Search This Blog

De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas

Thursday, July 31, 2025

Elect Curtis Sliwa New York City Mayor

By Robin M. Itzler @ American Thinker

Curtis Sliwa CAN win New York City’s mayoral race in November.

Let’s go back to June 2015, in the days immediately after Donald Trump descended the Trump Tower escalator and announced he was running for president. Do you remember all the “knowledgeable” people who wrote off his campaign as a vanity stunt? Or the others who believed Trump had no chance of winning the nomination, much less the presidency. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Keep that in mind for all those brushing off Guardian Angels’ founder, Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa’s New York City mayoral campaign. Perhaps it was true in past years when the Democrat nominee would automatically go on to win the general election; however, 2025 is not a typical year since Democrats nominated a communist. Mamdani might not call himself a communist, but he says all the communist mantras. For example, as Mark Lewis wrote:

Karl Marx: “The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property.”

Recent Breitbart headline: “Zohran Mamdani Pushes for ‘Abolition of Private Property’”

This November, Republican nominee Sliwa has a very good chance of an upset victory in the New York mayoral race.

Sliwa, who has spent his entire life tirelessly protecting New Yorkers since founding the Guardian Angels in 1979, understands the Big Apple. He knows that many New Yorkers have no choice but to ride the city’s crime-infested subways, walk its crime-infested streets, and send their children to its crime-infested schools. Former three-term GOP Gov. George Pataki is confident that the Republican mayoral nominee can win City Hall. In a New York Post interview, Pataki said:

“This is the weakest Democratic field ever. Curtis knows the city better than anyone else. He knows the neighborhoods better than anyone else. He knows the subways better than anyone else.”

In “Adams Must Drop Out – Curtis Sliwa is the Only NYC Candidate Who Can Beat Mamdani,” Bob Capano writes:

Sliwa’s campaign and life align with the Republican Party’s Trump-led shift toward appealing to working-class voters, emphasizing law-and-order and grassroots community engagement. His decades leading the Guardian Angels have earned him credibility across party lines. He notably achieved record-breaking support among Asian American voters in his unsuccessful 2021 mayoral bid.

Mamdani’s campaign is built around free this, free that, rent control this, control that, and the city competing with private businesses (i.e., grocery stores). Like a true communist, Mamdani says someone else will pay for all of it: rich, white folks. (Ha—those are the ones that will be moving!)

Mamdani is also anti-police. In one of his many anti-police tweets, he wrote:

We don’t need an investigation to know that the NYPD is racist, anti-queer & a major threat to public safety. What we need is to #DefundTheNYPD. But your deal with @NYCMayor uses budget tricks to keep as many cops as possible on the beat. NO to fake cuts – defund the police.

Among Curtis Sliwa’s proposals when elected mayor:

The two other “leading” mayoral candidates had their chance and should now gracefully bow out.

Fellow Democrat, former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, lost to Mamdani in the primary. Cuomo admitted that he ran a lousy campaign as he hoped name recognition would be enough. Many New Yorkers recognize Cuomo...for “killing” elderly residents during the pandemic when he sent COVID patients to nursing homes where they infected everyone with the China-created disease. Maybe Cuomo should hold a rally at a cemetery.

Incumbent Mayor Eric Adams is as popular as mosquitoes at a picnic. The former Republican, former Democrat, now independent Adams did not run in the June primary. On the July 25 broadcast of Fox 5 New York’s Good Day New York, Hizzoner said, legal or illegal, if they are within the city, they deserve whatever services they need.

Unlike the insane ranked-choice primary, the general election is based solely on which candidate gets the most votes. Curtis Sliwa can do it! Even with some pointing to New York’s corrupt voting system, Sliwa has a very good chance of winning if New Yorkers show up and vote.

The HarrisX poll released on July 15 has the mayoral race tightening. Poll results: Mamdani received 26 percent of the vote in a four-way race. Cuomo was at 23 percent; Sliwa at 22 percent, and a distant Adams at 13 percent. At a minimum, the HarrixX poll shows that many New Yorkers do not want Mamdani. However, the communist nominee is counting on the split non-Mamdani vote to get him into Gracie Mansion.

This is why Republicans must rally and unite behind Sliwa, who has already been endorsed by every New York City Republican County party.

In the meantime, “hammer and sickle” Mamdani can keep sprouting his communist gibberish. He can share his video explaining how, as a 33-year-old man, he's happy to let his parents financially support him. He can also voice a favored slogan, “globalize the intifada!” (a phrase he refuses to disavow), which is another way of saying, “Let’s kill all the Jews.”

Many Democrat leaders remain silent. They understand that if New York elects the communist Mamdani, it will prove what President Trump and other Republican leaders have been saying: the Democrat party has morphed into the communist party. According to Washington, DC insider Mark Halperin, who recently spoke to some people close to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, “ Hakeem Jeffries strongly believes that if Mamdani wins, he [Jeffries] can’t win the majority.”

In the late 1970s, Americans happily sang along to the jingle “I Love New York.” The song encouraged tourism and showed the city’s resilience. It was revised following the Islamist terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. Should communist Mamdani win, the iconic song might be revised to ♬ “I Left New York!”♬

Sliwa is moving up in the polls and continues to attract both Republicans and moderate Democrats, along with independents who don’t want the communist Mamdani but have soured on Adams and Cuomo. From Queens to Staten Island, from the Bronx to Brooklyn, and on Manhattan, many New Yorkers are humming ♬ “I Love New York and am voting for Curtis Sliwa.” ♬

Curtis Silwa can win! Get on board and help him with a donation. If you care about saving the United States of America from a communist takeover from within, start by supporting Curtis Sliwa for New York City mayor.

Image made using AI.

Former New Yorker Robin M. Itzler lives in California and is a regular contributor to American Thinker. She is the founder and editor of Patriot Neighbors, a free weekly national newsletter. Robin can be reached at PatriotNeighbors@yahoo.com.


Why Dems Are Fighting a Civil War Over Illegal Aliens

By Daniel Greenfield @ Sultan Knish Blog

Mayor Arturo Flores of Huntington Park, California had his own Sumter moment when he ordered police to confront ICE personnel taking illegal alien criminals into custody.

“This is not immigration enforcement. This is state-sanctioned intimidation,” Flores declared. “I am calling for the immediate cessation of these raids and for the Huntington Park Police Department to begin verifying the identities and authority of any individuals conducting such operations within city limits.”

According to an official statement, Flores is “urging law enforcement to investigate and intervene in any unauthorized operations that place public safety or civil liberties at risk.”

Considering that Huntington Park’s police department has only 86 full-time employees with only 58 law enforcement personnel and 28 civilians, a confrontation with federal law enforcement, especially one that can call on the National Guard and the United States Marine Corps for backup, and that much of the city government is already under federal investigation, that seems like a very poor idea, but it’s an idea that Los Angeles politicos are picking up.

After the 60s, Huntington Park went from a white area to a 96.6% Hispanic one. No one knows how much of Huntington’s population is illegal and Mayor Flores, Vice Mayor Eduardo “Eddie” Martinez, Councilmember Karina Macias, Council Member Jonathan Sanabria, City Manager Ricardo Reyes, City Clerk Eduardo Sarmiento and Police Chief Cosme Lozano seem to like it that way. Huntington Park made history by appointing illegal aliens to various commissions.

Statewide representatives like Senator Lena Gonzalez, Assemblymember Robert Rivas and Assemblywoman Sade Elhawary (a bisexual half-Arab, half-Latina community organizer), and Congressman Robert Garcia like it that way too.

And while the Latino names may stand out, what stands out more is the party. Ethnicity is just the intersection between criminality and the political power of the Dems.

The Los Angeles Times described Huntington Park as “scandal-plagued” after corruption investigations led to search warrants being executed at the home of former Mayor (and current councilwoman) Karina Macias, Huntington Park City Hall and multiple other locations as part of ‘Operation Dirty Pond’. But places like Huntington Park represent the power base of the party.

Democrat power in California rests on that mixture of cronyism, corruption and illegal aliens.

Indeed, California is a prime example of a state where political power is built around illegal aliens. Whether or not the illegals actually vote in any number matters less than whether they’re counted for ‘ghost’ districts filled with non-citizens. California’s millions of illegal aliens represent local, statewide and congressional seats that give the Democrats a total lock on power.

The state lost a congressional seat because its population only grew from 37.3 million to 39.5 million. How many congressional seats would California lose without its illegal alien population?

Subtract even the most liberal number of illegal aliens and California would lose 4 seats (in addition to the one it already lost) bringing its congressional delegation down to 48 seats. That would be bad news for efforts by the Democrats to retake the House, but it would also cut California’s power in the electoral college and would make it harder for the Dems to win presidential elections. That is why they’re willing to risk civil war for illegals.

Another way of looking at ‘sanctuary states’ and ‘cities’ is that they serve the purpose of ensuring that illegal aliens take part in local affairs to the maximum degree possible and that when a census taker shows up, they’re happy to answer questions and be counted. That, as both Democrats and Justice Roberts understood during Trump’s first term, is almost as important as actually going out there and voting. It’s why Democrats fight against not only Voter ID, but any restrictions on the participation of illegal aliens in any area of public life.

What would the Democrats look like without an illegal population somewhere in the 30 million range? (Estimates vary wildly of the actual number. And that’s part of the problem.)

The tens of millions of illegal aliens around the country inflate Democrat political power much as the number of slaves once did before the Civil War. If America’s illegals were to be deported, Democrats could lose as many as 15 electoral college votes and close elections would naturally trend toward Republicans. The political map would change. Democrats would cease to be competitive in national elections without fundamentally reorienting their message.

And that is why the Democrats are willing to risk civil war to fight for illegal aliens in California.

It’s not simple ideological fidelity. After Trump’s devastating ‘They/Them’ ad, Democrats and their media are building a case for dumping parts of the transgender movement. The New York Times and the Washington Post are heretically running articles arguing that ‘transing’ kids is a bad idea. Gov. Newsom agreed that having men in dresses competing against women is wrong and the University of Pennsylvania will be stripping Lia Thomas of his medals.

The Democrats are far from done with the transgender movement, but for the moment they’re willing to pull back to avoid looking like lunatics because the actual strategic benefit of the transgender movement is right up there with the electoral potential of Rhode Island.

Illegals are another matter. Even as drag queens were being kicked out of the DNC Fuhrerbunker, Democrats set off riots in Los Angeles and California politicians are working up confrontations with ICE. Democrat officials are looking for exciting new ways to compare immigration enforcement to the Holocaust, detention facilities to concentration camps and ICE personnel to the Nazis. This probably doesn’t play any better with the general public than Admiral Rachel Levine did, but detransitioning Democrats is easier than legalizing them.

The Democrats can abandon drag queens and men named Sue a lot faster than they can abandon places like Huntington Park, California. California can’t afford to lose its illegal aliens because the party that runs it can’t afford to lose political power there and around the nation.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine. Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donationThank you for reading.

 

 





Messaging Isn't the Democrat's Problem

By Rich Kozlovich 

 

There's a lot of talk about how far down Democrats are in the polls, but they keep claiming it's not their polices that are hurting them, it's their messaging.  Which I find hilarious.  How do you promote all the things America hates into a positive message?  How to do you explain to young female athletes that it's a good thing for men who claim they're women to compete against them, and beat them?  How do you explain how mutilating young children with hormones and surgery is a good thing, especially when time is proving they're destroying young lives? No, messaging isn't their problem, policies are their problem. 

And I really got a kick out of James Carville's claim the Democrat party has a "bucket load" of talent coming up in the Democrat party.  None of which he names. 

Back in 2012 John Hawkins published the 20 Obvious Truths That Will Shock Liberals.  This is a summary of his commentary, and those truths are as factual today as they were 13 years agoTo see all 20 of his observations follow the link.  

We constantly hear the meme the right is destroying "our democracy", when in reality what's happening is the left is destroy "our republic".   The left is either ignorant of the nation's history, or, they're lying, which is it? Both. 

He starts out noting the Founding Fathers were for the most part religious, gun toting, small government individualists who he says would make Ann Coulter look like Jimmy Carter.  I think that's a stretch, but if alive today, they would have been conservatives to the nth degree.

When the Founding Fathers were actually around, there were official state religions and the Bible was used as a textbook in schools. The so-called "wall of separation between church and state" has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with liberal hostility to Christianity.

He goes on to point out the nation's great evil isn't slavery, it's the murder of 50 million unborn innocents, and that's still an ongoing evil.  It was the Democratic party that fought to keep slavery and it's the Democrat party that's fighting to keep murdering the unborn innocents.

Another reason to justify the claim conservatives are much more compassionate and in fact donate more to charity than do leftists.  We're still hearing the screams of racism every time an incompetent or corrupt black politician is called to task, or a black thug is taken down, but that's a scam that's all about politics, not reality, and it's destroying the major cities in America.  In reality the opposite is taking place in America.

  1. Cincinnati's Top Cop Melts Down Over People Sharing Clips of Mob Beating Woman Unconscious 'Without Context' 
  2. 2 of 5 Suspects in Brutal Cincinnati Beating Arrested, 1 Released on $400 Bail
  3.  Cincinnati Police Chief Being Sued for Systemic Discrimination Against White Males
  4.  White Woman Viciously Assaulted By Mob in Cincinnati Breaks Her Silence to Vivek Ramaswamy And Reveals an Infuriating Detail Following the Attack

When it comes to economics, the biggest hindrance American businesses face are leftist policies, regulations, and taxes.  Of course the rich need pay their fair share, which is interesting since they're paying far more than anyone, and 45% pay no federal taxes, many of which are on public dole, and believe it or not, being on the public dole isn't a "right"!  It's not greed to try and prevent the government from stealing from the producers, who've earned that money,  in order to give it to the non producers in society.

Firing all the leftists in Congress and government in general  would create an economic boon. 

"There's absolutely nothing that the government does smarter, better, or more efficiently than the private market with roughly equivalent resources."  

The fact is the left hates America and is doing everything it can to destroy the Constitution and the American culture, directly opposite of what conservatives are doing.   Who is in favor of voter fraud by opposing  voter ID, supports open illegal immigration to support their numbers in Congress, fights vouchers to fix education keeping poor kids trapped in these schools filled with incompetent teachers?  Democrats.

Leftists constantly scream conservatives are fascists.  But fascism isn't a right wing movement, it's a form of socialism, just as is communism, and has absolutely nothing to do with conservatism.  But fascism and communism are the heart and soul of leftism, and the Democrat party in America.   

The greatest threat to America isn't from outside the nation, it's from the leftists in both parties promoting tyrannous government overreach, which is pretty much what Trump and Company are attempting to fix, and they hate him and his supporters for that.  

Milei Slashes Argentina’s Debt Burden

July 27, 2025 by Dan Mitchel @ International Liberty

The main goal of fiscal policy should be to shrink the burden of government spending, not to balance the budget or lower debt.

However, those two goals are not in conflict if policy makers pursue good policy. The evidence is overwhelming that spending restraint is a very effective way to limit red ink.

A good example is what has happened in Argentina. Thanks to big spending cuts, Javier Milei has implemented the largest peacetime fiscal consolidation in world history.

Lo and behold, look at how government debt has dramatically declined since he took office.

The above chart is based on the IMF’s big database. And if you peruse the numbers for Argentina, you’ll see that nominal debt has not actually decreased.

Instead, Milei has made progress for these two reasons.

  1. Nominal debt is no longer growing rapidly.
  2. Nominal GDP is growing rapidly.

The combination of these two factors means that debt as a share of GDP (debt/GDP) is quickly declining. Much as debt in the United States declined after World War II, albeit as a much slower rate than what we’re seeing in Argentina.

 

The key thing to understand is that debt is no longer growing rapidly in Argentina because Milei imposed record spending restraint

By the way, the same thing is actually happening today in Greece, though at a much more modest pace. All of which confirms what I wrote back in 2015.

And we have very powerful evidence from the 1800s showing that large debt burdens can be solved with spending restraint.

Sadly, it appears that American policy makers are incapable of learning.

P.S. Tax increases are not a successful strategy to reduce the burden of red ink.

P.P.S. Politicians can (and do) use inflation as a strategy to reduce debt burdens, but that only works in the short run and should be viewed as a form of financial repression.

Federal employees—welcome to the real world!

By Robin Itzler 

Editor's Note:  This is one of the commentaries selected from Robin's weekly newsletter Patriot Neighbors.  If you wish to get the full edition, E-mail her at PatriotNeighbors@yahoo.com to get on her list, it's free.

Anyone who has worked in the public sector for more than a few years has probably been laid off for reasons that have nothing to do with their job performance. From the economy, to a division closing, to no longer manufacturing a product or providing a service, decisions are made, and jobs disappear. If you’re fortunate, you walk out the door with a decent severance package.

Many of us have been there, done that—several times during our working career. Which is why watching the over-the-top theatrics of 1,300 (of 80,000+) State department laid off employees makes us roll our eyes. They were crying, sobbing, hysterical, and leaving nasty notes. They can find another job or as the Biden administration once suggestion to laid off workers, they can learn to code!

The federal government can’t even get rid of employees with discipline and/or performance issues. According to the Office of Personnel Management’s website, out of 2,313,216 federal employees in 2024, a paltry 5,988 employees were terminated for discipline or performance reasons. If you don’t have a calculator, that’s about one-quarter of one percent.

Prior to the Trump administration almost no federal employees were ever terminated for discipline or performance reasons.

EPA Finally Proposes To Rescind The Endangerment Finding

@ Manhattan Contrarian

It’s been a long time coming. But today the EPA, through its Administrator Lee Zeldin, finally began the formal process of rescinding the so-called “Endangerment Finding” (EF). The EF is the 2009 regulatory action by which the Obama-era EPA purported to determine that CO2 and other greenhouse gases constitute a “danger to human health and welfare.” That Finding then formed the basis for all subsequent federal greenhouse gas regulations, including efforts of Obama and Biden regulators to force the closure of all power plants running on coal and natural gas, and to mandate increased vehicle mileage to levels that no internal combustion engine could meet.

EPA initiated the rescission process today by means of an announcement in a speech by Zeldin, who appeared at an event in Indianapolis, and also through this document, titled “Reconsideration of 2009 Endangerment Finding and Greenhouse Gas Vehicle Standards.” The document looks to be about a couple of hundred pages long, although it’s hard to know exactly, because the pages aren’t numbered.

Long time readers here will know that I have been an active participant in efforts, beginning when President Trump first took office in 2017, to get the EF rescinded. Immediately after Trump’s inauguration in January 2017, co-counsel Harry MacDougald and I filed a Petition to EPA, on behalf of the Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council (CHECC), seeking the rescission. Here is a post I wrote in April 2017, describing the initiation of the petition process, and also linking to our Petition. But during Trump’s first term, despite the critical importance of the EF in supporting all of the burdensome “climate” regulations, EPA never undertook the rescission process. We continued to press the point, filing some seven supplements to our Petition during the four years of Trump’s first term. For example, here is a post from July 2017 announcing the first of the Supplements to our Petition, based on new research at the time.

Ultimately our Petition was denied in 2022 by the Biden EPA. We then appealed that denial to the DC Circuit, where our appeal was denied in 2023, and to the U.S. Supreme Court, where certiorari was denied in 2024.

Well, the proposal in today’s document will reverse the denial of our Petition. I can’t give you a page cite, but this quote is from the page of the EPA document that contains footnote 15:

If finalized, this action would also rescind denial[] of petitions for reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding in 2022 . . . entitled “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act; Final Action on Petitions,” 87 FR 25412 (Apr. 29, 2022). . . .

Vindication!

As to the grounds for the prospective rescission, EPA appears ready to take on both the legal and scientific bases of the EF. As to the legal analysis, the following quote comes from the page preceding footnote 42:

Section IV.A of this preamble describes our primary proposal to rescind the Endangerment Finding by concluding that CAA section 202(a) does not authorize the EPA to prescribe standards for GHG emissions based on global climate change concerns or to issue standalone findings that do not apply the statutory standard for regulation as a cohesive whole. If finalized, this proposal would require rescinding the Endangerment Finding and resulting regulations because we lacked statutory authority to issue them in the first instance. . . . 

Next, we propose that the Nation’s response to global climate change concerns generally, and specifically whether that response should include regulating GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and engines, is an economically and politically significant issue that triggers the major questions doctrine under UARG and West Virginia, and that Congress did not clearly authorize the EPA to decide it by empowering the Administrator to “prescribe … standards” under CAA section 202(a). Throughout this section, we propose that the Endangerment Finding relied on various forms of Chevron deference to depart from the best reading of the statute and exceeded the EPA’s authority in several fundamental respects, any one of which would independently require rescission to conform to the best reading of the law.

On the subject of “climate science,” the following quote comes from the document’s pre-amble:

[T]he Administrator has serious concerns that many of the scientific underpinnings of the Endangerment Finding are materially weaker than previously believed and contradicted by empirical data, peer-reviewed studies, and scientific developments since 2009.

Then, on the page with footnote 87 there begins a lengthy section titled “Climate Science Discussion.” The gist of this entire section is that the alarmists have not proved their claims. There are lengthy paragraphs reviewing data on all the major “extreme weather” claims, and citing work showing no increasing or accelerating trends in things like hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, sea level and the like. Here is a paragraph that reiterates a theme of our Petition, namely that the amount of human caused global warming cannot be separated from what may be caused by natural factors:

The Administrator is also troubled by the Endangerment Finding’s seemingly inconsistent treatment of the nature and extent of the role human action with respect to climate change. The Endangerment Finding attributes the entirety of adverse impacts from climate change to increased GHG concentrations, and it attributes virtually the entirety of increased GHG concentrations to anthropogenic emissions from all sources. 

But the causal role of anthropogenic emissions is not the exclusive source of these phenomena, and any projections and conclusions bearing on the issue should be appropriately discounted to reflect additional factors. Moreover, recent data and analyses suggest that attributing adverse impacts from climate change to anthropogenic emissions in a reliable manner is more difficult than previously believed and demand additional analysis of the role of natural factors and other anthropogenic factors such as urbanization and localized population growth (2025 CWG Draft Report at 14-22, 82-92).

The process here will likely take until around the end of this year for EPA to formally enact the rescission. And then the legal battles begin — first to the DC Circuit, and then to the Supreme Court. The big question: Can the administration get this process to the Supreme Court in time to avoid a reversal of this whole regulatory effort by a Democratic administration that could be elected in 2028? I would think that if the Supremes have upheld this effort of Trump’s EPA before January 2029, it will be very difficult for a subsequent administration to reverse. On the other hand, if the status as of January 2029 is that the DC Circuit has struck down EPA’s rescission and the matter is pending in the Supreme Court, it would be much easier to attempt a reversal. But the ongoing failure of “net zero” energy transition plans in places like New York, California, Germany and the UK may make reversal a dead letter anyway.

I want to offer my thanks and gratitude to the small band of independent thinkers who have fought this lonely battle all these years, in the face of the billions of dollars at the hands of the climate industrial juggernaut. For particular mention: the members of CHECC (including its moving force, James Wallace); my co-counsel Harry MacDougald; the few think tanks that have taken on this issue, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute (who filed a Petition for rescission of the EF along with ours) and the Heartland Institute; the CO2 Coalition, including its Chair Will Happer and Executive Director Greg Wrightstone; CFACT; the Global Warming Policy Foundation (I serve on its Board); and Anthony Watts and Charles Rotter at Watts Up With That. I’m sure that there are a few that I have forgotten. Congratulations to all!

Wednesday, July 30, 2025

Why Do People Vote For People Who Hate Them?

By Rich Kozlovich 

Editor's Note: I ran this in 2023, and given what's going on in the New York City Mayor's race, and the latest outrage coupled with Mamdani's anti-police rhetoric, which may very well end Mamdani's campaign, it seems appropriate to run it again.  RK 

America is descending into a cesspool of degraded values in order to attain diversity, equity and inclusion, and it must be noted none of that has a thing to do with merit or accomplishment.  I've stated this in the past and I stand by it completely, diversity without accomplishment is incompetence without consequence. 

Well, I stand by that with a caveat.  There actually are consequences to this insanity, negative consequences. But the consequences are not paid for by those promoting it or those benefiting from it.  They're paid for by society.

On May 17, 2023 Vince Coyner posted this great article, For Decades, Democrats Have Been Ignoring Evidence And Facts, starting with this observation:

About 20 years ago, I read a piece about the North Miami police department eliminating the swimming requirement for the police............North Miami has hundreds of miles of canals, lakes, and beaches. Predictably, the reason the requirement was being dropped was that “blacks are less likely than whites to know how to swim because of economic disparities between the groups…” In other words, the change was because not enough blacks were qualified to become police.....“If our goal is to have a more diverse workforce…” (a questionable assertion in the first place) “and not enough otherwise qualified black candidates can pass the swim test, maybe we should simply take those candidates who meet the other requirements and teach them how to swim.” But that’s not what they did.

Then there's this gun issue, as the author states:

It’s estimated that more than 80% of gun crimes are committed by people who came into possession of their weapons illegally, which means that, conservatively, legal gun owners perpetrated only 20% of gun crimes. There are almost 100,000 shootings in the United States annually (not counting suicides). If we assume that 20% of those shootings were by legal gun owners, that would be 20,000 shootings. To put that in perspective, that would mean that .0002% of legal gun owners commit crimes with their weapons, or conversely, 99.9998% of legal gun owners never use their guns in crimes….

So what's the Democrat solution?

Democrats work continuously to take guns away from all of those apparently “violence eschewing” citizens while at the same time seeking to free actual violent criminals from jail or prison or not send them there in the first place—even as those they free are the ones who actually commit most of the crimes and the worst crimes, and it’s not even close.

One has to ask if Democrats actually care about the average American?  I think the answer is clear.  Apparently not!  So why would average American vote for them?  They're not, that's why voter fraud has become rampant and ubiquitous.

What To Do About Drugs?

By Rich Kozlovich

Recently I saw an article by someone I have a great deal of respect for involving the legalization of drugs.  And like him, I’ve always been an anti-drug guy, and like him I’ve thought legalization could end much of the problems associated with drugs.  But it only took me nanosecond to pass on that as it really wouldn’t, it would increase them.  And of course the usual stuff about how Prohibition actually created organized crime in America.  It didn't, it was already here, it just made it rich.

Alcohol has always been a component of every culture that ever existed, and in fact is considered part of the food matrix in European nations.  It also can be consumed without addiction if used moderately, and won’t destroy the mind used in that form, and within 24 hours nothing of it will remain in the body.   It’s part of human culture, and culture is king.

These illegal drugs become addictive very quickly, alter the mind early, and there’s talk of genetic damage associated with some of them.  Legalizing them will increase use, poverty, misery, suffering and early death. 

As I thought about the legalization I determined the only way it would work would be adopting the policy that once someone went down that path, they cut themselves off from any financial/medical support from society, and let the cards fall where they may.  If they died as a result, that was the solution.  But we all know the bleeding hearts would demand all sorts of support for these people and the costs would skyrocket right along with the number of addicts.

When the communists took over China in 1949 they had, per ratio, the largest drug addicted population on earth, largely due to the efforts of the first drug cartel, the British Empire.  England had a massive trade imbalance with China, as the Brits didn’t have a thing the Chinese wanted, so Britain shipped in opium from other nations causing massive societal problems, which along with other things, triggered the Boxer Rebellion.

In five years the communists ended their addiction problem.  First, they ended importation of opium, put the dealers out of business, and I think they shot them, but my memory is cloudy on that.  They then arrested those addicted and put them through rehabilitation, at least twice, and I think a third time.  After that they were arrested as criminals, and while my memory cloudy on this, I believe they were either worked to death or shot.  And for a leadership responsible for the murder of tens of million of their citizens, killing drug addicts would be no big deal to them.

The same kind of thing happened to end the black marketeering in China the late 70’s.  They kept warning society there would be terrible consequences if it didn’t end.  It didn’t, so they arrested those involved and shot them.   I doubt if either of those scenarios ended those problems entirely, but there was a vast reduction in both.

There’s no easy solution to end drug addiction in a society.  If they really want to seriously reduce it they have to ignore international boundaries and kill all the suppliers and dealers, and then put the addicted into work camps/prison permanently.  

Since that won’t fly in America, it won’t go away as long as there’s an economy to support it!  That leaves increasing the penalties for those involved just to keep them off the streets, and if they commit crimes while under the influence of drugs, the penalties should automatically be doubled, and depending on the crime, that should include execution.  None of that will happen either as the bleeding hearts are probably users.

The illicit drug trade is so lucrative they'll risk anything, even the Mafia in America succumbed as the money was too huge to ignore.  

The Dominican Republic chased a cocaine carrying boat for 12 hours and found 1.5 tons of cocaine, which would have translated into between $37.5 million to over $300 million depending on purity, and that was small potatoes as the Dominican Republic seized more than 46 tons of drugs last year, which would have translated into billions.  

And that kind of money buys protection, not only from the thugs they hire, but also from police, military, judges, and politicians, and in countries like Mexico, they're can easily be considered a shadow government filling society with fear and intimidation.  If the penalties aren't severe enough, there will be no control.


Is Milei Winning Hearts and Minds?

July 29, 2025 by Dan Mitchell  @ International Liberty

Javier Milei’s economic agenda has been amazingly successful, which is hardly a surprise to people like me.

But is his libertarian agenda politically successful? Was his 2023 election a quirk, driven by the total failure of Peronism? Or has Milei created a durable movement in favor of economic liberty?

I’m cautiously optimistic, in part because Milei’s party did well in some regional elections earlier this year. And I’m also encouraged by polling data for the the mid-term elections this autumn (LLA is Milei’s party and the UxP are the Peronists).

That polling data is from late May, so I’m anxiously awaiting new numbers.

That being said, there are other positive signs for Milei. Here’s some encouraging polling data showing support for reducing the bureaucracy.

Some recent news reports also suggest that Milei is in good shape.

Here are some excerpts from a report in the latest issues of the Economist.…the Peronists are in disarray… Just 29% of Argentines say they will vote for them in the midterms, while nearly 40% plan to vote for Liberty Advances. …One good reason for the Peronists to worry is the sense that Argentine attitudes have profoundly changed. In 2011 some 70% of Argentines “wanted to live in a country where most things are done by the state rather than the private sector”, according to Isonomía, a pollster. 

By 2024 that number had fallen to 42%. …Mr Milei is well placed, but expectations are high. He must work with the opposition after the midterms, no matter the outcome. Only a third of the seats in the Senate and half of those in the lower house are up for grabs, and Mr Milei has only a few lawmakers now. His ability to legislate by decree, granted to him by Congress in 2024, expired on July 8th. …For a chance to truly crush the opposition, he must wait for the general election in 2027.

The good news is that Milei’s party almost surely will pick up seats.

The bad news is that the staggered elections (only 1/3 of Senate seats and 1/2 of lower house seats are up this year) make it well nigh impossible for Milei to win an overall majority.

Let’s look at another news report that has very encouraging polling data.

A Spanish-language article in Derecha Diario suggests that public opinion has shifted in the right direction. Here are some excerpts, courtesy of Google translate.

 

The vast majority of Argentines prefer to maintain the path pioneered by President Javier Milei and deepen the reforms underwayAccording to the study, conducted between July 8 and 9 on 1,830 cases across the country, 73.5% of respondents said they would vote for continuing the current course in the October elections… 

The results not only consolidate Milei’s leadership, but also reflect explicit approval of his reform program and a clear social mandate to continue cutting public spending , deregulating the economy , and advancing his ” chainsaw ” over the state. …Ahead of the October legislative elections, these figures represent a serious setback for the opposition parties, especially Kirchnerism, which has yet to define a clear strategy or a figure who embodies a convincing alternative to the libertarian ruling party. 

Interestingly, Milei gets his strongest support from the rich and the poor, as well as the young and the old.

By the way, the above numbers show Milei’s approval/disapproval rating and they are not overly positive.

However, I’m encouraged by the fact that the Peronists are underwater on their approval numbers. And a candidate/party with so-so approval numbers will probably prevail over a candidate/party with bad numbers.

Let’s close with one final bit of electoral data showing that Milei does best outside the capital city.

My fingers are crossed that Milei and his party are the victors this fall. That would show that the 17th Theorem of Government is not a national death sentence.

And it hopefully will give Milei momentum to deal with some of the big remaining challenges for his nation (including employment regulation, tax policy, and protectionism).

Curtis Sliwa for New York City Mayor

By Alan Jefferson — Former New Yorker

Editor's Note:  This is one of the commentaries selected from Robin's weekly newsletter Patriot Neighbors.  If you wish to get the full edition, E-mail her at PatriotNeighbors@yahoo.com to get on her list, it's free.

Several weeks ago, Patriot Neighbors published the transcript of a radio interview that Executive Director of Liberty and Prosperity Seth Grossman had regarding the New York City mayoral race. I vehemently disagree with Grossman’s take on the mayoral race. He lives in New Jersey, but I am from New York. I know the city, the people and want to share a different analysis. I was a native of New York City. It is a very diverse place.

Everyone is talking about Mamdani Shamamdani but very few are talking about his very capable challenger, Republican Curtis Sliwa, who has an excellent reputation and will be a great mayor. If New York City (like other blue cities/states) has honest elections, and honest, equal reporting by the media, Sliwa will easily beat this other guy. Sliwa would also easily beat the two independent candidates: incumbent Mayor Eric Adams and former governor Andrew Cuomo.

What made Grossman's analysis worse was that he mocked Curtis Sliwa. That is a great way to keep sham-mam (Mandani) as the leading mayoral candidate…mock the great candidate (Sliwa) who is on the ballot.

Grossman lamented that sham-man has a 73% chance of winning, and put down those who say, “he will mess things up and we get to say, ‘I told you so.’” And then Grossman blamed the immigrants and college students for putting Mamdani in place. But Grossman never gave a solution.

The solution is to promote Sliwa (NOT mock him)!!!

Sliwa is a great candidate and will make a great mayor. Guardian Angels is an outstanding organization that does great things and is now worldwide. They certainly should not be mocked. · Sliwa has protected New Yorkers, and this includes the Jewish communities in New York City. · Sliwa has run a very successful worldwide crime fighting organization for decades – he has the qualifications for being a great mayor. · Sliwa should be shouted from the housetops, and sham-mam Mamdani… should be ignored.

New Yorkers who care about the city are looking for an alternative to Mamdani, Adams, and Cuomo. None of them are liked. Primaries have low turnout and Mamdani only won a small percentage of the actual votes. Only 30% of Democrats voted in the primary but with the ridiculous ranked choice voting Mamdani was able to secure the lead.

During the primary Mamdani only received 8% of the vote of registered NYC voters. This is certainly not a mandate, or a slam dunk win, or show that NYC has lost its mind when only 8% of the registered voters (only 5% of the whole NYC population) voted for him in a primary, many of them ignorant because of the lack of true reporting before the primary.

But to listen to most pundits it sounds like 100% of the city voted for him. Slow down, it was only 8% of voters, only 5% of New Yorkers. The sky has not fallen. Not everyone in New York City is nuts.

If the machines are not rigged and if Silwa receives the MAGA support, I think Silwa will win.

Right now, no one outside of New York City even knows about Curtis Silwa. All the “conservative” news outlets are only talking about Mamdani. If they talked about Silwa and if he received financial support, and name recognition, I believe Republican Curtis Silwa could be the next mayor of New York City.

Curtis Sliwa, with our help and support, and with 100% of the Republican votes, and a large chunk of independents, and disenfranchised democrats will crush this 8%’er to overcome even a rigged election.

Stop crying and lamenting, and stop talking about Shamami, and start supporting Curits Sliwa.

Read Is Zohran Mamdani Really the Anointed One? by Rich Kozlovich.

Tuesday, July 29, 2025

UK Gov Threatened Jail for Exposing its Afghan Smuggling

By Daniel Greenfield @ Sultan Knish Blog

Earlier this year, Front Page Magazine revealed that the UK was estimated to have more political prisoners than Cuba with speech interdictions totaling 1,000 arrests a month. Many of these arrests involve speech critical of the presence of Muslims in the UK including the mass arrests of anyone revealing that, contrary to the government’s denials, a Muslim terrorist had stabbed 3 little girls to death. Now it’s been learned that the British government ran a scheme to smuggle thousands of Afghans into the UK and banned reporters from speaking about it.

Over the last several years, UK governments secretly brought in over 35,000 Afghans at a cost estimated to be as high as $9 billion. The ‘operation’ went on even though the UK’s Ministry of Defence estimated that at least 1 in 10 of the smuggled Afghans would be homeless.

But what happened next was even more shocking. After a data breach leaked information about the operation, the British government, claiming that it was trying to protect the Afghans it was smuggling into the UK, demanded an ‘injunction’ that banned anyone from reporting on it.

A leftist judge who had previously intervened for migrants then went further with a ‘super injunction’ aimed “against the world” that threatened reporters with huge fines and prison time if they even discussed the news with each other. Senior members of the government were unable to disclose to the public where the money was going because of this ‘super injunction’.

Year after year, governments colluded to maintain the ban and the censorship even as more Afghans poured into the UK. And no one in the UK was allowed to discuss what was going on.

The authorities claimed that they needed mass censorship to prevent the names of the Afghans they were smuggling from being leaked to the Taliban, but it’s likely that the Taliban already knew the names, the injunction certainly did not limit the Taliban and the ‘super injunction’ could have banned the release of any identifying information from the data breach without concealing the existence of the Afghan smuggling scheme which the Taliban were certainly aware of.

The Afghans weren’t being smuggled past the Taliban, but past the eyes of the British people.

The ‘super-injunction’ appears to have led British governments to provide distorted figures of Afghans entering the UK and misleading budget figures because both the Labour and Conservative governments did not want the public to know where their money was going.

The secrecy and the censorship has made it difficult for the British people to learn the truth about the destructive scale of the operation. Various figures have been provided for the cost of the Afghan smuggling scheme ranging from $1 billion to $9 billion (figures have been converted from pounds to dollars) and the number of those brought over from 4,000 to 35,000.

Afghans have already been invading the UK by boat, certain that if they can just land, they will be allowed to stay. With asylum approval rates peaking as high as 98%, Afghans poured in to take advantage of a ‘streamlined asylum process’ reserved nearly entirely for migrants from Muslim countries.

Former PM Rishi Sunak had promised the nation that he would fight illegal migration by accelerating asylum requests so that their claims would be processed “in days or weeks, not months or years” with “shorter guidance, fewer interviews, less paperwork”. And rather than cleaning up mass migration, Sunak turbocharged it for Afghans and migrants from other Muslim terrorist states. The “fewer interviews” allowed Afghan Muslims to apply for asylum without an interview, without paperwork and with even less vetting than there had been before.

This was not a response to public outrage over mass migration and it certainly did nothing to deter it or expel migrants from the UK, rather it provided cover for secret smuggling schemes that were intended to continue the fundamental transformation of Britain.

PM Sunak, like PM Starmer, lied to the public, pretended to care about mass migration all the while speeding it up and leading a relentless campaign to suppress any mention of the harm being caused by Muslim mass migration through a wave of social media speech arrests and a censorship scheme aimed at the public and the media to protect the smuggling of Afghans.

What was the ‘super injunction’ really protecting? A future wave of Islamic terrorists.

The recent independent review of the ‘super injunction’ that finally lifted it concluded that “there is little evidence of intent by the Taliban to conduct a campaign of retribution”. If the thousands and tens of thousands of Afghans being smuggled into the UK were really opponents of the Taliban who had loyally aided the UK, why wouldn’t the Taliban want to come after them?

The reason the Taliban don’t is because these ‘refugees’ are really enemy invaders.

Americans were sold the same phony bill of goods about the urgent need to take in Afghans in order to save them from the Taliban. But the tens of thousands of Afghans brought here illegally by Biden were waved through by the Taliban and Al Qaeda’s Haqqani Network who controlled access to Kabul Airport. The Afghans coming here weren’t fleeing the Taliban, they were vetted by the Taliban. And since then there’s been a wave of Afghan violence in the United States.

Those are the same Afghans that the Biden administration and a number of Senate members working on a bipartisan deal to ‘secure the border’ urgently tried to legalize. As Front Page Magazine reported at the time, the legalization scheme was necessary because the Afghans had no basis for filing legitimate refugee asylum requests. Much like the UK’s ‘streamlined’ scheme for Afghans, the Biden administration pushed to cut refugee resettlement and vetting times from years to days. At that speed, no one noticed (or pretended not to notice) that 36,400 Afghans carried an unidentified document and at least 11,110 had fake birthdays. 659 of the Afghans were either missing a first or a last name. So much for the “gold standard” vetting.

Five years ago, Front Page Magazine exposed the fraudulent ‘interpreter’ visa program that had been used as the basis for bringing tens of thousands of Afghans and Iraqis to America. 70,000 Iraqis and Afghans came here on the so-called translator/interpreter visas from 2007 to 2017. And 48,601 of those SIVs went to Afghans. At its peak, under Obama, there were 100,000 American soldiers in Afghanistan. That’s an “interpreter” to every 2 soldiers.

By March 2021, 100,000 Afghans and Iraqis had been approved for SIVs. The number of ‘interpreter’ visas kept on growing even as the number of U.S. troops dwindled to nothing.

The British and American governments lied to the public to force the mass invasion of Muslim migrants into their respective countries. The only difference was that the lack of free speech in the UK allowed its government to back up those lies with mass censorship.

But now the truth is coming out.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine. Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donationThank you for reading.

 

 

Death of the Pravda Media

By Rich Kozlovich, Tags:  

At my age I've seen all the big names in journalism, and some like Jim Lehrer and Robert MacNeil were two of the good ones.  But that wasn't necessarily true of the rest, including Walter Cronkite, who was in reality a globalist, but Cronkite and the Matrix media were able to hide it back in those days.   

Here's a quote by Jim Lehrer worth reading.

People often ask me if there are guidelines in our practice of what I like to call MacNeil Lehrer journalism. Well, yes, there are, and here they are. Do nothing I cannot defend. Cover, write and present every story with the care I would want if the story were about me. Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story.

Assume the viewer is as smart and caring and as good a person as I am. Assume the same about all people on whom I report. Assume personal lives are a private matter until a legitimate turn in the story absolutely mandates otherwise. Carefully separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories and clearly label everything.

Do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes except on rare and monumental occasions. No one should ever be allowed to attack another anonymously. And, finally, I am not in the entertainment business." - Jim Lehrer

"Ross asked Mapes , "if she believed the story was true. She stated “The story? Absolutely.” the interviewer found it incredible that she found “this story to be up to your standards”. (Editor's Note: This is an important point. RK ) Mapes stated "I’m perfectly willing to believe those documents are forgeries if there’s proof that I haven’t seen."' 

Does this take you aback? It should. Ross asked: “But isn’t it the other way around? Don’t you have to prove they’re authentic?" Mapes responded by saying that “they haven’t been proven false.”  Ross asked what most of us would consider obvious: “Have they proved to be authentic though? Isn’t that really what journalists do?” Now the quote of the year…….Mapes said; "No, I don’t think that’s the standard." Which is the real kicker.  Why?  Because what she was demanding is called proving a negative, and that can't be done.  You can only prove what is, not what isn't.  

In short, the narrative is far more important than the facts. Just like they say in Hollywood as they take great liberties with their "history" based movies:

 “If it didn’t happen that way, then that's the way it should have happened!”

But we know that Hollywood is a fiction factory.  Entertainment is their job, and fiction is part of that story telling job!   But we expect the news to be non-fiction. After all, isn't truth supposed to be "their" job?"   If truth isn't their job, then propaganda and lies must be their job, and we're now finding USAID has been funding those lies.  

Nothing has changed, except now they're under a microscope, and Dan Rather played a huge role in making that transition happen.  It's taken time, but that's Ole Dan's actual legacy, lies and corruption. 

The Pravda media promotes a new Holocaust.  When Hamas supporters went on a rampage in Switzerland, the Pravda media was taking a nap that day.  They cry over a pedophile losing citizenship.  They claimed there was no Iranian nuclear program, but in order to discredit Trump, now there is.

Rigging polls to promote their latest meme is now and has always been standard operating procedure for these Marxist myrmidons claiming Trump's BBB is unpopular.  They ignored the obvious health issues of Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton, but a bruise on Trump's right hand draws gasps of horror in hopes of launching a crusade against him.    

They irrationally turn terrorists into heroes and prosecutors into monsters, and as for the Texas flood?  DHS says the mainstream media deliberately lied in its coverage of that catastrophe.

But the information world is changing, the alternative media is ascendant, and society is "awakened" to their corruption, and people are taking action.   A notorious leftist censorship organization known as Media Matters is in deep trouble after years of its "scorched earth campaign against the conservative media", making blatantly false and injurious claims to destroy their advertising revenue.   Now, after a series of lawsuits they're on the verge of total collapse. 

Its been reported that even the Biden administration couldn’t believe, how dumb and gullible the Pravda media was, which is a bit unfair.  They "believed" because they wanted to believe. It was a unfathomable desire to believe the lies Biden, Obama, Hillary, Kamala, and all the rest were telling because those lies are who they are and what they believe is truth, no matter how much reality may impugn those beliefs. So, who is more stupid, the fools who are "believers" or the fools who know they're lying and promoting corruption that's destructive to society and the nation?   

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.  The Pravda media is corrupt to the core, and the rot is killing them.  What we're seeing is the death of the legacy media, and it's more than justified. 

Schadenfreude!

Updates: 


RINOs Backstabbing Maga With The “Dignity Act”

By Robin Itzler

Editor's Note:  This is one of the commentaries selected from Robin's weekly newsletter Patriot Neighbors.  If you wish to get the full edition, E-mail her at PatriotNeighbors@yahoo.com to get on her list, it's free.

If RINOs want to talk about DIGNITY, how about the dignity of treating ICE and all law enforcement with the respect they deserve? How about the dignity of respecting our nation’s laws and not rewarding anyone who illegally entered the United States of America? How about the dignity of those who followed our immigration laws, often waiting years, to enter to become a U.S. citizen?

When President Trump ran for re-election, he repeatedly said throughout the campaign that ALL illegal aliens must return to their host nation. There was no chatter about work programs, exemptions, visa programs or amnesty – just mass deportations starting with the worst go first.

Officially, it’s HR-4393: the “Dignity for Immigrants While Guarding Our Nation to Ignite and Deliver the American Dream of 2025.” Have you ever heard such BS?

If the 22-page “Dignity Act” passes, you can hold a funeral for MAGA. Such a betrayal would mean that in 2026, Republicans will lose the House, possibly the Senate and most likely the White House in 2028. This is a summary of the “Dignity Act” that gives a large middle finger to America First Patriots:

  1. Granting legal status and protections to undocumented immigrants already living in the U.S. (NO!!!) 
  2. Reforming the asylum screening process to provide an opportunity for review and access to counsel. (NO!!!) · 
  3. Creating new regional processing centers so migrants do not have to make the "perilous journey" to the U.S.-Mexico border to seek asylum. (NO!!!) 
  4. Investing in border security and modernizing land ports of entry.  
  5. Mandating accountability for ICE. · Providing a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers. (NO!!!)

Share your thoughts with some or all these backstabbing RINOs:

  1. Mario Rafael Diaz-Balart (Florida) 202-225-4211 
  2. Brian Fitzpatrick (Pennsylvania)202-225-4276 
  3. Mike Lawler (New York) 202-225-6506
  4. Dan Newhouse (Washington) 202-225-3251 
  5. David Valadao (California) 202-225-4695 
  6. Mike Kelly (Pennsylvania) 202-225-5406
  7. Gabe Evans (Colorado) 202-225-5625
  8. Marlin Stutzman (Indiana) 202-225-4436 
  9. Don Bacon (Nebraska) 202-225-4155 
  10. Young Kim (California) 202-225-4111 
  11. Maria Elvira Salazar (Florida) 202-225-3931

House Republicans Who Quit Congress 

With the previous Congressional election still in the rearview mirror, it is very disturbing when an elected official quits. This is especially upsetting in the House where terms are for two years. If you were just re-elected and wanted out, no problem. But wait until your term is over. Otherwise you are giving the middle finger to all those constituents who campaigned for you, donated to you and voted for you. You might also give the majority to the Democrats.

FORMER Republican Representative Mark Green in Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District quit Congress on July 20 for a private sector job. Since the district voted for President Trump by more than 20 percentage points, it should remain Republican in the special election, but that’s not the point.

Amnesty: We did it with Reagan, not doing it again!

https://justiceforimmigrants.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Ronald-Reagan-_-IRCA-web.jpg
Americans did this dance with President Reagan in 1986 with the Immigration Reform and Control Act. (Pictured: President Reagan signing the bill)

We will NOT do it again! It would be grossly unfair to immigrants who legally come to the United States in the long and costly process. As President Trump repeatedly said during the campaign, ALL illegal immigrants who invaded our country must return to their host nation. Trump never hinted at work programs, exemptions, visa programs or anything except mass deportation! The “Big Beautiful Bill” gives ICE and other law enforcement agencies the necessary funding to deport illegal aliens.