Is Mass Civil Disobedience Our Future?
Perhaps the greatest manifestation of civil disobedience today is the illegal presence of between 12 million and 20 million immigrants who broke into our country or are breaking the law by being here after their visas expired. PAT BUCHANAN
Democrat 2020 presidential candidate Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke campaigned in Mexico Sunday with migrants not admitted to the U.S. at the southern border.
O’Rourke called the Trump administration’s policies “unlawful and inhumane” in a post about crossing into Mexico on Sunday to meet with migrants waiting there for U.S. court dates. He used the visit to promote his own immigration plan.
The 2020 contender faced harsh reviews for his first presidential primary debate performance last week. In the days that followed, he demonstrated outside three U.S. migrant detention facilities in three days before crossing into Mexico:
O’Rourke and several other Democrat 2020 hopefuls visited a migrant detention facility in Homestead, Florida, after their respective debates over two nights in Miami. From Florida, O’Rourke returned to his home state of Texas, where he demonstrated outside facilities in Houston and Clint, Texas. He put out a call ahead of those visits for supporters to join him in fighting “inhumane policies.” At times, he used a bullhorn to proclaim his message to those gathered around:
Outside the Clint facility, O’Rourke blamed “all of us” producing “emissions” and “excesses,” which he blamed for a drought. He found fault, too, with the U.S. for deporting foreign nationals from U.S. prisons back to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. He also blamed deportation for gangs rising up in those countries to which these countries’ nationals are now fleeing.
Former Mexican President Vicente Fox came out in support of Democratic Texas Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke, in a Thursday evening tweet.
.@BetoORourke, what a candidate you are! You not only understand America, you know about humanity. This is what the U.S. needs: someone compassionate yet firm. I stand with you because I believe you’re what America needs. pic.twitter.com/xccqvXFfk9
Fox served as the Mexican president from 2000 to 2006 and has been an outspoken critic of President Donald Trump. The former Mexican president’s comments follow O’Rourke’s appearance at a CNN town hall Thursday evening and a debate with Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.
O’Rourke is current trailing Cruz by several points in the Senate race.
Fox has often unleashed profanity laced pronouncements aimed at Trump, particularly on Trump’s declaration that the U.S. will make Mexico pay for his proposed wall along the southern border.
“I’m not going to pay for that fucking wall,” Fox declared in a Fusion TV interview. In another profane tweet Fox urged Trump to “get his shit together.”
.@realDonaldTrump, you’ve got to get your shit together: migrants are people who have left everything behind – not by choice, to pursue a better life. You must show compassion and humanity. your golden head and a #FuckingWall won’t stop these people’s dreams and hopes. https://t.co/JC1NETBKqP
Former Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-TX) must have missed the memo that he's running for President of the United States. O'Rourke, for whatever reason, is campaigning in Mexico. Again, did he not know he's running for President of the United States and not President of Mexico?
According to the Associated Press, O'Rourke plants to head to Ciudad Juarez, Mexico to meet with so-called asylum seekers who must wait in Mexico while their application is processed. Ciudad Juarez sits right across the Rio Grande River from El Paso, O'Rourke's hometown.
The goal of the trip, according to O'Rourke's campaign, is to meet with “individuals and families directly impacted by Donald Trump’s cruel and inhumane policies" and “shed light on the desperate circumstances those who are seeking asylum and refuge are fleeing, and the conditions these families and individuals are forced to endure when they’ve been turned away from our borders.”
O'Rourke is supposed to meet with illegal aliens, primarily from the Northern Triangle countries of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, CNN reported.
"In all of the debate around immigration, we can't forget who it impacts most: the people traveling thousands of miles, fleeing the worst kind of violence and oppression," O'Rourke said in a statement. "Turning away refugees, families and asylum seekers is not who we are as a country. But as long as Donald Trump is president -- it will be."
Team Beto also plans to hold a "Rally for the Children" outside of the Border Patrol Station in Clint, Texas.
Here's how the event is being billed on his campaign website:
Join Beto to speak out against the cruel, dangerous and inhumane treatment of immigrant children being held at the Clint Border Patrol station as a direct result of Donald Trump’s policies.
The conditions reported at the Clint Border Patrol station housing migrant children are so unsafe and unsanitary that it’s been declared a “public health emergency.” These children deserve respect, dignity, and humane living conditions. Moving them out of these facilities quickly, providing them adequate shelter and support, and uniting them with family members immediately should be this administration’s top priority.
Last year, on Father’s Day, Beto led a march to raise awareness about the mistreatment and detention of children at the Tornillo facility in El Paso who had been separated from their families. He continued to return to the camp until all of the children were successfully released and the facility was shut down.
Folks should be prepared for the heat - please bring water, a hat, and dress for the weather.
O'Rourke has positioned himself as the "expert" on immigration issues because of his experience growing up right along the United States-Mexico border. Instead of enforcing our immigration laws, O'Rourke, however, wants illegal aliens currently in the country to have a "pathway to citizenship." The Democratic hopeful's immigration proposal includes sending $5 billion to improve conditions in the Northern Triangle and deploying thousands of lawyers to the southern border to help process asylum cases.
This is one of the greatest examples of political pandering. O'Rourke is running for President of the United States, not Mexico. Yes, it's important to get an idea of what's taking place on our southern border. Yes, it's important to hear what our Border Patrol agents and those on the front line have to say. But what's ridiculous is a presidential candidate meeting with those who knowingly break our law to see how he could help those people, should he secure the nomination, and ultimately, the White House.
Talk about divided loyalty.
Presidential hopeful Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke proposed giving citizenship to large swaths of illegal aliens present in the United States Saturday at a MoveOn.org “Big Idea” event.
O’Rourke began by revisiting his failed 2018 Senate bid in Texas against Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and thanking the MoveOn crowd for their support, saying they “fundamentally changed the nature of democracy” in Texas. He sold the idea that his campaign “unlocked” Texas’ 38 electoral college votes ahead of 2020. A documentary on O’Rourke’s 2018 campaign recently aired on HBO.
He then launched into his “big idea” for the crowd. “What if we said that we really wanted to ensure every immigrant who has come to this country of immigrants and asylum seekers and refugees was truly treated with the dignity and respect that they deserved and we did not try to mirror Republicans by saying ‘but first we’re gonna get tough on them, break up those families, deport them, internal enforcement, walls, none of that stuff.”
“What if we said…” O’Rourke said before breaking into speaking Spanish. He continued in english hitting against detention centers, deportations, and proclaimed “dreamers” to be as “American as anyone else in this theater here tonight” while saying those individuals brought illegally to the U.S. as children “live in fear of deportation to a country that they do not know.” He proposed making them citizens.
O’Rourke continued slamming President Donald Trump, calling his policies “bullshit” as he claimed the president imposed a “Muslim travel ban.” The executive action President Trump imposed that some deemed a ban on Muslims was not, but rather named countries identified under the administration of President Barack Obama as those President Trump would restrict immigration from temporarily for national security purposes.
He further proposed that the federal government cancel any citizenship application fees for green card holders with permanent residency to become citizens and mail them full filled out citizenship forms. O’Rourke then spoke of “11 million” illegal aliens in the U.S.
Michelle Moons is a White House Correspondent for Breitbart News — follow on Twitter @MichelleDiana and Facebook
This policy offlooding the market with cheap, foreign, white-collar graduates and blue-collar labor also shifts enormous wealth from young employees towards older investors, even as it also widens wealth gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, and hurts children’s schools and college educations. It also pushes Americans away from high-tech careers and sidelines millions of marginalized Americans, including many who are now struggling with fentanyl addictions. The labor policy also moves business investment and wealth from the heartland to the coastal cities, explodes rents and housing costs, shrivels real estate values in the Midwest, and rewards investors for creating low-tech, labor-intensive workplaces.
Beto O’Rourke’s Plan Opens Borders for Migrants and Job Seekers
Beto O’Rourke’s immigration plan, which the presidential hopeful released Wednesday, would open the nation’s borders to apparently unlimited waves of unskilled needy migrants and would open the nation’s workplaces to cheap workers when companies fear Americans’ wages might rise.
“I think we go a lot further than anyone,” O’Rourke told CNN.
O’Rourke’s plan downplays the interests of American wage-earners and parents as it promises to aid migrants and investors by “reunit[ing migrant] families … and ensur[ing] they have a chance to contribute more to our economy and our communities — and pursue the American Dream.”
The plan would spur migration by giving taxpayer-funded lawyers to migrants who request asylum, by granting asylum to migrants who say they have suffered from spousal abuse or fear of criminal gangs, and by creating a fast-track process for migrants to get through the border and into U.S. jobs.
His plan would revive the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) job program and amnesty for younger illegals, would establish catch-and-release as a national policy, would stop construction of a border wall, and would launch an amnesty for the population of 11 million illegals.
The plan does not mention safeguards to prevent tens or hundreds of millions of ambitious migrants from using his pro-migration policy to walk into the United States.
Instead, it suggests that the U.S spend $5 billion in Central America to persuade Central Americans from traveling northwards into the U.S. labor market.
O’Rourke would prioritize family chain migration over the ability of would-be skilled migrants to raise productivity and wealth for all Americans.
The Texas Democrat’s plan would also create a new inflow of legal immigrants by allowing “communities” to import their own populations of foreign migrants. The plan does not mention safeguards to prevent migrant communities from importing their own servants, service workers, and teachers, even when Americans want the jobs. The plan:
Establishes a new, first-of-its-kind community-based visa category. Beto’s proposal will create a brand new category whereby communities and congregations can welcome refugees through community sponsorship of visas. This program will supplement the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, which will be rebuilt and restored to align with America’s tradition of welcoming vulnerable refugees from around the world.
O’Rourke’s plan argues that immigrants grow the economy — but it does not include any evidence that migration or his plan would help grow Americans’ wages and salaries or help Americans buy homes to raise their own families. It says:
This [plan] is not just right but also essential to our shared prosperity. Immigrants from every corner of the world — those who came here on student visas and those seeking refuge from persecution — have been a key driver of our economic growth.
The plan does not use the words “wages” or “salaries,” but it offers business the right to import more temporary workers for blue-collar jobs. The plan would “ensure that industries that depend on immigrant labor have access to a program that allows workers to legally come here and legally return to their home country with appropriate labor and mobility protections.”
The plan would also allow companies and universities to import more college-trained foreign workers for jobs sought by U.S. graduates. The plan says O’Rourke would:
Promote STEM education by granting foreign-born students more flexibility to stay in the U.S. and gain employment after graduating; and Allow foreign-born entrepreneurs and U.S. patent holders the chance to stay in the United States to grow their business, create jobs and raise families that will go on to enrich our country.
Over the last 20 years, U.S. immigration laws have allowed companies to bring in many H-1B contract workers and also to provide green cards to favored workers. That policy has flooded the white-collar labor market with foreign workers, so slowing the growth of salaries for American graduates.
Currently, companies employ roughly 1.5 million foreign contract workers in U.S. white-collar jobs. The programs include the H-1B, L-1, H4EAD, OPT, and O-1 temporary worker programs.
O’Rourke’s Twitter account touted support from Todd Schulte, a D.C.-based advocate who runs a pro-migration group founded by West Coast investors. Schulte is trying to preserve and expand the various white-collar and blue-collar visa programs which provide cheap labor to the investors, who include Mark Zuckerberg, whose Facebook company already uses many H-1B workers in place of American graduates.
We just announced a plan that would implement the most sweeping rewrite of U.S. immigration law in a generation and overcome years of inaction to finally advance a new vision of immigration that fully reflects our country’s values.
This claim of “our country’s values” echoes the “Nation of Immigrants” claims from 1965, which Democrats have almost uniformly adopted in the last few years.
O’Rourke’s plan also echoes the progressive claim that racism is the root cause of the United State’s economic and racial disparities and is the primary motivator in the nation’s immigration policies. This moral fervor began around 2012 and is dubbed “The Great Awokening.” Politically, the claim allows wealthy progressives and post-graduate professionals to elevate their perceived social status by smearing many Americans as deplorable racists.
In contrast, President Donald Trump’s “Hire American” policy has raised wages for blue-collar and white-collar Americans and has also helped deliver jobs, wages, and self-sufficiency to many Americans who were sidelined by disability, the 2008 recession, drugs, criminal record, or lack of investment in their heartland states.
Each year, roughly four million young Americans join the workforce after graduating from high school or university.
But the federal government then imports about 1.1 million legal immigrants and refreshes a resident population of roughly 1.5 million white-collar visa workers — including roughly one million H-1B workers — and approximately 500,000 blue-collar visa workers.
The government also prints out more than one million work permits for foreigners, tolerates about eight million illegal workers, and does not punish companies for employing the hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants who sneak across the border or overstay their legal visas each year.
This policy of inflating the labor supply boosts economic growth for investors because it ensures that employers do not have to compete for American workers by offering higher wages and better working conditions.
This policy of flooding the market with cheap, foreign, white-collar graduates and blue-collar labor also shifts enormous wealth from young employees towards older investors, even as it also widens wealth gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, and hurts children’s schools and college educations. It also pushes Americans away from high-tech careers and sidelines millions of marginalized Americans, including many who are now struggling with fentanyl addictions. The labor policy also moves business investment and wealth from the heartland to the coastal cities, explodes rents and housing costs, shrivels real estate values in the Midwest, and rewards investors for creating low-tech, labor-intensive workplaces.
Fake Hispanic Beto O’Rourke’s presidential campaign is looking doornail dead … and let’s be honest: it never really took off. But after peaking nationally with 9.5 percent support in the Real Clear Politics poll of polls, he has now collapsed to just 3.2 percent support. And along the way, he dropped from third place (behind 275-year-old Bernie and 189-year-old Biden) to sixth.
It wasn’t supposed to be like this.
If you recall, Paddy O’Rourke was once America’s wunderkind, the next John or Bobby, the phenom who could turn Texas blue, Mr. Charisma, the White Obama, the guy whose youth, energy, charm, and wokeness would make him The Great Trump Slayer who ushered in the next Progressive Era!
So what happened?
How did the Shamrock King get his Lucky Charms stolen?
Ted Cruz Is No Longer the Villain
Beto is a totally fabricated media sensation, and the reason the media fabricated that sensation was in the hopes of defeating Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), a Republican the media hate with enough fury to turn Beto the Dweeb into Beto the KoolKidFutureOfAmerica.
And to Beto and the media’s credit, they nearly defeated Cruz. That election was a lot closer than it should have been.
But without Cruz as your villain, without Cruz as the standard upon which your cool factor is measured, the leprechaun stands alone, and when the leprechaun stands alone, he’s just a dweeby little leprechaun.
Without Cruz, the media lost interest in protecting and shaping Beto into something’s he’s not, and without the full force of the media pouring all of their propaganda powers into one man to make him Bobby Kennedy, all that’s left is Beto, and Beto is not all that impressive on his own.
I am running to serve you as the next president. The challenges we face are the greatest in living memory. No one person can meet them on their own. Only this country can do that, and only if we build a movement that includes all of us. Say you're in: http://BetoORourke.com
Beto Combines the Worst of Kerry, Biden, Ted Kennedy, Obama, Warren
Beto married an heiress like John F’n Kerry; he drives like Ted Kennedy (including his attempt to drunkenly flee the scene); he is as miserly as Joe Biden in his charitable giving; like Obama, he has no real experience but has a very high opinion of himself; and he is an Irishman posing as a Hispanic in the same way Elizabeth Warren posed as an American Indian.
On top of that, he was a hacker who stole other people’s credit card numbers.
This is one flawed leprechaun.
Straight. White. Male.
When you are running to be nominated for president by a political party obsessed with identity politics (because they have no ideas), being a straight, white guy is a major deficit — especially when you are up against two other straight, white males (Biden and Bernie) who already enjoy a sizable following.
On the identity politics front, the only thing Beto has going for him is that he’s a beta male, not at all masculine, but betas don’t win presidential elections.
If Beto the beta were smart, he would reboot his candidacy for a third time by announcing he is transitioning into a woman. This would not only shake up his campaign; we would all believe him.
Trump Has His Number and Everyone Knows It
“Pocahontas.” “Low Energy Jeb.” “Little Marco.” “Crazy Bernie.” “Alfred E. Neuman.” “Crooked Hillary.”
The key to defeating someone is to define them before they can define you. Trump’s genius is his ability to do this with a nickname that sticks … and has the additional benefit of getting under that person’s skin because it’s true.
Trump never bothered to hit O’Rourke with a nickname, but once he ridiculed Beto’s flailing arm movements, everyone knew it was over.
“I think he’s got a lot of hand movement,” Trump said. “I’ve never seen so much hand movement. I said, ‘Is he crazy or is that just how he acts?’ I’ve never seen so much hand movement. I watched him a little while this morning. … I’ve actually never seen anything quite like it. Study it. I’m sure you’ll agree. ”
You cannot win a presidential election if you are this easy to ridicule, and Beto is absurdly easy to mock.
Beto the Gaffe Machine
Farmers need to give up their fair share of crops to fight global warming.
Other than trying to appease the extreme left, I have no idea what Beto stands for, where he wants to take the country. All he does is run around, stand on the places where people eat their food, flail like a maniac, and spew platitudes…
He’s not a presidential candidate as much as he’s a middle-aged child out on a journey to explore himself.
Beto’s not a leader; he’s a wanderer.
Without it being Beto vs. Cruz or Beto vs. a Republican, the media are no longer interested in protecting him from his spazzy self, and without those billions and billions of dollars in corporate propaganda turning him into something he’s not, Beto’s just a weird little entitled white guy leprechaun who married money and still doesn’t give to charity.
Nolte: Beto O’Rourke Says His Campaign Sacrifices Make Up for Miserly Charitable Donations
Fake Hispanic Beto O’Rourke was confronted at a town hall about his miserly campaign donations and responded in such a narcissistic fashion, I suffered a Barry Obama flashback.
According to his tax returns, since 2008, the Irishman O’Rourke has donated less than one percent of his considerable income to charity.
In 2017, he earned a healthy $366,455, but his reported charitable donations totaled just $1,166. In other words, he donated less than one-third of one-percent to charity.
Over the last ten years, the Irishman O’Rourke reported an average annual income of $340,613 but “donated an average of just $2,430 to charity per year during that time, or 0.7 percent,” reports The Washington Free Beacon.
That gross dollar donation of $2,430 is also less than half of what the average American who makes considerably less than the Irishman donates to charity. The IRS reports that those in the $200,00 to $250,000 tax bracket donate an average of $5,472 annually.
“The most egregious disparity between reported income and charitable giving occurred in 2015, when O’Rourke earned $377,151 but donated just $867 to charity—just 0.2 percent of his total income,” the Free Beacon reports. “His most generous year—and the only time he came close to the national average of between two and five percent of total income—was 2013, when he reported charitable donations of $12,900 (4.3 percent) after earning $301,092.”
There are also no reports anywhere of the Irishman O’Rourke donating any of his wealth to the U.S. Treasury — in other words, living the change he wants for the rest of us through tax increases.
In other words, the Irishman O’Rourke is not donating much money to private charity and not donating to the “common good” by way of the U.S. Treasury. But as a means to save as much as he can on taxes, he is itemizing those meager donations.
What’s more, the Irishman O’Rourke’s wife is an heiress whose father is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. So it’s not like they are pinching pennies over there.
Anyway, in another example of the American people doing the job the media won’t, the Irishman O’Rourke was confronted with the news about his miserly charitable giving at a town hall event in Virginia on Tuesday, and he responded by lecturing the audience about how the sacrifices he’s making on the campaign trail, the personal sacrifice he’s making in his quest for the presidency, should be good enough.
The questioner, a student at the University of Virginia, asked why her sister, a woman just one year out of college and who makes a lot less money than the Irishman O’Rourke, donated more to charity than he did.
I’ve served in public office since 2005. I do my best to contribute to the success of my community, of my state, and now, of my country. There are ways that I do this that are measurable and there are ways that I do this that are immeasurable. There are charities that we donate to that we’ve recorded and itemized, others that we have donated to that we have not.
But I’m doing everything that I can right now, spending this time with you — not with our kiddos, not back home in El Paso — because I want to sacrifice everything to make sure that we meet this moment of truth with everything that we’ve got.
Don’t you see, America, the Fake Hispanic’s charitable gift to America is Beto: he is his selfless gift to America; his very presence is a magnanimous act of charitable giving.
So far, at least where it counts — in the polling — the Irishman O’Rourke’s presidential campaign has failed to live up to the national media hype.
The shallow media love the guy, the even shallower celebrity culture loves the guy, donors love the guy, but this Hot New Thing remains mired in single digits, way behind two ancient white guys — former Vice President Joe Biden and socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). In fact, in the most recent national poll, he fell behind Pete Buttigieg to fourth place.
The media might find Beto all kinds of adorbs, but he’s also kind of a weirdo and obviously not catching on despite the worshipful coverage.
This terrible answer regarding his miserly charitable giving is not in and of itself disqualifying, but the incompetence of the answer, the unpreparedness, will worry those looking for someone tough and prepared enough to take on President Trump.
We can now add a fourth item to Jim Treacher’s list of what we already knew about Beto:
He culturally appropriates like Indian Princess Elizabeth Warren.
Beto O'Rourke speaks to thousands of people gathered to protest a U.S./Mexico border wall being pushed by President Donald Trump February 11, 2019 in El Paso, Texas.(Photo by Christ Chavez/Getty Images)
(CNSNews.com) - Newly minted presidential contender Robert Francis "Beto" O'Rourke wants to open lawful paths of immigration to potentially millions more people.
"And all of us, wherever you live, can acknowledge that if immigration is a problem, it's the best possible problem for this country to have. And we should ensure that there are lawful paths to work, to be with family and to flee persecution," O'Rourke, from the border city of El Paso, said in his video announcement.
With continuous and energetic hand-gesturing, and his wife Amy looking on, O'Rourke echoed the "Yes we can" campaigns of Barack Obama:
"This is a defining moment of truth for this country and for every single one of us. The challenges that we face right now, the interconnected crises in our economy, our democracy and our climate have never been greater, and they will either consume us or they will afford us the greatest opportunity to unleash the genius of the United States of America.
"In other words, this moment of peril produces perhaps the greatest moment of promise for this country and for everyone inside of it."
And here starts the "we can" theme:
We can begin by fixing our democracy and ensuring that our government works for everyone and not just corporations.
We can invest in the dignity of those who work and those who seek to work.
We can ensure that every single American can see a doctor and be well enough to live to their full potential.
And all of us, wherever you live, can acknowledge that if immigration is a problem, it's the best possible problem for this country to have. And we should ensure that there are lawful paths to work, to be with family and to flee persecution.
We can listen to and lift up rural America.
We can work on real justice reform and confront the hard truths of slavery and segregation and suppression in these United States of America.
We can reassert our global leadership and end these decades-long wars, and be there for every woman and man who has served in them.
And perhaps most importantly of all, because our very existence depends on it, we can unleash the ingenuity and creativity of millions of Americans who want to be ensure that we squarely confront the challenge of climate change before it's too late.
He promised to run a "positive" campaign that seeks to unite a divided country.
The video announcement came out just before the morning cable shows began at 6 a.m.; and it coincides with a gushing profile in Vanity Fair, complete with photographs by celebrity photographer Annie Liebovitz.
O'Rourke, a former U.S. congressman, lost his 2018 campaign for the U.S. Senate to incumbent Republican Ted Cruz.
SERVING THE BILLIONAIRE CLASS
“Restructuring El Paso: O’Rourke supported a plan in 2006 to redevelop downtown El Paso by taking down tenements and gentrifying the area. His father, billionaire William Sanders, was involved in the project. The plan angered barrio residents and small business owners, who feared they would lose their homes through the eminent domain process.”
Background: O’Rourke earned a B.A. in English from Columbia University in New York. While studying, he worked as an intern on Capitol Hill for the office of former Rep. Ron Coleman (D-TX). After working a few jobs, as an internet service provider and at a publishing company, he returned to El Paso where he was born. There he sat on the city council from 2005 to 2011. He served as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 2013 to 2019. O’Rourke ran an unsuccessful campaign against Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in 2018, despite running the most expensive Senate campaign in U.S. history.
Healthcare: O’Rourke considers healthcare, “a basic human right, not a privilege,” and opposed the idea of repealing Obamacare. He supported expanding Medicaid coverage to prevent childbirth-related deaths, as well as covering, “vulnerable children, the disabled, and the elderly.” He wanted politicians to focus on, “achieving universal healthcare coverage- whether it be through a single payer system, a dual system, or otherwise - so that we can ensure everyone is able to see a provider when it will do the most good and will deliver healthcare in the most affordable, effective way possible.”
Immigration: "Absolutely, I'd take the wall down," O’Rourke told MSNBC's Chris Hayes in February. The former representative supported the DREAM Act and “modernizing” the visa system to allow U.S. businesses to seek employees for jobs, “that American workers can’t fill.”
Environment: O’Rourke said in 2012 that he would work with members of the House to come up with plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a level that can be absorbed by the ecosystem. “I believe that in tackling climate change and the greatest environmental threat we have ever faced,” he said. “We need to take unprecedented action in building a foundation for a clean energy economy. Harmful emissions that contribute to climate change also pollute our air and water. Climate change threatens our food supply, our security and the complex ecosystem that sustains humanity.” O’Rourke is also a supporter of the Green New Deal, calling it the best proposal he's seen to combat climate change.
Economy: O’Rourke supported federal stimulus spending. He co-sponsored the Minimum Wage Fairness Act, which requires a $10.10 per hour federal minimum wage by 2016. The former congressman said he wanted, “policies that encourage companies to focus on returning investments back to their consumer, their employees, and to the community.”
Criminal Justice: On Monday, O’Rourke told supporters that he will push for completely legalized marijuana across the nation and call for expunging records of people imprisoned for possession. “Giving low-level offenders a second chance no matter the color of their skin or the economic status they hold can create opportunity for all of us,” he wrote in an email to supporters. O’Rourke also called for non-violent offenders to receive alternative sentences to prison and to get access to rehabilitation programs.
Gun Control: O’Rourke advocated for universal background checks to regulateonline and gun-show sales. He also wants to ban the sale of, “weapons of war and high-capacity magazines.”
Abortion: O’Rourke is pro-abortion. He co-sponsored the Women’s Health Protection Act in 2013 as well as bills S.217 and H.R.448 in 2015, which prohibit the passage of certain abortion restrictions. He said that he want to ensure, “that a woman’s right to choose is not compromised by limited access to safe and legal abortion services or family planning help.”
Restructuring El Paso: O’Rourke supported a plan in 2006 to redevelop downtown El Paso by taking down tenements and gentrifying the area. His father, billionaire William Sanders, was involved in the project. The plan angered barrio residents and small business owners, who feared they would lose their homes through the eminent domain process.
Denies Fleeing the Scene: In his 2018 debate with Sen.Cruz, Beto claimed that he didn't attempt to flee the scene of a crime back in August 1998. Beto was arrested on DWI charges east of the New Mexico border. The Anthony Police Department confirmed the authenticity of a 12-page police report attached to a Houston Chronicle article, which states that an, "unidentified motorist ‘then turned on his overhead lights to warn oncoming traffic and to try to get the defendant (O’Rourke) to stop.'"
Only Passed One Bill in Congress: During his time as a House representative, O’Rourke helped pass only one bill. In 2016, H.R.5873 went into law, which designated, "the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 511 East San Antonio Avenue in El Paso, Texas, as the 'R.E. Thomason Federal Building and United States Courthouse.'"
Flip/Flop on Cop Support: Civil rights groups were angered by O’Rourke’s votefor the Thin Blue Line Act in 2017, which, “calls for death penalty to anyone who kills or attempts killing ‘a law enforcement officer, firefighter, or other first responder.’” O’Rourke also called modern law enforcement, "The new Jim Crow," and last year expressed his admiration for the NFL players who took a knee in retaliation to acts of police brutality against black people.
Demeaning Comments About Women: O’Rourke wrote a review of the Broadway musical "The Will Rogers Follies" while studying at Columbia University. In it, he criticized the, "perma-smile actresses whose only qualifications seem to be their phenomenally large breasts and tight buttocks." O’Rourke apologized for his article, saying that he had, “no excuse for making disrespectful and demeaning comments about women."
Beto O’Rourke Immigration Plan: No Walls; Amnesty for Dreamers, Parents, ‘Millions More’
Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX) isn’t yet a candidate for the Democrat presidential election, but he is already making clear his stance on immigration — open borders and amnesty for all of the people in the country illegally.
Media outlets, including the Houston Chronicle, are reporting O’Rourke has released a “10-point plan.”
After three terms in Congress and an unsuccessful bid for the U.S. Senate, El Paso Democrat Beto O’Rourke has made clear his view that immigrants should be welcomed as “human beings” and that “walls end lives.”
Now, signaling that he may soon announce a 2020 White House run, O’Rourke is putting a finer point on his immigration agenda, releasing a 10-point plan that calls for citizenship for both “Dreamers” and their parents, as well as for “millions more” who now live in the U.S. illegally.
And not only is O’Rourke against building more walls along the U.S. border with Mexico but he has expressed support for tearing down existing barriers that divide El Paso from Mexico.
“Yes, absolutely. I’d take the wall down,” O’Rourke said in an MSNBC interview.
One politico scientist with the University of Houston quoted in the Chronicle report said this position puts O’Rourke on the left side of the ever-growing Democrat presidential field.
“That is fairly to the left of where most of the people in the Democratic field are,” Brandon Rottinghaus said.
The Chronicle noted that tearing down walls was not on the immigration policy list, “an omission that is likely to raise new questions about his border policy positions.”
One strange point in O’Rourke’s immigration plan is the argument that a wall would make it harder for people here illegally to return home.
“Here’s why,” O’Rourke wrote, “as we made it harder for people to cross into the United States, we made it less likely that once here they would attempt to go back to their home country. Fearing an increasingly militarized border, circular patterns of migration became linear.”
His amnesty proposal is sweeping and includes all of the Dreamers, their parents — whom he calls “the original Dreamers” — and would bring “millions more out of the shadows and on a path to citizenship by ensuring that they register with the government to gain status to legally work, pay taxes and contribute even more to our country’s success.”
Republicans may be cheering O’Rourke’s radical stance on immigration.
“He is now showing, even more, how out of touch he is and how little he cares for American citizens and those who have followed the law to seek to become citizens,” Texas Republican Party Chairman James Dickey said. “Creating a whole new class of citizens whose status is a direct reward for breaking the law is just his latest dangerous extremist position.”
“O’Rourke’s new policy paper does not call for abolishing ICE, but it does call for, an ‘end to the global war on drugs’ which he says has accelerated the erosion of civil society in Latin America and helped produce the resulting flow of immigrants and refugees,” the Chronicle reported.
During his unsuccessful race to replace Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), O’Rourke’s Senate campaign website spelled out some of his immigration priorities:
• End the militarization of our immigration enforcement system and close private immigration prisons and detention centers that profit from locking up families.
• Pass the DREAM Act and ensure that undocumented immigrants who were brought here as children, known as ‘Dreamers’, find a permanent home and citizenship in the U.S.
• Ensure that those who come to our borders seeking refuge from violence and persecution are given a fair opportunity to present their claims and guaranteed due process under our laws.
• Improve the immigration system to encourage and facilitate family reunification, education, and the investment of talent in our country.
• Modernize the visa system to allow U.S. employers to find workers for jobs that American workers can’t fill.
• Reform our immigration laws to legalize the status of millions of immigrants already in our country and ensure a fair path to citizenship for those inspired by the opportunity and ideals that we present to the rest of the world.
O’Rourke recently met with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) about a different kind of campaign in which he would toss his hat in the ring to unseat Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX).
Nothing in O’Rourke’s plan that was reported in the media addressed curtailing drug and human trafficking at the border.
When "Beto" O'Rourke recently questioned whether the basic principles of the Constitution still apply in today's world, what exactly did he mean? Which principles would he reject, and what new principles would he substitute for our governance?
At a time when our Constitution is increasingly attacked as unfair, immoral andobsolete, or simply irrelevant, the pronouncements of political figures such as O'Rourke matter. O'Rourke is a rising star of the left and a presumed 2020 presidential candidate who, as it happens, comes from Texas, a state with a large number of electoral votes.
To get an idea of O'Rourke's principles, we might look to his recent failed Senate run. His campaign platform lists 17 major issue categories. Within O'Rourke's 17 categories are over 75 specific initiatives.
As might be expected, a review of his platform's top initiatives reveals a strong alignment with the progressive left on nearly every point: health care a "basic human right," ensuring "guaranteed due process" as well as citizenship for illegal immigrants, correcting "bias" in the criminal justice system, increasing public funding for "underserved communities," "protecting" teachers' pensions, and much more.
Within this potpourri of regulation, handouts, and carveouts, we can discern a common thread: a larger role for government -- specifically the federal government -- tacitly justified by a deluge of empathy.
O'Rourke's platform aligns neatly with Franklin D. Roosevelt's "second bill of rights" of the 1940s, which viewed the Constitution as inadequate and proposed a vast expansion of federal power and reach as a correction. In more recent times, FDR's view was embraced by Barack Obama, who described the Constitution dismissively as a "charter of negative liberties." O'Rourke is only the latest in a long line of progressives who plainlyhave trouble with the Constitution.
Yet if O'Rourke's platform contains any actual new "principles of governance" that are somehow superior to the Constitution's and presumably should supersede them, they are obscured by the gratuitous empathy that motivates his initiatives. O'Rourke simply identifies numerous "victims" and makes himself their gallant champion.
In the realm of civics, it is vital to be skeptical of empathy. Viewed cynically, empathy is politically useful inasmuch as it makes it easy to seduce the persuadable to your side, and it opens the door wide to politically useful virtue-signaling.
But viewed realistically, empathy in civic discourse is insidious and corrosive. It is wholly incompatible with rational judgment and sober decision-making -- hallmarks of good governance. Instead, empathy empowers a few individuals to hijack civic priorities, irrespective of facts and in circumvention of just process. Empathy demands compassionate action regardless of any obstacles -- never mind that resources are always and everywhere limited. Empathy privileges certain preferred choices over others, without regard to their relative worthiness -- necessarily trampling the legitimate rights of the truly worthy. Empathy silences opposing points of view, as its claim to the moral high ground makes it virtually immune to criticism.
Does O'Rourke actually understand the real principles at the foundation of the Constitution? Does he appreciate their wisdom and importance?
The Founders were learned men, keen students of human history and human nature, who had endured tyranny firsthand. They understood human weakness and fallibility. They observed the corrupting influence of power on leadership. They appreciated the essential limits and inadequacies of every sort of governance and authority. They respected that individuals, men and women -- and only they -- are the proper guardians of their destiny.
These are durable, unchanging, inherent principles of humankind, and the Constitution embodies this found wisdom. In devising a new form of government, the Founders incorporated these understandings through a variety of structural limitations, controls and "checks and balances" upon government, and upon those who hold office. The Bill of Rights further embodies key concepts of liberty, most importantly the principle of inalienable rights, that additionally restrict the powers of the federal government. This formula of restrained government as an enabler of unprecedented social and economic freedom, combined with individual enterprise, produced the wealthiest and most beneficent nation on Earth, and we are its fortunate inheritors.
Beto O'Rourke is simply wrong to declare these principles obsolete. Human nature has not changed. The passage of "230-plus years" since the Constitution's adoption makes no difference whatsoever.
Is O'Rourke merely ignorant of this basic truth? O'Rourke calls for a "discussion" on these principles, but it is hard to see this as anything other than their implicit rejection. More likely, holding his own views as incontrovertible, O'Rourke arrogantly seeks to control the affairs of American citizens and will use the power of government to achieve his ends. For such purposes the Constitution is decidedly an obstacle and not an enabler.
But who is Beto, or any of his philosophical predecessors and cohorts, to make intimate decisions and judgments for others' lives, families and destinies? Election to office is not such a license, as the Founders understood. It takes stupendous hubris, conceit, and a wholly unjustified sense of personal righteousness, to usurp this privilege.
Only a sound and respected republican Constitution will prevent people like O'Rourke from putting the government in charge of literally everything.
Texas Finds 95,000 Non-US Citizens Registered To Vote -- 58,000 Have Actually Voted In Recent Elections
On Friday January 25, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced that 95,000 individuals registered to vote in the Lone Star State have been identified as "Non-US Citizens," meaning they are illegally registered to vote. Further evidence brought forth by Texas Secretary of State David Whitely confirms that 58,000 of these individuals have broken the law and voted in "one or more" recent elections.
“Every single instance of illegal voting threatens democracy in our state and deprives individual Texans of their voice," AG Paxton said in a statement. "My Election Fraud Unit stands ready to investigate and prosecute crimes against the democratic process when needed."
VOTER FRAUD ALERT: The @TXsecofstate discovered approx 95,000 individuals identified by DPS as non-U.S. citizens have a matching voter registration record in TX, approx 58,000 of whom have voted in TX elections. Any illegal vote deprives Americans of their voice.
According to a press release issued by the Attorney General's office, while non-US citizens are legally allowed to obtain driver's licenses and other forms of ID, "only citizens are eligible to vote." Furthermore, the Sec. of State's office notes that "Voting in an election in which the person knows he or she is not eligible to vote is a second-degree felony in the State of Texas. "
Sec. of State Whitely discovered a "total of approximately 95,000 individuals" illegally registered to vote after a year-long evaluation of Texas county voting registrars. Today, his office announced that 58,000 of these individuals actually voted in one or more election.
"Integrity and efficiency of elections in Texas require accuracy of our state's voter rolls, and my office is committed to using all available tools under the law to maintain an accurate list of registered voters. Our agency has provided extensive training opportunities to county voter registrars so that they can properly perform list maintenance activities in accordance with federal and state law, which affords every registered voter the chance to submit proof of eligibility," Sec. of State Whitely told the media.
The report notes that Sec. of State Whitely "immediately provided the data in its possession to the Texas Attorney General's office, as the Secretary of State has no statutory enforcement authority to investigate or prosecute alleged illegal activity in connection with an election."
"Nothing is more vital to preserving our Constitution than the integrity of our voting process, and my office will do everything within its abilities to solidify trust in every election in the state of Texas. I applaud Secretary of State Whitley for his proactive work in safeguarding our elections," AG Paxton added.
Top 5 Voter Fraud Cases Along Texas Border in 2018… which are the only counties that voted for La Raza Beto!
In January, authorities arrested Ernestina Barron, 50, a Rio Grande City school district employee, on three counts of election fraud and three counts of a fraudulent application for a mail-in ballot for filling out applications illegally for other voters in an earlier election. Days later, officials charged Erika Lozano-Pelayo, 37, after she purportedly submitted an absentee ballot for a voter who died but remained on the voter registration rolls. A third woman, Belinda Garcia, 45, surrendered to the Starr County Special Crimes Unit on a charge of fraudulently applying for a mail-in ballot. She reportedly said the voter was disabled but this was not true.
2. 14 Hidalgo County residents charged in voter fraud scheme.
A total of 14 residents were arrested for their purported roles in a voter scheme that recruited people to falsely claim residential addresses so they could vote in specific races and manipulate the results of a 2017 Edinburg city election. Investigators with the Hidalgo County DA’s office, the Texas Rangers, and Office of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton initially arrested four of the suspects in May 2018, all of whom illegally voted in that 2017 election. One was a convicted human smuggler serving probation who voted illegally. Two claimed to live in the city’s limits, but, in fact, resided elsewhere. Another suspect was only charged with making a false statement on a voter registration form. In June, county officials charged a fifth person with two counts of illegal voting. Then, in November, nine more were arrested. The investigation continues and more arrests may come in 2019.
3. Non-U.S. citizen indicted for leading “voter assistance” ring that targeted elderly and disabled voters in Hidalgo County.
In June, a Hidalgo County grand jury indicted Marcela Guttierrez, a non-U.S. citizen on an illegal voting charge for misleading a voter to believe she was demonstrating how to use a voting machine when, actually, Guttierez voted for a slate of candidates she was paid to support in a June 2016 Hidalgo city runoff election. Two of her fellow campaign workers, Sylvia Arojano and Sara Ornelas, also were charged with seven counts of unlawfully assisting voters. Reportedly, Arojano is married to a school board member for the Hidalgo County school district.
4. Poll watcher accuses Hidalgo city official of unlawfully assisting a voter in the 2018 midterm.
In December, the Texas Secretary of State escalated a voter fraud complaint to Paxton’s office. A poll watcher accused Hidalgo City Councilman Rodolfo “Rudy” Franz of unlawfully assisting a voter during the 2018 midterm election’s early voting period. The complaint alleged that Franz suggested and instructed the voter on who to vote for on their ballot even though Franz was asked multiple times by election workers to stop.
5. Texas Democratic Party accused of encouraging noncitizens to vote in 2018 November midterm in Rio Grande Valley.
An October complaint accused the Texas Democratic Party of mailing “altered” voter registration applications to noncitizens in the Rio Grande Valley. The mailers allegedly had the U.S. citizenship box pre-checked, creating false claims to voter eligibility. The document urged recipients to vote in the November midterm election. The box asking if a voter will be 18 years of age on or before election day also was pre-filled. The Public Interest Legal Foundation, an election integrity law firm, alerted Starr and Hidalgo county district attorneys, Paxton, Texas Secretary of State Rolando Pablos, and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) about the complaint. Subsequently, Pablos referred the complaint to Paxton’s office for further investigation.
Texas AG to prosecute three indicted on nine counts of voter fraud in Nueces County 2016 Democratic primary runoff.
Paxton announced his office would prosecute three residents indicted by a grand jury on nine counts of voter fraud stemming back to a May 2016 Nueces County Democratic primary runoff election. County Clerk Kara Sands presented data to a local commissioners court in January that unmasked the alleged voter fraud.
Salvadoran illegal immigrant living in East Texas since the 1980s was indicted on voter fraud and immigration violations charges.
In June, Texas prosecutors indicted Salvadoran national Mario Obdulio Orellana, 57, who lived illegally in the state since the 1980s. Officials said Orellana purportedly falsified documents to obtain a U.S. birth certificate, applied for and received a U.S. passport and a Social Security number. Prosecutors said Orellano claimed to be a U.S. citizen when he registered to vote and fraudulently cast a ballot in the 2016 presidential election.
Mexican national faces deportation after pleading guilty to voter fraud in Texas.
In September, Mexican national Laura Janeth Garza, 38, pleaded guilty to voter fraud charges for voting in three election cycles, including 2016. She did so by stealing a Texan’s identity to obtain a U.S. passport and Social Security number. The American citizen victim learned about the fraud when she tried to apply for a passport in her own name and discovered Garza already did so. Garza was sentenced to 10 years in jail, after which she will be deported.
Texas AG: Democratic Party leader funded “voter fraud ring” in Tarrant County.
In October, Paxton’s office indicted four North Texas women for their alleged roles in a “voter fraud ring” that targeted the elderly in select northern Fort Worth precincts during the March 2016 Democrat Party primary election. Subsequently released court documents revealed the ringleader, Leticia Sanchez, 57, allegedly paid her co-defendants with funds provided by the then Tarrant County Democratic Party Executive Director, Stuart Clegg. The scheme reportedly intended to influence the outcome of certain down-ballot races. Allegedly, they did this by “seeding” or proliferating mail-in ballots through forged signatures and altering historical applications, then resubmitting them without the voter’s knowledge.
In Texas, illegal voting is a second degree felony punishable up to 20 years in $10,000 fine. Making a false statement on a voter registration application is a Class B misdemeanor.
Follow Merrill Hope, a member of the original Breitbart Texas team, on Facebook and Twitter.
Ann Coulter: Surprise! That 'cheap' immigrant labor costs us a lot
BY ANN COULTER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 06/23/19 11:00 AM EDT 1,443
We could pay for every idiotic boondoggle proposed by the 300 Democratic presidential candidates if the current president would simply keep his central campaign promise to build a border wall and deport illegal aliens. (Back off — “illegal alien” is the term used in federal law.)
A 2017 study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) found that illegal aliens cost the American taxpayer — on net — $116 billion a year.
That’s pretty high, but the actual number is more likely triple that.
Straight out of the chute, FAIR assumes that there are only 12.5 million illegal immigrants in the country, approximately the same number we’ve been told for the last 15 years as we impotently watched hundreds of thousands more stream across our border, year after year after year.
The 12 million figure is based on the self-reports of illegal aliens to U.S. census questionnaires. (Hello! I’m from the federal government. Did you break the law to enter our country? Now tell the truth! We have no way of knowing the answer, and if you say yes, you could be subjecting yourself to immediate deportation.)
More serious studies put the number considerably higher. At the low end, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Yale study last year put the number of illegals at 22 million. Yet Bear Stearns investment bank had it at 20 million back in 2005, and Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporters Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele reported in 2004 that 3 million illegals were crossing each year — so simple math would put it at well over 60 million today.
So, right there, the FAIR study underestimates the tab for illegal immigration by at least a factor of three, meaning the real cost is about $350 billion a year. That’s triple what Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) free college tuition plan will cost in a decade.
I don’t mean to bash FAIR. It’s sweet how immigration restrictionists always bend over backward to be impartial. But their circumspection doesn’t mean the rest of us have to ignore reality.
Journalists’ usual method of determining the cost of “unauthorized entries” — as they say — is to phone some fanatically pro-illegal immigration group, such as Cato or CASA, and get a quote sneering at anyone else’s estimate of the costs.
In a deeply investigated 2017 Washington Post article, for example, the Post cited the “belief” that illegal aliens “drain government resources.” Without looking at any facts or figures, the reporter disputed that “belief” with a quote from Cathryn Ann Paul of CASA: "It's a myth that people who are undocumented don't pay taxes."
So there you have it! Cathryn Ann Paul says it’s a “myth.” Now let’s move on to the vibrant diversity being gifted to us by illegal aliens.
Earlier this year, The New York Times mocked President Trump’s tweet saying illegal immigration costs "250 Billion Dollars a year" by quoting big-business shill Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute: "There's no basis to any of those numbers about the fiscal cost." Am I doing OK, Mr. Koch?
The Times further explained that Trump’s figure “did not take into account the economic benefits of undocumented immigrants” — for example, the surprisingly affordable maids of some reporters.
Randy Capps of the Migration Policy Institute told the Times that studies of the cost of illegal immigration count only the costs or only the benefits. “They tend to talk past each other, unfortunately,” he said.
Well, the FAIR study counted both. For every dollar illegal immigrants pay in taxes — fees, Social Security withholding taxes, fuel surcharges, sales and property taxes — they collect $7 in government benefits: schooling, English as a second language classes, hospital costs, school lunch programs, Medicaid births, police resources and so on.
Legal immigrant households also were big winners, receiving $4,344 more in government services than they paid in taxes. (Our government does a fantastic job deciding who can immigrate here.)
Only with nonimmigrant households does the government almost break even, doling out a mere $310 more in benefits than those households pay in taxes. (Surprise! The deficit is on track to hit $1 trillion next year.)
Like FAIR estimates, Rector’s study accepted the U.S. Census Bureau’s allegation that we’ve had the same number of illegal aliens in this country since the beginning of the Bush administration. Also like the FAIR study, Rector’s examination counted only the obvious costs imposed on us by illegal immigrants — things such as health care, education, fire and police protection, parks, roads, and bridges.
But there are all sorts of costs that no one ever counts. What about Americans’ lost wages to illegal immigrants who are willing to work for $7 an hour? Even if they don’t apply for unemployment insurance, how do we count the cost of suicide, opioid addiction or other anti-social behavior?
Why not count the lost wages themselves? We want to know the cost-benefit ratio to those already here, not to the new total that includes the illegal immigrants. If it's a net negative to those already here — well, that's the point.
And what was the tab of illegal immigration to the family of Kate Steinle, the young woman shot dead by an illegal immigrant in San Francisco in 2015? There were obvious, tragic costs, of course — but there also are hidden costs, such as the lost productivity of the people close to Kate for years to come, the additional police presence around the San Francisco pier where she was killed and the reduction in tourist dollars.
We hear about the great largesse bestowed upon us by illegal immigrants all day long. The only hidden benefits are the warm feelings of self-righteousness that the CASA spokesman gets when bleating about illegals and the happiness that cheap servants bring to the top 10 percent.
In Maine, overdose deaths from opioids, mostly Mexican heroin, have skyrocketed in the last decade, up from an already catastrophic 100 to 200 deaths per year to more than double that — 418 in 2018. What is the cost of the state legislature spending weeks debating a bill to provide heroin addicts with Narcan? The cost of more crime and more police?
This isn’t to gratuitously mention the fact that completely unvetted, self-chosen illegal immigrants can, in fact, be rapists, drug dealers and cop-killers. It is to say that no analysis of illegal immigration’s cost can ever capture the full price.
New citizens stand during a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) naturalization ceremony at the New York Public Library, July 3, 2018. (Shannon Stapleton/Reuters)
Making the click-through worthwhile: How the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates want to make being an American citizen simply a matter of location and desire, instead of law; another allegation of hideous behavior from Donald Trump from the mid 1990s; the promised big roundup of thriller novels; and a heartfelt “thank you” to you, the readers.
The 2020 Democrats Want to Redefine Citizenship
Sometimes our political debates are furious and deeply divided because of demagogues, clickbait media, and hype. But sometimes our political debates are furious because they reflect a conflict of fundamentally opposed worldviews, where no compromise is feasible.
Many of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates want to fundamentally redefine who is American — that is, if you show up from another country and want to be here, you ought to enjoy the full rights of citizenship and all of the benefits provided to American citizens.
Bernie Sanders put it clearly: “We’re going to make public colleges and universities tuition-free and open that to the undocumented.” In other words, if are a citizen of another country and you want a free college education, all you have to do is show up in the United States and get accepted at any one of the 1,626 public colleges in the United States.
Needless to say, if enacted, this would bring a flood of people from all around the world, eager to enjoy the benefits of a college degree, paid for by the U.S. taxpayer. (In case you’re wondering, there are a handful of other countries in Europe that offer very low or nominal tuition rates to American students, but at most of those schools, competition for the limited slots is high.)
It is not only Sanders. Beto O’Rourke says that the United States should contemplate eliminating the citizenship exam because it is a structural barrier to immigrants. Indeed, it is meant to be a structural barrier to those who lack English proficiency in speaking, reading, and writing, and civics knowledge. There was once a broad consensus that English proficiency and civics knowledge were required to be a good American citizen. The 2020 Democrats no longer believe this to be true.
Ten candidates, including Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Julian Castro, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren believe that crossing the border or entering the country without permission should no longer be a crime. On May 7, 2018, the Department of Justice announced they would prosecute all adult aliens apprehended crossing the border illegally, with no exception for asylum seekers or those with minor children. (If that policy was repealed, border crossers would still go through a civil legal process that could lead to their deportation.)
Booker, Steve Bullock, Bill de Blasio, Kirsten Gillibrand, Marianne Williamson, and Andrew Yang believe the federal government should NOT require the use of E-Verify to check the legal status of all hires by private employers. Another nine candidates said they only support that idea as part of a “compromise” on immigration reform.
Sanders contends that adding the question “Are you a U.S. citizen?” to the 2020 census would constitute “absolutely bigoted language.” Amy Klobuchar contends that if the question is included, she would, as president, require a “recount” and O’Rourke threatens that if it is included, he will re-do the entire census a second time without the question. Even John Hickenlooper, allegedly one of the centrists in the swarm of candidates, contends that asking the question on the census for is “ corrupt and illegal.”
We all have our notions of what constitutes an injustice. To many Democrats, the longstanding practice of enforcement of immigration law — policies in place throughout the Obama administration — is an inherent injustice. In their minds, being an American citizen is simply a matter of wanting to be here.
No doubt, Trump’s history with women is sordid and scandalous and full of crass, crude, and objectifying behavior. On the other hand, we just went through a Supreme Court nomination fight that illustrated the limited options for a man who is accused of sexual assault with no evidence. We also know how conditional the “believe all women” rallying cry is.
In Carroll’s account, sometime in “the fall of 1995 or the spring of 1996” she ran into Trump in the early evening at Bergdorf Goodman, a luxury department store based on Fifth Avenue in Midtown Manhattan in New York City. After some small talk, she agreed to try on lingerie in front of Trump for fun. She said there were no other customers or sales attendants in the Bergdorf Goodman lingerie department, and no other potential witnesses. She writes that she has checked and that the department store did not keep security tapes from that time. She describes herself as laughing through much of the experience. “I don’t remember if any person or attendant is now in the lingerie department. I don’t remember if I run for the elevator or if I take the slow ride down on the escalator. As soon as I land on the main floor, I run through the store and out the door — I don’t recall which door — and find myself outside on Fifth Avenue.” Carroll says did not report it to the police but told it to two friends. The two friends, contacted by New York magazine and not identified, confirmed Carroll described an experience like this.
Carroll is not seeking a police investigation or criminal charges. She insists this is not just a ploy to sell books; if it were, the book would be all about the president instead of the variety of creeps she’s encountered in her life. She appears to believe that the country should know about her experience and act accordingly.
“You don’t feel like a victim?” Cooper asked.
“I was not thrown on the ground and ravished which the word rape carries so many sexual connotations. This was not sexual. It hurt. It just — it just — you know,” Carroll responded.
“But I think most people think of rape as — it is a violent assault. It is not — ,” Cooper began.
“I think most people think of rape as being sexy,” Carroll said.
“Let’s take a short break,” Cooper said.
“Think of the fantasies,” Carroll interjected.
“We will take a quick break if you can stick around. We’ll talk more on the other side,” Cooper continued.
“You’re fascinating to talk to,” Carroll said.
Do most people think of rape as being sexy?
In her account, Carroll wrote, “the struggle might simply have read as ‘sexy.’”
The Big Thriller Roundup
Last week on vacation, I finished Mark Greaney’s Agent in Place, the 2018 addition to his wildly popular series about Court Gentry, the CIA-trained “Gray Man” who can blend in just about anywhere and who has the skills and instincts to survive just about any situation. I had heard good things about the Gray Man Series, but until recently I was a bit wary: the strong, silent, brooding loner assassin protagonist can be a little tough to warm up to and enjoy. But what Agent in Place does particularly well — besides terrific research about the horrific situation in Syria as its civil war winds down, the Syrian exile community in France, and the glamorous halls of the high life in Paris – is set up a situation where the hero goes against his better judgment and agrees to pursue a mission that is one step short of suicidal. Greaney puts Gentry into a circumstance where any rational person would say, “Nope, sorry, I can’t help you, I’d like to, but doing this will almost certainly get me killed.” It’s the most desperate situation imaginable, the risks are just a Dagwood sandwich of various dangers and menaces and precarious gambles, his few allies are unreliable, and it requires sneaking into probably the single most dangerous location on earth. But the life of an innocent child hangs in the balance . . . and Gentry would have to look at himself in the mirror if he choose to not try to save the child.
Back in May, I reviewed Matthew Betley’sOverwatch, which established his recovering-alcoholic Marine officer Logan West and an ever-changing realm of national-security threats that he and his out-of-retirement comrades must chase. That’s the first in his series; the fourth book in the series, Rules of War, hits stores and ships in mid-July. With a ripped-from-the headlines relevancy, much of Rules of War is set in a rapidly-deteriorating Venezuela. Betley told me, “I wanted to set it in a crumbling third-world country, and there’s no better example of that today than Venezuela.” Last week on Dana Perino’s program on Fox News, he talked a bit about the book, and a class action lawsuit against the Department of Veterans Affairs and his recent experiences with the VA, attempting to get coverage for lung problems stemming from the burn pits in Iraq.
Also last week, I finished John A. Daly’s Blood Trade. Set shortly after 9/11, Sean Coleman is another protagonist who’s overcoming his battles with the bottle, looking for a second chance and redemption for past mistakes. Blood Trade has a lot of atmosphere, high in the Colorado mountains, with a mood of foreboding hanging over much of the action. (Those who know my favorite television series will know I’m inclined to like stories of rural small towns with secrets behind every door.) Daly takes what looks like a mundane missing-persons stories and gradually reveals a chillingly plausible plot with, a deeply relatable motive for the story’s villains, and a vivid illustration of just how far some people will go to safe a life. This book is accurately titled. Daly’s next is Safeguard, coming in October, featuring Coleman guarding a defunct nuclear silo . . . and apparently attracting the attention of a local cult.
Then there’s arguably the most anticipated thriller of the summer, Brad Thor’s Backlash featuring Scot Harvath, who’s ended up working for the U.S. Secret Service, Navy SEALs, and as a CIA contractor over the course of 18 novels. As mentioned yesterday, not only does it live up to the hype, it’s really striking for how different a story this is from the previous books in this series. The last few Harvath novels have featured him and usually a small team investigating or uncovering some sinister plot by jihadists, or China, or the Russians. Backlash blows up that familiar rhythm and is reminiscent of that Liam Nesson movie The Grey, and the classic The Fugitive, and some of Jack London’s classic survival-in-the-most-hostile-wilds stories. Almost the entire story takes place in a remote corner of the world that I suspect has never been featured in a thriller before, and the story focuses as much on Harvath’s challenge to survive psychologically intact as physically. Thor is to be saluted for willing to experiment and move away from familiar territory, both literally and figuratively.
And these are just the thriller novels I’ve gotten my hands on recently. Daniel Silva’s The New Girl comes out July 16, with Israeli spymaster Gabriel Allon crossing paths with a ruthless Saudi prince who is likely to be compared to the real-life Mohammed bin Salman.
ADDENDA: You guys really are the best readers in the world. Yesterday I mentioned that reviews on Amazon help a book find an audience, and this morning I find 27 reviews on the page, each one kind and offering some sort of insightful observation. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Someone said to me recently that I shouldn’t have said the book isn’t that political, because it covers some big topics adjacent to our modern politics — “questions of heroism, of identity, and of faith” as one reviewer put it, and “the fragile line between chaos and sanity in a society” as another described it. This is what happens when you start the creation of your villains with, “what frightens me?”
Migrants from Central America cross the Rio Bravo river to enter illegally into the United States at El Paso, Texas, June 11, 2019.(Jose Luis Gonzalez/Reuters)This is a similar border crisis to the one Obama faced in his second term, with similar challenges.
News flash: There’s a crisis at the border.
This was discovered again over the past few days when immigration attorneys talked to reporters about appalling conditions at a Border Patrol facility detaining migrant minors in Clint, Texas.
According to the lawyers, many of the kids had to sleep on the concrete floor, failed to get proper adult supervision, and didn’t routinely take showers or brush their teeth. The details were hard to read.
Assuming the account was accurate, one wonders how we could treat anyone this way, let alone children? But a lawyer who talked to the New Yorker mentioned a telling fact: The facility previously had a capacity of 104 and had never held children before. Yet it held roughly 350 children, apparently accommodated by placement of a new warehouse at the site.
All this is consistent with vast numbers of migrants, many of them families and children, flooding the border and overtaxing facilities never meant for these kinds of numbers or this demographic of migrant.
Indeed, the immigration lawyer mentioned to the New Yorker that the personnel at the Border Patrol facility were constantly receiving children and constantly transferring them over to a Health and Human Services site, and stipulated that the guards believed the children don’t belong there and should go someplace more appropriate. (Under the glare of publicity, they did.)
The broader problem is that HHS, which is supposed to get custody of migrant children from Border Patrol in short order, is itself overburdened and backed up.
Since it’s 2019, what should be properly attributed to dire circumstances and limited capacity is instead taken as evidence of President Donald Trump’s malice.
If what’s happening at the border is a product of Trump policy, it would have to involve an intricate and well-executed plan. The White House would have to convince the acting head of the Department of Homeland Security, Kevin McAleenan — who served as deputy commissioner of Customs and Border Protection under President Barack Obama — to send word down through the bureaucracy to treat children as callously as possible and not to leak word of this explosive guidance.
In the real world, a migrant influx will test even an administration more favorably inclined toward immigration. The reason that the Left can’t keep their viral images straight — often misattributing to Trump photos of kids in steel-cage holding pens during the Obama years — is that this is a similar crisis to the one Obama faced in his second term, with similar challenges.
A viral video of a Justice Department lawyer arguing before a panel of judges last week that kids don’t need toothbrushes and soap to meet the standard for “safe and sanitary” detention under the so-called Flores settlement has caused outrage. But few have stopped to note that the underlying case had to do with a district court finding that the Obama administration in 2015 was in material breach of the Flores standard (or that the DOJ lawyer was offering a technical legal argument — not a defense of mistreating kids).
All that said, once these migrants are under our care, it is our responsibility to make sure they are treated as humanely as possible. The border needs more resources. The Trump administration has been asking Congress to pass a funding package, and it should do so forthwith. To address the root cause of the crisis, it should also change the bizarre asylum rules that have forced us to release family units from Central America into the country, creating an incentive for more to come.
As long as that’s the case, we aren’t going to be able to control the border or process people coming across it in an orderly fashion. What we’re seeing is what a border crisis looks like. If we don’t like it — and we shouldn’t — it’s time for Congress to act to begin to bring it to an end.
A U.S. Customs and Border Protection border-patrol agent talks to people on the Mexican side of the border wall in San Diego, Calif., November 28, 2018. (Chris Wattie/Reuters)
If you have a swimming pool, you can be held liable if a trespassing child falls in and drowns unless you’ve taken reasonable steps to keep children from getting to the pool, like a fence. An unfenced pool (or trampoline or a discarded refrigerator that locks from the outside, among other potentially dangerous things) is thus called an “attractive nuisance.”
The loopholes in our asylum laws make our nation’s borders an attractive nuisance, as well. Of course, no matter what we do, there will always be people who will try to illegally infiltrate our borders, and it’s inevitable that some of them will die in the process — whether by drowning, exposure, dehydration, or other causes. But when we fail to take the most elementary steps to dissuade people from trying to sneak in — heck, when we reward people for sneaking in with kids in tow and making bogus asylum claims — we share the responsibility for those deaths.
The heart-wrenching photograph of a Salvadoran father and daughter who were found drowned Monday on the banks of the Rio Grande forces us to face this issue. Julian Castro was right when he said at last night’s Democratic debate, “watching that image of Oscar and his daughter, Valeria, is heartbreaking. It should also piss us all off.”
But once pissed off, how to respond? How do we make our border not be an attractive nuisance?
Castro’s answer — and the approach of virtually all Democratic candidates and elected officials — is open borders. And I no longer mean that Democrats are, in effect, calling for open borders. At last night’s debate there was no longer any pretense. Castro took the lead, followed by the rest, in calling for repeal of the criminal law against border infiltration, ending the practice of making asylum claimants take a number at ports of entry and wait their turn, the complete abolition of immigrant detention, and amnesty for every foreigner who manages to get past the border so long as they don’t commit a “serious” crime (whatever that means today). Though she wasn’t on the stage Wednesday, the party’s leader, House speaker Nancy Pelosi, made clear that she’s on board, asking at an event Monday “What’s the point?” of enforcing immigration laws inside the United States. What all this represents is the abolition of immigration limits.
This would certainly end the attractive-nuisance problem. It would also lead to a rush for the border that would make the 2015 border crisis in Europe (sparked by the photo of another drowned child) pale by comparison. Gallup reported earlier this year that 42 million people in Latin America want to move here, and the share that would actually follow through would be a lot higher than now if we were to formally convert the Border Patrol into a welcome wagon, as the Democrats propose. And that’s not counting the Africans, Middle Easterners, and other “extra-continental” migrants we’re seeing.
The other approach to ending the attractive-nuisance problem is to fence off the swimming pool, as it were. In some places that might actually mean a literal fence, but that won’t address the reasons for the current surge. At the very least, that would require plugging the three most serious legal loopholes incentivizing people to cross the border. It also would entail actually deporting people who’ve exhausted their due process, been turned down for asylum, and received a deportation order from a judge; until people in Central America see their fellows glumly stepping off the plane, their asylum ploys having failed, they’ll rightly figure the trip is worth it. More broadly, mandating the use of E-Verify, at least for new hires, is imperative, to “fence off” the labor market.
There are two ways the United States can limit its responsibility for deaths on the border: Unlimited immigration, or limits that are actually enforced. The Democrats have made their choice. They should be made to answer for it.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation alerted district attorneys and the federal Justice Department to the pre-checked applications, and also included a signed affidavit from a man who said some of his relatives, who aren't citizens, received the mailing.
"This is how the Texas Democratic Party is inviting foreign influence in an election in a federal election cycle," said Logan Churchwell, spokesman for the PILF, a group that's made its mark policing states' voter registration practices.
The Texas secretary of state's office said it, too, had gotten complaints both from immigrants [sic] and from relatives of dead people who said they got mailings asking them to register.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott vowed to investigate.
"If true there will be serious consequences," he said.
This is an open invitation for voter fraud on a large scale, and the way the Democrats went about it defies belief:
The applications were pre-addressed to elections officials, which is likely what left many voters to believe they were receiving an official communication from the state.
But the return address was from the State Democratic Executive Committee, and listed an address in Austin that matches the state Democratic Party's headquarters.
The letter is emblazoned with "Urgent! Your voter registration deadline is October 9." It continues: "Your voter registration application is inside. Complete, sign and return it today!"
On the application, boxes affirming the applicant is both 18 and a U.S. citizen are already checked with an "X" in the Yes field.
The mailing also urges those who are unsure if they're registered to "Mail it in."
Dead people were also being asked to vote.
Sam Taylor, spokesman for Texas's secretary of state, said they heard from people whose relatives were receiving mail despite having passed away 10 years ago or longer. One woman said her child, who'd been dead 19 years, got a mailing asking to register.
"It looks like a case of really bad information they are using to send out these mailers," Mr. Taylor said.
Mr. Taylor is being very charitable. I doubt very much whether it's "bad information" being used by Democrats.
How many other state Democratic Parties send out similar requests to non-citizens and haven't been caught? Are we to believe that one party in one state came up with this idea all on its own? Perhaps, but not likely.
Many liberals believe that anyone in the United States – citizen or non-citizen – should be able to vote. If they want to make that argument and change the law to make it happen, they are more than welcome to try. Of course, if they run on that issue, they will get slaughtered at the polls. So instead of going to the American people and working to change the law, they try an underhanded dirty trick to achieve the same goal.
Someone should go to jail for this ruse.
Safe Spaces: How Sanctuary Cities are Giving Cover to Noncitizens on the Voter Rolls Public Interest Legal Foundation, August
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has released hundreds of migrants in El Paso, Texas over the past few days, including 186 on Christmas Day.
The local CBS affiliate reported that ICE has released 400 migrants.
Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX), who lost his Senate bid to incumbent Republican Ted Cruz, is cited in the story as being instrumental in making sure ICE informs city officials of impending releases.
“As a result, nonprofits were a bit more prepared for the large intake,” CBS4 reported.
“They’re coming from immigration cells, so they’re coming hungry, they’re coming thirsty, most haven’t bathed in a long time. The situation is really difficult for them,” Dylan Corbett, executive director of Hope Border Institute, said in the CBS4 story.
The report also includes comments from “Ingrid,” who is from Honduras and brought her 4-year-old son with her to the U.S. border.
“I mean, it’s unreal, like a dream,” Ingrid said. “They gave us clothes, food, everything. I really didn’t expect this, thank you so much.”
The CBS4 report included a statement from ICE:
After decades of inaction by Congress, the government remains severely constrained in its ability to detain and promptly remove families with no legal basis to remain in the U.S. To mitigate the risk of holding family units past the timeframe allotted to the government, ICE has curtailed reviews of post-release plans from families apprehended along the southwest border. ICE continues to work with local and state officials and NGO partners in the area so they are prepared to provide assistance with transportation or other services.
Although he said both before and after losing the Senate race in Texas to Ted Cruz that he had no plan to run for office in 2020, Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke recently left the door wide open. And now he has met with Obama at his home in Washington. In that context, I sent a list of questions to his press spokeswoman, but never received an answer.
The first question dealt with whether O'Rourke has any Hispanic heritage, or whether, as he is in truth, fourth-generation Irish. As a child living in El Paso, O'Rourke was given the nickname "Beto," which is a common Hispanic moniker for Roberto, in order to delineate between him and his maternal grandfather, Robert Williams. When O'Rourke attended Columbia in New York he used "Rob," but his father, then El Paso County Judge Pat O'Rourke, suggested that he once again use "Beto" to increase his chance of winning political office in the heavily Hispanic city of El Paso, which Robert readily agreed to do.
He graduated from Columbia in 1995, and later that month was arrested for burglary at UTEP (the University of Texas El Paso) along with two others. He has previously explained it as a prank from his college years. I asked his spokeswoman if it was true he had already graduated from Columbia and never attended UTEP; what the purpose of the burglary was; what his relationship with Jose Prieto, Jr. and Jacob Barowsky whom he was arrested with was, and where they were located today. I received no response.
Concerning O'Rourke's 1998 DWI, I asked his spokeswoman why he never admitted the incident also involved a hit and run until the press obtained the arrest reports last August. O'Rourke now claims it was not a hit and run, but I asked the spokeswoman if the arresting officer and a witness who reportedly chased him were lying after O'Rourke, going at an excessive rate of speed, struck a truck on I-10 west of El Paso and ended up on the other side of the Interstate, and then fled. Again no response.
O'Rourke also now claims that he recently contacted a passenger who was with him that night who verified he did not leave the scene, but has not said who she is. I received no response. I also asked why none of the reports during O'Rourke's arrest and processing mentioned another passenger, but did mention another passenger with the witness who pursued and stopped him. Again, no response. And I asked why O'Rourke told the police he had only two beers, when his high intoxication level showed he had consumed at least six.
About his campaign, I asked why he had claimed that the record of more than 70 million dollars raised had mostly come from Texas, when in reality less than a third did, while a staggering 75 percent came from ActBlue, the leftist fundraising group. I asked why O'Rourke promised not to run a negative campaign, but he eventually ran some highly inflammatory and personal attacks ads against Ted Cruz.
Concerning President Trump, on a number of occasions, O'Rourke has said he supports impeachment. I asked if he still supports impeachment and based on what evidence. I also asked the spokeswoman whether, if elected, his previous positions would taint any potential impeachment vote. Current rumors are he might run against Senator John Cornyn and Trump in 2020, which in Texas would be legal. Still no response.
I noted that it's a matter of record that he has heavily used marijuana and alcohol and asked if he still does. I also noted that O'Rourke profusely sweats even under perfect conditions, while at the same time others do not, and if he would be willing to take a complete physical exam. No response.
And now after saying he may still run for office, as well as meeting personally with Obama, I asked if he has any intention to be on the national ticket in 2020, but still got no response.
A few days later, I sent a follow-up email to the spokeswoman noting I had received no response and intended to write an article regardless. So I added one more question. O'Rourke used the f-word live on national television in his concession speech, and used it as well at several other points in his campaign. Does O'Rourke think it is appropriate as a leader to behave in such a fashion? Still no response.
His language, along with his use of skateboards to enter campaign rallies, shows a basic immaturity and lack of seriousness to hold high public office. Considering O'Rourke's misleading claims about his heritage and serious issues concerning his controversial past, as well as his obvious desire to hold political office, these kinds of questions would normally be asked of a potential candidate.
But so far, his supporters among the mainstream press have failed to do so. And after their recent fawning coverage and the record millions raised for his campaign, O'Rourke still failed to win. Time will tell if the public will learn who the real Robert Francis O'Rourke is.
Beto: 2020 Will Be ‘Mother of All Tests’ for Democracy
Saying “there’s never been a darker moment” in America in his lifetime, Rep. Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke (D-TX), a potential 2020 presidential candidate, said on Friday that President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign will be the “mother of all tests for this democracy.”
Speaking at a town hall event in El Paso, Texas, O’Rourke deflected questions about whether he will run for president, saying the 2020 questions were “interesting, speculative” questions that he wanted to “treat with respect since this is an official town hall that is focused on my responsibilities to you as a member of Congress.”
He said whoever runs against Trump in 2020 “may very well be running against somebody who has not the slightest respect for our norms, traditions, our institutions, civility, dignity, decency in public life.”
“This is the test, this is the mother of all tests for this democracy–whether we can run a campaign and have candidates at all levels from school board to the White House,” O’Rourke added before saying that though he is hopeful that “something good is going to come out of all this at the end of the day,” there has “never been a darker moment, at least in my lifetime, in this country.”
He added that “there’s never been a greater, more open question about rule of law, about whether our democracy can sustain the kind of attacks on our institutions… on our press, our courts, this cynical display of power of 5,400 troops sent to the border in the lead up to the midterm elections.”
O’Rourke even suggested that the Trump administration could have planned crowd control exercises in El Paso, Texas, to suppress his voters in 2018.
The failed Senate candidate spoke about the “crowd control exercises proposed in El Paso by the Border Patrol on election day — in this city that had the greatest turnout trying to perhaps suppress that turnout.”
“Who knows. You never want to ascribe motive, but it’s hard to understand why you would pick that day of all days,” he said, adding that he has lived in the El Paso area for most of his life and did not understand “the need for doing that.”
O’Rourke blasted Trump for saying “anything you want to from the highest perch in power” that had been revered for 242 years and said the true test in 2020 will be whether Democrats can campaign on issues against Trump instead of going for the most “bast impulses, instincts among us.”
He said the challenge in 2020 will be to not “succumb to the smallness, pettiness, and divisiveness” that defines so much of the national conversation under Trump.