Fani Willis, the Democrat district attorney in Fulton County who tried and failed to throw President Donald Trump in prison, has found a new reason to rage publicly, level groundless accusations of racism, and masquerade as a victim of opposing forces.

To the chagrin of those Democrat officials and other race hustlers who demanded its veto, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) ratified legislation on Tuesday requiring nonpartisan elections for certain offices in the Peach State’s five most populous counties — Fulton, DeKalb, Gwinnett, Cobb, and Clayton — effective Jan. 1, 2028.

It’s supposedly ‘racist’ because the five district attorneys … are black female Democrats.

Candidates running to become or remain county governing authorities, tax commissioners, superior court clerks, and solicitor-generals must run in nonpartisan elections. County sheriffs are exempt.

Under the law, district attorney candidates will no longer “be nominated by a political party or by a petition as a candidate of a political body or as an independent candidate.” They will also forgo a nonpartisan primary, competing only in the general election.

During debate about the legislation in March, House Majority Leader Chuck Efstration (R) said, “The opinion from legislative counsel as it has been given to me [is] that it is constitutional and it treats certain local offices similar to how judges are classified at the local level so that partisan politics is minimized when providing basic local governmental services.”

Efstration added, “There is no Republican line and a Democrat line when entering the courthouse.”

“We’re giving voters the opportunity to rid themselves of district attorneys who are more concerned with playing partisan games than prosecuting and delivering justice,” said Republican Rep. Trey Kelley.

RELATED: Play stupid games: Tennessee GOP makes Democrats pay a heavy price for childish tantrums over redistricting

Dennis Byron-Pool/Getty Images

Democrats — evidently terrified that Georgia voters might cast ballots for individuals, not parties, when choosing officers of the law — are spewing their usual accusations and alarmist rhetoric, claiming, for instance, that the law is, according to Willis, “racist, sexist, and clearly unconstitutional.”

It’s supposedly “racist” because the five district attorneys in the affected counties are black female Democrats.

Willis said in a joint statement this week with DeKalb County DA Sherry Boston, “House Bill 369 is clearly unconstitutional, and we are appalled at Governor Brian Kemp’s decision to sign it into law. This is a blatant attempt by Republicans to give their candidates an edge in Democratic counties by hiding their party affiliation from voters.”

After hinting at their bigotry of low expectations regarding the aptitudes of voters in their counties, the Democrat duo promised to take “legal action to have this illegal bill overturned” and noted that “taxpayers will be the ones footing the bill to defend it in court.”

Charlie Bailey, chairman of the Democratic Party of Georgia, previously suggested that the purpose of the law was to enable Republicans to “hide their party affiliation and confuse voters to have a hope of competing against the five duly elected Black women district attorneys that this bill was specifically designed to target.”

Georgia Democrats received additional bad news this week concerning elections in 2028.

Kemp announced on Wednesday that state lawmakers will convene on June 17 to redraw the Peach State’s congressional maps for 2028. While Republicans currently hold nine out of Georgia’s 14 congressional districts, they could gain more ground — especially if the state corrects for recent court-ordered racial gerrymanders pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Courts’ recent Callais ruling.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​2028, Democrat, Democratic district attorney, District attorneys, Election, Election laws, Fani willis, Fulton county, General election, Georgia, Governor brian kemp, Justice, Nonpartisan, Partisan politics, Party affiliation, Political party, State lawmakers, Politics 

As hantavirus begins to dominate the headlines, Americans everywhere are worried that we might have another pandemic on our hands.

And while the virus has a much higher fatality rate than COVID-19, Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck believes that it’s not the government’s job to step in and lock the country down if it comes to that.

“That is the logical action,” Glenn says of locking down. “But I don’t want my government telling me that anymore. I’m tired of that. I would just want to be like, … ‘I’m locking myself in.’”

“I trust nothing from the way the government works on this, especially the global government,” Jason Buttrill chimes in, noting that it seemed like the government used COVID-19 just to “exert control.”

“It’s making me to where I don’t trust anything that they do anymore because they’re going to take the most radical thing that they have, you know, in their little book, and they’re going to turn that into reality,” he continues.

And Buttrill is far from the only one who feels that way.

“You have to have trust as a society. You have to have leaders that you trust. They’ve done it to us. They have lied to us over and over and over again. And now so many of us are like, ‘You know what, I don’t believe them. … I don’t believe they didn’t come up with this,’” Glenn says.

And like Glenn, Buttrill believes it’s important to know about the virus so he can remain informed, but it’s up to him to choose how to handle it.

“I can use that information and make decisions for myself without the maximum fear campaign,” he says. “And now it feels like the media and anyone else, whether it’s a technocrat, whether it’s somebody at the CDC, whether it’s someone at the WHO, I feel like everything now is directed towards that maximum fear.”

“And instantly, my radar goes up,” he adds.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​The glenn beck program, Glenn beck, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Jason buttrill, Hantavirus, Coronavirus, Covid-19, Pandemic, Lockdown, 2020 pandemic, Covid lies, Covid-19 tyranny, Covid-19 vaccines 

Kevin Warsh, the primary intermediary between the Federal Reserve and Wall Street during the 2008 financial crisis, was confirmed on Tuesday to a 14-year term as Federal Reserve governor and confirmed on Wednesday as Jerome Powell’s successor as chairman of the U.S. central bank.

Powell, who was first nominated to the Federal Board of Governors by former President Barack Obama and whose term as chair ends on Friday, wished Warsh well. However, he also provided his replacement with something more valuable than a nice sentiment: examples of what not to do, or at least, what to avoid doing.

Powell has, after all, dropped the ball on numerous occasions — sometimes with catastrophic consequences for the country. Here are just four examples.

1. Don’t worry, it’s ‘transitory.’

Powell stated on March 4, 2021, in the second year of the pandemic, that inflation might increase but that it would likely be “transitory” and not enough for the central bank to raise record-low interest rates — a decision some suspect was geared toward pleasing then-President Joe Biden and thereby securing Powell’s reappointment.

‘Most of the expected GDP slowdown — from over 3% to 1.5% — was due to Powell’s blunder.’

MarketWatch’s Greg Robb noted that Powell’s wrong-headed “transitory” view of inflation — one that would define his eight years as Fed chair — precluded the Fed from raising interest rates until 2022 while the Fed was also buying up bonds “and swelling its balance sheet.”

Thanks to Powell’s mistake — which economist Mohamed El-Erian, former PIMCO chief executive, said was “probably the worst inflation call in the history of the Federal Reserve” — the Fed was consistently on the back foot.

RELATED: Your bank can shut you down overnight — here’s how to protect yourself

Elif Acar/Anadolu/Getty Images

Facing the highest inflation Americans had seen in 40 years — inflation that no longer appeared to be “transitory” — Powell ended up raising interest rates 11 times between March 2022 and July 2023, when its benchmark rate reached a range of 5.25% to 5.5%.

Powell told “60 Minutes” in a Feb. 1, 2024, interview:

In hindsight, it would’ve been better to have tightened policy earlier. I’m happy to say that. Really, it was this. We saw what we thought was that this inflation, which seemed to be mostly limited to the goods sector and to the supply chain story. We thought that the economy was so dynamic that it would fix itself fairly quickly. And we thought that inflation would go away fairly quickly without an intervention by us. That it would be transitory.

Powell leaves office with inflation well above the Fed’s 2% target for five consecutive years.

2. Betting against Trump’s tariffs, tax cuts

While reluctant initially to raise interest rates when Biden was in office, Powell previously demonstrated an eagerness to raise rates in 2018 when President Donald Trump was in office and the economy was booming.

“Every time we do something great, he raises the interest rates,” Trump said at the time. Powell “almost looks like he’s happy raising interest rates.”

The repeated hikes, which Trump blamed for coinciding stock market turmoil, were supposedly prompted by concerns that the Republican president’s tariffs and tax cuts, the latter of which were framed as a $1.5 trillion fiscal stimulus, might together contribute to inflation.

Powell stated that “fiscal policy is becoming more stimulative. In this environment, we anticipate that inflation … will move up this year.”

Economist Donald Luskin, chief investment officer for Trand Macrolytics LLC, recently noted that “there is no evidence that Mr. Trump’s tariffs in 2018 and 2019 led to any inflation at all.”

Economist and Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro wrote last year, “Powell’s audition for ‘worst Fed chair’ began shortly after his February 2018 appointment. Promising President Trump in the Oval Office a supportive posture to secure his nomination, Powell instead aggressively raised rates into the low-inflation, high-growth Trump economy. Powell wrongly believed Trump’s tax cuts and tariffs would spark inflation — they didn’t.”

Powell’s bet against Trump’s tariffs and tax cuts proved consequential.

“As Powell’s Fed hiked interest rates four times in 2018 — despite muted inflation and strong labor market gains — economic momentum slowed sharply,” wrote Navarro. “According to the Fed’s own September Tealbook, most of the expected GDP slowdown — from over 3% to 1.5% — was due to Powell’s blunder.”

“It would cost the American economy hundreds of thousands of jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars in lost economic output and tax revenues,” added the trade adviser.

3. Fed renovation scandal

Powell reportedly greenlit luxury renovations to the Fed’s Washington, D.C, headquarters that exceeded the original budget by roughly $700 million and is set to cost around $2.5 billion.

Controversy over the renovations — which include a rooftop terrace with gardens, VIP dining rooms, “premium” marble, and water features — came to a head in January, several months after U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency Director William Pulte called for an investigation into Powell and his removal as Fed chair.

RELATED: Debit card company promises to pay your bill … sometimes: ‘Buy now, pay maybe’

Sophie Park/Getty Images

Powell said in a Jan. 11 statement that “the Department of Justice served the Federal Reserve with grand jury subpoenas, threatening a criminal indictment related to my testimony before the Senate Banking Committee last June. That testimony concerned in part a multiyear project to renovate historic Federal Reserve office buildings.”

An activist Biden-appointed judge quashed the grand jury subpoenas in March.

“Jerome Powell today is now bathed in immunity, preventing my office from investigating the Federal Reserve,” Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney in Washington, said in response to U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg’s rulings. “This is wrong, and it is without legal authority.”

Last month, the Trump administration dropped the criminal investigation into Powell over his luxury renovation project.

While apparently off the hook, the controversy nevertheless hangs over Powell as another example of costly mismanagement.

4. Bank failures

Powell and his underlings also failed to prevent the March 2023 collapses of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank — the third- and fourth-largest bank failures in American history, respectively.

Powell acknowledged weeks after the bank failures that the Fed’s efforts to intervene were too little, too late.

“It does kind of suggest there’s a need for … regulatory and supervisory changes, just because supervision and regulation need to keep up with what’s happening,” said Powell. “My only interest is that we identify what went wrong here … make an assessment of what are the right policies to put in place so that doesn’t happen again, and then implement those policies.”

One of Powell’s lieutenants, then-Vice Chair Michael Barr, admitted that the “Federal Reserve supervisors failed to take forceful enough action.”

A damning April 28, 2023, report on the Fed’s bungled supervision and regulation of Silicon Valley Bank — the conclusions of which Powell ultimately accepted — said that:

“Federal Reserve supervisors did not fully appreciate the extent of the vulnerabilities as Silicon Valley Bank grew in size and complexity”;”When supervisors did identify vulnerabilities, they did not take sufficient steps to ensure that Silicon Valley Bank fixed those problems quickly enough”; and”The Board’s tailoring approach in response to the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act and a shift in the stance of supervisory policy impeded effective supervision by reducing standards, increasing complexity, and promoting a less assertive supervisory approach.”

​Chairman, Department of justice, Donald trump, Federal reserve, Financial crisis, Inflation, Interest rates, Jerome powell, Joe biden, Kevin warsh, Peter navarro, Silicon valley bank, Tariffs, Tax cuts, Transitory, Wall street, Politics 

What would you do if Meta’s apps were suddenly blacked out on your phone? You can’t access Facebook, Instagram, or WhatsApp. Threads will never overtake X as the new global town square. The one person down the street who owns a Meta Quest can’t enjoy VR any more. It’s all gone. This is the problem facing the people of New Mexico, and it’s all thanks to a child protection case that would require Meta to collect user IDs, weaken end-to-end encryption, and change its feed algorithms, or else exit the state entirely.

The landmark case against Meta

In 2023, the New Mexico Department of Justice, led by Democrat Attorney General Raúl Torrez — a former senior adviser to President Obama’s DOJ — opened an investigation into Meta over claims that its platforms failed to “protect children from sexual abuse, online solicitation, and other harms.” The plaintiff collected documents and testimony from former Meta employees who corroborated these accusations, confirming that children were virtually put in danger when using Meta’s social media apps.

If the state can’t get it, the federal government will try instead.

In March 2026, Meta was found guilty by a jury in a New Mexico court for “misleading consumers about the safety of its platforms and endangering children,” resulting in the violation of the state’s consumer protection laws as outlined under the Unfair Practices Act. As part of the penalty, Meta was ordered to pay a maximum fine of $5,000 per violation, leading to a grand total of $375 million. By May 2026, the New Mexico courts handed down additional remedies, including a $3.7 billion fine and strict demands outlined in Torrez’s official statement. These include:

age verification requirements for users to access Meta’s apps;child-friendly content feed algorithms;a reduction on end-to-end encryption to better track adult predators;warning labels that alert users of the dangers Meta apps pose to children;permanent bans for adult users who target children;appointment of an independent watchdog to monitor Meta’s compliance.

Meta fought back, saying that the remedies were “so broad and burdensome, that if implemented it might force Meta to withdraw its apps entirely.” The company has vowed to appeal the verdict.

If the ruling sticks

Meta now finds itself in a precarious position, and so does the New Mexico government.

RELATED: Democrat bill would force you to give Big Tech your ID just to use your phone — or the internet

Man_Half-tube/Getty Images

If Meta complies with the restrictive guidelines requested by the attorney general, one of these will happen:

Meta can build a custom version of its apps to assuage the New Mexico courts, an option that is expensive and very unlikely. With this option, all users in New Mexico will be forced to show an ID to access these apps, and their security and privacy will be compromised due to weakened end-to-end encryption that lets the government spy on user activity under the guise of predator identification and child protection.Meta can integrate Torrez’s demands into its platform for all users — the more likely option, if the company chooses to remain in business in New Mexico. This will have a broad impact on users around the United States, as everyone will be required to show an ID to use Facebook, Instagram, or WhatsApp, and end-to-end encryption will become virtually meaningless on Meta’s platforms.

If Meta pulls out of New Mexico, users in this state will no longer have access to their favorite Meta apps, and the New Mexico DOJ will be the one to blame for its overreaching remedies. That said, users could still theoretically access these apps after a statewide exodus by using a VPN with the geolocation set to a neighboring state.

The money game

There’s another potential consequence of the case that Torrez may have missed. Meta has reportedly invested $2.5 billion in New Mexico since 2016, creating more than 1,000 new jobs, funding public schools, and handing out grants and scholarships while it builds new data centers to power the future of AI. If Meta is no longer allowed to support its apps in New Mexico, the company may also decide to move its other projects to a state that isn’t trying to wield authoritarian control over its business.

Unfortunately for Meta, even if it manages to outmaneuver New Mexico’s child protection ruling, it has a much harder road ahead, as multiple bills from both sides of the aisle — including Democrats’ Parents Decide Act and Republicans’ GUARD Act — aim to make age verification a standard part of access to devices, AI chatbots, and the internet. If the state can’t get it, the federal government will try instead.

​Tech 

A husband and wife were arrested for attacking a Florida mom who had disciplined her 4-year-old son in public, according to a police arrest report.

The mother told police her child was misbehaving and spat in her face, so she responded by smacking him once in the mouth and also on the side of his torso, according to WPLG-TV.

The victim’s shirt was ripped off, leaving her wearing only a bra.

That’s when 66-year-old Terry Williams allegedly intervened and told her she could not hit her child. He claimed that he worked for the Florida Department of Children and Families.

The woman said he walked away after she told him to leave her alone.

That’s when the man’s wife, 63-year-old Mary Thalia Williams, “aggressively” approached the woman and tried to talk to her about child discipline.

The woman said Mary Williams got between the mom and her car and would not allow her to leave.

An altercation began after the woman tried to slide Mary Williams away from her car. She responded by scratching and choking the victim.

The woman told police she felt as if she was close to passing out.

During the fight, Mary Williams grabbed the victim’s shirt, and her husband also joined in, grabbing the victim’s shirt and her hair. The victim’s shirt was ripped off, leaving her wearing only a bra.

Mary Williams also allegedly got into the car, turned it off, and stole the victim’s car keys.

A witness told police that the victim didn’t appear to be fighting but only trying to escape from the fight.

“They were on both sides, and they were just grabbing her, and they were ripping the scrub shirt off of her,” the witness said to WPLG.

The couple was ultimately arrested, and Mary Williams was charged with burglary and simple battery, while Terry Williams was charged with battery. Police said neither of the two work for DCF.

RELATED: Teens’ story claiming they were attacked unravels after cops find their damning video posted to social media, police say

Mary Williams was held on a $5,000 bond, while Terry Williams was released after posting a $2,500 bond.

When a reporter confronted Terry Williams about the witness account of the fight, he responded, “Wow, really? Interesting.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Husband wife arrested, Child discipline, Florida couple arrest, Battery and burglary, Crime 

The debate over the proposed Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern merger has the competition question backward. Critics in Washington are asking whether the two railroads are too big to combine, fearing a monopoly.

However, if we are serious about rebuilding American industry, strengthening the middle class, and winning on the global stage, this merger deserves to be judged by what it actually delivers for workers, consumers, and the economy.

Competition in the modern economy means ensuring that American industries have the scale and integration needed to compete where it matters

Freight rail is one of the last sectors in America that consistently delivers high-quality, middle-class jobs without requiring a four-year degree. Rail workers earn up to 40% more than the national average. These are real careers that actually create things.

Union Pacific has already signed a jobs-for-life agreement with SMART-TD, the nation’s largest railroad union, which has endorsed the deal. The companies’ amended filing also projects that 1,200 net new union jobs will be added by year three of the combined company, on top of those existing protections.

Then there is industrial capacity. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have sought to bolster America’s production capacity. A better-connected freight rail system does a lot to further this goal. It means more goods moving across the country, more demand for domestic production, and steadier employment for the workers who keep that system running.

The consumer case for this merger is straightforward. Rail shipping costs less than trucking, and those savings work their way through the supply chain. The company’s amended Surface Transportation Board application projects $3.5 billion in annual savings for shippers, driven largely by diverting more than 2 million truckloads of long-haul freight to rail.

Critics will say the merger is anti-competitive. That argument misreads the competition. U.S. freight rail does not run in a closed market. This is an end-to-end combination of two railroads that currently operate on opposite sides of the Mississippi.

Combining them would let the new company compete against heavily subsidized trucking and global logistics companies at a scale no individual railroad can match on its own.

Trucking, for example, relies on publicly funded highways, while railroads maintain their own infrastructure at private expense. Meanwhile, China is building integrated national logistics systems designed to dominate global trade flows.

Competition in the modern economy means ensuring that American industries have the scale and integration needed to compete where it matters: across continents and against state-backed rivals.

RELATED: The potential Union Pacific merger risks upsetting America’s rail industry

Brandon Bell/Getty Images

A transcontinental rail network strengthens that position by expanding reach, improving efficiency, and connecting American producers to broader markets.

Washington has spent years promising to reshore manufacturing, secure supply chains, and cut dependence on foreign adversaries. Delivering on those promises requires infrastructure that is capable of supporting domestic production at scale.

You cannot rebuild American industry without the ability to move raw materials to factories and finished goods to markets quickly and cheaply. Freight rail is central to that goal. It is more fuel-efficient than trucking and more cost-effective for bulk commodities. Shifting long-haul freight from highway to rail also reduces accidents.

Rail accounts for a fraction of the fatalities and injuries per ton-mile that trucking does, and fewer heavy semis on interstates mean safer roads for everyone.

A stronger rail network is not a threat to workers or to competition. It is what both of those things depend on. Judge this merger by whether it makes the American economy stronger. Judge it by whether working people get something out of it. On both counts, the answer is yes.

Guaranteed union jobs, lower costs for shippers, and a supply chain that finally runs coast to coast on American rails. That is the kind of industrial investment this country keeps saying it wants. Policymakers who care about the future of the country should support it.

​American industry, Economy, Trucking, Union pacific, Norfolk southern, Railway, Railway merger, Union pacific merger, Global markets, Opinion & analysis 

Florida Rep. Maria Salazar (R) and her some 20 Republican co-sponsors of a massive amnesty bill have put President Trump in a terribly awkward position. In truth, it is more than just awkwardness; it is political malpractice.

The fanfare around the amnesty bill, the Dignity Act, has begun a process of division and distraction going into a crucial midterm cycle.

Merely floating the idea of amnesty results in more illegal immigration to the US border.

The Dignity Act is dominating conversations surrounding the trajectory of immigration enforcement under the Trump administration and forcing the question of whether the administration supports it.

Last week, CBS News peppered border czar Tom Homan with loaded questions about the supposed need for providing legal status for illegal aliens in the United States. After trying to put the question away, Homan responded, “There’s discussions going on. I’m involved with some and not others, but I’m not going to get ahead of the president on this.”

Discussions of amnesty in the Trump administration? The internet exploded, and it’s largely still exploding. Given the low level of deportations conducted to date, some 340,000 in FY2025 according to recent estimates, many political observers are starting to question whether the mass deportation program will be fulfilled at the scale advertised.

This low number, in addition to the lack of explicit opposition to the Dignity Act from the Trump administration, has led many people to reasonably believe that amnesty discussions are on the table. Republicans pushing amnesty is nothing new, after all. Additionally, the co-sponsors of the Dignity Act largely are all endorsed for re-election by President Trump.

What we are witnessing appears to be strategic ambiguity. Salazar and her allies are hitting the media circuits claiming that somehow the Dignity Act is not amnesty. That claim has rightfully been ridiculed, but they remain insistent that a square peg is a circle.

RELATED: The Dignidad Act is a complete betrayal of Republican voters

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Meanwhile, the White House has carefully avoided criticizing the bill by name, instead choosing to rule out amnesty of any type. Take another Homan quote, for example: “I said from day one, I’ll say it again … President Trump said amnesty is off the table. I support that. I don’t think amnesty should be on the table.”

Having known Homan for years, I know that he genuinely opposes amnesty. But in this environment, supporters of the president’s promised immigration agenda need to hear that the White House considers the Dignity Act to be amnesty. Without that explicit rejection, the ambiguity will be perceived as tolerance.

Of course, it is not the White House’s job to denounce every last bill that pops up in Congress. But the unfortunate truth is that the Dignity Act is out there and has captured enough attention that it is a subject of an intense debate that, if left untended to, will only dampen midterm turnout.

That’s one reason why what Salazar and her ilk have done is so damaging. Shilling for amnesty will be taken seriously unless explicitly denounced, putting the White House in a position it should not be in.

Salazar’s damage gets worse. Take for example what Homan said during his CBS interview that did not receive any meaningful attention: “I would love Congress to do some things. My concern right now is that a lot of the successes we’ve had, unprecedented success, is based on executive orders, which can certainly be turned around by the next president.”

What Homan was referring to are border security laws to prevent a future Democrat administration from doing the exact same thing that Biden did and demanding amnesty in exchange for turning off another invasion.

How do I know? Well, I worked with Homan to help put together H.R. 2, otherwise known as the Secure the Border Act of 2023, during the Biden years. That bill was purely defensive in nature. It closed loopholes that the Biden administration weaponized to let 10 million plus cross the border.

RELATED: Funding is useless if Democrat judges can still hold ICE hostage

Nathan Posner/Anadolu/Getty Images

While it is true that President Trump didn’t need new laws to secure the border, it is also true that President Newsom, Ocasio-Cortez, or Comey won’t need new laws to open it again. We could find ourselves in the exact same negotiating posture as before: trade border security for amnesty, the very same trick that President Reagan fell for in historic fashion.

Any serious person who has worked in the immigration space knows that merely floating the idea of amnesty results in more illegal immigration to the U.S. border. During the Obama years, illegal aliens were flowing across with smiles on their faces and bragging about the “permisos” they had to cross due to Obama. As Biden readied to enter the White House, illegal aliens flooded the border for the same reason.

With news emerging that the U.S. border may not be as completely zipped tight as we hoped, Salazar’s advertising for amnesty can predictably result in more illegal aliens deciding to roll the dice and head north.

For all these reasons and more, the wise thing for both political and national sovereignty reasons is for the Trump administration to respond to Salazar’s push with an explicit and unmistakable denunciation.

A skeptical base needs to see strength on the immigration issue. Clearing up any confusion on this matter would go a long way toward restoring trust and keeping the president’s strongest base of supporters together going into the midterm elections.

​Trump, Dignity act, Dignidad act, Representative maria salazar, Illegal immigration, Tom homan, Border security, Ice, Mass deportations, Opinion & analysis