SCOTUS theater: Kagan kabuki

Lead Story

SCOTUS theater: Kagan kabuki

By Michelle Malkin  •  June 28, 2010 04:12 AM

Places, places everyone.

Today, the curtain officially opens on the Senate “battle” over Obama Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. “Battle” gets ghost quotes because all the poohbahs on Capitol Hill are already treating her confirmation as a “foregone conclusion.”

Beltway Republicans will put up just enough of a fight to placate grass-roots conservative activists on Kagan’s radical social views, while the nutroots will pout (but not too loudly) that Kagan isn’t enough of a liberal activist for them. And GOP Sen. Lindsay Graham, after several minutes of obligatory grandstanding mixed with obsequious suck-uppage, will cast his vote with Kagan and Obama — as he did with Sonia Sotomayor (whom he praised as “bold” and edgy”).

Here’s one MSM list of the “5 things to watch out for” during Kagan Kabuki.

I would add:

Will Kagan impersonate Goodwin Liu? Confronted with his radical writings and speeches, Obama’s far Left 9th Circuit Court of Appeals nominee cut and ran from his long-held political beliefs on everything from the welfare state to racial quotas to the role of the judiciary.

Will Kagan impersonate Joe Biden? Kagan’s hostility to the 2nd amendment is certain to be raised by Republicans. When faced with criticism from gun-owners regarding his boss’s views, Biden turned into a gun-slinging cowboy — and attempted to assuage self-defense activists by bragging about his own shotguns and Berretta.

(Speaking of guns, the Supreme Court is expected to hand down a ruling today in the gun rights McDonald v. Chicago case.

How many times will we hear the Kagan=”everyday people/compelling personal story” meme before the hearings are through? Hey, it worked for Sonia Sotomayor

– How quickly will left-wing WaPo fashion writer Robin Givhan (who bashed Bush-nominated Supreme Court Justice John Roberts’ children’s clothes) crank out a piece praising Kagan’s sensible, down-to-earth, common people style?

– How many times will we hear Democrat Senators vouch for Kagan’s commitment to social-engineering “diversity” at Harvard?

How many Senators have actually read through the 44,000-plus pages of Kagan-authored legal memos, analysis and other documents during the Clinton era just released less than two weeks ago. Answer: ZERO.

***
Americans United for Life has a Kagan backgrounder and questions for the nominee here.FoxNews.com has a rundown of today’s events:

Lee Ross at

Monday’s kickoff will be the most scripted day of the confirmation hearing that is expected to last all week. The day is dedicated to opening statements from the 19 Senate Judiciary Committee members (12 Democrats and seven Republicans) and the nominee. Kagan will be presented to the committee by Massachusetts Senators John Kerry (D) and Scott Brown (R). In between her work in the Clinton and Obama Administrations, Kagan was a professor at Harvard Law School outside Boston. It is customary for nominees to be presented to the committee by their home state senators, though Kagan was born and raised in New York City and once taught at the University of Chicago Law School.

Kagan’s statement to the committee will not come until late in the afternoon and will end the hearing’s first day. It will mark the first substantive remarks from her since the May 10 nomination announcement at the White House. In the weeks since, Kagan has met with 62 senators and more recently has spent several hours each day preparing her answers to questions she expects to hear.

Here’s a brief summation of conservative concerns about Kagan from Utah GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch. I know. I know. It’s Senator Open Borders Hatch. But at least he’s right about this:

“Judges who bend the Constitution to their own values and who use the Constitution to pursue their own vision for society take this right away from the people and undermine liberty itself.”

A Mexican drug cartel has threatened Nogales police officers, saying they will be targeted for retribution if they conduct off-duty busts

Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, June 22, 2010, 5:43 AM

The Mexican drug cartel warned Arizona police officers this week to look the other way when they are off duty or face sniper fire.
These foreign criminals are now openly threatening our law enforcement officers here in America.

Mexican Drug Cartel Threatens Nogales, AZ Police Officers with Snipers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RWtW0AjO7M&feature=player_embedded

The Sierra Vista Herald reported, via Free Republic:

A Mexican drug cartel has threatened Nogales police officers, saying they will be targeted for retribution if they conduct off-duty busts.

Nogales Police Chief Jeffrey Kirkham told the Nogales International late last week that the threats stemmed from an incident approximately two weeks ago, when off-duty officers surprised marijuana smugglers while riding horseback in an unincorporated border area east of town. The officers seized part of the drug load, and the smugglers were able to flee back into Mexico with the other part.

“As a result of that,” Kirkham said, “our officers have received threats from the cartel that they are to look the other way if they are off duty, or they will be targeted by a sniper or by other means.

NPD learned of the threats through informants, he said.

Following the threats, Kirkham said, NPD notified the Border Patrol and other federal law enforcement agencies, which responded by stepping up manpower and surveillance in the area where the off-duty bust occurred. In addition, Kirkham met with his officers to advise them of the threats and to authorize them to take precautions, including wearing firearms while off duty.

“The Nogales Police Department will not be intimidated,” he said.

Kirkham said the threats highlighted the need for more federal law enforcement at the border. “This has nothing to do with SB 1070 or illegal immigration,” he said, “it has to do with narco-trafficking and the violence of the cartels.”

New Bill Gives Obama ‘Kill Switch’ To Shut Down The Internet

New Bill Gives Obama ‘Kill Switch’ To Shut Down The Internet

 

           

overnment would have “absolute power” to seize control of the world wide web under Lieberman legislation

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, June 16, 2010

The federal government would have “absolute power” to shut down the Internet under the terms of a new US Senate bill being pushed by Joe Lieberman, legislation which would hand President Obama a figurative “kill switch” to seize control of the world wide web in response to a Homeland Security directive.

Lieberman has been pushing for government regulation of the Internet for years under the guise of cybersecurity, but this new bill goes even further in handing emergency powers over to the feds which could be used to silence free speech under the pretext of a national emergency.

“The legislation says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines or software firms that the US Government selects “shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed” by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined,” reports ZDNet’s Declan McCullagh.

The 197-page bill (PDF) is entitled Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA.

Technology lobbying group TechAmerica warned that the legislation created “the potential for absolute power,” while the Center for Democracy and Technology worried that the bill’s emergency powers “include authority to shut down or limit internet traffic on private systems.”

The bill has the vehement support of Senator Jay Rockefeller, who last year asked during a congressional hearing, “Would it had been better if we’d have never invented the Internet?” while fearmongering about cyber-terrorists preparing attacks.

The largest Internet-based corporations are seemingly happy with the bill, primarily because it contains language that will give them immunity from civil lawsuits and also reimburse them for any costs incurred if the Internet is shut down for a period of time.

“If there’s an “incident related to a cyber vulnerability” after the President has declared an emergency and the affected company has followed federal standards, plaintiffs’ lawyers cannot collect damages for economic harm. And if the harm is caused by an emergency order from the Feds, not only does the possibility of damages virtually disappear, but the US Treasury will even pick up the private company’s tab,” writes McCullagh.

Tom Gann, McAfee’s vice president for government relations, described the bill as a “very important piece of legislation”.

As we have repeatedly warned for years, the federal government is desperate to seize control of the Internet because the establishment is petrified at the fact that alternative and independent media outlets are now eclipsing corporate media outlets in terms of audience share, trust, and influence.

We witnessed another example of this on Monday when establishment Congressman Bob Etheridge was publicly shamed after he was shown on video assaulting two college students who asked him a question. Two kids with a flip cam and a You Tube account could very well have changed the course of a state election, another startling reminder of the power of the Internet and independent media, and why the establishment is desperate to take that power away.

The government has been searching for any avenue possible through which to regulate free speech on the Internet and strangle alternative media outlets, with the FTC recently proposing a “Drudge Tax” that would force independent media organizations to pay fees that would be used to fund mainstream newspapers.

Similar legislation aimed at imposing Chinese-style censorship of the Internet and giving the state the power to shut down networks has already been passed globally, including in the UK, New Zealand and Australia.

We have extensively covered efforts to scrap the internet as we know it and move toward a greatly restricted “internet 2″ system. Handing government the power to control the Internet would only be the first step towards this system, whereby individual ID’s and government permission would be required simply to operate a website.

The Lieberman bill needs to be met with fierce opposition at every level and from across the political spectrum. Regulation of the Internet would not only represent a massive assault on free speech, it would also create new roadblocks for e-commerce and as a consequence further devastate the economy.

U.S. military told to get ready in Korea standoff

U.S. military told to get ready in Korea standoff

Obama orders commanders to prepare ‘to deter future aggression’
msnbc.com staff and news service reports
updated 5:41 a.m. MT, Mon., May 24, 2010

WASHINGTON – The White House said Monday that President Barack Obama “fully supports” the South Korean president and his response to the torpedo attack by North Korea that sank a South Korean naval ship.

 

In a statement, the White House said Seoul can continue to count on the full backing of the United States and said U.S. military commanders had been told to work with their South Korean counterparts “to ensure readiness and to deter future aggression.”

 

The administration said it endorsed President Lee Myung-bak’s demand that “North Korea immediately apologize and punish those responsible for the attack, and, most importantly, stop its belligerent and threatening behavior.”

 

Late last week, a team of international investigators accused North Korea of torpedoing the Cheonan corvette in March, killing 46 sailors in one of the deadliest clashes between the two since the 1950-53 Korean War.

 

The United States still has about 28,000 troops in South Korea to provide military support. The two Koreas, still technically at war, have more than 1 million troops near their border.

 

“U.S. support for South Korea’s defense is unequivocal, and the President has directed his military commanders to coordinate closely with their Republic of Korea counterparts to ensure readiness and to deter future aggression,” the statement said.

 

“We will build on an already strong foundation of excellent cooperation between our militaries and explore further enhancements to our joint posture on the Peninsula as part of our ongoing dialogue,” it said.

 

“The U.S. will continue to work with the Republic of Korea and other allies and partners to reduce the threat that North Korea poses to regional stability,” the statement added.

 

Lee said Monday that South Korea would no longer tolerate the North’s “brutality” and said the repressive communist regime would pay for the surprise March 26 torpedo attack.

 

He also vowed to cut off all trade with the North and take Pyongyang to the U.N. Security Council for punishment over the sinking of the warship Cheonan.

 

 

Speaking earlier in Beijing, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the North must be held accountable and she is pushing to get the support of China, North Korea’s top ally, for diplomatic action.

 

Clinton warned of a “highly precarious” security situation in the region, and said North Korea’s neighbors, including Pyongyang ally China, understood the seriousness of the matter.

 

Clinton would not say whether such action would include new international sanctions against the North, and said she was engaged in intense consultations with China and other nations about the next step.

 

“We are working hard to avoid an escalation of belligerence and provocation,” Clinton said.

 

So far, China has refrained from criticizing the North, which it supplied with troops during the Korean War

 

Obama and Lee have agreed to meet at the G20 summit in Canada next month, the statement said.

 

 

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37309788/ns/world_news-asiapacific/

Part-Time Allies Yemen and Pakistan are still not committed to the war against radical Islam.

Part-Time Allies

Posted By Ryan Mauro On May 19, 2010 @ 12:06 am In FrontPage | 1 Comment

President Bush famously said after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that every country had to decide whether they were with us or against us. Unfortunately, several so-called allies have decided to tackle some terrorist groups and not others, believing that the U.S. has no other option but to accept their half-hearted collaboration. Recent news from Yemen and Pakistan show that these two countries are double-dealing and need to be held accountable.

The Yemeni Foreign Minister Abu Bakr al-Qirbi announced [1] that high-level Al-Qaeda leader, Anwar al-Awlaki, will not be extradited to the United States if they capture him, even though he is an American citizen. Al-Awlaki is thought to be connected to the Fort Hood shooting and the Christmas Day underwear bomb plot. The Al-Qaeda branch in Yemen is becoming increasingly active, with up to 36 former prison inmates in the U.S. having joined [2] the group.

This follows an earlier incident where al-Qirbi said [3] that his government was not actively trying to arrest al-Awlaki, saying he was seen as a preacher. He then clarified [4] that statement, saying he was only referring to the period when al-Awlaki initially moved to Yemen from the U.S. and was not accused of being involved in terrorism. He explained that the Yemeni government wants to arrest al-Awlaki, but blamed the U.S. for not providing adequate intelligence to allow them to locate him. We have heard the Pakistanis use a similar defense over the years when confronted with their resistance to arresting Taliban leaders.

Yemen has long harbored Al-Qaeda and radical Salafi elements, making various deals [5] with them and openly negotiating truces when conflict arose. President Saleh’s government and security forces are known to have close ties to the Salafi tribes, whose members are reliable allies when fighting the radical Shiite Houthi rebels.

Imprisoned Al-Qaeda members frequently “escape” from prison. In February 2006, 23 Al-Qaeda members, including some involved in the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole and the 2003 bombings in Riyadh, found [6] their way out of a high-security prison. When they were rearrested, the Yemeni government pardoned them after they disavowed terrorism. In February 2009, Yemen released [7] 170 Al-Qaeda members after they promised not to return to terrorism. The Arab press reported [8] last year that two Al-Qaeda camps were in Yemen, with one in Abyan Province housing about 400 terrorists.

The problem is similar in Pakistan. Although the Pakistani military has launched offensives to take back territory held by Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and like-minded terrorists, the government is still allowing some terrorist groups and Taliban figures to have freedom on their soil. The arrest in February of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the second-in-command of the Taliban, was seen as a turning point, but at least two other senior Taliban officials were released. [9]

The Haqqani network, which is allied to the Taliban, remains immune [10] from Pakistani counter-terrorism efforts. Last May, U.S. intelligence found [11] that the Taliban’s capabilities had expanded due to the assistance of members of Pakistan’s ISI intelligence service which was providing money, weapons and even “strategic planning guidance.” The ISI’s S-Wing [12] was accused of supporting the branch of the Taliban in Quetta in Baluchistan Province, where Mullah Omar is believed to be, as well as the Haqqani network and the forces led by Guldbuddin Hekmatyar, another Taliban ally.

The failed plot by Faisal Shahzad and the Pakistani Taliban to set off a car bomb in Times Square proves that all jihadist groups in Pakistan must be eliminated in order to stop attacks on the homeland and on American interests. At least four members of Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) have been arrested by the Pakistani authorities as part of their investigation into Shahzad, and he has told his captors that he met with a member of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LET) while in Pakistan. In December, five Americans who traveled to Pakistan to join the Taliban and Al-Qaeda stayed at a safehouse provided by a member of Jaish-e-Mohammed.

The leader of Jaish-e-Mohammed openly [13] preaches anti-Western extremism and jihad in Pakistan and although Lashkar-e-Taiba is banned, it continues to operate under the name of Jamaat-ud-Dawa. Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, the founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba, is on house arrest but still preaches [14] to thousands in Lahore.

The two groups are even allowed to operate schools. Reporters have found [15] two madrasses openly run by Jaish-e-Mohammed. After the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the LET said [16] it ran over 202 schools as well as hospitals and charities in the country. Only a handful of the schools have been closed. Reporters have also observed the JEM’s headquarters in Bahawalpur in Punjab Province operating freely. After their presence was learned of, a checkpoint was established but the facility remained open.

Arnaud de Borchgrave wrote [17] in The Washington Times recently that Pakistan “is still producing an estimated 10,000 potential jihadis a year out of 500,000 graduates from Pakistan’s 11,000 madrasses.” Any school run by extremist needs to be seen as an enemy base, no different than a training camp.

The U.S. cannot afford to allow Yemen and Pakistan to continue their current behavior. The governments of these two countries may argue that aggressive action could cause a backlash. The U.S. must emphasize that if action is not taken by them, then the CIA’s drones will take the action for them. The public pressure they fear will become a reality due to their own inaction.

This conflict is more than a war against Al-Qaeda. It is a war against an entire radical Islamic infrastructure with each component being as important as the next. There must be no distinction made between Al-Qaeda and its affiliates, like the one in Yemen, and similar but separate groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed in Pakistan.

Welcome to The Complete Danged Truth web site.

Welcome to The Complete Danged Truth web site.
http://www.thecompletedangedtruth.com/

As you probably know by now, Sen. John McCain has flip-flopped and now says he is for building “the danged fence.”

That’s why the J.D. Hayworth for Senate Campaign is proud to set the record straight. It’s kind of like the now long- forgotten “Straight Talk Express”  that the Senator was once so proud to ride.

Here’s the truth:

While Sen. McCain’s paid advertisement calls for building the “danged fence” now, he had a different message on February 24, 2010 before The Homeland Security Department’s Budget Submission for Fiscal Year 2011.

Sen. McCain said “…the border fence issue has been a waste of billions of dollars. One huge effort failed several years ago and now apparently this one as well.
I’ve asked the chairpersons of this committee to if we . . . could have a hearing on [the fence which has been a] waste of billions of dollars in what seems to be an abject failure.”

The media has seen through this game he is playing.

Glenn Beck warned his listeners the ad might make them vomit.

ABC News reminded its audience that in a 2007 Vanity Fair interview, McCain said, “I think the fence is least effective. But I’ll build (expletive deleted) fence if they want it.”

Big Government called it the “Worst ‘Danged’ Political Ad in History! Congratulations, John McCain.” 

Politico wrote of McCain: “His shift across the political landscape on this issue remains stunning to his former allies in the immigration world.”

MSNBC mocked McCain saying “John McCain, who once led the charge for comprehensive immigration reform, is up with an immigration ad a hardliner would be proud of.”

TRUE/SLANT wrote the ad is “perhaps the worst, most ineffectual, pandering campaign ad ever.”

The Washington Post’s web headline over The Fix column reads “Has John McCain Started To Panic?”

Drudge Report’s headline said “ON DEFENSE: MCCAIN FLIP FLOPS ON IMMIGRATION.”

The Arizona Daily Star
 wrote: “But critics who say he flip-flopped on the issue of the border fence suggest it’s almost as if Babeu is saying ‘You’re one of us . . . now.’ (Even though you weren’t before when you were ‘pro-amnesty.’)”

And now you can decide for yourself.

McCain TV Ad: “Complete The Danged Fence”

Eric Holder accidentally tells the truth

Eric Holder accidentally tells the truth

G. Wesley Clark, MD

Attorney General Eric Holder testified, to the House Judiciary Committee, while nervously scratching his brow, that the decisions of the Justice Department “are done in a political way”.  Most likely, he meant to say “in an apolitical way”, and tomorrow we shall be assured that he “mis-spoke” (in a Freudian way). 
Holder further asserted that the decisions of “this Attorney General” are made without regard to politics, and that “… right or wrong, the decisions that I make are based on the facts, and on the law …”. 
However, the part of the video clip that CNN left out was where, as reported on FoxNews, Holder admitted that he has not yet read the Arizona law, which is only 10 pages long. 
“I have not had a chance to — I’ve glanced at it,” Holder said at a House Judiciary Committee hearing when asked had he read the state law cracking down on illegal immigrants.
and
When asked by Rep.Ted Poe, R-Texas, how he could have constitutional concerns about a law he has not read, Holder said: “Well, what I’ve said is that I’ve not made up my mind. I’ve only made the comments that I’ve made on the basis of things that I’ve been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts, obviously, television, talking to people who are on the review panel…looking at the law.” 
Therefore, ignorance of the facts and the law, and acceptance of the hysterical political media yammering about profiling were the only basis for Holder’s numerous criticisms, questioning the constitutionality of the statute, and of his threats to undertake federal legal action against enforcement of the law.  
As the old saying goes, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” – unless you are the chief law enforcement official of the United States of America. 

Kagan may have to sit out key cases for Obama agenda

Kagan may have to sit out key cases for Obama agenda

May 12th, 2010

By JULIE MASON, Washington Examiner

 

conflicts of interest could block her from ruling on cases dealing with Obama

President Obama’s nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court assumes that she will have to step aside on numerous cases. But that concern that was trumped by what Obama called her “skill as a consensus builder.”

For Obama, installing Kagan on the high court would mean more than adding another like-minded constitutional scholar to the mix. Ideally, Kagan would bring outreach skills the more liberal members of the court have been lacking.

“She has a long record as a consensus builder and is the kind of person who can bridge the 5-4 splits that have become so routine on this court,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Kagan’s skill set appeals to Obama, who wants to expand on his first-year Supreme Court nomination of Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
While Sotomayor is a reliable liberal vote on the court and the first Latina to serve, she functions primarily as a counterpoint to the court’s conservatives. Obama perceives Kagan as a justice with a broader role on the court.

Read More:

CBO ups Obamacare cost projections by $115 Billion

CBO ups Obamacare cost projections by $115 Billion

May 12th, 2010

By JENNIFER HABERKORN, Politico

 this brings the cost to over $1Trillion for Obamacare

Congressional Budget Office estimates released Tuesday predict the health care overhaul will likely cost about $115 billion more in discretionary spending over ten years than the original cost projections.

The additional spending — if approved over the years by Congress — would bring the total estimated cost of the overhaul to about $1 trillion.

The Congressional Budget Office expects the federal agencies to spend $10 billion to $20 billion over 10 years on administrative costs to implement the overhaul. The CBO expects Congress to spend an additional $105 billion over 10 years to fund discretionary programs in the overhaul.

The CBO released the estimates in response to a request from California Rep. Jerry Lewis, ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee. A spokeswoman for Lewis said the inquiry was filed before the House voted on the bill.

“[L]arge sums of discretionary spending in both the House and Senate versions of the health care reform bills have not yet been included in estimates by the CBO, rendering it impossible to make informed decisions regarding the outcome of this legislation,” Lewis wrote in a February letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, asking her to postpone votes until the discretionary spending analysis was complete.

Read More:

Illegal Immigration = Human Smuggling/Trafficking (And That’s Just Fine For Progressives)

Set aside the national security issue for a minute, and consider the fact that illegal immigration into this nation is the life blood for human smugglers and traffickers.

This has been the case for a very long time and is the fault of both major parties. One example comes to us from USA Today back in 2005, but we can hardly believe this is an uncommon tale:

Now a cashier at a discount store, Molina was enticed to California by a woman back home in Mexico’s Puebla state who promised a job and free housing.

“I came to the United States with lots of dreams, but when I got here, my dreams were stolen,” said Molina, 33, who left three children behind in Mexico.

On Jan. 1, 2002, she worked her first shift at the dressmaker’s, sewing roughly 200 party dresses over 12 hours.

Later, the shifts stretched to 17 hours. Molina was locked into the shop at night — sleeping in a small storage room. The shop manager confiscated her identify documents.

Does anyone want to make the argument that the human smuggling business isn’t a violent enterprise, wherein people are raped, robbed, enslaved, and murdered?

This one is obvious kids. Even without having to worry about Hezbollah Jihadis coming across our unsecured border from Hugostan, the moral position here is to cut off the human smuggling routes because they devastate lives. Excusing this black market in human beings is disgusting.

America should have a generous immigration posture which encourages legal and documented entry for an abundance of people. Ironically, for some reason Progressives are very invested in maintaining the status quo when it comes to the human smuggling and trafficking industry on our Southern border.

Why are America’s Progressives not advocating on behalf of the welfare and safety of those who fall prey to the coyotes who traffic them over the border, by encouraging legal immigration and discouraging illegal immigration?

It isn’t as though they don’t know that there is a problem here. From President Obama’s own State Department:

Mexico is a large source, transit, and destination country for persons trafficked for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation and forced labor. Groups considered most vulnerable to human trafficking in Mexico include women and children, indigenous persons, and undocumented migrants. A significant number of Mexican women, girls, and boys are trafficked within the country for commercial sexual exploitation, lured by false job offers from poor rural regions to urban, border, and tourist areas. According to the government, more than 20,000 Mexican children are victims of sex trafficking every year, especially in tourist and border areas. The vast majority of foreign victims trafficked into the country for commercial sexual exploitation are from Central America, particularly Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador; many transit Mexico en route to the United States and, to a lesser extent, Canada and Western Europe.

For all of the Left’s characterization of Republicans as simply being the “party of no” while offering no credible alternative, it’s hard not to note the hypocrisy of their position on this issue.

In the absence of the Federal Government living up to its constitutional mandate to secure our borders, what do the Progressive-Democrats have to offer besides outrage and violence against the police?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers