6) you’d deny you’re racist for insisting that black Americans aren’t competent enough to get an ID to vote.
9) ….You simultaneously believe the police are violent trigger-happy racists who shoot people for no good reason and that we should disarm the populace so that only the government has guns.
13) ….You believe that anyone who dislikes Barack Obama must hate him because he’s a minority, but your hatred of Ted Cruz and Clarence Thomas is perfectly justifiable.
16) ….You blame the Republicans for the failure of Obamacare even though none of them voted for it.
17) ….Your first response to a terrorist attack committed by radical Islamists who’ve sworn allegiance to ISIS is to try to disarm every law-abiding gun owner in the country.
18) ….You think an unemployed, white factory worker who’s struggling to feed his family has some sort of racial privilege compared to Barack Obama, Melissa Harris Perry or Al Sharpton.
19) ….You say fences don’t work and gun-free zones do, but if Republicans wanted the fence around the White House taken down and demanded that the Secret Service be disarmed, you’d accuse them of trying to get Obama killed.
20) ….You believe Bruce Jenner is a woman, Rachel Dolezal is black and Elizabeth Warren is an Indian.
Redistribution may have raised the material living standards of some of the poor. But it has not increased self-sufficiency.
The original purpose of the welfare state was to lift people into self-sufficiency, not to create a permanent underclass dependent on taxpayers. Lyndon Johnson told us when he started these programs that “the days of the dole are numbered.” We have passed day 18,000. Obama also wants it both ways. He says over and over, even in this speech, that the biggest problem with the economy is income inequality because the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. So if the poor are getting poorer, how have his social programs worked to reduce poverty? It’s more than a little hypocritical for a president who sends his own daughters to private schools that cost $30,000 a year to prevent poor children in Washington, D.C., from attending those same schools.
Obama: “And so over time, families frayed. Men who could not get jobs left. Mothers who are single are not able to read as much to their kids.” The president acts as though “families frayed” by accident. No, there were major cultural shifts that contributed to the major decline in marriage and rise in unwed births, not to mention the introduction of a massive government welfare system that financially took the place of the father. In 1960, not even one in four black children were born without a father in the home. By 2013 that number had soared, tragically, to nearly three of every four black children being born outside of marriage. As economist Thomas Sowell has put it: “the black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it disintegrated in the wake of the liberals’ expansion of the welfare state.”
(“Smartest” Democraps Ever: “So Smart” Odumbo & his Democraps “Foreign Policy” of appeasement, retreat & giving up. Democrap Big Gov’t knows best?? ) In the past several months, radical Islamist militants have been on the march in Iraq, securing the bulk of the western Anbar Province in January and just this week taking control of Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq. They are now on the march to Baghdad to take control of the country and have declared an end to the border between Syria and Iraq. Iraqis are fleeing Mosul and other cities by the hundreds of thousands. The Islamists are reportedly beheading some of those left behind. The primary actor behind the instability is the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham, or ISIS, originally an al-Qaida affiliate responsible for such heinous atrocities in Syria that even al-Qaida has publicly distanced itself from the group. The rapid progress of ISIS is particularly difficult to watch for veterans of the the Iraq War. Concerned Veterans for America CEO Pete Hegseth served in and around Samarra as a member of the U.S. Army’s 101st Airborne Division during the heat of the insurgency in 2005-2006. According to Hegseth, the Obama administration was handed an increasingly stable situation in Iraq, but the president had no interest in finishing the job. “This administration was more obsessed with ending the war than winning it or being successful,” he said. “As a result, now we’ve turned the page and looked away from Iraq, and insurgents have taken advantage of it.” Meanwhile, the New York Times is reporting that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki asked the United States to consider air strikes against ISIS as their progress became clear. The reports say the Obama administration refused those requests, concluding that once U.S. troops left Iraq at the end of 2011 the United States was done fighting in Iraq. Hegseth minced few words in response to those reports. “I don’t like to make blunt statements like this, but I don’t think the Obama administration cares,” he said. “Their only interest in Iraq has been to end the war, turn the page and talk about how they don’t support it. At this point, there’s no will, there’s no appetite, there’s no strategic thinking to re-engage in Iraq, even though what’s happening right now is a re-establishment of an even more dangerous element than we saw in the Taliban era in Afghanistan. These are folks who want a space from which to form a state and then project jihad, not just regionally but around the world.” The turmoil in Iraq is the latest revelation to bring considerable frustration to veterans, following on the heels of the Department of Veterans Affairs scandal and the controversial exchange of five key Taliban figures for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was in Taliban custody. (This will be a disaster for a future President to clean up, just as any weak President like Carter (Russia in Afghanistan, Iran hostage crisis, 1979 Islamic Revolution, http://jerusalemprayerteam.org/pdf/jimmycarterhistorysbuffoon.pdf or Clinton (Osama Bin Laden, Black Hawk Down) allowing our enemies to grow stronger as we show weakness & incompetence which invites aggression & conflict.)
Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely and U.S. Army Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin said the prospect recalls the Johnson administration’s micro-managing of the war theater in Vietnam, when decisions made from Washington often resulted in selecting the wrong targets. Boykin, an under secretary of defense for intelligence under President George W. Bush, said that while Obama’s reported decision to make all the bombing calls of ISIS targets in Syria were reminiscent of Vietnam, President Lyndon Johnson “at least had some military experience.” Boykin pointed out Obama has never served in the military. Vallely believes Obama should resign. “He has no capability of leading this country at this time,” he said. Vallely, who was deputy commanding general of U.S. Pacific Command, is an author along with retired USAF Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney of the book “Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror.” “[Obama] wouldn’t have a clue what targets to hit,” Vallely said. “Go back to Vietnam when (Defense Secretary Robert) McNamara was calling the targets.” Before he died, McNamara apologized in a book for his role in conducting the Vietnam conflict, noted Vallely. Vallely said he had met with a number of pilots who had conducted bombings over Vietnam who said “you couldn’t believe what they wanted us to hit rather than hard targets.” One such target, he said, was a bamboo bridge rather than a steel bridge that was in use nearby.
“You can’t blame (the FSA) in signing a non-aggression pact with ISIS,” Vallely said. “You can’t fight both Assad and ISIS at the same time.” Members of FSA have defected to the Islamic jihadist group Jabhat al-Nusra, which is linked to al-Qaida.
Boykin said that if there is a non-aggression pact, it is a strong indication FSA won’t fight ISIS. Their primary objective is bringing down Assad.
"A sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq." That's not Bush congratulating himself. That's Obama in December 2011 describing the Iraq we were leaving behind. He called it "an extraordinary achievement." Which Obama proceeded to throw away. David Petraeus had won the war. Obama's one task was to conclude a status-of-forces agreement (SOFA) to solidify the gains. Which is what made his failure to do so in Iraq so disastrous. His excuse was his inability to get immunity for U.S. soldiers. Nonsense. Bush had worked out a compromise in his 2008 SOFA, as we have done with allies everywhere. The real problem was Obama's reluctance to maintain any significant presence in Iraq. He offered to leave about 3,000 to 5,000 troops, a ridiculous number. U.S. commanders said they needed nearly 20,000. (We have 28,500 in South Korea and 38,000 in Japan to this day.) Overnight, Iran and its promotion of Shiite supremacy became the dominant influence in Iraq. The day after the U.S. departure, Maliki ordered the arrest of the Sunni vice president. He cut off funding for the Sons of Iraq, the Sunnis who had fought with us against al-Qaida. And subsequently so persecuted and alienated Sunnis that they were ready to welcome back al-Qaida in Iraq — rebranded in its Syrian refuge as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria — as the lesser of two evils. Hence the stunningly swift ISIS capture of so much of Iraq. But the jihadist revival is the result of a double Obama abdication: creating a vacuum not just in Iraq but in Syria. Obama dithered and speechified Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/061914-705490-obama-creates-vacuum-in-iraq-syria.htm#ixzz35aRhBTDb
By 2008, even Sen. Obama, a harsh critic of the war and of the "surge" that turned it around, said:
"I think that, I did not anticipate, and I think that this is a fair characterization, the convergence of not only the surge but the Sunni awakening in which a whole host of Sunni tribal leaders decided that they had had enough with al-Qaida, in the Shia community the militias standing down to some degrees. "So what you had is a combination of political factors inside of Iraq that then came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops. Had those political factors not occurred, I think that my assessment would have been correct." The lack of media interest reflected, in part, their contempt for the war — why we fought it, why we were there. But another factor is this: Iraq, as of 2011, was surprisingly calm — the opposite of what the George W. Bush-hating media predicted. Into 2007, then-President Bush talked about the importance of negotiating a long-term status-of-forces agreement that would allow U.S. troops to remain in Iraq to help with security. He warned that if the U.S. didn't stay the course in Iraq, the country could become a terror state or a recruiting ground for terrorists. In the weeks following Obama's election, the Iraqis passed, and Bush signed, a SOFA agreement that would have American troops out of Iraq by December 2011.
(Appeaser in chief Obama & his so smart Defeatist Democrats GAVE UP our victory in Iraq)
As the threat from Sunni militants in western Iraq escalated last month, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki secretly asked the Obama administration to consider carrying out airstrikes against extremist staging areas, according to Iraqi and American officials. But Iraq’s appeals for a military response have so far been rebuffed by the White House, which has been reluctant to open a new chapter in a conflict that President Obama has insisted was over when the United States withdrew the last of its forces from Iraq in 2011. The swift capture of Mosul by militants aligned with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has underscored how the conflicts in Syria and Iraq have converged into one widening regional insurgency with fighters coursing back and forth through the porous border between the two countries. But it has also called attention to the limits the White House has imposed on the use of American power in an increasingly violent and volatile region.
(“Smartest” Democraps Ever? Democrap Big Gov’t knows best? ) From Syria to Iraq to Afghanistan to Pakistan, the jihadist dream of a caliphate stretching from the Atlantic to the Himalayas is taking shape. It's aided by a feckless foreign policy not seen since Neville Chamberlain. One such Islamic empire, in the seventh century, spanned the Middle East, spread to Southwest Asia, North Africa and Spain, ending with the Mongol sack of Baghdad in 1258. As President Obama learns about it in the newspapers, the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) is dismembering Iraq. ISIS, now flush with captured cash and weaponry. We might soon see helicopters on the roof of our embassy in Baghdad in a scene reminiscent of the last days of Saigon as Iraq becomes Obama's Vietnam. The president's endless apologies to the Muslim world, starting with his Cairo speech in 2009; his abandonment of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi while blaming the terrorist attack on a video; his precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan as Iraq implodes; Libya & Syria, and his trading of Taliban commanders for an alleged deserter have sent powerful signals of weakness. Obama's actions are reminiscent of how President Clinton's withdrawal from Somalia inspired bin Laden. (George W Bush had to clean up Clinton’s mess from Subprime Mortgages to Homeland defense) Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warned in a speech in 2005 that, without U.S intervention, "Iraq would serve as the base of a new Islamic caliphate to extend throughout the Middle East, and which would threaten legitimate governments in Europe, Africa and Asia." The White House's failure — or was it a refusal? — to sign a status-of-forces agreement to retain a presence in Iraq — a deal which Obama now claims is necessary in Afghanistan — created a vacuum that ISIS is quite willing to fill. As the Taliban bides its time in Afghanistan, its leadership replenished by Obama, it has the strength to attack the airport in Karachi, Pakistan, in a country that has nuclear weapons. Obama (& his Democraps) has made possible the specter of not only an Islamic caliphate, but also a nuclear one. (Who will have to clean up another So Smart Democrap mess?)
Mitt Romney warned that if the U.S. completely withdrew from Iraq, it would crumble and for that Barack Obama called him a foreign policy novice. Islamic militants have thrown Iraq into a tailspin and the country is on the verge of an all-out civil war. So, we have to ask, who’s the foreign policy novice now Obama? Romney was right. Obama was wrong…again.
Bush White House warns against Iraq pullout By Jennifer Loven, Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Brushing aside criticism from the White House, Senate Democrats said Friday their next challenge to
President Bush's Iraq war policy would require the gradual withdrawal of U.S. combat troops beginning within 120 days.
The draft legislation also declares the war "requires principally a political solution" rather than a military one.
The provisions are included in a measure that would repeal the authority that lawmakers gave Bush in 2002,
TIPP CITY, Ohio, April 19,2007 -- President Bush warned Thursday that pulling out of Iraq too soon would trigger a bloodbath akin to that of the Cambodian killing fields of the 1970s, while Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid declared that it is too late to stay because the war has already been lost. On a day that reverberated with echoes of the Vietnam War era, Bush and Reid (D-Nev.) engaged in a long-distance debate over the lessons of history and the fate of the latest overseas war as part of a struggle over $100 billion in funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Reid cast Iraq as another Vietnam and Bush as another Lyndon B. Johnson, while the president described dire consequences if the past repeats itself. "I want to remind you that after Vietnam, after we left, millions of people lost their life," Bush said
(“Smartest” Democraps Ever.. Democrap Big Gov’t knows best? )The Benghazi committee should hear from Alan J. Kuperman of the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas. In his policy brief "Lessons from Libya: How Not to Intervene," http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/23387/lessons_from_libya.html he says: Gadhafi did not initiate violence against peaceful protesters. Rather, protesters initiated the violence that engulfed four cities. Media reports "exaggerated the death toll by a factor of 10, citing 'more than 2,000 deaths' in Benghazi during the initial days of the uprising, whereas Human Rights Watch (HRW) later documented only 233 deaths across all of Libya in that period." (The intervention) enabled the rebels to resume their attack, which prolonged the war for another seven months and caused at least 7,000 more deaths." The intervention encouraged peaceful protesters in Syria to use violence in the hope of attracting an intervention. This increased the rate of killing there 10-fold. And since Gadhafi fell (THANK so smart OBAMA & HIS DEMOCRAPS) "sophisticated weapons from Gadhafi's arsenal — including up to 15,000 man-portable, surface-to-air missiles unaccounted for as of 2012 — leaked to radical Islamists throughout the region." Perhaps including Iraq. The Benghazi committee is organizing as Iraq crumbles, its army disintegrating as the enemy approaches. Trotsky probably did not really say this, but someone should: "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."
Hillary, Kerry & Obama are so SMART, SMARTEST DEMOCRAPs ever:
That's because the deal Clinton brokered required Israel to ease its blockade of building materials and other dual-use goods bound for Gaza, which is ruled by the terrorist group Hamas. Israel had banned construction goods because Hamas used them to build an underground network of weapons depots, bunkers and rocket-launching pads. But Clinton naively believed Hamas leaders' pledge that such supplies would go to bridges, hospitals and schools. And so the successful five-year Israeli blockade was lifted. In October 2013, Israel discovered Gaza had dug a 1.5-mile concrete tunnel under its border to carry out terrorist attacks inside its territory. Still, Israel allowed the transfer of some 1,000 tons of cement and steel into Gaza just months later, thanks to U.S. and U.N. pressure. As Israel predicted, Hamas used the cease-fire to divert supplies and build the cross-border tunnels now terrorizing Israeli citizens. Clinton should have known better. After all, it was her husband who first declared Hamas a global terrorist group, a designation maintained by her own department. She knew Hamas' history of diverting U.S. aid — including much of the $900 million she committed — to terrorist activities. And she knew Hamas' track record of breaking every single cease-fire it ever said it would honor. Clinton's naivete when it comes to security issues is breathtaking. In Benghazi, she failed to beef up diplomatic security despite intelligence warnings about al-Qaida threats. Backing the Islamofascists in Egypt over a pro-U.S. ally was another strategic mistake. Yet, laughably, Clinton is using her 2012 cease-fire deal to shore up her presidential bona fides. She boasts in her new biography that "my diplomatic intervention was the only thing standing in the way of a much more explosive confrontation." Uh-huh, tell that to the more than 60 Israelis and 1,600 Palestinians who have lost their lives in what has now clearly become "a much more explosive confrontation." You'd think that her successor would have learned from her mistakes. But John Kerry is imposing another cease-fire on Israel. Within hours of proudly announcing it, Hamas sent a suicide bomber through one of its concrete tunnels to blow up several Israeli soldiers on the other side.
President Obama and Hillary Clinton's foreign policy for six years has been to cause war and conflict in the middle east and world, by displaying American weakness. The conflict in Syria and ISIS in Iraq, where Obama withdrew our troops prematurely and surrendered, is one example. The conflict in Ukraine, where Obama showed weakness in negotiating with Putin, is another example. The conflict in Gaza, where Muslim terrorists are emboldened by John Kerry's rejection of American support for Israel, is a third. These repeated failures began in 2009 when Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, causing civil war when the Egyptians rejected Obama's Muslim dictator. Watch! Dr. Chaps' TV interview with expert analyst K.T. MacFarland, who served President Richard Nixon and advised Ronald Reagan on national security--> Contrast this to Ronald Reagan who said, "This responsibility for preserving the peace, which I believe is a responsibility peculiar to our country, that we cannot shirk our responsibility in the free world, because we're the only one that can do it. "And therefore the burden of maintaining the peace falls on us. And to maintain that peace requires strength. America has never gotten in a war because we were too strong."
We’ve been told by the BIG Democrat Media Complex that WMDs didn’t exist in Iraq, and that George W. Bush started the war against Saddam Hussein based on that false assumption. How could the ISIS terrorists have taken over Saddam’s WMD facility if WMD’s never existed? Like it or not, George W. Bush has now officially and forever been completely vindicated. Although numerous Democrats, including Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Edwards, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and others, claimed from 1998 through 2002 that Hussein had WMDs, they labeled President George W. Bush a liar after the war in Iraq began for having made similar statements, despite the fact that the Democrats overwhelmingly voted for the war. Every Democrat, including Obama, Reid, Pelosi and Wasserman-Shultz, who called George W. Bush a liar and every other hateful name in the book, including every MSNBC host, owes him a huge apology. The UK Telegraph reports on this seizure of WMDs in Iraq. Isis jihadists have seized a chemical weapons facility built by Saddam Hussein which contains a stockpile of old weapons, State Department officials have told the Wall Street Journal: U.S. officials don’t believe the Sunni militants will be able to create a functional chemical weapon from the material. The weapons stockpiled at the Al Muthanna complex are old, contaminated and hard to move, officials said. The remaining chemical weapons from Saddam Hussein’s regime are stored in two sealed bunkers, both located at the Al Muthanna Chemicals Weapons Complex, a large site in the western desert some 80km north west of Baghdad. This was the principal manufacturing plant for both chemical agents and munitions during Saddam Hussein’s rule. Thousands of tonnes of chemical weapons were produced, stored and deployed by the Saddam Hussein regime. Iraq used these weapons during the Iran – Iraq War (1980 to 1988) and against the Kurds in Halabja in 1988. The chemical weapons that were seized from the facility include mustard gas, Sarin, Tabun, and VX.
Why does the left hate entry-level jobs? That’s what many former fast food workers must be asking themselves after massive increases in the minimum wage in places like Seattle, Washington are being blamed for a wave of restaurant closures. Closures that deprive entry-level workers an opportunity to gain the work skill sets needed for the rest of their lives. Fully one-third of all Americans in the workforce got their start in the restaurant industry, including this author, who proudly remembers working at Carl’s Jr. in Corona, California for minimum wage while attending Riverside City College. The discipline to keep a schedule, show up on time, work hard, and pay some bills while living at home has served me well for a lifetime. When my wife turned sixteen, she got on her bicycle and hit every fast food restaurant in the small Central Valley town of Hanford, California, revisiting stores every week until the local KFC hired her. The money earned helped her afford her first car, pay for her insurance and gas, and attain a measure of independence that allowed her to thrive as an undergraduate at the University of Southern California. At USC, she worked her way through school waiting tables at the local diner while carrying a full academic load. Unfortunately, the self-serving, left-wing, professional troublemakers and their labor union financiers seem bent on destroying these vital experiences for life success for the next generation of America’s workforce. So why do leftists hate entry-level workers? Perhaps it is because when young people work, earn a wage, and are able to take care of some of their own bills, they increasingly become independent and self-sufficient, the exact type of citizen who frees himself from the chains of the dependency state in which progressives thrive.
The simple freedom of cashing your first paycheck and having money in your pocket that is yours to spend is one of the first steps to economic adulthood.
Nowhere in its figure does the EPI explain they did this. Their “note” only mentions the CPI. But their analytical choices make a large difference for their overall story. Using the same measure of inflation for both productivity and pay would show the real value of the minimum wage has barely changed over the past half-century. Let’s Compare Apples to Oranges
EPI compounds this problem by juxtaposing figures for completely different groups of workers. EPI compared statistical apples and potatoes. Their bad data has led policymakers to bad conclusions. On the basis of such analysis, members of Congress have introduced legislation that would raise the federal minimum wage to $12 an hour by 2020. The bill’s sponsors argue the minimum wage has lost purchasing power; they simply intend to return it to its previous level. In fact, they have proposed a historically unprecedented increase in the minimum wage that would force millions of less skilled workers out of their jobs.
As the minimum wage kept getting raised, so did the unemployment rate for black 17-year-old males. In 1971 it was 33.4 percent -- and it has never been under 30 percent since then. It has often been over 40 percent and, occasionally, over 50 percent.
But people who advocate minimum wage laws seldom show any interest in the actual consequences of such laws, which include many idle young males on the streets, which does no good for them or for their communities.
Ben Carson, an emerging presidential candidate for the Republican Party, was captured in an unguarded moment by a GQ reporter saying Obama is like a “psychopath” for the seeming ease with which he lies to the American public. And Carson’s reply: “But he knows he’s telling a lie. He’s sitting there saying, ‘These Americans are so stupid, I can tell them anything.’”
"Thirty-seven percent of aborted babies are black. In fact, more blacks are aborted every week --" are you listening to this? "More blacks are aborted every week than have been lynched in the entire history of the United States of America." Thirty-seven percent of aborted babies are black. The number per year is 1.3 million babies aborted, 37% of them are black. In fact, more blacks are aborted every week than have been lynched in the entire history of the country. "Eighty percent of all crime is intra-racial. In other words, about four out of five crimes committed by a black citizen are committed against another black citizen. Of the remaining 20 percent of crimes that are inter-racial there are far more black-on-white crimes than white-on-black crimes. "Just about every negative social outcome is directly and strongly related to fatherlessness. Whether you are talking about unemployment, illiteracy, crime, or drug dependency, the absence of a father is a principal driving factor." Again, Mike Adams, Ph.D., criminology.
(Want Jobs & rising Income, then vote for conservative, Tea Party Republicans!)
The 1965 Immigration Act, pushed hard by Democrat Sen. Ted Kennedy, took effect in 1968. Speaking at the signing ceremony at the foot of the Statue of Liberty, (Democrap) President Johnson assured the country it was "not a revolutionary bill. A new analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service for the Senate Judiciary Committee finds that during this hyper-immigration, incomes of the bottom 90% of Americans flat-lined, then dropped starting in 2000. By comparison, middle-class wages increased between 1945 and 1970. Last year, Karen Zeigler and Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies found that, according to federal government data, "since 2000 all of the net gain in the number of working-age (16 to 65) people holding a job has gone to immigrants (legal and illegal)." Since most who vote support Democrats, "the influx of these new voters would reduce or eliminate Republicans' ability to offer an alternative to big government, to increased government spending, to higher taxes, and to favorite liberal policies such as ObamaCare and gun control," Schlafly has warned. Republicans now have new political ammo: a government report confirming that for 50 years the huddled masses have been trampling the middle class.
The world is 1.08 degrees cooler than it was in 1998. Just take a look at this chart from Remote Sensing Systems, which provides data to NASA, NOAA, and other scientific organizations. a mere 1% of scientists believe human activity is causing most of the climate change. The reality is simply this: The climate changes over time. When Alexander the Great was conquering Persia, climate change was a big factor. And we all learned in high school that the “little ice age” that rocked Europe killed hundreds of thousands of people from the 1600s through the 1800s. Additionally, we know about the heat wave and drought that wiped out much of America during the 1930s. Thousands of people were dislocated in search of survival.
Were those events caused by man-made “global warming”? Of course not. Every year, the temperatures rise and fall with spring, summer, fall, and winter. A year is simply a 365-day cycle. The sun is 1.3 million times larger than the earth. When its temperature changes, our temperature changes. Every day, the temperatures rise and fall with daytime and nighttime. A day is simply a 24-hour cycle. These two cycles happen automatically. We can neither change them nor stop them any more than we can stop the Earth’s rotation. It’s impossible. The temperatures fluctuate based on these cycles. So clearly, the Earth’s temperatures rise and fall based on its exposure to . . . the sun. Essentially, there are times when the sun gets hotter and times when it cools off as measured by “sunspots.” And John Casey found multiple solar cycles that determine the temperatures of the Earth.
Mototaka Nakamura, who earned a doctorate of science from MIT, has conducted his work at prestigious institutions such as MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology and Duke University, reports the website Electroverse. In his book "The Global Warming Hypothesis is an Unproven Hypothesis," Nakamura explains why global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on "untrustworthy data." "Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency," he says. "Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century." Last week, a group of 500 scientists and professionals in climate science wrote a letter to the United Nations contending there is no climate crisis and that spending trillions on the issue is "cruel and imprudent."
Historically, money growth is almost perfectly related to inflation, and near completely divorced from real economic growth. In other words, increasing the money supply increases the prices of the food, machines, and buildings we buy, but in the end, it doesn’t give us more food, machines, and buildings. As for halting downturns, The Great Depression, the great stagflation of the 1970s, the S&L crisis, and the 2008 financial crisis all occurred on the Fed’s watch.
On July 6, 2007, the Securities and Exchange Commission voted to repeal the uptick rule for short sales. The Dow industrials then stood at 13,611, just three months away from an all-time high of 14,198. The SEC's timing couldn't have been worse. About the same time, the subprime mortgage mess was surfacing and would soon escort the market on a volatile, 12-month, 40%-plus decline. Investors worldwide have suffered. Worse yet, some of our largest and (we thought) safest financial institutions have gone bankrupt. Culprits in this yearlong financial train wreck are many. The extremes of leverage and risk taken were unthinkable. But make no mistake: Unbridled short selling also played a role. The SEC's fateful decision to repeal the rule has exposed us to the very same "bear raids" and "runs on the banks" that prompted the rule's original enactment in 1934. Besides, the rule does not have to apply to an uptick of a few cents. It can just as easily require, say, a 10-cent uptick for stocks priced below $20, and 25 cents on those above. The real date — July 6, 2007 — shows an immediate and dramatic shift in volume from plus ticks to minus ticks, suggesting unbridled shorting pushing prices lower. Proponents of the repeal say these data are just coincidence. We think not. Finally, much has been written and reported about the role of predatory shorting in the demise of Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros. Clearly, both of these venerable investment bankers were in serious trouble. Yet, if one carefully analyzes the price and volume action in the final five days of their dramatic declines (when most of the damage was done), the evidence is compelling. Bear, with a float of 159,098,000 shares, traded down from $61.58 to $2.84 in just five trading days (March 14 to March 20) on stunning volume of 669,737,000 shares, or 4.2 times its total float. Lehman had similar footprints, diving from $16.20 to 15 cents in five days on almost three times its floating supply. In the process of these startling declines, these firms' ability to fund their businesses disappeared, and both failed. All this, according to many crusty old traders, smells like a replay of the 1929-33 bear raids that the uptick rule was designed to prevent from ever happening again. The uptick rule needs to be reinstated now.
Other currency proposals are similarly defective. The analogy that springs to mind is Smoot-Hawley, the infamous 1930 U.S. tariff that worsened the Great Depression. As I've argued before, Americans' confusion about trade relates to the dollar's role as the main international currency. We assume that U.S. trade deficits prove that we are victimized by other countries' "unfair" practices. It's more complicated. Dollars traded on currency markets respond to supply and demand. Demand for dollars to pay for imports or global investment tends to raise the dollar's price. A higher dollar makes U.S. exports costlier and U.S. imports cheaper. The "overvalued" dollar and resulting trade deficits reflect this process as well as manipulation. The deficits have been continuous since 1976 — before China's entry into world markets. A strong dollar benefits the global economy and punishes U.S. manufacturers. From this nasty dilemma, there's no easy exit.
Understanding how the dollar became the world's reserve currency is essential in order to grasp the risks we face today. When President Nixon suspended the convertibility of the dollar into gold in August 1971, there were immediate negative repercussions in the currency markets. That move effectively ended the relative stability of the gold-backed Bretton Woods international currency regime and ushered in the instability of fiat currencies and floating exchange rates. This, combined with the inflationary effects of the oil embargo, caused precipitous weakness in the dollar. In an effort to restore stability, in 1973 Nixon sent Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to negotiate with the House of Saud. A deal was struck to price oil in dollars in exchange for a U.S. commitment to defend Saudi oil fields. This led other OPEC countries to follow, which is how the petrodollar trading regime came into being and then expanded to include other commodity trading. This ultimately resulted in the U.S. dollar becoming the world's reserve currency — providing a key support for the dollar relative to other currencies in the global economy for the last four decades. If other nations follow suit in abandoning the dollar for trade, the dollar would face an avalanche of pressure, with central banks world-wide dumping excess dollar holdings they no longer need. Its demise as the reserve currency could happen overnight, be irreversible, and produce a new financial crisis that would hit Americans disproportionately — causing a collapse in bond prices and a spike in interest rates that would make servicing U.S. debt unaffordable. Obama stated clearly on the eve of his 2008 election that he intended to transform America. That change — from signature legislation in the Affordable Care Act, the Dodd-Frank bank reform and Consumer Protection Act, and a slew of executive orders and regulatory mandates — has already delivered unexpected consequences that have weighed heavily on the economy. But it also turns out that transformation also meant radically changing America's foreign policy and position in the world in the engagement of adversaries such as Iran. If a nuclear deal with Iran all but guarantees nuclear arms proliferation in the most unstable part of the world and alienates our friends who were seminal in establishing the dollar as the world's reserve currency, it's surely a bridge too far and a risk not worth taking.
For the last 600 years, there have been six different global reserve currencies controlled by world superpowers. The latest – the U.S. dollar – has dominated world currency for over 80 years.
In many ways, what's happening now is an uncanny echo of easy money policies pursued after the Civil War. And, like the Great Recession of 2007-09, the 1873 Panic witnessed the collapse of many brokerage and banking houses, a prelude to major losses of wealth and jobs. Congress then formulated 60 legislative plans for ballooning the volume of greenbacks, ignoring the lack of hard currency to redeem the proposed expansion of paper money. By mid-April 1874, the House and Senate landed their reconciled inflation bill on Grant's desk for signing. Despite President Grant's personal experience with the devastating Panic of 1857, when he was forced to sell wood on St. Louis street corners to feed his family, he insisted on stabilizing the value of the U.S. economy and currency in 1873. He did so, not just for the moment but for the remainder of the decade, thwarting intense political pressures to further inflate by printing dollars. A truly politically independent central bank cannot keep monetizing Treasury debt without depreciating (and surreptitiously taxing) future assets of its citizens. Visionary monetary leadership must place the value of a sound and stable currency above a compromised role as subservient handmaiden to reckless tax-spend-borrow expedients of the corrupt Washington culture.
Obama has deluged the nation with $7 trillion in new debt; higher tax rates; a stupendously ineffective health care overhaul; a blizzard of new regulations on the Internet, energy and financial services; a newly resurrected European welfare state; and worst of all, a $2 trillion growth deficit that may never be erased. But Obama has accomplished something that even heroes like Ronald Reagan could never do: His presidency has discredited liberalism in its every form and incarnation. He has proved in a compelling way that government really is incapable of solving most societal problems — unemployment, income inequality, lack of health care, the burgeoning national debt, poor schools, racial unrest, corruption, and so on. Obama is the embodiment of what F.A. Hayek called "the fatal conceit" — the idea that the intellectual class — i.e., academics, professionals, politicians, media, authors, etc. — possess the knowledge and expertise to know, far better than the citizens, how we should live our lives and make the world a better place. Keynesian economics was shown (once again) to be a fraud, and the economics lesson is: never again. Why should we have ever expected ObamaCare to be any different from the Veterans Administration and Medicaid? As government incompetence becomes more frequent and obvious, more Americans are awakening to the reality that our Founders had it right all along — that government's role should be limited and that the most fertile environment for innovation, progress and happier and healthier lives is minimum government and maximum personal liberty.
The way Sheriff David Clarke sees it, the wild horse has broken loose and is halfway out of the barn, threatening to trample the crops. If the court can redefine marriage and force people to buy health care from a private business, there is nothing it can’t do, said Clarke, the sheriff of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, and frequent Fox News contributor. “The thing that bothers me the most in this decision, though, is the way the court acted as essentially five oligarchs,” he told WND. “If we wanted to change the U.S. Constitution, there is a process for that, and there was a robust debate going on in all states, where some states elected to change the definition of marriage, others had not, and these five decided to act like legislators. And my concern is, it takes away from the legislative authority of Congress. And if they can do it with gay marriage, they can do it with anything.” The Obamacare decision was not much better, he said. “You had one justice, Roberts, go along with the five other oligarchs and change the way people get their health care in the United States and make them buy a product,” he said. He said the redefinition of marriage, while shockingly arrogant, was less disturbing to him than the way it was done, in effect shredding the Constitution.
“I think Justice Scalia points that out, that it was a very contorted view of the 14th Amendment,” he said. “There are well-established traditions, and gay marriage is not one of them. So if that tradition is to be changed, then there is an established process for that, and the Supreme Court is not one of them. You go through the amendment process and the Constitution. The same could be said for women’s suffrage, and we didn’t go to the court and have some oligarchs decide that; we amended the Constitution.” Clarke cited former federal judge Robert Bork’s 1996 book, “Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline,” in which “he made mention that people lament for a little while then they acquiesce.”
Paul Kengor, a university professor, historian and author of "Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage," argues such change results from a combined political and cultural offensive by the "radical left." He told WND: "What you're seeing here is the Left's and Obama's fundamental transformation of the military. This is the cultural revolution and long march through America's most cherished institutions that the radical left, particularly the cultural Marxists, have long sought. This is a takedown. "They were very shrewd. They understood that once you captured culture via education, media, and Hollywood, the rest would fall in due course. And as Americans become increasingly secular and individualistic and relativistic, they've been fairly easy prey. The left (Democraps) took the public schools, the universities, media and social media, Hollywood, and now the Boy Scouts and even the military."
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/081815-767114-pete-wilson-successful-immigration-is-legal-immigration.htm#ixzz3ki8E7u4S America is a nation of immigrants — proud, legal immigrants of every ethnicity. Generations of foreign-born naturalized Americans and their children and grandchildren have strengthened and enriched our country. Their courage, drive, strength, intellect, loyalty and sacrifice have contributed in generous measure to making America the most prosperous and powerful nation in the world. They learned English, learned our culture and institutions based on the rule of law, and learned what it means to be an American. They learned through naturalization. Illegal immigrants have not undergone naturalization. They have not made the same effort to learn and been instructed in the duties of citizenship or how to make the same contribution to America as naturalized citizens. And the grant of amnesty and payment of a fine cannot instantaneously prepare them to do so. If they can cut to the head of the line, why should they undergo naturalization? And what message does this send to others around the globe about coming to the United States legally — or illegally? the wise instruction, "E pluribus unum." Naturalization unites Americans, the fortunate native-born and those who have struggled to come and earn their citizenship. It creates a common bond that illegal entry can't.
The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society is a 1991 book written by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., a former advisor to the Kennedy and other US administrations and Pulitzer Prize winner. Schlesinger states that a new attitude — one that celebrates difference and abandons assimilation — may replace the classic image of the melting pot, in which differences are submerged in democracy. He argues that ethnic awareness has had many positive consequences to unite a nation with a "history of prejudice". However, the "cult of ethnicity", if pushed too far, may endanger the unity of society. According to Schlesinger, multiculturalists are "very often ethnocentric separatists who see little in the Western heritage other than Western crimes." Their "mood is one of divesting Americans of their sinful European inheritance and seeking redemptive infusions from non-Western cultures."
Pinera says that Clinton began thinking in earnest about privatizing part of Social Security back in 1995, after a discussion with former Colorado Gov. Richard Lamm, an ardent advocate for Social Security reform and, like Clinton, a moderate Democrat.
According to Pinera, Clinton saw private accounts as a way to cement his presidential record as a reformer. And the model for doing so that he had in mind was from Chile, where Pinera and a group of reformers created private retirement accounts that helped fuel that nation’s decade-long growth boom. It was a rousing success. Clinton even sent his former chief of staff, Mack McLarty, to Chile in 1996 to see how private personal accounts worked. In a letter to Pinera, he talked about how impressive Chile’s program was, calling it “the mother of all reforms,” adding: “We can learn a great deal from your country’s bold initiative, which is widely envied throughout the hemisphere.” Three years later, in December 1998, Pinera attended a White House conference on Social Security reform. There, he outlined the simple elements of the Chilean Model: “Every Chilean worker has a pension passbook — I always carry one of them. Just one month later, in his 1999 State of the Union address, he proposed what he called “USA accounts,” universal savings accounts funded by about 11% of the then-Social Security surplus as a means of taking pressure off the Social Security program, which was even then approaching insolvency. Every American would have had a private savings account, funded by a portion of his or her payroll taxes. “USA accounts will help all Americans to share in our nation’s wealth and to enjoy a more secure retirement,” Clinton said. And he was right. But it was not to be. Clinton’s involvement in the Monica Lewinsky scandal and his subsequent impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice derailed his plans. Despite being found not guilty, his reputation was in tatters. He never recovered, and his entire final-year agenda for his presidency went by the wayside — a victim of his own insatiable appetites. When Bush proposed private accounts in 2005, Democrats opposed it. Sadly, we’re paying a price for that. Today, a mere six months after Social Security’s 80th anniversary, the program is insolvent.
Ahead of "gun/gun violence" were such issues as: Congress, the economy, unemployment, immigration, terrorism, race relations, the federal budget deficit, healthcare, poverty and education. According to Gallup, just one percent of those polled cited "guns/gun control" as a concern for most of 2015. The number rose to 7 percent in October and December following two mass shootings. Still, for the second consecutive year, dissatisfaction with government beat the economy as the problem more Americans identified as the nation's top problem in 2015, according to Gallup.
After the pro-Western government of China was forced to flee to the island of Taiwan in 1949, when the Communists took over mainland China, bitter recriminations in Washington led to the question: "Who lost China?" China was, of course, never ours to lose, though it might be legitimate to ask if a different American policy toward China could have led to a different outcome. In more recent years, however, Iraq was in fact ours to lose, after U.S. troops vanquished Saddam Hussein's army and took over the country. Today, we seem to be in the process of losing Iraq, if not to the Islamic State, then to Iran, whose troops are in Iraq fighting IS. Had the Bush administration pulled it off, such an achievement in the Mideast could have been a magnificent gift to the entire world, bringing peace to a region that has been the spearhead of war and international terrorism. Owebenedict & the Retreat & Defeat Democraps could not allow this…) Germany and Japan had been transformed from belligerent military powers threatening world peace for more than half a century to two of the most pacifist nations on earth, in both cases after years of American occupation reshaped these societies. Why not Iraq? First of all, Germany and Japan were already nations before the American occupation. There was no "nation-building" to do. But Iraq was a collection of bitter rivals — Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, for example — who had never resolved their differences to form a nation but were instead held together only by an iron dictatorship, as Yugoslavia once was. Replacing German and Japanese dictatorships with democracy after World War II was a challenge. But both countries remained under American military governments for years, slowly gaining such self-governing powers as the military overseers chose and at such a pace as these overseers deemed prudent in the light of conditions on the ground. American authorities did not rush to set up an independent government, able to operate at cross purposes because it was "democratically elected" in a country without the prerequisites of a viable democracy. Despite the mistakes that were made in Iraq, it was still a viable country until Obama made the stubborn decision to pull out all the troops, ignoring his own military advisors, just so he could claim to have restored "peace," when in fact he invited chaos and defeat. This is only the latest of Obama's gross misjudgments about Iraq, going back to his Senate days, when he vehemently opposed the (winning) military "surge" that crushed the terrorist insurgency — as did Sen. Hillary Clinton (oppose the winning surge), by the wa
(Democraps’ plan for the USA..more fundamental transformation & hope & change..)
Greece in shock as banks shut after snap referendum call. Stunned Greeks faced shuttered banks, long supermarkets lines and overwhelming uncertainty on Monday as a breakdown in talks between Athens and its international creditors plunged the country deep into crisis. With Greece's bailout expiring on June 30 and an IMF payment falling due at the same time, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras pleaded by phone with European officials to extend the programme until a referendum on Sunday on its future terms. The frantic efforts to secure Greece's place within the euro zone followed a dramatic weekend. Tsipras's decision, early on Saturday, to put the aid package to a popular vote took the lenders and some of Tsipras's own negotiating team by surprise.
It also pushed Greece towards defaulting on 1.6 billion euros ($1.77 billion) due to the International Monetary Fund on Tuesday.
Greeks - used to lengthy talks with creditors before an eleventh-hour deal - were left shocked by the turn of events. Lines snaked outside ATMs and inside supermarkets while fears of disruptions to petrol and medicine supplies grew.
Rev. C.L. Bryant Inspires Florida Grassroots activists - by Chris Hopkins
The American dream is alive an well and the proof of that was CL Bryant's talk to the South Lake 912 Project in Clermont FL April 23rd. C L Bryant's dynamic style encouraged to members to stay vigilant and defend the Republic. He explained how the Civil Right's movement of the 1950's was actually started by Republicans and President Eisenhower but Lyndon Johnson and John Kennedy put a stop to it in the Senate. "Know your history, that history is yours and you need to claim it and proclaim it!" The South Lake 912 Project is proud to partner with FreedomWorks and its staff. Allen Page the Regional Director for FW was on hand to make sure the evening went as smoothly as he had planned. Noah Wall the Grass Roots Director spoke on connecting with and staying connected our membership which is exactly what is needed in Florida. Read more here...
In our exclusive TV interview, Bishop Jackson explodes liberal minds by explaining:
1) Why the shooter Dylann Roof was a left-wing extremist, not a right-wing conservative.
2) Why churches should arm themselves and protect the 2nd Amendment.
3) Why anti-Christian motives were just as strong as racist motives in the shooter.
Watch! Dr. Chaps' exclusive TV interview with Bishop E.W. Jackson, about the anti-Christian motives of the Charleston shooter--> 4) Why neo-Nazism is leftist and socialist.
5) Why Bible-believing Christians are not racist.
6) Why the Republican, conservative philosophy fights against racism, not for it.
7) Why homosexuality is not the same as race.
8) How American can truly heal the racial divide.
Needless to say, this amazing interview is so controversial it should go viral. Watch it now!
Will the Democratic Party finally apologize for supporting slavery, segregation, lynching, and the Ku Klux Klan?
Let me recall these lines from some of your party platforms. From your 1840 Democrat platform:
Resolved, That congress has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several states, and that such states are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the constitution; that all efforts by abolitionists or others, made to induce congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend to our political institutions.
And again in your 1844 Democrat platform:
That Congress has no power, under the Constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several States; and that such States are the sole and proper judges of everything pertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the Constitution; that all efforts, by abolitionists or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend to our Political Institutions.
This staunch support for slavery — not to mention the unsubtle threat that accompanied it (there would be “alarming and dangerous consequences” if serious attempts to abolish it were made) is repeated again in your party platforms of 1848 and 1852. By 1856, your party’s support of slavery was expanded in your newest platform, with several additional sections added including vowing: “That the Democratic party will resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made.” In 1860 your platform said: “Resolved, That the Democratic party will abide by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States upon these questions of Constitutional law.” This was, in fact, an endorsement of the infamous Dred Scott decision by the Court, a decision which legal scholars say was designed to write slavery into the Constitution. And your party approved of it. As the Civil War was ending your party opposed the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment — which ended slavery. Among those who opposed ending slavery was Congressman Fernando Wood. Wood (as noted in Bruce Bartlett’s Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past) was not only a member from New York, he was a former mayor of New York. Wood explained why he and the vast majority of the House Democratic Caucus — in which you now sit — opposed ending slavery. The Almighty has fixed the distinction of the races; the Almighty has made the black man inferior, and, sir, by no legislation, by no military power, can you wipe out this distinction.…The condition of domestic servitude as existing in the southern states is the highest condition of which the African race is capable Likewise your party opposed not only the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments that gave legal rights to African-Americans as well as the right to vote, your party supporters banded together to form the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan being described by University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease as the “terrorist arm of the Democratic Party,” while historian Eric Foner of Columbia University calls the Klan “a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party.” For decades your party gave free rein to the Klan and its rabid, racist violence. In 1924 the Klan ran your Democratic Convention in New York’s Madison Square Garden, known to history as the “Klan bake” convention. Time and time and time again your party selected Klan members to represent it in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House as well as state governorships and all manner of local officials. Your party used this support to win the congressional power that passed everything from the creation of the Federal Reserve to Social Security. One of the latter’s notable supporters, in fact, was Mississippi’s Senator Theodore Bilbo, a proud supporter of Social Security who boasted of his membership in the Klan. One troubling sign of just how close was your party’s relationship with the Klan was President Franklin Roosevelt’s appointment of Alabama’s liberal New Deal Senator Hugo Black to the Supreme Court. Black held a “golden passport” — aka a lifetime membership in the Klan. Decades later, in 1968, Justice Black wrote: President Roosevelt… told me there was no reason for my worrying about my having been a member of the Ku Klux Klan. He said some of his best friends and supporters he had in the state of Georgia were among members of the organization. He never in any way, by word or attitude, indicated any doubt about my having been in the Klan nor did he indicate any criticism of me for having been a member of that organization.
How long will the Democrats continue their absurd charade? All the while claiming Republicans are racist, meanwhile the Democrats are the party clearly responsible for the contemptible Jim Crow laws. Let's see how proud these secret, racist beliefs make current day Democrats. Let's see how they like the real truth being told about their party.
Here are more devastating quotes from the 'party that cares' (or pretends to care, to deceive voters):
"Mr. President, the crime of lynching . . . is not of sufficient importance to justify this legislation."
-- Sen. Claude Pepper (D., Fla.), 1938, spoken during a six-hour speech against the anti-lynching bill
"I am a former Kleagle [recruiter] of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County . . . The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia. It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state in the union." -- Robert C. Byrd, 1946, Democratic Senator from West Virginia, 1959-2010, Senate Majority Leader, 1977-80 and 1987-88, Senate President Pro Tempore, 1989-95, 2001-03, 2007-2010
President Truman's civil rights program "is a farce and a sham--an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty. I am opposed to that program. I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill ... I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill."-- Rep. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1948, U.S. Senator, 1949-61, Senate Majority Leader, 1955-61, President, 1963-69
"I did not lie awake at night worrying about the problems of Negroes."
Working Americans want to see us hit the pause button on immigration, as we did from the 1920s for decades, as America sought to assimilate decades of immigration, and that was without a welfare state. Stand up for the American worker, wages and jobs, prioritizing our people first. That’s a winning issue every time.” Ann Coulter’s scathing indictment of immigration “Adios Ameica” immediately rocketed to No. 1 on Amazon’s list of political bestsellers.. A graph of the numbers over the years vividly illustrates just how different today’s astronomical immigration levels are from the historic norm, and where they are heading, on a record-shattering pace.
In 1884, 16 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, John Elk, who -- as you may have surmised by his name -- was an Indian, had to go to the Supreme Court to argue that he was an American citizen because he was born in the United States.
He lost. In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not grant Indians citizenship. The "main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment," the court explained -- and not for the first or last time -- "was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black ... should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside." American Indians were not made citizens until 1924. Lo those 56 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Indians were not American citizens, despite the considered opinion of Judge Napolitano. Of course it's easy for legal experts to miss the welter of rulings on Indian citizenship inasmuch as they obtained citizenship in a law perplexingly titled: "THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924." It is true that in a divided 1898 case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court granted citizenship to the children born to legal immigrants, with certain exceptions, such as for diplomats. But that decision was so obviously wrong, even the Yale Law Journal ridiculed it. Thus, under the majority's logic in Wong Kim Ark, children born to American parents traveling in England would not be American citizens, but British subjects. The anchor baby scam was invented 30 years ago by a liberal zealot, Justice William Brennan, who slipped a footnote into a 1982 Supreme Court opinion announcing that the kids born to illegals on U.S. soil are citizens. Citizenship in our nation is not a game of Red Rover with the Border Patrol! Our history and our Constitution are being perverted for the sole purpose of dumping immigrants on the country to take American jobs. So far, only Donald Trump is defending black history on the issue of the 14th Amendment.
Presidential contender Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, joined Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., in sending a letter to the Obama administration demanding answers to 15 questions that would tie the recent spate of terrorist attacks to the nation’s immigration deluge. The Aug. 12 letter states that 72 immigrants have been identified, just in the past year, as having been involved in terrorist activity: Mark Levin addressed the issue in no uncertain terms in his Aug. 12 program. “Day in and day out we’re told about the dreamers. Who are the dreamers? Illegal alien minors. Well we have dreamers too – our children. What about our children? They never talk about our children. Jeb Bush, the Republican establishment, the Democrats. "When a foreign citizen is issued a green card, it guarantees them the following benefits inside the United States: lifetime work authorization, access to federal welfare, access to Social Security and Medicare, the ability to obtain citizenship and voting privileges, and the immigration of their family members and elderly relatives." Holding a green card makes an immigrant a "lawful permanent resident." About 1 million of these cards are handed out per year in the U.S. under current policy. what does that mean for the impact on pollution to the environment, on jobs and the labor market, on the schools, the health-care system?"
Redistributing revenue from the 50 percent tax rate would result in $1,760 in additional post-tax income for households in the lowest quintile of earners. As the authors put it, "our results do not speak to the desirability of the tax-and-transfer policy, just to the fact that even a significant tax increase on the highest-income households and transfer to low-income households has a small effect on overall inequality." Source: Alison Burke, "New research shows raising the top income tax rate won't reduce inequality," Brookings Institute, October 1 ,2015.
Sign our petition to the DOJ, asking them to investigate what may be felony crimes committed by Planned Parenthood: http://citizengo.org/en/26785-investigate-planned-parenthoods-sale-aborted-body-parts-ppsellsbabyparts
Democrat Bill Patmon, a state representative in Ohio, has introduced a bill to end Ohio state funding to Planned Parenthood. “Five thousand, four hundred and ninety-nine abortions are in Cuyahoga County, which I happen to represent,” Patmon said in a speech Tuesday. “And 63 percent of them are black women, 63 percent of them are of a certain hue of their skin.” “You hear a lot of demonstrations across the country now, about black lives matter,” Patmon added. “Well, they skipped one place. They should be in front of Planned Parenthood.”
It’s true that a Democratic president, Lyndon Johnson, shepherded the 1964 Civil Rights Act to passage. But who voted for it? Eighty percent of Republicans in the House voted aye, as against 61 percent of Democrats. In the Senate, 82 percent of Republicans favored the law, but only 69 percent of Democrats. Among the Democrats voting nay were Albert Gore Sr., Robert Byrd, and J. William Fulbright. Fulbright, on whom Bill Clinton bestowed the Medal of Freedom. Fulbright was one of the 19 senators who signed the “Southern manifesto” defending segregation.
The Republican presidential candidate in 1964 also opposed the Civil Rights Act (as he thought it should have been a constitutional amendment). Barry Goldwater had been an enthusiastic backer of the 1957 and 1960 civil rights acts (both overwhelmingly opposed by Democrats). He was a founding member of the Arizona chapter of the NAACP. He hired many blacks in his family business and pushed to desegregate the Arizona National Guard. He had a good-faith objection to some features of the 1964 act, which he regarded as unconstitutional.
Copyright © 2018 obama legacy - All Rights Reserved.