90 Miles From Tyranny

Monday, September 9, 2019

60 Terrifying Reasons Trump Is Right to Reduce Refugees

Here are three facts that the most hysterical voices attacking the Trump administration’s proposal to radically reduce or freeze refugee admissions don’t want you to know:

1) They make billions of dollars off the federal refugee resettlement racket;

2) They are protected by the Open Borders Inc. media, which routinely whitewashes the gobsmacking financial self-interest of the “Let Them All In” leeches; and

3) They are never held accountable when untold numbers of the world’s most wretchedly violent and aggrieved refugees come here to sabotage the American Dream.

While left-wing religious groups, tax-exempt non-profits tied or allied to George Soros, and the amnesty-shilling Catholic Church scream “No hate, no fear, everyone is welcome here!” at the top of their lungs, American neighborhoods are being overrun by dangerous foreign criminals and jihad plotters. David Miliband, president and CEO of International Rescue Committee, attacked the White House plan to slash refugee numbers from an Obama-era high of 100,000 to less than the current historic low of 30,000 as “inhumane.” Is it because cutting the numbers would cut in to Miliband’s first-class travel and business lunch tabs? Malkin Truth-O-Meter: mostly likely true!

What Miliband neglects to mention in his diatribe against President Trump that his organization is one of 9 behemoth government contractors that works with the hostile United Nations and encrusted State Department social justice warriors to import thousands of new refugees every year with little input from the communities in which they are dumped. Miliband earns nearly a million-dollar salary and by one estimate, IRC has raked in nearly $900 million in refugee resettlement profits over the last decade. When you cut through the Statue of Liberty smokescreen of the open borders “charities,” the math is clear:

Reduced refugees means reduced cash flow.

Zero refugees means zero cash flow.

Why should taxpayers continue to see their hard-earned money siphoned away to feed the Trump Resistance Machine and Democrat Party’s Permanent Ruling Majority Project?

There are even more compelling reasons to throttle the refugee flow. According to the logic-twisting, ICE-doxxing cheerleaders at the New York Times, refugee reductions are the real threat to our nation because if we don’t keep importing hordes of Muslim translators from Iraq or Afghanistan, it would “undermine” our national security.

This is just plain ass-backwards.

The Trump-bashers and border-phobes equate any and all criticism of the refugee program as racist, xenophobic hatred. But it’s not all sweetness and light. They’re not all “yearning to breathe free.” Some of them just want free stuff. Some of them want to kill us. Many of them have absolutely no interest in assimilating themselves into our customs, measures, and laws. And many of them have outright contempt for Western civilization. They’re not here to strengthen our nation with their “diversity.” They’re here to destroy it. That’s fact, not “hate.”

In Open Borders Inc, I have profiled 60 of the planet’s most maleficent refujihadis nabbed over the past dozen years. Here are their names (you can learn their full stories in Appendix G of the book) . And remember: these are only the ones we’ve caught:

Barnes & Nobles glorifies Che Guevara in the heart of Miami

By Cuba ArchiveLast Thursday, I went into the Barnes & Nobles bookstore at Miracle Mile, Coral Gables, to grab a coffee between meetings and lay eyes on some books, which have enamored me since childhood. To my astonishment, as I walked in from the back entrance, the first thing that caught my eye was a stack of books of Che Guevara in prominent display under a sign for “Reference books.”

I went straight to the book Che, a revolutionary icon (by Luis Enrique Martínez, New York: Charwell Books, 2018). Page after page tells a selective and glorified story of Guevara under subtitles such as “The legend is born,” “The messenger of love,” “A revolutionary adventurer,” “The price of glory,” “Che lives forever,” with many glossy photos from many phases of his life. I found no subtitles such as “The killing machine,” “the butcher of La Cabaña,” “terrorist,” “aristocratic racist,” or other less laudatory labels also used to describe him. A few brief sentences of the 187-page volume referred to his command at La Cabaña prison but fail to even mention any of the human beings executed there by his order (“just around two hundred”) and missing were photos of the execution wall. There’s not a peep on the camp he created at Guanahacabibes, a remote peninsula in Cuba, to send his underlings at the Ministry of Industry for hard labor as “rehabilitation” punishment for all kinds of so-called transgressions. Missing too were references to his leadership in eliminating free press, destroying the economy, and installing a totalitarian dictatorship in Cuba, of his support for nuking the US during the missile crisis, or of his defiant declaration to the UN General Assembly that “we will continue to execute as long as necessary.” The page at the end of the volume for “Suggested Reading” had a bibliography with just more adoring works and selective Che writings. This is what Barnes and Nobles offers under “Reference books.”

I asked the nice staffers if they had any books on Osama Bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin, Mao or other famous world figures known for their revolutionary views or as leaders of non-democratic regimes. They were helpful but could not find any. All they knew about Guevara was that he adorns lots of t-shirts. So, I asked to see the manager and when Andy arrived, I explained to him, very politely, that Miami was the home of a large Cuban American community that had suffered directly from Guevara’s actions and was, in general, particularly sensitive to the misguided Che cult. I told him I was not in favor of censorship but that I knew children and siblings of men executed by Guevara who lived in Miami. Plus, I said, I would have been just as upset had I found a glowing book on Osama Bin Laden displayed prominently at a B&N bookstore in my New Jersey hometown, that lost ten people on September 11th. Andy was clueless, he told me he was born in Cuba but had left as a...

The Trayvon Hoax That Divided America Is About to Be Exposed

On Monday. September 16, Joel Gilbert will preview his new documentary, “The Trayvon Hoax,” in the 500-seat Ballroom of the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The screening begins at 1 p.m. Admission is free, and Gilbert is encouraging all interested parties to come see for themselves what could be a game-changer in the way the media report racially-charged news. Gilbert’s findings are that significant.

Having written a book on the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin — If I Had a Son-- I have been following Gilbert’s progress with interest. In fact, I introduced Gilbert to George Zimmerman, the man who shot Martin. Those who have followed the case know that not since the Scottsboro boys has any ordinary citizen endured the kind of malicious and conspicuously false reporting Zimmerman has. My hope was that Gilbert would set the record straight.

Gilbert has done that and more. In the course of his relentless research into the shooting and subsequent trial, I can say without risk of overstatement that he has unearthed a legal fraud the likes of which I know no parallel. Not only has Gilbert discovered it, but he has also proved it six ways from Sunday, including DNA and handwriting analysis.

If I were Trayvon Martin’s parents or his family’s attorneys, I would be very nervous right now. If I were Florida state attorneys who prosecuted the case, I would be more nervous still. And if I were the media who covered this case — are you listening Matt Gutman and Lisa Bloom? — I would prepare to be mortified. The coverage of this case was a disgrace from day one.

To uncover this staggering fraud, Gilbert did what reporters used to do. He immersed himself in the milieu that produced Trayvon Martin. He mastered the patois of urban black Miami. He reviewed the thousands of text messages, tweets, Facebook and Instagram postings sent and received by Martin and his friends. He interviewed George Zimmerman and heard, from the only person who knew, Martin’s final words, words that revealed the cause of Martin’s tragic downward spiral.

Gilbert did some serious shoe leather reporting as well. He visited all the relevant Miami-area high schools, the neighborhoods where Martin and his friends hung out, the streets of Miami’s Little Haiti, and the town community where Martin died.

At the end of his research, Gilbert knew Trayvon Martin better than his parents did, literally. As their deposition revealed, they had no idea how Martin’s life had descended into a violent mix of street fighting, guns, drugs, burglary, and sex. Although both parents made good incomes, their separate lives created an abyss where...

Should women be permitted to protect their own bodies? Or should they be forced to passively endure an attack until an authorized protector from the government can ride to their rescue?
On September 3, Lachelle Hudgins wounded a robber who had attempted to steal her purse. While the mainstream media pan the attack as an overreaction to an attempted purse-snatching, Hudgins, who was there, saw it differently.

According to the video recorded by a local ABC reporter, five attackers approached her car in the wee hours of the morning. How was she to know the attack would end with only a stolen purse? “With so many men surrounding her car and trying to get in the car, she did the only thing she could think to do. She reached in her purse for her gun.” Hudgins said of the incident, “I saved my life.”

In all the current hysteria to “buy back” (translation: “confiscate”) guns, we should not overlook this question: Should women be permitted to protect their own bodies? Or should they be forced to passively endure an attack until an authorized protector from the government can ride to their rescue?

I can reasonably assume Ronnie Preyer’s opinion: He’s against women being armed. Or he would be if this serial rapist wasn’t shot to death by a Cape Girardeau woman fighting to protect her body from his attack. After Preyer raped her the first time, she dutifully called the police. A few days later, he returned to attack her a second time. This time, instead of a phone, she used a gun to protect herself.

Ricky Wright would likely join calls for sensible gun control after being shot in the face by Michelle Booker when he attempted to steal her car and drive off with her children inside. Justin Martin, were he alive, would also likely join the chorus for gun control, after being shot trying to invade the home of an 18-year-old woman with her new baby. Go mama bear! A 70-year-old grandmother in Philadelphia created yet another gun-control advocate when she wounded a 43-year-old home invader trying to...