THE DOCTRINE OF THE N.A.F.T.A. GLOBALIST DEMOCRATS IS TO SERVE THE BILLIONAIRE CLASS WITH ENDLESS WAVES OF INVADING 'CHEAP' LABOR SUBSIDIZED WITH WELFARE FUNDED BY TAXES ON MIDDLE AMERICA.
In many speeches, Mayorkas says he is building a mass migration system to deliver workers to wealthy employers and investors and “equity” to poor foreigners. The nation’s border laws are subordinate to elites’ opinion about “the values of our country,” Mayorkas claims.
"These figures present a scathing
indictment of the social order that prevails in America, the world’s wealthiest
country, whose government proclaims itself to be the globe’s leading democracy.
They are just one manifestation of the human toll taken by the vast and
all-pervasive inequality and mass poverty.
THE BANKSTER FUNDED DEMOCRAT
PARTY: THEY DESTROYED THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS, AMERICA’S BORDERS AND ENDLESSLY
ASSAULTED THE AMERICAN WORKER IN THEIR EFFORTS TO FINISH OFF THE GOP… And they
got filthy rich doing it!
“The Democrats had abandoned their working
class base to chase what they pretended was a racial group when what they were
actually chasing was the momentum of unlimited migration”. DANIEL GREENFIELD / FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE
When the plans for a monument to President Obama in Chicago were unveiled last May, the first impression was of blinding whiteness and the odd massing of a squat tower with wide hips. Very strange for a man whose major claim to fame is being the first black president, and a building in Chicago where soot, grime, and slush are prevalent.
The plan sparked massive community opposition, an irony so telling for the community organizer president that a revised version and a less invasive footprint on park land were announced. The revised design, released three days ago, was a little less white, taller, and slightly less squat, with a bit of texture breaking up the sheer whiteness but retained the cenotaph-like massing of the tower.
If there was a wave of praise and delight for either version of the monument – not a presidential library, housing no presidential records under the control of the National Archives – I missed it entirely. The best that could be said was, via The Chicago Tribune:
The new tower design calls for a high-rise that would be taller, thinner[,] and more transparent than a version unveiled last May, which was widely panned as monolithic and pyramidlike. Portions of the revamped tower's outside walls would consist of screens made of stone letters, making the tower airier while suggesting the importance of words in Barack Obama's presidency.
In a video distributed Tuesday night by the Obama Foundation, the nonprofit tasked with building the center, Obama said the museum tower represents "ascension, hope[,] and what ordinary people have the power to do together."
What could possibly be the intent of the first version and its follow-on?
My friend Lauri Regan had a brilliant insight. Compare the original design to the Martlin Luther King, Jr. monument in Washington, D.C.:
Case closed.
THE MANY CRIMINAL LIVES OF BARACK OBAMA AND HILLARY CLINTON
The thuggishness of Barack was clear early on. There was his land deal, wherein he enriched himself with Tony Rezko in Chicago. All his political wins came by nefariously taking out his political opponents rather than beating them fairly in the arena of ideas. Everyone should have known.
"Obama is no fool and he understands -- having encouraged Black Lives Matter and the war on police and law enforcement, having facilitated ballooning welfare rolls and doubling student debt to $1.35 trillion, having presided over a flood of immigrants illegally crossing the southern border, and having pushed unprecedented deficit spending that added nearly a trillion dollars annually to the federal debt and doubling that debt in eight years to $20 trillion -- that the U.S. is nearer collapse than at any previous time. And every Marxist knows that socialist transformation first requires collapse of the old order."
BARACK OBAMA and ERICK HOLDER: BUILDING OBAMA’S MUSLIM-STYLE DICTATORSHIP requires destroying white middle class first. BLACKS HAVE ALREADY SELF-DESTRUCTED!
January 9, 2018 2:20 pmLast Updated: January 9, 2018 3:35 pm
Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaks at a press conference at the Justice Department in Washington on Dec. 15, 2017. The Justice Department has multiple ongoing investigations on politicians and high-profile officials. (Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times)
For months now, the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have been working in secret to investigate current and former politicians and government officials for alleged corruption and other crimes.
While Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein have remained tight-lipped publicly, it appears they have been working overtime on a slew of high-profile cases.
Some of these investigations by the DOJ have come to light in recent weeks. They range from the Clinton Foundation to the so-called Uranium One deal, as well as allegations of interference by Obama officials with a Drug Enforcement Administration investigation into Hezbollah’s drug trade in the United States.
These cases, however, might be just the tip of the iceberg.
Since October last year, more than 9,000 sealed indictmentshave been filed in districts across the United States. The number of indictments filed is in stark contrast to in previous years. According to a 2009 report from the Federal Judicial Center, in all of 2006 there were only 1,077 sealed indictments. Sealed indictments are typically used to prosecute individuals or criminal networks in cases when revealing names could lead individuals to flee or destroy evidence.
One such federal indictment was unsealed in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York, on Jan. 9. The 11-count indictmentcharges New York state Assemblywoman Pamela Harris, a Democrat, with defrauding government agencies of tens of thousands in public funds. According to the DOJ, Harris had attempted to cover up the alleged fraud by pressuring “witnesses to lie to the FBI and cover them up.”
Former President Bill Clinton stands on stage with his wife, then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, during the closing Plenary session of the 7th Annual Meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative in New York on Sept. 22, 2011. (Daniel Berehulak/Getty Images)
Among the multiple investigations currently being conducted by the DOJ is an inquiry into the Clinton Foundation and whether Hillary Clinton provided donors with political or policy favors. Emails dating back to Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state show that Clinton’s former top aide, Huma Abedin, fielded requests for special favors from Clinton Foundation donors.
In one such request, Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire Gilbert Chagoury requested access through Doug Band, a former board member of the Clinton Global Initiative, to a high-level official in the State Department.
NBC News reported on Jan. 5 that the investigation into the Clinton Foundation had already been opened months ago.
The Hill, which first reported on the inquiry, wrote that the DOJ is using the information it is gathering to determine whether it warrants a full investigation.
One reason for the investigation is to determine whether any of the tax-exempt donations to the Clinton Foundation, which totalled more than $2 billion since its inception in 1997, were converted for personal or political use, The Hill reported.
A radioactive warning sign hangs on fencing around the Anfield’s Shootaring Canyon Uranium Mill on October 27, 2017 outside Ticaboo, Utah. Anfield with is in partnership with the Russian firm Uranium One, and bought the mill from Uranium One in 2015. (George Frey/Getty Images)
The DOJ is also revisiting evidence obtained by the FBI in an investigation into the Uranium One deal, which is connected to the Clinton Foundation.
Under the deal, which was approved by the Obama administration in 2010, the Russian government gained a majority stake in Canadian mining company Uranium One, which at the time controlled 20 percent of uranium licensed for mining in the United States.
Because of the national security risk posed by the deal, it had to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investments, which included the State Department under Hillary Clinton.
At the same time that the security review was being conducted, Bill Clinton received a speaking fee of $500,000 from a Kremlin-linked investment bank.
Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (R) receives a note from her aide Huma Abedin (L) as she testifies about the State Department’s budget during a hearing of the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee of the House appropriations committee on March 10, 2011. (Jonathan Ernst/Getty Images)
The DOJ has also reopened its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while serving as secretary of state. Despite determining that the unsecured server was used to store and transmit classified material, former FBI Director James Comey suggested in July 2016 that no charges should be filed. He did so after an FBI agent had altered the conclusion to the agency’s recommendation to remove language that suggested a crime had been committed.
The DOJ probe is looking into the amount of classified information that was sent over the server, as well as who was responsible for putting the information in the unsecure environment, the Daily Beast reported on Jan. 4.
Last month, Sessions also ordered a review of an investigation conducted by Drug Enforcement Administration officials that uncovered drug trafficking by the Hezbollah terror group into the United States, as well as money laundering.
President Barack Obama speaks during his farewell address in Chicago on Jan. 10, 2017. (NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images)
Politico reported last month, based on interviews with dozens of law enforcement officials, that the investigation was stalled and blocked by Obama administration officials. According to the report, the investigation’s conclusion was undermined so as not to upset Iran, a key sponsor of the terror group, while then-President Barack Obama sought an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program.
Election Investigations
Alongside the investigations by the DOJ, congressional investigators have been conducting their own investigations into potential misconduct by U.S. officials. These include the potential spreading of classified information, as well as a conspiracy that attempted to prevent President Donald Trump from becoming president.
After months of refusing to provide House investigators with requested documents on Fusion GPS—the company behind the infamous Trump–Russia dossier—as well as on current and former FBI officials, the DOJ agreed on Jan. 3 to provide all requested documents.
Chairman of the House intelligence committee Devin Nunes has been investigating the role that the Trump dossier played in the FBI’s decision to open an investigation into allegations of collusion between Trump and Russia in July 2016.
House intelligence committee Chairman Devin Nunes arrives for a hearing behind closed doors on Capitol Hill on July 25, 2017. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Nunes is also investigating whether this FBI investigation was then used to obtain court warrants, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, to spy on the Trump campaign and transition team.
The investigation includes some of Obama’s key former officials, such as former national security adviser Susan Riceand former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power. Both are recorded as having made dozens, if not hundreds, of so-called “unmasking requests” on the communications of Trump officials.
The Trump dossier, which was paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, appears to have been the main source of the allegations that Russia colluded with the Trump campaign.
Fusion GPS actively spread the dossier among politicians and the media to promote its unproven narrative of collusion.
Among the documents that the House committee had sought were bank records detailing payments made by Fusion GPS to journalists. A federal judge ruled on Jan. 4 that those bank records needed to be handed over to the House intelligence committee, over the objection of Fusion GPS.
The House committee is also investigating Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) role in regard to the Trump dossier. McCain had sent an associate to the UK to obtain a copy of the report from Christopher Steele, who had been hired by Fusion GPS to write the dossier.
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) speaks to reporters at the Capitol on July 13, 2017. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
McCain admitted in January last year that he provided Comey with a copy of the report.
Last month, Nunes issued a subpoena to David Kramer, the associate of McCain who had traveled to London to obtain a copy of the report.
One official currently being investigated by the House intelligence committee in connection to the Trump dossier is Bruce Ohr.
Ohr, a former associate deputy attorney general, was demoted by the DOJ after it was revealed he had secretly met with Fusion GPS officials.
Ohr’s wife, Nellie Ohr, was later revealed to have worked for Fusion GPS during the election campaign against then-candidate Trump.
FBI agent Peter Strzok.
The commission is also seeking to interview FBI agent Peter Strzok and his FBI colleague Lisa Page. Strzok had served both in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server and the FBI’s investigation into allegations of Russia collusion. Strzok was removed from the team of special counsel Robert Mueller after his bias against Trump was revealed.
Strzok and Page were reportedly having an extramarital affair, and the text messages between them, which were obtained by the DOJ, showed a strong bias against Trump and support of Hillary Clinton.
In one such text, Strzok refers to Page about a meeting they had in the office of then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, during which they discussed an “insurance policy” for if Trump won the presidency.
McCabe has since announced that he would retire in early 2018.
Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee on May 11, 2017. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
As part of the agreement between Nunes and the DOJ, the House committee gained access to around 9,500 text messages sent between Strzok and Page.
In response to “significant inconsistencies” in statements that Steele, the author of the Trump dossier, had made to congressional investigators, two senators have referred him to the DOJ for criminal investigation.
The referral was made by Senate judiciary committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).
Inspector General Investigation
Simultaneous to the investigations in Congress, the Justice Department inspector general has been conducting his own investigation. Included in his investigation is how Comey handled the investigation on Clinton’s email server.
Comey took the unusual step in July 2016 of announcing the results of the FBI’s investigation on Clinton and publicly recommending that charges not be filed, despite that this normally falls under the purview of the DOJ. The FBI investigates crimes, while the relevant attorney general makes decisions about prosecution.
Former FBI Director James Comey testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington on June 8, 2017. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Comey later testified under oath, on June 8, 2017, that then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch had asked him to describe the investigation as a “matter” instead of an “investigation.”
Comey also admitted to having leaked memos he wrote on meetings he had with Trump and giving them to a friend to leak them to The New York Times.
Grassley, who has reviewed the seven memos, said that four were marked classified. Since Comey shared four memos with his friend, Grassley has concluded at least one of the memos contained classified information. If his assumption is true, Comey could face criminal prosecution.
The left indeed has become a family. Unfortunately, it often resembles the Gotti crime family (hat tip: Larry Schweikart).
Let's face it: Republicans have their share of corruption, but what the left has become is not tinged with the normal shortcomings of humanity. It's become criminal.
Literally. Fully. And seriously.
Let's look at a few shades of leftist criminality. I don't mean the common finger-pointing, where leftists claim that anything done by the center-right is "criminal." Like being for tax cuts. Being pro-life. Or against illegal immigration. Voting for Trump was criminal. The left thinks anyone to its right is criminal.
But most sane people know that's not true. It's hyperbole for the sake of cowing those who hold differing opinions. It's a political smear writ large – and, might I say, projection. Leftist often accuse others of doing what they do. Not only does it help them feel better about themselves, but it's a strategy to gain and hold power over others.
In itself, that mindset isn't essentially criminal. Maybe you could say it's a shade of gray or misdemeanor. But therein lies the first step on the road to where they ended up. They begin by stepping across a line, and they wake up fully criminal. Let's follow the path downward.
The early Clinton escapades weren't the outcome of being Boy Scouts. Using political influence to do a land deal in Arkansas, or to gain $100,000 in the commodity market for being the governor's wife, was a pretty good sign of who they are – as were Bill's early sexual predations and Hillary's early persecution of the women he used.
The thuggishness of Barack was clear early on. There was his land deal, wherein he enriched himself with Tony Rezko in Chicago. All his political wins came by nefariously taking out his political opponents rather than beating them fairly in the arena of ideas. Everyone should have known.
They all got away with their less than honest early deals but were awarded more power as a result of their nefarious actions. The left loved their ability to lie as they skated through the finish line unscathed.
The next big step up the ladder for the Clintons was becoming president. Posing as the married version of Jimmy Stewart playing Mr. Smith, they simply dug into the seediest side of politics. Having succeeded in the small pay-to-play of Arkansas, they let it all loose on Washington, D.C.
The Clintons were the ones to begin the full politicization of the DOJ. Remember when they fired every single attorney at the DOJ, replacing them with their own loyalists? That was 1993. Our cheerleading leftist media said nothing. After all, they were kindred souls staying silent in the face of shared corruption. Then there was the matter of the famous FBI files the Clintons pilfered, the secret files that illegally gave them dirt (and leverage) on their political opponents. Yeah, Bill, "a bureaucratic snafu." And no, that's not what it was. It was simply aggrandizement of criminal power.
They would go on to trading secrets of rocket technology to the Chinese for political donations – a deal that would advance Chinese missile capacity twenty years overnight. I remember Tim Russert pleading on Meet the Press" for the media to start reporting because "this was really happening." Well, they got away with that, too – along with a host of other illegal and nasty activities.
Barack had his share of shady dealings once he hit D.C., but was a bit more circumspect in hiding what he was doing. Nurtured under the Chicago political machine, the master school of pay-to-play politics, everyone should have known the kind of corrupt monster he was. Instead, he convinced boatloads of people, and a gullible, like-minded media, that he was some kind of light-worker who healed the Earth.
Under that guise, he was scorching the earth.
BLOG: IT WILL MAKE MOST WANT TO HURL PUKE IN OBAMA'S FACE, BUT THE MAN USED U.S. TAX DOLLARS TO FUND THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY OF LA RAZA "The Race" WHICH HE OPERATED OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE UNDER CECILIA MUNOZ.
He began his funneling of money to leftist causes right away with his "stimulus package," stimulating and filling the coffers of his pay-to-playmates. Many of his bundlers simply took money, as they did in the Solydra solar deal, absconding with millions of dollars and producing nothing. His union leaders scored tons of money. As the rest of the U.S. floundered, his already well heeled donors were paid handsomely from this illicit mess. To this day, we don't know where most of that money went. Uncle Joe Biden just turned a blind eye. And no one suffered for his ugly, illegal collusion to steal from the public trough.
Contrary to media and Democratic Parry claims, St. Barack didn't have a scandal-free presidency. Far from it – most of it was nothing but scandal, unreported by the fawning press. It was a time period where the media refused to call out the obvious and many scandals for what they were. Let's just say they were kindred souls, fellow travelers, the media and St. Barack. Friends and bundlers receiving money for nothing.
Fast and Furious. The IRS targeting. The weaponizing of the bureaucracies. Just to name a few. Heck, if a leftist political fact-check site calls your Obamacare lie the "lie of the year," it had to be the lie of the century.
Make no mistake: the Clinton-Obama axis was criminal already, pay-to-play was their M.O., and they had gotten away with it for years.
Let's fast-forward to the heavy stuff. And this is the stuff that is darkly criminal, no shades of gray here.
The Clinton Foundation. Clearly, they enriched themselves with pay-to-play schemes. The reports of Hillary's dealings as secretary of state with those who paid the Clinton Foundation are legion. Documents upon documents introducing themselves to Madame Secretary were earmarked by a staffer "FOB." This was the sign of favor, the way to get to see her, the way to get favors in return. You had to be a donor. FOB, indeed.
Uranium One, the Mother of All Scandals, is typical. This was a matter of one hundred fifty million dollars, mysteriously donated by Russian interests, who benefited after all the parties in the U.S. government signed off. Bill's speaking fees in Moscow were Over 600K per speech – double his normal pay-to-play fee.
The Trump Dossier. Paid for by the Hillary campaign. Used as a pretense to spy on the Trump campaign. Used as a pretense for the so-called collusion case.
All of this is deeply criminal – nor gray, lacking even the slightest hint of another explanation. And we now know that all these cases are being investigated and have been for months. We now know there are four separate criminal cases being investigated with Clinton involvement.
St. Barack? He's been having a great time partying with the Hollywood moguls, all the while thinking his breee-illiant "insurance" plan to get rid of Trump was on.
A funny thing happened on the way to the forum: all his fellow travelers are being outed. The cadre of FBI agents and DOJ political partisans: Strzok, McCabe, Ohr, Comey, Brennan, and so many others are being outed for their own forms of, yes, criminality. Helping with the phony Steele Trump dossier while you are high up at the FBI or DOJ is criminal. Going to the FISA courts to unmask Trump campaign associates based on the dossier is criminal. Turning over that information to other higher-ups in the Obama administration – that's criminal. This is the kind of thing that happens in totalitarian regimes.
For all those who have been asking where Jeff Sessions has been, let me say he's been thankfully quiet. He's gotten a lot of ill deserved negativity. But he's a busy man. As you can see, so many investigations, so little time. Likewise, the Republican investigating committees are now doing their part. And Judicial Watch. God bless them all.
Sean Hannity calls this the year of the boomerang.
I'm calling it the year of the sting. The chickens are coming home to roost. Most of these people are going to jail. They committed criminal acts.
It took four years to dot the Is and cross the Ts to put away John Gotti. It may take that long again, but it's happening, and happening as I write. As we sit here, the Democrats are suddenly running from the Trump dossier. They're all spinning with flushed faces, trying to excuse (or more often ignore) the criminality of their heroes. The evidence is accumulating. They are beginning to whine about a "political investigation." To all of you leftists who will be running away, it's not political; it was actually criminal. And you let it happen with your dewy-eyed worship. As you pointed fingers, criminality was being done by your side.
We don't know a lot of the details, but the greatest political sting in history is ongoing. It's been dripping out for over a month and will continue to do so. It's going to be epic. And it will devastate the Democratic Party and its base.
But America will rejoice. Criminals are going to be brought to their knees.
The swamp has told us that the following events are nothing for us to worry or concern ourselves about. We deplorables, clinging to our guns and religion, should simply accept these and not question them.
Obama gave 150 billion dollars to Iran. Iran is the chief sponsor of jihadist terrorism and has sworn to destroy Israel, supports Hamas and Hezb'allah, and will have nuclear weapons.
Obama and Hillary approved the sale of 20% of our uranium to Russia. Hillary received over $150 million to her foundation. Bill Clinton got speaking gigs in Moscow paying about $500,000.
Trump contacting the Russians to have them vote against the U.N. resolution to condemn Israel in December 2016 warrants an investigation, but not the sale of uranium to the Russians or the gift of $150 billion to Iran.
Hillary and the DNC, through their attorneys, paid Fusion GPS to pay Christopher Steele, a British spy, to manufacture opposition research, using anonymous paid Russians as sources.
This phony report was called a "dossier" to make it sound important.
The dossier was shopped and leaked to the press and also given to John McCain, always ready and willing to stab a Republican, who gave it to the FBI.
Bruce Ohr, the number-four man in the Obama Justice Department, met with the Fusion people and Steele in November 2016, after Trump defeated Hillary. We are not supposed to know why the Obama DOJ met with Steele.
In October 2016, the Obama Justice Department filed an application for a FISA warrant to spy on the Donald Trump campaign.
It appears that FBI agent Peter Strzok was involved in the FISA warrant process. Strzok has been a busy boy. In spring 2016, he corrected James Comey's exoneration letter of Hillary, written before Comey had interviewed Hillary, tochange the words "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless."
It seems that Comey was too dumb to realize that the words "grossly negligent" meant that Hillary had violated the law, so Strzok changed the wording.
Evidently, Bill Clinton did not get a copy of the exoneration letter. Bill wanted to be sure, so he met with Obama's attorney general, Lynch, by "accident," at an airport, several days before FBI agent Strzok questioned Hillary, not under oath. Why bother to question under oath when the fix is in? Bubba could have saved himself a trip to the airport.
Hillary lost the election, so she and the swamp blamed the loss on Russian "interference" with our election. The DNC claims that it was hacked, but it refused to have the FBI inspect its computers, so the FBI accepted the DNC's assertion that it was hacked.
Trump fired Comey because Comey is basically dumb, dishonest, and incompetent. Even the Dems wanted Comey fired. Comey needed a ghostwriter, Strzok, to correctly write an exoneration letter.
Comey illegally leaked a memo to force a special counsel.
On March 2, 2017, Jeff Sessions, our A.G., recused himself from anything dealing with "Russia." We learned on December 8, 2017 that Sessions was cleared on March 7, 2017 of any improper "contact with the Russians." But Sessions has not un-recused himself.
Rod Rosenstein, deputy A.G., appointed Robert Mueller, Comey's pal. The law requires that the appointment order specify the crimes to be investigated.
But Rosentstein appointed Mueller to investigate anything dealing with Russia, without specifying what crime or crimes were committed.
Mueller hired 20 attorneys who hate Trump; have worked for Obama and Hillary; and have donated to Obama, Hillary, and other Dems.
Mueller also hired Strzok. Strzok is a busy boy. He is having an affair with a Justice Department attorney, also on Mueller's staff until September 2017. He sent her numerous texts detailing his hate of Trump, in addition to ghostwriting Comey's exoneration letter of Hillary and questioning Flynn.
Strzok also interviewed Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills. He gave both immunity.
Strzok questioned Flynn in January 2017 about Flynn's contacts with the Russians. It was an ambush interview at the W.H. Flynn did not have an attorney present.
Flynn had contacted the Russian ambassador in December 2016 to lobby Russia to vote against the U.N. resolution to condemn Israel for its settlement policy. The U.N. Security Council voted 14-0 to condemn Israel, with Obama abstaining.
Flynn also contacted the Russians to lobby against retaliation by the Russians for the Obama sanctions. These contacts upset Obama's Justice Department – namely, Sally Yates, who thinks this violates the Logan Act. There has not been a prosecution under the Logan Act in over 150 years. Sally also was fired by Trump because she refused to enforce Trump's travel ban on countries designated as terrorist by Obama and Trump.
Sally was praised for her insubordination by Mueller's chief deputy, Weissman. Weissman prosecuted the major accounting firm, Arthur Anderson, in the Enron case, forcing Anderson out of business, resulting in the loss of over 10,000 jobs. The Supreme Court, 9-0, reversed the conviction of Anderson.
Mueller removed Strzok in July 2017 from his team but did not notify Congress about this. Strzok remained on the FBI "Russia" squad.
The DOJ never informed Congress about Bruce Ohr's meetings with Fusion and Steele.
Rod Rosenstein presumably oversees the Mueller investigation because Sessions recused himself. Rosenstein did not inform Congress about Strzok and Ohr. Ohr, whose office is four doors down from Rod, was removed only when Ohr's meetings are discovered by Congress and the media.
The wife of Andrew McCabe, the number-two man in the FBI in charge of "investigating" Hillary, received over $700,000 from Terry McAuliffe, the money bag man for the Clintons, for her political campaign for the Virginia legislature.
We are supposed to trust the FBI, despite the conduct of McCabe, Strzok, and Comey. We are supposed to trust the Department of Justice despite Lynch, Ohr, Rosenstein, and Yates, and worse, Jeff Sessions. Sessions should not haverecused himself.
Sessions has allowed the Justice Department to be run by Rosenstein, which allowed Mueller to establish a mini-Justice Department that resembles an Obama-Hillary Justice Department, with an unlimited budget, to investigate "Russian" collusion with the Trump campaign when there is no evidence that Russia affected the results of the election. Moreover, "collusion" is not a crime. The purpose of the investigation is to create "process" crimes to ensnare those whose statements to the FBI are deemed "lies" by the FBI.
If we only had an attorney general willing to clean up the FBI and DOJ.
The term "Deep State" unleashes many paranoid fantasies. Movies and spy stories abound about the existence of dark, nefarious forces from our government aligned against us. But as Joseph Heller once wrote, "Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't after you." One of the more disturbing revelations after Trump's win was finding that these dark forces not only exist, but are powerful and seemingly out of control.
"Deep State" is hard to define, because it is composed of overlapping groups and individuals with complex and differing agendas. It's an amalgam of people, agencies, and bureaucrats that changes. The current leakers are part of it. For now, let's say it's a mostly unelected, mostly leftist group within our government that wants to govern us against the will of America's founding principles. These people want the final say over our Republic. They want to rule, and they form part of a powerful alliance against the current administration and its voters. The one thing we can be thankful for is that they are showing themselves to us in a way that should anger Americans of all political persuasions. In the end, that's what we might hope for.
"Big Brother" was the term Orwell used for the totalitarian presence of 1984. We are not there. Maybe not even close. But the problem of the Deep State is that there seem to be those who want the kind of power Orwell described, the kind of power the Soviets had, or the East Germans. It's likely that many Deep-Staters don't even realize just how power-mad they have become.
Here is a small list with their fingerprints on it:
- The unmasking and subsequent takedown of General Michael Flynn
- The daily leaks designed to impede or embarrass the Trump administration
- The unmasking of hundreds of private citizens working with the Trump campaign as reported by Circa News
- The bogus "Trump dossier"
- The bogus Trump-Russian collusion narrative.
- The unseemly collusion between Robert Mueller and James Comey
- The seeming insanity of Mueller probing a nonexistent crime
- The exoneration of the Clinton crime family
- The IRS targeting conservative groups
And lots more.
What we are watching is a group using power willfully, wrongfully, and oftentimes illegally to undermine and destroy political opponents. They are after somebody. For real. From this list, we can surmise that their opponents appear to be those of us on the center-right. And to those of you on the left who don't know: This happened, and it's happening. You can pretend it's not so, but it is.
Okay, some of you are tuning out. This can't happen here, it's tinfoil hat stuff, the left really isn't that bad, you're being overly paranoid, blah, blah, blah. Sorry, but this is seriously bad stuff.
I recall back when the PATRIOT Act was passed, noting a comment by Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit. He said powers to surveil, and powers that could cross the lines of the bad guys' civil liberties, were well and good, but in the wrong hands, those powers could and would be misused.
Well, he was right. At the time, I considered his fears over the top, but I was wrong. The history of the human race is littered with tyrants who concentrated and misused power. The genius of the American system adopted by the founding fathers was limiting and decentralizing government in a way to protect our citizenry against this kind of tyranny. Systems were put in place to check, balance, and limit the things that could be done by the government against its people. The Bill of Rights is directed at that problem. These rights were called inalienable, the natural and normal rights given to us by God, not by our government. These were to be our birthright as a nation. It's one of the many reasons our country has been great and can be great again.
We have had bad players in our government, we have made lots of mistakes and done wrong things as a nation, but what we are seeing played out now is simply unprecedented. There is a quote attributed to Valerie Jarrett, Obama adviser-enforcer and all-around bad human, that goes like this:
After we win this election, it's our turn. Payback time. Everyone not with us is against us, and they better be ready, because we don't forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded; the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay. Congress won't be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this is over.
Let me say, there is no proof she said this. But one thing that is real for sure is that much of what they did in that administration, with her help, was to institutionalize those ideas as their operating manual. The IRS scandal targeting conservative donors and conservative organizations was a perfect example. Read the horrifying story in Forbes of what happened to Catherine Engelbrecht if you think this didn't happen. A terrible line had been crossed. Had she been a liberal, we would hear her name for forty years or more.
This was just the tip of the iceberg. The left has weaponized the bureaucracies and agencies it inhabits. Leftists have decided they will become the dominant culture in the CIA, FBI, NSA, IRS, EPA, and the rest of our bureaucracies. They decided it's okay to be totalitarian, it's okay to break the law, it's okay to go after their political opponents with the force of government, it's okay because they are the ones who deserve to win. The Deep State running rampant is fine, as long as they run it. From Valerie Jarrett to Barack Obama to James Clapper and James Comey, they all visibly overstepped their rightful boundaries. They are proof of the saying that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Make no mistake: the prior administration went rampant. The Deep
State did not originate with them, but they stocked it with their
cronies. They stocked it with people of similar left-leaning ideas, with similar left-leaning willingness to misuse power. The Deep State became a weapon of intimidation and a deep abuser of power. Thank God Hillary was not there to take the baton.
So here we are, with the Deep State running amok. They are aligned with the Obamap-Clinton machine; they are generally in sync with the Obama-Clinton goals. None of us knows exactly how this works, who sets the agenda, or who has the capacity to give direction, but it is real. We do know that many of the media are there to help, we do know that most of the Democratic Party apparatus is there to help, and we do know some of the players. We also know that most of the Democrat base, and many of the party's voters, are naïvely on board, too. We may not understand the mechanism, but we do know that the Deep State has become the vanguard of the left's civil war, and it is not fictional.
They are self-motivated with a set of goals. Get rid of Trump if they can. Get Trump's base to be embarrassed of him or depressed if they can. Make certain that Trump cannot succeed. Make certain his hands are tied in ways to make him less effective. If nothing else, slow his progress to a snail's pace while they marshal better forces.
The stupid party (Republicans), as usual, has no clue. Too many Republicans just think this is normal or haven't the stomach to fight. Heck, many of them are traitorously helping to take down what their own voters and standard-bearer want to achieve. The Democratic Party is fractured and has no idea how wrong this is (yet), and it only helps parrot the talking points of its Deep State allies. Democrats have no idea of the backlash they are creating toward themselves.
There is no distinct winner at this point. But the battle is joined. It is clear that the Deep State intends to continue using all its power to stop Trump, and to prevent a return to checks and balances and limited government.
One important note: they are not winning. The media may make it appear that they are, but they're not. Trump, his administration and allies, and his voting base intend on continuing the fight and winning. This is the major part of "draining the swamp." The battle is in the balance, will last for years, and there are a lot of reasons to believe that the Deep State will lose. One of the great unintended consequences of Trump's win: They have been unmasked.
Push back hard enough, and they will lose.
They deserve to.
DEATH BY CORRUPTION:
What caused the destruction of the Democrat Party in America?
When Donald Trump said he would not pursue legal action against Hillary Clinton after he won the election, the majority of his supporters were not happy. After all, what Hillary, her family. and the
Clinton Foundation actually did, or were accused
of doing through credible evidence, was obviously
criminal.
Fast forward to today and the onslaught of false Russian collusion accusations against President Trump and it is obvious why not going after Hillary was a huge mistake.
After the election there always seems to be, there is a kind of political vacuum period. It is usually called a honeymoon for a newly elected president. Unfortunately, this period of time is mostly controlled by the media.
In most cases this period is filled with relatively positive and generally inquisitive news from the media about a new president’s agenda, who he is putting together his team and figuring out how he plans to implement his policies. There is often positive news during this period about the new first family and how they will perform in their new public role. But in the case of President Trump, it was abundantly clear after a mostly vicious political battle between the Trump and Hillary. that there was only one candidate eligible to be granted a honeymoon period by the liberal news media – Hillary Clinton. And if Donald Trump were to actually win the election, as he did, there be hell to pay. Welcome to Hell President Trump.
There is no way Donald Trump or any of his political advisors couldn’t have seen this coming. And if there was any doubt at all by Trump and his team that they would not get a traditional presidential honeymoon, the hundreds of anti-Trump political rallies (more like violent riots) across America calling for “resistance” to President Trump should have been enough to erase any and all doubts. Not to mention the immediate wall-to-wall negative liberal media coverage that began the day after the election.
Donald Trump’s gut instinct to appoint a special prosecutor to go after Hillary Clinton and her family foundation was spot-on. Trump specifically promised America during a debate that he would do this. As a business man who is also well acquainted with
politics, Trump instinctively knew that defeating
Hillary Clinton at the polls would not stop the
attacks by the media, and that he needed to stay on
offense and try to finish off Hillary and the entire
Clinton political machine for good.
But Donald Trump did something he rarely ever does – he went against his gut instinct; blowing his chance to fill the political void with something he knew would eventually benefit his presidency. Trump knew that that something to fill the political void was a legitimate criminal investigation of actual crimes that had been committed by Hillary Clinton.
The liberal media must have been ecstatic when they realized Donald Trump was giving Hillary a total pass on her criminal activity. The liberal media knew they had just been given a golden opportunity to unleash relentless negative attacks on President Trump the likes of which have never before been seen in American history. The liberal media happily gave Donald Trump something for winning the election - a nightmare he will never forget - a nightmare that has yet to end and will continue on for the next four years if the liberal media continues to get their way.
When Trump announced that he would not pursue legal charges against Hillary, the liberal media took that opportunity and quickly filled the post-election political void with a manufactured story of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign in hopes of destroying the Trump presidency before it could even get off the ground. That political void is now so full of Russian collusion stories that President Trump’s agenda and accomplishments are virtually unknowable by the average American citizen – unless of course they watch Fox News, follow conservative web media or listen to Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk-radio.
So what defense does President Trump, his political team, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the conservative airwaves offer against the Russian Trump collusion story? They tell whoever will listen that Hillary Clinton actually did break the law. Seriously? So now President Trump and his supporters want to prosecute Hillary Clinton after Trump said he wouldn’t pursue legal action against her? Well that train has left the station. The golden
opportunity to take down Hillary and the entire
Clinton machine was passed over by the president
himself. And even if Trump now tries to revisit Hillary’s criminal activities through lawful means, his efforts will be branded as nothing but a political distraction to try and cover up the liberal media driven fake Russian Trump collusion story.
Had President Trump honored his promise and pursued a broad criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton and her family foundation immediately after he was inaugurated the exact opposite could be happening in the media right now. The political void that is now filled with
Russian Trump collusion stories could have been
filled with criminal investigation stories of Hillary
and her family foundation, collusion between the
media and the Hillary campaign against Bernie
Sanders, collusion between Hillary and Russia
regarding the uranium deal and the kick-backs to
the Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton personally
and probably much more. Had Donald Trump followed his initial gut instinct and gone after Hillary and her family the tables would have been turned on Democrats and the liberal media and the fake news about any Russian Trump collusion would have been branded by the Trump administration and conservative media as a political distraction by Democrats and the liberal media in an attempt to cover-up investigations into actual crimes committed by Hillary Clinton and her family.
So what can President Trump possibly do to turn the tide against the Democrats and liberal media?
How about instead of using Hillary’s criminal activities as a defense against the fake news Russian Trump collusion narrative the Trump administration actually investigates her? If they are so certain she’s guilty then enforce the damn law! And maybe, just maybe, if President Trump urges AG Sessions to empanel a grand jury and re-open the investigation into Hillary Clinton right now, the facts concerning her criminal activity in the news might be enough to quell the Democrats and liberal media zealot’s agenda and get them to ease up on pushing fake news and begin covering news that matters to the forgotten men and women of this great country.
When Donald Trump said he would not pursue legal action against Hillary Clinton after he won the election, the majority of his supporters were not happy. After all, what Hillary, her family. and the Clinton Foundation actually did, or were accused of doing through credible evidence, was obviously criminal.
Fast forward to today and the onslaught of false Russian collusion accusations against President Trump and it is obvious why not going after Hillary was a huge mistake.
After the election, as there always seems to be, there is a kind of political vacuum period. It is usually called a honeymoon for a newly elected president. Unfortunately, this period of time is mostly controlled by the media.
In most cases this period is filled with relatively positive and generally inquisitive news from the media about a new president’s agenda, who he is putting together his team and figuring out how he plans to implement his policies. There is often positive news during this period about the new first family and how they will perform in their new public role. But in the case of President Trump, it was abundantly clear after a mostly vicious political battle between the Trump and Hillary. that there was only one candidate eligible to be granted a honeymoon period by the liberal news media – Hillary Clinton. And if Donald Trump were to actually win the election, as he did, there be hell to pay. Welcome to Hell President Trump.
There is no way Donald Trump or any of his political advisors couldn’t have seen this coming. And if there was any doubt at all by Trump and his team that they would not get a traditional presidential honeymoon, the hundreds of anti-Trump political rallies (more like violent riots) across America calling for “resistance” to President Trump should have been enough to erase any and all doubts. Not to mention the immediate wall-to-wall negative liberal media coverage that began the day after the election.
ut instinct to appoint a special prosecutor to go after Hillary Clinton and her family foundation was spot-on. Trump specifically promised America during a debate that he would do this. As a business man who is also well acquainted with politics, Trump instinctively knew that defeating Hillary Clinton at the polls would not stop the attacks by the media, and that he needed to stay on offense and try to finish off Hillary and the entire Clinton political machine for good.
But Donald Trump did something he rarely ever does – he went against his gut instinct; blowing his chance to fill the political void with something he knew would eventually benefit his presidency. Trump knew that that something to fill the political void was a legitimate criminal investigation of actual crimes that had been committed by Hillary Clinton.
The liberal media must have been ecstatic when they realized Donald Trump was giving Hillary a total pass on her criminal activity. The liberal media knew they had just been given a golden opportunity to unleash relentless negative attacks on President Trump the likes of which have never before been seen in American history. The liberal media happily gave Donald Trump something for winning the election - a nightmare he will never forget - a nightmare that has yet to end and will continue on for the next four years if the liberal media continues to get their way.
When Trump announced that he would not pursue legal charges against Hillary, the liberal media took that opportunity and quickly filled the post-election political void with a manufactured story of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign in hopes of destroying the Trump presidency before it could even get off the ground. That political void is now so full of Russian collusion stories that President Trump’s agenda and accomplishments are virtually unknowable by the average American citizen – unless of course they watch Fox News, follow conservative web media or listen to Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk-radio.
So what defense does President Trump, his political team, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the conservative airwaves offer against the Russian Trump collusion story? They tell whoever will listen that Hillary Clinton actually did break the law. Seriously? So now President Trump and his supporters want to prosecute Hillary Clinton after Trump said he wouldn’t pursue legal action against her? Well that train has left the station. The golden opportunity to take down Hillary and the entire Clinton machine was passed over by the president himself. And even if Trump now tries to revisit Hillary’s criminal activities through lawful means, his efforts will be branded as nothing but a political distraction to try and cover up the liberal media driven fake Russian Trump collusion story.
Had President Trump honored his promise and pursued a broad criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton and her family foundation immediately after he was inaugurated the exact opposite could be happening in the media right now. The political void that is now filled with Russian Trump collusion stories could have been filled with criminal investigation stories of Hillary and her family foundation, collusion between the media and the Hillary campaign against Bernie Sanders, collusion between Hillary and Russia regarding the uranium deal and the kick-backs to the Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton personally and probably much more. Had Donald Trump followed his initial gut instinct and gone after Hillary and her family the tables would have been turned on Democrats and the liberal media and the fake news about any Russian Trump collusion would have been branded by the Trump administration and conservative media as a political distraction by Democrats and the liberal media in an attempt to cover-up investigations into actual crimes committed by Hillary Clinton and her family.
So what can President Trump possibly do to turn the tide against the Democrats and liberal media?
How about instead of using Hillary’s criminal activities as a defense against the fake news Russian Trump collusion narrative the Trump administration actually investigates her? If they are so certain she’s guilty then enforce the damn law! And maybe, just maybe, if President Trump urges AG Sessions to empanel a grand jury and re-open the investigation into Hillary Clinton right now, the facts concerning her criminal activity in the news might be enough to quell the Democrats and liberal media zealot’s agenda and get them to ease up on pushing fake news and begin covering news that matters to the forgotten men and women of this great country.
“The couple parlayed lives supposedly spent in “public service” into admission into the upper stratosphere of American wealth, with incomes in the top 0.1 percent bracket. The source of this vast wealth was a political machine that might well be dubbed “Clinton, Inc.” This consists essentially of a seedy money-laundering operation to ensure big business support for the Clintons’ political ambitions as well as their personal fortunes. The basic components of the operation are lavishly paid speeches to Wall Street and Fortune 500 audiences, corporate campaign contributions, and donations to the ostensibly philanthropic Clinton Foundation.”
THE CLINTON GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP WITH MUSLIM DICTATORS TO LOOT THE POOR
THE PHONY CLINTON FOUNDATION… FUNDED BY OBAMA’S CRONY BANKSTERS, MUSLIM DICTATORS, CRIMINAL BILLIONAIRES….
Chelsea lives in a $11 million dollar New York City condo her parents bought with their bribes for speeches money.
The Clinton phony charity foundation has paid out less than $9 million out of the hundreds of millions they have sucked in from Obama’s crony banksters, Muslim dictators whom Hillary served as Secretary of State and criminal billionaires Billary has long known on a first name basis.
"Secondly, for eight years Russian businesses and businessmen closely aligned with Putin pumped millions into the Clinton Foundation slush fund, paid her husband a half-million dollars for a single speech, and got in return a substantial portion of our uranium assets when, as Secretary of State, Hillary okayed their purchase."
HILLARY AND OBOMB’S DIRTY SAUDIS DICTATORS…. How much as she sucked in?
MUSLIM
THE CLINTONS SERVE THEIR 9-11 INVADING SAUDIS PAYMASTERS!
DANCING WITH DICTATORS.... BOTH THE CLINTONS ARE EXPERT DANCERS!
“Facilitating strategic technology transfer in return for money is an old Clinton game. The Chinese bought their way to access of considerable space technology when Bill Clinton was president. Remember Charlie Trie, Loral, and the rest of the crew?”
“Facilitating strategic technology transfer in return for money is an old Clinton game. The Chinese bought their way to access of considerable space technology when Bill Clinton was president. Remember Charlie Trie, Loral, and the rest of the crew?”
THE PROMISE TO EVERY INVADING
ILLEGAL: JOBS, UNDERGROUND TAX-FREE
ECONOMY, "FREE" GRINGO MEDICAL, ALL
THE WELFARE YOU WANT FOR YOUR
ANCHOR BABIES!
HERITAGE FOUNDATION:
Amnesty would add 100 million more illegals and cost Legals trillions!
“The watchdogs at Judicial Watch discovered documents that reveal how the Obama administration's close coordination with the Mexican government entices Mexicans to hop over the fence and on to the American dole.” Washington Times
"A Mexican illegal alien allegedly raped a girl in Kansas in September after being deported ten times in the past six years alone, according to reports."
"Republicans should call for lower immigration to stop the Democrat voter recruitment. But more importantly, all Americans should call for lower immigration in order to offer a better opportunity of finding jobs for those millions of their fellow Americans of all political persuasions who would like to work."
“What we're seeing is our Congress and national leadership dismantling our laws by not enforcing them. Lawlessness becomes the norm, just like Third World corruption. Illegal aliens now have more rights and privileges than Americans. If you are an illegal alien, you can drive a car without a driver's license or insurance. You may obtain medical care without paying. You may work without paying taxes. Your children enjoy free education at the expense of taxpaying Americans.”
“Part of the problem, Santorum said, has been the arrival of
millions of unskilled immigrants — legal and illegal — in the
United States. "American workers deserve a shot at [good] jobs,"
Santorum said. "Over the last 20 years, we have brought into this
country, legally and illegally, 35 MILLION mostly unskilled
workers. And the result, over that same period of time, workers'
wages and family incomes have flatlined." SEN. RICK SANTORUM
In the July/August version of the Atlantic, columnist Peter Beinart wrote an article titled, “How the Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration.”
“The next Democratic presidential candidate should say again and again that because Americans are one people, who must abide by one law, his or her goal is to reduce America’s undocumented population to zero.”
inart, a frequent contributor to the New York Times, New York Review of Books, Haaretz, and former editor of the New Republic, blames immigration for deteriorating social conditions for the American working class: The supposed “costs” of immigration, he says, “strain the very welfare state that liberals want to expand in order to help those native-born Americans with whom immigrants compete.”
The myth, which liberals like myself find tempting, is that only the right has changed. In June 2015, we tell ourselves, Donald Trump rode down his golden escalator and pretty soon nativism, long a feature of conservative politics, had engulfed it. But that’s not the full story. If the right has grown more nationalistic, the left has grown less so. A decade ago, liberals publicly questioned immigration in ways that would shock many progressives today.
Listen to the audio version of this article:Download the Audm app for your iPhone to listen to more titles.In 2005, a left-leaning blogger wrote, “Illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone.” In 2006, a liberal columnist wrote that “immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants” and that “the fiscal burden of low-wage immigrants is also pretty clear.” His conclusion: “We’ll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants.” That same year, a Democratic senator wrote, “When I see Mexican flags waved at proimmigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I’m forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.” The blogger was Glenn Greenwald. The columnist was Paul Krugman. The senator was Barack Obama. Prominent liberals didn’t oppose immigration a decade ago. Most acknowledged its benefits to America’s economy and culture. They supported a path to citizenship for the undocumented. Still, they routinely asserted that low-skilled immigrants depressed the wages of low-skilled American workers and strained America’s welfare state. And they were far more likely than liberals today are to acknowledge that, as Krugman put it, “immigration is an intensely painful topic … because it places basic principles in conflict.” Today, little of that ambivalence remains. In 2008, the Democratic platform called undocumented immigrants “our neighbors.” But it also warned, “We cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked,” adding that “those who enter our country’s borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of the law.” By 2016, such language was gone. The party’s platform described America’s immigration system as a problem, but not illegal immigration itself. And it focused almost entirely on the forms of immigration enforcement that Democrats opposed. In its immigration section, the 2008 platform referred three times to people entering the country “illegally.” The immigration section of the 2016 platform didn’t use the word illegal, or any variation of it, at all.“A decade or two ago,” says Jason Furman, a former chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, “Democrats were divided on immigration. Now everyone agrees and is passionate and thinks very little about any potential downsides.” How did this come to be?
There are several explanations for liberals’ shift. The first is that they have changed because the reality on the ground has changed, particularly as regards illegal immigration. In the two decades preceding 2008, the United States experienced sharp growth in its undocumented population. Since then, the numbers have leveled off.
But this alone doesn’t explain the transformation. The number of undocumented people in the United States hasn’t gone down significantly, after all; it’s stayed roughly the same. So the economic concerns that Krugman raised a decade ago remain relevant today. What’s Wrong With the Democrats?A larger explanation is political. Between 2008 and 2016, Democrats became more and more confident that the country’s growing Latino population gave the party an electoral edge. To win the presidency, Democrats convinced themselves, they didn’t need to reassure white people skeptical of immigration so long as they turned out their Latino base. “The fastest-growing sector of the American electorate stampeded toward the Democrats this November,” Salon declared after Obama’s 2008 win. “If that pattern continues, the GOP is doomed to 40 years of wandering in a desert.”As the Democrats grew more reliant on Latino votes, they were more influenced by pro-immigrant activism. While Obama was running for reelection, immigrants’-rights advocates launched protests against the administration’s deportation practices; these protests culminated, in June 2012, in a sit-in at an Obama campaign office in Denver. Ten days later, the administration announced that it would defer the deportation of undocumented immigrants who had arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16 and met various other criteria. Obama, The New York Times noted, “was facing growing pressure from Latino leaders and Democrats who warned that because of his harsh immigration enforcement, his support was lagging among Latinos who could be crucial voters in his race for re-election.” Alongside pressure from pro-immigrant activists came pressure from corporate America, especially the Democrat-aligned tech industry, which uses the H-1B visa program to import workers. In 2010, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, along with the CEOs of companies including Hewlett-Packard, Boeing, Disney, and News Corporation, formed New American Economy to advocate for business-friendly immigration policies. Three years later, Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates helped found FWD.us to promote a similar agenda. This combination of Latino and corporate activism made it perilous for Democrats to discuss immigration’s costs, as Bernie Sanders learned the hard way. In July 2015, two months after officially announcing his candidacy for president, Sanders was interviewed by Ezra Klein, the editor in chief of Vox. Klein asked whether, in order to fight global poverty, the U.S. should consider “sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders.” Sanders reacted with horror. “That’s a Koch brothers proposal,” he scoffed. He went on to insist that “right-wing people in this country would love … an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country.” Progressive commentators routinely claim that there’s a near-consensus among economists on immigration’s benefits. There isn’t.Sanders came under immediate attack. Vox’s Dylan Matthews declared that his “fear of immigrant labor is ugly—and wrongheaded.” The president of FWD.us accused Sanders of “the sort of backward-looking thinking that progressives have rightly moved away from in the past years.” ThinkProgress published a blog post titled “Why Immigration Is the Hole in Bernie Sanders’ Progressive Agenda.” The senator, it argued, was supporting “the idea that immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs and hurting the economy, a theory that has been proven incorrect.”Sanders stopped emphasizing immigration’s costs. By January 2016, FWD.us’s policy director noted with satisfaction that he had “evolved on this issue.” But has the claim that “immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs” actually been proved “incorrect”? A decade ago, liberals weren’t so sure. In 2006, Krugman wrote that America was experiencing “large increases in the number of low-skill workers relative to other inputs into production, so it’s inevitable that this means a fall in wages.” It’s hard to imagine a prominent liberal columnist writing that sentence today. To the contrary, progressive commentators now routinely claim that there’s a near-consensus among economists on immigration’s benefits.(Illustration by Lincoln Agnew. Photos: AFP; Atta Kenare; Eric Lafforgue; Gamma-Rapho; Getty; Keystone-France; Koen van Weel; Lambert; Richard Baker / In Pictures / Corbis)There isn’t. According to a comprehensive new report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, “Groups comparable to … immigrants in terms of their skill may experience a wage reduction as a result of immigration-induced increases in labor supply.” But academics sometimes de-emphasize this wage reduction because, like liberal journalists and politicians, they face pressures to support immigration. Many of the immigration scholars regularly cited in the press have worked for, or received funding from, pro-immigration businesses and associations. Consider, for instance, Giovanni Peri, an economist at UC Davis whose name pops up a lot in liberal commentary on the virtues of immigration. A 2015 New York Times Magazine essay titled “Debunking the Myth of the Job-Stealing Immigrant” declared that Peri, whom it called the “leading scholar” on how nations respond to immigration, had “shown that immigrants tend to complement—rather than compete against—the existing work force.” Peri is indeed a respected scholar. But Microsoft has funded some of his research into high-skilled immigration. And New American Economy paid to help him turn his research into a 2014 policy paper decrying limitations on the H-1B visa program. Such grants are more likely the result of his scholarship than their cause. Still, the prevalence of corporate funding can subtly influence which questions economists ask, and which ones they don’t. (Peri says grants like those from Microsoft and New American Economy are neither large nor crucial to his work, and that “they don’t determine … the direction of my academic research.”)Academics face cultural pressures too. In his book Exodus, Paul Collier, an economist at the University of Oxford, claims that in their “desperate [desire] not to give succor” to nativist bigots, “social scientists have strained every muscle to show that migration is good for everyone.” George Borjas of Harvard argues that since he began studying immigration in the 1980s, his fellow economists have grown far less tolerant of research that emphasizes its costs. There is, he told me, “a lot of self-censorship among young social scientists.” Because Borjas is an immigration skeptic, some might discount his perspective. But when I asked Donald Davis, a Columbia University economist who takes a more favorable view of immigration’s economic impact, about Borjas’s claim, he made a similar point. “George and I come out on different sides of policy on immigration,” Davis said, “but I agree that there are aspects of discussion in academia that don’t get sort of full view if you come to the wrong conclusion.”
None of this means that liberals should oppose immigration. Entry to the United States is, for starters, a boon to immigrants and to the family members back home to whom they send money. It should be valued on these moral grounds alone. But immigration benefits the economy, too. Because immigrants are more likely than native-born Americans to be of working age, they improve the ratio of workers to retirees, which helps keep programs like Social Security and Medicare solvent. Immigration has also been found to boost productivity, and the National Academies report finds that “natives’ incomes rise in aggregate as a result of immigration.”
The problem is that, although economists differ about the extent of the damage, immigration hurts the Americans with whom immigrants compete. And since more than a quarter of America’s recent immigrants lack even a high-school diploma or its equivalent, immigration particularly hurts the least-educated native workers, the very people who are already struggling the most. America’s immigration system, in other words, pits two of the groups liberals care about most—the native-born poor and the immigrant poor—against each other. One way of mitigating this problem would be to scrap the current system, which allows immigrants living in the U.S. to bring certain close relatives to the country, in favor of what Donald Trump in February called a “merit based” approach that prioritizes highly skilled and educated workers. The problem with this idea, from a liberal perspective, is its cruelty. It denies many immigrants who are already here the ability to reunite with their loved ones. And it flouts the country’s best traditions. Would we remove from the Statue of Liberty the poem welcoming the “poor,” the “wretched,” and the “homeless”? A better answer is to take some of the windfall that immigration brings to wealthier Americans and give it to those poorer Americans whom immigration harms. Borjas has suggested taxing the high-tech, agricultural, and service-sector companies that profit from cheap immigrant labor and using the money to compensate those Americans who are displaced by it.Unfortunately, while admitting poor immigrants makes redistributing wealth more necessary, it also makes it harder, at least in the short term. By some estimates, immigrants, who are poorer on average than native-born Americans and have larger families, receive more in government services than they pay in taxes. According to the National Academies report, immigrant-headed families with children are 15 percentage points more likely to rely on food assistance, and 12 points more likely to rely on Medicaid, than other families with children. In the long term, the United States will likely recoup much if not all of the money it spends on educating and caring for the children of immigrants. But in the meantime, these costs strain the very welfare state that liberals want to expand in order to help those native-born Americans with whom immigrants compete. What’s more, studies by the Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam and others suggest that greater diversity makes Americans less charitable and less willing to redistribute wealth. People tend to be less generous when large segments of society don’t look or talk like them. Surprisingly, Putnam’s research suggests that greater diversity doesn’t reduce trust and cooperation just among people of different races or ethnicities—it also reduces trust and cooperation among people of the same race and ethnicity. Trump appears to sense this. His implicit message during the campaign was that if the government kept out Mexicans and Muslims, white, Christian Americans would not only grow richer and safer, they would also regain the sense of community that they identified with a bygone age. “At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America,” he declared in his inaugural address, “and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.”Liberals must take seriously Americans’ yearning for social cohesion. To promote both mass immigration and greater economic redistribution, they must convince more native-born white Americans that immigrants will not weaken the bonds of national identity. This means dusting off a concept many on the left currently hate: assimilation.
Promoting assimilation need not mean expecting immigrants to abandon their culture. But it does mean breaking down the barriers that segregate them from the native-born. And it means celebrating America’s diversity less, and its unity more.
Writing last year in American Sociological Review, Ariela Schachter, a sociology professor at Washington University in St. Louis, examined the factors that influence how native-born whites view immigrants. Foremost among them is an immigrant’s legal status. Given that natives often assume Latinos are undocumented even when they aren’t, it follows that illegal immigration indirectly undermines the status of those Latinos who live in the U.S. legally. That’s why conservatives rail against government benefits for undocumented immigrants (even though the undocumented are already barred from receiving many of those benefits): They know Americans will be more reluctant to support government programs if they believe those programs to be benefiting people who have entered the country illegally. Liberal immigration policy must work to ensure that immigrants do not occupy a separate legal caste. This means opposing the guest-worker programs—beloved by many Democrat-friendly tech companies, among other employers—that require immigrants to work in a particular job to remain in the U.S. Some scholars believe such programs drive down wages; they certainly inhibit assimilation. And, as Schachter’s research suggests, strengthening the bonds of identity between natives and immigrants is harder when natives and immigrants are not equal under the law.The next Democratic presidential candidate should say again and again that because Americans are one people, who must abide by one law, his or her goal is to reduce America’s undocumented population to zero. For liberals, the easy part of fulfilling that pledge is supporting a path to citizenship for the undocumented who have put down roots in the United States. The hard part, which Hillary Clinton largely ignored in her 2016 presidential run, is backing tough immigration enforcement so that path to citizenship doesn’t become a magnet that entices more immigrants to enter the U.S. illegally. Enforcement need not mean tearing apart families, as Trump is doing with gusto. Liberals can propose that the government deal harshly not with the undocumented themselves but with their employers. Trump’s brutal policies already appear to be slowing illegal immigration. But making sure companies follow the law and verify the legal status of their employees would curtail it too: Migrants would presumably be less likely to come to the U.S. if they know they won’t be able to find work. In 2014, the University of California listed the term melting pot as a “microaggression.” What if Hillary Clinton had called that absurd?Schachter’s research also shows that native-born whites feel a greater affinity toward immigrants who speak fluent English. That’s particularly significant because, according to the National Academies report, newer immigrants are learning English more slowly than their predecessors did. During the campaign, Clinton proposed increasing funding for adult English-language education. But she rarely talked about it. In fact, she ran an ad attacking Trump for saying, among other things, “This is a country where we speak English, not Spanish.” The immigration section of her website showed her surrounded by Spanish-language signs.Democrats should put immigrants’ learning English at the center of their immigration agenda. If more immigrants speak English fluently, native-born whites may well feel a stronger connection to them, and be more likely to support government policies that help them. Promoting English will also give Democrats a greater chance of attracting those native-born whites who consider growing diversity a threat. According to a preelection study by Adam Bonica, a Stanford political scientist, the single best predictor of whether a voter supported Trump was whether he or she agreed with the statement “People living in the U.S. should follow American customs and traditions.” In her 2005 book, The Authoritarian Dynamic, which has been heralded for identifying the forces that powered Trump’s campaign, Karen Stenner, then a professor of politics at Princeton, wrote:
Exposure to difference, talking about difference, and applauding difference—the hallmarks of liberal democracy—are the surest ways to aggravate those who are innately intolerant, and to guarantee the increased expression of their predispositions in manifestly intolerant attitudes and behaviors. Paradoxically, then, it would seem that we can best limit intolerance of difference by parading, talking about, and applauding our sameness.
The next Democratic presidential nominee should commit those words to memory. There’s a reason Barack Obama’s declaration at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that “there is not a liberal America and a conservative America … There is not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America” is among his most famous lines. Americans know that liberals celebrate diversity. They’re less sure that liberals celebrate unity. And Obama’s ability to effectively do the latter probably contributed to the fact that he—a black man with a Muslim-sounding name—twice won a higher percentage of the white vote than did Hillary Clinton.In 2014, the University of California listed melting pot as a term it considered a “microaggression.” What if Hillary Clinton had traveled to one of its campuses and called that absurd? What if she had challenged elite universities to celebrate not merely multiculturalism and globalization but Americanness? What if she had said more boldly that the slowing rate of English-language acquisition was a problem she was determined to solve? What if she had acknowledged the challenges that mass immigration brings, and then insisted that Americans could overcome those challenges by focusing not on what makes them different but on what makes them the same? Some on the left would have howled. But I suspect that Clinton would be president today.
The term "Deep State" unleashes many paranoid fantasies. Movies and spy stories abound about the existence of dark, nefarious forces from our government aligned against us. But as Joseph Heller once wrote, "Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't after you." One of the more disturbing revelations after Trump's win was finding that these dark forces not only exist, but are powerful and seemingly out of control.
"Deep State" is hard to define, because it is composed of overlapping groups and individuals with complex and differing agendas. It's an amalgam of people, agencies, and bureaucrats that changes. The current leakers are part of it. For now, let's say it's a mostly unelected, mostly leftist group within our government that wants to govern us against the will of America's founding principles. These people want the final say over our Republic. They want to rule, and they form part of a powerful alliance against the current administration and its voters. The one thing we can be thankful for is that they are showing themselves to us in a way that should anger Americans of all political persuasions. In the end, that's what we might hope for.
"Big Brother" was the term Orwell used for the totalitarian presence of 1984. We are not there. Maybe not even close. But the problem of the Deep State is that there seem to be those who want the kind of power Orwell described, the kind of power the Soviets had, or the East Germans. It's likely that many Deep-Staters don't even realize just how power-mad they have become.
Here is a small list with their fingerprints on it:
- The unmasking and subsequent takedown of General Michael Flynn
- The daily leaks designed to impede or embarrass the Trump administration
- The unmasking of hundreds of private citizens working with the Trump campaign as reported by Circa News
- The bogus "Trump dossier"
- The bogus Trump-Russian collusion narrative.
- The unseemly collusion between Robert Mueller and James Comey
- The seeming insanity of Mueller probing a nonexistent crime
- The exoneration of the Clinton crime family
- The IRS targeting conservative groups
And lots more.
What we are watching is a group using power willfully, wrongfully, and oftentimes illegally to undermine and destroy political opponents. They are after somebody. For real. From this list, we can surmise that their opponents appear to be those of us on the center-right. And to those of you on the left who don't know: This happened, and it's happening. You can pretend it's not so, but it is.
Okay, some of you are tuning out. This can't happen here, it's tinfoil hat stuff, the left really isn't that bad, you're being overly paranoid, blah, blah, blah. Sorry, but this is seriously bad stuff.
I recall back when the PATRIOT Act was passed, noting a comment by Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit. He said powers to surveil, and powers that could cross the lines of the bad guys' civil liberties, were well and good, but in the wrong hands, those powers could and would be misused.
Well, he was right. At the time, I considered his fears over the top, but I was wrong. The history of the human race is littered with tyrants who concentrated and misused power. The genius of the American system adopted by the founding fathers was limiting and decentralizing government in a way to protect our citizenry against this kind of tyranny. Systems were put in place to check, balance, and limit the things that could be done by the government against its people. The Bill of Rights is directed at that problem. These rights were called inalienable, the natural and normal rights given to us by God, not by our government. These were to be our birthright as a nation. It's one of the many reasons our country has been great and can be great again.
We have had bad players in our government, we have made lots of mistakes and done wrong things as a nation, but what we are seeing played out now is simply unprecedented. There is a quote attributed to Valerie Jarrett, Obama adviser-enforcer and all-around bad human, that goes like this:
After we win this election, it's our turn. Payback time. Everyone not with us is against us, and they better be ready, because we don't forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded; the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay. Congress won't be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this is over.
Let me say, there is no proof she said this. But one thing that is real for sure is that much of what they did in that administration, with her help, was to institutionalize those ideas as their operating manual. The IRS scandal targeting conservative donors and conservative organizations was a perfect example. Read the horrifying story in Forbes of what happened to Catherine Engelbrecht if you think this didn't happen. A terrible line had been crossed. Had she been a liberal, we would hear her name for forty years or more.
This was just the tip of the iceberg. The left has weaponized the bureaucracies and agencies it inhabits. Leftists have decided they will become the dominant culture in the CIA, FBI, NSA, IRS, EPA, and the rest of our bureaucracies. They decided it's okay to be totalitarian, it's okay to break the law, it's okay to go after their political opponents with the force of government, it's okay because they are the ones who deserve to win. The Deep State running rampant is fine, as long as they run it. From Valerie Jarrett to Barack Obama to James Clapper and James Comey, they all visibly overstepped their rightful boundaries. They are proof of the saying that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Make no mistake: the prior administration went rampant. The Deep
State did not originate with them, but they stocked it with their
cronies. They stocked it with people of similar left-leaning ideas, with similar left-leaning willingness to misuse power. The Deep State became a weapon of intimidation and a deep abuser of power. Thank God Hillary was not there to take the baton.
So here we are, with the Deep State running amok. They are aligned with the Obamap-Clinton machine; they are generally in sync with the Obama-Clinton goals. None of us knows exactly how this works, who sets the agenda, or who has the capacity to give direction, but it is real. We do know that many of the media are there to help, we do know that most of the Democratic Party apparatus is there to help, and we do know some of the players. We also know that most of the Democrat base, and many of the party's voters, are naïvely on board, too. We may not understand the mechanism, but we do know that the Deep State has become the vanguard of the left's civil war, and it is not fictional.
They are self-motivated with a set of goals. Get rid of Trump if they can. Get Trump's base to be embarrassed of him or depressed if they can. Make certain that Trump cannot succeed. Make certain his hands are tied in ways to make him less effective. If nothing else, slow his progress to a snail's pace while they marshal better forces.
The stupid party (Republicans), as usual, has no clue. Too many Republicans just think this is normal or haven't the stomach to fight. Heck, many of them are traitorously helping to take down what their own voters and standard-bearer want to achieve. The Democratic Party is fractured and has no idea how wrong this is (yet), and it only helps parrot the talking points of its Deep State allies. Democrats have no idea of the backlash they are creating toward themselves.
There is no distinct winner at this point. But the battle is joined. It is clear that the Deep State intends to continue using all its power to stop Trump, and to prevent a return to checks and balances and limited government.
One important note: they are not winning. The media may make it appear that they are, but they're not. Trump, his administration and allies, and his voting base intend on continuing the fight and winning. This is the major part of "draining the swamp." The battle is in the balance, will last for years, and there are a lot of reasons to believe that the Deep State will lose. One of the great unintended consequences of Trump's win: They have been unmasked.
Push back hard enough, and they will lose.
They deserve to.
OPEN BORDERS – HOW THE DEMOCRAT PARTY DESTROYED THE GOP, THE AMERICAN WORKER and then AMERICA!
THE LOOTING OF AMERICA:
A PARTNERSHIP OF MEXICO, THE MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS AND THE DEMOCRAT PARTY TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED
“But as American sanctuary cities flouted Federal law and encouraged illegal immigration after 1980, those working in the U.S. started to wire transfer money back to their families in amounts that became so large that by the late 1990s remittances to Mexico were the second largest source of foreign revenues, second only to oil revenues.”
October 18, 2016
Why Hillary and Her Wall Street Donors Don’t Want Trump’s Wall
When GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump first talked about building a “big, beautiful wall” at the southern border of the U.S. he was met with fierce resistance. Given the facts that the southern border is the main route used by drug smugglers and criminal illegal immigrants(all persons who cross the border illegal commit a Federal misdemeanor the first time, a felony the second time) there would not seem to be a good reason to resist lawful regulation of border entry. As usual, the answer may be in who gains from the absence of a Wall, and what they gain. The best way to get the answer is to follow the money.
Right now the transfer of money from persons working in the U.S. to Mexico, called “personal remittances” are a major source of Mexican revenue. The growth of remittance revenue is a recent development. Mexico seized the assets of nearly all foreign oil companies operating in Mexico in 1938. But as American sanctuary cities flouted Federal law and encouraged illegal immigration after 1980, those working in the U.S. started to wire transfer money back to their families in amounts that became so large that by the late 1990s remittances to Mexico were the second largest source of foreign revenues, second only to oil revenues.
According to the World Bank, in 2015 the world’s top remittance corridor was from the United States to Mexico. As much as $25.2 billion dollars was sent back to Mexico from people working in the U.S. Remittances are a great source of revenue for Mexico and are more stable than all other flows such as oil.
BLOG: ADD THE $40 TO $60 BILLION THE NARCOMEX DRUG CARTELS HAUL BACK!
In 1979 the Police Chief of Los Angeles publicly stated that he would not enforce immigration law. Following this announcement, which was the effective beginning of Los Angeles as a sanctuary city, remittances to Mexico from the U.S. grew very rapidly from only $177 million in 1979 to $26.9 billion in 2007, following the growth of those sectors of the economy such as construction where illegal immigrants worked. After the 2007 economic peak there was a drop in 2009 to $22 billion. But in 2015 the amount of remittances climbed back to $26.2 billion, according to the World Bank. Ninety-eight percent of all remittances sent to Mexico come from the U.S.
It is no coincidence that the most rapid growth occurred from 2000 to 2008 when Vincente Fox was the president of Mexico. This is why the most emotional and energetic resistance to the Wall came from Vincente Fox, who used abusive language toward Trump. His statement were cloaked in emotion and anger, a skillfully crafted disguise for the real reason for his concern: money.
One in every eleven persons born in Mexico has gone to the U.S. The National Review reported that in 2014 $1.87 billion was spent on incarcerating illegal immigrant criminals.
Since the political economy of Los Angeles depends so heavily on the Federal and state program money that supports illegal immigration, the Los AngelesTimes still defends Special Order 40 as essential to, paradoxically, law and order. It’s also essential to the economy of Los Angeles but somehow the Times doesn’t mention that fact.
BLOG:
THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES HANDS INVADING ILLEGALS ONE BILLION IN WELFARE.
90% OF ALL MURDERS IN LOS ANGELES ARE BY MEXICANS.
THE TAX FREE UNDERGROUND ECONOMY IN L.A. COUNTY IS ESTIMATED TO BE IN EXCESS OF $2 BILLION.
One may ask why the Federal government chooses to spend so much money on the incarceration of criminal aliens by defying the Federal 1996 Immigration Act. But it’s important to keep in mind the benefits the Federal government, particularly the Democrat Party, the party of government sector teacher unions, obtains from illegal immigration. After all, their four biggest campaign contributors, the Service Employees International Union, the National Education Association, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and American Federation of Teachers are four of the top six contributors from 1989 to present. And they give over 99% of their contributors to Democrats. Today sixty five percent of public school students in Los Angeles County are Hispanic. In Chicago 46% are Hispanic.
Democrats, who have dominated almost all large metropolitan areas since FDR, are heavily dependent on illegal immigrants and their children.Should Trump build an effective wall, he would disrupt the flow of illegal immigrants, public school students, teacher union donations and block grant money to all their most important bases of electoral and demographic support. Trump’s wall is the major threat to what they see as their party’s long term goal of maintaining control of state governments as well as the national government.
Multimillionaire Jorge Ramos of Univision has criticized Trump aggressively. While Univision may have no obvious direct financial interest in remittances, their TV network certainly stands to profit from increases in Hispanic viewership, increases that are totally dependent on the growth of the Hispanic populations in cities they serve.
BLOG: CRIMINAL BANKSTERS WELLS FARGO and BANK of ILLEGALS (AMERICA) ARE MAJOR DONORS TO THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA “The Race”.
In short, everything that matters to Hillary and her Democrat Party is existentially threatened by Trump’s wall. And as a personal matter, Hillary’smulti-million dollar speech income from Wall Street contributors is also threatened: the banks make money from the wire transfers. Every time someone in the U.S. wires money to Mexico, the banks, currency exchanges, and other providers of wire transfer services make easy money. And the loss of low paying jobs to teenagers and seniors to illegal immigrants also contributes to the recession. Hillary and her party supporters desperately need illegal immigrants: Hillary is bought and paid for.
We now know that the big Wall Street banks bought her and you are paying for it in many ways. Hillary will not reveal what she has said to big bank contributors, but it is not unlikely that she reassured them that she will allow an open border to exist on the Southern part of the U.S. Recent email leaks have confirmed that she believes in open borders.
And then there’s the humanitarian issue. After all, the rationalization for allowing illegal immigration is that we need people to do “low paid jobs no one else will do.” This is a racist, humiliating characterization of Hispanics from Mexico and other Central American countries. America’s most shameful chapter in its history was its promotion of the institution of slavery, the importation of blacks from Africa to do “low paid jobs no one else will do.” It is hard to understand how anyone with sensitivity toward racial minorities can now bring up another generation of low paid workers. Vincente Fox never discusses this abuse, or the rape trees human smugglers construct as monuments to their criminal rape of young Hispanic women illegally crossing the border from the South.
Those following the money trail would say this follows the pattern perfectly: that Hillary allows illegal immigrants to be exploited by cartels and rapists in order for the banks she protects to collect their remittance transfer money. Somehow these humanitarian topics are avoided. We know that Wall Street investment banks gave tens of millions to support Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. These same banks make easy profits from of illegal immigrant bank transfer fees as well as high interest rate home loans and car loans targeted to Hispanics.
Hillary’s lack of humanitarian concern is accompanied by a silence toward the issue of money.
"Even though it has gone virtually unreported by corporate media, BreitbartNews has extensively documented the Clintons’ longstanding support for “open borders.” Interestingly, as the LosAngelesTimes observed in 2007, the Clinton’s praise for globalization and open borders frequently comes when they are speaking before a wealthy foreign audiences and donors."
SOARING POVERTY AND UNEMPLOYMENT UNDER OBAMA’S OPEN BORDERS POLICIES.
THE DEPT. of HOMELAND OPEN BORDERS SECURITY SECRET REPORT:
The Borders Are Wide Open. Illegals Jumping it in the Thousands.
Death of the America Middle Class is around the corner. End of the GOP is at hand. A one Party American is near. Mexico will elect all future Presidents.
Even though it has gone virtually unreported by corporate media, BreitbartNews has extensively documented the Clintons’ longstanding support for “open borders.” Interestingly, as the LosAngelesTimes observed in 2007, the Clinton’s praise for globalization and open borders frequently comes when they are speaking before a wealthy foreign audiences and donors.
JAMES WALSH - THE HISPANICAZATION of AMERICA
How the Democrat party surrendered America to Mexico:
“The watchdogs at Judicial Watch discovered documents that reveal how the Obama administration's close coordination with the Mexican government entices Mexicans to hop over the fence and on to the American dole.” Washington Times
HILLARY’S AMERICA: NOW BANKROLLED BY THE MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS
IMAGES OF AMERICA UNDER LA RAZA MEX OCCUPATION:
Your neighborhood will be next to fall to LA RAZA!
Even though it has gone virtually unreported by corporate media, BreitbartNews has extensively documented the Clintons’ longstanding support for “open borders.” Interestingly, as the LosAngelesTimes observed in 2007, the Clinton’s praise for globalization and open borders frequently comes when they are speaking before a wealthy foreign audiences and donors.
OPEN BORDERS: The Democrat Party’s Weapon of Mass Destruction on the American Worker
"Los Angeles saw all crime rise in 2015: violent crime up 19.9 percent, homicides up 10.2 percent, shooting victims up 12.6 percent, rapes up 8.6 percent, robberies up 12.3 percent, and aggravated assault up 27.5 percent,"Landry said.”
The illegal broke into her place.
Using a claw hammer, he beat her, broke her neck and raped her!
Marilyn Pharis was 64 when she died from her assault.
According to a 2011 report from the Government Accountability Office, there are 70,000 sexual offenses attached to the incarcerated criminal alien population.
A Mexican illegal alien allegedly raped a girl in Kansas in September after being deported ten times in the past six years alone, according to reports.
BUILDING THE MEXICAN CARTELS IN THE AMERICAN BURBS!
MEXIFORNIA (Formerly California) NOW UNDER NARCOMEX CONTROL
Suspected Illegal Alien Marijuana Farmers Held Workers Hostage: ICE
"More than 728,000 illegal immigrants have been shielded from being deported and granted work permits through President Barack Obama’s 2012 executive amnesty
program, according to the Migration Policy Institute."
THE OBAMA DOCTRINE: Let the Mexicans Destroy America
…. Amnesty will destroy the GOP, white and black middle America, keep wages depressed and build the LA RAZA SUPREMACY DEMOCRAT PARTY
Fermin Rivera, 28, allegedly beat a puppy to death while trying to break into a neighborhood home. During the attempted burglary, Rivera had broken into the backyard but was met with barking by a small puppy. Surveillance cameras show Rivera subsequently “cornered the Bichon-Maltese mix, lifted the dog over his head and slammed it down with all his strength on the concrete slab twice.” River is now reportedly “facing felony counts of animal cruelty charges and attempted burglary charges.” Rivera is reportedly on an immigration hold.
LEADING MEMBERS OF THE LA RAZA DEMOCRAT PARTY:
2,000 CALIFORNIANS HAVE BEEN MURDERED BY MEXICANS..... WHO THEN FLED BACK OVER THE OPE BORDER TO AVOID PROSECUTION
HILLARY CLINTON AND THE CONSPIRACY WITH THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA “THE RACE” TO SURRENDER AMERICA’S BORDERS, DESTROY THE GOP WITH MILLIONS OF MEX VOTERS AND EXPAND THE MEX WELFARE STATE ON AMERICA’S BACKS
…and Openly a LA RAZA SUPREMACIST agent for Mexico!
"The same period has seen a massive growth of social inequality, with income and wealth concentrated at the very top of American society to an extent not seen since the 1920s."
"He (Trump) is able to get a hearing because millions of people are being driven into economic insecurity and poverty while the rich and the super-rich continue to amass obscene levels of wealth. He is able with some success to divert mass discontent along reactionary nationalist and racialist channels precisely because what passes for the “left” in American politics, anchor by the Democratic Party, has moved ever further to the right, culminating in the Obama administration which has presided over endless war and an unprecedented redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top of the economic ladder."
A NATION IN BORDER MELTDOWN:
MILLIONS OF JOBS TO ILLEGALS AND
BILLIONS IN WELFARE
MEXICO WILL DOUBLE AMERICA’S POPULATION
IMMIGRANT SHARE OF ADULTS QUADRUPLED IN 232 COUNTIES
Most Americans (legals) would be appalled to know that from day one the Obomb has funded the MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA “The Race” with U.S. tax dollars and this racist party has operated out of the white house under LA RAZA V.P. Cecilia Munoz.
THE CLINTON, OBAMA AND PAUL RYAN CONSPIRACY TO SABOTAGE HOMELAND SECURITY.
FOR THE DEMOCRAT PARTY, MEXICO'S INVASION, OCCUPATION AND EVER EXPANDING WELFARE STATE KEEPS WAGES DEPRESSED, BUILD THE DEMS' LA RAZA PARTY BASE, AND DESTROYS THE GOP.
WE ARE SOON TO BE A ONE PARTY NATION WITH OPEN BORDERS FOR THE MEXICAN HORDES AS THEY JUMP OUR JOBS, WELFARE OFFICES AND VOTING BOOTHS WAVING THEIR MEXICAN FLAGS!
BARACK OBAMA , HIS CRIMINAL BANKSTERS AND THE LA RAZA
MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS….
There’s more than one way to destroy America’s white middle class!
HSBC laundered hundreds of millions and perhaps billions of dollars for drug cartels responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people over the past two decades. The bank transferred at least $881 million of known drug trafficking proceeds, including money from the Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico, which is known for dismembering its victims and publicly displaying their body parts.
INVADING ILLEGALS = UNREGISTERED DEMS
925k CRIMINAL ILLEGALS NOT DEPORTED
OBAMA’S OPEN BORDERS TO DESTROY THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS - MILLIONS OF INVADING CRIMINALS NOT DEPORTED
OPEN BORDERS KEEPS WAGES FOR LEGALS DEPRESSED AND BUILDS THE LA RAZA SUPREMACY PARTY BASE FOR THE DEMOCRAT PARTY HELL BENT ON DESTROYING THE GOP WITH AN ENDLESS INVASION BY MEXICO!
LA RAZA ILLEGAL CARLOS ESPARAZA RAPED A 7 YEAR OLD.
THEN HE WENT OUT AND VOTED DEM FOR WIDER OPEN BORDERS!
The sputtering economic recovering under President Obama, the last to follow a major recession, has fallen way short of the average recovery and ranks as the worst since the 1930s Great Depression, according to a new report.
Had the recovery under Obama been the average of the 11 since the Depression, according to the report, family incomes would be $17,000 higher, six million fewer Americans would be in poverty, and there would be six million more jobs.
"These figures present a scathing indictment of the social order that prevails in America, the world’s wealthiest country, whose government proclaims itself to be the globe’s leading democracy. They are just one manifestation of the human toll taken by the vast and all-pervasive inequality and mass poverty
OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS TO SERVE THE SUPER RICH: The slow and painful death of America that dominates American society."
“This study follows reports released over the past several months documenting rising mortality rates among US workers due to drug addiction and suicide, high rates of infant mortality, an overall leveling off of life expectancy, and a growing gap between the life expectancy of the bottom rung of income earners compared to those at the top.”
THE CLINTON “JOBS” PLAN ENDORSED BY NARCOMEX – IT’S CALLED AMNESTY!
Clinton, in the guise of a “jobs” and “infrastructure” program, promoted yet another scheme to hand out tax cuts and other incentives for companies to hire workers at poverty-level wages, with the trade unions brought in to keep the workers in line in return for a cut in the spoils.
"Republicans should call for lower immigration to stop the Democrat voter recruitment. But more importantly, all Americans should call for lower immigration in order to offer a better opportunity of finding jobs for those millions of their fellow Americans of all political persuasions who would like to work."
MILLIONS OF AMERICAN JOBS HANDED OVER TO ILLEGALS ALONG WITH BILLIONS IN WELFARE.... AND THE PARTY HAS JUST BEGUN!
THE DEMOCRAT PARTY PLATFORM:
NO DAMNED LEGAL NEED APPLY!
VIVA LA RAZA FASCISM? THEN VOTE DEM!
"Republicans should call for lower immigration to stop the Democrat voter recruitment. But more importantly, all Americans should call for lower immigration in order to offer a better opportunity of finding jobs for those millions of their fellow Americans of all political persuasions who would like to work."
WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 (UPI) — The total apprehensions by U.S. Border Patrol agents of people trying to illegally cross the border between the United States and Mexico increased in 2016 from last year but is lower than the two years prior.
In 2016, there were 408,870 total apprehensions, a 23 percent increase from 2015 in which there were 331,333 apprehensions, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said in a statement. The 2016 numbers, though, represent a 14.7 percent decrease from the 479,371 apprehensions in 2014, and a 1.3 percent decrease from the 414,397 apprehensions in 2013.
“The demographics of illegal migration on our southern border has changed significantly over the last 15 years — far fewer Mexicans and single adults are attempting to cross the border without authorization, but more families and unaccompanied children are fleeing poverty and violence in Central America,” Johnson wrote.
The number of Central Americans apprehended at the southern border outnumbered Mexicans for the first time in 2014, and in 2016 the situation occurred again, Johnson added.
In 2016, there were 59,692 unaccompanied children, 77,674 people who attempted to cross the border as a family, and 271,504 individuals who attempted to cross the border illegally.
Johnson said that though President Barack Obama’s administration has “endeavored to enforce the immigration laws in a fair and humane way … the reality is the system is broken, and badly need of comprehensive immigration reform that only Congress can provide.”
Johnson called on Congress and the United States’ next president, likely to be either Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton or Republican nominee Donald Trump, to “make smart investments in border security technology, equipment and other resources.”
“Border security alone cannot overcome the powerful push factors of poverty and violence that exist in Central America. Walls alone cannot prevent illegal migration,” Johnson wrote. “Ultimately, the solution is long-term investment in Central America to address the underlying push factors in the region.”
THE LA RAZA PLAN: California’s final surrender to fly the Mexican flag within 4 years.
"The American Southwest seems to be slowly returning to the jurisdiction of Mexico without firing a single shot." -- - EXCELSIOR --- national newspaper of Mexico
WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL, THE LA RAZA-OCCUPIED COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES HANDS ILLEGAL MEXICAN MORE THAN A BILLION IN WELFARE FOR BREEDING ANCHOR BABIES…. AMERICA’S NEXT GENERATION OF STAGGERINGLY EXPENSIVE “CHEAP” LABOR
“Taco Runt” is a member of the Mexican Fascist Movement of M.E.Ch.A. and a racist (yes, Mexicans think of themselves as a unique “race”) LA RAZA supremacist.
He is proud of the fact that he FAILED California’s State Bar test more than any other illiterate Mexican on earth and that qualifies him to operate California’s Mexican Welfare State for LA RAZA.
BELOW LINK IS TO THE LA RAZA “THE RACE” MEXICAN FASCIST AND RACIST ANTI-AMERICAN SEPARATIST MOVEMENT M.E.Ch.A. Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan. (WARNING GRAPHIC!)
“As one attorney general, Kamala Harris, steps down to replace Barbara Boxer, another attorney general is secreted out of the glands of selfsame power in the form of pus-spewing Xavier Becerra.”
It didn’t stop Becerra, a prominent Latino rights advocate who has
served in Congress since 1993, from pushing for the dealer’s
release at the request of his father, Horacio. The elder Vignali, a
rich Los Angeles businessman, contributed thousands of dollars
to Becerra’s various campaigns and a favor was in order.
“Through love of having children, we are going to take over.” AUGUSTIN CEBADA, BROWN BERETS, THE LA RAZA FASCIST PARTY
CALIFORNIA UNDER LA RAZA SIEGE:
Mexico’s looting and ethnic cleansing of a once American state.
CA HAS THE HIGHEST TAXES IN THE NATION, THE LARGEST ILLEGAL MEXICAN POPULATION, THE LARGEST MEX WELFARE STATE and HALF THE MURDERS IN CA ARE NOW BY MEXICAN GANGS.
LA RAZA MEXICO’S TRILLION DOLLAR LOOTING OF AMERICA
The staggering cost of all that “cheap” Mexican labor:
“The lifetime costs of Social Security and Medicare benefits of illegal immigrant beneficiaries of President Obama’s executive amnesty would be well over a trillion dollars, according to Heritage Foundation expert Robert Rector’s prepared testimony for a House panel obtained in advance by Breitbart News.”
THE STAGGERING COST OF AMNESTY: non-enforcement is another form of AMNESTY!
Legals to pay trillions for open borders and Mexico’s looting
Between one-quarter and one-third of the 1.5 million new arrivals in 2014 were illegal aliens, meaning that a conservative estimate is that 1,000 illegal aliens a day are moving to the United States.
ATTORNEY GENERAL JEFF SESSIONS ORDERS CALIFORNIA TERMINATED.
MEXICO IMMEDIATELY DENOUNCED THE DECREE AND FIRED SESSIONS.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions: Emergency Intervention Needed in California NOW!
MEXICO’S BIGGEST EXPORTS TO U.S.: poverty, anchor baby breeders for welfare, criminals, unregistered dems and HEROIN!
By Arthur Schaper
Townhall.com
In California, illegals can vote: it’s possible and very likely. California’s automatic motor-voter law all but assures that illegals seeking driver’s licenses will get a ballot along with their license.
Miscreants from any corner of the world can register to vote in California online, too. No vetting, no assurance, no integrity.
Voter fraud in broken inner city hellholes like Detroit and New York City cannot compare with the ballot stuffing throughout the once Golden State.
OPEN BORDERS: The Democrat Party’s Weapon of Mass Destruction on the American Worker
"Los Angeles saw all crime rise in 2015: violent crime up 19.9 percent, homicides up 10.2 percent, shooting victims up 12.6 percent, rapes up 8.6 percent, robberies up 12.3 percent, and aggravated assault up 27.5 percent," Landry said.”
IMAGES of LA RAZA CRIMINALS IN LOS
ANGELES ALONE:
200 MOST WANTED (MURDER) CRIMINALS IN LA RAZA-OCCUPIED LOS ANGELES:
“The lifetime costs of Social Security and Medicare benefits of illegal immigrant beneficiaries of President Obama’s executive amnesty would be well over a trillion dollars, according to Heritage Foundation expert Robert Rector’s prepared testimony for a House panel obtained in advance by Breitbart News.”
MEXICO’S BIGGEST EXPORTS TO U.S.: poverty, anchor baby breeders for welfare, criminals, unregistered dems and HEROIN!
BILLIONAIRES FOR BORDERLESS AMERICA
….It’s all to keep wages DEPRESSED.
“This nation no longer is a democratic republic...rather it has become a tool of the super-rich members of the above mentioned elite who preselect our presidents based on their cooperation and complicity with the elite’s ultimate goals. Obama has, in their opinion done superbly carrying out the plans well laid out for him by his backers.”
“The principal beneficiaries of our current immigration policy are affluent Americans who hire immigrants at substandard wages for low-end work. Harvard economist George Borjas estimates that American workers lose $190 billion annually (DATED FIGURES) in depressed wages caused by the constant flooding of the labor market at the low-wage end.” --- Christian Science Monitor
While the declining job market in the United States may be discouraging some would-be border crossers, a flow of illegal aliens continues unabated, with many entering the United States as drug-smuggling “mules.”
California must stem the flow of illegal immigrants
The state should go after employers who hire them, curb taxpayer-funded benefits, deploy the National Guard to help the feds at the border and penalize 'sanctuary' cities.
“Illegal immigration is another matter entirely. With the state budget in tatters, millions of residents out of work and a state prison system strained by massive overcrowding, California simply cannot continue to ignore the strain that illegal immigration puts on our budget and economy. Illegal aliens cost taxpayers in our state billions of dollars each year. As economist Philip J. Romero concluded in a 2007 study, "illegal immigrants impose a 'tax' on legal California residents in the tens of billions of dollars."
Casting a shadow on economic recovery efforts in the United States is the cost of illegal immigration that consumes U.S. taxpayer dollars for education, healthcare, social welfare benefits, and criminal justice. Illegal aliens (or more politically correct, “undocumented immigrants”) with ties to Mexican drug cartels are contributing to death and destruction on U.S. lands along the southern border.
While the declining job market in the United States may be discouraging some would-be border crossers, a flow of illegal aliens continues unabated, with many entering the United States as drug-smuggling “mules.”
What does the US Department of Justice, the Sinaloa drug cartel, and the spy corporation Stratfor have in common? According to CIA documents leaked by WikiLeaks, they’re all at the center of the new US strategy in the War on Drugs. In 2012, Whiteout Press exposed the shocking alliance in the article, ‘Secret US Alliance with Sinaloa Cartel exposed’.
“According to Immigration and Customers Enforcement data first obtained by the Associated Press this week, about 70 percent of the 40,000 migrant family members arrested at the border since May did not follow up their arrest with a necessary visit to an immigration office.”
The NARCOMEX drug cartels now operate in all major
American cities and haul back to NARCOMEX between $40
THE REAL FACE OF CALIFORNIA UNDER MEXICAN OCCUPATION:
“The California-Mexico border would surely be opened wide, prompting a spike in unfettered immigration by desperately poor people, drug dealers, and gang members to what is already a virtually lawless and out-of-control welfare state.”
Lou Dobbs Tonight
In California, League of United Latin American Citizens has adopted a resolution to declare "California Del Norte" a sanctuary zone for immigrants. The declaration urges the Mexican government to invoke its rights under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo "to seek third‑nation neutral arbitration of disputes concerning immigration laws and their enforcement." We’ll have the story.
BELOW LINK IS TO THE LA RAZA “THE RACE” MEXICAN FASCIST SEPARATIST MOVEMENT (WARNING! GRAPHIC!)
"The American Southwest seems to be slowly returning to the jurisdiction of Mexico without firing a single shot." --- EXCELSIOR --- national newspaper of Mexico
BELOW LINK IS TO THE LA RAZA “THE RACE” MEXICAN FASCIST SEPARATIST MOVEMENT (WARNING! GRAPHIC!)
"Republicans should call for lower immigration to stop the Democrat voter recruitment. But more importantly, all Americans should call for lower immigration in order to offer a better opportunity of finding jobs for those millions of their fellow Americans of all political persuasions who would like to work."
“Mexican drug cartels are the “other” terrorist threat to America. Militant Islamists have the goal of destroying the United States.Mexican drug cartels are now accomplishing that mission – from within, every day, in virtually every community across this country.” JUDICIALWATCH
REMITTANCES ….. are only part of Mexico’s
looting… and billions for anchor baby breeders,
billions for heroin sales and then do the numbers!
Mexicans abroad sent home nearly $2.4 billion in transfers in November, 24.7 percent higher than a year earlier, marking their fastest pace of expansion since March 2006, according to Mexican central bank data on Monday…
ONE OF THE MOST DISTURBING BOOKS OUT THERE ON MEXICO’S INVASION, OCCUPATION AND LOOTING of CALIFORNIA
MILLIONS of JOBS and BILLIONS in WELFARE and they commit most of the MURDERS
SANCTUARY CITIES AND STATES: AMERICA FALLS TO LA RAZA SUPREMACY!
“What we're seeing is our Congress and national leadership dismantling our laws by not enforcing them. Lawlessness becomes the norm, just like Third World corruption. Illegal aliens now have more rights and privileges than Americans. If you are an illegal alien, you can drive a car without a driver's license or insurance. You may obtain medical care without paying. You may work without paying taxes. Your children enjoy free education at the expense of taxpaying Americans.”
“According to the Centers for Immigration Studies, April '11, at least 70% of Mexican illegal alien families receive some type of welfare in the US!!! cis.org”
So when cities across the country declare that they will NOT be sanctuary, guess where ALL the illegals, criminals, gang members fleeing ICE will go???? straight to your welcoming city. So ironically the people fighting for sanctuary city status, may have an unprecedented crime wave to deal with along with the additional expense.
$17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
$12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English.
$22 billion is spent on (AFDC) welfare to illegal aliens each year.
$2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as (SNAP) food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
$3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.Does not include local jails and State Prisons.
2012 illegal aliens sent home $62 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin. This is why Mexico is getting involved in our politics.
$200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States.
Center for Immigration Studies. Federation for American Immigration Reform. House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Investigations. Inter-American Development Bank. Violent Crimes Institute. Federation for American Immigration Reform. Immigration Studies Program. Illegal Alien Crime Report. Memorial to victims of Illegal Alien Crime.
REVOLUTION IN MEXICO: Will It Spread Over America’s Open Borders?
“Over the last decade, theMexican ruling class has carried out a ruthless drive to intensify the exploitation of its labor and natural resources, mainly by American banks and corporations.”….sounds like what Wall Street has done to us!
LOS ANGELES: Mexico’s Second Largest City, First Place for Billion Dollar Mexican Welfare, Number 1 for Mexican Murder and Western Gateway For the LA RAZA Mexican Drug Cartels
“Part of the problem, Santorum said, has been the arrival of millions of unskilled immigrants — legal and illegal — in the United States. "American workers deserve a shot at [good] jobs," Santorum said. "Over the last 20 years, we have brought into this country, legally and illegally, 35 MILLION mostly unskilled workers. And the result, over that same period of time, workers' wages and family incomes have flatlined." SEN. RICK SANTORUM
A study by City.com reveals that the crime rate in Phoenix dropped dramatically after the city dropped its sanctuary city policies.
There are many reason why crime rates decline over a certain period of time. But the study suggests a provacative link between fewer criminal illegal aliens roaming the streets and a falling crime rate.
“When we eliminated our sanctuary policy back in 2008, we saw crime, violent and stolen vehicles fall by 25 percent,” former Phoenix police officer and Executive Director of the Arizona Police Association Levi Bolton told Fox News Channel’s William La Jeunesse in an interview. “We saw a 20-year low crime rate. When we were allowed and had the discretion to contact our federal immigration partners, crime fell drastically.”
Lajeunesse reported data from City-Data.com revealing that from 2008 to 2009, the murder rate in Phoenix dropped by 27 percent. Other crimes fell as well. Auto thefts fell by 36 percent, robberies 23 percent, thefts by 19 percent, burglaries by 14 percent, and assaults by 13 percent, the report states. The rates fell again in 2010, but by smaller numbers. The overall crime index fell by 20 percent the first year after the city’s policy change.
Police chiefs around the country tout that sanctuary cities are safer than cities that actually turn criminal aliens over to immigration officials for removal from the country.
“Police chiefs across the nation believe that enlisting local police to enforce immigration law is a bad idea,” California Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Leon (D) told reporters during a recent press conference “Having [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] pluck criminals out of jail and send them across the border or wherever they came only to come right back endangers our communities.”
The University of California, Riverside, disagrees. A 2016 study by the university revealed that “violent crime is slightly higher in sanctuary cities.” It concluded there is not a “discernible difference in violent crime rates, rape, or property crime” across the 55 cities in their study, La Jeunesse reported.
Finding a direct, causal link between the crime rate and illegal alien criminals is difficult because there are so many factors besides illegals that must be considered, including incarceration rates, declining or increasing population, even the amount of resources devoted to crime prevention.
Having said that, it's hard to escape the conclusion that turning illegals over to the feds has had a positive impact on reducing crime. I suppose it depends on your point of view. If you are disposed to reject any evidence that removing criminal illegal aliens from the community could reduce the number of serious crimes, you can find plenty of ammunition to buttress your point of view.
But to do that, you have to ignore the totality of the evidence. And although statistics from one city could be an outlier, it will be interesting to examine statistics from other cities that have changed their policies.
IS THERE A “SANCTUARY” WHERE LEGALS ARE SAFE FROM MEXICAN MURDERING RAPIST?
LIST of “SANCTUARY COUNTIES” AND THE LA RAZA CRIME TIDAL WAVE STATS
ICE ROUNDS UP THE ILLEGALS
THE LA RAZA CRIME TIDAL WAVE…. Murder, rape, molestation and then vote DEM for more!
"Los Angeles saw all crime rise in 2015: violent crime up 19.9 percent, homicides up 10.2 percent, shooting victims up 12.6 percent, rapes up 8.6 percent, robberies up 12.3 percent, and aggravated assault up 27.5 percent," Landry said.”
Although MS-13 started out in Salvadoran communities in Los Angeles sometime during the 1980’s, lax immigration policies and weak border security helped the gang explode in size as MS-13 originated from illegal immigrants, Breitbart Texas reported.
40% of all Federal Border Crimes are by invading Mexicans!
New York Times voices moral outrage over profiteering military contractors ... in Russia
By Bill Van Auken 11 July 2017
In an editorial published Monday, “The Spoils, and Profits, of Conflict,” the editors of the New York Times worked themselves into a moral lather over war profiteering by military contractors.
The subject is unquestionably one worth pursuing in a country that is engaged in at least seven different military conflicts, has troops stationed in nearly 150 countries and spends more on arms than the next nine largest military powers combined.
That these wars translate into massive profits for the arms industry and obscene fortunes for their stockholders, even as the American troops who do the killing and dying are drawn overwhelmingly from the working class and poor, is one of Washington’s dirty little secrets.
But the target of the Times’ umbrage is not the sprawling US military-industrial complex, but rather a little known Russian firm, Evro Polis, which, according to sources quoted by the newspaper, has made a deal with the Syrian government to provide private military contractors in return for Damascus guaranteeing it a share of the oil revenues from the areas that it retakes from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
The newspaper describes the deal as “shadowy and secret” and reports that at the head of the company is a figure “close to President Vladimir Putin.” It goes on to provide what it presents as a shocking quote from an unnamed private security consultant that “War is business.”
The Times’ editors, seemingly conscious that they are treading on thin ice, acknowledge that “mercenaries have always been around” and even “played a major role with US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.” It goes on to cite the infamous 2007 Nisour Square massacre in Baghdad, in which mercenary gunmen employed by the major US military contractor Blackwater gunned down 17 Iraqi civilians and wounded another 20.
Nonetheless, the newspaper insists, there is something uniquely nefarious about the deal between Evro Polis and the Syrian government, declaring that “turning the fight into a private scramble for profit is a dangerous and ignoble gambit.”
At this stage, after some 16 years of the US “war on terror,” the decimation of entire societies in the Middle East and the destruction of more than a million lives as a result of US acts of aggression, who does the Times editorial board think it is kidding?
Whatever the role of Evro Polis, its connection to the Russian government and the semi-criminal oligarchy that it represents, the fact of the matter is that it represents less than small potatoes in relation to the vast army of mercenary military contractors deployed by Washington, and the multi-billion-dollar corporations that profit from their exploits.
In Afghanistan today, there are nearly three military contractors for every US soldier deployed on the ground. In Iraq, contractors are 42 percent of the force fielded by the Pentagon.
As for “shadowy and secret” deals and close relations between military contractors and top government officials, this is hardly a Russian innovation. Has it escaped the memory of the Times editors that the largest military contractor in the Iraq war, scooping up seemingly unlimited billions of dollars worth of no-bid contracts, was Halliburton (now KBR), whose former CEO was none other than Vice President Dick Cheney?
This incestuous relationship underscoring the “war is business” model has been reprised under the current administration, with the elevation of the former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson to the post of secretary of state.
And while citing Blackwater (which has since chosen the innocuous name Academi in an attempt to escape its legacy of blood and filth) as a fleeting historical reference, the Times doesn’t bother recalling for its readers that the company’s former CEO Erik Prince is the brother of current Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, and that he serves as an unofficial adviser to Trump, while continuing to reap huge profits off of the “private security” racket.
As for the feigned outrage over anyone who would dare turn war into a “scramble for profit,” the truth is that this is precisely what it has been since the advent of imperialism, and never more nakedly than in the past quarter century of uninterrupted US military interventions. As the Times foreign affairs commentator Thomas Friedman infamously commented—after first trying to sell the illegal invasion of Iraq as a legitimate response to non-existent “weapons of mass destruction” and a crusade for democracy and human rights in the Middle East—“I have no problem with a war for oil.”
The feigned shock of Times editorial page editor James Bennet over Russian military contractors embracing the profit motive beggars belief. After all, didn’t the newspaper support capitalist restoration and the dissolution of the Soviet Union? The editorial is merely one more piece of war propaganda on behalf of those sections of the military and intelligence apparatus and the ruling establishment as a whole that see Russia as the foremost obstacle to US imperialism’s drive to assert global hegemony.
Bennet, the brother of right-wing Democratic Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado and son of Douglas Bennet, a former top State Department official who headed the Agency for International Development (AID), a frequent conduit for CIA operations, is closely attuned to these circles.
The problem for these factions for which the Times speaks is not that Russia is using mercenaries, but that its activities are cutting across crucial geo-strategic interests of American imperialism in Syria and the broader Middle East.
The newspaper’s hypocritical and hollow attempts to generate outrage over a military contract that is dwarfed by any number of similar deals struck by US war firms is part of an attempt to shift the Trump administration toward a more aggressive policy toward Moscow and, more decisively, counter the immense popular hostility in the US toward escalating a military confrontation with the world’s second-largest nuclear power.
SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN, HUBBY LOOTER RICHARD BLUM AND LAP B ITCH, BARBARA “BRIBES” BOXER…. Along with Nancy Pelosi, four of the most corrupt and self-serving plunderers of America… These Cretans redefine the term CRONY CAPITALIST PIGS!
FOR YEARS THEY HAVE SUCKED THE BLOOD OUT OF A DYING NATION!
“Our entire crony capitalist system, Democrat and Republican alike, has become a kleptocracy approaching par with third-world hell-holes. This is the way a great country is raided by its elite.” ---- Karen McQuillan THEAMERICAN THINKER.com
Feb 28, 2006 - Dianne Feinstein and her husband are also making tons of money off the ... It's a disgusting display of war profiteering, and just like Cheney, the ...
Apr 22, 2003 - URS Corp., a San Francisco planning and engineering firm partially owned by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein's husband, landed an Army ...
Apr 27, 2003 - When it comes to scoring mega-military-related contracts, Sen. Dianne Feinstein's multimillionaire husband, Richard Blum, is right in the thick ...
A war profiteer is any person or organization that profits from warfare or by selling weapons and .... The Center for Public Integrity has reported that US Senator Dianne Feinstein, who voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution, and her husband, ...
Apr 28, 2010 - Dianne Feinstein—the ninth wealthiest member of congress—has been ... With Blum's financial backing, Klein, a war contractor, operates a ...
Dianne Feinstein: War profiteer and war criminal. by Gerry Bello. July 5, 2013. Somewhere in northwest Pakistan Tuesday a sound was heard. Hellfire missiles ...
Sep 25, 2015 - But none of that seems to matter to Dianne Feinstein and her war-profiteering husband, Richard Blum. Not only is Blum demanding adoption of ...
Mar 28, 2007 - Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has abruptly walked away from her responsibilities with the Senate Military Construction Appropriations ...
Apr 5, 2007 - Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California silently resigned from her post on the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee ...
Senator Feinstein's War Profiteering
Senator Feinstein's War Profiteering
by Joshua Frank
It happens all the time. If the antiwar movement takes on the Democrats for their bitter shortcomings, a few liberals are bound to criticize us for not hounding Bush instead. It doesn't even have to be an election year to get the progressives fired up. They just don't seem to get it. "How can you attack the Democrats when we have such a bulletproof administration ruling the roost in Washington?" somebody recently e-mailed me. "Don't you have something better to do than write this trash?!"
Well, not really. It's too cold in upstate New York right now to do anything other than fume over the liberal villains in Washington. "Why do I write about the putrid Democratic Party?" I responded, "I'll tell you, there's a reason this Republican administration is so damn bulletproof – nobody from the opposition party is taking aim and pulling the trigger."
And that's why the Dems are just as culpable in all that has transpired since Bush took office in 2000. They aren't just a part of the problem – the Democrats are the problem.
I mean, who is really all that surprised Bush and his boys wanted to conquer the Middle East? Not me. That's just what unreasonable neocons do: they stomp out the little guy, kill off the weak, and suffocate the voiceless. They only care about the girth of their wallets and the number of scalps they can tack above their mantles.
The Democrats aren't just letting the Republicans get away with murder, however: some of them are also reaping the benefits of the Bush wars. We constantly hear about Dick Cheney's ties to Halliburton and how his ex-company is making bundles off U.S. contracts in Iraq. But what we don't hear about is how Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and her husband are also making tons of money off the "war on terror."
The wishy-washy senator now claims Bush misled her prior to the invasion of Iraq. I don't think she's being honest with us, though. There may have been other reasons she helped sell Bush's lies. According to the Center for Public Integrity, Feinstein's husband Richard Blum has racked in millions of dollars from Perini, a civil infrastructure construction company, of which the billionaire investor wields a 75 percent voting share.
In April 2003, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers gave $500 million to Perini to provide services for Iraq's Central Command. A month earlier in March 2003, Perini was awarded $25 million to design and construct a facility to support the Afghan National Army near Kabul. And in March 2004, Perini was awarded a hefty contract worth up to $500 million for "electrical power distribution and transmission" in southern Iraq.
A war profiteer is any person or organization that profits from warfare or by selling weapons and other goods to parties at war. The term can have strong, negative connotations. General profiteering may also occur in peace time. An example of war profiteers were the "shoddy" millionaires who allegedly sold recycled wool and cardboard shoes to soldiers during the American Civil War. The ten highest war profiteers are Lockheed Martin, Boeing, BAE Systems, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company EADS, Finmeccanica, L-3 Communications, and United Technologies.[1] These corporations are all directly connected with production of weapons, machinery, vehicles, aircraft, electronics and artillery(including missiles) and as such have significant political influence given their lobbying efforts and campaign contributions to members of the United States Congress in the promotion of war efforts. In 2010, the defense industry spent $144 million on lobbying and donated over $22.6 million to congressional candidates.[2]
Indicted defense contractor Brent R. Wilkes was reported to be ecstatic when hearing that the United States was going to go to war with Iraq. "He and some of his top executives were really gung-ho about the war," said a former employee. "Brent said this would create new opportunities for the company. He was really excited about doing business in the Middle East."[28]
The War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007 intended to create criminal penalties for war profiteers and others who exploit taxpayer-funded efforts in Iraq and elsewhere around the world.[29] This act was introduced first on April 25, 2007, but was never enacted into law.[30] War profiteering cases are often brought under the Civil False Claims Act, which was enacted in 1863 to combat war profiteering during the Civil War.[31]
Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, criticized war profiteering of US companies during World War I in War Is a Racket. He wrote about how some companies and corporations increase their earnings and profits by up to 1,700 percent and how many companies willingly sold equipment and supplies to the US that had no relevant use in the war effort. In the book, Butler stated that "It has been estimated by statisticians and economists and researchers that the war cost your Uncle Sam $52,000,000,000. Of this sum, $39,000,000,000 was expended in the actual war period. This expenditure yielded $16,000,000,000 in profits."[32]
In the American Civil War, concerns about war profiteering were not limited to the activities of a few "shoddy" millionaires in the North. In the Confederacy, where supplies were severely limited, and hardships common, the mere suggestion of profiteering was considered a scurrilous charge. Georgia Quartermaster General Ira Roe Foster attempted to increase the supply of material to the troops by urging the women of his state to knit 50,000 pairs of socks. Foster's sock campaign stimulated the supply of the much needed item, but it also met with a certain amount of suspicion and backlash. Either the result of a Union disinformation campaign, or the work of suspicious minds, rumors, which Foster denied as a "malicious falsehood!",[33] began to spread that Foster and others were profiteering from the socks.[33] It was alleged that contributed socks were being sold, rather than given freely to the troops. The charge was not without precedent. The historian Jeanie Attie notes that in 1861, an "especially damaging rumor" (later found to be true) had circulated in the North, alleging that the Union Army had purchased 5,000 pairs of socks which had been donated, and intended for the troops, from a private relief agency, the United States Sanitary Commission.[34] As the Sanitary Commission had done in the North, Foster undertook a propaganda campaign in Georgia newspapers to combat the damaging rumors and to encourage the continued contribution of socks.[35] He offered $1,000.00 to any "citizen or soldier who will come forward and prove that he ever bought a sock from this Department that was either knit by the ladies or purchased for issue to said troops."[33]
Unacceptable! Senator Profits from War and Post Office
Shortly after San Francisco's then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein married private equity financier Richard C. Blum in 1980, those who knew them called theirs "a marriage of the public and private sectors."
Although Feinstein lost a gubernatorial bid to Republican Pete Wilson, she soon took his seat in the U.S. Senate. Working across the aisle, her power rapidly grew along with her husband's diversified investments and their mutual wealth.1
• As Chair and ranking member of the Military Construction and Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Feinstein appears to have steered contracts to companies controlled by her husband.2 Blum has profited handsomely from military contracts.3
• In 2009, Senator Feinstein introduced legislation to provide $25 billion in taxpayer money to the FDIC after it gave Blum's CBRE real estate company a contract to sell foreclosed properties at unusually high rates.4
• As a Regent of the University of California, Blum appears to have profited from contracts with the UC-run nuclear weapons laboratory at Los Alamos.5
• In the summer of 2012, the U.S. Postal Service awarded Blum's CBRE company the exclusive contract to sell its portfolio of public properties. Feinstein's office denies any influence in the awarding of the contract.6
Ask your Senators to request an Ethics Committee investigation of Senator Dianne Feinstein now.
To paraphrase Robert Frost, America has taken the road less traveled. We elected a political outsider. What might America look like today if Hillary had been elected? Had she won we would not be hearing a single word about Russia. Not a whisper. It was not on the left's radar at all. Ms. Clinton had embarrassed herself with that inane Office Depot reset button while she was Secretary of State. Obama had told Medvedev to tell "Vlad" he would have more flexibility after the election, presumably re: nuclear disarmament. The left cared nothing about that bit of collusion.
Hillary and her campaign aides have long been involved with Russia for reasons of personal gain. Clinton herself got $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation for allowing Russia to take over twenty percent of all uranium production in the U.S. Her campaign chairman, John Podesta, is reaping the financial benefits of being on the board of a Russian company, Joule, which hedid not disclose. Besides, the Left has historically loved Russia and wanted to emulate its authoritarian governments. They laughed when Mitt Romney, in 2012, named Russia as our most serious foreign policy problem. And Obama, even when he knew/believed that Russia was attempting to meddle in the election, he did nothing. They've done it for decades and so what? Hillary was going to win.
Had Hillary been elected, the Clinton Foundation would be raking in even more millions than it did before. She would be happily selling access, favors and our remaining freedoms out from under us. She would be further eviscerating our military and she would be raising taxes to fund Obamacare even though it is a clear and present disaster. Anyone who doubts that should look up Hillarycare,the monstrosity she designed behind closed doors when her husband was in the White House. Her plan would dictate who could go to medical school, what specialty they would "choose," and where they would be compelled to practice. Her plan was the U.K.'s NHS on steroids. Her plan was rationed care and death panels from hell.
Had HRC won, she would be implementing thousands of new regulations on businesses to further hamstring the economy. She would let the fascist freaks at the Environmental Protection Agency have their way with every aspect of our daily lives: Our cars, our showerheads, our toilets, our rainwater in our yards, etc. She would, like the EPA under Obama, privilege any species, no matter how insignificant, over humans. Central California has been devastated by the environmentalists' reverence for the delta smelt! Thousands of farm workers lost their jobs thanks to this lefty decision, turning a lush agricultural valley into a brown wasteland in the name of "going green." This is the American left today.
Dr. Ben Carson, Trump's Secretary of HUD has already uncovered $520 billion in fraud that occurred under Obama. Two-thirds of the people who gotObamaphones at taxpayer expense, lied. That program was riddled with fraud.
Had Hillary been elected, the stock market would be tanking rather than booming. Every one of her policies would have been an economic wet blanket. She would have instituted a minimum wage by executive order and thousands of more small businesses would be closing. Instead, the stock market has gained $2 trillion in wealth since Trump was elected. Hillary would have already increased our $20 trillion in national debt; Trump reduced it by $100m in his first hundred days. Job numbers would have fallen under Hillary; Trump added nearly 300k jobs in the first month after his inauguration. Housing sales would have fallen under Hillary because even fewer people would have been able to afford to buy a home. Under Trump, housing sales have increased for the first time since 2011.
Had Hillary won, she would, as promised, have increased the number of refugees from the Middle East, Mexico and Central America. There would be countless more potential terrorists in our midst, thousands more on public assistance on the taxpayer's dime. Under Trump, illegal immigration is down 67%. The DOJ, under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, is rounding up criminal illegals, most of them gang members, many of them released from prisons by Obama to roam our streets with impunity. Hopefully the citizens of sanctuary cities will realize how much safer they and their children will be once this pathetic policy comes to an end. Trump stands firmly behind our law enforcement officers; Hillary would be standing with Black Lives Matter and even more police would be sacrificing their lives to this domestic terrorist group and its anti-cop rhetoric.
Hillary, like the rest of the left, hates the Second Amendment. Had she won, it would likely have been abrogated out of existence. Law-abiding citizens would be relegated to victim status by decree, no longer allowed to defend themselves from the always armed criminals while the likes of Hillary and her crowd live in gated mansion and have armed guards. "For me but not for thee" is the mantra of the left. She would be taking the nation in the direction of Oregon, which is fast becoming the fascist state the left so admires.
Trump was vilified throughout the campaign for repeatedly calling out NATO members for not paying their minimal fair share. Since he won, allied spending is up $10 billion! Then there is the Supreme Court. We now have another constitutional scholar, like Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito, on the bench who may just do Antonin Scalia proud. Trump will likely get the chance to appoint two more justices in the coming years. Given the power our courts have grasped for themselves, his appointments of jurists who revere our founding documents may be the only path back to a Constitutional Republic. Neil Gorsuch is the first step.
Trump took us out of the Paris Climate Accord, a $2.5 trillion economy killer. He got us out of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership that would have been great for the eleven other nations in it, and bad for America. As he promised, he is putting America and American workers first. The left and the media hate him for all this. They have been rendered apoplectic and thoroughly irrational. Their response to his glorious speech in Warsaw, was that it was racist, xenophobic, tribalist. How dare he preference Western Civilization! They no longer hear actual words spoken. They hear what their radical ideology dictates they must hear when Trump speaks. If he said it, it must be racist, it must be sexist, it must be nationalist, etc. They are completely unable to grasp the meaning of Trump. Had Hillary won, this miraculous nation would be continuing the death spiral Obama set in motion eight years ago. It's almost as though divine providence has rescued us once again as it has at so many crucial times over the past 241 years..
The following story, which ran on Circa, should be extremely important but I am sure that most of the media will ignore it. It shows that Hillary was willing to ignore ethics laws if people donated to the Clinton Foundation.
From the article:
“While secretary of state, Hillary Clinton made a personal call to pressure Bangladesh’s prime minister to aid a donor to her husband’s charitable foundation despite federal ethics laws that require government officials to recuse themselves from matters that could impact their spouse’s business.”
Instead of working for the American people Hillary also enriched herself and the Foundation by granting access to donors and to people or countries who would pay Bill big money for speeches. There are many stories that show how much access she gave to donors.
Even Uranium was available to the Russians for a price.
Throughout their adult lives, the Clintons have enriched themselves through their political power. They did not start businesses or invent anything. They provided access and favors for a price.
The Democratic Party enabled them to enrich themselves by continually supporting them and looking the other way. The Justice Department and President Obama also didn’t care. The media have been the biggest culprits because, instead of holding the Clintons to account, they have endorsed them for whatever positions they have sought no matter what they have done.
If anyone wants to know why we have to drain the swamp they just need to look at the Clinton example. Entrenched politicians and bureaucrats from both parties evolve to believe that the taxpayer money is theirs to use as they like. They hand it out like candy to buy votes or to enrich themselves. Hence, throughout the country we are broke.The taxpayers are continually screwed while the government says they need more money and those requests are almost universally supported by the media.
I believe I have found why so much of the supposed news that we get support politicians who believe in big government and call those of who believe in smaller government and economic freedom far right wing extremists.
“In the latest sign that Washington operates in an alternate economy, journalism jobs around the country dove 22 percent in the last 10 years, but they spiked a whopping 38 percent in the nation's capital, according to a new economic study. What's more, salaries for Washington journalists rose 7 percent while diving nationally.
While 12,000 reporting jobs were eliminated in most markets in the last decade, the Washington journalism market expanded from 2,190 to 3,030. That is more than five journalists for every single House and Senate member.”
It would be helpful if the local newspapers throughout the country used more local reporters instead of reprinting so much that comes out of D.C. Maybe we can get a variety of viewpoints instead of so much groupthink.
THE FINAL DAYS OF BILLARY & HILLARY:
GLOBAL LOOTERS OF THE POOR
“Clinton is finished. She is never going to become the American Messalina.”
“But if she shows any sign of weakness, her cronies will begin to desert her, those she trampled on and harmed will seek payback, and the authorities will at last stir themselves to look into things. The current investigations will continue and expand. Others will be opened. Clinton can look forward to an old age spent in courthouses and committee rooms. She will end up as one of those Mafia dons slumped in a wheelchair while the lawyers attempt to generate sympathy. And that’s fine. She has earned the most Hellenic of punishments.”
"This offers cold comfort to millions of college students saddled with massive debt and workers confronting the prospect of dead-end, low-wage and part-time jobs. The economic legacy of the Obama administration has been a bonanza for Wall Street, with huge income gains for the top 1 percent and falling and stagnating wages for the vast majority. The main beneficiaries have been wealthy individuals like Chelsea Clinton herself, who is married to a hedge fund manager."
HILLARY & BILLARY: Their Looting of the Poor of Haiti
“The couple parlayed lives supposedly spent in “public service” into admission into the upper stratosphere of American wealth, with incomes in the top 0.1 percent bracket. The source of this vast wealth was a political machine that might well be dubbed “Clinton, Inc.” This consists essentially of a seedy money-laundering operation to ensure big business support for the Clintons’ political ambitions as well as their personal fortunes. The basic components of the operation are lavishly paid speeches to Wall Street and Fortune 500 audiences, corporate campaign contributions, and donations to the ostensibly philanthropic Clinton Foundation.”
January 9, 2018
Did Biden, Holder, and Clinton discuss invoking the 25th Amendment against Obama?
In Obama's first term, Joe Biden was vice president, Eric Holder was attorney general, and Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. Did the three of them have discussions about removing President Obama from office because of mental unfitness?
Like author Michael Wolff, who claims that White House aides contemplate removing President Trump from office, I have no proof that these discussions took place. But given Obama's obvious mental incapacity, don't you think it's possible such discussions occurred?
Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
The phrase "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" can refer to a physical or a mental incapacity. There is a lot of evidence that Obama had mental incapacities.
1) Obama fervently believed that there is a global doomsday scenario that is going to destroy the world. He believed that the Earth is getting hotter and hotter, despite clear scientific evidence that it is not, and feared the destruction of the planet. That's delusional.
2) Obama was against redefining marriage when he began his presidency. Then he suddenly became for it. That's evidence of a split personality.
3) Obama actually believed that boys can become girls simply by saying so and ordered schools to let these confused boys into girls' bathrooms. That's also delusional.
4) Obama was vaguely aware that we have been fighting some groups in the Middle East, one of them with the word "Islamic" in the name, but Obama was unaware that this group is Muslim and has Muslims in it.
5) Obama had delusions that he was a king rather than a mere president. He thought he could promulgate laws on immigration, health care, and welfare all on his own and did so. That was also clearly delusional.
The left indeed has become a family. Unfortunately, it often resembles the Gotti crime family (hat tip: Larry Schweikart).
Let's face it: Republicans have their share of corruption, but what the left has become is not tinged with the normal shortcomings of humanity. It's become criminal.
Literally. Fully. And seriously.
Let's look at a few shades of leftist criminality. I don't mean the common finger-pointing, where leftists claim that anything done by the center-right is "criminal." Like being for tax cuts. Being pro-life. Or against illegal immigration. Voting for Trump was criminal. The left thinks anyone to its right is criminal.
But most sane people know that's not true. It's hyperbole for the sake of cowing those who hold differing opinions. It's a political smear writ large – and, might I say, projection. Leftist often accuse others of doing what they do. Not only does it help them feel better about themselves, but it's a strategy to gain and hold power over others.
In itself, that mindset isn't essentially criminal. Maybe you could say it's a shade of gray or misdemeanor. But therein lies the first step on the road to where they ended up. They begin by stepping across a line, and they wake up fully criminal. Let's follow the path downward.
The early Clinton escapades weren't the outcome of being Boy Scouts. Using political influence to do a land deal in Arkansas, or to gain $100,000 in the commodity market for being the governor's wife, was a pretty good sign of who they are – as were Bill's early sexual predations and Hillary's early persecution of the women he used.
The thuggishness of Barack was clear early on. There was his land deal, wherein he enriched himself with Tony Rezko in Chicago. All his political wins came by nefariously taking out his political opponents rather than beating them fairly in the arena of ideas. Everyone should have known.
They all got away with their less than honest early deals but were awarded more power as a result of their nefarious actions. The left loved their ability to lie as they skated through the finish line unscathed.
The next big step up the ladder for the Clintons was becoming president. Posing as the married version of Jimmy Stewart playing Mr. Smith, they simply dug into the seediest side of politics. Having succeeded in the small pay-to-play of Arkansas, they let it all loose on Washington, D.C.
The Clintons were the ones to begin the full politicization of the DOJ. Remember when they fired every single attorney at the DOJ, replacing them with their own loyalists? That was 1993. Our cheerleading leftist media said nothing. After all, they were kindred souls staying silent in the face of shared corruption. Then there was the matter of the famous FBI files the Clintons pilfered, the secret files that illegally gave them dirt (and leverage) on their political opponents. Yeah, Bill, "a bureaucratic snafu." And no, that's not what it was. It was simply aggrandizement of criminal power.
They would go on to trading secrets of rocket technology to the Chinese for political donations – a deal that would advance Chinese missile capacity twenty years overnight. I remember Tim Russert pleading on Meet the Press" for the media to start reporting because "this was really happening." Well, they got away with that, too – along with a host of other illegal and nasty activities.
Barack had his share of shady dealings once he hit D.C., but was a bit more circumspect in hiding what he was doing. Nurtured under the Chicago political machine, the master school of pay-to-play politics, everyone should have known the kind of corrupt monster he was. Instead, he convinced boatloads of people, and a gullible, like-minded media, that he was some kind of light-worker who healed the Earth.
Under that guise, he was scorching the earth.
BLOG: IT WILL MAKE MOST WANT TO HURL PUKE IN OBAMA'S FACE, BUT THE MAN USED U.S. TAX DOLLARS TO FUND THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY OF LA RAZA "The Race" WHICH HE OPERATED OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE UNDER CECILIA MUNOZ.
He began his funneling of money to leftist causes right away with his "stimulus package," stimulating and filling the coffers of his pay-to-playmates. Many of his bundlers simply took money, as they did in the Solydra solar deal, absconding with millions of dollars and producing nothing. His union leaders scored tons of money. As the rest of the U.S. floundered, his already well heeled donors were paid handsomely from this illicit mess. To this day, we don't know where most of that money went. Uncle Joe Biden just turned a blind eye. And no one suffered for his ugly, illegal collusion to steal from the public trough.
Contrary to media and Democratic Parry claims, St. Barack didn't have a scandal-free presidency. Far from it – most of it was nothing but scandal, unreported by the fawning press. It was a time period where the media refused to call out the obvious and many scandals for what they were. Let's just say they were kindred souls, fellow travelers, the media and St. Barack. Friends and bundlers receiving money for nothing.
Fast and Furious. The IRS targeting. The weaponizing of the bureaucracies. Just to name a few. Heck, if a leftist political fact-check site calls your Obamacare lie the "lie of the year," it had to be the lie of the century.
Make no mistake: the Clinton-Obama axis was criminal already, pay-to-play was their M.O., and they had gotten away with it for years.
Let's fast-forward to the heavy stuff. And this is the stuff that is darkly criminal, no shades of gray here.
The Clinton Foundation. Clearly, they enriched themselves with pay-to-play schemes. The reports of Hillary's dealings as secretary of state with those who paid the Clinton Foundation are legion. Documents upon documents introducing themselves to Madame Secretary were earmarked by a staffer "FOB." This was the sign of favor, the way to get to see her, the way to get favors in return. You had to be a donor. FOB, indeed.
Uranium One, the Mother of All Scandals, is typical. This was a matter of one hundred fifty million dollars, mysteriously donated by Russian interests, who benefited after all the parties in the U.S. government signed off. Bill's speaking fees in Moscow were Over 600K per speech – double his normal pay-to-play fee.
The Trump Dossier. Paid for by the Hillary campaign. Used as a pretense to spy on the Trump campaign. Used as a pretense for the so-called collusion case.
All of this is deeply criminal – nor gray, lacking even the slightest hint of another explanation. And we now know that all these cases are being investigated and have been for months. We now know there are four separate criminal cases being investigated with Clinton involvement.
St. Barack? He's been having a great time partying with the Hollywood moguls, all the while thinking his breee-illiant "insurance" plan to get rid of Trump was on.
A funny thing happened on the way to the forum: all his fellow travelers are being outed. The cadre of FBI agents and DOJ political partisans: Strzok, McCabe, Ohr, Comey, Brennan, and so many others are being outed for their own forms of, yes, criminality. Helping with the phony Steele Trump dossier while you are high up at the FBI or DOJ is criminal. Going to the FISA courts to unmask Trump campaign associates based on the dossier is criminal. Turning over that information to other higher-ups in the Obama administration – that's criminal. This is the kind of thing that happens in totalitarian regimes.
For all those who have been asking where Jeff Sessions has been, let me say he's been thankfully quiet. He's gotten a lot of ill deserved negativity. But he's a busy man. As you can see, so many investigations, so little time. Likewise, the Republican investigating committees are now doing their part. And Judicial Watch. God bless them all.
Sean Hannity calls this the year of the boomerang.
I'm calling it the year of the sting. The chickens are coming home to roost. Most of these people are going to jail. They committed criminal acts.
It took four years to dot the Is and cross the Ts to put away John Gotti. It may take that long again, but it's happening, and happening as I write. As we sit here, the Democrats are suddenly running from the Trump dossier. They're all spinning with flushed faces, trying to excuse (or more often ignore) the criminality of their heroes. The evidence is accumulating. They are beginning to whine about a "political investigation." To all of you leftists who will be running away, it's not political; it was actually criminal. And you let it happen with your dewy-eyed worship. As you pointed fingers, criminality was being done by your side.
We don't know a lot of the details, but the greatest political sting in history is ongoing. It's been dripping out for over a month and will continue to do so. It's going to be epic. And it will devastate the Democratic Party and its base.
But America will rejoice. Criminals are going to be brought to their knees.
The swamp has told us that the following events are nothing for us to worry or concern ourselves about. We deplorables, clinging to our guns and religion, should simply accept these and not question them.
Obama gave 150 billion dollars to Iran. Iran is the chief sponsor of jihadist terrorism and has sworn to destroy Israel, supports Hamas and Hezb'allah, and will have nuclear weapons.
Obama and Hillary approved the sale of 20% of our uranium to Russia. Hillary received over $150 million to her foundation. Bill Clinton got speaking gigs in Moscow paying about $500,000.
Trump contacting the Russians to have them vote against the U.N. resolution to condemn Israel in December 2016 warrants an investigation, but not the sale of uranium to the Russians or the gift of $150 billion to Iran.
Hillary and the DNC, through their attorneys, paid Fusion GPS to pay Christopher Steele, a British spy, to manufacture opposition research, using anonymous paid Russians as sources.
This phony report was called a "dossier" to make it sound important.
The dossier was shopped and leaked to the press and also given to John McCain, always ready and willing to stab a Republican, who gave it to the FBI.
Bruce Ohr, the number-four man in the Obama Justice Department, met with the Fusion people and Steele in November 2016, after Trump defeated Hillary. We are not supposed to know why the Obama DOJ met with Steele.
In October 2016, the Obama Justice Department filed an application for a FISA warrant to spy on the Donald Trump campaign.
It appears that FBI agent Peter Strzok was involved in the FISA warrant process. Strzok has been a busy boy. In spring 2016, he corrected James Comey's exoneration letter of Hillary, written before Comey had interviewed Hillary, tochange the words "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless."
It seems that Comey was too dumb to realize that the words "grossly negligent" meant that Hillary had violated the law, so Strzok changed the wording.
Evidently, Bill Clinton did not get a copy of the exoneration letter. Bill wanted to be sure, so he met with Obama's attorney general, Lynch, by "accident," at an airport, several days before FBI agent Strzok questioned Hillary, not under oath. Why bother to question under oath when the fix is in? Bubba could have saved himself a trip to the airport.
Hillary lost the election, so she and the swamp blamed the loss on Russian "interference" with our election. The DNC claims that it was hacked, but it refused to have the FBI inspect its computers, so the FBI accepted the DNC's assertion that it was hacked.
Trump fired Comey because Comey is basically dumb, dishonest, and incompetent. Even the Dems wanted Comey fired. Comey needed a ghostwriter, Strzok, to correctly write an exoneration letter.
Comey illegally leaked a memo to force a special counsel.
On March 2, 2017, Jeff Sessions, our A.G., recused himself from anything dealing with "Russia." We learned on December 8, 2017 that Sessions was cleared on March 7, 2017 of any improper "contact with the Russians." But Sessions has not un-recused himself.
Rod Rosenstein, deputy A.G., appointed Robert Mueller, Comey's pal. The law requires that the appointment order specify the crimes to be investigated.
But Rosentstein appointed Mueller to investigate anything dealing with Russia, without specifying what crime or crimes were committed.
Mueller hired 20 attorneys who hate Trump; have worked for Obama and Hillary; and have donated to Obama, Hillary, and other Dems.
Mueller also hired Strzok. Strzok is a busy boy. He is having an affair with a Justice Department attorney, also on Mueller's staff until September 2017. He sent her numerous texts detailing his hate of Trump, in addition to ghostwriting Comey's exoneration letter of Hillary and questioning Flynn.
Strzok also interviewed Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills. He gave both immunity.
Strzok questioned Flynn in January 2017 about Flynn's contacts with the Russians. It was an ambush interview at the W.H. Flynn did not have an attorney present.
Flynn had contacted the Russian ambassador in December 2016 to lobby Russia to vote against the U.N. resolution to condemn Israel for its settlement policy. The U.N. Security Council voted 14-0 to condemn Israel, with Obama abstaining.
Flynn also contacted the Russians to lobby against retaliation by the Russians for the Obama sanctions. These contacts upset Obama's Justice Department – namely, Sally Yates, who thinks this violates the Logan Act. There has not been a prosecution under the Logan Act in over 150 years. Sally also was fired by Trump because she refused to enforce Trump's travel ban on countries designated as terrorist by Obama and Trump.
Sally was praised for her insubordination by Mueller's chief deputy, Weissman. Weissman prosecuted the major accounting firm, Arthur Anderson, in the Enron case, forcing Anderson out of business, resulting in the loss of over 10,000 jobs. The Supreme Court, 9-0, reversed the conviction of Anderson.
Mueller removed Strzok in July 2017 from his team but did not notify Congress about this. Strzok remained on the FBI "Russia" squad.
The DOJ never informed Congress about Bruce Ohr's meetings with Fusion and Steele.
Rod Rosenstein presumably oversees the Mueller investigation because Sessions recused himself. Rosenstein did not inform Congress about Strzok and Ohr. Ohr, whose office is four doors down from Rod, was removed only when Ohr's meetings are discovered by Congress and the media.
The wife of Andrew McCabe, the number-two man in the FBI in charge of "investigating" Hillary, received over $700,000 from Terry McAuliffe, the money bag man for the Clintons, for her political campaign for the Virginia legislature.
We are supposed to trust the FBI, despite the conduct of McCabe, Strzok, and Comey. We are supposed to trust the Department of Justice despite Lynch, Ohr, Rosenstein, and Yates, and worse, Jeff Sessions. Sessions should not haverecused himself.
Sessions has allowed the Justice Department to be run by Rosenstein, which allowed Mueller to establish a mini-Justice Department that resembles an Obama-Hillary Justice Department, with an unlimited budget, to investigate "Russian" collusion with the Trump campaign when there is no evidence that Russia affected the results of the election. Moreover, "collusion" is not a crime. The purpose of the investigation is to create "process" crimes to ensnare those whose statements to the FBI are deemed "lies" by the FBI.
If we only had an attorney general willing to clean up the FBI and DOJ.
The term "Deep State" unleashes many paranoid fantasies. Movies and spy stories abound about the existence of dark, nefarious forces from our government aligned against us. But as Joseph Heller once wrote, "Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't after you." One of the more disturbing revelations after Trump's win was finding that these dark forces not only exist, but are powerful and seemingly out of control.
"Deep State" is hard to define, because it is composed of overlapping groups and individuals with complex and differing agendas. It's an amalgam of people, agencies, and bureaucrats that changes. The current leakers are part of it. For now, let's say it's a mostly unelected, mostly leftist group within our government that wants to govern us against the will of America's founding principles. These people want the final say over our Republic. They want to rule, and they form part of a powerful alliance against the current administration and its voters. The one thing we can be thankful for is that they are showing themselves to us in a way that should anger Americans of all political persuasions. In the end, that's what we might hope for.
"Big Brother" was the term Orwell used for the totalitarian presence of 1984. We are not there. Maybe not even close. But the problem of the Deep State is that there seem to be those who want the kind of power Orwell described, the kind of power the Soviets had, or the East Germans. It's likely that many Deep-Staters don't even realize just how power-mad they have become.
Here is a small list with their fingerprints on it:
- The unmasking and subsequent takedown of General Michael Flynn
- The daily leaks designed to impede or embarrass the Trump administration
- The unmasking of hundreds of private citizens working with the Trump campaign as reported by Circa News
- The bogus "Trump dossier"
- The bogus Trump-Russian collusion narrative.
- The unseemly collusion between Robert Mueller and James Comey
- The seeming insanity of Mueller probing a nonexistent crime
- The exoneration of the Clinton crime family
- The IRS targeting conservative groups
And lots more.
What we are watching is a group using power willfully, wrongfully, and oftentimes illegally to undermine and destroy political opponents. They are after somebody. For real. From this list, we can surmise that their opponents appear to be those of us on the center-right. And to those of you on the left who don't know: This happened, and it's happening. You can pretend it's not so, but it is.
Okay, some of you are tuning out. This can't happen here, it's tinfoil hat stuff, the left really isn't that bad, you're being overly paranoid, blah, blah, blah. Sorry, but this is seriously bad stuff.
I recall back when the PATRIOT Act was passed, noting a comment by Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit. He said powers to surveil, and powers that could cross the lines of the bad guys' civil liberties, were well and good, but in the wrong hands, those powers could and would be misused.
Well, he was right. At the time, I considered his fears over the top, but I was wrong. The history of the human race is littered with tyrants who concentrated and misused power. The genius of the American system adopted by the founding fathers was limiting and decentralizing government in a way to protect our citizenry against this kind of tyranny. Systems were put in place to check, balance, and limit the things that could be done by the government against its people. The Bill of Rights is directed at that problem. These rights were called inalienable, the natural and normal rights given to us by God, not by our government. These were to be our birthright as a nation. It's one of the many reasons our country has been great and can be great again.
We have had bad players in our government, we have made lots of mistakes and done wrong things as a nation, but what we are seeing played out now is simply unprecedented. There is a quote attributed to Valerie Jarrett, Obama adviser-enforcer and all-around bad human, that goes like this:
After we win this election, it's our turn. Payback time. Everyone not with us is against us, and they better be ready, because we don't forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded; the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay. Congress won't be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this is over.
Let me say, there is no proof she said this. But one thing that is real for sure is that much of what they did in that administration, with her help, was to institutionalize those ideas as their operating manual. The IRS scandal targeting conservative donors and conservative organizations was a perfect example. Read the horrifying story in Forbes of what happened to Catherine Engelbrecht if you think this didn't happen. A terrible line had been crossed. Had she been a liberal, we would hear her name for forty years or more.
This was just the tip of the iceberg. The left has weaponized the bureaucracies and agencies it inhabits. Leftists have decided they will become the dominant culture in the CIA, FBI, NSA, IRS, EPA, and the rest of our bureaucracies. They decided it's okay to be totalitarian, it's okay to break the law, it's okay to go after their political opponents with the force of government, it's okay because they are the ones who deserve to win. The Deep State running rampant is fine, as long as they run it. From Valerie Jarrett to Barack Obama to James Clapper and James Comey, they all visibly overstepped their rightful boundaries. They are proof of the saying that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Make no mistake: the prior administration went rampant. The Deep
State did not originate with them, but they stocked it with their
cronies. They stocked it with people of similar left-leaning ideas, with similar left-leaning willingness to misuse power. The Deep State became a weapon of intimidation and a deep abuser of power. Thank God Hillary was not there to take the baton.
So here we are, with the Deep State running amok. They are aligned with the Obamap-Clinton machine; they are generally in sync with the Obama-Clinton goals. None of us knows exactly how this works, who sets the agenda, or who has the capacity to give direction, but it is real. We do know that many of the media are there to help, we do know that most of the Democratic Party apparatus is there to help, and we do know some of the players. We also know that most of the Democrat base, and many of the party's voters, are naïvely on board, too. We may not understand the mechanism, but we do know that the Deep State has become the vanguard of the left's civil war, and it is not fictional.
They are self-motivated with a set of goals. Get rid of Trump if they can. Get Trump's base to be embarrassed of him or depressed if they can. Make certain that Trump cannot succeed. Make certain his hands are tied in ways to make him less effective. If nothing else, slow his progress to a snail's pace while they marshal better forces.
The stupid party (Republicans), as usual, has no clue. Too many Republicans just think this is normal or haven't the stomach to fight. Heck, many of them are traitorously helping to take down what their own voters and standard-bearer want to achieve. The Democratic Party is fractured and has no idea how wrong this is (yet), and it only helps parrot the talking points of its Deep State allies. Democrats have no idea of the backlash they are creating toward themselves.
There is no distinct winner at this point. But the battle is joined. It is clear that the Deep State intends to continue using all its power to stop Trump, and to prevent a return to checks and balances and limited government.
One important note: they are not winning. The media may make it appear that they are, but they're not. Trump, his administration and allies, and his voting base intend on continuing the fight and winning. This is the major part of "draining the swamp." The battle is in the balance, will last for years, and there are a lot of reasons to believe that the Deep State will lose. One of the great unintended consequences of Trump's win: They have been unmasked.
Push back hard enough, and they will lose.
They deserve to.
DEATH BY CORRUPTION:
What caused the destruction of the Democrat Party in America?
When Donald Trump said he would not pursue legal action against Hillary Clinton after he won the election, the majority of his supporters were not happy. After all, what Hillary, her family. and the
Clinton Foundation actually did, or were accused
of doing through credible evidence, was obviously
criminal.
Fast forward to today and the onslaught of false Russian collusion accusations against President Trump and it is obvious why not going after Hillary was a huge mistake.
After the election there always seems to be, there is a kind of political vacuum period. It is usually called a honeymoon for a newly elected president. Unfortunately, this period of time is mostly controlled by the media.
In most cases this period is filled with relatively positive and generally inquisitive news from the media about a new president’s agenda, who he is putting together his team and figuring out how he plans to implement his policies. There is often positive news during this period about the new first family and how they will perform in their new public role. But in the case of President Trump, it was abundantly clear after a mostly vicious political battle between the Trump and Hillary. that there was only one candidate eligible to be granted a honeymoon period by the liberal news media – Hillary Clinton. And if Donald Trump were to actually win the election, as he did, there be hell to pay. Welcome to Hell President Trump.
There is no way Donald Trump or any of his political advisors couldn’t have seen this coming. And if there was any doubt at all by Trump and his team that they would not get a traditional presidential honeymoon, the hundreds of anti-Trump political rallies (more like violent riots) across America calling for “resistance” to President Trump should have been enough to erase any and all doubts. Not to mention the immediate wall-to-wall negative liberal media coverage that began the day after the election.
Donald Trump’s gut instinct to appoint a special prosecutor to go after Hillary Clinton and her family foundation was spot-on. Trump specifically promised America during a debate that he would do this. As a business man who is also well acquainted with
politics, Trump instinctively knew that defeating
Hillary Clinton at the polls would not stop the
attacks by the media, and that he needed to stay on
offense and try to finish off Hillary and the entire
Clinton political machine for good.
But Donald Trump did something he rarely ever does – he went against his gut instinct; blowing his chance to fill the political void with something he knew would eventually benefit his presidency. Trump knew that that something to fill the political void was a legitimate criminal investigation of actual crimes that had been committed by Hillary Clinton.
The liberal media must have been ecstatic when they realized Donald Trump was giving Hillary a total pass on her criminal activity. The liberal media knew they had just been given a golden opportunity to unleash relentless negative attacks on President Trump the likes of which have never before been seen in American history. The liberal media happily gave Donald Trump something for winning the election - a nightmare he will never forget - a nightmare that has yet to end and will continue on for the next four years if the liberal media continues to get their way.
When Trump announced that he would not pursue legal charges against Hillary, the liberal media took that opportunity and quickly filled the post-election political void with a manufactured story of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign in hopes of destroying the Trump presidency before it could even get off the ground. That political void is now so full of Russian collusion stories that President Trump’s agenda and accomplishments are virtually unknowable by the average American citizen – unless of course they watch Fox News, follow conservative web media or listen to Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk-radio.
So what defense does President Trump, his political team, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the conservative airwaves offer against the Russian Trump collusion story? They tell whoever will listen that Hillary Clinton actually did break the law. Seriously? So now President Trump and his supporters want to prosecute Hillary Clinton after Trump said he wouldn’t pursue legal action against her? Well that train has left the station. The golden
opportunity to take down Hillary and the entire
Clinton machine was passed over by the president
himself. And even if Trump now tries to revisit Hillary’s criminal activities through lawful means, his efforts will be branded as nothing but a political distraction to try and cover up the liberal media driven fake Russian Trump collusion story.
Had President Trump honored his promise and pursued a broad criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton and her family foundation immediately after he was inaugurated the exact opposite could be happening in the media right now. The political void that is now filled with
Russian Trump collusion stories could have been
filled with criminal investigation stories of Hillary
and her family foundation, collusion between the
media and the Hillary campaign against Bernie
Sanders, collusion between Hillary and Russia
regarding the uranium deal and the kick-backs to
the Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton personally
and probably much more. Had Donald Trump followed his initial gut instinct and gone after Hillary and her family the tables would have been turned on Democrats and the liberal media and the fake news about any Russian Trump collusion would have been branded by the Trump administration and conservative media as a political distraction by Democrats and the liberal media in an attempt to cover-up investigations into actual crimes committed by Hillary Clinton and her family.
So what can President Trump possibly do to turn the tide against the Democrats and liberal media?
How about instead of using Hillary’s criminal activities as a defense against the fake news Russian Trump collusion narrative the Trump administration actually investigates her? If they are so certain she’s guilty then enforce the damn law! And maybe, just maybe, if President Trump urges AG Sessions to empanel a grand jury and re-open the investigation into Hillary Clinton right now, the facts concerning her criminal activity in the news might be enough to quell the Democrats and liberal media zealot’s agenda and get them to ease up on pushing fake news and begin covering news that matters to the forgotten men and women of this great country.
When Donald Trump said he would not pursue legal action against Hillary Clinton after he won the election, the majority of his supporters were not happy. After all, what Hillary, her family. and the Clinton Foundation actually did, or were accused of doing through credible evidence, was obviously criminal.
Fast forward to today and the onslaught of false Russian collusion accusations against President Trump and it is obvious why not going after Hillary was a huge mistake.
After the election, as there always seems to be, there is a kind of political vacuum period. It is usually called a honeymoon for a newly elected president. Unfortunately, this period of time is mostly controlled by the media.
In most cases this period is filled with relatively positive and generally inquisitive news from the media about a new president’s agenda, who he is putting together his team and figuring out how he plans to implement his policies. There is often positive news during this period about the new first family and how they will perform in their new public role. But in the case of President Trump, it was abundantly clear after a mostly vicious political battle between the Trump and Hillary. that there was only one candidate eligible to be granted a honeymoon period by the liberal news media – Hillary Clinton. And if Donald Trump were to actually win the election, as he did, there be hell to pay. Welcome to Hell President Trump.
There is no way Donald Trump or any of his political advisors couldn’t have seen this coming. And if there was any doubt at all by Trump and his team that they would not get a traditional presidential honeymoon, the hundreds of anti-Trump political rallies (more like violent riots) across America calling for “resistance” to President Trump should have been enough to erase any and all doubts. Not to mention the immediate wall-to-wall negative liberal media coverage that began the day after the election.
ut instinct to appoint a special prosecutor to go after Hillary Clinton and her family foundation was spot-on. Trump specifically promised America during a debate that he would do this. As a business man who is also well acquainted with politics, Trump instinctively knew that defeating Hillary Clinton at the polls would not stop the attacks by the media, and that he needed to stay on offense and try to finish off Hillary and the entire Clinton political machine for good.
But Donald Trump did something he rarely ever does – he went against his gut instinct; blowing his chance to fill the political void with something he knew would eventually benefit his presidency. Trump knew that that something to fill the political void was a legitimate criminal investigation of actual crimes that had been committed by Hillary Clinton.
The liberal media must have been ecstatic when they realized Donald Trump was giving Hillary a total pass on her criminal activity. The liberal media knew they had just been given a golden opportunity to unleash relentless negative attacks on President Trump the likes of which have never before been seen in American history. The liberal media happily gave Donald Trump something for winning the election - a nightmare he will never forget - a nightmare that has yet to end and will continue on for the next four years if the liberal media continues to get their way.
When Trump announced that he would not pursue legal charges against Hillary, the liberal media took that opportunity and quickly filled the post-election political void with a manufactured story of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign in hopes of destroying the Trump presidency before it could even get off the ground. That political void is now so full of Russian collusion stories that President Trump’s agenda and accomplishments are virtually unknowable by the average American citizen – unless of course they watch Fox News, follow conservative web media or listen to Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk-radio.
So what defense does President Trump, his political team, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the conservative airwaves offer against the Russian Trump collusion story? They tell whoever will listen that Hillary Clinton actually did break the law. Seriously? So now President Trump and his supporters want to prosecute Hillary Clinton after Trump said he wouldn’t pursue legal action against her? Well that train has left the station. The golden opportunity to take down Hillary and the entire Clinton machine was passed over by the president himself. And even if Trump now tries to revisit Hillary’s criminal activities through lawful means, his efforts will be branded as nothing but a political distraction to try and cover up the liberal media driven fake Russian Trump collusion story.
Had President Trump honored his promise and pursued a broad criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton and her family foundation immediately after he was inaugurated the exact opposite could be happening in the media right now. The political void that is now filled with Russian Trump collusion stories could have been filled with criminal investigation stories of Hillary and her family foundation, collusion between the media and the Hillary campaign against Bernie Sanders, collusion between Hillary and Russia regarding the uranium deal and the kick-backs to the Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton personally and probably much more. Had Donald Trump followed his initial gut instinct and gone after Hillary and her family the tables would have been turned on Democrats and the liberal media and the fake news about any Russian Trump collusion would have been branded by the Trump administration and conservative media as a political distraction by Democrats and the liberal media in an attempt to cover-up investigations into actual crimes committed by Hillary Clinton and her family.
So what can President Trump possibly do to turn the tide against the Democrats and liberal media?
How about instead of using Hillary’s criminal activities as a defense against the fake news Russian Trump collusion narrative the Trump administration actually investigates her? If they are so certain she’s guilty then enforce the damn law! And maybe, just maybe, if President Trump urges AG Sessions to empanel a grand jury and re-open the investigation into Hillary Clinton right now, the facts concerning her criminal activity in the news might be enough to quell the Democrats and liberal media zealot’s agenda and get them to ease up on pushing fake news and begin covering news that matters to the forgotten men and women of this great country.
“The couple parlayed lives supposedly spent in “public service” into admission into the upper stratosphere of American wealth, with incomes in the top 0.1 percent bracket. The source of this vast wealth was a political machine that might well be dubbed “Clinton, Inc.” This consists essentially of a seedy money-laundering operation to ensure big business support for the Clintons’ political ambitions as well as their personal fortunes. The basic components of the operation are lavishly paid speeches to Wall Street and Fortune 500 audiences, corporate campaign contributions, and donations to the ostensibly philanthropic Clinton Foundation.”
THE CLINTON GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP WITH MUSLIM DICTATORS TO LOOT THE POOR
THE PHONY CLINTON FOUNDATION… FUNDED BY OBAMA’S CRONY BANKSTERS, MUSLIM DICTATORS, CRIMINAL BILLIONAIRES….
Chelsea lives in a $11 million dollar New York City condo her parents bought with their bribes for speeches money.
The Clinton phony charity foundation has paid out less than $9 million out of the hundreds of millions they have sucked in from Obama’s crony banksters, Muslim dictators whom Hillary served as Secretary of State and criminal billionaires Billary has long known on a first name basis.
"Secondly, for eight years Russian businesses and businessmen closely aligned with Putin pumped millions into the Clinton Foundation slush fund, paid her husband a half-million dollars for a single speech, and got in return a substantial portion of our uranium assets when, as Secretary of State, Hillary okayed their purchase."
HILLARY AND OBOMB’S DIRTY SAUDIS DICTATORS…. How much as she sucked in?
MUSLIM
THE CLINTONS SERVE THEIR 9-11 INVADING SAUDIS PAYMASTERS!
DANCING WITH DICTATORS.... BOTH THE CLINTONS ARE EXPERT DANCERS!
“Facilitating strategic technology transfer in return for money is an old Clinton game. The Chinese bought their way to access of considerable space technology when Bill Clinton was president. Remember Charlie Trie, Loral, and the rest of the crew?”
“Facilitating strategic technology transfer in return for money is an old Clinton game. The Chinese bought their way to access of considerable space technology when Bill Clinton was president. Remember Charlie Trie, Loral, and the rest of the crew?”
THE PROMISE TO EVERY INVADING
ILLEGAL: JOBS, UNDERGROUND TAX-FREE
ECONOMY, "FREE" GRINGO MEDICAL, ALL
THE WELFARE YOU WANT FOR YOUR
ANCHOR BABIES!
HERITAGE FOUNDATION:
Amnesty would add 100 million more illegals and cost Legals trillions!
“The watchdogs at Judicial Watch discovered documents that reveal how the Obama administration's close coordination with the Mexican government entices Mexicans to hop over the fence and on to the American dole.” Washington Times
"A Mexican illegal alien allegedly raped a girl in Kansas in September after being deported ten times in the past six years alone, according to reports."
"Republicans should call for lower immigration to stop the Democrat voter recruitment. But more importantly, all Americans should call for lower immigration in order to offer a better opportunity of finding jobs for those millions of their fellow Americans of all political persuasions who would like to work."
“What we're seeing is our Congress and national leadership dismantling our laws by not enforcing them. Lawlessness becomes the norm, just like Third World corruption. Illegal aliens now have more rights and privileges than Americans. If you are an illegal alien, you can drive a car without a driver's license or insurance. You may obtain medical care without paying. You may work without paying taxes. Your children enjoy free education at the expense of taxpaying Americans.”
“Part of the problem, Santorum said, has been the arrival of
millions of unskilled immigrants — legal and illegal — in the
United States. "American workers deserve a shot at [good] jobs,"
Santorum said. "Over the last 20 years, we have brought into this
country, legally and illegally, 35 MILLION mostly unskilled
workers. And the result, over that same period of time, workers'
wages and family incomes have flatlined." SEN. RICK SANTORUM
In the July/August version of the Atlantic, columnist Peter Beinart wrote an article titled, “How the Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration.”
“The next Democratic presidential candidate should say again and again that because Americans are one people, who must abide by one law, his or her goal is to reduce America’s undocumented population to zero.”
inart, a frequent contributor to the New York Times, New York Review of Books, Haaretz, and former editor of the New Republic, blames immigration for deteriorating social conditions for the American working class: The supposed “costs” of immigration, he says, “strain the very welfare state that liberals want to expand in order to help those native-born Americans with whom immigrants compete.”
The myth, which liberals like myself find tempting, is that only the right has changed. In June 2015, we tell ourselves, Donald Trump rode down his golden escalator and pretty soon nativism, long a feature of conservative politics, had engulfed it. But that’s not the full story. If the right has grown more nationalistic, the left has grown less so. A decade ago, liberals publicly questioned immigration in ways that would shock many progressives today.
Listen to the audio version of this article:Download the Audm app for your iPhone to listen to more titles.In 2005, a left-leaning blogger wrote, “Illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone.” In 2006, a liberal columnist wrote that “immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants” and that “the fiscal burden of low-wage immigrants is also pretty clear.” His conclusion: “We’ll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants.” That same year, a Democratic senator wrote, “When I see Mexican flags waved at proimmigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I’m forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.” The blogger was Glenn Greenwald. The columnist was Paul Krugman. The senator was Barack Obama. Prominent liberals didn’t oppose immigration a decade ago. Most acknowledged its benefits to America’s economy and culture. They supported a path to citizenship for the undocumented. Still, they routinely asserted that low-skilled immigrants depressed the wages of low-skilled American workers and strained America’s welfare state. And they were far more likely than liberals today are to acknowledge that, as Krugman put it, “immigration is an intensely painful topic … because it places basic principles in conflict.” Today, little of that ambivalence remains. In 2008, the Democratic platform called undocumented immigrants “our neighbors.” But it also warned, “We cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked,” adding that “those who enter our country’s borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of the law.” By 2016, such language was gone. The party’s platform described America’s immigration system as a problem, but not illegal immigration itself. And it focused almost entirely on the forms of immigration enforcement that Democrats opposed. In its immigration section, the 2008 platform referred three times to people entering the country “illegally.” The immigration section of the 2016 platform didn’t use the word illegal, or any variation of it, at all.“A decade or two ago,” says Jason Furman, a former chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, “Democrats were divided on immigration. Now everyone agrees and is passionate and thinks very little about any potential downsides.” How did this come to be?
There are several explanations for liberals’ shift. The first is that they have changed because the reality on the ground has changed, particularly as regards illegal immigration. In the two decades preceding 2008, the United States experienced sharp growth in its undocumented population. Since then, the numbers have leveled off.
But this alone doesn’t explain the transformation. The number of undocumented people in the United States hasn’t gone down significantly, after all; it’s stayed roughly the same. So the economic concerns that Krugman raised a decade ago remain relevant today. What’s Wrong With the Democrats?A larger explanation is political. Between 2008 and 2016, Democrats became more and more confident that the country’s growing Latino population gave the party an electoral edge. To win the presidency, Democrats convinced themselves, they didn’t need to reassure white people skeptical of immigration so long as they turned out their Latino base. “The fastest-growing sector of the American electorate stampeded toward the Democrats this November,” Salon declared after Obama’s 2008 win. “If that pattern continues, the GOP is doomed to 40 years of wandering in a desert.”As the Democrats grew more reliant on Latino votes, they were more influenced by pro-immigrant activism. While Obama was running for reelection, immigrants’-rights advocates launched protests against the administration’s deportation practices; these protests culminated, in June 2012, in a sit-in at an Obama campaign office in Denver. Ten days later, the administration announced that it would defer the deportation of undocumented immigrants who had arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16 and met various other criteria. Obama, The New York Times noted, “was facing growing pressure from Latino leaders and Democrats who warned that because of his harsh immigration enforcement, his support was lagging among Latinos who could be crucial voters in his race for re-election.” Alongside pressure from pro-immigrant activists came pressure from corporate America, especially the Democrat-aligned tech industry, which uses the H-1B visa program to import workers. In 2010, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, along with the CEOs of companies including Hewlett-Packard, Boeing, Disney, and News Corporation, formed New American Economy to advocate for business-friendly immigration policies. Three years later, Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates helped found FWD.us to promote a similar agenda. This combination of Latino and corporate activism made it perilous for Democrats to discuss immigration’s costs, as Bernie Sanders learned the hard way. In July 2015, two months after officially announcing his candidacy for president, Sanders was interviewed by Ezra Klein, the editor in chief of Vox. Klein asked whether, in order to fight global poverty, the U.S. should consider “sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders.” Sanders reacted with horror. “That’s a Koch brothers proposal,” he scoffed. He went on to insist that “right-wing people in this country would love … an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country.” Progressive commentators routinely claim that there’s a near-consensus among economists on immigration’s benefits. There isn’t.Sanders came under immediate attack. Vox’s Dylan Matthews declared that his “fear of immigrant labor is ugly—and wrongheaded.” The president of FWD.us accused Sanders of “the sort of backward-looking thinking that progressives have rightly moved away from in the past years.” ThinkProgress published a blog post titled “Why Immigration Is the Hole in Bernie Sanders’ Progressive Agenda.” The senator, it argued, was supporting “the idea that immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs and hurting the economy, a theory that has been proven incorrect.”Sanders stopped emphasizing immigration’s costs. By January 2016, FWD.us’s policy director noted with satisfaction that he had “evolved on this issue.” But has the claim that “immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs” actually been proved “incorrect”? A decade ago, liberals weren’t so sure. In 2006, Krugman wrote that America was experiencing “large increases in the number of low-skill workers relative to other inputs into production, so it’s inevitable that this means a fall in wages.” It’s hard to imagine a prominent liberal columnist writing that sentence today. To the contrary, progressive commentators now routinely claim that there’s a near-consensus among economists on immigration’s benefits.(Illustration by Lincoln Agnew. Photos: AFP; Atta Kenare; Eric Lafforgue; Gamma-Rapho; Getty; Keystone-France; Koen van Weel; Lambert; Richard Baker / In Pictures / Corbis)There isn’t. According to a comprehensive new report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, “Groups comparable to … immigrants in terms of their skill may experience a wage reduction as a result of immigration-induced increases in labor supply.” But academics sometimes de-emphasize this wage reduction because, like liberal journalists and politicians, they face pressures to support immigration. Many of the immigration scholars regularly cited in the press have worked for, or received funding from, pro-immigration businesses and associations. Consider, for instance, Giovanni Peri, an economist at UC Davis whose name pops up a lot in liberal commentary on the virtues of immigration. A 2015 New York Times Magazine essay titled “Debunking the Myth of the Job-Stealing Immigrant” declared that Peri, whom it called the “leading scholar” on how nations respond to immigration, had “shown that immigrants tend to complement—rather than compete against—the existing work force.” Peri is indeed a respected scholar. But Microsoft has funded some of his research into high-skilled immigration. And New American Economy paid to help him turn his research into a 2014 policy paper decrying limitations on the H-1B visa program. Such grants are more likely the result of his scholarship than their cause. Still, the prevalence of corporate funding can subtly influence which questions economists ask, and which ones they don’t. (Peri says grants like those from Microsoft and New American Economy are neither large nor crucial to his work, and that “they don’t determine … the direction of my academic research.”)Academics face cultural pressures too. In his book Exodus, Paul Collier, an economist at the University of Oxford, claims that in their “desperate [desire] not to give succor” to nativist bigots, “social scientists have strained every muscle to show that migration is good for everyone.” George Borjas of Harvard argues that since he began studying immigration in the 1980s, his fellow economists have grown far less tolerant of research that emphasizes its costs. There is, he told me, “a lot of self-censorship among young social scientists.” Because Borjas is an immigration skeptic, some might discount his perspective. But when I asked Donald Davis, a Columbia University economist who takes a more favorable view of immigration’s economic impact, about Borjas’s claim, he made a similar point. “George and I come out on different sides of policy on immigration,” Davis said, “but I agree that there are aspects of discussion in academia that don’t get sort of full view if you come to the wrong conclusion.”
None of this means that liberals should oppose immigration. Entry to the United States is, for starters, a boon to immigrants and to the family members back home to whom they send money. It should be valued on these moral grounds alone. But immigration benefits the economy, too. Because immigrants are more likely than native-born Americans to be of working age, they improve the ratio of workers to retirees, which helps keep programs like Social Security and Medicare solvent. Immigration has also been found to boost productivity, and the National Academies report finds that “natives’ incomes rise in aggregate as a result of immigration.”
The problem is that, although economists differ about the extent of the damage, immigration hurts the Americans with whom immigrants compete. And since more than a quarter of America’s recent immigrants lack even a high-school diploma or its equivalent, immigration particularly hurts the least-educated native workers, the very people who are already struggling the most. America’s immigration system, in other words, pits two of the groups liberals care about most—the native-born poor and the immigrant poor—against each other. One way of mitigating this problem would be to scrap the current system, which allows immigrants living in the U.S. to bring certain close relatives to the country, in favor of what Donald Trump in February called a “merit based” approach that prioritizes highly skilled and educated workers. The problem with this idea, from a liberal perspective, is its cruelty. It denies many immigrants who are already here the ability to reunite with their loved ones. And it flouts the country’s best traditions. Would we remove from the Statue of Liberty the poem welcoming the “poor,” the “wretched,” and the “homeless”? A better answer is to take some of the windfall that immigration brings to wealthier Americans and give it to those poorer Americans whom immigration harms. Borjas has suggested taxing the high-tech, agricultural, and service-sector companies that profit from cheap immigrant labor and using the money to compensate those Americans who are displaced by it.Unfortunately, while admitting poor immigrants makes redistributing wealth more necessary, it also makes it harder, at least in the short term. By some estimates, immigrants, who are poorer on average than native-born Americans and have larger families, receive more in government services than they pay in taxes. According to the National Academies report, immigrant-headed families with children are 15 percentage points more likely to rely on food assistance, and 12 points more likely to rely on Medicaid, than other families with children. In the long term, the United States will likely recoup much if not all of the money it spends on educating and caring for the children of immigrants. But in the meantime, these costs strain the very welfare state that liberals want to expand in order to help those native-born Americans with whom immigrants compete. What’s more, studies by the Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam and others suggest that greater diversity makes Americans less charitable and less willing to redistribute wealth. People tend to be less generous when large segments of society don’t look or talk like them. Surprisingly, Putnam’s research suggests that greater diversity doesn’t reduce trust and cooperation just among people of different races or ethnicities—it also reduces trust and cooperation among people of the same race and ethnicity. Trump appears to sense this. His implicit message during the campaign was that if the government kept out Mexicans and Muslims, white, Christian Americans would not only grow richer and safer, they would also regain the sense of community that they identified with a bygone age. “At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America,” he declared in his inaugural address, “and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.”Liberals must take seriously Americans’ yearning for social cohesion. To promote both mass immigration and greater economic redistribution, they must convince more native-born white Americans that immigrants will not weaken the bonds of national identity. This means dusting off a concept many on the left currently hate: assimilation.
Promoting assimilation need not mean expecting immigrants to abandon their culture. But it does mean breaking down the barriers that segregate them from the native-born. And it means celebrating America’s diversity less, and its unity more.
Writing last year in American Sociological Review, Ariela Schachter, a sociology professor at Washington University in St. Louis, examined the factors that influence how native-born whites view immigrants. Foremost among them is an immigrant’s legal status. Given that natives often assume Latinos are undocumented even when they aren’t, it follows that illegal immigration indirectly undermines the status of those Latinos who live in the U.S. legally. That’s why conservatives rail against government benefits for undocumented immigrants (even though the undocumented are already barred from receiving many of those benefits): They know Americans will be more reluctant to support government programs if they believe those programs to be benefiting people who have entered the country illegally. Liberal immigration policy must work to ensure that immigrants do not occupy a separate legal caste. This means opposing the guest-worker programs—beloved by many Democrat-friendly tech companies, among other employers—that require immigrants to work in a particular job to remain in the U.S. Some scholars believe such programs drive down wages; they certainly inhibit assimilation. And, as Schachter’s research suggests, strengthening the bonds of identity between natives and immigrants is harder when natives and immigrants are not equal under the law.The next Democratic presidential candidate should say again and again that because Americans are one people, who must abide by one law, his or her goal is to reduce America’s undocumented population to zero. For liberals, the easy part of fulfilling that pledge is supporting a path to citizenship for the undocumented who have put down roots in the United States. The hard part, which Hillary Clinton largely ignored in her 2016 presidential run, is backing tough immigration enforcement so that path to citizenship doesn’t become a magnet that entices more immigrants to enter the U.S. illegally. Enforcement need not mean tearing apart families, as Trump is doing with gusto. Liberals can propose that the government deal harshly not with the undocumented themselves but with their employers. Trump’s brutal policies already appear to be slowing illegal immigration. But making sure companies follow the law and verify the legal status of their employees would curtail it too: Migrants would presumably be less likely to come to the U.S. if they know they won’t be able to find work. In 2014, the University of California listed the term melting pot as a “microaggression.” What if Hillary Clinton had called that absurd?Schachter’s research also shows that native-born whites feel a greater affinity toward immigrants who speak fluent English. That’s particularly significant because, according to the National Academies report, newer immigrants are learning English more slowly than their predecessors did. During the campaign, Clinton proposed increasing funding for adult English-language education. But she rarely talked about it. In fact, she ran an ad attacking Trump for saying, among other things, “This is a country where we speak English, not Spanish.” The immigration section of her website showed her surrounded by Spanish-language signs.Democrats should put immigrants’ learning English at the center of their immigration agenda. If more immigrants speak English fluently, native-born whites may well feel a stronger connection to them, and be more likely to support government policies that help them. Promoting English will also give Democrats a greater chance of attracting those native-born whites who consider growing diversity a threat. According to a preelection study by Adam Bonica, a Stanford political scientist, the single best predictor of whether a voter supported Trump was whether he or she agreed with the statement “People living in the U.S. should follow American customs and traditions.” In her 2005 book, The Authoritarian Dynamic, which has been heralded for identifying the forces that powered Trump’s campaign, Karen Stenner, then a professor of politics at Princeton, wrote:
Exposure to difference, talking about difference, and applauding difference—the hallmarks of liberal democracy—are the surest ways to aggravate those who are innately intolerant, and to guarantee the increased expression of their predispositions in manifestly intolerant attitudes and behaviors. Paradoxically, then, it would seem that we can best limit intolerance of difference by parading, talking about, and applauding our sameness.
The next Democratic presidential nominee should commit those words to memory. There’s a reason Barack Obama’s declaration at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that “there is not a liberal America and a conservative America … There is not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America” is among his most famous lines. Americans know that liberals celebrate diversity. They’re less sure that liberals celebrate unity. And Obama’s ability to effectively do the latter probably contributed to the fact that he—a black man with a Muslim-sounding name—twice won a higher percentage of the white vote than did Hillary Clinton.In 2014, the University of California listed melting pot as a term it considered a “microaggression.” What if Hillary Clinton had traveled to one of its campuses and called that absurd? What if she had challenged elite universities to celebrate not merely multiculturalism and globalization but Americanness? What if she had said more boldly that the slowing rate of English-language acquisition was a problem she was determined to solve? What if she had acknowledged the challenges that mass immigration brings, and then insisted that Americans could overcome those challenges by focusing not on what makes them different but on what makes them the same? Some on the left would have howled. But I suspect that Clinton would be president today.
The term "Deep State" unleashes many paranoid fantasies. Movies and spy stories abound about the existence of dark, nefarious forces from our government aligned against us. But as Joseph Heller once wrote, "Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't after you." One of the more disturbing revelations after Trump's win was finding that these dark forces not only exist, but are powerful and seemingly out of control.
"Deep State" is hard to define, because it is composed of overlapping groups and individuals with complex and differing agendas. It's an amalgam of people, agencies, and bureaucrats that changes. The current leakers are part of it. For now, let's say it's a mostly unelected, mostly leftist group within our government that wants to govern us against the will of America's founding principles. These people want the final say over our Republic. They want to rule, and they form part of a powerful alliance against the current administration and its voters. The one thing we can be thankful for is that they are showing themselves to us in a way that should anger Americans of all political persuasions. In the end, that's what we might hope for.
"Big Brother" was the term Orwell used for the totalitarian presence of 1984. We are not there. Maybe not even close. But the problem of the Deep State is that there seem to be those who want the kind of power Orwell described, the kind of power the Soviets had, or the East Germans. It's likely that many Deep-Staters don't even realize just how power-mad they have become.
Here is a small list with their fingerprints on it:
- The unmasking and subsequent takedown of General Michael Flynn
- The daily leaks designed to impede or embarrass the Trump administration
- The unmasking of hundreds of private citizens working with the Trump campaign as reported by Circa News
- The bogus "Trump dossier"
- The bogus Trump-Russian collusion narrative.
- The unseemly collusion between Robert Mueller and James Comey
- The seeming insanity of Mueller probing a nonexistent crime
- The exoneration of the Clinton crime family
- The IRS targeting conservative groups
And lots more.
What we are watching is a group using power willfully, wrongfully, and oftentimes illegally to undermine and destroy political opponents. They are after somebody. For real. From this list, we can surmise that their opponents appear to be those of us on the center-right. And to those of you on the left who don't know: This happened, and it's happening. You can pretend it's not so, but it is.
Okay, some of you are tuning out. This can't happen here, it's tinfoil hat stuff, the left really isn't that bad, you're being overly paranoid, blah, blah, blah. Sorry, but this is seriously bad stuff.
I recall back when the PATRIOT Act was passed, noting a comment by Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit. He said powers to surveil, and powers that could cross the lines of the bad guys' civil liberties, were well and good, but in the wrong hands, those powers could and would be misused.
Well, he was right. At the time, I considered his fears over the top, but I was wrong. The history of the human race is littered with tyrants who concentrated and misused power. The genius of the American system adopted by the founding fathers was limiting and decentralizing government in a way to protect our citizenry against this kind of tyranny. Systems were put in place to check, balance, and limit the things that could be done by the government against its people. The Bill of Rights is directed at that problem. These rights were called inalienable, the natural and normal rights given to us by God, not by our government. These were to be our birthright as a nation. It's one of the many reasons our country has been great and can be great again.
We have had bad players in our government, we have made lots of mistakes and done wrong things as a nation, but what we are seeing played out now is simply unprecedented. There is a quote attributed to Valerie Jarrett, Obama adviser-enforcer and all-around bad human, that goes like this:
After we win this election, it's our turn. Payback time. Everyone not with us is against us, and they better be ready, because we don't forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded; the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay. Congress won't be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this is over.
Let me say, there is no proof she said this. But one thing that is real for sure is that much of what they did in that administration, with her help, was to institutionalize those ideas as their operating manual. The IRS scandal targeting conservative donors and conservative organizations was a perfect example. Read the horrifying story in Forbes of what happened to Catherine Engelbrecht if you think this didn't happen. A terrible line had been crossed. Had she been a liberal, we would hear her name for forty years or more.
This was just the tip of the iceberg. The left has weaponized the bureaucracies and agencies it inhabits. Leftists have decided they will become the dominant culture in the CIA, FBI, NSA, IRS, EPA, and the rest of our bureaucracies. They decided it's okay to be totalitarian, it's okay to break the law, it's okay to go after their political opponents with the force of government, it's okay because they are the ones who deserve to win. The Deep State running rampant is fine, as long as they run it. From Valerie Jarrett to Barack Obama to James Clapper and James Comey, they all visibly overstepped their rightful boundaries. They are proof of the saying that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Make no mistake: the prior administration went rampant. The Deep
State did not originate with them, but they stocked it with their
cronies. They stocked it with people of similar left-leaning ideas, with similar left-leaning willingness to misuse power. The Deep State became a weapon of intimidation and a deep abuser of power. Thank God Hillary was not there to take the baton.
So here we are, with the Deep State running amok. They are aligned with the Obamap-Clinton machine; they are generally in sync with the Obama-Clinton goals. None of us knows exactly how this works, who sets the agenda, or who has the capacity to give direction, but it is real. We do know that many of the media are there to help, we do know that most of the Democratic Party apparatus is there to help, and we do know some of the players. We also know that most of the Democrat base, and many of the party's voters, are naïvely on board, too. We may not understand the mechanism, but we do know that the Deep State has become the vanguard of the left's civil war, and it is not fictional.
They are self-motivated with a set of goals. Get rid of Trump if they can. Get Trump's base to be embarrassed of him or depressed if they can. Make certain that Trump cannot succeed. Make certain his hands are tied in ways to make him less effective. If nothing else, slow his progress to a snail's pace while they marshal better forces.
The stupid party (Republicans), as usual, has no clue. Too many Republicans just think this is normal or haven't the stomach to fight. Heck, many of them are traitorously helping to take down what their own voters and standard-bearer want to achieve. The Democratic Party is fractured and has no idea how wrong this is (yet), and it only helps parrot the talking points of its Deep State allies. Democrats have no idea of the backlash they are creating toward themselves.
There is no distinct winner at this point. But the battle is joined. It is clear that the Deep State intends to continue using all its power to stop Trump, and to prevent a return to checks and balances and limited government.
One important note: they are not winning. The media may make it appear that they are, but they're not. Trump, his administration and allies, and his voting base intend on continuing the fight and winning. This is the major part of "draining the swamp." The battle is in the balance, will last for years, and there are a lot of reasons to believe that the Deep State will lose. One of the great unintended consequences of Trump's win: They have been unmasked.
Push back hard enough, and they will lose.
They deserve to.
OPEN BORDERS – HOW THE DEMOCRAT PARTY DESTROYED THE GOP, THE AMERICAN WORKER and then AMERICA!
THE LOOTING OF AMERICA:
A PARTNERSHIP OF MEXICO, THE MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS AND THE DEMOCRAT PARTY TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED
“But as American sanctuary cities flouted Federal law and encouraged illegal immigration after 1980, those working in the U.S. started to wire transfer money back to their families in amounts that became so large that by the late 1990s remittances to Mexico were the second largest source of foreign revenues, second only to oil revenues.”
October 18, 2016
Why Hillary and Her Wall Street Donors Don’t Want Trump’s Wall
When GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump first talked about building a “big, beautiful wall” at the southern border of the U.S. he was met with fierce resistance. Given the facts that the southern border is the main route used by drug smugglers and criminal illegal immigrants(all persons who cross the border illegal commit a Federal misdemeanor the first time, a felony the second time) there would not seem to be a good reason to resist lawful regulation of border entry. As usual, the answer may be in who gains from the absence of a Wall, and what they gain. The best way to get the answer is to follow the money.
Right now the transfer of money from persons working in the U.S. to Mexico, called “personal remittances” are a major source of Mexican revenue. The growth of remittance revenue is a recent development. Mexico seized the assets of nearly all foreign oil companies operating in Mexico in 1938. But as American sanctuary cities flouted Federal law and encouraged illegal immigration after 1980, those working in the U.S. started to wire transfer money back to their families in amounts that became so large that by the late 1990s remittances to Mexico were the second largest source of foreign revenues, second only to oil revenues.
According to the World Bank, in 2015 the world’s top remittance corridor was from the United States to Mexico. As much as $25.2 billion dollars was sent back to Mexico from people working in the U.S. Remittances are a great source of revenue for Mexico and are more stable than all other flows such as oil.
BLOG: ADD THE $40 TO $60 BILLION THE NARCOMEX DRUG CARTELS HAUL BACK!
In 1979 the Police Chief of Los Angeles publicly stated that he would not enforce immigration law. Following this announcement, which was the effective beginning of Los Angeles as a sanctuary city, remittances to Mexico from the U.S. grew very rapidly from only $177 million in 1979 to $26.9 billion in 2007, following the growth of those sectors of the economy such as construction where illegal immigrants worked. After the 2007 economic peak there was a drop in 2009 to $22 billion. But in 2015 the amount of remittances climbed back to $26.2 billion, according to the World Bank. Ninety-eight percent of all remittances sent to Mexico come from the U.S.
It is no coincidence that the most rapid growth occurred from 2000 to 2008 when Vincente Fox was the president of Mexico. This is why the most emotional and energetic resistance to the Wall came from Vincente Fox, who used abusive language toward Trump. His statement were cloaked in emotion and anger, a skillfully crafted disguise for the real reason for his concern: money.
One in every eleven persons born in Mexico has gone to the U.S. The National Review reported that in 2014 $1.87 billion was spent on incarcerating illegal immigrant criminals.
Since the political economy of Los Angeles depends so heavily on the Federal and state program money that supports illegal immigration, the Los AngelesTimes still defends Special Order 40 as essential to, paradoxically, law and order. It’s also essential to the economy of Los Angeles but somehow the Times doesn’t mention that fact.
BLOG:
THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES HANDS INVADING ILLEGALS ONE BILLION IN WELFARE.
90% OF ALL MURDERS IN LOS ANGELES ARE BY MEXICANS.
THE TAX FREE UNDERGROUND ECONOMY IN L.A. COUNTY IS ESTIMATED TO BE IN EXCESS OF $2 BILLION.
One may ask why the Federal government chooses to spend so much money on the incarceration of criminal aliens by defying the Federal 1996 Immigration Act. But it’s important to keep in mind the benefits the Federal government, particularly the Democrat Party, the party of government sector teacher unions, obtains from illegal immigration. After all, their four biggest campaign contributors, the Service Employees International Union, the National Education Association, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and American Federation of Teachers are four of the top six contributors from 1989 to present. And they give over 99% of their contributors to Democrats. Today sixty five percent of public school students in Los Angeles County are Hispanic. In Chicago 46% are Hispanic.
Democrats, who have dominated almost all large metropolitan areas since FDR, are heavily dependent on illegal immigrants and their children.Should Trump build an effective wall, he would disrupt the flow of illegal immigrants, public school students, teacher union donations and block grant money to all their most important bases of electoral and demographic support. Trump’s wall is the major threat to what they see as their party’s long term goal of maintaining control of state governments as well as the national government.
Multimillionaire Jorge Ramos of Univision has criticized Trump aggressively. While Univision may have no obvious direct financial interest in remittances, their TV network certainly stands to profit from increases in Hispanic viewership, increases that are totally dependent on the growth of the Hispanic populations in cities they serve.
BLOG: CRIMINAL BANKSTERS WELLS FARGO and BANK of ILLEGALS (AMERICA) ARE MAJOR DONORS TO THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA “The Race”.
In short, everything that matters to Hillary and her Democrat Party is existentially threatened by Trump’s wall. And as a personal matter, Hillary’smulti-million dollar speech income from Wall Street contributors is also threatened: the banks make money from the wire transfers. Every time someone in the U.S. wires money to Mexico, the banks, currency exchanges, and other providers of wire transfer services make easy money. And the loss of low paying jobs to teenagers and seniors to illegal immigrants also contributes to the recession. Hillary and her party supporters desperately need illegal immigrants: Hillary is bought and paid for.
We now know that the big Wall Street banks bought her and you are paying for it in many ways. Hillary will not reveal what she has said to big bank contributors, but it is not unlikely that she reassured them that she will allow an open border to exist on the Southern part of the U.S. Recent email leaks have confirmed that she believes in open borders.
And then there’s the humanitarian issue. After all, the rationalization for allowing illegal immigration is that we need people to do “low paid jobs no one else will do.” This is a racist, humiliating characterization of Hispanics from Mexico and other Central American countries. America’s most shameful chapter in its history was its promotion of the institution of slavery, the importation of blacks from Africa to do “low paid jobs no one else will do.” It is hard to understand how anyone with sensitivity toward racial minorities can now bring up another generation of low paid workers. Vincente Fox never discusses this abuse, or the rape trees human smugglers construct as monuments to their criminal rape of young Hispanic women illegally crossing the border from the South.
Those following the money trail would say this follows the pattern perfectly: that Hillary allows illegal immigrants to be exploited by cartels and rapists in order for the banks she protects to collect their remittance transfer money. Somehow these humanitarian topics are avoided. We know that Wall Street investment banks gave tens of millions to support Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. These same banks make easy profits from of illegal immigrant bank transfer fees as well as high interest rate home loans and car loans targeted to Hispanics.
Hillary’s lack of humanitarian concern is accompanied by a silence toward the issue of money.
"Even though it has gone virtually unreported by corporate media, BreitbartNews has extensively documented the Clintons’ longstanding support for “open borders.” Interestingly, as the LosAngelesTimes observed in 2007, the Clinton’s praise for globalization and open borders frequently comes when they are speaking before a wealthy foreign audiences and donors."
SOARING POVERTY AND UNEMPLOYMENT UNDER OBAMA’S OPEN BORDERS POLICIES.
THE DEPT. of HOMELAND OPEN BORDERS SECURITY SECRET REPORT:
The Borders Are Wide Open. Illegals Jumping it in the Thousands.
Death of the America Middle Class is around the corner. End of the GOP is at hand. A one Party American is near. Mexico will elect all future Presidents.
Even though it has gone virtually unreported by corporate media, BreitbartNews has extensively documented the Clintons’ longstanding support for “open borders.” Interestingly, as the LosAngelesTimes observed in 2007, the Clinton’s praise for globalization and open borders frequently comes when they are speaking before a wealthy foreign audiences and donors.
JAMES WALSH - THE HISPANICAZATION of AMERICA
How the Democrat party surrendered America to Mexico:
“The watchdogs at Judicial Watch discovered documents that reveal how the Obama administration's close coordination with the Mexican government entices Mexicans to hop over the fence and on to the American dole.” Washington Times
HILLARY’S AMERICA: NOW BANKROLLED BY THE MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS
IMAGES OF AMERICA UNDER LA RAZA MEX OCCUPATION:
Your neighborhood will be next to fall to LA RAZA!
Even though it has gone virtually unreported by corporate media, BreitbartNews has extensively documented the Clintons’ longstanding support for “open borders.” Interestingly, as the LosAngelesTimes observed in 2007, the Clinton’s praise for globalization and open borders frequently comes when they are speaking before a wealthy foreign audiences and donors.
OPEN BORDERS: The Democrat Party’s Weapon of Mass Destruction on the American Worker
"Los Angeles saw all crime rise in 2015: violent crime up 19.9 percent, homicides up 10.2 percent, shooting victims up 12.6 percent, rapes up 8.6 percent, robberies up 12.3 percent, and aggravated assault up 27.5 percent,"Landry said.”
The illegal broke into her place.
Using a claw hammer, he beat her, broke her neck and raped her!
Marilyn Pharis was 64 when she died from her assault.
According to a 2011 report from the Government Accountability Office, there are 70,000 sexual offenses attached to the incarcerated criminal alien population.
A Mexican illegal alien allegedly raped a girl in Kansas in September after being deported ten times in the past six years alone, according to reports.
BUILDING THE MEXICAN CARTELS IN THE AMERICAN BURBS!
MEXIFORNIA (Formerly California) NOW UNDER NARCOMEX CONTROL
Suspected Illegal Alien Marijuana Farmers Held Workers Hostage: ICE
"More than 728,000 illegal immigrants have been shielded from being deported and granted work permits through President Barack Obama’s 2012 executive amnesty
program, according to the Migration Policy Institute."
THE OBAMA DOCTRINE: Let the Mexicans Destroy America
…. Amnesty will destroy the GOP, white and black middle America, keep wages depressed and build the LA RAZA SUPREMACY DEMOCRAT PARTY
"These figures present a scathing indictment of the social order that prevails in America, the world’s wealthiest country, whose government proclaims itself to be the globe’s leading democracy. They are just one manifestation of the human toll taken by the vast and all-pervasive inequality and mass poverty
OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS TO SERVE THE SUPER RICH: The slow and painful death of America that dominates American society."
"Republicans should call for lower immigration to stop the Democrat voter recruitment. But more importantly, all Americans should call for lower immigration in order to offer a better opportunity of finding jobs for those millions of their fellow Americans of all political persuasions who would like to work."
“According to Immigration and Customers Enforcement data first obtained by the Associated Press this week, about 70 percent of the 40,000 migrant family members arrested at the border since May did not follow up their arrest with a necessary visit to an immigration office.”
The NARCOMEX drug cartels now operate in all major
American cities and haul back to NARCOMEX between $40
The following story, which ran on Circa, should be extremely important but I am sure that most of the media will ignore it. It shows that Hillary was willing to ignore ethics laws if people donated to the Clinton Foundation.
From the article:
“While secretary of state, Hillary Clinton made a personal call to pressure Bangladesh’s prime minister to aid a donor to her husband’s charitable foundation despite federal ethics laws that require government officials to recuse themselves from matters that could impact their spouse’s business.”
Instead of working for the American people Hillary also enriched herself and the Foundation by granting access to donors and to people or countries who would pay Bill big money for speeches. There are many stories that show how much access she gave to donors.
Even Uranium was available to the Russians for a price.
Throughout their adult lives, the Clintons have enriched themselves through their political power. They did not start businesses or invent anything. They provided access and favors for a price.
The Democratic Party enabled them to enrich themselves by continually supporting them and looking the other way. The Justice Department and President Obama also didn’t care. The media have been the biggest culprits because, instead of holding the Clintons to account, they have endorsed them for whatever positions they have sought no matter what they have done.
If anyone wants to know why we have to drain the swamp they just need to look at the Clinton example. Entrenched politicians and bureaucrats from both parties evolve to believe that the taxpayer money is theirs to use as they like. They hand it out like candy to buy votes or to enrich themselves. Hence, throughout the country we are broke.The taxpayers are continually screwed while the government says they need more money and those requests are almost universally supported by the media.
I believe I have found why so much of the supposed news that we get support politicians who believe in big government and call those of who believe in smaller government and economic freedom far right wing extremists.
“In the latest sign that Washington operates in an alternate economy, journalism jobs around the country dove 22 percent in the last 10 years, but they spiked a whopping 38 percent in the nation's capital, according to a new economic study. What's more, salaries for Washington journalists rose 7 percent while diving nationally.
While 12,000 reporting jobs were eliminated in most markets in the last decade, the Washington journalism market expanded from 2,190 to 3,030. That is more than five journalists for every single House and Senate member.”
It would be helpful if the local newspapers throughout the country used more local reporters instead of reprinting so much that comes out of D.C. Maybe we can get a variety of viewpoints instead of so much groupthink.
THE FINAL DAYS OF BILLARY & HILLARY:
GLOBAL LOOTERS OF THE POOR
“Clinton is finished. She is never going to become the American Messalina.”
“But if she shows any sign of weakness, her cronies will begin to desert her, those she trampled on and harmed will seek payback, and the authorities will at last stir themselves to look into things. The current investigations will continue and expand. Others will be opened. Clinton can look forward to an old age spent in courthouses and committee rooms. She will end up as one of those Mafia dons slumped in a wheelchair while the lawyers attempt to generate sympathy. And that’s fine. She has earned the most Hellenic of punishments.”
"This offers cold comfort to millions of college students saddled with massive debt and workers confronting the prospect of dead-end, low-wage and part-time jobs. The economic legacy of the Obama administration has been a bonanza for Wall Street, with huge income gains for the top 1 percent and falling and stagnating wages for the vast majority. The main beneficiaries have been wealthy individuals like Chelsea Clinton herself, who is married to a hedge fund manager."
HILLARY & BILLARY: Their Looting of the Poor of Haiti
“The couple parlayed lives supposedly spent in “public service” into admission into the upper stratosphere of American wealth, with incomes in the top 0.1 percent bracket. The source of this vast wealth was a political machine that might well be dubbed “Clinton, Inc.” This consists essentially of a seedy money-laundering operation to ensure big business support for the Clintons’ political ambitions as well as their personal fortunes. The basic components of the operation are lavishly paid speeches to Wall Street and Fortune 500 audiences, corporate campaign contributions, and donations to the ostensibly philanthropic Clinton Foundation.”
January 9, 2018
Did Biden, Holder, and Clinton discuss invoking the 25th Amendment against Obama?
In Obama's first term, Joe Biden was vice president, Eric Holder was attorney general, and Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. Did the three of them have discussions about removing President Obama from office because of mental unfitness?
Like author Michael Wolff, who claims that White House aides contemplate removing President Trump from office, I have no proof that these discussions took place. But given Obama's obvious mental incapacity, don't you think it's possible such discussions occurred?
Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
The phrase "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" can refer to a physical or a mental incapacity. There is a lot of evidence that Obama had mental incapacities.
1) Obama fervently believed that there is a global doomsday scenario that is going to destroy the world. He believed that the Earth is getting hotter and hotter, despite clear scientific evidence that it is not, and feared the destruction of the planet. That's delusional.
2) Obama was against redefining marriage when he began his presidency. Then he suddenly became for it. That's evidence of a split personality.
3) Obama actually believed that boys can become girls simply by saying so and ordered schools to let these confused boys into girls' bathrooms. That's also delusional.
4) Obama was vaguely aware that we have been fighting some groups in the Middle East, one of them with the word "Islamic" in the name, but Obama was unaware that this group is Muslim and has Muslims in it.
5) Obama had delusions that he was a king rather than a mere president. He thought he could promulgate laws on immigration, health care, and welfare all on his own and did so. That was also clearly delusional.
In light of Obama's delusional behavior, is it out of the realm of possibility to imagine that Secretary Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Eric Holder, and Vice President Joe Biden met regularly to consider whether the president was incapacitated and needed to be replaced? I can't prove that it happened – but can anyone prove that it didn't happen?
Michael Wolff speculated that this is what is going on at the White House today. I speculate that this is what was happening all during Obama's term of office. The difference is that President Trump's actions have not been delusional, while many of Obama's clearly were.
What do you think? Who is more likely to be mentally ill: President Trump or former president Obama?
Ed Straker is the senior writer at Newsmachete.com.lder, and Vice President Joe Biden met regularly to consider whether the president was incapacitated and needed to be replaced? I can't prove that it happened – but can anyone prove that it didn't happen?
Michael Wolff speculated that this is what is going on at the White House today. I speculate that this is what was happening all during Obama's term of office. The difference is that President Trump's actions have not been delusional, while many of Obama's clearly were.
What do you think? Who is more likely to be mentally ill: President Trump or former president Obama?
The Obama Foundation originally said it would house a presidential library on the property and vowed to have the National Archives oversee the facility because of its placement on public land. But that's no longer the case, and some are balking at the change in plans. (AP Photo/Nam Y. Huh)
The Obama Foundation released plans last week for the presidential center it plans to build in Chicago's Jackson Park, but behind the scenes, a battle is taking place to keep the former Democratic president from building on that specific lot of land, and there's still a chance that it gets delayed when it seeks federal approval.
What initially started out as a library has morphed into a 20-acre private "center," and some environmentalists and historians are unhappy with the Obama Foundation's plans to swoop in and take over a national historic place.
The Obama Foundation originally said it would house a presidential library on the property and vowed to have the National Archives oversee the facility because of its placement on public land. But that's no longer the case, and some are balking at the change in plans.
"Here’s our bottom line. If the Obama Foundation wishes to construct this center on Chicago’s South Side, that’s fine, but not on parkland held in public trust. The University of Chicago, which orchestrated the winning bid for the project, has plenty of land on the South Side that they could and should use. Instead, they’ve been adamant since day one that they must have historic public parkland for the purpose," Charles Birnbaum, president and founder of D.C.-based nonprofit, the Cultural Landscape Foundation, told the Washington Examiner in a written statement Saturday.
The foundation is not alone. The group is working alongside a number of others, including Friends of the Parks, Jackson Park Watch, Openlands, National Association for Olmsted Parks, Save the Midway, Landmarks Illinois, and Preservation Chicago, all of whom have raised concerns about the project.
In addition, 200 faculty members from Obama's former employer, the University of Chicago, issued a formal letter last Monday stating its opposition to the presidential center being built at this location.
As a first step, the center's proposal must be approved by Chicago's planning department and the city council. That process is not expected to sit any snags, as Obama's former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is Chicago's mayor.
"If past is prologue, municipal officials will rubber-stamp their approvals," Birnbaum said.
But the federal process will be more complicated, and that's where Birnbaum's argument becomes especially relevant.
The Obama Foundation will have to get approval from the Environmental Protection Agency under the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. A spokesperson for Birnbaum's group said it is difficult to predict how the Trump administration's EPA will handle it.
The first verification process will determine if the Obama Presidential Center would have "adverse effects" on Jackson Park. The State Historic Preservation Office will ask "official consulting parties" to provide opinions.
"This will play out over 2018 and involve several meetings of the 'official consulting parties' along with extensive written input from those parties," Birnbaum explained in an email. "A determination could be made that this are no adverse effects and the OPC would proceed (highly unlikely); a determination could be made that there are adverse effects and a process of mitigation could be developed and approved by all of the consulting parties in a formal Memorandum of Agreement (MOA); a determination could be made that there are adverse effects, but the consulting parties don’t agree on mitigation, then this would likely end in litigation."
From the perspective of the landscape foundation, Jackson Park and the surrounding parklands are quintessential examples of historic property.
"This isn’t just any public open space; this is historic parkland originally designed by Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr., and Calvert Vaux (of New York’s Central Park fame)," the organization's website states. The park system was designed in 1871, and Olmsted wrote in 1895 that the Museum of Science and Industry was intended to be the only "dominating object of interest" in the park.
In 2012, Jackson Park was at the center of another Section 106 compliance review, and officials decided it should not be touched.
"As currently designed, the park retains a great deal of its integrity. While some of the original features have been modified, or removed, the remaining defining characteristics such as the overall plan … depicted on the 1905 map must be respected," the document stated.
The foundation is expected to spend much of this year engaged in federal-related approval processes. The Chicago City Council will take up the issue this week.
Meanwhile, Obama's team last week released more information about the center it hopes to open soon. In July 2016, the Obamas announced the selection of Jackson Park, a 500-acre park on Chicago's South Side next to the University of Chicago, as their preferred site for his presidential library.
The spot is near the Museum of Science and Industry, Lake Michigan and the eastern edge of the university campus, where Obama used to teach constitutional law. The location is also near Woodlawn, a low-income black neighborhood that recently has begun to gentrify. The Obamas are longtime Chicago residents, and sought a part of their hometown that needed revitalization but could also benefit from the addition.
This week, the Obama Foundation shared dozens of changes to its proposal, including road closures within the park, a revamping of the picturesque landscaping, and a newly designed main building would stretch 23 stories high at 235 feet tall.
Shortly after San Francisco's then-Mayor Dianne Feinstein married private equity financier Richard C. Blum in 1980, those who knew them called theirs "a marriage of the public and private sectors."
No comments:
Post a Comment