THE BANKSTER-FUNDED DEMOCRAT PARTY:
THE RISE OF HILLARY AND BILLARY CLINTON
AND BARACK OBAMA AND THE FALL OF
AMERICA
THE RISE OF HILLARY AND BILLARY CLINTON
AND BARACK OBAMA AND THE FALL OF
AMERICA
January 8, 2018
Cosa Sinistra: The Left as Crime Family
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.
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.
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.
December 9, 2017
The gospel according to
the swamp
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
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.
A MAJOR THEME OF THIS
BANKSTER-
FUNDED MOVEMENT IS OPEN
BORDERS TO
KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED,
BUILD THE LA
RAZA MEX WELFARE STATE ON
OUR
BACKS TO KEEP THE HORDES
COMING
AND PUT MORE ILLEGALS IN
VOTING
BOOTHS.... IT SERVES THE
SUPER RICH OF
WHOM OBAMA AND THE CLINTON
CRIME
FAMILY HAVE SERVED FROM
DAY ONE.
They are aligned with the
Obamap-Clinton machine; they are generally in sync with the Obama-Clinton
goals.
- The exoneration of
the Clinton crime family
August 9, 2017
Trump's Unintended Consequences: The
Unmasking of the Deep State
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?
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/07/peter-beinart-how-democrats-lost-their.html
Trump’s biggest mistake – not going after Hillary
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.
Trump’s decision to let Hillary off the
hook could probably be chalked up as political naiveté – basically wishful
thinking on his part that the liberal media would see it as a peace offering
and reward him with a presidential honeymoon period. Fat chance! Donald Trump’s
political naiveté on this matter was and still is a huge disappointment to his
supporters.
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.
Trump’s decision to let Hillary off the
hook could probably be chalked up as political naiveté – basically wishful
thinking on his part that the liberal media would see it as a peace offering
and reward him with a presidential honeymoon period. Fat chance! Donald Trump’s
political naiveté on this matter was and still is a huge disappointment to his
supporters.
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.
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.”
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….
THE SAVE CHELSEA CLINTON MOVEMENT
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.
CLINTON’S ENTIRE POLITICAL LIFE HAS
BEEN A CESSPOOL OF SELF-SERVING
CORRUPTION!
HILLARY CLINTON: SERVANT TO (paying)
DICTATORS
HER PUTIN CONNECTION
"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?”
AND THEIR BRIBES JUST KEPT ROLLING……..
HILLARY & BILLARY AND RED CHINA!
“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."
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.”
Illustration by Lincoln Agnew*
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?
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.”
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.
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:
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.
Some on the left would have howled. But I suspect that Clinton would be president today.
A MAJOR THEME OF THIS BANKSTER-
FUNDED MOVEMENT IS OPEN BORDERS TO
KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED, BUILD THE LA
RAZA MEX WELFARE STATE ON OUR
BACKS TO KEEP THE HORDES COMING
AND PUT MORE ILLEGALS IN VOTING
BOOTHS.... IT SERVES THE SUPER RICH
OF
WHOM OBAMA AND THE CLINTON CRIME
FAMILY HAVE SERVED FROM DAY ONE.
They are aligned with the Obamap-Clinton
machine; they are generally in sync with the Obama-Clinton goals.
- The exoneration of the Clinton crime
family
August
9, 2017
Trump's Unintended
Consequences: The Unmasking of the Deep State
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.
MEXICANS
JUMP AMERICA’S OPEN & UNDEFENDED BORDERS FOR HILLARIA’S AMNESTY
"Even
though it has gone virtually unreported by corporate media, Breitbart News has
extensively documented the Clintons’ longstanding support for “open
borders.” Interestingly, as the Los Angeles Times 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.
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/10/millions-of-americans-legals-unemployed.html
HILLARY
WILL HAND 40 MILLION LOOTING MEXICANS AMNESTY, AMERICAN JOBS AND BILLIONS IN
WELFARE.
GLOBALIST
HILLARY CLINTON’S CONSPIRACY
TO SURRENDER
OUR BORDERS TO OBAMA’S
INVADING
MUSLIMS LIKE THE GREAT
HISPANDERER
DID FOR THE MEXICANS!
LA RAZA
“The Race” MORE ETHNIC CLEANSING IN MEXIFORNIA
SANTA
ANA SURRENDERS TO LA RAZA FASCIST MOVEMENT
Another
California City Waves the Mexican Flag
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.
UNDER THE LA RAZA SUPREMACIST OBAMA, THE
MEX DRUG CARTELS NOW OPERATE BORDER TO UNDEFENDED BORDER
Mexican cartel smugglers have taken full advantage of the system in order
to maximize their profits from human smuggling as well as the smuggling of
illegal aliens. In 2014, Mexico’s Gulf Cartel was able to make approximately $38 million in a matter of months off
human smuggling alone.
THE
CLINTON DOCTRINE:
OPEN
BORDERS TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED AND SERVICE TO THE 1% TO KEEP THE BUCKS ROLLING
INTO THE PHONY CLINTON FOUNDATION!
HILLARY CLINTON’S VISION:
SURRENDER OF OUR BORDERS WITH NARCOMEX AND
SUCKING IN GLOBAL BRIBES FOR THE PHONY CLINTON FOUNDATION
Even though
it has gone virtually unreported by corporate media, Breitbart News has
extensively documented the Clintons’ longstanding support for “open
borders.” Interestingly, as the Los Angeles Times 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!
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2013/10/america-la-raza-mexicos-wide-open.html
Even though
it has gone virtually unreported by corporate media, Breitbart News has
extensively documented the Clintons’ longstanding support for “open
borders.” Interestingly, as the Los Angeles Times 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
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-la-raza-mexican-crime-tidal-wave.html
"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.
VIVA LA RAZA
SUPREMACY AND OPEN BORDERS?
According to a 2011 report from the Government Accountability Office, there
are 70,000 sexual offenses attached to the incarcerated criminal alien
population.
AMERICA’S OPEN BORDERS:
70,000
LEGALS RAPED!
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
THE OBAMA DOCTRINE OF OPEN BORDERS TO DESTROY AMERICA… The first step to building a Muslim-style dictatorship
"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
$640,000 and breeding anchor babies like
bunnies
MURDER, RAPE, LOOT and VOTE DEM FOR
MORE!
EACH ILLEGAL WILL COST THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE $640,000 and then they go breed anchor babies for more!
THE LA RAZA MEXICAN LOOTERS: Invade, Occupy, Loot and bred
anchor babies for 18 years of gringo-paid welfare
HISPANIC FAMILY VALUES: Mexican flag
wavers loot the stupid gringo for billions!
Mexico’s massive looting in our
open borders:
WHO ARE THE LA RAZA MEXICAN INVADERS?
ANIMAL ABUSE AND THE MEXICAN
RAPE, MURDER, ANIMAL ABUSE, HOME INVASION
and then vote DEMOCRAT FOR MORE
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
CLINTON’S PROMISE OF AMNESTY IN A 100
DAYS!
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
HILLARY CLINTON: Closet Republican
…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
OBAMA’S MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY OF LA RAZA
“The Race” GIFT TO HILLARIA:
OPEN BORDERS AND A MILLION MEXICAN
CRIMINAL LINING UP TO VOTE FOR MORE LA RAZA SUPREMACY!
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
NARCOMEX drug cartels now
operate in
all major American cities and
haul back
to NARCOMEX between $40
top $60
BILLION from sales of HEROIN!
TOM
TANCREDO:
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!
CARLOS ESPARAZA IS AN ILLEGAL. HE
JUMPED OUR
BORDERS TO RAPE A 7 YEAR OLD AND TO VOTE
FOR
MEXICAN ENDORSED LA RAZA HILLARIA CLINTON.
OPEN
BORDERS KEEPS WAGES FOR
LEGALS
DEPRESSED HUNDREDS OF
BILLIONS
PER YEAR, AND BUILD THE
DEMOCRAT
PARTY'S LA RAZA
SUPREMACY
BASE OF MEXICAN
LOOTERS
We also get the tax bills for
Mexico’s welfare state on our backs and the LA RAZA crime tidal wave that comes
with them!
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2013/10/america-la-raza-mexicos-wide-open.html
THE BEST WAY TO SOLVE AMERICA’S
UNEMPLOYMENT CRISIS IS TO PUSH THE BORDERS OPEN WIDER AND PROMISE JOBS, WELFARE
AND BETTER LOOTING AFTER THE ELECTION!
An illegal to a dem pol is nothing but an
UNREGISTERED DEM!
OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS: You were wondering
how many jobs went to illegals and how well Obama’s crony banksters have
done???
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.
SOARING POVERTY AND DRUG ADDICTION UNDER
OBAMA
"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."
MEXICO: AMERICA’S
DRUG DEALER!
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.
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/08/obama-clintonomics-their-crony.html
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/08/obama-clintonomics-their-crony.html
“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.
America’s
Looming Economic Armageddon
Can the Rich Get Even Richer During the Meltdown?
OBAMA DOCTRINE: KEEP AMERICA’S BORDERS
OPEN AND UNDEFENDED AND CATCH AND RELEASE MEXICO’S INVADING CRIMINAL CLASS…. So
they go vote democrat!
OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS:
Build the La Raza Democrat Party base
with open borders, no ID to vote Democrat, no E-VERIFY and NO DAMNED LEGAL NEED TO APPLY.
Keeping wages DEPRESSED with endless
hordes of looting Mexicans invading keeps these corrupt politicians’ paymasters
on Wall Street generous$.
"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."
from Mexico into U.S. up 23 percent from 2015
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
They claim all of North
America for Mexico!
(WARNING! THE BELOW LINK
IS GRAPHIC ON MEXICAN HATRED OF LEGALS)
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
Aztlan.Net
is going through major reconstruction. If you are interested in viewing a
particular prior article or page. write to us at info@aztlan.net
LA RAZA FACISM:
Ethnic Cleansing By Mexicans Occupying California…. Where Mexico
loots first!
THE FACE OF MEXICAN FASCISM:
FORMER LOS ANGELES MAYOR AND MEX FASCIST
ANTONIO “Taco Runt” VILLARAIGOSA
DECLARES MEXIFORNIA’S SURRENDER TO LA
RAZA SUPREMACY
“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!)
They claim all of North
America for Mexico!
MEXICAN
HEROIN POURS OVER THE NARCOMEX-U.S. BORDER
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/05/while-these-filthy-politicians-cant.html
Americans die young, poor and addicted
while politicians angle for more amnesty and wider open borders with the LA
RAZA cartels.
California:
The sick man of the United States….
A STATE UNDER MEX OCCUPATION!
PUS-SPEWING XAVIER BECERRA…. Is what
happens when illegals vote LA RAZA FASCISM.
“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.
TRUMPERNOMICS: IMPLEMENTING
OBAMA-CLINTONIMCS
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/04/trumpernomics-cut-social-security-to.html
LEGALS AND BUSINESS FLEE CALIFORNIA….
Where Mexico loots first
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:
MEXICANS SUCK IN MORE WELFARE THAN LEGALS!
“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
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-la-raza-mexican-crime-tidal-wave.html
"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:
“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.” JUDICIAL
WATCH
ROBERT
RECTOR:
Importing
poverty….
WE ALSO
IMPORT ALL THEIR CRIMINALS
“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."
Is it too late for America?
for 8 years
no one accused Barack Obama of doing anything for BLACK AMERICA.... WHY WOULD
THEY?
Obama's Legacy of the 'Hispanicazation' of
America
January 10, 2011
By: James Walsh
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.”
CALIFORNIA UNDER LA RAZA SIEGE:
Mexico’s looting and ethnic cleansing of a
once American state.
BARCK OBAMA and the MEXICAN DRUG
CARTELS: A PARTNERSHIP
Feds make secret alliance with Sinaloa
drug cartel
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’.
THE INVADING
CRIMINALS:
A county by county chart:
OBAMA’S INVASION OF ILLEGALS IS WORKING!
They’re already signed up to vote LA RAZA
SUPREMACY DEM!
“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
top
$60 BILLION from sales of HEROIN!
MEXICANS ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA, XAVIER
BECERRA AND KEVIN de Leon and ethnic cleansing of NON-HISPANICS from
California prior to annexation by Mexico.
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!)
They claim all of North
America for Mexico!
THE LA RAZA MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS
BEFORE AND AFTER BARACK OBAMA’S 8 YEARS OF
SABOTAGE OF AMERICAN’S HOMELAND SECURITY
MEXICO WILL DOUBLE AMERICA’S
POPULATION
How many illegals looting or committing
crimes in your county U.S.A.?
IMMIGRANT SHARE OF ADULTS QUADRUPLED IN
232 COUNTIES
MEXICO ANNOUNCES CONTROL OF CALIFORNIA ACCOMPLISHED.
De Léon, who introduced the bill, made his remarks at a
hearing in Sacramento on SB54, the bill
to make
California a “Sanctuary State.”
California
State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Léon (D-Los Angeles) said last
Tuesday that “half his family” was in the country illegally, using
false documents, and eligible for deportation under President Trump’s new executive order against
“sanctuary” jurisdictions.
"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!)
They claim all of North
America for Mexico!
OPEN BORDERS and HEROIN: AMERICAN
POLITICIANS PARTNER WITH THE LA RAZA MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS!
CAUTION!
HERE IS THE MEXICO POURING OVER OUR OPEN
AND UNDEFENDED BORDERS AND HAULING BACK BILLIONS FROM HEROIN SALES!
GRAPHIC
IMAGES of America coming under Mex Occupation
The
NARCOMEX drug cartels now operate in all major American cities and haul back to
NARCOMEX between $40 top $60 BILLION from sales of HEROIN!
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."
UNDER THE LA RAZA SUPREMACIST OBAMA, THE
MEX DRUG CARTELS NOW OPERATE BORDER TO UNDEFENDED BORDER
Mexican cartel smugglers have taken full advantage of the system in
order to maximize their profits from human smuggling as well as the smuggling
of illegal aliens. In 2014, Mexico’s Gulf Cartel was able to make
approximately $38 million in a matter of months off human smuggling alone.
“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.” JUDICIAL
WATCH
AMERICA: NO LEGAL NEED APPLY
REPORT: The assault to finish off the
American middle-class is NOT over
“The report
noted that many illegals don't have jobs or have difficulty in landing
good jobs because of local laws.”
“However, it identified several states
that have begun easing employment laws so that illegals can get a job.”
HEROIN!
MEXICO INVADES, LOOTS AND EXPANDS
ITS HEROIN MARKETS IN AMERICA’S OPEN
AND UNDEFENDED BORDERS
JUDICIAL WATCH:
“The greatest criminal threat to the
daily lives of American citizens are the Mexican drug cartels.”
Much more here:
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-american-border-with-narcomex.html ……post on your face book
“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
MEXIFORNIA: The Shattering of the American Dream
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.”
ILLEGALS & WELFARE
70% OF ILLEGALS GET
WELFARE!
“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”
CIS
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.
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.
(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.
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.
Sources:
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.
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, the Mexican 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
MEX
WITH 37 CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS FINALLY DEPORTED… wonder
if he’s back looting already???
more at
this link:
five percent of them (or 225,390) were convicted criminal
aliens, the largest number of criminal aliens removed in
agency history, ICE said.
MICHELLE
MALKIN:
another
brutal murder by another illegal criminal long on the
loose in
our open borders!
Mexicans invade, loot, murder.... and
then vote Democrat for more!
PHOENIX IS ONLY SECOND TO MEXICO
CITY IN KIDNAPPING
PHOENIX IS NUMBER ONE IN AMERICA FOR CAR THEFTS
AND HOME INVASION
July 3, 2017
Crime rate plummets
when Phoenix drops sanctuary city policies
July 3, 2017
Crime rate plummets
when Phoenix drops sanctuary city policies
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!
THE STAGGERING CRIME TIDAL WAVE BY THE WORLD'S MOST VIOLENT CULTURE:
MEXICAN
93% of all
murders in Mex-occupied Los Angeles are by Mexicans.
OPEN BORDERS: The Democrat Party’s Weapon of
Mass Destruction on the American Worker
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-la-raza-mexican-crime-tidal-wave.html
"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!
BLUM'S WHORE FEINSTEIN HAS SPENT
HER ENTIRE POLITICAL LIFE SNIFFING OUT DEALS
IN CONGRESS THAT HAVE PUT HUNDREDS
OF MILLIONS
INTO HER PIMP'S BOTTOMLESS
POCKETS!
The Center for Public Integrity has reported that US Senator Dianne Feinstein, who voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution, and her husband, Richard Blum, are making millions of dollars from Iraq and Afghanistan
contracts through his company, Tutor Perini Corporation.[26][27]
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
Senator Feinstein's War Profiteering - by Joshua Frank -
Antiwar.com
www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=8609
1.
2.
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 ...
Army contract for Feinstein's husband / Blum is a
director of firm that ...
www.sfgate.com/.../Army-contract-for-Feinstein-s-husband-Blum-is-a-2621196.php
1.
2.
Apr 22, 2003 - URS Corp., a San Francisco planning and
engineering firm partially owned by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein's husband, landed an
Army ...
War brings business to Feinstein spouse / Blum's firms
win multimillion ...
www.sfgate.com/.../War-brings-business-to-Feinstein-spouse-Blum-s-2652085.php
1.
2.
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 ...
War profiteering - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_profiteering
1.
2.
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, ...
# 23 Feinstein's Conflict of Interest in Iraq – Top 25 of
2008
projectcensored.org/23-feinsteins-conflict-of-interest-in-iraq/
1.
Apr 28, 2010 - Dianne Feinstein—the ninth wealthiest member of congress—has been ... With
Blum's financial backing, Klein, a war contractor, operates a ...
Unacceptable! Senator Profits from War and Post Office -
Roots Action
act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=7309
1.
2.
Senator Dianne Feinstein's numerous apparent conflicts of interest are clear grounds
for an Ethics Committee investigation.
Dianne Feinstein: War profiteer and war criminal |
Freepress.org
freepress.org/article/dianne-feinstein-war-profiteer-and-war-criminal
1.
Dianne Feinstein: War profiteer and war criminal. by Gerry Bello. July 5, 2013. Somewhere
in northwest Pakistan Tuesday a sound was heard. Hellfire missiles ...
The Greatest Threat to Campus Free Speech is Coming From
Dianne ...
https://theintercept.com/.../dianne-feinstein-husband-threaten-univ-calif-demanding-b...
1.
2.
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 ...
Feinstein
quits committee under war-profiteer cloud - WND.com
www.wnd.com/2007/03/40845/
1.
2.
Mar 28, 2007 - Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has abruptly
walked away from her responsibilities with the Senate Military Construction
Appropriations ...
Senator Feinstein's War Profiteering- Democratic Blood
Money By ...
www.countercurrents.org/frank050407.htm
1.
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.
Feinstein, who sits on the Senate
Appropriations Committee as well
as the
Select Committee on
Intelligence, is reaping
the benefits of her husband's
investments.
The Democratic royal family
recently
flush Pacific Heights
neighborhood of San
Francisco. It's a disgusting
display of war
profiteering, and just like Cheney,
the leading
Democrat should be called out
for her
offense.
And that's exactly why the Bush
administration is so darn
bulletproof.
The Democratic leadership in
Washington is just as crooked and just
as callous.
|
War profiteering
From
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged
and removed. (November
2009) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
|
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]
In the United States[edit]
Companies such as Halliburton have
been criticized in the context of the Iraq War for
their perceived war profiteering.[24]
Steven Clemons, a senior fellow at the New
America Foundation think tank, has
accused former CIA Director James Woolseyof both profiting from and promoting the Iraq War.[25]
The Center for Public
Integrity has reported that US Senator Dianne Feinstein, who
voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution, and her
husband, Richard Blum,
are making millions of dollars from Iraq and Afghanistan contracts through his
company, Tutor Perini Corporation.[26][27]
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
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.
Background:
1. MetroActive: Senator
Feinstein's Iraq Conflict
Z Magazine: The Power Couple of California
2. Bohemian: Senator Warbucks
3. San Francisco Chronicle: War Brings Business to Feinstein Spouse
San Francisco Chronicle: SF Firm Awarded Contract in Iraq
4.Washington Times: Senator's Husband's Firm Cashes in on Crisis
5. San Francisco Chronicle: Amid Loud Dissent, Panels Urge Los Alamos Bid
Santa Cruz Indymedia: Conflict of Interest for Vice Chair of the UC Regents, Richard C. Blum?
6. San Francisco Chronicle: Grim Outlook for Post Office Buildings
LaJolla Light: Berkeley Preservationists Question Senator's Ties to Post Office Sales
Truthout: The USPS Media #FAIL
Z Magazine: The Power Couple of California
2. Bohemian: Senator Warbucks
3. San Francisco Chronicle: War Brings Business to Feinstein Spouse
San Francisco Chronicle: SF Firm Awarded Contract in Iraq
4.Washington Times: Senator's Husband's Firm Cashes in on Crisis
5. San Francisco Chronicle: Amid Loud Dissent, Panels Urge Los Alamos Bid
Santa Cruz Indymedia: Conflict of Interest for Vice Chair of the UC Regents, Richard C. Blum?
6. San Francisco Chronicle: Grim Outlook for Post Office Buildings
LaJolla Light: Berkeley Preservationists Question Senator's Ties to Post Office Sales
Truthout: The USPS Media #FAIL
July
11, 2017
Had Hillary Clinton Won the Election...
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..
May 13, 2017
Clintons: The pay
to play family
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.
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.”
THE CHELSEA CLINTON FILE:
"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?
The 25th Amendment to the Constitution seems as though it was written with Barack Obama in mind. It states, in part:
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.
DOJ Investigations Indicate Looming Anti-Corruption Campaign in US
While the attorney general has been tight-lipped, it has become clear something big is in the works
January 9, 2018 2:20 pm Last Updated: January 9, 2018 3:35 pm
News Analysis
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.”
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.
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.
While the deal was under review, the Clinton Foundation received millions in payments linked to Uranium One.
Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations to the Clinton Foundation, totaling $2.35 million, The New York Times reported in a 2015 exposé.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment