News of the Day

Government action comes only at the cost of personal liberty

Subscribe to FixThisNation feed
Every Voice Counts
Updated: 1 hour 32 min ago

No, Journalists Have Not Done a “Pretty Good” Job Covering Trump/Russia

13 hours 22 min ago

Showing what is either a stunning lack of self-awareness or a shameful circle-the-wagons approach to media criticism, reporter Carl Bernstein – famous for unearthing the Watergate scandal in the 1970s – said this weekend that he was proud of the way the American news media had covered Ye Olde Collusion story.

“Our record as journalists in covering this Trump story and the Russian story is pretty good,” Bernstein said on CNN, miraculously not drawing guffaws from off camera.

Not only is that statement laughable on its face, any reporter or media critic who doesn’t characterize the press’s approach to Trump/Russia (or just Trump) as some of the worst journalism in the history of this nation is smoking something good.

Not that we would expect much better from Bernstein, whose star has fallen since his heyday. In fact, it was Bernstein himself who was involved in the CNN story that brought the Trump/Russia dossier to public light in December 2016 with salacious reporting. Reporting that failed to mention, naturally, that this dossier was the product of Hillary Clinton’s opposition research funding. It was – and is – scandalous tripe that was complied so that Clinton could win the election. And the fact that she never used it is proof that even she saw it for the phony baloney that it was.

But we digress, because reporting on the dossier is only one of many ways the American news media has failed the public this year. We’ve never seen a period of 12 months filled with so much inaccurate, after-the-fact-corrected stories. And while we appreciate that journalists have been fired and otherwise disciplined when caught peddling fiction to the public, there’s one big problem with that: These stories should have never passed editorial muster in the first place. A “correction” never hits as hard as the original story, meaning it is of the utmost importance that these outlets get it right the first time. But when it comes to Trump and Russia, that’s seldom the case.

Reported: That Robert Mueller subpoenaed Trump’s Deutsche Bank records. FALSE.

Reported: That Donald Trump Jr. got a heads-up in advance when WikiLeaks was set to publish leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee. FALSE.

Reported: That the Trump/Dossier had been proven largely correct. SO FALSE.

Reported: That Trump, as a candidate for president, told Michael Flynn to contact the Russians. FALSE.

And we didn’t have to stretch back more than a week to get these stories. It’s not as if this has been a particularly bad week for Trump/Russia reporting, it’s that this is indicative of a constant, yearlong onslaught of barely-vetted reporting that is either being shoveled out for ratings or for the purpose of turning the American people against the president. Likely both.

Either way, it is quickly deteriorating the public’s trust in the media, as is evident from a number of recent polls.

If this is “pretty good” reporting, we’d hate to see what bad journalism looks like.

 

To Prove Trump Colluded, You Have to Prove the Crime Happened

Mon, 12/11/2017 - 07:51

There is a single, undisputed fact at the center of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation: That the Democratic National Committee was hacked in some way in 2016, exposing emails that were subsequently sent to WikiLeaks for publication.

That’s…that’s about all there is.

Despite what you will hear from the mainstream media, it is NOT undisputed that Russia was involved in these hacks. Russia denies it, but that’s to be expected. More troublingly, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has denied that Russia was the source for the emails from Day One. Of course, that simply led Democrats and NeverTrump Republicans to accuse WikiLeaks of being a bought-and-paid-for Russian outlet, another accusation for which there is no evidence. The president himself has had access to the highest levels of top-secret documents on the “meddling,” and he, too, has cast doubts on Russia’s involvement.

Put simply, not everyone is convinced. The media has done their best to ignore the counter-theories, because they don’t fit into the “Hillary Clinton was robbed by Russia” narrative that Clinton herself has worked overtime to build. They ignore the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group of former NSA officials – not kooks, but actual former analysts in the nation’s top security agency – who say there’s simply no way the DNC servers were hacked from an outside entity. Drawing on their knowledge of how quickly the downloads occurred, they insist that the emails could have only been smuggled out on a thumb drive by an in-person saboteur. And unless said saboteur was working for the Kremlin, that alone blows the Russia conspiracy theory out of the water.

All of this isn’t to necessarily say that Russia wasn’t responsible for the hack. Maybe they were. It’s tough to dispute the conclusions of the U.S. intelligence community, all of which are in harmony about their conclusions. They may be right. But there’s a difference between being right on the facts and being able to PROVE those facts in a court of law. And if Robert Mueller isn’t able to prove that Russia was responsible for the crime, then how in the hell can he prove that Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia on that crime?

The fact that this entire investigation was triggered by a piece of opposition research from the Clinton campaign still stuns us to this day. The fact that we’re more than a year into this investigation and Mueller has yet to find a single shred of evidence proving “collusion” is just as astounding. Either Trump is some kind of SuperCriminal, the likes of which the world has never seen, able to collude with a foreign government right under the watchful eyes of the most penetrating intelligence agencies in the history of the world…or there is no THERE there. It’s all smoke and mirrors and political gamesmanship.

The longer this goes on, the more we suspect that’s the case.

Trump Economy Breaks Two Records the Left Won’t Want to Talk About

Sun, 12/10/2017 - 09:06

If you’ll think back to the 2016 election, you’ll remember that the lefty media had many common refrains about the ascendant Donald Trump. One was that he was issuing false promises about his ability to resurrect the U.S. manufacturing sector. Another was that he was steering the Republican Party into the realm of the obsolete by turning off Hispanic conservatives.

The dominance of these two themes may be why Trump’s liberal critics will not want to talk much about two huge economy stories that broke last week.

The first: Hispanic unemployment just hit its lower rate in the history of the United States.

That’s right, the guy who was supposedly burying the GOP with his refusal to accept that illegal immigration was a problem the U.S. was simply stuck with has turned things around dramatically for Hispanic workers in this country. According to new Labor Department statistics, the Hispanic unemployment rate fell to 4.7% last month, down a notch from its 4.8% rate in October. That brings the rate to its lowest point since the department began breaking unemployment data down by race and ethnicity in 1973. The lowest rate, AT LEAST, in 44 years. And Hispanics have, at least partially, Donald J. Trump to thank for it.

“This administration and @realDonaldTrump are working hard to create opportunities for all Americans,” said Ivanka Trump in a tweet highlighting the astounding figure. “…and we are just getting started!”

The second: Unemployment in the manufacturing sector is down to its lowest point since at least January of 2000.

Despite all of the naysayers who said there would be no resurgence of the old American manufacturing industry, Trump has proven that liberal economists won’t have the final say about that. The unemployment rate for the manufacturing industry ticked up in the last year of Obama’s pathetic reign, but now it is falling like never before. Positive employment in the sector has grown 1.5% in 2017. This, combined with a stock market surge that is unprecedented in the 21st century, and we’re looking at an economy that could be headed for record heights across the board.

Oh, but this is a failed presidency, remember?

We don’t blame leftists for doing their best to ignore these figures, because they are at diametric odds with the narrative they’re spinning about the Trump presidency. As far as they’re concerned, this is a Russian traitor who is on his way to becoming the first U.S. dictator. He’s going to round up all Hispanics and put them in detention camps and he’s going to laugh in the face of the hardworking, salt-of-the-earth manufacturing workers who pinned their hoped on him last November.

In the face of that narrative, news like this just doesn’t play very well. Better to talk about phantom, fake stories like how much Diet Coke the president is drinking or how he’s supporting a “pedophile” in Alabama. You start talking hard facts, and suddenly the idea that Trump is making America great again…well, it sounds less like a campaign slogan and more like the plain, unvarnished truth.

PolitiFact Makes an Extraordinary Claim About Hillary Clinton and the FBI

Fri, 12/08/2017 - 05:30

The late, great film critic Roger Ebert used to grumble about being forced to provide star ratings for the movies he reviewed, saying there was no way to accurately characterize his thoughts on any given movie using such a restrictive system. When readers would complain about one star rating Ebert gave compared to another, he would implore them to ignore the stars as best they could and instead focus on what he had actually written about the films.

That’s not only good advice when it comes to movie reviews; it’s good advice when it comes to reading PolitiFact.

The difference being that you wouldn’t read a scathing Ebert review and then scroll to the bottom of the page to see he’d given the movie in question four stars. To one degree or another, the rating he slapped on the film would be consistent with the text. There was an internal logic to it.

That’s not the case with PolitiFact. Regardless of whether or not you agree with their partisan views – which are undeniably liberal – you should at least be able to discern their Truth-O-Meter rating from their own text on a given question. All too often, however, that’s not the case. And a recent fact-check illustrates the problem perfectly.

The fact to be checked? Donald Trump’s December 4th contention: “Hillary Clinton lied many times to the FBI.”

Here’s some of what PolitiFact had to say about that claim:

“Clinton exclusively used personal email when she was secretary of state between 2009 and 2013, the New York Times revealed, choosing to rely on two email servers in the basement of her home in Chappaqua, N.Y,” they wrote. “Clinton repeatedly claimed she did not have any classified emails on her server from time at the State Department, but an FBI investigation found some classified information ended up on her private server, which was an unclassified system.”

This is called a lie.

Okay, but the claim is not that she lied to the American people but that she lied to the FBI, a point PolitiFact later highlights.

“The distinction between what Clinton told the FBI and what she told the public is important,” they wrote. “Clinton earned a Pants on Fire for claiming that, regarding the presence of classified information in her email, ‘Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people.’”

Here, without any evidence at all, they are making the following case: That Hillary lied to the American people and then lied AGAIN by telling them that she told the FBI the same thing. But PolitiFact themselves admit that they have no idea what she told the FBI: “There is no transcript of the interview that FBI agents had with Clinton on July 2, 2016, about her email usage.”

Furthermore: “[FBI Director James] Comey was not present for the discussion.”

Mmm-hmm. So how do we end up with this conclusion?

“We at PolitiFact don’t know exactly what Clinton told FBI investigators. We also know, however, that Trump failed to back up his allegation. Former FBI director Comey in congressional testimony said there was no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI. We rate Trump’s claim False.”

Uhhh…

This isn’t “fact checking.” This is choosing to believe one individual who wasn’t present for Clinton’s interrogation over another individual who wasn’t present for Clinton’s interrogation. Worse, it is choosing to ignore the one person – Clinton – who WAS present and insists that what she told the FBI was consistent with what she told the public. And what she told the public was not “inaccurate”…was not “misleading”…but was an outright LIE.

We can’t say with any more certainty than PolitiFact whether or not Clinton lied to the FBI during that soft, just-to-say-we-did-it interview last summer; the FBI probably didn’t even question her hard enough to make it necessary. But we can say that PolitFact did NOT prove that what Trump said was “false” by any stretch of the imagination. And that earns them the Fix This Nation Truth-O-Meter rating of FAKE NEWS.

Rev. Graham: Trump Has Done More for Christianity Than Any Recent President

Thu, 12/07/2017 - 07:39

In a Facebook post praising President Donald Trump for his remarks at the lighting of the national Christmas tree last week, Rev. Franklin Graham said that Trump had gone above and beyond the call of duty in being a voice and a warrior for people of faith.

“Never in my lifetime have we had a president willing to take a strong, outspoken stand for the Christian faith like President Donald J. Trump has,” Graham wrote. “Whether you are Protestant, evangelical, Orthodox, Catholic – all Christians need to get behind him with our prayers.”

Trump raised eyebrows with an unapologetically Christian-themed speech at the tree lighting – a marked change from the irreligious themes that were a favorite of former President Barack Obama. “For Christians this is a holy season, the celebration of the birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,” Trump said. “The Christmas story begins 2,000 years ago with a mother, a father, their baby son, and the most extraordinary gift of all – the gift of God’s love for all of humanity.

“Whatever our beliefs we know that the birth of Jesus Christ and the story of this incredible life forever changed the course of human history,” he continued. “There’s hardly an aspect of our lives today that His life has not touched – art, music, culture, law and our respect for the sacred dignity of every person, everywhere in the world.”

To American Christians who have watched their faith in Jesus turn into a near-anachronism in today’s increasingly-multicultural liberal landscape, it is unimaginably refreshing to hear a U.S. president forgo the niceties and get right to the meat of the matter. A blatantly religious speech at the start of a religious holiday doesn’t necessarily change the culture overnight, but it does bring the power of the bully pulpit back where it belongs. Instead of constantly criticizing and apologizing for Christianity, the way Obama did, Trump has dispensed with the political correctness in his recognition of this country’s founding faith.

Donald Trump is hardly an icon for the “Christian life,” but there’s a reason why so many evangelicals – both prominent and rank-and-file – see him as their last, best hope to turn America around. His steadfast unwillingness to buckle under the pressure of the mainstream, liberal culture makes him impervious to the crashing waves of multiculturalism that felled so many previous conservatives. He doesn’t pretend to be holier than thou, and it is in his willingness to get down and dirty – to fight it out to the death – that he has become one of American Christianity’s greatest modern champions.

Racial Activists Denounce President Trump Ahead of Museum Opening

Wed, 12/06/2017 - 10:44

President Donald Trump is planning to attend the opening of the Mississippi Civil Rights Museum on Saturday, but the NAACP says they would prefer if he didn’t. In a statement released on Tuesday, the racial activists accused the president of failing the black community and said that his attendance this weekend would be tantamount to an insult.

“President Trump’s statements and policies regarding the protection and enforcement of civil rights have been abysmal, and his attendance is an affront to the veterans of the civil rights movement,” said NAACP president Derrick Johnson. “He has created a commission to reinforce voter suppression, refused to denounce white supremacists, and overall, he has created a racially hostile climate in this nation.”

Asked about the potential protests, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said that Trump was still planning to attend the ceremony. She said it would be unfortunate if racial protesters were to disrupt the event.

“I think that would be, honestly, very sad,” she said on Tuesday. “I think this is something that should bring the country together to celebrate the opening of this museum and highlighting the civil rights movement and the progress that we’ve made. I would hope that those individuals would join in that celebration instead of protesting it.

“However,” she acknowledged, “they have every right to protest it.”

NAACP board member Amos Brown said it would be an “insult” for Trump to show up at the museum’s opening.

“He has never been a supporter of civil rights or equal opportunity or justice,” said Brown. “He’s been silent on civil rights issues, and his silence speaks volumes.”

Frankly, this only proves that the NAACP is more interested in widening racial divisions than they are in moving beyond them. Which, of course, comes as no surprise to anyone who has watched this organization in action. It’s no coincidence that they are currently embroiled in a ridiculous public relations war with American Airlines. They issued an unprecedented travel advisory against the airline earlier this year, warning that black people were discriminated against by the company – a charge rooted in no logical foundation that we can find. The NAACP may have started with a justifiable mission, but they have strayed from the path in recent years. Now, like the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of the world, they are simply looking to raise money off fictional stories of black oppression.

President Trump should not allow the meaningless statements of these instigators to keep him from going to Mississippi for the opening of this museum. These idiots are complaining that he’s been “silent” on civil rights issues and then they blast him for making an appearance at a civil rights museum? It makes no sense, unless there is an ulterior motive at play. Which there is. Never doubt it for a moment.

 

Supreme Court Delivers Trump (and the U.S.) a Major Victory

Tue, 12/05/2017 - 06:56

Could we be on the cusp of seeing sanity restored to our insane court system?

If the Supreme Court’s ruling on President Trump’s travel ban this week is any indication, the answer is a resounding yes. In a 7-2 ruling, the nation’s high court ruled Monday that Trump’s ban can go into full effect while the lawsuits against it proceed, giving the White House one of its most important judicial victories and sending a dire signal to those who have opposed the president’s national security measures.

As a result of the decision, Trump will be able to go ahead with the ban on U.S. travel from the following countries: Iran, Somalia, Syria, Chad, Libya, North Korea, and Yemen. The ruling also strikes down earlier restrictions on the ban, such as that persons with U.S. contacts (relatives, charities, etc.) would be exempt from the policy.

While several of the court’s left-leaning members ruled with the majority, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, proving once again that these two serve no purpose on the bench other than to carry water for the liberal agenda. When and if the full case is heard by the court, we’re certain that Sotomayor and Ginsburg will once again rule against the administration, no matter how obvious it is that the president was acting within the comfortable confines of his executive power. Once a liberal judge gets it in his or her head that she’s a member of the “Resistance,” nothing as insubstantial as the Constitution can remind them of their duty. Besides, these idiots barely believe in the Constitution as it is.

The only legal argument against the ban is that by making anti-Muslim statements on the campaign trail, Donald Trump somehow forfeited his right to ban travel from majority-Muslim countries. This is an argument that is absurd on its face, yet it was enough to inspire liberal judge after liberal judge to rule against the administration. We can hardly remember a year filled with this many unconstitutional, blatantly-biased court decisions, and it gives us a major sigh of relief to see the Supreme Court put us back on solid legal ground.

In a statement, John Malcolm of the Heritage Foundation praised the ruling.

“By a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court has decided—at least temporarily, pending a final determination of the merits—that decisions affecting our national security should be made by Congress and the president, not by a single federal judge sitting in a courthouse in Hawaii,” said Malcolm. “Presidents are given primary responsibility for protecting our homeland. Federal judges are not.”

On the other side of the coin was Omar Jadwat of the ACLU’s Immigrants Rights Project, who said the decision was a disappointment.

“President Trump’s anti-Muslim prejudice is no secret — he has repeatedly confirmed it, including just last week on Twitter,” Jadwat said. “It’s unfortunate that the full ban can move forward for now, but this order does not address the merits of our claims. We continue to stand for freedom, equality, and for those who are unfairly being separated from their loved ones.”

Trump’s “anti-Muslim prejudice,” to the extent that he has one, has nothing to do with singling out a religion and everything to do with recognizing one simple fact: Islam is the cauldron in which terrorism is forged. And Trump would be in dereliction of his duty to ignore that fact and treat every country and every religion as if they all posed the same threat to our national security. More importantly, Trump’s “anti-Muslim prejudice” is immaterial to the case. It does not limit his power as the President of the United States to make decisions based on what’s best for our safety. It certainly does not cede that power to random judges dispersed throughout the country.

This debate is far from over, but the Supreme Court’s ruling this week is the most encouraging sign we’ve seen since January.

Revenge: Trump Seeks to Block Mitt Romney’s Political Future

Mon, 12/04/2017 - 09:43

It was one of the most memorable moments of an extraordinarily memorable Republican primary season: Former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, standing on stage and delivering a brutal takedown of the improbable 2016 frontrunner, Donald J. Trump. With a blistering half-hour speech, Romney called Trump a “phony,” a “fraud,” and a “con-man” who had turned everything he touched outside the narrow real estate market to garbage. Romney blasted the future president’s failures in every venture from steaks to airlines, concluding that conservative voters should pick whichever of the remaining candidates that happened to be ahead in the polls in their state. Then, he figured, the party could sort through the mess at the convention and avoid the disaster that would be a President Trump.

Of course, it didn’t work out the way Romney had hoped. In short order, Trump had dispatched with Ted Cruz and John Kasich and made the Republican nomination his own. It seemed that Romney’s fierce disapproval was water under the bridge when Trump considered him for his Secretary of State, but that didn’t wind up going anywhere. And since Trump’s inauguration, Romney has not been shy about criticizing the president on everything from foreign policy to his remarks on Charlottesville.

It’s hard to say at this point if Trump considers Romney an enemy, per se, but he certainly does not count him as an ally. With the Russia investigation breathing down his neck and an extremely slim majority in the Senate, the last thing the president needs is another Republican in the upper chamber who will thwart him when he needs a reliable vote. Trump and Stephen Bannon are on a mission to drain the swamp of Establishment-types who oppose the duo’s new vision of Republican politics, and a slate of announced retirements is getting them closer to their goal of a firmly-entrenched, Trump-loyal majority. If Romney runs for and wins the Senate seat in Utah, it would be a step backwards.

Therefore it should not be a surprise to see that Trump is doing everything he can to keep Romney from making good on his plans. And that starts with encouraging his friend Orrin Hatch (R-UT) to postpone retirement for a few more years. Hatch has been signaling that he’s ready to step down, and he has even apparently encouraged Romney to run for his seat. In turn, Romney has been preparing to do just that.

But according to Politico, Trump and Bannon are eager to nip that turn of events in the bud.

“The president’s mostly behind-the-scenes campaign to sway Hatch will burst into public view on Monday, when he arrives in Salt Lake City to hold a well-choreographed event designed to showcase his affection for the powerful Senate Finance Committee chairman,” Politico writes. “Trump’s appearance is ostensibly official in purpose: He will announce his decision to reduce the size of Utah’s Bears Ears and Grand-Staircase Escalante national monuments, a cause that Hatch has championed. But it’s also undeniably political: To use the trappings of presidential power to get a veteran lawmaker to rethink his long anticipated plans to leave the Senate.”

At the end of the day, this may be less about “revenge,” and more about Trump putting political power behind a senator who has become one of his most steadfast allies. Hatch – a four-decade veteran of Washington – is no one’s idea of a conservative insurgent, but he has proven his loyalty to the Trump brand time and time again. At a time when Trump is looking high and low for people he can trust, trading Hatch for Romney is a bad deal.

ABC’s Fake News Causes Stock Market to Plunge

Sun, 12/03/2017 - 07:12

Even in an era where mainstream media fake news has become the norm, it’s a relative rarity to see a major press organization like ABC News indulge in the sort of reckless reporting that we saw on Friday. Yes, CNN, NBC, the New York Times, and the rest of them let their abject bias color their Trump coverage and yes, they quote endlessly from unnamed, suspicious sources, but it’s not all that often that they just blatantly publish fact-free nonsense.

But that’s exactly what they did last week when reporter Brian Ross gave the network his “insider knowledge” about Michael Flynn and his grand jury testimony. It was a stunning example of media irresponsibility, and it even had tangible effects on the stock market, which plunged 350 points in the wake of the report.

In the morning, based on Ross’s reporting, ABC News said that, as a CANDIDATE, Donald Trump ordered Flynn to make contact with the Russians. If this reporting had been accurate, it would have been the bombshell of the day, overshadowing even the basic (true) news that Flynn had pled guilty to lying to the FBI and that he was prepared to testify that he was ordered to make contact with Russian government officials as part of the transition effort. It would have been the clearest piece of hard evidence yet that the BIG STORY – that the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow in an effort to win the election – actually had some merit to it.

Only problem? It wasn’t true.

By the evening’s “World News Tonight” broadcast, ABC News was forced to issue a correction to their illegitimate bombshell, bringing their reporting back in line with everyone else’s – that Flynn had only contacted Russian officials as a member of the transition team, AFTER Trump had already been elected president.

“A clarification tonight on something one of Flynn’s confidants told us and we reported earlier today,” Ross said Friday evening. “He said the president had asked Flynn to contact Russia during the campaign. He’s now clarifying that saying, according to Flynn, candidate Trump asked him during the campaign to find ways to repair relations with Russia and other world hot spots. And then after the election, the president-elect asked him to contact Russia on issues including working together to fight ISIS.”

The next day, after a barrage of angry criticism, ABC News issued a statement apologizing for the report and confirming that Ross would be punished for his sorry journalism.

“We deeply regret and apologize for the serious error we made yesterday,” the company wrote. The reporting conveyed by Brian Ross during the special report had not been fully vetted through our editorial standards process. As a result of our continued reporting over the next several hours ultimately we determined the information was wrong and we corrected the mistake on air and online.

“It is vital we get the story right and retain the trust we have built with our audience –- these are our core principles,” ABC continued. “We fell far short of that yesterday. Effective immediately, Brian Ross will be suspended for four weeks without pay.”

ABC News should be commended for taking strong steps to correct for this error, but it’s one that would have never happened in the first place if the press were more concerned about accurate journalism than they are about their dual interests of generating ratings and destroying President Trump. They can play whack-a-mole with every false report, losing more viewer trust every time, or they can re-evaluate their entire approach to covering this presidency.

NOT GUILTY? A Miscarriage of Justice in San Francisco

Fri, 12/01/2017 - 07:46

As you’ve probably heard by now, a jury in San Francisco ruled Thursday that illegal immigrant Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, the admitted killer of Kate Steinle, is not guilty of first degree murder, manslaughter, or anything else more serious than the felony possession of a firearm.

As a result of their misguided, tragic verdict, Garcia Zarate will not pay any serious penalty for cutting down a young woman in the prime of her life – despite the fact that she would be alive and well today had it not been for his recklessness. And when we say “recklessness,” we’re being about as generous as we can be to the facts of the case.

A verdict like this would not typically be national news, but Steinle’s death came to be a symbol for those of us who desperately want to see law and order restored to this country as it pertains to illegal immigration. Garcia Zarate’s status as an oft-deported felon shone an important spotlight on the Obama administration’s lack of seriousness on border security, and, perhaps more specifically, San Francisco’s status as a sanctuary city. Up until the time of Steinle’s death, many Americans were completely unaware of the fact that there were cities in the U.S. that acted as safe harbors for illegal immigrants, shielding them from deportation even if they had been arrested and thrown behind bars.

Thanks to this case (and the tireless efforts of Donald Trump and his administration), the term “sanctuary city” has become a common one. That’s a good thing, because the more Americans who know about this insanity, the better. We still have a deep (if waning) faith in the essential goodness of the American people. We still believe that reason and truth can prevail over the lies of the left. We still believe that the vast majority of Americans WANT to see this country restored to its former glory. Our faith was solidified on Election Day 2016, and it remains even through the many depressing stories we read and report on a daily basis…including this one.

Politically, this may have been the godsend that President Trump was waiting for. While nothing can bring back Kate Steinle or provide the justice this jury stole from them, it could be the crack in the left’s armor that we needed to get to work on The Wall – and everything the Wall represents. That means more spending on border security. That means ENDING sanctuary cities. That means closing the loopholes that allow businesses across the U.S. to employ people who shouldn’t be in this country. And it means reforming the legal immigration system so that we no longer roll out the welcome mat for every loser the world spits in our direction.

Perhaps out of disgrace will come salvation. We can only hope.

Sexual Harassment “Moment” May Bring Down One Powerful Woman as Well

Thu, 11/30/2017 - 05:43

They’re dropping like flies in New York, Washington, Los Angeles, and even Minnesota. Man after well-known man is seeing his career brought to an end by a flurry of sexual harassment and assault allegations. In just the past week, we’ve seen Matt Lauer, radio star Garrison Keillor, and NPR new chief David Sweeney join a Hall of Shame that is growing bigger with every passing day. But while we await the inevitable “jumping of the shark” that this moment in history will bring – the moment when a man gets fired for an offense so utterly trivial that the door suddenly slams shut on this feminist awakening, or the moment when an accuser gets caught in a baldfaced lie – it may be that at least one powerful woman sees her career disintegrate right along with the men.

The woman is House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat who has been painting herself as a powerful voice for the feminist cause for lo these many years. A hard-left liberal straight out of San Francisco, Pelosi was one of the loudest, shrillest voices when the Access Hollywood tape came out last year. She was one of the first ones in front of a microphone when the Washington Post came out with their initial Roy Moore stories. But when it came to one of her own – Rep. John Conyers – suddenly Pelosi traded in her feminist, “believe all women” credentials for a species of partisan hackery that was embarrassing to watch.

In an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press last Sunday, Pelosi hesitated when host Chuck Todd asked her about the allegations against Conyers. After just saying that we were standing at an important time for women in history, Pelosi suddenly found herself defending her Democrat-in-arms.

“We are strengthened by due process,” said the same woman who has referred to Moore as a child molester. “Just because someone is accused…John Conyers is an icon in our country. He has done a great deal to protect women – Violence Against Women Act, which the right-wing is now quoting me as praising him for his work on that – he did great work on that. But the fact is, as John reviews his case, I believe he will do the right thing.”

Right.

Pelosi’s sniveling defense of a Democrat brought outrage even from her own party. In comments to reporters this week, Rep. Kathleen Rice of New York said that Pelosi had done more than any recent man to set the woman’s movement back.

“I think that her comments on Sunday set women back and — quite frankly, our party back — decades,” said Rice. “I think that we ceded the moral high ground on Sunday when our leader said on ‘Meet the Press’ that John Conyers was an icon and we don’t even know who these women are, when she was fully aware that the woman in question was bound by a nondisclosure agreement.”

There is some merit to Pelosi’s call for due process – although it gets a little weaker when Conyers has already been caught paying off his accuser – but you can’t have it both ways. You can’t call for due process when it’s a Democrat and grab your pitchfork when it’s a Republican. Even the most jaded, cynical liberal can see through that charade. With an opportunity to put her principles on display, Pelosi revealed she has none. And in a year where many in her party are already beginning to doubt her leadership, her blunder last Sunday could be the final nail in her coffin.

Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show Under Fire From Nutty Liberals

Wed, 11/29/2017 - 07:43

Not that long ago, it would have been within the expected and normal course of business to see feminists going after something like the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show. Back in the day, when feminists actually made consistent, logical sense once in a while, you would not have been surprised to see them attacking such an event for exploiting female sexuality for the glorification of male viewers. In that way, it wasn’t uncommon to (occasionally and unintentionally) see feminists and conservative Christians on the same page, encouraging the demise of the “sex sells” industry that makes up so much of Hollywood and Madison Avenue.

Of course, we’re long past those days. Today’s feminist considers herself “sex-positive” and blames any exploitation of women on men. If a woman is working in the porn industry, that’s her choice as a 21st century powerful female. But if men are employing her in said porn industry, they are hopeless patriarchs trying to keep the female species from rising to equal status…or something. And we’re sure they have similar feelings about the Victoria’s Secret brand.

But feminists and liberals aren’t upset about this year’s Fashion Show because of anything to do with those old debates about sexuality. No, no, they’re upset for a far more ridiculous reason: Cultural appropriation.

What, you ask? Did the ancient Aztecs parade women around in their underwear once a year in a cherished tribute to the gods? Well, no, but Teen Vogue is here to tell you exactly what’s wrong with this year’s event. Read it fast, though, since this magazine is getting ready to shut down production…for some strange reason.

“The Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show each year is made up of themed segments,” Teen Vogue informs us. “This year, the one in question was dubbed ‘Nomadic Adventure,’ featuring a flurry of looks that seemed as though they had been inspired by tribal and Native American dress.”

This is a problem, of course, because few if any of the models are actually Native American. And, as you may remember from all the liberal whining approximately thirty days ago, it’s not acceptable for whites to go dressing themselves in costumes that originated in other cultures.

“So now Victoria’s Secret is totally ok with cultural appropriation,” wrote a braindead moron on Twitter. “Wow. Ok.”

It’s getting really hard to tell if these idiots are actually upset about the things they rage against or if they’re just pretending to be upset for the sake of relieving themselves from the boredom of their meaningless lives. We sometimes wonder if even they know the difference anymore.

 

 

French President Wants (Another) Crack Down on Free Speech

Tue, 11/28/2017 - 10:55

In yet another sign that Europe is descending into a wasteland of authoritarian leftism, French President Emmanuelle Macron has announced that he wants to make “gender-based insults” a thing of the past in his country. In a speech celebrating the International Day for Elimination of Violence Against women, Macron proposed that France create new legislation that outlaws these insults in such a way that punishes users by a fine.

“The streets should not become hell for the women of France,” he said, signaling that the Ministry of the Interior was now working on regulations that would be rolled out within a few weeks.

“We will be creating an offense which will give the police the right to issue fines if there is a verbal attack on a woman,” he said. “Let’s seal a pact of equality between men and women.”

There are elements of Macron’s proposed law that could actually do some good – the government has indicated a willingness to expand the statute of limitations for the rape of minors, make it easier for women to report sexual assault online, and improve women’s safety on public transportation. It is not a problem that Macron wants to crack down on sexual assault and actual violence.

The problem comes when he conflates speech with violence, which is a point of confusion he shares with Angela Merkel and many American leftists. Through this mechanism, he can begin a slow and steady march against freedom. Sure, it starts with a few gender slurs here and there. Then it moves into the realm of ideas. Suddenly you not only cannot call a woman a “bitch” in public without risking a fine, you can’t criticize a woman at all. Doing so is now classified as hate speech, and the consequences are in line with the penalties for actually committing an act of assault. This is where the whole train goes off the rails.

Standing up (meaningfully) for free speech is never easy, because the types of speech that people like Macron want to outlaw are almost always unpopular. Who wants to rally for the rights of men to yell slurs at women in the streets of Paris? Who wants to stand up for the rights of Neo-Nazis to march in Charlottesville? People see you defending hate speech and they assume that you approve of hate speech. Human psychology dictates that few people will want those associations. That’s why, in the absence of a First Amendment, it’s so easy for a government to begin banning certain forms of expression “for the good of society.”

Bill of Rights or no Bill of Rights, leftists are going to soon try and start doing this in America. That’s why it’s so important that we have the courage to fight them off, no matter how much we may personally disagree with the speech they’re trying to ban. Once you start heading down that road, there’s no coming back.

Liberal Anti-Trump Courts are a Threat to U.S. National Security

Mon, 11/27/2017 - 11:07

Last week, a federal judge in California dealt a temporary death blow to the Trump administration’s goal of depriving sanctuary cities of their federal grant money. In a decision that is as biased as it is baffling, Judge William Orrick ruled in favor of San Francisco and Santa Clara, granting them an injunction against the Justice Department while their respective lawsuits move forward. Orrick determined that President Trump was not allowed to set new conditions on money already approved by Congress, even though these grants are distributed by the executive branch. And, of course, even though these cities are in clear violation of U.S. federal law.

While it’s extremely important for the federal government to respect the rights of states and municipalities, there are two problems with that point of view when it comes to sanctuary cities.

One, they are in gross violation of federal law – and we’re not talking about the baseline law that prohibits illegal immigration. We’re talking about the federal statues that make it a felony to harbor and provide sanctuary for illegal immigrants. These cities are not just saying that they refuse to send their police out to act as federal agents – that would be a permissible act of “states’ rightshood.” Nor are they simply indicating that they will give low priority to the capture and detention of illegal immigrants, as that too would be a permissible plan under the doctrine of prosecutorial discretion. No, these cities are passing laws that PROHIBIT their local officials from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement authorities.

And that brings us to the second point, which is the penalty: Nothing more or less than losing a federal grant that makes up a fraction of a percent of their overall funding! And this judge thinks the Trump administration does not have that authority? C’mon.

This is not the legalization of marijuana we’re talking about here. We’re talking about an issue – illegal immigration – which is a clear and present threat to our national security. By aiding and abetting these migrants, cities like San Francisco and Santa Clara are luring immigrants across the border with a thick, juicy carrot. Come on across, you’ll be perfectly safe as long as you come live in our sanctuary! How is that fair to the residents of neighboring towns? How is that fair to the people who may be killed by these migrants or their traffickers as they make their way into the country? How is that fair to the hundreds of millions of Americans who do not want to see drugs and terrorists come across that border?

These courts are not only off the map when it comes to the law, they are wildly out of line when it comes to their responsibility to the safety and security of our nation. We pray that this issue is resolved correctly when it comes before the Supreme Court, but at some point, we’re going to need to do something about the insane liberal nonsense being spouted from our federal court system. It’s gotten completely out of hand.

Roy Moore’s Victory Will Be the Final Nail in the Democrat Coffin

Sun, 11/26/2017 - 07:06

You’ve probably seen the liberal media pundits and the Republican Establishment shills commenting on the Roy Moore saga down in Alabama. They think, to quote Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, that if the GOP becomes the party of Trump and Moore, they are “toast.” That Moore’s win (and, in conjunction, Steve Bannon’s growing rise in the conservative movement) will turn the GOP into a permanent minority party, catering only to those wildlings on the far fringes of the right – the infamous “basket of deplorables” that supposedly sent Trump to the White House in the first place.

What you don’t hear much speculation about is what Moore’s victory would mean for the Democratic Party. Yes, Alabama is a solidly-red state, but it isn’t the kind of place where Democrats lose in a landslide every time out. And it’s clear that, given the recent controversies surrounding Moore and his historical preference for, ahem, younger women, Democrat Doug Jones is going to give the former state Supreme Court judge a run for his money. And let’s face it, Jones is supported nationally by not only the DNC but by the media and half the Republicans in Congress.

So we ask: If the Democrats can’t pull together a national movement to defeat someone accused of sexually molesting, assaulting, and harassing teenage girls (putting aside the truth or fiction of these allegations) what does that say for THEIR future?

Alabama or not, this should be a relatively easy election for them to win. The media has turned Moore into a Christian crackpot, a predatory monster, and a slimy product of far-right interests. You couldn’t dream up a more comprehensive, negative campaign to run against someone. If it still isn’t enough – if Moore still ascends to victory next month – what hope do Democrats really have of winning back control of the Senate in 2018? What hope do they have of winning the White House in 2020? What hope do they have…period?

Certainly, Moore’s victory would prove two things. One, it would signal that Democrats are DONE south of the Mason/Dixon. They have burned their bridges too many times and southerners are no longer even slightly interested in what they’re selling. Their culture wars have targeted the sacred cows of the South over and over again, and they are now paying the price for writing off an entire swath of the country.

Two, it would prove that Americans – at long last – are finally waking up to the agenda of the mainstream liberal media. The “opposition party,” as Bannon calls them. And he’s absolutely right. That’s been the case since the days of Bill Clinton’s presidency, if not long before, and it is worse than ever these days. The difference being that you don’t necessarily have to listen to Rush Limbaugh every afternoon to realize it. We have a president who isn’t afraid to call the media out on its glaring errors and stupefying bias, we have a diverse and healthy ideological spectrum of sources on the internet, and, frankly, we have a media that went WAY too far in its zeal to elect Hillary Clinton. Liberal media bias only “works” when its subtle and practically invisible. In their fear of Trump and their disdain for the intelligence of the average American, the media accidentally exposed itself as the partisan player it is. And now it has lost all credibility with a significant portion of the voting public.

If Moore wins, you can count on Democrats to say it shows how morally bankrupt Republican voters have become. In reality, it will show that the Democratic Party brand has become so poisonous to most Americans, that even a man with Moore’s suspicious history can overcome the odds. If you’re a Democrat, that’s not great news heading into the midterms.

Liberal Journalist is REALLY MAD at Sarah Huckabee Sanders

Thu, 11/23/2017 - 16:58

Masha Gessen of the New Yorker was really fit to be tied on Monday after Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary had the AUDACITY – the unmitigated GALL – to ask the gathered journalists to name something they were thankful for before asking their usual questions. Like, she was so angry she had to write up a 2,000 words piece about it for her publication and make sure everyone who read it understood what a mean, bullying ogre this Sarah Sanders really way. Or, to hear her play the tune – “Sanders treated the White House press pool the way a sadistic teenager would treat a groups of third graders.”

Strong words for an exercise in gratitude.

But you can see how Gessen got that impression. Just look how she interprets this first exchange between Sanders and a reporter:

“Anybody want to be first on what they are thankful for?” Sanders asked. Her tone was menacing, the tone of a bully asking for a volunteer to be humiliated in front of the room. She called on April Ryan, of American Urban Radio Networks. Ryan was one of the few African-American reporters in the room, and her questions have clearly annoyed Sanders in the past. Ryan had tried, unsuccessfully, to ask a question during an earlier part of the briefing, when Secretary of State Rex Tillerson spoke about North Korea.

“April, you’ve been sooo eager,” Sanders said. There was laughter. There is always laughter when bullies mock their marks.

“I’m thankful for life,” Ryan said, going along with the rule proposed by Sanders. “I’m thankful for my children. I’m thankful for twenty years in this job. I’m thankful to be able to talk to you and question you every single day.” Ryan ended on a big, insincere smile.

“I feel the gratefulness here,” Sanders responded, with her own angry smile. There was a smattering of laughter.

And so goes the entire essay, with Gessen interpreting “menacing tones” and “angry smiles” all over the place. We aren’t accusing Gessen of making this up for her liberal audience, either; we really believe this is what she thinks when she sees a strong, confident conservative woman playing around with the liberal dunces who make up the majority of the press pool. She sees a woman who understands full well that the press DESPISES her and DESPISES Trump, and she knows why they’re asking her questions. Not to get to the truth, but to get a sound bite they can use against her and the president in their next newscast. It’s a war, and Sanders is on the front lines.

Given that fact, we’d say she has been more than gracious with her enemy combatants. And if her friendly smile turns “angry” once in a while? Well, who are we to judge.

Unreal: GOP Senator Says He’ll STILL Vote for Amnesty

Wed, 11/22/2017 - 05:11

Count Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) as one of those Republicans who has learned absolutely nothing from the backlash that has hit his party over the last four years. Alexander steadfastly denies the role grassroots anger over illegal immigration has played in transforming Republican politics, even though it is chiefly responsible for the direction of the 2016 election. He – and he’s certainly not the only one – still thinks there is some kind of yearning for liberal “immigration reform” inside the conservative base, and if he keeps talking like this, the voters of Tennessee may finally decide they need to go in another direction. That is, unless Alexander becomes the next Republican to call it quits before the next election.

In an interview with CNBC’s John Harwood this week, Alexander said that amnesty was still a viable vote on the floor of the Senate. “We need a legal immigration system, and we need to put that behind us,” he said. “We tried to do it in 2013; I voted for it. It would’ve solved many of the problems. I would vote for it again.”

Alexander essentially admitted that he’s still getting his political wisdom from the old GOP playbook that says the party needs to embrace amnesty if they want to pull Hispanic voters back into the fold. This strategy, which was popularized by the infamous 2012 election “autopsy,” was proven quite wrong by the 2016 election. But there are some Republicans who refuse to see what’s right in front of their faces.

“Are you comfortable with the message that the Republican Party under Donald Trump is sending on race right now?” asked Harwood.

“What I’d like for President Trump to do is to do for immigration, which involves race, what Nixon did for China,” he said. “And I’ve said that to him twice. And he’s responded very well. He could, more than any other president I can think of right now, help us solve the immigration problem in this country.”

Yes he could, but not in the way Alexander is thinking. This is no time to be reaching across the aisle. The kind of immigration reform the Democrats wants is unacceptable to millions of Americans who demand that we enforce the law. It has been proven time and again that mass amnesty – whether it comes from Congress or the president – only results in more illegal immigration. It stops nothing. It improves nothing. It only compounds the problem, as anyone with any common sense could see. We need to get tough, we need to build a wall, and we need to send a strong message to any immigrants who want to flaunt America’s laws.

Newsweek Tells Us How Charles Manson and Donald Trump are Alike

Tue, 11/21/2017 - 14:06

While the world “mourned” the death of one of the most evil stains on American history – the cult leader Charles Manson – on Monday, at least one liberal news organization could not help but compare this embodiment of mental illness and mass murder to…well, who else? The President of the United States!

Newsweek decided that Manson’s death provided them with the perfect opportunity to explain why the California killer was able to persuade people to carry out dastardly deeds…and to compare his form of cultish persuasion to President Trump’s ability to amass loyal followers in the political realm. To do so, they spoke to “psychoanalyst Mark Smaller” about the language Manson used to draw in his marginalized followers.

“A charismatic leader knows how to speak to people in a way that will emotionally engage those people,” he told Newsweek.

They then get into the meat of their story, after a mild disclaimer that didn’t dissuade them from writing the article in the first place:

Smaller is clear that he does not believe President Donald Trump is similar to the convicted killer, or that their followers have any shared beliefs or characteristics, but he did say we can look to the current president to see how language is used to form a bond with followers.

“Our current president speaks in an emotional or affective way to large numbers of people in our country who feel a kind of alienation or disconnection from the government,” he said. “They feel very responded to and become his political base.”

According to the psychoanalyst, cult followers like those in the Manson family are so seduced by feelings of acceptance and understanding that they accept their leaders’ ideologies regardless of how destructive or dangerous they may be.

“It’s not even the content of what that charismatic leader says,” he said. “He or she is able to do it in an emotional way.”

So even a cursory reading of the article shows that Newsweek’s psychoanalyst could be talking about any charismatic figure, which includes the majority of politicians, celebrities, and TV personalities in America. But of course, they are only interested in comparing Manson to Trump, whom they have groomed their readers to viewing as some sort of 21st century Hitler – a grave threat to democracy and the Pied Piper of a similar cult to the Nazis, the dreadful and mysterious “alt-right.”

This is the kind of crap that even Buzzfeed News would send back for revision, but apparently this is how far Newsweek has fallen in the race for quick clicks.

BUILD IT NOW: Border Agent Brutally Murdered by Illegal Immigrant

Mon, 11/20/2017 - 09:41

The Customs and Border Protection Agency announced Monday that two U.S. Border Patrol agents were attacked by an illegal immigrant, one of whom was badly injured on Sunday and the other of whom was unfortunately killed by the marauding intruder. Agent Rogelio Martinez, the deceased, and his partner, who had yet to be named as of the agency’s press release, were reportedly “responding to activity” along Interstate 10 in Van Horn, Texas when they were ambushed. As of Monday afternoon, law enforcement officials were in the midst of a statewide manhunt for the suspect or suspects involved in the heinous attack.

While the agency itself was quiet about what exactly had happened in the attack, Art Del Cueto of the National Border Patrol Council labor union said the two agents may have been killed with rocks. “It’s heartbreaking, truly heartbreaking,” he said in an interview with the Washington Post.

President Donald Trump, who rose to political heights with a national call to get much tougher on illegal immigration and border security, wasted no time addressing the tragedy. “Border Patrol officer killed at Southern border, another badly hurt,” he tweeted. “We will seek out and bring to justice those responsible. We will, and must, build the Wall!”

Other Republicans weighed in on the attack, agreeing that it demonstrated the need for enhanced border security measures.

Sen. Ted Cruz, who has been one of the few Republicans on Capitol Hill to fully embrace the idea of building a wall, said in a tweet: “This is a stark reminder of the ongoing threat that an unsecure border poses to the safety of our communities and those charged with defending them. I remain fully committed to working with the Border Patrol to provide them with all the resources they need to safeguard our nation.”

And Texas Governor Greg Abbott said, “Our prayers are with the families of this Border Patrol agent who was killed and the other who was injured in this attack in Texas. Our resources must be increased to prevent these attacks in the future.”

Frankly, it’s time to stop talking about it and start doing it. Throw all the rest of Trump’s agenda to the side, because there was no issue that spoke more loudly to the point of his historic campaign than that of illegal immigration. That was the central focus of his opening remarks in July 2015, and his “Build the Wall” slogan became one of the most iconic political ideas in U.S. history. That happened for a reason, and the reason is that millions of Americans are sick of hearing that there’s nothing we can do about this PLAGUE on our country. It’s ridiculous, and there’s no excuse for it. People are literally dying because Washington won’t step up to the plate and protect our borders.

Republicans need to throw the full force of their political power behind this issue and let Democrats explain to the American people why they refuse to defend American sovereignty and security.

Trump Issues Final Warning to Sanctuary Cities: Comply or Lose Funding

Mon, 11/20/2017 - 06:41

The Trump administration is losing patience with 29 sanctuary cities that have yet to prove to the Justice Department that they are in compliance with federal immigration requirements. In a missive to those cities on Wednesday, the DOJ warned them that they have until December 8 to prove compliance if they want to hold onto their federal grants.

“Jurisdictions that adopt so-called ‘sanctuary policies’ also adopt the view that the protection of criminal aliens is more important than the protection of law-abiding citizens and of the rule of law,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions in a press release. “I urge all jurisdictions found to be potentially out of compliance in this preliminary review to reconsider their policies that undermine the safety of their residents.”

The letters, signed by Acting Assistant Attorney General Alan Hanson, called on the recipients to either come into compliance with the law or pay back the Byrne Justice Assistance Grants they had received in 2016.

The point of contention in the administration’s ongoing legal battle against these jurisdictions is U.S. Code, Section 1373, which states that cities, states, and municipalities may not take any action that prohibits public employees from sharing an individual’s immigration status with federal agents. The Justice Department has decided that law means that federal law forbids these cities and states from barring police from asking about immigration status and from holding arrested illegals in their jails until ICE has a chance to come round them up. And they are using federal grant money to ensure that these cities comply with the letter of the law.

“I urge all jurisdictions found to be potentially out of compliance in this preliminary review to reconsider their policies that undermine the safety of their residents,” Sessions said. “We urge jurisdictions to not only comply with Section 1373, but also to establish sensible and effective partnerships to properly process criminal aliens.”

Unfortunately, it is already clear that the Trump administration is going to have to take this battle all the way to the Supreme Court. In much the same way that federal judges used extralegal reasons to block the president’s travel ban, the courts are using a very narrow reading of the law to contend that the Justice Department is flirting with unconstitutional practices. In a case involving Philadelphia, U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson said the DOJ could not withhold its enforcement grants simply because the city refuses to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

He went even further, saying in his decision that it was wrong to call Philadelphia a sanctuary city in the first place. “Philadelphia is not a sanctuary for anyone involved in criminal conduct,” he wrote, “nor is it a sanctuary as to any law enforcement investigation, prosecution, or imprisonment after having been found guilty of a crime.”

Sorry, but that only works if you excuse illegal immigration as being a practice outside the realm of “criminal conduct.” And if you do that, then you’re essentially saying that illegal immigration is not a crime, which is to say that we have no law against illegal immigration.

So yeah, we’d really like to hear the Supreme Court weigh in on this, because this ruling is, as Gwen Stefani might say, B-A-N-A-N-A-S.

Pages

FixThisNation