Patterico's Pontifications


Joe Walsh Believes He Is The Reasonable Alternative To Trump In 2020

Filed under: General — Dana @ 5:17 pm

[guest post by Dana]

He wants you to believe it too!

Joe Walsh says he is seriously considering a run against Trump because someone has to do it:

Former Illinois GOP Rep. Joe Walsh, who has been publicly mulling a 2020 primary challenge to President Donald Trump, said Thursday he is “strongly, strongly considering” entering the race.

“I’m strongly, strongly considering it. That’s — again, I’m not trying to be cute or coy. I’ve told you before — if somebody’s going to get in there and go after him … it’s got to be done soon,” Walsh told CNN’s John Berman on “New Day.” “You’re running out of time. But more importantly, these are not conventional times. Look at the guy in the White House. These are urgent times.”

Now a conservative radio host, Walsh apologized last week for his role in helping elect an “unfit con man” to the presidency. During an interview on CNN, he said he voted for Trump in 2016 only because Trump wasn’t Hillary Clinton. His support for the President changed, he said, after Trump’s press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, Finland, last year in which he sided with the Russian strongman over his own intelligence community’s assessments of interference in the 2016 election.

But is he a candidate worthy of your vote? Well, let’s just say that you might want to think long and hard about that:

It would be beneficial to the country and conservatism as a whole if a viable conservative candidate challenged President Trump for the 2020 nomination.

One-term congressman, conspiracist, right-wing provocateur, radio host, and supposed Tea Party stalwart Joe Walsh is not that person. Not even close.


Though the radio host tries now to present himself as some sort of compassionate and reasonable conservative alternative to Trump, not all of us have such short memories. Did Walsh really think people would forget that he made his name with the same sort of demagoguery, conspiracy-mongering, and right-wing bomb-throwing for which he now condemns Trump?

In 2014, for example, he tweeted: “It makes Dems seethe and my fellow Repubs uncomfortable when I say it out loud, but so what? It explains everything. Barack Obama is Muslim.” He was also very annoyed that year over the fact that he would most likely get into trouble for using racial slurs.

Later, in 2015, after a gunman murdered five servicemen at two separate military installations in Chattanooga, Tennessee, Walsh said, “Obama won’t call Chattanooga what it was – Islamic terror. Not confusing at all. Obama is a Muslim.” He also said that year, “Barack Obama doesn’t love America & is Muslim,” adding elsewhere that the then-president is a “pussy” and a “traitor.”

“I’m sick of [Sean Hannity] not understanding why Obama wont’ criticize Islam. Sean just said Obama is clueless. He’s not clueless. He’s Muslim,” Walsh tweeted.

And then there was the time in 2016, when: “Walsh called the president of the United States an “enemy” and a “traitor” for skipping Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s funeral.”

Walsh also said in 2016 that “Obama is not on our side. He’s our enemy.”

We shouldn’t forget that in 2017, Walsh encouraged the Russia-sponsored Seth Rich murder conspiracy.

This is the person who believes he is the more reasonable and stable alternative to Trump in 2020.

Good luck, Republicans.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

It is a Zoo Animal, not a Tree

Filed under: General — DRJ @ 3:48 pm

[Headline and link from DRJ]

French zoo blasts ‘stupidity and disrespect’ of visitors who scratched names into rhino’s back:

Officials at a French zoo on Wednesday condemned the “stupidity and disrespect” of visitors who scratched their names onto the back of a 35-year-old rhinoceros.

The Zoo de la Palmyre in Royan, located roughly 300 miles southeast of Paris, said in a statement on Facebook that they were “outraged” after the discovery of the names “Camille” and “Julien” on the back of a female rhino named Noëlle.

Zoo director Pierre Caille said the visitors used their fingernails to make the etching into a layer of dust, sand and dead skin on the animal’s back, AFP reported.

According to the San Diego Zoo, rhinos have thick skin that acts like protective plating but “is sensitive, as the blood vessels are close to the skin’s surface, and can be easily scarred.”


Trump Mocks Allies Using Fake Asian Accents While Praising Kim Jong Un

Filed under: General — Dana @ 1:35 pm

[guest post by Dana]

At a big dollar fundraiser held at a private home in the Hamptons, President Trump made news for reportedly mimicking the accents of the leaders of South Korea and Japan to mock them:

Trump also made fun of US allies South Korea, Japan and the European Union — mimicking Japanese and Korean accents — and talked about his love of dictators Kim Jong Un and the current ruler of Saudi Arabia.


Talking about South Korea, Trump said it makes great TVs and has a thriving economy, “So why are we paying for their defense. They’ve got to pay.” He then mimicked the accent of the leader Moon Jae-in while describing how he caved in to Trump’s tough negotiations.

On his remarkable friendship with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, “I just got a beautiful letter from him this week. We are friends. People say he only smiles when he sees me.

“If I hadn’t been elected president, we would be in a big, fat, juicy war with North Korea.“

Turning to Japan, Trump then put on a fake Japanese accent to recount his conversations with Shinzo Abe over their conversations over trade tariffs.

Trump’s mockery of various groups is nothing new, but this time it has rankled Asian-American voters:

When Amanda Berg heard that President Donald Trump mocked the accents of the leaders of South Korea and Japan at a recent fundraiser, it brought back painful memories from her childhood.

Berg, a Korean-American who grew up in Fort Collins, Colorado, recalled kids doing the “stereotypical pulling at the eyes and the mocking accent.” It made her feel like she was a foreigner in her own community.

Berg, a registered Democrat, is among a growing and crucial bloc of Asian-American voters leaning further to the left in the age of Trump, and his stunt angered her and many others.

“It empowers people who would be predisposed to doing that kind of thing anyway,” said Berg, a high school English teacher in Denver. “And it makes it acceptable to be openly, increasingly discriminating.”

Here is quick look at American-Asian voters and their current party preferences. Bear in mind that not long ago George H. W. Bush received 55% of the Asian-American vote while Bill Clinton received 31%. Fast forward to 2016, where Hillary Clinton won approximately two-thirds of the Asian-American vote and Trump pulled in just 27%:

The Asian-American voting-age population has more than doubled in the past two decades, leaping from 4.3 million in 1998 to 11.1 million in 2018 according to the U.S. Census Bureau. A majority of those new voters lean Democratic.

By 2016, some Asian ethnic groups that had leaned Republican shifted into the Democratic camp, said Natalie Masuoka, an associate professor of political science and Asian-American studies at the University of California, Los Angeles. A Pew Research Center survey said 53 percent of Asian-American registered voters in 1998 identified with the Democratic Party. That figure rose to 65 percent in 2017.

“They are adding more and more new voters to the electorate,” Masuoka said. “Alongside Latino immigrants, they’re important for candidates to mobilize.”

This especially as Asians are the fastest growing racial group in the U.S.

However, with the presidential election around the corner and Trump’s aggregate polling hovering around 41%, incidents like like this, while amusing his base, may come with a risk. Especially in swing states:

Asian-American voters also could become a key factor in swing states. In Nevada, Asians make up 5 percent of registered voters and 9 percent of the eligible voting population. They comprise 5 percent of registered voters in Virginia and are 6 percent of the eligible voting population.

Coupled with the current refusal to just “look the other way” when one is racially offended, especially when the offender is the President of the United States, Trump’s lack of decorum comes with yet another risk:

The GOP, meanwhile, remains appealing to Asian-Americans who are strongly anti-communist, as many are in Vietnamese communities. Some data also suggests that a large proportion of Filipinos and wealthy, higher-educated Chinese-Americans are more likely to go Republican, Masuoka said.

But it may be hard for some to look past Trump’s words.

“He’s willing to use Asian stereotypes, Asian accents in his public speeches,” Masuoka said. “In that way … the way Americans are talking about race is now shifting possibly back to what historically was effective before the civil rights revolution” — explicit and sometimes offensive talk about race.

I would think that the Asian-Americans offended by this would be all the more offended given that he pulled this stunt while raising money for his reelection campaign.

At the end of the day, however, while I understand Asian-Americans being offended by Trump’s behavior, what is far more disturbing is that the President of the United States publicly mimicked and mocked our close allies while he lavishly praised a vile enemy of the United States. In what delusional world does this murderous madman, who does not hesitate for one second to imprison, torture and kill his people at will, deserve the adoration of the President? Were any of the deep-pocketed Trump supporters in the audience shocked when they heard this? Did they walk out of the event, so great was their offense? Likely not, because they weren’t at all shocked or offended because this is just business as usual with Trump. Likely they reacted like as Trump supporters do when the President makes outrageous comments and elevates evil over good: they listen with admiration believing that Trump is just telling it like it is.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)


David French Declares Woman Innocent Who May or May Not Be Innocent

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:59 am

David French states this on Twitter:

Below his tweet, you can read the outraged cries from people angry about the supposedly clear injustice here, based on the language of his tweet. Imprisoned, baby ripped away, after acting in self-defense? That’s racism! One person after another states that obviously she was convicted because she was black; the system is evil; nobody in the system cares about justice, etc. etc. etc. Here’s one example among many:

Here’s the thing: French has loaded the dice in his tweet by declaring, as a matter of established fact, that the woman acted in self-defense. But if you read his actual article (which is interesting and mostly well done, until the end), you’ll see that this “fact” is not clearly the case at all, but instead is very much in dispute:

What do I mean? Hang with me for a moment, because this case is a bit complicated. At its heart is a dispute between Siwatu-Salama Ra, an African-American concealed-carry permit holder from Detroit, and a woman named Channel Harvey. Ra was put on trial for assault with a dangerous weapon and possessing a firearm while committing a felony after she brandished her unloaded pistol at Harvey during a heated confrontation outside Ra’s mother’s house.

The facts are hotly disputed, but Ra claimed that during the course of an argument, Harvey backed her car into into Ra’s vehicle — while Ra’s two-year-old daughter was inside, playing. Ra claims she grabbed her daughter out of the car, then grabbed her unloaded gun, “pointed the gun at Harvey’s car” and then again demanded that Harvey leave. Harvey testified that Ra was the aggressor, and that she hit Ra’s car on accident only after Ra pointed the gun at her. The jury apparently believed Harvey’s version of events, and Ra received a two-year prison sentence.

The case was immediately controversial, with critics of the verdict claiming that the case represented “yet another instance of a black gun owner, with the permits to legally carry, defending themselves against violence — and getting punished for it.”

(My emphasis.)

The case may represent that — and French clearly thinks it does — or it may represent someone brandishing a gun in anger with no justification.

What the case is really about is the legal standard to apply. The trial court told the jury that Ra, the defendant, could not succeed with a claim of self-defense unless she reasonably believed she had the right to use deadly force to prevent death or great bodily harm. The appellate court held that this was the wrong standard. The appellate court said that brandishing a gun is not deadly force, and thus can be an appropriate response to non-deadly force. This is certainly a very rational rule, and Ra was convicted under an improper standard under the laws of the state of Michigan. It’s an interesting topic and worthy of a post and a tweet. Because the jury was instructed on the wrong standard, it could have decided that Ra was not the aggressor, but still convicted her. (This means French may be wrong that the jury accepted Harvey’s view of the facts, by the way.)

Here’s the problem: if another jury applied the correct standard, Ra still might properly be found guilty. Based only on French’s post (I’ve not had time to read the court opinion or any other coverage) it appears to me that there remain two versions: Ra was the aggressor and pointed a gun with no justification, or she acted in self-defense by using non-lethal force to deter further unlawful force by witness Harvey. In other words, Ra may not have acted in self-defense after all. We just don’t know.

French goes overboard in his tweet when he says Ra was convicted “after brandishing a gun in self-defense.” That may be true — but based on French’s article, it also may well be false. French is putting his thumb on the scale, and irresponsibly overdramatizing a potential injustice by labeling the defendant innocent when she still might be guilty.

I tried bringing this to French’s attention in tweets yesterday, but he ignored me, so I am writing this post.

This is also why I say French’s article is mostly well done until the end — because at the end, he pronounces:

Prosecutors have a right to appeal the decision to their state supreme court. They should not. Ra has suffered immensely. She gave birth while imprisoned, and her child was taken from her two days later. She spent months separated from her newborn – after a conviction under the wrong legal standard. The court of appeals reached the just result. Ra’s legal ordeal needs to end.

One can conclude that prosecutors should not appeal the case and that the appellate court reached the right decision without concluding that “Ra’s legal ordeal needs to end.” If the evidence justifies a retrial (and it might), then she needs to be retried under the proper standard. If innocent, she should be acquitted. If guilty, she should be convicted.

Too many stories about the criminal justice system these days tweak the facts to make things seem more outrageous than they really are. This is what French has done here. I respect him as a general rule, but unless he is operating off of facts that he did not disclose in his column, he has overreached here and needs to rein in his outrage a bit. He is ginning up a storm of discontent (again, read the replies to his tweet) that may or may not be appropriate. I hope he finally sees my complaints, which I will bring to his attention by tweeting this post at him, and takes some corrective action.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]


Trump Reconsidering Birthright Citizenship

Filed under: General — Dana @ 3:49 pm

[guest post by Dana]

While immigration has been a central plank of his presidency, and in light of the 14th Amendment, Trump said today that he is once again considering an end to birthright citizenship:

Donald Trump has said the government is weighing whether to abolish birth right citizenship, calling the constitutional right “ridiculous”.

Currently a child born in the US is entitled to a US passport. The constitution’s 14th amendment, passed after the civil war to ensure that black Americans had full citizenship rights, grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States”.

Speaking to reporters outside the White House on Wednesday, Trump said: “We are looking at birthright citizenship very seriously. It’s frankly ridiculous.”

Trump did not elaborate any further.

The 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Back in October, right before the midterms, Trump said that he would abolish birthright citizenship via executive order:

“You can definitely do it with an act of Congress. But now they’re saying I can do it just with an executive order,” he said at the time.


The president’s announcement came hours after the White House said it would move to scrap a major court agreement in order to allow for migrant families to be detained longer as their cases are being considered, instead of having to release them after 20 days.

And then there are the legal issue involved:

Legal experts say the ultimate question regarding birthright citizenship is whether the 14th Amendment – which affords citizenship to “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside” – encompasses the children of illegal immigrants.

The unresolved legal dispute centers on whether those children are “subject” to the jurisdiction of the United States.

You can read the opinions of legal experts here, here, here and here.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)


Chicago Teachers Union Group Under Fire After Traveling To Venezuela And Praising Its Socialism

Filed under: General — Dana @ 12:36 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Recently, three Chicago teachers and a union representative crowdfunded a trip to Venezuela this summer. . The group, which identified themselves as a Chicago Teachers Union delegation, met with officials in the Venezuelan government and with fellow educators. The group is now facing a barrage of criticism for their simultaneous praise of the socialist country and its government while at the same time condemning the United States in comparison:

They wrote online about wanting to connect with Venezuelan teachers, students and unionists, criticized U.S. economic sanctions against the South American nation and wrote admiringly of its socialism, its communes and high literacy rates.

But critics say the group glossed over Venezuela’s ongoing political and economic crises and were excessively complimentary of President Nicolás Maduro, whose administration has been accused in recent United Nations reports of “grave” human rights violations and violence against dissenters.

There seems to be some disagreement about whether the group went under the auspices of the Chicago Teachers Union:

And though the four travelers regularly called themselves a “CTU delegation” online, the union representing close to 25,000 people has sought to distance itself from the trip, stating the CTU did not endorse, sponsor or fund the trip.

Asked on WTTW’s “Chicago Tonight” last week about “some controversy” surrounding the excursion, union President Jesse Sharkey said: “Members go all kinds of places in the summer. This was neither an official trip nor something that was funded by the union. This is a group of people who are members of the CTU who decided to go to Venezuela.”

While that might be so, it doesn’t explain then why CTU would follow the group’s trip and retweet updates and observations made by the group on their official webpage:

Yet, the official CTU Twitter account retweeted some of the group’s updates, including a blog post titled “Introduction to CTU Delegation to Venezuela.”

CTU also retweeted another post by teacher Sarah Chambers, one of the travelers and a member of the CTU executive board, which read: “While staying in #Venezuela, we didn’t see a single homeless person. USA is the richest country in the world; yet, there are homeless people everywhere. Over 17k CPS students are homeless… This is why @CTULocal1 is fighting for fair housing #CTUAgainstVezIntervention.”

[Ed. Are you kidding me? “We didn’t see a single homeless person”? Yeah, I don’t think so… Perhaps there is a massive void on the streets of Venezuela now that 3 million Venezuelans have been driven out of the country by their freefalling government. Of course, Potemkin villages certainly wouldn’t have homeless people milling around…]

Taking the group to task, a union member pointed out the dishonesty of the group:

[T]he Delegation fails to acknowledge is they used the CTU name to raise the funds, to set up meetings, to blog their ‘findings.’ This was never voted on. They don’t get it. Irresponsible and reckless.”

In another article about the trip written by Chambers, former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s name came up – and not in a favorable way:

“Through major economic hardships, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro never closed a single public school or a single health clinic. This stands in stark contrast to our experience in Chicago, where Mayor Rahm Emanuel closed 50 public schools and several mental health clinics in a single year,” Chambers said in the story for Fight Back! News, a publication that bills itself as “News and Views from the People’s Struggle.”

Imagine coming up short next to Maduro!

The group has received criticism from colleagues and fellow union members among others, for their political advocacy:

Ana Gil-Garcia, who co-founded the Illinois Venezuelan Alliance and teaches in the College of Education at Northeastern Illinois University, said the trip was unacceptable, though it would be different if they’d gone on their own, without using the CTU brand.

“Once you go there as a delegation of a very powerful union like the Chicago Teachers Union, it’s questionable,” Gil-Garcia said, adding the trip could come off as the union endorsing the Maduro regime, which she said has killed and imprisoned opponents and contributed to widespread food shortages in the country.

“That’s what makes me really upset about it,” she said. “The Chicago Teachers Union should be very objective because the membership is formed by people with different ways of thinking.”

Gil-Garcia said more than 50 people, many CTU members, contacted her, displeased by the group’s actions.

Further, 18 year veteran of Chicago Public Schools system and union member, Karen Moody saw the trip as a propaganda tour:

“I am appalled a delegation representing themselves as CTU went to Venezuela, not to support striking teachers, not to object to human rights violations, but to go on what appears to be a state-chaperoned propaganda tour… called the resolution’s “pro-Maduro” tone “heavily biased.”

“Both the resolution and the trip reflect the personal politics and world view of (CTU) leadership and their inner circle — not the majority of rank-and-file teachers,” Moody said.

Saying she’s not anti-socialist and leans “pretty far left” politically: “What I personally object to is not the word socialism — but the support of an extremist anti-democratic autocratic lunatic who rules by fear. “

And yet another Chicago Public Schools teacher criticized the trip:

Rebecca Testa-Ryan, said she found out about the trip when a fellow CTU member showed her the fundraiser.

“My first thought was, ‘Why would you voluntarily go to Venezuela when so many Venezuelans are fleeing the country?’” Testa-Ryan said.

Testa-Ryan said she recently returned from a trip to her native Panama, where she “had the chance to speak to many Venezuelans about the horrific conditions” there. Noting her own family had to endure the dictatorial rule of Panama’s Manuel Noriega, she said the Venezuela trip was disrespectful to Latino people and their history. She also took issue with the union resolution.

“CTU has no business involving themselves in foreign policy,” she said, adding that should be left to groups like the United Nations “and experts who have a handle with what is occurring on the ground in Venezuela.”

As a union member, Testa-Ryan said, “I did not vote for this type of representation nor am I comfortable (with) delegates supporting a dictator.”

Here is CTU’s resolution opposing US military intervention in Venezuela, and to advocate for the suspension of the current sanctions against Venezuela.

Takeaway: Bad U.S. Good Venezuela.


Trump Elated By Comparison To King of Israel

Filed under: General — Dana @ 9:34 am

[guest post by Dana]

After Rep. Ilhan Omar suggested that aid to Israel should be reconsidered after not being allowed to make a planned official visit with Rep. Tlaib because of the congresswomen’s public advocacy for the boycott of Israel, Trump made a jarring comment:

“I can’t even believe that we’re having this conversation. Five years ago, the concept of even talking about this — even three years ago — of cutting off aid to Israel because of two people that hate Israel and hate Jewish people. I can’t believe we’re even having this conversation,” Trump fumed.

“Where has the Democratic Party gone? Where have they gone where they’re defending these two people over the state of Israel? And I think any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat — I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty, alright?”

As we discussed briefly in the comments, it’s a little bit difficult to ascertain exactly who Trump thinks the Jews would be being disloyal to because his thought process is, well, difficult to follow at best. However, Phillip Klein has a good examination of the president’s “disloyalty” comment and why it is troubling:

Was he talking about disloyalty to America? Disloyalty to Trump? Disloyalty to Israel? Disloyalty to Jews? No matter which way one wants to interpret this comment, it’s sickening coming from an American president — all the more bizarre coming as he has been unleashing a barrage of attacks on Tlaib and Omar for anti-Semitism.

Among the litany of anti-Semitic remarks made by Tlaib and Omar, the most horrific involved accusations of dual loyalty (see background here and here). Accusations of dual loyalty have been at the center of anti-Semitic attacks on Jews for centuries. Yet here is Trump throwing out the “disloyalty” charge.

One potential interpretation is that he was suggesting it would be disloyal to Israel to vote Democrat. But American Jews are first and foremost American, not Israeli. Suggesting that Jewish votes should be determined primarily by U.S. policy toward Israel is in fact to suggest divided loyalties.

If he was trying to say Jews would be disloyal to their faith by voting Democrat, he needs to shut right the heck up, because he is in no position to criticize somebody’s relationship to their faith.

As a conservative, I have found it difficult to get behind Trump despite supporting a number of his policies, and a big reason why is the manner in which he speaks about many minority groups. He has up to this point avoided turning his wrath on Jews, but given his history of flipping on people he views as “disloyal,” his comments make me wonder what would happen if, as is most likely, Jews overwhelmingly vote against him despite his pro-Israel policies. Is there a point at which American Jews essentially become the next Anthony Scaramucci?

As a result of his remarks receiving criticism, conspiracy theorist and Newsmax TV host Wayne Allyn Root pushed back in support of Trump:

“I happen to be Jewish by birth and 75% of all Jews vote Democrat, and they don’t like Trump,” Root said Tuesday. “This is the greatest president for Jews and for Israel in the history of the world. Not just in America, Trump is the best president for Israel in the history of the world. And the Jewish people love him like he is the King of Israel. They love him like he is the second coming of God.”

“In America, American Jews don’t like him,” he continued. “They don’t even know what they’re doing or saying anymore. It makes no sense. But that’s okay. He keeps doing what he’s doing. He’s good for all of us. Good for Jews, good for blacks, good for gays.”

“He is good for everyone in America who wants a job,” Root finished.

This morning, unsurprisingly, Trump enthusiastically retweeted Root’s comments:



Some of Wayne Allyn Root’s conspiracy theories involved the suggestion that Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Hillary Clinton, Donna Brazile, Bill Clinton, etc. were involved in the murder of Seth Rich, falsely claiming white supremacist James Alex Fields Jr. who killed Heather Heyer was a paid actor hired by Soros, and that the mass shooting in Las Vegas was a coordinated Muslim terror attack.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)



Follow-Up on President Trump And Greenland

Filed under: General — Dana @ 7:16 pm

[guest post by Dana]

A few days ago, I posted about Trump’s interest in purchasing Greenland. After reports came out that the president was giving it serious consideration, critics expressed concern that the Trump administration would lay waste to the territory as it went after its natural resources and minerals. Trump even retweeted an amusing post about it:

In spite of Trump’s interest in purchasing the territory, Greenland made it clear that it was not for sale:

“We have a good cooperation with USA, and we see it as an expression of greater interest in investing in our country and the possibilities we offer,” the island’s government said on its website. “Of course, Greenland is not for sale.”

The country’s foreign ministry insisted that it was “open for business, but not for sale.”

“Greenland is rich in valuable resources such as minerals, the purest water and ice, fish stocks, seafood, renewable energy and is a new frontier for adventure tourism,” the ministry said in a tweet Friday. “We’re open for business, not for sale.”

And Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen echoed Greenland’s response:

“Greenland is not for sale. Greenland is not Danish. Greenland belongs to Greenland. I strongly hope that this is not meant seriously [referring to Trump’s interest],” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen told the newspaper Sermitsiaq during a visit to Greenland.

Trump had been invited by the Queen of Denmark on an official state business next month. The scheduled visit was set to include meetings with Prime Minister Frederiksen of Denmark and Prime Minister Kim Kielsen of Greenland to discuss the Arctic.

However, tonight we are learning that Trump has postponed the trip in response to the Danish prime minister’s remarks:

Denmark is a very special country with incredible people, but based on Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s comments, that she would have no interest in discussing the purchase of Greenland, I will be postponing our meeting scheduled in two weeks for another time,” Trump tweeted. “The Prime Minister was able to save a great deal of expense and effort for both the United States and Denmark by being so direct. I thank her for that and look forward to rescheduling sometime in the future!”

All of which confirms two things: Trump was indeed serious about purchasing Greenland, and Trump doesn’t like to be told “no.”


For The Umpteenth Time: Deport The Criminals First, And Make Sure They Can’t Re-Enter The US

Filed under: General — Dana @ 5:12 pm

[guest post by Dana]

While we are discussing the situation with detained immigrants in ICE facilities, I read two reports today, and was left wondering how anyone could possibly object to simultaneously doing everything to tighten up security at the Southern border, come down on sanctuary cities, and most importantly, deport criminal aliens before anyone else. Does the open borders crowd believe that these criminal aliens shouldn’t be immediately deported? It seems like common sense that this specific group should be the priority of ICE deportations, not families who have been here for years, work hard, and already integrated into cities and towns across the nation.


An illegal alien who was convicted in 2007 of sexually abusing a 7-year-old girl, who also had three convictions for driving under the influence, was removed from the country in 2013, but then reentered the United States in 2015 and was found in 2019—after a traffic stop—to be living near “a community swimming pool, elementary school, middle school, high school and nursery school.”

“Martin Mejia Ramos aka Ricardo Morales Rodriguez and Martin Jose Romes-Ramirez pleaded guilty May 10, 2019, to illegally re-entering the United States following an aggravated felony conviction,” said a statement from the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas.

“At the hearing, the court heard that in 2007, Ramos was convicted in Los Angeles, California, for continuous sexual abuse and lewd act upon a child,” said the statement. “He was ordered to serve six years in prison and required to register as a sex offender for life. He was removed from the country in 2013.

“In that case, Ramos had engaged in more than three sexual acts with a seven-year-old with whom he was residing,” the statement said. “The victim claimed Ramos had touched her vagina on multiple occasions and exposed himself to her. A physical examination revealed irritation in her vagina. His hair was also found in that area. Ramos had told her not to tell anyone and threatened to hit her if she did.

“Ramos had six other convictions, three of which were driving under the influence of alcohol,” said the statement from the U.S. attorney. “In one instance, he caused a traffic accident with two other vehicles. His blood alcohol was more than twice the legal limit.

“Ramos illegally re-entered the United States Dec. 31, 2015,” said the statement. “On Jan. 30, 2019, authorities discovered Ramos in New Caney during a traffic stop, at which time he provided a false address. The investigation later revealed his residence was near a community swimming pool, elementary school, middle school, high school and nursery school.”

The second article is about a Maryland sanctuary city that released an illegal alien accused of rape despite an immigration detainer:

A suburban Maryland county with a notorious history as a sanctuary jurisdiction is facing criticism from federal authorities for releasing an illegal alien accused of rape despite an immigration detainer.

“U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement lodged a detainer on Aug. 12 with the Montgomery County (Maryland) Detention Center on unlawfully present Salvadoran national Rodrigo Castro-Montejo following his arrest for rape and other related charges,” reads a statement from ICE’s Maryland office to Blaze Media. “On Aug. 13, the facility failed to honor the detainer, and released Castro from custody.”

According to local WJLA-TV, Montgomery County’s policy allows jail officials to contact ICE if the suspect has committed a “serious crime” and has had an ICE detainer filed previously. ICE says that local officials violated the policy in order to release the suspect.

The WJLA story details the factors that led to Castro-Montejo’s arrest. Castro-Montejo is a Salvadoran national residing in Florida. His accuser says that before he came to Maryland for a wedding last weekend, he had organized a meetup with her on social media. She claims the two went out drinking and dancing, she blacked out, then woke up to to him raping her.

Castro-Montejo was charged with second-degree rape and second-degree assault Saturday, August 10, and was later granted a $10,000 bail by a judge. He posted the 10 percent, $1,000 bond and walked out.

Neither of these criminals would have been here to commit the atrocious crimes for which they were charged, and do the unspeakable damage that they did had our Southern border not been so porous.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)


Tlaib: I Will Obey Israeli Law. Israel: Welcome! Tlaib: I’m Not Going But I Will Fundraise Off Your Oppression

Filed under: General — Dana @ 2:23 pm

[guest post by Dana]

I would be shocked if she didn’t tried to make a buck off her aborted trip. It was baked in:

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.) is fundraising off her aborted trip to Israel, just days after she refused an Israeli invitation permitting her to visit her ailing grandmother and, instead, shared an anti-Semitic cartoon about the Jewish state.

A fundraising email sent by Democracy for America, a far left political action committee, implores readers to “chip in whatever you can to stand with her and [Rep.] Ilhan [Omar (D., Minn.)] now as they continue to fight for justice for all.”

The fundraising plea, which includes a direct pitch from Tlaib, falsely states that the lawmakers “were banned from traveling to Israel and Palestine.” Israel granted Tlaib special permission to enter the country to visit her grandmother. Moreover, Palestine does not, in fact, exist.

“I’ve dealt with sexism, racism, and Islamophobia my entire life—so I knew that would continue if I pursued a high-profile public office and won. What I didn’t anticipate was for that discrimination to come from the President of the United States,” Tlaib writes in the fundraising email.

Benjamin Netanyahu also came under fire in the email:

It’s very telling when a so-called democratic ally bans elected members of Congress from visiting because of our political views and values,” the lawmaker writes. “It’s even more disturbing and completely unprecedented that our own president encouraged this undemocratic action. What is Netanyahu afraid that we will witness, that we will bring to light?”

“Not only am I heartbroken that I cannot meet the people of Israel and Palestine to witness their struggles firsthand, but I am heartbroken I can no longer visit my Palestinian grandmother [Ed. Liar! You could have gone, you chose not to go!], who just days ago was excited to decide which fig tree we’d pick from together,” Tlaib continues.

Leaving no stone unturned, she also recapped the recent events leading up to her fundraising, while conveniently neglecting to mention a few key points:

“The Israeli government ultimately decided they would let me visit, but under one condition: that I sign a letter restricting my freedom of speech in order to stop me from speaking out against the inhumane conditions Palestinians like my grandmother are forced to face by the Israeli military occupation,” she writes in another statement riddled with factual inaccuracies.

“No matter how badly I wish to see my grandmother, I know she would not want me to do so under such degrading circumstances that go against everything I believe in: fighting racism, oppression, and injustice,” she writes.

Let’s be accurate here since Tlaib is apparently unwilling to be: The congresswoman voluntarily signed a letter in which she promised not to promote boycotting Israel and to be respectful of their laws. But of course, she’s not interested in accuracy, she’s interested only in advocacy.

Further demonstrating her problems with telling the truth as well as an unattractive unwillingness to assume responsibility, Tlaib claimed ignorance about Miftah, the non-profit Palestinian, anti-Semitic advocacy group that was sponsoring the trip, and instead threw her colleagues under the bus:

Tlaib and Omar distanced themselves from Miftah, emphasizing that they weren’t aware of the group’s background when they decided to attend the trip, and adding that they implicitly trusted the group because other Democratic members of Congress participated in similar trip sponsored by it in 2016.

“Our colleagues that are senior members, some of whom have served multiple terms, actually told us about the organization. We’re not the ones who chose the organization. A U.S.-based sponsor organization chose it. But I think there were five members of Congress that actually went on a trip sponsored by the same organization,” Tlaib said when asked about criticisms of Miftah.

The freshman Michigan lawmaker went on to argue that, while she was unaware of Miftah’s background, recent criticisms of the group represent a cynical attempt to distract from the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land.

“We’re just as taken aback and learned from everybody else that there are some issues around the organization. I think these are just distractions into the fact that this had nothing to do really with the agenda or these other issues,” she continued. “I think the focus is the hiding of the truth and hiding that the occupation is happening. I think they knew that us setting foot there would basically bring attention to something that many of us feel is very much against international human rights.”

I’m taken aback that she thinks we’re stupid enough to believe her nonsense. Of course she knew about Miftah. As for those senior members who went on a trip to Irsrael in 2016 that was sponsored by the organization, they were: Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, Dan Kildee of Michigan, Hank Johnson of Georgia, Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania and Mark Pocan of Wisconsin. Note: The five Democrats reportedly met with an alleged member of a Palestinian terrorist group during that trip.

David French has a great report on Miftah that you should read. In it, he notes that the group had: re-published neo-Nazi content and “actually published blood libel, posting an article that accused ‘the Jews [of using] the blood of Christians in the Jewish Passover.’”


Next Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2433 secs.