Visit Counter

Saturday, June 25, 2016

Why Britain Left




The Brits had enough and voted to take their country back. Let the rest of the EU deal with this:



















There's a lesson to be learned here. If there were millions of Muslims here like in the EU what you see above would be happening in America. Sometimes I wonder if the whole Assad/Syria debacle is an elaborate ruse to export Islam to all corners of the globe.

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




The force that turned Britain away from the European Union was the greatest mass migration since perhaps the Anglo-Saxon invasion. 630,000 foreign nationals settled in Britain in the single year 2015. Britain’s population has grown from 57 million in 1990 to 65 million in 2015, despite a native birth rate that’s now below replacement. On Britain’s present course, the population would top 70 million within another decade, half of that growth immigration-driven.



British population growth is not generally perceived to benefit British-born people. Migration stresses schools, hospitals, and above all, housing. The median house price in London already amounts to 12 times the median local salary. Rich migrants outbid British buyers for the best properties; poor migrants are willing to crowd more densely into a dwelling than British-born people are accustomed to tolerating.


And remember these "migrants" don't assimilate. They are a faction onto themselves in British society. Their ultimate goal is not to acclimatize but to colonize. 

This migration has been driven both by British membership in the European Union and by Britain’s own policy: The flow of immigration to the U.K. is almost exactly evenly divided between EU and non-EU immigration. And more is to come, from both sources: Much of the huge surge of Middle Eastern and North African migrants to continental Europe since 2013 seems certain to arrive in Britain; as Prime Minister David Cameron likes to point out, Britain has created more jobs since 2010 than all the rest of the EU combined.

(But at what cost?)

The June 23 vote represents a huge popular rebellion against a future in which British people feel increasingly crowded within—and even crowded out of—their own country: More than 200,000 British-born people leave the U.K. every year for brighter futures abroad, in Australia above all, the United States in second place.

Is this what we want for America?





Share/Bookmark

Friday, June 24, 2016

Britain votes to leave EU



Britain finally said... fuck this we're going to regain our nationalism.

Congratulations for coming to your senses!

The European Union has been engulfed by a series of challenges in recent years, including uncontrolled migration invasion from the Middle East and Africa. Britain...you know you got a problem when the most popular newborn male baby's name is Mohammed!




And of course there's this:


Besides the obvious... how long before Greece faces another financial collapse?
They drink Ouzo while the EU pays. Kind of like the US welfare system.







Share/Bookmark

Behind the scenes at Chappaqua:




video
Video 252


Share/Bookmark

Supreme Court blocks Obama amnesty plan





Watch Barry Make the Case Against Executive Amnesty

The good news...


video
Video 251


and the bad.

 If Scalia was still around this would have wound up 5-4 against putting it to bed. The fact it is 4-4 is crucial. 


A vote for Killary is a vote for Amnesty.

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








The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked President Obama’s immigration executive actions, in a tie decision that delivers a win to states challenging his plan to give a deportation reprieve to millions of illegal immigrants. 

The justices' one-sentence opinion on Thursday marks a major setback for the administration, effectively killing the plan for the duration of Obama's presidency. 

The judgment could have significant political and legal consequences in a presidential election year highlighted by competing rhetoric over immigration. As the ruling was announced, pro-immigration activists filled the sidewalk in front of the court, some crying as the ruling became public. Critics of the policy touted the decision as a strong statement against "executive abuses." 

"The Constitution is clear: The president is not permitted to write laws—only Congress is. This is another major victory in our fight to restore the separation of powers," House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement, adding that the ruling rendered Obama's actions "null and void." 

Obama, though, said the decision “takes us further from the country that we aspire to be.”

He stressed that earlier changes his administration made to immigration policy are not affected, but acknowledged his most recent 2014 changes cannot go forward and additional executive actions are unlikely. 

While Obama accepted the ruling, he also made his own full-court press, saying the split decision underscores the importance of the current court vacancy and the appointment of a successor to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, to "break this tie." So far, Senate Republicans have not considered Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland. 

"The court's inability to reach a decision in this case is a very clear reminder of why it's so important for the Supreme Court to have a full bench," he said Thursday at the White House. 

The 4-4 tie vote sets no national precedent but leaves in place the ruling by the lower court. In this case, the federal appeals court in New Orleans said the Obama administration lacked the authority to shield up to 4 million immigrants from deportation and make them eligible for work permits without approval from Congress.

Texas led 26 Republican-dominated states in challenging the program Obama announced in November 2014. Congressional Republicans also backed the states' lawsuit. 

The decision lands in the middle of a heated election season in which immigration is a central issue. Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, won the primaries while railing against Obama administration immigration policies as dangerous. 

Democrats have, in turn, called his rhetoric racially divisive while defending the administration's move to expand existing programs that would effectively give temporary legal status to some undocumented residents. 

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton countered Ryan's statement saying the decision was "purely procedural" and leaves "no doubt" the programs were within the president's authority. Referencing the 4-4 split on the court, she again urged the Senate to give Obama's nominee to fill the remaining court vacancy a vote. 

"Today’s deadlocked decision from the Supreme Court is unacceptable, and show us all just how high the stakes are in this election," Clinton said in a statement. 

The immigration case dealt with two separate Obama programs. One would allow undocumented immigrants who are parents of either U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents to live and work in the U.S. without the threat of deportation. The other would expand an existing program to protect from deportation a larger population of immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children. 

Obama decided to move forward after Republicans won control of the Senate in the 2014 midterm elections, and the chances for an immigration overhaul, already remote, were further diminished.

The Senate had passed a broad immigration bill with Democratic and Republican support in 2013, but the measure went nowhere in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives.

The states quickly went to court to block the Obama initiatives.

Their lawsuit was heard initially by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, Texas. Hanen previously had criticized the administration for lax immigration enforcement. Hanen sided with the states, blocking the programs from taking effect. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled for the states, and the Justice Department rushed an appeal to the high court so that it could be heard this term. 

Texas officials hailed the decision Thursday. 

“The action taken by the President was an unauthorized abuse of presidential power that trampled the Constitution, and the Supreme Court rightly denied the President the ability to grant amnesty contrary to immigration laws," Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said in a statement. "Today's ruling is also a victory for all law-abiding Americans—including the millions of immigrants who came to America following the rule of law."






Share/Bookmark

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Man Who Set Up Hillary's Private Server Pleads the Fifth More Than 125 Times!!!









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







Yesterday former Clinton IT employee Brian Pagliano, who set up Hillary Clinton's private, unsecured server inside her home in Chappaqua, New York, was deposed by Senior Judicial Watch attorney Ramona Cotca. As we now know, Clinton stored at least 2000 pieces of classified information on that server. 

During the deposition, Pagliano didn't answer a single question and invoked the Fifth Amendment more than 125 times. Judicial Watch has been doing it's own investigation of server and has filed a number of lawsuits surrounding the issue. 

"We were prepared he would be invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege however not to quite to every single question that we asked," Cotca told Fox News Thursday. "He either invoked the Fifth Amendment or his attorney instructed him not to answer because the questions he deemed out of scope. We obviously disagree with that. I don't believe all of the questions dealt with or gave rise to fear of prosecution however that is what happened. Either the privilege was invoked or he refused to answer questions based on what his attorney advised." 

Cotca continued by saying Judicial Watch is looking for the truth about the server, specifically why it was set up in the first place. Further, they are looking into how the State Department played a role in allowing Clinton to maintain the server after seeing emails sent back and forth to officials regarding government business. 

Naturally, the RNC is all over Pagliano's non-compliance. 

“The fact Hillary Clinton’s former IT staffer pleaded the Fifth an astounding 125 times is another reminder of how much she has to hide and how serious the FBI’s criminal investigation really is. It’s important to remember that this wasn’t just any staffer; this was a longtime aide who obtained an unusual political appointment and was paid on the side for the sole purpose of maintaining Clinton’s illicit off-the-books server," RNC Chairman Reince Priebus released in a statement. “This unprecedented arrangement was an obvious attempt to skirt government transparency laws in order to conceal her shady dealings as Secretary of State, and it ultimately led to the exposure of classified information on more than 2,000 occasions and put our national security at risk. Clinton’s extraordinarily reckless conduct and dishonest attempts to avoid accountability do not fit the profile of someone worthy of the highest office in the land. Clinton’s actions in this case alone are disqualifying and her aide’s stonewalling today is just a prelude to the kind of White House she would run.” 

Judicial Watch will be questioning top Clinton aide Huma Abedin and State Department Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy next week. According to attorneys, neither are expected to plead the Fifth.







Share/Bookmark