Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) refused to back any legal restrictions on abortion.
Host Chuck Todd asked, “Do you believe there should be any restrictions on abortion in law?”
Sanders said, “I think that that is a decision that should be made by the woman and her physician. And I think many of what people are doing, sadly, is creating a political issue out of a medical issue. So the decision about women should be able to control their own body, and those decisions are made by a doctor and the woman.
Todd pressed, “Are you at all concerned, though, about this idea that people may try to worry about the sex of a child, or essentially look at that and are those type of restrictions on abortion something you are open to?”
Sanders said, “I wouldn’t use a restriction. That’s an issue that society has got to deal with, and it is of concern.” Todd asked, “How would you deal with that and the law?”
Sanders said, “I don’t know how at this particular point I deal with it, but that is an issue we really do have to deal with it.”
I think If you’re going to terminate a pregnancy, it should be done sometime before the fetus becomes Governor of Alabama. pic.twitter.com/6QgsY2rMz7 — Jim Carrey (@JimCarrey) May 18, 2019 He doesn’t see the irony in this. And Twitter is fine with the threat to the Governor. Via Townhall: In fact, what is being shown in […]
Gowdy did not hold back in his spygate discussion with Maria Bartiromo.
Trey Gowdy: There’s a lot of serious questions that need to be asked. When did the Russian probe begin? When did it become hopelessly co-mingled with the Trump campaign? What was the factual predicate? Where are the transcripts, if any exist between the informants and the telephone calls to George Papadopoulos? Why the defensive briefing so inadequate of President Trump? Why didn’t they do a follow-up defensive briefing? That doesn’t even get to the whole FISA abuse in the fall. That’s just the spring and summer of 2016. There’s lots of questions and I hope Bill Barr finds someone who is skilled enough to answer them…
Maria Bartiromo: I’m really glad you brought that up. The FBI’s conversations with George Papadopoulos. Because when the FBI agent sends in informants to someone they’re looking at, typically those conversations are recorded, right? Those people are wired.
Trey Gowdy: Yeah, if the bureau is going to sends in an informant the informant is going to be wired. If the bureau is monitoring telephone calls there’s going to be a transcript of that. Some of us are fortunate enough to know those transcripts exist. But they haven’t been made public. And I think one in particular has the potential to actually persuade people… There is some information in these transcripts that has the potential to be a game changer if it’s ever made public… If you have exculpatory evidence that was not shown to the court, that ain’t good. I’ve seen it. Johnny (Ratcliffe) has seen it. I’d love for your viewers to see it.
More on the junk dossier…
Trey Gowdy: We can call it a dossier. It sounds official. It’s really something the National Enquirer would blush if they printed it. So we know it was used four times by the United States government. What we’re trying to figure out is if it was used a fifth time in the intelligence assessment and you’ve got Brennan and Clapper and Comey, all three who know full well whether or not it was used in the intelligence assessment, but they’re giving you different versions. So there is information that exists in December of 2016 and I hope anyone who has access to it, Senator Burr, Devin (Nunes), whoever is open minded, go look at that and I think it will help you understand whether or not that dossier, that unverified hearsay, was used five times or just four times by the United States government. It’s pretty bad if it was used four times. It’s REALLY BAD if it was used five times!
This is getting really good.
The sharks are circling.
Well, at least they’re now being upfront about their aims. Want to Dismantle Capitalism? Abolish the Family https://t.co/rZxUfN92KU — The Nation (@thenation) May 16, 2019
Apple has removed the Bad Hombre anti-Trump game from their app store because, under the authoritarian anti-free speech rules that Social Justice Warriors have pushed for, you are not permitted to depict swastikas and Klan hoods — even to criticize them.
It seems as though the anti-free speech brigade did not expect for their own jokes to end up censored as well.
The game was created by 16-year-old Jackie George and recently won the Shortly Award and was featured in her school’s newsletter. Soon after, she found her app banned from both Apple’s Store and Google Play.
“In the gaming section, you battle the Bad Hombre and all of the idiotic and hateful things he does. You can trash his tweets, fight hatred with tolerance and love, or even try your hand at fleeing the Feds. New levels will be added regularly and all updates will be included in the initial purchase,” the game’s description in the Google Play store reads. “In the education section, you can learn which news outlets offer the most unbiased and factual information. Don’t fall for fake news, and certainly check everything the Bad Hombre says. Also, you can learn more about the national organizations that are fighting hatred and intolerance every day. Connect with these organizations to resist the Bad Hombre in real life!”
While Google was quick to reinstate the app, Apple has demanded some serious changes to the game before they will even consider restoring it. Their changes include removing characters that look like KKK members from a level where you are supposed to “turn bad guys good” by throwing “hearts and love” at them, removing swastika imagery, and removing all screens showing monuments burning or damaged government buildings.
Essentially, the satire police came for George’s game using the same rules that the left has set for everyone else.
We tried to warn them about this extremely slippery slope.
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.
Garza’s comments came as President Donald Trump prepared to announce his plans for new immigration policies on Thursday. The NBPC vice-president said that his organization’s president, Brandon Judd, would be having a phone conference with the White House to discuss the plan’s potential impact on the border.
“As it is right now, we are having a very hard time at the border,” Garza explained in recognition of the massive numbers of Central American migrant families being apprehended by Border Patrol agents after illegally crossing the border from Mexico.
Faulkner reacted to Garza’s comment about the condition of the border. “You said, ‘We’ve lost control of the border,’” Faulkner challenged. “That is different from what reporting I’ve seen. What do you mean when you say you’ve ‘lost control?’”
“Our Border Patrol chief has mentioned that over 50 percent of our agents are not securing the border and they’re now actually processing, transporting, and carrying for some of these asylum seekers,” Garza explained. “But I would challenge that percentage. I would put that percentage somewhere in the range of 75 percent.”
“What we’re seeing is that we’re not securing the border,” he emphasized. “We’re not out there catching those drug seekers or those drug smugglers or human smugglers.:
Garza cited an example from his own Laredo Sector where agents assigned to an interior checkpoint discovered a tractor-trailer smuggling 120 migrants from five different countries. “We’re getting overrun at the border,” Agent Garza explained. “So yeah, we’ve lost control of the border, Harris.”
Watch the full interview in the video above.
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.
Despite warnings from the Trump administration about an imminent attack by Iran or its proxies against American allies and forces, and the attack against oil tankers that followed, the liberal media has been claiming the threat from Iran was being overblown by an administration itching for a war. But, during an interview with ABC’s chief global affairs correspondent Martha Raddatz for This Week, former Army General David Petraeus pushed back and dismantled their fear mongering.
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:
Tucker Carlson: “Ilhan Omar, herself a symbol of America’s failed immigration system…someone who hates this country…spent yesterday demanding the abolition of ICE, the decriminalization of illegal immigration itself, and an end to all deportation programs” pic.twitter.com/qUl3O8Jq4g
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.
“We’re reserving final judgment until I see an actual bill of course. I would say it’s a step in the right direction for the way we approach our legal immigration system,” Cotton said:
It’s modeled in large part on the RAISE Act, which I introduced two years ago which would reorient our legal immigration system toward younger, higher skilled workers who speak English who could contribute to our economy from the very beginning on their first day here without hurting blue collar wages. I think that’s a step in the right direction. [Emphasis added]
“As far as the asylum crisis goes, it addresses a lot of the problems at the border that have resulted from well-intentioned laws that are now being abused by people seeking asylum for fraudulent or bogus reasons — oftentimes aided by American groups that are giving them talking points they need to get across our border — as well as providing the physical infrastructure that the border patrol needs to address the crisis at our southern border,” Cotton said. “So I want to see the final bill, of course, but it’s a step in the right direction for sure.”
Indeed, while Trump’s plan would implement mandatory E-Verify as well as a rigorous assimilation process that each foreign national would have to pass in order to obtain permanent residence, the plan fails to reduce the overall level of legal immigration at least on paper.
Cotton’s RAISE Act, on the other hand, boosts Americans’ wages and job prospects by reducing the flow of legal immigration from its current rate of 1.2 million admissions a year to 500,000 admissions a year. Senators David Perdue (R-GA) and Josh Hawley (R-MO) are both co-sponsors of the RAISE Act.
Both Trump’s plan and the RAISE Act, though, end the process known as “chain migration,” where newly naturalized citizens are allowed to bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the U.S.
Chain migration has been used to import entire foreign villages to the U.S., as noted by the New York Times. Since 2005, 9.3 million foreign nationals have been able to resettle in the U.S. through chain migration. This huge inflow outpaces two years of American births, which amounts to roughly four million babies every year.
The number of extended-family foreign nationals who have resettled in the U.S. in the last decade is greater than the total combined population of Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, San Francisco, and Cleveland.
At current legal immigration levels, the U.S. is on track to import about 15 million new foreign-born voters in the next two decades — the vast majority of which are likely to vote for Democrats, research by Axios, the New York Times, and Ronald Brownstein has revealed. Those 15 million new foreign-born voters include about eight million who will arrive in the country through chain migration.
The reduction of legal immigration levels would almost certainly not only boost wages for America’s working and middle class at a quicker pace than current trends, but also relieve labor market pressure, ensuring that U.S. workers are not forced to compete a never-ending flow of cheaper, foreign workers.
Research indicates that for every one-percent increase in the immigrant portion of American workers’ occupations, their weekly wages are cut by about 0.5 percent. This means the average native-born American worker today has his weekly wages reduced by perhaps 8.75 percent since 17.5 percent of the workforce is foreign born.
Every year, the U.S. admits more than 1.5 million foreign nationals, with more than 70 percent arriving through chain migration. In 2017, the foreign-born population reached a record high of 44.5 million. By 2023, the Center for Immigration Studies estimates that the legal and illegal immigrant population of the U.S. will make up nearly 15 percent of the entire U.S. population.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.
