Ocasio-Cortez: I Never Said Pelosi Was A Racist When Accusing Her Of Targeting Women Of Color

Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has risen to prominence for promising to tell truth to power. However, this week she showed that she could spin and shill with the best of them. Previously Ocasio-Cortez accused Speaker Nancy Pelosi of singling out four women of color. That would seem by definition a charge of racism. Now however she insists that Pelosi did single out women of color but was not a racist. At the same time, the “squad” is warning Pelosi not to do it again.

Ocasio-Cortez and Reps. Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar and Ayanna Pressley were interviewed on “CBS This Morning” by Gayle King. Tlaib chastized Pelosi again for criticizing women of color: “Acknowledge the fact that we are women of color, so when you do single us out, be aware of that and what you’re doing, especially because some of us are getting death threats. Because some of us are being singled out because of our backgrounds, because of our experiences and so forth.”

I am not sure of the “so forth” but the point seems to be the same: as women of color, these politicians should be somehow protected from such criticism. The “squad” as they like to call themselves has been attacking Pelosi and asserting that it has a different vision for the party. All of that is fair game and entirely appropriate. However, it also means that they can be criticized as “the squad.” Yet, when Pelosi responds with her own criticism, the members object that it is somehow inappropriate given their status as women of color.

There is no question that these members have been subject to terrible threats and attacks, including the disgraceful recent criticism by President Trump. However, they have chosen to advocate as a group and it is hardly surprising that they would be addressed as a group. Unlike Trump, Pelosi was not addressing them as women of color but a defined “squad” of members who are charting their own divergent path from the leadership.

Equality means that race or nationality of these members is neither a basis for special criticism or immunity from criticism.

What do you think?

221 thoughts on “Ocasio-Cortez: I Never Said Pelosi Was A Racist When Accusing Her Of Targeting Women Of Color”

  1. Remembering Mark Twain on Congress:

    “Fleas can be taught nearly anything that a Congressman can.”

    “An honest man in politics shines more there than he would elsewhere.”

    “All Congresses and Parliaments have a kindly feeling for idiots, and a compassion for them, on account of personal experience and heredity.”

    “Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”

    “There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.”

    – Mark Twain

    “If his IQ slips any lower, we’ll have to water him twice a day.”
    – Molly Ivins, about a member of Congress

  2. Turley: Unlike Trump, Pelosi was not addressing them as women of color

    Where did that come from. Trump’s tweet did not mention women of color or race. Turley’s comment is a disgraceful distortion. Trump invited the Squad who spew hatred for U.S. to leave in the tradition of America love it or leave it.

    So interesting to see ‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run.

    Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!” the president said in three connected tweets.

  3. The Democrats won’t work to fix things so the President is doing it himself: OAC should be happy the President is working to decrease the strain on the detention camps.

    Trump’s asylum action will help ease the border crisis

    This week, the Trump administration continued its efforts to bring order to the southern border by imposing new rules on the asylum-seeking process. This is what was needed.

    On Monday, the departments of Justice and Homeland Security announced that migrants wanting to claim asylum in the U.S. must first do so in either their home country or another country before coming to the U.S. Under the new rule, anyone who crosses illegally into the U.S. to claim asylum, without having already applied from outside, would be ineligible.

    Word has gotten out south of Texas that anyone hoping to flee violence or poverty in their own country need touch American soil, find a Border Patrol agent, and turn oneself in, requesting asylum. The vast majority of migrants who do this are breaking the law

    1. OK, Allan. Facts count. Homeland Security and DOJ are proposing a new rule. It isn’t the rule yet, and until it is, it is not illegal to seek asylum by turning oneself in to a border patrol officer. This will only add more pressure on S. Americans to swarm the border. Trump’s erratic threats to close the border are the cause of the current crisis. Under Barak Obama, illegal crossings were at a 50 year low. Again, the least-expensive way to stop illegal migration, if that’s really what Republicans want, would be to strongly enforce laws prohibiting hiring of illegals. The CEOs of hotel chains, restaurants, etc. who hire illegals are easier to find and arrest. But, as we all know, Republicans really don’t want to stop illegal migration because illegals help the bottom line. They do want to keep the tax cuts for the most-wealthy and roll backs of consumer and environmental protections, so they need the votes of rural and less-educated whites. Therefore, they attack the migrants as the root cause of the problem. Migrants would simply stop coming here if there were no jobs for them.

      And, Democrats aren’t the cause of the deplorable conditions in Trump’s concentration camps. Recall Trump’s promise that instead of “catch and release”, he was instituting “catch and hold”. This change was poorly thought out, poorly executed and insufficiently funded–typical Trump modus operandi. Since most Americans didn’t vote for Trump and disapprove of him, he can’t just take our tax money and use it against the wishes of the majority of the American people. If Democrats were to hand him a blank check with no requirement of oversight and the right to inspect, he’d just divert even more of our tax dollars to the profiteers who are charging $750 per day or more per detainee to run the concentration camps and/or he’d use it to build a wall, so he could crow “promises made….promises kept”. What’s sad if that people like you don’t see the truth.

      1. “OK, Allan. Facts count.”

        OK Natacha present your facts, proof and your solutions. Then we can talk about it. None of that existed in the first few sentences so the rest was tossed because I don’t read your rubbish any longer.

  4. With Nancy Pelosi trying to censure President Trump, the House Parliamentarian condemns Nancy Pelosi. Democrats vote against the Parliamentarian

    Yup. the Democrats are giving the Fascists a run for their money.
    Banana republic we are indeed.

    1. Hey, Olly, we now see this strategy for the Republicans to try to win over the 60% who don’t support Trump: paint the four women attacked by Trump as representative of the views and platform of the entre Democratic party. That’s the strategy, but it won’t work. because it’s not the truth. These 4 have their views, but their views are not representative of the Democratic party as a whole. We already see through it, plus the desperation of the Dotard to win at any cost because his fragile little ego can’t handle getting tossed out of the White House.

      1. paint the four women attacked by Trump as representative of the views and platform of the entre Democratic party. These 4 have their views, but their views are not representative of the Democratic party as a whole.


        You may want to take another look at the cast of characters vying to be the 2020 Democrat nominee for President. They’re going to have some explaining to do after unanimously supporting the “squads” agenda.

      2. Wishful thinking from the eternal progressive optimist/chronic TDS victim .

        Remember “Hillary win is 97% certainty?” And Rachel Maddow laughing in the camera, considering, with her impeccably wrong math, every potential State count, and concluding it’s “impossible” from Trump to win. She spent about a half hour on her pile of dung report.

        CNN and Rachel rewrote Rule 1 of the Art of War: “Always underestimate your opponent.” Thanks for insuring progressives sat on their arse eating Cheetos and drinking beer (purchased with or assisted by EBT cards) instead of voting.

        It sucks to be Natacha.

      3. oh, stupid white liberals have coddled their AA tokens for years, and now the tokens want more. they’re coming for you first, liberals, and don’t look to us for refuge.

  5. Pity that JT did not address a true US Constitutional Crisis: the brawl on the US House floor, the House Parliamentarian ruling Speaker Pelosi’s words were out of order, a decision that technically banned Pelosi from speaking on the House floor for playing the race card, and Pelosi breaking US House rules by walking off the floor.

    This is embarrassing! Pandemonium! LOL

    The US House is an absolute carnival, replete with clowns, contortionists of truth and fire throwing jackals. Heckuvajob Nance!

    Trump is going to win 2020 by the Dems giving it to him on a silver platter

    Pelosi’s remarks on Trump’s ‘racist’ comments ruled out of order, after floor fight erupts

    Escalating tensions on Capitol Hill erupted into a floor fight in the House of Representatives on Tuesday afternoon, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke in favor of a resolution condemning “racist” comments by President Trump — and Pelosi’s words were eventually ruled out of order, as House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Democrat, announced the decision from the House parliamentarian.

    “The words used by the gentlewoman from California contained an accusation of racist behavior on the part of the President,” Hoyer said, in a decision that technically banned Pelosi from speaking on the House floor for a brief period of time. “The words should not be used in debate.”

    The Democrat-controlled House then voted along party lines not to strike Pelosi’s words from the record, and voted separately to restore her speaking privileges. One Democrat in Congress had told Fox News, “We’re going to defend our Speaker.”

    The dramatic episode began when Pelosi’s prepared remarks condemning Trump turned personal, and Georgia Republican Rep. Doug Collins rose to challenge her and demand that her words be “taken down.” The extraordinary rebuke was the first of its kind involving a member of Congress and a speaker of the House in decades.

    The scene then became even more bizarre when the chair, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., told representatives after a lengthy huddle that he was trying to make a fair ruling as to whether Pelosi had broken House rules governing decorum, but people weren’t cooperating. Cleaver told Fox News he felt Pelosi was being singled out.

    Cleaver simply declared, “I abandon the chair,” and left — a moment with no apparent precedent in modern congressional history.


    While presiding in the House, @Repcleaver: “We don’t ever, ever want to pass up, it seems, an opportunity to escalate, and that’s what this is…we want to just fight. I abandon the chair.”

    4:35 PM – Jul 16, 2019

    North Carolina Rep. G.K. Butterfield, also a Democrat, assumed the chair, before Hoyer took the reins.

    In her prepared remarks, Pelosi spoke in frank and unsparing terms about Trump’s comments on Twitter over the weekend.

    “There is no place anywhere for the president’s words, which are not only divisive, but dangerous — and have legitimized and increased fear and hatred of new Americans and people of color,” Pelosi, D-Calif., said. “It’s so sad because you would think that there would be a given that we would universally, in this body, just say, ‘Of course. Of course.'”

    Pelosi continued, her voice rising: “There’s no excuse for any response to those words but a swift and strong unified condemnation. Every single member of this institution, Democratic and Republican, should join us in condemning the president’s racist tweets. To do anything less would be a shocking rejection of our values, and a shameful abdication of our oath of office to protect the American people. I urge a unanimous vote, and yield back the balance of my time.”

    Collins immediately stood and asked if Pelosi wanted to “rephrase that comment.”

    “I have cleared my remarks with the parliamentarian before I read them,” Pelosi claimed, before walking away to applause.

    “Can I ask the words be taken down? I make a point of order that the gentlewoman’s words are unparliamentary and be taken down,” Collins said.

    Fox News is told Collins used House Rule XVII, Clause 1(B). That rule requires that remarks on the floor “be confined to the question under debate, avoiding personality.”

    “The chair will remind all members, please, please, do not make personality-based comments,” Cleaver said.

    Collins then repeated his request to strike Pelosi’s comments. For more than 30 minutes after Collins’ objection, House members were huddled with the parliamentarian, Thomas J. Wickham Jr., to determine next steps.

    As the consultation dragged on, Pelosi then appeared to leave the House floor, which itself constituted a violation of House Rules when someone’s words were taken down. Members are supposed to be seated on the floor when a member’s words are stricken.

    Kevin McCarthy

    BREAKING NEWS —> Speaker Pelosi just broke the rules of the House, and is no longer permitted to speak on the floor of the House for the rest of the day.

    4:52 PM – Jul 16, 2019 · Washington, DC

    Cleaver then abdicated. Hoyer eventually assumed the chair upon Pelosi’s request so that a Democrat leader, and not a rank-and-file member, could take control.

    Hoyer eventually announced the ruling that, based on the precedent “of May 15, 1984,” Pelosi’s language did not meet the standard.

    The precedent came after Republican Newt Gingrich, then a Georgia congressman, sparred with then-House Speaker Tip O’Neill, a Massachusetts Democrat. O’Neill remarked: “My personal opinion is this: You deliberately stood in that well before an empty House and challenged these people, and you challenged their Americanism, and it is the lowest thing I have ever seen in my thirty-two years in Congress.”

    The parliamentarian determined at the time that the speaker’s use of the word “lowest” amounted to inappropriate language, and O’Neill’s words were taken down.

    Collins, in a statement late Tuesday, condemned Democrats for effectively reversing the ruling.

    “Democrats admitted her words violated the rules of decorum, the very rules that ensure democracy’s every voice can be heard as we carry out the people’s business,” Collins said. “Still, every Democrat lawmaker voted against striking her words from the record. It bears repeating the House prizes decorum because it is a symptom of and a catalyst for a healthy, confident democracy. I hope we recover that confidence soon and more forward with respect for the American people who sent elected officials, including the president, to represent them in Washington.”


  6. Trump’s immigration deal with Mexico is working
    by Jan Brewer | July 16, 2019 12:00 AM
    The Democrats have underestimated President Trump yet again. His bilateral immigration deal with Mexico is already proving to be far more effective than his critics had predicted.

    With Democrats in Congress still refusing to provide the necessary resources for border security despite the massive surge in illegal immigration that has taken place in recent months, Trump turned to Mexico as an unlikely partner to help get the humanitarian and national security crisis under control.

    Predictably, Trump’s critics lambasted the idea from the outset. First, they insisted that his threat to impose across-the-board tariffs on Mexican goods would never lead to an agreement. Then, after Mexico quickly acceded to a deal before the tariffs could take effect, liberals changed course and argued that the actions Mexico had committed to take, such as deploying thousands of their National Guard troops to assist with immigration enforcement and requiring migrants to stay in Mexico while their asylum claims are processed by American authorities, would have no impact on illegal immigration into the U.S.

    Continued: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/trumps-immigration-deal-with-mexico-is-working

    1. Uh, you’re citing the “Washington Examiner” as a source? BTW: Mexico doesn’t have the National Guard numbers that Trump claims they agreed to deploy. Did Mexico announce this as a deal? What were the terms? Where are they printed for our review? Are you relying on Trumpy Bear for your information? Going around threatening trade wars and claiming victory without proof is a Trump MO, just like he did when he claimed N. Korea agreed to stop its nuclear weapons program. It was all bluster, smoke and mirrors–anything to create an illusion of success. Trump’s latest proposal to make those wishing to migrate apply for asylum in their home country will only make the illegal migration problem worse. Everyone knows they’ll be turned down. It’s not the law yet, and how would it be implemented, anyway? What quantum of proof do they need? They wouldn’t be able to appear before a US judge to press their case. More smoke & mirrors.

      Also, you need to stop using the Hannity language to describe people who oppose Trump: “the left”, “Dems”, “libs”, and so on. MOST Americans oppose Trump, and they aren’t all liberals, Democrats or “the left”. In fact, Trump is not a conservative, either, so he doesn’t represent “the right”. If you don’t believe me, ask George Will. The lines of demarcation aren’t as clear as Hannity would like to make them sound.

          1. Yes! “I’m proud to be an American where at least I know I’m free…”

            “Big Rally tonight in Greenville, North Carolina. Lots of great things to tell you about, including the fact that our Economy is the best it has ever been. Best Employment & Stock Market Numbers EVER. I’ll talk also about people who love, and hate, our Country (mostly love)! 7:PM” – President Trump

          2. Kurtz, go to one of his rallies. The energy is fantastic and the people are polite except if they are leftists acting up and then they have to be thrown out. The press hates the fact that he fills the auditoriums completely and has people outside that couldn’t get in. Trump is a rock start and a great President.

            GOD BLESS THE USA

      1. “‘El Chapo’ has now been charged & convicted by our government. Now’s the time to bring my EL CHAPO Act for a vote & pass Congress to use his criminally forfeited $$ to offset the cost of securing our border & deliver on the promises made to the American people.” -Senator Ted Cruz

        So Natacha — That’s $12 billion in forfeitures to use to pay for the wall and the border. Booyah!

      2. Uh, you’re citing the “Washington Examiner” as a source?

        Now that Mad Magazine has stopped publishing, you’re really wetting your panties because only the anti-semitic NYT and worthless Criminal News Network are your bff. Americans hate both but you hate America so there is that

      3. Natacha — will you do a fact check for us? Is Trump “killing children in concentration camps and forcing women to drink from toilets”? I’m kind of confused because Rep. Ilhan Omar actually said this at a press conference yesterday.

        And who is the lying liar, again? Oh no, not Democrats. Not CNN Fake News. Nooooo.

        1. AOC stated, a couple of days ago, that when the migrant woman told her that she was advised by guards to drink out of a toilet, it was because the faucet at the only sink in the room didn’t work. The Congresswoman checked it out for herself. She confirmed that the sink was out of order and the faucet didn’t work, and that’s why she believes her. We’ve not seen the concentration camp guards dispute that the faucet didn’t work at the time AOC was there. Maybe if you watched something other than Faux News you’d know this.

      4. “Uh, you’re citing the “Washington Examiner” as a source?

        Yes, it is far more accurate than the Washington Post. In fact even your archenemy Hannity is more accurate. Yesterday Hannity’s claim for 1-2 years that the MSM disagreed with was validated by John Solomon and I posted that report. You need to read more and write less. As usual I didn’t bother with the rest of the trash so if you said something that was proven factual let me know and I will read that section.

          1. One can’t help stupid people that can’t learn. John Solomon has been very accurate in his columns and though he knows a lot of information he doesn’t reveal it until he has proof something you don’t understand.

            Would you like to tell us what was wrong with any of his recent columns? Go slink away into the mass of anonymous jokers.

            1. Wikipedia on Solomon:




              Paul McCleary, writing for the Columbia Journalism Review in 2007, wrote that Solomon had earned a reputation for hyping stories without solid foundation.[3] In 2012, Mariah Blake, writing for the Columbia Journalism Review, wrote that Solomon “has a history of bending the truth to his storyline,” and that he “was notorious for massaging facts to conjure phantom scandals.”[4] In 2007, Deborah Howell, then-ombudsman at The Washington Post criticized a story that Solomon wrote for The Post which had suggested impropriety by Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards in a real estate purchase; Solomon’s reporting omitted context which would have made clear that there was no impropriety.[20] Progressive news outlets ThinkProgress, Media Matters for America and Crooked Media have argued that Solomon’s reporting has a conservative bias and that there are multiple instances of inaccuracies.[21][22][23] Independent journalist Marcy Wheeler accused Solomon of manufacturing faux scandals which suggested wrongdoing by those conducting probes into Russian interference in the 2016 election.[24] Reporters who worked under Solomon as an editor have said that he encouraged them to bend the truth to fit a pre-existing narrative.[4]

              In January 2018, Solomon published a report for The Hill suggesting that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page had foreknowledge of a Wall Street Journal article and that they themselves had leaked to the Wall Street Journal.[25] According to the Huffington Post, Solomon’s reporting omitted that the Wall Street Journal article Strzok and Page were discussing was critical of Hillary Clinton and the FBI, Strzok and Page expressed dismay at the fallout from the article, and Strzok and Page criticized unauthorized leaks from the FBI. According to the Huffington Post, “Solomon told HuffPost he was not authorized to speak and does not comment on his reporting. He may simply have been unaware of these three facts when he published his story. But they provide crucial context to an incomplete narrative that has been bouncing around the right-wing echo chamber all week.”[25]

              That same month, Erik Wemple of The Washington Post said that newsroom staffers at The Hill had complained about Solomon’s reporting for the publication.[5] The staffers reportedly criticized Solomon’s reporting as having a conservative bias and missing important context, and that this undermined The Hill’s reputation.[5] They also expressed concerns over Solomon’s close relationship with Sean Hannity, whose TV show he appeared on more than a dozen times over a span of three months.[5]

              1. Don’t be a birdbrain. I am talking about a writer who has won awards and who also has made mistakes blown up by people that are annoyed that for the past two years he has been proven right and the Washington Post proven wrong.

                Deal with his content not with the cr-p that wants to prove the Steele Dossier was legitimate or do you still believe the Steele Dossier?

                Anonymous deals in character assasination but doesn’t have to worry about having its own character assasinated. None exists.

          2. “Something fishy?”

            “John Solomon had grand plans for the digital future of the Center for Public Integrity. But there was always a catch…”



            As for the other grandiose revenue-generating schemes Solomon launched at the paper, they ended up being money losers—a fact that four current and former Times officials (two of whom had direct access to financial data) say contributed to its precipitous decline. “Because of his initiatives, the paper almost failed,” says Jerry Seper, the Times’s longtime editor of investigations. “John Solomon put the paper into a near-death spiral.”

            Then again, Solomon has a history of bending the truth to his storyline. As a reporter for the AP and The Washington Post, he dug up his share of genuine dirt, but he also was notorious for massaging facts to conjure phantom scandals. In 2006, for instance, Solomon and fellow AP writer Sharon Theimer tried to tie now-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to disgraced super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The piece hinged on a series of meetings Reid had with Abramoff’s staff to discuss a pending minimum-wage bill and gifts from Abramoff associates who opposed several casino-expansion projects. What it failed to mention is that Reid stuck to his longstanding position on both issues—meaning that any implications of influence peddling were bogus. In response to a similarly flawed story, then-Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell later dubbed Solomon’s style “‘gotcha’ without the gotcha.” This magazine, too, has taken him to task more than once for distorting facts and hyping petty stories. Similarly, reporters who worked under Solomon as an editor—seven of whom were interviewed for this article—say he often pressured them to mold the truth to his vision of the story. “He had this sort of thesis or idea of what the story was,” says one Center staff member. “Facts be damned.”

            1. There is not a journalist out there that hasn’t been criticized. But the question is what has Solomon said over the past two years that isn’t true? He has been extremely careful on the substantive issues and I challenge you to find a major fault. His articles that contradicted the Washington Post week after week have been proven almost completely correct now that the documents are being released.

              Go ahead and tell us his errors. We don’t need more hit pieces and lies which is what we typically get from you. Yes, your left wing pieces will make all sorts of statements but they don’t bother proving it by copying his words and showing where he erred. Instead they make up a new story to act as a red herring, but you know that because your head is full of that cr-p.

              You and many of the people you quoted thought the Steele Dossier was truthful. It wasn’t. So much for your credibility..

  7. As an aside, why do the language Nazis get their panties in a wad when someone uses the phrase “colored women”, but the phrase “women of color” is fine? It’s the same words used to describe the same people, with only the order reversed.

          1. Yes, it’s a word. But it’s Somali – not Somalian.

            It’s not a knee-jerk reaction; it happens to be true.

            1. “It’s not a knee-jerk reaction; it happens to be true.”

              Stay anonymous and keep your knees hidden. You look better that way because your not out of tune with those posting under that name.

              Somalian is both an adjective and a noun.

              1. You’re obviously ignorant and obviously prefer to remain so, Allan.

                (And you might want to learn the difference between your and you’re.)

                1. And you might want to learn the difference between your and you’re.

                  Says the paid mongrel who posts on here 25/8 talking points for George Soros and David Brock from WahPutz and NYTinder


            1. Anonymous @ 2 PM: Answer your own question.

              I suspect that it’s a loaded one. Plenty of info available via Google and Wikipedia. Foxtrot should look it up.

    1. LOL! As Jonathan Gruber stated, it’s the stupidity of the American voter. Kant would say these folks are unenlightened. They are intellectually immature needing others to do their thinking for them.

      The bottom line is, flog that horse until it’s dead.

  8. The 2020 Democratic Platform:

    Tlaib said thinking of the Holocaust gives her a “calming feeling.”

    Omar tweeted: “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”

    Ocasio-Cortez recently claimed that the United States is running “concentration camps” on the southern border.

    And Pressley refused to condemn the Antifa terrorist attack at an ICE facility in Washington State this past weekend.
    This is just a small sampling of their vile rhetoric yet the Democrats want Americans to think the President is racist.

    1. While the “hit squad”complains and the Democrats intentionally leave the borders open.

      Lindsey Graham claims border fraud so prevalent ‘a terrorist could easily get in’

      Sen. Lindsey Graham: ICE raids are focused on those who already had their day in court

      Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham weighs in on the crisis at the southern border, Robert Mueller’s upcoming Capitol Hill testimony, growing tensions between the U.S. and Iran and more.
      While Democrats criticize the Trump administration for the conditions children are kept in at the southern border, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is pointing out gaping holes in American policies that allow children to be used by adults to get into the United States illegally.

      Graham said that thirty percent of those who cross into the U.S. with children are “fake families,” and that loopholes are used to let the same children come back over and over, bringing different adults with them.

      “This is a sick system, it’s rotten to its core,” Graham told host Maria Bartiromo on “Sunday Morning Futures.” He said, “children are being exploited.”

      “Our laws are set up such so that if you can bring a small child to America coming from Central America, we can only hold the child for 20 days, then we let the entire family go because we don’t want to separate families,” Graham said.

      The senator said that he’s heard of 60 children who were released, only to come back with others.

      “They pick the child up in Central America, they bring them to the United States, everybody’s released, and the child goes back to Central America to do it again,” he claimed. “They’re taking this journey, God knows what happens to them along the way.”

      Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also claimed that the amount of fraudulent border crossing is so bad, “a terrorist could easily get in this group.”

      The way to fix this, he suggested, is to crack down on who crosses into the U.S. and help improve the situations in the Central American, and Democrats need to help.

      “AOC and Democrats are trying to break the system so that we let these people go,” Graham said, vowing, “We’re not going to let these people go. They’re going to have their day in court and we’re going to send them back.”

    2. I admire the Israelis more and more. We need a security fence like theirs only a lot, lot longer.

      1. Im glad to hear that because Israel is a strategic ally.

        Kurtz, I think if you get to the right pages on https://marklangfan.com you will enjoy this site very much. Though a bit disorganized the content on topography is very interesting especially since it can help a person understand what is being discussed today and what can or cannot be done. The topography of Israel explains more than one gets from any news articles because the topography determines the future.

        Let me know what you think. If you need assistance, doubtful, let me know.

  9. “The Squad.” They are being called “the Squad.” This reminds me of nothing quite so much as George Constanza trying to get people to call him “T-Bone” on Seinfeld. These people become more off-putting with each passing day.

  10. “”The “squad” as they like to call themselves “”

    We are looking at 4 women who sound more like a hit squad then members of the American Congress. They are haters and race baiters. They are the type of leaders we see in despotic nations where the people leave hoping to get into a country like the United States which this squad has a “hit” out for. If they hate America so much they should leave.

    This is what the Peter’s and Anon’s of the world have degenerated to. Hate America, anti-Semitism, anti-Christian, anti-individual etc. not necessarily in that order nor all of them at one time but that is where this type of attitude is leading to.

    1. “haters” -Allan

      Best to drop the divisive language.

      “If they hate America so much they should leave.” -Allan

      A childish retort; just plain silly.

      1. “haters” -Allan”

        Tlaib said thinking of the Holocaust gives her a “calming feeling.”

        Omar tweeted: “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”

        Ocasio-Cortez recently claimed that the United States is running “concentration camps” on the southern border.

        And Pressley refused to condemn the Antifa terrorist attack at an ICE facility in Washington State this past weekend.

        Whis is it? Are you stupid or blind?

          1. It’s one or the other, stupid or blind, but you are free to believe what you wish. After all one can’t tell stupidity from blindness since more than one person could be engaged in this discussion,

          1. There is no context when one is stupid or blind.You should always read further and not let all the rhetoric of an article induce you into a dream state. I guess this is why you wish to use the moniker anonymous. That way you can distribute some of your stupidity to others. Many statements are made that have double meanings. It’s a form of subtle deviousness seen in deviant people.

            “There’s always kind of a calming feeling I tell folks when I think of the Holocaust, and the tragedy of the Holocaust, and the fact that it was my ancestors, Palestinians, who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human dignity, their existence in many ways, have been wiped out, and some people’s passports,”

          2. here’s the whole article, quoted below. I think this is what you call a “back handed compliment.” she thought she was being clever, making a fake sentiment about the Holocaust, when what she’s really doing is lamenting that Palestinians were ejected from their homes without compensation in the population transfer episode that followed the Partitiion and the first war. It’s clear enough to me that what she’s really doing is invoking the usual Palestinian complaints.

            Now, I’m not entirely discounting the beef the Palestinians have about takings of their homes without just compensation, I would say that is a fair beef. But don’t dress it up in falsely clever remarks about the Holocaust!

            “Last week, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., said in an interview that it gave her “a calming feeling” to think of her Palestinian ancestors giving up their lives and their land to create a safe haven for Jews fleeing the persecution of the Holocaust. She added that her ancestors had to give up their dignity at the same time, which is why she now supports a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

            Given the deeply polarized atmosphere in Washington now, and Tlaib’s outspoken criticism of Israel’s current government policies, her statement immediately caused a furor. Many right-wing critics interpreted her statement as meaning the Holocaust itself gave her a calming feeling, and others accused her of anti-Semitism, as they have often done since her election to office last fall. President Donald Trump tweeted that she had a “tremendous hatred of Israel and the Jewish people.”

            On Monday, Tlaib accused Trump and GOP lawmakers of “spreading outright lies” about her.

            “The Holocaust was a horrific persecution of Jewish people and should be remembered as such, nothing short of that. While I conveyed these sentiments during Yahoo’s Skullduggery’s Podcast, it’s shameful that right-wing extremists and GOP leadership, including President Trump, have twisted and misconstrued my words to spread falsehoods rooted in hate,” Tlaib said in a statement Monday.

            “Trump has doubled down on his party’s use of the Holocaust to score political points,” she added. “This is yet another attempt by the administration and the GOP to try to distract from their horrible policies, lawless acts, and actual anti-Semitic rhetoric.”

            During the interview on the “Skullduggery” podcast released Friday, Tlaib was asked about her support for a one-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians.

            Tlaib responded by noting that Holocaust Remembrance Day recently occurred and said, “There’s kind of a calming feeling I always tell folks when I think of the Holocaust, and the tragedy of the Holocaust, and the fact that it was my ancestors, Palestinians, who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human dignity, their existence in many ways, have been wiped out, and some people’s passports.”

            She continued, “I mean, just all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post-the Holocaust, post-the tragedy and the horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that time, and I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that, right, in many ways. But they did it in a way that took their human dignity away, right, and it was forced on them. And so when I think about a one-state, I think about the fact that, why couldn’t we do it in a better way?”
            here’s what some israelis think about the various arab claims, btw


            1. “Now, I’m not entirely discounting the beef the Palestinians have about takings of their homes without just compensation, I would say that is a fair beef.”

              Kurtz, I would be careful about that statement and start looking at how almost an equal number of Jews were thrown out of Arab lands. They were thrown out and all their property was taken. They left only with the clothing on their backs and pocket change.

              The Palestinians were not thrown out but left voluntarily. Many did not have title to their land and were squatters. Remember the Ottomans controlled the area for a long time and they were mostly serfs and the area of Israel was mostly barren. The Israelis built up the land and the farms where nothing existed and no one even lived.

              Yes, what you call Palestinians had some ownership and prior to 1948. Jews bought up a lot of that property at highly inflated rates. I can’t say that some Palestinians didn’t lose their property but most of the land owned by individuals was paid for.

              I’ll give you an example of an area I saw in detail years ago. I travelled in that area with some other people and armed guards with Uzis to protect us. It was the City of David outside of Jerusalem’s walls. We were met by the Israeli that was paying the arabs for the land they occupied but didn’t own. They were squatters living on land titled to the Rothchild’s. None the less these squaters were being paid enough that they wanted to sell. The squatters would say they were forced to sell because if they did sell they would have been killed by Palestinian leadership.

  11. Unlike Trump, Pelosi was not addressing them as women of color…

    What was the tweet from President Trump addressing them as women of color?

      1. FFS,
        That’s right. JT seems to have been caught up in the same hysteria that snagged Enigma and others. I haven’t seen any reference to color other than what was identified by the Lefties.

  12. Meantime, ain’t nothin’ of importance to us out here getting done. We are all going down in flames because you just can’t/won’t stop fighting each other over such meaningless nonsense as whether you called me a “cracker” or not. I DO NOT CARE! If all are that thin-skinned, they should go back to the womb they came from.

  13. What do I think? At the risk of being condemned as a racist for saying something derogatory about a POC, I think she’s a liar and a putz.

    Last night, the House voted to condemn trumpy’s tweets as racist. I won’t comment on whether what trumpy said was racist or not, but certainly, as he so frequently does, trumpy expressed clearly, in his own ham-handed way, what the vast majority of people in the country are silently thinking. In this case: “if you hate the US so much, why don’t you just leave?” It’s a fair question; and there are a lot of us who would be very interested to hear the answer, even if it means having to listen to AOC’s shrill, whiny voice, or to Omar’s butchering of the English language.

    The House resolution is a joke. Trumpy’s a racist? Fine. From AOC’s perspective, that puts him in the same position as Pelosi; the two of them can start a club. It means nothing.

    The way I see it, the House Dems destroyed all their credibility on matters like this when they refused to vote on a resolution clearly condemning Rep. Omar’s anti-semitic statements earlier this year.

    1. ” I won’t comment on whether what trumpy said was racist or not,”

      Why not? You think the comments of four freshmen in Congress carry more weight than the President of the United States?

            1. Olly: how dense do you have to be? Enigma is right–when you tell a person of color to go back to their own country, you are saying that America is not their country and that you, the white person, own this country and get to decide who belongs here. This is despite the fact that they are all citizens, and 3 of them were born here. Omar was a Somali refugee. That sort of racist comment hasn’t been heard, by me at least (and I live an a totally red city in a totally red state) for more than 50 years.

              1. how dense do you have to be?

                Thank you for answering your own question.

                Enigma is right–when you tell a person of color to go back to their own country, you are saying that America is not their country and that you, the white person, own this country and get to decide who belongs here.

                Yes, that dense. His tweet was directed at 4 people that have expressed anti-American sentiments. The only way you and your fellow Lefties could be more dense is if you accused him of misogyny and patriarchy as well. No, it is your ilk that cries racism because you have no other defense. I don’t care what your color is, what country you hail from, what gender you identify as; if you in any way threaten the very foundations of this country, you are an enemy of the United States and deserve to be called out for it.

                1. Olly, what did they say that was un-American?

                  Your boy Trump took the side of Putin against our intelligence agencies standing next to him on an international stage and has refused to do anything to stop him from doing it again. He took the side of another dictator who murdered an American citizen against that citizen’s parents and then said he was in love with him. You don’t GAF about anti-Americanism, you’re a slave to a cult figure who’s a self serving traitor.

                  This is Anon1

                  1. You don’t GAF about anti-Americanism, you’re a slave to a cult figure who’s a self serving traitor.

                    Well Anon1, he’s an enemy to you anti-American progressives; that includes your coup-friends too.

                    Omar also contended Trump “has been credibly accused of committing multiple crimes, including colluding with a foreign government to interfere with our election.” Did she miss the entire Mueller report? Or does she think that Trump did collude and that over 22 months, Robert Mueller and his whole team of investigators and prosecutors just missed the evidence?

                    Impeach? Just Do It


                    1. Olly, you throw around anti-Americanism – now me as well – without giving an example of it. I listed exactly the traitorous behavior of your cult figure who also happens to be our president. I think he should go back to Moscow or get a f… pad in Pyongyang

                  2. blah blah blah you guys are full of garbage. anon1, sound unhinged, go sign up for antifa if you’re getting frustrated at your evident failure to make any progress online. you could try brass knuckles instead . just sign up with a good crew because TRUMPISTS are prolly ready for that


                    out here in flyover, “most americans” by far are solidly behind TRUMP

                  3. On the one hand Anon talks about globalism and then when Trump doesn’t threaten Putin with violence Anon criticizes him for being too friendly. Anon doesn’t know what he wants. He’s a mindless leftist whose principles change like the weather.

              2. “Olly: how dense do you have to be?”

                Why do you refer to other people as dense, Nuthatch? Tell us, do you still believe the Republicans held the Senate because of gerrymandering?

              3. hey Natch. I sense you are a white person., I would deport you too, as an un-American obnoxious complainer. In fact, I think I have an idea for a new amnesty.

                In exchange for every DACA dreamer or other long term illegal alien resident who gets a green card, they have to deport ONE PASTY FACE ANNOYING VEGAN SJW LIBERAL to make room here for them.

                And, for every FEMINIST of that stripe who gets deported, ONE HUNDRED migrants can stay.

                I always wanted to be racist but I dislike intensely, so many white SJW liberals I have decided it’s a lost cause!

                Most of all I believe Americans should not be ANNOYING!

                1. “In exchange for every DACA dreamer or other long term illegal alien resident who gets a green card, they have to deport ONE PASTY FACE ANNOYING VEGAN SJW LIBERAL to make room here for them.

                  And, for every FEMINIST of that stripe who gets deported, ONE HUNDRED migrants can stay.”

                  Send this proposal to the White House immediately. If this plan were enacted, it would truly make america great again. A little browner (which I have no problem with), but great.

                  I also believe americans should not be annoying, and also that their hair should be of a color that actually occurs in nature.

            2. They were already women of color. When he told them to go back to the countries they came from it was something he never would have said to a Norwegian. The comment itself has a long history and has always been insulting, an inference your kind is not welcome here, and a sign of bigotry.

              1. The comment itself has a long history and has always been insulting, an inference your kind is not welcome here

                Well, if I were a racialist as yourself, I would likely agree. I don’t care who you are, or what you may infer, if you agree with the squad on any level, I don’t want you in this country either.

                  1. If you had experience with this type of racism you’d recognize it.

                    Sure. Maslow’s Hammer theory, huh? If the only tool I had was a hammer, everything I see is a nail. Got it.

                    I agree with you on some levels, what does that make me?

                    On some level…wise. 😉

                    1. Everything isn’t a hammer but I would know a hammer that I’d been accustomed to all my life.

                      Oops. So you agree you’ve been accustomed to using that racialist hammer your whole life, because to you everything you see is a racist nail.

                      Nicely done!

              2. “When he told them to go back to the countries they came from it ”

                Enigma, Trump didn’t mention the word country so what you have done is unilaterally interpreted the Presidents remarks and then used different words so you could create an argument. He also didn’t indicate any places of origin so based on the statement he could have been thinking about a Norwegian. He was actually thinking more generically and didn’t specifically direct his comment to anyone. That complaint could have been to thousands of people including caucasians who have been in the US for generations. However certain persons were in the limelight at the time and all of them come from either a broken city or country so his comment was absolutely correct.

                1. What Trump has right is that there are those that think everything he does is “absolutely correct.” Those who would let him shoot someone on 5th Avenue. He has now been accused or raping someone in a 5th Avenue department store, along with a New York Penthouse. Do you ever get the news from whatever source you believe and think, “Now how am I gonna defend that?” Yet, you find a way. He at least has the excuse that he is benefitting from ripping off the nation. His blind followers, what do you get out of it? Coal mines are closing, farmers and going bankrupt, rural hospitals are closing, people are losing healthcare,. Who that wasn’t already rich is winning? Unless you get all your satisfaction from watching caged brown people.

                  1. Enigma, your complaints about Trump have been proven wrong one after the other but you continue in your quest. To aid your arguments you lied about what the President said and now you haven’t bothered to correct that lie but instead continue on the same path you have been on apparently forever.

                    According to you Trump is racist because a couple of decades before he was born someone may have done something that may not have been to your satisfaction.

          1. Tha ( 😀 )t was to Olly and Enigma should actually post the Trump quote rather than relying on his distortions of what was said.

            1. Allan,
              That’s exactly right. Unless President Trump referenced color, then the racists are those that would read that tweet and see nothing other than color. Enemies of our country happen to have only one thing in common and it isn’t color: they want to destroy everything that has made this country the greatest the world has ever known. Are we perfect? Of course not. Are we more perfect than we were 230 years ago? Absolutely.

            2. Allan,
              Andrew McCarthy used a term befitting Enigma and his fellow travelers:

              Like many Americans, I am tired of being lectured about racism by racists and racialists, individuals whose full-field explanation for all life’s issues is this matter of genetic happenstance that should be increasingly irrelevant in a pluralistic society.

              1. Thanks Olly. I’m tired of victimhood. The losers on this list find victimhood a way to explain their failures.

      1. “” I won’t comment on whether what trumpy said was racist or not,”

        Why not?” You think the comments of four freshmen in Congress carry more weight than the President of the United States?”

        To answer your out-of-nowhere question: No.

      2. personally, i thought it was funny, especially since apparently 3/4 were born here

        i didn’t think it was racist, but it doesnt bother me that you think that it was.

        I personally find it offensive that Congress presumes to “censure” the POTUS for an off the cuff remark. I’d censure Congress for passing stupid laws that take our money, if it were up to me, and not worry too much about silly remarks.

        1. Tlaib was born just after her mother entered the country and imported a husband from among her cousins back home. Her father also imported a bride. Interested to discover how her father could possibly have had a place in the queue; bet there’s a story there. In any case, a woman who advocates what she does still has her head firmly in the Near East. No clue how or why Detroit’s blacks thought her a proper representative of their interests.

          1. Dearborn is about 90% Arab now. Just guessing. And yet, though times have changed, remains a pretty nice little town if you ask me,. I personally don’t mind being around them, i go there from time to time to visit. I picked up some arab food to go from this one place that’s right next to a tee tee bar which is mocked up in neoclassical facade. sort of an urban pastiche of influences, to put it nicely.

            so, to your question, she promised them the usual– FREE STUFF, taxed off the real estate speculators that have made bank the past few years since the BK “gentrifying” certain neighborhoods. read about it from the levellers themselves at the the link


            1. The population of Dearborn is 94,000. That’s about 12% of a congressional district of ordinary size.

        2. I’m only surprised it’s taken Cogress so long to censure him. An “off the cuff” remark from the President carries weight. He emboldens others to do what they might not otherwise. Silly remarks sent a gunman to a NJ pizza joint.
          You wouldn’t have funny if it had been directed at you in the context that it has only been used historically.
          What would be funny if it weren’t so sad, is listening to panels of mostly white people on television eplaining what is and isn’t racist and what the President really means and making it somehow patriotic and about socialism.

          1. What would be funny if it weren’t so sad, is listening to panels of mostly white people on television eplaining what is and isn’t racist

            What, because they are white their explanations are invalid?


              1. Clueless? Explain your reasoning for that assessment.

                Is “racialist” supposed to hurt my feelings?

                Nope. Wear it like a badge of honor, you’ve earned it.

                    1. “By listening to them talk.”

                      Enigma is suddenly an expert on racism. He can’t even get the words Trump said straight and he thinks he is an expert?

                      He calls Trump a racist because of something that may have involved Trump’s father (he doesn’t even know what happened) and that involvement (that Enigma knows little about) proves Trump is a racist when Trump wasn’t even born. The incident happened about 20 years before Trump was born.

                      …And this guy Enigma is claiming expertise on racism.

                    2. That’s an impressive superpower you have. You’ve learned the life history of 8 women over a 3 minute segment; well actually 9 women if you add in the CNN moderator. However I’m going to go out on a limb and guess your superpowers didn’t detect the same cluelessness for the moderator. To me you are no longer an enigma. You are Racialist, the superhero damned with the power to see racism in every caucasian. Your Kryptonite however is anyone carrying the D card. So there’s that.

                    3. I wasn’t talking about those Texas women, although I did catch some of the interview. As ridiculous as they were, they aren’t representative of any group. I was talking about several panels on MSNBC, and of course, Fox News. On Fox they were deliberately misrepresenting in order to score points, they were perhaps not clueless but unconcernened about the end result of their actions. The clueless ones were on MSNBC, some of whom also had an agenda but none had experience..

          2. “Silly remarks sent a gunman to a NJ pizza joint.”

            Possibly. And possibly an armed goofball to firebomb and ICE detention facility.

            How dumb would that guy have looked if he had ended up incinerating a bunch of detainees. But I doubt even that would have served to get AOC to pull her head out of her @$$.

          3. Enigma again illustrates why I don’t care if they call me racist.

            You see from his remarks, he thinks only black folks can determine what is racist.

            We are white so we are blind by our very racial nature, to whatever truth he presumes to know.

            Hence, he is essentially, racist. But he’s not my race. So, where does that leave us?

            Divided into tribes. That would be ok BUT they want our stuff and say we have to give it to them. Well you can have a leader like some lilly livered white whiny liberal, who will say ok, now you hand over your stuff and get down and start shining their boots. That’s reparations in a nutshell. No way!

            Or you can have a leader like, well, let’s just pick one of our illustrious ancestors, who was bad and mean and tough enough to survive to make it to this point at which we find ourselves, the supposed conquerors and oppressors of all mankind; who would say, no we are a group, call us a gang if you like, but we are we and you are you, and you eat at your table and we eat at ours. If we have business we can made a profitable trade, ok, but in the meantime, don’t expect us to do your laundry or your bidding and calling us racist won’t bother us one little bit. and if you want to try turnabout and make us slaves well see what comes next.

            See how that works? Get used to this folks. It’s the future.

            1. Enigma’s racialist worldview is itself an enigma if he believes the Democrat Party hasn’t been the tribe committed to racism.

            2. You get it wrong, many people can identify racism. Those that start with the premise that the only racists are the ones that point it out in another probably aren’t the most likely.
              The only people talking about “hand over your stuff” are the ones that benefitted from taking people’s stuff. Imagine that.

  14. Cortex’s can’t say Pelosi “singling out women of color” isn’t racist. It is. Her denial is disingenuous. Which shows, as the cliche goes, “she plays the race card.” Which marks her as lousy as those she presumes to stand against.

Leave a Reply