Turkish student at Tufts sent back home after writing anti-Semitic op-ed

Enjoy your life in Turkey, Rumeysa

Turkish Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk, who was held in ICE detention last year after her visa was revoked over alleged “activities in support of Hamas,” has returned home to Turkey following a legal settlement with the United States.The State Department canceled Ozturk’s student visa in 2024 after she co-authored an op-ed in her college newspaper calling on Tufts to recognize the “Palestinian genocide” and to divest from companies with ties to Israel.

In March 2025, ICE agents arrested Ozturk while walking on a street in Somerville, MA. She spent six weeks in federal custody before a judge ordered her release.

The government appealed the decision, but the case ultimately ended in a settlement after Ozturk completed her PhD in child study and human development.

Under the agreement, Ozturk returned to Turkey “without further interference by the Department of Homeland Security,” according to the ACLU.

“The time stolen from me by the U.S. government belongs not just to me, but to the children and youth I have dedicated my life to advocating for,” she said in a statement released by the ACLU. “With them in mind, I am choosing to return home as planned to continue my career as a woman scholar without losing more time to the state-imposed violence and hostility I have experienced in the United States all for nothing more than co-signing an op-ed advocating for Palestinian rights.”The resolution is welcome news to the Trump administration, which has taken a more aggressive approach toward foreign students involved in anti-Israel activism.

“Attending elite colleges and universities in the United States is a privilege afforded to foreign students who respect our values and follow our laws,” a Justice Department official said in a statement to Politico. “We will continue to seek the deportation of any foreign student who abuses their opportunity to study in America by engaging in vile antisemitism, harassment, or other illegal behavior.”

Ozturk’s detention became a flashpoint in President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement efforts and emphasis on stopping antisemitism on college campuses.

Esha Bhandari, director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, accused the government of violating the Constitution.

“Rumeysa should never have been detained for expressing her opinions in a country that is supposed to protect freedom of speech,” Bhandari said.

As of early 2026, the State Department has revoked more than 100,000 visas, including roughly 8,000 student visas.In a separate case, Mahmoud Khalil, a Syrian green card holder who led anti-Israel protests at Columbia University, recently lost a bid to have his deportation case thrown out.

“The bottom line is if you come here to stir up trouble on our campuses, we will deny you a visa,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said last year. “These kids pay money to go to school, and they have to walk through a bunch of lunatics who are here on student visas.”

Thank you for following Brain Flushings. If you really want to help support my work here, you can Buy Me A Coffee or click on the ads alongside this page--it really helps. You can even subscribe to Brain Flushings--it's free.

Tweet

Anti-Semite scumcrumpet Mahmoud Khalil may soon be gone

They hate America yet hate to leave

An immigration appeals board has issued a final order of removal for the anti-Israel/anti-Semitic protester Mahmoud Khalil. This decision advances the Trump administration’s determined effort to deport the execrable Columbia University graduate, according to his own legal team.

The Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals ruled on Thursday to deny Khalil’s bid to dismiss the case. It marks a significant development in the administration’s broader push to remove him from the United States, a place he does not belong.

Khalil, a thirty-one-year-old lawful permanent resident, has found himself at the center of a federal crackdown on noncitizens involved in anti-Israel campus protests tied to the war in Gaza. He was, after all, the first person whose arrest became publicly known as part of that crackdown. 

His legal team wasted little time in blasting the decision. They called it “baseless and politically motivated,” insisting that the government is retaliating against his speech and lacks any real evidence to support the case [other than his disgusting hubris about Israel].

“In all my decades as an immigration lawyer, I have never seen such a baseless and politically motivated decision,” Khalil’s lead attorney, Marc Van Der Hout, said in a statement issued by the American Civil Liberties Union. “The BIA’s decision has absolutely no support in the record, violates a federal court order, and we’ll be fighting it until the end.”

The Trump administration, for its part, has argued that Khalil’s protest activity was “aligned with Hamas,” a claim cited repeatedly by the Department of Homeland Security and other officials, though authorities have not publicly detailed any specific evidence linking him to the terrorist group.

Khalil has also denied allegations of anti-Semitism. Officials have further invoked a rare foreign policy provision of U.S. immigration law, sometimes referred to as a “Rubio determination,” along with alleged issues tied to his green card application.

Despite the ruling, Khalil’s attorneys insist he cannot be deported while his separate federal habeas case continues to play out in court.

A federal judge in New Jersey previously found that the government’s justification for detaining Khalil was likely unconstitutional and ordered his release. After his arrest, Khalil spent 104 days in immigration detention, missing the birth of his first child, before that same judge ordered him freed.

Khalil later suffered a setback when a U.S. appeals panel ruled that the New Jersey judge had overstepped his authority. In a two-to-one decision, the panel held that the case must proceed through the immigration court system before it can be challenged in federal court. His lawyers are now requesting that the full appeals panel reconsider that decision. They have even asked one of the judges to step aside over his prior role as a Justice Department official involved in investigating student protesters.

Khalil himself has denied any wrongdoing and described the entire case as an attempt to silence him. After all, being an anti-Zionist isn't code for being an anti-Semite, right? Oh wait--it turns out it is. 

And like entitled children, they never clean up after themselves

“I am not surprised by this decision from the biased and politically motivated Board of Immigration Appeals,” he said in a statement released by the ACLU. “I have committed no crime. I have broken no law. The only thing I am guilty of is speaking out against the genocide in Palestine, and this administration has weaponized the immigration system to punish me for it.” 

“My family is here. My life is here,” he added. “I reject any attempt to intimidate me out of my home based on lies and ideological attacks. This is not justice. This is just another attempt to retaliate against me.”

Khalil, a prominent organizer of the anti-Israel protests that rocked Columbia University in 2024, was initially arrested in 2025 at his university-owned apartment in New York City. Homeland Security Investigations informed him at the time that they were revoking his green card, as he is merely a guest in this country. 

He was later transferred to a detention centre in Louisiana.

He had played a major role in those protests and had even met with school officials on behalf of Columbia University Apartheid Divest, a coalition pushing the university to divest from Israel. He completed the requirements for a Columbia master’s degree in late 2024.

Born in Syria, he is the grandson of Palestinians who were forced to leave their homeland, his lawyers noted in a legal filing. His wife, an American citizen, gave birth to their child while he was still in detention.

The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, previously defended the administration’s actions. She stated plainly that Khalil had allegedly distributed pro-Hamas propaganda fliers on campus, a place where it was unsafe for Jewish students to attend as they were attacked by anti-Israel anti-Semites.

“This administration is not going to tolerate individuals having the privilege of studying in our country and then siding with pro-terrorist organizations that have killed Americans,” Leavitt told reporters. She noted that on her desk sat the very “pro-Hamas propaganda fliers with the logo of Hamas” that Khalil was accused of distributing because there is evidence that he was.

“We have a zero-tolerance policy for siding with terrorists, period,” she said.

And Khalil is a terrorist supporter while not having the testicular magnitude to kill alongside them.

Thank you for following Brain Flushings. You can support my work by checking out the sponsors on this page. It really helps. You can even click on Buy Me A Coffee in the sidebar if you want to show your appreciation. It helps to keep me going, but really, there's  no pressure.

Tweet

ACLU defends a pedophile/murderer who was finally executed in FL

The far-left American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is hardly American and hardly calls for civil liberties for all people; only their comrades on the left. They received intense flack this week after they defended a convicted murderer and pedophile who was finally given what he deserved: a one way ticket to hell.

It's likely the anti-American ACLU sided with the now dead pedophile-murderer--he wanted to have his genitals mutilated and disguise himself as a woman.

“The state of Florida never provided medically necessary gender-affirming care to Dxxxx Oxxx — causing her [him] enormous suffering,” the ACLU claimed, “and violating her right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment for the more than 30 years she was in state custody.” [My comments are in brackets, and the perpetrator's name has been censored.]

Oxxx’s lawyers tried to get him taken off death row by claiming that he was insane, which the state Supreme Court rejected. They also claimed that he was a delusional schizophrenic and was transgender, which placed him in victimhood status and an intersectional hero. 

Expert psychiatrists testified that Owen showed no signs of either of the mental illnesses — schizophrenia and gender dysphoria, according to CBS News. The report said that the psychiatrists believed that it was an “act.”

Turns out he was just an evil dickweed.

Owen was sentenced to death for raping and stabbing a 14-year-old to death and raping a 38-year-old, who he beat to death with a hammer — both in 1984. He also attacked two other women, but they both survived.

The tweet elicited strong reactions online from people who called out the insanity of the matter, because some people cannot understand how someone who is just evil can do such horrible things to their fellow human beings. 

“If HE had been executed in a timely manner, it wouldn’t have been a problem,” actor and brilliant conservative James Woods said in a tweet. “Then the loved ones of HIS murdered victims wouldn’t have been the ones who actually suffered for thirty years.”

Gays Against Groomers tweeted, “The @ACLU is very upset that a man who raped and murdered a 14 year old girl was never given ‘gender affirming care’ in prison before he was executed. This is not parody. Holy f*** these people are monsters.”

“The ACLU is working tirelessly to ensure that a delusional echo chamber — in which the suffering of a male serial rapist and murderer of women denied ‘medically necessary gender affirming care’ takes priority over his victims — encompasses the world and is mandated by law,” writer Wesley Yang tweeted.

“Try to imagine the mindset of the person who would read that tweet and bow their head in sorrow, shame, and indignation on behalf of the inhumane treatment of the male rapist and murderer of a mother and her 14-year old daughter denied ‘medically necessary gender affirming care,’” Yang added. “The ACLU fully inhabits that mindset and is sparing no expense to inflict it through the law everywhere in America.”

Another conservative, commentator Allie Beth Stuckey tweeted, “The only injustice in Owen’s case is that it took the state 40 years to execute him.”

The Left has gone completely crazy with their priorities, and the ACLU is only one example. Check out Capitol Hill if you want to see more insanity.

Tweet

ACLU wants Johnny Depp to pay Amber Heard's legal expenses:

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) with the oxymoronic name, demands that Johnny Depp, the winner in the case against his lying ex-wife, Amber Heard, pay the legal expenses  it incurred during the defamation lawsuit. It's like asking a shooting victim to pay the shooter for the bullet.

Radar Online reported that it obtained court documents that show the ACLU filed a motion seeking reimbursement as part of the 2021 lawsuit Depp filed against the ACLU. Depp sued the ACLU for records related to Heard.

The newly filed motion asks for $86,253.26 for production expenses from Depp, but he should sue them for writing the hit piece against him in Heard's name in the amount of $86,254.26 just to make a point.

They argue the star should reimburse them for the “considerable expense spent responding to onerous subpoenas served by Mr. Depp from an underlying action in which neither the ACLU nor any of its employees are parties.”

One might imagine that the ACLU does not ask others who request documents from them and they are only doing so because he kicked Amber Heard's butt in the proceedings and the ACLU got caught over the hit piece.

The organization said they had to review 7,500 documents and eventually turned over 2,000 documents to comply with a subpoena.

Also, “the ACLU produced three witnesses—including its Executive Director—for over sixteen hours of depositions. Along the way, Mr. Depp rejected numerous compromises to minimize the burden and expense on the ACLU and its employees.” 

Had they not gotten involved with Heard's case and her promising to pay them $3.5M but only paying them $1.3M [she even lied to them], they might not have been so upset.

The ACLU said it has given Depp all the documents he sought. Their lawyer argued “while they cannot get back the significant time they spent responding to Mr. Depp’s subpoenas and the disruption to their work,” they are “entitled” to reimbursements.

The former civil liberties organization, now an arm of the progressives, had the berries to blame Depp for dragging their butts into court when they initially refused to turn over relevant documents for the case. Depp asked a judge to compel the ACLU to respond to his request for the documents that related to Heard’s pledge from her divorce settlement from Depp to two charities: the ACLU and a children's hospital.

Heard never paid the pledge, though, and the ALCU officials ended up testifying in the trial. Now they want reimbursement for time taken to prepare and submit the documents in spite of the ordeal being entirely her fault. Had she not lied to the charities, Depp would not have any reason to prove her a liar. if anything, they should be suing her, but they know she's broke and may have lost future work as a terrible actress.

Ironically, Johnny was one who helped Heard out when she decided to not honor her pledges, at least not yet, due to the lawsuit he filed against her.

At the time, Heard said all the money would be donated by 2018. While on the stand in the ongoing trial in Virginia, a representative for the ACLU said that Heard only paid $1.3 million of the promised $3.5 million.

The American Civil Liberties Union’s general counsel, Terence Dougherty, testified that $100,000 of the $1.3 million slice came directly from Depp. The Guardian reports that, based on an email from Elon Musk, the court was told that $500,000 came from a donor-advised fund connected to Musk yet registered as a donation from Heard.

While on the stand, Amber Heard admitted she had yet to fully make the payments but said she had every intention of fulfilling her pledge. She blamed Depp and the current case but the timeline shows that her promise to pay was long before the current case was filed.

It's laughable that the ACLU acted as if they were inconvenienced and surprised that they were called to testify. They were up to their necks in the case ever since their staff help Heard write the op-ed in the Washington Post in 2018. That was the reason Depp opened a case on Heard in the first place.

ACLU refused to voluntarily hand over documents pertaining to the case, so Johnny Depp asked a judge to to legally compel them to respond ~ his motion was granted.

Now the ACLU wants Johnny Depp to reimburse them $86,253.26 for time taken preparing & submitting the docs.

Nuts. pic.twitter.com/GEt0orh3fi

— Greg Ellis 🏴‍☠️ (@ellisgreg) May 31, 2022

The ACLU admitted it helped with the op-ed on its website and that Heard pledged the donation in 2016. In 2018, the ACLU asked the less than mediocre actress to become their ambassador and was asked to work with them on the op-ed to call attention to sexual assault and domestic violence issues, having never verifying that Heard was a victim or a liar about her claim. It turns out the latter was deemed to be true by a jury.

The ACLU denies it offered the ambassadorship to Heard in exchange for her donation, but if you really believe that, I have a genuine Rolex you might want to check out.

* * *

 Consider subscribing to Brain Flushings and please check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against Communism, ignorance, and the heebie-jeebies.

* * *

The losers in this case were Amber Heard and the ACLU, an organization that has become a cheap knockoff of what it once was. They used to advocate for free speech and First Amendment rights, but now they want to shut us up for saying such things as 'a man is a man and a woman is a woman.' Now they get involved in political issues and clearly take sides. 

Why did they write the op-ed for Heard in the first place? It was their idea to do that, not Heard's. For the ACLU to try squeezing Johnny Depp for money should tell you who they are and to show Amber Heard as an angry, probably borderline woman with little to no acting ability, try as she did.

Tweet

ACLU forced female prisons to take gender dysphoric male prisoners: two women are pregnant for some reason

Two women at a New Jersey women's prison are pregnant after they had sex with a male inmate who said he is a woman, but proved otherwise.

The once all-female Edna Mahan Correctional Facility in Clinton, NJ was pressured by the woke ACLU to allow men who believe or have the balls to say that they are women, to be incarcerated there. This followed a lawsuit brought by the ACLU of New Jersey, an organization that protects the civil liberties of the minority, but not the majority.

The federal Bureau of Prisons, which is part of the Biden [In]Justice Department, recently revised its operating procedures allowing criminals access to genital-mutilation operations or related procedures. 

The prison in question, houses 27 men [aka human beings born with XY chromosomes, penises, and testicles, like swimmer Lia Thomas, for example] and doesn't require them to surgically remove their sexual appendages but simply say they're women.

Two XX chromosome human beings with uteruses and all the gear they need to become pregnant with child, have become pregnant by men who say they are women, but have sex with women, while not claiming to be lesbians. How confusing.

The prison has begun an investigation but have not said whether the women had sex with one guy saying he's a woman, or two different guys. None of the women prisoners are suspect in this investigation, in spite of the fact that woke judges are unable to define what a woman is, one of whom will soon be heading to the US Supreme Court.

The investigators did reveal that in both cases, the sex was consensual, but the prison has seen its share of alleged sexual abuse.

ACLU legal director Jeanne LoCicero defended the policy her organization forced on the prison.

* * *

Sex. Now that I have your attention: for more hard-hitting content, and a few soft-hitting ones too, subscribe to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against John Kerry's global warming, the heebie-jeebies and the dreaded omicron.

* * *

Housing biologically male individuals in a women's prison is "in line with New Jersey's strong anti-discrimination laws that prevent discrimination and harassment on the basis of gender identity," LoCicero said, in spite of the potential sexual assaults and harassment it may place on female inmates, and a failure to discriminate between the sexes. Edna Mahan prison had a problem with harassment of female prisoners by males who harassed them and tried to overturn the policy forced on them by the ACLU.

But at least LoCicero and the ACLU are woke, no matter who may get hurt.

Tweet

Biden nominee believes non-citizens can also vote if they vote Democratic

"And I handed him the pizza and told him, 'hey, this one's on me.' Then I got into
my 18-wheeler pizza delivery truck and drove off. It's how I roll; I'm serious."

President Biden's judicial nominee believes that people should not have to show proof of citizenship in order to vote for the next president, especially if they are from a demographic that typically votes the Democratic Party line because to thwart their freedom would be "voter suppression." But technically speaking, it would instead be "illegitimate voter elimination," not suppression, because the latter term implies that a person's right to vote is being thwarted.

You cannot get more left-wing than someone with close ties to the ACLU and Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and that's who Biden has nominated to be a federal judge. Her name is Nancy Gbana Abudu and she has argued that photo ID and proof of citizenship constitute "voter suppression."

Evidently, Abudu believes that minorities don't have the ability to present proof of who they are and whether they are American citizens. They presumably don't have birth certificates or passports, they don't have a drivers license in Abudu's way of thinking.

The hard truth is, most illegal voters would chose to vote Democrat and the Party knows this. If the shoe was on the other foot and illegal migrants tended to vote Republican, you can bet they would scream bloody murder. 

Abudu, the deputy legal director at hard-Left SPLC, was picked, apparently by Joe Biden in December to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which covers Alabama, Florida and Georgia. The seat was vacated by the retirement of Judge Beverly B. Martin, who was an Obama appointee.

Abudu worked for the ACLU from 2005 to 2019 and was an 11th Circuit staff attorney from 2002 to 2004. But the thing that flipped Biden's On switch is that Abudu is Black and therefore not White and that is the main criteria in his brain addled head.

Biden installed 75 judges in 2021. The memo states that his nominees “reflect the diversity” Biden “promise[d]” in courts and that Abudu “would be the first African-American woman judge ever to sit on the Eleventh Circuit.”

* * *

Why not subscribe to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against the tech giants.

* * *

That's all well and good, but it isn't a qualification. She admitted in 2011, that "95 percent" of her ACLU involvement involved "voting rights," and said at the time that “photo ID” and “proof of citizenship,” two long-established requirements to vote, are indicative of “voter suppression.”

The irony of her being selected by Barack Obama at the time was that there Black vote reached a historic

high and there was indications that voter suppression existed. After all, Obama was elected twice.

Tweet

Biden seems clueless over $450K migrant separation payments

The face you make when something is amiss in your skivvies

Alleged President Joe Biden may have been kept in the dark or slept through a DOJ briefing about the Brandon administration is trying to do for illegal aliens. 

According to the ACLU [an oxymoron] Biden “may not have been fully briefed about the actions of his very own Justice Department,” as evidenced by his labeling a news report as "garbage" that his administration is hoping to hand out $450,000 per person in payouts to families separated after illegally crossing the US-Mexico border.

ACLU Executive Director and big George Soros fan, Anthony Romero, warned the brain addled President that he risked “abandoning a core campaign promise to do justice for the thousands of separated families." This promise was to give each individual of illegal alien families who had been separated at the U.S.-Mexico border [in accordance with U.S. law that prohibits children from being place with their incarcerated parents who illegally crossed the border in order to reap the benefits of the taxpayer's labor] more money than the families of our dead military members who were killed in the line of duty. 

“We respectfully remind President Biden that he called these actions ‘criminal’ in a debate with then-President Trump, and campaigned on remedying and rectifying the lawlessness of the Trump administration,” Romero said. “We call on President Biden to right the wrongs of this national tragedy,” by paying off these miscreants for their crime.

Hours earlier, Fox News correspondent Peter Doocy had asked Biden if the payments, which were first reported last week by the Wall Street Journal, could incentivize even more illegal immigration.

“If you guys keep sending that garbage out? Yeah. But it’s not true,” Biden shot back, sounding as if he had a clue about what he was saying.

“So this is a garbage report?” Doocy asked.

“Yeah. $450,000 per person — is that what you’re saying?” Biden replied. “That’s not gonna happen.”

See, the person behind the curtain forgot to tell him, or he forgot he was told.

When Doocy asked him about the reported plan several days ago at a G-20 press conference in Rome, Biden looked away and scratched his forehead and allegedly pooped his pants, according to anonymous sources.

* * *

Why not subscribe to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against the tech giants.

* * *

However, the Journal reported last week that the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services “are considering payments [of your money] that could amount to close to $1 million a family” for migrants detained during the Trump administration. 

A million dollars to break the law!

The Journal reported that around 940 claims have already been filed by immigrant families who were separated at the border.

It pays to come to the US illegally with kids and allow yourself to get caught. The payout might turn out to be a lot better than "Wheel of Fortune." Who wouldn't take a shot at this move?

Tweet

Joy Behar never read a U.S Constitution she liked--wants Trump charged for 'hate speech'

"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”
― Benjamin Franklin

Joy Behar, the least intelligent host on "The View," asked on Thursday why President Trump has not yet been "charged" with "hate speech." She was being serious when she said, "Why can't he be sued by the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union] for 'hate speech'"?

“I don’t get it,” she said in a full-throated admission that she doesn't know her derriere from her antecubital fossa. “How does he get away with this?” she wondered, having never actually read nor understood the U.S. Constitution, particularly the First Amendment.

Joyless, as she is known to Megan McCain, was referencing Trump’s recent tweets about four fresh faces of Congress: Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI).

The tweets sparked a leftist media feeding frenzy, and created controversy at the president’s campaign rally on Wednesday night in North Carolina where “send her back” was briefly chanted by the crowd about Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN). Trump should have stopped the chant immediately but waited and finally condemned it on Thursday, telling the press: “I disagree with it ... I felt a little bit badly about it ... I was not happy with it, I disagree with it.”

When it first occurred, the "press" and the Democrats contrasted the grace of the late Sen. John McCain, who while on the presidential campaign trail against Barack Obama, stopped a woman from implying that he was from Kenya. That is now, but when McCain was running in 2008, the press and the other hypocrites on the left attacked him as a "racist," "bigot" and whatever else they could get away with.

In a series of Sunday tweets, Trump wrote:

So interesting to see ‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run . 

 Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough.

I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!

Behar’s idea that Trump should be shut up and charged by the government for saying words is characteristically stupid on her part. Just because speech is offensive, it is protected under the First Amendment and Behar, a failed comedian with a history of controversial statements herself, should be well aware of this.

Earlier this year, another sort of comedian pretending to be a journalist, Christiane Amanpour, said Trump supporters chanting “lock her up” about Hillary Clinton were engaging in “hate speech” and should have been banned from doing so. Amanpour should know better, but it's possible she is from another planet and doesn't quite understand the law.

If you enjoyed this post, consider following my blog, but even if you choose not to do so, please check out the sponsors on this page.

Tweet

Portland cops remove their heads from nether regions over Antifa masks

If a person walks into a bank with a mask on, the alarm bells figuratively sound, warning that a problem may exist. The same should hold for protest demonstrations in which people wear masks--they don't want to be identified and trouble is likely to take place.

On Saturday in Portland, Oregon, Andy Ngo, a journalist, was assaulted and suffered a bleeding brain injury, as well as other injuries, inflicted upon him by Antifa, a far-left fascist organization that pretends to be against fascism. On Wednesday, Police Chief Danielle Outlaw finally got her head out of her nether regions and called for anti-mask laws.

“We cannot allow people to continue to use the guise of free speech to commit a crime," Outlaw said.  "A lot of people are emboldened because they know they can’t be identified.’’

Ya think?

The problem is, the police stood down and did nothing when Ngo was being assaulted and others were videotaping the attack. Then when Ngo finally got away and approached police along the fringes of the protest for medical assistance, they told him he would have to walk through the Antifa crowd and make his way to the police station. 

In other words, it wasn't only about masks; it was about being told to stand down as the mayor, Ted Wheeler, is alleged to have ordered.

At a press conference, Outlaw “called for laws that would bar masks worn by demonstrators, allow police to fully videotape protests and give authorities greater control of protests by groups with a history of violence,” according to Oregon Live. She stated, "We have to do something differently … There were entities that planned a brawl in the city of Portland and no one seems to be upset about that. … Entities came here for a fight. … I don’t even know what they were protesting against.’’

Entities even knocked some buildings down in New York City back on September 11, 2001.

On Tuesday, the Portland Police Bureau noted, “There is no current law or ordinance prohibiting covering of the face in a protest and commission of a crime, which makes it more difficult for investigators to identify perpetrators of violence. This is exploited by criminals who engage in acts of violence. Per Oregon Revised Statute, 181A.250, law enforcement is unable to record demonstration events unless there is criminal activity occurring.”

The useless police chief dismissed accusations from Portland’s police union president that Mayor Ted Wheeler, who is also the city’s police commissioner, has “handcuffed’’ the police response to demonstrations. But if not Wheeler, then who? And why would the police union president lie? Cops don't want to stand-down and stand by as crimes are being committed--it isn't how they roll.

Ngo's lawyer, Harmeet Dhillon told Fox News on Tuesday that she was "going to sue everybody who the facts and the law support being sued,” adding, "The situation on the ground in Portland and policing is so bad that the sheriffs of the adjoining counties have refused to send mutual aid to Portland because they don't want their own officers to be attacked. Portland has been consistently understaffed these types of incidents, and there have been many incidents. They knew they were aware that this was going to happen and they did nothing to prevent it."

And if you don't believe Wheeler is behind the stand-down, you aren't paying attention.

On Wednesday, Outlaw addressed the issue of recording demonstrations. Oregon Live reported, “Outlaw also pushed for changes in the law that would allow police to continually record protests, instead of only when crimes are committed, which she said slows police investigations because they only have snapshots of what occurred.” Oregon Live noted that local civil rights groups have opposed such a move.

Sarah Armstrong, a spokeswoman for The American Civil Liberties of Oregon, a useless group of leftists, protested the implementation of an anti-mask law, saying, "A policy that prohibits wearing a mask to a protest will have police focusing on the wrong issue. Behavior is the issue, not the mask. It could be argued that the mask is an important symbolic part of a protester’s message...There are many legitimate reasons people wear ‘masks,’ including political and religious reasons.''

If you believe in a cause, why would you have to hide your identity? And if you believe in a cause so strongly that you hide your identity and bring along a crowbar with nothing to crow, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to hide your identity.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider following my blog, but even if you choose not to do so, please check out the sponsors on this page.

Tweet

La. gov. breaks with Dems & says he'll sign "heartbeat" bill

Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards apparently alluded to the idea that he would sign his state's "heartbeat" legislation -- effectively banning abortions after a heartbeat of the baby is detected -- as his party faced questions over whether it should be more inclusive of pro-life voices.

“When I ran for governor, I said I was pro-life and so that’s something that’s consistent," he reportedly said when asked about the bill on Thursday. [It's a rare Democrat that has a heartbeat of their own based on most of them having the will to kill babies in the womb.]

The bill, which awaited a vote from the Louisiana House of Representatives, would make the state one of the strictest on abortion access. This comes after a number of other states passed restrictions in an apparent attempt to make the Supreme Court reconsider major precedent on the issue.

Pro-life advocates [i.e., people who also have hearts] have heralded measures like "heartbeat" legislation while groups like Planned Parenthood [an organization known for selling baby body parts] have challenged them in a series of legal battles.

Louisiana's bill could face a lawsuit from the same group -- the American Civil Liberties Union -- that sued Ohio over its own "heartbeat" legislation. The ACLU advocates for only those folks who have already passed through the birth canal, but it may be soon in the future when that won't be enough.

“My position hasn’t changed. In eight years in the Legislature, I was a pro-life legislator,” Edwards said.

He attributed his pro-life stance to his Christian faith but it also seems to hold personal significance. Nearly thirty years ago, he and his wife decided to have his daughter, diagnosed as a baby with spina bifida, against the doctor's advice to abort.

During his monthly radio show, the governor seemed to acknowledge his break with Democrats, who have continually denounced state-level legislation like Louisiana's. Pro-life advocates are quietly praying he will stand behind his values rather than a need to get reelected.

“I know that for many in the national party, on the national scene, that’s not a good fit. But I will tell you, here in Louisiana, I speak and meet with Democrats who are pro-life every single day," he said.

Edwards may be a Democrat, but he's a man with the moral values of a true conservative.

“Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health,” Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez, an actual piece of human garbage, previously said.

According to a Marist poll from 2019, Democrats varied in their opinion on abortion restrictions. But a strong majority -- 60 percent -- said they supported limiting abortion to the first trimester. If it were up to some Democrats, they would limit abortion through the fourth trimester if it posed an inconvenience.

Another poll from May showed that overall, registered voters thought heartbeat bills were either "just right" or "too lenient." That contrasted with 45 percent who said they were "too restrictive."

Democrats for Life, which voiced support for "heartbeat" legislation and are the only liberals with an actual sense of morality, has challenged the party on this point in particular -- calling for things like more inclusive language from party leadership and a Democratic Pro-Life Political Action Committee.

Congressional Democrats have acknowledged that being pro-life and Democrat was possible but, as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) clarified, the party was "strongly pro-choice." Schumer, it should be noted, has already been born and has nothing to lose in his pro-abortion stance.

The term "pro-choice" by the way, is a clever way of saying "pro killing of babies in the womb." You have to give Democrats credit, though, for having the semantic skills to take the onus off of what they're really advocating for.

It's highly likely, however, that if these pro-life bills are challenged in the SCOTUS, Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts will be too squishy to have the courage to vote for the pro-life measures.


Kindly consider following Brain Flushings and please visit the ads on these pages. Thank you.




Tweet

OMG the SPLC broke up with the Women's March over anti-Semitism

It's not typical of me to say anything good about the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center, but I will to a degree do so in this post.

The SPLC is the latest in leftist organizations to quietly sever ties with the national Women's March after it was revealed in the New York Times and Tablet that senior leaders of the organization expressed anti-Semitic sentiments in early organizational meetings, and affiliated with the anti-Semitic, anti-LGBT, and anti-women's rights organization, the Nation of Islam, expressing admiration for their crap weasel leader Louis Farrakhan.

The Daily Beast reports that SPLC had quietly withdrawn its support for the Women's March, and the Women's March, in turn, had removed SPLC from its list of co-sponsors. The SPLC was a prominent member of the Women's March coalition for the first two years of marches.

The SPLC, in an effort to avoid looking like fans of Hitler supporters, was closed-mouth about the development in their statement to the Daily Beast, telling reporters that “other projects were a priority,” and that they would continue to be involved with local marches, even if they were cutting ties with the national Women's March.

Now we know the real reason.

Just a few short months ago, the SPLC was expressing unqualified support for the March, claiming, in a press release that:

“As an official partner of the march, the Southern Poverty Law Center stands in solidarity with its organizers’ vision — that ‘women’s rights are human rights’ — and with the march’s mission to bring together communities ‘insulted, demonized and threatened by the rhetoric of the past election cycle,’ the SPLC said in January of 2017, calling itself “dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society. Through our core issues, we work to protect the rights of the working poor, LGBT, and undocumented immigrant women whom the Women’s March on Washington seeks to unite.”

But that seems to have changed since reporters at Tablet and the New York Times revealed a significant link between the Women's March's national organizers -- including Linda Sarsour, Tamika Mallory, and Carmen Perez -- and Farrakhan's Nation of Islam, which the SPLC has long-designated as a "hate group," and Louis Farrakhan as a purveyor of anti-Semitism.

A handful of local "Women's March" organizations have also cut official ties to the national Women's March over the revelations of anti-Semitism, and a number of other organizations, besides the Southern Poverty Law Center, have cut ties with the national March pending turnover at their top levels.

According to Tali Goldsheft, the activist who began a major petition drive to encourage left-leaning organizations to cut ties with Sarsour, Mallory, and Perez, more than half of the Women's March's original sponsors and affiliates have dropped off, including several major labor unions, at least two top LGBT-rights organizations (GLAAD and the Human Rights campaign), and one top women's rights organization, NARAL, have all recently dropped off the list of Women's March supporters.

It seems that killing gays under sharia [Islamic law] as Farrakhan believes, doesn't appeal to the LGBT-rights organizations. You will also not see any Jewish organizations sponsoring the March, and the AFL-CIO, NARAL, GLAAD, Human Rights Campaign, NRDC, OXFAM, Greenpeace, Amnesty and other major orgs are no longer listed as @womensmarch partners.

Goldsheft says there are only a handful of "major" sponsors left: Planned Parenthood, an organization that specializes in killing babies for profit. The American Civil Liberties Union, [but if you want to defend your civil liberties, don't look to the ACLU]. And the American Federation of Teachers, an organization that, since 1980 has contributed tens of millions of dollars, 95 percent of which has gone to Democrats. Members' dues underwrite much of the AFT's political support and in 2015, four California teachers sued AFT and its California unit over the use of member dues for political activities, arguing that unions were violating constitutional right to free speech by forcing them to either support union-favored causes and candidates or lose access to important job benefits such as life insurance and disability. The matter was resolved last year by SCOTUS in Janus v AFSCME concluding public sector union fees violate the First Amendment compelling nonmembers to "subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern." Unions will, subsequently, need to gain the affirmative consent of individual teachers before enrolling them in the union.

The next national Women's March is set to take place next Saturday, January 19, in Washington, D.C. Turnout is anticipated to be way down from previous years.

Rightfully so.


Will 2019 be the year you follow Brain Flushings and have a few laughs while you get a conservative viewpoint? Let's hope so, because politics is the new NFL without the mindless kneeling and this blog will both inform you and hopefully entertain you bigly.



Tweet

State Dept. to demand tourists' social media history

Photo: AP

Starting this week the State Department will publish new rules for immigrants and visitors to the U.S. As per executive order, they will now be required to divulge their recent social media histories, a key security enhancement the president calls 'extreme vetting.'

People entering the United States will also be asked to list email addresses, phone numbers and international travel during the previous five years. They must also divulge any immigration problems they may have had, whether with the U.S. or any other country.

They will be asked about potential family connections to terrorism, and we know they will not lie about it because that goes against the law. 

In countries were female genital mutilation (FGM) is prevalent, particularly Africa, immigrants from these countries will be directed to a website ensuring that they are aware FGM is illegal in the U.S.

"This upgrade to visa vetting is long-overdue, and it's appropriate to apply it to everyone seeking entry, because terrorism is a worldwide problem. The aim is to try to weed out people with radical or dangerous views," said Jessica Vaughan, director of the Center for Immigration Studies.

Vaughan said that she wishes the system would go beyond what is planned in order to determine whether women coming into the country are doing so in order to have a child here. She said it would cut down on "birth tourism" whereby women in the late stages of pregnancy come to the U.S. to have the child who then becomes a U.S. citizen.

Security specialists have demanded more government vetting of people coming into the country but civil liberties groups, such as the ACLU, have been against this idea because they would rather see one terrorist gain entry than deny a hundred non-terrorists from gaining access to our social welfare system.

About 14 million people would be affected by the new vetting program and about 700,000 others would be affected in the immigration system.



Tweet

Illinois judge accepts biology, rejects transgender science denier's request

An Illinois judge denied a mentally ill male who believes he's a female his request to change clothes with actual female students in the girl's locker room at a public high school.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois is representing Nova Maday, the male student at Palatine's Township High School District 211. The ACLU petitioned the court last year, arguing the student should be treated as if he's a girl and not be forced to deal with reality.

On Thursday, Judge Thomas Allen, who evidently got an "A" in biology, rejected the request to go along with Maday's delusion that he's a female. Perhaps the good judge believed it would do the poor young man no good to allow the lie to persist, and to subject high school girls to having to deal with him exposing his junk in the locker room.

The ACLU will consult with Maday on how he wants to proceed with the case.

"Clearly, we are disappointed in this decision. We continue to believe that the school is wrong to discriminate against our client. There is no exception under our nondiscrimination laws that allows a school to treat transgender students differently because of lack of understanding or discomfort about transgender people," said John Knight, LGBTQ policy director at the ACLU.

"To me, this is a simple question--am I going to be treated just like any other girl in my school. All I want is to be accepted by my school for who I am--a girl--and be able to take gym and use the locker room to change clothes like other [actual] girls in my class," Nova Maday said after the judge ruled in favor of reality.

The ACLU cited Illinois Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination. But Kellie Fiedorek, an attorney for the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), called it a "baseless" claim.

"That law specifically allows facilities like locker rooms to be reserved for girls, whose desire privacy is both important and understandable, particularly in the post-Weinstein era," Ms. Fiedorek said, referencing Harvey Weinstein, the disgraced notorious scum bag.

The ADF and Thomas More Society represented a group of concerned parents and students who intervened in the lawsuit.

"Schools should never be forced to give male students unrestricted access to areas where girls are changing clothes. Claiming a female gender identity doesn't change that," said Thomas Brejcha, chief counsel at the Thomas More Society.

ADF noted in a press release, that the transgender student continues to be allowed to change in the female locker room, but must do so behind a curtain.

And going along with his mental illness does him no favor. The suicide rate among transgender people, both before and after transition, is around 40 percent. And it has nothing to do with acceptance of the transition.

To help this group of people psychiatry must get involved and we must all stop pretending that biology is not the deciding factor of gender. That somehow a person can magically think he or she is a member of the opposite sex and therefore we must go along with it--this is asking us to lie about what is real, and this is what science denying is all about.

We need to treat people with gender dysmorphic disorder or gender identity disorder and stop pretending that it's other than that.

There was a time when a person who identified with being, say, Napoleon, was institutionalized. Now the ACLU wants us to call him Napoleon or "The Little Corporal," and treat him like the leader of the French armies.


Tweet

Illegal immigrant teen wants U.S. to kill her unborn baby and taxpayers to pay for it

Women's right to kill group

An immigrant teen, who was denied an abortion by a U.S. government official, has threatened to harm herself if we don't kill her baby, according to a government memo.

She believes that because the baby was conceived by rape, and that she doesn't want it, that killing him or her is acceptable and that the American taxpayers should pay for it.

The memo is addressed to Scott Lloyd, director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, an agency that shelters thousands of illegal, unaccompanied minors. 

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) posted the memo as part of its ongoing lawsuit over the rights for illegal minors who are in custody to have their babies killed and do so at the taxpayers' expense.

The document describes the rape taking place in the teen's home country [which may or may not be true] and believed she became pregnant as a result. 

The memo was written by the Office of Refugee Resettlement's deputy director describing that she told the doctor that she wanted to kill the baby in her womb. (She called it an abortion, but it's the same thing.)

The teen "disclosed to the medical doctor that she preferred to harm herself rather than to continue with her pregnancy."

In later visits, the teen told of how her mother and a potential sponsor wanted her to not kill the baby. At one point, she reported facing "physical harm" if she killed him or her.

"She felt pressured by her mother and potential sponsor to continue the pregnancy, but she wants to terminate the pregnancy," the memo said. The term 'terminate the pregnancy' means to kill the baby, usually before it travels through the birth canal, but some liberals believe it doesn't matter how late in the pregnancy that it's killed. Just as long as Planned Parenthood gets paid.

The recommendation of the deputy director is redacted, but Lloyd circled the word "disapproved" at the bottom of the memo with his signature. But unfortunately for the baby, the teen eventually received the okay to have the baby killed after U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled in the favor of killing the baby. 

Judge Chutkan has already been born so was able to make that decision.

Lloyd said that an abortion would not "cure the reality" of the teen's rape. Both killing the unborn and rape are forms of abortion, the letter said, but not in those exact words.

"Implicit here are the dubious notions that it is possible to cure violence with further violence," Lloyd said, obviously aware that killing the unborn is a form of violence and clearly immoral.

The ACLU accused Lloyd of implementing a "cruel and heartless policy," which is exactly what the ACLU wants to do to the unborn. 

Is it more heartless to not allow the teen to kill the baby and thus allow it to be adopted if she doesn't want it? Or is it more heartless to kill the baby that has no rights as far as the ACLU is concerned?



Tweet

There are no "botched" capital punishment executions

(Photo: Ark. prison photo)

Varner, Arkansas -- Kenneth Williams was initially sentenced to life in prison for killing 10-year-old Dominique Hurd, a cheerleader at the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff. 

Dominique (aka "Nicki") was described by her college coach and friend, Karen Blunt. She said, "Dominique was very, very smart . . . intelligent and full of life. Her soul was beautiful."

Nicki was studying to become a physician.

Court documents explain that Kenneth Williams, 19, kidnapped Hurd and a male friend at gunpoint. He drove them to several ATMs to get money and shot them both, emptying his gun, and drove away in a stolen car. This all came after he made the friend pull down Nicki's underwear and photograph her before he shot them.

The friend survived but Nicki died at the hospital.

Dominique Hurd

He was found guilty and sent to Cummins prison. But at the conclusion of that trial, he taunted the Hurd family by turning to them after the sentence was announced and saying "You thought I was going to die, didn't you?"

While serving time for Hurd's murder, Williams escaped from the prison in October 1999 in a 500 gallon barrel of hog slop. 

He walked two miles down the road and broke into the home of Cecil Boren. He confiscated Boren's guns and shot him six times before stealing his vehicle. 

Then he drove to Missouri but crashed into another vehicle as he was being chased by police. The wreck killed the other driver, Michael Greenwood.

In 2000, he was sentenced to death.

Numerous appeals had been filed by Williams' attorneys, including the claim that he is "intellectually disabled" and thus is ineligible for execution. They filed a final appeal Thursday claiming his medical conditions such as his sickle cell trait and lupus, puts him at risk for severe suffering during the execution.

He even became a Christian in prison and is sorry he shot all those people and killed a man with a stolen car. 

Unfortunately for Williams, his attorneys didn't have expertise in medicine nor psychiatry and thus couldn't prove that he would suffer as he made others suffer in fear as he murdered them in cold blood.

In a final attempt to save his life, he wrote to Arkansas reporter Deborah Robinson saying that he is sorry.

"To the families of my victims, to whom I have brought pain, great loss, and suffering, as shallow as 'I am sorry for robbing you of your loved one' can sound, I would rather say it, and mean it, than not say it at all," Williams wrote, not sounding very mentally challenged as his attorneys once claimed.

He asked for clemency so he could demonstrate to the parole board "I was no longer the person I once was. God has transformed me, and even the worst of us can be reformed and renewed."

Along with Williams, seven other Death Row inmates fought against their executions like their victims fought for their lives before they were killed by them. The grounds for a stay of execution was that the sedative used by Arkansas--midazolam, a drug to render them unconscious in botched executions in other states--didn't reliably prevent a painful death. 

In other words, the execution may have caused them pain because they couldn't peacefully go unconscious before their lives ended. Kind of what happened to 19-year-old Dominique Hurd when she was shot repeatedly as she lied awake as bullets pierced her flesh and entered vital organs.

The Arkansas Supreme Court denied the claim.

Lethal injection historically required a 3-drug cocktail: first was sodium thiopental, aka pentobarbital, to put the killer to sleep; then pancuronium bromide to bring on paralysis; and finally, potassium chloride to stop the heart. 

When Williams was given a lethal injection (after the injection site was swabbed with alcohol to prevent infection) on Thursday, he began lurching and convulsing before he died. This prompted calls for investigations and renewed exploration of Arkansas' effort to do a wholesale execution of eight killers before the drug expired at the end of the month.

Williams became the fourth convicted killer in eight days to get what he gave to others.

An Associated Press reporter who witnessed the execution said that about 3 minutes after the injection was given, Williams' body rapidly jerked 15 times, lurching violently against the restraint across his chest. Then the rate of jerking slowed to a final five.

J.R. Davis, a spokesman for Gov. Asa Hutchinson (who didn't witness the execution, said the movements were "an involuntary muscular reaction" that is a widely known effect of midazolam, the first of the three drugs given.

Williams' lawyers, who themselves and whose own friends and families were not affected by the Williams' murders called witness accounts "horrifying" and demanding an investigation into what they termed the "problematic execution."

The ACLU of Arkansas called for a review, saying the state may have violated the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

Blowing up a person, as Kim Jong Un had ordered, with an anti-aircraft gun is unusual, but it's probably quick and therefore not cruel. 

Beheading someone with a knife or sword is cruel, but unfortunately, it is not longer unusual.

But causing lurching and convulsions resulting from a tranquilizer injection just prior to death doesn't seem so terribly cruel to the victim as much as it does to the witnesses. 

Funny how people call upon the US Constitution when it suits their needs, but when it doesn't, they say it's irrelevant.

On Friday morning Republican Sen. Trent Garner, who witnessed the execution, tweeted that Williams did not "seem in pain . . . It was not cruel, unusual, botched or torture."

"Any amount of movement he might have had was far less than any of his victims," said Jodie Efird, one of Boren's daughters, who witnessed the execution.

State officials called the string of executions a huge success giving "closure" to victim's families.

All of the Arkansas inmates died within 20 minutes of their executions outset. In other states where midazolam was used, some executions took anywhere from 43 minutes to two hours.

Why not just give them something like ether to put them under before putting them out?

Please follow Brain Flushings by clicking the Follow tab in the right margin



Tweet

DHS memos signed by secretary give guidelines to deporting illegal aliens

Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly has signed new guidelines that give federal authorities sweeping power to more aggressively detain and deport illegal aliens inside our borders.

Kelly, in a pair of memos, provided specific detail on plans for the agency to hire thousands more enforcement agents and increase the pool of immigrants who are prioritized for removal. The plan also speeds up deportation hearings and has local law enforcement help make arrests. In other words, it actually upholds the law.

Kelly's directives would supersede almost all previous directives under the Obama administration and go beyond Obama's focus of only deporting hardened criminals and those with terrorist ties, unless they had already visited the White House.

In the guidelines Kelly stated: "The surge of immigration at the southern border has overwhelmed federal agencies and resources and has created a significant national security vulnerability to the United States."

He cited statistics from the Obama administration when ten to fifteen thousand additional apprehensions per month were made at the southern U.S. border between 2015 and 2016.

In order to prevent rioting by rabid leftists who see no problem with allowing anyone to enter the country, a White House official said the memos were merely drafts and are under review by their Counsel's Office, which is seeking some changes. The official, who spoke to Fox News on condition of anonymity because the process was not complete, declined to provide specifics.

President Trump announced plans in January that he would make good on his campaign promises to build the wall on the border with Mexico and increase enforcement action against the estimated 11 million illegal aliens trying to take American jobs or receive entitlement benefits they believe they are entitled to collect from U.S. taxpayers.

The Kelly memos are meant as a blueprint for DHS in order to formally establish new policies and direct agency staff to start following them. 

But many of the specifics for achieving the goals of Trump's executive orders still need clarification such as the funding situation. Kelly's memos direct federal officials to seek all available funding for the border wall, but the funds must be appropriated by Congress and will amount to over $20 billion.

Immigrant rights advocates said the memos mark a major shift in U.S. immigration policies by dramatically expanding the scope of enforcement operations. [Read: Immigration rights circumventors said the memos unfairly want to follow the letter of the law and that is bad for their business.]

The new procedures would permit authorities to seek quick deportation proceedings, which are currently limited to undocumented immigrants who've been in the U.S. for less than 2 weeks, to anyone who has been here for up to 2 years.

Mexican immigrants would also be immediately returned to Mexico who are caught at the border pending outcomes of their deportation hearings, which would avoid having to house them on U.S. property. That would save space and money for the government.

Unaccompanied minors would be deterred from entering the U.S. Over the last three years, there was a wave of around 155,000 unaccompanied minors who came here from Mexico and Central America. Under the new policies, their parents in the U.S. could be prosecuted if they are found to have paid smugglers to bring them across the border.

Joanne Lin, senior legislative counsel at the ACLU said in a statement that "due process, human decency, and common sense are treated as inconvenient obstacles on the path to mass deportation," obviously forgetting how liberals have been treating the U.S. Constitution as an 'inconvenient obstacle' and that the parents of unaccompanied minors should have the 'common sense' not to send their children here illegally and unaccompanied. She added: "The Trump administration is intent on inflicting cruelty on millions of immigrant families across the country."

That's one perspective. 

Another perspective is the fact that illegal immigrants are inflicting financial cruelty on taxpayers and are violating our laws. If we want to be a sovereign nation, we need borders and laws to ensure it. 

So far, it looks like President Trump is trying to fulfill his campaign promises regarding immigration. And that's a yooge reason he got elected.

Believe me.


Tweet