She does not have the votes to be Speaker. Not unless a lot of people were lying last night. Watch, then read on.

.@edokeefe: "If the election were held today on the House floor do you have the votes to be elected Speaker?"@NancyPelosi: "Yes."

62 people are talking about this

Note that she’s asked about a letter and fires back, defensively, “Have you seen the letter?” That’s a reference to a document that may or may not actually exist formalizing the opposition of 17 Democrats to Pelosi as Speaker. The Democratic majority next year will be small enough that if those 17 really, truly, sincerely resolve not to vote for her and are willing to risk Pelosi’s wrath by saying so publicly, she can’t get to 218 votes in the Speaker race. (Unless Republicans decided to wreak havoc by voting present — or voting for Pelosi themselves.) HuffPost’s sources claim that there really is a letter, though, and that it’s being held back for now only because the group of 17 is hoping to get a few more Dems to join before releasing it. All 17 signatories plus the group of maybes are listed hereIs Pelosi sunk? Maybe not yet:
But Pelosi also has a number of ways she could wrangle the speaker’s gavel even if a dozen and a half members pledge to oppose her. For one, Democrats could make a new rule binding every member to vote for the Democratic nominee. Rule changes associated with that idea are already under consideration, and there’s some thought that Pelosi may try to formalize rules so that Democrats have to vote for her, though many members question how this strategy would work. (Would they kick out the members who don’t vote for the Democratic nominee? Would they still have a majority?)
There’s also the thought that some Republicans could vote “present,”thus lowering the threshold for Pelosi. But that presents its own challenges. In effect, Republicans would have veto power over the speaker and Pelosi would not be negotiating from any position of strength.
Seventeen members is close to the bare minimum needed to block her, although “Pelosi’s opponents also told HuffPost they think the actual number of Democrats who do not want to vote for Pelosi is much larger than anyone anticipates, and they remain confident she doesn’t have the votes.” One of Pelosi’s trump cards, as Ed noted yesterday, has been the idea that you can’t beat something with nothing. Most of the caucus supports her; if the insurgents can’t offer an alternative candidate, what’s left to talk about? But … what if they can offer an alternative candidate? One who’s younger and looks more like the Democratic base in 2018 than Pelosi herself does?
Rep. Marcia L. Fudge said on Thursday that she has been “overwhelmed” by the support from many of her colleagues for her possible entry into the race for House speaker, becoming the first Democrat to publicly acknowledge a challenge to longtime party leader Nancy Pelosi.
“Over the last 12 hours, I’ve been overwhelmed by the amount of support I’ve received,” Fudge said in an interview with The Washington Post, adding that there are “probably closer to 30” Democrats who have privately signaled that they are willing to oppose Pelosi.
“Things could change rapidly,” Fudge said with a smile as she sat in her office, with her phone buzzing nearby.
Fudge is a former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. When Tim Ryan challenged Pelosi for minority leader two years ago, one problem he was up against was that he was a midwestern white guy. We need midwestern white guys, he argued, reminding the caucus of Trump’s victory in the Rust Belt. But Democrats increasingly depend on women and minority voters, a fact which Pelosi’s own allies have exploited this week in noting how bad it would look if the first woman Speaker were prevented from taking the gavel again by a man. The solution to that problem among the anti-Pelosi group is to find a woman challenger within their own ranks. Fudge fits the bill, with the potential to become not just the second woman Speaker in U.S. history but the first black Speaker. Since it’s taken for granted among the left that Trump is a white nationalist, who better to do battle with him on their behalf than Fudge?
Ryan, by the way, pulled 63 votes to Pelosi’s 134 in their caucus battle to be minority leader two years ago, a respectable showing. More than five dozen of his colleagues preferred someone other than Nancy. The stakes are much higher now with Democrats in the majority so members will be more reluctant to strike at the Queen, but Fudge emerging as a challenger and potentially galvanizing the CBC to back her is perilous for Pelosi. Once fencesitters become convinced that she really can’t get to 218, her support might collapse.
Most opinion among the chatterati to which I’ve been exposed on Twitter has been that it’d be borderline rude to try to dethrone Pelosi when she’s on the cusp of running the House again. She was the caucus leader who presided over their big gains last week, wasn’t she? She’s an effective legislator who got ObamaCare passed against long odds in 2010, didn’t she? Well, then, stand aside. I don’t understand that logic, though. The fact that Pelosi didn’t prevent a blue wave doesn’t mean she’s not toxic, it simply means she’s not as toxic as Trump and the GOP were this time. If she gets the credit for last week’s win, why doesn’t she get (some of) the blame for the previous four election cycles in which Democrats were relegated to the minority?
And who cares if she’s an effective legislator? She’s facing a Republican Senate and a Republican president. Nothing she passes is getting signed into law over the next two years. Democrats are better off booting her, installing a younger team, and letting them use these next two years as low-stakes on-the-job training in the hope/expectation that they’ll have total control of government after 2020. The top two, Pelosi and Hoyer, have been there since Bush’s first term; it’s embarrassing that the “party of the young” or whatever is stuck with these near-octogenarians who can’t relinquish power even though there’s nothing much for them to do for the rest of the decade except rubber-stamp committee subpoenas. If the anti-Pelosi group is going to end up caving by voting “present” instead of no — which, let’s face it, is the likely outcome — they should at least use the momentum they have now to try to extract a pledge from her and Hoyer about stepping down at some mutually agreeable time. Even if they try to back out of the pledge later, the mere fact that they’ve made it might embolden Democratic fencesitters to join the anti-Pelosis when they do.




The best midterms that San Francisco donors could buy.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
After President Trump took office, the Washington Post announced its new motto, “Democracy dies in darkness.” But it was the Washington Post, not Trump, that was guilty of undermining democracy.
President Trump had been legitimately elected by a majority of states. The Washington Post was an establishment paper in a government city owned by a dot com robber baron. There’s nothing more undemocratic than a paper owned by the richest man in the world working to overturn an election.
There was just as little democracy to the midterm elections in which wealthy donors from blue states and districts poured money into local races in red and purple states and districts. San Francisco and New York billionaires buying elections in Pennsylvania and Nevada is not democracy. It’s oligarchy.
American elected officials were meant to be elected by local communities to serve their needs. Instead the Left has nationalized local races by exploiting its cultural power. And when that didn’t produce the immediate results that it wanted, began overwhelming local elections with huge piles of outside cash.
The midterm elections were the best elections that San Francisco donors could buy.
Senate Democrats picked up $220 million in out-of-state donations these midterms. That huge pile of cash also amounted to sixty percent of their haul. The majority of Dem Senate cash came from donors who weren’t living in the states they were running in, but who were trying to buy elections for them.
That’s the Washington Post brand of democracy.
It’s not just Senate races being bought up by out-of-state donors. 45% of House Dem money came from out-of-state donors. And when they didn’t succeed in buying a local election the first time, they just kept on pouring in more money into a district until they got their way.
Last year, Democrats poured in $22.5 million into a special election in Georgia’s 6th congressional district. 95% of the donations came from out-of-state donors. Democrat Jon Ossoff received more donations from California than Georgia. Ossoff still lost to Rep. Karen Handel, even though her donations amounted to only a fraction of his ActBlue bucks.
But the same donors just waited a year and bought the seat for Lucy McBath in the midterms.
In October, Lucy McBath was appearing at the Writers Guild Theater in Los Angeles hosted by Hollywood royalty like Katzenberg, Tony Goldwyn and Cameron Crowe for a $500 a head fundraiser.
A large chunk of outside money behind McBath came from Michael Bloomberg. McBath touted his gun control positions and the New York billionaire’s front groups put $4.5 million behind his lackey.
That $4.5 million was a fraction of the $100 million that Bloomberg vowed to plow into the Dems.
There’s nothing democratic about Bloomberg buying the 6th the way he once bought Gracie Mansion.
In Illinois' 13th Congressional District, Betsy Dirksen Londrigan pulled in $1.7 million to Rep. Rodney Davis' $700K in a three month period. And then outside groups poured in nearly as much again in support of Londrigan. $300K of that money came from California.
In Nevada, out-of-state donors bought Jacky Rosen a senate seat. 85% of the radical lefty candidate’s donations came from outside the state. Of her 5 top donor zip codes, two were in New York, two in California, including Palo Alto, and the odd zip code out was in Chevy Chase, Maryland. 
The media frequently airs complaints about how little political power New York and California have per capita compared to a handful of small states. These complaints are not only cynically specious, they ignore the fact that between the media’s messaging force multipliers and the bicoastal wealth being used to buy elections, political power has become as concentrated as economic and cultural power.
And that’s the opposite of democracy.
The midterms weren’t a populist wave. They were an angry tantrum by wealthy blue state donors who used their money to buy local elections as payback for having their views ignored in 2016. Instead of listening to the rest of the country, they set out to buy it, lock, stock and barrel. They found experts, consultants, strategists, programmers and organizers who would buy them other people’s elections.
Much of their money was wasted. Just ask Beto O’Rourke and his $70 million war chest. But their hysterical frenzy of spending made an undeniable impact. If you throw enough mud or money at an election, eventually it sticks. The Democrat raised nearly $1 billion to take the House.
And they took it.
$166.8 million was pumped into 30 House Democrat candidates. That’s compared to $90.7 million for the Republican candidates in those races.
The most expensive midterm elections in history paid off for Democrats. And there’s nothing democratic about that.
Democracy doesn’t die in darkness. It dies in the glare of lefty media, lefty money and lefty power which strip away local issues and local agency in Arizona, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Florida. Big blue state donors bought the midterm elections to send a message to President Trump. Many had been convinced by frenzied media hit pieces in papers like the Washington Post that action was desperately urgent.
When the Washington Post, the rest of the media and their long tail of ActBlue donors intervene in local elections, it doesn’t uphold democracy. It drowns it in the bright actinic glare of flashes and floodlights.
The media postures as a defender of democracy, but corporate media is more naturally a defender of establishments, of the nostrums and platitudes of the elites whom it serves and coddles. When it interferes in elections, it doesn’t do so for the sake of the people, but for the sake of its people.
Political elites mistrust the people and use the media to manipulate popular elections into endorsing their unpopular agendas. The mainstream media is an inherently undemocratic institution that amplifies elite voices at the expense of local communities. It claims to be democratic only because it reinterprets democracy to mean the political agendas of the Democrats rather than those of the people.
Lefties often misuse democracy to mean a set of values while actual democracy, the vox populi, is tarred as populism. But democracy isn’t a set of social issues. It’s the power shift between the voters and elected officials. Big media and blue state billionaires have shifted that balance away from local voters by buying local elections and seeking new voters when the old won’t vote their way.
If a few million in attack ads won’t influence local voters, you register new ones. If that doesn’t work, then you legalize felons. And if that won’t do it, there are the illegal aliens, and voter and ballot fraud. Buy a few secretary of state races. Set up housing for out-of-state college students. Sign up aliens to vote. And then even if the local voters don’t vote your way, it won’t matter. They’ll have been outvoted.
This isn’t democracy. But it is how Democrats have won some local races.
The shift away from local voters to a national political infrastructure is undemocratic. But it neatly fits into the larger leftist cause of centralizing all of politics (and all other areas of life) in elitist strongholds. The partnerships between elitist leaders and their local crony stakeholders act as a fig leaf for the dismantling of local autonomy with performative diversity replacing representational democracy.
The Democrats have waged an undemocratic war on democracy in the name of democracy. The midterms were the latest leftist coup against democracy. And democracy lost to the Left.

Class Conflict within the Democratic Party

Over many decades, the American Left, the Democratic Party and their mutual propaganda arm, the self-styled “mainstream media,” have successfully portrayed conservatives and the Republican Party as a coalition of the wealthy and intolerant.  Further, the Democrats and the left have claimed that they are the true champions of the working or middle class as they unceasingly fight to defeat and marginalize this evil menace. 
The reality, however, is that this cabal has virtually no interest in defending or aiding the working class as they are, in fact, the party of a bifurcated constituency: the wealthy and those dependent on the largess of the government.
Of the fifty wealthiest congressional districts throughout the country, the Democrats now represent forty-one.  Of the remaining nine represented by Republicans, three are in Texas, the only red state on the list of fifty districts. Not coincidentally the residents of these same fifty districts are supposedly among the most well-educated and sophisticated.  This transformative process is not a recent phenomenon as the trend began in the 1980’s and accelerated rapidly in the early 2000’s.
America’s elites, now overwhelmingly represented by the Democratic Party, have a single overriding interest: their self-indulgent lifestyle.  This is manifested in their mistaken belief that conservatives (i.e. the “right”) are hell bent on enforcing their version of morality on the nation, thus potentially calling into question the lifestyles of the rich and solipsistic. 
The veracity of this claim is immaterial as it would require an element of deliberation not emotion --  a trait in extremely short supply among the nation’s privileged class, nearly all of whom have difficulty in generating an original thought due to the ill-education rampant in America’s universities.  Thus, the mindless accusations of racism, misogyny and Fascism directed at the conservative rubes in middle America are acceptable, and in far too many instances believed, particularly as many had the temerity to vote for Donald Trump – who, although wealthy and Ivy League educated, is considered the ultimate unsophisticated rube.
As conservatives are the dominant force in the Republican Party and this nation cannot function politically with more than two major political parties, the alternative is the Democratic Party.  An entity dominated by the American Left, an assemblage whose core philosophy is antithetical to the interests of the wealthy and privileged.  Yet, determined to protect their lifestyles and vilify conservatives, they willingly ally with the left and overwhelmingly support virtually any Democratic candidate.  In the recent 2018 mid-terms, Democratic House candidates outspent their Republican opponents by a two to one margin thanks primarily to this wealthy but myopic assemblage. 
Their colleagues in the Democratic Party, and the preponderance of the membership, are those dependent on the largess of the federal and state governments.  On the other hand, the growing segment of the citizenry who are working and self-sufficient are increasingly joining those who believe in limited government in migrating to the Republican Party-- a process that is accelerating with the policies and tactics of Donald Trump in combating the entrenched left and their determination to culturally and economically transform the nation.  The Republican Party will inevitably become the party of the working or middle class.  As such, they could potentially dominate the political agenda for the foreseeable future.
The left and the Democratic Party, in order to offset this possibility, must aggressively seek to increase the number of dependents by promoting the legalization and ultimate citizenship for untold millions of illegal immigrants and promising all Americans cradle to grave economic security.  In order to enact this strategy to defeat the Republicans, the left must have the active participation and financial support of the nation’s wealthy-- which they have. 
The Democratic Party has evolved into essentially an incompatible two-tier class-driven entity encompassing the nation’s wealthiest and the nation’s poorest.  Nonetheless, it is at present a convenient home for the elites to hold off the imaginary horde of conservatives outside their gilded doors. 
However, the voting numbers within the party are overwhelmingly with those who generally support the leftist philosophies of redistribution (e.g. socialized medicine and guaranteed incomes) and curtailing of freedom (e.g. speech, assembly and religion).  While it may not manifest itself to the affluent who have cast their lot with the Democrats, the redistribution of wealth must, by necessity, come from the wealthy, as that is where the bulk of the nation’s wealth resides.   It is also this same small-in-numbers group that benefits the most from freedom of speech and assembly. 
Once fully embroiled in this marriage of convenience, a divorce will be impossible as the co-inhabitant of the Democratic Party, the dependent class, must continue grow in order to electorally defeat the Republicans and protect the left’s agenda.  Further, the oversold expectations promulgated by the left will never be satisfied regardless of how many promises are made or token redistributive programs are enacted by the current ruling class.  Only a complete transformation of this nation into a failed socialist state will satiate the left, their acolytes and their attendant army of dependency.  A goal more in reach than ever thanks to the inability of the nation’s elites to give a damn about the future of the country.
There is not a more short-sighted and self-absorbed group of citizens in this nation than the white, wealthy well-educated urban and suburban voters.  They are willing to rend the fabric of this nation in order to protect their privilege and lifestyle.  While the vast majority of Americans will ultimately pay the price, the current ruling class and their progeny will have far more to lose. 


"GOP estb. is using the $5 billion border-wall fight to hide up to four blue/white-

collar cheap-labor programs in lame-duck DHS budget. Donors are worried that

salaries are too damn high, & estb. media does not want to know." 

MULTI-CULTURALISM and the creation of a one-party globalist country to serve the rich in America’s open borders.

“Open border advocates, such as Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, claim illegal aliens are a net benefit to California with little evidence to support such an assertion. As the CIS has documented, the vast majority of illegals are poor, uneducated, and with few skills. How does accepting millions of illegal aliens and then granting them access to dozens of welfare programs benefit California’s economy? If illegals were contributing to the economy in any meaningful way, CA, with its 2.6 million illegals, would be booming.” STEVE BALDWIN – AMERICAN SPECTATOR

Clueless Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t understand Dem corporatist strategy, attacks Amazon HQ deal

It is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s glory and burden that she actually believes all the slogans that progressives mouth. She hasn’t yet realized that the Democratic Party coalition has a senior partner, of the ultra-wealthy corporate elite that provides campaign funding and institutional support, and a junior partner, the poor and minorities, the electoral cannon fodder who provide votes and (lately) mobs, and get freebies from the government in return. The junior partners get noisy public support (aka, “lip service”) from the Dem politicians, but the senior partners get the goodies – the regulations, subsidies, and tax breaks – mostly in private.
Like broken clock that is correct twice a day, Ocasio-Cortez has taken a stand against all the corporate welfare being lavished on Amazon to induce it to locate one-half of its much-hyped HQ2 – about 4 million square feet of office space to house 25,000 newly hired workers – in Long Island City, Queens, just across the East River from Manhattan.  The New York Post:
“We’ve been getting calls and outreach from Queens residents all day about this. The community’s response? Outrage,” Ocasio-Cortez, who officially takes office in January, tweeted.
The 29-year-old went on to say: “Amazon is a billion-dollar company. The idea that it will receive hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks at a time when our subway is crumbling and our communities need MORE investment, not less, is extremely concerning to residents here.”
Ocasio-Cortez’s gifts do not include facility with numbers. Calling Amazon a “billion dollar company” understates its market value a thousand-fold, raising the question of her ability to grasp the federal budget on which she will be voting next year. It is unclear if she grasps that the difference between a billion and a trillion is more than one letter.
She correctly suspects that Amazon will not be hiring a lot of low-skilled people for its office jobs, other than as janitors.
Ocasio-Cortez tweeted that when it comes to bringing an influx of jobs to the community, “we need to dig deep.”
“Has the company promised to hire in the existing community?” she questioned. “What’s the quality of jobs + how many are promised? Are these jobs low-wage or high wage? Are there benefits? Can people collectively bargain?”
She also has at least a rudimentary understanding that increased demand for housing by the newly-employed Amazon workers (Amazon claims they will earn an average of $150,000 a year) will push rents higher for her constutuents.
In another tweet, Ocasio-Cortez wrote: “Displacement is not community development. Investing in luxury condos is not the same thing as investing in people and families. Shuffling working class people out of a community does not improve their quality of life.”
Ocasio-Cortez added: “We need to focus on good healthcare, living wages, affordable rent. Corporations that offer none of those things should be met w/ skepticism.”
She continued: “Lastly, this isn’t just about one company or one headquarters. It’s about cost of living, corps paying their fair share, etc. It’s not about picking a fight, either. I was elected to advocate for our community’s interests – & they‘ve requested, clearly, to voice their concerns.”
While I encourage her to continue to speak out and investigate this deal, she will get nowhere. The deal already has been struck between the Democrats’ leadership and the tech oligarchs.  Bezos is signaling that the federal government is integral to his continuing takeover of information technology, retailing, distribution, and data mining. The Washington Post, Bezos’s personal property, is integral to the propaganda campaigns of the Democrats as the local paper of the political and bureaucratic elites.  Flattering or critical articles in the Post are a surprisingly effective inducement for actions desired by the Post’s owner.  Bezos selected Crystal City, just across the Potomac from DC, for the second half of his HQ2 in order to be able to swing a lot of wright on the local economy, and have a lot of employees on the voter rolls.   Bezos also purchased the biggest mansion in DC, signaling his corporatist orientation – overseeing the federal government as his partner.
Bezos demonstrated his prowess at bending government powers to his own benefit with his skillful playing off of local governments with each other in a rush to offer incentives for HQ2. Not only did he receive a variety of tax-relief measures in the huindreds of  millions of dollar each, he quietly reaped a treasure trove of data – for free. Daniel Kishi explains in The American Conservative:
“The big prize Amazon has gotten out of its HQ2 stunt,” tweeted Stacy Mitchell, co-director of the Institute for Local Self Reliance, “is not the PR value of a bunch of city leaders singing its praises, or even the billions of dollars in subsidies that it will extort from public coffers. It’s the data.”
Indeed, under the guise of a multi-billion dollar development contest, Amazon successfully convinced the mayors and governors of 238 North American cities and regions to voluntarily surrender a treasure trove of information ranging from future infrastructure projects to land use patterns and everything else in between—all without being charged a dime.
Armed with this detailed data, Amazon will not only have a competitive advantage over its rivals in retail and cloud computing, it will also have a serious upper hand at the negotiating table with state and local governments, as it will know precisely how much taxpayer money it will be able to extract from public funds. 
As with her demonstration outside Nancy Pelosi’s office, complete with bullhorns, Ocasio-Cortez is a wild card in the eyes of the inner circle of the ruling class. Watch for her committee assignments next year when the Dems take over the House. They may try to co-opt her with committees that she wants to be on. But, if the decision is made that she needs to be leaned on, she can expect posts on committees that have nothing to do with the needs of her urban constituents.
Image credit: Donkey Hotey

"Hillary and her party supporters desperately need illegal immigrants: Hillary is bought and paid for."

Why Hillary and Her Wall Street Donors 

Don’t Want Trump’s Wall

By Michael Bargo, Jr.
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.
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 Angeles Times 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.

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.




In short, everything that matters to Hillary and her Democrat Party is existentially threatened by Trump’s wall. And as a personal matter, Hillary’s multi-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 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.

AS WALL STREET PLUNDERS: A Nation of One Million Homeless and Overrun By Mexico’s Export of “cheap labor”!

“But a series of reports on CEO pay, bank profits and corporate cash released over the past week reveal that corporate America and the financial oligarchy are wallowing in record levels of wealth.


“But a series of reports on CEO pay, bank profits and corporate cash released over the past week reveal that corporate America and the financial oligarchy are wallowing in record levels of wealth.