90 Miles From Tyranny

Wednesday, April 17, 2019

ILLEGAL ALIEN CHARGED WITH RAPING 7-YEAR-OLD GIRL IN VIRGINIA

CULPEPER COUNTY, VA (WTVR) – A 33-year-old immigrant, living in the country illegally, has been charged with raping a 7-year-old girl.

On Thursday, Culpeper Sheriff’s Detectives arrested Oscar Ramirez, 33, of Culpeper, for the rape of a seven-year-old girl, which reportedly occurred between April 6 and 7.

Ramirez was charged with one count of Rape of a Child less than 13 years of age and was taken into custody without incident. He is being held at the Culpeper County Jail without bond.

On Friday, an ICE Agent responded to the Culpeper Jail to place a detainer on Ramirez for failing to report for an immigration hearing in 2006 in Houston, Texas.

He will be deported to his home country of El Salvador after his legal proceedings in Culpeper are completed and any potential prison sentence has been served.

“I’m thankful for the work of Detective Maria Rodriguez on this investigation,” Culpeper Sheriff Scott Jenkins said. “This is another example of America’s need for secure borders and...

Attorney General Barr Blocks Catch and Release by Migration Judges

Immigration judges cannot release migrants who are caught sneaking into the United States, even if the migrants ask for asylum, says a binding legal decision by Attorney General William Barr.

The decision will dramatically shift the migration-caused civic and housing crises from the nation’s blue-collar communities over to the Congress and the Department of Homeland Security, whose budget and detention centers only have enough resources to house about 50,000 people year-round.

“The [text of the relevant] Act provides that, if an alien in expedited proceedings establishes a credible fear, he “shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum,” says Barr’s April 16 decision, titled. Matter of M-S-. Because of the law, “I order that, unless DHS paroles the respondent under section 212(d)(5)(A) of the Act, he must be detained until his removal proceedings conclude.”

“This is a HUGE ruling that will harm thousands seeking protection from persecution at the US border since far more will be held in detention even after passing the threshold screening under the credible fear standard,” complained Greg Chen, director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

The association’s lawyers make their money by guiding migrants and corporate hiring managers through the extremely dense network of migration laws and regulations. But Barr’s decision blocks the use of a common path for migrants who are trying to get through the courts and into the U.S. jobs they need to repay the smuggling fees they owe to the cartels.

Barr directed officials to delay implementation of the law for 90 days, giving DHS managers — and congressional leaders — three months to decide which migrants should be released into the nation’s cities and towns.

The delay gives time for DHS to set up tent cities where migrants can be held until the judges decide the asylum pleas. If DHS detains most of the migrants — and so prevents them from working — the next wave of migrants may decide that any effort to get into the United States would be an economic disaster for...

Dirty dealings of dirt devils who concocted Trump-Russia probe

By Andrew C. McCarthy
In Senate testimony last week, Attorney General William Barr used the word “spying” to refer to the Obama administration, um, spying on the Trump campaign. Of course, fainting spells ensued, with the media-Democrat complex in meltdown. Former FBI Director Jim Comey tut-tutted that he was confused by Barr’s comments, since the FBI’s “surveillance” had been authorized by a court.

(Needless to say, the former director neglected to mention that the court was not informed that the bureau’s “evidence” for the warrants was unverified hearsay paid for by the Clinton campaign.)

The pearl-clutching was predictable. Less than a year ago, we learned the Obama administration had used a confidential informant — a spy — to approach at least three Trump campaign officials in the months leading up to the 2016 election, straining to find proof that the campaign was complicit in the Kremlin’s hacking of Democratic emails.

As night follows day, we were treated to the same Beltway hysteria we got this week: Silly semantic carping over the word “spying” — which, regardless of whether a judge authorizes it, is merely the covert gathering of intelligence about a suspected wrongdoer, organization or foreign power.

There is no doubt that the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign. As Barr made clear, the real question is: What predicated the spying? Was there a valid reason for it, strong enough to overcome our norm against political spying? Or was it done rashly? Was a politically motivated decision made to use highly intrusive investigative tactics when a more measured response would have sufficed, such as a “defensive briefing” that would have warned the Trump campaign of possible Russian infiltration?

Last year, when the “spy” games got underway, James Clapper, Obama’s director of national intelligence, conceded that, yes, the FBI did run an informant — “spy” is such an icky word — at Trump campaign officials; but, we were told, this was merely to investigate Russia. Cross Clapper’s heart, it had nothing to do with the Trump campaign. No, no, no. Indeed, the Obama administration only used an informant because — bet you didn’t know this — doing so is the most benign, least intrusive mode of conducting an investigation.

Me? I’m thinking the tens of thousands of convicts serving lengthy sentences due to the penetration of their schemes by informants would beg to differ. (Gee, Mr. Gambino, I assure you, this was just for you own good . . .) And imagine the Democrats’ response if, say, the Bush administration had run a covert intelligence operative against Obama 2008 campaign officials, including the campaign’s co-chairman. Surely David Axelrod, Chuck Schumer, The New York Times and Rachel Maddow would chirp that “all is forgiven” once they heard Republicans punctiliously parse the nuances between “spying” and “surveillance”; between “spies” and “informants”; and between investigating campaign officials versus investigating the campaign proper — and the candidate.

The “spying” question arose last spring, when we learned that Stefan Halper, a longtime source for the CIA and British intelligence, had been tasked during the FBI’s Russia investigation to chat up three Trump campaign advisers: Carter Page, George Papadopoulos and Sam Clovis. This was in addition to earlier revelations that the Obama Justice Department and FBI had obtained warrants to eavesdrop on Page’s communications, beginning about three weeks before the 2016 election.

The fact that spying had occurred was too clear for credible denial. The retort, then, was misdirection: There had been no spying on Donald Trump or his campaign; just on a few potential bad actors in the campaign’s orbit.

It was nonsense then, and it is nonsense now.

The pols making these claims about what the FBI was doing might have been well served by listening to what the FBI said it was doing.

There was, for example, then-Director Comey’s breathtaking public testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on March 20, 2017. Comey did not just confirm the existence of a counterintelligence probe of Russian espionage to influence the 2016 election — notwithstanding that the government customarily refuses to confirm the existence of any investigation, let alone a classified counterintelligence investigation. The director further identified the Trump campaign as a subject of the probe, even though, to avoid smearing people, the Justice Department never identifies uncharged persons or organizations that are under investigation. As Comey put it:

“I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and...