Steve Hilton introduces a new segment for 'The Next Revolution' with a look at hypocrisy within the democrat party.

 

 

President Trump on Monday night spoke about political elites and illegal immigration -- two themes he hits quite often. Two themes that help define the presidential race now in progress.

Kirsten Gillibrand is in that race and is not just a candidate, but really a living metaphor. Gillibrand is someone who has lived a remarkably fortunate life. Until about 10 years ago, she was a member of Congress. Virtually nobody outside the mostly rural 20th congressional district in upstate New York had ever heard of her. She was considered a thoroughly average member of Congress, maybe a little below average.

And then one day, Hillary Clinton decided to run for president and Gillibrand hit paydirt. She was plucked from obscurity and handed one of the safest Senate seats in America.

Overnight, Gillibrand became a national figure without even having to win an election. Amazing. It was the political equivalent of inheriting a billion dollars. Maybe not surprisingly, Gillibrand's views changed accordingly. She soon adopted the politics of the trust fund left. Before long, there wasn't a fashionable opinion she didn't have on any topic -- guns, abortion, immigration -- you name it. As her friends in Aspen and Martha's Vineyard became more decadent and more contemptuous of the country around them, so did Kirsten Gillibrand.

This past weekend, when she appeared on "Face the Nation," Gillibrand was arguing against continuing to operate the United States as a sovereign country. "Let everyone in," she demanded. "Detaining anyone is immoral."

Margaret Brennan, CBS News host:: But you oppose even what the Obama administration did in terms of keeping families together or keeping them together for a longer period of time in detention? 

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., 2020 presidential candidate: I wouldn't -- as president of the United States, I wouldn't use the detention system at all. 

Brennan: Homeland Security, they are saying hundreds of thousands of people are crossing the border, and they need to go somewhere before their asylum claims are actually heard. What would you do with them? 

Gillibrand: They don't need to be incarcerated. They can, if they're given a lawyer and given a process, they will follow it. 

Hundreds of thousands of people -- millions of people -- over time. Where will all those people go? Well, they won't go to Kirsten Gillibrand's neighborhood, obviously. They're not headed to Martha's Vineyard, or Aspen or Southampton, obviously. But they're going to dying industrial cities that Gillibrand believes could use more Democratic voters.

"What the state of New York does well is we teach," she said recently. "We actually take refugee families into our communities. We would be delighted to take refugee families into cities like Buffalo and Syracuse and Rochester, and Albany."
 

To [Kirsten] Gillibrand and her friends on the left, America is not a nation, it's a pinata filled with 200 years of treasure. "Get some quick before it's gone." That's what Gillibrand is promising the world. 

So think for a minute about what Gillibrand is saying. She is arguing that anybody from anywhere in the world must be allowed into the United States, awarded a publicly-financed lawyer, given a free place to live, along with free health care and schools -- all of it you pay for -- and allowed to stay indefinitely, unless they lose a court case that, by the way, they will definitely show up for. That's her core assumption.

The people who have demonstrated contempt for our laws will arrive in court when asked. Gillibrand trusts them to do that. And why wouldn't you trust them? That's the base. That's the whole immigration argument that she's making --  which is that, unlike you regular Americans, who are lazy and stupid and not worth helping, immigrants are basically perfect. They're smarter, more industrious, and more creative than you or any of your American-born neighbors were or could be. That's what they believe

However, the facts suggest a more complicated picture. Recently, ICE launched a pilot program to conduct DNA tests of adults and children arriving at El Paso and McAllen, Texas, the border crossings there. When they checked, they found that nearly a third of the kids were not related to the adults they were with. It was fraud on a massive scale. It also revealed something far darker. It revealed that our deliberate failure to protect our borders has made our own government a party to the trafficking of children.

It would be hard overall to design an immigration system that's worse for a country -- our country. But Democrats don't care. To a party totally controlled by identity politics, everything is about race or gender or sexuality. Nothing else matters, including reality.

Congresswoman Maxine Waters recently tried to explain how giving preference to immigrants who speak English is -- can you guess -- racist.

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calf.: Some of that is very racist. It is not keeping with what this country is supposed to be all about. 

John Berman, CNN anchor: What exactly -- just so our viewers know -- are you saying as racist there? 

Waters: Well, you know this business about you must speak English. We're going to give you points for speaking English,and we don't want poor people. We only want those people who are earning substantial wages already. I think that some of those policies are racist. 

Imagine the CNN anchor asking of Maxine Waters, just to be specific, what is racist? Everything, of course. But in this specific case, she and virtually everyone else in her party is arguing that Americans have no right to want immigrants who speak English.

Americans have no right to want immigrants with job skills. Nancy Pelosi explained that last week. Americans have no right to decide how many immigrants come here or how long they stay. And yet, as Kamala Harris and Joe Biden and others have just told us, Americans are required to pay for free health care for everyone who comes, along with housing and education and lots of others. Got that?

You can see where all of this is heading and fast. In France, they're nearly there. This was the scene at Charles de Gaulle, the country's biggest airport on Sunday. Hundreds of illegal immigrants from Africa took over a terminal to make political demands. At one point, a leader of that demonstration chanted into a loudspeaker, , "France does not belong to the French. Everyone has a right to be here."

Kirsten Gillibrand would agree with that. "America for Americans"? That's racist. You don't deserve your own country. To Gillibrand and her friends on the left, America is not a nation, it's a pinata filled with 200 years of treasure. "Get some quick before it's gone." That's what Gillibrand is promising the world.

How long before groups of angry illegal aliens protest in this country? "Where's our share of the spoils? " they'll wonder. "The one that Gillibrand told us about?" That day is coming soon.

Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue on "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on May 20, 2019.

 

By Jon Dougherty
TheNationalSentinel.com

It’s pretty obvious that fired FBI Director James Comey is getting nervous about his future because he’s projecting what it could possibly be onto POTUS Donald Trump.

On Thursday, Comey continued to insist that president is guilty — of something — and that if he loses in 2020, he could be summarily indicted by the Justice Department for — something — after he officially leaves office.

The Washington Times reported:

Former FBI Director James B. Comey said Thursday that he thinks President Trump likely has committed crimes that could be cause for indictment once he leaves office and, were he not president, likely would already have been indicted.

In a CNN town-hall-style meeting, Mr. Comey was asked by host Anderson Cooper whether Mr. Trumpacted with corrupt intent to interfere with an ongoing investigation.

“It sure looks that way,” Mr. Comey replied, saying he based that judgment on his reading of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report and leaning most heavily on Mr. Trump’s order to White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Mr. Mueller.

Boy, for a ‘Republican,’ Comey has sure become a fav of the Left-wing media these days, hasn’t he? The worst part for him is that he appeared on CNN, which means hardly anyone saw him.

Never mind that, according to Attorney General William Barr, former special counsel Robert Mueller told him specifically that his decision not to file any charges against the president had nothing to do with Justice Department policy regarding the indictment of a sitting president. Asked whether the Justice Department’s policy against indicting a sitting president “had anything to do with” Mueller’s refusal to reach a decision on obstruction of justice, Barr responded that Mueller “made it very clear that … [h]e was not saying that but for the [Office of Legal Counsel] OLC opinion, he would have found a crime.”

And never mind that no matter what the president said, he never ‘obstructed’ Mueller’s probe. He provided documents, witnesses, and resources; never fired Mueller or anyone on his staff; never ordered him fired; never actually impeded the probe on any level. So…obstruction? How?

But let’s play along. Recall that Comey is the hack who allowed Hillary Clinton — allowed her — to get away scot-free after her serial criminal violations of the Espionage Act, having exchanged highly classified information via her home-brew, unsecured email server.

And why? Because Comey was just so sure that’s who he’d be working for come January 2017 when it came time to inaugurate a new president.

Wrong.

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, has had enough of Democrats targeting Attorney General William Barr, describing what he considers a nonsensical campaign to place the head of the Justice Department in contempt of Congress.

Gohmert told his colleagues that the true scandal is the Obama intelligence apparatus’ “attempted coup” against President Trump.

“We’ve never had the Intelligence Community, the FBI, people at the top of the DOJ abusing their powers to create a case against a president where there was none. Where assets were actually used to try to set up members of the Trump campaign when there was no case. To try to create a case. We ought to be all over that. We ought to be demanding answers,” Gohmert said.

 

Full video of @replouiegohmert's remarks at Wednesday's House Judiciary contempt proceedings against AG Barr: "I'm really here in mourning for a once-great Judiciary committee."

Adds Barr "cannot be in contempt for failing to produce" grand jury info without a court order. pic.twitter.com/IKAR6dIqIc

— Nate Madden (@NateOnTheHill) May 8, 2019

“This was an attempted coup, and history is bringing that into focus more and more clearly,” he added. “And what does this committee do about the abuses, the attempted coup? It comes in and decides, ‘We’re going to go after the attorney general who’s trying to clean up the mess.’”

On Wednesday, Democrats on the committee successfully pushed through a measure to hold AG Barr in contempt of Congress. The House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines.

President Trump has invoked executive privilege over select contents of the Mueller report. The move coincided with the Democrat-led committee’s decision to advance the contempt of Congress measure. It will now head to the House for a full floor vote.

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders defended the move as a response to the “blatant abuse of power” by House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.

“Neither the White House nor Attorney General Barr will comply with Chairman Nadler’s unlawful and reckless demands,” Sanders added.

In an op-ed for Fox News, California RNC Committeewoman Harmeet Dhillon described the Democrat initiative in the Judiciary Committee as “long on partisanship but short on historical memory.”

Dhillon writes:

Two examples demonstrate House Democrats’ true motivation. One, as they hurl vicious personal attacks on Barr, calling him a liar and various other slurs and fixating on his March 24 letter to Congress, House Democrats conveniently ignore that 92 percent of the report has been available to the American public to review for weeks. They hope by repeating their invective to create a new political “fire” because the report itself did not provide them the fuel to keep their Russian collusion and obstruction of justice narrative of the past two and a half years going through the 2020 election.

 

Dems refuse to honor the results of the Mueller probe and the 2016 election!

 

The Democrats are attempting to move the goal posts back onto the field. But the field is muddy and it’s unclear whether they realize which game is going to be played.

The Democrats have been frantically setting the table after realizing they put nothing on it, only to have the needler New York congressman Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler bring the Democratic Party message back to its modus operandi of bad craziness.

If the Democrats actually cared about fair and free elections and Russian election meddling, would they support Big Tech’s obvious 2020 election interference by banning the platforms of Trump’s base? Or continue their shallow impeachment narrative? A narrative that threatens the stability of the United States and the real issues Americans face.

The push to hold William Barr in contempt is an effort to prevent the attorney general from investigating the origins of the Mueller probe, says Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan, Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee.

 

Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan applauds Attorney General Bill Barr for wanting to get to the bottom of what prompted the Trump-Russia collusion investigation.

 

Editor's Note:  Sleepy, Creepy Joe. Only a stone-cold sociopath would start his campaign for President by deliberately lying straight to your face while claiming to represent some higher, unimpeachable moral character. The way he feigns deep sincerity while he knowingly misrepresents the truth makes me want to projectile vomit.

These people believe that when they repeat a lie enough times it becomes the truth. And others are too afraid to correct them. It’s an emperor has no clothes situation. No one on the left wants to get unpersoned.

 

The claim that Trump called neo-nazis "very fine people" is demonstrably false. pic.twitter.com/eXW2HmzoGz

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) April 26, 2019

 

By Enrique Padron
NYPost.com

American Democrats are pining ever more loudly for socialism these days, for “free” education, “free” health care and much else.

Let me tell you about socialism as I lived it under the Fidel Castro regime.

The house where I was born in Communist Cuba had a dirt floor, a bathroom hole-in-the-ground, which we shared with six other families, and a zinc roof that left us unbearably hot in the summer and shivering in the winter.

We had no running water, no refrigerator and no door in the back of the house. We cooked with charcoal. My mother raised four boys by herself in that “house,” working 12 hours a day to earn 160 Cuban pesos, or approximately $6, a month.

Why didn’t we fix it? In addition to the meager income, we had no access to hardware stores to buy nails or cement to fix our humble house. In fact, the local member of the ­National Assembly was the only person authorized to approve whether we could buy a bag of cement or a roll of roof paper — if they were available.

We couldn’t buy these simple materials without that precious piece of paper. Can you imagine going to your congressional representative to ask for permission to buy a box of nails? Or roof tiles? Or roof paper? It seems unthinkable in the United States. But in Cuba, where we lacked the ­necessities of life, we had to. And when we complained, the authorities scolded us to be grateful for free education and free health care.

In Cuba, it is illegal to speak against the government or complain about living conditions. We were prohibited from speaking with local media, but the journalists were state employees and wouldn’t publish our stories anyway. We couldn’t ­express our unmet needs and were reminded that we shouldn’t complain anyway, ­because we were promised — you guessed it — free education and free health care.

In Cuba, doctors make the equivalent of 25 cents an hour and teachers 21 cents an hour. Pharmacists earn eight cents an hour.

In Cuba, there is no right to free speech and virtually no ­independent media.

There are no free, fair, multiparty elections. In fact, there is just one political party (Communist), and only members of the Communist Party may run as candidates for any ­office. But we were told we couldn’t object to this system, lest we lose our free education and free health care.

Two of my brothers were sent to fight in Angola when I was a boy. After years of risking their lives for a strange cause, they came back to Cuba to find out that their mother and little brother were living under worse conditions than before they left. They learned that the promise of going to another country to fight for the “big, beautiful future of socialism” was just a big lie.

In Cuba, if you dare to yell something true — like “Fidel and Raul are dictators!” — you could spend many years in prison. Dictatorship is another price we had to pay for free education and free health care.

I desperately needed something more than the promises of free education and free health care. I knew that I needed freedom — freedom to speak my mind and vote my conscience. It was worth the risk of being eaten by sharks than to continue living a life with no purpose and no freedom.

On August 16, 1994, I decided to get into a boat with 20 other Cubans in search of a future.

One of my two brothers followed me to the United States, also in a raft, nearly dying of thirst and hunger during the journey. My other brother is still awaiting the visa I filed for him.

Throughout their ordeals, my brothers have been promised free education and free health care.

After arriving in the United States, I worked as an international sales manager, owned a restaurant, hosted a radio program and authored two books. Today, I work for a member of Congress. None of those opportunities would have been possible for me in socialist Cuba.

I wish that one day I might have a conversation with some of these young American socialists, who have no experience with actually existing socialism. They like to think they can have democracy and a socialist economy. But everywhere it’s been implemented, public ownership of the means of production has led to political repression.

Not least in my native Cuba, with its promises of “free” cradle-to-grave services.

I chose so much more than the promise of “free.” I chose freedom.

Enrique Padron is the southwest Florida director for Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart.

This morning, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton appeared on "Fox & Friends FIRST" on the Fox News Channel to discuss Attorney General William Barr's testimony to Congress about the effort to spy on Donald Trump.