Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.) wrote in 2006 an op-ed for the Final Call, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan’s publication known for espousing anti-Semitism.
Tlaib’s piece focused on how legal immigrants should not be deported for minor criminal offenses, according to a report from journalist Jeryl Bier. At the end of her article, the now freshman congresswoman is identified as an "advocacy coordinator of the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services (ACCESS) in Detroit." Tlaib has not written in the Final Call since then.
Tlaib has come under fire since her election to Congress for ties to individuals and groups that have espoused anti-Semitic views. In January, she attended a private dinner after her swearing-in with Abbas Hamideh, a "Palestinian right of return" activist who has called Israel a "terrorist entity." Hamideh has also tweeted that Israel has a "delusional ISIS-like ideology" and that the creation of the country was a "crime."
In late January, Tlaib advocated against Sen. Marco Rubio’s (Fla.) bill concerning Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement against Israel, which would allow state and local governments to boycott companies that boycott Israel. Tlaib called the bill an "anti-First Amendment, anti-speech bill," in an interview for the Intercept‘s "Deconstructed" podcast.
"Do you know what we’ve done in this country with the right to boycott, what we’ve done in this country with the right to speak up and to protest and to say we disagree with this country and their doings? You look at Apartheid. You look at all the, you know, anti-blackness in our country and what we’ve been able to try to do to push back against that, you know, I don’t even call it an anti-B — I call it anti-First Amendment, anti-speech bill," Tlaib said.
In further support of the BDS movement, Tlaib attempted to organize a congressional trip to the West Bank. The attempt was in opposition to an Israel trip traditionally organized for freshman members of Congress by AIPAC, a group that advocates pro-Israel policies.
"I want us to see that segregation [between Israelis and Palestinians] and how that has really harmed us being able to achieve real peace in that region," Tlaib told the Intercept before she took office. "I don’t think AIPAC provides a real, fair lens into this issue."
On Sunday Democrat Ilhan Omar tweeted out another anti-Semitic attack.
Omar responded to author Glenn Greenwald’s indirect criticism of Israel.
Glenn Greenwald tweeted: GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy threatens punishment for @IlhanMN and @RashidaTlaib over their criticisms of Israel. It’s stunning how much time US political leaders spend defending a foreign nation even if it means attacking free speech rights of Americans
To which Ilhan Omar responded with an anti-Semitic slur:
If there’s any hot topic on the left this electoral cycle, it’s socialism.
Between Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her Green New Deal — which is essentially an agglomeration of socialist policies, not all of which have anything to do with “saving the environment” — and independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, another self-described socialist currently ensconced in second place in the 2020 Democrat polls, there’s been plenty of play regarding the idea that socialism is the Next Big Thing.
In fact, it’s gotten to the point where, when President Donald Trump said during the State of the Union that “America will never be a socialist country,” he wasn’t talking about a threat from a reconstituted Soviet Union but a shift toward the socialism in America. And, wonder of wonders, the Democrats called this divisive without actually defining what socialism was.
“It is a society coming together to increase the standard of living of our seniors,” declared Democrat Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, when asked about socialism on CNN after the president’s speec. “And that is pretty much the definition. And the president is attacking it.”
Merkley, it’s worth noting, has been one of the higher-profile co-signers of the Green New Deal. Like many of the new utopians, they believe that they’re moving toward a future in which government would guarantee equality in plenty.
In an opinion piece for Fox News, author Ying Ma — whose family fled communist China during the 1980s — said her experience leads her to believe is the kind of thinking that leads to equality in misery.
“The Democratic Party’s lurch to socialism led to a presidential rebuke at the State of the Union on Tuesday night,” she wrote in the Saturday piece.
“From Sen. Bernie Sanders’s call for ‘Medicare-for-all,’ to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal of a ‘Green New Deal,’ to Democratic presidential hopefuls’ hankering for stiff tax hikes, prominent members of the Democratic Party seem unwilling to miss any opportunity to advocate for greater government control of the economy.
“Yet as Democrats justify grandiose proposals by decrying income inequality, many of us who immigrated to the United States from socialist countries see great irony,” she continued. “After all, unending income equality is what drove us to leave our native lands in the first place.”
Do you think socialism will expand its influence in the United States?
Ma’s family fled China in the 1980s in the aftermath of the disastrous programs of Mao Zedong. She describes growing up in China’s third-largest city, Guangzhou: “Everyone in my city was equal in having no running hot water, no modern toilet facilities, no refrigerator, no washer, no dryer, and no color television.
“Imagine a world without Whole Foods, Safeway and Walmart, or the plethora of products stocked on their shelves,” she wrote. “Imagine no Vitamin Water, no Gatorade, no Starbucks, no Panera Bread, no candy bars and no sea salt potato chips. Now imagine instead being allotted food stamps from the government, indicating how much your family can eat.”
China may have backed off of some of Mao’s more onerous policies, but that didn’t mean the country was any less of a command economy. The government, Ma wrote, still decided where you were to live and work, as well as what you’d buy and for what price.
“After decades of totalitarian rule and grand socialist experiments, China had a meager per capita GDP of less than $200 in 1980. By comparison, America’s was $12,500 that year,” Ma continued.
“Around that time, China decided enough misery was enough. It embarked on historic economic reforms and opened up the country to the world. Liberalization introduced market prices, allowed for the return to household farming from collectivization, created Special Economic Zones in coastal areas that attracted foreign investment and promoted exports, exposed state-owned factory production to profit incentives, and opened up the market to private firms and entities.”
You’re probably familiar with what happened next. China is nowhere near as free or as prosperous as the West, but the privations of the 1980s are far behind them.
“Over the past 40 years, China became the second largest economy in the world,” Ma wrote. “However, don’t for a minute forget the lesson that still applies: When the state runs the economy and its citizens’ lives, there will be plenty of equality in scarcity, poverty and hopelessness.
“Today, this is a lesson that prominent Democrats seem eager to forget,” she continued. “Less than 30 years after the former Soviet Union collapsed and the United States emerged victorious from the Cold War, Americans increasingly find it necessary to debate the shortcomings and evils of socialism all over again.”
Given her background, it might be no surprise that Ma is a firm Trump supporter. Check her 2016 interview with Megyn Kelly, then of Fox News, where she explains her reasons.
But, with apologies to Sinclair Lewis, the worst elements of socialism can’t happen here, right?
Well, let’s consider the baby steps that the left wants to take.
Sen. Sanders’ “Medicare for all” plan will cost well over $30 trillion, and that’s a very conservative estimate. As for the Green New Deal, the U.K. Guardian noted that “(i)n supporting documents staffer(s) acknowledge the investment required would be ‘massive,’” which is still an understatement.
Ocasio-Cortez herself has been fond of comparing the kind of mobilization necessary for the plan to what the United States experienced in World War II, during which we turned our industrial might into a command economy in order to beat a concerted enemy. In this case, we would assume the same stance based on a profoundly vague environmental/social agenda.
“It was left up to President Trump to declare on Tuesday night: ‘Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country. America was founded on liberty and independence – and not government coercion, domination and control. We are born free, and we will stay free. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country,’” Ma concluded.
“It is crazy that the leader of the free world had to state this. It is crazier still that he will have to deliver an even more robust defense of democratic capitalism in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election. Hopefully, the Democrats’ vision of economic equality will not prevail.”
The sad thing is that we don’t particularly realize just how close it really is to succeeding.
Liberals all love the idea of equality in plenty. What they invariably end up getting is a funhouse mirror version of that vision, one where the only equality is shared misery. Just ask Venezuela.
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
Broward County, FL election head Brenda Snipes is back in the news, as a former candidate who ran against Debbie Wasserman Schultz in the 2016 Democratic primary wondered aloud in a tweet why the Department of Justice never prosecuted her for illegally destroying paper ballots from the race.
Tim Canova got only 43% of the vote in that primary, but he challenged the results in court. While the case was being decided, Canova requested that Broward County hand over the thousands of paper ballots that had been cast. When Brenda Snipes’ office refused, he sued – only to find out later that Snipes had destroyed the ballots in direct violation of federal law and Florida state law.
“Canova, who was checking for voting irregularities in the race, sought to look at the paper ballots in March 2017 and took Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes to court three months later when her office hadn’t fulfilled his request. Snipes approved the destruction of the ballots in September, signing a certification that said no court cases involving the ballots were pending. Snipes called the action a “mistake” during testimony she gave in the case, saying the boxes were mislabeled and there was “nothing on my part that was intentional” about destroying the contested ballots.”
Big League Politics reported, ”On May 11, 2018, the Florida Circuit Court granted Plaintiff Canova summary judgment, and found that Snipes had violated numerous state and federal statutes, including laws punishable as felonies with up to five years in prison. The Court’s ruling made clear that Snipes’ destruction of ballots was illegal on several separate counts.”
It doesn’t matter if the destruction of the ballots were intentional or not. But both the county and the feds refused to prosecute. Why?
Assistant United States Attorney for the US Attorney’s Office is none other than Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s brother, Steven. And Canova found out from the local district attorney, who was considering prosecuting Snipes, who was involved in the decision not to prosecute Snipes:
I’ve been told it was Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy AG, along with his assistant Steven Wasserman no doubt, who stopped a Federal investigation into Broward’s illegal destruction of all ballots cast in our 2016 primary against Debbie What’sHerRig Schultz.
Needless to say, the fact that Rosenstein was directly involved with the strongly partisan activities documented by the FISA memo makes it unsurprising that he would interfere on behalf of associates of Hillary Clinton.
Setting the possibility that Wasserman-Schultz’s brother may also have been involved in protecting Snipes from prosecution aside for the moment, Canova’s allegations raise a myriad of new questions, including: who benefits from protecting Snipes?
Undeniably, the most obvious answer is Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the alleged beneficiary of Snipes’s illegal ballot destruction. Similarly, one wonders what connection such a decision may have with the DOJ’s refusal to prosecute the Awan scandal, a move from which Debbie Wasserman-Schultz also directly benefited.
In light of this, we are led to ask: Who benefits from shielding Debbie Wasserman-Schultz from the blowback of multiple national scandals? What would induce the DOJ to prop up such an embarrassment?
Snipes’ malfeasance in the 2018 election can now be seen in an entirely different light. Either she is the most incompetent election official in America or she manipulates elections for partisan reasons using the power of her office.
It doesn’t matter that Canova had no chance of overturning the results of the 2016 primary. Snipes acted illegally and both local and federal authorities turned a blind eye to it. The whole matter stinks of partisan manipulation – which only serves to buttress the case that the permanent bureaucracy at the Justice Department is hopelessly corrupt.
Broward County, FL election head Brenda Snipes is back in the news, as a former candidate who ran against Debbie Wasserman Schultz in the 2016 Democratic primary wondered aloud in a tweet why the Department of Justice never prosecuted her for illegally destroying paper ballots from the race.
Tim Canova got only 43% of the vote in that primary, but he challenged the results in court. While the case was being decided, Canova requested that Broward County hand over the thousands of paper ballots that had been cast. When Brenda Snipes’ office refused, he sued – only to find out later that Snipes had destroyed the ballots in direct violation of federal law and Florida state law.
“Canova, who was checking for voting irregularities in the race, sought to look at the paper ballots in March 2017 and took Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes to court three months later when her office hadn’t fulfilled his request. Snipes approved the destruction of the ballots in September, signing a certification that said no court cases involving the ballots were pending. Snipes called the action a “mistake” during testimony she gave in the case, saying the boxes were mislabeled and there was “nothing on my part that was intentional” about destroying the contested ballots.”
Big League Politics reported, ”On May 11, 2018, the Florida Circuit Court granted Plaintiff Canova summary judgment, and found that Snipes had violated numerous state and federal statutes, including laws punishable as felonies with up to five years in prison. The Court’s ruling made clear that Snipes’ destruction of ballots was illegal on several separate counts.”
It doesn’t matter if the destruction of the ballots were intentional or not. But both the county and the feds refused to prosecute. Why?
Assistant United States Attorney for the US Attorney’s Office is none other than Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s brother, Steven. And Canova found out from the local district attorney, who was considering prosecuting Snipes, who was involved in the decision not to prosecute Snipes:
I’ve been told it was Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy AG, along with his assistant Steven Wasserman no doubt, who stopped a Federal investigation into Broward’s illegal destruction of all ballots cast in our 2016 primary against Debbie What’sHerRig Schultz.
Needless to say, the fact that Rosenstein was directly involved with the strongly partisan activities documented by the FISA memo makes it unsurprising that he would interfere on behalf of associates of Hillary Clinton.
Setting the possibility that Wasserman-Schultz’s brother may also have been involved in protecting Snipes from prosecution aside for the moment, Canova’s allegations raise a myriad of new questions, including: who benefits from protecting Snipes?
Undeniably, the most obvious answer is Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the alleged beneficiary of Snipes’s illegal ballot destruction. Similarly, one wonders what connection such a decision may have with the DOJ’s refusal to prosecute the Awan scandal, a move from which Debbie Wasserman-Schultz also directly benefited.
In light of this, we are led to ask: Who benefits from shielding Debbie Wasserman-Schultz from the blowback of multiple national scandals? What would induce the DOJ to prop up such an embarrassment?
Snipes’ malfeasance in the 2018 election can now be seen in an entirely different light. Either she is the most incompetent election official in America or she manipulates elections for partisan reasons using the power of her office.
It doesn’t matter that Canova had no chance of overturning the results of the 2016 primary. Snipes acted illegally and both local and federal authorities turned a blind eye to it. The whole matter stinks of partisan manipulation – which only serves to buttress the case that the permanent bureaucracy at the Justice Department is hopelessly corrupt.
According to CNN News, House Democratic women decided to accept the invitation to wear women’s “suffragette white” during President Trump’s State of the Union Address.
Rep Lois Frankel of Florida declared “Wearing suffragette white is a respectful message of solidarity with women across the country, and a declaration that we will not go back on our hard-earned rights.”
It begs to be stated, that it is not women’s rights which have been violated, but it is America’s un-born children, whose right to “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is now in extreme jeopardy.
A wall along the southern border of the United States is legal, and necessary. And, the executive branch has the authority to use funding for national security and other executive functions to take care that the southern border barrier is erected.
Article IV., Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution requires the federal government to protect the States from invasion. The word “invasion” is not just a military term. In our current dictionary it is also defined as an “unwanted encroachment,” of which hordes (and caravans) of persons who refuse to abide by U.S. Immigration Law upon entry, a group that includes drug traffickers, sex traffickers, gang members, criminals, and terrorists, would qualify.
A group of border-security advocates traveled to an unsecured section of the New Mexico border with Mexico after President Donald Trump tweeted that he would “build a Human Wall if necessary.”
President Trump tweeted a message last week about the thousands of caravan migrants who continue to travel to the U.S. to exploit existing laws and request asylum.
Tremendous numbers of people are coming up through Mexico in the hopes of flooding our Southern Border. We have sent additional military. We will build a Human Wall if necessary. If we had a real Wall, this would be a non-event!
A few days later, a group of flag-waving border-security advocated put the pledge into motion when they traveled to partially-secured border in Sunland Park, New Mexico to demonstrate a “human wall” in action, Fox News reported. The advocates brought signs and American flags as they stood in an area where the existing border fencing simply stops. The area is regularly exploited by migrants who are crossing into southern New Mexico by the thousands.
The New Mexico border with Mexico falls under the El Paso Border Patrol Sector. A report released last week by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials reveals that El Paso Sector Border Patrol agents apprehended more than 9,000 migrants in January after they illegally crossed the border between ports of entry. In the first four months of this fiscal year, agents witnessed a 1,588 percent increase in the number of migrant families apprehended and a 249 percent increase in the number of unaccompanied minors who cross in the desolate border region.
In response to the continuing migrant crisis along the country’s southwest border, President Trump ordered nearly 4,000 additional U.S. troops to the border region, Breitbart News reported. A DOD spokesperson stated that the 3,750 deployed troops are all active duty military personnel. They will suppliment the 2,250 members of the National Guard who are currently under deployment orders. The deployment is expected to last 90 days, officials stated.
The president also moved 250 active duty military members to Texas in response to the arrival of 2,000 caravan migrants. DOD spokesman, Navy Captain Bill Speaks, told Breitbart News that the deployment consists of “military police, medical personnel, and engineers who will support hardening of these (ports of entry).”
During the State of the Union Address on Tuesday, President Trump chided lawmakers for the “cruel” tolerance for illegal immigration.
“Now is the time for Congress to show the world that America is committed to ending illegal immigration and putting the ruthless coyotes, cartels, drug dealers, and human traffickers out of business,” the president stated. “This is a moral issue. The lawless state of our Southern Border is a threat to the safety, security and financial well-being of all Americans.”
“Tolerance for illegal immigration is not compassionate — it is cruel,” the president stated.
Bob Price serves as associate editor and senior political news contributor for the Breitbart Border team. He is an original member of the Breitbart Texas team. Follow him on Twitter @BobPriceBBTX and Facebook.
Trump Obliterates Warren After Her 2020 Announcement, Libs Claim He Sent Secret Genocide Code
ShutterstockWhen President Donald Trump greeted news that Sen. Elizabeth Warren was officially running for president, he responded with a joke that liberals immediately claimed was a reference to genocide. (Shutterstock)
Look, it’s no secret that the leftist media has made President Donald Trump their public enemy No. 1.
To be clear, nobody should be above criticism or reproach, but the way the media constantly attacks Trump is breathtakingly unfair and rife with double standards.
Even given that, the latest liberal crusade against Trump is unbelievably idiotic.
The president took to Twitter to needle one of his favorite punching bags, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, after she announced her official bid for presidency in 2020. And in the process, he reminded Americans of Warren’s claims to Native American descent.
Today Elizabeth Warren, sometimes referred to by me as Pocahontas, joined the race for President. Will she run as our first Native American presidential candidate, or has she decided that after 32 years, this is not playing so well anymore? See you on the campaign TRAIL, Liz!
For the unaware, Warren is the leftist Democratic senator from Massachusetts who’s known far more for empty claims to being Native American than any actual policy work she’s done.
“Today Elizabeth Warren, sometimes referred to by me as Pocahontas, joined the race for President. Will she run as our first Native American presidential candidate, or has she decided that after 32 years, this is not playing so well anymore? See you on the campaign TRAIL, Liz!” Trump wrote on Twitter.
In the grander scheme of things that Trump has said or done on Twitter, this is actually rather mundane. But that didn’t stop the left from latching onto one word from the post and use it to attack the president.
Some liberal claim the president’s use of the word “trail” was intended to evoke the “Trail of Tears,” the route forced on American Indians driven from the Southeastern United States mainly in the 1830s into the still-unsettled West.
The President has once again reaffirmed for the world what a despicable, racist, culturally insensitive excuse for a human being he is.
As he continues to make light of some of the darkest times of American History,
He’s making fun of genocide. Putting particular emphasis on the word “TRAIL” when mocking Natives is a sure nod to the Trail of Tears where thousands of Native people died. This is sick- but what can we expect from a man who idolizes Andrew Jackson, who caused that “TRAIL.” https://t.co/XOswfQ7Y6G
It wasn’t just the hard-core left making the accusation. USA Today headlined a story “Trump appears to mock Trail of Tears in tweet about Senator Warren’s campaign announcement.”
Have the liberals lost it, with accusations like this?
Obviously, if Trump came out and said that he supports genocide, that would be a huge problem and something well-worth condemning him over. But he did no such thing here. There are some big problems with what the left is claiming about what Trump said.
First, Trump has a tendency to use all caps in his tweets. A cursory glance at his Twitter feed shows that he frequently capitalizes words. That’s not exactly a new phenomena.
Second, “campaign trail” — or even “campaign TRAIL” — is not an inherently loaded phrase. This is completely innocuous in the context of politics.
But most importantly of all, and this can’t be stressed enough, Trump literally signed bipartisan legislation less than a month ago that aims to improve the United States’ ability to prevent or halt genocides in the future. As the Cleveland Jewish News explains, the act was named after a man who one of the world’s most famous survivors of the Holocaust survivor, the late Elie Wiesel.
That’s an actual fact — far more important and meaningful than any illusory allusion to the “Trail of Tears” liberal activists can dream up.
Leave it to the left to ignore that rather important fact and slam the president for somehow making light of genocide.
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
Border wall negotiations are stalled. Via Fox News: Just days after President Trump said his administration was prepared to “build a Human Wall if necessary” to protect the nation from illegal immigration, a group of his supporters in New Mexico joined hands along the U.S.-Mexico border in support of the construction of a border wall. […]
Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” House Freedom Caucus chairman Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) said he expected President Donald Trump to declare a national emergency” to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border if Congress does not reach a deal before Friday’s deadline to stop a government shutdown.
Meadows said, “What we’re seeing with these negotiations going on, I don’t know that they’re real serious about reaching a compromise. I mean, they’ve met twice in almost two weeks now.”
He continued, “I think we need the make sure our border is secure, not just from a standpoint of strategic fencing or border slats, whatever you want to call it, but we need to make sure that once and for all, we secure our border to make sure our communities are safe.”
He added, “I do expect the president to take some kind of executive action. A national emergency is certainly part of that. There are a few other things in his toolbox that he could use, but I do expect him to do that if we don’t reach a compromise.”
According to 
A wall along the southern border of the United States is legal, and necessary. And, the executive branch has the authority to use funding for national security and other executive functions to take care that the southern border barrier is erected.
