Watch Cuomo's non-reaction as Lemon disparages his race. Wonder what would happen if Cuomo said blacks are a greater threat to society since more of them are in jail than in college?
CNN's Don Lemon: "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." pic.twitter.com/OFu9fL3eHn
Yeah, we should reopen the Concentration Camps for white guys.
Kind of funny in a way. Lemon is sucking off a guy who belongs to the same race he just got done demonizing!
BTW...didn't Megyn Kelly just get fired for 'racially charged rhetoric'? Wasn't Lemon's far worse? Proof... what Trump has been saying about CNN is dead on.
Cuomo is more stupid than his "America is not that great" brother
Promises, Promises, we've been hearing this shit like forever.
A partial list of the liberal dogs who said they were leaving.
Unfortunately, they're still here.
In a wide-ranging interview with the New York Times‘
Maggie Haberman released Tuesday, actress and activist Barbara Streisand said she is considering moving to Canada if the Republicans maintain a majority in the House of Representatives following the midterm election.
Asked about her mood as the November election fast approaches, Barbra Streisand said that she is having trouble sleeping at night, something that may change if the Democrats take the House.
“And if they don’t?” Haberman asked the progressive entertainer.
“Don’t know. I’ve been thinking about, do I want to move to Canada? I don’t know,” Barbra Streisand replied. “I’m just so saddened by this thing happening to our country. It’s making me fat. I hear what he said now, and I have to go eat pancakes now, and pancakes are very fattening.”
(Trump's fault)
“We make them with healthy flour, though — almond flour, coconut flour,” she added.
Wait I forgot... her husband is just as much a radical liberal as she is. He was on the radio once and wished everyone a "Happy 911". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3UUY2BTrzY
Prior to the 2016 presidential election, Streisand floated the prospect of fleeing the United States if President Donald Trump beat his Democrat rival, Hillary Clinton. “He has no facts. I don’t know, I can’t believe it. I’m either coming to your country [Australia] if you’ll let me in or Canada,” Streisand said in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter.
In September, Streisand released a new album Walls featuring the anti-Trump ballad “Don’t Lie to Me,” in which the singer accuses President Trump of being incapable of being truthful.
“I just went ballistic,” the 76-year-old said of the president to the Associated Press, who she refers to as “The Liar in Chief” and the “Groper in Chief.”
“I just can’t stand what’s going on,” Streisand continued to the news outlet. “His assault on our democracy, our institutions, our founders — I think we’re in a fight. … We’re in a war for the soul of America.”
Barbra Streisand May Move to Canada if Republicans Keep the House
What metamorphosis took place in the Democratic party making illegals a great commodity? I mean, did panic set in... are Democrats in danger of running out of dead voters they garner every election? I think not. The real answer is greed. They view illegals (20 million plus) as another untapped resource in the voting pool.
You don't need a house to fall on you to figure it out.
Harry Reid 9-20-1993: 'No Sane Country' Would Do Birthright Citizenship
No, birthright citizenship isn't required by the Constitution
By Ryan Williams
US President Donald Trump with Attorney General Jeff Sessions on December 15, 2017. (NICHOLAS KAMM / AFP/Getty Images)
Does anyone truly believe our forefathers purposely crafted a loophole in the Constitution to benefit the illegals of today?
As a matter of constitutional first principle, no branch of our government can amend the Constitution. Not the Congress, not the President, not even the Supreme Court. Only “we the people” can do that, by one of the two procedures specified in Article V of the Constitution.
Had President Trump’s recent comments proposing to end birthright citizenship by executive order suggested that he thought he could unilaterally amend the Constitution, they would and should be met with a resounding response that he has no such authority.
That is not what he proposed, of course, though the notion that birth on U.S. soil is alone sufficient to be granted automatic citizenship has become so conventional that many have wrongly concluded otherwise. The Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause, adopted in 1868, actually has two components, not one: birth on U.S. soil, and being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Here’s the actual text: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” (Emphasis added.)
Some read the phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction,” to be synonymous with “subject to the laws,” and therefore conclude that everyone born in the U.S. (with the small exception of children born to foreign diplomats) is automatically a citizen.
But that is not how those who drafted and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment understood it. For them, being subject to the laws was synonymous with being subject to the “partial” or “territorial” jurisdiction of the United States. Anyone on U.S. soil is of course subject to our laws.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the drafting and adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, noted at the time that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant subject to its “complete” jurisdiction, “[n]ot owing allegiance to anybody else.” The clause therefore mirrored and constitutionalized language that was already in the 1866 Civil Rights Act: “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”
Thomas Cooley, one of the preeminent constitutional law writers of the 19th century, agreed. As he noted in The General Principles of Constitutional Law in America, “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States “meant full and complete jurisdiction to which citizens are generally subject, and not any qualified and partial jurisdiction, such as may consist with allegiance to some other government.”
And as the Supreme Court noted in the 1872 Slaughter-House Cases, “The phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
In the 1898 decision known as Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court held that the children of parents who were lawful and permanent residents in the United States were citizens, but it has never decided that the children of temporary visitors, much less the children of those unlawfully present in the United States, are citizens.
Children born to parents who are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States are automatically citizens because their parents have already consented to be part of the American political community, and the American political community has consented to their membership. That is not true of those who are extended the privilege of temporarily visiting this country, and certainly not true of those who have never been granted permission even to enter. To argue otherwise is to attack the foundational principles of American political community embodied in our Declaration of Independence.
To allow individuals in the country illegally to demand citizenship for their children is to change such bilateral consent into a unilateral one, which destroys the notion of consent, undermines the rule of law, deprives Congress of its power to set naturalization policy, commits an injustice against the current citizens, and threatens the very idea of sovereignty. We should applaud President Trump for proposing to take this first step to set us back on the correct, constitutional course.
The annual cost to the U.S. taxpayers of children born to illegal aliens is a staggering $2.4 billion.
It took the mainstream media less than a nanosecond to lose its collective mind once President Trump announced his plans to address birthright citizenship, a nonsensical policy that allows anyone who makes it across our border and has a baby to produce a U.S. citizen.
It is a policy that has been horribly abused and its current application would be unrecognizable to the legislators who crafted the 14th Amendment that supposedly provides for it. But after President Trump’s disclosure to Axios, the “open-borders” media crowd was predictably quick to denounce the president and condemn him for even raising the idea of ending birthright citizenship.
This is the default behavior of all those afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome when faced with an inconvenient truth — demonize him and dismiss the issue. Heaven forbid we actually present the American people with a factual, unbiased presentation of the issues.
First of all, Trump had committed to ending birthright citizenship during the 2016 campaign. So aside from his mention of drafting an executive order —the pathway to fulfilling the promise made to the electorate that put him in office -- this is hardly a newsflash.
Why is this an important issue for the president and for so many of his supporters? Consider the number of children born to illegals each year. In 2010, The Center for Immigration Studies estimated that 300,000 to 400,000 are born to illegal aliens in the U.S. annually.
[Rather than demonizing the president or caricaturing his position, let’s have a substantive debate]
The figure is bound to be a lot higher today, given new research showing that the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. is at least 22 million, at least double prior estimation. There are as many as 400,000 children born every year who the hardworking U.S. taxpayers have to educate, and for whom they provide health care and food stamps. The Center estimates that the annual cost to the U.S. taxpayers of children born to illegal immigrants is a staggering $2.4 billion.
Do you think our veterans, homeless and inner-city school children could use that money?
To burrow down a little further: A 2015 Center for Immigration Studies report found 51 percent of immigrant-headed households used at least one federal program — cash, food, housing or medical care — compared to 30 percent of native households. And we aren’t just talking about folks on Visa overstays or those who cross the border illegally.
Many Americans would be stunned to know that there are entire industries here and abroad now devoted to gaming the birthright citizenship system. Birth tourism has become big business in the U.S., attracting visitors from China, Taiwan, Mexico and Turkey who come to give birth and ensure their newborns begin life as American citizens.
Pregnant women purchase package deals costing around $50,000, and come to the U.S. as a visitor for several months and have their baby on American soil. Citizenship for their babies means preferential college treatment and even allows them at age 21 to sponsor their parents for green cards. Does anyone really believe this was the intent when Congress put forward the 14th Amendment?
Contrary to what former President Obama and so many on the left are saying today, President Trump - by questioning birthright citizenship, is provoking a conversation that is sorely needed.
Rather than demonizing the president or caricaturing his position, let’s have a substantive debate. How we want to proceed with immigration in the United States seems a worthy conversation to have — especially during a midterm election.
And up until now, Trump is the only president who has been willing to have it. It makes you wonder, just what are the Democrats so afraid of?
Laura Ingraham: Why are Dems so afraid of a conversation about birthright citizenship?
Gotta say I'm surprised and gratified at the same time.
US Muslims raise more than $150,000 for families of Pittsburgh shooting victims
Groups say drive to raise funds sends ‘united message … that there is no place for this type of hate and violence’
American Muslims have raised more than $150,000 since Saturday for the families of those killed and injured in the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, in a demonstration of interfaith solidarity.
CelebrateMercy and MPowerChange, non-profit Muslim organizations, launched an online drive to raise funds for the synagogue within hours of the shooting, in which 11 people were killed and six were injured. It reached its target of $25,000 in six hours.
“We wish to respond to evil with good, as our Islamic faith teaches us, and send a powerful message of compassion to the Jewish community – our Abrahamic cousins,” said Tarek El-Messidi, director of CelebrateMercy.
“Through this campaign, we hope to send a united message from the Jewish and Muslim communities that there is no place for this type of hate and violence in America or anywhere worldwide.”'We'll be there': Muslim community raises $70,000 for Pittsburgh synagogue attack victims – video
The Islamic Center of Pittsburgh will distribute funds to affected families in consultation with the Tree of Life synagogue, where the attack took place. The aim is to help with immediate needs such as funeral expenses and medical bills, said El-Messidi.
The first funerals, for brothers David and Cecil Rosenthal, were planned for Tuesday, relatives said.
In a statement posted on its website, the Islamic Center of Pittsburgh said: “The Pittsburgh Muslim community extends our deepest sympathy and condolences to the victims, their families, and all of our Jewish brothers and sisters. We condemn this hate crime unequivocally and denounce all forms of hatred and bigotry.
“The Pittsburgh community is our family; what happens to one of us, is felt by us all. May peace and blessings be upon all of us during this tragic time.”
Muslims also expressed solidarity with the synagogue on social media using the hashtag #Muslims4Pittsburgh.
Another online drive, launched by Shay Khatiri, a student from Iran attending Arizona State University, has raised more than $600,000 in donations.
Several interfaith vigils took place in Pittsburgh over the weekend.
Exclusive: Trump to terminate birthright citizenship
(I hope he can pull it off)
Video 458
President Trump plans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil, he said yesterday in an exclusive interview for "Axios on HBO," a new four-part documentary news series debuting on HBO this Sunday at 6:30 p.m. ET/PT.
Why it matters: This would be the most dramatic move yet in Trump's hardline immigration campaign, this time targeting "anchor babies" and "chain migration." And it will set off another stand-off with the courts, as Trump’s power to do this through executive action is debatable, to say the least.
Trump told "Axios on HBO" that he has run the idea of ending birthright citizenship by his counsel and plans to proceed with the highly controversial move, which certainly will face legal challenges.
"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump said, declaring he can do it by executive order.
When told that's very much in dispute, Trump replied: "You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order."
"We're the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States ... with all of those benefits," Trump continued. "It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end."
"It's in the process. It'll happen ... with an executive order."
The president expressed surprise that "Axios on HBO" knew about his secret plan: "I didn't think anybody knew that but me. I thought I was the only one. "
Behind the scenes: "Axios on HBO" had been working for weeks on a story on Trump’s plans for birthright citizenship, based on conversations with several sources, including one close to the White House Counsel’s office.
The legal challenges would force the courts to decide on a constitutional debate over the 14th Amendment(aka anchor baby loophole), which says:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
It should read:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States of legal parents, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
This is just common sense! Think about it. Juan and Maria come here illegally have a kid and we reward them by making their offspring an American citizen? How stupid is that? Two wrongs make a right?
The reason for the 14th Amendment was to protect citizenship rights for the former slaves after the Civil War. We are long past that now. Of course, Democrats will be up in arms...after all, we're talking about their constituency.
Be smart: Few immigration and constitutional scholars believe it is within the president's power to change birthright citizenship, former U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services chief counsel Lynden Melmed tells Axios.
But some conservatives have argued that the 14th Amendment was only intended to provide citizenship to children born in the U.S. to lawful permanent residents — not to unauthorized immigrants or those on temporary visas.
John Eastman, a constitutional scholar, and director of Chapman University's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence told "Axios on HBO" that the Constitution has been misapplied over the past 40 or so years. He says the line "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" originally referred to people with full, political allegiance to the U.S. — green card holders and citizens.
Michael Anton, a former national security official in the Trump administration, recently took up this argument in the Washington Post.
Anton said that Trump could, via executive order, "specify to federal agencies that the children of noncitizens are not citizens" simply because they were born on U.S. soil. (It’s not yet clear whether Trump will take this maximalist argument, though his previous rhetoric suggests there’s a good chance.)
But others — such as Judge James C. Ho, who was appointed by Trump to Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in New Orleans — say the line in the amendment refers to the legal obligation to follow U.S. laws, which applies to all foreign visitors (except diplomats) and immigrants. He has written that changing how the 14th Amendment is applied would be "unconstitutional."
Between the lines: Until the 1960s, the 14th Amendment was never applied to undocumented or temporary immigrants, Eastman said.
Between 1980 and 2006, the number of births to unauthorized immigrants — which opponents of birthright citizenship call "anchor babies" — skyrocketed to a peak of 370,000, according to a 2016 study by Pew Research. It then declined slightly during and following the Great Recession.
I guarantee you the number is much higher than that.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that children born to immigrants who are legal permanent residents have citizenship. But those who claim the 14th Amendment should not apply to everyone point to the fact that there has been no ruling on a case specifically involving undocumented immigrants or those with temporary legal status.
The bottom line: If Trump follows through on the executive order, "the courts would have to weigh in in a way they haven't," Eastman said.
Meghan McCain does some soul searching and admits her past rhetoric on “The View” was polarizing.
McCain said “she’s done so much soul-searching” and conceded she’s engaged in angry rhetoric
Example:
Very hateful indeed!!!
Think I'll send her a Hillary 2020 button.
--------------------------
The news that a series of suspicious packages containing explosive devices were addressed to top Democratic figures and CNN inspired panic across the country this week – and ignited a conversation about political discourse in America, which has become increasingly polarized.
As the topic was discussed Thursday by the panel on "The View," co-host Meghan McCain admitted to her colleagues that "she's done so much soul-searching" recently, and was willing to admit that she had contributed to the angry rhetoric that is polarizing America. McCain specifically recalled a time when she adopted President Donald Trump's "Crooked Hillary" controversial nickname for his Democratic rival, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
"I said I hate Hillary Clinton, and I called her 'Crooked Hillary.' And it's one of the things I regret doing because I contributed on television," "The View" co-host said. "Now, this is not saying that I agree with her. I have many vast differences of opinion on philosophy and ideology, and I didn't think she was a great candidate. But hate is not a word that should be coming out of my mouth on television about someone of a different political persuasion."
McCain like the rest of the Crew/ View is on bath salts. Crooked Hillary in this video lies about lying. She "doesn't believe" she ever lied. The plethora of lies she's told over the years is incalculable! For one that would make the Bosnian sniper a figment of our imagination.
Video 457
Unfortunately for McCain working with snakes became communicable.
McCain then called on her peers in the media to hold themselves accountable to "the same standard that I would like to hold the president."
"I implore everyone else in media because I think we should cop to our mistakes. And I'm damn sure going to continue doing what my father did," McCain added. "I thought, 'What have I done to contribute to the polarization in this country?' And that is one thing that I can own that I did, and I regret."
McCain's Thursday comments stood in sharp contrast to the remarks she made just one day earlier when she compared the bomb threats encountering Democrats to the heckling faced by Republican lawmakers and Trump administration officials in public eateries. "He's getting harassed and heckled when he goes out in public to have dinner," McCain said about Mitch McConnell.
Her statement came after co-host Joy Behar said that the Republican Party needs to more actively oppose the president's violent rhetoric before someone would get killed or injured. "Every time he says things like, 'The press is the enemy of the people,' his entire party needs to stand up against him and say something," Behar said. "Mitch McConnell, where is he? He's the leader of this party."
One migrant caravan member admits he's been deported and convicted of attempted murder in the U.S. - he's planning to reenter and request a pardon for his felony | @GriffJenkinspic.twitter.com/V2dpdu1nUX
#WalkAway movement urges disgruntled Democrats to leave the party behind
Video 444
What started as a 6-minute YouTube video has surged onto the national stage with countless former Democrats deciding to leave their party; WalkAway campaign founder Brandon Straka explains.
A newly created political movement urging liberals to leave the Democratic Party held a march in Washington, D.C., on Saturday.
The five-month-old #WalkAway movement advocates that those who feel disillusioned with the party -- which some say uses scare tactics and identity politics -- to come out publicly against it.
Several hundred supporters attended Saturday’s mile-long march along Pennsylvania Avenue -- from John Marshall Park near the Capitol to Freedom Plaza near the White House.
"We're walking away from the Democratic Party and literally walking toward freedom," #WalkAway founder Brandon Straka told Fox News.
Straka spearheaded the movement after posting an online video in May explaining why he was abandoning the Democratic Party.
“People are fed up with what’s happening on the left,” he said, adding that interest skyrocketed after the hearings into sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanauagh. “These were really the kind of die-hard loyalists. People in their 60s and 70s who had been Democrats their whole life who said ‘This was the final straw for me.’”
Scores of video testimonials posted to the #WalkAway Campaign Facebook page give a variety of reasons for switching political allegiances.
Some said the Democratic Party has become hate-filled and hostile to opposing points of view while moving further to the left. Others say they were tired of the party’s "politically correct" culture.
The movement caught President Trump's attention. He tweeted about the event before it began.
Straka said he's most proud that minority groups, such as Latinos, African-Americans and the LGBTQ community, have embraced his movement.
"These minority groups that I think the Democratic Party has had sort of a stranglehold for so long on, they are walking away," he said. "They want to be self-empowered."
But not everyone believes the grassroots campaign is genuine.
CNN contributor David Love called the movement fake and a Russian ploy to divide key Democrat voting blocs, the Washington Times reported.
(You're kidding...Russian collusion again? I swear these bastards could get a flat tire and blame it on the Russians.)
"Republicans want to split up the Democratic political opposition and divide black and Latino voters. And Russia looks like it wants to help here, too,” Love wrote. “The most recent example of this strategy is the #WalkAway hashtag, which is presented as a grassroots effort by former Democrats who are critical of the party’s alleged intimidation, confrontation and lack of civility and want people to walk away from the party.”
Michael Moore responded to pictures of bombing suspect Cesar Sayoc's van that show a photo of the filmmaker with a bulls-eye plastered on it by slamming Fox News and President Donald Trump on Friday.
"The accused bomber plastered a picture of me on the side of his van, with a crosshairs target over my face. Actually, the target is over my neck, which I'll take as a minor concession on his part," Moore said in a statement.
A Miami Herald photograph and CNN footage show that Moore's picture was plastered on the van alongside a bumper sticker emblazoned "CNN Sucks" and a picture of Hillary Clinton with a bulls-eye over her face, as well as images of Trump and Vice President Mike Pence.
The truth be told we do owe him a debt of gratitude.
Michael Moore Slams Fox News, Trump After Seeing His Picture on Bombing Suspect's Vehicle
This is rich coming from him and I'll tell you why. NBC, CBS, the FBI, CNN, the DOJ, ABC, the NSA, and MSNBC conspired to prevent it from happening.
That's why! Oh...and they all plead the 5th.
Former President Barack Obama took multiple swipes at his successor’s tenure in the White House during a series of fiery speeches Friday.
At an evening rally in Detroit, MI., Obama mocked President Trump’s promise to drain the swamp saying that instead, “they have gone to Washington and just plundered away.”
“In Washington they have racked up enough indictments to field a football team,” Obama said. “Nobody in my administration got indicted.”
Earlier, at a rally in Milwaukee, WI., Obama brought up Hillary Clinton’s email server — accusing Republicans of harping on the issue to “scare the heck out of people before every election.”
“In the last election, it was Hillary’s emails. ‘This is terrible’ … ‘This is a national security crisis.’ They didn’t care about emails and you know how you know? Because if they did, they’d be up in arms right now that the Chinese are listening to the president’s iPhone that he leaves in his golf cart,” Obama said, referring to a report about Chinese and Russian spies snooping on the president’s phone calls.
Without ever actually mentioning the president by name, Obama continued his criticism, taking aim at him and other Republicans for just “making stuff up.”
“What we have not seen before in our public life is politicians just blatantly, repeatedly, baldly, shamelessly, lying. Just making stuff up,” Obama said. “Calling up, down. Calling black, white.”
As he urged crowds to vote for Michigan and Wisconsin’s Democratic candidates, Obama said that “the character of our country is on the ballot.”
