Hate Executive Amnesty? Hillary Just Took Advantage Of It Big Time

Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has faced her share of hurdles – many self-created – since announcing her intention to obtain her party’s nomination. Among the comments to garner criticism recently was her promise to ramp up Barack Obama’s program of giving illegal aliens an expedited path toward American citizenship.

Of course, this position stands in diametrical opposition to her own view in 2003, at which time she described herself as “adamantly against illegal immigrants.”

Her new rhetoric, however, appears to be more than just lip service to the nation’s growing illegal population. Reports indicate the Clinton campaign recently hired Lorella Praeli – an illegal alien allowed to stay in America under the controversial DREAM Act – as part of its Latino outreach effort.

The Dream Action Coalition, operated by illegal immigrants benefiting from provisions implemented under the Obama administration, offered its support of the Clinton campaign’s new hire.

“We congratulate Lorella for her new position,” the group said in a recent statement, “as she has unquestionably demonstrated an ability to get the job done and commitment to the Dreamer and immigrant community.”

The organization did have a word of warning for Hillary Clinton, though.

“Nevertheless,” the statement continued, “we urge the Hilary [sic] campaign to allow her to continue the fight for our community she will be representing and not just a spokesperson for campaign rhetoric.”

While the staff addition likely resonated with illegals interested in jumping to the front of the citizenship line, Americans were less enthusiastic.

“I guess being Hillary’s Latino outreach director is a job Americans won’t do,” quipped one Twitter user.

Is it appropriate for the Hillary campaign to hire illegal aliens? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Chuck Norris Makes Stunning Accusation About How Obama Is ‘Ensuring A 2016 Win’ For Dems

According to Chuck Norris, Barack Obama is already stacking the deck in favor of Democrats ahead of the 2016 presidential election. In a recent editorial, Norris cited several ways by which plans to increase immigration and naturalization in coming months could create a virtually undefeatable voting bloc willing to support the Democrat candidate.

“First,” he wrote, “the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, sent letters to all 9,000,000 green-card holders urging them to naturalize prior to the 2016 election.”

Furthermore, Norris cited the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program established by Obama to allow certain immigrants a fast track toward U.S. citizenship.

Perhaps the most troubling way this administration is using immigration to score electoral victories, Norris asserts, is by admitting refugees from any number of unfriendly, predominantly Muslim nations.

“Their strategy is to ‘seed your communities’ with at least 70,000 refugees a year,” he wrote, “including Iraqis, Burmese, Bhutanese, Somalis, Cubans, Syrians and others. And the numbers of Syrians, mostly Muslim, will surpass them all.”

At least a few Americans are excited about this idea. As Western Journalism reported, the New York Times recently published an editorial in which the authors suggested Syrian refugees should be allowed to “settle Detroit” in an effort to restore the once-prosperous city.

For Norris, however, it is obvious that Obama is showing favor toward certain oppressed groups while ignoring others.

“What’s tragically unfortunate,” he continued, “is that Coptic Christians barely even get a mention by Obama’s administration and even less protection.”

Is Obama’s amnesty plan designed to create a permanent Democrat majority? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Homeland Security Busted Busing TERRORISTS Into Our Country!

The Department of Homeland Security is supposed to protect us from terrorists, not import them, right?

Perhaps that was the old mission directive–but it appears that has changed.

Now it is apparently the Department of Homeland Security’s mission to import Muslim Terrorists to ‘equal the terrain’ or some other insane reason.

According to WND.com, the United States is quietly bringing in 100,000 Muslims each year. They use such cover as United Nations refugee programs and a variety of visa programs.

And they are not bringing in your garden variety so-called ‘moderate’ Muslims. Included in these huge human imports are some very hardcore extremist radical Muslims from Somalia and other African countries. Keep in mind that Somalia is headquarters for al-Shabab, a designated foreign terrorist organization that murdered 147 Christians in a Kenya university in April of 2015 and murdered 67 more at the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya in 2013.

And if you live in Minnesota, watch out. About 40,000 Somali Muslims were resettled there. But rather than being happy living off of U.S. welfare, compliments of American taxpayers, a growing number of these Muslim transplants are uprooting themselves to leave the United States to join the Islamic so-called State. Six were arrested in Minnesota in April of 2015 after making repeated attempts to leave the U.S. to fight with the Islamic so-called State. It’s gotten so bad that Andrew Luger, the U.S. attorney for Minnesota, confessed in an April 4, 2015 news conference that “we have a terror recruitment problem in Minnesota.”

More than two Somalis in Columbus, Ohio, have been arrested on terrorism charges. And thousands upon thousands of Muslim Africans are entering the United States through the Mexican border. WND.com reports that Department of Homeland Security buses transport immigrants from the Mexican border to detention centers where they are processed, given a court date, and released.

Under this current Obamanation, there is a new password that is the modern equivalent of Open Sesame. It’s called: Asylum. And if this insanity isn’t stopped, we may soon see these imported inmates running the asylum, formerly known as The United States of America.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

House Won’t Allow ‘Dreamers’ To Enlist In Military

The House rejected a provision Thursday that would have allowed illegal immigrant “Dreamers” to enlist in the military.

The lower chamber voted 221 to 202 to not add the Dreamer language in a comprehensive defense spending bill. All of the ‘no’ votes came from the GOP, though 20 Republicans crossed the aisle to vote for the measure, The Washington Times reported.

“It makes no sense to me that, at the same time the Army is downsizing and issuing pink slips to American soldiers serving in Afghanistan, there are Congressmen who seek to help illegal aliens deprive American citizens and lawful immigrants of military service opportunities,” Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., said in a statement after the vote. Brooks led the charge against against the language:

I’m pleased the House chose to stand up for American citizens and protect the Constitutional duty of Congress to set immigration law.

Today’s vote was the fourth rejection of the President’s unconstitutional DACA program, with Republicans overwhelmingly standing up for the will of the American people and the citizens and lawful immigrants who want to serve our country.

The language was presented by Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., a former Marine who served in Iraq. While he acknowledged the measure had little chance of clearing the Republican-controlled House, he attacked his opponents in a press release Thursday:

DREAMers are talented and patriotic; they are Americans in every way except on paper, and our country would benefit from having them as part of our Armed Forces.

The strength of our military isn’t just measured by the size of our arsenal or by the sophistication of our weapons but by the quality of our people. I would have been proud to serve beside these young men and women.

“This is yet another example of an anti-immigrant attitude on the part of House Republicans,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi,” D-Calif. The $612 billion defense bill was approved 269 to 151 Friday. The Hill breaks down the details of the bill:

The bill keeps ceilings on defense spending in place under the 2011 budget deal that introduced sequestration spending limits, but would increase funding to the Pentagon’s war fund.

The legislation authorizes roughly $523 billion in base Defense Department spending. Another $90 billion is included in the war fund, formally known as the Overseas Contingency Operations fund.

It includes $38 billion more for the war fund than had been requested by the White House. The extra spending is not offset by spending cuts or tax hikes.

The White House also opposes language in the bill meant to prevent the closing of Guantanamo Bay.

Do you support Mo Brooks? Share your thoughts in the comments section.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Washington Post Gives Clinton ‘Four Pinocchios’ for Illegal Immigration Claim

Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton made the claim last week at a roundtable discussion in Las Vegas that: “…in New York, which I know a little bit about because I represented it for eight years and I live there now, our undocumented workers in New York pay more in taxes that some of the biggest corporations in New York.”

The Washington Post sensed that her statement did not pass the sniff test and decided to do some digging.

First, the paper noted that Clinton is comparing apples and oranges. She was grouping together primarily the estimated state and local taxes illegal immigrants pay and comparing that figure with federal income taxes corporations may or may not pay in a particular year based on their earnings.

When the Post reached out to the Clinton campaign for facts to back up her claim, her staff pointed to an op-ed piece which appeared in the New York Daily News.

The op-ed’s author, Albor Ruiz, claimed that illegal aliens paid $1.1 billion in state taxes in 2012. That figure came from the liberal Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy, which made some generous assumptions in deriving that figure which the paper accepted for comparison’s sake.

But even taking this figure at face value, Clinton’s assertion does not add up. The op-ed her staff cited offered the examples of Verizon and Citigroup, among others.

In 2012, Verizon paid $1.7 billion in property and other taxes and $1.3 billion in employment taxes. The income tax bill in 2012 was a relatively low $351 million, due to lower earnings.

In other words, the more apples-to-apples comparison found that one New York-based corporation alone paid over three times as much in taxes ($3.4 billion vs. $1.1 billion) as the estimated total of what over 870,000 illegal immigrants in New York paid that same year.

The illegal immigrant tally came close to the 2012 Citicorp total of the approximately $1 billion in state and local taxes and employment taxes (the company paid no corporate federal income taxes that year due to still recovering from significant losses during the recession). This figured does not include the sales taxes the company paid. Further, in 2014 Citicorp paid $1 billion in corporate income tax alone.

Clinton spokesman Josh Schwerin told the Post: “The point she was making is that undocumented immigrants pay more in state and local taxes alone than some of our biggest companies pay in either state or federal corporate income tax.” He added, “That is a striking fact. And that’s why she raised it.”

A 2013 Heritage Foundation report found that overall, illegal immigrants cost the United States over $54 billion more in benefits received versus taxes paid. That deficit would soar to over $100 billion by the end of the decade if illegal immigrants were allowed to become citizens.

The Post’s final assessment of Clinton’s claim:

[C]omparing the taxes of hundreds of thousands of people to the tax bill of one corporation is a stretch and fairly misleading. Even the companies that pay little or no federal income taxes end up paying lots of other taxes. So it’s a nonsense comparison.

We wavered between Three and Four Pinocchios, but ultimately settled on Four. As a former senator, Clinton should know better.

Image Credit: Washington Post

Image Credit: Washington Post

h/t: The Blaze

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth