NYT Confirms Schweizer ‘Secret Empires’ Bombshell on Elaine Chao and Mitch McConnell’s China Ties
“Trump Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao “repeatedly used her connections and celebrity status in China to boost the profile of [her family’s shipping] company, which benefits handsomely from the expansive industrial policies in Beijing that are at the heart of diplomatic tensions with the United States,” according to a New York Times exposé on Monday that builds off research from Peter Schweizer’s bestselling book Secret Empires.
Chao, who is also the wife of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), has been the subject of intense criticism over the years due to the deep financial ties between her family’s shipping business and China’s communist regime.
The nearly 6,000-word Times article begins by recounting an urgent email sent to the State Department in 2017 by an official at the American embassy in Beijing. The subject line read “Secretary Chao – Ethics Question.” According to the Times, the email concerned “a series of unorthodox requests” Chao’s office made in the run-up to her first official trip to China as Trump’s transportation secretary. Her requests included “asking federal officials to help coordinate travel arrangements for at least one family member and include relatives in meetings with government officials.”
AMAZON OFFERED JOB TO PENTAGON OFFICIAL INVOLVED WITH $10 BILLION CONTRACT IT SOUGHT
“IN A FEDERAL lawsuit, the tech giant Oracle has provided new details to support its accusation that Amazon secretly negotiated a job offer with a then-Department of Defense official who helped shape the procurement process for a massive federal contract for which Amazon was a key bidder.
Amazon Web Services and Microsoft are now the two finalists to win the highly contested $10 billion contract for what is known as the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure, or JEDI. The deal, one of the largest federal contracts in U.S. history, would pay one company to provide cloud computing services in support of Defense Department operations around the world.
But the contract has been hotly contested since the department began soliciting proposals last year. Two of Amazon’s competitors, IBM and Oracle, filed complaints with the Government Accountability Office saying that the winner-take-all process unfairly favored Amazon, which is seen as an industry leader in cloud computing. When its claim was rejected, Oracle sued the government in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
Since the court battle began in 2018, Oracle has aggressively lodged conflict-of-interest accusations involving a former DOD official named Deap Ubhi, who left the department in 2017 to take a job at Amazon. In a court motion filed on Friday, Oracle alleged that while Ubhi worked on the preliminary research for the JEDI program in the late summer and fall of 2017, he was also engaged in a secret job negotiation with Amazon for months, complete with salary discussions, offers of signing bonuses, and lucrative stock options.
The motion further alleges that Ubhi did not recuse himself from the JEDI program until weeks after verbally accepting a job offer from Amazon and that he continued to receive information about Amazon’s competitors and participate in meetings about technical requirements, despite a government regulation that forbids such conflicts of interest.
“Neither Ubhi nor [Amazon Web Services] disclosed the employment discussions or job offer to DOD — not when the employment discussions started, not when the informal job offer occurred, not when the formal offer occurred, and not even when Ubhi accepted the offer,” Oracle’s motion reads.
As America’s technology companies have continued to outpace the Pentagon, the Defense Department has looked to recruit talent from Silicon Valley to help enhance its information technology.
Ubhi is a venture capitalist and technology entrepreneur who worked for Amazon before his time in government. He took a job working on a Defense Department initiative aimed at collaborating with Silicon Valley to modernize the Pentagon’s information technology systems. After working as part of a four-person team to help shape the Pentagon JEDI procurement process, he left the department and returned to Amazon in November 2017.”
Cher Doubles Down: ‘Excuse the Fk Out of Me If I Don’t Want, Murders, Rapists, & Child Molestors to Vote’
“Pop star Cher defended herself from attacks on social media Tuesday in a series of now-deleted tweets after she was criticized for questioning Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) plan to let felons and terrorists vote.
“TERRORIST KILLED INNOCENT PPL. IM SICK OF BEING NAILED 2 CROSS BECAUSE U PPL THINK IM A RACIST‼️IM NOT GOING TO DEFEND MYSELF‼️I CARE 4 ALL PPL,TRY TO HELP ALL PPL,” Cher said. “Excuse The Fk Out Of Me If I don’t want ,Murders, Rapists, &; CHILD MOLESTERS of every color to vote.”
This post comes in response to a social media user who criticized Cher for panning the idea of letting felons vote.
Cher’s original tweet, and her two responses were all later deleted.
During Bernie Sanders’ town hall Monday, he reiterated his belief that felons need to be able to vote, even terrorists.
“[I] think the right to vote is inherent to our democracy…Yes, even for terrible people because once you start chipping away — you say, ‘That guy committed a terrible crime, we’re not going to let him vote,’ or ‘that person did that,’ you’re running down a slippery slope,” he said.”
CHER REVERSES COURSE ON MASS IMMIGRATION — ‘IF MY STATE CAN’T TAKE CARE OF ITS OWN, HOW CAN IT TAKE CARE OF MORE?’
|| DailyCaller Apr 2019
“Pop singer Cher seemed to do an about-face on the immigration issue, questioning why a city and state that “isn’t taking care of its own” should bring in and “take care of more.”
“I Understand Helping struggling Immigrants, but MY CITY (Los Angeles) ISNT TAKING CARE OF ITS OWN,” Cher said in a Sunday tweet. “WHAT ABOUT THE 50,000+????????Citizens WHO LIVE ON THE STREETS. PPL WHO LIVE BELOW POVERTY LINE,& HUNGRY? If My State Can’t Take Care of Its Own(Many Are VETS) How Can it Take Care Of More?”
The liberal pop singer’s tweet comes after President Trump proposed releasing incoming migrants from custody and into sanctuary cities. The proposed move ironically drew the ire of many liberals, who were quick to push back against the idea.
Cher’s course reversal drew the attention of many on Twitter who noted the irony:
“I’ll never forget where I was and what I was doing the moment Cher became a Republican,” tweeted Michael Knowles.”
Video: Illegal Alien Deported Three Times Killed After Shooting at Deputy; Illegal Was Reportedly Protected by CA Sanctuary Laws From Multiple ICE Detainers
“Javier Hernandez-Morales, 43, a Mexican national thrice-deported from the U.S. who was shot to death by Napa County sheriff’s Deputy Riley Jarecki after he fired at the deputy during a traffic stop Sunday night, was protected from further deportations by California’s sanctuary laws which blocked the federal government from detaining him on four separate occasions in recent years when he was arrested there according to a statement issued Thursday by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement).
The Napa County Sheriff’s Office released a video Wednesday of the shooting which shows Hernandez-Morales pulling a handgun on the deputy and firing at her as she spoke to him on the driver’s side. The deputy, who was not wounded, went to the other side of the car and returned fire, killing him. The screen image above is from before the shooting. The deputy first approached from the passenger side, then went to the driver’s side where she was fired on. The video was accompanied by this statement:
“Warning: This post contains graphic video content and is not suitable for children. This Body Worn Camera footage depicts the Attempted Murder of Napa County Sheriff’s Deputy Riley Jarecki on February 17th, 2019. The decedent, Javier Hernandez Morales, fired the first shots. Deputy Jarecki returned fire. She was not physically injured. Hernandez Morales died at the scene.”
A dozen people taken into custody after fishing vessel comes ashore near Seal Beach naval weapons site
|| OC Register
“Federal officials took 12 people into custody, including 10 Chinese nationals and two Mexican nationals, after they apparently escaped from a fishing vessel that landed near rocks Monday, Jan. 28, at Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach.
“Several people got out of the boat and ran,” said Huntington Beach police Lt. Tom Weizoerick of the incident, first reported at 1:45 p.m. to the Long Beach Maritime Coordination Center.
The center, at the Port of Long Beach, coordinates several federal, state and local law enforcement agencies aimed at keeping the waters off California safe from smugglers and other criminals.
Bridgett Lewis, director of the MCC and security operations for the Port of Long Beach, confirmed Monday that 12 people, including one woman, were taken for processing at the San Clemente Customs and Border Patrol station.
Charges have not yet been filed, she said.
“We don’t know what their intent was,” Lewis said. “We don’t know if there is another boat behind them or who they were supposed to meet up with, if anyone.”
The MCC was first notified by the Navy who observed the boat landing near its beaches.
“Any vessel that lands here, we’re involved,” Lewis said. “The call came into the MCC and our assets were notified.”
One of the first on scene was the Orange County Sheriff Harbor Patrol, whose officers heard the MCC’s notification.
Two civilian employees, who were working on harbor buoys, saw a boat going in and people getting off, said Sgt. Isaac Felter.
“They radioed dispatch,” he said
At that time, the department’s deputies were seven miles out at sea responding to a call of a human body that had been found in the water. The body was discovered by a fisherman, who first saw a group of birds eating what he thought might be a whale or dolphin.
“When he took his boat there,” he realized it was a body,” Felter said.
The male body has not been identified but the coroner said, likely it had been in the water for about 24 hours based on physical examination, Felter said.
Harbor Patrol deputies responded to the report of the boat landing but once on scene, they determined it had become a land-based operation being run by Seal Beach and Huntington Beach police departments and Customs and Border Patrol agents.
The passengers were caught by the two police agencies, Felter said. They were taken to a nearby business where a Harbor Patrol sergeant stood guard until they were picked up by Border Patrol agents.
There were no immediate reports of injuries.
The incident is the latest of several in Southern California in recent months involving alleged smugglers who have used boats to illegally bring in people and drugs to the United States.
In all, there were 433 arrests of people trying to enter the country via panga boats between Nov. 1, 2017 and Oct. 31, 2018 in the San Diego sector, which includes Orange County, officials have said. Panga transports are organized by criminal smuggling operations and single transports can cost $13,000 to $17,000.
While panga and small vessel landings have been the main focus, law enforcement is also aware of other efforts for people to come ashore illegally. Pangas meet up with pleasure crafts and fishing vessels on the open sea. When that happens, it’s harder to detect.
Still, within the last few months, calls from concerned boaters in Dana Point and Newport harbors about illegally docked boats have alerted Harbor Patrol. Officials found evidence of smuggling activities occurred, including life vests, food and water that could only have been purchased in Mexico.”
“When I first began to plan my short biography of Thomas Jefferson, I found it difficult to research the chapter concerning the so-called Barbary Wars: an event or series of events that had seemingly receded over the lost horizon of American history. Henry Adams, in his discussion of our third president, had some boyhood reminiscences of the widespread hero-worship of naval officer Stephen Decatur, and other fragments and shards showed up in other quarries, but a sound general history of the subject was hard to come by. When I asked a professional military historian—a man with direct access to Defense Department archives—if there was any book that he could recommend, he came back with a slight shrug.
But now the curious reader may choose from a freshet of writing on the subject. Added to my own shelf in the recent past have been The Barbary Wars: American Independence in the Atlantic World, by Frank Lambert (2005); Jefferson’s War: America’s First War on Terror 1801–1805, by Joseph Wheelan (2003); To the Shores of Tripoli: The Birth of the U.S. Navy and Marines, by A. B. C. Whipple (1991, republished 2001); and Victory in Tripoli: How America’s War with the Barbary Pirates Established the U.S. Navy and Shaped a Nation, by Joshua E. London (2005). Most recently, in his new general history, Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present, the Israeli scholar Michael Oren opens with a long chapter on the Barbary conflict. As some of the subtitles—and some of the dates
of publication—make plain,
this new interest is largely occasioned by America’s latest round of confrontation in the Middle East, or the Arab sphere or Muslim world, if you prefer those expressions.
In a way, I am glad that I did not have the initial benefit of all this research. My quest sent me to some less obvious secondary sources, in particular to Linda Colley’s excellent book Captives, which shows the reaction of the English and American publics to a slave trade of which they were victims rather than perpetrators. How many know that perhaps 1.5 million Europeans and Americans were enslaved in Islamic North Africa between 1530 and 1780? We dimly recall that Miguel de Cervantes was briefly in the galleys. But what of the people of the town of Baltimore in Ireland, all carried off by “corsair” raiders in a single night?
Some of this activity was hostage trading and ransom farming rather than the more labor-intensive horror of the Atlantic trade and the Middle Passage, but it exerted a huge effect on the imagination of the time—and probably on no one more than on Thomas Jefferson. Peering at the paragraph denouncing the American slave trade in his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, later excised, I noticed for the first time that it sarcastically condemned “the Christian King of Great Britain” for engaging in “this piratical
warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers.” The allusion to Barbary practice seemed inescapable.
One immediate effect of the American Revolution, however, was to strengthen the hand of those very same North African potentates: roughly speaking, the Maghrebian provinces of the Ottoman Empire that conform to today’s Algeria, Libya, Morocco, and Tunisia. Deprived of Royal Navy protection, American shipping became even more subject than before to the depredations of those who controlled the Strait of Gibraltar. The infant United States had therefore to decide not just upon a question of national honor but upon whether it would stand or fall by free navigation of the seas.
One of the historians of the Barbary conflict, Frank Lambert, argues that the imperative of free trade drove America much more than did any quarrel with Islam or “tyranny,” let alone “terrorism.” He resists any comparison with today’s tormenting confrontations. “The Barbary Wars were primarily about trade, not theology,” he writes. “Rather than being holy wars, they were an extension of America’s War of Independence.”
Let us not call this view reductionist. Jefferson would perhaps have been just as eager to send a squadron to put down any Christian piracy that was restraining commerce. But one cannot get around what Jefferson heard when he went with John Adams to wait upon Tripoli’s ambassador to London in March 1785. When they inquired by what right the Barbary states preyed upon American shipping, enslaving both crews and passengers, America’s two foremost envoys were informed that “it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.” (It is worth noting that the United States played no part in the Crusades, or in the Catholic reconquista of Andalusia.)
Ambassador Abd Al-Rahman did not fail to mention the size of his own commission, if America chose to pay the protection money demanded as an alternative to piracy. So here was an early instance of the “heads I win, tails you lose” dilemma, in which the United States is faced with corrupt regimes, on the one hand, and Islamic militants, on the other—or indeed a collusion between them.
It seems likely that Jefferson decided from that moment on that he would make war upon the Barbary kingdoms as soon as he commanded American forces. His two least favorite institutions—enthroned monarchy and state-sponsored religion—were embodied in one target, and it may even be that his famous ambivalences about slavery were resolved somewhat when he saw it practiced by the Muslims.
However that may be, it is certain that the Barbary question had considerable influence on the debate that ratified
the United States Constitution in the succeeding years. Many a delegate, urging his home state to endorse the new document, argued that only a strong federal union could repel the Algerian threat. In The Federalist No. 24, Alexander Hamilton argued that without a “federal navy . . . of respectable weight . . . the genius of American Merchants and Navigators would be stifled and lost.” In No. 41, James Madison insisted that only union could guard America’s maritime capacity from “the rapacious demands of pirates and barbarians.” John Jay, in his letters, took a “bring-it-on” approach; he believed that “Algerian Corsairs and the Pirates of Tunis and Tripoli” would compel the feeble American states to unite, since “the more we are ill-treated abroad the more we shall unite and consolidate at home.” The eventual Constitution, which provides for an army only at two-year renewable intervals, imposes no such limitation on the navy.
Thus, Lambert may be limiting himself in viewing the Barbary conflict primarily through the lens of free trade. Questions of nation-building, of regime change, of “mission creep,” of congressional versus presidential authority to make war, of negotiation versus confrontation, of “entangling alliances,” and of the “clash of civilizations”—all arose in the first overseas war that the United States ever fought. The “nation-building” that occurred, however, took place not overseas but in the 13 colonies, welded by warfare into something more like a republic.
There were many Americans—John Adams among them—who made the case that it was better policy to pay the tribute. It was cheaper than the loss of trade, for one thing, and a battle against the pirates would be “too rugged for our people to bear.” Putting the matter starkly, Adams said: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.”
The cruelty, exorbitance, and intransigence of the Barbary states, however, would decide things. The level of tribute demanded began to reach 10
percent of the American national budget, with no guarantee that greed would not increase that percentage, while from
the dungeons of Algiers and Tripoli came appalling reports of the mistreatment of captured men and women. Gradually, and to the accompaniment of some of the worst patriotic verse ever written, public opinion began to harden in favor of war. From Jefferson’s perspective, it was a good thing that this mood shift took place during the Adams administration, when he was out of office and temporarily “retired” to Monticello. He could thus criticize federal centralization of power, from a distance, even as he watched the construction of a fleet—and the forging of a permanent Marine Corps—that he could one day use for his own ends.
At one point, Jefferson hoped that John Paul Jones, naval hero of the Revolution, might assume command of a squadron that would strike fear into the Barbary pirates. While ambassador in Paris, Jefferson had secured Jones a commission with Empress Catherine of Russia, who used him in the Black Sea to harry the Ottomans, the ultimate authority over Barbary. But Jones died before realizing his dream of going to the source and attacking Constantinople. The task of ordering war fell to Jefferson.
Michael Oren thinks that he made the decision reluctantly, finally forced into it by the arrogant behavior of Tripoli, which seized two American brigs and set off a chain reaction of fresh demands from other Barbary states. I believe—because of the encounter with the insufferable Abd Al-Rahman and because of his long engagement with Jones—that Jefferson had long sought a pretext for war. His problem was his own party and the clause in the Constitution that gave Congress the power to declare war. With not atypical subtlety, Jefferson took a shortcut through this thicket in 1801 and sent the navy to North Africa on patrol, as it were, with instructions to enforce existing treaties and punish infractions of them. Our third president did not inform Congress of his authorization of this mission until the fleet was too far away to recall.
Once again, Barbary obstinacy tipped the scale. Yusuf Karamanli, the pasha of Tripoli, declared war on the United States in May 1801,
in pursuit of his demand for more revenue. This earned him a heavy bombardment
of Tripoli and the crippling
of one of his most important ships. But the force of
example was plainly not sufficient. In the altered mood that prevailed after the encouraging start
in Tripoli, Congress passed an enabling act in February 1802 that,
in its provision for
a permanent Mediterranean presence and
its language about the “Tripolitan Corsairs,” amounted to a declaration of war. The Barbary regimes continued to underestimate their new enemy, with Morocco declaring war in its turn and the others increasing their blackmail.
A complete disaster—Tripoli’s capture of the new U.S. frigate Philadelphia—became a sort of triumph, thanks to Edward Preble and Stephen Decatur, who mounted a daring raid on Tripoli’s harbor and blew up the captured ship, while inflicting heavy damage on the city’s defenses. Now there were names—Preble and Decatur—for newspapers back home to trumpet as heroes. Nor did their courage draw notice only in America. Admiral Lord Nelson himself called the raid “the most bold and daring act of the age,” and Pope Pius VII declared that the United States “had done more for the cause of Christianity than the most powerful nations of Christendom have done for ages.” (In his nostalgia for Lepanto, perhaps, His Holiness was evidently unaware that the Treaty of Tripoli, which in 1797 had attempted to formalize the dues that America would pay for access to the Mediterranean, stated in its preamble that the United States had no quarrel with the Muslim religion and was in no sense a Christian country. Of course, those secularists like myself who like to cite this treaty must concede that its conciliatory language was part of America’s attempt to come to terms with Barbary demands.)
Watching all this with a jaundiced eye was the American consul in Tunis, William Eaton. For him, behavior modification was not a sufficient policy; regime change was needed. And he had a candidate. On acceding to the throne in Tripoli, Yusuf Karamanli had secured his position by murdering one brother and exiling another. Eaton befriended this exiled brother, Hamid, and argued that he should become the American nominee for Tripoli’s crown. This proposal wasn’t received with enthusiasm in Washington, but Eaton pursued it with commendable zeal. He exhibited the downside that often goes with such quixotic bravery: railing against treasury secretary Albert Gallatin as a “cowardly Jew,” for example, and alluding to President Jefferson with contempt. He ended up a supporter of Aaron Burr’s freebooting secessionist conspiracy.
His actions in 1805, however, belong in the annals of derring-do, almost warranting the frequent comparison made with T. E. Lawrence’s exploits in Arabia. With a small detachment of marines, headed by Lieutenant Presley O’Bannon, and a force of irregulars inevitably described by historians as “motley,” Eaton crossed the desert from Egypt and came at Tripoli—as Lawrence had come at Aqaba—from the land and not from the sea. The attack proved a total surprise. The city of Darna surrendered its far larger garrison, and Karamanli’s forces were heavily engaged, when news came that Jefferson and Karamanli had reached an understanding that could end the war. The terms weren’t too shabby, involving the release of the Philadelphia’s crew and a final settlement of the tribute question. And Jefferson took care to stress that Eaton had played a part in bringing it about.
This graciousness did not prevent Eaton from denouncing the deal as a sellout. The caravan moved on, though, as the other Barbary states gradually followed Tripoli’s lead
and came to terms. Remember, too, that this was the year of the Battle of Trafalgar. Lord Nelson was not the only European to notice that a new power had arrived in Mediterranean waters.
Francis Scott Key composed a patriotic song to mark the occasion. As I learned from Joshua London’s excellent book, the original verses ran (in part):
In conflict resistless each toil they endur’d,
Till their foes shrunk dismay’d from the war’s desolation:
And pale beamed the Crescent, its splendor obscur’d
By the light of the star-bangled flag of our nation.
Where each flaming star gleamed a meteor of war,
And the turban’d head bowed to the terrible glare.
Then mixt with the olive the laurel shall wave
And form a bright wreath for the brow of the brave.
The song was part of the bad-verse epidemic. But brushed up and revised a little for the War of 1812, and set to the same music, it has enjoyed considerable success since. So has the Marine Corps anthem, which begins: “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.” It’s no exaggeration
to describe the psychological fallout of this first war as formative of the still-inchoate American character.
There is of course another connection between 1805 and 1812. Renewed hostilities with Britain on the high seas and on the American mainland, which did not terminate until the
Battle of New Orleans, might have ended less conclusively had the United States not developed a battle-hardened naval force in the long attrition on the North African coast.
The Barbary states sought to exploit Anglo-American hostilities by resuming their depredations and renewing their
demands for blood money. So in 1815, after a brief interval of recovery from the war with Britain, President Madison asked Congress for permission to dispatch Decatur once again to North Africa, seeking a permanent settling of accounts. This time, the main offender was the dey of Algiers, Omar Pasha, who saw his fleet splintered and his grand harbor filled with heavily armed American ships. Algiers had to pay compensation, release all hostages, and promise not to offend again. President Madison’s words on this occasion could scarcely be bettered: “It is a settled policy of America, that as peace is better than war, war is better than tribute. The United States, while they wish for war with no nation, will buy peace with none.” (The expression “the United States is” did not come into usage until after Gettysburg.)
Oren notes that the stupendous expense of this long series of wars was a partial
vindication of John Adams’s warning. However, there are less quantifiable factors to consider. The most obvious is
commerce. American trade in the Mediterranean increased enormously in the years after the settlement with Algiers, and America’s ability to extend its trade and project its forces into other areas, such as the Caribbean and South America, was greatly enhanced. Then we should attend to what Linda Colley says on the subject of slavery. Campaigns against the seizure of hostages by Muslim powers, and their exploitation as forced labor, fired up many a church congregation in Britain and America and fueled many a press campaign. But even the dullest soul could regard the continued triangular Atlantic slave trade between Africa, England, and the Americas and perceive the double standard at work. Thus, the struggle against Barbary may have helped to force some of the early shoots of abolitionism.
Perhaps above all, though, the Barbary Wars gave Americans an inkling of the fact that they were, and always would be, bound up with global affairs. Providence might have seemed to grant them a haven guarded by two oceans, but if they wanted to be anything more than the Chile of North America—a long littoral ribbon caught between the mountains and the sea—they would have to prepare for a maritime struggle as well as a campaign to redeem the unexplored landmass to their west. The U.S. Navy’s Mediterranean squadron has, in one form
or another, been on patrol
Decriminalization Debate Moves From Pot To… Illegal Immigration?
|| Hot Air
“How far are Democrats willing to go this year in their efforts to demonstrate their progressive bona fides? In Texas we may be seeing the limits of this swerve to the left on display. Several Democratic candidates for top offices are now pushing a move toward decriminalization, but this time we’re not talking about marijuana. They want to decriminalize illegal immigration, essentially removing the need for most of the office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) without actually “abolishing” the office. (A subject which doesn’t poll very well.) And we’re not talking about some back bench Democrats running for a county commission seat here. It’s the Democrats’ candidate for Governor, one congressional seat and none other thank Congressman “Beto” O’Rourke, who is currently fighting to flip the Senate seat held by Ted Cruz.
This is the spoon full of sugar approach to pushing for open borders and it appears that at least some Democrats think it could be a winner. Calling to abolish ICE has backfired in a major way and Americans overwhelmingly don’t want open borders. (When given a choice between open borders and secure borders, poll respondents this year chose “secure” by a 79% margin.) Similarly, polling from as recently as last month shows that Americans want to keep ICE by a two to one margin over those who would like to see it abolished.
So here comes the new strategy from the Democrats. Rather than wiping out immigration law or the officials assigned to enforce it, we’ll just do what many states have done with marijuana and simply “decriminalize” it. In other words, illegal aliens – if they are questioned at all – will simply get the equivalent of a parking ticket and be sent on their way. No need for expensive court proceedings and detention centers. Think of the money we’ll save!
Yes. We could wipe out many of the problems we face with gang violence if we simply decriminalized crack dealing, assault, gun crimes and human trafficking. Crime rates would plummet and it would free up the police forces in places like Chicago and Baltimore to focus on the more pressing issues of traffic violations and littering. It’s truly a stunning bit of genius provided you don’t actually think about it for more than two seconds.
The fact is that decriminalization of illegal immigration would be nothing more than running up the white flag. With no fear of repercussions, everyone considering jumping the border would flood into the country in short order. Of course, unless the Democrats also plan on repealing (or at least decriminalizing) all of the laws about employing illegal aliens, all of those people will still wind up either falling into the already strained social safety net or turning to a life of crime.”
Joni Ernst Slams Elizabeth Warren: Mollie Tibbetts ‘Forever Separated from Her Family’
“Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) slammed Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) in an exclusive interview with SiriusXM Patriot’s Breitbart News Daily, saying that 20-year-old college student Mollie Tibbetts is “forever separated from her family” at the alleged hands of an illegal alien.
In an interview with Breitbart News Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow, Ernst slammed Warren’s comments on the death of Mollie Tibbetts. An illegal alien allegedly stabbed her to death and dumped her body in a cornfield.
In an interview with CNN yesterday, Warren said that rather than focusing on the fact that Tibbetts’ alleged killer should never have been in the United States, Iowans need to focus on “real problems” like foreign national adults being separated at the U.S.-Mexico border from the children they arrive with.
Ernst blasted Warren’s comments, noting that while adults and children arriving at the southern border will eventually be reunited, Tibbetts and her family are separated for life.
As far as Elizabeth Warren trying to pivot, yes the separation of families at the border I don’t agree with that either. But you know what, Mollie has been forever separated from her family. They won’t ever see her reach her 21st birthday, they will never see her graduate from the University of Iowa, they will never see her walk down the aisle to marry her sweetheart. They will never see that because she is permanently gone from the face of this planet because of an illegal alien. [Emphasis added]
So Elizabeth, I want to remind Elizabeth Warren that you know what, the tragic loss of Mollie is important to us. And the families that are separated at the border, they will come together again. Mollie will never be with her family again.
Ernst also had words for left-wing Fordham University professor Christina Greer, who on MSNBC this week downplayed the murder of Tibbetts, calling her “a girl in Iowa.”
“That ‘girl in Iowa,’ I think that’s so disrespectful to Mollie and to her family,” Ernst told Breitbart News Daily. “She is someone. She is someone. Every person is someone. And she was very important to her family and her community. So shame on that professor. Shame on her.”