Published on Apr 4, 2019
{MORE FROM THE DEEP STATE} – AWFUL! Mitch McConnell Refutes Trump Again, Says “Closing the Border Would Have Catostrophic Impact on Country” (VIDEO)
April 2, 2019
Sometimes it’s hard to see who these Republican senators represent?
Just last month 12 Republican senators stood proudly with Democrats against President Trump’s border emergency declaration.
That was the best Mitch McConnell could do — 12 defectors.
This past weekend President Trump suggested he may be forced to close the southern border.
In March 100,000 illegal immigrants invaded the southern border. Immigration services are overwhelmed.
Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans have no answer for this crisis.
Closing the border is NOT their priority.
They could not care less about their voting base.
Instead Mitch McConnell refuted the Republican President and said, “Closing the border would have a catastrophic economic impact on the country.”
Did Pelosi or Harry Reid EVER do this to Barack Obama?
THE JUSSIE SMOLLETT OF CAPITOL HILL
TDA. It’s Real.
DEMS SUBPOENA MUELLER REPORT WHAT IS BARR HIDING?
By Emily Tillett
The House Judiciary Committee voted to authorize subpoenas for special counsel Robert Mueller’s full report on his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and potential ties between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. The resolution passed Wednesday morning 24-17 in a party line vote. The committee will now also move to subpoena all underlying documents related to Mueller’s findings.
Before Wednesday’s vote, Republicans largely blasted the Democratic-led effort as violating the law, claiming the public release of the full Mueller report would present national security issues as much of the report is expected to contain redacted materials pertaining to grand jury information.
Republican members on the committee also claimed the resolution was a continuing effort to undermine the Trump presidency, with some claiming Democrats were pursuing the subpoenas as an attack on the president.
“As much as Democrats may hate the president, I would hope you love America more,” said Colorado Republican Rep. Ken Buck. He said that “if love trumps hate” Democrats should afford the attorney general enough time to properly release the findings.
Meanwhile, as Democrats continue to push for transparency, President Trump pushed back, calling out committee Chairman Jerry Nadler for opposing the release of independent counsel Ken Starr’s report on the investigation of former President Clinton.
“With the NO COLLUSION Mueller Report, which the Dems hate, he wants it all. NOTHING WILL EVER SATISFY THEM!” tweeted Mr. Trump on Tuesday.
Committee spokesman Daniel Schwarz said in a statement on Tuesday that the debate in 1998 “was not about Congress receiving evidence” but rather about “what type of material from the underlying evidence in the Starr report should be made public.”
“Our expectation is that Attorney General Barr will be as forthcoming now as Mr. Starr was in 1998,” added Schwarz, saying Barr “should provide the full Mueller report to Congress, with the underlying materials, at which point we will be in a better position to understand what Special Counsel Mueller uncovered during his investigation.”
The House already overwhelmingly voted 420-0 on a non-binding resolution to release the full Mueller report, but Sen. Lindsey Graham blocked a vote on the resolution in the Senate.
As a result of the resolution, Nadler’s committee will also issue subpoenas for a variety of Trump associates. They include former White House Counsel Donald McGahn, former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks, former Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and former White House Counsel Chief of Staff Ann Donaldson.
They are being subpoenaed as part of the Judiciary Committee’s separate investigation into possible threats to the rule of law by the president.
“Because we may have to go to court to obtain the complete text of the Special Counsel’s report, and because the President may attempt to invoke executive privilege to withhold that evidence from us, it is imperative that the Committee take possession of these documents, and others, without delay,” explained Nadler.
Highlights from the Judiciary Committee vote below:
Nadler pushes for report release
Speaking before Wednesday’s vote, Nadler said in opening remarks that on multiple occasions, he asked Barr “to work with us to go to the court and obtain access to materials.” Nadler claimed however that Barr has “so far refused.”
“I will give him time to change his mind. But if we cannot reach an accommodation, then we will have no choice but to issue subpoenas for these materials. And if the Department still refuses, then it should be up to a judge—not the President or his political appointee—to decide whether or not it is appropriate for the Committee to review the complete record,” said Nadler.
Republicans blast committee probe
Ranking Member Rep. Doug Collins, R-Georgia, meanwhile slammed the committee’s ongoing probe of the president and investigation, saying time would best be spent on issues like the crisis on the Southern border. Collins said the asks for further documents was “reckless, irresponsible and disingenuous.”
“What’s the rush? Spring break probably, we don’t want to wait until May,” Collins suggested of Nadler’s calls for subpoenas as Barr has vowed to testify before lawmakers in early May. He claimed Democrats were simply calling for the subpoenas of documents to make headlines after Mueller didn’t make a determination as to whether Mr. Trump committed obstruction of justice.
“This is great political theater,” he added, arguing that asking Barr to release any grand jury materials was illegal, citing potential national security issues.
Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado echoed Collins, saying the public release could “comprise intelligence sources and methods” that Barr previously expressed concerns about this to the committee.
“As much as Democrats may hate the president, I would hope you love America more,” said Buck. He said that “if love trumps hate” Democrats should afford the attorney general enough time to properly release the findings.
Rep. John Ratcliffe of Texas meanwhile urged a subpoena of Robert Mueller himself, saying the committee should let Mueller speak about “whether or not he thinks the report he created should be disclosed without considerations of redactions of classified information.”
Fellow Texan Louie Gohmert blasted Democrats claiming they were the ones who colluded with the Russian government. He called the ongoing probe an “outrageous assault on the office of the president even after the truth has come out.”
“It’s time to go back and clean up the mess that’s been made,” added Gohmert.
Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida agreed with Gohmert, saying Democrats are in denial over Muller’s report, saying the report’s initial release is the the “death rattle of the Democrats’ Russian collusion lie.” He said they’re going through the “stages of grief” in real time over Mueller’s less-than-fruitful findings into obstruction of justice and collusion.
CBS News’ Rebecca Kaplan contributed to this report.
Texans Living Over 70 Miles North of Border Terrorized by Illegals, Cartels
Tuesday, April 02, 2019
Terrified residents desperate for border wall, protection
Americans living roughly 75 miles north of the Mexican border are being terrorized by foreign gang members and illegal aliens, according to a resident of Encino, Texas, who says a border wall is needed to protect U.S. citizens.
A woman identified only as “Soila” told NBC affiliate KVEO that “hundreds” of illegal aliens pass through her neighborhood on any given day, while Mexican cartel members threaten her family and friends — and even attempt to invade her property.
“We no longer can go out without a gun; you can’t go for a walk,” Soila said. “My neighbor and his daughter were chased by men with masks. She was riding her 4-wheeler down 281 — they saw her and they jumped the fence and started chasing her.”
“Huge groups — and we’re not talking 10 or 15, we’re talking about 40, 70 — and the last few months it’s getting worse. They really need to go after the coyotes because we have seen so many abandoned families, women with children just left out there. These people are not educated — they don’t know east or west, they don’t know where the sun rises and sets. You ask them, ‘Have you ever seen a map of Texas?’ They don’t even know how big Texas is.”
Soila tells of multiple confrontations between her husband and gang members who use intimidation to silence and control opposition, adding that her neighbors are scared to call Border Patrol due to threats.
“12 young men dressed in black — my husband automatically stops, and they just put a finger to their lips and it’s like, ‘You better not say anything,’” Soila said. “They know what we drive, they know where we live.”
“There was a young man, [my husband] kept telling him to stop right at the gate, but he kept coming. My husband cocked the gun, and right on his left-hand side, 12-15 more pop out. They were trying to get in towards the house.”
Soila says a border wall is desperately needed, and that those who oppose it are foolish or protecting their short-term financial interests.
“Whoever tells you there is no danger out here and we don’t need the wall, they have no idea what they’re talking about,” she said. “They don’t care as long as the businesses keep thriving in McAllen or Brownsville.”
Democrat Presidential Candidate Julián Castro: Open the Borders
By Neil Munro
Democratic presidential hopeful Julián Castro is hoping to win primary voters by urging an open-borders policy, even though his plan would likely shrink wages and spike rents for the party’s base of lower-income voters.
Castro, a former housing secretary in President Barack Obama’s cabinet, announced his innovative promise to cut voters’ wages via a friendly interview in the Washington Post:
Democratic presidential candidate Julián Castro offered a far-reaching plan to remake the nation’s immigration policy Tuesday with a new call to end criminal penalties for migrants entering the country without permission and a plan to remove detention as a tool for most immigration enforcement.
…
By repealing the criminal code that allows the Trump administration to prosecute people who enter the country, Castro would remove the mechanism that previously allowed the administration to separate asylum-seeking parents and children after detention. Trump has since stopped those prosecutions, though single adults continue to face criminal penalties. Castro said he would impose a civil legal process for sorting out refugee applications and deportations, with an emphasis on jailing and removing those with criminal records.
Castro also wants to amnesty the population of at least 11 million illegals in the United States, to accelerate the chain-migration of foreigners into the United States, to boost the inflow of refugees, and to end construction of a border barrier. He would also block the power of ICE to enforce the nation’s immigration laws, so further reducing the already small threat of repatriation for the growing population of at least 11 million illegals in the United States.
Overall, Castro’s policy would explode the population of non-Americans in the United States and so further expand opportunities for Latino politicians and power-brokers. In February 2019, Breitbart reported Castro’s political roots in Latino identity politics:
Castro’s mother, Maria del Rosario Castro, or Rosie Castro, was a major leftist organizer who co-founded La Raza Unida, an extremist third party separatist group in the 1970s. La Raza Unida literally translates to “The Race United,” and the group sought to create a new country in the American Southwest called Aztlan. Breitbart News has run a number of pieces over the years on this group and the Castro family’s connections to it, but perhaps the most interesting thing about Castro’s presidential campaign launch is that he did not shy away from this radical upbringing; he embraced it.
The Washington Post reporter, Michael Scherer, did not ask Castro how Americans voters would gain or lose amid of flood of blue-collar and white-collar labor. The reporter did not address how a massive rise of the immigrant population would help lower-income Americans keep their homes in neighborhoods that are already seeing rising real-estate prices, such as New York and Los Angeles.
Instead, Castro and Scherer treated the migration issue merely as a matter of the migrants’ welfare. This skew hides the greatest economic impact of migration — the transfer of blue-collar wages and white-collar salaries earned by ordinary Americans and legal immigrants up to wealthy, older recipients, including investors, CEOs, and real estate owners.
Also, Castro and Scherer treated the migration as only a humanitarian crisis, and portrayed the migrants as helpless victims, which are described as “asylum-seeking families.” Castro told Scherer that “We see this administration’s approach to immigration is a total failure. Instead of marching forward with cruelty, I believe we should choose compassion.”
That approach dismisses the strong evidence that the migrants are rationally exploiting the many legal loopholes which are being held open by Democrats, judges and business lobbyists, to win jobs and residency for their children in the peaceful, prosperous United States.
Scherer did not reply to questions from Breitbart News.
The focus by Castro and Scherer on the migrants’ welfare and on humanitarian concerns also echoes the bipartisan claim that the United States is a “nation of immigrants,” not a nation of and for Americans.
The voting public is likely to strongly oppose Castro’s open-borders and cheap-labor policy.
Each year, roughly four million young Americans join the workforce after graduating from high school or university. But the federal government then imports approximately 1.1 million legal immigrants, refreshes a resident population of roughly 1.5 million white-collar guest workers and roughly 500,000 blue-collar visa workers, and also tolerates about eight million illegal workers.
This federal policy of flooding the market with cheap white-collar graduates and blue-collar foreign labor is intended to boost economic growth for investors. This policy shiftsenormous wealth from young employees towards older investors, widens wealth gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts children’s schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines millions of marginalized Americans, including many who are now struggling with fentanyl addictions.
But the Washington Post article also put a racial, class, and regional skew on the rational public opposition to elite support for cheap-labor migration:
Some Democratic strategists are wary of turning off white voters in swing states of the upper Midwest who Trump has been able to sway with anti-immigration rhetoric.
Those views of “white voters” have been validated by President Donald Trump’s “Hire American” policy which has raised wages in 2018 by limiting the inflow of new workers in 2017 and 2018:
Amnesty advocates rely on business-funded “Nation of Immigrants” push polls to show apparent voter support for immigration and immigrants.
But “choice” polls reveal most voters’ often-ignored preference that CEOs should hire Americans at decent wages before hiring migrants. Those Americans include many blue-collar Blacks, Latinos, and people who hide their opinions from pollsters. Similarly, the 2018 polls show that GOP voters are far more concerned about migration — more properly, the economics of migration — than they are concerned about illegal migration and MS-13, taxes, or House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi.
WHY NOT BERNIE?
IF IT WEREN’T FOR DOUBLE STANDARDS, THE LEFT WOULD HAVE NO STANDARDS AT ALL.
Kirsten Gillibrand Wants To Abolish Electoral College To ‘Restore’ A Fundamental American Principle. There’s Just One Problem.
By Ashe Schow
Maybe it was an April Fool’s Day joke, because that would be the kindest explanation for presidential candidate Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s (D-NY) tweet on Monday claiming we need to “abolish the Electoral College” in order to “restore” the principle of “one person, one vote.”
She put out the tweet and included a link to a Daily Beast article about Democrat senators introducing a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College (because their supporters live in big, populous cities and a popular vote will ensure they’re elected).
“Our democracy is built on the principle of one person, one vote. It can’t function until we restore that principle. It’s time to abolish the Electoral College,” Gillibrand tweeted.
The problem with the tweet, as Mark Hemingway and others pointed out, is that there is no “principle” to “restore” by eliminating the Electoral College. It’s in the constitution. It is a principle on which our “democracy” (constitutional republic) was built.
The Electoral College is described in Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
In 1804, the states ratified the Twelfth Amendment, which supersedes the paragraph after the one quoted above. Originally, the person with the most electoral votes would be president, and the person with the second highest would be vice-president.
The Twelfth Amendment changed that by making president and vice-president two separate elections.
The national popular vote was never an American principle, or at least not the way Democrats want it to be now. The Electoral College results from a popular vote – in each state and the District of Columbia. It is 51 separate popular votes, although two states award proportional electoral votes.
Democrats don’t like the way elections are currently done because their party lost in 2016 and 2000 due to electoral votes when they won the popular vote. So, naturally, because the system didn’t work for them, they want to abolish it.
Republicans run using the Electoral College. Then-candidate Donald Trump visited states he thought he could win to increase his electoral votes. Hillary Clinton visited some states she knew she wouldn’t win in order to increase her vote totals so she would not only be the first female president, but also the president with the most votes ever.
This strategy, of course, did not work out in her favor. She ignored states she assumed would give her their electoral votes (like Wisconsin), assuming the Electoral College was a lock for her. She was wrong.
Now Democrats are upset that their strategy to win the election didn’t work, and they think that because Clinton won the national popular votes, that a national popular vote would result in total Democrat control.
Republicans don’t run on the national popular vote. If they did, maybe they would win it. It’s a chance Democrats seem willing to take.
Tom's Blog 