House Democrats to Introduce Bill for More Refugee Admissions from Central America

As the immigration crisis at the border continues unabated with hundreds of thousands of migrants suffering and even dying on the treacherous trek through Mexico to the U.S. border, Democrats are blaming President Donald Trump and gearing up to introduce legislation to increase the number of refugees admitted to 100,000 a year.

This despite evidence that shows some 500,000 migrants —mostly from Central America— will get across the U.S./ Mexico border without being apprehended, including women and children. The United Nations reports that in 2018 the United States took in around 23,000 refugees from all over the world.

A refugee is an immigrant who gains asylum after the court grants him or her that status because they have met the “credible fear” standard of persecution in their home countries.

In an opinion piece in the Washington Post, the commentator blames President Donald Trump, even though Trump has tried multiple avenues to end the illegal immigration crisis at the U.S. border with Mexico, including declaring a national emergency at the border, diverting federal defense funds to secure the border, and crafting comprehensive immigration reform legislation.

Thus far, judges and Democrats have thwarted those efforts.

The Post reported:

Do we want to make it harder for desperate people to legally secure refuge in the United States, or easier for them to legally do so?

The Democratic answer to this question is: Make it easier for desperate people to migrate, provided it is done in a legal and orderly fashion, in as many ways as good policy allows.

(Trump has blamed the Democrats not only for their inaction on the current border crisis but also for putting in place incentives — like catch and release and special treatment for migrants with children, even children that aren’t their own — that encourages migrants to come to the United States.)

“Now House Democrats are set to roll out a major new proposal on the asylum crisis that will constitute a big down payment on the longer-term argument Democrats are making,” the Post commentary said.

The bill is called the Northern Triangle and Border Stabilization Act — the majority of migrants in this latest border surge come from that Triangle: El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala.

Congress is currently fighting over $4.5 billion in humanitarian border funding.

The new bill would, according to the Post, increase services to minor migrants in federal custody, create more ways for Central Americans to get refugee status before coming to the U.S., expand “dramatically” the support for migrant families while their cases are being processed, and increase financial investment in Central America to address the alleged problems migrants are fleeing.

The Post notes that the 100,000 number is “separate and apart from the refugees we take in from elsewhere.”

The Democrats are playing the emotional card, as evidenced on the House floor last week when Rep. Tony Cardenas (D-CA) expressed the idea that all immigrants are “human beings” who deserve the same rights as citizens.

“The United States of America has been the gold standard and that is the argument that we are making today,” Cardenas said. “This is not a game.”

“We are fighting for the lives of human beings who should have the opportunity to be like everyone else on this floor to be allowed the freedom to be who they choose to be, who God made them to be in the greatest place on the planet,” Cardenas said. “And that’s why we are fighting today.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/06/30/house-democrats-introduce-bill-more-refugee-admissions-central-america/

NUNES: There’s Something ‘Odd’ About Mueller’s Upcoming Testimony – ‘There Won’t Be Enough Time to Get Everyone’s Questions In’ (VIDEO)

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) told Judge Jeanine on Saturday night that there is something ‘odd’ about Mueller’s upcoming testimony to Congress.

Mueller is set to publicly testify to the House Judiciary Committee and House Intel Committee on July 17.

Nunes, a ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee warned that Mueller will only be testifying for a total of four hours to two separate panels so there won’t be enough time for everyone to question him.

“I don’t know which direction he’s [Mueller] going to go…one is he’s just not going to say anything, which is very possible, but it’s also very possible too that he could throw a monkey wrench in things,” Nunes said.

“What’s odd about this is, supposedly he’s only agreed to testify for four hours — but four hours with the House Intelligence Committee and the House Judiciary Committee is not enough time to get everyone’s questions in,” he said.

There’s more…

Mueller refuses to testify behind closed doors so he’s sending his “pit bull” Weissmann and his crooked team in to testify.

Former US Attorney Joe diGenova also fired a warning shot about Mueller’s bizarre testimony.

DiGenova warned that the real damage to President Trump will be done when Andrew Weissmann testifies in “executive session with unlimited questioning.”

“[Mueller’s} testimony is going to be basically worthless,” diGenova said on Friday to Lou Dobbs. "The real damage is going to be done the next day when they have testimony from Weissmann and his aides which will be done in executive session with unlimited questioning. That’s when the damage to the president is going to be done,” he said.

DiGenova called Mueller a "figurehead” and asserted that this has always been the Weissmann investigation and it will be "the Weissmann testimony,” he added.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/06/nunes-theres-something-odd-about-muellers-upcoming-testimony-there-wont-be-enough-time-to-get-everyones-questions-in-video/

Seven People Killed, 181 Injured in Sunday's Protests in Sudan - Reports

Death toll in Sunday's anti-government protests in Sudan has reached seven people, while 181 people were wounded, local media reported, citing the country's Health Ministry.

On Sunday, Al-Arabiya broadcaster reported that unknown snipers opened fire on civilians and members of the country's Rapid Support Forces, as thousands of people took to the streets demanding transition of power from the military to a civilian rule. Later that day, the Central Committee of Sudan Doctors said that five people were killed in the protests in the capital city of Khartoum.

SUNA news agency reported that 27 people of those 181 injured suffered gunshot wounds.

Sudan's Transitional Military Council (TMC) has earlier placed responsibility for all potential consequences of Sunday's protests on the opposition Forces of Freedom and Change protest movement, which had reportedly called for a "million man" march on Sunday in the cities of Khartoum and Omdurman. A Sputnik correspondent reported that the Sudanese police used tear gas to disperse protesters rallying in the city of Khartoum North.

Months of anti-government protests in Sudan culminated in a military coup on April 11. Then-President Omar Bashir, who had been in power for 30 years, was overthrown and then imprisoned. The TMC came to power and pledged to hold a new election within two years. However, the protests have continued, with demonstrators demanding that the military hand over power to a civilian government.

The situation in the capital of Sudan and in the whole country sharply deteriorated on June 3, when the Sudanese military dispersed part of the protest tent camp in Khartoum, killing more than 100 civilians. The opposition responded with a strike and actions of civil disobedience and called for the transfer of power to a civilian government as soon as possible.

https://sputniknews.com/africa/201907011076109167-people-killed-injured-sunday-protests-sudan/

The Truth | 10 Minutes For The NEXT 20 Years of Your LIFE

Jesus loves you!

Ever Wonder Why The Founding Fathers Were Against A Standing Army? Here’s The Answer.

So why were the Founding Fathers afraid of having a standing army? A piece by DC Dirty Laundry has the answer:

Once established, a government’s military, its bureaucrats and leaders, as well as laymen all face a different set of incentives. Those with a job related to the military have an incentive to keep their job. In most cases, they probably also desire to see the scope of their power expanded and their pay increased. The support for war, then, is the ideal policy for achieving those goals. These incentives may not transform a champion of peace into a war-loving bureaucrat, but they can have effects on the margins. It’s much easier to rationalize a war if your job depends on it.

More interestingly, the average citizen’s incentives change. To see what I mean, let’s take a look at the introduction of the permanent standing army in 19th century America.

Prior to the rise of the U.S. standing army, relations between natives and white settlers were relatively peaceful. It’s not that white settlers always felt warm feelings toward native Americans (or vice versa). Many did not. The reality of fighting one’s own battles, however, entailed significant costs.

In an essay entitled “Exchange, Sovereignty, and Indian-Anglo Relations,” Jennifer Roback remarks:

Europeans generally acknowledged that the Indians retained possessory rights to their lands. More important, the English recognized the advantage of being on friendly terms with the Indians. Trade with the Indians, especially the fur trade, was profitable. War was costly. More than is generally appreciated, the contact (between Indians and whites) was even friendly, or at least peaceful.

After the U.S. maintained a permanent army, however, things changed. Most of the disincentives for war disappeared. The monetary costs that maintained the army were spread out over the entire populace and those who demanded the army’s services paid no additional price. Nor did they now need to risk their own life. Frontiersmen could now call upon subsidized troops to do their fighting for them. This had the effect of lowering the threshold for when settlers could justify resorting to violence against their Indian neighbors.

In “Raid or Trade? An Economic Model of Indian-White Relations,” the authors accounted for a number of possible contributing factors, such as population change and newly settled land, and concluded the establishment of a standing army during the Mexican War had an independent effect of an increase of almost 12 battles a year. They estimated the buildup of the standing army before and during the Civil War caused an increase of around 25 battles a year.

WaPo, NYT Giving Dangerous Platform To Left-Wing Apologists Stoking Civil Discord

The Washington Post and New York Times have recently opened up their platforms to Op-Eds defending, justifying and promoting abhorrent behavior committed against conservatives. Calling them out is the Washington Examiner's Byron York, who notes that "the toxicity of the resistance to President Trump has risen in recent days," with both papers "publishing rationalizations for denying Trump supporters public accommodation and for doxxing career federal employees."

First up, Stephanie Wilkinson, the owner of the infamous Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia. Wiklinson unapologetically booted White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders and her family last June. Wilkinson told the Washington Post at the time that her gay employees were too triggered by Sanders to serve her due to the Trump administration's transgender military ban.

On Friday, Wilkinson essentially told conservatives that it's their own fault if they are attacked in public.

In her new article, Wilkinson discussed the case of The Aviary, a trendy bar in Chicago where a waitress recently spat on Eric Trump, the president's son. Wilkinson wrote that the incident, along with her own decision to oust Sanders, shows that in the age of Trump "new rules apply" in public accommodations: Americans who work for the administration or support the president should stay away.

"If you're directly complicit in spreading hate or perpetuating suffering, maybe you should consider dining at home," Wilkinson wrote.

Wilkinson noted that "no one in the industry condones the physical assault of a patron," but at the same time declared that Americans should understand that a "frustrated person" – for example, a restaurant employee – will "lash[] out at the representatives of an administration that has made its name trashing norms and breaking backs." Americans should accept that such things will happen.

"If you're an unsavory individual," Wilkinson concluded, "we have no legal or moral obligation to do business with you." Better to stay home than risk the spittle. (And of course, Wilkinson and her colleagues in the hospitality industry will decide who is "unsavory.") -Washington Examiner

And what constitutes an unsavory individual? Apparently half of the country!

New York Times and Doxxing

York next calls out the New York Times for allowing a University College London assistant professor of human rights, Kate Cronin-Furman, who justifies doxxing the personal details of low-and-mid level Customs and Border Protection employees who are responsible for taking care of migrant children at border detention facilities.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-30/wapo-nyt-giving-dangerous-platform-left-wing-apologists-stoking-civil-discord