Border Patrol Catches Another MS-13 Member Claiming ‘Asylum,’ Illegal Aliens With Child Sex Abuse Records

H/T Town Hall.

These arrests of the MS-13 thugs and these sexual predators are very valid reasons to separate children from illegals crossing America’s borders.

Customs and Border Protection have arrested a slew of illegal aliens, including MS-13 gang members claiming ‘asylum’ and men with records of sexual abuse against children. They were detained after attempting to enter the United States illegally. Many have been previously deported.

Here’s the list of recent activity from the Rio Grand Valley (bolding is mine):

On Thursday, July 5, Weslaco Border Patrol agents arrested a Honduran national near Edinburg, Texas. It was later discovered the man had a previous conviction for sexual assault of a child and had been ordered removed from the United States.

Simultaneously near Hidalgo, Texas, Weslaco agents apprehended a Salvadoran national who made a claim of fear to being deported back to his native country. During processing, it was confirmed the man is an member of the MS-13 gang.

On Friday, agents arrested a Mexican man near Rio Grande City, Texas as he attempted to enter the United States illegally. The man’s criminal history revealed a previous conviction for having sex with a minor and was sentenced to 100 days confinement and 36 months’ probation. Furthermore, the man was previously removed from the United States.

Saturday, Kingsville agents arrested a Salvadoran national near Sarita, Texas. Record checks confirmed  that he is an MS-13 gang member.

On Sunday, Weslaco agents arrested a Mexican man near Progreso, Texas, whose record checks revealed he was linked to the Zetas cartel and spent three years in prison for his involvement in the murder of a Mexican national.

Later that day, agents encountered a group of 15 illegal aliens attempting to circumvent the checkpoint south of Sarita, Texas. During processing, it was discovered that one of the subjects, a Mexican national, is a member of the 18th street gang.

Current U.S. law does not allow ICE to immediately deport illegal alien gang members unless they are from Mexico or Canada.


Dear Gun Control Advocates: Please, Stop Treating Female Gun Owners Like Victims

H/T Town Hall.

The anti-gun crowd will never admit that a gun can be used to stop a crime or save a life.

The anti-gun crowd will always treant female gun owners as victims unable to defend themselves against rape or other violence.

Over the weekend I had an interesting exchange on Twitter with a gun control advocate who volunteers for Moms Demand Action. It got me thinking, very in-depth, about how anti-gunners are quick to label gun owners, especially female gun owners, like myself.

Here’s how the conversation went:

Sarah Mitchell@SarahLKMitchell

works. Laws matter.



Replying to @Everytown

A 2017 study of Connecticut’s Red Flag Law found the law has already averted an estimated 72 suicides. Red Flag laws empower family members and law enforcement to temporarily restrict a person’s access to guns when they pose a danger to self or others. 

Sarah Mitchell@SarahLKMitchell

Evidence > Fear + Ignorance 

Rebutting the ‘Criminals don’t follow laws’ and ‘Gun Control only hurts law-abiding citizens’…

Myth “The bad guys, the criminals, don’t follow laws and restricting more of America’s freedoms when it comes to self-defense isn’t the answer.” – Sarah Palin “…The challenge with gun laws is that …

Anti-gunners would rather us be unarmed and take the chances of becoming the victim of a crime. After all, what better way to defend yourself than with a whistle? Surely someone will hear your cries (or at least you can hope)! It didn’t work for me but maybe you’ll have better luck than I did.

Sarah Mitchell@SarahLKMitchell

That you were raped is horrifying; that you think a gun would have prevented it shows the twisted rhetoric of finding yet another way to blame women for their rape. You are not at fault, and not having a gun probably saved your life. 

Guns Are Bad for Women

The NRA says guns can prevent rape. This is not true.

Translation: You don’t agree with gun control therefore you’re confused and haven’t come to your senses. Don’t worry. It’ll happen in time. Here! Drink some of the anti-gun Kool-Aid by reading these articles.

Beth Baumann@eb454

A gun would have made me more safe when I was raped in college. But please, tell me how I’m safer being unarmed.

Beth Baumann@eb454

Also, sharing someone’s OpEd about why they think guns are dangerous for women doesn’t make it fact.

Aren’t lefties supposed to be all about empowering women? Or is that only selective empowerment?

The Left claims to be in favor of empowering women, of building them up, yet they would rather us be unarmed, and defenseless. You know why? Because empowered women don’t vote for Liberals. They vote for Conservatives. Leaving women defenseless creates a perpetual cycle of need and reliance on others, specifically the government, to protect them.

Remember: Liberals are all about choice, as long as it’s about abortion, not self-defense.

Sarah Mitchell@SarahLKMitchell

Empowered women don’t manipulate other women to live in fear. I gave you two articles, with citations. Those are just a drop in the bucket. Gun sense isn’t “right” or “left”: it’s based in FACTS and EVIDENCE and supported by police, veterans, teachers, students, and gun owners.

Apparently wanting to have a say in what happens to me and my family causes me to manipulate other women? No. It’s not manipulation. It’s called being realistic. The reality is we live in a dangerous world where people want to hurt one another. We live in a world where not everyone is good. There are people out there who want to cause others harm. Instead of hoping and praying (again) that I’m not the victim of a violent crime, I choose to be proactive. I choose to carry a firearm to defend myself.

The difference between pro-gun and anti-gun women is this: pro-gun women want every woman to have every option on the table when it comes to self-defense. Anti-gun women want women to be helpless, defenseless even. They’re so gung-ho on firearms that they would rather see a woman get raped than to have her use a gun for self-defense.

But remember, women like me are anti-woman (except we can’t be labeled that because we’re females ourselves).

Beth Baumann@eb454

I’m empowered to make my own decisions on how to defend myself and my family. I choose to do that with a firearm. Just because I don’t agree with your conclusions doesn’t mean that I’m weak or trying to manipulate other women. It means I won’t ever be a victim again.

Instead of viewing pro-gun women as women who “haven’t come to their senses” or as someone who is “uneducated” or “uninformed” it would mean a hell of a lot more to us if women on the other side would respect our decisions, even if they disagree with us. It would mean more to survivors, like myself, if they took the time to listen to what we’ve been through and why we choose to arm ourselves instead of dismissing us.

At the end of the day, the only person who can protect myself is me. Not my husband. Not the police. And not the government. I take that responsibility seriously. And so should you.

Joy Behar: ‘How Dare’ Trump Be Allowed to Nominate SCOTUS Justice Amid Mueller Probe

H/T Fox News Insider.

Joy Behar is a classic example of Extreme Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Joy Behar, co-host of ABC’s “The View,” questioned on Tuesday why President Donald Trump was given the ability to select the next Supreme Court justice.

Trump nominated District of Columbia Court of Appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh Monday night to fill the impending vacancy of retiring Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy on the high court.

Behar asked why someone who is under investigation by the FBI for obstruction of justice and collusion is allowed to choose the next justice.

“How dare he be allowed to do this when he’s under investigation?” Behar said.

Fox News contributor and radio talk show host Tammy Bruce refuted Behar’s comments Wednesday on “Fox & Friends,” noting that it has been made clear that the president is not “under investigation.”

“Bottom line is, is that this is all politics, right? It’s also, with what you’re seeing, kind of like the most expensive group therapy we’ve ever seen in this country,” Bruce added.

The outcry from Democrats won’t stop Kavanaugh’s nomination, Bruce said, saying that backlash is part of the process of selecting a Supreme Court justice.

“Everybody generally agrees that Judge Kavanaugh is a smart man [and that] he knows what he’s doing,” she said, adding that she believes the “meltdown” by Democrats is an effort to “gin up” support ahead of the midterm elections.

But, Bruce said, if Democrats had a policy position in the first place, there wouldn’t be a need to gin up any type of support.

“When it comes to what we need here in this country, [we need] a genuine, thoughtful, balanced, fair approach to justice. And that’s what Kavanaugh represents for the Supreme Court.”


How Protest Has Morphed Into A Dangerous Insurgency Movement

H/T Town Hall.

So many police agencies are tiptoeing around in there dealing with these rent-a-mobs because of the fact so many of these thugs are black

Sadly so many police agencies are being bombarded by charges of racism some deserved but most of the charges are bogus so they are afraid to enforce the law.

These rent-a-mobs are allowed to run wild and spread mayhem and disaster in their wake. 

The left has politicized the separation of families illegally crossing the U.S. border. By framing the issue as President Trump’s fault, they ignore the reality that two of his predecessors used the policy as well.

In response, Trump issued an executive order ending the separation of families, but this mattered not to the left. The left thought that overly politicizing this issue would energize their base for the November midterm election. The separations have ceased but the outrage from the left has not. They’ve now made a boogeyman out of the Immigration and Customs enforcement (ICE) agency, a typical tactic from Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.” They identify a target and personalize it as a symbol to rally around. Congressional Democrats have called for the abolition of ICE and since then people have blocked entry to the ICE office in Oregon.

Shutting down government operations and therefore inciting chaos is no small issue. It’s the objective of an insurgency. An insurgency is defined as a group of people who rise up in opposition to civil and political authority or against a lawfully established government. Now we’re seeing more of it from the radical left.

Many of the resistance movement and Antifa protesters are not just irrelevant, idealistic youth hoping for change. They are a group of organized and well-funded insurgents advocating for political violence. For example, the man who shot Congressman Steve Scalise illustrates that these activists can become an armed movement. They use fear and intimidation and have committed crimes such as arson, overturning statues, looting businesses, damaging government property and the like.

This insurgency is gaining momentum as of late because of the Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement. The resistance movement will resort to any means necessary to stop the nomination process. The incidents of aggression keep arising.

One man was recently arrested for threatening to kill the children of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s children over the ending of net neutrality. Another man was arrested for threatening to kill the children of Florida Republican Congressman Brian Mast. And a man was charged with threatening to kill Sen. Rand Paul and his family by chopping them up with an axe. The insurgent group Antifa recently attacked a Patriot Prayer rally in Oregon. News reports say police took knives and clubs off of them. One does not come to peacefully protest armed with knives and clubs. They are not an anti-fascist group, they are a borderline paramilitary revolutionary group. They show up looking for trouble and instigate confrontation if there is none.

This anger is being fomented by prominent members of the left including California Congresswoman Maxine Waters who encouraged her mob to harass and intimidate members of Trump’s Cabinet and their supporters. Filmmaker Michael Moore recently told people it was time to “rise up” against our duly elected president. He said that people had to put their bodies on the line. That is insurgency rhetoric. Hillary Clinton has announced that she is joining the resistance movement. Rise up and resistance are terms associated with an insurgent movement, not peaceful protest. There is a huge gap between what many want to call protesting and what is actually insurgent behavior. When people want to stop lawfully established government functions from operating, their behavior is then unlawful. Such behavior should be met with certain and severe consequences to deter and stop it. Taking over freeway systems not only halts government functions but interferes with a motorist’s right to use that public thoroughfare.

Refusing the Navy Cross, Chaplain O’Callahan was Forced to Accept the Medal of Honor

H/T War History OnLine.

R.I.P. Chaplin Joseph Timothy O’Callahan Captian United States Navy May 14, 1905-March 18, 1964.

World War Two saw acts of inexplicable gallantry which have lived on in posterity through the chapters of military history. Whereas there are likely acts of unimaginable bravery that have been lost to history as that generation has passed, those who have been awarded the nation’s highest military honor have had a bookmark placed next to their name.

Their stories will not be lost and future generations will be able to measure the stature of the men who answered the call when their nation needed them most. Were it not for a little extra pressure from the President of the United States, the actions of Medal of Honor recipient and Chaplain Joseph T. O’Callahan may very well have been lost to time as well.

O’Callahan (right) with President Harry S. Truman (center) and other Medal of Honor recipients at their medal presentation ceremony in 1946.

Originally awarded the Navy Cross for heroism aboard the USS Franklin as it burned around him, O’Callahan publicly refused to accept the honor. However, when the public got wind that O’Callahan was perhaps only awarded the Navy Cross to cover up poor leadership by the ship’s Captain and fellow Navy Cross recipient the President got involved.

In 1946, Chaplain Joseph T. O’Callahan was awarded the Medal of Honor by President Harry S. Truman whether he wanted it or not. What is beyond contestation is that the man’s actions were certainly worthy of the nation’s highest military honor.

Born with a Heart to Serve

Joseph T. O’Callahan was born in 1905 in Boston, Massachusetts. It didn’t take long for O’Callahan to decide that a life of service was his calling and in 1922 he joined the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) after graduating from high school. He would then go on to undergo years of his required training that would eventually see him given the position of Professor of Philosophy at Weston Jesuit School of Theology by 1938.

Chaplain Joseph O’Callahan ministers to an injured man aboard USS Franklin, 1945.

He would carry on to serve at the College of the Holy Cross. One of his students, John V. Power, would himself go on to receive the Medal of Honor.

As the clouds of war began to gather over the world, O’Callahan would find a calling in military service. In August of 1940, he was appointed a Lieutenant J.G. in the U.S. Navy Reserve Chaplain Corps. As war broke out and the needs for men of faith increased, O’Callahan’s actions and abilities would see him promoted to Commander before the war was out.

However, it was an assignment in March of 1945 aboard the USS Franklin that would earn him his unique place in military history.

The Franklin approaching New York, 26 April 1945.

On March 2, 1945, O’Callahan reported for duty on a ship that just 17 days later would find itself engulfed in flames. On March 19, 1945, the USS Franklin was conducting operations near Kobe, Japan. The ship’s Captain, Leslie E. Gehres, would receive not only a Navy Cross for the action to come but a hefty dose of criticism for the predicament his men found themselves in.

After seeing his men called to battle stations 12 times in six hours, Gehres downgraded the ship’s alert status to let his men eat and sleep despite their close proximity to Japan. It was a decision that in hindsight would prove questionable.

Captain Leslie E. Gehres

Fire From Above

After the downgrade, a single Japanese aircraft emerged through the clouds and made a devastating low level run over the ship. Two semi-armor piercing bombs found their mark and set into motion the events that would see O’Callahan receive his honor.

The hanger deck immediately became wrought with explosions from ammunition, gas tanks, and planes. Filled with smoke and with men laid out across the deck, the ship was suffering a chain reaction of continued explosions.

Attack on carrier USS Franklin 19 March 1945

O’Callahan himself was wounded in the initial explosion and yet clawed his way through the smoke to serve the men. Moving about the deck through one explosion after another, O’Callahan offered aid to the wounded and administered the last rites to the dying.

However, to save more of them he would have to get into the action himself. O’Callahan could then be seen leading men into the flames to put out fires on the magazines and personally ferry hot bombs and shells off the ship before they exploded.

The U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Franklin (CV-13) afire and listing after a Japanese air attack, off the coast of Japan, 19 March 1945.

After hours of heroic actions from many of the men on board that day, the USS Franklin was somehow saved. However, 807 men had been killed and more than 487 wounded. For actions to save the USS Franklin, O’Callahan, along with 11 other men to include the ship’s Captain, were awarded the Navy Cross. O’Callahan would then become the only Navy Cross recipient of World War Two to refuse the honor.

A Scandal to Explore

As news of the USS Franklin broke and after subsequent investigations after the war, the public began to learn of the details of one of the most devastating attacks on a US carrier.

Captain Gehres came under intense scrutiny for his leadership and it was believed that Chaplain O’Callahan’s actions warranted the Medal of Honor but was kept at a Navy Cross so as not to embarrass the Captain. Word got back to President Truman and he personally intervened to right the wrong.

In February of 1946, the man who refused the Navy Cross was now receiving the Medal of Honor from President Truman. One of only nine Chaplains to be awarded the nation’s highest military honor in history, Joseph T. O’Callahan got his unique place in military history – whether he wanted it or not.

Too Young or Too Old… To Own a Gun?

H/T AmmoLand.

Who gets to decide who is too young or too old to own a gun?

Fairfax, VA – -( A common theme among anti-gun extremists is what we often refer to as the “Goldilocks” approach to limiting access to firearms by law-abiding citizens.  Rather than admit that the ultimate goal is to disarm all Americans, those opposed to the Second Amendment create fictional arguments about why certain types of firearms, ammunition, or even accessories should be eliminated.

In the 70s, the goal was to ban handguns.  Since they could be carried concealed for personal protection, they were seen as being “too small.”  That argument fell out of fashion as more and more states passed Right-to-Carry laws that recognized the right to personal protection.

One subset of the anti-handgun hysteria included inexpensive handguns (so-called “Saturday Night Specials”), which were deemed “too cheap.”  When NRA and others pointed out this was an obvious attempt to disarm lower income citizens (who are often at higher risk to being victims of violent crime), the term “Saturday Night Special” faded from the gun-ban lexicon.

Another subset of the attack on handguns came with the introduction of Glocks, and other handguns that used polymers as part of their construction.  These were falsely claimed to be able to pass through metal detectors and x-ray machines undetected, and, thus, “too invisible” to be screened where firearm are prohibited (think airports).  Of course, this canard was quickly dispelled.

Ammunition has been attacked as “too lethal,” “too untraceable,” “too bad for the environment (lead),” “too inexpensive (so tax it),” and any number of other “toos.”

Rifles have been called “too powerful,” “too modifiable,” “too accurate,” “too similar to actual military arms,” and the list goes on.

Boiled down to its essence, after wading through myriad “too this” and “too that” arguments, the just-right “Goldilocks” of guns would likely be a break action .22 rifle, although finding acceptable lead-free ammunition might be a bit difficult.  But anti-gun extremists can still claim they don’t want to ban “all” guns.

The latest approach to “Goldilocks-style Gun Control,” though, seems to be focusing less on what you can own, and focusing more on who can own firearms.  And we don’t mean people with criminal records.

After the horrific tragedy that took place in Parkland, Florida, this year, age became the new battle cry for those seeking to limit gun ownership.  Rather than focusing on the obvious failures at various levels of government to identify the copious warning signs exhibited by the alleged perpetrator, extremists decided to focus on the fact that law-abiding citizens are able to exercise their rights protected under the Second Amendment when they reach the age of 18.  Although responsible young adults regularly leave home, join the military, get married, and begin voting at this age, the anti-gun community has decided this age is too young for one to exercise the right of gun ownership.

Eighteen-year-olds have not been prohibited from purchasing and possessing rifles and shotguns at the federal level, and in the vast majority of states, since the founding of our country.  Nonetheless, because of the violent acts of one individual, we have seen an onslaught of legislation throughout the country that seeks to raise the minimum age to purchase and/or possess rifles and shotguns from 18 to 21.  Because common sense has taken a back seat to raw emotionalism in today’s gun control debate, some of these efforts have seen success.

But being deemed “too young” to own firearms isn’t the only threat to face the pro-Second Amendment community.  There may be a new approach beginning to form.  You might soon be deemed “too old.”

An article by JoNel Aleccia and Melissa Bailey, published by Kaiser Health News (KHN) and PBS NewsHour, has begun making the rounds with a number of media outlets, such as CNN, and it discusses the issue of gun owners who may be suffering from dementia.  Sort of.

Dementia can be a devastating disorder.  It is a category of diseases, including Alzheimer’s, that affects the brain, and its impact on individuals varies widely.  Mild forms can lead to simple cognitive declines, such as slight memory loss, that are little different than one would experience during the normal aging process.  More severe and advanced cases of dementia, on the other hand, can lead to dramatic changes in those afflicted that would require professional health care, and perhaps even commitment to a dedicate healthcare facility.

Of course, discussing the problem of dementia is a conversation worthy of having.  Unfortunately, the KHN/PBS article is riddled with language that sounds like it came straight from one of the gun-ban groups being funded by anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg.  We can only presume it is likely to be used to promote anti-gun policies that focus on prohibition, and ignore reason and constitutional considerations.

The tone of the article (a lengthy one) is set early, when it inaccurately describes our nation with the all-too-commonly heard inflammatory claim that, today, “America copes with an epidemic of gun violence….”  In fact, America’s murder rate has fallen to a near all-time low.  If anything, we have been doing remarkably well since the violent crime peak in the early 90s, with violent crime and murder rates decreasing by about half.

But repeating anti-gun rhetoric is just the start.

Aleccia and Bailey go on to refer to an analysis of Washington state survey data that claims approximately 54,000 residents who are 65 and older have “some cognitive decline” as well as a firearm in the home.  Is this really important to note?  No, because two key facts are ignored.

First, cognitive decline is common among the elderly, and can manifest itself as simply slight memory loss.  It does not mean dementia is present.  In fact, the epidemiologist who analyzed the survey data even “cautions that the answers are self-reported and that people who’ve actually been diagnosed with dementia likely are unable to respond to the survey.”  So now, rather than dementia being the concern, it’s simply old age.

Second, the story refers to these people (again, likely just elderly folks with no known mental disorder) having “access to weapons,” as if that is a concern.  However, they may not even have access.  The survey apparently asked if there was a firearm in the home.  The person surveyed could very well be living in a home that has firearms in it, but not have access to the firearm.  A son or daughter who takes in a parent, for example, could be the person who owns the firearm in the home, and may not allow others access to it.

The authors also seem to lament, “Only five states have laws allowing families to petition a court to temporarily seize weapons from people who exhibit dangerous behavior.”  These are the so-called “red flag” or “extreme risk protection order” laws that are being promoted nationwide.  They generally lack sufficient due process protections necessary for deprivation of a constitutional right and are often rife for abuse.

Furthermore, dementia is not a “temporary” disease.  It has no cure.  If an individual is exhibiting “dangerous behavior,” it is, in all likelihood, going to continue, and probably increase.  All states have a process to seek to have someone’s competency adjudicated or be involuntarily committed, which could result in a more permanent firearm prohibition. And, these laws generally protect due process by allowing individuals to put on their own defense and challenge the allegation before having their rights infringed by the state.

To make matters worse, Aleccia and Bailey also spoke with long-time anti-gun researcher Garen Wintemute, as part of their parroting of the false argument that NRA has stopped “public health research into the effects of gun violence.”  Wintemute is the director of the anti-gun University of California Firearm Violence Research Center, so it is clear that there is research going on.

Ultimately, while the subject of treatment for dementia patients is a very serious issue that deserves more scientific inquiry, using such a terrible disease as a pretext to preemptively disarm elderly Americans is unacceptable.  As we have said many times before, NRA supports any reasonable steps to fix America’s broken mental health system. But if the debate is going to move towards one more Goldilocks argument suggesting that just getting “too old” is reason enough to confiscate firearms, as this article might suggest, then that is a debate we will not bear.

National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: