Sometimes You Just Have To Wonder What Motivates People

In the 2016 Presidential Election, the third party candidates received about 4 percent of the votes. That is a combined total. Most estimates say that Jill Stein received about 1 percent of the vote. So why is Jill Stein demanding a recount? What does she have to gain?

Fox News posted an article today pointing out that Jill Stein’s call for a recount in several states has received twelve times more news coverage from ABC, NBC, and CBS than her campaign.

The article reports:

When Jill Stein was the Green Party’s candidate for U.S. president, the broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) only gave her 36 seconds of coverage. However, as soon as she launched a campaign to contest the presidential election and demand a recount of ballots in several key states, the evening news shows on ABC, CBS and NBC managed to find 7 minutes and 26 seconds of coverage for her in just four days.

On November 26’s NBC “Nightly News,” anchor Lester Holt began a story on the recount by implying that the election may not be over yet, “if you thought the presidential election was behind us, word came today from the Hillary Clinton campaign that it will back the state-wide election recount effort put on by third party candidate Jill Stein in three key battle ground states.”

So what is going on? We all remember how the media treated Donald Trump. We all remember that the media did not want Donald Trump elected or his policies to be put in place. Why? Because the news media and the Democrats have a working system that pays well and provides access. Donald Trump is a threat to that system. Any doubt that can be thrown into the election results can be used to de-legitimize the Trump Presidency and the Trump Administration. That is part of the story. But there is even more. Jill Stein ended her campaign with serious campaign debt. She has already raised more money for the recount than she did for her campaign. (It would be interesting to know where the recount money is coming from.) The excess money raised for the recount can be used to pay off her campaign debt. Hillary Clinton has signed on to the effort because it keeps her in the spotlight in the hopes of running again in 2020. That is the only way foreign governments will continue paying large amounts of money to hear Bill Clinton speak or donate large amounts to the Clinton Foundation. There is no chance that the election results will be overturned (and a strong possibility that voter fraud on the part of the Democrats in Wisconsin may be discovered–The Gateway Pundit).

Get out the popcorn–this is going to be interesting.

Would You Put This Man In A Leadership Position?

Yesterday The Daily Caller posted an article about Representative Keith Ellison, currently being considered to lead the Democratic Party. The article cites a number of articles written by Ellison while he was a law student at the University of Minnesota. He wrote the articles under the name of Keith E. Hakim.

In one article Representative Ellison wrote:

“Racism means conspiracy to subjugate and actual subjugation. That means planned social, economic, military, religious and political subjugation of whites. It cannot be intelligently argued that the Nation of Islam is doing this. In fact, blacks have no history of harming or subjecting whites as a class. On the other hand, whites have it written into their very Constitution that blacks shall be considered three-fifths of a person for purposes of taxation and representation of their white owners. Their Constitution also makes provisions for the return of runaway slaves. Their constitution is the bedrock of American law; it’s the best evidence of a white racist conspiracy to subjugate other peoples.”

Obviously, counting slaves as 3/5 a person was not the right thing to do. However, you need to look at that decision in its proper frame of reference. First of all, slavery was an accepted world-wide practice. Generally it was Muslims who captured the slaves and brought them to America. Muslims also enslaved white sailors taken from boats they captured. England and America were the countries that worked to end slavery. Slavery is still legal today in some Muslim countries. Second of all, the 3/5 provision was a result of the northern states fearing that if the slaves in the south were properly counted, the south would be over-represented in Congress. Ironically, had the 3/5 rule not been in place, it might have been much more difficult to make the small inroads against slavery that Congress made. Thirdly, that rule was superseded by the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865.The Constitution is not racist–in its time, it was the first document to declare that man had certain inalienable rights that came from God. For a law student, Representative Ellison sure has a jaded view of American history.
The article includes another excerpt from another article by Keith E. Hakim:

“Since no one but the WASP elite really appreciates affirmative action, I have a challenge for all fair-minded middle- and working-class white people: I will urge black people to abandon white-dominated, integration-oriented, give-away programs, if you urge white people to justly compensate black people for 250 years of slavery, 90 years of Jim Crow and 25 years of neo-Jim Crow.

The settlement could be a straight cash transfer for all the black exploitation. This means just compensation for all the labor hours put in by the slaves and just compensation for all the intellectual and artistic property ripped off by all the Elvis Presleys and Pat Boones. It means compensation for all the money ripped off through sharecropping and just compensation owing to all the black athletes of yesterday, such as Jack Jefferson and Joe Louis. It means back payment of the ‘black tax,’ which is the price hike that ghetto merchants and pawnbrokers charge black consumers.”

I have no problem going after the people who profited by exploitation–regardless of the race of the person exploited. However, most of the people walking around today had nothing to do with the complaints this man is making. I believe there have been successful lawsuits involving the intellectual and artistic property he mentions. Therefore it has been settled legally. As far as the ‘black tax’ referred to, wouldn’t it make sense to seek compensation from those merchants who are imposing the tax?

The sort of thinking represented in these articles does not bring people together and does not solve problems–it creates division and class envy. Is this the man you want leading the Democratic Party?

The Governor’s Race In North Carolina Continues

NC Civitas released the following on its website today:

RALEIGH – The Civitas Center for Law and Freedom (CLF) has filed a federal lawsuit requesting a restraining order against including ballots cast via same-day registration in the 2016 election, pending further investigation.

You can read the lawsuit that was filed in Eastern District federal court here.

You can read the complaint sent to the NC State Board of Elections here.

A press conference will be held later today to relay more details. Civitas President Francis De Luca will be available to the press for questions at that time. To arrange an interview, please contact Demi Dowdy at demi.dowdy@nccivitas.org or 919-747-8064.

Civitas President Francis De Luca said, “To count ballots without verification of same-day registration information discriminates by treating one class of voters differently from another. Furthermore, this calls into question the outcome of close elections such as the one we are still in the middle of in North Carolina. Legitimate voters should never have their votes cancelled by illegitimate voters. The State Board of Elections should examine every ballot cast via same-day registration to verify that every vote cast is genuine and legitimate.”

There are some serious questions about the validity of the election for governor in North Carolina. There are also questions about some of the ballots in other statewide offices. Same-day registration needs to end. There is sufficient time before an election to register. There are also various ways to register that make registration very easy.

I previously posted an article about specific instances of fraud in North Carolina during this election. Although the incidents I cited would not change the outcome, it is quite possible that those incidents are only the tip of the iceberg. We need to find a way to make our elections more secure. Voter ID might be a good start.

Counting Your Chickens Before They Hatch Can Be A Problem

The process of making Hillary Clinton President of the United States began in 2012. Unfortunately for the Democrats (and fortunately for America), it did not go entirely as planned. But the party leaders were convinced that 2016 would see a Democratic sweep of the White House and the Senate (and maybe even the House of Representatives). That part didn’t go as planned either. But the Democrats knew they had the media on their side (some pundits believe that in the past having the media was worth 10 percentage points in an election) and they began to make plans. One of the plans was the ‘nuclear option’ passed by the Senate in 2013, led by the efforts of Senator Harry Reid. The ‘nuclear option’ changed the way Presidential appointments are approved by the Senate.

Yesterday The Daily Caller posted a story explaining the irony of the situation.

The article reports:

In 2013, Sen. Reid and other Democrats pushed forward with a rule change dubbed the “nuclear option” to eliminate filibusters for all presidential nominations except Supreme Court justices. This means that a simple majority of 51 votes instead of 60 votes is necessary to confirm executive office appointments.

The Republicans are set to enter 2017 with at least 51 senators and can gain another seat with a likely win in the December senate run-off race in Louisiana.

So while Democratic National Committee interim chairwoman Donna Brazile has called for the senate to reject Trump’s nomination of Republican Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions as attorney general, Trump’s cabinet will get confirmed as long Republicans vote along party lines.

…Sen. Reid’s spokeswoman Kristen Orthman told The Washington Post, “Sen. Reid has no regrets on invoking the nuclear option because of Republicans’ unprecedented obstruction.” She added, “If Republicans want to go on record supporting radicals, that’s their decision and they will have to live with it.”

I find the last comment hilarious. Does anyone remember President Obama appointing Czars so that they did not have to be approved by Congress? Does anyone remember Van Jones?

I wasn’t overly impressed by President Obama’s White House Cabinet Choices, but I believe a President has the right to choose his Cabinet. Oddly enough, the ‘nuclear option’ should allow Donald Trump that privilege. One thing to be prepared for (it has already started) is that the media will attempt to label Donald Trump’s Cabinet choices as ‘radical.’ It has already begun. The Democrats do not have the power to vote down any Cabinet appointments, but they do have the power to work with the media to make the process very ugly. I suspect we will see a lot of that.

The North Carolina Governor’s Race Results May Take A While

Yesterday Legal Insurrection posted an article about the North Carolina Governor‘s race. There are some serious questions about voter fraud in a number of the statewide races.

The article reports:

A protest has been filed in Bladen County alleging that a handful of people may have improperly submitted hundreds of absentee ballots, while also getting paid for get-out-the-vote efforts by a community group funded by the N.C. Democratic Party.

According to the protest filed by McCrae Dowless, who won election as soil and water district supervisor, the handwriting on a number of ballots and the signatures of some mail-in absentee witnesses were similar. He said the questioned ballots seem to have been cast in favor of a straight ticket of candidates and also to vote for a man named Franklin Graham, who ran a write-in campaign for soil and water district supervisor.

A letter the Bladen County elections board wrote to the State Board of Elections, and attached to the complaint, raises the same concerns. While some ballots listed witnesses, few include the documentation that would be required if someone had also assisted the voters, according to the letter.

“These are not simply helpful individuals who have attempted to assist a large swath of Bladen County’s voters to cast their ballots,” Dowless wrote. “This is the shocking evidence resulting from a blatant scheme to try to impact the voting results of an entire county and perhaps even sway statewide and federal elections.”

Oddly enough, they might have gotten away with this if they hadn’t added the write-in candidate.

There was also a problem in Durham County:

Bethesda Ruritan Club had to shut down its polls for 90 minutes because the workers ran out of forms, causing people to miss out on voting. Electronic devices in the county malfunctioned, which meant poll workers had to hand out paper forms. These problems had Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens declare that the county “historically hasn’t figured out how to carry out an election properly.”

Officials didn’t count 90,000 early votes until late on Election Day, which caused the flip from McCrory to Cooper. This immediately raised eyebrows within the McCrory campaign with “the sudden emergence of over 90,000 votes.”

The State Bureau of Investigation has also opened an investigation “into whether crimes were committed in last spring’s primary election in Durham County.”

But now the Board of Elections will travel through the “counties to double check the results.” The officials hope to have an official count by November 29. But if they decide to do a recount it could take longer.

The voter ID law that had been in effect in the primary elections worked well and did not disenfranchise anyone. Unfortunately it was struck down by the courts–by Democratic-appointed judges (as other similary laws were upheld) because it was obvious that North Carolina would be a swing state. It would probably have prevented both of these problems.

Hang on to your seats–electing a governor of North Carolina may take a while.

Further Swamp Draining Needed

Yesterday Breitbart reported that Congressional Republicans are already meeting to block Donald Trump’s plans for his Presidency. Why are some Republicans getting ready to fight the Trump agenda? It is against the wishes of their major donors.

Let me mention just one issue. Illegal immigration would have been stopped long ago if Congress wanted to stop it. Why didn’t they? Illegal immigrants provide a cheap labor base for corporate types that hire them–corporate types join the American Chamber of Commerce and give money to Republicans. Illegal immigrants if naturalized are likely to vote Democratic, thus the Democrats have no desire to stop illegal immigration.

The article reports:

Top aides tell Breitbart News that certain members of the House Freedom Caucus are backing the Republican leadership’s agenda by supporting the re-election of House Speaker Paul Ryan, who has long championed globalist donor class policies, such as the uninhibited flow of cheap foreign goods and labor across international borders through expansionist immigration policies and unrestricted free trade.

“At a certain point, we’re going to have to change our group’s name from the ‘House Freedom Caucus’ to the ‘Paul Ryan Caucus,’” one senior aide to a member of the House Freedom Caucus told Breitbart.

The aide continued:

Many members of the Freedom Caucus never opposed Ryan’s positions on trade and immigration the way their constituents do. So they’re more than happy to ignore and cast aside the policies that got Trump elected in exchange for going along with the Ryan’s policies. They’d rather keep the status quo and march lockstep with Ryan than have to stir things up by electing someone who would fight for Trump’s mandate and fight to fulfill the wishes of the American people.

In a power struggle between Donald Trump and Paul Ryan, my money is on Donald Trump. Please follow the link to the entire article. It is very enlightening. It illustrates the battle between the political establishment and American voters.

What Does The Democratic Party Represent?

Politicians don’t always tell the truth, so sometimes it is hard to figure out exactly what each party stands for. One way to begin to make educated guesses is to look at the party platform and the choices for leaders within the party. It is very telling that Representative Keith Ellison from Minnesota is being considered to lead the Democratic Party. Fox News posted an article yesterday about some of Representative Ellison’s background and associations.

The article reports:

Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to Congress and a leading progressive among House Democrats, already has picked up the backing of both the Democratic Party’s left – with support from Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren – and its establishment, receiving endorsements from Senate leaders Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and retiring Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Ellison is firmly on the party’s left – he has a fax line in his office, but his website says they will not respond to faxes “for environmental reasons.” He backed Bernie Sanders during the primaries, even introducing him at the convention.

“Bernie sparked the beginning of a revolution y’all,” Ellison said at his address during the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. “Together we call for climate justice, racial justice, wage justice.”

Well, yeah, if that is the direction the Democrats choose to go.

In August 2011, Scott Johnson posted an article about Keith Ellison at Power Line Blog. Please follow the link to read the entire article, but here are a few highlights from Keith Ellison’s past:

Given the media’s disinclination to examine Ellison’s public record, or to get straight what little it has let come to the surface, we set out a Keith Ellison timeline and posted copies of some key articles as a companion to the Standard piece:

1987–Ellison enrolls in University of Minnesota Law School

1989–Ellison publishes the first of two articles in the University of Minnesota Daily under the alias “Keith Hakim.” In the first such article, Ellison speaks up for the Nation of Islam.

1990–Ellison participates in the sponsorship of the anti-Semitic speech by Kwame Ture given at the University of Minnesota Law School (“Zionism: Imperialism, White Supremacy or Both?”). Ellison rejects the appeal of Jewish law students to withdraw sponsorship of the lecture. Ellison graduates from University of Minnesota Law School.

1992–Ellison appears as speaker at demonstration against Minneapolis police with Vice Lords leader Sharif Willis following the murder of Officer Haaf by four Vice Lords gangsters in September.

1993–Ellison leads demonstration chanting “We don’t get no justice, you don’t get no peace” in support of Vice Lords defendant on trial for the murder of Officer Haaf. Ellison attends Gang Summit in Kansas City with Willis.

1995–Ellison supports Million Man March, appears at organizing rally with former Nation of Islam spokesman Khalid Muhammed at University of Minnesota. Ellison acts as local Nation of Islam leader in march at office of U.S. Attorney in Minneapolis protesting indictment of Qubilah Shabazz for conspiring to murder Louis Farrakhan. Ellison charges FBI with conspiring to murder Farrakhan. Ellison writes article under alias “Keith X Ellison” attacking Star Tribune for criticizing Louis Farrakhan.

1997–Ellison appears under alias “Keith Ellison-Muhammad” at Minnesota Initiative Against Racism hearing in support of Joanne Jackson. Ellison defends “the truth” of Jackson’s statement that “Jews are the most racist white people.”

1998–Ellison first runs for DFL endorsement for state representative. Ellison identifies himself as member of Nation of Islam in Insight News article on his candidacy. Ellison runs for endorsement under alias “Keith Ellison-Muhammad.”

2000–Ellison gives speech supporting Kathleen Soliah/Sara Jane Olson at National Lawyers Guild fundraiser. Demands Soliah/Olson’s release. Asks audience to recall time when “Qubilah Shabazz was prosecuted in retribution against Minister Farrakhan.” Speaks favorably of cop killers Mumia Abu-Jamal and Assata Shakur.

May 2006–Ellison writes letter to JCRC asserting involvement with Nation of Islam limited to 18 months supporting Million Man March.

August 2006–Ellison appears at unpublicizied fundraiser with CAIR executive director and Hamas supporter Nihad Awad among featured guests.

In case you have forgotten, CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Trial (the case dealt with a charity funding terrorists and revealed the Muslim Brotherhood’s plans for civilization jihad in America). I have posted many articles about the Holy Land Foundation Trial. If you are unfamiliar with the case and the trial, you can find those articles using the search feature at the top of this page.

Remember, this is the man that may become the leader of the Democratic Party. If he becomes the head of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), his election will be an affirmation of principles that are totally contrary to the principles of our Founding Fathers. Representative Ellison’s history and views do not represent the ideas and principles of most Americans. Electing him as the head of the DNC will insure the death of the party.

It is, however, noteworthy that a Bernie Sanders supporter may take over the leadership of the Democratic party rather than a Hillary Clinton supporter. I am also curious to find out exactly what climate justice, racial justice, and wage justice are. I believe in racial justice, but to me that means that all people are treated equally, regardless of race. Wage justice to me means that every person is paid what they are worth in the marketplace. It makes sense to me that a brain surgeon would make more than a sales person in a department store (although with commissions in some stores it might not work that way!). Climate justice I just don’t get. Does that mean that the Democrats think they can control the climate? Good grief!

One Of The Best Arguments For Voter Identification

Yesterday’s election did not go as many pundits expected. In North Carolina, there were some mixed results. There are also some questions about some of the results.

The Daily Haymaker posted an article today about some voter irregularities in Durham County, North Carolina. Yesterday I posted an article about the money poured into North Carolina by George Soros in order to prevent the voter ID law from being in place during the 2016 general election. We are probably seeing the results of that effort reflected in what happened in Durham County.

The Daily Haymaker reports:

Yesterday, Durham county had some “technical” glitches and got a court order extending voting hours.  They also –*Surprise!* — discovered 90,000 votes that had not been counted from early voting.

Holy Al Franken! (Yes, we’re citing the comedian turned US senator who won his seat mainly due to trunkloads of uncounted ballots mysteriously showing up after the polls closed.)

After all of that got added to the mix, a roughly 40,000 vote lead for Pat McCrory in the governor’s race turned into a 5000 vote lead for Roy Cooper.  Chuck Stuber’s lead in the auditor’s race turned into a 3000 vote deficit.  And Buck Newton’s 40,000 vote lead in the attorney general’s race turned into a 19,000 vote deficit.

You want all legitimately-cast votes counted.  But last-minute stuff like this tars the integrity of an election a lot like a last-second foul or penalty call spoils the integrity of a sporting event’s final score.

This sounds like Chicago in 1960.

Protecting Our Elections

The only real way to protect our elections is to elect people to office who will uphold the U.S. Constitution.  A recent incident in Virginia illustrates why that is important.

Breitbart posted an article yesterday about the recent actions of Virginia Governor Terry MacAuliffe.

The article reports:

Gov. Terry McAuliffe has illegally granted voting rights to 60,000 convicted felons in the key swing state of Virginia, a move that could give Hillary Clinton a victory in that state—and possibly the White House—unless supporters of Donald Trump get out to the polls on Election Day.

Like many states, the Virginia Constitution provides that if a person commits a felony, with their lawbreaking, they forfeit the right to vote for candidates who will make and enforce those laws. But it also grants the Virginia governor clemency power to pardon criminals and commute sentences, including the power to restore voting rights.

…Virginia lawmakers sued, and the Virginia Supreme Court held in Howell v. McAuliffe that the Clinton ally’s political move was an unprecedented power grab that previous governors of both parties had acknowledged was illegal.

Among other things, Virginia Chief Justice Donald Lemons wrote that “power could be exercised only in particular cases to named individuals for whom a specific grant of executive clemency is sought,” and only after an individualized assessment of the felon’s case and character.

There are a few interesting aspects of this story. Statistically convicted felons vote Democrat. Why? Also, I understand that this is a hard-fought campaign, but this is disgusting. How many of these convicted felons will be contacted and paid money for their votes? Why did the Virginia courts refuse to uphold the law?

It really is time to drain the swamp. The Clinton crime syndicate needs to go. The American voters are responsible for the character and morality of their leaders. Politicians who put party above the good of the nation need to be voted out of office.

What Do You Want Washington To Do With ObamaCare?

Drastic premium increases are coming this year in ObamaCare. Scott Johnson at Power Line posted a story today about those increases. The article included this picture of a sign on a Minnesota VW:

healthinsurancepremiumsThe article points out:

Obamacare premium rate hikes have hit big time in Minnesota, which has gone all in on Obamacare courtesy of Governor Mark Dayton. Governor Dayton professes himself shocked that the Affordable Care Act is “no longer affordable.” Thanks, guy. Gee, who could have seen it coming?

Dayton is trying to create some distance between Democrats standing for election to the legislature and the unfolding catastrophe of Obamacare. He must think we’re really, really stupid and, like President Obama, he’s got the electoral success to prove it.

The answer to the healthcare insurance problem is a free market system that operates with minimum interference from the government. Government regulation tends to skew the market, making health insurance more expensive by impacting competition, and creating a situation where companies will withdraw from the market. That is part of the problem with ObamaCare. There needs to be enough regulation to ensure that everyone can get insurance, but not enough to skew the market. Insurance companies use actuary tables to calculate rates. When the government got involved in health insurance, they had no knowledge of how these tables worked. Therefore, they managed to ruin a health insurance system that was working for most Americans. The Democrats who voted for ObamaCare (there were no Republican votes for ObamaCare) have managed to ruin healthcare for a majority of Americans. If you want full government healthcare, vote Democrat, but before you do that you might want to look at the wait times for medical care in the United Kingdom, which has government healthcare. If you want healthcare to be a private enterprise that actually works, vote Republican. It is that simple.

 

This Isn’t Really A Surprise

How many promises that were made so that ObamaCare would pass Congress have been broken? Do you remember that not one Republican voted for ObamaCare and that the certification of the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts was delayed long enough so that he would not be seated in time to vote against ObamaCare? Do you remember Nancy Pelosi saying, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it away from the fog of the controversy?” Was it a fog of controversy or a fog of deception? Right now it looks as if it might have been a fog of deception. Remember, “If you like your plan, you can keep it?” Remember, “If you like your doctor, you can keep him?” How is that working for you?

CBS New York posted a story yesterday about the upcoming rise in ObamaCare premiums.

The story reports:

The Department of Health and Human Services revealed Monday that premiums for a midlevel benchmark plan will increase an average of 25 percent across the 39 states served by the federally run online market, and that about 1 in 5 consumers will have plans only from a single insurer to pick from, after major national carriers such as UnitedHealth Group, Humana and Aetna scaled back their roles.

However, in Arizona, unsubsidized premiums for a hypothetical 27-year-old buying a benchmark “second-lowest cost silver plan” will jump by 116 percent, from $196 to $422, according to the administration report.

The Obama Administration claims that along with these increases in premiums there will be increases in the subsidies paid to Americans buying health insurance. Who pays the subsidies? The subsidies are paid for by taxpaying Americans (most of whom are not eligible for the subsidies). This plan essentially uses the cover of health insurance to redistribute wealth. It takes money away from the working middle class and gives it to the underclasses, insuring future votes from the underclass who don’t want the free ride to end.

ObamaCare was designed to fail. The eventual goal is government healthcare–where the government controls who receives treatment and what treatment they receive. It it important to note that many Canadians come to America for surgery to avoid their own government healthcare. That should tell us all we need to know about the quality of government healthcare.

A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for government healthcare. It is also a vote for higher taxes on people who work for a living. It is also a vote for limits on free speech and limits on gun ownership. That is the world she represents.

 

I Guess I Am More Than A Little Naive

The following story was posted at DaTechGuyBlog on October 14th:

This is exactly what happened:

Yesterday afternoon in sunny and hot Miami my friend answered the doorbell. I kept an eye from the window.

An average-sized man in his thirties, wearing a pink polo shirt and khakis, holding a clipboard, immediately said hello in Spanish, and asked her if she was [her name], registered at that address. She said yes.

At that point I moved closer to the entrance but he could not see me. I could hear the conversation very clearly. The entire conversation was in Spanish. He spoke very clear, native-speaker quality Spanish.

The man did not identify himself nor did he declare any affiliation with any political party or committee, polling organization, or business of any kind.

He handed her a cell phone with questions that he claimed were “on the issues affecting our community”, but the list of five questions in English were all negative statements about Donald Trump, “I do not like how he treats women,” “I do not like his stance of immigration,” among them. The statements were in large enough bold print she could read them without her reading glasses. He asked her to check the ones she agreed with.

Her reply was that she does not answer political questions, and gave him back the phone. She had to repeat this a couple of times, until the guy finally realized he was getting nowhere.

He then asked her if she would prefer that no further polls be conducted at her house. She said yes.

The man, still speaking Spanish, pulled a sheet of paper from his clipboard and asked her to fill in a form, telling her that, if she signed that form, she would not be approached again with any polls.

My friend was not wearing her reading glasses so she took the form indoors. I went to the door (this is the first time he saw me), excused myself and locked the door.

I did not stop long enough to see whether the man carried or wore any ID tags or anything showing any affiliation. None were apparent at first glance. I just wasn’t going to leave an unlocked door unattended.

I looked at the paper my friend was holding. It had three copies on one page of a form saying, in English,

I PLEDGE TO VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON,

followed by some more text in English, and three lines for the respondent to fill in their name and address.

Again, I repeat, the entire conversation was in Spanish.

But the form was in English. Only in English, with no Spanish translation anywhere.

I read it to her aloud, returned it to her and she opened the door, gave back the form to the man, and told him she did not appreciate being mislead. He asked her what she meant, and she told him that the form was a pledge to Hillary, not a do-not-call request.

He had the nerve to ask her why wouldn’t she pledge to Hillary, to which she curtly replied that she would not pledge for any political candidate since her vote is private. “Even for the best candidate?” he asked. She again said, “my vote is private.”

At this point, the guy thanked her, said good-bye and left.

I don’t know – and certainly I’m not about to ask – who she’s voting for, but Hillary did not make any friends there yesterday.

Parting questions: If there’s no intention to deceive, why no translation on the form? Why no disclosure of who he works for? Who is behind that survey?

To be very honest, this entire event would have gone entirely over my head, but DaTechGuy is considerably more savvy about these things than I am. His closing comment:

UPDATE DTG: I just read this piece and I don’t think Fausta gets what’s going on here. The reason for the form is obvious and that reason is fraud.

  1. Step 1: Go door to door in the spanish community for the purpose of getting signatures on a form pledging the non english reading voters for Hillary Clinton with the name and address and an authentic signature
  2. Step 2: Submit absentee ballots in the name of the above person for Hillary Clinton.

If the voter doesn’t show at the polls, perfect, they’re absentee ballot is counted for Hillary no questions asked.

If they show up the vote and attempt to vote causing said ballot to be questioned for any reason the signature sheet is produced.

This is actual fraud straight up and every person in that neighborhood is being targeted, and you can bet if it’s done at your friends house it’s being done everywhere else.

Fausta your friend needs to call the Florida AG and the local media STAT.

Wow.

Pardon The Language, But This Is Important

President Obama has been heavily involved in the Presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. The videos leaked by Project Veritas are letting Americans know how involved. Yesterday The Daily Caller posted an article that included one of the Project Veritas videos.

Here are some of the highlights from the video:

Hidden camera video from activist James O’Keefe showed Creamer bragging that his role within the Clinton campaign was to oversee the work of Americans United for Change, a non-profit organization that sent activists to Trump rallies.

Scott Foval, the national field director for Americans United for Change, explained how the scheme works.

“The [Clinton] campaign pays DNC, DNC pays Democracy Partners, Democracy Partners pays the Foval Group, The Foval Group goes and executes the s**t,” Foval told an undercover journalist.

One example of the “s**t” Foval executes was an instance in which a 69-year-old woman garnered headlines after claiming to be assaulted at a Trump rally.

“She was one of our activists,” Foval said.

Creamer’s job was to “manage” the work carried out by Foval.

“And the Democratic Party apparatus and the people from the campaign, the Clinton campaign and my role with the campaign, is to manage all that,” Creamer told an undercover journalist.

“Wherever Trump and Pence are gonna be we have events,” he said.

The article also notes:

Robert Creamer, who acted as a middle man between the Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee and “protesters” who tried — and succeeded — to provoke violence at Trump rallies met with President Obama during 47 of those 342 visits, according to White House records. Creamer’s last visit was in June 2016.

Can we please get these slimeballs out of Washington!

Telling The Truth Can Be Hazardous To Your Job

On Friday The New York Post posted a story about calls for the resignation of Manhattan Board of Elections Commissioner Alan Schulkin. Commissioner Schulkin made the mistake of speaking truthfully to an undercover reporter for James O’Keefe‘s Project Veritas.

The article reports the Commissioner’s remarks:

“Certain neighborhoods in particular, they bus people around to vote,” he says on the tape. “They put them in a bus and go poll site to poll site.” Asked if he meant black and Hispanic neighborhoods, he nods: “Yeah, and Chinese, too.”

…“You know, I don’t think it’s too much to ask somebody to show some kind of an ID,” he says. “You go into a building, you have to show them your ID.”

And: “People think [opposing voter-ID laws is] a liberal thing to do, but I take my vote seriously, and I don’t want 10 other people coming in negating my vote by voting for the other candidate when they aren’t even registered voters.”

The article concludes:

A guy whose job involves trying to keep elections clean vents at a party about what he sees as a threat to clean elections. How is this a firing offense?

City Democrats would be wise to just laugh the whole thing off. After all, if they take away Alan Schulkin’s job now, lots of people will conclude he was punished for telling the truth.

Honesty used to be an asset in an employee. I guess if you work for the City of New York it might not be.

Exactly Who Is Inciting Violence?

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article yesterday about the bombing of the Republican Party headquarters in Orange County, North Carolina.

These are some pictures from the article

bombingrncncbombingrncnc1The article concludes:

The firebombing probably was not committed by marginal, uneducated people. Orange County is the wealthiest county in North Carolina. It is heavily Democratic, with Democrats and independents outnumbering Republicans 5-1. The county is home to the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, and Duke University is just outside the county’s boundary. So left-wing students or professors could have been involved.

Democrats perpetrate this sort of violence in every election cycle. They should be caught and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

This sort of activity by either political party is disgraceful. I don’t know why the people who did this felt it was necessary, but hopefully they will have plenty of time in jail to think about what they did.

I just want to add a few comments to this. As a blogger, I am personally invested in the concept of free speech. I was more than a little disappointed when President Obama turned over the administration of the Internet to a group of people who do not respect free speech. I am one of the people who was audited by the Lois Lerner IRS, so I understand how the government can discourage free speech. As you prepare to vote in the upcoming Presidential election, I can assure you of one thing. A vote for Hillary Clinton for President is a vote to curtail free speech (and Second Amendment rights) in America. The leaked emails show her plans for the future of this country. You may believe that the limiting of free speech will not impact you because you are in agreement with the Clinton/Obama policies, but I can assure you that eventually your freedom of speech and other freedoms will be limited under a Hillary Clinton presidency. This election is about the Constitution–it is not about Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Please vote accordingly.

Is Anyone Reading The E-Mails?

On Thursday, wattsupwiththat posted a story one subject found in the emails that we haven’t heard a lot about. The subject is a carbon-tax (which Hillary supports). Just for the record, a carbon tax would be devastating to the American economy, but might make a few well-connected people in Washington very rich. In 2010, I posted an article about the closing of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX).

I quoted the National Review:

“The CCX seemed to have a lock on success. Not only was a young Barack Obama a board member of the Joyce Foundation that funded the fledgling CCX, but over the years it attracted such big name climate investors as Goldman Sachs and Al Gore’s Generation Investment Management.”

“CCX’s panicked original investors bailed out this spring, unloading the dog and its across-the-pond cousin, the European Climate Exchange (ECX), for $600 million to the New York Stock Exchange-traded Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) – an electronic futures and derivatives platform based in Atlanta and London. (Luckier than the CCX, the ECX continues to exist thanks to the mandatory carbon caps of the Kyoto Protocol.)

“The ECX may soon follow the CCX into oblivion, however – the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. No new international treaty is anywhere in sight.”

Please follow the link to wattsupwiththat to read the recently released email dealing with Hillary Clinton’s stand on creating a carbon tax. It is very obvious that ‘climate change’ is strictly a political issue.

The article makes the following comment about the email:

In case you’ve been under a rock for the last few days, Wikileaks has been dumping emails from Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta. Podesta is firmly in bed with the anti-American interests over at the antithetically named named “Center for American Progress”, home of climate flamer Joe Romm, an organization with yearly funding of over 30 million dollars at last count. I’ve been looking at a few of the emails that talk about climate, and I just had to share this one because it represents so clearly the differences between public and private pronouncements that’s been talked about lately.

This email and the others that have been released show a mainstream media that has truly deceived the American people. It is our choice whether or not we will continue to be deceived. It is time to clean house in Washington. We have reached a level of corruption that is a serious threat to our freedom.

 

 

What About First Amendment Laws?

This is the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There is nothing here about separation of church and state–that concept was based on a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in1802. He was reiterating the fact that the government of America was not going to establish a national religion. He was assuring the group that they would be free to practice their religion and live their lives accordingly.

Fast forward to Hillary Clinton, speaking at the Women in the World Summit on April 23, 2015:

In case you missed it:

Far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth, and laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.

If you want religious freedom to continue in America, you cannot support Hillary Clinton. Just for the record, pregnancy care is available to all women in America and will continue to be so regardless of who wins this election. Abortion is a million dollar industry that pours millions into Democratic campaign coffers. That is the reason so many Democrats support it. Abortion needs to be legal when the heath of the mother is threatened by pregnancy, but it should be done in hospitals under medical supervision–it should not be a million dollar industry. If you are not familiar with the percentage of minority children killed in abortion vs. the percentage of while children killed in abortion, please look up the numbers. Also look up the beliefs of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, and her comments about race.

How To Lie Effectively With Statistics

Many of the media polls tell us that this election will be a landslide for Hillary Clinton. When you consider the crowds Hillary is drawing vs. the crowds Donald Trump is drawing, that seems a little odd. But on the other hand, Bernie Sanders drew big crowds. Yes, but we found out later that the Democratic primary was rigged from the start. We don’t know what the result might have been in an honest primary (or how much voter fraud we will see in this election).

Conservative Treehouse posted a story today about how the mainstream media slants the polls. But before I get to that, I want to wander into the woods a little about why the mainstream media leans so far left. Somewhere during the 1950’s and 1960’s, a lot of our colleges hired people with left-leaning philosophies. I remember hearing at one point a comment that one college professor made that he thought it was his duty to separate his students from all of the moral, religious, political ideas and principles they had grown up with. Supposedly that was going to turn them into free thinkers. I think all that it actually did was take away their moral foundation and convince them to become sheep. That is a far cry from where where we started–Harvard University began as a place to train pastors for the early New England settlers so that they didn’t have to depend on England to fill the pulpits in the new land. At the same time our colleges were leaning left, Christians were being discouraged from finding jobs in ‘secular fields.’ Somehow the idea was introduced into our culture that Christianity belonged in church and was not supposed to be influential in the public square (I seem to remember something in the Bible about being salt that totally contradicts that idea). We have had liberal leanings in our colleges and our media for more than fifty years. Our culture and our children reflect that. The foundational values of America are no longer understood or practiced by a large portion of our population. We have lost our work ethic, our moral compass, our community standards of decency, and our unity. That is not an accident. It is the result of neglecting to teach our children the values we grew up with or having those values undermined by our educational system. It is going to take at least one generation to rediscover our moral compass if that is at all possible. Just for the record–the rediscovery of our moral compass will not be a result of this or any other election–it will be the result of individual people taking the responsibility to teaching their children the basic values that made America great.

Meanwhile, please go to Conservative Treehouse to see how you are being manipulated by fake poll numbers. It is a rather long and complex article, but it really explains a lot. All you have to do to skew a poll is skew the sample, and that is what is being done.

This is the conclusion from the Conservative Treehouse article:

♦ $220,500.00 in the month of September alone paid by Hillary Clinton’s Priorities USA Super-PAC to Hart Research Associates.

♦ The President of Hart Research Associates, Geoff Garin, is working for Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

♦ NBC (S Burke) and The WSJ (Murdoch) contact Geoff Garin (Hart Research Associates) for the post-debate poll data they will use on the day following the debate.

♦ Hart Research Associates provides a small national poll sample (500) result, with skewed party internals, showing Hillary Clinton +11 points.

Do you see now how “media polling” works, and why we advise to ignore it?

That’s how the game is played.

What Would Be The Result Of This Goal?

On September 13th, The Daily Signal posted an article about one of the goals of the current Democratic Party. This explains one of the reasons this coming election is so important.

The article reports:

Sen. Chuck Schumer has reminded us just how important the upcoming presidential election will be in shaping the federal judiciary, calling getting a progressive Supreme Court his “number one goal.”

So what would a progressive Supreme Court mean?

The article cites a few examples:

Schumer specifically criticized a 2013 decision involving a 5-4 decision about voting rights. In Shelby County v. Holder, the court held that Section 4 of the Voting Right Act, which set forth a 40-year-old coverage formula laying out which states needed to get preapproval from the federal government before making any changes in their voting laws, was unconstitutional.

The court explained that Congress “did not use the record it compiled to shape a coverage formula grounded in current conditions” and that the formula had “no logical relation to the present day.”

As Roll Call reported, Schumer “predicted that the Shelby County decision on voting rights would be overturned by a Supreme Court with the kind of progressive justices he would prioritize confirming as majority leader.”

A progressive Supreme Court would, therefore, be willing to infringe on states’ rights.

The article further reports:

The high court has been closely divided on a number of contentious issues in recent years: the Second Amendment (Heller, McDonald), religious liberty (Hobby Lobby, Town of Greece), the First Amendment (Citizens United), racial preferences (Fisher I), and the death penalty (Glossip), among others. One vote made the difference in each of these cases, which most consider as victories for the conservative wing of the court.

Our basic liberties are at stake. Are we going to follow the Constitution or are we going to become a banana republic? Consider this when you vote.

The Central Issue In The November Presidential Election

There are a lot of issues floating around the presidential election in November–globalism vs. nationalism, gun control vs. the Second Amendment, freedom of speech, religious freedom, etc., but there is one very subtle issue that really needs to be looked at carefully if you care about the future of America.

On Wednesday, the American Family Association (AFA) posted an article about a recent statement by Donald Trump about this election.

In August, The Washington Post reported:

Donald Trump, trailing narrowly in presidential polls, has issued a warning to worried Republican voters: The election will be “rigged” against him — and he could lose as a result.

Trump pointed to several court cases nationwide in which restrictive laws requiring voters to show identification have been thrown out. He said those decisions open the door to fraud in November.

“If the election is rigged, I would not be surprised,” he told The Washington Post in an interview Tuesday afternoon. “The voter ID situation has turned out to be a very unfair development. We may have people vote 10 times.”

The article was dismissive of the charges–not a surprise, considering the political bent of the newspaper, but we have seen clear evidence of voter fraud in the race between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, so the idea of voter fraud is not shocking.

The AFA article explains exactly how the system is rigged:

This makes two debates in the past week where the moderator’s biases have been clearly evident. The American people can’t even get a fair and balanced debate.  Why? Because the Left’s ideas don’t work and if there ever were to be a fair debate, this would become quite obvious.

We all remember the role Candy Crowley‘s misinformation played in the 2012 debate between Mitt Romney and President Obama. We can expect more of that sort of thing in the coming debates.

The AFA article further explains:

Over recent years, rogue federal judges have struck down voter I.D. laws in several key states. Laws aimed at preventing voter fraud have been partially or fully struck down in states like Texas, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin to name a few. Many of the judges claimed that the voter I.D. laws would have caused a decrease in turnout for minority voters, specifically blacks.

This should be an offense to the entire black community. A federal judge makes the assumption that minorities aren’t responsible enough to acquire a government issued identification card. If individuals have to show their I.D. when buying tobacco or when going to see an R rated movie, then why is it unjust to apply the same standard to something as important as voting?

I would like to note that the majority of the judges ruling against voter ID were appointed by Democrats.

So what am I saying? The system is definitely slanted against Republicans. If Hillary is elected, that will continue and she will probably add to the problem. Unless you want America to become a banana republic where one party rules and is above the law, you need to vote for Trump. I really don’t care what the man does or what he is accused of, he is the alternative to losing our freedom. If you believe that the Clintons are pure as the wind-driven snow and have never spoken or acted crudely, then you are the result of the slanted media I have been talking about. There are some serious things on the line here–the Second Amendment and the First Amendment (including religious freedom) being two of them. Your vote counts.

Look Where Our Taxpayer Money Went!

Remember TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program)? That was the program that was going to stop the recession and make sure unemployment stayed manageable. It did neither and eventually resulted in $426.4 billion of taxpayer money being invested to ‘purchase troubled assets.’

Gateway Pundit posted an article yesterday featuring some information posted by Guccifer2 that he has acquired through his computer hacking. Regardless of how you feel about computer hacking, this is information that should be available to the American public:

tarppaymentsThe third column in this chart is donations that companies who received TARP money made to various candidates and party committees. I really think we need a law that says any company or entity that receives government money should not be able to make campaign contributions. The amount of money spent on TARP should have been given to American taxpayers. I suspect that would have done a much better job of stimulating the economy.

Facts Are Very Inconvenient Things

There is a saying, “Truth is the first casualty of war.” I would like to add to that, “Truth is the first casualty of political campaigns.”

Breitbart posted an article yesterday dealing with how Tim Kaine has treated Israel in the past. Tim Kaine was one of the leaders in the boycott of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu‘s speech to Congress in March 2015.

The article reports:

Kaine claimed to be proud of the boycott at the time. “I’m not dumb, I knew not going to the speech might make some folks mad with me – there would be a political price, but I felt so strongly as a matter of principle that this was done in an entirely inappropriate way,” he told Forward, denouncing Netanyahu’s speech as “done purely to try and influence the Israeli elections and demonstrate American support for one person and one party.”

Kaine was particularly incensed by Netanyahu’s criticism of the Iran nuclear deal – the same deal he now claims Israel supports.

“Kaine worked behind the scenes to try to delay the speech, but when that failed, was among the first Democratic senators to announce that they would not attend the address,” the Times of Israel reported in July.

As a senator, Tim Kaine was certainly entitled to take any stands on any issue he chose to speak out on, but as voters, we are certainly entitled to examine those issues. Israel has been America’s best ally in the Middle East. It is the only place in the Middle East that is a democracy with freedom of worship for all religions. In the future, it will be the only thing standing between America and a nuclear-armed Iran. Hillary Clinton is not a supporter of Israel. No one who supports Israel would have signed the Iranian nuclear deal. There are also other indications that Hillary Clinton as President will not support Israel. Huma Abedin has strong family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood–she is not a supporter of Israel and will probably be Hillary’s Chief of Staff. It is a reasonably safe bet that the Democratic Party presidential ticket will not support Israel.

Some Thoughts On The Death Tax

The death tax is not designed to be a tax–it is designed to redistribute wealth. The money is taken from the people who earned it, goes to the government, and the government redistributes it to people who have not earned it. Another perspective might call it theft.

Yesterday Breitbart posted an article about the death tax. The article reported:

“It’s just wrong to work your whole life to build up a nest egg, build your own business–you pass away and Uncle Sam can swoop in and take away nearly half of everything you’ve earned,” because of the ‘Death Tax,’ said Rep. Kevin P. Brady (R.-Texas). “Can you imagine that? Having to sell off most of your land, just to keep it from the government, just to save the house,” he said.

“There are two new major threats to family-owned farms and businesses right now,” said Brady, who succeeded Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R.-Wis.) as the committee chairman when Ryan became the Speaker.

Number one is Hillary Clinton’s proposal to raise the death tax rate to 65 percent, which would be the highest rate since the 1980s,” he said. “At that point, you’re confiscating property and land and businesses,” he said.

“The other threat is the Obama administration’s Treasury Department rules that came put in August.” The new rules, called “valuation rules,” impose higher tax liabilities onto families trying to pass their businesses to family members, he said. It is as if the IRS decided to raise taxes on its own, he said.

The article explains the impact of the death tax in real terms:

Brady told Breitbart News he did not grow up in a wealthy family, so he did not understand the death tax and its impact until 1997, his first year in Congress. The moment came when a couple from his district came up to him and sketched out what the death tax had in store for them, their children and their nursery business.

The couple took out a piece of paper and sketched it out for him. “Just on a piece of paper, they wrote down how they had no debt, two or three kids were running the business and they basically showed me that if they could have enough money in life insurance and could go to the bank to borrow the money, they could keep their family business,” the chairman said.

The idea the family would have to exhaust its life insurance and then go into debt, just to keep its business going after paying off the death tax, he said, is “un-American, immoral and wrong.”

The money a family accumulates in a family business has already been taxed. That alone should preclude the government from taking any more of it! If nothing else, Hillary’s death tax will kill not only the family farm, but any successful family business.

Some Observations On The Presidential Debate Last Night

I think the interesting part of last night’s debate were the differences between what was discussed and what was not discussed. It is noteworthy that Hillary Clinton had to go back to a 1973 lawsuit to declare Donald Trump a racist. It has been reported that when Donald purchased his club in Palm Beach called Mar-a-Lago in 1985, he insisted on accepting Jews and blacks even though other clubs in Palm Beach to this day discriminate against blacks and Jews.

It was somehow overlooked that the birther charges in 2008 were closely aligned with those in the Clinton campaign. There was absolutely no reason to bring them up last night–they are totally irrelevant.

There was no discussion of how the foreign policy during the time Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State has thoroughly destabilized the Middle East.

There was no discussion of the fact that the press conference held by James Comey regarding Hillary Clinton’s emails clearly showed that she had been lying about her emails from the beginning and had carelessly handled classified information. James Comey chose not to pursue the case, but clearly presented the evidence.

Donald Trump was not active politically during the run-up to the Iraq War. Aside from the fact that the history of that war has been totally rewritten by the left, Hillary voted for the war–Donald made a few comments. It is noteworthy that there are videos of Donald Trump with Sean Hannity and Neil Cavuto showing opposition to the war. Somehow the moderator chose not to pay attention to that information.

The discussion of ‘stop and frisk’ was totally misleading. One judge declared it unconstitutional–the case was not appealed because New York City got a new mayor who did not support the policy. At that point the question was moot.

Just for the record, Hillary Clinton did support the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement.

The good economy during the 1990’s was composed of two bubbles–the tech bubble and the housing bubble. During his presidency, Bill Clinton accelerated the policies that ultimately led to the 2008 recession (see YouTube).

This was not a fair debate–the moderator and Hillary Clinton debated Donald Trump. That seems a little unfair to me. However, I am not sure the Clinton campaign got the results they wanted.

We Need To Listen To The People On The Front Lines

Lifezette is reporting today that the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Council has endorsed Donald Trump for President.

The article reports:

The National ICE Council, the union representing 5,000 federal immigration officers and law enforcement support staff, decided to endorse the GOP nominee after carefully considering the impact a Hillary Clinton presidency would have on their officers. Saying that Clinton has embraced the “unconstitutional executive orders” of President Barack Obama, Chris Crane, president of the National ICE Council, said in a statement that these orders “have forced our officers to violate their oaths to uphold the law and placed every person living in America at risk — including increased risk of terrorism.”

According to the article, this is the first time the National ICE Council has endorsed a candidate in a national election. This is important. We need to listen to these people as they are on the front lines of our fight against domestic terrorism.

The article reports the following statement by Chris Crane, president of the National ICE Council:

“Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has promised the most radical immigration agenda proposal in U.S. history,” Crane added. “Her radical plan would result in the loss of thousands of innocent American lives, mass victimization and death for many attempting to immigrate to the United States, the total gutting of interior enforcement, the handcuffing of ICE officers, and an uncontrollable flood of illegal immigrants across U.S. borders.”

…After noting that only 5 percent of the council’s membership supported Clinton’s presidential bid, Crane lambasted the Democratic presidential nominee for catering to the special interest groups and “open-borders radicals” all in the name of “cheap labor, greed and votes.”

To be fair, the establishment Republicans are no better than the Democrats on open borders. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a major contributor to Republican candidates. Those candidates do not want to close our borders because many of the Chamber of Commerce members want cheap labor. If the Republican Party truly opposed open borders, those borders would be closed by now, regardless of who was President. There are some Republicans who have fought for real borders, but they are not in the majority.

The article at Lifezette concludes:

“America has been lied to about every aspect of immigration in the United States,” Crane concluded. “We can fix our broken immigration system, and we can do it in a way that honors America’s legacy as a land of immigrants, but Donald Trump is the only candidate who is willing to put politics aside so that we can achieve that goal.”