“As the president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, Rodriguez has advised Presidents Bush, Obama, and Trump on immigration before. In a press briefing on Monday, he refuted the claims that detained immigrants are being mistreated after seeing the situation firsthand.
"I read the reports, saw the news clips. I just wanted to see what was actually happening in order to better enable our efforts to find a fair and a just solution to our broken immigration system," Rodriguez said. "To my surprise, I saw something drastically different from the stories I’ve been hearing in our national discourse. Even as a veteran of immigration advocacy in the U.S., I was shocked at the misinformation of the crisis at the border."
"We found no soiled diapers, no deplorable conditions, and no lack of basic necessities," Rodriguez declared.”
“Rodriguez was not alone in his praise of the federal immigration agents and the humane conditions of the migrant detention centers. Joining him was Pastor Carlos Moran, an immigrant himself, who called upon political leaders to stop employing heated rhetoric and to actually solve the underlying problem.
"We as evangelical leaders that serve in different segments, are very committed to helping children regardless of their status and we commend those officers that are trying their very best to serve and fulfill their duty at the border," said Moran. "However, we do call on our political leaders to set aside their personal agendas and begin focusing on resolving this immigration crisis."
Speaking of lack of trust, AOC has been weeping and tearing her hair out (and hurling verbal abuse) down along the border. What she hasn't been doing (par for the DFL) is actually legislating. The house passed a bill that included funding that should be used to address the issues she's concerned about, but AOC apparently felt like it was more important to have the suffering immigrants as a campaign issue, than to pass legislation to ameliorate the situation. Some might say that the bill that passed was a GOP bill (although it had bipartisan support), I'd say where is AOC's better legislative option? She's a legislator now, why haven't we seen legislation?
Speaking of lack of trust, AOC has been weeping and tearing her hair out (and hurling verbal abuse) down along the border. What she hasn't been doing (par for the DFL) is actually legislating. The house passed a bill that included funding that should be used to address the issues she's concerned about, but AOC apparently felt like it was more important to have the suffering immigrants as a campaign issue, than to pass legislation to ameliorate the situation. Some might say that the bill that passed was a GOP bill (although it had bipartisan support), I'd say where is AOC's better legislative option? She's a legislator now, why haven't we seen legislation?
24 comments:
Not to engage. Just to offer some more words. Testimony from the children who are being oppressed thanks to you and your president...
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5d1646ffe4b03d61163af666?fbclid=IwAR3YFm4pf_jC8wIhoF3DWD7QLzqwop_jveCK-xJrMQc47IhK6xUzFc2jMAM&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9tLmZhY2Vib29rLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAM1yUUpsJM0-YMPCsNVCfFkp-pfX_lwDMIMzBD3vM6bxuYAx2I5Gw3jh07PxxDU8GbW8KLVQP5l-Hc53BwialL0hunKGWFbA4uQvA3Ln3Y408UCKRQp8J_q7oJ-jvRSzPzyFkcz4KW_s92W7iW5UQSw6wvro_GogLyZ3rII6QaWy
Since, clearly, you're only reading words that tickle your ears and defend oppression.
Dan, well played.
You choose not to engage, by engaging
You choose to respond to what you perceive as something wrong, by doing the same thing you are complaining about.
Your cherry picked stories don’t actually prove that the people I quoted are wrong.
I guess I should have been more clear. I trust people like the president if El Salvador and Hispanic pastors who are actually on the ground, than I trust you and AOC.
But your drive by commenting and tendency to run back to your safe space when you don’t get your way really doesn’t help your credibility.
You trust people who visited one of these concentration camps one time as opposed to the people suffering through the concentration camp? You are f****** coward and Bound for hell, unfortunately. Repent
Do you not even read before you respond?
Before you get your expletive laden panties in a wad, read what you are responding to first.
No, I trust people who have been engaged in this issue for the long term. Not the folx who’ve jumped on because it’s a convenient club to best Trump. I don’t trust the folx were silent about this when it was St P-BO in charge. Mostly I don’t trust you.
But you’re not looking for trust, are you? It’s more about finding an excuse to damn and demonize those who disagree with you. It’s easier to do your drive by damnation, and to throw out unsupported claims of “fact”, than to “engage”.
The only coward here is the one you see in the mirror.
You frequently dismiss things because the source is too partisan for you. Well, Huffpo is partisan enough, that I’ll pass on uncritical acceptance.
I note you ignore the stories of “rent a kids”, the fact that 30% of children aren’t related to the adults they’re traveling with, that every report of a child’s death I’ve seen is the result of a medical condition that pre dates the detention of the children, and the risk of Ebola. Of course you also remain silent on the feces coveted streets and typhus in such liberal panaceas as LA and San Francisco. It’s almost like you don’t give a rat’s ass about actual Americans suffering because your obsessed with immigrants who are unwilling to follow the law.
Your silence says more than your unhinged, expletive laden rants.
Art,
I was deleting unread troll comments and also deleted yours. My bad.
Oops! I wonder what I said.
I don’t remember
Dan,
I accidentally deleted your comment, but I believe that the gist of it was something like this.
“If a picture of Trump with Epstein and an underage child surfaced would you agree that Trump should be jailed.”
It’s an interesting question, especially given the fact that the Clintons were much closer to Epstein than Trump was.
My answer is that if there is evidence that Trump was sexually involved with underage girls, I would wholeheartedly call for his resignation and subsequent criminal trial.
Now, it’s your turn.
Is the Clintons ongoing close relationship with Epstein something that you’d condemn?
If, as has been speculated, there were underaged children on Epstein’s private jet with any of the Clintons, would you call for the investigation and prosecution of either or both of them?
FYI, the question was absolutely one of the stupidest questions you’ve ever asked.
One more, why didn’t partisan hack Preet Bahara pursue this with the same zeal he pursued P-BO critics?
On the subject of stupid questions.
Should Mitch McConnell's great, great grandfather owning slaves automatically disqualify him from elected office?
“Best-selling author James Patterson — who wrote "Filthy Rich: The Billionaire's Sex Scandal--The Shocking True Story of Jeffrey Epstein" — told Fox News on Tuesday that then-private citizen Donald Trump threw alleged pedophile Jeffrey Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago after he was notified about complaints being made against Epstein.”
“Perino asked Patterson about Trump's remarks: "President Trump said earlier that he had a falling-out with Epstein about 15 years ago. Do you know what that was Patterson responded: "Well, I know that there were some complaints about Epstein at Mar-a-Lago and also I spoke to the head of the spa there. I said ‘did you ever meet Epstein?’ She said, 'oh yes... he was inappropriate with some of the younger women there.' She said she went to Trump and he threw him out of the club."
“At another point in the interview, Patterson said he "knows Trump didn't know" about Epstein's alleged criminal activity.”
“Investigative journalist Conchita Sarnoff told Fox News' Shannon Bream on Monday night that when former President Bill Clinton traveled on Epstein's private plane that there were "underage girls" on the plane and that he "many times" did not have his Secret Service detail with him.”
I’m not in any suggesting that the above is proof of anything. But firsthand testimony by an author who wrote a book about Epstein and a journalist who has investigated him can’t be ignored.
I think this is one of those TDS wishful thinking/desperately hoping for dirt situations that will probably not satisfy those who jumped on the bandwagon early.
The thing is, you can know without a doubt that if a photo of Clinton and an underage child emerged I would thoroughly condemn him. I am consistent that way, always condemning harmful Behavior.
The thing is, Trump and his people have been engaged in harmful Behavior and his Defenders have been ignoring and even defending harmful Behavior his entirety in the public office. Everything so far has gotten the pass from most evangelicals.
So, unlike me where you can know that I would oppose it because I always oppose harmful oppressive Behavior, I feel I have to ask conservatives because I just don't know.
My impression is that if a photo of Trump and a child came up, that would finally be the Silver Bullet to kill him. I think even evangelicals who've been defending him wholeheartedly so far would be forced to condemn him. But I was curious as to your opinion. Do you think that evangelicals and conservatives would join in with you in condemning him finally?
Would you condemn evangelicals if they did not?
Thanks for answering.
I don't know what your last question means or who preet bahara is.
As to your suggestion that my question is stupid, I would just point to the almost unflagging support that Trump enjoys almost universally with evangelicals to show that no matter what he's done so far, they've given him a pass and even lift him up as a savior of sorts. Perhaps you missed it because you deleted my question but my question also included the second question of would you condemn evangelicals if they did not condemn Trump? I suspected that you would condemn Trump and I suspect that evangelicals would as well, but I'm not as sure.
This is what happens when evangelicals support So wholeheartedly someone who is so evil and awful. We just don't know what it will take for them to finally rebuke him.
Are you really saying that you “always” oppose “harmful, oppressive behavior”? “Always”, under all circumstances and no matter who?
I have absolutely no idea what “evangelicals and conservatives” might do in the unlikely event such a picture appeared. I don’t speak for some vast, amorphous, undefined group of “evangelicals and conservatives”.
I’m strange in that I don’t automatically condemn
people simply because we disagree.
Preet is an ex prosecutor who engaged in a political hit job on behalf of the P-BO administration, who was in a position to pursue Epstein back in the day.
I don’t see any value in trying to speculate about what might happen, on the off chance something else might happen, and who might do something in response. Perhaps actually waiting until we have more accurate information before we jump to conclusions and start to condemn people.
I I guess answering all the questions asked is just too much to hope for. Just like hoping you’d have condemned Clinton when his close (much closer ties than Trump) came out years ago.
Yes, it was a stupid question.
Irony.
Yes apparently it was a stupid question. Even faced with a group of perverts defending a child raper... even THEN, you can't condemn them strongly.
Perverts are as perverts do.
Are you really saying that you “always” oppose “harmful, oppressive behavior”? “Always”, under all circumstances and no matter who?
Yes. Yes.
I have absolutely no idea what “evangelicals and conservatives” might do in the unlikely event such a picture appeared. I don’t speak for some vast, amorphous, undefined group of “evangelicals and conservatives”.
I can say absolutely that at least most/nearly all progressive Christians will condemn child rapists, whether it were a progressive person or a conservative one. It's not really that hard of a call to make.
I’m strange in that I don’t automatically condemn
people simply because we disagree.
No. You're strange if you don't automatically condemn those who defend child rapists. Do I really have to say that out loud?
I don’t see any value in trying to speculate about what might happen, on the off chance something else might happen, and who might do something in response.
Why not? It's a way of establishing principles and seeing if you will stand by those principles or not.
Back in Clinton's day, there were many conservatives who hypocritically said that a president/politician who does what Clinton does is not leadership material. That's fine and good IF you stick to that principle. But then, they exposed themselves as sickening hypocrites showing that they have no such principles, that it was a shallow and petty partisan position to take, not a principled one, when they enthusiastically threw their support behind the much greater pervert, Trump.
Yes, it probably IS a stupid question, as we have already that conservatives by and large don't have principles. I just remain hopeful that conservatives can be redeemed.
If you “always” oppose “harmful, oppressive” behavior, why are you so often silent when your side engages in it?
You keep referring to a “child raper”, yet neither of the two people mentioned have been convicted of “rape” of any sort. Do you understand the fundamentals of out legal system or just choose to ignore them.
I’d say that all evangelicals would agree that raping a child is an objective moral wrong, unlike you they’d probably all agree that it’s also morally wrong to label someone a “child rapist”, before any legal proceedings have begun.
It’s interesting that the left has made excuses for, protected, supported Roman Pulanski and Woody Allen for years.
I agree that people who apply different standards to Clinton and Trump are hypocrites, no matter what side of the aisle they’re on.
I do enjoy your principled position that questions are to be ignored and not answered, that it’s perfectly appropriate to make broad generalizations about groups of people, and that there’s no need to prove the claims you make.
If that’s an indication of what you consider principled, I wouldn’t be tjhat proud of such low standards.
The reason it’s a stupid question is that it’s not a general question about pedophilia. It’s a specific question about a hypothetical situation driven by prejudice.
Maybe you’re choosing to be unaware of the push to normalize pedophilia and which side of the political spectrum it’s coming from.
I guess we could literally say that folx on the left actually support having sex with children. We could because it’s demonstrably true. But to broad brush all progressives would be wrong, at least for the present.
Clearly Dan does not oppose harmful, oppressive behavior...he'll just pretend there's some question about whether or not those being brutally harmed and oppressed are actual people, choosing like some nazi or klansmen that they are not in order to appear consistent. It's a vile and satanic lie with which he's completely comfortable. It's the most obvious example.
As to the point of this Epstein thing, it is clear that the left is eager to connect this to Trump, ignoring all those, like Clinton for example, who have been shown to have been a part of his circle. Chuck Schumer has accepted donations from the guy, and no one wants to talk about that. It has to be Trump.
Dan goes on to perpetuate the slander regarding Evangelicals and the reasons they supported Trump over the heinous Hillary Clinton, and likes to pretend that means Evangelicals have dismissed the various character defects of Trump or pretended they are meaningless to them. This is just a graceless smear job so typical of the left, and Dan in particular, that is intended try and shame Evangelicals to reject Trump despite his successes in improving American and to shine the light of scrutiny on Trump so brightly that the rational and honest are unable to see anything else. Don't look at the many flaws inherent in the leftist ideology and among their many adherents....just look at Trump! Just look at Trump! See how evil he is!! Don't look over here...just look at Trump!
The truth is we don't need someone like Dan, who has no moral compass that isn't the invention of leftist ideology instead of the will of God, to tell us who to judge, how to judge them and when. We're far more capable.
Dan clearly seems to be, at a minimum, content to stay silent when oppression and harm come from those in his side. He seems to think that he can pass off vague, mild criticism for principle. Further, his condemnation tends to be timed so as to be more convenient for him. In other words he was all in on Clinton when he was in office, but now he’ll be critical. The “concentration camps” and separations weren’t worthy of comment when P-BO was in charge, but now they are the embodiment of all that is evil in the history of the world. It’s a principled stand based on convenience, not conviction.
Of course as actual evidence mounts tying Clinton to Epstein (Epstein’s procurer prominently at Chelsea’s wedding, lies about meetings and contacts, etc), Dan can only focus on Trump. It’s an unhealthy obsession.
As long as Dan tries to selectively apply an objective moral standard his moral compass will be distorted by the magnet of society.
I'd suggest that any group who uses a photo of "kids in cages" taken in 2014 in any way intended to attack the current administration automatically forfeits credibility on this matter. Anyone who was silent about these conditions during the P-BO administration clearly has credibility issues as well.
If it wasn't bad enough to call out St. P-BO at the time, then y'all better be able to prove that it's significantly worse now.
Same thing with Epstein, if you weren't bothered enough by Clinton's commendations back in the 90's early 2000's, then your outrage over Trump's less direct connections is nothing more than TDS.
It should go without saying that this guy should have been fried long ago and that he's gotten protection from lots of people. Anyone who was involved in any of his activities should be fried as well.
I know, Trump...
But we’re seeing pictures of Clinton in a pool/hot tub with his arm around Epstein.
But, but, but, Trump..,
Dan was almost 100% silent during Obama's entire two terms. I scoured his blog, beginning three months prior to his taking office and found nothing more than three mildly negative posts...and that's being generous. It's one thing to say the other guy is flawed. But to find absolutely no flaw in your own guy is partisan hackery.
Just like he was all in on both Clintons until recently, when he’s been slightly negative about Bill. I brought up the Epstein/Clinton connection years ago to Dan and he didn’t respond. Large donations from Epstein to DFL candidates and the party, silence. It’ll take quite a bit for him to go after his guys, the way he goes after Trump, if he’ll actually do what he claims.
But you know Dan and claims...
Post a Comment