Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Remains of Two Migrants Discovered in Texas — 80 Miles from Border

December 13, 2018

Reported by Bob Price | 13 Dec 2018

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/border/2018/12/13/remains-of-two-migrants-discovered-in-texas-80-miles-from-border/

Skeletal remains of what is believed to be an unidentified migrant were found in Brooks County, Texas. (Photo: Brooks County Sheriff’s Office)

Sheriff’s deputies in a Texas county located 80 miles from the U.S.-Mexico Border reported the recovery of two migrants’ remains who apparently died attempting to circumvent the Falfurrias Border Patrol Checkpoint.

On December 11, a Brooks County Sheriff’s Office dispatcher received notice for the discovery of skeletal remains presumed to be those of a deceased migrant. The dispatcher sent Training Officer Ben Gomez to the scene to meet with a ranch hand who discovered the remains and Border Patrol agents, according to Brooks County Sheriff’ Benny Martinez.

The ranch is located west of the Falfurrias Border Patrol Checkpoint located on U.S. Highway 281, about 80 miles from the Mexican border. Human smugglers frequently use this area to drop off their “cargo” and force them on a lengthy march that has led to the deaths for at least 48 migrants in Brooks County this year.

Skeletal remains of what is believed to be an unidentified migrant were found in Brooks County, Texas. (Photo: Brooks County Sheriff's Office)

Skeletal remains of what is believed to be an unidentified migrant were found in Brooks County, Texas. (Photo: Brooks County Sheriff’s Office)

Gomez met up with the Border Patrol agents who escorted him 7.6 miles into the ranch where workers found the remains. Only the migrant’s skull and a small piece of bone were present. The remainder could not be found after they were presumably hauled away by animals.

The remains were transported to the sheriff’s office where a local justice of the peace made the formal death declaration. The remains will be transported to the Webb County Medical Examiners Office in Laredo, Texas, where officials will attempt to identify and make family notifications. No documents were found at the scene.

On December 1, Brooks County dispatchers sent Deputy Brenda Ligas to another ranch in the same part of the county following a report that a ranch hand found another set of skeletal remains, local officials reported earlier this week. Scattered remains were reportedly found while a hand was discing a field.

Officials recovered a skull and mandible, along with numerous other bones. A search of the area resulted in the recovery of several articles of clothing and two Honduran passports which could help identify the deceased migrant. Both bore the name Felix Antonio Godoy Ramos, a 43-year-old Honduran national. It is not known if these passports actually belonged to the deceased migrant.

Skeletal remains believed to be those of an as yet unidentified migrant were found in Brooks County, Texas. (Photo: Brooks County Sheriff's Office)

Skeletal remains believed to be those of an as yet unidentified migrant were found in Brooks County, Texas. (Photo: Brooks County Sheriff’s Office)

The remains were transported to the Webb County Medical Examiner, who will attempt to verify identity.

The remains discovered this month bring the death toll in this single Texas county to at least 48, local officials reported.

In 2018, at least 226 migrants died in Texas while crossing the U.S. border or during smuggling into the U.S. interior, according to the International Organization for Migrants’ Missing Migrant Project. Nationally, that number climbed to at least 373 in the same period. An exact number is not known because many deceased migrants are never found.

The number of reported deaths this year rose by nearly nine percent over 2017.

Bob Price serves as associate editor and senior political news contributor for Breitbart Border/Cartel Chronicles. He is a founding member of the Breitbart Texas team. Follow him on Twitter @BobPriceBBTX and Facebook.

Category:

Political

Leave a comment

Tagged with:

Thought Police: Public University’s Rules Now Prohibit Offensive Facial Expressions


Reported By Benjamin Arie | December 12, 2018 at 5:53pm

When George Orwell famously wrote about a dystopian future where your every thought is monitored, he shouldn’t have set it in Great Britain. It would have been much more accurate had he instead written about American college campuses. We’ve known about the alarming trend of coddling and control at colleges for a while, but it may be getting worse. At the publicly-funded University of Montana Western, college administrators seem to be doing their best Big Brother impressions.

That university recently published a policy which threatens punitive action against students for making — wait for it — “mean facial expressions.”

Image result for What did you say gif

“While discussions may become heated and passionate, they should never become mean, nasty or vindictive in spoken or printed or emailed words, facial expressions, or gestures,” the official Civility Standards at Montana Western declare.

Who decides what a mean facial expression looks like? Nobody seems to know.

“The policy says students must promote an atmosphere of civility and that their discussions should never become ‘mean, nasty, or vindictive,’ but those are all entirely subjective terms that could be applied to punish constitutionally protected speech,” Laura Beltz of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education explained to Campus Reform.

She’s right: People use a variety of facial expressions when upset, flustered or merely just excited. If you roll your eyes or raise your eyebrows, is your academic career over?

“If it is the responsibility for students to uphold these standards, it follows that they may be punished for perceived violations of these standards, in this case, for failing to promote civility or for having a discussion that is deemed mean, nasty, or vindictive,” Beltz pointed out.

Image result for you cannot be serious gif

Being punished for making a face seems like something that belongs in kindergarten, not a major university attended by serious young adults. But that certainly seems to be how the policy is written.

“According to the policy, violations of the Student Code of Conduct can result in suspension of a student’s technology account, suspension, or in extreme cases, expulsion,” explained Campus Reform.

“Even if the policy isn’t actually applied that way, students who read the policy and see how vague it is are likely to self-censor instead of taking the risk that something they say will be seen as mean, nasty, vindictive, or not civil,” Beltz added. “This sort of chilling effect on protected speech is unacceptable at a public university like Montana Western.”

If someone doesn’t think these kinds of policies could be used to infringe on free speech and inspire proverbial witch hunts, they probably haven’t been paying attention.

We’ve already seen hysterical reactions to imagined “hate crimes,” which more often than not turn out to be wildly exaggerated or blatant hoaxes. And as everyone from the Duke lacrosse team to Rolling Stone magazine found out, due process can be quickly tossed aside when there’s a social justice crusade.

There have also been countless cases of free speech infringement throughout American campuses, and students with conservative views are often the ones being silenced.

Everyone agrees that civility is important. But by trying to monitor and enforce every element of human interaction and speech, down to which facial expressions somebody uses during a debate, campus busy-bodies have lost the plot.

The real world is not a safe space free of triggering facial expressions and terrifying eye rolls, and it’s ridiculous to pretend that this is what increasingly irrelevant universities need. Let’s try more freedom of speech, not less.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Benjamin Arie
Contributor, Commentary
Summary
More Info Recent Posts

Benjamin Arie is an independent journalist and writer. He has personally covered everything ranging from local crime to the U.S. president as a reporter in Michigan, before focusing on national politics. Ben frequently travels to Latin America and has spent years living in Mexico. Follow Benjamin on Facebook

Category:

Education

Leave a comment

Tagged with:

An ethics lesson for USA Today’s ‘queer’ bullies


Commentary by Michelle Malkin | Guest Columnist

Wednesday, December 12, 2018 http://michellemalkin.com/

Michelle Malkin

This week, I did something that USA Today‘s executive leadership apparently hadn’t done lately: I read the newspaper’s “principles of ethical conduct for newsrooms.”

It’s pretty highfalutin. The media manifesto of virtue, posted online, applies to all employees “working with any news platform, including newspapers, websites, mobile devices, video, social media channels and live story events.” Whether writing online or covering breaking developments, USA Today‘s journalists are supposedly committed to:

  • Seeking and reporting the truth in a truthful way.
  • Serving the public interest.
  • Exercising fair play.
  • Acting with integrity.

Kyler Murray (Heisman winner 2018)Now, let’s compare the lofty rhetoric with low-blow reality. On Sunday, 21-year-old University of Oklahoma quarterback Kyler Murray (right) won the Heisman Trophy. He gave a gracious, emotional speech that celebrated his faith in God, respect for his fellow athletes, love of family, lifelong work ethic and team spirit.

“I’ve worked my whole life to fulfill my goals, but at the same time, I know there’s a higher power looking down on me. He enables me to do all things. For that I’m grateful – for the many blessings that God has blessed me with,” Murray humbly told reporters.

But one reporter wasn’t interested in covering the actual news of the Heisman winner’s triumph. He was interested in sabotaging it. Within hours of the press conference, USA Today sports writer Scott Gleeson penned an article attacking Murray for posting “tweets using an anti-gay slur.” Murray and family awoke Monday morning to a barrage of character smears slamming his “homophobic” posts from six years ago – when Murray was 14 or 15 years old and jokingly called his friends “queer.” Google is now clogged with wall-to-wall coverage of his teenage antics from CNN to The Today Show to every sports outlet and his hometown Oklahoma newspaper.

Gleeson’s hit piece reeks of deceptive vigilantism, not journalism. After noting that Murray had a “Saturday to remember,” Gleeson wrote that “the Oklahoma quarterback’s memorable night also helped resurface social media’s memory of several homophobic tweets more than six years old.”

Who “resurfaced social media’s memory?” Why, it was Gleeson himself! By creating an illusion that Murray’s schoolboy tweets were the subject of any scrutiny and outrage other than Gleeson’s own, USA Today gave us a shining example of the manufacturing of fake news. Ain’t misleading passive voice grand?

Indeed, Gleeson’s own biography is one of a social justice advocate dedicated to identity politics propaganda. “My enterprise and human interest work on the LGBT movement in sports made me an APSE award finalist in 2016 and a USBWA award winner in 2017,” Gleeson boasts. Was he aiming for another award with his ambush of Murray? Gleeson certainly got his new scalp and paraded it prominently, with aiding and abetting by USA Today‘s silent, AWOL editors. Within hours of publication, Murray had apologized.

Gleeson’s new headline blared: “Kyler Murray apologizes for homophobic tweets that resurfaced after he won Heisman Trophy.”

On Tuesday, I wrote to USA Today‘s editor in chief Nicole Carroll and executive editor for news Jeff Taylor with the following questions:

  • How does Gleeson’s article comport with USA Today‘s stated principles of ethical conduct for newsrooms?
  • Specifically, how did the piece “serve the public interest,” “exercise fair play,” exhibit “fairness in relations with people unaccustomed to dealing with news media,” observe “standards of decency” and demonstrate “integrity”?
  • And have there been any executive leadership discussions about the piece since its publication and widespread public backlash?

The editors have not responded yet. In the meantime, I have more questions.

How does lying in wait in for unknown months or years (when Gleeson could have “resurfaced” the old tweets at any time) and publishing a smear in the middle of the night before giving Murray a chance to respond comport with the newspaper’s promises that:

  • “We will be honest in the way we gather, report and present news — with relevancy, persistence, context, thoroughness, balance, and fairness in mind.
  • “We will seek to gain understanding of the communities, individuals and issues we cover to provide an informed account of activities.
  • “We will uphold First Amendment principles to serve the democratic process.
  • “We will reflect and encourage understanding of the diverse segments of our community.
  • “We will provide editorial and community leadership.
  • “We will treat people with respect and compassion.
  • “We will strive to include all sides relevant to a story.
  • “We will give particular attention to fairness in relations with people unaccustomed to dealing with the news media.
  • “We will act honorably and ethically in dealing with news sources, the public and our colleagues.
  • “We will observe standards of decency.”

Will the editors respond publicly to criticism and address readers and employees so that their actions match these words?

  • “We will explain to audiences our journalistic processes to promote transparency and engagement.
  • “We will correct errors promptly.
  • “We will take responsibility for our decisions and consider the possible consequences of our actions.”

Tick tock.

COPYRIGHT 2018 CREATORS.COM

Michelle Malkin is host of “Michelle Malkin Investigates” on CRTV.com. Her email address is writemalkin@gmail.com.

This column is printed with permission. Opinions expressed in ‘Perspectives’ columns published by OneNewsNow.com are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network, OneNewsNow.com, our parent organization or its other affiliates.

Category:

Political

Leave a comment

Tagged with:

Outrageous: Caravanners Offer To Return Home If US Pays Them $50,000 Each


Reported By Benjamin Arie | December 12, 2018 at 5:13pm

We’ve all seen the eye-opening images: Hordes of people from migrant “caravans” have moved from Central America into Mexico, pushing past border checkpoints and clashing with officials. Thousands of those migrants are now near the U.S.-Mexico border, creating chaos in places like Tijuana. All the while, the left has insisted that they’re merely fleeing oppression and want “a better life,” which America is apparently obliged to give them.

But a shocking update from those same migrants is casting doubt on the liberal narrative. The caravans are now making demands from the United States, and it’s almost impossible to see it as anything other than mass extortion. 

According to The San Diego Union Tribune, caravan members marched on the U.S. consulate in Tijuana and demanded that either they be granted entry across the border, or be paid tens of thousands of dollars.

“Two groups of Central American migrants made separate marches on the U.S. Consulate in Tijuana Tuesday, demanding that they be processed through the asylum system more quickly and in greater numbers,” the newspaper reported.

They’re also demanding “that deportations be halted and that President Trump either let them into the country or pay them $50,000 each to go home.”

Yes, that’s $50,000 per immigrant.

Image result for laughing gif

To put that in perspective, the average yearly wage in Mexico is about $15,000 dollars. In Honduras, it’s even less.

Where did that absurd number come from? Caravan organizers declared that it was essentially reparations for what the United States “stole” from Central America.

“It may seem like a lot of money to you,” declared organizer Alfonso Guerrero Ulloa. “But it is a small sum compared to everything the United States has stolen from Honduras.”

It’s worth remembering that the Mexican government previously offered working visas and at least basic jobs for the migrants. The vast majority refused, and chose instead to try to illegally cross border fences — often waving the flags of their home countries. The hostile, almost ransom-like insistence on being paid over three times Mexico’s average annual wage seems to be completely opposite of past claims that their trek was about escaping crime and poverty back home. It looks now like a get-rich-quick scheme that fell apart.

And if the group’s demands are not met? Well, it isn’t clear what they’ll do.

“They gave the U.S. Consulate 72 hours to respond. They said they had not decided what to do if their demands were not met,” stated The San Diego Union Tribune.

“I don’t know, we will decide as a group,” Ulloa said.

Image result for mockingly i'm afraid now gif

Some caravan members essentially admitted that they expected to cut to the front of the immigration line and enter the United States no questions asked, a delusion that was abruptly halted by President Trump.

“A lot of people are leaving because there is no solution here,” said Douglas Matute in Tijuana. “We thought they would let us in. But Trump sent the military instead of social workers.”

In one of the most bizarre twists, caravan members blamed their situation on Americans “intervening” in Central America. Their solution? Demand that President Donald Trump intervene in Central America.

“[F]amilies, women and children who have fled our countries continue to suffer and the civil society of Tijuana continue to be forces to confront this humanitarian crisis, a refugee crisis caused in great part by decades of U.S. intervention in Central America,” one of the letters delivered to the American consulate insisted.

Yet intervention is exactly what the groups say they want.

“[T]he majority of [caravan members] are young men who are fleeing from poverty, insecurity and political repression under the dictatorship of Juan Orlando Hernandez,” lamented a second letter, according to The Tribune.

“Orlando Hernandez is the president of Honduras. Their letter also asked the U.S. to remove Orlando Hernandez from office,” the San Diego newspaper explained.

Image result for What did you say gif

Well, so much for that narrative.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Benjamin Arie
Contributor, Commentary
Summary
More Info Recent Posts

Benjamin Arie is an independent journalist and writer. He has personally covered everything ranging from local crime to the U.S. president as a reporter in Michigan, before focusing on national politics. Ben frequently travels to Latin America and has spent years living in Mexico. Follow Benjamin on Facebook

Category:

Political

Leave a comment

Tagged with:

MORE Political INCORRECTNESS


 

Category:

Political

Leave a comment

Tagged with:

Today’s TWO Politically INCORRECT Cartoons by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Charity Starts At Home

A.F. Branco | on

Democrats and the media have more of their compassion directed toward non-citizens than they do for our own veterans who owe so much.

Homeless Veterans in AmericaPolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.
More A.F. Branco cartoons at Constitution.com here.

A.F.Branco’s New Coffee Table Book <—- Order

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been seen all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News” and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, and even the great El Rushbo.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Hidden Agenda

A.F. Branco | on

Pelosi and Schumer want no cameras around to expose their open border agenda while talking border security with President Trump.

Pelosi Schumer Hidden AgendaPolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

Category:

Political

Leave a comment

Tagged with:

Dems AWOL as Last Week Marked 153 Years Since the GOP Outlawed Slavery Forever

December 11, 2018

Reported By Cillian Zeal | December 10, 2018 at 9:03am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/dems-awol-last-week-marked-153-years-since-gop-outlawed-slavery-forever/

The Lincoln Memorial

The Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. (KSB / Shutterstock)

A 153rd anniversary usually isn’t something that garners a lot of attention. The 13th Amendment, however, probably deserves to be mentioned every year. The 13th is a little-discussed amendment these days, if just because abolishing slavery isn’t exactly a controversial topic. Anybody in modern-day America who talked about the reinstitution of slavery would be summarily dismissed as being beyond help.

It’s a fairly short piece of law, too: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction,” the amendment reads.

It also gives Congress the power to enforce the law.

Now, the traditional anniversary of the end of slavery, at least in the African-American community, is Juneteenth — June 19, the date in 1865 when Maj. Gen. Gordon Granger of the Union Army read the Emancipation Proclamation to slaves in Galveston, Texas. However, when the 13th Amendment celebrated its 153rd birthday on Dec. 6, it didn’t get a whole lot of mention. And what definitely didn’t get mentioned is that it wouldn’t exist if Democrats had their way.

As Ourdocuments.gov notes, “The 13th Amendment was passed at the end of the Civil War before the Southern states had been restored to the Union and should have easily passed the Congress.

“Although the Senate passed it in April 1864, the House did not. At that point, Lincoln took an active role to ensure passage through Congress. He insisted that passage of the 13th Amendment be added to the Republican Party platform for the upcoming presidential elections. His efforts met with success when the House passed the bill in January 1865 with a vote of 119–56.”

Indeed, it had to be ratified before the Southern states rejoined the union. The reason is that the Democrats considered Dixie their own personal fiefdom up until the late 1960s. Jim Crow laws, segregated schools, the KKK, massive resistance, eugenics — all of these things were brought to you by the Democratic Party and vigorously fought by the Republicans.

But, you say, what about the “great switch?” That’s when the Democrats supposedly became the party of racial justice, all put into motion to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Well, yes, about that. The bill couldn’t have passed without Republican support.

Even the U.K. Guardian, of all sources, notes that “80 percent of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill. Less than 70 percent of Democrats did. Indeed, Minority Leader Republican Everett Dirksen led the fight to end the filibuster. Meanwhile, Democrats such as Richard Russell of Georgia and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina tried as hard as they could to sustain a filibuster.”

The vote was taken during the “Solid South” era, where almost every elected official below the Mason-Dixon was a Democrat. Only eight out of 102 representatives from the former Confederacy voted for the bill in the House and one of 22 voted for it in the Senate.

Yet, the fact that the South is now pretty solidly Republican always brings a asking from Democrats, who constantly mistake the new South — the product of economic growth and migration — with the old South they provided over for so many years.

They lament the racism they so successfully fomented for years, as if their party played no role in it. They’ve washed their hands clean. As “penance,” they’ve taken on a different form of identity politics which doesn’t involve standing in the schoolhouse door but is every bit as pernicious.

That’s why the 13th Amendment ought to be celebrated a bit more, we think. Not only did it officially end slavery and passed without Democratic support, it had to be passed before the Southern Democrats could rejoin the Union, lest they continue one of the most evil practices in the history of this planet.

The Democrats have always been the party of oppression and identity politics, whether it be Dec. 6, 1865 or Dec. 6, 2018. If only America would remember that. The Democrats would certainly prefer you didn’t.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Cillian Zeal
Contributor, Commentary
Summary

More Info Recent Posts

Writing under a pseudonym, Cillian Zeal is a conservative writer who is currently living abroad in a country that doesn’t value free speech. Exercising it there under his given name could put him in danger.

Category:

Political

Leave a comment

Tagged with:

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: