Category Archives: California

Only In California: Sacramento To Pay Gang Bangers A Cash Stipend If They Stop Killing People

You’re probably thinking this is a satirical report from The Onion.

We thought so, too.

But be assured it’s very real, as reported by Fox 40 Sacramento:

After a violent weekend of suspected gang-related shootings, Tuesday the Sacramento City Council took action to reduce the bloodshed.

It approved a controversial program called Advance Peace, which offers cash stipends to gang members who remain peaceful.

“Let’s get going on doing everything we can to save innocent lives,” Steinberg said.

The program targets key gang agitators, offering them cash stipends to graduate school and remain peaceful. It already claims success in dropping crime rates in Richmond. But the city would still have to pay half the cost of the program, $1.5 million out of the city’s general fund.

In the end, the council agreed to the program, voting 9-0 in favor.

Because policies of appeasement have worked so very well throughout history, why not give it another try?

Take money from peaceful tax paying citizens and redistribute that money to the gang bangers who are killing them.

Sounds like a brilliant idea that could only manifest itself on the progressively tolerant left coast.

Maybe we should kick this up to the Federal level and see if we can get taxpayer funds to send to the Islamic State and North Korea… that should work like a charm.

Source: Prison Planet

Advertisements

Bomb Shelter Sales “Skyrocket” In ☭ California As Nuclear Fears Spike

Equity investors today failed to follow through on initial efforts to “Buy The Fucking Fire and Fury Dip” but they are apparently rushing out to buy their very own doomsday bunkers on the off chance that President Trump wasn’t joking yesterday when he offered the following warning to North Korea:

Apparently the comments have spooked some folks on America’s west coast who are thought to be within Kim Jong Un’s nuclear strike radius. And while a global nuclear confrontation is generally viewed as a bad thing, for Ron Hubbard, President of Atlas Survival Shelters in Los Angeles, it has resulted in an economic windfall.  Here’s more from The Sacramento Bee:

“It’s crazy, I’ve never seen anything like it,” Ron Hubbard, president of Atlas Survival Shelters, told Fox11. “It’s all over the country. I sold shelters today in North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, California.”

The company, based in Montebello in eastern Los Angeles, sells shelters priced from $10,000 to $100,000. Hubbard told the station that the shelters are designed to be buried 20 feet below ground and can sustain survivors for up to one year, depending on the size and model.

He told the station he had sold more than 30 units in recent days, including to customers in Japan.

https://i2.wp.com/www.atlassurvivalshelters.com/images/home1.jpg

Meanwhile, Bloomberg reports that Vivos, another shelter manufacturer in Del Mar, Calif., near San Diego, also has experienced a spike in business.

“Japan’s going hog wild right now,” said Ron Hubbard, owner of Atlas Survival. The Montebello, California-based company makes about a dozen different underground refuge models intended to be inhabitable for six months to a year, some outfitted with escape tunnels, decontamination rooms and bulletproof hatches.

“People are getting off the fence – we’ve got thousands and thousands of applications,” said Robert Vicino, founder and chief executive officer of Vivos, Spanish for “alive.”

Vivos sells models for individual and communal use, and the company has built subterranean survival communities in the U.S. and Europe. The latest, xPoint, covers 9,000 acres in South Dakota with 575 off-grid dugouts. Planned amenities include a community theater, hydroponic gardens, shooting ranges, restaurant and bar. Shelters in the community are available for lease with an up-front cost of $25,000. Vicino told Bloomberg about 50 units have been leased or reserved.

Bunker

Of course, for now we can only speculate that Trump and Putin must have colluded in efforts to spark a global nuclear confrontation while quietly buying up bunker manufacturers behind the scenes to make a little extra cash. We demand that Special Counsel Mueller expand his investigation to look into this rather suspicious development immediately.

Source: ZeroHedge

Michelle Obama Top School Lunch Ally Charged with Embezzlement

https://i2.wp.com/media.breitbart.com/media/2017/08/Binkle-Michelle-Obama-collage-ap-getty-640x480.jpg

A top school lunch reformer for the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), who received praise from former first lady Michelle Obama, has been charged with 15 felony counts, including embezzlement and misappropriation of public funds.

David Binkle, 55, a former chef who ultimately oversaw a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars as he implemented Michelle Obama’s school lunch program in the LAUSD, pleaded not guilty to all the counts during an appearance in court on Tuesday and posted $220,000 bail, reports the L.A. Times.

Prosecutors allege that Binkle – who railed against childhood obesity with appearances on Tedx Talks – illegally directed about $65,000 of the school district’s funds into his private consulting firm, some of which eventually ended up in his own pocket.

The news report continues:

According to court documents, Binkle repeatedly misappropriated district funds in amounts ranging from $5,000 to $15,000 between 2010 and 2014. Prosecutors also allege that he forged an application to become a vendor with the district and failed to disclose outside financial interests.

Binkle, who became known for his use of the phrase “nasty, rotty” food, led the former first lady’s unpopular school lunch reform in the district even as students established their own black market of favorite – albeit “unhealthy” – foods.

In his efforts to implement the school lunch reform, Binkle offered lengthy contracts to providers such as Tyson Foods Inc., Jennie-O Turkey Store Sales, Goldstar Foods, and Five Star Gourmet Foods. Some of the vendors also agreed to annual donations of $500,000 to a healthy eating marketing program in the school district.

Problems with Binkle’s management, however, were noted as early as 2011 by George Beck, a former food-services deputy branch budget director, who reportedly brought his concerns to the district but was ignored and then laid off.

Nevertheless, in 2014, the LAUSD’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) accused Binkle of failing to disclose his ownership of California Culinary Consulting or payments from vendors who appeared at school nutrition events.

The OIG audit noted his firm presented “at minimum an appearance of a conflict of interest,” and his marketing program was “being mismanaged and at worst being consistently abused” by Binkle, who said he was “frustrated and baffled” by the allegations.

“I have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, since my actions were approved and encouraged from senior district officials, general counsel or the ethics office,” Binkle emailed the Times. “I am confident the truth and facts will show the allegations are unsubstantiated.”

Beck, however, reportedly said Binkle’s activity was a symptom of larger problems within LAUSD:

He negotiated these contracts with these firms with no oversight, nobody else participating. It was a huge procurement bureaucracy. There was one contract for vegetarian entrees, and I remember sitting in a meeting with 35 people. Binkle was there. He had one entrée that was $2.25 per item, and our reimbursement was less than the cost of the meal. Every meal that we sold, we were losing money.

Beck added he was surprised it took so long for prosecutors to uncover the problems with Binkle.

“All these internal control entities that were supposed to be exercising internal control were not doing it,” he said. “I brought it to their attention, and they did nothing about it.”

“While recognizing that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, the charges against Mr. Binkle are extremely upsetting as they do not reflect the professionalism, ethics and character we expect of all L.A. Unified employees,” the school district said in a statement.

In October of 2014, Breitbart News also reported a major scandal in the LAUSD in which former superintendent John Deasy – a former employee of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – resigned after pushing a $1.3 billion iPad buy for every child in the district from joint sellers Apple and Pearson, the latter of which had designed a companion iPad curriculum. The program was a huge failure and led to further scrutiny of Deasy’s close personal ties with Apple and Pearson.

In 2015, Deasy ultimately joined a training academy funded by one of his supporters, philanthropist Eli Broad. He became a consultant and the superintendent-in-residence for the Broad Academy, which trains urban public education leaders.

By Dr. Susan Berry | Breitbart

2A Foundation Issues Travel Advisory: Your Gun Rights Are No Good in ☭ California

On August 7, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) issued its first ever travel advisory warning American gun owners not to go to California unless they are willing to enter the state disarmed or risk going to jail.

The gun rights group is “warning law-abiding armed citizens that their civil rights could be in jeopardy due to that state’s restrictive gun control laws.”

SAF founder and executive vice president Alan Gottlieb observed:

The California Legislature has been out of control for years when it comes to placing restrictions on the Second Amendment rights of honest citizens. Right now, I wouldn’t suggest to any gun owner that they even travel through the state, much less to it as their final destination.

Lawmakers in Sacramento either ignored or have forgotten that in 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment in SAF’s landmark case of McDonald v. City of Chicago. The Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms applies to state and local governments, but they seem rather oblivious to that fact in the halls of California’s Legislature.

He added:

If you are licensed to carry in your home state, that license is not recognized in California. It doesn’t matter how many background checks you’ve gone through or whether you took a gun safety course. Your license is no good in the Golden State, which suggests that your safety and the safety of your family are of no concern to state lawmakers or city administrators. You could be prosecuted for having a gun for personal protection, or you might get killed because you didn’t.

Gottlieb is spot on. California refuses to recognize any concealed carry permit other the one they issue. This is an expression of Democratic hegemony whereby they have made concealed carry licenses extremely difficult for Californians to acquire — fewer than 100,000 Californians have a license — and they do not want to provide a means for additional law-abiding citizens to be armed via reciprocity.

What does this mean? It means that when a visitor from another state drives into California, he is not supposed to be armed, regardless of the number of out-of-state concealed permits he possesses or the risks associated with being defenseless. None of these things matter because the Democrats have spoken.

Gottlieb’s verdict: “By not going to California, the life you save may be your own.”

By AWR Hawkins | Breitbart News

California ☭ Exposed For Having 11 Counties With More Registered Voters Than Voting-Age Citizens

The Election Integrity Project California provides a list of 11 California counties that have more registered voters than voting-age citizens.

In addition, Los Angeles County officials informed the project that “the number of registered voters now stands at a number that is a whopping 144% of the total number of resident citizens of voting age.”

The Election Integrity Project California, Inc. has joined Judicial Watch, Inc., a non-partisan organization in Washington, D.C., in sending a National Voter Registration Act (“NVRA”) Section 8 notice of violation letter to California Secretary of State, Alex Padilla.

NVRA Complaint Excerpts

Dear Secretary Padilla:

From public records obtained on the Election Assistance Commission (“EAC”) 2016 Election Administration Voting Survey (“EAVS”), and through verbal accounts from various county agencies, eleven (11) counties in California have more total registered voters than citizen voting age population (CVAP) calculated by the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011-2015 American Community Survey. This is strong circumstantial evidence that California municipalities are not conducting reasonable voter registration list maintenance as mandated under the NVRA.

This letter serves as statutory notice that Election Integrity Project California, Inc., a registered non-profit corporation in California, and Judicial Watch, Inc., will bring a lawsuit against you and, if appropriate, against the counties named in this letter, if you do not take specific actions to correct these violations of Section 8 within 90 days.

The following information explains how we determined that your state and the counties named are in violation of NVRA Section 8 and the remedial steps that must be taken to comply with the law.

1. Eleven California Counties Have More Total Registered Voters Than Citizen Voting Age Population

Based on our review of 2016 EAC EAVS report, the 2011-2015 U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, and the most recent California total active and total inactive voter registration records, California is failing to comply with the voter registration list maintenance requirements of Section 8 of the NVRA. For example, a comparison of the 2011-2015 U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, and the most recent California active and inactive voter registration records shows there were more total registered voters than there were adults over the age of 18 living in each of the following eleven (11) counties: Imperial (102%), Lassen (102%), Los Angeles (112%), Monterey (104%), San Diego (138%), San Francisco (114%), San Mateo (111%), Santa Cruz (109%), Solano (111%), Stanislaus (102%), and Yolo (110%). Our own research shows that the situation in these counties is, if anything, worse than the foregoing data suggest. For example, we contacted Los Angeles County directly this past June. At that time, county officials informed us that the total number of registered voters now stands at a number that is a whopping 144% of the total number of resident citizens of voting age.

2. The NVRA Requires You to Undertake Reasonable Efforts to Maintain Accurate Lists of Eligible Registered Voters

3. Failure to Comply with NVRA Subjects You to Lawsuits and Financial Costs

In passing the NVRA, Congress authorized a private right of action to enforce the provisions of the NVRA, including Section 8. Accordingly, private persons may bring a lawsuit under the NVRA if the violations identified herein are not corrected within 90 days of receipt of this letter.

4. Avoiding Litigation

We hope you will promptly initiate efforts to comply with Section 8 so that no lawsuit will be necessary. We ask you and, to the extent that they wish to respond separately, each county identified in this letter, to please respond to this letter in writing no later than 30 days from today informing us of the compliance steps you are taking. Specifically, we ask you to: (1) conduct or implement a systematic, uniform, nondiscriminatory program to remove from the list of eligible voters the names of persons who have become ineligible to vote by reason of a change in residence; and (2) conduct or implement additional routine measures to remove from the list of eligible voters the names of persons who have become ineligible to vote by reason of death, change in residence, or a disqualifying criminal conviction, and to remove noncitizens who have registered to vote unlawfully.

5. Production of Records

Finally, pursuant to your obligations under the NVRA,15 your office and, to the extent that they keep records separately from your office, each county named in this letter, should make available to us all pertinent records concerning “the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency” of California’s official eligible voter lists during the past 2 years. Please include these records with your response to this letter.

I hope that the concerns identified in this letter can be resolved amicably. However, if we believe you do not intend to correct the above-identified problems, a federal lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against you may be necessary. We look forward to receiving your prompt response.

Sincerely,
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
s/ Robert D. Popper
Robert D. Popper
Attorney, Judicial Watch, Inc.

Here is the full six-page NVRA Letter to California Secretary of State, Alex Padilla.

By Mike “Mish” Shedlock

Covered California Plans To Jack 2018 Premiums Up 12.5%

Covered California announced this week that its 2018 rates will increase about eight times faster than the rate of inflation, as the Obamacare law and the state’s liberal legislature continue to destroy private insurance in California.

Despite the latest United States Department of Labor Consumer Price Index for the month of June estimating that inflation rose by only 1.6 percent over the last twelve months, Covered California, Obamacare for the state, just announced that the average health insurance premiums on the California insurance exchanges would rise by 12.5 percent, or about 7.81 times faster than the rate of inflation.

Covered California’s spiking prices are actually a relative bargain compared to the even worse Obamacare price increases insurers are about to extract across the rest of the nation. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that “big insurers in Idaho, West Virginia, South Carolina, Iowa, and Wyoming are seeking to raise premiums by 30 percent or more.”

The insurance industry lobbied the Democrat-controlled Congress in 2010 to design Obamacare to be more expensive than traditional private insurance by dramatically expanding services covered in the health benefit packages.

https://i0.wp.com/media.breitbart.com/media/2015/06/Covered-California-640x480.jpg

Section 1302 of the law granted also the Department of Health and Human Services the right to periodically revise an “essential health benefits package” of minimum health insurance coverage requirements. That allowed insurance companies to lobby federal bureaucrats to add more benefits and eliminate the standard lifetime caps on spending for wildly expensive treatments, such as inpatient drug rehabilitation.

Since the 2013-4 launch of Obamacare, premiums have risen by about 15 percent per year, despite inflation averaging only about 2 percent a year.

Not only were insurance companies making huge increases in revenue during the Obamacare years, their gross profit margins jumped from 22 percent, when Obamacare was passed in 2010, to 26 percent in the last quarter of 2016. Healthcare stocks have been the second-hottest sector in the seven-year bull market for stocks. Since Obamacare was passed on March 23, 2010, the healthcare stock index has risen by 248 percent.

The Trump presidential win appeared to represent an existential threat to the healthcare industry’s Obamacare bonanza. But with the Republican Senate failing to pass any type of Obamacare repeal, the healthcare stocks hit another all-time-high on July 31.

Many major healthcare companies that supported the expansion of Obamacare benefits and costs over the last seven years are now dropping out of the program as customers begin to take full advantage of the expanded and unlimited benefits.

United Healthcare, America’s largest healthcare insurer, announced in March 2016 that it was exiting all Obamacare exchanges after stating that Obamacare claims would reduce 2016 earnings by about $850 million. Still, four months later, United Healthcare recorded all-time-record quarterly revenues of $46.5 billion, a $10 billion increase over the prior year.

Covered California had been able to keep healthcare premium growth to around 10 percent per year because 11 healthcare insurers were participating. But Aetna dropped out at the end of 2016, and Anthem Blue Cross just announced they are dumping 153,000 customers and shutting down California operations in all regions except the rural north state, Central Valley, and Santa Clara County, according to the Orange County Register.

The 12.5 percent Covered California statewide increase is just an average. Abandoned United Healthcare subscribers can still buy coverage from Blue Shield, but their annual premium cost is expected to leap by 24 percent.

Covered California premium rates could jump statewide by another 16.6 percent if the Trump administration does not contest the May 12, 2016 ruling by U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer in United States House of Representatives v. Price that the Obama administration improperly amended Obamacare in January 2014 to pay billions in cost-sharing subsidies to insurers without congressional approval.

By Chriss W. Street | Breitbart

 

Arrest The Sanctuary Mayors Now

(Vdare) Every civil war has a Fort Sumter moment—a point of contention over which disputing factions stake a political claim and refuse to budge, leading to all-out war. And in this Cold Civil War through which we are now living, the growing hostility between President Donald Trump and sanctuary state politicians will inevitably produce such a confrontation; probably within the next year. [Attorney General Sessions Raises Stakes for Sanctuary Cities, by Pete Williams, NBC, July 25, 2017] If Donald Trump is wise enough, he can capitalize on the situation in much the same way that Abraham Lincoln capitalized on the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter during the first Civil War.

The attack on Fort Sumter in 1861 is often portrayed as an act of unprovoked aggression on the part of the Confederacy. But the truth is more complicated than that. Fort Sumter was not simply a military installation, but a Union tax collection office perched in the center of Charleston harbor.

The Morrill Tariff, which was widely supported in the North, but vehemently opposed in the South, was signed into law by President James Buchanan two days before Lincoln took office. The legislation promised to triple the import tariff, and was especially burdensome on the import-dependent South. The challenge, for Lincoln, was that the Confederate South no longer considered itself obligated to pay any tariffs to the Union government.

In his Inaugural Address, President Lincoln directly responded to this challenge and insisted that he had the full authority to collect all tariffs owed to the federal government, by force, if necessary. (Lincoln also insisted, incidentally, that he was perfectly willing to maintain slavery).

President James Buchanan—long regarded, perhaps unfairly, as one of our weakest presidents—had sent a supply ship to Fort Sumter in January, 1861, but the ship immediately turned around after being fired upon. Lincoln, therefore, surely knew that the Confederates would attack again when he ordered a small fleet of ships to resupply Fort Sumter in the spring of 1861. He even sent a delegate to the governor of South Carolina to inform him that the ships were on their way.

Whatever the merits of the Confederate cause, they had boldly challenged the authority of the American President and the legitimacy of federal law over their territories. If the Union was going to survive, Lincoln could not back down over Ft. Sumter. More pressingly, Lincoln knew that the side that fired the first shot would be at a serious moral disadvantage.

Today

Fast forward some 156 years later and the United States is in the midst of a different kind of civil war—a Cold Civil War over the National Question. And our Fort Sumter may well come over the issue of “sanctuary cities”—cities whose official policy is that of non-cooperation with the Federal immigration authorities.

During last year’s campaign, Donald Trump promised to withhold federal funds to sanctuary cities and he has kept that promise, so far, by appointing Jeff Sessions as Attorney General and supporting, among other things, the No Sanctuary For Criminals Act, which bars sanctuary cities and states from receiving federal funds (a policy VDARE.com has long advocated).

In response, some jurisdictions have backed away from their sanctuary policies. .[ Miami-Dade commission votes to end county’s ‘sanctuary’ status, By Alan Gomez, USA TODAY, February 17, 2017]

But most sanctuary politicians remain defiant and insist that they will defy any federal attempts to deport illegal aliens in their cities. In fact, California and, to a lesser degree, Massachusetts, are now moving to officially become sanctuary states. [Debate rages over California’s ‘sanctuary state’ law, by By Kyung Lah and Alberto Moya, CNN, July 3, 2017 and Supreme Judicial Court ruling gives legal cover to sanctuary cities, By Milton J. Valencia, Boton Globe, July 24, 2017]

So how should President Trump respond?

From allegedly liberal Massachusetts (home to five sanctuary cities), Bristol County Sherriff Thomas Hodgins told the Senate Judiciary Committee: “If these sanctuary cities are going to harbor and conceal criminal illegal aliens from ICE, which is in direct violation of title 8 of the US Code, federal arrest warrants should be issued for their elected officials.” [MA Sheriff: Arrest Leaders of Sanctuary Cities, CBS Boston, March 8, 2017]

In response, Mayor Joseph Curtatone of Somerville, MA was defiant: “Come and get me.” [‘Come and get me,’ Somerville mayor says to sheriff calling for arrest of sanctuary city leaders, by Dialyn Dwyer, Boston Globe, March 29, 2017]

They should do exactly that. Attorney General Jeff Sessions should issue an arrest warrant, and federal officials should enter Somerville City Hall, throw the cuffs on Mayor Curtatone, put him in jail, and prosecute him.

Sure, the mayor might be out of jail in an hour. And the Main Stream Media talking heads will freak out. But can there be any doubt that the American public will overwhelmingly support Trump—especially if he communicates why he was forced to act?

Such a high-profile arrest would also put the fear of God into most sanctuary politicians. As Netflix President Frank Underwood put it: “I have often found that bleeding hearts have an ironic fear of their own blood.”

Indeed they do. These sanctuary politicians will be shocked when they discover that the vast majority of Americans are actively hostile to sanctuary policies and side with Trump.

An arrest of a sanctuary politician would also serve as a very inexpensive form of immigration enforcement because it would encourage many illegals to self-deport and deter many more from entering in the first place.

My guess is that the Left’s strategy will be to challenge the No Sanctuary For Criminals Act in the courts, and effectively nullify it until a Democrat is elected to the White House. This was pretty much the strategic response to California’s Proposition 187 (1994), and it worked.

In other words, they don’t really believe that Trump can pull this off. And that is all the more reason why he must act boldly.

My candidate for the best politician for Trump to arrest: California Governor Jerry Brown. “Governor Moonbeam” is the perfect poster boy for Sanctuary America; the kind of political opponent Trump could steamroll, not just because he is a weird guy, but because he is a total hypocrite.

For example, Brown once claimed to oppose sanctuary policies. “I don’t support sanctuary cities,” he said in 2010. “Just opening up the cities and saying our borders don’t mean anything, as the state’s chief law enforcement officer, I’m not going there.” [Jerry Brown on the issues, SFGate, March 10, 2010 ]

But Brown more recently most definitely has “gone there”. Governor Brown recently appropriated as much as $30 million in the state budget to help illegals escape deportation. This is in addition to the small fortune California has spent hiring former Attorney General Eric Holder for the same purpose. In fact, Brown recently pardoned several deportees who had been convicted of serious crimes so that they can return to the country—implying that he has the power to pardon the crime of illegal immigration, which he does not. [Gov. Jerry Brown issues pardons, commutes sentences hours before Easter Sunday, by John Myers, Los Angeles Times, April 15, 2017]

Indeed, Brown’s hypocrisy on immigration runs deep. When Brown was governor during the 1970s, he openly opposed the importation of Vietnamese boat people. “There is something a little strange about saying, ‘Let’s bring in 500,000 more people’ when we can’t take care of the 1 million [Californians] out of work,” said Brown in 1975. He even tried to prevent the planes carrying refugees from landing at Travis Air Force base in Northern California. [Governors’ Tough Talk Can’t Block Refugees, by George Skelton, Los Angeles Times, November 23, 2015]

Brown has also inherited considerable wealth from his father’s shady oil business, and yet he continually inveighs against fossil fuels and “climate change.”

Moreover, despite Brown’s significant inherited wealth, Brown and state legislators recently gave themselves a 3% pay raise, making Jerry Brown the highest-paid governor in the country. [Lawmakers, Jerry Brown, Get Another Pay Raise, by Christopher Cadelago, Sacramento Bee, June 19, 2017 ]

If the feds were to arrest Brown, and he should protest, Trump should simply remind the public that Jerry Brown doesn’t understand the law and that is probably why he flunked the bar exam the first time he took it.

Remember, Abraham Lincoln took infinitely more drastic steps during our first civil war—the suspension of habeas corpus, the imprisonment of some 30,000 private citizens without trial, an executive order to seize any newspapers critical of the Union cause etc. And yet we have effectively canonized Abraham Lincoln and honored him with the most magnificent memorial in our nation’s capital.

In contrast, all Donald Trump needs is the courage to enforce the specific law that is already on the books.

What will the obstructionist judiciary do when President Trump arrests a public official for breaking the law? Especially when most of the citizenry applauds—and they will, if Trump states his case forcefully.

Patriotic Immigration Reform’s Fort Sumter moment is coming. Will President Donald Trump face the challenge as Abraham Lincoln did before him? Or will he allow these modern-day rebels to flout our immigration laws in perpetuity?

We’ll soon find out.

Matthew Richer (email him) is a writer living in Massachusetts. He is the former American Editor of Right NOW magazine.