53percenter's Blog

A U.S. Border Patrol agent warned that our nation has “lost control of the border,” during an interview on Fox News Channel.

During an interview with Fox News Channel’s Outnumbered, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Hector Garza, in his role as vice-president of the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC), told Harris Faulkner, “We’ve lost control of the border, as we are right now.” He continued saying we must come up with a new plan to correct the problems that led to the loss of control of the border.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson slammed Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) on Friday, noting that she hates the United States and that she was “a symbol of America’s failed immigration system if there ever was one.”

Carlson’s remarks came after the Trump administration rolled out a new plan to overhaul the immigration system by making it a merit-based system.

During the five and a half minute segment Carlson also took a shot at Omar, who called for the abolishment of ICE this week along with ending deportations and decriminalizing illegal immigration.

“For the left, whether the country benefits is not the point. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar––herself a symbol of America’s failed immigration system if there ever was one, someone who hates this country coming here at public expense––spent yesterday demanding the abolition of ICE, the decriminalization of illegal immigration itself, and an end to all deportation programs,” Carlson said. “She demands open borders, the unlimited arrival of anyone who wants to come to America, whether they have anything to contribute or not, and by the way, you get to pay for it. And if you don’t want to, you’re a bigot.”

WATCH:

Full video:

Transcript:

This week the trump administration revealed its proposal to overhaul America’s immigration system. The proposal would not by itself build the often-promised wall on our southern border nor would it cut current levels of immigration despite the fact that most Americans would like to see that happen. The one big thing the administration’s proposal would do is give priority to immigrants who might actually help America, skilled workers with English proficiency. It’s hard to see an argument against a system like that. There isn’t really an argument against that system. For years Democrats have argued that immigrants make vital additions to our economy: they are smarter than we are, they are harder working, and do better in school. They found more companies. The president has decided to take Democrats at their word. He says he wants all of those good things that immigrants bring.

Well, much the world would move here if they could, hundreds and hundreds of millions of people. So why wouldn’t we pick the absolute best? Immigrants with skills and English would fit in better here: their kids would do better in school, they would be more likely to contribute to social programs instead of draining them. So, are Democrats rejoicing in this change? Of course not. They are outraged. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke for the party when she said really merit is a bad word because everybody has merit.

What a shame we can’t staff the Democratic caucus in the Congress using the same criteria the speaker would like to fill our country. We want to attract the best from many parts of the world she says, but of course, by that Pelosi doesn’t mean what she says, she means just the opposite. Because what exactly is best about immigrants who have criminal records or middle school educations or no ability to hold a job? The answer is there is nothing best about that. Immigrants like that might be nice people much more likely to burden the United States than benefit it, at least economically.

Harvard doesn’t admit students that can’t speak English. It says so right on their website. So why should our country? The left doesn’t want to answer questions like that or even have the conversation. ‘Shut up, racist!’ Instead, they just declare the current system is great, no evidence necessary.

For the left, whether the country benefits is not the point. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar––herself a symbol of America’s failed immigration system if there ever was one, someone who hates this country coming here at public expense––spent yesterday demanding the abolition of ICE, the decriminalization of illegal immigration itself, and an end to all deportation programs. She demands open borders, the unlimited arrival of anyone who wants to come to America, whether they have anything to contribute or not, and by the way, you get to pay for it. And if you don’t want to, you’re a bigot.

Well you know what this is really about, of course. It’s not about civil rights, that’s a joke. It’s about money and power. Their money, their power. The left has aligned with business interests that profit from cheap obedient workers. Low-skilled immigrants have a harder time assimilating into the American mainstream. They stay poorer and learn English more slowly, they’re more likely to remain ethnic underclass, all of which makes them much more likely to vote Democratic long-term. That’s the point, obviously. Skilled immigrants might assimilate and become less reliable Democratic voters. They might even compete with the children of our ruling class, that’s not allowed.

Upstart candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, told radio host Hugh Hewitt that that he supports efforts to remove acclaimed President Thomas Jefferson’s name from buildings, honors, and events — specifically the annual Democrat fundraiser, the “Jefferson-Jackson Dinner.”

“Yeah, we’re doing that in Indiana. I think it’s the right thing to do,” Buttigieg said, according to The Washington Free Beacon, though he also offered a fairly neutral, half-hearted defense of the iconic president and author of the Declaration of Independence.

“Over time, you develop and evolve on the things you choose to honor, Jefferson is more problematic,” Buttigieg said. “There’s a lot, of course, to admire in his thinking and his philosophy, but then again if you plunge into his writings, especially the notes on the state of Virginia, you know that he knew slavery was wrong. We are all morally conflicted human beings.”

Buttigieg stopped short of saying Jefferson’s role in the founding of the United States should be wiped out of history books, but does support the idea that Jefferson should be stripped of visible honors, including his name on buildings and federal institutions, because those visible tributes have an effect on people’s emotional and psychological well-being.

“The real reason I think there is a lot of pressure on this is the relationship between the past and present that we’re finding in a million different ways that racism isn’t some curiosity out of the past that we’re embarrassed about but moved on from,” Buttigieg explained.

He ultimately added that he sees it as his responsibility to make protect the affected from further harm: “It’s alive. It’s well. It’s hurting people and it’s one of the main reasons to be in politics today is to try to change or reverse the harms that went along with that.”

Jefferson has a conflicted record on slavery. Although he owned 175 slaves over the course of his life, and did not free them upon his death as some other founders did, Jefferson did author a law prohibiting the importation of new slaves into the state of Virginia as early as 1778. He officially abolished the slave trade in the United States in 1807, though in many cases the practice continued, out of the eye of the Federal government.

But Jefferson is also the product of his time, and historical figures need to be assessed within the context of the era in which they lived. Jefferson, like all historical figures, is a person, and complex — and his contributions to the formation of the United States are far too great to be ignored.

There is, however, a concerted movement within the United States — and almost exclusively on the left — to erase aspects of American history now considered unsavory. Statues of Confederate war heroes have been removed across the south, certainly, but beyond that, groups have tried to remove everything from statues of missionary priests in California (St. Junipero Serra, specifically) to the Natural History Museum’s statue of former president Theodore Roosevelt, whom protesters claim is an emblem of “patriarchy, white supremacy and settler-colonialism.”

The state of Indiana did successfully change its Jefferson-Jackson Dinner to the “Hoosier Hospitality Dinner,” a vague name stripped of honors that the party claimed was a thumb in the eye of Vice President Mike Pence, who they considered “unwelcoming” while he served as governor of Indiana.

Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) says President Trump’s merit-based legal immigration plan is a “step in the right direction” to stopping downward wage pressure and cheaper foreign competition against America’s blue collar and working class.

In an exclusive interview with SiriusXM Patriot’s Breitbart News Daily, Cotton said Trump’s newly unveiled immigration plan which gives priority to English-speaking, highly skilled, and highly educated foreign nationals is moving the country towards a national immigration policy that puts Americans first.

Leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are demanding that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee abandon its support of the five remaining pro-life Democrats in Congress and allow abortion advocates to compete for their seats.

Newsweek reports that the CPC’s co-chair, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) has now said, in no uncertain terms, that Democrats who do not support the practice of ending unborn life in the womb are no longer welcome inthe party, and that they should be primaried out of office by more reliable Democrats.

“I think we should allow for strong primary challenges, so that people can really put their Democratic chops on the line, if you will, and let the Democratic voters decide who they want,” Jayapal told a press conference. “You can’t say you’re a Democrat if you’re against immigrants, if you’re against abortion, if you’re against gay marriage and LGBTQ rights. I’m not sure what it means to be a Democrat if all of those things are true.”

She then issued her challenge.

“I understand that the DCCC is funded by—we are a membership organization—it’s funded by our members. And I understand that the DCCC is often going to try to protect the incumbent,” Jayapal concluded. “But I do think we have to look at all of these issues and think about what it means to be a Democrat.”

Justice Democrats, the group that championed far-left progressives like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Coretz (D-NY) in the last election cycle and is now challenging the DCCC and DNC for cutting openly progressive campaign workers out of official directories, agreed that pro-lifers now have no place in the Democratic party, and that they intend to fight for their exclusion.

“It’s hypocritical for the Democratic Party leadership to continue to protect [pro-life Dems] while claiming to fight against the attacks on reproductive rights in states like Georgia and Alabama.” Waleed Shahid, Justice Dems communications director told the Daily Beast.

There are technically only five “pro-life Democrats” left:Rep. Dan Lipinkski (D-IL), Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN) and Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) in the House, and Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Bob Casey (D-PA) in the Senate.

Democrats have long toyed with making abortion the central sacrament of their platform, and movement away from diversity of thought on the issue, for a party that now seems to support abortion through all three trimesters of pregnancy and up until the baby is descending through a woman’s birth canal, “pro-life Democrats,” as consistent as the ethic might be, are an anachronism.

There are a couple of problems with leading a ‘purge” against pro-life Democrats, though. For starters, dropping pro-life people from the Democratic Party belies the insincerity of one of abortion advocates’ favorite arguments: that a pro-life position might be more “acceptable” if it were pared with support for government programs like universal health care, welfare expansion, and free college. Clearly, you can support the full Democratic platform — even to the point of being elected with a “D” after your name — and departing from the party on a single issue will cost you your membership.

It’s also ignorant of the political landscape. Progressives have been trying to oust Rep. Dan Lipinski from his berth representing the west side of Chicago and some of the city’s southern and western suburbs for nearly a decade, to no avail. In 2018, one progressive came close, but failed to recognize that Lipinski’s beliefs are in line with those of his constituents, and that he represents them, even on the issue of abortion.

This time around, challenging Lipinksi won’t be so easy. The DCCC, headed by a longtime friend of Lipinksi, has pledged to support incumbents, particularly against primary challenges from the left, and Lipinski’s seat is no exception. Its also unlikely that either Manchin or Casey are touchable, given that they, like Lipinski, represent moderate Democrat constituencies that lean pro-life.