AOC WARNS OF ‘LIST’ FOR DEMS WHO VOTE WITH REPUBLICANS – REPORT
Bipartisanship not allowed by new radical Democrats
By Bradford Betz
After more than two dozen moderate Democrats broke from their party’s progressive wing and sided with Republicans on a legislative amendment Wednesday, New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez reportedly sounded the alarm in a closed-door meeting Thursday and said those Democrats were “putting themselves on a list.”
The legislation that prompted the infighting was a bill that would expand federal background checks for gun purchases, the Washington Post reported. But a key provision requiring U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to be notified if illegal immigrants attempt to purchase guns saw 26 moderate Democrats side with Republicans.
CUOMO URGING AMAZON FOR SECOND CHANCE, DESPITE OCASIO-CORTEZ VICTORY LAP
According to the Post, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi scolded her wayward center-leaning colleagues, telling them: “We are either a team or we’re not, and we have to make that decision.”
But Ocasio-Cortez reportedly took it a step further. She said she would help progressive activists unseat those moderates in their districts in the 2020 elections, the report said. Her spokesman Corbin Trent told the paper that she made the “list” comment during the meeting.
“She said that when activists ask her why she had to vote for a gun safety bill that also further empowers an agency that forcibly injects kids with psychotropic drugs, they’re going to want a list of names and she’s going to give it to them,” Trent said, referring to ICE.
Ocasio-Cortez has vehemently denounced ICE since bursting onto the political stage — but has also raised concerns among fellow Democrats that she’s picking fights with her own party.
“I’m sure Ms. Cortez means well, but there’s almost an outstanding rule: Don’t attack your own people,” Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., told Politico earlier this year. “We just don’t need sniping in our Democratic Caucus.”
Her star status and outsize influence bringing Democrats on board with controversial policies like the Green New Deal have rankled some long-time members. But the freshman congresswoman appears unfazed by the pushback, often hitting back at her critics on Twitter.
In response to criticism earlier this year from former Sen. Joe Lieberman, Ocasio-Cortez tweeted a snarky: “New party, who dis?”
The gun bill on the floor earlier this week would expand the scope of background checks and require nearly all gun buyers to undergo one – including if they bought at a gun show, online or in a private transaction.
WATCH: Democrat Rep. Compares Border Agents To Nazis ‘Back In Germany’
Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA) compared federal U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents to Nazis “back in Germany” on Tuesday during a hearing on the border in the House Judiciary Committee.
“As I’ve been listening here, I’ve been struck a couple times by the denial of humanity of many of these families and children,” Scanlon said. “When the issue is framed as an invasion by aliens and when we refer to children as UACs, it’s easier to pretend that they’re not human and worthy of compassion.”
“When you say that the cause of migration is legal loopholes or bad judicial decisions, rather than the dire conditions of violence and poverty in these people’s home countries that’s literally driving them from home, I think it’s easier to slam the door against these kids and these families,” Scanlon continued. “This hearing is a recognition and an insistence that on that humanity…a recognition that just following orders is no more an excuse today than it was back in Germany.”
WATCH:
This is not the first time that Democratic lawmakers have demonized federal law enforcement officials to push their open-borders agenda.
In November, The Daily Wire reported that “Democratic California Senator Kamala Harris compared Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) during a Senate hearing” and “appeared to suggest that they act like a terrorist organization toward foreign nationals who are illegally in the United States.”
“Harris made the comparison during a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing to consider the nomination of Ronald Vitello to be the new director of ICE,” The Daily Wire added. “Harris asked Vitiello about comments he previously made in which he referred to the Democratic Party as ‘liberalcratic’ or ‘NeoKlanist,’ in an attempt to publicly shame him. Harris repeatedly pressed him to explain why he made the remark and why the remark was wrong for him to make.”
“The Klan was what we could call today a domestic terrorist group,” said Vitiello.
“Why?” Harris asked. “Why would we call them a domestic terrorist group?”
“Because they tried to use fear and force to change the political environment,” Vitiello responded.
“And what was the motivation for the use of fear and force?” Harris continued.
“It was based on race and ethnicity, “ Vitiello answered.
“Right, and are you aware of the perception of many about how the power and discretion at ICE is being used to enforce the law and do you see any parallels?” Harris asked.
“I do not see any parallels between sworn officers and agents —” Vitiello said before he was cut off.
“I’m talking about perception,” Harris fired back.
“I do not see a parallel between what is constitutionally mandated as it related to enforcing the law,” Vitiello replied. “I see no perception that puts ICE in the same category as the KKK.”
WATCH:
Other Democratic lawmakers, like Sen. Mazie Hirono (HI), have at times been unaware of basic immigration terminology policy and have had to be educated by federal officials during hearings.
In July, The Daily Wire reported that “Matthew T. Albence, Executive Associate Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) at ICE had to inform Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) that illegal aliens face prosecution because they have broken the law.”
“Mr. Albence, would you send your children to FRCs?” Hirono asked.
“Again, I think we’re missing the point,” Albence responded. “These individuals are there because they have broken a law. There has to be a process.”
“They have broken a law but only as deemed so by the president with his —” Hirono replied before being cut off.
“No ma’am,” Albence shot back. “They are there for violation of Title 8 of the U.S. Nationality Act. Okay. U.S.C. 1325. That’s illegal entry is both a criminal and civil violation. They are in those FRCs pending the outcome of that civil immigration process. They have broken the law.”
Woman In ICE Custody After Attacking Man Wearing MAGA Hat In Mexican Restaurant…
FALMOUTH (CBS) – The woman who was charged with confronting a man wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat inside a Falmouth Mexican restaurant was taken into custody by ICE. The department said she was in the country illegally.
Police said Rosiane Santos walked by Bryton Turner as he was eating dinner at Casa Vallarta and knocked the hat off his head. She then allegedly confronted him verbally.
Turner recorded video showing some of the confrontation.
Falmouth Police charged Santos with disorderly conduct following the incident earlier this month. On Tuesday, ICE took her into custody.
“Deportation officers with ICE’s Fugitive Operations Team arrested Rosiane Santos, an unlawfully present citizen of Brazil, today near Falmouth, Massachusetts,” said ICE spokesman John Mohan.
Turner said he was just trying to eat a nice meal when Santos grabbed his hat supporting President Trump.
“It’s just a hat at the end of the day,” Turner told WBZ after the incident. “I don’t really understand why people can’t just express themselves anymore, everybody has to get mad.”
Santos was later released from ICE custody. She has been ordered to appear before an immigration judge for removal proceedings.
PayPal Bans Big League Reporter After He Exposed Them Funding Illegal Immigration
By Tom Pappert
The reporter was banned without explanation after reporting on PayPal’s morally ambiguous enforcement decisions.
PayPal banned Big League Politics reporter Luke Rohlfing from its platform mere months after he exposed the online payment processor’s funding of an illegal immigration group that has provided services to those that encourage illegal immigration.
Rohlfing says he did not use his PayPal account to receive donations, receive payments, or otherwise conduct business as a reporter, but simply used it to expedite payments and increase security on various websites. Still, PayPal said in its email to Rohlfing notifying him of his account’s termination that the decision was based on his “activities” and relating to his “usage of PayPal services.”
The email also instructed him to remove all mention of PayPal as a payment processor from his website, even though Rohlfing has no website.
As Rohlfing continued to press her for information, the representative identified only as Elaine responded “For more details regarding the WHY [sic] of this action that PayPal took regarding your account, you may submit a subpoena to our corporate address.”
Rohlfing has already begun communicating with a lawyer, and says he plans to pursue legal action against PayPal.
This action comes only months after Rohlfing exposed PayPal for allowing an organization that openly encourages and provides material support to migrant caravans seeking to enter the United States illegally to use its platform.
Rohlfing reported for Big League Politics last year:
In the past month, President Donald Trump has been faced with the challenge of dealing with a caravan of illegal immigrants storming the border. The caravan, mostly coming from Central America, is being organized by a group called Pueblo Sin Fronteras, translated to “People Without Borders.”
While there is no surefire way to track the exact funding of the group, it clearly has support with at least good media coverage from media outlets with ties to George Soros. But it is clear who is facilitating the transactions from supporters, and that is PayPal.
Big League Politics informed PayPal about the group hosting a link to a PayPal account accepting donations to support the caravans.
PayPal promised to contact Rohlfing via email to discuss their decision to allow a group that advocates breaking the law to exist on its platform, but never did. Instead, Rohlfing was summarily banned from the payment processor months later.
Speaking to his compatriots at Big League Politics, Rohlfing explained that in his view, “PayPal is demonstrating yet again that they are left-wing authoritarians with an axe to grind,” expanding that, “First they banned users from purchasing legal firearms, and now they are shutting down anyone who reports news they don’t like.”
“Make Peter Thiel in charge of PayPal again,” Rohlfing concluded.
California, 15 Other States Sue Trump over Border Wall Emergency Declaration
By Joel B. Pollak
The State of California and fifteen other states sued President Donald Trump on Monday over his declaration Friday of a national emergency and his plans to redirect federal funds to the construction of a wall on the southern border.
The lawsuit, as expected, was filed by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and was joined by attorneys general from “Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Virginia — all of which have Democratic attorneys general and all but one of which are led by Democratic governors,” the Wall Street Journal noted Monday.
However, ten of the 26 Democrat attorneys general have not joined the lawsuit — at least not yet, as of Tuesday.
The complaint, filed in federal court in the Northern District of California, decries what it calls “President Donald J. Trump’s flagrant disregard of fundamental separation of powers principles engrained in the United States Constitution.” It adds:
Contrary to the will of Congress, the President has used the pretext of a manufactured “crisis” of unlawful immigration to declare a national emergency and redirect federal dollars appropriated for drug interdiction, military construction, and law enforcement initiatives toward building a wall on the United States-Mexico border. This includes the diversion of funding that each of the Plaintiff States receive.
The complaint continues through several familiar talking points from the Democratic Party:
The federal government’s own data prove there is no national emergency at the southern border that warrants construction of a wall. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data show that unlawful entries are near 45-year lows. The State Department recognizes there is a lack of credible evidence that terrorists are using the southern border to enter the United States. Federal data confirm that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than are native-born Americans. CBP data demonstrate that dangerous drugs are much more likely to be smuggled through, not between, official ports of entry—rendering a border wall ineffectual at preventing their entry into this country.
Later in the complaint, the states claim that the border wall is not only unnecessary, but that it will also cause environmental damage. The complaint also claims a border barrier will not block “drug smuggling corridors.”
President Trump said Friday that, following earlier patterns, he expected a legal challenge in California, to lose there and in the liberal Ninth Circuit, and then to prevail at the Supreme Court, where conservatives hold a 5-4 majority.
Unlike President Barack Obama’s invocation of executive powers to declare the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) programs, Trump’s use of emergency powers is arguably within the powers assigned to him by the Constitution and delegated to him by Congress under the National Emergencies Act of 1976, according to analysis by Breitbart News legal editor Ken Klukowski.
Many experts agree. The Journal notes that “courts have been reluctant to second-guess the president on national-security matters,” and quotes liberal constitutional law professor Mark Tushnet of Harvard as saying that the case is “not a slam dunk” for the states, though he added he believes there is a “decent chance” that they could prevail.
The case is State of California et al v. Trump et al, number 3:19-cv-00872, Northern District of California.
U.S. Taxpayers Fund Border Walls in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Middle East
By John Binder
American taxpayers are continuing to fund border security measures and border walls in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, and Lebanon with President Trump’s signing of a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spending bill.
While the United States-Mexico border received only $1.3 billion for construction of a border wall at the overwhelmed southern border with soaring illegal immigration, foreign countries are getting help from American taxpayers to secure their borders.
The Republican-Democrat spending bill signed by Trump last week provides Pakistan with at least $15 million in U.S. taxpayer money for “border security programs” as well as funding for “cross border stabilization” between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In total, the spending bill provides about $6 billion in American taxpayer money to finance foreign militaries, some of which can be used by Lebanon to “strengthen border security and combat terrorism.”
The spending bill provides about $112.5 million in U.S. taxpayer money for economic support for Egypt, including $10 million for scholarships for Egyptian students. Egypt’s military receives about $1.3 billion in the spending bill, some of which can be for border security programs.
Additionally, the spending bill includes:
- An expansion of Catch and Release
- A potential doubling of the annual low-skilled foreign workers imported to the U.S.
- Less detention space for border crossers
- The amnesty pipeline for Unaccompanied Alien Children (UACs) and their relatives
- Stipulations requiring local officials to approve all wall construction
- Chokeholds on immigration enforcement at the border and in the interior
Meanwhile, illegal immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border has swelled in recent months. In December 2018, the last month for illegal border crossing totals, there were close to 51,000 border crossings. The month before, there were nearly 52,000 border crossings. Experts project there to be at least 606,000 crossings this year at the southern border, a level of illegal immigration that surpasses nearly every year of illegal immigration under President Obama.
Tom's Blog 