Tuesday Open Thread | Please continue to look at the Justice Department under Attorney General White Citizens Council

There is a poster on another blog, who went back and forth with several of us about the question of immigration. This poster, dismayed, at seeing ICE breaking up families, thought that a solution would be to offer the folks here a permanent green card without the option of citizenship.
Those of us on the other side, said absolutely not..because, these people want to deport non-Whites, and don’t want any immigration from non-Whites.

This story from the NYTimes is posted with these two questions:

Do you honestly think these people can be reasoned with? That there is a compromise to be had with them?


Justices Alarmed by Government’s Hard-Line Stance in Citizenship Case

APRIL 26, 2017

WASHINGTON — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. tried to test the limits of the government’s position at a Supreme Court argument on Wednesday by confessing to a criminal offense.

“Some time ago, outside the statute of limitations, I drove 60 miles an hour in a 55-mile-an-hour zone,” the chief justice said, adding that he had not been caught.

The form that people seeking American citizenship must complete, he added, asks whether the applicant had ever committed a criminal offense, however minor, even if there was no arrest.

“If I answer that question no, 20 years after I was naturalized as a citizen, you can knock on my door and say, ‘Guess what, you’re not an American citizen after all’?” Chief Justice Roberts asked.
Continue reading the main story

Robert A. Parker, a Justice Department lawyer, said the offense had to be disclosed. Chief Justice Roberts seemed shocked. “Oh, come on,” he said.

The chief justice asked again whether someone’s citizenship could turn on such an omission.

Mr. Parker did not back down. “If we can prove that you deliberately lied in answering that question, then yes,” he said.

The exchange was among several moments of indignation and incredulity during the argument in Maslenjak v. United States, No. 16-309. Several justices seemed taken aback by Mr. Parker’s unyielding position that the government may revoke the citizenship of Americans who made even trivial misstatements in their naturalization proceedings.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy had heard enough.

“Your argument is demeaning the priceless value of citizenship,” he told Mr. Parker. “You’re arguing for the government of the United States, talking about what citizenship is and ought to mean.”

This blog has been telling you about Attorney General White Citizens Council.

Remember…they were just going to go after the CRIMINALS…

But, that was bull.

Then, they weren’t going to go after the DREAMers…

Now, we know that was bull.

You had a head of Homeland Security, talking about how it might not be so bad to separate PARENTS AND CHILDREN.

The revoking of VISAs.

The African Economic Conference -WITH NO AFRICANS PARTICIPATING, because they couldn’t get visas.

The cozying up to Voter Suppressor Kris Kobach of Kansas.

Now, you have the Justice Department, arguing that they should be able to REVOKE UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP, based on trivialities?



We keep on telling you about these people.

This entry was posted in Department of Justice, Immigration, Open Thread, Politics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

74 Responses to Tuesday Open Thread | Please continue to look at the Justice Department under Attorney General White Citizens Council

  1. Liza says:

    DOJ has concluded investigation into July 2016 shooting of Alton Sterling – no charges for Baton Rouge officers https://t.co/MO2ioovlNT— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) May 2, 2017


  2. Liza says:

    #WorstThingToHearFromYourDr Sorry your pre-existing condition is not covered under #Trumpcare.— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) May 2, 2017


  3. Ametia says:


    100 Days of Trump’s Brand of White Supremacy
    April 29, 2017 • Jessie Daniels

    Today marks the one hundredth day of the Trump administration and his own peculiar brand of white supremacy. There are dozens of 100-day retrospectives around, including some beautifully written ones, but none that I’ve read so far try to connect the threads of white supremacy, white nationalism and Trumpism through these 100 days of outrage. This is my attempt. I’m not exactly sure why I did this in list-icle form, but this post is a kind of note-taking for a longer, narrative piece (a book maybe?) that I’m thinking through now. So. I hope this makes sense and is useful for someone else. And, if not, hey, I’ll use it at some point.

    A big tip of the hat to the good work Matt Kiser is doing over at WTFJHT. (I used his chronology of events to pull this 100-item list together, but I confess I only got to Day 38.)


  4. rikyrah says:

    Mark Sanford not optimistic on OCare repeal, tells me that “full repeal was, in essence, a pipe dream from the very start.”

    — Alexandra Jaffe (@ajjaffe) May 2, 2017

    Sanford said “I don’t see a road to passage at this point” for the GOP healthcare bill.

    — Alexandra Jaffe (@ajjaffe) May 2, 2017

  5. rikyrah says:

    New Opportunities for Dems Come With Opportunity Costs
    by Martin Longman May 2, 2017 11:30 AM

    One of the interesting things to look for as our country’s politics enter a new phase of more rapid realignment is cases where this messes with the assumptions that were made when our congressional districts were gerrymandered after the last Census. The Republicans did so well in the 2010 midterms that they had a huge national advantage when it came time to redraw districts, but Illinois was a rare exception where the Democrats were able to use gerrymandering to the max to carve out a few extra seats.

    And then a funny thing happened:

    Located in greater Chicago’s western exurbs, Democrats had drawn Illinois’ 14th District to quarantine hostile Republican voters, but after the well-educated district swung from 54-44 Romney to just 49-45 Trump, GOP Rep. Randy Hultgren could be targeted in 2018.

    This is the flip side or positive aspect of the change in voting patterns that cost Hillary Clinton the election. Even as she hemorrhaged votes in small towns and rural regions, Trump lost almost as many votes in the suburbs (and some suburbanizing exurbs). And it’s not just that these areas are getting younger and more ethnically diverse. Trumpism doesn’t sell well even with tax-averse white professional Romney Republicans, let alone with sophisticated college-educated women who may have been raised to see the Republican Party as a signifier of their status. There’s nothing high class about that Access Hollywood tape.

    Of course, there’s a certain risk of perversion of purpose if the party of the underprivileged and dispossessed becomes reliant on the three-car garage set for their votes, and that’s a likely side effect of a realignment like this. Votes are always welcome, of course, but chasing after these voters could come with an opportunity cost if it prevents the Democrats from realizing that their power is eroding badly in this trade. And, of course, there’s the moral element to consider, which is that a left that’s worth its name doesn’t leave people behind.

  6. rikyrah says:

    For people that think they won’t be affected by the AHCA, you might want to dig a bit deeper.

    Experience from before the ACA implies that, in practice, many states would set standards much weaker than the existing federal standard. Prior to implementation of the ACA’s essential health benefit standards, an estimated 62 percent of individual market enrollees lacked coverage for maternity services, 34 percent lacked coverage for substance abuse services, 18 percent lacked coverage for mental health services, and 9 percent lacked prescription drug coverage. Consistent with the view that many states would set weak standards, the Congressional Budget Office has indicated that, in scoring this type of proposal, it would likely assume that regulatory approaches would “vary widely from state to state” and that “some states might not impose any regulations” on benefit designs.

    The second factor is how employers that that offer large group and self-insured plans would be treated under this new regime. Current rules implicitly allow these employers to adopt the definition of essential health benefits that applies in any state they choose when determining their obligations with respect to the out-of-pocket limit requirement and the ban on annual and lifetime limits. If this approach were continued under this new regime, which seems plausible, then the catastrophic protections would be governed by the definition of essential health benefits in the states with the laxest standards, at least for large employers. In this case, the provision in the House bill would render the catastrophic protections essentially meaningless, at least as they apply to plans offered by large employers.

  7. Liza says:

    I just watched the Hillary Clinton interview with Christiane Amanpour. It was actually really good except for the part where she talked about the election. Unfortunately, I think that what she said about the election will overshadow the good parts of the interview and will be all that MSM talks about.

  8. Ametia says:

    LYING POS A rambling, small, cowardly POS

    • Liza says:

      I don’t think highly of this Police Chief. He was mighty quick to disseminate the cop lies. “I just now saw the video and changed my mind” is not a satisfactory explanation.

      Well, we know what’s going on here.

      Someone tell me again what the difference is between a trigger happy cop shooting at an occupied vehicle that is not involved in a crime and is driving away from him and that guy in San Diego who opened fire at a pool party. Seriously, aren’t we splitting hairs to try and see a difference? Oh, wait, I remember. One of the shooters took an oath to uphold the law, to protect and serve and so forth.

  9. rikyrah says:


    House GOPer: Move To Another State If You Have A Pre-Existing Condition
    Published MAY 2, 2017 12:17 PM

    President Donald Trump and GOP leaders are asserting that their bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act will protect people with pre-existing conditions—despite fact that the current bill allows states to waive the protections, giving insurers a green light to jack up the rates of those with a chronic illness or disability.

    Other rank-and-file lawmakers have been more blunt.

    “People can go to the state that they want to live in,” Rep. Robert Pittenger (R-NC) told reporters Tuesday morning when asked if people with pre-existing conditions could be charged much more under the American Health Care Act.

    “States have all kinds of different policies and there are disparities among states for many things: driving restrictions, alcohol, whatever,” he continued. “We’re putting choices back in the hands of the states. That’s what Jeffersonian democracy provides for.”

  10. rikyrah says:

    Alright. We’ve updated the AHCA whip list again based on some new information and added a new category of lean yes: https://t.co/y24iOcgafm pic.twitter.com/nGp703u4rt

    — Matt Fuller (@MEPFuller) May 2, 2017

  11. rikyrah says:

    This Teen Took Her Harvard Acceptance Letter To Prom Instead Of A Date
    Because who even needs boys?
    By Jenavieve Hatch

    Priscilla Samey found herself without a date to her high school’s prom on Saturday night, so the Minnesota-based teen did what any reasonable woman would do ― she took her Harvard University acceptance letter as her date instead.

    The teen, who was also accepted to six other Ivy League universities, tweeted a flawless photo in her flawless grown with Harvard’s letter on Saturday.

    “Couldn’t find a man to accept me for prom so I took a college that did,” she wrote in the caption.


    Samey’s post has since gone viral, with more than 122,000 favorites and 27,000 retweets. The reactions were, unsurprisingly, wonderfully supportive.

  12. Ametia says:
    • Liza says:

      His ignorance (as well as his narcissism and recklessness) is on full display. Anyone left out there who would give him a shred of credibility is a damn fool.

      I don’t know the way forward but I do know that the distractions must stop.

      These are dangerous times.

    • Liza says:

      It is truly astonishing that there was a hung jury when Slager was tried. I fear that he is going to get a light sentence especially with AG Bull Connor II in charge. And everyone will be expected to heave a sigh of relief and feel that justice was served. I guess we’ll see but I’m not optimistic.

      • Slager should have been convicted the first time. But iirc there was some bullshit going on with that black juror. Didn’t he have charges against him dropped, then was able to get on the jury? Uh huh.

      • Ametia says:

        Spot on, Liza, a deal was reached to go as easy on sentencing as possible for this murderer. BANK IT!

  13. rikyrah says:

    GOP splinters over protecting those with pre-existing conditions
    05/02/17 10:13 AM—UPDATED 05/02/17 10:44 AM
    By Steve Benen

    When Republicans appeared ready to pass a far-right health care plan in March, their plan was already dreadful and unpopular. GOP leaders then tried to revive the failed legislation by making it quite a bit worse, gutting protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions.

    Because of the state of Republican politics in 2017, this persuaded a variety of far-right lawmakers to endorse the more regressive approach, but in an example of politics resembling Newtonian physics, the change pushed other GOP lawmakers further away.

    Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), for example, conceded the other day that he’s “not comfortable” with his party’s proposal, which shocked many on Capitol Hill – because Upton has spent five years as one of the GOP’s top officials on health care policy, directly helping shape the Republican agenda on the issue.

    Yesterday, as USA Today reported, brought an even bigger surprise.

    In a sign of trouble for the GOP’s efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare, a Missouri Republican lawmaker and staunch Trump supporter said Monday he would oppose a newly revised health care proposal because it weakens protections for those with pre-existing conditions.

    Rep. Billy Long, R-Mo., sits on the powerful House committee that wrote the first GOP repeal-and-replace bill, which sank in March amid opposition from hard-line conservatives and some moderates. Those two factions have since banded together to draft a new bill — but it does not seem to be faring much better.

    • Liza says:

      It is truly outrageous that they are even talking about pre-existing conditions as a point of negotiation.

      What good is served by denying medical treatment to people who need it? What kind of person denies healthcare to others?

      Why do we have to even talk about this and beg these representatives for some show of humanity?

      Good Lord, how bad can this get?

  14. rikyrah says:

    This is VERY IMPORTANT: For employer plans, there would be a race to the bottom on essential benefits, ban on lifetime limits, cost limits. https://t.co/J5QXzc9nEJ

    — Topher Spiro (@TopherSpiro) May 2, 2017

    With state waivers to weaken essential health benefits in AHCA, employer health plan protections could disappear too https://t.co/oWcQqnFGWr pic.twitter.com/qNjBgPQUJM

    — Loren Adler (@LorenAdler) May 2, 2017

  15. rikyrah says:

    PLEASE KEEP CALLING. You are making a big difference.
    House switchboard: (202) 225-3121 https://t.co/M8LRXzPTM2

    — meta (@metaquest) May 2, 2017

  16. rikyrah says:

    From the CBS transcript

    JOHN DICKERSON: George W. Bush said the reason the Oval Office is round is there are no corners you can hide in.
    PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, there’s truth to that. There is truth to that. There are certainly no corners. And you look, there’s a certain openness. But there’s nobody out there. You know, there is an openness, but I’ve never seen anybody out there actually, as you could imagine.
    JOHN DICKERSON: But he– what he meant was it’s– all comes —
    JOHN DICKERSON: –back to you.

  17. rikyrah says:

    I’ll say it again:


    Mysterious rash of Russian deaths cast suspicion on Vladimir Putin
    Oren Dorell , USA TODAY
    Published 5:04 a.m. ET May 2, 2017

    A former member of the Russian parliament is gunned down in broad daylight in the Ukrainian capital of Kiev. A longtime Russian ambassador to the United Nations drops dead at work. A Russian-backed commander in the breakaway Ukrainian province of Donetsk is blown up in an elevator. A Russian media executive is found dead in his Washington, D.C., hotel room.

    What do they have in common? They are among 38 prominent Russians who are victims of unsolved murders or suspicious deaths since the beginning of 2014, according to a list compiled by USA TODAY and British journalist Sarah Hurst, who has done research in Russia.

    The list contains 10 high-profile critics of Russian President Vladimir Putin, seven diplomats, six associates of Kremlin power brokers who had a falling out — often over corruption — and 13 military or political leaders involved in the conflict in eastern Ukraine, including commanders of Russian-backed separatist forces. Two are possibly connected to a dossier alleging connections between President Trump’s campaign staff and Kremlin officials that was produced by a former British spy and shared with the FBI.

  18. rikyrah says:

    Finished the first episode of Dear White People on Netflix. There was a scene of a meeting of all the differing Black factions on campus. Had me HOLLERING in it’s accuracy. I know everyone of those Black folks. Hilarious!
    Can’t wait to continue watching it.

  19. rikyrah says:

    She really should stick to selling shoes. https://t.co/oaLjPXMzfM

    — Imani Gandy (@AngryBlackLady) May 2, 2017

    Ivanka told Cecile Richards that Planned Parenthood should split in two: one for abortions, one for health services https://t.co/fD8KMtZ7I5 pic.twitter.com/TCqqznVuYK

    — Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) May 2, 2017

    • rikyrah says:

      He looked like a baby. Just a baby.

    • Liza says:

      Another murdered child and the same failed cop lies.

      These black children keep getting catapulted back into Emmett Till’s America, and some don’t survive.

      It just reminds us that we better stay focused.

      We’ve got Scalia II on SCOTUS. We’ve got the DOJ being decimated by Bull Connor II. And these are some serious problems.

  20. rikyrah says:

    Quick Takes: Trump Doesn’t Know What’s In the GOP Healthcare Bill
    A round-up of news that caught my eye today.

    by Nancy LeTourneau May 1, 2017 6:01 PM

    You can see for yourself what Trump had to say about what is/isn’t in the Republican health care bill by watching this video. Sarah Kliff explains:

    His responses to basic questions — like what provisions the bill includes or how it would change the health insurance system — suggest he either doesn’t understand how the American Health Care Act works, or doesn’t want to tell the truth about it.

    Dickerson is the first journalist I have seen grill Trump on what, exactly, is in the Republican plan. He isn’t asking about the politics of the bill and whether it will pass. Rather, he focuses on what are arguably basic questions: What elements are in this bill, and what do you think of them?

    Trump stumbles. He says that people with preexisting conditions will be protected. Under the latest amendment to the American Health Care Act — the one that got the Freedom Caucus on board — they won’t be. He says that deductibles will go down under the Republican plan. Nonpartisan analysis expects deductibles would go up.

    The health care plan that Trump described on Face the Nation is not the one that the Republican party has offered. His answers suggest an unfamiliarity with basic policy details of a plan that has been public for nearly six weeks at this point — a plan that his administration has pushed Congress to pass.

    Kliff is right, he either knows what’s in the bill and is lying about it, or he doesn’t know but is trying to bullshit his way through pretending like he cares. Either way, it is a frightening performance from a POTUS.

  21. rikyrah says:

    From BJ:

    Which one of these undecideds will cast the vote that takes away insurance from Jimmy Kimmel’s baby and thousands of others?

    AK-1 Don Young
    CA-21 David Valadao
    CA-49 Darrell Issa
    CO-6 Mike Coffman
    FL-18 Brian Mast
    FL-25 Mario Diaz-Balart
    FL-26 Carlos Curbelo
    IL-16 Adam Kinzinger
    IN-5 Susan W. Brooks
    KS-3 Kevin Yoder
    ME-2 Bruce Poliquin
    MI-3 Justin Amash
    MI-6 Fred Upton
    MN-3 Erik Paulsen
    NJ-11 Rodney Frelinghuysen
    NY-19 John J. Faso
    NY-21 Elise Stefanik
    OH-10 Michael R. Turner
    PA-4 Scott Perry
    VA-1 Rob Wittman
    WV-1 David B. McKinley

    If you live in any districts where one of these potential mass murderers lives, give them a call. (via TPM)

  22. rikyrah says:

    Trump EPA denies Americans access to decades of climate data
    Gina McCarthy, former EPA administrator, reacts to the EPA under Donald Trump removing the climate change section from its web site, and talks about the value of environmental protections to “normal human beings.”

  23. rikyrah says:

    “As @dankildee told us, it’s callers from red areas who killed #Trumpcare the first time.”

    Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 https://t.co/X8Fwpff89p

    — Dan Kildee (@dankildee) May 2, 2017

  24. rikyrah says:

    Our report on this is now out: https://t.co/ky5WZerUMi https://t.co/cRayGas34D

    — Topher Spiro (@TopherSpiro) May 2, 2017

  25. rikyrah says:

    Trump compromises US human rights leadership by praising despots
    Senator Chris Murphy talks with Rachel Maddow about how Donald Trump’s repeated praise for despots and dictators degrades the high global moral standing of the United States and gives license to other leaders who are inclined to abuse their power.

  26. rikyrah says:

    Interesting that the man who says he’s so good at making deals is now floating a change to the Senate rules because he can’t make a deal. pic.twitter.com/THX64wEJGp

    — Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) May 2, 2017

  27. rikyrah says:

    Trump administration weak on basic competence
    Rachel Maddow points out how Donald Trump has hired people who are ill-suited for the roles in which they’re meant to serve, like contraception skeptic Teresa Manning in charge of contraception programs, or anti-abortion activist Charmaine Yoest bringing alternative facts to HHS.

  28. rikyrah says:

    Poor hires may explain poor performance of Trump administration
    Rachel Maddow looks at how Donald Trump’s weak vetting and handing out government positions as political favors puts his administration at a disadvantage for performing government functions.

  29. rikyrah says:

    Phuck.outta.here. with this bullshyt.

    With anti-populist push, Republicans inadvertently help Dems
    05/02/17 08:41 AM
    By Steve Benen

    It’s as counter-intuitive as it is baffling: a significant number of voters who backed Barack Obama in 2012 switched in 2016 to support the Republican who spent years pushing a racist conspiracy theory about Barack Obama. As the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent noted yesterday, Democratic strategists are focusing not only on understanding why, but also on steps the party can take to bring these voters back.

    Top Democratic pollsters have conducted private focus groups and polling in an effort to answer that question, and they shared the results with me.

    One finding from the polling stands out: A shockingly large percentage of these Obama-Trump voters said Democrats’ economic policies will favor the wealthy – twice the percentage that said the same about Trump.

    Greg relied on reporting Priorities USA, a Democratic super PAC, which conducted focus groups of Obama-Trump voters in Wisconsin and Michigan, states that backed Trump after decades of supporting Democratic presidential tickets. Among the most surprising findings was the 42% of Obama-Trump voters who said “congressional Democrats’ economic policies will favor the wealthy, vs. only 21 percent of them who said the same about Trump.”

    In other words, for a sizable chunk of voters, Trump’s faux populism con worked. Enough voters fell for the scam to put him in the White House.

  30. rikyrah says:

    Why would the Trump admin target the Energy Star program?
    05/02/17 09:20 AM
    By Steve Benen

    About a month ago, the Environmental Protection Agency announced the winners of the annual “Energy Star Partner of the Year Award,” which ordinarily wouldn’t be an especially important political story. But there’s more to this one.

    As The New Republic noted, the Energy Star awards are given to businesses and organizations that excel in energy efficiency, and the EPA hailed the Energy Star program as “America’s resource for saving energy and protecting the environment.”

    The trouble is, right around the time the EPA was awarding this year’s winners, Donald Trump’s White House announced its plan to eliminate the Energy Star program.

    If you’ve ever shopped for an appliance – refrigerators, dishwashers, even computers – you’ve probably noticed the blue-and-white star on the box, letting consumers know about the product’s energy efficiency. The program isn’t expensive, and for nearly three decades, it hasn’t been controversial in the slightest.

    Team Trump nevertheless believes it’s time to scrap the entire initiative, and as the Associated Press reported the other day, no one seems to think that’s a good idea.

    More than 1,000 U.S. companies, including some of the nation’s largest manufacturers, are urging Congress to preserve the 25-year-old Energy Star program to promote efficiency in home and business products…. Companies including United Technologies Corp., Ingersoll Rand and Staples call the program a model for successful collaboration between the public and private sectors.

    In a letter to the Trump administration and congressional leaders, the companies say Energy Star “should be strengthened, not weakened” to encourage businesses and consumers to conserve energy.

  31. rikyrah says:

    Republican accidentally tells the truth about GOP health policy
    05/02/17 08:00 AM
    By Steve Benen

    As the Republicans’ health care crusade continues, we’ve grown accustomed to hearing GOP lawmakers present their regressive ideas in the most politically palatable ways they can think of. Occasionally, however, a GOP official will slip and say what he’s actually thinking.

    TPM highlighted just such an instance late yesterday.

    A Republican congressman said Monday that an amendment to the GOP’s American Health Care Act would require sicker people to pay more in insurance costs than people “who lead good lives.”

    In an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper Monday, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) was asked about an amendment he supports to Republicans’ health care effort that would allow states to opt out of health- and age-based pricing protections required by Obamacare, if they established high-risk pools or other equivalent measures in their place.

    Health care proponents routinely argue that the Republican approach would effectively punish those who most need care. Brooks not only conceded the point, he suggested that those who most need care are less deserving of protection.

  32. rikyrah says:

    This is who they are. This is what they believe.

    Republican Blurts Out That Sick People Don’t Deserve Affordable Care
    By Jonathan Chait

    Republicans usually defend their health-care position with an array of buzzwords like choice, patient-centric, or competition. In a CNN interview, Representative Mo Brooks, an Alabama Republican, makes the case for Trumpcare in much starker terms: It will free healthy people from having to pay the cost of the sick. “It will allow insurance companies to require people who have higher health care costs to contribute more to the insurance pool that helps offset all these costs, thereby reducing the cost to those people who lead good lives, they’re healthy, they’ve done the things to keep their bodies healthy,” explained Brooks. “And right now, those are the people who have done things the right way that are seeing their costs skyrocketing.”


    The Republican plan expresses one of the core beliefs shared by movement conservatives, and utterly alien to people across the globe, right and left: that people who can’t afford the cost of their own medical care have nobody to blame but themselves.

  33. rikyrah says:

    ‘We Had Atheists Praying for Us’

    “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” was off the air last week. What fans didn’t know was why.

    Mr. Kimmel revealed on Monday’s show that his wife had given birth to a son, who, within hours of delivery, was found to have severe heart defects. He needed emergency surgery, leading to a torturous series of events — then, ultimately, a happy ending.

    Mr. Kimmel shared the experience in an emotional opening monologue. “We had atheists praying for us, O.K.?” he said. “And I hate to say it — even that son of a [expletive] Matt Damon sent flowers.”

    Mr. Kimmel eventually turned toward politics, decrying the idea that anyone should be denied access to health insurance.

    “If your baby is going to die, and it doesn’t have to, it shouldn’t matter how much money you make,” he said. “I think that’s something that, whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat or something else, we all agree on that, right?”

    “This isn’t football,” he said. “There are no teams. We are the team, it’s the United States. Don’t let their partisan squabbles divide us on something every decent person wants.”

      • Ametia says:

        All the blessings for a speedy recovery, for your child, Jimmy kimmel.

        It’s frightening for any parent to have to endure surgery for their children, let alone a newborn infant.
        Jimmy Kimmel has a platform to share his fears, his emotions about his family’s experience. Many Americans don’t.

        My only hope is that folks don’t get bogged down in Jimmy Kimmel’s experience, and that if he truly wants to serve the greater good, he can speak out against the ATROCIOUS TRUMP CARE, and the GOP’s attempts to ROB us blind and take aware OBAMACARE from Americans with pre-existing conditions.

        THERE, I SAID IT.

  34. rikyrah says:

    Good Morning, Everyone😄😄😄

Leave a Reply