An anonymous Customs and Border Patrol agent accused their supervisor of joking about “running over” illegal immigrants in an interview with CNN.

The interview aired Wednesday. CNN reporter Nick Valencia spoke with a “veteran agent” who agreed to blow the whistle on abuses in CBP facilities and speak about the culture of the Border Patrol in exchange for staying anonymous.

“He was making fun of [dead migrants],” the anonymous official said. “[He said,] ‘what difference does it make? It’s just another life.'”

“He made a comment also regarding running over illegals, and I’m like, ‘you cannot run over people,'” the agent said.

The agent compared CBP holding facilities for illegal immigrants to a zoo and called the conditions “filthy.”

The agent’s accusations come after the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General released a report detailing poor conditions in crowded holding facilities. Illegal immigrants detained by CBP are held in overcrowded cells with limited access to food, clean water, soap, and clean clothing.

On Monday, ProPublica reported on offensive and derogatory social media posts from a private group of 9,500 people that included current and former CBP agents. Members of the group, named “I’m 10-15” for the CBP code for “aliens in custody,” shared posts joking about dead migrants and calling for others to throw burritos at members of Congress visiting CBP holding facilities.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/anonymous-border-agent-says-supervisor-joked-about-dead-migrants-running-over-illegals

WASHINGTON, July 3 (Reuters) – President Donald Trump on Wednesday said his administration had not dropped its efforts to add a contentious citizenship question to the 2020 U.S. census, contradicting statements made by his own officials including Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.

The U.S. Supreme Court last Thursday blocked Trump’s plan to add the citizenship question, saying administration officials had given a “contrived” rationale.

Administration officials including Ross said on Tuesday that the census forms were being printed without the citizenship question.

Critics have called the citizenship question a Republican ploy to scare immigrants into not taking part in the decennial population count and engineer an undercount in Democratic-leaning areas with high immigrant and Latino populations. That would benefit non-Hispanic whites and help Trump’s fellow Republicans gain seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and state legislatures, the critics said.

RELATED: Controversy over the 2020 census

WASHINGTON, DC – APRIL 30: Kevin Smith, Associate Director for Information Technology at the US Census Bureau, Census Bureau Director Steven Dillingham, Robert Goldenkoff, strategic issues director at the Government Accountability Office and Nicholas Marinos, information technology and cybersecurity director at the GAO, testify before a House Appropriations Subcommittee about preparations for the upcoming 2020 Census, on April 30, 2019 in Washington, DC. The 2020 census has caused controversy as the Trump administration is pushing to include a citizenship question. (Photo by Pete Marovich/Getty Images)




“The News Reports about the Department of Commerce dropping its quest to put the Citizenship Question on the Census is incorrect or, to state it differently, FAKE! We are absolutely moving forward, as we must, because of the importance of the answer to this question,” Trump wrote on Twitter.

White House and Commerce Department officials had no immediate comment on Trump’s tweet.

“There’s nothing fake about the Department of Justice writing us saying printing is starting without the citizenship question,” the American Civil Liberties Union, which had challenged the citizenship question in court, wrote on Twitter.

Trump’s hardline policies on immigration have been a key element of his presidency and 2020 re-election campaign.

Trump last Thursday also said he is exploring whether the census, which the U.S. Constitution requires be carried out every 10 years, can be delayed.

But Ross, a key figure in the controversy, said in a statement on Tuesday, “The Census Bureau has started the process of printing the decennial questionnaires without the question.”

 

MARYLAND COURT CASE

At the same time, the Justice Department told a judge in Maryland presiding over an ongoing court battle over the citizenship question that the administration had made a final decision not to proceed, according to two lawyers involved in the litigation.

U.S. District Judge George Hazel asked for the administration to submit its declaration in writing by next Monday, according to one of the lawyers. So far, the court docket shows no such filing.

Trump’s administration had told the courts that its rationale for adding the question was to better enforce a law that protects the voting rights of racial minorities. Critics called that rationale a pretext for partisan motives.

Although the Supreme Court left open the possibility of the administration adding the question in the future, there was little time left for officials to come up with a new rationale. The administration had said in court filings that it needed to finalize the details of the questionnaire by the end of June.

The census is used to allot seats in the U.S. House and distribute some $800 billion in federal funds. Opponents have said the citizenship question would instill fear in immigrant households that the information would be shared with law enforcement, deterring them from taking part.

Citizenship status has not been asked of all households since the 1950 census. Since then, it was included only on questionnaires sent to a smaller subset of the population.

A group of states including New York and immigrant rights organizations challenged the legality of the administration’s plan.

Manhattan-based U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman ruled on Jan. 15 that the Commerce Department’s decision to add the question violated a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act. Federal judges in Maryland and California also have issued rulings to block the question.

Furman said the evidence showed that Ross had concealed his true motives for adding the citizenship question and that he and his aides had convinced the Justice Department to formally request its addition to the census.

Evidence surfaced in May – documents written by a Republican strategist before he died last year – that those challenging the question said showed the administration’s plan to add a citizenship question was intended to benefit Republicans and non-Hispanic white people in redrawing electoral districts based on census data.

(Reporting by Makini Brice and Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

Source Article from https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/07/03/trump-denies-wh-retreat-on-census-citizenship-question/23762447/

“We are pleased with the District Attorney’s decision to dismiss the charges against Marshae Jones. It is the appropriate decision, both for our client and for the State of Alabama. This is the outcome we sought this week in our motion to dismiss. We are gratified the District Attorney evaluated the matter and chose not to proceed with a case that was neither reasonable nor just. The District Attorney’s decision will help Marshae continue to heal from this tragic event and work to rebuild her life in a positive and productive way. She moves forward with enormous gratitude for the support she and her family have received during this challenging time. With the dismissal of charges, the community of support that surrounded Marshae can now channel its immense passion and energy toward ensuring that what happened to Marshae won’t ever happen again.”

Source Article from https://www.wbrc.com/2019/07/03/da-dropping-manslaughter-charge-against-marshae-jones/

Justice was served – at long last – when a jury found Navy SEAL Chief Edward “Eddie” Gallagher not guilty Tuesday of charges including murder and attempted murder in the killing of an ISIS fighter in Iraq.

The verdict proved that even the badly broken military justice can still get things right on occasion.

Gallagher, who heroically risked his life and served his country for 20 years in the Navy, should never have been charged. He spent nine months in prison awaiting his trial and was treated disgracefully by the Navy he so loyally served.

NAVY SEAL EDWARD GALLAGHER FOUND NOT GUILTY ON MURDER AND ATTEMPTED MURDER CHARGES

Gallagher was found not guilty of charges including premeditated murder, willfully discharging a firearm to endanger human life, retaliation against members of his platoon for reporting his alleged actions, obstruction of justice and the attempted murder of two noncombatants.

The SEAL was convicted of posing for a photo with a casualty – the least serious charge against him. This conviction is punishable by up to four months imprisonment. However, he has already served more time than that awaiting his trial.

The acquittal of Gallagher on all the most serious charges against him shows that not everyone in the United States military justice system has embraced overzealous and unjust prosecutions of members of our military. We should honor the brave Americans in uniform who carry out their duties despite grave danger while they face enemy fighters who want to kill as many Americans as possible.

Gallagher, who heroically risked his life and served his country for 20 years in the Navy, should never have been charged. He spent nine months in prison awaiting his trial and was treated disgracefully by the Navy he so loyally served.

Navy prosecutors and agents of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) should be ashamed of their treatment not only of Gallagher, but of his family. Who drags minor children out into the streets at gunpoint in the middle of the night, then dismisses it as “standard operating procedure?”

The NCIS, that’s who.

Unfortunately, Gallagher is not the only member of our military unjustly prosecuted for fighting enemy forces.

Another is Army Lt. Clint Lorance, on whose legal defense team I serve. He was unjustly convicted of one count of murder and two counts of attempted murder after he ordered his men to fire on two motorcycle-riding Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan. He was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.

Yet another military member unjustly prosecuted is former Army Green Beret Maj. Matthew Golsteyn, who is facing trial on a charge of killing a Taliban bombmaker in Afghanistan who was responsible for the deaths of Americans.

All three cases are embarrassing stains on the military justice system.

The decision to charge Gallagher was inexcusable. He should never have been charged with the killing of a mortal enemy of the United States who was a member of ISIS, one of the most radical and deadly jihadist groups on the planet.

ISIS fighters have committed the most gruesome and atrocious acts imaginable – public beheadings, burning people to death in cages, slicing little boys in half, mass terror against Christians and more.

Yet prosecuting our courageous warriors is a recurring anti-American theme that infected the military justice system around 2012 and hasn’t stopped.

Fortunately, the defense team in the Gallagher case did an incredible job of uncovering prosecutorial corruption before the case reached the jury.

Gallagher’s attorneys uncovered deliberate attempts by overzealous Navy prosecutors and NCIS agents to spy on his defense team. This involved an illegal search without a warrant –violating Gallagher’s rights under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution – and also threatened his right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.

In addition, the Navy violated the sacrosanct privacy of the attorney-client privilege. Such misconduct cannot be defended in any way, shape or form.

Thankfully, even in the military justice system we adhere to the time-honored American principle that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

At Gallagher’s trial, a young Navy SEAL medic – Special Operator 1st Class Corey Scott – admitted he had cut a breathing tube of the ISIS fighter who Gallagher was accused of killing and said that cutting the breathing tube caused the fighter’s death.

“Did Chief Gallagher kill this terrorist?” Gallagher’s attorney asked Scott at Gallagher’s trial.

“No,” Scott answered.

Then the government’s own pathologist testified that he could find no evidence of a stab wound nor any blood on the dead fighter, nor could he conclude that anything Gallagher did killed the ISIS fighter.

The charges against Gallagher should have been dismissed then, but the trial continued. What a shame.

As an ex-Navy JAG attorney, I’m ashamed of what corrupt Navy prosecutors and NCIS agents did to war hero Gallagher and his family. But I’m proud to say that a clearheaded United States Navy jury put a stop to the insanity, at least in this case.

But without a meaningful overhaul of the military justice system, rogue military prosecutors are still likely to target prominent warfighters like Chief Eddie Gallagher. What a slap in the face to the men and women who put their lives on the line for our country.

President Trump, as commander in chief, should put a stop to this. He can do three things to right the ship. 

First, the president should vacate all charges against Army Lt. Clint Lorance and return him to active duty.

Second, President Trump should immediately end the court-martial against Army Green Beret Maj. Matt Golsteyn.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

And finally, the president should convene an advisory committee of former judge advocates with marching orders to find ways to ensure that our warriors are no longer prosecuted for killing the enemy.

Now is the time to act, Mr. President.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY DON BROWN

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/don-brown-not-guilty-verdict-for-navy-seal-gallagher-is-welcome-news-he-shouldnt-have-been-prosecuted

When a 16-year-old New Jersey boy was accused of raping an intoxicated girl, filming the assault and sending the video to his friends, the prosecutors sought to try him as an adult.

But a state Superior Court judge in South Jersey shot down that request in part because, the judge said, the boy “comes from a good family” and is destined “for a good college.”

Now a state appeals court has overturned the decision and warned the judge against showing leniency to juveniles of privilege, raising the question of what such judicial reasoning would mean for “juveniles who do not come from good families and do not have good test scores.”

Prosecutors can now seek an indictment on charges they choose to pursue against the teen, who would be tried as an adult. Monmouth County Prosecutor Christopher J. Gramiccioni said in a statement released Wednesday that he was “grateful” for the appeals court decision, and “assessing our next steps, which will include discussions with the victim and her family.”

The suspect, identified in court papers only as G.M.C., in 2017 filmed himself with a girl, “Mary,” who was also 16 at the time, in a closed-off, dark basement and then sent the clip to friends with a text: “[w]hen your first time having sex was rape,” according to the appeals court ruling.

Mary and G.M.C. were at a “pajama-themed” party, and both teens were drunk when G.M.C. allegedly led her to a basement sofa, according to the ruling by the appeals court. “Her speech was slurred, and she stumbled as she walked,” the ruling said.

“While on the sofa, a group of boys sprayed Febreze on Mary’s bottom and slapped it with such force that the following day she had hand marks on her buttocks,” the ruling said.

G.M.C. then penetrated Mary from behind in a home-gym portion of the basement. In the video he sent to seven friends, her torso is exposed, and her head is hanging down. One of the friends said that the video showed Mary’s head hitting the wall repeatedly.

Prosecutors said that during the assault, the door to the gym was blocked by a foosball table, and the lights were off.

“[G.M.C.’s] conduct as it relates to the charged offenses was both sophisticated and predatory. He was aware of the off-limits areas in advance of the party,” prosecutors said, adding that “filming a cellphone video while committing the assault was a deliberate act of debasement.”

Following the alleged assault, others at the party checked on Mary and found her on the floor vomiting.

She was driven home by a friend’s mother, and told her mother the next morning that she feared “sexual things had happened at the party,” the appeals court ruling said. “She did not understand how she could have gotten bruise marks on her body or how her clothing had torn.”

She then learned that G.M.C. was sending the video of the assault to his friends, and asked him to stop. When he didn’t, her family pressed charges.

Prosecutors in New Jersey can seek to send a juvenile case to adult court for serious crimes, including sexual assault, if the accused is 15 or older.

If Judge James Troiano, serving in the family court division, had decided to charge G.M.C. as an adult, as the Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office requested, the teen would have faced counts of first-degree aggravated sexual assault, second-degree sexual assault, third-degree endangering the welfare of a child, and two counts of third-degree invasion of privacy. He would have had to register as a sex offender.

But in a July 30, 2018, decision, Troiano, who is now 69, denied the prosecutors’ request.

The “young man comes from a good family who put him into an excellent school where he was doing extremely well. He is clearly a candidate for not just college but probably for a good college. His scores for college entry were very high,” the judge said, noting also that G.M.C. was an Eagle Scout.

Troiano also “expressed concern that the prosecutor did not indicate … that she had explained to Mary and her mother the devastating effect” adult charges would have on G.M.C.’s life, the appeals court ruling said.

The judge said he questioned Mary’s claimed state of intoxication at the time of the assault.

“Some people would argue that, you know … how could she possibly have gotten as drunk as she says she was?” the judge asked. “That’s really not important. I think it’s an issue here, whether or not this young lady was intoxicated to the point that she didn’t understand what was going on.”

And he wondered whether G.M.C.’s actions could be classified as a rape, saying he distinguishes between sexual assault and rape.

“In my mind,” Troiano said, a rape is “where there were generally two or more generally males involved, either at gunpoint or weapon, clearly manhandling a person into … an area where … there was nobody around, sometime in an abandon[ed] house, sometimes in an abandon[ed] shed, shack, and just simply taking advantage of the person as well as beating the person, threatening the person.”

Troiano added that G.M.C.’s text calling the encounter a rape was “to me, just a 16-year-old boy saying stupid crap to his friends.”

“[D]o I believe that it shows in any way a calculation or cruelty on his part or sophistication or a predatory nature? No, I do not,” Troiano said.

But the appeals court said prosecutors at least proved that “the delinquent act in question, if committed by an adult in this case, would have been aggravated sexual assault and sexual assault,” which would allow for the case to go to adult court.

“Rather than focusing on whether the prosecutor’s consideration of the statutory factors supported the application, the judge decided the case for himself,” the appeals court decision said.

“That the juvenile came from a good family and had good test scores we assume would not” spare “the juveniles who do not come from good families and do not have good test scores” from adult court, the ruling said.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, who is running for president, weighed in on the decision Wednesday. “I don’t care what kind of family you’re from — sexual assault is never acceptable,” she wrote on Twitter. “Stop making excuses for perpetrators and start standing up for those who’ve been violated.”

“Our kids don’t need to be coddled. They need to be taught not to rape,” she said.

Anna Martinez, the acting director of New Jersey’s Division on Women, also rebuked the judge’s decision.

The “‘boys being boys’ mentality that excuses incredibly heinous crimes and treats offenders to a slap on the wrist, rather than true accountability” is “unconscionable,” Martinez said in a statement. “When it comes from a sitting member of the judiciary, it’s inconceivable.”

“Dismissing these traumas with platitudes for an offender’s academic record, rather than in the interest of justice for the victims, is reprehensible,” she added.

G.M.C.’s attorney, Mitchell J. Ansell, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Three days after the ruling on Troiano’s decision, the New Jersey appeals court reversed a decision by another state family court judge, Marcia Silva of Middlesex County, against having a 16-year-old accused of raping a 12-year-old charged in adult court.

Silva argued that the alleged victim and the 16-year-old were the only witnesses, and “there is little, if any, tangible evidence.”

“The judge went on to say that even if this 12-year-old’s statement was true, the offense is not an especially heinous or cruel offense,” the appeals court said.

“Beyond losing her virginity,” Silva said of the 12-year-old, prosecutors did not claim that she “suffered any further injuries, either physical, mental or emotional.”

But the appeals court ruled that the 16-year-old was culpable, even if the victim had not said “no” — as prosecutors said she had — because she was 12 at the time of the alleged assault.

“It was not the judge’s role to essentially try the matter or substitute her judgment for that of the prosecutor,” the appeals court said in the decision.

Peter McAleer, the director of communications and community relations for New Jersey Courts, said neither Troiano or Silva were commenting on the cases. He said Troiano is retired, but still serves periodically.

Source Article from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/n-j-judge-spared-teen-rape-suspect-because-he-came-n1026111

Image copyright
Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Image caption

Tanks are prepared for Mr Trump’s 4 July military parade

The US military has told Washington DC residents not to panic if they see tanks on the streets for President Donald Trump’s Independence Day parade.

At least two Bradley armoured carriers and two M1A1 Abrams Tanks will be moved to the heart of the US capital for the president’s “Salute to America”.

The National Park Service will reportedly divert nearly $2.5m (£2m) to cover the cost of the event.

Mr Trump tweeted his 4 July celebration will be “the show of a lifetime.”

As well as tanks, the event will feature a military jet flyover, an extended fireworks show and speech by the president at the Lincoln Memorial.

Mr Trump invited the leadership of the Department of Defense to celebrate alongside him on Thursday.

The president will be joined by top brass, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford, the highest-ranking US military officer.

But the weather forecast is threatening to rain on Mr Trump’s parade. Afternoon and evening thunderstorms are predicted for Thursday.

Army Col Sunset Belinsky told a local CBS News affiliate: “Residents of the Capitol City will see the vehicles move through their neighbourhoods, but should not panic.”

The tanks were moved from a railyard in south-eastern Washington DC on Tuesday evening.

Col Belinsky did not disclose where the tanks would be displayed on the National Mall in the city centre.

Image copyright
Congressional Quarterly/Getty Images

Image caption

A visitor stands in front of temporary fencing along the National Mall as set up continues for Mr Trump’s “Salute to America”

Mr Trump’s Independence Day plans have divided opinion.

Critics of the president see it as an inappropriately partisan display and a misuse of public funds.

The National Park Service is diverting a portion of entrance and recreation fees intended to improve parks across the US in order to foot the bill for the parade, reports the Washington Post.

In previous years, the 4 July celebration on the National Mall has typically cost the agency about $2m, according to the newspaper.

The diverted funds are just a small fraction of the National Park Service’s $2bn plus budget.

But the agency complained in March that it is facing almost $12bn in backlogged maintenance and repair needs – exacerbated by the US government shutdown at the beginning of this year.

Trump administration officials have not disclosed how much taxpayers’ money will be used for the 4 July celebration. Military flyovers alone cost tens of thousands of dollars per hour.

Mr Trump said in a tweet that the expense “will be very little compared to what it is worth”.

On Monday, the National Park Service issued a permit to feminist group Code Pink, allowing them to display an inflatable balloon depicting Mr Trump as a baby on a section of the National Mall on 4 July to protest against the “militarisation” of the US holiday.

“We requested a space on the large, empty expanse at the base of the Washington Monument that would not have obstructed anyone’s view but would have allowed the president to see the baby,” said the group in a statement.

But organisers were denied permission to use helium for the balloon to make it airborne.

Image copyright
Zach Gibson/Getty Images

Image caption

The president and first lady at last year’s 4 July celebration

Reports that the White House has distributed VIP tickets to major donors and political appointees have stoked accusations that the event will be partisan rather than patriotic.

The Democratic National Committee has been given no tickets for the event.

This week, Mr Trump’s re-election campaign reportedly sent out an email to some of its donors in the Washington area, encouraging supporters to attend the event.

Both the Republican National Committee and Mr Trump’s campaign confirmed to US media they had received passes to hand out.

The Department of Defence said in a statement it had received 5,000 tickets from the White House.

It is unclear whether those without a ticket will be permitted into an area protected by Secret Service as the president delivers his speech.

Source Article from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48856990

The hosts of “Fox & Friends” took a look back Wednesday at the many Democrats who blasted President Trump for what they insisted was a “manufactured crisis” at the southern border.

The talking point was often repeated by Democrats throughout the year, particularly when Trump sought funding for a border wall in an address to the nation from the Oval Office in January.

In their joint response, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., both accused Trump of trying to “manufacture” a crisis.

“Fox & Friends” showed numerous clips of other Democrats, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.; Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif.; and Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, making similar arguments. The accusation was repeated by many in the mainstream media, including CNN’s Don Lemon, who said Trump was “determined to convince you there is a crisis at the border.”

ATTKISSON: REALITY AT US SOUTHERN BORDER CLASHES WITH MEDIA’S PARTISAN NARRATIVE

OCASIO-CORTEZ REPEATS ‘CONCENTRATION CAMP’ COMPARISON, DESPITE CRITICISM OVER REMARK

“How quickly they’ve changed their tune,” Ainsley Earhardt remarked, pointing to recent statements by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez about the dire situation at the border.

Hosts Brian Kilmeade and Griff Jenkins, who have both reported from the border this year, noted that the Border Patrol and other government officials have been pleading for help from Congress for months.

“From the California governor?! He should just resign at this point, to say that it’s a manufactured crisis at his border,” said Kilmeade.

Jenkins argued the crisis was not manufactured by the president, but by the “inaction of Congress to reform the asylum laws,” as border officials insisted should be done.

The DHS secretary under Barack Obama, meanwhile, is pushing back on Democrats’ drive to decriminalize border crossings, saying such a move would be tantamount to “open borders” policy and will lead to hundreds of thousands more people flooding into the U.S. every month.

CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“That is tantamount to declaring publicly that we have open borders,” Jeh Johnson told The Washington Post.

“That is unworkable, unwise and does not have the support of a majority of American people or the Congress, and if we had such a policy, instead of 100,000 apprehensions a month, it will be multiples of that.”

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-friends-looks-back-on-dems-claims-of-manufactured-border-crisis-how-quickly-theyve-changed-their-tune

After months of relative stability, the Democratic presidential race could be in the midst of its first major shake-up.

Sens. Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren are on the rise — while former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders, who have been in first and second place for most of the year, have seen their positions worsen in recent polls.

To be clear: Biden remains the leader in every recent poll. But the size of that lead on average is no longer as impressive as it’s been — and in a few polls, it’s gotten quite small indeed, raising questions about just how solid the frontrunner’s position is.

Sanders, meanwhile, has lost his position as the one major alternative to Biden. The Vermont senator’s support level in polls has dropped significantly since the early months of the year and has remained stagnant for the past two months while Warren and Harris have surged. On average, that trio of candidates is now about tied for second place.

The only other candidate to escape the bottom tier in polls so far has been South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg. But Buttigieg has declined a bit of late, as he deals with a police shooting back at home and more support has gone to Warren and Harris. While both senators now enjoy double-digit support, the mayor is stuck in the single digits in most recent polls. The other 20 candidates have failed to gain any traction.

Seven long months remain until the Iowa caucuses. The big question for the race right now, though, is whether this post-debate slump is a temporary setback for Biden — or whether it’s the start of his campaign’s collapse.

It’s now clear: Biden is a weak frontrunner

For a few short weeks after Biden officially entered the presidential race on April 25, it looked like he could easily put this whole thing away.

Since then, he has been in first place in every single national and early-state poll. He leads in Iowa. He leads in New Hampshire. He leads in South Carolina. And he leads among voters of all races and ethnicities.

All of this is in fact still true, even after the first debate. But there have long been doubts within the party about Biden’s campaign — about whether he had grown out of touch with a changing Democratic electorate, about his longtime tendency to speak in a way that causes problems for him, and about his age and his ability to withstand the rigors of the election trail. Accordingly, as measured by endorsements, Biden’s support within the party hasn’t been resounding.

The first debate exacerbated all those doubts, particularly when Harris criticized Biden for his position on busing. But it’s the post-debate polls that should really set off alarm bells in Biden-world. On average, Biden is at 27 percent nationally, per RealClearPolitics. Even before the debate, he’d declined 9 points from his commanding-looking 41 percent peak. In the few days after it, he’s fallen another 5 points.

And though some polls continued to show Biden leading his next-closest rival by double digits, a CNN national poll showed him ahead of Harris by just 5, and a Quinnipiac poll showed him ahead of her by just 2. So the race has gotten closer.

Another worrying sign for Biden is that Harris appears to have gained ground among black voters. While black voters are a key Democratic constituency broadly, they are particularly important in the early primary state of South Carolina, where they make up more than 60 percent of the primary electorate. Biden has consistently led among black voters by wide margins in polls, but Quinnipiac showed Harris just 4 points behind him.

The takeaway overall is that Biden remains a frontrunner, but a weak one. The first debate showed he is not rock-solid — far from it. The scenario where he wins everything in a cakewalk now seems far less likely. Just how much trouble he’s in will be determined in the coming weeks, as we see whether he can stanch his bleeding of support.

Bernie Sanders’s support actually dropped two months ago

Another candidate having a tough time of late is Bernie Sanders.

The 2016 runner-up had long seemed a natural contender for the nomination this time around, and his call for a “political revolution” made a sharp contrast to Biden’s more establishment-friendly campaign.

In the more crowded field this time around, Sanders’s position in polls has never been fantastic — especially considering he is so well-known — but it was decent. He spent the first four months or so of the year in second place behind Biden. And through mid-March, his support was trending slowly upward, eventually reaching 24 percent in the RealClearPolitics average of national polls.

But soon afterward, Sanders’s support stopped improving. And as you can see below, in late April it dropped rather dramatically:


RealClearPolitics

Interestingly, most of Sanders’s decline was not around the time of Warren and Harris’s rise, but rather before that — around the time of Biden’s announcement and large polling bump.

As mentioned above, this announcement bump for Biden has since eroded, so we might have expected Sanders’s polling position to recover too.

But it hasn’t. Sanders has remained stuck in the mid- to high teens in national polls (whereas his mid-March peak was at 24 percent). Biden’s recent woes have benefited not Sanders but instead Warren and now Harris. And since Sanders hasn’t grown his support, he’s now battling with those two for second place.

Overall, it does seem that Sanders’s campaign has underperformed expectations for someone who got more than 40 percent of the overall Democratic primary vote in 2016. In retrospect, it seems that a significant portion of Sanders’s support was due to the dynamics of that race (a head-to-head contest where he was the only alternative to Hillary Clinton). This time around, there are other options.

Sanders’s policy and political agenda is also less distinctive than it was in 2016 — his marquee policies like Medicare-for-all and free college have been embraced by other contenders, and Warren’s candidacy is also focused on challenging the power of corporations and billionaires (though they have their differences). So while Sanders remains a top-tier contender and shouldn’t be counted out, this surely isn’t where he’d hoped to be at this point in the race.

Both Warren and Harris have risen — but Harris’s rise may be more dangerous to Biden

Finally, after months in which the race could basically be summarized as “Biden, Sanders, and the rest,” two other contenders have clearly joined the top tier: Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris.

Warren was commonly speculated about as a potential challenger to Hillary Clinton from the left in the 2016 cycle, but she ended up deciding not to run. This time around, once she got in, her rollout of a DNA test aimed at proving she was in fact part Native American was widely panned. She started off at an unimpressive position in the polls and had some difficulties fundraising, and pundit after pundit declared she was underperforming.

But Warren continued to campaign hard — with a strategy focused on releasing oh-so-many detailed policy plans, with the result that her sheer number of plans became a running joke. And many Democratic voters turned out to like what they were hearing from her.

By May, Warren had risen to third place on average but still tended to poll in the single digits. But she’s kept on improving through June, and passed Sanders to get second place in a few polls taken in the weeks before the debate.

After that debate, she seems to have maintained her position — but Harris shot up to join her and Sanders at around the 15 percent support level. There hasn’t been much early-state polling lately, but a few Iowa polls have similarly shown first Warren rising and then Harris.

Particularly interesting is Harris’s improving support among both black voters — again, Quinnipiac shows her getting 27 percent there, just 4 points behind Biden, a major change. Strong margins among black voters were crucial to both Barack Obama’s 2008 victory over Clinton and Clinton’s 2016 win over Sanders — and could be key to Biden’s defeat.

“At the moment, Harris is putting together an Obama/Clinton like coalition of white college grads + African-Americans,” CNN’s Harry Enten tweeted. And that may be a more troubling development for Biden than the surge of disproportionately white voters toward Warren and Buttigieg. This makes Harris a serious threat to the frontrunner indeed.

Source Article from https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/3/20679930/2020-presidential-election-polls-harris-biden-warren-sanders

Just in time for the Fourth of July, Nike and washed-up footballer Colin Kaepernick have joined forces in an America-bashing cavalcade. The enormous sportswear company planned to release a new red, white, and blue sneaker adorned with American Revolutionary Betsy Ross’ 13-star flag, this country’s first banner.

However, Kaepernick complained to Nike that this all-American symbol is – what else? – racist. “After images of the shoe were posted online, Mr. Kaepernick, a Nike endorser, reached out to company officials saying that he and others felt the Betsy Ross flag is an offensive symbol because of its connection to an era of slavery,” the Wall Street Journal reported.

So, Nike decided that they could not just do it. They scrapped the new product and, in turn, igniting a fresh national controversy.

NIKE DROPPED BETSY ROSS-THEMED FOURTH OF JULY SNEAKER AFTER COLIN KAEPERNICK COMPLAINED, REPORT SAYS

For starters, why is anyone listening to this creep?

Kaepernick is one of the most divisive people in this country. He started the “take-a-knee” movement that had Americans shouting at each other for perhaps 18 months or more. Rather than set aside our differences and unify ourselves through “The Star-Spangled Banner,” he chose to pit Americans against each other over one of the few things that hold us together.

Shame on him!

This punk has not played football since 2016. And he didn’t distinguish himself much, at that. I know nothing about football, and the less I learn about it, the better. What I do know is, rather than play ball, he created massive migraines for the entire NFL. When he got other players to take to their knees during the national anthem before games, he sent ratings into a tailspin as revolted fans clicked off their HDTVs. No wonder team owners dodged him like the measles.

If this bum has a problem with Betsy Ross’ 13-star flag and the original 13 colonies, then, as Brian Kilmeade observed Tuesday morning on “Fox & Friends,” Kaepernick has a problem with today’s American flag. It has 13 stripes, which also represent our original 13 colonies and the first 13 American states. So, Kaepernick’s fight is with any and every American flag created since 1776.

Disgusting!

As for Nike, shame on this corporate giant for caving into this loudmouth. Nike should have ignored Kaepernick and sold these shoes to the millions of Americans who love this country, rather than knuckle under to the rants of this solitary anti-American, tattoo-encrusted loser.

The only person to escape favorably from this needless mess is Gov. Doug Ducey, R-Ariz.

“Words cannot express my disappointment at this terrible decision,” Ducey said today via Twitter. ”I am embarrassed for Nike. Nike is an iconic American brand and American company. This country, our system of government and free enterprise have allowed them to prosper and flourish.”

“Instead of celebrating American history the week of our nation’s independence, Nike has apparently decided that Betsy Ross is unworthy, and has bowed to the current onslaught of political correctness and historical revisionism,” Ducey added. “It is a shameful retreat for the company. American businesses should be proud of our country’s history, not abandoning it.”

“Nike has made its decision, and now we’re making ours,” Ducey continued. “I’ve ordered the Arizona Commerce Authority to withdraw all financial incentive dollars under their discretion that the State was providing for the company to locate here.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Ducey concluded: “Arizona’s economy is doing just fine without Nike. We don’t need to suck up to companies that consciously denigrate our nation’s history…And finally, it shouldn’t take a controversy over a shoe for our kids to know who Betsy Ross is. A founding mother. Her story should be taught in all American schools. In the meantime, it’s worth googling her.”

Down with Kaepernick! Up with Ducey!

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY DEROY MURDOCK

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/deroy-murdock-nike-steps-on-its-own-shoelaces-in-latest-kaepernick-fiasco

Taken alone, that step does little to bring Iran closer to the potential development of a nuclear weapon. And the stockpile could easily be reduced to compliance by shipping the excess abroad. But the violation of the 2015 agreement nonetheless served as a warning that the pact itself was in imminent danger.

In response, top diplomats from the European Union, Britain, France and Germany released a statement on Tuesday warning that they were “extremely concerned” and that “our commitment to the nuclear deal depends on full compliance with Iran.“

“We are urgently considering next steps” under the terms of the 2015 agreement, the Europeans said, though they did not elaborate.

Mr. Rouhani’s statement on Wednesday appeared to rebuff those warnings, setting the stage for Iran to resume production of more highly enriched uranium.

The Iranians have said they are trying to preserve the nuclear deal, but they have expressed increasing impatience with the Europeans’ requests that Tehran abide by the 2015 agreement — known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or J.C.P.O.A., — long after the Trump administration stamped it a dead letter.

“Iran is committed to the full implementation of the #JCPOA: as long as E3/EU implement THEIR economic commitments,” Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammed Javad Zarif, wrote on Twitter late Tuesday night, referring to the European Union and its three signatories to the deal, Britain, France and Germany.

“So moving forward, Iran will comply with its commitments under the JCPOA in exactly the same manner as the EU/E3 have — and will — comply with theirs,” Mr. Zarif added. “Fair enough? “

.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/03/world/middleeast/iran-uranium-enrichment-rouhani.html

President Donald Trump on Wednesday branded as “fake” news reports his administration was dropping plans to ask people if they are U.S. citizens on the 2020 census — despite officials in his own administration having said on Monday that the question will not be asked. 

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and a Justice Department lawyer had both said Monday that the Census Bureau is in the process of printing the census questionnaire without the citizenship question.

Their statements came four days after a Supreme Court decision that effectively blocked the question being added to the 2020 census questionnaire.

The high court ordered the case challenging the question to be reconsidered by a lower court, leaving the Commerce Department with little or no time to have the dispute settled legally before this past Monday’s deadline for printing the questionnaires.

But Trump, in a tweet Wednesday, said, “The News Reports about the Department of Commerce dropping its quest to put the Citizenship Question on the Census is incorrect or, to state it differently, FAKE!”

“We are absolutely moving forward, as we must, because of the importance of the answer to this question,” Trump wrote.

Trump’s use of the word “quest” echoed its use by The New York Times on Tuesday in its lead paragraph of a story that said the Trump administration, “in a dramatic about-face, abandoned its question to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.”

A White House spokesman did not immediately respond to CNBC’s query as to wherther the census form will ask the citizenship question.

A Census Bureau spokesman referred questions about the president’s tweet to the Commerce Department, which did not immediate respond to a request for comment.

The Trump administration’s plan to add the citizenship question to the 2020 census had been controversial since it was first announced in March 2018. In addition to that question, the Census Bureau at the time said that respondents would be asked how many people live in their residences, and those persons’ ages, sexes, Hispanic origin, race, relationship and homeownership status.

Critics of the citizenship question say it would reduce the census’s accuracy, and undercount minority populations, including immigrants.

An undercount of those groups in turn could affect the allocation of billions of dollars worth of federal funds, whose distribution often is related to census data. An undercount also could affect how district seats in the House of Representatives are drawn.

A citizenship question has not been posed to all U.S. households in decades.

On Tuesday, Ross, in a statement had said, “I respect the Supreme Court but strongly disagree with its ruling regarding my decision to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 Census.”

“The Census Bureau has started the process of printing the decennial questionnaires without the question. My focus, and that of the Bureau and the entire Department is to conduct a complete and accurate census,” Ross said.

Also Tuesday, a Department of Justice lawyer, in an email to legal challengers of the citizenship question, wrote, “”We can confirm that the decision has been made to print the 2020 Decennial Census questionnaire without a citizenship question, and that the printer has been instructed to begin the printing process.”

Democrats had celebrated that day the Trump administration’s apparent decision to abandon the controversial question for the upcoming census.

“Today’s decision is a welcome development for our democracy,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said at the time.

“House Democrats will be vigilant to ensure a full, fair and accurate Census.”

A spokesman for Pelosi did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for a statement on Trump’s tweet

Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif. on Wednesday cited the Justice Department lawyer’s statement in a tart response to Trump’s new tweet.

Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/03/trump-says-absolutely-moving-forward-with-census-citizenship-question.html


AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

Analysis

Other presidents have celebrated the Fourth. It’s hard to think of one who has less sense of what it’s about.

July 03, 2019

Jeff Greenfield is a five-time Emmy-winning network television analyst and author.

Since President Donald Trump announced his proposal for a military display and presidential speech on the National Mall, Trump’s critics across the political spectrum, have reached a consensus: The president’s intrusion into Independence Day is a hijacking. New York Times columnist Michelle Cottle complains that Trump is “trampling a longstanding tradition of keeping these events nonpartisan — apolitical even — and focused on bringing the nation together.” The same sentiment came from the Washington Post’s editorial page, and from conservative Trump skeptics like radio host Charlie Sykes and former GOP Congressman David Jolly.

It’s true that the president has upended many of the traditions of the celebration; the location of the fireworks have been moved; the president has demanded a heavy military presence, including tanks in the streets of Washington, and he plans to deliver a speech in front of a crowd where the choicest locations will be reserved for ticket holders, a feature somewhat at odds with Trump’s rhetorical scorn for the elites and D.C. insiders.

Story Continued Below

By one measure, the criticism is overwrought. There have been presidents who’ve appeared during celebrations at the Capitol, most recently Harry Truman in 1951. President Richard Nixon offered up a videotaped speech aired on the Mall in 1970; other presidents, including Calvin Coolidge and John Kennedy, traveled to Philadelphia’s Independence Hall to mark the occasion. (If you want one measure of how far we have traveled since JFK’s time, note that he devoted much of his speech to celebrating the emerging European Union: “The United States looks on this vast new enterprise with hope and admiration,” JFK said “We do not regard a strong and united Europe as a rival but as a partner.”)

As for the parade—well, if Trump wants military armored vehicles to accompany the flyover by the Navy’s Blue Angels, stealth fighters and Air Force One, maybe he’s just trying to emulate Thomas Jefferson, who watched a military parade from the White House back in 1801, rather than the celebrations of military might more common to Moscow and Pyongyang.

And if Trump takes the opportunity to play politics with the speech, something he can rarely resist, it’s worth keeping in mind that political parties have been using the Fourth of July celebrations as platforms ever since our first parties, the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans, began holding separate Independence Day events in several locations back in the 1790s.

Celebrations of the Fourth do not tend to benefit both parties equally, and here, Trump may well be demonstrating his instinctive grasp of which way a big event tends to nudge the populace. In 2011, two academics who studied the political effect of Fourth of July festivities concluded that: “Fourth of July celebrations in the United States shape the nation’s political landscape by forming beliefs and increasing participation, primarily in favor of the Republican Party. … The political right has been more successful in appropriating American patriotism and its symbols during the 20th century, [so] there is a political congruence between the patriotism promoted on Fourth of July and the values associated with the Republican Party.”

So, yes, there’s been plenty of ground laid for the kind of thing Trump plans to do.

For all that, history also suggests there’s good reason that his plan is rubbing people the wrong way. For one, it really is rare; it’s far more common for presidents to vacate Washington on the Fourth of July, or to remain at the White House, than to insert themselves into the proceedings.

And on a more troubling level, what Trump is doing is wreathing himself in the most potent symbols of American history—delivering a speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, site of the 1963 March on Washington, looking across at a landscape of monuments—without any appreciation for the history that made that whole landscape possible. Perhaps uniquely among American presidents, he sees himself without any connection to the American story, any link to presidents past, other than his manifest superiority to any of them.

Someone who can say of himself that he has been treated worse than any president in history—four of whom were assassinated—has an impressively unique understanding of his own role in the American story, to say the least. He has rarely if ever reached back to his predecessors to find any kind of meaningful historical connection, especially the kind that would reach across lines of party and ideology to find common national ground on a day like the Fourth. Kennedy often reached back to the first generation of American political leaders; Ronald Reagan quoted FDR and JFK in many of his addresses.

Trump prefers to think of himself as the lone, overarching figure who can bend history to his will. “I alone can fix it,” he said in his 2016 acceptance speech. Neither that speech, nor his inaugural, invoked the name of any past leader. He appears to believe that the American economy turned 180 degrees on the day of his inauguration, rather than moving on the same upward trajectory it had been on for the better part of a decade. Nor is he bound by the restraints that have guided his predecessors in understanding when partisan politics ought to give way to more unifying themes.

This is, after all, a president who went to a CIA commemoration of its fallen agents and bragged (falsely) about the size of his inaugural audience and the number of times he appeared on the cover of Time magazine. This is the president who has repeatedly made blatantly political arguments in speeches to different branches of the military, when his long line of predecessors as commander in chief all somehow managed to observe the bright line between national leadership and partisan brawling.

There’s also a more personal dimension to the Trumpification of the Fourth. Throughout his presidency, he has taken outsize delight in over-the-top celebrations and honors given him by foreign governments, a delight that seems to translate into bizarre foreign policies. Receive the Gold Medallion from Saudi Arabia, and you brush aside the kingdom’s murder and dismemberment of an American resident. Enjoy lavish banquets in China, and the brutal crackdown on a million Uighurs goes unmentioned. Get a “beautiful letter” from Kim Jong Un and maybe North Korea can keep its nukes. (And would you really be totally shocked if Kim showed up at the White House to help Trump celebrate the Fourth?)

Trump has been obsessed by the idea of a massive military parade ever since attending the Bastille Day celebration in Paris two years ago, first ordering up a Veterans Day parade for 2018 that was canceled only after the price tag proved embarrassingly high. For someone who literally cannot grasp the possibility that more people voted for his opponent than him, or that fewer people came to his inaugural than his predecessor’s, it is not much of a reach to imagine that in the president’s mind he will see the flyovers and the fireworks as a nation paying tribute to the greatness of a man, rather than the other way around.

It is true that, on some public occasions, Trump has been able to subordinate this vanity to a sense of occasion, at least in his literal words. His speech in Normandy at the 75th anniversary of D-Day was an unexceptionable tribute to the men who stormed the beaches, although a different White House might have thought better of staging an interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham in front of a graveyard filled with the bodies of those men. He has delivered State of the Union speeches without describing Democrats in the House chamber as treasonous, or the media in the press sections as enemies of the people.

What remains unsettling, however, is the thoroughly reasonable conviction that when the president delivers such homilies, he has no real connection to those words. At any moment, it’s plausible to expect that the id will drive the superego from the podium, and the explosion of grievance, self-pity and rage will erupt—dominating a day that has in recent times been free of political division.

To be fair, however, that would not be the worst result of a presidential Fourth. Back in 1845, President James Polk presided over a fireworks display at the White House. During the festivities, 12 rockets were accidentally fired into the crowd, and two people were killed. If the worst thing that happens tomorrow is just a speech, we can be thankful for small favors.

Source Article from https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/07/03/fourth-of-july-donald-trump-military-display-national-mall-227263

July 3 at 7:17 AM

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on Wednesday warned that Iran would increase its enrichment of uranium this weekend to whatever level was needed beyond the cap set by the nuclear agreement, a move that could add to an escalation with the United States. 

Iran has repeatedly threatened to increase enrichment above the 3.67 percent level allowed under the nuclear deal by July 7 unless it receives some relief from U.S. sanctions. European countries are struggling to meet Tehran’s demands to keep the 2015 nuclear deal alive. 

“Our enrichment rate is not going to be 3.67 percent anymore,” Rouhani said. “It’s going to be as much as we want it to be.”  

Rouhani’s comments, carried by the state broadcaster, came after Iran on Monday breached the 300 kilogram (660 pound) limit for low-enriched uranium allowed under the deal. 

That move did not put Iran significantly closer to holding enough high-enriched uranium to produce a nuclear weapon, whereas increasing uranium enrichment levels could reduce its so-called “break out” time to make that possible. 

Uranium enriched at low levels is suitable for fuel in a nuclear reactor but if it is enriched to much higher levels, around 90 percent, it can be used as fissile material in a nuclear weapon. 

Iran has previously said it plans to raise enrichment to 20 percent — the level it possessed in its stockpile before the deal. That move would mean Tehran could jump to producing weapons-grade uranium more quickly.   

Experts estimate that before the nuclear deal the amount of time that Iran needed to be able to have enough material for a nuclear bomb was around two or three months, with the accord increasing that time period to around a year.

Iran argues that it should no longer be bound by the limits of the deal if it does not also benefit from the sanctions relief that the 2015 agreement promises in exchange. Since withdrawing from the deal last year the United States has reimposed sanctions, which has also made it difficult for European companies to trade with Iran. 

In the early hours of Wednesday morning President Trump tweeted that Iran had been “violating” the nuclear deal “long before I became President,” without providing any evidence for his assertions. “And now they have breached their stockpile limit,” he concluded. Not Good!”  

Inspectors from the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency, tasked with verifying whether Iran was sticking to the deal, had said it was compliant until Monday, when Iran said it was breaking the stockpile limit.

The unraveling of the 2015 deal comes against the backdrop of increased friction in the Persian Gulf, as analysts say that Tehran is determined to show strength in the face of increasing U.S. sanctions. Trump said he came close to carrying out strikes against Iran late last month after it shot down an American surveillance drone. 

The United States has also pointed the finger at Tehran for explosions caused by limpet mines on petrochemical tankers in the Gulf of Oman, a charge Iran denies. Oil infrastructure has also been attacked in Saudi Arabia and rockets have been fired at U.S. bases in Iraq, where Iran backs numerous Shiite militias. 

Rouhani said the position of the United States with regards to the nuclear deal was contradictory. Trump repeatedly criticized the nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, describing it as “bad” and “rotten” before withdrawing from it last year, but U.S. officials have since criticized Iran for reducing its commitments under it.  

“It’s interesting that until today the U.S. was referring to the JCPOA as a bad agreement, but now that Iran has decided to distance itself from this ‘bad agreement’ their shouts and cries are spread all over the world,” Rouhani said. 

As sanctions cripple its economy, Iran took the largely symbolic step of crossing the 300 kilogram threshold on Monday. Holding to its threat of increasing enrichment levels of uranium to beyond 3.67 percent would be seen as a much more serious breach of the deal, and one that could finally kill it by triggering Europe to reimpose its own sanctions. 

Before the nuclear deal, Iran had been building a heavy water reactor at Arak which experts deemed a high proliferation risk that could give Iran the capacity to produce weapons-grade plutonium. The nuclear deal required Iran redesign the plant and pour concrete into the pipes of the reactor’s calandria, or core. “If you don’t comply with your commitments, the reactor will return to its previous situation,” Rouhani said.  

The nuclear deal “is either good or bad,” said Rouhani. “If its good, everyone should comply to their commitments,” he said. “Comparing your level of commitment to ours, how do you even allow yourselves to object?” 

In an effort to keep Iran in the deal, European countries have attempted to set up a trading system that would shield European companies from U.S. sanctions when trading with Iran. But Iran has said the Instex trading system falls short of their expectations, which include being able to sell oil. Washington has threatened any country buying Iranian oil with sanctions. 

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/iranian-president-warns-tehran-will-takenext-step-and-increase-enrichment-on-sunday/2019/07/03/2014e944-9d01-11e9-83e3-45fded8e8d2e_story.html

As the president of the National Border Patrol Council, the union representing 16,000 Border Patrol agents, I am personally and professionally offended by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s outrageous, inflammatory and false claims about the dedicated law enforcement officers I represent.

Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., once again tweeted Tuesday to describe our detention facilities for illegal immigrants as “concentration camps” – absurdly comparing these facilities to the death camps run by the Nazis who murdered 6 million Jews and millions of others during World War II.

This is a horrible insult to the memories of the innocent men, women and children slaughtered by the Nazis, and to our Border Patrol agents – implying that our agents are no different from the Nazi butchers. The outrageousness of this vicious slander is breathtaking – especially coming from a member of Congress.

OCASIO-CORTEZ REPEATS ‘CONCENTRATION CAMP’ COMPARISON, DESPITE CRITICISM OVER REMARK

I am disgusted by Ocasio-Cortez’s lies and her determination to needlessly and dangerously inflame public sentiment regarding the crisis on our southern border by abandoning facts and making wild and unsupported accusations.

The congresswoman is clearly using phrases designed to enrage the uninformed and to pander to a base that wants open borders and unlimited illegal immigration.

Ocasio-Cortez made an outrageous claim this week about a woman being told to drink toilet water in a detention facility. This false claim is easily disproven with actual video.

Ocasio-Cortez is basing her claim on a single female detainee who reportedly told the congresswoman that an agent told her to “drink toilet water.” That’s it.

The congresswoman is clearly not on a “fact-finding” mission – she is on a propaganda mission. She made up her mind long before visiting a detention facility in Texas that Border Patrol agents are bad people. And she obviously believes that all illegal immigrants are innocent victims, and that photo ops and lies can help her spread her propaganda to an uninformed public.

Instead, Ocasio-Cortez is playing politics with illegal immigrants. She seeks to raise her profile higher in the media and portray herself as the champion of the detainees – when she is in fact working against their best interests.

Ocasio-Cortez plays off people’s emotions. She is on record as saying facts don’t matter as long as she is “morally right.” Enough said.

I don’t use the word “propaganda” lightly. But it is widely understood to mean spreading information that is not true, but rather used to influence people and further an agenda while appealing to emotions. That is exactly what Ocasio-Cortez does.

I prefer using facts. The facts do not support Ocasio-Cortez. Detainees have never been told to drink toilet water. And Border Patrol agents are doing everything in their power to treat the illegal immigrants as humanely as possible under overcrowded conditions.

I find it interesting that every time Ocasio-Cortez is found to be wrong about something – and that’s quite often – she simply doubles down and redirects with new “information.”

In this case, when presented with facts about drinking fountains in jails being connected to toilets – with separate water lines – she says “yes, the drinking fountains are attached to the toilets, but the drinking fountains weren’t working.” This is not true and easily debunked with facts. Almost every facility we have is blanketed with video cameras.

Border Patrol agents have been vilified by some politicians and many in the mainstream media for decades, and 99 percent of the time this criticism is unfair and completely inaccurate.

By comparing Border Patrol agents to Nazis, Ocasio-Cortez is trying to dehumanize us. Interestingly, this is the same thing she accuses us of doing with the thousands upon thousands of illegal immigrants we are charged with arresting, detaining and caring for

Border Patrol agents do not drag thousands of innocent children across the border. We don’t risk their lives by exposing them to harsh weather and circumstances no child should be exposed to. Those deeds are carried out by their parents, relatives and the ruthless coyotes who profit from human misery.

We don’t write the immigration laws – Congress does. We don’t determine how much money and manpower we get to enforce those laws – Congress does.

Ocasio-Cortez can seek approval for any changes in the law and in funding that she wishes. But she should stop blaming us for enforcing the law and carrying out our assigned duties. We’re doing the best we can with what we have to work with.

Ocasio-Cortez voted not to fund better facilities and conditions for the illegal immigrants we detain. So if she wants to know who is responsible for wanting to continue the current conditions in these facilities all she has to do is look in the mirror, and look at other lawmakers who support her position. She can make excuses, but one has to legitimately question whose best interests she is looking out for.

The congresswoman is not a fiscal conservative, so her opposition to providing increased funding to help us better care for detainees is not caused by her desire to cut government spending.

Instead, Ocasio-Cortez is playing politics with illegal immigrants. She seeks to raise her profile higher in the media and portray herself as the champion of the detainees – when she is in fact working against their best interests.

I am proud of the Border Patrol agents who work tirelessly for the American public to uphold the rule of law and defend the sanctity of life.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

I’m not blind to the fact that we will always have a few people in such a large organization who say and do unprofessional things. You can find a small percentage of people who act improperly among elected officials, members of the media, the medical profession, the clergy and in every other profession.

But I know for a fact that the vast majority of people I’ve worked with over the years in the Border Patrol are honorable, decent and hardworking public servants. Ocasio-Cortez should be ashamed of herself for trying to demonize us and turn public sentiment against us.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY BRANDON JUDD

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/brandon-judd-ocasio-cortezs-attacks-on-border-patrol-are-outrageous-and-based-on-lies

The first African-American woman to serve in the U.S. Senate says Kamala Harris “got it wrong” when she criticized Joe Biden over racial issues during a Democratic debate last week.

Carol Moseley Braun, who represented Illinois in the Senate for one term, from 1993 to 1999, said it was “sad” that Harris, a U.S. senator from California, chose to attack Biden, the former vice president and U.S. senator from Delaware.

“We can be proud of her nonetheless, but her ambition got it wrong about Joe,” Moseley Braun said, according to Politico. “He is about the best there is. For her to take that tack is sad.”

HARRIS CAPITALIZES ON DEBATE PERFORMANCE, AS BIDEN DEFENDS RECORD ON RACE

“We can be proud of her nonetheless, but her ambition got it wrong about Joe. He is about the best there is. For her to take that tack is sad.”

— Carol Moseley Braun, former U.S. senator

During last Thursday’s debate in Miami, Harris blasted Biden’s decades-ago work with segregationist senators, making the point personal by explaining she was a member of only the second class of black children in California to be bused to school in an effort to force desegregation.

Former U.S. Sen. Carol Moseley Braun. (Associated Press)

“That little girl was me,” Harris told the former vice president.

The confrontation was viewed as a key moment for Harris, whom some claimed had “won” the debate among 10 candidates. Harris’s campaign said it raised more than $2 million in the 24 hours immediately after the debate.

Some of the money came from sales of $30 T-shirts with a photo of Harris as a child and the quote from the debate.

Biden, meanwhile, got involved in another race-related controversy the next day, when he made a remark in Chicago.

“That kid wearing a hoodie may very well be the next poet laureate and not a gangbanger,” Biden said during a speech at the headquarters of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, a group of nonprofits organized by the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The comment drew backlash from Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and others, who took issue with Biden’s choice of words.

Moseley Braun, meanwhile, continues to stand by Biden, Politico reported. The 71-year-old Chicago native had previously endorsed Biden for president, the report said.

Fox News’ Brie Stimson and Danielle Wallace contributed to this story.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kamala-harris-got-it-wrong-in-sad-attack-on-biden-former-us-senator-says

Migrants who’ve been taken into custody related to cases of illegal entry into the United States, sit in one of the cages at a facility in McAllen, Texas in June 2018. On Tuesday a federal judge ruled that asylum-seeking migrants can not be denied bond and held indefinitely.

AP


hide caption

toggle caption

AP

Migrants who’ve been taken into custody related to cases of illegal entry into the United States, sit in one of the cages at a facility in McAllen, Texas in June 2018. On Tuesday a federal judge ruled that asylum-seeking migrants can not be denied bond and held indefinitely.

AP

A Seattle federal judge ruled Tuesday that asylum-seeking migrants detained for being in the U.S. illegally have the right to a bond hearing in immigration court rather than being held until their cases are complete.

U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman said it is unconstitutional to detain migrants who fled to the U.S. seeking asylum protections indefinitely.

The decision reverses an April directive from Attorney General William Barr ordering immigration judges not to release migrants on bail after an applicant successfully establishes “a credible fear of persecution or torture” in the home country — a policy that has been in place since 2005.

“The court finds that plaintiffs have established a constitutionally-protected interest in their liberty, a right to due process, which includes a hearing before a neutral decision maker to assess the necessity of their detention and a likelihood of success on the merits of that issue,” Pechman wrote.

In her ruling, Pechman also took issue with an aspect of Barr’s policy that left open the possibility that migrants, still awaiting a hearing, could be re-detained by ICE after being released on bond.

“The Government’s unwillingness to unconditionally assert that Plaintiff’s will not be re-detained means that the specter of re-detention looms and these Plaintiff’s and many members of their class face the real and imminent threat of bondless and indefinite detention…,” she said.

The ruling comes amid a widespread shortage of immigration judges that has caused massive delays in processing hearings. The most recent data available from The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse shows a total of 424 judges nationwide face a backlog of 892,517 cases on the courts’ active dockets as of the end of April.

“The three largest immigration courts were so under-resourced that hearing dates were being scheduled as far out as August 2023 in New York City, October 2022 in Los Angeles, and April 2022 in San Francisco,” TRAC reports.

Pechman also modified a preliminary injunction issued earlier this year. The new injunction requires the government to ensure bond hearings are held within seven days after they are requested by eligible asylum-seekers. If the government exceeds that limit, the undocumented immigrant must be released.

Immigrant rights advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, sued to block the policy, which was set to take effect this month.

In a statement Matt Adams, legal director of Northwest Immigrant Rights Project said, “The court reaffirmed what has been settled for decades: that asylum seekers who enter this country have a right to be free from arbitrary detention.”

Michael Tan, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project added, “Try as it may, the administration cannot circumvent the Constitution in its effort to deter and punish asylum-seekers applying for protection.”

The Department of Justice is expected to appeal the ruling quickly.

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2019/07/03/738385096/federal-judge-blocks-trump-policy-ordering-indefinite-detention-for-asylum-seeke

KHARTOUM – On the night of April 10, Sudan’s feared spymaster, Salah Gosh, visited President Omar Hassan al-Bashir in his palace to reassure the leader that mass protests posed no threat to his rule.

For four months, thousands of Sudanese had been taking to the streets. They were demanding democracy and an end to economic hardship.

Gosh told his boss, one of the Arab world’s longest serving leaders, that a protest camp outside the Defence Ministry nearby would be contained or crushed, said four sources, one of whom was present at the meeting.

His mind at ease, Bashir went to bed. When he woke, four hours later, it was to the realization that Gosh had betrayed him. His palace guards were gone, replaced by regular soldiers. His 30-year rule was at an end.

A member of Bashir’s inner circle, one of a handful of people to speak with him in those final hours, said the president went to pray. “Army officers were waiting for him when he finished,” the insider told Reuters.

They informed Bashir that Sudan’s High Security Committee, made up of the defence minister and the heads of the army, intelligence and police, was removing him from power, having concluded he’d lost control of the country.

He was taken to Khartoum’s Kobar jail, where he’d imprisoned thousands of political opponents during his rule. There he remains. It was a remarkably smooth putsch against a man who had seen off rebellions and attempted coups, survived U.S. sanctions and evaded arrest by the International Criminal Court on charges of genocide and war crimes in Darfur.

Reuters interviewed a dozen sources with direct knowledge of events leading up to the coup to piece together how Bashir finally lost his grip on power. These sources, including a former government minister, a member of Bashir’s inner circle and a coup plotter, portrayed a leader who was skilled at manipulating and controlling rival Islamist and military factions in Sudan, but increasingly isolated in a changing Middle East.

They described how Bashir mishandled one key relationship – with the United Arab Emirates. Oil-rich UAE had previously pumped billions of dollars into Sudan’s coffers. Bashir had served UAE interests in Yemen, where the Emirates and Saudi Arabia are waging a proxy war against Iran. But at the end of 2018, as Sudan’s economy imploded and protesters took to the streets, Bashir found himself without this powerful, and wealthy, friend.

 The sources recounted how National Intelligence and Security Service head Gosh contacted political prisoners and Sudanese opposition groups to seek their support in the weeks before the generals moved against Bashir. And in the days before the coup, these sources said, Gosh made at least one phone call to intelligence officials in the UAE to give them advance warning of what was about to happen.

The UAE and Saudi governments didn’t respond to detailed questions from Reuters for this article. UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash wrote on Twitter in June, after Bashir’s removal, that the Emirates were in communication “with all Sudanese opposition elements and the Transitional Military Council” that has assumed power.

“There is no doubt it is a sensitive period after years of Bashir’s dictatorship and Muslim Brotherhood,” Gargash went on, referring to Bashir’s Islamist allies in Sudan.

A betrayal

Relations between Bashir and the UAE were still warm in February 2017, when Bashir visited Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed in Abu Dhabi. Some 14,000 Sudanese troops were fighting in Yemen as part of a Saudi and UAE-led military coalition against Iranian-aligned rebels.

The prince, known among diplomats as MbZ, was now hoping for Bashir’s cooperation in another regard – cracking down on Islamists – said a senior official in the Sudanese government who was briefed on the meeting by Bashir.

The UAE was leading regional efforts to counter political Islam, which it and Saudi Arabia viewed as a direct threat to monarchic rule and the region. Those efforts gained new urgency from 2011, when the Arab Spring uprisings swept the Middle East. One Islamist group in particular was going from strength to strength: the Muslim Brotherhood. The UAE and Saudi Arabia consider the Brotherhood a terrorist organization. The Brotherhood says it is peaceful.

In 2012, Egyptians elected Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Mursi as their first Islamist president. He was ousted by the army a year later, to the satisfaction of the UAE and Saudi Arabia, which together with Gulf ally Kuwait sent $23 billion in aid to Cairo over the next 18 months.

In Sudan, the influence of Islamists was more deeply entrenched than in Egypt, and stretched back decades. Bashir seized power in 1989 as the head of an Islamist junta. Now Islamists controlled the military, intelligence services and key ministries. According to the senior government official, Bashir and MbZ reached “an understanding” that Bashir would root out Islamists and, in return, the UAE would provide Sudan with financial support. Bashir didn’t indicate how he planned to do this.

In broadcast remarks during the meeting, MbZ thanked the Sudanese leader for sending his troops to support the UAE and Saudi Arabia in Yemen. “I want to say a word of truth about the president. When the going got tough and things got worse, Sudan supported the Arab alliance without asking for anything in return,” said MbZ, sitting alongside Bashir.

Watching officials cheered and clapped.

Billions of dollars from the UAE flowed to Sudan after the Abu Dhabi talks. The UAE state news agency reported that in the year to March 2018, the UAE channeled a total $7.6 billion in the form of support to Sudan’s central bank, in private investments and investments through the Abu Dhabi Fund For Development.

One of Bashir’s most trusted aides, the director of his office, Taha Osman al-Hussein, was charged with handling Sudan’s relations with the UAE and with Saudi Arabia. Hussein, a former intelligence officer, was described by colleagues as ambitious and skilled. But government ministers resented his influence, complaining they couldn’t get to Bashir without going through Hussein, and that Hussein effectively controlled foreign policy. In one instance, he made an important foreign policy announcement to Sudan’s state news agency and Saudi Arabia’s press agency, bypassing the Foreign Ministry.

“He was the man who had a magic hold on Bashir’s mind,” said Ghamar Habani, a senior official in Bashir’s National Congress Party. 

Hussein’s enemies, including Sudan’s then spy chief and leading politicians, publicly accused him of spying for Saudi Arabia. Sudanese intelligence alleged Saudi Arabia and the UAE had deposited $109 million for Hussein in a bank account in Dubai. Hussein denied these allegations, which Sudanese media reported at the time, in meetings with Bashir, several sources told Reuters.

Bashir finally dismissed Hussein in June 2017 when it emerged he’d taken Saudi citizenship, said the former government official. Hussein moved to Riyadh and became an adviser to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, a position he still holds, shuttling between the two states.

Reuters couldn’t reach Hussein for comment. The UAE and Saudi governments didn’t respond to questions about the matter.

“The issue of Taha (Hussein) left a big scar on Bashir,” said Habani, the senior member of Bashir’s National Congress Party.

His sacking was also a blow to the UAE.

”We are Islamists”

In the summer of 2017, a diplomatic crisis exploded among Gulf Arab states. The UAE and Saudi Arabia severed relations with Qatar, angered by its continuing support for the Muslim Brotherhood. The rift put Bashir in a difficult position. Qatar, like the UAE, had provided billions of dollars of financial aid to Sudan’s impoverished economy.

Bashir’s Islamist allies in Sudan pressed him to maintain links with Qatar and not to take sides in the dispute. Their message was very clear, said the former government official, “we should keep relations with Qatar.”

In March 2018, Sudan and Qatar announced plans for a $4 billion agreement to jointly develop the Red Sea port of Suakin off Sudan’s coast.  

Bashir had chosen not to throw his support behind the UAE and Saudi Arabia in the dispute.

He had also opted not to diminish the influence of Islamists in his government. The senior government official said Bashir was afraid to alienate powerful Islamist figures. Among these powerbrokers was Ali Osman Taha, a former first vice president, and his successor Bakri Hassan Saleh, who took part in the coup that brought Bashir to power. Reuters couldn’t reach Taha or Saleh for comment.

By October 2018, Sudan was sliding into an economic crisis, with bread, fuel and hard currency in short supply. At a meeting of Bashir’s National Congress Party, Habani, the party official, asked the president why the UAE and Saudi Arabia weren’t coming to Sudan’s aid.

“Our brothers want me to get rid of you Islamists,” she quoted him as replying.

In December 2018, the UAE halted fuel supplies to Sudan, three Sudanese officials said, unhappy that Bashir wasn’t meeting his end of the bargain to squeeze out Islamists. “The Emirates and Saudi decided not to support Bashir financially because he refused to get rid of the Islamists and would not give in to pressure to support Saudi Arabia and the Emirates against Qatar,” said Habani. “They would not accept that Sudan would not take sides.”

In February 2019, Bashir appeared to seal his fate at a meeting of Sudan’s Shura Council, composed of the country’s top leaders. By now protests at soaring bread prices were raging across the country. Bashir declared: “We are Islamists and proud to be Islamists.”  

The senior government official said this was the point of no return. It was clear that Bashir wasn’t going to take on the Islamists.

Increasingly desperate for money, Bashir travelled to Qatar later the same month for talks with the emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani. According to the member of Bashir’s inner circle, the emir had offered Bashir a billion dollar lifeline. But Bashir returned home empty handed, the source said, after the emir revealed he was under pressure from “certain parties” to change his mind. The emir didn’t specify who these parties were.

Contacted by Reuters, an official at Qatar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said Qatar’s support for Sudan “is aimed toward the prosperity and well being of its people and is not tied to a certain political party or regime.” Qatar wasn’t pressured by a third party to stop its aid for Sudan, and development projects in Sudan were ongoing, the official said.

A plot

Behind the scenes, the plot to remove Bashir was taking shape.

An opposition leader, who was among political prisoners in Khartoum’s Kobar prison, where Bashir is now being held, recounted how spymaster Gosh unexpectedly appeared at the jail in the early days of January 2019 and met with eight opposition figures.

Gosh told the prisoners he had come from Abu Dhabi, with a promise from the UAE of fuel and other economic aid. He wanted the prisoners to support an outline plan for a new political system in Sudan. A source close to Gosh confirmed the conversation. 

Gosh returned to the prison 10 days later. This time he visited 26 cells holding political prisoners. “From then on conditions improved. We were given free cigarettes and a TV and chewing tobacco,” said the opposition leader, who is now at liberty along with all the others. “We found it very strange that the intelligence chief would visit opposition prisoners. But when the coup happened I understood why.”

According to a senior Western diplomat in Khartoum, the member of Bashir’s inner circle and the source close to Gosh, in mid-February the UAE and Gosh proposed a dignified exit for the president. Under the plan, Bashir would stay in power for a transitional period to be followed by elections.

Gosh declared in a press conference on Feb. 22 that Bashir was stepping down as leader of the National Congress Party and wouldn’t seek reelection in 2020. But in a televised address shortly afterwards, Bashir made no reference to quitting as party leader, and he told party members later the same day that Gosh had overstated the matter.

Moves against Bashir began to accelerate.

The UAE made contacts with Sudanese opposition parties and rebel groups who had waged war against Bashir to discuss “the political situation in Sudan post Bashir,” said a rebel leader and a person who acted as a liaison between the sides.

“The Emirates and Saudi decided not to support Bashir financially because he refused to get rid of Islamists.”

Ghamar Habani, a senior official in Bashir’s National Congress Party

When protesters set up camp outside the Defence Ministry, not far from Bashir’s residence, on April 6, Gosh’s National Intelligence and Security Service did nothing to stop them. “That’s when we realized the army was taking over,” said Habani, the senior member of Bashir’s National Congress Party.

Gosh reached out to top officials including the defence minister, the army chief of staff and the police chief. They agreed it was time to end Bashir’s rule. A source close to Gosh said each of the men realized “Bashir was finished.” A spokesman for the Transitional Military Council that now rules Sudan confirmed that Gosh took a lead role.

Bashir’s long-time ally, militia leader General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, was the last to join the conspiracy. Dagalo is better known as Hemedti, a name given to him by his grandmother. He leads Sudan’s feared Rapid Support Forces, a heavily-armed paramilitary unit that numbers in the tens of thousands and controls Khartoum.

Bashir’s fate was settled and in the early hours of April 11 he was removed from power.  

A few days later, Hussein, Bashir’s former pointman for relations with the UAE and Saudi Arabia, traveled back to Sudan as part of a Saudi and UAE delegation that met Sudan’s new military rulers.

On April 21, the UAE and Saudi Arabia announced they would deliver $3 billion worth of aid for Sudan. Hemedti subsequently said Sudanese troops would remain in Yemen.

Around the same time, opposition and rebel groups were meeting with UAE officials in Abu Dhabi. Ahmed Tugod, a senior official in Darfur’s rebel Justice and Equality Movement, was among those who attended the talks. He said UAE officials wanted to hear their views on reconciliation and stability. “We focused on the peace process and how to resolve the conflict in the war zones,” Tugod said.

Manchester City owner Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, a member of Abu Dhabi’s ruling family, oversaw contacts between the UAE and the rebel groups, said Tugod and the person who liaised. Reuters questions to Sheikh Mansour, sent via the UAE Foreign Ministry and Media Council, went unanswered.

An effort by Qatar to send its foreign minister for talks in Khartoum was rebuffed. 

In the weeks after Bashir’s removal, his old ally Hemedti emerged as the most powerful figure in Sudan, as deputy head of the Transitional Military Council that now runs the country. The former livestock trader gained international notoriety as one of the most ruthless militia commanders in the Darfur war that began in 2003. His militias were accused by human rights groups of atrocities including burning villages and raping and killing civilians. Hemedti has denied the allegations, as did Bashir’s government.

Gosh resigned his position on the Transitional Military Council on April 13. The spymaster was reviled by the protesters, and came under huge pressure to step down. Gosh’s whereabouts are unknown but security forces are deployed around his house in Khartoum.

On June 3, Hemedti’s soldiers crushed the sit-in outside the Defence Ministry, opening fire on protesters. Opposition medics say over 100 people were killed. Sudanese authorities put the number at 62. Then the soldiers set about clearing away the placards and banners, emblazoned with the slogans, “We don’t want to be like Egypt” and “United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia stop interfering in Sudan.”

Bashir’s Betrayal

By Khalid Abdelaziz, Michael Georgy and Maha El Dahan

Photo editing: Simon Newman

Design: Pete Hausler

Edited by Janet McBride 

Source Article from https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/sudan-bashir-fall/

As the president of the National Border Patrol Council, the union representing 16,000 Border Patrol agents, I am personally and professionally offended by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s outrageous, inflammatory and false claims about the dedicated law enforcement officers I represent.

Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., once again tweeted Tuesday to describe our detention facilities for illegal immigrants as “concentration camps” – absurdly comparing these facilities to the death camps run by the Nazis who murdered 6 million Jews and millions of others during World War II.

This is a horrible insult to the memories of the innocent men, women and children slaughtered by the Nazis, and to our Border Patrol agents – implying that our agents are no different from the Nazi butchers. The outrageousness of this vicious slander is breathtaking – especially coming from a member of Congress.

OCASIO-CORTEZ REPEATS ‘CONCENTRATION CAMP’ COMPARISON, DESPITE CRITICISM OVER REMARK

I am disgusted by Ocasio-Cortez’s lies and her determination to needlessly and dangerously inflame public sentiment regarding the crisis on our southern border by abandoning facts and making wild and unsupported accusations.

The congresswoman is clearly using phrases designed to enrage the uninformed and to pander to a base that wants open borders and unlimited illegal immigration.

Ocasio-Cortez made an outrageous claim this week about a woman being told to drink toilet water in a detention facility. This false claim is easily disproven with actual video.

Ocasio-Cortez is basing her claim on a single female detainee who reportedly told the congresswoman that an agent told her to “drink toilet water.” That’s it.

The congresswoman is clearly not on a “fact-finding” mission – she is on a propaganda mission. She made up her mind long before visiting a detention facility in Texas that Border Patrol agents are bad people. And she obviously believes that all illegal immigrants are innocent victims, and that photo ops and lies can help her spread her propaganda to an uninformed public.

Instead, Ocasio-Cortez is playing politics with illegal immigrants. She seeks to raise her profile higher in the media and portray herself as the champion of the detainees – when she is in fact working against their best interests.

Ocasio-Cortez plays off people’s emotions. She is on record as saying facts don’t matter as long as she is “morally right.” Enough said.

I don’t use the word “propaganda” lightly. But it is widely understood to mean spreading information that is not true, but rather used to influence people and further an agenda while appealing to emotions. That is exactly what Ocasio-Cortez does.

I prefer using facts. The facts do not support Ocasio-Cortez. Detainees have never been told to drink toilet water. And Border Patrol agents are doing everything in their power to treat the illegal immigrants as humanely as possible under overcrowded conditions.

I find it interesting that every time Ocasio-Cortez is found to be wrong about something – and that’s quite often – she simply doubles down and redirects with new “information.”

In this case, when presented with facts about drinking fountains in jails being connected to toilets – with separate water lines – she says “yes, the drinking fountains are attached to the toilets, but the drinking fountains weren’t working.” This is not true and easily debunked with facts. Almost every facility we have is blanketed with video cameras.

Border Patrol agents have been vilified by some politicians and many in the mainstream media for decades, and 99 percent of the time this criticism is unfair and completely inaccurate.

By comparing Border Patrol agents to Nazis, Ocasio-Cortez is trying to dehumanize us. Interestingly, this is the same thing she accuses us of doing with the thousands upon thousands of illegal immigrants we are charged with arresting, detaining and caring for

Border Patrol agents do not drag thousands of innocent children across the border. We don’t risk their lives by exposing them to harsh weather and circumstances no child should be exposed to. Those deeds are carried out by their parents, relatives and the ruthless coyotes who profit from human misery.

We don’t write the immigration laws – Congress does. We don’t determine how much money and manpower we get to enforce those laws – Congress does.

Ocasio-Cortez can seek approval for any changes in the law and in funding that she wishes. But she should stop blaming us for enforcing the law and carrying out our assigned duties. We’re doing the best we can with what we have to work with.

Ocasio-Cortez voted not to fund better facilities and conditions for the illegal immigrants we detain. So if she wants to know who is responsible for wanting to continue the current conditions in these facilities all she has to do is look in the mirror, and look at other lawmakers who support her position. She can make excuses, but one has to legitimately question whose best interests she is looking out for.

The congresswoman is not a fiscal conservative, so her opposition to providing increased funding to help us better care for detainees is not caused by her desire to cut government spending.

Instead, Ocasio-Cortez is playing politics with illegal immigrants. She seeks to raise her profile higher in the media and portray herself as the champion of the detainees – when she is in fact working against their best interests.

I am proud of the Border Patrol agents who work tirelessly for the American public to uphold the rule of law and defend the sanctity of life.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

I’m not blind to the fact that we will always have a few people in such a large organization who say and do unprofessional things. You can find a small percentage of people who act improperly among elected officials, members of the media, the medical profession, the clergy and in every other profession.

But I know for a fact that the vast majority of people I’ve worked with over the years in the Border Patrol are honorable, decent and hardworking public servants. Ocasio-Cortez should be ashamed of herself for trying to demonize us and turn public sentiment against us.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY BRANDON JUDD

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/brandon-judd-ocasio-cortezs-attacks-on-border-patrol-are-outrageous-and-based-on-lies

As preparations were underway for President Trump’s announced “Salute to America” celebration in Washington on July 4, a few problems emerged along the way as military vehicles were hauled into the capital city.

Some M1A1 Abrams tanks, set to be part of the celebration, rolled into the edge of Washington from Georgia’s Fort Stewart on Tuesday morning.

By evening trailers were spotted outside the Washington Nationals game carrying the tanks into the city.

MSNBC’S JOY REID SAYS TRUMP IS USING TANKS AT 4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION AS A ‘THREAT’ TO AMERICANS

Earlier in the day, however, a flatbed carrying the tanks was apparently unable to clear an underpass, according to photos tweeted by a Politico reporter. A crane was later employed to resolve the issue.

Concern had arisen among critics and the District of Columbia government that the tanks posed potential logistical and cost issues, after Trump’s proposal to include tanks and other military vehicles in Thursday’s festivities.

Retired U.S. Army Gen. Thomas Spoehr, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Center for National Defense, told the Daily Reporter that some local roads are ill-equipped to handle the weight of the tanks.

“The tank kind of hangs off a smidge on either side, so it takes up more than a lane when driving,” Spoehr said. “You’re going to want to do it at a time of low traffic.”

A trailer carrying the tanks also risks crushing a sidewalk if it makes too sharp a turn in a city, Spoehr added.

Trump’s proposal to have a military “Salute to America,” featuring military bands and flyovers, departs significantly from previous Fourth of July celebrations.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“I’m going to say a few words and we’re going to have planes going overhead, the best fighter jets in the world and other planes, too,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Monday.

Fox News’ Ronn Blitzer contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tanks-fail-to-clear-overpass-on-way-to-july-fourth-celebration