|Click on this logo to make a call to the Strongsville GOP hotline. Google Voice will call you back at the number you enter and will connect you with us. Or, call us direct at 440-794-1GOP.|
Lawyers for Juan Manuel Montes, the 23 year-old DACA recipient deported by the Department of Homeland Security, say they have full faith in their client's story. But in a conference call with reporters Thursday, Montes' legal team — he is suing DHS for documents relating to his case — did not provide evidence to corroborate Montes' claim that Border Patrol agents picked him up for no reason in Calexico, Calif., on Feb. 17 and summarily deported him.
For two weeks, the White House has unleashed a foreign-policy blitzkrieg, and Washington’s chattering classes are shocked and, if not awed, at least perplexed. CNN calls Trump’s actions a “u-turn.” Bloomberg opts for the more mathematical “180 degree turn,” while the Washington Post goes with “flipflop.” Meanwhile, pundits switched from decrying the president as an isolationist to lambasting him as a tool of the neocons. Amid all the relabeling, explanations of an “emerging Trump Doctrine” have proliferated faster than North...
Trump’s budget director Mick Mulvaney told Bloomberg Friday that the administration offered Democrats a trade on Obamacare in order to begin construction on the famed border wall.
The White House is offering Democrats a dollar-for-dollar deal to fund Obamacare subsidies and the border wall in the upcoming spending bill, according to budget director Mick Mulvaney, but Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer shot it down, with snark.
Mulvaney told Bloomberg Live on Friday that White House officials have told Democrats they’re willing to fund $1 in Obamacare subsidies for every $1 that’s provided for the border wall as both parties look to avert a government shutdown next Friday.
But rather than take the deal, a spokesman for Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) made a response mocking Trump’s motto often repeated on the campaign trail that Mexico was to pay for the wall.
According to Politico he told them that Democrats thought Trump was going to make Mexico pay. He offered a statement about the deal offered by the Trump administration.
“The White House gambit to hold hostage health care for millions of Americans,” he said, “in order to force American taxpayers to foot the bill for a wall that the president said would be paid for by Mexico is a complete nonstarter. If the administration would drop their eleventh-hour demand for a wall that Democrats, and a good number of Republicans, oppose, congressional leaders could quickly reach a deal.”
Trump’s promise to build the border wall has hit its own wall after some Republicans have objected to the cost, which has been estimated to run from $10 billion to as much as $70 billion, depending on the final design chosen.
“We’ve finally boiled this negotiation down to something that we want very badly that the Democrats really don’t like,” Mulvaney explained, “and that’s the border wall. At the same time, there’s something they want very badly, that we don’t want very much, which are these cost-sharing reductions, Obamacare payments.”
Mulvaney explained that they expected the Democrats to come back with a counter-offer, but if they don’t, that it would be a bad sign for what they can expect in bipartisanship going forward.
Illegal border crossings, meanwhile, have dropped precipitously to their lowest point in 17 years, and Trump’s tough rhetoric on deportation is being credited.
Newt Gingrich criticized the system that allowed a terrorist attack in France on Thursday that took the life of a police officer. He made the comments Friday on Outnumbered on Fox News.
“There are a couple of quick observations,” Newt began. “First, France has very strict gun laws, except for terrorists, who seem to always be able to get guns.
“Second, this guy shot policemen in 2001,” he continued, “so to say he was radicalized, he was shooting people before he went to prison.”
“And third,” Gingrich added, “the idea of a watchlist may turn out to be something we all have to give up on. If you’re on a watchlist, you’re dangerous, and if you’re dangerous why are you out on your won.”
“I think we may have to rethink the whole way we approach this,” he concluded. “If we want dramatically higher safety I mean, what we get today is a sloppy system, every once in a while something terrible happens, everybody feels bad for two weeks, and then we go back to business as usual.”
President Trump predicted that the attack would make a big difference in the upcoming election in France where the populist Maine Le Pen is second in the polls currently, but will likely see her chances improve because of her anti-refugee rhetoric.
— Fox News (@FoxNews) April 21, 2017
“The question is not, ‘are you willing to accept immigration,'” Newt continued. “The question is, ‘are you willing to accept immigrants who refuse to join your country.’ And part of this is brought on by the Europeans themselves. They were quite comfortable putting immigrants from Morocco and Algeria and elsewhere off into these little suburban places, turning them into isolated bungalows. And now they’re discovering that that doesn’t work.”
“And I think the real debate has to be, if somebody comes to your country, do they have an obligation to assimilate into your society. Or are they allowed to be off on their own. And I think that’s going to be a very major debate.”
Gingrich was a stalwart supporter of Donald Trump since the primary campaign, though he has criticized him on occasion. In November Gingrich said that Trump was done with “draining the swamp,” but he later retracted the comments and apologized when people took notice of his comments.
Coincidentally she’s also the preferred candidate of Vladimir Putin, who correctly sees in her victory not just the end of the European Union but potentially the end of NATO. His bet on Trump during the campaign hasn’t paid off for him (so far). A bet on Le Pen, replete with interference on her behalf, is a surer thing.
Trump was careful today to say he’s not formally endorsing her, knowing how that would irritate the French establishment and potentially some undecided French voters, but this is an endorsement in everything but name.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Trump said that while he is not explicitly endorsing Le Pen, the [Paris] attack [yesterday] played to her strengths.
“She’s the strongest on borders, and she’s the strongest on what’s been going on in France,” Trump said in the Oval Office interview. “Whoever is the toughest on radical Islamic terrorism, and whoever is the toughest at the borders, will do well in the election.”…
U.S. presidents typically avoid weighing in on specific candidates running in overseas election. But Trump suggested his opinion was no different from an average observer, saying, “Everybody is making predictions on who is going to win. I’m no different than you.”
I’m pretty sure his opinion counts differently than an AP reporter’s, especially when it’s published two days before the French vote. Anyway, for all of the hype lately about Steve Bannon being marginalized in the White House, this is a solid victory for him. Bannon is a Le Pen admirer and has been candid about wanting to see the nationalist tide in the U.S. and UK sweep across Europe. It’s been rough sledding lately, though, with the poor performance of Geert Wilders’s party in the Dutch elections last month and the decline of the AfD in Germany, which has been tanking in recent polls. By back-patting the National Front, Trump’s giving his nationalist base a boost and clawing back some of the credibility he’s lost with them over the last few weeks as Kushner and Cohn have nudged Bannon aside for influence.
At a minimum, nationalists want Le Pen in the top two on Sunday, which will advance her to the national runoff in two weeks. The worst-case scenario for them is that she misses the cut; the best-case is that she faces off with communist Jean-Luc Melenchon, another Putin admirer whose radicalism might push centrists into Le Pen’s camp and make her president. If her opponent is either of the two centrist candidates, Emmanuel Macron or Francois Fillon, she’s expected to lose but stands a chance. So who’s the favorite? Errrrrr, no one knows. The polls have been absurdly even for weeks, with Macron and Le Pen around 22-23 percent apiece and Fillion and Melenchon a few points back in the 19-20 range. Given the margin of error, any two of the four could end up in the runoff. On top of that, data nerds suspect that French pollsters are “herding” their results, i.e. fiddling with their assumptions to make their numbers more closely resemble their competitors’ because they’re worried about publishing data that looks like an outlier. Put all of that together and there’s no telling, really, who’s winning. PredictWise currently has Macron as a 56 percent favorite to become president with Le Pen next at 20 percent, but why they have any faith in the polling under the circumstances, I have no idea.
Another question: What effect might Trump’s quasi-endorsement have on Le Pen’s chances? Nationalists there may be cheered by support from nationalists here, just as the reverse is true, but what about the wider French electorate? A poll taken early last October, about a month before the U.S. voted, found that 86 percent of French citizens wanted Clinton to win versus 11 percent who preferred Trump. A few weeks later, a YouGov poll put the split at 62/9, with five percent saying they thought Trump would be a “good” or “great” president and 69 percent saying he’d be “poor” or “terrible.” There’s serious backlash potential to his warm words for Le Pen — if the French get to hear about it. By law, French media is required to black out election news beginning at midnight tonight until the votes are counted on Sunday. Apparently Trump’s words are already being reported on some French news sites, but not everyone may find out before the first round of voting. Then again, hadn’t all interested parties already guessed which way he’s leaning? And if you’re a French voter, would that matter to you more than, say, who’ll best handle terrorism after Thursday’s Paris attack?
Here’s a gassy little video fart that Macron, the centrist independent, posted to Twitter yesterday. Looks like we’ve got ourselves an honest-to-goodness proxy war between the current and former U.S. administrations. As of last June, 84 percent of French citizens said they had confidence in Obama to do the right thing in world affairs.
— Emmanuel Macron (@EmmanuelMacron) April 20, 2017
The post Trump quasi-endorses Le Pen: “She’s the strongest on what’s been going on in France” appeared first on Hot Air.
The best catch of 2017 doesn’t belong to a Major League Baseball star outfielder. It didn’t get made by Julian Edelman or Julio Jones in this year’s Super Bowl. We’ll kick off the weekend (so to speak) with this video, courtesy of ABC News, of a life-saving catch made by Robert Sutton — a firefighter from DeKalb County, Georgia, who caught a baby dropped from a window of a building on fire:
— ABC News (@ABC) April 21, 2017
“It’s a term that firefighters and officers alike don’t hold onto or acknowledge, but it was heroic,” said Captain Eric Jackson, the department’s public information officer. “For a firefighter to be where he was and be keenly aware … when the gentleman dropped the baby, he dropped him right into his arms.” …
Sutton, a 10-year veteran with the department, has been “very humble” since the incident, Burrell said about his colleague.
“He deflected a lot of the credit to being in the right place at the right time and the good work to his crew,” he said. “He just happened to be the one standing there when the gentlemen found himself at the window. As a father of two children himself, I think anybody can understand that if that opportunity occurred, he could see himself in that man’s shoes.”
Firefighters eventually got the whole family out of the structure, but at the time the child’s father had his escape route cut off by the fire. As a contractor videotaped the incident from across the street, the father came to the window with the baby, and Sutton helped the father save the child.
It’s a good reminder of how hard first responders work all over the country to protect life and property. We trust them as much as this father did under heartbreaking pressure, and they come through for us in almost every circumstance — spectacularly, in this case. Kudos to Mr. Sutton, and let’s hope this one makes lots of highlight reels.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) told a townhall that she was doing her “homework” on impeaching President Trump. She made the comments Wednesday in Hilo, Hawaii.
“On issue of impeachment, I am doing my homework,” she told the crowd, but offered a caveat given what would happen if the proceedings were successful in ousting Trump from the Oval Office.
“I am studying more about the impeachment process. I will just say I understand the calls for impeachment, but what I am being cautious about and what I give you food for thought about is that if President Trump is impeached, the problems don’t go away, because then you have a Vice President Pence who becomes President Pence.”
Gabbard hardly the first Democrat to call for Trump’s impeachment, even though he’s just barely hit the 100 day mark in his term. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) led a chant at a rally calling for the impeachment of Trump, although she appeared to deny later that she had ever done such a thing.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi disagreed with her colleagues in February, however, saying that there was no reason to impeach President Trump. Other Democrat leaders have tried to mollify activists who vehemently demand impeachment as quickly as possible.
Ironically, the week before the election, a very confident President Obama mocked Republicans for already calling for Hillary’s impeachment, saying, “she hasn’t even been elected yet!”
Gabbard had made headlines for first visiting President Bashar al-Assad in war-torn Syria, and for questioning the seeming consensus that Assad planned and implemented the horrible chemical attack on his own people.
Thursday night, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow made the claim that the current civil unrest happening in the socialist country of Venezuela is a product of donations given to President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign.
Maddow began her report by discussing a Mic.com article about National Security Officials, along with Trump’s Chief of Staff Steve Bannon meeting with businessmen with ties to Trump’s family in order lift sanctions on Venezuela. These sanctions were put in place by the previous administration in 2014 after 43 protesters were killed in a government crackdown.
Not long after this meeting occurred, Venezuela’s state run oil company donated $500,000 to Trump’s campaign. Maddow discusses Venezuela’s unrest, with footage of rioters and protesters fighting and marching on the streets, with the caption “unrest in Venezuela over Trump donations” displayed at the bottom.
“There have been weeks and weeks and weeks of rioting and violent protests,” says Maddow. “And now today, Venezuelans are enraged anew by this brand new FEC filing from the White House, which shows … while Venezuelans have been rioting in the streets, while there have been acute food shortages and medicine shortages in Venezuela.”
As Maddow continues, she does not mention the government’s socialist policies, and overreaching regulations that have lead to much of the country’s shortages of everything from food to medicine. Nor does Maddow mention the government’s seizure of businesses, including a GM car plant, that were forced to halt operations, costing thousands of jobs.
“This is a country that should be a rich country, but people have literally been starving in Venezuela,” she continued. “Somehow in the midst of this incredible economic and political crisis in Venezuela, Venezuela’s state-run oil company somewhere found a half-million dollars to donate to the very, very, very inexplicably over-funded Trump inauguration.”
MSNBC has since done away with the caption on Maddow’s website, however many copies of the video remain on YouTube. Much like this one.
Didn’t Barack Obama brag about this three months ago, calling himself “the father of the Tea Party“? Not exactly, as DNC deputy chair Keith Ellison explains in this exchange on a panel at the University of Minnesota. Ellison argues that Obama failed to rebuild the party’s ground apparatus after his two presidential elections, and that this failure has put his “wonderful achievements” at risk. The truth, however, lies somewhere in between:
“Look I’m a great fan of President Obama. I totally voted for many of the things he supported — Dodd Frank, Affordable Care Act, Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act — I could keep going,” Ellison said at an event Wednesday at the University of Minnesota.
“Wonderful achievements. But Barack Obama could have been a better party leader, and I think the fact that he wasn’t put his legacy in jeopardy,” he said.
Ellison added that Obama was “great at getting himself elected” but said he should have worked closer with party leaders to ensure the Democrats were in power to protect his accomplishments.
“Your legacy is not a building that he’s going to construct in Chicago housing his presidential papers,” Ellison continued. “His legacy is the work he’s done, which I believe is tremendous. But given we lost a lot of statehouse seats, governorships, secretary of states, his true legacy is in danger, and I think he can’t say that he wasn’t part of those losses. Who else, right?”
First, there is some truth to Ellison’s allegations about Obama’s lack of party-building, which is ironic considering his status as the country’s most famous “community organizer.” Obama built unprecedented campaign organizations, both in size and innovation, for his 2008 and 2012 elections, about which I wrote in Going Red. However, at the end of both cycles, Obama held onto the organization and the people within them for his Organizing for America/Action activist efforts to support his agenda. Significant resources had been taken from Democratic Party infrastructure to build Obama’s campaigns and groups, and that sapped their ability to work on the ground. In that sense, Ellison’s correct.
However, Ellison also argues that Obama’s “tremendous” work has nothing to do with the losses the party has suffered on all levels, and that’s simply not true. It was that agenda, those “accomplishments” for which Ellison voted and the sharp left turn they represented, that created a vacuum that the Tea Party and right-leaning populism filled. The problem in 2010 wasn’t a lack of Democratic resources, but the radical nature of their legislative agenda the previous two years and the contrast it made from Obama’s promise to be a “post-partisan,” middle-of-the-road president.
The acid test of this came last year, which Ellison somehow manages to avoid in this calculation. Hillary Clinton raised a lot more money, and ran against a candidate who was more disliked than liked during the entire political cycle. And yet, not only did she lose, Democrats failed to win back control of the Senate despite overwhelming odds in their favor, and barely dented the Republican majority in the House. The GOP under Reince Priebus did a much better job of organizing than in 2008 and 2012 to be sure (also covered in Going Red), but Democrats had plenty of resources with which to compete. And yet voters at all levels rejected the candidate who promised continuity with Obama’s “tremendous” work, and sided with the party committed to dismantling it.
So yes, Obama’s to blame for the Democratic Party’s standing — but so are all the Democrats who think that Obama’s work is widely embraced outside their coastal and academic bubbles, and who are doubling down on it after losing the last election.
The post Deputy DNC chair: Obama’s to blame for the state of the party appeared first on Hot Air.
To cleanse the palate, you would think a character as vivid as Trump would have inspired all sorts of A+ impressions during the 35 years that he’s been famous. Not so. He’s surprisingly hard to mimic. Most impressions check off the basic elements — squint, pout, slight rasp, vaguely New York-ish accent — and count on the wig and tie to carry them the rest of the way. It’s easy for people to recognize that you’re trying to mimic Trump even when you’re mimicking Trump badly, which is the secret to Alec Baldwin’s “success” on SNL. He’s a famous actor on a famous show impersonating a very, very famous man, and so Trump-haters enjoy it even though the impression is objectively weak. Click that last link and take it in…
…and then watch Anthony Atamanuik. American television doesn’t much care for impressionists; you need to be awfully, awfully good to land your own show for doing one. He’s awfully, awfully good, especially in the promo below. All the cadences and, importantly, the hand gestures are right. He’s paid attention to the facial expressions. And he’s nearly perfect on Trump’s accent, which eludes most impressionists. You’ll see him slip up periodically in the Tax Day video when his voice rises to a sort of manic shrillness, which Trump’s never does, but that’s just comic license in front of a crowd to push the impression into absurdity, I think, not a sincere attempt at impersonation. This guy will end up with a standing invitation to play the White House Correspondents Dinner every year, I’m sure.
Last week supporters of President Donald Trump clashed with members of the leftist group known as Antifa (short for anti-fascist) in Berkeley California. The meeting of the two groups soon erupted in violence, with Antifa using mace, M80’s, and various other weapons to attack Trump supporters.
According to Rebel Media’s Lauren Southern, Trump supporters were told by police not to bring any weapons, as police would protect them. Upon Anitfa’s arrival, the police retreated, leaving the Trump supporters to utilize whatever weapons they could get their hands on. Regardless, the Trump supporters routed Antifa after one of their members threw a smoke bomb, not realizing the wind was blowing in Antifa’s direction.
This loss prompted Antifa members to begin discussion about how they could better prepare themselves for future skirmishes against Trump supporters.
In the subreddit r/anarchism, one Anitfa member acknowledged the loss, and suggested that members find a way to become “better organized and better trained.” Another member agreed, saying that too many of their “comrades” went into battle “no combat training,” and suggested they start “seminars or something of that sort.”
This conversation continued, with suggestions for better equipment such as helmets and padding over the typical hoodie and facemask being worn. Another person on this r/anarchism thread suggested they rally behind a leader who can organize and direct actions. The conversation soon turned to weapons, however, and one member in particular suggested they bring firearms.
Not getting disarmed is a big part of the problem, yes, but we need more than flags and bats. We need to take notes from the John Brown Gun Club and get firearms and training. I know getting firearms in states and cities we have a presence in is usually a hassle, but even handguns would help. It would certainly put a psychological element in while holding fash back. Who do you think a fascist is more afraid of? People with only flags and bats, or people with flags, bats, and guns?”
Antifa is known for their willingness to use violence and intimidation to silence political, and ideological opponents. An Antifa chapter at Clemson University, known as “Upstate Antifa” have made an effort to justify the violence and destruction committed against what they loosely base as “Nazis” and “fascists.”
Recently, Antifa members inadvertently turned on one of their own after his mask was forcibly removed, spraying him with pepper spray, and hitting him with a skateboard as they retreated from pro-Trump marchers.
Another instance of violence occurred while Trump supporters and Antifa were engaging in trash talk. One of Antifa’s members used a bike lock to strike a Trump supporter in the head without warning, causing him to bleed a good deal from his scalp.
CNN reported that sources confirmed to them that Russian intelligence had tried to recruit Trump aides like Carter Page to infiltrate the campaign before the election. Pamela Brown spoke about the story to Wolf Blitzer on The Situation Room Friday.
“We have learned the FBI gathered intelligence last summer suggesting Russian operatives tried to use Trump advisors including Carter Page to infiltrate the Trump campaign,” Brown reported. “This is according to several U.S. officials. Now Carter Page’s critical speech of U.S. policy against Russia in July 2016 in a prominent Moscow university is part of what raised concerns in the bureau that he may have been compromised by Russian intelligence.”
“But this new information adds to the emerging picture of how the Russians tried to meddle and influence the 2016 U.S. election,” she continued, “not only through email hacks and propaganda, sometimes referred to as ‘fake news,’ but also by trying to infiltrate the Trump orbit. And the intelligence led to an FBI investigation into the coordination of Trump’s campaign associates and the Russians that the FBI has acknowledged in a public hearing on Capitol Hill.
Page was recently identified as the target of a FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) warrant for monitoring because of actions he took that made intelligence officials suspicious that he might be colluding with the Russians.
Trump had said Page was one of his foreign policy advisors during the presidential election, but he later left the campaign. Trump and his allies took the monitoring revelation as evidence proving his claim that former President Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower.
“The officials we spoke to made clear,” Brown added, “that they don’t know whether Page was aware the Russians may have been using him as well as the other advisors because of the way that Russian spy services operate. Page could have unknowingly talked with Russian agents.”
— The Situation Room (@CNNSitRoom) April 21, 2017
Page denied that he had any meeting with Russian officials for the sake of colluding on behalf of the Trump campaign. “My assumption throughout the last 26 years I’ve been going there has always been that any Russian person might share information with the Russian government,” he said, “as I have similarly done with the CIA, the FBI and other government agencies in the past.”
CNN described the actions Page took that appeared suspicious enough to put him under monitoring:
His trip to Russia in July 2016 revived the FBI’s interest, when he delivered a lecture at a graduation ceremony for the New Economic School. The university opened after the fall of the Soviet Union and is ranked as one of the best universities for economics in Russia. Former President Barack Obama gave a speech there during his first official trip to Russia in 2009.
But Page’s lecture sounded different than what would be expected from most Americans. He parroted Kremlin talking points by chastising the West for prolonging “Cold War tendencies.”
“Ironically, Washington and other Western capitals have impeded potential progress through their often hypocritical focus on democratization, inequality, corruption and regime change,” he said, adding that US foreign policy toward Russia was “condescending” and “hostile.”
Carter Page has said that he’s going to sue the government for infringing on his privacy rights.
Transgender and LGBT issues should be taught in nursery school to children as young as 2, according to a British teacher’s union, the Telegraph reported.
“It is important for a modern forward-thinking society to understand and embrace differences within our communities,” National Union of Teachers General Secretary Kevin Courtney told the paper, which is published in London
More from the Telegraph:
Currently only council-controlled secondary schools are required to teach children about sex in biology classes. But there is no such requirement on academies or free schools which make up the majority of secondary schools in England.
But teachers passed a motion which called on members to “campaign to ensure a comprehensive age-appropriate content including promotion of LGBT+ matters for all schools from nursery throughout all phases of state education.”
The group Christian Concern took issue with this development — and said so on the home page of its website.
“Education can shape a generation. Currently, there is pressure on schools from lobby groups and some [members of Parliament] to promote homosexuality and impose inappropriate sex education on younger children,” Christian Concern noted.
“There are also attempts to remove the freedom that parents currently have to withdraw their children from sex education. At Christian Concern, we believe that ultimate responsibility for educating children lies with the parents, not the State,” the group said. “We campaign for parental freedoms and education that reflects Biblical values.”
Andrea Williams, chief executive at Christian Concern, told the Telegraph that teaching sex and relationship education to children that young would be “devastating” and risks “robbing them of their innocence.”
“Sexuality is not an issue for toddlers,” Williams said, according to Christian Concern.
“The more paper tigers we create, the more confused our children will become,” she said. “When will common sense prevail?”
Laura Perins, co-editor of the Conservative Woman website, also criticized the initiative, Christian Concern noted.
“It seems nothing is off-limits for adult bullies who want to use young children as a tool in their misguided agenda,” Perins said in a statement, the group said.
Via Heat Street. I’m gonna guess her defense will be that, yes, the headline “UNREST IN VENEZUELA OVER TRUMP DONATIONS” may have misled viewers about the true cause of this week’s demonstrations — demanding new elections amid the country’s Chavismo-caused economic collapse — but Maddow herself didn’t say anything wrong. She acknowledged the country’s political and economic crisis. Her point is that it’s inappropriate for a state-run oil company to be donating big bucks to Trump’s inauguration when Venezuelans are starving in the streets and that people there are undoubtedly pissed off about it. But as for the cause and effect between that and “unrest,” it’s the damn chyron-writer who screwed up.
Judge for yourself. The relevant part begins at around 3:50 but the key line comes at 5:48 over scenes of crowds being tear-gassed during the protests: “And now today Venezuelans are enraged anew by this brand new FEC filing from the White House.” Hearing that and watching those images, if you were a dimwit member of the “Resistance,” you’d conclude that anger over the donations had driven people back out into the streets and that Venezuela was now melting down “anew” over the White House’s petty greed. That’s motivated reasoning at work: If you’re watching this show, chances are you want to believe that Trump is the cause of all the world’s problems, especially when the alternative is blaming Venezuela’s socialist leader. So here’s Maddow giving you reason to do so.
Maduro warned a few days ago that he’s planning to arm up to 400,000 Chavista militiamen with rifles to “restore order” or whatever Orwellian euphemism he’s using for what comes next. Hopefully Maddow can find a Steve Bannon or Carter Page angle somewhere in there to give her a reason to cover it.
The post Maddow’s show on massive anti-Maduro protests: “Unrest in Venezuela over Trump donations” appeared first on Hot Air.
President Donald Trump said Friday that “Dreamers,” illegal immigrants who have benefitted from former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, should “rest easy” about his administration’s approach to immigration reform.
In an interview with The Associated Press, the president said the White House is “not after the dreamers, we are after the criminals.”
“That is our policy,” Trump said.
The topic came up as the Trump administration faces a lawsuit from a 23-year-old “Dreamer” who was recently deported to Mexico despite the fact that DACA granted him protected status until 2018.
While Trump has been telegraphing this shifting position on “Dreamers” since he assumed the presidency, he sang an entirely different tune when he was candidate Trump.
When he first announced his presidential campaign in June 2015, Trump promised to “immediately terminate President [Barack] Obama’s illegal executive order on immigration.” One of those executive orders was the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which Obama signed in June 2012.
Trump doubled down on that during an August 2016 speech on immigration, telling supporters: “We will immediately terminate President Obama’s two illegal executive amnesties, in which he defied federal law and the Constitution to give amnesty to approximately 5 million illegal immigrants.”
But on Jan. 18, just two days before becoming president, Trump began softening his position. When asked by Fox News’ “Fox and Friends” host Ainsley Earhardt how he plans to address immigration issues, he told her his plan would have “a lot of heart,” adding that being a “Dreamer” is a “very tough situation.”
“But I think they’re going to end up being very happy,” he told Earhardt. “We’re going to have great people coming into our country, people that love our country.”
Then in February, when he held an extremely contentious news conference from the White House, Trump described DACA as “a very, very difficult subject for me.”
Here’s what he told reporters at the time:
DACA is a very, very difficult subject for me. … You have these incredible kids, in many cases not in all cases. In some of the cases they’re having DACA and they’re gang members and they’re drug dealers too. … I have to deal with a lot of politicians — don’t forget — and I have to convince them that what I’m saying is right. And I appreciate your understanding on that. The DACA situation is a very difficult thing for me as I love these kids, I love kids, I have kids and grand kids and I find it very, very hard doing what the law says exactly to do and, you know, the law is rough. It’s rough, very very rough.
And in March, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly tried to ease concerns some Democrats have about DACA. He reportedly told them, “I’m the best thing that happened to DACA. … It is still on the books.”
But as for the situation regarding Juan Manuel Montes, the deported “Dreamer,” Trump said that case is “a little different than the Dreamer case,” the AP reported. The president didn’t offer any explanation for that conclusion.
According to Politico’s report, Montes lost his DACA status because he left the U.S. without seeking prior approval, which is a violation of the terms of the program.
Regardless of what happens with DACA, though, the president seems committed to his plan to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border — another one of Trump’s long-held promises. Kelly, standing alongside Attorney General Jeff Sessions, told Fox News on Thursday that construction of the perimeter could begin as soon as this summer.
“I think by late spring, early summer, we’ll have some prototypes and then we’ll be able to move forward by into the summer,” he said. “We’re going to get at it as quick as we can.”
Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget, told the AP that Congress’ spending bill, which is facing an April 28 deadline in order to avert a government shutdown, must include funding for the border wall.
He said “elections have consequences” and that “we want wall funding” as part of the spending package. That hard-line position will surely cause headaches for lawmakers seeking to sidestep a shutdown at the end of the month.
“We want wall funding. We want [immigration] agents. Those are our priorities,” Mulvaney said. “We know there are a lot of people on the Hill, especially in the Democratic Party, who don’t like the wall, but they lost the election.
“The president should, I think, at least have the opportunity to fund one of his highest priorities in the first funding bill under his administration,” he continued.
On the campaign trail, it should be noted, Trump consistently and vehemently promised Mexico would pay for the border wall.