Rick Perry Warns ISIS May Already Be in the United States

Screen Shot 2014-08-21 at 11.17.38 AM

By Joel Gehrke
August 21, 2014 1:24 PM

ISIS terrorists may already be in the country, Governor Rick Perry (R., Texas) warned, saying that the terrorists’ own version of “mission creep” will draw them from Iraq to the United States.

“I think there is the obvious great concern that because of the condition of the border, from the standpoint of it not being secure and us not knowing who is penetrating across, that individuals from ISIS or other terrorist states could be [entering the country],” Perry said during an event hosted by National Review and the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C.

“And I think it is a very real possibility that they may have already used that [entry point],” Perry continued. “We have no clear evidence of that, but your common sense tells you, when we see the number of criminal activities that have occurred — I’m talking about the assaults, the rapes, the murders — by individuals who have come into this country illegally over the last five years, the idea that they would not be looking at and managing any of those types of attacks from that region is not a good place to be.”

The number of individuals coming from countries known as terrorist risks has spiked recently, Perry said, though he emphasized that we don’t know if any of those individuals have terrorist connections themselves.

“We know that there are individuals from countries that have terrorist ties that are being apprehended and we had reports of record high numbers of those individuals who were coming in back in the summer,” Perry tells National Review Online.

Perry noted during his speech that the American photojournalist James Foley was murdered by a British radical who has joined ISIS, also known as the Islamic State, a fact that raises the specter of other Islamic State radicals who have the Western passports necessary to get into the United States.

The Texas governor said that President Obama should not rule out the idea of sending a traditional ground force into Iraq if that’s what is necessary to stop the Islamic State. That said, his own solution involved sending more special-forces operators into the country and providing more support to Kurdish security forces.

“I think all your options have to be open from the standpoint of dealing with this terror, this force in that country,” he said during a brief Q-and-A after the speech. “I think signaling to your enemies what you are not going to put on the table is very very bad, both strategical and tactical errors by this administration. We need to have all of our options open. It is too important to Jordan, it is too important to Israel, it is too important to the interests of the West in that part of the world to not stop ISIS. They are not going to stop in that region of the world. They need to be eliminated; they need to be eliminated now.”

The Mexican Government Just Got In A Standoff With Rick Perry That They Might Come To Regret

Screen Shot 2014-08-19 at 11.19.01 AM

Screen Shot 2014-08-19 at 11.20.39 AM

In the weeks since Texas Gov. Rick Perry announced his intention to station National Guard members on his state’s southern border, reports indicate that the influx of unaccompanied Central American minors is far from over. Nevertheless, Mexican officials responded late last week to Perry’s move with a curt and highly disapproving statement.

“We’ve been able to shut down illegal activities in certain sectors with our different operations that we’ve had,” he told Glenn Beck last month, indicating that Texas can successfully combat the current threat with or without federal assistance.

Texas deployed about 1,000 guardsmen Thursday to aid in stopping the flow of illegals across the most porous sections of the border.

Reiterating his defense of the bold move, Perry said he went ahead with the deployment after repeatedly calling on the federal government to secure the border and enforce the nation’s immigration laws.

The nation’s foreign ministry stated that Mexico “reiterates, in a firm and categorical way, its rejection of this measure,” alleging that no immigration threat “exists that justifies this measure taken by the state.”

Furthermore, the statement insists that the arrival of troops “does not contribute in any way” to securing the border.

Mexico criticized the troop mobilization as contrary to America’s claim that it wants to create a “modern, prosperous and safe border.”

With experts predicting that up to 100,000 illegal minors will cross the border into the U.S. this year, however, plenty of anti-amnesty advocates favor Perry’s direct approach to border security.

Some even question the timing of the deployment and a grand jury’s decision to indict Perry with two felony counts pertaining to his alleged coercion of an Austin-area district attorney.

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/mexico-responds-harshly-rick-perrys-plan-put-national-guard-troops-border/#RC6ZpcUmV75HicJF.99

Militias complicate situation on Texas border

Screen Shot 2014-08-19 at 10.56.41 AM

MISSION, Texas (AP) — On a recent moonlit night, Border Patrol agents began rounding up eight immigrants hiding in and around a canal near the Rio Grande. A state trooper soon arrived to help. Then out of the darkness emerged seven more armed men in fatigues.

Agents assumed the camouflaged crew that joined in pulling the immigrants from the canal’s milky green waters was a tactical unit from the Texas Department of Public Safety. Only later did they learn that the men belonged to the Texas Militia, a group that dresses like a SWAT team and carries weapons but has no law-enforcement training or authority of any kind.

The situation ended peacefully with the immigrants getting arrested and the Border Patrol advising the militia members “to properly and promptly” identify themselves anytime they encounter law-enforcement officers. But the episode was unsettling enough for the Border Patrol to circulate an “issue paper” warning other agents.

The presence of armed militia members working on their own in a region known for human smuggling, drug smuggling and illegal immigration has added one more variable to an already complex and tense situation.

Although the Aug. 6 incident in Mission resulted in no harm, it’s not hard to imagine deadlier outcomes throughout the Rio Grande Valley, a wide area patrolled by more than 3,000 border agents, as well as hundreds of state troopers, game wardens, deputies and local police officers. Gov. Rick Perry is also sending as many as 1,000 National Guard troops.

“How do they identify themselves? Do they have badges? How do we know who they are?” asked J.P. Rodriguez, a spokesman for the Hidalgo County Sheriff’s Office. “If they’re all just dressed in camos, it’s kind of hard to distinguish whether they’re law enforcement or not. … There’s a lot of potential for stuff to go wrong.”

One year ago, a member of an Arizona Minuteman border-watch group was arrested for pointing a rifle at a sheriff’s deputy he apparently mistook for a drug smuggler. Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio warned of “chaos if you’re going to have private citizens dressed just like our deputies taking the law into their own hands.”

If militia members aren’t careful in their dealings with real law officers, “there could be some dead militia out there,” he added.

View galleryIn this Aug. 9, 2014 photo, the main canal supplying …
In this Aug. 9, 2014 photo, the main canal supplying water to the city of Mission, Texas is shown. A …
The Border Patrol declined to comment on the encounter in Mission, referring questions to a general statement on militias released last month by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

That statement said the agency “does not endorse or support any private group or organization from taking matters into their own hands as it could have disastrous personal and public safety consequences.”

The militia members who surprised the Border Patrol that night told agents they wanted to help with the “border crisis” and that they supported the agency’s efforts, according to a copy of the issue paper obtained by The Associated Press.

Emails sent to a website for the Texas Militia were not answered.

The spot where the incident happened is a popular smuggling corridor where a thumb of Mexican farmland pushes a deep pocket into South Texas. The canal, an earthen channel that delivers water to the city of Mission, is 6 to 8 feet deep. Immigrants who emerge from the canal have only to cross a single sorghum field to reach a road.

A surge of illegal immigration put renewed attention on the border this summer. About 63,000 unaccompanied child immigrants were arrested between October and July, the vast majority of them in South Texas. Some militia and self-described “patriot” groups responded with a call to seal the border.

Barbie Rogers, founder of the Patriots Information Hotline, said at last count there were 13 such teams on the Texas border. If they are each similar in size to the one that showed up in Mission, that would be fewer than 100 people operating on the 1,255-mile Texas border.

Rogers uses a website and hotline to coordinate donations and supply lines to militia groups in the field. Asked how many people that amounted to, she said, “I couldn’t tell you that because it could compromise their security.”

She said the teams she knows keep sheriffs’ offices and the Border Patrol apprised of their activity. Asked about the Texas Militia members appearing in Mission without identifying themselves, Rogers said, “They should have. I can’t imagine that they didn’t.”

The teams, she said, try to advise the Border Patrol as soon as they spot illegal activity.

They will detain people until authorities arrive, although Rogers acknowledged they have no authority to hold anyone.

“Usually the people coming across are so scared they just sit there and wait,” she said.

Behind Closed Doors, Obama Crafts Executive Actions



WASHINGTON — When President Obama announced in June that he planned to bypass congressional gridlock and overhaul the nation’s immigration system on his own, he did so in a most public way: a speech in the White House Rose Garden.

Since then, the process of drafting what will likely be the only significant immigration changes of his presidency — and his most consequential use of executive power — has been conducted almost entirely behind closed doors, where lobbyists and interest groups invited to the White House are making their case out of public view.

President Obama spoke in the Rose Garden of the White House on Monday.Obama Says He’ll Order Action to Aid ImmigrantsJUNE 30, 2014
Mr. Obama’s increasingly expansive appetite for the use of unilateral action on issues including immigration, tax policy and gay rights has emboldened activists and businesses to flock to the administration with their policy wish lists. It also has opened the president, already facing charges of executive overreach, to criticism that he is presiding over opaque policy-making, with the potential to reward political backers at the expense of other interests, including some on the losing side who are threatening to sue.

With comprehensive immigration reform on hold in Congress, Nancy Paredo’s family is waiting on a promise from President Obama to take executive action. Here’s a look at some steps he might take. Video Credit By Emily B. Hager and Natalia V. Osipova on Publish Date August 18, 2014.
“We look at what they’ve been doing with executive action and are deeply concerned, and have focused a lot of our energies on how we can roll back these things,” said Geoff Burr, the vice president of federal affairs for Associated Builders and Contractors, whose member companies do 60 percent of federal construction jobs.

Mr. Burr said an executive order issued by Mr. Obama last month that would block companies with a history of workplace violations from receiving federal contracts had prompted his group to contemplate “the virtues of a litigation strategy.”

White House officials say Mr. Obama has been inclusive as he looks to wield his authority, reaching out to an array of lawmakers, experts and business leaders for a wide range of perspectives to inform his plans for executive actions. Since the president first announced his intention to use his “pen and phone” to advance his agenda during his State of the Union address in January, White House officials have held weekly meetings to compile ideas from inside and outside the administration.

In some cases, the public has gotten a glimpse of the process, such as during a summit meeting on working families in June. More often, though, the talks have occurred behind the scenes. Administration officials have convened more than 20 so-called listening sessions this summer alone on executive options for revising immigration policy, a White House official said, declining to discuss the sessions in detail because the conversations were private.

“The president has been clear that he will use all of the tools at his disposal, working with Congress where they are willing but also taking action on his own where they aren’t, to expand opportunity for all Americans and help more families share in our economy’s continued progress,” said Jennifer Friedman, a White House spokeswoman. “As part of this process, the administration has engaged a wide range of stakeholders and has solicited input from groups and individuals representing a diverse set of views.”

“We’ve been talking to them about what we believe they can do while we wait for Congress to act,” said Scott Corley, a lobbyist for Compete America, a coalition of Silicon Valley companies seeking relief for foreign-born technology workers. “We’ve looked at where the legal authority exists, and we’ve found lots of ways in which the administration can move forward.”

On a host of issues, the list of requests is growing. Technology companies would like Mr. Obama to provide more visas for their workers, or at least more flexibility for them and their families as they await green cards for permanent residency. Consumer groups and organized labor want the Treasury Department to act on its own to limit financial incentives for companies that move overseas for tax breaks and stop so-called inversions. Democratic lawmakers are joining in as well, asking the president to act on his own on their pet issues.

“During your State of the Union address, you stated that you want to make 2014 a ‘year of action,’  ” Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, wrote to Mr. Obama in March, in a letter requesting that he issue an executive order banning the import of assault or military weapons.

The go-it-alone approach has left the administration — which claims to be the most transparent in United States history — essentially making policy from the White House, replacing congressional hearings and floor debates with closed meetings for invited constituencies. ​

“The executive branch is not really set up to be a deliberative body like the Congress is,” said Andrew Rudalevige, a government professor at Bowdoin College who has studied the consequences of executive action. “The process is certainly stacked toward the policy preferences of the administration, and they’re going to listen to the people they think are right, which usually means the ones who agree with them.

“Those who are ‘in’ will engage the White House and the agencies to get their priorities met, and if you’re ‘out,’ you turn to the legal process” to challenge the executive action after it is taken, he said.

When the president vowed in the Rose Garden in June to “fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own,” immigration activists were ready with their list of potential executive actions. They range from giving certain categories of undocumented immigrants temporary “parole in place” status to stay in the United States, to essentially legalizing millions more by expanding a 2012 directive issued by Mr. Obama that grants work permits and deportation deferments to young immigrants brought illegally to the United States as children.

The requests did not stop there. Cecilia Muñoz, Mr. Obama’s top immigration adviser and the domestic policy chief, has led meetings attended by White House political aides and lawyers to hear from interest groups, individual companies and business groups about what executive actions they believe the president should take on immigration.

Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story
Senator Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican and one of the staunchest opponents of the stalled immigration bill Mr. Obama advocated, criticized the process. “It is chilling to consider now that these groups, frustrated in their aims by our constitutional system of government, are plotting with the Obama administration to collect their spoils through executive fiat,” he said.

As recommendations pour in, the most frequent question Mr. Obama’s aides are asking, the people involved said, is whether the moves could withstand a legal challenge, which comes as House Republicans voted to sue Mr. Obama for unilateral action in changing elements of his signature health care law.

One group, Change to Win, a labor union-backed consumer advocacy organization that has pressed for congressional action to block corporate inversions, sought out a legal expert with Obama administration ties, Stephen E. Shay, to press its case.

Professor Shay, a top Treasury official during Obama’s first term who now teaches at Harvard Law School, was asked by the group to craft a legal justification for the administration to act without congressional approval. Professor Shay wrote an article in the trade journal Tax Notes in July, asserting that the president’s team had broad authority to do so.

“We asked his advice as to how to bring this forward to the administration,” said Nell Geiser, the associate director of retail initiatives at Change to Win, who said Professor Shay’s connections at the Treasury were vital. “He knew all the personalities and their dynamics.”

Within days, Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew had announced that he had a “very long list” of ways to remove the economic incentive for inversions that would not require congressional action.

On other issues, the president has been under pressure to act on his own for years. When Mr. Obama announced in June that he would soon sign executive orders to fulfill his 2008 campaign promise to bar discrimination by federal contractors on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, gay rights activists pressed for the broadest possible protection. In private White House meetings, they lobbied successfully against including a new exemption being sought by religious groups; the order was signed July 21.

While Mr. Obama has issued fewer executive orders than presidents before him — 183, according to the American Presidency Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara, compared with 291 by George W. Bush and 364 by Bill Clinton — experts say he has been at least as aggressive as his two immediate predecessors in taking unilateral action, often through memorandums or other administrative moves.

“He’s using just a vast array of different means to pursue his various goals,” John T. Woolley, a politics professor at the university who maintains the executive order database and studies presidential use of unilateral action.

Mr. Obama “has been quite aggressive and he’s been creative in looking for every possible avenue to take matters into his own hands,” Mr. Woolley said.


Screen Shot 2014-08-16 at 4.31.03 PM

“[R]eiterates, in a firm and categorical way, its rejection of this measure…”

Mexico City (AFP) – Mexico’s foreign ministry late Friday protested Texas Governor Rick Perry’s deployment of National Guard troops to the southern US border to halt the surge of child migrants.

“No circumstance at all or change in border security exists that justifies this measure taken by the state.”

The troop deployment “does not contribute in any way to solving the immigration problem,” and is inconsistent with US-Mexico talks aimed at “building a modern, prosperous and safe border,” the statement read.

On Thursday Perry deployed some 1,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico.

National Guard troops are soldiers under the authority of the state governor. They cannot detain undocumented migrants, which is a federal responsibility, but they can take over some duties that allows more US Border Patrol agents to monitor the borderline.

View galleryFile photo shows Texas Governor Rick Perry waiting …
File photo shows Texas Governor Rick Perry waiting to greet US President Barack Obama in Dallas, Tex …
Perry, a Republican and a likely candidate for the 2016 presidential race, has taken a hard line against immigrant children seeking to enter the United States from Central America.

At least 57,000 unaccompanied children, most from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, have crossed the border into the United States illegally since October, triggering a migration crisis that has sent US border and immigration authorities into a frenzy.

Perry said the decision to deploy troops was taken after repeated requests to the federal government to secure the US border.

EXCLUSIVE: Rep. Gohmert: Illegals Being Trained to Lie That They’re ‘Fleeing Gang Violence’

Screen Shot 2014-08-16 at 11.53.57 AM

EXCLUSIVE: Rep. Gohmert: Illegals Being Trained to Lie That They’re ‘Fleeing Gang Violence’

August 15, 2014 By TPNN Staff

Congressman Louie Gohmert, in an exclusive and extensive interview with TPNN’s Tim Constantine on The Capitol Hill Show, said that illegals are lying to border authorities about fleeing their native country for the United States because of “gang violence.”

Rep. Gohmert said after speaking with border patrolmen, who speak Spanish and can effectively communicate with illegals, when pressed, some have admitted that they were taught the script of saying that they were escaping to the U.S. because of gang violence, but in fact, actually paid gangs money to get them across the border.

“The people who are bringing them across are criminals,” Rep. Gohmert, who serves Texas’ 1st congressional district, told Tim.

Gohmert tells the story of a border patrolman telling him first hand, while he was visiting the Rio Grande River, that 90% of those caught crossing cite “gang violence.”

“We were told to say that we were fleeing gang violence,” a border patrol guard told Gohmert, quoting what he says 90% of illegals will tell him when pressed in Spanish.

Gohmert explained the reason the illegal surge on the border is happening is because of Obama’s dictatorial, unconstitutional passage of DACA:
“The reason they’re coming is because the president got word out, beginning with the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals [DACA]; that’s the law that didn’t pass the House, didn’t pass the Senate, didn’t pass Congress at all, just passed his [Obama's] lips.”
Please like and share this article on Facebook and Twitter if you think the message needs to get out that illegals are lying their way into America.


1,000 National Guard Members Head to Texas-Mexico Border

Screen Shot 2014-08-15 at 5.06.32 PM

AUGUST 13, 2014 10:03 AM

(KHOU) – One thousand Texas National Guard members are about to assume their duties on the border but critics question whether their role is either too limited or broad.

Texas Governor Rick Perry called up 1000 troops to work with the Texas Department of Public Safety as a “force multiplier” after the Border Patrol struggled to cope with an influx of unaccompanied children from Central America.

“The notion is the National Guard is some sort of back up or force multiplier for DPS, that really only works if they can track people and also detain them and hold them for DPS,” said Josiah Heyman director of the Center for Inter-American and Border Studies.

“It raises the question of whether the National Guard is adequately trained to summon up the reasonable suspicion,” said Heyman. “Do they know the allowable facts? Will they act on racial profiling?”

Governor Perry could give Texas National Guard members arrest powers but so far has not done so. During the announcement of the deployment in mid-July he said troops would help DPS with law enforcement on the border.

“These additional resources will combat the brutal, Mexican cartels that are preying on our citizens,” said Perry.

During the same press conference Adjutant General John Nichols gave a general description of the troops’ role.

“We’re planning on referring and deterring — so deterring them with physical presence and referring any people that we see that we think are illegal immigrants to DPS,” said Nichols.

“You can’t see somebody’s immigration status stamped on their forehead,” said Heyman. “You can’t tell if somebody is an innocent person, just a kid with baggy pants or somebody who’s a young member of a criminal organization,” said Heyman.

Some with experience working with the National Guard on the border during past deployments were originally pleased with the return of troops.

“I was hopeful when I heard about the National Guardsmen that they would be put in places to relieve the Border Patrol from doing transportation duties, watching children in detention centers, and actually put those agents out in the field to do their duties,” said Victor Manjarrez Jr., director of the National Center for Border Security and Immigration at the University of Texas El Paso.

Manjarrez, a former Border Patrol Station Chief, helped coordinate the National Guard on the Border in 2006 when President Bush deployed troops in a support role while the Border Patrol hired and trained thousands of new agents.

Among their duties: working at stables for horses used by mounted border agents, building vehicle barriers on the border, and surveillance that helped Border Patrol agents apprehend smugglers in the field.

But he questions the effectiveness of using military troops to deal with an influx of unaccompanied kids and families from Central America.

“To have additional surveillance capabilities on a group of people that are surrendering to begin with doesn’t look like it’s the best choice,” said Manjarrez.


- See more at: http://www.teaparty.org/1000-national-guard-members-head-texas-mexico-border-51455/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=social#sthash.LIpJyqFP.dpuf