Donald Trump made his first big splash as a presidential candidate by speaking honestly about the crushing problems of immigration, particularly the illegal variety. His pledge to build a big border wall with Mexico paying for it is a hu-u-u-u-ge crowd pleaser during campaign speeches.
His attention to immigration issues convinced the National Border Patrol Council (a union with a membership of nearly 17,000) to recommend Trump for president. A March 30 Breitbart story includes the NBPC’s statement and an audio interview with BB Texas manager Brandon Darby: National Border Patrol Council Endorses Trump for President.
Brandon Judd appeared on Fox News Thursday morning to discuss his group’s endorsement, a step into politics the NBPC has never taken before:
DONALD TRUMP (campaign clips): I will build a great great wall on our southern border and I will have Mexico pay for that wall — mark my words. . . The Border Patrol’s invited me because it got to do they want to be able to do their job. . . We have thousands and thousands of illegal immigrants in our country not only taking jobs but many of them are causing problems beyond belief. . . Many killings, murders, crime, drugs pouring across the border — our money going out and the drugs coming in and I said we need to build a wall, and it has to be built quickly.
BRIAN KILMEADE: Now as this race progresses for the Republican nomination it gets down to the wire a group that is never ever before endorsed candidate in a presidential primary is breaking tradition by throwing its support behind Donald Trump. Meet Brandon Judd. He is the president of the National Border Patrol Council which speaks on behalf of nearly 17,000 Border Patrol agents. Brandon how tough was this decision for you to make this unprecedented move?
BRANDON JUDD: It was a very tough decision. We had to look at all candidates, we had to vet candidates thoroughly, we had to look at where their positions were on the border, and frankly Donald Trump has the strongest position on the border and he’s always had the strongest position on the border. Continue reading this article
The Golden State has been shirking its responsibility to educate young Californians by increasingly relying on non-residents’ higher tuition to keep the university budgets flush. All the major newspapers had front page stories on Wednesday about the State Auditor’s report finding admission standards were lowered for non-residents which kept out better qualified Californians. Auditor Elaine Howle said the University of California system “failed to put the needs of residents first.”
Much of the reporting has discussed the issue in terms of “non-resident” students which is not exactly wrong, but misses the point: the big numbers are from foreign students. The chart below (from the San Jose News article) shows that in 1994 the out-of-state kids were only 3 percent and “international” (aka foreign) students were 1 percent. By 2015, the out-of-staters had not quite doubled at 5.5 percent, but foreign students had multiplied by a factor of ten to 10 percent. The university suits probably regard the non-Americans as a two-fer win of more money and more diversity.
SACRAMENTO — As high school seniors endure the grueling springtime ritual of college admission decisions, the state auditor on Tuesday released a report affirming the frustrations of many California families: The University of California softened admissions standards for out-of-state students, who pay triple the fees, even as it turned away record numbers of in-state applicants.
The finding — vehemently disputed by UC President Janet Napolitano — adds fuel to an already red-hot debate over which students are admitted to the highly competitive university system, especially at prestigious campuses such as UC Berkeley and UCLA. In the past five years, as their in-state admission rates fell to record lows, the proportion of out-of-state undergraduates at both schools doubled, rising to 25 percent and 23 percent, respectively.
“This is horrific,” said Rohini Ashok, a San Jose parent whose son was rejected from his three top UC campuses last year and enrolled at the University of Michigan. “Someone has to go in there and figure out who is responsible.”
Enrollment of out-of-state students skyrocketed after 2011, when the cash-strapped university system, reeling from state budget cuts, relaxed a policy requiring the scores of non-California applicants to be as good as the top half of admitted in-state students, the auditor’s report found. Now, the out-of-state students need only “compare favorably.” Continue reading this article
Today’s money story from San Francisco is not even close to a complete accounting. The $3 million in cop overtime pay is one item in a list that also includes other city services at the local level. But the big costs come from the federal government to keep the event safe.
The FBI set up a command center near the football stadium in Santa Clara (45 miles from San Francisco) where around 20 different federal, state and local law enforcement agencies were centered. They included the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration which sent choppers over the area looking for any spikes in radiation indicating a dirty bomb. The Department of Homeland Security watched for signs of chemical or biological attacks present in the air, using high tech mechanical air sniffers located in downtown San Francisco and presumably elsewhere.
Increased police presence in San Francisco and Santa Clara was evident before the Super Bowl.
The Super Bowl was a preview of the post-privacy snooper state. Below is a video from the time, showing the massive technology brought to bear — a necessity when America continues to have open borders in a dangerous world.
The whole effort must have been very expensive, but we will never see the dollar cost of all this security. Government doesn’t want the bad guys to know what it’s doing, and doesn’t mind keeping the little citizens in the dark either. We will only learn about the local costs, like the $3 million police OT, because it gets political when local taxpayers have to foot the bill.
But we all bear multi-billion-dollar costs of security because diversity with open borders doesn’t come cheap.
Islam is a big ugly problem facing the world. There’s 1.6 billion of them, so the murderous headchopping polygamous misogynous supremacist “religion of peace” cannot be easily ignored, particularly when they have brought their barbaric culture with them to Europe and America.
But teaching them about democracy in various nation-building programs, such as in Iraq, have failed miserably.
The citizens have apparently noticed Muslims’ lack of aptitude for democratic self-rule, as reflected in a recent Rasmussen poll where a strong 58 percent of likely voters said we should chill on foreign democracy projects. Hopefully a future poll will ask about the wisdom of Quarantining Islam within its copious territory.
Donald Trump has run afoul of the Republican establishment with his opposition to so-called “nation-building,” but most voters think Trump’s on the right track.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 28% of Likely U.S. Voters think the United States should do more to encourage the growth of democracy in the Islamic world. Fifty-eight percent (58%) say the United States should leave things alone.Fourteen percent (14%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.) . . .
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on March 22-23, 2016 by Rasmussen Reports.
After it became clear that Chancellor Merkel’s welcome to millions of Muslim foreigners has been a disaster that threatens all of Europe’s safety, the government is scrambling to look like it is doing something. First on the revised to-do list is to insist that newbies learn to speak German — so rapefugees will understand when Frauleins say Nein.
German teachers can’t be happy about facing even more obnoxious students than they already have. Foreigners forced into classrooms will likely be twice as difficult as the usual violent Muslim boys.
And make no mistake: German schools have already had a rough time with young Muslims who don’t respect teachers or learning.
In 2006 things were so bad in a diverse Berlin high school that teachers wanted it shut:
Suddenly, teachers at Berlin’s Ruetli school decided enough was enough. They would no longer tolerate being spat at, insulted and attacked by pupils, some of whom spoke hardly any German and many of whom carried knives.
Things had deteriorated to such an extent at the state school – in a district where 80 per cent of pupils are from Muslim immigrant families – that it had become virtually impossible to teach, and some staff feared for their lives. At the end of their tether, staff wrote to the authorities pleading for the school to be closed. . .
Here’s a video of the conditions at the time at the Rutli school:
Below, a Muslim student at Rutli flashes a knife during a media interview.
But there is a happy ending — if spending $35 million to fix one foreigner-infested school can be considered a success. A gigantic infusion of money plus extensive rejiggering of the school seems to have worked — for now.
A decade ago, the Ruetli school in Berlin’s Neukoelln district became a symbol of all that was wrong with Germany’s integration of immigrants.
Its teachers begged city officials to shut it down because of violence. Hooded students were filmed pelting police and reporters gathered at the school’s entrance with cobblestones.
Today, Ruetli is transformed and the scenes from 2006 a distant memory. Some 33 million euros ($35 million) in public money have been pumped into the school over the past few years and the widow of former German president Johannes Rau is a patron.
Violence is down sharply and a gleaming new event hall houses art exhibitions and a state-of-the-art gymnasium.
For wealthy Germany, which faces a mammoth challenge to integrate and educate hundreds of thousands of refugees – many of them fleeing war in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq – the radical remake of Ruetli is an example of what is possible if politicians embrace the task with commitment and resources. . . .
The experience of mixing Muslims and education so far is not promising, but Merkel has gotten Germany in a terrible pickle, and they have to try something. This “requirement” sounds pretty slim. Merely learning to speak German will not turn allah’s gangsters into civilized persons.
As Lee Kuan Yew, the architect of modern diverse Singapore, observed, “I would say today, we can integrate all religions and races except Islam.”
MIGRANTS in Germany will be required by LAW to integrate and learn the country’s mother tongue or face getting deported, according to planned legislation.
German Interior Minister Thomas de Maziere said he is intending to implement a new law that will require migrants to learn German and be part of society – or lose their permanent right of residency.
Many people in Germany have turned their backs to Chancellor Angela Merkel following her open-door refugee policy and turned towards the anti-immigrant party Alternative for Germany.
The Alternative for Germany party (AFD) has developed an anti immigration stance over the past year, the party has made huge gains in popularity since the refugee crisis hit the EU and the group powered into three state legislatures. Continue reading this article
Ports are another sector of the economy turning to automation to derive the “efficiency” that comes from fewer human workers. One result is the increased mechanization occurring on west coast ports because so much of manufacturing takes place in Red China. America hardly manufactures anything now, and we see it in expanded port and shipping technology.
Imagine a ginormous automated fork-lift that carries 40-foot containers around the dock and loads them on the back of trucks. It’s hard to tell the scale without any humans in the photo below.
The WSJ video below asserts, “Automated ports are more efficient, cleaner and — without as many humans on site — often safer than standard operations.”
Automation has made the manufacture and delivery of goods faster and cheaper. But how are laid-off workers supposed to purchase them without paychecks? The brilliant captains of industry seem to have forgotten that the economy needs cash-earning workers on the consumer side to make the system flourish.
There’s not much to be done about the march of progress in technology, but at the very least, the government should end the policy of importing immigrant workers who are no longer needed, if they ever were. Oxford University researchers forecast that nearly half of US jobs are at risk from technology by 2033. The Gartner Inc. technology consultants believe one-third of American occupations will be replaced by machines by 2025, just nine years from now.
Ports introduce automated cargo handling, as free-trade pacts drive flood of goods
At one of the busiest shipping terminals in the U.S., more than two dozen giant red robots wheeled cargo containers along the docks on a recent morning, handing the boxes off to another set of androids gliding along long rows of stacked containers before smoothly setting the boxes down in precise spots.
The tightly designed dance at TraPac LLC’s Los Angeles terminal offers a window on how global trade will move in the near future: using highly automated systems and machinery, with minimal human intervention, to handle the flood of goods that new free-trade agreements will push to the docks.
Many in the industry believe automation, which boosts terminal productivity and reliability while cutting labor costs, is critical to the ability of ports to cope with the surging trade volumes and the huge megaships that are beginning to arrive in the U.S. Analysts estimate the technology can reduce the amount of time ships spend in port and improve productivity by as much as 30%.
“We have to do it for productivity purposes, to stay relevant and to be able to service these large ships,” said Peter Stone, a member of TraPac’s board. Continue reading this article
So Muslim immigration has been altogether bad for women’s rights and safety. What a surprise.
Another incremental surrender by authorities is the decision of a German railway to institute gender-segregated trains.
Interestingly, a similar policy has used successfully in Mexico City, where the government provides women-only buses to give them relief from the incessant harassment and assault from Mexican men.
Of course, the local piggymen in Mexico were not imported from enemy territory by a delusional political leader, as they were in Europe — big difference.
And the harassment of women is only one aspect of the hostile influx, as the Brussels bombings have underlined. Why must all Europeans suffer under an invasion where their lives and freedom are at risk?
It’s not too late to deport the majority. Otherwise, the prospects of Europe surviving are dim.
A central German regional railway is launching a special women and children only area for their trains, a move which has triggered controversy.
The announcement from the central German Regiobahn line came earlier this week, with the network stating the new compartment on their Leipzig and Chemnitz would admit women and young children only.
To ensure maximum peace for those choosing to travel in that compartment not only would it be sandwiched between the service’s two quiet coaches, but it would also be next to the on-board office of the “customer service representative. Traditionally known as a train guard or ticket inspector, the company said “the local proximity to the customer service representative is chosen deliberately”.
Yet despite the recent mass sex-attacks in Germany, and the official advice to young women that the best thing to do is to keep groping migrant men “at arms length” to prevent rape, the railway denies the segregated trains has anything to do with sexual harassment. Continue reading this article
When it comes to freebies for grifter illegal aliens, the taxpayer’s hard-earned cash is never safe from liberal pickpocket politicians, who serve illegals first, not citizens. Remember, any tax money spent on illegals is cash taken from Americans who may need it, particularly when it’s healthcare dollars.
When Obamacare was rolled out, the Democrats swore up and down that illegals wouldn’t get it. Now we learn that many do, even though the money is strained through county governments. And just this week, candidate Hillary Clinton said that illegals should get government healthcare, suggesting that her administration would supply it,
Now liberals argue that it’s cheaper to pay for normal delivery of healthcare than to have illegals running to the emergency room for every little problem, which they are allowed to do by law. But that idea ignores what a huge magnet American medicine is, and people come from all over (but particularly Mexico) to get very expensive treatment for seriously ill relatives. It was reported in 2006 that “hundreds” of illegals had arrived in Colorado for “free medical care they say they can’t get back home.” The cost for all this unaccountable do-goodery must be a fortune, and America is unimaginably broke.
TUCKER CARLSON: Well, health care coverage for illegal immigrants may be banned under federal law, and it is. But a new report shows that out of 25 U.S. counties with the largest unauthorized immigrant populations, 20 of them have programs that cover medical costs for illegal aliens. It costs taxpayers more than $1 billion a year. Here to break down the numbers on this, Stuart Varney host of Varney & Co. on the Fox Business Network. We’re glad to have him this morning. Great to see you, Stuart.
STUART VARNEY: Thanks very much, Tucker. nice to be here.
CARLSON: So, this is illegal, and yet it’s happening?
VARNEY: Yes, that is precisely right. They don’t get health care coverage from the federal government. They’re not part of Obamacare, but counties in America with a large number of illegals in those counties, they do have programs to provide free or very, very low-cost health care to illegal immigrants. As you just pointed out, it’s the Wall Street Journal, they’ve looked at 20 counties in America and found that they are spending $1 billion a year to provide free or very low-cost coverage for illegals. They get doctors visits, flu shots, drugs, lab tests, some surgery, all paid for by local taxpayers. Now they, all illegals of course, can go to the emergency room. That’s the law. You’re sick, you go to the emergency room, they’ve got to treat you. Continue reading this article
An aspect of the brave new automated world may soon get a tryout in the nation’s capital. A general use delivery machine has already been rolled out for trials in London, and the concept is being hailed as cheaper and more environmentally friendly than traditional car delivery. The small sidewalk bots also appear much more practical than Jeff Bezos’ airborne drone delivery vehicles that seem inappropriate for urban settings.
Sorry, kids! No summer or part-time delivery jobs in your future.
The laws of the District of Columbia require an adjustment to allow the machines access to local sidewalks, plus public acceptance will be observed.
Drones are out, but self-driving delivery robots are in
Self-driving delivery robots could soon share the sidewalk with pedestrians and pets in the District.
A proposed bill, if passed, would allow “personal delivery devices” on sidewalks and crosswalks in D.C., except within the central business district.
Starship Technologies, the company behind these still-unnamed robots, started testing in London earlier this month. Skype co-founders Ahti Heinla and Janus Friis launched the tech startup in 2014 and plan to test their robots in about 10 other cities in the U.S.
“All deliveries today are time consuming and inefficient, polluting and creating congestion on the street,” Allan Martinson, the chief operating officer of Starship Technologies, wrote in an email. “An average family spends an hour per day on shopping trips. We would like to give people this one hour back.” Continue reading this article
There’s been a lot of talk about bad “optics” the past couple days about Obama’s tango twirls while Europe had suffered a murderous jihad attack in Brussels and perps are still at large.
But to my eye, the pope performing an Easter footwashing ritual meant to show humility in the Catholic style must look more like surrender to the headchopper thugs of ISIS. This being the migrant-loving Pope Francis, he made a show of embracing foreigner diversity by including Muslim, Christian and Hindu asylum-seekers, instead of ministering to 12 Catholic men as previous popes have done.
Humbling himself to Muslim invaders can easily be seen by jihadists as a big step forward in their plan to defeat the Christians in the Catholics’ capital city. (See my blog from last fall: A Goal of ISIS Is to Conquer Rome in Five Years). Showing weakness to the bloodthirsty enemies of civilization and freedom is unwise to say the least.
In a special rite commemorating the Last Supper of Jesus with his disciples, Pope Francis washed and kissed the feet of 11 Muslim, Christian and Hindu asylum-seekers Thursday and declared them all children of the same Father.
The Holy Thursday ritual re-enacts Jesus washing his apostles’ feet before being crucified, and is meant as a gesture of service. Francis contrasted that gesture with the “gesture of war” carried out by the Brussels attackers on Monday.
Instead of celebrating Mass in the Vatican as usual, the Pope traveled to the welcome center in the town of Castelnuovo di Porto, where he greeted the asylum-seekers, many of whom are not Christians. Continue reading this article
One of President Obama’s deeply desired projects is to empty out Gitmo prison because it just irritates him to see dear Muslims locked up and wearing orange.
Or something. Freeing Gitmo jihadists has always been unpopular with the American people as shown in polling.
So Obama has released many of them over the years. And a substantial number, around 30 percent, predictably went back to fighting for allah.
Yesterday, the fact that some number of Americans have been killed by Obama’s Gitmo graduates came out during a House hearing. But the number is a secret from the American people, even though there’s no national security reason to suppress that figure. It’s another example of Obama’s failures in foreign policy and one that has cost lives, like Benghazi. And the public would then want to know the names of the citizens whose deaths could have been prevented. The White House can’t allow that.
Americans “have died because of” detainees released from the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, a Defense Department official said Wednesday.
The comments, from special envoy Paul Lewis, came during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, and may provide more fuel for critics of President Obama’s long-anticipated plan to shutter the prison, which he announced last month.
During the hearing, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., asked Lewis how many people had died because of “terrorists who went back to their terrorist activity.”
When Lewis responded that he would prefer to discuss the matter in a “classified setting,” Rohrabacher pressed him, asking if it was “over 10.”
“Sir, what I can tell you is unfortunately there have been Americans that have died because of Gitmo detainees,” Lewis said.
Lewis did not provide additional details.
When Rohrabacher asked “how many people in Brussels or Paris have to die” before the administration decides to keep detainees “under control” at the facility, Lewis responded: “We don’t want anyone to die because we transfer detainees. However, it is the best judgment and the considered judgment of this administration and the previous that the risk of keeping Gitmo open is outweighed, that we should close Gitmo.”
Here’s a video of Congressman Dana Rohrabacher quizzing the administration representative. The relevant discussion begins around 2:56:
The most recent is from Benghazi defender, Mark “Oz” Geist. It’s inspiring to hear a genuine hero talk about American courage:
I know the truth about Benghazi.
I was there, fighting alongside five Americans, who were all raised to believe that if you have a chance to save someone’s life and you don’t try, that’s more criminal than anything else. So we fought for 13 hours, and we saved lives. But we are not unique.
We are no different than the Americans who ran back into those crumbling New York towers, or the Americans who tackled the armed terrorists on that French train, or the many faceless, nameless Americans who every day risk their lives for perfect strangers trapped in burning cars or dangerous waters—because if they didn’t, no one would.
Where was that courage among the politicians who had the power to make a difference during those 13 hours in Benghazi?
I am the National Rifle Association of America, and I am Freedom’s Safest Place.
People who care about the Second Amendment should pay attention to immigration-fueled demographic change in this country, because hispanics are gun grabbers at heart, as Pew pollsters discovered in a 2014 survey:
An early 2014 Pew Research Center survey asked U.S. adults what is more important — protecting the right of Americans to own guns or controlling gun ownership (Pew Research Center, 2014d). Hispanic registered voters nationally say they prefer gun control over the rights of owners by a margin of 62%-to-36%, as do black registered voters by a margin of 71%-to-26%, according to the survey. By contrast, white registered voters choose gun owners’ rights over gun control by a margin of 59%-to-39%. 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.