Saturday, July 18, 2015

Proposed Law Would Strip Words ‘Husband’ and ‘Wife’ from Federal Code


(CNSNews.com) – Last week, Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) introduced a bill that would remove the words “husband” and “wife” from the language used in federal law – a move that had drawn ire from faith leaders and family advocacy groups that see this legislation as expected fallout from the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in June that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.

“It is as if a collective madness has settled over our nation's elite and they are trying hard to bring everyone under the same cloud of confusion,” Bishop E.W. Jackson, president of STAND (Staying True to America’s National Destiny), told CNSNews.com. “They can change 1,000 laws and 10,000 dictionaries.

“Marriage was, is and always will be only a union between one man and one woman,” Jackson said. “If the emperor has no clothes, it matters not that the whole world compliments him on his outfit.

“Perceptions change, but reality remains the same,” he added. “I will oppose any effort to sanitize our legal system of the words husband and wife.”

“Redefining the terminology in marriage now of ‘husband and wife’ proves that the gay lobby is only out to completely destroy marriage between one (naturally born) man and one (naturally born) woman,” Sam Rohrer, president of the American Pastors Network, told CNSNews.com. “If everything that marriage represents is eliminated, including the language, why did they not just settle for civil unions? 

“Instead, they pushed for marriage redefinition and will continue to push until marriage as we once knew it is completely unrecognizable,” Rohrer said. “There is nothing equal between a man and a woman getting married, and two homosexual men or two lesbian women getting married. 

“Nothing they ever do will ever make that so. Therefore, they want to entirely destroy it,” Rohrer said.

“It's unnecessary for Congress to vote to endorse the court's ruling when many members believe the court engaged in judicial activism, which removed the ability of states and citizens to debate and decide marriage policy,” David Christensen, vice president for government affairs at the Family Research Council told CNSNews.com.

“The real need is for Congress to pass a law to prevent the federal government from discriminating against individuals and entities, those who believe marriage is between one man and woman one,” Christensen said.

“While court-created same-sex marriage is the new legal definition, charities shouldn't lose government contracts while helping the poor, or non-profits lose their tax-exempt status, which will unfairly punish many who continue to believe in natural marriage,” Christensen said.

Capps wrote on her congressional website about sponsoring the bill – the Amend the Code for Marriage Equality Act of 2015, which was introduced on July 8 and has been referred to committee -- that the legislation was inspired by the SCOTUS 5-4 ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. The bill has 23 co-sponsors.

“The Amend the Code for Marriage Equality Act of 2015 would strike the use of gendered terms such as ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ from the federal code and replace them with more gender-neutral terms, such as ‘spouse’ or ‘married couple,’” Capps’ website states.

“The Amend the Code for Marriage Equality Act recognizes that the words in our laws have meaning and can continue to reflect prejudice and discrimination even when rendered null by our highest courts,” Capps said of her bill. “Our values as a country are reflected in our laws.

“I authored this bill because it is imperative that our federal code reflect the equality of all marriages,” Capps said.

Capps’ website states: “The proposed legislation would not only ensure that the code reflects marriage equality, but it could also make several positive changes to the U.S. Code by removing areas of gender discrimination written into federal law.

“For instance, it is currently illegal to threaten the President’s wife – but not the President’s husband. Capps’ bill would update the code to make it illegal to threaten the President’s spouse. The bill would correct a number of these types of discrepancies in the code,” it added.

“Where will the assault on biblical marriage end?” Rev. Franklin Graham, president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, said in a recent post on his Facebook page. “Now liberal politicians in California want to ban the words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ from being used in federal law.

“They say these are ‘gendered terms’ that discriminate against homosexuals,” Graham said. “You’re absolutely right they are gendered terms—because marriage was created to be gendered!

“The One who created marriage defined it as between a man and a woman,” Graham said. “They have already succeeded in deleting husband and wife from California law last year, now they want to take it to the national level.

“This is shameful,” Graham said.



In Iowa, Scott Walker Refuses to Condemn Trump: ‘He Can Speak for Himself’

While most GOP presidential candidates rush to take potshots at surprise frontrunner Donald Trump, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker appears to be handling the real-estate-mogul-turned-presidential-candidate with an abundance of caution. “Donald Trump can speak for himself,” 


Walker said in Iowa today when asked to explain Trump’s meteoric rise. “I’m going to answer questions about my positions, not Donald Trump’s or Jeb Bush’s or Marco Rubio’s or anyone else’s out there.”


Ted Cruz has been the only high-profile GOP presidential contender to openly embrace Trump’s controversial entry into the race so far. Other Republican candidates have come out swinging against the celebrity businessman’s firebrand rhetoric. Former Texas governor Rick Perry called it “a toxic mix of demagoguery and nonsense.” South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham said Trump was a “wrecking ball” for the Republican Party. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush said Trump’s controversial comments on immigration were “not accurate,” and Florida senator Marco Rubio called them “offensive” and “divisive.



” But even after Trump relegated Walker to second-place in a new national Fox News poll on Thursday, the Wisconsin governor still wouldn’t budge. When asked why he wouldn’t join other candidates in condemning Trump, Walker still wouldn’t comment. “You’re going to ask me again, I’ll give you the same answer 50 more times,” he said, when asked why he wouldn’t join other candidates in condemning Trump. “So if you want to waste your time on that question, go ahead.”



2016 Presidential Candidates Raise Millions from Key States

Andrea Izzotti/Shutterstock
July 17, 2015 -- The reports are in. On July 15, the 2016 presidential candidates turned in their Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings disclosing how much their campaign committees have raised to date. California, New York, Florida, and Texas dominate the list of states from which candidates have received money for their campaigns.
The total cost of the 2016 presidential election is expected to reach an unprecedented $5 billion, with outside groups, like single-candidate super PACs, accounting for an increasingly larger portion of expenditures. Filings for outside groups are due to the FEC on July 31.
Data: MapLight analysis of campaign contributions to the principal campaign committees of federal presidential candidates for the 2016 election cycle, from January 1, 2015 to June 30, 2015. Data Source: Federal Election Commission.
Methodology: MapLight analysis of campaign contributions to the principal campaign committees of federal presidential candidates for the 2016 election cycle, from January 1, 2015 to June 30, 2015. Total raised figures are based on candidates summaries compiled by the Federal Election Commission. State breakdowns for donors are based on itemized records of individual and candidate contributions. All numbers are based on latest data made available by the Federal Election Commission as of July 16, 2015.
MapLight is a 501c(3) organization that tracks money's influence on politics.

House Republicans introduce resolution to block Obama's Iran deal

More than two-thirds of all House Republicans have signed onto a resolution disapproving of the Iran nuclear agreement, language that is likely to get a vote in early September after members spend weeks pouring over the deal.
The resolution from Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., has the potential to block the deal that most Republicans oppose, but only if it can pass the House and Senate, and then if both chambers can override an expected veto from President Obama.
Roskam's resolution was introduced Thursday with 171 House Republican cosponsors, and was expected to be supported by nearly every House Republican once it gets a vote. No Democrats are on the bill.
The resolution argued that Iran has been trying since the 1980s to acquire a nuclear weapon, and that the United Nations has adopted several resolutions demanding Iran lower its ambition in this area.
It also argued that "Secretary of State John Kerry has publicly stated that the United States does not recognize Iran's self-proclaimed right to enrich uranium," and says the Iran nuclear deal fails in several areas to rein in Iran.
But the final deal announced this week "fails to require Iran to fully dismantle its nuclear program" and allows "key restraints on Iran's nuclear program to expire within 10 to 15 years," according to Roskam's resolution.
The deal also allows international sanctions on conventional and ballistic missiles to be lifted, and doesn't address Iran's broader terrorist activities.
"[T]he Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action fails to address Iran's egregious human rights record, Iran's role as the world's leading state-sponsor of international terrorism and Iran's unjust imprisonment of innocent United States citizens," the resolution said.
The measure ended by saying the House "expresses its firm disapproval" of the deal, and "reaffirms its commitment to prevent Iran from ever acquiring a nuclear weapons capability."

Huffington Post Bans Donald Trump From Politics Section

The Huffington Post is taking a stand against Donald Trump and issued a statement on Friday morning saying that they’re banning Trump from appearing in any of its political coverage.

But you will find the 2016 GOP candidate in the entertainment section, right next to some other people America seems to have a love/hate relationship with: The Kardashians.

The note about “Donald Trump’s ‘campaign’” came from its Washington Bureau Chief Ryan Grim and Editorial Director Danny Shea.

After watching and listening to Donald Trump since he announced his candidacy for president, we have decided we won’t report on Trump’s campaign as part of The Huffington Post’s political coverage. Instead, we will cover his campaign as part of our Entertainment section. Our reason is simple: Trump’s campaign is a sideshow. We won’t take the bait. If you are interested in what The Donald has to say, you’ll find it next to our stories on the Kardashians and The Bachelorette.

It’s hard to argue that Trump’s campaign is a bit of a sideshow — and entertaining. Chew on this: Readers taking our quiz have a tough time figuring out if specific Trump quotes came from him as a 2016 candidate or his time on the WWE fake wrestling circuit.

Not a single reader has aced the test, and a majority have failed to even get 70 percent of them correct.

So yes, Trump does blur the line between politics and entertainment, but at least he’s not shaving anybody’s head while he continues to lead polls.

Via: Sun Times Network

Continue Reading....

Cuban Flag Goes Up at State Department on Monday

Flag of Cuba.svg .pngThe State Department will hang the Cuban flag in the lobby of the State Department building on Monday in recognition of the imminent reopening of the communist nation's embassy in Washington. The AP's Matt Lee reports:
Cuban flag to be hung alongside those of other nations in @StateDept lobby Monday AM before Cuba reopens embassy in DC, per @statedeptspox
— Matt Lee (@APDiploWriter) July 17, 2015
Flag of #Cuba will be hung in alphabetical order with others in @statedept lobby, which should put it between #Croatia and #Cyprus.
— Matt Lee (@APDiploWriter) July 17, 2015
President Eisenhower had the Cuban embassy closed in January 1961 and severed diplomatic relations with the communist government of Fidel Castro. President Obama announced in December 2014 that he is setting a "new course" with Cuba. The reopening of the embassy is just the latest step in that new course.

Jihad on U.S. Troops Is Not a "Circumstance" by Michelle Malkin

Four U.S. Marines, barred from carrying weapons at naval training facilities despite explicit ISIS threats against our military, are dead in Tennessee. Another service member and a Chattanooga police officer survived gunshots after Thursday's two-stage massacre allegedly at the hands of 24-year-old jihadist Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez.
Navy Secretary Ray Mabus called the terrorist's spree "insidious and unfathomable." President Obama bemoaned the "heartbreaking circumstance" in which the murdered Marines found themselves.
"Unfathomable"? Not if you've been paying attention. Islam-inspired hate crimes against our troops have continued unabated since the Obama White House first dismissed the 2009 Fort Hood massacre as "workplace violence."
Here's what's unfathomable: While the social justice warriors in Washington bend over backward to appease CAIR and Muslim civil rights absolutists, Americans in uniform are dying on American soil at the hands of Allah's homicidal avengers -- but the commander in chief couldn't even bother to deliver a live statement to the nation yesterday about the bloodshed.
Instead, Obama issued another bland, bloodless pronouncement about the assassinations of our disarmed troops.
"Heartbreaking circumstance"? Lightning strikes are random events of unfortunate circumstance. The concerted attacks and plots against our troops in their recruitment centers and on their bases here at home are outrageous acts of war.
Have you forgotten?
In June 2009, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad walked into an Arkansas Army recruiting center, murdered 24-year-old Pvt. William Long and gravely wounded 18-year-old Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula. He had planned on killing many more in the name of Allah. While the White House and media decried the "climate of hate" fostered by Christians, they whitewashed Muhammad's jihadi rage. Muhammad received a life sentence without parole for the act he himself described as a "jihadi attack on infidel forces."
It should be noted that Muhammad converted to Islam at Tennessee State University in Nashville and then became further radicalized in Yemen before returning to the U.S.
"The U.S. has to pay for the rape, murder, bloodshed, blasphemy it has done and still doing to the Muslims and Islam," Muhammad railed after carrying out his plot. "So consider this a small retaliation the best is to come Allah willing. This is not the first attack and won't be the last."
As I noted at the time, Obama could barely muster up a limp written statement expressing "sadness" over what he described as a "senseless act of violence" (instead of the intentional systematic act of Islamic terrorism that it was).

Teachers union members want Hillary endorsement withdrawn

WASHINGTON — Furious American Federation of Teachers members are demanding the union withdraw its endorsement of Hillary Rodham Clinton, calling it premature and undemocratic.
“There was no internal discussion. Zero. Zip,” said Steve Conn, president of the Detroit Federation of Teachers. “This is wrong and something needs to be done.”
The 45-member AFT executive board voted Saturday to back Clinton despite an AFL-CIO request to wait until July when the presidential field is more set.
Critics say union head and longtime Clinton supporter Randi Weingarten secured the early nod to hamper a surge by Clinton rival Bernie Sanders.

Feds: Gunman in Tennessee military slayings not on radar

Photo by: 

The Associated Press
This April 2015 booking photo released by the Hamilton County Sheriffs Office shows a man identified as Mohammad Youssduf Adbulazeer after being detained for a driving offense. A U.S. official speaking on condition of anonymity identified the gunman in shootings at two Chattanooga military facilities as Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, who shares the same age and address as the man in the photo. (Hamilton County Sheriffs Office via AP)
Federal authorities are investigating how a 24-year-old Kuwaiti-born man managed to stay off their radar before allegedly carrying out two horrific shootings at military offices in Chattanooga, Tenn., that claimed the lives of at least four Marines and left three others wounded.
“We are looking at every possible avenue, whether it was terrorism, whether it’s domestic, international, or whether it was 
a simple criminal act,” FBI agent Ed Reinhold said of the back-to-back shootings authorities say were carried out by Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez, 24, of Hixson, Tenn., who also was killed.
A U.S. official said there was no indication Abdulazeez was on any federal law enforcement watch lists before the attacks in Chattanooga, which took place minutes and miles apart.
The U.S. National Counter-Terrorism Center said it has seen nothing so far to link Abdulazeez to any terrorist organization. But it noted that the Islamic State group has been encouraging extremists to carry out attacks in the U.S., and several such homegrown acts or plots have unfolded in recent months.
Abdulazeez was described by friends as a smart, well-liked, “easygoing” person who was a star wrestler at his high school and graduated from the University of Tennessee Chattanooga with an engineering degree in 2012.
Officials say Abdulazeez first sprayed dozens of bullets into a recruiting center for all branches of the military before apparently driving to a Navy-Marine training center 7 miles away and opening fire. All of the dead were killed at the scene of the second shooting.
In addition to the Marines killed, three people were reported wounded, including a Chattanooga
 police officer and a sailor who was said to have been seriously hurt, officials said.

Rand Paul May Use Highway Bill to Block Planned Parenthood Funding


Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul may add an amendment to the federal highway bill to keep federal dollars from Planned Parenthood. 


The presidential hopeful said in a statement on his campaign website that he will make a move next week to strip all federal funding from Planned Parenthood. 

"The recent revelation that this taxpayer-funded organization is selling body parts of the unborn further proves that this agency deserves our scorn, not our tax dollars," Paul said. 

"I plan to do whatever I can to stop them and will introduce an amendment to pending Senate legislation to immediately strip every dollar of Planned Parenthood funding," he added. 



Roll Call is noting that one piece of pending legislation that the Senate is expected to tackle next week is the transportation bill, which has bipartisan support. 

The highway funding bill needs to be passed by July 31, before the government's authority to provide transportation funds to the states runs out. 

According to a statement on Paul's Senate website, Planned Parenthood receives almost $500 million per year from the federal government.  

"The continued disregard and disrespect for human life at Planned Parenthood, a partially taxpayer-funded organization, is shocking and appalling," he said. 


Latest News Update

"Recent video revelations, involving potentially criminal activity, make it more obvious than ever that this organization has absolutely zero respect for the sanctity of human life and is an affront to the most basic human dignity enshrined in our founding documents," Paul added. 


"Not one more taxpayer dollar should go to Planned Parenthood and I intend to make that goal a reality."

Planned Parenthood has come under fire ever since an undercover video was released earlier this week of Planned Parenthood's senior director of medical services discussing in explicit detail the process the group goes through to procure fetal body parts for buyers.  



Friday, July 17, 2015

[VIDEO] EPA ‘secret science’ under the microscope as GOP lawmakers seek ban

The Environmental Protection Agency for years has issued costly clean air rules based, in part, on two '90s-era studies linking air pollution with death. 
But, critics say, the same agency has stymied efforts to access the data behind them. The transparency concerns have Republican lawmakers on a new campaign to end the use of what they dub "secret science." 
"Why would the EPA want to hide this information from the American people?" House science committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, asked EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy at a hearing last week. 
Smith is among those pushing legislation to bar the use of "secret science" for EPA regulations -- namely, Clean Air Act rules that Republicans say are based on research hidden from public view. The bill has passed the House and now awaits action on the Senate floor. 
"The most expensive rules coming out of the EPA rely on secret science," Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), said in a statement to FoxNews.com. "Americans deserve to have access to technical information and data being used to develop EPA rules that significantly impact their daily lives." 
For its part, the EPA has argued that releasing the data could compromise confidential personal information, and that it didn't have access to all the research anyway, among other issues. The agency made an effort to contact the original institutions behind the studies in 2013, but Republicans say they again would not hand over everything. 
During last week's hearing, McCarthy questioned why lawmakers have focused on this -- and why anyone would want to seek out this kind of granular information. 
"The EPA totally supports both transparency as well as a strong peer-reviewed independent science process, but the bill I'm afraid I don't think will get us there," she said. "I don't actually need the raw data in order to develop science, that's not how it's done. ... I do not know of what value raw data is to the general public." 
But Smith said the agency "has a responsibility to be open and transparent with the people it serves, and whose money it spends."
Further, Inhofe said the data pertains to everything from forthcoming emissions rules for power plants to mercury rules recently challenged by a major Supreme Court ruling. 
The Republican legislation -- called the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015 -- would bar the EPA from issuing certain rules unless all relevant research is named and publicly available for those who want it. In seeking the change, critics say the EPA's air quality rules for years have relied largely on two studies from the 1990s whose data is not entirely accessible -- including a 1993 Harvard studylinking air pollution and mortality in certain U.S. cities, and another from the American Cancer Society.  
In the mercury case cited by Inhofe, the high court ruled last month that the EPA should have factored in the costs of recent rules targeting mercury and other pollution. McCarthy reportedly has said the "very narrow" ruling won't affect the separate and ongoing effort to draft new power plant emissions rules, which could be completed in a matter of weeks. The White House has taken a similar stance in downplaying the implications of the 5-4 decision. 
But the ruling nevertheless has emboldened critics. And the "secret science" legislation could add to that pressure. 
An EPW committee aide told FoxNews.com the legislation, if approved, potentially could impact both the mercury and greenhouse gas emissions rules. 
"Really, this is just simple transparency," the aide said. 

GUTIERREZ: STEINLE DEATH ‘A LITTLE THING’

Luis V. Gutiérrez (D-Ill.) explained on Telemundo that the murder of Kate Steinle was just “a little thing” and every time an extreme example like this occurs, it’s used to eliminate. He is referring to sanctuary cities.
Under Barack Obama’s guidelines, deportations of criminal illegal aliens are down by more than 42%. At least 30,000 criminal illegal aliens are released each year since Barack Obama has been in office, but 2013 was a banner year with with more than 68,000 criminal illegal aliens let out onto our streets.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert W. Goodlatte released the data which also showed that the 30,558 criminal aliens ICE knowingly released back into the community in 2014 had amassed nearly 80,000 convictions, including 250 homicides, 186 kidnappings and 373 sexual assaults.
Also according to the statistics, the aliens released by ICE had amassed 13,636 convictions for driving under the influence, 1,589 weapons offenses, 99 aggravated assaults, 56 arsons and 31 smuggling offenses.
Their criminal convictions in their home country are never considered.
In May of this year, the Obama administration’s Police Task Force had a new “recommendation” that law enforcement better follow. Local police are no longer to report illegal alien felons to any agency that could deport them.
Local, State and County law enforcement will no longer have any jurisdiction over this class of criminal when it comes to deportation – Homeland Security will have sole responsibility.
In 2014, ICE reported that there are more than 870,000 aliens, including criminals, on its docket who have been ordered removed, but who remain in defiance of the law.
When the criminal illegal aliens are released onto our streets, they are spread out in a number of zip codes. You can check those on this link.
Let’s go through a few more of the “little things”.
jean-jocques-575x457
Haitian immigrant Jean Jacques, who was released from prison in January after serving a sentence for attempted murder, is accused of murdering a 25-year old Connecticut woman, Casey Chadwick, on June 15th and stuffing her body in a closet.
His prison file was marked “Detainer: Immigration”. Connecticut officials say he was released in January to the custody of the U.S. Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
His crimes included the illegal use of a gun during a 1996 deadly shooting. ICE spokesman Shawn Neudauer said he can’t talk about it.
Aurelio Hernandez-Gomez
An Illegal alien from Chiapas, Mexico, Aurelio Hernandez-Gomex, 23, pictured above, kidnapped a 13-year-old girl from Polk County, Florida last week and brought her to a house in Michigan, according to police.
He is charged with kidnapping and rape, according to The Ledger.
Sue Payne hosted the Pat McDonough Show in Baltimore on July 11th. She spoke first to former representative Tom Tancredo and he mentioned one case in Colorado that was particularly upsetting to him.


The True Cost of Immigration


Democrats, along with a number of equally feckless Republicans, are extolling the virtues of “comprehensive immigration reform.” Such jargon obscures their real agenda, which is the abandonment of the rule of law in favor of a political expediency that benefits the ruling class and its campaign contributors. A ruling class and campaign contributors who seek to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” into a nation where progressive power is permanent, and cheap labor is plentiful. Hence, while those virtues are put front and center before the public, the vices associated with illegal immigration are relegated to the back of the proverbial bus. Here’s a look at some of those vices.


We begin with crime. There are a number of statistical measurements. One is a 2011 Government Accountability Office (GAO) reportrevealing that the number SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in state prison systems and local jails in FY2009 (the most recent data available) was about 296,000. As American Thinker’s Randall Hoven explains, “SCAAP is the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program and in this context means ‘illegal aliens’ ‚Äì a GAO term meaning ‘Noncitizens whom ICE verified were [or whom states and local jurisdictions believe to be] illegally in the United States at the time of incarceration.’”

Another is a report by the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) obtained by Breitbart News. It shows that while illegal aliens comprise 3.5 percent of the nation’s population, they comprised a whopping 36.7 percent of federal sentences following criminal convictions in FY 2014. The actual number of crimes for which these illegals received sentences was 27,505. The primary categories include drug trafficking, kidnapping/hostage taking, drug possession, money laundering and murder convictions.

This data comprise actual convictions of federal offenders subject to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (SRA). Omitted from the list are state and death penalty cases, as well as “cases initiated but for which no convictions were obtained, offenders convicted for whom no sentences were yet issued, and offenders sentenced but for whom no sentencing documents were submitted to the Commission.” And while the data do include immigration violations, which makes up the lion’s share of convictions, eliminating that category entirely would still have illegals comprising 13.6 percent of all sentenced offenders, a number that far exceeds the aforementioned 3.5 percent of the total U.S. population they represent.

More germane is data revealed by Judicial Watch (JW). They note that “as of April 26, 2014, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had released 165,900 convicted criminal aliens throughout the United States, including many convicted of such violent crimes as homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping, and aggravated assault.” These illegals, along with 706,950 non-criminal illegals, were ordered to leave the country, “but have not done so and remain free,” JW reveals. JW also explains the documents reveal the difficulty ICE has with local policies that interfere with federal enforcement of immigration law. Those would be “sanctuary city” policies and JW cites a case in Montgomery County, MD where officials prevented ICE from gaining access to an illegal charged with rape.


Popular Posts