Democrat

Border Patrol Chief Thoroughly Debunks A.O.C.'s lies

Border Patrol Chief Thoroughly Debunks AOC's Lies

Border Patrol Chief Thoroughly Debunks AOC's Lies

Oregon House Democrats declare for open borders

The Oregon House Democrats have now put it on record that they want completely open borders in the U.S.

Read the full news release here.  It includes these statements:

From Rep. Diego Hernandez:  “Here in Oregon, we believe in building an inclusive and welcoming state for everyone.”

 EVERYONE?  There are millions of aspiring migrants all over the world who would like to come and settle here.  Millions are already trying to sneak across the borders.

From Rep. Teresa Alonso Leon:   “We refuse to allow our community to continue living with this crippling fear and anxiety— we will continue to uphold our values of self-determination and resilience despite these intimidating threats and constant attacks by ICE. Oregon House Democrats will do everything in our power to push back against the Trump Administration’s politically motivated and inhumane practices in our state.”

There would not be “CRIPPLING FEAR AND ANXIETY” among illegal aliens if they had arrived here legally.  Apparently, the Representative thinks immigration laws should not exist and that anyone in the world is entitled to ignore them.

The official statement of the House Democratic Caucus: 

“We as House Democrats stand strong in our commitment to our values of equity and inclusion. We are proud of Oregon’s status as a sanctuary state, and it is something that we have fought to protect through legislation and at the ballot box over the years. We need to ensure local resources are protected and not diverted for an inhumane political agenda. This is not the Oregon Way.

“The Oregon House Democrats stand in solidarity with our immigrant neighbors. We must ensure all Oregonians are treated fairly, regardless of where they were born. We are committed to protecting our values as an inclusive state.”

This is a clear announcement of purpose: to trash federal laws limiting immigration, and set up completely open borders. 

Is Oregon ready to secede from the U.S.?

Do these Democrats ever want any kind of limits on immigration?

The Spring Primary election is coming up soon.  There will be opportunities to support candidates for the Legislature who care about the best interests of citizens and the future viability of our nation.  Watch this website which is compiling information on positions of candidates:  https://oregonabigailadams.wordpress.com/2020-primary-election/. The site has issued a questionnaire including questions on immigration issues, for candidates to return.  Quite a few candidates have already provided Answers.  You can scroll down the list to see which candidates have responded.

Know before you vote - ask the candidates specific questions and ask them to post their views on their campaign website, too.

When you find candidates who share your views, HELP THEM in any way you can.

How Democrats flip off US workers in favor of foreigners

The Democratic party has come a long way since the days of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman.  No longer are Democrats protectors of citizen workers against greedy, exploitative employers.  Today Democrats fall in line obediently when globalist billionaires tell them what to do.

Our present situation couldn’t be made plainer than in the recent vote on H.R. 1044, the mendaciously labeled “Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act.”   It should be called the “Cheap labor for global businesses, Get lost U.S. citizens Act.”

224 House Democrats voted for H.B. 1044 on July 10, 2019, and only 8 voted against it.  Among Republicans, 140 voted Yea and 57 Nay.  Most House Republicans are certainly not heroes either, but many more R’s than D’s do respect their duty to protect the safety and well-being of U.S. citizens first and foremost.

All of Oregon’s Representatives voted Aye to expanding the employment of foreign workers and giving them an advantage over citizen workers – Reps. Blumenauer, Bonamici, DeFazio, Schrader, Walden.

This article from  the Center for Immigration Studies explains the ill effects of H.R.1044 very well: Fact Sheet on HR 1044, Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act.

The bill will still have to go to the Senate, where there’s a chance, small perhaps, that it may not pass.

President Trump’s position on the bill is unknown.  He seems to be receiving advice both from business-above-all lobbyists as well as from patriotic spokespersons who care about U.S. citizens and the future of our country.  He can be contacted at the White House here.  You can contact your Oregon Senators, Wyden here, and Merkley here.    

 

The importance of the Electoral College

Oregon Governor Signs Bill Granting State’s Electoral Votes to National Popular Vote Winner, D.C. Clothesline, June 20, 2019:

Fifteen states in total have jumped on the bandwagon to grant their state’s electoral college votes to  the winner of the national popular vote, in an attempt to try and elect a candidate from their own party.  Oregon Governor Kate Brown has now made her state the fifteenth to join the National Popular State Compact....

The Electoral College is established by Article II of the United States Constitution. It is important to understand why Democrats want to abolish the electoral college, as discussed below.

From the article Abolish the electoral college? Dream on, Democrats, The Washington Post, November 16, 2016:

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), as she has before, introduced a bill this week to get rid of the electoral college. In the below post from the wee hours of the day after Election Day, we discuss why it's not happening.... For the second time in 16 years, Democrats appear to have won more votes than Republicans, but lost the presidency. And while it was close in 2000, it may be a chasm in 2016....

So you can bet that are a whole bunch of Democrats right now that would like to put an end to this whole electoral college thing.

The bad news: They have virtually no power to make that happen -- and even they did have any power, it'd be immensely difficult.

The electoral college, after all, is enshrined in our Constitution, which means getting rid of it requires a constitutional amendment. That's a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate and the ratification of three-fourths (38) of the 50 states....

Back in 1934, a vote to abolish the electoral college failed in the Senate by just two votes. At the time, then-Sen. Alben Barkley (D-Ky.), who would later become vice president, labeled the system "useless." "The American people are qualified to elect their president by a direct vote, and I hope to see the day when they will," he said.

By 1966, Sen. Birch Bayh (D-Ind.) led hearings on the prospect of repealing the electoral college. He was a passionate advocate for the change for years. In 1979, the Senate debated a direct-election alternative, but it failed 51-48 -- shy of the two-thirds it needed.

More recent efforts have focused on workarounds, rather than repeal.

The National Popular Vote interstate compact has been assembling states who pledge to award all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national vote if and when they all combine for a majority of electoral votes (270). The effort has gained support from 11 states combining for 165 electoral votes, but so far only blue states have jumped on-board -- suggesting the red and swing state problems described above apply here too....

The Electoral College is an integral component of America's election process. From History Central: Why the Electoral College:

The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.

The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief....

Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to insure that only a qualified person becomes President. They believed that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as check on an electorate that might be duped. Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the right choice. The founders also believed that the Electoral College had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others....

One aspect of the electoral system that is not mandated in the constitution is the fact that the winner takes all the votes in the state. Therefore it makes no difference if you win a state by 50.1% or by 80% of the vote you receive the same number of electoral votes. This can be a recipe for one individual to win some states by large pluralities and lose others by small number of votes, and thus this is an easy scenario for one candidate winning the popular vote while another winning the electoral vote. This winner take all methods used in picking electors has been decided by the states themselves. This trend took place over the course of the 19th century....

In the January 8, 2019 article, The Electoral College Must Remain, Elad Hakim states:

Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., recently introduced a proposed constitutional amendment that would eliminate the Electoral College. This was obviously done in response to the fact that Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election despite winning nearly 3 million more votes than President Trump....

Cohen's position is clearly partisan, will almost certainly fail, and will face stiff resistance from many smaller states.

According to HistoryCentral, "[t]he Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states." The first reason revolved around the possibility that a candidate could manipulate public opinion to such a great extent that it would lead him to secure the presidency. In other words, the Founders did not believe that the citizens could make the right decision on their own. Therefore, the electorate served as a system of checks and balances. This does not appear to be as much of a concern today.

The second reason, however, is still relevant. Generally speaking, the number of electorates in a given state directly correlates to the number of congressional representatives in the state. The minimum number of electorates for a given state is three. Therefore, the "value" of a vote in a smaller state with a lower population would "count" more than it would in a state with a higher population. For example, if a state had 90,000 votes and had three electorates, each electorate would represent 30,000 votes. On the other hand, a large state with 10,000,000 votes and 54 electorates would mean that each electorate would represent approximately 185,000 votes. Therefore, this system was initially used to appease the smaller states....

While the Electoral College is not perfect, it is the most legitimate system.  It is in line with the intent of our forefathers, protects the smaller states, and helps to protect against the possibility that several very densely populated cities will decide the presidential election for the entire nation.

Hakim's conclusion bears repeating: The Electoral College as established in Article II of the U.S. Constitution is the most legitimate system. It protects against the likelihood that densely populated cities - that tend to vote Democrat - could decide the presidential election for the entire country.

 


Related

2016 U.S. Presidential Electoral votes by county:

2016 electoral votes by county

 

 

Update: The Mob Is Right Outside the Constitution’s Wall, Breitbart, May 24, 2019:

On Tuesday, Nevada became the 15th state, along with the District of Columbia, to pass a measure that would grant its electoral college votes to the candidate that won the nationwide popular vote....

This movement is being led by an organization called National Popular Vote. The 501(c)(4) was co-founded by election law expert and attorney Barry Fadem and John Kaza (co-inventor of the scratch off lottery ticket).

The objective is to have a group of states that in total control 270 electoral votes (the number needed to win the presidency) form a compact wherein each of them will agree to cast those votes based on the nationwide popular vote, regardless of how their own state’s citizens voted....

Our Founding Fathers had the debate at the beginning of our nation as to how our system of election and governance would be structured. Democracy was rejected because of the well understood tendency of a majority to act as a tyrant. While much of what was created by our Founders was original, this concept wasn’t.

The critique of democracy dates back to Plato and the Republic. The demos, as they were called in Greek, couldn’t be trusted; they would just vote to satiate their voracious appetites at the expense of others or the nation at large....

In Madison’s mind, the structure of government and the process for electing the chief executive were designed to try to fragment the power of majority.

When you read Federalist 9> (Hamilton), Federalist10, and Federalist 51 (Madison), three key elements they felt existed to help give the new United States a chance for success were its population size, geographic size, and the differing interests of the independent states. Back in the late 1700’s, these factors would all make it more difficult for minority factions to attain the sort of critical mass required to do real damage....

We need these controls to prevent the very kind of efficiency in voting that can lead to majority dominance. The electoral college is one of those most fundamental controls. If we effectively neuter it through state collusion, then we move one step closer to a world our Founders feared, and that Plato described.

For those who are wondering, Plato’s next stage was total tyranny....

The Electoral College is still right for America, by Rob Natelson, Complete Colorado, January 29, 2019:

... it is not true, as some claim, that the Founders acted only out of distrust of democracy. Rather, the system was a brilliant response to...

Having created a unique office, the Founders needed an adequate process for choosing its occupant. They set forth several criteria:

  • The electoral process had to produce presidents competent to discharge their extensive responsibilities. Not only must the president be qualified for the job, but he must be able to exercise judgment independent of Congress and of the states. Thus, those directly choosing among the candidates should either know them personally or have reliable knowledge of their character and qualifications.
  • The process should give great weight to popular preferences, while minimizing dangers of “stampeding” and other mob-like behavior.
  • It should reduce the risks of foreign and other secret influence.
  • It should balance state and national interests.
  • It should produce presidents of national stature. A purely regional executive could tear the country apart, either by his election or by policies favoring some parts of the country at the expense of others.
  • The process should discourage states from trying to increase their influence by artificially inflating their vote levels....

Did the Electoral College worked as intended in 2016? Yes and no.

It worked insofar as it denied election to Hillary Clinton, who, although the popular vote choice, was largely a regional candidate. But it failed to work insofar as state statutes prevented electors from voting for any candidates other than two widely seen as unacceptable. Those statutes also discouraged qualified people from seeking the office of presidential elector.

An end-run around the Electoral College, by Peter Skurkissm, American Thinker, February 28, 2019.

Prelude to a Revolution, National Popular Voting, by Don Mellon, Canada Free Press, March 16, 2019.

Don’t let Colorado be an Electoral College dropout, by Mike Rosen, Complete Colorado, February 5, 2019.

The One-Two Punch to Knock Out Electoral Democracy, by Michael S. Kochin, American Greatness, June 16, 2019.

Colorado Moves To Bypass Electoral College: Will Assign Electoral Votes To Popular Vote Winner, by Marc Slavo, Freedom Outpost, February 28, 2019.

Colorado Gov. Polis signs national popular vote bill into law, March 16, 2019.

Democrats Want To Kill The Electoral College Because They Fear The Constitution - The Left is increasingly comfortable attacking foundational ideas of American governance, by David Harsanyi, the Federalist, March 20, 2019.

See the 270 To Win website for an interactive electoral college map (included below) and electoral college maps of Historical Presidential Elections.


Interactive 2020 electoral college map - 270 to win

 

 

Books:

 

Moving Closer to Mob Rule: No Choice, No Voice, by Ray DiLorenzo, Canada Free Press, May 25, 2019:


Half of the U.S. population lives in these counties

 

Gagging judges endangers Oregonians

 
from the office of
 
SENATOR
KIM THATCHER
 
 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wed., June 12, 2019
 
Jonathan Lockwood
971-645-2099
 
Gagging judges endangers Oregonians
 
SALEM, Ore.—Oregon Democrats are gagging judges through a speech control measure that will prohibit courts from knowing or inquiring about an alleged criminals’ immigration status. 
 
House Bill 2932 was passed in the Senate on a party-line vote. In Oregon, there are 913 illegal immigrants in the penal system currently; of which 132 are convicted of homicide and 458 on sex-offenses. This bill protects these offenders from the sum of all of their crimes by preventing the court from taking their immigration status into consideration, which could lead to the offender’s lawful removal from the country. 
 
HB 2932 disrupts the balance of the criminal justice system by allowing the legislature to assert their power over the courts and prevents justice from being had.
 
State Sen. Kim Thatcher, R-Keizer, released the following statement:
 
“Gagging judges endangers Oregonians’ lives and puts criminal aliens above the rule of law. We need to sound the alarm for our constituents on this issue because it threatens all Oregonians—including the immigrant community. House Bill 2932 shields illegal immigrants whom were charged and/or convicted of felony offenses from the full consequences of their actions by completely restricting the court's power to inquire about the citizenship status of the defendant. We are watching a litany of bills fly through the Legislature with little to no debate. We should be putting people ahead of politics. We need people to call on Gov. Kate Brown to NOT sign this bill into law--it will endanger Oregonians.”
 
###
 
For follow-up commentary contact Thatcher spokesperson Jonathan Lockwood at 971-645-2099.
 
 

 

Trump administration prepares to release Central American migrants 'across the entire nation'

The Trump administration is preparing to send Central American migrants caught along the southern border to Border Patrol stations "across the entire nation," according to a senior Border Patrol official who confirmed the plans Friday.

With more than 4,500 people being caught each day crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, the agency has run out of room at its Border Patrol facilities in the four border states. The agency has started looking at its facilities around the country, which are mostly along the northern border with Canada and coastal states.

That means states from Oregon to North Dakota to Maine may begin receiving planeloads of migrant families in the weeks to come. On Tuesday, Customs and Border Protection sent its first plane full of migrants from Texas to San Diego.

The official confirmed reports on Thursday that the Florida counties of Broward and Palm Beach are under consideration given the size and capabilities of Border Patrol stations in the South Florida region. But he did not say if the decision is final or when the flights would start.

More: Record number of migrants puts 'severe pressure' on Border Patrol facilities

Asked whether any federal funds would be provided to help local communities deal with the relocation of migrants, the CBP official on Friday said he was not "aware" of any such plans.

The CBP official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to brief reporters on the agency's internal discussions, said politics is not playing a role in its search for places to process and release migrant families despite President Donald Trump's commentsthat he wants to send migrants to so-called "sanctuary cities" that do not fully cooperate with federal immigration officials.

"Due to the fact that Democrats are unwilling to change our very dangerous immigration laws, we are indeed, as reported, giving strong considerations to placing Illegal Immigrants in Sanctuary Cities," Trump tweeted last month.

Instead, the CBP official said they are searching only for Border Patrol facilities with the space and computer systems necessary to process large number of migrants each day. The official said the agency is not sending migrants to parts of the U.S. closest to their requested destinations, but making transportation decisions solely on each Border Patrol station's ability to receive large numbers of migrants.

Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw said on Thursday that he was told by local Border Patrol officials to expect flights to start arriving in the area within two weeks, and that South Florida would receive about 1,000 migrants a month.

Officials in both counties complained that the transfers are coming with no apparent plan to house, feed, or care for the migrants after they're released from custody.

Migrants to Florida? Broward and Palm Beach officials worry about migrants dumped in their communities

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican and ardent supporter of Trump, said he didn't know much beyond news reports about plans to release migrants in his state. But he said that if true, it would be a big problem.

"We cannot accommodate in Florida the dumping of unlawful migrants into our state. I think it will tax our resources, our schools, the healthcare, law enforcement, state agencies," he said after a bill-signing ceremony Friday, according to the Miami Herald.

The CBP official could not estimate the average cost of each flight. But on Monday, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which operates the flights, issued a public request for a contractor to handle up to 60,000 migrant transfers a year, with the vast majority of them (88%) being transfers by air.

Border Patrol has complained that its facilities have been overwhelmed by the record number of migrant families crossing the border, most of them requesting asylum to stay in the U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is responsible for interior immigration enforcement and has more detention space available, has also said it's running out of space.

That led Border Patrol agents in March to begin releasing migrants directly into local communities, at bus stations, community shelters, churches and other places along the border. That's been happening in Tucson since March.

CBP tried shuttling migrants between Border Patrol stations along the southern border, sending busloads of migrants from the flooded Rio Grande Valley sector in eastern Texas to other Border Patrol facilities in central and western Texas.

Now, the agency is looking all around the country to find more facilities that can help process the migrants. The migrants would be processed, given a date to appear in immigration court and then released into the community.

HB 2932, sanctuary for criminal aliens

Alert date: 
March 22, 2019
Alert body: 

A hearing on HB 2932 was held on Monday, March 18, by the House Judiciary Committee.  Several OFIR Board members attended and testified in opposition, submitting written testimony also.

OFIR has posted the testimonies at:  http://www.oregonir.org/immigration-topics/sanctuary-bill-2019-legislature.

A videotape of the Hearing can be viewed at: http://oregon.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?clip_id=26213

We encourage citizens to express their views of this bill to their state Representatives.  To identify your state Representative and get phone number/email address, click here:  https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/FindYourLegislator/leg-districts.html.  After entering your address in the format requested, see the address card and click the tab labelled House.

Democrats Winning 90% Congressional Districts with Large Foreign-Born Populations

Mass legal immigration is driving Democrats towards full electoral dominance, with left-wing politicians winning nearly 90 percent of congressional districts with larger than average foreign-born populations, analysis finds.

The Atlantic senior editor Ronald Brownstein analyzed Census Bureau statistics for the 2018 midterm elections, finding that the country’s admission of more than a million legal immigrants every year is set to hand over electoral dominance to House and Senate Democrats.

Among Brownstein’s findings is that nearly 90 percent of House congressional districts with a foreign-born population above the national average were won by Democrats. This concludes that every congressional district with a foreign-born population exceeding 14 percent had a 90 percent chance of being controlled by Democrats and only a ten percent chance of electing a Republican.

“After the 2018 result, Democrats now control more than 80 percent of the House seats in which minorities exceed their national share of the population, and nearly 90 percent of the seats with more immigrants than average, according to Census Bureau figures,” Brownstein writes.

Likewise, less than one-in-ten House Republicans represent a congressional district that has a foreign-born population larger than 14 percent.

It is not just congressional districts that are being driven towards Democrats through mass legal immigration. Entire states have been transformed, not only demographically, but electorally by the country’s current legal immigration levels....

Brownstein expects Democrats to largely target the remaining Senate Republicans in states with large foreign-born populations in the 2020 elections.

“Several of the remaining Republican Senate seats in that grouping (including Colorado, Arizona, Georgia, and perhaps Texas) will be among the top Democratic targets next year,” Brownstein writes.

Even the New York Times admits that continued legal immigration at its current rate of importing more than 1.2 million residents a year will transform the U.S. towards electoral dominance for Democrats.

This is most recently evident in Orange County, California — once a Republican stronghold — that has become entirely controlled by Democrats. The dominance of Democrats in Orange County has coincided with the county’s booming foreign-born population (Screenshot via the New York Times)...

Currently, the U.S. admits more than a million legal immigrants annually, with the vast majority deriving from chain migration, whereby newly naturalized citizens can bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the country. In 2017, the foreign-born population reached a record high of 44.5 million.

The U.S. is on track to import about 15 million new foreign-born voters in the next two decades should current legal immigration levels continue. Those 15 million new foreign-born voters include about eight million who will arrive in the country through chain migration.

University of Maryland, College Park researcher James Gimpel has found in recent years that more immigrants to the U.S. inevitably means more Democrat voters and thus, increasing electoral victories for the Democrat Party.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.

 

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Democrat