Three days after a state appeals court struck down Alabama’s ban on consensual oral and anal sex, the state’s Republican attorney general, Luther Strange, is asking the court to reconsider its decision .
According to the Montgomery Advertiser, Strange argues that he only wants to use the broadly-written statute to prosecute rape and sexual assault cases and that it would never be used to prosecute consensual sex. This is similar to the argument that former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli made in his effort to reinstate his state’s criminal sodomy ban.
Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange Thursday said in a statement that he would ask the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals to reconsider a decision last week striking down the state's ban on consensual oral and anal sex.
In a statement, the attorney general said the office believed the law was unconstitutional as applied to consensual acts. However, he said he was concerned with the impact the decision may have on prosecutions involving nonconsensual sex.
Strange said in the statement the case "was not about consensual sex." In the appeal, the attorney general agreed and conceded that the state ban was unconstitutional as it applied to consensual acts. However, the office asked the court to preserve language it believed would continue to criminalize nonconsensual sex and send Williams' case back for a new trial.
Strange argued in his statement that the decision could jeopardize convictions for other crimes, citing the case of Thomas Gilbert, a Jackson County man who pleaded guilty earlier this year to sexual misconduct after being accused of getting a teenager drunk and having sex with the teenager without his consent. Court filings indicate that Gilbert is considering an appeal based on the consent issue.
"The Williams decision leaves all Alabamians less protected from nonconsensual sex and potentially calls into question numerous past convictions, involving both heterosexual and homosexual defendants and victims," Strange said in the statement.
The law as written was intended to criminalize all homosexual acts. The Criminal Appeals Court said last week that "no court" in the state had ruled on the statute's constitutionality in the wake of the Lawrence decision.
However, this article links to reports in The Guardian and Der Spiegel which actually found the exact opposite, reporting that the U.S. was training Syrian rebels who were fighting ISIS “as a bulwark against Islamic extremism.”
Many Western and Syrian opposition officials also believe that ISIS and the Syrian government may have an indirect alliance to split anti-Assad forces. Rush also blames Obama for the release of a top ISIS leader, even though he was released under a deal brokered in 2008 under the Bush administration.
By now, we are quite familiar with the exploits of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) and the fact that their leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was released from detention by the Obama administration in 2009. These savages have cut a swath from northern Syria through northern Iraq, engaging in the most grotesque mass murder along the way, and by all accounts – including photographs and video footage of their own making – reveling in doing so.
While many, for some unfathomable reason, remain wedded to the idea that this and countless other developments involving the Obama administration are the result of its incompetence, others have reached the point where their ability to suspend their disbelief has been stretched beyond the breaking point, and they no longer believe it is a matter of political ineptitude or poor leadership.
As I have said before in this space, operating outside of the realm of believability has been a deliberate tactic of this regime, and a largely complicit establishment press contributed to its success.
Thus, despite overwhelming evidence, many Americans will still find it difficult to accept that the rise of ISIS was facilitated by the Obama administration.
As reported in WND this week, ISIS members were trained in 2012 by U.S. instructors working at a secret base in Jordan; this has been confirmed not only by officials in Jordan, but in both the German and British press.
All of the above has conspired to give the lie to Obama’s foreign policy rhetoric and render increasingly suspect the actions he’s taken in pursuing that policy. In a recent interview, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., said, “Never in my political career in my memory did it ever occur to me that we would have a president of the United States who would be doing things supporting the enemy. Our system isn’t set up for Congress to deal with this kind of a situation.”
Inhofe stopped just short of using the appropriate designation for this president’s actions, one which I pray will be applied soon enough: Treason.
In his speech to the March for Marriage today, National Organization for Marriage chairman John Eastman compared the Supreme Court’s decision striking down a key part of the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act to the infamous Dred Scott decision.
Eastman cited Justice Scalia’s “call to arms” in his dissent to the DOMA decision, paraphrasing it as, “the court should never take away controversial issues away from the voters in this country.”
“The last time the court tried to do that a century and a half ago on the slavery question, Abraham Lincoln refused to comply,” he said.
Sam Rohrer of the American Pastors Network had an ominous message for today’s March for Marriage: The legalization of same-sex marriage will “destroy the very fabric of our nation,” “invite God’s judgment” and “remove His blessing from our nation.”
The former GOP Pennsylvania lawmaker added that marriage equality will lead to “tyranny” and ensure that America will not “endure” as a nation.
Earlier this week, a coalition of extreme anti-choice groups launched a national alliance to compete with the anti-choice behemoth National Right to Life Committee. The new group is angry that National Right to Life has backed abortion bans that contain exemptions for rape survivors and that it opposes radical “personhood” measures, which would not only criminalize abortion but also certain forms of birth control.
While National Right to Life supports sweeping abortion bans in principle, the group has a purely strategic reason for taking these stances —both personhood and no-exceptions abortion bans are incredibly unpopular.
Which is why Rep. Cory Gardner of Colorado, now the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, is desperately trying to claim that he no longer supports personhood measures, releasing this bizarre new ad trying to reassure voters that he did indeed flip-flop on the issue:
Steve Benen points out that Gardner isn’t even telling the truth about his own flip-flopping, as he is still a cosponsor of a national personhood bill in the House:
The congressman, for example, claims he’s “changed his mind about Personhood.” In reality, Gardner has announced, “In the state of Colorado, the Personhood Initiative I do not support.” But in Washington, Gardner isstill, as of this morning, a co-sponsor of federal Personhood legislation.
Politicians aren’t supposed to say they’ve changed their mind about Personhood if they haven’t actually changed their mind about Personhood.
Also in the ad, Gardner said he reversed course – even though he didn’t – “after I learned more information.” That, too, is an odd claim. Gardner is effectively positioning himself as a politician who decides to restrict women’s rights first, then gets information about his plan second. This is an awkward sales pitch for a statewide candidate to make.
And finally, Gardner said he flip-flopped – even though he didn’t – because he “listened” to the people of Colorado. But that’s also demonstrably wrong. After Coloradoans voted against Personhood, Gardner ignored them and pushed another Personhood measure. When that failed, Gardner ignored Coloradoans again and pushed for a federal Personhood measure. That’s not listening to the people; it’s the opposite.
He later tried to kinda sorta reverse course, but by all appearances, the only people the congressman was “listening” to were Republican pollsters.
Meanwhile, Personhood USA, which has backed the formation of the new national alliance, is furious at Gardner for pretending to change his mind.
New York state Sen. Ruben Diaz told “March for Marriage” participants today that even if the Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage, they must continue the fight because the American people are behind them.
He pointed to the case of government organized prayer in public schools, which was ruled unconstitutional in the 1962 case Engel v. Vitale. As a result, Diaz maintained, Satan took over the schools, leading to waves of crime and disobedience.
Diaz said this year’s decision in Town of Greece v. Galloway proves that the cause to preserve government-sponsored prayer is not lost, and that anti-gay activists can win as well. He went on to falsely claim that neither voters nor lawmakers have voted to legalize same-sex marriage.
Family Research Council senior fellow Peter Sprigg, who once advocated for the deportation of gay people from the U.S. to stop them from destroying society, fielded a call on the “Washington Watch” radio program yesterday from a listener named Janet, who recounted a heart wrenching story of her daughter coming out as gay.
Janet explained to Sprigg how she still supports her daughter and is sustained by her faith in Jesus Christ.
I want you to understand that I am a Christian, I do believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, but I do have a quandary. I have a daughter who has been married for seven years and she came to me in tears and said, ‘Mother, I can’t live this way, it’s not who I am, I’m gay.’ I was astounded because I didn’t see it, we talked about it, we’ve done everything. My daughter was raised in the church. The thing that we talked about was — I asked, ‘Well why did you marry if you felt this way?’ She said, ‘Because I wanted to be like everybody else.’ I said, ‘Well how long have you know this?’ She said, ‘Mother, I’ve known this since I was a little kid, I’ve always been different from everybody else.’
I’m not turning my back on my daughter, I’m not ashamed of my daughter, I am deeply hurt that there is no church that my daughter can go to and not hear what an awful, sinful, against-God life that she feels that she is. I don’t think that the Jesus I grew up with and learned to love is a resentful or any kind of God that would want to cause pain. I don’t know why my daughter feels the way she does, but she does and she doesn’t lie to me and I know in her heart that this is how she feels. The only thing that I know that I’m supposed to do is to pray for my fellow people in this world, love everybody just as Jesus loves me and I think I have hurt so much because all I hear is what a God-forsaken life they are living. Well God didn’t forsake my daughter, He didn’t.
Sprigg, unsurprisingly, responded to this call by recommending the mother turn to two groups THAT espouse ex-gay therapy: National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) and Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX).
If she does indeed do research on such groups, she will find out that ex-gay therapy has been completely discredited by the mainstream scientific community and has been rejected by many Christian groups, including many former ex-gays.
Rep. Tim Huelskamp, the chief sponsor of the Federal Marriage Amendment, had a message for “every man in America” at today’s March for Marriage: “Your woman, your wife, she needs you, it’s time you become a real man and stand up.”
Possibly under the impression that the legalization of same-sex marriage will break up opposite-sex unions, the Kansas Republican congressman emphasized that he loves his wife and believes that men who love their wives must join the fight to stop marriage equality.
“Be a real man of God because this is about you and your wife and your children,” he said.
After getting bounced from the Christian Post, Rev. Austin Miles is now writing for Alan Keyes’ Renew America, where today he falsely accuses President Obama of trying to overturn the First Amendment, round up political foes and introduce communism.
Miles writes that “after hijacking The White House, [Obama] immediately appointed CZARS, an office known only in the former Communist Soviet Union,” and is now on his way to putting critics in “re-education camps.”
Actually, “czar” was the title for Russian monarchs before the Soviet Union and is not an official government title. In fact, President Bush appointed more “czars” than Obama.
While marching America into Communism, Obama, right from the beginning, was not subtle. He told Joe The Plumber that he intends to "Redistribute the Wealth," a page right out of Karl Marx. After hijacking The White House, he immediately appointed CZARS, an office known only in the former Communist Soviet Union.
Those who oppose the redefinition of marriage are sent to "sensitivity training," which in Communist-led countries means "Re-education camps." Those who dissent in any way are required to submit to "Psychological Evaluation." In Communist countries, Christians and anyone who opposes government are sent to insane asylums.
Patriot Joe Otto with his daily "Letter to Conservatives" tackles these very issues without restraint. It is with his permission that we re-publish his letter in its entirety: The highlights in his letter are mine.
While it has always been fashionable for the Left to target the Second Amendment, it has been assumed that the First Amendment was set in stone and wasn't up for debate. That was until Barack Obama entered the White House. Now, Harry Reid has promised to put a Constitutional amendment up for a vote to change the 1st Amendment!
Make no mistake; there are a lot of people who really hate Obama and his leftist policies. You can count me as one of them. As much as individuals may hate Obama, hatred alone has never been a crime. U.S. citizens have an enumerated right to speak their minds when it comes to politics without fear of being punished.
So, what do we do when U.S. citizens begin to be rounded up and detained over "controversial" Facebook posts about the President? What are we supposed to do when the government equates disapproval of a President with a conspiracy to overthrow the government?
Now, the Democrats are determined to abolish/alter the 1st Amendment of the Constitution to re-define what political speech is permissible and what political speech warrants a jail sentence!
This is all connected! The Left wants to control what you can and cannot say as a way to control dissent. Harry Reid has promised that he will put a Constitutional amendment up for a vote in the Senate to change the 1st Amendment. These two Liberal branches of government are conspiring to take away YOUR right to free speech and they expect you to just accept it.
Over my dead body!
According to the schedule [PDF] for tomorrow’s Road to Majority summit, the annual event organized by Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition, Family Research Council vice president Jerry Boykin’s address will be followed by a speech by Grover Norquist, the Americans for Tax Reform leader.
This might be a bit awkward since Boykin has frequently smeared Norquist as a secret Islamist, claiming that the conservative lobbyist is a “is a Muslim Brotherhood facilitator” who “has been involved with some very questionable insurgent elements from the Muslim Brotherhood here in America.”
A similar episode occurred at least year’s Road to Majority conference, when outspoken immigration reform advocate Rev. Samuel Rodriguez was immediately followed by Eagle Forum head Phyllis Schlafly, who used her speech to call for primary challenges against any Republican who votes for a reform bill.
While we may be accustomed to seeing charts and tables about the impact of big money in politics, it’s far less common to hear about the real-world stories of its influence. Yesterday researchers from Ohio State University released a new report on “The New Soft Money,” a first-of-its-kind look at the day to day impact of independent expenditures (such as spending by super PACs) on federal campaigns and governance.
Through interviews with former members of Congress, campaign and legislative staff, candidates, and other political figures, the report details — in the interviewees’ own words — the effects of the explosion of independent spending into our political system following the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC.
A few highlights from the report make clear the enormous impact outside spending has on the functioning of our democracy:
“No one’s saying, ‘Here’s $50 million for a good compromise.” -Former Rep. Dan Boren (pg. 93)
“When Club for Growth first came out we used to laugh about them, we used to chuckle on the floor… But, after the Citizens United case, they became….much more active….if you didn’t behave in a certain way they would come into your district and spend a lot of money to make sure you were defeated in the primary.” -Former Rep. Steve LaTourette (p. 87-88)
Some political insiders described the ongoing implicit threat of independent spending on attack ads as just as effective as an explicit threat would be:
“You’re already threatened.... You’re sitting there saying ... is Americans for Prosperity going to advertise against me in a primary, yes or no?....If you’re sitting there making a decision, [thinking]… we’d better do something about it, but if I do something about it, I know the Koch brothers are going to run an ad against me. I know they’re going to put a lot of money to try to defeat me in a primary. I know it… They don’t have to threaten me…the net effect is the same. I’m afraid to do what I think is right.” -Former Sen. Bob Kerrey, who ran for Senate again in 2012 (p. 82)
The report was released on the same day the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Constitution Subcommittee voted to move forward a proposed constitutional amendment that would overturn decisions like Citizens United, serving as even more evidence of the pressing need to reform our campaign finance system.
In today’s Senate subcommittee markup on a proposed constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and get big money out of politics, Sen. Ted Cruz was ready with a long line of scary predictions as to what the proposed amendment would really do. From claiming that it would repeal the First Amendment to asserting that under the original proposed amendment, a “little old lady” could be put in jail for spending five dollars to put up a political yard sign, Cruz had horror stories at the ready. During the markup, Sen. Cruz dramatically tweeted that a “constitutional amendment proposed by Democrats would allow Congress to ban books!”
As we have pointed out before, Sen. Cruz’s doomsday predictions are far cry from reality.
Here’s what is reality: the proposed amendment would allow Congress and the states to be able to set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money in elections, as they did for years and years before the Citizens United decision. It would not change the landscape with respect to books. Grandmas would still be able to put out their candidate yard signs. The First Amendment would be restored from the damage done by Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United.
Fortunately other members of the subcommittee were able to set the record straight. Sen. Durbin underscored the idea that a large bank account does not “entitle you to buy every seat at the table, control the agenda, silence your opponents.” In other words, the First Amendment is about protecting the right to free speech, not the “right” of wealthy special interests to buy elections and drown out all other voices. As Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has noted previously: “I’m still looking for the word ‘money’ in the First Amendment.”
But presumably the goal of Sen. Cruz’s censored-grandma myth and other horror stories is to pull the conversation far away from the actual merits of the proposal at hand. Rather than talking about the influx of money flooding our elections, we’re talking about book banning. But with across-the-board support for efforts to get big money out of politics, it’s a distraction ploy that Americans aren’t buying.
In a fundraising email today, American Family Association president Tim Wildmon shares “nine statements by Obama yesterday" that "made a mockery of God’s word.”
Wildmon lists such God-mocking statements as the president’s calling the overturning of DOMA “a great day for America” and noting the number of states that currently have marriage equality.
All were right-wing efforts to literally overthrow President Obama. None of them exactly worked.
In 2012, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins similarly warned of an anti-government uprising if the Supreme Court were to strike down bans on same-sex marriage. “I think that could be the straw that broke the camel’s back,” he said, warning that such a ruling would mean “you could have a revolt, a revolution, I think you can see Americans saying ‘enough of this’ and I think it could explode and just break this nation apart.”
In case you thought that was just a one-time gaffe, Perkins maintained a year later that if the government “goes too far” on marriage equality, it would “create revolution” and “literally split this nation in two and create such political and cultural turmoil that I’m not sure we could recover from it.”
That brings us to a poll released today by the Human Rights Campaign and conducted by Alex Lundry, who served as Mitt Romney’s data director in 2012. Respondents to the poll were read Perkins’ “revolution” remarks verbatim. Unsurprisingly, only a tiny handful agreed with him, and even most opponents of marriage equality didn’t buy into his idea of an anti-gay revolution.
Conducting his poll at the beginning of June, Lundry didn’t find much support for that kind of revolt when the quote was read to respondents, with 59 percent overall disagreeing with Perkins. Of people who said they were opposed to gay marriage, 58 percent said they wouldn’t do anything, despite disagreeing and being disappointed in the decision.
“Only one directly mentions the word ‘revolution,’ five voters threaten to leave the country, and a scant fifteen people (3% of opponents) mention any form of protest,” reads a prepared polling memo. “Clearly, there is no real threat of widespread calamity should we extend the freedom to marry to gays and lesbians.”
Support for gay marriage is at 56 percent, with 37 percent opposed, squaring with public polls. Asked to rate the degree of their support, 44 percent said they “strongly” support legalization, with only 28 percent opposed.
Those feelings are reflected in some of the other answers to the survey: 74 percent of people said their lives wouldn’t change with legalized gay marriage, and among those who did foresee a change, many rated it as one that would be for the better.
But we don’t expect Perkins to be deterred. The only poll on the topic that the Family Research Council president appears to believe was sponsored by his organization and only surveyed Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.
Linda Harvey of Mission America railed against the transgender rights movement on her radio program today, and was especially appalled by actress Laverne Cox’s appearance on the cover of TIME magazine.
“I think America is quickly moving into chaotic territory where we are blessing and approving behaviors that so completely defy reality and the will of God that the consequences will be devastating, especially to kids,” she said.
“If Satan were to devise a strategy to confuse and undermine the moral base of America, he could not have chosen a better vehicle than pushing gender confusion, which is just the latest offshoot of the homosexual movement.”
Harvey also criticized the upcoming appearance of a transgender priest at the National Cathedral, calling it another attack on Christianity by “this diabolical homosexual and transgender movement.”
“It’s spiritual deception on a wide scale and is breathtaking to watch,” she said.
Trunews host Rick Wiles’ interview with former congressman Allen West yesterday was about as crazy as you would expect, riddled with conspiracy theories about how President Obama is a secret Muslim who is supporting an Islamic caliphate.
“Do you think Barack Obama is secretly aiding the rise of an Islamic caliphate?” Wiles asked West.
“I don’t think it is secretly happening, I think that you can look at his actions and he is enabling Islamist forces to be successful in the Middle East,” West replied. “He is aiding the rise of radical Islamism, not just in the Middle East but really across the world.”
West wasn’t done there: “We don’t really know who this President Obama is and I’m not talking about his birth certificate. We don’t know who he is, we don’t know about his college transcripts, we don’t know what he was doing in Pakistan when he was back in college and who funded him to go over to Pakistan.”
When Wiles asked if “Barack Obama is the ultimate jihadist” and “waging jihad against the United States of America,” West argued that the president “has without a doubt sided with Islamists.”
“I believe Barack Obama has an eastern orientation, not a western civilization orientation,” West said.
West tried to explain how Obama is both a supporter of Sunni Muslim terrorists and the Shiite-dominated Iran.
Despite the fact that Saudi Arabia and Iran are regional rivals and practice different forms of Islam, West predicted that the two countries — along with Turkey — will “come together” as part of a new “radical Islamist empire.”
The former congressman also agreed with Wiles’ assertion that Obama “orchestrated an invasion of the United States of America” through immigration and is now “trying to break the Republic,” arguing that Obama is “trying to fundamentally destroy, transform, subvert, America as a constitutional republic.”
In a rambling three-part broadcast of James Dobson’s “Family Talk” earlier this month, End Times author and messianic Rabbi Jonathan Cahn outlined America’s impending doom, which he blamed in part on growing support for marriage equality.
Cahn’s book, The Harbinger, contends that there is a wealth of evidence supporting the idea that the destruction of the United States is imminent. The “pattern of our collapse” has already been outlined in the Bible, he says, warning that if American culture continues to “move away from God,” we will suffer the same fate as ancient Israel.
His claim is anchored by two catastrophic events – the terror attacks of September 11 and the economic collapse of 2008 – which he believes are two “warnings” sent by God.
However, Cahn says the country crossed the line in 2012, “when America reached this majority for the redefinition of marriage and the president.” “I believe a great shaking is coming and I believe that God will seek to work through that shaking for revival, it’s either revival or judgment,” Cahn said. “We cannot go down this path and expect the smiles of heaven to remain on this land.”
Cahn drove the point home when he suggested that Americans didn’t learn the lesson of the September 11 attacks and continued to defy God on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage: “As a nation, from 9/11 till now, culturally, morally, we have rapidly gone against the ways of God.”
“We have destroyed marriage essentially, or we are well on the road toward that, and we’re continuing to kill babies,” Dobson said. “And make Christians pay for them,” Cahn replied.
“When you rewrite marriage, when you say we don’t care about what God said, that is defiance of God. This is all part of the big picture. The same thing happened in ancient Israel.”
WASHINGTON — Today the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights will mark up SJ Res 19, a proposed constitutional amendment to allow Congress and the states to regulate the raising and spending of money in elections following the Supreme Court’s damaging decisions in cases like Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC.
People For the American Way Executive Vice President Marge Baker released the following statement:
“Today’s historic vote will be a major step forward for the national movement to reclaim our democracy from wealthy special interests. The American people have made clear that the number of zeroes in your bank account should not determine the strength of your voice in our democracy. All of our voices should be heard, not just those of billionaires.
“In the wake of Citizens United, McCutcheon, and other Supreme Court decisions, the 28th Amendment would allow everyday Americans to take back our political system from corporations and the super-rich.”
Earlier this month, People For the American Way released an edit memo on how SJ Res.19 would restore the First Amendment and strengthen our democracy. PFAW also submitted testimony for the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on June 3 and joined with ally groups to deliver more than two million petitions in support of an amendment.
People For the American Way Executive Vice President Marge Baker is available for interviews with the press. To arrange an interview, please contact Layne Amerikaner at firstname.lastname@example.org / 202-467-4999.
Writing today for WorldNetDaily, Elizabeth Lee Vliet claims that President Obama engineered the uptick in border crossings by Central American youth as part of his plot to use the “Cloward-Piven strategy to overwhelm and collapse the economic and social systems” and “replace them with a ‘new socialist order’ under federal control.”
The “flood of illegals,” Vliet argues, will overrun hospitals by spreading their “many different, and uncommon, diseases,” inevitably leading to “social and economic collapse.”
A flood of illegals has massively surged at our southwestern borders. The economic impact of medical care, education and incarceration for illegals forced on taxpayers is bankrupting Arizona.
Why are such swarms entering the U.S. illegally NOW, particularly children? Newspapers in Mexico and Central and South America are actually describing U.S. “open borders,” encouraging people to come with promises of food stamps or “amnesty.” It is textbook Cloward-Piven strategy to overwhelm and collapse the economic and social systems, in order to replace them with a “new socialist order” under federal control.
Carried by this tsunami of illegals are the invisible “travelers” our politicians don’t like to mention: diseases the U.S. had controlled or virtually eradicated: tuberculosis (TB), Chagas disease, dengue fever, hepatitis, malaria, measles, plus more.
Our public health departments complain of being overtaxed by a dozen cases of measles or whooping cough. How will they cope with thousands of patients with many different, and uncommon, diseases? Americans, especially Medicaid patients, will see major delays for treatment.
Delays to see doctors at the Phoenix VA hospital cost the lives of 58 veterans while waiting for care. This is just a portent of far more deaths to come from delays for Americans’ medical care as thousands of sick illegals swamp already overcrowded emergency rooms. How will these facilities stay open at all under the financial burden of this huge unfunded federal mandate to provide “free” treatment?
People express concern about child endangerment from illegal minors dumped on Arizona streets in hundred-plus degree heat, with no support. A bigger concern is American endangerment from life-threatening diseases added to social and economic collapse from costs of treating hundreds of thousands of illegals.