“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. In 2014, The Daily Caller reported that the feds paid Baptist Child & Family Services $76,000 per child. That’s significantly more than most Americans make. Indeed, there is an entire industry built around refugees and illegal immigrants, and the money the government provides for them. FAIR estimates that $80,000 is spent annually on each refugee. That means a family of four refugees could have a household cost of $320,000. From what I’ve seen of the Somali refugees here in Minneapolis, they’re not living the 1% lifestyle.

    So again, cui bono? Who benefits from this week’s outrage?


    1. That’s significantly more than most Americans make. I

      Mean compensation per worker in this country is about $70,000 per year. For f/t workers, it’s about $77,000 per year. (Benefits and perks account for about 19% of the total).

      Twenty-four hour care is expensive. That’s true no matter what the setting is.

  2. The objective of the open borders crowd is to allow non citizens to vote. It is not a moot point!

  3. Everyone can bring up all they want in our troubled world. It is really a matter of who is going to pay for it. Studies have pointed out that it is normally ten times cheaper to fix a problem in place. If we actually have open borders there is a predictable path that will occur. My thought is we would see around ten million come in each year. The realities are that the food card system would be broke by two at least and people in this country would be rejected first as the socialists will give the newcomers victim status. Same goes for housing. The available housing would be gone in under that time. That would increase the homeless camps by ten fold which is already a problem that is solvable. All job now fought for that are around fifteen dollars and under would be gone in under six months. General unemployment would go through the roof and so would any benefits involved which would go broke in under a year.
    So at the end of the day who is going to pay for this. Consider that this train of ten million a year would never end.

  4. Anyone doubting that the current administration is a kleptocracy should read “Corruption hits the small time” by Paul Krugman.

    Anyone doubting the corruption in New York City real estate maybe needs the assistance of their local reference librarian to obtain the relevant reading.

    1. Well, Pumpkin, aside from the fact that Krugman has been verifiably–and I do mean verifiably–wrong on just about everything he’s opined on–and that includes economics–yeah, he’s the bee’s knees.

      1. They are not “undocumented.” Enough with the attempts to frame the language. They entered this country illegally, therefore they are illegal. And they do vote, only willful ignorance can explain your position. As for Paul Krugman, about the only thing he has gotten right lately is…. Well I can’t seem to find anything he has gotten right. And nice Ad Hominem attack there with your ignoramus comment. Try showing us something that Krugman was correct on, or who is the real ignoramus?

        1. Well, those are your opinions. My opinion, is that you are a frightened, timid, klan-lite wannabee who latches onto any farcical tale promulgated by charlatans which you imagine provides legitimacy for you irrational hatred of those whom you know nothing about. How’s that for an Ad Hominem reply?

          this is to “I have a ‘Hannity was here’ tattoo across my lower back” teerlinkie


    Years ago I read an L.A. Times story saying the local school district had spent heavily on new campuses. Then, in 2000, after several new schools were built, school enrollment peaked. Story went on to note that undocumented immigration tapered off after that.

    It reflected the end of a Mexican baby boom in the 1970’s. Spanish Language TV executives have looked into the future and seen.. ‘English’-speaking Latinos! Industry programmers are debating English language shows.

    So one has to ask how genuine this border crisis is. And one can ask without defending MS 13. That’s a stupid test! We can dog them with RICO laws if the courts allow. Still one can ask if the border crisis is real. The question begs because it falls under ‘National Priorities’.

    If our national priority is a phony border crisis, we are tragically wasting time. Time that would be much better spent on healthcare, infrastructure, clean energies and planning for higher seas.

    Instead we yell at each other about a phony border crisis. All because Donald Trump is obsessed with the border. He never lived near one! The only borders Trump has known are the Hudson and East Rivers.

    Donald Trump is the crisis; a serial liar of a president. The sheer magnitude of falsehoods Trump tweets and utters challenges the media. ‘How does one phrase a story where the President doubles-down on a falsehood?’ Journalists face those challenges in Russia, of all places!

  6. DSS – bring back the Romans, let them build the wall. 😉 It really is an engineering job.

    1. Paul, when I was in China I was very impressed with the Great Wall of China. They had less technology but they were able to build it and it goes over mountains.

      1. Allan – I thought about the Chinese but they seemed to have a higher death rate per mile on their wall. 😉

        1. The death rate was huge, but think about the death rate for the Hoover Dam and all other big projects. With time we become more risk-averse.

  7. Ohh,…but Prof. Turley, Rush Limbaugh reported that the manager of the Mexican restaurant cheered and applauded such conduct—He said there needs to be MORE of it!!!

    Prof. Turley—all of this is signs of a ochlocracy. America has descended into ochlocracy, mob-rule. There is no virtue in America, no society. It’s all gone. America is a Failed state.

    1. A kleptocracy as The Donald is a card carrying member of the Manhattan Mafia. A kakistocracy as the principals can’t manage.

      The mob is too mesmerized to care…

        1. Nobody can be a big man in New York City real estate without The Card. Matter of payoffs I am informed.

          1. You have not established your position that President Trump engaged in theft, especially in within the context of his acting in his office as President. In fact, in your deflection, you cited vague generalities without any specifics; only alluding to “payoffs as [you] are informed”. Informed from whom, do you have agents available to no one else but you who are proving things nobody is aware of?

            But even if this was provable in any sense, you haven’t articulated it from past events, much less the present. Your argument that President Trump has engaged in corruption or theft has no present basis in the facts presented by even a news media that shows a determination to dig up dirt at any opportunity perceived to be present.

            In other words, to use your own lexicon, you are “making stuff up”.

            1. Kleptocracy is government by thieves. Even if they refrain from stealing in office which the EPA Administrator can’t manage to do.

              And then there’s the violation of the Emoluments clause, surely a form of theft.

              The fact that you are naive about the Manhattan Mafia doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.

              1. Again, you have failed to establish a specific case of the President engaging in theft or corruption. I will grant that several Members of Congress have provably engaged in corruption and thefts and from the information presented in the media and through official sources these members were separated from their positions and prosecuted criminally.

                In order to successfully argue that a government is a Kleptocracy there is the need to show a pattern and usual practice of engaging in corruption. You have not demonstrated this.

              2. 1) If you want to talk about kleptocracy talk about Hillary and her gang. If you want to talk about perversions you can also talk about Hillary and her gang.

                2) Emoluments Clause: That has been discussed over and over again on this blog and those that were pushing the idea were proven to be idiots. You have an excuse, age and some loss of memory. You will, however, feel better knowing that it is estimated that being President Trump has lost a lot of money,

                3)You know nothing about NYC real estate.

          1. Did you ever think that they may not have done their job right? I hired someone who at one time did work for Trump and complained he wasn’t paid. When he finished his job I paid him but he overcharged and did a lousy job much of which had to be replaced. I should have been smart and let him sue for the remainder of the bill.

            You realize of course that what you are talking about is perhaps not being paid the holdback. A lot of people say they will do more than they actually do.

            By the way, what do you know about New York real estate that you can make such lame comments about Trump?

              1. The word in the street is that Trump is doing a fantastic job. You don’t seem to accept that word from the street but you do accept the other when it is bolstered by phony news reporting. I am not saying Trump is perfect but neither are you or I. With all the investigations into Trump both before his political career and after nothing of significance has turned up. Only a Saint could stand up to such scrutiny.

                  1. BWWHHAAAAA, “wrecking the country”, seriously? What is “wrecked” other than your parties plan to “fundamentally change America?” Economy going great, more take home pay, wages creeping up, jobless rate at an all time low, especially among minorities, rule of law returning, NK coming to the table, working the trade imbalances, told Iran to go scratch, etc. If that is how you “wreck” the country, let’s have some more. When you have something of actual substance, get back to us, otherwise, don’t go away mad, just go away.

                1. Haha. Rich. Pravda Faux News is not trying to “inform” you.

                  Pro tip: change the channel.

                  This is to “is this how the titanic passengers felt” allan

                  1. The left has gone so deep in the hole that we have to listen to road kill mark? The GDP growth will likely hit 4% next quarter and unemployment is effectively at zero. I admit that doesn’t make much of a difference to road kill.

                    1. “Allan – the unemployment rate in AZ is effectively 2.9%”

                      Paul, I don’t know about that. Generally, AZ trails and I think its unemployment rate is around 1%
                      higher than the national average.

                    2. Allan – I got wrong information and you were closer to right. Seasonally adjusted we are at 4%.

                    3. Paul, I am not sure but when using the same metrics as the US unemployment rate I think Arizona comes up around 4.7 though I may be a month or two behind.

                    4. “Allan – my understanding is the 4.7 is not seasonally adjusted.”

                      You have to compare like with like.



    Three House Republicans ripped President Donald Trump on Wednesday for saying that lawmakers laughed and applauded when he criticized Mark Sanford, a South Carolina Republican who lost his reelection bid after the president blasted him on Twitter hours before the polls closed last week in the state’s primary.

    “Had a great meeting with the House GOP last night at the Capitol,” the president posted on Twitter as he was en route to Duluth, Minnesota, for a rally Wednesday evening. “They applauded and laughed loudly when I mentioned my experience with Mark Sanford. I have never been a fan of his!”

    Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) responded that that lawmakers were instead “disgusted.”

    “House Republicans had front row seats to @POTUS’s dazzling display of pettiness and insecurity,” Amash tweeted. “Nobody applauded or laughed. People were disgusted.”

    The Michigan Republican is running for reelection but does not have a GOP opponent in the state’s primary. Amash has in the past said there are no grounds for Trump to be impeached.

    Rep. Ryan Costello (R-Pa.) also denied Trump’s claim that Republicans were cheering about his Sanford comments at the GOP closed-door conference on Tuesday night.

    Edited from: “Categorically False. Two GOP Lawmakers Refute Trump On Reaction To Sanford Comments”.

    Today’s POLITICO


      One wonders what Trump really said about Sanford. How abusive was he? Congressman Amash claims “people were disgusted”. Too bad no tape exists.

      1. To lie is to knowingly tell an untruth. But The Donald cannot tell the difference between truth and untruth. So he can’t actually tell a lie.

  9. “It Felt Really Good”:

    Obergruppenfuhrer Mueller and his mighty team of overzealous, liberal, democrat activists wielding “unfettered power” while conducting a “malicious prosecution” of President Donald J. Trump as their mission in the Obama coup d’etat in America.

    1. Gee George that’s clever to use a German term. I felt chills down my spine just reading it.

      But you forgot about Inspector General Horowitz. Isn’t ‘he’ part of the Deep State conspiracy?

  10. Jonathan Turley, for shame! The issue is the abuse of children.

    Some matters are higher moral law, so high we don’t have to write it down. Quit being a pedant.

        1. Yes, yes he did. The Flores Settlement existed then. Apparently, you have not looked into Lateral Resettlement. Obama separated men from their from their screaming children and deliberately dumped them over 1000 miles away from where they crossed. Then, they didn’t tell their families where they were. They had to find out at a Mexican consulate. If they didn’t have the money to travel to one, too bad.

          The difference was the zero tolerance for illegal immigration. That means more adults will be prosecuted. Because of the Flores settlement, they could not be detained.

          They used to also be separated if they suspected they were not with family or had been abused.

          Now, instead of going to a children’s center with schooling, activities, soccer fields, and prom, the executive order will see them stay in detention with their parents, who may be taking it.

          By the way, GOOGLE images of the separated men, women, and children penned in chainlink by Obama.

          1. Karen: It sounds like Obama was tough on immigration.

            Strangely conservatives want it both ways. “Obama allowed an open border that Trump needed to control”. But when images of children in cages appear, “Obama started it”. Absurdly Trump supporters never see these contradictions.

            1. No, we’re pointing out that Obama was operating under the same consent decree.

                1. Nothing phony at all. We’ve had chronic trouble with illegal immigration for more than four decades.

                  1. Didn’t look at it, right? Like I said last week, you’re the know-it-all who doesn’t want to know what you don’t know.

                    1. Peter, we have a chronic problem with illegal immigration. The statistics you’re sighting do not indicate anything otherwise. (And, while we’re at it, these are the crudest and least useful sort of data for assessing the problem).

                  2. Tell me, Nutchacha, what crucial indicator am I missing here? And please disclose, while you’re at it, where you’re actually blogging from. I’d like to know if there’s a border near you.

                    1. Peter:

                      There are some studies I will look for tonight to post that can help explain what the problem is.

                      In the meantime, will you please explain why you are arguing so strongly against securing the border? Why is is so important that we have no say in who we let in? Why is it wrong to stop illegal immigration and improve the legal immigration system?

                      I have yet to hear a good argument in support of illegal immigration.

                      Why are you fighting so hard against border security? I do not understand why this is such a popular opinion among individual Democrats. Politicians want the electoral votes that being centrist didn’t net them. But what about the voters themselves? Why is specifically illegal immigration so appealing? What do you believe are the consequences for illegal immigration?

                      I am not courting an argument, or trying to be facetious. I genuinely don’t understand your position.

                    2. Hi Peter:

                      I am not sure if you are still following this thread. Here are some articles talking about problems caused by specifically illegal immigrants.

                      #1 Healthcare. High densities of illegal aliens clog up the ER of their local hospital for routine medical care, because by law they cannot be turned away. But they have no insurance, and don’t pay for it. That results in many ERs around the country completely shutting down.


                      “Every day hundreds of immigrants set off from Naco, Mexico, six miles from Bisbee, and head north through this ragged edge of Arizona. If they get hurt in the desert or while being smuggled in vans and trucks, they usually wind up at Copper Queen. The facility also takes emergency transfers from Naco, which has no hospital.

                      “The numbers are incredible,” said Stephen Lindstrom, medical director at Copper Queen. “They are constantly bringing in dehydrated and injured Mexicans, but I don’t think we’ve ever got a dollar.””

                      “A study last year by the U.S.-Mexico Border Counties Coalition examined healthcare costs in 28 border counties in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and California. It found they had lost $200 million treating illegal immigrants that year.

                      Statewide, Arizona is losing $150 million annually caring for undocumented immigrants, health officials said.

                      Congress recently set aside $1 billion to reimburse states for treating illegal immigrants. Arizona will get $40 million annually over four years starting in 2005, about one-fourth of what it actually spends.

                      Dickson said that without substantive immigration reform, the money would only be a stopgap.”

                      Now, California, of course came up with the idea that they should offer Obamacare to illegal aliens. Although that would at least give reimbursement to the few hospitals who accept Obamacare, that means that taxpayers have no say over who and how many come across the border, but they have to pay the cost of all that medical care. CA is already the highest taxed state of the union. I really don’t know how they would be able to shoulder the burden of tens of millions more dollars annually. There is a limit to how much Silicon Valley will absorb before it makes like the movie industry and leaves the state. And without them paying the freight, CA is doomed and will fall into the figurative sea of debt.

                    3. #2 Identity theft is the most common crime committed by Illegal Aliens. I personally have my identity stolen annually, and I often get mail delivered to my home addressed to Hispanic names of people who never lived here. I lost my health insurance when one of those thefts interfered with my premium auto pay.


                      “Seeking access to jobs, credit, and driver’s licenses, many undocumented aliens are using the personal data of real Americans on forged documents. The immigrants’ identity theft has become so pervasive that the need to combat it is “a disturbing front in the war against illegal immigration,” according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
                      The FTC’s latest statistics help show why. The top five states in terms of reported identity theft in 2007 all have large immigrant populations—the border states of Arizona, California, and Texas, as well as Florida and Nevada. People who pilfer legitimate identities in these states are much more likely than in other parts of the country to use them to gain employment unlawfully—the most common reason that illegal aliens steal personal information. In Arizona, for instance, 36 percent of all identity theft is for employment purposes, compared with only 5 percent in Maine, a state with far fewer illegal aliens.”

                      This is really awful when you get audited for not claiming income for all those side jobs you never knew you had in your name. They commonly target children to steal their identities, because the theft won’t be discovered until they run their credit later.

                      “Americans who have their identity stolen by these gangs are in for major headaches. Among the complaints filed with the FTC is that of a Texas man arrested for a crime committed by an illegal alien who had filched his identity. In another case, highlighted by Nevada senator John Ensign in last year’s immigration-reform debate in Congress, the Internal Revenue Service hit a woman with a $1 million back-tax bill, even though she was a stay-at-home mom. An investigation later found that 218 illegal aliens were using her Social Security number. A Los Angeles police detective—who, ironically, worked in the department’s fraud bureau—was unable to buy a home because of bills piled up by an illegal immigrant who stole his Social Security number to gain employment at a processing plant. Then the IRS served the cop with a bill for $40,000 in back taxes; when he protested, the agency threatened to send his case to collection. Other legal residents have had their unemployment claims or workers’ compensation cases rejected after government records showed that someone with their Social Security number was working.”

                      Sadly, Democrats blocked a bill that would have barred those who stole identities from withdrawing SS payments based on the theft.

                    4. #3 Felony Hit and Run

                      Hit and runs were such a problem in border states like CA that it decided to pass AB60, which allowed illegal aliens to get drivers licenses. In addition, they are allowed to carry insurance with less coverage than what is required for a legal citizen, at lower premiums than law abiders may have.

                      After passing AB 60, CA issued over 1 million drivers licenses to illegal aliens, in the first two years since it passed.

                      Hit and runs decreased about 7%, which is better than before, but still not great. Unfortunately, it also takes the teeth out of laws that try to prevent employers from hiring illegal aliens, as a deterrent.


                      Since it is a hit and run, these numbers never get calculated into illegal immigrant crime, as with all of the identities thieves who don’t get caught.

                      How many felony hit and runs are committed by illegal aliens? Well, it’s hard to gather good data, because they run. But, hit and runs are higher among unlicensed drivers, and in border states. Passing AB 60 preceded a 7% drop in hit and runs, but that was only the amount of increase from one year. The best we can do on calculating what percentage of hit and runs are from illegal aliens is anecdotal and estimates, and I hate either for data analysis. Suffice it to say that illegal alien unlicensed drivers were considered a sufficient threat to safety that CA began issuing them licenses and cheap insurance.

                      ““The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety reports unlicensed drivers are five times more likely to kill, they will flee the scene over 50 percent of the time, five times more likely to drive drunk,” said Rosenberg.

                      In a whitepaper compiling statistics of hit-and-run accidents, Rosenberg found that unlicensed drivers were involved in more than 7,600 fatal crashes — about 20 percent of fatal crashes nationwide.”

                      ““In Los Angeles in terms of hit-and-runs, it’s way outside the norm,” said Rosenberg. “On a national level, there’s about 11 percent of traffic collisions end up being hit-and-runs…in Los Angeles, it’s 50 percent.”

                      Rosenberg, whose son was killed by an unlicensed driver in November 2010, said the actual number of hit-and-run accidents by unlicensed drivers may be much higher because the LAPD does not take a report if no one is injured.

                      “You’ve got a very high concentrated population of illegal aliens in Los Angeles; they drive,” he said. “Matter of fact, the police chief actually encourages them to drive as long as they buy insurance.””


                    5. It is not against the law to leave the scene of an accident in Mexico, which is another reason why illegal immigrants, who did not go through the system and learn the differences in law, may be more likely to skip out. In addition, they may fear getting reported to ICE or having to pay for damages.

                      The data is squishy on this, however, because you would need to actually catch and convict each and every hit and run driver, and then verify their identity, a problem with the rampant identity theft, fake documents, and multiple aliases.

                    6. #4 (cont’d)


                      Immigrant gangs1 are considered a unique public safety threat due to their members’ propensity for violence and their involvement in transnational crime. The latest national gang threat assessment noted that Hispanic gang membership has been growing, especially in the Northeast and the South, and that areas with new immigrant populations are especially vulnerable to gang activity. 2 A large share of the immigrant gangsters in the most notorious gangs such as Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), Surenos-13, and 18th Street are illegal aliens. Their illegal status means they are especially vulnerable to law enforcement, and local authorities should take advantage of the immigration tools available in order to disrupt criminal gang activity, remove gang members from American communities, and deter their return. Once explained, these measures find much support, especially in immigrant communities where gang crime is rampant.

                      ICE gang arrests have occurred nationwide, with the largest numbers made by the offices in San Diego, Atlanta, San Francisco, and Dallas (see Table 1). Some jurisdictions with serious gang problems had just a few OCS arrests, such as Phoenix, with only 81 arrests, and Houston, with 84 arrests. Los Angeles, the gang capital of the nation, had fewer than 300 arrests. These same jurisdictions also had controversial “sanctuary” or “don’t ask, don’t tell” policies on immigration status in place over the time period studied.
                      Nearly half, or 3,080, of the aliens arrested over the two-and-a-half-year period studied were affiliated with MS-13 and Surenos-13, two of the most notorious gangs with largely Hispanic immigrant memberships.

                      Obviously the consequences of gangs are drugs, violence, damaged property values, making the neighborhood unsafe for kids unless they join a gang, correlation with youth murder, and street shootings.

                    7. #5 – Costs schools money, crowds classrooms, and lowers test scores

                      First, if their parents are migratory, the kids jump around from school to school, getting an indifferent education. They are often absent during the picking season (because, remember, illegal immigrant kids don’t enjoy the employer protections that legal immigrants do, contributing to a serf class.)

                      Illegal immigrant kids have high drop out rates. Schools with high numbers of illegal immigrant kids have lower test scores, because so many of them did not have a good foundational education, and don’t speak English. If the number of immigration is absorbable, then this is an excellent opportunity to share education opportunities to the deserving. When it’s a flood, and illegal, then classrooms get overwhelmed with non English speakers who need additional services. Test scores plummet. Parents choose schools based on test scores and graduation rates, and start sending their kids elsewhere, making test scores fall further. No one wants their child to be held back because 3/4 of the class is far under grade level and don’t speak the language. That’s not fair to the other kids. A few, you can help them catch up and give them intense language classes, but the more you get, the less able you are to bring them up to speed, and the more it impacts other students.

                      Here is an international study:


                      In most countries, a high share of immigrant children in schools leads to lower test scores of native children.

                      A high share of immigrant students can lead to higher dropout rates from high school and lower chances of passing exams.

                      Native flight from schools that have many immigrant children can amplify negative effects on native children, as native parents move their children to schools with fewer immigrant children.

                      Native children tend to experience more incidents of bullying when there are more immigrant children in the same classroom.


                      “Foreign-born youths are significant contributors to the nation’s teen school dropout population. Only 8 percent of the nation’s teens are foreign born, but nearly 25 percent of teen school dropouts were born outside the United States, according to a Pew Hispanic Center analysis of data from the 2000 U.S. Census.

                      Many of these foreign-born school dropouts–nearly 40 percent–are recent arrivals to this country who were already behind in school before they left for the United States.

                      The dropout rate for teens with school problems before migration is in excess of 70 percent, in comparison with 8 percent for other foreign-born youths. And their characteristics, especially for males, suggest that many of them are labor migrants: Their purpose in migrating was probably to seek employment in the labor market, and they may have never enrolled in U.S. schools.”

                      Are unaccompanied minors from Latin America coming for the education, and to get ahead, or to drop out and work at under the table jobs and send money back home? Because the latter is not in their best interest.

                    8. #6 Cost of Illegal Immigration

                      OK, this data will be squishy, as well, due to the difficulty of getting information. How do you determine exactly how many identity thefts were due to illegal aliens, if so many perpetrators are not caught and convicted? They only have the data on those that are found, and since their forte is identity theft, placing them with the right identity can be tricky.

                      There is a LOT of disagreement on how much illegal immigration costs us annually. The often cited figure of $130 billion has a few problems. As stated below, it included the welfare benefits illegal immigrant families use for their US born citizen children, but do not account for those children’s future payments on taxes when they grow up. That’s certainly valid, although I would point out that Anchor Babies are taking advantage of an Amendment that was intended to give citizenship to freed slaves. There is room to debate against granting citizenship to anyone and everyone who is born here, if their parents were either illegal aliens or even travelers just passing through. I think a requirement should be that one of the parents must be a citizen. There are arguments on both sides.

                      Another problem is there is some disagreement on how many illegal immigrants live here. Estimates range from 10 to 12.5 million, and the study used the higher end. The Left fights really hard against collecting this data, such as via the Census. So it’s hard to get accurate figures.

                      On the other hand, illegal immigrants take benefits such as Section 8 and other low cost housing away from others who are here illegally. Then there are the myriad laws that benefit them, such as Sanctuary Cities, and all the attendant expensive legal fees of free legal aid, advocacy, and other programs. Then there is Medicaid fraud, the identity theft mentioned above, hit and runs. The cost of all those free drivers licenses in AB60 – over 1 million and counting.

                      In some areas, the FAIR study used the highest estimates possible, there was one benefit it didn’t count, and it did not add in some additional costs.



                      “”Illegal immigrant families received nearly $1.3 billion in Los Angeles County welfare money during 2015 and 2016, nearly one-​quarter of the amount spent on the county’s entire needy population, according to data obtained by Fox News.

                      The data was obtained from the county Department of Public Social Services — which is responsible for doling out the benefits — and gives a snapshot of the financial costs associated with sanctuary and related policies.

                      The sanctuary county of Los Angeles is an illegal immigration epicenter, with the largest concentration of any county ​in the nation, according to a study from the Migration Policy Institute. ​The county also allows illegal immigrant parents with children born in the United States to seek welfare and food stamp benefits.””

                      So, we might not have an exact, reliable number, but it’s definitely over $1 billion, since LA county alone paid that in a single year. So, my estimate is billions of dollars and I can’t go any more specific.

            2. ““Obama started it”. Absurdly Trump supporters never see these contradictions.”

              What a dummy. Some of the pictures, maybe all the pictures, initially shown of children in cages were taken during the Obama administration.

                1. Unfortunately, roadkill doesn’t realize that the dates on at least some of those pictures, if not all, were from the Obama administration.

                  Looks like Mark has a problem with the truth. Mark, watch out for cars.

                  1. Allan – you realize that Marky Mark Mark supposedly defends federal defendants. Don’t you wonder, like I do, if they would be better off going pro se?

                    1. If true, all that proves is lawyers can be pretty stupid. I don’t want to insult the legal profession so this relates to Mark. We have some very bright lawyers on this blog. All I can picture if what you say is true, that when the defense is called to the stand a chicken stands up flapping its wings.

            3. Peter – Obama was mixed on immigration. That’s what happens when you try to appease all sides. On the one hand, he dumped male repeat offender Mexican illegal immigrants at the border over 1,000 miles away from where they crossed, separating him from any children he came with. On the other, he had the unaccompanied minors surges, DACA, had border patrol let a lot of crossers through, and other executive orders that encouraged illegal immigration. He also counted turnarounds at the border as deportations, which inflated his numbers a bit. No one said that he never, ever prosecuted any illegal immigrants. And if he did, then any kids with them had to be separated.

              Even though Obama did separate families, because he had to due to the Flores settlement, and the above policy on Lateral Resettlement, Trump is separating more. That is because he’s taken a zero tolerance rule on illegal immigration, which means more adults are being charged, which means more children have to be separated them by day 20.

              All we have to do to stop this is cut off illegal immigration. We should not be encouraging families to send their babies here unaccompanied, in the hands of cartel murderers and rapists. Legal immigration is the only safe way.

              I also don’t agree with any defense along the lines of “he started it”. What people are trying to point out is that the outrage seems to have blossomed overnight, but ignored it when it happened under Obama. That’s not fair, and it’s a mischaracterization. When Obama does it, it’s ignored, when Trump does it, he’s evil and his entire immigration policy centers on separating children.

              Most people I’ve spoken with have no idea what the actual policy is, what’s changed, or what was the policy before.

              I am really unhappy that Obama encouraged unaccompanied minors. We carry a lot of guilt, as a country, for what happened to those kids in the hands of the cartels.

              It’s time to fix this. Executive orders are temporary, and can be overturned by the court. Legislation is the only right way to go, but everyone’s clinging to their opposite poles of valor.

              Here’s the thing. Instead of claiming you’re “tough on immigration” touting your arrests or deportations, why don’t you avoid the pain of deportation in the first place? Make it so hard to immigrate here illegally that people stop trying it? Then no more catch and release that clogs our court systems and equates to the porous border. No more caravans from Latin America shouting at journalists that the US has NO RIGHT to say they cannot come in.

              If all immigration goes through legal channels and everyone is thoroughly vetted, then we can preserve a union of disparate people united in the common goal of individual liberty and Western values. Only the good, honest, hard working, or deserving people can get in, and the oppressors would stay out. Why in the world would anyone support a porous border that lets in the very people that others flee from?

          2. From Snopes:

            The rumors correctly suggested that “family detention” as a whole came before the Trump administration, but as of August 2015 intact families at the border were rarely separated. Other iterations of the rumor held that the Obama administration separated more children from their parents than the Trump administration, a claim stemming from an inaccurate retelling of the fact that an influx of unaccompanied minors from Latin America crossed the border in from 2014 onward. In those instances, minor children primarily traveled without their parents.

            Claims that the “law to separate families” was passed in 1997, those claims originated with a February 2018 Department of Homeland Security statement referencing “[l]egal loopholes [that] are exploited by minors, family units, and human smugglers.” The DHS statement claimed existing immigration policies “create a pull factor that invites more illegal immigration and encourages parents to pay and entrust their children to criminal organizations.

            However, neither the 1997 Flores settlement nor a 2008 human trafficking law cited in that release in any way stipulated that the government separate children from their parents:

            A White House spokesman referred [Factcheck.org] to a DHS statement regarding a 1997 legal settlement and 2008 antitrafficking law affecting minors who are apprehended without a parent present:

            Under the 1997 settlement, DHS could detain unaccompanied children captured at the border for only 20 days before releasing them to foster families, shelters or sponsors, pending resolution of their immigration cases. The settlement was later expanded through other court rulings to include both unaccompanied and accompanied children.

            The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 requires unaccompanied minors from countries other than Mexico and Canada to be placed in the care of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, or relatives in the U.S., while they go through removal proceedings. The bipartisan bill was approved by unanimous consent and signed by Bush.

            But neither the court settlement nor the 2008 law require the Trump administration to “break up families.”

            A cluster of rumors about the controversial separation of families at the border held that the policy came before the Trump administration, either stemming from a 1997 “law” or purported policies of previous administrations. Those claims were false. No federal law required or suggested the family separation policy announced by Attorney General Sessions in several sets of remarks during April and May 2018.

            1. Natacha – families didn’t need to be separated if they weren’t prosecuted. Families are not split up for the heck of it. The Flores Settlement applies when the parents are detained for more than 20 days, such as when arrested for illegal immigration. I am so upset about what parents put these kids through. Unless it was life or death for each and every one of them, it was wrong. The surge of minors after they were given entry seems to indicate this is using vulnerable children to game the system, at least for some of them. When Obama started circumventing federal law, and unilaterally decided that unaccompanied kids and families could all come in, he didn’t need to separate anyone. He also held out a big carrot for parents to abandon their children to the indifferent care and even abuse of cartel human smugglers. A President may not just make up immigration law as he goes along. That’s Congress’ job.

              Here’s the thing, if it was OK for Obama to circumvent Congress and allow in whomever he pleased, to the tune of thousands upon thousands of people, then Trump is free to follow federal law. Illegal immigrants are prosecuted under federal law, and children are not a get out of ICE free card. What a crazy way to use a child. Before Obama set that policy in place, adults would try to sneak over and then bring their children later.

              Or, instead of this stupid patchwork approach, then legislate. If you don’t like the law that Trump applies, then change it. For instance, add the “I want to be an American” category, and assign a certain number of openings.

      1. Thank you for posting the photo. We all know that the Socialist Democrats have VERY VERY short memories.

    1. David Benson owes me three citations after a month, one from the OED, and the source of a quotation – if Manafort and his wife had been arrested, his children (assuming they were minors) would become the temporary wards of the state until other arrangements could be made. When women give birth in prison, we separate the child from the mother. Why is what we are doing at the border any different? We know that child smugglers are putting children with adults, not their parents, so they can get them across the border. We know that the children are not with their real parent or guardian some of the time. I was watching an episode of Border Patrol where they picked up a group of illegals in southern Arizona. Two pre-teen girls could not identify the man who supposedly was their father once they were separated from him. It was both creepy and horrifying.

      1. You’re asking Dr. Benson to quit striking attitudes and think this through. Even if he weren’t dotty, it’s probably 50 years since he’s ever admitted he was wrong about anything. As for Natacha, she thinks nothing through as a matter of course. Everything is a stew of vitriol-laced emotion.

      2. It’s a blog, Paul, and nobody owes anybody anything. Now be a big boy and quit perseverating.

        1. anonymous – I find it hard to take advice from someone who is too scared to use their real name.

          1. So, Paul, if I warn you about the bridge being out a mile down the road, you’re going to need my name frst?

          2. So, Paul, if I warn you about the bridge being out a mile down the road, you’re going to need my name first?

      3. Paul – clearly any woman who breaks the law should be given a pass so that her actions do not separate her from her children.

    2. The issue is the abuse of children.

      Exactly! Just like with the children removed from abusive birth parents and placed in our foster care system. As for those illegal immigrants: No loving parent/guardian that was truly seeking asylum from their home country would ever risk the lives of their children to get to the US border. There are many consulates along the way. How about that moral imperative David?

      1. Americans. Don’t. Put. Children. In. Internment. Camps.

        This is to “gee whiz, the Nuremberg guys were just following orders” olly

        1. “Americans. Don’t. Put. Children. In. Internment. Camps.”

          However, Democrats do put children in internment camps. Who controlled the Presidency and Congress when Japanese children were placed in internment camps? The Democrats. Which was the party of slavery? The Democrats. Who got us into the Vietnam War? The Democrats. Which party controlled the Presidency recently when corruption was at a new height? The Democrats. Who wants open borders without thinking about how to protect Americans? The Democrats. Who favors those belonging to MS 13 over American citizens? The Democrats. Who are the biggest fools on this bog? The Democrats.

          1. Irrational pivot. At this point in time, we can’t do anything about events which occurred in 1861, 1942 or 1965. However, we patriots can at this time do much about the attempted totalitarian hijacking of our Republic. So sorry to bring logic, facts and reason to your little shrill screeching.

            this is to “Hannity told me to buy commemorative coins, so I bought a pallet load” allan

            1. “pivot”? It is you, Mark, and your race-baiting compatriots that have led the charge for racism and internment of children. You must be double jointed to bend yourself in so many ways while you promote racism and tribalism.

              Since you didn’t remark on any of the facts I’ll repeat them again. Democrats do put children in internment camps. Who controlled the Presidency and Congress when Japanese children were placed in internment camps? The Democrats. Which was the party of slavery? The Democrats. Who got us into the Vietnam War? The Democrats. Which party controlled the Presidency recently when corruption was at a new height? The Democrats. Who wants open borders without thinking about how to protect Americans? The Democrats. Who favors those belonging to MS 13 over American citizens? The Democrats. Who are the biggest fools on this bog? The Democrats.

              The President signed an executive order to provide a bit of time so that Congress can fix the problems. The only people terribly upset by that order that keeps children with their parents are the race-baiters like you and they seem to reside today in the Democratic Party.

    3. Neilsen acting in the capacity of following yhe law as written by all our elected representatives and by direction of the President and DOJ is not immorality nor is it her fault. She is doing her job. To be harassed by a socialist who is also a federal employee and works for the very department that issued the order to enforce the law is completely out of bounds.

      But the very idea that you say DHS is immoral when it was the parents that put these kids at risk to begin with by shipping them off on a dangerous journey with strangers and traffickers or while they themselves try to break the law and sneak across the border is absurd. The immorality began with the parents. The DHS is trying to put them in a safe space until it can be determined they really are with their parents.

      And the immorality of socialism is in itself a problem. The fact that we now have socialists and communists openly working within the highest levels of the government is startling enough. But the idea that they are actively trying to shut down the freedom of another federal employee who is doing their job as directed should be a punishable offense for actively trying to deny the secretary’s constitutional and civil rights.

  11. I can’t summon up a lot of sympathy for the Secretary even though I would do what the protesters did.

    1. You would do what the protesters did, Mr. Holmes? That’s the kind of gentleman your mama raised?

      1. Based on his or her other comments over the years, I believe s/he meant “wouldn’t” but, sure, jump to conclusions, FFS.

        1. I responded to his comment. You’re the one jumping to conclusions about what he really meant.

          1. No, I’m just giving him the benefit of the doubt, given his usual comments. He can weigh in. Or not.

  12. Several issues are raised:

    First, are these people sincere? Where where they when this same crap was happening under Obama Jesus? Where they busy attacking ordinary people for pointing out that Obama was a human rights abuser? That he held immigrants in indefinite detention, that he sperated families. That ICE regularaly had people dying in its custody? Did they care about it then? Or, as was/is the ususal custom of Democrats, did they attack people who brought up this reality? Is some Democratic group paying them to do this action? I would like to know these things because a lot of “activism” is actually a front for the National Security State and Democrats love their 3 letter agencies like no other. So I’d like to know if they did think it was wrong under Obama. If they did not think it was wrong, do they now? Have they had a genuine change of heart? Or, is this just another fake “activist” group?

    That said, I have no problem with civil disobediance. I hope these people are for real. There are no real ways for ordinary people to reach the powerful with our words. We simply don’t matter to the powerful. They have sucessfully shut down most ways to redress our grievances through the misrule of law. One of the very few avenues left is civil disobediance. Good for any sincere person who takes that route. It is courageous and necessary. Keep it peaceful and keep it up!

      1. So what do you suggest to address the problem at hand? Build a wall is one solution.

        Should we have a policy of just allowing anyone with a child to come and stay? You want catch and release that encourages migrants to come to the border with children as their free pass? What about the child traffickers, coyotes and drug cartels? There was a surge of minors in 2014 due to Obama’s policies that allowed people with children to stay. There was no outrage then. Wanna share your ideas for sustainable policy solutions?

        1. First TBob, many of the refugee problems we see around the world are the result of US military action. We can save US taxpayers a lot of money and we can save other people their very lives by staying out of other nations. I’m quite certain that many MAGA voters thought that is exactly what Trump would do. Instead he has expanded our military adventures. We are in process of regime changing several nations in Central and South America. Full Stop to this and everyone except the Military Contractors and Bankers and IC wins. If you don’t want so many immigrants, stop waging wars! Stop regime change.

          The other thing to look at is how we are allocating money. Right now, lots of money is going to military contractors and private corporations, along with certain favored contractors in building a wall. The contractors are getting a windfall in transporting people to detention facilities. Private corps. are getting a windfall to warehouse immigrants. The wall contractors should be self-explanatory. So US taxpayers are laying out huge sums of money to private companies.

          The questions then becomes one of sane or insane resource allocation. A sane use of the money is to follow the law, give people a quick hearing on their asylum claim and say, yea or neah. We actually know this works! “In June 2017, the administration ended the Family Case Management Program, which allowed families to be placed into a program, together, that connected them with a case manager and legal orientation that ensured they understood how to apply for asylum and attend immigration court proceedings.

          The program had a 99.6 percent appearance rate at immigration court hearings for those enrolled in the program. It’s not only a more humane alternative to family prisons; it’s far less costly for taxpayers.”


          There are other ideas. The first is to begin with having enough integrity that you support the human rights of every person, whether you like them or not, even if you personally despise them. We are failing this test on multiple levels. If we return to integrity and courage, there are already good ideas in place to help end this problem.

          1. TBob,

            Legalizing drugs in the US would help. Again, it’s not like we don’t spend a lot of US taxpayer money to wage war on poor and middle class drug users. We do. So we could instead put that money into drug treatment. We could use the money to employe people. We could make people’s lives better. The war on poor and middle class drug users is profitable to a few, unaccountable private companies. That money could be much better spent.

            1. Legalizing drugs in the US would help.

              It wouldn’t do a goddamn thing but increase consumption of street drugs and provide more demand for the services of the credentialed mental health trade. Liberal public policy invariably has that effect. Leave no social worker behind.

              1. I am not sure how the FDA or USDA could still exist if it was legal to sell literal poison for people to ingest. We have pretty strict regulations on safety.

                There are a lot of arguments in favor of being able to ingest whatever you want as a matter of personal freedom. On the other hand, there are a lot of drug addicts out on the street, and I don’t know how to reconcile having all those safety regulations, which are good, on food, drink, and medications, along with legalizing selling severely toxic substances that cause brain damage.

                Technically, the FDA could ban cigarettes, for the same reason, as they have no health benefit to mitigate the risk, are carcinogenic, and addictive, and they are toxic to bystanders. But smoking has a long cultural history and it was established long before the FDA.

        2. Arrest and imprison restauranteurs, hoteliers, construction companies, nanny companies, landscapers and others who hire undocumented workers. Put them in wire cages and take their children away, but don’t tell them where they went. They are the biggest reason for this problem. Help Honduras and Guatemala solve their internal violence problems and drug cartels so people won’t want to leave.

          1. And what about at the border? If you oppose separating children from their parents who cross illegally (not at a legal entry point if claiming asylum) and are being processed…..or even oppose detaining families together….what option does that leave? Catch and release? No border enforcement for adults accompanied by children who may or may not be their actual children is the same as having open borders.

          2. Natacha:

            Let’s unpack your position.

            #1 Arrest and imprison those who employ illegal immigrants. That would require Liberal cities, like those here in CA, to do an about-face on allowing day laborers to break loitering laws. They are soliciting cash only, non taxed jobs right there on the street.
            #2 So you DO support putting children in cages? Then you depart from Border Patrol, because they hustle the kids out of detention centers and into the arms of relatives, guardians, or HHS centers that they make as nice as possible until they can figure out a safe place to send them. Should you also imprison and take the children away from University Regents, who offer scholarships and in-state tuition to illegal aliens? Do you also support the CA State Bar to stop making illegal immigrants attorneys? Then you do really depart from the DNC.
            #3 Please explain why you think employers are the biggest reason for the problem, rather than, say, instant deportation? If you were immediately caught and sent back so there was absolutely no point in trying to sneak in front of the line, don’t you think there’d be a lot less illegal immigration? What do you think the impact of sanctuary cities, DACA, and other policies that openly support illegal immigration have on the practice?
            4. I totally agree with helping Latin America in general be a great place to live. Many are beautiful countries, beautiful and expressive languages with more straightforward pronunciation than our mishmash of English, fantastic music, lush landscapes, except for some of the really dry deserts. The problem is that there is little individual liberty, no accountability, massive institutionalized corruption, and powerful cartels. When I was in my 20s, I really fantasized about Western values and governments spreading like joy around the planet. Every country could be like the US, except with different languages, cuisine, and music. Some guy on roller blades would probably be playing a guitar in the background. But I’ve realized that you cannot force our Constitution on others unless you be like Rome, conquer the world, use its resources to pay for restructuring it, and tax it. Even Rome wobbled at the end, and I don’t think we have the taste for real colonization. It seems like every time in modern history that a population overthrows its abusive government, they set up some socialist regime which…abuses its people. When are they going to see the folly of that route and go the freedom, modern capitalist way? You know, you have the right to sell goods and services to people who have the right not to buy them, but you don’t have the right to abuse your workers or poison your customers.
            5. We are in agreement about the drug cartels. Human smuggling of illegal aliens is a billion-dollar business. Mexicans pay the cartel around $4,000 to go on foot, while Chinese have to pay around $75,000 for the longer voyage. Central Americans are supposed to pay around $10,000. That amount is fluid, both seasonally and as the market goes up and down. I met a guy who illegally immigrated from Iran via Turkey and then Mexico. Said he paid to be led through a mountain in the desert and they almost all died. Human smuggling, let alone trafficking the women and girls they kidnap for sex slavery, is big business for the cartels. How about we dry up that source of revenue? Plus, they coerce the customers to mule drugs for them.

            Why do Democrats fight SO HARD against shutting the border up tight? Why is it so important to them that we make the border crossable? I’ll tell you why. At some point they equated supporting illegal immigration to electoral votes.

          1. And it’s not a continuous 2,000 mile long wall, either. There are areas in the Big Bend that don’t need a wall to keep people out. But Mark M. can’t deal with the real world as it really is.

          2. Where were you guys when they discussed the financial insolvency of High Speed Rail, at $65 billion and counting??? Building empty toll roads that people can’t afford to use but paid taxes to build?

            When have Democrats ever complained at pointless and expensive public works, instead focusing on the jobs it would create? NOW you find your financial conscience?

            I think the government needs to reform its procurement system. Too often, cronies under deliver and we over pay (Obamacare website, for example.) As with any public work project, we would need competitive bids, transparency, and oversight. The wall could easily go the way of other federal projects where we pay more and get less. Take Puerto Rico, for example, where the disgraced governor arranged to have her buddies get paid 3 times as much as other contractors. She also had “hurricane proof” buildings made that were riddled with mold and would blow over in a zephyr. She’s pretty generous with taxpayer money, but then complained loudly at the lack of progress.

            Somehow, ancient China managed to build a guarded Great Wall. Hadrian built his wall. Schools, banks, and gated communities build walls. The Vatican built a wall. Parking garages build walls. And countries in Europe are now sealing up their borders, often at the point of tanks, to combat being overrun with migrants from extremist countries. Why do all these entities build walls if they have always been so utterly pointless?

            I personally don’t care how they seal up the border. They could go all futuristic with drones, as long as it is impenetrable, monitored, and also acts as a deterrent. Plus Border Patrol needs to catch illegals and release them on the other country’s side.

            If people would stop illegally immigrating, and go through the system, we wouldn’t need a wall. But the reason why we lock our doors and cars is because there are enough law breakers out there to render it wise. By all means improve the legal immigration system, but let illegal immigration end. I have yet to hear a cogent argument in support of illegal, rather than legal, immigration.

            We would save so much money if there was no more illegal immigration. That money could do so much good.

    1. Jill, please explain. How can Democrats be so effective with conspiracies while Republicans control most of government?

      1. PH,

        I’m not sure what you’re asking me. Democrats and Republicans are down with obediance to the police state. These parties are two sides of the same coin. For some reason, the propaganda doled out to Democratic loyalists is working better than that laid out to Republican loyalists.

        Republicans couldn’t get their agenda for the powerful thorugh without the help of Democrats. The same holds true when Democrats are in power. That’s how you can tell its all a sham. The US Congress and the president and the Courts work hand and glove for the interests of the few.

        1. Jill, you sound like a Bernie Bro. They’re always promoting this narrative where Democrats and Republicans are basically the same. Never mind that the parties rarely agree on anything. They’re secretly in cahoots!

          1. PH,

            I can’t stand Bernie! Look at the votes. This has been analyzied. If the powerful interests want something done, it gets done. If ordinary people want it done, it’s highly unlikely that it will happen. You can look this info up if you want to and read about it for yourself.

            1. I wanted to add that you are mistaken about Bernie’s position on the legacy parties being the same. He urged his voters to vote Cllinton/Democratic. He votes rather consistantly with Democrats. He thinks the Democrats are much better than Republicans.

              Look at what politicians do, always what they do, never what they say.

        1. That’s what I was thinking, too, Allan. Republicans have a majority of 1 in the Senate, on paper. In reality, due to the RINOS, it’s really under the control of the Dems.

  13. Jon says: “The scene at MXDC Cocina Mexicana was shocking to most of us who have decried the loss of civility in today’s political discourse.” and “It is not clear if the restaurant ever notified police despite two of its patrons being abused inside the restaurant.”

    Yeah, Jon, the problem was “loss of civility” and poor bottle blondie was the victim of verbal “abuse” after defending Fatso’s incarceration of infants, and after being wholly unable to even answer a simple question about the whereabouts of girls and infants stolen from their families. What the hell is wrong with you, anyway? What could be less civil than defending Fatso’s leveraging the suffering of innocent children he caused by tearing them from their families? You are shocked that people speak out when this witch shows her face, in a MEXICAN restaurant, of all places? And, in true Fox News fashion, you attack those who heckled the witch, as if THEY were the problem and THEY did something wrong. Lastly, you try to anticipate that they should be fired, that the First Amendment shouldn’t apply, and the veiled inference that perhaps politicos in Washington should boycott the restaurant for not calling the police or otherwise protecting the witch from vocal criticism for her actions. Why didn’t the witch herself call the police, if the police should be called? And, BTW: did you catch that scene a few days ago when members of Congress heckled Fatso, even holding up signs? I’ve never seen this before, but then, I’ve never seen an Administration imprison children for their parents’ conduct and then try to leverage their resulting distress for political purposes.

    Frankly, I’M shocked at you, who holds himself out as the proud father of four children, standing up for this trash. As I said yesterday, civility has no place in the discussion about children being intentionally abused emotionally for political leverage.

    1. Yes, Turley takes bizarre stands sometimes. Sure, technically he may be correct, but is this really the issue he wants to focus on? When I heard about this protest, I thought, good, she was lying to us and no doubt well aware of the horrible events unfolding on the border. She deserves it. Was it disturbing the peace and uncivil? I suppose so, but I’m not shedding tears for her.

    2. Natacha – do your cuffs match your collar? What do you have against bottle blondes? And how do you know she is a bottle blonde? Are you her hairdresser? Do you have beltway info that is important about bottle blondes?

      1. Paul: you’re not cute or even original with the “cuff matches collar” comment. The witch’s dark roots give her away, as do Ivanka’s. Much has been written about Ivanka’s concealment of her brown eyes, to try to make them appear green. In her natural state, with dark brown hair and brown eyes, Ivanka could pass as Hispanic. Dr. Joyce Brothers wrote about the bottle blonde syndrome. She is a psychologist, and relates that women with fake yellow hair aren’t more attractive than those with natural brown hair, but certain men are more attracted and it’s not based on attractiveness. Consider Elizabeth Taylor, Hedy Lamar, Ava Gardner and Rita Hayworth–would they look better with fake yellow hair? Dr. Brothers posits that, other than people from Scandanavian countries, very young children often have pastel yellow hair, which darkens with age. Bleaching hair to an un-natural pastel yellow shade appeals to latent pedophilia in men, according to the doctor. Often these women shave their nether regions, too, which plays into this sick attraction. That’s the problem I have with fake blondes, especially those who try to pretend to be professionals.

        1. Dr. Brothers died about five years ago, at the age of 85. She had dyed hair for much of her life, btw.

          Your pathological obsession with the various Mrs. Trumps, which slides in to witless speculative activity which would be chancy even for a perspicacious individual is noted.

          1. Just pay attention the next time all of the Trumps are together. All females bleached. Melania has a lighter shade of brown, but the rest, including Tiffany, Vanessa, Ivanka, et al, pornstar yellow. Would Melania look better with pastel yellow hair, too? Vanessa looked much better in her natural state, but naturalness isn’t the point, is it? Ivanka has silicone chests, too. What does this say about our culture?

            I have no obsession with the Trumps, pathological or otherwise.

            1. I have no obsession with the Trumps, pathological or otherwise.

              Aggghhhh!!!! You did NOT just say that!!!!

              Narrator: Yes, she actually did say that.

              Show of hands: Who here bought it?

            2. You failed to mention their CFM pumps.

              What does that say about our culture? Forget the culture. What does your peculiar in-depth psychological analysis of the color of their hair (atop their heads and their nether regions) say about you?

              I’d suggest that you have watched far too many episodes of Keeping Up With The Kardashians and should probably cancel your People Magazine subscription. And turn off Rachel Madcow, too.

            3. Natacha, women who are interested in what the men in their life think are clean and presentable and keep their weight down. Women who are dolled-up are competing with other women. This isn’t that obscure.

            4. Natacha – you have just shown us your obsession. You can deny it all you want, however, the rest of us can see it.

            5. Whoa. Did you just denigrate women based on the color of their hair? Or if they had breast implants? And why put down porn stars? Is Stormy Daniels over as a beloved icon of Dems?

              What is it with Democrats making vile attacks that would land any Republican or Libertarian in media hell for eternity, probably with memes, protestors, and hysterical crying? You just put down a huge swath of the women in CA and NYC.

              1. I would posit that for the continuation of the species women will don makeup, dress attractively, and style their hair, including the color, in order to appear attractive to the opposite sex.

                I also don’t believe that most men in America were raised in Norway, so I’m not sure what the blond Norwegian children have to do with anything.

  14. I’m going to single out 1 guy who is a source of this immigration trouble as an example.

    Nicaragua President Daniel Ortega

    Ortega’s relationship with the United States was never very cordial, due to U.S. support for Somoza prior to the revolution. Although the U.S. supplied post-revolution Nicaragua with tens of millions of dollars in economic aid, relations broke down when the Sandinistas supplied weapons to leftist El Salvadoran rebels (something which Ortega later admitted occurred)

    The Mexican-Nicaragua connection, TV

    As of 2016, Ortega’s family owns three of the nine free-to-air television channels in Nicaragua, and controls a fourth (the public Channel 6). Four of the remaining five are controlled by Mexican mogul Ángel González, and are generally considered to be aligned with Ortega’s ruling FSLN party.

    So why is everyone throwing rocks at Danny? This video looks like the Hamas & Israel riots, but it’s Nicaragua! Love is in the air.

    1. due to U.S. support for Somoza prior to the revolution.

      This is an inane characterization. Nicaragua had never had a competitive political order bar for brief snatches of time and the various Somoza’s and their decoys were the established government from 1936 to 1979. What would you (or Ortega) have had us do, put the place under a blockade? The Somozas were crooked, but their wasn’t much bloodshed until after 1974 (and much of that a consequence of the Sandinistas running an insurrection with the aid of miscellaneous foreign governments. You want the Somoza’s blockaded and sanctioned, consistency would suggest you do so to most countries in the hemisphere such as they were during that era.

      1. Hey Nutchacha is insufferable, you’ue crashing my posting again? I TOLD YOU BEFORE, to steer clear of me.

        Nutchacha replied:

        “You want the Somoza’s blockaded and sanctioned, consistency would suggest you do so to most countries in the hemisphere such as they were during that era.

        I did boots on the ground in Nicaragua. But Nutchacaha couldn’t last 3 days in the Nicaragua jungle. Nutchacha wants some jungle warfare training free of charge. OK.

          1. I TOLD YOU BEFORE NUTCHACHA, to steer clear of my posts. But you’re coming back for last licks. Jungle warfare training in Nicaragua is free of charge for you.

Leave a Reply

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