Pretty sure Obama’s ilk will call this racist or something…
Wednesday, during a visit to Iowa President Trump announced that he plans to address yet another highly controversial topic pertaining to immigration, self-reliance.
Stating that he plans to soon call for immigrants to be prohibited from receiving public assistance such as welfare for the first five years after entering the country, Trump explained that those seeking to start new lives in America need to prove they are able to support themselves financially before asking for government assistance.
As reported by Fox News, the plan would increase the scope of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which allows for the deportation of immigrants who become dependents of tax-dollars within the first five years of their entry to the country.
While many of the law’s provisions ‘were rolled back during the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations,’ if Trump gets his way, he would call for more categories of federal benefits to be barred for immigrants upon arrival.
“The time has come for new immigration rules that say … those seeking immigration into our country must be able to support themselves financially and should not use welfare for a period of at least five years,” Trump stated during the rally.
Trump’s proposal would also prevent the admission of people who are likely to become so-called “public charges” within five years of their arrival. The concept of “public charge” has been part of U.S. immigration law for over a century. It allows the government to bar entry to individuals who are likely to seek public assistance. Trump is expected to propose toughening up the rules regarding “public charge” and ensuring that they are enforced.
The administration circulated a draft executive order to make Trump’s proposed changes earlier this year. However, Trump’s remarks Wednesday indicated that he wants Congress to codify his plan into law.
In requesting these changes, the White House will cite a 2015 report from the Center for Immigration Studies that found 51 percent of households headed by an immigrant are using some form of public assistance, compared to 30 percent among non-immigrant families. That report has been disputed by critics who say it does not take into account the nuances of many immigrant families.
Thoughts on this? Let us know in the comment section below.
When President Trump won the election last year, he did so without the benefit of the popular vote. He was quick to point out that had it not been for the millions of illegal aliens who probably voted, he would have handily won the popular vote as well. Meanwhile, the liberal media laughed at his “fake news” claims, because supposedly, there was no evidence that millions of noncitizens had voted in the election. They cited studies which suggested that not only were his claims overblown, but the number of illegal aliens that voted was practically nonexistent.
Just Facts President James D. Agresti and his team looked at data from an extensive Harvard/YouGov study that every two years questions a sample size of tens of thousands of voters. Some acknowledge they are noncitizens and are thus ineligible to vote.
Just Facts’ conclusions confront both sides in the illegal voting debate: those who say it happens a lot and those who say the problem nonexistent.
In one camp, there are groundbreaking studies by professors at Old Dominion University in Virginia who attempted to compile scientifically derived illegal voting numbers using the Harvard data, called the Cooperative Congressional Election Study.
On the other side are the professors who conducted the study and contended that “zero” noncitizens of about 18 million adults in the U.S. voted. The liberal mainstream media adopted this position and proclaimed the Old Dominion work was “debunked.”
There’s only one problem with the Harvard study that was often cited by the media. It ignores factors which, when considered, paint a totally different picture of previous elections that placed Barack Obama in the White House.
“The details are technical, but the figure I calculated is based on a more conservative margin of sampling error and a methodology that I consider to be more accurate,” Mr. Agresti told The Washington Times.
He believes the Harvard/YouGov researchers based their “zero” claim on two flawed assumptions. First, they assumed that people who said they voted and identified a candidate did not vote unless their names showed up in a database.
“This is illogical, because such databases are unlikely to verify voters who use fraudulent identities, and millions of noncitizens use them,” Mr. Agresti said.
He cites government audits that show large numbers of noncitizens use false IDs and Social Security numbers in order to function in the U.S., which could include voting.
Second, Harvard assumed that respondent citizens sometimes misidentified themselves as noncitizens but also concluded that noncitizens never misidentified themselves as citizens, Mr. Agresti said.
“This is irrational, because illegal immigrants often claim they are citizens in order to conceal the fact that they are in the U.S. illegally,” he said.
So what are the results when you consider factors like that? Agresti believes that between 594,000 and 5.7 million noncitizens voted in the 2008 election. In 2012, between 1.2 million and 3.6 million noncitizens voted. Since people who aren’t citizens (especially if they are illegal aliens) have far more support for Democrats than Republicans, it’s obvious that the noncitizen vote tipped the scales for Barack Obama, and won the popular vote for Hillary Clinton (on paper of course).
I’d imagine that the numbers for the 2016 election are even higher than what we’ve seen in previous elections. After all, Trump was running on a campaign that promised to build a wall on the southern border, and roll back immigration in a big way. That would have motivated millions of illegal immigrants to break the law and vote. When you consider that, it becomes really hard to believe that Trump lost the popular vote.
And this is one of the biggest reasons why the Democrats and the Left are more alarmed by Trump than any previous Republican president. If he makes good on his promise to deport more illegal immigrants, and prevent millions more from reaching our nation, it’ll be a long time before they win any major elections.
(ANTIMEDIA) —“Saying that you don’t care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about freedom of speech because you have nothing to say.”
That comment was made by famed whistleblower Edward Snowden during a recent interview on the Ron Paul Liberty Report. In his conversation with Dr. Paul and Daniel McAdams, published Tuesday, an articulate Snowden discusses the true meaning of freedom, the nature of the deep state, and even his upbringing as a child of a government family.
“I’d like to know a little bit, what do you do all day long?” a genuinely curious Dr. Paul asks as his opening question. After talking about the insanity that erupted — both in the political spectrum and his personal life — following the revelations he made back in 2013, Snowden says he’s now become a hot commodity for groups championing causes.
“They want me to sort of front for these issues of privacy and civil liberties and protection of people’s rights,” Snowden replies. “And I want to do what I can, but I’m not a politician. I’m an engineer.”
The whistleblower goes on to talk about how he’s now, at long last, finally able to devote time to more practical applications. For him, this means focusing on the area that holds the key to finding a balance between rights and laws in the digital age — technology.
“How technically is this even happening?” Snowden poses, digging straight to the heart of the issue of mass surveillance. “How is it that so many governments are spying on so many people? Because even if we pass the best legal reforms in the world in the United States, that doesn’t do anything against China, or Russia, or Germany, or France or Brazil or any other country in the world.”
Continuing, Snowden says that future generations’ rights and protections will be dependent on the current generation’s ability to adapt to a constantly shifting environment:
“We need to find new means, new mechanisms, for enforcing these rights in the new times. And I think that’s going to be primarily through science and technology.”
When Dr. Paul asks the former NSA contractor about his political affiliation, Snowden responds that he doesn’t associate himself with any faction and that as individuals, we’re more than tribes and labels. Proceeding, Snowden points to how technology has given humanity a means to have a global conversation on issues:
“I think the Internet produces a lot of people who look at these issues differently, in a less tribal way, because you hear more viewpoints. You hear from many more people. And the more people in a conversation, I think the more informed it often is.”
When co-host Daniel McAdams asks Snowden to comment on the idea of security vs. surveillance, the whistleblower again cuts straight to the core of the debate and speaks on the perception of freedom itself.
“What is liberty?” asks Snowden, and then points out that ten questions on the street would result in ten different answers. After stating his view that liberty is the “freedom of self” and the “freedom from permission,” Snowden goes on to say that true liberty is rooted in personal privacy:
“Privacy isn’t about something to hide, privacy is about something to protect. It’s about the ability to be you, to have a thought for yourself, to have a thing for yourself, to have some difference, to have some idea that’s new and untested and untried that you can sort of sharpen amongst those that you trust, and then introduce into the world, into that contest of ideas.”
Next, Dr. Paul asks his guest to comment on the topic of the deep state, which Snowden proceeds to describe as a “mass of government that survives beyond administration” that is “not responding to the politics of the people.” Snowden says this organism lives “across parties” and “across administrations.”
Continuing, Snowden equates the running of state policy to a game, one that favors those who get “better and better” at understanding the evolving rules:
“And eventually, the people who are the greatest experts at understanding and using these rules, the best bureaucrats, are not sitting in the White House, they’re not sitting in the Congress. Because those guys come and go as the years pass, and they win elections, and they lose elections, and it’s the people that sit there for 30 years or more, in these agencies, with their hand on the lever the whole time. And that’s what the deep state is.”
Snowden further states that party affiliation matters little with regard to this behind-the-scenes force and that any political faction in power will eventually “get to the point of saying yes when enough pressure is brought to bear.”
When Daniel McAdams next asks him about whether or not he thinks an agency such as the NSA should even exist, Snowden remarks on the irony of asking him that question — given that he’s a “product of the system” with familial ties to the United States government going back decades.
But the whistleblower presses forward following a question from Dr. Paul on whether or not he thinks any gains have been made from his 2013 revelations, stating that solutions come not from individuals alone, but from many of them who “lay down a single brick upon which others can build.”
Continuing in this vein, Snowden says progress in battling government violations of personal liberty is made in inches and should be accomplished organically:
“Step by step, working together, sharing our views, connecting our values, we can create spaces, more bricks, that when laid together create a defense of rights that can be relied upon, in even historic moments when law cannot be.”
In his final question to Snowden, Dr. Paul asks whether the former government contractor’s decision to sound the alarm was arrived at suddenly or through a gradual process. In response, Snowden links his own decision to the average human being, noting that everyone has a point at which nothing more can be tolerated:
“We all have a level, right, of this kind of cognitive dissonance that we can accept. A level of injustice, of inhumanity, of incivility that we can accept in the daily world, that we can sort of internalize and suppress. And then we have one step more.”
While it’s not an outright declaration of war, it certainly appears that the situation on the Korean peninsula is about to be taken to the next level, as noted by Zero Hedge:
Trump’s troubling statement follows an earlier tweet about North Korea, in which he said that “The U.S. once again condemns the brutality of the North Korean regime as we mourn its latest victim.”
So is this Trump’s implicit warning that he is about to launch an attack on North Korea, following a failed intervention by China, in retaliation for the death of Otto Warmbier?
In previous reports we highlighted the fact that not only does the North have the capability of hitting the United States with an electro-magnetic pulse weapon (EMP) detonated over the central United States, but it is believed that their nuclear and missile delivery capabilities are now such that U.S. coastal cities could well be targeted at the onset of any confrontation. In fact, at the height of tensions earlier this year it is believed that the U.S. Navy and Airforce may have been hunting a North Korea submarine just off the coast of California.
We’ve seen such things before, most notably in the years ahead of World War I, when countries throughout Europe and Near Asia began mobilizing troops and equipment in anticipation of war. When the catalyst came in late June of 1914, armies across the region engaged within 30 days, leaving well over one million people dead by the end of the year.
Today’s situation is quite different, of course, because the weapons systems available to the United States, North Korea, Russia and China make it possible to kill one million people in the blink of an eye.
Whether the threat posed by the North Koreans is real or imagined, or whether Trump and Kim are simply posturing, are questions that we simply won’t be able to answer until after the fact.
Wednesday, approximately 300 Islamic State supporting militants stormed a school in the town of Pigcawayan briefly taking students hostage in what the Philippine military believes may have been an effort to divert the focus away from the besieged city of Marawi.
According to reports, an intense gunbattle with military forces broke out following the takeover of the school, leading to the militants retreat.
Pigcawayan is a town in North Cotabato province of Mindanao island, the same island as the besieged city of Marawi.
As explained by Police Chief Inspector Realan Mamon, residents of Malagakit additionally fled for their lives as militants from the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters raided their village during early dawn Wednesday.
Speaking in regards to the rise of pro-ISIS rebel activity on Mindanao island, Military spokesman Brig. Gen. Restituto Padilla stated that militants “targeted a patrol base of pro-government militiamen and the attack maybe an effort by the militants to divert troop focus on the Marawi offensive.”
Democrat Senator Chris Murphy is breaking rank within his own party and speaking out about how the DNC’s constant rhetoric regarding Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia is hurting the party greatly.
Explaining the his constituents could care less about the alleged collusion, Murphy told MSNBC that all the Russia talk is nothing more than a distraction taking focus off of the things voters show great concern over, such as the economy.
“The fact that we have spent so much time talking about Russia has, you know, has been a distraction from what should be the clear contrast between Democrats and the Trump agenda, which is on economics,” Murphy stated.
Six Georgia inmates credited with having saved the life of a deputy during a medical emergency instead of simply running for their freedom are being rewarded with reduced sentences by the Polk County Sheriff’s Department.
According to reports, the inmates who were on a work-crew noticed that the unidentified deputy was suffering from a medical emergency after he collapsed and fell unconscious to the heat. Refusing to stand idly by, the inmates quickly sprung into action, removing the deputy’s bullet-proof vest, gun-belt and shirt, then beginning CPR.
As the men performed CPR, one grabbed the deputy’s cellphone and dialed 911 for help.
Speaking in regards to the group’s heroic actions, Polk County Sheriff Johnny Moats stated he will be reducing about one-fourth of the inmates’ sentences.
“Anytime we have a trustee or inmate crew, that goes beyond normal duties, we cut them some extra time off,” Moats stated.
Recalling the frightening incident, inmate Greg Williams stated to media that when they were able to get the deputy breathing again “it was just real heavy and real fast,” signaling the serious nature of the emergency.
“When that happened, in my opinion, it wasn’t about who is in jail and who wasn’t… It was about a man going down and we had to help him.” Williams stated.
As reported by Fox News, the deputy suffers from “chronic Chiari malformation, which causes fluids to not flow properly.” High humidity is believed to have played a factor in his collapse.
Additionally, the family of the deputy brought the inmates a very special lunch including dessert to express their gratitude.
Wednesday, Bishop International Airport in Flint, Michigan, was evacuated following the stabbing of a police officer which is being called a possible act of terror.
According to witness reports, an individual allegedly stabbed a police officer in the neck while yelling ‘Allahu Akbar,’ leaving the officer identified as Lieutenant Jeff Neville seriously wounded.
While details surrounding the attack are currently scarce, authorities have confirmed they are investigating this incident as a possible act of terrorism.
Witness Ken Brown stated to local media that he saw Lt. Neville on his ‘hands and knees’ bleeding profusely from the neck as he arrived at Bishop International to drop off his daughter, adding that the an individual he believed to be the suspect was in police custody.
As reported by NBC, the detained suspect is from Quebec and was traveling with a Canadian passport.
Cherie Carpenter, who was awaiting a flight to Texas to see her new grandchild, tells Flint TV station WJRT she saw the attacker being led away in handcuffs. She described the man in custody as appearing “blank, just totally blank.”
The FBI is the lead agency on the scene. State police troopers, along with ATF agents, are also at the airport investigating.
The airport remains closed until further notice.
In response to the stabbing, Flint police were stationed around the City Hall but the building remained open for business.
We will continue to update on this story as new details surface.
It’s no secret. The liberal Democrats of Illinois have completely and totally destroyed the state.
They like to try and blame newly elected Republican Governor Bruce Rauner, but let’s not kid ourselves… This disaster has been in the making for decades. Decades under which tax-and-spend Democrats have been in charge.
What’s the solution? According to the Democrats who control both chambers of the legislature, the only way out is more taxes. A lot more taxes. Yes, even retroactive taxes. Permanent taxes.
The very kind of taxes that are chasing people out of the state in record numbers. The very kind of taxes that have played a significant role in the downfall of the state.
A column in the Chicago Tribune is floating a completely different idea. Divide up Illinois and piece it out to Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky and Indiana.
Dissolve Illinois. Decommission the state, tear up the charter, whatever the legal mumbo-jumbo, just end the whole dang thing.
We just disappear. With no pain. That’s right. You heard me.
The best thing to do is to break Illinois into pieces right now. Just wipe us off the map. Cut us out of America’s heartland and let neighboring states carve us up and take the best chunks for themselves.
The group that will scream the loudest is the state’s political class, who did this to us, and the big bond creditors, who are whispering talk of bankruptcy and asset forfeiture to save their own skins.
But our beloved Illinois has proved that it just doesn’t deserve to survive.
Might seem extreme and far-fetched, but as they point out, not doing it is worse.
The alternative is hell. Illinois hasn’t had a state budget for years. The state continues to spend money it doesn’t have, and the state’s credit ratings have dropped, increasing the cost of borrowing more money we don’t have to keep the rotten shebang going.
Bills pile up; Moody’s Investor Service says taxpayers are on the hook for $251 billion in unfunded public union pension liabilities.
Boss Mike Madigan, king of the Democrats who control things, wants tax increases but no real structural reform to bring stability to The Venezuela of the Midwest.
And the whispers of bankruptcy won’t help the average (remaining) taxpaying chumbolones like you and me who don’t want to leave our homes but who’ll get stuck with the bills.
Poor little Wisconsin would get screwed in such a deal, however, in that in the proposed map Wisconsin gets saddled with the city of Chicago. Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky and Indiana would probably jump for joy. Because they get the parts of the state with fiscally sane voters.
The anti-gun crowd will always stoop to new lows when pretending good guys with guns are the ones we should all worry about. This even in the face of facts suggesting scenarios where bad guys with guns do bad things, good guys with guns often save lives.
Ten states have legislation in place that protect concealed carry on college campuses. Never mind that the 2nd amendment should already do this. In these ten states concealed carry students/teachers have not caused problems.
Additionally, places where shootings occur, more times than not, are places where legal concealed carry is not allowed.
Anti-gunners know this. So they’re constantly scrambling for new arguments. And Senator Durbin has come up with quite a whopper.
He’s actually now arguing that concealed carry prevents free speech from taking place. This because there might be someone present who is concealed carrying, and that reality might be intimidating by just knowing it’s possible.