Christmas has been removed from our lexicon, no prayers in schools, no under God in the Pledge of Allegiance, no affirmation to support and defend the Constitution in our citizenship oath, yet, we must accommodate everything Islam so as not to offend MUSLIMS!

Is that not an insidious establishment of religion? When I was a kid we said the Lord’s prayer every morning in public school after the Pledge of Allegiance and the Catholics would stop after “… but deliver us from evil” and the Protestants would continue “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever and ever” and we all said “Amen.”

Respect! We respected each other’s faith. But be aware, Islam does not respect Christianity. Christ taught tolerance. For the Old Testament “eye for an eye,” Christ taught Christians to turn the other cheek. In understanding secular and heavenly distinctions, Christ instructed his followers to render unto God and to Caesar.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam accept the Ten Commandments. But in Islam there is an exception to the Seventh Commandment – Thou shall not kill. Islam condones killing (through time tested 7th Century corporal punishments, such as beheading, mayhem, stoning, whipping, etc) of anyone who refuses to “submit” to Allah or rejects Allah. Plus the special punishment of raping to death a woman who has insulted her family or Islam through “honor rape” or “honor killing.” How can you possibly link the words of honor and rape?

Under Christianity the world has embraced the marvels of the human mind – to think, to heal, to reason. Yes, also to commit war on global schemes – but as I have said many times, citizens do not cause wars politicians cause wars.

But the point is that Islam is grounded in a 7th Century ethos that has only embraced modernity from the standpoint of modern weapons, not modern ideas.

The threat to the West is not Islam it is Islam’s intolerance for thoughts, ideas, and dreams that conflict with Islam.

The Soviet empire fell because the economies and individuality of the West exposed the shortcomings of Marxism. Marxism, like globalism, reduces the standard for all to the lowest common denominator – except for Marx’s bourgeois or what we call today, the jet setters or elites, or emirs, sultans, and kings.

Islam finds comfort in a common level of belief and eliminates the discomfort of a questioning or inquiring mind. Sounds like a perfect formula for the ruling classes, the princes, emirs, the kings, and the dictators. Rodney King would be pleased – can’t we just all get along?”

So, why should we insist on tolerance to those who demand submission from us?

Instead of becoming like them, why not let the clash of culture play-out in the forum of reason and the advancement of humankind. Islam wants to lead us back to the 7th Century, yet under the tolerance of Christianity mankind has prospered intellectually, medically, institutionally, and nutritionally. Islam fears the human mind while Christianity embraces the limitlessness of our human intellect.

Enough with Islamic accommodation let Islam compete with the West for the future of humankind on the battlefields of intellect, education, medicine, law, and freedom.

Col Sends

Harkening back to the secretive and scandalous days of former President Richard Nixon, the CIA released Nixon’s classified President’s Daily Briefs (PDB). At a national security symposium at the Nixon library, CIA Director John Brennan unveiled roughly 2,500 declassified documents, including papers from the Watergate scandal that ultimately forced the 37^th president to resign.

WATCH CW6 TV SEGMENT HERE

The PDB documents highlighted intelligence community analysis that the president and his senior policymakers used to access domestic and national security threats.  Among the documents are historical events including the Vietnam War, President Nixon’s trip to China in 1972, OPEC embargo in 1973-74, and the Arab-Israeli War in 1973.

“Today is an opportunity to shed a bit more light on our mission and our history for the benefit of the American people,” CIA Director John Brennan said.  “For several years, CIA information management officers have worked with their counterparts at the National Security Council and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on the review and declassification of these documents.  Roughly 85 percent of the collection has been declassified and is being made available to the public.”

While not part of the CIA presentation in Yorba Linda, another collection of documents has been released after a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit.

In an effort to hide its own misconduct, the CIA kept classified material about a double agent spy they used to keep tabs on the DNC burglars and denied the agent existed to federal prosecutors.

“Working Draft – CIA Watergate History,” is a 155-page study written by John Richards, a CIA officer. The incomplete report remained in the secret vault for decades before unnamed Agency colleagues completed it.

“Even in draft form, the document represents CIA’s fullest narrative treatment of the Watergate affair, which first surfaced publicly in the predawn hours of June 17, 1972. That’s when Washington police, dressed in plain clothes and responding to a call from a private security guard, arrested at gunpoint five burglars inside the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington,” James Rosen of Fox News wrote. “The arrested men were wearing business suits and rubber gloves and carrying electronic eavesdropping devices. Investigation swiftly revealed that one of them was employed by the president’s re-election campaign committee, and that four of the five boasted past ties to CIA. But one of the arrested men, it turns out, was still on Langley’s payroll at the time of the arrests, and had been feeding information about the break-in team to his CIA case officers the entire time.”

“That CIA mole was Eugenio R. Martinez, a Cuban Bay of Pigs veteran who was recruited to the break-in team by E. Howard Hunt, the legendary former CIA officer and spy novelist who had helped plan the Bay of Pigs operation in the Kennedy era and had gone on to work as a consultant on covert projects at the Nixon White House,” according to the archive.

Of course, the Watergate break-in led to three Articles of Impeachment against President Nixon that sounds eerily similar to the present day trials and tribulations of the Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

Article 1

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities (emphasis added).

…

Adopted 27-11 by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, at 7.07pm on Saturday, 27th July 1974, in Room 2141 of the Rayburn Office Building, Washington D.C.

Article 2

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purpose of these agencies (emphasis added).

…

Adopted 28-10 by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.

Article 3

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgment as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives (emphasis added).

…

Adopted 21-17 by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.”

What is that quote about “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it?”

Coup attempts, arrests of adversarial judges, detention of military leaders and now releasing criminal prisoners from jails have become the new normal in Turkey. It’s been a month since the latest coup attempt and Turkey continues to blame the Gulen movement whose leader resides in rural Pennsylvania. However, Gulen denied any involvement with the coup attempt.

Watch CW6 TV segment here

“In my view doing these kinds of things are a direct betrayal of our nation. It’s a direct attempt to divide our nation and I do not condone it,” recluse Muslim faith leader Fethullah Gulen said from self-imposed asylum in the US.

But the Turkish President has doubled down on his allegation that the Gulen movement is responsible for the coup attempt that claimed 238 lives. “This Fethullah terrorist organization has now received the biggest hit they’ve ever used in this country because they have been discovered completely and this group has remained unarmed until now has come out bearing arms,” Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said. “And using those arms and everybody knows that this is the case and they used those arms of this nation against the people.”

A Turkish official in the office of the president said, “It’s not our policy to comment on intelligence operations. However, we expect all our friends and allies to assist Turkey’s efforts to hold FETO operatives accountable for their crimes.” (FETO is an abbreviation standing for the Gulenist Terror Group which is how Ankara refers to Gulen’s movement, according to Reuters. “Turkey’s dubious evolution should remind Americans how hard it is for US officials to play social engineers to the world. Instead of constantly meddling in hopes of ‘fixing’ other nations, Washington should step back when its interests are not vitally affected, which is most of the time. The physicians’ injunction, ‘First do no harm,’ would be a good principle for American foreign policy.”

Turkey’s slide to authoritarian rule and its tacit support for war with ISIS have made international relationships increasingly difficult.

Using the “failed coup” or “false flag” as a country-uniting front, Erdogan has imposed severe “state of emergency” measures to rid Turkey of any dissenting voices and cementing his place in history as its new authoritarian ruler. Erdogan’s latest scheme involves rounding up “coup plotters” or longtime adversaries, and locking them up. The current number of adversaries is closing in on 40,000. Of course, there is not enough room in prison so the authoritarian ruler has begun to release real criminals from jails to make way for the new enemies of the state.

Turkish President Erdogan is also using the new state of emergency to bypass Turkey’s Parliament to jail military leaders, judges, teachers and journalists.

“The conditions of prisons were already bad before the coup attempt because they were over capacity,” said Sezgin Tanrikulu, a lawmaker with the main secular opposition group, the Republican People’s Party told the NYT. “We have heard reports of two to three people sharing beds and having to sleep in corridors.”

The Parliamentary leader said he approved of the prisoner-release program, but thought the Turkish President should have discussed the issue with the Parliament. “It is not right to use the state of emergency to subvert the rule of law in Turkey.”

Another deplorable aspect of Turkey’s crackdown includes shuttering the non-state-run media. Like any good dictator, Erdogan’s henchmen accelerated the pace of arrests and closures of any publications portraying the president in an unfavorable light. However, this allegation has garnered little coverage inside the United States.

Orhan Kemal Cengiz, journalist, and human rights lawyer, criticized the government’s release of real criminals “to fill the prisons with intellectuals, writers, human rights activists and others, as well as the coup people… It’s very unfortunate.”

The numbers are daunting.

At a press conference, Prime Minister Binali Yildirim along with some leaders of the surviving Turkish papers reported that so far, “76,597 public servants have been suspended and nearly 5,000 more were fired. The prosecution is underway for 6,792 academic and administrative personnel. About 3,670 judges and prosecutors have been suspended. The government has closed 15 universities, 934 schools, 104 endowments, 1,125 associations and 19 labor unions suspected of having Gulenist ties. More than 130 media outlets — including 16 television channels, 45 newspapers, 15 periodicals and 29 publishing houses, again most of them allegedly Gulenist — have been banned. Around 90 journalists have been detained and 49 arrested.”

The government purge has also interfered with the West’s cooperative NATO procedures. Turkey is home to the second-largest military force in the region. The latest round of arrests includes 157 generals and admirals, this equates to 44 percent of the military that has been relieved of duty and dishonorably discharged. On top of that Erdogan’s forces have also removed thousands of other national military personnel.

British think tank, Chatham House wrote, “Turkey’s NATO partners fear that the purges of experienced military and security personnel have the potential to diminish its capability to thwart the threat posed by IS [the Islamic State] and other militant groups and to better manage its long and porous borders with Syria and Iraq… Sadly, under the best-case scenario, it will take Turkey years, if not decades, to restore a modicum of rule and law and public services’ delivery at [the] pre-coup standards to which the Turkish citizenry have been accustomed.” They concluded, “the Turkish people are following their President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in admiration while he is dismantling democracy in their country.”

So far the silence from NATO is deafening and could mean a shift in international policy is on its way.

According to a July 2015 report from the Ankara office of the German Marshall Fund NATO is the most trusted international institution in Turkey, followed by the “European Court of Human Rights [which] captures 44 percent trust, the Organization for Islamic Cooperation has 39 percent and the European Union has 39 percent favorability.

But now, approximately 35 percent of Turkish nationals no longer feel they need NATO membership. Only 30 percent of Turks said they trust NATO. With so little public support inside the once proud secular nation, the West must re-examine Turkey as a NATO alliance member or whether NATO should cut Turkey loose. That decision could be made for Turkey if Erdogan decides to up the ante and align with non-NATO member, Vladimir Putin.

The chilling relationship with the West began around 2010, once the autocratic Erdogan neared the end of his Parliament mandated term limits

“Erdogan dropped his liberal veneer. He seemed to mutate into a corrupt and authoritarian throwback to Turkey’s seamy past,” the CATO Institute said. “He also pushed a more fundamentalist Islam into the public sphere. He did not react well to criticism from his one-time friends in America and Europe. Turkish officials appeared to concede they aren’t sure who was behind the attack, with Deputy Prime Minister Mehmet Simsek saying that the PKK, ISIS, and the Gulenist movement are all attacking Turkey right now and that the country will overcome all these strikes.”

In an effort to at least try to smooth things over, this week Vice-President Joe Biden traveled to Turkey to demonstrate the Obama administration willingness to maintain a strong regional partnership. He told Reuters, “the United States is doing everything we can to support Turkey’s ongoing efforts to hold accountable those responsible for the coup attempt while ensuring the rule of law is respected during the process.”

Keeping an eye on the Islamist prize at a weekend briefing for reporters in Istanbul, Prime Minister Yildirim said, “that while Gulen’s extradition would top the discussion, Biden was also coming to improve relations… To make our semi-sweet relations sweet.”

He also told reporters his administration wanted the extradition of Gulen sped up, and insisted the US put the 74-year-old leader in the US under immediate arrest.

So far Turkey has submitted approximately 84 dossiers on Gulen and his worldwide movement to US authorities, it has sent another four requests after the July 15 failed coup, Yildirim said. “Turkish authorities have put forward a number of extradition requests through our State Department and Department of Justice for Mr. Gulen.” He said, “As of now, the Turkish authorities have not come forward with a formal extradition request for Gulen based on the coup itself.”

In the past, the US didn’t prioritize the extradition of Mr. Gulen, however, after the attempted coup they sent officials to meet with judicial institutions in Turkey to determine the fate of the Muslim cleric.

For the first time, the State Department acknowledged that Turkey has requested the extradition of the Turkish cleric Gulen. “We can confirm now that Turkey has requested the extradition of Gulen,” Mark Toner the State Department spokesman said at a Friday press conference. Incidentally, Toner explained that the formal extradition request they received from Turkey was not related to the attempted coup, but other issues concerning the Erdogan government.

This week the State Department released a new batch of emails to Judicial Watch showing Hillary Clinton’s top aides appear to have mixed Clinton Foundation business with the State Department.

According to a May 2015 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) court order, the State Department continues releasing batches of unseen Clinton emails.

This time, the latest email involves longtime Bill Clinton aide Doug Brand, who sought a State Department meeting on behalf of a major Clinton Foundation donor.

“We need Gilbert Chagoury to speak to the substance person re [sic] Lebanon. As you know he’s a key guy there and to us and is loved in Lebanon. Very imp.” One email read.

According to government disclosure reports, the wealthy Ni­ger­ian businessman of Lebanese descent gave the Clinton Foundation between $1 and $5 million dollars, pledged another billion to the Clinton Global Initiative and has been convicted of money laundering in Switzerland.

State Department spokesperson Elizabeth Trudeau dodged reporter’s questions last week. After repeated queries, and in a moment of frustration, one reporter asked: “I’m sorry, are you – am I not speaking English? Is this – I mean, is it coming across as a foreign – I’m not asking you if – no one is saying it’s not okay or it’s bad for the department to get a broad variety of input from different people. Asking – the question is whether or not you have determined that there was nothing improper here.”

What is clear, Chagoury did pay Bill Clinton $100,000 for a speech he gave somewhere in the Caribbean. But the State Department continued to refuse to answer any questions on the proposed Lebanese project.

Instead, Hillary Clinton’s campaign spokesperson said in a statement: “Neither of these emails involve the Secretary or relate to the Foundation’s work. They are communications between her aides [Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills] and the President’s personal aide [Mr. Band], and indeed the recommendation was for one of the Secretary’s former staffers who was not employed by the Foundation.”

Another email question pointed out that Mrs. Clinton specifically signed an employment ethics agreement, stating she would not participate in any Clinton foundation business. This binding agreement ensures that her chain of command remains intact and it’s up to her to ensure no one at State mixes foundation and government work. Ultimately the buck must stop with Mrs. Clinton.

However, DoS’s Trudeau finally provided a little wiggle room: “We talk to a wide range of people, at my level, at various levels in the department – NGOs, think tanks, business leaders, experts on a variety of subjects. So again, to reiterate, department officials are in touch with a wide range of individuals. I’d note that former Secretary Clinton’s ethics agreement did not preclude other State Department officials from having contact with Clinton Foundation staff.”

Legendary Pulitzer Prize winner for “Watergate” Bob Woodward weighed into the continued email drama for the presidential hopeful. “Well, look what the FBI Director Comey said that they found thousands, not hundreds, but thousands of emails that were not turned over in all of this process. That some of these involved email chains of top-secret special access programs. These are real secrets. These are the kinds of secrets that normally do not come out in the media. So, it’s a ticking time bomb. There’s no question about that,” he told MSNBC Morning Joe. “I don’t think anyone knows. And you talk to the security experts and they say the people who are hacking this, in some cases, are so good they leave no fingerprints and no trails so you don’t know whether you’ve lost these e-mails or the material.”

Nonetheless, all the Texas two-stepping out of the State Department did not convince President of Judicial Watch Tom Fitton. “Mrs. Clinton promised as a condition of employment she had to convince Democrat senators and Republican senators that the Clinton Foundation business dealings would not be an issue. She promised in a signed ethics agreement not to get involved in Clinton Foundation work,” he explained.

Fitton also claims his firm will release more FOIAed emails in the coming months. Another source of Clinton emails is coming from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. He managed to get a hold of hacked DNC emails that highlighted the Democratic Party’s favoritism and bias to ensure Hillary Clinton was the eventual nominee over the more popular Bernie Sanders.

As for Assange, he assures media outlets that he has more politically damning emails from the Clinton Foundation that will be released before the November 8 election.

And another potential source of Clinton emails could come from Russian President Vladimir Putin. Upon learning that news, GOP Presidential candidate Donald Trump chidingly asked the Russian strongman to return Clinton’s 33,000 deleted emails because they belong to the US government.

Nevertheless, after a thorough review of Clinton’s computer server and phone devices, the FBI recovered thousands of additional communications that the former Secretary of State did not turn over all her work-related emails even though she told lawmakers and the State Department otherwise.

This action by Ms. Clinton has now opened an investigation into perjury charges by the Congressional Government Oversight Committee.

While the latest release may not prove there was a quid pro quo, rules state government employees must avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. Scott Amey of the Project of Government Oversight told CNN: “So you do wonder if there was some kind of impartiality of preferential treatment given to these companies and these lobbyist that didn’t go to everyone and that’s not the way our government is supposed to work.”

In the highly technical modern-day world, many Americans are getting their news from a variety of online sources because they no longer trust the mainstream media that consists of five or six corporations controlling the government’s message.

“Five giant corporations control 90 percent of US mass media. And direct links connect all five of these media conglomerates to the political establishment and the economic and political power elites of the United States,” according to RT. “These five conglomerates are Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch’s’ News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS). Their control spans most of the newspapers, magazines, books, radio and TV stations, movie studios, and much of the web news content of the United States. These conglomerates are in large measure responsible for inculcating the social, political, economic, and moral values of both adults and children in the United States.”

While Mrs. Clinton blames everyone from a rightwing conspiracy to Putin to WikiLeaks for releasing her government emails, the ultimate responsibility lies with her decision to procure and use a private non-secure server.

A question remains if the drip, drip, drip email scandal will impact Hillary Clinton’s chances of becoming Madam President. Stay tuned for updates…

The “Establishment” – those capital elites that run the political elites who decide the winners and losers in America – are rightfully concerned about the outcome of the 2016 national elections.

Without sounding like a prophet of “doom and gloom” even the most apolitical amongst us understands the US is at a junction in our road through history.

With the primary defeats of GOP Minority leader Eric Cantor in Virginia and Never-Trump Congressman Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, the massive exodus of members from Congress through retirement, and compounded by Brexit, the Establishment is fully aware the voters are rejecting the globalization of world economies, the downgrade in the quality of life in the developed world, and the massive worldwide debt – estimated to be more than $50 trillion.

We are told the US is suffering in deflation, but go to the market for a bag of groceries and inflation seems all too real. Interest rates are negative or nearly so. The equity markets are at all-time highs, yet worldwide governments are looking at more “Quantitive Easing” aka government spending to keep the bubble inflated. But the disconnect between Washington and the voters is increasing.

Since the .com bust of the 90’s the US government has proven it cannot control markets by raising and lowering interest rates and increasing or decreasing the amount of money in the banking system.

The Establishment is out-of-options and it knows it. The Elites are scratching and clawing to keep the mystique alive that its transfer of the wealth of the people to the government and in turn to their favorite connected friends has been justified.

Revolution is the biggest fear of the elites – not so bad for George III, but no so good for Louis XVI, the Romanovs, Mussolini, Ceausescu, Saddam, and Gadhafi. For the one percent to control the other ninety-nine they must show they are improving the 99 percent to justify the accumulation of such massive wealth.

Regrettably for the one percent, the curtain has been pulled back to reveal not a wizard, but just a bunch of greedy elites preying on the labor and industry of the people. Sure they set-up charitable organizations to “give back” to the people but omit to mention the massive tax deductions they take for such “thoughtfulness.” The tax deductions they receive make the gifts free from tax, which means again the 99 are subsidizing the one percent.

So voters raising the questions as to why we have no wage growth, no jobs for our kids, no interest on our savings, no infrastructure to justify $20 trillion debt, and no prospect for economic growth, are clearly areas of concern for the Establishment.

While Donald Trump is no messiah, he is definitely frightening the Establishment into taking extremely aggressive action to try to marginalize him as a man, a father, an entrepreneur, and concerned American, not by questioning his message but by his audacity to raise the questions.

It is uncommon in history, as Robert Frost would say to see “… the road not taken…” but the course ahead is to follow the road not taken or just more of the same. The beauty of the Establishment argument that Hillary is a known entity cannot be overstated as “staying the course” means assured destruction. So the Establishment has to be worried to have to place its entire enterprise into the hands of the voters.

Logic would suggest that the striking of the mystique of the elites proves the current path is untenable for the 99 percent, which means the only option is the road not taken.

Let’s just hope that Trump is wrong that the outcome is rigged and the voters will have their say.

Semper fi, Colonel sends

President Obama’s Department of Homeland Security quietly announced this week that ICE and Border Patrol would follow new guidelines barring the apprehension of illegal immigrants that effectively creates safe havens from law enforcement.

Watch CW6 San Diego TV segment here

According to the Department of Homeland Security’s website a new policy granted additional protections for those in the country illegally. The policy makes it clear that law enforcement cannot apprehend illegal immigrants in “sensitive zones.

“When you’re putting or promoting on websites by the very law enforcement agencies charged to enforce immigration law that there are safe zones, every community across the entire United States of America including hospitals, churches, different places of employment, actual parades and marches are free. If you have a group of illegals that are protesting against the government that are here demanding additional rights and benefits or money, there’s no enforcement,” Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu said. “It’s like me as a sheriff saying, well if you’re at this house or at this business or are in this building we will not arrest you.”

He said the new policy affects morale. “This gravely harms morale our law enforcement, Border Patrol, they are the heroes. These men and women who signed up to enforce the law and they have told me they feel handcuffed.”

Nevertheless, legal experts, like Jonathon Turley contend that President Obama is basically granting civil liberties to non-Americans when Article 1 Section 8 of the US constitution states Congress has the exclusive power to dictate immigration law. But with presidential politics in full swing, Americans shouldn’t expect to see any major legislative changes to immigration reform anytime soon.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) describes “sensitive locations” as the following, but not be limited to:

• Schools, such as known and licensed daycares, preschools and other early learning programs; primary schools; secondary schools; post-secondary schools up to and including colleges and universities; as well as scholastic or education-related activities or events, and school bus stops that are marked and/or known to the officer, during periods when school children are present at the stop;
• Medical treatment and health care facilities, such as hospitals, doctors’ offices, accredited health clinics, and emergent or urgent care facilities;
• Places of worship, such as churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples;
• Religious or civil ceremonies or observances, such as funerals and weddings; and
• During public demonstrations, such as a marches, rallies, or parades.

DHS further defines enforcement actions taken by ICE or CBP to apprehend, arrest, interview, or search an individual, or to surveil an individual for enforcement purposes.

According to the website, “Actions not covered by this policy include activities such as obtaining records, documents, and similar materials from officials or employees, providing notice to officials or employees, serving subpoenas, engaging in Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) compliance and certification visits, guarding or securing detainees, or participating in official functions or community meetings.”

The new policies policies have been put in place by the Obama administration attempt to ensure that US immigration officials exercise “sound judgment when enforcing federal law at or focused on sensitive locations, to enhance the public understanding and trust, and to ensure that people seeking to participate in activities or utilize services provided at any sensitive location are free to do so, without fear or hesitation.”

DHS says there may be exceptions to the new policies, but a supervisor must review each case individually. However, the new policies could create an enforcement advantage to those in the country illegally. For example, persons in the country lawfully would have no restrictions by law enforcement and could be held accountable for crimes like failure to make childcare or alimony payments.

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) cited the new sanctuary policies as inconsistent with federal law. According to a new report by the Justice Department Inspector General (OIG), “failure to enforce the law could result in debarment from certain federal grants, claw backs of previously awarded funds, or other consequences, including prosecution.”

The immigration sanctuary status was examined for “compliance with 8 USC 1373, states that state and local governments may not have policies, ordinances, or practices that ‘in any way’ prohibit state or local officials from communicating or exchanging information with federal immigration agencies.” Other OIG findings included:

• All of the 10 jurisdictions selected for the OIG investigation had sanctuary policies that were inconsistent with federal law. The jurisdictions were: the state of California; the state of Connecticut; Chicago; Clark County, Nev. (home of Las Vegas); Cook County, Ill. (which includes Chicago); Miami-Dade County, Fla.; Milwaukee County, WI; Orleans Parish, La. (New Orleans); New York City; and Philadelphia.
• These 10 jurisdictions received more than $342 million from DOJ, representing 63 percent of the total value of the active DOJ law enforcement funding at the time of the report.
• In addition to the 10 sanctuaries that were investigated, the report identified several others with problematic policies: Newark, N.J.; Taos, N.M.; New Orleans; and San Francisco.
• Common efforts by sanctuaries to evade the applicability of 8 USC 1373 with a “savings clause,” for example by including language that says “except as provided under federal law” are not sufficient to be considered compliant with federal law and will not protect them from potential consequences of maintaining a sanctuary policy.

Plus a new Breitbart/Gravis poll revealed the pulse of American voters with a number of disclosures that politicians should find concerning.

• Six to one – immigration should be decreased rather than increased;
• 25 to one – unemployed Americans should have first dibs on jobs rather than foreign workers;
• A majority believes immigration is a net drain on the U.S.
• 61 percent believe that any politician who would hire a foreign worker over a U.S. worker is unfit to serve.
• 75 percent believe the nation needs “an immigration system that puts American workers first, not an immigration system that serves the demands of employers seeking to reduce labor costs.”
• A majority of voters (55 percent) disagree with Hillary Clinton’s call to release illegal immigrants arriving at the border into the United States and give them a chance to apply for asylum.

This year a humble general from Rhode Island stepped into the political fray with the unconventional GOP candidate Donald Trump. After 33 years in the Army, the former Defense Intelligence Agency boss left the military, wrote a book and made the GOP vice presidential short list. Retired three-star Army General Michael Flynn discusses the war in the Middle East and illustrates that there is a winning strategy.

His book the Field of Fight is already a New York Times bestseller and outlines what America needs to do in order to win the war against radical Islam.

Watch CW6 San Diego report on Flynn’s new book here.

“The best plan gives you the most options at the last possible minute. Right now we don’t have the best plan. A real strategic discussion about what it is that we are trying to achieve. Is it the defeat of radical Islam? It has to be beyond that and that’s where an alliance of nations has to get it together.”

General Flynn maintains America needs to invest in stability and not in conflict. One way to accomplish that is empowering women. “At least 50 percent of the population in that component of the world is untapped for intellectual horsepower, they can rise up and make those countries much better intellectually, economically, politically, from an educational standpoint, all those things.”

Once you embolden women in the Middle East there is an excellent opportunity to make real changes to the socio-economic and educational fabric. However, “their (Muslim leaders) belief system is such that once you are a piece of property, as a woman, you are bought, sold or traded,” Flynn said. “We’ve also found many of the jihadists are pedophiles. Military intelligence has found tons of pornography on confiscated computers. So they aren’t living a very ‘clean’ life.” It is this type of hypocrisy that America and its allies should use in reverse-propaganda against terror groups like ISIS or al-Qaeda.

“If you want to accept that in your country that’s fine, that’s what you do. But when you begin to export that way of life and force your way of life on our way of life, I have a problem with that.”

But ultimately Flynn says to win the battle against radical Islam we must destroy the jihadi armies, kill or capture their leaders, discredit their ideology, create a 21^st-century alliance and must hold countries, like Saudi Arabia, accountable for supporting terrorism.

A statement repeated in Flynn’s book is defining the enemy. The New Oxford American Dictionary defines “Islamofascism” as “a term equating some modern Islamic movements with the European fascist movements of the early twentieth century.

In 1978, Maxime Rodinson, an Islamic Marxist scholar, responded to French fervor for Khomeini’s Iranian revolution in a Le Monde article, arguing “that, in response to successive assaults by Crusaders, Mongols, Turks and Western Imperialism, Islamic countries had come to feel embattled, and the impoverished masses had come to think of their elites, linked to foreigners, as devoid of traditional piety (sound familiar?). Both nationalism and socialism imported from the West were recast in religious terms, in a process of political Islamicization which would be devoid of the progressive side of nationalism and revert to what he called ‘a type of archaic fascism’ characterized by policing the state to enforce a totalitarian moral and social order.”

Along those lines, Flynn directly tackles the Iranian “elephant” in the room. Despite the antagonism against and the West, the retired three-star points out fellow Iranian author, Amir Teheri’s advice to deal with radical Islam. He says, “No major power in recent history has gone out of its way as the US to help, respect, please, even appease Islam. Criticism of Islam’s ills now has a new taboo- ‘Islamaphobia,’ more prevalent than Islamaphobia is ‘Islamaphilia’ where political correctness worries if any criticism will ruffle Muslim feathers; and finally, many Muslims resent the kind of flattery that takes them for idiots at a time that Islam and Muslims badly need to be criticized.”

Flynn unapologetically says the country that promotes and supports the most terrorist activity in the world is Iran and that US leaders who use blinders when dealing with its mullahs are doing a huge disservice to the men and women who are serving overseas.

“Iran is at the heart of international terrorism and their attacks, often an alliance with another network, against the US and Western allies go beyond just the 1979 US Embassy takeover in Tehran,” Flynn writes.

In fact, Iran has been, perhaps not so quietly, fighting US boots on the ground in the Middle East for the past 15 years.

But Flynn believes one of Obama’s greatest missed opportunities was the inability to side with Iran’s flirtation with their own Arab Spring. “The 2009 uprising in Iran where the people protesting in the streets seemingly were waiting for the US to back them is any way possible to shift the tide. Alas, to no avail, for those opposing their autocratic leaders.”

The regime has also provided the deadly IED devices that have maimed or killed thousands of US service members. This behavior garnered worldwide financial sanctions. According to the State Department, Iran remains on the state-sponsor of terrorism list because they sponsor Hezbollah, Hamas, as well as radical groups in Iraq and Syria.

Also, the US has accused Iran of bulk cash smuggling that is moving pallets of money to illicit actors, something the Wall Street Journal said the US did in January when they paid a secret $400 million “payment”(ransom) for US prisoners held in Iranian jails. If the deal were above board the Obama administration would have transferred the money lawfully through a bank-to-bank institution or used a third party country. Another alarming factor is where did the cash come from, black ops, the US Treasury?

Twittersphere went ballistic once the story broke.

But the administration chose to move pallets of cash using an unmarked plane to deliver the money to the Iranians. Critics say a more likely reason for the “secret” money transfer was an upset US electorate that was angry the Iran nuclear deal didn’t include the jailed US hostages. Although State Department spokesman John Kirby says, “As we’ve made clear, the negotiations over the settlement of an outstanding claim…were completely separate from the discussions about returning our American citizens home.”

Now that both political parties have formally nominated their presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the decision rests with the American voter as to who they believe will be the 45^th president of the United States.

Clinton’s foreign policy legacy as Secretary of State rests on the fact she has the most airline miles of any sitting State Department Secretary—the Russian reset failed, Putin easily waltzed into Crimea; Libya is home to the disastrous Benghazi terror attack that claimed the first US ambassador’s death in 30 years and is operating as a failed state that harbors the fastest growing jihadi training camps in the region; Syria is now a former thriving secular nation that is undergoing a brutal civil war with 500,000 thousand dead and millions of displaced refugees from weapons the US provided to the Syrian Free Rebels (aka al-Qaeda). Clinton was given an Iraqi country that was relatively stable, but the administration failed to negotiate a status of forces agreement to keep the peace and gave birth to ISIS.

Clinton has relied on President Obama to make the case that she will make the best president. At the Democrat convention, Obama opined: “We brought more of our troops home to their families, and we delivered justice to Osama bin Laden.  Through diplomacy, we shut down Iran’s nuclear weapons program… She’s worked closely with our intelligence teams, our diplomats, our military.  She has the judgment and the experience and the temperament to meet the threat from terrorism.  It’s not new to her.  Our troops have pounded ISIL without mercy, taking out their leaders, taking back territory.  And I know Hillary won’t relent until ISIL is destroyed.  She will finish the job.”

Flynn couldn’t disagree more. “This is the woman that lied about an illegal private server she kept in her New York home. The information our enemies likely got from the classified emails is something that should land her in jail. If I had acted so recklessly, I’d be in jail. This alone should remove her from reaching the Oval Office.”

In Field of Fight, Flynn describes the world as he sees it. “We’re in a world war, but few Americans recognize it, and fewer still have any idea how to win. First, we need to show that war is being waged against us by our enemies this administration has forbidden us to describe—radical Islamists. Second, to lay out a winning strategy that is not passively relying on technology and drone attacks to do the job. Third, we could lose this war; in fact, right now we are losing. In the Field of Fight, we give a view on how to win.”

There are other ways to encourage countries it’s in their best interests to work with the West. Flynn says reciprocity works well, “if you want something from me, I need something from you.” Each Middle East country can bring something different to the fight against radical Islamic terrorism, but he emphasized they must bring something to the table.

One example Flynn used is the recent terror attack in Nice, France. “Every Middle Eastern nation leader should stand up and condemn the horrific attack that killed 84 innocent people.” Six Gulf nations put out a combined statement condemning the attack, but none offered any solution to stop the scourge that comes from Middle East radicals. “This isn’t enough to stop the onslaught of radical Islamic terrorism,” he said.

Other tactics America could use to defeat radical Islamic terrorism include reverse propaganda or counter messaging. “ISIS is very good at getting the message to recruits, they use magazines and visuals that glorify jihad, we need to combat that image with the realities and demonstrate we are winning. Nobody wants to join a losing team.” The strategy must also include a plan for the day after. “How do we solidify our win?”

Formulating a winning strategy is difficult but without a plan, the 15-year “war on terror” will never end. “We must bring direct challenges to the regimes that support our enemies, weakening them at a minimum, bringing them down whenever possible. It won’t be easy-they’re a formidable enemy—and it certainly won’t be fast… We’ve done it before, notably in the Second World War and then the Cold War against the messianic mass movements of the twentieth century, Nazism, Fascism, and Communism.”

It’s not a secret that General Flynn has been supportive of Mr. Trump’s efforts to be the 45^th president of the United States, he was vetting for the vice president job. “I vote for leaders and I vote for America.” Asked if he wanted to serve for a Trump administration, Flynn used a standard reply; “You’ll have to ask the Trump campaign.” But when asked if he was qualified to be the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Agency (NSA) or Secretary of the Department of the Defense (DoD), he unequivocally said, “Yes.”

If General Flynn does make it into a Trump administration, his book “The Field of Fight” could serve as the opening template for putting America on a winning path overseas.

Watch the entire unedited interview with General Flynn here.