Monday, August 27, 2018

STEVEN A. CAMAROTA - There are no jobs Americans (Legals) will not do


"During the same month that Schlafly had backed Trump for his “America First”


agenda, Nielsen’s committee released an ideologically-globalist report, promoting


the European migrant crisis as a win for big business who would profit greatly


from a never-ending stream of cheap, foreign migrants."

No Justice for Taxpaying Americans 
By Howie Carr 
The Boston Herald, August 08, 2018 

But the real double standard kicks in when the undocumented Democrat gets to the courtroom. A taxpaying American can only dream of the kid-gloves treatment these Third World fiends get. 
Here’s a 2016 headline: “If Springfield market owner illegally cashing food stamps had been U.S. citizen punishment would have been greater, judge says.” 

This one involved a 56-year-old Dominican bodega owner who was running an EBT-card scam for illegal immigrants in Springfield — stop me if you’ve heard this one before. He stole $38,000 and didn’t do a day in jail. As Judge Tina Page said, “Had he been a citizen of the U.S. he would in all likelihood be serving a substantial sentence.” 

But if he’d been imprisoned he’d have been deported, and God knows we don’t want to deport Dominican welfare fraudsters — or Dominican heroin dealers. 

Freeing Dominican heroin dealers (and future cop killers) is the specialty of Superior Court Judge Timothy Feeley, who cut loose a Dominican heroin dealer with no prison time, as the prosecutor put it, “to help him avoid deportation.” 

Are you starting to notice a pattern here? Sometimes law-abiding taxpayers get murdered because of this double standard of justice for welfare-collecting noncitizens. 

Get rid of 40 million looting Mexicans and we resolve our housing and jobs crisis and end the $150 billion Mex welfare state in our open borders!

Our government is too busy easing illegals over the borders!


This is why you work From Jan - May paying taxes to the government ....with the rest of the calendar year is money for you and your family.
Take, for example, an illegal alien with a wife and five children. He takes a job for
$5.00 or 6.00/hour. At that wage, with six dependents, he pays no income tax, yet at the end of the year, if he files an Income Tax Return, with his fake Social Security number, he gets an "earned income credit" of up to $3,200..... free.

He qualifies for Section 8 housing and subsidized rent.

He qualifies for food stamps.

He qualifies for free (no deductible, no  co-pay) health care.

His children get free breakfasts and lunches at school.

He requires bilingual teachers and books.

He qualifies for relief from high energy bills.

If they are or become, aged, blind or disabled, they qualify for SSI.

Once qualified for SSI they can qualify for Medicare. All of this is at (our) taxpayer's expense.
He doesn't worry about car insurance, life insurance, or homeowners insurance.

Taxpayers provide Spanish language signs, bulletins and printed material.

He and his family receive the equivalent of $20.00 to $30.00/hour in benefits.

Working Americans are lucky to have $5.00 or $6.00/hour left after Paying their bills and his.
The American taxpayers also pay for increased crime, graffiti and trash clean-up.

Cheap labor? YEAH RIGHT! Wake up people! 

A detailed look at immigrants (legal and illegal) and natives across occupations

By Steven A. CamarotaJason Richwine, and Karen Zeigler on August 26, 2018
An Excel file with information on all occupations is available here.

Steven A. Camarota is the director of research and Karen Zeigler is a demographer at the Center. Jason Richwine, PhD, is an independent public policy analyst based in Washington, D.C., and a contributing writer at National Review.

If immigrants "do jobs that Americans won't do", we should be able to identify occupations in which the workers are nearly all foreign-born. However, among the 474 separate occupations defined by the Department of Commerce, we find only a handful of majority-immigrant occupations, and none completely dominated by immigrants (legal or illegal). Furthermore, in none of the 474 occupations do illegal immigrants constitute a majority of workers.
Notable findings:
  • Of the 474 civilian occupations, only six are majority immigrant (legal and illegal). These six occupations account for 1 percent of the total U.S. workforce. Moreover, native-born Americans still comprise 46 percent of workers in these occupations.
  • There are no occupations in the United States in which a majority of workers are illegal immigrants.
  • Illegal immigrants work mostly in construction, cleaning, maintenance, food service, garment manufacturing, and agricultural occupations. However, the majority of workers even in these areas are either native-born or legal immigrants.
  • Only 4 percent of illegal immigrants and 2 percent of all immigrants do farm work. Immigrants (legal and illegal) do make up a large share of agricultural workers — accounting for half or more of some types of farm laborers — but all agricultural workers together constitute less than 1 percent of the American work force.
  • Many occupations often thought to be worked overwhelmingly by immigrants (legal and illegal) are in fact majority native-born:
    • Maids and housekeepers: 51 percent native-born
    • Taxi drivers and chauffeurs: 54 percent native-born
    • Butchers and meat processors: 64 percent native-born
    • Grounds maintenance workers: 66 percent native-born
    • Construction laborers: 65 percent native-born
    • Janitors: 73 percent native-born
  • There are 65 occupations in which 25 percent or more of the workers are immigrants (legal and illegal). In these high-immigrant occupations, there are still 16.5 million natives — accounting for one out of eight natives in the labor force.
  • High-immigrant occupations (25 percent or more immigrant) are primarily, but not exclusively, lower-wage jobs that require relatively little formal education.
  • In high-immigrant occupations, 54 percent of the natives in those occupations have no education beyond high school, compared to 30 percent of the rest of the labor force.
  • Natives tend to have high unemployment in high-immigrant occupations, averaging 9.8 percent during the 2012-2016 period, compared to 5.6 percent in the rest of the labor force. There were a total of 1.8 million unemployed native-born Americans in high-immigrant occupations.
  • The stereotype that native-born workers in high-immigrant occupations are mostly older, with few young natives willing to do such work, is largely inaccurate. In fact, 34 percent of natives in high-immigrant occupations are age 30 or younger, compared to 29 percent of natives in the rest of labor force.
  • Not all high-immigrant occupations are lower-skilled. For example, 38 percent of software engineers are immigrants, as are 28 percent of physicians.
  • A number of politically influential groups face very little job competition from immigrants (legal and illegal). For example, only 7 percent of lawyers and judges and 7 percent of farmers and ranchers are immigrants, as are at most 9 percent of English-language reporters and correspondents.1

Full Results

The spreadsheet that accompanies this report gives the share of each occupation that is comprised of immigrant workers.
(You can also download the Excel spreadsheet here.)


Because the American economy is so dynamic, with many factors impacting employment and wages, it would be a mistake to believe that every job taken by an immigrant is a job lost by a native. It would also be a mistake, however, to assume that dramatically increasing the number of available workers in high-immigrant occupations has no impact on the employment prospects or wages of natives. As our results indicate, at the most detailed level of analysis possible, there are very few occupations that are majority immigrant — just six out of 474 — and 46 percent of workers even in these high-immigrant occupations are native-born. Moreover, high-immigrant occupations employ less than 1 percent of all native workers and 3 percent of all immigrant workers.2 Therefore, speaking of "jobs Americans won't do" gives the false impression that the labor market is strictly segmented between immigrant and native jobs.
Of course, immigrants are much more concentrated in some occupations than in others, but a large number of native-born Americans still work in high-immigrant occupations. There are nearly 900,000 U.S.-born maids and housekeepers, for example, and 1.3 million native-born construction laborers. Clearly, natives are willing to do these jobs — in fact, they are doing them. Assertions by employers that it is impossible to hire Americans should therefore be treated skeptically. Given the large number of native-born Americans who already do "immigrant jobs", and given the 42 million working-age natives who are not currently in the labor force, it seems likely that increasing wages and benefits, improving working conditions, and changing recruitment practices could go a long way toward securing needed workers even in the absence of immigration.3
Illegal Immigrants. Illegal immigrants tend to be even more associated with the "jobs Americans won't do" mantra. And yet there are just 24 occupations out of 474 in which illegal immigrants comprise at least 15 percent of workers. There are 5.7 million natives in these high-illegal-immigrant occupations, 67 percent of whom have no education beyond high school. But in occupations that are made up of 5 percent or less illegal immigrants, 75.5 percent of natives have education beyond high school.4 This suggests that the impact of illegal immigration on wages and employment opportunities will be felt most by less-educated natives. More-educated natives will tend to avoid competition with illegal immigrants.
Agricultural Work. The tendency for immigrants to work in agriculture is often overestimated. In fact, we find that only 4 percent of illegal immigrants and 2 percent of all immigrants work on farms.5 Immigrants do make up a significant share of farm workers — accounting for half or more of some types of farm work. But only about one million people of any nativity work on farms in the United States, accounting for less than 1 percent of the entire civilian labor force of 160 million.6
State and Local Picture. This analysis focuses on the nation as a whole. Of course, the immigrant share of occupations will vary significantly at the state and local level. For example, a very high-immigration state like California will have more majority-immigrant occupations than a low-immigration state like Ohio. In low-immigrant areas, the overwhelming majority of workers are natives, even in low-wage, difficult jobs, meaning that when immigrants are not present natives do this type of work. Furthermore, we live in a national economy in which workers can and do move to higher-wage and lower-unemployment areas over time. Of native-born adults, 14.8 percent changed addresses in just the last year. Moreover, 38.4 percent live outside of their state of birth.7 In its large 2016 study of immigration, the National Academies of Sciences concluded that the effects of immigration are likely to be national in scope. Capital, labor, goods, and services can all move. This means that the impact of immigration is not confined to only those areas of the country where immigrants settle.8

Data and Methods

The data for this analysis comes from the public-use file of the combined five-year sample of the American Community Survey (ACS), covering the years 2012 through 2016. The file includes 7.6 million individuals in the civilian, non-institutionalized labor force, about 1.1 million of whom are immigrants. Persons in the labor force are either working or looking for work. Consistent with the way the government reports most labor force statistics, we confine our analysis to civilians 16 years of age and older and not living in institutions. Immigrants, who can also be referred to as the "foreign-born", are defined as persons living in the United States who were not U.S. citizens at birth. This includes people who are naturalized American citizens, legal permanent residents (green card holders), illegal aliens, and people on long-term temporary visas such as students or guestworkers. It does not include those born abroad to American parents or those born in outlying territories of the United States, such as Puerto Rico.
Identifying Illegal Immigrants. Illegal immigrants are present in Census data, but never explicitly identified by the Bureau. To determine which respondents are most likely to be illegal, CIS follows a methodology similar to those used by the Pew Research Center and the Center for Migration Studies.9 We start by eliminating immigrant respondents who are almost certainly not illegal — for example, spouses of natural-born citizens; veterans; people who receive direct welfare payments (except Medicaid for women who gave birth within the past year and for residents of certain states); people who have government jobs; Cubans (because of special rules for that country); immigrants who arrived before 1980 (because the 1986 amnesty should have already covered them); people in certain occupations requiring licensing, screening, or a government background check (e.g. doctors, pharmacists, and law enforcement); and people likely to be on student visas. The remaining candidates are weighted to replicate known characteristics of the illegal population (size, age, gender, country of origin, and state of residence) as determined by the Department of Homeland Security.10 The resulting illegal population closely approximates other published estimates.
Of course, all profiles of the illegal immigrant population carry significant uncertainty, and the illegal immigrant shares of various occupations included in the table are no exception. When those shares become small, we designate them as "less than 4 percent" (or a smaller percentage) to avoid false precision.

End Notes

1 The accompanying Excel spreadsheet shows that 12.3 percent of news analysts, reporters, and correspondents are immigrants (legal and illegal). However, if we exclude all immigrants in this job category that speak English less than very well, making it very unlikely they work at an English-language outlet, then only 9.2 percent of English-language reporters are immigrants. This is likely still a high estimate since some share of immigrants who speak English very well still work for foreign language media. The bottom line is that native-born reporters who work at English-language media outlets face only modest levels of competition from immigrants.
2 In this report, we follow the Census Bureau's approach of assigning unemployed people to the occupation they last worked, as long as they have worked within the previous five years.
3 In fairness to employers, getting some of the long-term unemployed back into the labor force is a challenge, but the challenge will be taken up only when immigration no longer provides a convenient alternative. For a longer discussion of this topic, see Amy Wax and Jason Richwine, "Low-Skill Immigration: A Case for Restriction"American Affairs, Winter 2017.
4 Figures are from the 2012-2016 public-use files of the American Community Survey.
5 For corroboration, the Pew Research Center also concluded in 2014 that "only 4 percent of unauthorized immigrant workers held farming jobs in 2014." See Jeffrey S. Passel and D'Vera Cohn, "Size of U.S. Unauthorized Immigrant Workforce Stable After the Great Recession", Pew Research Center, November 3, 2016.
6 The occupational codes for farm work are 6010, 6005, 6040, and 6050. The codes and names of the occupations are listed in the Excel spreadsheet.
7 Figures are from the 2012-2016 public-use files of the American Community Survey.
8 Francine D. Blau and Christopher Mackie, Eds., The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration, Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2016, p. 161 (online version).
9 See Jeffrey S. Passel and D'Vera Cohn, "Overall Number of U.S. Unauthorized Immigrants Holds Steady Since 2009", Pew Research Center, September 20, 2016; and Robert Warren, "Democratizing Data about Unauthorized Residents in the United States: Estimates and Public-Use Data, 2010 to 2013"Journal on Migration and Human Security, Vol. 2, No. 4, 2014.
10 We chose the 2014 DHS estimates to represent the middle of the 2012-2016 period covered by the five-year ACS data used in this report. About 90 percent of illegal immigrants are thought to respond to the ACS. See Bryan Baker, "Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2014", Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, July 2017.

ANN COULTER - BOOK IS OUT - Resistance Is Futile! How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind

Coulter's Latest Book Hits the Trump-Hating Left

Resistance Is Futile! How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind, by Ann Coulter, Sentinel, New York, August 21, 2018 (288 pages, $25.00, Hardcover) 
You want evidence of Justice Department and media corruption?  Coulter's got the goods – in spades – and served with her signature rapier wit.  Resistance Is Futile doesn't simply rehash talking points about Hillary's serial lawbreaking, Mueller's partisan probe, or Deep State subversion of an opposition president, though all those matters are treated with lawyerly and comedic deftness.  (ThinkMy Cousin Vinny.)  First and foremost, Coulter's book is about collusion – the democracy-demolishing collusion between Democrats and the mainstream media that has existed for decades but that a white-hot hatred for the "vulgarian" Trump has made unmistakably clear to most Americans.  On the bright side, this exposure is actually destroying journalism, which the author says must perish and be rebuilt on an ethical foundation for democracy to survive.  Coulter provides a veritable avalanche of media inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and lost-their-mind absurdities to support her conclusion. 
For example, Democrats and their media lackeys who only yesterday decried federal surveillance of possible terrorists, and who nearly defrocked John Brennan for lying to Sen. Dianne Feinstein about the CIA's enhanced spying activity, now view that same man as a paragon of rectitude.  Indeed, they regularly denounce as unpatriotic anyone who questions the validity of warrants obtained from a secret court to spy on Americans associated with the Trump campaign – even during the campaign!  The same coterie of co-conspirators who were eager to vindicate Alger Hiss and praise cooperation with the Soviet Union now portray Putin's Russia as the gravest threat to America since 9-11 or Pearl Harbor.  According to these partisans, Putin must be publicly vilified and his country harshly punished for interfering with an American election via a few thousand Facebook ads – many supporting Trump, some supporting Bernie, others touting Ted Cruz, Jill Stein, Black Lives Matter, United Muslims of America, and even Hillary.
This breakdown comes from Muller's own indictment of the 13 villainous Russians he is clearly not anxious to see in court, having backed away from an expedited trial when one of the Russian ham sandwiches actually sent a legal team to the U.S. to have the charges against him adjudicated.  One possibly exculpatory element of that defense would be the fact that most of the Facebook ads were placed after the election and even jumped on the Resistance bandwagon.  Mueller, by the way, has the distinction of being FBI director during two of the bureau's most famous screw-ups.  First, Republican Senator Ted Stevens was falsely accused of lying to investigators (sound familiar?) eight days before an election he lost by less than 2 percent.  When the trial judge discovered prosecutors had withheld vital exculpatory evidence, he threw out the case and demanded an investigation of the investigators.
Then there was the anthrax case, where Mueller worked "in lockstep" with his hand-chosen investigator, Richard Palmer.  Together these vigilantes all but destroyed the life of Steven Hatfill, an innocent U.S. Army biodefense researcher whom the FBI hounded relentlessly for six years because he fit the bureau's profile: "a 'flag-waving' patriot."  Even after a federal judge said the investigators hadn't found "a scintilla of evidence" against Hatfill and the government later settled with Hatfill for almost six million dollars, Mueller said, "I do not apologize for any aspect of this investigation."  There you have the "honorable" Robert Mueller.
When it comes to immigration, the media's "heads I win, tails you lose" reportage depends on who resides in the White House.  While Obama lived there, federal law and even federal policy that ignored those laws ruled supreme.  That's what CNN's law expert informed us of after Arizona vainly attempted to enforce federal immigration laws in 2010.  But now that Trump's address is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, it's perfectly okay for blue states to ignore federal immigration law.  Indeed, thanks to a few lower-court rulings cheered by mainstream media pundits, the president is now unable to exercise his "clear constitutional and federal authority" to "exclude immigrants in the best interests of the United States."
NBC's release of the embarrassing 2005 Access Hollywood tape just weeks before the November election provides yet another example of media partisanship.  This electoral kill shot, according to Coulter, "breached all professional norms and probably the law."  By contrast, NBC's current president, Andy Lack, when heading NBC News in 1999, "held the network's interview with Juanita Broaddrick" in which she accused Bill Clinton of rape until after the president's impeachment trial.  In this case, timing says everything you need to know about Lack, NBC, partisanship, and a willingness to place more importance on a braggadocious utterance about consensual groping within a celebrity culture ("They let you do it," Trump added.) than multiple accusations of actual predatory behavior by a Democrat.      
Other matters diligently dissected by Coulter include Trump's wildly mischaracterized Charlottesville statement, George Soros's plundering of Russia and manipulation of foreign elections, the false claim that Trump asked Russia to "hack" Hillary's private email server, the media's misreporting about changes to the 2016 GOP platform in order to suggest Russian influence, and an honest comparison of Watergate with the Mueller probe.  Concerning the last, Coulter comments, "Imagine what G. Gordon Liddy could have done working from the inside of the FBI, with FISA warrants and government-paid spies!"
Coulter offers these two summary judgments about the current special prosecutor's investigation:  "[t]he very nature of Mueller's probe is Soviet justice.  He has an open-ended commission to look for any crimes committed by anyone connected to the Trump campaign[.] ... If the Russians were trying to sow discord and undermine confidence in our democracy, then the guy they probably colluded with was Robert Mueller."
Closing arguments directed at the media include the following observations: "[f]ake news means reporting, for example, that Trump colluded with Russia to sway the election when it was the Democratic Party and the FBI that colluded with Russia to sway the election."  Put otherwise, Russia "is accused of doing to the Democrats what the media do to Republicans every election cycle."
Despite her full-throated defense of the president against leftist and media insanity, Resistance Is Futile isn't a Trump hagiography.  Coulter describes the president as "utterly undisciplined" and "the crudest kind of braggart."  In Coulter's estimation, however, these flaws pale when compared with Trump's failure to achieve his primary campaign promise: stopping illegal immigration.  Coulter ends her case with the less than sanguine hope that Trump may yet keep that promise, but also with the consolation that if he accomplishes nothing else, "at least the media will be totally discredited."
In sum, if you seek a detailed eye- and ear-catching review of news stories that have been misreported, distorted, or conveniently ignored due to Trump Derangement Syndrome, Resistance Is Futile is the book for you.
Richard Kirk is a freelance writer living in Southern California whose book Moral Illiteracy: "Who's to Say?" is also available on Kindle.

The Deep State State vs. The American People

On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 Donald J. Trump, in the largest upset in modern American political history, was elected the 45th President of the United States of America.  And every day since then, his administration has been clouded by the wholly-created “scandal” of the “Russian collusion” investigation being conducted by Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

Unequal “Justice”

James Comey, the former Director of the FBI, whose firing by Mr. Trump launched this charade, testified before Congress regarding the hundreds of thousands of Hillary Clinton’s emails found on the Anthony Weiner/Huma Abedin personal laptop computer one month before the 2016 election. His sworn testimony included this jewel;
“I kind of just put it out of my mind,” he said, because he claimed it did not “index” with him that Abedin was loosely connected to Clinton. “I don’t know that I knew that [Weiner] was married to Huma Abedin at the time."
Anyone paying any attention to what was going on politically in this country at this time knew that Huma Abedin was connected at the hip to Hillary Clinton and was also married to Mr. Weiner.  And this is the director of the "world's premier investigative organization"? Talk about not passing the smell test!
It would seem that Mr. Comey is either a blatant liar, completely ignorant or both.
Mr. “Higher Loyalty” James Comey’s FBI sat on and whitewashed the treasure trove of Hillary Clinton’s emails found on the Abedin/Weiner laptop at that time.  Given this, I think we can safely say that Mr. Comey’s “higher loyalty” was to himself and presumptive Madame President Hillary Clinton.
If Special Counsel Robert Mueller were indeed the man of honor and integrity that we are so often told that he is, his inquisition would not be the “partisan witch hunt” of Mr. Trump’s tweets.  If he were honestly following the bread crumbs of “Russian collusion” wherever they might lead, instead of night raiding  the home of Paul Manafort, his henchmen would instead have  found themselves at the doorstep of Glenn Simpson, the principal of Fusion GPS.  And instead ofraiding the offices of Michael Cohen, his crime scene investigators would be carting off boxes of evidence from the well-connected Perkins Coie Law Firm where they would probably find enough evidence to put two thirds of our political class behind bars until the rapture.
Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal provides a much more eloquent telling of this unequal justice:
If there is only “one set of rules,” where is Mr. Mueller’s referral of a case against Hillary for America? Federal law requires campaigns to disclose the recipient and purpose of any payments. The Clinton campaign paid Fusion GPS to compile a dossier against Mr. Trump, a document that became the basis of the Russia narrative Mr. Mueller now investigates. But the campaign funneled the money to law firm Perkins Coie, which in turn paid Fusion. The campaign falsely described the money as payment for “legal services.” The Democratic National Committee did the same. A Perkins Coie spokesperson has claimed that neither the Clinton campaign nor the DNC was aware that Fusion GPS had been hired to conduct the research, and maybe so. But a lot of lawyers here seemed to have been ignoring a clear statute, presumably with the intent of influencing an election.
And for the most complete assembly of evidence on the Steele Dossier operation can spend a few hours with Yaacov Applebaum here.
The Obama administration pulled the levers of every available tool of the state (CIA, FBI, NSA, FISA etc.) to not only illegally surveil the campaign of their political opponents but to usurp and obstruct Mr. Trump’s every effort even after assuming the office of the Presidency.
Political Trials
Paul Manafort’s trial and Michael Cohen’s plea represent real time politics in the spirit of the chief of Stalin’s secret police Lavrentiy Beria.  “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.”  K.S. Bruce explains the unseemliness of this type of political theatre.
A “political trial” is any trial in which the prosecution is unusually severe because the defendant participates in the political process, or because the defendant has a friend, associate or family member who participates in the political process. The extra severity may be that the person is prosecuted at all, or prosecuted under an unusual or newly created theory. It may be that the defendant is pursued by especially aggressive prosecutorial attack squads or is threatened with a far greater punishment than for the same crime without a political link. In a political trial, the defendant’s nexus to the greater political system leads to harsher justice than for an average citizen who stays in the foxhole of private life and leaves control of politics and government to others.
As sleazy and as guilty as they may (or may not) be, Manafort and Cohen would not be before the bar if not for their association with Trump.
The double standard of “justice” relative to Clinton and Trump that has been flaunted before the American people would have our Founders turning in their graves.  This is no less than an effort by powerful members of the federal bureaucracy collectively known as the deep state to overturn a presidential election.  We know Donald Trump is a flawed human being yet we chose him over 17 Republican candidates including Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, Scott Walker, John Kasich, Ted Cruz and a few others I can’t even remember.  But most of all, we chose him over Hillary Clinton, which seems to be the major heresy against our ruling class.
Those who deem themselves so much smarter than the rest of us -- John Brennan, who falsely denied any CIA spying on Senate Intelligence Committee staff, and James Clapper who lied under oath to Congress --  in a properly functioning democratic republic would end up in prison.  James Comey, Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, Bruce and Nellie Ohr, Rod Rosenstein, Glenn Simpson, James Mueller and his cast of Democrat partisan prosecutors (and we can’t even imagine how many more) in their oh-so altruistic effort to protect us from ourselves have shredded the Constitution that so many of us still believe in.
The media and deep state cabal want you to believe their war is against Donald Trump.  Don’t believe this for a minute.  They do indeed hate Mr. Trump for taking what they feel only they are entitled to, but he is merely a passing phenomenon.  If they succeed in their criminal effort to take down the president, the jig will be up and the country will be in the hands of its permanent government, with elections just the window dressing.

Inside the Democrats' Café California

What do you do when your party has no viable policies acceptable to voters and no candidate to credibly lead them?  I wanted to find out, so I wandered over to the Café California, where Democrats never leave.  I'm old enough that with a bit of padding and an ugly large hat, I could look like a Bella Abzug wannabe, and I sat in the middle of the room, turning my hearing aids up to full blast.  I couldn't stare at the speakers and don't know most of them, so I can't give you their names, but this is what I recall of the conversations around me.
"Now we've got him.  Manafort was convicted on eight counts."
"For things that happened in 2007, involved Ukrainians, not Russians, and had nothing to do with Trump."
"Well, there's the Cohen conviction."
"It says right here in the New York Times – Cohen made the extraordinary admission that he paid a pornographic film actress 'at the direction of the candidate' to secure her silence about an affair."
"That doesn't seem to be illegal, even if he was, for once, telling the truth.  Professor Dershowitz says, 'Any candidate has the right to contribute unlimited amounts to his own campaign.'  And if you argue that somehow it was not reported and that that was a violation, he counters: 'Do you know how many technical violations the Obama campaign has committed and every other campaign has committed?  Failure to report a contribution by the candidate itself is essentially jaywalking.'"
"In any event, it seems a weird interpretation of the FEC requirement.  Even the former FEC chairman says it's a strained interpretation of the distinction between campaign and personal expenditures."
In the Wall Street Journal, Professor Bradley Smith explained it:
Not satisfied with an old-fashioned sex scandal – perhaps because the president seems impervious to that – some want to turn this into a violation of campaign-finance law.  Trevor Potter, a former member of the Federal Election Commission[,] told "60 Minutes" the payment was "a $130,000 in-kind contribution by Cohen to the Trump campaign, which is about $126,500 above what he's allowed to give."  The FBI raided Mr. Cohen's office, home and hotel room Monday.  They reportedly seized records related to the payment and are investigating possible violations of campaign-finance laws.
But let's remember a basic principle of such laws: Not everything that might benefit a candidate is a campaign expense.
Campaign-finance law aims to prevent corruption.  For this reason, the FEC has a longstanding ban on "personal use" of campaign funds.  Such use would give campaign contributions a material value beyond helping to elect the candidate – the essence of a bribe.
FEC regulations explain that the campaign cannot pay expenses that would exist "irrespective" of the campaign, even if it might help win election.  At the same time, obligations that would not exist "but for" the campaign must be paid from campaign funds.
If paying hush money is a campaign expense, a candidate would be required to make that payment with campaign funds.  How ironic, given that using campaign funds as hush money was one of the articles of impeachment in the Watergate scandal[.]
"With that line of attack falling on its face, the N.Y. attorney general is subpoenaing Cohen on the theory that Trump's own money – all held in a trust – couldn't be used legally, either."
"Looks to me as if Cohen may have implicated himself, not Trump, in something that in any event seems a non-crime."
"How will this play with FEC records showing that the Hillary campaign laundered $84 million?" 
"We tried to block it by refusing to confirm FEC commissioners to vacancies so there'd be no quorum when the complaint was filed, but there is a breakout provision that allowed the complainant to file in federal district court, and he just did."
"Why haven't I seen anything in the press about it?"  [Loud laughter from that table.]
"Didn't Lanny Davis say Cohen would testify that Trump knew about the Trump Tower meeting even though Trump said he learned of it only afterward?"
"Yeah, and Trump capitalized on it."
Donald J. Trump
‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump
8m8 minutes ago
Michaels [sic] Cohen's attorney clarified the record, saying his client does not know if President Trump knew about the Trump Tower meeting (out of which came nothing!).  The answer is that I did NOT know about the meeting.  Just another phony story by the Fake News Media!
"You have to hand it to him.  Lanny Davis announced the GoFundMe page on Megyn Kelly's show.  The audience just laughed at him.  In the meantime, Trump realized that Davis had never registered the domain so if viewers clicked on the link they were sent to a Trump website."
"It is a bit like watching the Roadrunner and Wile E. Coyote," said some guy in the corner, who sounded dismayed.
"We got a lot of good coverage for stuff that never panned out, didn't we?  Voting machines hacked, ballots not fully counted, electoral college will turn our way and refuse to elect Trump, Russia collusion, repeated writs of impeachment that go nowhere, Trump violating the emoluments clause, Trump is mentally ill and the 25th Amendment will be invoked.  Now Cohen and Manafort.  And we still aren't making any real progress.  It's like wrestling Jell-O.  The voters aren't buying."
"Not even with the salacious stuff that always used to work against Republicans.  Remember CNN's reports that there was a Russian prostitute arrested in Thailand who claimed to have evidence of Russian interference with the 2016 election?"
"Yes, whatever came of that?  Turns out she was servicing Oleg Deripaska, whom dossier author Steele was representing and was likely employed by to blackmail clients into spying."
What becomes clear from all of this is that Anastasia Vashukevich was positioned as a Red Sparrow; a recruiting agent for prostitutes and escort workers – under the employ of Oleg Deripaska, likely using the sex trade as Russian trade-craft.
Anastasia Vashukevich was busted in Thailand for her recruiting efforts, as outlined in the media report.  Ms. Vashukevich tried to extricate herself from the trouble by signaling/leveraging her knowledge of the communication between Deripaska and Christopher Steele to the media.
It is entirely possible Ms. Vashukevich even had the recording of Deripaska telling Steele the ridiculous Trump-Russian-Hookers story; and was trying to use that tape as an exit from the Bangkok prison[.] ... Which, given the current situation and collapsing narrative, Deripaska would not want to have public.
This further proves the extent to which the corrupt FBI/DOJ were willing to use Deripaska through the intermediary of Chris Steele.  Remember, the DOJ allowed Deripaska to enter the U.S. by dropping the VISA block on his travel.  In return for removing his travel restriction, the FBI asked Deripaska for help in framing Donald Trump and providing information about Paul Manafort in September of 2016.
"Trump-supporters don't care about any of this.  Salena Zito is right."
This new conservative populist coalition is not the fluke the political class hoped it was.  Donald Trump did not cause it, he is just the result of it, so no matter what he does, it continues.  It is predicated on them, not him.
The coalition is a strike at not just tone deafness in both Congress and the White House but also high levels of incompetence, negligence and shoddy performance at agencies, as well as inept social services, a bloated and incompetent bureaucracy, endless wars and multinational agreements and treaties that don't benefit average people.
These voters knew who Trump was going in, they knew he was a thrice-married, Playmate dating, Howard Stern regular who had the morals of an alley cat.  They were willing to look past all of that because of how institutions had failed their communities for three consecutive presidencies.
Right now, the value of Trump to the Trump voter is he is all that stands between them and handing the keys to Washington back over to the people inside Washington.  That's it.  He's their only option.  You've got to pick the insiders or him.
"Bummer.  Well, we have a policy advantage, don't we?  Higher taxes, bigger federal government, anti-energy production, open borders, anti-Semite, anti-Christian, anti-male, anti-white, pro-Palestinian, pro-Antifa, pro-MS-13,support for unfair trade policies, anti-military, anti-law-enforcement," said someone out of eyesight who seemed to be sniffling.  "Maybe we should try selling crazy to another group of voters – American voters seem full up on ours."
That's about it as September looms.  I paid my check and left.