Connect with us

Democrats

Elizabeth Warren proposes full-blown open borders, and her competitors will follow suit

Published

on

Elizabeth Warren proposes full-blown open borders and her competitors will follow suit

Joe Biden might be the frontrunner. Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg might be the upstarts. Bernie Sanders might be the grandfather of the modern Democratic-Socialist Party. But it’s the other person near the top of the Democratic nomination race who sets all the trends for policy proposals. That’s Elizabeth Warren, and her scariest non-economic proposal to date should send chills down every sovereignty-loving American’s back.

It isn’t just because she proposed it and as a chance of winning. It’s because since she’s proposing it, the other major candidates with the possible exception of Biden are going to embrace Warren’s plan with a tweak here or there so they can call it their own.

Even left-leaning Mother Jones and Trump-opposing writer Kevin Drum are calling it de facto open borders because if one were to propose a set of policies to initiate a declaration of open borders for America, it would look exactly like Warren’s plan.

Here’s what he said, briefly:

Are Democrats Now the Party of Open Borders?

This is a curious plan. As near as I can tell, it recommends no actions to improve border law enforcement in any way. There’s nothing about either a wall or a “virtual wall.” There’s nothing about E-Verify. There’s nothing about “smarter” or “more efficient” enforcement. No one will ever be deported—except, presumably, for serious felons, though Warren doesn’t even say that explicitly. Expedited removal will be ended. The Border Patrol will be reshaped from “top to bottom,” and will focus their efforts on “homeland security efforts like screening cargo, identifying counterfeit goods, and preventing smuggling and trafficking.” The whole thing is very similar to Julian Castro’s plan.

I have previously criticized Republicans who accused liberals of wanting “open borders.” President Trump tweets about this endlessly. But I have to admit that it’s hard to see much daylight between Warren’s plan and de facto open borders. As near as I can tell, CBP will be retasked away from patrolling the border looking for illegal crossings; if border officers happen to apprehend someone, they’ll be released almost immediately; if they bother to show up for their court date, they’ll have a lawyer appointed for them; and employers will have no particular reason to fear giving them a job.

The short and quite obvious answer to Drum’s headline question is, “Yep.”

For the longer answer, we have to go all the way back to the 2016 election when Sanders was trying to lay the foundation for something that seemed conspicuously like open borders. His immigration policies weren’t discussed much because his economic and healthcare plans were so radical for the time, they sucked all the progressive air out of the room. Sanders excited people with his bold discussions of fairness and hosing the rich, so much so that in the wake of his loss, the Justice Democrats were formed and progressive activists started taking over the Democratic Party.

Many of them came from Bernie’s camp. Others were brought in from the Green Party based on a promise of an environmental policy upheaval which we now know turned into the Green New Deal. What this group was able to accomplish in a little over a year was nothing short of embarrassing to all other similar movements. They succeeded where others failed miserably and were able to install Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley. Ilhan Omar would join them after the midterm elections and “The Squad” was born.

This is where Warren comes into play. She’s a capitalist turned socialist who made the change early enough that her past fiscal conservatism won’t be held against her. Nobody can doubt her progressive bonafides anymore. After a rocky start to her presidential bid, she decided to take a page or two out of the Justice Democrats’ playbook and start throwing radical proposals in the air. Magically, they stuck, and as the far-left base of the New Democratic Party saw them, these proposals were allowed to remain afloat.

Cue the rest of the field. They saw what was working for Warren and were quick to embrace the ideas.

But most of them were economic. Free school. Free healthcare. Reparations. Spend trillions on the environmental plan that’s actually an economic plan. And now, we can add open borders to the list.

What Democrats have learned recently is you don’t sell one of two ways: huge ideas that can be negotiated down to big ideas like the Green New Deal, or small ideas that, when combined, yield a result that shall not be named. Saving the environment is popular, so the Green New Deal was proposed using the first sales tactic. Open borders are not popular in name, so she’s selling it using the second principle.

If you stop securing the border, stop deportations, stop penalties for hiring illegal immigrants, decriminalize illegal border crossings, and offer a pathway to citizenship, you have open borders. Warren is too scared to name it now, but that’s exactly what it is.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

0

Democrats

Stench of impeachment must stick to Democrats in 2020

Published

on

Stench of impeachment must stick to Democrats in 2020

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has one goal. Contrary to popular belief, it’s not impeachment of the President. She’s supporting it now because she has to for various reasons ranging from a revolting left within her own caucus to acting as a smokescreen to protect Joe Biden and other Democrats (possibly including herself) who have engaged with the previous corrupt government of Ukraine. But it’s not what she wants because she knows it will fail in the end.

Her actual goal is to clear the stink of impeachment off the Democrats before the 2020 election. Yes, it’s going to stink. Thanks to the antics of Adam Schiff and others, it’s already stinking pretty badly and it hasn’t even had very much time to rot in front of American voters. She wants to get in, check off the impeachment box on her list of “accomplishments” as Speaker, and move onto the next component of obstruction that she’ll hope to ride into the 2020 election.

We cannot allow that to happen. This stink must remain firmly attached to the Democrats who support impeachment all the way through to election day next year. They need to wear impeachment like an albatross of shame around the necks, and they must not be allowed to shed it until they’re ousted from office.

This is important. The press is going to help them “move on” after it’s done. But conservatives must keep pressing it. We cannot allow it to fall off the radar as we’ve done so many times in recent elections. Benghazi should have sunk President Obama, but he was let off the hook. The Brett Kavanaugh confirmation debacle should have helped Republicans expand their control of the Senate, but it was old news a month after his confirmation just in time for the 2018 midterm elections. Time and time again, Democrats hand Republicans something that stinks, and Republicans fail to capitalize on it during elections.

If former FBI Director James Comey had let Hillary Clinton off the hook for her email scandal a month earlier than he did, she might have won the 2016 election. That’s how bad Republicans are at capitalizing on Democratic mistakes. Impeachment is such a mistake, a huge one. And if Republicans don’t handle it right, they’ll let it slip into the history books instead of letting it carry them to big gains in the House and Senate.

President Trump will be fine. He’ll capitalize on it without even trying and will use it to win his reelection. Down-ballot races must do the same. Any Republican running against a Democrat who supports impeachment should use that as the anchor that sinks the incumbent into a dark electoral pit. They should hammer this debacle until their opponents’ names are synonymous with “impeachment” among their constituents.

We must help them.

If your representative supports impeachment, make certain everyone you influence knows just how bad that really is. Today, it is allegedly popular with many. But it’s going to end up stinking very badly, and that odor must stick to Democrats like glue.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Democrats

Andrew Wilkow: Elizabeth Warren’s lack of real-world experience is why progressives love her

Published

on

Andrew Wilkow Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren is the current frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for president. I’ll admit, I never expected that to be the case until recently. I truly believed she would be in the middle of the pack before bowing out in favor of Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, or one of the other radical progressives who would take on Joe Biden. But I was wrong. She has surged into the lead and at this point, it’s her race to lose.

BlazeTV’s Andrew Wilkow explained her popularity among the progressives, and in doing so showed by I was unable to see her appeal. According to Wilkow, the difference between her and Hillary Clinton is that she’s a member of the elite academia, which progressives love. Her lack of real-world experience isn’t seen as the clear detraction that it should be. Instead, having lived in a theoretical bubble of feel-good progressive policy proposals gives her an advantage in the eyes of hyper-leftists.

In other words, she hasn’t had any real-world experience to burst her bubble, so she’s able to enact hypothetical ideas that are demonstrably bad without reality clouding her judgment. To the far-left, this makes her an ideal candidate.

How in the world is Elizabeth Warren leading in the Democratic polls? Andrew Wilkow breaks it all down for us in this eye-opening analysis for BlazeTV. She’s as detached from reality as her policy proposals, which is why the radicals adore her.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Democrats

The next demand after ‘universal’ background checks: Governmental permission to defend yourself

Published

on

By

Universal Background Checks Video

As predicted, the left is now moving on to new demands for licensing for unalienable human rights.

FreedomToons debunks the next stage in the authoritarian socialist left’s obsession with gun confiscation, the requirement for governmental permission to possess an unalienable human right. The left is never satisfied with just one incremental imposition on our freedom. They see their campaign to destroy liberty as a multi-step process.

‘Universal’ background checks place the government in control of private property, something the founding fathers would find to be abhorrent. Having to obtain governmental permission to buy, sell or transfer private property means the government is asserting control over that property, to record who has that property, tax it when they see fit or even deny said transfers. This is why the national socialist left obsesses over this step towards gun confiscation.

Registration/licensing is the next step on this journey, formally placing the government in control of an unalienable human right.

‘Universal’ background checks change the essential relationship of government having the consent of the people, to that of the people needing to obtain the consent of the government in exercising their unalienable human rights. Make no mistake, these kinds of tyrannical moves only begin with the right of self-preservation. Soon enough, they morph into requirements for other freedoms.

Registration is confiscation.

Placing the government in control of an unalienable human right means that permission can be withdrawn at any moment. We have already proven that registration/licensing is confiscation with the only distinction being were the guns are stored until they are destroyed.

Licensing/registration schemes for basic civil rights means that the government can simply revoke it’s permission on a whim and demand that the people surrender their guns as has happened down through history. Our second video will make that point clear.

While they will promise that each new restriction on freedom will miraculously solve the problem, these are but mere steps to their ultimate goal of gun confiscation. As we already predicted, the demand for ‘universal’ background checks will quickly morph into demands for self-defense licensing. A requirement that everyone obtain permission from the government in order to exercise the basic human right of self-preservation. Never mind that setting up the government to be in control of it’s own constraints makes no sense.

Does the left really want to place the government in control of our civil liberties?

We would have riots in the newsrooms of the New York Times if freedom of the press depended upon governmental permission. The precepts of the Bill of Rights are constraints on the government, they don’t exist if they depend upon it’s permission. The right to privacy or due process, won’t exist if the powers that be control their implementation. But somehow the authoritarian socialist left doesn’t seem to have a problem with this issue when applied to guns. It’s that special exception that everyone misses in the founding documents that says that these are unalienable human rights, but only if kids aren’t crying on the tele.

Please note that the 2nd amendment only affirms a pre-existing right:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[Emphasis added]

Note that says the people, not militia and that this pre-existing right shall not be infringed. This was meant as a bulwark against tyranny, it doesn’t make any sense to have this control against tyranny in the hands of the government.

Sometimes, it’s just too easy to predict the actions of the authoritarian socialist left.

It was only back in August that we predicted that if the Republicans and President Trump knuckled under to the liberty grabber leftists, that they would be back with new demands for licensing/registration requirements on our inalienable human rights.

In the case of the original video from VOX, published in September, they are getting ahead of themselves with new demands even before their old obsessions were fulfilled. Apparently the left is so obsessed with gun confiscation, they couldn’t wait to make this new demand for the restriction of liberty.

The authoritarian left wants to restrict liberty based on what might happen.

One almost has to admire the chutzpah of the authors of the original production in talking about restricting the liberty of people based on future actions. Part of their ‘logic’ being that a long arduous licensing process would catch or deter someone who is ‘in crisis’ [whatever that means] before they might do something ‘bad’.

Again, it’s easy to predict where this will go from here, since it’s just a minor leap in logic to decide to preclude any future actions with the final solution of gun confiscation.

Registration, Confiscation, Annihilation.

Our second video proves the point that licensing/registration is virtually confiscation. It is a first hand account of what happens when people forget that the common sense human right of self-defense is a restraint on the government.

We also had gun control. The government said that children were playing with guns and we had hunting accidents. People accidentally shooting each other and we had criminals again murderers. The only way that they could track the murderer was by the serial number of the gun so bring us your gun to the police station then we can register the serial number and we can track the criminal.

Not long afterwards they said, no it did not help we could not track all the criminals the best way to have no more crimes and no more people getting hurt. Bring your guns to the police station and they already know who had guns because we registered our guns.

[Emphasis added]

The Bottom-line.

Everyone should be able to see why the national socialist left obsesses over ‘universal’ background checks, a critical step to gun confiscation. The ‘big picture’ on all of this should make it clear why the left is double-dealing on demanding gun confiscation while denying they are demanding gun confiscation.

They need to determine gun ownership with ‘universal’ background checks. This is followed by virtual gun confiscation with licensing/registration schemes. From there it’s just a matter of calling in the guns at the appropriate time, most likely after another mass murder tragedy since these requirements never solve the problem of societal violence.

This is why more people are answering NO or we will not comply to the demands of the left in destroying our liberty. The original VOX video proves than ‘universal’ background checks won’t ever be enough. Virtual gun confiscation with licensing/registration won’t be enough for the liberty grabbers. For the national socialist left, gun confiscation will always be the final solution to the liberty problem.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending