A REBUTTAL OF HILLARY'S SPEECH
little over a week ago, I guess about a week and a half, Hillary
Clinton gave a speech on race, basically accusing Trump of being a
racist. As I listened to the speech, I became more and more frustrated
because there were plenty of things that I thought could be rebutted. I
decided then that I was going to do a response, a fact check if you
will, of Hillary's speech. It obviously took a while to respond to
everything, so I couldn't get my response up immediately or in as timely
of a manner as I would have liked. I have started a blog where I have
posted some of my posts rebutting various news articles against Trump
and addressing common liberal talking points. This speech was full of
talking points that I thought needed to be addressed.
I realize that
it is incredibly lengthy, but perhaps you might like to scroll through
it. I bolded her statements, and there are comments by me and links to
articles if you need some help in arguing against some of the things
said about Trump.
Everywhere I go, people tell me how concerned they are by the divisive rhetoric coming from my opponent in this election.
So that's what they talk about at the multitude of fundraisers
with wealthy, elitist liberals, with Wall Street, with celebrities,
etc.? She raised $143 million from said folks last month.
I understand that concern because it’s like nothing we’ve
heard before from a nominee for President of the United States from one
of our two major parties.
~Hillary's policies have caused the growth of ISIS
~Hillary wanted to go into Libya, it fell apart, and then she
kept her people in Benghazi without adequate security with multiple
requests for it. The night the embassy was attacked, military support
wasn't sent immediately. Hillary then proceeded to lie to the families
and blame the whole thing on a video all the while she emailed her
daughter telling her they were attacked by an Al Qaeda like group.
~Hillary kept her Secretary of State email on a personal server,
tried to delete multiple emails, and compromised national security
~Hillary's State Department engaged in pay for play with her Clinton Foundation.
Yeah, it's like nothing we've heard before from a nominee for President of the United States from one of our two major parties.
From the start, Donald Trump has built his campaign on
prejudice and paranoia. He is taking hate groups mainstream and helping a
radical fringe take over the Republican party. His disregard for the
values that make our country great is profoundly dangerous.
Let me get this straight, the media is all riled up that Trump
called Hillary a bigot. However, they aren't riled up with this. This is
Hillary calling Trump a bigot. What else is it? It might not directly
say the word as it is coated in politician speak, but anyone reading it
knows that she is saying Trump is a bigot.
In just the past week, under the guise of ‘outreach’ to
African Americans, Trump has stood up in front of largely white
audiences and described black communities in such insulting and ignorant
terms. ‘Poverty. Rejection. Horrible education. No housing. No homes.
No ownership. Crime at levels nobody has seen.’ ‘Right now,’ he said,
‘you walk down the street and get shot.’ Those are his words.
First of all, Trump is addressing the inner cities - areas that
have been under Democrat control for decades. Stats for African
1) POVERTY AND HOME OWNERSHIP (stats from Newsmax):
Nationally, Obama’s value to blacks is almost purely symbolic. It’s quite literally two steps forward, six steps back.
The unemployment rate has improved. According to the latest
data, joblessness for black Americans has slid from 12.7 percent at
Obama’s first inauguration to 8.4 percent in July — down 33.9 percent.
The unemployment rate for blacks from ages 16 to 19 declined
over that interval, from 35.3 percent to 25.7 percent — down 27.2
But, the overall labor force participation rate for black
Americans has slipped from 63.2 percent to 61.2 percent — down 3.2
This metric also slumped for black teenagers, from 29.6 percent to 27.7 percent —down 6.4 percent.
The percentage of black Americans in poverty has grown under
Obama, the Census Bureau reports, from 25.8 in 2009 to 26.2 in 2014 — up
Real median income among black households during Obama, the Census says, slid from $35,954 to $35,398 — down 1.5 percent.
The number of blacks on Food Stamps soared under Obama — from 7,393,000 in 2009 to 11,699,000 in 2014 — up 58.2 percent.
Also, from Obama’s arrival through last June 30, the
percentage of black Americans who own homes plunged from 46.1 to 41.7
percent, the Census reports — down 9.5 percent.
Study Lays Out Grim Statistics on Urban Education
"Measuring Up: Educational Improvement And Opportunity in 50 Cities"
The study takes into account nine indicators around the
health of public education—across all public schools in the cities—and
does not separate traditional district schools from charter schools.
Among the findings:
Less than a third of the cities examined made gains in math
or reading proficiency over the three-year study span relative to their
One in 4 students in 9th grade in 2009 did not graduate from high school in four years.
Forty percent of schools across the cities that were in the bottom 5 percent in their state stayed there for three years.
Less than 10 percent of all high school students enrolled in advanced-math classes each year in 29 of the 50 cities.
Less than 15 percent of all high school students took the ACT/SAT in 30 of the 50 cities.
Low-income students and students of color were less likely
to enroll in high-scoring elementary and middle schools than those who
were more affluent or were white. (In Los Angeles, for example, Hispanic
students were nearly seven times as likely as white students to be
enrolled in elementary or middle schools with low math achievement.)
On average, 8 percent of students in the study cities were
enrolled in "beat the odds" schools—those that got better results than
demographically similar schools in the state.
About a 14 percentage-point achievement gap existed between
students who were eligible for free and reduced-price meals and those
who were not.
Black students were almost twice as likely to receive an
out-of-school suspension as white students. (Baton Rouge, La., was the
only city in the study where black students were not more likely to be
suspended than white students.)
(CNN)Violent crime is on the rise so far this year in major
cities across the US compared to the number of homicides, rapes,
robberies, assaults and shootings that occurred in the same cities by
this point in 2015, a new report has found.
The midyear violent crime survey released Monday by the Major
Cities Chiefs Association shows 307 more homicides so far in 2016,
according to data from 51 law enforcement agencies from some of
largest US cities.
In addition to a large increase in homicides, major cities in
the US have experienced more than 1,000 more robberies, almost 2,000
more aggravated assaults and more than 600 non-fatal shootings in 2016
compared to this time last year. The only category of violent crime not
reflecting an increase when compared to last year is rape.
The 316 homicides reported by the Chicago Police Department
were by far the most of any law enforcement agency included in the
survey, a 48% increase over last year. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department said there were 110 homicides so far this year, compared to
85 in 2015. San Jose's 25 homicides more than doubled the amount during
the same period last year.
This was from July, so certainly add more deaths since then.
Furthermore, the Washington Post did an article on violent crime after
the CNN article. While the CNN article concludes that rape is one
statistic that is not up, the Washington Post article states that rape
is up as well:
But the FBI reports nationwide data for the first six months
of the previous year every January. In January 2016, it reported crime
figures for the first half of 2015. That data showed significant
increases in violent crime categories. Homicide was up 6.2 percent
across the country, while rape was up 9.6 percent.
While the data reported is classified as “preliminary,” the
2015 FBI data is directly drawn from more than 70 percent of
participating law-enforcement agencies. It is preliminary only in the
sense that it is drawn only from the first half of the year and compared
with the first half of the previous year — a statistically valid
comparison. Academic research also backs up the FBI’s newest data.
In June, well before Obama’s remarks and most of the
fact-checks of Trump’s claims, Richard Rosenfeld of the University of
Missouri at St. Louis documented, in a study of 56 major cities
conducted for the Justice Department, that homicides were up 17 percent
on average. Forty of the cities saw homicides increase, and 12 of those
cities saw them increase by more than 50 percent.
Furthermore, data collected by the Major Cities Chiefs
Association indicate that this trend has continued into 2016. In the
first half of the year, homicides are up 15 percent over 2015. Non-fatal
shootings (up 4 percent) and aggravated assaults (3.4 percent) both
jumped in the first half of the year as well.
Our own analysis of 20 large cities, gathered directly from
publicly available police department data, finds that crime is rising
overall, although the increases are spread unevenly across the country.
And compared with 2014 lows, some types of violent crimes are not just rising; they are rising at alarming rates.
For example, since 2014, violent crime is up 47 percent in Los Angeles, 26 percent in Baltimore and 23 percent in Dallas.
In Chicago, arguably the worst-hit city, homicides have risen
more than 70 percent since 2014. With almost 400 murders to date, the
Windy City is on track to tally more than 650 murders this year alone —
the most in almost two decades.
In New York City, homicide jumped almost 6 percent while rape is up 10 percent over the past two years.
It’s true that in some cities, such as Boston and
Oakland, homicides and violent crime have continued the long-term
downward trend. However, while the rise in homicide rates is not
uniform, in aggregate murder is up 21 percent in the major cities we
surveyed, comparing the first half of 2014 to the first half of 2016.
Even as robbery dipped slightly, aggravated assault jumped 10
percent. Total violent crime figures for the selected cities rose 6
percent, according to our analysis.
4) WHAT AUDIENCE WAS HILLARY STANDING IN FRONT OF WHEN SHE CALLED YOUNG BLACKS SUPER PREDATORS?
This article was written by a black woman who found those comments to be very offensive and thinks they have had a negative impact on the black community. She said it was used to advance the three strikes law and to "justify mass incarceration for many crack addicts and small dose marijuana users, not dealers." She also said, "The focus was not rehabilitation of the the addicts, but punitive punishment."
Try again, Hillary. Let's continue:
Donald Trump misses so much. He doesn’t see the success of
black leaders in every field, the vibrancy of the black-owned
businesses, or the strength of the black church. He doesn’t see the
excellence of historically black colleges and universities or the pride
of black parents watching their children thrive. He apparently didn’t
see Police Chief Brown on television after the murder of five of his
officers conducting himself with such dignity.
First of all, he speech was an appeal to the inner city.
Obviously Trump knows that there are plenty of successful black people
in this country - some work for his company! He sees them every day!
When has Trump said there aren't successful black owned
businesses? He wants to help them by getting better trade deals,
lowering taxes, reducing regulations, and fighting for lower energy
Consider this from a liberal black site:
In March 2014, the Wall Street Journal reported that only 1.7
percent of $23 billion in SBA loans went to Black-owned businesses in
2013, the lowest loan of SBA lending to Black businesses on record.
During the Bush presidency, the percentage of SBA loans to Black
businesses was 8 percent – more than four times the Obama rate.
Of course Trump knows of the strength of the black church. He
has black pastors like Darrell Scott, Mark Burns, James Davis, etc.
I don't recall Trump ever saying anything critical of black
colleges, but that sounded like a nice talking point, so they threw it
in the speech.
I'm pretty sure Trump did see Police Chief Brown on TV. Donald
Trump has advocated strongly for the police and has throughout his
campaign, and it doesn't matter what race the police are.
And he certainly doesn’t have any solutions to take on the
reality of systemic racism and create more equity and opportunity in
communities of color and for every American.
And Democrats do? That's why the statistics I posted above exist
under a black Democrat President, right? That's why inner cities have
been doing so well under Democrat rule for decades, right? As Obama's
third term, the only thing people can expect is the status quo.
It really does take a lot of nerve to ask people he’s ignored
and mistreated for decades, ‘What do you have to lose?’ Because the
answer is everything.
What is "everything" when you live in a neighborhood where you
don't feel safe, your kids don't have access to the same type of
education available in the suburbs, and you are in poverty? Is that what
you are to cling to? What do you have to lose when you vote for
Hillary? Maybe you won't lose anything if you vote for Hillary, but you
won't gain anything either.
And that’s what I want to make clear today: A man with a long
history of racial discrimination, who traffics in dark conspiracy
theories drawn from the pages of supermarket tabloids and the far, dark
reaches of the internet, should never run our government or command our
military. Ask yourself, if he doesn’t respect all Americans, how can he
serve all Americans?
This is a woman who schmoozes with celebrities and big
money/Wall Street donors more than she has rallies to connect with the
average voter and who won't release her Wall Street speech transcripts.
This is a woman who wanted to go into Libya, ignored security requests
from Benghazi after the country was destabilized, delayed our military
in going to Benghazi once our embassy was under attack, and then lied to
the families about why their loved ones were killed. This is a woman
who put her email on a private server as Secretary of State and lied
about that mishandling of classified information. This is a woman who
engaged in her pay for play with her foundation. She also accepted money
for that foundation from countries with terrible human rights records.
After such a dismal record as Secretary of State, that is someone who
should never run our government or command our military. I ask myself,
if she doesn't respect all Americans (including the unborn), how can she
serve all Americans?
And Maya Angelou, a great American who I admire very much,
she once said: ‘When someone shows you who they are, believe them the
Oh really, Hillary? If you read that previous paragraph, I agree
that you showed me who you are. Bill showed you who he was. You
believed him, and you kept him around anyway.
When Trump was getting his start in business, he was sued by
the Justice Department for refusing to rent apartments to black and
Their applications would be marked with a “C” – “C” for “colored” – and then rejected.
Three years later, the Justice Department took Trump back to court because he hadn’t changed.
Hillary went reaching back to the 1970s for this. A little info:
In another housing case shortly before then, a New York
developer had quickly settled with the government. But Trump wanted to
“The idea of settling drove me crazy,” he wrote in “The Art of the Deal.”
“What we didn’t do was rent to welfare cases, white or
black,” Trump wrote in his 1987 autobiography. “I’d rather fight than
fold, because as soon as you fold once, you get the reputation of being a
Cohn, who died in 1986, advised Trump to tell the government
to “go to hell,” according to Trump’s book. Cohn counseled pursuit of a
strategy that remains key to Trump’s playbook today: When attacked, hit
back harder. On Dec. 12, 1973, Trump held a news conference at the New
York Hilton to announce a counterclaim, saying the government knowingly
made false and misleading statements. Cohn sought $100 million for the
Trumps. Donald Trump claimed that the government was trying to force the
company to lease apartments to people on welfare.
If that happened, Trump said, “there would be a massive
fleeing from the city of not only our tenants, but communities as a
whole,” according to news accounts from the time.
Trump, in an affidavit, rejected any suggestion that his view
was based on race. “I have never, nor has anyone in our organization
ever, to the best of my knowledge, discriminated or shown bias in
renting our apartments,” he said.
Cohn filed his own affidavit lamenting what he suggested was an overzealous government.
“No matter what the outcome of this case,” Cohn said, “I
suppose the damage is never going to be completely undone because you
are never going to catch up with these initial headlines.”
Cohn spoke first, ridiculing the government for requesting racial breakdowns of Trump buildings.
There are “a number of blacks who live in there, that we know visibly,” Cohn said, according to a court transcript.
“I have taken a ride and looked at some of them and blacks
walk in and out and I assume they are not there for any improper purpose
and they live in the place,” Cohn said. “But they want us to go,
apparently, and canvass all 14,000 of these units and find out how many
blacks live there and how many non-blacks live there, and I suppose how
many Puerto Ricans live there or non-Puerto Ricans.”
The Trumps and their attorney then turned their attention to undermining key aspects of the government’s case.
The legal team went after the claims that Trump employees
used coded language to refer to minorities. This case had originated in
part from one employee, who told the government that he was instructed
to mark rental applications from blacks with the letter “C” for
“colored,” and that “he did this every time a black person applied for
an apartment,” according to an affidavit from Goldweber. The employee
said he didn’t want to be identified in the case because “he was afraid
that the Trumps would have him ‘knocked off,’ or words to that effect,
because he told me about their allegedly discriminatory practices,”
according to the affidavit.
Court transcripts show how the Trump lawyers then attempted a
new tactic: attacking the credibility of the government’s lawyer. They
drafted an affidavit for the employee, in which he denied making such
statements. In the signed statement, the employee claimed that the
Justice Department lawyer who replaced Goldweber, Donna Goldstein, told
him to “lie” or risk being “thrown in jail.” The employee described
himself as a “Spanish-speaking Puerto Rican hired directly by Mr. Donald
Goldstein and other Justice officials vehemently denied that
she made any threats. Goldstein, now a California Superior Court judge,
declined to comment on the case.
Cohn said in an affidavit that Goldstein was conducting a
“gestapo-like interrogation.” A Cohn colleague wrote to the Justice
Department that its agents were “descending upon the Trump offices with
Cohn wanted the judge to hold Goldstein in contempt. But
Cohn’s effort went nowhere. The judge admonished Cohn for his language
and said in a hearing that his accusations against the Justice
Department were “utterly without foundation.”
The two sides eventually came to terms. On June 10, 1975,
they signed an agreement prohibiting the Trumps from “discriminating
against any person in the terms, conditions, or priveleges of sale or
rental of a dwelling.” The Trumps were ordered to “thoroughly acquaint
themselves personally on a detailed basis” with the Fair Housing Act.
The agreement also required the Trumps to place ads informing
minorities they had an equal opportunity to seek housing at their
The decree makes clear the Trumps did not view the agreement
as a surrender, saying the settlement was “in no way an admission” of a
That’s not how Donald Trump considered it. He declared
victory, in part because the agreement specifically stated that Trump
made the deal without acknowledging wrongdoing.
In his autobiography Trump minimized the case’s impact. “In
the end the government couldn’t prove its case, and we ended up making a
minor settlement without admitting any guilt.”
Again, this was over 40 years ago when Trump worked with his
father. His father grew up in a different generation. If there was
discrimination today with regard to Trump's hotel, apartments, etc., I
would have expected it to be out there.
State regulators fined one of Trump’s casinos for repeatedly
removing black dealers from the floor. No wonder the turn-over rate for
his minority employees was way above average.
One casino? Trump had multiple casinos. If there was systematic
racism going on from the top of the chain, wouldn't that be occuring at
every casino? Wouldn't it be occuring at all of his properties.
However, what about Maralago?
Trump filed a lawsuit 20 years ago against the city of Palm
Beach, Florida, accusing the town of discriminating against his recently
purchased Mar-a-Lago resort club because it was open to Jews and blacks
alike, according to a piece published in The Wall Street Journal a year
Moreover, the piece quoted the Anti-Defamation League’s
then-Director Abraham Foxman as having said this about Trump’s suit: “He
put the light on Palm Beach — not on the beauty and the glitter, but on
its seamier side of discrimination.”
“In other words, long before he was running for president,
there was Donald Trump battling racism and anti-Semitism in Palm Beach
society,” Jeffrey Lord added in a piece he recently penned for The
During the whole clash between Trump and the town of Palm
Beach, the now-presumptive GOP nominee also sent the city council a copy
of “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,” a classic 1967 comedy that dealt
with controversial subjects such as interracial marriage and racial
Suits and actions like this might seem small to the contemporary small-minded liberal, but they in reality had a huge impact.
Foxman explained to The Journal that following the whole
affair, the league began receiving calls from Jewish residents claiming
that the clubs in Palm Beach were finally beginning to change.
“Locals concur that in the past year, organizations such as
the Bath and Tennis Club have begun to admit Jewish patrons,” The
Journal wrote. “The Palm Beach Civic Association, which for many years
was believed to engage in discriminatory behavior, this month named a
Jewish resident as its chief officer.”
The same occurred with regard to the city’s black residents —
because of the very man whom modern liberals love to castigate as
nothing more than a bigot and racist.
Jesse Jackson liked him a lot at one time...of course that was long before he started supporting Hillary.
In both 1998 and 1999, Trump was an honored guest at the
annual Wall Street Conference hosted by the Rainbow PUSH Coalition,
Jackson’ DC-based “multi-racial, multi-issue, progressive, international
membership organization fighting for social change.”
In 1998, Jackson introduced Trump ahead of his speech at the conference.
“We need your building skills, your gusto,” Jackson told the
Donlestate mogul before stating Trump is a model for “people on Wall
Street to represent diversity.”
You can watch Trump’s 1998 speech over at C-SPAN’s website.
Jackson introduced his Trump — whom he called a “friend” — at
the same conference in 1999, where this time he was invited to speak on
the “challenges and opportunities to embrace under-served communities.”
“He is deceptive in that his social style is of such, one can
miss his seriousness and commitment to success, which is beyond
argument,” Jackson said Trump.
“When we opened this Wall Street project,” he continued. “He
gave us space at 40 Wall Street, which was to make a statement about our
having a presence there.”
“Beyond that, in terms of reaching out and being inclusive,
he’s done that too,” Jackson added. “He has this sense of the curious
and a will to make things better.”
“Aside from all of his style, and his pizazz, he’s a serious person who is an effective builder of people.”
And let’s not forget Trump first gained political prominence leading the charge for the so-called “Birthers.”
He promoted the racist lie that President Obama is not really
an American citizen – part of a sustained effort to delegitimize
America’s first black president.
First of all, these initial theories began in 2004 - long before
Trump brought them up (citing liberal media), and these were furthered
by Hillary's own supporters:
False rumours about Mr Obama’s background first surfaced in
2004, in Illinois, where he was a state senator. Andy Martin, a
perennial local candidate and litigant, claimed Mr Obama was secretly
Related theories — including that he was radicalised in a
“madrassa” in Indonesia — developed after Mr Obama entered the national
stage with a speech to the Democratic National Convention later that
In 2005, Mr Obama went to Washington as the junior US senator
for Illinois. The rumours about him persisted, but seemingly failed to
take hold among political insiders and voters alike.
It was not until April 2008, at the height of the intensely
bitter Democratic presidential primary process, that the touch paper was
An anonymous email circulated by supporters of Mrs Clinton,
Mr Obama’s main rival for the party’s nomination, thrust a new
allegation into the national spotlight — that he had not been born in
“Barack Obama’s mother was living in Kenya with his
Arab-African father late in her pregnancy,” it said. “She was not
allowed to travel by plane then, so Barack Obama was born there and his
mother then took him to Hawaii to register his birth.” Then in August
2008 Phil Berg, an ex-deputy attorney general for Pennsylvania and a
renowned conspiracy theorist, filed a lawsuit alleging that Mr Obama was
ineligible to be a candidate.
“Obama carries multiple citizenships and is ineligible to run
for President of the United States. United States Constitution, Article
II, Section 1,” it said.
By then, the Obama campaign had posted a copy of his
“certificate of live birth” — a shorter version of the birth
certificate, which is accepted as proof of birth from applicants for a
But the fact it was not the full, original certificate — and
that the campaign failed to show the serial number and other details in
their scan — meant that the conspiracy theorists were unbowed.
The answer lies in Democratic, not Republican politics, and
in the bitter, exhausting spring of 2008. At the time, the Democratic
presidential primary was slipping away from Hillary Clinton and some of
her most passionate supporters grasped for something, anything that
would deal a final reversal to Barack Obama. (See: Bachmann: Birther
The original smear against Obama was that he was a
crypto-Muslim, floated in 2004 by perennial Illinois political candidate
and serial litigant Andy Martin. Other related versions of this theory
alleged that Obama was educated in an Indonesian “madrassa” or steeped
in Islamist ideology from a young age, and the theories began to spread
virally after Obama appeared on the national stage – to the casual
observer, from nowhere – with his early 2007 presidential campaign
That theory first emerged in the spring of 2008, as Clinton
supporters circulated an anonymous email questioning Obama’s
“Barack Obama’s mother was living in Kenya with his
Arab-African father late in her pregnancy. She was not allowed to travel
by plane then, so Barack Obama was born there and his mother then took
him to Hawaii to register his birth,” asserted one chain email that
surfaced on the urban legend site Snopes.com in April 2008.
Another early version of the theory, reported by the Chicago
Tribune in June 2008, depended on a specious legal theory that was, for a
time, the heart of the argument: that Obama was born in Hawaii but had a
Kenyan father, and his mother was only 18 years old. Therefore, under
existing immigration law, he was not eligible for automatic citizenship
upon birth — a claim that depended on an understandable, but incorrect,
reading of immigration law. Other theories suggested that Obama lost his
U.S. citizenship when he moved to Indonesia or visited Pakistan in
violation of a supposed State Department ban as a young man. (There was
no such ban.)
But while the identity of the First Birther is lost to the
mists of chain email, one of the first to put his name to the theory was
Phil Berg, a former Pennsylvania deputy attorney general who had spent
the previous years accusing President George W. Bush of complicity in
the Sept. 11 attack.
Berg filed a complaint in federal District court on Aug. 21,
2008, that alleged, “Obama carries multiple citizenships and is
ineligible to run for President of the United States. United States
Constitution, Article II, Section 1.”
“All the efforts of supporters of legitimate citizens were
for nothing because the Obama cheated his way into a fraudulent
candidacy and cheated legitimately eligible natural born citizens from
competing in a fair process and the supporters of their citizen choice
for the nomination,” the suit claims.
Even after Clinton conceded the 2008 race to Obama, according
to Poltifact, some Democrats chose not to unite and instead funneled
their questions of Obama’s eligibility to pumaparty.com (Party Unity My
Both of those stories comport with what we here at
FactCheck.org wrote two-and-a-half years earlier, on Nov. 8, 2008: “This
claim was first advanced by diehard Hillary Clinton supporters as her
campaign for the party’s nomination faded, and has enjoyed a revival
among John McCain’s partisans as he fell substantially behind Obama in
public opinion polls.”
Claims about Obama’s birthplace appeared in chain emails
bouncing around the Web, and one of the first lawsuits over Obama’s
birth certificate was filed by Philip Berg, a former deputy Pennsylvania
attorney general and a self-described “moderate to liberal” who
The other coauthor of the Politico story, Ben Smith, now the
editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed, said in a May 2013 interview on MSNBC that
the conspiracy theories traced back to “some of [Hillary Clinton’s]
passionate supporters,” during the final throes of Clinton’s 2008
campaign. But he said they did not come from “Clinton herself or her
Secondly, it is not racist to question if someone is born in
this country. I don't care if he's the first black President. There were
a lot of theories out there, and he wouldn't release his birth
certificate - there was speculation that he wasn't born in Hawaii but in
Kenya. He had a very unique background growing up with regards to his
father, mother, and stepfather. I don't think, in fact I know, if it was
someone like Cory Booker, Trump wouldn't have questioned it. No one
would. It had nothing to do with the fact he was black. Donald Trump
also questioned if Ted Cruz was a citizen because he was born in Canada.
He's not black.
In 2015, Trump launched his own campaign for president with
another racist lie. He described Mexican immigrants as rapists and
He said nothing incorrect. He never said ALL Mexican immigrants.
He's talking about illegal immigrants from Mexico. Prove that this is
wrong and there have been no rapists or criminals who are illegal who
have come to the U.S.:
In the absence of comprehensive data, FoxNews.com examined a
patchwork of local, state and federal statistics that revealed a wildly
disproportionate number of murderers, rapists and drug dealers are
crossing into the U.S. amid the wave of hard-working families seeking a
better life. The explosive figures show illegal immigrants are three
times as likely to be convicted of murder as members of the general
population and account for far more crimes than their 3.5-percent share
of the U.S. population would suggest. Critics say it is no accident that
local, state and federal governments go to great lengths to keep the
data under wraps.
FoxNews.com did review reports from immigration reform groups
and various government agencies, including the U.S. Census Bureau, U.S.
Sentencing Commission, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the
Government Accountability Office, the Bureau of Justice Statistics and
several state and county correctional departments. Statistics show the
estimated 11.7 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. account for 13.6
percent of all offenders sentenced for crimes committed in the U.S.
Twelve percent of murder sentences, 20 percent of kidnapping sentences
and 16 percent of drug trafficking sentences are meted out to illegal
There are approximately 2.1 million legal or illegal
immigrants with criminal convictions living free or behind bars in the
U.S., according to ICE's Secure Communities office. Each year, about
900,000 legal and illegal immigrants are arrested, and 700,000 are
released from jail, prison, or probation. ICE estimates that there are
more than 1.2 million criminal aliens at large in the U.S.
In the most recent figures available, a Government
Accountability Office report titled, "Criminal Alien Statistics," found
there were 55,000 illegal immigrants in federal prison and 296,000 in
state and local lockups in 2011. Experts agree those figures have almost
certainly risen, although executive orders from the Obama
administration may have changed the status of thousands who previously
would have been counted as illegal immigrants.
Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrant criminals are
being deported. In 2014, ICE removed 315,943 criminal illegal immigrants
nationwide, 85 percent of whom had previously been convicted of a
criminal offense. But that same year, ICE released onto U.S. streets
another 30,558 criminal illegal immigrants with a combined 79,059
criminal convictions including 86 homicides, 186 kidnappings, and
thousands of sexual assaults, domestic violence assaults and DUIs,
Vaughan said. As of August, ICE had already released at least 10,246
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency in 2015
decided not to deport but release 19,723 criminal illegal immigrants,
including 208 convicted of murder, over 900 convicted of sex crimes and
12,307 of drunk driving, according to new government numbers.
Overall, those released into virtually every state and
territory of America had a total of 64,197 convictions among them, for
an average of 3.25 convictions each, according to an analysis by the
Center for Immigration Studies. ICE also said that the group were
convicted of 8,234 violent crimes.
And he accused the Mexican government of actively sending them across the border. None of that is true.
Why is the Mexican government turning a blind eye to the sheer
volume of people crossing their border? Why aren't they working on their
country so decent people from Mexico don't feel they have to cross the
border to get a better job? Why aren't they stopping the gangs, drugs,
and criminals who are crossing our borders? Why do they think our
government should be giving amnesty to their citizens?
On Tuesday, Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto hailed
President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty as an “act of justice” and
vowed that the Mexican government would help illegal immigrants from
Mexico obtain documents like birth certificates without having to travel
Pena Nieto and Obama met at the White House and, according to
the White House, Pena Nieto said Obama’s executive amnesty was a “very
intelligent and audacious decision” and “is of course an act of justice
for people who arrive from other parts of the world but are now part of
the U.S. community.”
After acknowledging that “a very big majority of Mexican
citizens” will benefit from Obama’s executive amnesty, Pena Nieto said
the Mexican government will help Mexicans living in the United States
get the documentation “necessary to prove that they have been in the
United States before 2010.”
Pena Nieto said illegal immigrants from Mexico will even “be
able to get their birth certificates without having to go to Mexico.”
Pena Nieto, who has referred to America as “the other
Mexico,” praised California for its generous policies toward illegal
immigrants during a recent visit. He also scolded other governors who
did not follow California’s lead and demanded “justice” for illegal
immigrants in the United States.
Oh, and by the way, Mexico’s not paying for his wall either.
If it ever gets built, you can be sure that American taxpayers will be stuck with the bill.
Money well spent anyway. It's still cheaper to pay for the wall than the annual cost of illegal immigration:
Illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a
year at the federal, state and local level. The bulk of the costs —
some $84 billion — are absorbed by state and local governments.
We all remember when Trump said a distinguished federal judge
born in Indiana couldn’t be trusted to do his job because, quote, “He’s
The judge again. I have addressed this multiple times and will again:
That was a campaign blunder for Trump because, while I think the
campaign should have used a different tactic to go after the release of
documents from the case, it was articulated poorly. Trump should have
used that in connection with La Raza. I know, I know, the media will
tell me there are two La Razas, but the La Raza this judge belonged to
is a political group:
SDLRLA is a non-partisan organization which takes great pride
in its political activity. This organization was founded so that it
could advance the Latino community through political activity and
advocacy. As we well realize, the only way to effect change is to demand
change by engaging the political system. Today, SDLRLA does this
through two vehicles; it’s Political Affairs Committee and it’s
Political Action Committee.
The Political Affairs Committee is tasked by the Board of
Directors to oversee all aspects of the Association’s political efforts.
The Political Affairs Committee has led the Association’s efforts to
push the state legislature for a reinvestment in our judicial system,
has organized two major San Diego mayoral candidate forums, and is
acting as the liaison to support the National Association of Latino
Elected Official’s 2014 convention in San Diego, June 26-28.
The Political Action Committee (PAC) is a separate entity
comprised of community leaders and board members that oversee all
aspects of the Association’s lobbying efforts. The PAC makes decisions
on how to contribute the PAC’s money to support candidates and causes
that are aligned with the Association’s mission and values.
They make endorsements:
On the side of their website, the link to various groups. One of
them is Border Angels. Border Angels helps illegal immigrants and is
The Daily Caller lists these organizations:
Meet The Pro-Illegal Immigrant Groups The La Raza Lawyers Of San Diego Consider Part Of Their ‘Community’
The SDLRLA’s website includes a side-panel on their site
titled “Community” which includes links to a variety of groups,
including the National Council of La Raza.
“Please note, the San Diego Lawyers Association is not
affiliated with the National La Raza Council,” the president of the
SDLRLA, Luis O. Osuna, told The Daily Caller in a statement.
However, this link is not the only connection between the
SDLRLA and the National Council of La Raza. The San Diego previously
publicized a La Raza announcement in 2012 about gay marriage. The SDLRLA
is also an affiliate of the Hispanic National Bar Association. The
former president of this group, Rafael Santiago, was on the board of the
National Council of La Raza. La Raza views itself as a non-radical
Latino advocacy group, but Hispanic civil rights leader Cesar Chavez
called the movement “anti-gringo.”
Donald Trump has come out strongly against Judge Curiel
saying he can’t be impartial because of his Mexican heritage. Likewise,
the National Council of La Raza has come out strongly against Trump. The
group’s president has previously accused Trump of “bigotry.” The NCLR
has also previously called President Barack Obama “deporter-in-chief.”
However, the NCLR is not the only group the San Diego La Raza
Lawyers Association associates with that takes issues with Trump and
his policies. Another group linked as part of the SDLRLA’s community is
Reality Changers, which provides scholarships to low-income youth, some
of which are illegal immigrants. It was previously reported by TheDC
that Judge Curiel was on a selection committee that gave a scholarship
to an illegal alien.
MANA de San Diego is also listed on the community page of the
SDLRLA and likewise to Reality Changers they offer scholarships to
illegal immigrant youth. Another group in the “community” is MALDEF.
MALDEF previously spearheaded a lawsuit against several colleges for
denying admission to illegal aliens.
Alliance San Diego is likewise linked to by the SDLRLA and a
recent post on their site is, “Latinos allege excessive policing after
Trump protests.” Alliance San Diego has come out strongly in support of
Obama’s executive actions providing amnesty.
Another group that SDLRLA considers part of their community
is Border Angels. The founder of Border Angels opposed the most recent
immigration reform bill, Gang of Eight, because “it is not humane, as it
would double the size of the Border Patrol and double the size of the
San Diego Dream Team is another organization linked to the
SDLRLA. The group recently tweeted out their displeasure with
deportation raids from the Obama administration. “San Diego will NOT
stand for hate, militarization of our communities/separation of
families#StopTheHate #HereToStay,” the group wrote on May 27.
The judge was involved in giving a scholarship to an illegal immigrant:
Judge Presiding Over Trump University Case Is Member Of La Raza Lawyers Group [VIDEO]
United States District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the man
presiding over the class-action lawsuit against Trump University, is a
member of the La Raza Lawyers of San Diego and oversaw the gift of a law
school scholarship to an illegal alien.
Report: Trump University Judge Linked to Group that Calls for Boycott of Trump’s Businesses
Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is overseeing a fraud case against
Trump University, is reportedly a member of the San Diego La Raza
Lawyers Association, which is affiliated with the Hispanic National Bar
The Hispanic National Bar Association sent out a press
release last summer after Donald Trump, who is now the presumptive
Republican nominee, announced he was running for president and created a
controversy by discussing illegal immigration and crime during his
The press release stated the organization’s mission to target
Trump’s “business interests,” according to the Conservative Treehouse.
“By his recent derogatory remarks about Mexican immigrants,
Donald Trump’s disrespect of such a large segment of the population of
America is not only unbelievable but outright wrong,” the press release
states. “His comment that Mexico only sends rapists and criminals to the
United States reveals a racist nature that cannot and will not go
unnoticed by the Hispanic National Bar Association nor the Latino
The press release adds:
The HNBA calls for a boycott of all of Trump business
ventures, including golf courses, hotels, and restaurants. We salute
NBC/Universal, Univision and Macy’s for ending their association with
Trump, and we join them in standing up against bigotry and racist
rhetoric. Other businesses and corporations should follow the lead of
NBC/Universal, Univision and Macy’s and take similar actions against
Donald Trump’s business interests. We can and will make a difference.
This is someone who retweets white supremacists online, like
the user who goes by the name “white-genocide-TM.” Trump took this
fringe bigot with a few dozen followers and spread his message to 11
Who pays attention to what you retweet? If I'm on Twitter and
see something I like or agree with, I often retweet it without looking
at the handle of the person who Tweeted, let alone the profile page.
His campaign famously posted an anti-Semitic image – a Star
of David imposed over a sea of dollar bills – that first appeared on a
white supremacist website.
That is factually incorrect. The image first appeared on Twitter
on June 15. It wasn't seen on the website until June 22. When an image
is on Twitter, is it often retweeted and floats around. Second of all,
it was just a star - a badge of corruption for Hillary Clinton. That
sheriff's star was probably the dumbest media controversy of this
campaign...and that's saying something. His daughter, son in law, and
grandkids are Jewish for pete's sake. A Jewish employee of Trump said
Trump was very respectful of his religion and allowed him to leave work
early or miss work to observe Jewish holidays.
The Trump campaign also selected a prominent white
nationalist leader as a delegate in California. They only dropped him
Trump campaign responds:
The Trump campaign submitted the name of William Johnson, the
head of the American Freedom Party who funded pro-Trump robocalls that
talked of the white race "dying out in America," to the California
secretary of state. Johnson is one of 169 delegates -- 159 from
congressional districts and 10 at-large delegates -- that voters in each
of California's congressional districts would send to the GOP's
nominating convention this summer by voting for Trump.
Johnson said he received an email from a California
strategist with Trump's campaign late Tuesday afternoon stating that he
had been listed in error.
The Trump campaign on Tuesday blamed Johnson's inclusion on its California delegate slate on a "database error."
"Yesterday, the Trump campaign submitted its list of
California delegates to be certified by the Secretary of State of
California. A database error led to the inclusion of a potential
delegate that had been rejected and removed from the campaign's list in
February 2016," Trump campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks said in a
"We are working to correct this error," she added.
Per the Huffington Post, they tried to replace him, but it was past the deadline. He resigned.
When asked in a nationally televised interview whether he
would disavow the support of David Duke, a former leader of the Ku Klux
Klan, Trump wouldn’t do it. Only later, again under mounting pressure,
did he backtrack.
Actually, he disavowed him prior to that interview.
TRUMP: I disavowed David Duke a day before at a major press
conference, and I'm saying to myself, how many times do I have to
continue to disavow people? And the question was asked about David Duke
and various groups. And I don't know who the groups are. I said, would
you do me a favor and tell me the groups? He was unable to tell me that.
GUTHRIE: He says "I'm just talking about David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan here." You said, "honestly, I don't know David Duke."
TRUMP: Ok, so let me tell you. I'm sitting in a house in
Florida with a very bad ear piece that they gave me and you can hardly
hear what he was saying. But what I heard was various groups -- and I
don't mind disavowing anybody, and I disavowed David Duke and I
disavowed him the day before at a major news conference, which is
surprising because he was at the major news conference -- CNN was at the
major news conference and they heard me very easily disavow David Duke.
Now I go and I sit down again. I have a lousy ear piece that is
provided by them. And frankly, he talked about groups -- he also talked
about groups. And I have no problem with disavowing groups but I'd at
least like to know who they are. It would be very unfair to disavow a
group, Matt, if the group shouldn't be disavowed. I have to know who the
groups are. But I disavowed David Duke. Now, if you look on Facebook
right after that, I also disavowed David Duke. When we looked at it --
looked at the question, I disavowed David Duke. So, I disavowed David
Duke all weekend long on Facebook, on Twitter and, obviously it's never
Confirmed by Buzzfeed prior to Trump/Tapper interview:
At a news conference in Texas on Friday, Donald Trump said he
disavows the support of white nationalist and former Ku Klux Klan grand
wizard David Duke.
“I didn’t even know he endorsed me. David Duke endorsed me? I disavow, OK,” Trump said.
He also just disavowed a robo call by Duke:
Donald Trump's campaign disavowed a robocall by Louisiana
senate candidate and former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke, in
which he urged people to vote for Trump and himself.
And when Trump was asked about anti-Semitic slurs and death threats coming from his supporters, he refused to condemn them.
I would not go there when Democrat supporters have attacked
Trump supporters outside of rallies, when liberals and Black Lives
Matter supporters on Twitter have Tweeted death threats to Trump. Mark
Dice has done a series of videos pointing out these Tweets:
Will Hillary come out and condemn these people?
Trump said thousands of American Muslims in New Jersey cheered the 9/11 attacks. They didn’t.
Perhaps not thousands, but some sure did:
We KNOW for a fact the Orlando gunman celebrated. He was in
school at the time. He was still a youth. You think he came up with that
alone? Kids are highly influenced by parents and community at that age.
If he was surrounded by parents and people who condemned the attack,
why would he celebrate alone? I'll continue with sources, though:
Now, Former New York Police Department Commissioner Bernard
Kerik has vindicated Trump in his claims, noting that there were many
post-9/11 celebrations by NYC-area Muslims.
Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/trumps-claims-about-muslims-after-911-confirmed-video/#ixzz4BmHXldrJ
CNN Report: American Muslims celebrating 9/11
Just a couple of blocks away from that Jersey City apartment
the F.B.I. raided yesterday and had evidence removed, there is another
apartment building, one that investigators told me, quote, was swarming
with suspects — suspects who I’m told were cheering on the roof when
they saw the planes slam into the Trade Center. Police were called to
the building by neighbors and found eight men celebrating, six of them
tenants in the building.
The F.B.I. and other terrorist task force agencies arrived,
and the older investigators on the task force recalled that they had
been to this building before, eight years ago, when the first World
Trade Center attack led them to Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, whose Jersey
City mosque lies between the two buildings getting attention today. And
the older investigators remember that the suspects that eventually got
convicted for the first Trade Center case … lived in the building where
these same eight men were celebrating the destruction that they saw from
the roof. Calling this a hot address, the task force investigators
ordered everyone detained.
Some Muslims in New Jersey did celebrate the 9/11 terror
attacks during rooftop and street parties until they were broken up by
the cops, a new report said Monday.
There were at least two celebrations and likely more, with
men shouting “Allahu Akbar” and women chanting in Arabic, NJ.com
“Some men were dancing, some held kids on their shoulders,”
said retired Jersey City police Capt. Peter Gallagher, who responded to
the scene after numerous 911 calls from outraged residents.
“The women were shouting in Arabic and keening in the
high-pitched wail of Arabic fashion. They were told to go back to their
apartments since a crowd of non-Muslims was gathering on the sidewalk
below and we feared for their safety.”
Gallagher said he cleared a rooftop celebration of up to 30
people at 6 Tonnele Ave., a four-story apartment building with a view of
Lower Manhattan, after the second tower fell.
Another witness said he saw a celebration on John F. Kennedy Boulevard, a main thoroughfare in the city.
“When I saw they were happy, I was pissed,” said Ron Knight,
56, who also heard cheers of “Allahu Akbar” — “God is great” — from a
crowd of about 20 people that morning.
Residents also placed numerous 911 calls complaining about
Muslims partying on a rooftop at a third location, three cops told the
Rudy Giuliani disputed the numbers but also says there were celebrations:
Giuliani said that there could have been as many as 40 people
celebrating after the attacks during an interview with CNN's "New Day"
on Tuesday, but added that he thought presidential candidate Donald
Trump was "exaggerating" when he said he saw thousands of Muslims
cheering after the attacks.
“We did have some celebrating,” Giuliani said on CNN. “That
is true. We had pockets of celebration, some in Queens, some in
Multiple people (citizens) backing up Trump's comments:
Penicaro: “I worked for PSEG in Clifton on the Paterson boarder and I
witnessed it firsthand. They were celebrating in the streets cheering
and stomping on the flag. I am a Marine and I remember very very clearly
because I was so passed I wanted to engage them with a bat I had in my
William Hugelmeyer: We all saw and heard the reports, just because
the media is doing a white wash doesn’t mean it didn’t happen! I was
working in the jail when the attacks occurred. Once it was clear it was a
terrorist attack, we had inmates celebrating. This instantly caused a
lockdown. As you could imagine, many other inmates and officers didn’t
share their jubilation.”
P.j. Flattery: “I saw with my own eyes Muslims
in Paterson dancing and singing on the streets during 9/11. Trumps an
American. He’s gonna have his haters and people trying to knock him
Patrick Kiernan: “They were celebrating all around the area of
the mosque on Getty Ave in Paterson. You cant tell me they weren’t
because I lived there when It happened and I observed the clashes in the
city at the time. There may be no visual proof but I remember the
police went on the news and asked the citizens not to retaliate against
any of the Muslim citizens in the city and that just emboldened them
even more to be spiteful and full of their hate .Dont say it didn’t
happen because it did.”
Terry Lynn Mustakas: “I experienced/witnessed
many incidents of Muslims celebrating 9/11 in North Brunswick. I was in a
grocery store when I heard the plane crashed on the store radio. The
Muslim man in line next to me turned and spit on me. I’ll never forget
John Pezzino: “They were in the streets banging on the cars trying
to drive through the crowd in the street. The Muslims were shouting
death to American s and Allah is great other crap I didn’t understand.
We were amused until a car with 3 young women mistakenly turned on to
main st. The muslims were banging on their windows and screaming, thats
when we came out of our car and pushed the muslims off their car helped
them back out and get back to the Parkway.”
Mike Passeri: “It absolutely
happened in Paterson. The police even had some of the streets closed
off to traffic because of it. I was in Paterson on the 12th for business
and the whole area around Crooks Avenue was covered in people
celebrating. As for the fights in the high schools, I remember hearing
about it being reported but have no idea if that was true or not.”
Iacono: “No, I was in Jersey City when it happened. That night I had to
drive through the Muslim Alcove in Paterson, NJ and they were still
laughing about it a bit too happily. They may have been speaking another
language, but when someone sweeps their hand down while making sound
effects of a building dropping, then smiles, and raises his fists in
triumph, well, something is wrong.”
Priscilla Crane Hudson: “I saw first
hand in Jersey City the Muslims cheering in the streets when the World
Trade Center was destroyed. These so called news outlets should get
their facts straight. And there were 100s of revelers over 3,000+
Walter Emiliantsev: “I lived in NJ at the time on Demott Ave.,
Clifton! When I tried to go to Paterson to my brother in laws shop, I
usually took Main Ave. There were so many people dancing on Main, I
couldn’t get through! I KNOW what I saw!”
He suggested that Ted Cruz’s father was involved in the
Kennedy assassination. Perhaps in Trump’s mind, because he was a Cuban
immigrant, he must have had something to do with it. Of course there’s
absolutely no evidence of that.
This again. I have addressed this multiple times and won't take
up the space, but here is a link to a blog post I did, and it's the
second half of it:
Just recently, Trump claimed President Obama founded ISIS. And then he repeated that nonsense over and over.
ISIS wasn't even known by the general public until Hillary and
Obama policies of withdrawing too soon from Iraq, going into Libya, and
ineptness on Syria, allowed ISIS to grow and spread. While he wasn't in a
cave plotting to found ISIS, his policies enabled them and gave them
the ability to grow and become what they are today.
His latest paranoid fever dream is about my health. All I can say is, Donald, dream on.
Donald has challenged Hillary to release full health records as he says he will. Ball in Hillary's court.
It’s what happens when you listen to the radio host Alex
Jones, who claims that 9/11 and the Oklahoma City bombings were inside
jobs. He said the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre were child actors
and no one was actually killed there.
Trump didn’t challenge those lies. He went on Jones’ show and said: “Your reputation is amazing. I will not let you down.”
First of all, I agree that those were terrible things said by
Jones, but Jones makes good points on things too sometimes (from a
conservative perspective). Anyway, I'm not so sure that she would want
to choose the 9/11 conspiracy theory considering your party's
relationship with that:
There aren't a lot of great public numbers on the partisan
breakdown of adherents to that conspiracy theory, but the University of
Ohio yesterday shared with us the crosstabs of a 2006 poll they did with
Scripps Howard that's useful in that regard.
"How likely is it that people in the federal government
either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the
attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle
East?" the poll asked.
A full 22.6% of Democrats said it was "very likely." Another 28.2% called it "somewhat likely."
That is: More than half of Democrats, according to a
neutral survey, said they believed Bush was complicit in the 9/11 terror
In times of crisis, our country depends on steady leadership…
clear thinking… and calm judgment… because one wrong move can mean the
difference between life and death.
The last thing we need in the Situation Room is a loose
cannon who can’t tell the difference between fact and fiction, and who
buys so easily into racially-tinged rumors.
Agreed. Also someone who can't figure out that "c" is for Classified.
Someone detached from reality should never be in charge of making decisions that are as real as they come.
Absolutely. Goodbye, Hillary.
He would form a deportation force to round up millions of immigrants and kick them out of the country.
Hillary forgot the word "ILLEGAL" in front of immigrant.
Meanwhile, the Democrats have allowed 19,723 CRIMINAL illegal immigrants
to be released just LAST YEAR.
He’d abolish the bedrock constitutional principle that says
if you’re born in the United States, you’re an American citizen. He says
that children born in America to undocumented parents are, quote,
“anchor babies” and should be deported.
That Constitutional principle is being abused. People are
literally coming here to have babies, let them become citizens. There
are 295,000 (approximately) babies born a year to undocumented
There were an estimated 11.3 million unauthorized immigrants
living in the U.S. in March 2013, according to a preliminary Pew
Research estimate. They make up 4% of the population, but their share of
births is higher because the immigrants include a higher share of women
in their childbearing years and have higher birthrates than the U.S.
These estimates are based on data from the U.S. Census
Bureau’s Current Population Survey and American Community Survey, using
the widely accepted “residual methodology” employed by Pew Research for
Most children of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. are born
here, and therefore are citizens. In 2012, there were 4.5 million
U.S.-born children younger than 18 living with unauthorized-immigrant
There also were 775,000 children younger than 18 who
were unauthorized immigrants themselves and lived with
unauthorized-immigrant parents. These totals do not count U.S.-born
children of unauthorized immigrants who do not live with their parents.
The nation’s unauthorized immigrants are more likely than in
the past to be long-term residents of the U.S., and are increasingly
likely to live with U.S.-born children. In 2012, there were 4 million
unauthorized-immigrant adults who lived with their U.S.-born children,
both minor and adult. They made up 38% of unauthorized immigrant adults.
By comparison, in 2000, 2.1 million unauthorized-immigrant adults, or
30% of this group, lived with their U.S.-born children, minor and adult.
There are millions of children in this country whose parents are
not citizens, and they are either having these children to have a
connection to the U.S. or are having children while here, and that gives
them a connection to this country.
The rewards to the mother and father are huge. The mother,
for example, can collect federal welfare on behalf of the child, and the
adult child – as a U.S. citizen – will eventually be able to win a
green card for his or her parents, despite their prior illegal entry
into the United States.
As National Review writes:
71 percent of illegal-alien headed households with
children received some sort of welfare in 2009, compared with 39 percent
of native-headed houses with children. Illegal immigrants generally
access welfare programs through their U.S.-born children, to whom
government assistance is guaranteed. Additionally, U.S.-born children of
illegal aliens are entitled to American public schools, health care,
and more, even though illegal-alien households rarely pay taxes.
The cost of K-12 public school alone for a U.S.-born child of
illegal migrants is, at a minimum, around $160,000 (using the average
cost $12,300 per pupil per year). Additionally, under universities’
system of racial preferences, anchor babies will get bonus SAT and GPA
points when they apply to college. Many corporations will continue this
benefits program when considering their job applications as well.
More from the National Review piece:
The cost of this is not negligible. Inflation-adjusted
figures from the U.S. Department of Agriculture projected that a child
born in 2013 would cost his parents $304,480 from birth to his
eighteenth birthday. Given that illegal-alien households are normally
low-income households (three out of five illegal aliens and their
U.S.-born children live at or near the poverty line), one would expect
that a significant portion of that cost will fall on the government. And
that’s exactly what‘s happening.
According to CIS, 71 percent of
illegal-alien headed households with children received some sort of
welfare in 2009, compared with 39 percent of native-headed houses with
children. Illegal immigrants generally access welfare programs through
their U.S.-born children, to whom government assistance is guaranteed.
Additionally, U.S.-born children of illegal aliens are entitled to
American public schools, health care, and more, even though
illegal-alien households rarely pay taxes.
There are long-term costs, too. U.S.-born children of illegal
aliens can sponsor the immigration of family members once they come of
age. At 18, an “anchor baby” can sponsor an overseas spouse and
unmarried children of his own; at 21, he can sponsor parents and
siblings. There may be a long waiting period before that legal benefit
is of use. But it’s a fact that illegal aliens with American-born
children are much less likely to be deported, and that policy has been
effectively enshrined in law with President Obama’s Deferred Action for
Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) policy, which
would effectively grant amnesty to some 5 million illegal aliens, on
top of the 2 to 3 million granted amnesty under his Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy. (DAPA is currently under scrutiny in
This also doesn't consider the birthright tourism:
Asian 'anchor babies': Wealthy Chinese come to Southern California to give birth
Earlier this year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement launched a major crackdown in Southern California.
One affidavit related to that case quoted a law review
article estimating that about 40,000 of 300,000 children born to foreign
citizens in the U.S. each year are the product of birth tourism.
The website of one birthing center suggested that 4,000 Chinese women had been served since 1999.
The crackdown included one birthing center in Irvine.
According to an affidavit, more than 400 women associated with the
Irvine location have given birth at one Orange County hospital since
2013. One of the women paid $4,080 out of $28,845 in hospital bills,
while her bank account showed charges at Wynn Las Vegas and purchases at
Rolex and Louis Vuitton stores, the affidavit said.
Not just Asians:
Barella, founder of Barella Law, explained exclusively to
Breitbart News that the birth right citizenship law – although legal –
is being abused by these companies. According to Barella, poor pregnant
immigrant mothers coming across the southern border aren’t the ones
being targeted, but rather the companies are targeting wealthy
foreigners from countries such as China and Russia, at times making
$99,000 dollars per sale.
“The one that I know is called ‘Miami Mama.’ In all fairness
to them – one, what they are doing is completely legal…and number two,
they’re not the only ones. Just this morning I typed in Google…in
Russian… “Birth in the U.S.A” … and there’s over 19,000 Google hits on
giving birth in the U.S.A. for citizenship and there are quite a few
companies that come up,” Barella explained.
Several companies — not just Miami Mama — came up by simply
typing in Russian “Birth in the U.S.A” into a Google search. A few
include: rod-v-miami.ru, www.rodivusa.com, and www.deliveryinusa.com.
“It’s not just the Russians. There are similar websites in Chinese, Spanish and Arabic,” Barella added.
Barella mainly used the company Miami Mama as an example, but
reiterated it’s not the only company offering this type of service.
Barella’s wife – who speaks Russian – helped him research the company
“It’s entirely in Russian … and basically what these
companies do – and it’s not just Russian people, it’s Chinese people,
it’s people from South America, wealthy people – so this is completely
different from illegal immigrants coming over giving birth into the
U.S.,” he explained. “This is completely legal and it’s wealthy
immigrants who pay. The Standard Package for Miami Mama starts at
$19,900 dollars and it goes all the way up to what’s called the Imperial
Package, which is $99,000 dollars.”
Although Barella doesn’t work with these companies – and has
not had any contact with Miami Mama – he explained the context behind
this big moneymaking business.
“What the context is, is that these wealthy foreign families
can pay to come over to the U.S. usually in their second trimester…they
put them up in a hotel, they provide them with prenatal care… with a
Russian doctor, which is – of course – in cahoots with this program
because remember, they’re paying out of pocket – they’re not on U.S.
insurance,” Barella explained. He added that he can’t confirm the
doctors are in business with the company, but suspects this is the case.
He continued, “They give birth in one of the finest hospitals
in Florida. While they’re here, they take tours, they’re provided a car
service to be driven around to all the shopping in Miami, they give
birth here, they’re children are now U.S. citizens – what do they do? –
Then, they go back to Russia, they go back to Venezuela, they go back to
China and they live there until their kids … what they do this mainly
for is when their kids are of college age, they want them to come to
university in the United States, that’s the main reason.”
And he’d ban Muslims around the world – 1.5 billion men,
women, and children –from entering our country just because of their
The ban is from countries compromised by terrorism as opposed to allowing in 550% more refugees from such countries.
The latest shake-up was designed to – quote – "Let Trump be
Trump." To do that, he hired Stephen Bannon, the head of a right-wing
website called Breitbart.com, as campaign CEO.
Breitbart tracked down some offensive liberal media headlines including Salon and pedophilia:
No wonder he’s gone to work for Trump – the only Presidential candidate ever to get into a public feud with the Pope.
Not much of a feud, especially considering the Pope himself has a
nice wall around the Vatican, but why don't you talk to the Pope about
the definition of marriage and abortion? Even this liberal Pope still
believes marriage is between a man and a woman and in the sanctity of
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks
hate groups, Breitbart embraces "ideas on the extremist fringe of the
conservative right. Racist ideas.
Siting the SPLC? A liberal group that labels conservative groups
hate groups? Hahahahahaha! Lest we forget they helped inspire the
attempted shooting at the FRC. In the spirit of that comment, though,
I'll cite Brietbart:
Christian groups are celebrating with the news that the
Federal Bureau of Investigation appears to have scrubbed the Southern
Poverty Law Center (SPLC) from its hate crimes webpage, where the
controversial group was listed as a resource and referred to as a
partner in public outreach.
A letter to the U.S. Department of Justice, drafted by
Lieutenant General (Ret.) William G. Boykin, Executive Vice President of
the Family Research Council (FRC), calls such an association
Signed by fourteen other conservative and Christian leaders,
the letter calls SPLC “a heavily politicized organization producing
inaccurate and biased data on ‘hate groups’ – not hate crimes.” It
accuses the SPLC of “providing findings that are not consistent with
trends found in the FBI statistics.” Where the FBI has found hate crimes
and hate groups declining significantly in the past ten years, SPLC
claims hate groups have increased 67.3% since 2000.Where once SPLC’s
hate list was reserved for groups like the Aryan Nation and the KKK, in
2010 SPLC started citing as hate groups those Christian groups that
oppose same-sex marriage or believe homosexuality is not inborn, or are
otherwise critical of homosexuality. Among the Christian groups targeted
by SPLC was FRC.
Writing in the left-wing website Counterpunch, Alexander
Coburn called SPLC founder Morris Dees “king of the hate business.”
Coburn wrote, “Ever since 1971, U.S. Postal Service mailbags have bulged
with Dees’ fundraising letters, scaring dollars out of the pockets of
trembling liberals aghast at his lurid depictions of hate-sodden
America, in dire need of legal confrontation by the SPLC.” In fact, so
prolific is Dees at direct mail that he is in the Direct Marketing
Association Hall of Fame.
Writing at the Harper’s Magazine blog in 2007, Ken
Silverstein said, “What [the SPLC] does best… is to raise obscene
amounts of money by hyping fears about the power of [right-wing fringe]
groups; hence the SPLC has become the nation’s richest ‘civil rights’
A critical analysis published recently by Professor George
Yancey of North Texas University concluded that SPLC targets only those
groups its leaders disagree with politically while leaving liberal
groups who use extreme language alone.
A 2013 article in Foreign Policy concluded that SPLC
exaggerates the hate crimes threat, saying SPLC is not an “objective
purveyor of data,” instead calling them “anti-hate activists” and
suggesting that their reports need to be “weighed more carefully by news
outlets that cover their pronouncements.”
Though SPLC sits on a bank account of $250 million and raises
some $40 million a year in direct mail, some have suggested that the
decline of racist groups and therefore the need to tap new sources of
funds might have led Dees and his colleagues to target Christian groups
as new sources of revenue. Weekly Standard writer Charlotte Hays says,
“…several critics with whom I spoke speculated that the last might
represent another of Dees’s efforts to tap via mailing lists into a
well-off and easily frightened donor base: gays.”
Race-baiting ideas. Anti-Muslim and anti-Immigrant ideas ––
all key tenets making up an emerging racist ideology known as the
Wanting to fight radical Islamic terror, having secure borders,
and having people come in to be citizens who love this country is not
racist. I'm not on the alt-right - I'm a social conservative. Most Trump
supporters are not, and I bet most don't even know what it is. I have
found posts of people who say they are alt-right, and certainly not all
of these people seem racist to me. Of course, I still am confused to
what the alt-right is. It's not a formal movement with a formal leader,
so I think it can mean different things to different people.
Just yesterday, one of Britain’s most prominent right-wing
leaders, Nigel Farage, who stoked anti-immigrant sentiments to win the
referendum on leaving the European Union, campaigned with Donald Trump
Farage has called for a ban on the children of legal
immigrants from public schools and health services, has said women are
quote "worth less" than men, and supports scrapping laws that prevent
employers from discriminating based on race -- that’s who Trump wants by
A very rattled, anxious-looking Hillary Clinton responded in a
press conference and attacked my presence on the stage with Trump. She
trotted out a series of wilful misinterpretations of things that I had
It was a similar kind of demonisation used by George Osborne and many of the Remain camp on me during the referendum campaign.
Along with Bob Geldof, Hillary simply cannot accept Brexit and still thinks it's wrong to even talk about immigration.
She represents the failed past and would do better going out meeting American voters rather than attacking me.
Perhaps if I donate to the Clinton Foundation her views on me might soften.
Indeed. Thank you, Nigel.
The godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism is Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Ah, but of course. Hillary has ZERO ties to Russia:
The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President
Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an
era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin:
“Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”
The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic
energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with
uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West.
The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and
brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global
uranium supply chain.
But the untold story behind that story is one that involves
not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and
a woman who would like to be the next one.
At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the
Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable
endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of
that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a
company that would become known as Uranium One.
Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative
in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all
uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is
considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security,
the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives
from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies
that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr.
Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in
three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a
flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s
chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling
$2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the
Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama
White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to
the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the
Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in
Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a
Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting
Uranium One stock.
At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government
made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the
company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly
broken, records show.
Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in
the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium
mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration
properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition
of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming,
Texas and Utah. That deal made clear that Uranium One was intent on
becoming “a powerhouse in the United States uranium sector with the
potential to become the domestic supplier of choice for U.S. utilities,”
the company declared.
Still, the company’s story was hardly front-page news in the
United States — until early 2008, in the midst of Mrs. Clinton’s failed
presidential campaign, when The Times published an article revealing the
2005 trip’s link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also
reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3
million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.
Before Mrs. Clinton could assume her post as secretary of
state, the White House demanded that she sign a memorandum of
understanding placing limits on the activities of her husband’s
foundation. To avoid the perception of conflicts of interest, beyond the
ban on foreign government donations, the foundation was required to
publicly disclose all contributors.
To judge from those disclosures — which list the
contributions in ranges rather than precise amounts — the only Uranium
One official to give to the Clinton Foundation was Mr. Telfer, the
chairman, and the amount was relatively small: no more than $250,000,
and that was in 2007, before talk of a Rosatom deal began percolating.
But a review of tax records in Canada, where Mr. Telfer has a
family charity called the Fernwood Foundation, shows that he donated
millions of dollars more, during and after the critical time when the
foreign investment committee was reviewing his deal with the Russians.
With the Russians offering a special dividend, shareholders like Mr.
Telfer stood to profit.
His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1
million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American
Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the
year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011
and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to
do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium
One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he
wanted to support Mr. Giustra’s charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton.
“Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20
years,” he said.
The Clinton campaign left it to the foundation to reply to
questions about the Fernwood donations; the foundation did not provide a
Mr. Telfer’s undisclosed donations came in addition to
between $1.3 million and $5.6 million in contributions, which were
reported, from a constellation of people with ties to Uranium One or
UrAsia, the company that originally acquired Uranium One’s most valuable
asset: the Kazakh mines. Without those assets, the Russians would have
had no interest in the deal: “It wasn’t the goal to buy the Wyoming
mines. The goal was to acquire the Kazakh assets, which are very good,”
Mr. Novikov, the Rosatom spokesman, said in an interview.
Amid this influx of Uranium One-connected money, Mr. Clinton
was invited to speak in Moscow in June 2010, the same month Rosatom
struck its deal for a majority stake in Uranium One.
The $500,000 fee — among Mr. Clinton’s highest — was paid by
Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin
that has invited world leaders, including Tony Blair, the former British
prime minister, to speak at its investor conferences.
Renaissance Capital would not comment on the genesis of Mr.
Clinton’s speech to an audience that included leading Russian officials,
or on whether it was connected to the Rosatom deal. According to a
Russian government news service, Mr. Putin personally thanked Mr.
Clinton for speaking.
Chalk it up to a small world or to a tangled web, but Uranium
One, the Russian-owned uranium mining company at the center of a recent
scandal involving the Clintons and a close Canadian business partner,
has lobbied the State Department through a firm co-founded by Hillary
Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign chairman.
Senate records show that The Podesta Group has lobbied the
State Department on behalf of Uranium One — once in 2012, when Hillary
Clinton was secretary of state, and once in 2015.
Uranium One paid The Podesta Group $40,000 to lobby the State
Department, the Senate, the National Park Service and the National
Security Council for “international mining projects,” according to a
July 20, 2012 filing.
Which is exactly what Sberbank, Russia’s biggest financial
institution, did this spring. As reported at the end of March, the
Podesta Group registered with the U.S. Government as a lobbyist for
Sberbank, as required by law, naming three Podesta Group staffers: Tony
Podesta plus Stephen Rademaker and David Adams, the last two former
assistant secretaries of state. It should be noted that Tony Podesta is a
big-money bundler for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign while
his brother John is the chairman of that campaign, the chief architect
of her plans to take the White House this November.
(Savings Bank in Russian) engaged the Podesta Group to help its public
image—leading Moscow financial institutions not exactly being known for
their propriety and wholesomeness—and specifically to help lift some of
the pain of sanctions placed on Russia in the aftermath of the Kremlin’s
aggression against Ukraine, which has caused real pain to the country’s
hard-hit financial sector.
It’s hardly surprising that Sberbank sought the help of
Democratic insiders like the Podesta Group to aid them in this difficult
hour, since they clearly understand how American politics work. The
question is why the Podesta Group took Sberbank’s money. That financial
institution isn’t exactly hiding in the shadows—it’s the biggest bank in
Russia, and its reputation leaves a lot to be desired. Nobody
acquainted with Russian finance was surprised that Sberbank wound up in
the Panama Papers.
Although Sberbank has its origins in the nineteenth century,
it was functionally reborn after the Soviet collapse, and it the 1990s
it grew to be the dominant bank in the country, today controlling nearly
30 percent of Russia’s aggregate banking assets and employing a
quarter-million people. The majority stockholder in Sberbank is Russia’s
Central Bank. In other words, Sberbank is functionally an arm of the
Kremlin, although it’s ostensibly a private institution.
Certainly Western intelligence is well acquainted with
Sberbank, noting its close relationship with Vladimir Putin and his
regime. Funds moving through Sberbank are regularly used to support
clandestine Russian intelligence operations, while the bank uses its
offices abroad as cover for the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service or
SVR. A NATO counterintelligence official explained that Sberbank, which
has outposts in almost two dozen foreign countries, “functions as a sort
of arm of the SVR outside Russia, especially because many of its senior
employees are ‘former’ Russian intelligence officers.” Inside the
country, Sberbank has an equally cosy relationship with the Federal
Security Service or FSB, Russia’s powerful domestic intelligence agency.
Ukraine has pointed a finger at Sberbank as an instrument of
Russia’s aggression against their country. In 2014, Ukraine’s Security
Service charged Sberbank with “financing terrorism,” noting that its
branches were distributing millions of dollars in illegal aid to
Russian-backed separatists fighting in eastern Ukraine. Kyiv’s
conclusion, that Sberbank is a witting supporter of Russian aggression
against Ukraine, is broadly supported by Western intelligence. “Sberbank
is the Kremlin, they don’t do anything major without Putin’s go-ahead,
and they don’t tell him ‘no’ either,” explained a retired senior U.S.
intelligence official with extensive experience in Eastern Europe.
In addition, Ukrainian intelligence has alleged that the FSB
collaborated with Sberbank in the bombings of two of the bank’s branches
in Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital, in June 2015. The attacks caused no
casualties but got major coverage in Russian state media as “proof” of
Ukraine’s instability and violent anti-Russian nature. Although the
notion that Russian spies would plant bombs as a provocation, what the
Kremlin terms provokatsiya, may sound outlandish to those unacquainted
with espionage, in fact Russian spies have been doing such things since
tsarist times. What I’ve termed “fake terrorism” is a longstanding
Kremlin core competency, and it can only be pulled off with logistical
support, including with finances.
Predictably, Sberbank has blown off the Panama Papers
revelations as nothing of consequence, but the fact that they are an arm
of the Kremlin and they do plenty of shady things in many countries is a
matter of record. As is the fact that the Podesta Group is their
lobbyist in America.
Among the Sberbank subsidiaries that the Podesta Group also
represents are the Cayman Islands-based Troika Dialog Group Limited, the
Cyprus-based SBGB Cyprus Limited, and the Luxembourg-based SB
International. As reported this week by the Organized Crime and
Corruption Reporting Project, a consortium of journalists exploring the
Panama Papers leak, Sberbank and Troika Dialog are used by members of
Mr. Putin’s inner circle to shift public funds into sometimes
questionable private investments. In other words, this is top-level
money laundering of a brazen kind. As the OCCRP stated plainly, “Some of
these companies were initially connected to the Troika Dialog
investment fund, which was controlled and run by Sberbank after the bank
bought the Troika Dialog investment bank. Troika and Sberbank declined
Adding to shadiness of all this, the Podesta Group is playing
along with the useful charade that Sberbank is simply a private
financial institution, rather than the state-owned bank that it is,
since that would require the lobbyists to register as agents of the
Russian government under the Foreign Agent Registration Act.
A program overseen by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as
part of the "reset" with Russia wound up enhancing Russia's military
technology and funneling millions of dollar to the Clinton Foundation,
according to a new report by investigative journalist Peter Schweizer
and the Government Accountability Institute he heads.
The report says both the U.S. Army and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation found that the program, intended to support Russia's
version of Silicon Valley, was exploited to improve Russia's military
The "innovation city" of Skolkovo on the outskirts of Moscow
was center of the program. Its stated purpose was "identifying areas of
cooperation and pursuing joint projects and actions that strengthen
strategic stability, international security, economic well-being, and
the development of ties between the American and Russian people."
Instead, the FBI warned several American technology companies
in 2014 that Skolkovo "may be a means for the Russian government to
access our nation's sensitive or classified research development
facilities and dual-use technologies with military and commercial
application." Indeed, it was.
Regarding Hillary and Bill Clinton, the report says: "Many of
the key figures in the Skolkovo process – on both the Russian and U.S.
sides – had major financial ties to the Clintons. During the Russian
reset, these figures and entities provided the Clintons with tens of
millions of dollars, including contributions to the Clinton Foundation,
paid for speeches by Bill Clinton, or investments in small start-up
companies with deep Clinton ties."
The new report said a Russian government fund sent $35
million to "a small company with Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman
John Podesta on its executive board, which included senior Russian
officials. John Podesta failed to reveal, as required by law on his
federal financial disclosures, his membership on the board of this
Key players in a main component of the reset — a
Moscow-based, Silicon Valley-styled campus for developing biomed, space,
nuclear and IT technologies called “Skolkovo” — poured tens of millions
of dollars into the Clinton Foundation, the report by journalist Peter
As the Obama administration’s top diplomat, Hillary Clinton
was at the center of US efforts on the reset in general and Skolkovo in
particular, Schweizer argues.
Yet, “Of the 28 US, European and Russian companies that
participated in Skolkovo, 17 of them were Clinton Foundation donors” or
sponsored speeches by former President Bill Clinton, Schweizer told The
“It raises the question — do you need to pay money to sit at the table?”
In one example cited by Schweizer, Skolkovo Foundation member
and then-Cisco CEO John Chambers donated between $1 million and $5
million in personal and corporate cash to the Clinton Foundation, the
But Skolkovo wound up making America less safe, Schweizer
argues, because it shared advanced US technology that Russia can develop
for both civilian and military applications, a concern raised already
by Army and FBI officials.
Many of Skolkovo’s research projects involved “dual-use”
technologies, meaning they would have both civilian and military uses,
the report said, citing one in particular — a hybrid airship called an
“Atlant” developed at the Skolkovo Aeronautical Center.
“Particularly noteworthy is Atlant’s ability to deliver
military cargoes,” including “radar surveillance, air and missile
defense and delivery of airborne troops,” the Skolkovo Foundation
bragged in a document Schweizer cites.
However, as involvement in Skolkovo by Clinton cronies
increased, so, too, did the danger for the technology coming out of the
Russian tech mecca to be used for Russian military purposes.
In 2014, the FBI issued what it called “an extraordinary
warning” to several technology companies involved with Skolkovo. “The
[Skolkovo] foundation may be a means for the Russian government to
access our nation’s sensitive or classified research development
facilities and dual-use technologies with military and commercial
application,” warned Lucia Ziobro, the assistant special agent at the
FBI’s Boston office. She added: “The FBI believes the true motives of
the Russian partners, who are often funded by the government, is to gain
access to classified, sensitive, and emerging technology from the
Still, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta sat
on the executive board of a small energy company called Joule Unlimited.
Joule, too, received the FBI letter warning about Skolkovo. Other Joule
board members included senior Russian officials. According to the GAI
report: “Two months after Podesta joined the board, Vladimir Putin’s
Rusnano announced that it would invest up to one billion rubles into
Joule Unlimited, which amounts to $35 million. That represents one-fifth
of the entire amount of investment dollars Joule collected from 2007 to
Rusnano, which former Russian education and science minister
and current science advisor to Vladmir Putin Andrei Fursenko describes
as “Putin’s child,” was founded by Putin in 2007.
The GAI investigative report says it’s unclear how much, if
any, money Podesta made. The reason: Podesta was on the board of three
Joule entities, but only listed two on his disclosure; the most
important entity, Joule Stichting, he did not list. “Podesta’s
compensation by Joule cannot be fully determined,” reads the report. “In
his 2014 federal government disclosure filing, Podesta lists that he
divested stock options from Joule. However, the disclosure does not
cover the years 2011-2012.”
Why Podesta failed to reveal, as required by law on his
federal financial disclosures, his membership on the board of this
offshore company is presently unknown.
“But the flows of funds from Russia during the ‘reset’ to
Podesta-connected entities apparently didn’t end with Joule Energy,” the
report states. According to the GAI report, Podesta’s far-left think
tank, Center for American Progress (CAP), took in $5.25 million from the
Sea Change Foundation between 2010-2013.
Who was funding Sea Change Foundation? According to tax
records, Sea Change Foundation at the time was receiving a large
infusion of funds from a mysterious Bermuda-based entity called ‘Klein,
Ltd.’…Who owns Klein? It is impossible to say exactly, given corporate
secrecy laws in Bermuda. But the registered agent and lawyers who set up
the offshore entity are tied to a handful of Russian business entities
including Troika Dialog, Ltd. Leadership includes Ruben Vardanyan, an
ethnic Armenian who is a mega oligarch in Putin’s Russia. Vardanyan also
served on the board of Joule Energy with John Podesta.
Manafort and business associate Rick Gates, another top
strategist in Trump's campaign, were working in 2012 on behalf of the
political party of Ukraine's then-president, Viktor Yanukovych.
with direct knowledge of Gates' work said that, during the period when
Gates and Manafort were consultants to the Ukraine president's political
party, Gates was also helping steer the advocacy work done by a
pro-Yanukovych nonprofit that hired a pair of Washington lobbying firms,
Podesta Group Inc. and Mercury LLC.
The nonprofit, the newly created European Centre for a Modern
Ukraine, was governed by a board that initially included parliament
members from Yanukovych's party. The nonprofit subsequently paid at
least $2.2 million to the lobbying firms to advocate positions generally
in line with those of Yanukovych's government.
That lobbying included downplaying the necessity of a
congressional resolution meant to pressure the Ukrainian leader to
release an imprisoned political rival.
The lobbying firms continued the work until shortly after
Yanukovych fled the country in February 2014, during a popular revolt
prompted in part by his government's crackdown on protesters and close
ties to Russia.
Among those who described Manafort's and Gates's
relationship with the nonprofit are current and former employees of the
Podesta Group. Some of them spoke on condition of anonymity because they
were not authorized to reveal details about the work and because they
remain subject to non-disclosure agreements.
Gates told the AP that he and Manafort introduced the
lobbying firms to the European Centre nonprofit and occasionally
consulted with the firms on Ukrainian politics. He called the actions
lawful, and said there was no attempt to circumvent the reporting
requirements of the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act.
The heads of both lobbying firms told AP they concluded there
was no obligation to disclose their activities to the Justice
Department. Manafort did not directly respond to AP's requests to
discuss the work, but he was copied on the AP's questions and Gates said
he spoke to Manafort before providing answers to them.
The founder and chairman of the Podesta Group, Tony Podesta,
is the brother of longtime Democratic strategist John Podesta, who now
is campaign chairman for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. The head of
Mercury, Vin Weber, is an influential Republican, former congressman
and former special policy adviser to Mitt Romney. Weber announced
earlier this month that he will not support Trump.
After being introduced to the lobbying firms, the European
nonprofit paid the Podesta Group $1.13 million between June 2012 and
April 2014 to lobby Congress, the White House National Security Council,
the State Department and other federal agencies, according to U.S.
The nonprofit also paid $1.07 million over roughly the same
period to Mercury to lobby Congress. Among other issues, Mercury opposed
congressional efforts to pressure Ukraine to release one of
Yanukovych's political rivals from prison.
One former Podesta employee, speaking on condition of
anonymity because of a non-disclosure agreement, said Gates described
the nonprofit's role in an April, 2012 meeting as supplying a source of
money that could not be traced to the Ukrainian politicians who were
paying him and Manafort.
In separate interviews, three current and former Podesta
employees said disagreements broke out within the firm over the
arrangement, which at least one former employee considered obviously
illegal. Podesta, who said the project was vetted by his firm's counsel,
said he was unaware of any such disagreements.
A legal opinion drafted for the project for Mercury in May
2012, and obtained by AP, concluded that the European Centre qualified
as a "foreign principal" under the Foreign Agents Registration Act but
said disclosure to the Justice Department was not required. That
determination was based on the nonprofit's assurances that none of its
activities was directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled,
financed or subsidized by Ukraine's government or any of the country's
The Podesta Group's CEO, Kimberley Fritts, said the two
lobbying firms had coordinated on the legal conclusion that disclosure
was not necessary to the Justice Department.
"If counsel had determined FARA was the way to go, we would
have gladly registered under FARA," she said in a statement to the AP.
She said the nonprofit provided a signed statement affirming its
independence from Ukraine's government.
People involved in the lobbying project offered contradictory descriptions of how it came about.
told the AP his firm worked closely with the nonprofit and with Gates
simultaneously. But Podesta said Gates was not working for Yanukovych's
political party and said Manafort was not involved.
"I was never given any reason to believe Rick was a Party of
Regions consultant," said John Ward Anderson, a current Podesta employee
who attended the meeting, in a statement provided by his firm. "My
assumption was that he was working for the Centre, as we were."
Gates, in contrast, told AP he was working with Manafort and that both he and Manafort were working for Yanukovych's party.
Pointing to Manafort's involvement, Weber told AP that
Manafort discussed the project before it began in a conference call with
Podesta and himself.
The director of the European Centre, Ina Kirsch, told the AP
her group never worked with Manafort or Gates and said the group hired
the Washington lobbyists on its own. She said she had met with Manafort
twice but said neither Manafort nor Gates played a role in its lobbying
The center has declined for years to reveal specific sources of its funding.
He talks casually of abandoning our NATO allies, recognizing
Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and of giving the Kremlin a free hand in
Eastern Europe more generally.
He does no such thing. He talks about ensuring that the
countries in NATO pay their fair share per the agreement. Hillary
obviously doesn't care if they pay what they are supposed to pay and
that we pick up the tab. If she says she does and then proceeds to go in
and negotiate on the basis she would like them to pay their fair share
but there are no consequences if they don't, what is going to change?
Why would a country pay more if it doesn't matter?
I want to know what Hillary is going to do regarding Russia's
annexation of Crimea. This happened on the watch of Barack Obama (whom
Hillary is campaigning to be his third term). This happened AFTER she
went in with her red reset button. Also, the majority of people in Crimea want to be a part of Russia based on polls, so perhaps that should be considered.
On David Duke’s radio show the other day, the mood was jubilant.
“We appear to have taken over the Republican Party,” one white supremacist said.
Duke laughed. There’s still more work to do, he said.
I didn't even know that David Duke had a radio show as did most
people out there I'm sure, but I guess Hillary listens. Maybe it's
something her campaign staff does to rewind after a hard day of
There’s an old Mexican proverb that says “Tell me with whom you walk, and I will tell you who you are.”
That's actually a Puerto Rican proverb, but they are all the same to Hillary.
Some people Hillary walks with, though - Hillary has shown us
that she walks with Bill She walks with Margaret Sanger whose award she
received. Margaret Sanger was the notoriously racist founder of Planned
Parenthood whose goals live on in that Planned Parenthood targets
minority neighborhoods. Black people make up 12% of population and 36%
of abortions.. She has shown she walks with countries with horrible
human rights records who are willing to donate to her foundation. As
proven above, she walks with the Russia she attacks Trump for walking
with. I'm sure there are more. Feel free to add on.
He says he wants to “make America great again,” but his real message remains “Make America hate again.”
Very clever. Why, no one has thought of response to Trump's slogan yet.
Next time you watch Donald Trump rant on television, think
about all the kids listening across our country. They hear a lot more
than we think.
First, we have to rule out the children not here to listen because of abortion - which Hillary supports.
I agree with Hillary, though, that we really do need to think of
the children. They hear more than we think, and nothing that Trump has
said is worse than the lyrics in some music today on the Billboard
charts be it pop. rap, etc. Nothing that Trump has said is worse than
what they will hear and see in various Hollywood movies or TV shows.
Nothing that Trump has said is worse than what they will hear and see
from various reality TV personalities. Nothing that Trump has said is
worse than some of the vitriol and filth that comes from liberal
comedians. How many of those actors and actresses, singers, comedians,
and reality tv personalities have endorsed Hillary? Most of them. Have a
look here at the celebrity endorsement section:
This is a moment of reckoning for every Republican dismayed that the Party of Lincoln has become the Party of Trump.
Isn't the lib line that it's no longer the Party of Lincoln
because everyone crossed over to the Democrat Party years ago? Anyway,
Trump is not a racist.
Hillary then praises Bush, McCain, and Dole saying, "We need that kind of leadership again."
Those are Hillary's preferred Republican types - those who roll over for media attacks and lose elections.