PUT EMPLOYERS OF ILLEGALS IN PRISONS BUILT ALONG THE NARCOMEX BORDER AND END THE LA RAZA ANCHOR BABY BREEDING WELFARE STATE AND WE END THE INVASION THAT DAY!
Trump's Wall and Democratic Ideology
It would require a fierce liberal skeptic to deny that open borders bring crime, disease, drugs and votes to the Democratic Party. Reprehensible as it might be, the open borders and the subsequent upsurge of refugees serve the Democratic Party’s political objectives of perpetuation of the Democratic Party rule.
The Democratic scheme is to change the country’s demographic with an emphasis on open borders and relaxation of the immigration laws, thus ensuring a continuous inflow of Latinos and Muslims to the U.S. The central premise of this strategy is to entice the immigrants with welfare benefits, free health care, free education of children, and eventual citizenship in order to vote Democratic and ultimately to bring this country in conformity with the socialist principles.
Therefore, a border wall with Mexico would create a serious hurdle to the implementation of this strategy.
Mick Mulvaney recently said “We don’t understand why the Democrats are so wholeheartedly against it… They voted for it in 2006, then-Senator Obama voted for it. Senator Schumer voted for, Senator Clinton voted for it. So, I don’t understand why Democrats apply in politics just because Donald Trump is in office.”
Mulvaney seems to emphasizing the obvious over the important. The important is that this Democratic rebellion against building the wall has little to do with the mixture of disdain and fear of Donald Trump. This is a fight of two bitterly opposed and ideologically hostile, irreconcilable camps for the future of this country. In a broader ideological sense, the current brinkmanship is another chapter in the epic struggle between socialism and freedom. There can be no stalemate and no compromise is possible; this struggle can only end up in total victory or total defeat.
For decades the Democrats successfully deceived the country and Republican presidents from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush by professing their support for the border security and building the wall while at the same time refining procrastination into a high art without assuming responsibility for the consequences. The political landscape had been steadily shifting in their direction until the election of Donald Trump. Trump’s statements about border security touched on the conservative argument no borders -- no sovereignty. It mobilized the Republican Party and brought the issue to the top of his agenda.
When it became apparent to the Democrats that they had failed to deceive Donald Trump, they dropped the charade when Chuck Schumer exposed the party’s duplicity and openly declared, “Trump will not get his Wall.”
As we know from history, the building of socialism is an organized and disruptive artificial process associated with ideological polarization, cultural and political confrontations, and violation of the existing moral order.
Being aware of voters' discontent with socialist policies, the Democrats proceeded to dismantle the established constitutional order by offering suffrage to foreigners. Backing up this malicious concept, the state of California began to automatically register illegal aliens to vote when they obtain or renew a driver's license. It is only a matter of time before other states under Democratic leadership adopt this election model. This massive legalized election fraud requires a constant influx of foreigners.
Since not all of Mexico, Central, and South America have crossed our open borders into Texas, Arizona, and California, and those states are not yet annexed to the possession of Mexico or Honduras, any notion of closing the borders or restricting emigrants’ flow into this country will be met with fierce opposition by the Democrats.
If the speeches of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and other leading Democrats are any indication, it is becoming exceedingly obvious that despite dreadful consequences, the Democrats exhibit a greater hatred for capitalism than for terrorism, drugs, and crimes which makes them inherently incapable or rather unwilling of safeguarding this country.
Indeed, the road to socialism is soaked with blood of millions who could not appreciate the fairness of economic equality; hence, a few hundred or even a few thousand deaths from the hands of “poor immigrants” should be a relatively small price to pay for the "bright future."
The Democrats’ policy of open borders or no borders is designed to open our country’s gates to a tsunami of immigrants with morals and values diametrically opposed to those of Americans, promoting resentment instead of assimilation, polarization instead of unification, and ultimately making the United States of America not united, not states, and not even American.
Alexander G. Markovsky is a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research, a conservative think hosted at King’s College, New York City, which examines national security, energy, risk-analysis and other public policy issues, He is the author of Anatomy of a Bolshevik and Liberal Bolshevism: America Did Not Defeat Communism, She Adopted It. He is the owner and CEO of Litwin Management Services, LLC.
GLOBALIST BARACK OBAMA AND NANCY PELOSI’S CONSPIRACY TO SABOTAGE HOMELAND SECURITY AND KEEP AMERICA FLOODED WITH DEM VOTING ILLEGALS
"Along with Obama, Pelosi and Schumer are responsible for incalculable damage done to this country over the eight years of that administration." PATRICIA McCARTHY
One of the most disgusting things to come out of the Obama administration was "Operation Fast and Furious," where members of the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) allowed illegal gun sales to go through – commonly referred to as "gun walking" – in order to track buyers and sellers they believed were connected to the Mexican drug cartels. Nearly 2,000 firearms were sold and were eventually found throughout the United States and Mexico. Two of them were used to kill Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. BETH BAUMANN
Cash-rich Schumer gets caught exploiting the interns
Has anyone been louder in advocating for a higher minimum wage than New York's Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer?
He's bellowed that minimum wages should be raised to at least $12 an hour, attempting to shame Republicans for opposing him, by calling it, (kid you not), "a moral issue," as he put it. He's pretty much defined the Democratic Party in the minds of voters by his hammerings on the minimum wage. Then he went and put out an ad calling for unpaid interns. According to the New York Post:
WASHINGTON – Sen. Schumer listed job openings for unpaid interns — but said the posting was “made in error” after Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez criticized members of Congress for seeking free labor.
Talk about exploitation.
It is exploitation, as it deprives anyone who's not independently wealthy of the opportunity to serve in the Senate. For free unpaid interns under Schumer, they labor, and he gets the end product of it for nothing, presumably in exchange for a good job recommendation to work for money from someone else. Such a guy.
Here's the kicker: It's not like he doesn't have money to pay interns. Actually, he does, according to the New York Post - a $65,000 congressionally appropriated pot, for his particular office, for just that. Then he went and decided it would be better to get them for free, and, I suppose, use the money some other way, some pleasant way for him, I'm sure.
Like he wouldn't know better - just look at his official photo, contemplating to himself how he can exploit the interns.
Now he says the ads were all a mistake.
Had enough?
The Schumer & Pelosi show
Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, the twin nutters of Congress, were certain they could beat Trump at his own game, but have made fools of themselves, as usual. The stand-off is not over but with each passing day, the Democrats reveal more of their anti-American, pro-illegal immigration agenda. Conservatives have been sounding the alarm for years: Democrats do not care about American citizens!
We are an annoying inconvenience, especially those of us who do not buy what they are selling. We vote against them, which makes them angry. They lash out at us, call us names, impugn our intelligence with fervor. All of the late-night comics, the Bill Mahers of the comedy branch of the entertainment industry, are especially venal. Jimmy Kimmel has decried those who have contributed to the GoFundMe page to fund the border wall as meth addicts. It was begun by a Vet, Brad Kolfage, who lost three limbs and it's raised nearly $15m.
It appears that Democratic members of Congress are as snowflakey as millennials on our university campuses. They assume that anyone who opposes their ridiculous socialist, genderless, climate-alarmist, virtue-signaling directives is a Neanderthal, unfit to have an opinion. It is then thoroughly acceptable to malign such people, those of us who oppose every aspect of their anti-America-as-founded agenda, in any and every disgusting manner they can devise.
The left is all about identity politics. They assign all of us to a group -- racial, class, and/or all of their fabricated gender categories. The right is all about individuals, their character, their talent, their contributions to society. We do not care about skin color, economic class or sexual orientation. We do care about good vs. evil, right vs. wrong. This makes us quite villainous in the eyes of the left for whom everything is relative. For example, we do not think poverty causes crime, unlearned values of Western Civilization do. Try to steal an election? It is moral if it takes out an opponent. We are, it appears, the left vs. the right, very different on a neurological level.
Schumer and Pelosi have armed guards whenever they are amongst the public. But they are both fervent in their quest to deny us the right to bear arms and to prevent a wall on the southern border to protect us from the flood of lethal drugs that flow into the US. They are impervious to the crimes of the barbaric gangs like MS13, no matter how many innocent Americans they kill. They do not give a thought to the many illegals from terrorist nations that also seek to enter the country on a daily basis. Schumer, Pelosi and their willing subjects in Congress ignore completely the horrific hazards that cross the border every day. They want cheap labor, no matter how many Americans are left jobless, and they want, more than anything, a dependent underclass whom they mean to give the right to vote. They already vote anyway, thanks to the Left's rejection of Common-sense voter ID.
If there were a television program based on Schumer and Pelosi, it would have to be a comedy; the two of them are so inept, so childish. They would be Dumb and Dumber redux. Each of them seems to believe they run the country and can dictate to the president how he will govern. They demand that Trump abandon the wall. They have no intention of compromising; they only want to deny Trump and his supporters what they want -- border security that works. So enraged, so benighted, by Trump's presidency, they would rather see us overrun by migrants from third-world nations, like those who have destroyed the UK, Germany, Sweden, and the rest of Europe, than protect America as a sovereign nation.
The "government shutdown" is just a ploy, many times overused by now, relatively meaningless to the lives of most Americans. The Schumer & Pelosi show will do everything they can to hype it as a disaster, but we all know it is nothing of the kind. Trump must hold out for funding of the wall.
While there have been some bad actors in our government in the past, Schumer and Pelosi are the worst of the worst. They are equally arrogant, each thoroughly ignorant of reality beyond the bubble of wealth and privilege they inhabit. They both believe themselves to be smarter than the rest of us, when in fact they are both really dim bulbs, long past their sell-by date. Yes, Pelosi is good at raising money; how and why is a mystery. That each of them is repeatedly re-elected does not say much for their constituents' familiarity with the Constitution, the law, American history or the facts in their own communities.
San Francisco, Pelosi's district is now a hell-hole but for her walled compound. New York too, like California, is a state that residents are fleeing as fast as they can. Both states have been destroyed by moonbatty leftists; high taxes, dumbing down of education for political purposes, and the sacrifice of common sense to global warming alarmists. Schumer and Pelosi have for years been on board with every silly attempt to restructure, to transform, American society. They both jumped on the Obama bandwagon the moment he was elected. Along with Obama, they are responsible for incalculable damage done to this country over the eight years of that administration. While their constant appearances on television are so often humorous (Pelosi's silly, practiced hand gestures and Schumer's relentless badgering of Trump), they are not one bit funny. They are just loathsome.
Photo credit: U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Marianique Santos
The Gospel According to Nancy: No Borders, Kill Babies (UNLESS THEY'RE LA RAZA ANCHOR BABIES!)
Tucker Carlson pointed out a few days ago how the already insufferable leader of the Congressional Democrats has recently been "ordained….an archbishop in the church of progressive sanctimony." For a while now, Nancy Pelosi's been the country's expert on morality (e.g., border wall: immoral; abortion on demand: moral). She's now taken to telling the country how much she prays, and she's urging others to do it, too – at least that old sinner, Donald Trump. After last Thursday's televised squabble in the Oval Office, Pelosi shared with reporters how she told Trump she was praying for him and urged the president (whom she also called a "skunk" while ridiculing his manhood) to accept the Democrats' budget proposal with no funding for a border wall. "In fact," she said with stomach-turning piety, "I asked him to pray over it."
When a smug person ends an argument by telling you to "pray over it," she's really saying, "Ask God. He knows I'm right!"
Summarizing her and Chuck Schumer's meeting with Trump, she told the media, "I myself thought we should open the meeting with a prayer, which I did. I told him about King Solomon, when he was to become king of the Jews, he prayed to God, he said: 'I need you to give me great understanding and wisdom, Lord.'"
King Solomon is Pelosi's favorite Bible character, especially because he proposed solving a problem by cutting a baby in half.
Now Sister Nancy's praying for Trump to keep the government open so federal employees can finish their Christmas shopping.
It's an axiom that if a conservative says his faith informs his political decisions, he'll be condemned for establishing a state religion, while liberals get to veer back and forth over the church-state centerline as freely as those motorists who love to text while driving. Right now the liberal media are applauding the way Pelosi "schooled President Donald Trump about the Bible," but it's not clear why. It's not as if they're suddenly in favor of anyone being schooled in the Bible, especially anyone in a public classroom.
Pelosi never bats an eye without a political motive. This Saint Nancy act might be her attempt to occupy the spiritual high ground that, obviously, Donald Trump has shown no interest in occupying himself. Pelosi wouldn't dare try this with a president like George W. Bush, who, while he didn't boast about his piety on TV, was recognized as genuine in his Christian faith – prompting the left's usual reaction: Ross Douthat wrote in 2006 that "the fear of theocracy has become a defining panic of the Bush era."
Theology was less of an issue for liberals during the Obama years; he was their messiah, and they just worshiped him. Meantime, Obama conspicuously dissed orthodox Christians with everything from calculated snubs and criticism to gratuitously tormenting the Little Sisters of the Poor, all the while devotedly celebrating the unblemished virtues of Islam. In 2015, Hillary bluntly stated that "[d]eep-seated ... religious beliefs ... have to be changed" to accommodate the unlimited abortion license. Then, last year, Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez said it is "not negotiable" that "[e]very Democrat" support abortion. Pelosi tried to mitigate Perez's remarks by saying "of course" there's room for pro-lifers in the Democratic Party, but try to find one who's not actually voting Perez-style.
This year, Pelosi watched the Democrats lurch wildly to the extreme left. For decades before that, they were trusted allies in the left's war on conventional morality and religion (except Islam!) for being repressive, patriarchal, and counterrevolutionary. It may be that, alarmed that the Democrat brand has become too materialistic, amoral, and atheist, she thinks she can give it religion. Maybe she can draw an unfavorable comparison between the reprobate and undisciplined Donald Trump and herself: the "ardent, practicing Catholic," who exhorts the President to beg for "the great understanding and wisdom" that she (and Chuck Schumer?) have already been granted by God. Haven't Republicans marched under the banner of morality and Christian values long enough? Now that they've elected the unholy Trump, why can't the Democrats seize that banner for themselves?
For one thing, because no evangelical or conservative Catholic would ever buy it. Sure, the Democratic Party is crowded with Catholics, but the serious ones left years ago. The leading unserious Catholic is Pelosi herself, who professes her devotion to the faith but does it while living in open, willful defiance of the Church's crystal-clear teaching against abortion: "It is the teaching of the Catholic Church from the very beginning that the killing of an unborn child is always intrinsically evil and can never be justified."
When her duplicity threatened to become an issue in 2004, Pelosi pretended that, moved by her "ardent" devotion to the Church, she had been studying the Church's teaching on the beginning of life "a long time," and she stated falsely to Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press that the Church has never defined it. Asked when human life begins, she replied, "We don't know," and that "[t]he point is, that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose" – the "it" being when a human life begins, which shouldn't have an impact on the decision to get an abortion. Easy mistake to make when your catechism is Roe v. Wade.
Later, when a reporter mentioned the Gosnell infanticides and challenged her own support for partial-birth abortion, an agitated Pelosi snarled back that "[a]s a practicing and respectful Catholic, this is sacred ground to me when we talk about this[.] ... This shouldn't have anything to do with politics." But as a politician, she never stops talking about it, and the sacred ground she was talking about wasn't human life, but the exercise of a mother's "free will" to terminate her child. In response, New York's Cardinal Egan said, "Anyone who dares to defend that [the unborn] may be legitimately killed because another human being 'chooses' to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name." Her own bishop reluctantly corrected her misstatements in a public letter, necessitated by "the widespread consternation among Catholics" of her deliberate distortions of Catholic doctrine. Pope Benedict counseled her, in person, on the Church's express teaching, "which enjoins all Catholics, and especially legislators," to protect "human life at all stages of its development." Pelosi, " the respectful Catholic" who presumed to tell Trump to pray for wisdom, emerged from thatmeeting no wiser for it, obtusely extolling the "Church's leadership in fighting poverty, hunger and global warming."
Jesus warned against hypocrites who make a public display of praying "that they may be seen by men." The way Pelosi pretends to exemplify "prayerful" politics, and the way she told Trump "in private" that she's praying for him – and immediately announced it in a televised press conference – is pure Pelosi: cynical, addlebrained, phony. If it might hurt Trump, she'll pontificate how every MS-13 killer retains a "spark of divinity," then goes right back to her life's work snuffing out that spark from 60 million innocents and counting. The Bible never says it's intrinsically evil to build a wall or protect a border, but it's still got that commandment against murder.
Let the Democrats canonize this Pharisee if they need a patron saint. Her feast day can fall on January 22.
T.R. Clancy looks at the world from Dearborn, Michigan. You can email him at trclancy@yahoo.com.
Pelosi's Stake in Illegal Immigration
The Minuteman Project, founded by Jim Gilchrist (who is also the co-author of the book Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America’s Borders), is made up of citizen volunteers who watch our border with Mexico and report illegal entry to the border patrol. For performing that thankless task in full compliance with the law, Gilchrist and his colleagues have been falsely maligned as fascists, racists, and even murderers. They have been driven off the speaker’s platform at Columbia University and vilified by Leftist politicians and their handmaidens in the liberal press.
So it was no surprise that the mainstream media chose to ignore a recent press release, issued by his publisher, in which Gilchrist asked the question about Nancy Pelosi’s ethics that should be on the minds of every law-abiding American – including those immigrants who are following the law to become citizens here the proper way: “Do we really need a House Speaker whose every action is calculated to enhance her own financial interests, instead of focusing on how porous borders will affect the security of everyday American citizens?”
Gilchrist did not stop there. He demanded an investigation into Pelosi’s “economic stake in just the kind of illegal alien exploitation that we deplore in Minutemen.” But you would never know it from the liberal media, who - while ignoring this demand - have had no compunctions in calling for Speaker Hastert’s head in the wake of the Foley page controversy.
Gilchrist was reacting to my report several weeks ago in FrontPage Magazine that Pelosi – who owns non-union vineyards in Napa Valley where grape-picking depends chiefly on the availability of cheap foreign labor – is doing everything she can to help open the floodgates to more illegal immigration. And she wants the American taxpayers to pay their way. As even more proof of this than I previously reported, Pelosi does not want employers like her to be required to pay the cost of illegal aliens’ hospital care. She voted against a bill that would make employers liable for the reimbursements if an undocumented employee seeks medical attention. And she voted in favor of rewarding illegal aliens from Mexico with Social Security benefits.
At the same time, Pelosi has led the Democratic opposition to any effective border controls or documentation requirements. She opposed the Secure Fence Act of 2006, signed into law by President Bush, and voted against final passage of a border security and enforcement bill in 2005 which required that all businesses must use an electronic system to check if all new hires have the legal right to work in this country. She voted against a bill to bar drivers' licenses for illegal aliens in 2005. This year she opposed legislation requiring presentation of a legitimate government-issued photo ID to prove eligibility to vote, claiming that “there is little evidence anywhere in the country of a significant problem with non-citizen voters.” She is dead wrong. For example, an accused terrorist by the name of Nuradin Abdi was just recently reported to have illegally registered to vote at the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Nuradin Abdi was indicted earlier this year as part of a conspiracy to blow up the Columbus Mall.
How many other terrorist suspects may have slipped through the system because Leftists like Pelosi oppose any meaningful screens? Instead she continues to advocate our recognition of the flimsy, non-validated ID card that the Mexican consulates provide to illegal aliens before they cross over our border, called the “matricula consular”, which gives them phony documentation to set up bank accounts, apply for jobs, obtain social benefits, board airplanes, identify themselves to police, enter buildings that require IDs, obtain drivers’ licenses and then perhaps use those drivers’ licenses to try to illegally register to vote in our elections.
Pelosi also believes in giving sanctuary to illegal aliens. She opposed legislation to deny federal homeland security funding to state and local governments who refuse to share information they learn about an individual's immigration status with Federal immigration authorities. Pelosi’s hometown of San Francisco is one of the sanctuary cities she voted to protect for the benefit of illegal aliens. Pelosi even voted against strengthening our immigration law with regard to the deportability of alien terrorists.
Jim Gilchrist cut to the chase with this devastating observation that the mainstream media does not want you to read:
"As we’ve shown again and again in ‘Minutemen,’ the Democrats aren’t just hypocrites, but are working actively to subvert our legislative system to their own ends. Their only goal is votes, votes and more votes, no matter where they come from, no matter if they’re cast legally, no matter whether the person casting them is dead, alive, a citizen or an illegal alien."
Pelosi sees Jim Gilchrist’s Minutemen Project as a threat to her pro-illegal alien agenda. More illegal aliens mean more votes for the Democrats and more grape-pickers for Napa Valley vineyards like hers. So she even voted against a measure that would have cut off the use of U.S. taxpayers’ funds to tip off illegal aliens as to where the Minutemen citizen patrols may be located! She obviously wants to see the Minutemen put out of business – permanently. She can count on the liberal press to distort the work of the Minutemen and to keep out of the public eye Gilchrist’s pointed questions about her motivations for helping illegal aliens during the run-up to the mid-term elections that may make her the next Speaker of the House.
Gilchrist, of course, is accustomed to being vilified and prevented by the Left from getting his message out. In early October, he was prevented from finishing his speech at the "Minutemen Forum" sponsored by the Columbia College Republicans. Gilchrist had spoken for just a few minutes and managed to utter the words “I love the First Amendment” when a group of radical protestors took the stage and interrupted him, displaying a big banner saying "There are no illegals." More protestors then stormed the stage. Chaos erupted and the audience members who had come to hear Gilchrist speak never got the chance, which was precisely the protestors’ objective. As reported online by the staff of Columbia’s undergraduate newspaper, “a mosh pit of triumphal students and community members danced and chanted outside, "Asian, Black, Brown and White, we smashed the Minutemen tonight!" They also put out a statement declaring:
“The Minutemen are not a legitimate voice in the debate on immigration. They are a racist, armed militia who have declared open hunting season on immigrants, causing countless hate crimes and over 3000 deaths on the border. Why should exploitative corporations have free passes between nations, but individual people not? No human being is illegal.” (Emphasis added)
We have come to the point in this country where a bunch of radical protestors get to decide who is and who is not a legitimate voice in the debate on as critical a public policy issue as immigration. Such Leftists think that migration in a borderless world is a basic human right. They want no barriers, no guards, and no proof of lawful residency. They certainly do not want the Minutemen watching the border and reporting illegal entry to the authorities.
Leftist slogans like “no human being is illegal” are red herrings. It is not the human being who is illegal; it is what the human being does that may be illegal. One’s conduct is the test, not simply who one is. Immigrants who follow our rules are welcome here. Those who do not abide by our laws have no right to be here. A person who breaks into your house without your permission does not deserve room, board and a job as a reward, even if the intruder may be much poorer than you. He has broken the law and deserves to be punished for what he has done. Our country’s boundaries and rules for entry and residency similarly define who is permitted to be here and how we choose to protect ourselves. We are a land of immigrants, but we are also a land of laws with certain core values. Those seeking to enter our country and remain here must learn to accommodate to our laws and values, not the other way around. That is the way prior generations of immigrants did it, including those who passed through Ellis Island. Why should the law be thrown aside now?
What we are witnessing is a frontal challenge to our nation’s sovereignty. Mexico’s Foreign Secretary wants to drag us before the United Nations for intending to build a fence on our side of the border with our money to keep out aliens who seek to enter our country illegally. They will probably get a sympathetic ear as some UN bureaucrats believe there should be no such thing as “illegal” immigrants in the first place. For the first time in our history, Americans are being asked to cede the right to decide how we define ourselves as a nation and protect our own borders to a globalist governance body. Will Pelosi lead her liberal loyalists as House Speaker to support the UN against America’s right to control its own borders? Do we really want to risk finding out?
It is high time, as Jim Gilchrist demanded in the press release ignored by the mainstream media, that Pelosi come clean under oath as to her personal stake in the illegal immigration issue before she can do even more damage as House Speaker.
President Lopez-Obrador and the Wall
Over the last few years, I've had conversations with friends in Mexico. We usually end up talking about the border. For us, the border is illegal immigration. For Mexicans, it's guns and cash corrupting a very fragile political system.
As a Mexican friend said recently, the cartels have the politicians in their pockets, especially in the small towns where many of these vans full of cash and guns drive through.
There are many reasons to build that border wall, as former Secretary of Education William Bennett said on Sunday: By weight, 86 percent of heroin that entered the United States in 2016 was of Mexican origin, according statistics from the Drug Enforcement Administration."After 9/11 we shut down the border. When we shut down the border, drugs didn't come in," Bennett said. "If you shut down that border, if you close it off, if you build a wall, it can have a real and profound difference."
There is another reason, as any rational Mexican will tell you.
On a weekly basis, lots of cash and guns go south. They are the profits and rewards of the drugs going north. According to unofficial estimates:
Officials in Mexico believe the tide of laundered money could be as high as $50bn per year, a sum equal to about three per cent of Mexico's legitimate economy -- more than all its oil exports or spending on key social programmes. Internationally, money laundering represents between two and five per cent of global GDP, or between $800bn and $2tn annually, according to the UNODC.
It would be more difficult for money or guns to go south if you had a wall on the border.
So President Trump should pick up the phone and call President Lopez-Obrador. He should thank him for keeping the caravans in Mexico and discuss the benefits of the border wall. Why wouldn't the Mexican president support the wall? I'm sure that the Mexican army and police would love to see that wall go up.
The lack of a stable border hurts both sides.
PS: You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.
CRIMINAL GLOBALIST BANKSTERS AND THE POLITICIANS THEY BOUGHT:
The Story of Goldman Sachs and Clinton, Obama and Trump corruption.
Goldman Sachs, GE, Pfizer, the United Auto Workers—the same “special interests”
Barack Obama was supposed to chase from the temple—are profiting handsomely
from Obama’s Big Government policies that crush taxpayers, small businesses,
and consumers. In Obamanomics, investigative reporter Timothy P.
Carney digs up the dirt the mainstream media ignores, and the White House
wishes you wouldn’t see. Rather than Hope and Change, Obama is delivering
corporate socialism to America, all while claiming he’s battling corporate
America. It’s corporate welfare and regulatory robbery—it’s OBAMANOMICS TO
SERVE THE RICH AND GLOBALIST BILLIONAIRES.
FIGHTING THE RICH, DEMOCRAT AND GOP POLS FOR OUR JOBS
AND BORDERS.
Amnesty is all about keeping wages depressed and
passing the true cost along to what is left of the America middle-class.
The
huge inflow of migrants and asylum seekers forced officials to issue 400,000 work permits in
2017. That is roughly one new migrant worker for every 10 Americans who entered
the workforce that year. The huge inflow has also jammed the immigration
courts, ensuring that new migrants can work for a few years before a judge
decides their case.
The Senate Must Fund the Border Wall with Budget Reconciliation
President Trump’s central election promise to build the southern border wall seems about to slip out of reach, with Democrats vowing to oppose any funding of the border wall. While the Democrats deserve a large share of the blame for this failure, if the Senate fails to use budget reconciliation to pass the $5.7 billion in border wall funding, it will be the fault of Republican Senate leadership. Failure to build the border wall will likely have significant negative consequences for national security and will bode ill for Republican hopes for victory in 2020 elections.
For the past few weeks, President Trump and Republican leadership in the Senate have repeatedly almost snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in the fight for the border wall. The Senate has not pushed using budget reconciliation to fund the border wall, allowing the time to fly by as the clock ticks down on Republican control over the House of Representatives. This will be the last opportunity Republicans have of funding the border wall until at least 2021 (assuming Republicans control the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives). As recently as December 18, it appeared that President Trump had agreed with Senate leadership to indefinitely push off border wall funding in favor of passing the remainder of the 2019 budget.
It seemed like the long awaited border wall funding had finally slipped into the political abyss. Then, under withering criticism from conservatives and other supporters of the border wall, President Trump reversed course, making it clear that the remaining portions of the budget will only be signed once he receives funding for the wall. On December 20, Republicans in the House of Representatives responded by passing substantial border wall funding in the form of a bill allocating $5.7 billion for the wall and close to $8 billion in disaster relief for areas hit hard by this year’s hurricanes and wildfires.
While the $5.7 billion falls short of the $21.6 billion that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimated it would take to complete the border wall, it is a substantial step in the right direction. DHS estimated that the $21.6 billion would fund a border wall that would extend almost the entire length of the border and would add about 1,250 miles to the border wall, which stood at 654 miles (at the time of the DHS report). $5.7 billion would fund over one-quarter of the border wall and allows President Trump to construct approximately 330 miles of additional border wall in the most vulnerable and dangerous parts of the border.
Republicans in the Senate have been trying to pass funding for the border wall by ending the Democrat filibuster. This would require 60 votes in the Senate. There is no real hope of getting one Democrat in the Senate, let alone nine. As if this was not obvious enough, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has made it abundantly clear that Democrats will not permit any funding of the border wall. Schumer said, “Everyone knew yesterday, long before the House vote, that the President's wall lacked 60 votes in the Senate.… It will never pass the Senate. Not today, not next week, not next year.”
President Trump, realizing that the border wall funding must pass to fulfill his campaign promise and to protect national security, called on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on December 21 to use the nuclear option to pass the funding. However, Senator McConnell made it clear that Republicans don’t have the votes necessary to use the nuclear option. So the nuclear option is also not a viable option for border wall funding.
This leaves budget reconciliation as the only option to pass the $5.7 billion in border wall funding. Budget reconciliation, like the nuclear option, allows for a simple majority of 51 votes in the Senate to pass legislation, rather than the normally required 60 votes. However, unlike the nuclear option, it would not break precedent and would likely enable the border funding bill to pass. In May 2018, the Heritage Foundation recommended that Republicans pass the 2019 budget using budget reconciliation. This would have resulted in a superior budget to the current budget and would have included substantial border wall funding because it would not have required support from the Democrats.
Budget reconciliation is the solution for funding the border wall, but has been ignored far too long by Republican leadership in the Senate. The strategy of relying on Democrat votes for the wall funding is guaranteed to fail and must be abandoned immediately. President Trump should insist that the Senate pass the $5.7 billion in border wall funding when back in session on December 27 using budget reconciliation.
Budget reconciliation has been successfully used since 1980 to pass over 20 pieces of legislation, most recently with the Trump tax cut passed in 2017. Additionally, the American Health Care Act of 2017 almost passed using reconciliation. Legislation by Congressman Byrne to fully fund $25 billion for the border wall using reconciliation was introduced in October. It is high time that Republicans focus on using this tool to finally pass the House bill that would fund $5.7 billion for the border wall.
It is even more likely that Republicans will pass $5.7 billion with reconciliation than if the bill would have funded $25 billion because all but one of the Republican senators are needed to vote in favor of this bill. While detractors of the bill in the Democrat party decry spending billions of dollars protecting the southern border, funding the border wall is a very small amount of money compared to the estimated 2019 budget of $4.448 trillion. $5.7 billion is only 0.128% or 1/780 as compared to the budget. And spending so little on the border wall to protect U.S. national security and fulfill a basic campaign promise is the least that can be done.
While, as Jason Chaffetz notes, an alternative option that President Trump may have is to use “unauthorized” spending from the budget, which is something that had been used in the Obama administration, it is important to keep in mind that Democrats will likely try to use every tool in their arsenal, including legal action, to keep President Trump from using such funds. It would be wise to pass $5.7 billion funding for the wall with budget reconciliation and then attempt to fund the remainder of the border wall using the “unauthorized” spending.
In advance of the Senate reconvening on December 27 at 4 PM, it is important that the public get in contact with Republican Senators and the White House to encourage them to change course and move for budget reconciliation and a simple majority rather than getting 60 votes in the Senate (which is Senator McConnell’s current plan). This option should also be the focus of conservative radio hosts, as well.
While President Trump and Senate Republicans are in agreement that the border wall should receive funding, the most promising solution to funding the wall seems to repeatedly evade their focus. Budget reconciliation could be key to funding the border wall, protecting national security, and fulfilling a key campaign promise that could prove decisive in Republican victories in the 2020 elections.
JAMES WALSH
BARACK OBAMA’S HISPANICAZATION of AMERICA… first ease millions of illegals over our borders and into our voting
booths!
How the Democrat party
surrendered America to Mexico:
“The watchdogs
at Judicial Watch discovered documents that reveal how the Obama
administration's close coordination with the Mexican government entices
Mexicans to hop over the fence and on to the American dole.” Washington
Times
"This is country belongs to Mexico" is said by the
Mexican Militant. This is a common teaching that the U.S. is really AZTLAN,
belonging to Mexicans, which is taught to Mexican kids in Arizona and
California through a LA Raza educational program funded by American Tax Payers
via President Obama, when he gave LA RAZA $800,000.00 in March of 2009!
The “zero tolerance” program was dismantled by Attorney
General Erc Holder once it had successfully cut the transit of
migrants by roughly 95 percent. Initially, officials made 140,000 arrests per
year in the mid-2000s, but the northward flow dropped so much that officials
only had to make 6,000 arrests in 2013, according to a 2014 letter by two
pro-migration Senators, Sen. Jeff Flake and John McCain.
“The cost
of the Dream Act is far bigger than the Democrats or their media allies admit.
Instead of covering 690,000 younger illegals now enrolled in former President
Barack Obama’s 2012 “DACA” amnesty, the Dream Act would legalize at least 3.3
million illegals, according to a pro-immigration group, the Migration Policy
Institute.”
WIKILEAKS EXPOSES THE OBAMA CONSPIRACY TO FLOOD
AMERICAN WITH DEM VOTING ILLEGALS
“The watchdogs at
Judicial Watch discovered documents that reveal how the Obama administration's
close coordination with the Mexican government entices Mexicans to hop over the
fence and on to the American dole.” Washington Times
Obama Funds the Mexican Fascist Party of
LA RAZA “The Race”… now calling itself UNIDOSus.
"This is country belongs to Mexico" is said by the
Mexican Militant. This is a common teaching that the U.S. is really AZTLAN,
belonging to Mexicans, which is taught to Mexican kids in Arizona and
California through a LA Raza educational program funded by American Tax Payers
via President Obama, when he gave LA RAZA $800,000.00 in March of 2009!
Previous
generations of immigrants did not believe they were racially superior to
Americans. That is the view of La Raza Cosmica, by Jose Vasconcelos,
Mexico’s former education minister and a presidential candidate. According to
this book, republished in 1979 by the Department of Chicano Studies at Cal
State LA, students of Scandinavian, Dutch and English background are dullards,
blacks are ugly and inferior, and those “Mongols” with the slanted eyes lack
enterprise. The superior new “cosmic” race of Spaniards and Indians is
replacing them, and all Yankee “Anglos.” LLOYD
BILLINGSLEY/ FRONTPAGE mag
GLOBALIST BARACK OBAMA
AND NANCY PELOSI’S CONSPRICY TO SABOTAGE HOMELAND SECURITY AND KEEP AMERICA
FLOODED WITH DEM VOTING ILLEGALS
"Along with Obama, Pelosi and
Schumer are responsible for incalculable damage done to this country over the
eight years of that administration." PATRICIA McCARTHY
“One of the most disgusting things to come out of the Obama
administration was "Operation Fast and Furious," where members of the
Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) allowed illegal
gun sales to go through – commonly referred to as "gun walking" – in
order to track buyers and sellers they believed were connected to the Mexican
drug cartels. Nearly 2,000 firearms were sold and were eventually found
throughout the United States and Mexico. Two of them were used to kill Border
Patrol Agent Brian Terry.” BETH BAUMANN
Real Walls Prevent Illegal Border Crossings
In 2011, the Department of Homeland Security canceled a project to build a technology-based “virtual fence” across the Southwest border, saying that the effort on which $1 billion had already been spent was ineffective and too costly. Politicians who funded billions of dollars of “detection technologies” didn’t listen to U.S. Border Patrol, which tried to explain that detection of illegal aliens and smugglers is not the problem along the border but stopping them from crossing is. Virtual or electronic walls are not deterrents, they are detection capabilities and don’t contribute anything to deterrence. Real walls are deterrents and are the only thing that really work to deter and prevent illegal border crossings.
There are long histories that hard fencing initiatives, from the Great Wall of China to T-walls (or Bremer barriers) that protected U.S. troops in Iraq, work and work well. Hard border strategic fencing initiatives such as Operation Gatekeeper, Operation Hold the Line, and Operation Safeguard deterred or stopped illegal border crossings in the busy border cities of San Ysidro, CA, El Paso, TX, and Nogales, AZ. The inability to scale walls or puncture steel matting or reinforced fencing pushed northbound alien immigrants and smugglers to the very limits of the “strategic fencing,” into inhospitable, remote, or difficult segments of the border such as mountains, deserts, and rapidly moving riverways. In the 1990s, wherever “strategic fencing” was employed, deterrence was virtually total. The vast majority of illegal crossings came from illegal aliens walking to the ends of the miles-long fencing where there was no more deterrence to crossing into the United States. In these particular border towns, crime associated with transient illegal aliens and smugglers dropped substantially.
High-flying unmanned surveillance aircraft don’t work either. After ten unmanned systems and $600 million was spent to help secure the southwest border, the unmanned aircraft were transferred to the U.S. Coast Guard. Moving surveillance cameras from a pole to an aircraft is not deterrence, it is still detection.
Mexican smugglers, using high-powered rifles with telescopic sights, blasted Boeing’s billion-dollar camera systems to smithereens. Repair crews dispatched to repair the damaged equipment soon found themselves being shot at by the same people. The result of a few well-placed bullets was that the virtual wall was effectively unplugged from the grid. As for the drones, Americans would probably be surprised that the drones didn’t fly every day. They were an intermittent and inconsistent detection capability.
Walls are a persistent deterrence. Along the border, cameras on poles or on unmanned aircraft are intermittent detection systems. The DHS abandoned the cameras on poles strategy.
Like Boeing’s billion-dollar surveillance systems, the CBP's near-billion-dollar drone program was marketed as an effective means to use technology to help close the gaps through which smugglers move people and drugs across the border. After a year of drone operations, the program’s measures of effectiveness revealed it cost the American taxpayers, on average, about $32,000 to apprehend a single illegal alien. In the late 1990s, when Border Patrol airplanes and helicopters patrolled the Rio Grande River, the average cost of apprehending a single illegal alien using a $100K fixed-wing aircraft was $20; the average cost of apprehending a single illegal alien using a $1M helicopter was about $220. Even state-of-the-art detection capabilities are the wrong solutions for a deterrence problem.
The “virtual fence” that politicians have touted isn’t a wall or even a fence. It is a relic of the misguided efforts of uninformed and misguided politicians. Like other pols, former mayor Rudy Giuliani has long stated (and again, most recently) that a virtual fence is the solution for the border. He is typical of the politician who thinks he has his fingers on the pulse on the problem, but he is wrong.
The CBP’s unmanned surveillance aircraft didn’t work either. Customs and Border Protection leaders cannot say anyone was ever apprehended or stopped by a virtual fence. All they can say is, “We might have been able to detect them."
I recall when my Sector Chief Patrol Agent (and other Chiefs) visited Israel in the late 1990s to assess the effectiveness of their border walls. The Israeli border was protected by tall concrete walls with an abundance of concertina, and watchtowers that were similar to but not as imposing or as numerous as the watchtowers at the Supermax prison in Colorado.
We live in a different time than the one my dear late Border Patrol Chief Paul Berg lived when as a young Border Patrol Agent in the 1970s he patrolled the southwest border in a four-wheel drive truck. He said that was a time when he could come upon an illegal alien in the field, and all he had to do was just tell him to “get in the truck.” Paul would stop at McDonalds, drive the Mexican national to the port of entry, and send him back home with a bag of burgers.
Today’s bands of illegal border crossers are nothing like the aliens of yesteryear. Today’s illegal border crossers are infiltrated with violent gang members and criminals of all sorts. One of my grad students (in the early 2000s) was a Border Patrol agent out of the Eagle Pass Station. He’d come to class in uniform, bulletproof vest, and sidearm. He would tell stories of being on patrol, being shot at with high-power rifles. If he was lucky, he would only have the windshield shot out.
The illegal aliens of today are an aggressive and sometimes a desperate bunch. They bring diseases and contraband and criminal records with them. Border Patrol agents on the line and in the field were (and probably still are) exposed to tuberculous with virtually every illegal alien they apprehended.
Congress wasted billions on ineffective virtual fencing strategies and unmanned aircraft systems. Walls work every place they’ve been tried. It is impossible to breach the Israeli border wall and those who think they can get over it alive are soon faced with the reality that any effort short of commandeering a tank and blasting through will result in failure. So why try? That is the essence of deterrence.
Walls are the ultimate deterrent.
Congress needs to fund a wall to protect Americans and their way of life.
FIFTEEN THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT LA RAZA “THE RACE”
by Michelle Malkin
Only in America could critics of a group
called "The Race" be labeled racists. Such is the triumph of
left-wing identity chauvinists, whose aggressive activists and supine abettors
have succeeded in redefining all opposition as "hate."
JUDICIAL WATCH
OBAMA HANDS TAX DOLLARS TO LA RAZA MEXICAN SUPREMACIST:
Previous
generations of immigrants did not believe they were racially superior to
Americans. That is the view of La Raza Cosmica, by Jose Vasconcelos,
Mexico’s former education minister and a presidential candidate. According to
this book, republished in 1979 by the Department of Chicano Studies at Cal
State LA, students of Scandinavian, Dutch and English background are dullards,
blacks are ugly and inferior, and those “Mongols” with the slanted eyes lack
enterprise. The superior new “cosmic” race of Spaniards and Indians is replacing
them, and all Yankee “Anglos.” LLOYD
BILLINGSLEY/ FRONTPAGE mag
MICHAEL BARONE
“The Lawlessness of the Obama Administration: A
never-ending story.”
THE PSYCHOPATH WHO WOULD BE DICTATOR FUNDED BY
HIS
CRIMINAL CRONY BANKSTERS AND REELECTED FOR A
THIRD TERM BY
MEXICO
The “zero tolerance” program was dismantled by Attorney
General Erc Holder once it had successfully cut the transit of
migrants by roughly 95 percent. Initially, officials made 140,000 arrests per
year in the mid-2000s, but the northward flow dropped so much that officials
only had to make 6,000 arrests in 2013, according to a 2014 letter by two pro-migration Senators,
Sen. Jeff Flake and John McCain.
Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer Tell Democrats: Ignore Migrant
Caravan
22 Oct 2018461
5:08
Democratic leaders are urging their party’s 2018 candidates to ignore
migration issues even as the fast-growing caravan of migrants walks
northwards through Mexico.
On
Sunday, media reports said the caravan has grown to 7,000 people — up from
3,000 last week — and more people are seeking to join the migration.
I’m only just realizing the massive scale of this caravan
as they march north into Mexico. It’s several thousand people. Just look.
On
Saturday, the Democratic leaders declared “The president is desperate to
change the subject from health care to immigration because he knows that health
care is the number one issue Americans care about.” The statement from
Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Chuck Schumer urged Democratic candidates to ignore
public worries about the migration:
Mitch
McConnell, Paul Ryan, and Republicans in
Washington are making a mess of our health care system, causing premiums to
increase and care to decrease while threatening to gut protections for
pre-existing conditions. Democrats are focused like a laser on health care and
will not be diverted.
.@realDonaldTrump is desperate to change the subject from health care to immigration because
he knows that health care is the #1 issue Americans care about. The GOP is
threatening to gut protections for pre-existing conditions. Dems are focused
like a laser to #ProtectOurCare.
The
Democratic leaders’ advice is likely to be embraced by Democrats and
progressives, partly because health care is a top issue for Democratic
partisans. But migration and economics are top issues for GOP-leaning voters.
A
September poll of 1,228 registered by
Harvard-Harris asked respondents to choose their top three issues.
Overall, healthcare was picked by 37 percent while immigration was picked
by 33 percent as one of the most important issues. Thirty-four
percent of independents picked healthcare while 29 percent picked immigration.
Twenty-eight percent of moderates picked healthcare while 24 percent of
moderates picked immigration as a top-three issue.
But
migration is also wrapped up in voters’ concerns about the national security
and national security, which were the third-ranked and fourth-ranked
priorities.
On
October 18, President Donald Trump said the election is about “Kavanaugh,
the caravan, law and order, and common sense.” On Sunday evening, Trump
Tweeted:
The Caravans are a disgrace to the Democrat
Party. Change the immigration laws NOW!
The
Democrats’ Saturday statement came as the migrants pushed their way into
Mexico, amid passive resistance from the Mexican government and support
from sympathetic Mexicans. Late on Sunday, the Associated Press reported:
TAPACHULA,
Mexico — A growing caravan of roughly 7,000 Central American immigrants
continued its trek toward the United States on Sunday, blowing past Mexican
police and immigration officials.
,,,
Gerardo
Hernandez, head of the civil protection agency in the municipality of Suchiate,
Chiapas, said that as of Saturday night, 7,233 immigrants had been registered
at a shelter in Ciudad Hidalgo.
The
group formed an imposing bloc as it began to march Sunday. Many Mexicans who
live in the area lined the highway, handing out free clothes, sandwiches and
bottles of water while cheering the caravan on.
On
Sunday, reporters said that more Hondurans want to join the caravan:
Guatemalan journalist @luisassardo just sent me this message from Esquipulas, Guatemala, near the Honduran
border:
2,000 more leaving Honduras. Asking for volunteers and
donations to help.
A caravan may be marching but the best way to describe
this moment is an exodus
Most
of the migrants are eager for low-wage jobs, but many are also looking for
healthcare, schools, and welfare from U.S. taxpayers. Their goals are a boon to
U.S. employers, renters, and retailers, for government aid workers and education officials,
and also for elite progressives who wish to display their preference for
distant peoples over their fellow nationals.
But
the migrants’ goals are an economic burden for blue-collar and
white-collar Americans whose wages, federal aid, and education resources will
be diverted to aid the migrants.
Watch–Caravan Migrant Says March to U.S. Border Is for
Jobs, Not Asylumhttps://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/10/19/watch-caravan-migrant-says-march-to-u-s-border-is-for-jobs-not-asylum/ …
Watch-Caravan
Migrant Says March to U.S. Border is for Jobs, Not Asylum
The
migrants expect to cross the border because many of their relatives have
already exploited the catch-and-release loopholes to walk past U.S. border
guards and into U.S. jobs. The primary loophole is the 2015 Flores
decision, which requires migrants who bring a child to be
released before the judicial process ha time to order their deportation.
Throughout
2017 and 2018, Democrats and business-first Republicans in Congress have
refused Trump’s pressure to close the loopholes, build a border wall, and fund
larger detention centers. They have not even tried to impose penalties on
the American companies which fund the migration by hiring the migrants so they
can pay their debts to the cartel-affiliated coyotes.
NYT, WashPo, AP now admit the 2nd 'caravan' migrants
openly say they are trying to get US jobs, not fleeing from criminal gangs.
Media also admits migrants knowingly bring kids to get through the Flores
loophole. OK, less media condescension = more truth http://bit.ly/2CsFYsN
Media Admit: Migrant
Wave Seeks U.S. Jobs After Trump Ended 'Zero Tolerance' | Breitbart
Overall,
the Washington-enabled flow of illegal migrants and legal immigrants shifts
wealth from young people towards older people by flooding the market with cheap white-collar and blue-collar foreign labor.
That
flood of outside labor spikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for
manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees.
The policy also drives up real estate prices, widens wealth-gaps,
reduces high-tech investment,
increases state and local tax burdens,
hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes
Americans away from high-tech careers, and
sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families,
including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions.
Immigration
also pulls investment and wealth away from heartland states because coastal
investors can more easily hire and supervise the large immigrant populations
living in the coastal states.
DEMOCRACY DIES IN A LEFTIST COUP
The best midterms that San Francisco donors could buy.
November 15, 2018
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
After President Trump took office, the Washington Post announced its new motto, “Democracy dies in darkness.” But it was the Washington Post, not Trump, that was guilty of undermining democracy.
President Trump had been legitimately elected by a majority of states. The Washington Post was an establishment paper in a government city owned by a dot com robber baron. There’s nothing more undemocratic than a paper owned by the richest man in the world working to overturn an election.
There was just as little democracy to the midterm elections in which wealthy donors from blue states and districts poured money into local races in red and purple states and districts. San Francisco and New York billionaires buying elections in Pennsylvania and Nevada is not democracy. It’s oligarchy.
American elected officials were meant to be elected by local communities to serve their needs. Instead the Left has nationalized local races by exploiting its cultural power. And when that didn’t produce the immediate results that it wanted, began overwhelming local elections with huge piles of outside cash.
The midterm elections were the best elections that San Francisco donors could buy.
Senate Democrats picked up $220 million in out-of-state donations these midterms. That huge pile of cash also amounted to sixty percent of their haul. The majority of Dem Senate cash came from donors who weren’t living in the states they were running in, but who were trying to buy elections for them.
That’s the Washington Post brand of democracy.
It’s not just Senate races being bought up by out-of-state donors. 45% of House Dem money came from out-of-state donors. And when they didn’t succeed in buying a local election the first time, they just kept on pouring in more money into a district until they got their way.
Last year, Democrats poured in $22.5 million into a special election in Georgia’s 6th congressional district. 95% of the donations came from out-of-state donors. Democrat Jon Ossoff received more donations from California than Georgia. Ossoff still lost to Rep. Karen Handel, even though her donations amounted to only a fraction of his ActBlue bucks.
But the same donors just waited a year and bought the seat for Lucy McBath in the midterms.
In October, Lucy McBath was appearing at the Writers Guild Theater in Los Angeles hosted by Hollywood royalty like Katzenberg, Tony Goldwyn and Cameron Crowe for a $500 a head fundraiser.
A large chunk of outside money behind McBath came from Michael Bloomberg. McBath touted his gun control positions and the New York billionaire’s front groups put $4.5 million behind his lackey.
That $4.5 million was a fraction of the $100 million that Bloomberg vowed to plow into the Dems.
There’s nothing democratic about Bloomberg buying the 6th the way he once bought Gracie Mansion.
In Illinois' 13th Congressional District, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan pulled in $1.7 million to Rep. Rodney Davis' $700K in a three month period. And then outside groups poured in nearly as much again in support of Londrigan. $300K of that money came from California.
In Nevada, out-of-state donors bought Jacky Rosen a senate seat. 85% of the radical lefty candidate’s donations came from outside the state. Of her 5 top donor zip codes, two were in New York, two in California, including Palo Alto, and the odd zip code out was in Chevy Chase, Maryland.
The media frequently airs complaints about how little political power New York and California have per capita compared to a handful of small states. These complaints are not only cynically specious, they ignore the fact that between the media’s messaging force multipliers and the bicoastal wealth being used to buy elections, political power has become as concentrated as economic and cultural power.
And that’s the opposite of democracy.
The midterms weren’t a populist wave. They were an angry tantrum by wealthy blue state donors who used their money to buy local elections as payback for having their views ignored in 2016. Instead of listening to the rest of the country, they set out to buy it, lock, stock and barrel. They found experts, consultants, strategists, programmers and organizers who would buy them other people’s elections.
Much of their money was wasted. Just ask Beto O’Rourke and his $70 million war chest. But their hysterical frenzy of spending made an undeniable impact. If you throw enough mud or money at an election, eventually it sticks. The Democrat raised nearly $1 billion to take the House.
And they took it.
$166.8 million was pumped into 30 House Democrat candidates. That’s compared to $90.7 million for the Republican candidates in those races.
The most expensive midterm elections in history paid off for Democrats. And there’s nothing democratic about that.
Democracy doesn’t die in darkness. It dies in the glare of lefty media, lefty money and lefty power which strip away local issues and local agency in Arizona, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Florida. Big blue state donors bought the midterm elections to send a message to President Trump. Many had been convinced by frenzied media hit pieces in papers like the Washington Post that action was desperately urgent.
When the Washington Post, the rest of the media and their long tail of ActBlue donors intervene in local elections, it doesn’t uphold democracy. It drowns it in the bright actinic glare of flashes and floodlights.
The media postures as a defender of democracy, but corporate media is more naturally a defender of establishments, of the nostrums and platitudes of the elites whom it serves and coddles. When it interferes in elections, it doesn’t do so for the sake of the people, but for the sake of its people.
Political elites mistrust the people and use the media to manipulate popular elections into endorsing their unpopular agendas. The mainstream media is an inherently undemocratic institution that amplifies elite voices at the expense of local communities. It claims to be democratic only because it reinterprets democracy to mean the political agendas of the Democrats rather than those of the people.
Lefties often misuse democracy to mean a set of values while actual democracy, the vox populi, is tarred as populism. But democracy isn’t a set of social issues. It’s the power shift between the voters and elected officials. Big media and blue state billionaires have shifted that balance away from local voters by buying local elections and seeking new voters when the old won’t vote their way.
If a few million in attack ads won’t influence local voters, you register new ones. If that doesn’t work, then you legalize felons. And if that won’t do it, there are the illegal aliens, and voter and ballot fraud. Buy a few secretary of state races. Set up housing for out-of-state college students. Sign up aliens to vote. And then even if the local voters don’t vote your way, it won’t matter. They’ll have been outvoted.
This isn’t democracy. But it is how Democrats have won some local races.
The shift away from local voters to a national political infrastructure is undemocratic. But it neatly fits into the larger leftist cause of centralizing all of politics (and all other areas of life) in elitist strongholds. The partnerships between elitist leaders and their local crony stakeholders act as a fig leaf for the dismantling of local autonomy with performative diversity replacing representational democracy.
The Democrats have waged an undemocratic war on democracy in the name of democracy. The midterms were the latest leftist coup against democracy. And democracy lost to the Left.
Potential Speaker Candidate Marcia Fudge: Nancy Pelosi an ‘Elitist,’ ‘Very Wealthy Person’
4:02
Potential Democrat speakership candidate Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH) says that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the former Speaker who is angling to retake the gavel early next year, is an “elitist” and “very wealthy person” who surrounds herself with other “very wealthy people.”
In an interview with the Huffington Post’s Matt Fuller, Fudge–the former chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus who is toying with a run for the Speaker position against Pelosi–says that people do not like Pelosi because “they see her as an elitist.”
“And I think to some degree she is,” Fudge said. “She’s a very wealthy person. She raises a lot of money from a lot of other wealthy people.”
Marcia Fudge on Nancy Pelosi's unpopularity: "I think they see her as an elitist. And I think to some degree she is. She’s a very wealthy person, she raises a lot of money from a lot of other wealthy people.”huffingtonpost.com/entry/marcia-f…
“Everybody wants to give her such big credit for winning back the House, and she should be here because she won. She didn’t win it by herself,” Fudge added, also saying: ““If we’re going to give her credit for the wins, why is she not responsible for all the losses?” She, per Fuller, pointed to how Democrats had lost 63 seats in the 2010 election and did not regain majorities in 2012, 2014, or 2016–not until 2018 did Democrats retake the House.
Fudge is one of the signers of a letter from Democrats pledging to oppose Pelosi’s speakership bid on the House floor in January. Depending on where some final races come down, Pelosi, in the best case scenario, can afford to lose just shy of 20 votes. The letter already, reportedly, per a previous story from the Huffington Post’s Fuller, has enough signatures to block her ascent to the Speakership, assuming its signers follow through on their pledge.
Fudge also on Wednesday floated a potential speakership bid of her own in an interview with her hometown Cleveland Plain Dealer, saying she would be open to running against Pelosi but at this time had not committed to doing so. Meanwhile, anti-Pelosi Democrats including Reps. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO), Kurt Schrader (D-OR), and Seth Moulton (D-MA), say they already have the votes to stop her from being Speaker. Pelosi retorts that she will be Speaker no matter what they say, and says she has the votes for the job–despite clearly not locking enough down per this circulating letter.
Meanwhile, Fudge is out there stirring the pot, pushing for new leadership–and arguing that “racism” has seeped into the Democrat leadership under Pelosi.
“I don’t have a pitch because at this point I’ve not decided I’m going to run,” Fudge said in the Huffington Post interview, “but I would say this: My concern about the caucus is the same concern I have about the country. Just as there is this undertone of racism in the country, there’s also that in our caucus.”
Her specific argument is that Pelosi has not done enough for the Congressional Black Caucus to warrant support. From the Huffington Post interview with Fudge:
Fudge pointed to Pelosi’s refusal to endorse in the race for majority whip, a contest between the current No. 3 Democrat ― and CBC stalwart ― Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), and Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.).
“But she wants our endorsements?” Fudge said of Pelosi. “Who has she endorsed?”
“We’re not feeling the love,” she added.
That all being said, Fudge insists she does not “hate” Pelosi and believes Pelosi has been effective as a leader but thinks it is time for Democrats to have a new leader.
“I don’t hate Nancy. I think Nancy has been a very good leader,” Fudge said. “I just think it’s time for a new one.”
Fudge also says the lack of diversity in Democrat leadership ranks is clear–Pelosi is old and white, and Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), the likely new Majority Leader who has been Pelosi’s number two, is also old and white.
“And so I’m saying, what is wrong with acknowledging the fact that the Democratic Party is becoming more young, more black, and more brown?” Fudge said. “And letting that be reflected in our leadership.”
Fudge also said she believes President Donald Trump is a “racist.”
“The President of the United States is a racist, in my opinion,” Fudge said. “If we open up the Civil Rights Act, it’s like opening up Pandora’s box.”
THE PHONY 'CRISES' OF PROGRESSIVES
Manufacturing a crisis to expand power.
December 26, 2018
Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
In November 2008, President-elect Obama’s chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel signaled the new administration’s progressive sensibility when he said, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” For an ideology impatient with the rules of political change and democratic persuasion, the urgency of alleged crises creates powerful opportunities for politicians to suspend those rules and bypass the process of deliberation in which citizens exercise their autonomy and sovereignty.
Emanuel’s progressive intent becomes clearer if we see its relationship to progressive psychologist William James’ famous metaphor, “the moral equivalent of war.” There are serious social-political battles to fight, the implication goes, and it’s the moral duty of everyone to fight for the right side. In the case of progressives, the right side is the “arc of history” progressively bending toward greater “social justice” and equality, but impeded by the superstitious, the greedy, the unenlightened, and the evil.
Delve deeper into James’ metaphor and you see its sinister dimensions. Heraclitus said, “War is the father and king of all: some he has made gods, and some men; some slaves and some free.” War is the original creative destruction, in which fortune can turn in mere minutes. As such war often demands that the machinery of consensual government be compromised. The demands of war––the need for rapid mobilization, provision of matériel, and decisions and actions whose success relies on decisiveness and speed–– has led even constitutional states to provide for an office or executive that can be temporarily allowed expanded power.
The powers of the ancient Roman office of dictator, or the extra-constitutional scope given to our commanders-in-chief during wartime, speaks to the unique circumstances that war creates. But the example of Julius Caesar illustrates as well the dangers of giving one man too much power. Appointed dictator for a year, Caesar had his term eventually extended to life. During his tenure Caesar encroached on and abused the constitutional powers of other Republican institutions. And at the time of his assassination, he was rumored to be planning on becoming a king.
The American Founders were obsessed with excessive power creating a tyrant. Caesar was their model of what to avoid, and his assassins like Cato and Brutus, the models to emulate. They designated the president the “commander-in-chief” in recognition of the necessity of concentrating power in times of conflict. But they gave the power of declaring war to the Senate. And fearing a successful, charismatic general like Caesar, who commanded the military means to achieve his ambitions, they subordinated military power to civilian authority.
The Founders limited presidential power for good reasons. History and their own experience with George III had taught them that “power is of an encroaching nature,” and that no man no matter now virtuous or noble, is beyond corruption by power. That’s what made Washington’s resignation of his commission after the Revolutionary War, and his refusal to run for a third presidential term, so remarkable and unprecedented. As George III himself said when told Washington would resign his commission, “If he does that he will be the greatest man in the world!”
Now we can see a major reason why progressives want to dismantle the Constitutional order: its limits on power hinder them from fulfilling their utopian schemes. Before he became president, Woodrow Wilson decried the institutionalized balance and separation of powers for the impediments it put on a visionary “leader of men” who could more efficiently discern what’s best for the citizenry and how to achieve it. Sounding suspiciously like the “messianic great leader” of many an autocracy, Wilson extolled a leader who possessed:
Such sympathetic and penetrating insight as shall enable him to discern quite unerringly the motive which move them in the mass . . . it only needs what it is that lies waiting to be stirred in the minds and purposes of groups and masses of men. Besides, it is not sympathy that serves but a sympathy whose power is to command, to command by knowing its instrument . . . The competent leader of men cares little for the interior niceties of other people’s characters . . . [except] for the external uses to which they may be put. His will seeks the line of least resistance; but the whole question with him is a question of the application of force. There are men to be moved: how shall he move them?
Such a leader should not be hindered by limits on his power, especially the division of the legislative from the executive branch of government. The president, as Wilson complained, should not be just “empowered to veto bad laws,” but “given the opportunity to make good ones.”
That Wilsonian ambition to “move men” to do what he wanted, and to “make good laws” was realized during Obama’s presidency, during which he used his “phone and pen” to circumvent Congress, issuing executive orders, signing letters, and other executive agency intrusions into the Article 1 law-making powers given to Congress.
And don’t forget his White House bureaucrat Cass Sunstein’s concept of the “nudge,” a kinder, gentler way of making voters do what you want through rewards and hidden persuasion–– the 21st century “soft despotism” answer to Wilson’s questions about how to “move people in the mass.” Of course, this implies what Wilson at least was honest about: that the “leader” knows what’s best for everybody else, and sees the machinery of representative government as being too slow or inefficient to achieve progressive ambitions for “improving” society or furthering “social justice.”
The “moral equivalent of war” metaphor also suggests other arguments for bypassing the Constitutional order. Like war, crises demand speedy action that democratic assemblies, deliberation, legislative procedures, and mechanisms of institutional accountability make difficult. And if crises aren’t available? As James’ metaphor implies, they can be created by one faction’s self-interested interpretation or exaggerations of the risks and dangers of inaction. When lives are at stake, the “urgency of now,” as Obama was fond of quoting Martin Luther King, makes adhering to the niceties of constitutional procedure dangerous as well as inefficient.
It’s not surprising, then, that for a century, progressives have exploited real crises, such as the Depression and two world wars, to increase the number and scope of intrusive executive branch powers. Several of the federal offices that Wilson created to manage World War I, for example, were refurbished for FDR’s New Deal, the greatest expansion of federal power up to then. But faux crises have been manufactured to achieve the same end.
No example is more revealing of this link between “crisis” and the expansion of federal and state power into business and private life than “climate change,” the meaningless euphemism for what used to be called “global warming,” itself shorthand for “catastrophic man-caused global warming.” The Fourth National Climate Assessment released last month is typical of the near half-century of hysterical predictions of civilization-ending catastrophe that conveniently will occur after this generation has passed on. And even as the free market has developed new technologies like fracking that have reduced carbon-dioxide emissions in the U.S.--in 2017, 0.5% compared to the green EU’s rise of 1.5%--the climate-catastrophe industrial complex continues to call for more subsidies for “green” energy, and more Draconian reductions in carbon-based energy. Why would they do that? Because solving the climate “crisis” requires an expansion of government’s size, scope, and power to intrude into our lives, ability to appropriate our money, and create further limits on our autonomy.
Finally, just as during war we have seen Constitutional rights temporarily suspended, as Lincoln did habeas corpusduring the Civil War, or as Wilson did free speech rights during World War I, so too the progressives have been eager to limit our rights in order to keep such “obsolete and indefensible notions,” as progressive historian Charles Beard over a century ago described natural rights, from interfering with the progressives’ implementation of their utopian ambitions. So today we see calls to limit the First Amendment’s rights protecting speech and religion, or the Second’s right to keep and bear arms.
Our Constitutional mechanisms by design are cumbersome because the Founders’ primary aim was to defend political freedom, both of individuals and the states, from a centralized and concentrated power that inevitably seeks to expand at the expense of freedom. That’s why the progressives want to dismantle the Constitution’s checks and balances that limit power, and in the name of efficiency, justice, and equality, empower and expand technocratic elites who supposedly know better than individuals, families, communities, and the market what’s best.
We need to beware the hysterical cries that “something must be done!” about the “crisis” du jour. For when the crisis passes, more of our freedom will have gone with it.
Democrats: A plague on the nation
Democrats: A plague on the nation
How as Americans do we explain the intransigence of the left when
it comes to national security? 'Tis a mystery. These
people, these Democrats in Congress, are among the most privileged persons on
the planet. They have enjoyed, more than most, the blessings
bequeathed by the Founders, the authors of the Constitution. Yet they are determined, like Obama, to transform us into
something this nation was never meant to be: a land without borders. While all of them are on record supporting a border
wall in the past, now that Donald Trump is president, they all oppose it with
every fiber of their being. They know that it will work, and they
cannot abide Trump having a win. These people – Schumer, Pelosi,
Guti̩rrez, etc. Рare truly venal. Governor Brown has effectively
destroyed California, now benighted by rampant homelessness and the crime that
accompanies a population of illiterate, drug-addicted, gang-affiliated,
criminally inclined persons adrift on our streets. And now
another young officer has been killed by an illegal alien thanks to the left's
obsession with protecting the throngs of migrants crossing the border into the
U.S.
It should be obvious to every American by now that our progressive
left does not have the best interest of Americans at heart. Quite
the opposite. They loathe those of us who put Trump in the White
House and are determined to punish us. They intend to raise our
taxes to pay for the $100B illegal aliens cost us
every year. They need open borders to
import future voters; millions of illegals voted in the 2018 election thanks to
motor voter bills and states' refusal to require voter ID. The
Democrats know they cannot win without cheating. They cheated in 2016 and are still stunned that their carefully
calculated strategy did not work – thus, the cover-up, AKA the Mueller
investigation, of their many crimes committed over the Obama years, many at the
direction of Hillary Clinton with Obama's knowledge and
approval. Our once most revered institutions, the DOJ, the FBI, and
the CIA, have been thoroughly corrupted. Mueller, a willing
participant in that corruption, is up to his eyeballs in the cover-up.
Will any of these people at the DOJ, the FBI, and the CIA, ever be
held accountable? To date, they have not been. The power
they have within the Deep State is beyond formidable; it is seemingly absolute.
It appears that America has become a sort of medieval
oligarchy. Trump, as the outsider he is, is a grave threat to all of
those who believed they were in control in perpetuity. They are
ready and willing to do anything, no matter how illegal or immoral, to depose
him, to expel him from office.
The Democrats in office today, and those about to take the
majority in the House, are anti-Americans. Of that you can be
sure. They care about keeping our borders open to all comers more
than they care about keeping Americans safe. They all supported a
border wall when Clinton and Obama were in office. Now they hate the
president more than they love the country. Of this there can be no
doubt.
The Democrats hate Trump so much that they want the economy to
crash. They are hoping for recession. Is the Fed on board
with the left? It seems so since, that institution's raising the
interest rate yet again is counterproductive to our thriving
economy. It is the Fed that whipsaws Wall Street, is it not?
It appears that the entirety of the left – the media, the Deep
State, Wall Street, and the Democratic Party – is working in concert to bring
Trump down, no matter the consequences to the country. Meanwhile,
the Republicans in the Congress, most but certainly not all, are as bendy as
can be. With notable exceptions – Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, Tom
Cotton, Matt Gaetz, Louie Gohmert – they hate Trump, too. He has
ruffled their feathers, their comfortable position as go-alongs-to-get-alongs
in D.C. They have no real principles, no gumption, no fuel for a
fight. They are cowards all, pajama boys. Paul Ryan is
their poster boy.
The young policeman who died in California Christmas night will
and should be a wake-up call for the Democrats. They are 100%
responsible for the presence of such criminals, protected by ridiculous
sanctuary policies in our cities. The
media and the Democrats are in an uproar over the two migrant children who died
at the hands of irresponsible parents who used them as a ticket to ride, yet
they have nothing to say about the murder of the young policeman in Newman,
Calif. He is, to them, a casualty of politics, of their grand design
to obliterate conservatives from the public realm forever. They do
not care about him, his widow, or his infant son. They were happy to
contribute to the odious Christine Blasey Ford's GoFundMe page, but not one of
them will contribute to a GoFundMe page for Ronil Singh's family. He
is law enforcement, so they feel nothing.
The Democratic Party of today is an abomination. The
assault on our constitutional republic began with Woodrow Wilson, and their long-range
plan to overhaul what the Founders built is still operational. The
left has nothing but contempt for ordinary Americans, especially those who
voted for Trump.
Leftists are dangerous when challenged, like a pack of jackals
dismembering its prey. They need to be defeated, indicted, arrested,
tried, convicted, and imprisoned. They are a scourge on the nation
as founded. They do not love this country; they seek to destroy all
that was and is good within it.
No comments:
Post a Comment