“This is our federal government denying access, and not allowing information, and it’s not America. It’s crazy,” de Blasio said as he demonstrated outside Tornillo Migrant Children’s Facility.
“I’ve never seen anything like this,” the mayor scoffed. “These are public facilities paid for with taxpayer dollars. How on earth are we not allowed to see what’s happening to these children? It’s astounding, and it feels really un-American.”
Bill de Blasio now joins the ranks of other high-profile New York Democrats demanding ICE be dismantled. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) called for the agency to be abolished in an interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo on Thursday.
“I believe that it has become a deportation force. And I think you should separate out the criminal justice from the immigration issues,” Gillibrand told Cuomo. “I think you should reimagine ICE under a new agency, with a very different mission, and take those two missions out. So we believe that we should protect families that need our help, and that is not what ICE is doing today.”
“And that’s why I believe you should get rid of it, start over, reimagine it and build something that actually works,” the Democrat lawmaker added.
Prior to her interview with CNN, Gillibrand joined hundreds of demonstrators protesting inside the Hart Senate Office Building against the Trump administration’s now-halted family separation policy.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the self-styled Democrat-socialist who sunk incumbent Rep. Joe Crowley’s (D-NY) reelection bid in New York’s 14th congressional district, has made abolishing ICE a key campaign promise.
“As overseen by the Trump administration, ICE operates with virtually no accountability, ripping apart families and holding our friends and neighbors indefinitely in inhumane detention centers scattered across the United States,” the 28-year-old Democrat says. “[I] believes that if we are to uphold civic justice, we must abolish ICE and see to it that our undocumented neighbors are treated with the dignity and respect owed to all people, regardless of citizenship status.”
A recent cartoon produced by the New York Times depicts Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin as gay lovers. It was clearly intended to be hilariously funny while also making a salient political point. In reality, it does neither.
The cartoon is part two of a three-part series called ‘Trump Bites’ from critically-acclaimed animator Bill Plympton. Let me explain the contents of the minute-long video to save you from having to watch it yourself.
It begins with a cartoon Trump standing in front of a mirror altering his bow tie while a portrait of a topless Putin hangs on the wall behind him. Audio of the real Trump confirming that he does have “a relationship” with Putin begins to play and the doorbell of Trump’s cartoon house rings.
The visitor is none other than a muscly, topless (again) Putin. Trump’s cartoon heart begins to beat out of his chest and he hands it over to the macho Russian as a gift. Audio of the real Trump claiming Putin has done a “brilliant and amazing” job plays over the scene.
Now Donald and Vlad are sitting in a car together. The Russian is in the driving seat. Witty political metaphor? Check! Cartoon Trump leans over and places his tiny hand on top of Putin’s excessively large hand. Overdone dig at the size of Trump’s hands? Check!
Suddenly, the car morphs into a unicorn (stay with me) and the star-crossed lovers are riding on its back through a pink sky filled with butterflies, hearts and rainbows. Putin turns around to kiss Trump and we get a close-up of tongues swirling.
Back in his bedroom after his date with the Russian, cartoon Trump is seen with a gun in hand shooting at his TV screen — an obvious reference to his distaste for “fake news” and the like. Roll credits.
Describing the cartoon on its website, the Times explains that it “plays out in a teenager’s bedroom, where the fantasies of this forbidden romance come to life.”But, in case it wasn’t already clear, the end result isn’t funny. It doesn’t do a particularly good job of making any political point, either — unless you’re counting the reinforcement of a tired, boring and unproven narrative of “collusion” and “bromance” between Trump and his Russian counterpart.
What it does do, very well in fact, is highlight the hypocrisy of the New York Times. Despite its socially liberal credentials, the paper of record has seen fit to use gay stereotypes to malign political figures it does not like. The very fact that the men are portrayed as gay is what is supposed to make the cartoon so funny.
Unsurprisingly, gay people on Twitter were quick to point out that mocking people — even fake versions of real people — for being gay isn’t actually very funny at all. Journalist Glenn Greenwald (who happens to be gay himself) called out the Times for “using one disgusting gay stereotype after the next” in an attempt to make a political point. “Homophobia for progressive messaging is still bigotry,” he wrote on Twitter. He’s right. Another gay Twitter user hit out at the Times for its “vulgar” and “homophobic” negative stereotyping, while others blasted the paper for the tone-deaf decision to publish the“gay-bashing” cartoon during Pride Month, of all times.
The Times’ decision to produce the ‘lol they’re gay’ cartoon seems particularly odd, given how oh-so-concerned they pretend to be with the plight of gay people in Russia. Then again, much of the Western concern over gay rights in Russia is and always has been insincere; a political tool that Western nations use to hammer Russia with while ignoring the far, far worse treatment that gay people are subjected to in countries like Saudi Arabia — a religious dictatorship which is hailed by US political leaders for its progressiveness if it makes even the mildest step towards modernity.
Recall the stunt pulled by the Paddy Power bookmakers during the World Cup. The company proudly announced that it would donate €10,000 to gay rights charities every time Russia scored a goal. The irony of announcing this charitable endeavor during a match against a country (Saudi Arabia) where being gay (MAY BE PUNISHED) by death was apparently entirely lost on them.
Anyway, back to the Times. Even if we forgive the newspaper for its foray into homophobic stereotyping to malign public figures, there’s still the fact that the cartoon is boring and stale and one would struggle to justify classing it as political satire.
There is nothing particularly cutting edge about it. It’s a simple rehash of a tired narrative — just with some homophobia thrown in for laughs. The cartoon series bills itself as satire — but satire is supposed to be original, biting, thought-provoking, clever. This fails on every count.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
“I believe that it has become a deportation force. And I think you should separate out the criminal justice from the immigration issues. I think you should reimagine ICE under a new agency, with a very different mission, and take those two missions out. So we believe that we should protect families that need our help, and that is not what ICE is doing today,” Gillibrand told Cuomo. “And that’s why I believe you should get rid of it, start over, reimagine it and build something that actually works,” the Democrat lawmaker added.
New York City mayor Bill de Blasio told WNYC radio Brian Lehrer on Friday ICE should be abolished.
De Blasio and Gillibrand are among other high profile Democrats demanding ICE be dismantled.
Democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who won her Democratic primary race against establishment New York Rep. Joseph Crowley Tuesday night, strongly stands for abolishing the border-enforcement agency. Ocasio-Cortez claimed on Wednesday that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is running “black sites” at the border.
Rep. Mark Pocan (D – Wisc.) accused President Trump and “his team of white supremacist” of misusing ICE to facilitate crime at the border.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D – OR) was one of the members of congress who voted against forming ICE and the Dept. of Homeland Security in 2002 and is reportedly introducing legislation over the next few weeks which would dismantle ICE and set up a commission to look at “how to restore a more humane and service-oriented system that both protects Americans and respects immigrants.”
Nearly 600 people were arrested by the Capitol Police Thursday, including Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), at an immigration protest at the Hart Senate Building.
This time the angry lefty women traded in their pussy hats for foil, wrapping themselves in foil to imitate the blankets migrant children slept in at detention centers during the Obama years:
This is actually happening. Americans are calling for ICE to be abolished. They've been terrorizing our communities for years! It's time. Every progressive candidate must say it! Everyone who says they care about immigrants should say it. #AbolishICE! #WomenDisobeypic.twitter.com/pPg7NQ9gZ8
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) says she is proud to have been arrested today with the other hundreds of women:
I was just arrested with 500+ women and @WomensMarch to say @RealDonaldTrump’s cruel zero-tolerance policy will not continue. Not in our country. Not in our name. June 30 we’re putting ourselves in the street again.
On June 24th several Facebook users criticised the fact that many migrants from the Aquarius boat had thrown away clothes and towelsdonated to them by the Red Cross.
The clothes were found in a dumpster in Cheste’s Educational Complex, where many of the migrants have been housed until they have finalised their asylum applications.
This, despite the fact that the very first night in Spain, some migrants were spotted at a restaurant in Cheste paying for drinks using €100 bills.
Even the younger migrants, who were housed in a student residence in Alicante as we previously reported, were spotted going out to party on their first night, despite Liberal Spanish commentators stating that they were in “shock” and “traumatised” due to the crossing from Libya.
As can be seen in the photo, the containers are overflowing with rejected clothes, towels and blankets distributed by the Red Cross – some care packages are even intact and their contents are listed as “1 track suit, 1 t-shirt, 1 pair of socks, 1 underwear”.
The local residents are incensed about the absolute lack of gratitude these supposedly “stressed” immigrants demonstrate with the generosity shown by the Red Cross.
The Dutch Senate has approved a law that bans the wearing of “face-covering clothing” in public buildings, including hospitals, schools and government offices, as well as on public transportation.
Although the ban does not extend to public streets, the law authorizes police to ask individuals to remove face-covering clothing to establish their identity.
Those found flouting the ban — which includes Islamic veils and robes such as burqas (which cover the entire face) and niqabs (which cover the entire face except for the eyes), as well as balaclavas and full-face helmets — will be subject to a fine of 410 euros ($475).
The new law, previously adopted by the Dutch House of Representatives in November 2016, was approved on June 26 by 44 to 31 votes in the 75-seat Senate.
In a statement, the government, which has not yet said when the law will enter into effect, explained its purpose:
“In a free country like the Netherlands, everyone has the freedom and space to behave and dress as he or she desires. Sometimes, limits can and must be imposed on that freedom. In the case of face-covering clothing, this applies in particular if mutual communication is impeded or safety is jeopardized.
“Mutual communication whereby people can look each other in the face is so important that uniform rules have now been laid down by law. This makes it clear to everyone what is and is not allowed in those situations.”
A Muslim activist group called “Stay away from my Niqab!” said the ban is unconstitutional. In an open letter sent to Dutch lawmakers, the group, which has more than 5,000 followers on Facebook, asked:
“Why is it not realized that this law leads to people being isolated from society? This ban leads to women who wear face-covering clothing, who like to participate in society, no longer to be able to do this effectively because they now have a restriction on education, license applications, travel with public transport, visiting a doctor and much more….
“Is the constitution no longer applicable to women with face-covering clothing? What about the right that everyone is free to dress how he/she wants, regardless of race, gender, religion or belief?
“What about Article 6 of the Constitution which sets out freedom of religion and belief? Is there a problem in which everyone does not have the right freely to confess their religion or belief, individually or in community with others?”
The group’s spokeswoman, Karima Rahmani, added:
“We feel that we are being wronged with a repressive measure, which is why we trying to make our voices heard. It is getting harder and harder to be on the street with a niqab. I myself have been threatened with death, and other women have even been physically attacked.
“There is a lot of talk about me, but no one comes to me to ask: ‘Why do you actually wear that niqab?’ It is part of my religion and I want to be free to make that choice. It is a spiritual experience that I personally experience.”
The Council of State, an independent advisor to the government on legislation, said that the ban was unnecessary and potentially unconstitutional. In a November 2015 report, it said that the Dutch Cabinet had been guided too much by “subjective feelings of insecurity” that “do not justify a ban.” It added:
“The Council of State points out that the bill primarily seems to have been motivated by objections to wearing Islamic face-covering clothing…. Insofar as face-covering clothing (for example a burqa) is worn to express a religious clothing prescription, this falls under the constitutionally-protected freedom of religion. The ban proposed by the government does not, according to the Council of State, justify restricting the right to freedom of religion.”
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), however, twice has ruled that burqa bans are legal, making it unlikely that the Dutch ban could be overturned in court.
In July 2017, for example, the ECHR upheld a Belgian ban on wearing the burqa in public spaces. It said that the government had been responding “to a practice that it considered to be incompatible, in Belgian society, with social communication and more generally the establishment of human relations, which were indispensable for life in society…essential to ensure the functioning of a democratic society.” In July 2014, the ECHR upheld France’s burqa ban, accepting the French government’s argument that it encouraged citizens to “live together.”
The Dutch government has repeatedly insisted that the ban is not about restricting religion but about promoting communication and public safety. It has described the new law as “religion neutral” because it is not limited just to the burka and niqab, but also includes the balaclava and full-face helmet.
Dutch Interior Minister Kajsa Ollongren said the new law represents “a fair balance”between “the freedom to dress as one wishes” and “the general interest of communication and security.” She also said that far from violating fundamental rights, the ban will enable Muslim women “to have access to a wider social life” because if they do not cover the face “they will have more possibilities for contact, communication and opportunities to enter the job market.”
A complete ban was originally proposed in December 2005 by Party for Freedom (PVV) leader Geert Wilders, who argued that burqas and niqabs are barriers to the integration of women in the Netherlands: “We must ban the burqa. People’s faces should not be hidden in society, for it is our faces that give us our identity and our fundamental means of communication with others.”
The Netherlands is the sixth European country to approve a burqa ban, after France, Belgium, Bulgaria, Austria and Denmark. Bavaria in Germany, Catalonia in Spain, Lombardy in Italy and Ticino in Switzerland also have imposed regional burqa bans, while Norway has tabled a law to ban burqas in public schools. Latvia has proposed a burqa ban, but it has not yet been enacted.
You can read this article as it originally appeared at Gatestone Institute here.
Failed presidential candidate Hillary Clintonrejected calls of civility in a recent interview, calling for “strength and resolve” to resist President Trump.
The Guardian reports that when asked about some on the left becoming “uncivil” recently, she responded:
“‘Oh, give me a break,’ she erupts, eyes widening into indignation. ‘Give me a break! What is more uncivil and cruel than taking children away? It should be met with resolve and strength. And if some of that comes across as a little uncivil, well, children’s lives are at stake; their futures are at stake. That is that ridiculous concept of bothsideism.’”
The 28-year-old African, repeat sex offender will not face deportation for a spate of sex crimes in Sweden. As the man received a Swedish passport, according to current law, cannot be sent back, Fria Tiderreports.
The man, who moved from Kenya to Sweden in 1998 is a serial sex offender. In June 2014 he was sentenced to six years in prison by the court of appeal for two rapes.
One of the victims was a 92-year-old woman in Töreboda in Västergötland. The elderly woman was vaginally and anally raped by the migrant on Christmas Eve.
Simultaneous to that sentencing, he was also sentenced for having assaulted and raped another woman outdoors in the Bomhus district in Gävle.
After his conditional release from prison this year, he commit more sex crimes only three days after his release. He sexually assaulted a disabled woman and showed his genitals to two 13-year-old girls.
The man has now been sentenced to a mere three months in prison and according to Swedish legislation, he cannot be deported because he has a Swedish passport.