Slashdot Mirror

This system seems nice and all, but what is LA County going to do to fix its voter registration rolls. Currently LA county has a 112% voter registration rate, which is obviously means some shenanigans are going on. Judicial Watch is currently suing California over this. https://www.judicialwatch.org/...

First, doing anything to attract attention to yourself is a fantastic way to get deported. Going to a polling place is something that attracts attention.

No it isn't. You're part of the crowd. We also have illegals that openly protest against immigration enforcement. We have illegals that are openly part of city councils. Our enforcement is a joke.

Second, committing a felony is an even more fantastic way to get deported (entering the US illegally is a misdemeanor, BTW)

It doesn't matter if the likelihood of getting caught is virtually zero.

The person has to be registered, they have to recite their name and address, and then the poll workers mark them as having received a ballot. Which means when the real voter shows up and tries to cast a ballot, the poll workers, including the Republican ones, immediately detect that there is a problem. [..] Sixth, registration isn't just "turn in the form and you get a ballot". Your data is verified in the relevant databases.

Then why are lawsuits necessary to force governments to clean up their voter rolls?

Fifth, you are asserting that millions of people can remain absolutely silent about their crimes, and have done so over many, many years. The fact that you know there are undocumented workers in the US, and that they provide false documentation for I-9 forms, demonstrates that this is false.

If these databases were so effective, then why are so many allowed to get away with identity fraud? And just because a dopey politician brazenly admits how many of his family and friends rely on fraudulent IDs doesn't mean they'll do the same with voting. But I think it's telling when President Obama was asked about illegals being able to vote, and he reassures the interviewee that voting is private, before finally acknowledging that it's US citizens who are supposed to vote.

Seventh, if you actually gave a damn about people entering the country illegally, you'd want to go after the employers who illegally employ those workers.

Who says I don't?

No jobs, no workers coming for those jobs.

Because there's no such thing as welfare fraud? There's no such thing as an underground economy? There's no such thing as free schooling and healthcare for illegals? There's no such thing as anchor babies?

but you want to build a wall instead

Who says you can't do both?

because apparently you think they don't have access to the amazing technology known as "a boat"

Apparently you don't realize the importance of deterrents.

An iconic photograph of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton using her BlackBerry while wearing sunglasses on a military plane in 2011 prompted a recordkeeping official in her office to inquire about whether Clinton had been assigned a State.gov email address, the State Department disclosed this week." And:Link - Clinton responded on March 8, 2009:

Well, I'm far more concerned that she replied in 2009 to allegations made in 2011: a sure sign of a reptilian time traveller.

I'ts not just Trump -- don't all people in power do this? I thought this was just SOP -- I'm busy, I've already hired someone else to worry with keeping me safe so I can think about other things. (Not that that excuses them, but offloading things is their rationale.)

Link - An iconic photograph of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton using her BlackBerry while wearing sunglasses on a military plane in 2011 prompted a recordkeeping official in her office to inquire about whether Clinton had been assigned a State.gov email address, the State Department disclosed this week."

And:Link - Clinton responded on March 8, 2009: Against the advice of the security hawks, I still do carry my berry but am prohibited from using it in my office, where I spend most of my time when I'm not on a plane or in a "no coverage" country.

If these are all (Alt-) Right Wing Fake News Sites (they're the first few Google links), I'm sure someone will soon point this out. Please do, and point to the rebuttals and corrections.

Yes there is research and I linked to it here

http://www.judicialwatch.org/w...

Except that people who've done research find that non citizens vote overwhelming for the Democrats over Republicans.

https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman...

Here I run some extrapolations based upon the estimates for other elections from my coauthored 2014 paper on non-citizen voting. You can access that paper on the journal website here and Judicial Watch has also posted a PDF. The basic assumptions on which the extrapolation is based are that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted, and that of the non-citizens who voted, 81.8 percent voted for Clinton and 17.5 percent voted for Trump. These were numbers from our study for the 2008 campaign. Obviously to the extent that critics of my study are correct the first number (percentage of non-citizens who voted) may be too high, and the second number (percentage who voted for Clinton) may be too low.

The count of the popular vote is still in flux as many states have yet to certify official final tallies. Here I used this unofficial tally linked by Real Clear Politics. As of this writing Trump is 2,235,663 votes behind Clinton in the popular vote.

If the assumptions stated above concerning non-citizen turnout are correct, could non-citizen turnout account for Clinton's popular vote margin? There is no way it could have. 6.4 percent turnout among the roughly 20.3 million non-citizen adults in the US would add only 834,318 votes to Clinton's popular vote margin. This is little more than a third of the total margin.

Is it plausible that non-citizen votes added to Clinton's margin. Yes. Is it plausible that non-citizen votes account for the entire nation-wide popular vote margin held by Clinton? Not at all.

800K votes nationally could swing a few states. And in fact this paper on previous elections gives examples of elections where non citizens changed the result of an election

http://www.judicialwatch.org/w...

In spite of substantial public controversy, very little reliable data exists concerning the frequency with which non-citizen immigrants participate in United States elections. Although such participation is a violation of election laws in most parts of the United States, enforcement depends principally on disclosure of citizenship status at the time of voter registration. This study examines participation rates by non-citizens using a nationally representative sample that includes non-citizen immigrants. We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections. Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.

Notice the part that says, "this indictment"? There have been new indictments coming every few days now. New guilty pleas. New Trump officials (and former Trump officials) cooperating with Mueller.

Yeah and you know what they stem from? From when Muller was working for the Podesta group(the guy who ran Hillary's Campaign). AKA this is what is called a fishing expedition. Because Muller didn't/failed to properly disclose, and the people had no knowledge they can be indicted because "ignorance of the law is no excuse" unless you're Hillary Clinton with your own private email server and you've got buddies inside the agency who can 'shift' the wording on memo's to make it far less serious. Or Loretta Lynch using an alias in order to cover her tracks, avoid legal requirements for retention and so on.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama's 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina's adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.

They do say

We also find that one of the favorite policies advocated by conservatives to prevent voter fraud appears strikingly ineffective. Nearly three quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted.

However if you look at their paper

http://www.judicialwatch.org/w...

Nonetheless, identification requirements blocked ballot access for only a small portion of non-citizens. Of the 27 non-citizens who indicated that they were "asked to show picture identification, such as a driver's license, at the polling place or election office," in the 2008 survey, 18 claimed to have subsequently voted, and one more indicated that they were "allowed to vote using a provisional ballot." Only 7 (25.9%) indicated that they were not allowed to vote after showing identification. These results are summarized in Fig. 1. Although the proportion of non-citizens prevented from voting by ID requirements is statistically distinguishable from the portion of citizens5 (Chi-Square 161, p < .001), the overall message is that identification requirements do not prevent the majority of non-citizen voting. The fact that most non-citizen immigrants who showed identifi- cation were subsequently permitted to vote suggests that efforts to use photo-identification to prevent non-citizen voting are unlikely to be particularly effective. This most likely reflects the impact of state laws that permit noncitizens to obtain state identification cards (e.g. driver's licenses

I.e. voter ID laws don't work if by voter ID you mean "driving license" and the state gives out driving licenses to non citizens which are indistinguishable from the ones they hand out to citizens. Which is not impossible. E.g.

https://immigration.procon.org...

The law provides driver's licenses to people who filed Colorado state income taxes in the previous year and can show proof of current state residence, or who have an Individual Taxpayer ID and proof of 24 months of state residency, with a passport, consular ID, or military ID. The license will state "Not valid for federal identification, voting, or public benefits purposes."

The paper also contains th

Really?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/w...

https://thepoliticalinsider.co...

https://lasvegassun.com/news/2...

https://www.ice.gov/news/relea...

https://www.ice.gov/news/relea...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://www.justice.gov/usao-w...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...

https://www.snopes.com/cascade...

https://www.judicialwatch.org/...

In response to an April 29, 2011, Wall Street Journal article, calling on President Obama to explain the NLRB lawsuit against Boeing, NLRB attorney Jayme Sophir issues a one word email response on May 2, 2011, to NLRB attorney Debra Willen, Division of Advice: âoeUgh.â

She was appointed by Obama

https://www.reuters.com/articl...

An Obama administration holdover at the National Labor Relations Board recommended last year that a case accusing President Donald Trumpâ(TM)s businesses and presidential campaign of requiring workers to sign unlawful confidentiality agreements be dismissed, according to a memo released this week.

Associate General Counsel Jayme Sophir in an advice memo dated Oct. 31, 2017 said there was no evidence that the agreements were ever enforced, and the law firm that brought the case, Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld, did not file it on behalf of any employees of the Trump Organization Inc or the campaign.

I think it's safe to assume Sophir is a left winger.

Article here

https://www.wsj.com/articles/S...

It's paywalled, but you can read it here

http://archive.is/1pp1R

South Carolina is a right-to-work state, and we're proud that within our borders workers cannot be required to join a labor union as a condition of employment. We don't need unions playing middlemen between our companies and our employees. We don't want them forcefully inserted into our promising business climate. And we will not stand for them intimidating South Carolinians.

That is apparently too much for President Obama and his union-beholden appointees at the National Labor Relations Board, who have asked the courts to intervene and force Boeing to stop production in South Carolina. The NLRB wants Boeing to produce the planes only in Washington state, where its workers must belong to the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.

Let's be clear: Boeing is a great corporate citizen in Washington and in South Carolina. The company chose to come to our state because the cost of doing business is low, our job training and work force are strong, and our ports are tremendous. The fact that we are a right-to-work state is an added bonus.

The actions by the NLRB are nothing less than a direct assault on the 22 right-to-work states across America. They are also an unprecedented attack on an iconic American company that is being told by the federal governmentâ"which seems to regard its authority as endlessâ"where and how to build airplanes.

The president has been silent since his hand-selected NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon, who has not yet been confirmed by the United States Senate as required by law, chose to engage in economic warfare on behalf of the unions last week.

While silence in this case can be assumed to mean consent, President Obama's silence is not acceptableâ"not to me, and certainly not to the millions of South Carolinians who are rightly aghast at the thought of the greatest economic development success our state has seen in decades being ripped away by federal bureaucrats who appear to be little more than union puppets.

Basically Nikki Haley criticised the Obama admin for taking Boeing to court over setting up shop in a 'right to work' state where workers don't have to join a union..

Presumably her reaction to Damore's memo was a similarly visceral 'Ugh'.

So it's not surprising she's decided that the labor rules she's so keen on defending don't appl

found online, not vouching for its accuracy

Independent verification of FBI Anon claims

1995: Martin Indyk, Dennis Ross, Izaac Herzog, and an unidentified Israeli representative meet to discuss the possibility of Bill Clinton pardoning Marc Rich in exchange for Rich funding the PLO, a Muslim terrorist organization committed to Israel's destruction.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/p...

Qatar would buy a stake in Marc Rich's company Glencore after his death, and Qatar and Glencore would operate in concert afterwards.

2000: Marc Rich associate Michael Steinhardt controls the DLC and Progressive Policy Institute.
http://www.deepcapture.com/200...

2003: George Soros and Morton Halperin placed John Podesta as founding head of the Center for American Progress.
http://www.discoverthenetworks... https://archive.is/Gb2FV

Under Podesta's watch, unknown persons placed accused Hamas fundraiser Faiz Shakir as Vice President of the Center for American Progress and chief editor of Think Progress. In 2011 Faiz Shakir and Wajahat Ali produced the report "Fear Inc." smearing national security analysts and political activists who oppose the Muslim Brotherhood, including liberal Muslims.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fp... https://archive.is/tOxwC

Online rumors have attempted to connect the art trading of John Podesta's brother Tony Podesta with Qatari art purchases of works by Damien Hirst and Jeff Koons who have been hosted by Qatar Museums.
http://qz.com/764975/qatars-oi...

The Podesta Group lobbyied for Qatar Petroleum in 2013.
https://www.desmogblog.com/201...

2004: The Awan brothers begin employment in the US Congress and will work under Robert Wexler, Xavier Becerra, Gregory Meeks, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and others before they are exposed as a spy ring in 2017.
http://www.politico.com/story/...

2005: Unknown persons placed Emad Shahin and Juliette Kayyem in the Dubai Initiative which produced propaganda to promote the Muslim Brotherhood using the name and reputation of Harvard University.
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvar...
Emad Shahin was convincted in absentia of aiding Hamas and Iran to overthrow the Egyptian government.
http://emadshahin.com/?p=1839
https://news.vice.com/article/...
Juliette Kayyem advocated for Qatari state television network Al-Jazeera and wrote "The War On Terror Is Over" to discourage continued resistance to al-Qaeda.
https://www.boston.com/bostong...
https://www.boston.com/bostong...

2005: Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal paid Georgetown University $20 million to continue hosting John Esposito's Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, which was originally founded in 1993 with a grant from PLO board member Hasib Sabagh

Oh I don't know. I think parts of the country are fairly far along in that regard. Take the 11 California counties which have more registered voters than citizens eligible to vote: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/... In one particular county that was at 144% registration a 66% turnout means we got 99.3% of the citizenry to turn out to vote. Quite the miracle...

Yes, yes, rail at your pretended outrage. That story has been passed along the right-wing noise brigade quite a lot lately, no surprise that you are spreading the fires here. Guess it's a lot bettter when you can denounce California instead of other stateS.

But here's the thing, the state tallies do not support the claims of Judicial Watch.

Besides, it's not a crime for a person to have registered to vote in more than one place, and in today's mobile society, people like Jared Kushner, Steve Bannon, and Tiffany Trump simply can't be expected to handle that kind of paperwork.

ACORN undercover videos
" the most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context." - NYT Public Editor

Shirley Sherrod
NAACP audience reacts favorably to admission of anti-white racial bias. Other non-breitbart entities overreact before seeing full video. Sources of the original article seem to be down, so can't evaluate further.

Anthony Weiner
Lol

Friends of Hamas
Surely no MSM outlet would publish anonymous claims from government insiders without independently verifying them...

Nancy Pelosi/Miley Cyrus ad campaign
Double lol

Misidentification of Loretta Lynch
Sloppy mistake quickly corrected.

Conspiracy theories about President Obama
>"According to the New York Times, Breitbart News promoted the falsehood that President Obama was a Kenyan-born Muslim."
Whoever wrote this refuses to link the original article(s), and apparently hasn't seen it himself, relying only on the NYT to tell him about their existence. Can't judge further.
>"In June 2016, Breitbart News falsely claimed President Obama supported terrorists."
The article is essentially a repost of a state department memo obtained by Judicial Watch that literally says "The West (and others) support the opposition." where the 'opposition' is described in the previous sentence as Al Qaeda+Muslim Brotherhood+Salafist.
>Obama had wiretapped Donald Trump during Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.
Unless you want to be ultra-pedantic about the definition of "wiretap", that actually happened.

Conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton
>Pizzagate
The only citation is a dailybeast article that references a breitbart *tweet* that at most gives the story a nod.
>Roger Stone
We're judging outlets by their craziest contributors now? I heartily encourage this.

False report of Muslim mob in Germany
So it was only 50-70 people chanting Allahu Akbar - not 1000 - and the fire was only *near* the church. But it's fine when CNN spends all day trying to think of reasons Trump could be impeached for what he tweeted that morning.

Climate change denial
>In November 2016, Breitbart published an article by James Delingpole...
A bit of liberal-mocking surrounding large exerpts of a daily mail article with the real meat. If the article is wrong it's on DM not breitbart.

11 counties have more voters registered than people. LA alone is at 144% of people register vs actual population but they haven't cleaned the lists. This alone doesn't mean there was voter fraud but increases the chances there actually is significant amount of voter fraud in CA, but CA doesn't want anyone to check. http://www.judicialwatch.org/p...

And yet mysteriously, the fake information abounded, in fact, the fake information has a long history of existing. A lot of it from Trump, who seems inclined to create accomplishments out of smoke and mirrors. But a lot from the GOP, who still wants to chase after Benghazi and Whitewater.

Would that also be like the claims by the media, DNC and so on that Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton were just talking about grandkids? Or is it just a case that the FBI lied, the DNC and Obama administration covered it up, and the media directly worked with both to try and bury the story. Enjoy these FOIA documents, because the whole gigantic clusterfuck of collusion, lies, and complete bullshit from the previous administration and DNC is coming home. You can read the summarized version including the emails here if you don't want to read the ACLJ's stuff. Enjoy the part about the Washington Post wanting to bury the story.

That isn't even touching on the stuff uncovered by Judicial Watch.

Not even close to true. See how many times Judicial Watch and Legal Insurrection have filed lawsuits for information that's supposed to be public record. There is still standing lawsuits in the courts as holdovers from the Obama administration, and several cases where people in the previous administration have directly refused to turn over information that's public record despite court orders. If you think that the current administration is bad, then the previous one would be right around the blackest of nights, on the darkest of nights in terms of transparency. The Obama administration was very good at showmanship of trying to peddle transparency but that was it.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/p...

Here's a small sample of 848 criminal voter fraud convictions - not just charges.

And how many of them are related to the possession of ID by the voter? How many of them would be prevented by that ID being presented. It's your only demand, consistently and repetitively insisted upon, so it must be your only solution. Please tell us your count. It will be less than 848. But you chose to inflate the numbers.

But here's one, that wasn't prosecuted: In North Carolina.

Let's see you demand her prosecution. Let's see you demand this district attorney be removed.

Oh wait, crickets.

How many cases of proven voter fraud (you know, where a conviction is reached) do you need before you consider it an issue?

More than zero, since you're confusing "ELECTORAL fraud" with "voter fraud" and that lack of discernment is costing you.

How many shall be disenfranchised before you care?

Good question for you to answer. How many people must lose their votes to discriminatory and abusive demands before you care? Read this and tell us what you think.

What is your tolerance to stealing votes?

What's yours? Do you reject the notion that the state can deny citizens their right to vote based on arbitrary and capricious actions, or is the state affirmatively required to ensure that voters are afforded their right to vote?

Obama Fails on Government Transparency

“The American people were promised a new era of transparency with the Obama administration. Unfortunately, this promise has not been kept. To be clear: the Obama administration is less transparent than the Bush administration.”

US gov't sets record for failures to find files when asked

The Obama administration set a record for the number of times its federal employees told disappointed citizens, journalists and others that despite searching they couldn't find a single page requested under the Freedom of Information Act, according to a new Associated Press analysis of government data.

In more than one in six cases, or 129,825 times, government searchers said they came up empty-handed last year. Such cases contributed to an alarming measurement: People who asked for records under the law received censored files or nothing in 77 percent of requests, also a record. In the first full year after President Barack Obama's election, that figure was only 65 percent of cases.

The White House Guess List: How Obama Pulled a Fast One on the American People -- in the Name of "Transparency"

The White House is still holding back "tens of thousands" of visitor logs, according to congressional testimony last week by Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch, who also added that "the Obama administration is less transparent than the Bush administration."

We also know that some of the most important presidential visitors don't even walk into the White House. The administration meets K Street lobbyists at Caribou Coffee, and holds secret meetings in Jackson Place townhouses where there are no visitor logs.

The visitor logs that have been released are problematic, because they are simply lists of names, with no way to verify whether a specific name belongs to a particular person.

Yeah, and linking to think progress is the best example of a self-reinforcing echo chamber with a side of propaganda.

After all, one can see what happens when progressive replacements get into power. Laws? Nope, those are for little people. And illegals? No, those are "guests" who should just be set free. That also includes violent offenders who've committed murder, rapes and so on. I'm sure you're happy with that policy right? Who doesn't want a murderer simply released back on the street. Or putting a rapist right back out, it's not like rape isn't a repeat offender crime or anything. Or a crime that escalates into further violent acts.

Who's the reality denier?

Email chains not only detail Steven's position but planned movements on insecure server AKA handing information to terrorist.

Here's a breakdown:
http://www.thepoliticalinsider...

Here's the federal FOIA confirmation:
https://foia.state.gov/Search/...

Here's the leaked confirmation:
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-...

Here's the documents that show she knew it was going to happen:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/d...

I have a special dislike for Clinton - she's a murderer, a liar, a thief and she covers for multiple sexual offenders. My feelings about Trump are very mixed - he doesn't fit with my vision overall but I like the promise of "swamp draining" I just don't like the idea of him replacing what gets weeded out with something else. Sometime you remove something and replace it with nothing and that's the best answer.

Facts are the foundation of a rational opinion. I am not a member of the "feelings" party, nor am I a member of the "bomb them all" party, the two of which the lines tend to blur between. It's obvious you and AC are part of the "for the feelz" groups.

I should have added a few facts to back my assertions. Whitewater led to 15 Felony convictions, so this is not merely speculation or allegation. Bill Clinton settled out of court with Paula Jones for 850,000.00, again not speculation or allegation. Chinagate ended with an award of 900,000 to Judicial Watch and people fleeing the country to avoid prosecution. Clinton later pardoned Marc Rich who is the person who fled prosecution. Again, not speculation or allegation.

Because the Secretary of State has the same authority to order armed forces around as I do. (which is none, in can you thought I was Obama/someone important)

Ha ha... as if Obama or someone important would be on a site like this one. Could happen I suppose. What a nice handle - "Actually, I do RTFA". Cool. ebvwfbw was the captcha code... That's the only thing I could get it to take.

You know, I thought that myself. I thought only the President could do such things and the responsibility for that mess was squarely at Obama's feet. I figured he'd finally take a beating. Like his other messes, he blamed a woman and let her take the heat. Louis Lerner, Clinton, etc. Want to really get confused? Read this:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/p...

We also know that Obama went to bed without doing anything so he could go to his (Fabulous) Las Vegas fund raiser the next day. He couldn't have cared less about the whole thing, other than he knew he wouldn't be to blame. The press let him get away with it. The previous presidents in my lifetime, nope. They would be up to the body in some real sticky mud and the wheels spinning. The press would have dogged them badly. Not this guy.

This is where I'll remind you that the Obama administration was running guns to Mexico, and them ending back up in the US in the hands of criminals or cartel members illegally in the US.

And Mashiki fails to note that they were doing so in order to track the process and thus improve their ability to make arrests.

Why is that? Are you confusing the agents working for ATF in the Obama administration with something you saw on Sons of Anarchy? Do you believe that the President was especially concerned about a routine law enforcement procedure?

Please explain your presentation. Exactly why did you chose your expression. Be honest.

US law enforcement should work for US interests.

Well they do, the problem is that the current government doesn't work for US interests. This is where I'll remind you that the Obama administration was running guns to Mexico, and them ending back up in the US in the hands of criminals or cartel members illegally in the US.

I'm having a lot of trouble believing any of that, when there's numerous articles on "sanctuary cities" (where's the alien-harboring charge for those mayors/governors, huh?).

Here are some other links that would dispute what you claim:

Poor illegal immigrants get food stamps denied to poor U.S. citizens, $2 billion worth
Illegal immigrants tell San Diego border agents that Obama said it was OK to come
Lawless immigration policies of the Obama administration
DHS quietly moving and releasing vanloads of illegal aliens away from the border

Ok, I'm sorry but I'll have to work. Go look further on the Ukranian thing if you are willing. It was some time ago, I read at the time, so I couldn't find more relevant links in a short time. There were American financed NGOs, trade deals to disrupt relations with Russia, the NATO threat, and the pro-US president screwing the country to cause the "resentment over 50 years of Russian hegemony " (do you honestly think there would be a "government turnover" if the people were not screwed over?). If you don't think putting missiles on your border is a serious threat (and they needed the "government turnover" for that) just remember the Cuban missile crisis, and that your country considers this kind of thing a serious threat. So yes, the Russians where between having missiles on their border and invading Ukraine. If the "turnover" wasn't associated with NATO, the missiles and Yats, I wouldn't think the US was at fault. If with all those things you don't think it is, think again.
On Syria, the email in the link was from 2011.

t's certainly possible limited aid was going into this country

Read the quotes again.

on the ground (...) training opposition forces (...) commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns (...) enough media attention on a massacre, like the Ghadafi move against Benghazi

The interview about how supporting terrorists would help terrorists relates to a 2012 report by the DIA. Here is the DIA report, heavily redacted (it's just three pages out of seven pages). Before "the rise" of ISIS, the report is an intelligence alert that ISIS would happen depending on US actions. Please, at least watch the 5 minutes video with the American intelligence officer.
So, if you don't believe the Russians, you should believe at least the Americans... plus, they are saying the same thing.

Here's the 2012 DoD memo that outlines their predictions for the region. Of particular interest is the last paragraph on page 5 where they exactly predict the rise of ISIS.

This is about as close to metaphysical certitude as you're going to get out of an intelligence report. No one can guarantee they can predict the future, but these are experts on the region, it's their job to understand it, it's the state department's job to understand it, and to be honest if you know anything about the region it shouldn't have been hard to predict. Obviously there are jihadi forces that have been suppressed by secular governments (Iraq, Libya, Syria). Obviously they want to depose the secular government and establish an Islamic government. Obviously if you weaken the secular government the jihadi forces are going to unite against them.

So when you say:

I doubt anyone really expected ISIS.

This is completely false. The department of defense expected ISIS, the state department expected ISIS, and they went ahead with their plans anyway. There are only two possibilities:

1. They wanted to create something like ISIS.

2. They knew something like ISIS would almost certainly form and they gave subzero fucks about it. Hillary's goal was making Israel happy with a nuclear Iran and no other considerations matter.

When you typed "it was a more convenient option for state communications," you obviously meant "it was a more convenient option for putting my email beyond the reach of FOI requests while I took bribes through the Clinton Foundation in exchange for political favors for foreign actors."

What, didn't you get the memo?

p Otherwise we could end up with the DEA smuggling drugs for the Sinaloa drug cartel, the ATF selling guns to violent criminals, or the FBI smuggling child porn.

Hmmm so Silk Road, Fast and Furious and Playpen.
Who watches the watchers?

He did mostly likely did commit suicide from shame of breaking the law for the Clintons over whitewater. Search warrant granted 7/20/93, vince foster commits suicide 7/20/93, search warrent excuted on 7/21/93 (documents removed on 7/20/93) http://www.judicialwatch.org/w... . Investigation into him just stopped because well he was dead. Doesn't help the Clinton's did some really shady shit in removing documents from his office after he died. Doesn't help their case either when one of the prosecutors on Starr's team resigned in protest because the whole investigation was botched. http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/vin...

Judicial Watch is... well, you could accurately call them a conservative website, but they reflect only the worst aspects of what conservative means. They also outright lie. A lot. They are responsible for starting and occasionally perpetuating a rumor that ISIS has a training camp in northern Mexico and the Obama administration is covering it up - according to unnamed 'sources,' of course. ( http://www.judicialwatch.org/b... )

Yes, in fact I do.

As to why the Republicans didn't bring it up in the hearings - the Benghazi hearings took place in October, and Clinton managed to delay the release of the transcripts until April. Which is the pattern with this despicable woman - delay, delay, delay and then when the damning information comes out she says "This is old news. Why does it matter any more?" Do you remember the Rose Law Firm documents?

the latest court-ordered years-delayed document dump on his murderous Fast-and-Furious gun running operations. You can see the docs here or if you are a Democrat or an establishment Republican who hates Judicial Watch (the people who dislodged the document and made them public) you can always file your own FOIA request and wait a few years and file lawsuits against Holder and Obama to get your own copies of the same documents. The government now admits to over 60 more dead people after years of lies and document hiding and President Obama's indirect claim of personal involvement, a requirement for his assertion of "executive privilege" as he shielded Holder from the congress. Holder's program to sell thousands of assault weapons to Mexican drug gangs and not even try to track the weapons is going to keep generating these document drops for years as the courts work through all the delays and legal dodges. Holder, as a long-time DC beltway Democrat hack knows all the informal rules of PR used by corrupt politicians and "fixers" in BOTH parties. It's common practice in DC to for politicians to take action to get media attention to distract the press and public whenever bad documents are published that might truly damage if the public took the time to read them.

If nothing on Hillary's server was classified it should be released without redaction for full review and inspection by any party. That has not happened, and it won't happen. FOI requests regarding information on her server are denied almost as soon as they are filed.

You aren't giving credit where credit is due. Judicial Watch has a lawsuit pursuing information along these lines, and is making progress.

Is Judicial Watch going to use those funds to prevent more imaginary terrorist attacks?

If nothing on Hillary's server was classified it should be released without redaction for full review and inspection by any party. That has not happened, and it won't happen. FOI requests regarding information on her server are denied almost as soon as they are filed.

You aren't giving credit where credit is due. Judicial Watch has a lawsuit pursuing information along these lines, and is making progress. (They accept donations in their fight against corruption.)

In fact you can thank them for the progress being made:

Judicial Watch Statement on State Department OIG Report on Hillary Clinton’s Email Practices

It was Judicial Watch’s litigation that almost certainly forced the State Department to publicly disclose Hillary Clinton’s secret email account that is now the subject of a scathing Inspector General Report. A statement by the State Department in a February 2, 2015, status report in response to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit was the first notice to the public and the court that State had failed to thoroughly search all of Clinton’s email records: “[The State Department] has discovered that additional searches for documents potentially responsive to the FOIA must be conducted.” That statement was the first acknowledgement of Clinton’s secret email. And now, nearly a year and a half later, the State Department’s own Inspector General is confirming the gravity of Clinton’s end run around the law. Judicial Watch already uncovered much of the information cited in this report. But the OIG report will be helpful in upcoming questioning of witnesses about the Clinton email matter.

Judicial Watch Begins Discovery in Hillary Clinton Email Matter

More on the Clinton email scandal at Judicial Watch.

If nothing on Hillary's server was classified it should be released without redaction for full review and inspection by any party. That has not happened, and it won't happen. FOI requests regarding information on her server are denied almost as soon as they are filed.

You aren't giving credit where credit is due. Judicial Watch has a lawsuit pursuing information along these lines, and is making progress. (They accept donations in their fight against corruption.)

In fact you can thank them for the progress being made:

Judicial Watch Statement on State Department OIG Report on Hillary Clinton’s Email Practices

It was Judicial Watch’s litigation that almost certainly forced the State Department to publicly disclose Hillary Clinton’s secret email account that is now the subject of a scathing Inspector General Report. A statement by the State Department in a February 2, 2015, status report in response to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit was the first notice to the public and the court that State had failed to thoroughly search all of Clinton’s email records: “[The State Department] has discovered that additional searches for documents potentially responsive to the FOIA must be conducted.” That statement was the first acknowledgement of Clinton’s secret email. And now, nearly a year and a half later, the State Department’s own Inspector General is confirming the gravity of Clinton’s end run around the law. Judicial Watch already uncovered much of the information cited in this report. But the OIG report will be helpful in upcoming questioning of witnesses about the Clinton email matter.

Judicial Watch Begins Discovery in Hillary Clinton Email Matter

More on the Clinton email scandal at Judicial Watch.

If nothing on Hillary's server was classified it should be released without redaction for full review and inspection by any party. That has not happened, and it won't happen. FOI requests regarding information on her server are denied almost as soon as they are filed.

You aren't giving credit where credit is due. Judicial Watch has a lawsuit pursuing information along these lines, and is making progress. (They accept donations in their fight against corruption.)

In fact you can thank them for the progress being made:

Judicial Watch Statement on State Department OIG Report on Hillary Clinton’s Email Practices

It was Judicial Watch’s litigation that almost certainly forced the State Department to publicly disclose Hillary Clinton’s secret email account that is now the subject of a scathing Inspector General Report. A statement by the State Department in a February 2, 2015, status report in response to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit was the first notice to the public and the court that State had failed to thoroughly search all of Clinton’s email records: “[The State Department] has discovered that additional searches for documents potentially responsive to the FOIA must be conducted.” That statement was the first acknowledgement of Clinton’s secret email. And now, nearly a year and a half later, the State Department’s own Inspector General is confirming the gravity of Clinton’s end run around the law. Judicial Watch already uncovered much of the information cited in this report. But the OIG report will be helpful in upcoming questioning of witnesses about the Clinton email matter.

Judicial Watch Begins Discovery in Hillary Clinton Email Matter

More on the Clinton email scandal at Judicial Watch.

If nothing on Hillary's server was classified it should be released without redaction for full review and inspection by any party. That has not happened, and it won't happen. FOI requests regarding information on her server are denied almost as soon as they are filed.

You aren't giving credit where credit is due. Judicial Watch has a lawsuit pursuing information along these lines, and is making progress. (They accept donations in their fight against corruption.)

In fact you can thank them for the progress being made:

Judicial Watch Statement on State Department OIG Report on Hillary Clinton’s Email Practices

It was Judicial Watch’s litigation that almost certainly forced the State Department to publicly disclose Hillary Clinton’s secret email account that is now the subject of a scathing Inspector General Report. A statement by the State Department in a February 2, 2015, status report in response to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit was the first notice to the public and the court that State had failed to thoroughly search all of Clinton’s email records: “[The State Department] has discovered that additional searches for documents potentially responsive to the FOIA must be conducted.” That statement was the first acknowledgement of Clinton’s secret email. And now, nearly a year and a half later, the State Department’s own Inspector General is confirming the gravity of Clinton’s end run around the law. Judicial Watch already uncovered much of the information cited in this report. But the OIG report will be helpful in upcoming questioning of witnesses about the Clinton email matter.

Judicial Watch Begins Discovery in Hillary Clinton Email Matter

More on the Clinton email scandal at Judicial Watch.

Adding missing link: http://www.judicialwatch.org/p...

And we know that - how? Her word? When it's already been shown she did not release all work related e-mails? Really - we're to trust her?

Those overseas students now face being deported from the United States for buying visas

One would think, the government's priorities would be to block the poor foreigners entering the country illegally and most immediately becoming a public burden. Only after we stop importing poverty, would the borders-enforcers turn on to people, who express their love for the United States without asking taxpayers for financial assistance.

Surely, both groups are breaking the law and ought to be prosecuted, but, if you must exercise prosecutorial discretion, wouldn't you start with those, who cause the most damage? The current Administration's priorities are exactly the opposite, for some reason...

Which is quite surprising, because prosecuting these immigrants — who had the advantage of geography in coming over here — would not require the elaborate entrapment schemes like setting up fake universities — the Administration already knows many of them, and even argues in court, it ought to be allowed to let them partake in Social Security and other "earned benefits" programs!

It is almost as if the plan is to allow them all to stay — despite going through the glacially slow motions of "deferred actions" — and, while staying, vote for the party in power, huh?

First of all, a university receiving public funds is also a public school (especially, if it is entirely State-owned as any branch of University of California is), and it did ban the flag — whether that move was initiated by the monkeys running the zoo or the older officials is secondary in importance.

More importantly, it happened in various actual public high schools too — on the authority of local principals and school districts alike. And the courts support that — for "safety". Evidently, the "batshit crazy" is spreading, while you remain in denial (and sniping at the harmless Evangelicals).

So you think there are Mexicans plotting to walk into polling stations so they can impersonate Americans? Or that there are enough of these people willing to risk arrest and deportation to make a significant difference?

As I've said before, I think absentee voting is a bigger area of fraud, but yes, what you just said clearly happens, and I doubt we know the true extent of it. Certainly, you can do study after study, but with no means to verify identity, it's impossible to know the extent. After googling "illegal voting in the united states (ok, DuckDuckGoing it), first hit is https://www.judicialwatch.org/.... I've seen similar articles about my current state--North Carolina--and in Illinois and Virginia where I used to live.

If you ignore the history of voting fraud in places like Chicago, or the organized (frequently through illicit means and threat of force or violence) control of marginalized peoples by Tamany hall, then you're ignoring a lot of important history.

Speaking of poll paranoia, its usually racist: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/0... [rawstory.com]

I live in North Carolina. My first name is an old family name of Irish origin that is neither easy to spell nor pronounce. I have to spell my name each and every single time I vote. I have done this ever since I turned 18. I am not offended! Additionally, this story doesn't make much sense, as I have never seen a voting place in North Carolina where the volunteer staff had to type in any names into a computer. In fact, I think this 2016 election was the first one I remember where the staff actually had computers available. They have the voter rolls in front of them in printed form. Possibly this was some early voting site or something like that, but that part doesn't jibe with my experiences at all. AFAIK, polling places are standardized across the state. Optical scan FTW.

Next they'll be issuing written tests to screen voters, and jacking up the fees and conditions for holding an ID. And of course, it not like any of this has anything to do with the darker periods of electoral history. Just like racism itself, that old stuff happened on another planet and people suggesting its a real problem are 'bonkers' and there is just no way to discuss the issue with data [washingtonpost.com] so ridicule will do instead. LOL

Once again, you start talking about paranoid racists, and I then off you go here--pot, kettle, black. (Not the racist part, the paranoid part.)

Voters should be able to prove who they are with a visual ID. That's it. Every state I know of that has IDs goes to great lengths to make free IDs available to those who don't have them (and that is, of course, a very small percentage of the population to begin with). Where in your paranoia do you seem these requests for written tests, etc. showing up?

BTW, I lurrrrve the assertion that elections are too neck-and-neck to allow even one foreigner to besmirch our lovely democracy... because the rights holders in this debate ARE US citizens and the flippant "anti-populist" sentiments about "oh some long lines, polls closed on them, so what boohoo losers -- lets move on" are whats completely insane by comparison. When conservative douchebags want to turn over a new leaf on this issue then maybe they'll warrant more respect.

That's an interesting assertion to talk about. Where did you hear that? Straw men are such fun things to tilt at it!

The US, the country that sat out the whole conflict until Daesh started committing genocide

From the Global Intelligence Files in 2011, about the US financing anyone available to fight against Assad (read terrorists/"rebels"), and being interested in a big humanitarian disaster. Quotes from the e-mail:

they said without saying that SOF teams (presumably from US, UK, France, Jordan, Turkey) are already on the ground focused on recce missions and training opposition forces. One Air Force intel guy (US) said very carefully that there isn't much of a Free Syrian Army to train right now anyway

So there were no rebels to train, but they were there and training them anyway.

the idea 'hypothetically' is to commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within

They dont believe air intervention would happen unless there was enough media attention on a massacre, like the Ghadafi move against Benghazi. They think the US would have a high tolerance for killings as long as it doesn't reach that very public stage.

Also, there is a very interesting interview with the former head of the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency):
Who is to blame for the rise of ISIL (for some reason, I only get the "an error occurred" message, so here is a link to the most important part: Former DIA Head Concedes US Deliberately Backed Extremists in Syria).

They are discussing a 2012 report by the DIA informing that by supporting terrorists, the US would end up supporting Daesh during the interview. Here is the DIA report, heavily redacted (it's just three pages out of seven pages).
You should at least watch the 5 minutes video before saying that the US sat on the conflict again.

How exactly is this not a dystopian sci-fi novel come to life?

The dystopian novels may concentrate on the methods, but the real reasons for gloom are the governments behind them. A vibrant democracy arming its peace officers with effective tools to help them fight crime is starkly different from a repressive dictatorship doing the same.

And, although the US is not any longer the vibrant democracy (republic) we once were, it is not the brutal police force, that is used by our overlords today to keep opposition at bay. Not yet, anyway — for now they still use the IRS and other "civilized" tools to suppress would-be challengers. Possibly, because their support among actual police is not all that high.

The Sci-Fi writers didn't see any of that coming.

the situations are very different.

You think so? consider this, for instance. And this too. And this. No appeasement? Hardly. You just don't see it in the news. You'll read more about it in the histories when this behavior is revealed as part of the present diplomatic pattern, and what it led to is in the rear view mirror. Just as we did with Nazi Germany.

It's a shell game. Nothing is quite what it seems, and sure as little green apple seeds make little green apples, no one is eager to tell the public what is actually going on.

What you claim Islam teaches and how a million Muslims live, every day, in the USofA ... well there seems to be a disconnect there.

No disconnect. They are already demanding Sharia law in the US. And people like you will evidently give it to them under the guise of political correctness. After all, you don't want to Offend a Muslim, or he might cut your head off or shoot you while you're in a meeting.

You can't tell me that shit isn't gonna happen, as it already happened, and will continue to happen. Because the fact remains, Western values are not valued by Muslims.

Here are some interesting articles, about Muslim sensibilities in the US.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/b...

http://www.newswithviews.com/W...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

http://pamelageller.com/catego...

Muslims are already being emboldened, and pressing for changes. Changes counter to the most liberal of sensitivities. However, it is blind political correctness that is allowing most liberals to cede their ideals in the name of tolerance. And heck, even newspapers are refusing to run the same cartoons that got twelve people killed, simply because they are scared of the results.

The fact is, our culture has been changed by radical Islam, because we no longer feel safe criticizing it. And there aren't enough "good" muslims protesting the supposedly "radical" few.

There are lots of terrorist attempts in Texas. For example, just in the past few months:

JW Confirms: 4 ISIS Terrorists Arrested in Texas in Last 36 Hours OCTOBER 08, 2014 -- http://www.judicialwatch.org/b...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/18/... 19 JUNE 2014 2 in Texas arrested in terror-related cases

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/... MARCH 28, 2014 FBI Smashes Alleged Radical-Right Terror Plot in Texas

You would be hard pressed to walk into a busy Starbucks here without a dozen people carrying guns, the terrorists wouldn't have hostages, they'd have a fight on their hands, and frankly they are cowards anyway, so they won't do that here.

It seems that many of these terrorists are largely unconcerned with their own death or the suffering of others.

Gun ownership does not appear to be, and it would not make sense if it were, a deterrent to terrorist attacks.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/6/diseases-still-problem-illegal-immigrant-families/?page=all

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2014/07/illegal-alien-minors-spreading-tb-ebola-dengue-swine-flu/

Most of the citations, alas, are in the right wing media, but the left wing media mostly buries the story.

It does make perfect sense, many illegal aliens come from countries without mandatory vaccination, many come from countries with exotic tropical diseases. Diseases are popping up where there are concentrations of illegal aliens: big cities, border towns, and places where the Obama administration has shipped bunches of new arrivals.

****** It takes 2 things for an attack against the United States to be successful: disarmament and an attacker. This applies both to warfare and disease. *******