[VIDEO] The Bernie Sanders bubble: Get set for a flameout, analysts say

A former chief strategist for Howard Dean, whose 2004 presidential hopes plummeted from rock star status to also-ran,
 predicts a similar fate for the Democratic darling of the 
moment, Vermont U.S. Sen. 
Bernie Sanders.

“There’s a big difference 
between 10,000 at a rally and turning out 3,500 caucus 
attenders on a cold winter night in Iowa. I suspect Bernie Sanders will learn the difference in February,” said Steve McMahon, Dean’s one-time top strategist. “His crowds are enthusiastic and large and fun to watch, but the question is whether they will be effective in the long run.”

Large crowds don’t necessarily translate into delegate support, McMahon said.

“Bernie Sanders needs to move the crowds into action and organize grass-roots support in the early states and so far, I haven’t seen any evidence that that’s occurring,” he said. “He doesn’t seem to be running a grass-roots campaign. It’s a campaign based on big crowds.”

The Summer of Sanders has seen the self-described socialist surge from nearly 50 points 
behind the Democratic front-runner, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to within 15 points, 
according to Real Clear Politics’ average of polls.

Sanders’ aides had to scramble to find a new venue to accommodate more than 7,500 screaming supporters Monday as a planned town hall morphed into a roaring rally in Portland, Maine.

Sanders also recently played to 10,000 fans in Madison, Wis.

“He is drawing massive crowds in all sorts of places,” said Sean Trende, senior elections analyst at Real Clear Politics. “In an Internet age, there’s a segment that increasingly values authenticity. You saw that with Ron Paul. I think Sanders taps into that.”

Sanders has earned the backing of U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s anti-Wall Street wing of the Democratic party — mostly young, white progressives — but faces a challenge courting black voters, who have supported Clinton in the past, Trende said.

The 73-year-old Sanders does well in neighboring New Hampshire as a folk hero firebrand, but he likely will run out of steam, said Peter Hoe Burling, a former New Hampshire delegate for 
the Democratic National Committee.

“People talk about Howard Dean’s yowl, but the fact of the matter is, that campaign had peaked at a certain point,” Burling said. “It went as far as it was going to go and there’s the chance Bernie’s campaign is 
going to peak as well. In my mind, his campaign will peak at some point prior to the New Hampshire primary.”

Sanders can’t win in big states with deep reserves of delegates such as New York and California, said Matt Bennett, a veteran Democratic campaign strategist and Clinton supporter.

“He may do well in Iowa and New Hampshire, but he runs into a brick wall after that,” Bennett said.

“He’s not going to have the money or organization to challenge Secretary Clinton in multiple states at the same time on Super Tuesday,” Bennett said.

Sanders also could face high hurdles in the south, said Chip Felkel, a South Carolina-based Republican strategist not aligned with a presidential campaign.

“He’s been very impressive with what he’s been able to do crowd-wise and enthusiasm-wise,” he said. “I think that would carry over some in South Carolina, but he might be just plain too liberal for some of the Democrats around here.

“We’re just generally, even by national standards, more conservative in this state,” Felkel said.

“If he comes to South Carolina and has an impressive crowd, we’ll have to rethink that equation, but right now, I just don’t see it,” he said.

Via: Boston Herald

Continue Reading....

Obama’s Chairman of the Joint Chief nominee: Russia is an ‘existential threat’ to the United States

In the 2012 presidential debate between the congenitally smarmy and clownish Barack Obama and the hapless and fearful of offending Mitt Romney, Barack Obama leveled this charge against Romney:

OBAMA: Governor Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that Al Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not Al Qaida; you said Russia, in the 1980s, they’re now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years

But Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s.

Obama was wrong then. But if he had been right, then the testimony of his own nominee to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Joe Dunford would have provided damning appraisal on the fecklessness of Obama’s foreign policy:

During his confirmation hearing Thursday morning, President Barack Obama’s pick to be the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Joe Dunford, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Vladimir Putin’s Russia ranked No.1.

Moscow’s behavior is “nothing short of alarming,” the general said, adding that “Russia presents the greatest threat to our national security” and “could pose an existential threat to the United States.”

If Chief Justice John Roberts is reading this, we’re using a dictionary where this is found:

An existential threat is a threat to something’s survival.

One of the critical geo-political errors made by George H. W. Bush was treating Russia, the successor state to the USSR, as some sort of pet Yorkie that could be made to perform tricks rather than a nuclear-armed kleptocracy ruled by, as George Patton would have said, ‘recently civilized Mongolian bandits.’ George Bush was getting the formula right when he left office. He had looked into Putin’s soul and beheld a seething, effervescing puddle of hate and corruption.

China may be our most dangerous adversary. Iran is the one most likely to do something really ugly. But Russia is the only nation in the world that has set out to pick a fight with the United States for no other reason than Putin needs a permanent enemy to fight in order to remain in power. This was obvious in 2009. It is staggeringly obvious today.

So Obama owes the nation answers to several question.

Via: Red State

Continue Reading....

Democrats Scurry From Sanctuary Ship Hillary and the sanctuary sisters of San Francisco.

Democrats now will say anything to distance themselves from sanctuary city policies, even though they have supported these policies for years. In an exclusive CNN interview Tuesday, Hillary Rodham Clinton was asked about San Francisco’s refusal to hand over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement seven-time convicted felon and five-time deportee Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez. He stands accused in the fatal shooting of Kathryn Steinle as she took an evening stroll on Pier 14 last week. (After telling a local TV station he shot Steinle by accident, Lopez-Sanchez has pleaded not guilty to murder.) Clinton answered, “The city made a mistake not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported. So I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on.”

In a 2007 Democratic presidential debate, the late Tim Russert asked Clinton if she would allow sanctuary cities to disobey federal law. “Well, I don’t think there is any choice,” she answered. Immigrants may not talk to police if “they think you’re also going to be enforcing the immigration laws.” She did not add a caveat that she wanted local law enforcement to work with immigration officials if the federal government had strong feelings that an individual should be deported.

In 2008, Clinton voted against an amendment to yank some federal funds from sanctuary cities. California Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer voted likewise — but it didn’t stop them from criticizing San Francisco for releasing a repeat offender.

“The 2008 budget amendment was a choice between sending a political message or funding California law enforcement, and I chose to fund the police,” Feinstein explained in an email. “I continue to believe we can deport criminals who are undocumented and still support law enforcement.”

Perhaps Feinstein and Clinton are living back in 1985, when Feinstein was mayor and signed San Francisco’s sanctuary city law. It was supposed to help immigrants seeking asylum from war-torn El Salvador and Guatemala. Four years later, the law was expanded to cover all immigrants. Then, in 2013, the Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance, signed by Mayor Ed Lee, that prohibits city law enforcement from releasing undocumented immigrants to ICE based on a detainer request alone. (There’s an exception for recent violent felons, but Lopez-Sanchez did not qualify.)

Sanctuary City supporters cannot say they were not warned. Recently, ICE Director Sarah Saldana told a House committee that reduced cooperation from state and local governments “may increase the risk that dangerous criminals are returned to the streets, putting the public and our officers at greater risk.”

Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., asked Saldana if it would help if Congress made it mandatory for local governments to cooperate with ICE — the sort of bill already rejected by Clinton, Feinstein, and Boxer. “Thank you. Amen. Yes,” Saldana answered.

Then came blowback from the anti-enforcement community. Saldana released a statement that said such a law would be counterproductive and “lead to more resistance.” You have to figure her reversal was on orders from the White House. Asked about Steinle’s killing at a press conference this week, White House spokesman Josh Earnest blamed Republicans in Congress for blocking “common-sense immigration reform.”

Where is the common sense in shielding repeat felons and border jumpers from the consequences of their crimes? There is no need to look outside the city: San Francisco screwed up. Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, the Board of Supervisors, and the mayor were so busy crowing about their pro-immigrant credentials, and refusing to differentiate between legal and undocumented, that they forgot voters elect them to keep their city safe.

Via: American Spectator

Continue Reading....

Democratic Congresswomen Seek to Allow Taxpayer-Funded Abortions

Democrat members of Congress have introduced legislation that would end the Hyde Amendment and permit taxpayer funding for abortions.

The Hyde Amendment, attached to the appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services, prevents the use of federal taxpayer funding for elective abortions—or health insurance plans that cover abortions. Exceptions are made for victims of rape or incest, or cases where there is risk of maternal mortality.

Supporters of the Hyde Amendment say it protects the right to conscience for taxpayers, protecting them from funding something that may violate their religious beliefs. Opponents say that the bill restricts access to abortion for women who obtain their health insurance through the government.

The bill to get rid of the Hyde Amendment was introduced by Reps. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., and Diana DeGette, D-Colo., on Wednesday.

“Each and every day, the rights of women are under attack in America,” Lee said in a statement:

“Today, we push back because every person has a right to health care. The EACH Woman Act is a bold and groundbreaking step forward. This legislation would ensure that every woman can access ALL of her health care options, regardless of how much money she earns or where she lives. Regardless of how someone personally feels about abortion, none of us, especially elected officials, should be interfering with a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions just because she is poor.”

Sarah Torre, a policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal that she believes the Hyde Amendment is a common sense protection for both women and taxpayers.

“The common sense and—until very recently—uncontroversial Hyde language has been attached to every federal appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services since 1976,” Torre said. “Unlike most policies in Washington, this long-standing policy preventing taxpayer funding for abortionis widely supported by the American people and has won approval on both sides of the aisle for nearly 40 years. This policy rightly ensures that taxpayers aren’t forced to fund abortions, which harm women and take the lives of unborn children.”

Via: The Daily Signal

Continue Reading....

California's Generosity To Illegals Is Crippling The State

California is once again leading the way in financial irresponsibility by subsidizing health care for illegal alien children, further burdening the state’s taxpayers.

The LA Times reports that the subsidized healthcare is a part of a $115.4 billion budget and would be available to 170,000 children at the age of 18 or younger. The cost is expected to be $132 million when fully implemented. The program will begin in May.

The Los Angeles Daily News features proponents of subsidized healthcare to illegal children saying that the state can afford to help low-income illegal children because California has billions of dollars in surplus.

Even if this were true, why does the burden have to be on us taxpayers? They are the ones who came here illegally. Yes, the children are here through no fault of their own but the sad reality is that children are often victims of bad circumstance through no fault of their own. For instance, if their parents are arrested for tax embezzlement, that’s not the children’s fault but we don’t reward the unlawful behavior of tax embezzlement as a result.

But the dirty little secret is that California is not as financially sound as the left would have you believe. In fact, the financial system is in dire straits, and a sizable portion is due to illegal immigration.

First, a little background: California would not be in this position if not for rogue, judicial activist judges. The people of California voted for Proposition 187 in 1994 by a vote of 59% to 41%, which prohibited illegal aliens from access to welfare programs, including public education and health care. This was back when Californians had common sense.

So naturally, as the left is wont to do when voter initiatives and legislation don’t go their way, they sued, hoping that a handful of judges in black robes would overrule the will of the people. And that’s what happened.

Via: Townhall

Continue Reading....

Golf Channel Employees May Call Mulligan on Their Union

Workers will hold decertification vote on July 15

A group of cameramen and other technical staffers at the Golf Channel will have the opportunity to break ties with big labor next week after a federal labor arbiter dismissed union objections.

John Gallagher, an employee at the Golf Channel, filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board in June after collecting signatures from more than 30 percent of his colleagues. The board, which oversees all union elections, approved his petition, and scheduled a mail-in ballot election that will conclude on Wednesday.

The union became the sole bargaining representative for the technical staff at the Golf Channel in 2013. Gallagher and his supporters had to overcome several legal objections filed by the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE), an AFL-CIO affiliate.

Union officials argued that they received notice outside the timeline mandated by newly minted election rules approved by the board in April. Claude T. Harrell, Jr., the director of the board’s Atlanta office, approved the petition on Monday following a two-day hearing.

He dismissed union objections, ruling that Gallagher “acted in good faith” and provided adequate notice to union officials.

“While conceding it subsequently received all the required documents from the Region and had no evidence that it was prejudiced, it argues a rule is a rule and therefore the petition must be dismissed. I disagree,” Harrell said.

The ruling raises the possibility that board employees and misunderstandings about the new regulations were to blame.

“Part of the failure to provide the documents could be attributable to the incomplete and confusing instructions the Petitioner received from the Board agent following initial receipt of the petition as to what documents were required and thereafter as to what was required regarding the Statement of Procedure form. Given the newness of the rules, the confusing instructions and his inexperience in filing petitions, it is quite understandable as to the Petitioner’s failures. Accordingly, I find he made a good faith effort to comply with the rules,” he ruled.

The workers received legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Mark Mix, the foundation’s president, praised Harrell for allowing Gallagher to move forward.

“John Gallagher and his fellow employees successfully fought off attempts by IATSE officials to stop them from even having a vote to throw out the unwanted union,” Mix said in a statement. “This case shows the bureaucratic hurdles that union bosses regularly use to hold on to their monopoly power and stifle the will of independent workers.”

IATSE represents technical staff across the country. Because camera operators and other technical staff are spread out around the country, the National Labor Relations Board is arranging a mail-in ballot campaign.

“We hope the employees wishing to exercise their rights through this election will go forward without further delay tactics by union officials; however, history suggests an appeal of the Regional Director’s decision or use of other delaying tactics in an attempt to prevent employees from even having a chance to vote would not be surprising,” Mix said.

IATSE did not return requests for comment about the board’s decision.

Voting will come to an end on July 15.

Via: WFB

Continue Reading....

EPA Clueless On 90,000 Tons Of Toxic Waste Imported To US Annually

An estimated 90,000 tons of hazardous waste enters the U.S. each year from foreign countries, but the Environmental Protection Agency often can’t say what or where the dangerous stuff is.

Wherever it goes, hazardous waste presents a huge public health risk to Americans, according to a new EPA Office of Inspector General Report.

“Based on our assessment of data in EPA information systems, the EPA has an incomplete picture of hazardous waste entering the country,” the IG report said. “This can give rise to undetected and unenforced violations of federal hazardous waste laws, which could result in unknown human and environmental exposure to toxic substances.”

The U.S. accepts other nations’ toxic waste — anything from used batteries to discarded cleaning fluids — because the U.S. is more equipped to handle such materials than other countries, and because the U.S. can sometimes turn them into valuable resources.

In other words, one country’s trash can become another’s treasure, but that doesn’t mean the federal government is doing a great job handling toxic waste, the IG said.

EPA employees are supposed to track every shipment that enters the U.S. under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), but federal investigators found that EPA fails to generate half of the consent forms required to accompany each shipment.

Some toxic waste shipments analyzed never reached their intended destination, but the EPA couldn’t confirm whether those shipments were lost, let alone locate them, the IG said. The EPA officials also weren’t sure about the exact volume of hazardous waste entering the U.S. In some cases, they incorrectly identified where the waste shipment originated.

Most of the imported hazardous waste, about 69,000 tons a year, comes from Canada, followed by Mexico at 9,000 tons, Belgium at 3,000 tons, and Japan, Malaysia and the Philippines at 2,000 tons, according to EPA.

Blame may not rest completely with the EPA though, the IG said, because, while the agency is supposed to track imported hazardous waste, officials lack needed enforcement authority to block questionable shipments from reaching U.S. soil.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

Chutzpah! White House Attacks GOP For Not Condemning “Race Baiting”…

Speechless.

Via: Weasel Zippers

Continue Reading.....

EXCLUSIVE: REP. KEVIN CRAMER PUSHES LIFTING CRUDE EXPORT BAN, COULD CREATE 440,000 U.S. JOBS

The debate over whether to lift the ban on crude oil exports is picking up on Capitol Hill, and 

Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-ND)

35%

 is pushing for removal. He explains exclusively to Breitbart News that repealing the ban would have a favorable impact on America’s agriculture and create 440,000 jobs.

On Thursday the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee will debate lifting the export ban on crude oil. The Agriculture Committee held a hearing Wednesday on the issue.

Cramer said critics argue, “Somehow lifting the oil export ban would cause the price of gasoline and fuel at the pump to also rise.” However, Cramer told Breitbart News that many independent studies show that lifting the crude oil export ban would more likely bring the price of fuel down:

Anytime you have a lot of a product – and we have a lot of oil…now that we’ve hit the wall, if we don’t have another place to sell the product, obviously production is going to stop or come down and when that happens, of course, price is going to spike again – that’s just the natural order of things, but if we can be competing in the global market place going up against Saudi Arabia – going up against Iran, that just keeps more and more production happening, creates more jobs.

Cramer pointed to recent studies that estimate there would be roughly 440,000 jobs created if the crude oil export ban were lifted.

IHS Energy estimated, “Total U.S. jobs increase due to free trade will be, on average, 394,000,” while “peak job creation in 2018 is nearly 1 million.”

The Brookings Institute adds, “Lifting the ban on crude oil exports from the United States will boost U.S. economic growth, wages, employment, trade, and overall welfare.”

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading....

House Dems display incorrect Confederate flag

And someone had the stupidity to vote for these idiots time after time after time.

House Democrats referenced the wrong Confederate flag Thursday during a debate over the controversial symbol.

A photo from floor debates shows a Confederate flag with 17 stars, according to a post on CSPAN’s Instagram account.

The actual Confederate battle flag had 13 stars, one for each of the states that seceded from the Union before joining the Confederacy as of late 1861.

CSPAN’s photo shows a number of House Democrats speaking by a cutout of the incorrect version on Thursday morning.

Reps. James Clyburn (S.C.), Al Green (Texas), Keith Ellison (Minn.), David Cicilline (R.I.), Eric Swalwell (Calif.), Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas) and Terri Sewell (Ala.) all missed the apparent mistake.

House GOP leaders abruptly canceled a vote Thursday on a spending bill for the Interior Department amid intraparty infighting over displays of the Confederate flag.

The proposed legislation was shelved after the House moved to vote on an amendment to a measure that would continue allowing the display of the controversial symbol in certain federal cemeteries.

 Via: The Hill

Continue Reading....

Florida’s congressional districts rejected as gerrymandered

Senate Reapportionment Chairman Sen. Bill Galvano, R-Bradenton discusses an amendment on the floor of the Senate Monday, August 11, 2014, at the Capitol in Tallahassee, Fla. Behind him are maps of the 2012 Florida congressional districts, left, and the redrawn ... more >

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — The Florida Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the state’s congressional maps don’t meet the requirements of a voter-approved constitutional amendment that prohibits political lines from being drawn to favor incumbents or a political party. The court ordered the Legislature to try drawing the maps again.

The ruling means there could be an upheaval as incumbents seek re-election and candidates from both parties seek to fill open seats. Florida has 27 congressional districts and the court ordered eight be redrawn, along with any districts they border.

The court chastised the Republican-led Legislature for working behind the scenes to draw the maps.

“The Legislature itself proclaimed that it would conduct the most open and transparent redistricting process in the history of the state, and then made important decisions, affecting numerous districts in the enacted map, outside the purview of public scrutiny,” the ruling said.

A coalition that included the League of Women Voters challenged the lines, saying Republicans who drew them up ignored the new constitutional requirements approved by voters in 2010. A lower court agreed that GOP leaders and operatives made a mockery of the amendment, but only ordered two central Florida districts be redrawn.

The Supreme Court said that wasn’t good enough.

Republicans have maintained that the maps adhere to constitutional requirements despite evidence that political operatives helped draw them.

It’s yet to be seen how the ruling will affect the majority of Florida’s members of Congress who are seeking re-election, as well as their challengers.

Via: Washington TImes

Continue Reading....

Another Reason for the Rise of Trump

Politico has another reason why Donald Trump is doing so well. The GOP is structuring a plan on Obamacare to do an end run around Senate Conservatives while making it look like they’ve done something on Obamacare.

Follow along with me.

According to Jennifer Haberkorn and Rachael Bade, Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) 45% says, ““I think we need to find some way to arrive at something like a Ryan-Murray II and if that’s one of the mechanisms that gets us there, I’m all for it.”

Remember, the Ryan-Murray plan was a tax increase that conservatives opposed. Cole and others, at the time, relentlessly attacked Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 100%, Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) 95%,Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) 100%, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) 91% and others to their opposition. We know that is where the GOP is headed because Cole also said, “I would prefer that [spending deal] to a dead-on-arrival repeal of Obamacare.” Got that? He wants something President Obama will sign.

That means it won’t do anything to undermine Obamacare because the President won’t let them undermine Obamacare. But, it gets better.

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) 69% gives us this gem:

“My view is there will be some effort here to be sure that members who voted for the budget with the reconciliation capability in the budget feel like its used in the way that they expected that to be used,” said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), a member of the Republican leadership.

So they’re going to legislate by feeling?! WTF?! They’re going to not repeal Obamacare, not cut Obamacare, not reform Obamacare, and not undermine Obamacare, but they are going to try to convince members of congress that they are doing something so they feel good about it.

A middle school class of kids in high water pants would be more competent at legislating than this crowd.

We all know Trump is probably going to fade over time. But as long as the Washington Republicans are playing games with their own side, Trump’s power continues as a giant “F” and “U” directed toward Washington.

There are very few other people on the campaign who can pivot on this issue and take ground from Trump. They happen to be named Cruz, Paul, and Rubio. The Senate and House leadership is setting them up nicely if they’re game to try.

Via: Red State

Continue Reading....

PELOSI USES MURDER BY ILLEGAL TO TOUT GUN CONTROL

Democrats held a press conference yesterday pushing for more gun control after the Charleston shooting and Pelosi made sure to mention the murder of Kate Steinle, calling it another example of ‘gun violence’, suggesting it’s why we need more gun control:

The gun used in Kate’s murder was stolen from a federal agent which means the gun was obtained criminally and there’s not a single law in this nation that would have prevented that.

As a side note, the murderer in Charleston also obtained his gun legally as well. LEGALLY.

More to the point though, it was an illegal who committed the murder and if he hadn’t been here Kate would still be alive!

We don’t need more gun control, we need more ‘illegal’ control!

But Pelosi has an agenda to push so to hell with the facts.

Via: The Right Scoop

Continue Reading....

Traitor Cities

The “sanctuary city” movement that gave illegal aliens permission to rob, rape, and murder Americans is the product of decades of concerted collusion by radical groups like the ACLU to get cities to pledge to violate laws that protect U.S. national security.

Cheered on by the Left, sanctuary cities frustrate immigration enforcement efforts and shield illegal aliens from federal officials as a matter of policy.

The Obama administration is fine with that. President Obama has made America a sanctuary country, rolling out the red carpet for illegal aliens, especially those from Mexico, to come to the U.S. and depress labor markets while they suck the nation’s welfare state dry.

What these traitor cities do is itself unlawful, Hans von Spakovsky notes, but they get away with it because President Obama is determined to dismantle America’s immigration system in order to flood the country with desperately poor, illiterate peasants from the Third World.

Obama wants to do this in order to wash away the rule of law tainted as it is by Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, along with whatever stubborn residue of American Revolutionary enlightenment that remains deeply embedded within the tissues of our culture and free institutions.

Americans are being attacked and killed by illegal aliens in perhaps more than 200 so-called sanctuary cities across the country because subversive left-wing advocates like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have been working to undermine the nation’s borders and immigration laws. Throughout this long leftist campaign those who demand that federal immigration laws be enforced have been smeared as racist and lacking in compassion. It’s not fair that illegal aliens aren’t given the same rights as U.S. citizens, they whine, mindlessly repeating vapid slogans like “no one is illegal.”

Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading....