Conservatives welcome. Libs & RINOs go away. It's all of you destroying the society and conservatives must no longer appease you!
To them, this really makes sense. To them, there’s no irony whatsoever to this statement.
How can that be? It’s because when Democrats talk about “rights,” they don’t really mean rights.
via CanadaFreePress.Com
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://canadafreepress.com/
A criminal arrest warrant was put out last week for a Canadian bus driver, a Christian man named Bill Whatcott, for distributing "safe sex" pamphlets which condemned homosexuality– at a gay pride rally. This was apparently a "hate crime."
via Daily Wire
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com/rss.xml
“[W]e will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world,” Obrador said, adding that immigrants “must leave their towns and find a life in the United States.”
Apparently, the U.S. must welcome an unlimited number of these unwanted, by their own president, Mexicans, because the U.S. is morally obligated to serve as Mexico’s social-dysfunction safety valve and ATM.
Did you know that “chutzpah” is the same in Hebrew and Spanish? On the other hand, everyone knows that Obrador can count on a large cohort of Democrats, who share his view:
The reaction among immigration advocates has gone from outrage about family separations to consternation about family detention, because their ultimate goal is to let the migrants come into the United States and stay.
Lest anyone misunderstand, when Democrats say “the,” they mean “all.” Today, it’s “family separations”; tomorrow, who knows? But whatever the Dems’ démagogie du jour, most Americans want illegal immigration greatly reduced and, ideally, eliminated. The latter, most likely, is a pipe dream. But not only can the former be done. It can be done using methods already tried and proven.
First, yes, we need a wall. If the tooth-and-nail opposition of our open-border Democratic friends is insufficient evidence that a wall would work, consider, as President Trump has, Israel’s wall. Israel had an illegal alien problem, too – or she did, until she built a wall, as a February 2017 Senate report confirmed:
The number of illegal crossers on the Israel-Egypt border dropped after the construction of the fence, from more than 16,000 in 2011 to less than 20 in 2016 – a 99 percent decrease.
One can argue, as some do, that other Israeli measures contributed to the decrease. But there can be no doubt that the wall was the primary, and a major, factor.
So a wall – and ending chain migration, and ending the visa lottery, and mandatory E‑Verify – will greatly reduce unlawful immigration. But there is one more thing government can do.
Allow the writer, whose father immigrated to America as a refugee, in 1948, to elucidate:
When the writer’s dad got off the boat, he did not simply disembark in Manhattan, casually stroll streets paved with gold and buy the Brooklyn Bridge. First, he had to stop here:
In the first half of the 19th century, most immigrants arriving in New York City landed at docks on the east side of the tip of Manhattan, around South Street. On August 1, 1855, Castle Clinton became the Emigrant Landing Depot[.] … [W]hen the U.S. government assumed control of immigration processing, [it moved] the center to the larger, more isolated Ellis Island facility on January 2, 1892 … because immigrants were known to carry diseases, which led to epidemics of cholera and smallpox.
The key word in the above quote is “isolated,” as in no physical route for unlawful aliens on to the mainland.
Then, the dangers were cholera and smallpox. Today, the dangers are MS-13 violence, lack of education and marketable skills, and the threat of someday becoming citizens and voting for Democrats. In both cases, the problem was a threat to the population from foreign immigration. And in both cases, the solution was to isolate new arrivals until they could be properly vetted and admitted into the mainland U.S. lawfully.
The writer lives in New York City, and last time he checked, Ellis Island was still there, repurposed as a museum. So how about making so-called catch-and-release unnecessary by returning Ellis Island to its original use and supplementing or replacing the current buildings with one or more new, modern dormitories, where illegals seized at the border could be housed comfortably, for as long as required, and with no need to separate families?
On the other hand, Ellis Island is on the opposite side of the country from the Mexican border, where the main problem is. Alcatraz Island is not. What about the Virgin Islands, Guam, or any number of U.S. island possessions, where the climate is both comfortable and similar to that of Mexico and Central America? The specific location is less important than that there be no physical access to the mainland, nor would the housing need to be overly expensive – Quonset huts if space allows, or easily convertible, and stackable, cargo containers.
Or even tents, as the Navy is already planning:
The U.S. Navy drafting plans to house up to 25,000 immigrants on its bases and other facilities, at an estimated cost of about $233 million over six months, as the Trump administration seeks to ease a mounting crisis on the Mexican border[.] …
[T]he draft document … also says that a Navy base in California could house up to a further 47,000 people.
Problem solved…almost. It’s a good plan, but with one major flaw: perhaps the writer is mistaken, but it seems that all of the proposed military bases are on the mainland U.S. Again, the locations should be isolated, with no physical connection to the mainland. There is also the issue of cost and not just the $233 million for six months (so $466 million per year); one company has a $162-million contract “to fly immigrant children to shelters across the United States.”
There is a better, and possibly cheaper, solution. It’s staring the Navy right in the face.
Surely, most readers know that the Navy maintains a reserve, or “mothball,” fleet of decommissioned ships anchored in various parts of the country, including California.
Your typical aircraft carrier houses about 6,000 sailors. But think of all that extra space on the (unused) flight deck. Aircraft carriers also have kitchens specifically designed to feed thousands of people.
America is not suffering from a shortage of decommissioned ships. Why pay hundreds of millions of dollars to fly apprehended illegals to multiple locations around the continental U.S. when the Navy can move the ships to the immigrants, anchoring as close to the problem as possible but far enough from shore to keep illegals from accessing the mainland? Other mothballed ships could ferry large numbers of illegals to and from the offshore ships far more cheaply than flying them all over the country.
Additional ships could even return rejected aliens to their home countries – preferably, as Eisenhower did, on the side of the home country farthest from the U.S.
Should any liberal open-borders Democrat complain, just casually mention, preferably publicly, that American sailors lived on those same ships, for much longer, and make popcorn while Democrats explain why what was good enough for American sailors is not good enough for foreigners, who have done nothing for America and who have no legal right even to be here.
Let all potential trespassers know that should they manage to violate our border, the only part of America they will ever see is the part of America they can see from the deck of a ship before being transported on a slow boat back to their home countries, and unlawful immigration will drop. Like a rock.
Gene Schwimmer is a New York- and New Jersey-licensed real estate broker and author of The Christian State.
Today’s lesson on morality and human rights comes from the probable (according to polls) next president of our crime-infested and corrupt neighbor to the south (emphases added):
Mexican presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) called for mass immigration to the United States[,] … declaring it a “human right” for all North Americans.
“[W]e will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world,” Obrador said, adding that immigrants “must leave their towns and find a life in the United States.”
Apparently, the U.S. must welcome an unlimited number of these unwanted, by their own president, Mexicans, because the U.S. is morally obligated to serve as Mexico’s social-dysfunction safety valve and ATM.
Did you know that “chutzpah” is the same in Hebrew and Spanish? On the other hand, everyone knows that Obrador can count on a large cohort of Democrats, who share his view:
The reaction among immigration advocates has gone from outrage about family separations to consternation about family detention, because their ultimate goal is to let the migrants come into the United States and stay.
Lest anyone misunderstand, when Democrats say “the,” they mean “all.” Today, it’s “family separations”; tomorrow, who knows? But whatever the Dems’ démagogie du jour, most Americans want illegal immigration greatly reduced and, ideally, eliminated. The latter, most likely, is a pipe dream. But not only can the former be done. It can be done using methods already tried and proven.
First, yes, we need a wall. If the tooth-and-nail opposition of our open-border Democratic friends is insufficient evidence that a wall would work, consider, as President Trump has, Israel’s wall. Israel had an illegal alien problem, too – or she did, until she built a wall, as a February 2017 Senate report confirmed:
The number of illegal crossers on the Israel-Egypt border dropped after the construction of the fence, from more than 16,000 in 2011 to less than 20 in 2016 – a 99 percent decrease.
One can argue, as some do, that other Israeli measures contributed to the decrease. But there can be no doubt that the wall was the primary, and a major, factor.
So a wall – and ending chain migration, and ending the visa lottery, and mandatory E‑Verify – will greatly reduce unlawful immigration. But there is one more thing government can do.
Allow the writer, whose father immigrated to America as a refugee, in 1948, to elucidate:
When the writer’s dad got off the boat, he did not simply disembark in Manhattan, casually stroll streets paved with gold and buy the Brooklyn Bridge. First, he had to stop here:
In the first half of the 19th century, most immigrants arriving in New York City landed at docks on the east side of the tip of Manhattan, around South Street. On August 1, 1855, Castle Clinton became the Emigrant Landing Depot[.] … [W]hen the U.S. government assumed control of immigration processing, [it moved] the center to the larger, more isolated Ellis Island facility on January 2, 1892 … because immigrants were known to carry diseases, which led to epidemics of cholera and smallpox.
The key word in the above quote is “isolated,” as in no physical route for unlawful aliens on to the mainland.
Then, the dangers were cholera and smallpox. Today, the dangers are MS-13 violence, lack of education and marketable skills, and the threat of someday becoming citizens and voting for Democrats. In both cases, the problem was a threat to the population from foreign immigration. And in both cases, the solution was to isolate new arrivals until they could be properly vetted and admitted into the mainland U.S. lawfully.
The writer lives in New York City, and last time he checked, Ellis Island was still there, repurposed as a museum. So how about making so-called catch-and-release unnecessary by returning Ellis Island to its original use and supplementing or replacing the current buildings with one or more new, modern dormitories, where illegals seized at the border could be housed comfortably, for as long as required, and with no need to separate families?
On the other hand, Ellis Island is on the opposite side of the country from the Mexican border, where the main problem is. Alcatraz Island is not. What about the Virgin Islands, Guam, or any number of U.S. island possessions, where the climate is both comfortable and similar to that of Mexico and Central America? The specific location is less important than that there be no physical access to the mainland, nor would the housing need to be overly expensive – Quonset huts if space allows, or easily convertible, and stackable, cargo containers.
Or even tents, as the Navy is already planning:
The U.S. Navy drafting plans to house up to 25,000 immigrants on its bases and other facilities, at an estimated cost of about $233 million over six months, as the Trump administration seeks to ease a mounting crisis on the Mexican border[.] …
[T]he draft document … also says that a Navy base in California could house up to a further 47,000 people.
Problem solved…almost. It’s a good plan, but with one major flaw: perhaps the writer is mistaken, but it seems that all of the proposed military bases are on the mainland U.S. Again, the locations should be isolated, with no physical connection to the mainland. There is also the issue of cost and not just the $233 million for six months (so $466 million per year); one company has a $162-million contract “to fly immigrant children to shelters across the United States.”
There is a better, and possibly cheaper, solution. It’s staring the Navy right in the face.
Surely, most readers know that the Navy maintains a reserve, or “mothball,” fleet of decommissioned ships anchored in various parts of the country, including California.
Your typical aircraft carrier houses about 6,000 sailors. But think of all that extra space on the (unused) flight deck. Aircraft carriers also have kitchens specifically designed to feed thousands of people.
America is not suffering from a shortage of decommissioned ships. Why pay hundreds of millions of dollars to fly apprehended illegals to multiple locations around the continental U.S. when the Navy can move the ships to the immigrants, anchoring as close to the problem as possible but far enough from shore to keep illegals from accessing the mainland? Other mothballed ships could ferry large numbers of illegals to and from the offshore ships far more cheaply than flying them all over the country.
Additional ships could even return rejected aliens to their home countries – preferably, as Eisenhower did, on the side of the home country farthest from the U.S.
Should any liberal open-borders Democrat complain, just casually mention, preferably publicly, that American sailors lived on those same ships, for much longer, and make popcorn while Democrats explain why what was good enough for American sailors is not good enough for foreigners, who have done nothing for America and who have no legal right even to be here.
Let all potential trespassers know that should they manage to violate our border, the only part of America they will ever see is the part of America they can see from the deck of a ship before being transported on a slow boat back to their home countries, and unlawful immigration will drop. Like a rock.
Gene Schwimmer is a New York- and New Jersey-licensed real estate broker and author of The Christian State.
via American Thinker
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/
In an interview with Late Show host Stephen Colbert, Moore said he disapproved of violence and intimidation but said the anti-Trump resistance must be “willing” to risk their bodies to help bring him down.
“We don’t have to be violent, we have to remain non-violent, but if the worst that happens to anybody in the Trump administration is that they don’t get to have a chicken dinner in Virginia, I mean, I don’t know,” Moore told Colbert. “But that’s not what’s going on now. We’re not talking about political differences. We’re talking about thousands of children being kidnapped and put in jails.”
“Sadly, Trump is not going to leave,” Moore continued. “He plans to be reelected, he loves the term ‘president for life.’ The only way that we’re going to stop this is eventually we’re all going to have to put our bodies on the line. You’re going to have to be willing to do this.”
The 64-year-old filmmaker went on to say that most Americans are “very liberal” and pointed to the fact that Democrats have won the popular vote in all but one of the last seven presidential elections.
“The majority of Americans are very liberal. They take the liberal position on most issues. They believe women should be paid same as men, they believe there is climate change, they don’t believe people should be thrown in jail for smoking marijuana,” the Oscar-winner explained.
“The majority of Americans are liberal and we the Democrats have won the presidency, popular vote, in six of the last seven presidential elections,” Moore continued. “The Republicans have only won once since 1988—in 2004, with Bush, that’s the only time they’ve won the popular vote! The country we live in doesn’t want the Republicans in the White House! They don’t want them running this country! We’re the majority!”
Moore, whose films typically center on exploring left-wing causes, correctly predicted Donald Trump’s 2016 election victory, calling it the “biggest fuck you in history,” and has also claimed that Trump will win re-election in 2020.
Nevertheless, Michael Moore remains one of Hollywood’s most vocal opponents of the Trump administration, describing the president as a “sociopath” who presents a “singular threat to humanity.”
Follow Ben Kew on Facebook, Twitter at @ben_kew, or email him at bkew@breitbart.com.
via Breitbart News
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: http://www.breitbart.com
On Thursday, the day after Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his impending retirement, paving the way for another genuine conservative to join the Court, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who made sure the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat got filled by a conservative, seemingly had a little fun of his own, trolling former President Obama by wearing a suit exactly like his.
via Daily Wire
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com/rss.xml
A county attorney general in California is unsure if murder charges will be pursued in a case where a 30-week-old unborn baby girl was allegedly brutally murdered in the womb after the mother agreed to have her boyfriend, the father of the baby, punch her repeatedly in the stomach until she died.
But the duo in question will likely not be charged for the murder, as the mother "consented" to it.
via Daily Wire
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com/rss.xml
Police arrested Joel Davis, a Nobel Prize-nominated advocate to end sexual violence, in New York City on Tuesday after allegedly discovering child pornography on his phone.
Davis, who is 22 years old and a Columbia University graduate, stands accused of possessing child pornography, attempting to sexually exploit children, and attempting to solicit at least one minor for sex.
Davis was nominated for the Nobel Prize after helping to found Youth to End Sexual Violence. He was also a one-time chairman for the International Campaign to Stop Rape and Gender Violence. Davis previously admitted to being a survivor of sexual violence in a November op-ed titled, “Healing and its discontents.”
He also published a 2014 op-ed in The Huffington Post where he condemned the sexual exploitation of children. That op-ed was titled, “Youth Are Key to Ending Sexual Violence in Conflict.”
According to official documents, Davis was busted after he had inadvertently been in contact through text messaging with an undercover FBI agent. Through the agent, Davis reportedly solicited explicit footage featuring the agent’s 9-year-old daughter.
Davis also allegedly told the agent what type of sex acts he would like to engage in with the girl. In addition to reportedly soliciting such items, Davis also stands accused of attempting to set up sex acts between himself and a 2-year-old female child belonging to the agent’s girlfriend.
The Columbia Spectator reports that Davis also admitted to sexually abusing a 13-year-old boy.
According to documents in his case, an FBI agent reportedly made first contact with Davis in mid-May by putting up a message on a website that sex offenders are reportedly known to frequent.
The message read, “Looking for other no limits TABOO pervs in DC area. Bi dad here.”
Davis reportedly responded to that message, suggesting that he’d come and babysit the message board poster’s children.
“Need me to come down and watch ur kids for a night,” he responded, adding a smiley face. He reportedly continued speaking with the agent and said that he was interested in children, and would “love to come down” to the agent’s home and engage in sexual acts with the 9-year-old, which he reportedly described in a very graphic way.
Other documents allege that Davis attempted to have sex with a 7-year-old boy, but was unable to “get it in” because the boy was “struggling.”
In a statement, FBI Assistant Director in Charge William F. Sweeney Jr., said, “Having started an organization that pushed for the end of sexual violence, Davis displayed the highest degree of hypocrisy by his alleged attempts to sexually exploit multiple minors.”
If convicted, Davis could face up to 70 years in prison, according to The Columbia Spectator.
Some of those documents can be read here, but be warned — they contain very graphic and disturbing sexual content.
via TheBlaze.com – Stories
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.theblaze.com
Now that the political left and the Democrats’ war on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has resulted in the doxing of federal agents as well as celebs who have declared their children to be fair game, it is time for someone to bring an end to this climate of hostility that will most certainly result in someone being harmed or worse.
Leading Democrats have been unwilling to dial back the escalation of violent rhetoric directed at the legitimately elected POTUS, his family, administration figures and federal agents just doing their jobs.
One wonders whether they could if they wanted to now that the hate mobs have been given their marching orders by influential figures including a Democrat congresswoman who goes by the name of Maxine Waters.
Not only has Waters now openly called for attacks on innocent people based on racism and discontent with a lost election (boo f*cking hoo) but the rising star of the new left who was crowned as the future of the American left, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has managed to go from a barmaid to the giant killer who slew a powerful establishment candidate by largely running on a platform of abolishing ICE.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ICE is running ‘black sites’ at the border https://t.co/B7K00rNB9V
— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) June 27, 2018
Granted that the 28-year-old socialist didn’t invoke eliminationist language like far-left Democrat New York gubernatorial candidate Cynthia Nixon did when she called for “eradication” but now that media has seized on Ocasio-Cortez as the new hope the calls for ICE to be liquidated will spread very quickly throughout the hate mobs who want nothing less than vengeance for hundreds of years of white supremacy.
But the battle has now been joined and President Trump, a man who has been called “meaner than a wolverine” by former CBS anchor Dan Rather, has made it clear that there will be zero tolerance for those who harm any ICE or other law enforcement officer who has been targeted for enforcing the law.
In recent days we have heard shameless attacks on our courageous law enforcement officers. Extremist Democrat politicians have called for the complete elimination of ICE. Leftwing Activists are trying to block ICE officers from doing their jobs and publicly posting their…
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 28, 2018
…home addresses – putting these selfless public servants in harm’s way. These radical protesters want ANARCHY – but the only response they will find from our government is LAW AND ORDER!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 28, 2018
From the president’s speech to an audience of patriots in Fargo, ND on Wednesday:
In recent days, we’ve heard of shameless attacks on these courageous law enforcement officers [ICE]. Extremist Democrat politicians have called for the complete elimination of ICE. “We don’t want ICE anymore!” You know what would happen to parts of our country? It would be overrun with the worst criminal elements you have ever seen. Left-wing activists are trying to block ICE officers from doing their jobs, and publicly posting their home addresses, putting these incredible people and their families in harm’s way.
These radical Democrat protesters, they really want anarchy. But the only response they will find from our government is very strong law and order.
We will not tolerate attacks on our law enforcement. We will protect our law enforcement like they protect us!
We will always stand proudly with our brave heroes of ICE, the Border Patrol, the sheriffs, the police, yes, the firemen — the firemen sometimes are under attack, if you can believe it. The firemen. These are great people. And we have their backs.
It is notable that on Thursday morning, federal law enforcement agents moved to regain control over the ICE headquarters in Portland and while the hate mob that had taken control scattered like cowardly cockroaches when confronted by DHS cops in full riot gear, there were no injuries.
That may not be the case going forward if the Democrats continue to sanction violence against government officials and ICE employees.
At some point, a line must be drawn and examples made and the leftist thugs have had their way for long enough.
Not that I am in any way encouraging violence but putting down an insurrection by cracking some skulls and breaking out the tear gas and water cannons now could save lives as the summer of hate shifts into high gear and Democrats and the media continue to pour gasoline on the fire.
The mobs love to use the sick fantasy of Hulu’s adaptation of Margaret Atwood’s literary work “The Handmaid’s Tale” as a rallying cry for their thuggery but they would be wise to pay very close attention to that series’ depiction of what could happen when they push their luck too far and the state has to resort to force to maintain order and save lives.
Things are not going to end well for The Resistance if they continue to push it. Just my opinion but I could be wrong.
via Downtrend.com
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://downtrend.com
I know Ed posted this excerpt from Bloomberg already but I want to address it too, to help keep up the grassroots pressure for Lee. Do the letters “FFS” mean anything to you?
President Donald Trump has asked advisers their opinions about nominating Utah Senator Mike Lee to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, according to three people familiar with the matter. …
Trump thinks Lee would be easily confirmed by the Senate, but the president has expressed concern about keeping his Senate seat in Republican hands, one person said. All of the people spoke on condition of anonymity to describe private deliberations.
He has been assured the seat will remain safely Republican, the person said. Trump complained that he was told the same about the Alabama Senate seat held by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who wound up replaced by Democrat Doug Jones.
C’mon. I know he’s scarred by the Alabama nightmare, particularly after he went to bat for the establishment candidate, Luther Strange, in the primary and got rebuked by Republican voters. But Roy Moore was a 500-year flood for the GOP. He had tons of baggage from his Ten Commandments and gay-marriage crusades years before, which gave Democrats a real hunger to beat him. He had the misfortune of facing a low-key genial opponent in Doug Jones, who did nothing to alienate swing voters. In spite of all that Moore probably still would have won the seat if not for the last-minute scandal involving teen girls. As it is, he ended up losing by less than two points.
Like Alabama, Utah’s a deep red state but the political culture is different in key ways. Look no further than Mike Lee himself. It’s hard to remember now but, in a way, Lee is the Roy Moore of Alabama. Not in terms of character, of course, but in terms of insurgent appeal: Lee got elected to the Senate by beating Republican incumbent Bob Bennett in the Republican primary in 2010. His was the first great grassroots upset of an incumbent in the tea-party era. That is to say, when Utah Republicans went looking for a hell-raiser to drain the swamp in Washington, they came up with … squeaky-clean, mild-mannered, Constitution-quoting Mike Lee.
And he’s no outlier. Virtually all successful Republicans from Utah are polished, polite, a bit patrician — Orrin Hatch, Jon Huntsman, Gary Herbert, and of course the next senator, Mitt Romney. (People more qualified than me can opine on whether, and how, Mormon culture fosters that sort of political culture.) Even the rabble-rousers like Lee are soft-spoken. Because the state is so heavily Republican and consistently produces politicians who are well-mannered, it’s almost unthinkable that Lee’s successor would have a skeleton in his closet so frightening that it would put the seat in play. It’s been 40 years since a Democrat represented Utah in the Senate, twice as long as it had been for Alabama before Jones won. And even if the Utah GOP did somehow fumble and nominate a subpar candidate for Lee’s seat, no worries: The governor, Herbert, would get to fill the vacancy for awhile, giving the appointee an aura of incumbency before the next election. If things *really* went sideways, Romney, Hatch, and Herbert would all hit the trail on the appointee’s behalf to carry him over the finish line. Losing Lee’s seat is as close to impossible as one can get in politics.
As for Trump’s incentives or disincentives in nominating Lee, the one frequently mentioned (including by me yesterday) is that Lee was vocally anti-Trump in 2016, including at the convention. But that rift appears to have been healed, with Lee not only attending an official presidential event in Utah in December but being introduced by POTUS as “your great senator, Mike Lee.” Trump even invited Lee to say a few words, which Lee did: “It’s not every day the President of the United States asks you to take the microphone from him. But I want to say, Mr. President, thank you for your leadership. Thank you for being here. Thank you for standing with the people of Utah. We appreciate it deeply.” The media will dredge up Lee’s criticism from 2016 anyway if he ends up being nominated but Trump is used to that from his flirtation with Romney as Secretary of State after the election. For all his tendencies towards personalizing things with critics, POTUS has a strange capacity to lay it all aside when it suits him.
And nominating Lee would give him a killer reply to his conservative critics. The big knock on him in 2016 from stalwart righties like Lee was that he wouldn’t govern as a conservative if elected. (There were criticisms related to character, of course, but Trump’s unpredictability on policy was a core one.) Well, what further proof of his conservatism could Lee want than Trump … nominating Lee himself to the Court? “Mike said I wasn’t a constitutionalist,” POTUS could say. “How do you explain Gorsuch and Lee, then?” It would certainly be true that the one-two punch of Gorsuch and Lee would be the strongest SCOTUS slate by a Republican president in decades. Roberts and Alito were strong too, although if Dubya had had his way, it would have been Roberts and Harriet Miers; Reagan and Bush 41 had some real winners in Scalia and Thomas but some weak candidates too. Nothing would match Gorsuch and Lee for strength and consistency. Why not do it and turn Lee’s prior skepticism about him into a sort of asset? If nothing else, nominating a critic would make Trump look like the bigger man. “In the end,” he’d say, “I need to do what’s best for the country.”
Would the squishes in the caucus vote for this, though?
Trouble for Mike Lee nomination? He likened Roe v. Wade to Dred Scott in a searing speech on the Senate floor just months ago. And Murkowski, Collins (and Capito?) want to preserve Roe: pic.twitter.com/zzF3Ja8DUH
— Steven Dennis (@StevenTDennis) June 28, 2018
We’ll see. In lieu of an exit question, here’s Ted Cruz wondering whether Scalia’s death in early 2016 was the difference in Trump’s victory. It’s quite possible. Like I said yesterday, the argument to Trump-skeptics on the right that they had to vote for him for the sake of the Court wouldn’t have had the same urgency if there wasn’t a huge vacancy sitting right there already. Letting Hillary appoint Scalia’s replacement, shifting the Court to the left, would have been scary as a hypothetical. As a reality, it was terrifying.
The post Will someone please reassure POTUS that the GOP won’t lose Mike Lee’s seat if he nominates him to the Court? appeared first on Hot Air.
via Hot Air
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://hotair.com
Propaganda can be a valuable tool… and it doesn’t even have to be accurate to be effective.
Over the last several weeks, the American people have seen some serious propaganda efforts from the media and the left along the southern border.
Whether it’s using photos from the Obama era to attack President Donald Trump, or blatantly staging fake images of children in cages to push an agenda, the ends seem to justify any means for liberal activists in the U.S. immigration debate.
About 7,000 miles away at a very different border, a similar kind of propaganda is being used. While it may not seem like the two areas have much in common, a recent incident in Israel is an important reminder that deception is being used to stir emotions… and that has implications for current events in the United States.
Two borders, two sets of lies: Near the end of 2017, the death of a protester near the hotly-contested Gaza Strip along the Israeli border sparked outrage from Palestinians and condemnation of Israeli border enforcement forces.
TRENDING: Fox Suspends Analyst for Using Term That’s Not a Slur with Black Guest
“Ibrahim Abu Thuraya, a double amputee, was killed near the Gaza Strip border with Israel during violent clashes with Israeli forces. Palestinians claimed that he was killed by an IDF sniper,” explained the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, better known as CAMERA.
Abu Thuraya’s death was used to create Palestinian propaganda videos which spread rapidly on social media. There was just one problem: None of the facts surrounding the incident add up, and the entire altercation may have been some sort of setup.
“CAMERA’s new in-depth examination raises many questions about the version of events released by Palestinian news sources,” the watchdog group explained.
From the beginning, it was clear that one side was trying to create a legend or martyr out of the man’s death, and factual accuracy wasn’t a big concern.
For example, Palestinians first claimed that the man had lost his legs from an Israeli airstrike. The Associated Press, however, showed that he had been injured after repeatedly clashing and fighting against Israeli troops near the border. He had been an active militant, not an innocent cripple, but that didn’t fit the required narrative.
“CAMERA previously examined other aspects of the Abu Thuraya story, prompting numerous media corrections regarding both the unclear circumstances of his death and how he lost his legs,” the journalist group stated.
“CAMERA’s Hebrew department highlighted videos filmed shortly before Abu Thuraya joined the riots at the fence in which he declares his desire to die ‘as a martyr,’” they continued.
Like a criminal who urges the police to shoot him, Abu Thuraya was actively putting himself into danger, believing that being killed near the border would be a public relations coup for the Palestinians… and probably secure his 72 virgins at the same time.
Nobody disputes that Abu Thuraya was killed by somebody in Gaza, but none of the Palestinian details about how it happened seem to hold up.
“In March, the IDF published the findings of its investigation, which concluded that soldiers had halted their fire at least one hour before the time the Palestinians claim he was shot,” CAMERA reported.
Of course, the Israeli Defense Forces could be lying. But that doesn’t explain even more bizarre propaganda efforts which suggest at least part of Abu Thuraya’s death was staged.
Strangely, the Shehab News Agency — an organization affiliated with the militant anti-Israel group Hamas — released two very different videos, both of which claimed to show Abu Thuraya shot to death by Israeli snipers.
As CAMERA summarized, the two videos were shot in different locations and at different times of day, making it all but impossible that they both show the same incident.
“The first video was published on the Shehab News Agency’s Facebook page on December 15, 2017, the day of Abu Thuraya’s death,” explained the news outlet. “The video appeared under the headline: ‘The moment of the martyrdom of Ibrahim Abu Thuyara by the bullets of the occupation east of Gaza.’”
“The sun appears low in the sky, and the sky is dark, suggesting the time of day to be late in the afternoon, or dusk. The people surrounding Abu Thuraya are wearing long sleeves and sweatshirts or jackets,” CAMERA summarized.
“Abu Thuraya is carried by a man in a long sleeved shirt and black hat, assisted by a man with a beige vest, dark shirt and jeans. Neither are wearing glasses. They are accompanied by a large throng of men shouting loudly and indistinctly,” the outlet continued.
Then a second and very different video appeared, also claiming to show the “real” shooting of the Palestinian amputee.
“This video shows a completely different scene: Here, the weather is sunny and clear rather than dark, and the crowd is not as large, made up mainly of younger people wearing short-sleeves rather than long sleeves and jackets,” CAMERA wrote.
If you’re going to stage a death, you should probably get the details right. Still images taken from the videos show very different head wounds from the alleged shooting, contradicting each other and making it impossible for both versions to be true.
“In contrast to the first video, the second video appears to show the head injury that reportedly caused Abu Thuraya’s death. According to Palestinian Red Crescent documents, the wound was located above his left eye,” stated the watchdog group.
“In the video, however, there is no sign of injury over Abu Thuraya’s left eye and only a single, large red stain visible on the middle-upper part of his forehead,” CAMERA continued. “In a further discrepancy, a photo released of Abu Thuraya at his funeral shows two distinct spots of red over both eyes.”
As journalists in Israel right pointed out, this goes much further than being merely questions about one particular case. It’s a prime example that incidents can be twisted for propaganda purposes, and that has implications in the United States right now.
“It demonstrates a propagandist mechanism of staging the injuring and killing of a person who eagerly anticipates his martyrdom and views it positively as his contribution to a campaign against the Jewish state,” CAMERA summarized.
Everything is not always as it seems. The truth can stand up to scrutiny, but lies fall apart and are revealed as propaganda when they’re checked. It’s important to recognize the difference.
Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.
via Conservative Tribune
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct