Tweet Misfires: Democrats Use Obama Pictures To Illustrate Unacceptable Trump Policies

Democrats have hit hard on the narrative that President Donald Trump is taking children from parents and holding people in cages. That narrative has largely gone unchallenged in the media despite that fact that the Obama Administration had the same facilities and also separated families. Now, the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee had the ultimate tweet disaster by posting pictures of the objectionable conditions. The pictures turned out to be from the Obama Administration. They deleted the first picture after people noted the problem, but then reportedly posted an additional Obama-era picture.

The members posted the pictures with a tweet stating, “Last week, members of our committee visited a detention center at the southern border and discovered grotesque treatment of children. This week, we are examining the inhumane treatment of the children in these detention centers.”

The mishap succeeded in highlighting the counterpoint that is often brushed over by critics as they portray the Trump policies as unprecedented.

That does not make any of these conditions or policies acceptable but the pictures capture the hypocrisy of members who said little during the Obama Administration, which deported far greater numbers.

Trump pounced with a tweet stating “House Democrats are promoting their “civil rights” hearing on “kids in cages” and “inhumane treatment” with a photo from 2014, when Joe Biden was Vice President. So dishonest!”

View image on Twitter

Trump War Room@TrumpWarRoom

Here in red is the portion of the 2014 photo used by House Democrats today.

AP FACT CHECK: 2014 photo wrongly used to hit Trump policies …2,1985:30 PM – Jul 9, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy

View image on Twitter

1,332 people are talking about this

68 thoughts on “Tweet Misfires: Democrats Use Obama Pictures To Illustrate Unacceptable Trump Policies”

  1. “John Carlos Frey: America’s Deadly Stealth War on the Mexico Border Is Approaching Genocide”

    1. *** “… the new book chronicles how the U.S.-Mexico border became a war zone through decades of deadly bipartisan immigration policy,” ***

      AMY GOODMAN: I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González, as we continue our discussion with John Carlos Frey, author of Sand and Blood: America’s Stealth War on the Mexico Border.

      JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, the new book chronicles how the U.S.-Mexico border became a war zone through decades of deadly bipartisan immigration policy, but it also examines the border through the personal history of John Carlos Frey’s family. Now, John, you were born in Tijuana, but you lived virtually all of your life in the United States on the San Diego side of the border and right—you were within eyesight of the border. And you talk in your book, a very moving story, about what happened to your mother, who was a permanent resident, was a green card holder in those days, that had an enormous impression on your view of the immigration problem.

      JOHN CARLOS FREY: Right. I watched my mother be deported before my eyes, even though she had legal residency in the United States.

      JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Could you read that section from your—

      JOHN CARLOS FREY: Sure, absolutely. There’s a story about it in the book.


      JOHN CARLOS FREY: I think that my own personal history is why I do this. It’s probably not the only reason. I am a journalist. I’m interested in places that are in conflict and are going through a period of injustice, like we’re seeing here. But I’m a bilingual, binational, born-in-Tijuana, growing-up-in-the-United-States individual. So, this is my beat. The U.S.-Mexico border is my beat.

      And seeing how my mother was treated, I don’t—I don’t see too many outlets, with the exception of yours, reporting on the injustices of border security. We think that “migrant is bad, and U.S. is good, so let’s build a wall. Let’s increase the Border Patrol. Let’s make sure that they don’t come here.” We don’t really talk about what happens down at the border.

      With respect to Border Patrol brutality and the way that they treat migrants, this is a story that has formed my career. I mean, this is why I come and I speak with all of you, is because of the way the U.S. treats migrants, for the most part.

      You’re talking about a case where an unarmed 15-year-old boy was shot 10 times in the back, standing in Mexico, while a U.S. agent standing in the United States opened fire and killed him. That Border Patrol agent was indicted, and there was a trial, and he was found not guilty. The boy never raised a weapon.

      AMY GOODMAN: Cruz Velazquez.

      JOHN CARLOS FREY: Yes, in Nogales, Mexico. He never raised a weapon. He was unarmed. The only thing that was in his pocket was a cellphone. He’s dead. Mexican nationals can’t sue the United States, either, for wrongful death. So, this family is without their kid and no legal recourse. This is U.S. policy.

      JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, you also talk about—that for many, many years, first, certainly, throughout most of the early 20th century, there was a fairly fluid situation at the border, people coming back and forth, with not a whole lot—there was a Border Patrol established in 1924, but there wasn’t really the kind of constant surveillance or seizing of people and sending them back. Can you talk about the development of the border wall mentality in more recent decades?

      JOHN CARLOS FREY: When I was a kid, there was no fence. Migrants would come across the border—yes, illegally, without papers.

      JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And we’re talking now in the ’60s and early ’70s.

      JOHN CARLOS FREY: Five years ago, when I was a kid, right. Thirty, 40 years ago, there was no border fence. There were fewer border guards. People would come. They would migrate. They would work in the fields; they’d go back home. And this was understood and known. Even though that people were entering without inspection, without papers, people looked the other way, for the most part.

      I’m not quite sure what happened, what the flashpoint was, that we started to militarize the U.S.-Mexico border, but all of a sudden immigrants became criminal, and we wanted to wall ourselves off from them. We have more undocumented immigrants in the United States than we’ve ever had, because it’s hard to get in. Now that people—when they finally do get in, they stay. And they not only stay, they bring their families in at a later time, when they can. So, we have this swelling effect because of the way that we manage our borders.

      I don’t know that we’ve had a terrorist that’s come up from Mexico. We haven’t had some sort of an attack from Mexicans in the United States. And all of a sudden we have this sort of militarized infrastructure. It’s somewhat of a mystery to me. I watched all of this happen, bit by bit. I actually think it’s a political construct. If I’m a politician and I want to run on keeping you safe from these immigrants, I could look like a knight in shining armor. And I think that that’s what Trump and presidents before him have done.

      JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And you make the point that during the Clinton administration there was a real emphasis on beginning to not only militarize the border, but to go after undocumented immigrants. Now, interestingly, I remember that Bill Clinton, when he was governor of Arkansas, actually lost an election because he welcomed immigrants, in Fort Chaffee, Cuban Marielitos who were basically housed in one of the facilities. And as a result of him welcoming them, he lost the governor’s re-election race. And I think that’s why, when he finally became president, he reached the conclusion that anti-immigration posture was a better one for a politician in the United States than one of welcoming immigrants.

      JOHN CARLOS FREY: There’s a portion of Clinton’s State of the Union speech, his second one, his second year in office, that reads like Trump wrote it. “We’re going to go after illegal aliens. We’re going to go after the criminals coming across the border. We’re going to fortify the border. We’re going to build border walls. We’re going to hire more border guards. We’re going to keep you safe.” I’m actually paraphrasing, but that’s the gist of his speech. That sounds like a Trump speech to me. Bill Clinton was the author, or at least his administration was the author, of the border walls and the way that we manage the border today. The laws that were set in place then are the laws that Donald Trump is standing on today, and allowing him to do what he does.

      AMY GOODMAN: Explain the progression of those laws.

      JOHN CARLOS FREY: Sure. In 1994, we had a policy that was enacted called the Border Patrol strategy of 1994: prevention through deterrence. “Let’s build border walls in front of San Diego, in front of El Paso and a couple of other major cities along the border, and let’s purposely force migration through the deserts and through the mountains.” That’s on purpose, because we’re going to let the terrain take care of them. The Border Patrol knew that people were going to get sick, they were going to be dehydrated—this is all in the document—and that they may die. That is the policy that we have in place, as well as the detention facilities along the U.S.-Mexico border. Everything was geared to the fact that we were going to shake people up. They knew very well that they weren’t going to keep people from coming, but if they did come, they were going to know that we meant business, and they were going to take that message of deterrence back home. We can fast-forward 20 years-plus today and see that it hasn’t worked.

      JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, of course, that led to the tragedy that still doesn’t get sufficient coverage, which is all the migrant deaths. And you uncovered a story in—what was it? Brooks County, Texas.

      JOHN CARLOS FREY: Right.

      JUAN GONZÁLEZ: In Falfurrias, where a Baylor University professor began unearthing hundreds of skeletons of dead migrants just in this one county. Could you talk about that?


      JUAN GONZÁLEZ: You also write in your book about John Hunter, the brother of the—

      JOHN CARLOS FREY: Right.

      JUAN GONZÁLEZ: —conservative Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter.

      JOHN CARLOS FREY: Duncan Hunter, a U.S. congressman from the San Diego region in California, was probably the strongest proponent of building walls. His brother, John Hunter, was his campaign manager and raised money for his campaigns as congressman. Congressman Duncan Hunter, I would say, was probably responsible for the first border walls that we got. He was really furious about making sure that we walled ourselves off from Mexico.

      When those walls went in place in San Diego, it forced migration into the desert east of the city, and migrants started to die for the very first time. We saw, maybe, in the years prior, one or two migrant bodies were found. Right after that, we were finding 50, 60, up to 100 migrant bodies. John Hunter, his brother, felt responsible. He started to put water out for them, and, to this day, maintains a humanitarian group who continues to put water out in the desert.

      AMY GOODMAN: Speaking of humanitarian groups, you went to a No More Deaths camp.

      JOHN CARLOS FREY: Right.

      AMY GOODMAN: We’ve been covering the story of Scott Warren. A jury did not find him guilty, but it was 8 to 4 for his innocence. And the Trump administration, at the same time, when the uproar was happening around the Clint child jail, announces they’re going to reprosecute Scott—

      JOHN CARLOS FREY: Right.

      AMY GOODMAN: —who is a geographer, a professor, an activist, who’s been dedicated, with so many other activists, to putting out water in the Sonoran Desert, with Ajo Samaritans, as well as No More Deaths, finding bones and bodies of immigrants as he goes. He’s the one who is being retried. Talk about your experience with these camps.

      JOHN CARLOS FREY: I don’t know that it would—it wouldn’t affect people any differently than it has me, but I’ve seen the bodies. I have walked up to a dehydrated, dead individual in the desert. I’ve seen women, young children. And I’ve talked to the survivors. I’ve gone on the journey myself. I know how difficult it is. I’ve traveled with a migrant group. The idea that a humanitarian providing water and sustenance for someone on that journey—it’s not necessarily to allow them to get into the country illegally; it’s to save their life. There’s a serious problem in our government if you’re going to prosecute the individual who’s trying to save someone’s life.

      I hate to say it—it sounds so hyperbolic to say it—but the more that I’m looking at this lately, we’re on the step-by-step approach to genocide here. We are in the process of dehumanizing people to such a degree that it is OK for them to die, even to the point where the government is saying, “Let them die. Let’s prosecute the humanitarian who’s trying to save their life. Let’s put him in jail so he can’t save their lives.” We are allowing people to die, children in custody, people crossing the border. You know, I’m passionate about it, of course, but I’m also standing on very solid ground here. If we take a look at any history where this kind of a movement has happened, the government has turned its back. Where are the people screaming that this guy is saving lives, as opposed to trying to put him in jail for putting water out? That, to me, is a shock.

      JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I wanted to ask you, as someone who’s grown up in the border, in the border areas—the Southwest has been the basis of the biggest growth for American population in the last maybe 50, 60 years. Six of the 10 largest cities in America are in the Sun Belt: San Diego, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio. Where would the Southwest be without Mexican labor, whether it’s domestic Mexican labor or immigrant Mexican labor?

      JOHN CARLOS FREY: It certainly wouldn’t be where it is. And we actually imported that labor, to begin with. I mean, we had the bracero program, where we invited almost 5 million Mexican farmworkers to come and harvest our crops, while our men were off to war in World War II. So, many of those Mexican-American neighborhoods were started back in that time. Many of our roots from that culture there in the American Southwest come from that labor pool that we had at that time.

    2. ” Is Approaching Genocide””

      Yes, and many Democrats are responsible for that “Genocide” along with some Republicans. No alien has a right to enter the US illegally and those that enter must comply with American law, rules and regulations. If a non citizen doesn’t like the rules don’t enter the US or if you have business in the US help change the laws.

      When Democrats complain about the mistreatment of some people that perhaps shouldn’t have happened they should think of Ted Kennedy who as a resident of Palm Beach Florida did nothing about black people that were American citizens being forced to carry special cards that permitted them to be in Palm Beach. That was outright racist discrimination that should never have happened yet right on his doorstep Ted Kennedy did nothing.

  2. John Carlos Frey: America’s Deadly Stealth War on the Mexico Border Is Approaching Genocide

    JULY 10, 2019

    “John Carlos Frey’s new book, “Sand and Blood: America’s Stealth War on the Mexico Border,” chronicles how the U.S.-Mexico border became a war zone through decades of deadly bipartisan immigration policy.

    But it also examines the border through the personal history of his family. Born in Tijuana, Mexico, Frey moved to the U.S. with his family when he was a toddler in 1965. He grew up in southern San Diego, California, where he witnessed the effects of American immigration policy on the borderlands every day. His father was an American citizen. His mother was a Mexican immigrant. Frey’s book is dedicated “To my mother, an immigrant from Mexico who came to America to provide a better life for me and my siblings, and to all the mothers and fathers who had the same intention and lost their lives in the attempt.” We speak with John Carlos Frey in our New York studio.”

    I hear that Karen S. and OLLY would like to “debate” this topic. Maybe “DemocracyNow!” will give them a call.

  3. You just never cared to rant about it then. Right? Saving up for the right moment. … and you wonder why you’re banned?

    1. DBB:
      Oh, you didn’t state anything and that’s the point. That’s the sin of omission or hypocrisy. Take your pick, doc.

  4. Democrats didn’t care when Obama deported more illegals than anyone and put kids into cages.

    They didn’t care when Obama overthrew a Democratically elected president in Honduras with death squads and people died under sanctions in Venezuela.

    But now they pretend to care?

  5. Free those kids in detention centers to the streets of LA so that they can be kidnapped and taken back to Mexico and then sent back with “parents” (who paid for them) so that they can be admitted at the border. Yeah.

  6. Trump is often an unacceptable POTUS, even judged against one of the very worst Obama. And the Dems have so far offered only worse candidates. Anti-military excursion/anti-regime change Tulsi Gabbard could have been the exception, but she’s all-in on taxpayer funded abortion on demand, for any reason including race/gender selection, probably even post birth like that slime ball VA governor/medical doctor.

    Watching Rome burn; it looks and smells very bad.

  7. For those who oppose our current detention of illegal aliens, or who want immigration laws to be taken down to a misdemeanor, what would be some negative consequences of open borders, unlimited immigration, and the refusal to deport anyone, including criminals? Democrats are on record opposing any limits at all, and want all illegal immigrants granted entry, and nice lodging, immediately, as well as faster access to Emergency Room care than our own citizens and legal residents. I suppose while the rest of us wait on average of 5 hours to be seen in an ER, partly due to the burden of illegal aliens already, Border Patrol is to erect a line of ERs right at the border to serve illegal aliens without any wait times.

    Is anyone willing to come up with some negative consequences of these policies?

    1. as well as faster access to Emergency Room care than our own citizens and legal residents. I suppose while the rest of us wait on average of 5 hours to be seen in an ER, partly due to the burden of illegal aliens already, Border Patrol is to erect a line of ERs right at the border to serve illegal aliens without any wait times.

      Wait times of 1 hour, never mind 5, rarely exist if ever.

      “Average time spent waiting in the ED before seeing a physician, nurse practitioner or physician assistant: 24 minutes

      Average time spent in the ED before being sent home: 135 minutes

      Average time patients with broken bones wait for pain medication after arriving in the ED: 54 minutes

      Average time patients admitted to the hospital from the ED spend before being taken to their room: 96 minutes”

      1. Truven Health Analytics Study Finds Most Emergency Room Visits Made by Privately-Insured Patients Are Avoidable

        According to a new study from Truven Health Analytics™, formerly the Healthcare business of Thomson Reuters, 71 percent of emergency room visits made by patients with employer-sponsored insurance coverage are for causes that do not require immediate attention in the emergency room, or are preventable with proper outpatient care.

        The study, Avoidable Emergency Department Usage Analysis, examined insurance claims data for over 6.5 million emergency room visits made by commercially insured individuals, under age 65, in calendar year 2010. It found that just 29 percent of patients required immediate attention in the emergency room…..The top three non-emergent diagnoses were joint disorders, atopic dermatitis, and other soft tissue diseases.

        1. I agree that there are a great deal of ER visits clogging up the wait times that would have been better served at a GP’s office.

          1. There was a small sized hospital in Florida during the Obama administration that was written about. I don’t remember the circumstances in depth. They said an illegal almost bankrupted the hospital. They were willing to fly the patient back to his home or hospital with medical staff as his costs were nonending. The government refused to let the hospital do that. I think Peter should have been assesssed for the costs.

      2. Estovir,
        I’m not sure what country these stats on waiting times are supposed to be dealing with.
        When possible, I will use an urgent care walk-in facility rather than an ER.
        When going into a full-blown Addisonian crisis, an ER is advisable; an urgent care center would send me there anyway.
        I have some hands-on on experience in dealing with indefinate delays in ERs, in life-threatening situations with the situation getting worse by the minute.
        On one case several years ago, I gave up after 3 hours, with no timeline given by the idiots in charge as to when I might be seen. My feeling was that if I’m going to die, I’d rather do it at home instead of being stuffed in a wheelchair in a busy hallway.
        Once it developed to the point where I was in “a non- responsive state”, an ambulance was called”.
        The myth that most ER patients are seen in a hour is about the biggest load of crap I’ve ever seen.

        1. Tom – you could have died. So glad you pulled through. Did you get the cause of the Addinsonian crisis diagnosed and handled?

          1. Karen S.,
            Yes, in college nearly 50 years ago. The first time I had an Addisonian crisis in 1975 I was traveling with some friends, they saw me conked out and took me to an ER. They were unsure where a hospital was in a mid-sized town of about 75,000. They saw a young cop who’d pulled over a car and asked him…..the cop let the motorist go and had my friends follow him to the ER.
            I was out cold for about 12 hours and the doctor they call in knew exactly what to do. The next morning he chewed me out for not getting to an ER when I was still with it. I told him that things progressed so fast, from feeling a little sick to passing out, that I was out before I knew it.
            He told me I needed to stay on the hospital for 2-3 days, and I told him that wasn’t going to happen.😃. We compromised and I stayed in the hospital for another 2-3 hours, felt fine, and talked him into discharging me.
            These crises happened another 8 or 9 times in the 1970s and 1980s… all but one case, I was able to go into ERs under my own steam, and explain to them what was going on. The response time could vary a lot; there were some cases when it looked like the people checking me in “processing me”, had absolutely no medical background. An MD will usually pick up pretty fast on what’s going on, even if they’ve never dealt with a similar case. An RN might understand the situation. These clerical idiots who puts you in a wheelchair and stuff you in a corner or hallway for hours may or may not have finished high school😉.
            I had more experiences that I wanted with ERs from the mid-1970s into the late 1980s, and some are excellent, some seemed bogged down with really incompetent people.
            Since 1990, I’ve only had 3 of these crises……so 8 or 9 of these incidents in about 15 years, mid 70s to late 80s. And 3 of them in the last 30 years.It’s largely a matter of trail and error re when and how much the cortisone dosage has to be ramped up.
            Anyway, the link about the short waiting time in ERs doesn’t match up with my own experiences. ObamaCare and the decreased number of uninsured were supposedly going to result in less use,/ overuse of ERs. It looks like the opposite has happened, and the last time I saw stats on this, about 18 months ago, overuse of ER departments had gotten worse.
            I’ve had very good results using urgent Care walk-in clinics, maybe a half dozen tines over the past 40 years . And these are often bypassed by patients going straight to an ER for an issue that could have been handled for a fraction of the costs.

      3. Here is CA, the wait times are infamous. We had the misfortune of waiting over 5 hours ourselves when my husband was injured recently.

        You’ll notice the red zone wait times in CA. I’ve never only had to wait only 24 minutes to see a physician, not for years. One of my friends’ took an ambulance ride with appendicitis, and it took so long to see a doctor that it burst and he suffered gangrene.

        “In 2017, the median ER wait time for patients before admission as inpatients to California hospitals was 336 minutes — or more than 5½ hours.”

        Illegal aliens have been part of the problem clogging up the ER.

        Your article mentioned the average wait time to see a professional was 24 minutes. I wonder if they are counting triage at check in?

    2. Throughout the years, I have challenged those who support illegal immigration to answer this question:’

      “Is anyone willing to come up with some negative consequences of these policies?”

      I do not recall anyone who supports illegal immigration being willing to answer this question. That is telling.

      Every time I make a decision, I try to come up with the pros and cons. If anyone is unwilling to admit the negative consequences of a policy, then they are lying to themselves. That’s not a good thing. Otherwise, they would not hesitate to discuss the pros and cons.

  8. How is the Obama-era photo supposed to be of children “in cages”? These are not 36-inch square boxes with kids inside, like dog kennels. These are large, chain linked spaces to keep adults and children who illegally crossed the border confined to one area. They have not followed legal immigration law. They have not been processed. I’ve read people on FB going into hysterics about these photos. It’s more comfortable than an airport lounge, as it comes with emergency first aid, reflective blankets, and mattresses. I’ve had a rougher go of it trying to sleep on plastic airport chairs during flight delays. Compared to the desert and the rape trail, this is an improvement. I cannot believe that illegal aliens and their activists would have the gall to complain that we’re not putting them up in hotel rooms immediately upon their arrival, or that it’s unfair to follow the detention and processing rules. What an extreme level of entitlement.

    It appears that Democrats don’t even want a turnstile at the border. Just wide open, come on in, and don’t let us delay you even a moment to sort who the pedophiles from their victims. Apparently, Democrats feel that it is unreasonable to expect anyone to follow our legal immigration law. 95% of those asylum seekers whose case is denied by the courts skip out, refuse to be deported, and insist they are entitled to remain in the country. Clearly, our asylum system is being taken advantage of by people who don’t qualify, but feel entitled. Democrats oppose reforming our asylum process so that it helps those who are truly in need of asylum.

    Open borders.

    If living in an economically depressed, bad neighborhood qualified for asylum (it doesn’t), and the criminals along with the victims are to be allowed through, then we could export all of Compton, Watts, East LA, South LA, etc to Sweden. Just mix up the Crips, Bloods, MS-13, and all the rest of the gangs, along with their victims, and have them seek asylum in Sweden. Since the criminals will be going, along with the victims (in line to what we currently receive in the US since no one seems to want to be criminally vetted), then we will just export the entire problem to Sweden for them to handle. After all, Europe has criticized some of our politicians for opposing illegal immigration and wanting to reform the asylum system. Let one of the European countries take our own problems. That way, it will be a revolving door. We’ll take millions of illegal alien criminals and victims, and we’ll export our criminals and victims. It should balance out into equilibrium, I suppose.

    “There has been a 50 percent jump in illegal immigrant gang members coming into the United States this year, according to the former Border Patrol chief.

    What’s more, he warned in Senate testimony Thursday, loopholes in federal law will result in some 650,000 illegal immigrants — more than the population of Wyoming — being released into the United States, where most will “never to be heard from again.””


    Just being alive on the part of actual Americans is an actionable and egregious affront to all the good people of the world.

    Have pity on these poor, long-suffering, victimized, “native American,” central American, minority, ethnic race Gods. Put ’em up in the Ritz Carlton. Actual American taxpayers owe them money simply on principle and because America has “deep pockets.” Every person in the world is an American-In-Waiting — waiting for their “free stuff” from the actual-American taxpayers. Actual-American taxpayers owe everyone in the world. Just because they are “pale faces.” Pay, “pale face,” pay!

    Or not.

    I wonder if China, Russia, Mexico, North Korea, Rwanda, Cuba, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Afghanistan, or any other country would be self-flagellating with “guilt whips” over parasitic, foreign invader, false-asylum-seeking, hyphenate leeches illegally crashing their borders or if they would simply set up machine guns and neutralize them in place.

    Where’s General George Armstrong Custer when you need him – one little mistake, huh?

  10. Turley says: “The mishap succeeded in highlighting the counterpoint that is often brushed over by critics as they portray the Trump policies as unprecedented.That does not make any of these conditions or policies acceptable but the pictures capture the hypocrisy of members who said little during the Obama Administration, which deported far greater numbers.”

    OK, I’ve never heard any non-Trump media brush over treatment of migrants under the Obama administration, or ever claim that Trump’s abuse of migrants is unprecedented. They have commented repeatedly that Obama did, in fact, deport illegals in record numbers. Do you recall the fat orange clown decrying Obama for “catch and release”, which he was gong to stop, calling it “catch and hold”? What about the deportation squads he promised his adoring deplorables? The Obama Administration did not hold young children for anywhere near the length of time that Trump has, nor refuse to release minors to adult relatives in the US like Trump has.

    Oh, and Turley, there’s a big difference between caging people indefinitely and deporting them, which you are conflating. Here’s another critical difference: the REASON. Trump is intentionally separating children from their families to DETER other migrants from seeking asylum. He knows he is inflicting emotional distress on people who cannot fight back, and it is on purpose. That is immoral. That is bullying. Then, there’s his nudie model wife, who is the world’s biggest hypocrite. Her “platform” is anti-bullying. Also, Sanders claimed that Melania, after some surgery or another, was back to working hard on behalf of children. Monument Colorado: just how stupid do Trump supporters have to be not to see through this? Regardless of how you feel about illegal migration, and I am very much opposed to it, strongly believing that the way to curb this is to go after those who employ them, it is simply wrong to intentionally abuse small children.

    Nothing you have said about the Obama Administration excuses Trump and the human rights violations he is engaging in. It is another Kellyanne Pivot.

    1. MonumentColorado is Steve Fleischman(?) that is how stupid. To quantify that is two bricks short of Allan.

      1. YNOT, I see you are still trying to prove how stupid you are. When people remark ‘he can’t be that stupid’ they are talking about you.

        1. Allan

          It seems that when Pinkos are caught being stupid, they always respond by ignoring the point and being personal.

          This commentary on this site shows the difference between Pinkos and normal Americans.

          1. Monument, thanks. Ynot has yet to say anything remotely intelligent on this blog. I don’t even think the Pinkos with the slightest bit of intelligence would want him on their side. He’s an embarrassment.

  11. Earlier today on DemocracyNow:

    The Inhumane Treatment of Migrants Is Not New. It’s a Key Part of a Decades-Old Bipartisan Policy

    1. Yes, Democrats should be ashamed at how they created such a situation. Proper immigration policy would solve almost all of the problems. The open border crowd doesn’t care about the well being of American citizens. Destroying America doesn’t solve the world’s problems. It only makes them worse.

      1. *** ‘Part of a Decades-Old Bipartisan Policy’ ***


        1. Right now it is the Democrats. Remember, ‘there is no crisis at the border’. This is what a crisis looks like and denying one existed for political reasons was disgusting. The ball has been in the Democratic court quite awhile. The same thing happened decades ago with Civil Rights. Then the Democrats did the same thing, nothing. Earlier it was lynching. What did the Democrats do to stop lynching? Nothing. …And then there was slavery where Democrats wanted to keep blacks on the plantation just like they want to do today.

          Democrats like to forget their history and lie about their history today. If that makes you feel good I’m not going to stop you.

          1. Allan is doing what he does best: deflecting, pointing the finger at someone else… It’s Allan’s way.

            1. Yes, I am pointing the finger demonstrathing how Democrats act. They were for slavery, then lynching, then against civil rights and today for minorities to be on Democratic plantations. Today they complain about the situation on the border but yesterday they didn’t believe a problem existed.

              I believe I responded to the question at hand along with demonstrating how Democrats have very short memories.

              1. Yes, everything that’s wrong is because of the Democrats. The Republicans are blameless.

                Democrats: bad

                Republicans: good

                That sums up Allan’s views.

                1. In your attempt to score points instead of discussing things you drop the ball. I blame both parties all the time and I will state that some Republicans along with their Democratic counterparts want open borders or the near equivelant. But, when the President said there was a crisis on the border the Democrats were more interested in striking at the President then looking at the crisis. Democrats seem to forget what they say, what they did and even forget some of the basic tenets of the Democratic Pary in their present day leftist turn.

                  Take note a good number of Trump supporters today were formerly members of the Democratic Party. I’m one of them though I was always really an independent voter. Today, I am ‘anything but a Democrat’, that is at least until the Democrats stop their crazy turn leftward.

                  Trump at the present time is the best we have to offer. Jobs, good economy, attention to trade, attention to the fact that as a superpower one cannot want to be loved by all. Sometimes it is better for all to see “fear” rather than “love”. I like Trump’s transparency and I hate the fact that Obama who had a chance to be a great President squandered that chance and weaponized the bureucracy that should be neutral.

        2. “Bipartisan.”

          I think you should review the Democrat and Republican actions and policies on illegal immigration, more slowly. Perhaps take notes.

            1. If you believe that Republicans are pushing for open borders and unlimited illegal immigration through policy, just like Democrats, then make your case.

              1. Karen already has all the answers and isn’t about to change her views. If she wants to fritter away her time engaging in questionable “debate” in this comment space, she’s quite free to do so. To expect others to join her is laughable.

                1. Karen already has all the answers and isn’t about to change her views. If she wants to fritter away her time engaging in questionable “debate” in this comment space, she’s quite free to do so. To expect others to join her is laughable.

                  Translation: Karen has opinions that I cannot rebut. Therefore I will not engage her in debate lest I be forced to concede on her arguments, or be outed as a fool.

                  Yes, you are laughable. 🙂

                  1. Karen and OLLY already have all the answers and aren’t about to change their views. If they want to fritter away their time engaging in questionable “debate” in this comment space, they are quite free to do so. To expect others to join them is laughable.

                    They are quite simply a waste of time, energy and breath.

                    Keep laughing, though, OLLY old boy — while you and Karen S are changing the world one worthless “debate” at a time.

                  2. Olly, to deal with the discussions here one has to think many levels deep. The problem is most of these guys have great difficulty making it to level one. She says, “To expect others to join her is laughable.” but that is precisely what she is doing.

                    1. No anonymous you cannot be my friend. Amon other things you need to have rudimentary intelligence soyou don’t qualify. Find yourself a husband.

                    2. “Find yourself a husband.”

                      LOL, you idiot.

                      Anyone who gives out any personal information on this site is a complete fool.

                    3. Anonymous, I didn’t ask for personal information I told you to find a husband.

  12. What I find absolutely fascinating is how Democrats have been trained to have instant amnesia. All of those spurious charges against Trump, including the absurd accusation that the first sitting President with a Jewish first family was antisemitic – they just go right out of their heads as soon as they’re disproven. They seem to have no memory of what they were absolutely certain of the day before.

    It doesn’t matter how many times it is proven that the children “in cages” photos were taken in the Obama administration. There is no connection in the logic centers of the conditioned brain. They still blame Trump. Those who wake up, #WalkAway.

    Also, some facilities have chain link, just like in playgrounds. As much as it pains me to cause a child any upset, the fact remains that many children are victims of sex trafficking, or are used by complete strangers to get across the border. They are cute little walking immigration tickets. When you pay organized crime to get a young child to break immigration laws, very bad things can happen to that kid. That is why when sex trafficking is suspected, law enforcement will separate children from adults, whether inland or at the border, to sort out who belongs to whom, and who’s a victim.

    Which is better? Cause a child a temporary separation anxiety to sort out victims of pedophiles, or allow the pedophiles unfettered access? As for the assumption that all women with children must be mothers, look into the madams of Tenencingo.

    1. Wow! Are you delusional. This is a first–Trump is holding kids “to sort out victims of pedophiles”. Uh, Karen Honey, did you forget Trump’s campaign rhetoric wherein he said he was stopping Obama’s “catch and release”, and replacing it with “catch and hold”? Haven’t you noticed all he has said about deterring other migrants by incarcerating those who get caught and taking their kids away? Did you forget what Jeff Sessions had to say about the purpose being “deterrence”, or is this just more Hannity slop you are buying? Perhaps this is a way to keep supporting Trump despite knowing he is intentionally inflicting abuse and emotional distress on vulnerable young children, which you know is immoral–by coming up with a fairy story that the reason is noble. To get there, you have to ignore a lot of irrefutable evidence, but we already know you are a card-carrying disciple.

      1. “This is a first–Trump is holding kids “to sort out victims of pedophiles.” You are grossly misinformed.

        You appear to be unaware that Border Patrol separates children from adults to find out who is related and who is a victim. Perhaps you should follow some of the groups that fight sex trafficking of women and children.

        “A Border Patrol spokesman who spoke on background said the agency “strives to maintain the family unity,” but that parents may be separated from their children because of insufficient detention space, criminal histories, abuse and fraud, including “questionable familial relationships.”

        He said agents “often rely on a child’s verbal and nonverbal cues to assist in determining a bona fide claim of parentage or legal guardianship,” including “the child’s familiarity and/or interaction with the adult, the child referring to the adult by his/her first name, and the child’s apprehensiveness toward the adult.””

        In addition to sorting out who is related or not, if parents are prosecuted, they are separated from their children, just like if any legal resident or citizen were arrested.

        In addition, when Democrats turned children into tickets to skip our legal immigration system and gain instant entry, that created an inducement for adults to pay thousands of dollars to organized crime and bring vulnerable young kids along on the rape trail. Any policy that prevents children from being used as a free ticket will discourage parents from putting their kids in danger in order to get access to the US economy.

        It is ignorant for anyone to think that every adult claiming a kid is theirs is telling the truth, that sex traffickers don’t smuggle women and children across the border, or that every illegal alien parent is a great person. Gang and cartel members had kids, too. El Chapo was a father.

        You seem weirdly obsessed with Sean Hannity, and must DVR his show, carefully parsing everything he says. You bring him up constantly in the majority of your posts, which means he must prey upon your mind. I find that strange and unbalanced. What is it to you if there are conservative pundits, and why become obsessive compulsive about this particular one? It’s surreal when you have some disorder wherein you believe that everyone you disagree with is under the control of Sean Hannity, while calling them delusional.

        Democrats should be ashamed of creating policies that induce parents to put their children in danger like this.

        1. You appear to be unaware that Jeff Sessions said that the child separation policy, which was a change from President Obama’s policy, was being enacted as a DETERRENT. Trump has said the same thing. But, because this policy was so poorly thought out with no plans for funding or places or means for holding people, that it makes them look bad, you are now willing to believe that this horrific practice is being done for their own good, and that President Obama did the exact same thing. Not true. Just another fairy cover story.

          I am not obsessed, weirdly or otherwise, with Hannity, but I do note some of the blather he puts out is repeated by people like you, so I understand the source. Hannity’s rhetoric is so extremely pro-Trump and anti-Democrats, plus his obsession with Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama, that his disciples are easy to spot.

          Now, you are blaming Democrats for “creating policies that induce parents to put their children in danger like this.” The policies that bring these uneducated people here are the policies of non-enforcement of laws banning the hiring of illegals, plus Trump’s sporadic threats to close the borders. If there were no jobs here, they wouldn’t come, and because they’ve been led to believe that “it’s now or never” due to Trump’s threats, they come in historic droves. If Trump rounded up the CEOs of hotels, restaurants, nanny services, housekeeping services, nonunion construction and factories, and enforced federal law that forbids hiring illegals, jobs would dry up and they’d stop coming. But Republicans don’t want this. They love employees who work for minimum wage or less, who don’t press unemployment, workers compensation, overtime, civil rights or sexual harassment claims, because they help the bottom line. So, the problem must be Democrats or the brown people themselves.

          1. So, the problem must be Democrats or the brown people themselves.

            The Democrats luv dem some brown ppl, especial underage female minors in the Caribbean.

          2. ” I’m not obsessed, weirdly or otherwise, with Hannity”.
            The reason that it “looks like” Natacha and a few others are obsessed with Hannity is that they mention him in a high percentage of their comments, and they’ve mentioned him hundreds of times.It isn’t conservatives who have Hannity on the brain.and who talk incessantly about him on these threads.

    2. Agreed, for this crew, the past is another country and borders are closed.

    3. What I find absolutely fascinating is how Democrats have been trained to have instant amnesia

      When they throw cement laden milkshakes, threaten bodily harm, warn supporters of the President to stay home, and decapitate the heads of infant babies upon delivery, that is not delusional, that is just evil.

      Josef Stalin killed ~ 60 million people. Democrats have surpassed that number by defending abortions since Roe v Wade

      “Even as pro-lifers were securing victories in the late 1960s and early 1970s, two court cases—one challenging Texas’ abortion law, the other challenging Georgia’s abortion law—were working their way to the Supreme Court. In its twin Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, which were handed down on January 22, 1973, the Court federalized the issue and legalized abortion for any reason. Tragically, 45 years later, National Right to Life estimates that over 60 million unborn children have lost their lives as a result of those decisions.”

  13. “That narrative has largely gone unchallenged in the media despite that fact that the Obama Administration had the same facilities and also separated families.” This is because the mainstream media has become a propaganda machine for the Democratic Party, blatantly trying to push elections Democrat.

    As for the conditions, Democrats denied there was a crisis. It’s all in print. All the pleas for more funding fell on deaf, uncaring ears. Now, they gleefully accept that it’s a crisis, but fail to acknowledge their part in it. Democrat policies lured illegal aliens to risk children, because they’ve become a ticket pat our immigration laws.

    Do they think that Hilton Hotels magically spring up all across the border, from wishing? All that talk about the hordes of illegal aliens overwhelming facilities was not a joke.

    However, responses range from Democrats refusing to fund what those facilities need, to Democrat activists going on strike to refuse to make beds for the children.

  14. The fascinating thing is they have a constituency that is unconcerned about facts. They are intellectually lazy proving Kant’s assessment of these folks is as accurate today as it was then:

    Enlightenment is man’s release from his self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage is man’s inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another. Self-incurred is this tutelage when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another.

  15. Ha, ha. The Democratic Oversight Committee must be using Peter Hill to write their tweets.

  16. Ha ha ha whenever I need a laugh I look for any comment by a progressive lefty or female intellectual (is that an oxymoron) ?

  17. Captures the hypocrisy of the Trump haters.

    We never doubted their passion; just their integrity.

    Now we have grounds to doubt their intelligence.

Comments are closed.