Trump and both Clintons on immigration

Here is a video of Trump, Bill and Hillary Clinton saying the same things about illegal immigration.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+TumblrStumbleUponRedditLinkedInAOL MailBlogger PostDeliciousShare
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Governor Larry Hogan Loves Illegal Aliens – Hogan Dumps Trump – Backs More Illegals For Maryland Instead



Join Help Save Maryland and others volunteers this Saturday, June 25, 12 noon – 4PM near the Barnes and Noble Bookstore in Bethesda  – Intersection of Bethesda and Woodmont Avenues.  Its a short walk south from the Bethesda Metro Station.


Clip Boards, Term Limit Petitions/Pens and a lovely Lime-Green “Sign the Petition” T-Shirt will be provided for the afternoon.


Let’s slam dunk this petition with enough signatures so it will make the November 2016 Voter Ballot.  See you Saturday!


Further info contact Brad Botwin 240-447-1884,






Great piece (again) by Ann Corcoran of the Refugee Resettlement Watch on Maryland Governor Larry Hogan and his growing support for illegal immigration. 


Hogan recently released a list of his top 10 achievements since being elected nearly 2 years ago. Seems Larry forgot to mention his “O’Malley Strong” support for the growing illegal immigrant community and the likes of CASA of Maryland. 


Combined with Obama’s open border policies, which are allowing yet another tidal wave of illegals from Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala into our country, Hogan is waving the welcome flag for new “Democrat” voters just in time for November’s Presidential Election. 


Even Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett and the entire County Council are thanking Larry for allowing thousands of new K-12 illegal alien students (and their anchor baby siblings) into their jurisdiction. 


Hogan’s open door policy provides great political cover for the County Democrats in charge.  These elected officials recently implemented an 8.7 Percent Property Tax increase to build more schools and provide more social services and healthcare for those with no moral or legal right to be in Maryland.


That’s right, Hogan lets them in and we pay the tab.  That Hogan bridge and highway toll decrease from last year looks mighty small compared to my new Property Tax Bill. 


Let’s not forget about the commensurate increase in Hispanic Gang violence, crime, drug abuse and a general decrease in my quality of life in Maryland.  When Hogan ran on the theme of keeping Marylanders in Maryland I had no idea that included illegal alien criminals.



Maryland Gov. Hogan says he is not voting for Trump; more refugees entering MD than during Dems control

by Ann Corcoran

Maryland Republicans were beside themselves with joy that in a blue, blue state they succeeded in electing a Republican governor in the fall of 2014.


The bloom is now off the rose as Governor Larry Hogan says point blank he will not vote for Donald Trump and doesn’t agree with most of what Trump says.  (By the way, Hogan owes some of his electoral success to help from NJ Governor Chris Christie an up front supporter of Trump, so who knows what is going on there!).

Looks like Hogan was all talk when he said he didn’t want Syrian refugees resettled in Maryland.

By saying what he did, he has now, for all intents and purposes, thumbed his nose at 248,000 Marylander Republicans who voted for Trump in the primary. See Blue Ridge Forum here (248,000 orphaned GOPers).


I don’t want to get too deep into the weeds of Maryland Republican politics, but long-time Republican observer and former staffer for Congressman Roscoe Bartlett said this (below) on her facebook page.


This would have been an excellent way for the Governor to respond to demands that he tell Marylanders where he stands in this fall’s election. My prediction is the Hogan has just guaranteed that he will be a one-termer.


Keep in mind that the man who wants the governor’s mansion two years from now is Congressman John Delaney, an uber-wealthy Democrat who is apparently already bored with Congress and has been hounding the Governor to say if he supports Trump. (Delaney wins this round!).


Here is the sensible thing Hogan should have said. Maybe it’s just as well he wasn’t smart enough to give a nuanced answer.


Sallie Taylor on facebook:

SCREAM! How hard would it be for Hogan to reply “I am certainly not going to be voting for the former Secretary of State who put all our safety at risk by setting up her own unsecured email system, who failed to protect her own people in Benghazi , who appears to have been selling government favors for contributions to the Clinton Foundation.” And then Hogan just needs to walk away. Unless he is joining O’Malley and is supporting Hillary Clinton for President then how he is answering makes perfect sense.


Enough of that…..

Since this is a blog about refugees, I decided to see how the numbers are looking during Governor Hogan’s Administration. Remember he was one of the 30 or so governors who declared that Obama shouldn’t resettle un-vetted Syrians in the state and then he went silent.


Maryland doesn’t get a huge number of refugees compared to states like Texas or Michigan, but a steady stream does arrive.

However, much to our surprise more entered in the year after Hogan was elected than in any one of Martin O’Malley’s years.

Editor: It is a good thing we checked these numbers yesterday because today that important data base maintained by the US State Dept. is not available.  We hope this is a temporary problem, but if by Monday it isn’t up and running, then we know the Obama Administration is blatantly blocking the public’s right to know who has been seeded into their towns. 

Yesterday I went back ten years in the data and found that in 2005, Maryland resettled 751 refugees with a gradual increase each year until 2015 when the number jumped to 1,453 (under the Hogan Admin).  In those last ten plus years, Maryland ‘welcomed’ 12,112 refugees.

In 2016, the state has, as of June 15th, received 137 Syrians  (35 in 2015 and 93 so far this year).  The Syrians were distributed to Baltimore, Ellicott City, Riverdale, and Silver Spring.

MD resettled Muslim refugees from Iraq, Burma, Afghanistan and Somalia among many others from around the world.

Here are the towns and cities where refugees were resettled this year (some got only a handful, others got large numbers with Baltimore and Silver Spring being the top destinations).




College Park


Ellicott City




Middle River




Silver Spring







BRAD BOTWIN, Director, Help Save



The Trump Nuclear Bomb

June 21, 2016

Other public figures won’t admit they agree with him – but they often quietly adopt his ideas.

By Victor Davis Hanson // National Review Online


Donald Trump has a frightening habit of uttering things that many people apparently think, but would never express. And he blusters in such an off-putting and sloppy fashion that he alienates those who otherwise might agree with many of his critiques of political correctness.


Nonetheless, when the dust settles, we often see that Trump’s megatonnage strikes a chord – and, with it, sometimes has effected change. In an odd way, the more personally unpopular he becomes for raising taboo issues, the more resonant become the more refined variants of his proposals for addressing these festering problems.


For the last several months, anti-Trump demonstrators have sought to disrupt his rallies; they attack his supporters and wave offensive anti-American and often overtly racist placards, while burning American and waving Mexican flags – often with a nonchalant police force looking on.


Trump shouts back that their antics are only further proof of his general point: Illegal immigration and an open border have subverted our immigration laws and created a paradoxical movement that is as illogical as it is ungracious. After fleeing Mexico, entering the U.S. illegally, and being treated with respect (try doing the same in any Latin American country), some foreign nationals have been waving the flag of the country they do not wish to return to, while scorning the flag of the country that they demand to stay in. But apparently they are not fond of Trump’s larger point, disguised by his barroom rhetoric, which is that the old melting-pot protocols of rapid assimilation, integration, and intermarriage have been sabotaged – and now the American people can at last see the wages of that disaster on national TV.


In response to the general public disapproval that focused on the violent demonstrations, anti-Trump protestors recently have announced that they will ban Mexican flags from their future rallies. They probably will not, but why did they even play-act that they would? Are illegal-immigration activists suddenly turned off by Mexico and appreciative of the United States? Be that as it may, it would surely be a good thing if immigrants to the U.S. and their supporters stopped attacking the icons of the country that they have chosen to reside in.


For that matter, why suddenly during the past six months did 16 Republican primary candidates begin talking about enforcing immigration laws, avoid the very mention of “comprehensive immigration reform,” and promise to finish the southern border fence? While they all deplored Trump’s mean-spirited rhetoric, they all more or less channeled his themes. Until the approach of the Trump battering ram, outrageous developments like the neo-Confederate concept of sanctuary cities being exempt from federal law were off limits to serious criticism – even from the Republican congressional establishment.


Trump dismissively characterized Judge Gonzalo Curiel as a “Mexican” (the absence of hyphenation could be charitably interpreted as following the slang convention in which Americans are routinely called “Irish,” “Swedish,” “Greek,” or “Portuguese,” with these words used simply as abbreviated identifiers rather than as pejoratives). Trump’s point was that Curiel could not grant Trump a fair trial, given Trump’s well-publicized closed-borders advocacy.


Most of America was understandably outraged: Trump had belittled a sitting federal judge. Trump had impugned his Mexican ancestry. Trump had offered a dangerous vision of jurisprudence in which ethnic ancestry necessarily manifests itself in chauvinism and prejudice against the Other.


Trump was certainly crude, but on closer analysis of his disparagements he had blundered into at least a few legitimate issues. Was it not the Left that had always made Trump’s point about ethnicity being inseparable from ideology (most infamously Justice Sotomayor in her ruminations about how a “wise Latina” would reach better conclusions than intrinsically less capable white males, and how ethnic heritage necessarily must affect the vantage point of jurists – racialist themes Sotomayor returned to this week in her Utah v. Strieff dissent, which has been characterized as a “Black Lives Matter” manifesto)? Had not Barack Obama himself apologized (“Yeah, he’s a white guy . . . sorry.”) for nominating a white male judge to the Supreme Court, as if Merrick Garland’s appearance were something logically inseparable from his thought?


What exactly was the otherwise apparently sober and judicious Judge Curiel doing in publicizing his membership in a group known as the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association? Raza – a term that will likely soon disappear from American parlance once belated public attention focuses on its 1960s separatist origins and its deeper racist Francoist and Mussolinian roots – is by intent racially charged. Certainly, an illegal-immigration advocate could not expect a fair trial from any federal judge who belonged to a group commensurately designated “the San Diego Race Lawyers Association.” From this tawdry incident, we will remember Trump, the racial incendiary – but perhaps in the aftermath we will also question why any organization with Raza in its name should earn a pass from charges of polarizing racial chauvinism. The present tribalism is unsustainable in a pluralistic society. I wish the antidote for “typical white person,” “punish our enemies,” “my people,” (only) Black Lives Matter, and “la Raza” were not Donald Trump, but let us be clear on the fact that his is a crude reaction to a smooth and unquestioned racialism that, in bankrupt fashion, has been tolerated by the establishments of both parties.


For seven years, Barack Obama has not deigned to explain to the American people why he abhors terms like radical Islam, Islamic terrorism, and Islamist, unlike European leaders and most Americans. Obama certainly in the past has had no problem with using far more sweeping and generic categories – for example, dressing down millions of Pennsylvanians as know-nothing clingers, or Christians in general for their purported centuries of “high-horse” sins. His administration has stereotyped and provoked plenty of groups, from supposedly parasitic entrepreneurs who did not build their own businesses to a nation of supposedly cowardly non-minorities.


In one area alone, Obama and his administration have created a vacuous and dangerous vocabulary of euphemisms – violent extremism, man-caused disasters, overseas contingency operations, a largely “secular” Muslim Brotherhood, and so on. Such nomenclature only confuses Americans about the dangers that they face from radical Islam while emboldening Islamists, who can suspect that if we are afraid to call them what they are, then we may also be defensive about their bogus grievances against the West. Neither ISIS and al-Qaeda nor the relatives of Omar Mateen and Rizwan Farook, the San Bernardino killer, have shown any gratitude to the U.S. for its politically correct tiptoeing around who is blowing up, beheading, and shooting whom – and why. Most recently, the administration, in disturbing 1984 style, edited out the Orlando terrorist’s explicit praise of and statement of solidarity with ISIS from the released transcript of his call to 911 – in an apparent effort to reinvent him as a generic rather than Islamic terrorist.


So why have polished politicians such as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton suddenly decided that the American people needed explanations about, or changes in, their longstanding vocabulary?


Trump in blunderbuss fashion has questioned the premises of the seven-decade-old NATO alliance. Observers on both sides of the Atlantic derided his simplistic critique of paltry European contributions to the defense of the West as a sort of know-nothing nativism. It may well have been. But then strangely, European governments – Germany’s especially – quietly began issuing statements that, in fact, they were planning to up their defense budgets. Why now such acknowledgments, if Trump were a mere buffoon? And how did it happen that Europe (in aggregate perhaps the largest economy in the world) has still relied on far greater U.S. defense expenditures 70 years after the end of World War II?


Two examples of Trump’s most controversial and in some sense reprehensible invective are his suggestions that we should temporarily bar Muslim immigration into the United States, and that we should hold the families of terrorists accountable for their silence. Critics rightly decry both suggestions as unworkable, creepy, and contrary to the American sense of decency, while privately perhaps acknowledging that something is wrong with current immigration from the war-torn Middle East, a problem by now spanning two generations.


Collate the profiles of the Boston, Fort Hood, Chattanooga, UC Merced, San Bernardino, and Orlando attackers, and four themes emerge: (1) the parents, spouses, girlfriends, or siblings of the killers had plenty of occasions to discover that something was wrong with the person in question, but chose to remain silent and not contact authorities; (2) many second-generation Americans of Middle Eastern heritage feel no gratitude to the U.S. for taking in their parents, much less for their own good luck of being born in the U.S. rather than in their parents’ war-ravaged hellholes; (3) even on the occasions when state or federal authorities did look into reports that, for example, the Boston or Orlando killers were jihadist extremists, agents did little proactively, perhaps out of worry that they might be pegged as Islamophobic or as unduly profiling those of Middle Eastern descent; and (4) the U.S., like Europe, has no mechanism for screening the hundreds of thousands of immigrants that are flowing across its borders, and thus no way of knowing whether terrorist cells are infiltrating the country.


The reaction to Trump’s rants was understandable. A chorus denounced him for his racism, nativism, and xenophobia. Yet, quietly, authorities now say that they may well bring up Omar Mateen’s wife and others on charges of conspiracy or accessory to terrorism, in a muscular fashion that we have not witnessed before in other terrorism cases, especially the outrageous exemption given the conniving girlfriend of Tamerlan Tsarnaev. If there is a precedent set that remaining silent while a relative plots mass death means a long prison sentence, then such deterrence may save lives in the future.


Meanwhile, lots of politicians are now either calling for a temporary cessation of immigration from the Middle East or confessing that they have no idea who is entering the United States. They channel Trump’s outrage that unchecked entry from countries like Iraq, Syria, or Yemen is suicidal, but they clean up his invective by predicating possible future limitations based on the country of origin rather than on religious affiliation.


So what are we to make of these sometimes resonant messages from our often reviled messenger?


Is Trump an Ajaxian tragic figure who takes it upon himself to raise issues for the benefit of public debate – in overheated fashion garnering public attention with the full knowledge that his advocacy will earn him only hatred and ostracism?




A better metaphor is Trump as a loose nuclear weapon. Once he is dropped onto an issue, no one quite knows exactly the parameters of the ensuing explosion – only that it is going to blow up lots of things, and foremost Trump himself. In the subsequent charred landscape, no one emerges unscathed from the fallout, and many suspect that they should have adopted proactive solutions well before they were nuked by Trump.


A final irony?


Would far more sober and judicious candidates like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, had they run again in 2016, have brought up these issues? If so, could they have called commensurate public and presidential attention to them? Is losing politely in a fairly close race always preferable to the risk of losing loudly by a large margin?


So we always return to the central truth of 2016: Trump is a symptom, not a catalyst. He was created by the hyperpartisan unconstitutional overreach of Barack Obama, and by the appeasement of much of the Republican establishment, who wished to be liked and admired for their restraint and Beltway moderation rather than feared for their insistence on adherence to the Constitution and the protection of the individual from an always growing and encroaching government.



Brad Botwin, Director, Help Save Maryland   240-447-1884


Tax Deductible Donations to Help Save Maryland are always welcome.  Donate by credit card at  or postal mail your donation to:


Help Save Maryland

PO Box 5742 

Rockville, MD  20855





Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Reducing The Illegal Alien Population: A Market Solution

“With all thy getting, get understanding.” 

Below John McClaughry puts forth a unique approach to handling the problem of the 11 million or so people in this country who came here illegally. You don’t have to buy into it–I’m not there yet myself–to appreciate original thinking on a vexing challenge.

RESTRICTING IMMIGRATION has emerged as a major issue in this year’s presidential campaigns. Almost all candidates agree that tightened border security and more careful screening of would-be immigrants is essential to keep us from being flooded by jihadis, drug smugglers, human traffickers and desperate foreigners seeking low-skill jobs and government benefits. Most would also agree that foreigners who overstay their visas need to be made to comply with our immigration laws, or go home.

That leaves the most difficult question unresolved: What do we do about the 11 million foreigners who, one way or another, got into the U.S. illegally?

An illegal alien from Brazil is taken into custody during a sweep in Boston to capture illegal aliens with a criminal record. (AP Photo/Michael Dwyer)

The blunt-instrument approach is a police dragnet: roadblocks and lineups to find the illegal entrants and transportation to deliver them from whence they came. This is not only repellent to the public conscience but also would be difficult and expensive, as there are high and prolonged legal barriers to deportation without due process. Apprehended illegals not wanted for a crime (other than illegal entry) cannot in practice be detained until that legal process plays out. They are commonly released on their own recognizance, often quickly disappearing from view.

But there is another ingenious – and workable – approach that conservatives in particular should find attractive: Require illegal entrants who want to remain as legal guest workers to pay other illegal entrants to depart. Think in terms of the Civil War practice of draftees paying for a substitute. Let’s explore how this principle could be made to play out.

Conservatives have long insisted that all illegal aliens be required to return home and get into the pipeline for legal entry. For obvious reasons that idea hasn’t caught fire with the target populations. But international law has long recognized that buildings, offices and even mobile units designated under a consular agreement serve as exterritorial outposts of the foreign state. Using Mexico as an example, we could allow a Mexican illegal desiring guest-worker status to remain here instead of having to return to Mexico, but he would have to present himself at a Mexican consular office within the U.S.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment
%d bloggers like this: