If this isn’t voter fraud I do not know what is.
Kamala Harris is showing her ignorance.
ICE has never whipped lynched or shot any illegal.
At a Thursday confirmation hearing for President Donald Trump’s nominee to head Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) compared the agency to the Ku Klux Klan.
Harris asked Trump’s nominee for the position, Ronald Vitiello, about comments he previously made in which he referred to the Democratic Party as “neo-Klan” like. Vitiello apologized for the comments, calling them inappropriate because of the Klan’s history. Harris asked him to expound on why the comments were inappropriate.
“The Klan was what we could call today a domestic terrorist group,” said Vitiello, a 30-year Border Patrol veteran who has been serving as the acting head of ICE.
“Why?” Harris asked.
“Because they tried to use fear and force to change the political environment,” Vitiello replied.
“And what was the motivation for the use of fear and force?” Harris asked.
“Based on race and ethnicity, ” Vitiello responded.
“Right,” Harris responded. “And are you aware of the perception of many about how the power and discretion at ICE is being used to enforce the law and do you see any parallels?”
“I do not see any parallels,” Vitiello responded, prompting Harris to say she was talking about perceptions.
“There’s a lot of perceptions in the media and in the public that are incorrect about the agency,” Vitiello said.
In his opening statement for the hearing, Vitiello said,”If confirmed, one of my highest priorities will be to better demonstrate to the public, Congress, and the media the importance of our mission to homeland security and public safety — and why our agency’s existence should not be up for debate.”
Several Democrats, including Congresswoman-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) and potential 2020 candidates Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.) and Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) have called for ICE to be abolished.
Harris herself questioned ICE’s role in a June 2018 interview and said the government may need to “start from scratch” when it comes to immigration enforcement.
“There’s no question that we’ve got to critically reexamine ICE and its role, and the way that it is being administered, and the work it is doing. And we need to probably think about starting from scratch,” she told NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel responded to Harris’s comments.
“Kamala Harris is trying to launch her 2020 campaign off of comparing ICE officers to the KKK, and it’s absolutely disgusting,” McDaniel wrote in a tweet.
UPDATE 1:51 pm: Post was updated to include comment from RNC chairwoman Ronna McDaniel.
Will the Hildabeast steal the 2020 DemocRat nomination?
Or will the DemocRats finally drive a stake through the heart of the Hildabeast?
By Daniel Greenfield. November 11th, 2018
There are two types of synagogues: those that believe in G-d and those that believe in government.
After the mass shooting in a Pittsburgh synagogue, the government synagogues turned to the government with calls for gun control. And those that believe in G-d, turned to the Almighty.
And then, trusting in the Almighty to stand with them against danger, they went out and got their guns.
Morning services at the synagogue these days begin and end with guns, with talk of tactical courses, firing ranges and concealed carry permits. “If someone comes to kill you, get up early to kill him first,” the Gemara, the Babylonian Talmud, that massive encyclopedic work codifying Jewish law, advises.
In synagogues across America, the teachers, actuaries and small businessmen rising early for morning prayers are preparing for a mass shooting attack. Every synagogue I have been to lately has members who carry concealed firearms. Members are attending security courses, training to identify, disarm or kill active shooters, while also preparing for the ugly aftermath of another synagogue massacre.
CPR courses. Stop the bleed. Triage.
While one faction of American Jews, the noisesome lefty one, shouts about gun control, the quieter, religious one, is choosing self-defense over gun control, and preparing to face another attack.
After the Pittsburgh shooting, the Jewish Community Relations Council of San Francisco recycled a gun control tract from 1999 warning that, “14 young people below the age of 20 are killed by guns in this country every day”. That talking point about inner city gang violence had nothing do with the mass shooting of unarmed Jewish worshipers, but establishment politics tend to run on lefty autopilot.
But meanwhile in South Philly, far from San Fran, but all too close to the Pittsburgh massacre, religious Jews were going out and buying guns.
“I’m a daughter of a Holocaust survivor,” a 61-year-old Jewish woman was quoted as saying. “I lost all my aunts and uncles in the Holocaust, and I’m going to go down fighting. I’m not walking into a gas chamber. I’m not going to stand there like a sitting duck… and get shot at. I refuse.”
Yonatan Stern, an IDF veteran running tactical training courses at Cherev Gideon (Gideon’s Sword), suggested that the demand is coming from the more politically and religiously conservative Jews.
Meanwhile at a lefty protest in Philly, Rebecca Hornstein, a member of the If Now Now anti-Israel hate group, who backed anti-Semites like Keith Ellison and Linda Sarsour, claimed that nobody wanted guns.
But quite a few real Jews did.
The debate over firearms in synagogues has reached into Jewish communities from New York City to Philadelphia, and from Chicago to Colorado Springs, where Mel Bernstein of Dragon Arms offered local Rabbis in the area free handguns or AR-15s, along with training and ammunition.
“You have to have the tool to fight back, and this is the tool,” the Jewish gun store owner said.
The local ADL branch was unhappy with Bernstein’s offer, claiming that armed clergy sent the wrong message. Five local rabbis however thought that it sent the right message and took him up on it.
“The 97-year-old Holocaust survivor did not have good people that carry firearms during the Holocaust. But there are good people that carry firearms in American now,“ Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, the former head of 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement, declared. “They should bring them inside with them to protect the people who are there.”
“If you are a Jewish police officer and you are off duty, when you come to worship, you should come with your handgun. If you are a Christian police officer, when you are off duty,” he urged in a press conference outside a Jewish institution, “come with your handgun.”
“No. No. No,” Council Speaker Corey Johnson tweeted. “This is not how we heal and move forward.”
Assemblyman Dov Hikind, an Orthodox Jewish politician from Brooklyn, however endorsed Adams’ message and announced, “I am registering immediately for a gun license. And I encourage other Jews to do so to protect their institutions and synagogues.”
David Pollock, the director of public policy and security at the New York Jewish Community Relations Council, however insisted that guns wouldn’t work. “Having armed guards is not a panacea.”
Rabbi Gary Moskowitz, a former NYPD officer and martial arts expert, who offers firearms training to Rabbis, has urged every congregation to arm its members.
“They tell me, ‘It’s not the Jewish way,’” he argued. “How can the rabbis say that it’s not the Jewish way when we just need to look at the Bible to see how David fought the Philistines?”
When Moskowitz had previously proposed allowing congregants in New York City to carry guns, he met with a cold response from local Democrats.
“We need fewer, not more, guns on the street, period,” City Councilman Mark Levine had insisted. “This would make us less safe, not more safe.”
But after Pittsburgh, unarmed synagogues increasingly don’t feel safe.
In Chicago, Jonathan Burstyn, the son of a volunteer policeman, guards his synagogue on the Sabbath and provides firearms training through Chi-Defense. A photo posted by Burstyn at the 2018 NRA Annual Meeting shows a group of Orthodox Jews touting some serious artillery.
In Virginia, Edward Friedman, the editor-in-chief of the NRA’s Shooting Illustrated magazine, carries a concealed weapon to a Chabad Orthodox synagogue with the permission of the Rabbi.
“It’s something that’s incredibly important to me, and I think it should be to every single practicing Jew who goes to synagogue,” Friedman said.
At Temple Sholom, a small Reform synagogue in Springfield, Ohio, Rabbi Cary Kozberg took down the gun-free-zone sign. “Some realized that a gun-free zone can be an invitation.”
“I’m so not advocating that every Jewish person who goes to synagogue walk in with a gun,” he said. “But there are people who are OK with that, and those people need to be listened to.”
While an out-of-touch secular establishment still claims to speak for Jews on gun control, the growing number of religious Jews are far more comfortable with firearms. And after Pittsburgh, more places like Temple Sholom are willing to question the suicidal fanaticism with which the Left clings to gun control.
The choice between self-defense and gun control is at also a choice between dependency and independence. It’s the quintessential dilemma out of which the United States of America was born.
And more Jewish organizations are stepping forward to advocate for the Second Amendment.
“With all due respect, singing songs, lighting candles and posting the phrase ‘Never Again’, regardless of the number of exclamation points, is not going to stop anyone from killing Jews,” Doris Wise, the founder of Jews Can Shoot, wrote. “Fear of being shot by armed Jews. That’s what will stop them.”
“Self-defense is a God-given right. Here in America – all of America – we have the very good fortune to have the Second Amendment. Honor it, yourselves and all good people by making use of it.”
Jews Can Shoot is one of a number of rising Jewish organizations that connect Jewish civil rights to the right to bear arms.
The idea is not new to Jewish history.
Zionism began not with irrigating the desert, but with arming vulnerable Jewish populations. It’s a story that traverses Jewish history and goes back all the way to the very dawn of the Jewish monarchy.
When Shaul was anointed as the first Jewish king, the Philistines had disarmed the Jewish population leaving them without even a blacksmith, worrying, ”Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears” (1 Samuel :13:19), until King Shaul and his son, Yonatan, were said to have received spears from heaven.
Then they led the rebellion against Philistine rule and created the first Jewish kingdom.
After the Jews returned from the Babylonian exile, the Book of Nehemiah relates that when the Arabs came to besiege Jerusalem vowing to kill the returning exiles and end the rebuilding of the Second Temple, the Prophet Nehemiah assembled the people behind the wall with “swords, spears and bows.”
And as they built the Temple, of which the present synagogues are only lesser models, struggling to raise the wall against the Arab invaders, they “worked with one hand, and held their weapon with the other”.
Today, the synagogues that believe in G-d, Jews are taking the prophet’s advice. “Do not fear them, remember the Great and Awesome G-d, fight for your brethren, for your sons and daughters, for your wives and your houses.” (Nehemiah 4:8)
And after morning prayers, the men leave still talking of active shooter training and firing ranges.
Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center’s Front Page Magazine at the above link.
Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.
H/T Eagle Raising.
We need a National Voter ID Law.
No ID no voting.
Rush Limbaugh really hit the nail on the head in Tuesday’s show with his commentary maintaining that the Democrats are now 100 percent invested in destroying the trust America has in our elections.
Citing the messes in Florida and Arizona, and harkening back to the year 2000 and Bush v Gore, Limbaugh noted that the Democrat Party’s agenda is to make every American distrust and hate our electoral system by an extended and perpetual war against the legitimacy of our elections.
The conservative talk show giant delved into the Democrat Party’s agenda on his Tuesday show.
“Are you tired of that mantra yet? ‘We must count every vote,’ as though somebody is trying not to count every vote,” Limbaugh said at the top of the segment.
“You could say the same thing about Arizona, except Martha McSally has conceded and her number one praiseworthy advocate is Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, who says this is how Republicans need to act,” Limbaugh said. “When they lose, they need to concede. Obviously, McSally cares about being a good citizen and being a good American, and she did what all good Republicans should do, and that is concede.”
But, Limbaugh wondered, which party is it trying to destroy our system? Well, it isn’t the GOP, that’s for sure.
“So which party is it that will not accept the results of elections? Which party is it trying to undermine our faith in the elections? And, by the way, do you think what’s going on in Florida is really all about these two races here, the governor race and the Senate race? I mean, it is, but there’s something much bigger at stake as well, and that’s 2020,” Limbaugh said.
Limbaugh later got to the nub of the issue:
They are refusing to accept the results of the Senate race in Florida and the governor’s race. And so now Scott, who’s trying to undermine votes and make sure votes don’t count and make sure people’s votes are ignored, should recuse himself from any role in the recount. Of course. Get rid of the number one advocate for Rick Scott, Rick Scott.
And the media amplifies this. This is totally reasonable. Bill Nelson’s making all kinds of sense, and this is how Republicans are continually portrayed as the enemy. The enemy of democracy, the enemy of elections, when in fact it is just the exact opposite.
And what does that mean…
“It’s one of a few key things that acts as the glue that keeps our society, our population together, is the acceptance of the outcome of elections, the will of the people. Once that stops — and we’re close to it — then you’re inching closer and closer to chaos and worse, anarchy. And we’re dangerously close to this point now, I think.”
They want there to be a question of legitimacy. Every time the Republicans win an election, the left wants it to be questioned. They want it to be thought of as illegitimate. I mean, after George Bush and the Florida recount, the fact that he was not legitimately elected is what allowed them to try and destroy his presidency beginning two months after 9/11 happened and then continuing throughout both of his terms. He was not legitimate because the recount was not legitimate because the Supreme Court stepped in.
But the point is question the legitimacy of every Republican election and ones that are close, and it allows you ’cause you’ve got your assistance in the media, it just allows you to have as a perpetual reporting narrative that the Republicans, as they exist, are illegitimate, that their reelection victory was illegitimate, that what they’re doing, therefore, may not be considered permanent because, if they stole election, if they’re elected illegitimately, then their appointees are not legitimate and whatever executive orders the president might make are not legitimate, they can all be withdrawn.
This is an ongoing strategy by the Democrats to have everybody, as many people as possible literally question the legitimacy of every Republican win. That’s what this is about here. This is about two things, maybe three. If they think that they can really via a recount find enough votes to reverse a 33,000 vote win and a 12,000 vote win, then they would do it. That’s never happened. A recount has never resulted in a 12,000-vote margin being overturned.
Limbaugh finished with a salient point:
My point is the Democrats strategically and policy-wise benefit from all of this even when they lose reelections. It is their way of dealing with an election loss by claiming that they should have won. They got jobbed. That the people who won really didn’t legitimately. That’s the whole point of this.
The only way, by the way, that any of this is valuable and could be gotten away with is because the media is essentially the left. The media is the Democrat Party. I mean, the Democrats by themselves cannot make the case that every Republican is illegitimate, but the media can do it day in and day out as they report on any number of Republicans or conservative commentators or whoever they want to report on. And that’s what this is.
Come on. Who can say he’s not right on, here?
This loss of the House can be laid at the door of John McCain.
I hope he is barking in the fires of Hell.
We need to turn these bums out in 2020.
Election 2018: Democrats took control of the House by talking endlessly about health care. But it turns out their actual priorities are things that they didn’t talk about much on the campaign trail. Now we know why.
After having safely won the House majority, Democrats revealed their two top legislative priorities for next year: Limits on free speech and gun control. In other words, assaults on rights protected by the First Amendment and Second Amendment.
The Democratic leader in the House, Nancy Pelosi, promises that the first bill voted on by the new Congress will focus on campaign finance and ethics reforms.
Rewriting The First Amendment
According to news accounts, H.R. 1 would, among other things, establish automatic voter registration and “reinvigorate” the Voting Rights Act. In other words, make it harder to root out voter fraud. It will also push public financing of congressional campaigns, with a 6-to-1 government match on small dollar donations.
How many voters knew that’s what Democrats had planned?
Those are bad enough. But the plan would also call for amending the Constitution to restrict free speech rights under the guise of campaign finance reform.
This is in reaction to the Supreme Court’s 2009 Citizen United decision, in which the court ruled that the First Amendment protects political speech, allowing corporations to spend money on political advocacy. The court ruled that “The government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity.”
Democrats have attacked the ruling ever since. And they want a constitutional amendment that would overturn the ruling “and other related rulings.”
That’s so Congress can, in their words, “regulate the raising and spending of political money.”
Sen. Ted Cruz had it right when he called this idea an assault on free speech. He said “it gives Congress power to regulate — and ban — speech by everybody.”
Gun Control Push
When not calling on limits to First Amendment rights, Democrats also plan to aggressively push new gun control laws that would restrict the public’s Second Amendment rights.
Gun control was not a big issue in the midterm campaign, despite promises by gun control advocates to make it a centerpiece of the elections in the wake of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting. The issue “evaporated during the final weeks of the election in all but very safe liberal districts,” noted Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner.
“But now that the Democrats have won the House,” Bedard notes, “leaders feel emboldened to raise calls for expanded background checks and an assault weapon ban.”
Mixed Election Results
Gun control advocates tout the fact that 15 House Republicans with “A” ratings from the NRA lost their elections. But gun control advocates lost seats in the Senate. That includes Joseph Donnelly, who lost his bid in Indiana. Pro-gun rights Josh Hawley unseated Claire McCaskill in Missouri.
According to the NRA, candidates backed by gun rights group won 106 races, and lost 33 — despite being outspent by gun control supporters. This was not the groundswell of support for gun control laws that advocates promised.
Nevertheless, Democrats plan to pursue the most aggressive gun control laws “in decades,” according to one news report.
Pelosi told CNN’s Chris Cuomo that passing gun control laws would be “priority” once the new Congress convenes in January.
To be clear, the chances that these efforts will become law are slim to none. For one thing, the Democrats will have a narrow majority in the House. Many of the newly elected representatives are moderates who might be reluctant to betray their voters on day one.
What’s more, the Senate remains in Republican hands — with the possibility that the GOP will have gained three seats in the end. Highly partisan legislation won’t have a chance there.
Even if Democrats did manage to get leftist campaign finance and gun control laws through Congress, they’d still face a Trump veto.
So, these efforts will be little more than symbolic gestures.
It shows how far the Democratic Party has drifted to the left that attacks on the First Amendment and Second Amendment will be the party’s priority right out of the gate.
H/T Bearing Arms.
It’s going to be a long hard two years for gun owners.
Building an AR-15 is something a lot of people like to do. They enjoy getting their hands in there and taking a bag of parts and assembling a fully-functional rifle. Some especially enjoy taking a receiver that’s less than 80 percent complete and using that to build their gun. It feels good to assemble a weapon that you didn’t have to get the government’s permission to buy.
Well, if you enjoy that, think you might enjoy it, or just don’t like busy-body gun grabbers telling you what you can or can’t do, then it’s time to dig in and get ready for a fight.
After the midterm elections, we knew Democrats would use their newly minted majority in the House to try and push for gun control, but it looks like they’re not even waiting for that majority to officially step into power.
Last week I-1639 passed in Washington State. Soon it might be the passage of H.R. 7115 in the US House, the so-called 3D Firearms Prohibition Act.
What is H.R. 7115, really? I’m glad you asked. The opening text is as follows, but you can find the full text here:
To prohibit the sale, acquisition, distribution in commerce, or import into the United States of certain firearm receiver castings or blanks, assault weapon parts kits, and machinegun parts kits and the marketing or advertising of such castings or blanks and kits on any medium of electronic communications, to require homemade firearms to have serial numbers, and for other purposes.
And check out Section 3:
SEC. 3. Prohibition of advertising do-it-yourself assault weapons.
(a) In general.—It shall be unlawful to market or advertise, on any medium of electronic communications, including over the Internet, for the sale of any of the following:
(1) A firearm receiver casting or firearm receiver blank or unfinished handgun frame that—
(A) at the point of sale does not meet the definition of a firearm in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code; and
(B) after purchase by a consumer, can be completed by the consumer to the point at which such casting or blank functions as a firearm frame or receiver for a semiautomatic assault weapon or machinegun or the frame of a handgun.
(2) An assault weapon parts kit.
(3) A machinegun parts kit.
H.R. 7115 was introduced on November 2, 2018 and sponsored by Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Democrat from New Jersey for “himself, Mr. Sires, Ms. Norton, Mr. Cárdenas, Mr. Khanna, Mr. Pascrell, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Hastings, Ms. Clarke of New York, Mr. Carbajal, Mr. Soto, Mr. McGovern, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, and Mr. Rush).” It has been referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary.
This marks the end of several hobbies within the firearm community, including building Polymer 80 handguns, AR builds, AK builds, frankly any build.
Anti-gun politicians don’t like homebuilt firearms because it means they have no control over who is armed and what they’re armed with. They ignore the fact that criminals have been getting guns for as long as there have been guns. They ignore the fact that they don’t know who has what in the first place. They think they can legislate us into safety, and they can’t.
However, The Truth About Guns’ Kat Ainsworth points out that the language is rather vague, which means far more could be accomplished by passing this bill than proponents will likely claim. For example, the definition given for an “assault weapons parts kit” is:
the term “assault weapon parts kit” means any part or combination of parts designed and intended to enable a consumer who possesses all such necessary parts to assemble a semiautomatic assault weapon;
Any part or combination of parts. A trigger is a part that, when a consumer has all the other required parts, can be used to assemble a semi-automatic rifle.
In other words, it’s not impossible to see this law as a potential ban on all part sales. After all, if you purchase enough individual parts, you can assemble a rifle. I mean, I’m not a lawyer, but one thing I’ve learned is that if I can figure out a way that a law can be expanded through interpretation, a gun-grabbing politician can sure as hell do the same.
This has been introduced, and I firmly believe that the new Democratic-controlled House will try to push it through. Call your congressional representatives now. Tell them to vote against it.
Otherwise, this is just the beginning.