Want to understand why we’re so divided? Why each side seems to live in alternate universes? Take a moment & examine the misinformation here (both deliberate & inadvertent).
FACT 1: Dem spending bill sends $1400 to each adult in US.
2/x ...my amendment to prohibit sending those $$ to criminals (murderers, rapists, child molesters) currently IN PRISON.
EVERY Dem voted to send criminals the $$.
FACT 3: I then called up my amendment to prohibit illegal aliens from getting the $1400 checks.
3/x FACT 4: Durbin then screamed “liar!” and insisted no illegal immigrants would get $$ because the bill requires social security numbers.
FACT 5: Lefty “press” outlets, like Daily Beast, dutifully repeated Durbin’s charge. They did ZERO fact checking fo their own, just said...
4/x ...that my claim that illegal immigrants would get the $$ was “false.”
FACT 6: Lefty pundits & celebrities like Morgan Fairchild happily repeat the charge that I “lied.” They know none of the facts, but in this politically charged world, the other side must always be wrong.
5/x FACT 7: As it so happens, it was Durbin who was lying, and he knew it.
Why?
FACT 8: There are 12mm or more illegal immigrants. 60% of them are from visa overstays. Many (if not most) of them have social security numbers.
6/x FACT 9: When Durbin said “illegal immigrants don’t have social security numbers,” he was deliberately saying something false, knowing it would be repeated.
FACT 10: Under the bill’s language, MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS will get the $1400 checks.
7/x FACT 11: My amendment required that recipients would be “lawfully present,” i.e., legal.
FACT 12: When Durbin falsely said ZERO illegal immigrants would get $$, I asked if he would yield for a question. Schumer, sitting next to him, bellowed “no!!”
8/x FACT 13: If Durbin had taken my Q, I would have asked, “if you’re right that no illegal aliens will get $$ under this bill...WHY ARE YOU AND EVERY DEM OPPOSING MY AMENDMENT TO DO JUST THAT?”
The answer is that Durbin was lying, and he knew that Lefty partisans would...
9/x ...reflexively believe his gals charge that I was the one lying.
FACT 14: When the checks go out, millions of illegal immigrants WILL GET $1400 checks.
PREDICTION: the Lefty press & pundits won’t cover it, and won’t care.
10/x Sadly, that’s why we’re so divided. Facts don’t matter.
Journalists don’t care about truth.
Everyone is a partisan warrior.
And we only believe news from our own side.
For America to come together, this must change.
11/x And on this issue, it isn’t a matter of opinion. It’s a question of fact. Millions of illegal immigrants either WILL or WILL NOT receive $1400 checks.
That’s a question of fact. Lefty “journalists” don’t do facts anymore, so Daily Beast, Vox, etc don’t even pretend to care.
12/x And on the question of who was telling the truth about the actual facts, it wasn’t Durbin:
Yet another example of biased, dishonest “fact-checking.”
Newsweek admits “Individuals who overstay their visas but pay tax in the United States using a Social Security number may be eligible for stimulus payments.”
They also admit 676k visa overstays in a single year.
They ignore that those accumulate over decades, and 60% of the 12m total illegal aliens are visa overstays.
So, they conclude EVERY WORD THAT I SAID IS TRUE (and Dick Durbin’s claims to the contrary are false), but they’re left-wing propagandists, so they still call it “mostly false”!
2/x You claim “no illegal immigrants will get checks.”
Q1: Dick, true or false: 60% of illegal aliens are visa overstays.
Q2: True or false: Migrants who come to US legally on a work visa are allowed to have a SSN, yet when they overstay their visa they become illegal aliens.
3/x Q3: Dick, true or false: under the Dem bill, millions of illegal immigrants (w/ SSNs) will receive $1400 checks.
Q4: If that’s not true (you bellowed that it was “a lie!”), why did the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation determine my amendment would save taxpayers $675m?
Dems had agreed to know witnesses, then House Managers changed their mind this morning.
Schumer blindsided. Pandemonium. They’re negotiating now to figure out next steps.
2/x While we’re waiting to figure out what’s next, I thought I’d share some of the Qs in the pile that DIDN’T make the cut to be asked yesterday. (These are all real, from various senators, who will remain anonymous.)
After I questioned Linda Thomas-Greenfield this morning about her embrace of China in a Confucius Institute speech, some said her praise of the Chinese Communist Party was a one-off.
No it wasn't.
Let’s go to the archives.
In 2006, at the State Department, Thomas-Greenfield said she was not concerned about China's growing power in Africa.
1/x What is sickening is that you are siding with this vicious murderer. Don’t pretend he was a saint. Here are his actual crimes (quoted verbatim from DOJ)—which you ignore:
“Brandon Bernard and his accomplices brutally murdered two youth ministers....”
2/x “...Todd and Stacie Bagley, on a military reservation in 1999. After Todd Bagley agreed to give a ride to several of Bernard’s accomplices, they pointed a gun at him, forced him and Stacie into the trunk of their car, and drove the couple around for hours....”
3/x “...while attempting to steal their money and pawn Stacie’s wedding ring. While locked in the trunk, the couple spoke with their abductors about God and pleaded for their lives. The abductors eventually parked on the Fort Hood military reservation....”
If #SCOTUS grants cert in the PA election case, I have told the petitioners I will stand ready to present the oral argument.
Full statement below...
Because of the importance of the legal issues presented, I've publicly urged #SCOTUS to hear the case brought by Congressman Mike Kelly, congressional candidate Sean Parnell & state rep. candidate Wanda Logan challenging the constitutionality of the POTUS election results in PA.
Petitioners’ legal team has asked me whether I would be willing to argue the case before #SCOTUS, if the Court grants certiorari. I have agreed, and told them that, if the Court takes the appeal, I will stand ready to present the oral argument.