Democrats would employ underhanded tactics?

I'm shocked.

Democrat Tester's campaign takes a hit after shady mailer prompts Libertarian to drop out, back GOP candidate

Democrat Jon Tester faces tough re-election fight in Montana

As President Trump stumps in Montana for Republican challenger Matt Rosendale, incumbent Senator Jon Tester tells constituents that he doesn't always vote for Democrats; Peter Doocy reports from Missoula, Montana.

Montana’s U.S. Senate race took a dramatic turn on Wednesday: A libertarian candidate endorsed his Republican opponent after an illegal campaign mailer tried to siphon votes from the GOP candidate and pave victory for the incumbent Democrat.

Republican Matt Rosendale is in a dead-heat race against Democrat Jon Tester, with polls showing the GOP candidate trailing within the margin of error. Fox News deems the race “leaning Democrat.”

But Libertarian Rick Breckenridge, who has no chance of winning the race, took an unprecedented step in Montana politics and endorsed Rosendale, saying he’s taking a stand against “dark money” in politics.

DEM SEN. TESTER CAMPAIGNS ON HUNTING, HASN'T HAD LICENSE IN 6 YEARS

The move came after an anonymous campaign mailer from an unknown group, which is a violation of state and federal election laws, went out to people in a bid to garner support for the Libertarian candidate and thus undermine Rosendale’s election chances.

Tester's road to reelection

“Matt Rosendale wants to use drones and patrols to spy on our private lives,” the mailer read. “Rick Breckenridge is a true conservative and opposes government intrusion into Montanans' private lives.”

It remains unclear who’s responsible for the mailer, but the tactic resembles the efforts by Democratic groups that supported Tester’s 2012 bid, where a mailer was sent out to promote another libertarian candidate.

Tester won that race by 4 percentage points thanks to the Libertarian candidate who received over 6 percent of the vote – just enough votes to swing the election if the votes had gone to the Republican candidate at the time.

KAVANAUGH CONFIRMATION BATTLE GALVANIZES MONTANA’S REPUBLICAN VOTERS, COULD SWING SENATE RACE

Breckenridge deemed the mailer an attempt to influence the election, prompting his endorsement of the Republican, even though he disagrees with some of his views.

“The reality is I'm only going to get 3 or 4 percent of the vote, and [Rosendale] has the character to combat this issue,” Breckenridge told the Associated Press. “I'm standing in unity and solidarity with Matt to combat dark money in politics.”

Rosendale accepted his opponent’s endorsement and went on to accuse the “allies of Tester” for distributing the “dark money mailer.”

Tester’s campaign denied responsibility and pushed back against the accusations.

“This is yet another lie from Matt Rosendale - our campaign had nothing to do with this mailer, and Jon believes all campaign expenditures should be disclosed,” Tester spokesman Chris Meagher said in a statement. “We condemn this mailer and any other efforts like it.”

Democrats would employ underhanded tactics?

Cuomo is more stupid than his "America is not that great" brother

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

— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) October 31, 2018

 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

Barbra Streisand May Move to Canada if Republicans Keep the House

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

Harry Reid 9-20-1993: 'No Sane Country' Would Do Birthright Citizenship

Video 460

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

Another take on the 14th Amendment

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.

Another take on the 14th Amendment