How do Asians and Hispanics figure into this law? Oh, and what about illegal aliens who have sanctuary in NY and are above the law? Can they call the police on black people?
There also seems to be some Constitutional issues with this proposed law because it specifically makes it a hate crime to call the police on black people. It would still be a dumb law if it included all people of all races, but making it race-specific like this is a clear violation of equal protection under the law.
The clarification the news gave on this proposed law doesn’t make it seem any less terrible:
Hamilton’s proposal would strengthen current legislation that outlaws false reports by designating racially-motivated 911 calls as hate crimes, especially in instances where the call results in police responding with the preconception that the person might cause a threat. Read More
Man Found Contracts Showing Obama Was Paying Trump Spy – Obama Tried To Shut Him Up By Stripping Security Clearance
Obama-appointed officials cleaned house
A man named Adam Lovinger lost his security clearances after complaining about the questionable government contract that was awarded to Stefan Halper, who is being touted as an FBI informant whose job was to keep an eye on President Trump’s campaign. Who stripped the clearances, you might ask? It’s being reported that it was Obama-appointed officials who cleaned house and ripped Lovinger’s clearances away, presenting to us quite a concern that involves contracts and clashing forces within the government who either supported Obama then or support Trump now. Either way, it’s a mess.
Lovinger was reportedly complaining about Halper’s contracts back in 2016. He then lost his clearances on May 1, 2017. Lovinger’s lawyer, Sean M. Bigley, then complained to the Pentagon’s senior ethics official, mad that Lovinger’s “higher ups” were basically punishing him with the whole security clearance thing – punishing him for complaining about the deals that were given to Mr. Halper and apparently a “best friend” of Chelsea Clinton, as per the Washington Times.
The Washington Times called this out, as well as numerous other sites who wanted the public to be notified about what was going on behind closed doors. Since John Brennan just lost his security clearances, it was probably just another relative topic to bring up someone else who lost their clearances as well. However the big problem is why they lost their clearances and how it ties back to Obama’s administration, and perhaps even Hillary Clinton on a long stretch. Rather than point fingers at two particular names, it might just be the entire Democratic Party. However it goes, it’s up to the public to absorb the information and make their own decisions.
Anytime these news stories are breaking the headlines, it’s always important to take in all the information and figure out what’s going on. Then share the story with people who would enjoy it. If you’re up for a good bit of government drama, then this is right up your political alley!
Here’s a brief summary that details most of what happened:
“As it turns out, one of the two contractors Mr. Lovinger explicitly warned his ONA superiors about misusing in 2016 was none other than Mr. Halper,” Mr. Bigley wrote in his ethics complaint, which called the contracts “cronyism and corruption.”
Mr. Lovinger filed a whistleblower reprisal complaint in May with the Defense Department inspector general against James Baker, director of the Office of Net Assessment. The complaint also singles out Washington Headquarters Services, a Pentagon support agency that awarded the Halper contracts totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars.
In an internal October 2016 email to higher-ups, Mr. Lovinger wrote of “the moral hazard associated with the Washington Headquarters Services contracting with Stefan Halper,” the complaint said. It said Mr. Baker hired Mr. Halper to “conduct foreign relations,” a job that should be confined to government officials.
“It was a topic of conversation within the office,” Mr. Bigley told The Times. “What is Halper doing, and why is he being paid astronomically more than others similarly situated?”
The Office of Net Assessment conducts analyses of future threats and ways to defeat them.
“Nobody in the office seemed to know what Halper was doing for his money,” Mr. Bigley said. “Adam said Jim Baker, the director, kept Halper’s contracts very close to the vest. And nobody seemed to have any idea what he was doing at the time. He subcontracted out a good chunk of it to other academics. He would compile them all and then collect the balance as his fee as a middleman. That was very unusual.”
Mr. Bigley told The Times that the inspector general’s criminal investigative division has interviewed Mr. Lovinger about Office of Net Assessment contracting.
In all, Mr. Lovinger has four cases pending: whistleblower reprisal, criminal division, an ethics complaint and an appeal on his security clearance revocation.
A spokesman told The Times that the Pentagon would not comment on the case’s merits.
The spokesman said the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudicaitons Facility reviewed Mr. Lovinger’s clearance.
It then “issued a statement of reasons stating why, under [federal guidelines] it would not be clearly consistent with the national interest to continue Mr. Lovinger’s security clearance, and he was provided with the opportunity to respond to the security concerns,” the spokesman said. “After considering all available information, the CAF issued an unfavorable clearance determination and Mr. Lovinger’s clearance was revoked.”
Mr. Bigley said the conflict is that the consolidated authority resides within the Washington Headquarters Services, which is the target of Mr. Lovinger’s complaint.
“The CAF’s entire ‘adjudication’ of this case was orchestrated by corrupt officials at WHS, which was demonstrated numerous times throughout the process,” he said.
To conservatives, Mr. Lovinger is a victim of the “deep state” — Obama loyalists out to harm the Trump administration.
Press reports identified Mr. Halper as a paid FBI confidential human source, whose mission was to make contacts with Trump campaign workers. The FBI was investigating any Trump ties to Moscow at a time when its intelligence officers were hacking Democratic Party computers.”
After lodging his complaints about the Office of Net Assessment’s outside research in general and Mr. Halper specifically, Mr. Lovinger sought an assignment to the Trump White House national security staff in January 2017. He was soon confronted with allegations from Mr. Baker that he failed to follow security rules. Mr. Lovinger denies any wrongdoing.
Mr. Baker was appointed chief of the Office of Net Assessment in 2015 by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, Mr. Obama’s appointee.
The Washington Headquarters Services, which revoked Mr. Lovinger’s clearance, is headed by Barbara Westgate, who was appointed in 2016.
Perhaps the most intriguing narrative in the Lovinger story is the appearance of Mr. Halper, a national security consultant in the U.S. and Britain who is tied to that country’s MI6 spy agency through his business partner.”
EPIC VIDEO: Former Obama Supporter Gives POWERFUL Answer For Why She Chose To #WalkAway
It gives many Democrats, who felt trapped by an abusive political party that shamed them for “wrong thing,” the courage...
Dem Lawmaker Wants To Make Criminals Out Of People By Making A New ‘Hate Crime’
There seems to be some Constitutional issues with this
Somali American Wins Democrat Primary After Saying Muslims Are Victims Of 911
She is the second Somali-American to likely be a state representative
WATCH: The Deplorable Choir Has A New Song Called “Vote Republican” They Will Make Your Day!
Just a few reasons why you should vote Republican
Infuriating Report Comes Out About ‘More Than Half’ Of All Foreign Refugees In America
Exactly what the Democrats ordered