Hillary Calls The President

Good One, Thanks Paul... Don D.😎👍

Paul D. ~ On Sun, Aug 6, 2017

Hillary phoned the President's office shortly after midnight. "I need to talk to President Trump, it's an emergency!", exclaimed Hillary.

After some cajoling, the President's assistant agreed to disturb his boss's study time.

"So, what is it that's so important that it can't wait until morning?", grumbled Trump.

Supreme Court Judge Ginsburg just died, and I would like to take her place.", begged Hillary.

"Well, it's alright with me, if it's OK with the funeral home.", replied President Trump.

For all of us who feel only the deepest love and affection for the way computers have enhanced our lives, read on.....







At a recent computer expo (COMDEX) : Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated,



"If Ford had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon."







In response to Bill's comments, Ford issued a press release stating:







If Ford had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics (and I just love this part):







1. For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash.........twice a day.







2.. Every time they repainted the lines on the road, you would have to buy a new car.







3... Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would have to pull to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut off the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue. For some reason, you would simply accept this.







4.... Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.







5..... Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast and twice as easy to drive - but would run on only five percent of the roads.







6...... The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single "This Car Has Performed An Illegal Operation" warning light







7....... The airbag system would ask,"Are you sure?", before deploying.







8........ Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.


9......... Every time a new car was introduced car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.



10.......... You'd have to press the "Start" button to turn the engine off.


PS - I'd like to add that when all else fails, you could call "customer service" in some foreign country and be instructed in some foreign language how to fix your car yourself!


RETW

And I have a "sneaking suspicion," that Imran {and family, Hina Alvi, Jamal and Abid Awan}, have no intention of coming-back to America, at least under THOSE names, EVER!!! Can you imagine what would have happened to an American {SPY}, caught in Pakistan having had access {since 2004}, to THEIR "C" {"whatever THAT means" HRC}, information, attempting to flee the country, with buckets of stolen loot, and then being granted anything but the firing squad? For the same, certainly, VERY, VERY possibly treasonous, seditious crimes??? Not ME!!! Hummmmm. Was the long-time culpable DNC possibly leaning on the {"lefty"?} Judge that granted a SURE, POSITIVE, flight-risk, release from jail; for ANY amount, or ANY reason??? Hummmmmmmm, again.

I Was Talking With a Friend of Mine The Other Day And He Asked a Searching Question, Why Do We Hear So Little, If Ever, About Black Racism??? Oh And He's Black, I've Known Him From When We Were Kids In Oakland, CA Growing Up Together... Don D.

E PLURIBUS UNUM

DIVERSITY A 'STRENGTH'? HOGWASH

Does Valuing Similarity Make One a 'Hater'?

Lindy Daniel ~ July 26, 2017 ~ WND

Day in and day out we are told that diversity is the best thing that ever happened to us – our greatest strength. What a load of hogwash. There is no evidence at all to support this delusion; that’s why you never hear any more than just the short, dogmatic catchphrases praising almighty diversity. But if brainwashing works, then who cares about reality, right? Well, reality does.

Diversity is not a strength in this country. In fact, it is difficult to find diversity as a strength anywhere. Let’s get real. Diversity is a weakness. Anywhere you find war, anywhere you find conflict, anywhere you find division, you are very likely to find diversity at the root of it. Racial diversity, ethnic diversity, religious diversity, political diversity – diversity is a weakness. Homogeneity is a strength. Sameness is a strength. Unity is a strength, and unity comes from similarity, not from diversity. Diversity requires great sacrifice. To have it, we must give up our unity.

This has not always been the politically incorrect secret that it is today. Back in 1787, Founding Father John Jay rejoiced that America was made up of quite non-diverse people of the same ancestry, language, religion and principles of government, and “very similar in their manners and customs.” Despite what we’ve been told, the original motto, “E Pluribus Unum” (“Out of many, one”), never meant “out of many races, nationalities, religions, and beliefs, one people”; it meant “out of 13 like-minded states, one union.” The timeless truth is: Similarity is the glue that holds a union together; diversity is the crack that splits it.

The greater the diversity, the harder it is for a dose of similarity to pacify it. Similarity of one kind or another can only counterbalance so much diversity. The mostly Southern and Eastern European immigrants to (mostly Western and Northern European) America at the turn of the 20th century struggled with ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity to a point, but their overarching European cultural identity, shared Christian heritage and values, racial homogeneity, and a prevailing genuine desire to learn English and to become American (not for America to become like them) helped smooth out the differences and promote assimilation. The majority of today’s immigrants, however, share neither an ethnic heritage of Western society, traditional American ideals of limited government, traditional Christian societal values, nor linguistic or racial unity. In fact, they really don’t have much in common with America at large at all, and it’s not certain many of them want anything in common with us. This is not a promising mixture. Diversity was not what brought America through our first “Great Wave” of immigration. Similarity was. That similarity is lacking today.

However, we are assured today that diversity is meaningless – a mere difference in skin color, bedroom practices, or prayer time – and is completely irrelevant to our communal vision of what America is and should be. This is not true; diversity is not so trivial. People of diverse races, national origins, sexual identities and religions consistently tend to pursue vastly different and hotly conflicting political and social agendas. While individual exceptions abound, the diverse groups’ average priorities and flagship causes are clear and recognizable and are key sources of political and social discord – year after year after year.

Diversity turns democracy into a disaster. Democracy is only pleasant when the majority is large. The smaller the majority, the greater the dissent. When barely half the population controls the other nearly half of the population, diversity is at its greatest and discord at its worst. When multiple diverse factions are each seeking their own diverse interests, then diversity is at its widest, and from there it’s a straight shot to tribalism – the antithesis of unity and opposite of strength.

At the neighborhood level, harmful effects of diversity have been identified in many studies. Harvard professor and political scientist Robert Putnam’s thorough study of 30,000 Americans found that (even after accounting for population density) “inhabitants of diverse communities tend to withdraw from collective life, to distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.” In other words, diversity does not unite communities; it destroys them.

To counter this bleak prognosis, we might ask, does diversity create any societal strengths at all? Surely the strength most commonly imagined is that exposure to diversity fosters the ability to live peacefully and respectfully in a diverse society and a diverse world. The critical question, then, is: Does being raised in and living in a homogeneous community (a community of more similar people) make one a hateful bigot, incapable of seeing an issue from a different perspective, incapable of seeing diverse kinds of people as fellow human beings worthy of respect and fair treatment? Is every small town man, suburban mother, country girl and farm boy in greater homogeneous America a deplorable beacon of cruelty and hate? My answer: of course not! Now, repeated exposure to diversity may tend to make one feel more comfortable in a diverse society, but this is a reflection of desensitization, not of moral improvement. There is nothing immoral or unnatural in living or in wanting to live among others who are similar to ourselves in both identity and ideals. Some level of difference and disagreement in our lives is inescapable, but that doesn’t mean we’re obligated to seek it out, or that there is anything wrong with us if we try to avoid it.

Avoiding diversity does not mean one “hates” another group of people. One group does not need to be “bad” or “inferior” and another group “good” or “better” for difference itself to cause tension, either with a particular form of diversity as the actual dividing line in the argument, or with the presence of that diversity as the cause of the dividing line, splitting the other group and turning it against itself in an argument that would not exist if not for the presence of the diversity. Either way, avoiding the diversity avoids the division.

The benefits and value of diversity are vague, arguable and subjective and don’t hold much water compared to the benefits and value of homogeneity or similarity. Compelling a community, a people or a nation to welcome growing diversity in their midst or across their border is pushing a both risky and arbitrary value on people who may have a different opinion on the intrinsic value of diversity. If homogeneity is not a flaw, then why is it treated as a problem that needs to be fixed? If diversity is a weakness, then why is it so worshiped? Why is it so pushed?

Diversity is a judgment call, and pursuing it in one’s life and in one’s society is a personal decision, but the fact that diversity breeds disagreement and disagreement breeds division is difficult to reconcile with the claim that diversity makes us stronger. Similarity breeds like-mindedness, like-mindedness breeds unity, and unity makes a people strong.

Sacrificing unity for diversity may be our nation’s fate, but let’s shake off the politically correct blinders before we surrender to it. Diversity does not unite us. Diversity divides us. The more diverse we become, the weaker we become – and singing “Kumbaya” in 12 different languages isn’t going to change that. Enough of this “diversity is our strength” nonsense. Don’t believe everything your senator read in a fortune cookie.

http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/diversity-a-strength-hogwash/

Trump throws wrench in U.N. plan to 'replace' U.S. population
Obama stoked globalist agenda laid out in 2000
(Political Zionism through and through)
http://www.wnd.com/?p=4589121

WASHINGTON – In the last year of his presidency, Barack Obama and his administration worked tirelessly with the United Nations to expand the definition of “refugee” to include economic migrants and drastically increase the numbers being resettled in the United States.

And he found a willing partner in the Republican-controlled Congress, which funded not only more refugees but provisions for record numbers of unaccompanied minor children, so-called UACs, showing up at the border from Central America.

In the fall of 2016 Obama hosted the U.N. Leaders’ Summit on Refugees in New York, where he and other world leaders used rhetoric strikingly similar to the concept of “replacement migration,” a U.N. plot to replace the population of a given country with migrants and “refugees” from the developing world.

WND recently reported on the scheme, revealed in a U.N. document prepared in the year 2000 entitled “Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Aging Populations?”

Read WND’s expose of the U.N. “Great Replacement” plan for Western nations.

The report details the plunging birthrates across Western Europe, Russia, Japan and the United States and identifies a solution: mass migration from the Third World into these “aging and declining” nations.

The 17-year-old document makes the case for mass immigration as necessary to replace the aging populations of developed countries. Without the migration of populations from the developing world, it reasons, economies will suffer because of labor shortages and falling tax revenues.

“Therefore, among the demographic variables, only international migration could be instrumental in addressing population decline and population aging in the short to medium term,” the report concludes.

Obama’s stated goals before the Leaders’ Summit last fall were to increase financing for global humanitarian appeals, as well as double the number of resettlement slots and use “alternative legal pathways,” such as student and family-based visas, for refugees to enter the United States.

A report by the influential Brookings Institute included reasons to support Obama’s plan to increase resettlement, stating: “For receiving countries, migration has already become the most important source of demographic growth and renewal for wealthy societies.” This is the goal of “replacement migration.”

“The so-called benefits of replacing a country’s population with Third World migrants is bogus and imaginary,” said Leo Hohmann, author of a 2017 investigative book, “Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest through Immigration and Resettlement Jihad.”

Hohmann said that while the costs of refugee resettlement are understated, often ignoring refugees’ heavy use of public assistance programs such as food stamps and Medicaid, refugee advocates also like to overstate the economic impact of refugees in the work place.

“For example, even after five years in America, 60 percent of refugees use food stamps, compared to 15 percent for native-born Americans,” Hohmann said, citing statistics provided by the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement.

Yet, when Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services and the other resettlement agencies show up in a city to inform leaders of their intention to send refugees, they talk about how the new arrivals will open businesses and boost the local economy, Hohmann said.

“It’s a bunch of lies and half truths,” he said. “They’re never told the rest of the story.”

America is headed down a suicidal path – but it’s a subtle invasion. Get all the details in Leo Hohmann’s brand new book “Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest Through Immigration and Resettlement Jihad,” available now at the WND Superstore.

Minnesota, for instance, earlier this month approved an additional $600,000 to treat a measles and tuberculosis outbreaks mostly within its Somali and Hmong refugee communities, and that was on top of the $1.5 million the state had already allocated for these outbreaks this year.

Another hidden cost, which is almost never talked about, is that of educating the refugees’ children, most of whom require expensive tutors and translators, Hohmann said, pointing to migrant-heavy school districts like Wichita, Kansas, where students speak more than 50 languages.

None of these costs are subtracted from the supposed economic benefits of importing refugees to come up with a net economic impact, Hohmann said.

The official pledge given by the United States at the Leaders’ Summit on Refugees included the following statement:

“The United States admitted 85,000 refugees in Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 – 15,000 more than in FY 2015 – and pledged to increase its refugee admissions to 110,000 in FY 2017. The United States also increased alternative pathways of admission into the United States, providing special immigrant visas to more than 11,000 people at risk from Iraq and Afghanistan in FY 2016 – an increase of over 4,000 from FY 2015.”....

Damn you are stupid!!

Fact: Obama was born in Hawaii!

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/trump-on-birtherism-wrong-and-wrong/

http://www.politifact.com/subjects/obama-birth-certificate/

Fact; Hillary did not start the Obama birther conspiracy!

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/16/donald-trump/fact-checking-donald-trumps-claim-hillary-clinton-/

Fact: Trump admits Obama was born in USA !

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/16/trump-admits-obama-was-born-in-u-s-but-falsely-blames-clinton-for-starting-rumors/

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-obama-was-born-united-states-n649501

So Chamo is calling Trump a liar!

Such a gentlemen...ICE finally has approval to do their job and look at the results...

I read an article the other day that claimed more Mexicans are going home on their own rather than worry about being arrested... Best thing they can do, go home and make their country safe again for them..

I suspect people, like us, really want to surround and be a part of their own culture and family etc...

They have better opportunity than they used to given the companies that went there too..