Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

This gallery contains 26 photos.



A.F. Branco Cartoon – No Rules For Radicals

Republicans continue to treat politics as though it’s a gentlemen game, while Democrats are in it to win at all cost.

For Keep 600 LAPolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019.
More A.F. Branco cartoons at FlagAnd Cross.com here.

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, the great El Rushbo, and has had his toons tweeted by President Trump.


Written by Bill Thomas on March 19, 2019

Albert Einstein once said, ‘Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.’ There have been so many stupid acts and comments made in the past week in the world of politics, that it makes you wonder about the future of humanity.

Leen Dweik, a college student at NYU, and NYU senior Rose Asaf confronted Chelsea Clinton at a vigil for the fifty Muslims killed in an attack on a New Zealand mosque and accused her of being a cause of the massacre because she criticized an anti-Semitic tweet by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN).

In an essay in BuzzFeed published March 16, 2019, the two of them wrote, ‘Just weeks before this tragedy, we bore witness to a bigoted, anti-Muslim mob coming after Rep. Ilhan Omar for speaking the truth about the massive influence of the Israel lobby in this country.’

So, let’s not misunderstand. The two college students have a 100% monopoly on what’s right. Rep. Omar’s remarks were ‘truth’ and Clinton’s comments ‘fanned the flames of bigotry.’ I’m rarely a defender of Chelsea Clinton, but this arrogance is mind-blowing. This is the method, though, of the new Democrat party. They are all about intimidation, bullying and believing that they are one hundred percent right and the rest of us are just ignorant and wrong.

We see it with former Vice President Joe Biden. On February 28, 2019, in Omaha, NE, Biden referred to current Vice President Mike Pence as a ‘decent guy’ in a speech. The thought police on the Left rained down mercilessly on the former vice-president. Among them was actress and activist, Cynthia Nixon, who tweeted, ‘.@JoeBiden you’ve just called America’s most anti-LGBT elected leader ‘a decent guy.’ Please consider how this fall on the ears of our community.’

What did Joe do? He did what all good Democrats today do. He apologized. ‘You’re right, Cynthia… there is nothing decent about being anti-LGBTQ rights, and that includes the Vice President.’ Biden has to repent at the altar of the new Democrats. There’s no room for a variety of opinions. You must hate those you’re told to hate.

Not to be outdone in the arrogance and intimidation department, we see Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI). In an interview that aired on March 10, 2019, she said, ‘I know this will be somewhat shocking for some, but I think Islamophobia is very much among the Democratic Party as well as the Republican Party.’

Rep. Tlaib believes that the Democrats and Republicans are bigoted against Muslims. It’s hard for me to wrap my mind around the gall that it takes to accuse both major parties in the freest land in the world to be bigoted against a group of people.

It wasn’t the United States that detained the Muslim population. That was China. It isn’t the United States that is at the bottom of nations who mistreat women. According to USA Today, November 29, 2014, that would be the Islamic nation of Yemen. In what country can three Muslim individuals be elected to represent constituencies in the most powerful halls of debate and ideas? Only in the United States.

Just to refresh your memory, Tlaib is the freshman congresswoman who, hours upon being sworn in, vowed to impeach the president using vile curse words. She is not so much interested in fairness or equality. She is part of the new Democrat party whose motto is ‘my way or no way.’ She believes her ideas are right and, if you disagree, you’re wrong.

Not wanting to be left out, the deep state decided to unveil some arrogant stupidity as well. Quin Hillyer, in the Washington Examiner on March 13, 2019, reported, ‘Newly released testimony by disgraced FBI attorney Lisa Page makes former U.S. attorney general Loretta Lynch look blatantly dishonest and makes her infamous ‘tarmac meeting’ with former president Bill Clinton look even sleazier than it already had.’

Hillyer continues, Specifically, despite sworn assurances to the contrary from Lynch, Page testified that Department of Justice officials repeatedly dissuaded the FBI from building a criminal case against Clinton for ‘gross negligence’ in her handling of classified information.’

Let’s understand here. The Obama Department of Justice prevented the FBI from a criminal case against Hillary Clinton, is that right? Even before it was popular, the Obama administration Democrats practiced the art of ‘we’re never wrong.’

The New Democrats are signaling clearly who they are. They are about bullying into submission those that disagree with them. They are convinced that they, and they alone, are one hundred percent right. If you disagree, you’re a bigot or just stupid. They are about hating the right people and they never, ever admit to doing wrong. They believe they’re above it.

That’s who’s opposing us in 2020.

Bill Thomas

Bill Thomas lives in Washington, Missouri and has been in local church ministry for over twenty-five years. He is also an adjunct instructor in history, Bible and education for two different Christian colleges. He’s authored two novellas, From the Ashes and The Sixty-first Minute published by White Feather Press of MI and three Bible studies, Surrounded by Grace, The Critical Questions and More and The Road to Victory published by CSS Publishing of OH.

Reported By Randy DeSoto | Published March 19, 2019 at 10:47am | Modified March 19, 2019 at 10:52am

The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration, ruling that immigrants with criminal records can be detained and held indefinitely while they await deportation proceedings.

In the 5-4 decision, the high court overruled the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which decided in 2016 that immigrants with criminal records can only be detained by federal authorities if the detention occurs soon after he or she is released from jail, The Hill reported.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh in the ruling.

“In these cases, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that this mandatory-detention requirement applies only if a covered alien is arrested by immigration officials as soon as he is released from jail,” Alito wrote.

“If the alien evades arrest for some short period of time — according to respondents, even 24 hours is too long — the mandatory-detention requirement is inapplicable, and the alien must have an opportunity to apply for release on bond or parole,”  he continued.  “Four other circuits have rejected this interpretation of the statute, and we agree that the 9th Circuit’s interpretation is wrong.”

The case centers around the interpretation of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

“The law states the government can detain convicted immigrants ‘when the alien is released’ from criminal detention,” according to Reuters.

“Civil rights lawyers argued that the language of the law shows that it applies only immediately after immigrants are released. The Trump administration said the government should have the power to detain such immigrants anytime,” the news outlet added.

Mony Preap, one of the lead plaintiffs in the class action suit against the government, is a lawful permanent resident who had two drug convictions, which were deportable offenses. He completed his jail time for these crimes in 2006 but was detained by federal authorities in 2013 after being released from jail for non-deportable offenses.

Justice Stephen Breyer said in the dissent — in which he was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — that the Constitution did not intend for people who have already served their sentence for crimes committed to be deprived of their liberty indefinitely.

“I would have thought that Congress meant to adhere to these values and did not intend to allow the Government to apprehend persons years after their release from prison and hold them indefinitely without a bail hearing,” he said reading his dissent from the bench, the Washington Examiner reported.

Breyer warned the “greater importance in the case lies in the power that the majority’s interpretation grants to the government.”

“It is a power to detain persons who committed a minor crime many years before. And it is a power to hold those persons, perhaps for many months, without any opportunity to obtain bail,” he said.

Cecilia Wang, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer, who argued the case for the immigrants, said, “the Supreme Court has endorsed the most extreme interpretation of immigration detention statutes, allowing mass incarceration of people without any hearing, simply because they are defending themselves against a deportation charge.”

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton applauded the decision, saying the Supreme Court upheld the rule of law.

He tweeted, “U.S. Supreme Court gives @RealDonaldTrump victory on immigration detention. Actually, court upholds rule of law on immigration in case dating back to Obama administration.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Randy DeSoto is a graduate of West Point and Regent University School of Law. He is the author of the book “We Hold These Truths” and screenwriter of the political documentary “I Want Your Money.”


A.F. Branco Cartoon – CAIR-ful

Because Jeanine Pirro had the courage criticized Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitic views, she’s been silenced by FOX News.

Judge Jeanine Silenced on FoxPolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019

Top Stories

WATCH: Beto O’Rourke on Abortions Up to Birth: “That Should be a Decision a Woman Makes, I Trust Her”
Hulu Show’s Character Says She Feels “Very F—— Powerful” After Aborting Her Baby
91 Babies Saved From Abortion During 40 Days for Life Prayer Campaign, So Far
Kentucky Judge Blocks Law Banning Abortions When Unborn Baby’s Heart Begins Beating

More Pro-Life News
Arkansas Governor Signs Bill to Ban Abortions on Unborn Babies After 18 Weeks
City Votes to Make Itself a “Sanctuary City” for Unborn Babies
Georgia Senate Committee Passes Bill Banning Abortions After Unborn Baby’s Heart Starts Beating
Beto O’Rourke Raises More Than Any Other 2020 Democrat, Supports Abortions Up to Birth

Scroll Down for Several More Pro-Life News Stories

 

WATCH: Beto O’Rourke on Abortions Up to Birth: “That Should be a Decision a Woman Makes, I Trust Her”

Former Texas congressman and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke was captured on camera at a campaign event in Cleveland responding to a question about third-trimester abortions.Click to Read at LifeNews.com


MSNBC Praises Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: “She Kept Abortion Alive”

8 Democrats Joined Republicans to Stop New Mexico From Legalizing Abortions Up to Birth

Looking for an inspiring and motivating speaker for your pro-life event? Don’t have much to spend on a high-priced speaker costing several thousand dollars? Contact news@lifenews.com about having LifeNews Editor Steven Ertelt speak at your event.

Abortion Activist Punches Pro-Lifer in the Face While He Protests Outside Abortion Clinic

Court Upholds Indiana Law Banning Sales of Aborted Baby Parts

LISTEN: Abortion Clinic Tries to Cover Up Botched Abortion “We’re an Abortion Clinic, It Will be Posted on the Internet”

Democrats Demand Right to Life for Kittens, But Block Bills to Stop Infanticide

Comments or questions? Email us at news@lifenews.com.
Copyright 2003-2019 LifeNews.com. All rights reserved.


Reported By C. Douglas Golden | Published March 15, 2019 at 8:33am

When President Trump deployed the National Guard to the border in April of last year to stop “the flow of deadly drugs and other contraband, gang members and other criminals, and illegal aliens into this country,” the reaction was similar to that of this headline from Foreign Policy: “Both Sides Are Overselling Trump’s Troop Deployment to the Border.”

Writing for Foreign Policy, Lara Seligman said that “the actual facts of the deployment do not live up to the hype from either side. The move — coming right before crucial midterms while the caravan is more than a month away from reaching the U.S. border on foot — is arguably a political ploy.”

“More important, once they arrive, the troops’ mission will be relatively benign. Since they are legally prohibited from performing domestic law enforcement, the troops will spend their time putting up razor wire and offering logistical support to border patrol agents, rather than making arrests themselves.”

However, a new report indicates that “benign” mission made a serious dent in illegal cross-border traffic.

National Guard troops helped with the arrest of 23,034 illegal immigrants and the seizure of more than 35,000 pounds of drugs in the roughly six months they were deployed to the border in fiscal 2018, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection,” the Washington Examiner reported on Tuesday.

“The more than 23,000 people arrested were ‘deportable’ noncitizens, DHS said. The operation, dubbed ‘Guardian Support,’ also led federal law enforcement to more than 6,100 people who were later turned back, the data said.”

And yes, they did all of this without apprehending anybody. It turns out that razor wire and logistical support was fairly effective.

“Troops are providing support from the air, surveillance backup, and assistance with infrastructure projects such as vegetation clearing and road maintenance, not including border wall construction. Guardsmen can also be used to free up agents to leave their desks and get back out to the field,” the Examiner reported.

“The troops monitoring remote video surveillance systems have then been able to report sightings to a greater field of agents, and thus the number of apprehensions has increased, officials have said.”

This, in other words, is far from benign.

According to Pew Research, there were almost 467,000 apprehensions at the southern border in 2018. Roughly 5 percent of apprehensions, in other words, had something to do with the National Guard. That points to a fairly effective record. So, why are certain governors withdrawing their National Guard troops from the border?

California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced that he would be withdrawing the Guard from the border with Mexico, calling “the border ‘emergency’” a “manufactured crisis.”

“California will not be part of this political theater, which is why I have given the National Guard a new mission. They will refocus on the real threats facing our state,” Newsom’s prepared remarks for his State of the State speech in February read, according to Fortune.

This was days after New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, citing a “charade of border fear-mongering,” also ordered most of the National Guardsmen to withdraw.

“I reject the federal contention that there exists an overwhelming national security crisis at the southern border,” she said, according to NPR.

Yet, the deployment of the Guard to the border during this “manufactured crisis” managed to apprehend more than 23,000 illegal immigrants in a year that saw the most apprehensions at the border since 2012 and an explosion in the number of family units apprehended.

So, are these troops benign? Or too effective? After all, the Democrats have made it clear they don’t particularly want any form of serious border security. They don’t believe there’s any sort of border crisis and don’t seem to care if illegal immigration levels are at their highest in six years.

They simply don’t care — and that’s why they don’t want the National Guard at the border. It has nothing to do with ineffectuality. Quite the opposite, actually.

For the most cynical of reasons, they want illegal immigration to continue. Whatever externalities it may cause are worth the benefits for them.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between America and Southeast Asia and believes in free speech and the Second Amendment.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: