Monthly Archives: August 2017

Europe’s Leaders Place Their Personal Careers Above Their Nation, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its report on why Europe’s leaders aren’t responding to the terrorism devastating their nations.

The Pew Research Center notes that Muslims are younger than other Europeans. “In 2010, the median age of Muslims throughout Europe was 32, eight years younger than the median for all Europeans (40). By contrast, the median age of religiously unaffiliated people in Europe, including atheists, agnostics and those with no religion in particular, was 37. The median age of European Christians was 42.”

A Spectator analysis of Christopher Deliso’s study, Migration, Terrorism, and the Future of a Divided Europe emphasizes that his examination didn’t indicate that the massive migration was spontaneous or the result of disruption in Islamic homelands.

“By the end of 2015, 1.1 million migrants and refugees arrived in Europe by sea… little about the war in Syria had changed to explain this mad increase in volume. Rather, [Turkey’s autocratic leader] Erdogan used migration to extract concessions from the EU: By March 2016, desperate to make him turn off the spigot, the EU gifted Turkey with 3 billion euro for refugee hosting expenses and visa-free travel for Turkish citizens.” In addition, Deliso also reports that globalists “trumpeted the human rights of asylum seekers over the security of borders; lobbied the United Nations, European Union, and U.S. Government to see the world his way; and financed a legion of pro-migration NGOs, think tanks, academics, and activists to facilitate this movement.”

Criminal organizations also played a role. “Human trafficking, weapons and drug smuggling, antiquities theft, and document fraud were all exponentially mobilized to facilitate and finance illegal transit. Criminal revenue from migrant smuggling in 2015, to and within the EU, was an estimated 3-6 billion euros according to Europol. Corrupt diplomats got in on the act: The author interviewed the former employee of an Athens-based, Muslim-majority embassy who said the consulate sold passports to migrants for 1,000 euros each.”

Islamic sources are not shy about their ultimate goal.  Their aim, which has been an historical constant for millennia, is not assimilation into Europe’s mainstream; it is the eventual control of the continent.

As CBN outlines:

“the Persians invaded Europe in an attempt to conquer the Greeks in the fifth century B.C…After Mohammed’s death in 632, the new Muslim caliph, Abu Bakr, launched Islam into almost 1,500 years of continual imperialist, colonialist, bloody conquest and subjugation of others through invasion and war, a role Islam continues to this very day….The Muslim wars of imperialist conquest have been launched for almost 1,500 years against hundreds of nations, over millions of square miles (significantly larger than the British Empire at its peak). The lust for Muslim imperialist conquest stretched from southern France to the Philippines, from Austria to Nigeria, and from central Asia to New Guinea.”

The new wave of invasion is different from the military strategy of the past. It is based, instead, on Europe’s declining native population, in contrast with the high fertility rate of the global Islamic population. A report by Italy’s Machiavelli Political and Strategic Study Center notes: “Europe and Italy face.. unprecedented…migratory flows. This is primarily due to the concomitance of European demographic decline (from 22% of the world’s population in 1950 to 7% in 2050) and African demographic explosion (from 9% to 25% of the world’s population over a hundred years). In 2065 the share of first and second generation immigrants in Italy could exceed 40% of the total population. In addition, there is greater homogeneity of immigration: the first ten nationalities account for 64% of total immigrants today, while in the 1970s only 13%. All this does not deviate from what is happening in several Western European countries. By 2065 in Great Britain, the British ethnicity should lose the absolute majority in their own country. Today in Germany, children under 5 are 36% immigrant children, suggesting a major change in the next generation’s ethnic composition. This ethno-demographic revival of the European population, and in particular Italy, must be part of the ongoing debate on migration policies.”

Serious discussions about changes in Europe’s incautious immigration policy have been virtually ignored by continental governments. Why?

The answer may rest with the internal politics of the continent.  Since the end of the Second World War, Western European politicians have depended on providing substantial social welfare benefits to their voters. Much of their ability to provide these costly programs depended on a growing population.

The New York Times reported on the dilemma several years ago: “Europeans have boasted about their social model, with its generous vacations and early retirements…But all over Europe governments with big budgets, falling tax revenues and aging populations are experiencing rising deficits, with more bad news ahead. With low growth, low birthrates and longer life expectancies, Europe can no longer afford its comfortable lifestyle…”

European leaders, frightened of confronting their voters with the news that those financially unrealistic benefits are longer affordable, chose instead to replenish the diminishing young population with migrants from the Middle East and Africa. Their gamble that the new arrivals would assimilate has proven a failure.  By refusing to admit their error, they have placed their own careers (and comfortable life styles) above the very future of their nation, their culture, and their civilization itself.

Response to Harvey

Please note: we will conclude our analysis of Europe’s leaders tomorrow. 

 

The devastation in Houston requires a nationwide response.  There are several ways to send help:

 Hurricane Harvey Relief Fund, established by Houston Mayor S. Turner.  Tax-deductible online credit card donations should be sent via www.ghcf.org. (a small fee will applies.) 

American Red Cross. Go to  redcross.org,  or call 1- 800-RED CROSS.

Salvation Army: Go to www.helpsalvationarmy.org or call 1-800-725-2769.

Catholic Charities USA: Go to catholiccharitiesusa.org.

 

The Washington Post notes: “The rain from Harvey is in a class of its own. The storm has unloaded over 50 inches of rain east of Houston, the greatest amount ever recorded in the Lower 48 states from a single storm. And it’s still raining. John Nielsen-Gammon, Texas state climatologist, said a rain gauge near Mont Belvieu at Cedar Bayou, about 40 miles east of Houston, had registered 51.9 inches of rain through late Tuesday afternoon. This total exceeds the previous record of 48 inches set during tropical cyclone Amelia in Medina, Texas in 1978.”

Unlike the botched response to Hurricane Katrina by former New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin, (D) (who was eventually convicted to a 10-year sentence for bribery and fraud committed while he was in office,) and the incompetence of former governor Kathleen B. Blanco, (D) the response by President Trump, Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner, and Texas Governor Greg Abbott has been timely and effective.

American Thinker reported that “President Bush declared the state of Louisiana a disaster area 48 hours before Katrina made landfall and asked Blanco to order a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans on Aug. 27, a full two days before the hurricane hit. Neither Blanco nor Nagin ordered city buses to help evacuate those residents who couldn’t leave on their own even though the city’s own emergency plan mandated it and acknowledged there were at least 100,000 people who couldn’t make it out without help…After not evacuating the city, the Louisiana Department of Homeland Security blocked a convoy of Red Cross trucks filled with water, food, blankets and hygiene items from the New Orleans Superdome after Katrina struck.”

A number of pressure groups have attempted to use the disaster to further political rhetoric.  Climate change extremists have attempted to blame warming for the event, but that overlooks the actual reason the damage has been so severe.  As noted by RealClearScience  “storms striking Texas represented problems long before…One of the deadliest storms in US history occurred in 1900, when a hurricane swept ashore over Galveston, killing more than 6,000 people – more than triple Hurricane Katrina’s death toll in 2005. We often do not know details about the strength of past hurricanes or the height of their floodwaters. But we do know that fewer people lived – and much less infrastructure lay – along the storms’ paths. Yet tragedies such as Galveston still manifested…”

Absurdly, MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle, as reported by Glen Beck, asked whether illegal immigrants would be deported if they went to storm shelters. To our knowledge, no such action had even been contemplated.

Because of the exceptionally expensive and prolonged cost of returning to normalcy in the wake of Harvey, Congress will have to make some decisions.  Some fear that regional hard feelings may come into play, since some Texas representatives were not considered cooperative in providing funding following Hurricane Sandy, which affected the Northeast. However, those fears appear unfounded as of this point. As U.S. News , Northeastern Representatives have already tweeted their intentions: “Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., on Monday said …I’ll vote 4 Harvey aid. NY won’t abandon Texas…Above all, true Americans must stand together. New Jersey Republican Rep. Frank LoBiondo agreed. “I will support emergency disaster $$ for those impacted,” he wrote. “Disasters & emergencies are just that…disasters & emergencies. Must stand together as Americans.”

Europe’s Leaders Place Their Personal Careers Above Their Nation

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government reveals why Europe’s leaders aren’t responding to the terrorism devastating their nations.

The devastating attacks in Spain, (According to WRAL, “The Islamic State group claimed responsibility, saying in a statement on its Aamaq news agency that the attack was carried out by ‘soldiers of the Islamic State.”) are horrific, but not novel.  The Guardian  notes that “Europe has endured seven acts of vehicle terrorism in the past year.” The targeted killings of females in Finland, wide-scale rapes in Germany and Sweden, the near-constant assaults in Paris, the murders near Parliament in the United Kingdom, indeed, the constant wave of terror  are the works of Muslim extremists.

Britain’s Mirror newspaper quotes Nigel Farage,  who believes “there’s an ‘obvious’ link between ‘uncontrolled immigration’ and terrorism in the wake of the Barcelona attack…” According to Farage, “The link is obvious isn’t it. Anyone that doesn’t recognise that link is simply in denial. We are told if you pick out and identify a problem in any religious group, that is a bad thing to do…The truth of it is we have two problems. The first is we have Muslim communities living in Western European cities who are separated off from the rest of the community. They are doing badly at school, badly at work, you know they really are, and pray in many, many ways to an extremist ideology. So that’s a problem of a total lack of integration in our cities.”

Pew Research notes that “…Recent killings in Paris as well as the arrival of hundreds of thousands of mostly Muslim refugees in Europe have drawn renewed attention to the continent’s Muslim population. In many European countries, including France, Belgium, Germany, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, concerns about growing Muslim communities have led to calls for restrictions on immigration… Muslims are younger than other Europeans. In 2010, the median age of Muslims throughout Europe was 32, eight years younger than the median for all Europeans (40). By contrast, the median age of religiously unaffiliated people in Europe, including atheists, agnostics and those with no religion in particular, was 37. The median age of European Christians was 42.”

A Gatestone Institute report  quotes some of the voices that are speaking out on the issue. The Archbishop of Strasbourg states: “Muslim believers know very well that their fertility is such today, that they call it… the Great Replacement. They tell you in a very calm, very positive way: One day all this, all this will be ours…” Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán “warned against a ‘Muslimized Europe”.

National Review  weighs in on the issue: “EU bureaucrats should hear the message loud and clear: Muslim migration waves are a pressing problem, and the public is fed up. The European Union announced this week that it would begin proceedings to punish Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic for their refusal to accept refugees and migrants under a 2015 scheme the E.U. commission created…The conflict between the EU and these three nations of the Visegrád Group is not just about the authority the EU can arrogate to itself when facing an emergency (one largely of its own making), but about the character of European government and society in the future. It is hard not to conclude that the dissenting countries are correct to dissent. Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia had voted against the 2015 agreement. Poland’s government had supported it then, but a subsequent election saw a new party come into power that rejected the scheme.”

Adrian Michaels, reporting for The Telegraph  stressed that  “Britain and the…European Union are ignoring a demographic time bomb: a recent rush into the EU by migrants, including millions of Muslims, will change the continent beyond recognition over the next two decades, and almost no policy-makers are talking about it. The numbers are startling. Only 3.2 per cent of Spain’s population was foreign-born in 1998. In 2007 it was 13.4 per cent. Europe’s Muslim population has more than doubled in the past 30 years and will have doubled again by 2015. In Brussels, the top seven baby boys’ names recently were Mohamed, Adam, Rayan, Ayoub, Mehdi, Amine and Hamza… EU officials admit that these issues are not receiving the attention they deserve… It could have a critical impact on foreign policy: a study was submitted to the US Air Force on how America’s relationship with Europe might evolve.”

The Report concludes tomorrow.

Afghanistan Policy Had to Change, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy & Government concludes its examination of why America’s Afghanistan policy needed to be changed.

Much attention will be paid to the President’s rejection of the concept of nation building programs simultaneous with military activities within a theater of operations. The “hearts and minds” philosophy that became famous during the Vietnam war, the idea that extensive civilian aid projects are a necessary component of warfighting, failed then, and it is has failed in Afghanistan.

Much of the nation-building drives over the past half-century or so by U.S. political leaders were, at least in part, public relations attempts to appeal to anti-war elements at home by demonstrating that America’s involvement in various conflicts were more than just about the deployment of military force. Unfortunately, much of that effort was unrealistic.  Building infrastructure is a waste of time if opposing forces and readily destroy what has been constructed, and punish those who took part in the effort.

Support for nation-building frequently centers on the great success stories of post-WW2 Germany and Japan.  Both nations were essentially devastated, and were redeveloped, thanks to America, into exceptionally prosperous and peaceful countries. But the examples miss a key element: both had unconditionally surrendered before their reconstruction began.  The military threat was eliminated, and governments were established that had little choice but to cooperate fully with Washington.

The contrast with Afghanistan couldn’t be more clear. As the New York Post  recently noted: “A fundamental problem in Afghanistan is that Americans have been dying for a woefully corrupt succession of governments in Kabul for which young Afghans have been unwilling to die. ..Our self-absorbed counter-insurgency strategy assumes that the people will rally around the government we support. But that didn’t happen in South Vietnam, and it didn’t happen in Afghanistan. In both cases, a flood of American wealth turned petty thieves into crime bosses with cabinet posts…”

A Rand Corporation  study notes “…the costs and risks associated with nation-building have remained high. Consequently, the United States has not embarked on such endeavors lightly. It withdrew from Somalia in 1993 at the first serious resistance. It opted out of international efforts to stem genocide in Rwanda in 1994. It resisted European efforts to entangle it in Balkan peace enforcement through four years of bloody civil war. After intervening in Bosnia, it spent another three years pursuing a nonmilitary solution to ethnic repression in Kosovo. In spite of this reticence, each successive post–Cold War U.S.-led intervention has generally been wider in scope and more ambitious in intent than its predecessor. In Somalia, the original objective was purely humanitarian but subsequently expanded to democratization. In Haiti, the objective was to reinstall a president and conduct elections according to an existing constitution. In Bosnia, it was to create a multiethnic state. In Kosovo, it was to establish a democratic polity and market economy virtually from scratch. During his presidential campaign in 2000, George W. Bush criticized the Clinton administration for this expansive agenda of nation-building. As President, Bush adopted a more-modest set of objectives when faced with a comparable challenge in Afghanistan. The current administration’s efforts to reverse the trend toward ever larger and more ambitious U.S.-led nation-building operations have proven short lived, however.”

The U.S. Army War College  offers a particularly sharp criticism of nation-building as a strategy that can defeat terrorism:

“America’s push to democratize Afghanistan and Iraq may have made terrorism and insurgency more feasible. Well before 2001, eminent governance scholars had noted that key democracy enablers, such as liberal institutions and culture, were absent in Muslim-majority countries, making successful democracy unlikely.43 The research further indicated higher levels of political violence were associated with intermediate forms of government, such as infant democracies. An ineffective government may make terrorism more feasible, particularly if the state security force is ineffective or non-existent. Finally, attempts to replace autocracies in Afghanistan and Iraq with representative governments were unlikely to succeed due to the negative effects from decades of trauma. At the time of the US invasions, Afghanistan had been at war for more than 20 consecutive years and Iraq had been at war for 16 of the previous 20. As United Nations data show, both countries already had high numbers of refugees and internally displaced persons for many years. Moreover, Iraqis and Afghans endured extremely high rates of political violence and terror well before 9/11. Both populations were suffering the negative effects of substantial and enduring trauma.”

Afghanistan Policy Had to Change

The New York Analysis of Policy & Government examines why America’s Afghanistan policy needed to be changed in this two-part review

Most of the media has missed the actual key points of the President’s Afghanistan speech.

The impact of Mr. Trump’s significant changes to the manner in which the United States conducts that armed conflict will extend beyond the battle against the Taliban.  Indeed, to a great extent, Monday’s speech merely solidified what the current White House had already decided to do in another fight, that against ISIS. Concepts such as nation-building and political micromanagement have been tried and have failed.

The President’s move is not surprising. In June, Defense Secretary James Mattis testified before the House Armed Services Committee that the U.S. was “not winning” the war in Afghanistan. Military.com reported that Mattis testified that he “…now has the authority to send several thousand more U.S. troops to Afghanistan…Mattis said President Donald Trump …’delegated to me the authority to set troop levels in Afghanistan. We will define the way ahead, and I will set the military commitment’ in concert with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson under a new strategy to shore up the Afghan defense forces and the Kabul government.”

Major changes were necessitated by both the general failure over the past decades to reduce terrorism, and in particular, Barack Obama’s stunning strategic errors and resulting failures in the War on Terror.  These included the premature withdrawal from Iraq, which led to the empowerment of ISIS; his bizarre public announcement of a departure date from Afghanistan; his negotiations with the Taliban; his role in the ouster of governments on the side of the West in fighting-Islamic extremism in Libya and Egypt; his inexplicable support for the radical anti-American regime in Iran; the lies and still undisclosed reasons for ignoring the attack on Benghazi; and his amateurish and counterproductive micromanagement of U.S. military operations.

The U.S. Army War College  notes that in the larger War on Terror, “America’s efforts…have been substantial and sustained, with more than four trillion dollars spent, two and a half million military members sent into harm’s way, and nearly 7,000 service members losing their lives over the past 15 years.”

Clearly a different approach has become necessary, but many are not ready to admit that. President Trump’s move to end the Obama White House practice of  micromanagement of military operations, is, according to Roll Call alarming “Senior Democratic members” despite the reality that prior practices have demonstrably failed.

In the aftermath of Obama’s ascension to the presidency, his Administration’s micromanagement was a key factor in increased American deaths in the field. As Rowan Scarborough noted in a 2013 Washington Times study  “The number of U.S. battlefield fatalities exceeded the rate at which troop strength surged in 2009 and 2010, prompting national security analysts to assert that coinciding stricter rules of engagement led to more deaths…it is clear that the rules of engagement, which restrain troops from firing in order to spare civilian casualties, cut back on airstrikes and artillery strikes — the types of support that protect troops during raids and ambushes. ‘In Afghanistan, the [rules of engagement] that were put in place in 2009 and 2010 have created hesitation and confusion for our war fighters,’ said Wayne Simmons, a retired U.S. intelligence officer who worked in NATO headquarters in Kabul as the rules took effect, first under Army Gen. Stanley M. McChrystal, then Army Gen. David H. Petraeus. ‘It is no accident nor a coincidence that from January 2009 to August of 2010, coinciding with the Obama/McChrystal radical change of the [rules of engagement], casualties more than doubled,’ Mr. Simmons said. ‘The carnage will certainly continue as the already fragile and ineffective [rules] have been further weakened by the Obama administration as if they were playground rules.”

The Report concludes Monday.

What are the Goals of Sanctuary City Advocates? Part 3

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its three-part examination of the problems associated with sanctuary cities, and the goals of those who advocate not cooperating with federal law enforcement regarding illegal aliens.

Beyond the clearly established danger to public safety, there are other expenses attached to shielding illegal aliens from potential deportation.

Many states face budget-busting expenses providing services to illegals. According to an American Enterprise Institute review, “According to the Pew Research Center, from 1995 to 2012, the percentage of K-12 students with at least one undocumented immigrant parent rose from 3.2 to 6.9%.  In California, this figure was 13.2%, and 17.7% in Nevada—the highest in the country…

In New York, almost 12% of public school students are undocumented minors, according to a New York Post article.”

Stephen Dinan, writing in the Washington Times, notes that Steven A. Camarota, research director at the Center for Immigration Studies, crunched the numbers and found that the current population of illegal immigrants will drain nearly $750 billion from taxpayers over their lifetimes.

Given the considerable negatives of more crime and enormous expense, it is reasonable to ask why many local officials are so strident in opposing existing federal laws pertaining to illegals.

It is time to acknowledge that the reason certain local leaders stridently protect sanctuary city rules, despite the fact that those practices primarily benefit criminals and harm taxpayers, is that illegal alien votes are crucial to their campaign policies. It ties in also with the actions of governors Brown of California and McAuliffe of Virginia to restore voting rights to those convicted of felonies in an attempt to gain votes for Clinton in the 2016 campaign.

The California Political Review reports:  “Since 80 percent of noncitizens vote Democratic, according to[a] study, noncitizen participation could have ‘been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes [in North Carolina in 2008], and Congressional elections’ such as the 2008 race in Minnesota in which Al Franken was elected to the U.S. Senate…mounting evidence makes clear this is a real problem.”

Non-citizens are voting in U.S. elections, according to an Old Dominion University study. The analysis examined participation rates by non-citizens using a nationally represented sample that included non-citizen immigrants. It found that “some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including electoral college votes and Congressional elections.  Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama priorities in the 111th Congress.”

A study of voter fraud (also reported in Truth Revolt ) by Harvard’s Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) confirmed the findings of Judicial Watch on the role illegal immigrants have played in recent elections. The study found that enough non-citizens voted in 2008 to potentially “turn the tide” in favor of the Democrats.

A 2004 study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform  noted:

“There is evidence that noncitizens are being registered and casting votes, but due to the laxity in checking the eligibility of registrants and voters the full extent of the problem is not known. One of the most extensively documented cases of illegal voting was in California in 1996. Loretta Sanchez, a Democrat, defeated Republican incumbent Robert Dornan by 984 votes. Dornan called for an investigation of alleged illegal voting by noncitizens. According to Congressional Quarterly…’Task force Chairman [U.S. Representative] Vernon J. Ehlers, R-Mich., said investigators had found concrete evidence of 748 illegal votes by noncitizens…’

“A lack of attention to the phenomenon of non-citizen voting and a failure to impose penalties against those who cast votes fraudulently has rendered laws against such activity meaningless. It is a federal crime to vote illegally. However, in all cases that have been documented of illegal voting in recent years there apparently has never been a prosecution and, therefore, no penalty has been assessed. Some of the cases involved the discovery of illegal voting by aliens during investigation of applicants for U.S. citizenship. Even though illegal voting could have made the alien ineligible for U.S. citizenship, the disqualification was waived. Therefore, the penalty in the law against illegal voting could be likened to a paper tiger.”

What are the Goals of Sanctuary City Advocates? Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government continues with Part 2 of its three-part examination of the problems associated with sanctuary cities, and the goals of those who advocate not cooperating with federal law enforcement regarding illegal aliens.

David Rivkin and Elizabeth Price Foley, writing in the L.A. Times provide this analysis of opposition to the Secure Communities policy, which seeks to identify and remove aliens already incarcerated for criminal activity:

“Activists…are crying foul, and some legal scholars, such as Harvard’s Noah Feldman, have even claimed [withholding funds] would be unconstitutional…[however] whatever one thinks about Trump’s strategy, it almost certainly would pass muster at the Supreme Court. Feldman and others point to New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court concluded that the federal government cannot conscript state or local officials to carry out federal law…This “anti-commandeering” doctrine, however, doesn’t protect sanctuary cities or public universities — because it doesn’t apply when Congress merely requests information…consistent with the anti-commandeering doctrine, Congress can require state, local or university police to tell federal agents when they arrest an immigrant present in the country illegally.”

Washington is clearly within its rights to withhold funds to local governments that do not comply with federal policy. That issue was litigated in the U.S. Supreme Court case of South Dakota v. Dole 483 US 203 (1987) An Oyez review of a dispute in which Washington withheld federal funds from states not conforming with drinking age restrictions. It notes that the U.S. Supreme Court “held that Congress, acting indirectly to encourage uniformity in states’ drinking ages, was within constitutional bounds. The Court found that the legislation was in pursuit of ‘the general welfare,’ and that the means chosen to do so were reasonable.”

Former Judge Andrew Napolitano has written that “The term ‘sanctuary cities’ is not a legal term, but it has been applied by those in government and the media to describe municipalities that offer expanded social services to the undocumented and decline to help the feds find them — including the case of Chicago’s offering undocumented immigrants money for legal fees to resist federal deportation.

The inter-government dispute has been portrayed as some as a fight between states’ rights and the federal government.  That is incorrect. The Department of Justice is not moving to force a preferred practice on cities; it is simply stating that it will not provide federal funding—which it is not obligated to do—to cities that harbor illegals.

Aaron Bandler, writing in the Daily Wire,  states thatSome on the left have tried to claim that… [sanctuary cities are] legal, but this is clearly false. As James Walsh, former associate general counsel of Immigration and Naturalization Services, explains, 8 USC section 1324  “deals with those persons who knowingly conceal, harbor, or shield undocumented aliens and could apply to officials in sanctuary cities and states…Not only do they refuse to cooperate with federal agents in deporting illegals, sanctuary cities make it more difficult for police officers to do their job. Some police officers in the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) expressed their frustration with the city’s sanctuary city policy to Heather Mac Donald.Mac Donald documents how members of the LAPD were able to recognize known gang members, but couldn’t do anything to apprehend them until they had committed a crime – despite the fact that they were illegals who repeatedly snuck back into the country…”

Many local government officials side with Washington. Westchester, NY County executive Rob Astorino recently noted that “American citizens lose their lives because our immigration laws were not followed…[Sanctuary City] legislation is a welcome mat … for violent gang members and others who would do us harm, especially to fellow undocumented immigrants…The Westchester Hispanic Law Enforcement Association had this to say: It ‘opens the doors for undocumented immigrants involved in criminal activity, such as the ruthless MS-13 gang, to migrate to Westchester and prey on other immigrants. It’s just common sense not to invite, and coddle, criminals…”

The Report concludes tomorrow.

What are the Goals of Sanctuary City Advocates?

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government takes a three-part examination of the problems associated with sanctuary cities, and the goals of those who advocate not cooperating with federal law enforcement regarding illegal aliens.

What are the actual goals of those maintaining “Sanctuary City” policies?

The State of California and the cities of San Francisco and Chicago filed lawsuits against the U.S. Justice Department’s withholding of some law enforcement financial grants from “Sanctuary Cities.” Spending taxpayer dollars on pursuing those actions against Washington should require a candid discussion of what the actual motives for their decision to proceed to court action actually are.

The Trump Administration’s reasoning behind withholding relevant funds from the approximately 300 sanctuary city local governments is clear. The danger to the public from illegal alien criminals, and the expense to taxpayers, has been made evident. Less clear is the rational of its opposition in this issue.

Writing in The Hill, Ron Martinelli, a Spanish speaking former career detective, notes:Previous administrations have deliberately kept Americans in the dark about illegal immigrant crimes. Most states and our federal government have kept information and statistics about illegal immigration, crimes committed by illegals and the costs borne by you the U.S. taxpayer out of public view…the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that 75 percent of all criminal defendants who were convicted and sentenced for federal drug offenses were illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants were also involved in 17 percent of all drug trafficking sentences and one third of all federal prison sentences. The U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Sentencing Commission reported that as of 2014, illegal immigrants were convicted and sentenced for over 13 percent of all crimes committed in the U.S. According to the FBI, 67,642 murders were committed in the U.S. from 2005 through 2008, and 115,717 from 2003 through 2009. The General Accounting Office documents that criminal immigrants committed 25,064 of these murders. To extrapolate out these statistics, this means that a population of just over 3.5 percent residing in the U.S. unlawfully committed 22 percent to 37 percent of all murders in the nation.”

Paul Bedard, in a Washington Times  article, reported that The Center for Immigration Studies found that “Over the 19-month period from January 1, 2014, to September 30, 2015, more than 17,000 detainers were rejected by [sanctuary city] jurisdictions. Of these, about 11,800 detainers, or 68 percent, were issued for individuals with a prior criminal history.”  (“Detainers” are requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement to city and county law enforcement to hold a suspected illegal criminal for federal arrest.)

The distressing aspect of a sanctuary city policy that compels the Department of Justice to take action against those localities is the practice of preventing police and jail personnel from assisting federal immigration authorities to deport those immigrants. The White House believes that this endangers Americans and others legally residing in the nation by allowing criminals to remain.

Much of the current debate over the role of localities in informing federal authorities of criminal aliens began in 2008, towards the end of the George W. Bush administration, with the development of the U.S. Immigration and Customs and Enforcement (ICE) Agency’s “Secure Communities Program.”

According to ICE, “Secure Communities is a simple and common sense way to carry out ICE’s enforcement priorities for those aliens detained in the custody of another law enforcement agency (LEA). It uses a federal information-sharing partnership between DHS and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that helps to identify in-custody aliens without imposing new or additional requirements on state and local law enforcement. For decades, local jurisdictions have shared the fingerprints of individuals arrested and/or booked into custody with the FBI to see if those individuals have a criminal record and outstanding warrants. Under Secure Communities, the FBI automatically sends the fingerprints to DHS to check against its immigration databases. If these checks reveal that an individual is unlawfully present in the United States or otherwise removable, ICE takes enforcement action – prioritizing the removal of individuals who present the most significant threats to public safety as determined by the severity of their crime, their criminal history, and risk to public safety – as well as those who have violated the nation’s immigration laws. The federal government, not the state or local law enforcement agency, determines what immigration enforcement action, if any, is appropriate. Only federal DHS officers make immigration enforcement decisions, and they do so only after an individual is arrested for a criminal violation of local, state, or federal law, separate and apart from any violations of immigration law.

The Report continues tomorrow.

Returning to The Moon

While the Obama Administration was redirecting NASA’s space efforts away from human spaceflight, China, Russia and others were moving ahead with ambitious plans, including   a manned landing on the moon. Other nations and private interests have followed suit.

Only America has actually landed humans on the Moon so far.

Reports from across the globe describe Beijing’s ambitious lunar exploration plans. In June, reports the Telegraph, Yang Liwei, deputy director general of China Manned Space Agency, announced China “is making preliminary preparations for a manned lunar mission.”

China belongs to the exclusive club, consisting only of the U.S., Russia, and itself that has placed its citizens in space aboard its own rockets.

China’s unmanned 2013 Chang’e3 mission, seen as preparation for an eventual manned landing, placed a lunar rover, called Yutu, onto the moon’s surface. It had multiple cameras, as well as an ultraviolet telescope. The six-wheeled vehicle, powered by solar cells, was lowered onto the moon’s surface from a ramp following the spacecraft’s successful soft landing.

The Planetary Society reports that this year, “China will launch one of its most complex and exciting missions so far, when its Chang’s-5 spacecraft attempts to land on and collect samples from the Moon and then deliver them to Earth…the mission will be an engineering feat and result in some significant science, but it also has some interesting subplots…the fact that the Chang’e-5 will be carrying out a difficult lunar orbit rendezvous rather than a simpler direct return is an indication that the mission is also a small step towards putting [its] astronauts on the Moon.”

Following that success, the China National Space Administration (CNSA), reports Popular Mechanics, “is developing a new crewed spacecraft capable of …landing taikonauts  [Chin’a term for astronauts] on the moon, according to the Associated Press. The state-run newspaper Science and Technology Daily cited CNSA engineer Zhang Bainian as saying the new spacecraft would accommodate multiple taikonauts and be similar in design to the Orion spacecraft currently under development by NASA and ESA.  China also has some of the most extensive and ambitious unmanned plans to explore the moon in the near future. A sample return mission is planned for this year. CNSA is developing a rover to explore the far side of the moon next year (which would make China the first country land on the far side of the moon), and ultimately land Taikonauts …”

The Popular Mechanics review noted that the Chinese space agency is also developing plans to construct a manned base on the moon, according to Zhang Yuhua, deputy general director and deputy general designer of the Chang’e-3 probe system. “Right now China is actively at work on the critical technology required to conduct a manned landing on the Moon’…’In addition to manned lunar landing technology, we are also working on the construction of a lunar base, which will be used for new energy development and living space expansion,’ said Zhang at a speech at the Shanghai Science Communication Forum.”

Those plans were confirmed by a Spacedaily  article. That report noted that “According to Wu Yansheng, general manager of China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC), China is working on an idea for manned lunar landing. The mission will consist of a manned spaceship, a propulsion vehicle and a lunar lander. The manned spaceship and the lunar lander will be sent into circumlunar orbit separately. Yang Liwei, deputy director of the China Manned Space Engineering Office, said that China is in the preliminary stage of its manned lunar program.”

Russia, too, has commenced planning to put its citizens on the lunar surface.

Endgadget reports that “Russia’s Space Agency (Roscosmos) has begun planning for its first manned lunar landing, starting with a recruitment drive for potential cosmonauts. The agency is looking for six to eight trainees with a background in engineering or aviation, or those who already have experience working in the space industry. All interested candidates will go through several stages of psychological, physical and medical tests during the selection process. The chosen eight will have to undergo some intense training until four remain. Those who get the job will pilot Russia’s next-gen reusable manned spacecraft Federatsiya.”

NASA’s emphasis on human spaceflight had been downgraded by the Obama Administration, and is only now returning to a major emphasis on its human spaceflight roots.  A number of private concerns took up the slack imposed by the prior White House. The initial stages, from companies around the world, involve unmanned landings.

National Geographic  describes the private enterrise competition. “Nearly 50 years after the culmination of the first major race to the moon, in which the United States and the Soviet Union spent fantastic amounts of public money in a bid to land the first humans on the lunar surface, an intriguing new race to our nearest neighbor in space is unfolding—this one largely involving private capital and dramatically lower costs. The most immediate reward, the $20 million Google Lunar XPrize (or GLXP) will be awarded to one of five finalist teams from around the world. They’re the first ever privately funded teams to attempt landing a traveling vehicle on the moon that can transmit high-quality imagery back to Earth… Can someone actually make money venturing out into the great beyond? To a demonstrably wide range of entrepreneurs, scientists, visionaries, evangelists, dreamers, eccentrics, and possible crackpots involved in the burgeoning space industry, the answer is an enthusiastic yes.”

Moon Express  seeks to move rapidly ahead. Its’ Lunar Scout expedition is scheduled for this year. Company officials, seeking the LunarXPrize, believe it will be the first commercial voyage to the Moon, and note that “This historic expedition will demonstrate the cost effectiveness of entrepreneurial approaches to space exploration, carrying a diverse manifest of payloads.”

Obama,Clinton Foreign Policy Errors Affect Korean Crisis

The foreign policy failures of the Obama and Clinton presidencies are affecting the crises currently facing the nation.

The United States is seen by opponents such as North Korea as a government that has a weakened military, a lack of resolve to follow through on demands, and, perhaps most importantly, possessing a strange propensity towards punishing its friends and helping its enemies.

Examine the last item first.  For reasons that have yet to be explained, the Obama Administration, generally reluctant to engage in armed conflict, played a key role in forcibly removing Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi from power.  Gaddafi had surrendered his nuclear program, ended his association with terrorism, and was essentially on the same side as the West in opposing radical Islam. Obama also encouraged the ouster of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, who also sided with the U.S. against radicalism. From Kim Jung-un’s perspective, it makes far more sense to be an enemy rather than a friend of Washington.

And, of course, there is Iran.  With the exception of North Korea, no nation has uttered more threatening statements against the United States than Iran. Rallies are regularly conducted by its leadership calling for the destruction of America, its ships and planes regularly threaten the U.S. Navy, and Tehran sponsors terrorist movements aimed at U.S. interests and allies. The result? A nuclear deal in which the Iranians gained billions of dollars (in cash for easy transfer to terrorists) all in return for nothing more than an agreement to simply delay its nuclear weapons program.

Militarily, the United States is in a far lesser position than it was eight years ago. Thanks to the sequester budget agreement, America’s armed forces have lost experienced personnel, as well as enduring years of inadequate training, especially for Naval and Marine Corps aviators. As this article was being prepared, the Marines had temporarily grounded all of its planes for a maintenance issue.

Spare parts are in short supply.  The U.S. homeland itself is in a less secure position, thanks to Obama’s tacit acceptance of the Russian Navy’s return to Cuba, the acceptance of Russian military influence in Nicaragua, and the vastly strengthened Russian military presence in the Arctic.  America’s major military rivals, Russia and China, have dramatically built up their forces while the U.S. diminished its own.  For the first time in history, Russia has a more powerful nuclear force. China’s navy and the sophistication of all its forces have been dramatically strengthened.

Added to those hard facts is an important psychological component.  There is a significant element within the U.S. political and punditry class that, fundamentally and against all logic, tacitly agrees with the most strident anti-American beliefs of the nations’ opponents. The Washington Free Beacon has recently reported that the vice-chair of the Democrat National committee, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) has stated that “Kim Jong-un is acting more responsibly than Trump.” Those adhering to this philosophy dissent against reasonable efforts to deal appropriately with foreign threats.  As North Korea’s Kim Jung-un rapidly developed the ability to strike the American mainland with nuclear weapons and issued clear statements that he fully intends to do so, they reserved their condemnation not for him, but against President Trump’s firm rhetorical response to it.

This peculiar, but not uncommon, attitude was well illustrated in a USA Today article by Jim Michaels, which examined the recommendations by several analysts. Despite the fact that the North Korean leader has presided over one of the most nightmarish regimes in history, has engaged in numerous domestic and international atrocities, belongs to a ruling family that has broken one arms agreement after another, regularly states that it has plans to devastate the U.S. and is in defiance of a U.N. Security Council resolution, their criticism is aimed at President Trump’s statements that the U.S. would defend itself with great force—“fury and fire”– if the regime continues on its current path.

The recommendations of those analysts clearly reveal that, in their eyes, only an abject surrender of U.S. interests and national security, would comply with their politics. As Pyongyang explicitly describes their plans to launch attacks, Jenny Town, assistant director of the U.S.-Korea Institute at the John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies essentially subscribes to a moral equivalence concept by urging both sides to simply cool their rhetoric.  How does this solve the underlying issue of North Koreas’ nuclear belligerence?

She is not alone. Michaels’ column quotes David Maxwell, Georgetown University’s associate director of its Center for Strategic Studies.  His contribution is to suggest that America acknowledge North Korea’s status as a nuclear power.

Other suggestions include easing sanctions, and suspending joint exercises with South Korea.

These approaches have failed miserably and repeatedly in the past, and offer Pyongyang a hefty reward for nothing much in return.  Conceptually, it is deeply similar to President Obama’s provision of financial rewards and sanctions suspensions to Tehran in return for nothing more than a delay in Iran’s nuclear weapons development—a fact which Kim Jung-un clearly understand and is absolutely betting on. It should also be remembered that the appeasement route was thoroughly tried by President Clinton in the 1990’s, when he both gave food aid and nuclear assistance to Pyongyang in return for a mere promise, completely broken, that in return the regime would not pursue nuclear weapons.

Why would Kim even consider pulling back, when history clearly instructs him that America punishes those that change their ways to satisfy Western interests but rewards those that continue to threaten the U.S.? The North Korean dictator may be portrayed as an immature despot, but it is clear that he has shrewdly examined the history of the recent past and has adopted a course which may be evil but is also quite logical.