Nancy Mace Reveals 1 Of Her ‘Favorite' Hobbies, And It's So Cruel People Think She's ‘Sick'
On Sunday, Mace appeared on 'Fox Report Weekend' and shared one of her new 'favorite' hobbies with host Jon Scott.
'I have to tell you, one of my favorite things to watch on YouTube these days are the court hearings where illegals are in court, and ICE shows up to drag them out of court and deport them,' Mace said, presumably while stroking a white cat on her lap like a James Bond villain.
Mace, unfortunately, continued, 'I can think of nothing more American today than keeping our streets safer by getting those violent criminals out of the United States of America, and we all have Donald J. Trump to thank for it.'
Considering that the Trump administration's aggressive and inhumane deportation policies are unpopular with a majority of Americans, many users on X, formerly Twitter, were disgusted by Mace's remarks.
A longer clip of Mace's appearance on 'Fox Report Weekend,' which was obtained by The Daily Beast, shows that Mace's Dr. Evil-esque comments were prompted by a graphic featured on Scott's show that read, 'Trump Crackdown in Sanctuary Cities.' The graphic seemed to indicate that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers in New York City have risen 400% since former President Joe Biden was in office.
'Clearly, there's a new sheriff in town,' Scott said.
Mace agreed before adding the fun little tidbit that she's proposed a new bill to 'defund and take tax breaks' away from so-called sanctuary cities like New York.
Trump and the Republican Party have long utilized racist rhetoric implying that all undocumented people are rapists and murderers. But recent data collected by the Deportation Data Project, a group that collects immigration numbers, indicates that about 30,000 people in immigration detention do not have a criminal record, NPR reports.
Last week, HuffPost's Matt Shuham described what he saw over five days in immigration court in New York City this month.
One of the more shocking quotes Shuham got during his time observing at the courthouse was from an unnamed federal agent involved with immigration court arrests.
'This is fishing in a stocked pool,' the agent told Shuham. 'You tell them, 'Show up at this location,' and then they show up and you grab them.'
The agent also noted that special agents who deal with more complex crimes are being pulled off their assignments to do courthouse arrests. 'If you are a criminal,' the agent added, 'now is an easier time for you.'
Related...
I Watched 20 Arrests In Trump's America. Here's What They Looked Like.
Nancy Mace Challenges Gavin Newsom To Debate So She Can 'Emasculate' Him
Nancy Mace's 'Perverse' Migrant 'Dream' For Own State Gets Slammed Online
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
11 minutes ago
- New York Post
Axing EPA's ‘endangerment' BS will unleash a new era of US prosperity
Hooray for President Donald Trump and EPA chief Lee Zeldin for moving to roll back trillions of dollars in federal mandates by undoing the Obama-era greenhouse-gas 'endangerment' finding. Back in 2009, Environmental Protection Agency functionaries listed carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as posing a public-health threat — not for any actual toxicity, but because of their role in speeding global warming. That in turn allowed for unprecedented EPA regulation of factories, power plants and auto emissions — including the hated stop-start feature. None of it ever made sense: Congress created the EPA in 1970 to fight actual poisons in our water and air, not to manage complex bank-shot contingencies as the 'endangerment' finding envisioned. After long teasing the repeal, Zeldin finally made the 'largest deregulatory action in the history of America' official Tuesday; it'll be a huge win for energy sanity. After all, anti-carbon mandates do major immediate harm to public health, by making electricity and other goods far more expensive: This green madness is a major reason why Western Europe has seen next to zero economic growth over the last two decades. And much of it makes little sense even as anti-climate-change policy: The EPA itself admits that the vehicle stop-start feature — which kills internal-combustion engines at red lights — hasn't shown clear reductions in emissions. Yes, cutting carbon emissions is an important long-term goal — but trying to make them zero immediately is nuts, especially when China is still building new coal plants at a record pace. The nation (and the world!) is far better served by Trump's drive to boost US energy production and ensure a plentiful and reliable supply of cheaper electricity to meet the growing demands of manufacturers and AI companies. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters For all progressives' current talk of 'affordability,' energy costs remain by far the single most important issue when it comes to improving public health and quality of life. But the anti-carbon cult has a death grip on the elites who set the Democratic agenda; expect a vast wave of propaganda posing as news and invective pretending to be science in response to Zeldin's move. Lawsuits, as well — since Democrats snuck language declaring greenhouse gases to be 'pollutants' into the utterly mislabeled 'Inflation Reduction Act' three years ago. Republicans in Congress need to put rolling back that absurdity high on their agenda when Congress reconvenes in the fall.
Atlantic
12 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Are Tax Cuts a Political Loser Now?
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. In theory, the proposition seems foolproof: Everyone hates the taxman and loves to keep their money, so a tax cut must be politically popular. But Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill Act has tested the theory and found it wanting. A new Wall Street Journal poll shows that more than half of Americans oppose the law, which cuts taxes for many Americans while reducing government spending. That result is in line with other polling. The data journalist G. Elliott Morris notes that only one major piece of legislation enacted since 1990 was nearly so unpopular: the 2017 tax cuts signed by President Donald Trump. The response to the 2017 cuts was fascinating. Americans grasped that the wealthy would benefit most from the law, but surveys showed that large swathes of the population incorrectly believed that they would not get a break. 'If we can't sell this to the American people then we should be in another line of work,' Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said at the time. Americans agreed, giving Democrats control of the House a year later. If tax cuts are no longer political winners, that's a major shift in American politics. McConnell's sentiment reflected the orthodoxy in both parties for more than four decades. Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980 by promising to cut taxes, which he did—in both 1981 and 1986. The first cut was broadly popular; the second had plurality support. His successor, George H. W. Bush, told voters while campaigning, 'Read my lips: no new taxes,' and his eventual assent to tax hikes while in office was blamed in part for his 1992 defeat. The next GOP president—his son, George W.—made popular tax cuts. Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were careful to back higher income taxes only on the wealthy. Although separating Trump's own low approval from the way the public feels about any particular policy he pursues is difficult, the old consensus may just no longer hold. A few factors might explain the shift. First, thanks to 45 years of reductions, the overall tax burden is a lot lower than it was when Reagan took office, especially for wealthy taxpayers. In 1980, the top marginal individual tax rate —what the highest earners paid on their top tranche of income—was 70 percent; it had been as high as 92 percent, in 1952 and 1953. In 2024, it was 37 percent, applying only to income greater than $609,350. Since 1945, the average effective tax rate has dropped significantly for the top 1 percent and 0.01 percent of earners, while staying basically flat for the average taxpayer, according to the Tax Policy Center. The top corporate tax rate has also dropped from a high of 52.8 percent, in 1968 and 1969, to 21 percent, in 2024. Second, and not unrelatedly, income inequality has risen sharply. Although the gap between the wealthiest Americans and the rest of us has stabilized in the past few years, it remains well above historical averages. Voters aren't interested in subsidizing even-plusher lifestyles for the richest Americans. That's especially true when tax cuts are paired with cuts to government-assistance programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Majorities of people in polls say Trump's policy bill will mostly help the rich and hurt the poor, and they are correct, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Third, Republicans have argued for years that tax cuts are good policy because they generate enough growth to pay for themselves. This effect is known as the Laffer Curve, named after the influential conservative economist Art Laffer, and it allows supposed fiscal conservatives to justify tax cuts that increase the deficit in the short term. The problem is that it isn't true. Reagan's tax cuts didn't pay for themselves, nor did W. Bush's, nor did Trump's first-term cuts. These cuts won't either. Voters also consistently worry about the national debt and deficit, and today even liberal economists who wrote those concerns off in the past are sounding alarms, citing the cost of interest payments on the debt and concerns about the debt as a percentage of GDP. This points to a future problem: Even if voters have soured on tax cuts, that doesn't mean they are willing to endorse tax increases. As my colleague Russell Berman explained to me back in May, Republicans felt pressure to pass the budget bill, lest the first-term Trump tax cuts expire—which voters would hate, and which could hurt the economy. (Those cuts were time-limited as part of procedural chicanery.) And few politicians are willing to run on raising taxes. Most Republicans have signed a pledge not to raise taxes. Trump's tariffs are a tax, and he made them central to his campaign, but he also falsely insisted that Americans wouldn't pay their cost. On the other side of the aisle, Democrats have in recent cycles vowed to raise taxes on the very wealthy but generally rejected increases for anyone else. This math won't work out forever. At some point, Americans will have to reconcile the national debt, their desire for social services, and their love of low taxes. It will take a brave politician to tell them that. Here are four new stories from The Atlantic: Today's News A gunman killed four people and critically injured another in a shooting at a building in Midtown Manhattan yesterday evening. He was found dead, and police say a note in his wallet indicated that he may have targeted the NFL's headquarters. The Environmental Protection Agency proposed a revocation of its 2009 finding that greenhouse gases threaten public health, in an effort to end federal climate regulations under the Clean Air Act. The proposal seeks to remove emissions limits for cars, power plants, and oil and gas operations. Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyers said today that Maxwell, who was convicted of child sex trafficking and other crimes, would be willing to testify before Congress under certain conditions, including receiving immunity and the questions in advance. The House Oversight Committee rejected the request. Evening Read Homes Still Aren't Designed for a Body Like Mine By Jessica Slice Seven years ago, while sitting in my eighth-floor apartment with my toddler, I heard a voice over the intercom: Our building had a gas leak, and we needed to evacuate. A few weeks prior, a coffee shop down the street had exploded from a gas leak, killing two people and injuring at least 25. Terror struck me: Our elevators were powered down—and I use a wheelchair. I was trapped, unable to take myself and my child to safety. The fire department quickly determined that it was a false alarm. Still, I didn't stop shaking for hours. After a similar episode a few months later, my husband, David, and I bought a duffel bag the size of a human. We invited our neighbors over for pastries and asked if anyone would be willing to help carry me out during an emergency; my toddler could ride in the bag with me. A few neighbors agreed, but I couldn't ignore that my survival—and that of my child—was contingent on who else might be at home, and who might remember our request and be able to reach me. Eight months later, we moved out. We vowed never to live in a high-rise again. Yet nothing could free me from the indignities of seeking housing while disabled. More From The Atlantic Culture Break Watch. In 2022, David Sims recommended 10 must-watch indie films of the summer —each of which are worthy of as much fanfare as the season's blockbusters. When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.
Washington Post
12 minutes ago
- Washington Post
The road map to making America a crypto superpower
Scott Bessent is the U.S. treasury secretary. Innovation defines the American spirit. But it requires balanced, forward-looking regulation to thrive. No one understands this better than President Donald Trump, whose leadership on digital asset policy has led to a revolution in payments technology that will buttress the dollar and onshore innovation and secure the United States' position as a crypto superpower.
