Attorney General William Barr at the Federalist Society’s 2019 National Lawyers Convention.

By Janita Kan | The Epoch Times | November 16, 2019

Barr Says Democrats, Courts Are Engaged in Efforts to Cripple Presidential Power

U.S. Attorney General William Barr said on Friday that the president’s ability to act in areas he has the power is being undermined by Congress and the courts, saying that they were engaging in efforts to “sabotage” the president’s administration.

During a speech at an annual gathering of conservative lawyers on Friday, Barr defended presidential power and accused opponents of President Donald Trump of “waging a scorched-earth, no-holds-barred war of resistance” against him that involves the “systematic shredding of norms and undermining the rule of law.”

He said since Trump was elected in 2016, his opponents had launched a “resistance” which has “rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver” in an effort to “sabotage the functioning of the executive branch and his administration.”

Barr pointed to Congress saying that the Democrat lawmakers are abdicating their role as legislators and engaging in actions that are effectively blocking the functions of the executive branch.

He said Democrats are pursuing multiple investigations that are designed to “incapacitate the executive branch” and are drowning the executive branch with oversight demands for information.

“Now, I do not deny that Congress has some implied authority to conduct oversight as an incident to its legislative power,” Barr said during his speech to the Federalist Society. “But the sheer volume of what we see today, the pursuit of scores of parallel investigations to an avalanche of subpoenas is plainly designed to incapacitate the executive branch.”

He also accused Senate Democrats of abusing the advice and consent process by systematically opposing and drawing out the approval process of Trump’s appointees, which the attorney general says then prevents the president from being able to build his government.

“That is precisely what the Senate Minority has done from President Trump’s very first day in office,” he said. “As of September of this year, the Senate has been forced to invoke cloture on 236 Trump nominees, each of those representing its own massive consumption of legislative time meant only to delay the inevitable confirmation.”

“It is reasonable to wonder whether a future president will actually be able to form a functioning administration if his or her party does not hold the Senate.”

The attorney general was also critical of judges for encroaching on executive responsibilities and usurping its power, which has substantially undercut the functioning of the presidency.

He said the court has done it a number of ways by appointing itself as the arbiter in disputes between Congress and the executive, something he believes the framers of the Constitution did not intend, as well as expanding the scope and intensity of judicial review that allows them to “substitute their judgment for the president’s.”

He used the example of travel bans, saying that the courts placed a hold on the policy after second-guessing the president’s motive for the ban.

“Attempts by courts to act like amateur psychiatrists attempting to discern an executive official’s real motive often after ordering invasive discovery into the executive branch’s privilege decision-making process, have no more foundation in law than a subpoena to a court to try to determine a judge’s real motive and issuing a decision,” he said.

The president, Barr said, had “certainly thrown out the traditional beltway playbook and punctilio” but he had been upfront with what he was going to do and people still “decided they wanted him to serve as president.”

Barr, who has been repeatedly criticized for defending Trump, said he was actually worried about the presidency and the “steady grinding down of the executive branch’s authority.”

“I’m concerned that the deck has become stacked against the executive,” he said.

Read the original article

What is it REALLY like at a Trump Rally?

By Terri Harris Hill | Oct. 18, 2019 | Facebook

www.facebook.com/1580329214/posts/10217928522756267

What is it REALLY like at a Trump Rally? It’s like nothing you could ever imagine and it’s certainly not like anything portrayed in the media. I was incredibly fortunate to be a volunteer at the Trump Rally in Dallas last night, and I want to share with everyone the truth about the these events. A Trump Rally is a beautiful symphony of gratitude, love, appreciation and patriotism wrapped in organized chaos.

Let me address the organized chaos first, because this part is truly incredible. By 2:45 pm, I overheard security talking to each other reporting that from on the ground counts plus sky views via helicopter, they estimated there were 16,000 people in line. Sixteen thousand of anything is a lot, but these were 16,000 individuals, some who had already spent the night outside the American Airlines Arena, others had arrived before daybreak to stand in line. All the hundreds of individuals I spoke with yesterday had already been standing or sitting in line for 17 to 10 hours. No one was upset, frustrated or tired. Around 2 pm security started adding in extra “lanes” for the increasing crowds, so the people that had been sitting or standing all day were now having to get up and move. Then, as I was moving through the crowds I see the diversity of the people in line. ALL economic backgrounds were represented including every other demographic: white, black, Hispanic, Chinese, Korean, straight, gay, etc. All the little boxes the media like to separate individuals into were present, but they were all patriotic Trump supporters. There were a lot of young people (18-25), many late 20s to mid 30s. The majority were 35-55 age range with the second largest age group being 55-75. However, I also met at least two dozen amazing individuals who were 86-97 years old and they patiently and eagerly waited in line over 14 hours to see President Trump.

There were couples, families, friends and co-workers there together, waiting for hours in line with strangers at the beginning of the day, but friends by mid day. They were helping each other move chairs and coolers, sharing drinks, food and snacks, and friending each other on social media platforms. How were all these individuals of various backgrounds kept in line for over 18 hours until the doors opened to the arena? You’d expect there to be a heavy security presence amongst the lines, police intervening often and settling disputes. Here’s the thing – they weren’t needed. There was a plethora of law enforcement at the rally and arena and in the sky and on rooftops. But they didn’t have to watch the 50,000 plus Trump supporters that showed up for the rally. They kept a secure perimeter, monitored media (more on these idiots later), kept the small amount of protestors that showed up away from the crowds and mostly assisted for medical issues. And each time there was a need for medical assistance, such as someone getting hot, tired or dehydrated from standing in line, although the EMTs were quick to respond, before they arrived, fellow Trump supporters in line who were medical professionals would rush to them, assist and begin assessing them in seconds so when EMT arrived minutes later, in most cases, the individual had already been evaluated by a doctor or nurse. Trump supporters took care of each other so there simply wasn’t an urgent need for police to monitor the rally attendees.

As I walked through the lines and spoke with the attendees patiently waiting they all had definitive personal reasons for why they support President Trump. They weren’t regurgitating political talking points, but told me what President Trump meant to them individually. While each were different and unique, many had similar themes. Since I did not ask for permission to share their specific personal stories – or even think to ask at the time – I will share their general sentiments. They respect his honesty and bluntness. His tweets do not offend them and they appreciate the time and effort he makes to speak directly to the public. They do not trust the media AT ALL. They are sad and disappointed that they can’t trust anything they say, but they’ve come to terms with it. They agree with President Trump that Nancy Pelosi is crazy. They think Adam Schiff should be locked up. Another interesting recurring sentiment is while they do not trust or respect any Democrats, they aren’t particularly supportive of Republicans either. They trust Trump and support his efforts and successes on draining the swamp, and they REALLY want a big swamp draining.

Everything they talked about and shared were contrary to anything ever reported by mainstream media. You don’t hear about these testimonies on television nor do you read about them in newspapers or publications. I have always wondered why it is that the media never share pro-Trump interviews. Is it because they don’t want to be interviewed? It it because they tried but their responses were inarticulate and not worthy of publication? No to both of the above scenarios. These individuals are very articulate, extremely knowledgeable and more than willing to vocally speak up on why they unequivocally support President Trump. The reason you won’t see it in media is because THEY IGNORE THEM! Less than 50 yards separated the media entrance to the main vein of the attendee line. Less than 10 yards separated the press entrance from the VIP line. I watched one media outlet after another walk right past thousands of rally attendees without stopping once to interview anyone and went directly into the building. They weren’t running late and didn’t have time. Most had their cameras out and on their shoulders, they just weren’t interested in filming the Trump supporters. It doesn’t fit their narrative and radical left wing propaganda they are so dedicated to promoting. Watching this unfold really put it into perspective how they aren’t at all interested in reporting truth or what’s important to viewers. They only care about transmitting information that fits the narrative they’re selling.

I didn’t get into the arena until around 6:30 pm. The Trump Team volunteers fortunately had a suite reserved so there wasn’t a rush to find a seat. The place was packed floor to ceiling. Around 7:15 pm I walked out of the suite which overlooked the entrance and there were still people pouring into the arena.

At 7:42 pm, President Trump arrived and the cheering was so loud you could feel it in your internal organs. It shook you physically and emotionally in the most amazing way. I’ve watched several rallies on television or live feed from YouTube and while you could get a sense of the crowd response to certain things he would say, to witness it first hand is completely different. When the crowd roars with applause, you physically feel it. When he mentions the fake news media and the crowd boos, the vibration is indescribable. I can state without any hesitation that Trump supporters absolutely do not trust the media & they resent them for lying to the public. I loved being there and watching the 20,000 plus crowd cheer, boo and then fall silent to listen to their President speak. They love him, respect him and they trust him. Looking in front of the stage where the VIPs were standing, I could see three men close together with their arms around each other. They were veterans and two of them were holding up their friend in the middle who was a double amputee so he could see Trump. It was such a powerful image and one I’ll never forget. A few times I found myself wiping away tears because I was seeing and experiencing such beautiful moments that not only warmed my heart, but strengthened my resolve. When President Trump says the media and democrats are not fighting him, they’re fighting us, he’s right. When he chose to run for President, he made a decision to stand in between the corrupt politicians of the deep state and be our gladiator to fight them off from destroying our country and the values we hold so dear.

I’ve heard media pundits and ignorant politicians refer to Trump supporters as a cult, as ignorant and that we blindly follow him without knowing what we’re doing. That’s a flat out lie. Every single person I spoke to was extremely knowledgeable and knew exactly what the truth was and saw through every lie presented by the fake news media and the politicians who only care about themselves. They don’t look at President Trump as a god, but they love and respect him as a hero. They care about him and his family and they pray for their health and safety. These are people who cannot be bought, manipulated or swayed by lies. President Trump awakened a sleeping giant. He has empowered a nation with truth, honesty & keeping his campaign promises. Trump supporters believe in him because he’s earned our respect. He’s fought for us, so he’s earned our affection. He has made America great again in every sense of the phrase and people have noticed. One of the things that I loved most about this experience was the realization that in every city at every rally, tens of thousands of supporters wait 10-24 hours just for the opportunity to attend a free event to see and support President Trump. And anyone that will do that, will certainly turn out to vote. Trump is unbeatable & any candidate hoping to win any election needs to only say three words and mean them to win any election, “I’m with Trump.” Because here’s the truth, you’re either with us or against us and WE ARE WITH HIM!

The Madness of Progressive Projection

By Victor Davis Hanson | AMERICAN Greatness | Oct. 6, 2019

https://amgreatness.com/2019/10/06/the-madness-of-progressive-projection/

The only Trump “crime” was in his winning an election he was not supposed to win. So after the election, prior illegal acts were redefined as legal, and legal ones as illegal.

Strangest among all the many melodramas of the last two weeks were the blaring headlines that President Trump had dared to talk with the Australian Prime Minister—and referenced the role of foreign governments and in particular Australia in U.S. electoral politics in 2016.

Given the hue and cry of Democrats in the last three years, they should have been delighted that the president was peremptorily warning foreign nations to cease to currying favor with presidential candidates and asking them to hand over what information, if any, they had of past “collusion.” In fact, they were outraged and once again returned to “collusion” charges, as if Trump were subverting the 2020 election.

I Accuse You of Doing What I Did!

Unfortunately, projection is now an encompassing explanation for almost everything the Left alleges. After all, the Australian government’s own connection with U.S. elections is only on the American political radar because in 2016 its former foreign minister, Alexander Downer, who had steered a large Australian donation to the Clinton Foundation, may have colluded with intelligence agencies to entrap George Papadopoulos, a minor and transient Trump campaign employee, to find dirt on the Trump campaign. Bringing up Australia is like the Left leaving a scented trail to its own past miscreant behavior.

Take the Ukraine. It would be hard for any Democrat politico to argue that Ukraine was not involved in 2016 to feed faux-charges of “collusion” to Hillary Clinton—a fact even the liberal press once repeatedly conceded. Ukrainians were only too happy to meet and consult with U.S. intelligence officials when they assumed Hillary Clinton was to be elected, and their yeoman service in frying the sure loser Trump would somehow be appreciated and awarded.

When Joe Biden makes the accusation that Trump was colluding with the new Ukrainian president to reopen investigation of the Biden influence-peddling conglomerate, naturally we knew that Ukraine in general had been leveraged in the past to help the Clinton campaign, and by Biden himself in particular to enrich his own son. Poor contorted Ukraine now backpedals as fast as it can—from trying to help destroy Trump in 2016 to suggesting in 2019 that it regrets having done so. And soon it will hedge its cooperation in 2020—unsure whether the Democrat colluders of 2016 will return to power and it can expect to be punished for renouncing them in 2019.


In surreal fashion, every charge that Biden levels against Trump’s supposed thought crimes amounts to more evidence of his own real wrongdoing in using threats to cut off aid to a foreign nation in exchange for dropping investigation of his wayward son. The latter’s only apparent qualifications for employment are shameless readiness to play on his father’s position.

Projection as a Leftist symptom came to the fore during the Mueller investigation when Mueller’s dream team of progressive attorneys began pressuring a number of minor Trump former campaign officials, and eventually his national security advisor, on trumped up charges—from leaking sensitive documents, to obstruction of justice, to lying to federal officials, to collusion (whatever that non-legal term denotes) with foreign governments and in particular Russia. In each case, Mueller ended up hunting down possible misdemeanors while ignoring likely felonies.

Leaking? By James Comey’s own admissions he had leaked confidential presidential memos he composed for the expressed purpose of later using them as insurance policies against Trump, some of which material was classified as secret.

As far as lying to federal officials, Mueller simply ignored that Andrew McCabe was under federal referrals for lying to investigators about his own strategic leaking of FBI investigatory material. Both McCabe and Comey likely lied to a FISA court by not apprising judges that their prime evidence, the Steele dossier, was not verified, its foreign author severed from FBI contractual employment, and many of its assertions known to be demonstrably untrue.

The Left has accused critics of Biden of indulging in supposition and hearsay and using unnamed sources—despite the fired Ukrainian prosecutor’s insistence that he was dismissed due to Biden’s interference and demands to end the investigation into the likely criminality of Biden’s own son Hunter. Yet, the so-called “whistleblower” complaint admittedly is without any firsthand evidence, and rests entirely on two nothings—second and third-hand information the complainant claims he heard, and sources within the White House for such rumors that remain anonymous, in other words accusers of the president who refuse to identify themselves.


In truth, the “whistleblower” is no such thing. He or she is a disgruntled and partisan intelligence bureaucrat, who violated the whistleblower statutes by first going to Rep. Adam Schiff’s (D.-Calif.) staff on the House Intelligence Committee to get help in translating his narrative into Mueller/Steele dossier legalese, and in strategizing the timing of his accusations. Expect a series of John Brennan-surrogate intelligence agency whistleblowers to follow once it is established that now hearsay is admissible and there is no downside to violating the statutes by first conferring with Adam Schiff’s staff.

Conflict of What?

Conflict of Interest? We are hearing allegations that Attorney General Barr cannot investigate any of the whistleblower’s accusations because he is mentioned as interested in learning from the Ukraine any information available concerning 2016 interference into the U.S. election—this coming at a time when a nondescript, mostly unethical and quite disturbed Hunter Biden parlayed his ignorance about foreign affairs, the oil business, and Ukraine into a lucrative “consultantship,” predicated on the wink and nod reality that his dad, who knew quite well what his heretofore miscreant son had landed upon, was overseeing U.S.-Ukrainian aid.

But conflict of interest is in fact the entire basis of the last three years of endless investigations of the 2016 election and purported Trump “collusion.” Do we remember the contortions taken by Andrew McCabe to ignore the fact that he was “investigating” Hillary Clinton emails, shortly after Clinton-related funds were given to his own wife, a candidate for the state legislature in Virginia?

A blatant conflict of interest was the intertwine of Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, two of Mueller’s investigators and previously at the nexus of investigating almost every alleged wrongdoing of Trump. Neither disclosed that they were conducting FBI business as supposed independent investigators while conducting an affair.

Neither disclosed that they were investigating supposed Trump crimes while communicating daily their disgust for Trump, their disdain for his supporters, and their boasts about stopping the Trump candidacy and later his presidency. Neither disclosed why and when they were fired from the Mueller team, perhaps in deference to Robert Mueller’s unethical gambit of staggering their departures, claiming each was merely “reassigned,” and not disclosing their absences until weeks after they left.

Their conflicts of interest turned to farce when we learned that the two helped reclassify their former boss James Comey’s secret memos of presidential conversations as non-felonious “confidential”—a sort of replay of Strzok’s earlier rewording of the Comey assessment of the Clinton email scandal to ensure she would not be charged with a felony.

The locus classicus of conflict of interest was the Loretta Lynch/James Comey investigation of candidate Hillary Clinton. Comey has admitted he handled the Clinton examination in expectation she would win the presidency (and thus become his new boss). Lynch has confessed (but only after being caught by the media) that she met secretly with Bill Clinton at a time when the Justice Department was supposedly investigating his wife. We are asked to believe that their respective private jets actually bumped into each other on the Phoenix tarmac (someone should count the nation’s average daily landings of private jets and compute the possibility of such a happenstance meeting) and that they suddenly decided to have a chat about their grandchildren and other mutual family gossip.

The Collusion Boomerang

Collusion? Mueller found no proof that Trump colluded with Russian officials. But to come to such a conclusion, by needs he had to ignore all the evidence leading to an open and shut case, that Hillary Clinton used three firewalls—the Democratic National Committee, the Perkins Coie legal firm, and Fusion GPS opposition research team—to hide her payments to British national Christopher Steele, an admitted Trump-hater, who hired Russian fabricators to find dirt on Trump, and then created a mostly mythical “dossier” on Clinton’s opponent.

In turn, the dossier was seeded among fellow traveler Trump haters in the DOJ, FBI, DNI, and CIA like Bruce Ohr, John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, and Andrew McCabe. These partisan allies of the Democrats working in government made sure that it was leaked to the media before the 2016 election.

Obstruction? Trump was not referred for wrongdoing on obstruction, because even the partisan Mueller team believed that they could never indict him after his tenure was over, given the paucity of actionable evidence. After all, it is hard to obstruct justice if a crime did not take place. But given that a FISA court was deluded, classified documents leaked, government officials caught lying, and foreign governments found to have compiled dirt on a presidential candidate, and no one yet has been charged—the question arises, “Why?”

Who made the decision to quash the investigation of Hillary Clinton after she destroyed over 30,000 emails under subpoena? Who excused Obama officials after they knowingly misled federal FISA court justices? Who leaked information about a surveilled phone call between Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador? Who decided that it was acceptable for Samantha Power to request over 260 times the unmasking of names of American citizens swept up in government surveillance, many of which were illegally leaked to the press and most of which Power denied requesting and alleged others had used her name to do so? Somewhere, somehow there was a great deal of obstruction and distortion of justice that so far has prevented the pursuit of these criminal acts.

Destruction of evidence? House Democrats are demanding that the supposed transcript of the Trump phone call to the Ukrainian president be kept safe, as if it might “disappear.” This in the aftermath of revelations that Hillary Clinton bleach-bitted over 30,000 of her emails under subpoena, and had her mobile devices crushed. This in the aftermath of the Mueller teams and FBI sheepishly conceding that hundreds of text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok simply “disappeared.” This in the aftermath of the hard drives of the supposed hacked DNC computer never being turned over to the FBI but instead to the Ukrainian connected Crowdstrike, and whose current whereabouts are not really known to this day.

Recently David Gergen warned that if the “whistleblower” were injured, it would be Trump’s fault. I am assuming Gergen knows that three presidential candidates have boasted of their desires to beat up the president or see him disappear for good in an elevator. Rhetorically killing the president is a favorite pastime of Hollywood celebrities. Does Gergen remember the fate of Rep. Steve Scalise (R.-La.) and the attempted take-out of the many Republican congressional leadership by an unhinged Bernie Sanders zealot? Or the threats issued by Rep. Maxine Waters (D.-Calif.) to hound and harass Trump officials throughout their daily routines?

The Nature of Projection

A cynic might conclude that the last past wasted three years were really not about Trump at all. He was entirely irrelevant, and was referenced largely as a means to preempt investigation of massive Obama-era illegality in 2016, which centered on warping the law to destroy his supposed widely detestable and dangerous campaign that threatened Democratic control of the government. As a result, in almost every instance of alleged Trump wrongdoing the accusers only bring attention to themselves and their own actual wrongdoing.

What is behind this strange collective psychological condition of projecting one’s own guilt on to another? In part, out of embarrassment that Hillary Clinton blew an election despite having the edge in money, the media, and the popular culture, Trump was recalibrated as a cheater. Otherwise it was impossible to accept that the Manhattan wheeler-dealer had outsmarted, out-campaigned, and out-hustled the progressives’ best and brightest—and worse yet might have every intention of keeping his campaign promises to undo the entire Obama agenda.

For tens of thousands of government careerists, by and large political partisans of the Democrats, using any means necessary was justified by the supposedly noble ends of ending the coarse Trump. Groupthink ensued that led to mass hysteria, as the fantasies needed to invoke the 25th Amendment, the Logan Act, and the emoluments clause, meant that their own “collusion” and “obstruction” simply no longer mattered. One would have thought Trump got caught on a hot mic offering a quid pro quo to Vladimir Putin or monitoring the communications of Associated Press reporters.

Instead the zeal and loudness with which one advanced Trump collusion narratives brought both careerist and psychological rewards. The old scandals like Uranium One, the shenanigans around the Iran Deal, the hot mic Obama quid pro quos, and the Hillary email fix were shrugged off, as proof of progressive zeal put to a good cause. To raise the question of  unequal application of the law is now dismissed as “whataboutism.”

In sum, had Trump just lost the election, the illegal use of the intelligence agencies by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s administration would have been an insider topic of pride. A now defeated and humiliated Trump would never have been charged with collusion and obstruction during the 2016 campaign. Instead, he would be written off a naïf who never understood leftwing warnings analogous to Senator Chuck Schumer’s (D.-N.Y.) later admonition, that Trump was being “really dumb,” given that, “You take on the Intelligence Community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” Or Samantha Power’s postelection smirk, “Not a good idea to piss off John Brennan.”

The only Trump “crime” was in his winning an election he was not supposed to win, which then “pissed” off the wrong people and of course amounted to acting “dumb” with the intelligence agencies. So after the election, prior illegal acts were redefined as legal, and legal ones as illegal.

https://amgreatness.com/author/victor-davis-hanson/

Victor Davis Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson is an American military historian, columnist, former classics professor, and scholar of ancient warfare. He was a professor of classics at California…

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.

In 2013, Castro Praised Obama ‘Enforcement’ on Immigration

‘Everyone agrees that we need to secure our border’

By David Rutz | The Washington Beacon | Sep. 16, 2019

https://freebeacon.com/issues/in-2013-castro-praised-obama-enforcement-on-immigration-called-open-borders-extreme/

2020 presidential candidate Julián Castro (D.) has one of the most liberal platforms in the field on immigration, but in 2013 he strongly backed Obama-era immigration policies and said the notion of “open borders” was too extreme to consider.

Castro, the former Obama Housing and Urban Development chief, has set a far-left marker for the 2020 primary candidates on immigration. He has called for decriminalization of illegal border crossings, taking down some sections of existing border barriers, and providing free health care to illegal immigrants, the Texas Tribune reported.

Castro attacked other candidates in the field as insufficiently progressive on the issue, including former Vice President Joe Biden at last week’s debate, when left-wing journalist Jorge Ramos challenged Biden on the Obama administration’s deportation of three million illegal immigrants.

Castro, who drew criticism for attacking Biden’s memory in the same debate, accused Biden of being unwilling to take responsibility for the deportation policies despised by liberals.

But as mayor of San Antonio, Castro lauded the Obama administration’s “enforcement” of immigration law during questioning by House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.) on Feb. 5, 2013.

“Do you think that interior enforcement should play a role to discourage future immigration by those not documented by making jobs to them unavailable? Should that be a part of that comprehensive immigration reform?” Goodlatte asked.

“Do you think that interior enforcement should play a role to discourage future immigration by those not documented by making jobs to them unavailable? Should that be a part of that comprehensive immigration reform?” Goodlatte asked.

“That’s a great question,” Castro said. “I do believe that enforcement, both in terms of active enforcement on our borders—and under this administration there has been tremendous progress with regard to enforcement. In fact, the triggers in the 2007 proposal have just about all been met. But going forward, of course, enforcement is part of the conversation.”

“Both in terms of border security and interior security, comprehensive immigration reform gives us the opportunity to make this work better at every single juncture,” he added later.

“Are there options that we should consider between the extremes of mass deportation and a pathway to citizenship for those not lawfully present in the United States?” Goodlatte asked.

“Well, let me say that I do believe that a pathway to citizenship should be the option that the Congress selects,” Castro said. “I don’t see that as an extreme option. In fact, as one of the representatives pointed out, if we look at our history, generally what we found is that Congress over time has chosen that option, that path to citizenship. I would disagree with the characterization of that as the extreme. The extreme, I would say, just to fill that out, would be open borders. Nobody agrees with open borders. Everyone agrees that we need to secure our border.”

Castro now refers to the idea of “open borders” as a “right-wing talking point,” but former Obama Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson used that phrase in June to describe Castro’s position on decriminalizing illegal border crossings.

“That is tantamount to declaring publicly that we have open borders,” Johnson said. “That is unworkable, unwise and does not have the support of a majority of American people or the Congress, and if we had such a policy, instead of 100,000 apprehensions a month, it will be multiples of that.”

Castro spokesman Sawyer Hackett told the Texas Tribune Castro was not demonstrating support for all of Obama’s policies during his testimony in 2013.

“He was applauding the administration’s effort to prioritize immigration enforcement, not their efforts to deport mass numbers of immigrants,” Hackett said.

Castro resigned the mayoralty in 2014 upon joining the Obama administration at HUD. He is considered a long shot for the Democratic nomination, but leading candidates Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) share his position on decriminalization of illegal border crossings.

Bill O’Reilly: Bill’s Weekly Column – The Ignorance Factor

Bill O’Reilly: Bill’s Weekly Column – The Ignorance Factor | September 16, 2019

https://www.billoreilly.com/images/aandb/BOR_ONSET.png

Many Americans, including this one, are perplexed by some disturbing opinions being put forth in this country.  

Let’s start with a recent Gallup Poll that says 43 percent of Americans, including 52 percent of democrats, believe it was a mistake to send U.S. troops to Afghanistan after the 9/11 terror attack.

If you remember, the mass murder was enabled inside Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden and his outlaw al Qaeda militants were based.  The terrorists trained on Afghan soil and were protected by the Taliban government.
After the 9/11 murder, President George W. Bush demanded the Taliban arrest bin Laden and hand him over for prosecution under threat of U.S. and NATO invasion, which is exactly what happened after the Taliban refused to take action against al Qaeda. 
Subsequently, Afghanistan has been an ongoing problem and fair-minded people can debate the policy there.  But to say troops should not have removed the criminal Taliban in the first place, is absolutely irresponsible.  

If the USA did not avenge the al Qaeda attack, terrorism would have increased everywhere and President Bush would likely have been impeached.

And then there’s private property, which is protected from government seizure by the Constitution.  According to polling on Realclearpolitics.com, about 35 percent of democrats support the socialist proposals of either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.  Both presidential candidates have made it clear they would impose a “wealth” tax on the assets of affluent Americans.  That is seizure of private property because those assets have already been subjected to tax.  
Finally, there is now acceptance in liberal states like California and New York of abortion on demand up until birth, a practice some believe has Nazi-like implications.  This view is so extreme that Hillary Clinton and others running on the democrat side never could have endorsed it even three years ago.  Today, it is policy for many democrats including the aforementioned Sanders and Warren.
What has allowed the radical left agenda to flourish is a sweeping change in the national media.  Reacting with rank hatred to the Trump administration, the press has now mainstreamed far left thought.  No longer is a zealot like Elizabeth Warren an outlier.  Nope, she’s presidential timber in many media precincts.
The uninformed and/or apathetic American picks up on this.  No longer are politicians who deny due process or advocate Constitutional violations even challenged.  Now they stand on debate stages smiling at press moderators who have no problem with their radicalism and even, in the case of late-term abortion, embrace it.
But it is the attitude of many regular folks, not the media, that is most worrisome.  The ignorance and apathy being documented in national polling is frightening.  The United States was founded on the philosophy that life and private property is sacrosanct and that an attack on the country where thousands of citizens die, is an act of war.
 
Apparently millions of us don’t get that.
Or don’t want those principles anymore.
Either way, we had better take notice.
Posted by Bill O’Reilly

Derrota 2020

El Norte, 27 Abril, 2019

Javier Livas
El ex Vicepresidente Joe Biden -en la gestión de Barack Obama- es el precandidato número 20 entre los demócratas que retarán al Presidente Donald Trump en 2020. Yo, desde ahora, los doy por derrotados sea quien sea el candidato.

No me interesa dar consejos políticos en un país que no es el mío. Sin embargo, habrá un buen número de lectores que quieran saber por qué estoy tan seguro de que Trump se reelige a fines del año que viene para otros cuatro años.
 Habrá quienes quieran casar apuestas. Gracias a las “fake news” hay muchos clientes disponibles.

Mi pronóstico por supuesto suena descabellado para quienes desde la toma de posesión de Trump han estado muy receptivos de las noticias “fake” que lo ponían no sólo de patitas en la calle, sino hasta en la cárcel.

Me duele que la desinformación circule tan sesgada en México; y más que haya tanta gente creyendo que basta desear algo con suficiente empeño para que suceda.

Los demócratas están derrotados por varias razones. Algunas las tomo de Victor Davis Hanson, analista y gran intelectual norteamericano. Él dice que su análisis histórico revela tres grandes condiciones por las cuales un Presidente pierde su reelección.

Una causa de derrota es una economía en problemas graves. En esta materia, Trump está lo mejor posicionado que cualquier otro Presidente en la historia de Estados Unidos. La economía está boyante, los empleos al máximo y por más que pudiera empeorar el escenario eso no sucedería antes de noviembre del año que viene.

La otra causa de derrota es una guerra fallida. Algo similar a lo que sucedió con el Presidente Bush padre. Aquí, Trump está vacunado. Ha infligido golpes certeros a los insurgentes del Estado Islámico y está por salirse de Afganistán.

Una tercera circunstancia adversa a la reelección radica en un escándalo tipo Watergate. En este terreno Trump es la víctima -no el perpetrador- de un intento de golpe de Estado silencioso.

El ansiado informe de Robert Mueller sobre la posible colusión con los rusos en la campaña del 2016 exime a Trump de las acusaciones de traidor a la patria.

En una voltereta espectacular, son sus acusadores los que muy probablemente irán a un juicio penal por revelar información secreta y por conspiración.

Más y más indicios ubican el plan y el esfuerzo inicial en la Casa Blanca de Obama y los directores del consejo de seguridad, la CIA y el FBI. Ése sí que fue complot. Ahora el nuevo Procurador William Barr tiene a los conspiradores de pechito.

Los demócratas también van a perder, y ésta ya es mi opinión, porque son tan tontos que ahora quieren desaforar y condenar a Trump por la información relativa al delito de obstrucción de justicia del que también salió librado.

No se dan cuenta de que entre más lo ataquen, más lo fortalecen. Ya varios de ellos reconocen que no hay tiempo, que la campaña de 2020 está encima y dan como ejemplo que a los republicanos les falló ir contra Bill Clinton, por el escándalo Lewinsky, a pesar de que éste sí mintió bajo juramento.

Hay otra razón que ayudará a Trump. En vez de estorbar la investigación, lo cierto es que el Presidente colaboró muchísimo, como nunca. ¡Renunció a invocar privilegio presidencial! Envió millones de documentos, declaró por escrito, ordenó a su abogado contestar preguntas y lo estuvieron bombardeando durante 30 horas.

Al margen de la gente que le tiene antipatía, no hay duda de que el Presidente Trump se portó increíblemente transparente. Si a eso agregamos la transparencia que resulta de sus tuits, creo que el pueblo norteamericano sabrá compensarlo por el gran regalo de información sin intermediarios que les proporciona. Este precedente hará historia.

Hay muchos otros éxitos que me permiten apostar a ciegas a favor del triunfo de Trump en 2020. Gran contraste con los que estaban seguros de que no terminaría su periodo de cuatro años. Cada quien ve el mundo como quiere y en eso no me meto.

 https://refor.ma/bbOBi

javierlivas@prodigy.net.mx