53percenter's Blog

Rep. Ilhan Omar is ‘shocked, shocked’ that President Trump could think that with recent statements from the likes of Democrats such as Gov. Ralph Northam, infanticide is going on. Here’s her furious tweet:

This is truly dangerous and sickening!

Is this deranged President suggesting parents and doctors are working together to commit infanticide?

We have seen religious fanatics bombing clinics and threatening women, this will fan the flame of violence.

Stop the misinformation. https://t.co/Ad2ysWpDh9

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) April 28, 2019

 

Omar was of course reacting to this:

“The baby is born, the mother meets w/the doctor. They take care of the baby. They wrap the baby beautifully. Then the doctor and mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby.”

And while Trump’s statement was stylized for a campaign audience with a hypothetical scenario, there was nothing untrue about its substance. It came from the openly made statement from Northam and multiple other like-minded Democrats speaking about their approval for late-term abortions. Northam actually said this: 

If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.

If the infant is alive, why is there any ‘discussion’ at all about what ‘to do’ with him or her? Why is there a need to ‘keep comfortable’ someone who (in this logic of Democrats) is perfectly killable? The whole statement is revolting, amounting to an endorsement of infanticide for convenience’s sake, using Orwellian language to suggest something good going on.

But by Omar’s argument, anyone calling such a vile event ‘infanticide’ is ‘dangerous and sickening!’ And anyone who can point out how bad this picture can be is ‘deranged.’

And of course, she preemptively claims that the infanticidists are now in danger from terrible right wingers. Never mind that baby on the chopping block, who has just lost his or her right to life, Omar thinks everyone needs to rally for more late-term abortion that goes all the way past birth, and treat the perpetrators of it as the victims.

Omar has been in a lot of heat recently for her anti-Semitic remarks and her associations with Islamist groups such as CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood. Supposedly, she’s a good Muslim, or at least that’s the message she is trying to send by wearing her Somali hijab. But pro-infanticide statements such as these pretty well mark her not for a devout Muslim but for a garden variety far-leftist. (Unless, of course, her aim is to destroy the West from within) Islam, along with all the world’s major religions, disdains abortion. Omar on the other hand, is stepping right up for it – in its most extreme form, making the likes of Planned Parenthood and other far-left causes very proud. What’s Islam when your priority is to be left wing?

Her creepy invective and denials are disingenuous. Infanticide is exactly what is going on with late-term abortion and Omar’s defense of it is one more reason to marvel at the extended array of her moral disorder.

Image credit: Lorie Schaull, via Flickr // CC BY-SA 2.0

Rep. Ilhan Omar is ‘shocked, shocked’ that President Trump could think that with recent statements from the likes of Democrats such as Gov. Ralph Northam, infanticide is going on. Here’s her furious tweet:

This is truly dangerous and sickening!

Is this deranged President suggesting parents and doctors are working together to commit infanticide?

We have seen religious fanatics bombing clinics and threatening women, this will fan the flame of violence.

Stop the misinformation. https://t.co/Ad2ysWpDh9

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) April 28, 2019

 

Omar was of course reacting to this:

“The baby is born, the mother meets w/the doctor. They take care of the baby. They wrap the baby beautifully. Then the doctor and mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby.”

And while Trump’s statement was stylized for a campaign audience with a hypothetical scenario, there was nothing untrue about its substance. It came from the openly made statement from Northam and multiple other like-minded Democrats speaking about their approval for late-term abortions. Northam actually said this: 

If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.

If the infant is alive, why is there any ‘discussion’ at all about what ‘to do’ with him or her? Why is there a need to ‘keep comfortable’ someone who (in this logic of Democrats) is perfectly killable? The whole statement is revolting, amounting to an endorsement of infanticide for convenience’s sake, using Orwellian language to suggest something good going on.

But by Omar’s argument, anyone calling such a vile event ‘infanticide’ is ‘dangerous and sickening!’ And anyone who can point out how bad this picture can be is ‘deranged.’

And of course, she preemptively claims that the infanticidists are now in danger from terrible right wingers. Never mind that baby on the chopping block, who has just lost his or her right to life, Omar thinks everyone needs to rally for more late-term abortion that goes all the way past birth, and treat the perpetrators of it as the victims.

Omar has been in a lot of heat recently for her anti-Semitic remarks and her associations with Islamist groups such as CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood. Supposedly, she’s a good Muslim, or at least that’s the message she is trying to send by wearing her Somali hijab. But pro-infanticide statements such as these pretty well mark her not for a devout Muslim but for a garden variety far-leftist. (Unless, of course, her aim is to destroy the West from within) Islam, along with all the world’s major religions, disdains abortion. Omar on the other hand, is stepping right up for it – in its most extreme form, making the likes of Planned Parenthood and other far-left causes very proud. What’s Islam when your priority is to be left wing?

Her creepy invective and denials are disingenuous. Infanticide is exactly what is going on with late-term abortion and Omar’s defense of it is one more reason to marvel at the extended array of her moral disorder.

Image credit: Lorie Schaull, via Flickr // CC BY-SA 2.0

President Donald Trump has directed deputies to quickly draft regulations which will deny work permits to asylum-seeking illegal migrants, shorten the asylum process to 180 days, and charge migrants a fee to apply for asylum.

The new directive provides a legal foundation for the fast-track regulations when they are attacked in court by progressive judges and pro-migration groups. The regulations will be published by the end of July.

The impact of the new regulations is difficult to predict, partly because some are difficult to implement, and some will be delayed or blocked by pro-migration judges.

Also, the migrants get a vote and will work with the cartels and American lawyers to find workarounds. Democrats and GOP leaders in Congress may also try to block the rules.

Roughly 100,000 adults and children crossed the border in March. In the 12 months up to October, roughly one million poor migrants are expected to use the various catch-and-release loopholes — including requests for asylum — to stay and work in the United States for at least several years.

The migrants use the loopholes to take jobs in blue-collar workplaces, so forcing down wages for blue-collar Americans. The migrants also send their kids to the schools used by blue-collar Americans, so damaging the education received by American kids. The migrants, however, provide cheap labor for white-collar Americans, including immigration lawyers.

Roughly 800,000 migrants are into the United States waiting for asylum hearings which can be delayed for several years.

The rush of migrants is so great that they “are not even claiming asylum,” Mark Morgan, a former chief of the Border Patrol under former President Barack Obama. He told Fox News April 30:

They’re just coming across here illegally. If you’ve got a kid, in a few hours you’re allowed into our country never to be heard from again. This is absolutely a crisis.

Trump’s directive also elevates the migration issue in the 2020 election, and will likely be opposed by the Democratic Party’s progressive wing. The wing includes a growing number of legislators who refuse to support any policies which will secure the border and protect Americans’ wages.

If the Democrats don’t give us the votes to change our weak, ineffective and dangerous Immigration Laws, we must fight hard for these votes in the 2020 Election!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 30, 2019

“If the Democrats don’t give us the votes [in Congress] to change our weak, ineffective and dangerous Immigration Laws, we must fight hard for these votes in the 2020 Election!” Trump announced after officials released his order.

Trump’s declaration says:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to ensure the safety and territorial integrity of the United States as well as to ensure that the Nation’s immigration laws are faithfully executed …  In Proclamation 9844 of February 15, 2019, I declared a national emergency to address the security and humanitarian crisis at that border. That emergency continues to grow increasingly severe.

For example, the President directs his deputies to:

propose regulations under section 208(d)(2) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(2)) and other applicable statutes to bar aliens who have entered or attempted to enter the United States unlawfully from receiving employment authorization before any applicable application for relief or protection from removal has been granted, and to ensure immediate revocation of employment authorization for aliens who are denied asylum or become subject to a final order of removal.

The directive would bar illegals who try to sneak across the border from getting work permits. Many migrants who are caught quickly by border officers block their deportation by simply asking for asylum. This request allows the migrants to apply for one-year work permits after 150 days.

Migrants need to work because most have taken on debt to buy their travel tickets from the cartel-backed smuggling groups. If they do not repay the debt, the cartels’ lending divisions will legally take possession of their mortgaged farms and houses, often making their spouses and children homeless.

Even migrants with children can get jobs in the United States, partly because they can send their children to schools for education, daycare, and food, even if the kids do not speak English. Few of the migrants’ children are sent to schools in the wealthy districts that tend to vote Democratic.

Trump’s officials are using a variety of steps to disrupt this cartel business.

One recent policy prevents migrants from getting U.S. jobs by forcing them to wait in Mexico until their asylum claims heard in U.S. courts. But the are policy is being attacked in a California court by the pr0-migration U.S. lawyers who find themselves working alongside the cartel smugglers who collectively earn roughly $2.5 billion a year from their labor trafficking business.

AG William Barr says fedl law prevents DoJ’s immigration judges from releasing illegal immigrants. This will reduce catch-&-release, create a political headache for DHS & Congress & pressure migrants to comply w/ asylum process. https://t.co/OmTXFrCAbw

— Neil Munro (@NeilMunroDC) April 17, 2019

Trump’s April 29 announcement also directs officials to charge migrants for the privilege of filing an asylum request. Democrats say the poor migrants cannot pay the extra costs, but the filing fee will likely be included in the cartels’ smuggling prices.

Democrats sneered at the policy directive which helps to protect blue-collar wages and schools:

I think it’s safe to say that most Americans are more afraid of White Americans with semi-automatic assault rifles than they are of unarmed immigrants coming over the border looking for asylum and taking jobs that most Americans won’t work.

Just saying…

— Ed Krassenstein (@EdKrassen) April 28, 2019

Numerous Democrats slammed the proposed asylum fee.

Families are fleeing violence and turmoil to seek refuge at our borders and Donald Trump wants to charge them a fee to gain asylum. Truly sickening. https://t.co/gCWy1lkJX6

— Julián Castro (@JulianCastro) April 30, 2019

https://t.co/zlaxtzsTpK Another disgusting assault on asylum seekers. Call your elected official. Demand they protect asylum seekers. Demand independent immigration courts. #abolishtrump #AsylumSeekers #ImmigrationTwitter

— CBrownImmLaw (@cabrown08) April 30, 2019

Each year, roughly four million young Americans join the workforce after graduating from high school or university.

But the federal government then imports about 1.1 million legal immigrants, refreshes a resident population of roughly 1.5 million white-collar visa workers — including roughly 1 million H-1B workers — in addition to approximately 500,000 blue-collar visa workers, and also tolerates about eight million illegal workers and the inflow of hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants.

This federal policy of flooding the market with cheap foreign white-collar graduates and blue-collar labor is intended to boost economic growth for investors.

This policy works by shifting enormous wealth from young employees towards older investors even as it also widens wealth gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts children’s schools and college educations, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines millions of marginalized Americans, including many who are now struggling with fentanyl addictions.

Mass migration moves business investment from the heartland to the coasts, explodes rents, shrivels real estate values in the Midwest, and rewards investors for creating low tech, labor-intensive workplaces.

 

A legal immigrant from Cuba caused a 28-vehicle crash in Lakewood, Colorado, that left four men dead, law enforcement officials have confirmed.

Rogel Lazaro Aguilera-Mederos, a 23-year-old green card holder from Cuba, is the main suspect behind a 28-vehicle crash that ended in flames, four deaths, and left ten others injured in the hospital last week, FOX31 Denver reports.

Lakewood Police Department officials told local media that the crash, allegedly caused by Aguilera-Mederos, involved 24 cars and four semi-trailer trucks. The Cuban immigrant was driving a truck carrying lumber when the crash occurred. He is a resident of Houston, Texas, and has been living in the U.S. on a green card.

According to court records, Aguilera-Mederos told police at the time that he was driving at 85 mph when he learned that his brakes on his trucks were not working. That is when he says he attempted to pull over to the shoulder but was unable to because another truck was already pulled over.

The crash left four American men trapped in their vehicles as they burned in flames, police said. The four men — 61-year-old Doyle Harrison, 67-year-old William Bailey, 24-year-old Miguel Angel Lamas Arrellano, and 69-year-old Stanley Politano — ultimately died in their vehicles.

Aguilera-Mederos is expected to be hit with four vehicular homicide charges and is currently being held on a $400,000 bond. His next court date is scheduled for May 3.

Nine of the ten individuals who were rushed to the hospital after the crash have since been released, according to CBS Denver.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder. 

According to newly released data, several migrant groups of different national origins in Switzerland have welfare dependency rates well above 50 per cent, with over 80 per cent of Somalis in the country taking state handouts.

The data was gathered and released by both the Federal Statistical Office and the State Secretariat for Migration and shows that the 4,000 or so Somalis in Switzerland are by far the most prone to being on government benefits with 83.7 per cent relying on state income, 20 Minutes reports.

While Somalis are by far and wide the largest recipients of welfare, several other nationalities also have rates of over 50 per cent, such as Eritreans at 54.7 per cent and Angolans at 54 per cent.

‘We’re Somalis, We Don’t Pay’: Migrants Smash Bistro with Iron Bars – Breitbart https://t.co/RjV8wsd5Z5 pic.twitter.com/w4q3BR1xAP

— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) November 7, 2016

The statistics greatly contrast with the number of Swiss nationals on welfare, at a mere 2.3 per cent of the population — although Japanese nationals were the lowest of all at only 0.6 per cent.

Damian Müller of the Swiss Liberals (FDP) said that the figures show that both far too many asylum seekers not qualified for asylum were living on state handouts and that not enough was being done to integrate those with refugee status into the Swiss economy.

“Integration is not a one-way street,” he insisted, adding, “refugees are [also] responsible.”

Bachir Gobdon of the Somali Diaspora association attributed some of the blame for the high rates of welfare in the Somali community to the average family size, saying, “For example, they work in the hospitality industry, where wages are low. A family that has seven children, for example, cannot live on it.”

Swedish Court Convicts Pensioner for Saying Somalis Are ‘Lazy’ https://t.co/6bQ3JQ2blv

— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) February 22, 2019

The statistics resemble those in other countries like Sweden, where the jobless rate for migrants is much higher than the rate for native Swedes.

Figures released last summer showed that while Swedes had a rate of only 3.6 per cent unemployment, while the figure for migrants was 19.9 per cent.

In Germany, a report from the German Federal Employment Agency last year revealed that more than half of those on the Hartz IV welfare programme were migrants, with migrant welfare recipients increasing by 69 per cent since 2010 while Germans on welfare declined by 20 per cent.

Follow Chris Tomlinson on Twitter at @TomlinsonCJ or email at ctomlinson(at)breitbart.com

When Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez first introduced her ambitious “Green New Deal” to ostensibly combat man-made climate change by transforming the nation into a centralized government-controlled socialist hellhole, many critics keyed in on an accompanying “fact sheet” that decried the level of methane emitted by “farting cows,” a greenhouse gas that some assert is causing significant and irreparable damage to the planet’s climate.

The fact sheet quickly disappeared following scrutiny, however, and supporters of the Green New Deal attempted to assure everyone that there was no need for concern, as there were no plans to ban the agricultural production of beef and other meats that sustain the diets of the American people.

We see now, though, that some Democrats really do want to ban — or at least significantly reduce to near nothing — methane-emitting cows on farms, as is evidenced in New York City’s own version of the Green New Deal, a $14 billion initiative titled OneNYC 2050,.

It’s broad set of goals allegedly aimed at combating climate change, achieving social justice and transitioning to a more sustainable city for the future.

The amount of utter nonsense and wishful thinking contained in that report is mind-boggling and it would take several articles to fully explain just how unattainable and economically disastrous the plan truly is.

TRENDING: Polling in Distant 3rd Place, Kamala Desperately Lashes Out at Fast Food Restaurant

When the plan was initially released by Mayor Bill de Blasio, there were slightly misleading reports that one of the included initiatives involved the city essentially instituting a ban on processed meats like hot dogs, a staple of the American diet and a food item that New York City is itself quite famous for.

According to FactCheck.org, however, those initial reports got it wrong, and there is, at least as of now, no city-wide ban on hot dogs.

But there was an important element of truth to the story.

The proposed ban on processed meats and mandatory reduction in beef consumption would — again, at least as of now — be constrained to just city-run buildings and agencies, such as hospitals, prisons, and public schools. In other words, the city would no longer purchase beef and processed meats, though private establishments — like restaurants, street-corner vendors and baseball stadiums — could continue to sell and serve hot dogs.

FactCheck.org quoted an email from a city spokesman:

“This policy would apply only to City purchases. The plan is to phase out completely purchases of processed meats by agencies, and reduce how much agencies spend on beef by 50 percent. This would affect, for example, hamburgers in NYC public school lunches. It would not impact hot dogs at baseball games, street vendors, restaurants, etc.”

So, New York City Democrats want to keep schoolchildren from American staples like hot dogs and hamburgers?

Also, we stress the “at least as of now” qualifier because the OneNYC 2050 plan makes it abundantly clear throughout that New York City residents will, in countless various ways, be compelled to make potentially significant lifestyle changes in order to aid and adapt to the city’s planned changes and comply with the purported climate-friendly and sustainable dictates on a sustainable and “livable climate.”

On page 21 of the 36-page document, part of a section about New Yorkers shifting to a more sustainable lifestyle, there are details for how the city plans to “Adopt more sustainable consumption practices in city government operations,” which involved a plan to “shift away from goods that have an outsized impact on the environment,” which includes beef and other processed meats.

RELATED: A Storm’s Brewing for AOC: ‘Multimillionaire Mystery Donor’ Steps Up to Knock Her Out of Office

The city intends to use its Environmentally Preferable Purchasing policy and executive action to achieve, among other things, “reducing the purchasing of beef, and phasing out the purchasing of processed meat.”

The plan cites the supposed success of the “Meatless Mondays” policy that was foisted upon public school children by the government, and declared, “the City will reduce the purchasing of beef by 50 percent.”

“Beef has a relatively high environmental footprint compared to poultry, pork, and plant-based foods. Beef cattle, managing manure, and manufacturing fertilizer produces nitrous oxide and methane, two climate-warming pollutants 298 and 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, respectively,” the plan stated.

“Processed meat consumption is linked with increased risk of cancer and is often high in saturated fat and sodium which is linked with heart disease. This policy would offer health benefits to the most vulnerable New Yorkers,” the authoritarians added, proving that the do-gooders in City Hall really just have the health and well-being of New Yorkers in mind as they tell them what kinds of food they can and can’t eat.

Within that same section, the OneNYC 2050 plan also revealed how the city intends to completely do away with “unnecessary single-use plastic foodware,” such as “straws, cutlery, cups, plates, bowls, and trays” that are used once and thrown away.

That’s because those items are “petroleum-based products” that some view as an existential threat to the environment.

“The City is ending the purchasing of unnecessary single-use plastic foodware, switching to compostable, reusable, or recyclable alternatives while maintaining a sufficient supply of single-use plastic foodware for those who need it. And we will work with City Council to expand these requirements to private businesses,” the central planners at NYC’s Politburo declared.

That last line about the desire to “expand these requirements to private businesses,” while in this case appears limited to the single-use plastic foodware items, nevertheless provides justifiable concern that the prohibitions against beef and processed meat consumption could be similarly expanded to the private sector in New York City.

In the big scheme of things, New York City’s reduced consumption via government purchases of beef and processed meat products will have no discernible impact on the environment whatsoever, but will, in fact, expand and extend government control over yet another aspect of the people’s lives.

Anyone who actually believes that the New York City government will stop at just banning the purchase and sale of beef and processed meats and plastic straws/utensils at city-owned buildings and locations hasn’t been paying attention to how the left is incessantly seeking to gain more ground and exert more control over the citizenry.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

On his talk radio program Monday, the “Big Voice on the Right” provided his sizeable audience with evidence that the Democrat Party is beginning to “wake up” to an alarming reality: “That the Mueller report was a bomb, the Mueller report was a dud, and that they are not prepared to deal with Trump on any issue of substance.”

“Well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well. What do you know, the Drive-By Media, the Democrat Party are starting to wake up,” said a charged-up Rush Limbaugh to begin the segment. “I don’t think they can become fully woke, but they’re starting to wake up to reality.”

“They put every weapon they have in that Mueller report, in Trump-Russia collusion, and they are slowly awakening to the fact that it has bombed out on them,” said Limbaugh. The evidence is in the headlines and even at the unwatched White House Correspondents’ Dinner Saturday, he added. Rush then did one of the things he most enjoys: ran through a series of stories that revealed bad developments for Democats.

The first headline comes from The Atlantic: “The Clintons Are Nervous About 2020,” which starts off with this ominous passage: “Like pretty much every other Democrat in America, Bill and Hillary are nervous that their party’s primary field is too large, that it’s going to be dominated by the wrong kind of debate, that the candidates will succumb to their worst instincts, and that President Donald Trump will out-bully them anyway.”

The next Democrat-troubling headline comes from The Nation: “The Mueller Report Indicts the Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theory,” which, Limbaugh explained, argues that “the Mueller report doesn’t just dispel the conspiracy theories that have engulfed political and media circles for two years, it puts to rest the most popular recent one, that attorney general William Barr engaged in a cover-up.”

Then this report from The Chicago Tribune: “Remember the #NeverTrump Movement? It Collapsed.” And from The Wall Street Journal’s poll of big-time money managers: “Trump Will Win in 2020.” Rush pointed out that these money managers believe Joe Biden will win the Democratic nomination. Another troubling headline for the Dems comes from Politico: “Democrats Sweat Trump’s Economy,” which Limbaugh summarized as the Democrats admitting that they don’t have any real economic plan.

Limbaugh spent some time addressing this Dem feminist crisis story from NBC News: “Can a woman beat Trump? Some Democrats wonder if it’s worth the risk.” “Holy smokes! What a headline,” Limbaugh exclaimed. “Is it worth the risk to nominate a woman just to nominate a woman? This sounds like what they did with Mondull in 1984. … ‘Can a woman beat Trump? Some Democrats wonder if it’s worth the risk.’ Meaning, do we nominate a woman just to say we nominated a woman? Do we nominate a woman just to say that? What if we go down to defeat? Is it worth it?”

Another headline Limbaugh highlighted was from The Guardian: “Time to impeach? Headache for Democrats over how to take on Trump,” which prompted the host to remark: “Wait a minute! See what I mean? Two years ago it was a slam dunk, Trump was gone, Mueller was gonna get the goods, Trump-Russia collusion. Even Pencil Neck [Adam Schiff], Pencil Neck went on Real Time with Bill Maher on Friday night, and Bill Maher called him a Trump stalker.”

And then there’s this very problematic story from PJ Media: “Trump winning the 2020 money game for now,” which shows that “Trump’s campaign and the RNC raised a combined $76.1 million in the first three months of 2019,” which gives them “over $80 million in combined cash on hand — 21 times the amount Barack Obama and the DNC had raised at this time in 2011.”

Related: Trump Thanks Rush Limbaugh For Fox News Interview, And It’s Not Hard To Figure Out Why

Transcript via RushLimbaugh.com