The much-ballyhooed “Day Without Immigrants” turned out to be a day without many protestors or any political impact, but with many Mexican flags, angry slogans, and a muted social-media response by amnesty advocates.

The Thursday turnout in most cities was few hundred protestors, despite some employers shutting their workplaces. But organizers did get a turnout of several thousand people in North Carolina and Chicago. NBC described the national turnout as merely “thousands,” despite an estimated population of roughly 11 million illegals.

In recognition of the low numbers, the response from pro-mass immigration politicians and activists was muted. Douglas Rivlin, Director of Communication for Democratic Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez, tweeted nothing about the marches. Neither did the National Immigration Forum. Linda Sarsour, Muslim organizer of the Women’s March, simply tweeted “solidarity.”

Although the event was a political dud, the organizers will likely use it as a basis for larger, future protests.

read more:

Views: 554

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Stop protesting in Spanish in the United States! Assimilate and learn to speak English!

The next protest will be featured as a MONTH WITHOUT ILLEGALS. Businesses will be asked to close so their employees can attend the daily rallies but expect to still shell out their pay or they'll come and burn down the business. School will be closed and grades will be maintained or the protester will come and burn down the school so students can be mindless ignorant servants of the New World Order. 

The following protest after this one will be a Year without Illegals and so on and so forth until we become just another Cuba.

WTF? Do you not understand ? A day without immigrants is a misnomer. It is a day without illegals. I am a legal immigrant..  I love the USA. I never had privilege or welfare.. I had equal opportunity.. Love us or leave us. If you don't like it here GTFO.

I am with you on that one same here I am legal immigrant I love the United State of America

Kind of has something to do with the conversation

Home  |  About  |  News  |  Contact

For Immediate Release:
February 20, 2017
Claude Chafin (202) 225-2539

thornberry on mcmaster for nsa

WASHINGTON - Today, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, made the following remarks on the naming of Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster as the President's National Security Advisor:

"General H.R. McMaster is tremendously respected and admired as someone who is willing to look at things afresh and to make changes where needed. He has the ability to make an outstanding National Security Advisor." 


Office Information
2216 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-4151
Fax: (202) 225-0858

That is what burns me up.  Their flag flying and ours burning.  What kind of country are we?  Remember when the shipped by under Holder's orders our little Cuban boy Elian, in spite that his great uncle, great aunt and cousin were Americans citizens, own a humble home, and stated they will take care of him with NO GOVERNMENT HELP?  Then Clinton's, Holder's, and Janet Rino forces came and took at gun point the little boy from his family's arms "shipping" him back to a life of misery in Castro's Cuba.  You didn't see the Cubans rioting or burning the American flag!

DANG I'd forgotten all about that.   Thanks for the refresher

you are right on these I remember that story that is interesting to say the least

Thanks, Maria. Forgot about that horrid episode in our history.

I am wondering what happen to that boy?

that story should have waking the American people back than

Former Cuban castaway Elián González, now 21, would like to visit US

The five-year-old Cuban boy at the center of an international custody dispute in 1999 would like to ‘give my love to the American people’

Elián González says he has no regrets that his father took him back to Cuba after the long custody dispute.
 Elián González says he has no regrets that his father took him back to Cuba after the long custody dispute. Photograph: Ramon Espinosa/AP

Elián González, who spent months with his Florida relatives as a Cuban child at the center of an international custody dispute, said in an interview broadcast on Monday that he would like to visit the US.

Now 21, González said that if he could visit anywhere, it would be the US.

He thanked the American people for the love they showed him during the custody battle 16 years ago, and said he would like to go back “to give my love to the American people”.

He would like to see a baseball game, visit Washington museums and talk to Americans.

“I could personally thank those people who helped us, who were there by our side,” he said. “Because we’re so grateful for what they did.”

The interview on ABC News was conducted over several days and showed González with a beard and later clean-shaven.

He was a military cadet when he was in his late teens and is now studying industrial engineering at the university in the Cuban province of Matanzas, west of the capital. He recently became engaged to be married.

He was just a few weeks shy of six when his mother, Elizabeth Brotons, died at sea in 1999 while trying to take him to the US.

González survived by clinging to an inner tube and eventually ended up in Florida with relatives who fought to keep him in the US.

“I was alone in the middle of the sea – that’s the last thing I remember,” he said. He was moved by his mother’s efforts to keep him afloat while she drowned.

“She fought until the very last minute to keep me alive,” he said.

A tug-of-war between González’s US relatives and his father, Juan González, ensued, with the then-president, Fidel Castro, siding with the father and the Miami-based Cuban exile community backing family members in Florida.

For months, Cuba’s communist government organized almost daily marches of thousands of people demanding that the child be returned to the island.

Media camped outside the Miami home where González was staying and cameras were constantly trained on him and his relatives.

The case sparked a debate about parental rights that raged on both sides of the Florida Straits.

President Bill Clinton’s administration ultimately backed the father’s rights and allowed him to take his son back to Cuba in mid-2000.

González said he had no regrets about his father’s decision to stay in Cuba, and he was not angry with his Miami relatives and was open to reconciliation.




Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco


Horrible: Democrats Set The Constitution On Fire With Fraudulent Impeachment

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.

Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.

Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.

Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.

In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,

Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.

Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.

Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.

The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.

In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.

You don't get to interrupt me

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service