National Security Expert Slams Hillary’s Claim to Intimidate Americans Who Offend Islam with Free Speech

National Security Expert Slams Hillary’s Claim to Intimidate Americans Who Offend Islam with Free Speech: 47GH, B43

As Secretary of State, Clinton promised an international Islamic organization in 2011 that the United States government would “use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming” to intimidate Americans who improperly criticize Islam or Muhammad.

“An official of the United States, in an official communiqué, went to a foreign land to commit to a foreign leader that the United States Government would engage in the extra-legal practice of intimidating American citizens in the exercise of what is otherwise their protected free speech rights under the First Amendment,” Coughlin told TheDCNF.

Coughlin’s an attorney, decorated intelligence officer and expert on Islamic law and terrorism who consulted the military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff for about a decade following 9/11, before the Muslim Brotherhood allegedly convinced the White House to ban him and “outlaw” his briefings.He cites Clinton’s 2011 visit to Turkey and her cooperation with the OIC. The OIC is the second-largest intergovernmental organization after the U.N., consisting of 57 states that identify as “the collective voice of the Muslim world.”After she helped the OIC secure passage of U.N. resolution 16/18, “Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief,” Clinton promised the U.S. would take what steps it could to curb speech critical of Islam.

The resolution condemns “any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of print, audio-visual or electronic media.”Coughlin argues in his book it’s part of a deliberate OIC-led effort to bring the U.S. and other countries in line with Muslim speech standards, first by condemning and eventually criminalizing unwanted speech such as depictions of Muhammad.

“Over the last few years, major left wing and Islamists organizations have been working diligently to reframe free speech in an oppositional narrative that distinguishes sanctioned speech, designated free speech, from hate speech in a long term campaign to brand nonconforming speech as hate speech that is at first to be ridiculed and then criminalized,” he told TheDCNF.

soure–freedom force, rachel stolzfoos

Chelsea Clinton paid $65,000 to speak for 10 minutes:

Chelsea Clinton paid $65,000 to speak for 10 minutes: 47GH. B43

The apple certainly doesn’t fall far from the tree. While Chelsea Clinton may not yet command the exorbitant speaking fee her mother goes for, she appears to be well on her way. The younger Clinton was recently paid $65,000 to speak for a whole 10 minutes at the University of Missouri at Kansas City.

Chelsea Clinton also participated in a moderated Q&A for 20 minutes, and posed for pictures with VIPs for 30 minutes. So if you do the math, she was paid $1,083.33 per minute. Let’s hope Hillary wasn’t taking notes.

Hillary Clinton’s luxurious lifestyle has millennials rethink Hold that thought. Campus Reform’s Cabot Phillips decided to play a little game with millennial voters called “Candidate’s Cribs” in which he stopped young people in Washington, D.C. and asked them to guess which presidential candidate had lived in a series of mansions he had displayed on a poster. A lot guessed Rubio, but none guessed Clinton — and they were quite shocked to find that she was the culprit. ing their vote:

Revealed: 276 ‘sanctuary cities’ let 8,145 illegal offenders free in just 8 months, 17,000 total

Revealed: 276 ‘sanctuary cities’ let 8,145 illegal offenders free in just 8 months, 17,000 total–37GH. B40

a long read–but a lot of info

Some 276 “sanctuary cities,” nearly 50 percent more than previously revealed, released over 8,000 illegal immigrants with criminal records or facing charges free despite federal requests that they be turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for deportation, according to an explosive new report.

The Center for Immigration Studies, revealing new numbers it received under the Freedom of Information Act, said that those releases from cities that ignored federal demands came over just eight months and are just part of an even larger release of 17,000 illegals with criminal records. Author Jessica M. Vaughan, director of policy Studies for the center, also reported that many of those illegals have been rearrested after their release and charged with nearly 7,500 new charges, including child sex abuse.

“The Obama administration has given sanctuaries free rein to ignore detainers by ending the successful Secure Communities program and replacing it with the Priority Enforcement Program. This new program explicitly allows local agencies to disregard ICE notifications of deportable aliens in their custody by replacing detainers with ‘requests for notification,'” wrote Vaughan.

“The only truly effective and lasting solution is for Congress to spell out in federal law that local law enforcement agencies must cooperate with ICE by complying with all detainers or face sanctions in the form of disqualification from certain kinds of federal funding,” she added.

The new federal documents show that there are at least 276 sanctuary cities, more than the 200 previously believed, and are in 43 states. The majority, 5,132, had past criminal records, like Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, the illegal previously deported five times and now charged with murdering 32-year-old Kate Steinle. Of those, 2,984 had a prior felony conviction or charge.And, 1,867 offenders who were released were re-arrested, accumulating 7,491 new charges, including child sex abuse. Vaughan’s report found that 10 percent of the new charges involved dangerous drugs and seven percent were for driving under the influence of alcohol.

Would Hill Republicans dare crack down on sanctuary cities?

Republican Tom Cotton, with a number of allies, has introduced a bill in the Senate that would deny federal immigration and police funding to cities that defy federal law. “It is unacceptable that cities would issue ordinances that explicitly aim to frustrate federal immigration laws that are supposed to keep illegal immigrant felons off the streets,” Cotton said in a statement. “U.S. taxpayers shouldn’t be expected to support such misguided local policies that put their safety in jeopardy.” ? I asked several Republicans on the Hill, House and Senate, some members, some staff, none of whom wanted to speak for attribution. What I got was a picture of a complex situation in which unanimous GOP support is not guaranteed, and Democratic support even dicier. The consensus: Congress might be pressured to do something — or more accurately, to appear to be doing something — that in the end won’t mean much.

“I think you’re going to see is a spectrum of positions on what to do. Nobody can really, politically, say nothing should be done. But what you’re going to see is a lot of people push for something along the lines of simply making sure states, counties, and cities comply with ICE requests. . Law enforcement would still be hamstrung, illegal aliens could still receive benefits in these localities, and the only increase in deportations might be from those who had committed very serious crimes — while those who had committed lesser crimes would be allowed to stay, and some would go on to commit more serious crimes. “That said, that’s what I think Congress is going to try to do: Pass a really weak bill that would get massive bipartisan support, but change little. A big show vote everyone can pat themselves on the back for and say, look, we listened, and we did something. I think the key thing to look for is the details of and differences between the sanctuary city bills that get introduced in the days ahead. I believe that any bill that gets significant Democratic support will be a bill that changes little.

From Senate Republican 2: “ICE already does not place detainers on, or deport, most potentially dangerous aliens. ICE even frees convicted violent felons and killers. Having all ICE detainers mandatory is a floor, not a ceiling. If all aliens in jails were sent home, thousands of American lives would be saved. We don’t have to wait until they commit a felony; they’re here illegally.” From House Republican 2:

“I think the leadership is scared of doing a sanctuary cities bill. If a bill got to the floor such as the Cotton bill linking federal law enforcement grants to following immigration law, it would pass with flying colors. But I think the leadership sees it as something that would lead the media to say Republicans are against immigrants. I personally think it would be terrible politics for Democrats to oppose it, but I bet the D.C.-based consultants who influence the leadership disagree.” The question, then, is whether enough Democrats would go along. And then, if such a bill passes House and Senate, whether President Obama would sign even a modest, limited measure to pressure sanctuary cities to obey the law.

Public: No to ‘sanctuary cities’ by 2-1 margin: By a huge two-to-one margin, Americans want so-called “sanctuary cities” where illegal immigrants, even convicted felons, can avoid federal immigration laws and deportation, punished and their federal funding shut off, according to a new poll.Rasmussen Reports found that 62 percent of likely voters believe that the Justice Department should take legal action against cities that flaunt federal laws. And it found that 58 percent believe that Washington should cut off federal funds sent to those cities.The survey follows last week’s slaying of a San Francisco woman by an illegal immigrant deported several times but protected because the city has declared itself a sanctuary.

When Clinton, Obama and Biden debated sanctuary cities: Years before the killing of Kate Steinle in San Francisco, sanctuary cities were a hot issue in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary campaign. And as it happened, the three top figures in today’s Democratic party — Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton — were all running for president and were all grilled, in a single debate, about their stands on the question.

Only one — Biden — said he would not allow cities to defy federal immigration law. Obama sidestepped the question but managed to leave the clear impression he would allow sanctuary cities to continue. And Clinton made clear she would leave sanctuary cities untouched.The debate took place on September 26, 2007 at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire. Biden was questioned by Alison King of New England Cable News. She had to pull an answer out of him, but eventually got one:KING: Would you allow these cities to ignore the federal law?

BIDEN: The reason that cities ignore the federal law is the fact that there is no funding at the federal level to provide for the kind of enforcement at the federal level you need…Part of the problem is you have to have a federal government that can enforce laws. This administration’s been fundamentally derelict in not funding any of the requirements that are needed even to enforce the existing law…

KING: So Senator Biden, yes or no, would you allow those cities to ignore the federal law?

BIDEN: No.

Give Biden credit; he answered the question. But Obama didn’t allow himself to be cornered. Under less persistent questioning from the late Tim Russert of NBC, Obama stuck with a non-answer without giving even the slightest hint he would change the sanctuary city system:

RUSSERT: Senator Obama.

OBAMA: The federal law is not being enforced not because of failures of local communities, because the federal government has not done the job that it needs to do. And —

RUSSERT: But you would allow the sanctuary cities to exist?

OBAMA: What I would do as president is pass comprehensive immigration reform. And the federal government should be doing, which is controlling our borders but also providing a rational immigration system, which we currently don’t have.

Clinton tried to avoid a direct answer, too, but ended up saying she saw no choice but to allow sanctuary cities to continue:

RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, would you allow the sanctuary cities to exist?

CLINTON: Well, in addition to the general points that have been made, that I agree with, why do they have sanctuary cities? In large measure because if local law enforcement begins to act like immigration enforcement officers, what that means is that you will have people not reporting crimes. You will have people hiding from the police. And I think that is a real direct threat to the personal safety and security of all the citizens. So this is a result of the failure of the federal government, and that’s where it needs to be fixed.

RUSSERT: But you would allow the sanctuary cities to disobey the federal law.

CLINTON: Well, I don’t think there is any choice. The ICE groups go in and raid individuals, but if you’re a local police chief and you’re trying to solve a crime that you know people from the immigrant community have information about, they may not talk to you if they think you’re also going to be enforcing the immigration laws. Local law enforcement has a different job than federal immigration enforcement. The problem is the federal government has totally abdicated its responsibility.

Clinton was more direct a few months later in a 2008 interview with Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly. “Are you going to crack down on the sanctuary cities?” O’Reilly asked. “No, I’m not, and I’ll tell you why,” Clinton answered, offering pretty much the same explanation she gave at Dartmouth.

But for a moment in 2007, the three figures who would go on to lead the Democratic party for years to come all had to answer the sanctuary cities question. And of course, under President Obama, cities across the country have been allowed to ignore the law, leading, years later, to the death of Kate Steinle on the pier in San Francisco.

Sanctuary Cities: 200 Cities In The United States ‘Shield’ Illegal Immigrants: San Francisco passed a sanctuary city law in 1989, called the City and County of Refuge ordinance. That law prohibits all city employees from “assisting federal immigration enforcement” officials unless they are compelled to follow the law by a court order, according to CNN.

The bulk of sanctuary city laws were reportedly passed during the 1980s. Those who support the federal law-defying ordinances have stated that such rules permit “law-abiding” illegal immigrants to report crimes without fear of deportation. The phrase “law-abiding” being applied to “undocumented immigrants” has also been a hotly debated topic. When an individual breaks a law by entering the country illegally, then breaks more laws by working in America without paying taxes on the income — can the person still be described at law-abiding? Sanctuary cities, illegal immigration, and border security are topics likely to be discussed during the 2016 presidential campaign

“The city made a mistake, not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported,” Hillary Clinton said when referencing the Kathryn Steinle murder and San Francisco sanctuary city laws. “So I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on.”

As previously reported by the Inquisitr, MS-13 gang members were reportedly among the illegal immigrants held at Texas border facilities when a wave of illegal immigrants poured across the border last year. The young males, who admitted to being in the gang, are also reportedly attempting to recruit younger unaccompanied children into their drug-running group. Border Patrol agents say their hands are tied to separate the members of the deadly gang from the younger boys, or to schedule them for immediate deportation, because MS-13 members are minors themselves. An internal summary of Border Patrol operations at the Nogales, Arizona, U.S. Customs and Border Protection facility indicates that 16 illegal immigrants, males 15 to 17, are part of the Mara Salvatrucha — MS-13, gang.

Sanctuary city is a name given to a city in the United States that follows certain procedures that shelters illegal immigrants. These procedures can be by law (de jure) or they can be by action (de facto). The term most commonly is used for cities that do not permit municipal funds or resources to be applied in furtherance of enforcement of federal immigration laws.  These cities normally do not permit police or municipal employees to inquire about one’s immigration status. The designation of Sanctuary City” has no legal meaning.

akaska-1===AZ-4, CA33==, CO-9==,CN-3==FL-5==,GA-1==,IL-3,==KS-1,==LA-1,==MA-6,==MN-7,==MY-5,==MI-2,==MN-4,==NJ-9,==NM-4,==NY-11,==NC-7,==OH-6,==OK-2,==OR-6,==PA-3,==RI-1,==TX-13,==UT-2,==VA-3,==VT-3,==WA-2,==WI-1,DC-1.

6 big things to know about sanctuary cities: If a person is in the United States illegally, why isn’t he or she arrested and shipped back to his or her home country immediately?  As mentioned above, immigration is often complicated. At least some portion of the people who do enter the country illegally or overstay the terms of their visitor or student visas also have legitimate asylum claims. Asylum is limited to individuals who can provide evidence that they have faced persecution or might be killed if they return to their home country. And U.S. law says that most people caught inside the United States should be given a chance to make those claims in an immigration court.

Now, layer on top of that more than 445,000 people awaiting immigration hearings. Most of these people cannot make a successful asylum claim but might have some other legal defense such as proof of a U.S. citizen parent or grandparent.

Sanctuary laws are in the national spotlight after an illegal immigrant with prior deportations and a criminal history pleaded not guilty to murdering a woman at a San Francisco pier. Here is what you need to know about those laws and how they protect illegal immigrants. (Jayne W. Orenstein and Osman Malik/The Washington Post)

Unauthorized immigrants caught inside the United States — or in some cases at the border — generally get a hearing in one of the nation’s deeply backlogged immigration courts. Wait times now stretch into 2019.

That means that federal immigration authorities also have to make decisions about whom to hold during that wait and whom to release and trust to show up again.

How many people does the United States deport each year?: The data reporting here lags a bit behind and, of course, varies from year to year. But on average, between 2011 and 2013, immigration courts ordered about 414,650 people out in one way or another. Here’s the picture painted in the Department of Homeland Security’s most recent annual immigration data report, for 2013.

What is a “sanctuary city,” anyway?

The policies and practices differ in the estimated 60 sanctuary cities around the country. That list includes major cities such as New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Houston. But generally, when someone has been, for instance, arrested for driving without a license and then identified as an illegal immigrant at a jail in a sanctuary city, they must serve jail time for state charges or pay related fines. Then, they are let go.

Most of these cities have identified some set of guidelines or conditions under which federal immigration officials must be alerted before the person’s release. Usually they are connected to what’s on the person’s rap sheet.

But some either don’t have them or don’t follow them

Once an undocumented immigrant has been arrested for committing a crime inside the United States, why do sanctuary cities let them go? 

During the apex of the country’s illegal immigration challenges, before the recession, law enforcement officials in some communities expressed concern about the practice of releasing these inmates after they had served time for state offenses. Some of those communities entered agreements to help federal authorities with immigration enforcement. This went on between 2004 and 2012.

These agreements allowed local jails to house undocumented immigrants after they had served time on state charges and bill the federal government for this service. Sometimes inmates were passed along to jails in other places without any formal notice to family members, then into the immigration court system for an expedited removal hearing. In many cases, people were returned to their home countries in weeks.

That program was widely criticized as a possible revenue stream for some local jails and a potential violation of international human rights accords. Some people were unable to communicate with embassy officials from their countries of origin or notify family members of their arrests, basically disappearing without explanation. Civil liberties groups called it a vehicle for racial and ethnic profiling. One Tennessee sheriff described it as part of his toolkit to “stack these violators like cordwood.” In addition, more than one analysis of who was deported and what happened during that process showed that most were people initially arrested for minor traffic violations and who had no criminal record.

President Obama touted the fact that his administration had deported the largest number of people in U.S. history. (Read the more complicated truth here.) Meanwhile, immigrant advocates said all of this deeply damaged already-limited police trust in immigrant communities, making people afraid to call police or provide information. That, these advocates argued, was the real threat to public safety.

This is where sanctuary cities come in.

What happens in other cities?

After a series of changes, new programs and memos from the top that were supposed to assure that more of the nation’s deportation apparatus got aimed at serious and violent criminals, the Department of Homeland Security is now asking communities to participate in a different program, this time called Priority Enforcement.

Priority Enforcement won’t formally begin until later this summer, The Washington Post reported Tuesday. When it does, it will ask local law enforcement agencies to notify federal immigration authorities before the scheduled release of an immigrant targeted for deportation. Those targeted for deportation include people with violent and serious crime convictions. And federal officials told The Post that they did make just such a request to the folks in San Francisco.

Finally, is there any evidence that those who enter the country illegally commit more crime than others?

The Fix looked at this issue this week and found an answer that shouldn’t really be surprising.

Like every population, there are some people who have immigrated to the United States illegally who go on to commit serious and misdemeanor crimes in this country. But immigrants of all kinds are actually less likely to commit crimes than those born inside the United States.

This chart highlights all immigrants, but it’s important to note that more than one-quarter of all immigrants currently in the United States are undocumented. So a spike in their crime rate would likely mean the “first generation” line wouldn’t be so low.

source-paul bedard, byron york, inquisitr, cnn, ojjpac.org, downtrend.com, janell ross, washington post, pew

17 ways Hillary’s big economic speech rehashed Obama–and Bernie Hogties Hillary–

17 ways Hillary’s big economic speech rehashed Obama–and Bernie Hogties Hillary–47GH, B43

Her current strategy of ignoring Sanders has failed abysmally. While she has been hiding from the media and avoiding questions about her emails, Sidney Blumenthal and Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation and her speaking fees, the Vermont senator has been catalyzing the left base with bold proposals. His advocacy of a reduced retirement age, a confiscatory top bracket on the income tax, a single-payer socialized medicine system and a $15 minimum wage, as well as opposition to free trade, have all generated an enthusiasm among liberals that has totally stolen the thunder of the first serious chance at a female president.
The humble act has failed. Clinton’s listening tour has accomplished nothing. Carrying her own baggage, flying coach and driving to Iowa are all being dismissed as the gimmicks they are.
So how can Hillary Clinton counter the rise of Bernie Sanders?
She can’t attack him without giving him more credibility than he has. All hope of dismissing him as an also-ran would evaporate when she mentions his name. Indeed, the more he appears as a harmless protest vote against the party establishment in general and the Clintons in particular, the easier it is to back him in the primary. . She doesn’t dare oppose this new agenda for the left. She can move to the center once she has the nomination in hand, but not now. Nor can she attack Sanders personally or go after his record. First, many liberals support him when he has strayed to the left, and second, she cannot give him the legitimacy of criticizing him. Personal attacks, such as on his sexual fantasies and writings of 40 years ago, look strained and artificial and like the product of an overly active negative researcher.
But what could paralyze Clinton is the prospect of Joe Biden entering the race. If the vice president makes it a three-way contest, her shots at Sanders will likely push votes to Biden. If the rap is Sanders can’t win, what is the logic that says doubts about his electability will cause voters who once supported Clinton and have since abandoned her to move back to her? If Sanders can’t win because he’s too liberal, what makes anyone feel that Clinton can overcome her various scandals, particularly voters who themselves have dropped her precisely because of those scandals?
If Biden does run, how does Clinton attack him without pulling President Obama into the debate as collateral damage? How can she go after the vice president without her attacks reflecting ill on the sitting and, among Democrats, wildly popular president?
Clinton’s in a tough spot.

17 ways Hillary’s big economic speech rehashed Obama: Hillary Clinton on Monday delivered a much-publicized speech in which she was supposed to lay out her economic agenda. In reality, she just rehashed President Obama’s, everything that Clinton does during the 2016 campaign should be viewed through the prism of her desperate need to hang onto the coalition of voters that elected Obama twice. Obama hasn’t had any significant legislative accomplishments (on the scale of the economic stimulus package, Obamacare, or Dodd-Frank financial regulatory legislation) since Republicans took over the House in 2010. He’s been advocating ways to further expand the government role in the economy and advance liberalism, but his agenda hasn’t stood a chance Congress. Clinton is signaling that if elected, she will pick up the fight right where he left off.Clinton herself seemed conscious of the criticism that she was recycling old ideas. “We’re not going to find all the answers we need today in the playbooks of the past,” she said at the outset.

Later in the speech, she said, “Now many of these proposals are time-tested and more than a little battle-scarred. We need new ideas as well.”

  1. Middle-Class economics

Clinton: “The defining economic challenge of our time is clear: We must raise incomes for hard-working Americans so they can afford a middle-class life. …If you work hard and do your part, you should be able to get ahead. And when you get ahead, America gets ahead. But over several decades, that bargain has eroded. Our job is to make it strong again.”Obama’s 2012 State of the Union Speech: “the basic American promise that if you worked hard, you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and put a little away for retirement. The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive.”

  1. “Shadow of crisis”

Clinton: “Now today, today as the shadow of crisis recedes and longer-term challenges come into focus, I believe we have to build a ‘growth and fairness’ economy.”Obama’s 2015 State of the Union: “The shadow of crisis has passed.”

  1. Overseas profitsClinton: “I’ll also push for broader business tax reform to spur investment in America, closing those loopholes that reward companies for sending jobs and profits overseas.”

Obama in 2012 State of the Union: “It is time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in America. Send me these tax reforms, and I will sign them right away.”

  1. InfrastructureClinton: “So let’s establish an infrastructure bank that can channel more public and private funds, channel those funds to finance world-class airports, railways, roads, bridges and ports. And let’s build those faster broadband networks.”

Obama in 2012 State of the Union: “Building this new energy future should be just one part of a broader agenda to repair America’s infrastructure. So much of America needs to be rebuilt. We’ve got crumbling roads and bridges; a power grid that wastes too much energy; an incomplete high-speed broadband network that prevents a small business owner in rural America from selling her products all over the world.”Obama has also advocated for an infrastructure bank.

  1. ImmigrationClinton: “And I know it’s not always how we think about this, but another engine of strong growth should be comprehensive immigration reform.”

Obama’s 2013 State of the Union: “Our economy is stronger when we harness the talents and ingenuity of striving, hopeful immigrants. And right now, leaders from the business, labor, law enforcement, faith communities — they all agree that the time has come to pass comprehensive immigration reform.”

  1. Renewable energyClinton: “And really there’s no excuse not to make greater investments in cleaner, renewable energy right now.”Obama in 2009 address to a joint session of Congress: “Thanks to our recovery plan, we will double this nation’s supply of renewable energy in the next three years.”
  2. Science and medical researchClinton: “And let’s fund the scientific and medical research that spawns innovative companies and creates entire new industries.”Obama in 2009 joint session speech: “We have also made the largest investment in basic research funding in American history – an investment that will spur not only new discoveries in energy, but breakthroughs in medicine, science, and technology.”
  3. Paid leave and childcareClinton: “Fair pay and fair scheduling, paid family leave and earned sick days, childcare are essential to our competitiveness and growth.”Obama’s 2015 State of the Union: “And that’s why my plan will make quality childcare more available, and more affordable, for every middle-class and low-income family with young children in America… I’ll be taking new action to help states adopt paid leave laws of their own. And since paid sick leave won where it was on the ballot last November, let’s put it to a vote right here in Washington. Send me a bill that gives every worker in America the opportunity to earn seven days of paid sick leave.”
  4. Equal payClinton: “It’s way past time to end the outrage of so many women still earning less than men on the job.”Obama in 2012: “That means women should earn equal pay for equal work.”
  5. Unions

Clinton: “Evidence shows that the decline of unions may be responsible for a third of the increase of inequality among men. So if we want to get serious about raising incomes, we have to get serious about supporting workers.Obama in 2015 State of the Union: “We still need laws that strengthen rather than weaken unions, and give American workers a voice.”

  1. Looking beyond quarterly earnings

Clinton: “They say everything’s focused on the next earnings report or the short-term share price. The result is too little attention on the sources of long-term growth: research and development, physical capital, and talent.”Obama in the 2015 State of the Union: “To give working families a fair shot, we’ll still need more employers to see beyond next quarter’s earnings and recognize that investing in their workforce is in their company’s long-term interest.”

  1. Inequality

Clinton: “The evidence is in: Inequality is a drag on our entire economy, so this is the problem we need to tackle.Obama in 2013: “There are practical consequences to rising inequality and reduced mobility. For one thing, these trends are bad for our economy.”

  1. Corporate profitsClinton: “Corporate profits are at near-record highs and Americans are working as hard as ever — but paychecks have barely budged in real terms.”

Obama’s 2014 State of the Union: “Today, after four years of economic growth, corporate profits and stock prices have rarely been higher, and those at the top have never done better. But average wages have barely budged.”

  1. Minimum wageClinton: “If you work hard, you ought to be paid fairly. So we have to raise the minimum wage and implement President Obama’s new rules on overtime.”Obama 2013 State of the Union: “Tonight, let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty, and raise the federal minimum wage to $9.00 an hour.”
  2. Buffett Rule

Clinton: “Those at the top have to pay their fair share. That’s why I support the Buffett Rule, which makes sure that millionaires don’t pay lower rates than their secretaries.Obama 2012 State of the Union: “Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary…Tax reform should follow the Buffett Rule. If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes.”

  1. CollegeClinton: “And in the coming weeks and months, I’ll lay out specific steps to improve our schools, make college truly affordable, and help Americans refinance their student debt.Obama’s 2013 State of the Union: “Through tax credits, grants and better loans, we’ve made college more affordable for millions of students and families over the last few years.”
  2. ApprenticeshipsClinton: “To help more companies do that, I’ve proposed a new $1,500 apprenticeship tax credit for every worker they train and hire.”In 2014 Obama announced “$100 million to expand apprenticeships for American workers.”Clinton: My plan will help working families get ahead

One of Hillary Clinton’s top advisers can’t say what her economic agenda is, even after she delivered a highly anticipated economic policy speech Monday morning.Instead, Gene Sperling, the former director of the National Economic Council, had to rely on vague responses Monday afternoon when asked by MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts to explain her economic platform.

MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts said of Clinton’s address earlier that morning, “The one thing that people were asking after this speech is, ‘Where are the details?’ So where are they?””In terms of the details, we’ve got a long ways to go,” Sperling responded. “And what she was doing in this speech is putting out the fundamental frame that will define the overall distinction between her and the Republican approach you hear.””And she’s putting out very specific policies,” he said. “Even today she is suggesting areas she’s going to be announcing more details on.”

Roberts said, “She is putting out overarching themes, but not giving the details. So while she wants to attract the progressives — the people that say a [Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.] is getting on board because he will talk about details when it comes to taxes — it seems as if Hillary Clinton will give overarching themes and when we look at the details, they are not there.”Sperling disagreed.”Yeah, no, that’s completely not fair,” her said. “Because, listen; it is July of 2015, and she is putting — she’s already put out some specifics. You will see more details and specifics.”

As to specific questions regarding Clinton’s economic agenda, Sperling hedged and ducked in his answers. Asked to explain Clinton’s position on minimum wage, Sperling said it should be “higher.”Asked for Clinton’s position on Glass-Steagall, which former President Bill Clinton overturned when he was in the White House, and its limits on banking activities, Sperling said, “I think there’s absolutely things that she supports that are about ensuring that companies do not play poker with the taxpayer’s money.”

He promised that the former secretary of state would be “tough when it’s called for” on Wall Street and major banks. Sperling also promised that Clinton would reveal more about her economic agenda in the near future.For now, he said, they’re going to take it slow.

source-dick morris, the hill, philip klein, washington examiner, t becket adams,

Clinton Foundation Scam

Clinton Foundation–  Clinton Foundation Scam 47GH, B43

Chelsea Clinton is the deputy director of the fund and lives in a $9.2M
apartment in New York City. Not bad on her paltry salary.      Below is a good, concise summary of how the Clinton Foundation works as a tax free international money laundering schemeThis is a textbook case on how you hide foreign money sent to you and  repackage it to be used for your own purposes.  All tax free.  Here’s how it works:

  1. You create a foreign “charity”.  In this case, in Canada.
  2. Foreign oligarchs and governments, many sworn enemies of the United
    States, then donate to this Canadian charity.  In this case, over 1,000 did,
    contributing mega millions.3. The Canadian charity then bundles these separate donations and makes a
    massive donation to the Clinton Foundation.
  3. The Clinton Foundation and the cooperating Canadian charity claim
    Canadian law prohibits the identification of individual donors.
  4. The Clinton Foundation then “spends” some of this money for legitimate
    good works programs.  Unfortunately, experts believe this is on the order of
    10%.  Most of the balance goes to enrich the Clinton’s, pay salaries to
    untold numbers of hangers on, and fund lavish travel, etc.  Again, virtually
    all tax free, which means you and I are subsidizing it.
  5. The Clinton Foundation, which employs some of the world’s best accountants,
    somehow fails to report much of this on their tax filings.  They discover
    these “clerical errors” and begin the process of re-filing 5 years of tax
    returns.
  6. Net result – foreign money, much of it from enemies of the US, goes into
    the Clinton’s pockets, tax free and untraceable back to the original donor.
    This is the textbook definition of money laundering.

The linkage between these foreign donations, and favors done by the Clintons (including Hillary while Secretary of State) will be the subject of a future investigation. This will, I’m certain, connect the money laundering to bribery and treason.   Oh, by the way, the Canadian “charity” includes as one of its principals, a guy named Frank Giustra.  Check him out on Google.  He is the guy who was central   to the formation of Uranium One, the Canadian company that somehow acquired massive US uranium interests and then sold them to an organization  controlled by Russia and Vladimir Putin.  This transaction required US State Department approval, and guess who was Secretary of State when the approval was granted.  Nothing to suspect here.  And, I’ m guessing, much of this uranium will eventually be sold to Iran, undoubtedly for peaceful purposes as Obama will of course never let Iran build a bomb   Why did these foreign interests funnel money through a Canadian charity to the foundation?     That poor schmuk is in jail because he and his wife took $165,000 in gifts and loans for doing minor favors for a guy promoting a vitamin company.  Not legal but not exactly putting US security at risk.

Why not donate directly to the Clinton Foundation?  Better yet, why not
donate money directly to the people, organizations and countries in need?

This is the essence of money laundering and influence peddling.  Now you
know why Hillary’s destruction of 30,000 e-mails was a risk she was willing
to take.  One “smoking gun” e-mail would land her in jail.

What if the illegals left?

What if the illegals left?–37GH> B40

What if 20 Million Illegal Aliens Vacated America? I interviewed Mexican journalist Evangelina Hernandez while visiting Denver last week. Hernandez said, “Illegal aliens pay rent, buy groceries, buy clothes. What happens to your country’s economy if 20 million people go away?”

It’s a good question… it deserves an honest answer. Over 80% of Americans demand secured borders and illegal migration stopped. But what would happen if all 20 million or more vacated America? The answers I found may surprise you!

In California, if 3.5 million illegal aliens moved back to Mexico, it would leave an extra $10.2 billion to spend on overloaded school systems, bankrupt hospitals and overrun prisons. It would leave highways cleaner, safer and less congested. Everyone could understand one another as English became the dominant language again.

In Colorado, 500,000 illegal migrants, plus their 300,000 kids and grandchilds would move back “home,” mostly to Mexico. That would save Colorado an estimated $2 billion (other experts say $7 billion) annually in taxes that pay for schooling, medical, social-services and incarceration costs. It means 12,000 gang members would vanish out of Denver alone.

Colorado would save more than $20 million in prison costs, and the terror that those 7,300 alien criminals set upon local citizens. Denver Officer Don Young and hundreds of Colorado victims would not have suffered death, accidents, rapes and other crimes by illegals.

Denver Public Schools would not suffer a 67% dropout/flunk rate because of thousands of illegal alien students speaking 41 different languages. At least 200,000 vehicles would vanish from our gridlocked cities in Colorado. Denver’s 4% unem ployment rate would vanish as our working poor would gain jobs at a living wage.

In Florida, 1.5 million illegals would return the Sunshine State back to America, the rule of law, and English.

In Chicago, Illinois, 2.1 million illegals would free up hospitals, schools, prisons and highways for a safer, cleaner and more crime-free experience.

If 20 million illegal aliens returned ‘home,’ the U.S. Economy would return to the rule of law. Employers would hire legal American citizens at a living wage. Everyone would pay their fair share of taxes because they wouldn’t be working off the books. That would result in an additional $401 billion in IRS income taxes collected annually, and an equal amount for local, state and city coffers.

No more push ‘1’ for Spanish or ‘2’ for English. No more confusion in American schools that now must contend with over 100 languages that degrade the educational system for American kids. Our overcrowded schools would lose more than two million illegal alien kids at a cost of billions in ESL and free breakfasts and lunches.

We would lose 500,000 illegal criminal alien inmates at a cost of more than $1.6 billion annually. That includes 15,000 MS-13 gang members who distribute $130 billion in drugs annually would vacate our country.

In cities like L.A., 20,000 members of the ’18th Street Gang’ would vanish from our nation. No more Mexican forgery gangs for ID theft from Americans! No more foreign rapists and child molesters!

Losing more than 20 million people would clear up our crowded highways and gridlock. Cleaner air and less drinking and driving American deaths by illegal aliens!

America’s economy is drained. Taxpayers are harmed. Employers get rich. Over $80 billion annually wouldn’t return to the aliens’ home countries by cash transfers. Illegal migrants earned half that money untaxed, which further drains America ‘s economy which currently suffers an $8.7 trillion debt. $8.7 trillion debt!!!

At least 400,000 anchor babies would not be born in our country, costing us $109 billion per year per cycle. At least 86 hospitals in California, Georgia and Florida would still be operating instead of being bankrupt out of existence because illegals pay nothing via the EMTOLA Act. Americans wouldn’t suffer thousands of TB and hepatitis cases rampant in our country – brought in by illegals unscreened at our borders.

Our cities would see 20 million less people driving, polluting and grid locking our cities. It would also put the ‘progressives’ on the horns of a dilemma; illegal aliens and their families cause 11% of our greenhouse gases.

Over one million of Mexico’s poorest citizens now live inside and along our border from Brownsville, Texas, to San Diego, California,

By enforcing our laws, we could repatriate them back to Mexico. We should invite 20 million aliens to go home, fix their own countries and/or make a better life in Mexico. We already invite a million people into our country legally annually, more than all other countries combined. We cannot and must not allow anarchy at our borders, more anarchy within our borders and growing lawlessness at every level in our nation.

It’s time to stand up for our country, our culture, our civilization and our way of life.

Interesting Statistics!

Here are 14 reasons illegal aliens should vacate America, and I hope they are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them:

  1. $14 billion to $22 billion dollars are spent each year on welfare to illegal aliens (that’s Billion with a ‘B’)
  2. $7.5 billion dollars are spent each year on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
  3. $12 billion dollars are spent each year on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they still cannot speak a word of English!
  4. $27 billion dollars are spent each year for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
  5. $3 Million Dollars ‘PER DAY’ is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. That’s $1.2 Billion a year.
  6. 28% percent of all federal prison inmates are illegal aliens.
  7. $190 billion dollars are spent each year on illegal aliens for welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.
  8. $200 billion dollars per year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
  9. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that’s two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in t he US.
  10. During the year 2005, there were 8 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our southern border with as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from other terrorist countries. Over 10,000 of those were middle-eastern terrorists. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin, crack, guns, and marijuana crossed into the U.S. from the southern border.
  11. The National Policy Institute, estimates that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion, or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.
  12. In 2006, illegal aliens sent home $65 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin, to their families and friends.
  13. The dark side of illegal immigration: Nearly one million sex crimes are committed by illegal immigrants in the United States!

Total cost a whopping $538.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR !

source-tina griego, dnver rocky mountain news,

The Minuteman Project

The Minuteman Project–14GH.

On a Friday afternoon in March, when absolutely nobody was paying attention, Barack Obama quietly changed our nation, forever…

…and endangered the lives and property of every single citizen in our nation.
On that sunny afternoon, President Obama granted himself nearly limitless dictatorial powers to be used in the event of a “crisis.”

We know that Obama and his cronies can call anything — spin anything — into a “crisis.” Now, even the smallest event can give him the authority to declare Martial Law — and you and I will be the worse for it. Like every miserable tinpot dictator before him, he has deluded himself into thinking he knows what’s best for us — and blames others for his failure to transform America into the Socialist Workers’ Paradise of his dreams.

When Obama signed Executive Order #13603, he gave himself the power to declare Martial Law at any time and for any reason.
Which means that at any time of his choosing between now and the 2016 elections, he can seize control of the country and remain in office indefinitely.

Think I’m exaggerating? Think it couldn’t happen here?
Let me tell you. Obama has already grabbed powers that no American President has ever had.

In addition to giving himself Martial Law powers that completely bypass the U.S. Constitution — and Congress…

…powers he can use to stay in office forever and impose on our nation the Socialist Workers’ Paradise he’s always dreamed of…

…he also armed his Executive Branch minions with billions of rounds of ammunition, hundreds of thousands of guns — and even armor-plated combat vehicles to patrol American streets!

And to complete his preparations for declaring Martial Law, he has created military-style SWAT teams right across the country…
…who hide in plain sight in innocuous-sounding departments like Education, Parks, and the Bureau of Engraving — teams he can deploy to subdue us whenever he wants!
He’s even built a town in Virginia — complete down to the last streetlamp — where these forces can practice subduing citizens — like us! — in typical American locations.

I am not making a word of this up. It’s all absolutely true.

Obama has put all the pieces into position. He is ready to seize power — and hang on to it — at any minute. He will just declare a state of emergency and everything else will be put on hold.And even more complain about how he’s trashing the rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution, and how he’s creating a socialist dictatorship right here in America.

Others complain about how no one seems to stand up to Obama, how no one seems to publicize Obama’s outrageous power grabs, how no one does anything to restore our Constitution.

source-minuteman web