53percenter's Blog

Freedom hangs in the balance now that the seeds of socialism have been sown with the younger generation…

Republicans could have a winning strategy for next year’s all-important elections as well as a legitimate chance of retaking the House Of Representatives.

With the White House and the fate of the republic hanging in the balance and Democrats calling for the imposition of socialism on the nation, it cannot be overstated that 2020 will be the most critical election in American history.

Driven mad by Trump Derangement Syndrome and transformed into an angry mob led by Bernie Sanders and a 29-year-old bartender, the Democrats have degenerated into the barbarians at the gates and unless they are thoroughly crushed, the future looks bleak.

But despite the media dominance that allows them to promote their dangerous ideology, the party’s ideas are political poison to the vast majority of the country – the areas that are sneered at and mocked by the coastal elitists and their celebrity mouthpieces who would force their views on voters living in areas that they derisively refer to as the “flyover states” who they despise.

However, the vast majority of Americans who live there despise them as well and hate their radicalism even more.

To take advantage of the loathing for the left, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has tipped his hand at the GOP’s plans and that is to make the election into a “referendum” on socialism.

McConnell calls for making 2020 election “referendum on socialism” https://t.co/kZ6tuIA0AL pic.twitter.com/jJKPFaFlYl

— The Hill (@thehill) April 11, 2019

Via The Hill, “GOP leader on 2020: We need a ‘referendum on socialism’”:

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Thursday said he wants to make the 2020 presidential and Senate elections a “referendum on socialism” by pinning down Democrats on proposals like “Medicare for all” and the Green New Deal.

“We need to have a referendum on socialism,” McConnell told a group of reporters when asked for his assessment of next year’s elections, when Senate Republicans will have to defend 22 seats, compared with12 for Democrats.

“I’m going to be arguing, and I’m encouraging my colleagues to argue, that we are the firewall against socialism in this country,” McConnell added.

He said Republicans need to make the case to the American people, “if you’re uncomfortable with things like the Green New Deal and Medicare for none, the best way to avoid that is to have a Republican Senate.”

McConnell predicted that Republicans would have a target-rich environment with at least five Democratic presidential candidates backing Medicare for all legislation and at least six supporting the Green New Deal, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-N.Y.) ambitious plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

“We’ve got five credible candidates for president in the Senate signed up for the Green New Deal and Medicare for none. If we can’t make that case, we ought to go into another line of work,” he said.

With a year and a half to go until the elections and the Democrats already proposing such lunacy as the elimination of the private health insurance industry, free college tuition, stealing money from white people to pay out reparations to those who have never been slaves and more, they are only going to get more extreme to energize their rabid base.

But in doing so, Democrats may be on a suicide mission because, despite the illusion of what’s on CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, Facebook and Twitter, rational Americans and those moderates that are neeed to win nationally are horrified at what they have become.

McConnell is really onto something here and it could pay off big time.

So it now looks like all of the political left’s pontificating and phony concern about open borders and illegal immigrants has been complete hogwash.

President Trump came up with a brainstorm to alleviate overwhelmed border detention centers by suggesting that those who have invaded the U.S. under the pretense of being refugees should be transported to sanctuary cities across the country where liberals could roll out the red carpet.

….The Radical Left always seems to have an Open Borders, Open Arms policy – so this should make them very happy!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 12, 2019

Instead of gratitude, the celebs, activist media, and Democrats exploded in outrage showing once and for all that these sanctimonious sacks of snake shit don’t practice what they preach.

President Trump: “California certainly is always saying, ‘Oh we want more people,’ and they want more people in their sanctuary cities. Well, we’ll give them more people. We can give them a lot. We can give them an unlimited supply — and let’s see if they’re so happy.” pic.twitter.com/veO3Hl0X9G

— The Hill (@thehill) April 12, 2019

Via The Hill, “Trump proposal for ‘sanctuary cities’ infuriates Dems”:

Democrats are fuming over President Trump’s consideration of a plan to move asylum seekers to “sanctuary cities” as a form of political retribution.

Top Democratic lawmakers were quick to criticize the morality of the proposal, while also saying it’s hard to take it seriously.

“You have policymakers at the highest levels throwing tantrums,” said Rep. Lou Correa (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Homeland Security oversight subcommittee. “I can’t even begin to address this issue.”

The proposal, first reported by The Washington Post on Thursday, was floated by White House officials to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

President Trump on Friday confirmed the proposal in a tweet, saying, “we are indeed, as reported, giving strong considerations to placing Illegal Immigrants in Sanctuary Cities.”

White House officials in November and February tried unsuccessfully to pressure DHS officials to release thousands of detainees in small and mid-sized “sanctuary cities” as a form of political pressure against Democrats, the Post reported.

“This reflects how much policymakers at the highest level of a government don’t understand what they’re dealing with,” Correa said before Trump’s tweet. “When they say they’re going to punish sanctuary states, don’t they understand these workers are needed in this economy?”

And OH how they HOWLED like scalded cats instead of taking the side of their beloved illegals…

This is so sick and twisted.

White House proposed releasing immigrant detainees in sanctuary cities, targeting political foes. https://t.co/UGg0b7630v

— Alyssa Milano (@Alyssa_Milano) April 12, 2019

What the President is talking about here is spending taxpayer dollars to use immigrant families—mothers, fathers and young children—as pawns for political retribution. This is both morally repugnant and probably illegal. https://t.co/6l3PgF2eg8

— (((Rep. Nadler))) (@RepJerryNadler) April 12, 2019

Power corrupts, and absolute power results in dangerously hare-brained schemes like this one, in which people fleeing violence are cynically used as political pawns. https://t.co/uwE26FEwIW

— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) April 12, 2019

The stench of hypocrisy is overwhelming!

For all the left’s howls about ‘Islamophobia’ and its supposed ‘endangering‘ of Muslims, the real issue is anti-Semitism and the terror attacks now surging from it. Three Islam-motivated massacres on synogogues – in Ohio, Montana, and Georgia - were all thwarted in just the last five months, with very little press coverage about how close the terrorists came.

Frontline’s Daniel Greenfield has a disturbing piece on the incidents, as well news of a surge of crazed Jew-hating rhetoric from Muslim leaders that has risen in assorted mosques around the country, which may be fueling it. He writes:

All three Muslim terrorists were ISIS supporters. They were the same age and scattered around the country, from Montana to Georgia to Ohio. They origins lay in different cultures and parts of the world.

And yet their terror plots all targeted Jews.

What was it that created this cluster of three Islamic terror plots against synagogues?

No specifics are given in the complaints. Even the names of the synagogues remain anonymous. The phenomenon was not noted by any media outlet. The same outlets that eagerly publish statistical compilations of attacks on Muslims, real or imaginary, once again turned a blind eye to this cluster.

He thinks it’s connected to the surge in Jew-hating rhetoric and actual calls for violence against Jews suddenly coming out of mosques throughout the country:

Last year, there was a similar cluster, not of attack plots, but of incitement to violence.

In December 2017, an Imam in New Jersey had been caught preaching of the Jews, “Count them one by one, and kill them down to the very last one. Do not leave a single one on the face of the Earth.”

In February 2018, an Imam in Texas had urged fighting the Jews and a Syrian refugee Imam in North Carolina had recited a hadith calling for the extermination of the Jews, “We will fight those Jews until the rocks and the trees will speak: ‘Oh Muslim, this is a Jew behind me.’”

The geographic diversity of these calls to violence in mosques from New Jersey to North Carolina to Texas, echoed the diversity of the latest Islamic terror plots in Montana, Georgia and Ohio. There is no particular reason to think that the three terrorists were influenced by imams from other states. What these numbers reveal is the incredible scope and range of Islamic anti-Semitism and violence in America.

Now that even congressional leaders, such as Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn) have made anti-Semitism respectable in the Democratic Party as well as impossible to censure, it signals an ugly emerging picture. Sick rhetoric is coming out of the mosques. People who listen to that sick rhetoric and go along with it are rolling into the Democratic Party’s congressional leadership, hailed as the new wave and vanguard. They are not only escaping criticism, they are drawing in a host of useful idiots rushing to their defense.

And the violence keeps getting scarier. Right now, the lawmen have thwarted the problem in three instances, but it doesn’t mean they’ve cut the problem off at the roots. They’ll still have to keep thwarting, getting it right every time, until they don’t. One slips out and large number of innocent people are massacred. After then, the press will report “no known motive” for the attack.

Yet the answer as to why such an attack would go forth would be right there in this evidence.

It’s time to stop letting these people into this country.  

For all the left’s howls about ‘Islamophobia’ and its supposed ‘endangering‘ of Muslims, the real issue is anti-Semitism and the terror attacks now surging from it. Three Islam-motivated massacres on synogogues – in Ohio, Montana, and Georgia - were all thwarted in just the last five months, with very little press coverage about how close the terrorists came.

Frontline’s Daniel Greenfield has a disturbing piece on the incidents, as well news of a surge of crazed Jew-hating rhetoric from Muslim leaders that has risen in assorted mosques around the country, which may be fueling it. He writes:

All three Muslim terrorists were ISIS supporters. They were the same age and scattered around the country, from Montana to Georgia to Ohio. They origins lay in different cultures and parts of the world.

And yet their terror plots all targeted Jews.

What was it that created this cluster of three Islamic terror plots against synagogues?

No specifics are given in the complaints. Even the names of the synagogues remain anonymous. The phenomenon was not noted by any media outlet. The same outlets that eagerly publish statistical compilations of attacks on Muslims, real or imaginary, once again turned a blind eye to this cluster.

He thinks it’s connected to the surge in Jew-hating rhetoric and actual calls for violence against Jews suddenly coming out of mosques throughout the country:

Last year, there was a similar cluster, not of attack plots, but of incitement to violence.

In December 2017, an Imam in New Jersey had been caught preaching of the Jews, “Count them one by one, and kill them down to the very last one. Do not leave a single one on the face of the Earth.”

In February 2018, an Imam in Texas had urged fighting the Jews and a Syrian refugee Imam in North Carolina had recited a hadith calling for the extermination of the Jews, “We will fight those Jews until the rocks and the trees will speak: ‘Oh Muslim, this is a Jew behind me.’”

The geographic diversity of these calls to violence in mosques from New Jersey to North Carolina to Texas, echoed the diversity of the latest Islamic terror plots in Montana, Georgia and Ohio. There is no particular reason to think that the three terrorists were influenced by imams from other states. What these numbers reveal is the incredible scope and range of Islamic anti-Semitism and violence in America.

Now that even congressional leaders, such as Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn) have made anti-Semitism respectable in the Democratic Party as well as impossible to censure, it signals an ugly emerging picture. Sick rhetoric is coming out of the mosques. People who listen to that sick rhetoric and go along with it are rolling into the Democratic Party’s congressional leadership, hailed as the new wave and vanguard. They are not only escaping criticism, they are drawing in a host of useful idiots rushing to their defense.

And the violence keeps getting scarier. Right now, the lawmen have thwarted the problem in three instances, but it doesn’t mean they’ve cut the problem off at the roots. They’ll still have to keep thwarting, getting it right every time, until they don’t. One slips out and large number of innocent people are massacred. After then, the press will report “no known motive” for the attack.

Yet the answer as to why such an attack would go forth would be right there in this evidence.

It’s time to stop letting these people into this country.  

Rep. Ilhan Omar has been caught trivializing 9/11 for the second time in as many days, this time in a bizarre video dug up by Fox News:

Minnesota Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, in a newly resurfaced clip of an old interview, joked about people saying “Al Qaeda” and “Hezbollah” in a severe tone — while noting nobody says words like “America” that way.

“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. … The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up,” Omar said during an interview from 2013 when she was an activist within the Somali community, chuckling as she imitated the professor saying “Al Qaeda” and “Hezbollah.”

Omar went on to contrast the way people say the names of terror groups with how they pronounce the names of western powers:

“But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “… But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.”

We say those words in severe tones, of course, because the groups they represent are repulsive, vile, despicable, terrorists, all of them with long records of murdering innocents and dancing around about it afterward.

But to Omar, see, this represents hypocrisy, a double standard. Shouldn’t we all be using the word ‘America’ with just as much ‘intensity’ as we do ‘al Qaida’ or ‘Hezbollah’? Shouldn’t the word ‘America’ inspire the same sense of revulsion as ‘al Qaida’?

This, from the person who just recently assured that 9/11 was merely ‘some people did something’ instead of enact the largest mass murder from an Islamic terror attack in U.S. history, something that got a powerful smackdown from the New York Post, which by the way, is still criticizing her.

In both instances, she trivializes 9/11 and the authentic threat that Islamic terror represents. She even links it to her own anti-American hatred, so common among fourth-world petty intellectuals described well in the non-fiction works of V.S. Naipaul.

(Who by the way, unexpectedly won the Nobel prize for literature in the wake of 9/11, when even the Scandinavians were still outraged by the attacks.)

Apparently, the 9/11 attacks had no such effect on the mind of Omar. Her response in fact, was to don the hijab, as she told the Washington Post. She hadn’t been wearing it before then. That’s some motivation for putting on a veil.

And it says a lot about where Omar’s true sympathies lie. It certainly explains why she could come to America as a refugee and right away find herself disgusted with the country, as she has told interviewers many times. Authentic refugees who’ve endured actual privation don’t do that.  

It also raises questions about why she thinks she can get away with such views. Obviously, it’s because she knows that the culture of political correctness in the U.S. is a strong one. Fox News’s Judge Jeanine Pirro was recently suspended for asking if Omar’s veil-wearing was an indicator of support for Sharia law.

With the revelations from this new clip, obviously Pirro was understating things. Omar not only supports sharia law (which may or may not be relevant, depending on how it is read), she supports anti-Americanism. Her remarks downplaying al-Qaida in now two instances, as well as her going to political bat for known terrorists, insisting that they take no consequences for their murderous acts and plans, suggests a congressional leader whose constituents are terrorists and useful idiots, and whose own loyalties are in downplaying terrorism as a sword and up-playing political correctness as a shield.

What an appalling picture of her. And of those who elected her.

Image credit: Twitter screen grab

Rep. Ilhan Omar has been caught trivializing 9/11 for the second time in as many days, this time in a bizarre video dug up by Fox News:

Minnesota Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, in a newly resurfaced clip of an old interview, joked about people saying “Al Qaeda” and “Hezbollah” in a severe tone — while noting nobody says words like “America” that way.

“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. … The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up,” Omar said during an interview from 2013 when she was an activist within the Somali community, chuckling as she imitated the professor saying “Al Qaeda” and “Hezbollah.”

Omar went on to contrast the way people say the names of terror groups with how they pronounce the names of western powers:

“But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “… But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.”

We say those words in severe tones, of course, because the groups they represent are repulsive, vile, despicable, terrorists, all of them with long records of murdering innocents and dancing around about it afterward.

But to Omar, see, this represents hypocrisy, a double standard. Shouldn’t we all be using the word ‘America’ with just as much ‘intensity’ as we do ‘al Qaida’ or ‘Hezbollah’? Shouldn’t the word ‘America’ inspire the same sense of revulsion as ‘al Qaida’?

This, from the person who just recently assured that 9/11 was merely ‘some people did something’ instead of enact the largest mass murder from an Islamic terror attack in U.S. history, something that got a powerful smackdown from the New York Post, which by the way, is still criticizing her.

In both instances, she trivializes 9/11 and the authentic threat that Islamic terror represents. She even links it to her own anti-American hatred, so common among fourth-world petty intellectuals described well in the non-fiction works of V.S. Naipaul.

(Who by the way, unexpectedly won the Nobel prize for literature in the wake of 9/11, when even the Scandinavians were still outraged by the attacks.)

Apparently, the 9/11 attacks had no such effect on the mind of Omar. Her response in fact, was to don the hijab, as she told the Washington Post. She hadn’t been wearing it before then. That’s some motivation for putting on a veil.

And it says a lot about where Omar’s true sympathies lie. It certainly explains why she could come to America as a refugee and right away find herself disgusted with the country, as she has told interviewers many times. Authentic refugees who’ve endured actual privation don’t do that.  

It also raises questions about why she thinks she can get away with such views. Obviously, it’s because she knows that the culture of political correctness in the U.S. is a strong one. Fox News’s Judge Jeanine Pirro was recently suspended for asking if Omar’s veil-wearing was an indicator of support for Sharia law.

With the revelations from this new clip, obviously Pirro was understating things. Omar not only supports sharia law (which may or may not be relevant, depending on how it is read), she supports anti-Americanism. Her remarks downplaying al-Qaida in now two instances, as well as her going to political bat for known terrorists, insisting that they take no consequences for their murderous acts and plans, suggests a congressional leader whose constituents are terrorists and useful idiots, and whose own loyalties are in downplaying terrorism as a sword and up-playing political correctness as a shield.

What an appalling picture of her. And of those who elected her.

Image credit: Twitter screen grab

President Trump’s trial balloon of sending migrants surging across our border to sanctuary cities has been derided by Democrats as ‘cynicism and cruelty‘ as well as ’a new low‘ by Trump, but it has a precedent: President Obama.

Back in 2014, when the migrant surge of that year brought tens of thousands of “unaccompanied children” and “moms and kids,” into the Rio Grande Valley, overwhelming the Texas processing facilities, President Obama inexplicably targeted small- and mid-sized cities (same as the Trump officials’ emails) as their next destination of choice. And instead of talking about it, they really did try to bus the unvetted migrants into small cities such as Murietta, California, Yuma, Arizona, and a conservative area of New Mexico, bringing crime, disease, and a high need for social services. without consulting those communities.

The residents protested, and the Obama administration declared them ‘racist’ in a bid to scare them into line.

I was on the ground at Murietta during those protests when I was an editorial writer at Investor’s Business Daily, and spoke to the citizens of that city, who were not only far from racist, they were actually multiracial themselves. They told me this:

Asked why the rebellion was centered in Murrieta and not elsewhere, the residents all had one answer: they were Reagan Country, and it was on their soil that the Reagan revolution was lit in 1978.

Breitbart’s reporters went to the scene, too, as I did, and quite unlike the mainstream media, also asked and listened to the residents as what they thought was going on:

Henry, and many of the protesters joining him, believe their town was unfairly targeted as a destination for the migrants. Some believe the busloads are being sent to small, largely conservative towns, like Murrieta to send a political message.

“The administration thinks that if it floods our streets, in small town america, they can force us into immigration reform,” Henry said. “These immigrants should not be here. The only reason that they are coming here is for political reasons.”

There are no known FOIA documents to prove it, (though it’s a fine area for inquiry these days), that I have been able to find, but circumstantially, it appears to be a correct reading of the situation. The several hundred illegals being dumped off in Murietta were going to a small city with just five holding cells, given that it’s a nearly crime-free city of homeowners. That’s inexplicable, unless the idea was to unleash them onto the conservatives unvetted for other purposes.

 

 

It’s pretty obvious the whole thing was a political gambit to not only impose high costs from illegal migration on specially targeted conservative cities, its second aim was to force America’s conservatives into submission out of fear of being called racists.

 

They rebelled instead, in what was an early bellwether of the rise of President Trump. Now Trump is giving back what Obama pioneered – the use of illegal migrants as a political football – and this time putting Democrats on their backfoot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image credit: Screen shot from KCAL 9 / CBS News, via shareable YouTube

President Trump’s trial balloon of sending migrants surging across our border to sanctuary cities has been derided by Democrats as ‘cynicism and cruelty‘ as well as ’a new low‘ by Trump, but it has a precedent: President Obama.

Back in 2014, when the migrant surge of that year brought tens of thousands of “unaccompanied children” and “moms and kids,” into the Rio Grande Valley, overwhelming the Texas processing facilities, President Obama inexplicably targeted small- and mid-sized cities (same as the Trump officials’ emails) as their next destination of choice. And instead of talking about it, they really did try to bus the unvetted migrants into small cities such as Murietta, California, Yuma, Arizona, and a conservative area of New Mexico, bringing crime, disease, and a high need for social services. without consulting those communities.

The residents protested, and the Obama administration declared them ‘racist’ in a bid to scare them into line.

I was on the ground at Murietta during those protests when I was an editorial writer at Investor’s Business Daily, and spoke to the citizens of that city, who were not only far from racist, they were actually multiracial themselves. They told me this:

Asked why the rebellion was centered in Murrieta and not elsewhere, the residents all had one answer: they were Reagan Country, and it was on their soil that the Reagan revolution was lit in 1978.

Breitbart’s reporters went to the scene, too, as I did, and quite unlike the mainstream media, also asked and listened to the residents as what they thought was going on:

Henry, and many of the protesters joining him, believe their town was unfairly targeted as a destination for the migrants. Some believe the busloads are being sent to small, largely conservative towns, like Murrieta to send a political message.

“The administration thinks that if it floods our streets, in small town america, they can force us into immigration reform,” Henry said. “These immigrants should not be here. The only reason that they are coming here is for political reasons.”

There are no known FOIA documents to prove it, (though it’s a fine area for inquiry these days), that I have been able to find, but circumstantially, it appears to be a correct reading of the situation. The several hundred illegals being dumped off in Murietta were going to a small city with just five holding cells, given that it’s a nearly crime-free city of homeowners. That’s inexplicable, unless the idea was to unleash them onto the conservatives unvetted for other purposes.

 

 

It’s pretty obvious the whole thing was a political gambit to not only impose high costs from illegal migration on specially targeted conservative cities, its second aim was to force America’s conservatives into submission out of fear of being called racists.

 

They rebelled instead, in what was an early bellwether of the rise of President Trump. Now Trump is giving back what Obama pioneered – the use of illegal migrants as a political football – and this time putting Democrats on their backfoot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image credit: Screen shot from KCAL 9 / CBS News, via shareable YouTube