In a recent address, the past President of the United States, Donald Trump, ripped into current President Joe Biden over his immigration policy. This policy, perceived as a 'reform' by many, was enacted this week through an executive order, and is viewed by some as a barely concealed amnesty. It essentially provides millions of individuals who entered the U.S. illegally a veil of protection.

Trump kicked off his speech by addressing some criticism he'd received about reportedly calling Milwaukee a 'terrible city' in a private meeting with Republicans from the House. 'I've always had a soft spot for Milwaukee, and fittingly, I was the one who selected it', he informed the assembled listeners.

He primarily concentrated his compromising remarks on the topic of immigration, a pertinent subject considering an Executive Order had been recently announced by the Biden administration. This executive action would provide an opportunity for undocumented aliens who are wedded to American citizens to live and work legally in the United States.

The former president, evidenced by his robust comments, wasn't pleased with this course of action. 'Our President is sending a clear message to the planet that illegal immigration is not a crime but a rewarded endeavor - a dangerous precedent.', said Trump, stirring the crowd.

He went on to argue this policy hurt many diverse communities in America, 'The ones taking the brunt of the impact are our Black and Hispanic citizens', he remarked. He also highlighted another group, 'And another entity taking a hit, quite significantly, happens to be labor unions'. The majority of voters from these demographics had supported Biden in the 2020 elections.

In a recent address, the past President of the United States, Donald Trump, ripped into current President Joe Biden over his immigration policy. This policy, perceived as a 'reform' by many, was enacted this week through an executive order, and is viewed by some as a barely concealed amnesty. It essentially provides millions of individuals who entered the U.S. illegally a veil of protection.
Trump kicked off his speech by addressing some criticism he'd received about reportedly calling Milwaukee a 'terrible city' in a private meeting with Republicans from the House. 'I've always had a soft spot for Milwaukee, and fittingly, I was the one who selected it', he informed the assembled listeners.
He primarily concentrated his compromising remarks on the topic of immigration, a pertinent subject considering an Executive Order had been recently announced by the Biden administration. This executive action would provide an opportunity for undocumented aliens who are wedded to American citizens to live and work legally in the United States.
The former president, evidenced by his robust comments, wasn't pleased with this course of action. 'Our President is sending a clear message to the planet that illegal immigration is not a crime but a rewarded endeavor - a dangerous precedent.', said Trump, stirring the crowd.
He went on to argue this policy hurt many diverse communities in America, 'The ones taking the brunt of the impact are our Black and Hispanic citizens', he remarked. He also highlighted another group, 'And another entity taking a hit, quite significantly, happens to be labor unions'. The majority of voters from these demographics had supported Biden in the 2020 elections.

Subscribe to Our Show for Real News, All Day Every Day

Subscribe to Our Show for Real News, All Day Every Day

Real News Now Podcast

Real News Now Podcast is a Podcast bringing you the Real News All Day Every Day!

<a href="https://realnewsnow.com/">Real News Now</a> Podcast is a Podcast bringing you the Real News All Day Every Day!

Trump Slams Biden: His Immigration Policy is a Blatant Attempt to Rig Elections

Last Wednesday witnessed the Biden Administration secure a technical yet sizable victory ahead of this year's elections. In a significant ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Administration along with federal bodies, including the pivotal FBI, to continue their guidance to social media platforms to eradicate content flagged as misinformation. This decision likewise enables the Department of Homeland Security to remain vigilant and identify social media content potentially manufactured by foreign agents to provoke chaos during this presidential race.

The verdict is of immediate consequence. During the proceedings the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, refrained from tackling the substantial First Amendment controversies inherent in the case. Instead, the court concluded that both, the state and social media consumers who opposed the Administration, did not possess the lawful right to institute a lawsuit. It was articulated that to initiate such a legal course, the plaintiffs would have had to demonstrate substantial vulnerability to an imminent injury, directly traceable to a governmental defendant, which could be mitigated by the injunction they were demanding.

Despite this, no plaintiff could sufficiently meet this requirement for an injunctive relief. Media outlets revealed that Biden's administration has been steadfastly channeling its efforts towards encouraging leading social media platforms to expunge posts that disseminate misinformation on various critical topics. These include, but are not limited to, vaccination campaigns, reports around the COVID-19 pandemic, and startling misinformation about the 2020 election.

These posts, contends the Government, were in violation of the platforms' self-defined policies. There were severe criticisms raised by Republican officials hailing from Missouri and Louisiana, in addition to five social media users; they all brought forth litigation in 2022. These critics were unwavering in their belief that the White House had extended its reach beyond mere persuasion, compelling the tech leviathans to suppress certain deceptive elements.

Last Wednesday witnessed the Biden Administration secure a technical yet sizable victory ahead of this year's elections. In a significant ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Administration along with federal bodies, including the pivotal FBI, to continue their guidance to social media platforms to eradicate content flagged as misinformation. This decision likewise enables the Department of Homeland Security to remain vigilant and identify social media content potentially manufactured by foreign agents to provoke chaos during this presidential race.
The verdict is of immediate consequence. During the proceedings the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, refrained from tackling the substantial First Amendment controversies inherent in the case. Instead, the court concluded that both, the state and social media consumers who opposed the Administration, did not possess the lawful right to institute a lawsuit. It was articulated that to initiate such a legal course, the plaintiffs would have had to demonstrate substantial vulnerability to an imminent injury, directly traceable to a governmental defendant, which could be mitigated by the injunction they were demanding.
Despite this, no plaintiff could sufficiently meet this requirement for an injunctive relief. Media outlets revealed that Biden's administration has been steadfastly channeling its efforts towards encouraging leading social media platforms to expunge posts that disseminate misinformation on various critical topics. These include, but are not limited to, vaccination campaigns, reports around the COVID-19 pandemic, and startling misinformation about the 2020 election.
These posts, contends the Government, were in violation of the platforms' self-defined policies. There were severe criticisms raised by Republican officials hailing from Missouri and Louisiana, in addition to five social media users; they all brought forth litigation in 2022. These critics were unwavering in their belief that the White House had extended its reach beyond mere persuasion, compelling the tech leviathans to suppress certain deceptive elements.

Supreme Court Passes Bill that Allows Biden to Censor 'Misinformation' on Social Media

One cannot help but notice the hesitation in Mark Penn's tone, a former Clinton advisor and pollster, during his recent Tuesday appearance on Fox News. Foreseeing the likely bias in CNN's staging of the upcoming political extravaganza, the debate between President Joe Biden and the former president, Donald Trump. Presumptive GOP nominee Trump directly presents a mismatch considering the moderators' perceived intentions – the reputable Dana Bash and Jake Tapper. Penn defined this disparity in a nutshell: Moderators on a mission to disfavor Trump.

Penn illustrated the motivations of the political moderators with openness, expressing concern about the potential bias that awaits Trump. Maintaining a neutral stance on the CNN platform seems daunting, especially when it comes to 'letting Trump off the hook.' A challenging predicament indeed for any moderator, as one would undoubtedly be the subject of heated scrutiny by fervent critics. An unfavorable position that any CNN moderator would seemingly prefer to avoid.

The DC Enquirer has previously shed light on the anti-Trump inclinations that accompany CNN moderator Jack Tapper, solidifying Penn's suspicions. The post-2020 election period was a revealing time in Tapper's career, revealing a stark bias against Trump. He boldly declared the end of their 'national nightmare' to his CNN audience, making his sentiments transparent.

Diving further in the past, the extract from 2020 portrays a downbeat phase, reflecting the narrative of numerous unavoidable mishaps, and notably, the indifference toward reliable facts and scientific reasoning. The message peeks especially during discussions on the pandemic. However, more than the lack of harnessing science efficiently, the disdain for truth and fact was most appalling during this period.

One cannot help but notice the hesitation in Mark Penn's tone, a former Clinton advisor and pollster, during his recent Tuesday appearance on Fox News. Foreseeing the likely bias in CNN's staging of the upcoming political extravaganza, the debate between President Joe Biden and the former president, Donald Trump. Presumptive GOP nominee Trump directly presents a mismatch considering the moderators' perceived intentions – the reputable Dana Bash and Jake Tapper. Penn defined this disparity in a nutshell: Moderators on a mission to disfavor Trump.
Penn illustrated the motivations of the political moderators with openness, expressing concern about the potential bias that awaits Trump. Maintaining a neutral stance on the CNN platform seems daunting, especially when it comes to 'letting Trump off the hook.' A challenging predicament indeed for any moderator, as one would undoubtedly be the subject of heated scrutiny by fervent critics. An unfavorable position that any CNN moderator would seemingly prefer to avoid.
The DC Enquirer has previously shed light on the anti-Trump inclinations that accompany CNN moderator Jack Tapper, solidifying Penn's suspicions. The post-2020 election period was a revealing time in Tapper's career, revealing a stark bias against Trump. He boldly declared the end of their 'national nightmare' to his CNN audience, making his sentiments transparent.
Diving further in the past, the extract from 2020 portrays a downbeat phase, reflecting the narrative of numerous unavoidable mishaps, and notably, the indifference toward reliable facts and scientific reasoning. The message peeks especially during discussions on the pandemic. However, more than the lack of harnessing science efficiently, the disdain for truth and fact was most appalling during this period.

WATCH: Former Clinton Advisor Says CNN Will Stack Debate Against Trump

St. Louis, Missouri has seen an increasingly stringent tightening of monetary resources for its police department, a consequence of the movement to reallocate funds traditionally destined to law enforcement. Weighing heavily on the city is the chilling tally of more than 1,000 unresolved murder cases, establishing St. Louis as a consistent contestant in the unfortunate race for being one of America's most perilous urban areas.

During the years 2019 and 2020, a worrying statistic emerged as the city was marked with one of the nation's highest per capita murder rates among major American cities. In the background, another concerning trend rose - the clearance rate of murder investigations was lagging behind the national mean.

Complicating matters further, the city has witnessed a steady erosion of its fiscal resources due to a diminishing tax base and an exodus of residents. This financial strain has far-reaching implications, not least of which is its impact on the prospective improvement of law enforcement infrastructure.

A December report brings to attention the dwindling workforce of the police department. Provisioned for nearly 1,220 officers, the department grapples with over 300 unfulfilled positions. This is a marked contrast compared to the manpower levels in 1998 which boasted over 1,600 active officers.

To underline the fiscal predicament of the city, in 2019, the budget allotted to the homicide division of the police department was slashed for the third time since the year 2012, according to a report by American Public Media.

St. Louis, Missouri has seen an increasingly stringent tightening of monetary resources for its police department, a consequence of the movement to reallocate funds traditionally destined to law enforcement. Weighing heavily on the city is the chilling tally of more than 1,000 unresolved murder cases, establishing St. Louis as a consistent contestant in the unfortunate race for being one of America's most perilous urban areas.
During the years 2019 and 2020, a worrying statistic emerged as the city was marked with one of the nation's highest per capita murder rates among major American cities. In the background, another concerning trend rose - the clearance rate of murder investigations was lagging behind the national mean.
Complicating matters further, the city has witnessed a steady erosion of its fiscal resources due to a diminishing tax base and an exodus of residents. This financial strain has far-reaching implications, not least of which is its impact on the prospective improvement of law enforcement infrastructure.
A December report brings to attention the dwindling workforce of the police department. Provisioned for nearly 1,220 officers, the department grapples with over 300 unfulfilled positions. This is a marked contrast compared to the manpower levels in 1998 which boasted over 1,600 active officers.
To underline the fiscal predicament of the city, in 2019, the budget allotted to the homicide division of the police department was slashed for the third time since the year 2012, according to a report by American Public Media.

Trump Slams Biden: His Immigration Policy is a Blatant Attempt to Rig Elections

In 1 playlist(s)

Real News Now Podcast

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips