Banning American Indian Names in the U.S. Military

Recently the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office canceled the Washington Redskins trademarks on the claiming the name is “disparaging to Native Americans.” This effort was largely sparked by Nevada’s Senator Harry Reid.

His support of banning ‘Native American’ names from our general lexicon is leading to a new dilemma, this one over the use of such names in the U.S. military. In a Washington Post opinion piece last Thursday, Boston Review’s managing editor Simon Waxman lamented:

“In the United States today, the names Apache, Comanche, Chinook, Lakota, Cheyenne and Kiowa apply not only to Indian tribes but also to military helicopters. Add in the Black Hawk, named for a leader of the Sauk tribe. Then there is the Tomahawk, a low-altitude missile, and a drone named for an Indian chief, Gray Eagle. Operation Geronimo was the end of Osama bin Laden.”

“Why do we name our battles and weapons after people we have vanquished? For the same reason the Washington team is the Redskins and my hometown Red Sox go to Cleveland to play the Indians and to Atlanta to play the Braves: because the myth of the worthy native adversary is more palatable than the reality — the conquered tribes of this land were not rivals but victims, cheated and impossibly outgunned.”

“The destruction of the Indians was asymmetric war, compounded by deviousness in the name of imperialist manifest destiny. White America shot, imprisoned, lied, swindled, preached, bought, built and voted its way to domination. Identifying our powerful weapons and victorious campaigns with those we subjugated serves to lighten the burden of our guilt. It confuses violation with a fair fight.”

Time again, it’s been claimed that Harry Reid is an ardent supporter of our U.S. military.

“In my experience, no one has supported the military in Nevada more effectively than Senator Reid,” writes retired U.S. Air Force Colonel Harold Belote of ‘Veterans for Harry Reid.’

“I’m proud to stand with Harry Reid,” concludes Belote.

Really?

After seven U.S. Marines died last year during a night-time training exercise at the munitions depot in Hawthorne — the one he’s credited with saving — Reid decided he would use the tragedy to complain about sequestration.

“These men and women, our Marines were training there in Hawthorne,” Reid said from the Senate floor. “And with this sequester, it’s going to cut back. I just hope everyone understands the sacrifices made by our military. They are significant, being away from home, away from families, away from their country.”

That’s not support – that’s politicking. And since he started this politically correct mumbo-jumbo about ethnic slurs against American Indians, and he’s such a big fan of the military, Reid should ‘put up or shut up.’

Advertisements

SCOTUS Upholds Constitution in Three Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled police may not search the cell phones of people they arrest without first getting a search warrant. The Obama administration and the states of California and Massachusetts , defending the cell phone searches, said cell phones should have no greater protection from a search than anything else police find.

In San Diego, police found indications of gang membership when they looked through defendant David Riley’s smart phone. Prosecutors used video and photographs found on the smart phone to persuade a jury to convict Riley of attempted murder and other charges.

California courts rejected Riley’s efforts to throw out the evidence and upheld the convictions, however the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the California’s high court to take a new look at Riley’s case.

In Boston, a federal appeals court ruled police must have a warrant before searching suspect’s cell phone. Police arrested Brima Wurie on suspicion of selling crack cocaine, checked the call log on his flip phone and used that information to find where he lived.

When they searched Wurie’s home, using a warrant, they found crack, marijuana, a gun and ammunition. The evidence was enough to produce a conviction and a prison term of more than 20 years.

The appeals court ruled for Wurie, but left in place his drug conviction for selling cocaine near a school that did not depend on the tainted evidence. That conviction also carried a 20-year sentence.

Because cell phones contain so much information, police must get a warrant before looking through them, Chief Justice John Roberts said.

“Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may show, they hold for many Americans the privacies of life,” Roberts said.

The message to police about what they should do before rummaging through a cell phone’s contents following an arrest is simple.

“Get a warrant,” Roberts said.

The chief justice acknowledged that barring searches would affect law enforcement, but said: “Privacy comes at a cost.”

Authorities concerned about the destruction of evidence can take steps to prevent the remote erasure of a phone’s contents or the activation of encryption, Roberts said. One exception to the warrant requirement left open by the decision is a case in which officers reasonably fear for their safety or the lives of others.

Legal observers noted that the language in the court’s ruling could give new life to lawsuits claiming the NSA’s monitoring program violates the Fourth Amendment.

Last February, Senator Rand Paul asked a federal court to make the National Security Agency destroy the American phone records it has gathered as part of a data-mining program on the grounds that bulk collection violates the Fourth Amendment.

“We will ask the question in court whether a single warrant can apply to the records of every American phone user, all of the time, without limits, without individualization,” Paul told reporters outside the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The Supreme Court also delivered a blow to President Obama, ruling he went too far in making recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board. The court sided with Senate Republicans and limited the president’s power to fill high-level vacancies with temporary appointments.

It was the first-ever Supreme Court test involving the long-standing practice of presidents naming appointees when the Senate is on break. In this case, Obama had argued that the Senate was on an extended holiday break when he filled slots at the NLRB in 2012.

He argued the brief sessions it held every three days were a sham intended to prevent him from filling the seats. The justices rejected that argument, though, declaring the Senate was not actually in a formal recess when Obama acted during that three-day window.

Justice Stephen Breyer said in his majority opinion that a congressional break has to last at least 10 days to be considered a recess under the Constitution.

“Three days is too short a time to bring a recess within the scope of the Clause. Thus we conclude that the President lacked the power to make the recess appointments here at issue,” Breyer wrote.

At the same time, the court upheld the general authority of the president to make recess appointments.

Reacting to the Supreme Court decision, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the administration is “deeply disappointed” in the ruling.

He said that while the administration disagrees with the decision, it will honor it.

Finally, the high court struck down a Massachusetts law that set a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics, saying it violates the First Amendment. Massachusetts had argued that the buffer zone, which anti-abortion protesters said violated their free speech rights, keeps patients and clinic staff safer.

“The buffer zones burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the Commonwealth’s asserted interests,” Roberts wrote on behalf of the court.

The immediate impact of the decision will be on Massachusetts, but advocates expect that similar fixed-distance buffer zones in other states, including one now being challenged in Maine, will be next. The Supreme Court stopped short of declaring that the law discriminated against the anti-abortion viewpoint.

A decision is expected next week in another case about access to reproductive health — Hobby Lobby versus Sebelius, taking aim at contraceptive coverage under Obamacare.

Patricia Steele-Bettega, 1961-2014

Patricia Steele-Bettega passed away Friday, June 13, 2014. Better known to her friends and family as Patsy, she was born January 9th, 1961, in Santa Rosa, California.

She went to school at Margaret Keating School, Crescent Elk Middle School and Del Norte High School. Patsy was a member of the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians.

We went to school together in Klamath at Margaret Keating. Later, she and I attended the same fifth period worthless math class at Del Norte High in Crescent City.

Somehow, I let her talk me out of a scorpion choker I had bought in San Francisco – which she never gave back. She called my bluff, punching me in the nose when I tried to grab it back from her.

Patsy was tough like that and though short in height, no one messed with her. The memory makes me chuckle, now, but at the time Mr. Sveum chased me out of the classroom because I was bleeding all over the floor.

Patsy’s husband, Edwin Bettega Jr. passed away before she did as did her father, Daniel and sisters, Nadine and Sandra. She is however survived by her daughter, Natasha and son Edwin, her mother, Carol and brothers, Bert and Randy.

She was laid to rest June 19th at the IOOF Memorial Cemetery in Crescent City, California.

 

How the GOP Beat the Tea Party in Mississippi

A poll conducted by WPA Research, between June 9th to June 10th, showed Mississippi state Senator Chris McDaniel up eight-points, outside the margin of error of 4.4 percent, over Senator Thad Cochran a little less than a week from Tuesday’s runoff election.

The poll of 500 likely GOP primary runoff voters had McDaniel leading Cochran 49 percent to 41 percent, with 10 percent undecided. However, that’s not how it turned out.

McDaniel lost the runoff to Cochran, which showed the incumbent winning 50.8 percent of the vote to McDaniel’s 49.2 percent. This after, Cochran’s openly courted non-GOP voters, including the state’s sizable Black Democratic population.

Cochran also got a last-minute influx of financial support from Republican establishment groups and fellow senators like Nevada’s Dean Heller. Other senators who tossed money in the hat for Cochran included Cochran’s Mississippi colleague Senator Roger Wicker and Senators Lisa Murkowski, Rob Portman, Lamar Alexander, Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, John Barrasso, John Thune, John Cornyn, Bob Corker, Susan Collins, Kelly Ayotte , Richard Shelby, and Mitch McConnell.

Also, gun-hater and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg donated $250,000 to the pro-Thad Cochran super PAC “Mississippi Conservatives” in late May, Federal Election Commission filings show. In another case, it secured a $100,000 check from Silicon Valley billionaire Sean Parker, whose donations show an overwhelming Democrat tilt.

Cochran made the argument to voters he was a solid conservative who would continue routing federal money back to Mississippi, just as he’s done for decades. Promising to keep bringing federal dollars to Mississippi, the senator’s campaign worked to appeal to voters outside the typical GOP electorate, including Democratic black voters.

In a piece by CNN, a trio of self-identified Democrats admitted that they voted for Cochran in the primary.

By CNN’s count, about 61,000 more people voted Tuesday than in the primary two weeks ago. Cochran’s backers turned to Democrats, especially Blacks, who make up 37 percent of the state’s population.

In Mississippi, any resident can vote in a party’s primary. But some observers have noted that it could be illegal for Democrats to vote in the Republican primary — or more precisely, Mississippi state law prohibits voters from participating in a party’s primary if they don’t intend to support that party’s candidates in the general election.

Legal decisions have rendered that rule effectively unenforceable.

Furthermore a flyer, posted by journalist Charles Johnson suggests McDaniel and the Tea Party wanted to prevent blacks from voting in the Mississippi runoff election. Cochran’s critics allege the longtime senator’s campaign was behind the flyers.

As for McDaniel, he has refused to concede the race even after it was called for Cochran.

The IRS Scandal Continues to Grow and Grow

Even as Congressman Paul Ryan ripped into IRS Commissioner John Koskinen during an appearance before Congress last Friday, for not being forthcoming, the Commissioner failed to mention how the agency used the services of an email archiving company even after former IRS official Lois Lerner’s computer crashed.

Lerner’s computer supposedly crashed in June 2011, but it was not until the end of August 2011 that the agency nixed its contract with email archiving company Sonasoft. The missing emails in question are from January 2009 to April 2011, which is well within the time frame Sonasoft was employed.

Then during Monday night hearing, Congressman Trey Gowdy lowered the boom on Koskinen asking about the “spoliation of evidence,” a legal phrase meaning the jury can draw a negative inference if a party fails to preserve evidence that could be damaging.

Backed into a corner, Koskinen deflected by asking, “Is this a trial? Is this a jury?”

“If you want to go down that road, I’ll be happy to go down that road with you, Commissioner,” Gowdy exclaimed. “In fact, I’m glad you mentioned it. You have already said multiple times today that there was no evidence that you found of any criminal wrongdoing. I want you to tell me what criminal statutes you’ve evaluated.”

“I have not looked at any,” Koskinen replied.

“Well then how can you possibly tell our fellow citizens that there’s not criminal wrongdoing if you don’t even know what statutes to look at?” asked Gowdy.

“Because I’ve seen no evidence that somebody consciously…” Koskinen started but was cut-off.

“Common sense? Instead of the criminal code, you want to rely on common sense?” Gowdy asked.

Koskinen is a 1964 graduate of Yale University School of Law, most recently serving as the Non-Executive Chairman of Freddie Mac from September 2008 to December 2011. He has shelled out nearly $100,000 to Democratic candidates and groups since 1979.

During the same meeting, Congressman Darrell Issa also wasted no time going after Koskinen. The chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee pressed Koskinen about why all Lerner’s emails weren’t backed up on the server – but kept on the C-drive of her computer.

“All emails are not official records under any official records act,” Koskinen said, seeming to contradict IRS rules that require printing all emails and a backup of all systems.

Koskinen then blamed a budget shortfall, saying it would cost $30 million to overhaul the backup systems.

That’s a drop in the bucket for the IRS’s $1.8 billion IT budget, Issa pointed out.

“On $1.8 billion, isn’t the retention of key documents that the American people need to count on, like whether or not they’re being honestly treated by your employees?” Issa asked. “Isn’t that, in fact, a priority that should’ve allowed for full retention?”

Issa, frustrated with Koskinen’s refusal to directly answer his questions, finally snapped, “My time has expired and I’ve lost my patience with you.”

Under questioning from Congressman Jason Chaffetz, Koskinen said that the IRS made no effort to recover Lerner’s email archive from the six month backups after her initial computer problems in June of 2011.

“My understanding is that the backup of emails only lasted for six months, that’s correct?” Chaffetz asked.

“Yes,” answered Koskinen, “it’s actually a disaster recovery system and it backs up for six months in case the entire system goes down.
Chaffetz then asked, “And that was in place in 2011?”

“That was the rule in 2011,” Koskinen replied. He quickly corrected himself saying,” Policy.”

“So when Lois Lerner figured out on June 13th that her computer crashed, and there have been emails showing that she was going to great lengths to try to get that recovered, why didn’t they just go to that six month tape?” continued Chaffetz.

“Because that six month tape is a disaster recovery tape that has all of the emails on it and is a very complicated tape to actually extract emails for, but I have not seen any emails to explain why they didn’t do it, so it would be difficult, but I don’t know why,” answered Koskinen.

“But you said the IRS was going to extraordinary lengths to give it to the recovery team, correct?” Chaffetz reminded Koskinen.

Koskinen answered, “That’s correct.”

“But it’s backed up on tape,” Chaffetz stated.

“For six months,” Koskinen responded, “yes.”

“And that was within the six month window, so why didn’t you get them off the backup?” Chaffetz redirected.

“All I know about that is that the backup tapes are disaster recovery tapes that put everything in one lump and extracting individual emails out of that is very costly and difficult. And that was not the policy at the time,” claimed Koskinen.

Chaffetz questioned, “Did anybody try?”

“I have no idea or indication that they did,” Korkinen said.

“So you have multiple emails showing she was trying to recover this, it’s the testimony of the IRS that they were trying desperately, in fact you got a forensic team to try to extract this, you went to great lengths, you made a big point over the last week about all the efforts you’re going through, but they were backed up on tape, and you didn’t do it?” asked Chaffetz.

Korkinen answered, “As far as I know they did not, but they did have, as I noted, the emails, she had three months worth of emails at that time.”

Now it appears the IRS violated federal record-keeping laws. This after the IRS failed to notify the National Archives of the computer crash that reportedly wiped out the emails in question.

The Oversight and Government Reform Committee heard testimony from United States National Archives and Records Administration archivist David Ferriero on Tuesday, who said he did not learn of the missing emails until the IRS sent a letter about them this month to Senators Ron Wyden and Orrin Hatch.

“They are required, any agency is required, to notify us when they realize they have a problem that could be destruction or disposal, unauthorized disposal,” said Ferriero.

“They did not follow the law,” he added, after being pressed by GOP lawmakers.

The White House dismissed the charges that Koskinen erred by not informing Congress in April, when he first learned of the lost emails.

“What would Congress have done if they’d known about this in April or May, or whenever the commissioner first learned about it?” White House press secretary Josh Earnest challenged reporters.

Reno Fire Faces Public Relations Blaze

Washoe County District Judge Lidia Stiglich has issued a preliminary injunction to stop the layoff of 32 Reno Firefighters. While it’s not a final decision, but an effort “to preserve the status quo” until a decision is reached, the Judge wrote because the labor dispute is being heard before the Nevada Employee-Management Relations Board, it is not clear how it will end.

However, Stiglich did write that if the dispute does end in the favor of the firefighters union, the firefighters will “suffer irreparable harm” because simply paying back pay owed to the then firefighters would not be full compensation because of emotional damages, stress and loss of health care. She also ordered the Fire Fighter’s Union to post a $10,000 bond that would go to the city to repay the cost of the firefighter’s salaries if the union loses the case.

The City of Reno issued the following press release:

“While we respect the judge’s decision, we are disappointed that we will be forced to continue to use the City’s limited financial resources on legal services relating to this matter, instead of using those resources to provide services to the community,” City Manager Andrew Clinger says. “We will now focus our efforts on discussing our legal, operational, and financial options with City Council.”

The loss of $11 million in federal funds from FEMA is going to affect the Reno Fire Department. More than 30 firefighters may be laid off effective July 1st.

City leaders said they had planned for this potential loss of funding as they begin a new budgeting cycle.

“We have a plan that minimizes the impact to the citizens of Reno and still supports our council’s priority of safe and livable neighborhoods,” said Clinger.

Clinger said they are looking to see if any positions can be saved. In the meantime, he said the city will do everything it can to help the firefighters who will be impacted.

The timing of the layoffs, which come just five days after a new fire station the opening of a new fire station in Damonte Ranch. The planning for the new station began around 2005.

Reno City Councilman Dwight Dortch continues to speak out against Reno Fire Fighters Association, I.A.F.F, Local 731. He said he’s worried about the city being able to move forward, due to “the unsustainability of these contracts.”

Dortch said the union should be making concessions to save jobs, but is instead asking for raises.

“They’ve come back and now they’ve asked for an eight-percent raise,” Dortch explained. “So they’ve come to the table, instead of going in the other direction saying, ‘hey, we want to save firefighters,’ they’ve come back to us and said, ‘no, I want an eight-percent raise,’ which is going to cost us another 15 firefighters.”

The Reno Fire Fighters Association responded to Dortch’s remarks by calling for a “…change at the Reno City Council.”

“In bad faith, Dortch selectively took numbers and percentages out of context from an ongoing negotiations process in an attempt to place blame on firefighters for layoffs and for the City’s financial position,” the association’s statement reads.

Meanwhile, City officials hope to negotiate alterations to a policy where Reno firefighters can work with a blood alcohol content level of .08, and can be under the influence of marijuana, amphetamines and cocaine.

Clinger said the change is a high priority.

“Myself and anybody else who looks at it will say this is crazy, we should have a zero tolerance and we don’t disagree. It is something that we have to negotiate with the unions at this point, unfortunately.”

Clinger said it is too early to know if fire officials and union representatives will cooperate with the potential changes. Regardless, the city manager does not want the public to think firefighters are working drunk and high just because the policy exists.
“We train our employees to recognize the signs of impairment, and they are empowered to see someone that is impaired and act on that,” said Clinger.

The policy was negotiated between fire unions and the city in 2002.

“Obviously, we want to be reasonable with our employees,” said Clinger. “At the same time to have any sort of tolerance for alcohol and drugs, in my opinion, doesn’t make any sense.”

Reno Fire Chief Michael Hernandez says, “If a co-worker or a front line supervisor suspects that one of his employees or one of his team members may be under the influence, he picks up the phone, he initiates the process, we get that person tested and it’s either positive or negative.”

In his four and a half years as chief of Reno Fire, Hernandez said he has only utilized the policy three times. He also says if an employee is in violation of the policy, they want it reported.

And if that wasn’t enough, a new policy within the RFD could be risking lives. The new policy in question has created new criteria for whether or not Reno Fire personnel will assist REMSA or other agencies with lifting patients.

It all relates to a man found to be in medical distress in Lemmon Valley on June 17th.

A Reno Police Department incident report laid out how police had to ask a local business for help, while the fire department reused to assist. The report says officers asked a n hardware store if they had a forklift that could help, but unfortunately it wasn’t available.

It began just before four in the afternoon when RPD officers were investigating a suspicious vehicle. They found a man found in a boat attached to a nearby truck, was unable to move because of severe back pain.

When REMSA arrived it was decided because the boat’s edge was more than six feet off the ground, it was too dangerous to try and move the 6-foot tall 300-pound patient from the vessel to the ambulance without additional manpower. That additional manpower was asked for from the Reno Fire Department.

RPD also called RFD for help and nearly 30 minutes later RFD still wasn’t on scene. That’s because RFD cancelled their response, requesting REMSA’s bariatric to unit respond.

Police waited for RFD and when no one showed up, officers once again reached out to the department. Nearly 45-minutes from the initial call, a Reno Fire Battalion Chief showed up to assess the situation.

He decided his crews were not going to help and told officers that the department would not call any other fire departments to help either. So after more than an hour-and-a-half after the RPD arrived on scene and called for assistance, the patient was moved into the ambulance by REMSA and police officers.

REMSA said the Reno Fire Battalion Chief was also taking pictures of the incident because he thought it was “funny” to see police officers trying to move the man.

City officials said it is not acceptable.

“Our response to that was totally unacceptable and we’ve taken immediate action to correct that,” said Clinger. “In fact, Chief Hernandez sent out a memo last week to correct that we’ve already had meetings with REMSA, and we have another meeting with REMSA to make sure we have a clear understanding and they have a clear understanding of the protocol we’re going to use to respond. It depends on the medical need of the patient and what kind of condition the patient is in.”

Hernandez said the Lemmon Valley incident is under investigation. He also said the new lift-assist criteria were sent out in a memorandum about 45 days ago to all dispatchers in the area and directly to REMSA officials.

The patient was ultimately diagnosed with severe pulmonary edema, where fluids fill the lungs. He remained in the hospital five days after the incident.

Obama’s Manufactured Humanitarian Crisis

A federal judge says putting fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border may be discriminatory. The 2006 federal law orders the construction of fencing or a wall along the most vulnerable portions of the nearly 2,000-mile southern border.

Judge Beryl Howell was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by President Barack Obama in 2010.

“Revealing the identities of landowners in the wall’s planned construction site may shed light on the impact on indigenous communities, the disparate impact on lower-income minority communities, and the practices of private contractors,” Howell wrote.

This is just the latest controversy over the border fence since Congress approved it in 2006.

Since then, the mayors of several Texas border towns have blocked federal access to the construction areas, an Indian tribe in the Arizona claimed the feds were intruding on tribal land and government scientists complained the fence would threaten the black bear population. Then last summer Mexican officials expressed outrage over the fencing effort, calling it a human rights violation.

A number of government reports over the years confirm it’s not just Mexicans crossing into the U.S. seeking a better life.

In 2010 the DHS warned law enforcement agencies along the border that Al Qaeda terrorists were planning to slip into the U.S. through Mexico. The same year a federal agent accused the administration of covering up the threat created by Middle Eastern terrorists entering the country through the Mexican border.

Violent crime in the region has also been documented with heavily armed Mexican drug cartels taking over areas serving as routes to move cargo north.

A recent State Department report exposed a “dramatic increase in violence” along the Mexican border and warned of “violent attacks and persistent security concerns” in the area. The document also lists tens of thousands of narcotics-related murders attributed to drug cartels competing with each other for trafficking routes into the U.S.

Meanwhile members of MS-13, some as young as 14, are crossing the border and being set free on U.S. soil.

The underage gang members are exploiting a loop-hole in the system, crossing with large groups and using their age to their advantage. Currently, the U.S. Border Patrol has no way of checking immigrants’ criminal backgrounds in their home country.

As this happens, a remote section of the U.S.-Mexico border near the Anzalduas International Bridge is being restricted to reporters by the U.S. Border Patrol, citing safety concerns. This as about 300 illegal aliens surrendered themselves to U.S. Border Patrol agents near the bridge, easily eclipsing the daily average of about 75 who surrender every day.

Then there is an ad which ran in January: “U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), has a continuing and mission critical responsibility for accepting custody of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) from U.S. Border Patrol and other Federal agencies and transporting these juveniles to Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) shelters located throughout the continental United States.”

“Transport will be required for either category of UAC or individual juveniles, to include both male and female juveniles. There will be approximately 65,000 UAC in total: 25% local ground transport, 25% via ICE charter and 50% via commercial air,” reads the ad in part.

“Escort services include, but are not limited to, assisting with: transferring physical custody of UAC from DHS to Health and Human Services (HHS) care via ground or air methods of transportation (charter or commercial carrier)…” it states.

It raises two questions: How did the Obama administration know six-months in advance that waves of UAC’s were on their way to the U.S. and why the reference to the Office of Refugee Resettlement?

First, it helps to know what their mission statement reads: “The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) provides new populations with opportunities to maximize their potential in the United States, linking people in need to critical resources to assist them in becoming integrated members of American society.”

It appears the administration orchestrated the incursion of UAC’s and other illegal aliens and has it no intention of sending them back to where they came from.