While it let Islamic terrorists enter the country, wasted huge sums on faulty equipment and failed miserably to remove criminal illegal aliens, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was busy blowing $20.3 million to host 1,883 conferences last year.
It’s the inconceivable tale of the colossal agency-with practically unlimited funds-created after 9/11 to prevent another terrorist attack. The agency’s various components include Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the scandal-plagued Secret Service and the famously inept Transportation Security Administration (TSA), to name a few. In 2015, DHS asked Congress for an astounding $38.2 billion to continue its “commitment to the security of our homeland and the American public,” according to DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson.
Family Security Matters
LAWRENCE SELLIN, PHD
Just after the 1896 election between the victor, establishment Republican William McKinley and Populist Democrat William Jennings Bryan, Mrs. Henry Cabot Lodge, wife of the Republican Senator from Massachusetts, wrote:
“The great fight is won, a fight conducted by trained and experienced and organized forces, with both hands full of money, with the full power of the press – and the prestige – on one side; on the other, a disorganized mob…”
The influence of money and power on the 1896 election and the obsequious attitude of the press towards the powers-that-be, stand in stark similarity to the current condition of America’s body-politic.
THINK ABOUT THIS, THE NEXT TIME OBAMA TAKES MORE OF YOUR FREEDOMS AWAY…….THEN REMEMBER WHAT OUR FOREFATHERS WENT THROUGH TO GET YOU THAT FREEDOM…….
It’s always time to Remember:
Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed our Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776?
Here is their story and… Here is our heritage: Can We Live Up Too It ?
Candidate Donald Trump’s recent proclamation that he is opposed to so-called “birthright citizenship” for the offspring of illegal aliens born in the United States has, like many of his campaign statements, set off hysterical paroxysms of outrage and protest. I do not support Donald Trump for President, but much of his appeal lies in the fact that he is willing to address taboo subjects in a way that the public—tired of candidates and elected officials cowed by rigid protocols of political correctness—finds refreshing. The topic of “birthright citizenship” is a perfect example. Within a week of issuing his immigration reform plan calling for the end of “birthright citizenship,” there has been more discussion (fueled by considerable popular interest) of this poorly understood aspect of immigration policy than I can remember in my lifetime. Whether or not one agrees with Trump’s platform, one has to concede that he is advancing a national conversation on a critically important issue.
On Face the Nation on August 24, Sen. Ted Cruz re-affirmed that he is opposed to “birthright citizenship” as a policy matter—a position he has held since 2011—and declared that it should be repealed, either by an act of Congress or a constitutional amendment (both of which are, in his opinion, “good faith positions”). Other candidates disagree, or decline to take a position.
The issue is whether children born in the United States—even if their parents are foreign nationals who entered this country illegally—automatically become citizens. Current law supposes that they do—a concept termed “birthright citizenship.” Many people erroneously think this concept is dictated by the Constitution or enshrined in a U.S. Supreme Court decision. Not so. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment—the Citizenship Clause—states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” (Emphasis added.) The origins of this language are a bit hazy, but it must be recalled that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to correct the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision (1857) and recognize citizenship for the newly freed slaves (but not members of Indian tribes living on reservations). The language of the Citizenship Clause derived from the Civil Rights Act of 1866, enacted by the same legislators (the 39th Congress) who framed the 14th Amendment. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 conferred citizenship on “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed….” (Emphasis added.) Foreign nationals resident in the United States, and children who become citizens of a foreign country at birth (by virtue of their parents’ citizenship) would obviously be excluded from this definition.
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced that the State Department asserts in its most recent filing with the court the State Department did not issue personal computing devices to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and possibly destroyed the Blackberries of her aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills:
[The State Department] does not believe that any personal computing device was issued by the Department to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and has not located any such device at the Department. [The State Department] believes that Ms. Mills and Ms. Abedin were each issued BlackBerry devices. [The State Department] has not located any such device at the Department … Because the devices issued to Ms. Mills and Ms. Abedin would have been outdated models, in accordance with standard operating procedures those devices would have been destroyed or excessed.
State did identify the “state.gov” email accounts of Mills, Abedin and two other former officials, but stated that Clinton “did not use a state.gov account.”
The filing follows the recent court order granting Judicial Watch’s request for a hearing this week, on Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 12:00 p.m., which had previously been scheduled for September. State recently sought a one-week extension from the court, and the judge denied it (the court changed the time of the hearing to 1 p.m.)
“The questions just keep popping up. Every time the State Department tries to justify its stonewalling, one more bit of information arises,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “If the State Department was not providing secure email devices to Mrs. Clinton, who was? Best Buy? Target? Mrs. Clinton clearly did whatever she wanted, without regard to national security or federal records keeping laws.”
The developments come in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that seeks records about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, the former Deputy Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)). The lawsuit was reopened because of revelations about Hillary Clinton’s email records.
We already got a hint of this last week, when Fox News identified some of the subject matter in now-redacted e-mails from Hillary Clinton’s secret server — the part of the cache she shared, anyway. Two of the e-mails that got retroactively classified dealt with security issues in Benghazi and military intelligence on Libyan troop movements. The classification codes on those redactions from State suggest that, despite Hillary’s disclaimers, those materials were classified at the time those e-mails were sent.
The Washington Examiner’s Sarah Westwood took a deeper look at the redactions from State, and discovered that these were no fluke. The redactions involve high-level diplomatic discussions, embassy security issues, and even one about the travels of Jim Webb, who is now her opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination. Furthermore, Westwood notes that Hillary wrote some of those e-mails herself: