- April 2, Gainesville, Fla.: Three people were arrested and one police officer was assaulted after police "responded to reports of a large street fight." Police did not give an estimate of how many were involved.
- April 6, Jersey City, N.J.: "Cops use pepper spray to break up massive Jersey City street brawl." Many students are involved; one is stabbed, horns honk as the fight among an estimated 50 young people spills into traffic. A police officer overheard reports of a planned "large street fight" minutes before.
- April 6-7, Portland, Ore.: Brazen groups of 20-40 teens fight at a mall and across the street from a police precinct. One report said, "Officers arrived at the mall to find a group of about 20 young people assaulting mall employees, damaging property and fighting with security staff[.]"
- April 14, Rochester, N.Y.: A "massive police presence" used tasers and pepper spray to break up a "large fight" reportedly involving 300 people. "When police initially arrived on scene, they say they found multiple groups of people fighting in the street."
- April 16, Detroit, Mich.: A shocking Greektown street brawl gets posted to Facebook as local TV reports a "mob of young people getting out of control and beating two men on the street."
- April 16, Centralia, Ill.: Police call for assistance from six surrounding police departments for a "large Saturday night fight."
- April 24, Grand Forks, N.D.: "A large group of people started fighting outside city hall," leaving it damaged.
- April 26, Syracuse, N.Y.: "Three men were stabbed in a large fight near downtown Syracuse[.]" Entire city blocks were sealed off with crime tape. An officer at the scene said there had been a "large group fight."
- April 26, Millville, N.J.: Police were called for a "large group fighting." A woman is "punched, kicked and dragged by several men and women." The beating goes viral on Facebook.
- May 8, New Brunswick, N.J.: "Two juveniles were shot in a low-income housing complex, and it may have stemmed from a large street fight that occurred there earlier."
- May 10, St. Paul, Minn.: "A large fight between young people, including some wielding baseball bats, broke out near a busy recreation center." Three teens needed medical attention. The neighborhood is left in fear following "other reports over the past week of brawls at St. Paul parks." (This article is quite detailed and frightening.)
- May 12, Milwaukee, Wis.: "Police said multiple people began fighting in the street ... following a two-vehicle crash[.] ... A large group of people appeared to be attacking a woman in the street[.]" A witness reported that "four or five firemen were standing around watching it, like it was some big show or something."
- May 15, Coney Island, N.Y.: A stray bullet hits the window of an elderly couple, who report that "rowdy teens are often fighting in the street below their window." This incident is notable for once again drawing attention to the fact that in New York, "[t]here are some cases where gunfire isn't counted as an official shooting, like if bullets don't strike a person[.]"
- May 17, Baltimore, Md.: Only two people were arrested after "Citiwatch camera operators observe 'large fight' downtown."
- May 17, Syracuse, N.Y.: A "large fight" is reported in the early afternoon near the transit hub, leaving two hospitalized.
- May 18, Cleveland, Ohio: Police responded to a "large group fighting and exchanging gunfire" in the Hough neighborhood.
- May 19, New London, Conn.: Men and juveniles were arrested in a "large New London fight" after police responded to "reports of a group of males carrying sticks, bats and bottles and talking about assaulting someone."
- May 22, Maplewood, N.J.: "Police estimated about 150 to 200 teenagers crowded into [a] park" after a festival. The mayor said "he saw one altercation involving only a few of the teens," but according to Maplewood police, it took five different police departments and the sheriff's department to break up the crowd. Local media reported it as a simple "melee."
- May 30, West Valley City, Utah: A teenage boy is shot dead after neighbors "heard arguing and threatened to call police after they saw a group fighting in the street[.]"
- May 30, Milwaukee, Wis.: "Police responded to 15 separate shootings." "Two children were shot after adults started fighting in the street and fired guns[.]" The police chief warns that "disputes escalate too quickly for police to have a chance at intervening."
- June 25, Manhattan, N.Y.: A police officer is struck by an SUV after responding officers try to break up a "large group of men fighting."
- July 5, Niagara, N.Y.: After the fireworks, police use pepper spray to disperse 200 people near a park – another 70 to 80 are dispersed nearby, and multiple police units respond to another park, where 30 people are actively fighting, with "several other spectators" watching.
- July 5, Grand Haven, Mich.: "Grand Haven State Beach was evacuated following a large fight involving 300 people."
- July 13, Dayton, Ohio: "Police, deputies escort funeral procession for homicide victim following large fight" at a Baptist church.
- July 15, Wichita, Kan.: "Police say a family fight over child care on Friday boiled over to Saturday evening when between 60 and 80 people got into a large disturbance."
- July 16, Killeen, Texas: Riot breaks out at Texas mall involving 30-45 adults and juveniles. Police "were unable to get control of the riot inside, but were able to move [it] out of the building."
- July 16, Syracuse, N.Y.: A man was shot in the ankle as police responded to "a large fight" with "several groups of people."
- July 17, Amsterdam, N.Y.: "Police say large fight leaves 5 stabbed in Amsterdam ... parking lot brawl."
- July 20, Syracuse, N.Y.: Thursday afternoon, police responded to 911 calls reporting a "big fight where "some people had been stabbed."
- July 26, Staten Island, N.Y.: "Slashing, shooting were part of large fight in Stapleton."
- July 26, Austin, Texas: Austin police investigated a "large fight" at Fiesta Gardens park. Neighbors say it "happens often," and video footage was available and shown on KVUE TV.
- July 27, Ellenville, N.Y.: Police responded to a street fight involving "some 30 people." An 18-year-old who allegedly tried to run over another person during a "large fight" faced felony charges.
- July 29, Buffalo, N.Y.: A 20-year-old man was stabbed during a "large fight" involving 30 to 40 people.
BLOG: BARACK OBAMA IS A PSYCHOPATH. HE DOES NOT
IDENTIFY WITH ANY POLITICAL CAUSE OTHER THAN
POWER AND RICHES FOR HIMSELF.
"Cold War historian Paul Kengor goes deeply into Obama's communist background in an article in American Spectator, "Our First Red Diaper Baby President," and in an excellent Mark Levin interview. Another Kengor article describes the Chicago communists whose younger generation include David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama. Add the openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into power."
We know that Gov. Terry McAuliffe is a corruptocrat, joined at the
hip to the Clintons. He pardoned sixty-thousand felons in order to
ensure he delivered his state to the presidential election of Hillary
Clinton. We know he would like to run for president himself.
"We know that Obama and his inner circle have set up a war
room in his D.C. home to plan and execute resistance to the
Trump administration and his legislative agenda. None of these
people care about the American people, or the fact that Trump
won the election because millions of people voted for him."
"What if Signer and McAuliffe, in conjunction
with Antifa and other Soros-funded groups like
Black Lives Matter, planned and orchestrated what
happened in Charlottesville and meant for events
to unfold roughly as they did?"
Along with groups like Antifa, BLM, and the host of anti-
democratic groups George Soros funds to protest all around the
nation, the media and the Democrats in Congress seek to
overthrow an elected president in order to impose their vision
of some sort of socialist utopia which of course will never exist.
FROM THE FIRST DAY OF HIS FIRST TERM, BARACK OBAMA AND ERIC HOLDER HAD COMMENCED BUILDING A MUSLIM-STYLE DICTATORSHIP FUNDED BY CRONY BANKSTERS AND MEXICO.
Evidence is turning up from, of all places, the Southern Poverty Law Center, as well as Breitbart and others, that this character, Jason Kessler, who organized the suspicious and supposed Alt-Right demonstration in Charlottesville, Va. that blew up i...
Kessler's background, as well as that of Charlottesville mayor
and Democrat activist Mike Signer and Vice Mayor Wes
Bellamy, has convinced me that Charlottesville was a
Democratic Party black operation, planned, organized, and
carried out to its successful conclusion, to make the media
portray all these conservative whites as stupid, racist, and
violent. I believe that it was done by this soulless young man,
who succeeded in selling himself to the dumb-bunny right-
wingers as one of them
In 2013, California lawmakers passed legislation that allowed illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses if they can prove to the Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) their identity and state residency. The plan was one of the largest victories to date by the open borders lobby.… JOHN BINDER – BREITBART.com
Charlottesville and Its Aftermath: What if It Was a Setup?
course will never exist. What will result if they get
their way is a Venezuela-style two-tiered class
system, the ultra rich and the very poor who are
kept in their place by economic and social
control. The millions of people who see the left
for what it has become see this. It is why they voted for Trump.
wealth and position within the media and/or government be so
completely of one, unthinking mind. They all have braces on their
brains (Auntie Mame). So afraid to buck the rigid mindset of their
peers, they have become mouthpieces for their own group identity.
Do they believe the nonsense they spew? Who knows? Those
in Congress, all the Democrats and the anti-
Trump Republicans essentially care about one
thing and one thing only: getting re-elected.
They cannot afford to offend their donors or
the lobbyists whose largesse fills their coffers.
So they trip over each other getting to the
nearest camera to align themselves with
whatever opinion they think will put them on
the right side of the money people. They are
wrong so often.
"What will result if they get their way is a Venezuela-style two-tiered class system, the ultra rich and the very poor who are kept in their place by economic and social control." By Patricia McCarthy
Millions of children go hungry as the super- rich gorge themselves.
"The top 10 percent of Americans now own roughly three-quarters of all household wealth."
FROM THE FIRST DAY OF HIS FIRST TERM, BARACK OBAMA AND ERIC HOLDER HAD COMMENCED BUILDING A MUSLIM-STYLE DICTATORSHIP FUNDED BY CRONY BANKSTERS AND MEXICO.
The blogger was Glenn Greenwald. The columnist was Paul Krugman. The senator was Barack Obama.
Prominent liberals didn’t oppose immigration a decade ago. Most acknowledged its benefits to America’s economy and culture. They supported a path to citizenship for the undocumented. Still, they routinely asserted that low-skilled immigrants depressed the wages of low-skilled American workers and strained America’s welfare state. And they were far more likely than liberals today are to acknowledge that, as Krugman put it, “immigration is an intensely painful topic … because it places basic principles in conflict.”
Today, little of that ambivalence remains. In 2008, the Democratic platform called undocumented immigrants “our neighbors.” But it also warned, “We cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked,” adding that “those who enter our country’s borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of the law.” By 2016, such language was gone. The party’s platform described America’s immigration system as a problem, but not illegal immigration itself. And it focused almost entirely on the forms of immigration enforcement that Democrats opposed. In its immigration section, the 2008 platform referred three times to people entering the country “illegally.” The immigration section of the 2016 platform didn’t use the word illegal, or any variation of it, at all.“A decade or two ago,” says Jason Furman, a former chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, “Democrats were divided on immigration. Now everyone agrees and is passionate and thinks very little about any potential downsides.” How did this come to be?
What’s Wrong With the Democrats?A larger explanation is political. Between 2008 and 2016, Democrats became more and more confident that the country’s growing Latino population gave the party an electoral edge. To win the presidency, Democrats convinced themselves, they didn’t need to reassure white people skeptical of immigration so long as they turned out their Latino base. “The fastest-growing sector of the American electorate stampeded toward the Democrats this November,” Salon declared after Obama’s 2008 win. “If that pattern continues, the GOP is doomed to 40 years of wandering in a desert.”As the Democrats grew more reliant on Latino votes, they were more influenced by pro-immigrant activism. While Obama was running for reelection, immigrants’-rights advocates launched protests against the administration’s deportation practices; these protests culminated, in June 2012, in a sit-in at an Obama campaign office in Denver. Ten days later, the administration announced that it would defer the deportation of undocumented immigrants who had arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16 and met various other criteria. Obama, The New York Times noted, “was facing growing pressure from Latino leaders and Democrats who warned that because of his harsh immigration enforcement, his support was lagging among Latinos who could be crucial voters in his race for re-election.”
Alongside pressure from pro-immigrant activists came pressure from corporate America, especially the Democrat-aligned tech industry, which uses the H-1B visa program to import workers. In 2010, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, along with the CEOs of companies including Hewlett-Packard, Boeing, Disney, and News Corporation, formed New American Economy to advocate for business-friendly immigration policies. Three years later, Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates helped found FWD.us to promote a similar agenda.
This combination of Latino and corporate activism made it perilous for Democrats to discuss immigration’s costs, as Bernie Sanders learned the hard way. In July 2015, two months after officially announcing his candidacy for president, Sanders was interviewed by Ezra Klein, the editor in chief of Vox. Klein asked whether, in order to fight global poverty, the U.S. should consider “sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders.” Sanders reacted with horror. “That’s a Koch brothers proposal,” he scoffed. He went on to insist that “right-wing people in this country would love … an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country.”
Progressive commentators routinely claim that there’s a near-consensus among economists on immigration’s benefits. There isn’t.Sanders came under immediate attack. Vox’s Dylan Matthews declared that his “fear of immigrant labor is ugly—and wrongheaded.” The president of FWD.us accused Sanders of “the sort of backward-looking thinking that progressives have rightly moved away from in the past years.” ThinkProgress published a blog post titled “Why Immigration Is the Hole in Bernie Sanders’ Progressive Agenda.” The senator, it argued, was supporting “the idea that immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs and hurting the economy, a theory that has been proven incorrect.”Sanders stopped emphasizing immigration’s costs. By January 2016, FWD.us’s policy director noted with satisfaction that he had “evolved on this issue.”
But has the claim that “immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs” actually been proved “incorrect”? A decade ago, liberals weren’t so sure. In 2006, Krugman wrote that America was experiencing “large increases in the number of low-skill workers relative to other inputs into production, so it’s inevitable that this means a fall in wages.”
It’s hard to imagine a prominent liberal columnist writing that sentence today. To the contrary, progressive commentators now routinely claim that there’s a near-consensus among economists on immigration’s benefits.(Illustration by Lincoln Agnew. Photos: AFP; Atta Kenare; Eric Lafforgue; Gamma-Rapho; Getty; Keystone-France; Koen van Weel; Lambert; Richard Baker / In Pictures / Corbis)There isn’t. According to a comprehensive new report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, “Groups comparable to … immigrants in terms of their skill may experience a wage reduction as a result of immigration-induced increases in labor supply.” But academics sometimes de-emphasize this wage reduction because, like liberal journalists and politicians, they face pressures to support immigration.
Many of the immigration scholars regularly cited in the press have worked for, or received funding from, pro-immigration businesses and associations. Consider, for instance, Giovanni Peri, an economist at UC Davis whose name pops up a lot in liberal commentary on the virtues of immigration. A 2015 New York Times Magazine essay titled “Debunking the Myth of the Job-Stealing Immigrant” declared that Peri, whom it called the “leading scholar” on how nations respond to immigration, had “shown that immigrants tend to complement—rather than compete against—the existing work force.” Peri is indeed a respected scholar. But Microsoft has funded some of his research into high-skilled immigration. And New American Economy paid to help him turn his research into a 2014 policy paper decrying limitations on the H-1B visa program. Such grants are more likely the result of his scholarship than their cause. Still, the prevalence of corporate funding can subtly influence which questions economists ask, and which ones they don’t. (Peri says grants like those from Microsoft and New American Economy are neither large nor crucial to his work, and that “they don’t determine … the direction of my academic research.”)Academics face cultural pressures too. In his book Exodus, Paul Collier, an economist at the University of Oxford, claims that in their “desperate [desire] not to give succor” to nativist bigots, “social scientists have strained every muscle to show that migration is good for everyone.” George Borjas of Harvard argues that since he began studying immigration in the 1980s, his fellow economists have grown far less tolerant of research that emphasizes its costs. There is, he told me, “a lot of self-censorship among young social scientists.” Because Borjas is an immigration skeptic, some might discount his perspective. But when I asked Donald Davis, a Columbia University economist who takes a more favorable view of immigration’s economic impact, about Borjas’s claim, he made a similar point. “George and I come out on different sides of policy on immigration,” Davis said, “but I agree that there are aspects of discussion in academia that don’t get sort of full view if you come to the wrong conclusion.”
One way of mitigating this problem would be to scrap the current system, which allows immigrants living in the U.S. to bring certain close relatives to the country, in favor of what Donald Trump in February called a “merit based” approach that prioritizes highly skilled and educated workers. The problem with this idea, from a liberal perspective, is its cruelty. It denies many immigrants who are already here the ability to reunite with their loved ones. And it flouts the country’s best traditions. Would we remove from the Statue of Liberty the poem welcoming the “poor,” the “wretched,” and the “homeless”?
A better answer is to take some of the windfall that immigration brings to wealthier Americans and give it to those poorer Americans whom immigration harms. Borjas has suggested taxing the high-tech, agricultural, and service-sector companies that profit from cheap immigrant labor and using the money to compensate those Americans who are displaced by it.Unfortunately, while admitting poor immigrants makes redistributing wealth more necessary, it also makes it harder, at least in the short term. By some estimates, immigrants, who are poorer on average than native-born Americans and have larger families, receive more in government services than they pay in taxes. According to the National Academies report, immigrant-headed families with children are 15 percentage points more likely to rely on food assistance, and 12 points more likely to rely on Medicaid, than other families with children. In the long term, the United States will likely recoup much if not all of the money it spends on educating and caring for the children of immigrants. But in the meantime, these costs strain the very welfare state that liberals want to expand in order to help those native-born Americans with whom immigrants compete.
What’s more, studies by the Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam and others suggest that greater diversity makes Americans less charitable and less willing to redistribute wealth. People tend to be less generous when large segments of society don’t look or talk like them. Surprisingly, Putnam’s research suggests that greater diversity doesn’t reduce trust and cooperation just among people of different races or ethnicities—it also reduces trust and cooperation among people of the same race and ethnicity.
Trump appears to sense this. His implicit message during the campaign was that if the government kept out Mexicans and Muslims, white, Christian Americans would not only grow richer and safer, they would also regain the sense of community that they identified with a bygone age. “At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America,” he declared in his inaugural address, “and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.”Liberals must take seriously Americans’ yearning for social cohesion. To promote both mass immigration and greater economic redistribution, they must convince more native-born white Americans that immigrants will not weaken the bonds of national identity. This means dusting off a concept many on the left currently hate: assimilation.
Liberal immigration policy must work to ensure that immigrants do not occupy a separate legal caste. This means opposing the guest-worker programs—beloved by many Democrat-friendly tech companies, among other employers—that require immigrants to work in a particular job to remain in the U.S. Some scholars believe such programs drive down wages; they certainly inhibit assimilation. And, as Schachter’s research suggests, strengthening the bonds of identity between natives and immigrants is harder when natives and immigrants are not equal under the law.The next Democratic presidential candidate should say again and again that because Americans are one people, who must abide by one law, his or her goal is to reduce America’s undocumented population to zero. For liberals, the easy part of fulfilling that pledge is supporting a path to citizenship for the undocumented who have put down roots in the United States. The hard part, which Hillary Clinton largely ignored in her 2016 presidential run, is backing tough immigration enforcement so that path to citizenship doesn’t become a magnet that entices more immigrants to enter the U.S. illegally.
Enforcement need not mean tearing apart families, as Trump is doing with gusto. Liberals can propose that the government deal harshly not with the undocumented themselves but with their employers. Trump’s brutal policies already appear to be slowing illegal immigration. But making sure companies follow the law and verify the legal status of their employees would curtail it too: Migrants would presumably be less likely to come to the U.S. if they know they won’t be able to find work.
In 2014, the University of California listed the term melting pot as a “microaggression.” What if Hillary Clinton had called that absurd?Schachter’s research also shows that native-born whites feel a greater affinity toward immigrants who speak fluent English. That’s particularly significant because, according to the National Academies report, newer immigrants are learning English more slowly than their predecessors did. During the campaign, Clinton proposed increasing funding for adult English-language education. But she rarely talked about it. In fact, she ran an ad attacking Trump for saying, among other things, “This is a country where we speak English, not Spanish.” The immigration section of her website showed her surrounded by Spanish-language signs.Democrats should put immigrants’ learning English at the center of their immigration agenda. If more immigrants speak English fluently, native-born whites may well feel a stronger connection to them, and be more likely to support government policies that help them. Promoting English will also give Democrats a greater chance of attracting those native-born whites who consider growing diversity a threat. According to a preelection study by Adam Bonica, a Stanford political scientist, the single best predictor of whether a voter supported Trump was whether he or she agreed with the statement “People living in the U.S. should follow American customs and traditions.”
In her 2005 book, The Authoritarian Dynamic, which has been heralded for identifying the forces that powered Trump’s campaign, Karen Stenner, then a professor of politics at Princeton, wrote:
Some on the left would have howled. But I suspect that Clinton would be president today.
Russian Collusion in Democrat Inner Circle?
Another Kengor article describes the Chicago communists whose younger generation include David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama. Add the openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into power.
The letter notes that the percentage in L.A.