Big govt, Issues, Politics

Michelle Obama Has No Smiles to Spare

Former FLOTUS Michelle Obama opined in her new book, Becoming, that she just couldn’t force a smile during President Trump’s inauguration. Obama revealed during an ABC interview that she knew her lack of a smile wasn’t good politics. Nevertheless, “I made my own optic adjustment. I stopped even trying to smile.” The reason for her dour expression? Apparently Donald Trump had incited “violence” against her family for pointing out how unabashedly liberal her husband is. Welcome to politics, Michelle.

Here’s more from Washington Examiner…

Former first lady Michelle Obama was unable to fake a happy face during President Trump’s inauguration, she writes in her new book.

“Someone from Barack’s administration might have said that the optics there were bad, that what the public saw didn’t reflect the President’s reality or ideals, but in this case, maybe it did,” Obama said in audio of the book, released by ABC News. “Realizing it, I made my own optic adjustment. I stopped even trying to smile.”

Obama discusses her dislike of her husband’s successor in her forthcoming memoir, “Becoming,” which is set to be released Tuesday.

She said she would “never forgive” Trump for questioning the legitimacy of her husband’s birth certificate because it put her family’s safety at risk, the Washington Post reported Thursday.


Big govt, International, Issues, Politics

Trump to End Birthright Citizenship With an Executive Order

President Trump is promising an executive order to end birthright citizenship, a practice found only in the U.S. and Canada. “It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment,” Trump told Axios. “Guess what? You don’t.” He then added, “We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen . . . And it has to end.” The question has never been officially ruled on in terms of the children of illegal immigrants residing in the United States, leading to the theory that President Trump is provoking this court fight to finally clarify the right of citizenship.

Here’s more from The Daily Wire…

On Monday, President Trump announced to Axios on HBO that he would pursue an executive order to outlaw birthright citizenship just before the election. “It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment,” Trump stated. “Guess what? You don’t.” He then added, “You can definitely do it with an act of Congress. But now they’re saying I can do it just with an executive order…We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States…with all of those benefits. It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end.”

Trump isn’t wrong that the United States is one of only two developed countries to maintain birthright citizenship (the other is Canada). But it’s dicey whether an executive order could simply change birthright citizenship, or whether an act of Congress could.

At issue is the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which provides:


Issues, Media, Politics

What’s Halloween Without Racism Charges?

It’s Halloween and time for another round of outrage over inappropriate costumes. Once upon a time, parents — most of them, anyway — were concerned with oversexualized costumes for little children, but how unenlightened was that? Today we’re focusing our energy on what’s really important. Now it’s all about “cultural appropriation.” White children need to “own their privilege” and not dress up and pretend to belong to a non-oppressive race.

Megyn Kelly ran afoul of NBC’s “diversity/inclusion” police, and as we write this, it looks like she’ll be canned for saying: “But what is racist? Because truly, you do get in trouble if you are a white person who puts on blackface on Halloween, or a black person who puts on white face for Halloween.” Oops. The word “blackface” is loaded and should be avoided, since people immediately think of minstrel shows, and kids shouldn’t dress up as Al Jolson crooning “Mammy” in “The Jazz Singer.”

Kelly continued: “Back when I was a kid, that was OK, as long as you were dressing up as, like, a character.” Not only was she tongue-lashed on air by NBC’s black news stars; it seems like this gave NBC a reason to end her morning show, a cover story to nix the (cringe) Fox News woman.

It might have been a better starting point to ask if it’s offensive for a white boy to want to be Black Panther for a few hours. And if that’s wrong, can a Person of Color be Superman? Can a white comedian impersonate a black man? If not, then can a black man not poke fun at white people either? And what does it say about white people that when that happens, we … laugh? Oh, the intolerant preachings of the tolerant left.

CNN analyst Kirsten Powers is one of these obnoxious people. The other day, she tweeted: “Dear white people who are upset that you can’t dress up as another race or culture for Halloween: your feelings don’t matter. The only feelings that matter are of those who feel disrespected/mocked by you appropriating their culture for entertainment. Show some common decency.” This is the same Kirsten Powers who wrote a book in 2015 titled “The Silencing: How the Left Is Killing Free Speech.” Back then, she worked for Fox.

Back in 2015, after Powers’ book came out, then-Yale lecturer Erika Christakis sent an email around campus suggesting Halloween used to be a time for children to be a little naughty or subversive. She wrote about Disney princess costumes, saying: “it is hard for me to give credence to a claim that there is something objectionably ‘appropriative’ about a blonde-haired child’s wanting to be Mulan for a day. … I wonder what is the statute of limitations on dreaming of dressing as Tiana the Frog Princess if you aren’t a black girl from New Orleans? Is it okay if you are eight, but not 18?” She even concluded, “Whose business is it to control the forms of costumes of young people? It’s not mine, I know that.”

Nearly a thousand students, faculty members and deans called for both Christakis and her husband, Dr. Nicholas Christakis, a Yale professor, to be fired immediately for this alleged offense. She stopped lecturing, and her husband resigned some duties at the end of the school year in 2016.

Powers actually spoke to the Christakis incident (and others) when she was a Fox News analyst in November 2015. She said, “It is not actually that anybody is in any danger.” Bill O’Reilly added, “It is oppressive to hear somebody with an opposing point of view.” Powers replied, “Exactly. … They talk about it as if they’ve been actually physically attacked, because somebody has expressed an opinion different than theirs.”

Now re-read that tweet of hers. You have our permission to laugh — quietly. There’s nothing wrong with Halloween spurring a “teaching moment” for children, but what is being taught? Leftists want to use these costume controversies as just another grenade to destroy the careers of anyone asking them a single challenging question about how to negotiate their minefield.

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and executive editor of the blog To find out more about Brent Bozell III and Tim Graham, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at



Big govt, Issues, Politics

The Media’s Transgender ‘Eradication’ Panic

The New York Times located its newest, freshest outrage on the Trump administration in a Department of Health and Human Services memo that’s not new — it’s been circulating since last spring. Some insensitive bureaucrat argued that federal policy on gender should be based on “a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable.”

Oh, the horror of it all. But wait. Don’t liberals believe policy should be grounded in science? The answer is yes — but not when it conflicts with their cultural dogmas on “gender fluidity.”

The Times headline was not just skewed; it came with a hint of holocaust: “Trump May Limit How Government Defines One’s Sex.” Basing gender policy on the genitalia you’re born with? “The new definition would essentially eradicate federal recognition of the estimated 1.4 million Americans,” the story says. It ends with a former Obama bureaucrat denouncing any change that would return to biology because it “quite simply negates the humanity of people.”

The Times was not alone. Time magazine tweeted, “Reports that the Trump administration plans to erase the definition of transgender spark alarm.” Leftists quickly started the Twitter hashtag “#WontBeErased.” Sparking alarm among the media — yes.

A Boston Globe tweet warned that the change could be drastic, quoting The Times piece: “The Trump administration is considering narrowly defining gender as a biological, immutable condition determined by genitalia at birth, the most drastic move yet in a governmentwide effort to roll back recognition and protections of transgender people.”

Even Fox News used this politically correct lingo of “protections” on Twitter. The media define this policy suggestion as “the most drastic move yet” and “extremely aggressive,” which is not at all how they described the Obama administration’s moves to the left.

The Daily Beast headline was “Trump Wants to Pretend Trans People Don’t Exist. Well, We Do.” So it’s the critics of transgenderism who are pretending? The Daily Beast tweeted, “The Trump administration’s potential new rule on gender would take transgender rights even further into the Dark Ages than they already are.” As usual, any step backward from the Obama administration’s radical march into a funhouse with 51 boutique gender identities is seen as a return to the horrific world of … five years ago.

Then the celebrities on Twitter really took the “eradication” language into absurdity. Actor Bradley Whitford (of “The West Wing” and “Billy Madison”) tweeted: “This is obscene. This must not stand. This is, and I use this word intentionally, what the Nazis did. Otherization, vilification and exclusion of vulnerable minorities.”Calling a man a man is now the Holocaust. Deaf “America’s Next Top Model” winner Nyle DiMarco lost all his marbles and used the word … “genocide.” He tweeted: “Disgusting. Alarming. TRANS PEOPLE ARE REAL. THEIR EXISTENCE ARE NOT UP FOR DEBATE. AND this is genocide.”

All this because a memo is circulating that suggests the federal government shouldn’t force every local school district into a federal mandate to provide a taxpayer-funded panoply of redefined bathroom spaces and other “protections.”

Liberals inside and outside the media can’t seem to grasp that Obama’s loony transgender mandates caused alarm with conservatives — science lovers and religious people alike — and that the mandates were a serious reason those people marched to the polls to vote for President Trump. Somehow, they think this screechy new panic will drive their millennials to the polls and not motivate conservatives. They might be disappointed all over again — and show they learned nothing.

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and executive editor of the blog To find out more about Brent Bozell III and Tim Graham, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at



International, Issues

Trump Admin Slashes Refugees to 30K

The Trump administration announced a massive cut in the annual refugee cap to 30,000 per year – the lowest level since before the United States Refugee Act of 1980. In 2017 when President Trump took office, the admissions rate was 110,000 per year. This does not include asylum seekers – all 280,000 of them expected in fiscal year 2019 – according to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Eric Shwartz, president of Refugees International, called the move “appalling.” Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Bob Menendez (D-NJ) calls it “truly repugnant,” but with illegal immigration through porous borders and clandestine terror attacks on the rise, we call it prudent.

Here’s more from PJ Media…

The Trump administration will slash the refugee cap to a low that hasn’t been seen since enactment of the United States Refugee Act of 1980, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo confirmed today.

The administration previously lowered the number of refugees admitted from 110,000 when President Trump took office to 45,000, though the number admitted last fiscal year did not near that cap. That is being cut again to a 30,000 cap, Pompeo told reporters at the State Department.

Refugee resettlement does not include the number of people reaching America and applying for asylum. Pompeo said 280,000 asylum-seekers are anticipated in fiscal year 2019.

“This year’s proposed refugee ceiling must be considered in the context of the many other forms of protection and assistance offered by the United States,” Pompeo said. “Moreover, the refugee ceiling number should not be viewed in isolation from other expansive humanitarian programs.


Issues, Politics

Oprah Shouts for Abortion

Over the years, Oprah Winfrey has seemingly evolved into America’s mom. After her TV career, she sounds like an evangelist preaching a feminist substitute to replace religion in her monthly Oprah Magazine. Her August issue carries this motivational nugget of Oprah wisdom on the cover: “We all want to feel radiant, joyful, and alive. It starts with choosing love — in any form.” No mention of faith, but no surprise there.

How do you feel “radiant, joyful, and alive”? Winfrey has the answer. In this very issue, she devotes a full-page ad to promote — ready? — the hashtag ShoutYourAbortion. According to Oprah Winfrey, a good way to show you’re “choosing love” is to murder your unborn baby.

This is a major reason most women don’t accept the term “feminist.” A new poll by the feminist site Refinery29 and CBS News found 54 percent of millennial women do not describe themselves as “feminists.” Of women over 36, only 34 percent identify as feminist. If you’re not a radical leftist, you decline the term. Only someone truly evil feels joy about an abortion, regardless of her (or his) position or predicament.
But Oprah Magazine editors put this under the category of “Inspiration.”

Amelia Bonow was so horrified at the prospect of taking taxpayer funding away from the Democratic Party underwriters at Planned Parenthood that she touted and shouted her abortion, and now the hashtag has been “tweeted more than 300,000 times.” Ironically, that’s about a tweet for every life ended before it began in an average year of Planned Parenthood business.

This is not just a hashtag but an entire Twitter account and a website with video testimonials. One video is headlined “My abortion was gentle, irreverent, and empowering.” Gentle … for whom? Gentle, irreverent … for whom?
A woman from Seattle with badly overdone makeup and green hair discusses her three-day pharmaceutical abortion as not just “gentle” and “spiritually empowering” but “loving” and “joyful,” and, of course, “badass.” She explains how during this drawn-out procedure, she got drunk and had “brutal, metal sex,” which “you’re not supposed to do.” Somehow it wasn’t in the headline that she summarized it all as “female power-witchy

The viewer is also treated to 10 gallons of the usual “pro-choice” boilerplate. It’s “like going to the dentist.” It’s not a difficult decision when a woman is “very single,” so she avoids ever getting “emotionally complicated.” When you’re “very spiritual, but … not religious,” an abortion is “something of a sacred act” of “taking one’s power,” a “sacred taking of agency.”
It’s sacred. Ponder that.

After these vague declarations of feminist dogma, the woman documents the entire abortion process. She shoves her urine sample into the camera but doesn’t show her ultrasound. “I didn’t look at it. … I didn’t look at the little speck,” she declares. They told her the pregnancy wasn’t far along — four weeks, six days. “I caught it really early,” she says. “I say it like a disease!”

At the end of the video, you hear the woman humming, and this text comes on screen: “I never did think of the cell cluster as ‘my baby,’ nor the sperm donor as ‘the father.’ … My whole view on the thing was quite neutral. Scientific.” Somehow it’s “neutral” and “scientific” to deny the humanity of “the thing.”
But behind this “science,” emotion dribbled out — and a sense of gravity. The video ended with this text: “It was a full moon, and I’m a sentimental, spiritual type. … So I sang a song to the spark.” She whispered, “I let go of you with love tomorrow.”

George Orwell, call your office. An abortion is letting go of the baby “with love.” That inspirational message of “female empowerment” is brought to you by Oprah Winfrey and her magazine.
We cannot avoid this truth: It is satanic. And if you think it’s not, then please tell us what is.

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and executive editor of the blog To find out more about Brent Bozell III and Tim Graham, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at 



Issues, Politics

The War on Traditional Gender Identity

The Political Correctness Police, starting with the perpetually victimized GLAAD (the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) and a group called 50/50 by 2020, are trying to impose quotas on everything Hollywood does.
Leftist fascism is not on the march. It is galloping.
They are part of an open letter signed by titans of the Hollywood left that demands an “unprecedented cultural moment.” They demand the entertainment elite “use its power to improve the lives of trans people by changing America’s understanding about who trans people are.” GLAAD claims there were no transgender characters in 109 movies released by major studios in 2017, and that there were only 17 recurring and regular TV characters out of 901. Hollywood is always lagging behind its idea of diversity.
Both major Hollywood trade publications — first the Hollywood Reporter and now Variety — have run major cover-story packages in the last month stacking up bleeding-heart anecdotes of the terrible injustice done to “trans actors,” starting with the idea that “cisgender” actress Scarlett Johansson was going to play a transgender woman in the movie “Rub & Tug.” The outrage caused the movie star to withdraw.
Stop for just a second. No one gives a damn about this except them.
“Transparent” series creator Jill Soloway, who identifies as “nonbinary” and prefers the personal pronouns “they” and “them,” is now horrified that she cast Jeffrey Tambor to star in her transgender show. That decision “was born out of my ignorance,” Soloway lamented. “I had to have my education in public.”
Stop again. Are you following this?
We’re all apparently in need of education, and the rules change daily. No one is allowed to oppose “trans-inclusive” casting and propaganda. This campaign for the “normalization” of this attack on nature is also extending to our social media experience.
See Facebook’s hate-speech handbook: “We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability.” What’s an attack? “We define attack as violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation,” it says.
When they start judging what’s “dehumanizing” or “exclusion,” it’s easy to understand how traditional values — not to mention traditional biology and grammar — will be punished. Catholics, that means you. But then again, wouldn’t that be an attack based on religious affiliation?
The same punitive urge drives Twitter. Conservative Kathleen McKinley recently wrote on The Federalist that Twitter suspended her account and directed her to delete a tweet opposing transgender troops in the military. McKinney tweeted against “normalizing a mental disorder (gender dysphoria) (called “distress” now) which has no place in our military. Certainly not our $$ for surgery.”
Twitter also flagged a tweet in which she insisted you can’t ignore “extreme Muslim beliefs that condone honor killings!” Twitter said, “You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.” These tweets were not promotions of violence, threats or harassment. They were dissent.
These tech giants claim to care about religious affiliation, but they seem more fixated on someone criticizing Islam. They don’t care about criticism or exclusion of religious majorities.
Christians are apparently offensive when relying on Scriptures that states the Creator “made them male and female.” In their unholy writ of Political Correctness, our Creator needs to be educated. God needs to be corrected in an “unprecedented cultural moment.” Christians will be ostracized by media outlets based on their faith — not just in TV and movies but on their social media.
L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and executive editor of the blog To find out more about Brent Bozell III and Tim Graham, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at



Brent Bozell, Issues

Hollywood Hypocrisy on Guns

In the long, hot summer of television, gun control hasn’t been a big issue in the news media, which is not acceptable to its rabid cousins in the world of entertainment. For them, guns are the root of all evil, so let the story be told!

Take, for example, a Freeform (formerly ABC Family) show called “The Bold Type” about young women working at a magazine in New York City called Scarlet (think: Cosmopolitan). The July 17 episode features two roommates and workmates named Jane and Sutton who get into an argument. Jane finds out that Sutton (who comes from rural Pennsylvania) has a shotgun in the apartment. Jane says: “What else are you keeping from me? Do you have a MAGA hat? Do you watch ‘Hannity’? And do you drive a monster truck? Because otherwise, I don’t understand why you have a gun.”

This is a classic eruption of coastal elitism: Guns are for Trump-loving, Fox-watching rednecks. Jane lectures Sutton by saying that “half the country knows that our lawmakers are bought by the NRA and think that gun ownership is barbaric.”

The plot evolves into cartoonish propaganda. At the end of the episode, Sutton actually melts down her shotgun down to make earrings. The trade paper Variety spoke with Amanda Lasher, who runs this show and belongs to the gun control group Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. “I think we need to reduce the gun culture in America,” Lasher said. “But I think that we will only succeed in that if we are having open, respectful conversations with people who do own guns.” She compared it to the #MeToo movement, as if gun owners were similar to people who commit sexual abuse.

In this fictional scenario, the “conversation” helped millennial shotgun owner Sutton realize how “you define yourself in a certain way … And then you get older and you’ve outgrown (guns) but you’re not quite ready to let them go,” as Lasher explains. “We wanted to make a story about that and finding that you don’t need something else to make you feel strong or brave or powerful or in control.”

Hypocrisy, call your office. If Lasher and her Moms Demand Action crowd ardently wish to “reduce the gun culture in America,” why not do a bit of introspection first? You can crawl all over the group website and its list of “campaigns” and not find a word about activism against the entertainment industry — TV, movies, video games, anything.

TV shows are still pushing gun violence to goose the ratings. A recent study by the Parents Television Council reported that the degree of gun violence on prime-time broadcast TV has actually (SET ITAL) increased (END ITAL) in the last five years since the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting. In a review of the November 2017 sweeps period after the mass shooting in Las Vegas, it found that 175 of 287 episodes contained violence (almost 61 percent) and 112 of them (39 percent) had scenes of gun violence.

It’s dramatically worse at the movies. Matt Philbin of the Media Research Center reported last fall that an astounding 589 incidents of violence were featured in “Kingsman: The Golden Circle,” “American Assassin,” Stephen King’s “It” and “mother!” And that’s just four top-grossing movies from the week before the Las Vegas attack. The films had no less than 212 incidents of gun violence, and the body count was at least 192.

Hollywood producers and actors have no problem mudslinging against the “barbaric” National Rifle Association and blaming it — and President Trump, and Fox, and anything conservative that moves — for mass shootings. But they refuse to march a single step or utter a single word of complaint against the greatest transgressors: themselves.

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and executive editor of the blog To find out more about Brent Bozell III and Tim Graham, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at



Brent Bozell, Issues, Media

Avenatti, the Media’s Legal Hero

On July 10, The New York Times Magazine devoted nearly 6,000 words to Michael Avenatti, the Trump-trashing lawyer representing porn star Stormy Daniels, who claims she had sex with President Donald Trump. How is he worthy of so much attention?

This man is running a one-man show trafficking in anti-Trump propaganda. He started as the defender of the porn star and stripper. He has moonlighted with memos suggesting Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen is the tool of Russian oligarchs. Now he’s even taking on immigrants who came to the country illegally as clients to paint Trump as evil for separating mothers and children at the Mexican border.

He boasts that he’s a “mercenary” and says, “I don’t apologize for it.” He claims he has offers to have his own TV show but he doesn’t want one. Why be a host when you can be the star witness? He’s even threatening to run against Trump for president in 2020 if no one else can match his talent — his talent, that is, for getting himself on television.

Avenatti boasted to New York Times writer Matthew Shaer that he’s made over 200 appearances on national TV news shows and late-night shows since March (including two appearances on Stephen Colbert’s show). He’s been paid by raising hundreds of thousands of dollars from Trump haters through a CrowdJustice account. “None of this happens if we don’t have a high profile,” he admitted.

In short, Avenatti is the dictionary definition of a showboating lawyer, whose clients are mere playthings to get him into the bright lights. When federal Judge Kimba Wood told him in a hearing that he couldn’t represent Daniels if he was going to go on a “publicity tour,” he dropped his bid to argue in Wood’s courtroom. Publicity is all.

But The Times gushed all over Avenatti, over his “blatant blue eyes” and his “steely and composed” face with “Cubist” geometric angles. He “traffics primarily in a commodity in short supply among left-leaning voters: hope.” He has a “messianic standing among liberals.” And “canonization proceedings were under way” among his Twitter fans. “There is a God,” one tweeted. “He sent us Avenatti.” “You and Stormy,” wrote another, “may be the saviors of our democracy.”

The biggest bouquet of praise came from Daniels’ comparing her attorney to Michelangelo: “every time I watch him work, I think, This is what it must have been like to see the Sistine Chapel being painted. But instead of paint, Michael uses the tears of his enemies.”

In this overlong article, we’re told how Avenatti commands the media, talking for hours on CNN and MSNBC. Avenatti is such a regular he seems to know everyone at CNN by name. He snuck into a corner of the greenroom to chat with CNN President Jeff Zucker. He exchanged “profane banter” with CNN host Don Lemon, his new best friend. He “keeps in close contact with reporters in Washington and New York,” pressing the scribes to confirm his opposition research on Trump so he can do more TV.

Doesn’t all of this add up to a smoothly running liberal media machine in which the lines of responsibility vanish? Who is the journalist digging up the opposition research on Trump, and who is the trial lawyer? Where does advocacy end and journalism begin? Does anyone care? They all share a goal: to destroy Trump. Anyone who boasts (as Avenatti does) that he can ensure Trump won’t finish a single term can treat the liberal networks as putty in his hands and put The New York Times in his back pocket.

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and executive editor of the blog To find out more about Brent Bozell III and Tim Graham, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at



Issues, Politics

Schumer: ‘Keep the Focus on Trump’, Not Border Problems

Underscoring the fact that CONGRESS may well be the primary problem facing We the People and open borders merely a symptom, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) refuses to support a bill with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY).

Why? Because he would… wait for it… rather ‘keep the focus on Trump’ than keep illegal immigrant families together during the asylum process.

There’s the manufactured crisis in black-and-white, folks, just in time for midterms.

“Never let a good crisis go to waste…”

Here’s more from Daily Wire…

In a news story published Tuesday by The Hill headlined “Schumer rejects GOP proposal to address border crisis,” the writer included this paragraph: “Asked if that meant Democrats would not support a bill backed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to keep immigrant families together while seeking asylum on the U.S. border, Schumer said they want to keep the focus on Trump.”

That’s right, Schumer doesn’t want to solve the problem — God forbid! — he’d rather just “keep the focus on Trump.”

Schumer, who has bashed Trump at every turn and has repeatedly declared that Congress — not the president — should take this action or that, now suddenly wants to defer to Trump. He claims Congress simply can’t solve the problem, but Trump, with the stroke of a pen, can.