Let’s be honest….none of them serve the people. They think the people serve them.

Via The Daily Wire:

A Democrat congressional aide slammed socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) in an interview this week, saying that the 29-year-old former bartender has no plans to serve the American people.

The comments came in a report from The New York Post about how Ocasio-Cortez’s office blows people off and does not answer phone calls — a claim that The Daily Wire can definitely confirm.

“Critics of Ocasio-Cortez suggest making constituents play phone tag is proof that she’s more show pony than work horse,” The New York Post wrote.

“She has no plans to serve the people. That’s why she has no constituent services operation,” a Democrat Congressional aide told The New York Post. “If you’re a grandma in Queens who needs help with her Medicare and you call AOC’s ‘district office’ you get a recording that tells you to visit the website instead.”

“What kind of elitist nonsense is that?” the aide continued. “Shameful, it’s all shameful.”

The Daily Wire has repeatedly reached out to Ocasio-Cortez for comment on a variety of issues ranging from her support of notorious anti-Semites to her quoting Nazi sympathizers and have never received a response.

Ocasio-Cortez is wildly unpopular in her district as only 10 itemized contributors within her district have donated to her re-election campaign.

“The average freshman representative’s reelection campaign received $107,141.29 in itemized contributions from their constituents in the first half of 2019, FEC filings the DCNF analyzed show,” The Daily Caller reported. “Ocasio-Cortez’s reported in-district fundraising haul of $1,525.50 was just 1.4% of that average.” Continue Reading

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s office doesn’t answer phone calls

Via NY Post:

WASHINGTON – Call me, maybe?

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the only member of the New York City delegation who doesn’t have a staff member picking up the phone regularly.

The Post called the offices of all 13 lawmakers representing New York City – even those in high-profile positions like Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler – and a real person answered the call on every occasion, in every office location, except for calls dialed to AOC’s two offices.

The phones weren’t immediately answered at Rep. Adriano Espaillat’s office as he moved to his new Bronx district location, but an aide promptly picked up Espaillat’s Harlem and Washington, DC lines.

A call to AOC’s Jackson Heights office goes to a series of voicemails with no ability to leave a message as of Monday.

In DC, a constituent can maybe get a person on the line if the caller bypasses the office’s unique filtering system that aims to block outside callers from clogging up the phone lines.

Aides to Ocasio-Cortez say the issue is call volume. Their office deployed a special phone filtering system that blocks callers without New York or DC area codes from even making it through. Such callers get a message directing them to the Bronx Democrat’s website. There’s no option to leave a message.

“With the filter on only DC and New York phone numbers can get through,” spokesman Corbin Trent told The Post, acknowledging that his out-of-state cellphone wouldn’t be able to call the main office. “When you are getting the volume of incoming that we get, the most important thing is to try to filter out some of the volume to get the people you are actually supposed to be here to work for.”

The House’s office of the Chief Administrative Officer confirms that area code phone filters are available for members concerned about high call volume. A rep couldn’t say how many members utilize the blocking service aside from AOC.

Other members of Congress with a large national profile have staff picking up phones in their DC and district offices consistently, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and AOC’s fellow freshmen “squad” members. The Post was able to get through even when calling from an area code outside of DC and not from the member’s home state.

Critics of Ocasio-Cortez suggest making constituents play phone tag is proof that she’s more show pony than work horse.

“She has no plans to serve the people. That’s why she has no constituent services operation,” one Congressional Democratic aide told The Post. “If you’re a grandma in Queens who needs help with her Medicare and you call AOC’s ‘district office’ you get a recording that tells you to visit the website instead.”

“What kind of elitist nonsense is that?” the aide said. “Shameful, it’s all shameful.”

DONATE NOW TO BUILD THE WALL WITH BRIAN KOLFAGE, CLICK BELOW:

President Trump is “very seriously” looking at ending the current policy of birthright citizenship in the United States. That practice permitted hundreds of thousands of U.S.-born children sired by illegal aliens to be rewarded with American citizenship every year. While speaking with reporters on Wednesday, Trump said his administration was reviewing an executive order to end the “ridiculous” birthright citizenship policy. No more “anchor babies.” It’s about damn time.

“We’re looking at that very seriously — birthright citizenship. Where you have a baby on our land, you walk over the border, have a baby, congratulations the baby is now a U.S. citizen,” Trump said. “We’re looking at it very, very seriously.” It should have been addressed decades ago. The very idea that you can walk across the southern border, squat and give birth, thereby creating an American citizen and tagging along for the ride, is just ludicrous. “We are looking at birthright citizenship very seriously,” Trump continued: “It’s, frankly, ridiculous.”

From Breitbart:

“Nearly a year ago, Trump promised that he was readying an executive order to end birthright citizenship, but the issue has been stalled since October 2018. To date, the U.S. Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled that the children of illegal aliens must be granted birthright citizenship, and many legal scholars dispute the idea.

“The children of illegal aliens, after being granted birthright citizenship, are able to anchor their illegal alien and noncitizen parents in the U.S. and eventually are allowed to bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the country through the legal immigration process known as “chain migration.”

“Today, there are at least 4.5 million anchor babies in the U.S., exceeding the annual roughly four million American babies born every year and costing American taxpayers about $2.4 billion every year to subsidize hospital costs. Every year, about 300,000 anchor babies are born in the country and as of June, there has been an average of about 124,000 anchor babies already born this year.

“The sanctuary state of California is home to at least 1.2 million anchor babies under the age of 18, as Breitbart News reported. This is roughly twice the total population of Wyoming. The total of anchor babies under the age of 18 in ten U.S. states is more than four times the population of Boston, Massachusetts.

“In total, there are now an unprecedented 62 million immigrants and their U.S.-born children living across the country, as Breitbart News has previously reported. As of 2017, there were 17.1 million U.S.-born minor children of immigrants in the country.

“The U.S. is nearly alone in granting birthright citizenship to the children of foreign nationals and, specifically, illegal aliens. For example, the U.S. and Canada are the only two developed nations with birthright citizenship. On the other hand, countries such as France, the United Kingdom, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, Italy, and Germany all have either outlawed birthright citizenship or never had such a policy.

“Most recently, Breitbart News reported how pregnant migrant women are waiting in shelters in Mexico with the hope that they will be granted asylum in the U.S. to secure American citizenship for their children.”

Data: Average of 124K Anchor Babies Born in U.S. This Year So Farhttps://t.co/zCxGdmWC8s

— John Binder 👽 (@JxhnBinder) June 7, 2019

When Trump was informed that one reporter knew of Trump’s intent to go forward with an executive order, which he had mentioned in 2018, he responded, “I don’t know how you found that out, but that’s very good. We’re looking at birthright citizenship very seriously. It’s frankly ridiculous.” Good for President Trump. I wish he’d done this a year ago.

In October 2018, Trump stated, “We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years, with all of those benefits. It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous. And it has to end.” When interviewer Jonathan Swan asked whether he had “talked about it with counsel,” Trump answered, “Yeah, I have.” He was then asked where in the process he was, prompting Trump to reply, “It’s in the process; it will happen … an executive order, that’s what you’re talking about … I didn’t think anybody knew that but me. I thought I was the only one. Jonathan, I’m impressed.”

In 2010, the Pew Hispanic Center estimated that roughly 8% of children born in the United States were born to illegal immigrants, a total of 340,000 babies. That number has exploded in the last few years.

Leftists who defend birthright citizenship claim that the 14th Amendment supports their position. The Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Vice President Mike Pence has differed, saying in 2018, “We all cherish the language of the 14th Amendment, but the Supreme Court of the United States has never ruled on whether the language of the 14th Amendment — ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ — applies specifically to people who are in the country illegally.” A point I have made many, many times.

Trump’s move does not change the amendment. Since the Supreme Court will not rule and clarify on it, this EO would simply be a move outside the purview of the amendment itself. Again, constitutional legal scholars will point to ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’. If you illegally enter from another country, you answer to the jurisdiction of your country of origin, not the U.S.

President Trump should be commended for this move but again, he will be vilified for it. I sincerely hope he does do this… the flood and invasive tactic of “anchor babies” needs to be stopped. It is a national security issue, not just an illegal immigration one.

DONATE NOW TO BUILD THE WALL WITH BRIAN KOLFAGE, CLICK BELOW: