Donald Trump Is Correct To Hit ‘La Raza’ Judge For Latino Identity Politics

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

Getty Images

by JOSEPH MURRAY6 Jun 20162062

“This is one of the worst mistakes Trump has made. I think it’s inexcusable.”

Those words were spoken by Newt Gingrich – a man believed to be on Donald Trump’s Vice Presidential shortlist – during an interview on “Fox News Sunday.”

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

What mistake had the presumptive Republican nominee made that he earned the rebuke of an ally?

Trump had questioned the impartiality of a federal judge.

The controversy erupted when Trump told CNN’s Jake Tapper that Gonzalo Curiel – the judge in the Trump University class action lawsuit – might not give him a fair shake because of the judge’s connection to Mexican political activism. After critics bemoaned such an accusation as racism, Trump doubled down on “Face the Nation.”

“[Judge Curiel] is a member of a club or society, very strongly pro-Mexican, which is all fine,” Trump told CBS’s John Dickerson. “But I say he’s got bias.” The club Trump was referring to was La Raza Lawyers; an organization with the stated mission “to promote the interests of the Latino communities throughout the state.”

Translated, “la raza” means “the race.” Imagine the outcry if white attorneys from Mississippi, such as this author, started a a legal association called “The Race” with the stated mission to promote the interest of white, Southern communities. Hollywood stars and entertainers, such as Bryan Adams, would boycott the state in perpetuity.

advertisement

Trump’s suggestion that a Hispanic judge may treat him unfairly because of Trump’s border security proposals, such as the wall, challenges the claim that liberal judges engaged in identity politics are never biased against non-liberals. And while Democrats were enraged by Trump’s challenge, Trump struck fear into the hearts of establishment Republicans not accustomed to challenging the politically correct code to which they have previously surrendered.

Hillary Clinton immediately launched a political advertisement. The ad claimed that Trump’s questioning of Judge Curiel’s impartiality was “the definition of racism.” It also incorporated the growing list of Republicans condemning Trump’s Curiel criticism.

“I don’t condone the comments,” Sen. Bob Corker, another potential Trump VP, said on ABC’s “This Week,” adding Trump is “going to have to change.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stated that he hoped Trump “will change direction” in dealing with Latinos.

But what exactly had Trump done wrong? How was it unreasonable to suggest that a judge belonging to a group pledging to advance Latino interests might be biased against the man who wants to build the wall that hinders the interests of Latino politicians?

Had we not just witnessed Latinos in San Jose throw eggs and sucker punches at Trump supporters, and wave the Mexican flag? Had not McConnell himself, by hoping Trump would change his standard rhetoric, conceded that liberal Latinos – of which Curiel belongs – viewed Trump’s proposals with animus?

If one listened to Hillary and her cabal of Republicans, Trump is a modern day version of Orval Faubus – the Arkansas governor who resisted court ordered integration of schools. But that conclusion is based on left-wing fan fiction that holds any time a white male questions a protected minority the motivation must be rooted in discriminatory animus.

advertisement

Judge Curiel’s integrity is not being questioned by Trump just because of his Hispanic heritage. Trump is merely asserting that a person’s heritage does not foreclose a proper inquiry into their political activism and potential biases; he is suggesting that Curiel – a man who supports awarding an illegal alien a scholarship – might not view favorably a man who wants to deport the said scholarship recipient.

Recusal is a common theme when pro-choice advocates run up against pro-life judges. Recently, some scholars wantedJustice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself from McCullen v. Coakley; a case concerning abortion clinic buffer zones. But such requests are rarely viewed in a negative light.

The fact is seeking recusal – even if just discussing it – is a great way to preserve the integrity of the bench. Federal judges are appointed for life, unelected, and reviewed by other unelected judges. It is why Thomas Jefferson warned the federal bench could easily become a “despotism of an oligarchy.”

So why blast Trump for his Jeffersonian view of the judiciary? Democrats know Hillary is in trouble. They know the economic outlook is bleak and for almost 8 years the party has had no answers. It is why Hillary is making much ado about nothing and, frankly, the voters don’t care about the judicial politics of one class action lawsuit.

But this debate is not just about Trump or Trump University; it is about a politically correct double standard that permits liberals to use the faith of pro-life judges to boot them from a case, but calls questioning the ethnicity based activism of a liberal judge racism. And this is a concept the voters understand.

Liberals made Trump’s comments about race because they know a reasonable person might conclude Curiel’s activism creates the appearance of impropriety. The sad thing is Republicans, much like a battered spouse, are so accustomed to the politically correct abuse they accept it as the new normal.

advertisement

By validating Hillary’s race card, Republican leaders have exhibited one of the worst examples of Stockholm syndrome. And when the dust settles, Newt will see that he and his fellow Republicans are the ones who made the “inexcusable” mistake.

Joseph R. Murray, II, is a civil rights attorney, former campaign official for Pat Buchanan, and author of “Odd Man Out”. He can be reached at jrm@joemurrayenterprises.com.

Read More Stories About:

2016 Presidential Race, Immigration, 2016 campaign, Donald Trump, federal judiciary,immigration

Mitch McConnell Defends Pro-Illegal Immigration Judge in Trump Case: ‘All of Us Came Here from Somewhere Else’

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

AP/Manuel Balce Ceneta

by JULIA HAHN6 Jun 2016Washington D.C.1,312

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is defending Trump University Judge Gonzalo Curiel from Donald Trump’s recent criticism. In particular, Trump has expressed concern that Curiel is biased against him because of Trump’s pledge to enforce U.S. immigration law, build a wall along the Southern border, and keep American jobs from going to Mexico.

“This is a man who was born in Indiana,” McConnell said while defending Judge Curiel on Meet The Press. “All of us came here from somewhere else. Almost all Americans are either near term immigrants like my wife, who came here at age eight… or the rest of us whose ancestors were risk takers who got up from wherever they were, and came here and made this country great. That’s an important part of what makes America work.”

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

McConnell’s comments come in the wake of recent attempts to ramp up the narrative that Trump is allegedly anti-Latino.

For instance, during her recent foreign policy speech, Hillary Clinton reprised the attack that Trump “calls Mexican immigrants ‘rapists and murderers.’” However, what Trump actually said is that Mexico sends rapists and criminals across the border—which government data suggests is quite literally true.

A 2011 government report found approximately three million arrest offenses attached to the incarcerated criminal alien population—which the report defined as an immigrant who has not been naturalized. Of these offenses, 70,000 were sexual offenses, 213,000 were for assault, and 25,000 were for homicides. The report notes that the majority of the 296,000 SCAAP [State Criminal Alien Assistance Program] criminal alien incarcerations in state and local jails were from Mexico.

Yet most recently, the narrative that Trump is “anti-Latino” has tended to focus on two main stories: Trump’s criticism of the judge presiding over the Trump University case, and Trump’s criticism of New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez.

However, just as the media failed to reporton alien crime rates when discussing Trump’s comments about illegal alien crime last summer, so too is the media now leaving out critical facts about these stories.

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

For instance, while Mitch McConnell, Newt Gingrich, and members of corporate media have attacked Trump for his criticism of Judge Curiel, they did not mention Curiel’s status as a member of the La Raza Lawyers of San Diego. La Raza literally translates to mean “the race.” Nor did they mention that Curiel “oversaw the gift of a law school scholarship to an illegal alien,” as the Daily Caller reported. Separately, the media rarely reports that the legal firm behind the lawsuit gave money to the Clintons.

The Daily Caller notes that the La Raza Lawyers of San Diego is not a local chapter of the National Council of La Raza, and the San Diego group claims to protest the literal translation of its organization’s name— arguing that they are made up of different races.

While it’s gone largely ignored by corporate media, Ann Coulter has pointed out the implications of Curiel’s decision to join a group that views his profession through the prism of his ethnicity— and joined, not just a Hispanic association, but a group that seems to have more explicitly racial connotations. Coulter tweeted, “Re: Trump University — Would liberals accept a white judge — under any circumstances — who was a member of a White Race organization?” Indeed, if the judge had been Caucasian and was a member of a Caucasian advancement group, one could imagine that anything the judge had ever said or written would be completely parsed out by the public.

The significance of this is underscored by the fact that as a judge sworn to “faithfully and impartially” perform the duties incumbent upon him under the Constitution and laws of the United States, Curiel has been involved in subsidizing illegal activity by partially funding the college admissions of an illegal immigrant.

The judge’s decision to involve himself in the furtherance of an illegal act, which comes at the direct expense of American citizens who need financial assistance, seems to suggest that on matters pertaining to immigration, the judge may perhaps be willing to place political and personal ends above legal ends. This fact could lend credence to the argument that in Trump’s case, Curiel is perhaps placing his political considerations above legal considerations.

Similarly, McConnell, Gingrich and members of the corporate media have attacked Trump for saying that Gov. Martinez has “got to do a better job”.

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

Gingrich went so far as to accuse Trump of going “off the deep end” for criticizing Martinez. However, both McConnell and Gingrich failed to mention that Martinez attacked Trump first—and not the other way around.

As the Washington Examiner’s Byron Yorkreported:

The story was really very simple: Martinez hit Trump, so Trump hit back… In mid-April, the New Mexico governor issued a ‘remarkably strong rebuke’ to Trump, in the words of aWashington Post report, when Martinez spoke to a GOP fundraiser at the home of David Koch in Palm Beach, Florida. Martinez, according to the Post, ‘did not mince words.’ She told the crowd of about 60 wealthy GOP backers that, as a Latina, she was offended by Trump’s language about immigrants… Team Trump believes Martinez has continued to criticize him in private since those remarks. And when Trump traveled to Albuquerque, after having clinched the Republican nomination, Martinez told reporters she was ‘really busy’ and did not have time to attend.

Last year, Martinez publicly questioned Trump’s integrity and implicitly called him racist. Martinez described Trump’s factually correct statement about illegal alien crime as “completely and unequivocally wrong.”

“Those are horrible things to say about anyone, or any culture, anyone of any ethnicity. I mean, that is uncalled for completely,” Martinez said.

Trump’s declaration that Martinez has “got to do a better job” seems mild by comparison. Moreover, objective metrics would suggest that his criticism is, in fact, true. For instance, under Gov. Martinez, violent crime—which is mostly a state issue— has surged in New Mexico. As USA Todayreported, New Mexico is one of the most dangerous states in America today:

New Mexico’s violent crime rate rose 6.6% between 2012 and 2013 — the most in the nation — to nearly 597 per 100,000 residents. The increase in violent crime came despite Governor Susana Martinez’s avowal in 2011 to be tough on crime.

Yet Gingrich, McConnell, and the media’s failure to emphasize that Martinez attacked Trump first has allowed his political opponents to falsely characterize his criticism.

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

For instance, Hillary Clinton recently seemed to suggest that Trump’s attack was “gratuitous” and without prompting. “He insulted the Republican Governor Martinez of New Mexico, just gratuitously,” Clintonsaid.

Some have argued that a consistent theme of this election is that the Republican establishment is more upset by Mr. Trump’s tone than they are by the dismantling of our nation’s immigration laws and the victimization of Americans that has accompanied it.

For instance, when McConnell was asked about Trump’s tone with respect to Hispanics, McConnell could have just as easily said that Trump’s policy to stem the flow of illegals and reduce the overall rate of migration would benefit low-income minorities, while Clinton’s plan would economically devastate poor American minorities. However, McConnell once again missed an opportunity to attack Clinton to instead seemingly signal to the media that his endorsement of Trump is merely perfunctory.

Under Sen. McConnell’s leadership, there has been no serious effort to dismantle sanctuary cities, crack down on migrant benefits, ensure deportations of criminal aliens, or halt the influx of refugees.

While Democrats have waged months-long campaigns over equal pay or other pet Democrat issues, no similar effort has been waged by Majority Leader McConnell to defend the integrity of the U.S. immigration system.

When Kate Steinle was murdered, Senate leadership failed to even address the issue. In fact, at the height of national focus and public outrage about the issue, the Senate adjourned for its August recess without taking any meaningful action against sanctuary cities.

By contrast, when the GOP wanted to push the passage of the Keystone pipeline, an issue their donors supported, “GOP’s Senate leadership mounted a long and emotional election-style campaign to win nine Democratic votes for their legislation to approve the Keystone pipeline,” the Daily Caller reported at the time.

Moreover, on a factual note, McConnell’s declaration that “all of us came here from somewhere else,” suggests that he holds a starkly different understanding of Americanization than the one held by our founders. America was not founded upon an equal sampling of ideas from all different countries, but rather was founded on the ideas of one nation in particular, as well as a few Western nations that contributed to Enlightenment and Western thinking.

Moreover, although McConnell believes “all of us came here from somewhere else,” today a lot more people are coming from certain places as opposed to others. Almost 90% of current green card allotments come from outside the normally recognized boundaries of the Western world.

Read More Stories About:

2016 Presidential Race, Immigration,Racism, David Koch, kate steinle, Keystone Pipeline, La Raza, Newt Gingrich, Susana Martinez, trump university

Mickey Kaus: Marco Rubio Hides Pro-Donor Amnesty Behind Anti-ISIS Bluster

Getty

by BREITBART NEWS5 Feb 201622

The original news-blogger, journalist Mickey Kaus, flew out from Los Angeles to New Hampshire to watch Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)’s hide-the-amnesty script, and he’s so worried that he wrote up a new post, “The Rubio Menace.”

I went to see Marco Rubio’s town hall this afternoon in Salem, New Hampshire. It was only a few miles from my hotel–I really had no excuse. I wanted to find out: Was Rubio really as slick and insubstantial  in this setting as John Edwards? Answer: No. He’s slicker. He’s slicker, in part, because he at least seems a bit spontaneous,** with a slightly goofy, human quality. I admit this is hard to judge seeing him once — maybe he always lets his 8-year-old son sit on his stool during his stump speech. But it’s hard to deny the appeal.

When it comes to substance, Rubio draws on an inventory of well-prepared rhetorical modules, with just enough policy to sound sophisticated, that can be inserted where necessary to handle, say, the how-would-you-handle-ISIS question (Sunni ground army!) or disability benefits (get rid of phony claims!). There’s not much sacrifice involved in any of Rubio’s proposals — even avoiding budget apocalypse, which he claims to be very concerned about, is just a matter of raising the retirement age and slowing benefit hikes for the well-off.  Nothing that hasn’t been floating around Washington for years. There’s a heavy emphasis on electability. Big, difficult questions (like robots taking everyone’s jobs) are ignored. Tellingly, however, Rubio has added a Trump Module, where he alludes to anger at stagnant wages.

He’s got an immigration module too. It ignores Rubio’s “Gang of 8” amnesty push while adopting what seems to be an Enforcement First framework, in which “nothing” happens, amnesty-wise, until the border is “secure.” Everything depends on what “nothing” and “secure” mean, of course. But those crucial seams are effectively buried. Rubio prefaces all this with a digression on ISIS, and how it’s changed the immigration debate: Because our top priority has to be to “keep ISIS out of this country.” It’s an absurd, transparent attempt to put off confronting the Gang of 8 and the effects of a low-skilled influx on living standards. But the audience loves it. The ISIS digression gets the biggest applause of the day…

Kaus is a Democrat and a classical, old-style liberal, who shrugs off sneers from his former progressive allies. He’s not worked-up about taxes or regulations, but is frightened by the ability of progressives and Wall Street to destroy the wages, independence, pride, and status of ordinary Americans by flooding the labor market with wage-cutting, welfare-supported, profit-boosting foreign labor. Throughout 2013 and 2014, Kaus helped lead the fight against Rubio’s amnesty-and-cheap-labor “comprehensive immigration reform” bill, and he’s still frightened that progressives and business donors, plus their lobbyists on K Street in Washington D.C., will derail the populist, pro-American movement led bySen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Donald Trump. The new-and-improved Rubio, he says, is:

…mildly terrifying. If Rubio’s a ‘robot,’ as many have charged, he’s a sophisticated new model robot with simulated humanistic elements and a charm algorithm … In short, for the Sessions movement–and a particular vision of America, in which even unskilled, non-bright citizens can work a full day and earn a respectable living–Marco Rubio is a state-of-the art K-Street kill shot, a sudden existential threat. We may have only a few days to recognize this.

Read the whole article here.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, 2016 Presidential Race,Immigration, immigration, migration,Rubio, Mickey Kaus, immigation

The Anti-Trump Network: Fox News Money Flows into Open Borders Group

Andy Kropa/Getty Images

by JULIA HAHN26 Jan 2016Washington D.C.1,827

The announcement from Donald Trump’s campaign that the Republican frontrunner will “definitely not” partake in Thursday night’s Fox News debate has sent shock waves throughout the nation’s political scene.

At a press event Tuesday evening, Trump seemed to cite disparate treatment from the network as his reasoning for not participating. “What’s wrong over there, something’s wrong,” Trump said of the “games” Roger Ailes and the network are “playing.”

In asking the question of “what’s wrong over there?” Trump has shined a spotlight on one of Washington’s best kept secrets: namely, Fox’s role via its founder Rupert Murdoch in pushing an open borders agenda. The Trump campaign is a direct threat to Murdoch’s efforts to open America’s borders. Well-concealed from virtually all reporting on Fox’s treatment of Trump is the fact that Murdoch is the co-chair of what is arguably one of the most powerful immigration lobbying firms in country, the Partnership for a New American Economy (PNAE).

In addition to blanketing the country, media, and politicians with literature, advertisements, and a barrage of lobbyists pushing for open border immigration policies, the Partnership for A New American Economy (PNAE) was a prime lobbyist for one of the biggest open borders pushes in American history: Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)’s 2013 Gang of Eight immigration bill.

While Donald Trump has pledged to deport those illegally residing in the country and temporarily pause Muslim migration, Rubio’s immigration bill would have granted immediate amnesty and eventual citizenship to millions of illegal aliens, it would have doubled the annual admission of foreign workers, and it would have dispensed 33 million green cards to foreign nationals in the span of a single decade despite current record immigration levels.

While Megyn Kelly made headlines with her heated questioning of Donald Trump, not one of the Fox News anchors asked Rubio in the first Fox News debate about his signature piece of legislation, which Murdoch’s immigration lobbying firm had endorsed. Instead, they lobbed Rubio a series of softballs, such as asking Rubio if he could put God and veterans in the same sentence.

Interestingly, Bill Sammon — FOX News’s vice president of News and Washington managing editor —  is the father of Brooke Sammon, who is Rubio’s press secretary.

As Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza back in 2013, Fox News was essential to the Rubio-Schumer effort to expand immigration levels beyond all known historical precedent. As Lizza wrote at the time:

McCain told me, “Rupert Murdoch is a strong supporter of immigration reform, and Roger Ailes is, too.” Murdoch is the chairman and C.E.O. of News Corp., which owns Fox, and Ailes is Fox News’s president. McCain said that he, [Lindsey] Graham, [Marco] Rubio, and others also have talked privately to top hosts at Fox, including Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Neil Cavuto… “God bless Fox,” Graham said. “Last time [i.e. during the 2007 immigration push], it was ‘amnesty’ every fifteen seconds.” He said that the change was important for his reelection, because “eighty per cent of people in my primary get their news from Fox.” He added that the network has “allowed critics to come forward, but it’s been so much better.”

Murdoch’s support of open borders immigration policies has been identified as a potential conflict of interest for years. As ABC reported in 2013:

Murdoch, Australian born and a naturalized U.S. citizen, has become an outspoken advocate for immigration reform and mass legalization of the country’s undocumented immigrants, partnering with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg in this cause. Whether Murdoch’s personal views will percolate through his network, or at least temper criticism on the airwaves of those who don’t share it, remains to be seen.

In 2013, during the Rubio-Schumer Gang of Eight push, Mickey Kaus similarly pointed out:

In 2007, John McCain’s “comprehensive” immigrant-legalization bill failed after opponents flooded the Senate with calls, shutting down the switchboard… It won’t be that easy this time… The GOP donor class is asserting itself… One of the more influential members of this “donorist” class is Rupert Murdoch, which means that FOX News has for all intents and purposes switched sides, giving immigration “comprehensivists” a monopoly in the MSM–five networks to none.

Indeed, Murdoch has himself expressed his support for large-scale immigration. In a 2014 op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal’s open borders opinion pages, titled, “Immigration Reform Can’t Wait,” Murdoch wrote:

When I learned that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor had lost his Republican primary, my heart sank. Not simply because I think he is an intelligent and talented member of Congress, or because I worry about the future of the Republican Party. Like others who want comprehensive immigration reform, I worried that Mr. Cantor’s loss would be misconstrued and make Congress reluctant to tackle this urgent need. That would be the wrong lesson and an undesirable national consequence of this single, local election result.

In his Wall Street Journal op-ed, Murdoch echoed Rubio’s position on granting citizenship to illegal immigrants. Murdoch wrote, “We need to give those individuals who are already here… a path to citizenship.” Murdoch even decried Americans who opposed amnesty as, “nativists who scream about amnesty” — a statement which is perhaps even more significant given the fact that Murdoch is himself a beneficiary of the nation’s generous immigration policy.

Murdoch praised President Obama for showing “wise restraint” on immigration, even though, at the time of Murdoch’s writing, Obama had already implemented his first unconstitutional executive amnesty, giving away American jobs to illegal aliens — including the jobs of black Americans whose have suffered some of the greatest harms from mass immigration.

When asked about the president’s unconstitutional 2012 executive amnesty, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals [DACA], Marco Rubio has said that, if he is elected president, he “wouldn’t undo it immediately.” This was another statement of Rubio’s which the Fox News anchors utterly failed to probe in their first debate to which they came loaded with questions for Trump, who — unlike Rubio — had not pushed an immigration plan backed by the network’s founder.

Murdoch also called for an unlimited number of foreign workers to fill coveted tech jobs through the H-1B visa program, which experts have described as an “indentured servitude” program:

We need to do away with the cap on H-1B visas, which is arbitrary and results in U.S. companies struggling to find the high-skill workers they need to continue growing. We already know that most of the applications for these visas are for computer programmers and engineers, where there is a shortage of qualified American candidates.

Contrary to Mr. Murdoch’s assertions, there are more than 11 million Americans with degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) who lack employment in these fields, and U.S. schools are graduating two times more students with STEM degrees than are annually finding employment in these fields.

Here again is another undisclosed conflict of interest from Fox News. Sen. Rubio introduced legislation last year — the Immigration Innovation Act — which would have tripled H-1B visa issuances. This legislation was endorsed by Murdoch via the Partnership for a New American Economy, on whose board also sits Disney CEO Bob Iger.

Though, once again, Rubio was not questioned about the legislation by Megyn Kelly and her fellow Fox News hosts, scores of American workers in Florida Disney were terminated and forced to undergo the humiliation of training their lower-paid foreign replacements, now the subject of a lawsuit against Disney.

Mickey Kaus has long documented Fox News’s coverage of the immigration issue. As Kaus explained last year, Fox News —perhaps recognizing how at-odds its views of open borders are with its viewership (one Fox News poll reveals that Americans by a 2-to-1 margin want to see visa issuances reduced) — implemented an “immigration tamp-down,” blocking out coverage of key immigration fights in Washington D.C.

Kaus analyzed “a list of the lead story each day on Megyn Kelly’s ‘Kelly File’ show from January 14 (the day the House sent the Senate a DHS bill with a ‘rider’ blocking Obama’s amnesty) until March 3, the day the House finally caved and passed a ‘clean’ DHS bill,” and he ultimately found that immigration was not the lead story once. [See list here].

Instead, Kaus writes, “immigration was discussed as the underlying issue in the funding fight only 6 times over the whole 34 show period — and only 3 times in the crucial 20 show period that followed the Senate Dems’ initial filibuster of the Republican DHS proposal.”

Conservative columnist and best-sellingauthor Ann Coulter has criticized the media’s fixation on ISIS to the exclusion of immigration, considering that the only way that ISIS terrorists will be able to personally carry out attacks against American citizens on American soil is if our immigration system allows them into the country.

The way media bias on immigration often manifests itself is not simply in what media outlets and anchors do cover (i.e. focusing on the needs of illegal immigrants rather than Americans), but what the don’t cover.

As any casual viewer of Fox News would observe, one sees scant to any coverage at all on the record-setting, foreign-born population inside the United States; nor coverage of census findings that immigration is about to surpass all historical records; nor stories on the total number of immigrants allowed into the country each year and the strain this number puts on education, the economy, the welfare states and the profound changes to U.S. culture. By not covering these issues in any real depth, it helps clear the way for the enactment of the Murdoch-backed immigration agenda — bringing in the New American Century hoped for by Rupert Murdoch, Marco Rubio, and Barack Obama.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, Big Journalism, 2016 Presidential Race, FOX NEWS, Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, immigration, John McCain, Obama, Meg

U.S. to Issue Visas to 300,000 Muslim Migrants

Ryan’s Strategy to ‘Keep the American People Safe’ Fails: U.S. to Issue Visas to 300,000 Muslim Migrants

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

by JULIA HAHN20 Jan 2016Washington D.C.4,258

On Wednesday, Senate Democrats successfully and predictably blocked what many conservatives described as Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)’s “Show Vote'”on refugee admissions.

It has been called a show vote because the Ryan plan, even if the President signed it,would still allow the President to bring in an unlimited number of refugees from an unlimited number of countries.

Democrats’ filibuster on the motion to proceed to Ryan’s show vote comes one month after Speaker Ryan sent President Obama a blank check to fund visa issuancesto nearly 300,000 (temporary and permanent) Muslim migrants in the next 12 months alone. Ryan’s decision to fully-fund Obama’s immigration agenda arguably ceded any leverage he may otherwise have had over Democrats and ensured the large-scale migration into America would continue and grow.

Ryan’s bill, known as the American SAFE Act, was blocked by 55-43.

Ryan’s inability to develop a winning strategy suggests he failed at what he has called the “first duty of the government.”  Ryan declared after the SAFE Act’s initial passage in the House:

The first duty of our government is to keep the American people safe. That’s why, today, the House will vote on a plan to pause our Syrian refugee program… If our law enforcement and intelligence community cannot verify that each and every person coming here is not a security threat, then they shouldn’t be allowed in. Right now, the government can’t certify these standards, so this plan pauses the program. It’s a security test—not a religious test. This reflects our values. This reflects our responsibilities. And this is urgent. We cannot and should not wait to act—not when our national security is at stake.

Ryan informed the press that he had “reached out to our Democratic colleagues” in crafting the plan, and touted his acquisition a “veto-proof majority”—which no longer seems relevant since the Senate blocked further movement on the bill.

While Ryan and House Republicans celebrated their supposed political victory— preparing to fully fund Obama’s refugee plans while offering up a show vote—  Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) never seemed concerned. As The Hill reported at the time: “When asked about the prospect of Obama vetoing the legislation, Reid said, ‘Don’t worry, it won’t get passed. Next question?’”

Although many House Republicans seemed convinced that putting forth a toothless bill was a brilliant strategy, many conservatives were not. For instance, Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC)’s office denounced Ryan’s bill as a “show vote” that would “do nothing to cut off the funding for President Barack Obama’s plan to import tens of thousands of Middle Eastern refugees into the U.S.” Jones explained that, “defunding President Obama’s refugee program is the only way to ensure there is an actual halt to a refugee influx.”

Hot Air’s AllahPundit even observed that Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)’s bill was more substantive than Paul Ryan’s: “Another irony: when you compare the House GOP’s bill to what Senate Dems are pushing, it’s the Democratic bill that’s more substantive.”

Mark Levin slammed Ryan’s entire proposal as a fraud. “You’re not securing the homeland, you’re pretending to secure the homeland,” Levin declared, later tweeting out: “Washington fighting over phony policy and want you to think it is serious.”

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) explained that the legislation Ryan pushed through the House “allows the President to continue to bring in as many refugees as he wants from anywhere in the world.”

In a post entitled, “Uh, the House Bill to Pause the Syrian Refugee Program Doesn’t Really Pause the Syrian Refugee Program,” National Review’s Rich Lowry wrote: “It was nice to see the House get a veto-proof majority for its Syrian refugee bill. The problem is, when you get down to it, it doesn’t do anything.”

Given these reactions, it is unsurprising that there was no public momentum behind Ryan’s bill.

But Ryan further ensured there would be no momentum for his strategy— and no pressure on Democrats— by attacking conservatives’ desire to block Muslim immigration. Ryan went to great lengths to ensure America that, as long as he was in charge, no proposals to restrict mass Muslim migration would be tolerated.

Ryan—who, according to recent reports, is “rapidly emerging as Republicans’ anti-Trump” and as a “counterweight to Trump”—made a concerted effort to frame his refugee plan in this light.

Indeed, in early December, Ryan held a press conference publicly condemning the GOP frontrunner’s proposal to temporarily pause Muslim migration. Ryan declared that Trump’s plan “is not conservatism”—even though 65% of all conservative voters think America should allow zero refugees from the Middle East into America, according to Rasmussen. Ryan also adopted the left’s talking point—insisting that there is no need to curb Muslim migration into the United States because “the vast, vast, vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and believe in pluralism, freedom, democracy and individual rights.”

It was never publicly explained by House Republicans how there would be momentum for their strategy if Speaker Ryan was using his pulpit to ensure America that massive Muslim immigration would make America a more free, peaceful, and democratic nation.

Similarly, in a nationally televised interview with Sean Hannity, Ryan ruled out the possibility of curbing Muslim migration, proclaiming: “That’s not who we are”.

Perhaps most noticeably, Ryan helped recruit Nikki Haley to deliver the Republican’s State of the Union rebuttal, in which Haley criticized Trump’s proposal to curb Muslim migration and made the case for functionally unlimited immigration.

By framing Muslim immigration as a huge positive for America, and by putting up a show vote that did not reduce Muslim immigration in any way, the result was that there was no capacity to put any public pressure on Democrats to change their position. One aide Breitbart News spoke with put it this way:

If we wanted to beat Democrats, we needed to highlight the attacks on women carried out by Muslims, highlight the sinister spread of Female Genital Mutilation, highlight the welfare costs, and cultural dangers, the spread of radical Islam inside our borders. Then, we need a proposal to actually pause Muslim immigration. Instead, Paul Ryan celebrated the idea of unlimited Muslim immigration— with all its transformative effects— while putting forward a bill that did nothing. Democrats never broke a sweat. Having Ryan in charge of refugee strategy is like putting the world’s fattest man in charge of your diet plan.

Indeed, Ryan seemed much more eager to collaborate with Democrats. When pressed about his refugee bill, Ryan expressed his desire to cooperate with Democrats— not dissimilar from his $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill, which was praised by Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Reid, and the White House. Ryan said:

This should not be a partisan issue… This should not be about Republicans and Democrats. This should be about keeping America safe… We’re trying to make this bipartisan because we don’t think this should be a Republican or Democrat issue, it should be an American security issue.

Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly warned fifty years ago that the donor-class—or Kingmakers, as she calls them—who control the Republican Party prefer lawmakers and candidates “who would sidestep or suppress the key issues” by compromising with Democrats on the issues that matter to Republican voters.

Schlafly explained that in doing so, the Kingmakers are able to create an ostensible consensus between both Party leaders—and, as a result, voters are denied their ability to choose a party that represents their interests, since both parties represent merely an echo of the other side. Thus, Ryan’s declarations that, “We don’t think this should be a Republican or Democrat issue,” and “We’re trying to make this bipartisan,” and “This should be about keeping America safe” bears striking resemblance to what Schlafly warned about in 1964:

The kingmakers and their propaganda apparatus have launched a series of false slogans designed to mask the failure of their candidates to debate the major issues. Some of these are the following: ‘Politics should stop at the water’s edge.’ ‘We must unite behind our President who has sole power in the field of foreign affairs.’ ‘Foreign policy should be bipartisan.’

In response to today’s failure, Ryan issued a tepid five-sentence response reproaching Senate Democrats’ maneuver as “irresponsible.” While Ryan’s strategy turned out to be unsuccessful, the outcome was not perhaps entirely surprising. In his “bold” Republican agenda released last week, Ryan— who has a two-decade long history of pushing mass immigration — did not include a word about an immigration crackdown. But, considering Ryan’s previous claim that migrants from the third world make the “best Americans,” Ryan himself may regard his own strategy as highly successful.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, Immigration, Nancy Pelosi,Harry Reid, Sean Hannity, Nikki Haley,female genital mutilation, Phyllis Schlafly,Walter Jones, Dianne fFinstein

Ban Donald Trump? You’ll Have To Ban Ex-Muslims, European Leaders, And Me As Well

Getty

by RAHEEM KASSAM18 Jan 20161,390

It was perhaps inevitable, when you note the wilful and lazy underreporting by Britain’s mainstream media of issues pertaining to radical Islam, that when a vocal critic came along, people’s first instincts would be to call him a “racist” and seek to curtail their own rights of free speech in response. Turkeys voting for Christmas. Cutting off your nose to spite your face. Choose whatever idiom you want… if the shoe fits… ahem.

So when Suzanne Kelly – a long-standing anti-Trump campaigner in Scotland – started a parliamentary petition, the media seized on it, failing to report that a) it was NOT in response to his comments about a moratorium on Muslim immigration to the U.S. and b) it was actually started BEFORE he even said anything of the sort.

It was one socialist, who has been “investigating Trump’s activities and the objections of local residents to his golfing development for several years” who inadvertently triggered tonight’s parliamentary committee debate on effectively banning people from saying anything even remotely critical of Islam. It accidentally turned from a socialist crusade against property rights, to a socialist crusade in favour of an Islamic blasphemy law in Britain.

Don’t worry – today’s debate isn’t binding. Nor is it in the House of Commons chamber. But if you were to turn Sky News on this morning, you’d think there was a key government vote on the matter. Of course, it has been seized upon by Muslim Members of Parliament.

But if Mr. Trump has to be banned from Britain, then who else? Well, a significant number of Britons, really, who believe, as Saxony’s Prime Minister Stanislaw Tillichhas said this weekend, that the West has “too little experience with Islam” and that inward migration should be curbed.

And what about Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who has said that “Islam has never been a part of Europe” or Slovakia’s premier Robert Fico, who has said that Muslims are “impossible to integrate”? Do we ban these people too?

Do we ban ex-Muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Do we ban people like Sohail Ahmed, a self-professed former radical who has since left Islam? Or is the British reaction to Donald Trump’s comments – for that is what most thought they were signing the petition about – reserved for white American men?

Whatever the motivation – and whatever your answer to the questions posed above, it is surely obvious at this point that British democracy is in a very sorry state.

And we could talk about why until we’re blue in the face: self-censorship, post-colonial guilt, media indoctrination, the liberal monopoly on public life… the reasons are endless. Why waste the time?

Instead I suggest we become far more robust in our language. Far more robust in asserting our birthrights. And far more robust in rejecting the attempts at manipulation of our nation state.

Yes, a lot of our efforts this year should go to fighting a European referendum so that we may reassert ourselves on the world stage again. But don’t forget, once parliament is sovereign again, it will be a parliament that we have packed with soft-fascists. Those who want to tell us what to eat, drink, smoke, and think. And those who will today be discussing what amount of free speech should get you banned from this country.

It is this, coupled with the long-standing liberal monopoly of the press and our television channels that we have to think about fighting next. Otherwise what is the point in being a sovereign nation?

Whether or not you agree with me about Donald Trump – you surely believe that it is time for radical change in this country. And that starts with refusing to vote for the same old parties, buying the same old newspapers, and watching the same old TV channels. Turn it off.

Follow Raheem Kassam on Twitter hereand on Facebook here for less of the same, and more of what’s really going on

Read More Stories About:

Breitbart London, Islam, Immigration,Donald Trump, Muslims, free speech,Parliament

Coulter: Nikki Haley ‘a Bimbo’ — ‘Accidentally Elected Because She’s Pretty’

by PAM KEY14 Jan 20161239

Thursday on Fox News Radio’s “John Gibson Show” conservative columnist Ann Coulter discussed the official Republican State of the Union response from Gov. Nikki Haley (R-SC) took aim at her for using the forum to criticize Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump.

Coulter referred to Haley as “bimbo,” to which host John Gibson objected to the term.

Coulter went on to add, “You’re policing my language? I’m saying something I think is true, I think she is a bimbo … Do we have to add that to the list of words that can’t be used now? Because the list is getting bigger than the dictionary.”

Gibson interjected, “Well I think it describes a certain kind of person which I don’t think fits her.”

Coulter answered, “Yeah a not very bright female. Actually they are not always females but they often have those qualities, the feminine qualities.”

Gibson asked, “Can we proceed without calling her that kind of name?”

Coulter asked, “You’re joking?”

Gibson said, “No I’m not.”

Coulter continued, “Can you email me a list of what words can’t be used … Bimbo? … It’s going to be hard to describe how she was chosen. She is a woman who was accidentally elected because she’s pretty and isn’t very bright, can we say that?”

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN

Read More Stories About:

Breitbart TV, 2016 Presidential Race, Donald Trump, immigration, Ann Coulter, Gov. Nikki Haley

EXCLUSIVE – Media Grinches Claim Israel Stole Bethlehem Christmas; Distort Facts, Ignore Muslim Persecution

Flickr / Sarah_Ackerman

by AARON KLEIN22 Dec 2015169

JERUSALEM – Major news media outlets are presenting a misleading picture of the current situation in Bethlehem, blaming an obscure, leaderless “wave of violence” – purportedly instigated by both Israel and the Palestinians – for a downturn in the number of tourists visiting the historic city this Christmas season.

The outlets in question completely ignore the rampant Palestinian incitement that is driving the current violence and fail to report that the pseudo-intifada is instigated almost entirely by the Palestinians.

Also missing from the reportage is the larger story of Bethlehem’s dwindling Christian population. Over the last two decades, Christians have been fleeing persecution at the hands of Muslims.

A case in point is an AFP article republishedin numerous newspapers and websites titled, “Unrest puts heavy damper on Bethlehem Christmas festivities.”

The piece reports that “a wave of violence and protests has deterred many tourists from making the annual pilgrimage to the ancient city in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, though much of the unrest has occurred away from Bethlehem, usually considered a safe destination.”

The article does not distinguish between Israeli victims of terrorism and Palestinian terrorists killed by Israelis in self-defense. As the AFP states:

The violence has killed 120 on the Palestinian side, several of them in and around Bethlehem, as well as 17 Israelis, an American, and an Eritrean.

Similarly, the Catholic News Servicepublished an article titled, “Few pilgrims, no sales: Mideast situation dampens Bethlehem Christmas.”

The first paragraph draws a moral equivalence between Palestinian terrorists and their victims as if both sides are equally to blame.

‘Though the Christmas tree was lit in Nativity Square in the traditional ceremony, and some  pre-Christmas parades have taken place, the Christmas spirit this year in Bethlehem has been dampened by the political situation which, since October, has taken the lives of almost 100 Palestinians and 22 Israelis.’

The article also distorts the cause of the violence, implying that “extremist Jews” provoked the Palestinians.

‘The most recent violence that has limited the tourists followed attempts by extremist Jews to visit and pray at the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif compound, which is holy to both Jews and Muslim. Riots have broken out in the West Bank, and Palestinians have stabbed Israeli civilians as well as Israeli police and soldiers, both within the Green Line and in the West Bank.’

The “extremist Jews” in question were guilty of simply wanting to pray at Judaism’s holiest site.

The Catholic News Service failed to report that the Palestinian media fabricated a Jewish “threat” to the Al Aqsa Mosque in order to incite Palestinians to violence.

On the Temple Mount, the outlawed radical Islamic Movement has been mobilizingArab youth in an attempt to smuggle fire bombs, pipe bombs, Molotov cocktails, and stones into the site in order to attack Jews.

While Palestinian media outlets have been broadcasting misinformation about Israeli police storming the Al Aqsa mosque unprovoked, Islamic Movement-tied youth have been using the mosque as a staging area to attack Jews. The goal seems to be to draw Israeli security forces into the sensitive mosque compound and thus fuel the cycle of rumors regarding Israeli incursions.

The Catholic News Service also neglected to mention that, while claiming there is an Israeli plot against the Al Aqsa mosque, hundreds of Palestinians in October set fire to the Joseph’s Tomb complex, causing severe damage to the revered burial place, considered Judaism’s third holiest site.

The news service went on to complain.

Bethlehem depends on the tourism industry, which has been hard hit for the past two months. Hotels are reporting dismal occupancy rates and no new reservations for the coming months, noted Manhal Assaf, director of the Palestinian Ministry of Tourism Information Office in Bethlehem.

Meanwhile, the Guardian blamed “recent violent incidents” for putting a damper on “this year’s Christmas celebrations in the holy city.”

“Fewer streets were decorated, some festivities were cancelled, and there was no fireworks display, which traditionally marks the lighting of the Christmas tree,” the Guardian reported.  The newspaper did not specify which “violent incidents” it was referring to.

The Guardian noted that progress in Bethlehem is difficult because “82% of Bethlehem falls inside Area C, which is territory under direct Israeli military and administrative control.”

The newspaper, like other media outlets, glossed over a far more important statistic. At Israel’s founding, Bethlehem was 80% Christian. But after the city was handed over to the Palestinians as part of the 1993 Oslo Accords, the city’s Christian population plummeted to 23%. And that statistic includes the satellite towns of Beit Sahour and Beit Jala. Christians now make up only about 12% of the population in the city limits.

What accounts for the Christian exodus?

As reported at WND:

‘As soon as he took over Bethlehem, Arafat unilaterally fired the city’s Christian politicians and replaced them with Muslim cronies. He appointed a Muslim governor, Muhammed Rashad A-Jabar, and deposed of Bethlehem’s city council, which had nine Christians and two Muslims, reducing the number of Christians councilors to a 50-50 split.

‘Arafat then converted a Greek Orthodox monastery next to the Church of Nativity, the believed birthplace of Jesus, into his official Bethlehem residence.

‘Suddenly, after the Palestinians gained the territory, reports of Christian intimidation by Muslims began to surface.

‘Christian leaders and residents told this reporter they face an atmosphere of regular hostility. They said Palestinian armed groups stir tension by holding militant demonstrations and marches in the streets. They spoke of instances in which Christian shopkeepers’ stores were ransacked and Christian homes attacked.

‘They said in the past, Palestinian gunmen fired at Israelis from Christian hilltop communities, drawing Israeli anti-terror raids to their towns.’

Human rights lawyer Justus Weiner toldCBN News:

‘The threat of persecution, including beatings and forced marriages between Christian women and Muslim men, are some of the reasons Christians have left.’

Christians in Bethlehem also speak of their land being unilaterally confiscated by Muslim gangs.

“There are many cases in which Christians have their land stolen by the [Muslim] mafia,” said Samir Qumsiyeh, a Bethlehem Christian leader and owner of the Beit Sahour-based private Al-Mahd (Nativity) TV station.

“It is a regular phenomenon in Bethlehem. They go to a poor Christian person with a forged power of attorney document, and then they say we have papers proving you’re living on our land. If you confront them, many times the Christian is beaten. You can’t do anything about it. The Christian loses, and he runs away,” Qumsiyeh said.

Last year, a Christian woman from Bethlehem revealed to Fox News that her uncle was murdered because he refused to pay the jizyah, or “protection tax” to Muslims there.

In October, Breitbart News reported on threats to the First Baptist Church of Bethlehem, which has been bombed 14 times.

Apparently, the news media is mysteriously uninterested in highlighting the true plight of Bethlehem’s Christians or the real reasons for this year’s downturn in tourist visits to the city.

Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.”  Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

Read More Stories About:

Breitbart Jerusalem

Paul Ryan: ‘I Hate Omnibus Bill’ But I Did It Anyway

AP/J. Scott Applewhite

by MICHELLE FIELDS22 Dec 20153,074

House Speaker Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) told radio host Bill Bennett that he hates Omnibus bills, but he passed a $1 trillion omnibus last week anyway.

“I hate omnibus bills and I don’t like doing these last-second bills,” Ryan said. He added that he blames Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) who filibustered, “all but one appropriations bill” and also his caucus who, “seized up in the middle of the summer, unable to pass any appropriations bills because of some poison pill amendments.”

Ryan was asked why $1.6 billion was allocated to the refugee program, especially considering there was support from dozens of Republican members of Congress for a proposal introduced by Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX) that would temporarily halt the refugee program. Despite the broad support, Ryan decided to fund President Obama’s refugee program, which includes Syrian refugees. He argued that:

$1.6 billion is not simply for Syrian refugees. It’s for the entire refugee program. You remember the unaccompanied children that got dumped onto the border from Honduras and El Salvador? We had to go do emergency legislation…and put new resources on the border in anticipation of that. Well, there’s a fear that could happen again, so that’s what this money is for, to prevent and prepare for any chance that we might have a whole new raft of unaccompanied children getting put on the border.

Ryan also discussed what he hopes to accomplish in 2016, saying that Americans are, ” going to see us put a bill on the president’s desk going after ObamaCare and Planned Parenthood.”

He added that Americans will “see a return to regular order, where men and women in Congress can bring their bills to the floor, make their amendments in order, and we will run Congress the way the Founders intended it to be run.”

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, Immigration, Paul Ryan,Economics, omnibus, Bill Bennett