“It Felt Really Good”: DOJ Employee Among Socialists Harassing Homeland Secretary Kirstjen Nielson At Restaurant

Kirstjen Nielsen restaurant

 

Two days ago, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was effectively chased from a restaurant by protesters screaming at her and her companion.  The scene at MXDC Cocina Mexicana was shocking to most of us who have decried the loss of civility in today’s political discourse.  One person clearly not shocked was Rep. Jackie Speier (D., Cal.) who defended the protesters and blamed it on Trump’s divisive political rhetoric.  While the protest seemed clearly organized, Speier portrayed it as a spontaneous expression of anger by citizens in her interview on CNN.  The scene was very disturbing as was the apparent impunity exercised by the protesters in shutting down a restaurant.  It now appears that it was a protest by the Democratic Socialists of America and one of those participating was a DOJ employee, Allison Hrabar.  Hrabar is reportedly a paralegal specialist and her participation could raise again our long-standing debate over the punishment of employees for comments or actions taken outside of the workplace.

We have followed cases where people have been fired after boorish or insulting conduct once their names and employers are made known. (here and here). This includes YouTube videos and drunken scenes.

Hrabar is quoted in aWashington Examiner report saying “It feels really good to confront people who are actually responsible, which is what we have a unique opportunity to do in D.C.”  That “unique opportunity” could cost Hrabar her job.  This was not just a protest but arguably disturbing the peace and trespass.

The legality of the protest is key.  Before addressing the more difficult issues speech content, there is the threshold question of the legality of the protest.

There are some concerns on the participation itself.  A federal employee is allowed to participate in protests or advocate for changes.  They are not allowed to support or oppose a political party or candidate for a partisan political office or partisan political group while at work or wearing a uniform.  This includes postings on social media during work hours.  If she advocated for the Socialist party or made social media protests during work hours, she could have serious ramifications.

The Hatch Act allows “less restricted” employees to participate in partisan political campaigns while off-duty.  She is presumed not a “further restricted” DOJ employee as someone who is SES or an ALJ judges or employee of the criminal division, FBI etc.

A different issue will arise after police find the intern who screamed profanities to President Trump in the Capitol.  This was presumably during the course of her duties since she used her intern badge to gain access to the Capitol.

Hrabar dismissed her status as a DOJ employee and encouraged others to engage is such confrontations: “If you see these people in public, you should remind them that they shouldn’t have peace. We aren’t the only ones who can do this. Anyone who sees Kirstjen Nielsen at dinner, anyone who sees anyone who works at DHS and ICE at dinner can confront them like this, and that’s what we hope this will inspire people to do.”

She previously posted anti-Trump comments on social media, though her account has now been made private.

Now that Hrabar has self-identified, the question is whether MXDC will press charges. It is not clear if the restaurant ever notified police despite two of its patrons being abused inside the restaurant. The restaurant serves many politicians and officials who assume that the establishment will act to protect its patrons from such harassment.  If charges are brought, Hrabar may find the First Amendment is less protective than she assumed.

 

450 thoughts on ““It Felt Really Good”: DOJ Employee Among Socialists Harassing Homeland Secretary Kirstjen Nielson At Restaurant”

  1. TRUMP IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MEDIA COVERAGE OF CHILD SEPARATIONS

    When Americans see reports of small children in wire mesh cages, at converted Walmart stores, they naturally want to know, “What the hell is happening there??”

    Yet for almost a week Donald Trump kept lying to the people; insisting repeatedly that ‘only Democrats’ could change the policy. Trump seemed to imply that Democrats should call their own session of Congress!

    Trump’s repeated lies led to a week-long shouting match on social media the likes of which I have never seen. Predictably Trump supporters kept insisting that the child separation policy dated to 1997. Memes and articles from right-wing media were offered as ‘proof’.

    Yesterday Trump seemed to fold; reversing the May 7 order that led to the criss. Yet last night Trump was at a Duluth Minnesota rally claiming the criss was ‘manufactured by the media’ to distract from the I.G. Report which ‘exonerated him with regards to the Russia Probe’.

    Trump went on to claim the I.G. Report ‘confirmed Hillary’s email guilt. He then led the rally in a round of, “Lock her up” chants!

    When Americans want answers to disturbing news reports, they expect the president, and administration officials, to respond with explanations that make sense. But if the president keeps lying it only fuels the appearance of a crisis.

    By doubling-down on lies, Trump put a terrible burden on White House Spokesperson Sanders and Secretary Nielsen. Both women became the objects of intense anger as a result of Trump’s lies. How shabby of Trump! The entire matter was the most disturbing episode so far in a most disturbing presidency.

    1. Peter Hill calls the President a liar, but what the President has actually said is true. He really can’t do anything without Congress that doesn’t violate a present law. Obama said the same thing but to Peter Obama was telling the truth. Who is the liar here?

      Trump’s executive order will probably be held illegal by the courts but that will provide a bit of time for Congress to act. The left wants no border policy that impairs open borders. They don’t care that some illegal aliens have killed Americans separating them from their families permanently. Peter Hill doesn’t care either. Peter Hill also doesn’t care that many of these children were sent by their parents to travel long distances through deserts with people they don’t know exposing those children to death, rape, human traffickers, and drug traffickers. Peter Hill is just a leftist hack who doesn’t care about children until it provides him with a political tool. Hard to stomach anyone with that type of attitude.

        1. Yes, brainless one. I always appreciate your comments that have so little to say and are so repetitive.

          1. Too many crazy, angry (and stupid) Americans — who aren’t worth the breath. If the shoe fits, Allan.

            1. In your case, the hat size might fit but the skull is empty for your brain is unlikely to be bigger than that of a chicken. Just read what you write and you will note your total lack of ability. I hope you have some other attributes.

          2. Allanincompoop:

            Refute the following, point by point. Oh, wait. You can’t.

            “Trump Again Falsely Blames Democrats for His Separation Tactics”

            nytimes.com/2018/06/16/us/politics/trump-democrats-separation-policy.html

                1. During last Friday’s news conference on the White House lawn, Trump told at least 10 lies on a range of different subjects. It was profoundly disturbing.

                  We can’t allow ruth to become a casualty of the Culture Wars.

                  1. The big question is, does Peter Hill know what a lie is? How can he when all his posts are escapes from the truth. I think most, even some on the left recognize Peter for what he is. Too bad.

                    1. To the Left, like our friend Peter Hill, an opinion or interpretation they disagree with is a “lie”.

            1. The left even showed pictures of the cages children were in. Unfortunately, some of those pictures were traced back to the Obama administration. Maybe they all were. You don’t know these things but we don’t get angry at you because we recognize your limitations.

              This is a long-standing problem. Trump passed an executive order that I think is illegal because of the Flores decision, but it reduces the problem. Now your friends will complain that Trump is doing something illegal because they don’t care about the kids. They are selfish and mean-spirited. Normally I would say I can’t believe how easily you were duped but in your case, you have no intellectual protection.

              1. Both TIME and NEWSWEEK reported on the 2014 photo purported to be a recent one of children in cages.
                Another photo that went viral was actually taken at a pro-immigration rally in Dallas.
                To their credit, even TIME and NEWSWEEK actually reported these “irregularities” in photos surfacing.
                One advocate thought the (mis)use of those photos was OK as a sort of “creative license” to make a point.

      1. OK, Allan, you claim that Fatso can’t do anything without Congress, they HOW did the incarceration of infants and children start in the first place? Did I miss that legislation getting passed? You accuse Peter Hill of leveraging childrens’ suffering as a “political tool”. What the hell is wrong with you?

        And why were my tax dollars spent transporting and protecting that fat blob of mental problems to Minnesota, to lead a chorus of “lock her up”? The junkie needs his fix, I guess, but why do taxpayers have to foot the bill for this? How pathetic. And he also lied about the IG report “exonerating” him. It did no such thing. I can’t wait until Mueller gets his fat ass locked up.

        1. OK, Allan, you claim that Fatso can’t do anything without Congress, they HOW did the incarceration of infants and children start in the first place?

          Trump and Obama were working under a consent decree. What’s going on now is a mix of lawfare and PR with the aim of re-instituting catch-and-release.

            1. Obama turned the kids over to traffickers. Snopes rated this as TRUE.

              Did the Obama Administration Place Immigrant Children With Human Traffickers?

              A congressional report and criminal indictment resulted from a 2014 incident in which multiple immigrant children were handed off to a human trafficking ring.

              CLAIM
              The Obama administration placed immigrant children with human traffickers.

              RATING
              TRUE

              https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-obama-administration-children-human-traffickers/

            2. Diane the repetitive nature of your comments is incredible. Too much alcohol can cause brain damage and that turn can cause people to perseverate.

              1. Allan – Diane learns a new word or phrase and then spends all day running it into the ground.

                1. Paul, Do you think she enjoys running the new words to the ground or do you think she forgot the old words?

                  Sometimes I think Diane repeats every hour that ‘it must be five o’clock somewhere’?

                  1. Allan and Paul,
                    Your comments about L4D/Diane/Inga/Annie (whoever) reminds of something that has probably been stated before; but most of JT’s posts function as the fuel in a fire triangle. Whether it fizzles out or becomes a six alarm blaze depends on opposing opinions functioning as the heat and oxygen. Wouldn’t it be advisable to stop providing the oxygen?

                    1. Why? LOL! Suit yourself. For me, it makes absolutely no sense to fight fires that don’t need fighting. For example, this illegal immigration issue is a strategically manufactured outrage (fire) set to deflect attention away from fires inadvertently set by the DOJ/FBI as outlined in the IG report. Enjoy.

                    2. Olly, Turley determines the fires that will be fought and the individual bloggers determine which way the fire will go. Absolutely nothing is settled on this blog. If the bloggers were serious the discussion would be held at a higher level. Instead, we have the crazies that neither know anything or add anything to the discussion. They are not interested in working toward the truth no matter which way the cards fall. In fact, many bloggers change their names which adds to the confusion and the raucous since they can destroy an alias by their actions and then open a new one.

                      If you are looking for a more intellectual discussion then you will have to add your voice more and hope others will follow suit. I respond on the level of the person I am speaking to at the time. You can make the most compelling arguments here but if no one responds on a similar plane then the comment merely zips into cyberspace.

                    3. If you are looking for a more intellectual discussion then you will have to add your voice more and hope others will follow suit.

                      As if often the case for me, when the discussion resembles a Black Friday at Walmart, then that’s the time to not participate. Unless of course you’re into that sort of thing. We actually have some very bright contributors on this blog, from all across the political spectrum. What a waste of intelligence to turn this blog into a mosh pit.

                    4. Olly, you won’t find me disagreeing. Apparently, nothing will change so I take the good with the bad. Yes, we have some very bright people and it doesn’t matter which side they take, however, I have noted very few discussions that actually go into depth on anything. That’s life, but there are some tidbits flying around along with Turley’s articles that make it worthwhile to stay.

                      You are a pretty bright guy so I wish you would post more in a slightly provocative way to enhance the discussion.

                    5. This is a very good article Intellectual Takeout that addresses exactly what is going on blogs such as this.

                      These days there’s very little honest dialogue. Gone are the days when you could sit down with friends to debate the pros and cons of an issue or event. Instead, how a person feels dictates not only his position, but also the amount of rage leveled at his opponents. We have entered the Emotive Era.

                      Indeed, reason is now used to justify one’s emotions, not to pursue truth. As such, public policy will increasingly be determined by “optics” rather than reasoned discourse. And that means whoever is best capable of fanning the flames of emotion will determine the course of our country.

                      Consider the froth the country has been worked into this week over the topic of immigrant families illegally entering the U.S. and then being separated by our immigration officers. The issue came out of nowhere, largely fanned by major media and sophisticated networks on social media using pictures from 2014 when President Obama was still in office. Denouncements of the cruel and immoral policy spread like wildfire and few dared to push back lest they find themselves the target of the raging masses.

                      Lost in all of it was the simple question, “Why? Why would our government agents separate children from adults at the border?” No, Americans were told the agents are evil, shown pictures, and made their judgement.

                      I grew up in rural San Diego and spent many a day working in a field or kitchen with Hispanic immigrants as well as plenty of time at the border and going into Mexico — a few times quite deep into the interior. If you travel outside of the vacation spots in Mexico, you will find that it is a brutal, lawless, violent, and desperate land. And so are many of its neighbors to its south.

                      There are good people attempting to escape those failed nation-states. But there are also many individuals with malice in their hearts — and some of them try to come across our border. As my colleague, Jon Miltimore wrote about today, 80% of Central American women attempting to enter the U.S. report being raped as they traversed Mexico. Whether the statistic is true or not, it is but one that reveals corruption of morals. Either the women are being raped or they are hoping that lying about it will help them gain entry to the U.S.

                      illegal children and manNow, picture yourself as an immigration officer, an ICE agent if you will, on our southern border. From the desert in front of you emerges a man in his early thirties with two small children in tow. They are dirty, malnourished, and dehydrated. They have no government papers or IDs. He says he’s the children’s father. But how do you know? How do you know that he is a good man trying to escape instead of an evil man trafficking children to be sold into slavery or prostitution?

                      You don’t. And that’s the point.

                      Children can be coached. Adults can be coached. They can cry, and they can lie. Might it actually be prudent and moral to separate the children from the adults until you can figure out what is happening? Might that be one of many reasons for our agents to separate children from adults along the border? And wouldn’t that be the moral thing to do?

                      Alas, our media leadership and talking heads never bothered to inquire about the “Why?” as they happily blamed the entire situation on President Trump. Sadly, too many Americans joined them.

                      Morality is not a feeling. Morality in America and the West is derived from thousands of years of thought, debate, and experience — all of which demand reason be used over emotion and the soul governs both.

                      If morality is determined by the emotions of the masses, then we are in grave danger in these times of mass communication. Emotions are easy to manipulate. With the right soundtrack, a video clip can make you cry. With a different soundtrack, the same video could make you laugh. And when tens of millions of Americans watch that video and feel the same thing, believing that the emotion they felt is the same as truth and morality, then we have given enormous power to the man behind the screen.

                      Mass communication is mass propaganda. As such, the moral and intellectual formation of our children is now more important than ever. The battle for their hearts and minds rages constantly in the schools, on their phones, over social media, and everywhere else that can capture the attention of their eyes and ears.

                      If we continue to uphold the emotive as the determiner of truth, America will quickly be at the mercy of the few people who have the most control over mass communications. You will not dare to speak out, lest the rage be directed at ruining your life.

                      While we can consider ways to break up or neutralize mass communications for the health of the Republic, the greatest hope we have for our country now is in those children who are raised and educated to equip them with the tools needed to see through the propaganda. They must be rooted deeply in history and civics, taught logic and rhetoric, and be of truly good moral and mental character. For now, they are coming almost entirely from homeschool families and the schools of classical education.

                      The good news is that the populations of both are growing rapidly. For the good of America, let us work to grow them exponentially.

                      Godspeed,

                      Devin C. Foley
                      Co-Founder & CEO

                    6. “These days there’s very little honest dialogue. Gone are the days when you could sit down with friends to debate the pros and cons ”

                      Thanks, Olly for the blog that I looked at and bookmarked for further review. This article says exactly why we don’t have too many good discussions on this blog. Instead, this blog is like playing ice hockey without the referees. The only difference is that the missing teeth are virtual teeth that reappear as soon as they are lost.

                      I don’t think the format of WordPress helps in creating good dialog. For a decade or so I was on an email list with professors, politicians, professionals, and normal people. A debate could go on for days with various persons adding studies to prove a point and the individual replies could be one page in length that required some research. I was also on a Wall Street Journal Blog before the WSJ ended that type of blog where the discussion was also intense. In both cases, the subject matter was limited and that would bore a lot of the people that post here, but that provided space for those truly interested in the subject matter.

                      I will say that the email list that existed for about 30 years gradually devolved and the discussions became more personal. That list was keeping up with the times because the nation itself was moving in a new direction towards the Twitter discussion and the Twitter insult.

        2. Natacha:

          Everyone was detained, and by day 20 the children were moved out of incarceration, just as the Flores Settlement said.

          A President is not allowed to circumvent Congress and change immigration laws. That is prevented by the balance of powers.

          This is Congress’ job and its own failure to act.

        3. You missed everything Natacha. The problem has existed for decades. The answer of the Democratic Party of today is lawlessness and to the hell with the children and to the hell with the American worker. It’s strange how the American worker sees what pieces of crap now run the Democratic Party and they voted for Trump. I’ll stick with the workers that though they are unschooled at the big universities they seem to be educated in a decent way of life.

        4. Natacha – first you were knocking bottle blondes, now you are fat shaming. Didn’t you take a civics course in high school? They should have explained how the President uses Air Force One for almost all trips where he is flying. Did you complain about his trips? I certainly hope so. Judicial Watch has been monitoring the President’s use of Air Force One, so they are the people to look to for Trump’s use of the plane.

          BTW, you have not been following along. According to DoJ policy, the DoJ cannot indict the President. If Trump lasts two terms, he will have run out the clock on anything he could be indicted for by Mueller, unless Mueller is intending to investigate him the entire time he is in office, become a permanent Special Counsel.

      2. Allan: This episode goes far beyond border policy.

        When Americans want answers to baffling news reports, the White House has an obligation to provide truthful and logical answers. We can’t have Americans screaming at each other because the president is lying.

        1. The Obama WH, and Obama himself, routinely lied and told huge whopper lies that the media by and large let him get away with. What is the obligation of the press that regularly puts out false or misleading information? or suppresses or sits on a ‘news’ story that might damage a certain preferred political figure? Too many of the ‘journalists’ today are more activist-idealogues than reporters of the ‘news.’

          1. No, Bob, Obama didn’t lie routinely. That’s just a false equivalency to excuse the inexcusable.

            No president has lied with such reckless abandon as Trump. Even Nixon was credible more than half the time. And Nixon actually knew what he was talking about with regards to policy matters. Trump just tries to ‘wing it’ when asked about serious issues. Which usually results in preposterous answers.

            1. No, Peter Hill, Obama and his administration routinely told lies. And the media routinely gave him a pass.

            2. Peter:

              First, I don’t like lying, no matter who does it. The press’s job is to keep them honest, not turn all news into op eds.

              Second, Obama was routinely dishonest.
              1. It was a video that caused a spontaneous demonstration in Benghazi
              2. If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance.
              3. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
              4. Republicans are lying to you, telling you the ACA will increase costs. The truth is the ACA will save the average American family $2500 a year
              5. Trayvan was shot in cold blood
              6. Hands up don’t shoot
              7. I found out about Hillary’s emails the same time you folks did (he actually had been emailing her private email address using an anonymous account)

              1. 8. The NSA is not spying on Americans. Ignore Snowden.
                9. The IRS did not target conservatives during the election.

              2. 10. 90% of the guns found in Mexico came from the US (they only counted the ones Mexico sent to the US to trace)
                11. Denied Fast and Furious gun walking scheme. When caught he blamed the gun stores who did what the feds told them to do. When caught again, blamed Bush because he had cancelled a similar program, except the guns were sabotaged and had trackers.
                12. It is easier for a teenager to get his hands on a Glock than a computer or a book. The later don’t require a background check or cost a fraction of a Glock. Maybe if he prefaced it with an illegal immigrant MS13 teenager…
                13. There are neighborhoods where it is easier to buy a handgun and clips than fresh vegetables. (First, it’s a magazine. Second, you can buy veggies at Target, Walmart, and minimarts.

                There should be consequences for all lies, including Trump and “did I wipe it with a cloth” Hillary Clinton.

                1. Karen S, you’re assuming in dealing with Diane or YNOT or Marky Mark or Fishwings that in their minds there is such a thing as a false statement and a true statement. Whatever you say, they just hear it as trash talk. They live in a protean Wikiality where facts are merely elements of narrative. Something is ‘true’ when it fits. The narrative is in turn derived from the self-concept of its peddlers.

                2. NIS:

                  It does seem like my attempts at getting through to them are falling flat. You cannot reason with ideologues.

                  One aspect of your posts that I enjoy is that you keep my vocabulary fresh. I haven’t heard “protean” used in a sentence in years.

                    1. L4D enables David Benson – unlike Obama, Trump is not standing on the border playing his flute, luring children into the US.

        2. So far the President has been substantially correct and the news media you read is substantially inaccurate.

          Just listen to the media and how their story changed every time something was announced about Trump’s meeting with Kim. Based on how they felt that day they would say things on one side of the coin and then on the other. They even would have the coin sitting on its side or floating in the air. Peter, you live off that cr-p and then try and appear to act above it all. Stop being a putz.

        3. When Americans want answers to baffling news reports, the White House has an obligation to provide truthful and logical answers.

          If Americans want answers to baffling news reports, then it is the News Reporters responsibility to unbaffle them, not the White House.

      3. The kellyanne pivot merely reveals the shallowness of your argument. The issue is the day glo bozo’s decision to separate infants and children from their parents at the border, icluding asylum seekers; that is unquestionably new. Pro tip: parroting the Pravda Faux News talking points of the day only makes you look like a simpleton. You’re welcome.

        this is to “Ya, he’s a vile and vulgar monster, but at least he’s an old white guy” allan

        1. Mark:

          I don’t want kids separated u less the parent would rather they go to school in an HHS Center than be bored in detention with them. There should be a choice.

          I also have a problem with the surge of asylum seekers. Human traffickers and smugglers were instructed to claim asylum if caught. There is no need for asylum seekers to illegally immigrate. They just present themselves at a point of entry. Cubans don’t have access to a port of entry, and take to the sea. But Mexico has many entry points with the US. Plus there’s the embassy. All of a sudden, there was a surge in claims of asylum of illegal immigrants caught sneaking across the system. Most of them are likely gaming the system. Before the surge, courts typically only found 7% of Latin American asylum cases to be valid. What will the number he now? But when all those people try to cheat the system, real asylum cases from Latin America and around the world get drowned out. They have backlogged the system for many years which make it harder for the real victims who need help.

          Catch and release, where over 90% don’t show up for their court dates, is effectively a partially open border.

          Only claiming asylum after you get caught illegally crossing the border is gaming a system meant to help life or death situations.

          On the contrary, it is illegal immigration that puts people under the power of drug cartels. They pay the cartel to smuggle them, women get raped or sold into slavery, they get forced to mule drugs or even kidnsp people. Just smuggling illegal immigrants earns cartels billions of dollars. Maybe they wouldn’t be such a problem if they didn’t make as much as a small country smuggling illegal immigrants to the US.

          There were huge surges in unaccompanied minors after the US started letting them stay. That tells me that the increase is parents who either would have gone with their kids, would have gone instead and sent for them, or wouldn’t have come at all.

          1. You are of course, allowed your own opinion, but not your own facts. If your “facts” set forth are what you actually based your opinion on, you are woefully misguided. There are so many flaws, misstatements, errors and outright falsehoods in your post, I worry that you may have some responsibilities in real life. To aid you in future discussions, I will list some of the more egregious and / or laughable “facts” which require real-world citations in support:

            1) who “instructs” anyone to claim anything at the border? Asylum seekers must present at entry point. Asylum seekers don’t cross deserts or rivers. If you actually believe that there are anything more than a negligible amount of persons illegally making entry and then claiming asylum when caught by the border patrol, you need a reputable source of support.

            2) Where do find a grant of asylum percentage of 7% for Latin Americans? The number is actually closer to 30%. Perchance your “source(s)” color your opinion?

            3) Your figure of a 90% no-show rate for person released pending a court hearing is unsupported by anything but your post; I know that you will be unable to find anything approaching a fact-checkable source because the actual number over the last 21 years is 39%. Again, the possibility exists that your “source(s)” colors your opinion?

            Finally, your post regarding “cartels” earning money to smuggle people in, and the dangerous conditions which those who are smuggled must deal with, completely ignores human nature. No one who undertakes the dangerous process of coming across the border does so without being aware of the dangers or merely because the “cartel” told them to. They are fleeing a situation which they believe is worse than the risks they will assume by coming here. The cartels aren’t driving the market for illegal crossings, but merely filling a demand for smuggling expertise. If the conditions in their home countries weren’t so deplorable, most wouldn’t run the risk of making the dangerous journey. That calculus isn’t going to be appreciably altered by anything America does from the enforcement end.

            to karen

            1. Hi Mark:

              I found this in NPR for you:

              “In 2010, Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, or TRAC, found that 9 in 10 Hondurans and Salvadorans were being denied asylum, and 8 in 10 Mexicans and Guatemalans were denied.

              TRAC also keeps tabs on cases fast-tracked by the Obama administration involving thousands of women and children. And those numbers show that not much has changed: 9 in 10 Hondurans and Salvadorans have been denied asylum, and 8 in 10 Mexicans and Guatemalans have been denied.”

              “Metcalf says, if he were to follow the law, he would deny most asylum petitions from Central Americans fleeing gang violence.

              The U.S. law Metcalf is talking about is the 1980 Refugee Act. The key sentence from that act grants asylum to any person who can’t or won’t return to their country “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”

              For decades now, many of the Central American and Mexican asylum cases have been argued using the “particular social group” provision. Attorneys argue that gangs targeted their clients because they are young or because they won’t join a gang or because they are women.

              But, as Metcalf interprets it, these migrants are fleeing crime, which is affecting “all people in a particular country,” and are not being targeted because of a characteristic that they can’t change about themselves.

              If fleeing crime becomes grounds for asylum, he says, every “barrio” in Latin America would empty out into the United States. “We’ll have a very difficult time being able to say no to any person who claims to flee a country because of criminal conditions,” Metcalf says.”

              “Finally, your post regarding “cartels” earning money to smuggle people in, and the dangerous conditions which those who are smuggled must deal with, completely ignores human nature. No one who undertakes the dangerous process of coming across the border does so without being aware of the dangers or merely because the “cartel” told them to. They are fleeing a situation which they believe is worse than the risks they will assume by coming here. The cartels aren’t driving the market for illegal crossings, but merely filling a demand for smuggling expertise.” Straw man. I never said the cartels drove the market on illegal crossings, I said they took it over and profited from it. Plus, cartel crime is often a reason why pretty much the entire non-cartel population wants to leave.

              I did not ignore human nature. I specifically stated that I do not assume that all parents are good or bad. Human nature being what it is, any stranger can fall anywhere on the spectrum of good and evil, whether they have kids or not. I am concerned that most of the minors are unaccompanied teenagers. If you look at Huffpo, they also discuss the 80% rape rate years ago, and how their parents pack One Step for them. Their parents decided that it was worth it for their children to make the track with the cartels unaccompanied by them, and planned for the likelihood they would be raped. It’s not the parents taking the risk in those cases – it’s their kids. You can read about the surges in unaccompanied minors after Obama’s actions in the NYT, Huffpo, Latimes, and NPR.

              I hope that other nations stabilize, because most of the 7 billion people outside the US live under regimes without individual liberty, under corruption, high crime, tribal warfare, abuse of women – if you look at Indian websites the vast majority of Indian women report having been abused by their husbands, bride burnings, parasites, contaminated water, caste systems, socialist governments starving them to death after they destroyed the private agricultural industry, ISIS having a who-is-more-extremist competition, Boko Haram, over grazing, farming incompatible crops and emptying deep thousand year aquifers in the desert, deforestation ruining groundwater supplies…I could go on or you could just read the news.

              1. Your NPR statistic references the denial of asylum. You made a claim of failure to appear. So sorry for your loss.

                this is to karen

                1. Looks to me like Rattenfänger von Hameln [nee Trump] is in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

                  1. The exclusions to this act and the following acts were derided by Democrats during that Terrible hurricane in Louisiana when GWB was lambasted for not calling in the troops. He couldn’t, despite the self-serving ignorance of Democrats and leftist bloggers, because he first had to get the governor’s approval.

                    It is amazing how leftists can remember laws that only promote their ideology but quickly forget them when the opposite is true. This is especially pertinent to the posts of Diane L4D as her one-sided promotion of law only in the advancement of her ideology makes what she says worthless.

            2. FTA

              https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-90-of-illegals-skip-immigration-court-appearances-135-000-will-go-missing

              https://www.msn.com/en-nz/video/worldnews/majority-of-illegal-immigrants-didnt-show-up-for-court-date/vi-AAbZJC3

              (In the 2015 video please note the photos of chain link fences.)

              If you look at the Latimes and other sources, the reason given for the FTA is that they fear they will be arrested and deported on the spot when a judge orders against them.

              1. Please note that the disagreement about the 90% figures is because some data measured all immigrants’ court dates, not just illegal immigrants due for a final immigration decision.

                https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/brittany-m-hughes/dhs-report-84-illegal-alien-adults-not-court-final-case-hearing

                “A recent report from the Department of Justice shows that of the nearly 12,500 illegal alien adults who were apprehended with children at the U.S. border and released between July 18, 2014, and May 26, 2015, whose immigration cases have been completed, at least 84 percent did not appear in court for the final decision.”

                Hopefully that will clarify the issue.

              2. Also, I agree with you that if conditions were favorable in their country of origin, they wouldn’t want to leave.

                Therefore, I am at a loss as to why Liberals seek to recreate the problems of those host countries. They support a porous border, resulting in illegal immigrant gangs like MS13. Illegal immigration is run by the very cartels ruining countries. They refuse to run all immigration through legal channels to try to weed out the oppressors from the oppressed. They seek to erode several Constitutional Amendments – Professor Turley frequently comments on the attacks on the First Amendment. Then of course there is the 2nd Amendment, and even Freedom of Religion, as the Left continually interferes with freedom to practice a Christian religion, and has sadly become re-enamored with anti-semitism, especially in regards to Israel. The Left supports socialism, and “capitalism” is the source of all ills. It’s strange, considering how this experiment has played out in North Korea, Venezuela, the USSR, Nazi Germany…Making a government powerful at the expense of individual liberty “for the common good” has always gone awry. But the Left seems determined to experiment again on our own soil. They do not seem to notice that there is no flood of immigration to socialist strongholds.

                1. More falsehoods. Although I’m not sure what you and your ilk consider “left”, I assure you that I hold the First Amendment to be sacrosanct. Along those lines, Bible thumpers can thump all they want to on their own dime, they merely can’t use the organ of government to cram their thumpery down other’s throats; it’s in the First Amendment, by the way. Further, I don’t know anyone who thinks an “open border”–whatever that may entail–is optimal. Moreover, I don’t support communism in any fashion, although an impartial observer would note that there are no countries which operate an unregulated and strictly capitalistic market; and Americans have repeatedly voted that they don’t desire such. Finally, I am baffled as to why you and your ilk have such little faith in the American experiment. Our institutions are considerably more stable than any of the third-world banana republics to which you refer. Our history has been one of nearly unimpeded immigration; you can look it up in any reputable U.S. History primer. The same identical things that you and your ilk are saying about the current immigrants have been said in earlier times about the Irish, Italian, Asians, Slavs, Poles, Germans, Russians, etc. Those demographics are now part and parcel of the Great Melting Pot. Those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it.

                  this is to karen

                  1. Marky Mark Mark – given the demographics, we have taken in about 25% of Mexico’s population. We have a country (Mexico) that is actively helping their citizens escape their country into ours. I have no problem with legal immigration, it is the illegals that I have a problem with. At least with the legals, people of your ilk (people of my ilk don’t work for the government) get to vet the bona fides of the newcomer. With illegals, you never know where they have been or what they have done.

                    I have taught illegals and children of illegals. Some were nice kids and some were thugs. One, I remember, a high school student (don’t ask me how he got into high school) spoke no English and refused to learn it. La Raza was going to take over Arizona and he wouldn’t need it was his reasoning. Luckily for him, he had bilingual classmates who got him from class to class. He failed all my classes, speaking English at some level is a requirement in an English class. What would people of your ilk do with such a student? Remember, state law requires he be in school until he is 16.

                    1. What has Rattenfänger von Hameln done with the children?

                      If Rattenfänger von Hameln treats immigrant children as enemy combatants, then Rattenfänger von Hameln had damned well better comply with The Geneva Convention.

                    2. Really? You bring an “anecdote”? You people never cease to amaze me with you cornpone, unscientific, backwood, hillbilly crap.

                      This is to “my bunions tell me it’s gonna storm” paulie

                    3. Marky Mark Mark – that is rather an elitist attitude to take. However, I was raised in the West, Midwest, and Southwest. I have never been raised in the backwoods and my only relationship with hillbillies is watching Justified. BTW, I don’t have bunions either. You just never seem to get anything right.

                2. What’s ‘favorable’, Karen? If you incorporate a fudge factor which corrects for the effect of skewed income distribution, standards of living in Mexico as manifest in real domestic product per capita are similar to those of the United States ca 1950. Life expectancy at birth in Mexico is 77 years, a level not reached in the United States until about 2003. The employment-to-population ratio (i.e the share of persons past their 16th birthday with a job) is only mildly depressed (about 0.57, v. 0.60 in the United States). About 94% of the population is literate and 99% of the youth population is literate. The real deficits in the quality of life in Mexico are what arises from incompetent civil administration – of which street crime is the most salient. People wishing to escape crime can move to those parts of Mexico which are fairly tranquil like the Yucutan.

                  1. Hispanics have a longer lifespan in the US than Caucasians and likely almost every other group. I guess that might mean that they have favorable genetics and we are not all the same or equal.

                    I’ve spent so much time in Mexico and it has drastically changed. I think very significant crime has even extended into the Yucatan. In the past decades, there were times where there were State Department Alerts about American travel to the Yucatan due to anti-American feelings. I remember being there during one of those times and it wasn’t pleasant even though in general I find Mexicans to be wonderful people.

              3. If you refer to the actual organization running the courtroom where persons are failing to appear, you will get the figure of 39%. Your laughable sources of Pravda Faux News and the Washington Examiner are more appropriately considered organs of the totalitarian wing of what previously was know as the Republican Party. So sorry for your loss.

                this is to karen

                1. Marky Mark Mark – this is of course overshadowed by the well-known arms of the DNC, the NYT, and WaPo. Both actual purveyors of Fake News. Both conduits for the “leaks” from the FBI.

                  1. Transporting unaccompanied minors across State lines on passenger jet airliners fits the definition of kidnapping. Doing so for the purpose of depriving one ethnic group of their own children by placing those children in the care of another ethnic group fits one of the several definitions of genocide in the UN Convention on Genocide. What is Rattenfänger von Hameln doing with those immigrant children? And why is Rattenfänger von Hameln doing thus and so?

                    1. L4D enables David Benson – the UN is a failed organization and has been since its inception.

                  2. What is the DNC and how is it relevant to anything posted here? Since I don’t monitor Pravda Faux News I’m not up with whatever flavor of koolaid you people are huffing on today.

                    This is to “I’ve uncovered a cabal….” paulie

                    1. Marky Mark Mark – the OIG uncovered a cabal. And if you don’t watch Fox News, why are you always blaming them for things? BTW, one does not huff Koolaid, one drinks it. You might be mixing metaphors. Then again, you might just be ignorant.

        2. “icluding asylum seekers”

          Not if the asylum seekers don’t cross the border illegally. You don’t even know the law. I guess stupid people have a right to be stupid, Mark.

    2. Peter Hill – James Comey is refusing to testify to Congress and Andrew McCabe says he will testify only to take the 5th. Comey is going to need the money from his book sales to pay his attorneys and McCabe is going to need that Go-Fund-Me. There are also some reporters who are going to be in trouble. Bribing government officials is against the law. It appears that this OIG report has set off several new investigations for the OIG. Over the coming months, we are going to see a lot of shoe drops, none of which are going to make the DNC happy campers.

    3. Peter Hill saked, “When Americans see reports of small children in wire mesh cages, at converted Walmart stores, they naturally want to know, ‘What the hell is happening there??'”

      What’s happening here is that Trump has become Rattenfänger von Hameln [i.e. The Pied Piper of Hamelin].
      It’s not folklore anymore. It’s reality. And the press is busy following the pretty lady in the frumpy jacket who supposedly got to see some precious few of the missing children, but who did not allow any of us townsfolk to see any of the missing children. Where are they? Have any of the children made it to the internment camps yet? Have any of their parents made it to the internment camps yet? Does Rattenfänger von Hameln even know which child belongs to which parents? Does Rattenfänger von Hameln even care? Has anyone checked Epstein’s Island? What have you done with the children, Rattenfänger von Hameln?

      1. Wrong, it is the false music provided by the Democratic Party that leads these children to our borders. They would not come but for the Democrats pushing an open border solution which would destroy the nation.

  2. “The scene at MXDC Cocina Mexicana was shocking to most of us who have decried the loss of civility in today’s political discourse.” Jonathan Turley

    “Shocking.” Just “shocking.”

    There are much worse things in this life.

    1. I’m not sure dining at a Mexican restaurant in the midst of all this was a wise choice, but being harrassed over dinner by a mob of angry protesters is downright civil compared to what is actually going on in Mexico.

      http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/ny-news-mexican-politician-shot-dead-20180612-story.html

      “Mexican politician who vowed to crack down on violent crime was shot to death minutes after he emerged from a debate with an opponent Friday.

      Coahuila state congressional candidate Fernando Puron was posing for a selfie with a female supporter when a bearded man sneaked up on him from behind, shooting him in the back of the head before walking away, video of the grisly incident shows, according to Mexican newspaper Vanguardia.

      The gunman walked right up to the pair, shooting the 43-year-old Puron at close range. The woman with whom he posed was not hurt.

      Puron on Friday became the 112th candidate or politician to be killed since the beginning of Mexico’s electoral campaign in September, according to Etellekt’s study on political violence across Mexico.”

      1. What could possibly be more shocking than what Rattenfänger von Hameln is doing with immigrant children separated from their parents at the US-Mexico border?

        BTW, exactly what is Rattenfänger von Hameln doing with those children? And when, exactly, is Rattenfänger von Hameln going to come clean on the question?

          1. You wouldn’t know a contradiction if it bit you on your rear echelon. The simple fact that we still do not know and cannot not yet find out what Rattenfänger von Hameln has done with the immigrant children he separated from their parents at the US-Mexico border is outrageously shocking.

            1. L4D enables David Benson and yet it wasn’t outrageous when Obama did it. How kind of you to give our first half-black President a pass on this.

            2. Diane, hold off the alcohol for awhile and then try to make a bit of sense where what you say is true and one statement doesn’t contradict another. Listen to Mespo. He is your better.

  3. Equality The Great democrat Lie
    All people are not equal. That is the fact of the universe. It is a fact of nature. It is the fact of natural law. There are smarter, dumber, richer, poorer, stronger, weaker people all over this country. There are caring ambitious and people who don’t give a sh!t about anything. There are people who are willing to make heroic sacrifices and work their ass off to lift themselves and others out of ingnorance, poverty and despair, make something of themselves and contribute great things to humanity and the world and people who dedicate their lives to laying around nursing their anger, hate violence and ignorance, smoking weed, getting drunk, making babies who will live lives of unspeakabls abuse, misery and poverty, while constantly bitching about everything that’s fuking wrong and dedicating themselves to the mission of not lifting a finger to change it.
    All people are not equal.  That’s why this country has a Constitution, because of that very fact. The Constitution bestows upon each American Citizen protections and rights of equality they do not naturally possess. Protection against horrors like current crop of vicious sadistic  leftists communist democrats who attack, use, abuse, enslave and destroy all communities but are most devastating to African American and Hispanic communities. Unfortunately many people in these communities do not take advantage of this protection.  Instead they have allowed dems to socially engineer and con them into becoming ignorant, stupid, hate filled, blame oriented tools who are unable and unwilling to admit they are responsible for their own plight because they embrace and enthusiastically participate in the malthusistic democrats effort to destroy the very Constitutional protections that are keeping them from the edge of extinction. 
    The Cosmic Reality of Natural Law is, there is no such thing as equality, fairness, justice or moral order in the natural order.  Humans have to step in and create and choose these conditions for themselves. The democrats know this. They are stepping in to remove these things that hold civilization together to create a chaos which they intend to re-order and replace with their own law of absolute power, slavery and god like control over the conquered. The United States is the only country left on the planet that still has the ability to say no to this. The American People, because of their Constitutional Rights are the only People left on the planet that have the Power to enforce that no. Like it or not decision time is here and the consequences of that decision will decide the fate of each and every American Citizen and the next hundred generations of American children, as well as that of the world and humanity itself. Like it or not every American has the burden of responsibility of this choice and will bear the blame for whatever good or evil is unleashed on the world by their decision forever.

    1. OK, Dum Dum, take a Xanax, wait about 30 minutes, and then try to follow along. No one ever said everyone has equal abilities. That’s not true. That’s not in the U.S. Constitution. No document or government can confer equal abilities on everyone, because it is impossible. What a government CAN do, and what our government tries to do is to ensure that every one is treated equally, and that everyone has a fair shake in the legal system via what is called “due process”. In its basic terms, that means notice of a legal action affecting your life, liberty or property, and an opportunity to be heard. Above the portico to the U.S. Supreme Court the following appears: “Equal Justice Under Law”. That is what we strive for. No, Democrats aren’t trying to remove “these things that hold civilization together to create a chaos which they intend to reorder and replace with their own law of absolute power, slavery and god like control over the conquered.” Such statements imply serious emotional issues and paranoia. This is not normal political disagreements over policies. You could use some counseling.

      1. As amply shown in the immigration fiasco, Democrats either want to subvert law for their own political power in gaining new voters or because they are blubbering sentimentalists. Not sure which is worse.

        1. Are you seriously arguing that Rattenfänger von Hameln is depriving Democrats of voters by separating immigrant children from their parents at the US-Mexico border? The last I read, your cohorts were arguing that Rattenfänger von Hameln was trying to forestall a relapse into the “catch-and-release” policy.

          Did I read somebody write something about inconsistencies?

  4. The question becomes: how deep is the deep state? We already know that upper level DOJ employees appear to be willing to use their prosecutorial powers to advance their political agendas. Lower level employees have less influence on who to investigate and prosecute, but everyone should shudder at the thought that they could be the subject of surveillance because someone at DOJ doesn’t like them.

    1. This “Deep State” entity which you have discovered seems … ominous. It appears that through your dogged and indefatigable sleuthing, you have revealed for all the world a nefarious cabal of ne’er-do-wells, seemongly hell-bent on eradicating our ‘Merican way of life, our love of Cheetos and Mountain Dew, or to fluoridate our precious bodily fluids, or some such other dastardly deed. Well done Inspector, well done.

      this is to “Inspector Clouseau, at your service, madam” vincent

      1. Keep in mind that even low level employees of investigative agencies have access to databases, surveillance, and investigative reports from which and through which they can do much mischief.

        1. Vince, you seem to be suggesting that the protesters would not have known what restaurant Nielsen was dining at unless the low-level DOJ employee who attended the protest had first conducted illegal surveillance of Nielsen and then tipped-off the protesters. Am I reading that correctly, Vince?

          1. No, I am not suggesting that at all. What I am suggesting is that people with access to investigative tools who cannot control their personal beliefs to the point of disrupting the personal activities of someone with whom they disagree may be tempted to use those investigative tools for an improper purpose. I do not mean to suggest that that was done in this case. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t. It is the possibility that should scare all of us.

  5. I don’t blame just Democrats for the behavior of people like this today. Just as there were millions of Reagan Democrats, there are now liberals who have jumped ship in droves in favor of conservative politics. The real enemies today are emerging more and more not as Democrats but as women and their pussyfied male co-conspirators.

    We can trace this DOJ employee’s behavior to her diet. You don’t get Oppenheimer eyebrows without eating processed foods laced with hormone disruptors, any more than you get school shooters and massacres without Big Pharma’s brain-altering prescriptions.

  6. All or most serious employers have a rule along the lines of: “Acts detrimental to (fill in name of the employer).” This is a catch all when the act does not come under another rule violation.

    More to the point: I presume any law enforcement employer has a simple rule that employees must always obey both civil and criminal law, e.g. such employees can be disciplined for not paying a legal civil debt (tax payers can not tolerate coercion forcing them to pay taxes to support federal employees who don’t pay their debts). She committed at least two crimes: assault and disturbing the peace.

    The fact that her crimes were solely and specifically directed toward an employee of the Executive Branch only one person removed from the POTUS, who supervises her employer (she attacked her ultimate supervisor, such is the nature of her employment) makes her crimes so egregious that to not fire her is an act of insubordination toward the POTUS, which can not be tolerated.

    She positively, absolutely, must be sacked, with prejudice, preferably permanently banning her from Federal employment.

  7. It is tiresome for Democrats to constantly blame their terrorizing tactics, from holding bloody heads in effigy to physically running a woman out of a restaurant, on Trump’s rhetoric. He didn’t hold a bloody head. He didn’t follow anyone around screaming at them and harassing them. Are none of these parents? One of the things we parents teach toddlers is that they can’t blame their own bad behavior on anyone else. The wife beater never learns this, and still blames his victim for pissing him off and making him punch her. That is the level of their excuses.

    Grow up.

    Illegal immigration should not be controversial. We have a duty to our citizens and our environment to choose worthy people to immigrate here. It is irresponsible to throw our borders open to the drug cartels and gangs. Our resources and the square footage available limit the seats we can offer every year. So why not choose those who will only benefit our country? Option A: Anyone who wants to can come here and overwhelm our resources, including modern day slavers, drug and gun runners, mixed in along with good people. Threw a gay man off a building last weekend? Well, come on over! Obviously our closest neighbors will hog most of the spots. Option B: We get to invite really awesome people from all over the world, including Latin America. We get a say in everyone who comes, lessening the possibility that the invitation is wasted on a criminal. The scientists, athletes, poets, kind people who put their lives on the line to save the oppressed, and those who really want to be a free American. In North Korea, interracial relationships are illegal. If a woman gets pregnant by a Chinese man, for example, she will be arrested and they will force an abortion on her against her will. Survivors describe screaming and wailing during the night that would melt the coldest heart. Even babies are killed. Toddlers die of starvation on the streets. How about them? Maybe we should have some spots available for those defectors we can save. What about those in Venezuela who have had their fill of starving under Socialist dictatorships? Maybe we could save some of those skeletal children before it’s too late, like the boy who drastically reduced his own meals so that his younger brother could have more to eat. What happened to him? Because he looked like a walking skeleton months ago. Maybe the billions we waste on illegal immigration could do some real good elsewhere. As for the good and kind people who engage in illegal immigration, well, with a reformed immigration policy, there would still be a spot for them, but in the right way.

    What a worthwhile endeavor, to actively choose the best people all around the world to come join us in a free society. That would include not only those professionals who already have the skills or artistic talent to benefit our society, but the really kind people out there who would rush to embrace our Western values and ideals.

    Abolish illegal immigration, seal up the border, and use this momentum to make meaningful change in our legal immigration policy. Revive merit-based immigration opportunities, like the Kennedy Airlifts that contributed to Mama Miti and the Greenbelt movement that planted millions of trees in Africa, and lifted many women out of poverty. Talk about a ripple effect.

    Maybe I have become jaded, or skeptical from media malfunctions over the years. But I sincerely doubt that every single parent in Latin America who sent her unaccompanied daughter on the rape trail, packing One Step to deal with the statistically inevitable rape, thought it was a life or death situation for her to stay and could not accompany her. The alternative is that the parent believed the economy was better in the US, and an unaccompanied minor had a better chance of getting in and taking advantage of all the benefit programs. The high likelihood of rape was an acceptable risk. I am sure that many parents involved in illegal immigration who bring their kids with them are good parents. But the unaccompanied minors set my teeth on edge. Really? You pay to put your precious baby in the hands of the drug cartel rapists, and don’t go with her because she’ll have a better chance of getting across the border? If it was Venezuela, where little kids are dropping dead from starvation on the streets due to Socialist programs killing people, yet again, then I could believe it, although not going with them would still give me pause. But I do not assume that all of the close to 100,000 unaccompanied kids who surged annually were all due to life or death scenarios, and the rise of unaccompanied kids was entirely a coincidence that their parents couldn’t come. Had nothing to do with the amnesty or special treatment given to kids without parents.

    I never assume that all parents are good. I have met the entire range. A stranger has the potential to fall anywhere on the spectrum of good and evil, whether or not they have a kid. The madams of Tenencingo, who kidnap and enslave girls, forcing them into prostitutions, are often mothers themselves. It is a booming family business in Tenencingo.

    1. In my mind, illegal immigration would be like welcoming Nazi officials all the way up the chain of command along with the Jews from concentration camps. Only, the Nazis would probably have more funds and infrastructure to come, kind of like the drug cartels. Yes, there would be the survivors of the Holocaust mixed in there, but there would also be some really bad characters who would continue to prey on their victims on this side of the border. No preferential treatment for the more deserving or needy. Just a mad rush, and the weak would be trampled underfoot, like those who are enslaved or dead along the migrant trails.

      I read yesterday that a 6 year old boy from Costa Rica was dumped by his uncle by the border and left there, in the desert, figuring that Border Patrol would find him and reunite him with his mother in our country.

      What a completely screwed up, inhumane system. And I DON’T think that uncle was a really great family member, or that it was life or death for him to not accompany the first grader. He was dumped in a 100 degree desert with coyotes and rattle snakes because our policy means he would have a better chance to get across. Was his mother illegal, too, and is that why she couldn’t just fly home to get him? Meet them at the border? Apply to reunite with him as a dependent family member under our laws?

      Nope. Because of our irresponsibility, we tempted the uncle to just dump off a first grader without a soul in sight.

      1. Thanks for sharing “what’s in your mind” and all that, but how about a citation to a real news source for your child dumped at the border tale? Google doesn’t show it.

        this is to karen

        1. Mark, are you properly fitted with a tinfoil hat; if not, good luck understanding the babble from ks.

        2. Hi Mark. Google “Border Patrol saved Costa Rican boy” and you will get a variety of hits. It just happened. I’ll let you choose a source you feel comfortable with. If you can’t find it let me know.

          I have been really upset at our guilt in the unaccompanied minors surges, the violence done to them, making migrants think they have a better shot if they either bring their kids or send them alone, and the pain of separation when they get caught.

          It all bothers me. I do not want this system to continue. In 2018 the way to become an American should not be paying raping cartels. No. No. No.

          We always talk about immigrants being good people who just want a better life. This is our opportunity to shut off illegal immigration and ensure all our new Americans and guest workers are exactly that, good people. You can’t do that if you don’t control who gets in.

          1. Mark and YNot, I did not hear from you.

            Here is a link to the GOOGLE search, yielding 3.8 million hits on “Border Patrol saved Costa Rican boy”. Still think it’s a tinfoil hat conspiracy? You should write to all those NY newspapers and complain.

          2. I found a reference to such in the U.S. News and World Report, which is considered a reputable news source. However, the story does not support your allegation of “family” as the person who abandoned the boy was merely a smuggler and not an uncle.

            this is to karen

    2. First of all, contrary to the lies Fatso tells, Democrats have NEVER advocated for open borders. Secondly, it is indeed ironic that you use the wife-beater metaphor because that is exactly what Fatso claims: “it’s all the fault of the Democrats. They made me lock up these brown babies and children because they won’t give me billions for the wall. It’s the fault of their ‘catch and release’ policies'”. Huge illegal immigration is the fault of Ronald Reagan which occurred as a result of his amnesty program. Read about it. Learn the facts. You advise other people to “grow up”, well why don’t you try to grow a brain and learn the truth, which you won’t find by listening to Fatso?

      Who appointed you to speak for the collective “we”, anyway? If you really want to stop illegal immigration, do something to stop the violence in Honduras, Guatemala and other S. American countries that cause people to want to leave. We could help them beef up their police and military and do away with the drug cartels. Next, heavily fine anyone who hires an illegal. First offense, several thousand dollars. Second offense, many thousand more, plus mandatory jail time. Illegal immigration would end immediately with just the second measure, but that would involve the big hotel and restaurant chains, factories, landscaping services, nanny services, and others who rely on cheap labor for obscene profits: you know, Republicans.

      1. “First of all, contrary to the lies Fatso tells, Democrats have NEVER advocated for open borders.” I disagree, both on an individual and party level. That may have been the case during the Clinton era, but it certainly is not now.

        Individual – there are plenty of individual Democrats who espouse open borders. I know people who think anyone who wants to should come here because we are an imperialist nation who should make amends by opening its borders. Those who oppose deporting any illegal immigrant, support sanctuary cities who protect all illegal immigrants including criminals, and those who think that immigration is a policy and not a law, support open borders. Those who think that all families with children, all unaccompanied children, and basically anyone else who shows up at the border should be allowed entry support open borders. Those who think it is mean and inhumane to prosecute any illegal alien support open borders.

        Party – The Democrat party supports illegal immigration in many of its policies.
        1. It opposes that we even count how many illegal immigrants are here in the country, opposing even the census to have its historical questions about citizenship.
        2. It supports offering benefits like Obamacare to illegal immigrants in places like CA
        3. Cities suspend their loitering laws to allow dayworkers to congregate, even though it knows full well such workers illegally accept money under the table without paying taxes.
        4. All the other benefits, like in-state tuition and scholarships for illegal aliens.
        5. Sanctuary cities, which protect even criminal repeat offender illegal aliens. One would think that they would support even the lowest of qualifications – don’t break the law here or kill anyone, but, nope. All criminal illegal aliens welcome. I really would’t travel to San Francisco pretty much ever again after this, although the poop maps really did it for me.
        6. Violent opposition to the wall and otherwise securing the border as xenophobic and racist. If sealing the border, and requiring all immigration to go through legal channels, is reprehensible, then clearly they want the border open.

        Have you heard any Democratic ideas on securing the border? Because they oppose Border Patrol. Antifa, the darling of the DNC, released the addresses of ICE employees to harass or possibly hurt them. Deportations are considered inhumane.

        https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-democrats-immigration-mistake/528678/

        On Democrats.org:

        ““Democrats believe immigration is not just a problem to be solved, it is a defining aspect of the American character and our shared history.”

        -Democratic Party Platform

        Democrats are fighting for every immigrant who feels threatened by Donald Trump’s election. We will not stand by and watch families be torn apart — Democrats in Congress and in states and cities across the country are already standing up to Trump’s hatred and bigotry to defend their immigrant neighbors.”

        What if the immigrants who feel threatened are MS13? You know, the ones that Nanci Pelosi felt had the same light shining within them that we all have? Poor, poor little gang members stabbing and killing out there and terrorizing neighborhoods.

        Meanwhile, legal immigrants typically leave their kids behind as they go through the process, get settled, and then send for them when they’ve got a place all set. What about the parents who send their unaccompanied minors here on the Rape Trail via the drug cartels? They tore their families apart on purpose.

        What is the consistent rhetoric when anyone says they want all immigration to go through legal channels, or even merit-based immigration? Hatred. Bigotry. Xenophobe. Racist. We’ve all heard it all before.

        So if only legal immigration is bad, then you support illegal immigration, or open borders. There are 325 million people living here and 7 billion people living out there, most of them worse off because their countries did not strive for freedom. Open borders = we’ll be living like Venezuela in two shakes of a lamb’s tail. We would see the collapse of our economy, benefit systems, housing crisis, medical care shortages, toilet paper shortages, and, sadly, since the Western notion of the equality of women and gays, we’d see our country go into the dark ages like most of the rest of the world.

        Actually, the defining characteristic of our nation was people coming together to share the common goal of individual freedom – freedom of religion, of speech, and human rights. Most of the world doesn’t feel that way. Hence, do you want to preserve unlimited immigration, and crowd us into Corsucant, or do you want to preserve individual liberty?

        What WAS the point of our country – liberty or open borders?

        1. Name any Democratic politician who advocated for open borders. Can you do so? Nope. President Obama deported more illegals than any of his predecessors. That is a fact. You are indoctrinated to a pathetic degree, so I know you are a Fox News disciple. You keep referring to “we” versus “Democrats” or “we” versus “Nancy Pelosi”. That’s why everything you write is presumptively incorrect. I recognize it as Fox News-speak. Please know this: when you spout this garbage, the other “we”–i.e., those of us who know better, think you aren’t very bright because you believe the crap spewed nightly by Fox News, that you are very bigoted, that you accept the pivoting to excuse everything Fatso does and that everything wrong in this country is the fault of Democrats, Hillary Clinton and/or Nancy Pelosi.

          If illegals weren’t allowed to work here, they wouldn’t come here. If their homeland was safer from drug cartels and gangs, they wouldn’t come here. Those 2 causes for the problem are something the US can and should do something about. Heavily fine and imprison employers of illegals, except for seasonal agricultural workers. Help support the S. American police and military. The answer isn’t to imprison babies and children and to use their emotional distress as leverage. That is morally outrageous.

          1. The last comprehensive immigration reform bill was the Simpson-Mazzoli act, a bipartisan bill passed in about 1986.
            It put the onus of verifying legal status of immigrants on the employers, as Natacha suggested.
            It soon fell apart for a variety of reasons….a few of the major reasons were the difficulties involved for the government in monitoring hundreds of thousands of employers to verify that they were properly screening their work force for immigration status.
            There were loopholes in the law that allowed companies to “subcontract” labor, so they were exempt from most provisions of the law.
            Another complaint was the “profiling” of legal immigrants, or even American citizens who “seemed foreign”.
            And by the mid-1980s we had become so reliant on seasonal and year-round migrant labor that the incentive for enforcement wasn’t there for certain segments of agriculture, for slaughterhouses, for hotel maids, etc.
            I don’t think we’ll see even an attempt to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill for years, or decades.
            There was a relative degree of bipartisanship in the mid-1980s that is not there today.
            In any case, employer responsibility can be “one leg”, one element, of immigration reform.
            But we went that route before and it didn’t take it long to unravel the Simpson-Mazzoli Act.

        2. Don’t conflate whatever some random person who claims to be a Democrat wants to do with what an actual living, breathing elected politician who ran a an actual Democrat wants to do. Pro tip: Pravda Faux News isn’t really trying to inform you of actual facts.

          this is to karen

          1. I don’t even bother to read her run-on comments. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that some right-wing tank is paying her to post.

            1. I think she is too stupid to pay; just a deplorable who is willing to bore the world one post at a time.

              1. “I think she is too stupid to pay”

                Probably, but I don’t think they care as long as long as she’s spouts the party line. Other stupid Americans will lap it up.

                1. Probably, but I don’t think they care as long as long as she spouts the party line. Other stupid Americans will lap it up.

                  1. Probably, but I don’t think they care as long as she spouts the party line. Other stupid Americans will lap it up. (There we go.)

            2. You wouldn’t notice anonymous but her writing is quite good. Maybe you need someone that uses shorter and more common words. You would improve your reading ability if you made use of a dictionary.

      2. Natacha – what is with you and fat shaming? Is that the new liberal meme? Don’t you think both Bill and Hillary are over-weight? Are you fat shaming them? Or do you just selectively target fat people?

    3. Karen S – if illegals and their anchor babies were voting 8-2 Republican, Chuck Schumer and the entire Democratic Party would be personally helping to build the wall. According to Ann Coulter, they vote 8-2 Democratic, so we are keeping potential Democratic votes caged up. Hence the outcry.

      1. You, and the few ill-informed, small-minded malcontents who lurk here spewing their ignorant nonsense, are not America. But by all means keep prattling on here with your vileness; then you aren’t venturing forth into the real world affecting real people. Pro tip: The real America is the one which was horrified and outraged by the child internment camps.

        this is to “but old white guys got us where we are now” paulie

        1. Mark M. wrote:

          “Pro tip: The real America is the one which was horrified and outraged by the child internment camps.”

          Yep.

  8. Give the DOJ lady a medal, and fire that scum bag puta from DHS, Kirstjen Nielsen. Better yet, put her in cage where she put children. If I owned the restaurant, I wouldn’t serve her, hey “christians” can refuse service to gay folks, I should be able to refuse service to fascists. I know some restaurants in Neuvo Mexico del Norte where they would serve her, rat poison. She got what she deserved, just not enough. GitMo for the entire fascist cabal.

    1. Kirstjen Nielsen’s proper title is “She Wolf of the DHS.” The protests are free speech. Free speech can have consequences. Hrabar may lose her job, but even if she does. She did the right thing. Civil disobedience is an American tradition.

      Too bad if it offends the bootlicker who runs this blog.

      1. Um, no. Harassment is commonly a crime, RFR, as is Disorderly Conduct. The former is coded a class B misdemeanor in New York law and the latter a submisdemeanor ‘violation’. Both can get you an appearance ticket, a court date, and, depending on circumstances, an arrest.

        1. Um, how about abusing children for political purposes? Harassing an a-hole who defense abusing babies for political purposes is the American way.

          1. Um, how about abusing children for political purposes?

            You should take that up with the people doing that: lawfare artists and media frauds in the Democratic Party.

          2. “Um, how about abusing children for political purposes?”

            That is the method of the left used frequently by Obama. Remember when he closed down the Vietnam Memorial that is outside and required more manpower to close it down. He wielded power to cause pain.

          3. Um, how about abusing children for political purposes?

            You probably shouldn’t post one of the Left’s brainstorming suggestions on this blog?

        2. So? Martin Luther King, Jr. went to jail under an unjust law; or, does your ilk still despise that American hero?

          this is to the nutty sufferer

          1. Marky Mark Mark – let’s talk about your American hero, Martin Luther King, Jr. First, he plagiarized his doctoral dissertation, he was dragged into the Civil Rights movement kicking and screaming, he only showed up at the marches when the cameras were there, he had a strong connection with the Communist Party and the recordings of his lovemaking sessions with women (not his wife) were the highlight of the Beltway dinner circuit. He probably bonked more women than Errol Flynn.

            1. Ah, so you still don’t like ‘those people” when they wanna get all “uppity”, is that it?

              this is to “forget ‘great’ just bring back the good ole days” paulie

              1. Marky Marky Mark. Facts are facts even when they are inconvenient to the propagation and maintenance of historical fiction.

                1. For the record, about 1/3 of the text of his doctoral dissertation was plagiarized from the work of John Boozer and Paul Tillich.

                2. He was a chronic adulterer, the FBI knew this and informed Coretta King in as rude a way as you could imagine, playing tapes for her over the phone. I tend to doubt this datum was well-known in detail in official Washington, but some of it leaked out to government officials with clearances. (IIRC, Pat Buchanan learned of it while working in Richard Nixon’s PR apparat). King’s second in command Ralph David Abernathy and his friendly biographer Taylor Branch did further damage to his reputation on this point. Abernathy did so in a memoir revealing that King on his last night on Earth spent time with three different women and Branch revealing that the King party was nearly arrested by Norwegian police when he went to pick up his Nobel Prize in 1964 because of the disturbance they’d caused at their hotel with all the hookers they’d hired. Bayard Rustin showed up and talked the Norwegian coppers out of it.

                3. He employed both Stanley Levison and Jack O’Dell, who were Communist Party members. Robert Kennedy met with him in 1962 to tell him Levison and O’Dell were tainted. He wasn’t surprised in regard to O’Dell. If I’m not mistaken, Levison continued to be employed by him. O’Dell turned up in Jesse Jackson’s entourage the better part of a generation later.

                4. He was pretty much out of gas by 1968. King’s disposition and skill set were apt for a modest run of years (about 1955 to 1971), but he had nothing to offer to address the social problems which began to erupt after 1958 and were entering an acute phase in 1967-68. No one in his entourage or in the allied organization had much to say about that bar (perhaps) Bayard Rustin. Rustin landed a job on the research staff of the AFL – CIO in 1964 and was not an influential figure in black politics after that.

                1. Even if, and so? More prattle.

                  This is to “I can cut and paste from racist websites all day” nutty sufferer

                    1. Learn to judge people by the content of their character rather than by the color of their skin and you won’t have to be a “detester.” Once you’ve made the transition, I look forward to your newly-discovered outrage about what the day glo bozo is doing to America.

                      this is to “you mean old white guys can be monsters, too?” new allan

                    2. “Learn to judge people by the content of their character rather than by the color of their skin”

                      I have Mark and learned you have no character whatsoever. That is why you have adopted tribalism and race-baiting to fill your void in your character.

                2. Facts are required to be relevant to the argument in which they are presented.

                  None of the facts that PCS offered refute the argument that Mark M. made. In fact, all of the facts that PCS offered affirmed the second argument that Mark M. made.

                  P. S. It’s good to see Mark M. stretching his legs a bit on the blawg. I almost feelz sorry for yuze guys.

              2. Marky Mark Mark – I have probably taught more blacks than you have ever met (exclusive of your clients). I am an egalitarian who is aware that heroes have clay feet. My concern is not with a person’s skin color or gender or sexual orientation.

                  1. L4D enables David Benson – absolutely, I agree. I do not always agree with what Trump does or is doing or has done. However, he was a better choice than Hillary Clinton.

      2. Let’s poll Hrabar if she agrees she “did the right thing” if it solely and directly causes her to lose her job.

        I’ll take odds “no,” unless it ends in Soros hiring her at double her DOJ salary, which might happen.

    2. “I should be able to refuse service…” You would not know what is the meaning of service if it dropped on your little fascist head.

  9. Hrabar isn’t the problem as Taylor Caldwell in her book, Pillar of Iron,” explains through her protagonist, Marcus Tullius Cicero:

    “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”

    1. mespo – Julius Caesar was killed by some he considered friends. And we do remember how they ended up, right? 🙂

          1. Another early predictive Taylor Caldwell epic “The Devil’s Advocate” predated Atlas Shrugged by ten years or so.

    2. To see the “soul” of leftist DNC Progressivism, walk through the middle of it. Walk through downtown San Francisco, walk through downtown Baltimore, walk through East side Chicago, if the stench does not make you vomit and turn around. Listen to the rulers of Academia, listen to NPR, check the 45% elective abortion rate for American blacks (genocide but for those who promote the high Progressive sacrament of abortion).

      The mere fact of one of these soul less God haters screaming at the assistant to their Supervisor, preventing said person from eating a meal, is nothing compared to the above. Of course Progressives would glorify her crime against her employer’s supervisor’s right hand person.

    3. “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

      ― Abraham Lincoln

      How prophetic “Crazy Abe” was regarding his own tyrannical negation and dissolution of the Constitution. How prophetic “Crazy Abe” was about his abrogation of American freedom. How prophetic “Crazy Abe” was about the subversion of the sovereignty of the people by an internal despotic, dictatorial monarch. How prophetic “Crazy Abe” was about his destruction of the United States of America.

      Didn’t Lincoln suffer a vision of his own casket?

      It’s like “Crazy Abe’s” entire “Reign of Terror” was either deja vu or “Twilight Zone.”

  10. First…what is name of that eating place? Second I am buying extra rat repellant cause looks like the number of rabid rats has increased since a real America loving president is affecting our nation in a positive way. I hear that some mexican ports need rats to man their ships….feel free to relocate any of you who do not know what our country is really about. That should help clear up the pollution I smell coming out of those lovely democrat run sewers called states and urban compounds.

    1. Haha. You and the other 38% don’t really know anything about America, apparently. But that hat looks good on you, though.

      this is to “‘Merica was a better place when those uppity folks knew their place” mairybairy

  11. I worked for a federal agency for 25 years, and the agency had strict policies regarding “behavior which reflects poorly on the department”. Any conduct outside of work, that puts the agency in a bad light was subject to review and discipline, up to and including, termination. This woman is completely unabashed about her behavior as evidenced by her statements and incitement of others to follow. She needs to be terminated immediately. Common sense, decency and civility have been replaced by the moral superiority crowd who live and act by the misguided belief that the ends justify the means.

    1. WhyKnott, I agree. This woman should be punished for her egregiously bad behavior which has nothing to do with her political views.

    2. Thanks for you insightful commentary. Pro tip: on the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.

      this is to “AND, I was student body president at Yale, to boot” knotty

      1. Marky Mark Mark – still taking sloppy seconds from the Federal Public Defender’s office? Or are you back doing Chapter 7s? Spending a lot of time on here during the day, client base dry up?

    3. You mean like jailing children? It still is a free country though I am sure you are working to thwart that.

      1. The children are here unlawfully. You can detain them pending deportation or you can erase the border. N.B. Natacha, if you want an example of a Democrat who favors open borders, the ever crude Mr. YNOT is at your service.

        1. Americans have been operantly conditioned into the mistaken belief that there is a solution for every problem. There isn’t. Instead, there is a problem with every solution. The trick is to choose which problems you’re willing to live with and which problems you’re not wiling to live with. Accommodation of migrants is the least problematic approach for migration. One can change the rate at which migrants are accommodated. But one cannot ever eliminate the migration.

          1. L4D enables David Benson – your premise is wrong. Given the right number the resources, the border could be shut tight. Shoot to kill orders given and we would end much of the attempts to enter. The question is do we have the will to do it?

            1. Genocide is not a solution. Genocide is, by far and away, the most problematic approach to migration. Genocide is exactly contrary to the laws of nature and not even der sheer force of der human vill can ever change that.

              P. S. Thanks for coming out of the closet, Herr Eichmann.

              P. S. S. Did you read that, Ortiz? Do you still think Paul is the princely one of the lot? Does Paul’s comment inform your understanding of . . . wait for it . . . Hate?

              1. L4D enables David Benson – We have a Mexican politician who wants to “flood the border.” Protecting the border is not genocide, it is self-defense. If we wiped out all of Mexico, that would be genocide.

                1. PCS– your premise is wrong: Shoot to kill orders will not end the attempts to enter. The question is how long can you maintain your will to kill?

                  1. Shoot to kill orders will not end the attempts to enter.

                    Barriers and shoot-to-kill absolutely will end attempts to enter on any scale worthy of notice, and will channel any aspirants to customs and border stations, where entrants and their biometrics can be recorded.

                    1. Remind me, O Font of Wisdom, How did all those refugees from the Syrian Civil War get to Europe?

                  2. L4D enables David Benson – the real question is, if troops are firing on them, how long will illegals continue to try to cross over?

                    1. How many boatloads of asylum seekers do you want the U. S. Coast Guard to torpedo?

                    1. Are you seriously arguing that Trump, Sessions and Nielsen are protecting Americans from immigrant children “terrorists” separated at the border from their immigrant “terrorist” parents???

                  3. What are you talking about Diane? You are the one that believes the rule of law is a bad thing and that illegal migration is good even though when one civilization meets another outside the rule of law there is killing or genocide.

                    You have a very violent personality.

                    1. The Oblivious One asks, “What are you talking about Diane?”

                      Paul C Schulte

                      June 22, 2018 at 10:30 AM

                      L4D enables David Benson – your premise is wrong. Given the right number the resources, the border could be shut tight. Shoot to kill orders given and we would end much of the attempts to enter. The question is do we have the will to do it?

                    2. Diane, you are the one that doesn’t believe in the rule of law. That is when guns come into play. You believe in mass murder where one civilization displaces another. You believe in force and Stalinist techniques.

                      Again look at the Declaration of Independence. The founders could only speak for those within certain boundaries and as long as the law is followed within those boundaries no killing need be necessary.

            2. Paul C Schulte:
              You don’t need a “shoot to kill” order. You just need a wide moat and a high wall at the usual crossings. Ground sensors help too and who wouldn’t want a few trained and snarling German Shepherds around?

              1. mespo – we could always add Great White Sharks and alligators to the moat and landmines on the other side. 😉

              2. Onceler said, “You just need a wide moat . . .”

                Really? A canal from the Rio Grande to the Colorado River which doesn’t even flow to the Gulf of California anymore? Are you going to blow up Hoover Dam to keep immigrant children terrorists out of The Fatherland?

                What is the typical daily rate of evaporation in The Sonoran Desert? What is the elevation of the land at the high point between El Paso and, say, San Diego? Oops. You’re going to need an extension on that moat from the Colorado River to San Diego. How many locks will you need to keep the water from flowing down to the sea? How many kilowatts per hour to run the pumps? Where’s the inflowing water coming from? The Mojave Desert?

                Yeah. Another man-made ecological disaster is obviously the simplest solution to the problem of migration.

                  1. The Romans built aqueducts on top of arches. You could be seventy-two feet tall and still walk right under them without mussing up your hair. And the water always flowed downstream from some lake way up in the mountains to some city way down by the seaside. Much as nature had originally intended only by a different route.

                    1. L4D enables David Benson – the Romans drilled through mountains, etc. to get the water to their towns and cities.

                  1. Actually, Diane has a mind, but she utters hardly an honest word. Gamesmanship all the way down. Rank stupidity is the signature of bettykath and emotional blurts are favored by Natacha and Jill.

              3. “You don’t need a “shoot to kill” order. You just need a wide moat and a high wall at the usual crossings.”

                That would help end the slaughter of children by human traffickers and drug dealers on both sides of the border. That is the only rational and humanitarian way to manage the problem. I note Obrador who is running for the Presidency of Mexico is encouraging all of South and Central America to have a right to live in the US. In Mexico, I believe no such rights are provided to the indigenous people living there. Mexico is a rich nation that has been abused by its leaders that are more of the Obama style than the Reagan style. What Obrador is actually proposing (and Mexico is helping) could be considered an act of war that could bring American troops to the border. Remember, there is a precedent. The American army crossed the Mexican border to protect an American city in New Mexico (General Pershing under Wilson pursued Pancho Villa.)

                A bit about how Mexico treats its woman that are indigenous. The treatment of these women is the style that Diane seems to believe should be repeated all over the world because to her the rule of law should not exist.

                From Wikipedia:
                “Rights of indigenous women[edit]
                Indigenous women are often taken advantage of because they are women, indigenous, and often poor.[50] Indigenous culture has been used as a pretext for Mexican government to enact laws that deny human rights to women such as the right to own land.[50] Additionally, violence against women has been regarded by the Mexican government as a cultural practice.[50] The government has enforced impunity of the exploitation of indigenous women by its own government[clarification needed] including by the military.[50]

                The EZLN accepted a Revolutionary Law for Women on March 8, 1993.[50] The law is not fully enforced but shows solidarity between the indigenous movement and women.[50] The Mexican government has increased militarization of indigenous areas which makes women more susceptible to harassment through military abuses.[50]

                Indigenous women are forming many organizations to support each other, improve their position in society, and gain financial independence.[50] Indigenous women use national and international legislation to support their claims that go against cultural norms such as domestic violence.[51]

                Reproductive justice is an important issue to indigenous communities because there is a lack of development in these areas and is less access to maternal care. Conditional cash transfer programs such as Oportunidades have been used to encourage indigenous women to seek formal health care.[52]”

            1. It’s only a matter of ending illegal immigration and putting American citizens first.

              That ship sailed the moment the political class realized public service can be a very lucrative career move.

            2. The Oblivious One nattered, “It’s only a matter of ending illegal immigration . . . ”

              The sum total of human history is the Age of Migration. The Oblivious One expects the rule of law to make the sum total of human history illegal. What a perfectly oblivious twist on the campaign slogan Make America Great Again.

              1. The sum total of human history is the Age of Migration.

                No it isn’t, you ghastly old fraud.

                  1. People move around. World history is not reducible to that. It is not predominantly derived from that, either.

              2. “The sum total of human history is the Age of Migration. ”

                Diane, in a way that is true. In the Americas, one Indian tribe would leave their lands to occupy better land frequently inhabited by another tribe. That led to a war where one tribe would be killed or move to a new location and kill someone else. The same took place in Europe and Asia when the Mongols swept through Asia and threatened all of Europe. Your age of migration into already populated areas is nothing more than war, killing and extermination.

                Little have most people recognized what a violent person you are. You advocate mass killing and potentially genocide. You fit even better into the Stalin mold I have described over and over and over again.

                What has been altered to change these wars that were that were so common? The rule of law, something you have a great objection to as did Stalin unless it was his rule of law. How many tens of millions did he kill?

                Yes, Make America Great Again is a wonderful idea because America is based on the rule of law.

                1. The human population of planet Earth has grown a bit over the long course of this, our ongoing Age of Migration. All of the political territories have been carved up and parceled out to the various Nation-States. The Rule of Law must learn to work with the natural order–not against it.

                  1. The natural order since the times of the caveman has been boundaries or walls.

                    “Good fences make good neighbors” The MendingWall by Robert Frost

                    What should the rule of law be? In this country, our recognition of what the law should mean is stated in the Declaration of Independence.

                    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

                    “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,…”

                    Maybe those oppressed people living under harsh dictatorships should rise up and create a new government based on the law. If all the energetic enlightened people leave those countries then those countries will be despotic forever.

                    This great country is not preventing immigration, it is preventing illegal immigration and trying to incorporate those people that wish to settle here into our society.

                    1. Allan,
                      Do you believe the battle over immigration policy would be so contentious if assimilation wasn’t being ignored?

                    2. Olly, the immigration debate by the left is pure politics and tribalism. Our fertility rate for those already satisfactorily absorbed is lower than what is necessary to maintain present population numbers. Therefore, we depend on our new citizens and immigration to maintain the population as it is. However, it is not the numbers that count rather the productivity of those numbers that maintain our standard of living.

                      The right is somewhat split regarding immigration with some having a desire for almost complete open borders. They wish to keep the costs of labor down which affects the lower income workers especially blacks. Others believe that the borders should be completely shut until the immigrant population existing here today is assimilated.

                      Another question is where our immigrants should come from. The tribalism of the left is looking for political discord, not solutions. Therefore, they ignore assimilation preferring to heighten racist concerns. They also increase other minority factions even creating new ones just to make things even more difficult. Therein arises intersectionality where the straight white guy is discriminated against while the others climb the ladder based on how many different minority groups they belong to. This is a bit crazy, but that is the nature of the left.

                      Historically we had no problem with immigration. Virtually whoever wished to come here came unless they were sick or criminals. We started to pass immigration laws in the time of the gold rush as a clash developed between the citizens and those immigrants that would compete with Americans lowering the standard of living of those Americans facing such competition. There were earlier laws regarding naturalization and many laws mostly from the 20th century that targetted specific population groups. Therefore we can’t say that this nation had totally open borders for most of its existence.

                      More recently we have become overly dependent on the welfare state that provides a non-working person with a better standard of living than the standard of living in the general population of most countries. This creates additional problems in that a lot of people are more than willing to bring an entire 3 generation family to the US without the ability to support them.

                      All that being said, your question was “Do you believe the battle over immigration policy would be so contentious if assimilation wasn’t being ignored?” My short answer is no, but what to do is quite complex.

                    3. Good post Allan. Your conclusions would appear to be supported by the subject in this article:

                      In the long run, however, the pessimism of Family and Civilization over the family in America in the second half of the twentieth century was fully justified. Even as Zimmerman wrote the elegy for rural familism noted above, the peculiar circumstances that had forged the suburban “family miracle” were rapidly crumbling. Old foes of the “domestic family” and friends of “atomism” came storming back: feminists, sexual libertines, neo-Malthusians, the “new” Left. By the 1970s, a massive retreat from marriage was in full swing, the marital birthrate was in free fall, illegitimacy was soaring, and nonmarital cohabitation was spreading among young adults. While some of these trends moderated during the late 1990s, the statistics have all worsened again since 2000. Zimmerman was right: America is taking its first real “sickness” most violently.
                      https://home.isi.org/how-families-contribute-rise-and-fall-civilizations?utm_source=Intercollegiate+Studies+Institute+Subscribers&utm_campaign=803dd4b11a-Thursday+Review+June+7_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3ab42370fb-803dd4b11a-93293141&goal=0_3ab42370fb-803dd4b11a-93293141

                  2. The Rule of Law must learn to work with the natural order–not against it.

                    It’s good to see you acknowledging there exists a natural order or natural law. However, you have that exactly backwards. I agree the natural order includes migration, but the natural order also includes human nature. Most importantly, the natural order begins and ends with natural rights. It is precisely because human nature is a constant in that natural order and natural rights exist, that the rule of law is dominant. Nation-states have borders and the security of those borders is defined within the rule of law. The rule of law maintains the natural order, not the other way around. If as you suggest that the natural order (migration) is dominant, then the sovereignty of a nation-state and their social contract, must be made subordinate to every demand from outside of that nation-state. Under that worldview, there is no legitimate expectation for the security of natural rights, which is the very purpose of nation-states, borders, government, social contracts and the rule of law.

                1. Are you going to make Mexico pay for that as well?

                  Or are the Mexican people just going to dig it?

                  1. L4D enables David Benson – I think we could build it with illegals doing time. It is kind of poetic justice.

                  2. Diane, we could import Mexican labor at Mexican prices to help in the construction of a wall. That would lower our costs and provide a bit of an economic stimulus to Mexico at the same time.

                    1. Allan – it’s cheaper if we pay them as prison labor at 10 cents an hour.

                    2. Paul, I believe in paying a bit more than the going rate since I want workers that want to work. In fact, we might find that a good number of young workers might become really good and hard workers. I’d consider giving them the ability to immigrate to the US legally.

    1. But it’s a lot easier for a well-built man like Alec than it would be for a slight female like KN.

  12. About a generation ago, reflecting on some Los Angeles road rage incidents which had made the paper, Mike Royko offered the opinion we were living in the Age of the Jerk. This sort of thing (and most of the commentary by partisan Democrats on this site) is an indicator that Royko was seldom wrong.

      1. “The Age of The Jerk explains Trump perfectly.”

        It actually does because when Trump became President there was a mass hysteria and a significant number of our population suddenly turned into jerks and you are one of them.

        You can’t put aside losing. You are unable to work towards a better society where Presidents are elected instead of being put in power by killing everyone that disagrees.

        There are common interests for all Americans. A stronger economy is one that most Americans greatly desire because that leads to higher paychecks and a higher standard of living. Trump has helped provide that with what is likely to be a GDP growth rate of 4% next quarter. The problem is you have never learned how to deal with people you didn’t vote for so your response is to wish America goes into a recession or depression.

        You sound like such an awful person.

  13. Every outrage from the Left translates into untold votes for Trump from fair-minded folks who don’t want low IQ, high emotion folks at the helm. Carry On!

    1. Also consider this: the DNC including their high ratio of powerful members of the Federal police apparatchik, have slow walked the disclosure of their treasonous actions. This appears now to be the perfect soft ball pitch to the GOP. With a wee bit of orchestration, the GOP appears to have the perfect opportunity to blow this whole treasonous affair to a fever pitch just a few weeks prior to the mid term election.

      If the DNC had just disclosed it all in late 2016, the appropriate persons could be doing their life sentence in the appropriate Gulag, and it would have been a distant memory by this November.

      As you say: DNC Progressives (mental cases), please, by all means, carry on!

      The DNC suffers now the natural, age old consequence of their epic failure: if and when you attempt to kill the King (their treasonous actions pre and post election), if you fail, you most certainly, positively, shall die for the attempted coup. If there was proper justice they would be convicted of treason and executed, but in this case we must likely settle for mere imprisonment.

      At this stage, only those desiring the aforementioned treason disagree that every single action from the Mueller team is fruit from the poisonous tree. That being the case, IMO every conviction should be over turned, and those who committed the treasonous acts must financially reimburse all those funds spent on defense, which total in the millions by now.

      There are thousands of federal felonies committed, where prosecutors could get convictions if they had the legal authority to wire tap and bust through doors based on warrants where all the foundational evidence is lies and deceit. If readers agree that lies and deceit are OK as the foundation for the Mueller investigation, then you either approve of the same lies used to convict yourself, or you are a hypocrite.

      1. Haha. Whatever the “DNC” is, what does that entity have to do with anything posted here?

        this is to “Keep whistling, old timer, just keep whistling” joey

      1. Not really. I see economic growth, a strong military and a denuclearizing Korea. What’s the problem with enforcing laws on the border like we do everywhere else?

  14. What ever happened to the focused attack on ideas instead of ad hominem attacks? For multiple reasons, this country politic has degenerated into a spoiled child’s playground fight. Others’ points of view need to be heard, respected and debated if necessary. The person is not merely their political stance or less their job. We are all unique creatures worthy of respect. Have empathy. Be kind. Let people enjoy their meals. Argue with them when they are ready. If this behavior keeps up, the left is going to be completely ignored by cognizant people. Giving out protected identity data of those we disagree with is vicious. Storming a restaurant to harass someone you disagree with is bullying. My fondness for the old democratic credos has dissipated. Eschew the playground and enter the classroom. Grow up.

    1. Welcome to the world of the day glo bozo. Reap the whirlwind.

      this is to “but it’s okay when my team does it” matty

      1. mespo – I have never been on a sinking ship so I have no anecdotal information on rats in that situation. Sounds like a great grant proposal though. 😉

        1. All roads lead to Obama.

          Bill Clinton said to Loretta Lynch on the tarmac at the Phoenix airport,

          “If you prosecute Hillary, you’ll convict Obama.”

  15. Has anyone noticed it is ALWAYS the left that employs these tactics. I suspect her antics frightened many inside that establishment who are not government employees.If measures are not taken to punish this behavior it is only a matter of time before someone will get hurt.

    1. Well sort of. The left seems to be more active in these tactics lately. You haven’t forgotten Senator McCarthy. He was on the right — who is now the new hero of the left.

      1. And now, apparently, if J. Edgar Hoover were alive, he’d be the all time biggest champion of the left. His eaves dropping, “enemies of the republic” files, and homosexual status would elevate him to deity, next to of course Geezis Soetoro Obama.

    2. No, John, what I have noticed is a growing amount of incivility on both extremes of the political spectrum.

      1. Wildbill, you have to admit though that the left side of the spectrum has been far more uncivil in recent times and very prone to violence. Liberals can generally speak at universities without fear, but that same right isn’t afforded to the right portion of the spectrum. The left has used all sorts of tactics that involve injury and destruction.

    3. Charlottesville. Pro tip: all caps reveals you for the fool.

      this is to “but it’s okay when white guys do it” johnny

        1. And yet, for reasons that escape most, you think you are.

          Offering nothing of substance, or even petty worth.

          1. Diane, under one of your handles, you offer nothing but gamesmanship. Under the other two, you offer sh!tposts like the one above.

            1. The flattery never stops. It’s embarrassing. R. Lien fully deserves credit for R Lien’s work. Way to go R. Lien.

          2. R. Lien – I do not think I am a Super Pro, I know I am a Super Pro. 😉 If you don’t have confidence in yourself, no one else will. 🙂

  16. Hogwash. Secretary Neilson and others who are out having a private supper are entitled to be free from harassment from single-digit-I.Q,. morons who disagree with them on policy issues. I hope that Ms. Hrabar gets canned. If she worked for me, she’d’ve been gone in a nanosecond.

    1. The secret of Trump’s success revealed. All of Trump’s cult followers want to be the guy who points his finger at the camera and says, “You’re fired.” Too bad about the trade-mark infringement, though.

      1. Diane, you should learn what a cult is, At present Trump’s approval appears to be greater or equal to that of Obama, your lord, and savior. It is remarkable how you twist words as if definitions don’t exist. Then again to you, the rule of law is trash.

  17. Ms. Hrabar broke the law; that is not an issue of the First Amendment.

    If I were sitting at a table and protesters harassed me like they harassed Sec. Nielsen, I would feel threatened (I know that Nielsen had a security detail, but most of don’t). That arguably constitutes assault.

    This sword cuts both ways; inevitably, some conservatives will take this incident as a license to harass Pinkos – we have taken another step down the civility curve.

      1. Agreed. And should she keep it up she’ll find herself on the wrong side of the law. Protesting or disturbing the peace?

        1. However, you have no problem when some inbred Evangelical cretin denies service to gays even though the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forces gays to serve the Evangelical cretins. F*ck you.

          Actually, I do think the Civil Rights Act is inadvisable.

          That aside, the question at hand was compelling the baker to contract with someone he’d rather not for an object he’d rather have nothing to do with, and that is parody weddings. Since evangelicals aren’t trolling around catering businesses run by homosexuals looking for people to sue, service to evangelicals is not a live issue.

          As for calling other people ‘cretins’, when you look in the mirror, just who do you see? .

        2. Radio Free Rome – it appears you do not understand either the Masterpiece Cake case or its judgment.

Leave a Reply

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: