Connect with us

John Boehner Blows Off Teen DREAMers Asking Him To Pass Immigration Reform



Two teenaged DREAMers happened upon Speaker of the House John Boehner having breakfast at a diner. They invited him to sit with them and talk about immigration reform. What do you think he did?

Sure, I suppose you could say that like anyone else, the man just wanted to have a quiet breakfast at his usual morning hangout. But “the man” here truly is “The Man.” He’s John Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House. He’s the man who becomes President if the President and Vice President, god forbid, die or are themselves unable to hold office. The Speaker of the House is the single person who gets to decide what bills will ultimately get voted on. He sets the agenda.

And John Boehner’s agenda is to keep Congress in session as few days as possible, to repeal as many laws — especially Obamacare — as possible, and to obstruct and grind Washington to a halt.

But we’re talking about two kids, who don’t fully understand why they’re not even second-class citizens — they’re just second class, in the eyes of the law. Period. These kids are DREAMers: here through no fault of their own, “illegally.”

The DREAM Act, by the way, is the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act. It’s a bipartisan bill that has been wallowing in Congress since 2001. We’re not talking fancy new radical legislation here, by the way, we’re talking a bill introduced by Democrat Dick Durbin and Republican Orrin Hatch.

John Boehner knew he was on camera yesterday morning. His Secret Service detail can be seen in the background. They knew, and you can see how uncomfortable they were.

The Speaker of the House had two choices: he could ask the kids to sit down and he could talk to them as any good parent would talk with their kids or their neighbors’ kids, or he could blow them off, try to be “polite,” but not have an honest conversation and not give them the respect they deserve, as human beings.

John Boehner chose the latter.

The two teens, according to Carmen Lima, 13, and Jennifer Martinez, 16, were “in town as part of the Fair Immigration Reform Movement (FIRM) and its Keeping Families Together: Youth in Action events this week,” according to America’s Voice, a progressive organization working to reform our nation’s immigration laws and policies.

The image of an old white man sitting down eating while two teenaged girls stand, trying to talk with him, reeks of privilege and a total lack of empathy. These girls, these young women, invited the man to breakfast, to sit with and talk with them, and he blew them off.

The sound in the video is not the best, but you can read the transcript below:




Carmen Lima: Would you join us for breakfast?

John Boehner: No, I’m just going to eat breakfast up here.

CL: Oh, okay. Do you think we can like talk while you wait for your food?

JB: Yeah, sure.

CL: Okay, so hi—I’m Carmen Lima, I’m 13, and you’re a father, right?

JB: Yeah.

CL: So how would you feel if you had to tell your kids at the age of ten that you were never coming home?

JB: That wouldn’t be good.

CL: Huh?

JB: That wouldn’t be good.

CL: That’s what happened to me. I thought I was never going to see my dad again because [inaudible]. And I cried so hard when my mom told me that, at the age of ten.

JB: Well, I’m trying to find some way to get this thing done. It’s, uh, you know, not easy—not gonna be an easy path forward. But I’ve made it clear since the day after the election that I’m going to get this done.

CL: So we can count on your vote for immigration reform?

JB: I will try to find a way to move the bill forward. Thanks.

Jennifer Martinez: I just wanted to share something else really quickly. My name is Jennifer Martinez,

I’m 16 years old, and I came from up in Washington on the West Coast, and when I was 12 years old, I left my dad on an airport [inaudible] in Mexico, not knowing if I’d ever see him again. But I was lucky—I wasn’t separated from my dad for longer than a couple months. But many kids don’t get that luck—they miss out on years with their parents, years with family. And imagine—you said you’re a father—imagine missing out on your kids’ football games and soccer games.

JB: [inaudible] I understand.

JM: So we would really, really appreciate it if you would do everything in your power to move this bill forward.

JB: All right. I agree with you. Thank you.

JM: Thank you.

CL: Thank you, Speaker Boehner.

Video and transcript via America’s Voice

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.


Dominion Wins ‘Blockbuster Victories’ Against Fox News – Last Legal Issue Will Be Decided by a Jury: Report



Dominion Voting Systems won what are being called “blockbuster victories” Friday afternoon when a judge ruled the company suing Fox News for $1.6 billion in a major defamation lawsuit had met its burden of proof that Rupert Murdoch‘s far-right wing cable channel had repeatedly made false statements.

The final, and likely greatest legal issue Dominion will have to prove will be actual malice. That issue will be decided in a jury trial, Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric M. Davis ruled Friday, according to Law & Crime.

Unlike previous cases, Fox News will reportedly not be able to argue the on-air statements its personalities made were opinion.

CNN legal analyst and Brookings senior fellow Norm Eisen calls Friday’s decision a “huge win for Dominion on their summary judgment motion against Fox News.”

READ MORE: Capitol Police Issue Warning Over Possible Trump Protests ‘Across the Country’

“Dominion won partial summary judgement that what Fox said about them was false! Now they just have to prove actual malice and damages,” Eisen says. “Meanwhile Fox’s motion was totally denied.”

Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, an MSNBC contributor adds: “Dominion’s evidence Fox made false statements with reckless disregard  is as strong as any I’ve seen.”

The judge was very clear in his ruling.

“While the Court must view the record in the light most favorable to Fox, the record does not show a genuine issue of material fact as to falsity,” Judge Davis wrote. “Through its extensive proof, Dominion has met its burden of showing there is no genuine issue of material fact as to falsity. Fox therefore had the burden to show an issue of material fact existed in turn. Fox failed to meet its burden.”

READ MORE: ‘Propaganda Network’: Media Reporter Says Dominion Filing Exposes Fox News as ‘Void of the Most Basic Journalistic Ethics’

Attorney and MSNBC host and legal analyst Katie Phang points to this key passage in Judge Davis’ ruling.

Court watchers and news junkies are familiar at this point with the massive legal filings Dominion has made in which it exposed how Fox News knowingly made false statements regarding the 2020 presidential election. Those filings, each hundreds of pages, also detail internal Fox News communications and bombshell conversations between the company’s top personalities, executives, and even Chairman Rupert Murdoch.


Image of Rupert Murdoch via Shutterstock

Continue Reading


Capitol Police Issue Warning Over Possible Trump Protests ‘Across the Country’



The U.S. Capitol Police and the Senate Sergeant at Arms on Friday jointly issued a statement warning they “anticipate” Trump protests across the country. The statement is not time-specific, and it states it has no information on “credible threats,” but some Democratic offices are allowing staffers to work from home Friday and Tuesday.

“The Sergeant at Arms and United States Capitol Police (USCP) anticipate demonstration activity across the country related to the indictment of former President Trump. While law enforcement is not tracking any specific, credible threats against the Capitol or state offices, there is potential for demonstration activity. USCP is working with law enforcement partners, so you may observe a greater law enforcement presence on Capitol Hill,” the statement reads.

“The SAA and USCP are monitoring the potential nationwide impacts to Senate state offices,” it adds.

The House Sergeant at Arms was conspicuously absent from the statement. Speaker Kevin McCarthy has control over that office.

READ MORE: Trump Trial Could Go Well Into the 2024 Election – Or Possibly Even Past It: Former Prosecutor

Additionally, Axios is reporting, “several House Democrats are allowing staffers to work from home as a safety precaution,” noting that “the memory of Trump supporters ransacking the Capitol on Jan. 6 is still fresh on the mind.”

U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) is allowing staff to work from home for safety reasons. She told Axios, “I don’t ever want to see a Jan. 6 again.”

“I’ve been in the Trump hate tunnel, Donald Trump has gone after me, and quite frankly I don’t have security. I don’t have entourages.”

She’s not the only Democrat to raise concerns.

“Much of the language from the former President and his devotees is similar to what inspired Jan. 6th,” U.S. Rep. Dean Phillips said. “I’m concerned about safety for my colleagues and my staff.”

READ MORE: ‘Lighting the Match’: Marjorie Taylor Greene Blasted for Off the Rails Rant Defending Trump

Meanwhile, House Republicans are issuing full-throated support for Trump and calling for protests.

U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), who was called out by name in a six-page letter Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg sent to Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan Friday morning, announced she will be in New York on Tuesday to support Trump when he is arraigned. She has posted several tweets since Trump was indicted.

Speaker Kevin McCarthy issued a statement Thursday seemingly designed to gin up rage and action in the MAGA base.

“Alvin Bragg has irreparably damaged our country in an attempt to interfere in our Presidential election. As he routinely frees violent criminals to terrorize the public, he weaponized our sacred system of justice against President Donald Trump. The American people will not tolerate this injustice, and the House of Representatives will hold Alvin Bragg and his unprecedented abuse of power to account.”


Image by Elvert Barnes via Flickr and a CC license

Continue Reading


Trump Trial Could Go Well Into the 2024 Election – Or Possibly Even Past It: Former Prosecutor



Donald Trump, and all of America, could spend the next 18 months – or longer – engrossed in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s trial of the ex-president, and that could bring the trial close to Election Day.

That’s according to a former prosecutor in the Brooklyn District Attorney’s office, Charles Coleman, who is now a civil rights attorney and MSNBC legal analyst.

Asked by MSNBC’s Chris Jansing, “How long typically might a case like this take?” Coleman offered a two-tiered answer.

“A case like this is usually going to take a year or a year and a half,” Coleman said.

That could be through September of 2024.

READ MORE: ‘Lighting the Match’: Marjorie Taylor Greene Blasted for Off the Rails Rant Defending Trump

“Wow,” a surprised Jansing replied. “So it’s going right up into the campaign.”

“Absolutely,” agreed Coleman. “But it’s important to understand I said a case ‘like this.’ This particular case, I expect may take longer because I am anticipating a number of different legal maneuvers by Donald Trump’s defense team.”

That theoretically means into October of 2024, or longer.

“I do see motions to dismiss at a number of different terms, more likely than not to the point that the judge probably will ultimately end up admonishing them and telling them stop filing motions to dismiss. I think that that’s going to happen,” Coleman explained.

“I’ve said before, and I’ll say again, I do believe that we are going to see an attempt to try to change the venue, in this case outside of somewhere in the five boroughs. All of that is going to extend the time deeper and deeper into election season.”

READ MORE: Manhattan DA Unleashes on Jim Jordan With Stern Warning: You May Not ‘Interfere’ With Trump Prosecution

Reuters agrees, reporting Friday morning, “any potential trial is still at minimum more than a year away, legal experts said, raising the possibility that the former U.S. president could face a jury in a Manhattan courtroom during or even after the 2024 presidential campaign, as he seeks a return to the White House.”

And because “Trump’s case is far from typical,” Reuters notes, his trial could extend “past Election Day in November 2024.”





Continue Reading


Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.