"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." (Pls note: This is a comedy site and I am a comedian, so don't take anything here seriously. It's all in jest, haha. For entertainment purposes only!)
As you may have heard, America's borders are wide open. How wide open, you ask? Well, current estimates are that one in five hotels in New York City are involved in housing migrants.* That's NYC, not Houston, Phoenix, or LA. Most Americans would have trouble affording a single night in a Manhattan hotel, yet illegals are living there for free.
Along with rising crime, lowered wages, overcrowded hospitals, and stressed social services, the visible flood of illegals has become an embarrassing liability for Democrats on the eve of an election. In response, Joe Biden recently issued an executive order to persuade voters he means business at the border.
That's quite a reversal for an administration that literally instructed migrants to "surge to the border"**, and then spent the next four years denying the problem.
And surge they did.
It is estimated that roughly 15 million# people have entered the U.S. illegally in the last three and a half years. Add that to the roughly 20 million# who were already here and that makes about 35 million# illegals currently in the U.S. That is roughly the population of California.
But, that's not all of the noncitizens here. There are also permanent residents who hold Green Cards, Visa holders, and visitors. The U.S. government issues about one million Green Cards per year so there could be roughly 20 million# additional noncitizens in the U.S. today.
That makes a total of roughly 55 million# noncitizens, or 16% of the population. That's far more people than any state. (See footnote #)
The question is, why are Democrats doing this? Why risk the political fallout? What do they have to gain?
Could it be a simple case of wanting more workers, more diversity, & more ethnic food?
Or could it be that they want them here because they overwhelmingly vote Democrat?
Well, we can safely rule out the idea that Democrats brought all those people here to vote! As everyone knows, it is strictly illegal for noncitizens to vote!
Pop Quiz #1
1. It is strictly illegal for noncitizens to vote.
2. It is incredibly easy for noncitizens to vote.
You are probably certain the answer is #1. You've been told this a million times, "Only citizens are allowed to vote. It's the law!"
Except, you'd be wrong.
Noncitizens are able to vote in the U.S. with very little threat of negative consequences. And this includes those here illegally.
The relevant law is called "18 U.S. Code § 611 - Voting by Aliens". The law states that aliens (noncitizens) are technically not supposed to vote in national elections and could be subject to punishment, but there is a glaring exception. Here's one line of it:
(3) the alien reasonably believed at the time of voting in violation of such subsection that he or she was a citizen of the United States.
Huh? In other words, if you identify as a citizen, you are not subject to punishment!
This exception renders meaningless the prohibition against noncitizen voting for a large subset of the group. All that is required is a reasonable belief of citizenship.
Now, what could possibly give a noncitizen the reasonable belief that they are a citizen? Oh, I don't know, maybe if a sitting president told them explicitly that they were?
Listen carefully as Barack Obama singlehandedly renders meaningless the prohibition against noncitizen voting pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 611. His exact words; "When you vote, you are a citizen yourself." In other words, Obama told noncitizens and those here illegally that through the act of voting they could reasonably identify as citizens. He also told the audience, "If you show up to vote, they can't stop you." This was from the highest authority in the land, a sitting President.
But that's just one example. Democrats and their supporters have been telling illegals for decades that they should identify as citizens simply for being here and working. The interviewer echoes this idea in the clip above. Notice that Obama does not correct her.
Now, Let's apply the "identify as a citizen" logic to other situations. Could you legally withdraw money from a bank if you identify as a depositor? Could you legally collect Social Security at age 25 if you identify as old? Could you practice medicine just by identifying as a doctor?
There's a bedrock principle in law that says ignorance of the law is no excuse. Lawyers are taught the latin, "ignorantia juris non excusat". Yet any noncitizen can claim ignorance of their legal status and vote. You'd think with all the lawyers in congress they could write better laws, but when it benefits Democrat power, there's no bedrock principle they can't ignore.
Curiously, the "identify as a citizen" exception does not work for Trump voters. The only person I could find currently serving time for 18 U.S. Code § 611 is an Arizona illegal who voted for Trump and was sentenced to eight years in prison. Apparently, Republican noncitizens are not afforded the "Obama alibi" defense.
The truth is, laws are meaningless unless enforced. Lawyers and legal scholars can debate the language and intent of written statutes all they want, but unless a DOJ enforces it, it might as well not exist. That's called prosecutorial discretion. As Obama makes clear in the above clip, no Democrat DOJ will enforce 18 U.S. Code § 611.
So, could up to 55 million noncitizens, including the Biden/Harris 15 million illegals vote in 2024, decide our next President, and be legally untouchable? Yes, absolutely.
"Hold on a minute!", you say. Noncitizens can't just vote, they first have to register. That's where we check for citizenship!
Pop Quiz #2
How many states require proof of citizenship in order to register for national elections?
1. 37
2. 3
3. None
4. All
Surely there must be some states that require proof of citizenship to vote nationally, right? After all, there are a bunch of "red" states that lean conservative, like Texas, Florida, Utah, Idaho, etc!
Sorry, nope. Not a single state, city, town, or district requires proof of citizenship to register for national elections, let alone vote.
So why haven't states passed laws that would require that proof? Well, a few have tried but, surprise, surprise, it's illegal!
According to a 1993 law, pushed and signed by Bill Clinton (Democrat), popularly called the "Motor Voter Bill", it is illegal to require proof of citizenship for national voter registration. (Motor Voter was also the first step in our currently un-auditable mail-in voting system. It normalized registration by mail.)
The registration form does require a signature, and citizenship is one of several things that voters are attesting to, but it is strictly on the honor system. There can be no checks, verifications, or follow-up according to the law. Just sign the form and you are registered whether eligible or not. That's an obvious intentional loophole for noncitizens, many of whom broke our laws when they came here.
Moreover, Motor Voter makes providing voter registration forms automatic for any interaction with government. Get a drivers license? You get registered. Apply for benefits? You get registered. And noncitizens do all those things by the millions.
Once you are registered, you get a ballot in the mail automatically in nine states plus D.C.. And once you have a ballot, you can vote anonymously through the mail or at a drop-box. In the other states you can easily request a mail-in ballot with a simple mail-in form.
Long story short, no state is allowed to check for citizenship to vote in a national election. Noncitizens, including those here illegally, are registered by the tens of millions, and since 2020 they can easily get mail-in ballots just like citizens. Potentially, that is close to 55 million noncitizen registered voters.
ABOVE: President Bill Clinton (D) signing the "Motor Voter Bill" in 1993. Directly behind him are Francis Fox Piven and Richard Cloward, two Columbia University professors who lobbied for the bill. The Cloward and Piven Strategy was to democratically institute a form of communism by flooding the country with dependents, getting them to demand services, and allowing them to vote.
OK, so maybe millions are registered and could potentially vote, but before states mail out ballots they check their voter rolls and get rid of all the noncitizens, deceased voters, and relocated voters!
Pop quiz #3
1. States clean their voter rolls regularly making it impossible for noncitizens to obtain ballots.
2. States DO NOT clean their voter rolls regularly making it incredibly easy for noncitizens to obtain ballots.
You'd think the answer is #1. After all, how can a representative republic call itself legitimate if it does not ensure that only citizens get ballots?
Except, that's not what happens. In fact, any state that tries to clean their voter rolls is in for a barrage of lawsuits by well-funded Democrats. In many instances, judges have ruled that states are not even allowed to clean their voter rolls.
By law, it is up to the states to run their own elections. Maintaining a list of eligible voters is part of that obligation. Some states do a diligent job, but many states do not. Many Democrat states prefer having extra ballots mailed-out because they have legalized a practice called "ballot harvesting". Ballot harvesting is the practice of having activists scoop-up all the potentially ineligible and unclaimed ballots. Then the activists take the ballots to a landfill and burn them. Nah, just kidding!
Without ID requirements or real signature matching, it is incredibly easy for activists to harvest ballots, fill them out, and return them. The Democrat party has been doing this for years. The Republican party has shunned this activity correctly considering it fraudulent. But it is now legal (with a wink and a nod) in a majority of states, so Republicans are having to play catch-up in this crooked game. Only one state in the U.S., Alabama, requires that ballots be returned by the actual voter. Of course, even in Alabama, there is no way to check with mailed ballots.
There is an organization called ERIC (Electronic Registration Information Center) whose ostensible mission is to help states clean their voter rolls of noncitizens, dead people, and relocated voters. ERIC currently has half the states as members.
In 2020 ERIC had a majority of the states as members, but after looking into the debacle of how those elections were mis-managed, several Republican led states dropped out. While digging around, they learned that ERIC was founded by leftists, run by leftists, and funded by leftists including George Soros. Republicans now believe that ERIC is a front for increasing noncitizen, deceased, and relocated voters, while simultaneously purging conservative ones!
Arizona is one ERIC state that just had a lawsuit filed against it:
Arizona has at least 500,000 registered voters on the voter rolls who should have otherwise been removed. In other words, at least 500,000 registered voters currently listed on the Secretary’s voter rolls for Arizona are deceased or no longer reside in Arizona.
And a review of other reliable data sources shows that Arizona has between 1,060,000 and 1,270,000 unaccounted-for voters on the state voter rolls.
ERIC currently lists six of the seven so-called "swing states" as members. U.S. national elections are decided in the swing states. In short, leftist activists are in charge of the voter rolls, including noncitizens, that will determine the next President.
Ok, so maybe the voter rolls are run by leftists, ballots get sent out willy-nilly, anyone who identifies as a citizen can register and vote, etc., but there's no evidence noncitizens actually vote! None!
Pop Quiz #4
1. Noncitizens voted in past elections in large numbers.
2. Noncitizens HAVE NOT voted in past elections in large numbers.
You are probably certain the correct answer is #2. After all, you would know if noncitizens were voting en masse. You'd hear about it on the news. Someone would have the proof. Republicans would be screaming about it every day!
Except, you'd be wrong.
It is virtually impossible, and illegal, for a citizen to know when a ballot has been filled out by a noncitizen.
Therefore, looking for "proof" is a fool's errand. It's impossible by design, and by law.
So what's the solution? It's the same remedy anytime a dispute arises between a citizen and the state: The "burden of proof" is on the state.
It's up to the state to prove they ran an election that was fully auditable, clean, with only eligible voters, and observed by both parties at ever stage. And citizens suspecting election fraud are innocent until proven guilty.
In the case of the 2020 election, citizens who asked questions have been accused of being "election deniers", "threats to democracy", or if they protested, "insurrectionists". Thousands are currently in prison or under indictment for these types of accusations. Citizens accused of those things must be considered innocent until the state can prove they ran an election that was observed by both parties and auditable end-to-end.
Polls show over half the citizenry believe the states cannot prove their case. That is the real "threat to Democracy".
Florida is one state today that has a strong record of running auditable, trustworthy, and clean elections. It can be done.
Despite proof being impossible, there is statistical and circumstantial evidence that noncitizens vote in large numbers. I made the case in 2016, before Democrats made anonymous mail-in voting ubiquitous. You can read that piece HERE.
And this piece ran last month in The Washington Times: "Noncitizens Do Vote... Here's How..." (If you clear your computer's cookies you can read it without paying.)
Recently, Rasmussen pollsters asked voters about fraud. 3 in 10 voters said they would absolutely commit voter fraud in 2024 just to keep the other side from winning. Three in ten say they would commit election fraud!
If you do a web or AI search for whether or not noncitizens vote, you'll come across the supposed "definitive" study by "The Brennan Center for Justice" which found no evidence noncitizens vote. Sounds pretty official, right? So who is the biggest donor to The Brennan Center? Yeah, that would be George Soros, the same guy funding all the DAs targeting Donald Trump, and the same guy funding ERIC.
The assumption has to be that noncitizen voting is huge. Unlimited wealth and power are at stake. It's the kind of wealth and power that corrupts everything.
Believing noncitizens do not vote is like believing Fort Knox would remain filled with gold if the doors were flung open, anyone could take whatever they want, and no one could be prosecuted.
This is important: direct voting in elections is only part of the problem. There's also indirect voting. Noncitizens would be the largest state in the U.S. if they were all in one place. Often overlooked is the fact that noncitizens are counted in the census. The census is how we determine Congressional and Presidential Electoral votes. So even if noncitizens were prevented from directly voting, they would still have more votes in Congress and Presidential elections than California or Texas!
Ok, maybe everything above is true, but we have polls! How bad could it be if polls currently show a Republican could win in 2024? The polls would sound the alarm if 55 million noncitizens were about to vote Democrat!
Pop Quiz #5
1. The polls accurately reflect noncitizens.
2. The polls DO NOT accurately reflect noncitizens.
You would think polls would automatically pick-up noncitizens. After all, it's not like pollsters ask about legal status when they poll!
Except, you'd be wrong.
While it's true that pollsters do not screen out noncitizens, there are built-in reasons why noncitizens get missed. For one, noncitizens are less likely to speak english, and second, they are less likely to agree to being polled.
That means any poll you see today that shows Donald Trump doing well is probably inaccurate.
How inaccurate? No one knows, but it could be off by 55 million!
But hold on! The original question was, "why is the border open?" So far the only thing mentioned is voting! It could be as simple as Democrats wanting more workers, diversity, and Halal!
Pop Quiz # 6
1. Democrats do not have a nefarious reason for opening the border. It's just workers, diversity, and ethnic food.
2. This sure looks like a nefarious plan for a permanent Democrat majority.
You probably think the answer is #1. You may even be a Republican and think Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are just semi-conscious politicians who accidentally stumbled their way into some bad policies. You may be a believer in "Hanlon's razor", which states, "never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity". Or you may be a Democrat who buys into the slogan, "Diversity is our strength!"
Except the answer cannot be #1, and here's why: Democrats have been lying about the border for decades. Yes, decades. You don't lie about something that consistently unless you have something to hide.
We'll get to the Biden/Harris lies in a second, but first let's review some Obama lies.
Obama got the media to give him the nickname, "Deporter in Chief". He wanted to be portrayed as tough on immigration. It was good politics. It went against stereotype and made him look centrist. But it was a ruse. The way he got his deportation numbers high was by "cooking the books". For a full accounting of how he snookered his way into becoming "Deporter in Chief", read: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/obama-as-deporter-in-chief-hardly/
When Donald Trump became President he sincerely tried to secure the border. It didn't work at first because Democrats blocked him at every turn through the courts, through legislation, and by lying about his motives. But by the end of his term, the border was under control.
Then Biden/Harris took office and all that changed. From the top on down, Democrats have lied about the open border policy since day one.
First they denied the border was open and insisted it wasn't. This continued despite thousands of hours of video showing illegals pouring across the border. Then they denied it was a crisis despite border states, cities, and towns declaring emergencies.
It wasn't until the illegals started taking over Northern Democrat cities like Chicago, Boston, and New York that they even acknowledged the problem. But then they blamed it all on Republicans claiming they are responsible for a "broken immigration system". Finally, they blamed conservatives for not going along with their plan to codify the open border in their new border bill.
Alejandro Myorkas, the Biden/Harris official in charge of the border was impeached for lying to Congress and maintaining the open border policy. He's only the second cabinet secretary in history to be impeached.
Vice President Kamala Harris was publicly named "Border Czar" by Joe Biden early in the term. She was tasked with getting a handle on the flood of illegals coming into our country. Under her watch it got worse. Now that the flood has become an embarrassing problem, they are all denying she was ever given that responsibility!
No, if the border was open for some innocent reason they wouldn't be lying about it 24/7/365 for decades.
As recently as five years ago a huge majority of voting was done in-person and on election day. You had to show up at a local precinct, show your face to bi-partisan poll workers (who were also your neighbors), often present ID, sign a register with a witness, and complete the ballot yourself.
Noncitizen voting was rare.
Those days are over. Now almost half of all voting is done anonymously, in secret, by mail or dropbox, over a period of months, with no bi-partisan observers.
Under current law up to 55 million unpolled noncitizen voters could show up for the 2024 election and vote. The vast majority of those noncitizens are loyal to the Democrat party that used taxpayer money to get them here, and gave them transportation, housing, food, healthcare, work permits, and jobs.
To put 55 million potential voters in perspective, the last election was decided by a total of .008 of that number. A tiny percentage of that 55 million will determine the next President.
Noncitizen voting is only one part of the electoral Death Star. As in the "Star Wars" original, there are several smaller death-rays that make up the whole:
Here are some we saw in 2020:
Gigantic irregularities that all went one way in Democrat run cities
Democrats used government agencies to strong arm private media companies into supporting their preferred narratives
Democrat lawyers used lawfare and the pandemic to remove 250 years of election integrity measures
Democrats used 51 government intel officers along with government intelligence agencies to lie about the crimes committed by Democrats as revealed on the Biden laptop
But rather than listing everything from 2020, why not just listen to Joe Biden brag about the Democrat "voter fraud" operation he and Barack Obama built:
Today, in addition to all that, Democrats have used lawfare in an attempt to imprison Donald Trump, along with hundreds of GOP lawyers, dozens of pro-Trump media voices, several of Trump's key advisors, and thousands of Trump supporters who questioned the last election. Several of those accused and imprisoned (at least five as of today) have committed suicide due to unimaginably harsh treatment in what amounts to a concentration camp for opponents of the Biden/Harris regime.
And if you're thinking there might be a Luke Skywalker or Han Solo in this story, I've got bad news for you. Behold the two most powerful Republicans in office today. One is a minority leader, and one has a single vote majority. They couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag, let alone defeat a Death Star.
Believing Democrats didn't use their Death Star in 2020, and wouldn't dare use it again in 2024, is beyond naive.
Gigantic hat tip to Catherine Englebrecht and Tucker Carlson for making me aware of the "identify as a citizen" exception in 18 U.S. Code § 611. It was only then that I fully understood Obama's words, "when you vote, you are a citizen yourself...". Below is the promo for Catherine's interview with Tucker. The full interview is behind a paywall:
*The Federalist - "1 in 5 hotels in NYC are housing illegal migrants."
**Video of Biden telling illegals to "surge to the border":
# It is impossible to know the actual number of noncitizens in the U.S. In fact, it is illegal to even ask during a census. President Trump tried to get a citizenship question on the census, but Democrats sued and tied it up in courts long enough to render it illegal for 2020.
Every number you've ever seen is a guess, as is my 55 million number. But we do have a decent handle on one number: 15% of K-12 children in the U.S. are native Spanish speakers. 55 million is about 16% of the U.S. population. Of course all noncitizens do not speak Spanish, and many former noncitizens have become naturalized citizens. Taking all that into account, 55 million looks about right.
## Biden referring to illegals as voters, citizens, wanna become citizens on Spanish radio:
It's no secret that since Joe Biden took office about 10 million illegals have flooded into the U.S. That's a larger population than 40 of our states! This mass of humanity was invited here by the Democrats and paid to make the journey with promises of free healthcare, housing, education, food, jobs, citizenship, smartphones, and much more.
But, what's in it for the Democrats? Why would they encourage an invasion of our country? Why would they dilute our citizenry? Why would they deliberately hurt our ability to provide services to our own people? Watch as Barack Obama, one of the key architects of this strategy, explains the plan to an Hispanic audience:
[REPOSTED FROM 5/1/18 TO REMIND EVERYONE WHY IRAN AND HAMAS ARE KILLING ISRAELIS WITH IMPUNITY ON 10/7/23]
Now that Israel has obtained Iran's secret nuke plans and U.S. intelligence has confirmed their legitimacy, we know with certainty that Barack Obama's fake "nuke deal" with Iran was an atomic bomb of deception and duplicity.
Remember this was the deal where Barack Obama plus five other countries, which desperately wanted to resume trade with Iran, lifted sanctions on Iran, flew billions of dollars in cash on secret planes to Tehran, all in return for Iran's vague promise to put off their nuclear weapons program for... a whole decade.
Barack Obama wants you to believe he is negotiating with Iran about nukes. Pick up a paper, watch a news show, listen to the radio, wherever you are in the world, you will be told about an historic negotiation going on with the P5+1 talks, and it's all about Iran's nuclear program.
Truth is, these talks are nothing more than cover for lifting sanctions on Iran, many of which were preemptively lifted before the talks started. The talks are Kabuki theatre, a magic trick, to distract you from seeing what's really going on. This is a trade deal with the world's number one state sponsor of terrorism - a rogue nation bent on bringing about nuclear armageddon, wiping Israel off the map, and achieving regional Shiite hegemony.
If you have any doubts about whether or not this is about nukes, I advise you to read Dan Henninger's piece in The Wall Street Journal, "Why the Iran Deal is Irrelevant" from 4/2. Mr Henninger chronicles the parallels between North Korea and Iran and the pursuit of nukes. Iran cannot be stopped by talking. Everyone knows this. Talking had zero effect on North Korea over three presidencies. Sanctions, and the perception that force is an option, are the only way to prevent a rogue nation from acquiring nukes.
Not only has Obama lifted sanctions and taken the threat of force off the table, he is guaranteeing Iran the right to spin centrifuges, enrich uranium, and follow through on their promise to nuke Israel off the map. This trade deal does nothing but make Iran richer and accelerate their ability to achieve these goals.
Barack Hussein Obama, peace be upon him, apparently shares these goals.
(Incidentally, the quote at the top is often credited to Adolf Hitler.)
Yesterday, Joe Biden announced that a U.S. counterterrorism operation in Afghanistan killed Al Qaeda #1 Ayman al-Zawahiri. That's great news.
But something in his announcement seemed reminiscent of Barack Obama's 2001 announcement when a U.S. counterterrorism operation in Pakistan killed Osama bin-Laden.
Here is my reaction to that earlier announcement. I think it applies to today as well.
Afghanistan was Obama's War, not Bush's. Obama's and Biden's. And together they own this disaster of a pull-out.
Remember: 75% of US combat casualties were under Obama/Biden, not George W Bush!
Sure, Bush went into Afghanistan first, but he had no choice; we'd been attacked. By the time Bush handed it over to Obama, we had achieved our goals and Bush was winding things down.
So Obama had a choice: continue the pullout and declare victory, or re-escalate the war and take a stab at nation building. On the assumption that Afghanistan was the "good" war as opposed to Iraq, and the mistaken belief that Osama bin Laden was still there, he made the tragic decision to re-escalate the war. At the same time, he tied the hands of U.S. troops with impossible rules of engagement. The result was a massive increase in Taliban attacks and U.S. casualties.
Then Obama released the top Taliban commanders in exchange for a traitor named Bowe Bergdahl. Remember that?
That's the fuster cluck Donald Trump inherited. Under Trump, the war was again de-escalated, rules of engagement returned to normalcy, and combat deaths were slashed to the point there were none in his last year. In effect the "war" was no more a war than our continued presence in Japan or Germany. Meanwhile, the Taliban were not in charge, and Afghanistan was continuing on a path to some semblance of human rights normalcy. Near the end of his term, Trump negotiated a conditional plan to remove all troops which was in place when Biden came into office.
Now Biden had a choice: continue the conditional plan to remove all troops, re-escalate the war, or just pull out at a date certain with no conditions. Biden chose the latter. He pulled out with NO condidtions. Just stripped them right out. Next he executed a hasty, incompetent, unconditional retreat. The inevitable result is the Taliban are in control of the entire country and armed to the teeth with $90 billion of the finest U.S. military weapons and vehicles. Heck-of-a-job, Joe!
A more complete humiliation could not be possible.
Here is a video I made in 2014 right after Obama released the top Taliban commanders in exchange for Bowe Bergdahl. These are the leaders who marched into Kabul this weekend.
(This video was banned on YouTube and Rumble but I was able to repost it on Bitchute for now, with warnings. Please support Bitchute!)
A great explanation of why Trump supporters ignore his flaws: Evan Sayet - "He Fights"
Here's a taste:
My Leftist friends (as well as many ardent #NeverTrumpers) constantly ask me if I’m not bothered by Donald Trump’s lack of decorum. They ask if I don’t think his tweets are “beneath the dignity of the office.” Here’s my answer:
We Right-thinking people have tried dignity. There could not have been a man of more quiet dignity than George W. Bush as he suffered the outrageous lies and politically motivated hatreds that undermined his presidency. We tried statesmanship. Could there be another human being on this earth who so desperately prized “collegiality” as John McCain? We tried propriety – has there been a nicer human being ever than Mitt Romney? And the results were always the same.
This is because, while we were playing by the rules of dignity, collegiality and propriety, the Left has been, for the past 60 years, engaged in a knife fight where the only rules are those of Saul Alinsky and the Chicago mob.
As I've said before, George W. Bush's, John McCain's, and Mitt Romney's Queensbury Rules approach was a betrayal of their supporters. It was selfishness. Not that they saw it that way. They thought answering the Alinsky street-fighting tactics in kind would soil them and hurt their dignity. What they forgot was that ideas, policies, and those who support them have dignity too. Some of those ideas are even worth fighting for. The truth is, gentleman Republicans unwilling to engage the Alinsky Left on its own terms were putting their their own dignity above that of their supporters and the ideas on which the country was founded. Trump has endeared himself to the keepers of those ideas because he, uniquely, is willing to fight for THEIR dignity.
You would think people who tell stories for a living would be able to tell truth from fiction. You would be wrong. A good case in point is the Sundance Film Festival which just wrapped-up in Park City, Utah.
As is now expected in the age of Trump, there was an anti-Trump rally down Main Street protesting against sexual abuse, Trump, fascism, fascist Trump, and Trumpist fascism. Speakers included Jane Fonda, Lena Waithe, Tessa Thompson, & Gloria Allred, who led the crowd in a chant of "Resist, insist, persist, insist, and elect".
Hollywood, and the arts community in general, support the Democrat party with near exclusivity, and they hate Donald Trump with white hot passion and call him "fascist". Yet, it is under Democrats that the heavy hand of government interferes most with the work of people exercising their right of free speech. Richard Nixon may have contemplated using the IRS to go after his enemies, but he never did it, and could not have gotten away with it. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama not only did it, but they got away with it. To this day no one holds them accountable - not the media, not the public, not academia, and certainly not Hollywood.
To keep the flame of truth at least on pilot, below is a partial list of filmmakers, the very people celebrated at Sundance, who were jailed, persecuted, audited, and harassed under Barack Obama for political purposes:
Dinesh D'Souza: There is mounting evidence that Dinesh D'Souza was specifically targeted by Barack Obama. He was basically imprisoned for a minor campaign finance violation, giving $20,000 to an old college friend while the legal limit was $5,400. More importantly though, he made a couple of anti-Obama films in 2012 and 2013. As a result of the ostensible campaign finance violation, he was confined for eight months, put on five months probation, and forced to undergo psychological counseling. Mr. D'Souza was the first person in the history of campaign finance law ever to be confined for an offense such as this. Here's what liberal Harvard legal scholar Alan Dershowitz said about his conviction and sentence:
“The idea of charging him with a felony for this doesn’t sound like a proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion.... I can’t help but think that [D'Souza's] politics have something to do with it.... It smacks of selective prosecution.” He went on to say such alleged campaign violations are common in politics.
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was put in prison for a year as punishment for making the YouTube video famously blamed by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya. There's only one problem: the video had nothing to do with the attack in Benghazi. Hillary Clinton promised the grieving families of those killed that she would imprison Mr. Nakoula despite that pesky thing known as our first amendment right to free speech. And Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both knew the video was not responsible. Secretary Clinton emailed her daughter, Chelsea, right after the attack saying that the attack was an al Qaeda-like terrorist operation. Another email, to the Libyan President, confirmed that this was her official understanding of the events in Benghazi. Yet publicly, and even to the families of those who died, she and Obama blamed Nakoula. The sad and tragic reality is that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama jailed a filmmaker for a year to cover for their failure to provide the necessary security in Benghazi, to add legitimacy to their lie about the attack being about a video, to maintain the fiction that they had defeated terrorism, and to deceive the American people before an election. David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt: These people were behind the Planned Parenthood undercover videos made by The Center for Medical Progress. Barack Obama himself made a point to single them out. As part of their cover they used fake IDs that somehow became a pretense for felony charges, a raid on Daleiden's home, and seizures of his property.
“To storm into a private citizen’s home with a search warrant is outrageously out of proportion for the type of crime alleged,” said Matt Heffron a former federal prosecutor who is now Daleiden’s legal adviser. “It’s a discredit to law enforcement, an oppressive abuse of government power.”
Recently, all charges in Texas were dropped against Daleiden. But the damage was done, his funding was depleted, and CMP was sidelined. Ultimately, the harassment was a success from the Democrat standpoint.
Joel Gilbert: Mr. Gilbert made an anti-Obama film called "Dreams From My Real Father". It drew the ire of Democrats on the Federal Election Commission (FEC) who voted unanimously to punish Mr. Gilbert. When Republicans stood firm and pointed out that liberal filmmakers such as Michael Moore were not similarly harassed, the punishment was eventually blocked. Were it not for the split FEC, Mr. Gilbert would have been sanctioned simply for making a movie critical of Barack Obama. James O'Keefe, Joseph Basel, Robert Flanagan, and Stan Dai: These people were part of James O'Keefe's undercover video organization, Project Veritas, the organization that single-handedly took down one of Obama's favorite community organizer activist groups, ACORN. They went on to investigate Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu and ran afoul of the FBI while trying to make a film about her. They eventually settled for misdemeanor charges and accepted probation, fines, and community service.
Logan Clements: Mr. Clements made a movie called "Sick and Sicker...", an unflattering portrayal of Obamacare. For his disloyalty he was handed his first ever IRS audit.
Breitbart News: Breitbart News also earned their first IRS audit. Breitbart is a multi-media internet megaphone that is foursquare opposed to Clinton and Obama's policies. In this election cycle they are all-in with Donald Trump. (Also, see David Bossie below who contributes occasionally to Breitbart.)
Glenn Beck, Pat Grey, and Scott Baker: Glenn Beck and his Blaze Network don't just make videos, they have an entire broadcast network, publish books, run a website, and do talk radio, all of which oppose Clinton and Obama policies. So yeah, these guys all got their first IRS audits . But that's not all. Glenn Beck's top sponsor, GoldLine, was targeted by Democrats, specifically congressman Anthony Weiner, husband of Hillary's right hand person Huma Abedin, and a known political hit-man for Democrats and Obama. Weiner resigned his House seat in scandal, but his (ex?) wife will play a major role in a possible Clinton administration.
David Bossie and James Bopp: These men were behind the Citizens United SCOTUS case. David Bossie runs CU and James Bopp was the lawyer who defended the first amendment. The case centered around CU's right to make and show a film, in this case an unflattering portrait of Hillary Clinton. They won the case at the SCUTUS, but ran afoul of Obama and the entire Left who believe the first amendment only applies to Michael Moore and The New York Times. Hence, in front of the entire world, during a state of the union address, Barack Obama publicly berated the justices who upheld the first amendment rights of filmmakers, thus sending a message to justices, filmmakers, and supporters of people who make films: oppose me and I will use the Bully Pulpit to bully you.
Fox News: No list like this would be complete without mentioning Obama's number one target in the media and film world. Fox has been singled-out and harassed personally by Barack Obama on numerous occasions. These attacks send a clear and chilling message to sponsors: Advertise on Fox and you will be the target of restrictive regulations, IRS audits, and federal harassment. Some were targeted, like Gold Line mentioned above.
Donald Trump talks about "fake news", mentions specific outlets like CNN and the NYT, but takes no action against them. That's how free speech is supposed to work.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton took concrete actions and weaponized the federal government against their critics. That is the very essence of fascism. Perhaps someone in Hollywood could make a movie about that, but I won't hold my breath.
"The job of the media when covering Democrats is to hide the truth. The job of the media when covering Republicans is to spread lies." - undiepundit.com
Today's example of this is the above photo of Barack Obama grinning from ear-to-ear with anti-semite, racist, radical Muslim, Louis Farrakhan. The photo was kept secret throughout Obama's two campaigns and terms as President: (from: TPM)
The photographer, Askia Muhammad, told the Trice Edney News Wire that he “gave the picture up at the time and basically swore secrecy.”
“But after the nomination was secured and all the way up until the inauguration; then for eight years after he was President, it was kept under cover,” Muhammad said.
Asked whether he thought the photo’s release would have affected Obama’s presidential campaign, Muhammad said, “I insist. It absolutely would have made a difference.”
This allows me to repost this thought from the time President Barack Obama came out in favor of building a mega-Mosque at the site of the 9/11 Islamic terror attack in NY:
Now that President Obama has come out in favor of the mega-mosque at ground zero , it opens up an opportunity to combine some of the Prez's most important priorities into one neat solution!
Recall also that Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam (Obama is a supporter and ally) believe that there is a spaceship called the "Mother Wheel" which orbits the planet and...well, nevermind.
So let's see, we need a giant place for Muslims to worship, check, we have the full resources of NASA, check, and there is already a Mother Wheel circling the planet, check mate. Hmmm, I love it when a plan comes together!
Record year for stocks
Tax cuts, including corp. rate, passsed
Record low unemployment for Blacks and Hispanics
GDP growth from private sector highest in a decade
Regulations actually being reduced 22 for every new 1
ISIS kicked out of Syria and Iraq
U.S. embassy moving to Jerusalem, the capital of Israel
Obamacare mandate gone
Freed the internet from gov't mandated "net neutrality"
Record appointments to the federal courts
Neil Gorsuch on the SCOTUS
North Korea and Iran no longer being coddled
Ended Obama's war on business
Passed VA reform
Rebuilding the DOD
Fired Omarosa. Again.
Ended Obama's war on conservative Americans
No more corruption and politicization in every branch of government
Power being returned to the States and the People
Illegal immigration down significantly
Corruption at FBI and DOJ exposed
Travel ban instituted from un-vet-able countries
Chain and lottery migration about to be ended
Introduced the term "Covfefe"
America is respected once again by our enemies and competitors
Standing up to the jackals at the UN
And much, much, more...
...Including the Left's heads exploding. Every. Single. Day!
And he did all that while fighting off a concerted coup d'etat by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, the entire Democrat party, the FBI, DOJ, CIA, the pop media, and just about every deep state bureaucrat in the federal government. So far he has been winning, armed with nothing more than a Twitter account, a Diet Coke habit, and a pair of gold plated cajones.
And while the goal is to Make America Great Again for the people, in order to do that Trump has had to undo eight years of Obama which was making America weaker, poorer, and less respected around the world. Here's how that's been going:
The news today is that Barack Obama, with a fortnight left in office, has positioned U.S. special forces in Lithuania at the Russian border in a signal to Vladimir Putin that things like "hacking" our elections will not be tolerated. Seems legit, right?
Except we've seen this movie before. The difference is, last time we weren't saber rattling with a nuclear power, and the administration didn't have a shelf life shorter than a ripe banana. This is extremely dangerous and reckless behavior.
Remember Benghazi? This Russian hacking meme, and the responses to it, are just like what happened after Benghazi. Back then, the ploy involved an anti-Muslim YouTube video instead of Russian meddling, but the goal was the same: divert attention to cover-up an ugly reality.
There are always some "tells" with these tactics:
Instantaneous determination of the culprit.
Unanimous talking-point buy-in from all Democrat operatives.
Over-the-top denunciations of routine behavior.
Convenient deferrals to the "intelligence community". (Which, of course, has been thoroughly politicized in the Obama era.)
Disproportionate and decisive remedial action taken.
Inability to provide any proof.
Claims that proof exists, but exposing proof would jeopardize secret national security sources and methods.
Like Benghazi, there was an instantaneous determination of complicity after WikiLeaks began releasing DNC and John Podesta emails. It took the Obama administration several years to finally figure out that Major Hassan, screaming "Alahu Akbar" while murdering U.S. military personnel, was actually committing an act of terror. Yet somehow the administration knew instantly Russia, and specifically Vladimir Putin, was to blame for the emails. The same administration that couldn't competently launch an Obamacare website with an unlimited budget and years to prepare, knew instantly and with absolute certainty that the easily disguised tracks of a phishing scam led directly to Vladimir Putin. Does this add up?
So unanimous was the adherence to this meme, that it became a standing joke whenever a Democrat operative was interviewed during the campaign. The interviewer would ask a question about some innocuous topic, something like, "So, how's the food on the campaign trail?", and the op would figure out a way to squeeze in a reference to Russians meddling in our election! Anyone paying attention could tell this was a meme being pushed for political expediency...just like the Benghazi YouTube diversion.
Remember after Benghazi how every Democrat operative referred to the YouTube video as "reprehensible", and then would go on to distance the U.S. government from having anything to do with it? That was classic straw-man stuff, as no one ever claimed the U.S. government had anything to do with the video in the first place. With this Russian "hack", operatives have been using superlatives for how evil and against international norms this alleged hack has been. Oh really? Not long ago, WikiLeaks disclosed the U.S. government was actually listening to Angela Merkel's cell phone! Now that deserved some superlatives. And during the last election in Israel, Obama spent a pile of U.S. taxpayer money in an attempt to overthrow Bibi Netanyahu. All of it wasted, of course. Yet somehow we are to believe Putin is doing something reprehensible? Putin actually invaded a country recently, and Obama's response? Nothing. Remember Anna Chapman? She was a real Russian spy with an entire spy ring living in the U.S. who got caught in 2010. Obama's response? Nothing - except she was asked to leave. Now someone figures-out Podesta's "ultra-secure" password is actually... "password", and Obama is expelling people and sending troops? Does this make logical sense?
The intelligence community was somehow coerced into mentioning the YouTube video as a possible irritant for the murders in Benghazi. We now know that line was Bravo Sierra. Similarly, the same intelligence community is now pedaling the line about Putin and the Ruskies. Just as credible, and just as political as last time. And in both cases, there were dupes in both parties who sincerely bought into the ploy.
To make the Benghazi ploy look legit, Obama actually did imprison the hapless guy who made the YouTube video. If only we had a first amendment or something to protect videomakers from being imprisoned for speech! Oh wait... Now we are invading countries and expelling diplomats to make the same diversional ploy look legit. And to sabotage the incoming administration.
In both Benghazi and the email hack there is a conspicuous lack of proof to support the diversions. And none is forthcoming in either case. Obama promised a swift response after Benghazi, and then said, "The perpetrators will be brought to justice!". Remember how every major network was able to interview the perps within weeks, but it took the Obama military, with a budget in the trillions, years to get one alleged attacker and bring him stateside? His trial is conveniently scheduled for 2017, long after the election of 2016. He would certainly know if the attack was really a film critique, and I'm sure he was offered a great deal to publicly finger the video on 60 Minutes. Of course, any serious observer would know that the compound in Benghazi was attacked on multiple occasions long before the offending YouTube video was ever put online!
In the case of Benghazi, one poor schmuck actually spent a year in prison to divert attention from a terrorist attack and get Obama re-elected. Now it is a diversion to delegitimize and sabotage the incoming President who threatens to undo eight years of Obama's totalitarian liberalism. This time the ploy has turned sinister and dangerous. I sure hope Donald Trump can gracefully dance around all the landmines Barack Obama is putting in his path, because if not, real people could get blown up.
(UPDATE: The company that found the alleged Russian hack, and on which the entire intelligence community assessment rests, is a Google linked company with strong ties to the Hillary Clinton campaign. CrowdStrike was funded by a division of Google, and Eric Schmidt, Chairman of Googles parent, was a staff member and advisor to the Clinton campaign.)
Can Nuclear physics teach us anything about what's going on in Charlotte, NC? How about Islam and jihad?
Nuclear explosions occur when there are sufficient unstable atoms packed into a tight space, and then induced into a chain reaction by releasing radicalized unbound nuclear particles into that unstable mass.
Bananas are slightly radioactive, as are some rocks in your backyard. But no matter how hard you try, you won't be able to induce a nuclear chain reaction in a banana or rock because the stable atoms that make-up the majority will prevent an explosion.
What's happening in Charlotte, and for that matter in every one of these cities that have rioted, is of two parts that exactly mirror the nuclear model. Part one is the packing into a tight space of unstable elements. Three generations of progressive policies in American inner cities, with federal support, have decimated the family structure. The pathologies that result have been well documented and are irrefutable. The local economies are weak , crime prevails, education is dismal, and single parents struggle to raise stable children. It is a tightly packed unstable mass.
Add to that mix some radicalization. A President who promotes radical movements in the inner city, has Al Sharpton as a top liaison, who denigrates the judicial system, who berates law enforcement, and who sees racism in every event, is a catalyst, not a stabilizing force. Obama's DOJ actually has a unit called Community Relations Services which goes into these riot torn cities to support and organize the rioters.
Then there's social media. In Charlotte, a rumor was circulated that the deceased man was armed with nothing but a book. The fact that the black Police Chief said it was a gun, not a book, had no effect because the radicalization of those in the street has unbound them from reason. Thus, a non-complying armed black belligerent who is shot by a black cop in a city with a black Police Chief becomes a racial incident.
It is the exact analogy for what has happened in the Islamic world. Part one is Islam itself. Not radical Islam, but plain-old everyday Islam. Wherever Islam is dominant there is a constellation of pathologies that result: unstable cultures, unstable economies, unstable families, and unstable individuals. Women are treated poorly, gays are put to death, children are beaten, infidels are killed or driven out. This is not the exception. This is the norm under Islam.
Add to that unstable mix some radicalization by a cleric or politician, and the jihad chain reaction takes place.
The proper response is to create stability within these unstable masses, and prevent radicalization. Easier said than done, I know. But a good place to start might be to end the progressive stranglehold on inner city policies. For jihad, perhaps we should throttle back on the importation of Islam into our country. We need to stabilize these unstable masses, and turn them into bananas and rocks.
As long as I'm on this Caddyshack/Trump/Dangerfield kick, I would be remiss if I didn't post this tidbit following Barack Obama, peace be upon him, going full radical cleric at the Black Caucus Foundation rally.
If you haven't seen it, watch here as Obama whips his audience into a frenzy over how it would be an insult if blacks don't vote Hillary, not because it would be an insult to her, but to HIS LEGACY!
(I realize the GIF may offend some precious snowflakes, but I'm pretty sure the stand-up-comedian-in-chief himself would chuckle at this vintage Caddyshack clip.)
Think the above meme is over-the-top? Think again.
Remember the IRS scandal? The one where the Obama IRS was (and still is) targeting conservative groups and persecuting them with exemption delays, audits, and ridiculous document requests? Well, one of the things they required of a particular Christian group was that they reveal the content of their prayers.
Meanwhile, just this week in the wake of the San Bernardino terrorist attack we learned that Tashfeen Malik, the terrorist immigrant wife, had been posting jihadist material on social media but DHS had a policy that protected her privacy. She was not an American. She wanted to kill Americans. Yet according to the Obama-ocracy, her imaginary right to privacy trumped the right of American citizens to continue living.
The average American knows nothing of this but can easily name every single member of the Kardashian family, and thinks it would be really neat to have a female president replace the first black president.
Maybe this is why the level of divisiveness and passion is so high for this election cycle. Some see the headlights of a train coming, while others are mesmerized by the light gleaming off the shiny tracks.
In a case of galloping irony, I picked-up my newspaper today and saw two stories on page one : The massacre by Muslims in San Bernardino, CA, and the U.S. is set to lift sanctions on Iran.
Meanwhile, Obama's message after the massacre in CA was, of course, about...gun control.
So, over a hundred billion dollars goes to the people who desire nuclear weapons, ICBMs, and chant "Death to America", and law abiding Americans have their constitutional right to self defense taken from them.
Is it any wonder some people think Donald Trump would be an improvement? I believe my labradoodle would be an improvement!
The Charleston massacre was bad enough. Barack Obama made it even worse. Within 24 hours of the event, he got in front of the cameras and politicized the tragedy, making it all about the tool used by the killer. That would be like blaming the holocaust on gas chambers, 9/11 on box cutters, and ISIS on daggers and matches.
There is a "first law of Obama", much like there is a first law of physics: "for every negative event, there is a politically convenient scapegoat to attack, which is designed to rally the liberal base but solve nothing. " For Charleston it's guns.
Not only did Obama attack guns as the culprit, he also attacked the country he leads as being the only developed country that experiences mass murders. He must not consider England, France, Norway, Switzerland, Russia, Finland, Germany, or Canada developed.
He may really believe our legal right to own guns makes us more violent. He seems blissfully unaware that we've always had guns, but we didn't always have this kind of violence. He's also blissfully unaware that some of the highest homicide rates, 1000% higher than ours, are in Central American countries that have no 2nd amendment and very few guns. Countries like Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, and Mexico are some of the most violent in the world. Good thing Obama is not importing illegals from these countries. Oh wait, that's exactly what he's doing!
Look, I could talk about how Obama's disregard for life (ie: late term abortions) has contributed to a cheapening of the value of life and led to more violence, but that would be theoretical. What's not theoretical is that in Obama's first term, he and the Democrats had filibuster proof control of the entire government. They could have passed a total ban on guns if they wanted to. They did not, because even most Democrats know legal guns are not the problem.
The fact is we have some violent and insane people in our country, and their violence will not magically disappear if guns magically do. They will find another tool. They always have. Ironically, the best way to minimize gun violence is to deregulate them. It is not a coincidence that killers like the Charleston guy, the Batman guy, the military base guy, and the school guy, all sought out gun-free zones to accomplish their evil.
Obama knows this but sees a political opportunity. The damage that this cynical, petulant, arrogant, and divisive man is inflicting on our nation proceeds apace.
(At the time of this writing, the gun that the Charleston shooter used appears to have been illegal.)
Sometimes events are just events. Sometimes they are related and show a
trend. But sometimes events are so
linked, they paint a vivid picture worth well more than a thousand words. So it is with Ramadi and Baltimore.
Ramadi and Baltimore are just the latest manifestations of the
Obama power vacuum. (No, the Obama power
vacuum is not like a Hoover or Dyson. It won’t help you clean your
house. The Obama power vacuum is actually quite deadly and claims lives on an hourly basis..) All the ISIS chaos, Putin’s imperialism,
Iran’s aggression, as well as the chaos befalling cities across America essentially
share the same pathology as Ramadi and Baltimore. And Obama’s hand in all of it is undeniable. (For a black Democrat president with a Muslim
name who identifies as a Christian, he sure is presiding over the death and
suffering of a lot of blacks, Democrats, Muslims, and Christians!)
In Ramadi, and Iraq in general, Obama’s precipitous
withdrawal of all US forces left a power vacuum which ISIS has filled with
tragic effect. When George W Bush turned
things over, US soldiers were no longer fighting in Iraq. Our role was as a stabilizing force. Serving in Iraq in 2009 was actually safer
than walking the streets of Baltimore is today! Now, just a few years into the Obama
power vacuum, and the whole place is a tragic mess. We fought, died, and prevailed in a
bi-partisan effort, only to have it squandered by an irresponsible, arrogant,
and petulant pol.
In Baltimore, and cities across America, the Obama power
vacuum resulted from the same kind of behavior. Again there was a long effort which had largely prevailed against rising inner-city crime
and murder. Enter Obama. Instead of using his bully pulpit to
encourage the rule of law and allow the criminal justice system to play-out,
he jumped in and inserted himself into every high profile case implying
the police and criminal justice system were racist and criminal. He deployed his de-facto race czar, Al
Sharpton, to stir animosity. He deployed
his Department of Justice to charge police departments with civil rights
violations and impose onerous restrictions. In every high profile case so far he’s been
proven wrong. Nevertheless, Obama’s assault on local police
and criminal justice systems persists.
Cops have realized that being pro-active is not worth the effort. They have stopped doing what works and left a
power vacuum into which chaos and murder have flooded.
A vacuum is not a thing.
It’s the absence of things. Obama’s
principles are also not things. They are
the absence of things. Obama’s approach to
foreign affairs can best be described as “not Bush’. In domestic affairs it can be best described as
“not the Constitution”.
“Not Bush” is how we get a troop surge and a tripling of
casualties in Afghanistan, a complete withdrawal from Iraq, appeasement with Putin,
Nukes for Iran, intervention in Libya, an overrun embassy, and chaos in Ramadi. “Not the Constitution” is how we get a
virtual takeover of local police departments, criminalization of routine police
work, federalization of everything, executive takeover of the
legislative function, and chaos in Baltimore.
Ramadi and Baltimore are just the latest examples of the Obama power
vacuum from “not Bush” and “not the Constitution”.Into those vacuums have rushed ISIS and inner-city mayhem across America.
For the first time in almost two and a half years, I am proud of a national leader in Washington. Today, he went before congress and spoke with clarity about liberty, peace, security, and founding principles. He was forceful, graceful, and articulate. His reason was sound and his positions well thought out. Too bad President Obama was out of town and missed Netanyahu's excellent speech.
