Veteran sues HOA board for right to fly the American flag

close

Video

Veteran sues HOA board for right to fly the American flag

Attorneys Gayle Trotter and Scott Bolden weigh in the the veteran's rights during this week's edition of The Arbiter on 'The Ingraham Angle.'

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," February 7, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

INGRAHAM: All right. Thanks so much. I'm Laura Ingraham. This is “The Ingraham Angle” from Washington tonight. All right. You've heard some of this, but we're going to really, really pull the threads out of this.

Now check it out. Eliminating cars, airplanes, flatulent cows and for good measure, tearing down all of our buildings. Yes, those are just some of the modest proposals included inside Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's green new raw deal. We're going to explain what it means for you and why 2020 Dems are embarrassingly lining up behind it.

Plus Adam Schiff, takes aim at Devin Nunes over what he claims was an incomplete Russia inquiry. Well, Congressman Nunes is here to react and a few more tidbits in there. And the court yes is in session, will I wear that doily around my neck. You're going to have to wait to see that.

And now in tonight's case of "The Arbiter", the case of a veteran being denied the right to fly the American flag, I kid you not, two lawyers take up the case and the Judge namely (May) will have a ruling. But, first, the rise of the PC Puritans: Part II, that's the focus of tonight's angle.

Another day, another liberal icon caught up in the sensitivity trap.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAVEN-SYMON, AMERICAN ACTRESS: Is that you, Joy?

JOY BEHAR, CO-HOST OF THE VIEW: This picture -- I was --

SYMON: Joy, is that you? Joy, are you black? Joy -- are you my auntie, Joy?"

BEHAR: It was a Halloween Party, I went as a beautiful African woman.

SYMON: Yeah, but you ain't black

BEHAR: But that's my hair.

SYMON: That is -- but, yes, it is.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The whole point is -- hair is coming back?

SYMON: You thought that was --

BEHAR: That is me.

SYMON: Did you have tanning lotion on?

BEHAR: I had makeup that was a little bit darker than my skin.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well, less than a week ago it was Virginia Democrat Governor, Ralph Northam who fresh off extolling the virtues of infanticide was exposed for posting this photo on his med school yearbook page.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. RALPH NORTHAM, D-VA: I'm deeply sorry. I cannot change the decisions I made. But I accept responsibility for my past actions and I'm ready to do the hard work of regaining your trust.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well he's still trying. And then it was his potential successor Democrat Lieutenant Governor, Justin Fairfax, now in his own he-said she- said, lurid "metoo" controversy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VIRGINIA LT. GOV. JUSTIN FAIRFAX: It won't be corroborated, because it's not true and it didn't happen in the way that was portrayed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well then yesterday it was his second in line to the governorship, Democrat Attorney General, Mark Herring who tried to get out in front of his own almost, 40-year old mistake. Herring admitted that he too had donned blackface for a college party back in 1980 when he and his friends "dressed like rappers". He apologized profusely. But Democratic leaders, this week, they're running for cover.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DEM VA SEN KAINE: This week has just made me sick -- just made me sick. From Friday to now and it's been one round of bad news after the next and it's shocking and surprising.

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: -- it's sad because, they have some very talented leaders there, but they have to have the confidence of the electorate and they have to have the confidence of the legislature that they have to work with.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: She should have just done that menu reading thing. She was doing during the State of the Union, just ignored the question altogether. Well, look, now corporations are also worried.

This week Adidas hold back an all-white -- almost all-white sneaker, because its release was deemed racist, for it's coinciding with Black History Month. Jeffry Jason who's a shoe maven tweeted. "Adidas you're really "celebrating black culture" with an "Uncaged" all WHITE "Ultraboost?!"

Well, but if tennis a racist, what about -- and now the fashion house Gucci is also apologizing. Well, what's the controversy? Look at it. This bizarre sweater mask situation that covers half of the wearer's mouth.

The company recalled the design from its online and physical stores after one fashionista tweeted out, "Balaclava knit top by Gucci. Happy Black History Month y'all." Look, demeaning portrayals of anyone on the basis of race or ethnicity is deplorable and should be called out as such.

Yet, we as Americans, we also have to be careful not to rush in to condemn people or frankly businesses because of uncorroborated allegations or decades-old conduct or just disagreement about fashion. Bowing to the every demand of the politically correct puritans puts us on a dangerous path, slippery slope, whatever you want to call it.

The concern is that without some safe space to make mistakes in the past, good people won't want to be involved in public life at all. They're going to be fearful that something they said or did years ago will now be considered unforgivable and irredeemable and -- to Joy Behar.

The easiest thing for me to do would be relish this moment and grind her into the dirt for the double standard. She has been incredibly uncharitable to me, personally, over the years. I've go on the show and so forth. But I'm not going to take that bait. I prefer to try to stick to the principle of fairness.

I don't think she's a racist. I disagree with her, but I don't think she's a racist. And a goofy photo from 1972 isn't going to make me change my mind. But we all need to take a breath and evaluate patterns of behavior rather than rushing to judgment, real discriminatory conduct or intent.

And for goodness sake, when we have reached a point where white tennis shoes are considered racist, maybe it's time to reconsider the shifting standards of the PC puritans, and that's the angle.

Joining me now with reaction Dinesh D'souza, Conservative Filmmaker, Niger Innis, National Spokesperson for the Congress of Racial Equality and Ladawn Jones, Democratic Strategist. Niger let's start with you. Are we already over the tipping point here of what is and what is not racist with the tennis shoe and their other fashion houses that are dealing with other issues? What about that?

NIGER INNIS, CONGRESS OF RACIAL EQUALITY: There is a politically correct reign of terror that is actually going to end up terrorizing us all. A good friend and a Fox News Contributor, Deneen Borelli wrote in her book, that "If everything is racist, then nothing is".

And the problem is to conflate some kids in high school wanting to give tribute to Michael Jackson or to a rapper by trying to look like them. And conflating that with the historic racism that Black Americans have had to deal with over the centuries, actually minimizes and actually belittles the real history and what has happened to African-Americans.

I think we all need to take a deep breath. I mean, are we going to go into Whoopi Goldberg and Ted Danson who were in -- involved in a relationship and Ted Danson actually went out in full blackface and Whoopi Goldberg was not only not offended, she enjoyed it thoroughly, and laughed about it. It was done, I think, at some type of Friar's Roast.

INGRAHAM: Well, there is a lot of celebrities.

INNIS: I think we all need to take a deep breath and realize how far we've come on racial --

INGRAHAM: Yes, Ladawn, I assume you disagree with Niger.

LADAWN JONES, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I absolutely disagree. So first of all, we know we will not be able to get everyone to agree 100% on any issue, particularly on race in America.

However, the problem that you're missing is that we're worried about, well, isn't it time for us to get over it? Instead of taking a moment to really realize why is this an issue. I think that there are too many Americans who are not realizing that the racist overtones, the racist history has to be acknowledged first.

We're just passing it over, "Oh, it was just the 80s. Oh, it was just --

INGRAHAM: So do you think Joy Behar is racists for having gone at a Halloween costume as she said as a beautiful African woman? I mean she's pretty big liberal.

JONES: So I will not say anyone, including the Governor of Virginia is racist based on one photo. That do not make racism based on one photo. But what it does do is make insensitivity. And when you have a platform, when you have an opportunity to talk about these issues, whether they happened yesterday or in the past, it's necessary to do, instead of just pushing it off like Megyn Kelly and saying, "Oh, it's no big deal. I just thought it was just makeup".

INGRAHAM: Dinesh, Eric Dyson, Political Analyst had an interesting comment about the privilege issue and the blackface issue. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIC DYSON, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: This shows the vast reaches of ignorance, the magnitude of unconsciousness that many white people have and are allowed to have. So when we talk about white privilege, count this as one.

When people say I don't understand it, the fact that you don't have to know about blackface, the fact that you don't have to know the consequences of racial intolerance are indicative of a serious kind of white privilege that we need to attack.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Dinesh, I know you are heading to Dartmouth, Alma Mater. You're going to give a speech. On Monday you're probably going to have to be asked a lot of questions about issues like this.

But what about what he said? Like, a person who is white cannot understand what that image does to the psyche of an African-American person with all the history that, of course, we acknowledge or should acknowledge.

DINESH D'SOUZA, CONSERVATIVE FILMMAKER: Well, I think that the issue that Dyson is sidelining here, and really the big surprise of all this, is that these examples, you may say of shocking insensitivity, if you want to call it that, are coming from the democrats and from the progressives.

Gucci and Adidas a very progressive corporations, Joy Behar is on the Left, Ralph Northam is a Democrat, Mark Herring is a Democrat. So we've been told for a whole generation now that the parties switched sides. So the Democrats might have been racist a 100 years ago, but the racism is now metamorphosed into the Republican Party. The racist democrats became Republican.

Now I've been maintaining in my movies, in my books and this is not so. That the racist strain remained in the Democratic Party, the Racist Dixiecrats never became Republicans. And so the stuff in Virginia is a stunning vindication of that. Interestingly --

INGRAHAM: Yes. Now, hold on, hold on. Are you actually saying that you think Ralph Northam and the Mark Herring, the Speaker of the House -- excuse me, the Attorney General that they're racist, because of these old photos or it was insensitive? I mean, I like, I said you don't think you're racist for those photos. I mean, they are bad choices.

D'SOUZA: Well, here's what I'm saying -- here's what I'm saying. I don't think it's -- one can simply focus on the photo. Look at the look at the other side of Northam. The reason this whole thing came to light was because of Northam's shocking defense of a certain kind of infanticide. Right? A certain kind of leaving the baby to die even when it's viable outside the womb.

Now, let's remember, this is this was exactly the position of Margaret Sanger a 100 years ago. So in other words a 100 years ago in the Democratic Party and in the progressive movement, you had on the one hand a condoning of racism of the Ku Klux Klan of Black Vaudeville, of blackface. And on the other hand this kind of idea that "human weeds", to use the phrase Margaret Sanger used, should be disposed.

So what I'm saying is that this racism, this thread of looking at people as unwanted a feeling that we should be able to get rid of them, this is still in the Democratic Party and we can't lose sight of that.

INGRAHAM: Niger -- hold on, I want to get this to Niger and then we'll get back to you. This is what Al Sharpton said today about the Northam controversy, specifically let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REV. AL SHARPTON, CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST: If the governor wants to repent and grow, if the Attorney General wants to repent and grow, good! And the best example of that is to say, "I am resigning and I'm going to tour and tell people that I gave up my seat for a greater seat".

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Niger, the need for repentance from Al Sharpton, thoughts.

INNIS: The irony of Sharpton demanding repentance for things that one said many, many years ago is rich with irony. Look, I agree with Dinesh in this one sense. Here's how the Democratic Party has not changed. It was racially obsessed 50, 100 years ago during the segregation era.

It is now race and identity politics obsessed, bet it race, bet it gender, be it sexual orientation, be had whatever little category they want to put human beings and free individuals in. That is today's Democratic Party. And it's also a Democratic Party that is cavalier on the history of racism.

When a Joe Biden can go before a black audience and say because of the policies of the Republican Party they -- literally he says, "They want to put you back in chains" that shows a contempt that Vice President Joe Biden -- I guess Vice presidential candidate at the time, Joe Biden had for the history of Black Americans in our country, and that's the problem with this. As I said earlier quoting Deneen.

JONES: Laura Well, if I can jump --

INNIS: If every single thing is racism -- if every silly manifestation is racism then nothing is.

INGRAHAM: I mean, Ladawn, I want you to respond to that. But let's just focus on the sneaker. It's something everyone can understand like there's a sneaker released by Adidas, another very progressive company, Dinesh pointed out.

They release the sneaker, I guess, in in honor of Black History Month. And a lot of the sneakers, I guess, now are white -- I guess, well, it's like they're going back to white or white with a simple stripe.

And I guess the name of certain types of sneakers the way they're constructed there either caged or on caged, that's -- if you collect sneakers that's, I guess, a big thing caged or uncaged, I don't even know what that means. But so they're describing it. Do you think the sneaker needed to be recalled as a race -- because it was racist? Do you believe that? I bet you don't. That's my guess, right or wrong?

JONES: Well let me say this. I think what the sneaker represents is what I think all white Americans and unlike my counterpart, it is not about Democrat or Republican. This is one of those black and white issues in America.

What the Adidas represented was they don't have to understand why people think it's racist. They don't have to feel the need to be able to prove that it was or was not. They said if this is how people feel it is not important enough for us to have the shoe to put it out.

And all white Americans, whether you be Republican or Democrat when you see these issues of race come up -- and I'm not saying you have to follow every rabbit trail. The moment you say well I don't understand why I was racist or that shit how it was, you are expressing white privilege. And instead of doing that, just accept it and move on. I don't have a need to things - -

INGRAHAM: I was reading that Twitter.

JONES: -- racist against white people.

INGRAHAM: No, I get what you're saying --

JONES: -- why can't white people just move on.

INGRAHAM: I get what you're saying Ladawn. I was reading a lot of that -- like the sports, the blog commentary on this. It was fascinating, because there was actually no, I didn't see a big consensus on the sneaker issue, maybe on some of the other issues but not on that.

Dinesh, finally there people there are people out there saying that that sexual assault is not even as bad as what's happening with some of these other controversies. This happened on a radio show. I just want to play it quickly, we're running over. It's important to play this, let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If it boils down to Justin Fairfax having to resign and the two blackface people don't, then those very same people will say, now wait a minute, that's sort of a double standard.

STEPHANIE RUHLE, ANCHOR MSNBC: But hold on a second. Sexual assault is a crime, and blackface is awful, but it's not a crime.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The original crime was blackface on the part of Northam --

RUHLE: Which is also, but it's not a crime.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was a crime just as black people

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Obviously that's on MSNBC. Very quickly Dinesh.

D'SOUZA: To my view of thinking really it was Northam's position on infanticide that should make him resign, it's almost -- this is almost like the OJ case in which they ultimately got him for stealing is all his own memorabilia. But his real crime was what he did to Nicole. Similarly here, Northam's real crime is his horrific position on infanticide. I think the blackface issue might end up getting him and it will be just desserts.

INGRAHAM: All right. Everybody thanks so much. Great panel. And coming up the new crop of Dems don't just have different ideas than you, well they want to radically alter the way you live your everyday life. Again how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal -- I mean, I'm even wearing a dress that's green, I could very well bankrupt us as a society. Stay there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ'S, D-N.Y.: I don't think that we lose elections by addressing climate change. I don't think we ever had and I don't we ever will. We are in this together. We are a 100 percent in this together. We have different solutions and different mechanism, different cars, we got to drive to get there.

INGRAHAM: Well, what she fails to mention is that different cars would mean basically 99 percent of those currently on the road. That's just one of the more ridiculous proposals. And the draft of her Green New Deal released today.

So do you like flying across the country in five hours? Well, too bad. The AOC plan calls for building "high-speed rail" at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary. Sorry, Hawaii. Do you prefer to heat your home at an affordable cost? Too bad. The Green New Deal will end all traditional forms of energy.

Unless you think it's relegated to mere climate radicalism, check out this nugget. It would guarantee "Economic Security" for all who are unable or unwilling to work. Unwilling? Is this a fever dream? Here now, David Harsanyi, Senior Editor at the Federalist and Sweta Chakraborty, Fellow at the Center for Climate And Security.

David four of the top 2020 contenders, Booker Gillibrand, Warren Harris have all rushed in to support this green new deal so is this a litmus test for the left?

DAVID HARSANYI, SENIOR EDITOR AT THE FEDERALIST: I think it is I mean they jumped in and supported it before they even knew what was in it which is something. I guess democrats occasionally do with Obamacare and other things but now they've inadvertently now supported all these crazy -- a Trojan horse filled with socialist planning on housing and food and everything else it's going to be very hard for them to now to back out from that.

INGRAHAM: The only thing I didn't see in there was what we were talking about before clothing that we'll probably -- but I didn't see any clothing references the type of clothing. Everything else was pretty much covered all right so what i want to get to you.

This is what AOC said this morning she was on this morning So this on this morning early on NPR and this then she changed her tune a little bit about how much government would be required to enact this agenda. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you prepared to put on the table that yes actually there right what this requires is massive government intervention.

ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: It does, yes, I have no problem saying. That one way that the right does try to mischaracterize what we're doing as though it's like some kind of massive government takeover.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: That whoops -- I mean, you just said, it was happy to say it's going to take massive government intervention, down by the afternoon she's probably heard the heat some a leadership that's not going to fly with most Americans. How is this make any sense?

SWETA CHAKRABORTY, FELLOW AT THE CENTER FOR CLIMATE AND SECURITY: So the reason I support this from somebody who is really entrenched in evidence, I look at the facts I look at the science and this is the only policy plan I've seen put forward that commiserate with the magnitude of the challenges that we are going to be experiencing that are stemming from the planet warming.

If you look at what NASA and NOAA just put out they started they told us clearly that this is 2018 was one of the hottest years on record making the last four years hottest years on record within the last five years. The planet is warming we need to take some actions that are going to address that.

INGRAHAM: So they well it's pretty cold right now in Minnesota but that's just a snapshot. I mean it's been a brutal winter.

CHAKRABORTY: Yeah well that's weather versus climate.

INGRAHAM: It was global warming, now as climate change things are things kind of changed terminology changes. But I hear what you're saying. Here's what Markey said. Ed Markey is kind of the co-sponsor of all this. He was just on tonight over at MSNBC. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How much spending are we talking about give me a ballpark figure.

ED MARKEY: Well we don't have any specific prescriptions, but most of the role will be played by the private sector it's the greatest single blue- collar job creation revolution in two generations.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHAKRABORTY: David this sounds great the job crime for blue-collar jobs is, I'm populist conservative get people to work solar wind renewables changing the way plastic is made they're already doing a lot of that technology so could that actually be the case even though no prescriptions yet just it's a resolution everyone should know this it's a resolution with no policy prescriptions, really.

HARSANYI: Well resolution means nothing because people can do all these things now if they want to. I mean solar energy. I think generates about 1.3 percent of our energy we would dismantle contemporary society to get this done it would cost 25 bazillion dollars to go into every single house and change the water cooling system, the heating give up your car retrofit everything it is just immature.

It's something and like someone in high school would right. I mean this is not real it can't be legislation and it's not serious, so I'm not sure what presidential candidates feel the need to support this.

INGRAHAM: Why does nuclear something you all have problems that's a cleanest energy of all.

CHAKRABORTY: So there's this is a really ambitious plan that is looking to go to renewable electricity. And I would say let's go to renewable energy and that still includes nuclear and the reason for that is we want to keep all the options on the table.

INGRAHAM: Except cars and everything that we all drive my three clunkers in the. I have three clunkers not two three clunkers they're all out the window.

CHAKRABORTY: It's going to be more expensive Laura if we don't act we're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars in relief.

INGRAHAM: .people watching regular people like parents so that I had growing up they make a lot of money but there's regular people there listening to this go, "Oh my god I can't afford to look -- I can barely afford to live now without working two jobs.

I'm not going to be able to forward any of this so it's nice to say like. Michael Bloomberg said we got to not do pie in the sky stuff. Bloomberg big, big, big, greeniac. I wore green as you all know.

But big greeniac Bloomberg said, can't do the pie in the sky because you're going to turn off all these people maybe you can get to kind of agree on more of the truly private stuff.

HARSANYI: Yes, we have to believe in science and let's say everything we're saying about the future is true. but economics also matters. There are rules to society. We can simply discard the constitution, discard economic realities and just essentially kill American society, because that's what

INGRAHAM: Kill it so save it, sounds like what Northam was saying.

HARSANYI: And meanwhile there's China and India who will not do that and it will simply destroy us.

INGRAHAM: The last word real quick.

CHAKRABORTY: With all due respect it will be cheaper if we proactively act now for the economy overall.

INGRAHAM: WHAT do you drive?

CHAKRABORTY: I drive. Damn truck.

INGRAHAM: All right you got no car. The new generation.

HARSANYI: Fossil fuel gen.

INGRAHAM: Democrats claim they aren't for open borders, but what happens when their young new stars reveal the game. We're going to show you next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The president does not like any form of immigration. He is criminalizing a population of people in the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STACEY ABRAMS, D-GA, FORMER GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: Compassionate treatment at the border is not the same as open borders.

REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO, D-TX: I'm not for open borders. I'm not for letting everybody in.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We don't want open borders.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Definitely don't want an open border, the left hates open borders, don't you know that? But they don't want a border wall since that's Trump's idea. It's a little confusing to everyone, but I think AOC can clear it all up for us.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OCASIO-CORTEZ: We are standing on Native land, and Latino people are descendants of native people, and we cannot be told and criminalized simply for our identity or our status, period.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: I now get it. People illegally crossing our border cannot be held responsible, I got it. It's a really cool idea.

Joining me now, Harmeet Dhillon, RNC committeewoman for California, Luis Miranda, who is a former DNC comms director. Luis, I get this whole this land is your land, this land is my land, I love it. But does she really think that is going to work as an argument? How does that bring anyone together?

LUIS MIRANDA, FORMER DNC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: There's two separate issues. There's definitely a problem and how this administration is dealing with the immigration issue, creating a crisis that doesn't necessarily exist in the way the president is presenting it. There's obviously a humanitarian crisis. That doesn't mean it's a national security one.

INGRAHAM: If 1,000 people are coming into your home at one time, if it's your personal home, this is a personal home for all of us.

MIRANDA: We are at record lows, and we can handle it.

INGRAHAM: No we can't. We don't have the beds, we don't have the processing centers. We cannot handle it. We're not going to debate that.

MIRANDA: Laura, let's take the other side of this.

INGRAHAM: I know you don't want to talk about what she said that, because that is going to drive most people batty.

MIRANDA: I do want to talk about what she said.

INGRAHAM: OK, she's very clever and kind of cool, but this is where inexperience runs you over.

MIRANDA: The inexperience here really shows for one particular reason. What she is referring to could potentially be a huge problem for Native American tribes which are very much focused on having tribal sovereignty and determining both the membership, the citizenship, and treaty responsibilities --

INGRAHAM: So that's the only thing that's concerning about this, is that the Native Americans will get short shrift in this equation. It's not the fact that people are coming into our border in 2019, crossing our border illegally.

MIRANDA: There are two separate issues. One of them is immigration one, and the other is that the tribes themselves probably wouldn't want this.

INGRAHAM: But she wants to rewrite --

MIRANDA: And I would recommend that she speak to the two new Native American congresswomen who joined her in this class of Congress, Deb Haaland and Sharice Davids, who could surely explain this to her, because there are issues there in terms of --

INGRAHAM: Who got here first. Who really got here first?

MIRANDA: That's an issue.

INGRAHAM: Harmeet, I think for -- putting aside the lineage question, what counts as a Latino, people get it all confused. Anyone originally from Spanish origin, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Central Americans, South Americans, Mexicans. But there is a big dispute among many in that overall group of about who is authentic and who is not? I've been at the table, OK, and I've heard the arguments, and they are kind of fun arguments. But where does this all end up? And is that really where they're going with this open borders argument?

HARMEET DHILLON, ATTORNEY: I think AOC would be shocked to know what other members of her party think about this argument because the seniors -- I was going to say senior citizens, but the seniors in the party including Dianne Feinstein, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, and others have all on the opposite side of the issue from the position she's taking. And even historically, if AOC thinks because historically my people were here, that means everybody gets to come, she would be shocked to learn what the Incas, the Aztecs, and the Mayans did to each other. There have been wars, there have been divisions of geography, and there have been boundaries put throughout history. And if she read her history she would know that.

And I'll add one more thing. The reason that immigrants, and I'm an immigrant, the reason that immigrants come to this country is because this country does have some standards and a higher quality of living and some principles that it lives by. And frankly, if we were to take down those borders and let everybody in and have any standards whatsoever, it actually would be a place that those folks wouldn't want to come to anymore. So the American ideal requires some borders and some limitations, and I think she knows that. And I think Democrats in her party know that. Her position is totally untenable and, frankly, absurd.

INGRAHAM: Again, I keep quoting Bloomberg tonight, which I can't believe, but he keeps saying pie in the sky thinking. He was talking about the Green New Deal, but you can hopscotch over to this issue. And again, inexperience, maybe she gets excited about the issue and she goes full- bore, but I think she's getting bad advice on this.

But she said today, we don't have time to play it, she wants to abolish ICE, she said abolish ICE. This is at a time when we find out of course an MS-13, another murder happened in her district. Yet her big priority is to abolish ICE.

MIRANDA: And this, again, goes back to mismanagement of DHS and ICE by the Trump administration.

INGRAHAM: So the murderer in her district is Trump's fault. You've got to be kidding me. Come with something better at me.

MIRANDA: We do need ICE to carry out important functions. For example, at the Super Bowl they had a lot of breaking up of human trafficking.

INGRAHAM: Oh, come on.

DHILLON: That is absurd.

INGRAHAM: We had MS-13 individual --

MIRANDA: No, no, no, ICE did that.

INGRAHAM: I know they did. But --

MIRANDA: So why are you disagreeing with that?

INGRAHAM: We already talked about --

MIRANDA: That's fine.

INGRAHAM: That was two nights ago.

MIRANDA: So there are legitimate functions for ICE.

INGRAHAM: What you're saying is getting rid of MS-13 isn't?

MIRANDA: When you have ICE chasing down a mom who is dropping off her kids at school instead of focusing on that MS-13 member, then I want to see that. I want to see them focus on the criminals.

INGRAHAM: Well, MS-13 is murdering American, and that counts --

MIRANDA: I'm all for that.

DHILLON: In California --

INGRAHAM: He had a press conference on that.

MIRANDA: But that's not the issue.

DHILLON: People are dying in California every day because of this problem, and we need double and triple the number of ICE enforcing our laws, not less of them. You are mocking the families and the people who have lost their lives and the people whose quality of life has gone down because of this.

MIRANDA: No, what I'm saying is if we can have ICE prioritize on criminals. Don't put words in my mouth.

DHILLON: You're talking about the Super Bowl. You are insulting people who have suffered as a result of this --

MIRANDA: No, I'm not. The work they did at the Super Bowl is important, as is the work that they do breaking up criminal organizations.

INGRAHAM: We had some agreement here.

MIRANDA: We need to have prioritization that's better.

INGRAHAM: My point is, AOC, just as she's excited about the Green New Deal, be excited about standing up for people victimized by crime, because I'm sure deep in her heart she is very worried about that as well. I hope I see it. Both of you, thanks so much.

And Adam Schiff takes aim at House Intel Chair predecessor as he launches new investigations into President Trump. Devin Nunes here to respond, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: The American people have a right to know, indeed have a need to know that their president is acting on their behalf and not for some pecuniary or other reason that pertains to any credible allegations of leverage by the Russians.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Caped crusader himself, Congressman Adam Schiff announcing his expansion of investigations into the Trump campaign, the Trump family, Trump businesses, and whatever else he can probe. In doing so he leveled several shots at my next guest, whom he says was in the pocket of the president. Here to respond, former House Intel Chair, Congressman Devin Nunes. Congressman, what do you make of Schiff's charges?

REP. DEVIN NUNES, R-CALIF.: It was not a surprise he was reopening the Russia investigation, but this is clearly an investigation, again, without a crime. We looked for two years and didn't find anything at all.

And what was amazing the other day is we haven't seen the press people around that much because there has been a whole cottage industry of press people that are in the capital now, right. So for the first time, we show up to our business meeting just to organize, and there must've been 15 cameras down there and 30 press people. And I'm thinking what in the world are these people doing here. We found out because he announced at the business meeting that he was reopening the Russia investigation.

I don't know what these people are going to do, this cottage industry of press people, they are going to have to learn code or something, which was Obama's thing, because they're not going to have a job after this.

INGRAHAM: They are going to bring Whitaker up to testify, I know, tomorrow, who is the acting attorney general. There was some fight in the administration, probably has executive privilege concerns about him going up there. What can you tell us?

NUNES: I don't know why you would want him. He's been the acting A.G. for a month.

INGRAHAM: Any conversations that he had with the president on anything Mueller related, I imagine.

NUNES: But why not bring Rod Rosenstein who started the special counsel, who it's been leaked he's going to be leaving, why would you not bring him in to talk about everything?

INGRAHAM: Eric Swalwell was on CNN tonight, and even Erin Burnett pressed him about the myriad of investigations. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIN BURNETT, CNN ANCHOR: Are you worried at all, Congressman, about Democrats getting mired in these investigations, not doing other work? Right now we've more than 20 up, put as many as could on the screen right now. Are all of these worthwhile?

REP. ERIC SWALWELL, D-CALIF.: More cannot be less. When I was a prosecutor, Erin, I would have defense attorneys come in and their client would have 10 DUIs, and they'd say can we just make them all go away, and he'll plead to one? And I would say no, more is not less.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: More is not less. I think people are just like, oh, he must be so smart. But what is that screen of investigations? That's the agenda, though, that is the agenda, and the Green New Deal.

NUNES: Our committee, the intelligence committee, which is supposed to be overseeing dealing with places like China and Russia and North Korea, doing serious work.

INGRAHAM: Bad actors.

NUNES: Serious work. We are going to go back into Russia again with no new evidence.

INGRAHAM: There's some breaking news, by the way, from "The Hill's" opinion contributing editor John Solomon today about a chance meeting, Congressman, between Schiff and Fusion GPS's Glenn Simpson in Aspen last summer. Both men told Solomon it was just coincidental. What's your take?

NUNES: It kind of sounds like the tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and the former attorney general. Glenn Simpson is at the center of our investigation into FISA and other matters. So if the ranking member at the time was meeting privately with Glenn Simpson, who is the main figure in our investigation. He was the one that was being paid by the Democrats to collude with the Russians. So what they were talking about, I don't know. But can you imagine that I was meeting off the side with some of our witnesses, can you imagine what they would have --

INGRAHAM: And Simpson lied to the -- Simpson was lying.

NUNES: Simpson has lied on multiple occasions. But I think most importantly, though, why would they be -- this is a Democratic operative who got paid to do this. What is the ranking member, no chairman, doing meeting with this guy?

INGRAHAM: And imagine if the shoe had been on the other foot. They were talking about your meeting at the White House or conversation with the president, but this is a central figure in the investigation. It's like Jeff Sessions meeting Kislyak at an RNC cocktail -- hey, ambassador, and that was a key meeting, wasn't it? So it depends on whose ox was gored. Congressman, thank you so much for joining us.

NUNES: Thanks, Laura.

INGRAHAM: And coming up, a vet suing for the right to fly the American flag, and another man wants to sue his parents for actually having him without his consent. You don't want to miss this, "The Arbiter" is up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: This is "The Arbiter," where two attorneys argue a case and I, Judge Laura, make the final ruling. Joining me now are attorneys Scott Bolden and Gayle Trotter. All right, guys, here are the rules of the Court of Ingraham. Each attorney has 30 seconds to lay out the case, whichever side you take, followed by a rebuttal. If the judge needs more info, each of you will have an additional 30 to explain. And at the end I will make my ruling.

First docket case tonight, a man and his flag. "The Sun News" reports that an Air Force bet is suing the HOA board for denying him the right to fly an American flag on a freestanding pole. the board is saying the flag would, quote, "quickly dominate the appearance of the neighborhood," but that smaller flags are OK, and that it's trying to avoid a "who has the largest flagpole or best flagpole" contest. Scott, you've got 30 seconds.

SCOTT BOLDEN, ATTORNEY: Your honor, this is about patriotism. It is about a South Carolina statute that is a carve out the specifically talks about homeowners' associations. It says if it's portable, if it's reasonable, and I'm sorry, if it's portable, reasonable, and removable, then that's a carve out and he can have his flagpole in his yard. That makes sense. He's a veteran. What beautification or negative beautification could there be for the association if the flag dominated the association?

INGRAHAM: Gayle?

GAYLE TROTTER, ATTORNEY: Everyone is sympathetic to Americans' right to proudly unfurl Old Glory.

INGRAHAM: I hear a "but" coming.

TROTTER: But if the homeowner is applying this rule and regulation evenhandedly and not deciding to allow some flags and not allow other flags, then you don't have a constitutional right to put a flagpole up in your neighborhood. And when you purchase property subject to a homeowners' covenant or agreement, then you are agreeing for the property values of everyone in that community that you will abide by those regulations.

INGRAHAM: The ruling here is easy. I'm going with Scott Bolden, because I understand the supremacy clause still does exist and we have a federal statute that actually protects the right to fly a flag. Nice try, both of you.

BOLDEN: Absolutely.

INGRAHAM: But now to a really strange case in India. A man wants to sue his parents for giving birth to him without his consent.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If we are born without our consent, then we should be maintained for the rest of our life. We should be paid to live, by them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(LAUGHTER)

BOLDEN: Your honor.

INGRAHAM: To be clear, no lawsuit has been filed, so it's very possible this is all a big publicity stunt. But we're still going to take it up in the Court of Ingraham. Let's put 30 seconds back on the clock. Gayle, you may begin your argument. Go.

TROTTER: Yes, if I were representing the parents, I would immediately say that the son does not have standing because he did not exist when he was conceived. And if the court viewed that he did have a right to sue or he did have standing, he would not have the capacity to consent when he was an embryo because he would be a minor and his parents would have the legal capacity to consent on his behalf. Also, it turns the entire concept of law upside down.

INGRAHAM: Scott?

BOLDEN: That's what this case is about. But for his parents -- he didn't have a right to choose to come into this world, but for his parents, either they were negligent or they breached the social contract or sexual contract with each other. But the bottom line is he didn't buy into an emancipation statute. He didn't have a choice in coming here. And so as a result his parents have committed a contract with him to provide clothing, food, and all the essentials.

Now, the local statutes and state statutes about emancipation are certainly in place, but he didn't buy into him and they don't apply to him.

INGRAHAM: All right, rebuttal?

TROTTER: I brought you into this world, I can take you out.

INGRAHAM: That's it?

BOLDEN: But if you brought me into it, I want you to take care of me for the rest of my life because I didn't choose to come here.

INGRAHAM: But I have a question, where does society go if this is where case law will go, that children can sue parents for conception? We do we go as a society?

TROTTER: This is an absolutely frivolous lawsuit, and as a parent myself I know that I have contributed way more to my children's education and support and everything else.

INGRAHAM: I would like to know what Ralph Northam would think of this suit, but I'm going to actually not only rule against Scott, but I'm going to sanction you, because this is a frivolous lawsuit and I want to see you in chambers afterwards.

(LAUGHTER)

BOLDEN: Can I brief the subject before you do?

INGRAHAM: No, I'm not taking any briefings en banc.

(LAUGHTER)

INGRAHAM: It's the Court of Ingraham. There's no en banc petition for rehearing.

BOLDEN: But your honor, but your honor.

INGRAHAM: No. Double sanctions for Scott Bolden.

Coming up, exclusive footage of a world after the Green New Deal. Actually, this is breaking news. We've got to be serious about this. Tonight's Last Bite will shock you. Stay there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: My friends, we have seen into the future, and I'm not going to lie to you. It's not good. We have, it is exclusive video of a hellscape that is the result of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal. If you have kids watching, please, please cover their eyes. It's shocking.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Flintstones, meet the Flintstones, they're the modern Stone Age family, from the town of Bedrock --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: I did wear green to celebrate. Well, that's all the time we have tonight. Ed Henry and the "Fox News @ Night Team" take it from here.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.