Categories
Archives
HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
target="_top">

Archive for the ‘Anti American’ Category

Let This Sink In – Bill Kristol Jump In

gmc14177220160601080700

Did The National Review VIOLATE Their 501(c)3 By BASHING Trump?

Well, you got to hand one victory to the National Review after their highly charged “Here’s Why Donald Trump Stinks” issue; they’ve bullied their way back into the political zeitgeist. Unfortunately, it may have been at the cost of their tax-exempt status. At least that’s the suggestion from a commentary by Rottdawg, posted today on Joe For America.

National Review was once the mighty anchor of American conservatism. Since the death of its founder, William F. Buckley, the magazine has failed to evolve into the digital age with anything even masquerading as 21st century understanding. According to Rottdawg, in order to stem the financial bleeding, the once mighty conservative mainstay rebranded itself as a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit to be able to accept donations. The hitch, continues Rottdawg, is that nonprofits aren’t allowed to dive into the political pool and tell supporter who to like or dislike at the risk of having their comfy tax write off rescinded. Similarly, churches enjoy a tax break under the same agreement that priests and pastors won’t tell their congregations who God does or doesn’t want them to vote for.

Since The National Review’s most recent edition, in which practically every page was dedicated to why Donald Trump is loathsome and you shouldn’t vote for him, one could certainly argue that the magazine broke the rules. That said, there are an abundance of examples when churches and nonprofits broke the same rule without rebuke. Heck, there’s an entire day dedicated to it.
My guess is it’s unlikely The National Review will get hammered by anybody but Trump voters and core conservatives. If anything, it’s just another example of the journal’s growing irrelevancy and poor timing. Didn’t they get the memo that establishment Republicans are now siding with Trump as their best shot at defeating died-in-the-wool conservative, Ted Cruz?

FBI Files Document Communism in Valerie Jarrett’s Family – Yes it Smells

dcb49aebc87894eb6ac9c3a9856afa4c
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) files obtained by Judicial Watch reveal that the dad, maternal grandpa and father-in-law of President Obama’s trusted senior advisor, Valerie Jarrett, were hardcore Communists under investigation by the U.S. government.

Jarrett’s dad, pathologist and geneticist Dr. James Bowman, had extensive ties to Communist associations and individuals, his lengthy FBI file shows. In 1950 Bowman was in communication with a paid Soviet agent named Alfred Stern, who fled to Prague after getting charged with espionage. Bowman was also a member of a Communist-sympathizing group called the Association of Internes and Medical Students. After his discharge from the Army Medical Corps in 1955, Bowman moved to Iran to work, the FBI records show.

According to Bowman’s government file the Association of Internes and Medical Students is an organization that “has long been a faithful follower of the Communist Party line” and engages in un-American activities. Bowman was born in Washington D.C. and had deep ties to Chicago, where he often collaborated with fellow Communists. JW also obtained documents on Bowman from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) showing that the FBI was brought into investigate him for his membership in a group that “follows the communist party line.” The Jarrett family Communist ties also include a business partnership between Jarrett’s maternal grandpa, Robert Rochon Taylor, and Stern, the Soviet agent associated with her dad.

Jarrett’s father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett, was also another big-time Chicago Communist, according to separate FBI files obtained by JW as part of a probe into the Jarrett family’s Communist ties. For a period of time Vernon Jarrett appeared on the FBI’s Security Index and was considered a potential Communist saboteur who was to be arrested in the event of a conflict with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). His FBI file reveals that he was assigned to write propaganda for a Communist Party front group in Chicago that would “disseminate the Communist Party line among…the middle class.”

It’s been well documented that Valerie Jarrett, a Chicago lawyer and longtime Obama confidant, is a liberal extremist who wields tremendous power in the White House. Faithful to her roots, she still has connections to many Communist and extremist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood. Jarrett and her family also had strong ties to Frank Marshal Davis, a big Obama mentor and Communist Party member with an extensive FBI file.

JW has exposed Valerie Jarrett’s many transgressions over the years, including her role in covering up a scandalous gun-running operation carried out by the Department of Justice (DOJ). Last fall JW obtained public records that show Jarrett was a key player in the effort to cover up that Attorney General Eric Holder lied to Congress about the Fast and Furious, a disastrous experiment in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) allowed guns from the U.S. to be smuggled into Mexico so they could eventually be traced to drug cartels. Instead, federal law enforcement officers lost track of hundreds of weapons which have been used in an unknown number of crimes, including the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent in Arizona.

In 2008 JW got documents linking Valerie Jarrett, who also served as co-chairman of Obama’s presidential transition team, to a series of real estate scandals, including several housing projects operated by convicted felon and Obama fundraiser/friend Antoin “Tony” Rezko. According to the documents obtained from the Illinois Secretary of State, Valerie Jarrett served as a board member for several organizations that provided funding and support for Chicago slum projects operated by Rezko.

Sheriff Joe: Democrats using illegals for votes

joe_arpaio19
Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio said Sunday Democrats are mostly interested in immigration reform because the newly legalized residents will eventually obtain voting rights and will vote for Democrats.

“That’s common sense,” said Arpaio. “I don’t think that’s something that nobody knows. You make them here legally so they can vote.”

Arpaio was speaking on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” broadcast on New York’s AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia’s NewsTalk 990 AM.

“There’s a push afoot nationally to sign up more Hispanics to be able to vote,” said Arpaio. “But you have to be careful now. But if you legalize these guys, these people, they are going to vote.”

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

As WND previously reported, Eliseo Medina, a former immigration adviser to President Obama, boasted in 2009 that granting citizenship to millions of illegal aliens would expand the “progressive” electorate and help ensure a “progressive” governing coalition for the long term.

Medina is the current secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees International Union, or SEIU. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Medina and Gutierrez served on Obama’s National Latino Advisory Council.

During the interview, Arpaio urged Republican president candidates to discuss the issue of drug trafficking when talking about border security.

What do YOU think? Is the push to bring in illegals to America meant to create more Democrat voters? Sound off in the WND Poll!

“Ninety-nine percent” of those arrested for bringing drugs into Maricopa County, Arizona are illegal aliens,” according Arpaio. “Everybody talks about the border related to illegal immigration. Can’t they throw in another little issue just for kicks? And say, oh by the way, tons of drugs are coming across the border too.”

Stated Arpaio: “Everyone talks about immigration. What about the drugs destroying our young people? Heroin is increasing. So if I were advising the (Republican) candidates, I’m sure they will be calling me even though I’m taking heat again, I’d say start talking about the drug problem coming from Mexico. … Forget just the illegal immigration. Put it together. There is a combination of both problems. That’s what I would talk about.”

He added, “Where’s the president? How come he is not talking about the drugs coming across the border?”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/sheriff-joe-democrats-using-illegals-for-votes/#t67AoL4YEtekvc0X.99

A Net Assessment of the Middle East

map-middle-east-jordanMiddle East,

By George Friedman

The term “Middle East” has become enormously elastic. The name originated with the British Foreign Office in the 19th century. The British divided the region into the Near East, the area closest to the United Kingdom and most of North Africa; the Far East, which was east of British India; and the Middle East, which was between British India and the Near East. It was a useful model for organizing the British Foreign Office and important for the region as well, since the British — and to a lesser extent the French — defined not only the names of the region but also the states that emerged in the Near and Far East.

Today, the term Middle East, to the extent that it means anything, refers to the Muslim-dominated countries west of Afghanistan and along the North African shore. With the exception of Turkey and Iran, the region is predominantly Arab and predominantly Muslim. Within this region, the British created political entities that were modeled on European nation-states. The British shaped the Arabian Peninsula, which had been inhabited by tribes forming complex coalitions, into Saudi Arabia, a state based on one of these tribes, the Sauds. The British also created Iraq and crafted Egypt into a united monarchy. Quite independent of the British, Turkey and Iran shaped themselves into secular nation-states.

This defined the two fault lines of the Middle East. The first was between European secularism and Islam. The Cold War, when the Soviets involved themselves deeply in the region, accelerated the formation of this fault line. One part of the region was secular, socialist and built around the military. Another part, particularly focused on the Arabian Peninsula, was Islamist, traditionalist and royalist. The latter was pro-Western in general, and the former — particularly the Arab parts — was pro-Soviet. It was more complex than this, of course, but this distinction gives us a reasonable framework.

The second fault line was between the states that had been created and the underlying reality of the region. The states in Europe generally conformed to the definition of nations in the 20th century. The states created by the Europeans in the Middle East did not. There was something at a lower level and at a higher level. At the lower level were the tribes, clans and ethnic groups that not only made up the invented states but also were divided by the borders. The higher level was broad religious loyalties to Islam and to the major movements of Islam, Shiism and Suniism that laid a transnational claim on loyalty. Add to this the pan-Arab movement initiated by former Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, who argued that the Arab states should be united into a single Arab nation.

Any understanding of the Middle East must therefore begin with the creation of a new political geography after World War I that was superimposed on very different social and political realities and was an attempt to limit the authority of broader regional and ethnic groups. The solution that many states followed was to embrace secularism or traditionalism and use them as tools to manage both the subnational groupings and the claims of the broader religiosity. One unifying point was Israel, which all opposed. But even here it was more illusion than reality. The secular socialist states, such as Egypt and Syria, actively opposed Israel. The traditional royalist states, which were threatened by the secular socialists, saw an ally in Israel.

Aftershocks From the Soviet Collapse

Following the fall of the Soviet Union and the resulting collapse of support for the secular socialist states, the power of the traditional royalties surged. This was not simply a question of money, although these states did have money. It was also a question of values. The socialist secularist movement lost its backing and its credibility. Movements such as Fatah, based on socialist secularism — and Soviet support — lost power relative to emerging groups that embraced the only ideology left: Islam. There were tremendous cross currents in this process, but one of the things to remember was that many of the socialist secular states that had begun with great promise continued to survive, albeit without the power of a promise of a new world. Rulers like Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, Syria’s Bashar al Assad and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein remained in place. Where the movement had once held promise even if its leaders were corrupt, after the Soviet Union fell, the movement was simply corrupt.

The collapse of the Soviet Union energized Islam, both because the mujahideen defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan and because the alternative to Islam was left in tatters. Moreover, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait took place in parallel with the last days of the Soviet Union. Both countries are remnants of British diplomacy. The United States, having inherited the British role in the region, intervened to protect another British invention — Saudi Arabia — and to liberate Kuwait from Iraq. From the Western standpoint, this was necessary to stabilize the region. If a regional hegemon emerged and went unchallenged, the consequences could pyramid. Desert Storm appeared to be a simple and logical operation combining the anti-Soviet coalition with Arab countries.

The experience of defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan and the secular regimes’ loss of legitimacy opened the door to two processes. In one, the subnational groupings in the region came to see the existing regimes as powerful but illegitimate. In the other, the events in Afghanistan brought the idea of a pan-Islamic resurrection back to the fore. And in the Sunni world, which won the war in Afghanistan, the dynamism of Shiite Iran — which had usurped the position of politico-military spokesman for radical Islam — made the impetus for action clear.

There were three problems. First, the radicals needed to cast pan-Islamism in a historical context. The context was the transnational caliphate, a single political entity that would abolish existing states and align political reality with Islam. The radicals reached back to the Christian Crusades for historical context, and the United States — seen as the major Christian power after its crusade in Kuwait — became the target. Second, the pan-Islamists needed to demonstrate that the United States was both vulnerable and the enemy of Islam. Third, they had to use the subnational groups in various countries to build coalitions to overthrow what were seen as corrupt Muslim regimes, in both the secular and the traditionalist worlds.

The result was al Qaeda and its campaign to force the United States to launch a crusade in the Islamic world. Al Qaeda wanted to do this by carrying out actions that demonstrated American vulnerability and compelled U.S. action. If the United States did not act, it would enhance the image of American weakness; if it did act, it would demonstrate it was a crusader hostile to Islam. U.S. action would, in turn, spark uprisings against corrupt and hypocritical Muslim states, sweep aside European-imposed borders and set the stage for uprisings. The key was to demonstrate the weakness of the regimes and their complicity with the Americans.

This led to 9/11. In the short run, it appeared that the operation had failed. The United States reacted massively to the attacks, but no uprising occurred in the region, no regimes were toppled, and many Muslim regimes collaborated with the Americans. During this time, the Americans were able to wage an aggressive war against al Qaeda and its Taliban allies. In this first phase, the United States succeeded. But in the second phase, the United States, in its desire to reshape Iraq and Afghanistan — and other countries — internally, became caught up in the subnational conflicts. The Americans got involved in creating tactical solutions rather than confronting the strategic problem, which was that waging the war was causing national institutions in the region to collapse.

In destroying al Qaeda, the Americans created a bigger problem in three parts: First, they unleashed the subnational groups. Second, where they fought they created a vacuum that they couldn’t fill. Finally, in weakening the governments and empowering the subnational groups, they made a compelling argument for the caliphate as the only institution that could govern the Muslim world effectively and the only basis for resisting the United States and its allies. In other words, where al Qaeda failed to trigger a rising against corrupt governments, the United States managed to destroy or compromise a range of the same governments, opening the door to transnational Islam.

The Arab Spring was mistaken for a liberal democratic rising like 1989 in Eastern Europe. More than anything else, it was a rising by a pan-Islamic movement that largely failed to topple regimes and embroiled one, Syria, in a prolonged civil war. That conflict has a subnational component — various factions divided against each other that give the al Qaeda-derived Islamic State room to maneuver. It also provided a second impetus to the ideal of a caliphate. Not only were the pan-Islamists struggling against the American crusader, but they were fighting Shiite heretics — in service of the Sunni caliphate — as well. The Islamic State put into place the outcome that al Qaeda wanted in 2001, nearly 15 years later and, in addition to Syria and Iraq, with movements capable of sustained combat in other Islamic countries.

A New U.S. Strategy and Its Repercussions

Around this time, the United States was forced to change strategy. The Americans were capable of disrupting al Qaeda and destroying the Iraqi army. But the U.S. ability to occupy and pacify Iraq or Afghanistan was limited. The very factionalism that made it possible to achieve the first two goals made pacification impossible. Working with one group alienated another in an ongoing balancing act that left U.S. forces vulnerable to some faction motivated to wage war because of U.S. support for another. In Syria, where the secular government was confronting a range of secular and religious but not extremist forces, along with an emerging Islamic State, the Americans were unable to meld the factionalized non-Islamic State forces into a strategically effective force. Moreover, the United States could not make its peace with the al Assad government because of its repressive policies, and it was unable to confront the Islamic State with the forces available.

In a way, the center of the Middle East had been hollowed out and turned into a whirlpool of competing forces. Between the Lebanese and Iranian borders, the region had uncovered two things: First, it showed that the subnational forces were the actual reality of the region. Second, in obliterating the Syria-Iraq border, these forces and particularly the Islamic State had created a core element of the caliphate — a transnational power or, more precisely, one that transcended borders.

The American strategy became an infinitely more complex variation of President Ronald Reagan’s policy in the 1980s: Allow the warring forces to war. The Islamic State turned the fight into a war on Shiite heresy and on established nation states. The region is surrounded by four major powers: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey. Each has approached the situation differently. Each of these nations has internal factions, but each state has been able to act in spite of that. Put differently, three of them are non-Arab powers, and the one Arab power, Saudi Arabia, is perhaps the most concerned about internal threats.

For Iran, the danger of the Islamic State is that it would recreate an effective government in Baghdad that could threaten Iran again. Thus, Tehran has maintained support for the Iraqi Shiites and for the al Assad government, while trying to limit al Assad’s power.

For Saudi Arabia, which has aligned with Sunni radical forces in the past, the Islamic State represents an existential threat. Its call for a transnational Islamic movement has the potential to resonate with Saudis from the Wahhabi tradition. The Saudis, along with some other Gulf Cooperation Council members and Jordan, are afraid of Islamic State transnationalism but also of Shiite power in Iraq and Syria. Riyadh needs to contain the Islamic State without conceding the ground to the Shiites.

For the Israelis, the situation has been simultaneously outstanding and terrifying. It has been outstanding because it has pitted Israel’s enemies against each other. Al Assad’s government has in the past supported Hezbollah against Israel. The Islamic State represents a long-term threat to Israel. So long as they fought, Israel’s security would be enhanced. The problem is that in the end someone will win in Syria, and that force might be more dangerous than anything before it, particularly if the Islamic State ideology spreads to Palestine. Ultimately, al Assad is less dangerous than the Islamic State, which shows how bad the Israeli choice is in the long run.

It is the Turks — or at least the Turkish government that suffered a setback in the recently concluded parliamentary elections — who are the most difficult to understand. They are hostile to the al Assad government — so much so that they see the Islamic State as less of a threat. There are two ways to explain their view: One is that they expect the Islamic State to be defeated by the United States in the end and that involvement in Syria would stress the Turkish political system. The other is that they might be less averse than others in the region to the Islamic State’s winning. While the Turkish government has vigorously denied such charges, rumors of support to at least some factions of the Islamic State have persisted, suspicions in Western capitals linger, and alleged shipments of weaponry to unknown parties in Syria by the Turkish intelligence organization were a dominant theme in Turkey’s elections. This is incomprehensible, unless the Turks see the Islamic State as a movement that they can control in the end and that is paving the way for Turkish power in the region — or unless the Turks believe that a direct confrontation would lead to a backlash from the Islamic State in Turkey itself.

The Islamic State’s Role in the Region

The Islamic State represents a logical continuation of al Qaeda, which triggered both a sense of Islamic power and shaped the United States into a threat to Islam. The Islamic State created a military and political framework to exploit the situation al Qaeda created. Its military operations have been impressive, ranging from the seizure of Mosul to the taking of Ramadi and Palmyra. Islamic State fighters’ flexibility on the battlefield and ability to supply large numbers of forces in combat raises the question of where they got the resources and the training.

However, the bulk of Islamic State fighters are still trapped within their cauldron, surrounded by three hostile powers and an enigma. The hostile powers collaborate, but they also compete. The Israelis and the Saudis are talking. This is not new, but for both sides there is an urgency that wasn’t there in the past. The Iranian nuclear program is less important to the Americans than collaboration with Iran against the Islamic State. And the Saudis and other Gulf countries have forged an air capability used in Yemen that might be used elsewhere if needed.

It is likely that the cauldron will hold, so long as the Saudis are able to sustain their internal political stability. But the Islamic State has already spread beyond the cauldron — operating in Libya, for example. Many assume that these forces are Islamic State in name only — franchises, if you will. But the Islamic State does not behave like al Qaeda. It explicitly wants to create a caliphate, and that wish should not be dismissed. At the very least, it is operating with the kind of centralized command and control, on the strategic level, that makes it far more effective than other non-state forces we have seen.

Secularism in the Muslim world appears to be in terminal retreat. The two levels of struggle within that world are, at the top, Sunni versus Shiite, and at the base, complex and interacting factions. The Western world accepted domination of the region from the Ottomans and exercised it for almost a century. Now, the leading Western power lacks the force to pacify the Islamic world. Pacifying a billion people is beyond anyone’s capability. The Islamic State has taken al Qaeda’s ideology and is attempting to institutionalize it. The surrounding nations have limited options and a limited desire to collaborate. The global power lacks the resources to both defeat the Islamic State and control the insurgency that would follow. Other nations, such as Russia, are alarmed by the Islamic State’s spread among their own Muslim populations.

It is interesting to note that the fall of the Soviet Union set in motion the events we are seeing here. It is also interesting to note that the apparent defeat of al Qaeda opened the door for its logical successor, the Islamic State. The question at hand, then, is whether the four regional powers can and want to control the Islamic State. And at the heart of that question is the mystery of what Turkey has in mind, particularly as Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s power appears to be declining.

THE WORST OF THE WORST IN 2014

images22
This year was a nonstop horror show for some in the political class. Aside from President Obama, who presided over his party’s electoral debacle at the federal and state level, the year proved to be the undoing of a long list of characters and movements. Here are the worst of the worst of 2014:

1. Bob McDonnell went from one of the most respected Virginia governors to its most disgraced. After refusing to take a plea bargain for a single felony count, he was convicted on 11 counts and faces years in prison. He and now his children have taken to blaming the whole thing on his wife, which qualifies him as the cad of the year. At multiple junctures — before accepting lavish gifts, before contacting state officials on behalf of a major donor, at the plea bargain stage — he could have averted the train wreck.

2. The right-wing groups that cheered the shutdown found out that its ideal candidates were cranks, but worse than that, losers. Their wipeouts in Senate and House races, followed by the failure to dislodge the budget process for the remainder of the fiscal year, should convince all but the hermetically sealed far right that the country does not see the world the way they do. As many of us suspected, the actual Republican Party (not the one imagined by Heritage Action or the Senate Conservatives Fund) is far more sane, internationalist and open to compromise than the mainstream and conservative media would have you believe.

3. Rolling Stone lost any patina of respectability. MSNBC and CNN lost viewers. The New Republic lost its staff. Chris Hughes lost liberals’ most overrated media outlet. Politico lost dozens of staffers. Cable TV news lost perspective on everything from missing airliners to the Ferguson, Missouri, incident.

4. Hillary Clinton reminded everyone that she has nothing interesting to say, no political skills akin to her husband’s, no populist vibes, no greater love than money, no shame about accepting fees from hedge funds one day and declaring corporations don’t create jobs on another, no record of accomplishment, no ability to distance herself from Obama on major issues.

5. Liberalism took hit after hit this year. Democrats wiped out across the board. The anti-Koch brothers and anti-women memes bombed. The results of the not-Bush approach to foreign policy caught up with the Obama team. At home, the economy recovered despite Republican refusal to pass another stimulus. The liberal welfare state is proving to be unmanageable.

Really – Jeh Johnson: Amnesty Will Cause Terrorists to ‘Come Forward’ and Submit Background Checks

Jeh
Of all the foolish lies that have been excreted by the Obama Administration, a recent remark by Jeh Johnson, the left-wing fundraiser now in charge of our security, takes the prize as the most staggeringly moronic:

“From my homeland security perspective, I want people who are living in this country undocumented to come forward, to get on the books, and subject themselves to a background check so that I can know who they are and whether it’s the current DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program or a path to citizenship – whether it’s deferred action or earned path to citizenship. From my homeland security perspective, I want people to come forward.”

So that’s why Johnson hasn’t lifted a finger to secure the border, despite the escalating terror threats from the Islamic State and al Qaeda. Once the election is over and Obama declares amnesty, the dozens if not hundreds of terrorists who have been taking advantage of the undefended border to sneak into the country will turn themselves in to the authorities.

That he made this clown Secretary of Homeland Security tells you all you need to know regarding Obama’s feelings for this country.

McDonald’s Sales in Decline So Let’s Raise Minimum Wage!

by Mark Home
McDonalds
As you may know, unions are scheming for ways to force fast food franchises to raise their minimum wage. Usually, McDonald’s is treated as the wealthiest of these franchises. Everyone seems to assume they have plenty of money and are only refusing to pay employees more out of spite.

I’ve mentioned before that McDonald’s is not that well off. And the bad news keeps coming. According to CNN: “McDonald’s July sales fell more than expected.”

McDonald’s on Friday reported July sales results that were much worse than analysts had expected.

Following the report, the company’s shares traded lower.

The dismal results prompted Janney Capital Markets to lower its estimates for the fast-food giant. Its analysts said the results “were the worst worldwide month in the last 10 years, once trading-day adjustments are taken into account.”

Same-store sales in the U.S. sank 3.2 percent, weaker than the 2.6 percent expected.

So what happens if McDonald’s goes bankrupt and closes?

Yes, I know that total liquidation is quite unlikely. But I think it is worth considering. As far as I can tell from the rhetoric for a higher minimum wage law, McDonald’s is an exploiter of poor people. The restaurant chain is guilty of paying wages that leave employees in squalor.

Well, if they are such an evil company, then obviously all their employees will be immensely better off if the restaurants are all closed down. Right?

No?

Wait a minute! Are you saying that the sudden disappearance of McDonald’s would be a really bad thing for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of employees? Are you saying that, if there were no McDonald’s chain, these people would not be able to earn money?

So which is it? Is McDonald’s a blessing to its many employees or is it a curse? Are you willing to admit that they make the lives of many, many people much better off? Or are you going to claim that they should disappear and that everyone would be better off without them?

Something to think about.

Read more at http://politicaloutcast.com/2014/08/mcdonalds-sales-decline-lets-raise-minimum-wage/#7y7k82myleegqPWR.99

BORDER MELTDOWN – OBAMA DELIVERS 290,000 ILLEGALS TO U.S. HOMES

BY NEIL MUNRO
Barry and George
This is insanity. Not to mention the diseases that are now being spread across the United States on planes and buses by this transportation process.

Via Daily Caller:

The vast majority of 50,000 unaccompanied youths and children who have illegally crossed the Texas border during the last few months have been successfully delivered by federal agencies to their relatives living in the United States, according to a New York Times article.

A second New York Times article reports revealed that officials have caught an additional 240,000 Central American migrants since April, and are transporting many of them to their destinations throughout the United States.

The deluge of 290,000 illegals — so far — are exploiting legal loopholes that allow them to get temporary permits to stay in the United States.

Experts say that President Barack Obama’s administration has failed to close the loopholes and is unlikely to deport more than a small percentage of the illegals, despite the high unemployment rates among American Latino, African-American and white youths, and the strapped budgets of many cities and towns.
The president’s policy has caused protests by frightened citizens in towns such as Murrieta. But Obama’s allies — such as La Raza, an ethnic lobby for Latinos — are eager to escalate the conflict and to paint the protestors as racists. Those protests may escalate before the November elections.

The Central American parents of the 50,000 youths and children are using a 2008 law to ensure their children are transported to them for free by a relay of border patrol and Department of Health and Human Services officials. The youths are delivered to the border patrol by smugglers, dubbed coyotes, in exchange for several thousand dollars.

Half of the 50,000 Central American youths were delivered by taxpayer-funded employees directly to their parents now living in the United States, and another third were delivered to people who said they were close relatives, said the July 3 article.

That new data was included in the 19th paragraph of a 20-paragraph July 3 article.

Top immigration officials choose to not check if the relatives or parents who pick up the children are in the country legally.

Both New York Times articles described the border-crossing illegal aliens as “immigrants.” In fact, “immigrants” is the term for people who legally migrate into the United States.

The 240,000 strong-group largely consists of many mothers and young children, most of whom are now being flown and bussed to destinations near where they wish to settle. That new 240,000 number was included in the seventh paragraph of a 24-paragraph article.

Few of the illegal immigrants are high-school graduates, or have skills that would allow them to earn more than they cost to federal, state and local taxpayers.

Officials have not said where they’ve delivered the adults or youth illegals, but pro-American activists are keeping track of some locations, including San Diego, Calif.

Officials have defended the administration’s catch-and-release policy, which critics say is inviting more Central Americans to cross the border in the hope of being arrested by the border patrol.

“When you have a noncriminal [border-crossing ] mother, they are going to be released,” David Jennings, the head of the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agency in southern California. “The most humane way to deal with this is to find out where they are going and get them there,” he said at a town meeting held in Murrieta, Calif., according to the New York Times.

Follow Neil on Twitter

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/05/border-meltdown-obama-delivering-290000-illegals-to-u-s-homes/#ixzz36tytXlrG

White House Adviser Valerie Jarrett Met ‘Four Or Five Times’ With Illegal Immigrant Activist Group To Facilitate The Storm Invasion of The Border

White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett arrives for a television taping of "In Performance at the White House: Women of Soul" in Washington
Obama’s senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett held a series of meetings with illegal immigrant activists during Obama’s first term and concluded that “They are the best that we have.”

Jarrett, a Chicago-era mentor to Obama and wife Michelle, is currently fighting to pass immigration reform legislation, in her words, “this summer.”

“I had met, maybe, a year-and-a-half ago, with about Four Dream Act kids,” Jarrett said in a 2012 conversation with Walter Isaacson at the 2012 Aspen Ideas Festival, video of which was posted by The Aspen Institute in 2014.

“I call them kids. They’re actually young adults,” Jarrett said. “They walked from Florida to Washington. Walked. And they wanted to see the president. And of course they couldn’t come into the White House because they’re here illegally, and they would have been picked up. And so I ventured across the street, across the park, to a church and I met them in the church. And I’ve now met with them four or five times. And each time I would leave in tears. Because they are exactly the kind of people we would want in this country.”

“They are the best that we have,” Jarrett later added.

The young illegal immigrants that Jarrett met with off the record include Felipe Matos, Gaby Pacheco, Juan Rodriguez, and Carlos Roa, TheDC has independently verified. The four walked from Miami to Washington, D.C. as part of the 2010 “Trail of Dreams” program sponsored by Students Working for Equal Rights and the Florida Immigrant Coalition, among other groups.

Obama and Jarrett held a formal Oval Office meeting with a group of young illegal immigrants in May 2013, which garnered Republican criticism.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/10/valerie-jarretts-secret-meetings-with-illegal-immigrants/#ixzz34G2shZIT