The Border & Illegal Aliens, And What We Are Doing About It.

[Bullheaded Texan]

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said.

“We are not going to let this country be invaded!

We will not be stampeded!

We will not capitulate to lawlessness!

This is NOT business as usual.

This is the Trump era!," the Attorney General said.
 

[Bullheaded Texan]

~~~~ UP-DATE ~~~~
Des Moines Business Owner Won’t Face Charges Despite Family’s Outrage.
7/16/18 by: Tom Knighton
Despite the outrage from the family of a man shot while committing a burglary, the owner won’t face any charges. It seems the police investigated and found that it was a clear-cut case of self-defense, apparently based on the state’s Stand Your Ground law.
A Des Moines business owner who fatally shot an intruder in an apparent “stand your ground” case will not face any criminal charges, police said.
The burglary-turned-deadly shooting happened just after 7:15 a.m. Wednesday at Kraft Imports and 5 Star Muffler at 1400 Army Post on the city’s south side.
Police said that the business owner, 67-year-old Thomas Kraft, of Des Moines, discovered the burglary when he arrived at the store and found a pickup truck loaded with his merchandise.
Kraft confronted the suspected burglar, 37-year-old Amund Haarstad, of Fergus Falls, Minnesota, "who threatened to kill him, detectives said.
Kraft told authorities that he feared for his life and fired a single round into the ground. The bullet ricocheted and struck Haarstad in the head, killing him.
According to Iowa law, people don’t have to retreat before using deadly force if they believe they’re in danger.
Kraft was taken to a nearby hospital for an unrelated medical emergency.
After presenting the evidence to the Polk County Attorney’s Office, it was determined that no charges will be filed in the case.
Now, I’m not a fan of firing a shot into the ground. As a general rule, if you’re justified in pulling the trigger at all, you should use it on the person threatening you.
Firing into the ground could embolden the criminal by them assuming, probably correctly, that you’re hesitant to fire on a human being.
That said, Kraft didn’t break the law and was justified in pulling the trigger. Haarstad was a drug addict according to his family, a fact that did little to endear him to anyone, I’m sure.
We also know that drug addicts can be aggressive when confronted, meaning the threat to Kraft’s life was real.
So, Kraft fired. The fact that the bullet ricocheted and struck Haarstad in the head is weird, but not implausibly so.
Regardless, if he was justified to shoot, he was justified to shoot, and the police have already ruled that he was!
While Haarstad’s family may think it was premeditated, there’s no evidence to support that other than their own biases.
Personally, I’m glad to see Kraft ruled to have acted in self-defense.
I can’t help but think that cases like this will help remind drug addicts that there are alternatives to stealing to support their habit, like getting help and getting clean. Those alternatives tend to not end with the said addict on a slab at the morgue.
I can’t speak for everyone, but I know that I generally prefer to be alive and tend to assume that’s true for most people, even drug addicts.
But when you decide to commit crimes and then threaten people, guess what happens? That’s right. You get shot.
Can’t say that I feel bad about it either!

[Bullheaded Texan]

Man Shoots Burglar, Family Predictably Cries Foul.
7/13/18 by Tom Knighton
What is it about family that makes it so you can be absolutely convinced that despite them engaging in a criminal act, they’re still somehow angels?
I ask because no matter what the circumstances, when someone gets shot, the family will invariably step up and pontificate on just why that person shouldn’t have been killed.
In this case, a man killed in an Iowa store burglary 'is as pure as the driven snow or something'. Well, maybe not.
The family at least admits he was in the wrong for stealing, but they still think he shouldn’t be dead.
Police said that business owner 67-year-old Thomas Kraft, of Des Moines, discovered the burglary when he arrived at the store and found a pickup truck loaded with his merchandise.
Kraft shot and killed an intruder, identified as 37-year-old Amund Haarstad, of Fergus Falls, Minnesota, police said.
It’s the city’s sixth homicide so far this year.
There was broken glass and a broken door at the scene Wednesday night.
Kraft was taken to a hospital for an unrelated medical issue.
“There was forced entry into the business, and a pickup truck parked in the service bay was loaded with property,” Des Moines police Sgt. Paul Parizek said.
Haarstad’s sister, who spoke on the condition that KCCI not use her name, said he suffered from drug addiction and should not have burglarized the Des Moines store. ***DUH***
She also said Kraft had been wrong in taking the situation into his own hands and shooting her brother.
“He doesn’t have a history of violence,” Haarstad’s sister said in a telephone interview with KCCI from the family’s Minnesota home.
Because Kraft would have known that the moment he confronted a man with an addiction to drugs and a propensity for taking other people’s stuff (sarcasm).
The sister is convinced that Kraft walked into the business with the intent to kill her brother.
“If you know somebody is in there and you walk in armed, and you shoot them in the head, that is absolutely premeditated,” she argued.
Of course, she’s wrong. Kraft has a right to be on that property, Haarstad didn’t. We still don’t know precisely what happened inside that building as the police are still investigating. They’re not calling it a “Stand Your Ground” case just yet, but they haven’t ruled it out.
The reason is that contrary to what Haarstad’s sister may think, just entering your store doesn’t mean you intend on killing someone.
But a family has a weird way of ignoring reality when they want to. They can’t fathom the possibility that their drug-addicted loved one may have been confronted and decided to get violent. They can’t fathom anything other than their loved one is dead and someone has to be held responsible.
Years ago, I reported on a local case where the police shot a suspect. Almost immediately, the family started screaming that their loved one didn’t have to be dead. Couldn’t the police have just shot to wound them?
I wrote my column that week on just why “shooting to wound” is not just a television thing, but colossally stupid!!
The truth of the matter is that those who were screaming didn’t want to listen to reason IN THE FIRST PLACE!
With Haarstad’s family, the same is true. The investigation is ongoing, so we’ll have to wait and see how it turns out, but in the meantime, I’m not worried what the family of someone we know was engaged in illegal activities thinks.
She’s wasn't even there, no clue at all about what happened.

[Bullheaded Texan]

Charles W. Sweeney, U.S. bomber pilot that dropped the atomic bomb on Nagasaki, Japan, in the last days of World War II, died on this day in 2004.

[Bullheaded Texan]

ICE Removes Brazilian Man Wanted For Murder.
Source: American Action News by: LA
The media clogged the airways with negative stories about U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement as liberal politicians continue their crusade to abolish the organization.
Over the course of their political grandstanding they *forgot* to report on a big development.
According to a release from ICE, the organization deported a man who illegally entered our country and is wanted for murder in his home country of Brazil.
A Brazilian national wanted for murder in Brazil was returned to his home country July 10 by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) deportation officers with the assistance of the Oak Bluffs Police Department on Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts.
Dorviro Rocha-Ribeiro, 47, a citizen and national of Brazil who was the subject of an Interpol Red Notice for murder, was removed from the United States by officers with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) to Brazil via Boston Logan International Airport and Miami International Airport on July 10.
He was immediately transferred to the custody of Brazilian law enforcement officers upon his arrival in his home country to face the pending murder charges.
Rocha-Ribeiro had earlier illegally re-entered the U.S. after ICE initially removed him in 2003.
After being notified in May of this year by ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations, (ERO), Miami that Rocha-Ribeiro was the subject of an active warrant in Brazil for murder, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), Boston officers arrested him on May 9 at his place of employment in Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts, a township on the coastal island of Martha’s Vineyard in Cape Cod, Massachusetts.
To date, according to agency's statistics, ICE removed ​226,119 people in the US illegally in 2017. That's 226,119 thugs removed!

[Bullheaded Texan]

Poll: Voters oppose abolishing ICE!
7/11/18 By Steven Shepard
A new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll shows that most voters oppose eliminating Immigration and Customs Enforcement — the homeland security agency some liberal Democrats have called for abolishing.
Only 1 in 4 voters in the poll, 25%(probably Mexicans), believe the federal government should get rid of ICE.
The majority, 54%, think the government should keep ICE!
21% of voters are undecided.
Democratic voters do support abolishing ICE! 43% Democrats say the government should get rid of ICE, while only 34% say it should keep ICE.
79% of Republicans and 54% independents want the government to keep ICE.
Calls to abolish ICE have been amplified over the past two weeks — since Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a liberal challenger, defeated House Democratic Caucus Chair Joe Crowley in a Democratic primary for Crowley’s New York City-based seat. Ocasio-Cortez campaigned on the issue, and has said that ICE represents “the draconian enforcement that has happened since 2003 that routinely violates our civil rights, because, frankly, it was designed with that structure in mind.”
A handful of liberal figures — including some potential 2020 presidential candidates, like Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) — have also called for eliminating or replacing ICE, as have other Democratic primary challengers, like Cynthia Nixon, who is running against New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
President Donald Trump has, in turn, attacked Democrats for advocating the elimination of the agency.
“The Democrats are making a strong push to abolish ICE, one of the smartest, toughest and most spirited law enforcement groups of men and women that I have ever seen,” Trump tweeted last month, though the “Abolish ICE” position is not widely held in the party.
While the partisan differences on the issue are stark, so are the cleavages by age. Among voters under age 30, more support getting rid of ICE 39% than keeping it 33%. But majorities among all other ages - 30-44= 51%, 45-54= 56%,
55-64= 61% and 65 and older 68%, support keeping the agency.
Asked whether they would be more or less likely to vote for a congressional candidate if they supported getting rid of ICE, 40% say it would make them less likely, only 26% percent of voters say it would make them more likely to vote for the candidate.
A third of voters said it would not make a difference either way or didn’t have an opinion.
Among Democrats, 40% say it would make them much more or somewhat more likely to vote for a candidate if he or she favored abolishing ICE — roughly twice as many as the 21% who said it would make them less likely to vote for that candidate.
But there is little support for eliminating ICE outside of the Democratic base.
“Congressional candidates who embrace the ‘Abolish ICE’ movement could have a difficult time appealing to voters across party lines,” said Tyler Sinclair, Morning Consult’s managing director.
“For example, over three-fifths (61%) of Republicans and 41% of independents say they would be less likely to vote for a congressional candidate who supported getting rid of ICE.”
The poll also shows an uptick in Trump’s approval rating, from 43% in late June to 46% in the new poll. The 3-point increase is just outside of the poll’s margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.
Democrats have a 5-point lead in the generic congressional ballot, 42% to 37% . In late June, Democrats held an 8-point lead, though the change is within the poll’s margin of error.
The POLITICO/Morning Consult poll was conducted July 6-10, surveying 1,999 registered voters.
Morning Consult is a nonpartisan media and technology company that provides data-driven research and insights on politics, policy and business strategy.

[Bullheaded Texan]

GOP Bill Promises to Deal Devastating Blow to Illegal Immigration!
7/10/18 BY: GOP Presidential Staff
Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., introduced legislation Tuesday that would reclassify a first-time illegal entry at the border as a felony instead of a misdemeanor.
Her Zero Tolerance for Illegal Entry Act would change the punishment for those apprehended illegally entering the U.S. for the first time to one year and one day in prison, which therefore makes it a felony. Today, the misdemeanor offense comes with jail term of up to six months.
The Tennessee lawmaker said she is proposing the change because she believes it would prevent would-be illegal entrants from coming to the U.S., and encourage migrants to apply for asylum at ports of entry instead of using smugglers to travel to the U.S.-Mexico border then cross between ports.
“What this bill does is it sets up a huge disincentive,” she told the Washington Examiner. “There is already a process set up and they should be using what the process is … We’re not penalizing people are who doing things the right way seeking asylum. This is for people who are going around the system.”
*** IT'S ABOUT TIME! ***

[Bullheaded Texan]

GOP Bill Promises to Deal Devastating Blow to Illegal Immigration!
7/10/18 BY: GOP Presidential Staff
Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., introduced legislation Tuesday that would reclassify a first-time illegal entry at the border as a felony instead of a misdemeanor.
Her Zero Tolerance for Illegal Entry Act would change the punishment for those apprehended illegally entering the U.S. for the first time to one year and one day in prison, which therefore makes it a felony. Today, the misdemeanor offense comes with jail term of up to six months.
The Tennessee lawmaker said she is proposing the change because she believes it would prevent would-be illegal entrants from coming to the U.S., and encourage migrants to apply for asylum at ports of entry instead of using smugglers to travel to the U.S.-Mexico border then cross between ports.
“What this bill does is it sets up a huge disincentive,” she told the Washington Examiner. “There is already a process set up and they should be using what the process is … We’re not penalizing people are who doing things the right way seeking asylum. This is for people who are going around the system.”
*** IT'S ABOUT TIME! ***

[Bullheaded Texan]

President Trump: Wouldn’t Have Allowed Russian Invasion! 

  7/12/18  By 1600 Staff

President Trump had direct words for obuma’s handling of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

   https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dh5mHDsXUAAbe5s?

POTUS on Crimea:

  "That was on barry obuma's watch, that was not on Trump's watch. Would I have allowed it to happen? No, I would not have allowed it to happen!"

 COMMENTS:

1. Donald Trump is our AMAZING PRESIDENT and like he promised, president for all AMERICANS! President Trump is the best president ever and the most brilliant leader in the history of the world! Make America Great Again, greater than ever before! AMERICA and AMERICANS FIRST!

2. we have a president now that is knocking problems out right to left getting so many things done so fast ,PRESIDENT TRUMP SHOULD HAVE BEEN A BOXER ,SO MANY KNOCK OUTS TO POLITICIANS AND JUSTICE DEPT ,I WOULD VOTE HIM IN FOR A 2ND 3RD 4TH 5TH TERMS OR AS LONG AS HE WANTED THAT POSITION. IN MY LIFETIME HE IS THE ONLY PRESIDENT THAT WORKS FOR ,WE THE PEOPLE. AND AMERICA!

3. How we pray that God will continue to give Pres. Trump His wisdom in all that he has to challenge what obuma did to destroy our country. Putin knows that Pres. Trump says what he means and means what he says!…that is respecting strength! God is in charge and will bring to pass His will. Now, we as Americans need to unite and be proud of being Americans and as our motto says “IN GOD WE TRUST”

4. A real President at last. The first since Truman. A President that put those who cast votes for him first. European allies have taken advantage of us since World War I. We can no longer afford to do so or we will become like them. Not one or all of them could defend themselves. That is their fault not ours!

Keep on giving them hell Mr. President.

5. obuma’s “strong suit” was appeasement. Otherwise, he had to be moved from a hiding place so a Special Ops mission could proceed. He was all talk, all posing, and otherwise unavailable.
Trump is a major difference from that of obuma. He’s “hands on,” constantly on the job, he IS the President, an untiring President. I hope he doesn’t abuse his health in the process. It is no wonder how much he’s got done in a relatively short time, compared to Obama who was a fake if there ever was one. Trump is not smooth, he is a serious “doer.” His loyalty to America is pure, which to many people inured with the conduct of prior Presidents, makes it difficult for such people to believe. Still, and with all the distractions constantly thrown at him, he achieves. His priority is to make good on his promises, even though many of us cannot see how he will deliver, obviously because we haven’t seen presidential achievement to the degree of Trump in the past. We won’t hear President Trump saying, “After I’m reelected, I’ll have more latitude to do more.” Perhaps you don’t remember this…it was obuma, on a “hot phone” in Moscow, telling Medvedev to deliver that very message to Putin. No one accused obuma of “colluding with Russia” then, but that charge was made against President Trump with no actual conversation overheard, no sooner than he was elected. An introduction to the new American sickness…”Fake News!”

  

[Bullheaded Texan]

Kavanaugh’s Nomination Gets Rave Reviews From Legal Scholars.

 7/13/18

Law Professors and Deans:

 Georgetown Law Professor Randy Barnett: “Kavanaugh’s appointment would move the Court in the direction of textualism and originalism.”

 George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School Adjunct Professor Jamil Jaffer: “Judge Kavanaugh is an inspired pick by the President for this nomination to the Supreme Court.”

Harvard Law School Professor Jack Goldsmith: “Brett Kavanaugh is immensely qualified for the Supreme Court: an outstanding lawyer and judge; a great teacher and serious scholar of the law; and a generous, honorable, kind person.”

Harvard Law School Professor John Manning: “An inspiring teacher and mentor, Judge Kavanaugh has somehow always found extra time for his students, whether to dig deeper into important legal questions or to offer valuable career advice. Let me take this occasion to thank Judge Kavanaugh for the generosity, dedication, and collegiality he has shown our community.”

Harvard Law School Professor Richard Lazarus: “Judge Kavanaugh has been an outstanding member of our teaching faculty. Our students have benefited enormously from his generous devotion of his time, his skills as a jurist, and his legal acumen.”

Hofstra Law Associate Dean and Professor Julian Ku: “My overall take: Kavanaugh has set forth his views on the status of international law in US law much more clearly than any sitting SCOTUS justice and most federal judges. He would be a SCOTUS thought leader on these issues if he is confirmed.”

University of Southern Mexifornia Gould School of Law Professor Orin Kerr:“[Kavanaugh] has been a prominent conservative judge on the D.C. Circuit, and he is well known and well liked among the conservative legal elite. He has also been a thought leader whose views get attention and respect among the current Supreme Court justices.”

Yale Law School Dean Heather Gerken: “I have known Brett Kavanaugh for many years. I can personally attest that, in addition to his government and judicial service, Judge Kavanaugh has been a longtime friend to many of us in the Yale Law School community. Ever since I joined the faculty, I have admired him for serving as a teacher and mentor to our students and for hiring a diverse set of clerks, in all respects, during his time on the court.”

Yale Law School Professor Akhil Reed Amar: “Judge Kavanaugh commands wide and deep respect among scholars, lawyers, judges, and justices. Good appellate judges faithfully follow the Supreme Court; great ones influence and help steer the Court. Several of Kavanaugh’s biggest ideas have found their way into Supreme Court opinions.”

Yale Law School Professor William Eskridge: “Brett Kavanaugh has been one of the most learned judges in America on a variety of issues, ranging from theories of statutory interpretation to separation of powers. We are proud that he is our graduate and eager to continue to learn from his judicial opinions and scholarly publications.”

Yale Law School Professor Abbe Gluck: “… Brett Kavanaugh is a true intellectual–a leading thinker and writer on the subjects of statutory interpretation and federal courts; an incomparable mentor–someone who picks law clerks of all backgrounds and viewpoints; and a fair-minded jurist who believes in the rule of law. He is humble, collegial and cares deeply about the federal courts.”

Yale Law School Professor Kate Stith: “He is a terrific judge. In my federal criminal law class, I love teaching his opinions because they are smart, thoughtful, and clear. He’s also been a wonderful mentor and teacher to our students—not just to those who clerk for him, but those who meet with him during one of his many visits to Yale Law School.”

Judge Kavanaugh’s Former Law Clerks

Marguerite Colson: “Brett Kavanaugh loves being a judge. But even more than being a judge, he loves being a father, friend, and mentor. He takes responsibility for each and every one of his clerks (no matter their ideological stripe), striving for their personal and professional success as if it were his own.”

Gillian Grossman: “My clerkship with Judge Kavanaugh was as much a lesson in graciousness, humility, and compassion as it was in the law. Judge Kavanaugh’s herculean work ethic and extraordinary intellect are matched only by his unimpeachable integrity and his love for his country.”

Zac Hudson: “Judge Kavanaugh is a brilliant person who has a deep and nuanced understanding of the law. He judges each case fairly and independently based on an assessment of the facts and arguments with which he is presented. Policy and politics do not alter his approach to judging. This country would be fortunate to have Brett Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court Justice.”

Saritha Komatireddy: “I considered it a special privilege to train under a man who had such fundamental respect for the law and a complete commitment to getting it right.”

Travis Lenkner: “Judge Kavanaugh is a fair, independent judge for whom fidelity to the Constitution is the guiding light. He has been an incredible mentor to me and to all of his law clerks and students. He is a kind, genuine, down-to-earth person and a devoted husband and father. I know without a doubt that he will be a wonderful Supreme Court Justice.”

Caroline Littleton: “At the end of my clerkship, my parents sent a short note to Judge Kavanaugh, thanking him for having been such a wonderful boss and mentor to me. Their note very easily could have gone without response, but instead Judge Kavanaugh took the time to write a heartfelt note in return, thanking them for how they raised me. To this day (nearly six years later), my parents still cherish that note. This is the kind of person that Judge Kavanaugh is—an extraordinarily thoughtful man, who goes out of his way to be kind.”

Jennifer Mascott: “Judge Kavanaugh has one of the sharpest legal minds in the country. He has been a thought leader on the D.C. Circuit and has served consistently as an independent, fair-minded judge. He is very down-to-earth and kind and I am grateful for his willingness to serve as a mentor to his clerks.”

Roman Martinez: “Ten years ago, I was honored to serve as law clerk to Judge Kavanaugh at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. I saw firsthand his reverence for the Constitution, his integrity, his fairness, and his overriding commitment to do justice in every case, big or small.”

Sarah Pitlyk: “Judge Kavanaugh is an exemplary judge: brilliant, principled, and faithful to the text. He is also a gifted writer who meticulously crafts every opinion. His excellence and dedication have earned him the admiration of colleagues across the political spectrum. It is hard to imagine anyone better suited to serve on the Supreme Court.”

Richard Re: “Judge Kavanaugh is a master of the legal craft. His opinions are scholarly, influential, and unyieldingly reasoned. He has already left an important mark on the law, and, if confirmed, he would continue to be a fair-minded voice on the bench.”

Hagan Scotten: “Judge Kavanaugh is a great judge who will make a great Justice. I learned a ton from Judge Kavanaugh even before I clerked for him, when I took a class he taught at my law school. He taught with the knowledge and clarity of the best professors. And his dedication to his students was legendary.”

Indraneel Sur: “Since his first day at the D.C. Circuit, Judge Kavanaugh has stood ready to invest whatever amount of energy is necessary to get the reasoning and the result right in every case … Of course, he would bring that same tireless dedication to the rule of law to the Supreme Court where he confirmed.”

Rebecca Taibleson: “Judge Kavanaugh is a brilliant judge, and he has the disposition to match. He is even-handed, kind, and honest with everyone—colleagues, litigants, and staff alike.”

Caroline Van Zile: “Judge Kavanaugh is incredibly qualified to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court. Beyond that, he is a good, kind and fair-minded person. Americans should be proud to have someone with his independence, integrity and character on the bench.”

Justin Walker: “Anyone who knows Judge Brett Kavanaugh knows he reveres the Constitution. For 12 years on the second most important court in the country, Judge Kavanaugh has applied the Constitution as it is written. He knows that judging means going where text and precedent lead you, in a fair-minded, evenhanded manner … That passion for our constitutional structure is among the reasons he’s the smartest lawyer I’ve ever met and the best teacher I’ve ever had.”

Katie Wellington: “The year I clerked for Judge Kavanaugh, he had hired four female law clerks—a first for any Judge on the D.C. Circuit. Today, he is a mentor to each of us as we pursue careers in public service, private practice, and academia.”

Candice Wong: “Judge Kavanaugh taught us, his clerks, to be meticulous; he showed us that by thinking more rigorously and working more ferociously than any of us. But he also showed us the importance of hearing out all sides of an issue, being gracious to all parties, and making time for family and friends (and maybe some marathon training) outside of work.”

[Bullheaded Texan]

Will This Muslim Group Be Designated as Terrorists?

 7/11/18  by:  True Daily Staff

The muslim Brotherhood, an organization connected to International Jihad, could finally be designated as a terrorist organization.

The Free Beacon reports:

 Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are renewing a years-long push to designate the international muslim Brotherhood organization as a terrorist organization due to its support for terror organizations that threaten U.S. security interests across the globe, according to conversations with U.S. officials spearheading the effort.

 The congressional effort to target the muslim Brotherhood will kick off early Wednesday, when lawmakers on the House’s Subcommittee on National Security gather for a hearing to “examine the threat that the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates pose to the United States and its interests and how to most effectively counter it, including potential next steps for U.S. policy,” according to the committee.

 The hearing is expected to set the stage for Congress to follow through on efforts that begun in 2015to convince the obuma administration to designate the muslim Brotherhood as a terror group following its violent, and eventually failed, takeover in Egypt.

 The State Department has opposed formal designation of the Brotherhood for some time due to efforts by the obuma administration to make diplomatic overtures to the group, particularly during its coup in Egypt.

 Although the Trump administration has designated various offshoots of the Brotherhood as global terror groups, the organization as a whole has escaped U.S. scrutiny.

 Liberals have covered for the muslim Brotherhood in the name of tolerance, but the truth is coming out.