Mayorkas tells Hawley he doesn’t remember inviting illegal immigrants to cross the border, despite having previously said “We are not saying ‘don’t come,’ we are saying ‘don’t come now.'” pic.twitter.com/UK5fZA2EJq
‘Tucker Carlson Tonight’ host says the left is obsessed with ‘demographic replacement.’
What a difference an administration makes when it comes to immigration. Let’s remember at one time (and not very long ago), Democrats sounded just like former President Trump on the issue of illegal immigration. They even used the term ‘illegal alien.’ And why do they always throw around the number of immigrants in the United States is 11 million? And for the record, ‘illegal alien’ is not the same thing as an undocumented worker or undocumented immigrant. An illegal alien is an illegal alien.
Does the Democratic Party represent the interests of black Americans? Larry Elder gives 10 reasons why blacks might consider leaving the Democratic Party.
10. School Choice 9. Social Security 8. Race-Based Preferences for Diversity 7. War on Poverty (Welfare State) 6. Illegal Immigration 5. Hostility Towards Police 4. Job Killing Regulations 3. The Great Recession (Housing Crisis) 2. Playing the Race Card for Votes 1. Pro-Abortion
U.S. Customs and Border Protection released video over the weekend showing the “escalation of tactics” used to smuggle illegal immigrants into the country, which now apparently involves heavily armed security.
MARC THIESSEN: This is probably never going to happen but I think it is pure genius and I can’t understand why Democrats are upset about this. Two sets of facts, number one, it is the position of the Democratic Party that illegal aliens held by ICE should be released into the country, into our communities. During negotiations during the government shutdown, Democrats’ official negotiating position was we should limit amount the amount of beds ICE has to 35,000 and they expressly said for the purpose of forcing the Trump administration to release noncriminal aliens into the community. So they’re for releasing them into the community, periods. Secondly, they created sanctuary cities and this is their policy for the purpose of giving sanctuary to illegal aliens. NYC Mayor de Blasio wants to offer them free healthcare. Stacy Abrams wants them to vote in local elections. Governor Newsom wants to make the entire state a sanctuary, so how can you be upset about President Trump offering to do exactly what you say you want to do?
“Winning!” Here is a link to a YOUTUBE version if wanted.
Larry Elder deftly journeys through the Left’s refusal to face a crisis worse than when Obama called it a crisis. (Insert here #nevertrumpers as well.) There is now no question about it… and those that perpetuate this as a non-crisis will only help Trump win in 2020.
Here is a portion of the border “secured” by the 2006 SECURE BORDER FENCE ACT... as you can see in the video (and the picture) just how effective this was:
…Representative Peter King (R-NY) introduced the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which was subsequently passed with bi-partisan support and signed into law by then President George W. Bush. The goal of this law was to reduce illegal entry into the United States by adding fences and vehicle barriers along 700 miles of the southern border, plus provides funds for surveillance, checkpoints, additional lighting, and drones to support the border security. The overall program was funded with over $1 billion dollars, but in hindsight did little to stop the illegal invasion as the fences were easily scaled and the surveillance minimal if any along most of the fence. In 2008 the Reinstatement of the Secure Fence Act was introduced in Congress intended to add an additional 700 miles of two layer 14’ high fence, but the bill died in committee and never even came up for a vote. In 2010 a Finish the Fence bill was again unsuccessful and deemed too expensive and underfunded….
New York senator and Democratic presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand signaled Friday she’s open to removing existing sections of the border wall, as her potential 2020 rival Beto O’Rourke suggested.
O’Rourke, a former Texas congressman who led an unsuccessful Senate campaign last year, was asked Thursday if he would support taking down the existing border wall in his home city of El Paso. “Absolutely, I’d take the wall down,” he told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes.
The next day Gillibrand was asked by a reporter during a New Hampshire campaign stop whether she agreed with O’Rourke’s comments.
“He was talking about El Paso, but the idea of dismantling some of the wall, good idea, bad idea?” asked the reporter.
“Well, I’d have to ask folks in that part of the country to see whether the fencing that exists today is helpful or unhelpful,” Gillibrand responded. “Democrats are not afraid of national security or border security. Democrats have funded border security for decades.”
Gillibrand reiterated her view that Trump’s proposed border wall was “medieval-style” and “a hateful message.”
“He’s trying to create a picture of division and hate and derision, and that’s what I’m so offended by,” she said. “The fact that he spews this kind of racism in his words and actions is troubling.”…
Here is BETO:
Democrat Beto O’Rourke says he wants to knock down the existing border barriers on the southern border
MSNBC’s Chris Hayes: “If you could, would you take the wall down now? Knock it down?”
In a good bit today on the Glenn Beck Radio Program, a New York Times story that “fact-checked” the State of the Union Speech was itself run through the grinder. I include a short Stephanie Ruhle (MSNBC) audio clip, and then Brian Stelter (CNN) gets “fact-checked himself. Good clip to link in a response to a Leftist. Glenn and Stu (Steve Burguiere) are in their zone here. The segment that followed this section can be see HERE.
See also an excellent article at THE FEDERALIST entitled, “The State Of American ‘Fact-Checking’ Is Completely Useless“.
In another great segment Glenn Beck and Stu (Steve Burguiere) discuss where the New York Times and the Washington Post’s fudging their quotes and intended meanings. NATIONAL REVIEWhas an excellent rebuttal to this in their article entitled, “Trump Was Right about New York’s Abortion Law”. In it we read:
The text of the law bears out rather than contradicts Trump’s comment. So long as the abortionist is willing to say that an abortion is necessary to protect the pregnant woman’s health — including emotional health — the abortion can take place at any time before or after 24 weeks. Two decades ago, during a debate over similar legislation, late-term abortionist Warren Hern explained that he would always testify that an abortion he wished to perform would avert adverse health consequences (Frank Murray, “Daschle Ban May Not Ban Anything; Abortionists Could Use Own Judgment,” Washington Times, May 15, 1997).