Elizabeth Warren: comprehensive gun control bill

[philip964]

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/eli ... eparation/

Speaks on Mollie Tibbets murder by an alleged undocumented immigrant.

Do we think the Iowa jury will find him innocent like the San Fransisco jury. Maybe his lawyer can get him a change of venue to San Fransisco or Boston, where people are more understanding of the difficulties undocumented immigrants face in a Red State.

[Bitter Clinger]

[bblhd672]

CNN host John Berman asked Warren if she agreed that the tragedy exemplified the need for more effective immigration enforcement.
“Mike Pence and the president have suggested the immigration laws need to be stronger so that people like this man who is accused of this murder were not in the country,” Berman offered. “Your reaction?”

“One of the things we have to remember is we need an immigration system that is effective, that focuses on where real problems are,” Warren said. “Last month, I went down to the border and I saw where children had been taken away from their mothers, I met with their mothers who had been lied to, who didn’t know where their children were, who hadn’t have a chance to talk to their children, and there was no plan for how they would be reunified with their children.”

“I think we need immigration laws that focus on people who pose a real threat and I don’t think mamas and babies are the place we should be spending our resources,” Warren continued. “Separating a mama from a baby does not make this country safer.”

Just answer the question as asked Fauxahantas! Progressive socialists never answer difficult questions, they deflect. A real journalist would have pushed back and asked her to answer the question...but this was FNN so no surprise that neither host nor guest were honest.

[OneGun]

[Sarcasm] Democratic platform: What this country needs is higher taxes, more regulation to reign in business, less personal freedom and more people on government assistance. Then the government can control the population and the allegedly democratically elected politicians and exert more dictatorship. Look how well this is working in Venezuela. This is the future of the USA. This will make the USA great for politicians!!! [\Sarcasm]

[MaduroBU]

Illegal immigrants don't take our jobs. Illegal immigrants dramatically reduce low skilled wages. Cesar Chavez was a strong opponent of illegal immigration for that exact reason.

Today I'm a physician; illegal immigrants have no effect on my compensation. A long time ago I was a high school kid cutting grass. Back then, trucks full of guys who didn't speak English pulling trailers full of yard equipment that they couldn't afford to buy on their own set the price of my labor. We got yards by undercutting them by $5 a week. We absorbed that cost but the companies that owned the capital (in this case a trailer full of Skags and Echos) for our illegal immigrant competitors weren't willing to cut their margins.

When we talk about a family that worked hard to learn English and immigrate legally, why do we get to artificially reduce their wages by allowing massive competition from illegals? The chief economic utility of illegals is that they can be easily exploited. Democrats denounce human trafficking but with the next breath vote yes to allowing more illegals to enter or remain in the US. Illegal immigration happens because illegals will accept less than the prevailing rate for low skilled labor. That's the exact definition of exploitation and human trafficking.

Why do we get to destroy the wages of low skilled workers?

[The Annoyed Man]

I just started reading The Bastiat Collection (LvMI) on my Kindle app. In his essay on The law, first published in 1850, Bastiat writes the following .... which is utterly prescient:

It is in the nature of men to rise against the injustice of which they are the victims. When, therefore, plunder is organized by law, for the profit of those who perpetrate it, all the plundered classes tend, either by peaceful or revolutionary means, to enter in some way into the manufacturing of laws. These classes, according to the degree of enlightenment at which they have arrived, may propose to themselves two very different ends, when they thus attempt the attainment of their political rights; either they may wish to put an end to lawful plunder, or they may desire to take part in it.

Woe to the nation where this latter thought prevails amongst the masses, at the moment when they, in their turn, seize upon the legislative power!

Up to that time, lawful plunder has been exercised by the few upon the many, as is the case in countries where the right of legislating is confined to a few hands. But now it has become universal, and the equilibrium is sought in universal plunder. The injustice that society contains, instead of being rooted out of it, is generalized. As soon as the injured classes have recovered their political rights, their first thought is not to abolish plunder (this would suppose them to possess enlightenment, which they cannot have), but to organize against the other classes, and to their own detriment, a system of reprisals—as if it was necessary, before the reign of justice arrives, that all should undergo a cruel retribution—some for their iniquity and some for their ignorance.

It would be impossible, therefore, to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this—the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.

What would be the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. We must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking. In the first place, it would efface from everybody’s conscience the distinction between justice and injustice. No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree, but the safest way to make them respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law—two evils of equal magnitude, between which it would be difficult to choose.

It is so much in the nature of law to support justice that in the minds of the masses they are one and the same. There is in all of us a strong disposition to regard what is lawful as legitimate, so much so that many falsely derive all justice from law. It is sufficient, then, for the law to order and sanction plunder, that it may appear to many consciences just and sacred. Slavery, protection, and monopoly find defenders, not only in those who profit by them, but in those who suffer by them. If you suggest a doubt as to the morality of these institutions, it is said directly—“ You are a dangerous experimenter, a utopian, a theorist, a despiser of the laws; you would shake the basis upon which society rests.”

Further on, Bastiat writes:

What sort of liberty should be allowed to men? Liberty of conscience?—But we should see them all profiting by the permission to become atheists. Liberty of education?—But parents would be paying professors to teach their sons immorality and error; besides, if we are to believe Mr. Thiers, education, if left to the national liberty, would cease to be national, and we should be educating our children in the ideas of the Turks or Hindus, instead of which, thanks to the legal despotism of the universities, they have the good fortune to be educated in the noble ideas of the Romans. Liberty of labor? But this is only competition, whose effect is to leave all products unconsumed, to exterminate the people, and to ruin the tradesmen. The liberty of exchange? But it is well known that the protectionists have shown, over and over again, that a man will inevitably be ruined when he exchanges freely, and that to become rich it is necessary to exchange without liberty. Liberty of association? But according to the socialist doctrine, liberty and association exclude each other, for the liberty of men is attacked just to force them to associate.

You must see, then, that the socialist democrats cannot in conscience allow men any liberty, because, by their own nature, they tend in every instance to all kinds of degradation and demoralization.

We are therefore left to conjecture, in this case, upon what foundation universal suffrage is claimed for them with so much importunity.

The pretensions of organizers suggest another question, which I have often asked them, and to which I am not aware that I ever received an answer: Since the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to allow them liberty, how comes it to pass that the tendencies of organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their agents form a part of the human race? Do they consider that they are composed of different materials from the rest of mankind? They say that society, when left to itself, rushes to inevitable destruction, because its instincts are perverse.

Elizabeth Warren and her ilk are at the forefront of society’s perverse instincts.

[Abraham]

e.w. is a thoroughgoing example of why I detest politicians whether marxist like her or yes, Conservative.

Think John Boehner/Mitch McConnell and the list is long and filled with corrupt to the core pols.

Place no trust in any of them.

If you think I'm off base, look into what Boehner and McConnell are doing that's corrupt. It's easy to find out...

It's sickening.

None of these dirtbags care about the citizens of this country or the country itself, only what they can do for themselves while pretending to care.

[PriestTheRunner]

They're filling their pockets at the expense of everyone else and the future of this country.

#Texit

[philip964]

Elizabeth Warren got her DNA tested. She is 1/512 Native American supposedly.

Only one running the story is Boston Globe and they won't let me in anymore. So no link.

1/32 Native American is the level that the United States government says your part Native American and qualifies for whatever being Native American gets you.

An Ancestry DNA test would most likely not show this low an amount. They pretty much say anything below 3% is a low confidence region. My lowest area is Italy and they just say >1%. This is 0.2%, I doubt they would even mention it. Ancestry DNA changes your DNA history as they get more samples in. Many times you will gain or lose 10% of an area during one of these recalculations. My Italian heritage disappeared on the second recalculation.

[Jusme]

1/512?? I got that much Mongolian ancestry, by reading a National Geographic once.

[philip964]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018 ... ium=social

Here is Breitbart with the actual percentages and more about how she actually changed her race and wrote Native American. Also a claimed to be Cherokee which the DNA test does not support.

They mention this book of Native Americans. My understanding you must show relatives with a connection to this book that was a census of Native Americans in the early 1900's. The only Native Americans that were not entered into the book were former African American slaves who continued to live with their tribes after they were freed. (yes Native Americans held slaves in the South).

She has no relatives in the book.

She also said her parents or grandparents had to elope as the grooms parents objected to her relatives Native American blood. That was also false as they had a church wedding.

Trump apparently now is supposed to donate 1 million to charity.

[JustSomeOldGuy]

Can we get Shaun King and Rachel Dolezal tested too.

[philip964]

The New York Times, the average white person in America has nearly double the amount of American Indian DNA (0.18%) as Elizabeth Warren (0.098%), who claims to be Cherokee.

Lol

[G26ster]

Also in the WSJ

"Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren released the results from a DNA test Monday proving that she has statistically less Native American DNA than the average American white person."