Custom Search
Showing posts with label Illegal Immigrants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Illegal Immigrants. Show all posts

Monday, August 5, 2019

EL PASO SHOOTING - ACT OF POLITICAL INTIMIDATION (TERRORISM) FOR ENFORCING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION LAWS








EL PASO SHOOTING - ACT OF POLITICAL INTIMIDATION (TERRORISM) AGAINST TRUMP ADMIN FOR ENFORCING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION LAWS:

OHIO SHOOTING - CAREFULLY PLOTTED SMOKESCREEN USED TO MAKE EL PASO SHOOTING APPEAR AS ACT OF RETALIATION OVER RACISM & ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AND TO PUSH CONGRESS TO PASS GUN CONTROL.

IT’S NOT ABOUT RACISM, IT’S PURE POLITICAL INTIMIDATION OVER ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

I’M NOT OPPOSED TO GUN CONTROL BUT POLITICAL INTIMIDATION, FALSE CLAIMS OF RACISM AND KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE IS NOT HOW IT SHOULD BE LEGISLATED.


Post Sources: ABC News, CBS News, Fox News, MSNBC, Youtube


****** Trump: Hate has no place in our country; El Paso shooting is being treated as a case of ‘domestic terrorism’


President Donald Trump on Sunday weighed in on two mass shootings that occurred 13 hours apart in Texas and Ohio, acknowledging “perhaps more has to be done” to address gun violence.

“We’ve done actually a lot,” Trump told reporters of his administration’s work on the issue, “but perhaps more has to be done.”

Trump, who made the comments to reporters on a tarmac in New Jersey after a weekend spent at his golf club in Bedminster, has overseen a ban on so-called bump stocks, but has not pursued large-scale gun control efforts. His predecessor, President Barack Obama, took executive actions on gun control, including on background checks and mental health.

Early Sunday, a shooter opened fire in Dayton, Ohio, killing nine people in the city’s Oregon District, a popular downtown area. The shooter was shot and killed by responding officers. Hours before on Saturday, a shooter opened fire at an El Paso, Texas, shopping center, killing at least 20 people. A 21-year-old white supremacist is in custody in the Texas domestic terrorism case.

Speaking broadly of the two recent mass shootings, Trump said, “I just want to say that these are two incredible places, we love the people.”

The President, who has regularly used incendiary language at rallies across the country, added, “Hate has no place in our country and we’re gonna take care of it.”
Praising law enforcement, Trump added that the massacres could have been worse. “It would have been unbelievable. It (was) horrible but it would have been so much worse,” he said.

Trump then said he would be making an official statement around 10 a.m. ET Monday on the mass shootings.

Earlier Sunday, Trump tweeted, “God bless the people of El Paso Texas. God bless the people of Dayton, Ohio,” and, separately, ordered American flags to be flown at half-staff as “a mark of solemn respect” for the victims of the tragedies.

Trump called the El Paso, Texas, shooting an “act of cowardice” on Saturday and said there “are no reasons or excuses that will ever justify killing people.”

The President also relayed earlier in a tweet that he had spoken with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, about the El Paso shooting and had offered the “total support” of the federal government to the state.

“Today’s shooting in El Paso, Texas, was not only tragic, it was an act of cowardice. I know that I stand with everyone in this Country to condemn today’s hateful act. There are no reasons or excuses that will ever justify killing innocent people,” Trump tweeted Saturday night.

Trump ended his comments to reporters Sunday stating “on behalf of our first lady and myself, condolences to all. We have to get it stopped. This has been going on for years.”
Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown wrote in a tweet Sunday that “thoughts and prayers are not enough, we have a responsibility to act.”

“We are also angry — angry that shooting after shooting politicians in Washington and Columbus refuse to pass sensible gun-safety laws to protect our communities,” Brown said.

Three sources have identified the suspect as 21-year-old Patrick Crusius of Allen, Texas.

The case appears to meet the statutory definition of domestic terrorism, Bash said. Saturday’s shooting at an El Paso shopping center — which left at least 20 people dead and 26 injured — “appears to be designed to intimidate a civilian population, to say the least,” he said.

“We’re going to do what we do to terrorists in this country, which is to deliver swift and certain justice,” Bash said.

El Paso County District Attorney Jaime Esparza said the suspect faces capital murder charges and will be eligible for the death penalty.

“We will seek the death penalty,” he said.

Racist ‘manifesto’ posted on 8chan
Authorities are investigating a racist, anti-immigrant screed that they believe was posted by a man who opened fire Saturday morning, shortly after 10:30 a.m. local time.

About 20 minutes earlier, a post on the online message board 8chan believed to be from the suspect laid out a dark vision of America overrun by Hispanic immigrants. The 2,300-word document, which police called a “manifesto,” was attached to a post that said, “I’m probably going to die today.”

The writing is filled with white nationalist language and racist hatred aimed at immigrants and Latinos. It blames immigrants and first-generation Americans for taking away jobs.

The writer cited a fear that an influential Hispanic population in Texas would make the state a “Democratic stronghold,” though he said “the Republican Party is also terrible,” because the GOP is in his mind pro-corporation, which could lead to more immigration.

The writer of the document said they had held these beliefs for years before Donald Trump was elected President.

It took less than a month to plan the shooting, the author says.

The mass shooting happened in one of the largest and safest cities on the US-Mexico border, a place central to the Trump administration’s hardline stance on immigration and a city that Rep. Cesar Blanco called “ground zero” of the administration’s family separations policy.

El Paso County had an estimated population of 840,000 people as of July 2018, according to the US Census Bureau. An estimated 83% were Hispanic or Latino.

Saturday’s shooting is at least the third atrocity this year where a shooting suspect is thought to have posted to 8chan in advance of an attack.

Before the mass shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand, in March, an account believed to belong to the gunman posted a link to an 87-page white nationalist manifesto on Twitter and 8chan.

And 73 minutes before the deadly shooting at Congregation Chabad synagogue in Poway, California, in April, someone identifying himself as the suspect in that attack posted a link to a hate-speech-filled manifesto hyperlinked on 8chan.

A week bookended by shootings
The El Paso shooting was one of several that happened across the country over the last eight days. It was followed just 13 hours later by another mass shooting in Dayton, Ohio.

At least nine people were killed and at least 26 were injured in a popular nightclub district by a lone gunman, identified as 24-year-old Connor Betts. Dayton Police said the suspect is dead.

Last Sunday, a 19-year-old gunman wearing tactical gear opened fire at the Gilroy Garlic Festival in California, killing three people, including a 6-year-old boy and a 13-year-old girl.

And gunfire erupted Tuesday at another neighborhood Walmart in Mississippi, killing two employees and wounding a police officer. At least 34 people were left dead across all four scenes.

The first call of an active shooter in El Paso went out at 10:39 a.m. local time, El Paso Police Chief Greg Allen said. The first officer arrived on scene at the Walmart near the Cielo Vista Mall six minutes later.

Adria Gonzalez was walking by the meat section on a Saturday morning shopping trip with her mom when she heard the shots.

She said she stepped up to see what was happening and that’s when she saw the shooter near the main entrance, wearing headphones or earmuffs and carrying a gun.
“I could only think about getting my mom and others out of the store,” she said. “We gotta get out of here.”

After she saw the shooter, Gonzalez said she saw a grade-school aged boy get shot in the leg, a man bleeding on the floor and another man, covered in blood, reaching for a nearby child.

“We heard two to three shots, four to five shots, then six to seven shots,” Gonzalez told CNN.

She and her mother took off — along with about 40 other people, Gonzalez said. They waited in a storage area of the store until they no longer heard the gunfire.

“You see this happening in the movies, but when you live it yourself, when you see a person killing, the blood everywhere, you are in shock,” she said.

‘I never knew there was an odor to blood’

Officials from two local hospitals said they had received at least 24 people.

Thirteen people were taken to University Medical Center of El Paso, spokesman Ryan Mielke told CNN, and one of them has died. Two children with non-life-threatening injuries were transferred to a children’s medical facility, Mielke said.

Eleven victims were transported to the Del Sol Medical Center, Dr. Stephen Flaherty said.

Eight are in stable condition and three are in critical condition, and the patients ranged in age from 35 to 82, he said.

Of the 20 killed, three were Mexican nationals, according to a tweet from President Andrés Manuel López Obrador. Of the 26 injured, six were Mexican, Foreign Affairs Secretary Marcelo Ebrard wrote on Twitter.

“The ages and genders of all these people injured and killed are numerous in the age groups,” Allen, the police chief, said Saturday. “The situation, needless to say, is a horrific one.”

The next day, when asked why he used the word “horrific” to describe the scene, Allen told reporters, “There’s not words you can place to say something like that. You have to see it for yourself.”

“When I first got to this job,” he said, “I never knew there was an odor to blood, but there is … I can’t tell you what it means … It will leave an impression that you’ll never forget.”

Sunday, August 4, 2019

ELIJAH CUMMINGS DEFENDS HIS 23 YR BALTIMORE REPRESENTATION (SO DO THE RATS)











ELIJAH CUMMINGS DEFENDS HIS 23 YR BALTIMORE REPRESENTATION (SO DO THE RATS):

WAS TRUMP RIGHT? IS BALTIMORE STILL “THE WIRE”??

HOW MANY BLACK MEN HAS CUMMINGS HELPED TO (SECRETLY) INCARCERATE INSTEAD OF HELPING THEM TO BECOME GAINFULLY EMPLOYED?

CONGRESSMAN ELIJAH CUMMINGS (“THE BULLY”) IS KNOWN TO RETALIATE AGAINST ANYONE WHO DOESN’T AGREE WITH HIM OR CHALLENGES HIM.

IN FACT, MANY OF HIS CONSTITUENTS ARE AFRAID OF HIM WHICH EXPLAINS WHY HE’S BEEN IN PUBLIC OFFICE 23 YRS.

SO WILL CUMMINGS USE HIS CONGRESSIONAL JUDICIAL COMMITTEE POWER TO RETALIATE AGAINST PRES TRUMP OVER HIS BOLD TWEETS ABOUT BALTIMORE?

WILL CUMMINGS RETALIATE AGAINST ALL THE JOURNALISTS & BLOGGERS WHO REPORTED ON THIS STORY?

STAY TUNED.


Post Sources: Baltimore Sun, DW News, Fox News, NBC News, Turning Point USA, Washington Examiner, Youtube



**** The trouble with Trump's tweets about Baltimore is that they are true


President Trump’s recent tweets about Baltimore, rats, and the city’s political leadership have roiled Washington and prompted another round of cries of “racism” from the usual race hustlers, who are seeking out every camera they can find. But rather than focus on whether or not Trump is a racist, how about we focus on the man’s words? Are they true?

Yes, they are.

First elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1995, Elijah Cummings has represented Maryland’s 7th Congressional District (which includes Baltimore City) for the past 23 years. Prior to that, Cummings was an elected member of Maryland's House of Delegates, representing District 39 (also Baltimore City) beginning in 1983. In all, Cummings has represented Baltimore for 36 years.

What has Baltimore to show for Cummings’ years of representation? Here are a few examples. In 2017, 13 high schools in the city of Baltimore were found to have zero students — not a single one — who were proficient in math. And out of the 3,804 students in all who took the state math proficiency test, only 14 were proficient.

Baltimore’s schools perform this poorly despite the fact that residents of Baltimore pay 3.2% city income tax, the maximum local income tax rate allowed by state law in an already high-tax state. Take that as further proof that throwing money at problems doesn’t necessarily solve them.

Crime in Baltimore is, simply put, out of control. With over 2,000 violent crimes per 100,000 people, in the year 2017 Baltimore was well within the most dangerous 1% of U.S. cities.

And then, there’s the rats, the mention of which generated much of the ire directed at Trump. He claimed that Baltimore is “rat infested," causing some left-wing pundits to claim he was using code to refer to “black and brown people.” Yet, once again, the issue is whether he was right. And he was. The city has a very real rat infestation problem.

Baltimore’s rats have long been the subject of commentary in the news and in social media. From both sides of the political aisle, everyone from Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders to Ben Carson and Baltimore’s former Mayor Catherine Pugh (who resigned in May amid federal and state corruption investigations) have been outed on the web for having publicly commented on the city’s filth and squalor in years past. A 2018 video has surfaced of Pugh touring her miserable city and nearly gagging on her own words as she exclaimed, “You can smell the rats … Oh my God, you can smell the dead animals.”

So, yes, there are rats. A lot of rats. So many rats that one citizen created a full feature-length documentary film about Baltimore’s rats. The city and county themselves launched the “Rat Attack Program” to battle the epidemic, sadly without much success.

On Monday, Baltimore’s local Fox broadcasting affiliate WBFF was reporting on Trump’s tweetstorm when, as if sensing its opportunity for two seconds of fame, a rat ran through the frame effectively photobombing the Fox45 reporter’s live shot!

As a black American pundit, I am often asked whether I think Trump is a racist. I do not, but the answer I always give is that I don’t care. What I care about is the truth.

The point is that the overarching focus on race accomplishes nothing. And if the focus is simply on truth, then in this case, Trump is unquestionably right.

That Baltimore’s political leadership has failed its constituents is inarguable. That's why those same political figures, along with the race hustlers of the day, repeatedly pull out the same card they’ve been playing for decades. They get away with it by accusing their own accusers of racism. They choose to focus on accusations of intent rather than substance of the issue.

Baltimore is steeped in squalor, and the black community there bears the brunt of its inept, corrupt political leadership. Trump hasn't had time to cause that in his less than three years in office. But in less than three seconds, his tweet has shone a glaring spotlight onto it, and that bright light is causing the rats to scurry.

Sunday, June 9, 2019

TRUMP AS PRESIDENT - I WILL NOT CRITICIZE (MEXICO DEAL)







TRUMP AS PRESIDENT - I WILL NOT CRITICIZE (MEXICO DEAL):

I WILL PRAY FOR PRES TRUMP BUT I WON’T PUBLICLY CRITICIZE HIM.

NO MAN IS PERFECT; ONLY GOD ALMIGHTY.

OUR IMMIGRATION SYSTEM WAS VERY BROKEN & CONGRESS REFUSED TO FIX IT.

HAVE WE BECOME SO POLITICALLY CORRECT, MEDIA DRIVEN AND DIVISIVE THAT WE NO LONGER CARE ABOUT WHAT IS LEGALLY & MORALLY CORRECT ACCORDING TO CONSTITUTIONAL LAW??

WHY CRITICIZE A LEADER WHO IS ONLY TRYING TO LEGALLY HELP BOTH AMERICAN CITIZENS & ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS EXPERIENCE THE AMERICAN DREAM?

GOD BLESS OUR NATION

GOD BLESS THE U.S. MILITARY

GOD BLESS MEXICO FOR AGREEING TO SIGN THIS DEAL.


Post Sources: CBS News, Fox News, Reuters, Washington Post


**** Trump’s big win leaves critics sputtering

Because President Trump emerges as a clear winner from his week-long confrontation with Mexico over our neighbor’s lax enforcement of its southern border, reflexive Trump critics will scramble to find some way of containing what is a clear Trump triumph, which came with assists by Vice President Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who conducted the key negotiations.

Already we have heard about long-term damage to trust between the North American allies, about investor nervousness and Trump’s unpredictability.

This sort of flailing-about to deny the obvious says nothing about Trump and much about those critics who can no more admit he played high-stakes poker and won a round on border security than they can admit that the president delivered a magnificent tribute to the heroes of Normandy on Thursday.

Much of the media has overheated now and, like an engine that has run too long without an oil change, has begun to seize up, stall, even melt.

That Trump has contributed to the slow wreck of American media is undeniable.

It’s a feature, not a bug, of his presidency to attack, attack, attack the media elites. And no matter how often center-right journalists counsel him to abandon the Stalinist “enemy of the people” rhetoric, he hasn’t because it triggers a flaming hatred among the ideologies of the left, with platforms and elites eager to signal each other that they are part of the tribe menaced by this Godzilla from Trump Tower.

Voters, though — not just the “Twitter Democrats” but voters of all ages and ideologies — are a pretty smart bunch. Assume for a moment that they know, generally, that tariffs are a lousy idea in terms of economic growth. Assume as well that they know that tariffs can be an instrument of national power in confrontations unrelated to economic growth.

Assume that voters know our competition with China is far more than an economic race, but rather a complex geopolitical rivalry that both sides wish to keep contained short of open conflict and that is waged through proxies, cyber-confrontations, intellectual-property battles, freedom-of-the-seas disputes and the relative size and power of our armed forces and those of our allies.

In that context, tariffs on Chinese goods are just part of an overall negotiation toward a new normal that is in everyone’s interest.

So “tariffs bad, free trade good” is simplistic. “Free trade is good and agreed-upon international conventions are required for genuinely free trade and tariffs may be necessary to achieve those conventions” is accurate. And widely understood.

“Alliances are good” is simplistic. “Alliances in which allies actually do what they promise with regard to percentage of GDP spent on national defense while not increasing dependence on Russian natural gas” is complex but accurate.

Hard as it is for the Manhattan-Beltway echo chamber to believe, sounding sophisticated isn’t actually being sophisticated. Trump’s record is mixed, but not this week.

This week, even as Joe Biden began to melt (the headline in Saturday’s Times of London online edition was “Democrats raise doubts over Joe Biden’s stamina for presidential nomination race” — never a good sign when the neighbors notice these things), Trump put together back-to-back big successes. Historian and classicist Victor Davis Hanson speculates that Trump’s enemies are so addicted to hating him that, in a classic addict pattern, all behaviors are bent in service of the addiction.

This weekend and next week will separate the outrage addicts from the serious journalists. Trump would be very well advised to take this tariff weapon off the table with regard to Mexico.

It probably wouldn’t work a second time unless the Mexicans failed to deliver even a halfhearted effort.

It’s not the sort of threat you can use twice, and doing so would undo the enormous win he can rightfully paint this to be at rally after rally as Campaign 2020 gets underway.

If Trump invited Democrats back to the White House for immigration reform and border security talks right now, urging them to be as serious as the Mexican government has been about the border crisis, it might actually work.

House Democrats passed an immigration bill last week. Senate Republicans could quickly pass their own version to get a joint House-Senate conference with White House participation.

Everyone could win: the United States and Mexico, the president and the House speaker, both parties, the undocumented in this country seeking regularization, and the desperate and easily exploited poor of Central America.

Friday, April 19, 2019

CHARLIZE THERON (WHITE ACTRESS) TURNS BLACK SON INTO TRANSGENDER BLACK GIRL & NO EYES BLINK










CHARLIZE THERON (WHITE ACTRESS) TURNS ADOPTED BLACK SON INTO A TRANSGENDER BLACK GIRL & NO EYES BLINK:

IS THIS CHILD AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT??......WHERE ARE HIS BIOLOGICAL PARENTS??

IT BEGAN WHEN HE WAS AGE 6 OR 7.....IS THIS CHILD ABUSE??.....HE DIDN’T CHOOSE TO BECOME A GIRL.....HE WAS BORN A NATURAL HUMAN MALE CHILD.

WAS THIS LITTLE BLACK BOY GIVEN EXPERIMENTAL DRUGS TO ALTER HIS BRAIN CHEMISTRY & THINKING?

THIS IS NOT A GAY BASHING POST.....I’M SPEAKING OF DEFENSELESS CHILDREN NOT IN CONTROL OF THEIR OWN LIVES.

WHY DIDN’T CHARLIZE THERON ADOPT A LITTLE WHITE BOY AND TURN HIM INTO A GIRL??

WHY ARE BLACK HUMAN BEINGS ALWAYS SELECTED FOR EXTREME SOCIAL EXPERIMENTS?

DEAR LORD GOD HELP US.


Post Sources: Daily Mail, NBC, ELLEN Show, X17Online, Youtube


****** Beaming Charlize Theron appears fresh-faced as she wraps up in loose-fitting hoodie while taking son Jackson for frozen yogurt in rainy LA 


She is renowned for her status as one of Hollywood's most beautiful stars. 

And Charlize Theron showed off her natural good looks as she headed for a low-key outing with her six-year-old son Jackson to grab a sweet treat at Menchie's Frozen Yogurt in rainy Sherman Oaks on Tuesday.

The 42-year-old Oscar winner, who adopted Jackson in March 2012, headed out in the rain in black leggings, sliders, and a People Over Power cowl-neck hoodie - the profits of which benefit survivors of sexual exploitation. 

Proving she has the off-duty mum look nailed, Charlize was a vision with her glowing fresh-faced appearance, while keeping things low-key in monochrome. 

Beaming from ear-to-ear, she scraped her blonde locks into a low chignon at the nape of her neck ahead of the fro-yo date.  

Charlize, who also adopted three-year-old daughter August in July 2015, recently discussed how she is grateful her kids are growing up in the age of Black Panther.
She told NBC's Access earlier this month, 'This is an incredible moment. Black Panther should've been here a long time ago. I'm so happy that I am lucky enough to be alive at this moment... 

'I love that those barriers and glass ceilings are being broken. My kids are very aware of that every single day... 
'And, of course for me as a mother watching that happening, I am so happy that my kids will get to watch all of that work and not have to feel so isolated.'  
On Monday, Watch What Happens Live host Andy Cohen revealed he once yawned in the South African stunner's face during a business meeting.
'She pitched me a show and I let out a big yawn in the middle,' the 49-year-old producer said on iHeartRadio's Thrive Global podcast. 

'She goes, "You are the first man to yawn in my face, I think, since I was a little girl." I'm like, "I'm sorry — I'm gay. I'm a yawner, and I'm gay." 
'Trust me, I will yawn in the middle of a Housewives reunion while someone is having a mental breakdown and they break out of it and they look at me and they’re like, "Am I boring you?"'


The Golden Globe winner next produces and stars as mother-of-three Marlo who's gifted a night nanny in Tully, which hits UK theaters April 20 and US theaters May 4.

Saturday, January 19, 2019

FURLOUGHED FED EMPLOYEE SUPPORTS SHUTDOWN & BORDER WALL (HOW MANY MORE?)







FURLOUGHED FEDERAL EMPLOYEE BOLDLY SUPPORTS SHUTDOWN & BORDER WALL:

HOW MANY MORE DO?

WHY IS CONGRESS ALLOWING SHUTDOWN TO DRAG ON?

IS THIS SHUTDOWN REALLY ABOUT THE WALL?

OR IS IT SECRETLY ABOUT “DRAINING THE SWAMP” & CONTROLLING WASTE, FRAUD AND ABUSE OF GOVT MONEY?

IS THIS SHUTDOWN SECRETLY BEING USED BY CONGRESS TO LEGALLY GET RID OF LONG TERM FEDERAL GOVT EMPLOYEES OVER THE AGE OF 60??

OR IS IT ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY?

INQUIRING MINDS OF AMERICAN VOTERS WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH.


Post Sources: Fox News, WJLA, YouTube


**** Furloughed federal employee says she supports Trump's push for a border wall


Several times during the partial government shutdown, President Donald Trump has claimed that federal workers are on his side.

Now, we’re hearing from one of those workers.

“I’m very strongly behind it, yes,” Amanda Schimone said. “I just believe in what we are doing. I believe in the President’s policies and Secretary Nielsen’s policies, and supporting the border patrol agents.”

Schimone spent 26 years in the U.S. Air Force before retiring in 2012. Now, she works at the Department of Homeland Security’s federal law enforcement training center in Cheltenham, Maryland.

“We train all the federal agents, through all the different agencies. Not just DHS, but FBI, the state department, that kind of thing,” she said.

Despite the fact that’s she been furloughed since the shutdown began, Schimone says she supports the border wall on behalf of her colleagues who patrol the border every single day.

“If you had a tool that would help you do your job better and to be able to have border security – they’re my coworkers – I don’t know them personally, but if they say that’s what they need to do their job, than I support them 100 percent,” she said.

Schimone’s husband also works for the federal government, but is not impacted by the partial government shutdown. She says they’re relying on his income plus a pension she gets from the U.S. Air Force to pay their bills while her DHS paychecks are on hold.

“We’ve put away money, we have a financial planner, we’ve been really cognizant of doing that,” she said. “My credit card bills, they’re just getting the minimum payment right now.”

Still, she knows there are a lot of federal employees who are struggling financially due as the shutdown drags on.

“I do have for empathy for them. I do understand that some people live paycheck to paycheck,” she said.

She also understands that a lot of people may not like her perspective on the government shutdown. And she says that’s okay.

“I don’t judge people,” she said. “They have a right to their opinion, and I have a right to mine.”

At the very least, she hopes people will listen to what she has to say.

“Do I like being furloughed? No. But I understand and I support them,” she said. “I realize America is where people really want to be, but I think there’s a right way to come into our country, and not illegally. And so that’s one of the reasons why I do support the border wall.”

She hopes the president and Congress can soon agree on funding for the wall, and get the government back open.

“Maybe negotiate the amount that President Trump wants or some type of other immigration policies, but it sure would be nice if they would try to work together,” she said. “No negotiations makes me feel like they don’t care about the Department of Homeland Security.”

Thursday, July 19, 2018

MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS vs AFRICAN IMMIGRANTS (DEMOCRATS DISCRIMINATE & DIVIDE)














MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS vs AFRICAN IMMIGRANTS (DEMOCRATS DISCRIMINATE & DIVIDE):

WE ARE ALL ONE BUT DEMOCRATS APPEAR TO FIGHT MORE FOR MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS THAN BLACKS.

IS IT BETTER TO SEPARATE BLACK CHILDREN FROM FAMILIES THAN MEXICAN CHILDREN FROM FAMILIES?

DEMOCRATS ALSO ENDORSE TAKING JOBS FROM YOUNG BLACK MEN TO GIVE TO MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS.

YET DURING EACH MAJOR ELECTION DEMOCRATS SEEK THE BLACK MAJORITY VOTE.

IF WE ARE ALL ONE, WHY CAN'T BOTH AFRICAN & MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS BENEFIT FROM FAIR, UNBIASED IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT??


Post Sources: Bloomberg, Daily Republic, Youtube


******** Liberals say immigration enforcement racist, but Black men most likely to benefit


Donald Trump’s election victory over Hillary Clinton seemed to herald a new era for border security and immigration enforcement. But his polarizing and occasionally ignorant comments about immigrants have handed his adversaries a convenient pretext for stymying compromise on immigration reform: racism.

Left-leaning advocacy groups and a host of Democrats all too often shy away from the specifics of the debate and instead lean on cries of bigotry, resorting to claims like that of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who has described Trump’s approach to immigration reform as an effort to “make America white again.”

Claims that immigration enforcement equals racism ignore the reality that the group most likely to benefit from a tougher approach to immigration enforcement is young black men, who often compete with recent immigrants for low-skill jobs.

This dynamic played out recently at a large bakery in Chicago that supplies buns to McDonald’s. Some 800 immigrant laborers, most of them from Mexico, lost their jobs last year after an audit by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Cloverhill Bakery, owned by Aryzta, a big Swiss food conglomerate, had to hire new workers, 80 percent to 90 percent of whom are African-American. According to the Chicago Sun Times, the new workers are paid $14 per hour, or $4 per hour more than the (illegal) immigrant workers.

In this case, and in many others, the beneficiaries of immigration enforcement were working-class blacks, who are often passed over for jobs by unscrupulous employers.

The labor force participation rate for adult black men has declined steadily since the passage of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, which ushered in a new era of mass immigration. In 1973, the rate was 79 percent. It is now at 68 percent, and the Bureau of Labor projects that it will decline to 61 percent by 2026.

The Obama White House in 2016 produced a 48-page report acknowledging that immigration does not help the labor force participation rate of the native-born. It concluded, however, that “immigration reform would raise the overall participation rate by bringing in new workers of prime working age.”

Although the report used the term “new workers,” Democrats may also be tempted by the prospect of new voters. But they should be aware that in courting one group, they risk losing others.

African-Americans tend to be a reliable voting bloc for the Democratic Party, but they have repeatedly indicated in public opinion surveys that they want significantly less immigration.

A recent Harvard-Harris poll found that African-Americans favor reducing legal immigration more than any other demographic group: 85 percent want less than the million-plus we allow annually, and 54 percent opted for the most stringent choices offered – 250,000 immigrants per year or less, or none at all.

These attitudes are rational.

In a 2010 study on the social effects of immigration, the Cornell University professor Vernon Briggs concluded: “No racial or ethnic group has benefited less or been harmed more than the nation’s African-American community.”

The Harvard economist George Borjas has found that between 1980 and 2000, one-third of the decline in the employment among black male high school dropouts was attributable to immigration. He also reported “a strong correlation between immigration, black wages, black employment rates, and black incarceration rates.”

University of Notre Dame professor Stephen Steinberg argued in a 2014 paper on neoliberal immigration policies and their effects on African-Americans that thanks to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, “African-Americans found themselves in the proverbial position of being ‘last hired.’” Steinberg also noted that “immigrants have been cited as proof that African-Americans lack the pluck and determination that have allowed millions of immigrants from Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean to pursue the American dream.”

The struggles of black men obviously cannot all be linked to immigration, but it’s clear that the status quo does not benefit them.

As elected leaders consider changing our immigration laws, the interests of America’s most vulnerable citizens shouldn’t be overlooked. The first step toward honest reform is for the Democratic Party to admit that while liberal immigration enforcement might help them win new voters, it also harms and disenfranchises their most loyal constituency.


Wednesday, February 14, 2018

TRUMP’S FOOD STAMP FOOD BOX - BRILLIANT STRATEGY (BLUE APRON)




TRUMP’S FOOD STAMP FOOD BOX - BRILLIANT STRATEGY (BLUE APRON):

FOOD BOXES WILL PREVENT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS & FOOD STAMP CARD FRAUDSTERS FROM ABUSING SNAP SYSTEM.

PROVIDING POOR FAMILIES WITH FULLY STOCKED, NUTRITIONAL FOOD BOXES INSTEAD OF FOOD STAMP CARDS WHICH CAN BE SOLD FOR CASH.

DEMOCRATS SHOULD STOP POLITICIZING THIS IDEA AND CARE MORE ABOUT HUNGRY CHILDREN NOT BEING FED BECAUSE PARENTS ARE SELLING FOOD STAMPS.

RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE FOR LOW INCOME WORKERS.


Sources: Washington Post, CNBC, Youtube


**** Trump wants to slash food stamps and replace them with a ‘Blue Apron-type program’


The Trump administration wants to slash food aid to low-income families and make up the difference with a box of canned goods — a change that Office of Management and budget director Mick Mulvaney described in a Monday briefing as a “Blue Apron-type program.”

“What we do is propose that for folks who are on food stamps, part — not all, part — of their benefits come in the actual sort of, and I don't want to steal somebody's copyright, but a Blue Apron-type program where you actually receive the food instead of receive the cash,” Mulvaney said. “It lowers the cost to us because we can buy [at wholesale prices] whereas they have to buy it at retail. It also makes sure they're getting nutritious food. So we're pretty excited about that.”

Mulvaney's remarks drew raised eyebrows from some critics, who accuse the Trump administration official of drawing an unfair comparison between the food stamp program, which delivers an average of $1.37 per meal to America's poorest, and a high-end meal kit that runs $10 per serving.

On Monday, the Trump administration proposed cutting food stamps, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, by $17 billion in 2019 and more than $213 billion over the next decade.

The dramatic reductions came as part of a budget proposal that made sweeping, across-the-board cuts to popular safety net programs, including federal housing subsidies and Medicaid.

But the administration's SNAP proposal was particularly striking, advocates and experts said, because it advocates a fundamental change to the program's administration. For the past 40 years, the Agriculture Department has distributed benefits as either paper coupons or virtual disbursements on Electronic Benefit Transfer cards, allowing recipients to use them as cash on foods of their choice and at their own grocery store.

But under the Trump proposal, which the Agriculture Department has dubbed “America’s Harvest Box,” all households receiving more than $90 per month in benefits — 81 percent of SNAP households overall — would begin receiving about half their benefits in the form of government-purchased, nonperishable food items.

Those foods would include shelf-stable milk, juice, grains, cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans and canned meat, fruits and vegetables, according to the USDA. The department estimates that it could supply these goods at about half the cost of retail, slashing the cost of SNAP while still feeding the hungry.

“USDA America’s Harvest Box is a bold, innovative approach to providing nutritious food to people who need assistance feeding themselves and their families – and all of it is home grown by American farmers and producers," Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said in a statement. "It maintains the same level of food value as SNAP participants currently receive, provides states flexibility in administering the program, and is responsible to the taxpayers.”

It is this program that Mulvaney likened to meal-kit delivery service Blue Apron — whose shipments typically include fresh fish, meat and produce — earning the derision of some on social media. A spokeswoman for Blue Apron could not immediately be reached for comment.

“Hearing that the Trump Admin is selling this as the 'Blue Apron-ing' of SNAP. Um, no,” tweeted Chad Bolt, a senior policy manager at the progressive group Indivisible.


“With Blue Apron, you get to pick your meals and decide when they come. And it gives you all the ingredients you need to complete it,” echoed New York Times op-ed writer Bryce Covert. “Under Trump's plan, the government decides what you get and when you get it.”

Many anti-hunger advocates and analysts are equally skeptical of the proposed “food box,” which — if approved — would affect 16.4 million households. They say it's unclear how USDA would deliver the boxes and how much that would cost. Equally unclear is whether USDA would allot the same foods to, say, an elderly diabetic and a family with young children.

“It boggles the mind how that would play out,” said Kathy Fisher, policy director at Philadelphia’s Coalition Against Hunger. “We know SNAP works now, when people can choose what they need. How they would distribute foods to people with specialized diets, or [to people in] rural areas … It’s very expensive and very complicated.”

The proposal is also likely to enrage food retailers — particularly Walmart, Target and Aldi — that stand to lose billions if food stamp benefits are cut, analysts say. On Monday, the Food Marketing Institute, a trade association for grocery stores, condemned the Harvest Box proposal as expensive, inefficient and unlikely to generate any long-term government savings.

Ironically, that sort of criticism has also dogged Blue Apron, which saw its customer base contract in 2017. A recent report by the market research firm Datassential found that four in 10 lapsed meal-kit subscribers dropped their service because they were too costly.

As much as a third of the price per box goes toward shipping and logistics, which remain daunting, industry analysts told The Washington Post last June. Food policy experts expressed skepticism that the government could do better.

In a statement, Jim Weill, president of the Food Research and Action Center, described the proposal as a “a Rube-Goldberg designed system of commodity distribution via food boxes.”

"[It] will be administratively costly, inefficient, stigmatizing, and prone to failure,” Weill added. "[And it] will return the country to Depression-era anti-hunger approaches.”


Thursday, September 14, 2017

TRUMP SAYS NO DACA DEAL W/OUT WALL, BUT DEMS SAY YES HE AGREED TO DEAL (FRENEMIES)








TRUMP SAYS NO DACA DEAL W/OUT BORDER WALL, BUT DEMOCRATS SAY YES HE AGREED TO DEAL:

KEEP YOUR FRIENDS CLOSE AND YOUR FRENEMIES CLOSER.

IS THIS DEAL DONALD'S WAY OF STICKING IT TO GOP LEADERS WHO DISSED HIM OVER OBAMACARE?

TRUMP IS A BUSINESSMAN WHO JUST WANTS A DEAL BUT WILL HE ABANDON HIS BASE WHO ELECTED HIM?



Sources: ABC News, Bloomberg News, CBS News, CNBC, Fox News, NBC News, Youtube



***** Trump Says ‘No Deal’ Was Reached With Democrats to Extend DACA



President Donald Trump insisted Thursday that there was no deal with Democrats yet to extend protections for so-called Dreamers, but the president pleaded with congressional leaders to reach one, while he vowed to push ahead with his border wall "later."

"No deal was made last night on DACA.

Massive border security would have to be agreed to in exchange for consent. Would be subject to vote," Trump tweeted in a series of posts.

"The WALL, which is already under construction in the form of new renovation of old and existing fences and walls, will continue to be built," he wrote.

"Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!" Trump posted about DACA recipients. "They have been in our country for many years through no fault of their own — brought in by parents at young age. Plus BIG border security."

Trump did not deny reports that he would support a deal on DACA that didn't include the wall.

And, in brief comments to reporters Thursday, Trump said "the wall will come later" and that Republican congressional leaders were "on board" with the talks.

"We’re working on a plan. We’ll see how it works out," he said as he was departing to tour the hurricane damage in Florida. "We’re going to get massive border security as part of that."

"The wall is going to be built. It will be funded a little bit later," Trump said.

Later in Florida, the president said, "if the wall is going to be obstructed ... then we're not doing anything."

When asked if he supported amnesty, Trump cupped his hands to his lips and said, "DACA — the word is DACA."

Trump also said he was "not looking at citizenship" or "amnesty" for Dreamers but instead the discussion is about "taking care of people."

Earlier, the president said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., backed the plan.

McConnell's office said Trump had called Thursday morning, and the senator said in a statement, "We look forward to receiving the Trump administration’s legislative proposal."

Trump's tweets and remarks came just hours after he held a dinner meeting with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., after which the pair said they’d reached a deal with the president "to enshrine the protections of DACA into law quickly, and to work out a package of border security, excluding the wall, that’s acceptable to both sides."

Schumer and Pelosi, in a joint statement Thursday morning, added that Trump's tweets "are not inconsistent with the agreement reached last night."

The pair said "there was no final deal" but that "both sides agreed that the wall would not be any part of this agreement."
"The President made clear he intends to pursue it at a later time, and we made clear we would continue to oppose it," they said.

Dropping the demand for a border wall could make it easier for Republicans and Democrats to reach an agreement on DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which protects undocumented immigrants brought into the country as children.

Following the Wednesday night joint statement from Schumer and Pelosi, however, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders tweeted that, "While DACA and border security were both discussed, excluding the wall was certainly not agreed to."

But earlier Wednesday, White House legislative affairs director Marc Short told an industry trade group that the border wall does not have to be a part of an agreement on DACA, one attendee at the meeting said.

The Trump administration announced last week that the Obama-era program would end in six months. The president said as part of the announcement that, "I am not going to just cut DACA off, but rather provide a window of opportunity for Congress to finally act."

Ending DACA — a program allows undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children to remain and get work permits in the country — could affect as many as an estimated 800,000 people.

Sources told NBC News Wednesday night that Schumer and Pelosi told Trump they are prepared to deliver votes on a measure that would pair the existing DREAM Act text with additional border security that does not include the border wall funding.

Specifics on what type and level of border security were not disclosed.

The DREAM Act would have offered those who came to the U.S. as children the opportunity to potentially gain permanent legal residency.

The act was first introduced in August 2001 by Sen. Orin Hatch, R-Utah, and Dick Durbin, D-Ill. It has resurfaced several times, always failing to get through Congress.

At a press conference later Thursday morning, Pelosi said the DACA recipients wouldn't be granted amnesty under a DREAM Act deal with Trump, but would have "the opportunity to earn their path to citizenship."

"It’s a long path, a 15-year path, and this is an earned path," she said. "We’re not looking at amnesty; we were never looking at amnesty."

Discussion of a possible deal marked the second time in as many weeks that Trump spurned his own party to pursue an agreement with Democrats.

Last week, Trump struck a deal with Schumer and Pelosi that combined disaster aid for those affected by Hurricane Harvey with measures to keep the government open and extend the debt ceiling for three months, leaving some Republicans reeling.

News of another potential deal was met immediately with criticism from conservative Republicans.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, an anti-immigration hardliner tweeted Wednesday that, if there was an agreement,

"Trump base is blown up, destroyed, irreparable, and disillusioned beyond repair.

No promise is credible."

Trump did not deny reports that he would support a deal on DACA that didn't include the wall.

And, in brief comments to reporters Thursday, Trump said "the wall will come later" and that Republican congressional leaders were "on board" with the talks.

"We’re working on a plan. We’ll see how it works out," he said as he was departing to tour the hurricane damage in Florida. "We’re going to get massive border security as part of that."

"The wall is going to be built. It will be funded a little bit later," Trump said.

Later in Florida, the president said, "if the wall is going to be obstructed ... then we're not doing anything."

When asked if he supported amnesty, Trump cupped his hands to his lips and said, "DACA — the word is DACA."

Trump also said he was "not looking at citizenship" or "amnesty" for Dreamers but instead the discussion is about "taking care of people."

Earlier, the president said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., backed the plan. McConnell's office said Trump had called Thursday morning, and the senator said in a statement, "We look forward to receiving the Trump administration’s legislative proposal."

Trump's tweets and remarks came just hours after he held a dinner meeting with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., after which the pair said they’d reached a deal with the president "to enshrine the protections of DACA into law quickly, and to work out a package of border security, excluding the wall, that’s acceptable to both sides."

Schumer and Pelosi, in a joint statement Thursday morning, added that Trump's tweets "are not inconsistent with the agreement reached last night."

The pair said "there was no final deal" but that "both sides agreed that the wall would not be any part of this agreement."

"The President made clear he intends to pursue it at a later time, and we made clear we would continue to oppose it," they said.

Dropping the demand for a border wall could make it easier for Republicans and Democrats to reach an agreement on DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which protects undocumented immigrants brought into the country as children.

Following the Wednesday night joint statement from Schumer and Pelosi, however, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders tweeted that, "While DACA and border security were both discussed, excluding the wall was certainly not agreed to."

But earlier Wednesday, White House legislative affairs director Marc Short told an industry trade group that the border wall does not have to be a part of an agreement on DACA, one attendee at the meeting said.

The Trump administration announced last week that the Obama-era program would end in six months. The president said as part of the announcement that, "I am not going to just cut DACA off, but rather provide a window of opportunity for Congress to finally act."

Ending DACA — a program allows undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children to remain and get work permits in the country — could affect as many as an estimated 800,000 people.

Sources told NBC News Wednesday night that Schumer and Pelosi told Trump they are prepared to deliver votes on a measure that would pair the existing DREAM Act text with additional border security that does not include the border wall funding. Specifics on what type and level of border security were not disclosed.

The DREAM Act would have offered those who came to the U.S. as children the opportunity to potentially gain permanent legal residency.

The act was first introduced in August 2001 by Sen. Orin Hatch, R-Utah, and Dick Durbin, D-Ill. It has resurfaced several times, always failing to get through Congress.

At a press conference later Thursday morning, Pelosi said the DACA recipients wouldn't be granted amnesty under a DREAM Act deal with Trump, but would have "the opportunity to earn their path to citizenship."

"It’s a long path, a 15-year path, and this is an earned path," she said. "We’re not looking at amnesty; we were never looking at amnesty."

Discussion of a possible deal marked the second time in as many weeks that Trump spurned his own party to pursue an agreement with Democrats.

Last week, Trump struck a deal with Schumer and Pelosi that combined disaster aid for those affected by Hurricane Harvey with measures to keep the government open and extend the debt ceiling for three months, leaving some Republicans reeling.

News of another potential deal was met immediately with criticism from conservative Republicans.

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, an anti-immigration hardliner tweeted Wednesday that, if there was an agreement, "Trump base is blown up, destroyed, irreparable, and disillusioned beyond repair. No promise is credible."

A potential deal would also go against the views of former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, who as a White House aide was credited with helping Trump emphasize a message centered on economic nationalism.

Bannon, who following his White House exit returned as the head of Breitbart News, told CBS' "60 Minutes" last week he didn't agree with Trump's decision to give Congress a window to save DACA legislatively, and that "the guys in the far-right" and "on the conservative side" were "not happy" with it either.

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

DACA DREAMERS TRUE NUMBERS HIDDEN BY MEDIA - NOT 800,000......BUT MILLIONS; WHAT ABOUT BACKGROUND CHECKS??




#DREAMERS


DACA DREAMERS TRUE NUMBERS HIDDEN BY MAINSTREAM MEDIA - NOT 800,000......BUT MILLIONS:

MORE THAN 11 MILLION ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE LIVING IN USA ON TAXPAYER DOLLARS (MOSTLY MEXICANS).

MANY COMPANIES HIRE THEM FOR LOW WAGES INSTEAD OF HIRING MORE SKILLED AMERICAN WORKERS.

MANY COMPANIES DON'T CONDUCT FULL BACKGROUND CHECKS ON IMMIGRANTS AND STILL HIRE THEM WHILE NOT HIRING US WORKERS WITH MINIMAL CRIMINAL RECORDS.

MANY ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS DON'T HAVE WORK SKILLS AND MANY CAN'T SPEAK ENGLISH YET THEY ARE BEING HIRED TO WORK INSTEAD OF US WORKERS FOR LOW WAGES.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS NEED TO BECOME LEGAL CITIZENS, PAY TAXES, COMPLETE FULL BACKGROUND CHECKS, LEARN ENGLISH AND NOT BE HIRED OVER AMERICAN WORKERS IF THEY'RE NOT TRULY QUALIFIED.


Sources: US INC., NY Times




***** What’s the Real Number of Illegal Aliens in the Country?



According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s population clock, the current population of the United States is approaching 325 million people.

One presumes that it includes the “official” current estimate of illegal aliens of 11 million.

Of course, that number is ridiculously low if you calculate the U.S. Border Patrol’s apprehension for the last 30 years, from 1985-2015.


Over that thirty year period, the Border Patrol apprehended 31,373,128 illegal aliens along the southern border, alone.

That does not include those apprehended on the East Coast coming from Cuba, the Bahamas, Haiti, Jamaica or the other Caribbean Islands.

It doesn’t include numbers from the northern border with Canada and it doesn’t include those who overstayed their visas, thereby becoming illegal aliens. (“Visa overstays” are often, incorrectly, referred to as 40% of all illegal aliens.

Nobody really knows, because the U.S. still doesn’t keep track of those who have entered legally on a visa. But, that percentage isn’t close.)

For years, the Border Patrol (BP) officially used to report the “gotaway” rate, those who “got away” from apprehension.

For decades, it was felt that on a “good day,” the Border Patrol caught one in five illegal aliens, on a “bad day,” the number was one in seven.

That means that if every single day since 1985 was a “good day,” then for every one they caught, four “got away.”

4 x 31,373,128 = 125,492,512 illegal border crossings in the past 30 years.
And, that’s just across the southern border. But now, no more “gotaway rate.”

Retired Congressman Tom Tancredo, a good friend and ally in our fight to get our immigration laws enforced during the last two years of the Clinton Administration and all of the Bush Administration, had a good piece on Breitbart, August 6, titled, “Border Patrol to Illegals: Don’t Get Caught.”

He reports:

“… Obama’s Border Patrol has officially abandoned the use of the “Gotaway” number in weekly and quarterly reports of apprehensions. For decades, the Border Patrol routinely compiled and reported the Gotaway number as a supplement to the number of actual apprehensions.

Border Patrol agents knew and openly admitted that the number of illegal border crossers apprehended was only a fraction of the number of border jumpers.

Veterans and CBP retirees remember when that Gotaway number was three to four times the official apprehension number.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service recently calculated the Gotaway number to be at least 1.5.

Translated, that means the number of successful illegal entries is at least 150 percent above the number apprehended by the Border Patrol.”

Now, there is absolutely no reason to believe any number coming out of the federal government.

The Congressional Research Service number of 1.5 gotaways is laughable.

And, the number of illegal aliens in the country isn’t 125 million. There were multiple crossings by many people for years. I’ve heard of Border Patrol agents catching the same guy 6 or 8 times back in the 80s and 90s.

They didn’t finger print the illegals they caught for many years. They didn’t have computers back then, and when they finally did get computers, they weren’t linked together for several more years.

The various sectors couldn’t share the names, pictures and descriptions of those caught.

After about half a dozen arrests, followed by detention time, the illegal would just shift to another sector where the agents wouldn’t know him by sight. If he was coming through at El Paso, Texas, or El Centro, California, he would just move over a couple hundred miles and come across in the Tucson sector.

While the number of illegal aliens in the country isn’t 125 million, it isn’t the laughable 11 million number, either. That estimate is absolutely not credible.

Retired sector chiefs have opined that it could be 40 million, or higher. One recently said it could be as high as 50 million. But, he added, “they” (the federal government) don’t know, and they don’t want to know.

And if the 40-50 million estimate is close to the real number, that makes the population of the United States closer to 360-370 million, without even adding in the “visa overstays” or those sneaking in from Canada or the Caribbean.

At the current rate of legal and illegal immigration into the United States, we will have a population of half a billion people by mid-century, just 34 years from now.

Think of what that means for your children and grandchildren.

The Border Patrol was apprehending over 1 million illegals a year on average right up to 2009.

Print out the page on Border Patrol apprehensions.

You might find the numbers and estimates useful in any current, or near future discussions with friends and acquaintances, or co-workers about border security, amnesty, border walls, that sort of thing.

Now you will be ready when the topic of illegal immigration comes up in casual conversation.

VETERANS WHO SERVED THEIR COUNTRY NOT BEING HIRED, ESPECIALLY MANY BLACK MALE VETS (AGE 50+), VET DISCRIMINATION



VETERANS WHO SERVED THEIR COUNTRY NOT BEING HIRED, ESPECIALLY MANY BLACK MALE VETS (AGE 50+):

VET DISCRIMINATION IS RAMPANT YET OFTEN IGNORED.

JOBLESS AND HOMELESS REMAINS THE PLIGHT OF MANY HONORABLE US MILITARY VETS........THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE.

NON-PROFIT AGENCIES ARE NOT USING FEDERAL MONEY TO ASSIST BLACK MALE US MILITARY HONORABLE VETS.

JOBS FOR HARDWORKING, RELIABLE VETS ARE GOING TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND UNSKILLED WORKERS.

YET COMPANIES ARE STILL RECEIVING FEDERAL MONEY TO HIRE VETS WHEN THEY ARE REALLY NOT HIRING VETS.

AND MANY COMPANIES WHO DO HIRE VETS PAY THEM VERY LOW WAGES.

WHERE ARE THE FEDERAL AUDITS FOR EMPLOYERS AND NON-PROFIT VETERANS' AGENCIES??


Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics



****** Employment Situation of Veterans Summary

For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT) Wednesday, March 22, 2017



~ EMPLOYMENT SITUATION OF VETERANS -- 2016

The unemployment rate for veterans who served on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces at any time since September 2001--a group referred to as Gulf War-era II veterans--
edged down to 5.1 percent in 2016, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.

The jobless rate for all veterans also edged down over the year to 4.3 percent.

About 36 percent of Gulf War-era II veterans had a service-connected disability in August 2016, compared with 22 percent of all veterans.

This information was obtained from the Current Population Survey (CPS), a monthly sample survey of about 60,000 households that provides data on employment and
unemployment in the United States.

Data about veterans are collected monthly in the CPS; these monthly data are the source of the 2016 annual averages presented in this
news release.

In August 2016, a supplement to the CPS collected additional information about veterans on topics such as service-connected disability and veterans' current or past Reserve or National Guard membership. Information from the supplement is also presented in this release.

The supplement was co-sponsored by the U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs and by the U.S. Department of Labor's Veterans' Employment and Training Service.

For more information, see the Technical Note, which provides definitions of terms used in this release.


Highlights from the 2016 data:

--The unemployment rate for male veterans overall was not statistically different from the rate for female veterans in 2016.

The unemployment rate for male veterans (4.2 percent) edged down over the year, and the rate for female veterans (5.0 percent) changed little.

--Among the 453,000 unemployed veterans in 2016, 60 percent were age 45 and over,
36 percent were age 25 to 44, and 4 percent were age 18 to 24.

--Veterans with a service-connected disability had an unemployment rate of 4.8 percent in August 2016, about the same as veterans with no disability (4.7 percent).

--Nearly 1 in 3 employed veterans with a service-connected disability worked in the public sector in August 2016, compared with about 1 in 5 veterans with no
disability.

--In 2016, the unemployment rate of veterans varied across the country, ranging from 1.8 percent in Indiana to 7.6 percent in the District of Columbia.


The Veteran Population:

In 2016, 20.9 million men and women were veterans, accounting for about 9 percent of the civilian noninstitutional population age 18 and over.

About 10 percent of all veterans were women. In the survey, veterans are defined as men and women who have previously
served on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces and who were civilians at the time these data were collected.

Veterans are more likely to be men than nonveterans and also tend to be older.

In part, this reflects the characteristics of veterans who served during World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam era, all of whom are now over 55 years old.

Veterans who served during these wartime periods accounted for 41 percent (8.5 million) of the total veteran population in 2016. Just over one-third of veterans (7.3 million) served during Gulf War era I (August 1990 to August 2001) or Gulf War
era II (September 2001 forward). Another quarter (5.2 million) served outside the designated wartime periods.


Gulf War-era II Veterans:

In 2016, there were 3.9 million veterans who had served during Gulf War era II (September 2001 forward).

Eighteen percent of these veterans were women, compared
with about 4 percent of veterans from World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam era.

Seventy-one percent of all Gulf War-era II veterans were between the ages of 25
and 44.

Among Gulf War-era II veterans, the unemployment rate for men was not statistically different from the rate for women in 2016.

The unemployment rates for both men (5.0
percent) and women (5.6 percent) were little changed from the prior year.

The unemployment rate for male Gulf War-era II veterans (5.0 percent) was little different than the rate for male nonveterans (4.8 percent) in 2016.

Among men age 25 to 34, Gulf War-era II veterans had a higher unemployment rate (6.6 percent) than did nonveterans (4.9 percent).

For the other age groups, unemployment rates of male Gulf
War-era II veterans and nonveterans were not statistically different.

Among women, the unemployment rate for Gulf War-era II veterans (5.6 percent) was not statistically different from the rate for nonveterans (4.6 percent) in 2016.

By age, unemployment rates for female Gulf War-era II veterans and nonveterans were not statistically different.

Employed Gulf War-era II veterans were about twice as likely to work in the public sector in 2016 as employed nonveterans--28 percent and 13 percent, respectively.

Among the employed, 16 percent of Gulf War-era II veterans worked for the federal government, compared with 2 percent of nonveterans.

In August 2016, 48 percent of Gulf War-era II veterans reported serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, or both locations.

These veterans had an unemployment rate of 4.8
percent, not statistically different from Gulf War-era II veterans who served elsewhere (6.0 percent).

Gulf War-era I Veterans:

Of the 3.4 million veterans who served during Gulf War era I (August 1990 to August 2001), 15 percent were women. Nearly all (98 percent) Gulf War-era I veterans were
age 35 and over in 2016, compared with half of Gulf War-era II veterans.

In 2016, the unemployment rate for male Gulf War-era I veterans was 3.5 percent, lower
than the rate for their Gulf War-era II veteran counterparts (5.0 percent).

The difference in the unemployment rates reflects, at least in part, the older age profile
of veterans who served during Gulf War era I. Younger people--whether veterans or nonveterans--tend to have higher unemployment rates.

Among women, the rates for Gulf
War-era I veterans (4.2 percent) and Gulf War-era II veterans (5.6 percent) were not statistically different.


Veterans of Other Service Periods:

In 2016, 5.2 million veterans had served on active duty during "other service periods," mainly between the Korean War and the Vietnam era and between the Vietnam era and Gulf
War era I.

All veterans from this period of service were 40 years or older at the time of the survey.

Twenty-six percent of these veterans were age 45 to 54 in 2016, another 34 percent were age 55 to 64, and another 39 percent were age 65 and over.

In 2016, 1 in 10 veterans of other service periods were women. Among veterans of other service periods, the unemployment rate for men was 4.1 percent, little different than
the rate for women (4.9 percent).


Veterans with a Service-connected Disability:

In August 2016, about 4.6 million veterans, or 22 percent of the total, had a service- connected disability.

Veterans with a service-connected disability are assigned a
disability rating by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs or the U.S. Department of Defense.

Ratings range from 0 to 100 percent, in increments of 10 percentage points, depending on the severity of the condition.

The unemployment rate for veterans with a service-connected disability was 4.8 percent in August 2016, about the same as veterans with no disability (4.7 percent).

The labor force participation rate for veterans with a service-connected disability (46.4 percent)
was lower than the rate for veterans with no disability (50.7 percent).

Among veterans with a service-connected disability, 30 percent had a disability rating of less than 30 percent, while another 37 percent had a rating of 60 percent or higher.

In August 2016, veterans with a service-connected disability rating of less than 30 percent were much more likely to be in the labor force than those with a rating of 60
percent or higher (54.7 percent and 29.9 percent, respectively).

The unemployment rate For veterans with a disability rating of less than 30 percent was 4.4 percent, not
statistically different than for those with a disability rating of 60 percent or higher (3.8 percent).

Among veterans who served during Gulf War era II, 36 percent (1.4 million) had a service-connected disability.

Of these, 76.0 percent were in the labor force in August 2016, lower than the 86.6 percent for veterans from this period with no service- connected disability.

Among Gulf War-era II veterans, the unemployment rate for those with a service-connected disability was 5.4 percent, little different from those with no disability (5.7 percent).

In August 2016, about a quarter (901,000) of veterans who served during Gulf War era I had a service-connected disability. Their labor force participation rate (64.0 percent)
was lower than the rate for veterans from the era who did not have a disability (86.7
percent).

The unemployment rate for Gulf War-era I veterans with a service-connected disability (5.3 percent) was not statistically different than that for Gulf War-era I
veterans without a service-connected disability (4.2 percent).

Among the 1.6 million veterans with a service-connected disability from World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam era, 14.1 percent were in the labor force in August
2016 , lower than the 25.3 percent of veterans from these periods who did not have a
service-connected disability.

The unemployment rate of veterans with a disability from these wartime periods was 3.7 percent, about the same as their counterparts with no disability (3.8 percent).

About 669,000 or 13 percent of veterans who served during other service periods reported a service-connected disability in August 2016.

The labor force participation rate for these veterans (37.8 percent) was lower than their counterparts without a
service-connected disability (50.3 percent), while the unemployment rate was not statistically different for veterans with a service-connected disability (2.0 percent)
and those with no disability (4.8 percent).

Regardless of period of service, many veterans with a service-connected disability worked in the public sector. In August 2016, 31 percent of employed veterans with a
disability worked in federal, state, or local government, compared with 19 percent of
veterans with no disability and 13 percent of nonveterans. In particular, 20 percent of employed veterans with a disability worked for the federal government, compared
with 7 percent of veterans with no disability and 2 percent of nonveterans.


Reserve and National Guard Membership:

In August 2016, about one-third of Gulf War-era veterans (August 1990 to present) were current or past members of the Reserve or National Guard.

Labor force participation rates were higher for veterans who were current or past members of the Reserve or
National Guard (83.6 percent), compared with veterans who were never members (80.6
percent).
Among Gulf War-era veterans, those who were current or past members of the Reserve or National Guard had an unemployment rate (4.0 percent) that was not
statistically different than those who had never been members (5.6 percent).

Wednesday, September 6, 2017

DACA REPEAL EXPOSES BLACK LEADERS vs SELL-OUTS (“GET OUT BLACK VOTERS”)












#DACA


DACA REPEAL EXPOSES BLACK LEADERS vs BLACK SELL-OUTS:

IT'S OFFICIAL........CBC MEMBERS REPLACE BLACK VOTERS.

BLACK LEADERS THROW LEGAL BLACK VOTERS UNDER THE BUS FOR ILLEGAL HISPANIC IMMIGRANTS AND POLITICS.

BLACK LEADERS ARE NOW SAYING HISPANIC IMMIGRANTS BUILT AMERICA NOT BLACK SLAVES.

DEAR LORD IS BLACK AMERICA DOOMED FOREVER??


Sources: The Grio, CNN, Human Events, Universal Films, Youtube


**** Does rise of Latino population spell doom for the Congressional Black Caucus?



As a result of redistricting efforts in New York, and rapid growth in Harlem’s Latino population, which is now larger than the black population, this community’s black residents may no longer have a leading voice in their district.

Congressman Charles Rangel, who represents the district, was able to withstand an ethics scandal that threatened his seat. But a rising Latino population could mean the end to black power in Harlem.

Changing demographics throughout the nation, combined with retiring lawmakers and redistricting, have members of the Congressional Black Caucus concerned that they will lose long-held black seats.

While much attention has been paid to gentrification and its consequences for historically African-American enclaves, there has been little discussion of the impact of the nation’s Latino population, now the largest minority group in the U.S.

According to the 2010 census, Latinos increased from 12.5 percent of the U.S. population in 2000 to 16.3 percent in 2010.

Blacks only increased from 12.3 percent to 12.6 percent during the same time period. Now, 50.5 million Hispanic-Americans outnumber 38.9 million African-Americans.

And in the New York metropolitan area, blacks, Latinos and Asians now make up a majority of the more than 19 million people in the area.

For the first time, the Hispanic poverty rate (28.2 percent) has surpassed the black rate (23.4 percent) nationwide.

This turn of events is due to lower participation of immigrant groups and non-English speakers in government assistance programs.

Black urban areas are emptying out and impoverished Latino groups are moving in.

As a result of redistricting efforts in New York, and rapid growth in Harlem’s Latino population, which is now larger than the black population, this community’s black residents may no longer have a leading voice in their district.

Congressman Charles Rangel, who represents the district, was able to withstand an ethics scandal that threatened his seat. But a rising Latino population could mean the end to black power in Harlem.

Changing demographics throughout the nation, combined with retiring lawmakers and redistricting, have members of the Congressional Black Caucus concerned that they will lose long-held black seats.

While much attention has been paid to gentrification and its consequences for historically African-American enclaves, there has been little discussion of the impact of the nation’s Latino population, now the largest minority group in the U.S.

According to the 2010 census, Latinos increased from 12.5 percent of the U.S. population in 2000 to 16.3 percent in 2010.

Blacks only increased from 12.3 percent to 12.6 percent during the same time period. Now, 50.5 million Hispanic-Americans outnumber 38.9 million African-Americans.

And in the New York metropolitan area, blacks, Latinos and Asians now make up a majority of the more than 19 million people in the area.

For the first time, the Hispanic poverty rate (28.2 percent) has surpassed the black rate (23.4 percent) nationwide.

This turn of events is due to lower participation of immigrant groups and non-English speakers in government assistance programs. Black urban areas are emptying out and impoverished Latino groups are moving in.

According to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, the “ghetto” as we know it is changing from black to Hispanic.

The population of 133 historically black communities fell 36 percent since 1970, while black population growth slowed down and blacks moved to new areas.

Only 7 percent of blacks live in traditional ghettos, down from 33 percent in 1970.

African-Americans are moving back to the South and out of the big cities into the predominantly white suburbs, in the dramatic fashion in which they migrated to the North from the late 1800s to the 1950s.

Atlanta, for example, increased its number of black people by half a million in 10 years.

This reverse migration represents a major demographic shift: As the South’s share of African-Americans (57 percent) is at its highest point in over half a century, the five counties with the highest proportion of blacks — Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Cook (Illinois), Wayne (Michigan) and Kings (New York) — all shed black folks in the past decade.

Far more dramatic that the black reverse migration, however, is the ascendancy of Latinos across the nation, including in the South and other areas where few to none existed a few decades ago.

Of the 12 states with the largest rise in their Latino population, nine were in the South, including top-ranked South Carolina, followed by Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, North Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia and Virginia.

The non-Southern states are Maryland, South Dakota and Delaware. And of the 12 states with the largest number of Hispanics, the Southern state of Georgia ranks 10th, and North Carolina is 11th. California ranks first, followed by Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Arizona and other states.

Latinos became a majority in 191 of the nation’s 366 metropolitan areas, which account for 83.7 percent of the population of the U.S. In 2000—when Hispanics were more typically found in the border states of the Southwest—the group was a majority in 159 metropolitan areas.

Some of these areas include Atlantic City, New Jersey, Chicago, and Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Further, Omaha, Nebraska, Oklahoma City, Lakeland, Florida and Madison Wisconsin, all experienced faster Latino growth compared to blacks. Cities with particularly sizable declines in blacks include St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland and New York.

Whites declined in all metro areas, and Asians increased in all but five.

In the city of Chicago, where blacks, whites and Hispanics are roughly equal, black and Latino mayoral candidates were rejected in favor of a white candidate — Rahm Emanuel, former White House chief of staff under Obama.

Latinos in Georgia increased from 435,000 to 850,000 in a decade. North Carolina has doubled its Latino population in the past 10 years, and 63 of the state’s 100 counties are at least 5 percent Latino.

Texas, which is a majority-minority state of 25 million people and 45 percent white, is around 38 percent Latino.

The state grew 20.6 percent since 2000, adding 4.2 million new people.

Latinos were responsible for 65 percent of that growth, and 95 percent of the 1 million additional children. Texas’ white population grew by only 4.2 percent, and the black population by 22 percent.

Latino growth gave Texas four additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, more than any other state. Latinos will receive three new seats in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, and Hidalgo and Starr Counties in the Rio Grande Valley.

The news came following complaints that Republican lawmakers were ignoring the Latino population and manipulating the redistricting process for political gain.

According to the census, most of California’s growth was due to Hispanics, who increased 28 percent to 14 million and achieved near population parity with whites, while Asians rose 28 percent to 14 million.

Whites dropped 5.4 percent to below 15 million, and black Californians fell 1 percent to 2.2 million people.

In the U.S., the Latino vote increased the most in California and Florida, with Latinos accounting for 23 percent and 34 percent of each state’s vote, respectively.

Latino voters are likely have an impact in key political battleground states such as Colorado, Florida, Nevada and New Mexico in 2012.

At the same time, conservative Republican backlash against Hispanic growth is evident in a number of Southern states.

Tough immigration laws in Georgia—with an undocumented population of about 425,000 — and Alabama — with around 125,000 undocumented immigrants and a 145 percent Latino growth rate since 2000—have scared away Latino migrant labor.

Alabama farmers are now considering using prison labor to replace the Latino agricultural workers that fled following the passage of that state’s immigration legislation.

In South Carolina, which leads the nation in Latino population growth, the state’s immigration law allows police to ask the immigration status of people during routine traffic stops if there is a “reasonable suspicion” they are undocumented.

That law was partially blocked by a federal judge in Charleston.
The court struck down the traffic stop provision of the law, and the ban on transporting or harboring an undocumented immigrant.

Federal courts have also blocked parts of immigration laws in Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana and Utah.

In the South, Obama victories in the former Confederacy strongholds of Virginia, North Carolina and Florida in 2008 were attributed in part to black and Hispanic turnout, a factor which is poised to change race relations in the South.

Nationwide, blacks and Hispanics were a larger share of voters in that election year.

African-Americans are no longer the only minority group, and in some cases not even the dominant minority group in the South, which means that politicians will have to pay attention to the needs and concerns of Latinos.

Taking advantage of demographic shifts, a black-Latino coalition with moderate and liberal whites could provide a remedy to waning black political clout, and a counter to the white Republican political dominance of the South.

With Latinos as one of every 12 voters in Georgia (whose minority adult population is 41 percent), North Carolina and Virginia, a rising black and Asian population can alter the Southern political landscape.

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

DREAMERS ARE NOT ANIMALS NEITHER ARE THOUSANDS OF BLACK MEN INCARCERATED AND KILLED BY POLICE









DREAMERS ARE NOT ANIMALS NEITHER ARE THOUSANDS OF BLACK MEN INCARCERATED AND KILLED BY POLICE THE LAST 8 YRS WHILE OBAMA WAS IN OFFICE.


Sources: Huffpost, YouTube


****** The Black Male Incarceration Problem Is Real and It’s Catastrophic


“We have more work to do when more young black men languish in prison than attend colleges and universities across America.” President Barack Obama

In a recent article the widely held belief surrounding the number of black men incarcerated outnumbering the number of black men enrolled in higher education was refuted. The piece is titled “The myth that there are more black men in prison than in college, debunked in one chart”.The author appears to believe through proving this assertion about prison and education ratios to be inaccurate either a point of great progress can be demonstrated, or an overstatement of calamity about the state of African American men can be corrected.

Yet the real issue is the number of people in prison should never be similar to the number educated. For most in our country this in fact holds true, but for black men the two numbers are in fact close and that is the inescapable problem. The supposed myth on its face may in fact be incorrect. There may be more black men in college than in prison, but the truth still stands that there are a socially catastrophic number of black men behind bars in the United States. Let me give a bit of context for this discussion. Referencing the same article above

“The Census estimates that approximately 18,508,926 people in the U.S. population are black males, of all ages...The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Prisoner Statistics Program reports that in that same year, 526,000 were in state or federal prisons, and, as of mid-year 2013, 219,660 were in local jails, making for a total of about 745,000 behind bars”
To give a lens for viewing this data India is a country of 1.2 Billion people, the country in total only has around 380,000 prisoners. In fact, there are more African American men incarcerated in the U.S. than the total prison populations in India, Argentina, Canada, Lebanon, Japan, Germany, Finland, Israel and England combined.

As stated by Nicole Porter in the piece“Politics of Black Lives Matter”

...countries have the policies and prison populations they choose. Between 1965 and 1990, a period during which overall and violent crime rates tripled in Germany, Finland, and the United States, German politicians chose to hold the imprisonment rate flat, Finnish politicians chose to substantially reduce theirs, and American politicians generally enacted policies that sent more people to prison, along with lengthened prison terms.
Today in the United States there are approximately 18 million black men, and nearly 161 million women of all races. According to the Sentencing Project the total number of women incarcerated in America is about 200,000. Even more shocking despite the population of black men being about a tenth the size, there are nearly 4 times as many black men incarcerated in comparison to women of all races in the U.S.

To give a more appropriate contrast than just black men in college and black men incarcerated, lets look at the debated education vs incarceration reality for white women and black men comparatively. According to the Census in total there are about 8.5 million white women in college, and there are just 60,000 white women incarcerated. For black men the numbers are as listed above, there are about 1.4 million black men enrolled in higher education, and a cataclysmic 745,000 behind bars, with another large sum on probation and parole.

So in the end the contrasting of college enrollment vs. incarceration is not the key comparative. While it is part of an analysis, only by applying it with more depth can we see a fuller and more accurate picture. It is more important to look at these rates and be honest about the advantaged, and disadvantaged. The key is that as then presidential candidate Barack Obama stated “We have more work to do...” We can only take steps and start this work by asking the hard question of why historical differences in both opportunity and misfortune have left us such a disparity in access to opportunity for all.




Thursday, August 3, 2017

BALTIMORE TO LOSE FEDERAL $$$ AS A SANCTUARY CITY (MS-13 GANGS)











BALTIMORE TO LOSE FEDERAL $$$ AS A SANCTUARY CITY (MS-13 GANGS):

DOJ TOP CHIEF JEFF SESSIONS REMINDS MUNICIPALITY LEADERS THEY ARE NOT ABOVE FEDERAL LAW IN HARBORING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

SANCTUARY CITY LEADERS ENDORSE IMPRISONING BLACK MEN WHILE PROTECTING ILLEGAL LATINO MEN.

IT SHOULDN'T BE ABOUT RACE, ONLY ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY.


Sources: Fox News, Youtube


**** DOJ threatens to withhold crime-fighting funds from four sanctuary cities


Attorney General Jeff Sessions is reinforcing threats to go after sanctuary cities, warning the administration may withhold federal crime-fighting funds for four places struggling with gun violence.

It is the latest threat made by Sessions in his public campaign to force cooperation between local authorities and federal immigration officials.

The Justice Department sent letters to police departments in Baltimore, Md., Albuquerque, N.M., Stockton and San Bernardino, Calif. telling them if they wanted federal help to root out drug trafficking and gang crime, they’d have to work with federal immigration authorities.

Among other things, the Justice Department said they must give the authorities access to jails and provide advance notice before releasing someone in custody who is wanted on immigration violations.

The four cities targeted had all expressed interest in the DOJ’s new Public Safety Partnership, which enlists federal agents, analysts and technology to help communities find solutions to crime.

“Based on our review, we have concluded that your jurisdiction has levels of violence that exceed the national average, that your jurisdiction is ready to receive the intensive assistance the Department is prepared to provide, and that your jurisdiction is taking steps to reduce its violent crime,” the Aug. 3 letter said.

The letter sent by the DOJ to the four prospective cities’ police departments also asks them for proof of their compliance to step up efforts to help detain and deport people in the United States illegally. The deadline is Aug. 18.

Separately last week, Sessions told jurisdictions they need to meet the same conditions or lose out on millions of dollars from a separate program that aims to send grant money to support law enforcement.

The attorney general rolled out the rules as part of his promised crackdown on sanctuary cities.

His threat didn’t sit well with some – prompting a defiant pushback on the request.

Under old rules, cities seeking grant money needed only to show that they weren't prohibiting local law enforcement from communicating with immigration authorities.

Police use the money for everything from bulletproof vests to body cameras.

Sessions unveiled the policy amid speculation about whether he would retain his job following President Trump's blistering public criticism for his recusal from the Russia probe. The terse warning from the president seems, for now, to have subsided.