Five House Democrats took $60,000 Trip to Beyoncé Concert in South Africa

by Daveda Gruber:

Democrats like paid vacations. We saw this when, in January, a group of Congressional Democrats was criticized for flying to Puerto Rico  for the Congressional Hispanic Caucus BOLD PAC gathering in San Juan. The trip included a special performance of the Broadway play “Hamilton.”

This was not the only vacation that they didn’t have to paid for.

According to congressional disclosure records, five members of the Congressional Black Caucus took a $60,000 trip to see Beyoncé and her husband, JAY-Z at a live performances in Johannesburg, South Africa late last year.

The event, which honored the 100th anniversary of the birth of late South African leader Nelson Mandela also featured performances and appearances from Ed Sheeran, Eddie Vedder, Pharrell Williams, Chris Martin, Kacey Musgraves, Usher, Oprah and “Daily Show” host Trevor Noah.

The lawmakers who went on the taxpayer funded trip were:

U.S. Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York

U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee of California

U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush of Illinois

U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell of Alabama

U.S. Rep.Hank Johnson of Georgia

The Democrats attended the “Global Citizen Mandela 100” concert from Dec. 1-3 to celebrate the centenary birth of the late Nelson Mandela and raise awareness of global poverty.

The lawmakers appeared in a photo that the Rev. Al Sharpton, who also attended the event, posted on his Twitter page:

 

The Washington Examiner reported that the trip was paid for by Global Citizen, a nonprofit that lobbies for anti-poverty programs around the world. There were over 90,000 fans in attendance.
The group said the presence of members of Congress at the concert would “showcase America’s ongoing commitment [to] health equality and global human rights.”

It was reported that Rep. Meeks said, “In the spirit of Nelson Mandela, we pledge to keep working with our colleagues in Congress, across the country and across the aisle, to make sure that every child in Africa and at home has the opportunity to thrive and grow in a safe and prosperous world.”

When asked how the trip was related to his congressional duties Meeks said, “As a Sr. member of the Foreign Affairs Comm[ittee] who understands the importance of both multilateral & bilateral relations on trade & foreign policy, developing that relationship is crucial.”

A watchdog group, The National Legal and Policy Center, called the trip a “mockery.”

Tom Anderson, president of the NLPC’s Government Integrity Project, said, “These members of Congress that were given an all-expense paid vacation to party with Oprah, Jay Z, and Beyoncé in South Africa are claiming with a straight face this was needed to help poor children around the world live better lives. This was in fact, a mockery of House ethics rules on gifts and travel, the truly poor, and all Americans that expect members of Congress to live not only by the letter of the law but by the spirit and intentions of the rules of the House of Representatives.”

The nature of the Global Citizen Festival itself are adamant that those who earned tickets via their activism deserve a unique reward and that reward is being the only group of people who get to watch the performance in full.

A representative for Rep. Sewell said her travel “was pre-approved by the House Ethics Committee and was not paid for at taxpayer expense.”

The representative also said, “Rep. Sewell and several other members attended the Global Citizen Mandela 100 Festival, a platform for world leaders to speak out against racial injustice and inequity, and voice their support for international assistance for underprivileged populations.”

According to the travel itinerary, the congressional members were in South Africa for one full day and also used two partial days for travel.
Here are some portions of the concert the Democrats enjoyed:

 

New England Patriots’ Owner Charged in Florida Sex Spa Scandal

by Daveda Gruber:

There are those who like the New England Patriots and those who don’t like them for one reason or another. The owner of the team has just given some another reason to not cheer on the 2019 Super Bowl champs next season.

On Friday New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft was charged with two counts of soliciting prostitution at a Florida spa.

The charges are not being taken lightly because police are saying there is video evidence.

Kraft, 77, is accused of paying for sexual acts at Orchids of Asia Day Spa in Jupiter which is located about 90 miles north of Miami.

Kraft’s name was among more than a dozen who were charged along with Kraft.

Police said they have video of Kraft and others receiving the sexual acts. Also, Kraft participated in prostitution in Florida on two separate occasions.

After a months-long investigation, the spa was allegedly shut down. The investigation revealed women were participating in “sexual servitude.”

There were nine other spas in Orlando, Palm Beach County and Treasure Coast that had also been shut down as part of the investigation.

Police said the suspects paid rates that were between $59 and $79 for services.

Authorities said that they handed the case over to the state’s attorney’s office. Authorities also said that they were working on an active warrant for Kraft’s arrest.

A Patriots’ spokesperson said in a statement, “We categorically deny that Mr. Kraft engaged in any illegal activity. Because it is a judicial matter, we will not be commenting further.”

The NFL had this to say, “The NFL is aware of the ongoing law enforcement matter and will continue to monitor developments.”

Kraft is reported to be worth $6 billion.

Kraft founded International Forest Products in 1972. He helped the company become one of the top importer/exporters by the late 90s.

Kraft also invested in New England Television Corp. in 1982 and later sold his shares for about $25 million.

Kraft married his wife, Myra Nathalie Hiatt, in 1963. They had four children, all sons and multiple grandchildren together. She died of ovarian cancer in July 2011.

He had reportedly been dating 39-year-old actress Ricki Noel Lander around a year after the death of his wife. The woman in question gave birth to a child in 2017. There were numerous speculations over whether Kraft was the father of the child. Kraft had denied the allegations that the child was his.

The New England Patriots won their sixth Super Bowl championship this year and Kraft was present to celebrate.

Kraft owns a home in Palm Beach and frequently spends time in Florida.

Why Hillary Clinton Was Not Locked Up

by Daveda Gruber:

Whatever happened to locking up Hillary Clinton? We were waiting  patiently to see justice served and that day has not come. The FBI never gave Conservatives reason to feel that the guilty, no matter how far up the political chain, would be punished for the crimes they allegedly committed.

It appears that someone thought there was wrong doing. The FBI’s top lawyer in 2016 under ex-Director James Comey the FBI’s top lawyer thought that Hillary Clinton and her team should have immediately realized that they were mishandling “highly classified” information based on the obviously sensitive nature of the emails’ contents sent through Hillary’s private server.

According to a transcript of his closed-door testimony before congressional committees last October, former FBI general counsel James Baker believed she should have been prosecuted until “pretty late” in the investigation.

Baker said high-level officials at the bureau were “arguing about” whether to bring charges against Clinton. He originally thought that Clinton’s behavior was “alarming” and “appalling.”

Baker said, “So, I had that belief initially after reviewing, you know, a large binder of her emails that had classified information in them. And I discussed it internally with a number of different folks, and eventually became persuaded that charging her was not appropriate because we could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that…we, the government, could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that… she had the intent necessary to violate (the law).”

Baker told lawmakers that it was “the nature and scope of the classified information that, to me, initially, when I looked at it, I thought these folks should know that this stuff is classified, that it was alarming what they were talking about, especially some of the most highly classified stuff.”

Democrats clearly recall then candidate Donald Trump, while on the campaign trail, vowing to prosecute Mrs. Clinton if he won the election.

Brian Fallon, who was Mrs. Clinton’s campaign spokesman, said, “It was alarming enough to chant ‘lock her up’ at a campaign rally. It is another thing entirely to try to weaponize the Justice Department in order to actually carry it out.”

On the other hand, Conservatives said Mrs. Clinton should not be immune from scrutiny as a special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, investigates Russia’s interference in last year’s election and any connections to Mr. Trump’s campaign. They argued, for instance, that Mrs. Clinton was the one doing Russia’s bidding in the form of a uranium deal approved when she was Secretary of State.

A December letter by former House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy and former House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte said the decision not to prosecute Clinton was not unanimous.

Under questioning by Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, Baker spoke extensively about the back and forth arguments.

Here’s part of that discussion:

Ratcliffe: All right. Are you a reasonable prosecutor?

Baker: Not anymore. I’m not a prosecutor anymore. 

Then there is a quick exchange of questions and answers. Ratcliff pivots back to Baker’s decision to change his mind regarding Clinton.

Ratcliffe: You were persuaded, and stated as a basis, that ultimately you were persuaded there was a lack of evidence establishing knowledge or criminal intent, correct?

Baker: Yes.

Ratcliffe: When were you persuaded?

Baker: Sorry. Pretty late in the process, because we were arguing about it, I think, up until the end.

Ratcliffe: Yeah, So Jim Comey had reached the opposite conclusion as early as – or I guess as late as May the 2nd of 2017, as reflected in the memo that he created, correct?

Baker: I know there’s been a lot of public discussion about that – this way I experienced that interaction and other interactions with Jim Comey is he would throw things out like that to get people to start talking and thinking about it and test his conclusions against others and get them to push back. And so, it was – I believe it was in that process that I read these emails and we had these discussions and arguments.

Baker’s testimony was considered credible by those in the room.

In a televised interview on July 3, 2016, Clinton claimed that she had “never received nor sent any material that was marked classified” using her personal email system.

Later on she said she regretted using the setup after it emerged that her private servers contained classified materials from Special Access Programs, or SAP, which are considered some of the most closely held U.S. government secrets.

So, there you have it. Hillary was very close to being held accountable for her alleged negligent behavior. It appears that Comey’s influence stopped the investigation in its tracks.

RBG Returns to the Bench for Ruling on Excessive Seizure of Property by States

by Daveda Gruber:

On Wednesday the Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision that marked the first time the court has applied the Constitution’s ban on excessive fines at the state level.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the court’s opinion and read a summary of her opinion in the courtroom.

The 85-year-old justice missed arguments last month following lung cancer surgery, but returned to the bench on Tuesday.

The outcome could help efforts to rein in police seizure of property from criminal suspects.

Ginsburg’s opinion piece was in favor of Tyson Timbs, of Marion, Indiana. Police seized Timbs’ $40,000 Land Rover when they arrested him for selling about $400 worth of heroin.

Ginsburg noted that governments employ fines “out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence” because fines are a source of revenue.

Ginsburg wrote, “Protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history for good reason: Such fines undermine other liberties. They can be used, e.g., to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. They can also be employed, not in service of penal purposes, but as a source of revenue.”

Timbs had twice previously sold drugs to undercover officers. The Land Rover was purchased with money Timbs received from his father’s life insurance policy after his death in 2012.

After his arrest, Timbs pleaded guilty to one count of dealing in a controlled substance. He was sentenced to one year of home detention and five years of probation, and had to pay court fees and fines totaling $1,200.

A trial court in Indiana and the Indiana Court of Appeals found that taking the Land Rover would be “grossly disproportional to the gravity” of Timbs’ offense and unconstitutional under the Constitution’s excessive fines clause.

The trial judge noted Timbs’ vehicle was worth roughly four times the maximum monetary fine of $10,000 the state could have levied against him for his crimes.

The Indiana Supreme Court disagreed, and said the Supreme Court “has never held that the states are subject to the Excessive Fines Clause.”

The SCOTUS ruling was unanimous and Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a separate opinion outlining different reasons for reaching the same conclusion. He wrote that “the right to be free from excessive fines is one of the ‘privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States’ protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Ginsburg’s opinion was based on the due process clause of the same amendment.

The Supreme Court sent the case of Tyson Timbs back to a lower court to decide if Indiana officials went too far in seizing Timbs’ Land Rover.

The high court’s ruling could now limit the ability for states and cities to carry out an increasingly common practice of imposing steep fines and seizing property.

MS-13 Members Part of Immigrant Caravan

by Daveda Gruber:

How does anyone know who is fleeing Central America for political reasons and who is infiltrating the Caravan? Well, we found out that there are MS-13 members amongst the refugees.

So far, at least 25 gang members affiliated with the MS-13 gang were deported from Mexico. They were revealed to be concealed among the 1,600 Central American migrants who are now just across the U.S. border in Mexico.

On Tuesday Mexico’s immigration officials (Instituto Nacional de Migración) said that the Caravan arrived in Piedras Negras, Mexico, two weeks ago.

The location in Mexico is across from Eagle Pass, Texas.

Officials from the Instituto Nacional de Migración identified 10 gang members from Mara Salvatrucha which is also known as MS-13.

After warehouse exchanges with police, officials allegedly discovered 15 more MS-13 members. They were deported.

A total of 70 Central American migrants have been deported to their home countries along with the gang members.

About 1,500 migrants have been granted humanitarian visas to move freely within Mexico.

The deportations were reported by Mexican state news agency, Notimex. The news agency reported that deportations occurred after issues at a shelter in the border city of Piedras Negras came to light.

Officials said on Saturday that the shelter, which holds hundreds of Central American migrants, would be closed by Wednesday.

Coahuila State Public Safety Secretary Jose Luis Pliego told press that authorities have taken about 400 migrants to neighboring states such as Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas to be integrated into the workforce.

The rest of the migrants may seek other options to try to cross into the United States.

The migrants have wanted to appear at the U.S. border to apply for asylum. Only about a dozen per day have been allowed to go through a port of entry.

According to U.S. Border Patrol Agents, authorities arrested more than 100 people believed to be El Salvadorian gang members in the Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol Sector in Texas.

The dangerous MS-13 gang originated in Los Angeles’ prisons before infiltrating the rest of the U.S. mainly consists of El Salvadorans.

President Trump visited the Rio Grande Valley Sector in January. Trump highlighted what he called a crisis of crime and drugs along the southern border.

Democrats are adamantly opposed to a border wall or barrier even though many supported the idea during previous administrations.

Did a Coup D’etat Nearly Take Down President Trump?

by Daveda Gruber:

Did you ever want to be a fly on the wall to see and hear what was going on in a particular situation? I have thought about it many times. What I did not realize is even though I wasn’t there to see and hear, I already knew the answers to some questions that were rather important and stuck in my mind.

On Monday President Trump drew a conclusion that, for some reason, I had already written about. When Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi spoke about a “wrap-up smear,” it appeared clear that this method was used by the FBI in securing a FISA warrant against then candidate Donald Trump and eventually getting a special counsel to investigate it.

By putting two and two together, I fully understood what it meant and came up with what the “insurance policy” was that Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were referring to and implicating “Andy,” who is former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, with them.

McCabe was clear on his statement that Rosenstein was “absolutely serious” when he suggested recording Trump in the tumultuous days following James Comey’s firing as FBI director.

President Trump accused Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and McCabe of pursuing an “illegal and treasonous” plot against him.

Trump called McCabe a liar before lashing out at top DOJ and FBI officials, including ousted Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

McCabe was fired last year by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Trump did not hold back when he tweeted:

McCabe recently wrote a book and revived some issues during promotional interviews for the forthcoming tell all book.

McCabe appeared on CBS News’ “60 Minutes” and detailed private DOJ alleged discussions about secretly recording and potentially ousting the president.

McCabe claimed he “never actually considered taking [Rosenstein] up on the offer.” He said he did discuss the matter with the FBI’s then-general counsel, James A. Baker.

Last autumn Baker told lawmakers during a closed-door deposition that McCabe and Page came to Baker “contemporaneously” and told him details of the meeting where Rosenstein made the comments about the wearing of a wire. Baker told congressional investigators he took the word of McCabe and Page “seriously.”

McCabe told CBS News that “I think the general counsel had a heart attack” when he told him of Rosenstein’s plan.

McCabe added, “And when he got up off the floor, he said, ‘I, I, that’s a bridge too far. We’re not there yet.”

The plot thickened when days later, Rosenstein appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as a special counsel to oversee the bureau’s investigation into allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials through the Russia probe, which has also involved examining whether the president obstructed justice.

Rosenstein, who has repeatedly has denied he “pursued or authorized recording the president,” has denied McCabe’s suggestion that the deputy attorney general had broached the idea of invoking the Constitution’s 25th Amendment.

The 25th Amendment allows Cabinet members to seek the removal of a president if they conclude that he or she is mentally unfit.

The Justice Department resonated both denials in a statement released last week and said that Rosenstein “was not in a position to consider invoking the 25th Amendment.”

This differs from what McCabe said in the interview, “Rod raised the [25th Amendment] issue and discussed it with me in the context of thinking about how many other Cabinet officials might support such an effort.” He then added that he believed Rosenstein was “counting votes or possible votes” to remove Trump from office.

Baker, in his testimony to Congress, provided even more details about the alleged 25th Amendment discussions and said that two Cabinet officials were “ready to support” such an effort.

Baker testified, “I was being told by some combination of Andy McCabe and Lisa Page, that, in a conversation with the Deputy Attorney General, he had stated that he…this was what was related to me…that he had at least two members of the president’s Cabinet who were ready to support, I guess you would call it, an action under the 25th Amendment.”

Allegedly, Rosenstein told McCabe he might be able to persuade then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions and then-Secretary of Homeland Security and later White House chief of staff John Kelly to invoke the 25th Amendment.

This whole scenario stinks of a Coup d’etat to me. It is my opinion that the “insurance policy” was contrived to take the newly elected President Trump out of office. Sadly, the Mueller lead Russia investigation was started with fabricated lies that were written about in the mainstream media and given relevance and then were blown up by the Democrats.

Now, go back to Pelosi’s description of the “wrap-up smear” and it will all make perfect sense to you as it is to me.

The “Deep State” is alive and well and living in the murky waters of “the swamp.”

Anthony Weiner Released from Prison will Register as Sex Offender

by Daveda Gruber:

Former Congressman Anthony Weiner has been released from federal prison in Massachusetts. The disgraced Weiner will register as sex offender.

The New York Democrat was convicted for sexting a 15-year-old girl from North Carolina and sentenced to 21 months behind bars. He served 15 months of his 21-month sentence.

His sentence was cut by three months for good behavior while he was serving his sentence.

Weiner, aged 54 years, is now part of the federal re-entry program in New York as he awaits his full release on May 14th. It is alleged that he is serving the remaining time of his sentence in a halfway house or in home confinement before his official release.

Weiner has been transferred from Federal Medical Center in Massachusetts into the care of New York’s Residential Re-entry Management program.

He will spend three years on supervised release and will have to pay a $10,000 fine as well as register as a sex offender.

A once-rising star in the Democratic Party who served nearly 12 years in Congress, Weiner had a dramatic and sordid fall from grace after he sent a lewd picture of himself to a college student over Twitter in 2011.

Weiner attempted a comeback in 2013 when he ran for New York City mayor. That ended when it was revealed that he had sexted with another woman under the pseudonym “Carlos Danger.”

At first Weiner claimed his account had been hacked. He later admitted he’d had inappropriate online interactions with at least six other women while he was married to top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

 

Trump Declares National Emergency

by Daveda Gruber:

The time has come. President Trump has just declared a national emergency. On Friday Trump said that he is declaring a national emergency on the southern border.

The decision has been reached so that the president can use executive powers to divert billions toward construction of a wall. He will use the $1.4 billion from the spending package that he intends on signing towards the wall but he says it is not enough.

Trump spoke from the Rose Garden and said, “We’re going to confront the national security crisis on our southern border, one way or the other, we have to do it,”

Trump also said, “Walls work” and added, “We’re talking about an invasion of our country.”

This way Trump can continue fighting for the wall or barrier construction and use money-moving plans to accomplish this.

If Trump didn’t sign the deal given to him by Congress the government would have had to shutdown at midnight.

Legal challenges face the president over this move even though this maneuver has been used by many other presidents.

Trump calmly said, “We will have a national emergency, and we will then be sued.”

He added that the federal appeals courts could well rule against his administration but he said, “Then we’ll end up in the Supreme Court, and hopefully we’ll get a fair shake, and we’ll win at the Supreme Court, just like the [travel] ban.”

The White House plans to next move $8 million in currently appropriated or available funds toward construction of the wall. Three billion dollars of that money could be diverted with help from the emergency declaration.

The money includes about $600 million from the Treasury Department’s forfeiture fund. That money has been described as “easy money” that the White House can use however it wants.

It is expected that the White House will use drug interdiction money from the Department of Defense.

Trump would also seek to unlock money from the Defense Department’s military construction budget too. That would be $3.5 billion. This all can be done by declaring an emergency.

The bill that Trump and the White House went through the Bill and found that it imposed a number of restrictions on the White House. Legislative language would prevent the administration from moving funds around to get a barrier or a wall. This aspect may have contributed to the emergency declaration decision.

The package provides just enough to build 55 miles of barrier. The word “wall” does not appear in the 1,768 pages of legislation and explanatory materials.

Democrats are fiercely opposed to Trump’s decision, as can be expected.

You can watch Trump declare the emergency HERE:

The White House tweeted this out:

Green New Deal Going to the Senate for Vote?

by Daveda Gruber:

On Tuesday Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell R-Kentucky said that he wants to hold a vote on the “Green New Deal” resolution proposed by and authored by co-sponsors Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez D-N.Y. and Senator Ed Markey D-MA “to see how [Senate Democrats] feel about the ‘Green New Deal’.”

On Thursday the Democratic leader in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, slammed Republicans for planning a vote on the “Green New Deal.” Schumer labeled the forced vote a “stunt,” a “cheap, cynical ploy” and “a game of political gotcha.”

Schumer said on the Senate floor, “The Republican leader announced he’s going to bring up a resolution he intends to vote against. Now that is what the American people hate about Congress, the pointless partisan games.”

Schumer, who was joined by colleagues on the Senate floor, said, “Bring it on.” He also said Democrats “believe that we need to do something about climate change” he then added, “Do Republicans?”

The Green New Deal has been endorsed by nearly all top 2020 Democratic presidential candidates.

McConnell told reporters, “I’ve noted with great interest the Green New Deal. And we’re going to be voting on that in the Senate. We’ll give everybody an opportunity to go on record and see how they feel about the Green New Deal.”

McConnell wants to force Democrats to officially go on the record for the radical proposal.

The proposal was put forward by Cortez and aims to transform the country’s economy in a bid to combat climate change. It was recently under examination that revealed that a related FAQ document included passages promising a job to “all people of the United States” that includes those “unwilling to work” and suggests that air travel could be made obsolete.

The document that is now deleted, told of getting rid of farting cows and airplanes within ten years. The goal has been changed to get to net-zero rather than zero emissions in ten years because they were not sure that they would be able to accomplish that as fast as they would like to.

McConnell’s move to bring the plan to a vote on the Senate floor would enlighten the public to what Democratic presidential candidates including Sens. Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand who are running on the progressive platform in 2020.

President Trump has not thought much of the co-sponsored deal and tweeted this:

Markey said, “Don’t let Mitch McConnell fool you, this is nothing but an attempt to sabotage the movement we are building. He wants to silence your voice so Republicans don’t have to explain why they are climate change deniers. McConnell wants this to be the end, this is just the beginning,”

If this is the beginning, I am not looking forward to more of this rhetoric. Something in my head tells me, “If you like your car, you can keep your car.”

I really don’t see super trains taking the place of airplanes and I don’t see everyone getting rid of their car for an electric one. We can’t stop cows from passing gas. So, no more steaks or burgers? That upsets me, as well. I enjoy a nice Filet Mignon on occasion.

I see these points being brought to light continuously in the 2020 election debates. The Democrats will try to sell the American people on climate change/global warming but I don’t believe the majority of people are ready to accept what the “Green New Deal” proposes.

Rashida Tlaib Wrote a Column for Louis Farrakhan

by Daveda Gruber:

Anti-Antisemitism is lurking amongst new lawmakers in the House of Representatives. House Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-MI wrote a column  in 2006 entitled “Bills must stop deportations for minor offenses,” on The Final Call for Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

The Final Call is an online publication founded and maintained by Farrakhan.

Excerpts of what Tlaib, the freshman Palestinian American, wrote:

“Lost in the often-vitriolic national quarrel over immigration reform is any examination of proposed measures that would result in excessive punishment, such as detention and deportation, for the most minor offenses. Concern for “national security” has introduced unprecedented insecurity to living in the United States as a legal permanent resident.”

It’s easy to forget that detention and deportation have real and long-lasting effects on families. We are not able to see such negative effects right away, or immigrants fear speaking out.

After 9/11, fear between Arab and Muslim communities rose and remain widespread, as repressive policies seem to target particular nationalities.

Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) officials stated that this was part of a national operation to apprehend immigrants that committed violent crimes. However, reports from community members verified that ICE began knocking on neighboring homes one by one and took several people into custody without just cause.

There is no mention of these dangerous provisions in the debate. Over and over again, we hear about border security, legalization and national security, but there is no reference to maintaining our tradition and American values of keeping families together, providing a safe haven for the needy and advancing humanity.”

The full op-ed can be found HERE:

After publication, a spokesperson for Tlaib said in a statement, “As a former immigration attorney and advocate, Congresswoman Tlaib has published numerous articles about the need for immigrant rights. The goal was to educate citizens about the importance of passing just and humane immigration reform, which is still a priority for her district today.

The piece was from 2006 and was not an endorsement of Farrakhan or anyone for that matter. The Congresswoman has not had any direct contact with Farrakhan and condemns his anti-Semitic and anti-LGBTQ views.”

Tlaib later came under bipartisan criticism from Jewish groups for appearing with radical anti-Israel activists during her swearing in ceremony in Michigan. Some of the activists previously praised terror group Hezbollah and Palestinian terrorists saying that Israel has no right to exist.

Tlaib’s association with Farrakhan comes after strong criticism of her and other freshmen Democrats who have been accused of anti-Semitism.

Tlaib also has a prominent fundraiser who has partaken in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

Tlaib’s Democratic colleague, another freshman, is Somali American Rep. Ilhan Omar D-MN. She has also faced similar criticisms for thoughtless remarks about Israel and Jewish advocacy groups in the United States.

So far, Democratic leadership has defended Tlaib and Omar. House Democratic Caucus Chair Hakeem Jeffries D-N.Y. and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer D-MD dismissed concerns of anti-Semitism last month. Hoyer said, “I don’t know that I draw the conclusion that these two members are anti-Semitic. I don’t accept that.”

Farrakhan is open on his rhetoric. In 1984, Farrakhan praised Nazi leader Adolf Hitler when he said, “The Jews don’t like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that’s a good name. Hitler was a very great man.”

More recently Twitter took action against hate spewing Farrakhan when he shared a video warning about “Satanic Jews.” He wrote, “Will you recognize Satan? I wonder, will you see the Satanic Jew and the Synagogue of Satan, which has many races in it because Satan has deceived the whole world?”

His anti-Semitic vocabulary continued when he recently posted another video where he says that he wasn’t prejudiced against Jewish people but was simply “anti-Termite.”

Farrakhan and his followers went on a solidarity trip to Iran in November. In Iran he led “Death to America” chants. During the trip, Farrakhan told Iranian students that “America has never been a democracy,” and also led a “Death to Israel” chant at the end of his talk. This was reported by Iranian news agencies.

Antisemitism is not new in the U.S. or anywhere else, for that matter. The fact that it is out in the open and spewed regularly is disturbing.

It is pretty much still fresh in our minds what happened at the Tree of Life Synagogue in the Squirrel Hill neighborhood where eleven congregants died when they were gunned down by Robert Bowers.