The EU has had many problems, most of them have been caused by the Globalist immigration policy promoted by George Soros and strongly supported by the tyrannical EU parliament. We are witnessing a strong push back on these immigration policies, most recently in Italy. The result of these immigration policies has been a break down in law and order within the different countries including rapes, assaults, murders, attacks on the public in general, ignoring local laws, and the establishment of no go zones where Sharia Law has replaced the law of the specific nation.
The results of these immigration practices in the EU have not been broadly reported in the United States due to political correctness and support for and encouragement of these same polices for the United States under the Obama regime. Political correctness has also been the reason for the outrageous crimes and proliferation of these crimes going unpublicized and unpunished in European Countries. The person bringing these crimes to the publics attention has been ostracized or jailed because of the manufactured crime of Islamophobia while the rapist, assaulter, bomber, or murderer is excused with at worst a slap on the wrist.
Those who have turned their backs on these assaults on their national heritage are no longer turning their backs and we are hearing more and more cries against the enabler of these horrific crimes against humanity, the EU. The policies of the EU have been instituted for the purpose of Globalization as demanded by the world-wide collectivist movement. The Trump administration is fighting this destructive movement in the United States. We Freedom Loving Americans must support the Trump administration in this worthwhile battle. Here is a short history of how this immigration policy has brought about so much unrest and evil against humanity in the EU.
The EU Common European Asylum System (CEAS) is a set of EU laws, completed in 2005. They are intended to ensure that all EU member states protect the rights of asylum seekers and refugees. The CEAS sets out minimum standards and procedures for processing and deciding asylum applications, and for the treatment of both asylum seekers and those who are recognized as refugees. Implementation of CEAS varies throughout the European Union. A number of EU states still do not operate fair, effective systems of asylum decision-making and support, leading to a patchwork of 28 asylum systems producing uneven results.
Asylum seekers have no legal duty to claim asylum in the first EU state they reach, and many move on, seeking to join relatives or friends for support, or to reach a country with a functioning asylum system. However, the “Dublin” regulation stipulates that EU member states can choose to return asylum seekers to their country of first entry to process their asylum claim, so long as that country has an effective asylum system.
EU countries in the north, the desired destination of many refugees, have sought to use this Dublin system to their advantage, at the expense of the south, where most refugees first arrive. Yet these efforts have been obstructed by failures of asylum systems in the south. Domestic and European courts have ruled against asylum seekers being returned to Greece, notably in a landmark case in 2011 that found Belgium in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights for exposing an Afghan national to detention, harsh living conditions, and risks arising from shortcomings in Greece’s asylum system after a return.
To address the uneven application of CEAS and the problems of the Dublin system, a reform of the CEAS was proposed in 2016. Among the proposed reforms is one that risks endangering the right to asylum in the EU, with an obligation to verify first if asylum seekers could find protection outside the EU. Some EU countries have already voiced opposition to some of the reforms, notably the obligation to take refugees from other EU countries.
How has the European Union responded to refugee movements?
In 2015, high numbers of migrants, many of them Syrians fleeing conflict, continued to move. Some European states, led by Germany, recognized that their strategy of seeking to block refugees moving across borders was unrealistic and harmful. Countries worked together to allow migrants to move onwards to the places they wished to reach. This allowed reception countries to focus their resources on supporting asylum seekers and considering claims.
By early 2016, support for this policy began to wane, with increased hostility towards migrants entering the political discourse. Certain countries along the migrant route began to close their borders. The situation further deteriorated when the EU’s decision to transfer 160,000 asylum seekers from Greece and Italy to other European member states was met with widespread resistance. In the end, a small percentage of the needed transfers actually took place.
In response to the failure to adequately process asylum claims, the EU set up “hotspots” in Greece and Italy. Hotspots identify, register, and fingerprint incoming migrants, and redirect them either towards asylum or return procedures. In practice, many hotspots are turning into overcrowded and understaffed detention and expulsion centers, with little external oversight.
In March 2016, the EU announced a deal in which Turkey would try to stop people from moving onward into Europe; in return, Turkey was promised financial assistance, visa-free travel to the EU for Turkish citizens, and faster negotiations for EU accession. But the EU-Turkey deal failed to close the border, and thousands of migrants continued to travel irregularly using smugglers. Since the deal, only 750 asylum seekers have been sent back from Greece to Turkey, because Greek officials and courts consider Turkey to be an unsafe country.
This deal is one example of a controversial practice, in which the EU links development aid or economic incentives to commitments by states to stem and manage the movements of people from their territory. Similar deals are being approved with a number of third countries including Libya, Egypt, Sudan, and Nigeria. In June 2016, the European Commission proposed a new “Partnership Framework” with third countries in the Middle East and Africa, leading to criticism by a broad range of actors for deal making with countries with poor human rights records, and for conflicting with international protection frameworks, including the right to leave one’s own country.
The EU also continues to support refugees in host countries like Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan—where the majority of Syrian refugees are hosted—including through funding for UN agencies working in the field such as the UNHCR or the WFP.
Instant lefty icon Alexandria Ocasio Cortez was confronted with a relatively simple question. Ocasio Cortez is campaigning on a laundry list of new government programs and entitlements, including "Medicare for All," free college, and a "universal jobs guarantee." But how does she intend to pay for this calorie-exploding buffet of government largesse?
After muttering some words about "back of the envelope" calculations and touting a discussion with a Nobel Prize-winning economist, she exclaimed that if wealthy people and corporations would just pay their "fair share," her dreams could become realities. This is a standard Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) reply when asked how their many give away programs will be funded. The rich are supposed to pay their fair share is the standard reply as opposed to those receiving “based on their needs” contributing a fair effort for their own welfare.
When questioned what fair share is, the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) standard reply is that they do not have an exact number in mind, but they know that what the number is now is to low and the fair share to be paid is much higher.
When the progressive income tax amendment was ratified, the top rate in the progressive tax scheme was 7%. Apparently, that was fair at the time. However, in about five years the top rate had been raised to 77%. Fair share had gone from 7% to 77% in five years. Fair had been increased dramatically within 5 years under Wilson and his fellow Marxist/Progressives.
Marxist/Progressive Franklin Roosevelt in Executive Order 9250 said the confiscation of 100% of income over $25,000 was fair.
“In order to correct gross inequities and to provide for greater equality in contributing to the war effort, the Director is authorized to take the necessary action, and to issue the appropriate regulations, so that, insofar as practicable no salary shall be authorized under Title III, Section 4, to the extent that it exceeds $25,000 after the payment of taxes allocable to the sum in excess of $25,000. Provided, however, that such regulations shall make due allowance for the payment of life insurance premiums on policies heretofore issued, and required payments on fixed obligations heretofore incurred, and shall make provision to prevent undue hardship.”
The person upon which the Marxist/Progressive Party (Democrats) base their philosophy and policies, Karl Marx, said that what was fair was for the government to receive the entire GDP and then the government would determine what each was to receive based on the needs of the individual as defined by the government.
We constantly are told that the rich and the corporations are not paying their fair share. Fair share is defined many ways. What we know is that the modern Marxist/Progressive (Party) Democrats have instituted the primary criteria set forth by Karl Marx in his roadmap of transformation to his classless society; a steeply progressive income tax. They are constantly reminding us that fair is a higher and higher number. This would lead any rationale person to believe that the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) agree with Marx that the government should receive all income and then they will distribute based as they determine to be fair; FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITIES TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEEDS.
Margaret Thatcher explained that socialism fails when the government runs out of other people’s money to share.
Obama told Joe the Plumber it was important for him to do well so the government could take money from him to give to others.
Karl Marx said that each should work based on their abilities, so they could give to others based on the need of the other.
This is what the American Safety Net and the American Welfare System do; they take from the "greedy" who work to achieve and give to the victim who believes they deserve.
The principle difference between capitalism and socialism is that capitalism creates unlimited wealth and socialism brings about declining wealth. Capitalism plants seed to grow more crops so more can be consumed and socialism plants less and less seed so there is less and less to consume.
The states that have been practicing socialism are today suffering from their short sighted, politically correct, and power grabbing policies that have been employed by Marxist/Progressives (Democrats). These polices have secured the political positions of Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) in these different states but have also brought about the inevitable end that comes with giving away more and more to people because they exist, while taking from the “greedy” who believe in work, production, and achievement.
These American states are drowning in ‘irretrievable’ debt:
Connecticut may be the richest state in the country, on a per capita basis, but it's racked up a sizable debt worth more than $53 billion – and it will be taxpayers who are the only available source to bail out the state, if it is even possible.
And Connecticut isn’t the only state struggling with a debt crisis: California, Illinois, New Jersey and New York are unable to make pension payments to retired government workers.
In Illinois, for instance, vendors wait months to be paid by a government that’s $30 billion in debt, and one whose bonds are just one notch above junk bond status. New York’s more than $356 billion in debt; New Jersey more than $104 billion; and California more than $428 billion.
The United States government is in much the same position. Nobody seems to care. The more we stick our heads in the sand and do nothing, the quicker we will be facing the same crisis the people of Venezuela are facing.
I know, the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) and the Republican Establishment tell us that the United States and Venezuela are two different countries. That is true, but the inevitable result of socialism has never cared what the name of a country is. Socialism’s only concern has been to plant less and less seed so more and more seed could be given based on need and not production. Then one day it is discovered there is no more seed to plant or to give away, isn’t that right Soviet Union, members of the Soviet Block, Mao’s China, Castro’s Cuba, Venezuela, Connecticut, California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and shortly the United States.
In a new Hill.TV/HarrisX American Barometer poll recently released, an overwhelming majority of respondents, 76 percent, said they would not vote for a “socialist” political candidate, while only 24 percent of those polled said they would vote for a socialist candidate.
The question that must be asked would be is a socialist candidate a socialist because they say they are a socialist or is it based on their philosophy and policies. For the purpose of this discussion, and what should be the purpose of all discussions on this topic, we should define an individual not base on what they call themselves but whether or not their philosophy and policies are similar to or the same as what socialists believe.
This following statement is taken from the platform of the Socialists for a Democratic America (DSA).
“We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit, alienated labor, gross inequalities of wealth and power, discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender expression, disability status, age, religion, and national origin, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo. We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships. We are socialists because we are developing a concrete strategy for achieving that vision, for building a majority movement that will make democratic socialism a reality in America. We believe that such a strategy must acknowledge the class structure of American society and that this class structure means that there is a basic conflict of interest between those sectors with enormous economic power and the vast majority of the population.
Based on this definition, you have supported a socialist if you supported a candidate who:
Supported high taxes on businesses as well as high income individuals, based on the words of Marx “a steeply progressives income tax.”
Supported control of the economy by government if through regulations, executive orders, or law. A person who supported for instance the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
Supported a strong EPA that believes all water for instance is under the domain of the Central government including rain water that falls on your private property.
Supported sanctuary states or cities, open borders or weak borders, or supported the break down of rule of law by encouraging illegal immigration through any form.
Supported discrimination in the name of assisting minorities by supporting affirmative action programs that by their very nature are discriminatory and place the rights of a group over the rights of individuals.
Supported political correctness that in any way would suppress the individual rights outlined in the Declaration of Independence, the Untied Sates Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
Of course, we could go on and on with all the anti-American programs supported by the socialists but suffice it to say that you have voted for a Socialist if you voted for a member of the Marxist/Progressive Party (Democrat) and if you voted for many of the Republican Establishment who are individualist in name only but support many of the programs as defined in the platform of the DSA and outlined by Marx.
The poll is misleading. The results would have been different if the poll had asked if the people support those who support the different specifics believed in and adhered to by socialist whether or not they call themselves socialists. Remember, a thorn is still a thorn even if it is on the same stem that holds the rose.
Don Blankenship, the former coal baron who spent time in federal prison and finished third in the West Virginia Republican primary in May, is wading back into the state's U.S. Senate race, this time attempting filing paperwork to run as a member of the Constitution Party. Blankenship tweeted photos of himself filing the paperwork on Tuesday, saying in part, "I am the only candidate who cannot be bought by out of state billionaires and I will work hard to drain the swamp." The West Virginia voters did not agree with him.
Joe Manchin is defending his Senate seat this fall. Manchin is a member of the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) caucus and has followed the Schumer dictates including voting against tax reform and tax cuts. Manchin is expected to vote against the leftist dictates in the vote for Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, but that would be in a desperate effort to hold his seat. It is widely expected Manchin would fall into lock step with the Schumer dictates after the election.
The problem Manchin has is that West Virginia voted overwhelmingly for Trump and Trump has delivered on his promise to West Virginia in revive the coal mining industry by lifting devastating regulations, an industry that Obama decimated by initiating those devastating regulations.
Blankenship is now proving to Americans that so many politicians are far more interested in their own personal ambitions than the wishes of the voters. If Blankenship had been able to appear on the ballot, he would have garnered some votes and those votes would have been taken from Patrick Morrisey, the winner of the GOP primary in the race for the Senate thus enhancing the chances of Manchin to remain in the Senate and advance the Marxist/Progressive agenda.
West Virginia’s secretary of state denied Blankenship’s bid to appear on the Senate ballot as a third-party candidate, a victory for Freedom and Independence, hoping to consolidate votes against Manchin in the general election.
Secretary of State, Mac Warner, said Blankenship’s bid would violate the state’s "sore loser law" preventing a candidate who lost a primary from running again in the general election. “According to the plain language of the law, which controls my decision, a candidate who loses the Primary Election cannot use the nomination-certificate process to run another campaign in the General Election. Any other decision would be contrary to the law," Warner said in a statement.
It is imperative the GOP not only retain control of the Senate but increase its margin. The chances of another opening occurring on the Supreme Court are very good and a wider margin in the Senate would assure the ratification of a justice like Scalia, Thompson, Alito, and Gorsuch, perhaps Amy Barrett. As importantly, it would enable judges who understand the role of the courts as determined by the Constitution and understand the Constitution as written is the law of the land, to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
Thank you, Mac Warner, for reading the law and applying it as it is written.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley spoke to a group of conservative high schoolers this week with some advice they may not have been expecting. Haley began her speech for the High School Leadership Summit at George Washington University by asking her young audience if they had posted any messages online reading, "own the libs," a popular phrase among today's conservatives. Most raised their hands and applauded.
But, that wasn't quite the message Haley was trying to send. Taking a different tone, the ambassador suggested the students show more grace to their political opponents. Being so confrontational will not convince any of their peers to join the movement.
"I know that it's fun and that it can feel good, but step back and think about what you're accomplishing when you do this - are you persuading anyone?" Haley asked. "Who are you persuading? We've all been guilty of it at some point or another, but this kind of speech isn't leadership - it's the exact opposite."
"Real leadership is about persuasion, it's about movement, it's bringing people around to your point of view," she added. "Not by shouting them down, but by showing them how it is in their best interest to see things the way you do."
We must always ask ourselves what our purpose is. If your purpose is to win an insult war than have at it and send the best zinger you can. If your purpose is to show these people the errors of their way, then your zinger is counterproductive.
During the question and answer portion of my talks, I am often asked what the best way is to save the freedom and independence won by our founders that is so vehemently under attack today by the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) and the Republican establishment. The approach of the typical Freedom Loving American today is to hurl an insult, call the other a derogatory name, or use some foolish and baseless defense such as while they did it first or they are worse than we are. This approach is a total waste of time and effort if your purpose is to persuade.
Americans beliefs today, for the most part, are sticker bumper beliefs. If you ask most people on the left or the right why they believe the way they do, the answer is at best a surface answer. For instance, if you ask someone extolling the virtues of socialism, the typical answer would be that it is good for the little guy and punishes the rich. The latter is true, but the former is wrong. History clearly shows that socialism benefits only those in power and hurts everybody else in the society.
The same holds true for those on the right who will support some forms of government growth and spending while denouncing big government. Government becomes tyrannical as it grows and gains control of the lives of the citizens through programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and other welfare programs. Ronald Reagan explained that Social Security is a welfare program and said Medicare, if adopted, would also be a welfare program. When the administration of Franklin Roosevelt argued for Social Security before the Supreme Court, they also argued that Social Security was indeed a welfare program. Today, Social Security and Medicare control many Americans and consequently they dictate a vote for the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) party to protect their welfare.
The solution to our dilemma lies with the people of America. We must decide if we wish to be a free and independent people or a people whose lives and interests are dictated to us by government. If we wish to be a free and independent people, we must take responsibility for the direction of our country today. We must understand that this socialism creep has come about because we did not exercise our responsibility to remain free. We went to sleep on our watch.
The first step we must take is to understand what collectivism is, how it works, and the devastation it always brings. This can only be done by Freedom Loving Americans committing themselves to spend the time and effort to read and learn. We must then begin, as Sam Adams said, to set brush fires of freedom in the minds of men. We do this by DISCUSSING and not arguing with or zinging those who advocate for and support collectivism. If the discussion starts to become an argument, stop arguing. Remember, leadership is not telling but leading the other to reach the proper conclusion.
We Freedom Loving Americans must also put forth the effort to change our schools from being institutions of indoctrination back to institutions of education. This can best be accomplished by becoming active in local school boards, by supporting all efforts to eliminate any federal involvement in education, and by supporting the reduction of power held by the teacher unions.
We Freedom Loving Americans must also become involved in our city and county governments which have become increasingly more tyrannical through regulations that dictate to each citizen how that citizen is to live their lives and what their interests are to be. Local governments, for the most part, institute more control over our lives and with much less resistance than do the federal government and state government.
Thank you, Nikki Haley, for showing these young minds the proper approach. That proper approach is to understand the beliefs of those with whom you disagree better than they do, understand why you believe the way you believe, and then refrain from the arguing and zinging, and begin to practice setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men.
House GOP leaders are reneging on a vow to hold an immigration vote before the August recess, a move that puts House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy in a particularly awkward spot as he seeks to become the next speaker.
In June, McCarthy (R-Calif.) personally promised several rank-and-file members a vote on a new guest-worker program for farmers, an offer backed by Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). The assurance was critical at the time: It persuaded Reps. Dennis Ross (R-Fla.) and Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.) not to sign on to an effort — which Republican leaders were desperately trying to stop — to force a vote on legislation creating a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers, the immigrants brought to the country illegally as children. The so-called discharge petition ultimately fell two signatures short.
But now, Republican leaders have no plans to take up the guest-worker program before the summer break, according to four sources in leadership. Ryan does not want to hold a vote that’s certain to fail, they said — though proponents of the guest-worker bill said McCarthy’s original promise to hold a vote was unconditional.
“That was not the deal; the deal was that we’re taking it up regardless,” Ross said Monday afternoon, arguing that the lack of 218 votes shouldn’t preclude the promised vote. “There are those of us [who] need to go back [home] and show that we’re doing all we can to do what we said we would do."
The pattern of Boehner, Ryan, and McCarthy is to promise whatever is expedient at the time. The pattern of Boehner, Ryan, and McCarthy has been to proclaim their conservative values but then to support big government bills in the name of cooperation even though the very definition of conservative is smaller government.
A few years ago, I spoke to a Tea Party group in Bakersfield. McCarthy and his lovely wife were in attendance. A part of my talk was to proclaim the virtues of limited government as touted by our founders and made a part of the United States Constitution. Mrs. McCarthy was very supportive while Mr. McCarthy sat with his arms folded, maintaining a look of disgust. Kevin McCarthy did not acknowledge me in any way after he finished his remarks in which he said limited government was good, but then proceeded to explain all the wonderful government programs he was pushing.
McCarthy should never be supported for Speaker. McCarthy is no different from Ryan or Boehner. All three are ardent supporters of big government and strong advocates against limited government. They are not conservatives. All three have been “useful idiots” for the socialist movement pushed by the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats).
DO NOT SUPPORT MCCARTHY FOR SPEAKER. HIS NAME IS DIFFERENT FROM RYAN OR BOEHNER, BUT HIS AGENDA IS THE SAME, MORE SPENDING AND BIGGER GOVERNMENT, WHOSE WORD OR HANDSHAKE IS WORTHLESS.
Remember the days when parents would anxiously wait for the birth of their baby, so they would then know if they added a boy or a girl to their family. The parents would have a boy’s name picked and a girl’s name picked. They were not sure before the birth if they should have pink or blue accessories when putting together the nursery for the new addition.
Then along came ultrasound. Not only could we see the child developing, the parents, if they wanted to end the suspense and concentrate on the name for only one sex and begin to begin to prepare the nursery in the proper color scheme, could learn the sex of their child well before the baby was born. This was considered, and it was, a huge breakthrough. It also proved to any doubter that life really does begin at conception.
Now we are learning that we have been wrong from the beginning of time. We actually do not know the sex of the baby at time of birth nor does the ultrasound give us the answer as to whether or not we have a boy or a girl. We are now learning that anatomy is meaningless. We must wait to learn if we have a boy or a girl until the child tells us at some later time if they are male or female. How foolish we have been to believe that anatomy has anything to do with gender.
Is Zyler a boy or a girl? How about Kadyn? That’s a question their parents, Nate and Julia Sharpe, say only the twins can decide. The couple represent a group of parents raising “theybies” — children being brought up without gender designation from birth.
“A theyby is, I think, different things to different people,” Nate Sharpe said. “For us, it means raising our kids with gender-neutral pronouns — so, ‘they,’ ‘them,’ ‘their,’ rather than assigning ‘he,’ ‘she,’ ‘him,’ ‘her’ from birth based on their anatomy.”
Apparently, the idea is that each child will chose their gender. We foolish traditionalists just do not understand that a three or four-year-old child is capable of determining that nature was wrong at time of conception. Nature said the child was a boy, but by the time the child is three or four, that child is capable of determining nature was wrong.
The world is blessed that we have such enlightened parents. Typically, these parents also understand that their children are capable of developing in all other areas of life without guidance and direction as well. Apparently, the role of a parent guiding and directing a child is outdated as well.
May God have mercy on us.
The Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) are coming unhinged. They were so used to Obama’s hate America agenda, pro collectivist agenda, and pro Islamist Jihad agenda supported by the far-left progressive Hollywood elites and media elites, they began to believe the American population also supported this anti-American view. They are not sure what they should do now that we have pro-American, anti-collectivist, and anti-Islamic Jihadist leadership. While the Republican party is coalescing around the pro-American agenda of President Trump the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) are becoming more and more fractured. They seem to not know what to do.
The results of this fracture have been the embracement of even more anti-American, anti-Constitution, and anti-free enterprise views.
We are seeing the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) embracing a pro communist viewpoint overtly now as opposed to covertly. The current leadership of the Marxist/Progressive (Democrat) party, Perez and Ellison, are both calling for a full and total embrace of the doctrine of Karl Marx. They are supporting the group that calls themselves Democrats for a Socialist America (DSA) that has stated they support the classless society championed by Marx and Engels. Their actions support their words.
The classless society of Marx and Engels calls for a totally conforming and totally equal society, politically, socially, and economically. This means that all people must think alike, must proclaim the same doctrine, and must have the same goals and aspirations. Thus, we are witnessing an all-out assault, supported by the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats), on the rights given us by the Creator, per the Declaration of Independence, the rights necessary for a free society, as outlined in the Bill of Rights, and the limited and divided government necessary for a free society, as put forth in the Constitution of the United States.
We are also seeing the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) becoming even more irrational than before and employing their double standard strategy necessary under their “ends always justify the means” mentality. They are now referring to Trump as a traitor because it sounds good, I guess. A traitor is defined as somebody who aids an enemy. An example of a traitor would be a president who lifts devastating sanctions, enables an enemy to continue their program of building nuclear weapons to be used against the United States, and gives financial aid to the enemy so they can continue their financial assistance to groups that are attacking the United States.
We are witnessing the Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) double standard in calling for Trump’s translator in his meeting with Putin while not wanting to know what Bill Clinton and Lynch discussed on the tarmac in Arizona. They are unwilling to accept that perhaps Trump and Putin discussed golf and grandchildren as did Clinton and Lynch.
The Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) are trying to tell us that the suspected influence of any foreign entity in our elections is a new and novel idea while ignoring the fact that Obama interred in the Israeli election. Newsflash, the Russians have been trying to influence our elections since Lenin started the Communist International. There is no reason to suspect that the Romanov’s had any concern about any election taking place in the United States. It is also safe to assume that both France and Great Britain tried to influence the elections of 1788 and 1792.
The Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) are calling for violent civil unrest to create chaos and end the manner in which the Untied States holds elections. They are still unwilling to accept that Hillary Clinton lost the election to Donald Trump because she is Hillary Clinton and because of the policies she embraced. Like any child, they will blame anything and everyone else for their gross mistake of nominating her for a job for which she is morally and politically unsuited.
The Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) truly believe the Untied States should be transformed to the collectivist (communist, socialist, progressive) society promised by Obama in November of 2008. The American people disagree. The American people stated they still wanted a president who does not believe the United States is the worst of the worst imperial nations, a president who does not believe in open borders as called for by Marx, a president who does not believe in the classless society that is totally conforming and totally equal as called for by Marx, a president who does not believe in bringing about a collectivist society that has failed every time it has been tried, but they want a president who believes in the true American values of individualism, rule of law, limited government, divided government, and sovereignty by the people.
Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) your time to transform the United States to a collectivist (communist, socialist, progressive) society has not yet arrived. For the good of all Americans, current and future, let us do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening for it will be the end of freedom in the United States as it has been for every nation that embraced the so-called socially just society.
GOP leaders held a vote on a resolution by Louisiana GOP Rep. Clay Higgins expressing the House’s support for all ICE officers and personnel and denouncing calls to completely abolish the agency. You can look through the record and you will see many of these types of votes that are a total waste of time. They in no way benefit the people of the United States. The only purpose of such a bill is to get members of the opposite party “on the record” so the record can be used against them in elections.
In the meantime, the United States currently has a national debt of $21 trillion dollars and climbing toward $25 trillion and then $30 trillion. When the Trump administration discovered $15 billion that were not used by different agencies and they proposed to withdraw the funds from the agencies and return it to the United States Treasury, congress voted to not allow this transaction.
Interest on the national debt is projected to be $310 billion in 2018. It was $187 billion in 2009 and is projected to be $717 billion in 2026. The interest on the national debt will become the single biggest budget expense. Yes, Americans, we are borrowing money to pay our interest. The only possible outcomes are to actually reduce spending and start to reduce the debt; get ready for the government to default on its interest and principle payments; get prepared for hyperinflation similar to what is happening in Venezuela today. Congress continues to ignore this danger to our national security because it is dangerous to the individual members political careers. Yes Americans, our elected officials place their political futures above the common sense needs of our safety.
Our southern border remains open. The Marxist/Progressives (Democrats) support and encourage open borders. The Republican establishment claims they want to secure the borders but always find an excuse why they cannot support it this time. The creatures of the swamp support open borders because it secures their jobs and insures that they will retire with extremely healthy pensions.
Meanwhile drugs continue to come into the Untied States unabated. Criminals such as MS-13 continue to come and go as they please. Other criminals, including those who traffic children for the sex trade, come and go as they please. We are told the cost of building a secure wall is prohibitive by those who support open borders. Meanwhile the annual cost to the American taxpayer is skyrocketing. According to one study, current immigration policy imposes as much as $300 billion annually in net fiscal costs on U.S. taxpayers. The estimated cost of building a border wall is $21.6 billion. If we built the wall, we could lower our annual outlay by $300 billion. That would almost cover the current interest payment on the debt.
We Freedom Loving Americans must demand our representatives in Washington stop playing political games that insure their future and start to put the good of the United States as their top priority.