General
Trump issued this back in December, yet all of MSM said he had no policy or plans to put forth lol. https://t.co/eTYcJoyQkW pic.twitter.com/RefbU3EBJ4
— ZNO 🇺🇸 (@therealZNO) November 8, 2024
YES!
pic.twitter.com/yrtfxAGfXi— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 9, 2024
WASHINGTON—Advisers to President-elect Donald Trump are drawing up plans to carry out his mass deportation pledge, including discussing how to pay for it and weighing a national emergency declaration that would allow the incoming administration to repurpose military assets to detain and remove migrants.
The behind-the-scenes discussions, which started months before the election and have picked up in the days since Trump’s victory, include policy changes required to increase deportations, according to people working on the presidential transition, members of Congress and others close to the president-elect.
Among the changes: revoking a Biden administration policy directing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement not to pursue immigrants in the country illegally who haven’t committed other crimes, and making changes to the immigration court system to speed up cases. Trump’s allies have said they are planning first to focus on immigrants in the country illegally who have received final orders of deportation from an immigration court, of which there are about 1.3 million, as well as those with other criminal convictions or charges.
Trump’s budding deportation plans are still in flux, the president-elect’s advisers said.
Karoline Leavitt, a spokeswoman for the transition, said: “The American people re-elected President Trump by a resounding margin, giving him a mandate to implement the promises he made on the campaign trail. He will deliver.”
As a first step, Trump’s advisers are discussing issuing a national emergency declaration at the border on his first day in office, which his team thinks would allow him to move money from the Pentagon to pay for wall construction and to assist with immigrant detention and deportation. But the legality of such a move is unclear. A national emergency, Trump’s advisers think, also would unlock the ability to use military bases for immigrant detention and military planes to help carry out deportations.
Should Trump realize even a fraction of his vision—he has pledged to carry out the largest mass deportation in U.S. history—the 45th and soon-to-be-47th president could send shock waves across the economy and upend the lives of millions of migrants and their families who have called the U.S. home for years.
A critical near-term priority is finding the money to pay for it. An estimate by the American Immigration Council, a liberal immigration group, estimated that an operation to deport the total number of people living in the U.S. illegally could cost $968 billion over more than a decade, or roughly $88 billion a year.
Any deportation effort requires enormous resources to hire more federal agents to identify and arrest immigrants, contract out space to detain them and procure airplanes to fly them to other countries.
Trump has played down the projected cost of his plan. “It’s not a question of a price tag. It’s not—really, we have no choice,” he told NBC News this week, “when people have killed and murdered, when drug lords have destroyed countries, and now they’re going to go back to those countries because they’re not staying here.”
They also want to revoke deportation protections from millions of immigrants who have either been granted a form of humanitarian protection known as temporary protected status—which covers hundreds of thousands of Haitians and Venezuelans—or entered the country on a quasi-legal status called humanitarian parole. That population includes millions who have entered via government appointments at the southern border, as well as tens of thousands of Afghans evacuated after the fall of Kabul and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians allowed into the U.S. following the Russian invasion.
Rep. Chip Roy (R., Texas), an anti-illegal-immigration hard-liner, said he thinks the Trump administration should disregard those deportation protections because, in his view, they were issued illegally.
“I believe we need to push the boundaries and claim they’ve got no status,” he said.
Republican lawmakers, buoyed by their election gains, are planning to use a process called reconciliation to advance legislation that funds Trump’s immigration proposals alongside his energy and tax priorities. Under the arcane rules of reconciliation, legislation can be approved with a simple majority vote, rather than the 60 votes usually required to advance most bills in the Senate, as long as the changes made are primarily budgetary rather than policy shifts.
Republicans have already taken back control of the Senate, and they are poised to keep control of the House. With majorities in both chambers, they could move the reconciliation measure without support from Democrats.
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R., La.) said in a letter circulated to Republican lawmakers this week that reconciliation legislation would “surge resources to the southern border to build the Trump Border Wall, acquire new detection technologies, bolster our Border Patrol, and stop the flow of illegal immigration.”
To avoid adding to the federal deficit, some members of Congress have also floated tacking new fees onto different steps of the immigration process, such as applying for asylum or even appearing in immigration court, that would help pay for deportations. The U.S. immigration system is already largely funded by fees for citizenship and visa applications, though humanitarian programs—and court proceedings—are free.
Trump has alleged the new immigrant population has disrupted American society by committing higher levels of crime, taking jobs and inflating the cost of housing—though available data show immigrants commit crimes at lower levels than U.S. citizens, and analysts have said they often fill low-paying jobs Americans are less likely to take.
Trump struggled during his first term to deport large numbers of migrants, particularly those living in blue states that cut off cooperation with the federal government. In addition to a huge infusion of cash, mass deportations would require unprecedented coordination among federal, state and local officials.
As Inauguration Day nears, Trump’s immigration team is coming into focus. Tom Homan, who served as acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement during Trump’s first term, is expected to be appointed to a senior White House role overseeing the southern border and immigration, according to people familiar with the matter.
Stephen Miller, the architect of Trump’s first-term immigration agenda, is also widely seen by Trump’s allies as returning to the White House in a high-level job. Chad Wolf, Trump’s former acting Homeland Security secretary, and Chad Mizelle, former DHS acting general counsel, are candidates to lead the Homeland Security Department, the people said.
From The Wall St Journal, via MSN.
Reposted from Ambrose Kane’s Substack with permission.
Donald Trump’s massive win for the highest office in the land shocked much of the world. Not only did Trump earn a second term, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris, but he won the popular vote as well, including securing both the Senate and House of Representatives (House to be determined, but likely) with republican majorities.
Record numbers of Americans showed up at the polling booths, and millions mailed their ballots in early. Seems to me that the greater number of Americans sensed just how important this election was, and that four more years of nation-destroying policies from the Biden administration could possibly be something that we might never recover from. For many Americans, the economy was their major concern; for others it was our open borders that allowed staggering numbers of unchecked immigration from the third world.
In the midst of all our nation’s social and economic woes, there were a plethora of black-pilled and fatalistic folks who urged us all to not vote, to not be part of a system that’s hopelessly ‘rigged’ where the final decision of all U.S. presidential elections is ‘fixed’. Voting, it’s argued, only provides the ‘illusion’ that one is making a choice, but in the end the final outcome is predetermined. But is that true in every election? Is that what the 2024 presidential election proved to be?
I can certainly understand why many Americans might feel this way, especially when one considers just how dishonest and internally corrupt the Democrat party is. The results of the 2020 presidential election raised more than enough concerns that a substantial amount of widespread voter fraud was involved to seat Joseph Biden in the Oval Office. There was every reason to think that an even greater level of voter fraud would occur in the 2024 presidential election since a lot more domestic and foreign policies were at stake, including the mess of on-going wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.
For the past four years, the democrats had engaged in brazen lawfare against their political opponents, something we had never previously experienced in this country – at least not to the degree that was waged against Trump. The democrats had reason to believe that if the election were lost, they themselves might be facing similar retaliatory lawfare efforts. In the midst of all this, the mood of the country had become so ugly and divisive that it’s easy to see why people would throw up their hands and give up, declaring it’s all a charade and that no one could be trusted to provide an accurate voter count that genuinely reflected the will of the people.
But none of what the black-pilled folks predicted actually took place. Not even a little bit of it. Trump won so decisively that the mainstream media couldn’t do much more than sadly read the election results, blame Kamala’s weak campaign efforts, and cry bitterly over it. This is not to say that the democrats didn’t engage in any voter fraud, but only that it was not sizable enough to thwart a Trump election victory.
The 2024 presidential election of Donald Trump proved that voting works. It’s not that voting alone will accomplish all that we want, but it is one of numerous tools at our disposal to bring about the kind of country that we envision for ourselves and our posterity.
Refusing to vote for candidates that align more with our social and political views under the banner that ‘voting is futile’ only serves to create greater problems for our cause. Consider the following.
If millions of sane, politically conservative people throughout the U.S. suddenly declined to vote, what would this result in? Would the Democrats stop voting too just because we withheld our vote? Their inevitable landslide victory would surely be interpreted as a “mandate” to fulfill the entirety of their cultural Marxist agenda. That’s how they’d see it, and that’s precisely how it would be reported in the mainstream media. And once their candidates win by such a massive margin, what’s to stop them from creating legislation that would place all of us “dissenters,” “racists,” “anti-Semites,” and MAGA folks into concentration camps? You think the Democrats wouldn’t do it if they knew they would face little political resistance or consequences? Think again.
And how would refusing to vote impact our Second Amendment rights? Democrats would make certain to pass laws that would completely eradicate such rights. It would turn every right-leaning gun owner into an enemy of the state. Gun confiscation, then, would not be only a possibility but an undeniable reality. Our people would fall prey to marauding groups of Black criminals, especially among those who are unable to escape our major cities.
If we all refused to vote, then should we also refuse to hold our elected representatives to account for how they vote on our behalf? Does anyone seriously believe that those in office will more faithfully represent their voter base when we abandon any effort to participate in the election process?
Perhaps the Democrats would sympathize with our plight? Get real. Our political opponents don’t play by the same set of rules, nor will they be inclined to have mercy on us when they literally view all conservative White Americans as “racist, Hitler-loving, White supremacists.” Yes, this is how incredibly stupid and evil Leftists are. There is no balance or nuance in their thinking. If anything, history has proven how easy it is to get seemingly “nice people” to engage in the worse kinds of atrocities.
Perhaps large numbers of Democrats would see our point in refusing to play the game of voting? Maybe then they will listen to our message and see the utter futility of it all? Nope, none of this would happen. They would not seriously ponder anything we’ve said nor any political protests we might engage in, no matter how empirically sound and data-driven our ideas. They would not come to their collective senses once we declared that we have abandoned the ‘voting charade’. They will only see themselves as winners and all of us as losers. And then comes their great payback in which they would seek to punish every one of us. They would not be persuaded by reason, nor would their wrath be assuaged.
Our non-voting, then, amounts to non-resistance in the public sphere, an admission of sorts that the Democrats have better ideas and better solutions to our nation’s problems. And that’s exactly how the media would spin it and how the average American simpleton would interpret our complete abdication of our voting rights.
Jewish elites, of course, would get everything they wanted as a result — even more than what they have now! By not voting and forming a political resistance, we will essentially hand them all they want from us. And they will make sure to ‘reward’ us nicely for it too. Whatever resistance we might have on social media now would be cut off as they’re certain to censor and de-platform all dissenters.
Have you noticed as well that those who mock voting as futile with expressions such as “vote harder” rarely if ever provide any practical alternatives? They are largely whiners and complainers offering little more than verbal tantrums. One wonders whose side they are on. Throwing up our hands and giving up is precisely what our enemies would want.
The enemies of Trump threw everything they could at him. Neither endless lawfare, constant threats of imprisonment, millions of dollars in government fines, and even two assassination attempts were sufficient in preventing him from winning the election. This occurred not because enough gullible citizens believed that voting was a waste of time, but because reasonable people were discerning enough to realize that they could destroy the Left’s political efforts by simply casting a vote for Trump.
Trump’s win proved that voting, despite the problems and messiness associated with it at times, is a necessary component to shaping the kind of country that we as racially aware White Americans are seeking. This is not to say that Trump will give us all that we may want, but even if we garner only half of that which serves our racial and cultural interests, it’s still far more than anything we would have ever obtained under a Harris administration. As Greg Johnson rightly puts it:
“Trump won’t give us a white homeland. That is our job. But Trump’s victory makes it easier for us to get what we want. Compared to Harris, Trump is far better on immigration. Both candidates offered legal immigration. But Harris also offered massive illegal immigration and amnesties. Trump offered a clampdown on illegal immigrants coming in and mass deportations of the ones already here. Trump will slow down the Great Replacement, which buys White Nationalists time. To win, we need time” (‘We Won: An Agenda for Trump’s Second Term,’ Counter Currents, November 7, 2024).
Under Trump, there’s a real possibility that the economy will significantly improve. None of this would ever take place under Harris. Neither Biden nor Harris had the foggiest notion of how to improve the economic lot of Americans, and I doubt they had any real concerns about it. They had four years to reverse course, and yet they did nothing other than to drive more Americans into poverty and homelessness.
Under Trump, there’s a greater likelihood that illegal immigrants will be returned to their countries of origin. Trump might indeed have learned a thing or two from his first administration, and may complete that “great big, beautiful wall” that he had promised. Had Kamala Harris won the election, she would have seen her victory as a mandate and continued a policy of open borders at great expense to the American people.
Free speech, particularly the speech of White racialists and political dissidents, has a greater chance of surviving with Trump in office. If Elon Musk ends up playing an important role in Trump’s cabinet, there is even more reason to think that our speech will be safeguarded.
Under Trump, no more unnecessary wars are a real possibility. Trump already knows just how wasteful and stupid funding the Ukraine war has been, and I’m inclined to think that he will not so easily go along with Benjamin Netanyahu’s efforts to force the U.S. into a proxy war against Iran. With informed and sobering influences as Tucker Carlson and a host of others who are tired of America’s warmongering, it seems unlikely that Trump will be so easily manipulated.
Thanks for reading Ambrose Kane ! Subscribe
Israel announced on Thursday that it will expand its offensive on north Gaza, which has been ongoing since October 5. According to the Israeli army, military operations that have largely taken place in Jabalia refugee camp will expand to Beit Lahia.
On Tuesday, a spokesperson of the Israeli army, Yitzhak Cohen, said in a press briefing that the army has come close to the complete “evacuation” of the population of north Gaza. The army spokesperson said that Palestinian residents of the north will not be allowed to return to their homes. This declaration marks the first official Israeli admission of the intent to permanently expel Palestinians from north Gaza.
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, November/December 2024, pp. 28-36
Election Watch
By Jack McGrath
Although the daylight between the presidential candidates on Middle East policy is minimal, U.S. support for Israel is gradually becoming a subject of debate in U.S. politics. The Overton window has begun to shift within the Democratic Party, even as its candidates receive tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions from pro-Israel Political Action Committees (PACs) and affiliated donors.
This election cycle saw unprecedented spending by the Israel lobby, which donated more to House and Senate candidates than in the last two elections combined: $44,656,374 in 2023-2024, compared to $17,175,455 in 2021-2022 and $12,661,440 in 2019-2020. Since April, the lobby has spent over $7.5 million to bolster its favored candidates in Congress.
In a perplexing twist, many candidates in both parties reported pro-Israel contributions in September that amount to less than those disclosed in April’s Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings (when the Washington Report last published donation records). Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) reported $671,578 for the 2023-2024 cycle in April but only $440,009 in September, Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) dropped from $1,229,070 to $932,627 and Rep. Lucy McBath (D-GA) fell from $271,663 to $13,500. There is no obvious explanation for these reductions. While candidates can return contributions without depositing them, it is unclear why Cruz would refund donations during a competitive race against Democratic candidate Colin Allred (who has received $164,654 from pro-Israel donors in this cycle). The Washington Report will seek answers from the campaigns about these discrepancies.
On the other hand, many candidates in both parties have seen drastic boosts in financial contributions since April. Between April and September, pro-Israel donations to the campaign of Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) increased from $7,800 to $109,034, candidate Jack Brian (R-GA) from $1,002 to $163,814, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) from $11,850 to $117,100, candidate Sarah Elfreth (D-MD) from $173,970 to $610,729, candidate George Latimer (D-NY) from $1,633,912 to $2,524,866 and candidate Wesley Bell (D-MO) from $827,094 to $2,609,157.
“Dark money” from nonprofits, which are not obligated to report their donors and have no spending limits, will also influence this election by spending exorbitantly on ads for or against candidates. Viewers don’t know the source of these ads, which rarely mention Israel. For example, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) spent a reported $15 million to bolster George Latimer in his primary against incumbent Rep. Jamaal Bowman, but only $1.6 million was listed as campaign contributions. By definition, the individual sources of dark money spending are undisclosed, and their total sums are nearly impossible to quantify accurately. …
Jack McGrath is assistant bookstore director and senior staff writer for the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
https://www.wrmea.org/congress-u.s.-aid-to-israel/unprecedented-pro-israel-pac-funding-floods-2024-elections.html
Before we say goodbye to Kamala, just think of what we will be missing. From Ann’s column:
“We were all doing a tour of the library here and talking about the significance of the passage of time. Right? The significance of the passage of time. So, when you think about it, there is great significance to the passage of time in terms of what we need to do to lay these wires, what we need to do to create these jobs. And there is such great significance to the passage of time.”
In retrospect, maybe running the DEI hire for president was not a good idea.
On the other hand, President Joe Biden’s revenge plan worked perfectly. As reported by The New York Times, after his catastrophic debate, Biden’s White House staff kept presenting congressional Democrats with data proving he still had a much better chance of beating Trump than his vice president did.
Then, the moment he was defenestrated, guess who Biden endorsed? Kamala Harris, the candidate he’d told them could not win. But she was a Black lady, so … checkmate!
Inasmuch as the sole motivating factor of the modern Democratic Party is identity politics, Democrats were forced to drop their plans for a stronger candidate, like Govs. Josh Shapiro or Andy Beshear. No Democrat would dare suggest that Kamala was not absolutely the most qualified person for the job. Just look at her — a woman AND a minority!
Harris’ race and gender was how Biden got stuck with her in the first place — an amazing choice for VP, considering that she’d accused him of racism during the primary, and also that she hadn’t won a single vote.
This is how Democrats ended up running a dingbat who’d cheered on the BLM riots, enthusiastically released violent criminals from prison, insisted on taxpayer-funded sex change operations for prisoners and illegal aliens, compared ICE agents to the Ku Klux Klan, completely believed Jussie Smollett’s hoax hate crime, supported defunding the police and said she wanted to decriminalize illegal immigration.
Indeed, Harris was the lead player in the administration’s decision to defy federal law and fling open the border, sending millions of foreign criminals and mental patients to every corner of America.
The Democrats’ obsession with dragging in the third world is itself part of the party’s DEI framework. Why do we have to admit tens of thousands of people from Haiti and the Congo? Because they’re Black.
When Biden and Harris came in, DEI was instantly made the priority of every government organ — the military, NASA, FEMA, the judiciary and on and on. An astonishing 66% of Biden’s judicial appointees have been non-White. Even Barack Obama only managed to get up to 37%. Biden’s one Supreme Court appointee was, of course, a Black woman, despite the fact that only 2% of nation’s lawyers are Black women. But he’d promised during the primaries to exclude 98% of lawyers from his consideration.
In congressional testimony, Biden’s FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell — herself a diversity pick — stated that FEMA’s No. 1 goal was to “instill equity as a foundation of emergency management.” She boasted that she was prioritizing the hiring of no-Whites. When her agency subsequently failed in its response to Hurricane Helene, Criswell attacked anyone who mentioned her “equity” agenda as spreading “disinformation.”
Earlier this year, the incompetence of the gender-feminist head of the Secret Service nearly got Donald Trump killed, the closest we’ve ever gotten to turning DEI into DOA.
Thus, Kamala is the perfect representative of today’s Democratic Party. Her entire life has been one affirmative action promotion after another. She even got into law school on the basis of her race — as the law school has bragged. And this week, she almost made it to the top on the basis of her race and gender, without doing, let alone achieving, anything.
Harris is not only a beneficiary, but a tragic casualty of affirmative action.
She can’t really be as stupid as she sounds, can she? Consider this classic Kamala philosophizing:
“We were all doing a tour of the library here and talking about the significance of the passage of time. Right? The significance of the passage of time. So, when you think about it, there is great significance to the passage of time in terms of what we need to do to lay these wires, what we need to do to create these jobs. And there is such great significance to the passage of time.”
As you can see, she’s a loon, but we were required to act as if she was Zarathustra, her every utterance profound. It’s the same phenomenon that leads rich or very good-looking people to develop such terrific personalities. Except in this case, the constant flattery is being done to a whole race.
Harris has never had a moment of self-doubt. Why would she? No matter what she did, everyone was always telling her, You go, girl!
Instead of demurring from Biden’s endorsement and suggesting a stronger nominee — perhaps a governor or a Democrat from a red state — Harris accepted her coronation as a matter of right. She then proceeded to run as the Angry Black Woman, backed up by other Angry Black Women, like Michelle Obama and Oprah, hectoring voters to make her president.
That always works on Democrats, so why not the electorate?
The problem with liberals using intimidation tactics to bully people into staying quiet about the incompetence of DEI hires is that the only way they ever had to register an objection was in the privacy of a voting booth. And on Tuesday, boy, did they .…
COPYRIGHT 2024 ANN COULTER
