For what its worth, the Koch's are liberal Democrats on immigration. They are even now openly funding Dem politicians on this issue. It's funny to watch Dems take their money, given how much they have hated the Kochs for so long. The Kochs also fund groups purportedly neutral on immigration. For example, the rhetoric we've all seen that illegal aliens supposedly commit less crime than actual American citizens, came from a Koch funded group. It's bogus of course. But the media doesnt seem to care about that or that they are being tooled by the Kochs. I am not sure if any of their groups can be trusted anymore. Or Republican politicians financially connected to them (for example, Paul Ryan and Scott Walker). Some of the groups they fund are -- Americans for Prosperity (AFP), the Libre Initiative, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Mercatus Center, the Institute for Humane Studies, FreedomWorks, the Institute for Justice, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Institute for Energy Research, the Manhattan Institute, the Reason Foundation, the George C. Marshall Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, Generation Opportunity, the Fraser Institute, the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust Political activities of the Koch brothers - Wikipedia
Koch brothers are libertarians, and open movement of people is a part of left libertarianism. They focus on freedom in general so it aligns with everything else they are about. There is a logical argument that can be made for their position and they are consistent. I don't agree with them. There are many reasons why you shouldn't treat humans the same as economic goods, which is the big mistake they make in my opinion.
"Libertarians" who, by the way, increase their profits by employing a lot of illegal aliens over citizens. More like libertarian for convenience or when it's convenient. By the way, that chicken raid was not the first incident of this nature for them. The Koch Foods Plant in Ohio paid a $500K fine over an ICE raid back in 2007. So, from my perspective, this is not about principle for them. Rather they use principle to cover for them advancing their own financial self-interest. It's what Gordon Gekko said it was. $500K fine for immigration violations paid by Koch Foods
U.S. Representative Kenny Marchant, representing areas from Carrollton to Southlake, is the latest Texas Republican to announce his retirement. The other three are Representatives Will Hurd (TX-23), Pete Olson (TX-22), and Mike Conaway (TX-11). Ross Ramsey, the co-founder and executive editor of the Texas Tribune, has a term for the latest departures: The Texodus.
Marchant and Olson aren't used to having to fight to win reelection. They basically got into this gig assuming that their districts were solid red. They'd get token opposition from time to time but easily win without much effort. Now they have Trump pissing away the suburbs, and it's changing the politics of their districts. Dick-slapping doesn't sell well in the suburbs. It never has. Conaway's district is solid red and Trump-friendly. He's not worried about getting reelected. He's a former committee chair who wants the gavel back, and his retirement signals that he doesn't think he's going to get it back anytime soon.
It's stupid tweets like that which are the reason conservatives are afraid of red flag laws. It shows how easily they can be corrupted to be used for injustice and not protection.
Thus, it seems like a smart tweet to me. Point out to those wanting those laws just how dangerous and slippery slope they can be. I posted previously that I think the ACLU would have a field day with those laws.
Twitter is trending TrumpRecession. It never ceases to amaze me how dangerously uninformed so many people are.
The floor of a bldg. housing ICE personnel in San Antonio gets riddled with bullets The Castro brothers should get the same hatred from CNN, MSNBC etc that Trump rec'd all last week. But it won't happen. #voterBacklashIn2020
Red flag laws are only written for employers, families, and close friends. The same kind of people that would be involved in an intervention for drug addiction. In this case it would be for a trend toward violence.
If political speech is inciting gun violence then perhaps we should start limiting the 1st Amendment. Tongue firmly in cheek, but that would be a more logical step than limiting the gun rights of law abiding citizens.
here is Washington state's Red Flag law " Seattle, WA— A law that went into effect in 2017 introduced the Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO), which allows law enforcement in the state of Washington to confiscate a gun owner’s firearms if the owner is deemed a threat to themselves or others by a judge. This law, also referred to as a “red flag” gun law, has led Seattle to become Washington’s first city to use the law to confiscate a firearm from an individual. Acting as petitioners, law enforcement agencies, blood-related and adopted relatives, married partners, romantic partners, current and former roommates, and people holding other certain specific associations can apply for an ERPO in Washington against a gun-owning individual considered to be an “extreme risk.” Former roommates? People holding other specific associations> Would that include the dry cleaner? This is scary
If those "replacement walls" are better than the old walls at keeping illegals out then it is a good thing.
I agree. The scariest part is that it allowed law enforcement agencies to use this as justification for confiscation. I would not support the Washington law.
Maybe, but I've never heard of it. Frankly, I don't see a lot of upside to it. It's pretty poor and doesn't have much of an economy. It has significant strategic value, but Greenland has been pretty cooperative with the US despite it being pretty far-left. In fact, we have a pretty important military base on the Northwestern coast of Greenland (Thule Air Base). In light of that, I don't see what we gain by annexing the whole country.
