Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz discusses U.S. attorney for Northern California declining to prosecute man behind threats.
612
235
541
194
159
612
235
541
194
159
183
186
99
81
139
50
77
32
33
33
41
55

July 16, 2019
Five out of the six families illegally crossed the border and were arrested and the sixth family showed up to a port of entry without permission.
The Justice Department’s “zero tolerance” policy is aimed at saving lives and to deter illegal aliens from flooding across the border using children as their golden ticket.
DNA tests prove that over 30% of the children accompanying adults seeking asylum have no relation whatsoever — in other words, the children are being trafficked.
The US government separates the families just like they would if they were to arrest an American citizen. Children do not accompany their parents in jail.
Left-wing anti-American ‘advocacy groups’ however are suing over this “zero tolerance” policy claiming it is intended to inflict “emotional distress” on the migrant adults and the children.

One Guatemalan woman identified as “Leticia” says she was left traumatized and her daughter is still having nightmares.
In her complaint, Leticia says her daughter has nightmares and night sweats, and sometimes blurts out, “Don’t let them take me away again,” reported the Washington Times.
So these illegal aliens claim they are fleeing threats of gang violence from their home countries, but the migrant detention centers is what traumatized them — makes sense.
The Washington Times reported:
A federal judge in June ordered an end to the separations and ordered the families reunited. That sent the government scrambling to reconnect more than 2,000 children who had been separated from parents who, in some cases, had already been deported.
A legal battle over the pace of reunifications is still being fought in a federal court in California, but Monday’s action is a separate step, seeking to make those snared in the separations whole.
The claims were filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Monday’s action was a notification of claims, and the government now has six months to evaluate the claims and decide what to do.
If the migrants don’t find the government’s response satisfactory, they can file a lawsuit to try to enforce their demand.
Each claimant seeks $3 million.
Of the six migrant families, five appear to have sneaked across the border and been arrested as illegal immigrants. Based on the filings, the sixth appears to have shown up at a port of entry without permission.
Each of the families then made a claim for asylum, and those claims are pending, giving them a tentative status.


By Joshua Caplan
“Racism is the poison in America, it’s in the American bones, unfortunately,” Schumer said as voiced support for H.R 40, a bill championed by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) that would create a commission to study the issue of reparations. “The legacy of slavery and Jim Crow is still with us,” added Schumer.

The debate over reparations catapulted from the campaign trail to Congress last month when lawmakers heard testimony for and against the idea of providing compensation for slavery. On June 19th, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties held a hearing on Jackson Lee’s bill. The panel invited 2020 White House hopeful Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Hollywood actor and left-wing activist Danny Glover, author Ta-Nehisi Coates, and others to discuss the measure re-introduced in January.
Booker, who testified first before the panel, said the country has “yet to truly acknowledge and grapple with the racism and white supremacy that tainted this country’s founding and continues to cause persistent and deep racial disparities and inequality.”
“The stain of slavery was not just inked in bloodshed, but in policies that have disadvantaged African Americans for generations,” the lawmaker added.
Earlier this year, Booker introduced a version of Jackson Lee’s measure to the Senate.
Following Booker was Glover, who called establishing a national policy on reparations a “moral, democratic, and economic imperative.”
“Despite much progress over the last centuries, this hearing is yet another important step in the long and heroic struggle of African-Americans to cure the damages inflicted by enslavement, post-emancipation and forced racial exclusionary policies,” Glover told lawmakers
The hearing came amid a growing discussion in the Democrat Party about reparations. Several of the party’s presidential candidates have endorsed looking at the idea.
In a Point Taken-Marist poll conducted in 2016, 68 percent of Americans said the country should not pay cash reparations to African American descendants of slaves to make up for the harm caused by slavery and racial discrimination. About 8 in 10 white Americans said they were opposed to reparations, while about 6 in 10 black Americans said they were in favor.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has said that he opposes reparations, telling reporters: “I don’t want reparations for something that happened 150 years ago. We’ve tried to deal with the original sin of slavery by passing civil rights legislation.”
“It would be hard to figure out who to compensate” for slavery, the Kentucky Republican noted. “No one currently alive was responsible for that.”
Last week, McConnell said his family’s history of slave ownership doesn’t change his opposition to reparations.
The Kentucky Republican noted that he and former President Barack Obama have opposed reparations, and “both are the descendants of slave owners.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

By Jose Nino
Tucker drew criticism about his recent comments on congresswoman Ilhan Omar and her ungratefulness as an immigrant.
He specifically said “Ilhan Omar is living proof that the way we practice immigration has become dangerous to this country.”
Carlson added, “A system designed to strengthen America is instead undermining it.”
In response to Carlson’s comments, Heer opined that “There’s nothing new about racism from either Fox News or Carlson’s mouth.”
In Heer’s view, Carlson’s supposedly “toxic” behavior has “reopened a debate about whether progressives, either leftists or liberals, should appear on the right-wing network.”
Certain leftists such as Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept and independent journalist Michael Tracey have been on Carlson’s show. In response to Carlson’s choice words for Omar, author Molly Crabapple commented, “Self identified leftists, stop going on Tucker’s White Power Hour to agree with him.”
Heer identifies Tucker’s strategy in trying to appeal to the Left:
Carlson is as insidious as he is odious and therefore very cunning in trying to channel popular anti-war sentiment into a right-wing unilateralism, as well as recasting grassroots anti-business sentiments into a conservative opposition to the supposed cosmopolitan elitism of woke capitalists.
By having leftists like Greenwald and Tracey on his show, Heer argues that “Carlson is trying to co-opt aspects of their anti-establishment message for his own project.”
The anti-war causes that Tucker promotes draw leftists like Greenwald and Tracy to his show to discuss issues that otherwise get ignored by the mainstream media. However, many leftist gatekeepers like Heer want to make sure that so-called “white supremacy” be stopped at all costs.
That usually means that contrarian voices like Carlson should be completely disavowed regardless of what is brought to the table. People can’t agree on everything, but there should at least be a consensus that the never-ending wars must go away.
For too long, concentrated interests have made a killing off of the suffering of foreigners and have completely turned the U.S. into an overstretched empire.
Fretting about comments in the distant past seems petty, especially when we have the opportunity to move forward on an issue like foreign policy intervention. Calling for the isolation and ostracization of people like Tucker Carlson does us no good.
If we want to progress on these issues, we need to avoid the toxic nature of identity politics and actually work together to move forward.

By Tony Lee
In an interview with Jemele Hill’s podcast that was released on Monday evening, Hill, playing a game of “for or against,” asked Harris if she was “for or against” reparations. Harris answered: “complicated.” Hill, who interviewed Harris during Essence Fest in New Orleans, told her “that wasn’t one of the choices.”

The presidential candidate then elaborated, saying she supports Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee’s (D-TX) commission to study reparations.
“We need to address how we’re going to do it… because back to the point I was making about home ownership…back to the point I was making about disparities around education… you can look at health outcomes when you know that black women are three to four times more likely to die in connection with child birth,” Harris said. “So there’s a lot that has to be about looking at this in a way that is about structural and systemic investment in communities.”
Harris said she was “reluctant” to give a simple answer on the issue because she fears Americans will not want to talk about structural and systemic inequalities that reparations advocates have argued have been compounding if the government just writes checks to the descendants of slaves.
“So that’s why I’m reluctant to have a simple answer to it because frankly I don’t believe that writing a check is gonna be enough,” Harris told Hill. “I really don’t… And the worst thing that I think could happen is that checks get written and then everybody says ‘ok, stop talking about this now’ without addressing the systemic inequities that are deep and require investment.”
Harris previously told The Root that “there has to be some form of reparations”—even for “undiagnosed and untreated trauma”—because “we’re looking at more than 200 years of slavery” and “almost a hundred years of Jim Crow.”
“We’re looking at legalized segregation and, in fact, segregation on so many levels that exists today, based on race,” she told The Root earlier this year. “And there has not been any kind of intervention done understanding the harm and the damage that occurred to correct course, and so we are seeing the effects of all of those years play out still today.”

JULY 16, 2019

JULY 16, 2019
Yes, really.
69-year-old Willem Van Spronsen was shot dead by police on Saturday morning at an ICE facility in Washington State after he threw molotov cocktails in an attempt to ignite a propane tank. He was also armed with an AR-15 semi-automatic weapon.
Van Spronsen’s manifesto subsequently emerged in which he stated, “I am Antifa” and said the attack was a protest against the establishment of “concentration camps” in the United States.
Despite the fact that Van Spronsen is a domestic terrorist who literally tried to kill Border Patrol officers, Black Lives Matter mouthpiece Shaun King praised him on Twitter.
“Willem Van Spronsen just became the first martyr attempting to liberate imprisoned refugees from a for-profit detention center in Tacoma, Washington,” tweeted King.

He then described Van Spronsen’s manifesto as “beautiful” and added, “He wasn’t crazy -inaction is.”

King then tweeted an image of tributes to Van Spronsen and commented, “His mind was very clear.”

King’s tweets are a direct violation of Twitter’s rules, which state, “We…prohibit the glorification of violence,” but his account has not been restricted.

As we highlighted yesterday, both Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar refused to condemn the attack despite the terrorist using the same “concentration camp” rhetoric as they did.
Van Spronsen also previously appeared on a CNN show because he was a member of a far-left gun club described as the “good guys” by a CNN host.

By Joe Hoft
The Gateway Pundit has obtained information that is damning for Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar.
Omar’s father, Nur Omar Mohamed (aka Nur Said Elmi Mohamed), is connected to the former dictator in Somalia, Said Barre. Nur and other former Barre accomplices are living in the US illegally.

Omar’s father Mohamed, is living in the US. He and other Somalians like Yusuf Abdi Ali, who killed thousands for Barre, escaped to the West and were not vetted properly before entering the country. Barre was a dictator and was connected to Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.

Ali is a convicted war criminal who did the killing himself. Ali has been located in the US working as security at Dulles International Airport and driving for Uber in 2019. He reportedly lived at one time in Alexandria, Virginia. Ali was a Colonel in the Somalian Army’s 5th Mechanized Brigade in 1987 and was a graduate of the Pentegon’s Program for Foreign Officers in 1986. He’s also a war criminal in response to his actions in Somalia.

Nur, Representative Omar’s father, appears to have been a party propagandist under the dictator and was responsible for ‘ideological’ aspects of the Red-Green revolution. (He worked for the Marxist/Stalinist regime under dictator Baare as a teacher of teachers.) This could have included providing the ideological/political justification for the massacres of the late eighties.
It is not a secret that Ilhan Omar’s father illegally entered the United States.

The Nur family was well connected in the country led by the Marxist regime. Young Omar went to kindergarten at age four, their family lived in a secure compound in Mogadishu. When the regime was overtaken, the family caught a plane to escape the country. The average GDP per capita in Somalia was only $187 dollars in 2010 twenty years after they fled the country when the regime fell. Obviously, Nur’s family was a privileged family.

According to a 2016 article on Omar, when the Marxist regime was being overtaken the secure compound that the family lived in was under attack by 20 armed men, somehow the family escaped. It is not clear how. Either the family had superior armed guards within their compound or they bribed the attackers and sent them on their way (or the story is a complete fabrication).

Both Ali and Nur escaped Somalia after the fall of Barre. Because they were no longer safe there and would have been put on trial and shot if caught, they exited the country. Both ended up in the US and both hid the fact that they worked for a totalitarian regime. Both lied on their Form N-400, Application for Naturalization about their communist background. (They had to or they wouldn’t be here.)
As you can see below:
The Immigration and Nationality Act (I.N.A.) contains a prohibition on naturalization for anyone involved, within the last ten years, with a group that advocates or teaches opposition to all organized government; or involved with the Communist Party or any other totalitarian party of the U.S. or any foreign state; or who advocates world communism or totalitarian dictatorship even without formal group membership. (See I.N.A. Section 313).”
Both Nur and Yusuf should be disqualified from permanent US residency and a revocation of their US citizenship should take place.
Representative Omar reportedly lied after she married her brother in order to assist him in obtaining US citizenship.
This would obviously disqualify Omar and her brother from legal citizenship.
Hat Tip Yaacov Apelbaum
773