Candidate Donald Trump delivered a well crafted speech on Tuesday which attacked the globalist economy as harmful to American workers and destructive to the middle class. He criticized powerful interests, like Red China for its currency manipulation and our own government for its policies that have become such a menace to the general good.
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) erased the border with Mexico to a degree.
Globalization encompasses immigration, outsourcing and so-called free trade, all of which have been job-killers for working people. But the globalist economy works very well for powerful elites in business and politics, so the system has continued long past the time when it was shown to be a failed faith.
Apparently Secretary Clinton intends to continue the Obama program of fundamentally changing America via extreme diversity, only more so. But aside from the obvious national security threats from importing hundreds of thousands of mostly Muslim refugees, the dollar cost will be through the roof. Importing more than 600,000 sketchy needy foreigners that will cost over $400 billion over four years is more bad craziness that will end up in the welfare office.
Is there no end to immigrating people America doesn’t need and can’t afford?
WASHINGTON— An analysis by the Subcommittee on Immigration and The National Interest finds the refugee plan of presumptive presidential nominee Hillary Clinton could cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has announced her desire to admit at least 65,000 refugees from Syria – on top of the existing refugee flow already entering the United States. What Clinton has not explained, however, is that in addition to the clear national security implications related to accepting more refugees, there are massive financial costs that would be borne by federal, state, and local governments.
Assuming Clinton’s desire to bring in 65,000 Syrian refugees is in addition to the Obama Administration’s current goal of admitting 10,000 this fiscal year (out of 85,000 total refugees), that would amount to an increase of 55,000 refugees. 55,000 on top of 85,000 totals 140,000 refugees. The Obama Administration’s target for FY 2017 is actually 100,000 refugees, meaning that adding 55,000 refugees to that would result in 155,000 refugees each year. Due to statutory flaws in our Refugee Admissions Program, the number could be as high as Hillary Clinton desires. Assuming her goal is to admit 155,000 refugees each year during a hypothetical first term in office, a Clinton Administration would admit at least 620,000 refugees in just four years – a population roughly the size of Baltimore. Continue reading this article
Now the company is back with an even more advanced machine — SpotMini — that can grasp and place a wine glass into a dishwasher without breakage, as well as trot along, deliver a beer and quickly get up after slipping on a banana peel.
The company includes this explanatory blurb with its video:
SpotMini is a new smaller version of the Spot robot, weighing 55 lbs dripping wet (65 lbs if you include its arm.) SpotMini is all-electric (no hydraulics) and runs for about 90 minutes on a charge, depending on what it is doing. SpotMini is one of the quietest robots we have ever built. It has a variety of sensors, including depth cameras, a solid state gyro (IMU) and proprioception sensors in the limbs. These sensors help with navigation and mobile manipulation. SpotMini performs some tasks autonomously, but often uses a human for high-level guidance. For more information about SpotMini visit our website at www.BostonDynamics.com
SpotMini is a smaller, quieter version of the carry-all robot that was rejected by the Marines for being too noisy. SpotMini is designed with home use in mind, and people don’t want a loud machine clanking around the place.
Below, SpotMini, the house robot, awaits master’s next command.
The ability of SpotMini to manipulate a wine glass safely shows how rapidly human-like dexterity is being developed, and that capability is the Holy Grail for business. Once machine smarts can be married up with the precise movements of the human hand, then many more jobs will be transferred to the automation column, like picking vegetables, sewing clothing and packing customer orders into boxes in an Amazon warehouse.
Speaking of Amazon, that company has grown enormously from its use of increasingly automated processing centers where Kiva robots deliver ordered merchandise to human workers who load boxes for shipment. CEO Jeff Bezos wants to automate further, as shown by the Amazon Picking Challenge, a competition to develop a dexterous robot that can replace the humans (and their amazing hands).
For sure, immigration of cheapie foreign workers for “jobs Americans just don’t want” (a questionable concept anyway) is a relic from the 20th century, because machines are doing those unpleasant jobs now. Therefore:
Whoever thought that Little Marco Rubio, the Gang of Eight Amnesty Man, was really going away? He had promised to retire from the Senate after Donald Trump beat him like a drum in the Florida primary election, where the Senator got only 27 percent of the votes in his home state. But now he means to continue his Senate career if the constituents will vote him back.
His return to the political fray puts him back on the list for Sunday shows, as the consequential hispanic Republican who conveniently is critical of the nominee Trump, which pleases the networks. Senator Rubio appeared on CBS’ Face the Nation on Sunday to discuss the issues of the day.
Interestingly, when asked about how he would envision his next Senate term, Rubio declared that “the Senate needs to fulfill its role as a check and balance on the president” and he would focus on that. It’s curious that he hopes to improve the Senate’s proper functioning within our Constitutional system when he dropped out for a year to pursue his campaign for President.
Below, Senator Rubio appears with other Gang of Eight members when the group worked to pass a terrible amnesty bill for millions of illegal alien foreigners. His amnesty activities as a freshman senator helped him get a lot of attention in the press.
Naturally, the topic of immigration came up during the interview, since Rubio is an “expert” in the minds of the media. He still wants the big amnesty reward for the intruders, although he framed the idea in a roundabout way: “I argue for a piecemeal step-by-step approach that begins with enforcement and I think leads to the confidence we need from the American people to do something reasonable.”
Little Marco was quite firm in his objection to Trump’s Muslim immigration ban, because refusing immigration admittance to anyone (including historic enemies) is not something Rubio can stand.
“You see our best allies in Jordan. Our allies in that reach that are working to us to defeat ISIS, they’re Muslims. You look at communities in America who are reporting to the FBI, we have got a radical here in our midst, they’re Muslims. And so it’s just — that’s not a real proposal. It’s not something that’s going to happen. . . I think it’s bad policy for the country to say you’re going to have a religious exclusion. And I think you have heard from multiple leaders in our party say that. And, by the way, I believe or I would hope that we would have the opportunity to encourage him, if he’s elected president, in a different direction about how to deal with the problem he’s trying to deal with, is radical Islamic terror.”
So America can have friendly relations only with nations from whom we accept immigrants? That’s the underlying supposition, and it’s strange when you think about it.
Anyway, Temple University Law Professor Jan Ting has said the president has the power to block whatever group he wants: “There’s clear statutory authority in the laws [outlined by] Congress … delegating to the president” the power to impose an immigration ban “whenever the president finds that such admission would be detrimental to the United States.”
The following transcript is from CBS NEWS June 26, 2016:
JOHN DICKERSON, CBS HOST: In terms of the politics of this, do you see any parallels between the Brexit push and what’s happening in American politics?
SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: I think globalization, the kind of move of the economy to this global economy, is having an impact in multiple countries around the world.
I think the reality that we have a new economy and the new economy is creating a lot of new jobs, that the people hired for the new jobs are not the same people that are losing jobs under the old economy. In essence, the people losing their jobs are the not the ones people being hired by the new economy. All of this has created an incredible amount of strain and friction all over the world.
And so there’s a sense in many countries around the world that this is because we’re too engaged with this global economy, we’re too engaged with world. I think you see it manifested here in America. I think you saw it in that vote there. I think there’s other places where you may see that pop up as well.
DICKERSON: Do you see it manifested in America in the support for Donald Trump?
The Brexit media aftermath continues to roil, in part because the press was caught flatfooted regarding the results. In addition, Britain’s choice to return to nation statehood upsets the globalist values of the liberal stenographers of elite views.
Per playbook, liberals and their media squawk with the usual accusations of racism against anyone who disagrees with approved issues, and by extension, with libs’ imagined moral superiority. It’s tiresome and unimaginative. As Tucker Carlson notes in the video below, there were sound reasons to oppose the Brexit, but to accuse the supporters of being evil racists reveals libs’ kneejerk habit of personally castigating opponents if the results do not suit them.
In addition, the lefty globalists in this case want to shred the democratic outcome that resulted from a months-long debate and the votes of more than 30 million citizens: an online petition for a do-over of the referendum is being run which insists on new rules: “We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the remain or leave vote is less than 60% based a turnout less than 75% there should be another referendum.”
Plus the automatic name-calling from the other side make it hard to engage in political debate when their arguments include accusations that are designed to shut people up.
TUCKER CARLSON: After British voters decided to leave the European Union, many in the press here in the US were quick to label the Brits bigots.
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: A lot of these leave movements are led by the hard right, very very xenophobic anti-immigrant, are very populist, nationalist, white identity politics.
NBC REPORTER: What this was really about was fear, xenophobia, in some cases certainly racism.
CARLSON: So has Christiane Amanpour recovered this morning, or is she hiding under the covers weeping? Let’s talk to Dan Joseph; he’s a video correspondent political analyst for the Media Research Council in Washington. Dan, good to see you this morning. So in the UK, there was a robust debate about this. i mean the papers were kind of split on it and there was a debate. In the US, I think the New York Post was the only print media outlet that was sympathetic to Brexit. Why was the American media so against this? Continue reading this article
It’s been a good couple days for national sovereignty. The Brexit referendum passed, against all polls and bookie forecasts, which begins divorce proceedings between Britain and the unelected European Union superstate. In Washington, the Supreme Court rejected the president’s unconstitutional executive amnesty.
“Our Founders conceived of this country as a refuge for the world.”
Really? Does he think the Founders fought a seven-year revolutionary war and set up a whole new country so the rest of the world could have a really comfy safe space?
Actually, the Constitution said that the purpose of the founding was “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” There’s no mention of a “refuge” for auslanders.
The leftist view is that America is too rich, and middle-class citizens should be taxed to the max to provide free stuff for illegal aliens.
So it’s a good thing that the Supreme Court rejected Obama’s overreach of executive authority. However, it is concerning that four members of the nation’s top court apparently think it’s okay for the president to make law, which is Congress’ job and a basic item of the separation of powers.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott made a similar point about the court’s ruling:
President Obama lost his bid to kick-start his deportation amnesty Thursday after the Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4, keeping in place a lower court’s injunction, nixing the policy for the rest of Mr. Obama’s tenure and igniting political and legal debates that will carry on well beyond.
Mr. Obama said the ruling “takes us further from the country we aspire to be,” and vowed to protect most illegal immigrants from deportation anyway, saying his discretionary powers remain intact.
But the decision is a devastating blow to his hopes of a legacy-building amnesty, known by the acronym DAPA, that would have granted as many as 5 million illegal immigrants a stay of deportation and the keys to a more normal life in the U.S.: work permits and Social Security numbers enabling them to obtain driver’s licenses and other taxpayer benefits.
The ruling could have been even worse. Had Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February, still been on the court, Mr. Obama would likely have lost in a 5-4 decision that could have spanked him on broad constitutional grounds and imposed limits on future presidents, analysts said.
Instead, the tie decision leaves in place rulings by a district judge in Texas and by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that Mr. Obama broke the law when he claimed he had the categorical power to grant “deferred action” to nearly half of the illegal immigrants in the country. Continue reading this article
Senator Jeff Sessions’ Immigration Subcommittee has published a study of persons convicted in terror crimes and the results are not promising for the safety of the nation. Despite the horror and deaths of 3000 inflicted on America on 9/11 by Middle Eastern foreigners, the government has learned little about protecting us in the intervening time, as shown by the fact that at least 380 of 580 convicted terrorists were foreign-born. Forty of those foreigners were refugees, which should be a warning about Obama’s project to admit 10,000 unscreenable Syrian refugees during this fiscal year. Why continue to import potential enemies who want to kill Americans? What kind of government does that?
Senator Sessions appeared with Sean Hannity on Wednesday to discuss the report:
SEAN HANNITY: Based on research conducted on a list of the Department of Justice, subcommittee on that you’re involved in — let’s see, at least 380 of the 580 individuals convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses between September 11, 2001, and December 31st, 2014, they were 380 of 580 were born abroad.
SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS: Absolutely, and it’s really a lot more than that because we had to find that information from public sources and for large number we couldn’t. I’d say it’s probably pushing 75 percent of those involved in terrorist activities
HANNITY: Were they illegal immigrants or were some foreign born here on visas and we’re not vetting them properly?
SESSIONS: Right, they’re coming mostly, I would assume, on legal visas but they are immigrants themselves, so some are suggesting the second generation or homegrown terrorism is the biggest problem: that’s really not so according to the data.
HANNITY: When Donald Trump said that there’s rapes and murders by illegal immigrants — I sat through a security briefing with Governor Rick Perry and in an eight-year period they reported, his officials, people on the on the borders, they gave the number of 625,000 crimes committed by illegal immigrants against Texans alone, including rape and murder. So this is happening, what Trump said is true, is accurate,
SESSIONS: It’s absolutely accurate, it’s indisputable really. We have a responsibility to protect the United States of America from those who would attack us and destroy domestic stability and tranquility. We can do that. People don’t have a constitutional right to demand entry. We should screen those people. Those who are likely to be prosperous and flourish in America and be good citizens we should admit before we admit those who are likely to be dangerous.
HANNITY: Well the group FAIR did a study and what they found is from the Freedom of Information Act on their behalf that the 30,558 criminal aliens that ICE released in fiscal year 2014 — of the 30,000, 13,288 additional crimes were committed by illegal immigrants that just got out of jail. Why are we letting illegal immigrants that are in prison back out on the street?
Sean, the law requires if you’re convicted of an offense in the United States, you shall be deported. They should be deported anyway if they’re here illegally. So you first should be deported if you’re here illegally, and if you commit a crime that’s a high priority case. It’s not happening, even that Hillary Clinton has said Sean, that nobody in the country illegally should be deported unless they are a terrorist or commit a violent crime and that’s just open borders really.
Below is a chart which shows the country of origin of the terrorists. More charts can be seen on the Fox News article, Anatomy of the terror threat, 6/22/16.
Here’s the report issued from Senator Sessions’ office:
WASHINGTON—Based on open-source research conducted on a list provided by the Department of Justice, the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest has determined that at least 380 of the 580 individuals convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses between September 11, 2001 and December 31, 2014, were born abroad.
On August 12, 2015, December 3, 2015, and January 11, 2016, letters were sent to the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and State, requesting the immigration histories of individuals implicated in terrorism since early 2014. For over 10 months, the Obama Administration has refused to provide this crucial and easily accessible information. Since sending the last letter on January 11, however, the Subcommittee has identified 18 additional individuals implicated in terrorism since early 2014 – bringing the total to 131, of whom at least 16 were initially admitted to the United States as refugees, and at least 17 of whom are the natural-born citizen children of immigrants.
However, the Department of Justice (DOJ) did provide the Subcommittee with a list it maintains of 580 individuals not only implicated, but convicted, of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses between September 11, 2001 and December 31, 2014. DOJ has deferred to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to provide immigration background information regarding these individuals, but to this day, DHS has not done so – despite having the information on the foreign-born easily accessible in its records and databases.
Using this list, the Subcommittee conducted open-source research and determined that at least 380 of the 580 were foreign-born (71 were confirmed natural-born, and the remaining 129 are not known). Of the 380 foreign-born, at least 24 were initially admitted to the United States as refugees, and at least 33 had overstayed their visas. Additionally, of those born abroad, at least 62 were from Pakistan, 28 were from Lebanon, 22 were Palestinian, 21 were from Somalia, 20 were from Yemen, 19 were from Iraq, 16 were from Jordan, 17 were from Egypt, and 10 were from Afghanistan. Continue reading this article
Many jobs that are being replaced by automation are somewhat small in terms of the number of workers in each employment category, so the overall cumulative effect has not been adequately noticed. However drivers are a huge group with millions of workers, plus the collateral businesses that are built around track drivers in particular, like roadside restaurants, so the disruption of the trucking industry will have large injurious effects.
Nevertheless, the businesses that build cars, trucks and buses are moving full steam ahead with self-driving technology because they don’t want to be left in the dust by Silicon Valley developing the industry.
The report below from the Guardian suggests that self-driving trucks might come into common usage more quickly than we think. But however attractive the idea of far cheaper hauling might be to transportation companies, it’s hard to imagine the driving public will readily accept ginormous big rigs speeding down the highway with no driver. Business may compromise by using the platooning strategy, where a designated lead truck has a driver and several vehicles follow along by being networked wirelessly.
Powerful interests now believe there is money to be made by creating an automated future, although making many millions of people unemployed seems a poorly considered way to run an economy. Robots don’t shop.
Still, the automation future is coming coming our way, as we see in the machines and software already here as the vanguard of the revolution.
One thing that should be done is to zero out immigration, because America won’t need millions of additional unemployable workers in a vastly reduced employment universe.
The race is on to get driverless trucks on the roads, and experts say the impact on professional drivers ‘is going to be huge’
Driverless trucks will be safer and cheaper than their human-controlled counterparts, but that doesn’t mean America’s 3.5 million professional truck drivers are giving up to the machines without a fight.
Across the US, truckers collectively haul more than 10bn tons of freight each year, but it’s a tough job – the hours are long and lonely, the pay is low and the lifestyle is sedentary. In many ways it’s a job ripe for disruption; robots v truckers.
“Picture the taxi drivers around the world acting in response to Uber,” says Andy Stern, the former former president of the Service Employees International Union, referring to protests and violence that erupted in many cities as the $62.5bn Silicon Valley on-demand ride-hailing firm challenged conventional, regulated taxis.
“Truck drivers will follow a similar pattern,” says Stern. “There will be disruption in different places. You can imagine people ringing state capitals with their trucks.”
Much has been written about the advent of the driverless car, with rival versions being developed by Google, Uber and Tesla, yet driverless trucks are likely to roll out at scale much sooner. “Individuals can make their own choices about whether they want to get into a driverless car or taxi, but labour-saving technology will be deployed by businesses much quicker,” explains Stern, whose book Raising the Floor explores the need for a universal basic income as technology replaces jobs. Continue reading this article
The President visited Yosemite this weekend, so the public’s attention is focused on parks. Naturally, the discussion includes liberal worries that the parks are not diverse enough, and that topic was a front-pager for the San Francisco Chronicle on Sunday.
Liberal outdoorsy types, like Sierra Clubbers, worry that colorful people don’t care about wild places, and when America becomes even more diverse (as libs have engineered through immigration), then wilderness preservation will end and pavement will prevail. In the post-American United States, Yosemite Valley might be rejiggered to include luxury condos or Yellowstone could get a roller coaster to amuse the kiddies — who would be left to complain? The Mexicans won’t care.
In liberal Minneapolis, the metro council is calling for “racially equitable use of parks” — whatever that is. Do they want race quotas for use? It’s unclear.
However, there are downsides to promoting diversity in wild places. The newbie visitors bring their own cultures and values to the experience. One expression is tagging, and so-called “street artists” see nature as a swell canvas where they can squirt out their imagined creativity.
In Joshua Tree alone, graffiti artists vandalized the popular Rattlesnake Canyon in 2013, requiring an extensive cleanup; workers just finished removing etchings from the face of Barker Dam, and in February, someone painted a large, bright blue giraffe on a boulder in 49 Palms Oasis.
About the same time, someone painted a menacing 8-foot-by-12-foot image of a skull on the wall of a historical structure in a nearby area known as the Wonderland of Rocks.
Nevertheless, the diversification of parks moves full steam ahead, as explained respectfully in the Chronicle — a project which was not appreciated by Ajit in the comments section: “I am Asian and I don’t give a rat’s a&s whether any other Asian visits any National Park. In fact, I’d rather have fewer visitors of all colors, races, and all ethnicity. Stop wasting the already meager resources of the Park system on politically-correct nonsense. Use the money to perform much-needed and postponed repairs and upkeep of these precious jewels.”
Growing up in North Hollywood, Jessica Rivas never gave much thought to the glacier-carved monolith that is Half Dome, rustic cabins along the Merced River or uniformed park rangers in flat brim hats.
These days she often can be found walking near the river, in the shadow of the granite peak.
Wearing the hat.
As a wilderness ranger working in Yosemite National Park, Rivas represents the park and the National Park Service and, she says, the nature that can be “life-changing.” As a 22-year-old woman of Mexican and Lebanese descent, however, she is far from representative of most visitors and workers in a park system that belongs to an increasingly diverse U.S. population.
Just 22 percent of park-goers are ethnic minorities, according to a 2011 study that also points out that percentage had not changed noticeably since the previous survey in 2000.
The lack of diversity is even more dramatic in light of predictions that by 2020 half of all youths in America will be of color, and by 2043, whites will no longer be a majority of the U.S. population.
It’s been a dilemma for all of the National Park Service’s 100 years: The legacy left for all Americans — and paid for with everyone’s taxes — should be easily available and welcoming to the entire population. Continue reading this article
This is something of a good news story, because when smart machines are chosen over shipping US jobs overseas wholesale, there are likely a few human workers required to assist the robots. At least for the time being.
It makes sense that businesses prefer to have their manufacturing nearby, where they can keep better track of production and make adjustments more quickly. The article below frames the issue more in terms of IT work, but the principle remains.
Still, the general trend is toward fewer workers because automation is increasingly being plugged in as a replacement for humans who demand wages and lunch breaks. Therefore, America and other first-world nations do not need to import immigrants for labor.
Automation will do the jobs Americans just don’t want to do.
While Congress and workers debate H-1B visas, virtual labor is ascendant
The offshore outsourcing of IT grew because of the cost of offshore labor. A software engineer in India is paid but a fraction of what a U.S. worker earns. Payscale puts the median salary for a senior software engineer in India at $10,000.
When IT services firms bring in H-1B visa workers, these workers earn substantially more than their overseas counterparts, but often significantly less than American IT employees.
This labor cost advantage has been a powerful lure for U.S. customers, but analysts see labor costs diminishing in importance. Customers want more automation, whether it’s infrastructure management or business process outsourcing. IT services firms can no longer complete exclusively on lower cost labor.
“The search for just cheaper people is a thing of the past,” said Frances Karamouzis, an analyst at Gartner. What customers now want is to buy more “thinking” and automation for the “doing,” she said.
One process that has taken off is called “Robotic Process Automation (RPA),” a term given to a virtual machine that takes over some of the applications and workflows managed by workers. These systems don’t directly replace humans, but take structured tasks and automate them, with users saving as much as much as 15%, said Karamouzis. Continue reading this article
Nevertheless, the New York Times featured a front-pager titled “Young New York Muslims, Robbed of a Respite” — apparently trying to make the Islamics into the victims. To most people, the murder for allah of 49 Americans seems a bit more consequential than Muslim immigrant kids confused about their Islam-is-peace narrative.
The slant comes across as a little crude, no? I thought sensitivity was a top liberal value.
Below, colorful immigrants celebrate Ramadan, as portrayed on the Times’ front page.
Ramadan is a major Islam holiday where practitioners fast during daylight hours. It is also a period of increased violence on the part of Muslims; in fact, Ramadan is the only holiday that normally comes with a non-accident death toll.
For Muhammad Hannan and other Muslim high school students in New York City, this has been a Ramadan of contrasts and conflicting emotions.
The joy of breaking a 16-hour fast with the first bite of a sweet date. The horror of hearing about the attack on a gay nightclub in Florida that left 49 dead. The drudgery of reviewing a year’s worth of earth sciences and trigonometry notes. The frustration of defending Islam — and the right to be in this country — after another terrorist attack carried out in the name of the Islamic State.
“I just don’t get it,” said Muhammad, a 17-year-old junior at Abraham Lincoln High School in Coney Island, Brooklyn, who immigrated from Pakistan with his family in 2014. “Islam is all about peace. In Ramadan, we don’t even curse. You’re not supposed to do anything bad.”
Ramadan is usually Muhammad’s favorite time. This year, though, the holiday, which encompasses a month of fasting from dawn to dusk, has not offered its usual refuge. Already, Ramadan coincided with the Regents, the series of state tests that most high school students in New York take. Continue reading this article
Kallstrom appeared on Fox News Thursday and explained to Megyn Kelly how the FBI is blocked from performing at its highest efficiency by the rules of engagement that “come down from by the White House.” The agents are expected to prevent jihad attacks, yet they are hampered by the “wet blanket of political correctness.” Agents are supposed to keep the country safe from domestic attacks, but, as Kallstrom observed, “They can’t go sniffing around anything to do with Muslims. They can’t go around to mosques, they can’t do things they would normally do.”
Job #1 for government is protecting the nation, but the one in charge now isn’t interested.
MEGYN KELLY: James Kallstrom was formerly the Assistant Director in charge of the FBI and senior counterterrorism adviser to the New York governor in the years after September 11. So just to clarify the record, the gun shop owner smelled a rat and reported the guy to the local authorities. as far as we know they did not contact the FBI so there was another missed opportunity. You’ve been saying all along the FBI and the locals need to be working together on this. What’s going on here? What’s happening, Jim? Why is the FBI not getting these guys even though there on the radar?
JAMES KALLSTROM: Okay, congratulations to the gun shop owner. Good Patriot. You know if you could wave a magic wand and say you could do whatever you could want to do, Jim, to better protect the citizens, you know we could never protect them all the time, but there’s some things that I would do. Get this wet blanket of political correctness off the backs of law enforcement, off the backs of the FBI. The last time i was on you with you Megyn, I got about 35 calls from agents who were on the job now at different levels saying, boy, you hit the nail on the head. We are really really . . .
KELLY: How? What’s being done to them that corrals them?
KALLSTROM: The rules of engagement, what the Bureau is being told about what they can do and what they can’t do. They can’t go sniffing around anything to do with Muslims. They can’t go around to mosques, they can’t do things they would normally do. I’m not talking about things that are off the charts; I’m talking about things that normally would be done but the orders have come down from the White House — the same people that took all the language out of the training documents and can’t be used in any memoranda — those are the same people. Continue reading this article
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.