La Raza in WaPo: Trump Immigration Orders Like ‘Slave Trade’

By John Binder

The president of the open borders group known as La Raza is comparing President Donald Trump’s immigration orders to a number of historic atrocities, including the slave trade, in a new Washington Postop-ed.

The piece by National Council of La Raza President Janet Murguía, claims Trump’s plan to deport criminal illegal immigrants; build a wall along the southern border; and crack down on sanctuary cities will “similarly tarnish our nation’s character” like the slave trade did:

Some of the darkest chapters in U.S. history have involved forcibly relocating minority populations: the slave trade, the Trail of Tears, Operation Wetback and the internment of citizens and noncitizens of Japanese descent during World War II. Each was considered legal and justified in its time. Now they are condemned as assaults on the values that define our nation.

President Trump’s first executive order on immigration and the draft enforcement memos signed by Secretary of Homeland Security John F. Kelly promise to similarly tarnish our nation’s character. The memos call for expanding the nation’s deportation forces by 15,000 to round up, detain and deport the undocumented immigrants living among us. Instead of focusing on criminals, they make all undocumented people priorities for enforcement, and through a process called “expedited removal,” they severely reduce due process protections.

Murguía says Trump’s immigration orders through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are based entirely “on falsehoods” about illegal aliens, arguing that illegal immigration is down and it does not pose as much of a threat as the Trump Administration purports.

The La Raza president also parroted the talking points that illegal aliens help grow the economy by paying taxes every year:

And the cost of the undocumented? Their contributions to the economy far outweigh their burden. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, undocumented immigrants pay $11.6 billion in taxes each year. According to the Social Security Administration, undocumented workers contribute $15 billion annually to the fund, but only withdraw an estimated $1 billion.

This claim has been repeatedly debunked by groups like the Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIR), which found in a comprehensive study that illegal immigration costs American taxpayers a whopping $113 billion, as Breitbart Texas reported.

Murguía also claims that there is “little evidence that most undocumented immigrants pose a threat to national security.”

But, in documents released by the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest back in 2016, research found that there have been 580 individuals convicted of terrorism in the U.S. since the September 11th attacks, with 380 of those individuals being foreign-born terrorists, as Breitbart News reported.

Murguía refers to the recent deportation of Guadalupe Garcia de Rayos, an illegal immigrant living in Phoenix, Arizona, with her two children for 20 years.

“A woman who was a resident of Phoenix for 20 years was also deported, leaving behind her two U.S.-citizen children,” Murguía writes in the piece. “They are hardly security threats, but will be ‘enforcement priorities’ under Homeland Security’s new policy.”

Nonetheless, Murguía did not mention that Garcia de Rayos had been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in 2008 after she was found to be illegally using a Social Security number to work at a theme park, as Breitbart Texas reported.

In 2013, a judge ordered Garcia de Rayos to return home to Mexico, but she instead was required to periodically meet with immigration officials due to lax enforcement policies under former President Obama.

Murguía goes on to claim that the Trump administration has “declared war”, referring to ICE’s efforts to deport criminal illegal immigrants as “stalking people leaving church or going to the movies.”

Murguía’s piece concludes with a plea for the rest of the open borders lobby and amnesty advocates to continue to try to hold up deportation processes by the Trump Administration, writing “we’re deploying every tool we’ve got to oppose this ill-conceived policy — in the media, in the courts and in peaceful protests in the streets.”

EXCLUSIVE: OBAMA ILLEGALLY ROBBED FANNIE, FREDDIE TO FUND OBAMACARE

capture

Obama diverted money from low-income housing to keep Obamacare alive

Jerome R. Corsi | Infowars.com – FEBRUARY 27, 2017

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Will this be the final nail in the coffin for the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as “Obamacare?”

Federal court litigation provides evidence the Obama administration illegally diverted taxpayer funds that had not been appropriated by Congress in an unconstitutional scheme to keep Obamacare from imploding.

In 2016, a U.S. District judge caught the Obama administration’s Health and Human Services Department acting unconstitutionally and therefore put an end to the illegal diversion of taxpayer funds, but the Obama administration didn’t stop there.

capture

The Obama administration instead turned to the nation’s two government-sponsored mortgage giants – the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as “Fannie Mae,” and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as “Freddie Mac” – to invent a new diversion of funds in a desperate attempt to keep Obamacare from collapsing.

A key date is May 12, 2016. That was the day when U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, in the case U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell, (130 F. Supp. 3d 53, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia), ruled against Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Matthews Burwell.

Judge Collyer decided HHS Secretary Burwell had no constitutional authority to divert funds Congress appropriated to one section of the ACA to fund Obamacare subsidy payments to insurers under another section of the ACA, Section 1402 – the clause defining the insurer subsidies – when Congress specifically declined to appropriate any funds to Section 1402 for paying the insurance subsidy.

“Paying out Section 1402 reimbursements without an appropriation thus violates the Constitution,” Judge Collyer concluded. “Congress authorized reduced cost sharing but did not appropriate monies for it, in the Fiscal Year 2014 budget or since.”

“Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one.”

The U.S. District court in this ruling entered judgment in favor of the House of Representatives, barring HHS from using unappropriated money to pay insurers under Section 1402.

What was at issue in Section 1402 was the Obamacare provision that capped the amount of federal subsidies under Section 1402 that lower-income families could use to pay for insurance purchased on state insurance exchanges, particularly the difference between the capped maximum based on a person or family’s income in relation to the federal poverty level.

Congress had refused to pass an appropriation to fund Section 1402 – the section of the ACA that called for making the insurance subsidy payments.

In a report issued in March 2016, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost for providing Section 1402 subsidies over the next ten years (2016-2026) was estimated to be $130 billion.

Forbidden by Judge Collyer’s decision from diverting money Congress appropriated for other ACA provisions to pay Section 1402 subsidies, the Obama administration faced the prospect that the government could not pay subsidies to permit lower-income persons and families to buy the amount of health insurance Obamacare was written to provide them.

Either this, or insurers would be forced to charge middle and high income-persons and families such outrageous amounts for their insurance coverage (to subsidize the poor under ACA) that only the wealthiest could afford to buy health insurance.

In other words, Obamacare was dead in the water if the Obama administration could not find a way to circumvent the District Court’s decision U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell to fund Section 1402 despite the fact Congress had refused to do so.

Determined to keep Obamacare alive, the Obama administration decided to find a way around Judge Collyer’s ruling.

The fix involved the Obama administration redefining the terms of the 2008 conservatorship agreements which advanced funds to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from a 10% dividend on moneys borrowed to the federal government’s confiscation of 100% of the future and imminent profits of these Government Sponsored Entities, or GSEs.

Miraculously, the Freddie and Fannie “pot of gold” turned out to be almost exactly the amount the Obama administration needed to meet the anticipated insurance company subsidies required to keep Section 1402 in business.

So, how did Fannie and Freddie get this pot of gold, given that only a few years earlier both GSEs were bankrupt?

In 2008, in the midst of the financial crisis caused in part by the collapse of the subprime mortgage market, the federal government decided to seize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which at the time were two shareholder-owned companies.

In passing the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA), the U.S. Congress had fixed the regulatory issues at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, creating a mechanism for them to be placed into conservatorship at federal government’s discretion AND providing up to $187.5 billion in funds that could be advanced to the GSEs through a purchase of senior preferred stock paying a ten percent dividend.

In deciding to bail them out, the federal government took control of the two giant mortgage GSEs, with Fannie and Freddie effectively put into government “conservatorship.”

As part of the conservatorship, the federal government effectively acquired warrants, convertible at a nominal price, which allowed the federal government to acquire 79% of the GSE’s common stock.

This resulted in causing dilution in the percentage of Fannie and Freddie common stock ownership that was left in the hands of private and institutional investors.

Congress’ intent was that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would pay back the Treasury as the mortgage giants returned to profitability.

But after the Treasury was paid back, the terms of HERA anticipated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would pay appropriate dividends to stockholders, including the federal government, leaving enough funds within Freddie and Fannie to “conserve and preserve” the assets of the two GSEs, anticipating their eventual return to a “safe and solvent” operating condition.

In 2012, the Obama administration unilaterally decided to change the terms of HERA by sweeping all the profits of Fannie and Freddie into the Treasury’s general fund.

The Obama administration took this action, the so-called “Net Worth Sweep,” without any Congressional authority to do so.

The result was that the U.S. Treasury “found” a way to sweep 100% of Fannie and Freddie profits into the Treasury’s “general fund,” leaving the giant mortgage GSEs vulnerable to the need for another government bailout should another disruption occur in the nation’s economy.

Because of this decision, the Obama administration on its own authority simply decided to discontinue paying dividends to private and institutional owners of Fannie and Freddie common and preferred stock.

Congress, in passing HERA, never anticipated the Obama administration would take over Fannie and Freddie and strip the agencies of all profits – a move that left private and institutional shareholders in the cold.

Leading up to the decision to sweep Fannie and Freddie’s profits, the GSEs return to imminent profitability was known only by a few government officials and their consultants.

Their own internal forecasts, uncovered in unsealed court documents, showed that Fannie and Freddie’s profitability would soon dramatically outperform the amount of the allowable 10% dividend that the Treasury would receive under the existing Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements.

On August 17, 2012, these same officials and consultants succeeded in engineering with the Federal Housing Financial Agency, FHFA, and the Department of Treasury an amendment to the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements that allowed the U.S. Treasury to grab ALL Fannie and Freddie profits – regardless how large Fannie and Freddie’s earnings might be.

Between 2012, when the Obama administration began its policy of confiscating all Fannie and Freddie profits and now, Fannie and Freddie have paid the U.S. Treasury general fund more than $240 billion in dividends.

The point is that after May 12, 2016, when U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled that HHS had to stop diverting ACA funds to pay Obamacare subsidies, the Obama administration realized that HHS somehow had to fund the estimated $130 billion the HHS would need in un‐appropriated monies to pay health insurers the ACA subsidies required to keep Obamacare alive in Fiscal Year 2013.

Plaintiffs litigating against the Obama administration’s confiscation of Freddie and Fannie earnings have challenged in court whether the Obama administration’s decision to amend the Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement in August 2012 and sweep GSE profits of $130 billion in 2013 ($82.4 billion from Fannie Mae, and $47.6 billion from Freddie Mac) was an attempt to circumvent Congress on the single most important policy priority of the White House.

The timing was particularly interesting given that September 2012 marked the beginning of the sequestration discussions.

Government documents leave little doubt profits from Fannie and Freddie confiscated by the U.S. Treasury have been used by the Obama administration to pay Obamacare subsidies and other items not appropriated by Congress, in complete and illegal circumvention of the District Court’s ruling and the Constitution’s determination that only the Congress shall have the power to tax and spend.

For instance, Chapter 3 of the Congressional Budget Office publication “The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2015 to 2025” notes on page 63 that the major contributors to mandatory U.S. government spending include “… outlays for Medicaid, subsidies for health insurance purchases through exchanges, and the government’s transactions with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

Why Fannie and Freddie are specified in this context, when Fannie and Freddie have had sufficient earnings to operate without government subsidies since 2008 is made clear a few pages later.

On page 65, in Table 3-2, the CBO report notes “mandatory outlays projected in CBO’s baseline” from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for 2014 is -$74 billion and for 2015 a total of -$26 billion.

The figures are “negative dollar amounts” because instead of paying out to Freddie and Fannie, the U.S. Treasury is collecting from Freddie and Fannie, with the proceeds going into the U.S. Treasury general fund to pay “mandatory outlays,” including evidently continued subsidies to insurers, as specified by ACA Section 1402.

In footnote 14 on page 8 of that CBO report lets the cat out of the bag, noting the Obama administration considers payments from Freddie and Fannie “to be outside of the federal government for budgetary purposes,” recording cash payments from Freddie and Fannie to the Treasury as “federal receipts.”

The Obama administration evidently considered this all-too-convenient redefinition of terms allowed the government to argue the use of Fannie and Freddie profits to pay Obamacare Section 1402 subsidies was not in violation of the District Court ruling.

Why? Evidently because Fannie and Freddie profits were not taxpayer-generated, but were profit payments generated by Government Sponsored Entities that still had some common and preferred stock private and institutional shareholder ownership.

In the same footnote, the CBO takes exception with the Obama administration, commenting the CBO considers profit payments to the Treasury made by Fannie and Freddie to be “intragovernmental” receipts going into the same Treasury general fund pot, to be mixed indistinguishably with taxpayer revenue, not distinct public/private GSE “receipts” separately accounted for in the Treasury general fund as distinguishable from taxpayer revenue.

If the federal courts conclude Fannie and Freddie GSE “receipts” to Treasury still need Congressional appropriation to be spent legitimately by the executive branch of government, the Obama administration will have been exposed as having operated outside the Constitution in its desperate attempt to keep the ACA from imploding.

What should be outrageous to progressives understanding the Obama administration subterfuge to keep the ACA alive is that by confiscating Fannie/Freddie profits to keep Obamacare alive, Obama ignored core members of the Democratic Party’s core constituency – affordable housing advocates and minority groups – with little explanation.

Jorge Ramos: America Is ‘Our Country, Not Theirs’—‘And We Are Not Going to Leave’

capture

By Katie McHugh 27 Feb 2017

Univision senior anchor Jorge Ramos declared on Friday that the United States belongs to Latino migrants, emphatically stating to a Spanish-speaking audience that “it is our country, not theirs.”

Ramos took an unusual tack, pivoting from talk of diversity and togetherness into boasts of conquest. Mass immigration, particularly illegal immigration, was a fait accompli. There is nothing the U.S. can do about it, and they must accept that America is “not their” country and that illegal aliens, particularly Latinos, “are not going to leave,” he said.

“I am an immigrant, just like many of you,” Ramos said in Spanish, as translated by the Media Research Center. “I am a proud Latino immigrant here in the United States. My name is Jorge Ramos, and I work at Univision and at the Fusion network.”

“And you know exactly what is going on here in the United States. There are many people who do not want us to be here, and who want to create a wall in order to separate us,” he said.

“But you know what? This is also our country. Let me repeat this: Our country, not theirs. It is our country. And we are not going to leave. We are nearly 60 million Latinos in the United States,” he continued. “And thanks to us, the United States eats, grows and, as we’ve seen today, sings and dances.”

“So when they attack us, we already know what we are going to do. We are not going to sit down. We will not shut up. And we will not leave. That is what we are going to do,” he added.

Ramos gave his speech on Friday during Premios Lo Nuestro, or “Our Awards,” on Univision.

Ramos, who immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico, frequently portrays American law as unjust and prejudiced and supports open borders.

“The taboo issue of an open border should be tackled. Not now. Politically it is impossible even to discuss that. But I don’t see why we can’t have in North America the same immigration that they have within the European Union,” Ramos said to Time magazine in 2014.

The U.S. should not enforce its immigration laws even after illegal aliens kill Americans, he said during a CNN interview in August 2015, because that would be “completely unfair” to the illegal population. In June of 2016, Ramos told a crowd of illegal aliens gathered in Houston, Texas, “I think you the DREAMers are the Rosa Parks of this time.”

And Ramos’ views are not fringe ones in Mexico: A 2013 poll found that 66 percent of Mexicans believe the U.S. government has no right to limit immigration, while 52 percent said Mexicans have a right to be in the United States. Another 88 percent said it is fine to enter the U.S. illegally if one needs money. Over half, 56 percent, said they had friends or family who tried to immigrate to the U.S. illegally.

 

More from drug addicts,drunks and sexual deviants. Hollywood. – WALLS AND FENCES ARE BAD… EXCEPT IF YOU’RE A HOLLYWOOD ELITIST ATTENDING THE OSCARS

Barriers to keep out the unwashed masses

Steve Watson | Infowars.com – FEBRUARY 27, 2017

Vacuous celebrities stood and applauded a Mexican, Latin-American director who was chosen to present an Oscar, a political jibe at the President’s intentions to strengthen border security. All the while they were safely separated from the unwashed masses by a complex ‘maze’ of security walls and fences.

Gael Garcia Bernal presented the award for Best Animated Feature Film, And used the opportunity to slam President Trump.

“As a Mexican, as a Latin-American, as a migrant worker, as a human being, I’m against any form of wall that separates us,” he stated.

The Hollywood elite lapped it up, applauding and whooping, because walls and fences are baaaaad. Except of course when you don’t want to be bothered by the troublesome general public. Then, they are totally appropriate.

capture

capture

capture

That’s correct, a labyrinth of concrete walls and fences were erected to keep people out, and even to keep them from looking at the VIPs attending the ceremony.

And rightly so, Hollywood elites do not want to mix with the riff raff outside, as tensions flared with anti-Trump agitators attacking conservative protesters, including Latinos for Trump supporters.

Meanwhile, inside, the celebrities engaged in more mass virtue signaling, with host Jimmy Kimmel slamming Trump all evening, literally calling the President a racist.

When the 40-minute film The White Helmets, which tracks the activity of aid workers in Syria (ignoring possible links to terrorists), won an Oscar for the best Documentary Short, the walled in celebrities gave a smug standing ovation.

http://giphy.com/embed/xTiN0GpBpLFfM1DA5y

via GIPHY

Director Orlando Von Einsiedel stated “It’s very easy for these guys to feel they’re forgotten…This war has been going on for six years. If everyone could just stand up and remind them that we all care that this war ends as quickly as possible.”

Yes, six years of the Obama administration drone bombing locals and supplying aid to extremists. Six years of the government not being held accountable… but stand up and clap, and remember Trump is literally Hitler.

RADICAL LEFTISTS ARE WARNING THAT THE TRUMP YEARS WILL BE ‘APOCALYPTIC’ – AND THEY JUST MIGHT BE RIGHT

Michael Snyder | End Of The American Dream – FEBRUARY 27, 2017

Is the United States about to plunge into an apocalyptic nightmare from which it may never recover?

During the Obama era conservatives often warned of such scenarios, but now things have completely shifted. At the moment, conservatives are generally more optimistic than they have been in many years, but quite a few liberals are warning that the Trump years could have absolutely disastrous consequences for this country. They are concerned that Trump’s policies could burst the giant debt bubble that we have been living in and trigger economic collapse, they are concerned that widespread civil unrest could soon erupt in our cities, they are concerned that our rapidly deteriorating environment and major natural disasters could soon kill millions, and they are also concerned that faltering relationships with other nations could lead us into World War III.

Of course leftists are generally wrong about just about everything, but in this case they might be exactly correct.

The truth is that our world is becoming increasingly unstable with each passing week, and this time around it is conservatives that are guilty of reckless optimism.

Just because Donald Trump has been elected does not mean that everything around us is going to be transformed into some sort of utopia. Anyone that is guilty of this kind of thinking is simply delusional.

So as much as it pains me to say it, these days it is often liberals that have a more accurate assessment of what the times immediately ahead of us are going to be like. And while many conservatives have totally given up on preparing for the difficult times that are coming, many liberals have suddenly become extraordinarily interested in emergency food, water filters and guns. They are extremely concerned about what America is going to look like in a few years, and the mainstream media is starting to do stories about their rising anxiety. The following is an excerpt from a Christian Science Monitor article entitled “In age of Trump, apocalyptic rhetoric becomes mainstream“…

The longer President Trump is in office, the more Cat Deakins worries about the future – for herself and her children.

With every executive order and cabinet appointment, she envisions another scenario: an America that rejects immigrants, that succumbs to climate change, that erupts in war.

“It’s scary to me that [people within the administration] are promoting this idea of, ‘We are at war with Islam.’ That’s the kind of thinking that leads to World War III,” says Ms. Deakins, a cinematographer in Los Angeles. “I don’t think we can be alarmed enough.”

To many conservatives that may sound like nonsense, but the truth is that we are on a road that could potentially lead us to World War III. Anti-Russian hysteria has reached a fever pitch in Washington, and our relationship with China is the worst that it has been in decades. Of course the Middle East continues to be a tinderbox, and one false move could cause a major war to erupt in the region.

Meanwhile, the ground under our feet continues to shake with increasing regularity. In fact, an enormous magnitude 6.9 earthquake struck along the “Ring of Fire” just this weekend

A HUGE earthquake measuring 6.9 magnitude struck off the coast of New Britain island in Papua New Guinea this morning, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) said.

The quake was so powerful that it was felt as far away as the capital Port Moresby, 750 km (460 miles) away on the country’s south coast.

Papua New Guinea is on the Pacific “Ring of Fire” which has frequent earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

And our environment continues to deteriorate all around us as well. According to one recent study, half of the species on our entire planet could be facing extinction by the end of this century unless something is done…

One in five species on Earth now faces extinction, and that will rise to 50% by the end of the century unless urgent action is taken. That is the stark view of the world’s leading biologists, ecologists and economists who will gather on Monday to determine the social and economic changes needed to save the planet’s biosphere.

“The living fabric of the world is slipping through our fingers without our showing much sign of caring,” say the organisers of the Biological Extinction conference held at the Vatican this week.

But of more immediate concern is our very serious economic problems. For much more on this, please see the article that I published on Sunday entitled “Retail Apocalypse Gains Momentum As David Stockman Warns ‘Everything Will Grind To A Halt’ After March 15th“.

We have already seen very angry protests and riots from coast to coast during the first month of Trump’s presidency, and it wouldn’t take much to push the millions upon millions of Americans that completely hate Trump entirely over the edge. If we do see a severe economic downturn or a major natural disaster (remember Katrina?) or the U.S. enters a new war, any of those things could potentially be enough to spark widespread civil unrest in cities all over America.

A lot of people can see what is coming, and many wealthy elitsts are securing adequate accommodations to ride out the “Trumpocalypse” while they still can. For example, a former nuclear missile silo in Kansas has been transformed into a series of luxury survival condos

The door to the Survival Condo closes slowly, sending a resounding thud through the concrete parking garage.

Those inside have surrounded themselves with walls up to 9 feet thick, ready to withstand a nuclear explosion, the eruption of Yellowstone’s supervolcano or an outbreak of avian flu.

Larry Hall, project manager and owner of the Luxury Survival Condo Project, says he feels safer with the doors closed.

He says he’s sold all 12 luxury condos in the former Atlas missile silo — which once housed a nuclear warhead — not far from Concordia, about two hours north of Wichita. He’s working on a second silo.

The condos are all sold out at this point, but the vast majority of us could have never afforded one anyway. According to the article quoted above, an 1,820 square foot unit costs three million dollars.

Ouch.

In the end, the truth is that America was headed for disaster whether Trump or Clinton won the election. And actually, many of the apocalyptic scenarios that I lay out in my novel are much more likely to happen with a Republican in the White House. For instance, radical leftists are far more likely to go wild in the streets if someone that they hate with all of their might is leading the nation.

And instead of trying to bring peace, the top Democrats in Washington are now calling for “total war” against Donald Trump. The following comes from the Daily Caller

Democrat Party leaders are planning to agree on a strategy of all-out war against President Donald Trump at meetings this weekend, rather than work to achieve their policy goals through compromise.

Following the election that devastated the party’s power at every level of government, some in the party were considering a strategy of working with the Trump administration to get things done. Indeed, Trump has signaled he would be willing to cross the aisle to achieve some less-than-conservative policy changes he has taken up. But senior party officials told The New York Times that option is likely off the table, and those inside the party who favor an aggressively confrontational strategy will win out.

The left is not just going to lay down and die just because Donald Trump won the election.

They are absolutely determined to fight Trump every step of the way, even if that means causing more division in a nation that is more deeply divided than it has been in decades.

I know that there is a lot of optimism out there among conservatives right now, but the truth is that the elements for a “perfect storm” are coming together very rapidly, and it is very easy to see how all of this could end very, very badly.

So when liberals say that the coming years could be “apocalyptic”, they may not actually understand what they are talking about, but they might end up being precisely correct.

*(FROM Drug addicts drunks and sexual deviants. Hollywood.) – Jimmy Kimmel Trashes Trump at Oscars 2017

Published on Feb 26, 2017

Jimmy Kimmel called Donald Trump a racist in his opening monologue at the 2017 Oscars, and continued to blame him for the entire world not liking America now. He then called for unity by encouraging liberals and conservatives to talk with each other. Media analyst Mark Dice has the story.

Not Applicable

Drug addicts drunks and sexual deviants. Hollywood.
TruthSeekingElf

These DISGUSTING excuses for humans make me sick, they HYPOCRISY is beyond the pale. Where the FUCK were these sold out WHORES when Obama was BOMBING INNOCENT CHILDREN EVERY DAY FOR EIGHT YEARS?? Fucking pigs. I will NEVER watch another hollyweird move every again for the rest of my life!
The Lepherds

They’re so stubborn that they just can’t let it go. Nobody with a half a brain would waste their time watching these morons sit around all night giving each other rewards anyway. Stop feeding them and they’ll stop coming back. They all look pretty worn out already.
jonah70757

If the World doesn’t like America it is because of Progressive Liberal Scumbags like Kimmel.
r .ra

tax Hollywood 10% for charity purposes and see their reaction 😊
Sylvester Chint

Now this is getting really tired and sick of these liberal idiots. Can’t these A holes just shut up.
Anubis Thanos

is it just me or does Jimmy Kimmel look like absolute hell. his eyes are puffy and bloodshot like he cries himself to sleep every night after drinking a handle of liquor and his face overall looks swollen.
fernando51851

Jimmy Kimmel go and fuck yourself twice you and idiot friends in hollyweird !!!!!!!!!!
FOXBODY 351W

Do all the Hollywood simian buffoons forget that this dick is a die hard misogynist? Remember his show with Adam where large breasted women jumped on a trampoline? Now the scumbag satan worshipers give him a pass because he takes a swipe at our President. Anything to impress the dark lord.