Minneapolis 's Ilhan Omar’s District is the #1 Terrorist Recruitment Area of the U.S.

According to the FBI, Minnesota congresswoman Ilhan Omar represents the terrorist recruitment capital of the United States.
As reported by Fox News:

More men and boys from a Somali American community in Minneapolis have joined – or attempted to join – a foreign terrorist organization over the last 12 years than any other jurisdiction in the country.

Geez.
During that period, 45 Somalis left Minnesota to join either ISIS (based in Iraq and Syria) or the Somalia-based Islamic insurgency al-Shabab. Additionally, as of 2018, a dozen had been apprehended by authorities while trying to leave in order to support ISIS.
No other American area of Muslim refugee resettlement scores nearly as high.


Authorities are worried:

So what has made the area such a hotbed for such activity? And what has been Rep. Ilhan Omar’s record in addressing the issue — either before she was elected, or since?
The answers matter because federal authorities say they remain “highly concerned” about the terrorist connection with the Minneapolis Somalis – even though al-Shabab is struggling against the Somali government, and the so-called ISIS “caliphate” has crumbled under a sustained U.S.-led military campaign.

One official told Fox the area’s turn toward ISIS was particularly shocking:

“We are very conscious that there may still be fertile ground for that, and that is could re-start at any time. Based on historical experience, we had (an uptick) in 2007 and 2008 going for al-Shabab, then a lull. Then, as ISIS came back, we saw a whole bunch of people no longer headed for Somalia. They were headed for Iraq and Syria. That really caught us off-guard, we didn’t see that coming. It didn’t make sense to us. We understood why kids were going back to Somalia, but going to Syria was another we issue.”

What’s Ilhan Omar’s place in all this? Is she making matters worse?
In 2015 — when the left-wing politician was a state representative — six Somalis were arrested trying to sneak into Mexico and join ISIS. In response, she wrote a letter to the judge — asking for “compassion” along with a lighter sentence for one of the men.
Rudolph Atallah, former Africa Counterterrorism Director in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, claimed a disturbing misunderstanding of America on the part of Ilhan:

“Rep. Omar is asking for our justice system to support known terrorists, this sets an extremely poor precedence and should not be allowed. She clearly has a bias and an agenda and does not understand what the United States truly stands for.”

What of the intersection of terrorism and anti-Semitism? As I covered in January, she previously tweeted a prayer to Allah to break the world from Israel’s spell (here).
The media has hailed Ilhan’s election, which serves to create a more diverse landscape in the legislature. Her district voted her in, and there is nothing more American than democracy. Except for, perhaps, liberty. Let’s hope she understands that, above all. It’s liberty which makes America worth fighting for, and never fighting against. If she’s certain of our nation’s greatness, may she not only represent the 5th district; may she lead. And if not, next time around, may she lose.

-Alex

Five Reasons calming an National Emergency for the Border Wall is a Great Idea

Obama did it. Since the invention of the presidential mechanism every president since has used “national declarations of emergency” for one reason or another. As the president pointed out in his announcement several of them for much less significant “emergencies” than his much argued “national security threat” with which he passionately claims dangerous elements are invading our nation. President Obama used the declaration a dozen times. And this writer would wager that unless you’ve gone recently to look them up, you would be hard pressed to name any of the dozen. At minimum, two dealt with immigration, and the need of the executive to enforce law and protect America.

Precedent. National Review Fellow and Contributing Editor, and former Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy began his analysis of President Trump’s announcement by stating on my show, “While I may not like a President having this power, Constitutionally he’s been absolutely empowered to be able to do exactly what he’s done.” McCarthy is right. From Clinton who most accessed the action to Bush “43” and Obama the courts have consistently determined the chief executive was within his Constitutional right to declare such actions. Unlike the raging crazy stew boiling on Twitter, there is no requirement that Trump have an “invading uniformed force.” He also isn’t taking money that isn’t allocated and appropriated. All of the funds he is claiming will have been. These will include not only the billion plus of the monies in this year’s budget legislation but an additional three billion plus that will easily be properly defined from the Pentagon and Homeland Security as usable for border barrier development on the southern border. Of the eight billion he is laying claim to less than half of it will end up being budget reworks and even marginally questionable application of use. In addition McCarthy confirmed on my show that the President is on his strongest judicial grounds when the issue is framed as an act of “national defense.” Courts almost always back executive branch power to decide what constitutes such defense. They did so with Bush and Obama in launching man powered attacks with our military, and they did ultimately with every and ALL of Trump’s travel ban actions. Lastly the 9th Circuit—a court that sided against the President on multiple travel bans—just on Monday, ruled that the executive branch had broad discretion in building, repairing, and extending southern border barriers in a couple of limited locales. The President’s critics barely knew this ruling occurred and once brought to their attention usually attempt to argue that it was limited to the issues of public use and notification. Certainly it applies to those two areas. Nonetheless the use of the term “broad discretion” points to a consistent viewpoint in even our most liberal circuit that the president gets to make the decisions when it comes to national security.

It IS National Security. For some reason as soon as the president declared the national emergency the left side of twitter and the extreme left in America began to make memes about the President’s golf schedule, his ability to walk and chew gum, and attempt to discredit his declaration because of (get this) how long it took for him to declare it. (Back to what I was saying above this is oft-forgotten nearly biblically aged idea of being “long suffering.” Hence giving Congress every last chance possible to do the right thing.) The left’s actual argument that they honestly believe but dishonestly portray is that they just don’t care about security on the southern border. During the shutdown Democrat leadership was presented a combined report compiled by the military and the heads of each agency within the Department of Homeland Security in a private, closed door meeting. Upon the attempt to have the report explained to her—which had been based on years of data gathered from the military and DHS, Nancy Pelosi—the top elected Democrat in the nation—pushed back and said she rejected “the facts.” A literal refusal to acknowledge the conditions on the ground by the public servants who work there is what this amounted to. So with a heavy heart and having been given no other choice, the president had to decide, “Do we allow thousands more criminal aliens (17,000 apprehended since 2015,) more terrorists attempt to penetrate our territory (3,000 apprehended since 2015,) more drugs to kill our communities (enough fentanyl to kill more than 50 million Americans seized in the past ninety days,) and more human trafficking of women and children to occur?” President Trump decided these are national security threats. It is extremely unlikely that a court will decide they aren’t.

Democrats Are Working Against America. Nothing may be as overtly political in this debate as having watched the Democratic talking point on Immigration go from Presidents Clinton and Obama being in favor of “tougher border measures,” of seeing Obama build a few hundred miles of border barriers, and the current de facto position for Democrats of Beto O’Rourke saying we should “tear the existing walls down.” As someone who speaks with and hears from Americans daily this pendulum swing by Democratic leadership has not resonated with their base, and certainly not with the “rust belt” Trump Democrats that swung history’s most improbable election into an electoral landslide of 30 of 50 states on election night. Make no mistake, with Congresswoman Ilhan Omar questioning America’s right to defend herself... With Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez definitively calling America’s courts “anti-American” for affirming Trump’s travel bans that were found to be 100% Constitutional... And with Beto O’Rourke now openly saying that by building barriers on our southern border we are killing women and children... The Democratic personalities that have become the media darlings are making the “rust belt” equation worse for them. The church-going pro-union blue collar workers in the midwest that wondered if Trump would fight for their jobs, wages, and borders are being presented with an alternative of socialism, post birth abortions (infanticide), and open borders. The Democrats will lose this choice in historic numbers and by a larger margin than in 2016 if they do not change course.

Americans Still Demand It. Following the government shutdown that concluded on January 25, the day that the president signed the 21-day government authorization, and the day I predicted what “would happen” that has since occurred, another reality revealed itself. During the shutdown the media conducted snap polls asking America poorly worded questions about Trump building a concrete wall, 2000 miles, across the southern border. Even Trump supporters would answer that question negatively and with breathless wonder the media would then report the “unpopularity of Trump’s border security plans. Lulling themselves to sleep, believing the results of the fake polls, the Speaker of The House, withdrew an invitation for the President’s State Of The Union address. Believing themselves on even firmer ground they smirked as the shutdown continued. And when President Trump signed the 21 day government into existence they gloated. They even then re-invited the State of The Union to Capitol Hill. That night a turning point happened. 72%-76% of viewers liked the President’s speech of which a large chunk was used to lay out the rationale for the border protection. From that night until Friday’s declaration of a national emergency and the multiple national addresses the President has had to reinforce that rationale the President’s support and approval had increased in every poll taken. Ipsos, Harris, CNN, FoxNews, YouGov, Gallup all showed movement in Trump’s direction and in some of them he hit new highs. And in the Rasmussen poll—the only one two measure “likely voters” (as opposed to mere “registered voters”) Trump showed a 10% swing spending more than a week above 50%, and hitting a high of 52% (an amount greater than his election margin.) Latino support even surged from the mid-30’s to a record 51%. When asked about what all of this means, a staffer of a declared 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, “nothing good” came her reply.
Voters don’t turn to Twitter to get their information and the noise there is certainly disproportionate by comparison. So let me make this plain.
These five indicators explain why the Democrats have to some degree lost their minds in recent weeks.
These five indicators are as sound as they are sure.
Twitter hates them and mocks them but it can’t refute them.
The wall is being built. Trump is doing it.
Having given them every chance to partner with him in it, the Democrats now are forced in to a corner opposing it.

Which means they lose in 2020.

A real wall emergency

Two days ago, President Donald Trump announced he would declare the situation at the border to be a national emergency to enable him to move previously allocated money to fund a border wall. This was a long-telegraphed punch that had already sent leftists and some Republicans clutching their pearls since the idea was first floated weeks ago. Lost in all of this is the fact that this action, while taken by the president, is 100 percent the fault of Congress.
I have to say at the outset, I want a wall built where a wall is needed. I don’t claim to have the expertise on where those places are, but the people who have the job of protecting this country do and they have spoken. Our elected politicians, particularly Democrats, would rather play identity politics and appeal to their radical base than protect our country. It’s disgraceful.
That said, I’m not a fan of the declaration of the national emergency. It’s not that I don’t think hundreds of thousands of un-screened illegal aliens and millions of pounds of drugs flowing across the border constitutes an emergency, it clearly does. It’s that I don’t like the idea of a president, any president, being able to subvert the will of legislative branch.
Yes, half the legislative branch is currently in the hands of people uninterested in their constitutional duties, but they didn’t seize power, they were elected because the people they defeated didn’t do the things they promised they’d do. Actions have consequences.

But consequences and horrible people do not override the Constitution. I opposed it when Barack Obama created laws with his magic pen not because I thought DACA was bad (which I do), but because it was an unconstitutional action.
In this case, President Trump has some cover with the National Emergencies Act of 1976 which grants the President the ability to declare a national emergency and activate special powers to address that emergency.
The situation on the border is an emergency, no matter what Democrats say. One American killed by an illegal alien is an emergency, a completely avoidable tragedy they are content to ignore. The draw of identity politics is all they have, and it works. While combating that is crucial, violating the Constitution to do it shouldn’t be the pathway to do it.

Democratic Party Marxist-Leninist

Use the Communist Control Act of 1954 on the Democratic Party. An Act to outlaw the Communist/Democratic Party, to prohibit members of Communist organizations from serving in certain representative capacities, and for other purposes. “”

http://keywiki.org !!!!!

 

Vote Dems out!

Green New Deal is terrible

A 21st-century take on Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ Communist Manifesto was introduced in the form of a nonbinding resolution introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). The resolution effectively does nothing other than express the sense that Congress should pass a so-called “Green New Deal” whose wholly unattainable goals would almost certainly wreak havoc on the economy and drive the United States further into debt.
The term “insane” understates how bad the ideas presented in this resolution really are. Both the Green New Deal resolution and the FAQ document released with it read like something concocted in a drunken haze in a college dorm room. Although it’s certainly imaginative, it’s not remotely close to serious public policy. Perhaps that explains why Rep. Ocasio-Cortez removed the documents from her congressional website.

Although the resolution isn’t a serious public policy proposal, conservatives and libertarians do need to take it seriously. Why? Because this is how far to the left the Democratic Party has drifted. Although some wave the banner of “democratic socialism,” others who share socialist ideals avoid the label that Rep. Ocasio-Cortez claims by identifying as “progressives” who support green policies. When one peels back the initial layer of green, the same tired and failed ideas of socialism are there.
The resolution begins with basic findings. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Markey take the most recent report from the United Nations’ International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as though it was handed down from God to Moses on Mount Sinai on stone tablets. Although humans do contribute to climate change, many of the IPCC’s previous claims have been proven wrong. Remember, it was just 2007 when the IPCC warned that the world had only eight years to avoid the worst effects of climate change. The most recent report, released in October 2018, claims that we have 12 years to avoid the worst of climate change. When proven inaccurate, just move the goalposts.
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Markey complain that the United States is “responsible for a disproportionate amount of greenhouse gas emissions, having emitted 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions through 2014.” Well, during periods of increased prosperity, emissions have been higher. Emissions have declined during periods of slow growth and recessions. As recently as 2017, the United States saw a decline in greenhouse gas emissions.
Eventually, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Markey offer a long list of things Congress should do in a so-called “Green New Deal.” The resolution is chock full of policy recommendations that radical environmentalists have long demanded. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Markey want the United States to “achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions” by eliminating fossil fuels. The Green New Deal FAQs document also states that the United States should also eliminate nuclear energy, although the resolution itself doesn’t include such language.
The goal of this aspect of the Green New Deal is to transition the economy to renewable energy. If that sounds too good to be true, that’s because it is. Under the Paris Agreement, from which the United States withdrew, Americans were expected to see $2.5 trillion in lost gross domestic product (GDP), the loss of some 400,000 jobs, and an increase in energy costs between 13 and 20 percent. On top of that, the U.S. has led the world in carbon emissions reduction since withdrawing from the agreement. The difference between the Paris Agreement and the Green New Deal is that the Paris Agreement, by comparison, wouldn’t have been nearly as economically destructive.
Americans have a love affair with their vehicles. But under the Green New Deal, that car you’re so proud of would be banned. Since the economy will transition away from fossil fuels, your gas-powered vehicle must be given up for an electric vehicle. Forget about the trade-in value; it’s not like the dealership can resell your old car.
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Markey would have Congress invest heavily in high-speed rail. Again, that may sound great, but high-speed rail has proven to be nothing short of a boondoggle in the United States. Take California’s high-speed rail system. This project is years behind schedule and far more expensive than originally projecting, now estimated to cost $100 billion. Although the Green New Deal promises to ensure that the power of eminent domain doesn't abuse, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Markey fail to explain how they expect to protect private property while also building costly high-speed rail lines across the country, which would require land acquisition through eminent domain on a massive scale.
International travel would, presumably, become impossible. Those occasional steak dinners you enjoy might be a thing of the past, too. Although the resolution doesn’t explicitly say this, the Green New Deal FAQs document, no joke, states that the sponsors of the resolution “aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.” Cows, by the way, emit methane primarily through belching, not flatulence. Livestock represents nearly 3 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Another wild idea from the resolution is the goal of “upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings.” The FAQs for the resolution are more straightforward. That document states that the goal is to “[u]pgrade or replace every building in U.S. for state-of-the-art energy efficiency.” There are, uh, a lot of buildings in the United States. The resolution doesn’t specify which buildings would need to be upgraded or rebuilt. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, “there were 5.6 million commercial buildings in the United States in 2012, comprising 87 billion square feet of floorspace.” The cost of this would be immense.
The Green New Deal resolution also includes other leftist policy priorities, such as guarantees of “high-quality health care,” “safe, affordable, and adequate housing,” and “economic security.” The resolution doesn’t explicitly state this, but the FAQs document states that the federal government will provide “economic security”  to those who are “unwilling to work.” This is socialism. If you’re completely able-bodied, but you’re too lazy to work, the producers in the economy -- well, the few who are left under the Green New Deal -- will pick up your tab. That’s not okay.
Finally, there’s the cost of this incoherent, ridiculous monstrosity. The Green New Deal resolution calls for heavy “investments” by the government, claiming that “World War II and the New Deal created the greatest middle class that the United States has ever seen.” Well, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Markey are very wrong about the New Deal. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Treasury secretary, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., told the House Ways and Means Committee in May 1939, “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.”
The FAQs document claims that the United States “invested 40-50% of GDP into our economy” during World War II. It’s true that federal spending rose dramatically between 1942 and 1945, peaking at 42.7 percent of GDP in 1944. Of course, the United States was fighting a major war at the time. Spending declined immediately after the war ended. By 1948, federal spending was 11.3 percent of the economy. Federal spending as a percentage of the economy didn’t rise above 20 percent again until 1975.
In 2019, the Congressional Budget Office projects that federal spending will consume about 20.8 percent of GDP, or about $4.4 trillion. It appears that the sponsors of the resolution are suggesting that Congress more than double federal spending, pushing federal spending around $9 trillion to cover the cost of this unrealistic, incoherent, and absurd plan.

The Green New Deal has already drawn the support of several Democratic presidential hopefuls, including Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D- N.Y.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). After reading through the Green New Deal resolution and FAQs document, one has to wonder if these Democrats regret that decision.