I thought this was kind of interesting.
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
Sunday, 13 Nov 2016 11:10 AM
President-elect Donald Trump is vowing to begin immediately deporting criminal illegal aliens as one of his first acts of office.
“What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, where a lot of these people, probably two million, it could be even three million, we are getting them out of our country or we are going to incarcerate,” Trump told CBS' "60 Minutes" in an interview to air Sunday evening.
He said he will begin making a "determination" about what to do with the remaining undocumented immigrants in the U.S. after the border is "secure."
“After the border is secure and after everything gets normalized, we’re going to make a determination on the people that they’re talking about who are terrific people, they’re terrific people but we are gonna make a determination at that,” he said. “But before we make that determination...it’s very important, we are going to secure our border.”
Trump has seemed to back down on his promise to create a "deportation force." On Sunday, House Speaker Paul Ryan also played down that plan.
Yep, just like I figured. He's backing down on some of his promises. Typical politician.
However, when it comes to deportations you can't deport every illegal at the same time. The most sensible thing to do is start with the criminal illegals first. First the violent ones, then the non-violent ones. Finally deport the regular illegals.
This is how I think it should be done.
First, begin preparations for the wall so we can secure our borders.
Then the deportations as I previously described.
Next we eliminate the magnets. We start by defunding sanctuary cities, then deny all services - including education to illegals. If they need medical assistance they can come forward and get it. Once they have been treated, they get deported.
During all of this we need to eliminate birthright citizenship. Unfortunately, that cannot be made retroactive. Any children of illegals born in this country are citizens and that cannot be revoked.
In the case of citizen children with illegal parents, we give them a choice: Either the kids stay here with a relative, friend, or in the foster system and the parents are deported, or the children can be deported with their parents and return on their own when they are 18.
We also institute E-Verify for all jobs both government and civilian to make getting jobs more difficult.
It's a lot of work and can't be done overnight, but as the Chinese say: A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. And if any of them are here illegally we'll deport them as well.
Monday, November 28, 2016
My God, that's a lot of people! The Poles seem to understand patriotism better than Americans. If we could motivate one tenth of this many in America, we would become a force to be reckoned with.
I guess it would be too tough right now. After all, we're right in the middle of football season. We might have a chance after the Stupid Bowl in February. I call it that because anyone who would pay hundreds - even thousands for a single ticket is an idiot.
Sunday, November 27, 2016
I laughed my ass off. Evidently these air-head college students have no idea that Women's Sufferage has to do with voting rights. They seem to think it has to do with sexism - and of course they want to stop sexism, but what they are unwittingly agreeing to is signing a petition to take away voting rights from women. Bunch of dumb asses. BTW, the guy in the video isn't serious. He's just showing what a bunch of dopes our college kids really are. Actually they're Canadian, but hey, close enough.
Saturday, November 26, 2016
I seriously thought about going to my neighbourhood Wal-Mart to see if I could make my own videos of this shameful display, but two things prevented me.
First, watching videos of this is sickening enough. I don't know if I could stomach it in person. Secondly, I have rotten luck. If I went myself, it would be my typical bad timing that there wouldn't be a single fight or riot while I was there, so I figured I would leave it to Jew Tube. They always have something you can use.
The real culprits behind this are the greedy Judeo-Capitalists who set all this up. While basically normal people are trampling each other to get the best bargains, you can bet the fat cats are either at home or in their plush offices laughing at all of the chaos they have caused. They are the ones who should be taken out and shot. They profit off of the instinctive greed and limited intelligence of the general public.
If any of you who call yourselves National Socialists participated in this disgraceful practice in any way, then you are doubly guilty. Black Friday goes against every principle of National Socialism. No excuses, no exceptions. Shame on you - and I mean it. You are hypocrites.
Friday, November 25, 2016
By Sandy Fitzgerald | Saturday, 12 Nov 2016 10:01 AM
New York Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. has admitted his paper underestimated Donald Trump's support among American voters.
Sulzberger promises to "rededicate ourselves" to the newspaper's standards of reporting news "honestly," but had the "Gray Lady" been fair to start with, it would not need to rededicate itself, New York Post columnist Michael Goodwin said in a Saturday opinion piece.
"Because it demonized Trump from start to finish, it failed to realize he was onto something," Goodwin writes. "And because the paper decided that Trump's supporters were a rabble of racist rednecks and homophobes, it didn't have a clue about what was happening in the lives of the Americans who elected the new president."
Sulzberger's letter to subscribers promises that the paper will strive to understand all political perspectives, but "bad or sloppy journalism doesn't fully capture The Times' sins," said Goodwin.
"Not after it announced that it was breaking its rules of coverage because Trump didn't deserve fairness," he said.
In the letter to subscribers, signed by both Sulzberger and Executive Editor Dean Baquet, the pair said they promise to "rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you. It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly. We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign. You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team."
However, Goodwin said Baquet had insisted Trump "challenged our language" and "changed journalism," but accused the top editor of doing just that by deciding that the "standards of fairness and nonpartisanship could be broken without consequence."
And now, the paper is "bleeding readers — and money," said Goodwin, who admits he's "pained" by the rival newspaper's decline, and how it gave "all reporters a black eye."
Sulzberger, said Goodwin, should use an outside law firm or in-house reporters to determine how and why Baquet made his decision, learn if reporters felt pressured to conform to Baquet's political bias, and insist that fairness of standards be once again in play.
Further, said Goodwin, Sulzberger needs to insist on diversity, to include journalists who disagree "with the Times' embedded liberal slant" to be employed.
"This is about survival," Goodwin concludes. "If it doesn't change now, the Gray Lady's days surely are numbered."
Naw, the Jews don't control the media. That's a bunch of paranoid crapola from flaky White Supremacists.
I remind everyone - party comrades, friends, and our enemies that the names of corporate officers of publicly traded corporations (stock market) are a matter of public record. Check the names of all the major media outlets. You'll find that they ALL either have a Jewish CEO, or a non-Jewish CEO but the board of directors are Jewish majority.
You don't have to take my word for it. Just Google any major news outlet and go to their corporate website and click on "staff" or "contact us". Some sites you may have to look around a bit but you'll find the names of the bosses on there somewhere.
And I ask our enemies this: If there is no Jewish conspiracy to control public information, why ARE most of the media outlets controlled by Jews? Coincidence? Oh please, you can't possibly be that blind.
Thursday, November 24, 2016
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
I realize that Thanksgiving is still a day away, but as many people will be out-of-town, or busy making sure they finish their work before the long weekend, some may not get a chance to see this article, so I thought I'd post it today.
Thanksgiving is a tradition based on White culture and our European heritage. Although it is a time for all to give thanks for what they have, if it weren't for us, the holiday most probably would not exist.
In the middle of the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln, prompted by a series of editorials written by Sarah Josepha Hale, proclaimed a national Thanksgiving Day, to be celebrated on the final Thursday in November 1863.
Since 1863, Thanksgiving has been observed annually in the United States.
Abraham Lincoln's successors as president followed his example of annually declaring the final Thursday in November to be Thanksgiving. But in 1939, President Franklin D. Roosevelt broke with this tradition. November had five Thursdays that year (instead of the usual four), and Roosevelt declared the fourth Thursday as Thanksgiving rather than the fifth one. Although many popular histories state otherwise, he made clear that his plan was to establish the holiday on the next-to-last Thursday in the month instead of the last one.
With the country still in the midst of The Great Depression, Roosevelt thought an earlier Thanksgiving would give merchants a longer period to sell goods before Christmas. Increasing profits and spending during this period, Roosevelt hoped, would help bring the country out of the Depression. At the time, advertising goods for Christmas before Thanksgiving was considered inappropriate. Fred Lazarus, Jr., founder of the Federated Department Stores (later Macy's), is credited with convincing Roosevelt to push Thanksgiving back a week to expand the shopping season.
On October 6, 1941, both houses of the U.S. Congress passed a joint resolution fixing the traditional last-Thursday date for the holiday beginning in 1942. However, in December of that year the Senate passed an amendment to the resolution that split the difference by requiring that Thanksgiving be observed annually on the fourth Thursday of November, which was sometimes the last Thursday and sometimes (less frequently) the next to last. On December 26, 1941 President Roosevelt signed this bill, for the first time making the date of Thanksgiving a matter of federal law.
Since 1947 the National Turkey Federation has presented the President of the United States with one live turkey and two dressed turkeys, in a ceremony known as the National Thanksgiving Turkey Presentation. The live turkey is pardoned and lives out the rest of its days on a nearby peaceful farm. While it is commonly held that this pardoning tradition began with Harry Truman in 1947, the Truman Library has shown no evidence for this. The earliest on record is with George H. W. Bush in 1989. Still others claim that the tradition dates back to Abraham Lincoln pardoning his son's pet turkey. Both stories have been quoted in more recent presidential speeches. In more recent years, two turkeys have been pardoned, in case the original turkey becomes unavailable for presidential pardoning.
Unavailable? I wonder what that could mean?! MMMMM!!!!!
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
by BRANDON DARBY 30 Oct 2016
A record number of illegal aliens have crossed the U.S.- Mexico border and are in U.S. Border Patrol custody in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley Sector (RGV), according to the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC). Border Patrol Agent and NBPC President Brandon Judd spoke exclusively with Breitbart Texas and condemned the leadership of the Border Patrol’s parent agency, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), for allegedly “keeping this information secret” ahead of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Folks, people like Obama, Clinton, Merkel, and others have decided the time for the New World Order is upon us. A world without borders where anyone can go anywhere they want as long as they have the ability to get there.
Now that Clinton has lost, we may have a chance. If she had won, I very much feared it would have been the end for us.
Monday, November 21, 2016
Sunday, November 20, 2016
A man in Florida, in his 80s, calls his son in New York one November day.
The father says to the son, “I hate to tell you, but we’ve got some troubles here in the house. Your mother and I can’t stand each other anymore, and we’re getting a divorce. I’ve had it! I want to live out the rest of my years in peace. I’m telling you now, so you and your sister shouldn’t go into shock later when I move out.”
He hangs up, and the son immediately calls his sister in the Hamptons and tells her the news.
The sister says, “I’ll handle this.”
She calls Florida and says to her father, “Don’t do ANYTHING till we get there! We’ll be there Wednesday night.”
The father agrees, “All right.”
The old man hangs up the phone and hollers to his wife, “Okay, they’re coming for Thanksgiving. Now, what are we going to tell them for Christmas?”
A Black man and an American Indian were standing around one November afternoon discussing how badly the White man has treated their peoples.
The Indian said, "The White man can here and stole our land!"
"Oh yeah," said the Black man. "Well Whitey came to our land and stole us!"
"That's rough," answered the Indian.
Blackie said, "At least your people were invited to the first Thanksgiving."
"I wonder why your people weren't invited?" asked the Indian.
A little annoyed, the Black man said, "Fool, why would they invite us to dinner when we were doing the cooking?!"
Saturday, November 19, 2016
Owen Bowcott and Jessica Elgot
3 November, 2016
3 November, 2016
Parliament alone has the power to trigger Brexit by notifying Brussels of the UK’s intention to leave the European Union, the high court has ruled.
The judgment, delivered by the lord chief justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd [he's Welsh, btw. - Dan], is likely to slow the pace of Britain’s departure from the EU and is a huge setback for Theresa May, who had insisted the government alone would decide when to trigger the process.
The lord chief justice said that “the most fundamental rule of the UK constitution is that parliament is sovereign”.
A government spokesman said ministers would appeal to the supreme court against the decision. The hearing will take place on 7-8 December.
Live High court says parliament must vote on triggering article 50 - as it happened
Rolling coverage of all the day’s political developments as they happen, including the high court ruling on whether parliament should get a vote on triggering article 50.
Thomas said: “The court does not accept the argument put forward by the government. There is nothing in the 1972 European Communities Act to support it. In the judgment of the court, the argument is contrary both to the language used by parliament in the 1972 act, and to the fundamental principles of the sovereignty of parliament and the absence of any entitlement on the part of the crown to change domestic law by the exercise of its prerogative powers.”
Unless overturned on appeal at the supreme court, the ruling threatens to plunge the government’s plans for Brexit into disarray as the process will have to be subject to full parliamentary control.
Government lawyers had argued that prerogative powers were a legitimate way to give effect “to the will of the people” who voted by a clear majority to leave the EU in the June referendum.
But Thomas declared: “The government does not have power under the crown’s prerogative to give notice pursuant to article 50 for the UK to withdraw from the European Union.”
The international trade secretary, Liam Fox, said the government was disappointed by the high court decision but added that “the government is determined to respect the result of the referendum”.
The Ukip leader, Nigel Farage, said he was angered by the decision. “I worry that a betrayal may be near at hand … I now fear that every attempt will be made to block or delay the triggering of article 50. If this is so, they have no idea of the level of public anger they will provoke.”
The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, said: “This ruling underlines the need for the government to bring its negotiating terms to parliament without delay. Labour respects the decision of the British people to leave the European Union. But there must be transparency and accountability to parliament on the terms of Brexit.”
The Lib Dem leader, Tim Farron, said he was delighted by the ruling. “Given the strict two-year timetable of exiting the EU once article 50 is triggered, it is critical that the government now lay out their negotiating to parliament, before such a vote is held,” he said.
By handing responsibility for initiating Brexit over to MPs, the three senior judges – Thomas, the master of the rolls, Sir Terence Etherton, and Lord Justice Sales – have ventured on to constitutionally untested ground.
The legal dispute focused on article 50 of the treaty on European Union, which says any member state may leave “in accordance with its own constitutional requirements” – an undefined term that has allowed both sides to pursue rival interpretations.
The decision may undermine the prime minister’s authority in conducting negotiations with other EU states in the run-up to the UK’s withdrawal.
Gina Miller, the lead claimant in the case, said: “It was the right decision because we were dealing with the sovereignty of parliament. It was not about winning or losing. It was about what was right. Now we can move forward with legal certainty.”
Deir Dos Santos, a hairdresser and the other lead claimant, said: “Today’s judgment is a victory for everyone who believes in the supremacy of our parliament and the rule of law. I have never challenged the result of the referendum – in fact I voted for Brexit for the sole reason that I wanted power to be returned from Europe to the British parliament. But I did not think it was right for the government then just to bypass parliament and try to take away my legal rights without consulting parliament first.”
John Halford, the solicitor at Bindmans who represented the People’s Challenge group, said: “The oversight, control and democratic accountability needed for decisions on Brexit have to match the consequences of those decisions for UK citizens. That is why our constitution empowers parliament, not the government, to take decisions.”
John Shaw, chair of the organisation Fair Deal for Expats, said: “This is superb news. We were convinced that our case was just. We’re delighted that the court agrees with us. There now needs to be a proper debate about how the rights of expats will be protected.”
The three judges’ ruling was unanimous. It stated: “By making and unmaking treaties the crown [ie the government] creates legal effects on the plane of international law, but in doing so it does not and cannot change domestic law. It cannot without the intervention of parliament confer rights on individuals or deprive individuals of rights.”
At one point the judgment dismisses arguments deployed by lawyers for the government – about whether rights within the EU were conferred by act of parliament or international treaty – as being “divorced from reality”.
The judges said: “The reality is that parliament knew and intended that enactment of the European Communities Act 1972 would provide the foundation acquisition by British citizens of rights under EU law which they could enforce in other member states.
They added that “the claimants are entitled to say that it would be surprising if they could be removed simply through action by the crown under its prerogative powers”.
They concluded: “In our judgment, the clear and necessary implication from these provisions taken separately and cumulatively is that parliament intended EU rights to have effect in domestic law and that this effect should not be capable of being undone or overridden by action taken by the crown in exercise of its prerogative powers.”
Part of the judges’ reasoning was based on legal precedents dating back to the 13th century, in particular the Case of Proclamations. That case involved merchants who were prevented from working in London by proclamation of Henry IV which was found to be in breach of a parliamentary act dating back to 1297. Parliament triumphed and the crown had to withdraw its ban.
Since the British often use words differently than do Americans, I think I should explain something so that everyone understands.
In Britain, when they talk about "Parliament vs. the Government", they mean Parliament vs. the Administration in general, and the Prime Minister in particular, just like the President vs. Congress.
Anyway, the stalling begins. The Remain faction - led by British Judeo-Capitalists - are getting desperate. They'll do anything to save their precious European Union. Not for the sake of the People, but for the sake of the Almighty Euro.
While the EU exists, business and tax laws are fairly uniform throughout the union. If the union breaks up, business and tax laws will change for every country which will make doing business harder and less profitable. Poor One Percenters. Don't you feel so sorry for their rich asses? That will be a few less yachts or ski chalets they'll be able to afford to buy. Tsk, tsk, what a shame.
Perhaps they hope that Parliament will go against the will of the people. In this case it could backfire. The people made their wishes plain during last June's referendum vote. If Parliament goes against the People, many ministers may find themselves out of office at the next election - or worse. The people could call for a vote of "no confidence" which could literally oust the entire Parliament.
I think Brexit will proceed - even if it is delayed a bit.