Hell To Bell's NO!!!!.We need to start Dumping our Garbage (Criminals) and clean up Our House!!! the Country we call Home!!! America. President Trump needs to protect our people and our lives now!!!!Get that WALL up now. The longer we put it off the more Criminal Trash will come in."I Rest My Case!!!. I refuse to live in fear for my life and my Country. This Country is not a Shelter for Criminals who creep over our Borders. Let that be known!!! President Trump!!!!.No more 'Lolly Gagging!!!! do your job right Now, stop waiting till it's too Late!!!!.

Perfect!!!!!!answer!!!!! Thanks!!! no propaganda please!!!

Trump Helps the Cause of Peace in the Koreas, but What About Elsewhere?

A South Korean railway station's TV image of Donald Trump meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. (Ahn Young-joon / AP)

Donald Trump is walking on sunshine this week, glowing in the aftermath of his successful, high-level photo-op meeting with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. The meeting marked the first time a sitting U.S. president has met with a North Korean leader. Despite the bizarre circumstances that preceded the meeting (overt and juvenile insults between the two leaders and a temporary cancellation of the summit), it was a major step in the right direction for the two countries and for the project of global peace.

The fact that it took a leader like Trump to get to even a preliminary place of negotiations with North Korea is telling and ought to shame his Democratic predecessors. Sadly, it does not mean Trump will land on the side of peace elsewhere.

Trump is blowing up the new world order, worrying establishment Democrats. Even his own party members are wary. While he is disrupting U.S. foreign policy from the right rather than the left—to the likely detriment of the nation and planet—he has made one thing clear: When desired, it is possible to swim upstream against the neoliberal consensus. Did Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama fail to usher in global peace and justice because they encountered internal opposition or simply because they chose to fail?

The most constructive lesson Trump may be inadvertently offering is that there is ample room for a future progressive executive to use his or her position for global good rather than in the service of American imperial ambitions.

Trump has already realigned U.S. foreign policy to a stunning extent. He has made stronger overtures to right-wing, dictatorial and/or less-than-democratic regimes like China, the Philippines, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Russia and, most recently, North Korea than earlier presidents from either party. He has deeply offended U.S. allies such as Mexico, Canada and the European Union and launched irrational trade wars against them. He has escalated the U.S. wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria while paying a far lesser political price than his predecessors.

Lest we underestimate the power of one egotistical individual’s petulant whims and fantasies, a man who lacks a popular mandate has changed U.S. foreign policy more than we ever imagined possible, much to the dismay of the neoliberal establishment.

The critical lesson for those who want to see a leftward realignment away from militarism and war and toward global justice and peace is that perhaps a strong-willed individual with the backing of grass-roots movements and a popular mandate might be capable of opposing the collective will of the pro-military establishment in the future. For years we were told that Obama was unable to achieve much progress toward peace because presidents are mere figureheads who find out upon entering the Oval Office that the real power is held by military generals and career agency staffers.

Such assumptions have fomented apathy and cynicism about the nation’s foreign policy. But Trump’s bull-in-a-china-shop approach has confirmed that if presidents want to, they can indeed do things differently. It also implies that Democrats like Obama and Clinton went along with the project of American militarism not because they were unable to defy it but because they were willing partners.

Overall, Trump’s disruption has moved the world in a dangerous direction. The Iran nuclear deal, which Trump tragically undid, was one of Obama’s few constructive foreign policy achievements that moved the U.S. in the direction of diplomacy between two historic enemies. That deal was vociferously opposed by the Republican Party as well as by some elements of the Democratic Party. And yet Obama persisted—likely because the deal kept intact Iran’s nuclear subservience to the U.S.

If preserving American dominance underpinned Obama’s approach to foreign policy, what drives Trump’s approach? In his approach to North Korea we have seen dangerous flip-flopping, from hurling public insults at Kim to lauding him like a new best friend. The summit was announced, then canceled, then was back on. Yet, miraculously, there was greater progress toward peace than we saw under the last two presidents.

It is hard to imagine that a president like Trump would help to usher in peace between the two Koreas and between the U.S. and North Korea. Perhaps he is motivated by wanting to please China or to build hotels in North Korea, or perhaps he simply wants a major win to stoke his enormous ego.

To be fair, Democrats and Republicans are often far more in alignment with one another internationally than they are domestically. The Afghanistan and Iraq wars were bipartisan affairs. Allegiance to the likes of Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt has been jointly supported by both parties. But Trump’s foreign policy involves giving free rein to the military establishment in a way that even Obama did not, which could result in perpetual war everywhere but in the Koreas. Trump’s approach could embolden right-wing dictatorial regimes even more than the Democratic establishment did. It could free the Israeli government to unleash even more violence on Palestinians than before—indeed it has already done so. It could encourage Saudi Arabia to continue pummeling a weakened Yemen—as it is doing this week.

On the economic front, Trump is tossing out the rule book on trade, refusing to be bound by the dogma of pro-corporate, free-trade ideology (which ought to be welcomed by advocates for fair trade and global justice) and jeopardizing America’s military allies in the process. His actions have strengthened the hands of Russia and China especially. The Chinese government appears to have determined that financially bailing out the Trump business’ real estate projects, as it did in Indonesia, is a useful tool to bend U.S. policy toward Chinese will. Trump has also had an eye toward business ventures in Russia for decades. Perhaps he looked at the leaders of the G-7 countries at the recent annual summit and thought, “I have nothing to personally gain from keeping these people and their nations as friends.”

His base of support is gleeful at the circus he has made of the carefully crafted world order established over many decades. After all, they voted for Trump hoping he would blow up all expectations—and he is well on his way to doing so.

In this context, the North Korea summit may simply be a coincidental blip in the right direction. Regardless of Trump’s motivation, the result of his historic meeting with Kim this week in Singapore is likely to do more to defuse nuclear tensions regionally and globally than preserving the status quo. Similarly, regardless of Obama’s motivations, the Iran deal was a critical step toward diplomacy and away from war. Most progressives rightly cheered both deals and lamented the Iran deal’s demise.

But if we want systemic change in the direction of peace and justice, we must demand that U.S. foreign policy be coherently driven by progressive ideology rather than as incidental stops on the path toward American military dominance or the ego-driven ambitions of a businessman. There is simply too much at stake.
http://www.truthdig.com



It would be great!! if President Trump could build Peace all over the Middle East, as he did in the Koreas, but i don't ever see it ever happening, not any time too soon. The Middle East is one of our worst Countries to tangle with, seeing that we have been in constant battles with them for Eons!!!! We are in grave danger if we try and tangle with them directly. They will not agree in making any negotiate with our President, not if they lose control of their Power over the United States. Islam Terrorists are our biggest battles. 'Good Luck!!trying to end this crisis!! President Trump!!!. I don't ever see us making any Peace between the U.S. and the Hell Hole!! Middle East. What do Y'all believe?

There’s A Reason Liberals Are Always So Angry
Derek Hunter
Derek Hunter
|
Posted: Jun 24th, 2018 12:01 AM
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com.
There’s A Reason Liberals Are Always So Angry
Trending

Derek Hunter
There’s A Reason Liberals Are Always So Angry
Kevin McCullough
Why The Left Always Lies About Children
Scott Morefield
The Seven Nuttiest Things Nancy Pelosi Has Said This Year

Have you ever wondered why rage seems to be “all the rage” with liberals these days? Every time you turn around there’s another march for this or protest against that; recycled chants about how something “has got to go,” and a fawning media all too happy to report it as if it were news. It’s not news, of course, it’s a mass temper tantrum by political activists still unhappy their fellow Americans chose to reject Hillary Clinton in 2016. But there’s more to it than that, something strategic is at play.

Have you ever stubbed your toe and cursed in front of someone you otherwise would never consider using that kind of language in front of? Or gotten so mad while trying to fix something that you’ve ended up slamming it and making it worse? It’s likely you’ve done this or something similar because of one simple fact: emotion overrides logic.

When you’re angry or when you’re scared you aren’t thinking straight, you’re acting on emotion. That’s the state liberals have been keeping their base in since Donald Trump won the presidency.

To one degree or another, modern liberals have always used fear and anger to motivate their voters. After 9/11, Democrats ran on variations of “Republican policies are making us less safe.” With the terror attacks of that September morning still fresh in people’s minds, that was not designed to inspire.

To hear liberals tell it, this country is fundamentally racist and killing the planet. They, however, are the gatekeepers of fixing it all. (Never mind the fact that cities where they’ve had complete control for generations – Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, etc. – are used for backdrops for movies about post-apocalyptic futures because they require so little set construction.)
CARTOONS | Henry Payne
View Cartoon

But are we those things?

The Southern Poverty Law Center, the left-wing go-to for all things “hate,” estimates there are about 6,500 members of the KKK in a country of 330 million. In 1920, when we had a population of 106 million, there were 4 million KKK members. We’ve gone from just under 4 percent of the population membership in that vile organization to what amounts to a rounding error. The WNBA, America’s least popular professional sport, averaged 7,644 in attendance in 2016. That means on any given night there are more than 1,100 more people at a WNBA game than in the Klan in the whole country. Racism, of course, still exists – in a nation of 330 million there are going to be a few bad apples – but to pretend it is rampant, the foundation of the country, is a blatant lie.

But it sure is an effective tool to keep people angry and afraid. You tell them there is this hidden hand working against them then every setback, which everyone has, can be ascribed to this hidden hand. It’s a self-reinforcing lie that, sadly, can sap some of the desire to try. Why bother if they system is rigged and actively working to keep you down?

As for climate change, liberals raise the stakes from one person’s life to the whole of humanity. Surrender your liberty or everyone is dead! That’s a hell of a choice. Only it doesn’t add up.

Aside from the “pause” in warming these leftists can’t explain and try to deny, the planet’s temperature has always fluctuated. So has their cause for panic. In the 1970s they were concerned with global cooling, in the 90s it was warming, in the 50s it was cooling too, now it’s just “change.” All the predictions were the same – mass death and destruction – and the solution was the same – higher taxes, more regulation, more government control. But something went wrong on the way to Utopia, as it always does.

In the 90s and early 2000s the predictions were that in 10 years it would “too late” to do anything, so we must “act now.” We didn’t. And 10 years later we didn’t see the coastal cities flooded or the more frequent and powerful hurricanes. If you’re the leader of a doomsday cult and predict the world will end on Sunday, come Monday morning you’re going to have some explaining to do.

Liberals, however, were not called out for their Chicken Little routine, nor were they shamed by it. They simply learned to stop making disprovable predictions and extended the timeline. They no longer make 10 year predictions, they’ve switched to 100 year predictions, like in 100 years climate change will make lightning strikes more frequent. (Yes, that’s real. It’s all real.) Their predictions now aren’t going to “come true” till long after everyone who could remember they’d made them will be dead, which makes them not only unprovable, but more importantly they’re un-disprovable. Yet, as always, we must act now! It’s the perfect racket.

But people do believe it, because people in respectable professions with impressive sounding titles tell them it’s true. People like journalists and made for TV scientists like failed stand-up comedian Bill Nye “the science guy” and astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. Never asked is what an actor cast 3 decades ago for a local PBS show and a guy who studies space, which is the exact opposite of climate, actually know about climate. They are good on TV, and being good on TV is enough. And they toe the liberal line, which is what it’s really all about.

There is an entire infrastructure in place to spread and perpetuate lies and exaggerations to keep people angry and afraid, to prevent them from thinking logically, to advance the liberal agenda. From Los Angeles to the New York, this outrage machine used science, journalism, and Hollywood (and pretty much everything else) to manipulate the American people into acting how they want you to act.

I’ve spent a year researching and writing about it, and the result of that work comes out Tuesday. Yes, I wrote a book, it’s called “Outrage, INC: How the Liberal Mob Ruined Science, Journalism, and Hollywood.” I would very much appreciate it if you’d buy a copy, I think you’ll like it. You’ll certainly learn a lot from it, learn how this machine works, how liberals bastardize the language, weaponized science, how journalists use celebrities as cover to convey their own biases, ruin lives of anyone who won’t play along, and a lot more. And don’t worry, it’s not a boring political book where your eyes will glaze over after 2 pages and you’ll feel like you’re reading a text book. It’s written like I write, like people speak, and there’s at least a joke per page. You remember more when you laugh doing it.

Believe me, I never thought I’d be trying to sell you a book. I never thought I’d get to write one. Who the Hell am I anyway? I’m just a public school kid from Detroit. But, as it happens, the opportunity presented itself when HarperCollins asked if I had any ideas for one and I did. They were crazy enough to go for it. The last year and been both amazing and awful as my wife and I became parents for the first time (the second time is happening in October) and I lost my mother. And on Tuesday, what I worked on through it all, what helped me get through it all, what my parents prodded me to work on when I didn’t think I could bring myself to, comes out. I’d be honored if you’d pick up a copy, it makes the perfect 4th of July gift (which really should be a thing), a great after-the-fact Father’s Day present, and don’t forget Christmas in July (which also isn’t a thing). But still…Thank you.

http://www.townhall.com



Liberals are Spoiled Brats!! if they can't have total control over the 'American Ship' then they will throw every body and any thing Over Board. Now this is how i see it!!! what about Y'all?

Carol Kelly!!! I totally agree with your statement, 100%.

Debunking 5 Phony Statistics Liberals Love To Toss Around
John Hawkins
John Hawkins
|
Posted: June 24, 2018 12:01 AM
Debunking 5 Phony Statistics Liberals Love To Toss Around
Trending

Derek Hunter
There’s A Reason Liberals Are Always So Angry
Kevin McCullough
Why The Left Always Lies About Children
Scott Morefield
The Seven Nuttiest Things Nancy Pelosi Has Said This Year

Liberals are all about emotions, not facts.

Since that’s the case, liberals do a terrible job of coming up with any sort of evidence to support their agenda. More often than not, when they do come up with a great statistic that’s repeated over and over, it’s fake. If you want some examples, here are five phony statistics you’ll regularly hear from liberals.

1) One in five college-age women have been raped. How do you create a “rape epidemic” that isn’t actually happening? Easy. You don’t ask women if they’ve been raped; you just expand the definition of rape so much that you define merely unpleasant events or worse yet, even consensual acts as rape.

The one-in-five figure is based on the Campus Sexual Assault Study, commissioned by the National Institute of Justice and conducted from 2005 to 2007. Two prominent criminologists, Northeastern University’s James Alan Fox and Mount Holyoke College’s Richard Moran, have noted its weaknesses:

...Fox and Moran also point out that the study used an overly broad definition of sexual assault. Respondents were counted as sexual assault victims if they had been subject to “attempted forced kissing” or engaged in intimate encounters while intoxicated.

Defenders of the one-in-five figure will reply that the finding has been replicated by other studies. But these studies suffer from some or all of the same flaws.
CARTOONS | Henry Payne
View Cartoon

How many college-age women are raped according to the FBI? The actual rate is “6.1 per 1,000 students, or 0.61 percent (instead of 1-in-5, the real number is 0.03-in-5).” Rape is a serious issue and dramatically misrepresenting the number of women being raped is despicable.

2) Spousal abuse skyrockets on Super Bowl Sunday. This myth comes from misrepresentations made by liberals back in 1993.

During the era of the infamous Super Bowl Hoax, it was widely believed that on Super Bowl Sundays, violence against women increases 40%. Journalists began to refer to the game as the "abuse bowl" and quoted experts who explained how male viewers, intoxicated and pumped up with testosterone, could "explode like mad linemen." During the 1993 Super Bowl, NBC ran a public service announcement warning men they would go to jail for attacking their wives.

In this roiling sea of media credulity, one lone journalist, Washington Post reporter Ken Ringle, checked the facts. As it turned out, there was no source: An activist had misunderstood something she read, jumped to her sensational conclusion, announced it at a news conference and an urban myth was born. Despite occasional efforts to prove the story true, no one has ever managed to link the Super Bowl to domestic battery.

3) Fifty percent of marriages end in divorce. If you get married at this point, especially to a college-educated woman over the age of 25, it’ll probably be for life.

A false conclusion in the 1970s that half of all first marriages ended in divorce was based on the simple but completely wrong analysis of the marriage and divorce rates per 1,000 people in the United States. A similar abuse of statistical analysis led to the conclusion that 60 percent of all second marriages ended in divorce.

...It is now clear that the divorce rate in first marriages probably peaked at about 40 percent for first marriages around 1980 and has been declining since to about 30 percent in the early 2000s. This is a dramatic difference. Rather than viewing marriage as a 50-50 shot in the dark it can be viewed as having a 70 percent likelihood of succeeding. But even to use that kind of generalization, i.e., one simple statistic for all marriages, grossly distorts what is actually going on.

The key is that the research shows that starting in the 1980s education, specifically a college degree for women, began to create a substantial divergence in marital outcomes, with the divorce rate for college-educated women dropping to about 20 percent, half the rate for non-college educated women. Even this is more complex, since the non-college educated women marry younger and are poorer than their college grad peers. These two factors, age at marriage and income level, have strong relationships to divorce rates; the older the partners and the higher the income, the more likely the couple stays married. Obviously, getting a college degree is reflected in both these factors.

Thus, we reach an even more dramatic conclusion: That for college educated women who marry after the age of 25 and have established an independent source of income, the divorce rate is only 20 percent!

...One report indicated that the divorce rate for remarried, white women is 15 percent after three years and 25 percent after five years. This ongoing study indicated a definite slowing of the rate over time but did not have enough years measured to draw more long-term conclusions. However, it did indicate that the same factors with first divorces were at play here.

Age, education, and income levels were also highly correlated with the outcomes of second marriages. For example, women who remarried before the age of 25 had a very high divorce rate of 47 percent, while women who remarried over the age of 25 only had a divorce rate of 34 percent. The latter is actually about the same for first marriages and likely also would prove to be an average of different rates based (on) socioeconomic factors.

That’s a lot more encouraging than starting a marriage thinking there’s a 50% chance of it going belly-up.

4) Ten percent of the population is gay. Ten percent has been the number tossed around for a long time, but perhaps understandably, many people think the gay percentage of the population is even higher based on popular culture’s obsession with homosexuality.

The American public estimates on average that 23% of Americans are gay or lesbian, little changed from Americans' 25% estimate in 2011, and only slightly higher than separate 2002 estimates of the gay and lesbian population.

In actuality, the percentage of gay Americans is tiny.

The survey taken by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention asked a simple question of 34,557 adults nationwide: “Which of the following best represents how you think of yourself?” The five possible answers were straight, lesbian/gay, bisexual, “something else” and “I don’t know the answer.” Transgenders, the “T” in LGBT, were not included.

The survey found that a mere 1.6 percent of the adult population self-identifies as “lesbian/gay,” and an even smaller 0.7 percent told interviewers they were bisexual. The bisexuals were outnumbered by the 1.1 percent who didn’t know, wouldn’t answer or said they were “something else.”

This result was far from the 10 percent that homosexual rights advocates have claimed since the 1970s.

5) Ninety seven percent of scientists agree that global warming is manmade and dangerous. How do you prove 97% of people agree with you? Find a tiny subset of a group that thinks just like you do and claim that it speaks for a much larger group of people. Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer did an excellent piece explaining how this works at the WSJ.

Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran.

...The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

...In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming."

...In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming.

...Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

It’s simply untrue that the scientific community has decided almost as a whole that global warming is happening, manmade and problematic. Many scientists believe that’s the case. Many others don’t. At this point, it’s merely a controversial unproven theory.

http://www.townhall.com



That's the Liberal way!!!and that's how they operate. 'Go figure!!!!!' Now what? What do y'all think?

Sounds like a great Idea!!!! Dump the Dem, garbage and clean House.

Amen!! let that be known!!!! bahmer...

I am glad that you agree 'Weasel !!!! Thank you!!.

Trump: 'The United States will not be a migrant camp'

Yahoo News
Dylan Stableford
Jun 24th 2018 12:45PM
X

President Trump on Monday again tried to shift blame for his administration’s controversial policy of separating immigrant families at the border to Democrats, while others in his administration threw up a variety of confusing, misleading and sometimes contradictory explanations and defenses.

“Why don’t the Democrats give us the votes to fix the world’s worst immigration laws?” the president tweeted. “Where is the outcry for the killings and crime being caused by gangs and thugs, including MS-13, coming into our country illegally?”

“Children are being used by some of the worst criminals on earth as a means to enter our country,” he continued. “Has anyone been looking at the Crime taking place south of the border. It is historic, with some countries the most dangerous places in the world. Not going to happen in the U.S.”

“CHANGE THE LAWS!” Trump wrote, adding: “It is the Democrats [sic] fault for being weak and ineffective with Boarder [sic] Security and Crime. Tell them to start thinking about the people devastated by Crime coming from illegal immigration. Change the laws!”

There is no U.S. law requiring that the children of immigrants entering the country illegally to be separated from their parents. The administration, unlike previous ones, is treating the adults as criminals and jailing them, which requires them to be separated from the children.

Slideshow preview image
35 PHOTOS
Protests against family separations at US border
See Gallery

In an address to the National Space Council at the White House on Monday afternoon, Trump continued to blame Democrats for the family separation crisis while ratcheting up the rhetoric.

“I say, very strongly, it’s the Democrats fault,” Trump said. “The United States will not be a migrant camp and it will not be a refugee holding facility.”

“We want safety and we want security,” Trump added. “If the Democrats would sit down instead of obstructing we could have something done very quickly — good for the children, good for the country.”

Trump’s comments come amid growing bipartisan backlash over the Trump administration policy that has resulted in 1,995 children being separated from parents who are accused of illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border between April 19 and May 31.

“I appreciate the need to enforce and protect our international boundaries, but this zero-tolerance policy is cruel,” former first lady Laura Bush wrote in a Washington Post op-ed published on Sundaynight. “It is immoral. And it breaks my heart.”

Many of the children separated from their families have been held in detention centers. In one facility toured by the Associated Press, hundreds of children were seen “in a series of cages created by metal fencing.” The children were given “bottles of water, bags of chips and large foil sheets intended to serve as blankets.”

On Sunday night, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen pushed back against mounting criticism by denying that the policy actually exists.

“We do not have a policy of separating families at the border,” she tweeted. “Period.”

On “Fox & Friends” Monday, Hogan Gidley, a special assistant to the president, said the policy of separating children from their parents is “all the Democrats’ doing.” But recent comments from members of the Trump administration would indicate otherwise.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions

In April, Sessions announced a new “zero-tolerance policy,” which he described as an “escalated effort to prosecute those who choose to illegally cross our border.” Under Sessions’ directive, all those apprehended for entering the United States illegally — including families with small children — would be criminally charged.

“To those who wish to challenge the Trump Administration’s commitment to public safety, national security, and the rule of law, I warn you,” Sessions said. “Illegally entering this country will not be rewarded, but will instead be met with the full prosecutorial powers of the Department of Justice.”

Last week, Sessions responded to criticism from church groups and religious leaders, citing the Bible in his defense.

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order,” Sessions said. “Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves and protect the weak and lawful.

“Our policies that can result in short term separation of families is not unusual or unjustified,” he continued. “American citizens that are jailed do not take their children to jail with them. And non-citizens who cross our borders unlawfully between our ports of entry with children are not an exception. They are the ones who broke the law. They are the ones who endangered their own children on their trek.”
Sarah Sanders, White House press secretary

Last week, Sanders also cited the Bible in her defense of the immigration policy.

“It is very biblical to enforce the law,” Sanders told reporters. “The separation of illegal alien families is the product of the same legal loopholes that Democrats refuse to close. And these laws are the same that have been on the books for over a decade. And the president is simply enforcing them.”

Sanders also insisted that ripping children from their parents is a moral practice.

“It’s a moral policy to follow and enforce the law,” she said.
Chief of Staff John Kelly

In an interview with NPR last month, Kelly said that the “name of the game” is deterrence.

“The vast majority of the people that move illegally into United States are not bad people,” Kelly said. “They’re not criminals. They’re not MS-13. Some of them are not. But they’re also not people that would easily assimilate into the United States, into our modern society. They’re overwhelmingly rural people in the countries they come from — fourth-, fifth-, sixth-grade educations are kind of the norm. They don’t speak English; obviously that’s a big thing — they don’t speak English. They don’t integrate well; they don’t have skills. They’re not bad people. They’re coming here for a reason. And I sympathize with the reason. But the laws are the laws.”

Kelly agreed that family separation is a “tough deterrent” but disagreed that it was “cruel and heartless to take a mother away from her children.”

“I wouldn’t put it quite that way,” Kelly said. “The children will be taken care of — put into foster care or whatever. But the big point is they elected to come illegally into the United States, and this is a technique that no one hopes will be used extensively or for very long.”
Senior policy adviser Stephen Miller

“No nation can have the policy that whole classes of people are immune from immigration law or enforcement,” Miller told the New York Times last week. “It was a simple decision by the administration to have a zero-tolerance policy for illegal entry, period. The message is that no one is exempt from immigration law.”

During a background call with reporters Friday, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security echoed Miller’s sentiment.

“Advocates want us to ignore the law and give people with families a free pass,” the spokesman said. “We no longer exempt entire classes of people.”
First lady Melania Trump

On Sunday night, the first lady’s office issued a statement saying that Melania Trump “hates to see children separated from their families and hopes both sides of the aisle can finally come together to achieve successful immigration reform.”

“We need to be a country that follows all laws,” she added. “But also a country that governs with heart.”

http://www.aol.news.com



I totally agree!!! We are not a Hide out, for criminals of any kind. Yes it angers me that these awful Parents deserted their children and in my opinion, they made them they should care for them, no matter what. These Gangs ,MS 13 is bad berries, and so is the Mexican Cartel, and all these Druggies, that come into our Country. That's why our people who consume these Awful and Deadly Drugs!!!! become slaves to these Gangs. We have enough on our plates as it is... We need to shut down all these migrant camps, in every state and cities in America. In the State of Washington, we have cities that are flooded with these Criminal activities. You always have to watch your back, no matter what. These Illegals who flood our country, are a threat to any and all Americans, Homeless Americans are always living in fear for their lives in the Sanctuary Hide Outs. Seattle is the #1 dangerous area!!!!. I live in Burien, Washington and there is always an outburst of Criminals, this City is no longer safe. President Trump wants us to be safe, but i pray that he backs up what he says. Now what do Y'all believe about what's happening in our Country and can it be fixed?

Trump Declares Dems Want Illegals to 'Infest' America
Image: Trump Declares Dems Want Illegals to 'Infest' America

By Bill Hoffmann | Sunday, 24 June 2018 11:14 AM



inShare

President Donald Trump on Tuesday continued his staunch defense of zero-tolerance in the handling of illegal immigrants and charged that Democrats want aliens to "infest" the country because they see them as future voting allies.

"Democrats are the problem. They don’t care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country, like MS-13. They can’t win on their terrible policies, so they view them as potential voters?" Trump tweeted as the uproar grew over children being seized and separated from their parents as they sneak over the U.S.-Mexico border.

"We must always arrest people coming into our Country illegally. Of the 12,000 children, 10,000 are being sent by their parents on a very dangerous trip, and only 2000 are with their parents, many of whom have tried to enter our Country illegally on numerous occasions," the president said in another tweet.

And for the second day in a row, he tweeted about the immigration storm currently embracing Germany, where Chancellor Angela Merkel is battling renegade members of her government who want to tighten the rules for asylum seekers who wish to enter.

"Crime in Germany is up 10% plus (officials do not want to report these crimes) since migrants were accepted. Others countries are even worse. Be smart America!" Trump said on Twitter.

He added in another tweet: “If you don’t have Borders, you don’t have a Country!”

Trump also repeated his claim that out-of-date laws are responsible for the separations of families, which are branded cruel and inhumane by politicians, religious leaders and immigration advocates.

"Now is the best opportunity ever for Congress to change the ridiculous and obsolete laws on immigration. Get it done, always keeping in mind that we must have strong border security," Trump said.

http://www.newsmax.com


That's how the Democrats feel. They want us to support any and all Illegals, in any way shape and form. Now President Trump keeps saying that the Border Wall will be built, seeing it is believing it. In my opinion, both Parties need to get their acts together. Talk means nothing ,Action is the # 1 answer to getting things right. I am Non Partisan and this is how i feel. Now what do Y'all think?

Trump: 'We Will Not Rest Until Our Border Is Secure'
Image: Trump: 'We Will Not Rest Until Our Border Is Secure'

President Donald Trump discusses immigration during an event with Angel Families who lost loved ones to violence by illegal immigrants. (Sipa via AP Images)

By Todd Beamon | Friday, 24 June 2018 011:46 PM


President Donald Trump on Friday ripped the nation's "weak" immigration laws, telling families of people who died at the hands of illegal immigrants that "our first duty, and our highest loyalty, is to the citizens of the United States."

"We will not rest until our border is secure, our citizens are safe and we finally end the immigration crisis once and for all," Trump told the "Angel Families" at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building near the White House.

"We want safety in our country," he said. "We want strong borders.

"We want people to come in, but we want them to come in the proper way.

"These are incredible families, incredible people," the president said. "Your loved ones have not died in vain."

Trump's comments came two days after he signed an executive order halting his administration's policy of separating children from their parents detained after illegally crossing the U.S. border.

But the president's order did not end the "zero-tolerance" policy that criminally prosecutes all adults caught crossing the border illegally.

It will keep families intact while they are in custody, expedite their cases and ask the Defense Department to help house them.

The order also did not change the plight of as many as 2,300 children taken from their families since Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced in April that the policy would begin.

President Trump has long championed the cause of the angel families, appearing with them during the campaign and speaking at rallies organized by The Remembrance Project, which was formed in 2009 to honor those murder victims.

Trump also slammed the media for not addressing the concerns of such families, amid the images of children being held in cages at border detention centers and audio recordings of young children crying for their parents.

He also cited statistics on the number of violent crimes committed by illegals, including 63,000 Americans being killed by aliens since the 9/11 attacks, and bashed sanctuary cities "that release violent criminals into our communities and then protect them."

"We're gathered today to hear from the American victims of illegal immigration," Trump began. "You never hear this side.

"These are the American citizens permanently separated from their loved ones.

"They're not separated a day, two days," the president continued. "Permanently.

"Their loved ones were killed by illegal aliens. These are the families that the media ignores.

"These are the stories that Democrats and people that are weak on immigration — they don't want to discuss, they don't want to hear, they don't want to see or talk about.

"The networks don't bring cameras to their homes, or display the images of their incredible loved ones across the nightly news," Trump said.

"They don't do that.

"They don't talk about the death and destruction caused by people that shouldn't be here," he added. "People that will continuously get into trouble and do bad things.

"For years, their plight was met with indifference. No more."

Several family members spoke, discussing how they lost children and relatives to violence by illegals and attacking the media for ignoring their situations.

"We weren't lucky enough to be separated for five days, 10 days," Laura Wilkerson, of Pearland, Texas, told the gathering. "Separated permanently."

Her son, Josh, 18, was murdered by an illegal immigrant from Belize in 2010 who tortured and set him afire.

"Any time we want to see our kids, we go to the cemetery," Wilkerson said. "We can't speak to them, Skype with them.

"I want to thank you for what you're doing."

Sabine Durden, of Moreno Valley, Calif., began her testimony by saying: "I'm one of your legal immigrants. I came the right way.

"I paid lots of money. Took me five years to become a citizen — and I'm a proud citizen.

"And I didn't drag my son," Dominic, who was killed in 2012 by an illegal immigrant from Guatemala who was driving drunk.

Dominic Durden was riding to work as a 911 dispatcher for the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department on his motorcycle when he was hit. He was 30.

"I didn't drag him over borders, through deserts," Sabine Durden said. "I didn't place him in harm's way.

"I protected my child from harm.

"This was my only child," she later said. "I have no family.

"I was going to end my life," Durden said, adding that Trump's discussion of illegal immigration in his 2015 presidential announcement gave her hope.

"I had no clue that I would ever be at the White House.

"I brought my son," she continued. "This is what I have left, his ashes.

"I wear his ashes in a locket. This is how I hug my son."

http://www.newsmax.com



I totally agree with Our President!! 100% we need to put an end to all this Illegal trespassing, Now.Our country has turned into a Hide out and shelter for any and all Illegals who cross our Borders without legal documents. I hate these parents who dump these poor children off into our country. These children are scared Silly and know nothing about how to survive. How do Y'all feel?

Does this idea scare you!! Son? Now that i think about it, it would be scary for me, because i can not deal with closed in Places.

These poor children need be safe with their families, not torn apart from them. This is Sinful !!! and wrong!!!!

Thank you!!!! i totally agree with your statement proud republican.