Wednesday, October 9, 2019

PAY-TO-PLAY HILLARY CLINTON THREATENS TO RUN AGAIN - Banksters will fund me and illegals will elect me! - "After all, what Hillary, her family. and the Clinton Foundation actually did, or were accused of doing through credible evidence, was obviously criminal." KEITH RICHARDS

"After all, what Hillary, her family. and the  Clinton Foundation actually did, or were accused of doing through credible evidence, was obviously criminal." KEITH RICHARDS


HILLARY CLINTON’S GLOBALIST 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.



Hillary: Maybe We Need ‘Rematch’ with Me and Trump, ‘I Can Beat Him Again’

1:03

During an interview aired on Tuesday’s broadcast of “PBS NewsHour,” former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton remarked that maybe there should be a “rematch” between her and President Trump, and “obviously, I can beat him again.”
Hillary said, “You know, it truly is remarkable how obsessed he remains with me. But this latest tweet is so typical of him. Nothing has been more examined and looked at than my emails. We all know that. So, he’s either lying or delusional, or both. There was no subpoena, as he says in a tweet this morning. So, maybe there does need to be a rematch. I mean, obviously, I can beat him again. But, just seriously, I don’t understand, I don’t think anybody understands what motivates him, other than personal grievance, other than seeking adulation.”
(h/t Mediaite)
Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett

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."


"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 TimesNew York Review of BooksHaaretz, 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*











Subscribe to The Atlantic’s Politics & Policy Daily, a roundup of ideas and events in American politics.











The myth, which liberals like myself find tempting, is that only the right has changed. In June 2015, we tell ourselves, Donald Trump rode down his golden escalator and pretty soon nativism, long a feature of conservative politics, had engulfed it. But that’s not the full story. If the right has grown more nationalistic, the left has grown less so. A decade ago, liberals publicly questioned immigration in ways that would shock many progressives today.
Listen to the audio version of this article:Download the Audm app for your iPhone to listen to more titles.In 2005, a left-leaning blogger wrote, “Illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone.” In 2006, a liberal columnist wrote that “immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants” and that “the fiscal burden of low-wage immigrants is also pretty clear.” His conclusion: “We’ll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants.” That same year, a Democratic senator wrote, “When I see Mexican flags waved at proimmigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I’m forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.”
The blogger was Glenn Greenwald. The columnist was Paul Krugman. The senator was Barack Obama.
Prominent liberals didn’t oppose immigration a decade ago. Most acknowledged its benefits to America’s economy and culture. They supported a path to citizenship for the undocumented. Still, they routinely asserted that low-skilled immigrants depressed the wages of low-skilled American workers and strained America’s welfare state. And they were far more likely than liberals today are to acknowledge that, as Krugman put it, “immigration is an intensely painful topic … because it places basic principles in conflict.”
Today, little of that ambivalence remains. In 2008, the Democratic platform called undocumented immigrants “our neighbors.” But it also warned, “We cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked,” adding that “those who enter our country’s borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of the law.” By 2016, such language was gone. The party’s platform described America’s immigration system as a problem, but not illegal immigration itself. And it focused almost entirely on the forms of immigration enforcement that Democrats opposed. In its immigration section, the 2008 platform referred three times to people entering the country “illegally.” The immigration section of the 2016 platform didn’t use the word illegal, or any variation of it, at all.“A decade or two ago,” says Jason Furman, a former chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, “Democrats were divided on immigration. Now everyone agrees and is passionate and thinks very little about any potential downsides.” How did this come to be?
There are several explanations for liberals’ shift. The first is that they have changed because the reality on the ground has changed, particularly as regards illegal immigration. In the two decades preceding 2008, the United States experienced sharp growth in its undocumented population. Since then, the numbers have leveled off.
But this alone doesn’t explain the transformation. The number of undocumented people in the United States hasn’t gone down significantly, after all; it’s stayed roughly the same. So the economic concerns that Krugman raised a decade ago remain relevant today.

What’s Wrong With the Democrats?A larger explanation is political. Between 2008 and 2016, Democrats became more and more confident that the country’s growing Latino population gave the party an electoral edge. To win the presidency, Democrats convinced themselves, they didn’t need to reassure white people skeptical of immigration so long as they turned out their Latino base. “The fastest-growing sector of the American electorate stampeded toward the Democrats this November,” Salon declared after Obama’s 2008 win. “If that pattern continues, the GOP is doomed to 40 years of wandering in a desert.”As the Democrats grew more reliant on Latino votes, they were more influenced by pro-immigrant activism. While Obama was running for reelection, immigrants’-rights advocates launched protests against the administration’s deportation practices; these protests culminated, in June 2012, in a sit-in at an Obama campaign office in Denver. Ten days later, the administration announced that it would defer the deportation of undocumented immigrants who had arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16 and met various other criteria. Obama, The New York Times noted, “was facing growing pressure from Latino leaders and Democrats who warned that because of his harsh immigration enforcement, his support was lagging among Latinos who could be crucial voters in his race for re-election.”
Alongside pressure from pro-immigrant activists came pressure from corporate America, especially the Democrat-aligned tech industry, which uses the H-1B visa program to import workers. In 2010, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, along with the CEOs of companies including Hewlett-Packard, Boeing, Disney, and News Corporation, formed New American Economy to advocate for business-friendly immigration policies. Three years later, Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates helped found FWD.us to promote a similar agenda.
This combination of Latino and corporate activism made it perilous for Democrats to discuss immigration’s costs, as Bernie Sanders learned the hard way. In July 2015, two months after officially announcing his candidacy for president, Sanders was interviewed by Ezra Klein, the editor in chief of Vox. Klein asked whether, in order to fight global poverty, the U.S. should consider “sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders.” Sanders reacted with horror. “That’s a Koch brothers proposal,” he scoffed. He went on to insist that “right-wing people in this country would love … an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country.”
Progressive commentators routinely claim that there’s a near-consensus among economists on immigration’s benefits. There isn’t.Sanders came under immediate attack. Vox’s Dylan Matthews declared that his “fear of immigrant labor is ugly—and wrongheaded.” The president of FWD.us accused Sanders of “the sort of backward-looking thinking that progressives have rightly moved away from in the past years.” ThinkProgress published a blog post titled “Why Immigration Is the Hole in Bernie Sanders’ Progressive Agenda.” The senator, it argued, was supporting “the idea that immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs and hurting the economy, a theory that has been proven incorrect.”Sanders stopped emphasizing immigration’s costs. By January 2016, FWD.us’s policy director noted with satisfaction that he had “evolved on this issue.”
But has the claim that “immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs” actually been proved “incorrect”? A decade ago, liberals weren’t so sure. In 2006, Krugman wrote that America was experiencing “large increases in the number of low-skill workers relative to other inputs into production, so it’s inevitable that this means a fall in wages.”
It’s hard to imagine a prominent liberal columnist writing that sentence today. To the contrary, progressive commentators now routinely claim that there’s a near-consensus among economists on immigration’s benefits.(Illustration by Lincoln Agnew. Photos: AFP; Atta Kenare; Eric Lafforgue; Gamma-Rapho; Getty; Keystone-France; Koen van Weel; Lambert; Richard Baker / In Pictures / Corbis)There isn’t. According to a comprehensive new report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, “Groups comparable to … immigrants in terms of their skill may experience a wage reduction as a result of immigration-induced increases in labor supply.” But academics sometimes de-emphasize this wage reduction because, like liberal journalists and politicians, they face pressures to support immigration.
Many of the immigration scholars regularly cited in the press have worked for, or received funding from, pro-immigration businesses and associations. Consider, for instance, Giovanni Peri, an economist at UC Davis whose name pops up a lot in liberal commentary on the virtues of immigration. A 2015 New York Times Magazine essay titled “Debunking the Myth of the Job-Stealing Immigrant” declared that Peri, whom it called the “leading scholar” on how nations respond to immigration, had “shown that immigrants tend to complement—rather than compete against—the existing work force.” Peri is indeed a respected scholar. But Microsoft has funded some of his research into high-skilled immigration. And New American Economy paid to help him turn his research into a 2014 policy paper decrying limitations on the H-1B visa program. Such grants are more likely the result of his scholarship than their cause. Still, the prevalence of corporate funding can subtly influence which questions economists ask, and which ones they don’t. (Peri says grants like those from Microsoft and New American Economy are neither large nor crucial to his work, and that “they don’t determine … the direction of my academic research.”)Academics face cultural pressures too. In his book Exodus, Paul Collier, an economist at the University of Oxford, claims that in their “desperate [desire] not to give succor” to nativist bigots, “social scientists have strained every muscle to show that migration is good for everyone.” George Borjas of Harvard argues that since he began studying immigration in the 1980s, his fellow economists have grown far less tolerant of research that emphasizes its costs. There is, he told me, “a lot of self-censorship among young social scientists.” Because Borjas is an immigration skeptic, some might discount his perspective. But when I asked Donald Davis, a Columbia University economist who takes a more favorable view of immigration’s economic impact, about Borjas’s claim, he made a similar point. “George and I come out on different sides of policy on immigration,” Davis said, “but I agree that there are aspects of discussion in academia that don’t get sort of full view if you come to the wrong conclusion.”
None of this means that liberals should oppose immigration. Entry to the United States is, for starters, a boon to immigrants and to the family members back home to whom they send money. It should be valued on these moral grounds alone. But immigration benefits the economy, too. Because immigrants are more likely than native-born Americans to be of working age, they improve the ratio of workers to retirees, which helps keep programs like Social Security and Medicare solvent. Immigration has also been found to boost productivity, and the National Academies report finds that “natives’ incomes rise in aggregate as a result of immigration.”
The problem is that, although economists differ about the extent of the damage, immigration hurts the Americans with whom immigrants compete. And since more than a quarter of America’s recent immigrants lack even a high-school diploma or its equivalent, immigration particularly hurts the least-educated native workers, the very people who are already struggling the most. America’s immigration system, in other words, pits two of the groups liberals care about most—the native-born poor and the immigrant poor—against each other.
One way of mitigating this problem would be to scrap the current system, which allows immigrants living in the U.S. to bring certain close relatives to the country, in favor of what Donald Trump in February called a “merit based” approach that prioritizes highly skilled and educated workers. The problem with this idea, from a liberal perspective, is its cruelty. It denies many immigrants who are already here the ability to reunite with their loved ones. And it flouts the country’s best traditions. Would we remove from the Statue of Liberty the poem welcoming the “poor,” the “wretched,” and the “homeless”?
A better answer is to take some of the windfall that immigration brings to wealthier Americans and give it to those poorer Americans whom immigration harms. Borjas has suggested taxing the high-tech, agricultural, and service-sector companies that profit from cheap immigrant labor and using the money to compensate those Americans who are displaced by it.Unfortunately, while admitting poor immigrants makes redistributing wealth more necessary, it also makes it harder, at least in the short term. By some estimates, immigrants, who are poorer on average than native-born Americans and have larger families, receive more in government services than they pay in taxes. According to the National Academies report, immigrant-headed families with children are 15 percentage points more likely to rely on food assistance, and 12 points more likely to rely on Medicaid, than other families with children. In the long term, the United States will likely recoup much if not all of the money it spends on educating and caring for the children of immigrants. But in the meantime, these costs strain the very welfare state that liberals want to expand in order to help those native-born Americans with whom immigrants compete.
What’s more, studies by the Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam and others suggest that greater diversity makes Americans less charitable and less willing to redistribute wealth. People tend to  be less generous when large segments of society don’t look or talk like them. Surprisingly, Putnam’s research suggests that greater diversity doesn’t reduce trust and cooperation just among people of different races or ethnicities—it also reduces trust and cooperation among people of the same race and ethnicity.
Trump appears to sense this. His implicit message during the campaign was that if the government kept out Mexicans and Muslims, white, Christian Americans would not only grow richer and safer, they would also regain the sense of community that they identified with a bygone age. “At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America,” he declared in his inaugural address, “and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.”Liberals must take seriously Americans’ yearning for social cohesion. To promote both mass immigration and greater economic redistribution, they must convince more native-born white Americans that immigrants will not weaken the bonds of national identity. This means dusting off a concept many on the left currently hate: assimilation.
Promoting assimilation need not mean expecting immigrants to abandon their culture. But it does mean breaking down the barriers that segregate them from the native-born. And it means celebrating America’s diversity less, and its unity more.
Writing last year in American Sociological Review, Ariela Schachter, a sociology professor at Washington University in St. Louis, examined the factors that influence how native-born whites view immigrants. Foremost among them is an immigrant’s legal status. Given that natives often assume Latinos are undocumented even when they aren’t, it follows that illegal immigration indirectly undermines the status of those Latinos who live in the U.S. legally. That’s why conservatives rail against government benefits for undocumented immigrants (even though the undocumented are already barred from receiving many of those benefits): They know Americans will be more reluctant to support government programs if they believe those programs to be benefiting people who have entered the country illegally.
Liberal immigration policy must work to ensure that immigrants do not occupy a separate legal caste. This means opposing the guest-worker programs—beloved by many Democrat-friendly tech companies, among other employers—that require immigrants to work in a particular job to remain in the U.S. Some scholars believe such programs drive down wages; they certainly inhibit assimilation. And, as Schachter’s research suggests, strengthening the bonds of identity between natives and immigrants is harder when natives and immigrants are not equal under the law.The next Democratic presidential candidate should say again and again that because Americans are one people, who must abide by one law, his or her goal is to reduce America’s undocumented population to zero. For liberals, the easy part of fulfilling that pledge is supporting a path to citizenship for the undocumented who have put down roots in the United States. The hard part, which Hillary Clinton largely ignored in her 2016 presidential run, is backing tough immigration enforcement so that path to citizenship doesn’t become a magnet that entices more immigrants to enter the U.S. illegally.
Enforcement need not mean tearing apart families, as Trump is doing with gusto. Liberals can propose that the government deal harshly not with the undocumented themselves but with their employers. Trump’s brutal policies already appear to be slowing illegal immigration. But making sure companies follow the law and verify the legal status of their employees would curtail it too: Migrants would presumably be less likely to come to the U.S. if they know they won’t be able to find work.
In 2014, the University of California listed the term melting pot as a “microaggression.” What if Hillary Clinton had called that absurd?Schachter’s research also shows that native-born whites feel a greater affinity toward immigrants who speak fluent English. That’s particularly significant because, according to the National Academies report, newer immigrants are learning English more slowly than their predecessors did. During the campaign, Clinton proposed increasing funding for adult English-language education. But she rarely talked about it. In fact, she ran an ad attacking Trump for saying, among other things, “This is a country where we speak English, not Spanish.” The immigration section of her website showed her surrounded by Spanish-language signs.Democrats should put immigrants’ learning English at the center of their immigration agenda. If more immigrants speak English fluently, native-born whites may well feel a stronger connection to them, and be more likely to support government policies that help them. Promoting English will also give Democrats a greater chance of attracting those native-born whites who consider growing diversity a threat. According to a preelection study by Adam Bonica, a Stanford political scientist, the single best predictor of whether a voter supported Trump was whether he or she agreed with the statement “People living in the U.S. should follow American customs and traditions.”
In her 2005 book, The Authoritarian Dynamic, which has been heralded for identifying the forces that powered Trump’s campaign, Karen Stenner, then a professor of politics at Princeton, wrote:
Exposure to difference, talking about difference, and applauding difference—the hallmarks of liberal democracy—are the surest ways to aggravate those who are innately intolerant, and to guarantee the increased expression of their predispositions in manifestly intolerant attitudes and behaviors. Paradoxically, then, it would seem that we can best limit intolerance of difference by parading, talking about, and applauding our sameness.
The next Democratic presidential nominee should commit those words to memory. There’s a reason Barack Obama’s declaration at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that “there is not a liberal America and a conservative America … There is not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America” is among his most famous lines. Americans know that liberals celebrate diversity. They’re less sure that liberals celebrate unity. And Obama’s ability to effectively do the latter probably contributed to the fact that he—a black man with a Muslim-sounding name—twice won a higher percentage of the white vote than did Hillary Clinton.In 2014, the University of California listed melting pot as a term it considered a “microaggression.” What if Hillary Clinton had traveled to one of its campuses and called that absurd? What if she had challenged elite universities to celebrate not merely multiculturalism and globalization but Americanness? What if she had said more boldly that the slowing rate of English-language acquisition was a problem she was determined to solve? What if she had acknowledged the challenges that mass immigration brings, and then insisted that Americans could overcome those challenges by focusing not on what makes them different but on what makes them the same?
Some on the left would have howled. But I suspect that Clinton would be president today.


*Opening photo credits: AFP; Alain Jocard; Alfons Teruel / Eyeem; Bloomberg; Brooks Kraft; Chesnot; David McNew; David Ramos; Drew Angerer; Erik McGregor / Pacific Press / LightRocket; Frederic J. Brown; Gerard Julien; Getty; Hector Vivas / LatinContent; Jonathan Nackstrand; Lars Baron; Mike Roach / Zuffa; Omar Torres; Orlando Sierra; Paul Bradbury; Paul Morigi / WireImage; Pradeep Gaur / Mint; Rodin Eckenroth; Saul Loeb; Spencer Platt; Tasos Katopodis; Thomas Koehler / Photothek; Victor J. Blue; Vitaly Nevar / TASS; Zach Gibson


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, a

No comments: