“The issue of Illegal immigrants in America or in any other country can easily be resolved - Enforce the Law.”

Within America, it is clear that when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration, the laws are simply not being enforced, which encourages and breeds crime, and at the end of the day, anarchy and the loss of your country (Psalm 9:17).

That’s it.  It’s just that simple. Immigration laws are not being enforced. The Government, on both sides of the un-constitutional aisles (Party affiliations), are not enforcing the immigration laws.  Rather, they are encouraging illegals to then break the laws by entering into America and further endangering the American people.

This is exactly what is happening today, and all of this by design.

The purpose of government is to “restrain men from sin,” which is breaking God’s moral law (1 John 3:4) and “maintaining order,” which in contrast you are seeing criminal politicians alluring illegal immigrants into America on tax-payer dollars (Deuteronomy 28:43).

The second purpose of government is to condemn the wicked, and justify the righteous (Deuteronomy 25:1). Again, you are seeing today’s criminal politicians doing just the opposite by attempting to justify the wicked, transgressors of the law, by browbeating into submission the righteous, those citizens of America who are on the side of the law.

Those that play the fool in allying themselves with the mainstream media’s narrative by browbeating American citizens should first consider that they are advertently handing their country over to them that are firstly breaking the law. They are breeding crime.

Do you know what happens to illegal immigrants in Mexico?

Their law states:

“• Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:

– Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)

– Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

• Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:

– Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)

– Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be   – imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)

– Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working without a permit — can also be imprisoned.

• Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,

– “A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)

– Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)

– Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)

• Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:

– A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)”

On the other hand, we had President Dwight Eisenhower and his answer to illegal immigrants that were here in America, which was dubbed “Operation Wetback.”

Operation Wetback, U.S. immigration law enforcement campaign during the summer of 1954 that resulted in the mass deportation of Mexican nationals (1.1 million persons according to the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS], though most estimates put the figure closer to 300,000). Drafted by U.S. Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr., and vetted by Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower, Operation Wetback arose at least partly in response to a portion of the American public that had become angry at the widespread corruption among employers of sharecroppers and growers along the Mexican border and at the Border Patrol’s inability to stem the influx of illegal workers.

In 1954, Attorney General Brownell forwarded the initiative that would eventually become known as Operation Wetback. Its name was derived from wetback, the offensive term for the multitude of Mexican immigrants who traversed the Rio Grande to illegally cross the border between Mexico and the United States. (In 1953 alone, some 886,000 persons were seized by the U.S. federal government for illegally entering the United States from Mexico.) The initiative focused on two primary objectives: (1) stemming the flow of illegal and undocumented Mexican workers into the United States and (2) discouraging the employers who harboured such workers. The plan met with resistance from some legislators as well as from agricultural and farming groups that lobbied Congress. Many legislators objected to one of the initiative’s central tenets—that employers of illegal workers should be punished— because proving the employers’ awareness of the workers’ illegal status would be difficult. Moreover, some lawmakers were hesitant about Brownell’s militaristic approach, which involved carrying out the plan like an invasion. Ultimately, Congress failed to pass legislation authorizing punishment for those who hired illegal workers, but it did allocate increased funding for the Border Patrol.

--

Bradlee Dean is a guest contributor to GCN news. His views and opinions are his own and do not reflect the views and opinions of the Genesis Communication Network. Bradlee's radio program, The Sons of Liberty, broadcasts live M - Sat here at GCN. This is an edited version of an op-ed originally published by Sons of Liberty Media at www.sonsoflibertyradio.com. Reprinted with permission. 

Robert Mueller made his first (and probably only) public statement about his special investigation into the Russian interference of the 16’ election. He reiterated that his report does not exonerate President Trump but also, and very clearly says, charging the President with a crime was not an option due to the constitutional restriction against charging an active President.

His full statement:  

Two years ago, the Acting Attorney General asked me to serve as Special Counsel, and he created the Special Counsel's Office.

The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I am speaking today because our investigation is complete. The Attorney General has made the report on our investigation largely public. And we are formally closing the Special Counsel's Office. As well, I am resigning from the Department of Justice and returning to private life.

I'll make a few remarks about the results of our work. But beyond these few remarks, it is important that the office's written work speak for itself.

Let me begin where the appointment order begins: and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election.

As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system.

The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information, and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.

And at the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to interfere in the election.

These indictments contain allegations. And we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.

The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood. That is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office.

That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government's effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.

Let me say a word about the report. The report has two parts addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate.

The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign's response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.

And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President.

The order appointing me Special Counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the Acting Attorney General apprised of the progress of our work.

As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.

We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.

It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.

The Special Counsel's Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.

The Department's written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report. And I will describe two of them:

First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.

And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.

And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.

So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination -- one way or the other -- about whether the President committed a crime. That is the office's final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President.

We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the Attorney General—as required by Department regulations.

The Attorney General then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and the American people.

At one point in time I requested that certain portions of the report be released. The Attorney General preferred to make the entire report public all at once. We appreciate that the Attorney General made the report largely public. I do not question the Attorney General's good faith in that decision.

I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak about this matter. I am making that decision myself—no one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter.

There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself.

The report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.

In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office.

So beyond what I have said here today and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress.

It is for that reason that I will not take questions here today.

Before I step away, I want to thank the attorneys, the FBI agents, the analysts, and the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner. These individuals, who spent nearly two years with the Special Counsel's Office, were of the highest integrity.

I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments—that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.

That allegation deserves the attention of every American.

Thank you.

American Progressives today like to talk about their Green New Deal, free higher education for all and slavery reparations.  But recently the eminent economist Dr. Thomas Cargill addressed Reno’s Hayek Group about Progressives’ original cause: eugenics.

Eugenics is a dark and troubling part of US history – one not accurately reflected in standard accounts and teaching today of that history.  The “scientific” racism of eugenics ideology flowered in the second half of the 19th Century through the 1930s.

It classified persons as “fit” or “unfit” based on traits assumed to be hereditary, including race and ethnicity, mental and physical characteristics, and country of origin.  Because “fitness” was assumed to be genetic, it was hereditary and thus immutable: not subject to alteration via environment, nurture or other conditioning methods.

Eugenics gained wide acceptance, even being reflected in decisions of the Supreme Court of The United States.  “Three generations of imbeciles are enough,” said Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the case of Buck v. Bell, a 1927 decision upholding a Virginia law that authorized the state to surgically sterilize certain “mental defectives” without their consent.

Eugenics doctrine had a broad reach from justifying slavery to the alleged superiority of Nordic peoples (“Aryans”) to other races.  It was fostered in the US by the mushrooming of the administrative state during the progressive period, and it also provided some ostensible intellectual foundation for that mushrooming.

German Nazism also drew greatly on the developing American eugenics tradition.  As much as anything, the fall of the Third Reich undid eugenics.

After the Civil War, it was used first to justify low military compensation for blacks and then to support barriers to non-Nordic immigration.  Implementation of eugenics was helped by the rise of progressivism’s administrative and interventionist government over-riding the outcomes of free markets.  By 1905, 32 states had sterilization laws fostered by eugenics, and thousands of people were sterilized.

One scholar recently noted, “Eugenics and progressivism were made for each other.”  The doctrine was an excuse for the exercise of extreme coercive collectivism, the fundamental means employed by progressivism.

Minimum wage legislation was also originally related to eugenics, as it proposed to let the market pay low or no wages to the unfit persons (mainly races) so they would over time die off.  Even the famous Yale economist Irving Fischer bought into such dogma.

Perhaps the most (in)famous proponent and activist in favor of eugenics and its abuses of human beings was Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, who was an outright racist.  Her 1933 article in the journal Birth Control Review was also a strong argument against immigration to America.  And sterilization of the mentally ill was a popular birth control idea from the start.

The notable surprise beyond the flourishing of eugenics in America is that it has been almost completely omitted from modern history and government texts.  Since almost all high school students must take a US history course, this omission has given them a completely false account of very important US history, politics and government.  Eugenics and its disastrous history as a key part of progressivism are at best mentioned in passing, and mostly minimized and treated as not a significant part of our history.

Why?  The writers of the books don’t themselves seem to know much about this central subject.  Some authors are aware, but seem to consider it unimportant; eugenics is viewed by many progressives as the crazy uncle in the family.  Also, eugenics’ relationship to abortion makes it a taboo subject for many advocates of that practice.  And almost all these writers are progressives with a bias in support of the over-reaching administrative state, and discussing eugenics undermines that key advocacy.

What do students lose due to these biases and omissions?  First, balanced and reasonably complete perspective on US history, politics and government and the roles of various factions then and now. Second, a necessary skepticism of the ideology of catastrophe supported allegedly by science.  (See also climate change deniers.)  Third, the perils of small groups, especially of self-selected elitists, controlling social power; this often leads to bad decisions and social disasters.  (See also China’s one-child policy.)  Finally, a profound understanding of the power of even a bad idea.

--

Ron Knecht is a contributing editor to the Penny Press - the conservative weekly "voice of Nevada." You can subscribe at www.pennypressnv.com. His column has been reprinted in full, with permission. 

Earlier this week, news erupted about the Boy Scout’s “Perversion Files.” The Perversion Files (which the Scouts call, “ineligible volunteer files,”) detail as many as 12,000 boys that, while participating in scout programs - were sexually abused by Scout leaders.

Now, portions of the Perversion Files have leaked before, so the general information is nothing new. What has recently come forward is that the number of abused boys and abusers is much, much higher than previously reported.

The way I understand it is that the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) hired someone to do a five year internal investigation and that investigation concluded the number leaders who sexually assaulted boys in the program is not the 3,000 as had been previously reported, but is actually closer to 8000.

Let that sink in for a moment. That’s eight thousand men - volunteer leaders in the BSA, that have been accused of molesting more than 12,000 boys. So the “Ineligible Volunteer Files” is a detailed list of all the men who have “had their registration with the Boy Scouts revoked - because of reasonable allegations of child sex abuse.”

This all came to light when attorney Jeff Anderson released sworn testimony from Janet Warren, a psychiatry professor at the University of Virginia. Warren had been hired by the Boy Scouts to conduct the above mentioned study of the sex abuse files. Warren found that the evidence in the files was actually much worse than what the BSA imagined. She found the number of abused boys and abusers was thousands more than initially thought. Warren also made it clear that she found no evidence of a cover up by the BSA to hide this information and that she will present a more detailed report sometime during the summer.  

Unlike the Catholic church, who just shuffles abusers around to new parishes and/or different cities - at least the Boy Scouts fired the abuser and didn’t allow them to work with youth ever again. I mean, it’s not much, but at least it’s that.

With something like two and a half million children participating in the Boy Scouts, if there are thousands of victims who come forward (and hundreds and hundreds of them are coming forward - some as young as 15, and one as old as 75) - this could be a financial disaster the BSA. As a non profit organization, they would not be able to financially handle thousands of lawsuits and would probably declare bankruptcy, which would shield them from lawsuits but allow them to continue operations.

Michael Surbaugh, the Chief Executive of the Boy Scouts said this at a lengthy press conference:

"I want to reiterate our steadfast support for victims of abuse. We are outraged that there have been times when individuals took advantage of our programs to abuse innocent children …  We care deeply about all victims of child abuse and sincerely apologize to anyone who was harmed during their time in scouting. We believe victims, and we pay for unlimited counseling by a provider of their choice, and we encourage them to come forward. At no time have we ever knowingly allowed a perpetrator to work with youth, and we mandate that all leaders, volunteers and staff members nationwide immediately report any abuse allegations to law enforcement. Throughout our history, we have enacted strong youth protection policies to prevent future abuse, including mandatory youth protection trainings and a formal leader-selection process that includes criminal background checks. Since the 1920's, we have maintained a Volunteer Screening Database to prevent individuals accused of abuse or inappropriate conduct from joining or re-entering our programs, a practice recommended in 2007 by the Centers for Disease Control for all youth-serving organizations."

Okay. Well, I do believe him. I doubt BSA leadership “knowingly allowed” predators to work with youth.  Again, the Perversion Files clearly state that abusers were fired after “reasonable evidence.” Which suggests that the BSA knew about the allegations, believed the victim and fired the alleged abuser. But, and here’s the sticky point - didn’t contact authorities. Which might have been a problem.   

Interestingly enough, I just read that the Boy Scouts filed suit against several of their insurers for “refusing to cover its sex abuse legal liabilities.” But, like insurance companies everywhere, said insurance agents found a way not to pay a cent of coverage for the BSA by claiming, “the Boy Scouts neglected to take meaningful precautionary action.”

Hrmmm. Okay. Maybe. The Boy Scouts claim they have a screening process and a “protection system” in place. Which makes sense. Clearly, their process doesn’t work as well as they thought, but it certainly suggests they are “taking meaningful precautionary action,” so I don’t know what the F those insurance companies are talking about.  I even found a part of their screening process / protection system listed in a CNN story:

• Youth protection training is mandatory for all registered leaders.
• … a youth is never alone with an adult leader during scouting activities and that no youth is permitted to sleep in a ten with other adults other than the parent or guardian.
• ...prohibited one-on-one texts and social media communication between adult and youth members.  

Sounds like meaningful precautionary action to me. Anyway, - the courts will work all that out. Until then, more and more victims continue to come forward.