Archive for the ‘Elizabeth Warren’ Category

The disparity between House Democrats and Senate Majority Leader couldn’t be more different. Sen. McConnell’s pro-growth economic agenda stands in stark contrast with Speaker Pelosi’s all-impeachment-all-the-time agenda in the House. Monday morning, Sen. McConnell sat down for an interview with the folks from CNBC’s Squawk Alley on his economic agenda. One of the things that Sen. McConnell talked about was the USMCA:

The argument for USMCA is very, very compelling, you know: 176,000 new jobs, $68 billion increase in gross domestic product, we have 12 million jobs already related to our trade relationship with Canada and Mexico. So I think it is going to be pretty hard for her not to take it up, even though voting for a Trump trade deal, I gather, is a bitter pill for them.

It’s difficult enacting many bills when you hate President Trump. Things would be so much easier if Democrats put our nation first instead of putting the Resist Movement first.

Let’s highlight the obvious. The economy is being held back by the trade war with China but it’s still growing at a faster pace than anything that Obama achieved or that Sen. Warren’s policies would achieve if enacted. If you think that puts Sen. Warren or President Obama in a favorable light, the average person whose wages have increased and whose 401(k)s are much healthier disagree.

Here’s what Sen. McConnell said about the Republicans’ economic agenda:

What I want to do is spend our time accomplishing things for the American people. USMCA, as Leader McCarthy and I pointed out in The Wall Street Journal today, is something we can agree on, something we ought to do. It makes a difference for the American people. The House spent the last three years harassing this president, and I gather we’re going to get another chapter of that with the impeachment episode. But we need to find other things that actually make a difference for the American people and try to accomplish as much as we can. That’s what I want to do, and that’s what we’re in the process of trying to encourage the House to do by taking up USMCA.

That’s something that the Do-Nothing Democrats haven’t paid attention to. This batch of Do-Nothing Democrats have wasted too much time chasing their ridiculous impeachment nightmare. What’s frightening is that the Democrats’ presidential candidates sound just as nuts. Here’s the entire interview:

This weekend, the NYTimes ‘reported’ that “a freshman named Brett Kavanaugh pulled down his pants and thrust his penis at [Deborah Ramirez], prompting her to swat it away and inadvertently touch it.” Here’s how the NYTimes article opens:

Deborah Ramirez had the grades to go to Yale in 1983. But she wasn’t prepared for what she’d find there. A top student in southwestern Connecticut, she studied hard but socialized little. She was raised Catholic and had a sheltered upbringing. In the summers, she worked at Carvel dishing ice cream, commuting in the $500 car she’d bought with babysitting earnings.

At Yale, she encountered students from more worldly backgrounds. Many were affluent and had attended elite private high schools. They also had experience with drinking and sexual behavior that Ms. Ramirez, who had not intended to be intimate with a man until her wedding night, lacked.

During the winter of her freshman year, a drunken dormitory party unsettled her deeply. She and some classmates had been drinking heavily when, she says, a freshman named Brett Kavanaugh pulled down his pants and thrust his penis at her, prompting her to swat it away and inadvertently touch it. Some of the onlookers, who had been passing around a fake penis earlier in the evening, laughed.

After that article ran this weekend, virtually all of the Democrats’ presidential candidates called for Justice Kavanaugh’s impeachment. Sen. Hirono, one of the Democrats who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, insisted that the Senate Judiciary Committee start an impeachment investigation into the matter. This was a big story this weekend.

This morning, “The New York Times suddenly made a major revision to a supposed bombshell piece late Sunday concerning a resurfaced allegation of sexual assault by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh — hours after virtually all 2020 Democratic presidential candidates had cited the original article as a reason to impeach Kavanaugh.” According to this article, “The update included the significant detail that several friends of the alleged victim said she did not recall the supposed sexual assault in question at all. The Times also stated for the first time that the alleged victim refused to be interviewed, and has made no comment about the episode.”

Suffice it to say that the NYTimes and the Democrat presidential candidates have egg on their face this morning. Ditto with Sen. Hirono. They were so willing to pounce on this story because they saw it as the perfect opportunity to take down Justice Kavanaugh and President Trump with a single story. Now the NYTimes is apologizing:


It said “Also, a tweet that went out from the @NYTOpinion account yesterday was clearly inappropriate and offensive. We apologize for it and are reviewing the decision-making with those involved.”

Here’s Elizabeth Warren’s tweet:


The nomination wasn’t rammed through by any stretch of the imagination. What happened was that Democrats brought forth tons of unsubstantiated allegations once they knew Justice Kavanaugh would be confirmed. These allegations weren’t substantiated. Democrats panicked because they were certain that Kavanaugh would be part of the 5-4 ‘Republican majority’ that would overturn Roe v. Wade.

Amy Klobuchar stopped short of calling for impeachment, and instead posted a picture of Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford with the words, “Let us never forget what courage looks like.”

Let’s never forget what dishonesty looks like:

Salena Zito’s latest column highlights what I think will be one of the biggest issues of the 2020 election cycle, in both the presidential election and in congressional races. The title of Ms. Zito’s column is “The crackers and frackers could hold the keys to 2020”. I’ve said for awhile that I think they will be one of the biggest issues in the race.

Democrats are in a difficult position. If Democrats side with Tom Steyer and AOC, they’ll lose the people who used to be the heart and soul of the Democratic Party, the industrial unions like the Pipefitters, the UAW, the USW and other major unions. If Democrats side with these unions, Tom Steyer stops writing checks for their campaigns.

Republicans don’t have such conflicts. They can support fracking without hurting their standing with other interest groups that support the GOP. The great news is that Republicans can boast how they support great-paying blue collar jobs that are helping rebuild close-knit communities in major battleground states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan.

All Darrin Kelly wanted for the energy workers in Western Pennsylvania was that the Democratic presidential hopefuls would talk to them before going to war against shale. That opportunity slipped away last Friday when Elizabeth Warren joined Bernie Sanders in calling for a total fracking ban. “On my first day as president, I will sign an executive order that puts a total moratorium on all new fossil-fuel leases for drilling offshore and on public lands. And I will ban fracking — everywhere,” Warren tweeted.

“It is disappointing that any national candidate would not come in here and want to talk to the men and women of this area first before unilaterally making that decision,” said Kelly, a charismatic Pittsburgh firefighter who is also the head of the powerful and influential Allegheny Fayette Labor Council. They represent workers stretching from Pittsburgh to the borders of Maryland and West Virginia.

It isn’t just Bernie and Warren that’ve abandoned blue collar America. Joe Biden ditched them, too:

Biden denied the donor’s association to the fossil fuel industry before calling the young woman “kiddo” and taking her hand. He said, “I want you to look at my eyes. I guarantee you. I guarantee you. We’re going to end fossil fuel.

“There you have it. Blue Collar Joe just said that he’ll stop the fossil fuel industry. Then there’s this:

Trump’s magic came in rural and post-industrial counties such as Luzerne and Erie, but most importantly in the populous counties around Pittsburgh, where shale is king and fracking is seen as the second coming of the steel industry.

They may look like ordinary construction cranes to someone unfamiliar with the history of this region. But if you’re from here, they look like something different. Building the ethane cracker plant, each of these cranes looks like a new colossus rising from the ashes of yesterday’s despair.

Building the plant has brought in 6,000 good-paying jobs, with more to come. Ultimately, there will be 600 permanent jobs at the plant, with industry analysts predicting triple that amount in supporting industries.

Jobs postings are everywhere touting opportunities, no matter the skill level — high school education, trade school certificate, chemists, engineers, IT, labor. If you reliably turn up for work, there is likely a career for you in the oil and gas industry.

Let’s remember this: In 2016, then-candidate Trump promised he wouldn’t forget their communities. In 2020, he’ll return with the campaign slogan of promises made, promises kept.

The rebuilding isn’t complete but it’s been started, thanks to President Trump’s policies. President Trump identified the Obama administration’s anti-coal regulations as one of the things killing the energy industry. Thanks to the Republicans’ use of the Congressional Review Act, which they used 16 times, and the Trump/GOP tax cuts, communities are rebuilding. Under Obama/Biden, those communities were forgotten.

This SCTimes Our View Editorial is a total cheap shot on their behalf. They start their editorial by saying “If it seems like we just wrote about this a few weeks ago, it’s because we did. Following the back-to-back mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, that left more than 30 people dead and dozens more injured at the beginning of August, we (as well as millions of Americans) called upon lawmakers to enact common-sense regulations to help reduce these horrifying events. And as you likely know, nothing was done.”

That’s bad enough. Still, it’s infinitely worse when they said “Then, on Aug. 31, another mass shooting occurred in Odessa and Midland, Texas. Eight people, including the shooter, were killed and 25 people, including three police officers, were injured.”

The obvious inference was that Congress had dropped the ball by not coming back early from their annual August recess and immediately passing gun control legislation. I’d love hearing the SCTimes explain what they’d recommend. Here’s what they said:

And again, as we said earlier this month, it’s time for our elected officials to try some common-sense rules when it comes to guns:

  1. Require background checks for all gun purchases online and at gun shows.
  2. Do more to regulate high-capacity weapons, like in-depth background checks, mandatory training and even liability insurance.
  3. Ramp up resources for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms so that gun sellers are reviewed more often and with more scrutiny.
  4. Fully fund comprehensive mental health care. More resources for mental health care could help prevent mass shootings.

I’d love hearing the Times explain what they’d do when they ran into things like priorities like preserving doctor-patient confidentiality statutes. Is the Times recommending the erosion of another our rights? Or is it that they just didn’t think this through?

This is an unbelievably complicated issue. What’s worse is the fact that we’re dealing with protecting our civil liberties (the Second Amendment and HIPAA protections) while attempting to protect people from suicidal maniacs. Trying to do that when everything is calm is difficult enough. Doing that while everyone is looking over our politicians’ shoulders expecting them to pull a miracle out of their hat at the snap of their fingers. Good luck with that. This video, mostly featuring Sleepy Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, exposes the Democrats:

In the video, Sen. Warren said “Today, if it’s an average day in America, 7 children and teenagers will die from gun violence. Won’t make headlines, most of them. It’ll happen in neighborhoods that won’t get covered in the news. It’ll fall particularly hard in neighborhoods of color.” Later in the video, she chalks this up to corruption. I’d agree with that. The Democrat media isn’t interested in highlighting gang violence in Chicago. It happens virtually every weekend. That doesn’t get covered. The Democrat MSM won’t cover it because it doesn’t fit the Democrats’ narrative.

It used to be that the TV motto was “If it bleeds, it leads.” That’s ancient history now. Today’s motto is more like ‘We don’t cover it if it doesn’t fit the Democrats’ narrative du jour’. It isn’t brief or catchy but it’s the truth. If a story blows the Democrats’ narrative apart, it won’t get covered. I didn’t mean it might not get covered. I said it won’t get covered. But I digress. Back to the Times’ Our View Editorial.

It’s disgusting that the Times says nothing has gotten done. They know that it’s a complex issue. The Times (and the Democrats) know that this is an issue that can’t be fixed through demagoguery.

The only thing that demagoguery will do is drive the 2 sides further apart. The Republicans, for the most part, have acted like adults. They’ve talked about the limitations Congress has thanks to the Second Amendment and the Heller Decision. You can’t wish those away. You can’t ignore HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) rules out of existence.

What can be done is make sure that shooters don’t get ignored like they were at Parkland. That was totally preventable but we don’t talk about that because that hurts the Democrats’ narrative. Also, the Democrats don’t want people to notice that deputies acted like cowards and the sheriff pinned the blame on the NRA instead of on himself and his deputies.

There are steps that will make us safer. Unfortunately, Democrats have insisted that they don’t work or they don’t like guns in schools.

This article makes it emphatically clear that Democrats, especially those in the media, have a recession obsession. The Q2 GDP was 2.1, down from 3.1 in Q1. For historical perspective, the average GDP during the Obama administration was about half that of Q2.

Back then, when economic growth was pathetic, the MSM didn’t talk about the possibility of a recession. The MSM talked about things like consecutive months of job growth as though that was a miraculous accomplishment. Here’s a hint for the MSM: The default of the US economy is to create jobs. That isn’t a miracle, except if you compare it to European countries. By their standards, the US default is miraculous.

By comparison between administrations, economic growth during the Trump administration is significantly better than economic growth during the Obama administration but the Trump economy is getting the negative press.

What’s upsetting to me is that we’re talking about a slowdown at this point, which is a distant cry from a recession. The fact that we’re in a full-fledged trade war with China, the next biggest economy in the world, and our economy keeps growing should be a point of confidence. If we’re going through all this and the economy is still growing at twice the rate it did during the Obama administration, shouldn’t we take note of the Trump economy’s durability?

During the Clinton administration, economists worried about tough economic times in Asia. Back then, economists rightly worried about what was then called “the Asian Flu.” They worried that the Asian Flu would trigger a recession in the US. All that happened was that the US economy slowed down. Years afterward, the economists concluded that the Clinton economy was fundamentally strong, which helped it weather the storm.

Maria Bartiromo nailed when she said that the media that’s predicting a recession is the same media that predicted President Trump’s impending impeachment from the Russia collusion illusion:

I think the broader picture is that the media continues to have an incredible amount of influence in terms of explaining to the world what is going on. When you go back to the fact that we just came off of the 2 years of collusion delusion where the media was all about President Trump colluded with the Russians, et cetera, et cetera. You know, “Sunday Morning Futures,” my program right before this program was every week poking holes into that narrative for 2 years and I got slammed in the media as a result of the fact that Congressman John Ratcliffe and Devin Nunes, the congressmen who actually saw the redacted document, the people who were there interviewing the FBI officials and they knew the story better than anybody…

Then she finishes that flourish with this:

The media’s responsibility is to report the truth and seek the truth, but Howie, how many programs do you hear the media saying the unemployment rate is at 51-year low, how many media outlets are you hearing saying we had 4 plus percent growth for one quarter last year, 3.1% in the first quarter and 2.1% in the second. A recession is two quarters of negative performance, meaning negative, not positive. We are only seeing positive readings, so the fact that we are talking about a recession being on the horizon and not even talking about the facts reminds me of editorial meeting that took place at New York Times two weeks ago where the editor there said, well, for two years we were putting all of our resources into Russia collusion, the story changed on us. The story didn’t change, Howie, the story is the same story, but they put all resources in collusion and now they decided that they will put all resources on racism.

KA-BOOM! That’s delivering the boom like a true economist should. First, consumer spending represents two-thirds of the GDP. That’s up 0.7% over last month. The Trump-GOP tax cuts have put hundreds of billions of additional dollars. Unemployment is at a historic low. What part of that sounds like a recession is right around the corner?

Thad McCotter was right when he wrote about “The Left’s ‘3 Rs’: Russia, Racism, & Recession.” He was exceptionally right when he said that “the Democrats were missing the 4th R: Reality.”

Amen, Thad. Democrats are indeed missing that. I don’t anticipate Democrats finding that missing ingredient anytime before the election, especially if Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren is the nominee. It’s obvious that Democrats, especially the Media Wing of the Democratic Party, is hoping for a recession. They’re practically begging for that recession. Bill Maher didn’t hide it. He explicitly called for a recession to get rid of President Trump.

Democrats have a recession obsession. Unfortunately, they don’t have an obsession for reporting the facts. To paraphrase Al Gore from the 1992 campaign, when he said “Everything that’s up should be down and everything that’s down should be up”, everything that Democrats should be for, they’re against and everything that they’re supposed to be against, they’re for. Democrats should be for a booming economy but they’re praying for a recession. Democrats should be for sealing off the border but they’re for decriminalizing illegal immigration.

Much ink has been spilled over why Joe Biden’s lead in the Democratic primaries is holding. Some rightly point out that he’s a weak frontrunner. That’s definitely true. Another theory on Biden’s lead holding is that each time a new ‘flavor-of-the-month candidate’ pops up, they put in a poor debate performance.

Let’s be realistic, though. There are only 4 candidates with any sort of a shot at winning the nomination. That short list is Biden, Warren, Bernie and Kamala Harris. The rest are pretenders, potential cabinet secretaries or unserious people. Marianne Williamson, Pete Buttigieg, Corey Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Seth Moulton, Tim Ryan, Bill de Blasio and Tom Steyer fit into that category.

Kamala Harris’s campaign is virtually dead. She had a strong first debate, which caused her stock to rise briefly. By the time of the Detroit debates, she’d lost her momentum. Then Tulsi Gabbard utterly demolished her:

Right now, Elizabeth Warren has some momentum. Will her apology to Native-Americans stop that momentum? I think it will. She’s the so-called ideas lady but her ideas are far outside the mainstream. And who can forget this moment?

If I were asked what word or term I’d use to describe that cringe-worthy moment, I’d say “Almost life-like.” Like she’s gonna come off as a regular Jane with legitimate blue collar credentials? Right!

The truth is two-fold. Biden is a weak frontrunner. Still, he’s the strongest candidate in a weak class. The rest of the candidates are essentially pretenders.

Democrats just threatened the US Supreme Court through a friend of the court brief.

Several high-profile Senate Democrats warned the Supreme Court in pointed terms this week that it could face a fundamental restructuring if justices do not take steps to “heal” the court in the near future.

The ominous and unusual warning was delivered as part of a brief filed Monday in a case related to a New York City gun law. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., referenced rulings by the court’s conservative majority in claiming it is suffering from some sort of affliction which must be remedied.

“The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it,” the brief said. “Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.'”

The last part was quoting language from a Quinnipiac University poll, in which 51 percent favored such restructuring. In the same poll, 55 percent believed the Supreme Court was “motivated by politics” more than by the law.

Restructured? Packing the court by Democrats is what they’re threatening. In fact, I’d argue that these Democrats are telegraphing what they’ll do the next time they control the White House, House and Senate. Let’s remember what the courts are to Democrats.

Without the courts, many of the Democrats’ ‘victories’ (Roe v. Wade, gay marriage) would have happened. As the Supreme Court has gotten more conservative, Democrats have ‘won’ less and less.

Further, the Q poll reports that a majority of the people polled (55%) think that the Court was “motivated by politics.” Democrats haven’t explained how packing the courts with more far left politicians (think RBG, Sotomayor, Kagan) would make the court less “motivated by politics.”

The goal of these Democrats isn’t to make the courts less “motivated by politics.” It’s to pack the courts so the Court’s rulings are friendlier to Democrats. That’s what raw partisanship looks like. This is too:

The Democratic senators’ brief was filed in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, which dealt with legal limitations on where gun owners could transport their licensed, locked, and unloaded firearms. They are urging the court to stay out of the case brought by the NRA-backed group, claiming that because the city recently changed the law to ease restrictions, the push to the Supreme Court is part of an “industrial-strength influence campaign” to get the conservative majority to rule in favor of gun owners.

In New York, Democrats apparently think that you have the right to keep and bear arms but only in parts of the city that the government approves of. How does that comply with the text of the Second Amendment? Here’s that text:

Notice the final part of the Amendment, which says “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It’s indisputable that the NY law infringes on the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that the Democrats’ goal is to threaten and intimidate Supreme Court justices. Larry Holmes could figure that out. That’s what Democrat machine politics looks like. It’s all about exercising raw political power. It doesn’t have anything to do with doing what’s right for the people.

Apparently, there’s nothing that Sen. Elizabeth Warren won’t say to become the Democrats’ presidential nominee. Last night, Sen. Warren said that Friday was the fifth anniversary of the day “Michael Brown was murdered in Ferguson, MO.” As the Blaze said in its article, “this is a bald-faced lie.” Indeed it is. First, here’s Sen. Warren’s tweet:


Guy Benson got it exactly right, tweeting “This is shameful but expected.” Then the Twitterverse erupted with the perfect antidote, aka evidence:


Then there’s this:


Here’s more blowback through Twitter:


This isn’t surprising. It’s what I’d expect from hardline Democrat radicals like Sen. Warren. She’s had a history of lying throughout her political career. She’s lied about race before, too. That’s very extensively documented.

Add to that the fact that her policies would demolish the great economy that we’ve got. These questions must be asked:

  1. Why should we elect a politician that doesn’t support law enforcement?
  2. Why should we elect a politician who sees racism wherever she turns her eyes to?
  3. Why elect a socialist whose policies would demolish this great economy?

Even the frontrunners for the Democrats are socialists. This isn’t a matter of Democrats fighting between moderates and the far left. That fight is over. This is a fight between the extreme left and the far left.

Frankly, the Democrats’ presidential candidates are past the point of no return. They’re simply nuts.

Frank Luntz was in the debate hall for both nights of the Democrats’ presidential debates. To be honest, I thought that the supposed frontrunners sounded like idiot bomb-throwers while the lower tier candidates sounded reasonable in some instances. In this situation, reasonable is a relative term. Think John Hickenlooper, John Delaney, Michael Bennet.

I wouldn’t put Joe Biden in that category. At one point, Biden said “I am the only candidate whose plan limits the insurance companies from charging unreasonable prices. We should put some of these insurance executives who oppose my plan in jail for the 9,000,000,000 opioids they sell out there.”

Notice how Biden started by saying that “insurance executives who oppose [his] plan” should get thrown in prison before catching himself and mentioning opioids. Before that, Biden said that his plan “limits the insurance companies from charging unreasonable prices.” Who determines what’s unreasonable? The government? Once the government is the arbiter of what’s too expensive, what effects will that have on insurance companies? Has Biden thought about that? I’m betting he hasn’t.

So we supposedly have a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party. Frank Luntz thinks that that fight is over:

Luntz is right. This fight is over. At the first Democrat debate, every Democrat presidential candidate raised their hands when asked if they’d decriminalize illegally entering the United States. Listen to the ferocious reaction of the audience when attacking CEOs and corporations. Notice how far left Democrats have gone with illegal immigration. Changing it from a criminal charge to a civil fine is like sending out a notice that a small fine will be imposed for illegally entering the United States. That would open the floodgates and then some. People wouldn’t need to game the asylum system. They could just pay a fine, then become a legal resident of the US. Tell me the difference between that and open borders.

The Democratic Party of Bill Clinton is dead. Based on the criticism against President Obama, I could make a strong argument that the Democratic Party of President Obama is in hospice and fading fast. I’m not certain that the Democratic Party as it exists today will exist in 15 years.

Contrary to the Democrats’ paid spinmeisters statements, Democrats favor open borders as their immigration policy. Right after Democrats took control of the House, Democrat spinmeisters told the American people that everyone was for securing the US border with Mexico.

That spin was a total lie. There’s no way to hide the fact that Democrats aren’t interested in securing the border. There’s an old economic principle that’s applicable to this. The principle says that if you want less of something, you tax it. If you want more of something, you incentivize it. Apply that principle to immigration, if you want lots of illegal immigration, change the risk/reward ratio to make the risk of getting caught minimal. Similarly, if you want to reduce illegal immigration, make it so that the cost of illegally crossing the border is extraordinarily high. Also, make the task extraordinarily difficult.

Put in practical terms, build a wall that’s difficult to climb to make the traffickers’ jobs difficult. (Also, it’s worth highlighting that building barriers forces those traffickers and cartels into chokepoints. That helps fewer agents protect more miles of border. That means the border patrol’s activities are significantly more efficient. I’d think increasing the CBP’s efficiency would be DHS’s highest priority.

At this point, it’s clear that this isn’t the Democrats’ highest priority. I’d argue that it isn’t a priority whatsoever. Katie Pavlich’s article offers proof that substantiates my hypothesis:

“Immigrants seeking refuge in our country aren’t a threat to national security. Migration shouldn’t be a criminal justice issue. It’s time to end this draconian policy and return to treating immigration as a civil, not a criminal, issue,” Democratic presidential candidate and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro wrote in an April op-ed on Medium.

Right. If you want fewer migrants to cross the US-Mexico border, tell the traffickers that the people will have to pay a tiny fine instead of getting deported. That should put the fear of God in those traffickers. Not.

“I agree with Secretary Castro. We should not be criminalizing mamas and babies trying to flee violence at home or trying to build a better future. We must pass comprehensive immigration reform that is in line with our values, creates a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants including our Dreamers, and protects our borders,” Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) told HuffPost.

Notice Pocahontas’ wording:

We should not be criminalizing mamas and babies trying to flee violence at home…

Sen. Warren, should we criminalize traffickers using purchased babies to get into the US? That’s happening with increasing frequency. Read this website if you want your stomach turning in a split-second. When Democrats vote against legitimate border security measures, they’re voting for continuing the status quo. What type of sick person would vote to continue such a disgusting industry? That’s what happens when Democrats vote against the Republicans’ border security proposals.

Right. Let’s make it easier for illegal aliens to reach the United States. Let’s make it inexpensive for cartels to put these children’s lives at risk during the trip. That’s what Castro’s plan would do.

The next time a Democrat tells you that they’re for securing the border, ask them what they’re doing to increase the risk to traffickers. Then ask those Democrats to tell you what they’re doing to shrink the incentives for attempting to illegally enter the United States. If their plans don’t include creating chokepoints and increasing the efficiency for border patrol agents, then tell them to contact you when they put together a serious plan.