ACLU, PLANNED PARENTHOOD, AND SANCTUARY CITIES: NOT PRO AMERICA!

By Jonathan E.P. Moore, and Friends of America!
ACLU, PLANNED PARENTHOOD, AND SANCTUARY CITIES: NOT PRO AMERICA! 
I woke up today to the news that the number of Sanctuary Cities has gone from 200 in 2015 to an unbelievable number of 500, and to this I say, if Trump cuts off these cities from Federal funds because of these Sanctuary Cities defying federal Immigration laws, which he can do, that we could pay a big chunk of our national debt down with those funds.

It’s time for all Americans to wake up and be aware of this long-calculated plan to transform America! We’ve had the ACLU slowly gnawing at our Christian beliefs by taking Christian symbols on government property down under the guise of their interpretation of separation of church and state while ignoring the fact that a majority of 75% of Americans are Christian based followers, and should have a say in it, if allowed, but not even asked!

Now we have Planned Parenthood and the founder Sanger, and Hillary Clinton’s World Order Dreams. President Trump is stopping the $500 Million funding that Planned Parenthood receives from the Federal Government, and that’s appropriate when you understand that PP fund a lot of Democrats who keep voting to fund Planned Parenthood through Planned Parenthood super PACS, and killing 300,000 unborn babies in 2016 alone…….What’s the real History behind Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, and the Alinskyite Hillary Clinton’s connection, and the long time game plan for the new attempted Socialist world order?
Click here>   THE REAL STORY BEHIND PLANNED PARENTHOOD!

My last observation is immigration, and how George Soros, and his funded puppets Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have used our immigration system and laws to advance their Globalist Agenda by ignoring our constitution and rule of law:

Transforming America Through Immigration!

In the spring of 2006 and again a year later, television viewers were treated to innumerable images of massive throngs of demonstrators flooding the streets of cities all across the United States, as they protested America's allegedly unjust and punitive immigration policies. The participants in these rallies demanded such things as amnesty for illegals, paths to citizenship, expanded guest-worker programs, loosened border controls, an end to workplace immigration raids, and a generalized expansion of rights and privileges for illegal immigrants in the United States. These grievance-filled spectacles generated considerable public anxiety; in their size, scope, and execution, they were reminiscent of the “velvet revolution” demonstrations that Soros had bankrolled in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The following groups -- all heavily funded by, or otherwise affiliated with, George Soros and his Open Society Institute -- were among the key organizers of the “immigrant-rights” demonstrations: ACORN, the American Friends Service Committee, the Center for Community Change, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the National Council of La Raza, and the Gamaliel Foundation.

The immigration-related agendas of Barack Obama fit hand-in-glove with those of the foregoing Soros-affiliated activist groups. Indeed, the President has repeatedly called for “comprehensive immigration reform” -- a euphemism for incremental amnesty. This is but an extension of the voting record that Obama compiled in the U.S. Senate, where he opposed workplace immigration raids; favored a “path to citizenship” so as to “bring people out of the shadows”; advocated laws that would permit illegal aliens to obtain driver's licenses; supported the DREAM Act, which would allow illegals to attend college at the reduced tuition rates normally reserved for in-state legal residents; and opposed a Senate amendment calling for the withdrawal of federal assistance to “sanctuary cities” that flout federal immigration laws.

In 2007 and 2008, Obama was a featured speaker at the annual conventions of the National Council of La Raza, which lobbies for racial preferences, mass immigration, and amnesty for illegal aliens. He lauded those in attendance for having worked so hard to “strengthen America together.” “It's been the work of this organization for four decades,” Obama said, “lifting up families and transforming communities across America. And for that, I honor you, I congratulate you, I thank you, and I wish you another forty years as extraordinary as your last.”

 While generally adorned with carefully crafted rhetoric of human rights and “family reunification,” there is in fact a more politically sinister motive underlying Obama's and Soros's support for groups that would not only transform illegals into U.S. citizens, but would also open the floodgates to further mass immigration from impoverished countries below America's southern border. Obama and Soros alike are well aware that the vast majority of first-generation Hispanic immigrants, once naturalized, tend heavily to vote Democrat. Thus, there is a great imperative to import, naturalize, and register as many of these voters as possible in the most expedient practicable manner. The ultimate, long-term objective is to establish a permanent Democratic voting bloc in the U.S. for generations to come. ~~By Discover The Networks, a Friend to America!

Now that we have sanctuary cities created by sanctimonious hypocrites, what’s next? Democrats are destroying the nation by establishing bastions of invincibility throughout the country. These illegal enclaves have been contrived to circumvent American laws on behalf of illegal immigrants. Initiators hope they will become future Democratic voters despite their criminality.

Most immigrants come here to improve their quality of life. But after committing crimes, some miscreants among them are protected by well-meaning people in these illegal havens. The claimed benevolent intention was to protect innocent people from being deported as they seek citizenship. Unfortunately, that is being abused by undesirables.

In essence, sanctuary cities are mini-states and exempt from American laws at the expense of our own citizens. Barack Obama approved of this lunacy and compounded it by indiscriminately commuting the sentence of 6,561 felons, many of whom were these illegal immigrants. This is far more than any other president. But then the Democratic Party has never lost as much as in the last eight years or been so desperate for new members. ~~By Bill Brandley, a Friend of America!

Most Americans, whether liberal or conservative, Democratic or Republican, do not show much understanding or respect for the principles of personal liberty. We criticize our political leaders, but we must recognize that their behavior simply reflects the values of people who elected them to office. That means we are all to blame for greater governmental control over our lives and a decline in personal liberty. Let me outline some fundamental principles of liberty.

My initial premise is that each of us owns himself. I am my private property, and you are yours. If we accept the notion of self-ownership, then certain acts can be deemed moral or immoral. Murder, rape and theft are immoral because those acts violate private property. Most Americans accept that murder and rape are immoral, but we are ambivalent about theft. Theft can be defined as taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another, to whom it does not belong. It is also theft to forcibly use one person to serve the purposes of another.

At least two-thirds of federal spending can be described as Congress' taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another American, to whom it does not belong. So-called mandatory spending totaled $2.45 trillion in 2015. Thus, two-thirds of the federal budget goes toward Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, food assistance, unemployment and other programs and benefits that fall into the category of taking from some and giving to others. To condemn legalized theft is not an argument against taxes to finance the constitutionally mandated functions of the federal government; we are all obligated to pay our share of those.

Many say that government spending guarantees one right or another. That's nonsense. True rights exist simultaneously among people. That means the exercise of a right by one person does not impose an obligation on another. In other words, my rights to speech and travel impose no obligations on another except those of noninterference. For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, food assistance or any other good or service whether a person can afford it or not does diminish someone else's rights -- namely, their right to their earnings. Congress has no resources of its very own. If Congress gives one person something that he did not earn, it necessarily requires that Congress deprive somebody else of something that he did earn.

Another area in which there is contempt for liberty, most notably on many college campuses, is free speech. The true test of one's commitment to free speech does not come when he permits others to say things with which he agrees. Instead, the true test comes when one permits others to say things with which he disagrees. Colleges lead the nation in attacks on free speech. Some surveys report that over 50 percent of college students want restrictions on speech they find offensive. Many colleges have complied with their wishes through campus speech codes.

A very difficult liberty pill for many Americans to swallow is freedom of association. As with free speech, the true test for one's commitment to freedom of association does not come when one permits people to voluntarily associate in ways that he deems acceptable. The true test is when he permits people to associate in ways he deems offensive. If a golf club, fraternity or restaurant were not to admit me because I'm a black person, I would find it offensive, but it's every organization's right to associate

freely. On the other hand, a public library, public utility or public university does not have a right to refuse me service, because I am a taxpayer.

The bottom line is that it takes a bold person to be for personal liberty, because you have to be able to cope with people saying things and engaging in voluntary acts that you deem offensive. Liberty is not for wimps. ~~By Walter E. Williams, a Friend of America!

WHAT IS A SANCTUARY CITY?   July 2015

There's no legal definition of a sanctuary city, county or state, and what it means varies from place to place. But jurisdictions that fall under that controversial term -- supporters oppose it -- generally have policies or laws that limit the extent to which law enforcement and other government employees will go to assist the federal government on immigration matters.

Some communities use nonbinding resolutions, executive orders, police department policies or orders, while others use laws to enforce such policies, according to the Congressional Research Service.

In San Francisco, for instance, a 1989 law called the City and County of Refuge ordinance prohibits city employees from helping federal immigration enforcement efforts unless compelled by court order or state law.

How many are there?

It was more than 200 state and local jurisdictions back in July of 2015 when this was written, but today it just reached 500 that have policies that call for not honoring U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention requests, the agency's director, Sarah Saldana, told Congress in March.

What's their history?

The sanctuary movement is said to have grown out of efforts by churches in the 1980s to provide sanctuary to Central Americans fleeing violence at home amid reluctance by the federal government to grant them refugee status.

It's also a product of the long-running national immigration debate, in which officials in some more diverse and liberal communities sometimes take issue with aggressive immigration enforcement efforts.

What's the argument for sanctuary status?

Proponents say that by encouraging members of immigrant communities to work with police without fear of deportation, such policies help authorities improve public safety by helping authorities identify and arrest dangerous criminals who might otherwise go undetected.

"I firmly believe it makes us safer," San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi told CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper." "We're a world-renowned city with a large immigrant population. ... From a law enforcement perspective, we want to build trust with that population."

Supporters say such policies are widely supported by police groups such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police and chiefs from the nation's largest police departments because they help communities unite to fight crime.

What do critics say?

"Unfortunately, a lot of cities in this country have decided they don't want to cooperate with ICE," Julie Myers Wood, former assistant secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, told CNN on Monday. "They think that cooperating with ICE causes them problems with respect to the immigrant community and public safety, but in fact it does exactly the opposite, as we've seen here."

Such policies "ignore the fact that if the illegal aliens were removed from the U.S., they would not be here to become victims, and the predators would be out of the country, too," Ohio Jobs & Justice PAC, which opposes sanctuary policies, says on its website.

"Sanctuary policies -- official or otherwise, result in safe havens (or safer havens) for illegal aliens involved in a variety of criminal enterprises -- since their illegal schemes are less likely to be uncovered and face less risk of deportation if caught by local law enforcement," the website says.

"Sanctuary policies also provide an environment helpful to Latin American drug cartels, gangs, and terrorist cells -- since their activities are less likely to be detected and reported by law enforcement."

Some Republican presidential candidates have used similar language. Donald Trump has blamed immigration policy for Kate Steinle's death. Another Republican, Jeb Bush, agreed, saying such policies encourage such crimes.

What has the federal government said?

In March, Saldana, the ICE director, drew heat from immigrant rights supporters after appearing at a congressional hearing to endorse efforts to rein in the sanctuary movement.

In written testimony submitted to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Saldana said that a significant factor affecting efforts to deport undocumented immigrants "has been the increase in state and local jurisdictions that are limiting their partnership, or wholly refusing to cooperate, with ICE immigration enforcement efforts."

"While the reasons for this may vary, including state and local legislative restrictions and judicial findings of state and local liability, in certain circumstances we believe less cooperation may increase the risk that dangerous criminals are returned to the streets, putting the public and our officers at greater risk," she said.

During questioning, she was asked if she would support a new federal law mandating local cooperation.

"Thank you, amen," Saldana reportedly answered, according to media reports.

That stance quickly drew the attention of critics such the American Civil Liberties Union, which said in a blog post that Saldana's comments "insulted all the states and localities across the country who have wisely decided to stay out of immigration enforcement."

She quickly issued a statement saying that any such legislation would "be a highly counterproductive step and lead to more resistance and less cooperation in our overall efforts to promote public safety."

What's next?  ~~ By Michael Pearson, CNN……

Obama’s main legacy: the collapse of the Democratic Party and the anti-constitutional lawlessness ideas of Sanctuary Cities is what’s next!

Obama is a once-in-a-generation political athlete who will always be remembered as the nation’s first African-American president. But a goodly portion of what he has labored for over two terms could now wash out with the political tide.

His party has been devastated beneath him. It began in 2010, when Republicans took the House by winning 63 seats, the biggest pickup since 1948, and six seats in the Senate. In 2014, Republicans gained another 13 House seats and took control of the Senate. Democrats lost more than 900 state legislative seats in this period.

This was chalked up to the midterm effect, the product of a smaller, more Republican-leaning electorate in nonpresidential years. The GOP won Senate races in blue states. It minimized losses in the House. It picked up more governorships, including in Vermont, and made striking gains in state legislatures from Kentucky to Connecticut.

All in a presidential year. The GOP controls the presidency, the US Senate and House, and roughly two-thirds of the country’s governorships and state legislatures. The Democrats are now, judging by the scorecard of major offices, the nation’s minority party.

What happened? From the beginning, Obama pushed the left-most plausible agenda without regard to political consequences. His signature initiative, ObamaCare, was forced through Congress despite its manifest unpopularity and with the crucial assistance of obvious falsehoods (i.e., that it would reduce premiums and people could keep their doctors).

When Obama’s initial legislative overreach cost him his congressional majorities, he proceeded with executive overreach, especially on environmental regulation and immigration. His attitude was that everyone had to get with his program and that if they didn’t, they were either stupid or spiteful. He believed less in the usual political arts of compromise and personal relationships than in the irresistible power of his own words.

Having made no real effort at party-building and after a series of disastrous midterms where his campaigning basically saved no one, he had no protégé to turn to in order to try to win his third term. The political bench was empty. He had to reach back to his vanquished rival, Hillary Clinton, whose inadequacies he had exposed in the 2008 primaries and who was almost comically ill-suited to energizing the Obama coalition.

Those voters were considered Obama’s enduring political contribution — an ever-growing bloc of minorities, millennials and the college-educated who would swamp older white voters and constitute an ideological ratchet, turning the country’s politics steadily to the left. ~~With Rich Lowry

Don't forget to follow the Friends Of Liberty on Facebook and our Page also Pinterest , Twitter , Tumblr and Google Plus PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.
Friends of Liberty is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights. Support the Trump Presidency and help us fight Liberal Media Bias. Please LIKE and SHARE this story on Facebook or Twitter.

WE THE PEOPLE

TOGETHER WE WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! 

Join The Resistance and Share This Article Now!