Proof that it’s not about children separated from their families at the border. It’s about keeping their TDS alive for their hopeful “Blue Wave” this November.
From Fox News: Democrats who drafted a bill to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE] suddenly announced Thursday night that they would vote against it if the legislation went to the floor, after House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy told Fox News he intended to call their bluff.
“We know Speaker [Paul] Ryan is not serious about passing our ‘Establishing a Humane Immigration Enforcement System Act,’ so members of Congress, advocacy groups, and impacted communities will not engage in this political stunt,” Reps. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Adriano Espaillat of New York told The Hill and other news outlets. “If Speaker Ryan puts our bill on the floor, we plan to vote no and will instead use the opportunity to force an urgently needed and long-overdue conversation on the House floor.”
McCarthy, R-Calif., said earlier Thursday he would place a bill to abolish ICE on the House floor later this month.
Democrats have long pushed back on the administration’s immigration policies but tensions have escalated in the past month over family separations at the border. Calls from some far-left lawmakers to abolish ICE have grown ahead of the November elections.
Former presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., last week slammed the federal agency as being a part of a “cruel, dysfunctional immigration system” that needs “comprehensive” reform.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio echoed Gillibrand, calling the agency “broken” and “divisive.”
“It should be abolished,” he tweeted.
As analysts point out, if Democrats vote against the proposal and kill it, it undermines their word. If they earn enough “yes” votes, Republicans could turn the issue and tie all Democrats to the crisis at the border.
Perhaps sensing trouble ahead of the primaries, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California have called instead for the agency to be restructured.
The New York Times has abandoned all pretenses at objective journalism or even decency.
On July 6, 2018, the Times‘ editorial board published an editorial titled “Democrats: Do Not Surrender the Judiciary,” calling on Democrats and progressives to go to war against President Trump by deploying unscrupulous mafia tactics.
With Republicans controlling the Senate and the judicial filibuster dead, the Democrats’ odds of denying President Trump a second Supreme Court appointment are slim. Barring some unforeseen development, the president will lock in a 5-to-4 conservative majority, shifting the court solidly to the right for a generation.
This is all the more reason for Democrats and progressives to take a page from “The Godfather” and go to the mattresses on this issue.
The New York Times tells Democrats to “take a page from” the 1972 movie, The Godfather. The following are the tactics used by the Corleone and rival crime families in the movie:
Shooting (gunning down)
Ambush with machine guns
Sending a dead fish as a message that someone had been murdered (“sleeps with the fishes”)
Decapitating a horse and putting its bloody head in the bed as a warning
The term “going to the mattresses” means going to war.
The Urban Dictionary accurately describes the phrase as meaning “preparing for battle” within the context of a mob war, a violent mob war involving firearms, assassinations, and bombings.
The anti-Trump New York Times describes this editorial as a “call to arms” and adds that the “fire now raging against Mr. Trump and his nominees can’t be sustained indefinitely.”
As of July 7, Breitbart News has documented 190 acts (this list continues to be updated and now numbers 254) of media-approved violence and harassment against Trump and his supporters during the last 31 months.
The establishment media continue to ignore, downplay, encourage, and even justify violence against their political enemies on the right, and the result of this indifference and wink-wink encouragement is an epidemic of violence and harassment.
Simply put, the media have declared “open season” on Trump supporters.
And now, we have the “esteemed” New York Times editorial board calling for Democrats to use the mafia as their inspiration to stop a judicial appointment.
Keep in mind that the same media encouraging this violence against everyday Americans is the same media constantly campaigning to have those same everyday Americans left helpless by disarming them.
The New York Times‘ despicable editorial is reproached by a reader, “Walked away,” who wrote this comment on July 7, 2018:
As an African American man, I have lived in the DC for a considerable period of time, and I have never seen the type of vulgar, mean spiritedness rage after an election. After the election I went to my place of work, and the police told us to remain in the building because of the riots taking place.
When President Obama was elected that never happened. Yes, conservatives hated it, vowed to make him a one term president, but no burning cars, broken windows, bullied people because you wore an Obama or hat shirt.
Now we have a Congresswoman openly endorsing harassment of cabinet members – at their home, and while they carry out their daily duties! What if a child is involved?
For the first time in my life we have our own elected officials advocating for people who are not American citizens more them than American citizens.
From where I’m sitting, the Dems are positioning themselves for a great loss during the Midterms and quite possibly the General. The vitriolic narrative is one thing, but assaults and harassment are another. You cannot act or be like what you don’t want in the White House, and yet; that’s what the Dems are doing. When you endorse harassment, censorship and hatred, the sleeper effects of the silent majority will nail you, just as it did election night.
In my opinion, fix both your narratives and optics if you want to win the SCOTUS and in the voting booth. What I am witnessing from the Democratic party is not just unAmerican it’s scary.
Keep it up proggies. These antics are bound to help your “Blue Wave” in November.
From Daily Mail: Michelle Wolf took aim at Ivanka Trump on her Netflix show over the weekend just two months after her polarizing performance at the annual White House Correspondents Dinner.
The comedian was encouraging her viewers to begin harassing politicians more often, and as an example of how best to engage offered up some ways to get under the first daughter’s skin.
‘If you see Ivanka on the street, first call her Tiffany. This will devastate her,’ said Wolf.
‘Then talk to her in terms she will understand. Say: “Ivanka, you’re like vaginal mesh. You were supposed to support women but now you have blood all over you and you’re the center of a thousand lawsuits.“‘
And she did not stop there.
Wolf went on to tell viewers how to harass Senator Mitch McConnell, embattled EPA head Scott Pruitt and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
Before she could get to Thomas however, she had another Ivanka joke she has thought of in the spot. ‘Ivanka, you’re like that birth control pill Yaz,’ said Wolf. ‘At first, it seemed like you’d be really cool and helpful but you need to be immediately recalled.’
Wolf then returned to her tips on how to harass Thomas and later Betsy DeVos before finishing out the segment with Ivanka.
‘Say hey girl, do your legs hurt, cause you been running afoul of government ethics all year,’ said Wolf.
‘And that will satisfy you more than it will hurt her, so follow that up with: “Is your nickname herpes?” Because you’re not necessarily the most dangerous person in the administration but you’re very unpleasant, totally incurable and you always show up when we’re about to get.‘
She then closed out by calling Ivanka the ‘prettiest tumor in a swiftly moving cancer.’
There was, of course, a great deal of backlash to Wolf’s rant, which came in response to a new Republican national Committee ad which called her and celebs such as Madonna, Johnny Depp and Representative Maxine Waters (D – CA) ‘unhinged.’
‘The RNC’s new push is to call the left ‘Unhinged 2018,’ explained Wolf, who in the ad is seen comparing Huckabee Sanders to Uncle Tom. ‘Yeah, like a screen door installed by a blind lesbian, I am unhinged!’
She later noted: ‘Right now there are two things that should be unhinged: people and those doors to the child cages.’
James Woods was quick to fire back on Monday, tweeting: ‘If this character is the barometer of contemporary political “comedy,” Republicans are going to be in power for a long, long time. #UnhingedDemocrats’
Fox News described Wolf’s remarks as a ‘vulgar attack’ during an ‘uncouth segment,’ not mentioning at any point in its story that Wolf was laughing throughout the segment, which was meant to be a joke. (Way to cover for the unhinged, Daily Mail.)
Democrats are so off-the-cliff unhinged in their Trump Derangement Syndrome that one of them, influential columnist Andrew Sullivan, is warning them they’ll lose this November’s midterm and the 2020 elections if they continue to oppose President Trump’s border policy.
Andrew Sullivan, by T.J. Kirkpatrick/Getty Images
While championing same-sex marriage, Sullivan, an open homosexual, admitted that homosexual marriage is not about monogamy. As he put it: “there is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.” (See also “Same-sex marriage: It’s not about monogamy“)
In a June 22, 2018 essay in New York, “If We Want to End the Border Crisis, It’s Time to Give Trump His Wall,” after much rhetoric demonizing Trump and his “border policy,” Sullivan writes:
If you do not want to jail kids with their parents indefinitely, or to maintain the incentive for illegal migrants to bring kids along for the harrowing ride, you need some sort of congressional action and soon. There’s something deeply wrong, it seems to me, with expressing the view that what the government is doing is barbaric and yet allowing the underlying cause of it to continue for political reasons. If that’s the case, then Trump is not the only one using kids as pawns. Chuck Schumer is too.
The Democrats need to accept that they lost the last presidential election for a reason, and that their opponent’s main campaign pledge was to tackle illegal immigration, with a wall at the southern border as the centerpiece. Completely resisting a legitimate agenda based on a clear campaign promise — well, it reminds me of the Republicans with Obamacare.
And there is clearly an adamant, persistent segment of the public that sees the crisis of illegal immigration as a vital one. They’re not alone. Cast an eye at Brexit Britain, newly populist Italy, Macron’s France, and even Merkel’s Germany as it heaves in response to mass immigration from the developing world. This is a huge force in Western politics in every country. It may be the primary one. Millions of people are on the move right now, fleeing war and poverty and persecution. The vast migration from south to north, from poverty and chaos to opportunity and order in the West may be just beginning. Climate change will surely only make it worse. Finding the right balance between reason and compassion is essential if we are not going to further tear this country apart, or witness ever more humanitarian catastrophes, or see what’s left of the West go under.
So give him his fucking wall. He won the election. He is owed this. It may never be completed; it may not work, as hoped. But it is now the only way to reassure a critical mass of Americans that mass immigration is under control, and the only way to make any progress under this president. And until the white working and middle classes are reassured, we will get nowhere. Don’t give it to him for nothing, of course. It should come with a full path to citizenship for all DACA immigrants, as in the proposed deal in January that Trump first liked and then reneged on, under Miller’s toxic influence. But it should also go bigger: a legislative fix for Flores*; massive new funding for detention facilities, humane family-friendly housing, and, above all, much more money for the immigration legal system, now completely overwhelmed by asylum cases. If Democrats can show they want to deal with the humanitarian problem as a whole, and are willing to compromise on the wall, they’ll be in a much stronger position going forward than in the recent past.
*Flores refers to the Clinton-era Flores vs. Reno Supreme Court decision allowing unaccompanied illegal border-crossing minors to be held “in the least restrictive setting appropriate to the minor’s age and special needs.”
And this strikes me as urgent. We have a burgeoning humanitarian crisis in our own country, and it is simply not good enough to let it fester some more. The future levels of immigration — and the methods for deciding who comes and who doesn’t — can be determined after the fall elections. For what it’s worth, I favor a Canadian style merit system; a tightening of extended family-migration laws; and marginally lower levels of legal immigration so that the country can better absorb the current wave, which is as high a proportion of the population as in the 1920s, and far greater in absolute numbers than any previous period at all. But I’m open to other ideas. The point is that after this crisis, we have to return this debate to the calm and nitty-gritty area of legislative hearings and compromises, rather than the cable news and social media rhetorical screech of the recent past.
If all this sounds like appeasing a bigot, I understand. But better to see it, I think, as a way to address the legitimate concerns, fears, and worries of a large number of Americans who feel like strangers in their own land, and whose emotional response to that has been to empower the white nationalist right. It’s also simply the moral thing to do to relieve real human misery on the borders. It’s good politics too, I’d argue, for both parties in the medium term. At some point, the GOP will need to drop the appearance of bald-faced racism, callousness, and brute force, if they are to survive anywhere outside their base. And equally, the Democrats who are currently posturing are playing a good card badly. They give off the appearance, as Hillary Clinton did, of making no distinction between legal and illegal immigration, favoring de facto open borders, and calling anyone who disagrees with them a white supremacist. Until they recognize that illegal immigration is a huge and legitimate problem, and until they propose a set of actual policy proposals to end it humanely and efficiently, they run the risk of another 2016 in 2020.
Will Democrats listen to Sullivan’s voice of (some) reason, or will they continue to drive their party off the cliff? Take our poll!
See these recent examples of the Democrats’ unhinged, psychopathic behaviors:
In just 1½ years as President, Donald Trump already has achieved more than Obama in eight years, including:
Economy:Unemployment has fallen to 3.8% in May 2018, which is effective full employment. Worker productivity increased 3% in the third quarter of 2017, far above the 1.2% average of the Obama years. The number of manufacturing jobs in November 2017 was the highest recorded increase in 15 years.
We don’t hear about the Islamic State in the news any more, do we? Just months into the Trump presidency, the ISIS caliphate was crushed by the US-led coalition forces. Some of the world’s oldest Christian communities in the Mideast are able to worship freely at Christmas. (RealClearPolitics)
North Korea: Trump achieved something all previous administrations did not: He met with North Korea’s dictator Kim Jong-Un and negotiated a promise from the communist regime to return the remains of American POWs from the 1950s Korean War. North Korea has also erased most of its anti-US propaganda.
Illegal migrants and refugees: In December 2017, Trump pulled the U.S. out of the UN global pact on migration. Illegal crossings across the US-Mexico border have plunged as much as 60% vs. pre-Trump levels. ICE Director Thomas Homan said President Trump “has done more for border security and public safety than any of the six presidents I’ve worked for.” (RealClearPolitics)
Despite all that, writing in the Washington Post last Friday, June 23, supposedly-conservative and supposedly-pro-life Catholic columnist George Will, 77 — one of the Never-Trump Republicans in the 2016 presidential election — urged Americans to vote against Republicans in this November’s midterm elections, not because Congressional Republicans are still too timid, but because they have acceded to President Trump’s “family separating” border policy.
It must be noted that what the jackals of the Mainstream Media call “separation of families” is actually the Trump administration enacting a measure that flowed from the Clinton-eraFlores vs. Reno Supreme Court decision allowing unaccompanied illegal border-crossing minors be held “in the least restrictive setting appropriate to the minor’s age and special needs.”
Rachel Koning Beals reports for Market Watch that Will calls lame duck House Speaker Paul Ryan and others the “president’s poodles,” and Trump’s “zero tolerance” border policy “the most telegenic example of misrule” and “fresh if redundant evidence for the principle by which” independents and moderate Republicans should vote in the November midterms.
Will even says a GOP majority’s position to fill any upcoming Supreme Court vacancies is too high a price to pay for the Trump administration’s executive and legislative “dysfunction”. He writes:
“the congressional Republican caucuses must be substantially reduced. So substantially that their remnants, reduced to minorities, will be stripped of the Constitution’s Article I powers that they have been too invertebrate to use against the current wielder of Article II powers. They will then have leisure time to wonder why they worked so hard to achieve membership in a legislature whose unexercised muscles have atrophied because of people like them. Not because James Madison’s system has failed but because today’s abject careerists have failed to be worthy of it. Congressional Republicans . . . have no higher ambition than to placate this president.”
Earlier this week, longtime Republican strategist Steve Schmidt also called for a Democratic wave in the midterm elections, blaming Trump for a “coarsening of this country” and calling the president a “useful idiot” for Russia.
So Schmidt actually believes in the Russia-Trump 2016 electoral collusion, despite not a shred of evidence? But this guy gets big bucks as a Republican strategist?
Hmm, I can’t help but wonder what dark secrets are in the closets of George Will and Steve Schmidt which they are so terrified would be exposed by “zero tolerance” Trump….
Jerome Segal, 74, is a Democratic primary candidate for the U.S. Senate in Maryland.
On June 22, 2018, Anna Masoglia, a writer for Lawyerist.com, tweeted that Segal paid at least $25,464 for a campaign ad in the Washington Post.
Segal begins the ad by identifying himself as a socialist. He then asks his potential voters a series of bizarre, politics-unrelated, non sequitur questions on pedophilia and bestiality:
“Did you ever stare at a picture of a naked child? Full frontal? Did it bring about emotions, ones that might have surprised you?”
“Did you ever watch a video of a three-way, between two men, one white and one black, and a big dog? One a big fellow and another kind [sic] slender? And did you feel strange emotions? Does it come readily back to your mind?”
Segal then asks:
“Did you ever find yourself in close proximity to someone very different, someone you might never want to be seen with, someone whose raw physical needs were right there on the surface? Did it both make you want to run away and make you want to reach out your hand?”
He then assures the reader that those pedophile and bestiality feelings are completely natural:
“Don’t worry. These reactions sometimes happen to all of us. It doesn’t mean you are a socialist. Whew.”
The rest of his long rambling campaign ad is about socialism and capitalism.
He ends the ad with this:
“My name is Jerome Segal. I’m a socialist and proud. I’m happy to be part of the LGBTQ&S community, and you should fess up, and be proud as well.”
Here’s a screen shot of the ad:
According to Wikipedia, Jerome Segal is “an American philosopher and political activist in Silver Spring, Maryland,” a former aide to aide to Congressman Donald M. Fraser, “a research scholar at the University of Maryland and the president of the Jewish Peace Lobby.”
A proposal to split California into three states will be on the ballot this November.
Backers of CAL 3, led by Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper, collected and delivered 600,000 signatures to California Secretary of State Alex Padilla’s Office, surpassing the 365,000 required by law to qualify for the ballot.
The proposal is to split California into these three new states:
Conservatives should vote “No” for this reason: Instead of giving Conservatives a voice in state government, CAL 3 will make things worse because the way the proposed state lines are drawn will create two, if not three, Democrat-dominant states.
As things are today, California’s one-party Democrat government is the result of the state’s pattern of population distribution, wherein heavily-populated “liberal” metropolitan cities on the coast determine the outcome of elections. Instead of creating a new state of those “liberal” coastal cities, CAL 3 distributes the “liberal” cities to each of the three new states, thereby ensuring that they will dominate election outcomes in the new states.
Here’s the map of the proposed CAL 3:
Northern California will contain these big cities:
San Francisco: the 13th most populous city in the U.S., with a population of 884,363 in 2017.
San Jose: the 10th most populous city in the U.S., with a population of 1,035,317 in 2017.
Sacramento: the state capital; 35th largest city in the U.S., with a population of 501,334 in 2018.
California will contain these big cities:
Los Angeles: the 2nd largest city in the U.S. (after New York), with a population estimated at 3.98 million.
Santa Barbara: with a population of 91,196 in 2014.
Long Beach: the 39th largest city in the U.S., with a population of 462,257 in 2010.
Southern California will contain these big cities:
San Diego: the 8th largest city in the U.S., with a population of 1,419,516 in 2017.
Anaheim: the 10th largest city in California, with a population of 336,265 in 2010.
In the 2016 presidential election, California voted:
Hillary Clinton: 61.6%
Donald Trump: 32.8%
Here’s a map of how California voted in the 2016 presidential election
Now let’s compare California’s 2016 election results map with a map of CAL 3:
To conclude, the proposed CAL 3 will only split “liberal” California into three “liberal” states. Each of the three states will get to send two senators each to the U.S. Senate, as well as representatives to the House of Representatives. Since each new California state will be dominated by “liberal” heavily-populated cities, that means we’ll end up having even more Democrats elected to both houses of Congress.