(courtesy of Dave the
I loathe Chase Bank. Actually, I loathe ALL BANKS! Remember Christensen’s Law – Banks are NOT in business to serve you. They are in business to make money. (See also the insurance company corollary).
I am SO HAPPY I am not a Chase Bank customer. Examples:
Poor customer service, rudeness, failure to accommodate a disabled person, I could to on…
They suggested my roomie add me to her account. That might solve some of the issues, but in no way do I wish to be affiliated with this particular banking institution!
NOW, as to my Credit Union! I almost closed my account there, after over twenty years, because they proudly announced a few years back they would gladly accept illegal aliens as customers! (Yeah, nothing like furthering criminal activity and money laundering for a profit!) GRRR!
(from Free North Carolina, in part)
Trump isn’t up against “sore losers.” He’s facing an army of saboteurs bent on destroying the elected government.Via Billy
As I predicted in my best-selling book about President Trump’s plan to save America, the Democrats and their media accomplices have declared all-out war on the Trump White House. Under the guise of “resistance” – as though the Trump was the head of an occupying army rather than an elected president – they have set out to destroy his administration. They are not “sore losers,” as many had surmised when their hysterical attacks on Trump as an American Hitler began, they are an army of saboteurs bent on destroying the government the voters preferred. Their general, Barack Obama, is an unrepentant radical who abused the office of the presidency when he was in power, and as ex-president is now leading a war to overthrow his successor.More @ Front Page
“State Representative Jessica Farrar, a Houston Democrat, filed House Bill 4260 Friday, which would fine men $100 for masturbating.”
The story and the screwed up mindset behind this thinking HERE.
“No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.” – Mark Twain
(from Brock Townsend)
According to ABC, all applications to the FISA Court were signed off on by the Attorney General and therefore if any applications were processed in the past year, they were signed off on by Loretta Lynch. This means that Lynch signed off on any requests for wire tapping President Donald Trump during the Presidential race. This is disheartening knowing that she released a video over the weekend calling for the need for more marching, blood and death on the streets. This also means that she chose not to investigate the Clinton Foundation for illegal activities but rather signed an application to wire tap President Trump.
Finally, another very disturbing fact about the wire tapping request of President Trump is that the FISA Court turned down President Obama’s Administration’s first request to wire tap President Trump that was evidently signed off on by Attorney General Lynch. With only two applications denied out of 10,700 from 2009 through 2015, the fact that the Obama Administration’s application was denied by the FISA Court is very disturbing. The odds of this happening were 0.02%.
The Obama Presidency is now arguably the most corrupt in US history.More @ The Gateway Pundit
Now, I’m not advocating unclean, inhumane conditions or torture, or even some current facilities in the U.S. (Angola?), but prison should be something more than denial of freedom – although most penologists would probably say their main function is not rehabilitation (given the recidivism rate) but simply to separate those convicted from potential victims, for a while.
What do you guys think?
An Obama has joined the birther movement.
Malik Obama, Barack Obama’s half-brother, tweeted image of what appears to be Barack’s birth certificate.
Except it’s not from Hawaii, but rather Kenya.
From the Day Late Dollar Short, or the What Took You So Long Department!
Seriously – How many birth certificates ARE THERE? And how did he get a Connecticut Social Security number? And why are his school records sealed?
And, why would one’s half brother do such a thing? Now?
Inquiring minds want to know!
(Just because sometimes, I like adding fuel to the fire! – Guffaw)
(from Free North Carolina)
- In 1990, the “Gayssot law” was passed, stipulating that “any discrimination based on ethnicity, nation, race or religion is prohibited”. Since then, it has been used to criminalize any criticism of Arab and African delinquency, any question on immigration from the Muslim world, any negative analysis of Islam. Many writers have been fined and most “politically incorrect” books on those topics have disappeared from bookshops.
- The French government asked the media to obey the “Gayssot law.” It also asked that history textbooks be rewritten to include chapters on the crimes committed by the West against Muslims, and on the “essential contribution” of Islam to humanity. All history textbooks are “Islamically correct.”
- In hospitals, Muslims are increasingly asking to be treated only by Muslim doctors, and refusing to let their wives be treated by male doctors.
February 2, 2017: A “no-go zone” in the eastern suburbs of Paris. Police on patrol hear screams. They decide to check. While there, a young man insults them. They decide to arrest him. He hits them. A fight starts. He accuses a policeman of having raped him with a police baton. A police investigation quickly establishes that the young man was not raped. But it is too late; a toxic process has begun.More @ Gatestone Institute
(from Conservative Tribune in part)
President Donald Trump followed through on a campaign promise and within the first few days of being in office issued an executive order threatening to cut off federal funding to cities that didn’t revoke their “sanctuary city” stance.
While some cities have followed Trump’s order, many major cites, like New York City, have become defiant, vowing to never give up their “sanctuary city” status and refusing to cooperate with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents seeking to deport criminal illegals.
Now, a union that represents the Big Apple’s beleaguered cops is firing back.
In a radio interview this week, Ed Mullins, president of the Sergeants Benevolent Association in New York City, blasted Mayor Bill de Blasio and Police Commissioner James O’Neill for being unwilling to work with the federal authorities, The New York Daily News reported.
“Make no mistake about it, the members of law enforcement in the NYPD want to cooperate with ICE. I speak to cops every day — they want to cooperate with ICE, they want to work with fellow law enforcement agents,” Mullins said Sunday on 970-AM’s “The Cats Roundtable,” with host John Catsimatidis.
“There is a moral obligation, and as the chief law enforcement officer of the city, you yourself have to be able to follow the direction of law. We don’t get to participate in the laws that we want,” Mullins said. “That’s total lunacy.”
Newsday reported that Mullins claimed that de Blasio was playing politics because it is an election year, and de Blasio thinks taking the pro-illegal side will help him win.
De Blasio, one of a number of leftist mayors who support (among other ridiculous things) sanctuary cities, finally has bit off more than he can chew.
Hopefully, the legal electorate is listening.
And enough of the illegal electorate will stay away from the polls!
(From Judicial Watch)
Weeks after the House Minority leader blasted President Donald Trump for pledging to investigate voter fraud, a federal appellate court has ruled that a Peruvian immigrant can be deported from the U.S. for illegally voting in a federal election. The decision comes on the heels of a spat between Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and the president. The California Democrat accused Trump of making false claims of election fraud and said that undermining the integrity of our voting system is “really strange.” Most Democrats in Congress agree with the former House Speaker and strongly oppose an investigation, asserting it will limit access to voting.
Not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority of the mainstream media coverage promotes the Democrats’ inaccurate version of the facts. One news network referred to Trump’s voter fraud claims as “baseless” and simply an excuse to enact restrictive voting laws. Another wrote that “Trump’s ‘iIlegals voting’ comments are false and divisive,” calling voter fraud by undocumented immigrants “patently false.” In an editorial titled “The Latest Voter Fraud Lie,” a mainstream newspaper writes that the “baseless claims continue to get converted into policy in the form of stricter voting laws like requiring prospective voters to show a photo ID…” A multitude of similar media reports have flooded the news wires in the week’s following Trump’s meeting with congressional leaders to address the issue.
This week’s appellate court ruling provides a jolt of reality that the media has chosen to ignore. Election fraud was a significant concern in 2008 and 2010, which is why Judicial Watch launched an election integrity project in 2012. The project is a legal campaign to force cleanup of voter registration rolls as well as monitor elections. As an example of the pervasive fraud, Judicial Watch uncovered that 1,046 aliens, or residents who are not U.S. citizens, were on the voter rolls in eight Virginia counites leading up to the 2016 presidential election. If that rate of non-citizen registration held in the rest of Virginia’s counties, that would mean that about 6,500 non-citizens are registered to vote in the state. Additionally, Judicial Watch’s investigation found that 57,923 Virginians were registered to vote in at least one other state as well as 19 deceased individuals. Similar issues have been uncovered in several other states as part of Judicial Watch’s ongoing probe into election fraud.
The Latin American woman in the recent court ruling who voted illegally is hardly an isolated case. Her name is Margarita Del Pilar Fitzpatrick and she lied about being an American citizen on an Illinois Department of Motor Vehicle form. It was that easy. Fitzpatrick, a legal U.S. resident with three kids, voted in two federal elections in 2006 and claims that she had official approval to cast a ballot after presenting her Peruvian passport and green card. An immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals, the government’s highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws, determined that Fitzpatrick should be deported because non-U.S. citizens cannot vote in federal elections and can be removed from the country for doing so.
The Peruvian woman did not back down, appealing the decisions in federal court. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the two previous rulings in favor of deportation, though it acknowledged that Fitzpatrick “led a productive and otherwise-unblemished life in this country.” In its decision, the court states that the motor vehicle form sternly warns aliens not to check the U.S. citizen box and that Fitzpatrick is “literate in English and has no excuse for making that misrepresentation.” Aliens are forbidden to vote in federal elections, the ruling says, adding that “another statute provides for the removal of aliens who vote in violation of either state or federal law.” During oral argument, the appellate judges inquired whether Fitzpatrick is the kind of person the Attorney General and Department of Homeland Security want removed from the United States. “The answer was yes,” the ruling states.
Guess not all Circuit Courts of Appeal are created equal?
Of course, there will be whining from certain groups about ‘breaking up the family’, etc.
Don’t do the crime, if you can’t do the time. Elsewhere.
I was recently asked (by a liberal friend) my thoughts on the Sanctuary Cities controversy.
To be honest, I’d not given it much thought.
Initially, my gut response was (as I suspect it is with most conservatives in the Republic) they (the cities and States creating Sanctuary Zones) are in violation of federal law.
But then the libertarian part of my brain became engaged. Have these cities and States (or even those therein who are seeking Sanctuary) received due process for their actions? Or is it just the power of the federal government that is forcing these political entities to bow to their will? And, of course those individuals, too.
I remembered, the Republic antebellum, when the States held much more power. But Lincoln killed that concept.
And the federal government has continued to grow ever since! Have you ever seen a warrant, signed by a judge, used for the searches at the airport? Or DUI checkpoints? Or when ‘they’ spy on your computer?
If the illegal aliens avoiding the feds are in these places, they need due process to be extracted and deported. If they are more than illegal aliens (like criminals) they too need due process.
That pesky Constitution so says.
As a conservative, I say go get ’em. As a libertarian, I say wait for proper paperwork. Just withholding gov’t funds to cities and States may be a great tactic (as ‘they’ ubiquitously do with highway funds!) but blackmail is not proper paperwork.
I am a conservative libertarian.
I am all about legal aliens to be here legally, get their ‘green’ cards, and move toward proper citizenship, if they desire.
Illegal aliens? Should be deported. Except is the most special circumstances.
But the paperwork needs to be in order, first.
Not just federal force.