The White House Is Starting To Take Obama Impeachment Threats Seriously

The White House on Friday said that it is taking Republican threats to impeach President Barack Obama seriously. White House Senior Advisor Dan Pfeiffer said that the threat of Obama impeachment would increase if the President takes executive actions to keep illegal aliens in the country.

“The President acting on immigration reform will certainly up the likelihood that [Republicans] would contemplate impeachment at some point,” Pfeiffer told attendees of a breakfast forum hosted by The Christian Science Monitor.

Obama’s longtime advisor also told the audience that the days of the Administration laughing off impeachment talks have ended, with the President’s dismal polling numbers and a lawsuit against Obama promised by House Speaker John Boehner.

Polling data out this week from CNN/ORC reveals that 33 percent of Americans support the idea of impeaching the President and 41 percent said that the House GOP should move forward with a lawsuit against Obama.

But, according to The Monitor, Boehner denied that his suit was designed to set the wheels of impeachment in motion.

“This is a fundraising exercise for Democrats,” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel told the outlet. “It is telling, and sad, that a senior White House official is focused on political games, rather than helping these kids and securing the border.”

Other establishment Republicans like Senator John McCain (Ariz.) have also denied that impeaching the President is a viable plan.

“Well, I don’t agree and I remember going through an impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton,” McCain said earlier this month when former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin called for impeachment. “There are not the votes here in the United States Senate to impeach the president of the United States and I think that we should focus our attention on winning elections. We win this election and we regain control of the United States Senate we can be far more effective than an effort to impeach the president, which has no chance of succeeding.”

Other Republicans, however, have said that the President’s actions in dealing the Nation’s immigration problem could open the door to impeachment proceedings.

“He either enforces the laws on the books—as he was hired and elected to do—or he leaves. Congress no option. This is not our choice, this is the President’s choice and I would advise him to uphold the law on the books,” Representative Ted Yoho (R-FL) said in a recent statement.

Senate NSA Bill Could Come As Early As Next Week

A Senate compromise on how the government should dial down its out-of-control surveillance could be revealed as early as next Tuesday, according to Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy.

Leahy (D-Vt.) says that the bill, which is “within inches” of completion, would place “clear cut guidelines” on what the Nation’s intelligence gatherers “can and cannot do” while also offering measures to ensure that “the American people know that their privacy is going to be protected.”

Leahy sponsored the Senate version of the House USA Freedom Act, which was passed by lawmakers in the lower chamber earlier this year. The Senator, however, has vowed that his version will include stronger reforms than the bill passed in the House, which was disavowed by many supporters after lawmakers watered it down.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation told supporters in May:

Since the introduction of the USA FREEDOM Act, a bill that has over 140 cosponsors, Congress has been clear about its intent: ending the mass collection of Americans’ calling records. Many members of Congress, the President’s own review group on NSA activities, and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board all agree that the use of Section 215 to collect Americans’ calling records must stop. Earlier today, House Leadership reached an agreement to amend the bipartisan USA FREEDOM Act in ways that severely weaken the bill, potentially allowing bulk surveillance of records to continue. The Electronic Frontier Foundation cannot support a bill that doesn’t achieve the goal of ending mass spying. We urge Congress to support uncompromising NSA reform and we look forward to working on the Senate’s bipartisan version of the USA FREEDOM Act.

As Leahy races against the clock to provide the legislation before Congress takes its summer recess, privacy advocates are a bit more upbeat about the Senate version of the privacy bill.

FEC Commissioner Warns Of Government Mission Against Conservative Media

This week, Federal Elections Commission Chairman Lee Goodman called out Democratic colleagues for making attempts to regulate book publishing by conservatives. The FEC attempts are only the latest in a series of government maneuvers to tamp down on conservative media.

The criticism came after Democrats on the FEC attempted to deny Representative Paul Ryan’s leadership PAC, Prosperity Action, the ability to buy copies of the book written by the Republican lawmaker from Wisconsin — The Way Forward: Renewing the American Idea — to give away to supporters.

Washington Examiner explains:

In the case of the Ryan book, publisher Grand Central Publishing sought the broad media exemption from regulation, but Democrats rejected that and pushed for a different, commercial, exemption that imposes rules over the publisher’s politics and book pricing. Republicans went along and the commission approved that 6-0.

The commission also ruled that while Ryan can have his campaign and PAC buy books to give out, the promotion on his websites has to be limited to two sentences. There were concerns raised by Weintraub that Ryan was trying to profit off sales of the book promoted on his websites. Republicans carried that to victory in a 4-2 vote.

Goodman said the mixed decision for Ryan was another missed chance by the FEC to publicly show support for press freedom.

“By failing to affirm this publisher’s constitutional right, statutory right, to disseminate a political book free from FEC conditions and regulations, we have effectively asserted regulatory jurisdiction over a book publisher,” Goodman said.

“That failure reveals a festering legal uncertainty and chill for the free press rights of books and book publishers to publish and disseminate political books free from government regulation,” he added.

The FEC constraints imposed on Ryan are only the latest evidence of what Goodman believes is an attempt by Democrats to silence conservative voices in publishing and media.

In May, Goodman warned of Democrats’ efforts to change FEC media exemption laws that allow all forms of media to pick political favorites without worrying about complying with election regulations. The FEC chairman said that the attempts have resulted directly from the growing popularity of conservative online media.

“I think that there are impulses in the government every day to second guess and look into the editorial decisions of conservative publishers,” he said at the time.

“The right has begun to break the left’s media monopoly, particularly through new media outlets like the Internet, and I sense that some on the left are starting to rethink the breadth of the media exemption and internet communications,” he added.

The FEC efforts to regulate media aren’t the only areas of concern for conservative publishers.

Despite the Federal Communications Commission’s 2011 announcement that the Fairness Doctrine would no longer be on the books, liberals continue to propose renditions of the obsolete law that would quiet conservative media.

And over in Congress, attempts to stifle political speech are bipartisan. Legislative proposals to define “journalist” in a media shield law that lawmakers began work on last year attempted to narrow the definition to leave out anyone not working for a traditional media outlet.

Lawmaker: Ivory Ban Could Lead To Confiscation Of Antique Guns, Instruments

A Tennessee Senator is worried that a new Obama Administration Fish and Wildlife Service mandate aimed at stopping the trade of ivory could lead to the confiscation of antique firearms and other goods.

“For those of us who are concerned that this administration is trying to take away our guns, this regulation could actually do that,” Senator Lamar Alexander (R) said Wednesday.

“If this regulation is approved, when you decide to sell a gun, a guitar or anything else across state lines that contains African elephant ivory, the government would actually take them away — even if you inherited them or bought them at a time when the sale of ivory was not illegal,” he added.

Gun owners along with musicians, whose antique instruments sometimes contain ivory, have argued against the rule which bars the trade of materials containing African elephant ivory. In addition to criminalizing the trade of legitimate antiques, musicians have complained that the law makes it more difficult for them to tour outside of the U.S. with antique instruments.

“Although ivory is no longer used in the manufacture of new musical instruments, many older musical instruments, such as guitars and bows, feature very small amounts of ivory and are still in use by artists today,” wrote Todd Dupler, director of government relations at The Recording Academy, recently wrote in a blog post.

“These instruments, some of which are historically significant antiques, were legally crafted and legally acquired, but under the new rules artists could still be prohibited from traveling internationally with them,” he added.

Alexander has proposed legislation that would reverse the Administration’s ivory trade ban for goods made before the 1976 ban on ivory was put into place. Under the Lawful Ivory Protection Act the production of new goods containing ivory would remain illegal.

“I support stopping poachers, and I support stopping the trade of illegal ivory,” Alexander said. “What I don’t support is treating … musicians, antique shops, and firearms sellers like illegal ivory smugglers. … This legislation will stop the administration from taking away our legal guns, guitars, and other items that contain legal ivory if we try to sell them across state lines.”

GOP Offers Immigration Proposals, Democrats Want Money Without Policy Change

Republican lawmakers are working to produce an alternative to President Barack Obama’s proposal to spend $3.7 billion in taxpayer money to deal with the illegal immigration crisis along the U.S.’s southern border. A GOP plan discussed Wednesday would provide less than half of the President’s requested funding (offset by budget cuts), increase border security and change U.S. immigration laws.

A key provision of the Republican plan would require changes to the 2008 anti-trafficking law that requires government officials to give special treatment to illegal immigrant children from Central America.

“We need to close the loophole in the current law that incentivizes trafficking and send a clear message to smuggling organizations while still maintaining all due process and legal protections for immigrants,” Representative Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) said in a statement.

House GOP lawmakers have introduced the proposals in hopes of passing border legislation before Congress leaves for a five-week recess set to begin July 31.

In addition to changing the trafficking law, the Republican plan would set aside $1.5 in spending to beef up immigration-related law enforcement and judicial resources. The GOP plan also provides a plan for National Guard deployment to strengthen security along the border.

The Republicans argue that their proposal, unlike Obama’s, includes a plan to deal with the crisis to coincide with increased government spending.

“What the President’s asking for is a blank check,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said after discussions with fellow Republicans. “Without trying to fix the problem, I don’t know how we’re in the position to give the President any more money.”

GOP lawmakers have expressed confidence that the bill will gain approval in the House.

Senate Democrats have offered up a competing plan that would provide $2.7 billion in increased border spending. Lawmakers on the left have also criticized the GOP plan, saying that they will block any immigration legislation that includes provisions to change the 6-year-old human trafficking law to make it easier to deport young illegal immigrants.

“The Democrats have children to protect and the Republicans have a crisis to exploit,” Representative Luis Guitérrez (D-Ill.) said of the GOP plan.

“Almost every Democrat I talk to says we should hold the line on the laws passed to protect children from sex-trafficking and smugglers. The Republicans seem to be divided between the ones who don’t think the money is necessary, the ones who want to weaken laws protecting children and the ones who want to deport all of the dreamers and other undocumented immigrants before we do anything else.”

Senate Democrats, along with the White House, are expected to heavily pressure House Republicans to provide more funding saddled with fewer stipulations ahead of the Congressional recess. But conservatives like Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) are urging members of the GOP in the lower chamber to stand their ground.

Americans Feel Increasingly Divided, Fault Obama And Congressional GOP

American voters strongly believe that the Nation is more divided than it was just four years ago, according to the results of a recent poll.

Data out from Rasmussen reveals that 67 percent of likely U.S. voters feel that the Nation is more divided than it was just four years ago. That’s compared to a paltry 7 percent who feel the country is more unified and 21 percent who don’t think much has changed since 2010.

Among likely voters who feel a sense of division, blame is spread almost equally, if by predictably partisan lines, between President Obama (35 percent, 71 percent of Republicans) and Congressional Republicans (34 percent, 67 percent of Democrats).

According to the data, the sense of division has encouraged Americans to pay more attention to political current events.

“Forty-six percent (46%) say given the state of politics in America today, they are following political news more closely than they have in the past,” Rasmussen reports. “Fifteen percent (15%) are following political news less these days, while 39% say their level of attention to that kind of news is about the same. Republicans are following political news much more closely now than Democrats and unaffiliated voters are.”

Keeping up with the latest political news is also driving more Americans to seek change at the polls, perhaps in an effort to offset damage done by their low-information countrymen— 83 percent of those polled believe other Americans are ignorant in matters of political importance.

“Fifty-seven percent (57%) of all voters say they are more likely to vote this year than they have been in past elections,” Rasmussen says. “Only four percent (4%) say they are less likely to do so, while 38% rate their intention to vote as about the same as in past years.”

According to the data, likely voter turnout among Republicans (65 percent) and independents (55 percent) are both higher than the turnout expected for Democratic voters (53 percent). That could for vulnerable Senate Democrats in the 2014 midterm elections.

Report: Department Of Justice, Homeland Security Must Go On Offensive Against Growing Right-Wing Threat

The protesters and militia members who showed up to support rancher Cliven Bundy this spring when the Federal government confiscated his livestock because of unpaid grazing fees and desert tortoises belong to a “much larger and more dangerous” network of “radical right-wing extremists,” according to a report out from the once-purposeful Southern Poverty Law Center.

The SPLC claims that its mission is to combat “hate, intolerance and discrimination through education and litigation.” But in recent years, the organization spends most of its time promoting radical political correctness and insisting that modern conservatism is innately driven by hate. In its July 2014 report “War In The West: The Bundy Ranch Standoff and the American Radical Right,” SPLC goes to great trouble to insist that the most radical individuals present at the Bundy ranch are representative of all Americans who are out of step with the prevailing attitudes of the left.

According to the organization, American citizens protesting the Bureau of Land Management’s tactics in dealing with Bundy “invigorated an extremist movement that exploded when President Obama was elected, going from some 150 groups in 2008 to more than 1,000 last year.”

The organization argues in its executive summary:

For those harboring deep hatred of the federal government, the BLM pullout was seen as a dramatic victory, one instance where the armed radicals of the right stared through their own gunsights at the gun barrels of law enforcement officials and won. Rather than being condemned, their actions garnered the support of numerous politicians, including the governor of Nevada and commentators like Fox News’ Sean Hannity — a truly repulsive spectacle. This pandering to the far right by both politicians and media figures ended in a hurry, however, when Bundy engaged in racist blather about “the Negro.” Racism was crossing a line, apparently, but the calls from the ranch for revolution and outright defiance of federal law enforcement seemed to be just fine with the Hannitys of the world.

Of course, conservatives who championed some of Bundy’s anti-government attitudes would dial down support when he demonstrated ignorance. However, arguing to the SPLC that conservatism, respect for the Constitution and supporting the right of the people to challenge government aren’t racist ideals would be a fruitless endeavor.

“[W]e’ve seen an explosive growth of radical-right groups, including armed militias, since Obama was elected, and repeated threats that violence is needed to ‘take our country back’ from the ‘tyranny’ of Obama,” SPLC founder Morris Dees writes in another article on the organization’s website. “This is part of a backlash to the growing diversity in our country, as symbolized by the presence of a black man in the White House.”

In addition to its usual attempts to equate small government ideas to racism, the SPLC has taken another approach in its Bundy reporting: insinuating that anti-government views lead to homicidal tendencies.

Without knowing where Bundy’s armed supporters actually had their weapons trained during the standoff, the SPLC insists that each firearm was pointed at a Federal officer.

And although the standoff ended peacefully when BLM officers backed down, SPLC argues that the Bundy standoff did eventually lead to bloodshed.

From the report:

Writing on his blog hours after the standoff, Mike Vanderboegh, an aging government-hating propagandist from Alabama who heads the III Percent Patriots, characterized the standoff in grandiose terms. “It is impossible to overstate the importance of the victory won in the desert today,” he gushed. “The feds were routed — routed. There is no word that applies. Courage is contagious, defiance is contagious, victory is contagious. Yet the war is not over.”

Within weeks, that rhetoric appeared predictive as two people who had spent time on the Bundy ranch before reportedly being asked to leave went on a shooting spree in Las Vegas. On June 8, Jerad Miller and his wife Amanda entered a restaurant and killed two Las Vegas police officers before running into a nearby Wal-Mart and killing an armed civilian who tried to stop them. Witnesses say the couple shouted, “This is a revolution!” and draped one of the slain officer’s bodies with a Gadsden flag, a militia favorite that reads, “Don’t tread on me.”

Later, the report continues:

The Millers were only two of the hundreds of militia members, conspiracy theorists and other angry antigovernment extremists who responded to Bundy’s call for a “range war.”

Of course, the SPLC fails to note that Jerad Miller was also a felon and reported advocate of crystal meth use. Therefore, it’s very likely that his personal problems had more to do with his later actions than his time at Bundy’s ranch.

The bottom line from the SPLC is that if the Federal government doesn’t start taking a closer look at Americans who dare criticize or protest its actions, there will be more, increasingly violent, Bundy-style standoffs and more shooting rampages akin to the Millers’.

“The Bundy ranch standoff wasn’t a spontaneous response to Cliven Bundy’s predicament but rather a well-organized, military-type action that reflects the potential for violence from a much larger and more dangerous movement,” said Mark Potok, senior fellow in the SPLC’s Intelligence Project and lead author of the report, in a statement. “This incident may have faded from public view, but if our government doesn’t pay attention, we will be caught off guard as much as the Bureau of Land Management was that day.”

So what’s SPLC’s answer?

The report argues that Federal officials should put into place more mechanisms for monitoring America’s “far-right”:

The recent announcement by Attorney General Eric Holder that the Justice Department is reviving its Domestic Terrorism Executive Committee is welcome news. The committee was established after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and was instrumental in bringing swift prosecutions that stemmed the tide of hardcore antigovernment activity; it should never have been allowed to become moribund after the 9/11 attacks. The militiamen and others who pointed their weapons at BLM and Las Vegas officers need to face criminal prosecution because the rule of law must be enforced or it will be challenged again.

But swift prosecutions are only part of the answer. The Justice Department is a law enforcement agency, not an intelligence-gathering one. To help law enforcement at all levels, the Department of Homeland Security must put more resources into assessing the threat of non-Islamic domestic terrorism. The unit with the primary responsibility for that task was allowed to wither in the face of conservative criticism following the leak of a 2009 report on the resurgent threat from the far right. That, too, should never have been allowed to happen.

In essence, the SPLC believes that the Federal government must always be protected from the people because of a populist threat to some of its policies. Oddly enough, all of the Nation’s founding documents suggest that things ought to be the other way around.

Sunday News Show Roundup

Sunday’s political talk shows focused heavily on foreign policy, as guests discussed the ongoing crisis in Ukraine which was cast back into the headlines by the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 and the U.S.’s position on escalating tensions between Israelis and Palestinians in Gaza.

Members of Congress, along with top officials from the Obama Administration, suggested that the Russian government likely played a role in the destruction of the Malaysian airliner.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union”, saying that Russia is ultimately to blame if the plane was shot down by pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine.

“The nexus between Russia and the separatists has been established very clearly,” Feinstein said.

“So the issue is: Where is Putin? I would say, Putin, you have to man up. You should talk to the world. You should say this was a mistake, which I hope it was,” the lawmaker continued.

Feinstein also said that she believes that the relationship between the U.S. and Russia is now back at Cold War levels.

Republican Representative Michael McCaul (Texas) and Peter King (New York) expressed similar sentiments, saying that the event will drastically alter U.S.-Russia relations.

Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press” U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry called on Russian President Vladimir Putin to use his influence over rebels in Ukraine to aid the investigation into the events surrounding the plane crash.

“This is a moment of truth for Mr. Putin and for Russia,” he said. “Russia needs to step up and prove its bona fides, if there are any left, with respect to its willingness to put actions behind the words.”

During another of five Sunday appearances, Kerry told CNN that Ukrainian separatists have already tampered with the crash site.

“Today we have reports of drunken separatists piling the remains of people into trucks in an unceremonious fashion, actually removing them from the location. They are interfering with the evidence in the location. They have removed, we understand, some airplane parts,” Kerry said.

Kerry joined Fox News Sunday to discuss another pressing U.S. foreign policy concern in Gaza. The Secretary of State was caught on an open mic sarcastically discussing Israel’s tactics in the region with an aid.

Kerry was heard telling the aid that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to send troops to the region was “a hell of a pinpoint,” parroting a term used by Israeli officials explaining that the military response to Hamas is measured and targeted.

Fox’s Chris Wallace asked, based on Kerry’s remarks, if the official was “upset that the Israelis are going too far?”

“I think it’s very, very difficult in these situations,” he said. “You have people who come out of tunnels. You have a right to go in and take out those tunnels. We completely support that, and we support Israel’s right to defend itself against rockets that are, you know, continuing to come in. … So yeah, it’s tough, it’s tough to have this kind of operation, and I reacted, obviously, in a way that anybody does in respect to young children and civilians.”

On “State of the Union”, Netanyahu defended his nation’s actions.

“We have to protect ourselves. So we try to target the rocketeers. We do. And all civilian casualties are unintended by us, but intended by Hamas,” he said. “They want to pile up as many civilian dead as they can, because somebody said they use — it’s gruesome. They use telegenically dead Palestinians for their cause. They want the more dead the better.”

Despite the turmoil unfolding throughout the world, on “Meet the Press” Kerry said that Americans should be proud of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy approach.

“[T]he facts could not be more clear. The United States of America has never been more engaged in helping to lead in more places than we are now. …” he said. “And I think the American people ought to be proud of what this president has done in terms of peaceful, diplomatic engagement, rather than quick-trigger, deploying troops, starting or engaging in a war of choice. I think the president’s on the right track and I think we have the facts to prove it.”

Meanwhile, Senator Lindsey Graham (S.C.), like many of his fellow Republicans, believes that the Secretary of State must be delusional.

“Secretary Kerry… gave the most ridiculous and delusional summary of American foreign policy that I can imagine. It scares me that he believes the world is in such good shape,” the Senator said. “America is the glue that holds the free world together. Leading from behind is not working. The world is adrift. President Obama has become the king of indecision.”

Harry Reid Criticizes GOP Plan Because Illegal Aliens Are Here ‘Legitimately’

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has made some ridiculous claims about the ongoing border crisis over the past week. On Tuesday, he told reporters that despite the thousands of illegal immigrants flowing into the country, he is certain the U.S.-Mexico border is secure. Reid then told fellow lawmakers that illegal immigrants who entered the country as minors did, in fact, come here legally.

Reid’s remarks came on the Senate floor Thursday in response to a demand from Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) that the Barack Obama Administration make drastic changes to its immigration policy.

The Texas Republican has asked lawmakers to oppose Obama’s request for $3.7 billion in emergency funding to deal with the border crisis unless language is included in the appropriations bill to halt the President’s 2012 order halting deportations of the illegal immigrant minors affectionately called Dreamers by the White House.

”What is causing this humanitarian crisis is that these children believe that they will be granted, in the future, amnesty. So this legislation directly solves that problem,” Cruz told reporters Thursday. “The only way to address this humanitarian crisis and to solve it, so we don’t have children being brutalized, is to remove the promise of amnesty that is causing these children to risk their lives and be entrusted to vicious drug dealers.”

Reid took the lead in Democratic attacks on Cruz’s proposed end to Obama’s amnesty.

“Before Republicans help our Border Patrol agents and all the personnel trying to do something to handle this humanitarian crisis, they want President Obama to deport the Dreamers who are already here, legitimately here,” Reid said on the Senate floor.

“What the junior senator from Texas (Cruz) said (is) we’re not going to do this unless we deport all these children who came here before, the so-called Dreamers,” Reid continued. “Once again we see there are no substantive solutions being offered by the Republican Party. Instead of doing something about these children who are at the border, they want to deport hundreds of thousands of the people who are already here.”

The argument between the two lawmakers indicated that polarization in Congress is making it increasingly unlikely that a legislative fix to the immigration crisis is forthcoming. Unfortunately for conservatives, many Democratic lawmakers have begun hinting that the President will attempt to tackle the problem unilaterally — a move that would likely include amnesty for hundreds of thousands of the so-called Dreamers and their family members.

“It’s important to understand that the president made it very clear to the Hispanic Caucus yesterday that Congress is not acting,” California Democrat Tony Cardenas told MSNBC Wednesday. “He let Speaker Boehner know many, many months ago to please go ahead and do something. He has not done it. And now’s the time for the president to act, and the president’s going to act shortly.”

The lawmaker said the President will use his executive “legal authority and latitude” to “give people some kind of status to the 11 million who are waiting to get some relief.”

“Not all of them,” he continued. “The power of the President cannot relieve all 11 million. But there are categories of 500,000 or a million that he can give some kind of temporary status to.”

DEA Fed Crackhead’s Addiction To Catch Crackheads

Crack is wack, unless you happen to be a Federal dope peddler.

Drug Enforcement Administration agents working to clean up the streets of Las Vegas, N.M., decided that it would be a good idea to pay a recovering drug addict aiding them in an undercover investigation, a lawsuit filed in an Albuquerque district court alleges.

According to court documents filed on Monday, 38-year-old Aaron Romero, who agreed to work with the Feds in a DEA investigation dubbed “Operation Smack City” was given copious amounts of crack in return for his cooperation.

“The United States government and the defendants affirmatively and intentionally established a pattern of distribution of crack cocaine to (Romero) in order to utilize his addiction to crack cocaine to further the investigation and to ‘stack drug related charges’ against him,” the lawsuit alleges.

The Federal agents later charged Romero with drug distribution.

According to his attorneys, Romero’s drug distribution charges were dropped — but his addiction to crack persisted, thanks to the Federal government.

“He was targeted because he was a known drug addict,” his attorney Erlinda Ocampo Johnson said. “He is trying to get his life back together but he’s still afraid that the government will try to restart his addiction again.”

According to the lawsuit, agents deliberately repeatedly instructed an informant to contact Romero in 2011. At the time, after years of drug addiction had taken its toll, Romero was allegedly working to get his life together and repair relationships.

Via the lawsuit:

… [The informant]returned to Las Vegas, New Mexico and contacted Aaron to arrange for the acquisition of $40-$50 worth of Crack Cocaine in exchange for payment of Crack Cocaine to Aaron for consumption.

After consumption of the large amount of Crack Cocaine distributed to Aaron on  November 30, 2011 by the United States Government and the subsequent related relapse of addiction to Crack Cocaine, Aaron agreed to arrange for the acquisition of $40-$50 worth of Crack Cocaine in exchange for payment of Crack Cocaine to Aaron for consumption.

Consequently, this pattern of arrangement of the acquisition of $40-$50 worth of Crack Cocaine to ¼ ounce of Crack Cocaine for [the informant] in exchange for payment of Crack Cocaine to Aaron for consumption continued 2-3 times per week from early December 2011 through May 2012.

All the while, the Feds stacked charges against the drug addict as they manipulated him.

Romero named five DEA agents in the lawsuit, including two special agents, one group supervisor, an assistant agent-in-charge and the overall agent in charge. He is seeking $8.5 million in damages from the Federal government.

Romero’s case is only the latest in a string of reports of government agents manipulating vulnerable people and employing counterintuitive investigation tactics in targeting crime.

In December, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel printed a laundry listed of dubious tactics employed by another Federal law enforcement agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF):

■ ATF agents befriended mentally disabled people to drum up business and later arrested them in at least four cities in addition to Milwaukee. In Wichita, Kan., ATF agents referred to a man with a low IQ as “slow-headed” before deciding to secretly use him as a key cog in their sting. And agents in Albuquerque, N.M., gave a brain-damaged drug addict with little knowledge of weapons a “tutorial” on machine guns, hoping he could find them one.

■ Agents in several cities opened undercover gun- and drug-buying operations in safe zones near churches and schools, allowed juveniles to come in and play video games and teens to smoke marijuana, and provided alcohol to underage youths. In Portland, attorneys for three teens who were charged said a female agent dressed provocatively, flirted with the boys and encouraged them to bring drugs and weapons to the store to sell.

■ As they did in Milwaukee, agents in other cities offered sky-high prices for guns, leading suspects to buy firearms at stores and turn around and sell them to undercover agents for a quick profit. In other stings, agents ran fake pawnshops and readily bought stolen items, such as electronics and bikes — no questions asked — spurring burglaries and theft. In Atlanta, agents bought guns that had been stolen just hours earlier, several ripped off from police cars.

■ Agents damaged buildings they rented for their operations, tearing out walls and rewiring electricity — then stuck landlords with the repair bills. A property owner in Portland said agents removed a parking lot spotlight, damaging her new $30,000 roof and causing leaks, before they shut down the operation and disappeared without a way for her to contact them.

■ Agents pressed suspects for specific firearms that could fetch tougher penalties in court. They allowed felons to walk out of the stores armed with guns. In Wichita, agents suggested a felon take a shotgun, saw it off and bring it back — and provided instructions on how to do it. The sawed-off gun allowed them to charge the man with a more serious crime.

■ In Pensacola, the ATF hired a felon to run its pawnshop. The move widened the pool of potential targets, boosting arrest numbers. Even those trying to sell guns legally could be charged if they knowingly sold to a felon. The ATF’s pawnshop partner was later convicted of pointing a loaded gun at someone outside a bar. Instead of a stiff sentence typically handed down to repeat offenders in federal court, he got six months in jail — and a pat on the back from the prosecutor.

News Flash: Guns In America Have Triggers, Fire Projectiles

Rolling Stone magazine recently published a highly informative photo essay titled “The 5 Most Dangerous Guns In America” which lends further credence to the notion that those who most fear firearms are also those who know the least about them.

Kristen Gwynne, writing for the publication, cites “firearm trace data from the ATF, as well as FBI homicide records” to make an largely unscientific and entirely useless list of the top five guns that cause “the most harm” in America today.

“Contrary to what those who defend the right to own high-powered assault rifles believe, not all guns are created equal,” she writes in her introduction. “Due to a combination of availability, portability and criminal usage the following five types of guns are the country’s most dangerous.”

Here’s what she came up with—excerpts of her outstanding firearms knowledge included:

1) Pistols

Popular among handgun-owners, pistols are defined by their built-in barrel and short stock. They are the most commonly recovered firearm type reported by the ATF.

2) Revolvers

Revolvers, named for their rotating chambered cylinder, placed second in the ATF’s ranking of guns found at crime scenes more than 46,000 recovered in 2012, the most recent year for which statistics were kept.

Some grenade launchers, shotguns, and rifles also have rotating barrels, but the term “revolver” is generally used to describe handguns.

3) Rifles

Law enforcement agencies pulled more than 39,000 from crime scenes in 2012, firmly establishing this weapon — designed to be fired from the shoulder — in third place on the ATF’s trace list. Pulling the trigger of a rifle fires one projectile at the intended target, as opposed to the shotgun’s ability to spray. According to FBI latest publicly available homicide records, in 2012 rifles were used to murder more than 320 people.

4) Shotguns

Like rifles, shotguns are fired from the shoulder and may release a single projectile. Unlike rifles, however, one pull of a shotgun’s trigger may also spray the target with round pellets, or shot. Additionally, the explosive that creates the energy to fire the gun occurs in the fixed shell of a shotgun rather than the metallic cartridge of a rifle.

5) Derringers

Derringers, small pocket or palm-sized pistols with one or two barrels, have no strict legal definition, but are included in the ATF’s trace form as a category of firearm. With just more than 2,000 recoveries in 2012 — a small number compared to the other firearm types listed above, largely because it is a subset of the highly-popular pistol — derringers are the fifth most-cited firearm in crime scene recoveries.

Feel free to suffer the idiocy in its entirety here.

RS readers, it seems, aren’t as ignorant as the magazine’s writers. The comments on Gwynne’s piece are priceless:

comcomm2comm3

Americans Haven’t Been This Worried About Immigration In Years

Polling data out Wednesday indicate that President Barack Obama and Congress ought to get busy coming up with a plan to fix the immigration crisis along the U.S.’s southern border, as one in six Americans cites immigration as the most pressing issue facing the Nation.

According to Gallup, 17 percent of Americans polled said that immigration is the biggest issue facing the United States, up from just 5 percent last month. The number of Americans concerned about illegal immigration is the highest it’s been since 2006.

Gallup contends that concern over immigration will likely grow in coming months.

“…[I]mmigration has clearly captured public attention given the political and humanitarian crisis building at the border with the influx of thousands of children from Central and South America seeking refugee status,” Gallup’s Lydia Saad writes.

“Each previous spike in mentions of immigration as the nation’s top problem was fairly short-lived,” she continues. “But with no solution to the current crisis in sight, and less than four months to go before the midterm elections, it is easy to believe the issue could still be a factor come November.”

Indeed, a government solution to the current immigration crisis isn’t likely to come anytime soon as GOP lawmakers have not warmed to President Obama’s $3.7 billion proposal to deal with the crisis at the border. And many Democrats have balked at bipartisan legislation proposed by Representative John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Representative Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) which changes a 2008 anti-human trafficking law to make it easier to deport some of the illegal minors flowing into the country.

The growing immigration frustration could be good news for Republicans in November, according to Gallup, because “the issue is of particular concern to Republicans and older Americans — both groups that Republicans need to turn out in force in the midterms…”

Worry over immigration is closely followed by what caused the border crisis in the first place: government ineptitude.

Sixteen percent of respondents cited “dissatisfaction with government/ Congress/ politicians/ Poor leadership/ Corruption/ Abuse of power” as their primary concern. Next on the list is the economy, with 15 percent of respondents fretting over fiscal issues.

Why Focus On LGBT Issues When That Affects Less Than 3 Percent Of Americans?

The Barack Obama Administration has gone out of its way to express support for Americans who identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual. But according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Administration’s focus on all things LGBT may be overblown, considering that Americans identifying as such make up less than 3 percent of the population.

According to the CDC’s annual National Health Interview Survey, only 1.6 percent of American adults self-identify as gay or lesbian and just 0.7 percent consider themselves bisexual. Just more than1 percent declined to answer, answered “I don’t know the answer” or claimed to be “something else.”

Meanwhile, 96.6 percent of American adults said they are straight.

The CDC survey offers the first large-scale measure of American sexual orientation and will serve as a way to determine where government funding should be allocated in examining LGBT issues.

NHIS includes a wide range of survey questions on health, the addition of questions on sexual orientation will facilitate many opportunities for future researchers to examine health among sexual minority populations using a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults,” the report said.

The LGBT data was included in the CDC survey as the result of a promise made by Obama Administration Secretary of Health & Human Services Kathleen Sebelius in 2011.

The Administration has heavily focused on LGBT issues, most notably with the Obama’s February 2011 order that the Department of Justice no longer defend Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) against equal protection constitutional challenges brought by same-sex couples and his repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.

Lindsey Graham, Thad Cochran Took Money From Nanny Bloomberg To Beat Conservatives

As the GOP leadership continues to wage war on conservative challenges to establishment candidates, some Republican voters in South Carolina and Mississippi might be surprised to find that the candidate they voted for was backed by notoriously liberal former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

A POLITICO report out this week reveals that Bloomberg donated $250,000 to a PAC that supported Graham in the primary battle he won last month.

Bloomberg’s donation to the pro-Graham “West Main Street Values PAC” isn’t all that surprising, as the South Carolina Congressman’s record is littered with liberal-leaning and big-government positions such as his 2009 embrace of cap and trade tax hikes and support for amnesty for illegal aliens.

Graham spent more than $5 million in his primary race and beat out a field of six challengers.

Bloomberg also used his money to meddle in the controversial Mississippi Senate race wherein incumbent Senator Thad Cochran narrowly defeated challenging State Senator Chris McDaniel. The former mayor reportedly donated $250,000 to Cochran’s effort.

According to a source left unnamed by POLITICO, the wealthy liberal’s motivation is propping up “candidates in primaries who have a track record of working across party lines.”

Reid: The Border Is Secure

As thousands of people continue to illegally immigrate into the U.S. from the south, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday that he believes the border is secure.

Reid spoke to reporters after the Senate Democrats’ weekly lunch, asserting that Congress shouldn’t be working on ways to deport the thousands of new immigrants more quickly or increase security along the border.

Instead, Reid wants lawmakers to approve the $3.7 billion requested by the Obama Administration to process the tens of thousands of unaccompanied minor illegal immigrants coming to the country from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala.

“The border is secure,” Reid said, adding that Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) talked to lawmakers about border areas in his State. “He’s a border state senator. He said he can say without any equivocation the border is secure.”

Reid said that legislative action is unneeded because the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 which is largely to blame for the crisis can be changed at the executive level to stem the tide of illegal immigration.

“My personal belief — there is the law that has created some of the controversy now, there’s enough leeway there [that] the executive branch of government doesn’t need new legislation,” he told reporters.

The lawmaker went on to blame Republicans in the House for the immigration crisis because they refused to move forward with the Senate’s immigration reform plan.

As for effort to quickly deport new illegal immigrants, Reid called a bipartisan proposal from Republican Senator John Cornyn and Democratic Representative Henry Cuellar, both from the border State of Texas, “too broad.”

“From all the reports I’ve gotten, the answer for me is no, I won’t support it,” he said.

“I believe our No. 1 concern should be this narrow issue of we take care of this situation we have on the border. As I’ve been told, the Cornyn-Cuellar legislation covers a lot of other issues other than the problem we’re having on the border,” he said.

The Cornyn-Cuellar legislation would simply amend the Wilberforce trafficking law to apply the same deportation standards used to deal with children from Mexico to unaccompanied minors from Central America. It would also require the government to beef up security at the border.

Eric Holder’s Worn Out Race Card

Attorney General Eric Holder— never one to allow the record of the Administration to which he belongs to speak for itself— doesn’t think that Americans are frustrated with him and President Obama because of failures and scandals. Rather, Holder argues, Americans ticked off at the Obama Administration and his Department of Justice are simply racists.

“There’s a certain level of vehemence, it seems to me, that’s directed at me [and] directed at the President,” Holder said on ABC News. “You know, people talking about taking their country back. … There’s a certain racial component to this for some people. I don’t think this is the thing that is a main driver, but for some, there’s a racial animus.”

Despite the Nation being “a fundamentally better place than we were 50 years ago” Holder believes that Americans are still apt to become more frustrated at he and Obama because they are both the first black men to hold their respective positions.

“[T]hat has to show that we have made a great deal of progress,” he said. “But there’s still more we have to travel along this road so we get to the place that is consistent with our founding ideals.”

The Attorney General also said that he would never walk back on remarks that the U.S. is a “Nation of cowards” with regard to racial relations. The inflammatory remarks were made during the first year of the Obama Administration.

“I wouldn’t walk away from that speech,” he said. “I think we are still a nation that is too afraid to confront racial issues.”

Former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Joe diGenova slammed Holder during a Monday radio interview, saying that the AG’s remarks are beneath his office.

“Eric Holder has become unhinged. These comments are stupid, they’re silly, they’re churlish, they’re childish, they’re sophomoric. This is faculty lounge crap,” he said. “The President of the United States and the attorney general are both black. Is it not surprising to them that this happened in the United States of America? That the President, a black President, has been elected twice by the American people? That the attorney general has been around for two terms?

“This is not a racist country.”

diGenova also artfully pointed out the real reasons many Americans are fed up with the Obama Administration.

“What is going on here is because of the incompetence of this administration and particularly this President (and may I say, regrettably, the attorney general himself) they have politicized every aspect of government to the core,” he said.

MSM Common Core Reporting Funded By Common Core’s Biggest Supporter

If you’re one of the millions of Americans keeping tabs on how the national Common Core education standards are affecting students in America’s schools, you’d better be careful where you get your news. That’s because some of the Nation’s leading education reporting is funded by major supporters of Common Core.

NBC recently produced a report titled “Meet America’s Most Hardcore Anti-Common Core Moms” which portrays opposition to Common Core as a sentiment based largely on far-right ideological positions.

From the report which can be read in full here:

For the mostly female, mostly older, all-white crowd, Common Core is more than an attack on states’ rights; it’s an affront to Christian, conservative values. These mothers and grandmothers see a campaign against Common Core as an extension of protecting the nuclear family. Eagle Forum, anti-feminist activist Phyllis Schlafly’s national organization, is a sponsor of the conference. In the foyer outside, booths proffer fliers about What You Need to Know About Marriage and How to Speak Up for Life.

Describing some of the objections voiced at a recent anti-Common Core rally, the story continues:

[O]bjections to Common Core go beyond the idea of a top-down intrusion. A chart folded into the conference packets contrasted “traditional classical learning” with CSCOPE and Common Core’s “radical social justice agenda”: teachers are “facilitators” rather “authority figures,” the lessons focus on “subjectivity, feelings, emotions, beliefs” rather than the “Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, Constitution…phonics…Drill and Skill.” (Unlike Common Core, CSCOPE sets standards for social studies and science, too.)

While the NBC report isn’t clearly for or against Common Core, it certainly does well to portray Americans who oppose the standards as being on the fringes of American society. A notion that many political candidates running in local, State and national races—hearing voters’ concerns about the education standards often— would certainly be forced to deny.

But there is a clear reason why NBC’s education reporters would have a clear interest in protecting Common Core as the norm. In fact, it’s printed right at the end of the aforementioned article:

Education coverage for NBCNews.com is supported by a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. NBC News retains sole editorial control over the content of this coverage.

Perhaps NBC retains “sole editorial control” over the coverage which Bill Gates helps to fund, but those interested in learning more about the education standards would be remiss to ignore where Gates falls on the issue if they are to rely on NBC’s reporting. 

Via a Washington Post report last month:

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation didn’t just bankroll the development of what became known as the Common Core State Standards. With more than $200 million, the foundation also built political support across the country, persuading state governments to make systemic and costly changes.

Bill Gates was de facto organizer, providing the money and structure for states to work together on common standards in a way that avoided the usual collision between states’ rights and national interests that had undercut every previous effort, dating from the Eisenhower administration.

Romney 2016 Looking Increasingly Possible

As wild speculation about who will run for President in 2016 continues, a handful of recent events indicate that the GOP could be considering giving failed Republican candidate Mitt Romney yet another shot at the White House in the next election.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee recently launched a fundraising effort centered on “Romney Was Right” bumper stickers that supporters can get for a donation of $5.

“Let the world know that you made the right choice. Get your ‘Romney Was Right’ sticker today,” the NRSC says on its website. “Remember, every contribution supports our fight for a Senate Republican Majority.”

Meanwhile over at POLITICO, former assistant secretary of the Treasury under President George W. Bush and current investment firm CEO Emil Henry recently penned titled “The Case for Mitt Romney in 2016: I’m absolutely serious.”

Henry, the epitome of a political insider in Romney circles, argues that the failed 2012 GOP nominee could share the same latent electoral success of a stalled Presidential hopeful from decades past: Richard Nixon.

Nixon lost the 1960 general election and in 1962 was beat out for a lesser role as California’s Governor—but in 1968 fulfilled his Presidential ambitions to the surprise of many American political junkies.

Henry writes that— unlike failed Presidetial contenders such as George McGovern, Michael Dukakis, Bob Dole, Al Gore, John Kerry and John McCain— Romney could be poised for a more Nixonian track:

Could he defy the odds and make a comeback presidential bid capturing the GOP nomination after all the doubt, second-guessing and blame that accompany such a loss? According to the latest Quinnipiac poll, many Americans seem to think so—45 percent of voters said the United States would be better off today with Romney as president.

That was also the question on not just the minds but the lips of many at a recent private gathering in Utah known as the E2 Summit, Romney’s now-annual retreat for high-profile politicians, policymakers, innovators, entrepreneurs, business leaders, top bundlers and, of course, a core group of long-time Romney loyalists. (Disclosure: I served in multiple roles in the 2012 campaign, including adviser to the economic team, television surrogate and fundraiser.) Although the subject was not on any agenda or the topic of any speech or breakout session, virtually every meal, cocktail hour and coffee break included quiet ruminations over whether Romney could successfully run again.

The event was off the record, so I need to honor those ground rules, but suffice to say that many of speakers, some of the brightest lights of the Republican Party, and with no particular allegiance to Romney, saw great merit in a Mitt resurgence.

Henry provides three main reasons for the belief that Romney should emerge as the GOP standard-bearer once again in 2016:

1. Romney is re-emerging as the de facto leader of the Republican Party.

2. There is no natural 2016 GOP nominee and the field is highly fractured.

3. All failed nominees other than Romney were career politicians.

Read the full column here.

Henry isn’t alone in thinking that Romney could be a big name once again in 2016. During a recet appearance on Hardball with Chris Mathews, Representative Jason Chaffets (R-Utah) said that he believes Romney will run, adding that the former Massachusetts Governor would have his support.

“I think he actually is going to run for president, he probably doesn’t want me to say that, a hundred times he says he’s not,” the lawmaker said. “But Mitt Romney has always accomplished what he set out to do, I think he is proven right on a lot of stuff. I happen to be in the camp that thinks he is going to run and I think he will be the next President of the United States.”

Uniformed Cop Told He Can’t Carry In Gun-Free Zone

Anti-gun fanaticism reached the height of absurdity on July 4 when a uniformed Tacoma Park, Md., police officer was informed that he couldn’t carry his service weapon as he shopped for furniture in a local IKEA store because of the establishment’s “weapons free environment” policy.

Takoma Park Police Chief Alan Goldberg, a 35-year police veteran, told a local NBC affiliate that he stopped in the store with his daughter between shifts of working the city’s morning Independence Day parade and a fireworks show scheduled for later that evening.

As Goldberg helped his daughter pick out furniture for her new apartment, the uniformed officer was approached by an IKEA loss-prevention employee.

“He says we have a no firearms policy, and you’re either going to have to leave or you can lock your gun in the car,” Goldberg said.

The police chief, who said that he’d never before been confronted about his firearm while in uniform, decided against locking his gun up outside.

“It isn’t the most prudent thing to do to walk around the store in uniform with an empty holster,” Goldberg said. “And I am not going to lock my gun in a commercial parking lot, with people watching me put it in there. That’s just ludicrous.”

Goldberg was unable to get a copy of the store’s official firearms policy at the time of the incident, so he spoke out against IKEA’s policy on Facebook.

That prompted the following response from the retailer’s corporate office:

We regret that there was a misunderstanding of our weapon policy in our College Park Store. Our weapon policy does not apply to law enforcement officers. We are taking steps to ensure that this is clear for all our co-workers.

The ridiculous incident got some interesting comments from readers on NBC Washington’s original report.

“Well Chief, that’s a taste of the baloney that law-abiding gun owners have to put up with regularly when we carry,” one commenter said. “Not pleasant getting kicked out of a gun-free zone, is it? Gun-free zones don’t make any sense do they?”

Another posited this imaginary scenario:

“911 what is your emergency?”

“This is the Ikea store we have a man with a gun who has taken hostages in the store.”

“Officers are on the way.”

“Tell them we are a weapon free area they have to leave their guns in their cars before entering the store!”

“Dispatch to all units responding to the man with a gun at the Ikea, Disregard.”

Obama’s Underhanded Immigration Overhaul In Full Swing As American Frustration Grows

Based on newly publicized deportation numbers and White House plans, President Barack Obama is extending a big Vete a la chingada” to the majority of Americans who want thousands of unaccompanied young illegal immigrants sent back to their native countries.

A recent Rasmussen poll discovered that 52 percent of Americans want the children shipped back to their home countries. Thirty-eight percent of respondents said that illegal immigrants who are allowed to stay should be thoroughly processed and vetted.

Among Americans polled, 53 percent said that countries like Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, where the most illegal immigrants are coming from, should reimburse U.S. taxpayers for “the cost of handling this situation.”

The July 6 poll also found that a strong majority of Americans throughout the country, 76 percent, are closely following reports of the immigration crises. Forty-six percent of those staying informed about the situation believe that the Obama Administration is to blame for the border crisis for having “encouraged this wave of illegal immigration.” The same percentage classifies Obama’s handling of the situation as “poor.” A paltry 28 percent said that the Obama Administration is doing a good job handling the immigration crisis.

The White House has worked in recent weeks to dispel rumors that the President is to blame for the border crisis.

But even if Obama is keen on attempting to quell the flood of illegal immigration now that the situation is poised to spiral out of control, his Democratic colleagues aren’t likely to help. Obama has denied that his policies have anything to do with the influx of illegal immigrants, blaming a 2008 law that has made it more difficult for the Department of Homeland Security to send some of the children back to their home countries.

Last week, the President asked Congress to reverse the legislation.

But Democrats are not likely to budge on even narrow changes to the Nation’s immigration policy. In particular, many on the left object to reversing the 2008 law, which was intended to inhibit human trafficking south of the border and which guarantees asylum to children who claim to be the victims of crime or abuse.

Obama’s tactic of blaming a George W. Bush-era law and his halfhearted attempt to reverse it, however, should be overshadowed by overall deportation statistics.

As the Los Angeles Times points out:

The number of immigrants under 18 who were deported or turned away at ports of entry fell from 8,143 in 2008, the last year of the George W. Bush administration, to 1,669 last year, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement data released under a Freedom of Information Act request.

Similarly, about 600 minors were ordered deported each year from nonborder states a decade ago. Ninety-five were deported last year, records show, even as a flood of unaccompanied minors from Central America — five times more than two years earlier — began pouring across the Southwest border.

In 2008, more young illegal immigrants were deported than any other year between 2003 and 2013. Some of the most drastic drops in minor illegal immigrant deportations have occurred since the 2012 implementation of the President’s Deferred Action for Childhood arrivals program.

In the decade before Obama’s DACA program went into effect, between 7,000 and 8,000 unaccompanied minors landed in the care of border authorities each year. In fiscal year 2011, only 6,560 unaccompanied minors were apprehended. The year after DACA was enacted, 13,625 unaccompanied young illegal immigrants reportedly landed in Border Patrol custody.

Since October, more than 52,000 children and teens crossing the border illegally have been apprehended.

On Monday, the White House attempted to dispel criticism for Obama’s handling of the immigration crisis by claiming, without reference to any clear plan, that “most” of the young illegals being released throughout the country will eventually be sent home.

“Based on what we know about these cases, it is unlikely that most of these kids will qualify for humanitarian relief,” spokesman Josh Earnest said. “And what that means is, it means that they will not have a legal basis for remaining in this country and will be returned.”

But comparing the Administration’s words to the President’s actions, it seems the White House contradicts itself daily.

Obama has vowed to take a unilateral approach to immigration reform, the trappings of which are foreshadowed in a recent National Journal report on a meeting the President had with immigration advocates at the White House June 30.

Via National Journal’s Major Garrett:

Obama made it clear he would press his executive powers to the limit. He gave quiet credence to recommendations from La Raza and other immigration groups that between 5 million to 6 million adult illegal immigrants could be spared deportation under a similar form of deferred adjudication he ordered for the so-called Dreamers in June 2012.

That executive action essentially lifted the threat of prosecution and deportation for about 670,000 undocumented residents–those older than 15 and younger than 31 who had been brought to America before their 16th birthday.

Obama has now ordered the Homeland Security and Justice departments to find executive authorities that could enlarge that non-prosecutorial umbrella by a factor of 10. Senior officials also tell me Obama wants to see what he can do with executive power to provide temporary legal status to undocumented adults. And he will shift Immigration Control and Enforcement resources from the interior to the border to reduce deportations of those already here and to beef up defenses along the border.

It seems Americans have only seen the first wave of the immigration “crisis.” But based on the White House’s actions it’s no crisis at all for the left. It’s a plan to change immigration policy in three parts: overwhelm the system, distract the public and unilaterally change the law to “fix” the situation.

Democratic Senators Whine That Pro-Hunting/Fishing Bill Isn’t Full Of Gun Control Language

A handful of Senate Democrats on Monday voted against a sportsmen’s bill that is intended to preserve Federal lands for hunting and fishing because the legislation didn’t include gun control language. Despite the objections, the bill moved forward on a vote of 82-12.

Senators Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, both of Connecticut, vocally opposed the bill and voted against cloture on the motion because the sportsmen legislation didn’t include language calling for tighter gun control in the U.S.

“I won’t be voting for cloture today because we are long overdue to make a statement in the United States Senate about the tens of thousands of deaths happening due to guns all across the country,” Murphy said. “Everyone has a role to play in trying to stem this epidemic of violence.”

Blumenthal, who told reporters he plans to amend the legislation to include gun control measures, also weighed in, saying, “I can’t vote for a measure that makes owning or possessing or using guns more readily or easily usable when we have failed to act and we have failed to act on commonsense, sensible measures that will stop gun violence.”

The two were joined by fellow Democratic Senators Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Ed Markey (Mass.), Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) and Ben Cardin (Md.) in opposition.

The bill is a bipartisan piece of legislation sponsored by North Carolina Senator Kay Hagan and Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. The pro-sportsman language in the legislation was seen as many red-State Democrats facing tough reelections as a way to curry favor with conservatives voters.

Sunday News Show Roundup

Guests on Sunday’s political talk shows focused squarely on the continuing crisis at the border, where thousands of unaccompanied young illegal immigrants are over-crowding holding facilities and being met by protestors fed up with Washington’s inaction.

Republicans have been quick to place the blame for the immigration crisis on President Barack Obama– but on Sunday a Texas Democrat criticized Obama for the influx of immigrants which is taking a heavy toll on his home State.

“Keep in mind, this is not a Mexican problem. It’s a Central American problem,” said Representative Henry Cuellar on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “It’s not the first time we’ve seen a surge and we should have been ready for this surge. The Administration should have been ready … with all due respect to the Administration they’re one step behind. They should have seen this coming a long time ago, they should have seen this a long time ago because we saw those numbers increasing.”

Cueller said that Obama’s pro-immigration rhetoric, combined with a 2008 human trafficking law that increased incentive to send unaccompanied children to the border, are to blame for the current crisis. The Texas Democrat said that funds proposed by the Administration would be helpful in alleviating the problem but that the trafficking law must also be changed because it helps Mexican cartels make up to $5,000 per person shuffled across the border.

Meanwhile on ABC’s “This Week”, Texas’s Republican Governor Rick Perry had harsh words for President Obama.

“In May of 2012 we sent a letter, laid out what was happening with the unaccompanied minors that were showing up at the border, and we told [the Administration], we said, ‘if you do not address this, here is what’s going to happen,’ and we’re seeing that become reality today. This is a failure of diplomacy. It is a failure of leadership,” Perry said.

“When I have written a letter that is dated May of 2012, and I have yet to have a response from this Administration, I will tell you they either are inept or don’t care, and that is my position.”

Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson. Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press”, defended the Administration, claiming that Obama’s rhetoric wasn’t to blame for the immigration influx. Rather, Johnson argued, “push factors” like violence and poverty in the nations where most of the illegal immigrants are coming from are at the heart of the crisis.

Representative Paul Labrador (R-Idaho) insisted that Johnson was simply spouting Obama Administration talking points.

“If you look at what he said, he said the number one reason these kids are coming to the United States is violence in these Central American countries. The reality is the violence in these Central American countries has existed for a long time,” Labrador said on “Meet the Press”. “The level of poverty has existed in these Central American countries over a long period of time, but it’s over the last few years you’ve seen an increase in the number of children coming to the United States.”

The lawmaker echoed Cuellar’s assertion that the 2008 trafficking law should be changed.

Democratic Senator Dick Durbin (Ill.) criticized Republicans for placing blame for the immigration issues on the President during an appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

“I am really getting fed up with some of the critics of this administration, particularly from House Republicans. They had the opportunity for one solid year to call the immigration reform bill and yet they refuse to, and now they’re arguing we need more enforcement at the borders, a lot of other things. When are they going to accept their responsibility to govern, to call this bipartisan bill for consideration?”

This week, President Obama is scheduled to travel to Texas to attend a Democratic fundraiser—but, despite repeated requests from Governor Perry, Obama isn’t scheduled to visit the border.

Are The Feds Hiding A Massive Immigration-Related Public Health Epidemic?

A lawmaker was denied entry to a Federal immigration facility in Oklahoma where more than 1,000 illegal immigrant children are being housed. Doctors and nurses working in Texas were threatened with arrest if they talk about possible public health threats related to the immigration crisis. Now, many Americans are beginning to wonder what the Federal government is trying to hide.

Representative Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.) attempted to visit the immigration detention center at Fort Sill in his home State Tuesday only to be given the runaround by Department of Health and Human Services officials. Fort Sill is one of three facilities in the U.S. currently housing the unaccompanied alien children.

“There is no excuse for denying a Federal Representative from Oklahoma access to a federal facility in Oklahoma where unaccompanied children are being held,” Bridenstine said in a statement about the incident. “Any Member of Congress should have the legal authority to visit a federal youth detention facility without waiting three weeks.”

According to the lawmaker, an HHS official in charge of the facility informed him that if he wanted to visit the facility he’d have to make an appointment for July 21.

“After my visit today with the base commander, I approached the barracks where the children are housed,” Bridenstine said. “A new fence has been erected by HHS, completely surrounding the barracks and covered with material to totally obscure the view. Every gate is chained closed.

“I approached a security guard and asked to speak with the manager of the facility. The guard called his supervisor who said no visitors were allowed. I asked if they were aware that I am a Member of Congress. Eventually the manager came out and said that I would have to go through HHS legislative affairs…”

The HHS officials directed Bridenstine to get in touch with Deputy Director of the Office of Public Affairs Ken Wolfe, who the lawmaker was told would only communicate with him via email.

“What are they trying to hide? Do they not want the children to speak with Members of Congress? As a Navy pilot, I have been involved in operations countering illicit human trafficking,” the lawmaker said. “I would like to know to whom these children are being released.”

Meanwhile, Fox reported Wednesday that doctors and nurses working with the illegal immigrant children at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, were threatened with arrest if they discussed with the public or media the contagious diseases risks the children pose to American citizens.

The threats were likely made in an effort to conceal a massive public health disaster flowing across the United States’ southern border.

Fox’s Todd Starnes reported:

[A former worker at the Texas facility] said children in the camp had measles, scabies, chicken pox and strep throat as well as mental and emotional issues.

“It was not a good atmosphere in terms of health,” she said. “I would be talking to children and lice would just be climbing down their hair.”

A former nurse at the camp told me she was horrified by what she saw.

“We have so many kids coming in that there was no way to control all of the sickness — all this stuff coming into the country,” she said. “We were very concerned at one point about strep going around the base.”

Both the counselor and the nurse said their superiors tried to cover up the extent of the illnesses.

“When they found out the kids had scabies, the charge nurse was adamant — ‘Don’t mention that. Don’t say scabies,’” the nurse recounted. “But everybody knew they had scabies. Some of the workers were very concerned about touching things and picking things up. They asked if they should be concerned, but they were told don’t worry about it.”

The nurse said the lice issue was epidemic — but everything was kept “hush-hush.”

“You could see the bugs crawling through their hair,” she said. “After we would rinse out their hair, the sink would be loaded with black bugs.”

Last week, Border Patrol officials announced that at least two illegal alien children with known cases of Swine Flu had been apprehended.

Via Texas-based Action 4 News:

Vice President of the National Border Patrol Council #3307 Chris Cabrera confirmed the cases late Saturday morning.

Cabera told Action 4 News that one case was confirmed at the Brownsville Border Patrol Station and another at the Fort Brown Border Patrol station, also located in Brownsville.

Cabera said both cases involve juveniles and both were confirmed on Friday by medical personnel located at both facilities.

He added that an estimated 120 people are being isolated at the two stations because they were exposed to the juveniles.

As the Federal government continues with a policy of providing immigrant “detainees” vouchers for travel into the Nation’s interior with instructions to appear before an immigration judge at a later date, the health crisis likely won’t remain relegated to areas close to the border.