Home Breaking News “LEFT JAB AND RIGHT JAB” JUNE 20, 2019




“Right Jab And Left Jab” was created because we have two commenters that post on a daily basis either in our “IS IT TRUE” or “Readers Forum” columns concerning National or International issues.
Joe Biden and Ronald Reagan’s comments are mostly about issues of national interest.  The majority of our “IS IT TRUE” columns are about local or state issues, so we have decided to give Mr. Biden and Mr. Reagan exclusive access to our newly created “LEFT JAB and RIGHT JAB”  column. They now have this post to exclusively discuss national or world issues that they feel passionate about.
We shall be posting the “LEFT JAB” AND “RIGHT JAB” several times a week.  Oh, “Left Jab” is a liberal view and the “Right Jab is representative of the more conservative views. Also, any reader who would like to react to the written comments of the two gentlemen is free to do so.

FOOTNOTE: Any comments posted in this column do not represent the views or opinions of the City-County Observer or our advertisers.


    • Don’t look for this to be reported in the liberal media arm of the DNC:

      ‘CRIME BOSS’: Closing Arguments in NXIVM Trial — Satanism, Mexico Child Trafficking, Hillary, Schumer and Gillibrand Ties

      losing arguments began Monday at Brooklyn federal court in the sex trafficking trial of NXIVM cult leader Keith Raniere, who stands accused of violating young illegal immigrant girls from Mexico and imprisoning them on threat of deportation by the cult. Human experiments and Satanism-inspired rituals took place at the cult, according to the mountains of evidence exposed by this historic trial of the new century.

      “The defendant tapped into a never-ending flow of women and money,” the prosecution said of Raniere Monday, calling him a “crime boss with no limits and no checks on his power.”

      Evidence shows how the NXIVM sex cult illegally raised money for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, how it counted Clinton friend Richard Mays and Kirsten Gillibrand’s stepmother as active members and Gillibrand’s father as an employee, and how the cult’s “ally” Chuck Schumer was compromised by virtue of the cult possessing his financial records….

      NXIVM sex cult’s deep oppposition research files on its political enemies including Roger Stone came up at trial. Documents from the archives are shedding light on how the sex cult stored data on top politicians including Chuck Schumer — whom the cult viewed as a “friendly” ally according to ex-employee Frank Parlato — and Hillary Clinton.



  1. Laws enforced and tough negotiations by the President. Keeping Americans safer without any help from the open border Democrats:

    Donald Trump Announces ICE to Begin Deportation Process for Millions of Illegal Aliens

    Mexico, using their strong immigration laws, is doing a very good job of stopping people long before they get to our Southern Border,” Trump continued. “Guatemala is getting ready to sign a Safe-Third Agreement. The only ones who won’t do anything are the Democrats in Congress. They must vote to get rid of the loopholes, and fix asylum! If so, Border Crisis will end quickly!”

    The announcement came hours after U.S. State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus announced the U.S. would be cutting aid to the three central American countries massively contributing to the influx of migrants crossing the U.S. southern border. The cuts have been eased since they were first announced.

    Instead of cutting more than $615 million in aid to Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, the U.S. will cut just $432 million in previously approved projects and grants.


      • DDon’t expect to see this covered in the left wing main stream media:

        Syrian Refugee Arrested in Plot to Blow up Church on Behalf of ISIS

        An alleged terrorist was captured by the FBI before he could carry out an attack.

        The Federal Bureau of Investigation Wednesday morning arrested a Syrian refugee who planned to blow up a Pittsburgh church on behalf of the Islamic State.

        “Mustafa Mousab Alowemer, 21, who came to the U.S. in 2016 and recently graduated from a city high school, was arrested Wednesday morning by the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force,” according to The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

        A criminal complaint reportedly said that Alowemer wanted to support ISIS and inspire others to commit similar lone wolf style attacks.


  2. Trump enforcing laws. Great news for Americans:

    Trump Said Sponsors Will Pay U.S. Back for Welfare Benefits Given to Immigrants. It’s About To Happen.

    …Trump’s May memorandum made the law clear.

    “These laws also require that, when an alien applies for certain means-tested public benefits, the financial resources of the alien’s sponsor must be counted as part of the alien’s financial resources in determining both eligibility for the benefits and the amount of benefits that may be awarded,” it stated.

    “Financial sponsors who pledge to financially support the sponsored alien in the event the alien applies for or receives public benefits will be expected to fulfill their commitment under law.”

    But while that had been the law for some time, Trump’s memorandum was published to ensure the law was, in fact, being followed by federal agencies….


    • African Migrants Get “Aggressive” And Have Rolls Of $100 Bills

      The “poor huddled masses” coming across the southern border may not be so poor after all.

      Swiss journalist Urs Gehriger recently visited African migrants who breached the border and hung out on the streets of San Antonio, Texas, waiting to go elsewhere in the country, and he met hostility from people who didn’t want to share details about their experiences, conflicted each other, and had rolls of $100 bills….

      Gehriger believes the illegals were coached on giving answers to authorities.

      “I had the impression that somebody told them not to speak about it,” and acting like “now we’re here, you have to help us, give us money.”


  3. More Karma coming to Obama’s deep state co-conspirators:

    Obama State At Center of Anti-Trump Coup Cabal

    New Emails Show Obama State Department’s Role in Anti-Trump Coup Cabal

    John Kerry, President Obama’s secretary of state, seems to be having trouble staying within the legal bounds of the Logan Act, so it’s not surprising that his State Department lieutenants were getting their hands dirty in the conspiracy to bring down Donald Trump.

    We now received more evidence of this anti-Trump conspiracy. With The Daily Caller News Foundation, we just released 16 pages of documents revealing senior State Obama officials – Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and Special Coordinator for Libya Jonathan Winer – coordinated with incoming House Majority Whip Steny Hoyer’s (D-MD) national security advisor, Daniel Silverberg, to work on Russia dossier information provided by Christopher Steele.

    Steele was surreptitiously paid by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to create the infamous anti-Trump dossier used to justify a series of FISA spy warrants targeting Carter Page. Winer is a former Obama State Department deputy assistant secretary who was implicated in working with Steele and Clinton associate Sidney Blumenthal to circulate the anti-Trump dossier….

    Assessing this new information, Daily Caller News Foundation President Neil Patel said: “It’s amazing how hard our government tries to keep the truth from the American people. Thankfully, with Judicial Watch filing a lawsuit on our behalf, we have been able to uncover phony dossier author Christopher Steele’s previously hidden contacts with the Obama State Department. These guys at Judicial Watch are bulldogs and we can’t thank them enough.”

    Let there be no doubt: Fusion GPS and Clinton spy Christopher Steele had a close relationship with the Obama State Department. The State Department under John Kerry is emerging as another center of the Spygate conspiracy against President Trump…..


  4. 💩Trump💩 Again Attacks Press As ‘Enemy Of The People’ And Suggests Public May ‘Demand’ He Not Leave Office

    For reasons that can only be guessed at 💩Trump💩 is in an especially foul mood this weekend. That has manifested itself primarily as ever-escalating attacks on the free press, repeating in multiple tweets charges that the “Corrupt News Media” is “without doubt, THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!”

    Among his attacks, 💩Trump💩 accused the New York Times of committing a “virtual act of Treason” in reporting that the United States is increasing “Cyber Attacks on Russia,” adding in a second tweet: “ALSO, NOT TRUE”

    It again needs to be said that this is not normal or acceptable behavior. Using the office of the presidency, 💩Trump💩 has maintained a steady campaign of rhetoric accusing the free press—specifically, whatever outlets have last published stories on him and his presidency that he doesn’t like—of being the “enemy” of the nation, charges that continue to stoke violence against political journalists. At best, he does not appear to care that this targeting of the press is resulting in violence; at worst, that is his intent.

    This continues to be a betrayal of his office, and his apparent inability or unwillingness to restrain himself continues to be plain evidence that he is dangerously unfit.

    His idle musing that perhaps “the people” might “demand” that he remain president after two terms, however, is yet another manifestation of his narcissistic delusions. In Trump’s own mind he is both wildly popular and transcendentally accomplished, able to make America “GREAT” again through sheer force of will; it then stands to reason, he presumes (or, at least, declares) that any reporting to the contrary, in any venue, is a conspiracy against him. He is not right in the head. He is stoking violence, seemingly on purpose. He is manipulating bigotries as means to power; he is using that power primarily for self-promotion and self-enrichment.

    It is not normal, it is not acceptable, and as the Republican Party rallies around his delusions and vigorously defends even his provably criminal acts it continues to metastasize into something very close to fascism. Using the office to declare journalists to be enemies of the state is right now, today, doing extraordinary harm to our democracy. Republicans, however, continue to be silent


  5. Officials Hiding Details Of Anti-Russia Espionage From 💩Trump💩 For Fear He’d Nix It—OR ALERT RUSSIA

    There’s a lot to unpack in this New York Times story describing newly aggressive United States infiltrations of the electronic systems that make up Russia’s electric power grid. The surreptitious placement of software that could potentially disable or damage a nation’s power grid—whether as inconvenience, or catastrophically—has been for years a tool in the arsenal of Russia, China, the United States and other technologically advanced nations; United States’ own infrastructure has been relentlessly targeted

    That the Times was able to publish the story at all, sourced to “current and former government officials,” suggests that advertising the expanded program may be much of the point. In the words of a particularly famous presidential adviser, “The whole point of the Doomsday Machine is lost if you keep it a secret.” Whether the United States has or has not truly infiltrated the grid at all is beside the point; the main outcome of the Times’ story will be a frantic scramble by Russian security efforts to attempt to identify and thwart the new threat. That national security officials pointedly did not object to the publication of the Times’ story in advance (despite Trump’s less than coherent blasting of the paper) may be taken as evidence that the leaking of the program is an intentional and tactical act

    But then there is this humdinger: A note that Trump’s own government officials are attempting to withhold from Trump the details of their actions because of an institution-wide perception that Donald Trump would immediately either forbid their operations towards Russia or turn around and reveal those details to the Russians themselves:

    Pentagon and intelligence officials described broad hesitation to go into detail with Mr. Trump about operations against Russia for concern over his reaction — and the possibility that he might countermand it or discuss it with foreign officials, as he did in 2017 when he mentioned a sensitive operation in Syria to the Russian foreign minister

    That is, as the kids say, a hell of a thing. Top actors in the U.S. military and Trump’s own government are attempting to evade filling Trump in on the details of an anti-Russian espionage effort because of an informed suspicion that Donald Trump might well sabotage their efforts on behalf of their Russian targets. They are acting with at least some consideration that Trump, as president, may either be acting as foreign agent or is simply so incapable of restraint that he could expose intelligence details he has been given in order to ingratiate himself with, or merely make smalltalk with, foreign visitors.

    “Pentagon and intelligence officials” consider the possibility of Trump intentionally or inadvertently taking action to protect Russia significant enough to dodge briefing Trump on the operation’s details, concerned enough for multiple of them to express it to New York Times reporters, and that’s buried many paragraphs down?

    The thing of it is, of course, that those officials are not wrong. Trump has repeatedly stepped in to defend Russia from the United States intelligence services, most substantially via repeated rebuffs of U.S. intelligence conclusions on Russian hacking and propaganda efforts during the 2016 campaign. Trump did indeed expose classified information during his very first photo-op with Russian government officials; Trump’s private meetings with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, meetings in which no American government official is present and no record of the conversation is allowed, is both wildly not-normal and a continued source of alarm.

    If the intelligence community sees Donald Trump as a significant threat to the nation’s national security concerns, they have ample evidence for thinking so. And we still have not even the barest inkling of the counterintelligence conclusions associated with the Mueller investigation into Russian contacts with Trump’s 2016 campaign team: Intelligence officials are, so far, still refusing to brief Congress. That is another very peculiar act, by the intelligence community, and it seems implausible that they would take such action merely for the sake of peeving lawmakers.


    • New York Approves Driver’s Licenses For Illegal Immigrants

      Illegal immigrants can now obtain a driver’s license in New York.

      The state senate voted to approve the measure and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the bill into law Monday night, The New York Times reported.

      The bill has divided the state Democratic Party between more traditional voters and the progressive wing that has fought for the legislation. The Senate vote was close, with 33 voting in favor and 29 against…..

      But Cuomo is aware that many New Yorkers are opposed to allowing illegal immigrants to have a driver’s license and that there could be political ramifications for himself and the Democratic Party in the state. A recent poll found that 61 percent of those surveyed in the state opposed giving driver’s licenses to non-citizens….

      County clerks responsible for providing state driver’s licenses are also objecting to the new law and at least one of them has said he won’t issue a driver’s license to an illegal alien.

      Republicans, who all opposed the bill, said the legislation is another example of how government encourages illegal immigrants to break the law and the rules.

      “If we give them every right they have, they will not be incentivized to go through the process of getting that greatest gift, to be a citizen,” Republican state Sen. James Tedisco said during Monday night’s debate. His colleague, Sen. Frederick J. Akshar, noted the legislation was “only continuing this state’s trend toward favoring criminals over law-abiding citizens.”


      • What could go wrong (again) if this leftist “community activist” gets elected?

        Professor Who Told Students to ‘Stomp on Jesus’ is Running to be Elections Supervisor in Florida

        He wants to be the next Palm Beach County supervisor of elections.

        A South Florida professor who once gained infamy for giving an assignment to his students to “stomp on Jesus” is now trying to become the next Palm Beach County supervisor of elections.

        Deandre Poole is looking to succeed Susan Bucher in the role. Bucher is the disgraced former supervisor who resigned after being suspended by Gov. Ron DeSantis. She failed to report election results on time during the 2018 mid-term elections, making her a national pariah.

        Poole, 32, is a political novice but feels that his history as a political activist, community leader, and grassroots organizer “are the kind of skills that this office needs.”


  6. Washington Post drops the hammer on the ‘breathtaking arrogance’ of Kellyanne 🐀 Conway in brutal editorial

    Addressing a report from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel recommending White House counsel Kellyanne 🐀 Conway should be fired for flagrant violations of the Hatch Act, the Washington Post editorial board hammered the 💩Trump💩 confidante over her smirking response

    “🐀 Conway is well-versed in long-standing ethics law that bars federal employees from engaging in partisan politics while on the job. Restrictions of the Hatch Act have been spelled out to her in formal training, individual conversations and multiple written communications by the Office of White House Counsel. She simply doesn’t care that she violates the law. ‘Blah, blah, blah. . . . Let me know when the jail sentence starts,’ she quipped to a reporter”

    According to the Post, that puts her on the same level as her above-the-rules boss 💩Trump💩

    “Even worse than her breathtaking arrogance is that the president she works for — and on whose behalf she regularly and belligerently violates the Hatch Act — cares even less about the rules,” the editorial continues.

    “💩Trump💩 made clear Friday that he had no intention of following the recommendation of a watchdog government agency that Ms. 🐀 Conway be fired for her ‘egregious, notorious, and ongoing’ Hatch Act violations,” the piece added, citing the OLC report.

    Adding “given 💩Trump💩 disdain for the norm and the premium he places on slavish devotion to him, it’s no surprise he didn’t fire 🐀Conway but instead rose to her defense,” the board commended Trump administration official, special counsel Henry J. Kerner who issued the damning accusations.

    “Credit to Mr. Kerner, who was appointed 💩Trump💩 for his clear-eyed examination of the issues and unprecedented recommendation to fire someone in such a high-profile position. Calling out Ms. Conway’s egregious behavior and the danger it poses serves as a rebuke not just of Ms. Conway’s actions but of the president as well”


    • Attention all Collusion Delusion tin foil hat wearers like Comrade Reagan and Rachel Maddow:

      The Real Collusion: Russian Oligarch Who Ran Propaganda Against Trump Was Donor to Clinton Foundation

      Leading Russian political Telegram channel Nezygar reports that Russian-based Oligarch Viktor Vekselberg used US media companies to try and sabotage the Trump campaign beginning in 2016. Vekselberg is one of the wealthiest men in Russia, worth over $10 billion, and has donated to the Clinton Foundation since Hillary’s tenure as Secretary of State.

      Nezygar reports that Vekselberg bought a share in Odyssey Media, a fast-growing U.S. blog platform, in April 2016. At that time, Odyssey had over 30 million visitors a month, especially among students and millennials, many opposed to candidate Trump. “Odyssey is a bit like a college paper on steroids. The startup has a stable of over 10,000 writers, aged 18-28, who produce around one piece a week. Odyssey then relies on the social networks of the individual writers to push out the content to the masses,” Business Insider wrote in 2016.

      After Trump’s nomination, Odyssey Media Group hired dozens of new employees, aiming to expand from 80 to 400 markets by 2016 — mostly on university campuses which were to become hotbeds of the anti-Trump “Resistance” later. Nezygar claims a large number of these authors were actually ‘sock puppets’ —fake accounts with different identities controlled by one person. Today, most of these Odyssey accounts are suspended or inactive.

      In February 2017, directly after Trump’s inauguration, Odyssey laid off 55 employees , one third of their staff, as Fortune Magazine reported. By June 2017, staff was down to 15 or 20 people, CEO and founder Evan Burns had left the company.

      As Peter Schweizer revealed in his report “From Russia with Money“, Viktor Vekselberg was a major donor to the Clinton Foundation through his Renova Group, which also held his stake in Odyssey Media through investement firm Columbus Nova.

      “On June 4, 2012, the foreign policy director at the Clinton Foundation, Amitabh Desai, reached out to Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, and Michael Fuchs at the State Department via email. The subject line was “Russia/Viktor Vekselberg?” Vekselberg and his company the Renova Group had contributed between $10,000 and $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation. It read, “Would [the State Department] have any concerns about [Clinton Global Initiative] inviting Viktor Vekselberg, President of Renova Group, to attend CGI Annual Meeting in NYC in September?” The email appears to have gone unanswered. Vekselberg did, indeed, come to the U.S. in October 2012,” Schweizer writes.

      The Clinton Foundation received a total of $145 million from nine shareholders in Canadian uranium company Uranium One that was sold to the Russian government in 2010 with the approval of Hillary Clinton’s State Department, Schweizer wrote on Fox News.

      The deal allowed Russian State Nuclear Agency Rosatom to buy roughly 20 percent of American uranium production. Viktor Vekselberg is a member of the Russian Electric Power Committee.

      In September 2016, Vekselberg-owned Renova Group was searched by the Russian FSB on accusations of bribery. Russian media reported investigators discovered evidence of donations in 2015 and 2016 by offshore entities controlled by Vekselberg to the Clinton Foundation, at a time when candidate Hillary Clinton was banned from receiving foreign contributions. The donations were routed from Vekselberg-controlled Metcombank via private U.S. accounts at Deutsche Bank America, as Jerome Corsi wrote on InfoWars.

      In early 2016, Vekselberg also bought a share in far-left anti-Trump Gawker Media, unsuccessfully seeking to fight off a 100-million-dollar lawsuit by Hulk Hogan and Peter Thiel in September 2016. The Trump administration moved to impose sanctions against Vekselberg in 2018. Vekselberg attended the Trump Inauguration 2017 despite being denied an official invitation, which was instead procured for him by former Trump attorney Michael Cohen.

      As reported earlier in May 2018, Michael Avenatti, the attorney for Stormy Daniels, alleged on Tuesday that a Russian oligarch paid Trump Attorney Michael Cohen $500,000 for “insights” into the Trump administration.

      Avenatti was barking up the wrong tree. Vekselberg is a Clinton donor. And even the Russian media is reporting it today.


  7. JethroBodine is going to need his blankie soon…

    SCOTUS Ruling All But Guarantees State Criminal Charges For 💩Trump💩

    On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 (Justices Ginsburg and Gorsuch dissenting) to uphold the “dual sovereignty” doctrine. That means that state law is separate and independent from federal law in relation to “double jeopardy,” that is, being putting on trial twice for the same act. Which means in turn that Trump loyalists charged and convicted under state law can’t be pardoned by Trump.

    As many court watches noted, Monday was a bad day for Paul Manafort, because this ruling means Trump will not be able to pardon Manafort on convictions under State law. It was also a bad day for Donald Trump because it means his pardon power is smaller than he thought, and it’s very likely that he could face criminal charges under State law.

    There’s a special sprinkling of karma in the fact that it was Justice Alito, a Federalist Society pick, who wrote the opinion that would uphold the dual sovereignty doctrine.

    “We have long held that a crime under one sovereign’s laws is not “the same offence” as a crime under the laws of another sovereign. Under this “dual-sovereignty” doctrine, a State may prosecute a defendant under state law even if the Federal Government has prosecuted him for the same conduct under a federal statute.”

    He went on to outline why the rule also applies to reversed circumstances, as was the basis for argument in Gamble vs. The United States.

    The court rejected Gamble’s argument that the practice is a departure from the Constitution’s original understanding, describing the evidence supporting that argument as “feeble; pointing the other way are the Clause’s text, other historical evidence, and 170 years of precedent.”

    Court observers watched this case because it affects the scope of the president’s pardon power. As Greg Stohr put it,

    “Elimination of the separate-sovereigns rule would have meant that a presidential pardon might block some state charges as well.”

    So while Trump may have the capacity to pardon his loyalists in the event his heavily politicized DOJ prosecutes them, there is nothing he can do to attack the rule of law at the state level.

    Applying the same logic, this means that any state who may be listening and who wishes to prosecute Trump on state law should go right ahead and do it. Americans will thank them mightily.

    As we know, Trump is Individual 1 in the indictment that led to Michael Cohen’s conviction for which he is currently serving time in jail.
    Michael Cohen confirmed it during congressional testimony back in February.

    “Last fall I pled guilty in federal court to felonies for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in coordination with Individual Number 1. And for the record, Individual Number 1 is President Donald J. Trump.”

    Trump and his propaganda force can try to smear Michael Cohen all they wish; that isn’t going to stop the State of New York from pursuing criminal charges against him for the very crimes that sent a disgraced, disbarred Michael Cohen to prison.

    Monday’s Supreme Court ruling increased the possibility that Donald J. Trump will face some of the same charges that put his former “fixer” in jail.

    In other words, not only does the ruling shrink Trump’s pardon power from what he hoped it would be, it also increases the possibility that he will face criminal charges under New York law.

    It’s possible New York may wish to pursue charges that are separate and apart from Trump’s activities with Mr. Cohen. According to an article published last year, Trump is the subject of several investigations in New York some of which stem from the Mueller investigation. Others include an investigation of his inaugural committee, investigations into Trump’s organizations, including one for potential tax fraud.

    The Supreme Court’s ruling closed the door on Manafort’s hope for a pardon, it shrunk Trump’s pardon power and increased the possibility of his prosecution under New York law. The Court did it with support from one of Trump’s chosen Supreme Court justices, Brett Kavanaugh. Even Justice Thomas abandoned his previous opinion on double sovereignty, – an opinion that would have expanded Trump’s pardon power.

    Nothing about the ruling bodes well for Donald Trump’s interpretation of his powers as presidency or the extent to which the presidency can shield him from legal accountability. Even justices that are close to Trump on many other issues, distanced themselves from him in this case.


  8. Trump’s Plan To Remove Millions Of Immigrants Next Week Was A Lie

    Trump announced that ICE would be removing millions of immigrants and deporting them next week, but ICE doesn’t have the resources or capacity to carry out such an operation.

    Trump’s claim that millions will be deported next week was a lie

    ICE Doesn’t Have The Resources Or Capacity To Remove Millions of Immigrants

    NBC News’s Julia Ainsley reported, “It is important to realize that when you arrest immigrants in the interior of the country which is what I.C.E. Does when they do these removal deportations, they have to hold those immigrants somewhere before they deport them. That is an I.C.E. Detention space. This is as they work with their home countries to get documents in place and they have to stay in detention space. Right now that detention space that is run by I.C.E. And sometimes contracted out to other places is at or near people I’ve spoken to in the last week at I.C.E. Say they have actually had to cut down on enforcement plans just like the one the president is talking about because they’re out of if you look at the numbers, the number of deportations from immigrants living in the interior of the country, not recently crossing the border, has gone down because they don’t have the space.”

    Trump has learned nothing from 2018 and is running on immigration cruelty in 2020. Deport them all has replaced Trump’s bogus promise to build the wall. The quick deportation of millions of immigrants isn’t going to happen. Trump’s tweet was a lie born of out the desperation of a failed president who is creating imaginary achievements for himself to boost his reelection campaign.

    The mentality behind the bogus tweets is unAmerican, but the actual policy itself, won’t be happening on the scale that Trump promised.


  9. Rachel Maddow Busts 💩Trump💩 After He Blames Iran For Attack That Taliban Already Took Credit For

    Rachel Maddow busted the Trump administration on Monday for quickly blaming Iran – without evidence – for an attack in the Middle East that the Taliban already claimed credit for.

    According to the MSNBC host, among the list of attacks for which the Trump administration is blaming Iran in their buildup to war is a bombing that took place in Afghanistan, which injured four U.S. service members.

    “That’s an attack for which someone else entirely, the Taliban, claimed responsibility. The Trump administration is nevertheless claiming it was Iran”

    Maddow said:

    “This latest announcement about 1,000 U.S. troops heading over, this follows a series of increasingly dramatic accusations from the Trump administration that seem to be intended to put us on a war footing with Iran. We talked on the show late last week about the list of violent acts the Trump administration is now attributing to Iran, including at least one attack in Afghanistan in which four U.S. service members were wounded. That’s an attack for which someone else entirely, the Taliban, claimed responsibility. The Trump administration is nevertheless saying no, we think that was Iran, too. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was questioned sharply about that this weekend by Margaret Brennan on CBS News. She pointed out to him that the Taliban claimed responsibility for that attack and there’s been no evidence put forward by the administration to back up their new assertion that secretly it was really Iran who did that and that’s one of the reasons we need to be on this newly aggressive footing toward Iran. Secretary of State insisted that he can’t share the evidence, he can’t share any intelligence that gives him such confidence that Iran is actually really responsible for that attack. Not to mention all of the other attacks they put on this list to bolster the public perception that we are on some sort of escalating march to war with Iran that they are starting”

    Iran is a bigger threat because of Trump

    With each passing week, it becomes more clear that the president and his hawk-filled foreign policy team are eager to start a war with Iran. While the administration is trying to craft a narrative that Iran is responsible for the escalation we have seen in recent weeks, the rising tensions were largely triggered by the Trump administration – particularly after they pulled the U.S. out of the landmark Iran nuclear agreement.

    As PoliticusUSA’s Jason Easley noted last month, even American allies recognize that the aggression has stemmed from the White House, not the Iranians.

    As a result, Iran has shown more aggression, the region has become increasingly unstable and the United States is on the verge of another war in the Middle East


  10. **BOOM** The sewer rats that JathroBodine admires just keep sinking lower and lower (like Twittlers approval ratings)

    Trump Transition Official Indicted For Child Pornography After Being A Witness In Mueller Probe

    George Aref Nader, who was a witness in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, was arrested on child pornography charges Monday in New York, federal prosecutors announced Monday. Nader was arrested upon arrival at John F. Kennedy International Airport for “transporting visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct”

    He previously pleaded guilty to the same charge in 1991, the Justice Department said. If convicted, he faces a minimum sentence of 15 years in prison and a maximum of 40 years. The Mueller report mentions Nader in nearly four dozen footnotes, including references to his interviews with special counsel investigators, and other materials, like his emails and text messages

    Prosecutors filed a secret criminal complaint against Nader on January 17, 2018, according to the Justice Department. CNN previously reported that Nader was questioned by the FBI on that date, the first of several sessions with investigators from Mueller’s office

    Investigators seized electronic devices from Nader that same day and had a warrant to search his luggage, according to the Justice Department. The warrants were issued in relation to a “matter unrelated to child pornography,” according to the FBI

    According to an FBI affidavit filed in support of the criminal complaint, the FBI found a dozen graphic pornographic videos of young boys on one of his iPhones

    Nader is cited extensively in the portions of the report about the Seychelles meeting in between Trump supporter Erik Prince and a Russian banker with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin. His testimony about his role in the secret January 2017 liaison undercut Prince’s claims that the meeting was a random encounter and that it was not coordinated with anyone from the Trump transition


  11. JethroBodine and his whack-a-mole Twittler BS points collapse (AGAIN)


    Trump has made illegal immigration the centerpiece of his political career, but new data shows Cheetolini’s signature issue is built on a lie. According to a new analysis published in The New York Times, THERE IS “NO EVIDENCE” TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM MADE BY TRUMP AND HIS SUPPORTERS THAT UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS CAUSE SPIKES IN VIOLENT CRIME

    In fact, according to the report, many of the places with a higher migrant population actually recorded larger drops in crime than other areas. More from The New York Times:

    For the first time, there is an opportunity for a broader analysis of how unauthorized immigration might have affected crime rates since 2007. A large majority of the areas recorded decreases in both violent and property crime between 2007 and 2016, consistent with a quarter-century decline in crime across the United States. The analysis found that crime went down at similar rates regardless of whether the undocumented population rose or fell. Areas with more unauthorized migration appeared to have larger drops in crime, although the difference was small and uncertain.

    The results of the analysis resemble those of other studies on the relationship between undocumented immigration and crime. Last year, a report by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, found that unauthorized immigrants in Texas committed fewer crimes than their native-born counterparts. A state-level analysis in Criminology, an academic journal, found that undocumented immigration did not increase violent crime and was in fact associated with slight decreases in it. Another Cato study found that unauthorized immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated

    At the more local level, an analysis by Governing magazine reported that metropolitan areas with more undocumented residents had similar rates of violent crime, and significantly lower rates of property crime, than areas with smaller numbers of such residents in 2014. After controlling for multiple socioeconomic factors, the author of the analysis, Mike Maciag, found that for every 1 percentage point increase in an area’s population that was undocumented there were 94 fewer property crimes per 100,000 residents

    Trump’s immigration lie keeps his supporters scared and angry. The analysis published in The New York Times only confirms what other studies have shown for quite some time: Undocumented immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than native-born Americans.

    Of course, by attacking immigrants during his campaign and his presidency, Trump’s goal has never been to tell the truth. It’s always been to keep his base scared and angry by tapping into their pre-existing antipathy toward immigrants. It’s why he launched his campaign by attacking Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists. It’s why, like a broken record, he promises to build a wall on the southern border. It’s why he declared a fake national emergency.

    Trump knows his best bet politically is to play into peoples’ fears and prejudices – even if they’re completely baseless.


    • Not so fast Sparky. Let’s try something liberals hate most, facts and logic:

      Critics of illegal immigration argue that the crime rates of illegal aliens are higher than those of the American population generally, or at least of legal immigrants. The New York Times has denied that illegals commit more crime than other groups, but the paper bases its claim on a Cato Institute study that relies on questionable data. In fact, nobody can calculate with accuracy the crime rates of illegal immigrants or any other social group unless they have reliable data on the size of the group, and we simply don’t know how many illegal aliens there are in the United States.

      Nationwide data on crime by illegal aliens is unavailable mainly because most states don’t keep such records. For instance, California, with Hispanics making up more than 43 percent of its incarcerated population, provides no information on the alienage of its inmates. Texas does, though, and its Department of Public Safety reports that illegal aliens were arrested and charged with more than 298,000 crimes, an average of over 39,000 per year, from June 1, 2011 to the end of 2018. Though some of these arrests were for nonviolent crimes, such as theft, burglary, or drug offenses, they also include many violent crimes: 624 homicides, 1,911 robberies, and 3,955 sexual assaults (which, under Texas law, include rapes).

      While these figures sound disturbing, we can’t say with certainty if they are high relative to the size of the illegal immigrant population because, as noted above, we really don’t know how many there are. A 2014 estimate by the Pew Research Center pegged the Texas figure at 1,650,000, or 6.3 percent of the state’s entire population. Homeland Security offered a higher estimate for 2015: 1,940,000, which accounted for 7.3 percent of the state’s population.

      Among all arrests for selected offenses over the period 2012 to 2017, illegal aliens were taken into custody for homicide (which includes murder and manslaughter) in numbers greater than their population size would predict. They accounted for nearly 10 percent of all apprehended killers, whereas, using the high-end DHS estimate, they make up 7.3 percent of the Texas population. For all other crimes, however, including burglary, drugs, theft, robbery, and weapons offenses, their apprehension percentages ranged from 2.5 to 6.7 percent—in other words, below their putative population size.

      The crime of homicide provides the most accurate measure, though, because a much higher proportion of murders are solved by police—around 70 percent—than for any other crime; by contrast, fewer than 15 percent of property offenses lead to an arrest. As a result, we have much more accurate demographics for murderers than for, say, burglars. The indication that illegal aliens commit disproportionate numbers of murders is corroborated by crime rates, shaky though they may be, for 2014 and 2015—the two years for which we have population estimates from Pew and DHS. In 2014, Texas illegal-alien murder-arrest rates were 4.99 per 100,000—56 percent higher than the rates for all other apprehended murderers (3.2 per 100,000). In 2015, the rates were 35 percent higher for illegal aliens (4.2 per 100,000, versus 3.1 per 100,000).

      Granted, neither the rates nor the percentages of illegal aliens arrested are overwhelmingly high. And the rates and percentages for other crimes that they commit are below those of the arrested citizen and legal-alien populations. Still, illegal aliens account for nearly 10 percent of the apprehended murderers in Texas, and over 39,000 of the annual arrests for crime overall. These figures are significant, reflecting crime in a single state with an outsize number of illegal aliens—a small part of the nationwide picture.

      No amount of crime by those who enter this country unlawfully should be acceptable, because it is “extra” crime that wouldn’t occur if our border security were effective. Crime by illegal aliens is costly. The real issue underlying the current public debate is whether the crimes of illegal immigrants are so numerous that they provide a compelling reason, or at least a powerful supporting argument, for urgent spending to secure our southern border. Judging by Texas the answer, though not incontestable, seems to be “yes.”

      Barry Latzer is Professor Emeritus of Criminal Justice, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY and author of The Rise and Fall of Violent Crime in America. He is working on a new book entitled The Myth of Overpunishment.


    • Not so fast Sparky, every illegal immigrant has committed a crime of illegal immigration.

      Feds: Immigration top US crime, one-third of all sentencings

      mmigration crime, virtually all involving illegal male, Hispanic immigrants, was the top offense in federal courts last year, according to the United States Sentencing Commission.

      In its just-released annual report, the commission said that immigration crimes accounted for 34.4% of all sentencing cases, up from 30% last year.

      Nearly tied with drug crimes in fiscal 2017, crimes involving immigration expanded the gap in fiscal 2018, said the commission.

      Overall, the courts saw 69,425 cases and most involved Hispanics and illegal immigrants.

      “In fiscal year 2018, 54.3 percent of all offenders were Hispanic, 21.2 percent were white, 20.6 percent were black, and 3.8 percent were of another race. Non-U.S. citizens accounted for 42.7 percent of all federal offenders,” said the federal commission…
      The immigration crime numbers from fiscal 2018:

      There were 23,883 cases, 34.4% of all sentencings.
      Of those, 22,782, or 96.3%, involved Hispanics.
      Most, were male, 22,106, 92.7%.
      Just 866, or 3.6%, involved those under 21 years old.
      21,835, or 91.5% were noncitizens.
      94.7% of the immigration cases led to prison sentences.

      The commission said that immigration cases include, “trafficking in U.S. passports, trafficking in entry documents, failure to surrender naturalization certificate, fraudulently acquiring U.S. passports, smuggling, transporting, or harboring an unlawful alien, fraudulently acquiring entry documents, and unlawfully entering or remaining in the U.S.”


  12. Better make sure JethroBodine is helping Twittler with his Adderral 🙈🙉🙊

    Police Make Largest Cocaine Bust In History — And NOT On The Mexican Border

    Federal agents seized 15,000 kilos of cocaine Tuesday, but it wasn’t found on the U.S.-Mexico border.

    Trump has been saying since 2015 that Mexicans bring “drugs” and “crime” into the United States, but not even his border wall could have stopped the seven massive shipping containers that came into the PHILADELPHIA Shipping Yard

    “The massive cache of drugs could have a street value between $350 million and $750 million at $25,000-50,000 per kilo” sources told NBC10.

    “Homeland Security Investigations and Customs and Border Protection are leading a multi-agency inspection of shipping containers aboard a merchant ship at the Port of PHILADELPHIA. We will release additional details when it is appropriate to do so” officials said

    Trump also said earlier this year that drugs don’t come into the U.S. through Ports of Entry. However, PHILADELPHIA’s port IS a Port of Entry. Trump has said “We have tremendous amounts of drugs flowing into our country. Much of it coming from the southern border, when you look and when you listen to politicians, particularly certain Democrats, they say it all comes through the ports of entry. Wrong, it’s wrong. It’s just a lie. It’s all a lie. They say walls don’t work. Walls work 100 percent”

    Tuesday proved that 🔐walls🔐 DO NOT work 100%


  13. Poor JethroBodine and his lack of a Linus blankie, using 💩💩💩 from January

    Illegal Immigrants and Crime – Assessing the Evidence

    Whether illegal immigrants bring a significant amount of crime to the United States is one of the most important questions to answer in the debate over immigration policy. President Trump also seems to think so as he launched his campaign in 2015 with the now infamous quote: “[Mexican illegal immigrants] are bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” From executive orders to major talking points to the President’s speeches, which Vox reporter Dara Lind has aptly described as “immigrants are coming over the border to kill you,” Trump is interested in this important topic.

    It is difficult to know whether illegal immigrants are more likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans are. All immigrants have a lower criminal incarceration rate and there are lower crime rates in the neighborhoods where they live, according to the near-unanimous findings of the peer-reviewed evidence. Since 1911, large nationwide federal immigration commissions have asked whether immigrants are more crime-prone than native-born Americans and each one of them answered no, even when the rest of their reports unjustifiably blamed immigrants for virtually every problem in the United States. From the 1911 Immigration Commission, also known as the Dillingham Commission, to the 1931 Wickersham Commission, and 1994’s Barbara Jordan Commission, each has reported that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans.

    That research combines legal and illegal immigrants to calculate a crime rate for all immigrants, but the modern debate is over the crime rates of illegal immigrants. MOST PEOPLE SEEM TO ACCEPT THAT LEGAL IMMIGRANTS HAVE LOWER CRIME RATES THAN NATIVES. Measuring illegal immigrant crime rates is challenging for several reasons. First, the American Community Survey does not ask which inmates in adult correctional facilities are illegal immigrants. Second, federal data on the number of illegal immigrants incarcerated on the state and local level is recorded through the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), which is a combination of stocks and flows that is incomparable to any other measure of inmates. Third, 49 states do not record the immigration statuses of those in prison or convicted. Until recently, these data limitations allowed pundits to say anything about illegal immigrant crime without fear of being fact-checked.

    Cato scholars have since published numerous Immigration Research and Policy Briefs to shed light on this topic. Michelangelo Landgrave, a doctoral student in political science at the University of California, Riverside, and I released a paper today that estimates that illegal immigrant incarceration rates are about half those of native-born Americans in 2017. In the same year, legal immigrant incarceration rates are then again half those of illegal immigrants. Those results are similar to what Landgrave and I published for the years 2014 and 2016. We estimated illegal immigrant incarceration rates by using the same residual method that demographers use to estimate the number of illegal immigrants in the United States, only we also applied that method to the prison population. We used the same method to also find that the incarceration rate for young illegal immigrants brought here as children and theoretically eligible for deferred action is slightly below those of native-born Americans.

    The second strand of research from Cato looks at criminal conviction rates by immigration status in the state of Texas. Unlike every other state, Texas keeps track of the immigration statuses of convicted criminals and the crimes that they committed. Texas is a wonderful state to study because it borders Mexico, has a large illegal immigrant population, is a politically conservative state governed by Republicans, had no jurisdictions that limited its cooperation with federal immigration enforcement in 2015, and it has a law and order reputation for strictly enforcing criminal laws. If anything, Texas is more serious about enforcing laws against illegal immigrant criminals than other states. But even here, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CONVICTION RATES ARE ABOUT HALF THOSE OF NATIVE-BORN AMERICANS – WITHOUT ANY CONTROLS FOR AGE, EDUCATION, ETHNICITY, OR ANY OTHER CHARACTERISTIC. THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CONVICTION RATES FOR HOMICIDE, LARCENY, AND SEX CRIMES ARE ALSO BELOW THOSE OF NATIVE-BORN AMERICANS. THE CRIMINAL CONVICTION RATES FOR LEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE THE LOWEST OF ALL.

    The Texas research is consistent with the finding that CRIME ALONG THE MEXICAN BORDER IS MUCH LOWER THAN IN THE REST OF THE COUNTRY, HOMICIDE RATES IN MEXICAN STATES BORDERING THE UNITED STATES ARE NOT CORRELATED WITH HOMICIDE RATES HERE, El Paso’s border fence did not lower crime, Texas criminal conviction rates remain low (but not as low) when recidivism is factored in, and that police clearance rates are not lower in states with many illegal immigrants – which means that they don’t escape conviction by leaving the country after committing crimes.

    SCAAP is a flawed source of data for several reasons, but even it shows that illegal immigrants have lower incarceration rates than native-born Americans. Based on estimates of the non-citizen population going back to 1955, they are less likely to be arrested for homicide. Federal incarcerations and convictions reveal little here because they represent less than 8 percent of all incarcerations and, worse still, are not representative of nation-wide crime trends. In 2016, for instance, there were only 85 federal convictions for murder out of a nationwide total of 17,785 murder convictions that year, comprising less than 0.5 percent of all murders. Government immigration enforcement programs like E-Verify may even raise crime rates.

    Cato scholars aren’t the only folks investigating illegal immigration and crime. Sociologists Michael Light and Ty Miller found that a higher illegal immigrant population does not increase violent crime rates. Those two researchers then teamed up with Purdue sociologist Bryan C. Kelly to look at how higher illegal immigrant populations affected drug arrests, drug overdose deaths, and DUI arrests. They found large and significantly associated reductions in drug arrests, drug overdose deaths, and DUI arrests with no significant relationship between increased illegal immigration and DUI deaths.

    None of what I wrote above will console a victim of illegal immigrant crime – and it shouldn’t. To those victims and their loved ones, their pain is not diminished by knowing how unlikely it was to happen to them. There will be criminals in any large group of people and there are some infuriating and shocking anecdotes. The public seems to understand that the actions of a comparatively small number of illegal immigrants do not mean that they are more crime-prone than native-born Americans – which is what matters the most when debating public policy. A 2016 Pew poll found that only 27 percent of Americans thought that illegal immigrants were more likely to commit serious crimes than native-born Americans, while 67 percent said less likely. Among Republicans, 42 percent said that illegal immigrants are more likely to commit serious crimes and 52 percent said less likely. A Quinnipiac poll in 2018 revealed that only 17 percent of voters thought that illegal immigrants committed more crimes than native-born Americans and 72 percent of voters thought that illegal immigrants committed less crime.

    Part of the reason why native-born Americans might not be concerned as much with illegal immigrant crime overall, but very concerned in some specific cases, is that most illegal immigrant criminals probably victimize other illegal immigrants. Of the homicides in 2015 where the relationship between the murderer and the victim is known, about 80 percent of murderers knew their victims. The relationship between victim and murderer could be even higher for illegal immigrants. Americans tend to care more when native-born Americans are murdered by illegal immigrants than when an illegal immigrant murders another illegal immigrant.

    The debate over illegal immigration and criminality will likely continue until much better data are available across the United States. Based on the research above, I’m fairly confident that illegal immigrants are less likely to be criminals than native-born Americans. On the overall issue of immigration and crime, the evidence is so one-sided that even Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, has said that, “A lot of data does suggest immigrants are less likely to be involved in crime.” This issue will be resolved when states and localities keep better records of the immigration statuses of people convicted in their states – just like Texas does. The crime data are so complicated and inconsistently kept that even the government misinterprets its own data. The government should resolve these data issues


  14. JethroBodine is gonna whine about this being from the New York Times, yet he wanted to throw 💩💩💩 against the wall from City-Journal from New Yawk…..

    Is There a Connection Between Undocumented Immigrants and Crime?

    It’s a widely held perception, but a new analysis finds NO EVIDENCE to support it.

    A lot of research has shown that there’s NO causal connection between immigration and crime in the United States. But after one such study was reported on jointly by The Marshall Project and The Upshot last year, readers had one major complaint: Many argued it was unauthorized immigrants who increase crime, not immigrants over all.

    An analysis derived from new data is now able to help address this question, suggesting that GROWTH IN ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION DOES NOT LEAD TO HIGHER LOCAL CRIME RATES.

    In part because it’s hard to collect data on them, undocumented immigrants have been the subjects of few studies, including those related to crime. But the Pew Research Center recently released estimates of undocumented populations sorted by metro area, which The Marshall Project has compared with local crime rates published by the F.B.I. For the first time, there is an opportunity for a broader analysis of how unauthorized immigration might have affected crime rates since 2007.

    A large majority of the areas recorded decreases in both violent and property crime between 2007 and 2016, consistent with a quarter-century decline in crime across the United States. The analysis found that crime went down at similar rates regardless of whether the undocumented population rose or fell. Areas with more unauthorized migration appeared to have larger drops in crime, although the difference was small and uncertain.

    Most types of crime had an almost flat trend line, indicating that changes in undocumented populations had little or no effect on crime in the various metro areas under survey. Murder was the only type of crime that appeared to show a rise, but again the difference was small and uncertain (effectively zero).

    For undocumented immigrants, being arrested for any reason would mean facing eventual deportation — and for some a return to whatever danger or deprivation they’d sought to escape at home.

    There is no exact count of unauthorized immigrants living in the United States. To create estimates, experts at Pew subtracted Department of Homeland Security counts of immigrants with legal status from the number of foreign-born people counted by the Census Bureau. Many organizations and agencies, including the D.H.S., use this residual estimation method; it is generally considered the best one available. As of 2016, there were an estimated 10.7 million undocumented immigrants nationwide, down a million and a half since 2007.

    Jeffrey Passel, a Pew senior demographer, and his team estimated changes in undocumented populations for roughly 180 metropolitan areas between 2007 and 2016. For comparison, The Marshall Project calculated corresponding three-year averages of violent and property crime rates from the Uniform Crime Reporting program, and the change in those rates.

    The results of the analysis resemble those of other studies on the relationship between undocumented immigration and crime. Last year, a report by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, found that unauthorized immigrants in Texas committed fewer crimes than their native-born counterparts. A state-level analysis in Criminology, an academic journal, found that undocumented immigration did not increase violent crime and was in fact associated with slight decreases in it. Another Cato study found that unauthorized immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated.

    At the more local level, an analysis by Governing magazine reported that metropolitan areas with more undocumented residents had similar rates of violent crime, and significantly lower rates of property crime, than areas with smaller numbers of such residents in 2014. After controlling for multiple socioeconomic factors, the author of the analysis, Mike Maciag, found that for every 1 percentage point increase in an area’s population that was undocumented there were 94 fewer property crimes per 100,000 residents.

    More research is underway about the potential effects of undocumented immigration on crime. Robert Adelman, a professor at the University at Buffalo, SUNY, whose group’s research The Marshall Project and The Upshot have previously documented, is leading a team to expand on the Governing analysis. Early results suggest unauthorized immigration has no effect on violent crime, and is associated with lower property crime, the same as Mr. Maciag found.

    Preliminary findings indicate that other socioeconomic factors like unemployment rates, housing instability and measures of economic hardship all predict higher rates of different types of crime, while undocumented immigrant populations do not.

    Many studies have established that immigrants commit crimes at consistently lower rates than native-born Americans. But a common concern is whether immigrants put pressure on native-born populations in any number of ways — for instance, by increasing job competition — that could indirectly lead to more crime and other negative impacts.

    According to Mr. Adelman and his team, however, the impact of undocumented immigrants is probably similar to what the research indicates about immigrants over all: They tend to bring economic and cultural benefits to their communities. They typically come to America to find work, not to commit crimes, says Yulin Yang, a member of the team.

    The data suggests that when it comes to crime, the difference between someone who is called a legal immigrant and an illegal one doesn’t seem to matter


    • Not so fast Sparky. Lets look at facts:

      Non-Citizens Committed a Disproportionate Share of Federal Crimes, 2011-16
      21% of those convicted of non-immigration crimes were non-citizens — 2.5 times their share of the population

      Many immigration advocates argue that immigrants have much lower crime rates than natives (see this op-ed and this paper). As my colleague Jessica Vaughan and I pointed in a paper some years ago, however, the picture is far from clear. While there are other issues, the biggest problem with studying immigrant crime is that states and localities do not systematically track the country of birth, citizenship, or legal status of those they arrest, convict, or incarcerate. But the federal government does track the citizenship of those it convicts. New data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission shows that of those convicted of federal crimes between 2011 and 2016, 44.2 percent were not U.S. citizens — 21.4 percent, if immigration crimes are excluded. In comparison, non-citizens are 8.4 percent of the adult population. Of this 8.4 percent, about 4 percent are illegal immigrants and about 4 percent are legal immigrants.

      The commission’s data does not distinguish legal status among non-citizens. It is almost certain that a majority of the non-citizens convicted of federal crimes are illegal immigrants. But we cannot say for sure because that information is not provided. What we can say, at least at the federal level, is that non-citizens are more likely to commit crimes than citizens.

      A Very Important Caveat about These Numbers. Those convicted at the federal level are not necessarily representative of all criminal convictions in the United States. Most law enforcement occurs at the state and local level and it is not reasonable to simply extrapolate about immigrant criminality generally from the federal data. Nonetheless, federal law enforcement is still enormous, with 312,000 people (67,000 non-citizens) sentenced in the federal courts between 2011 and 2016, excluding immigration violations. And in the federal system, where we do have good data, non-citizens account for a disproportionate share of those who are sentenced for many different types of non-immigration crimes.

      One Additional Caveat. Because it is easier to make an immigration case, federal prosecutors sometimes charge illegal immigrants only with immigration violations, even when they have committed serious non-immigration crimes. Once convicted, an immigrant will still normally serve some time and then be deported, which is often seen by prosecutors as good enough. This, of course, does not happen with citizens. But because of this, conviction data for non-immigration crimes will tend to understate the level of criminal activity among non-citizens.

      Among the findings of the new data:

      Areas where non-citizens account for a much larger share of convictions than their 8.4 percent share of the adult population include:

      42.4 percent of kidnapping convictions;
      31.5 percent of drug convictions;
      22.9 percent of money laundering convictions;
      13.4 percent of administration of justice offenses (e.g. witness tampering, obstruction, and contempt);
      17.8 percent of economic crimes (e.g. larceny, embezzlement, and fraud);
      13 percent of other convictions (e.g. bribery, civil rights, environmental, and prison offenses); and
      12.8 percent of auto thefts.

      Areas where non-citizens account for a share of convictions roughly equal to their share of the adult population include:

      9.6 percent of assaults;
      8.9 percent of homicides; and
      7.5 percent of firearm crimes.


      • What the Media Won’t Tell You About Illegal Immigration and Criminal Activity

        …..The first report (GAO-05-337R) found that criminal aliens (both legal and illegal) make up 27 percent of all federal prisoners. Yet according to the Center for Immigration Studies, non-citizens are only about nine percent of the nation’s adult population. Thus, judging by the numbers in federal prisons alone, non-citizens commit federal crimes at three times the rate of citizens.

        The findings in the second report (GAO-05-646R) are even more disturbing. This report looked at the criminal histories of 55,322 aliens that “entered the country illegally and were still illegally in the country at the time of their incarceration in federal or state prison or local jail during fiscal year 2003.” Those 55,322 illegal aliens had been arrested 459,614 times, an average of 8.3 arrests per illegal alien, and had committed almost 700,000 criminal offenses, an average of roughly 12.7 offenses per illegal alien.

        Out of all of the arrests, 12 percent were for violent crimes such as murder, robbery, assault and sex-related crimes; 15 percent were for burglary, larceny, theft and property damage; 24 percent were for drug offenses; and the remaining offenses were for DUI, fraud, forgery, counterfeiting, weapons, immigration, and obstruction of justice.

        The 2011 GAO report wasn’t much different. It looked at 251,000 criminal aliens in federal, state, and local prisons and jails. Those aliens were arrested nearly 1.7 million times for close to three million criminal offenses. Sixty-eight percent of those in federal prison and 66 percent of those in state prisons were from Mexico. Their offenses ranged from homicide and kidnapping to drugs, burglary, and larceny.

        Once again, these statistics are not fully representative of crimes committed by illegal aliens: This report only reflects the criminal histories of aliens who were in prison. If there were a way to include all crimes committed by criminal aliens, the numbers would likely be higher because prosecutors often will agree to drop criminal charges against an illegal alien if they are assured that immigration authorities will deport the alien.

        The GAO reports also highlight another important flaw in the study referenced by the Associated Press. It uses survey data from a nationally representative sample of people living in the United States. Thus, the study does not take into account some potentially key factors highlighted in the GAO reports: that criminal aliens from Mexico disproportionately make up incarcerations (GAO-05-337R) and that most arrests are made in the three border states of California, Texas, and Arizona (GAO-05-646R and GAO-11-187).

        Every crime committed by an illegal alien is one that would not have occurred if that alien wasn’t in the United States in the first place.


  15. “Prosecutor says Navy SEAL accused of murder, war crimes was ‘ready to kill’ in opening statement”

    Personally I thought Navy SEALs were trained to do just that. Didn’t realize they were trained to read Miranda rights.

    But what pisses me off, is how can a couple no-bid, big money, military industrial complex anarchists escape scot free murdering 600,000 men, women and children based on a lie not be in a lot more trouble than this guy they sent there to do just that.

    So damn glad I’m old. Never been too fond of swallowing horsesh-t….

      • Word on the street has it shar pie started drinking Russian vodka instead of his American bourbon and went off the rails.

        Word has it he starting banging a washed up porn star living on Fares Avenue, wiretapped Mayor Winneke’s office and surrendered to the EPD confessing he was involved in the assassination of John Kennedy.

        I’ve heard he’s said he knows more than all the commenters on these threads and he’s fallen in love with the dictator of Occupied Manchuria who sends him beautiful letters on a daily basis.

        Actually plg73, he is probably in an ICU somewhere suffering from a “big brain” because of complications from syphilis.

        Which brings me back to Fares Avenue.

        I wish him well, he “was” an awesome dude.

        No Doubt….

  16. Real girls are fighting back against liberal nonsense:

    Teen Girls File Suit Against Connecticut for Forcing Them to Compete Against Transgenders in School Sports

    Three high school girls have filed a federal discrimination lawsuit against the state of Connecticut for forcing them to compete against (and lose to) several teen boys who claim to be transgender girls.

    The girls charge that the boys pretending to be girls easily beat them in the state championships and thereby likely beat them out of college scholarships….

    “Girls deserve to compete on a level playing field,” said Christiana Holcomb, legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom said according to the Washington Times. “Women fought long and hard to earn the equal athletic opportunities that Title IX provides. Allowing boys to compete in girls’ sports reverses nearly 50 years of advances for women under this law. We shouldn’t force these young women to be spectators in their own sports.”

    The Times adds:

    The Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference, which governs high school sports in the state, says its policy follows a state anti-discrimination law requiring students to be treated in school according to the gender with which they identify. That means that athletes can compete according to their expressed gender identity as opposed to their sex assigned at birth.

    The suit contends that “gender identity amounts to an unfair advantage in sport.”


Comments are closed.