Saturday, February 27, 2016

1) Trump has favorability ratings that make him unelectable: The American public is very familiar with Donald Trump and people hate his guts. Trump’s current favorable/unfavorable rating is 34/58. Just as a point of comparison, the two biggest landslides in history were against Jimmy Carter (33/58) and Walter Mondale (34/40). Trump is so unpopular with the general electorate that we might as well be running Jared Fogle or Bill Cosby.

2) Trump consistently loses to Hillary Clinton in head-to-head polls: Given that so many people know Trump and already dislike him, it’s hard to understand why anyone thinks he’ll win in November. That’s especially true since the public already knows both him and Hillary Clinton well and he consistently loses to her in head-to-head match-ups.Hillary has 20 wins, 4 losses and 1 tie against Trump over the last 25 polls.Those numbers are more likely to get worse than get better.

3) Huge Republican defections are possible: Trump’s toxic, he’s not a conservative and he has personally insulted an enormous number of people on the Right. There will be more Republicans who won’t vote for him than for any other Republican nominee in recent history. In fact, it wouldn’t be a shock if there are significant numbers of prominent Republicans who back a third party candidate or otherwise try to deliberately undermine his campaign.
Sanctions relief at work: Islamic Republic of Iran now offering $7,000 to families of “Palestinians” killed while murdering Israelis

By Robert Spencer / Jihad Watch


Sanctions relief at work: Islamic Republic of Iran now offering $7,000 to families of “Palestinians” killed while murdering Israelis
Here is the first use we see the Iranians making of the billions they are receiving in sanctions relief. So the first time one of these jihad killers’ families is rewarded, you can thank Barack Obama and John Kerry. The Iranian ambassador to Lebanon, Mohammad Fathali, said that “the martyrs’ blood will release the entire […]
 
Read in browser »

share on Twitter Like Sanctions relief at work: Islamic Republic of Iran now offering $7,000 to families of “Palestinians” killed while murdering Israelis on Facebook Google Plus One Button 

New email shows Embassy Tripoli urged DC to “NOT CONFLATE” VIDEO with Benghazi attack

Pamela Geller / Atlas Shrugs

Treason quietly released in the Friday night news dump. While our Ambassador and other embassy personnel were being slaughtered by a jihad army, Obama and Hillary were furiously spinning a sharia narrative to cover for the jihad murderers.

Obama and Hillary, jihad accomplices. Not once, not twice but three times, the Democrats — the party of treason — have nominated (and twice elected) a traitor and America-hater.

Remember, the only one jailed for Benghazi was the Coptic Christian, Naloula Nakoula,  who made an innocuous youtube video. Nakoula was the  first political prisoner under sharia. We can thank Hillary for making good on her promise to the Benghazi murder victims families, to “get the filmmaker.”
...

     
Op-ed: 
On Closing Gitmo 
By: Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / Right Side Patriots on http://americanpbn.com/

"These detainees cannot come to American soil." 
- Speaker of the House Paul Ryan on hearing Obama's plan to close Gitmo

Earlier this week Barack HUSSEIN Obama tried to make good on one of his long ago campaign promises...a promise to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility (Gitmo) before the end of his presidency...which by the way cannot come soon enough.

And in his reality of wanting to bring convicted terrorists onto U.S. soil as well as releasing terrorists to terrorist condoning countries where they will make their way back onto the battlefield and kill more innocents, Obama had the gall to say that the Gitmo issue had cost him “countless hours of consternation” as he once again blamed George W. Bush for all his woes. Saying it was what Bush did that forced him to apologize on the world stage for an approach to terrorism that he never supported, Obama tried to convince Congress that by his emptying Gitmo our country would move past what he called “a troubled era of wartime behavior,” and would close a chapter in our history as "It undermines our standing in the world. It is viewed as a stain on our broader record of upholding the highest standards of rule of law."

Presenting what he called a 'blueprint'...actually a 9-page 'so-called' strategy' you can see here: http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documen... proved once again that not only are his intentions misplaced, but that they have crossed over into outright treason. And how so...with actions that 'aid and abet' the enemy and put the American people in danger.

See a transcript of Obama's remarks in full here:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off... and see him say those words here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVt9Jb3KYYg

Briefly, this is what Obama...who called the closing of Gitmo a “bipartisan moral imperative”...is proposing. Now with 91 detainees still being held at Gitmo, the Parole Review Board, the board responsible for determining which detainee is suitable for transfer, will be working to have the 35 detainees who have been cleared for release to a 'third country' fast-tracked over the next couple of months; and with another 46 being deemed too dangerous to transfer overseas coupled with the remaining 10 being charged or convicted in the military commissions system...Obama wants to bring these worst of the worst to one of 13 still unnamed high-security prisons inside these United States...saying it would save as much as $85 million a year by moving them here.

Better to save dollars than be concerned about the harm these enemy combatants can do if they ever escaped...par for the course for the man who himself is an enemy combatant...the enemy within who never explained why moving said detainees to U.S. soil reduces our standing in the world.

So maybe now that you know what Obama is planning on doing you can see that the only stain on Obama's above mentioned rule of law is Obama himself for this most miserable of presidents plans to bring to our country those he knows will indeed pose a threat to our populace. In other words, the man who swore to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the American people now wants to deliberately put American lives in danger because it would be too dangerous to send the worst of the worst to the countries of his brethren...if that's not treason...if that's not 'aiding and abetting' the enemy...I don't know what is.

“Not only are we not going to close Guant√°namo, when I am president, if we capture a terrorist alive, they are not getting a court hearing in Manhattan. They are not going to be sent to Nevada...They are going to Guant√°namo, and we are going to find out everything they know.”
- Presidential candidate Marco Rubio

Treason...yet the fact remains that in this, an extremely contentious election year where the issue of national security remains the prime concern for most Americans, hopefully, our Republican-controlled Congress will not allow the Obama White House the cooperation needed to send detainees to our soil. In fact, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has said that any effort by this administration to unilaterally...via his pen and his phone...close Gitmo without congressional approval would be a direct violation of U.S. law as Obama does not have the authority under the Constitution to transfer prisoners on his own.

“[The Congress shall have Power…] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water,” Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution, also known as the War Powers Clause, says it all with the single word 'Congress.' Breaking it down further to the words, “make rules concerning captures on land and water,” again shows that said power in relation to the transfer of any prisoners is invested in the Congress not in the president. Simply, this means that Obama does not have the legal right to release these 'captures,' and by the way, nor are they entitled to any constitutional rights or legal proceedings to try and prove otherwise. In fact, in a 1952 opinion in the case Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson determined that a president is on the 'weakest constitutional footing' when acting against Congress's will.

Remember, too, that Congress voted overwhelmingly for the 'National Defense Authorization Act' which contains a provision that clearly states that the president may not move Gitmo inmates to U.S. soil...period. In fact, as per the words of speaker Ryan, “...if the president proceeds with knowingly breaking the law and asking the military to break the law, he will be met with fierce bipartisan opposition here in Congress, and we're taking all legal preparations necessary to meet with that resistance.”

And rest assured that there will indeed be bipartisan resistance to Obama's plans as it was the Democrats not the Republicans who wrote the above said bill and got it passed when they were in control of Congress. And the Republican-controlled House and Senate will surely reject it as dangerous to national security at a time when islamic terrorism is at a worldwide all time high...that is if Congress grows a backbone...and know that there appears to be enough votes to not only block Obama's plan in Congress, but also enough votes to override any veto. Also, the GOP is, according to Speaker Ryan, "preparing our legal challenge" to ensure that the prison remains open and that the detainees are not now or ever moved to our homeland.

But that still leaves Obama's infamous 'pen and phone' to executive order in the closing of Gitmo and the transferring of prisoners, never mind what Congress or 'We the People' want. And with this being a presidential election year, Obama will do anything needed for both political expediency and legacy building, and once again the Constitution be damned.

Now the question is does Obama via his commander-and-chief powers have unilateral authority to close Gitmo on his own? According to professor of political science at SUNY Cortland, Robert J. Spitzer, in referring to congressional funding restrictions aimed at preventing Guantanamo detainees from being transferred to the U.S....legislation that was signed by Obama..."The answer is no, as long as Congress has acted affirmatively to prevent him from doing that, as it has in this case."

But with Obama thinking himself king, he could very well try to close Gitmo via an executive order which would force this matter into federal court. And so the man who thinks he can just circumnavigate laws he finds inconvenient...the man who thinks himself above the very rule of law...above the Constitution...now finds himself facing the end of his tenure without the closing of Gitmo to add to his legacy...and hopefully it will stay that way.

********************************************
Today, Saturday, February 27th, from 11am to 1pm EST, Right Side Patriots Craig Andresen and Diane Sori discuss Why Trump?, Closing Gitmo, and give their take on the winners and losers from Thursday's Republican presidential debate.

Tune in at: americanpbn.com
And chat with us live at: https://www.facebook.com/groups/cprworldwidemedia/?fref=ts

Friday, February 26, 2016

RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS...LIVE!

Saturday, February 27th, from 11am to 1pm EST, Right Side Patriots Craig Andresen and Diane Sori discuss Why Trump?, Closing Gitmo, and give their take on the winners and losers from Thursday's Republican presidential debate.

Tune in at: americanpbn.com
And chat with us live at: https://www.facebook.com/groups/cprworldwidemedia/?fref=ts

Rubio Blisters Trump Over Immigration, Hiring Foreign Workers  
By: Guy Richer / NEWSMAX

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio launched a blistering attack against front-runner Donald Trump over his position on illegal immigration on Thursday, quickly accusing Trump of switching positions on illegal immigration for political gain.

The senator said that the New York billionaire talks tough on the issue now, but previously said 2012 Republican candidate Mitt Romney lost his race against President Barack Obama for saying illegal immigration could be solved by self-deportation. 
 
"A lot of these positions that he's taken now are new to him," Rubio said during the debate in Houston.
Trump - who has won three out of four contests in the Republicans' selection of a presidential nominee and may reap big gains when 11 states make their choices on Tuesday - scoffed at Rubio's charge.

He said Romney lost in 2012 because he was a terrible candidate.

"Excuse me, he ran one terrible campaign," Trump said.

Rubio attacked Trump over a New York Times report that he hired people on HB-1 visas to work at his Florida Mar-a-Lago resort when 300 Americans had applied for the jobs.

Trump took credit for introducing illegal immigration into the debate, but Rubio challenged that, saying if he wants to make that claim he must also "acknowledge that, for example, you're only person on this stage that's ever been find for hiring people to work on your projects illegally."

"No, no, I'm the only one at this stage that's hired people," Trump shot back. "You haven't hired anybody. … You've had nothing but problems with your credit cards, etc."

"He hired workers from Poland," Rubio said, referring to the Times story.

Thursday, February 25, 2016

As former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's email scandal and ongoing pressure from the FBI continue, her closest aides are also coming under heavy scrutiny.

Two weeks ago a series of reports and email documentation were released, showing as many as 30 of Clinton's aides at the State Department also used private email accounts on Clinton's private server to send and receive top secret, classified information.

Now, a federal judge has ruled Clinton aides Huma Abedine, who worked for the State Department while also working for the Clinton Foundation, Cheryl Mills and other aides should be questioned under oath about their practices. Specifically, they should be questioned about whether they purposely evaded Freedom of Information Act laws through the use of private email. More from POLITICO:
U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan granted a motion for discovery filed by Judicial Watch, which sued the State Department for Clinton-related documents and is now arguing there is “reasonable suspicion” that Clinton or State staff tried to thwart the Freedom of Information Act. That law requires all work emails to be archived in a government systems for public view.

Discovery in FOIA cases is relatively rare and presents political risk for Clinton: While the group has not yet called for Clinton to answer question personally, it said it may in the future as part of discovery. The process will likely entail attorneys asking questions of her top staff via deposition or written Q&A about why Clinton used a private email server in the first place and how they eventually determined what was an “official” record to be preserved.
Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry scored a tremendous legal victory today. The state’s highest criminal court dismissed the final charge against him, which was part of a ludicrous abuse of power case. The legal fiasco erupted in August of 2014, when a grand jury indicted Perry on coercing a public servant and abuse in office for vetoing funds to a local Public Integrity Unit in Travis County since their district attorney, Rosemary Lehmberg, refused to resign after a drunk driving arrest. The New York Times described the charges as “overzealous.”

See video 'Jailers had to restrain Lehmberg' here: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/02/24/perry-cleared-in-abuseofpower-case-n2124216

In July of 2015, the coercion of a public servant charge was dropped by an appeals court, but the abuse in office portion of the indictment was allowed to move forward until this morning. Yet, the former governor noted that the political damage was done, especially during his short-lived presidential bid (Dallas Morning News):
Texas’ highest criminal court on Wednesday dismissed the remaining felony charge against former Gov. Rick Perry in the abuse-of-power case that he blamed for his early exit from the Republican presidential race. 
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals tossed a charge of misuse of office that stemmed from Perry’s 2013 effort to force out the Travis County district attorney. And it upheld the decision of a lower court to dismiss a charge of coercion of a public official.
The 6-2 decision appears to mark the end of Perry’s 18-month legal saga — one that outlasted the end of his record-setting, 14-year tenure as governor and his short-lived second bid for the White House.
Perry had already signaled that resolution in the case would be, in some ways, too little, too late. He said in September that the indictment — which he blamed on the “drunk DA” — had a “corrosive” effect on his presidential campaign’s fundraising.
“The political opponents, they did their damage,” he said
Romney: 'Bombshell' in Trump's Tax Returns
NEWSMAX 

Mitt Romney, the GOP's 2012 nominee for president, has called on all candidates to release their past taxes, but said Wednesday he thinks there's a "bombshell" in front-runner Donald Trump's returns. Trump has yet to release his returns. He has promised to do so, but has declined to give a date.

"Either he's not as anywhere near as wealthy as he says he is or he hasn't been paying the kind of taxes we would expect him to pay, or perhaps he hasn't been giving money to the vets or to the disabled like he's been telling us he's been doing," Romney said on Fox News Channel's "Your World with Neil Cavuto."

"The reason that I think there's a bombshell in there is because every time he's asked about his taxes he dodges and delays and says, 'well, we're working on it,'" said Romney, who was criticized for the low tax rate he paid when he released his own tax returns during the 2012 race.

Trump likes to talk about how wealthy he is, so he should be willing to show his tax returns, Romney said.

"When people decide they don't want to give you their taxes, it's usually because there's something they don't want you to see," he said. Earlier this month, Trump told John Dickerson on CBS' "Face the Nation" that he plans on releasing his tax returns "over the next three, four months."

"We're working on them very hard, and they will be very good," Trump said. Some conservative and liberal bloggers have criticized the billionaire for not quickly releasing his tax records, which have already been filed with the IRS, before the nomination process is wrapped up. This would allow voters to know if there is any embarrassing information that could surface in the returns. Former Fla. Gov. Jeb Bush released 33 years of his personal tax returns soon after entering the presidential race.

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS

Here's today's...Wednesday, February 24th...RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS radio show for any who missed it and want to hear what Craig and I said...and as always we stand by every word.

Today we discussed the 'Pathway' vs. 'Citizenship' debate; Facts vs. Diversions; and gave our take on the South Carolina primary and Nevada caucus.

Click on the link below and it will take you right where you need to be. Just click on the top blue play button for the latest show:
The sudden death earlier this month of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who was an unapologetic supporter of firearms rights, has thrust the 2nd Amendment into the forefront of the burgeoning debate over who might replace him on the Supreme Court. While this is indeed a topic worthy of robust debate, what often is overlooked in such public discussions of the 2nd Amendment, are the many ways this Administration has chipped away at the Amendment outside the scrutiny of the courts.

Since assuming office in 2009, Barack Obama has employed the resources of numerous agencies and departments -- most of which have no colorable jurisdiction over firearms – in an often unnoticed drive to weaken the ability of law-abiding citizens to exercise their right to “keep and bear arms,” without openly attacking the 2nd Amendment.

This approach most recently was on display last month, when Obama unveiled a list of “executive actions” to “curb gun violence.” At a carefully-orchestrated CNN “town hall meeting” a few days later, the President hogged the microphone and repeated over and over that he “respects the Second Amendment,” and that his only goal is to take “sensible” and “common sense” steps to keep guns out of the hands of criminals; not to limit the ability of others to obtain and possess firearms. Were it only so.

The reality is, many of the firearms-related measures this President has taken during his seven years in office, bear no relationship whatsoever to “common sense,” or to his avowed goal.
From immigration to national security, controlling the narrative, and the media at large, have all become Trump's 'trump cards'. Always entertaining, brash and blunt; Trump's proficiency for the art of the deal could solidify his position as leader of the free world. The establishment is struggling to come up with a foil for Trumps plans. Trump has his finger on what the people are angry about. Whether or not his unhinged approach gives him the staying power he needs to clinch the nomination remains to be seen.

Trump is most popular among moderates and some more conservative liberals who are not ready for the outright socialism of Bernie Sanders and also don't trust Hillary. He only has around 30 percent of the electorate. The majority of the electorate is being split among the other 4 candidates. It is clear that the remaining candidates, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, and John Kasich need all need to do something drastic to secure the nomination.

With Iowa, New Hampshire, and now Nevada behind us, and Super Tuesday right around the corner; the people have successfully sent the message that they tried to send by denying Mitt Romney the office of President. That message being the people's distrust of the Republican establishment. The outright rejection of Jeb Bush, the guy who the Bushes themselves thought had a greater destiny in the White House than even his brother George W., has strongly confirmed that fact.

Gynecologists: Anti-FGM laws “culturally insensitive and supremacist”
By Robert Spencer / Jihad Watch

 

Gynecologists: Anti-FGM laws “culturally insensitive and supremacist”
Gynecologists Kavita Shah Arora and Allan Jacobs are monstrous moral relativists who are, under the rubric of multiculturalism, aiding and abetting the Sharia subjugation and dehumanization of women. They probably congratulate themselves as great champions of women’s rights: they even here justify the mutilation of a woman’s genitals, which is done in order to remove […]
 
Read in browser »

share on Twitter Like Gynecologists: Anti-FGM laws “culturally insensitive and supremacist” on Facebook Google Plus One Button 

Obama’s “Hudna”: U.S.-Backed Militias Fighting Each Other, Not Islamic State

Pamela Geller / Atlas Shrugs
Details of a cease-fire in Syria’s civil war are nearly settled, Secretary of State John Kerry announced on Sunday in Amman, pronouncing that a pause in the fighting could occur within “hours” if all sides put into practice what they have agreed upon in principle.
Interchangeably using the terms “cease-fire,” “cessation of hostilities” and “hudna” – an Arabic word for a truce or a quieting of battle – Kerry said he and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov have been working around the clock on “modalities” for implementing the agreement…..(here)
Buffoonery coupled with equivalent parts treachery: Obama’s Secretary of State declared yesterday that “a hudna is possible over the course of these next...

     


Rupert Murdoch Attending $2,700-a-Plate Fundraiser for Hillary Clinton


By Todd Beamon / NEWSMAX
 
Rupert Murdoch is attending a $2,700-a-plate fundraiser Tuesday in London for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton hosted by one of the world's wealthiest and most successful woman executives.

Billed as the "ultimate power party," the event will be held at the South Kensington home of Natalie Massenet, 50, the online entrepreneur whose net worth has been estimated by Forbes at $90 million, Breitbart News reports.
The value of Massenet's home is estimated by The Daily Mail at $28 million — and it is one of the most expensive residences in the United Kingdom.

"I've heard she's planning to get hundreds of thousands for Hillary on the night," a source told Breitbart. "She's aiming for a million dollars."

Clinton will not be attending the event, but daughter Chelsea Clinton will be there, Breitbart reports. Besides Murdoch, others expected to be on hand are actor George Clooney and his wife, Amal.

Hillary Clinton's campaign is expected to gain access to a network of wealthy American bankers living in London, according to the report.

The group organizing the event is called "London for Hillary." Formed in 2013, the group seeks to build "a formidable and influential group of UK-based American voters who believe she is the right person to lead the Democratic Party in 2016."
Stephanie Stewart, the event's organizer, told Breitbart that she supports Clinton because she is "smart, determined and dedicated to democratic values" and for being "a strong Progressive who can move America forward."

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Right Side Patriots...Live!

Tomorrow, Wednesday, February 24th from 2 to 4pm EST, Right Side Patriots Craig Andresen and Diane Sori discuss the 'Pathway' vs. 'Citizenship' debate; Facts vs Diversions; and will give their take on the South Carolina primary and Nevada caucus.

Hope you can tune in at: www.americanpbn.com

Op-ed:
Clearing Up the Pathway Debate
By: Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / Right Side Patriots on americanpbn.com/

The Republican candidates have discussed many issues during this ongoing primary season but none has been more contentious than the issue of immigration. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are at each others throats over who supported and didn't support what; Donald Trump talks about Mexico footing the bill for the very wall that will 'supposedly' keep Mexicans out of our country; and Jeb Bush (who recently dropped out of the race) said that those coming here illegally are doing so out of an act of love. But nothing is more contentious than the two pathways we hear so much about...one a 'Pathway to Citizenship' and the other a 'Pathway to Legal Status.'

A 'Pathway to Citizenship' whether some like it or not is a vastly different animal than a 'Pathway to Legal Status'...and both are different than what came to be known as 'blanket amnesty.' So now it's time for some truth, and let's start with 'blanket amnesty' and get that out of the way as no candidate running is now or has ever been for 'blanket amnesty.' And that includes Florida Senator Marco Rubio who constantly comes up against naysayers for his being part of the bi-partisan group known as the Gang of Eight...the very group who wrote the first draft of the 'Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013'...commonly called 'Comprehensive Immigration Reform' (CIR)...the very bill many erroneously believe would grant immediate amnesty to 11+ million people who crossed our borders illegally, but nothing could be further from the truth.

The Gang of Eight...four Democrat and four Republican senators*... had good intentions no matter what some say as they at least tried to 'fix' a system that was and still is broken...broken beyond merely saying that enforcing the laws currently on the books will fix it. The CIR bill as proposed basically called for citizenship for illegal aliens already in the U.S. contingent upon certain border security and visa tracking improvements; called for reducing current visa backlogs and fast tracking permanent residence for U.S. university immigrant graduates; wanted to expand and improve our current employment verification system; as well as wanting to improve work visa options for low-skilled workers.

And the truth is that Marco Rubio was indeed part of the Gang of Eight, but while the Democrats in the 'gang' wanted to grant all the illegals access to citizenship (hence the term 'blanket amnesty'), Rubio wanted the illegals...or what the politically correct love to call 'undocumented immigrants'...to have lived in the U.S. for five years with no arrests during that time period in order to be eligible. However, when Rubio saw that our border was not going to sealed first before any reform of our immigration laws took place...a touch point he insisted upon...he did the right thing and voted against the very bill he helped to co-author. And whether some like it or not that took courage to go against the very men he had worked so hard and so long with.

And into this discourse came Ted Cruz, who while slamming Rubio for his part in the Gang of Eight, must also take responsibility for his part in it as he proposed an amendment to the CIR bill that would have set in place a path to citizenship for those currently in this country illegally. And Cruz’s amendment would have left in place the bill’s provisions providing legal status for those here illegally. And while Ted Cruz is now making excuses for what he did, and is saying that the words spoken are not what he meant, the fact is he did what he did and said what he said...just like Rubio was part of the Gang of Eight.

But let me insert a word of recommendation here to both men...stop attacking each other! Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have more similarities in policy than they do differences (and to see those similarities please refer to my Right Side Patriots partner and friend Craig Andresen's article at http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/2016/0...), and they need to focus their combined strength and political savvy to knock Trump out of the race. This always should have been a two man race not a media generated anointment of a Democrat now dressed in Republican clothing. And by the way...neither man supports 'blanket amnesty' nor amnesty...period.

Now as to the prime differences between a 'Pathway to Citizenship' and a 'Pathway to Legal Status'...which is what presidential candidate Marco Rubio is proposing. First, it must be understood that no matter what bloviator Donald Trump wants, 11+ million people will not be deported as the courts will (rightfully) never allow it. Second, the border must be sealed before any legal status is given to anyone; and third, it must be understood that the critical and all-important difference between citizenship and legal status is that only citizens can vote and serve on juries....legal residents cannot and will never be able to. In other words, no matter how many now illegals would eventually become legal residents...and know that they will no matter how and when the current laws are amended...their gaining legal status as residents in no way would give them the right to vote in any U.S. election nor does it give the Democratic voting rolls a boost simply because residents are not citizens.

And gaining citizenship would be no easy task in what Marco Rubio is proposing as the currently illegal person who would gain only legal resident status would have to wait a minimum of 10+ years before even beginning the process to apply for citizenship...as opposed to the current five year wait...coupled with their having to show good moral character; that they can speak, read, and write English; hold a job; and have committed no criminal offense. With that it must also be understood that granting legal resident status under the Rubio proposal will not give the illegal petitioner 'probationary legal status' during the time it would take to pass background checks...all they would get is a work permit...and most importantly they will under no conditions receive any federal benefits, and must pay a hefty fine for coming here illegally.

Also, remember that while under the existing law if you are illegally in the U.S. you are not prohibited from getting citizenship, you just have to go back to your home country to wait out the mandatory five years. Under Rubio's proposal if you want to stay here, you have to wait the 10+ years, and you have to be holding down a job during that time...meaning it would be cheaper, faster, and easier for them to just go back to their home countries to wait out the now 10+years than it will be to go through this long drawn out process. And people...that in no way is amnesty no matter what the naysayers claim.

And legal resident status as proposed by Rubio simply means that someone granted said resident status has the right to live and work in this country legally, and that they must pay any and all taxes as required by law as they do so. But most importantly, Rubio's 'Pathway to Legal Status' changes the current U.S. policy of legal resident's being able to petition for immediate family members to come here and receive permanent residence, which is a family-based system, changing it to a skills-based/merit-based system...in other words based upon the skills the petitioner has, what they can contribute to our economy, and most important of all, it helps to determine whether or not someone is coming here to become an American not just live in America, but to be an American.

A 'Pathway to Legal Status' is the right thing to do and most will realize that when they separate the anger from the realities that most here illegally...and I do know that their coming here illegally is a crime in and of itself...have become hard workers and just want to live their lives in this, the greatest nation the world has ever known. The fault of what we currently are facing is the sole property of the Obama administration not only because they do not enforce our current immigration laws, but also for their allowing illegal felons to get out of jail and meld back into the populace instead of deporting them all...with many now returning to commit more crimes, including murder, because Obama adamantly refuses to seal the border and allows for 'sanctuary cities' to continue to exist.

Also, we must accept the fact that part of the problems we currently face in regards to the illegal issue is because of partisan gridlock... gridlock which has prevented Congress from overhauling the immigration system, and like I said at the beginning of this article, simply enforcing the current laws won't to do it. And sadly what many refuse to see is that by doing common sense reform...as in a 'Pathway to Legal Status'...would bring the majority of hard-working illegals (those who do the jobs most Americans won't do) off the economic sidelines, and would according to many economists bring $1.5 trillion to the nation’s cumulative GDP over 10 years, and add close to $5 billion in additional tax revenue in just the next three years, amongst other positive things. That is a big plus.

And if background checks are done on all the illegals currently residing in our country before they gain legal resident status...and don't think for a minute that this administration doesn't know who they are or where they are...will then allow authorities to focus enforcement resources on the criminal elements and security threats and send them packing. And a 'Pathway to Legal Status' would expose unscrupulous employers who help bring illegals here and would allow them to be shut down.

But the bottom line remains that no matter the anger Trump has stirred up by his trying to lump all illegals into one pot, the fact is that 11+ million people will not be deported and the Trumpers best get over it. So isn't it better to do what benefits our country and especially our economy, and try to solve this issue with clear heads, and tangible and workable policies...I believe it is. And I surely hope that the next crop of primary voters realize just that and vote responsibly instead out of Trump initiated misplaced anger...anger that should be focused on Obama, Hillary, and the Democrats...which if one pays attention Trump doesn't do...as our country's very survival depends on the voters hopefully doing just that. 
----------------------------------------------------------
*The Gang of 8: Jeff Flake (R-A), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John McCain (R-AZ), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard J. Durbin (D-IL),  Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

Monday, February 22, 2016

Right Side Patriots

Here's Saturday's...February 20th...RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS radio show for any who missed it and want to hear what Craig and I said...and as always we stand by every word.

On Saturday we discussed all things Trump, and gave some sound and sage advice for Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

Click on the link below and it will take you right where you need to be. Just click on the top blue play button for the latest show:
We all know the president wants to close Guantanamo Bay, the plans for which how that will be achieved are expected this month, but what happens if we continue to nab more Islamic extremists?

For now, the interrogations occur on naval ships and the prisoners are transferred to other nations’ legal systems, or they’re brought here to be tried in our court system. That’s including military commissions, according to the Associated Press. Yet, this lack of clarity on what to do if we see an uptick in captured terrorists has legal wonks and national security officials unnerved:
"If you're going to be doing counterterrorism operations that bring in detainees, you have to think through what you are going to do with them," said Phillip Carter, former deputy assistant defense secretary for detainee policy. "If the U.S. is going to conduct large-scale combat operations or large-scale special ops," Rebecca Ingber, an associate law professor at Boston University who follows the issue, warns that if the U.S. engaged in a full ground war in Syria, "chances are there would need to be detention facilities of some kind in the vicinity." […]
The U.S. has deployed about 200 new special operations forces to Iraq, and they are preparing to work with the Iraqis to begin going after IS fighters and commanders, "killing or capturing them wherever we find them, along with other key targets," Defense Secretary Ash Carter said.
Brett McGurk, special presidential envoy for the global coalition to counter IS, told Congress this month that in the final six months of 2015y, 90 senior to midlevel leaders were killed, including the IS leader's key deputies: Haji Mutazz, the top leader in Iraq, and Abu Sayyaf, the IS oil minister and financier.
Sayyaf was killed in a raid to rescue American hostage Kayla Mueller; his wife, known as Umm Sayyaf, was captured.
Her case illustrates how the Obama administration is prosecuting some terrorist suspects in federal courts or military commissions or leaving them in the custody of other nations.
Yet, even the president seemed to know that closing Gitmo would be a huge political hurdle for his administration to overcome with a Republican Congress. He said in his final presser of 2015 that he wants to find ways to work with Congress, but don't be shocked if the closing this facility comes in the form of an executive order.

            GOP senators, if you give whichever Constitution-shredding libfascist Obama nominates a hearing, much less a vote, we are gone.  Out of the GOP.  Finished.  And that means you’re finished too.

            The “we” is us conservatives, and we are not in the mood for any pompous, delusional Senate-speak about how you can’t do what we elected you to do and defy Obama.  You need to take a stand and shut him down.  And we don’t care how much heat you have to take from the mainstream media and your distinguished commie colleagues across the aisle.

            Man the hell up.

            Our enemies keep blabbing about your alleged “duty” to act.  Yeah, you have a Constitutional duty all right – to the freaking Constitution.

            The reaction of Mitch McConnell was a pleasant surprise.  After rolling over again and again, it seems to have dawned on Mitch that we conservatives are done with a submissive Senate going Gimp every time Obama demands something.  Spending, Obamacare, illegal immigration – the GOP hasn’t been seemed to be able to draw a line, much less hold one, and we conservatives have been wondering why we even bothered to retake the Senate in 2014.  But now our right to freely exercise our religion, our right to keep and bear arms, and even our right to criticize politicians like Hillary Clinton are at stake.  There’s nowhere left to retreat to.  Back, meet wall.

Why you should side with Apple, not the FBI, in the San Bernardino iPhone case
By Robert Spencer / Jihad Watch

 

Why you should side with Apple, not the FBI, in the San Bernardino iPhone case
“What the FBI wants to do would make us less secure, even though it’s in the name of keeping us safe from harm. Powerful governments, democratic and totalitarian alike, want access to user data for both law enforcement and social control. We cannot build a backdoor that only works for a particular type of government, […]
 
Read in browser »

share on Twitter Like Why you should side with Apple, not the FBI, in the San Bernardino iPhone case on Facebook Google Plus One Button