Tribalism & Sanctuary Schools

The Los Angeles Unified School District has adopted a "sanctuary schools" policy, according to the LA Daily News.

The Los Angeles Unified school board on Tuesday unanimously passed a resolution aimed at making LAUSD campuses safer for immigrant students and their families who might face deportation or detainment by ICE agents.

The resolution, proposed by board members Monica Garcia and Ref Rodriguez, comes shortly after the arrest of Romulo Avelica-Gonzalez, an undocumented immigrant who was detained by U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement agents as he took his daughter to school on Feb. 28 in Highland Park.

ICE officials said Avelica-Gonzalez was targeted because of prior criminal convictions, including a DUI conviction from 2009 and an outstanding order of removal from 2014.

This is blatant tribalism.

Notice how both of the sponsors of this bill are Hispanic. Guess what ethnicity has the largest proportion of illegal aliens in Los Angeles?

You guessed it: Hispanics.

This is yet another use of SJW tactics (projection and lying) to advance their ethnic interests. They are using emotional manipulation to convince blue-pilled white people to shield criminals from justice.

Everyone who enters America illegally is, by definition, a criminal. This includes children. They have to go back.

Comey is out, and that's a good thing.

James Comey has been fired from his post as director of the FBI today, according to the New York Times.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Tuesday fired the director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey, abruptly terminating the leader of a wide-ranging criminal investigation into whether Mr. Trump’s advisers colluded with the Russian government to steer the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

The stunning development in Mr. Trump’s nascent presidency drew comparisons to President Richard M. Nixon’s infamous “Saturday Night Massacre,” in which Nixon purged the Justice Department in the middle of the Watergate investigation. Mr. Trump’s move immediately ignited Democratic calls for an independent prosecutor to lead the Russia probe.

Mr. Trump explained the firing by citing Mr. Comey’s controversial handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, even though the president was widely seen to have benefited from that inquiry. Mr. Trump had also once praised Mr. Comey for being “gutsy” in pursuit of Mrs. Clinton during the campaign.

“While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the bureau,” Mr. Trump said in a letter to Mr. Comey dated Tuesday.

This is definitely a step forward, as Comey was a holdover from the Obama administration, and could have been influenced by him. Considering the incredibly polarizing partisanship in Washington nowadays, Comey would likely have become a turncoat at some point. 

Comey also demonstrated his inability to lead the Bureau several times, including when he flip-flopped on Hillary Clinton's illegal storage of classified email on a private email server. At first he took a hard-line stance on it, which he should have continued, but he then backed off of it. He also had a number of scandals prior to election season. In 2015, he demanded that Apple put law enforcement backdoors on all of their encrypted services, including iCloud, Facetime and iMessage, even though that isn't technologically possible without removing encryption entirely.

Sadly, he has also made far more serious mistakes during his tenure. Tamerlan Tsarnaev was briefly detained in 2013. He was let go after nominal questioning, even though Russia had previously labeled him as a threat. After that, he went on to bomb the Boston Marathon with his brother, all under Comey's watch.

Comey is indecisive and incompetent.

Of course, the Democrats are portraying this as the worst case of Presedential corruption since Nixon purged the Department of Justice's top positions during the Watergate investigation. 

WASHINGTON 

Furious Democrats branded the firing of FBI Director James Comey as “Nixonian,” warning the probe into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia had been dangerously compromised.

They warned of a possible constitutional crisis, painting a troubling picture of a dictatorial president suddenly dismissing the key investigator into allegations that have raised serious questions about his campaign’s links to Russia.

“This is Nixonian,” said the usually measured Sen. Bob Casey, R-Pa., recalling President Richard Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre” in 1973. Nixon forced the firing of the special prosecutor investigating the Watergate campaign scandal.

Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., a Senate Intelligence Committee member, made a more direct connection. “President Trump’s dismissal of FBI Director Comey smacks of President Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre. If this is an effort to stop the investigations into Russian collusion with the Trump campaign, it won’t succeed,” he said.

Why are they doing this?

It supports their agenda.

Comey has been pursuing an investigation into Trump's top staffers since the aftermath of the election, and Trump firing Comey drives a stake through the heart of it. The Democrats' threats of legal action and belligerence are serious, as they actually carry out their threats, it is definitely worth it. 

An incompetent and indecisive man has been ejected from power, and a tool of Leftist meddling has been removed. We will all be better for it.

#PizzaGate Controversy: Hidden email?

According to sources on Twitter, Comet Pizza's email system has 110 users.

Now why on earth does a small pizza parlor in Washington D.C. need to host 110 email addresses?

There is simply no rational explanation for this, except that there is something shady going on here.

I initially thought that #PizzaGate was mostly bullshit, but this recent revelation proves otherwise.

Recount Hypocrisy

Remember, before the election, when the mainstream media and Leftists were harping about how questioning the election results was "undemocratic"?

Apparently, that only applied if Trump lost.

According to NBC News, Jill Stein is sponsoring recounts in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Green Party nominee Jill Stein appeared to have met her initial fundraising goal early Thursday for recounts of the vote in three key swing states that went to Donald Trump — Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Stein did not cite any specific instances of alleged voter fraud, either. She only named "hacking", one of the Left's common boogeymen, as a concern.

The Green Party didn't single out any specific evidence of fraud, nor does it need proof of irregularities to call for a recount. Stein's party won only 1 percent of the vote.

"After a divisive and painful presidential race, reported hacks into voter and party databases and individual email accounts are causing many Americans to wonder if our election results are reliable," Stein said Wednesday. "These concerns need to be investigated before the 2016 presidential election is certified. We deserve elections we can trust.

Why is the Left not up in arms about this? Based on their earlier reasoning, this is questioning the democratic process, and extremely unpatriotic.

But they aren't. Most are ambivalent about it, and some are even supportive of it.

@AdamParkhomenko @DayJojo771980 @BostonGlobe Absolutely. We need a recount. It's not about Jill Stein. It's about integrity of the vote.

— Lisa Glass (@LMplusG) November 24, 2016

Hot damn! Jill Stein recount effort just passed $2 million of THE PEOPLE's money. The American people. We want a #Recount2016

— Amy Siskind (@Amy_Siskind) November 24, 2016

This is blatant hypocrisy, and it shows that the Left knows no principles.

Third Presidential Debate: An Analysis

The third Presidential debate was, hands down, one of the best 90 minutes of television I've ever seen, and Donald Trump won by a landslide. Hillary was on the defensive on nearly all issues presented at the debate, from immigration to under-the-table campaign donations. Here's a recap of what happened issue-by-issue.

The Supreme Court

When Hillary was asked about her plans for Supreme Court nominees, she stated that she would "do what's best for the people and for America", instead of having a clear stance on how her justices would interpret the Constitution.

Trump, on the other hand, was very clear on what his plans are. He stated that his nominees will be well-educated conservative judges with pro-life stances, and that a Supreme Court under his administration would interpret the Constitution as it was written, with the spirit of the Founding Fathers in mind.

In my personal opinion, Trump won this because of his use of explicit detail and facts in his explanation.

Immigration

When Hillary was asked about her stance on immigration, she pivoted from her pro-open borders position to a more moderate "wait-and-see approach, and when Trump confronted her about her remarks during the recently-leaked Goldman Sachs speech, she tried to explain it away as a proposal for a continental power grid.

Trump continued his current position on building a border wall, extreme vetting on asylum requests from refugees in the Middle East, and deportation of illegal immigrants from Mexico, other South American countries, and visa overstayers. 

In my opinion, Trump won this portion of the debate because of the consistency of his position, and his ability to defend it and continue his point.

Abortion

Hillary continued on her pro-abortion stance, and she showed continued support for Roe v. Wade and partial birth abortions. Nothing new here.

Trump continued on his pro-life stance, and said that during his presidency, abortion would be a state issue, and he brought forth several negative points in Hillary's position, one of which is that under her plan, all abortions, including late-term and partial birth abortions, are legal. Hillary continued to be on the defensive on this one.

In my opinion, Trump won this round because of his ability to appeal to morality, and to defend his position effectively.

Firearm Laws

When asked about this, Trump agreed with the moderator, in that he wants to remove magazine size restrictions and assault rifle bans. He affirmed his support for the Second Amendment, and recognized his endorsement from the NRA.

Hillary continued her vague stance on gun control, claiming that she would create "common sense" gun laws that would, according to her, keep children safe and reduce firearm accidents.

In my opinion, Trump won this round because he had a clear stance on this issue, and did an excellent job presenting it.

In Conclusion

This debate was no contest. Trump was on the offense for the entire debate, and he was hammering Hillary on all the issues. He was consistent on his positions, and he showed confidence that wasn't in previous debates. Trump handily won this debate.

The Julian Assange Situation

As most of you have probably heard, Julian Assange, the head of Wikileaks, had his internet connection severed by a "state actor". In addition to this, John Kerry is threatening Ecuador with military action if they did not release Assange from their embassy into US custody.

Considering some of the blatant illegalities, acts of fraud, and moral debauchery documented in the Hillary Clinton and DNC leaks, it leads me to believe that Assange was sitting on something enormous, and of bombshell proportions.

What could be in these leaks that was so disturbing and damning, that Assange's internet connection was compromised, and his host nation threatened over them?

We'll see soon, after the Wikileaks contingency leaks are released, and more information comes out about the Assange situation.

Hillary & The Media

Had I seen some of the events unfolding in this election cycle two years ago, I would've had a stroke. I used to believe that TV shows like Veep, Braindead, and House of Cards were parodies of the inner workings of government.

But I was wrong. Dead wrong. The reality of Beltway politics is much, much worse, and Hillary Clinton is the star of the show.

From threatening to "drone" Julian Assange to provoking Russia of the Ukraine and Syria, Hillary and her cabal of corruption have done many horrible things, and the John Podesta emails released by Wikileaks have shed new light onto them.

Many of these emails are mundane accounts of day-to-day operations, but a few have shown the unethical practices and outright cheating committed by the Clinton campaign, from joking about her commission of Federal felonies, to receiving primary debate questions ahead of time. She even facilitated the rigging of Democratic primaries over email.

How much media coverage did all of this get? None. All they're doing is running Donald Trump's garish (but perfectly acceptable) comments on loop, and clutching their collective pearls over it.

Combining this with the fact that Hillary lets the press fly with her on the Clinton campaign jet leads me to believe that there is collusion between Clinton and the press, and emails released by Wikileaks indicate there is. Here's a snippet from an email exchange over a WSJ article:

Ran the quote past HRC and she asked (with no prompting) that “average” come out. So here’s what I shipped off to Peter Nicholas at the Journal. AS for the NYT, looks like it won’t run for a few days if not next Sunday, so will circle back on that as it develops.

 And here's more from a discussion over a New York Times article in the same thread:

I think this piece turned out well. But when we define our goals, we have to be clear that we are concerned with helping people who are getting crushed by rising costs and stagnant incomes, not that we're worried about offending high income groups (our donors). My guess is that this sentence will cause us some problems on the left. One of Mrs. Clinton’s broader goals is to develop ways to address economic anxiety without sounding like a combative populist or demonizing high-income groups, said a person familiar with her thinking.

This is unprecedented. This is why I don't trust the media anymore.