The War on the American Border

The Left controls our universities. 
The Left controls our mainstream media.
Don't let the Left control the internet too.

PragerU is leading the fight against the censorship of conservative voices online.  

It's been one year now since PragerU filed a lawsuit against the tech giants Google and YouTube for censoring so many of our videos. YouTube continues to restrict access to more and more of our videos simply because they present a conservative point of view. There are currently over 80 PragerU videos that are restricted - more than double the amount since we filed our lawsuit against Google.

It's clear that Google is not backing down. But don't worry, neither are we.

We are prepared to take our lawsuit against Google as far, and as long, as we need to. In addition to our current Federal appeal in the Ninth Circuit, we are pursuing action against the tech giant in the California state court.

YouTube calls itself a "public forum." They built their ENTIRE business model on the claim that they are a "public forum: committed to fostering a community where everyone's voice can be heard." Yet, they defraud the public by censoring speech that they don't agree with. 

Free speech, especially online, is one of the most important rights of our era. And we intend to fight for it. 

We can't do this alone.  

Every day, PragerU is changing culture with online content that teaches the values that make America the freest and most prosperous nation on earth. Millions of Americans are watching our videos, and minds are changing. We cannot let that stop.

The Left knows how effective we are. That's why they want to censor us.

PragerU continues to fight online suppression of conservative ideas. Over the past year, we have led the charge in bringing public awareness to the issue of online censorship. Our case has been mentioned in nearly every article on the issue, and has been covered by several media giants, including the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and Buzzfeed. 

Over 500,000 Americans have signed our online petition urging Google to end its censorship of conservative ideas. Our goal is to reach 1 million signatures by the time we meet Google in court.

We need your support now more than ever.

As we continue this important fight - not just for PragerU, but for everyone who uses Google - we need to win in both the court of public opinion, and in the courtroom.
We recently launched a public awareness video to bring much-needed attention to the issue. The video has already hit over 10 million views, but that's not enough. With your help, millions more will see this critical video and learn about our case.

America’s Cold Civil War
 
Imprimis, October 2018 • Volume 47, Number 10 • Charles R. Kesler   
 
Charles R. Kesler
Editor, Claremont Review of Books

Charles R. Kesler is the Dengler-Dykema Distinguished Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College and editor of the Claremont Review of Books. He earned his bachelor’s degree in social studies and his A.M. and Ph.D. in government from Harvard University. A senior fellow at the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy and a recipient of the 2018 Bradley Prize, he is the editor of several books, including Keeping the Tablets: Modern American Conservative Thought (with William F. Buckley Jr.), and the author of I Am the Change: Barack Obama and the Future of Liberalism.

The following is adapted from a lecture delivered at Hillsdale College on September 27, 2018, during a two-week teaching residency as a Eugene C. Pulliam Distinguished Visiting Fellow in Journalism.

Six years ago I wrote a book about Barack Obama in which I predicted that modern American liberalism, under pressures both fiscal and philosophical, would either go out of business or be forced to radicalize. If it chose the latter, I predicted, it could radicalize along two lines: towards socialism or towards an increasingly post-modern form of leadership. Today it is doing both. As we saw in Bernie Sanders’ campaign, the youngest generation of liberals is embracing socialism openly—something that would have been unheard of during the Cold War. At the same time, identity politics is on the ascendant, with its quasi-Nietzschean faith in race, sex, and power as the keys to being and meaning. In the #MeToo movement, for example—as we saw recently in Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation battle—the credo is, “Believe the woman.” In other words, truth will emerge not from an adversarial process weighing evidence and testimony before the bar of reason, but from yielding to the will of the more politically correct. “Her truth” is stronger than any objective or disinterested truth.

In the Claremont Review of Books, we have described our current political scene as a cold civil war. A cold civil war is better than a hot civil war, but it is not a good situation for a country to be in. Underlying our cold civil war is the fact that America is torn increasingly between two rival constitutions, two cultures, two ways of life.

Political scientists sometimes distinguish between normal politics and regime politics. Normal politics takes place within a political and constitutional order and concerns means, not ends. In other words, the ends or principles are agreed upon; debate is simply over means. By contrast, regime politics is about who rules and for what ends or principles. It questions the nature of the political system itself. Who has rights? Who gets to vote? What do we honor or revere together as a people? I fear America may be leaving the world of normal politics and entering the dangerous world of regime politics—a politics in which our political loyalties diverge more and more, as they did in the 1850s, between two contrary visions of the country.

One vision is based on the original Constitution as amended. This is the Constitution grounded in the natural rights of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution written in 1787 and ratified in 1788. It has been transmitted to us with significant Amendments—some improvements and some not—but it is recognizable still as the original Constitution. To simplify matters we may call this “the conservative Constitution”—with the caveat that conservatives have never agreed perfectly on its meaning and that many non-conservatives remain loyal to it.

The other vision is based on what Progressives and liberals, for 100 years now, have called “the living Constitution.” This term implies that the original Constitution is dead—or at least on life support—and that in order to remain relevant to our national life, the original Constitution must be infused with new meaning and new ends and therefore with new duties, rights, and powers. To cite an important example, new administrative agencies must be created to circumvent the structural limitations that the original Constitution imposed on government.

As a doctrine, the living Constitution originated in America’s new departments of political and social science in the late nineteenth century—but it was soon at the very forefront of Progressive politics. One of the doctrine’s prime formulators, Woodrow Wilson, had contemplated as a young scholar a series of constitutional amendments to reform America’s national government into a kind of parliamentary system—a system able to facilitate faster political change. But he quickly realized that his plan to amend the Constitution was going nowhere. Plan B was the living Constitution. While keeping the outward forms of the old Constitution, the idea of a living Constitution would change utterly the spirit in which the Constitution was understood.

The resulting Constitution—let us call it “the liberal Constitution”—is not a constitution of natural rights or individual human rights, but of historical or evolutionary right. Wilson called the spirit of the old Constitution Newtonian, after Isaac Newton, and that of the new Constitution Darwinian, after Charles Darwin. By Darwinian, Wilson meant that instead of being difficult to amend, the liberal Constitution would be easily amenable to experimentation and adjustment. To paraphrase the late Walter Berns, the point of the old Constitution was to keep the times in tune with the Constitution; the purpose of the new is to keep the Constitution in tune with the times.

Until the 1960s, most liberals believed it was inevitable that their living Constitution would replace the conservative Constitution through a kind of slow-motion evolution. But during the sixties, the so-called New Left abandoned evolution for revolution, and partly in reaction to that, defenders of the old Constitution began not merely to fight back, but to call for a return to America’s first principles. By seeking to revolve back to the starting point, conservatives proved to be Newtonians after all—and also, in a way, revolutionaries, since the original meaning of revolution is to return to where you began, as a celestial body revolves in the heavens.

The conservative campaign against the inevitable victory of the living Constitution gained steam as a campaign against the gradual or sudden disappearance of limited government and of republican virtue in our political life. And when it became clear, by the late 1970s and 1980s, that the conservatives weren’t going away, the cold civil war was on.

***

Confronted by sharper, deeper, and more compelling accounts of the conservative Constitution, the liberals had to sharpen—that is, radicalize—their own alternative, following the paths paved by the New Left. As a result, the gap between the liberal and conservative Constitutions became a gulf, to the extent that today we are two countries—or we are fast on the road to becoming two countries—each constituted differently.

Consider a few of the contrasts. The prevailing liberal doctrine of rights traces individual rights to membership in various groups—racial, ethnic, gender, class-based, etc.—which are undergoing a continual process of consciousness-raising and empowerment. This was already a prominent feature of Progressivism well over a century ago, though the groups have changed since then. Before Woodrow Wilson became a politician, he wrote a political science textbook, and the book opened by asking which races should be studied. Wilson answered: we’ll study the Aryan race, because the Aryan race is the one that has mastered the world. The countries of Europe and the Anglophone countries are the conquerors and colonizers of the other continents. They are the countries with the most advanced armaments, arts, and sciences.

Wilson was perhaps not a racist in the full sense of the term, because he expected the less advanced races over time to catch up with the Aryan race. But his emphasis was on group identity—an emphasis that liberals today retain, the only difference being that the winning and losing sides have been scrambled. Today the white race and European civilization are the enemy—“dead white males” is a favored pejorative on American campuses—and the races and groups that were oppressed in the past are the ones that today need compensation, privileges, and power.

Conservatives, by contrast, regard the individual as the quintessential endangered minority. They trace individual rights to human nature, which lacks a race. Human nature also lacks ethnicity, gender, and class. Conservatives trace the idea of rights to the essence of an individual as a human being. We have rights because we’re human beings with souls, with reason, distinct from other animals and from God. We’re not beasts, but we’re not God—we’re the in-between being. Conservatives seek to vindicate human equality and liberty—the basis for majority rule in politics—against the liberal Constitution’s alternative, in which everything is increasingly based on group identity.

There is also today a vast divergence between the liberal and conservative understandings of the First Amendment. Liberals are interested in transforming free speech into what they call equal speech, ensuring that no one gets more than his fair share. They favor a redistribution of speech rights via limits on campaign contributions, repealing the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, and narrowing the First Amendment for the sake of redistribution of speech rights from the rich to the poor. Not surprisingly, the Democratic Party’s 2016 platform called for amending the First Amendment!

There is, of course, also a big difference between the liberal Constitution’s freedom from religion and the conservative Constitution’s freedom of religion. And needless to say, the liberal Constitution has no Second Amendment.

In terms of government structure, the liberal Constitution is designed to overcome the separation of powers and most other checks and balances. Liberals consistently support the increased ability to coordinate, concentrate, and enhance government power—as opposed to dividing, restricting, or checking it. This is to the detriment of popular control of government. In recent decades, government power has flowed mainly through the hands of unelected administrators and judges—to the point that elected members of Congress find themselves increasingly dispirited and unable to legislate. As the Financial Times put it recently, “Congress is a sausage factory that has forgotten how to make sausages.”

***

If one thinks about how America’s cold civil war could be resolved, there seem to be only five possibilities. One would be to change the political subject. Ronald Reagan used to say that when the little green men arrive from outer space, all of our political differences will be transcended and humanity will unite for the first time in human history. Similarly, if some jarring event intervenes—a major war or a huge natural calamity—it might reset our politics.

A second possibility, if we can’t change the subject, is that we could change our minds. Persuasion, or some combination of persuasion and moderation, might allow us to end or endure our great political division. Perhaps one party or side will persuade a significant majority of the electorate to embrace its Constitution, and thus win at the polling booth and in the legislature. For generations, Republicans have longed for a realigning election that would turn the GOP into America’s majority party. This remains possible, but seems unlikely. Only two presidents in the twentieth century were able to effect enduring changes in American public opinion and voting patterns—Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. FDR inspired a political realignment that lasted for a generation or so and lifted the Democratic Party to majority status. Ronald Reagan inspired a realignment of public policy, but wasn’t able to make the GOP the majority party.

Since 1968, the norm in America has been divided government: the people have more often preferred to split control of the national government between the Democrats and the Republicans rather than entrust it to one party. This had not previously been the pattern in American politics. Prior to 1968, Americans would almost always (the exceptions proved the rule) entrust the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Presidency to the same party in each election. They would occasionally change the party, but still they would vote for a party to run the government. Not so for the last 50 years. And neither President Obama nor President Trump, so far, has persuaded the American electorate to embrace his party as their national representative, worthy of long-term patriotic allegiance.

Trump, of course, is new to this, and his party in Congress is basically pre-Trumpian. He did not win the 2016 election by a very large margin, and he was not able to bring many new Republicans into the House or the Senate. Nonetheless, he has the opportunity now to put his mark on the party. In trying to do so, his populism—which is not a word he uses—will not be enough. He will have to reach out to the existing Republican Party as he has done, adopt some of its agenda, adopt its electoral supporters, and gradually bring them around to his “America first” conservatism if he is to have any chance of achieving a political realignment. And the odds remain against him at this point.

As for moderating our disagreements and learning to live with them more or less permanently, that too seems unlikely given their fundamental nature and the embittered trajectory of our politics over the last two decades.

So if we won’t change our minds, and if we can’t change the subject, we are left with only three other ways out of the cold civil war. The happiest of the three would be a vastly reinvigorated federalism. One of the original reasons for constitutional federalism was that the states had a variety of interests and views that clashed with one another and could not be pursued in common. If we had a re-flowering of federalism, some of the differences between blue states and red states could be handled discreetly by the states themselves. The most disruptive issues could be denationalized. The problem is, having abandoned so much of traditional federalism, it is hard to see how federalism could be revived at this late juncture.

That leaves two possibilities. One, alas, is secession, which is a danger to any federal system—something about which James Madison wrote at great length in The Federalist Papers. With any federal system, there is the possibility that some states will try to leave it. The Czech Republic and Slovakia have gone their separate ways peacefully, just within the last generation. But America is much better at expansion than contraction. And George Washington’s admonitions to preserve the Union, I think, still miraculously somehow linger in our ears. So secession would be extremely difficult for many reasons, not the least of which is that it could lead, as we Americans know from experience, to the fifth and worst possibility: hot civil war.

Under present circumstances, the American constitutional future seems to be approaching some kind of crisis—a crisis of the two Constitutions. Let us pray that we and our countrymen will find a way to reason together and to compromise, allowing us to avoid the worst of these dire scenarios—that we will find, that is, the better angels of our nature.

Grassley Defends Trump: Why Didn't Roberts Rebuke Obama Remark?

One Nation Is Putting Faith and Families First – With Incredible Results

Man and Wife Inspiration (PDF)

The Left’s Linguistic War

Making the Lame Duck Session Count

Trump: Mueller Team Has ‘Gone Absolutely Nuts’

Letter to Lebron James. James calls President Trump a "Bum" and thinks that Obama was the best.
 
His fans listen to him because he has a talent for basketball and buying big mansions.  The letter writer below, a sports journalist, tells the truth and that truth applies to most celebrities on the left.

A GREAT Letter to Lebron James from former Houston news reporter Hal Lundgren.  It’s a must read, and definitely should be distributed. Post it, send it.  Whatever.  People really need to know these things.

August 6, 2018   (Letter to…..)
Mr. Lebron James
The Los Angeles Lakers
2275 E. Mariposa Ave
El Segundo, CA 90245

Dear Mr. James,

No one in my circles discusses French Modernist artists.  That comforts me.  Such a conversation would expose me as an illiterate on French Modernism, just as I am an illiterate on how to cook.

When I know nothing of subjects, my mouth stays closed.  That's at least one difference in us.  You are an economics illiterate.  You prove it often.  The dishonest "reporters” who cover you want to be your buddy.  They won't embarrass you by being honest journalists and treating your words as economics illiteracy.

When you call Trump "a bum," none of them will tell you that statistics rank him as one of our best presidents for black Americans.   His tax cuts and freeing us from absurd regulations have resulted in -- after only 18 months -- the lowest unemployment numbers ever for Hispanic and black Americans, and one of the lowest numbers for women.

DURING THOSE 18 MONTHS, TRUMP'S POLICIES CREATED ABOUT FOUR TIMES OF THE MANUFACTURING JOBS CREATED DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S LAST 18 MONTHS.  Remember when Obama mistakenly told us "Our lost manufacturing jobs are not coming back.”  Maybe manufacturing job growth depends on a president who knows what he's doing.

As a professional journalist, I cringe at some of Trump’s buffoonery, like repeating sentences and wearing us out with "great," “fantastic” and other empty adjectives.  He is often coarse.  He was not my candidate.  But there’s no question his policies have helped many more minority Americans than Obama.  It's not even close.  Today, he’s working to free many black and Hispanic prisoners who, in his opinion, have been in prison too long for relatively minor offenses. Are you aware of that effort?

You need to look up Gross Domestic Product, adjusted for inflation, and learn what it means to everyday Americans.  Learn what one GDP point means to employment, and see how Trump has kept the number climbing.

Your buddy Obama?  In addition to being our worst foreign affairs president and worst military commander-in-chief, his economic numbers all deserved an "F."   He is our ONLY eight-year president who failed to give us at least one 3% or higher year of adjusted GDP growth.
 
EVERY other president achieved at least one year of 4.28% or higher growth.  Aided by Vietnam spending, Johnson had an 8.48 year.  The best peacetime year -- 7.83 -- belonged to Reagan and Obama couldn't even score a 3!!!   Look it up.

You say you would speak to Obama but not Trump?  How tragically uninformed you are.  Obama had BY FAR the worst debt accumulation record of all our presidents.  His economic blunders added about $9 trillion to our debt.  NO OTHER PRESIDENT EVEN CAME CLOSE.  That indebtedness will fall to you and your children.

Poor families suffered most.  Obama's awful job numbers forced a record number of people to take food stamps.  Black household income under Obama fell steeply as black unemployment rose. Look that up, too.

But the worst part of what Trump inherited is that Obama, like Bush and Clinton before him, thought bribes and sweet talk were the best ways to deal with North Korea.  As the North Koreans neared being able to wipe out Los Angeles with a nuclear-tipped missile, Trump became the first president to stand up boldly to the rogue nation.

Notice North Korea, because of Trump, has stopped launching missiles over Japan?  Notice North Korea has released political prisoners?  Notice North Korea has begun to return remains of U.S. Service members?  Absent sturdy spines, Clinton, Bush and Obama could not approach those major achievements.

Obama naively bribed the planet’s worst terrorist nation, Iran, with what was supposed to become a $150 billion handout.  Did Obama not know many of those U.S. Tax dollars would help fund Hamas and Hezbollah terrorism? Of course he did.  He just didn't care.

Remember the $800 billion of your and everyone else's tax dollars in his early stimulus for "shovel-ready jobs."  Most of those tax dollars went to political cronies.  He handed $500 million to Solyndra, a solar company run by boosters.  The company soon went bankrupt.   Our half-billion in tax money vanished with it.

Trump is often obnoxious, but people with courage can have that hang-up.  Obama always talked big, then feebly stood by when Putin infringed on Ukraine and annexed Crimea.

But Obama's most cowardly move came when he warned Assad not to cross "the red line" in Syria.  When Obama’s warning was ignored, which Assad knew would happen, Obama did nothing.   Does that make him a "bum?"

It makes me sad that you, as someone with a national voice would be so ignorant of economics, and also presidential decisions.  I encourage you to do more reading and thinking as you watch the nation's GDP numbers rise and minority employment rise.

* Read about "Right to Try," which frees terminally ill people to sign a lawsuit waiver and take an experimental drug that might not be approved for many years.  Democrats fought this sensible plan for years because it would cost them donations.

* Read about a Navy Obama left to Trump that struggled with about half its carrier aircraft unsafe to fly.

* Read about Trump's giving the VA the right to fire any employee who neglects or abuses a patient.

* Read about Trump's courage in challenging, actually demanding that, NATO partners to pay their fair share rather than keep mooching off the U.S.

You might also read the wisdom of two of the world’s brightest people, black intellectuals Dr. Thomas Sowell and Dr. Walter Williams.  They have written many books. Sowell and Williams’ integrity, remarkable insights and clarity of expression cause their common sense to soar off the page to readers.

Or, you could ignore vital Trump decisions and remain an illiterate on both presidential achievement and economics.  If you disdain knowledge and keep calling Trump or any other U.S. president a bum, people will begin to wonder, who's the real bum.

Sincerely,
Hal Lundgren

To democrats, liberals, socialists or whatever you want us to call you:

Please let us know what you want. Make believe you are in power for the next 100 years. What kind of world can we expect to live in? We really want to know what your plans are. What problems you are going to solve and how? Please provide a list of all the stuff you will do along with explanations of how life would be. Please also include a budget detailing how you plan to successfully implement your programs. Please be honest with us, and, more importantly, be honest with yourselves. Lay it out in plain English for all to read. We have but one request… actually, it’s a condition: If we don’t like your plan, we have the right to opt out. You are not permitted to coerce us. Coercion is not allowed.

So, please submit to us your plan ASAP. We would like to make our choice this year, so we can all get on with our lives.

Thank you,

The Rest of Us.

FROM THE DESK OF ANN COULTER

Fellow Conservative,

College campuses have gone absolutely insane.

A year ago, a student group asked me to speak about our nation’s immigration laws at the University of California at Berkeley, the so-called “birthplace of the free speech movement.”

As you may have heard, my speech was abruptly canceled because leftist thugs decided to riot and the administration wouldn’t stick up for free speech.

Unfortunately, I’m not the only one to suffer threats and intimidation on campus. Far from it.

As I point out in Resistance is Futile: How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind, ever since Donald Trump’s election, liberals have lost their minds. But there’s no padded room to keep them contained! Instead, these violent, masked lunatics have taken over college campuses, where young Americans are turned into automaton leftists just like themselves.

And it's time we fought back, which is why I want to send you a copy of my book today when you make a generous gift to support the work of the Leadership Institute to protect free speech on college campuses across America.

America’s universities are supposed to expand young minds through free speech, debate, and robust thought. Instead, they’re leftist indoctrination factories that punish dissenting speech and ban views that don’t align with the socialists, communists, and Marxists trying to hijack our country.

I fear for our future when colleges teach our nation’s youth to harass, harangue, and harm anyone who disagrees with them — or even anyone designated a Bad Thinker by people who can’t think at all. Instead of a battle of ideas, they’re being taught to do real battle — to riot in the streets with black masks and baseball bats. What harm did all those Starbucks windows ever do to them?

Young conservatives on college campuses across our nation are losing their right to free speech – and even the right to walk down the street without getting sucker punched – because of how intolerant the liberals have become.

But lest you think I’ve given up hope, faithful conservative, there’s a group I trust that fights back against this onslaught and exposes leftist bias, abuse, and indoctrination on college campuses for all the world to see: Campus Reform.

Campus Reform, a project of the Leadership Institute, is the single most powerful force for campus free speech in America today. By sticking up for conservative students and giving them the tools necessary to defend themselves and their principles, Campus Reform provides an absolutely essential public service.

Bottom line – Campus Reform uncovers the liberal schemes that the mainstream media wants to keep hidden . . . and they shut down the liberals’ indoctrination on campus after campus.

Campus Reform is run by Morton Blackwell’s Leadership Institute. LI is one of the nation’s most respected and powerful voices for conservative students and young people. They’ve organized and trained a national network of 2,083 active conservative student groups at colleges all over America.

I took one of the Leadership Institute’s courses myself when I was a student. It helped me become a better editor and expose the liberals tricks at my college, in addition to cheering me up by introducing me to other young patriots.

Like they did for me, LI trains these students to powerfully — and civilly! — articulate conservative principles. Their training equips young people with the tools to stand up for their principles when they find themselves censored, punished, or threatened by radical faculty or students.

You see, it’s not just media personalities like Ben Shapiro, James O’Keefe, and myself that the liberal mob tries to run off campuses.

Campus police at the College of DuPage in Illinois told conservative students they’d “lock them up” for handing out copies of the U.S. Constitution. Yes, that dangerous document that the created the greatest country ever known to man.

A teaching assistant at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln harassed the student president of a conservative group for recruiting students. With a gesture from her middle finger, she shrieked profanities at the conservative student and called her a “neo-fascist” and “Nazi.” Charming.

At Purdue University in Indiana, a staffer called conservatives “vile, racist idiots” and threatened to rape pro-life students. (And you wonder why liberals prefer violence to debate.)
In all three cases, LI’s Campus Reform exposed the truth. Armed with investigative reports from their student correspondents on campus, Campus Reform got word out to their nationwide audience of concerned conservatives. And they brought it to news outlets like Fox News, Newsmax, the Blaze, and numerous talk radio shows.

Ultimately, Campus Reform’s exposure of the truth got results. In these cases and many others, Campus Reform’s quick and powerful action forced universities to change their anti-conservative policies, discipline leftist student groups, and suspend or fire radical professors.

I believe an angel gets its wings every time a leftist professor is fired for their outrageous and unapologetic abuses against conservatives.

But Campus Reform’s fight to make the left see the light and feel the heat won’t be won overnight.

The Stalinist show-trial that liberals tried to hold against Judge Brett Kavanaugh reveals the disgusting depths the radical left will stoop to. And with the left gaining political strength in the midterm elections, the suppression of conservative free speech on campuses is only going to increase.
Friend, let’s make ‘em pay.

Thank you.

In liberty,

Ann Coulter

Table of Induced Abortions in NY (PDF)

A Charitable Foundation Folds !

Have you wondered why the Clinton Foundation folded so suddenly after Hillary was no longer in a position of influence? Perhaps this summary will provide some insight?

From their 2014 990 Tax Form; they list 486 employees (line 5)!
It took 486 people who are paid $34.8 million and $91.3 million in fees and expenses, to give away $5.1 MILLION.

The real heart of the Clintons can be seen here.  Staggering but not surprising.

These figures are from an official copy of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation for the tax year 2014.  The copy of the tax return is from the National Center for Charitable Statistics web site   http://nccs.urban.org/ . You can obtain the latest tax return on any charitable organization there.

The Clinton Foundation:   Number of Employees (line 5)  486
Total revenue (line 12):  $177,804,612.00
Total grants to charity (line 13): $5,160,385.00  (this is less than 3%)

Total expenses of  $91,281,145.00

Expenses include:
Salaries (line 15)  -  $34,838,106.00
Fund raising fees (line 16a)  -  $850,803.00

Other expenses (line 17)  -  $50,431,851.00    HUH??????

Travel  -  $8,000,000.00
Note : $20 Million in Travel & Meetings to decide who gets
the $5.160 Million in Charity?

Meetings  -  $12,000,000.00

Net assets/fund balances (line 22)  -  $332,471,349.00…

So it required 486 people, who were paid   $34.8 million, plus $91.3 million in fees and expenses, to give away $5.1 MILLION!!!

And they call this a CHARITY??????

(It is alleged that this is one of the greatest white-collar crimes ever committed. And just think--- one of the participants was a former president and one who wanted to be elected president of   the United States.

(If justice was truly served they would both be in prison).

Hamilton: The Man Who Invented America

The Party of Illegal Immigrants, Fake Votes, and Stolen Elections

President Trump Beats the Green Wave and the Liberal Media

LifeNews.Com

One-party rule in Washington is over: Democrats won the seats needed to take the House after capturing districts where President Trump is unpopular.

Trump drains more of the swamp. 
 
Good news is always sweet especially when even Snopes will verify same...
 
This type of activity is what brings a distaste for politicians no matter their stripe.
 
It's No Wonder Obama's Last Speech Went After Trump Obama's recent speeches are not to support his Democratic Party.
They are to slam Trump for taking away Obama's taxpayer-paid next 20 years vacation ! Trump cancels Vacations and
Refunds To the American Taxpayers This was verified on Snopes as being true.
 
TRUMP JUST ENDED OBAMA'S VACATION SCAM
 
Obama was going to stick us for $2.1 billion or so
 
Before Obama left office, he arranged with the State Department for a series of "official visits" to foreign countries spanning
the next 20 years.  Using discretionary funds from the Office of Presidential Visits and Vacations, Obama was planning to use
what would have been another $2.1 billion in free vacations for him and up to 24 members of his family plus staff and even a
dog sitter until the year 2036.
 
He would have, that is, until Donald Trump put a stop to it.  Trump, who is always looking for ways to save money, was presented
with a ledger that contained all of the Obama travel plans and expenses.  The ledger was found by one of the workers Trump
hired from outside the typical White House staff.  Trump immediately canceled the plans and recalled all Secret Service agents
scheduled to protect the Obama’s anywhere outside of the United States.
 
The Obamas are also facing another new challenge at the hands of Trump.  They're going to have to repay the government for
all of those vacations that weren't official state business. The bill, after some small allowances, for days that were possibly work
related, is for $214 million.  Of the 692 days the Obamas spent on vacation, almost none included any work at all.  They ate,
slept and golfed and Michelle was given shopping allowances from the Office of Discretionary Gifting Funds, which is supposed
to be used to buy presents for visiting dignitaries.

THE CARAVAN OF CRAP

Where do they crap?
The Hondurans in the caravan, the 7,000 people walking north to America, where do they go to the bathroom?
And eat and sleep and store their clothes?
And how is it that after a week on the road they are clean and their hair and clothes are well kept?
How is any of this possible?
And why do these people, supposedly fleeing intolerable conditions in their homeland, carry little flags from their homeland and break into its national anthem when the TV cameras show up?

And speaking of which, for oppressed people, they all seem to be pretty well fed, well groomed and well dressed. Their hair is neat and newly cut, their clothes are clean and in good repair, and they are built like people who have had ample nutrition all their lives, being well developed and, many of them, overweight.
And none of them look dirty or unkempt, like they had been sleeping on the ground for the last week.
There’s just nothing in any of this that makes sense.
Supposedly, these several thousand people spontaneously decided to leave Honduras, walking north in a group, hoping to trek the length of gang-plagued Mexico and present themselves as refugees and prospective Democrats at the American border.
Which, again, makes no sense whatsoever.

And leaves a lot of big questions unanswered, and ignored by the press. Such as, who organized this? Who is paying for it? How have they covered 500 miles in a week?
Seriously. Any number of American “reporters” have walked beside a sympathetic walker and talked about how this particular woman and her children had trekked half a thousand miles over the last week or so.
That’s 71 miles a day.
The best soldiers through history have been able to march 25 miles a day.
How have 7,000 people been fed and watered? And how have they gone to the bathroom? If the average person across the world produces about a pound of solid waste a day, that means that these folks are somehow disposing of more than three tons of feces each day.
That’s a heck of a lot of crap, even for a Central American roadway.
Provisioning such an army of people – the equivalent of 10 combat battalions in most of the world’s militaries – is a large task. Transporting and distributing the food and water necessary to keep those people moving is a massive chore which the press says nothing about.
The entire enterprise, as a spontaneous ad hoc event, is implausible.
As an orchestrated international attempt to influence an American election, it starts to make sense.

And ought to alarm us.
Unless it’s only Russians we don’t want screwing with our democracy.
Unfortunately, none of this has made the evening news. It’s almost as if the press, in whatever scheme is afoot, gladly accepts its role as propagandists to the American people.
Every story is sympathetic, as if an attempt to enlist viewers and readers in this caravan and the politics it symbolizes.
And so the story is not about an orchestrated attempt to manipulate electoral opinion and violate the borders and laws of the United States, it is about compassion and Trump and xenophobia and racism. It is the October surprise, it is the Blue Wave.

And it is all nonsense.
Because all of these people, if legitimate, have the ability to apply for American asylum in their own country – as do the residents of most nations of the world. We have consulates and embassies for a reason, and this is one of those reasons.
We also have laws and an oath of office for a reason.
Laws, so that “we the people” through our elected representatives clearly and systematically govern our society. Law is the means by which the people express and exercise their sovereignty. Disobedience to law is disobedience to the will of the people, it is the subverting of their sovereignty and franchise.
Breaking the law is denying you the vote. Your vote elects representatives – lets you pick the country’s direction – and the representatives write the law. If that law is ignored, your representation becomes meaningless.
You get screwed.
And the oath of office?
Members of Congress – even Democrats – swear an oath to “bear true faith and allegiance” to the Constitution, which establishes our system of laws and specifically charges the Congress with making the rules of naturalization and immigration.

Who comes across the border and under what conditions they can stay is a constitutional responsibility of the Congress. That is to be determined by a congressional vote, not by a Honduran mob.
Failure to insist on that – even for Democrats – is a violation of your congressman’s oath of office.
So there is not a Democrat or Republican response to this travelling army of invaders – there is only an American response.

And that is: Turn around and go home.
Because the law of the United States does not allow a mass entry like this. The law does not declare the borders open.
If Democrats and progressives don’t like that, they can try to change the law. If America’s progressives want open borders and believe all the world’s people have a right to live in the United States – as they say they do – then they should adjust immigration law accordingly.
But until then, if they are to keep their oaths of office, they must stand for the law and the border.
And they must tell their surrogates to turn around and go home.
Because this caravan is nothing more than a bunch of political shit.

- by Bob Lonsberry © 2018