Now, we find it in the trump budget...


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-budget-border-wall_us_58ca1d43e4b0ec9d29d8acab?

Trump Budget Makes It Official: You’re Paying For The Wall, Not Mexico


One of the central themes of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign was to not only build a border wall, but to make Mexico pay for it. The claim didn’t just become an applause line for Trump on the campaign trail, it was a call-and-response rallying cry.

But the Trump budget proposals revealed late Wednesday include $4.1 billion for the wall. Reuters reported that Trump was asking for $1.5 billion for the current fiscal year and another $2.6 billion for the 2018 budget year, which begins Oct. 1.

The money will come from U.S. taxpayers and not Mexico, which has made it clear that it’s not paying for the wall.

Earlier this year, Trump backed off his campaign promise and admitted that Americans would end up footing the bill, but claimed Mexico would “reimburse us for the cost of the wall.”

A report from the Department of Homeland Security estimated that the cost of the wall would be far higher than what Trump had promised on the campaign trail. Trump has said the wall would cost $12 billion, but Homeland Security estimated it would cost $21.6 billion and take three years to construct.

NEW NSA CHIEF, McMASTER, BREAKS WITH TRUMP ON “RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM”

By Kelleigh Nelson ~ February 27, 2017 ~ NewsWithViews.com

Europe is no longer Europe, it is Eurabia, a colony of Islam, where the Islamic invasion does not proceed only in a physical sense, but also in a mental and cultural sense. There are moments in Life when keeping silent becomes a fault, and speaking an obligation. A civic duty, a moral challenge, a categorical imperative from which we cannot escape. —Journalist Oriana Fallaci

The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world. —Mahmoud Ahmadinejah, President of Iran

The very title of this article should worry all of us. The newly appointed National Security Adviser thinks the term, “radical Islamic terrorism” is not beneficial because terrorists are “un-Islamic.”

Peter R. Mansoor, a retired Army colonel who served with McMaster in Iraq during the 2007 surge of U.S. troops, said earlier that McMaster “absolutely does not view Islam as the enemy. So, I think he will present a degree of pushback against the theories being propounded in the White House that this is a clash of civilizations and needs to be treated as such.”

“McMaster, like (President) Obama, is someone who was in positions of leadership and thought the United states should not play into the jihadist propaganda that this is a religious war,” William McCants, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told The Times.

President Trump repeatedly slammed President Obama and Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for avoiding explicitly saying "radical Islamic terrorism." Trump argued that not identifying enemies hinders the fight against terror, while Democrats argue that such words unfairly link Islam with terrorism.

Trump was right, and so was General Flynn. So, who vetted McMaster, and who is advising our President, and it’s even more worrisome that Senator McCain is thrilled with Trump’s latest choice.

McCain Lauds McMaster For NSA

When Trump selected General H.R. McMaster to be his National Security Advisor, most folks breathed a sigh of relief that CFR member, John Bolton wasn’t chosen, but that relief may have been premature.

General McMaster, like his supporters, Senator McCain, and Moscow born, Max Boot, the Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow in National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, are all members of the CFR.

Sen. McCain, who in Munich, stated his not-so-subtle attacks on Trump for not being harder on Russia, said that, “McMaster knows how to succeed. I give President Trump great credit for this decision, as well as his national security cabinet choices. I could not imagine a better, more capable national security team than the one we have right now.”

Max Boot stated much the same thing, “H.R. McMaster is one of the most impressive army officers of his generation—a rare combination of soldier and scholar,” said Max Boot, in an email to The Daily Beast. “But not even the most talented individual will succeed in that job as long as Bannon and Kushner continue to run their own foreign policies.”

Apparently, McMaster is not the man to guide President Trump toward better relations with Russia and less US interference in the internal affairs of other nations, as was former NSA Chief, General Michael Flynn.

In a speech delivered at the Center for Strategic and International Studies just last May, Gen. McMaster blamed the lack of sufficient US military presence overseas for what he calls a more aggressive Russian geostrategic posturing. Take note of what the General said:

Even though it may have been apparent, at least since 2008, that Russia was changing its geostrategic behavior and engaging in…probing, probing at the far reaches of American power, our strategic response was to accelerate our withdrawal of…army forces from Europe. And what we’re seeing now is we’ve awakened to obviously this threat from Russia who is waging limited war for limited objectives. Annexing Crimea. Invading Ukraine. At zero cost. And consolidating gains over that territory, and portraying the reaction by us and partners as escalatory. … What is required is forward deterrence. To be able to ratchet up the cost at the frontier.

The General also made the completely fallacious assertion that Russia invaded Georgia in 2008. Even the overtly anti-Russia European Union concluded that Georgia was to blame for launching an ill-advised attack on Russian peacekeeping forces that were part of an international mission in South Ossetia.

This certainly doesn’t sound like someone who is going to work to help our President improve relations with Russia. In fact, McMaster is a hawk and is all about conflict with Russia. Is it any wonder that the likes of Max Boot and John McCain are thrilled with Trump’s new NSA Chief?

McCain’s Long Feud with Trump

The Bezos owned The Washington Post reported that Trump had stated, “McCain is no war hero,” but they misled the people by misstating what Trump had actually said, as clarified by Sharyl Attkisson. Nothing new here, misquotes and lies are a common thread of media since the 1964 NYTs v. Sullivan Supreme Court decision allowing media to lie with impunity. And this is the reality of what Trump calls, “fake news.”

Remember too that in September of 2016, Trump endorsed John McCain for re-election and said nice things about him.

So, what’s with the Senator from Arizona?

The Real John McCain

He served our country, and we do not know what he went through as a POW, so we honor him for his service.

However, the truth of the matter is that despite McCain’s military service, he has never been a man of or for the American people, and the “R” he wears behind his name more often than not comes across as a “D.”

In fact, last October, this alleged Republican stated that he would not be voting for Donald Trump, the nominee from his own party! So, who did he vote for…Hillary?

Trump did state that McCain graduated at the bottom of his class, and he was right. Even McCain alluded to his academic record during a commencement speech in 1997 when he stated, “This is quite an unexpected honor for a Naval Academy midshipman who graduated fifth from the bottom in the Class of ’58.” He actually graduated 790th out of 795 students.

There are countless stories on the web of McCain’s actual service and his actual imprisonment by the Vietcong, but there is one by Philip Giraldi that elucidates truth. He tells of Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Sydney Schanberg, who was intrigued by the Vietnam POW issue, and began pursuing the McCain story in the late 1980s.

Schanberg makes two key points: first that a number of American prisoners of war were left behind in Indochina in 1973 with the connivance of top levels in the U.S. government (See Henry Kissinger, Soviet Agent), and second that John McCain has worked assiduously to obstruct any efforts to open Pentagon files and follow up on leads to determine the status of the POWs and the “missing in action.”

John McCain is still a powerful voice in the Senate consistently advocating policies calling for the United States to use military force around the world. More troubling perhaps, McCain has consistently and irrationally advocated an undeviating hard line against Russia, the only country with the military capability to confront and destroy much of the United States through its nuclear armed ballistic missile forces. Perhaps this is why he is so enamored with General McMaster, and why he so hated General Flynn.

McCain’s Voting Record

Conservative Review grants McCain an “F” with a 48 percent rating, calling out McCain for an extensive 32-year entrenchment in Washington. CR Editor, Gaston Mooney, said, “McCain’s consistent support for gun control, cap and trade, amnesty, and tax increases have put him at odds with just about every coalition inside the Republican Party. McCain pandered to the right in 2008, and he did it again to be re-elected in 2016.

“There are few Republicans who have betrayed our conservative principles more than John McCain,” read the Senate Conservatives Fund letter. “McCain lost his way a long time ago.”

The Senator has also been criticized for his part in the “Gang of Eight” immigration reform and his support for amnesty, his vote for the taxpayer funded “Wall Street” bailout, his vote to fund implementation of Obamacareand criticism of efforts to halt that funding, opposition to a $1.3 trillion tax cut, support for a $600 billion tax hike, repeated votes to raise the debt limit and voting against term limits.

Mincing no words, the Senate Conservatives’ letter refers to McCain as “one of the most anti-conservative RINOs in the Senate.”

McCain’s Munich Conference Comments

What kind of American is John McCain? He’s certainly not one who represents the Constitution he took an oath to uphold.

McCain apparently had no problem bashing our President in foreign countries recently. Why didn’t McCain honor the tradition of standing for America in foreign countries? He has embarrassed our nation, and himself, just as Obama did over and over again.

Here is the transcript of McCain’s speech in Munich. Without mentioning President Trump even once, he ridiculed and slammed his policies, his presidency, and his abilities. In doing so, McCain also slammed every American who voted for Trump and wants his policies to succeed.

But what I found the most telling was his comment, “I refuse to accept the demise of our world order.” He actually mentioned “world order” five times in his short Munich speech. What world order John? The New World Order you’ve been pushing since you took office in 1987?

The Senator even stated that VP Pence, and Generals Kelly and Mattis, all disagree with Trump’s stances and policies and have also voiced those opinions at the Munich Conference.

The Senator’s latest attacks on our President are unconscionable and absolutely bordering on sedition.

McCain On Meet The Press

On Sunday, during an interview with Chuck Todd, the senator again talked about the “new world order” established after World War II, and how he is fearful it is under assault from a variety of forces. (Does this remind you of George H.W. Bush’s 1991 NWO speech?)

He also claimed to be worried about presidential advisor Steve Bannon’s role on the National Security Council. Then he attacked Trump by saying, “A free press is vital and suppressing a free press is “how dictators get started.”

His comments were ridiculous. My friend Vin Sabella said this:

First, he claimed that the president was destroying freedom of the press. Then he said that’s what all dictators do to gain power. Then he said he didn’t mean that Trump was trying to be a dictator.

And, if that’s true, Senator, why did you bring up the fact that you thought Trump was muzzling the press and say that that is what dictators do in the same breath? I think the answer is obvious. You wanted to call Trump a potential dictator and be able to weasel your way out of having done so if you were called on it.

As Rand Paul said, McCain is deliberately blowing Trump’s criticism of the press out of proportion. Every president has criticized the press throughout history. But, as Paul says, there is a big difference between criticizing the press and passing a law or issuing an executive order to suppress the press. Trump has obviously done neither.

MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski, (daughter of Zbignew Brzezinski) recently made it clear that she believes it is the media’s job to control what people think. Really Mika? One need only watch Chris Cuomo or Van Jones to understand their propaganda and socialist/communist allegiances.

Bannon’s NSC Status

The question arises, could we lose another valuable man in the National Security Council? Fox News reported the following:

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Tuesday that if President Donald Trump’s newly appointed national security adviser wanted to remove chief strategist Steve Bannon from the National Security Council’s principals committee, the president would “take that under serious consideration.”

“The president has made clear to him he’s got full authority to structure the national security team the way he wants,” Spicer said of Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, whom Trump appointed last Monday as his new NSA chief. Spicer made the remarks in the daily White House press briefing.

Does this worry me? You bet it does. Bannon is one of the most trusted insiders and as such, he should remain exactly where he is for our President.

Conclusion

Donald J. Trump is in new waters, and he is learning as he goes. He wants to keep his promises to the American people. He’s the boss, and his employees should follow his lead.Conclusion

Our President has a huge job, and he is wrestling against the rulers of the darkness of this world, and against spiritual wickedness in high places. Pray for him, and pray for our country.

[P.S. In order to wake up the population, we need to reach more people. Please use this material, and call into talk radio programs (like Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh etc.) and mention NewsWithViews.com on the air while discussing the content of this article, write letters to newspaper editors, and speak to your friends. Spread the word, and in doing so, we have a chance to save America.]

http://www.newswithviews.com/Nelson/kelleigh397.htm

AUSTIN, Texas — American Enterprise Institute scholar Charles Murray- who is an educational advisor to Republican governor candidate Greg Abbott, told an audience at the University of Texas this week that there is no “evidence” showing that any woman has ever been a “significant original thinker.” He then said the reason for this was the smaller size of the female brain.

“When you compare the size of a man’s brain with that of a woman, there’s no comparison,” explained Murray. “It’s not that I have anything against women. They’re nice enough, but it’s just a physical fact that their brains have developed to the same degree that men’s brains have developed.”


“I’m not a doctor,” he added, “but it may have something to do with their need to develop breasts. The human body can’t do everything.”

His comments came as he was defending his assertions in a 2005 paper that women have not played significant roles in the field of philosophy. He argued that he could only recall a single female philosopher, “and she was not a significant thinker in the estimation of historians of philosophy. Until somebody gives me evidence to the contrary, I’ll stick with that statement.”

Murray went on to blame what he called the less-impressive female brain for women making less money than men. He argued that equal pay laws would hurt women because, “You don’t pay the same at the pump for regular and supreme,” he said. “Why would you expect to pay the same for the work of a less-developed intellect?”

Asked by reporters if he agreed with his advisor’s views, Abbott, who is running for governor against Texas State Senator Wendy Davis, stuck with his man. “Charles is a smart guy,” he said. “If he says women are inferior than men, who are we to argue?”

http://politicalo.com/texas-republican-candidate-for-governor-claims-women-have-smaller-brains/

I posted this one because I thought it funny and soooooo typically conservative...

The Time Has Come For 51

John Steinreich ~ Feb 11, 2017 ~ American Thinker

After nearly three decades in L.A. County, Nestlé will soon move its headquarters from California to Virginia. This food services giant with an estimated $235 billion in assets worldwide will by the end of 2018 remove 1,200 jobs from a state that relies heavily on income taxes to fund its massive public sector.

Nestlé's exodus follows other big employers, including Toyota, Campbell's Soup, Dunn-Edwards Paints, and eBay – which took with them tens of thousands of jobs – and mirrors the flight of mom-and-pop operations, entrepreneurs, families, and individuals who have ditched the once Golden State for places where the weather is less clement but the business and tax climate is welcoming. With Republicans, conservatives, and Reagan Democrats hightailing it out of high-priced California, the remaining statist majority has a voice that is progressively increasing in volume, and with it, the call for a "Calexit" secession from the Union grows louder. With some cynicism and a bit of righteous indignation, many Americans long to look westward to San Francisco, L.A., and Sacramento and wave goodbye and good riddance.

Because the values of California's popular majority are diametrically opposed to individual liberty, religious freedom, and the unimpeded pursuit of one's own personal happiness, the idea of an independent country being formed from the 31st state is attractive to both progressives and conservatives. The left would love to run a new socialist nation in North America, where it could tax brutally and spend wildly on transgender bathrooms, climate change initiatives, high-speed rail boondoggles, and a host of other agenda items championed by the purveyors of identity and environmental politics. The right would like to see California's 55 electoral votes, which give the Democratic presidential candidate a big head start every four years in the Electoral College, removed from the equation.

The clear problem concomitant with a successful Calexit would be the impact on at least four million Americans who showed up in November 2016 at the polling places across the state to cast a vote against the statist agenda promoted by the Democratic presidential candidate. Should California go full Confederate, and thereafter somehow achieve a permanent status as an independent nation-state, those millions of trapped American citizens would find themselves personae non gratae. A People's Republic of California led by a Jerry Brown or an Antonio Villaraigosa would most certainly tack even harder to the left than the state currently does. The California-Mexico border would surely be opened wide, prompting a spike in unfettered immigration by desperately poor people, drug dealers, and gang members to what is already a virtually lawless and out-of-control welfare state. Novel impositions would be levied on anything the new government could dream up to bilk. Entrepreneurship would be stifled, radical environmentalism would quash the effective use of natural resources, and hyper-sexualized secularism would be the cultural mainstream. It would be a woeful place for anyone valuing Judeo-Christian traditions, American history, religious freedom, and the Protestant work ethic who by misfortune could not migrate back to the United States.

For patriotic Californians who relish their constitutional liberties, Calexit would create an international barrier between them and their natural rights.

There is, fortunately, another option: the State of Jefferson.

The powers that be in Sacramento have increasingly impaired the ability of the state's rural residents to benefit from their regions' water, timber, and mineral resources; saddled them with onerous taxes; and disregarded their petitions for an audience to air their grievances. As a result, some 21 Northern California counties, with a combined population of almost two million people, have developed a plan to exit California and apply to become the 51st state in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Article 4, Section 3. State of Jefferson advocates have been working diligently to get the attention of their legislators; sadly, their requests have gone unheard, as attested to at the 25:59 mark of this. Thus, while the left seeks to withdraw California from the U.S., the concerned citizens of the would-be State of Jefferson wish to emulate the words of the Declaration of Independence:

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Like our revolutionary forefathers who fought to leave Great Britain, the Jeffersonians are pursuing separation from California at least in part because they are not adequately represented in the statehouse. Between 1926 and 1964, California's rural areas enjoyed healthy representation in the legislature based on Proposition 28, which provided for a government model similar to the federal government's construction. There was roughly one state senator for each county (with only the most sparsely populated counties sharing a senator), while the assembly was seated largely with urban representatives, thus California's bicameral legislature had checks and balances between country and city interests. With the 1964 Reynolds v. Sims case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the state legislative voting districts must represent roughly equal populations, thereby cementing the idea of "one person, one vote" set in motion by the 1962 Baker v. Carr and 1963 Gray v. Sanders cases. The Reynolds ruling opened the door for the neutralization of Proposition 28. The result: thirty-six percent of California's counties now have less than eight percent of the representation in the legislature.

Further diluting rural representation is the 1879 California State Constitution, which limits the legislature, irrespective of the massive growth of the state's population over time, to 40 state senators and 80 assembly-persons. The apportionment scheme endorsed by the SCOTUS, in a state with the bulk of its of nearly 40 million inhabitants stuffed mostly into urban corridors, means that the population centers in the coastal and southern regions have significantly more representation in the legislature than do the inland and northern regions, such that the 21 State of Jefferson counties have nine state representatives out of 120.

In 1983, the SCOTUS ignored the Reynolds decision and in Brown v. Thomson ruled in favor of legislatures apportioned geographically, citing the Wyoming legislature's finding that "the opportunity for oppression of the people of this state or any of them is greater if any county is deprived a representative in the legislature than if each is guaranteed at least one representative."

Brown v. Thomson thus provides case law to bolster the State of Jefferson's legal efforts to have their grievance related to lack of representation addressed.

California today is effectively a socialist democracy, with lopsided representation. This defies the republican tradition of the United States. If the legislature continues to ignore the state's rural quarters and persists in implementing policies that crush economic productivity, the Jeffersonians will only enjoy increased justification to sever ties with the state and do what Vermont, Maine, Kentucky, and West Virginia did in breaking away from New York, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Virginia, respectively, to join the Union as separate states. Thus, as they are wont to say in the fledgling State of Jefferson, the time has come for 51.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/the_time_has_come_for_51.html