Tag: Defends

Trump Adviser Defends Former Marine/ICE Officer Following Amnesty Whore Marco Rubio’s Screed (Videos)

Trump Campaign Defends ‘American Hero’ Chris Crane From Marco Rubio’s Screed – Big Government

The campaign of GOP frontrunner Donald Trump is speaking out to defend American war veteran and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Council President Chris Crane. Over the weekend, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) demeaned Crane, who’s critical of Sen. Rubio’s involvement in the Gang of Eight bill.

“This courageous ICE officer – a man that Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) has called ‘an American hero’… has served his country in so many different capacities: in the Marine’s uniform, as an ICE officer, [and] as a representative for all of America’s ICE officers,” said Donald Trump’s Senior Policy Adviser Stephen Miller on Breitbart News Sunday.

Rubio has repeatedly made clear “where his priorities are” on immigration, Miller said – explaining that there are now three lanes dividing the GOP Presidential field: the Governor’s lane, occupied by John Kasich; the frontrunner’s lane, occupied by Donald Trump; and the “amnesty lane,” which is occupied “solely and exclusively” by Sen. Rubio.

Prior to joining the Trump campaign, Miller served as Jeff Sessions’ communications director.

On Friday, Breitbart News published an exclusive interview with Chris Crane, an ICE officer of 13 years and a U.S. Marine, in which Crane said Sen. Rubio treated law enforcement “like absolute trash” during his push to pass his 2013 amnesty bill. On Saturday, Rubio appeared on Fox News and implicitly denounced Crane and his service to the country. “He’s not an ICE official, he’s head of a union,” Rubio said angrily.
.

.
Miller, who worked for Sen. Sessions as Rubio sought to push the Gang of Eight amnesty bill through the Senate, explained that: “Chris Crane was a central figure in stopping the Gang of Eight immigration bill from becoming law. He did that in his capacity as the ICE Council President for America’s nearly 6,000 ICE officers and personnel. What that means is that the 6,000 ICE officers and personnel cast a ballot to pick one from among their own ranks to represent them nation-wide… He [Crane] was a central figure in exposing the Gang of Eight bill and stopping it.”
.

.
Miller explained that rather than rebutting ICE officer Crane’s specific accusations, Rubio responded by attacking Crane’s integrity:
.

Chris Crane made specific, material claims [about Sen. Rubio’s amnesty bill]. So Rubio can either say one of two things on substance. He can either say: (1) ‘No, Chris Crane is wrong the bill is fabulous, it should have passed exactly as is.’ Or (2) [Rubio could say,] ‘He’s right we should have listened to him.’ Instead he [Rubio] went for option three, which is to attack the integrity and decency and morality not just… [of] Chris Crane – who again Sen. Sessions has called ‘an American hero’ – but to attack, by extension, all of the ICE officers for whom he speaks.

.
Miller detailed how Crane has proven himself “over and over” again to be “a man of courage and honor.” Providing listeners with a better understanding of the American veteran Sen. Rubio chose to demean on national television, Miller said:
.

I want to explain just a little bit more about why Chris Crane is such an exceptional person. Consider the situation he finds himself in: he represents America’s ICE officers, who are in a political environment in this Homeland Security Department under Obama where they are ordered every day to violate their oath; where they face unceasing pressure from the political chain of command to release criminal aliens and violent people back on the streets and have nothing they can do… And Chris Crane in 2012 spoke out, when precious few did, about President Obama’s first executive amnesty. And he and nine other ICE officers courageously filed a lawsuit to stop President Obama’s 2012 executive amnesty. Think about the courage that takes about how it affects your future career, in terms of how it affects possible political reprisal. Again, Chris Crane has proven over and over that he is a man of courage and honor and decency. And for Marco Rubio to lump him in this group of conspiracy theorists, I just find inexplicable… Historically, I don’t think attacking law enforcement has been a path to the Republican nomination.

.
Miller confirmed Crane’s account of how Sen. Rubio oversaw as Crane was ejected from the Gang of Eight’s press conference for trying to ask a question on behalf of the nation’s law enforcement. Miller explained that this was “a moment in which the character of Marco Rubio was revealed”:
.

I was there at the press conference, as were others… where Marco Rubio allowed Chris Crane to be ejected for asking a question at the press conference… That’s one of those moments when the measure of a man is determined… All of us in our own lives have a moment when we’re tested – where the world figures out who we are and what we are really made of… That was a moment in which the character of Marco Rubio was revealed. He was standing on the stage [next to] Chuck Schumer. This courageous ICE officer – a man that Sen. Jeff Sessions has called ‘an American hero’ – who has served his country in so many different capacities: in the Marine’s uniform, as an ICE officer, [and] as a representative for all of America’s ICE officers. He tried to ask a question, Marco Rubio locked eyes with him. And when they came to forcibly remove that ICE officer from the press conference, Rubio had a chance – a moment to stand up and do the right thing – and he didn’t do it. And now having had that fact and many other exposed, Rubio is attacking the integrity of a United States Marine and an ICE officer, who everyday keeps this nation safe. And I hope that Sen. Rubio issues an apology to Chris Crane and to Breitbart News.

.

.
Rubio’s treatment of law enforcement and his implicit denunciation of Crane “really has become one of the central issues of the 2016 race,” Miller said.

Miller explained that Rubio’s attack of Crane seems to suggest that Rubio wishes the Gang of Eight bill had passed:
.

Here’s an interesting paradox for everybody. Just think about this for a second… Rubio’s tone suggests that he’s mad at Chris Crane. Ok, well Chris Crane helped stop the Gang of Eight bill. But is Rubio therefore saying that he wishes Crane hadn’t stopped the bill, so it could have become law? That’s the implication, right? What he’s saying by implication is: ‘We would have been better off as a country had Chris Crane not spoken out because then obviously it would have been much easier to pass the Gang of Eight bill.’ So he’s sort of caught in a little paradox here because the more he attacks Chris Crane for speaking out, the more he’s saying that he would really have liked to have happened is for the Gang of Eight bill to pass and become law.

.
When asked if there was anything Sen. Rubio has done to indicate that he now takes law enforcement seriously, Miller gave a review of Rubio’s record:
.

The Gang of Eight bill had the following provisions in it: it legalized sex offenders, it legalized gang members, it legalized criminal convicts, it legalized child predators, it legalized people with multiple criminal convictions.

Chris Crane and other ICE officers asked for all those provisions to be removed. Now, again, Rubio had all of the leverage. Rubio could have gone to Chuck Schumer at any point in time, and say to him, “Hey Mr. Schumer, I can’t support this bill unless we change our minds on this whole amnesty for sex offenders thing. Maybe let’s not give amnesty to sex offenders. I can’t support it unless we make sure that no sex offender in the United States can get amnesty…’ Did he do that? No, he didn’t. And he had all the leverage in the world, if he wanted to. By the way, let’s be real here, how much leverage do you need to tell someone not to give amnesty to illegal alien sex offenders? That doesn’t seem like that should be a thing where you really have to think very hard about it.

.
Miller explained that even after Rubio’s amnesty bill failed, Rubio has still favored special interests over law enforcement.
.

In 2015, Rubio introduced another immigration bill. So he had a chance to give it a second go. He introduced another immigration bill in 2015. And so having wronged Chris Crane, having wronged law enforcement, he had a chance – if he wanted to to make amends – [to] introduce a bill, sit down with Chris Crane that would have helped America’s ICE officers. But what bill did Sen. Rubio introduce in 2015 [instead]? It was legislation to help large corporations replace American workers with foreign guest workers. Was there any security in the bill? No. Any new screening tools? No. Any new ICE resources? No. Just a massive uncapped increase in the number of foreign nationals who could be employed in the United States in place of U.S. workers. So again that shows where his priorities are.

.
Miller concluded by noting that, at this point in the presidential race, the GOP field can be viewed in terms of three lanes:
.

Sen. Rubio is the most pro-amnesty candidate in the race, so he inherits completely and solely and exclusively the mantel of the official amnesty candidate. That is his niche. So you have the Governor’s lane with John Kasich; you have the front-runner [lane] with Donald Trump; and then you have the amnesty lane with Marco Rubio. That’s really a good way of thinking about which candidates are fighting for which votes.

.
Miller explained that “Sen. Rubio has [also] been an enthusiastic backer of Obama’s sovereignty-crushing trade agenda. Only 11 percent of GOP voters think these trade agreements raise wages. And only seven percent of GOP voters want more foreign workers, so that means that… the two pillars of Sen. Rubio’s agenda: Obamatrade and Obama-immigration – at most – appeal to 7 and 11 percent of the Republican electorate at the high end.”

Thus, in what Senator Sessions has labeled as the two central issue of 2016 – issues which in helped launch the current voter revolt – Rubio is the candidate who firmly represents the minority view embraced by the GOP’s donor base, but rejected by its voters.

As conservative icon, Phyllis Schlafly explained, “Senator Rubio is not Main Street’s Obama, he is Wall Street’s Obama: President Obama was a hardcore leftist running as centrist; Senator Rubio is a Wall Street globalist running as a tea party conservative… Rubio is the candidate of open borders, Obamatrade and mass immigration, making one last attempt to pull off one big con.”

.

.

Leftist Salon Defends Pedophiles; Says They Should Be Commended For Coming Forward

No Joke: Lib Rag Salon Defends Pedophiles, Says They Are “Not Monsters” – Weasel Zippers

.

.
Words can’t describe…

Via Salon:

…Those individuals who have the courage to come forward and lay claim to this affliction with the understanding that they only want to use their pedo powers for good should be commended, not hated and feared. You can’t imagine how difficult it is to tell people you’re a pedophile, even a non-offending one, and even if those people are other pedos. Truly, the very concept of a pedophile who neither molests nor wants to molest children is often anathema to people’s way of thinking. The long-held belief that pedophiles are destined to abuse kids is a tough one to overcome, yet many of us get just as upset as – if not more upset than – non-pedophiles when we read accounts of sexual abuse, not only because we hate when one of the little people we love most suffers, but also because, whenever yet another pedophile is arrested, it reinforces the reigning paradigm of the pedo as ticking time bomb.

For better or worse – mostly worse – we have this sexuality, and unlike with most sexualities, there is no ethical way we can fully actualize our sexual longings. Our desires and feelings, if we are to remain upright, are doomed from the outset. Indeed, whereas the majority of crimes can be bounced back from, society doesn’t extend a mulligan to molesters. I understand why, but that doesn’t make the burden any lighter to bear, particularly for those of us who have minimal or no attraction to adults. And for the pedos who are lucky enough to be able to form working relationships with adults, there are a new set of concerns: What if we have children? Will I be a threat to them? Can I ever share this fact with my spouse? Can I ever love and want her as much as I do a child?

So, please, be understanding and supportive. It’s really all we ask of you. Treat us like people with a massive handicap we must overcome, not as a monster. If we are going to make it in the world without offending, we need your help. Listening to me was a start.

.

.

Dipshit Rutgers Professor Defends Billionaire Pedophile Who Pimped Out 14-Year-Old Girls

Moonbat Rutgers Professor Defends Billionaire Pedophile: Pimping Out 14-Year-Old Girls Isn’t “So Heinous” – Weasel Zippers

.

.
How progressive.

Via Daily Caller:

A Reuters exclusive published Monday explores the conundrum faced by nonprofits that have received money from Jeffrey Epstein, the billionaire financier arrested and convicted for child prostitution.

But buried in the report is an insane statement from a Rutgers professor saying that he didn’t think he should return the money… because he didn’t think Epstein did anything all that bad.

Professor Robert Trivers told Reuters that Epstein was “a person of integrity who should be given credit for serving time in prison” and for settling civil lawsuits brought by underage girls. ”Did he get an easy deal? Did he buy himself a light sentence?” Trivers asks. “Well, yes, probably, compared to what you or I would get, but he did get locked up.”

But more to the point, Trivers didn’t see what the fuss was all about, since girls mature earlier nowadays. ”By the time they’re 14 or 15, they’re like grown women were 60 years ago, so I don’t see these acts as so heinous.”

To clarify, Epstein is not simply accused of having sex with young girls for money, the crime for which he served barely a year in prison. He was also accused of pimping out the underage girls to rich celebrities, owning a sex slave and using his girls to “obtain potential blackmail information” from powerful political figures.

Keep reading

.

.

Cop-Hating Mayor De Blasio Defends NY Assembly Speaker Who Was Just Arrested On Federal Corruption Charges

NYC Mayor: Powerful Dem Charged With Corruption Is A ‘Man Of Integrity’ – TPM

.

.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) said on Thursday that New York’s powerful and longtime Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D) was “a man of integrity” despite having just been arrested and charged with corruption.

Silver surrendered to federal authorities earlier in the day after being charged with allegedly taking millions of dollars in bribes. However, de Blasio stood by the speaker during a news conference at City Hall.

“Although the charges announced today are certainly very serious, I want to note that I’ve always known Shelly Silver to be a man of integrity, and he certainly has due process rights,” de Blasio said. “And I think it’s important that we let the judicial process play out here.”

De Blasio noted that “allegations are allegations” and said he didn’t believe Silver should step down at this point.

.

.

*VIDEO* Dinesh D’Souza Defends Christianity


.

Pentagon Defends Unconstitutional Policy Against Soldiers Sharing Faith

Pentagon Defends Unconstitutional Policy Against Soldiers Sharing Faith – Big Government

Pentagon personnel responded to Breitbart News’ report about court-martialing service members who share their faith in the military, which the Pentagon confirmed on May 1, and the Air Force on May 2 separately confirmed a second time.

.

Now the Pentagon claims the opposite. But these new statements instead only compound the problem, as the Pentagon’s new definitions for terms squarely contradict what the dictionary says those terms mean. All this has taken place as the first flag officer in the military has stepped forward to defy the unconstitutional policy.

In an official statement yesterday, Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a spokesman for the Pentagon’s Defense Press Office, responded to Breitbart News’ reports by saying, “Service members can share their faith (evangelize), but must not force unwanted, intrusive attempts to convert others of any faith to one’s beliefs (proselytization).”

Unfortunately for the Obama administration’s leaders in the Pentagon, those definitions are absurdly false, and only confirm a central concern in the earlier columns. These definitions of evangelizing and proselytizing are contradicted by (1) general dictionaries, (2) legal dictionaries, and (3) theological dictionaries. We have not located any dictionary that supports the Pentagon’s novel and unprecedented definitions for these well-known words.

Evidently it all depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is, which is a debate the country thought was resolved in 2000. Even so, when trying to say the press is wrong, don’t do it by inventing new definitions that anyone with a sixth-grade education and access to a dictionary can confirm are utterly false.

The words “evangelize” and “proselytize” have identical meanings when referring to Christians. So to make proselyting illegal is to make evangelizing illegal.

The dictionary defines “evangelize” as “to convert to Christianity,” or “to preach the [Christian] gospel.” Likewise, the dictionary defines “proselytize” as “to convert or attempt to convert.” They both mean sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Two things to note. First, “evangelizing” means to try to persuade your listener to become a Christian, which the Pentagon just reaffirmed for the second time in two days is forbidden in the military. Second, contrary to the Obama-Holder DoD’s definition, “proselytizing” carries no connotation whatsoever of “force,” or “intrusive attempts” to do anything.

Everyone can agree that no military commander should use his authority to coerce a subordinate to adopt religious views that violate the subordinate’s conscience. But that suggestion is a strawman argument, as “proselytizing” is something entirely different.

Not only that, but this suggestion is further confirmed as false because then our earlier reports discussing chaplains would be irrelevant. An infantry sergeant answers to an infantry lieutenant, who answers to an infantry captain, and so on up to the general commanding the infantry division.

So why was the Washington Post reporting that the Pentagon’s meeting(s) with Weinstein discussed chaplains being court martialed (that is – criminally prosecuted under military law) for sharing the gospel with a fellow service-member? The chaplain is not in the chain of command. The chaplain has no authority with which to coerce the other service member.

Instead, it looks like the Obama-Hagel administration was caught red-handed contemplating policies that violate the rights of American service members, and they are literally attempting to rewrite the dictionary through a press release to offer a disingenuous explanation of why things are not as disturbing as they appear.

A second problem for the Obama administration is this proposed new rule makes it illegal for millions of Americans to serve in the military in a manner consistent with their faith. Millions of Americans who call themselves Christians – including Evangelicals, devout Catholics, and observant Mormons – believe they are required by Matthew 28 in the Bible to share the gospel with other people.

This is to be done respectfully and peacefully, at appropriate times and in an appropriate manner, but it must be done when such opportunities present themselves. To say that sharing the gospel is a crime under military law (as we reported, Weinstein in his own words calls it an act of “treason” that should be “punished” – right after calling those who do so “monsters” and “enemies” of the Constitution), is to say that tens of millions of Americans are not allowed to serve in our military. And those already serving could be prosecuted for a crime and perhaps expelled from the military.

The third problem is that it is unconstitutional. When someone joins the military their First Amendment rights are diminished, but they are not eradicated. A solider cannot write an op-ed criticizing the Commander-in-Chief, but he can live and share his faith with others. Evangelizing does not disrupt discipline and good order in the military, and therefore the Constitution does not permit the military to forbid it.

Military officers take an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” There are honorable Christian service members who will not in good conscience be able to abide by this unconstitutional and unconscionable decree.

And this week it began. Rear Adm. William D. Lee of the Coast Guard said that he will “defy any efforts to stop military personnel from openly sharing their Christian faith.” Told that sharing the gospel is crossing the line, Lee said, “I’m so glad we’ve crossed that line so many times.” He then pledged to exercise his “right under the Constitution to tell a young man that there is hope.”

The U.S. military is the most noble and honorable institution in America. Officers like Rear Adm. Lee are an essential part of making it so. Congress should step forward to enact whatever legislation is needed to safeguard their rights, as they continue to protect ours.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.