This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A constitutional expert, a renowned legal expert and commentator whose opinions routinely appear in a long list of publications, has, inconveniently for Democrats and leftists, assembled a long list of "fighting" words, comments suggesting violence, even mayhem, by Democrats and leftists.
The listing comes from George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, whose career not only includes testifying before Congress as an expert on the Constitution, but representing members in court.
He cited the recent turmoil among leftists after a suspect, known to family and friends as a leftist, allegedly shot and killed Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk at a free speech event at a Utah college.
"[Ex-House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi insists that words no longer matter. She may be speaking the truth when it comes to the left and the media. They do not matter if they convey righteously violent messages. It then becomes little more than 'phrases related to cultural issues,'" he explained.
He noted, "Democrats are mystified that anyone would point to their own rhetoric and responsibility. When the alleged shooter of Charlie Kirk was found to have scrawled antifa messages on his bullets, the response was again denial and deflection. At CNN, the network repeated its 'fiery but mostly peaceful' approach to reporting. It told CNN viewers that there were 'phrases related to cultural issues.' The wording was so painfully awkward and overly evasive that it only caused greater attention from viewers. CNN later admitted that the writing involved antifa references."
He noted Pelosi blamed President Donald Trump for telling supporters to "fight like hell" for election integrity, which prompted her claim, "Words matter. Truth matters. Accountability matters."
Now her turn of phrase is "we can't take responsibility for the minds that are out there and how they hear it."
He noted, "Democrats and the media have long applied a double standard to political violence," and Pelosi has adopted the same "relativity."
He noted that Democrats have plunged wholly into the use of violent rhetoric.
Statements he uncovered:
_Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., declared, "Elon Musk is seizing the power that belongs to the American people."
_Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., claimed that Musk and Trump were conducting a "rapidly expanding and accelerating coup."
_Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., declared that a "coup" was being carried out.
_Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., warned that Musk was "taking away everything we have."
_House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., called for people to take to the streets to save democracy and posted a picture brandishing a baseball bat. He also wants Democrats to fight "in the streets."
_Former Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison, now the Minnesota attorney general, once said Antifa would "strike fear in the heart" of Trump.
_Democrat California Gov. Gavin Newsom declared, "I'm going to punch these sons of b—— in the mouth."
_Rep. Maxine Waters, D.-Calif., said, "We are here to fight back."
_Sen. Cory Booker, D/N.J., called on citizens to "fight" and threatened, "We will rise up."
_Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas., yelled, "We are gonna be in your face, we are gonna be on your a–es, and we are going to make sure you understand what democracy looks like, and this ain't it."
_Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., added: "God d— it shut down the Senate!…WE ARE AT WAR!"
"Democrats have admitted that the rhetoric is causing many to consider violence. One House Democrat told Axios, 'Some of them have suggested … what we really need to do is be willing to get shot.' Yet another admitted that constituents have told them to prepare for 'violence … to fight to protect our democracy.' Others reported that liberals are talking about the need 'to storm the White House and stuff like that,'" he explained.
Such rhetoric "can inspire unhinged citizens who actually believe that this is a war against a coup. It is the type of rhetoric that can prompt anti-Republican Nicholas John Roske to try to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh or Sanders supporter James T. Hodgkinson to try to massacre Republican members playing softball," Turley warned.
Former talk show icon Jay Leno, in a broadcast interview, said it literally was the death of free speech when, "You have to shoot somebody with a gun to quote win the argument."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
It's been several years since medical regulators inside the government and pharmaceutical companies unleashed the often-injurious mRNA treatments on Americans already suffering from the COVID-19 pandemic.
And just now some of the facts about that orchestration are emerging, including that some of the "experts" are naïve about some of the basic facts involving mRNA.
Including one Stanford University "infectious disease specialist" who was left stunned into silence by questions from U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., about the basics of the treatments.
It happened during a Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations hearing, when Jake Scott, a physician and co-leader of the so-called "Vaccine Integrity Project" claimed vaccines are among the most transparent and safest medical interventions every.
Johnson turned immediately to the basics, asking, "How much do you know about the mRNA technology?"
"A fair amount," Scott said.
Johnson then explained to Scott what is "true" messenger RNA, which degrades rapidly, and synthetic, which "is engineered to resist breakdown and persist for unknown lengths of time," according to Jim Hoft's report at the Gateway Pundit.
Johnson: "Is the mRNA that's encapsulating the lipid nanoparticle, is that true mRNA?"
Scott: "Is it true mRNA?"
Johnson: "I mean, true mRNA — your mRNA — degrades very rapidly in the body. Correct?"
Scott: "Correct."
Johnson: "So the mRNA in the injection, is it true mRNA? Does it degrade rapidly in the body?"
There was silence, then Johnson said, "Do you not know?"
Scott: "I do know. Yes, it does, but it sounds…"
Johnson: "No, it does not. It's modified mRNA, and it's designed not to degrade. There are studies that show it sticks around in the body. We don't know how long. The lipid nanoparticle — do you realize that it was designed to permeate difficult barriers, like the blood-brain barrier, like the center barrier? Did you know that?"
Explained the Gateway Pundit, "At that moment, the Senate chamber saw what many Americans have come to realize: so-called 'experts' who insisted they were following 'the science' are shockingly uninformed about the very shots they demanded the public take."
Anthony Fauci, formerly Joe Biden's COVID adviser, once, in fact, insisted that people arguing with his pro-shot agenda were arguing with the "science."
Scott also admitted that risks of blood clots and myocarditis in young men exist from the shots.
Johnson wasn't finished, asking Scott, "Did you believe when Fauci told us that the mRNA shot would stay in the arm? Did you believe that? … It's a simple yes or no. Do you believe the COVID injection stayed in everybody's arm? Do you believe that's what happened?"
Scott; "Primarily."
Johnson unloaded: "You think so, huh? Were you aware of the Japanese FOIA study that was conducted, a biodistribution study where, in rats, it biodistributed all over the body, accumulated in the adrenal glands, in the ovaries? … It distributes all over the body, and when it attaches to a cell, it unloads its mRNA into the cell and turns the cell into a manufacturing cell of a protein that is toxic to it. Do you realize that? Are you aware of that? Just yes or no. Do you know that or not? Because I talk to a lot of doctors who don't have a clue."
Silence.
The Daily Caller News Foundation also reported that Scott confessed he was wrong to push for masking for two-year-olds during the pandemic.
And the Gateway Pundit pointed out how Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., was humiliated by witness Aaron Siri, a vaccine lawsuit expert, when Blumenthal tried to belittle the witness.
Blumenthal pointed out to Siri that he was not a medical doctor.
Siri responded with what the Gateway Pundit called "a nuclear truth bomb."
He revealed, the report said, "A team of respected researchers at Henry Ford Health in Detroit, led by Dr. Marcus Zervos, Division Head of Infectious Disease, undertook a massive vaccinated vs. unvaccinated birth cohort study involving 18,468 children enrolled between 2000 and 2016."
That showed vaccinated children were 3.03 times more likely to develop allergic diseases, 4.29 times more likely to develop asthma, 5.53 times more likely to suffer neurodevelopmental disorders — including speech disorders and developmental delays and 5.96 times more likely to develop autoimmune diseases.
And Siri responded to Blumenthal's "cheap stunt" about his personal qualifications.
Siri noted that for legal cases he deposes experts routinely, "including the world's leading ones with regards to the vaccines. I have to make my claims based on actual evidence. When I go to court with regards to vaccines, I don't get to rely on titles."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The backlash was immediate and intense when reports surfaced that the police department in Dearborn Heights, Michigan, which has a large population of Muslims, had gone for "unity" with a new Arabic-language patch for officers to wear.
It states, "Dearborn Heights Police," in Arabic.
So after an interval of only two days, Dearborn Heights Mayor Bill Bazzi went to social media to backtrack.
"On Wednesday, September 3rd, information was disseminated from the Dearborn Heights Police Department regarding a digital mock-up of the DHPD patch bearing the department name translated in Arabic script," his Facebook post said. "The design mock-up idea showed the words 'Dearborn Heights Police' in Arabic and was said to be optional. The patch effort was an internal discussion among some within the police department which was not put forth for consensus or further review."
But, he said, "Should efforts like this be formally undertaken to make any changes to the Police uniform, it is our goal to include multiple PD stakeholders for a larger conversation, to ensure all are included in the discussion. As we are one PD, each individual's uniform represents the DHPD as a whole, and therefore merits the review and input of all. At this time, this patch addition remains an idea and should NOT have been presented as an official prototype."
Dearborn Heights has a population of around 39% Middle Eastern or North African as of the most recent census, but triggered Republican Congressman Randy Fine with its announcement. He called it an example of "Sharia Law" coming to Michigan.
The Daily Mail reported, "Dearborn was dubbed the U.S. 'Jihad Capital' by The Wall Street Journal and made headlines last year when protesters at a pro-Palestine rally chanted 'death to America.'"
Fine, of Florida, said, "They said their goal was to bring sharia law to America. You should've believed them. Pray for Michigan."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
For decades, the number of people sitting in church pews on Sundays, and other days, has been declining. Especially among churches belonging to some of the legacy denominations across the country
But that's suddenly, and significantly, reversed course.
And it is the younger adults in America, Gen Z and Millennials, who are leading the way.
That's according to Barna,com.
"For the first time in decades, younger adults—Gen Z and Millennials—are now the most regular churchgoers, outpacing older generations, who once formed the backbone of church attendance," the survey organization confirmed.
"This shift signals a new opportunity for ministry. Younger adults are showing spiritual curiosity and a desire for belonging—but even as they attend more often than older adults, they still attend less than half the time, so every touchpoint matters.
"As reports emerge of spiritual interest, rising faith activity, signs of revival—including Barna's analysis of the recent rise in commitments to Jesus—churchgoing frequency is another improving trend among Millennials and Gen Z in the U.S. While overall church attendance trends have been flat in recent years, the return to church among the next generation stands out as a powerful sign of rising openness to faith," Barna reported.
For example, while "all U.S. churched adults" attend church 1.6 weekends per month, for Gen Z it's now 1.9 and for Millennials it's 1.8. "Elders" are there only 1.4, as are boomers, while Gen X is there 1.6 times per month.
"These are easily the highest rates of church attendance among young Christians since they first hit Barna's tracking," the organization reported.
"We were able to analyze our data in a fresh way to show what many pastors feel—that even really regular churchgoers do not attend that often. Among all churched adults, we found that they attend, on average, 1.6 times per month, or roughly two out of every five weekends. This new analysis of the tracking data helps us better understand the frustrations pastors feel when they are trying to build momentum for their congregations, such as series-based preaching and mobilizing volunteers," explained Daniel Copeland, Barna's vice president of research.
"Even so, the fact that young people are showing up more frequently than before is not a typical trend. It's typically older adults who are the most loyal churchgoers. This data represents good news for church leaders and adds to the picture that spiritual renewal is shaping Gen Z and Millennials today."
For the two age groups, Gen Z and Millennials, church attendance nearly has doubled since 2020, when Joe Biden was elected to the White House and launched a concerted effort to undermine Christianity in many ways, to punish members of the faith, to discriminate against church beliefs.
"The rebound of churchgoing among younger adults contrasts with older generations, whose participation is flat … Over the last 25 years, Elders and Boomers are well below the frequency of attendance they practiced in the past; Gen X churchgoing has landed at about the same rate as it was in 2000," Barna said.
Meanwhile, attendance by older Americans is falling.
David Kinnaman, CEO of Barna Group, explained, "The significant drop-off among older generations shows that the fabric of congregational life is changing. It's more frayed and less gray than it was a decade ago. The influx of new generations represents a massive opportunity for congregational leaders, but this renewed interest must be stewarded well.
"Our research clearly shows that churchgoing alone does not in itself create devoted disciples. Even with the increasing participation of younger generations, there is still the challenge of shaping hearts and minds to live out their faith beyond church participation," he said.
The details were based on Barna's online and telephone interviews within nationwide random samples of 132,030 adults conducted over a twenty-five-year period ending in July 2025. These studies are conducted utilizing quota sampling for representation of all U.S. adults by age, gender, race / ethnicity, region, education and income.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Two federal appeals court judges have decided to second-guess President Donald Trump's "foreign affairs and national security" decisions, ruling that the Alien Enemies Act is not available for him to use to deport members of an invading criminal gang.
The decision came from Leslie Southwick and Irma Carrillo Ramirez, of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
There already is a division among federal courts on the issue, as a federal judge in Pennsylvania has ruled that Trump is allowed to use the AEA to deport members of the Venezuelan force, Tren de Aragua, whose troops already have invaded America with their drugs and human trafficking, and even, in leftist Colorado, the armed and organized forces simply took over apartment buildings and demanded residents pay rent to them.
A report at Fox News said Southwick and Ramirez wrote in the majority opinion of the 2-1 decision that Venezuela sending "its residents and citizens" to enter the U.S. "illegally," "is not the modern-day equivalent" of sending an army.
"A country encouraging its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organized force to occupy, to disrupt, or to otherwise harm the United States."
U.S. Circuit Judge Andrew Oldham argued in dissent that the majority was second-guessing Trump's conduct in foreign affairs and national security, and those are topics on which courts should give the president great deference.
"The majority's approach to this case is not only unprecedented—it is contrary to more than 200 years of precedent," Oldham wrote.
The case already had been to the Supreme Court, which in an unsigned order said the Trump DOJ didn't give members of the Venezuelan criminal force enough time to challenge their deportations, and it sent the case back down to the 5th Circuit.
The Supreme Court had said, "Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster."
The law has been used before to repel members of invading organizations, but only during wartime, the report said.
Lee Gelernt, a lawyer for the pro-illegal alien American Civil Liberties Union, said, "This is a critically important decision reining in the administration's view that it can simply declare an emergency without any oversight by the courts."
The Trump administration had argued that the courts cannot second-guess the president's decisions on foreign policy and international affairs, specifically his determination that Tren de Aragua was connected to Venezuela's government and represented a danger to the U.S., which warrants using the law.
The appeals court claimed that the organized crime operations by Tren de Aragua in the United States represented "no invasion or predatory incursion."
The fight is expected to be presented to the full 5th Circuit, and possibly then the Supreme Court again.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In a result that will surprise few who watch Capitol Hill, it has been revealed that one party dominates the list of those members of Congress who vote against biblical principles, over and over, including a man who purports to be a "Christian minister."
It's long been known that Republicans, mostly, support family values and ideas, lower taxes and limited government.
Democrats, meanwhile, are investing in abortion, transgenderism, big spending, big government, social agendas and violence for their future.
It is the Christian Employers Alliance that released a tool, the Biblical Business Index by the Center for Biblical Business. It has reported that there are 16 Democrats in Congress – Jerry Nadler, Katie Porter, Cori Bush, Chellie Pingree, Debbie Stabenow, Jeff Merkley, Edward Markey, Tammy Baldwin, Laphonza Butler, the minister, Ralph Warnock, Richard Durbin, Peter Welch, Elizabeth Warrern, LaMonica McIver, Erica Lee Carter and Brian Higgins, who voted in support of the biblical perspective ZERO percent of the time.
Another long list of Democrats revealed dozens more in essentially the same position, with support for biblical perspectives in the range of 0.50% to maybe 0.53%.
At the other end of the scale were Republicans Elijah Crane, Matt Rosendale, Andy Biggs, Robert Good and Mike Lee at 100%, following by more than 260 more Republicans with ratings as low as about 49%, Susan Collins, before the first Democrat, Henry Cuellar, made the list at 47.76%.
According to Washington Examiner columnist Paul Bedard, "Democrats overwhelmingly fill out the bottom slots."
"CEA is proud to equip Christian business leaders with a tool built on the ultimate truth — the Word of God," Margaret Iuculano, the president of the Christian-based business group, told Bedard.
"Our faith is the foundation of how we live and lead, and lawmakers need that same compass as they face complex policies. That's why we launched the Biblical Business Index — a first-of-its-kind tool bringing together theologians and policy experts to connect Scripture with today's legislation. Even when the issue is something like regulations, biblical truth provides guidance to discern what upholds justice, freedom, and human dignity,"
Bedard explained, "Take the recently passed Liberty in Laundry Act as an example. The law pulled back Biden-era energy conservation regulations on washing machines. The Bible passage it was linked to focused on freedom, a common theme in the Biblical Business Index. It cited Galatians 5:1 — 'It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.'"
Lawmakers were assessed on their alignment with the Bible's principles, and overall, Wyoming's delegation rated the highest. Vermont was the lowest.
Fred McGrath, a senior policy adviser to CEA and ILA's president, told Bedard policy experts and theologians were called on to develop the new report card.
"Oftentimes, the moral and faith-aligned position on bills can be tricky to identify due to the enormous complexity of public policy. That is why CEA launched the Biblical Business Index. Essentially, build the first of its kind system to bring together both policy experts and theologians to help decipher the complex policies and identify the biblically aligned position," he said.
The results also provide analyses of state actions, with, for example, the survey recommending opposition to all of the nearly 60 issues handled recently by the Colorado legislature, suggesting support for only four.
That state has a far-left homosexual Democrat governor, Democrat-majority House and Senate and an all-Democrat state Supreme Court. The state repeatedly has tried to force Christians to abandon their beliefs and promote the dangerous LGBT lifestyle choices, being rebuked by the U.S. Supreme Court for its "hostility" to Christianity. It has gone so far left that state officials tried to ban President Trump from the 2024 ballot, only to be publicly rebuked by the U.S. Supreme Court.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A Minnesota bishop has scolded the mayor of Minneapolis, Jacob Frey, for his mockery of Christianity after a school shooting at a Catholic school that left two students dead and more than a dozen others injured.
A report from Fox News explains the rebuke.
Frey openly mocked those who prayed for the students, or those who called for prayer, after the tragedy, with, "Don't say this is about thoughts and prayers."
Which prompted Bishop Robert Barron to explain, "Catholics don't think that prayer magically protects them from all suffering. After all, Jesus prayed fervently from the cross on which he was dying."
He called the mayor's public blast at faith, "asinine."
The tragedy developed at Annunciation Catholic School when a man, who had been portraying himself as a woman, allegedly used three weapons to shoot at children and staff members through church windows.
FBI Director Kash Patel confirmed the bureau is investigating the attack as both a possible act of domestic terrorism and a hate crime targeting Catholics.
So far, an investigation has confirmed the alleged gunman left anti-religious writings behind.
Frey had lashed out at people of faith, demanding, "Don't say this is about 'thoughts and prayers' right now — these kids were literally praying. It was the first week of school – they were in a church."
He was among a long list of leftists, and gun control extremists, who issued anti-faith statements.
Fox reported, "Barron, an influential Catholic leader who leads the Diocese of Winona-Rochester, argued that critics misunderstand the role of prayer."
"Prayer is the raising of the mind and heart to God, which strikes me as altogether appropriate precisely at times of great pain," he said. "And prayer by no means stands in contrast to decisive moral action. Martin Luther King was a man of deep prayer, who also effected a social revolution in our country. This is not an either/or proposition."
And he cited the surging level of anti-Christian violence.
"In the past seven years in our country, there has been a 700% increase in violent acts against Christians and Christian churches. Worldwide, Christianity is by far the most persecuted religion. That people are even wondering whether the tragedy in Minneapolis is an instance of anti-Catholic violence is puzzling to me."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A judge has assigned liability for disabilities suffered by a Wyoming baby to the hospital system that ran the facility where she was born, and it's nearly a billion dollars.
A lawyer for the family of Azaylee Zancanella said the family should be able to collect a substantial sum, even if it's not the full award of $951 million, from the corporation that closed and sold its hospitals.
A report at the Daily Mail noted the judge in the case emphasized the child would have been safer being born in "the bathroom of a gas station, or a hut somewhere in Africa."
The pregnancy, which had been normal, took a turn in October 2019 when Anyssa Zancanella's water broke during a trip from the family's Wyoming home to Salt Lake City.
They rushed to Jordan Valley Medical Center West Valley Campus, which was operated at the time by the now defunct Steward Health Care, the report said.
There, the lawsuit charges, the mother as given "excessive" doses of Pitocin, a labor-inducing drug.
And then ignored.
Eventually a C-section was performed, but, the lawsuit charged, the failures deprived the baby of oxygen, causing brain damage.
"[The obstetrician] abandoned mother and fetus/infant when she was fully aware of significant and dangerous issues with the ongoing labor process and the ongoing health and well-being of the fetus," the lawsuit said.
Azaylee now suffers seizures, and experiences "damages, including but not limited to, permanent neurological and cognitive damages, physical damages, emotional damages, limitations in physical, cognitive and mental function, as well as pain and suffering," the case charged.
It was Third District Judge Patrick Corum who found Steward Health Care liable in Zancanella's medical malpractice case, as reported by the Salt Lake Tribune
Corum awarded Zancanella, her partner, Daniel McMichael, and their daughter $951 million.
The judge noted Steward essentially walked away from any participation in the case.
"Indeed, since at least the early Spring of 2024, Defendants' entire strategy seems to have been nothing other than an attempt to thwart justice and the judicial process," the judge said.
The family's lawyer, Jennifer Morales, said she expects the family to be able to collect about half of the award, which represents punitive damages.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The administration of President Donald Trump has pulled the plug on a program set up by Joe Biden's administration in Washington, that established a series of discriminatory standards for farm assistance programs, including schemes to give preferential treatment based on a farmer's race and gender.
The move makes it literally inevitable that the race- and sex-based discrimination will be struck down.
It is the Washington Examiner that confirmed the U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Trump, has notified a court it is abandoning its defense, launched under Biden's leadership, of programming that discriminates based on race and gender for loans, commodities and more.
Those elements are the foundation of many of the "diversity, equity, inclusion" programs pushed under the Biden White House.
The publication said it obtained a copy of a court filing in a case brought by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty.
That organization brought a case on behalf of Wisconsin dairy farmer Adam Faust, and the organization said Faust is one of millions of white male farmers still being subjected to the "prejudicial practices" established under the Biden administration.
Faust had challenged a number of provisions, including a loan guarantee program that insures farm loans against possible financial loss.
"Women and racial minorities can receive a higher guarantee, as much as 95% of the outstanding principal, while white males may only get a guarantee of 90% of a loan's value," the report said.
Then there's the Dairy Margin Coverage Program, which pays producers "when the margin between the price of milk and the average cost of feed falls below a certain coverage level," the report said.
Enrollees are required by the USDA to pay an annual $100 administrative fee, unless they are "socially disadvantage" in which case they are exempt.
Finally, the report said, "The Environmental Quality Incentives Program awards up to 90% of conservation project costs associated with planning, design, materials, equipment, installation, labor, management, maintenance, and training to 'socially disadvantaged farmers.' White male participants, meanwhile, are only entitled to 75% of costs reimbursed."
The USDA, in fact, has been working to change the programs, as it concluded using "socially disadvantaged" as a standard is "inconsistent" with the Constitution.
It announced it no longer would use those markers for its loan guarantee program and was working on changes to the other two.
The Examiner explained the changes fall "in line with President Donald Trump's plans to root out any remaining diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives embedded at the federal level."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A delegate at the Democratic National Committee's summer meeting labeled a prominent immigration detention facility a "concentration camp" on Tuesday.
United States District Judge Kathleen Williams of the Southern District of Florida, an Obama appointee, ordered the shutdown of "Alligator Alcatraz," a detention facility for illegal immigrants run by the state of Florida, Thursday, according to Forbes. A delegate from Florida, Millie Herrera, cited the ruling as she spoke on an amendment to a resolution.
"I'd also like to make comments about this. I refuse to call it Alligator Alcatraz, I think that it is insulting and disgusting and inhumane what they are doing to immigrants all over the country," Herrera claimed after reading the proposed amendment. "This is a concentration camp. There have been several reports that people that are legal residents, even citizens detained without access to due process and their attorneys cannot visit them. There are 30 men to a cage with only three toilets; drinking water comes out the top of the toilet. They're not allowed to bathe. It is the most incredible and cruel situation in a country where a lot of us, many of us, even from the first immigrants who came into the country from… England, we're all immigrants except for the natives."
"I think we need to call out this injustice and this persecution of people, and the only reason we are here is to improve our country and make sure that we contribute and our children have good lives," Herrera continued. "This is just unbelievable to a lot of us that have experienced persecution and other countries that fled to the United States, thinking that we were protected here by our Constitution. So, we are all together in this and I, you know, really appreciate all your support and I'm getting emotional, sorry, the support that immigrants are receiving from our party, because the Democratic Party is the party of immigrants, the party of working class, the party of women, the party of LGBTQ, the party for everybody, so thank you and please offer this amendment."
Environmental groups sued to block the facility, which the Trump administration approved in June following a suggestion by Republican Attorney General James Uthmeier of Florida.
Addressing illegal immigration has been a priority of the Trump administration, with President Donald Trump issuing several executive orders to address illegal immigration and border security, including one designating Mexican drug cartels, the Venezuelan prison gang Tren de Aragua (TdA) and the El Salvadoran prison gang MS-13 as foreign terrorist organizations upon taking office Jan. 20.