'Broken immigration system'

The star could face jail time if convicted

‘The kayak was my escape plan in case stuff got too hairy,’ Heller said

'Her visit to the border means she's in hot water'

'I feel pressures to prioritize a lot of things right now'

REAL CLEAR POLITICS—Though Democrats are endlessly prattling on about “norms” and “democracy,” it is often unclear what aspects of the constitutional order they actually support. This week, for example, Vice President Kamala Harris reiterated her support for suspending the legislative filibuster so that Democrats, should they eke out a slim Senate majority, can overturn thousands of state laws and force the entire country to legalize taxpayer-subsidized, late-term abortions on demand. It is, of course, true that the filibuster isn’t in the Constitution. In many ways, however, it is one of the last remaining tools upholding a semblance of constitutional order. Yet, to most contemporary Democrats, the 60-vote threshold to cut off debate is an antiquated tool that facilitates “minority rule”—by which they mean “federalism.” Which makes sense. Democrats are keen on empowering narrow, fleeting left-wing majorities cramming through wide-ranging generational “reform” bills without any consensus. They know well that once a massive entitlement or regulatory program is passed, it will be virtually impossible to roll back. You don’t need to be a constitutional scholar to understand there’s no version of the founding that envisioned this kind of governance. Imagine, if you can, what the world would look like if former President Donald Trump announced he was going to blow up the filibuster using a one-vote Senate majority and then cram through a national limit on abortion. Republicans would be accused of acting like fascistic ghouls, and the media would have a thermonuclear meltdown. It would be 1939 Germany all over again. Democrats play Calvinball on an all-star level. Worse, Democrats have targeted virtually every institution that makes “democracy” tenable in a truly diverse and sprawling nation that is home to hundreds of millions of people. Because if forcing red states to adopt maximalist abortion laws is important enough to sink long-standing checks on federal power, you better believe it won’t be the last exception to the rule. For one thing, Republicans can’t be expected to play by a different set of governing guidelines. For another, the Left seems to believe every policy position it takes is fundamental to preserving “democracy.” The exemptions would be endless. It’s not just about the naked hypocrisy. It’s about republic-destroying norm-breaking. “Reforming” the filibuster is part of a broader effort to create a powerful, highly centralized state. The Supreme Court is perhaps the only institution inhibiting state overreach these days, which is why Democrats have been busy delegitimizing and now want to pack the court and transform it into another malleable partisan institution. Harris included. The other institution somewhat tempering a direct democracy is the Electoral College. Yet, left-wing pundits are already whining about the undemocratic nature of that institution as well. It is always confusing to me when someone writes to complain that the Electoral College doesn’t align with the “popular vote,” as if this wasn’t the entire point of the enterprise. If the two always harmonized, we wouldn’t need it. The Senate was created as a counter-majoritarian institution. Now that leftists believe they have the upper hand, they are increasingly perplexed by the fact that Wyoming and California have the same number of senators. You know, it’s called the United States for a reason. When it comes to executive abuse, Trump, who makes tons of grandiose promises that lay far outside the president’s purview, is a mere piker compared to his predecessor and successor. There is a growing movement among progressive politicians and intellectuals, sometimes referred to as “popular constitutionalism,” that would allow Democrats to ignore the courts whenever they choose. It’s no accident that Harris promised to confiscate guns via an executive order like some kind of dictator. Or that Biden keeps ignoring the high court and unilaterally “forgives” loans. Or that Democratic senators implore their president to declare national emergencies that would empower the White House to run the entire economy through a massive administrative state. Perhaps Harris’ position on the filibuster is a cynical play for votes. What’s become undeniable, however, is that counter-constitutionalism is being normalized on the Left. Democrats want to get rid of the Electoral College so that a few giant urban areas can run the executive branch. They want to get rid of the filibuster so they can unilaterally transform the nation. When they don’t have congressional majorities, they want (their) presidents to rule by fiat. And many now want to pack the Supreme Court to make sure no one will stop them. There are numerous ways to describe this brand of governance, but none of them have anything to do with American norms or democracy. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Harris’ Attack on the Filibuster Is an Attack on the Constitutional Order appeared first on The Daily Signal.

REAL CLEAR POLITICS—For eight years now, Democrats have bemoaned interference in American elections. The national security apparatus of the United States has been warning about influence campaigns. The media has done so as well. Editorials and anchors have decried Russian interference. They are all strangely silent over the latest foreign interference in our elections. That would be President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine, on the American taxpayer’s dime, going to—surprise, surprise—highly contested Pennsylvania to thank munitions manufacturing employees. In an interview, he also attacked Republican vice presidential candidate JD Vance as “too radical.” You and I get to call Vance a radical and bad on economic views as a protectionist, but Zelenskyy is a foreign leader who should shut his American welfare-subsidized mouth. I am a staunch supporter of funding Ukraine and supporting Zelenskyy. The Russians invaded the country. We had prior commitments to protecting Ukraine’s sovereignty after they surrendered their nuclear arsenal to Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. Stopping Russian aggression and expansion is good. It is also good to have live fire tests of our weapons systems against the best of Russia’s, which we are getting. But Zelenskyy risks everything by doing what amounts to a campaign stop in Pennsylvania, and the Biden administration was deeply foolish for putting Zelenskyy in that position. Undoubtedly, Zelenskyy thinks he has nothing to lose because he presumed, based on American press biases, that Donald Trump would shut down all funding for Ukraine immediately. That actually grossly misstates Trump’s position. Trump actually was much firmer against Russia than Barack Obama was, but you would never know it from most press reports. Trump’s sanctions on Russians were more aggressive and he was more willing to deport Russian government-related officials than Obama. But now? After Zelenskyy goes to a swing state to attack Trump’s vice presidential candidate, he better really pray Kamala Harris wins. It was political, policy, and presidential malpractice for Joe Biden to let Zelenskyy go down that road. Biden has compromised support for Ukraine by tying it directly to a partisan presidential election. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson is now demanding Zelenskyy fire his Ukrainian ambassador to the United States for signing off on the trip, which Johnson rightly notes appears to be a political stunt at American taxpayer expense. Notice just how approving so much of the press corps and Democrats are who regularly wail about election interference in the United States. They seem to be just fine with it if it helps Democrats or, at least, hurts Trump. Do not be surprised when more Republicans turn against Ukraine and fewer care about the very real issue of electoral interference by foreign governments. It looks like the Democrats and much of the press really are fine with foreign interference in the presidential election if it is for the Democrats. The precedent here is disturbing. One need not have much imagination to see Trump cajoling a foreign leader like the prime minister of Israel to barnstorm the United States for Trump. The media and Democrats would complain, but they set the precedent. The Ukraine war is a serious issue. Russia invaded a nation and wishes to rebuild a sphere of influence with the help of an Eastern Axis of China, Iran, and North Korea. The fight in Ukraine is a fight about the future, and one that costs the United States a tiny portion of its budget and zero American lives. In return for keeping Russian ambitions in check, we have gathered remarkable intelligence about the collaboration of the Eastern Axis and its ability to design and deploy weapons. Most of our money goes to Ukraine in the form of loans, which European powers guarantee. The money then comes back to the United States in the form of weapons purchases. We give Ukraine our old stuff and build new stuff for ourselves. All the while, we keep the Russians in check. Zelenskyy’s visit jeopardizes that and his own fight, all because the Biden administration decided to politicize the war for their benefit in a swing state. Shame on them. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Democrats Support Foreign Interference to Stop Trump appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Left used to pressure reporters trying to be objective by insulting them as “stenographers to power.” You can’t just repeat what the powerful say, they argued. You have to expose them. Well, some of them. We remember all the lectures during the Trump presidency that all their anti-Trump aggression was just “holding him accountable.” Holding Democrats accountable isn’t really their bag. You don’t win Pulitzer Prizes for damaging Democrats. That’s not landing on the “right side of history.” With Democrats, it’s apparently dangerous to explore if they might be failing. It’s better to just repeat their spin. That’s what stood out on “The NPR Politics Podcast” on Sept. 23. It was short—only 11 minutes. The title? “How Kamala Harris incorporates her biography into her campaign message.” NPR White House reporter Tamara Keith claimed to be struck by Harris hammering on her middle-class childhood: “She said, ‘I come from the middle class. I’ll never forget that I came from the middle class.’ She also talks, as you say, about having a single mother, immigrant parents. She is placing herself in the American story in a way that I think is authentic to her, but also meant to maximize who she appeals to.” It’s amusing that Harris’ middle-class mantra is “authentic to her.” She doesn’t come across as authentic when she unloads this speech every single time she’s asked about an economic policy. Worse yet, Keith touted how her campaign sources explain she uses this humble-upbringing line as a contrast with the silver spoon in Donald Trump‘s mouth. Keith even repeated Harris’ claim that she worked at McDonald’s one summer in her college years. Reporters at the Washington Free Beacon tracked down a 1987 job application that insisted applicants should list all jobs held in the last 10 years. Harris didn’t have McDonald’s on hers. They also found there’s no record of Harris mentioning the McDonald’s job before a labor rally in Las Vegas in June 2019. The job goes unmentioned in both of her memoirs, published in July 2010 and January 2019. NPR reporters aren’t investigating this. They merely repeat her life story without investigating it, just as they did for Barack Obama. Nobody investigated his memoirs. They just repeated his tales in admiring tones. NPR political analyst Domenico Montanaro was impressed with Harris not harping on her gender or race too much, calling it “probably a strong, safe strategy, which makes a lot of sense.” But he said early on, he felt if Harris entered the race, “Trump and Republicans would really struggle in talking about a black woman. And we’ve seen that play out repeatedly, where it really has sort of become a trap for them.” So, they not only explain the Harris strategy, they praise it, and insist Republicans can’t handle a black woman. Your tax dollars at work. The podcast ended with NPR reporter Deepa Shivaram throwing racism and sexism into the mix to explain why Harris doesn’t harp on her race or gender: “This isn’t something that she feels like she does have to explain to anyone, let alone the media and largely, like, white reporters who feel the need to ask about this over and over again … . [W]e should point out, Donald Trump does not face these questions, and candidates who are white and male don’t face these questions either.” No, they face questions about being a racist and sexist who “really struggles in talking about a black woman.” This is why NPR liberals are more excited about Harris’ chances than they were about Joe Biden’s. DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post When Reporters Are Just Explainers, Not Investigators appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Heated Rhetoric Up as Port Strike Deadline Counts Down

NEW YORK CITY, N.Y. — Thousands of protesters took to the streets in Manhattan to voice their outrage at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visiting the United Nations for the organization's General Assembly, calling for his arrest for Israel's actions in the war against Hamas and Hezbollah.Tensions have risen in the city in recent days because Israel's military has conducted numerous strikes on Hezbollah's positions in southern Lebanon and the terrorist group's leadership. Thursday's protests were organized by anti-Israel groups such as the ANSWER Coalition and Within Our Lifetime. Each of their protests saw traffic disruptions with people marching all over Manhattan.As the evening progressed, the march became more unruly as protesters taunted New York Police Department officers who were monitoring the crowd. At one moment, officers on bicycles were blocked by protesters, forcing them to ride away from the area."You're gonna die!" one protester shouted. "All you gonna die in the line of fire!"Some in the angry crowd did their best to disrupt NYPD operations. — (@) With multiple scuffles and shoving matches taking place, the NYPD ordered the crowd to get off the road and onto the sidewalk. When a large part of the crowd refused, officers began to make arrests, leading to more fighting. During one of the first arrests, the crowd surrounded the officers, who had to shove people away to make space. — (@) — (@) Toward the end of the protest, some in the angry crowd did their best to disrupt NYPD operations. They began throwing trash and sidewalk items into the road to jam up officers on bicycles and in vehicles. — (@) — (@) NBC New York reports at least 50 people were arrested during the protest.Within Our Lifetime released a statement accusing the NYPD of inciting a "cop riot" at the behest of Netanyahu.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!