At any rate, on Friday Tucker interviewed Andrew Arthur, a former judge who is currently affiliated with [...]]]> It’s nice to see Tucker Carlson talking about immigration again, something that has fallen off his list of subjects recently. Perhaps he thought President Trump had it covered, even though excessive immigration threatens the historic nature of America.

At any rate, on Friday Tucker interviewed Andrew Arthur, a former judge who is currently affiliated with the Center for Immigration Studies. His CIS bio notes employment with the Immigration and Naturalization Service and eight years working as an immigration judge in Pennsylvania. So Arthur knows the topic from inside the system.

One aspect of this discussion lurking in the background is the preference of Democrats for foreigners over Americans. As it happens, hispanics prefer the Democrat philosophy of Big Government, as shown in a 2012 Pew Research survey. So that correlation of viewpoints works out well for Democrats, but not so much for Americans as a whole.

A Democrat-run government with a President Biden would definitely put immigration on the front burner again — and not in a good way.

TUCKER CARLSON: Welcome back to a special edition of Tucker Carlson Tonight. Republicans were not able to pass any kind of immigration bill restricting immigration, protecting our borders over the past several years, but if Democrats take control of the Senate on January 5th, they won’t be quite as passive. The first thing they will do is to fundamentally change our immigration system — open the borders to the rest of the world. They’re not hiding this; they’ve been open about it for months.

JOE BIDEN (TV clip): Some of it’s going to depend on the kind of cooperation I can or cannot get from the United States Congress, but I am going to make a commitment: in the first hundred days I will send a immigration bill to the United States Senate with a pathway to citizenship for over 11 million undocumented people in America.

CARLSON: First of all it’s not 11 million — you’d have to be 119 years old to think that — it’s over 20 million. But the macro point is this: millions of Americans have been looking for work for so long that they’ve given up looking; they’re not even listed on the unemployment stats. Now Democrats plan to give them more competition in the labor market. So who’s benefiting from this exactly? Not Americans. Andrew Arthur is the Resident Fellow in Law and Policy for the Center of Immigration Studies, and we’re happy to have him on tonight. Andrew, thanks for coming on.

ANDREW ARTHUR: Thank you for having me.

CARLSON: Who does benefit from this exactly?

ARTHUR: Well. the people who benefit from this are big business. Wealthy people benefit from open borders, essentially limitless immigration because for them everything comes cheaper. Food is cheaper; you go to the grocery store, rather than paying you know 39 cents for a head of lettuce, you pay 35 cents for a head of lettuce. You can get your lawn cut cheaper, you can get your house painted cheaper, but the people who suffer the most, Tucker, are the people who are at the margins of society, the people that we you know usually hear that these folks care about — disadvantaged Americans, inner city youth, members of minority groups and immigrants who haven’t adjusted to life in the United States yet. Those are the people who are in direct competition because most of the people who enter the United States illegally are people who don’t have high levels of education, don’t have a lot of work skills. Now there’s nothing you know wrong with that — my father never went to college, worked in a steel mill. But when you bring in a huge mass of uneducated unskilled individuals to directly compete against Americans, those Americans suffer.

CARLSON: And it’s also true at the higher end. I mean our schools were bad before covid; now the schools are just shut down and kids are learning nothing. Nobody seems to care and instead of fixing that, they’ve decided, well we’re just going to bring in more educated people from India and China to do jobs that Americans aren’t qualified to do. I mean it kind of removes any incentive to fix American schools, doesn’t it?

ARTHUR: It really does, and you know there’s this canard that you know we need more STEM graduates. A few years ago the the Census Bureau did a survey in which they found that about 25 percent of people who had STEM degrees were working in a STEM job, and we’ve seen this over and over again. Computer programmers are brought in; IT people are brought in from abroad on temporary visa programs, and even right now the United States Congress is considering a bill that would make it so much easier for Big Tech to bring in those tech workers to replace our students that we encourage to go get tech jobs for the 21st century. Well, those jobs aren’t going to be available to them if this happens. So you know these are things that Americans really need to think about if they have kids, and yes we’ve seen the quality of our own schools go down. We need to be putting more money into educational opportunities, but we also need to have jobs for those students to take. I’ve seen it you know again and again in cities across America.

CARLSON: Only 25 percent of STEM graduates held jobs in STEM in science and technology — that’s an amazing statistic, Andrew Arthur. I appreciate you coming on. Thank you.

And here’s the 2014 Census Bureau survey of STEM graduates and their employment: Census Bureau Reports Majority of STEM College Graduates Do Not Work in STEM Occupations.

After a few [...]]]> On Monday, Tucker Carlson reviewed the state of the Democrat party in light of the several 2020 candidates who recently quit the race. He judged Tom Steyer as a poor dancer, Mayor Pete to be rather robotic and identity politics ending up as a big loser for the party as a whole.

After a few minutes he was joined by Victor Davis Hanson who thought this is “the worst field we’ve seen since Walter Mondale lost in a landslide to Ronald Reagan.”

The candidates do seem like the B-team of the D-party, but who else is there? When the leadership of the Democrat party is considered among the serving governors, senators and members of Congress, nobody appealing springs to mind. Over recent years, the whole party seems to have lost track of the major purpose in governing — namely to lead with policies that will help the American people.

Instead the Democrats support bad ideas like open borders, including crazy unaffordable freebies for foreign lawbreakers.

Who can forget the moment in last October’s Democrat debate in which all candidates agreed to support taxpayer-funded healthcare for illegal aliens?

When the debate moderator asked Democrat candidates to “Raise your hand if your government plan would provide [medical] coverage for undocumented immigrants,” all responded affirmatively.

How would that policy benefit Americans, many of whom find their own medical coverage to be inadequate? Healthcare polls consistently as a top concern — particularly its high cost — but citizens show no desire to pay for illegal aliens’ medical coverage.

Democrats are united that they want to beat Donald Trump and gain power, but an affirmative message to voters is lacking. For example, over the last two years, House Democrats managed only to impeach the president, with no legislation to advance the well-being of citizens.

Hanson agrees the Democrats have lost track of the big political picture — to win elections, a party has to offer something to voters beyond wokeness and diversity.

Audio version:

TUCKER CARLSON:  So over the next few weeks, all the attention will of course be on Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden and maybe Michael Bloomberg. So we want to pause and remember the candidates we lost over the weekend — not permanently, they’re just not in the race.

For all of them, their failure to win the nomination is reason for all of us to feel a little better about ourselves. We’re not as dumb as we thought we were. Tom Steyer disproved that simply because you’re a billionaire doesn’t mean you’re an oligarch. Steyer spent more than $100 million dollars of his own money. And in the end, did an embarrassing dance on stage and then got nothing.

His sad presidential run ought to be encouraging to every person in America, particularly the slower among us. If that guy can make a billion dollars, you can, too.

Pete Buttigieg’s defeat proves that while Americans may be willing to vote for socialists or plutocrats or adulterers, they are pretty open minded actually. They still want their Presidents to be human. Creepy robots with biographies crafted in a Silicon Valley lab are going to have to wait till the 22nd Century to have their chance. Here’s Buttigieg minutes ago backing Biden.

PETE BUTTIGIEG:  It is an honor to be here with Vice President Biden. You know, when I ran for President, we made it clear that the whole idea was about rallying the country together to defeat Donald Trump and to win the era for the values that we share and that was always a goal that was much bigger than me becoming President.

And it is in the name of that very same goal, that I’m delighted to endorse and support Joe Biden for President.

CARLSON:  I think Barack Obama gave that exact same speech, but I don’t have Google in front of me, but you can check it.

And of course, Amy Klobuchar dropped out as well. Her defeat is good news for anyone who cares about proper comb hygiene. The Democratic race may be smaller tonight, but it’s not more amicable. Why? Because Elizabeth Warren is still running and now she is openly campaigning for a divisive brokered convention next July, which would be really like Christmas day for the rest of us.

Warren’s only reason for staying in the race right now is to sabotage Bernie Sanders, but many Democrats are happy to play along.

The weird neuroses anxieties and just strangers in the Democratic coalition are coming to the surface. It’s like pulling up a rock and all these things crawl away or try to.

We’re learning a lot about what they really care about. So over the weekend, the Boston Globe ran a piece arguing — and this is for real — that it was “disrespectful” for Bernie Sanders to try and win the Massachusetts primary since it would be a “major humiliation” for Elizabeth Warren.

That’s really identity politics taken to its endpoint. It’s the state of the Democratic race right now. If you’re too extreme for the donor class, then it’s sexist to try and win an election.

Victor Davis Hanson, one of the wisest people we know, is a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution out in California. He joins us tonight. Professor, you look on at this and what do you make of it?

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON:  Well, this latest dropout group of Klobuchar and Buttigieg is same thing as the first round of dropouts with Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, Julian Castro and how to sum it all up, Tucker, is after a year of all of this wokeness and diversity and white privilege, what do we end up with?

We ended up with three old white guys that are 77 and 78, with a Marxist — Neo-Marxist — as the presumptive leader, and all of them have a history of insensitive remarks about women or things they’ve written.

So it’s a complete antithesis of the whole premise of the Democratic Party and we don’t have anybody who is a charismatic character other than Bernie Sanders, and his criticisms are sometimes legitimate of American society, but his bromides are frightening.

So they are in a real — and then they’ve got this outside billionaire who is coming into save everybody from Bernie Sanders, on the premise that Biden was fading, but Biden is not quite dead yet — his candidacy, I mean that metaphorically — and now Bloomberg is going to be blamed for you know, dividing the moderate vote and handing the nomination to Sanders.

And then this was supposed to be the transparent new reformist party and they’re going to go back to an old 1950s, 1940s brokered convention with guys and cigars in the back room, horse-trading jobs and employment and entitlements to get delegates. It’s completely — the reality is completely opposite to the rhetoric of the whole progressive movement.

CARLSON:  So they clearly don’t care about the things they say they care about. So if you could just sum up crisply what they do care about, what do you think that is?

HANSON:  What they do care about is they want to control the House and they want to win back the Senate, and they want Supreme Court picks because they’re interested in power. They’re not interested necessarily in diversity or people of color being the new face of the Democratic Party or any of that.

They’re interested in power, and they think they can’t get it with Bernie Sanders, and they’re absolutely right. He’ll be a disaster. This is the worst field we’ve seen since Walter Mondale lost in a landslide to Ronald Reagan, and if they go the Bernie route, they’re going to lose big and they’re desperate and they’re down to the 11th hour, and the only candidates they have that they think they can save the House and maybe win back to Senate are Bloomberg and Biden and they’re pathetic candidates, and it’s kind of a tragedy to watch this thing unfold.

CARLSON:  You’re right.

HANSON:  It really is.

CARLSON:  Oh, but that there’s been — there’s pleasure in it too, Professor, I would say.

HANSON:  But it’s about power, and they are losing that and they know it.

CARLSON:  Exactly. It’s about power. Great to see you tonight. Thank you so much for that, as always.

Tucker Carlson is sure that [...]]]> It can be hard to keep up with all the verbal bloopers of candidate Joe Biden, and his recent gun gaffe was a fine example. In the recent Democrat debate, he said that 150 million Americans had been killed by guns since 2007 — something which would be very noticeable.

Tucker Carlson is sure that Old Joe meant 150 thousand — but the goof shows how ragged things are getting among the 2020 Democrats as Super Tuesday looms. The urge is to cite the most extreme statistic — even a wrong one — as a quote that will show up on the news the next day.

Plus, gun grabbing is practically a religion among the left. They cannot imagine armed citizens in a free country — where’s the power and control in that?

Democrats really do have a different idea of how this nation should be run — with open borders and no way to defend yourself from illegal alien criminals.

Meanwhile, millions of Americans understand that the Second Amendment is vital to keeping the First and will not give up their rights as citizens.

The man below was one of the thousands of Second Amendment supporters who rallied in support of firearm possession in Richmond Virginia on January 20.

Tucker Carlson could not let the gun gaffe go without a discussion of how horrible the Democrats all are on the Second Amendment.

(Spare video here.)

TUCKER CARLSON: Well during the Democratic debate last night, Joe Biden made a remarkable claim about the level of gun violence in this country. Watch:

JOE BIDEN: A hundred and fifty million people have been killed since 2007 when Bernie voted to exempt the gun manufacturers from liability, more than all the wars, including Vietnam, from that point on.

CARLSON: Vietnam? More than that? A hundred and fifty million. That’s almost half the country, dead in 10 years. That’s a lot of empty buildings.

Presumably Biden meant to say 150,000. That’s roughly the number of gun homicides in this country during that period. But Democrats are doing their best to drive that number up. How? By attacking police and letting criminals — real criminals — go free.

Instead of fighting gun violence by fighting actual criminals who are trying to destroy the NRA and take guns from people who didn’t vote for them with assault weapons ban.

Do assault weapons bans work? Well, there’s just been a big study on this question from Johns Hopkins, the Party of Science is ignoring it, but the answer is no. They don’t work. Not that they’ll stop trying to push somebody in.

Colion Noir is a Second Amendment advocate. He joins us tonight. Thanks so much for coming on. Have you noticed there seems to be a connection between the vehemence of gun control advocates and their lack of knowledge about firearms?

I mean, some of these people — Biden is a perfect example — don’t know what end the round comes out of. They don’t know what a muzzle is. And yet they’re sort of posing as experts. Am I imagining this?

COLION NOIR: No, you’re not imagining. It is exactly what they’re doing. And to me, that’s the most disheartening aspect of this. We’re talking about one of the most important constitutional rights in this country. But yet these individuals who are calling themselves leaders don’t know the first thing about the subject they’re talking about.

They just get their talking points, get in front of the camera, and then spew a bunch of misinformation to millions of people, and then the people believe it.

CARLSON: So what’s interesting is that the same people who lecture you constantly about science and climate change and look at the data, essentially ignore the data when it conflicts with their social engineering.

So Johns Hopkins, which I think is a legitimate institution, or was anyway, has a new study showing that assault weapons bans do not or there’s no evidence to show that they do reduce mass shootings.

So this would — and a lot of studies have shown, this including the Federal government’s own study, during the Clinton administration. Why is this not kind of death for assault weapons bans, they don’t work. So why are we still pushing them?

NOIR: Well, because of the agenda. At the end of the day, and I always go back to this point, because it’s their overall goal, which is control. They don’t really care about what the facts actually say.

What they want is to restrict the Second Amendment into oblivion. That’s the goal. And at this point in time, from what we’ve seen from all of the candidates that have been on stage talking about the Second Amendment and gun control, so forth and so on, and people talking about confiscating weapons.

At this point, we should all understand that. That they have an agenda to restrict the Second Amendment into oblivion. This isn’t about saving lives. This isn’t about trying to find a balance and having a conversation. Because if it was, they wouldn’t be talking about how they beat or destroy the NRA.

They’d be talking about, okay, well, how do we balance protecting people’s rights while trying to, you know, save lives in some manner that makes sense and that’s actually plausible, without taking away people’s constitutional rights, that as far as I’m concerned, I’m not willing to give up for the sake of saying, you know, what, I do feel a little bit safer, when I’m not actually safer.

And so that’s the problem with this conversation as a whole. They really don’t care. What they care about is gaining control.

CARLSON: Yes, controlling the population. Armed populations are to be controlled, and by the way, if they cared about gun violence, they would focus their efforts in places where gun violence is the biggest problem, but of course, they’re against that. It tells you everything.

Colion Noir, it’s great to see you.

NOIR: Absolutely.

CARLSON: No, please, finish up. Put a bow on it.

NOIR: Got you. So for them, it’s too multifaceted for them. They don’t actually want to do work. They don’t want to roll the sleeves up and get the job done, because when you talk about the places that have the most gun violence, it’s a socioeconomic issue. It’s not a gun issue.

Because if it were a gun issue, we’d see this violence widespread across the country. We don’t. It’s concentrated in very specific areas. And there’s a pattern to all of these areas that are not being addressed.

But that would require them to actually care and actually do work.

CARLSON: No, it’s true.

NOIR: They’ll go into these places, and they’ll say, oh, we’ll give you gun control and then leave and never show up again after election.

CARLSON: If someone’s trying to make you powerless and helpless, you should be nervous. That’s a sign — that’s not a good sign. I don’t think at all.

NOIR: It’s not a good sign.

CARLSON: Colion, great to see you. Thank you for that.

Through it all, Speaker Pelosi lurked above, busily turning pages, shaking her head negatively and mouthing disapproval. It was what psychologists call “passive aggressive [...]]]> The 2020 State of the Union event was quite the political show. President Trump discussed policy successes, from the economic expansion to improved border control  (with Mexico’s help, as it happened).

Through it all, Speaker Pelosi lurked above, busily turning pages, shaking her head negatively and mouthing disapproval. It was what psychologists call “passive aggressive behavior,” although she did actively attack her paper copy of the president’s speech as a finale:

On the next day, her whole impeachment gambit fell flat, as the Senate soundly defeated the months-long waste of time. Will she shut up and stop impeaching now, please?

There are plenty of worthwhile things the House of Representatives might work on — infrastructure, fixes to healthcare, E-verify. It is the House’s job to legislate for the good of the American public, in case they have forgotten.

Stuart Varney had a critical evaluation of Pelosi’s performance:

STUART VARNEY: Speaker Pelosi was in a difficult position. She had to sit and watch the president she detests scroll through a long list of his successes — tough indeed. Mr. Trump is winning on so many fronts, and the speaker is losing, but that does not excuse her behavior.

This was the defining moment of the night. Nancy Pelosi ripping up her copy of the president’s speech. Four pages, four rips. I will call it Petulance — that is rather mild statement to use, compared to the avalanche of criticism that erupted on social media. Later she told Fox News, she ripped up the speech, quote, because it was the “courteous thing to do considering the alternatives.”

What does that mean? I think she knew she had no serious response to the president’s achievements. So, she simply engaged in a theatrical tantrum. That is the way I see it.

During the speech, the speaker was Rude. That is an old-fashioned word, but it’s accurate. When the president called out legislators for providing taxpayer-funded healthcare for millions of illegals, she mouthed, “Not true. It’s not true.”

But wait, the speaker is from California, which has indeed pledged to use tax money for illegals healthcare. Case closed.

As the president outlined America’s remarkable economic performance, she shook her head; she rolled her eyes. Why did she do that? She doesn’t believe the booming economy? Really? She believes she should get some of the credit? That is a stretch. She is incapable of giving any credit to the president who deserves it, Donald J. Trump.

What we saw last night was we saw a speaker on the spot, stuck behind the president on camera. She could have had the good grace to do a grin-and-bear-it kind of performance. But she detests him. And she did a scowl, head shake, eye roll, theatrical rip-up performance instead. In the court of public opinion the speaker lost. The president and America won, hands down.

She has a lot of crazy left [...]]]> Attentive citizens probably have noticed that Elizabeth Warren has long had a tenuous relationship with the truth. Most famously, she posed as a Cherokee Indian in order to get a slot as a diverse professor at Harvard, a lie for which she later apologized during her presidential campaign.

She has a lot of crazy left ideas for how she would act as president, one of the worst being gutting the First Amendment with a fascist cadre of speech police.

Fortunately, Warren’s poll numbers are falling, so it’s unlikely she will be the Democrat candidate.

Tucker Carlson opined on Wednesday that candidates tend to become more truthful when they are losing. Maybe, but I tend to think they are just grasping for something different to say, anything that might perk up unimpressed voters.

Democrats weren’t always this horrible — what happened? Is it the constant reaction to 24-7 media where candidates have to one-up whatever was just said, making their responses increasingly extreme?

TUCKER CARLSON: The upside of collapsing political campaigns is they tend to be pretty honest. Once they sense they’re losing, a lot of candidates decide to say what they actually think — what the hell? Why not?

That apparently is where Elizabeth Warren is tonight. With her chances of becoming President having assumed that trajectory of a plane crash, Warren has decided to go full fascist because that’s who she is and has always been.

Today, Warren released a plan that demands criminal penalties for anyone who posts “disinformation online, designed to sway voters.”

Now, try to ignore the redolent irony here. This is the person who for years posted false claims online that she was a Cherokee Indian to sway voters. This is the candidate who pretended she’d lost a job for being pregnant and their kids went to a public school.

Now, this very same person is threatening to send you to prison for telling tall tales. The most florid liar in the race, someone the New York Times once euphemistically described as a gifted storyteller, says she’s going to criminalize lying.

Paging Dr. Freud. That is more than hypocrisy. It’s a sickness.

But let’s take Elizabeth Warren’s plan seriously for a moment. What exactly is this disinformation she intends to ban? If you guess the answer has something to do with Russia, pour yourself another vodka.

According to Warren’s press release today, “The same tactics employed by the Russian government are just as easily accessible to domestic groups seeking to promote or oppose candidates and political or social issues.”

Okay. But what does that mean? Well, it means that when people say things that Elizabeth Warren doesn’t like or that impede her attempts to accumulate power, they should go to jail.

Warren isn’t the first person to fantasize about this, of course, all megalomaniacs dream of running their own ministries of truth. The founders of this country understood that well, and that’s why they protected us with the First Amendment.

Warren doesn’t care. As many on the left have explained, the First Amendment is racist. It was written by slaveholders — shut up and obey! As President, Warren would order tech companies to share information about you so that she can determine who has been saying things she doesn’t want said, and then they can be punished.

Warren has also promised a Global Summit on disinformation so that other fascist governments could coordinate their efforts against speech more efficiently. No word yet on whether North Korea has joined Warren’s budding coalition. Of course, they’re a natural partner in this.

None of this will actually happen, of course, at least not soon. Voters don’t like Elizabeth Warren enough to give her more power.

But what’s amazing is that the press still takes Elizabeth Warren very seriously. They love her. Warren won the New York Times endorsement for President just the other day.

So the question is, are the media on board with her plan to shut down the First Amendment? Don’t take our word for it, see for yourself.

If the media don’t denounce this idea within the next few days, you’ll know they are for it.

Friday’s New York Times front page included an article with the newsprint title Facing Queries [...]]]> Author Peter Schweizer has been making the media rounds doing interviews on his new book Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite, and his attention focused on the crooked Biden family is beginning to have an effect.

Friday’s New York Times front page included an article with the newsprint title Facing Queries About His Son, Biden Is by Turns Calm or Curt (reprinted by MSN.com). So it appears the elite media is pulling back its support for the 2020 candidate.

What’s notable about the Biden clan is how many family members rode the gravy train to riches on the basis of the name and influence. Schweizer has dug up people beyond Hunter that most Americans have never heard of.

Below, the Biden family alleged crooks include (left to right) Joe’s brother James, son Hunter, son-in-law Howard Krein, brother Frank and sister Valerie Biden Owens.

Lou Dobbs recently interviewed the author to get a taste of the Biden family business. Dobbs seemed amazed and almost amused by the brazen arrogance of the clan.

Spare audio:

Schweizer noted how atypical it is for so many family members to be engaged in corruption-based crime:

“It’s remarkable. I mean the Biden family, you’ve got five family members involved. I call them the Biden Five; they’re like the Jackson Five but they don’t sing, it’s corruption, and I’ve never seen this before. You know we’ve talked many times, Lou, on your show about corruption involving Democrats, Republicans. Maybe there’s one family member, maybe there’s two. . .

I’ve never run across one that has five, and on top of the fact that there are five involved, it’s like a corrupt United Nations. You’ve got Hunter Biden doing deals in Ukraine, doing deals in China with state actors, corrupt old guards; you got the brother James who’s with this construction firm that’s set up by a family friend. They get the contract to build a hundred thousand homes in Iraq they get contracts to do work for the State Department’s. Then you’ve got this other brother Frank meeting with the Costa Rican president for these energy deals, and of course he has no background in energy. It just goes on and on.”

For more details on the family members, see Schweizer’s New York Post article, How five members of Joe Biden’s family got rich through his connections.

The book ranked #1 on Amazon 10 days before release, surely based on Schweizer’s reputation as a thorough investigator. It won’t help Joe Biden’s faltering campaign, that’s for sure. Other Democrats get criticism as well: the table of contents shows chapters on Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar.

Why do Democrats think releasing dangerous prisoners was a good idea?? Do criminals have a political [...]]]> Just when you think that Democrats can’t go any lower in disregarding the basic responsibilities of government, there’s this: New York state has flung open the cell doors of its jails to allow dangerous felons to walk free.

Why do Democrats think releasing dangerous prisoners was a good idea?? Do criminals have a political lobby these days?

The law is new, but the carnage is accumulating fast. Tucker Carlson’s brief segment noted several examples, one of which was an illegal alien who was released from jail after allegedly killing a mother of three. Breitbart News had details which bear consideration because they are so off the charts:

New York Jailbreak: Illegal Alien Freed After Allegedly Killing Mother of Three on Christmas Eve, Breitbart.com, by John Binder, December 27, 2019

A New York state law that allows accused criminals to be freed from prison the same day they are arrested for violent crimes has freed an illegal alien accused of killing a mother of three on Christmas Eve.

Jorge Flores-Villalba, a 27-year-old illegal alien, according to Assemblyman Colin Schmitt, was arrested after he allegedly admitted to hitting and killing mother of three Marie “Rosie” Osai, who was a legal immigrant from Haiti, in a Christmas Eve crash on Long Island, New York.

“I was driving and I did strike a person,” Flores-Villalba allegedly told law enforcement officials. “I didn’t call the police. I was afraid because I don’t have a license.”

After being charged with felony fleeing the scene of a deadly accident, Flores-Villalba was arraigned and then freed without bail on Christmas day — less than 24 hours after Osai was allegedly killed. (Continues)

For more examples, see Daniel Horowitz’ article in Conservative Review: New York’s crime laws imploding: 7 insane prison release stories.

Here’s Tucker’s take:

TUCKER CARLSON: Well, a massive change in New York this year that very few anticipated, bail laws changed. Cash bail has been abolished even for several felony crimes, and not surprisingly, criminals are taking advantage. Case in point.

A man called Gerod Woodbury was arrested last week and charged with robbing four banks since the end of the year. But it turned out to be his lucky day. Thanks to new bail laws, Woodbury was out the next day, no bail.

According to police — and this is the part you could have guessed — within a day he had robbed another bank. That would be his fifth bank robbery in just two weeks.

Nicole Malliotakis is a Republican candidate for the Congress of the United States. She’s also a New York State Assemblywoman and former candidate for the Mayor of New York City. She joins us tonight.

Nicole, you’ve joined us a lot to sort of chronicle the decline of the city and the state of New York. This seems like a quantum leap in the wrong direction.

NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, (R-NY): Look, this is an overhaul that no state in America has seen and as a matter of fact, you named just one incident but there are so many more that we can talk about.

On Christmas Eve, you saw an illegal immigrant who was driving unlicensed who killed a mother of three, and he left the scene. He was caught and they released them back into the street.

We had a number of people assaulted including a police officer, Orthodox Jewish women who were assaulted in an admitted hate crime. We saw a woman in the streets of New York City punched — had her teeth punched out, all these individuals were released, and two of the three of them were rearrested within the same week.

This is what’s happening in the State of New York under a very bad law that needs to be fixed and it needs to be fixed immediately. And we’re here in Albany, and we’re pushing for that — those changes.

And you know, the governor has not really given us a straight answer. He is saying that there’s something wrong with it. But he doesn’t want to fix it and needs to be fixed immediately to consider, first of all, someone’s criminal history, to consider their danger to society, to restore judicial discretion, to protect witnesses, which this bill actually makes you release witness information to defendant within 15 days of the arrest.

All these things need to be addressed, and people need to go to my petition and sign now at nicoleforny.com.

CARLSON: I guess I’m a little bit confused here. I mean, who’s the constituency for this? Is it bank robbers? Is it people punch who women in the face and knock their teeth out? I mean, are they the voters that Cuomo is worried about? I mean, who is for this?

MALLIOTAKIS: Well, you know, interestingly enough, you have the Democrats from all levels of government, the city, Mayor de Blasio, who wants to see Rikers Island closed is looking to release people from our jails.

We have people in the Federal level like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, my opponent for Congress; Max Rose, both came out and supported this and supported the closure of Rikers Island and this is all part of the problem. People are afraid. . .

CARLSON: Wait. Let me stop you there. Max Rose, the purported moderate member of Congress is in favor of this?

MALLIOTAKIS: You know, and he is not a moderate and I think people are learning that right away. But look, he said he supported the bail reform that Cuomo proposed. He also supports the closure of Rikers Island, and he is joining AOC and the squad and Nancy Pelosi and voting with them regularly.

But besides that, the thing here is that the people of New York know it’s wrong. The Democrats know it’s wrong. The governor is saying that something needs to be done and yet we’re here now, second week in session, and nobody has done anything to address it, and it’s been us, the Republicans that are putting forward legislation for fixes.

And I’ve got to tell you, if it doesn’t get fixed, there’s going to be blood on Governor Cuomo hands.

CARLSON: Yes. And people are just going to continue to leave the state, of course, because it’s like, why would you live there? Nicole, thanks so much for joining us.

The article noted that the filibuster was once a rare [...]]]> On Friday, December 13, the New York Times front-paged a rather unusual opinion piece that was not a typical liberal celebration of the impeachment process. Instead, it warned that the current effort to remove President Trump was a dangerous escalation of politics in Washington.

The article noted that the filibuster was once a rare tactic, but now it is commonplace. In the same way, impeachment could become a normal strategy from overuse, since the Democrats have depended on it to remove Trump from Day #1 of his term.

Furthermore, some D-partiers like Al Green (D-TX) state openly that they hope to impeach the president again if the current effort does not work out. Apparently, one failure does not dissuade stubborn Dems from dismantling an election.

Below, Democrats held a press conference on Tuesday to discuss their impeachment intentions.

Indeed, author and TV personality Mark Levin recently recommended that Republicans should play impeachment hardball in the future.

He underlined the tactic, remarking, “The next Democrat president of the United States must be impeached. Not to get even, not because we are at their low level. But because the Republicans can’t live under one constitution when the Democrats live under another constitution.”

So Democrats have created another division in the country because they will not accept the choice of more than 62 million voters in 2016. The truth is that libs disapprove of anyone unlike them in political outlook and are willing to go to extreme lengths to get power.

In a Polarized Era, Will Impeachment Become a ‘New Normal’?, New York Times, December 12, 2019

WASHINGTON — It was a powerful congressional weapon deployed in only the most extreme cases, so explosive that lawmakers feared the wider damage it could do if used for the wrong reasons. Today, the filibuster is an everyday part of Senate business, standard operating procedure in a polarized world where the once rare has become commonplace.

With the House poised to impeach President Trump on a mainly party-line vote and Republicans already threatening retribution, fears are mounting that presidential impeachment might, like the filibuster, become a regular feature of America’s weaponized politics, with members of the party out of the White House but in control of the House routinely trying to oust a president they find objectionable.

The escalating use of the filibuster and the rising toxicity of Supreme Court confirmation hearings are examples of how scorched-earth politics can be hard to extinguish once one party feels aggrieved and gets the opportunity to exact revenge.

“We’ve already got the forms, all we have to do is eliminate Donald Trump’s name and put Joe Biden’s name in there,” Representative Louie Gohmert, Republican of Texas, declared Monday, suggesting that Republicans could easily go after a Democratic president if control of the White House and the House were flipped.

Presidential impeachment was once almost unthinkable because of the gravity of overturning the results of an election. For more than two centuries, only one president — Andrew Johnson in 1868 — was subjected to a Senate trial. It became more common in the political lexicon after President Nixon resigned in the face of impeachment in 1974.

After President Bill Clinton’s impeachment, trial and 1999 acquittal, some opponents of his next two successors, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, unsuccessfully raised calls to impeach them. In 2016, some top congressional Republicans discussed impeaching Hillary Clinton before the election was even held. And, as House Republicans have frequently mentioned, some liberal advocacy groups were calling for Mr. Trump’s impeachment in the days before his inauguration in January 2017.

“The question going forward, of course, will be whether the Trump impeachment conditions the public to understand impeachment as a tool of normal politics, or whether it retains its exceptional character,” said Josh Chafetz, a constitutional law professor at Cornell Law School. “The Clinton impeachment does not seem to have been enough to make it a tool of normal politics, but maybe this time will be different.”

Top Democrats acknowledge being torn. Speaker Nancy Pelosi recalled recently that she was under pressure to initiate impeachment proceedings against Mr. Bush for invading Iraq on the false premise of weapons of mass destruction, but she resisted.

“I just didn’t want it to be a way of life in our country,” she said during a town hall on CNN.

Rahm Emanuel, who served in the Clinton White House during the impeachment, agrees that there is a risk that “we are going to normalize impeachment and it is going to have a cascading effect in the way Bork became a term,” he said, referring to Robert H. Bork, the Supreme Court nominee rejected after a fiery 1987 hearing that inflames conservatives to this day.

But like Ms. Pelosi, with whom he later served in the House leadership, Mr. Emanuel said the greater risk was to ignore what he considered egregious and clearly impeachable behavior by the president.

“You have to weigh both of those and realize that you cannot as a country of laws allow someone to conduct themselves as if the law doesn’t apply to them,” Mr. Emanuel said.

Democrats believe the brazen acts of Mr. Trump, captured on a White House transcript pressing a foreign leader to investigate a presidential rival while he was withholding desperately needed military aid, were so blatant that an impeachment vote was required despite its potential future consequences. They see the case against Mr. Trump as a textbook example of why the founding fathers created impeachment, and consider it far worse than Mr. Clinton’s case, in which he was accused of lying about his sexual relationship with an intern.

Yet Republicans view the current episode through the opposite lens, saying that the Republican-led impeachment of Mr. Clinton was fully justified while the action against Mr. Trump is purely political and unsupported by the evidence.

“President Clinton committed a crime, perjury,” Representative Steve Chabot, an Ohio Republican who voted to impeach Mr. Clinton in 1998, said Thursday as the House Judiciary Committee drafted articles of impeachment against the president. “This president isn’t even accused of committing a crime.” (Continues)