Tuesday, October 20, 2015


The Bush Family is closed connected to MEXICO. 
GHW BUsh had oil holdings in Mexico.
Jeb's wife  was born in Mexico, was an Illegal Alien in California.She is now affiliated with La Raza.

GW Bush proved several times during his tenure that he did not want to aggressively enforce immigration laws. Any time a Democrat protested a mode of enforcement, he halted that mode 

IF G W Bush had really wanted to enforce immigration, he would have found that the TWENTY hijackers that effected the 9-11 attacks had ALL overstayed VISAs and were here then ILLEGALLY .

AGAIN, TRUMP has brought out something that was embarrassing to the Powers-That-BE, but was known by several in this country. 
It was a practice that was not accepted by any person that obeyed the law.

READ ON DOWN. You will see what I mean



By IAN HANCHETT19 Oct 2015313
MSNBC’s “Hardball” host Chris Matthews praised Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump former Florida Governor Jeb Bush for bringing up George W. Bush in relation to 9/11 and Trump “awakened us all to the fact that Jeb said something that just isn’t true. His brother did not keep us safe” on Monday.
Matthews said, “What strikes me about the campaign so far is that it took a political newcomer, Donald Trump, to say something we already knew, but nobody had said before, that President George W. Bush did not keep us safe in the eight years he was president of the united states. he didn’t keep us safe, or the people on those planes — those four planes safe that day. he didn’t keep safe — those men and women forced to choose between jumping from 100-story roof and being killed by the smoke and fire. And he didn’t keep safe the hundreds of firefighters killed that day doing their courageous duty.

 So, why did his brother make such a claim? Why did Jeb tell the audience in a republican debate last week, and to great and expected applause his brother ‘kept us safe.’ He said because he knew he could get — not only get away from it, but could trigger a wild cheer for it, because he knew the country had been told to not look at what steps were taken and not taken in the hours, days, weeks, months before September 11th, 2001. We’ve been told not to look at the casualties we’ve taken in Iraq, a war that had nothing to do with 9/11, except that, our president and his strong-minded advisors had used 9/11 to justify war they wanted for their own reasons. 
Well, the partisans of President George W. Bush say we can’t say this, any of it. His brother Jeb says that only those in the country’s margins even think this. Really?”
He continued, “But the Bushes and their partisans can charge Hillary Clinton for what happened in a remote building in war-torn north Africa, miles, 400 miles, from the capital of that country. 
Let’s put those two events together for just a moment, mentally. One [on] 9/11/2001, the other, on the same date in 2012, New York City, the United States’ financial center is hit by two jetliners. The center of our military command and control, located in Washington, DC is hit by another. Still, a fourth plane is downed by courageous passengers on a course to the capitol. 
All after warning was given to the president that, quote, ‘Bin Laden determined to attack in the US.’ We were hit here in our country, the homeland as the ideologues have gotten us to call it now by a concerted, highly coordinated attack, using airliners, and our training, and no one is to blame. But when an outpost 400 miles from the capital city, in a north African country, with nothing approaching a normal security situation, while then, Hillary Clinton, back in the United States is painted as the villain, as if it was she, who left the window open that night.”
Matthews then stated, “Again, I want to thank Trump and Jeb of course, for finally getting this one out in the open, by throwing out the red meat, by saying, he ‘kept us safe.” Jeb let us know what we knew already, that actually, W didn’t keep us safe, did he?”
He also argued, “I am not a big fan of Donald Trump on many occasions, on many fronts, but he woke — I think he woke open this campaign. He awakened us all to the fact that Jeb said something that just isn’t true. His brother did not keep us safe.”
Matthews also stated, later in the segment, “the Democrats never had the stones to go out and challenge George W. and say, ‘Look buddy, don’t talk about what a warrior king you are. you left the door open.’ Because they probably felt that would be un-nice. Trump isn’t un-nice. He’s willing to be tough, especially when the guy running against him has really, the stupidity to say, my brother ‘kept us safe’ in face of 9/11.”
Later, in his closing, Matthews said that if Hillary Clinton is to blame for Benghazi, George W. Bush is to blame for 9/11.
Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett



From 1998 to 2001, the Army Intelligence and Special Operations Command (AISOC) conducted a highly classified intelligence-gathering endeavor known as Able Danger. Its mission was to investigate the terrorist threat posed by al Qaeda, both inside the United States and abroad. By 1999, Able Danger had identified, by name, four of the future 9/11 hijackers -- including the ringleader, Mohammed Atta – as members of an al Qaeda cell based in Brooklyn, New York. But the AISOC never informed the FBI about the activities of these suspects, thus leaving them free to continue plotting and preparing for the 9/11 attacks with impunity.

On August 15, 2005, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, the first member of Able Danger to speak publicly about his role in the operation, told the press about Able Danger’s findings and detailed the policies that had caused the crucial intelligence to go unheeded. Shaffer explained that when Able Danger had tried to arrange a series of meetings in 2000 with the Washington field office of the FBI to share its information about Atta, military lawyers intervened and canceled the meetings, citing fear of controversy “if Able Danger was portrayed as a military operation that had violated the privacy of civilians who were legally in the United States." At the root of this fear was a clearly defined prohibition against inter-agency intelligence-sharing in terror investigations. This prohibition, commonly referred to as the “wall” blocking such communications, dated back to the Carter administration's 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was enacted to defuse allegations of FBI espionage abuses.

In 1995, while America’s intelligence agencies were still investigating al Qaeda's 1993 terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center, the Clinton administration strengthened FISA to a degree that was unprecedented. Specifically, Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick called for increased restrictions on information-sharing between intelligence (CIA) and law-enforcement (FBI) agencies. In a 1995 memo to then-FBI Director Louis Freeh and U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White, titled “Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations,” Gorelick wrote the following:

“We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation.”
It should be noted that when Gorelick penned the aforementioned memo, President Clinton was extremely worried about ongoing FBI and CIA investigations into illegal Chinese contributions that had been made to his presidential campaign. Both the FBI and the CIA were churning up evidence damaging to the Democratic Party, its fundraisers, the Chinese, and ultimately the Clinton administration itself. It was also a period when the FBI had begun to systematically investigate weapons-technology theft by foreign powers, most notably Russia and China. Had FBI agents been able to confirm China's theft of such technology -- or its transfer of that technology to nations like Pakistan, Iran and Syria -- Clinton would have been forced by law and international treaty to react (and to thereby jeopardize the future flow of Chinese money into his political coffers).

Gorelick's 1995 memo emphasized Presidential Decision Directive 24 (PDD 24), which Clinton had signed the previous year. PDD 24 placed intelligence-gathering under the direct control of the President’s National Security Council, and ultimately the White House, through a four-level, top-down chain of command set up to stifle information-sharing and cooperation between intelligence and law-enforcement agencies. From the moment the directive was implemented, suchinformation-sharing became a bureaucratic nightmare over which the President himself had final authority. Consequently, information lethal to Clinton and the Democratic Party languished inside the Justice Department, trapped behind PDD 24 and Gorelick’s “wall.”

The implications of this policy were enormous. Mary Jo White, a New York attorney and an experienced al Qaeda prosecutor, vehemently objected to the barrier Gorelick had erected between agencies. In a letter to Gorelick and Attorney General Janet Reno, White noted: “The most effective way to combat terrorism is with as few labels and walls as possible so that wherever permissible, the right and left hands are communicating.” White also wrote a second letter in which she warned that Gorelick's policy “could cost lives.”

Testifying before the 9/11 Commission in April of 2004, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft made his own observations about how the “wall” had greatly hindered terrorism investigations:

“In the days before September 11, the wall specifically impeded the investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. After the FBI arrested Moussaoui, agents became suspicious of his interest in commercial aircraft and sought approval for a criminal warrant to search his computer. The warrant was rejected because FBI officials feared breaching the wall. When the CIA finally told the FBI that al-Midhar and al-Hazmi were in the country in late August, agents in New York searched for the suspects. But because of the wall, FBI headquarters refused to allow criminal investigators who knew the most about the most recent al Qaeda attack to join the hunt for the suspected terrorists. At that time, a frustrated FBI investigator wrote headquarters, quote, 'Whatever has happened to this – someday someone will die – and wall or not – the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain problems.'’’ 
In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate set about to craft legislation that would provide the government with new tools for combating terrorist threats facing America. As a result of these efforts, on October 26, 2001 the USA Patriot Act was passed, finally authorizing criminal investigators and intelligence agencies to cooperate on international terrorism cases.

Sunday, September 27, 2015

Media thumps Trump, but polls show he's winning big

There are some who wonder--What is the fascination about Donald Trump? Why is Trump at the top of the Polls? 

An explanation from my perception:
Actually, there are several aspects. 
ITEM: The Ordinary Person out here in fly-over country ( I shall refer to us as OrPer) is expected to adamantly adhere to all laws and Rules. 
Yet, we see the High and Mighty serially break laws and punish those who ask that all obey them. 
  Meanwhile, the Republicans who ran in 2010 and 2012, who strenuously emphasized that they would correct the deviances, have --except for a few-- ignored the violations of the High and Mighty. 

ITEM: For over 40 years now, we have seen a Politically Correct society de-emphasize masculinity and  competition ( Because, in competition, there are winners and losers) Games that provided exercise for young people went away--Because...Someone could get hurt. 
  Forceful personalities were discouraged and penalties for such behavior came about.  To put it in Street Language--Men were  forced to become pussies. 

ITEM: A combination of foreign tyrants and Liberal/Progressive/Communist/Socialist leaders were immune to this quest for blandness and non-aggression. 
They bullied and browbeat anyone who opposed their agendas. 

Meanwhile, our "Elected Officials in DC" did not oppose any of these. 
The High and Mighty gave away Iraq and subtly encouraged the rise of ISIS. 

ITEM: Soldiers sent to locales where Islamic Terrorism thrived were threatened with long term prison sentences for killing anyone that any reasonable person who be convinced that the person in their sight was conducting terrorist activity. 

Meanwhile, recruiters would be gunned down IN THE UNITED STATES by persons that that High and Mighty had done an unsatisfactory background check on.  

To the Orper, the person who went contrary to the dumbing down and pacification of the Orper becomes their Hero. 

The Orper--as opposed to the High and Mighty --does his/her homework. They want visible results and proof of  accomplishment...As opposed to glowing oratory and promises. 

Additionally, a big campaign killer would be declarations by family members and/or employees (Especially of Trump's organization, as large as it is)  that he is mean, a bully, cheap, or unjust.  
All of his family is part of this campaign Staff
I have not seen ANY negative comments from either a present or past employee 

Secondly, especially after the 2012 Presidential Campaign, the Orper found that THE MEDIA does not report facts. They are a cheering section for the High and Mighty, and conceal their mistakes while promoting  Political Correctness, Pussification, and intimidation of malcontents. 




Rumors of Donald Trump’s demise may have been greatly exaggerated. 
Ever since rival Carly Fiorina was widely perceived to have bested Trump at the second GOP debate in California on Sept. 16, media outlets have been lining up to suggest that the front-runner is waning.  
Trump has hit back with characteristic vigor. But he has a point, independent observers say. 
“The reality is that he does have a hold on some people and he doesn’t appear to be surrendering it,” said Mark Mellman, a veteran Democratic pollster who is also a columnist for The Hill. 
Much of the negative media attention has been built around a single poll in the immediate aftermath of the debate, by CNN/ORC. 
The survey showed the businessman’s support among Republican voters nationwide had declined by 8 percentage points since the last survey from the same source, less than two weeks before. 
That was a sizable decline, to be sure — even though Trump still led his closest rival by 9 percentage points. But no other reputable poll since the debate has shown Trump falling by anything like that margin.
A survey from Fox News released earlier this week showed the businessman at 26 percent support nationally, an increase of 1 point since Fox’s last survey in mid-August. A Bloomberg poll gave him 21 percent — good enough for a 5-point lead over the field and an unchanged rating since the last poll from the financial news outlet at the beginning of August.  
The picture is not substantially different in the crucial early states — and, in some cases, it is even better for Trump. 
The Democratic-leaning firm Public Policy Polling (PPP) released a new survey from Iowa this week in which Trump polled at 24 percent — a 5-point rise over his showing in PPP’s previous poll of the Hawkeye State in the immediate aftermath of the first GOP debate on Aug. 6. 
Trump’s support could collapse eventually — as is the case with any other candidate — but there is precious little evidence that his supporters are deserting him.
“The national polling that has come out this week has been mixed,” said PPP director Tom Jensen. “But it’s not something where I would buy into a narrative of Trump declining, unless that was the narrative I wanted. I think, in some quarters, the media people are getting bored [with Trump’s strength] and are ready to write a different story.”
The candidate shares that view quite emphatically. In TV interviews and on his Twitter account throughout this week, he has inveighed against media coverage that he believes is unfair in general and, in particular, is highlighting the most negative polls for him and ignoring the rest. 

Dishonest @politico just called to say that none of the polls including Fox, NBC, CNN, Zogby, & Morning Consult matter. Serious haters.

 Four days earlier, he had a tense exchange with Savannah Guthrie, one of the anchors of NBC’s “Today” show. Trump complained that Guthrie was highlighting the CNN poll that showed the big decline  rather than NBC’s own online survey in which he had risen 7 points from the previous month.
“You put up the CNN poll, you didn’t put up NBC poll and you’re the ones that are paying for the NBC poll,” he told Guthrie. “So I don’t get it, other than that the NBC poll is a very good poll for Trump.” 
Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, underlined the point in a phone interview with The Hill. 
Complaining about “dishonesty in the mainstream media,” Lewandowski noted that, while the results of any individual poll are open to debate, “there has been a clear consistency that indicates Mr. Trump is the definitive front-runner for the Republican nomination.” 
As of late Friday, the RealClearPolitics (RCP) average had Trump leading the GOP field by 7.7 points nationally; by exactly 6 points in Iowa; by 15.6 points in New Hampshire, and by 15.3 points in South Carolina. 
“If his name wasn’t Trump, the pundits would be saying this race is over,” Lewandowski said. “If the name was Bush — and Jeb is in about sixth place, by the way — and he was getting 28 and 32 percent, it would be all over.” 
(Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is in fourth place in the RCP national average, though he was sixth in the most recent major national survey, from Fox News.) 
Whether the negative media attention truly harms Trump is a complicated question, however. 
“The problem with the media is that the voters who support Trump hold the media in contempt. So for the media to try to pound The Donald just reinforces the idea that Trump is correct, and is the hero for a lot of people who are dissatisfied,” said Tobe Berkovitz, a Boston University professor who specializes in political communications.  
Berkovitz and other independent observers are careful to note that they are not predicting that Trump will triumph in the battle for the GOP nomination.  
Berkovitz suggested that serious investigations into Trump’s business dealings could throw up damaging information. 
Jensen of PPP suggested that “eventually voters are going to get tired of his act.” Mellman, the Democratic pollster, noted that “the fact that he has some staying power doesn’t mean the staying power is permanent.” 
Still, the virtually-unanimous view is that, regardless of the latest headlines, the Trump phenomenon is not over, by a long shot. 
“You can think of all kinds of reasons why Trump might not get the nomination,” said Stephen Craig, a University of Florida political science professor and an expert on public opinion. “But the poll results we are seeing now? Those shifts aren’t enough to hang anything on.”

Thursday, August 20, 2015

My perception of Megyn Kelly's ambush of Trump at the "Debate".

As I watched later clips of this "Debate" actually, you could tell as time went on WHO FOX NEWS had chosen to be candidates--and who they wanted eliminated.

Angelo Codevilla below cites the old question attorneys in the 70's and 80's would aim at officers and persons not sympathetic with their client:
 “when did you stop beating your wife?” 

One, there is no good way to answer this.

Two, this told you the attorney had NO facts or evidence indicating his/her client's 
innocence. All the facts showed the Client was guilty, but then, attorneys had this motto: If you can't faze them with facts, baffle them with bullshit

Three, it was intended to anger the witness, have an angry response, thereby reducing or eliminating the witnesses credibility. 

Police Officers became accustomed to accusatory questions like this.

The 90's brought us the expanded use of the Internet. Now, there are whole online services that cater to law firms to  do complete search on witnesses. If there is any conflict, indiscretion, obvious character flaw--they will find it. 
FOX had done this on Trump. 
So, they took minute particles from the episodes of the Apprentice, implied that he had done things in real life and posed it as a combined accusation-question. 

we should return to the debate formats of Lincoln's day.

Angelo Codevilla
By Angelo Codevilla
AUGUST 13, 2015

Since presidential debates started in 1960, the journalists who are supposed to “moderate” them have increasingly set the agenda and determined the substance of what the public sees. In the first 2016 presidential debate, Fox News’ “moderators” focused on what might embarrass candidates rather than on their record or proposals. Also, they indulged the Republican Establishment’s animus against its least favorite candidate. Though this made for an exciting show, the biggest loser was the public’s interest in understanding candidates and issues. The public interest would be best served were candidates to question one another. That’s how it was done in Lincoln’s day. We could and should get back to that.
Choosing the president of the United states on the basis of short answers to questions formulated or chosen by journalists was always a bad idea. It has only gotten worse. Limited to two minutes, as in the League Of Women Voters debates (Fox’s limit was one minute answers and 30 second rebuttals) the candidates can only reprise their canned talking points or the cleverish ads that are the foul staples of modern campaigns. Such parodies of debates demean the candidates, and all of us who watch. Along with the candidates, we the people become pawns in a game between the political consultants, the “moderators,” and the commentators who then tell us who played best.

Because no one ever doubted that “moderators” would influence the outcome of presidential debates, much effort went into giving the impression that the persons chosen were such as whom all would consider objective and super partes. Trust in the media’s impartiality, however, had vanished long before “moderator” Candy Crowley helped Barack Obama sustain a lie in 2012’s second presidential debate by instantly and counterfactually “fact checking” Mitt Romney. How, not whether, Mainstream Media “moderators” push the agendas of the Democratic Establishment they represented is the only question. Indeed, by 2012 it was difficult to avoid the sense that the media, Fox News included, was focusing negative coverage on the most conservative candidate who happened to be leading in the polls at any given time.
A public official’s oath, after all, is to “the Constitution of the United States,” not to party bosses.
So, as Megyn Kelly’s team prepared for the first debate of the 2016 cycle, and as trumping Donald Trump’s challenge to the Republican Establishment became that Establishment’s overriding concern, it was clear that Fox’s “moderators” would be the most intrusive ever, and that their push of their employers’ agenda and their “take down” of their least favorite candidate would be explicit. In both regards, the Fox team broke new ground and established precedents that should lead us to scrap the post 1960 format.
The team began by demanding that whoever might not support the Republican Party’s eventual nominee raise his hand. Who, one wonders, empowered these “moderators” to demand an oath of loyalty to the Party hierarchy? 
A public official’s oath, after all, is to “the Constitution of the United States,” not to party bosses. 
Then came questions to the candidates that were one version another of “when did you stop beating your wife?” 
Donald Trump, first target for elimination, was baited particularly. Next time, it will be someone else’s turn. The time after that, yet PAGE 1 another’s. Fox News’ treatment of presidential candidates has less to do with public policy than with the extent to which they match the Republican Establishment. 
This differs from the rest of the media’s treatment of politics only to the diminishing extent to which the Democratic and Republican Establishments differ.

Why ‘The Establishment’ Doesn’t Matter Anymore

Meanwhile, as the American people have become increasingly estranged from both Establishments, they look for someone, anyone, who takes seriously their concern with issues that these Establishments, jointly, have taken out of political play. These issues are big, heavy, and not articulable in sound bites.
The Fox News debate showed the depths to which our political discourse has sunk.

About immigration laws, many of which are not even enforced, that are changing this country’s way of life? 
What shall we do about a financial system that manufactures literally trillions dollars and channels them through banks and other institutions in ways that benefit a few while putting us all at risk? 
Is it a good idea to redefine marriage? That seems to have happened. Shouldn’t we have a say in that?
Did any of us vote to treat unborn babies as humans for the purposive harvesting their hearts and livers but not human for the purpose of letting them be killed in the first place?
 Why and how have such questions been taken out of our hands as citizens? Is it not our right and duty to take them back? Such questions demand consideration in depth ­ jointly by candidates and by citizens.
The Fox News debate showed the depths to which our political discourse has sunk and that its epitome, the presidential debates ­sound bites orchestrated by inevitably biased “moderators”­ is irremediable.
Any candidate possessed of enough testosterone could distinguish himself by withdrawing from any further such shows and declaring his intention of challenging opponents to Lincoln-­Douglas style debates for the broadcast of which he would raise the cash. Might enough citizens support restoring American politics to the intellectual and moral level of 150 years ago?
Angelo M. Codevilla is a fellow of the Claremont Institute, professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University and the author of To Make And Keep Peace, Hoover Institution Press, 2014.

Monday, July 20, 2015

Tolerating the "Culture" of others.

There is a column at the bottom that backs up what I write here.

As a law enforcer in San Diego County from Nov 1974 to Oct 2001, I had several observations about the "Immigrants" coming from Central America and Mexico:

-- The most brutal man is the most Macho (to be respected and revered) . Many people do not know that the Muslims controlled Spain for 400 years, and some of their practices were carried to Mexico.
The Cartels use this as a strategy to intimidate others. This includes beheading and cutting off genitals before the victim is killed.

In Mexico, the law and policeman are not respected. Cities hire officers, but pay almost nothing because they know that he will shake down every person he contacts. If you "violate" a law, if you can pay "Mordida" you are on your way.
No Pay-You get put in jail, and in a couple of months, you get to try to prove that you are innocent
Secondly, if you don't have the money, and you can beat up or kill that police officer and "Get out of town", you have no worry, because there is no communications between law enforcers in Mexico.
Often, if you arrest someone from those locations, they will threaten you, just to be macho. I wish I had a dollar for every time one of them--in custody--told me, "I get my gun--I choot jou".

Another mark of Macho is how much alcohol you can drink and still walk--or drive a car. In Mexico, there is no law prohibiting driving while impaired.

It is common in Latin countries to be married and have a "Querida" (Mistress). If the wife questions or contests this practice, you slap her around until she drops the objection.

The age of Consent in Mexico in some provinces is 14. You wonder why these invaders pick minors to rape, then claim that she gave permission.

As far as their health practices, I got a big eye opener when I went to give blood for an operation on another officer's mother . At the San Diego Blood Bank in San Diego, they had a map on the wall of Mexico. There was a line--East to west about half way down. When I asked the technician what that was all about, she told me, "If someone comes in from there, we ask them to point to where they lived. If it is below that line, they can not give blood. Too many chances they are carrying some disease".

AS I said--These are my observations. Another observation is that in the 1950's and 60's, with the Bracero program, people came here to work. That program mandated that employers had to furnish housing and access to medical care.

That all changed when Clinton was elected.  With Ted Kennedy's help, the EMTALA law was passed.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) is an act of the United States Congress, passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation ן9םAct (COBRA). It requires hospital Emergency Departments that accept payments fromMedicare to provide an appropriate medical screening eםוxamination (MSE) to individuals seeking treatment for a medical condition, regardless of [[Citizenship in the United States|citizenship]ש], legal status, or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. 
Participating hospitals may not transfer or discharge patients needing emergency treatment except with the informed consent or stabilization of the patient or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.
EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals." The statute defines "participating hospitals" as those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human ServicesCenters for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program.[2] "Because there are very few hospitals that do not accept Medicare, the law applies to nearly all hospitals."[3] The combined payments of Medicare and Medicaid, $602 billion in 2004,[4] or roughly 44% of all medical expenditures in the U.S., make not participating in EMTALA impractical for nearly all hospitals. EMTALA's provisions apply to all patients, not just to Medicare patients.[5][6]
The cost of emergency care required by EMTALA is not directly covered by the federal government. Because of this, the law has been criticized by some as an unfunded mandate.

As a Private Investigator after my law enforcement career, I found that immigrants (Invaders) were very skilled at fraud. They applied for almost every benefit program.
While Asians arrive and apply themselves to speaking our language and learning in our schools, the culture of Hispanics is to resist assimilation, learning English, or becoming Americans 


Trump's Stand on Illegal Immigration Enrages Republican Establishment
GrassTopsUSA Exclusive Commentary
By Don Feder
July 20, 2015

       This is not a brief for Donald Trump, whose attacks on his critics are becoming increasingly bizarre. 

       But the GOP establishment was furious with The Donald long before he mocked Sen. McCain's war record. The billionaire's sudden popularity shows just how much the conservative base despises the leadership of the Republican Party and how desperate they are for someone to shout the truth that illegal immigration is destroying America. 

       Not long after Trump made his murderers-and-rapists remark, the RINO Empire struck back. Karl Rove – who thinks Romney was brilliant in 2016 – says Trump has the ability to "tarnish the GOP brand." McCain charged that the entrepreneur of neckwear "fired up the crazies" at his Phoenix rally. Sen. Lindsay Graham called Trump "a wrecking ball" for the future of the GOP. McCain and Graham are half the Republicans of the amnesty-pushing Gang of Eight. 

       Jeb Bush, who once called illegal immigration "an act of love," decried Trump's "rhetoric of divisiveness." The governor doesn't understand that that's what wins elections: you divide those who share your agenda – assuming you actually have one – from those who don't. Barack Obama won the presidency twice by being constantly on the attack – by being divisive.  

       His stock started to soar when Trump said: "We have drug dealers coming across (our southern border), we have rapists. We have killers. We have murderers." Undeniably true, but not standard Republican rhetoric, which goes something like this: "Illegal immigration may in some way be related to our crime problem. But please don't take offense at this observation, which isn't intended to stigmatize those who come here illegally." 

       The connection between the hordes streaming across our borders and violent crime is so obvious that to deny it takes a strenuous act of will. They come from cultures far poorer and more violent than our own. So it stands to reason that we're getting what – CPAs, registered nurses and engineers? 

       •  Illegal aliens (or "undocumented workers" in amnesty-speak) constitute 25% of the federal prison population. 

       •  They account for 95% of all outstanding warrants for homicide in Los Angeles County and as many as two-thirds of fugitive felony warrants. 

       •  Every year, on average, 75,000 illegals are arrested for drug offenses. 

       •  According to the Center for Immigration Studies: "State and local sanctuary policies caused the release of more than 6,000 criminal alien offenders sought by ICE for deportation in 276 jurisdictions around the country over an eight-month period." One was the man arrested for the murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco on July 1. 

       •  In her new book, "Adios, America: The Left's Plan To Turn Our Country Into A Third World Hellhole" (Don't you wish she'd tell us what she really thinks?), Ann Coulter writes: "In June 2014, immigration officials in California decided to round up what sounds like an extremely narrow category of immigration violators: previously deported illegal aliens who had been convicted in the United States of sex crimes and were living in the Los Angeles area. Within three days, they had arrested 31 people who fit that description." 

       "That same month, Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted raids in six states not known for having large illegal alien populations –Kansas, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Kentucky and Missouri. They netted 297 illegal immigrants, nearly 80% of whom had been convicted of crimes in the United States, including aggravated battery of a child, sexual assault of a minor, solicitation of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, battery and domestic abuse." 

       Speaker of the House John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell could have fought Obama's unconstitutional amnesty-by-executive order. They could have refused to fund Homeland Security until the president stops ruling by imperial decree. (What's the sense of having DHS when the gates are wide open to criminals and terrorists?) Instead they shook their heads sadly and allowed POTUS to continue dismantling America. 

       Now, Obama has decided to bypass Congress completely and take his genocidal Iran treaty to the United Nations, as if the Constitution gave the UN the power to ratify treaties entered into by the United States. What will the cool, calm, deliberative men of the Republican leadership do about it? 

       Instead of passing a bill giving themselves a power they already have (but which can only be exercised with a super-majority), which Obama will ignore anyway, they could have used the power of the purse. They could have used impeachment. They could have used their bully pulpits to expose a presidential dictatorship dressed up in bureaucratic jargon ("prosecutorial discretion," "executive action"). Instead, we'll get measured, nuanced rhetoric while the world spins ever closer to a nuclear Iran intent on annihilating the "infidels," which we will help to fund. 

       Like the Democrats, RINOS have a stake in maintaining the status quo. For Democrats, illegal aliens are voters. For establishment Republicans, they're cheap labor for their deep-pocket donors. 

       Ted Cruz's autobiography, "A Time for Truth: Reigniting the Promise of America," shows how cowardly and corrupt the GOP leadership is. 

       In the introduction, the Texas Senator describes how he was vilified by his own party for opposing the 2014 increase in the debt ceiling without accompanying fiscal constraints. Cruz noted that, by that point, Obama had increased the national debt from around $10 trillion to around $18 trillion. Why should Republicans in Congress just roll over, he asked? Because they're more afraid of the president and the liberal media than their own base. 

       The Senate Republican Conference wanted to give the president the "clean bill" he demanded – raising the debt ceiling without any concessions from the administration. There were only two holdouts, Cruz and Utah Senator Mike Lee. Even though he knew it would fail, as a matter of principle and to put the American people on notice, Cruz filibustered the measure, whereupon he became the focus of Republican rage which should have been directed at Obama. 

       "Unnamed Republican sources" told Capitol Hill publications that Cruz was a "fraud," "a hypocrite," "a wacko bird," who came to Washing to "throw bombs," grab headlines and "fundraise" – all for the unpardonable sin of actually believing what he said on the campaign trail and acting on it once in office. 

       Wall Street Republicans like Rove think it really doesn't matter what they do – or don't do – in office. They believe they can maintain their power every two years by warning conservatives that the end of the world is at hand – that if the Democrats win they'll grab their guns, levy confiscatory taxes and legalize trans-species dating. True, but Republicans will do nothing to stop them. 

       They've been running this scam for years. That it hasn't worked in four of the last six presidential elections has yet to sink in. 

       The conservative base is in open revolt. There are honorable Republicans in Washington to be sure. But for conservatives, viewing the Congressional leadership of both parties increasingly looks like the scene at the end of Orwell's "Animal Farm" – "The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which" – other than the rhetoric. 

 Don Feder is a former Boston Herald writer who is now a political/communications consultant.
8230 Catbird Circle 302
Lorton VA 22079
888-239-9306 FAX