When Biden took office, one of his first acts was the elimination of our border security. Like a power-hungry dictator, Biden simply decided to ignore our immigration laws. His catastrophic border policy resulted in untold millions of unidentified foreign citizens from around the world pouring into our country. Its impact is now being felt in cities across the country. The worst is yet to come. PETER LEMISKA - AND WE'RE ALREADY THERE!!!
Sunday, August 18, 2019
MEXICO'S CANDIDATE BETO "BETOMATIC" O'OROURKE SAYS TRUMP IS "ATTACKING" PEOPLE OF COLOR... Well, we know how hard Betomatic works for the Mexican invaders!
Beto: Trump Leading a ‘Concerted, Organized Attack Against’ People of Color
1:59
Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” 2020 presidential hopeful former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-TX) said President Donald Trump was engaged in a “concerted, organized attack against immigrants, against people of color.”
O’Rourke said, “From the outset of this campaign, even before this campaign, I talked about how dangerous President Trump’s open racism is, the Mexicans as rapists and criminals, the Muslims who should be banned from this country, how it doesn’t just offend us but it changes us. The rise in hate crime every single one of the last three years, the mosque in Victoria, Texas, burned to the ground the day after he signs his executive order attempting to ban Muslim travel. But it wasn’t until someone inspired by Donald Trump drove more than 600 miles to my hometown and killed 22 people in my community with a weapon of war, an AK-47 that he had no business owning, that no American should own unless they’re on a battlefield engaged with the enemy.”
He continued, “It wasn’t until that moment that I truly understood how critical this moment is and the real consequence and cost of Donald Trump. And I saw it again in Mississippi in a community where nearly 700 people working in chicken processing plants, one of the toughest jobs in America, were raided, detained, taken from their kids, humiliated, hog tied for a crime of being in this country, doing a job that no one else will do. There is a concerted, organized attack against immigrants, against people of color, against those who do not look like or pray like or love like the majority in this country. And this moment will define us one way or another. And if we do not wake up to it, I am convinced that we’ll lose America, this country, in our sleep. And we cannot allow that to happen.”
Report: Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib Share Antisemitic Cartoon by Participant in Iran’s Holocaust Denial Contest
Mark Wilson/Getty Images
4:03
Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) both reportedly shared an antisemitic cartoon by an artist who participated in Iran’s Holocaust denial contest on their respective Instagram accounts on Friday, according to Forward editor Batya Ungar-Sargon.
Ungar-Sargon noticed that Omar and Tlaib had each shared the image on their Instagram “stories.” Both were barred from entering Israel Thursday because of their support for the “boycott, divestment, sanctions” (BDS) movement. Tlaib then applied for a humanitarian visa so she could visit her grandmother in a Palestinian village, promising not to promote boycotts of Israel while traveling there. Her request was granted, but she then turned down the offer Friday, claiming that Israel was trying to silence her.
The cartoon Omar and Tlaib reportedly shared shows Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with his hand over Tlaib’s mouth, and U.S. President Donald Trump with his hand over Omar’s mouth. Both leaders are shushing the congresswomen. A Star of David — the symbol of the Jewish faith — appears in the center of the image, implying that Jews are responsible for the act of silencing.
Oof. Looks like both Rep. Omar and Rep. Tlaib shared this awful Carlos Latuff cartoon in Instagram stories yesterday. In 2006, Latuff came in second in Iran's International Holocaust Cartoon Contest, which is a thing that exists, in case you thought the TL couldn't get any worse.
The image is antisemitic on its face. The theme of Jews controlling world leaders, who in turn do their bidding, especially in suppressing criticism, has been a common theme in antisemitic propaganda since Nazi Germany, and remains a frequent feature of antisemitic cartoons in the Arab and Muslim world. The New York Times faced criticism for a similar antisemitic cartoon it published in its international edition in April.
Making matters worse, as Ungar-Sargon pointed out, is the fact that this particular cartoonist, Carlos Latuff, won second place at a contest held by Iran in 2006 at which contestants drew caricatures denying the Holocaust. The contest was held in response to a Danish newspaper’s contest to draw images of Mohammed, which is prohibited by Islamic law, to challenge the self-censorship of Western media. Iran has promoted Holocaust denial as official policy; its president at the time, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was notorious for his habit of denying the Holocaust.
Latuff acknowledged the latest controversy on Saturday evening by re-posting his Holocaust cartoon:
The image minimizes the Holocaust by suggesting that Palestinians are victims of another Holocaust because of the security barrier Israel was forced to build to prevent Palestinian suicide bombings and sniper attacks.
Latuff later admitted to the Forward in 2008 that such comparisons are “inaccurate,” but defended them as legitimate criticism of Israel. As for the use of the Star of David in his cartoons, Latuff told the Forward, “[I]t’s not my fault if Israel chose sacred religious motifs as national symbols.”
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard College, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
Pollak: Barack Obama Wrote the Playbook on Political Division
Left-wing pundits have accused President Donald Trump of using his tweets last weekend to launch a divisive re-election campaign.
David Axelrod, former adviser to President Barack Obama, tweeted: “With his deliberate, racist outburst, @realDonaldTrump wants to raise the profile of his targets, drive Dems to defend them and make them emblematic of the entire party. It’s a cold, hard strategy.”
That is debatable — but if so, Axelrod should know; Obama did it first.
By 2011, Obama knew that re-election would be difficult. The Tea Party had just led the Republicans to a historic victory in the 2010 midterm elections, winning the House and nearly taking the Senate. The economy was only growing sluggishly, and Obama’s stimulus had failed to keep unemployment below eight percent, as projected. Moreover, the passage of Obamacare had provoked a backlash against Obama’s state-centered model of American society.
Facing a similar situation in the mid-1990s, President Bill Clinton had “triangulated,” moving back toward the middle, frustrating the GOP by taking up their issues, such as welfare reform.
But Obama rejected that approach. Having watched his icon, Chicago mayor Harold Washington, settle for an incremental approach when faced with opposition in the 1980s, only to die of a sudden heart attack before fulfilling his potential, Obama chose the path of hard-left policy — and divide-and-rule politics.
The first hint of his strategy emerged during the debt ceiling negotiations in the summer of August 2011. As Bob Woodward recounted in his book about the crisis, The Price of Politics, then-Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) had wanted to reach a “grand bargain” with the president on long-term spending cuts. But Obama blew up that agreement by demanding $400 billion in new taxes, to his aides’ surprise. Obama wanted an opponent, not a deal. (Last week, Boehner told Breitbart News Tonight that Obama’s decision was his worst disappointment in 35 years of politics.)
In the fall of 2011, a new left-wing movement, Occupy Wall Street, was launched. A mix of communists, anarchists, and digital pranksters, the Occupy movement cast American society as a struggle between the “99 percent” and the “one percent.”
Obama and then-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) embraced the movement — and failed to distance themselves from it even as it collapsed into violence, sexual assault, and confrontations with police.
Instead, Obama picked up on Occupy’s themes and used them to shape his campaign.
In December 2011, Obama gave a speech at Osawatomie, Kansas — a place steeped in radical symbolism — at which he doubled down on his left-wing policies. He focused on the issue of economic inequality, and attacked the idea that the free market could lift the middle class to prosperity. “This isn’t about class warfare. This is about the nation’s welfare,” he insisted.
Then, in the spring of 2012, Obama made a controversial play on race. When a black teen, Trayvon Martin, was killed in Florida during a scuffle with neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, Al Sharprton — who was serving as an informal adviser to Obama at the time — made the local crime story into a national racial controversy. Obama, following Sharpton’s lead, weighed in: “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” Obama said at the time.
Poll numbers suggest that race relations, which had been improving, dropped precipitously after that. But to Obama, it was worth it: the campaign needed to find a way to motivate minority voters. (Vice President Joe Biden did his part, telling black voters that GOP nominee Mitt Romney was “gonna put y’all in chains.”)
Trump is pushing a non-racial, nationalist message. But if he actually wanted to divide America for political gain, he could learn from the master.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. He is also the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
Donald Trump’s opponents are completely unhinged. The hate and slander directed towards the president and his supporters is off the charts. The vitriol comes not just from the Democrat party, the media, and the world of entertainment, but also from a sizable proportion of the federal bureaucracy and many seemingly ordinary people.
The media coordinates this campaign and amplifies the hate at every opportunity. Media twist every event, be it big or small, into a criticism of the president. The goal is always to present Trump in not just an unfavorable light but to make him appear too loathsome for polite society. And Trump is not the sole target of this demonization. It is directed at his supporters, too.
Where will all this lead? No less than Angelo M. Codevilla fears it could ultimately result in a bloody civil war. And if it comes to that, there's no doubt where he places the blame.
The story of the contemporary American Left's sponsorship of hate and violence began around 1964, when the Democrats chose to abandon the Southern constituencies that had been its mainstay since the time of Jefferson and Jackson. In less than a decade, the party found itself increasingly dependent on gaining super-majorities among blacks, upscale liberals, and constituencies of resentment in general -- and hence on stoking their hate.
For the past half century, America's political history has been driven by the Democrats' effort to fire up these constituencies by denigrating the rest of America.
Codevilla notes that prominent Democrats like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton have led millions of their followers "to think and act as if conservatives were simply a lower level of humanity, and should have their faces rubbed in their own inferiority."
It’s not surprising that many ordinary followers have concluded that harassing conservatives in restaurants, airports, and public functions is "not just permissible but praiseworthy, and if thousands of persons who exercise power over cities, towns, and schools have not concluded that facilitating such harassment and harm is their duty."
This is the toxic environment that the Democrats, in conjunction with the media, have created. Has Pandora's box been opened? Are we beyond the point of no return? Are leftists and their liberal soulmates too obtuse not to expect that hate and violence will someday be answered in kind? These questions are up in the air. Right now, one thing is clear. As Yeats wrote: "The best lack all conviction while the worse are full of passionate intensity."
Just to touch on a few of the changes that Strauss and Howe see: today's soft criminal justice system will become swift and rough. Vagrants will be rounded up and the mentally ill recommitted. Criminal appeals shortened and executions hastened. Pension funds will go bust and Social Security checks become iffy. The full spectrum of society will be under distress. All the problems will be combined into one -- the survival of society.
Aren't the seeds already planted for a crisis? Trust in Washington and in government institutions is at an all-time low. Political violence is tacitly condoned and often openly encouraged by Democratic officeholders. The political establishment encourages massive Illegal immigration. The mainstream media is highly partisan and corrupt beyond reform. The American flag, the country's history, and even its nationhood are openly despised in universities. American public schools are a disgrace despite the money poured into them. The country is burdened by a $22 trillion national debt to which many trillions more of unfunded government liabilities must be added. Students owe a trillion dollars in school loans that can never be repaid.
Someday there has to be a reckoning for all this dysfunction. Irrespective of the election results in 2020, the time frame of 2020-2022 sounds about the right for things to come to a head. It would be prudent to be ready.
No comments:
Post a Comment