The Front Page Cover
The Events of the Week -- Featuring:
Give Me Your Tired Arguments
by Ann Coulter
.
Rex Tillerson Is Confirmed
On Wednesday, the Senate, by a margin of 56-43, voted to confirm Rex Tillerson as secretary of state. All 52 Republicans approved, with four Democrats breaking ranks to throw their support behind Donald Trump's nominee. Tillerson's ride through to confirmation was by no means smooth, as no other past presidential nominee for secretary of state has received fewer votes. But after all the commotion Democrats made, he's through.
Tillerson's confirmation by no means signals the end of Democrat opposition. The dustup over his global business connections and supposedly cozy relationship with Russia was merely designed to establish the narrative. In reality, Democrats are just fine with his confirmation. They've secured their "resistance" position with a majority of Democrats having voted against his confirmation. For Democrats and the Leftmedia, Tillerson is compromised. So as soon as the opportunity arises, one can bet the Democrats will be front and center hollowing about how they warned America against Trump's compromised nominee.
Tillerson takes over a State Department that may be quite hostile to his leadership. A State Department that was recently headed by two failed presidential candidates, liar-Hillary Clinton and John hanoi-Kerry. A State Department that has over the last eight years witnessed the rise of the Islamic State, Russian aggression in Ukraine, the Arab Spring, the Syrian civil war, a disastrous nuclear deal with Iran, the normalization of relations with Cuba, and the repeated snubbing of Israel. A State Department desperately in need of a course correction. Secretary Tillerson certainly has got his work cut out for him, and you can count on the Democrats giving him no quarter. ~The Patriot Post
.
.
Revealed: New liar-Hillary State Dept.-liar-Clinton Foundation Hanky Panky
by Jeff Dunetz
{lidblog.com} ~ Memo to James Comey…you still have a chance at redemption. Around the election the scuttlebutt was that the FBI hadn’t closed it’s investigation of the interaction between the liar-Hillary Clinton-run State Dept., and the liar-Clinton Foundation... Yet three months later–nada. Trust me director Comey this time there will be no secret meetings between the Attorney General and Bubba liar-Clinton. And the will be no pressure from the administration to spare liar-Hillary. In fact, your task just got easier. New emails obtained by Judicial Watch show that top liar-Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin was asked to secure an invitation to an State Dept. Luncheon and State Dinner for liar-Clinton Foundation trustee and contributor Sant S. Chatwal, a businessman under investigation in two countries. The 549 pages of new emails also include an email to liar-Clinton which divulged the classified names of intelligence agency employees. The email passed through the infamous unsecured server in the liar-Clinton basement and shared with Huma Abedin who also used the liar-Clinton email server... http://lidblog.com/revealed-new-hillary-state-dept-clinton-foundation-hanky-panky/
.
OUTRAGEOUS! Famous U.S. Liberals Now Openly
Calling For Overthrow Of Government
by Onan Coca
{lidblog.com} ~ I’m not sure when it happened, but our country has taken a severely dangerous turn. In years past, conservatives, Tea Party supporters, and other shades of America’s right-wing have complained about the growth of government... the Democrat trend toward socialism, and the attack on our natural rights. The right wing has at times used harsh terms, but none but the most fringe have ever argued for the overthrow of government or the upending of a lawfully elected administration. Sadly, the same cannot now be said for liberals. Finding themselves in a minority party role for the first time in almost 15 years, it seems that the Democrat left has completely lost control of their senses. Just two weeks in to the Trump administration’s tenure and once “mainstream” voices on the left have actually begun to call for a physical coup, or overthrow, of the duly elected Trump administration... http://lidblog.com/overthrow-of-government/
.
Seattle judge issues nationwide restraining
order on Trump's refugee ban
by Anna Giaritelli
{washingtonexaminer.com} ~ A federal judge in Seattle on Friday ordered a temporary nationwide restraining order to halt President Trump's executive order that bans refugees and asylum seekers from seven countries in the Middle East and North Africa... U.S. District Judge James Robart ruled in favor of a lawsuit by Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who is taking action on certain provisions in the week-old executive action. Robart's restraining order is granted on a national level and will take effect immediately, according to multiple reports. The former George W. Bush-appointed judge's order will likely lead to a circuit split due to an opposite ruling by a Boston judge on Friday, forcing the matter to be decided by the Supreme Court... http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/seattle-judge-issues-nationwide-restraining-order-on-trumps-refugee-ban/article/2613907
VIDEO: http://launch.newsinc.com/embed.html?trackingGroup=91212&siteSection=91212_pp&videoId=31919191
.
Trump Amazingly Successful Despite
Rabid Leftist Effort Against Him
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ Lou Dobbs offers a few thoughts on “a country that is truly undergoing what someone once called a fundamental transformation. And this transformation started the day President Trump was elected... President Trump is the change agent that he assured us all that he would be in the campaign. And he brings to the presidency an indefatigable commitment to make America great again. Not even the posh lords and masters of the left-wing media and their minions can suppress his boundless energy.” Dobbs notes, “And we have even more good news on the economy today. A strong jobs report for last month and President Trump is building on that. President Trump today signed an executive order to being rolling back Dodd-Frank, a move that the White House National Economic Council Director hailed as a boost to business.” He stated that access to capital for small and medium sizes businesses needs to be available to get this country moving again. “And he couldn’t be more correct,” says Dobbs. “The President taking his pro-jobs, pro-growth message to business leaders, big business leaders...
.
Mexico Federal Van Transporting Illegals
To US Border Safe House
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ The border city of Nogales on the US Mexico border is the location of this safe house where illegal aliens prepare for the trip into the United States. It’s what they hope will be the final leg of their trek to invade America in violation of our immigration laws... This isn’t a gathering of people who happened to all be born without papers, as the terminology those who advocate on behalf of these squatters prefers to call them, the “undocumented.” Their problem is those papers are only good in the country that they belong in and this ain’t it. The Reuters propaganda piece portrays the “good, hard working, humanitarians” as working against the oppressive Americans, a narrative that was a lie the first time we heard it and is still that way today. They’re participants in a deliberate drive for a population change, importing citizens for the new United States, ones that don’t value our independence and will submit to the global government as members of the Democrat communist Party...
.
.
Give Me Your Tired Arguments
by Ann Coulter
{freedomsback.com} ~ Everything said about President Trump’s “Muslim ban” is a lie — including that it’s a Muslim ban.
The New York Times wore out its thesaurus denouncing the order: “cruelty … injury … suffering … bigoted, cowardly, self-defeating … breathtaking … inflammatory … callousness and indifference” — and that’s from a single editorial!
Amid the hysteria over this prudent pause in refugee admissions from seven countries whose principal export is dynamite vests, it has been indignantly claimed that it’s illegal for our immigration policies to discriminate on the basis of religion.
This is often said by journalists who are only in America because of immigration policies that discriminated on the basis of religion.
For much of the last half-century, Soviet Jews were given nearly automatic entry to the U.S. as “refugees.” Entering as a refugee confers all sorts of benefits unavailable to other immigrants, including loads of welfare programs, health insurance, job placement services, English language classes, and the opportunity to apply for U.S. citizenship after only five years.
Most important, though, Soviet Jews were not required to satisfy the United Nations definition of a “refugee,” to wit: someone fleeing persecution based on race, religion or national origin. They just had to prove they were Jewish.
This may have been good policy, but let’s not pretend the Jewish exception was not based on religion.
If a temporary pause on refugee admissions from seven majority-Muslim countries constitutes “targeting” Muslims, then our immigration policy “targeted” Christians for discrimination for about 30 years.
Never heard a peep from the ACLU about religious discrimination back then!
According to the considered opinion of the Cato Institute’s David J. Bier, writing in The New York Times, Trump’s executive order is “illegal” because the 1965 immigration act “banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin.”
In 1966, one year after the 1965 immigration act, immigrants from Cuba suddenly got special immigration privileges. In 1986, immigrants from Ireland did. People from Vietnam and Indochina got special immigration rights for 20 years after the end of the Vietnam War.
The 1965 law, quite obviously, did not prohibit discrimination based on national origin. I was wondering why the Times would sully its pages with the legal opinion of a Grove City College B.A., like Bier! Any “expert” in a storm, I guess.
In fact, ethnic discrimination is practically the hallmark of America’s immigration policy — in addition to our perverse obsession with admitting the entire Third World.
Commenting on these ethnic boondoggles back in 1996, Sen. Orrin Hatch said: “We have made a mockery” of refugee law, “because of politics and pressure.” We let in one ethnic group out of compassion, then they form an ethnic power bloc to demand that all their fellow countrymen be let in, too.
As the former Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, described “diversity” in Der Spiegel: “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”
That’s our immigration policy — plus a healthy dose of Emma Lazarus’ insane idea that all countries of the world should send their losers to us. (Thanks, Emma!)
Americans are weary of taking in these pricey Third World immigrants, who show their gratitude by periodically erupting in maniacal violence — in, for example, San Bernardino, Orlando, New York City, Fort Hood, Boston, Chattanooga, Bowling Green and St. Cloud.
The Muslim immigrants currently being showcased by the left are not likely to change any minds. The Times could produce only 11 cases of temporarily blocked immigrants that the newspaper would even dare mention. (Imagine what the others are like!)
For purposes of argument, I will accept the Times’ glowing descriptions of these Muslim immigrants as brilliant scientists on the verge of curing cancer. (Two of the Times’ 11 cases actually involved cancer researchers.)
Point one: If the Times thinks that brilliance is a desirable characteristic in an immigrant, why can’t we demand that of all our immigrants?
To the contrary! Our immigration policy is more likely to turn away the brilliant scientist — in order to make room for an Afghani goat herder, whose kid runs a coffee stand until deciding to bomb the New York City subway one day. (That was Najibullah Zazi, my featured “Immigrant of the Week,” on May 1, 2012.)
Point two: I happened to notice that even the stellar Muslim immigrants dug up by the Times seem to bring a lot of elderly and sickly relatives with them. Guess who gets to support them?
House Speaker Paul Ryan’s driving obsession (besides being the Koch brothers’ lickspittle) is “entitlement reform,” i.e., cutting benefits or raising the retirement age for Social Security and Medicare.
I have another idea. How about we stop bringing in immigrants who immediately access government programs, who bring in elderly parents who immediately access government programs, or who run vast criminal enterprises, stealing millions of dollars from government programs? (I illustrated the popularity of government scams with immigrants in “Adios, America!” by culling all the news stories about these crimes over a one-month period and listing the perps’ names.)
Point three: Contrary to emotional blather about the horrors refugees are fleeing, a lot are just coming to visit their kids or to get free health care. One of the Times’ baby seals — an Iraqi with diabetes and “a respiratory ailment” — was returning from performing his responsibilities as an elected official in Kirkuk.
That’s not exactly fleeing the Holocaust.
While it’s fantastic news that most Muslim refugees aren’t terrorists, the downside is: They’re not refugees, they’re not brilliant, they don’t have a constitutional right to come here and they’re very, very expensive. Until politicians can give us more government services for less money, they need to stop bringing in the poor of the world on our dime.
The New York Times wore out its thesaurus denouncing the order: “cruelty … injury … suffering … bigoted, cowardly, self-defeating … breathtaking … inflammatory … callousness and indifference” — and that’s from a single editorial!
Amid the hysteria over this prudent pause in refugee admissions from seven countries whose principal export is dynamite vests, it has been indignantly claimed that it’s illegal for our immigration policies to discriminate on the basis of religion.
This is often said by journalists who are only in America because of immigration policies that discriminated on the basis of religion.
For much of the last half-century, Soviet Jews were given nearly automatic entry to the U.S. as “refugees.” Entering as a refugee confers all sorts of benefits unavailable to other immigrants, including loads of welfare programs, health insurance, job placement services, English language classes, and the opportunity to apply for U.S. citizenship after only five years.
Most important, though, Soviet Jews were not required to satisfy the United Nations definition of a “refugee,” to wit: someone fleeing persecution based on race, religion or national origin. They just had to prove they were Jewish.
This may have been good policy, but let’s not pretend the Jewish exception was not based on religion.
If a temporary pause on refugee admissions from seven majority-Muslim countries constitutes “targeting” Muslims, then our immigration policy “targeted” Christians for discrimination for about 30 years.
Never heard a peep from the ACLU about religious discrimination back then!
According to the considered opinion of the Cato Institute’s David J. Bier, writing in The New York Times, Trump’s executive order is “illegal” because the 1965 immigration act “banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin.”
In 1966, one year after the 1965 immigration act, immigrants from Cuba suddenly got special immigration privileges. In 1986, immigrants from Ireland did. People from Vietnam and Indochina got special immigration rights for 20 years after the end of the Vietnam War.
The 1965 law, quite obviously, did not prohibit discrimination based on national origin. I was wondering why the Times would sully its pages with the legal opinion of a Grove City College B.A., like Bier! Any “expert” in a storm, I guess.
In fact, ethnic discrimination is practically the hallmark of America’s immigration policy — in addition to our perverse obsession with admitting the entire Third World.
Commenting on these ethnic boondoggles back in 1996, Sen. Orrin Hatch said: “We have made a mockery” of refugee law, “because of politics and pressure.” We let in one ethnic group out of compassion, then they form an ethnic power bloc to demand that all their fellow countrymen be let in, too.
As the former Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, described “diversity” in Der Spiegel: “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.”
That’s our immigration policy — plus a healthy dose of Emma Lazarus’ insane idea that all countries of the world should send their losers to us. (Thanks, Emma!)
Americans are weary of taking in these pricey Third World immigrants, who show their gratitude by periodically erupting in maniacal violence — in, for example, San Bernardino, Orlando, New York City, Fort Hood, Boston, Chattanooga, Bowling Green and St. Cloud.
The Muslim immigrants currently being showcased by the left are not likely to change any minds. The Times could produce only 11 cases of temporarily blocked immigrants that the newspaper would even dare mention. (Imagine what the others are like!)
For purposes of argument, I will accept the Times’ glowing descriptions of these Muslim immigrants as brilliant scientists on the verge of curing cancer. (Two of the Times’ 11 cases actually involved cancer researchers.)
Point one: If the Times thinks that brilliance is a desirable characteristic in an immigrant, why can’t we demand that of all our immigrants?
To the contrary! Our immigration policy is more likely to turn away the brilliant scientist — in order to make room for an Afghani goat herder, whose kid runs a coffee stand until deciding to bomb the New York City subway one day. (That was Najibullah Zazi, my featured “Immigrant of the Week,” on May 1, 2012.)
Point two: I happened to notice that even the stellar Muslim immigrants dug up by the Times seem to bring a lot of elderly and sickly relatives with them. Guess who gets to support them?
House Speaker Paul Ryan’s driving obsession (besides being the Koch brothers’ lickspittle) is “entitlement reform,” i.e., cutting benefits or raising the retirement age for Social Security and Medicare.
I have another idea. How about we stop bringing in immigrants who immediately access government programs, who bring in elderly parents who immediately access government programs, or who run vast criminal enterprises, stealing millions of dollars from government programs? (I illustrated the popularity of government scams with immigrants in “Adios, America!” by culling all the news stories about these crimes over a one-month period and listing the perps’ names.)
Point three: Contrary to emotional blather about the horrors refugees are fleeing, a lot are just coming to visit their kids or to get free health care. One of the Times’ baby seals — an Iraqi with diabetes and “a respiratory ailment” — was returning from performing his responsibilities as an elected official in Kirkuk.
That’s not exactly fleeing the Holocaust.
While it’s fantastic news that most Muslim refugees aren’t terrorists, the downside is: They’re not refugees, they’re not brilliant, they don’t have a constitutional right to come here and they’re very, very expensive. Until politicians can give us more government services for less money, they need to stop bringing in the poor of the world on our dime.
http://www.freedomsback.com/ann-coulter/give-me-your-tired-arguments/
