Wasserman Schultz aide in Pakistan still liquidating assets in U.S.

Sanctuary city Portland released a monster deported 20 times. He then brutally raped a 65-year-old woman.

Cities have a right to ignore the federal government. There are times when this is a good thing. When ICE issues a detainer on an illegal immigrant with a criminal history who has been deported 20 times, it’s not the right time to invoke their “tolerance” and ignore the request.

Portland, which recently declared itself as a sanctuary city, decided that ignoring ICE and releasing Sergio Jose Martinez was the right thing to do. Unfortunately, he allegedly found a victim and brutally assaulted her before stealing her car.

As reported by KGW:

According to court documents filed in March 2017, Martinez has a history of illegal entry into the United States. He has been a transient in the Portland area for more than a year and has been deported 20 times.

Martinez has at least five probation violations for re-entering the United States. His most recent removal was in November 2016, according to the March court documents.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) lodged an immigration detainer against Martinez, asking authorities to notify them before releasing Martinez to allow ICE to take him into custody. The Department of Homeland Security said a detainer was requested for Martinez in December 2016, but he was released into the community and authorities did not notify ICE.

It’s a cities responsibility to handle law enforcement for its people. Sometimes, that means ignoring the politically charged status of being a sanctuary city and putting the safety of American citizens above the feelings of criminal illegal immigrants. Portland and many other cities across the nation refuse to learn this lesson. Thankfully, people have the ability to leave. I’d strongly encourage doing so if you live in Portland.

The post Sanctuary city Portland released a monster deported 20 times. He then brutally raped a 65-year-old woman. appeared first on Conservative Haven.

via Conservative Haven http://ift.tt/2vb9wb0

If you’re near the border, you can (and should) be asked about citizenship

There’s a problem at the border. People are coming across illegally. That’s not news. What may be new to people is that law enforcement can ask people within 100 miles of the border whether or not they’re here legally.

It sound Draconian and in many ways it is. “Show us your papers!” However, it’s not nearly as bad as it’s being played by the media, nor is it unreasonable. We are a sovereign nation (for now) and as such it’s important that law enforcement has the ability to at least ask the question.

Here’s the problem. We’ve come to the crossroads with law enforcement where people on both the right and the left have complaints about how the law is enforced. There are righteous complaints about certain practices by law enforcement (don’t get me started on civil asset forfeiture) but there are even more ridiculous complaints. This is where we get to a story in San Diego.

As reported by College Fix:

According to The San Diego Tribune, the English, art, and theater teacher told a BP officer that “she believed she did not have to answer their questions,” whereupon she was informed she had to answer the query about citizenship but not others.

One agent showed Parmely a card detailing immigration law and a US Supreme Court decision noting the BP can “operate checkpoints within 100 miles of the border and […] ask questions about citizenship without warrants.”

The key phrase here is “ask questions about citizenship without warrants.” People often get up in arms about warrants. Much of the angst is self-inflicted by law enforcement as there has been tremendous overreach over the last couple of decades with warrantless… well… everything. However, when it comes to asking questions necessary to ascertain a situation, the thought that law enforcement must present a warrant before being able to ask them is ridiculous.

This particular teacher was trying to make a statement against discrimination. While it’s almost certainly true there’s discrimination near the border and around the nation when it comes to people who have the potential based upon their appearance or accent of being an immigrant, the notion that law enforcement can’t even ask the question is ludicrous. This teacher made the wrong statement at the wrong time in the wrong way.

Here’s the video:

There’s a fine line between holding law enforcement accountable and attempting to obstruct their ability to enforce the law.

The post If you’re near the border, you can (and should) be asked about citizenship appeared first on Conservative Haven.

via Conservative Haven http://ift.tt/2uMv1g2

Why I defend religions… all of them

The Federalist Party is a firm believer in defending the 1st Amendment, an important portion of which is freedom of religion. How the party views religious influence is very similar to my personal beliefs. I want to keep government out of the church at all costs.

Let’s look at the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There are two parts here. The first is currently not in jeopardy, though it would be foolish to believe the government would never overreach to the point of establishing “acceptable” religions. It’s far fetched to us today, but things change. The second portion is the part that’s directly relevant because it’s under attack.

We hear about it every few days. “Discrimination” has become the most powerful political word of our time. If you can label anything discriminatory, everything else is pushed aside. That’s why colleges are accelerating their progressive indoctrination. That’s why the media is quick to attack anything related to Judeo-Christian values (while simultaneously slow on the draw when there’s a chance other religious beliefs are in play).

It’s why bakers are forced to bake cakes that go against their religious beliefs. It’s why churches are being bullied into choosing to start performing services that don’t match their doctrine. There’s discrimination that exists. I’m not naive. However, the tide has turned and many sins of the past are being repaid tenfold against conservatives and Christians, most of whom do not practice true discrimination.

This is where it gets sticky. I’m a Christian. On the surface it may seem unfaithful to defend the rights of atheists or Muslims or Buddhists or Pastafarians. In reality, the only way to defend my rights as a Christian is to stand by the Constitution word-for-word and demand that Congress not make any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. My freedom to worship my God as I am commanded is too important to me to leave to the judgment of Congress or the Supreme Court.

When man’s judgment is at play, it will invariably be flawed in one way or another. The only solution is to take man’s judgment out of the equation, including my own. This wisdom from the founders helped them in their quest to not follow in England’s footsteps and it is just as relevant today.

In fact, it may be more so.

To do this, we must maintain a strict separation of church and state.  That’s not to say we need to suppress our beliefs when making political decisions, but we cannot allow the establishment of restrictions. Common sense restrictions for preexisting laws should be maintained; if a human sacrifice is performed in the name of some “religious” belief, it’s still murder. However, “cake laws” (any laws that demand services be rendered by private businesses or citizens that go against their beliefs) cannot be allowed to stand even when the ACLU or their cronies invoke “discrimination.” Should a Muslim baker be forced to bake unleavened bread for Passover? How about an atheist baker who doesn’t want to bake a cake proclaiming praise to God? As private business owners with their own religious beliefs, the government has no right to force or fine them. The community can apply pressure through the free market system or through their right to peaceably assemble for protest, but that’s on citizens, not the government.

While most would agree because they don’t want the church to influence the state, the concept works in both directions. We need to keep that separation as wide as possible if we have any hope of protecting our religious freedoms. As a Christian, I use my beliefs to reach people and make disciples of the nations as we are taught. As a Federalist, I realize the only way to prevent a conflict between my religion and the law is to keep government out of the church altogether.

The key to maintaining our religious freedoms is to keep government as far from the church as possible. The only way to do that is to keep government out of every church, even those who teach things against our own beliefs. Moreover, the freedom to practice religion as we’re instructed means we can change hearts and minds for our Lord. That makes this stance a win-win in my opinion.

via Soshable http://ift.tt/2uKEaFE

The only legitimate fountain of power…

James Madison is notable for many important quotes, but my personal favorite is this one:

“The people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived.”

If ever there was a quote made for the people of today, it’s this one. So many Americans are lost in the fog of false accountability. We rely too heavily on government because we assume they have the power. In some ways, they do, but it’s a power limited by the constraints of the Constitution. This is important to remember because too often it’s just assumed that what the government says or does is to be taken as the final word.

We have the power. It’s not just with our votes. We have the ability to rise up and work together to rein in the tremendous levels of overreach we’ve seen from Washington DC our whole lives. We don’t need to rise up in arms as our founding fathers did. Today, we still have enough law and order in America to be able to rely on proper political channels. This is why the growth of the Federalist Party is so vibrant and relevant. It’s time to reassert our interest and adherence to the Constitutional governance we have at our fingertips.

via Soshable http://ift.tt/2vApdG8

We want ideological alignment, not “moving on to” an agenda, Scaramucci

When the first round of cabinet picks and short list Supreme Court Justices were coming out, I was admittedly surprised. My worst nightmare was that the President would follow up his victory by bringing in moderates and even liberals into the White House. He did to some extent, but a good chunk of the people he picked were conservatives such as Mick Mulvaney, Scott Pruitt, and Neil Gorsuch.

Of course, he also brought in problematic people. Reince Priebus led the moderates. Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner led the liberals. Steve Bannon led the alt-righters. Then, there were those who weren’t even on my radar for their politics. Among them was Sean Spicer.

Anthony Scaramucci is leading communications now and we should all be concerned. This is an odd strategic pick, but more importantly it’s a pick that brings with it the baggage of strong liberalism tempered by an alleged “fiscal conservatism” that thus far has not been made evident. The progressive views he has shared in the past are available for all to see.

What worries me is that he’s not disavowing these views. Instead, he’s simply deleting them to remove the distraction and “moving on to” the President’s agenda.

Full transparency: I'm deleting old tweets. Past views evolved & shouldn't be a distraction. I serve @POTUS agenda & that's all that matters

— Anthony Scaramucci (@Scaramucci) July 22, 2017

Let’s set aside the fact that deleting Tweets before claiming transparency is laughable at best. What’s striking is that he’s not expressing any changes in his perspectives. This is a job and if his job is to communicate the President’s agenda, his perspectives won’t make it in, right? Wrong, and it’s an insult for them to think we’re that naive.

The Comms Director has a direct line to the President’s ear. The last thing we need is even more liberal perspectives swaying the President further to the left. I’m all for people changing their perspectives. Heck, I was in favor of the Iraq War over a decade ago. People can change their minds. The problem with Scaramucci is that he’s not claiming to change anything, whether it’s his leftist opinions on gun control, abortion, or the border wall.

Americans didn’t vote for Donald Trump because they wanted more liberals in the White House. They would have voted for Hillary Clinton if that was their goal and Scaramucci seems more ideologically aligned with the Democrats than Republicans. What does this say about an administration that has accomplished so little in its first six months and that has been embroiled in controversy after controversy?

It’s not too late for the President to put in a right-minded, ideologically aligned Communications Director on the job. Call it a mulligan. Say he was unaware of Scaramucci’s old views or that he fell for a sales pitch. Humble yourself, Mr. President, and get a conservative to handle the communications for your administration. Stop proving that my initial fears were justified.

via Soshable http://ift.tt/2uTIsNX

Stop telling me to wait on defunding Planned Parenthood

Every time I ask about when the GOP will use its majorities and control of the White House to defund Planned Parenthood, I’m met with a flurry of responses. The most common one has been that we have to wait until they’re able to repeal Obamacare because they can take care of Planned Parenthood in that particular piece of legislation. Well, it turns out they can’t. If the Senate bill passes, it will not defund Planned Parenthood.

As I’ve noted before, defunding Planned Parenthood will not prevent abortions. In fact, it would make this political organization (that claims to not be a political organization) even more powerful than it is today. The reason we must defund Planned Parenthood is because it’s a moral blight on our nation to directly fund murder. This, more than anything else, is why the organization must be forced to generate its own revenue by having people willingly contribute rather than forcing every tax-paying American to participate.

To those who have been telling me to wait, what am I waiting for now? It’s not going to be part of the health care bill. There’s not going to be a better time in the future to end the funding. What excuse do you have for me now that the pretend-pro-lifers in GOP leadership have at their disposal everything they need to make it happen?

via Soshable http://ift.tt/2uIRyg7

Maxine Waters running for President? Yes, please!

We’ve been very clear that we’re not impressed with the pseudo-conservatism practiced by President Trump or the majority of the Republican Party in DC, but we’ve also never been so naive as to believe the Democrats would be better. It’s for this reason that we really, really hope Congresswoman Maxine Waters from California acts upon her apparent willingness to run for President. That would be a slam dunk… for the GOP.

According to The Resurgent:

Since the 2016 elections, Waters has been an  unabashed critic of the Republican majority and President Trump. Concerning alleged Russian meddling, she believes Trump will either be impeached or criminally charged. Refusing to accept that American voters rejected her Party last November, Waters has even surmised that Trump’s election victory was not legitimate.

This has stoked speculation from both the Right and the Left that she may run in 2020. Just a few months ago, Salon published a piece listing five reasons why Waters should forge a run for the White House. She is a prominent member of the Congressional Black Caucus and many Civil Rights leaders have praised her work.

To add more substance to the story, HotAir points out:

Absolutely true, at least to many people outside of California’s 43rd Congressional district. Maxine Waters has been in the House for twenty-six years as one of its most extreme progressives, and has spent much of the past year agitating for Donald Trump’s impeachment. On the other hand, the 78-year-old Waters has gotten a surprising amount of buzz on the Left as a potential 2020 presidential candidate.

As a California native, I can tell you with absolute certainty that even Waters’ brand of crazy resonates here. Of course, there’s pretty much zero chance a Democrat would lose California at any point in the near future.

The post Maxine Waters running for President? Yes, please! appeared first on Conservative Haven.

via Conservative Haven http://ift.tt/2uRz2CB

$2M government training program helps people land jobs… 17 of them

There is little doubt among conservatives that government waste is rampant. It seems like the majority of programs that are intended to help people end up doing more harm than good when the whole picture is examined. Then, there are programs like the one in Kentucky launched in part by the Obama administration in 2015 that doesn’t need much examining to determine its failures. For $2M, they were able to help precisely 17 people get jobs.

17 people. $2M dollars. To put that into perspective, they could have just given 40 people $50,000 and told them to improve their own situations with the direct handout.

Daily Signal did an in-depth review of the debacle:

The job training program, budgeted for a total of $4.5 million, was supposed to last through 2019 and train up to 400 people  from an economically depressed region of Kentucky for middle- to high-skill careers in information technology.

As in nearly every circumstance outside of military and a handful of other issues, the government would do best to just stay out of the way instead of trying to get involved. History has demonstrated that private industry and the will of individuals yield far better results than the machinations of bureaucrats.

The post $2M government training program helps people land jobs… 17 of them appeared first on Conservative Haven.

via Conservative Haven http://ift.tt/2tPgjCF

Who saved me from getting a $300 ticket for being way too cute? This girl. Laguna Niguel police officer even gave her this traffic safety brochure in lieu of a speeding ticket.

via Facebook http://ift.tt/2uHEQy7