BORDER WALL TO BE LONGER THAN ORIGINALLY PLANNED!
PRESIDENT TRUMP ANNOUNCES SALE OF CALIFORNIA TO MEXICO
++++++++++++++++++++++
Today, more revelations are beginning to suggest what I have believed all along, ie. the Russian Collusion matter would lead right to the top of the Obama Administration ensnaring Obama himself.
I say this because, today e mails surfaced involving two senior FBI members (Strzok and Page) talking about informing the president regarding what was going on and his desire he wanted to be briefed. In a previous interview, Obama publicly stated there was no outside pressure on any investigation involving Hillary . These e mails also reveal derogatory commentary by these FBI agents regarding Trump which shows animus towards him.
Finally, I have maintained Hillary and The DNC were engaged in launching the "Collusion" boomerang which now is heading back their way as it becomes increasingly evident the infamous Dossier was paid for by a law firm aligned with Hillary and The DNC and contained purposeful false information which was withheld from the Court in pursuit of FICA warrants.
What this posting raises is the matter of whether our government as become incestual? In other words, it appears government staffing is chock full of those who, not only know each other but also are collude with each other. Thus, they are in an excellent position to carry out narrowly focused and co-ordinated personal desires that may not further interests of the nation. Then, they work assiduously to cover up their thumb prints so their actions either never see the light of day or create confusion and obfuscation when and if eventually revealed.
We know appointees in Obama's the State Department, FBI and IRS et. al stiffed Congressional oversight efforts and many remain in place in the current Trump Administration and continue these efforts..
This is why I recently mentioned the disconnect of un-elected bureaucrats, whose power is overwhelming , between elected representatives has reached very dangerous proportions.
When un-elected bureaucrats control the show the concept of representative government becomes a joke.(See 1 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Military funding may finally be disconnected from the 2017 budget so it will not be hostage to budget debates for an expanded period of two years.
The compromise deal included non-defense spending as well and will include hurricane and other weather related relief.
THE COMPROMISE Budget DEAL IS NOT TO BE LAUDED BECAUSE THE SPENDING, BOTH PARTIES HAVE AGREED UPON, PROVES, ONCE AGAIN, HUMPTY-DUMPTY AMERICA WILL NEVER BE RESTORED BECAUSE UNCONSCIONABLE WHORISH SPENDING INSANITY PREVAILS.
Shutting down the government, because of extraneous issues, placed Schumer and the Democrats in a negative light but Pelosi continues to believe her mission in life is to prove she is nuts. (See 2 below.)
Meanwhile, those who continue to hate Trump, even though there is nothing but their own concocted , spurious dreams to go on, will continue to pursue their commitment to destroy his presidency. In doing so, what they do not take into consideration or, even seem to care about, is the impact their efforts are having on disrupting the economic progress Trump and his team seem to be accomplishing.
I was speaking with a tennis friend yesterday and brought up McEnroe and had I concentrated on his vulgar outbursts and childish court behaviour I would have missed seeing a very talented tennis player. The press loved to emphasize his behaviour and the same with Trump. Now they are beating up on the president for considering a military parade after his visit to France.
Soon the mass media will be reporting on Trump's dreams probably leaked to them by brain detectors planted byTrump hating members of our Intelligence Agencies.
In addition, the anti-Trumpers are quick to reject anything positive to Trump because they are actually because of Obama. They maintain what is happening now is simply an extension of the delayed efforts/policies of Obama. I guess Obama will continue to be our president for all of Trump's term.
I agree, Obama's impact will command a lasting impact for decades but I see them as more related to his politicizing so many of our federal agencies, his secret pay-off to Iran, his negative impact which contributed to the increasing rift among Americans etc.
On another front, we see the Democrats have loaded their memo response to Nunes' with items that must be redacted so it will reflect poorly on any comparison. Democrats are clever and never stop angling. Politics is a dirty business and they simply continuously make it dirtier. No wonder the Trey Gowdy's want out and the Schumer's, Durbin's, Pelosi's and Schiff's love immersing themselves in the muck and mire that has come to be known as The Potomac Swamp.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Some information about where illegal immigrants have concentrated geographically speaking. (See
3 below)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) RUTHFULLY YOURS
There were many damning revelations in the Nunes memo released by a House Intelligence Committee vote. But the most damning of them all doesn’t raise questions about process, but about motive.
The memo told us that the FISA application would not have happened without the Steele dossier. The document known as the Steele dossier was a work product of the Clinton campaign. Not only was Christopher Steele, the former British intel agent who purportedly produced the document, working for an organization hired by the Clinton campaign, but he shared a memo with the FBI from Cody Shearer, a Clinton operative, listing some of the same allegations as the ones in his dossier. That memo has raised questions about whether Steele had been doing original research or just dressing up a smear by Shearer.
A redacted memo by Senate Judiciary Committee members Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham also states that there was a second Steele memo based on information that Steele had received from the State Department and which had been passed along by “a friend of the Clintons.” Victoria Nuland, a Clinton protégé and top State Department official who helped cover up the Benghazi attack, recently went on a media tour in which she revealed that Steele had passed along his material to State.
Shearer and Nuland are both Clinton associates. Under President Clinton, Nuland had been Strobe Talbott’s Chief of Staff. Shearer was Strobe Talbott’s brother-in-law and his connection to the Clintons.
Not only was the Steele dossier a work product of the Clinton campaign, but the State Department, which had been run by Hillary Clinton and staffed by many of her loyalists at the top, had been used to route information to Steele from the Clintons, and then route information back from Steele. Clintonworld had not only paid for the Steele dossier, but influenced its content and passed it around.
Calling it the Steele dossier is a mistake. It’s the Clinton dossier. At best, it’s the Clinton-Steele dossier.
The media’s counterattack against the Nunes memo rests on the argument that while the FISA applications didn’t mention that Steele was working for the Clinton campaign, they admitted that the dossier had a political origin. Media apologists and Never Trumpers have acted as if an admission of political origin to the FISA court is some sort of rebuttal of the Nunes memo. It obviously isn’t.
There’s a world of difference between admitting that the dossier came from a “political” source or that it came from the campaign of his greatest political opponent who was obsessed with destroying him.
The media apologists and Never Trumpers have churned out echo chamber articles claiming that courts routinely evaluate evidence from biased and tainted sources. If so, then why not tell the court?
If admitting the truth wouldn’t have made a different, then why not admit the truth?
Defenders of the investigation frequently invoke national security. But there was no intelligence need to protect the Clinton campaign. Keeping Steele anonymous might have protected a source. But keeping the Clinton campaign anonymous wasn’t a defense against the Russians, but against the Republicans.
There were only two reasons to withhold the information about the origins of the Clinton-Steele dossier.
1. Fear that the court would have viewed the Clinton origins of the dossier as disqualifying.
2. Concern about exposing the Clinton campaign’s funding of the dossier.
There’s no question that the origins of the Clinton-Steele dossier were being concealed. If they were being concealed to fool the court, then the whole process was tainted. But such things have been known to happen. The truly damning possibility here is that it wasn’t the court they were concealing it from.
Either the DOJ and FBI deliberately misled the court. Or they were colluding with the Clinton campaign.
The Nunes and Grassley/Graham memos both make it clear that Steele was playing a double game, acting as an FBI source while spreading the Clinton dossier through the media. And the FBI chose to ignore these abuses until it could no longer do so. The double game was criminal and political.
Steele was spreading the Clinton dossier through the media to taint Trump politically. But he was also working with the FBI to go after Trump with a criminal investigation. The information was withheld by the DOJ so as not to expose the fact that his paymasters were actually in the Clinton campaign.
Were the DOJ and the FBI covering up the origins of the Clinton-Steele dossier to protect the criminal investigation or the political campaign? The refusal to crack down on Steele’s media leaks (not to mention the plethora of leaks coming from within the FBI and DOJ) suggest that it was the latter or both.
Admitting a political origin on the FISA application suggests they were less worried about the court than about the public exposure of their actions. And that’s the situation that they find themselves in now.
The Clinton campaign had taken great care to conceal its ownership of the Clinton-Steele dossier. Having a law fire hire a smear firm which then hired a British former intel agent in another country indicates that the campaign was spending a lot of time and money trying to cover its tracks. It wouldn’t have needed to work so hard just to protect the distribution of opposition research to the media.
There was never any shortage of reporters eager to cooperate with Clinton officials. Would the same insider media that allowed the DNC to review articles and ask for changes have really refused to keep the origins of the Clinton-Steele dossier a secret? Even if the reporters who were briefed by Steele didn’t know that he was working for the Clinton campaign, they could have guessed it from their contacts.
Concealing the origins of the Clinton-Steele dossier wasn’t necessary for opposition research. And that means that the dossier had always been intended to serve as the basis for a criminal investigation. Even before he wrote a single word, Christopher Steele had been hired to generate a criminal investigation.
The eavesdropping and the Mueller investigation aren’t unintended outcomes, as the apologists want us to believe, that a zealous Steele triggered by passing the information to the government.
It had always been the intended outcome before Christopher Steele even officially came on board.
But because the campaign was underway, the dossier was a double game. Spreading it through the media acted as classic opposition research while routing it through the DOJ generated an investigation. And the Clinton campaign used Steele to do both. His Fusion GPS handlers ferried him from briefing reporters to briefing the FBI. And the FBI was obligated to keep his secret the way that the media did.
Short of an email hack, there’s no way to get at what a reporter knows. The Los Angeles Times still has Obama’s Khalidi tape locked up. The recent release of a photo of Obama posing with Farrakhan which had been kept locked up for over a decade, and the media’s subsequent refusal to report on it, shows just how impermeable the media’s black wall of silence is. But that’s not true of government agencies.
Government agencies have to respond to orders from the President, queries from members of Congress and even requests from the public. The investigation of the Clinton-Steele dossier was met with stonewalling at every step of the way, but it is yielding results that would be impossible in the media.
The origin of the dossier was omitted to conceal it from conservative activists and politicians.
Would telling the truth about the origins of the Clinton-Steele dossier to the FISA court have been disastrous? Let’s take the word of the media apologists and Never Trumpers who insist that the court would have shrugged. And considering the inclusion of a Yahoo News article (also allegedly generated by Steele), that’s entirely possible. The court was stacked with Obama appointees. The acts of judicial activism that defied the law to undermine Trump have gutted the credibility of the Federal judiciary.
But if the DOJ and FBI weren’t hiding the truth from the judge, they were hiding it from everyone else. They were protecting the dual media smear campaign run by Fusion GPS which was parading Steele in front of selected insider reporters. And they were protecting the public perception of the investigation. If everything had gone as planned, bias might have been suspected, but never proven.
The real question about the concealment of the origins of the Clinton-Steele dossier isn’t whether disclosing it on the FISA application would changed the outcome. That’s a serious legal question that may have a major impact on those who failed to disclose it and on the investigation even if the court response would have been the same. But the real question is, what was the motive for concealing it?
Why did the leadership in the DOJ and the FBI cover up the role of the Clinton campaign? They weren’t protecting intelligence or sources. They covered it up to protect their political allies.
The omission of the origins of the Clinton-Steele dossier is an admission of guilt. It shows that these were not the routine abuses that can occur in an investigation, but that the investigation was politically motivated. A cover-up reveals not only a crime, but the motive for which the crime was committed.
The missing information is evidence of the collusion between the DOJ and the Clintons.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) The Mattis Budget RebukeThe Pentagon chief tells Congress to stop jerking around the military.
By The Editorial Board
Mr. Mattis testified at the House Armed Services Committee about the 2018 defense strategy, among other topics, but noted with some acidity: “Congress mandated, rightfully mandated, this National Defense Strategy—the first one in a decade—and then shut down the government the day of its release.” Without “sustained, predictable appropriations, my presence here today wastes your time,” he added.
Mr. Mattis said that stumbling into another year-long continuing resolution would mean: not recruiting 15,000 Army soldiers and 4,000 Air Force airmen to fill shortfalls; grounding aircraft thanks to a lack of maintenance and spare parts; and worse. “Let me be clear,” he said, “as hard as the last 16 years of war have been on our military, no enemy in the field has done as much to harm the readiness of the U.S. military than the combined impact of the Budget Control Act’s defense spending caps, worsened by operating for 10 of the last 11 years under continuing resolutions of varied and unpredictable duration.”
All of this should rattle Members obsessing over funding for this or that domestic account as a precondition for a deal that gives the military stable funding. Credit to Mr. Mattis for exposing this pathetic budget exercise, which has withheld resources from service members who have signed “a blank check payable to the American people with their lives.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3) 20 metro areas are home to six-in-ten unauthorized immigrants in U.S.
3) 20 metro areas are home to six-in-ten unauthorized immigrants in U.S.
Most of the United States’ 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants live in just 20 major metropolitan areas, with the largest populations in New York, Los Angeles and Houston, according to new Pew Research Center estimates based on government data.
The analysis shows that the nation’s unauthorized immigrant population is highly concentrated, more so than the U.S. population overall. In 2014, the 20 metro areas with most unauthorized immigrants were home to 6.8 million of them, or 61% of the estimated nationwide total. By contrast, only 36% of the total U.S. population lived in those metro areas.
But the analysis also shows that unauthorized immigrants tend to live where other immigrants live. Among lawful immigrants – including naturalized citizens and noncitizens – 65% lived in those top metros.
By far the biggest unauthorized immigrant populations were in the New York and Los Angeles metro areas (1.2 million and 1 million, respectively). No other metro area approached a million. Among the top 20 areas, the smallest unauthorized immigrant populations included Orlando (110,000) and Austin (100,000).
Five of the 20 metros with the largest unauthorized immigrant populations are in California: Los Angeles, Riverside-San Bernardino, San Francisco, San Diego and San Jose. Three – Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth and Austin – are in Texas.
Some of these areas could be affected by the Trump administration’s promise to take action against localities that do not cooperate with federal officials in identifying unauthorized immigrants. The president’s executive order promises to cut federal funds to these “sanctuary jurisdictions.” Mayors in several big cities have said they will not comply with the order.
The top 20 metropolitan areas for unauthorized immigrants have been remarkably consistent over the past decade, according to the Center’s analysis. Nineteen of the 20 top metropolitan destinations for unauthorized immigrants in 2014 ranked among the top 20 each year over the previous decade.
The Census Bureau dataset used for this analysis does not separate cities from the larger metro areas that contain them in all cases. But such a distinction is possible for 11 of the top 20 metro areas. Within those areas, the cities with the largest unauthorized immigrant populations include New York City, with an estimated 525,000 unauthorized immigrants; Los Angeles, with an estimated 375,000; and Chicago, with an estimated 140,000. Other cities with available data are Miami (55,000), Denver (55,000), Philadelphia (50,000), Boston (35,000), San Francisco (35,000), Washington, D.C., (25,000) and Seattle (20,000).
Among the top 20 metro areas, only one city for which data were available – Phoenix – was home to a majority of the unauthorized immigrants in that metropolitan area, with about 140,000 out of a total 250,000. In the others, most of the unauthorized immigrants living in the metro area lived outside the borders of the largest city.
The Center’s analysis relies on augmented data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, using the same residual method as its previous reports on unauthorized immigrants. Unauthorized immigrants include people who either crossed the border illegally or overstayed their visas.
Because these estimates are from a sample, they have margins of error, so some apparent differences in unauthorized immigrant populations between metros or cities may not actually be significantly different. In 150 of the 155 metro areas analyzed, individual metro areas do not differ in rank from those immediately below them. The metro areas that do differ in rank from those immediately below them are New York, Los Angeles, Houston, Washington and San Francisco.
Nationally, unauthorized immigrants made up 3.5% of the total population in 2014. The Philadelphia metro area is the only one of the top 20 metropolitan areas for unauthorized immigrants that had a lower share, the Boston metro area had a roughly equal share and the rest had a higher share than that, including 8.7% in the Houston metro and 8% in the Las Vegas metro.
Unauthorized immigrants account for about one-in-four foreign-born U.S. residents. They make up a somewhat higher share of immigrants in the Houston (37%), Dallas (37%), Atlanta (33%), Phoenix (37%), Las Vegas (35%), Denver (37%) and Austin (34%) metro areas. They make up a somewhat lower share of all immigrants in the New York (19%), Miami (18%), San Francisco (17%) and San Jose (17%) metro areas.
Note: A complete table based on data for the 155 metropolitan areas in the dataset that had foreign-born populations of at least 20,000 people – enough to provide a reliable estimate – can be found here and in this Excel sheet. The Center’s methodology for estimating unauthorized immigrant populations can be found here.
For an interactive graphic showing unauthorized immigrant population estimates and trends for the U.S., states and countries of birth, click here
D’Vera Cohn is a senior writer/editor focusing on immigration and demographics at Pew Research Center.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment