I was the Head Nurse on board the USS Kitty Hawk, and i also was a Field Nurse!!!, i took care of the Troops, in Vietnam. I had a lot of duties on my Plate.

Totally agree with what you have posted Idsuttonjr.

LOL! Hillary Clinton: If You Believe In The Rule of Law, Vote Democrat
Posted on May 30, 2018 by Tim Brown

No, seriously, you just can’t make this stuff up. The 2016 loser and former criminal head of the State Department, Hillary Clinton just declared that if people actually believe in the rule of law that they should vote Democrat in November.

“If you believe that standing up for evidence and reason and respecting the rule of law is critical to our democracy, you’ve got to vote for Democrats,” Clinton shouted at a New York convention of Democrats.

Consider this is a woman embroiled in scandal and the evidence has demonstrated that she has committed crimes against the people.

Among her scandals are the ties and contributions to her Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, her cover for her husband’s adulteries and attacks on his victims, her Muslim Brotherhood ties and a host of others scandals over her political career.

On top of that, we have documented evidence of her crimes concerning her illegal email server, which was used to send and receive classified information in violation of federal law, which put our republic, not our democracy, at risk.

Let’s not forget that she is also married to a man who was impeached as president for lying under oath.

And one of the most recent bits of evidence came from Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ).
READ MORE Cops Beat Rookies With Dildos on Video, Pooped In Their Boots, Sodomized Them With Flashlights

Sekulow tweeted, “The @ACLJ just uncovered a stunning revelation about the extent to which the #Clinton State Department colluded with the #ClintonFoundation. You need to read this to believe it. ”

ACLJ reported:

As part of our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Deep State Department, we have been informed that the State Department has located – and will be forced to turn over to the ACLJ – literally thousands of documents to and about the Clinton Foundation, its subsidiaries, and its senior operatives during the duration of Hillary Clinton’s time as Secretary of State.

The shear volume alone – some 30,000 emails – debunks the specious assertion that there was any kind of firewall whatsoever between Clinton’s State Department and the Clinton Foundation.

These documents, only now being uncovered through our FOIA request and subsequent litigation, show extensive communications exchanged between Clinton or her senior staff at State Department and Doug Band – a senior aid at the Clinton Foundation and creatorof the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI).

In recent court filings, the State Department has revealed that more than 8,700 documents exist in Cheryl Mills’ and/or Huma Abedin’s files which contain the single search term, “Doug Band.” It is possible, and indeed likely, that each document consists of several pages placing the number closer to 18,000 pages or more.

The ACLJ has also learned through our litigation that another 22,000 documents exist in Cheryl Mills’ and Huma Abedin’s files (not including attachments) mentioning or referring to the Clinton Foundation or a related term referencing the foundation.

Yep, this is just the sort of woman people should be listening to when it comes to talking about the rule of law.
READ MORE More Evidence That Lawyers Are Ruining America – You Won’t Believe What McDonald’s Is Being Sued For Now…

Furthermore, she needs a serious civics lesson, as most Democrats and some Republicans do to understand that the united States is a Republic, not a democracy.

Of course, the evidence and reason she is referring to are aimed at claims by Democrats, without either, at President Donald Trump over alleged Russian collusion.

Seriously, if we were to follow the evidence and reason, Hillary Clinton, her husband, Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah, James Comey, James Clapper and a host of others from the corrupt Obama administration would be in jail. If we followed justice, they would be tried, convicted and summarily put to death.

Rusty Weiss of Mental Recession comments on the corruption in New York, mostly tied to Democrats.

You know who wasn’t at the Democrat convention in New York? Trump-hater former Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. He had to resign just weeks ago after an expose outed him as being a serial woman beater. (RELATED: Donald Trump’s Tweet from 2013 Predicted NY AG Downfall).

Here are few more examples from the Empire State:

Former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D) indicted and arrested on corruption charges.
Sexual harassment cases for Vito Lopez, Micah Kellner, and Dennis Gabryszak (D, D, D).
Eric Stevenson’s (D) corruption charges.
Pedro Espada’s (D) conviction on theft charges and embezzlement.
Indicted Senator John Sampson (D) asking Shirley Huntley to wield her influence to the benefit of a powerful businessman.
Shirley Huntley (D) used taxpayer money for spa treatments and fancy clothes … for her poodle.
Malcolm Smith (D) trying to bribe his way onto the New York City Republican mayoral ballot.
Nick Spano (R), convicted for tax evasion in 2012, fundraising for Governor Cuomo in 2014.
And of course, the upstate New York voter fraud trial that led to multiple Democrats being sentenced for their role in falsifying business documents and forgery.

People from both parties agree that New York is one of the most corrupt states in the nation led predominantly by Democrats.

Courtesy of Freedom Outpost

http://www.clothesline.com


Spare Me Hillary!!! you have flipped your Wig, big time!!!. A person can chose the party of their choice, be they Democrat, Republican, Non-Partisan etc...as long as they live by the Law as a Voter in this country.Do Y'all agree with me?

The Coming Collapse

Mr. Fish / Truthdig

The Trump administration did not rise, prima facie, like Venus on a half shell from the sea. Donald Trump is the result of a long process of political, cultural and social decay. He is a product of our failed democracy. The longer we perpetuate the fiction that we live in a functioning democracy, that Trump and the political mutations around him are somehow an aberrant deviation that can be vanquished in the next election, the more we will hurtle toward tyranny. The problem is not Trump. It is a political system, dominated by corporate power and the mandarins of the two major political parties, in which we don’t count. We will wrest back political control by dismantling the corporate state, and this means massive and sustained civil disobedience, like that demonstrated by teachers around the country this year. If we do not stand up we will enter a new dark age.

The Democratic Party, which helped build our system of inverted totalitarianism, is once again held up by many on the left as the savior. Yet the party steadfastly refuses to address the social inequality that led to the election of Trump and the insurgency by Bernie Sanders. It is deaf, dumb and blind to the very real economic suffering that plagues over half the country. It will not fight to pay workers a living wage. It will not defy the pharmaceutical and insurance industries to provide Medicare for all. It will not curb the voracious appetite of the military that is disemboweling the country and promoting the prosecution of futile and costly foreign wars. It will not restore our lost civil liberties, including the right to privacy, freedom from government surveillance, and due process. It will not get corporate and dark money out of politics. It will not demilitarize our police and reform a prison system that has 25 percent of the world’s prisoners although the United States has only 5 percent of the world’s population. It plays to the margins, especially in election seasons, refusing to address substantive political and social problems and instead focusing on narrow cultural issues like gay rights, abortion and gun control in our peculiar species of anti-politics.

This is a doomed tactic, but one that is understandable. The leadership of the party, the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Tom Perez, are creations of corporate America. In an open and democratic political process, one not dominated by party elites and corporate money, these people would not hold political power. They know this. They would rather implode the entire system than give up their positions of privilege. And that, I fear, is what will happen. The idea that the Democratic Party is in any way a bulwark against despotism defies the last three decades of its political activity. It is the guarantor of despotism.

Trump has tapped into the hatred that huge segments of the American public have for a political and economic system that has betrayed them. He may be inept, degenerate, dishonest and a narcissist, but he adeptly ridicules the system they despise. His cruel and demeaning taunts directed at government agencies, laws and the established elites resonate with people for whom these agencies, laws and elites have become hostile forces. And for many who see no shift in the political landscape to alleviate their suffering, Trump’s cruelty and invective are at least cathartic.

Trump, like all despots, has no ethical core. He chooses his allies and appointees based on their personal loyalty and fawning obsequiousness to him. He will sell anyone out. He is corrupt, amassing money for himself—he made $40 million from his Washington, D.C., hotel alone last year—and his corporate allies. He is dismantling government institutions that once provided some regulation and oversight. He is an enemy of the open society. This makes him dangerous. His turbocharged assault on the last vestiges of democratic institutions and norms means there will soon be nothing, even in name, to protect us from corporate totalitarianism.

But the warnings from the architects of our failed democracy against creeping fascism, Madeleine Albright among them, are risible. They show how disconnected the elites have become from the zeitgeist. None of these elites have credibility. They built the edifice of lies, deceit and corporate pillage that made Trump possible. And the more Trump demeans these elites, and the more they cry out like Cassandras, the more he salvages his disastrous presidency and enables the kleptocrats pillaging the country as it swiftly disintegrates.

The press is one of the principal pillars of Trump’s despotism. It chatters endlessly like 18th-century courtiers at the court of Versailles about the foibles of the monarch while the peasants lack bread. It drones on and on and on about empty topics such as Russian meddling and a payoff to a porn actress that have nothing to do with the daily hell that, for many, defines life in America. It refuses to critique or investigate the abuses by corporate power, which has destroyed our democracy and economy and orchestrated the largest transfer of wealth upward in American history. The corporate press is a decayed relic that, in exchange for money and access, committed cultural suicide. And when Trump attacks it over “fake news,” he expresses, once again, the deep hatred of all those the press ignores. The press worships the idol of Mammon as slavishly as Trump does. It loves the reality-show presidency. The press, especially the cable news shows, keeps the lights on and the cameras rolling so viewers will be glued to a 21st-century version of “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.” It is good for ratings. It is good for profits. But it accelerates the decline.

All this will soon be compounded by financial collapse. Wall Street banks have been handed $16 trillion in bailouts and other subsidies by the Federal Reserve and Congress at nearly zero percent interest since the 2008 financial collapse. They have used this money, as well as the money saved through the huge tax cuts imposed last year, to buy back their own stock, raising the compensation and bonuses of their managers and thrusting the society deeper into untenable debt peonage. Sheldon Adelson’s casino operations alone got a $670 million tax break under the 2017 legislation. The ratio of CEO to worker pay now averages 339 to 1, with the highest gap approaching 5,000 to 1. This circular use of money to make and hoard money is what Karl Marx called “fictitious capital.” The steady increase in public debt, corporate debt, credit card debt and student loan debt will ultimately lead, as Nomi Prins writes, to “a tipping point—when money coming in to furnish that debt, or available to borrow, simply won’t cover the interest payments. Then debt bubbles will pop, beginning with higher yielding bonds.”

An economy reliant on debt for its growth causes our interest rate to jump to 28 percent when we are late on a credit card payment. It is why our wages are stagnant or have declined in real terms—if we earned a sustainable income we would not have to borrow money to survive. It is why a university education, houses, medical bills and utilities cost so much. The system is designed so we can never free ourselves from debt.

However, the next financial crash, as Prins points out in her book “Collusion: How Central Bankers Rigged the World,” won’t be like the last one. This is because, as she says, “there is no Plan B.” Interest rates can’t go any lower. There has been no growth in the real economy. The next time, there will be no way out. Once the economy crashes and the rage across the country explodes into a firestorm, the political freaks will appear, ones that will make Trump look sagacious and benign.

And so, to quote Vladimir Lenin, what must be done?

We must invest our energy in building parallel, popular institutions to protect ourselves and to pit power against power. These parallel institutions, including unions, community development organizations, local currencies, alternative political parties and food cooperatives, will have to be constructed town by town. The elites in a time of distress will retreat to their gated compounds and leave us to fend for ourselves. Basic services, from garbage collection to public transportation, food distribution and health care, will collapse. Massive unemployment and underemployment, triggering social unrest, will be dealt with not through government job creation but the brutality of militarized police and a complete suspension of civil liberties. Critics of the system, already pushed to the margins, will be silenced and attacked as enemies of the state. The last vestiges of labor unions will be targeted for abolition, a process that will soon be accelerated given the expected ruling in a case before the Supreme Court that will cripple the ability of public-sector unions to represent workers. The dollar will stop being the world’s reserve currency, causing a steep devaluation. Banks will close. Global warming will extract heavier and heavier costs, especially on the coastal populations, farming and the infrastructure, costs that the depleted state will be unable to address. The corporate press, like the ruling elites, will go from burlesque to absurdism, its rhetoric so patently fictitious it will, as in all totalitarian states, be unmoored from reality. The media outlets will all sound as fatuous as Trump. And, to quote W.H. Auden, “the little children will die in the streets.”

As a foreign correspondent I covered collapsed societies, including the former Yugoslavia. It is impossible for any doomed population to grasp how fragile the decayed financial, social and political system is on the eve of implosion. All the harbingers of collapse are visible: crumbling infrastructure; chronic underemployment and unemployment; the indiscriminate use of lethal force by police; political paralysis and stagnation; an economy built on the scaffolding of debt; nihilistic mass shootings in schools, universities, workplaces, malls, concert venues and movie theaters; opioid overdoses that kill some 64,000 people a year; an epidemic of suicides; unsustainable military expansion; gambling as a desperate tool of economic development and government revenue; the capture of power by a tiny, corrupt clique; censorship; the physical diminishing of public institutions ranging from schools and libraries to courts and medical facilities; the incessant bombardment by electronic hallucinations to divert us from the depressing sight that has become America and keep us trapped in illusions. We suffer the usual pathologies of impending death. I would be happy to be wrong. But I have seen this before. I know the warning signs. All I can say is get ready.

http://www.truthdig.com
We need to step up and keep this insanity under control.Our country is going to Hell in a Handbasket. What do y'all think? Is there any Hope for America?

I give full support to all of these States, that are trying to BOOT!!! Obama to the Curb!!!! including Oklahoma. This Southern Gal has your back, Oklahoma.Full!!! Speed!!! Ahead!!!! go for it!! LOL!!!!.

I refuse to go down without a fight!!!! if these Terrorists think that they can take control of the US. FULL!!!SPEED!!!AHEAD!!!!TRUMP!!!! Go for it!!!.

Obama could want in one Hand and POOP!!! in the other.we need a real Leader, not a violent 2 faced criminal.

I would jump for Joy!!!!! if that did happen.Betchu By GUMBO!!!!. I would be one Happy Camper Cajun, LOL!!!

Will the Supreme Court Banish Obama’s Amnesty?
Posted On 22 May 2016
By : admin
173 Comments



Chief Justice John Roberts may have signaled Monday that the Obama administration could be facing a bitter loss when the Supreme Court rules on the president’s executive amnesty. Roberts, who has disappointed conservatives in recent years with his rulings on gay marriage and Obamacare, appeared critical of the administration’s arguments when the case came before the court this week.

After listening to Solicitor General Donald Verrilli give an impassioned speech about Obama’s presidential authority, Roberts asked, “Could the president grant deferred removal to every unlawfully present alien in the United States right now?”

Verrilli mumbled something about statutory constraints, an answer that would seem to beg the question of where exactly those constraints lie. Because for this president – as Roberts appeared to be thinking – they don’t exist at all.

The heart of the matter before the court is not the constitutionality of Obama’s actions, though, but whether Texas and 25 other states have standing to sue the administration for damages. However, there is plenty of precedent for the Supreme Court to go beyond the scope of a case in order to make a landmark ruling. The chances of that happening here are slim due to the 4-4 split along ideological lines, of course.

Still, Roberts did offer conservatives some hope, characterizing the administration’s program as having put Texas in a “catch-22.” Verrilli said that Texas, which is claiming that producing driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants would be a financial burden, could merely change state law to counter Obama.

“You would sue them instantly,” Roberts said.

Verrilli admitted that was likely so, but he said it was enough that Texas might feasibly be successful in the suit.

Roberts said that if Texas had a choice between a financial burden and being sued by the federal government, it was a pretty clear indication that they had standing to sue.

Immigration activists are watching the case closely, of course, but the media is not quite so pro-Obama as it used to be. Suddenly, several reliably-liberal pundits are out there expressing alarm about the unrestricted power of the president. Gee, if Obama can do this, what would Ted Cruz do in the Oval Office? Maybe we oughta think about limiting executive actions, you guys…

Well, even if it comes from the most cynical of places, it’s always nice to see liberals touch ground with reality once in a while.

http://www.patriotnewsdaily.com



I clearly doubt it, because Obama has a real strong hold and he refuses to go down without a fight. It would be totally great if the Supreme Court really did this for us. But i am not Holding my breath!!! I pray that we do Vote in a faithful and trustworthy Leader, that will have our backs, and protect this mighty Nation of America. What do you think!!!!? Will the Supreme Court do it's job and free us from this Invasion? I pray they do.

Fears grow about rising US troop levels in Middle East
3792

332
Getty Images

By Kristina Wong and Rebecca Kheel - 05/22/16 06:00 AM EDT

Fears are growing in Congress about the deeper U.S. involvement in the Middle East.

The latest flashpoint is President Obama’s decision this week to send an additional 250 special operations troops to Syria, where they will support forces battling the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

The decision follows a separate move to increase the number of troops in Iraq and as the Pentagon and White House struggle to withdraw troops as scheduled from Afghanistan, where the Taliban — and a nascent ISIS presence — are gaining strength.

The continual deployments have alarmed dovish lawmakers who worry about mission creep, a gradual shift in military objectives over the course of a campaign.

“We see a continual escalation with the now 250 additional troops,” Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), the lone dissenting vote against 2001 legislation authorizing military force in Afghanistan, told The Hill on Tuesday.

“Whenever you have troops in harm’s way, unintended consequences could occur,” she said. “I’m very worried that our troops, while advisers, are still in the middle of the war and without authorization from Congress.”

Obama insists the new deployment is not a case of mission creep, arguing the troops are enabling local forces, not directly engaging in combat.

But he has also not ruled out that the troops could come into direct combat with ISIS, noting Monday to PBS’s Charlie Rose that “as a general rule, their role is not to engage directly with the enemy but rather to work with local forces.”

The White House on Tuesday said Obama would consider sending even more special operations forces if the latest deployment proves to be successful.

“If this additional commitment of additional troops yields positive results … then that’s something the president would consider,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters.

The latest deployment will increase the official number of U.S. forces on the ground in Syria from 50 to 300, just as a cease-fire that reduced violence verges on collapsing.

The plan announced last week for 217 more troops to go to Iraq will bring the official number there to 4,087 troops. This does not include hundreds more U.S. soldiers not based in Iraq but who deploy there for short periods of time.

The White House also said Tuesday that there would be no “geographical limitations” on where the U.S. could send troops to fight ISIS, opening the door to sending more troops outside of Iraq and Syria.

Obama’s latest decision in Syria has won support from Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Both have sough to highlight their ties to the president during the campaign.

“These special forces will continue to provide critical support to local forces on the ground who ultimately must be the ones to win this fight,” Clinton’s campaign said in a statement.

Sanders has repeatedly criticized Clinton for supporting the Iraq War, as well as U.S. intervention in Libya, but he voiced unequivocal support for Obama’s actions.

“I think what the president is talking about is having American troops training Muslim troops, helping to supply the military equipment they need, and I do support that effort,” he said Monday during an MSNBC town hall.

The Democratic drift toward deeper involvement is alarming progressives who have long argued Congress needs to debate the war and provide a new authorization for the use of military force against ISIS.

“These wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and Syria are on remote control, and, quite frankly, it’s unconscionable that Congress, which has a constitutional responsibility, is sitting on its hands,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.).

More hawkish Democrats are backing the president’s decision, arguing it is not a replay of Vietnam.

“One of the key points of decision in Vietnam was putting division-sized units in, in the mid-1960s, and then supporting them, and putting more in, etc. I think that’s a distinctive different approach than we’re adopting now,” said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Republican hawks are also welcoming the use of more troops, but criticize the slow, incremental fashion the administration is using to do it.

“There’s no strategy; there’s begrudging incrementalism. We used to call it ‘mission creep.’ I’ve seen this movie before — it’s called Vietnam,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told The Hill on Tuesday.

Lee and McGovern say debating a new authorization for the use of military force would help to clarify the strategy and avoid mission creep.

“Where is this all going? What’s our end game here? And how do you measure success?” asked McGovern, who also criticized Congress for not taking up a new authorization of military force bill.
http://www.thehill.com


Why can't we just close the Door, and let them take care of their own affairs? Afghanistan and Iraq are going to be the Death of our Nation. GET THE HELL OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST. I believe that Obama and his followers are getting a Nut off of this Insanity, and they want more, and more. Now Folks what's your input on this Topic?

Obama itches for Trump fight
1.1K1

5097
Getty Images

By Jordan Fabian - 05/22/16 10:30 AM EDT

President Obama can’t wait to take on Donald Trump.

Obama has been largely sidelined in the presidential contest, a last-year officeholder with high approval ratings who has repeatedly shown he likes to spar with political foes.

ADVERTISEMENT
With Bernie Sanders continuing to slug it out with likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, Obama largely has to choose his openings to talk 2016.

So on Friday, when the White House announced Obama would make a statement about the economy, the president knew he’d get asked about Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee.

And when he did, Obama was ready.

“We are in serious times, and this is a really serious job,” Obama said. “This is not entertainment; this is not a reality show. This is a contest for the presidency of the United States.”

The remarks previewed a part of the Obama-Clinton strategy against Trump: that he is untested and not ready for the White House, and that the GOP and media have fallen down on the job by failing to properly vet him.

The remarks also reflect the urgency Obama feels about defeating Trump.

Keeping the White House in Democratic hands, no matter who became the Republican nominee, has always been an important goal for Obama.

But the president has long shown a personal disdain for Trump, dating back to when the business mogul became a leader of the “birther” movement that questioned whether Obama was born in the United States.

Obama has repeatedly said Trump could damage the country’s standing abroad while attempting to roll back his accomplishments at home.

The president could face challenges in getting his message to break through against Trump, however, as the businessman has proved masterful at commanding media attention.

The president is still confronting a months-long dilemma about tipping the scales on the Democratic side.

Clinton, the party’s presidential front-runner, has a sizable delegate lead over Sanders. But the Vermont senator has said he won’t drop out before the Democratic National Convention in late July.

The president dodged a question Friday about whether Sanders should drop out of the race, although he acknowledged “everybody knows what the math is.”

Sanders won in Indiana this past Tuesday and is expected to perform well in upcoming primaries in West Virginia and Oregon.

The Democratic fight has somewhat handcuffed Obama — an increasing inconvenience as Trump pivots to the general election.

Clinton could face attacks from both Trump and Sanders until the final Democratic primary in Washington, D.C., on June 14.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest on Thursday declined to say whether Obama would hit the campaign trail before the Democratic convention and brushed aside any concerns about Democrats mending fences.

“The president certainly does envision a scenario where he will be strongly advocating for the Democratic nominee for president,” he said. “And part of the case that he will make will be the importance of Democrats coming together behind our nominee.”

Clinton supporters believe the president would be an effective anti-Trump messenger, due to his high approval ratings and eight years of service as the country’s commander in chief.

“Given the hot spots around the world and given how [Trump] is so thoroughly unprepared, I would imagine the president does spend a lot of time focusing on the foreign policy aspect of it,” said Democratic strategist Jim Manley, who is backing Clinton.

Like many Democrats, Manley believes Obama is “anxious” to get on the campaign trail and skewer Trump over comments like the one he made Thursday, when he attributed his knowledge of Russia to a beauty pageant he held there.

“I know Russia well. I had a major event in Russia two or three years ago, Miss Universe contest, which was a big, big, incredible event. An incredible success,” Trump said on Fox News.

Amazingly, the comment echoed a joke Obama made at Trump’s expense at last weekend’s White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

“They say Donald lacks the foreign policy experience to be president,” Obama said. “But, in fairness, he has spent years meeting with leaders from around the world: Miss Sweden, Miss Argentina, Miss Azerbaijan.”

At the White House on Friday, Obama warned that Trump’s policy proposals would not stand up to scrutiny.

And he said Republicans would have to reckon with the fact that they chose a candidate whose bombastic comments about immigrants and women could hurt the party’s efforts to grow.

“Republican voters are going to have to make a decision as to whether this is the guy who speaks for them and represents their values,” he said.
http://www.thehill.com



What a Fool !!! Obama is. Trump will Win!! the Battle.

Illegal families get over $1,000 more in welfare than American families

May 22, 2016 By Kelly 0 Comments

Your tax dollars at work ladies and gentlemen, instead of paying down the National debt, improving healthcare for veterans and seniors, or just fixing up some bridges and roads, the Administration is paying illegal immigrants to live at a higher standard of living than poor Americans.

According to a new report on the cost of immigration, illegal households receive an average of $5,692 in federal welfare benefits every year. Meanwhile, American households receive $4,431 per year, or $1,261 less:

The Center for Immigration Studies, in an analysis of federal cost figures, found that all immigrant-headed households — legal and illegal — receive an average of $6,241 in welfare, 41 percent more than native households. As with Americans receiving benefits such as food stamps and cash, much of the welfare to immigrants supplements their low wage jobs.

The total cost is over $103 billion in welfare benefits to households headed by immigrants. A majority, 51 percent, of immigrant households receive some type of welfare compared to 30 percent of native households, said the analysis of Census data.

exdc5-6pmtwe5ws5lg06tt5ys_layout

Immigrants from Mexico and Central America receive the most welfare according to the study. On average, their annual taxpayer funded welfare collection is $8,251, a whopping 86 percent higher than the welfare benefits received by American households.

http://www.saa.com !!!! That's BS!!!! AND IT ISN'T RIGHT!!!!! Americans need that money, in order to provide for themselves and their Loved ones. Illegals should have no rights to our Money, not one Penny of it. What do you think?

WOW: Oklahoma Makes Massive Move to Strip ALL Power From Barack Obama
Share on Facebook Tweet Email Print

Advertisement - story continues below

As President Barack Obama has advanced his progressive agenda over the past seven-and-a-half years with coerced help from a kowtowed Congress and ruling by executive fiat when they refused, there has been one state consistently at the forefront of opposition to his destructive efforts.

That state is Oklahoma, and there are plenty of reasons why Obama failed to win even a single county in that state during the 2012 election.

Through the actions of the state legislature and governor, Oklahoma has made several moves to stymie the agenda of the Obama administration on such issues as gun control, illegal immigration, and religious liberty, among other things.

Advertisement – story continues below
Related Stories

Trump Drops Bombshell About Next 9/11… Obama Absolutely Furious
Sheriff Joe Has Trump Fans Cheering After Making Powerful Statement On THIS Policy
VIDEO: Watch Ivanka Trump Slap Down Her Father’s Haters

Oklahoma has reaffirmed the natural and God-given right of all citizens to keep and bear arms, has allowed for concealed carry on school campuses by trained faculty, and has moved towards allowing unlicensed concealed carry by lawful citizens, despite Obama’s push for stricter gun control.

As Obama has thrown open the borders to waves of illegal immigration, Oklahoma has cracked down by actually holding criminal illegals in custody until they can be deported, keeping a DNA sample in the process to better identify them if they come back and commit more crimes, and mandating the drivers license test be conducted in the English language only.

Oklahoma has also rejected the Common Core educational standards and accompanying propaganda-filled curriculum and has stood strong against the Obamacare healthcare reform law, not to mention their staunch opposition to the job-killing regulations put forward by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Advertisement – story continues below
The "Obvious Next Step" In Consumer Electronics
New High Powered Flashlight Is Now Available in Seattle, WA
See Why This House is the Most Secure Place on Earth (Watch)
Ads by Revcontent

Furthermore, they are one of the few states that has declared themselves to be a sovereign state, meaning they are not necessarily beholden to any of Obama’s lawless and corrupt decrees and executive actions.

Oklahoma has set themselves up as an example for other states grown tired of a continuously expanding and far-reaching federal government, largely through the assertion of their 10th Amendment right, and it is hoped that others will soon join them in presenting a united front of states no longer bowing to the diktats emanating out of Washington, D.C.

http://www.conservativetribune.com
Good Luck!!!! Trying that!!!! It will take many more states to follow that.

Blog Stream Groups Following Profile
Why Do People Hate Hillary Clinton So Much?
By motocat
Sat. Feb 23, 2016 · 1:31 PM PST
97

hillaryfire.jpg
It's clear that wide swaths of various demographics hate Hillary Clinton... But why?
97



As a liberal with lots of liberal friends I am used to seeing all sorts of negative stories about Hillary Clinton in my social media universe with regularity. The question that irks me is why? I can clump the negativity toward Hillary into three main arguments.

1. She is untrustworthy (liar, disingenuous, doesn’t mean what she says, etc...)

2. She isn’t really liberal

3. She is “bought” by Wall Street (or owes them some sort of favors)

I’m a data nerd (worked in analytics in the past), and I have been paying close attention this election cycle so I thought I would unpack these three statements and see what sort of evidence there is for them.

Hillary Clinton is Untrustworthy

To start with, I tried to look for some sort of data to support her honesty or relative lack there-of. I believe it’s important to disregard all unreliable statements based on personal observation such as “she just looks phony”, or “you can tell she is lying”, as it’s been proven time and time again that people cannot tell a liar from someone telling the truth by body language or facial expression with any more accuracy than a coin flip. Let’s start by looking at Politifact, an organization dedicated to fact checking candidates.
clinton_sanders.jpg Screen-captures from Politifact Website

As you can see, It’s not exactly obvious from this data which of the candidates is the “honest” one. Clinton has a much higher “true” rating at 26% vs. 16% for Sanders. Sanders however, has more “mostly true” claims. Regardless, I’m not seeing any backup here for a narrative that Clinton is a dishonest politician on the stump. From a data perspective there are a lot of issues with this information. We can’t fact check everything they say, and it’s a selective sample. In addition, the sample size isn’t that big. We only have 58 fact checks for Sanders, and 154 fact checks for Clinton (although it does show a difference in scrutiny paid to each candidates statements). I am willing to guess however, that they have performed more fact checks than many members of this site, or friends on my Facebook feed. Let’s compare the data from Politifact to the entire field of candidates in this infographic put together by the NYTimes.
nyclinton.jpg NY Times Politifact roundup infographic

One thing this graph shows us, is that the democratic primary candidates seem to be head and shoulders above their republican rivals. As I have said, the data has some issues, but this seems to be the best impartial analysis out there, and it does not show that Hillary Clinton is a lair.

Hillary Clinton is not really a liberal

I’ll start with an excellent diary from another DailyKos user Phenry which highlights an analysis of Hillary’s career based on data taken from her record, and analyzed in the method most commonly used by political scientists. The full article is linked below, but in case you don’t want to read it (great read), the main point is that Hillary Clinton was the 11th most liberal senator during her time there.

“As it turns out, with a first-dimension score of -0.391 based upon her entire service in Congress, Hillary Clinton was the 11th most liberal member of the Senate in each of the 107th, 108th, 109th, and 110th Congresses. That places her slightly to the left of Pat Leahy (-0.386), Barbara Mikulski (-0.385) and Dick Durbin (-0.385); clearly to the left of Joe Biden (-0.331) and Harry Reid (-0.289); and well to the left of moderate Democrats like Jon Tester (-0.230), Blanche Lincoln (-0.173), and Claire McCaskill (-0.154).”

www.dailykos.com/…

Now, you could say something along the lines of… “It’s does not matter because they are all so close together anyway, and the entire political system has been pushed to the right”, except the data doesn’t really back that up.


According to the data presented in Phenry’s diary, conservatives are MUCH more conservative than Clinton. It’s not even close. Let’s look at the analysis of her political place compared to Bernie Sanders by ontheissues.org, a site which I think does a great job of accumulating politicians stances on the record. There is a lot of detailed information on each candidates past record, and their stances on current issues. They also supply a graphic at thehttp://www.dai

http://www.dailykos.com



: Give us one good Reason why we should Trust her. There is no good reason!!! She is a 2 Faced, Hypocritical, Liar, and she tries to put on a Fake Act, and then blame others for her own crimes, that's why folks hate Hillary Clinton. What's your reason. folks?

Manion: Why the Wall Will Work

April 23, 2016 by Jay Hamilton 2 Comments

Christopher Manion explains how Donald Trump’s proposal for a border wall and one Mexico will pay for will work.

First, a little history lesson on the efficacy of walls in Mexico and among elites in the United States.

While elites on both sides of the border have resorted to feigned mockery regarding Trump’s proposal, the Mexican people would hardly find it unusual. After all, virtually every family in Mexico builds a wall around their home as soon as they can afford one. Those walls, often topped with glass, barbed wire, or both, are as necessary to their daily lives, health, and safety as indoor plumbing.US-Mexico_border_fence

Even liberals understand the necessity of walls. Five years ago, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a Democrat and second-generation Mexican-American, demanded an exception to zoning laws so he could build a six-foot high wall around his official residence. And Hillary Clinton’s family home in Chappaqua, New York, is surrounded by a high security fence complete with a guardhouse.

Mexico’s rulers vehemently oppose the wall and really anything which cuts the flow of illegal immigration. The main reasons are twofold.

First, the Mexican ruling party maintains its power by fostering a resentment against the United States. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the illegal immigrant exodus operates as a de facto welfare program for Mexico’s elites.

The remittances from illegal aliens offer low income Mexicans the kids of welfare they are not granted by their own country. This allows the Mexican elites to loot the country without facing social revolution.



So, putting this system in peril, through Trump’s plan to block remittances, strikes at the heart of the Mexican political elites power structure.

Here is where the wall comes in: those welfare benefits are also promised to their people by the government of Mexico. However, the corruptos (as Mexicans call their rulers) guarantee that they are never delivered. Instead, Mexicans working in the U.S. send back to their extended families tens of billions of dollars a year, resulting in an extensive Mexican welfare system, a courtesy extended to the Mexican elite establishment by its enthusiastic elitist counterparts in the United States.

These financial remittances are called remesas, and Donald Trump proposes that the U.S. impose a surcharge on each of them, since they constitute an indirect but de facto Mexican government welfare program designed to prevent unrest or even broader domestic violence at home – after all, we must recall, Mexico’s official “Institutional Revolutionary Party” is well-entrenched, and with rare exceptions has controlled the country for almost a century. The remesas provide a safety valve that reduces the threat of serious unrest, allowing the corruptos to keep the party going unperturbed.

Remittances are far more important to Mexico than to the U.S. So, has Donald Trump found the weak point in the Mexican government’s hand regarding illegal immigration?

http://www.thesovereigntyproject.com


Because if Trump is elected, he will destroy any path to Illegals in this Country, and Mexico will have to take care of it's own people in their own Country. LOL!!! And you know how Pissed Off Mexico's President will be.OH!!!IDDY!!BOO!!!! LOL!!!!