Sunday, September 25, 2016

In 2008 tv debate, McCain looked tiny next to Obama. In 2016, candidates are allowed to have custom made podiums should they wish to adjust their height

.
2008 debate, Obama and McCain





9/29/2012, "Why debates don't always make a difference, McCain and Obama in Sept. 2008," CNN, Donna Brazile

 "Whether a debate alone can win or lose an election is itself open to debate. Every debate produces a gaffe and a few lines for the late-night comedians. Whether that's enough to change the momentum of a campaign isn't so clear."...

---------------------- 

9/24/16, "Step-stool podium reportedly on Hillary Clinton's short list," Boston Herald, Chris Cassidy

"Hillary Clinton was denied a step stool to close her height gap with Donald Trump for Monday’s debate, according to the Drudge Report. Clinton is about five-feet, six-inches, while Trump towers over her at six-feet, two-inches....

Instead, the commission is allowing the campaigns to construct custom podiums.

The dustup called to mind a similar podium row in the 1988 campaign between Michael Dukakis and then-Vice President George H.W. Bush, who was six inches taller than the Massachusetts governor.

“The campaigns have a tendency to get more paranoid about this than they need to,” said Alan Schroeder, a debate expert at Northeastern University.

“But certainly there are statistics that show taller candidates win at a higher percentage than shorter candidates,” said Schroeder.

“However, I think that’s probably more of a factor with two men or two women. The fact you have a man and a woman, it seems to me not that big of a deal.”"...



...............


Sweden now has 55 official 'no-go zones' where police have no control, police are pelted with stones and attacked. 80% of police have considered leaving the job due to danger and low pay, per spokesman on Swedish broadcaser NRK-Kronen Zeitung (Austria)

.
9/23/16, "No-go Areas: Asylum crisis: Sweden's police lose control," Kronen Zeitung, (Austria) google translation

"Sweden has traditionally indeed a very liberal immigration policy, since the beginning of the refugee crisis, the Scandinavian country continues to struggle with rising crime. Especially in case of theft, sexual offenses and gang violence, the Swedish police recorded increases. 55 areas across the country by the officials already as "No-go Zones" out. Swedish media reports, the police are increasingly losing control."

"Sweden is one of the most popular destination countries for asylum seekers. But since the beginning of the refugee crisis, the executive of the Scandinavian country is faced with a massive increase in crime. Especially drug trafficking sexual offenses, thefts, vandalism and gang violence have increased, as is a report from Sweden's top police authority.

Even attacks on officials accumulate. Recently police cars were stolen by masked gang members repeatedly, according to the report. The police now leads 55 areas throughout the country as  "No-go Zones," where one must always count on attacks, police spokesman Peter Larsson said on Thursday against the Swedish broadcaster NRK: "80 percent of officials at least have thought about to change jobs." In addition to the daily danger in the job also is the. unattractive pay an issue.

The frustration of his colleagues was great, Larsson: "We do not come to solve crimes, because we are called daily to so many applications." In some areas of the country it is almost become everyday for officials to be pelted with stones and attacked.

A particularly serious example Malmö is called repeatedly. In the city about 70 cars were torched in February 2016. Especially organized gang crime was increasing, police said. The officials in the dark: Only one suspect has hitherto pried and arrested.

Sweden is a country that in the previous year, the highest number was measured by the inhabitants added to asylum seekers. Compared to the OECD States ranked Scandinavians so before Austria. Only recently, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway and Iceland complained about Hungary because refuse our neighbors, so-called Dublin Cases withdraw. The Dublin Convention states that that country is responsible for the asylum procedure of fugitives, in which the latter has entered for the first time on European soil.
 
The refusal of Hungary also resulted in upset with Austria. Interior Minister Wolfgang Sobotka even threatened with a lawsuit before the European Court."

-------------------

Comment: Wouldn't it be more humane for Europeans to just take a gun and kill themselves instead of this long drawn out self-genocide?




.........................  
  

Saturday, September 24, 2016

Bill Clinton says US 'has greater obligations to open our borders' to create 'global community.' His recommendations in 2003 came only two years after 911 which itself was the result of lax US immigration policies and enforcement, but he says US should be even more 'open' and have expanded trade. Pew study found 83% of Americans want immigration frozen or reduced

.
"83 percent of the American electorate overall would like to see immigration levels frozen or reduced [p. 123, Pew Report, 9/28/15]."..."(Bernie) Sanders said “open borders” is “a Koch brothers proposal…which says essentially there is no United States."..."A nation without borders is not a nation." Donald J. Trump

 9/23/16, "FLASHBACK—Bill Clinton Calls For Creation of ‘Global Community’: ‘America Has Greater Obligations to Open Our Borders’," Breitbart, Julia Hahn

"In a remarkable 2003 speech delivered to Yale University, former President Bill Clinton called for the establishment of a “global community,” praised the “openness of our borders to immigrants,” and declared that America “has greater obligations to open our borders.

In his address, Clinton plainly articulated his worldview and laid out his vision for the future. Clinton argued that the world currently relates to itself as “interdependent nations,” but that this model of interdependence lacks sufficient “integration.” Clinton declared that he considers the formation a “genuine global community”—complete with an “over-arching system” to regulate it—to be “the great mission of the 21st century.”

“I think the great mission of the 21st century is to create a genuine global community, to move from mere interdependence to integration, to a community that has shared responsibilities, shared benefits and shared values. How would we go about building that kind of world?” he said. “We cannot continue to live in a world where we grow more and more interdependent and have no over-arching system to make the positive elements of interdependence outweigh the negative ones.”

During his address, Clinton sang the praises of globalization, and, in particular, the “openness of our borders.”

“Many people today refer to the time in which we live as the age of globalization, and for most Americans, it has brought enormous benefits,” Clinton said. “Our country’s enormous increase in productivity was in no small part fueled by…the openness of our borders to immigrants who continued to replenish the energy of our entrepreneurial system.”

Clinton described “open borders” and “easy immigration” as two of the “forces of interdependence—forces, which Clinton suggests, are an essential part of creating a global community."...

[Ed. note: Later in this article, even Bernie Sanders says this would mean, "essentially there is no United States."]
 
(continuing): "However, Clinton admitted that these “forces of interdependence” come with certain risks, and he acknowledged that the 9/11 terrorists had exploited America’s “open borders” for their advantage.

“On Sept. 11, 2001, Al Qaeda terrorists used the forces of interdependence—open borders, easy travel, easy immigration, easy access to information and technology—to turn jet airplanes full of fuel into weapons of mass destruction, killing 3,100 people including hundreds from 70 foreign countries who were in America looking for positive interdependence,” Clinton told the audience.

Nevertheless, Clinton—who was addressing the crowd just two years after 19 foreign terrorists killed thousands of people on U.S. soil—proceeded to argue that the nation’s open borders ought to be opened even further:
 “The opposition to globalization in the world is rooted in the feeling of some people that they are left out, left behind and stepped on by other countries. If you, like me, believe in expanded trade and believe America has greater obligations to open our borders and to invest more in the development of poor countries, we have got to maintain the political support here in America for doing that.”
Clinton suggested that creating a global community built upon shared prosperity is necessary in order for wealthy nations to continue to keep their borders open:
We also have to share the benefits of the interdependent world. Why? For one thing, if you come from a wealthy country with open borders, unless you seriously believe you can kill, imprison or occupy all of your enemies, you have to make a world with more friends and fewer enemies, with more partners and fewer terrorists.”
Clinton was correct in his assessment that the September 11th terror attacks were a result of the nation’s open borders immigration policies.

Indeed, all nineteen of the September 11th hijackers were voluntarily imported into the country on visas issued to them by our federal government. Five of the September 11th hijackers had overstayed their visas or violated the terms of their permits. In a blockbuster 2002 report, National Review’s Joel Mowbray acquired the visa applications of 15 of the 19 hijackers and exposed how every single one of their applications should have been flatly rejected.

It is interesting that Clinton described the nation’s immigration policy of 2001 as being one of “open borders,” considering that immigration has only continued to increase since then, and Hillary Clinton has repeatedly backed immigration policies that would only further open our nation’s borders to would-be foreign migrants.

Before September 11th, immigration experts observed that the nation was experiencing “unprecedented” number of immigrants by historical standards.

As the Center for Immigration Studies’ Steve Camarota reported in January of 2001: “By historical standards, the number of immigrants living in the United States is unprecedented… 28.4 million immigrants now live in the United States, the largest number ever recorded in the nation’s history, and a 43 percent increase since 1990. As a percentage of the population, immigrants now account for more than one in 10 residents (10.4 percent), the highest percentage in 70 years.”

The record level of immigration into the U.S. was the result of a 1965 immigration rewrite championed by Ted Kennedy, which lifted the immigration curbs enacted by President Calvin Coolidge and opened up American visas to the entire world. As Camarota wrote in 2001, “The number of immigrants living in the United States has more than tripled since 1970, from 9.6 million to 28.4 million. As a percentage of the U.S. population, immigrants have more than doubled, from 4.7 percent in 1970 to 10.4 percent in 2000.”

“More than 1.2 million legal and illegal immigrants combined now settle in the United States each year,” Camarota added, at the time. While in the early 2000s, Clinton described this immigration policy as “open borders”, since then immigration has only increased.

As Camarota now tells Breitbart News today, “census data shows that each year the U.S. adds 1.5 million legal and illegal new arrivals.”

“A new analysis of government data from December 2015 indicates that more than 61 million immigrants and their American-born children under age 18 now live in the United States; roughly three-fourths (45.3 million) are legal immigrants and their children,” Camarota wrote in March. “The numbers represent a complete break with the recent history of the United States.”

Despite Bill Clinton’s prior forthrightness about his support for open borders, many in corporate media today insist that Hillary Clinton does not support open borders.

While Republican nominee Donald Trump has repeatedly made the case that his opponent supports open borders, many in the media have denounced Trump’s assertion as false—without providing any substantive evidence to counter his claim.

For instance, Politifact, the Associated Press, CNN, and FactCheck.org have all claimed that it is not true that Clinton supports open borders.

They make this case by pushing unrelated arguments about how Clinton supports “border security”—which has nothing to do with the fact that she endorsed, championed and, is now campaigning, on open borders immigration policies that would allow virtually unlimited amounts of foreign migrants to enter the country on U.S. visas.

These so-called “fact checks” rarely mention how many migrants would be imported into the country under a Hillary Clinton Presidency. While Bill Clinton described the immigration policies of 2001 as “open borders,” his wife has championed policies that would only open our borders even further.

For example, the 2013 Gang of Eight bill Clinton supported would have tripled green card issuances—permanently resettling 33 million foreign nationals on green cards in the span of a single decade—and would have doubled foreign guest worker visas to compete for American jobs.

The 2006 Ted Kennedy immigration plan Clinton supported would have more than doubled legal immigration by increasing the number of family-based and employment-based visas.

Clinton’s refugee program, which she outlined in 2015, calls for a 550 percent increase in the number of Syrian refugees admitted. 

If Clinton were to continue this policy throughout her presidency, the U.S. could potentially permanently resettle nearly one million Muslim migrants during the first term of her presidency alone—and all of their children born on American soil would be automatically awarded U.S. citizenship.

Indeed, Clinton primary rival Bernie Sanders has explained how “open borders” is a radical and fringe position supported by wealthy donors, which hurts working Americans. In a 2015 interview with Vox, Sanders denounced open borders as a “Koch brothers proposal” that would essentially amount to “doing away with the concept of a nation state.”

Sanders said “open borders” is “a Koch brothers proposal…which says essentially there is no United StatesIt would make everybody in America pooreryou’re doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don’t think there’s any country in the world that believes in that. If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country.”

Interestingly, the libertarian Koch Brothers are furthering Hillary Clinton’s candidacy by refusing to run negative ads against her. 

Clinton’s push back against the “open borders” label while clearly championing open border policies is perhaps related to the fact that increasing immigration levels is not a popular policy.

According to Pew, an overwhelming 83 percent of the American electorate overall would like to see immigration levels frozen or reduced [p. 123, Pew Report, 9/28/15]."

---------------------

Added:  The Wall St. Journal has been calling for open borders since at least 1984:

7/3/1984, "In Praise of Huddled Masses," Wall St. Journal Editorial

"If Washington still wants to "do something" about immigration, we propose a five-word constitutional amendment: There shall be open borders."...

......................


Comment: In other words, participate in your own slavery and genocide.



.............................

Jan. 10, 2011 transcript of Donald Trump interview on Michael Savage show. Trump explained his concerns about US trade agreements, currency manipulation by China, and US foreign policy regarding Iraq, Afghanistan, and Russia

.
Donald Trump was interviewed by Michael Savage on Savage's radio show Monday afternoon, 1/10/2011, for about 14 minutes beginning at :34 in the first hour. The two happened to meet at an event the preceding weekend and Savage invited him to call the show. I was listening to Savage's show in Manhattan as I often did and continue to do, recorded the interview on tape and transcribed it. A link may exist but I don't know of one at the moment. (S=Michael Savage, T=Donald Trump):

"S: Run the country like a business not like an empire. There's only 1 man I know who can do it, that's Donald Trump. Donald, welcome to the Savage Nation. Thanks for being with us.

T: How are you, Michael, you're a piece of work, that I can tell you.

S: Well now, we don't know what you really mean when you say that. But look, when you and I spoke yesterday, I asked you straight up, I didn't mince words. I said to you where do you stand on tariffs with regard to Chinese goods, and you didn't blink, you didn't mince words. Tell the audience what you think should be done.

T: Well look, nobody is hurting-outside of OPEC-this country more than China. What China's doing to this country is absolutely a sin and it shouldn't be allowed, and somebody has to speak to them. Somebody called me last week, the head of China is coming next week to see the president, and they said, what message would you have that the president should give? I said, the president should cancel the meeting. And IMMEDIATELY cancel the meeting, until such time as they stop manipulating their currency, etc., etc., because when they manipulate their currency our companies cannot compete with theirs, they just can't. Beyond labor, beyond other things, they can't compete, and I will tell you as a big buyer of products, glass, and lots of other things, the Chinese are very, I mean, do we make anything in this country anymore? It's being made in China and other countries, but China is the big culprit. And the advantage they have is through a manipulation of their currency. So, what I say to you very simply is that I would absolutely tax all products coming in from China. Then you'll say to me, oh, but don't they loan us a lot of money by buying our bonds? And I would respond by saying, if you tax their products those bonds will be paid off very, very rapidly.

S: What tax? What per cent?

T: I would say 25% and I would say a firm, strong 25%, and then, you know what, when they start behaving properly. You know, we're building cities in China, we're building China, we're rebuilding the whole place, because what they're doing is they're taking all of our jobs. And it's very interesting, I don't know if you heard Bernanke, Ben Bernanke the other day, but he said very strongly, job market won't be back for 5 or 6 years.

S: Yeah, I heard that, that's terrible. Well, you and I had one point we disagreed on where you said you cannot buy anything made in America anymore, and I said, Mr. Trump, you're wrong about that, you can buy a congressman.

T: (Laughs) That's very true.

S: (Laughs) It's sadly true. So in addition to saying you're fired you now want to say, "You're elected," huh?

T: Michael, I don't believe 5 or 6 years because why are jobs coming back to this country if everything is being made in China, Mexico, lots of other places? You know what happened in Iowa? Iowa, it's very sad. Newton, Iowa, Maytag, because of our brilliant system, Maytag moved their manufacturing and virtually everything out of Iowa, Newton, and into Mexico.

S: Yeah.

T: And all the jobs.

S: That's because of NAFTA and the WTO. Now we on the conservative side in the media were opposed to that in the '90's, we opposed NAFTA, we opposed WTO, we were called crazy at the time. Would you repeal any of these international agreements if you were president, Mr. Trump?

T: Well, NAFTA's been a total disaster, it's just been unbelievable how horrible, you go up and look at New England, all you see is empty factories that are just decaying buildings. 


S: Yes.

T: And those people moved out and they moved over to Mexico and other places. And you take a look at what's--the truth is the United States is a whipping post for the rest of the world. And the reason is our people aren't smart enough or tough enough to do something about it.

S: One of my callers, Rich in Pittsburgh is calling, and he's saying in China they tariff our products, is that true?

T: Totally true. I can tell you about a steel company, which I can't mention, but I can tell you about a steel company, and I'm talking about a big one, where they can't, they're not allowed to go into China and sell steel. Look, at General Electric recently, where General electric was forced to give up all their technology and all their secrets in order to do business in China. I mean it's terrible what's going on, and we do nothing. Look at South Korea, there's another one, there's another beauty.

S: Right.

T: I just can't even believe. But look at South Korea, they have a trade agreement that's so bad and so one-sided for them and against us. Then the president goes there recently, and they refuse to sign it because they want more. Then all of a sudden, a couple of shells get lobbed onto one of their islands by North Korea.

S: Right.

T: And all of a sudden, they come back and they say, no, no, we will sign the agreement because they are my great allies, they're our great allies.

S: (Laughs) Right.

T: Sure, as we have the SS, as we have the George Washington aircraft carrier, one of the great boats of the world.

S: Right.

T: And many destroyers sailing right toward North Korea, and I said to myself, they make hundreds of billions of dollars of--let's use the word profit, because it's easier to understand.

S: Yes.

T: With the United States with their televisions, their cars, everything else. The agreement is horrendous. We're protecting them, why aren't we being paid for that? This nation is so rich, much richer than us, actually, but why aren't they paying when we sail those incredible ships over to North Korea, which by the way, cost millions of dollars an hour--

S: What you're saying is why doesn't south Korea pay for the price of sailing the ships and the men going there to protect them, is that what you're saying?

T: Why doesn't South Korea pay us something? Which means why don't we ask South Korea for something? Instead, what to they do? They go out and they give us a trade agreement that only an idiot from our standpoint would sign. So, it's a very, very, sad situation.

S: But, Donald, if you were the chief executive of the United States of America, would you do some of the more controversial things that I've called for such as, let's go to Iraq. Many men lost lives, lost limbs, lost eyes, we lost our national honor in many ways for what? They're sitting on a sea of oil, they've never given us a free barrel of oil. George Bush said they would pay us back though oil. We never got one free barrel. Don't you think for example, Iraq owes us a few hundred million barrels of oil in exchange for how many billions we spent there?

T: Iraq has 15 trillion dollars of oil sitting under its land, people don't realize. After Saudi Arabia, they're the second nation for oil. Now, we've spent a trillion and a half, OK?

S: Yeah.

T: They should pay us back. They should pay us back. Now I don't know if that's necessarily the greatest example, only because it's not like Iraq is, I don't know, a lot of people would say, did we really do them a favor. If you go over there, it's a total mess. Which, by the way, Iran will take over as soon as we leave. What we've done in Iraq is unbelievable.

S: Yes.

T: You know, they've been fighting for hundreds of years back and forth (inaudible) equals.

S: Absolutely.

T: Now we've neutered Iraq, so that as soon as we leave Iran will go in and take over that oil which is very interesting.

S: Well, as, look, when war broke out I said, this could be the greatest blunder, military blunder in American history, I hope Bush is right and not wrong because if he's wrong, all that's going to happen is the Shia dominated Iran is going to dominate Iraq which was run by the Sunnis under Saddam, who was a balancing power to the Shia power within his own country and Iran. It was a complete mess, but let's look at Afghanistan. If you were president, would you pull the boys out of Afghanistan

T: I'd get out as soon as I could. Now you have to understand, Michael, I'm a very, very hawkish person. I believe in REALLY strong military, stronger than what we have right now.

S: Right.

T: I believe in all of that.

S: So do I.

T: What we are over there is policemen. You know we didn't lose a war, if we pulled out, we won the war. But we're policemen over there. We're not meant to be policemen.

S: Yes. You know, in my book Trickle up Poverty, Mr. Trump, I end it by saying, run America like a business, not an empire. And, I went on the air tonight and I said I finally have found a businessman who I think could run this country not only like a business but AS a business, because it IS a business. Every nation fundamentally is a business. But you can't run a business at a loss, let us say forever, can you?

T: Well, I'd also say a business with compassion, because there are certain times where government really can help people, and that's a great thing. But you know when I look at for instance, you mentioned Afghanistan, think of this. $52 million was given to somebody--in a suitcase.

S: Yes.

T: To go to Afghanistan.

S: Right.

T: It ended up--we just found this out--it ended up in Dubai.

S: In Dubai, yeah.

T: Now, Dubai is not doing well.

S: Right.

T: It ended up in Dubai. Now you say to yourself, we give $52 million in cash, I mean who ever heard of $52 million in cash--I have numerous cash businesses, but my cash businesses I watch closely. I have--accountants watching the people. Then I have people watching those people. I want to know who is the colonel or the general or whoever it is that gives 52 million in green to Afghanistan, and then it ends up somewhere in Dubai, which is another part of the world. And I say, who are the people that give this money? Is it a colonel? Is it a corporal that carries it out? Is it a private, like the Wikileaks private? And then I say of the money that was given, 52 is an odd number, how much was stolen before the 52 got there? And who stole it including our own couriers? So when I look at that 52 million in cash, if you think about what that is, you say, who authorizes something like that?

S: I don't know, I didn't.

T: No but, can you imagine?

S: No, I know what you're saying, where did the money come from, who did it go to? Look, you only have a minute left in this segment, there's a lot more we have to cover in the months to come. I don't even know if you're running. Are you really ready to run for the presidency, Mr. Trump?

T: Well. I'm a proud American, I love this country. I've never seen anything like what's happening now. I've never seen OPEC go so crazy as they are right now. Oil is now $90 a barrel, it should be $30. I've always been told by a certain very smart friend of mine who's truly an expert on oil, that whenever we have oil above 30 and 40, this country HAS to lose money. And I believe that it was OPEC and I believe it was the oil prices that really caused the almost demise of our economic nation. It was a horrible thing. It got up to almost $150 a barrel--

S: Well, it's a commodity that in essence is acting as a currency. That's what it comes down to. If we have inflation, the barrel of oil becomes the equivalent of the deflated dollar in reality to the Arab. In other words he goes to New York and he wants to buy an apartment in Trump Plaza that was $10 million, and suddenly it's $15 million. He wants more money for his oil, yes or no?

T: It's--the problem we have with the devalued dollar--and they devalue it on a daily basis--is you're going to be paying $25 for a loaf of bread, and you're going to be paying $10 for a Coca Cola. I mean the devalued dollar, which is no longer a respected currency, as you know-

S: Yeah

T: Is ABSOLUTELY just hurting this country, and it's going to hurt Number 1, level of respect, Number 2, wait til you see and you see it now, you see the price of copper, you see the price of gold, you see the price of all these commodities INCLUDING oil going through the roof. And it's a very, very serious situation for this country. It's very important.

S: But when will we know, when will we know if Donald Trump really wants to really run for the presidency?

T: Well, I would say I'll make a decision sometime by June. You know we have Celebrity Apprentice going on very soon. I'm not allowed to run during that time, because otherwise everyone else has to get 2 hours of prime time television. Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen.

S: Right.

T: It terminates, season 11 comes to an end during the month of June, and I will make a decision sometime then. But, it's a very sad thing. What's happening to this country is very sad. And I've never seen it where this country is such a whipping post, and just doesn't tap the respect of other nations.

S: Run the country like a business not an empire. We need a really successful tough-minded man like Donald Trump, in my opinion. I would definitely back you if you ran, and I haven't backed anyone, because I see nobody who can beat Obama out there on the Republican side. That's a terrible thing to say when you consider Obama is such a terrible president. That the Republicans are going to do it all over again, Mr. Trump. That's what I say, we really need you out there.

T: Michael, health care is destroying many, many companies. I know for a fact. I have friends that are literally closing up their companies. They're not going to be able to afford health care. And just one other little thing. You know, we signed recently a treaty with Russia.

S: Yeah.

T: How would you like Russia dictating when and where we can build missiles? I mean do you think this is great now that Russia's telling us what we can build, when we can build it, it's sort of amazing.

S: I covered this in a chapter on what's in the START Treaty, I tried to warn America. Why the president and those 9 Republican turncoats agreed on the START Treaty without any discussion really concerns me, because we have now become an (inaudible).

T: That's a real beauty, and part of the beauty is because they don't want us to have a defense system. So, you're not allowed to defend yourself, you can't build missiles. Russia telling us what to do, and they rush out and approve it. It's UN-believable.

S: Well. we have a lot more to cover, and I know it's not the last time Donald Trump will be on the Savage Nation, at least I hope not. And we're giving you an open door to the most important independent nation in the country, which is the Savage Nation. I sincerely mean it. This is not for ratings, Mr. Trump, this is to save the country that I love ever since I've been a Boy Scout in Queens, New York, And I hope you're the guy who's going to do it, and you're the guy who's going to save this country. 


T: Well, thank-you very much, Michael, you have a great show, and I really do, I can't say a hundred percent, but I agree with so much of what you say.

S: If you agreed with me a hundred percent, I'd really worry about you.

T: (Laughs). Thank-you, Michael, and we'll be on again.

S: Donald Trump on the Savage Nation. It's 48 minutes after the hour."




................


Trump leads in North Carolina 45-43, PPP North Carolina poll, Sept. 18-20, 2016. Trump has 5 point lead among independent voters. Hillary has only 76% of democrat support in NC, 16% of NC democrats support Trump

.
Trump 45
Hillary 43
Johnson 6
Undecided 7

Sept. 18-20, 2016 (Sun.-Tues.), 1024 North Carolina likely voters, 3.1% error margin, 80% land line, 20% internet. 43D, 33R, 24 Ind (p. 7)

9/21/16, "Presidential race tied, Cooper up in NC," Public Policy Polling












PPP North Carolina chart above, page 30

page 3, "Public Policy Polling surveyed 1,024 likely voters from September 18th to 20th. The margin of error is +/-3.1%. 80% of participants, selected through a list based sample, responded via the phone, while 20% of respondents who did not have landlines conducted the survey over the internet through an opt-in internet panel."



........................


Friday, September 23, 2016

Charlotte Police: 70% of rioters arrested came in buses from out of state, are criminals, not protesters-CNN, Hains, Real Clear Politics. ('Yes, yes, yes.' Violence on US streets was gleefully anticipated by Hillary's largest single donor, George Soros)

.
George Soros gleefully anticipated violence on American streets: "Yes, yes, yes," and says the unrest will be an excuse for government restrictions on American freedom that could be worse than the violence itself. (1/23/2012, Newsweek, "George Soros on the coming US class war," John Arlidge, 4th parag. from end) Soros is a top Hillary Clinton donor. "Soros has given more than $30 million to groups working for Hillary Clinton’s election in November, making him her largest single donor."
   
.......................
9/23/16, "Charlotte Police: 70% Of Rioters Arrested Are Out Of State "Instigators"," Real Clear Politics, Tim Hains

"Charlotte-Mecklenburg Fraternal Order of Police spokesman Todd Walther told CNN's Erin Burnett Thursday night that 70% of those arrested in race riots in that city this week were not locals.

"This is not Charlotte that's out here," he said. "These are outside entities that are coming in and causing these problems. These are not protestors, these are criminals."

"I'm not saying all the people, but we've got the instigators that are coming in from the outside. They were coming in on buses from out of state.
If you go back and look at some of the arrests that were made last night. I can about say probably 70% of those had out-of-state IDs. They're not coming from Charlotte."



....................

Now it turns out 1811 from terror countries 'accidentally' received US citizenship, 315,000 more may slip through. 3 had access to secure commercial airline facilities, one is a 'law enforcement' officer, Inspector General report-Breitbart (Both Republican and Democrat establishments want US to be a third world toilet to supply globalists with endless cheap labor)

.
9/23/16, "Obama Administration Shut Down Whistleblower Program Revealing 1,811 Aliens From Terrorist Countries Granted Citizenship," Breitbart, Katie McHugh

"Under the Obama administration, 1,811 aliens from terrorist countries were granted U.S. citizenship instead of being deported—and the Obama administration ended the program that uncovered the extensive fraud.

Originally, the Associated Press reported that the aliens’ fingerprints were not in searchable government databases, allowing them to apply for citizenship under different names and birthdays. 

The scope of the problem is massive: “Fingerprints are missing from federal databases for as many as 315,000 immigrants with final deportation orders or who are fugitive criminals, the Associated Press stated. “Immigration and Customs Enforcement has not reviewed about 148,000 of those immigrants’ files to add fingerprints to the digital record.”

Three of the aliens under final deportation orders who were granted citizenship gained access to secure commercial airliner areas and maritime facilities. Another is working as a law enforcement officer.

But the Obama administration shut down that program, the Office of Inspector General found:

"In 2016, OPS [Office of Operations Coordination] eliminated Operation Janus and disbanded its staff, which raises concerns about the future ability of ICE [U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement] and USCIS to continue identifying and prioritizing individuals for investigation. Since 2010 and until recently, Operation Janus identified these individuals, created watchlist entries to ensure law enforcement and immigration officials were aware of them, and coordinated DHS and other agencies’ activities related to these individuals. Two DHS employees outside of OPS said that without Operation Janus, it would be difficult to coordinate these cases and combat immigration fraud perpetrated by individuals using multiple identities. We received this information late in our review and cannot assess the future impact of this change."

ICE didn’t consistently log the digital fingerprints of illegal aliens their agents found until 2010—and federal prosecutors have repeatedly declined criminal cases that could end in the aliens being stripped of their citizenship.

The implications were not lost on one DHS whistleblower.

“If the Department of Homeland Security was serious about this, they would not have shut down the program that discovered this lapse in the first place,” whistleblower Philip Haney said on Fox and Friends Tuesday. “They say they’re addressing it, but they shut the program down that originally discovered it. It’s hard to effectively address it. But they say they have recommendations that the agencies are following, and they’re expecting a follow-up report.”

Haney believed that “high-level fraud” took place: “These individuals are from countries of concern, for terrorists. All of them. The report makes that quite plain. If you come to a law enforcement officer, and you don’t have your complete records, your fingerprints in particular, that could halt the process right there. How people came into the country, either legally or illegally, and accidentally gained citizenship is an impossible concept to me, as a law enforcement officer.”"

=============

Comment: It's technically correct to say "the Obama administration" shut down the program, but the GOP Establishment agrees 100% with everything Obama does. The globalist US political class is converting the US into a third world toilet so all globalists can have endless cheap labor. The same thing is happening in Europe.



...............

Black voter on Obama asking blacks to vote for Hillary: 'You conned blacks for their vote, pulling that black shit. Now you're gonna try and pull it again for Hillary? You expect blacks to have a turnout for you but you ain't even done a turnout for the black community. You done more for Muslims overseas than you have done for the American people'-Terrence Williams

.


"Obama needs to shut up," by Terrence Williams on You Tube

Terrence speaks about Obama asking blacks to vote for Hillary to protect his legacy:  

"Look at what Obama says, y'all. Look at what he's sayin. I am done. I am so done. You see how stupid that sounds. So you're tellin me that if....See, I'm black, so if black voters don't vote for Hillary you gonna be mad, you're gonna feel like it's a personal insult, you're gonna feel that your legacy was disrespected? Is you crazy? I feel, you know what, America feels disrespected. They feel like you done insulted the American people. You ain't, so you expect blacks to have a...hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on...Now you done conned the black vote, for one, you conned blacks for their vote for one pulling that black shit, ok. Now, you're gonna try and pull it again for Hillary? You gonna try to pull that for Hillary? Come on now, Obama. Now you expect blacks to have a turnout for you, but you ain't even done a turnout for the black community. You ain't even done a turnout for the white community for Americans period. You done more for Muslims overseas than you have done for the American people. So I'm trying to figure something out. Why you gonna be mad? Why? Let me know. Cause I'm confused. Somebody help me out here. I'm confused. Somebody, somebody explain what Obama's talking about, please." 


.............