Hagerty Gets Tough on Immigration

At least our new Tennessee senator has decided to push back on Biden’s immigration plans.

From Breitbart:

Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN) sent a letter on Wednesday to President Joe Biden expressing his opposition to the White House ending Trump administration immigration policies that protect Americans.

“I have serious concerns regarding reports that you are planning to terminate the Trump Administration’s Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) policy and return to a catch-and-release policy with respect to persons crossing the border,” Hagerty posted on social media with a copy of the letter attached.

Hagerty praised the U.S.-Mexico Joint Declaration negotiated by the Trump administration that kept asylum seekers in Mexico until their status could be adjudicated. That agreement included Mexico agreeing to “accept and offer jobs, health care, and education to persons waiting for asylum determinations under MPP.”

“The letter comes amid reports that an estimated 30,000 migrants—a population roughly the size of Cookeville, Tennessee— are waiting at the border right now to be released next week into the United States given the termination of MPP,” the press release issued by Hagerty’s Senate office said.

Hagerty wrote in the letter:

Terminating MPP would unilaterally discard a significant diplomatic achievement, reward abuse of our generous asylum laws, and endanger American communities as a result. Further, it would exacerbate the damage caused by your other unilateral actions on immigration, including: barring virtually all deportations of illegal immigrants, including violent criminals; halting ongoing construction of a border wall demanded by law enforcement personnel on the front lines; and opening the door to admitting immigrants who cite the need to flee climate change. Human smugglers, who endanger and exploit these migrants while promising passage to the United States in exchange for payment, often train the migrants to falsely claim asylum at the border as their ticket into the interior of the United States. In 2019, the Trump Administration established MPP, which requires that persons seeking asylum in the United States remain in Mexico—rather than being released into the United States—while their claims are adjudicated.

This policy makes sense because admission to the United States should not be automatic, but rather should be based on whether a person is entitled to asylum under the law. Recent data shows that fewer than one in five asylum claims are granted—including only 1.5 percent of MPP cases, according to a February 12, 2021, Los Angeles Times report—and that roughly half of claimants fail to show up for their hearings. Because MPP cases are many times less likely to be meritorious than the typical asylum claim, and roughly half of all asylum claimants do not even show up to complete their immigration hearings, a policy that forces American taxpayers and communities to provide safe harbor to individuals who are so clearly abusing our laws defies all logic.

Hagerty asked the Biden administration to respond to questions he included in the letter:

Will these migrants be released into the general population of the United States while their asylum claims are pending? And if so, how does the government plan to ensure that the migrants show up for all of their immigration court proceedings?
Will these migrants be granted work permits in the United States while their cases are pending?
Will these migrants be eligible to receive a COVID-19 vaccine in the United States?
If it is determined that a migrant is not entitled to asylum, will that migrant be immediately removed from the United States?

He also pointed out that Biden’s policies actually favor immigrants over American citizens.

“Abandoning the MPP partnership is especially puzzling during an ongoing global pandemic that has warranted travel restrictions for citizens and has resulted in the closure of American businesses and schools and the elimination of American jobs,” Hagerty wrote. “Incredibly, it seems that with this unprecedented wave of executive orders, more COVID restrictions are being placed on American citizens than on illegal immigrants.”

Hagerty asked the Biden administration to respond by March 1.

Outlook on that doubtful. The Democrats intend to steamroll amnesty and no immigration barriers through Congress. They’ve got a lot of the courts with them, besides their best sidekick, the media.

Mike Wallace: Bigot, Sex Abuser?

Yes, Chris’ dad, the big 60 Minutes star, who went after people with his axe like tongue, may have been worthy of his own investigation.

According to a new book, “Ticking Clock: Behind the Scenes at 60 Minutes,” Wallace had his share of what would now be considered career ousting shenanigans.

From Instapundit: A New York Times review of the book says

[Ira Rosen, the author of Ticking Clock: Behind the Scenes at ‘60 Minutes,’] also writes that Wallace regularly peppered colleagues with questions about their sex lives; lashed out at them for no good reason; grabbed the bottoms and breasts of women who worked in the office; pulled them onto his lap; and snapped bra straps.

“The verbal harassment I experienced from Mike Wallace and other TV big shots was, in a word, criminal,” Rosen writes. He says he stuck it out for so long “in part out of fear, but mostly out of ambition.”

In a 1991 article for Rolling Stone, the journalist Mark Hertsgaard reported that Hewitt and Wallace routinely harassed women in the workplace. In 2017, “60 Minutes” tried to obscure its past. Richard Zoglin, a biographer, was hired by Simon & Schuster, a publisher then owned by the CBS Corporation, to write a book on the show’s history in time for its 50th anniversary. After he started asking about the treatment of women on staff, he was replaced by a new author: Jeff Fager, who had succeeded Hewitt as the show’s top producer.

The above New York Times review doesn’t mention if this infamous moment in Mike Wallace’s career appears in Rosen’s book. As described by the late Roger Ailes, someone else who understood the blending of theater and journalism even more than Hewitt and Wallace:

Recognize that any time you are in the presence of a newsperson, the conversation is fair game for the record. Jimmy Carter’s famous confession that he sometimes had lust in his heart for women other than his wife was uttered to a Playboy magazine journalist as he was leaving Carter’s home at the conclusion of the formal interview. Even Mike Wallace, big-game hunter of the unguarded moment, got caught in this snare. As recounted on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal by TV critic Daniel Henninger in March of 1981, Wallace:
Wallace was interviewing a banker in San Diego about an alleged home improvement fraud involving mainly black and Hispanics, who supposedly had signed contract they couldn’t understand, which led to foreclosures on their home mortgages.The bank hired a film crew of its own to record the interview with Mr. Wallace. The bank apparently left its recorder running during a break in the CBS interview, and the tape has Mr. Wallace saying, in reply to a question about why the black and Hispanic customers would have signed their contracts, “They’re probably too busy eating their watermelon and tacos.”

When the Los Angeles Times got wind of this indiscretion and reported it, there was at least a minor uproar from reporters and others about Wallace’s “racially disparaging joke”. Wallace ultimately pleaded “no bias”, admitting that over time he’d privately told jokes about many ethnic groups but that his record “speaks for itself”. Henninger added, “Needless to say, this has to be the most deliciously lip-smacking bit of irony to pop out of the oven in a long time. Here we have the dogcatcher cornered. The lepidopterist pinned. The preacher in flagrante delicto. This is the fellow who has imputed all manner of crimes against social goodness to a long lineup of businessmen and bureaucrats. From here on out, all future victims of Mr. Wallace can take some small comfort in knowing that although they may stand exposed as goof-offs, thieves and polluters, he’s the guy who made the crack about the watermelons and tacos.”

Since his death, the liberal media has viciously attacked Rush Limbaugh. In all his years and hours of broadcasting, Limbaugh never said anything remotely racist as this, nor did he have a reputation for going after female employees.

Liberal privilege.

Pence the Snake

How bad was Mike Pence?

Worse than you thought. He had been backstabbing for the GOPe ever since he was chosen by Trump. Trump, a loyal person who values loyalty, must be beside himself at the treachery brought by his own handpicked sidekick.

I heard him personally at a Republican conference in New Orleans in 2010. He struck me as sincere and relatable. He had a knack for telling stories in a humorous way. Pence seemed to be great presidential material.

Once he got the VEEP nomination and the national stage, Pence came across quite differently. He seemed stiffer; he delivered speeches in a tone that was a little priggish. He lacked the common touch.

Still, he seemed solid.

When he was given the pandemic issue to handle early last year, Pence floundered. I felt Trump gave it to him as a stepping stone for showcasing his talents and teeing him up for 2024. After a few weeks of namby pamby, Trump took over the press conferences. Trump was all over and on top of the situation. Pence faded. That was a tip off that Pence wasn’t really in the game.

An article at American greatness by Carmen Catanzaro explains more of what Pence was up to. It is a must read.

“Keep your friends close and your enemies closer” is a maxim of realpolitik and other matters where the stakes are high. To be effective in practice, an enemy invited into one’s organization needs to be kept truly close—that is, monitored carefully and always held accountable.

President Donald Trump appointed many NeverTrumpers and other enemies of his agenda—more significantly, enemies of his voters—to influential posts within his administration. In most cases, these appointees were not “kept close”—at least not close enough to prevent them from undermining his policies, his relationship with his political base, and his viability for reelection.

A true standout amid the vipers’ nest of Trump’s enemies who benefited from appointment to his administration is Nikki Haley. As disloyalty goes, she belongs in a class all of her own, enjoying urgings from Bill Kristol to run against Trump in 2020 even as she held office as a Trump appointee.

On the day when arguments concluded in the Democrats’ post-presidency impeachment trial of Trump, Haley was the subject of a fawning feature in the daily bible of the swamp, Politico.

Playing to her audience, Haley said “he’s not going to run for federal office again. I don’t think he’s going to be in the picture.”

Haley pronounced herself “disgusted” by Trump’s treatment of Vice President Pence. “Mike has been nothing but loyal to that man.”

Given a witness as untrustworthy as Haley, the question arises: Just how loyal was Mike Pence, anyway?

Haley collaborated closely with Pence during her tenure as Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations. As head of the transition team staffing the Trump Administration, Pence likely is largely responsible for NeverTrumper Haley gaining the sensitive and high-profile post. An indicator of the tight connection between Pence and Haley is that, in their gubernatorial campaigns in Indiana and South Carolina, they shared the same principal campaign consultant, the young Georgian Nick Ayers.

Before Trump picked him as running mate in 2016, Pence was, like Haley, a consistent neoconservative on foreign policy. He remained a neoconservative as Trump’s 2016 running mate and as vice president.

A Clone of Paul Ryan

As a member of Congress, Pence was never distinguishable in philosophy, rhetoric, or policy from John Boehner or Paul Ryan. As Trump’s running mate both in 2016 and in 2020, Pence resembled Mitt Romney’s 2012 running mate—and Romney himself—more than a fitting understudy to Donald Trump.

In his vice-presidential debate against Tim Kaine in 2016, Pence contradicted Trump’s policies on both Russia and Syria. Trump found it necessary to rebuke Pence over his remarks on Russia.

During the first month of Trump’s presidency, it was Pence who forced Trump’s unjust dismissal of National Security Advisor Mike Flynn, saying that Flynn had misled him. The question remains: did Pence torpedo Flynn with malice aforethought, or was Pence duped as a useful idiot by the get-Flynn lynch mob that had been set into motion by Barack Obama, Joe “Logan Act” Biden, James Comey, and John Brennan? This much is certain: Flynn and Pence were diametrically opposed over foreign policy.

Pence’s demonstrations of treacly piety help disguise the fact that he is a cunning creature of the swamp.

During Trump’s first year in office, when the president indicated he wanted to make good on his promise to pull U.S. troops out of Afghanistan, what did Pence do? He cut short an official overseas trip to team up with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Flynn’s unworthy successor, H.R. McMaster, in pressuring Trump to back down. This was an occasion when Trump was brazenly, publicly humiliated by his own subordinates.
“Why Would Mike Do That?”

In 2018, Trump was reported to be openly questioning Pence’s loyalty. This was when Pence attempted to install, as the vice president’s national security adviser, Nikki Haley’s top aide at the United Nations, while planning to allow this aide to work simultaneously on both Pence’s and Haley’s staff. Trump was informed that this man, Haley’s former pollster Jon Lerner—a man with essentially no background in national security policy or foreign affairs—had been responsible for big-spending anti-Trump ad campaigns in 2016. Trump ordered Pence to halt his plan to hire Lerner. The president was widely quoted on the occasion as having exclaimed, “Why would Mike do that?”

In 2019, Pence was at it again. Pence showed his neocon colors boldly when he took a high-visibility role in promoting the administration’s very un-Trump-like push for a “regime change” operation in Venezuela. Pence and the rest of the neocons are right, of course, that it would be in the United States’ interests for Communist dictator Nicolás Maduro to be removed and replaced by a pro-American leader. But their nonsensical embrace of a young, untested CIA acolyte, Juan Guaidó, was as absurd and feckless as any of the regime change and “nation-building” follies of George W. Bush.

Pence’s failed adventurism with Venezuela was a huge embarrassment to Trump. The president heaped blame on John Bolton for the Venezuela fiasco, but responsibility belonged at a higher level, with Pence.

Tellingly, Pence has landed a sinecure at Conservatism, Inc.’s mothership, the Heritage Foundation. There he will have a comfortable life reading woodenly from talking points unchanged in style or substance from those of the Bush-Cheney Administration. The Heritage platform and a PAC staffed with the usual suspects from the Republican political fundraising class will attempt to keep Pence “in the picture.”

Trump voters should think long and hard before transferring allegiance to Pence. Supporters of President Trump and his policies to get and keep America out of endless wars should retain Mike Pence’s neoconservative record in their memories. They should remember this especially whenever serial liars such as Nikki Haley laud Pence’s “loyalty.”

Fool me once…

Lindell Has Proof

Mike Lindell has been ferocious in insisting that voter fraud perverted the 2020 presidential election. He has researched what happened in the swing states and refuses to back down. He has spent lots of money in doing this and faced the ire of liberals and the media. In return, he and his company have been knocked off Twitter and Facebook, and his evidence ignored.

Undaunted, Lindell produced an almost three hour long documentary, Absolute Proof, that explains what happened with Dominion voting machines and foreign influence on November 3rd. Lindell paid for it to be run on OAN.

Now he has come out with an abbreviated version of 30 minutes. Both can be seen at Lindelltv.com and Michaeljlindell.com. He knows that the media wants to ignore this so he has put it up for all to see on the web.

Lindell is not foolhardy nor is he a dummy. If you read his excellent book, What Are the Odds?, you will understand that his determination and faith have guided him successfully over a gambling addiction, coke addiction and even crack. With just a high school education he managed to come up with an important company, My Pillow, plus endow a foundation for helping others who are addicted.

He also has a good understanding of numbers and statistics. Don’t assume that he will bend or fail in this voting endeavor. Just read his book and take the measure of the man.

It’s about 300 pages and is engaging at every turn.

Watch his documentary, too, and spread the word. We know at least 74 million Americans were disenfranchised in the election. Lindell explains how.

Stop the Preaching!

Every day we wake up to another woke celebrity/wannabecelebrity/oligarch sharing his/her/xe opinions on how ordinary Americans should lead their lives.

Foremost among the admonitions is that of wearing a mask. No, two; no, three; maybe four! Not to wear a mask is considered by the celebretti a crime against humanity. No matter that they provide the same protection that a chain link fence does for a mosquito, we are told to mask up or granny will die.

Yesterday it was the detestable Chuck Todd who on his Meet The Press daily MSNBC show told Texans suffering in the cold, “the only upside here is I assume the cold weather motivates people to wear a mask, because it’s one extra layer on your face.” He went on to insult Texans even more. Todd said this was a serious matter because the storm has affected people in major Texas cities and not those who live in “rural areas.” That’s really how they feel in New York, DC and LA. If you’re not in a city, you don’t matter.

Thanks for the compassion, Chuck.

Bill Gates did not disappoint either. The billionaire Microsoft co-founder advised, “Countries that are well-off economically should give up meat entirely.”
Gates made the claim in an interview published Sunday in the MIT Technology Review, in which he touted his new book, How to Avoid a Climate Disaster.

CNS news reports,

Asked if plant-based and lab-grown meats “could be the full solution to the protein problem” globally caused by addressing the “highly potent emissions from burping livestock and fertilizer.” Gates said that poorer nations should be allowed to consume meat – but, prosperous nations should abstain from it entirely:

“So no, I don’t think the poorest 80 countries will be eating synthetic meat.

“I do think all rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef. You can get used to the taste difference, and the claim is they’re going to make it taste even better over time.”

But, if citizens refuse to shun meat willfully, the government can “use regulation to totally shift the demand,” Gates said. “So for meat in the middle-income-and-above countries, I do think it’s possible.”

Gates is an investor, either personally or indirectly, in companies such as Beyond Meats and Impossible Foods, MIT Technology Review notes.

No wonder he wants the switch in wealthy countries!

When you’re another oligarch, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, you can preach, but the same standards don’t apply to you.

He wants all of us to get the Covid vaccine. On Facebook, he insists on it. Project Veritas points out:

Facebook announced last week that they are “expanding [their] efforts to remove false claims on Facebook and Instagram about COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccines and vaccines in general during the pandemic.”
Facebook said it would remove claims that vaccines change people’s DNA.
Facebook claims it wants people to “discuss, debate and share their personal experiences, opinions and views” as it pertains to the pandemic but will remove vaccine concerns from its platform that had once been expressed by their own CEO.

But that’s not what Zuckerberg really believes. Project Veritas caught him saying in July 2020: “But I do just want to make sure that I share some caution on this [vaccine] because we just don’t know the long-term side effects of basically modifying people’s DNA and RNA…basically the ability to produce those antibodies and whether that causes other mutations or other risks downstream. So, there’s work on both paths of vaccine development.”

But during a public live stream with Dr. Fauci in November 2020, Zuckerberg had a different take: “Just to clear up one point, my understanding is that these vaccines do not modify your DNA or RNA. So that’s just an important point to clarify.”

So you take the risk and he’ll abstain.