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,


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.


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.”

A Difficult Balance

Tonight I had the privilege of hearing two very knowledgeable speakers on the subject of immigration in America–Jim Robb, Vice President of Operations at Numbers USA and Ron Woodard, Director of NC Listen. It was a very informative evening, but I left with a realization that at some point in the near future, America was going to have to balance the interests of Americans with the desire to help immigrants. Right now we are not balancing those two things–our current immigration and refugee programs (or lack of them) are hurting Americans and need to be reevaluated.

One aspect of this problem is illustrated by two graphs at the non-partisan Center for Immigration Studies website:

centerforimmigrationThere is something seriously wrong with this picture.So what is going on? There are two groups who are happy with the current situation–for very different reasons. Democratic politicians want to create a permanent dependent class that will continue to elect Democrats in order to get government handouts. It was President Lyndon B. Johnson who stated as he worked to pass his expansive ‘Great Society‘ program, “”I’ll have those n—–s voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” The other group is the Chamber of Commerce. This group has put the idea of cheap labor above the welfare of Americans. Businessmen who support excessive immigration in order to pay workers less (both legal and illegal immigrants) in order to make a bigger profit are not ethical and do not have the best interests of American workers in mind. I think both the Democratic Party and the Chamber of Commerce have lost their way.

Sane immigration policy is possible. It begins with closing the borders to all but legal immigrants who have passed thorough background checks, tracking people who have overstayed their visas (a group that would include the 911 hijackers), and deporting anyone who is arrested, caught driving under the influence, or commits any illegal act. Sane immigration would also include the U.S. Government determining who immigrates to the United States–not the United Nations. Right now the United Nations totally controls the American refugee program. We need to reclaim our sovereignty and our country’s borders.

Stacking The Deck In The Presidential Debates

Yesterday Lifezette posted a story about the bipartisan commission that is in charge of planning the debates of the presidential candidates.

The story reports:

The men and women who run the supposedly “nonpartisan” Commission on Presidential Debates have put their money where their mouths are — and it all has gone to Democrat Hillary Clinton.

The amount of money is small by the standards of a modern presidential campaign, but it is one-sided. A pair of Ph.D. candidates at Stanford University examined campaign finance reports and found that all of the $5,650 in contributions that commission members have made to presidential candidates during this election season have gone to Clinton.

Republican Donald Trump, who will meet Clinton in the first debate a week from Monday, received no donations from debate commission members. Green Party nominee Jill Stein and Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, who both learned Friday that they will be shut out of the first debate, also received nothing.

It gets even better. The article quotes one of the commission members:

Kevin Zeese, an adviser to the Stein campaign, told LifeZette the contributions are further evidence of a bipartisan conspiracy to rig the electoral system against third-party alternatives. And the fact that Clinton scooped up all of the contributions made by commission members this year fits with the fact that she has won support not only from her own party but many Establishment figures in the Republican Party, as well.

“Hillary Clinton has done a really good job of uniting the two parties,” he said. “It’s almost like one party.”

Has it occurred to the commission that the fact that ‘it’s almost like one party’ might be the problem? That is exactly the reason Donald Trump is doing so well–the establishment Republican party is indistinguishable from the Democrat party. The establishment Republican party is no longer the party of smaller government and lower spending–they are now the party of ‘we want to do the spending.’ Donald Trump is not a conservative, but at least he has some sort of business sense.

There is a book called Tragedy and Hope 101: The Illusion of Justice, Freedom, and Democracy that discusses the move to morph the two-party system in America into a system that appears to be a two-party system, but in reality is a one-party system. In this scenario, elections happen, but the same people are always in control. We are dangerously close to that place, and I believe that the election of Donald Trump might be a way to avoid going there. It is going to be a very interesting election–there are a lot of people who are very fond of the system the way it is and will fight with everything they have to make sure it does not change.

At any rate, are you willing to believe that the debates will be fair and unbiased?


The Ambush Was Handled Graciously

Gateway Pundit posted a story yesterday about Donald Trump’s visit to a black church in Flint, Michigan. CNN also posted a story on the event yesterday. The contrast is interesting. First of all, let’s talk about politics from the pulpit in America. It is no secret that Democratic candidates routinely speak and raise money in black churches. Republican candidates generally do not speak in churches because of concerns of the tax status of the churches. There is definitely a double standard.

So what happened when Donald Trump went into a black church in Flint, Michigan, to speak?

CNN reports:

The pastor who hosted Donald Trump at her church in Flint, Michigan, interrupted the Republican presidential nominee during his speech Wednesday to ask him to refrain from attacking his rival Hillary Clinton.

“Mr. Trump, I invited you here to thank us for what we’ve done in Flint, not give a political speech,” Rev. Faith Green Timmons of the Bethel United Methodist Church told Trump after walking to the podium while Trump was speaking.

Gateway Pundit gives us the rest of the story:

But prior to his visit to the church Pastor Timmons posted her intentions on Facebook.

She said,

Today is the day! We have a chance to show DONALD TRUMP than this nation is filled with intelligent, wise black citizens fo integrity many of whom live right here in FLINT, MICHIGAN. What he will see is how we are braving a manmade catastrophe. HE WILL NOT USE US, WE will EDUCATE HIM!!!

Mr. Trump handled the event graciously. He did remark later that he felt as if something was going on because the Pastor was extremely nervous.

It would be interesting to remind Pastor Timmons who created the manmade catastrophe. The Democrats have been in charge of Flint for a number of years and made the decision to stop buying water from Detroit and sign up with a regional water system; in the meantime, it was getting its municipal water from the Flint River, not noted for its pristine water quality.

The Democrats are getting support from the black churches. The Democrats are the people who have created a welfare system that has destroyed the black family, destroyed the work ethic in the black community and created generational poverty and dependence. At some point, I believe the black community and its churches will wake up to the damage done to them by Democratic policies. All of this was foreseeable–Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan predicted the outcome of the War of Poverty policies and the negative impact they would have on the black community fifty years ago. Remember, it was Democrat President Lyndon Baines Johnson who stated, “I’ll have those n—–s voting Democratic for the next 200 years” as he confided with two like-minded governors on Air Force One regarding his underlying intentions for the “Great Society” programs.

Meanwhile, the campaigns continue.

A New Low In Presidential Campaigning

Below is an excerpt from an article posted at Hot Air today. Draw your own conclusions. I suspect this has been done before, but it is disgusting:

TrumpLeaks is an effort to uncover unreported video or audio of Donald Trump so voters can have access to the Donald Trump who existed before running for president and before his recent affinity for teleprompters. TrumpLeaks can provide some compensation to those who have usable, undoctored video or audio that has been legally obtained or is legally accessible.

Translated that means that David Brock, Hillary’s media hatchet man, has put out the word that his Correct the Record super PAC is ready to pay for dirt on Donald Trump.

The article reports:

This story is revealing in a couple of ways. First, Brock is effectively an arm of the Clinton campaign. If she found this offensive she could shut it down with a phone call. So next time you hear Clinton or the media claim she is taking the high road in this campaign, e.g. ‘we care about the issues that are important to Americans’ keep in mind that her people are eager to pay for dirt on her opponent.

Second, it was a big story when Trump off-handedly said he hoped Russia would find Hillary’s 30,000 missing emails. The Clinton campaign instantly ran with the claim that Trump was calling on a foreign government to conduct “espionage” against Hillary. That never made any sense given that Hillary’s long ago deleted emails would be on a defunct server now in the possession of the FBI. But the fact that it was nonsense didn’t stop the media from running with it for days. It will be interesting to see if the media even bothers to make the Clinton world effort to pay for dirt on Trump a story.

Second, the fact that this is being called TrumpLeaks suggests just how much WikiLeaks has Democratic insiders spooked. The DNC has already lost a party chairwoman, a CEO, a CFO and several other high ranking figures because of embarrassing leaks. Julian Assange promises there will be more to come.

Donald Trump may be smarter about what he writes down than Hillary.

For Your Consideration

I hope this isn’t true, but I have no reason to believe that it’s a lie. Free Republic posted a story today claiming that Hillary Clinton was wearing an earpiece last night during the candidate forum.

The article reports:

While Clinton was fielding questions from NBC’s Matt Lauer and the public Wednesday night on live television, a quiet buzz started circulating in New York law enforcement circles about Hillary’s left ear. NYPD sources confirm Clinton was wearing an ‘inductive earpiece,’ the same technology employed by almost all lead Broadway actors to receive forgotten lines and stealth off-stage cues from directors. The flesh-colored earbud is easily concealed. There are no wires running directly to the ear like you see with the units employed by Secret Service protection detail personnel.

The skin-tone piece Clinton was wearing, however, was somewhat different from the standard issued stealth earpiece and is much different in appearance from a hearing aid. This unit is considered a “micro” earbud which contains all the technology but is a fraction of the size with a very high price tag. In fact, most of the units this size, approximately 3mm or comparable to a small pearl stud earring, are normally issued to law enforcement or corporate security teams, sources said. At a size that small, the earbud is designed to sit inside the opening of the ear canal, almost invisible to anyone. However, the unit does move and shift along with its wearer and at times can slightly pop out of the canal and require a quick readjustment, experts said.

Ironically, the revelation that Clinton was wearing such a unit might have only been recognized because of astute NYPD officers attached to her security detail who are accustomed to seeing the stealth apparatus at stage shows, conventions and security personnel of VIPs and international dignitaries at the United nations and elsewhere in the five boroughs. Likewise, NYPD detectives employ a parallel technology to communicate during undercover Ops.

Based on experts familiar with the technology, the stealth earpiece operates on a bandwidth from 300 Hz to 4KHz. Many such units are powered by SONY. The range of the unit can be unlimited depending on how the back end is set up. Technically, you could receive cues from 100 feet away or from someone sitting in Washington D.C. while you sat in New York City, experts said. The set up and range is flexible based on need and use. The unit does not require Bluetooth to operate via short distances but long range operations would require Bluetooth, which is easily configured.

This is the picture:

hillaryearbudIf anyone has a better explanation of what this is, please leave a comment. I would love to hear that she wasn’t cheating, but her history makes that doubtful. The really sad part is that she seems to think she can do anything dishonest that she wants and either no one will know or no one will care.


If We Had An Honest Media, This Video Would Be Unnecessary

The following video was posted on YouTube yesterday. The video is an interview of Julian Assange. Regardless of how you feel about this man, it is a very interesting interview.

PJ Media posted an article that included the video yesterday.

The article includes the following:

Assange claimed that Clinton knew full well what the (C) was for —  because she has used it thousands of times herself. He dropped the bombshell at the end of his interview with Sean Hannity.

“In the FBI report released Friday, I agree with your analysis, it is very strange that was released Friday afternoon on a Labor weekend,” Assange said. “I do think it draws questions to what sort of game the FBI is trying to play. … Hillary Clinton says that she can’t remember what a ‘C’ in brackets stands for. Everyone in positions of government and in WikiLeaks knows it stands for classified, confidential. And in fact, we have already released thousands of cables by Hillary Clinton…with a ‘C’ in brackets right there,” said Assange while producing one of the documents. “Thousands of examples, where she herself has used a ‘C’ in brackets, and signed it off, and more than 22,000 times that she has received cables from others with this ‘C’ in brackets. So, it’s absolutely incredible for Clinton to lie. She is lying about not knowing what that is, but it’s a bit disturbing that James Comey goes along with that game.”

Here is the video:


Draw your own conclusions.

Does This Bother Anyone?

Fox News is reporting today that emails obtained by Citizens United as part of its ongoing Freedom of Information Act request to the State Department show collusion between Hillary Clinton and the Democrats of the Senate Committee that was investigating Benghazi.

This is a screen shot of the emails (taken from the Fox News article):

emailsBenghaziHearingSo Senator Menendez was not interested in finding out what actually happened at Behghazi–he was interested in advancing Hillary’s political ambitions. I know there were people on that committee that cared about the truth, but they were blocked by committee members that were playing politics.

The article reports:

The emails were obtained by the group Citizens United as part of its ongoing Freedom of Information Act request to the State Department for emails from Chelsea Clinton and Hillary Clinton’s closest aides.  

“This email chain provides a rare behind the scenes look at which Benghazi-related issues the Clinton camp had concerns about going into Secretary Clinton’s January 2013 testimony on Capitol Hill, and what they had apparently plotted out beforehand with a Democrat committee member to deal with those concerns,” Citizens United said in a statement. “Citizens United will continue to release all new Benghazi emails we receive through our FOIA lawsuits as they come in — the American people have a right to know the full picture.”

Fox News asked the Clinton campaign as well as Menendez’s office if they coordinated before the 2013 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing; what was meant by the term “wired;” and how the email exchange was consistent with the principle of independent congressional oversight. There was no immediate response from either.

In 2013, the New Jersey senator — who is now facing federal public corruption charges — at the time of the hearing was about to become chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, replacing John Kerry who was in line to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. Menendez has denied any wrongdoing.

Washington no longer represents the interests of Americans. It is time to clean house.

Why Should We All Have To Play By The Same Rules?

On Friday The Washington Free Beacon posted a story about a group in Colorado that was working toward a $12 an hour minimum wage.

The article reports:

Colorado Families for a Fair Wage, which obtained the signatures needed to place a measure requiring a $12 minimum wage on the November ballot, paid many of its petition handlers less than $12 an hour, according to paperwork filed with the state and obtained by in the Washington Times.

“According to a circulator and wage report filed with the Colorado Secretary of State’s office by proponents of increasing the minimum wage, 24 of the workers collecting signatures to get on the ballot were paid less than $12 an hour,” the Times reported. “The report was obtained Keep Colorado Working, the opposition campaign, in an open records request.”

Colorado Families for a Fair Wage is a coalition of liberal groups, including prominent labor unions, such as the AFL-CIO and American Federation of Teachers. The group denied the allegations that it failed to pay its employees adequate wages following the Washington Times report, blaming “clerical errors” in campaign filings for the gap in pay.

“Every person working on the minimum wage ‘$12 by 2020’ ballot initiative has earned a minimum of $12 an hour and more because it’s crucial that the paychecks of Colorado working families can cover housing, food and other basics, campaign manager Patty Kupfer said in a release. “We included pay policy language in our office policy document to specifically ensure that every worker would earn at least $12 an hour.”

The group said it will file amended paperwork with the secretary of state’s office to reflect that it paid all of its workers at least $12 an hour.

How embarrassing. Either they paid their workers less than the minimum wage they were working toward or the people they paid the proposed minimum wage were not competent enough to do their job right. Either way it’s embarrassing.

There is something being overlooked here, and I don’t know why. The minimum wage was never intended to support a family or an individual living on their own–it was intended to provide a gateway into the workforce to enable people to learn the real basic job skills–showing up on time, respecting authority, being curteous, and other basic fundementals. So what happened? Unions discovered that if the minimum wage increased, the unions could bargain for higher wages for their members. Note that the Colorado Families for a Fair Wage includes prominent labor unions. Because much of the American public does not understand the purpose of the minimum wage, the fact that raising the minimum wage significantly will put small businesses out of business and cause employees to lose hours or jobs is not considered by most people.

There is also the aspect of illegal immigration. As long as America has thousands of illegal immigrants who are willing to work under the table for below minimum wage, raising the minimum wage is going to do more harm than good. One of the problems in the battle to close our borders to illegal immigration is that the U. S. Chamber of Commerce is a major campaign contributor to politicians (particularly Republicans). The Chamber of Commerce is an organization of businessmen. These businessmen like the fact that illegal immigration is a source of cheap labor. As long as the Chamber of Commerce continues to pour money into political campaigns, our illegal immigration problem will continue. That is the way Washington currently works. Until people are elected to office at all levels who are not part of the current system and not interested in becoming part of the current system, illegal immigration will continue and because unions contribute heavily to Democratic campaigns, the minimum wage will probably be raised past the point where it makes economic sense. That is where we are.

A Few Random Notes About The Alt-Right

I guess I am a member of the alt-right. I left the Republican Party last Spring because I felt that the party was disingenuous in its treatment of Donald Trump and the duly-elected Chairman of the North Carolina Republican party. Donald Trump was not my choice in the Republican Primary (in North Carolina unaffiliated voters get to vote in whichever party primary they choose); however, I felt that the Republican Party should accept the choice of the voters. I watched the party do everything in its power to prevent the voice of the voters from being heard. The voice of the voters represented a serious threat to the party establishment and the powers that be. The Republican Party has still not fully supported Donald Trump, and I doubt they will. The Republican establishment would rather see Hillary Clinton elected and attempt to put an establishment Republican in the White House in four years.

So who is the alt-right? The alt-right are Americans who want to see the current government establishment change. Historically the Republican Party was the party of lower taxes and smaller government. Somewhere in recent years, the party has forgotten their roots. The Republican Party is now the party of bloated government as long as they get to control it. There are a few exceptions to this, but they are few and far between. In an effort to discredit those people who hold to the values of the former Republican Party, the establishment of both parties have begun labeling them alt-right with the implication that they are racists, bigots, and whatever other derogatory term comes to mind. I resent that. This is another example of pitting one American against another American for political purposes. If you oppose the political cronyism and favoritism that is currently a part of Washington polities, you must be a racist, bigot, etc. That is beyond ridiculous.

The slogan of Donald Trump that he ‘wants to take America back’ is not unrealistic. Right now Washington does not really care what the voters think. I am not sure that elections are not rigged–either through voter fraud or the rigging of electronic voting machines. The only way that Donald Trump wins this election is if it is an honest election or if his margin of victory is so large that cheating does not work. That fact alone should wake up voters to the fact that we have a serious problem. I won’t make any predictions about November–a lot can happen between now and then, but I will say that this new concept of labeling anyone who does not support either the Republican or Democratic establishment as alt-right is nothing more than a way to divide Americans so that they will not unite to take their country back.

My husband has added a few ideas to this article. He points out that the Republican platform is true to traditional Republican ideas and that there are people within the party that are working to restore those ideas. The problem is the establishment of both parties.

The Numbers Keep Going Down

This is an election season so all news reporting has to take that into consideration. Anything you read has to be checked against another source and then sorted through to figure out what you weren’t told. Sometimes it gets very frustrating. One of the items that has come up in this campaign is the U.S. economy. President Obama and Hillary Clinton say that it is great, and Donald Trump says it is not doing well. What do the numbers say?

The Washington Free Beacon posted an article yesterday that has some answers.

The article reports:

The U.S. economy expanded in the second quarter of 2016 with real GDP growing 1.1 percent, a lower rate than previously estimated, according to the second estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

“The downward revision to the percent change in real GDP primarily reflected downward revisions to state and local government spending and to private inventory investment and an upward revision to imports,” the bureau said.

Real GDP represents the inflation-adjusted value of goods and services produced in the economy. The second quarter growth of 1.1 percent, which includes performance from April, May, and June, was an increase from the 0.8 percent growth recorded in the first quarter of 2016.

Second quarter growth this year was lower than second quarter growth in 2015, when GDP expanded at 3.7 percent, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

“Today’s disappointing news that the economy expanded even slower than reported is another reminder that we cannot continue President Obama and Hillary Clinton’s failed economic policies for another four years,” said Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee. “Economists say Hillary Clinton’s tax plan alone will slow economic growth, reduce wages, and kill jobs.”

We have had eight years of Democratic policies running the economy. The excuse given by most Democrats is that President Obama started with a mess because the housing bubble had burst. However, when you look at the roots of the housing bubble, you are a little less likely to blame President Bush for the collapse (see Burning Down The House. If in the future YouTube takes down the video, I have embedded it in various articles in this blog–use the blog search engine to find it and watch it.) It is time to let an experienced businessman try his hand at running the American economy. That is the only hope the American workers have.

The Media Loves To Follow The Money In Politics (Sometimes)

Yesterday Investor’s Business Daily posted a story about some recent revelations regarding money in politics. Oddly enough, they were one of the few news organizations reporting the information.

The article reports:

Leaked documents released a few days ago provide juicy insider details of how a fabulously rich businessman has been using his money to influence elections in Europe, underwrite an extremist group, target U.S. citizens who disagreed with him, dictate foreign policy, and try to sway a Supreme Court ruling, among other things. Pretty compelling stuff, right?

Not if it involves leftist billionaire George Soros. In this case, the mainstream press couldn’t care less.

On Saturday, a group called DC Leaks posted more than 2,500 documents going back to 2008 that it pilfered from Soros’ Open Society Foundations‘ servers. Since then, the mainstream media have shown zero interest in this gold mine of information.

We couldn’t find a single story on the New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, CBS News or other major news sites that even noted the existence of these leaked documents, let alone reported on what’s in them.

Indeed, the only news organization that appears to be diligently sifting through all the documents is the conservative Daily Caller, which as a result has filed a series of eye-opening reports.

Some of the information revealed by the documents:

As we noted in this space on Monday, the leaked documents show how Soros’ far-flung international organizations attempted to manipulate Europe’s 2014 elections. The “List of European Elections 2014 Projects” details over 90 Soros efforts he had under way that year.

The documents reveal that Soros has poured nearly $4 million into anti-Israel groups, with a goal of “challenging Israel’s racist and anti-democratic policies.”

Here at home, they show that Soros proposed paying the Center for American Politics $200,000 to conduct a smear campaign against conservative activists.

More recently, an October 2015 document came to light showing that Soros’ Open Society U.S. Programs had donated $650,000 to “invest in technical assistance and support for the groups at the core of the burgeoning #BlackLivesMatter movement.” Since then, several BLM protests have turned violent.

Not only is a non-American influencing American foreign policy and trying to influence American elections, he is directly funding a group that is fomenting violence in America.

The article further reports:

This year alone, Soros has given $7 million to the Clinton-supporting Priorities USA super-PAC, and a total of $25 million to support Democrats and their causes, according to Politico.

And when Soros speaks, Clinton listens. A separate email released by WikiLeaks shows Soros giving what read like step-by-step instructions to then-Secretary of State Clinton on how to deal with unrest in Albania in early 2011, including a list of people who should be considered as candidates to become an official mediator sent to that country. Days later, the EU dispatched one of the people on Soros’ list.

Thomas Lifson, writing in the American Thinker blog, said “Soros got the U.S. and other accomplices to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign state…. How is this not huge news?”

Most American voters will never be aware of this story. They will calmly go to the polls in November unaware that George Soros is pulling Hillary Clinton’s strings. George Soros will be calling the shots in the White House if Hillary Clinton is elected. Is that good for America?