The attack on Smollett Looks like a False Flag PSY OP..




WASHINGTON EXAMINER

And despite claims from pro-illegal immigration advocates that the aliens pay significant off-setting taxes back to federal, state and local treasuries, the Federation for American Immigration Reform report tallied just $19 billion, making the final hit to taxpayers about $116 billion.
State and local governments are getting ravaged by the costs, at over $88 billion. The federal government, by comparison, is getting off easy at $45 billion in costs for illegals.

the attack is still alleged, but I agree wholeheartedly that racists have definitely found an idol/leader in Trump. For that segment of the Trump fan base, MAGA could just as well be MAWA ...

eminent domain has been used for DECADES particularly for railroads. I lived in a rural area, and farmers had no choice but to sell to the government so a railroad could be built across their land. no bid deal to lose some border land to eminent domain. it IS a law.

by the way BUILD THAT WALL

I have the right to remain silent but I don't have the ability.

just to make it clear to those opposing "the wall"
Eminent domain refers to the power of the government to take private property and convert it into public use. The Fifth Amendment provides that the government may only exercise this power if they provide just compensation to the property owners.

If you want illegals to pour into our country, let's start a petition list whereby you all sign your name, address and phone number and pledge to let them into YOUR home and yard, feed them, treat them medically, love their children as your own, and maybe even learn their recipes so you can give them a real "home-cooked" meal.

I say be realistic and "BUILD THAT WALL"
I have the right to remain silent but I don't have the ability.

I say there is quite a bit of area between wanting security that is logical, well thought out, and fiscally responsible, and wanting NO SECURITY.

Do what will work for what we NEED. But dont make mountains out of molehills just to push through an agenda.

And when you have 12,000 people at the border ..You need a wall..not to mention ground penetrating radar..for the tunnels..but I hear they are digging them deeper these days to avoid those as well..For the border we need a multi pronged defense system just one system will not do....you either come in the legal way..or you don't

As many times as I've heard Trump doesn't need congress approval to build a wall..here's a thought..what if he doesn't and he is just using it to show just how bad the Dems are when it comes to the citizens protection ..its clear to see that this is all a part of agenda 21.. which is open borders..... and the redistribution of wealth which is socialism..and that means also that you wont own property and the UN unelected officials rule..its all part and parcel..some how I feel we may be in store for another shut down

sounds MUCH simpler than it is. Many DO come in legal but documents expire. Many don't have a choice of how to come because they are only children. Many come to avoid death and persecution, and/or to give their kids a chance at a 'safer' life. Not all 'illegal immigration' is the same.

I am against trespassing, or breaking and entering. but you know what? If I was stranded in a below zero snowstorm with my kids in the woods, for instance, I may not just wait it out in the woods if I come upon a cabin where no one is there to give me permission to enter, just to avoid not doing it the 'legal' way.


People dont starve gracefully, and they dont watch their kids suffer gracefully either. They look for refuge and HUMANE societies have a means of offering it to them.


There are upstanding AND hardworking people in the world, who still find themselves without the funds or time to invest in the 'legal way'.

I understand that but allowing everyone to storm the borders puts people's lives at risk ..on both sides..but also a lot of people are not on the border because they fear for their lives it's for the hand outs..if they were hat the to work..then why not accept what Mexico has to offer..and then you have the ones up to no good..it's clear by the numbers shown we can't sustain this..

When things weren't the way things we wanted them here we had a revolution..maybe that's what some of these people need to do in their countries or like I said the UN should form a coalition and help these countries rather than strap the cost on the backs of people who can't afford to take care of their own homeless citizens..I can't help but to think it's just another way of the DEM leaders trying to break the economy and incorporate agenda 21..You can see by the numbers in the Washington Examiner we can't sustain this..Not to mention when do you say enough is enough

Take a look at what socialism has done to Venezuela ... thousands in the street. thankfully there's a lot of territory between us and them. The US is going to back the protesters Interim President... get that dictator out of there. and once again, If there the cliffs along the Rio Grande are too tall to climb, use some drones and heliocopters, but ANY empty space needs a wall. If anyone here wants to spend money to feed the illegals and pay for them to learn Inglis do so. What are YOU doing to help our Native Americans forced onto lousy land called Reservations? what is that - double-talk????

BUILD THAT WALL
I have the right to remain silent but I don't have the ability.

What do reservations have to do with a wall?

Are American politicians campaigning about taxpayer dollars for reservations?

And I disagree that any open space needs a wall. There are NATURAL borders that prevent crossing, based on the HISTORY of no one crossing there.


To me, build the wall is much like ban guns in it's almost elementary oversimplification of the issues. To me, it is a sweeping generalizing overreaction that would be neither fiscally responsible, nor logical.

I'm using my VA benefits for night school
studying me some remedial Inglis at the moment.....lol

Topic: is red MAGA hat the new white hood for the 21st century? - No

the leadership uses similar fear tactics, but it doesnt make the followers all the same


Simmons’s Klan was to be the savior of a nation in peril, a means to reestablish the cultural dominance of white people. Immigration and the enfranchisement of African Americans, according to the Klan, eroded this dominance and meant that America was no longer great.

To save the nation, the Klan focused on accomplishing a series of goals. A 1924 Klan cartoon, “Under the Fiery Cross,” illustrated those goals: restricted immigration, militant Protestantism, better government, clean politics, “back to the Constitution,” law enforcement, and “greater allegiance to the flag.”

From 1890 to 1914, more than 16 million immigrants arrived in the United States, and a large majority were Catholics from Germany, Ireland, Italy, and Poland. Around 10 percent were Jewish. The Klan described the influx of immigrants as a “menace” that threatened “true Americanism,” “devotion to the nation and its government,” and, worst of all, America as a civilization

Writing in the Klan newspaper The Imperial Night-Hawk in 1923, Evans declared that immigrants were “mostly scum,” a dangerous “horde.”

The Klan’s message of 100 percent Americanism and restrictive immigration resonated in the 1920s, and their message gains traction again and again every time white Americans encounter social change and shifting demographics. With a black president, LGBT equality, an enormous Hispanic community, and predictions that America will soon be a majority minority country, their message resonates now, too. That’s why a former Klan leader is encouraging other white supremacists to vote for Trump and why The New Yorker’s Evan Osnos found that extremist white-rights groups also plan to vote for him. Maybe Trump doesn’t know better. Or maybe the echoes are less like echoes and more like the purposeful conjuring of a racialized message—one that too many white voters still want to hear.


Read more at: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/donald-trump-kkk/473190/

I believe the request is to fund 254 miles of barrier in the area with the most crossing attempts. That is a far cry from walls in any open space.

If that is part of the proposal, where there is not currently fencing, it makes sense. If there is already fencing there, then more detail needs to be explained and reviewed, such as projected 'saving' fiscally and in terms of human life.

The opening week for Kamala Harris has been dogged by the question of whether a tough-minded, law-and-order prosecutor like Harris can win the Democratic nomination. Progressive (socialist) Democrats who are already committed to the social-democratic visions of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have been unloading on social media, spreading videos of Harris talking like a Nixonite about crime, hoping to show that she is not only at odds with the activist base of the Democratic party, but with the whole country.

Everyone knew the socialist outcry was coming. Harris seems to have let it bait her into an ill-thought-out dash leftward on economic issues, namely her co-sponsorship with Bernie Sanders of a “Medicare-for-all” bill. Probably why democrat's pushed so hard for Obamacare. anyone knows that the UN-Afordable Care Act is incapable of paying for itself as it stands by itself. Without constant infusion of public federal dollars Obamacare would be bankrupt in short order. Unless those who pushed this on the American people knew nothing about business it seems they knew it would flop, and were waiting in the wings with Medicare for all to replace the financially insolvent Obamacare.

Democrat's have fostered on the American public that the European medical/insurance system is a wonderful example of what we should be following. If one truly follows the true story of the EU insurance industry of France, England, Germany Sweden and Denmark their leaders have been saying for nearly a year that unless taxes are seriously increased and benefits are adjusted (downward) to fit economic reality their socialistic insurance programs will be bankrupt within five years.

I posted the French insurance ministers report on this subject several months ago.

... and this is the wonderful example for medical insurance that democrat's want to force on America.

The new class of socialistic democrat's and the standard, run of the mill, democrat's don't see eye to eye. This "blue wave" may turn into a congressional house that could sink by the time the 2020 election arrives due to division the new socialists are pushing Pelosi for. Will be interesting to see how their divisive endeavors will divide the democrat's when the country begins to see what will happen to their pay checks in order to pay for their "give us your freedoms and paychecks in order to support their tax and spend mentality".

Everyone is suppose to get everything for free, but they never explain up front how the public (middle class) will foot the bill for their ideology.

affordable does not mean 'free'

People wanting or believing 'everyone should get everyone free' are probably about as prominent as those thinking 'all guns should be banned', or 'every mile of the border needs a wall'

ACA Savings


http://www.thebalance.com/cbo-report-obamacare-3305627

What you report as ACA savings shows how the ACA reduced (saved) other program costs. It also counted as savings from the added fees and taxes of the ACA which added money to the government programs. Extra taxes and fees that the government collects is not a savings but an expense to those who are required to pay it. It is like the government saying there was a cut to some program when the increase was less than expected. Nothing was actually "cut" or "saved"!

it is always VERY EASY to tell when somebody just takes a few talking points they heard on FAUXnews,or on the rush Limbaugh show,and didn't do any actual research into something themselves!!!

the problem with socialism in Venezuela is the fact that the government was corrupt,and instead of using all of their socialist programs to help the normal citizens of its country,like they were SUPPOSED TO,they took all of the money and basically just gave it to the corrupt politicians that their government is infected with!
[maybe you have heard about the mobster who is currently the president who illegally rigged the election to keep himself in power??]

so,in REALITY,Venezuela isn't a socialist country..it is a DICTATORSHIP!!!

in a toxic environment like THAT,though,where the government is corrupt,NO form of government is going to work!!!

just look at OUR country...
we live in a 'democracy',but now that the government has turned corrupt,and doesn't serve the PEOPLE anymore...just the rich and powerful,WE aren't doing very well either,are we??
[and,its only going to continue to get WORSE,if we dont do something to take back control of it from the people who are running it for the benefit of the super wealthy,and powerful!!]

but,i think that it is par for the course that none of you fauxsters,or dittoheads talks about the FACT that VIRTUALLY EVERY OTHER MAJOR COUNTRY IN SOUTH AMERICA HAS ALSO PRACTICED SOCIALISM,AND MOST OF THEM ARE DOING JUST FINE!!!!

[I wonder WHY they never mention THOSE COUNTRIES on FAUX,or rush?????]
[NO,i dont!!!] lol

here...
have a little education....its on me!!!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/08/21/no-venezuela-doesnt-prove-that-socialism-will-bring-about-a-zombie-apocalypse/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.582051ff7385


"Since the turn of the century, every big country in South America except Colombia has elected a socialist president at some point. Socialists have taken power in South America’s largest economy (Brazil), in its poorest (Bolivia) and in its most capitalist (Chile). Socialists have led South America’s most stable country (Uruguay) as well as its most unstable (Ecuador). Argentina and Peru elected leftists who, for various reasons, didn’t refer to themselves as socialists — but certainly governed as such.

Mysteriously, the supposedly automatic link between socialism and the zombie apocalypse skipped all of them. Not content with merely not-collapsing, a number of these countries have thrived.

Take Peru. When Ollanta Humala, widely seen as one of the most radical hard-left leaders in the region, was elected president in 2011, 28 percent of Peruvians were poor. In office, Humala governed from the left, but sensibly, investing in the poor while nurturing economic growth. By the time he handed over power in 2016 (peacefully, to a right-wing successor), just 21 percent of Peruvians were poor.

Some argue that it was Humala’s relative moderation that averted disaster. But look across his southeastern border. In Bolivia, a hard-core socialist, Evo Morales, has been in power since 2006. Morales’s tenure lays waste to any notion that countries succeed only under “moderates” — he’s a proper extremist, a hard-leftist who nationalized the nation’s most lucrative industry, and it’s an incontestable fact that he has handled the nation’s finances with prudence and scored real social achievements along the way. According to the World Bank, under Morales poverty in Bolivia fell by a third, with none of the economic chaos Venezuela has seen."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2017/01/05/as-socialist-venezuela-collapses-socialist-bolivia-thrives-heres-why/?utm_term=.26f7d439b967

As socialist Venezuela collapses, socialist Bolivia thrives. Here’s why.

"Venezuela ran large budget deficits every year, even as oil prices skyrocketed between 2005 to 2014. That meant the country was piling on debt even as government revenue exploded — a senseless, pro-cyclical policy that left Venezuela up a creek without a paddle when commodity prices tanked.

In the meantime, Bolivia was running budget surpluses every year between 2006 and 2014. This allowed it to draw down the public sector’s debt, which fell from 83 percent of GDP in 2003 to just 26 percent in 2014, even as Bolivia built up its international reserves dramatically, from $1.7 billion in 2005 to $15.1 billion at the end of the boom in 2014."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEE!!...I wonder why they only want to look through a pinhole at the very worst example,instead of letting you take the blinders off,and see the BIG picture??

I will answer that question for you...its because they dont want you to have to REAL FACTS,because THEN,you wouldn't be so easily manipulated for their own purposes.

maybe you might want to start actually doing the RESEARCH it takes to have a well informed opinion about things,instead of just swallowing the propaganda that people are feeding you for their own agenda?

[GOOGLE is your friend!!!]

First of all, anyone who would quote the post is obviously a left winger who doesn't understand fact from opinion. The post is 90% opinion!

Some level of socialism is necessary, we have that here today. The problem is that most socialist economies do not reinvest enough in their economies to keep them growing. Anytime the government gives something to the people, they demand more. Unless you, as a government, are willing to say no when people demand too much you get a Venezuela!