Updated – wall is back on, but the judge is still sitting – Private Property no longer – Privately funded border wall – is STOPPED by a Judge

May 29, 2019

This is good, but the issue that the judge was able to go against property rights is STILL an issue.  In my opinion, this is really NOT enough.

At least we still have a wall going up?

“the Army Corps of Engineers had said previously that the strip of land was too rugged for fencing.”

WHAT?

Private corps doing what the ARMY CAN’T?

THAT is outrageous!!!!!!!  When was it in the military language “can’t?”

I am prior military Army enlisted.  THIS was NEVER on my lips!!!!

 

The wall is being built with PRIVATE money on PRIVATE land or is it that our property right no longer matter?

The judge is an activist judge and should be removed.  OUTRAGEOUS!!!!

 

 

 

A privately funded organization called “We Build the Wall” began work this weekend on a project to erect a section of border wall in the El Paso sector.

Former Kansas Secretary of State, Kris Kobach, said on “Fox & Friends” Monday that the project was undertaken because there is a “ridiculously large gap” near Mount Cristo Rey, and drug and human smugglers have been taking advantage of it.

From <https://www.foxnews.com/us/we-build-wall-starts-construction-border-texas?fbclid=IwAR3MNW2FS5SlNxCwcUWjH2XBdRvxjuoaTR1NWADUpgpQQwFRjP4>

The barrier will be built on private land. Authorities in the El Paso Sector – which provides support for the counties of El Paso and Hudspeth in the state of Texas and the entire state of New Mexico – apprehend 930 people per day, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

“This is the first time any private organization has built border wall on private land,” Kobach told Pete Hegseth, adding that the Army Corps of Engineers had said previously that the strip of land was too rugged for fencing.

JUDGE TEMPORARILY BLOCKS TRUMP’S BORDER WALL CONSTRUCTION PLANS

From <https://www.foxnews.com/us/we-build-wall-starts-construction-border-texas?fbclid=IwAR3MNW2FS5SlNxCwcUWjH2XBdRvxjuoaTR1NWADUpgpQQwFRjP4>

Koback said the project was funded through private donations to the organization.

“We’ll keep on building as long as people keep chipping in. The average contribution has been only $67 but so many people have chipped in,” he said.

CARSON CLASHES WITH DEMS OVER PROPOSAL TO BLOCK ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS FROM PUBLIC HOUSING

Kobach said plans are in the works to start a second project.

It came on the heels of a federal judge blocking President Trump from building key sections of his border wall with money secured under his declaration of a national emergency, delivering what may prove a temporary setback on one of his highest priorities.

U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr.’s order, issued Friday, prevents work from beginning on two of the highest-priority, Pentagon-funded wall projects — one spanning 46 miles in New Mexico and another covering 5 miles in Yuma, Ariz.

From <https://www.foxnews.com/us/we-build-wall-starts-construction-border-texas?fbclid=IwAR3MNW2FS5SlNxCwcUWjH2XBdRvxjuoaTR1NWADUpgpQQwFRjP4>

On Saturday, Trump pledged to file an expedited appeal of the ruling.

Trump, who is visiting Japan, tweeted: “Another activist Obama appointed judge has just ruled against us on a section of the Southern Wall that is already under construction. This is a ruling against Border Security and in favor of crime, drugs and human trafficking. We are asking for an expedited appeal!”

While Judge Gilliam’s order applied only to those first-in-line projects, he said challengers were likely to prevail at trial on their argument that the president was wrongly ignoring Congress’ wishes by diverting Defense Department money.

Associated Press contributed to this report.

From <https://www.foxnews.com/us/we-build-wall-starts-construction-border-texas?fbclid=IwAR3MNW2FS5SlNxCwcUWjH2XBdRvxjuoaTR1NWADUpgpQQwFRjP4>

 

Privately funded organization ‘We Build the Wall’ starts #construction of border barrier in El Paso area https://fxn.ws/2HXc4Or #FoxNews

 


Hunter Biden – and the Ukraine issue and the China issue? – Updated!

May 2, 2019

update–

Not Just Ukraine; Biden May Have A Serious China Problem As Schweizer Exposes Hunter’s $1bn Deal

 

 

Two years of investigations by journalist Peter Schweizer has revealed that Joe Biden may now have a serious China problem. And just like his Ukraine scandal, it involves actions which helped his son Hunter, who was making hand over fist in both countries.

Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash and now Secret Empires discovered that in 2013, then-Vice President Biden and his son Hunter flew together to China on Air Force Two – and two weeks later, Hunter’s firm inked a private equity deal for $1 billion with a subsidiary of the Chinese government’s Bank of China, which expanded to $1.5 billion, according to an article by Schweizer’s in the New York Post.

If it sounds shocking that a vice president would shape US-China policy as his son — who has scant experience in private equity — clinched a coveted billion-dollar deal with an arm of the Chinese government, that’s because it is” –Peter Schweizer

Perhaps this is why Joe Biden – now on the 2020 campaign trail – said last week that China wasn’t a threat.

 

 

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo took a shot at Biden’s comment during a speech at the Claremont Institute’s 40th anniversary gala, saying “Look how both parties now are on guard against the threat that China presents to America — maybe except Joe Biden.”

 

 

Back to Hunter… 

Schweizer connects the dots, writing that “without the aid of subpoena power, here’s what we know:”

  • Hunter Biden and his partners created several LLCs involved in multibillion-dollar private equity deals with Chinese government-owned entities.
  • The primary operation was Rosemont Seneca Partners – an investment firm founded in 2009 and controlled by Hunter Biden, John Kerry’s stepson Chris Heinz, and Heniz’s longtime associate Devon Archer. The trio began making deals “through a series of overlapping entities” under Rosemont.
  • In less than a year, Hunter Biden and Archer met with top Chinese officials in China, and partnered with the Thornton Group – a Massachusetts-based consultancy headed by James Bulger – son of famed mob hitman James “Whitey” Bulger.
  • According to the Thornton Group’s Chinese-language website, Chinese executives “extended their warm welcome” to the “Thornton Group, with its US partner Rosemont Seneca chairman Hunter Biden (second son of the now Vice President Joe Biden.”
  • Officially, the China meets were to “explore the possibility of commercial cooperation and opportunity,” however details of the meeting were not published to the English-language version of the website.
  • “The timing of this meeting was also notable. It occurred just hours before Hunter Biden’s father, the vice president, met with Chinese President Hu Jintao in Washington as part of the Nuclear Security Summit,” according to Schweizer.
  • Perhaps most damning in terms of timing and optics, just twelve days after Hunter and Joe Biden flew on Air Force Two to Beijing, Hunter’s company signed a “historic deal with the Bank of China,” described by Schweizer as “the state-owned financial behemoth often used as a tool of the Chinese government.” To accommodate the deal, the Bank of China created a unique type of investment fund called Bohai Harvest RST (BHR). According to BHR, Rosemont Seneca Partners is a founding partner.

It was an unprecedented arrangement: the government of one of America’s fiercest competitors going into business with the son of one of America’s most powerful decision makers.

Chris Heinz claims neither he nor Rosemont Seneca Partners, the firm he had part ownership of, had any role in the deal with Bohai Harvest. Nonetheless, Biden, Archer and the Rosemont name became increasingly involved with China. Archer became the vice chairman of Bohai Harvest, helping oversee some of the fund’s investments. –New York Post

National Security implications

As Schweizer also notes, BHR became an “anchor investor” in the IPO of China General Nuclear Power Corp (CGN) in December 2014. The state-owned energy company is involved with the construction of nuclear reactors.

In April 2016, CGN was charged by the US Justice Department with stealing nuclear secrets from the United Stateswhich prosecutors warned could cause “significant damage to our national security.” CNG was interested in sensitive, American-made nuclear components that resembled those used on US nuclear submarines, according to experts.

More China dealings

It doesn’t stop there. While Hunter Biden had “no experience in China, and little in private equity,” the Chinese government for some reason thought it would be a great idea to give his firm business opportunities instead of established global banks such as Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs.

Also in December 2014, a Chinese state-backed conglomerate called Gemini Investments Limited was negotiating and sealing deals with Hunter Biden’s Rosemont on several fronts. That month, it made a $34 million investment into a fund managed by Rosemont.

The following August, Rosemont Realty, another sister company of Rosemont Seneca, announced that Gemini Investments was buying a 75 percent stake in the company. The terms of the deal included a $3 billion commitment from the Chinese, who were eager to purchase new US properties. Shortly after the sale, Rosemont Realty was rechristened Gemini Rosemont.

Chinese executives lauded the deal. –New York Post

“Rosemont, with its comprehensive real-estate platform and superior performance history, was precisely the investment opportunity Gemini Investments was looking for in order to invest in the US real estate market,” said Li Ming, chairman of Sino-Ocean Land Holdings Limited and Gemini Investments. “We look forward to a strong and successful partnership.”

That partnership planned to use Chinese money to scoop up US properties.

“We see great opportunities to continue acquiring high-quality real estate in the US market,” said one company executive, who added: “The possibilities for this venture are tremendous.”

Then, in 2015, BHR partnered with a subsidiary of Chinese state-owned military aviation contractor Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) in order to purchase American precision-parts maker Henniges – a transaction which required approval from the Committee of Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the same rubber-stamp committee that approved the Uranium One deal.

Tying it back to Ukraine

While we have previously reported on the Bidens’ adventures in Ukraine, Schweizer connects the dots rather well here

Consider the facts. On April 16, 2014, White House records show that Devon Archer, Hunter Biden’s business partner in the Rosemont Seneca deals, made a private visit to the White House for a meeting with Vice President Biden. Five days later, on April 21, Joe Biden landed in Kiev for a series of high-level meetings with Ukrainian officials. The vice president was bringing with him highly welcomed terms of a United States Agency for International Development program to assist the Ukrainian natural-gas industry and promises of more US financial assistance and loans. Soon the United States and the International Monetary Fund would be pumping more than $1 billion into the Ukrainian economy.

The next day, there was a public announcement that Archer had been asked to join the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian natural-gas company. Three weeks after that, on May 13, it was announced that Hunter Biden would join, too. Neither Biden nor Archer had any background or experience in the energy sector. –New York Post

Hunter was paid as much as $50,000 per month while Burisma was under investigation by officials in both Ukraine and elsewhere.

Then Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in US loanguarantees to Ukraine unless President Petro Poroshenko fired his head prosecutor, General Viktor Shokin, who was leading a wide-ranging corruption investigation into natural gas firm Burisma Holdings.

 

—-me —->Image result for Burisma Holdings.

 

———end——->

 

Biden bragged about the threat last year, telling an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations: “I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’” bragged Biden, recalling the conversation with Poroshenko.

Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”

Joe Biden says that he had no idea Hunter was on the board of Burisma (for two years after he joined), and that the two never spoke about the Burisma investigation. The former VP claims that Shokin’s removal was required due to his mishandling of several cases in Ukraine.

As we head into the 2020 elections, it will be interesting to see how Joe Biden dances around his son’s lucrative – and very potentially daddy-assisted deals around the world.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-05-13/not-just-ukraine-biden-may-have-serious-china-problem-schweizer-exposes-hunters-1bn

 

————————————

Hunter Biden at a campaign event in 2008. He sits on the board of one of Ukraine’s largest natural gas companies.CreditOzier Muhammad/The New York Times
Image
Hunter Biden at a campaign event in 2008. He sits on the board of one of Ukraine’s largest natural gas companies.CreditCreditOzier Muhammad/The New York Times
By James Risen
 

WASHINGTON — When Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. traveled to Kiev , Ukraine, on Sunday for a series of meetings with the country’s leaders, one of the issues on his agenda was to encourage a more aggressive fight against Ukraine’s rampant corruption and stronger efforts to rein in the power of its oligarchs.

But the credibility of the vice president’s anticorruption message may have been undermined by the association of his son, Hunter Biden, with one of Ukraine’s largest natural gas companies, Burisma Holdings, and with its owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, who was Ukraine’s ecology minister under former President Viktor F. Yanukovych before he was forced into exile.

Hunter Biden, 45, a former Washington lobbyist, joined the Burisma board in April 2014. That month, as part of an investigation into money laundering, British officials froze London bank accounts containing $23 million that allegedly belonged to Mr. Zlochevsky.

Britain’s Serious Fraud Office, an independent government agency, specifically forbade Mr. Zlochevksy, as well as Burisma Holdings, the company’s chief legal officer and another company owned by Mr. Zlochevsky, to have any access to the accounts

But after Ukrainian prosecutors refused to provide documents needed in the investigation, a British court in January ordered the Serious Fraud Office to unfreeze the assets. The refusal by the Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office to cooperate was the target of a stinging attack by the American ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey R. Pyatt, who called out Burisma’s owner by name in a speech in September.

“In the case of former Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevsky, the U.K. authorities had seized $23 million in illicit assets that belonged to the Ukrainian people,” Mr. Pyatt said. Officials at the prosecutor general’s office, he added, were asked by the United Kingdom “to send documents supporting the seizure. Instead they sent letters to Zlochevsky’s attorneys attesting that there was no case against him. As a result, the money was freed by the U.K. court, and shortly thereafter the money was moved to Cyprus.”

Mr. Pyatt went on to call for an investigation into “the misconduct” of the prosecutors who wrote the letters. In his speech, the ambassador did not mention Hunter Biden’s connection to Burisma.

But Edward C. Chow, who follows Ukrainian policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the involvement of the vice president’s son with Mr. Zlochevsky’s firm undermined the Obama administration’s anticorruption message in Ukraine.

“Now you look at the Hunter Biden situation, and on the one hand you can credit the father for sending the anticorruption message,” Mr. Chow said. “But I think unfortunately it sends the message that a lot of foreign countries want to believe about America, that we are hypocritical about these issues.”

 

Kate Bedingfield, a spokeswoman for the vice president, said Hunter Biden’s business dealings had no impact on his father’s policy positions in connection with Ukraine.

1:42Biden Urges Ukraine to Fight Corruption
Speaking during a visit to Ukraine, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. urged the country to weed corruption out of its system.CreditCreditMikhail Palinchak/Ukrainian Presidential Press Service

“Hunter Biden is a private citizen and a lawyer,” she said. “The vice president does not endorse any particular company and has no involvement with this company. The vice president has pushed aggressively for years, both publicly with groups like the U.S.-Ukraine Business Forum and privately in meetings with Ukrainian leaders, for Ukraine to make every effort to investigate and prosecute corruption in accordance with the rule of law. It will once again be a key focus during his trip this week.”

Ryan F. Toohey, a Burisma spokesman, said that Hunter Biden would not comment for this article.

It is not known how Mr. Biden came to the attention of the company. Announcing his appointment to the board, Alan Apter, a former Morgan Stanley investment banker who is chairman of Burisma, said, “The company’s strategy is aimed at the strongest concentration of professional staff and the introduction of best corporate practices, and we’re delighted that Mr. Biden is joining us to help us achieve these goals.”

Joining the board at the same time was one of Mr. Biden’s American business partners, Devon Archer. Both are involved with Rosemont Seneca Partners, an American investment firm with offices in Washington.

Mr. Biden is the younger of the vice president’s two sons. His brother, Beau, died of brain cancer in May. In the past, Hunter Biden attracted an unusual level of scrutiny and even controversy. In 2014, he was discharged from the Navy Reserve after testing positive for cocaine use. He received a commission as an ensign in 2013, and he served as a public affairs officer.

Before his father was vice president, Mr. Biden also briefly served as president of a hedge fund group, Paradigm Companies, in which he was involved with one of his uncles, James Biden, the vice president’s brother. That deal went sour amid lawsuits in 2007 and 2008 involving the Bidens and an erstwhile business partner. Mr. Biden, a graduate of Georgetown University and Yale Law School, also worked as a lobbyist before his father became vice president.

 

Burisma does not disclose the compensation of its board members because it is a privately held company, Mr. Toohey said Monday, but he added that the amount was “not out of the ordinary” for similar corporate board positions.

Asked about the British investigation, which is continuing, Mr. Toohey said, “Not only was the case dismissed and the company vindicated by the outcome, but it speaks volumes that all his legal costs were recouped.”

In response to Mr. Pyatt’s criticism of the Ukrainian handling of Mr. Zlochevsky’s case, Mr. Toohey said that “strong corporate governance and transparency are priorities shared both by the United States and the leadership of Burisma. Burisma is working to bring the energy sector into the modern era, which is critical for a free and strong Ukraine.”

Vice President Biden has played a leading role in American policy toward Ukraine as Washington seeks to counter Russian intervention in Eastern Ukraine. This week’s visit was his fifth trip to Ukraine as vice president.

Ms. Bedingfield said Hunter Biden had never traveled to Ukraine with his father. She also said that Ukrainian officials had never mentioned Hunter Biden’s role with Burisma to the vice president during any of his visits.

“I’ve got to believe that somebody in the vice president’s office has done some due diligence on this,” said Steven Pifer, who was the American ambassador to Ukraine from 1998 to 2000. “I should say that I hope that has happened. I would hope that they have done some kind of check, because I think the vice president has done a very good job of sending the anticorruption message in Ukraine, and you would hate to see something like this undercut that message.”

Follow the New York Times’s politics and Washington coverage on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for the First Draft politics newsletter.


UPdate rules under review – “Mexican soldiers were making a political statement” when they DETAINED US soldiers on US soil. Put on notice

April 23, 2019
This is utter nonsense 
There are protocols in place

US military rules under review after soldiers surrendered pistol to Mexican troops on American soil

SUBMIT
A senior defense official says the Pentagon is reviewing how U.S. soldiers responded during an incident this month in which Mexican troops detained and disarmed Americans on Texas soil.

The standoff between two U.S. soldiers and as many as six Mexican military officials on April 13 is believed to be the first of its kind, according to the senior defense official from Northern Command, or NORTHCOM. “This is the first incident that we’re aware of that the two militaries came together,” the official told the Washington Examiner.

Two Army soldiers from Washington state were sitting in an unmarked Customs and Border Protection vehicle south of the U.S. barrier but north of the international boundary near Clint, Texas, when Mexican troops moved in on them.

The Mexican soldiers, each carrying FX-05 Xiuhcoatl rifles, detained, disarmed, and questioned the U.S. troops. One soldier’s Beretta M9 service pistol was taken from him and temporarily confiscated.

The Pentagon is now investigating the incident, which the official said “will help us modify any instructions that we’re giving the troops” about how to deal with such a situation.

Troops deployed to the U.S.-Mexico boundary go through joint readiness staging, or training on how to handle dangerous situations in the area. The official said he could not recall anything similar to last Saturday’s encounter having taken place during a previous active-duty troop deployment.

No official protocol exists for how to navigate a run-in with a foreign military, but the senior official said the soldiers were trained to “de-escalate” the situation. By surrendering at least one gun, they followed existing protocol, though it left them unarmed.

The NORTHCOM official also defended the U.S. soldiers being in the location. The pair had been assigned by Customs and Border Protection to be at those coordinates on the U.S. side of the border. The two soldiers were one of 150 teams serving on mobile surveillance missions who had been assigned that specific location to stake out and monitor surveillance feeds.

Mexican soldiers spotted the pair and did not recognize their unmarked vehicle. The U.S. troops did not recognize the unmarked truck. There was mutual confusion about why either party was at that location.

“That area of the border is kind of confusing,” a second NORTHCOM official told the Examiner. “It may have been difficult for them [Mexican forces] to know if they didn’t know the area as well or were new or something. I don’t think — it definitely wasn’t trying to overtake the U.S.”

Much of the physical barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border does not sit on the international boundary and is located a few dozen to a few hundred feet north of it.

In areas such as southwestern Arizona and eastern Texas, rivers serve as the official border, but in other regions, it can be more difficult to determine the official line in the sand.

The language barrier further complicated the situation. “There was a U.S. Army soldier that was one of the two that spoke Spanish. That was about when they came to realize they were Mexican military,” the official said.

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/us-military-rules-under-review-after-soldiers-surrendered-pistol-to-mexican-troops-on-american-soil


 

They KNEW where they were, because the soldiers have their orders and maps down to the millimeter.   They have NOT apologized.  This was a CLEAR message to our soldiers.  US soldiers put on NOTICE!!!

 

Mexican soldiers detain American soldiers on U.S. soil. Government response: ?

 · April 22, 2019
   

US and Mexican flags

ronniechua | Getty Images

The Mexican government is powerless to control the cartels at our border. But somehow when it comes to belligerently confronting our own soldiers on our own soil, the Mexicans seem to muster the personnel and temerity to defend their side of the border. Moreover, they apparently have the unbridled impudence to complain about armed American citizens defending our border, while they have permanently transformed our country in the worst way imaginable through their disrespect of our sovereignty. This is clearly no longer about immigration, but about a pure invasion that requires a military buildup.

On April 13, at around 2 p.m. Central Time, a group of five or six suspected Mexican soldiers approached an unmarked vehicle of two U.S. soldiers stationed at the border in El Paso County, Texas, and ordered them out of the vehicle. According to Newsweek, which obtained the “serious incident report,” the soldiers were in fact active duty members of B Battery, 1st Battalion, 37th Field Artillery Regiment, not from a National Guard unit. The Mexican soldiers disarmed one of the U.S. soldiers and placed his sideaerm in the U.S. vehicle.

While the soldiers were parked south of the border fence near Clint, Texas, they were north of the Rio Grande riverbed, which placed them “appropriately in U.S. territory,” according to Maj. Mark Lazane, a spokesman for NORTHCOM. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Department of Defense (DOD), after inquiring of the Mexican government, were informed that the Mexican soldiers thought that the Americans were south of the border. “Throughout the incident, the U.S. soldiers followed all established procedures and protocols,” according to NORTHCOM.

NORTHCOM confirmed that there are approximately 2,800 service members assigned to the border mission. “This includes approximately 1,200 on the Mobile Surveillance Camera mission, plus about 1,000 service members hardening ports of entry in Texas and New Mexico. There are approximately 200 personnel as part of a crisis response force, with the remainder being headquarters and logistics personnel supporting the mission.”

When I asked both NORTHCOM and the State Department if our government had conveyed our concerns to Mexico and asked for an apology, both departments declined to comment.

Zach Taylor, a retired 26-year veteran of the Border Patrol who has formed a group of retired border agents to better educate the public on the border, told CR that he is convinced these Mexican soldiers were making a political statement. “At the reported location the Rio Grande River is distinct and easily identified in relation to the actual international boundary,” asserted Taylor, who still lives near the border in Arizona. “That one of the supposed Mexican soldiers took one sidearm from an American and put it in the American vehicle is curious, as if the Mexicans knew exactly who they encountered, where they were encountered, and were simply making a statement. What the purpose of that statement was is open to broad speculation, but on the face of it, this was probably political – as in showing that to Mexico, borders mean nothing.” Taylor confirmed that he regularly saw this behavior during his time in the Border Patrol.



We have tens of thousands of soldiers stationed in other parts of the world fully equipped for war and with at least manageable rules of engagement. Why are the soldiers at our own border too few, so lightly armed, and seeking to “de-escalate a potentially volatile situation” of Mexican aggression rather than deterring it?

What is particularly disturbing about this incident is that one could defend Mexico’s powerless response to this border crisis and the robust cartel and smuggler activity as a lack of resources to secure its own border from non-state actors. But why is it that the Mexican government suddenly has the ability to cross into our own country and detain our own personnel, but is seemingly powerless to deal with the cartels on its own side of the border?

What is also disturbing is the lackluster response from our own government, juxtaposed to its aggressive posture against private militia groups seeking to secure our border. Our government refuses to hold the line at the border and defend the ranches from cartel activity by placing the military there in meaningful numbers and with a heavy deterrent. They certainly are not deterring the migrants. Just last week, 12,500 more illegals were released into our country with no regard for the public charge, safety concerns, or potential contagious diseases. That is literally the number one job of our federal government, as distinct from a state government. While nobody wants to see vigilantes patrolling our border, they are clearly not the problem, but a symptom of the lack of government control over our sovereignty.

Yet it appears that the FBI has arrested a leader of one New Mexico militia that recently detained a group of illegal immigrants until Border Patrol was able to get to the scene. On Saturday, the FBI arrested Larry Hopkins, the “national commander” of the United Constitutional Patriots, on firearms charges two days after the ACLU complained about the presence of this group at Sunland Park, New Mexico. According to Reuters, this is a group of mainly military veterans who have detained as many as 5,600 aliens until Border Patrol was able to arrive.

Why is it that our government, which appears unable or unwilling to deal with Mexican aggression, the cartels, or illegal immigration, is suddenly pursuing a zero-tolerance policy for American militias seeking to do a job the federal government won’t do? Failing to secure our borders is a breach of the social contract of government, as laid out in the Declaration of Independence, and if there is anything that would ever justify the citizenry to take action, it is this issue. It’s not something we want to see, but where is our own government in dealing with the problem?

Mexico’s Foreign Relations Ministry expressed its “deep concern” that these militia groups would “drive human rights abuses of people who migrate or request asylum or refuge in the United States.” That’s a pretty rich statement from a government that evidently refuses to apologize for stepping on our soil and detaining our own soldiers.

It’s also self-evident from this statement that Mexico, rather than working with us to stop this bogus asylum-seeking, is helping encourage it.

The president would be wise to announce a buildup of the military in Texas and New Mexico and change the rules of engagement. He should also renegotiate NAFTA while making border and immigration issues the main sticking points.

If our government would only go after those violating our sovereignty with as much rigor as they do those American veterans trying to defend it, justifiably or not, this entire issue would go away. As Trump often says, either we are a country, or we are not.

Mexican soldiers detain American soldiers on U.S. soil. Government response: ?

 


Gen. James C. McConville – nominated to become the Army’s next chief of staff.

March 31, 2019

Yet another General nominated to a department position.

 

Army Four-Star Nominated as Next Chief of Staff

U.S. Army Gen. James C. McConville, 36th Vice Chief Staff of the Army, visits Erbil, Iraq, in October 15, 2017. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Tracy McKithern)
U.S. Army Gen. James C. McConville, 36th Vice Chief Staff of the Army, visits Erbil, Iraq, in October 15, 2017. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Tracy McKithern)

The Senate Armed Services Committee on Monday night received President Trump’s nomination of Gen. James McConville to become the Army‘s next chief of staff.

McConville has been one of the key architects of the service’s bold plan to modernize the force by 2028. If confirmed, McConville, the Army’s current vice chief of staff, would replace Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley. President Donald Trump has nominated Milley to succeed Gen. Joseph Dunford as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

McConville took over as the Army’s vice chief in June 2017. Since then, he has played a pivotal role in its new modernization strategy, which focuses on six priorities: long-range precision fires, next-generation combat vehicle, future vertical lift, a mobile network, air and missile defense, and soldier lethality.

The news of McConville’s nomination was publicly announced Tuesday by retired Gen. Carter Ham, president and CEO of the Association of the United States Army, at the annual AUSA Global Force Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama.

“That is great news for General McConville and his family; it’s even better news for the United States Army and for the United States of America,” Ham said, calling him “a great leader” and a “great soldier.”

McConville commanded the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), where he also served as commander of Combined Joint Task Force-101 during Operation Enduring Freedom. He also commanded 4th Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, during Operation Iraqi Freedom, according to his published bio.

He held several staff-level assignments, including Army deputy chief of staff for G-1, executive officer to the vice chief of staff of the Army, and J5 strategic planner for U.S. Special Operations Command, his bio states.

The vice chief is a seasoned aviator, qualified to fly several aircraft, including the AH-64D Longbow ApacheOH-58 Kiowa Warrior and AH-1 Cobra.

McConville is a native of Quincy, Massachusetts, and a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York. He holds a Master of Science in Aerospace Engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology and was a National Security Fellow at Harvard University in 2002, according to his bio.

— Matthew Cox can be reached at matthew.cox@military.com.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/03/26/army-four-star-nominated-next-chief-staff.html

US War Hero –Army Sgt. Derrick Miller – To Be Released from Leavenworth Prison

March 21, 2019

Army Sgt Derrick Miller, a US war hero has been sitting in a prison cell at Ft Leavenworth where he has been serving a life sentence for killing a terrorist. The bad news is that he never should have been there in the first place. It’s time to weed out the military of snowflake officers, like the ones who sent Miller away. There were only two witnessesd of the shooting and one of them had initially testified on Miller’s behalf, but changed his story when the military prosecutors threatened to charge him with being an accessory to murder. The second witness was offered permanent legal status in the United States if he would testify against Miller. So he did.

From The Gateway Pundit

Sgt. Miller shot and killed an Afghan civilian following the civilian attempting to grab Sgt. Miller’s weapon during a period of intense questioning. The Afghan civilian was a suspected insurgent that was walking through Sgt. Miller’s “platoon defensive perimeter observing their defensive positions”.

Following the shooting, Sgt. Miller’s unit was attacked horrifically on all sides and the Afghan National Army fighters that were assigned to stay with the platoon disappeared prior to the onset of the firefight. They hid behind a building.

Sgt. Miller was embroiled in a firefight the night he killed the Afghan man. The Afghan man was an insurgent and yet no one in the military wants to say this and directly confront the duplicitous Afghanis. The firefight was not instigated by American soldiers; the firefight was meant to kill American soldiers, and Afghan National Army fighters were nowhere to be found.

On Wednesday news broke that Sgt. Derrick Miller will be released from Leavenworth.

This is wonderful news for all the patriots who worked to free this American hero.

My book is here!  And I personally handed a copy to our President at the White House!!! I hope you enjoy it @realDonaldTrump!

BOOK – Why I Couldn’t Stay Silent

Thank you @RealCandaceO for writing the foreword for it!!! #BLEXIT #Woke#WeTheFree #WalkAway

From <https://davidharrisjr.com/politics/great-news-us-war-hero-army-sgt-derrick-miller-to-be-released-from-leavenworth-prison/>

 


FOX NEWS – Netanyahu’s Answer to Obama’s ’67 Borders

May 22, 2011

Vodpod videos no longer available.

FOX NEWS – Netanyahu’s Answer to Obama’s ’67 Bo…, posted with vodpod

Obama should not be President – Obama is setting Israel up for a WAR and the same logic would lead to a WAR in the US – He is setting a DANGEROUS precedent

May 21, 2011

This President is dangerous to the US.  The logic that started the war in Libya has nothing to do with Gadhafi, per se.  It has to do with setting the stage.  This president is not a leader.  He IS an actor.  The stage is being prepared by others.  He is only the lead role at the moment.  And this is WHY he is dangerous.  Nothing is REAL.  It’s all staged.  No one that is a REAL player gets hurt, according to the globalists.

I’m convinced that there is a fracturing in the Globalists clique.  Some of them are Global Capitalists and others are Global Communists.  There is an ideological strife a foot. The reason I believe that is because there are leaks of information surfacing that would otherwise NOT be there.

Be that as it may, the other agents in play are the Muslims.  They are outmaneuvering the Globalists on some fronts and the Globalists are making hasty errors in judgement.  They are forced to move more quickly, but some have already made deals with the other side.  Those, I believe, are the Capitalists, because they have only one goal, money, but not money in that they have paper or stuff like that, but money in terms of true wealth and that is Control driven.  They have to get CONTROL of the commonly accepted currency, because in the end, that is their only truest commodity.

So, how does that correlate to Gadhafi and how does that set the stage for a war that the US be subjected to?

It’s the Logic.  The UN is the Global GUN.  The reason that Gadhafi was attacked is to begin to set the precedent and NO other reason.  The next casualty will be potentially Syria, in my opinion.  The following, and this may not occur until AFTER the election, is Israel.  And the reasoning is nice outlined below, in Gaffeney’s article.  However, I would take it a step farther.  The same situation is setting itself up here too, in the US.  The next casualty, may indeed be, the US.  Hezbollah and Hamas have set up shop in South America and Mexico.  They are taking over the cartels.  They got their FEET in the door by selling weapons and training the Cartels.  Now, they are tenured within those “armies.”  The same situation is setting itself up.  What difference is there in logic?  It is the same.  The Palestinian’s cry that they were removed from their land.  The Mexicans cry the same.  US children are being taught toward sedition and outright treason of their own country by “teachers” whose agenda is to overthrow the state that they teach.  Even the methods are the same between the Palestinians and what they are doing to Israel and what the “Mexican’s”  are doing to the US.   The similarities should not go unnoticed.  The fish ALWAYS stinks from the HEAD.

<thanks to Mandy for the Gaffney article.>

I would also like to mention that Obama sitting as the head of the UN security council is a direct violation of the nobility clause in Article 9 of the US CONSTITUTION.

The Senate Armed Services Committee should convene immediately to prevent Obama from using our people in his and the NWO’s war. The military should stand down.

The ATF who’s under the Homeland security, which the CIA is also under, is headed by a CZAR.  This agency is NOT steered by an elected official.  This is an appointment by the PRESIDENT.  These CZAR headed agencies have taken control of legitimate agencies and are run by executive fiat.  This is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  How is it that they have been allowed these POWERS?  These agencies have seized control of America.  They overrule the Constitutional limitations of power.

Communist China may be bad, but America is going to be much worse, if this continues unchecked.

The Gadhafi precedent: Could attack on Libya set the stage for action against Israel?

By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | There are many reasons to be worried about the bridge-leap the Obama administration has just undertaken in its war with Col. Moammar Gadhafi. How it will all end is just one of them.

Particularly concerning is the prospect that what we might call the Gadhafi precedent will be used in the not-too-distant future to justify and threaten the use of U.S. military forces against an American ally: Israel.

Here’s how such a seemingly impossible scenario might eventuate:

It begins with the Palestinian Authority seeking a United Nations Security Council resolution that would recognize its unilateral declaration of statehood. Three top female officials in the Obama administration reprise roles they played in the council’s recent action on Libya: U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, a vehement critic of Israel, urges that the United States support (or at least not veto) the Palestinians’ gambit. She is supported by the senior director for multilateral affairs at the National Security Council, Samantha Power, who in the past argued for landing a “mammoth force” of American troops to protect the Palestinians from Israel. Ditto Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose unalloyed sympathy for the Palestinian cause dates back at least to her days as first lady.

This resolution enjoys the support of the other four veto-wielding Security Council members – Russia, China, Britain and France – as well as all of the other nonpermanent members except India, which joins the United States in abstaining. As a result, it is adopted with overwhelming support from what is known as the “international community.”

With a stroke of the U.N.’s collective pen, substantial numbers of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Israeli citizens find themselves on the wrong side of internationally recognized borders. The Palestinian Authority (PA) insists on its long-standing position: The sovereign territory of Palestine must be rid of all Jews.

The Israeli government refuses to evacuate the oft-condemned “settlements” now on Palestinian land or to remove the IDF personnel, checkpoints and facilities rightly seen as vital to protecting their inhabitants and, for that matter, the Jewish state itself.

Hamas and Fatah bury the hatchet (temporarily), forging a united front and promising democratic elections in the new Palestine. There, as in Gaza – and probably elsewhere in the wake of the so-called “Arab awakening” – the winner likely will be the Muslim Brotherhood, whose Palestinian franchise is Hamas.


The unified Palestinian proto-government then seeks international help to “liberate” its land. As with the Gadhafi precedent, the first to act is the Arab League. Its members unanimously endorse the use of force to protect the “Palestinian people” and end the occupation of the West Bank by the Israelis.

Turkey, which is still a NATO ally despite its ever-more-aggressive embrace of Islamism, is joined by Britain and France – two European nations increasingly hostile to Israel – in applauding this initiative in the interest of promoting “peace.” They call on the U.N. Security Council to authorize such steps as might be necessary to enforce the Arab League’s bidding.

Once again, Team Obama’s leading ladies – Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Power and Ms. Rice – align to support the “will of the international community.” They exemplify and are prepared to enforce the president’s willingness to subordinate U.S. sovereignty to the dictates of transnationalism and his personal hostility toward Israel. The concerns of Mr. Obama’s political advisers about alienating Jewish voters on the eve of the 2012 election are trumped by presidential sympathy for the Palestinian right to a homeland.

Accordingly, hard as it may be to believe given the United States’ long-standing role as Israel’s principal ally and protector, Mr. Obama acts in accordance with the Gadhafi precedent. He warns Israel that it must take steps immediately to dismantle its unwanted presence inside the internationally recognized state of Palestine lest it face the sort of U.S.- enabled “coalition” military measures now under way in Libya. In this case, they would be aimed at neutralizing IDF forces on the West Bank – and beyond, if necessary – in order to fulfill the “will of the international community.”

Of course, such steps would not result in the ostensibly desired endgame, namely “two states living side by side in peace and security.” If the current attack on Libya entails the distinct possibility of unintended (or at least unforeseen) consequences, application of the Gadhafi precedent to Israel seems certain to produce a very different outcome from the two-state “solution”: Under present and foreseeable circumstances, it will unleash a new regional war, with possible worldwide repercussions.

At the moment, it seems unlikely that the first application in Libya of the Gadhafi precedent will have results consistent with U.S. interests. Even if a positive outcome somehow is forthcoming there, should Mr. Obama and his anti-Israel troika of female advisers be allowed, based on that precedent, to realize the foregoing hypothetical scenario, they surely would precipitate a new international conflagration, one fraught with truly horrific repercussions – for Israel, the United States and freedom-loving people elsewhere.

A Congress that was effectively sidelined by Team Obama in the current crisis had better engage fully, decisively and quickly if it is to head off such a disastrous reprise.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/gaffney032211.php3

– Here’s another article as food for thought –

WHY THE FRAMERS INCLUDED THE “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” CLAUSE

by Tom Deacon


The greatest defeat of the American Revolution was the fall of Charleston, SC to the British in 1780

(May 16, 2010) — Section 1 ofArticle II of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Try to understand this: At the time of the adoption of the Constitution there were no “natural born Citizens” (no country yet = no citizens, period?), so yes, the Founders wrote in a “grandfather” clause to allow those present (already born) at the time the Constitution was signed to qualify to be president.  However, if you weren’t born yet when the Constitution was adopted (that includes Obama), then you had to be a “natural born Citizen,” meaning both parents must be U.S. citizens. It is amazing how tough this is for some people to understand. The reason Congress “investigated” McCain was because he was not born in the USA. They concluded in their report that that was OK, because his “parents” (notice the plural form of “parents”) were both U.S. Citizens.  This is not true for Obama, and he clearly was not held to the same standard.

The Constitution says you must be a natural born Citizen, or a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. The Founders wanted the president to be a natural born Citizen, but they recognized that there were NO natural born Citizens until after the Constitution was adopted. They didn’t know that 200+ years from the signing, the education system would have dumbed down the USA’s population to the point that understanding it was an endangered ability.

Some may believe the natural born Citizen clause isn’t fair. The Founders of our nation believed it was the right thing to do because they had just fought a war with those who had allegiance to a country other than the one they were fighting to create….that country was the one they left to come to America, namely, England.  The Founders did not want to elect a newborn to the office of the president, nor did they want to wait 35 years for a natural born Citizen to meet the age requirement to be president. So they grandfathered themselves in with the statement “or a Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.” No doubt they trusted themselves and their children who were born prior to the signing of the Constitution to be loyal only to the USA, fighting a war with England would have had that effect on them.

Obama is the “poster child’ who proves once again that the wisdom of America’s Founders was impeccable.

You can make up excuses till the earth fries from global warming, but you can’t change the truth.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/05/16/note-to-obama-supporters-even-a-birth-in-hawaii-is-not-enough/


%d bloggers like this: