Breaking News -- United States
How CNN Muzzled Victims’ Voices at Republican National Convention
by Joel B. Pollak
CNN cut away from speakers who spoke out against illegal immigration at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland on Monday night, turning instead to its daily stable of talking heads, and coming back for a conventional politician’s speech.
Mary Ann Mendoza, Sabine Durden, and Jamiel Shaw, who each lost a child through crimes committed by illegal aliens, spoke from the heart about why they supported Donald Trump’s proposal to enforce immigration law and build a border wall.
Shaw, who is black, told the tearful audience in Cleveland’s Quicken Loans Arena “You’d think Obama cared, and black lives mattered … Only Trump called me on the phone one day to see how I was doing … Trump will put America first.”
But CNN, which lately fought to rebuild its audience by including more conservative perspectives, filtered out those voices, returning to the speeches in time for Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), who gave a good but otherwise unremarkable address.
A purported screenshot spread through social media with CNN’s chyron apparently describing these speakers as “impacted by undocumented immigrants” — a cold whitewash of the fact that their family members were murdered.
The network did carry the live speech of Pat Smith, mother of Benghazi victim Sean Smith. But it bracketed her speech with fact-checking, suggesting that despite her feelings that Hillary Clinton was to blame, there was no direct link to the former Secretary of State. CNN’s fact-checker later labeled the claim that Clinton was responsible for the Benghazi deaths as “false.” (Jake Tapper did push back, pointing out that the argument was that Clinton was responsible for her entire department.)
The fact that victims of crimes by illegal aliens have largely been ignored is part of the secret of Trump’s success. When Kate Steinle was murdered by an illegal alien — with multiple deportations and felony convictions — in San Francisco last July, it was Trump alone who took up the issue, and the cause of other bereaved families. That gesture helped propel him from the back of the Republican pack to the front.
But to see and hear the families of victims, you had to watch Breitbart or C-SPAN.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. His new book, See No Evil: 19 Hard Truths the Left Can’t Handle, will be published by Regnery on July 25 and is available for pre-order through Amazon. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
Fewer than half nabbed at border from Mexico
by Daniel Wheaton
Not everyone who gets apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border is from Mexico.
In the first six months of the year, 264,185 people were apprehended somewhere along the Southwest border, and 49.6 percent of them were from Mexico, according to data from the U.S. Border Patrol.
The map below shows the number of people apprehended, by country. Use the search bar for specific countries, or hover and zoom over the map.
See source for map: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/jul/19/border-apprehenion-data/
The countries with the most apprehensions were:
1. Mexico, 131,138
2. Guatemala 45,604
3. El Salvador 44,574
4. Honduras 30,585
5. India 2,867
6. Brazil 1,841
7. Equador 1,770
8. China 1,498
9. Romania 1,307
10. Nicaragua 730
Also, six Canadians took the long way back home.
Clinton to Resettle One Million Muslim Migrants During First Term Alone
by Julia Hahn
If elected president, Hillary Clinton could permanently resettle close to one million Muslim migrants during the first term of her presidency alone, according to the latest available data from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Between 2001 and 2013, the U.S. permanently resettled 1.5 million Muslim migrants on green cards. However, under Hillary Clinton’s stated proposals, Muslim immigration would grow substantially faster, adding nearly one million Muslim migrants to the U.S. during her first term alone.
Based on the most recent available DHS data, the U.S. permanently resettled roughly 149,000 migrants from predominantly Muslim countries on green cards in 2014. Yet Clinton has said that, as President, she would expand Muslim migration by importing an additional 65,000 Syrian refugees into the United States during the course of a single fiscal year. Clinton has made no indication that she would limit her proposed Syrian refugee program to one year.
Clinton’s Syrian refugees would come on top of the tens of thousands of refugees the U.S. already admits from Muslim countries.
Adding Clinton’s 65,000 Syrian refugees to the approximately 149,000 Muslim migrants the U.S. resettled on green cards in the course of one year, means that Clinton could permanently resettle roughly 214,000 Muslim migrants in her first year as President. If Clinton were to continue her Syrian refugee program throughout her Presidency, she could potentially resettle as many as 856,000 during her first term alone.
Analysis from the Senate Immigration Subcommittee found that Clinton’s plan to expand refugee resettlement could cost U.S. taxpayers over $400 billion.
Additionally, once Clinton’s Syrian refugees are in the U.S. as green card holders, they will have the ability to bring over their family members through chain migration.
With regards to Middle Eastern migration, Clinton’s 65,000 Syrian refugees would be added on top of the roughly 96,000 Middle Eastern migrants the U.S. resettled on green cards in a single year. Based on the minimum numbers Clinton has put forth thus far, as President, she could potentially resettle approximately 644,000 Middle Eastern migrants during her first term alone.
According to a September 2015 Rasmussen survey, women voters oppose Clinton’s Middle Eastern refugee plan by a remarkable 21-to-1 margin. Democrat voters oppose Clinton’s refugee plan by a 17-to-1 margin. Most remarkably, 85 percent of black voters oppose Clinton’s refugee agenda– with less than one percent of black voters supporting her plan.
Yet Clinton’s expansion to Muslim migration would be in addition to her expansion for immigration overall.
U.S. Census data shows that if a President Hillary Clinton were successful in passing a Gang of Eight-style immigration expansion bill, the U.S. could permanently resettle roughly 9.4 million migrants throughout the nation during her first term alone. This figure does not include the additional 11 million illegal immigrants already here to whom Clinton has promised amnesty and U.S. citizenship.
Clinton’s desire to expand immigration is shared by GOP House Speaker Paul Ryan, who leads the pro-Islamic migration wing of the Republican Party.
Ryan has championed policies to expand Muslim migration into the United States. Ryan has repeatedly ruled out the possibility of curbing Muslim migration and has frequently chastised his party’s presumptive nominee for advocating policies to reduce immigration.
At times, Ryan has even echoed Clinton’s rhetoric in his efforts to denounce Trump and Trump’s proposals.
In recent weeks, Ryan has come under fire in his own Wisconsin district for continuing to support Islamic migration, and voting to expand Islamic migration, despite the fact that seven out of ten Wisconsin GOP voters would like a Muslim migration pause.
Paul Ryan has a two-decade long history of supporting open borders immigration policies, even though, according to Pew polling data, 92% of GOP voters and 83% of American voters overall want to see immigration levels frozen or reduced.
In stark contrast to Paul Ryan and Hillary Clinton’s support for open borders, Donald Trump has called for a common sense “mainstream immigration policy that promotes American values.”
“That is the choice I put before the American people: a mainstream immigration policy designed to benefit America, or Hillary Clinton’s radical immigration policy designed to benefit politically-correct special interests,” Trump said following the Orlando terrorist attack, carried out by the child of Afghan migrants.
Clinton wants to allow Radical Islamic terrorists to pour into our country—they enslave women, and murder gays. I don’t want them in our country. Immigration is a privilege, and we should not let anyone into this country who doesn’t support our communities – all of our communities… The burden is on Hillary Clinton to tell us why she believes immigration from these dangerous countries should be increased without any effective system to screen who we are bringing in. The burden is on Hillary Clinton to tell us why we should admit anyone into our country who supports violence of any kind against gay and lesbian Americans. The burden is also on Hillary Clinton to tell us how she will pay for it. Her plan will cost Americans hundreds of billions of dollars long-term. Wouldn’t this money be better spent on rebuilding America for our current population, including the many poor people already living here? […]
America has already admitted four times more immigrants than any country on earth, and we continue to admit millions more with no real checks or scrutiny. Not surprisingly, wages for our workers haven’t budged in many years. So whether it’s matter of national security, or financial security, we can’t afford to keep on going like this. We owe $19 trillion in debt, and no longer have options. All our communities, from all backgrounds, are ready for some relief. This is not an act of offense against anyone; it is an act of defense.
Army has fewest active-duty soldiers since 1940, report says
The number of U.S. Army soldiers on active duty has been reduced to its lowest since 1940, according to a published report.
The Army Times reported this weekend that the Army's endstrength for March was 479,172. That's 154 fewer soldiers than the service's previous post-World War II low, which was reached during the Army's post-Cold War drawdown in 1999.
The current number is still well above the 269,023 soldiers on duty in 1940, the year before America entered World War II. However, the report says the active force has been reduced by more than 16,500 troops over the past year — the equivalent of about three brigades.
According The Army Times, the Army is on track to reach its goal of reducing the number of active-duty troops to 475,000 by Sept. 30, the end of fiscal year 2016. Under a drawdown plan unveiled last July, the number of active-duty soldiers would be reduced to 460,000 soldiers by the end of fiscal year 2017 and 450,000 by the end of fiscal year 2018, barring action by Congress or the Pentagon.
If those targets are met, the number of soldiers on active duty would be down 20 percent from 2010, when there were nearly 570,000 soldiers on active duty.
When the Army presented its plan last July, military officials said their hands were tied by reduced funding levels.
"These are not cuts the Army wants to make, these are cuts required by budget environment in which we operate," Gen. Daniel Allyn, vice chief of staff of the Army, said at the time. "This 40,000 soldier cut ... will only get us to the program force, it does not deal with the continued threat of sequestration."
The Army Times report said that 2,600 soldiers departed active service in March without being replaced.
In addition to those on active duty, the Army has 548,024 soldiers in reserve, for a total force of 1,027,196 soldiers. Under the drawdown plan, the total force number would be reduced to 980,000 by the end of fiscal year 2018.
|(Disclaimer) What to Look For in World Events: Audio & Text Video|