In case you just can’t get enough of Joy Reid with an hour each weeknight on MSNBC‚ you can catch her sharing her wild and loose opinions on TikTok. Recently‚ she pounced on remarks by Sen. Tommy Tuberville‚ R-Ala.‚ supporting the Alabama court decision that frozen embryos are children‚ because “we need more kids.” Our fertility rate in America is now at a record low‚ but Reid just wants to use Alabama’s football coach-turned-senator as a punching bag. “Why does the state of Alabama need more kids? More kids for what?” Reid wants to make this about immigration. “Your party‚ Sen. Tuberville‚ is the one screaming that 10 million immigrants … have streamed into the country since Joe Biden has been president. And you’re claiming that’s too many people.” Most critics of the border crisis aren’t arguing that America is overpopulated. They’re arguing the massive influx of humanity is too much for our government systems to handle‚ which is the same critique emanating from Democratic big city mayors‚ who have been swamped with migrants who expect free food‚ housing and maybe a monthly gift card. But Reid was primed to uncork a racial conspiracy theory‚ which MSNBC always encourages against Republicans. Antebellum references seem mandatory. “There was a time when the state of Alabama absolutely needed more kids‚ because Alabama was a slave state‚” Reid proclaimed‚ “and the mandate of the planter class in Alabama was for black women to produce more kids because those kids were property‚ and they could work more kids and make more money on their plantation.” But what does 1854 have to do with 2024? Reid suggested there was a master plan: “Are you saying the state of Alabama needs more kids because you think that those populations will include people who may be destitute and desperate enough that when you kick out the immigrants … you can make them do the work that the migrants are doing now? ‘Cause that kind of sounds slavery-ish.” Wait. If the immigrants flooding into America are doing “slavery-ish” work‚ shouldn’t Reid oppose more immigration? Reid needs to imply the immigrants pouring in are “people of color‚” even if that’s not true. For the Left‚ appeals to limit illegal immigration must always be painted as motivated by racism. To its credit‚ The New York Times has published a series of investigative reports on migrant child labor in America. One was headlined “Alone and Exploited‚ Migrant Children Work Brutal Jobs Across the U.S.” No one imagines that led to a scathing TikTok tirade by Reid. She closed out by asking Tuberville in absentia if‚ since he’s a “white guy‚” he’s suggesting “we need more kids” means “whites need more kids‚” a “Great Replacement thing‚” because if he thinks white women need to make more babies‚ “that’s a little creepy. A little ‘Handmaid’s Tale‚’ don’t you think?” Back in 2021‚ Reid took to TikTok to mock Kyle Rittenhouse for tearing up when he testified about shooting rioters dead in self-defense. Reid compared him to Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings‚ mocking their “male white tears‚” and proclaiming these guys “Karen-out‚ and as soon as they get caught‚ they bring waterworks.” Reid wouldn’t use this white-Karens-waterworks mockery for Hillary Clinton’s public tears when she ran for president. These videos aren’t for everyone. They’re for the hard-core MSNBC watchers who want to “own the cons‚” but especially those stale‚ pale males. Conservatives just want to check what chemicals she might have put in her vape pen to explain that overactive imagination. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Joy Reid’s ‘Slave’-ish Devotion to Racist Conspiracy Theories appeared first on The Daily Signal.

With Wednesday’s announcement from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell that he will step down as the Republican Senate leader in November‚ conservatives have a generational opportunity. McConnell has been the Senate’s GOP leader for over 17 years. The choice senators will face now is between continuing business as usual or setting up the Senate to fight to save the country. To anyone not living under a rock‚ it should be clear what’s at stake. The leftist regime is prosecuting former President Donald Trump. The border is wide open. Inflation and federal deficit spending are crushing everyday Americans. These are existential threats to the republic. Regardless of what happens in the presidential election‚ the Senate is—by design—positioned to address these issues. Conservatives across the country are exhausted by business as usual in the face of these multiple impending crises. Senators must recognize the moment in considering what type of leadership to elect. As Sen. Mike Lee has pointed out‚ Republican senators regularly vote with Democrats to pass Democrat priorities‚ yet this is never reciprocated. The irony of this is that‚ because of the structure of the filibuster‚ any 41 senators could block bad legislation and demand changes in exchange for passage. To the great shock of absolutely no one‚ there aren’t 41 Republican senators with the political will to do this. Strong Republican Senate leadership would be a step in the right direction to addressing the problem of political will. Republican senators must elect leaders who will challenge the status quo and fight for conservative priorities. The right person for this role will be someone who can rally the troops to take on the risk of tough votes‚ even if those votes will be used against them by their opposition in election season. What’s the point of having six-year terms if senators can’t make prudent decisions for the good of the country? While senators should first and foremost consider strong leadership when it comes to passing good bills or defeating bad ones‚ the nature of electoral politics is that for most senators‚ top-of-mind will be the ability of their leadership to fundraise to help them with their elections and to help elect new Republicans to add to their ranks. These senators should consider that donors are just as frustrated as the general public with the state of Washington. In my conversations with donors of all types‚ the topic of frustration with a lack of results from Congress is unavoidable. Their displeasure seems to be at an all-time high. While I would oppose the notion that donors should dictate how the Senate legislates‚ senators who would consider fundraising ability as a criterion for leadership should probably consider choosing leadership who will fight for conservative priorities in order to not frustrate the people who care enough about this country to donate their time and treasure. Another criterion that senators should consider is how their leadership handles the legislative process. For example‚ starting in the 2010s‚ the Senate majority leader (regardless of party) began frequently engaging in the practice of filling the amendment tree. Without getting overly complicated‚ there are rules in the Senate that govern the order in which amendments to legislation are considered. A limited number of amendments can be considered at any time. The majority leader can use a tradition known as the “right of first recognition” to fill all available slots for amendments. This prevents any other senator from offering additional amendments. What this means in practice is that the only opportunity to affect legislation is in backroom negotiations. Often‚ conservative senators and the states they represent are excluded from this process. The reason offered by leadership for engaging in this practice of filling the amendment tree is to protect vulnerable members from having to take tough votes that may lose them support back home. After all‚ it’s very important to protect them so that the majority can supposedly fight for the country. And‚ if you look around‚ you can see exactly how well that’s going. Another practical outcome of this procedural control is that much of the power of the Senate is held by one person—the majority leader. If you understand that the upcoming presidential election is certainly the most important of our lifetime‚ consider that while presidents are term-limited‚ the one person holding the power of the Senate could keep that position for well over a decade. The stakes couldn’t be higher.  Unfortunately‚ many senators like this process of filling the tree‚ as it does protect them from tough votes and gives certain senators more say in the process. Conservatives must demand leadership with the courage to change this and other practices that weaken the ability of the Senate to fight for the best interests of the American people. Ultimately‚ even necessary procedural changes are a question of political will. This means that political courage and an understanding of what’s at stake are the most essential qualities in the next Republican Senate leader. Come the Senate election for a new Republican leader in November‚ senators should not waste a first-in-a-generation opportunity to end business as usual in Washington. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Republicans Must Use Leadership Change as Opportunity to End Business as Usual in Senate appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Border Patrol began releasing illegal aliens onto the streets of San Diego last week after local funding for migrant resources ran out.  The illegal aliens being released onto the city streets of San Diego County are “predominantly single adults‚ and predominantly men‚” Jim Desmond‚ a San Diego County supervisor‚ told The Daily Signal.  Desmond said he has seen or spoken with illegal aliens from Haiti‚ India‚ China‚ Ecuador‚ and Guinea released onto the streets of San Diego. “It’s the U.N. coming across our border‚” he said‚ noting that the majority don’t want to stay in San Diego. While speaking with some of the illegal aliens released onto the streets‚ Desmond says they have asked him how to get to Virginia or New Jersey. These two men I met made a monthlong journey from Guinea‚ crossed through Jacumba‚ and were just dropped on the streets of San Diego. This is what a broken immigration system looks like‚ and San Diego County is suffering from the Federal Government's ineptness. pic.twitter.com/SSp3d18fna— Supervisor Jim Desmond (@jim_desmond) February 27‚ 2024 Since October‚ San Diego taxpayers have funded $6 million in services to the San Diego Migrant Welcome Center‚ which provided meals‚ shelter‚ travel resources‚ and more to illegal aliens.  The San Diego Migrant Welcome Center processed 81‚000 migrants since October‚ according to KUSI-TV‚ Fox 5 San Diego. The Border Patrol dropped the illegal aliens off and the “welcome center” did the rest.  The analogy has been made‚ according to Desmond‚ that the “Border Patrol has been their Uber‚ and San Diego County was their travel agent.” After going through more than a $1 million a month in taxpayer funding‚ the center for illegal aliens was forced to shut down‚ which triggered the street releases.  The reality is that the people entering this country are not being properly vetted. Border Patrol does not have the time or resources to vet people and instead is forced to drop them on the streets of San Diego. This is dangerous for everyone involved. pic.twitter.com/xckJCTsomz— Supervisor Jim Desmond (@jim_desmond) February 27‚ 2024 Since the illegal alien center opened‚ Desmond says‚ he has been against using local taxpayer dollars to fund it. “I thought the federal government should have been paying for that the whole time‚” he said‚ adding that “fortunately‚ my colleagues‚ after $6 million‚ decided‚ ‘OK‚ this is unsustainable. The numbers keep growing. We can’t continue to do this.’”  Now‚ the Border Patrol is dropping illegal aliens off at a transit station in the county‚ “and currently‚ some of the nonprofits are picking them up‚ in buses and taking them‚ right now‚ to the airport‚” the county supervisor said. “And so the San Diego airport is now a migrant shelter.”  More than 1‚500 illegal aliens have been dropped off at the airport in recent days‚ according to reports. Fox 5 reports that the airport is working with nonprofits and volunteer groups to help book airline tickets for the illegal aliens. The five member San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted this week to establish “a migrant shelter and have the federal government pay for it‚” Desmond said‚ noting he was the only “no” vote on the initiative. He says he opposes the plan because he does “not want to be part‚ or complicit with‚ a failed process and just abetting that failed process by opening up a migrant shelter so we can continue to allow in more people than we can handle or manage in the United States.”  Desmond says he wants a real solution to the border crisis‚ which he says involves securing the border‚ because what the federal government is doing is allowing illegal crossers to “cut ahead of the line of any legal immigration.” The San Diego Sector includes 56‚831 square miles and all of San Diego County‚ according to Customs and Border Protection. Since the start of fiscal year 2024 on Oct. 1‚ CBP has encountered more than 120‚000 illegal aliens in the San Diego Sector‚ putting the sector on track to break the record of the more 230‚000 illegal aliens encountered in fiscal year 2023.  “People are just walking in‚ and with Border Patrol agents there and watching this happen‚” Desmond said‚ adding that he does not blame Border Patrol agents because they are just following the “directives that they’re given.” But instead of watching illegal aliens walk through holes in the border fence‚ he said‚ agents should be “stopping them at the fence.”  San Diego is not alone in closing centers for illegal aliens. Denver Mayor Mike Johnston announced Wednesday that the city will close four shelters for illegal immigrants in the coming weeks. The move is reported to reduce Denver’s budget deficit by about $60 million and allow more funding for city services. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post ‘It’s the U.N. Coming Across Our Border‚’ San Diego Official Says appeared first on The Daily Signal.

NY AG Letitia James Sues Meatpacker for Selling Beef

Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY) railed against the “Censorship Industrial Complex‚” armed with evidence of government censorship and new legislation aimed at gutting government censorship once and for all. Hageman called for Congress to pass a bill she co-sponsored with Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC) —the “Censorship Accountability Act” during a Feb. 29 hearing before the House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. Hageman went on a tear against agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that had sought to suppress Americans’ freedom of speech. “These bureaucrats continue to grow in size and power and are beginning to increasingly wield this power against the American people they were intended to serve‚” Hageman said‚ before introducing her solution. “The Censorship Accountability Act finally brings accountability for violations of our First Amendment rights‚ the ones which are the most fundamental to our freedom‚” she continued. Hageman reasoned that there was simply “no reason federal officials are held to a lower standard than state and local officials especially when the stakes are this high.”  Hageman added‚ “I hope all members of this committee support this legislation. The legislative branch and the fourth branch‚ —that being the media[that] uncovered this abuse — and the judicial branch has so far confirmed that the executive is violating our rights.”  Under President Joe Biden’s Administration‚ the DHS has spent taxpayer dollars on a number of anti-American efforts. One of its financed “efforts” included the infamous “Pyramid of Far Right Radicalization” (which Hageman also brought up during the hearing) that sought to smear a number of entities such as Fox News‚ The Christian Broadcasting Network‚ the Republican Party‚ Breitbart News‚ and MAGA as being comparable to Nazis. The DHS also created the notorious Disinformation Governance Board — the Biden variant of a  Ministry of Truth — before abandoning it after major public backlash against its censorship operations.  In her opening remarks‚ Hageman went after the DHS and other federal entities for their obsessive push to police the speech of American citizens:  “The last three years have been particularly eye-opening as the online censorship widely speculated to be occurring was confirmed through the Twitter Files‚ the documents produced in Missouri v. Biden (2022) and most notably the oversight work of the Judiciary Committee and our select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.”  The Wyoming representative made clear that she would not stand for the federal government outsourcing its anti-free speech objectives to private organizations to circumvent the First Amendment. “The Censorship Industrial Complex is entrenched in our federal agencies and even in the White House itself. It coerces‚ threatens‚ funds‚ and cooperates with private entities to monitor‚ suppress and remove speech which does not fit its preferred political narrative‚” Hageman said before calling for a “federal right” for citizens to seek “redress” against officials who have violated their rights.  Hageman wasn’t alone in calling for the federal government to finally be restricted from flirting with the violation of Americans’ rights to free speech. Later in the hearing‚ Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND) also spoke up in favor of Hageman’s bill‚ ripping into Biden’s agencies for their abuse of power. Armstrong said‚ “When we have agencies spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money to filter it through the system to censor true information‚ not only is that a violation of the First Amendment‚ but it is incredibly condescending." Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored‚ contact us at the Media Research Center contact form‚ and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

The Attorney General of Missouri‚ Andrew Bailey‚ is suing Planned Parenthood Great Plains for essentially trafficking children out of state to obtain abortions. The move comes after a Project Veritas video went viral exposing this sort of evil attack on babies and abuse of young pregnant women.  In November 2023‚ Project Veritas released a video showing Planned Parenthood staff admitting that they’d bring pregnant minors across state lines in order for them to get abortions. To make matters worse‚ staff admitted that they’d do this without parental consent.  As the filing said‚ “they admit doing this ‘every day‚ every day‚ every day‚’” according to the filing. The lawsuit alleges that Planned Parenthood in Missouri‚ one of the 13 Planned Parenthood Great Plains locations‚ would take minors out of school using forged or altered doctors’ notes and transport them to Kansas for an abortion‚ “then quickly return them — all to avoid parents finding out.” Related: Gov. Newsom Defends Unrestricted Abortion‚ Lies About Pro-Life Laws As the AG noted‚ such an act is illegal in the state of Missouri‚ where the law not only prohibits elective abortion but also “forbids any person to ‘intentionally cause‚ aid‚ or assist a minor to obtain an abortion without [parental] consent’ or informed consent‚ even if the abortion occurs in another ‘state or place.’” The suit also cited the Project Veritas investigation where a team sent a member undercover posing as the uncle of a 13-year-old girl that wanted to help his niece get an abortion “quietly and secretly.” 🚨BREAKING PART ONE🚨 MOM CAN’T KNOW: Planned Parenthood (@PPFA) Transports Minors Across State Lines for Secret Abortions “We never tell the parents anything.” - Managing Director‚ Kansas City‚ Missouri RT &; SHARE #SecretAbortions pic.twitter.com/TxtK2K2kFM — Project Veritas (@Project_Veritas) December 21‚ 2023 Project Veritas also posted a press release that said: The clinic manager appears unphased by this scenario and extremely helpful.  She tells the journalist‚ “In Planned Parenthood‚ we consider you an adult‚ you can make the decision then we've got you…We never tell the parents anything.” The clinic’s casual admission of its willingness to perform secret abortions on minors and subvert parental consent raises concern for other ways Planned Parenthood’s “bypass” system could be utilized to exploit and conceal the sexual abuse of children.  “This is the beginning of the end for Planned Parenthood in the State of Missouri‚” Bailey said.  I hope he’s right about that. I also hope it’s the beginning of the end for the entire baby-killing mill altogether. Follow us on Twitter/X: Woke of The Weak: Jacked Up Junk &; Total Gender Confusion Trangenders will stop at nothing to garner attention to their narcissistic selves. pic.twitter.com/eEE6arUCXu — MRCTV (@mrctv) February 27‚ 2024

Tuesday evening’s PBS NewsHour covered last week’s brutal murder of a college student by an illegal immigrant on the campus of the University of Georgia. It began factually but descended into typical PBS left-wing apologia -- funded by taxpayers like you. The NewsHour aired tributes from the president of her sorority‚ then summarized the case in a forthright manner. Nawaz: Riley's body was found in this wooded area on campus last Thursday. Her roommate had reported her missing after she failed to return from a morning jog; 26-year-old Venezuelan citizen Jose Antonio Ibarra was charged with her murder. Immigration officials say‚ in September of 2022‚ Ibarra was detained in Texas after illegally entering the U.S. from Mexico‚ but then released for further processing…. But then Nawaz made a politicized pivot to chide Fox News‚ suggesting “conservatives and right-wing media” were unfairly seizing on Laken Riley’s murder to promote their anti-immigration views‚ airing a Fox clip featuring anchor Jesse Watters. Jesse Watters‚ Fox News Anchor: A dangerous foreign national broke the law and suffered no consequences because of fringe policies the far left claims are compassionate. Thomas Homan‚ Former Acting Director‚ U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Fox: This is another senseless‚ preventable death because of this open border. Nawaz: Conservatives and right-wing media link the Biden Administration's immigration approach with Riley's death….Georgia's Republican Governor Brian Kemp pointed to record high numbers at the U.S. Southern border. This may be a rare time the words "far left" are aired on PBS. After a Kemp clip‚ the liberal professor guest came to calm the waters. Nawaz: …. The White House has expressed condolences to Riley's family‚ but has not responded directly to the Republican accusations. All this as both Biden and Trump plan dueling border visits to Texas on Thursday of this week. And to help with some context around these questions around immigration and crime‚ I'm joined now by Charis Kubrin. She's a professor of criminology‚ law‚ and society at the University of California‚-Irvine‚ and co-author of the book Immigration and Crime: Taking Stock....Authorities also today just revealed her death was due to blunt-force trauma. And the man‚ we know‚ accused here is an undocumented immigrant. Those are all facts. What do you make of the larger conversation around those facts right now? PBS’s supposedly undeniable “facts” about Venezuelan immigrant Jose Antonio Ibarra‚ accused of Riley’s murder‚ include the oversensitive label of “undocumented immigrant.” Typically for PBS‚ the segment’s sole guest‚ an unlabeled liberal‚ defended the left flank‚ shielding illegals against accusations of criminality and also decrying potential limits on immigration. Charis Kubrin: When I heard about this tragic event‚ my heart went out immediately. That is‚ of course‚ the first reaction I had. But the second one is‚ uh-oh‚ I hope that this is not used as -- this awful event is not used for political advantage. And it appears that that is what is essentially happening. We see a tragic event become a sparking point for really restrictive policies aimed at immigrants. Nawaz let Kubrin (who donated $1‚250 to arch-liberal California Rep. Katie Porter for her successful 2018 House campaign) claim “immigrants do not engage in more crime than native-born counterparts‚ and immigration actually can cause crime to go down‚ rather than up‚ so quite contrary to public perception.” Nawaz at least asked a clarifying follow-up. Nawaz: And does any of your research examine any differences between an undocumented immigrant and those who are legally here in the United States? Kubrin: ….There are a handful of studies that have begun to do this using pretty sophisticated estimation techniques to identify the number of undocumented individuals. And what those studies find is‚ similar to the research in general‚ there is no criminogenic impact among undocumented immigrants. In other words‚ undocumented immigrants are not engaging in more crime‚ contrary to public perception…. Setting aside Kubrin’s vagueness‚ one could argue being in the country illegally is a crime in itself. She echoed Rep. Porter’s own terrible argument -- don’t generalize against illegals based on a single unfortunate incident. Kubrin: ….if we really do want to cut down on crime in general‚ absent this one horrific incident‚ making restrictive‚ exclusionary and harsh policies aimed at immigrants is really not going to yield the benefits of reductions in crime that many people believe…. This segment was brought to you in part by BNSF Railway. A transcript is available‚ click “Expand.” PBS NewsHour 2/27/24 7:15:59 p.m. (ET) Amna Nawaz: The murder of a college student in Georgia and the immigration status of her alleged killer have thrown new fuel into the heated debate over the U.S. southern border and the government's policies. At the University of Georgia‚ grief hangs in the air after last week's death of 22-year-old nursing student Laken Hope Riley. Students‚ including her sorority sisters‚ gathered yesterday to remember Riley. Chloe Mullis‚ President‚ Alpha Chi Omega: She showed incredible wisdom throughout her friendships. Many sisters have shared that she was the best listener. She would allow you to ramble on about how your day was or how your life had been lately. And she soaked it up intently. Her wisdom flowed throughout all aspects of her life‚ and she had an eye for those who were secretly struggling. Amna Nawaz: Riley's body was found in this wooded area on campus last Thursday. Her roommate had reported her missing after she failed to return from a mourning jog; 26-year-old Venezuelan citizen Jose Antonio Ibarra was charged with her murder. Immigration officials say‚ in September of 2022‚ Ibarra was detained in Texas after illegally entering the U.S. from Mexico‚ but then released for further processing. Students returned to classes this week‚ but the community has been shaken to its core. Riley's death is believed to be the school's first homicide in nearly 30 years. Bethany Bateman Mcdonald‚ University of Georgia: I'm a mom. And as a mom‚ I couldn't imagine‚ I couldn't imagine something like this happening to my children. Amna Nawaz: Beyond campus… Jesse Watters‚ FOX News Anchor: A dangerous foreign national broke the law and suffered no consequences because of fringe policies the far left claims are compassionate. Thomas Homan‚ Former Acting Director‚ U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: This is another senseless‚ preventable death because of this open border. Amna Nawaz: Conservatives and right-wing media link the Biden administration's immigration approach with Riley's death. Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA): Laken's death is a direct result of failed policies on the federal level. Amna Nawaz: Georgia's Republican Governor Brian Kemp pointed to record high numbers at the U.S. southern border. Gov. Brian Kemp: It is an understatement to say that this is a major crisis. And because of the White House's failures‚ every state‚ as I have said repeatedly‚ is now a border state. And Laken Riley's murder is just the latest proof of that. Amna Nawaz: On social media‚ former President Trump said — quote — "Biden's border invasion is destroying our country and killing our citizens." And he reiterated his campaign pledge to — quote — "seal the border and deport illegal criminals." The White House has expressed condolences to Riley's family‚ but has not responded directly to the Republican accusations‚ all this as both Biden and Trump plan dueling border visits to Texas on Thursday of this week. And to help with some context around these questions around immigration and crime‚ I'm joined now by Charis Kubrin. She's a professor of criminology‚ law‚ and society at the University of California‚ Irvine‚ and co-author of the book "Immigration and Crime: Taking Stock." Professor‚ let's begin with the obvious here. Our thoughts are obviously with the family of Laken Riley and her friends‚ the senseless loss of a young woman's life. Authorities also today just revealed her death was due to blunt-force trauma. And the man‚ we know‚ accused here is an undocumented immigrant. Those are all facts. What do you make of the larger conversation around those facts right now? Charis Kubrin‚ University of California‚ Irvine: When I heard about this tragic event‚ my heart went out immediately. That is‚ of course‚ the first reaction I had. But the second one is‚ uh-oh‚ I hope that this is not used as — this awful event is not used for political advantage. And it appears that that is what is essentially happening. We see a tragic event become a sparking point for really restrictive policies aimed at immigrants. Amna Nawaz: So‚ I know in your work and in your book‚ you look exactly at this issue going back even to the early 1900s about the intersection of crime and immigration. Broadly speaking‚ what have you learned? Charis Kubrin: So‚ there's been so much research that's been done on how immigration and crime are related‚ both among immigrants‚ are immigrants more or less crime-prone than their native-born counterparts‚ and does immigration to an area cause crime to go up or down? And more recently‚ there's been an explosion of research in this area because of public perception and interest. And what's pretty amazing is‚ across all this research‚ by and large‚ we find that immigrants do not engage in more crime than native-born counterparts‚ and immigration actually can cause crime to go down‚ rather than up‚ so quite contrary to public perception. Amna Nawaz: And does any of your research examine any differences between an undocumented immigrant and those who are legally here in the United States? Charis Kubrin: Right. That's become an increasingly important question that we have sought to answer. There are a handful of studies that have begun to do this using pretty sophisticated estimation techniques to identify the number of undocumented individuals. And what those studies find is‚ similar to the research in general‚ there is no criminogenic impact among undocumented immigrants. In other words‚ undocumented immigrants are not engaging in more crime‚ contrary to public perception. And the presence of undocumented immigrants in an area does not correlate with higher crime‚ particularly violence. Amna Nawaz: Professor‚ I'm sure you have heard this argument before. We're hearing this again‚ which is that if this man had not been allowed to enter into the United States‚ if he'd not been allowed to stay‚ he couldn't have committed this crime‚ and this young woman would still be alive today. Are people making that argument wrong? Charis Kubrin: Well‚ it's not that argument's wrong‚ because‚ essentially‚ that is true‚ but I think it's misplaced‚ because‚ at the end of the day‚ if we really do want to cut down on crime in general‚ absent this one horrific incident‚ making restrictive‚ exclusionary and harsh policies aimed at immigrants is really not going to yield the benefits of reductions in crime that many people believe‚ largely because‚ as I just mentioned‚ immigrants are not the ones engaging in crime. I would point out also that there's been a lot of instances of violence on campus with young individuals getting killed‚ tragic events‚ most of which are occurring by native-born Americans. And so I think we need to pay attention to broader factors that contribute to this kind of senseless violence‚ rather than simply aiming our targets at immigrants. Anna Nawaz: So that leap from the crime of one person catalyzing to fear of an entire group or population‚ we don't really see that‚ as you mentioned‚ with native-born Americans or white Americans more broadly. Is that something unique to immigrant populations? Charis Kubrin: So that's the interesting thing. I have never seen a headline‚ not once in my life‚ that has read native-born American has engaged in this crime or that crime. And so what happens is most of the stories identify a person's immigrant status and link it with crime in headlines‚ in social media‚ in the news. That essentially reinforces the public perception that both go hand in hand‚ when in fact the data show just the opposite. So it's an uphill battle in terms of public perception. Amna Nawaz: What should we expect to see in the months ahead? We are in an election year. Immigration is a top issue for voters around the country. Do you expect this conversation to continue at this kind of heated level? Charis Kubrin: I think it will‚ unfortunately‚ for the exact reasons I mentioned early on‚ which is that this is an opportunity‚ an awful opportunity‚ to seize on a political advantage. What I hope happens is that we identify places where we can improve things when it comes to immigration‚ but also do so in a way that makes smart policy‚ policy that will help things more broadly‚ rather than simply use a scapegoat moment to make more restrictive policies that are not going to do much in the end for crime. Amna Nawaz: Professor Charis Kubrin from the University of California‚ Irvine‚ thank you so much for your time. We appreciate it. Charis Kubrin: Thank you.

Late Wednesday afternoon‚ the Supreme Court announced they’d hear the case on presidential immunity as it relates to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s January 6 criminal case against former President Trump. Naturally‚ this decision left the liberal media — including ABC and NBC on Wednesday night and Thursday morning — enraged this could further delay what they hope leads to Trump’s imprisonment. Instead of letting the D.C. Court of Appeals’s decision against Trump stand‚ the Court decided it would weigh in on whether a president is immune from prosecution‚ which is‚ in fact‚ a big deal. In other words‚ the kind of topic the high court exists to answer. One could say ABC News was losing its noodle over what it deemed as the Supreme Court doing Donald Trump’s bidding by “serving” his desires “of pushing his trials past the presidential election” and thus handing him a “victory” and Smith “a major setback”. Thursday’s Good Morning America was apoplectic. Co-host and former Clinton official George Stephanopoulos huffed “the Supreme Court agreeing to hear Donald Trump’s claim that he is immune on federal charges” placed the trial for said charges “on hold‚ serving the former President’s strategy of pushing his trials past the presidential election.” Chief Washington correspondent and three-time anti-Trump author Jonathan Karl was despondent that “the trial in that case could be pushed back to late summer or fall‚ or possibly until after the presidential election” and thus‚ regardless of the Supreme Court’s ruling “a Trump victory”. “With this delay‚ even if the trial was able to happen before the election‚ it would likely take place against the back drop of the political conventions later in the summer‚ or in the heat of the fall campaign‚ possibly‚ George‚ after voters in several states have already started casting their ballots‚” he added. A seething Stephanopoulos commiserated with chief legal analyst Dan Abrams‚ suggesting‚ in his view‚ it’s pointless because there’s no way Trump could prevail in any court. Abrams was also forlorn at “a really big win” the Court gave Trump (click “expand”): STEPHANOPOULOS: Ultimately‚ this question of pres — immunity is not a close call. They’re going to rule against Donald Trump there. So‚ why take it? ABRAMS: Because they want to put their stamp on it. Because the U.S. Supreme Court wants to weigh in on an incredibly important question. But‚ look‚ this really is all about the clock. I mean‚ this always has been about the clock. I think Donald Trump and his legal team know they’re not going to win the argument that he is completely immune‚ that the President has complete and total immunity. The question is‚ when do they decide that? And now‚ this is a really big win for Donald Trump if you look at his effort‚ as an effort to delay. STEPHANOPOULOS: But that gets to my second question‚ why take 16 days to decide this? Why schedule arguments two months from now? ABRAMS: The 16 days‚ I think‚ shows there was some dissent within the justices about what to do here. And‚ yeah‚ they could have expedited it even more. Look‚ the easiest way to deal with moving it forward would have been to say‚ as they do in most cases‚ we’re not gonna hear it‚ right? The appellate court has ruled on this. We’re gonna simply say this is not a case that the Supreme Court is going to weigh in on. And the appellate court decision would have stood against Donald Trump. The Court not saying that. And then also not move it quite as quickly as they could have. And so‚ I now think it’s very unlikely that you’re going to see this trial move before the election. STEPHANOPOULOS: One final question‚ thought. Could the judge‚ assume he’s not — he’s not immune‚ schedule the trial for November 8? And‚ even if Donald Trump wins‚ he still has to face trial? ABRAMS: That’s‚ like‚ one of the questions a professor asks in class‚ right? It’s like‚ should — STEPHANOPOULOS: But answer it! [LAUGHS] ABRAMS: — it’s like‚ theoretically — yeah‚ theoretically‚ it’s possible. Practically‚ there’s absolutely no way the judge is going to schedule the trial for after the election. There’s just no way. By the way‚ I don’t think the judge — I don’t think the department of justice is going to allow the — the case to move forward even in the 60 days before the election. So‚ I don’t think any of that period becomes a realistic possibility‚ although theoretically it’s possible. During a subsequent bottom-of-the-hour news brief and lead-in at the top of the second hour‚ Stephanopoulos made sure to return to this claim that the Court is “serving” Trump ahead of Karl relitigating his report from the first hour. Rewind to Wednesday’s World News Tonight and anchor David Muir framed it not as something the high court was made to answer‚ but how this affects the election.  Here was his opening tease: “This move from the Supreme Court to decide this will delay the federal case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith...[H]ow soon could the Supreme Court decide this? And if they don’t decide in Donald Trump’s favor‚ would there still be time for this federal trial before the presidential election?” After correspondent Devin Dwyer also bemoaned this in political terms‚ Muir brought in ABC News contributor Kate Shaw‚ the wife of MSNBC leftist loon Chris Hayes. While more covert than overt‚ Shaw put her thumb on the scale by demanding the Court “mov[e] much faster in a case like this” compared to waiting until late June to release it (as the Court does with blockbuster cases). That way‚ she argued‚ “a trial maybe late this summer” was still possible. In other words‚ she was aiming to not have her fellow progressives lose hope. Wednesday’s NBC Nightly News was similarly not amused. Along with anchor Lester Holt emphasizing “[t]he decision likely delays the start of any trial”‚ chief legal correspondent Laura Jarrett (and daughter of Obama confidant Valerie Jarrett) was relayed the Court did as “Mr. Trump hoped” and revived chances the case could be dismissed if he wins in November. Jarrett returned to Thursday’s Today with even more saltiness as though Team Obama wrote it for her‚ whining the Court helped gave “Trump the gift of time” by ensuring “the calendar works to his advantage” and lessening the “sky high” “stakes” (click “expand”): JARRETT: The immunity issue one that could make or break the prosecutor’s case against Donald Trump. The Supreme Court’s involvement on this could hand him a win or loss‚ but either way‚ the calendar works to his advantage‚ making the chances he will face trial before election day this year on charges of trying to overturn the last election‚ more remote by the day. This morning‚ the U.S. Supreme Court handing Donald Trump the gift of time. The justices agreeing to decide whether the Republican frontrunner should be immune from federal charges because his attempts to reverse the 2020 election happened while he was still in office. TRUMP [on 01/06/21]:  We will never give up. We will never concede. JARRETT: In a one page order‚ the high court saying it will hear arguments the case the week of April 22. But‚ with no firm for its final ruling‚ the prospect of a federal criminal trial being completed before the November election‚ becoming increasingly unrealistic. And‚ if the Supreme court rules in Mr. Trump’s favor‚ the charges against him in Washington‚ D.C.‚ wiped out completely. TRUMP [on 02/08/24]: You cannot allow a president to be out there without immunity. They don’t have immunity‚ you don’t have a presidency. JARRETT: The stakes‚ sky high for the former President‚ who has cast the prosecution itself as election interference and Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team‚ which has accused Mr. Trump of defrauding the government he once led. SMITH [on 08/01/22]: My office will seek a speedy trial‚ so that our evidence can be tested in court. JARRETT: But the case has been beset by appeals on the immunity question with lower courts finding Mr. Trump should not be shielded from prosecution. The Trump campaign seizing on the Supreme Court taking up the case as another fundraising opportunity with the former President pressing his case on social media. (....) JARRETT: Even if [the Court] said [Trump] loses it‚ he’s not immune‚ he — the still wouldn’t just spring back to life‚ right? He wouldn’t immediately go to trial the next day because he gets benefit of all of this time when the case essentially just been frozen on ice...So‚ he would get roughly three months tacked on to that time. In contrast to all this‚ CBS had longtime Supreme Court correspondent Jan Crawford on both Wednesday’s CBS Evening News and Thursday’s CBS Mornings‚ who provided a sober‚ reality-based view that the Court “had to take this case” given its magnitude. In other words‚ her message was this: relax. To see the relevant transcripts from February 28‚ click here (for ABC)‚ here (for CBS)‚ and here (for NBC). To see the relevant transcripts from February 29‚ click here (for ABC) and here (for NBC). 

Tech giant Meta has proudly unveiled its plan to control content as censorship … er‚ election season nears in the European Union. Meta — the parent company of Facebook‚ Instagram and WhatsApp — has a whole slate of actions planned ahead of the upcoming EU parliament elections. From its partnership with the biggest fact-checking network to weaponized artificial intelligence (AI) to an Elections Operations Center‚ Meta is fully committed to election-related censorship. This Feb. 25 release comes soon after Meta President of Global Affairs Nick Clegg accidentally admitted on CNBC News that a majority of the company’s employees are involved in censorship activities. It appears that anti-free speech European legislation has spurred Meta’s zeal‚ as the press release cited the Digital Services Act and EU Code of Practice on Disinformation. Meta bragged that it invested over $20 billion in “safety and security‚” which is leftist speak for “censorship.” The release further cited that Meta “quadrupled” its safety team which now has “around 40‚000 people‚” including 15‚000 “content reviewers.” A CNBC hot mic really put that number into perspective‚ highlighting the enlarged team as approximately 60 percent of the platform’s workforce. Meta’s release described 26 fact-checking partners for 22 languages in the EU‚ including three new partners. Fact-checked content will have warning labels and reduced distribution‚ thus suppressing any content of which the biased tech giant disapproves‚ according to the release. These include any ads questioning election “legitimacy‚” indicating that allegations of voter fraud will be targeted. Meta also claimed it would engage in “media literacy” campaigns for “[c]ombatting misinformation‚” a vague term applied to any speech with which leftists disagree. “Between July and December 2023‚ for example‚ over 68 million pieces of content viewed in the EU on Facebook and Instagram had fact checking labels‚” Meta proudly declared. One of Meta’s EU election efforts involves AI‚ as Meta is “committed to taking a responsible approach to new technologies like GenAI‚ and signed on to the tech accord to combat the spread of deceptive AI content in elections.” State-controlled media accounts‚ particularly from Russia‚ will also be labeled as such‚ Meta added. Ironically‚ in its new press release‚ Meta claimed to have “comprehensive policies to prevent election interference and voter fraud.” Yet Meta’s censorship activities appear to be election interference too. In fact‚ censorship can impact election results. A Media Research Center poll found in November 2020 that 17 percent of then-presidential candidate Joe Biden’s voters would not have voted for him had they been aware of the president’s scandals that Big Tech and the legacy media censored. Yet Meta’s Oversight Board members recently advocated for increased censorship. Conservatives are under attack. Contact Facebook headquarters at (650) 308-7300 and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency‚ clarity on “misinformation” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored‚ contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form‚ and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

These Pistachio Cookies are made with instant pudding and are a wonderful treat. They come together quickly and cook in about 10 minutes. If you are a fan of pistachio recipes‚ you will love this delicious Pistachio Cake. It’s so easy and a great dessert. ❤️WHY WE LOVE THIS RECIPE This recipe is simple ingredients...