The Rumor Mill News Reading Room
Whistleblower: Massive Extraterrestrial Crafts Hiding Behind Moon -audio
Posted By: Jordon [Send E-Mail]
Date: Thursday, 12-Dec-2013 11:21:32
Date: Thursday, 12-Dec-2013 11:21:32
|
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Whistleblower: Massive Extraterrestrial Crafts Hiding Behind Moon -audio
Mt. Vernon Assembly Adjourns: Plan for Con-con Carries On
Subject: Plans for Con-Con carry on -
To:
To:
Wednesday, 11 December 2013 09:45
Mt. Vernon Assembly Adjourns: Plan for Con-con Carries On
Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
The Mount Vernon Assembly has adjourned and the 97 state legislators who attended report that the meeting was a success.
On her Facebook page, attendee and Arizona State Representative Kelly Townsend reported that the lawmakers gathered “to discuss a potential amendment to the US Constitution,” but that they did not discuss “what that amendment would be.”
There’s little question about that. The money behind the Mount Vernon Assembly comes from the Compact for America group, whose pockets are very deep.
The Compact for America organization is pushing for a “convention of the states” to consider a balanced budget amendment.
Somehow, the scholars, attorneys, and “constitutional authorities” at the Compact for America and the Goldwater Institute (the home of Compact for America co-founder Nick Dranias) believe that the budget-balancing goal it supports could be accomplished without opening the Constitution up to serious threats lurking in a potential Article V convention.
The fact is that determined citizens and state legislators could rescue the United States from its financial peril without resorting to opening up the Constitution to tinkering by delegates to a constitutional convention, many of whom would be bought and paid for by special interests and corporations.
Thomas Jefferson wrote: “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free … it expects what never was and never will be.” A fundamental requirement of vigilance is holding elected representatives’ feet to the fire by compelling them to honor their oath of office and not exceed the limits of their power as set forth in the Constitution.
Furthermore, there is no historical proof that a balanced budget amendment would bring the budget back into the black. Even the most conservative estimates indicate that about 80 percent of expenditures approved by Congress violate the U.S. Constitution. That fact wouldn’t change by adding an amendment to the Constitution.
Whether these bills spend our national treasure on unconstitutional and undeclared foreign wars, billions sent overseas in the form of foreign aid, expanding the so-called entitlement programs, or redistributing wealth via corporate and individual welfare schemes, none of these outlays is authorized by the Constitution.
And don’t forget, a committed, concerned, and constitutionally aware citizenry can balance our budget more quickly than any balanced budget amendment and without the danger of letting the wolves of special interests and their political puppets into the constitutional hen house.
Thomas Jefferson wrote: “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free … it expects what never was and never will be.” A fundamental requirement of vigilance is holding elected representatives’ feet to the fire by compelling them to honor their oath of office and not exceed the limits of their power as set forth in the Constitution.
Furthermore, there is no historical proof that a balanced budget amendment would bring the budget back into the black. Even the most conservative estimates indicate that about 80 percent of expenditures approved by Congress violate the U.S. Constitution. That fact wouldn’t change by adding an amendment to the Constitution.
Whether these bills spend our national treasure on unconstitutional and undeclared foreign wars, billions sent overseas in the form of foreign aid, expanding the so-called entitlement programs, or redistributing wealth via corporate and individual welfare schemes, none of these outlays is authorized by the Constitution.
And don’t forget, a committed, concerned, and constitutionally aware citizenry can balance our budget more quickly than any balanced budget amendment and without the danger of letting the wolves of special interests and their political puppets into the constitutional hen house.
State Representative Townsend also claims in her recap of the pre-convention convention, “There were a few dominating issues, and the room was filled with brilliant and careful minds. Most important seemed to be preventing rogue delegates from causing a runaway convention.”
Good luck with that.
Promoters and organizers of the Mount Vernon Assembly (as well as the larger call for an Article V convention) point to the historical record of the constitutional convention of 1787 as proof that such a meeting is possible without seeing it devolve into a “runaway convention.” They also claim that the record of that convention demonstrates that a modern-day version could be carried out without exceeding a very limited purpose.
Unfortunately for these convention coordinators, their account of those seminal events is not completely accurate. One of the core premises relied on for the Mount Vernon Assembly’s conclusion in this regard is that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of Philadelphia did not exceed their mandate. In an earlier report on the subject published by the Goldwater Institute, the claim was made that “48 of the 55 delegates [to the Philadelphia Convention] had instructions which allowed them to go beyond amending the Articles of Confederation.”
To assert, then, that the Constitutional Convention was not “runaway” with regard to those 48 delegates is arguably true. However, what of the seven delegates whose commissions expressly forbade them from ratifying, or even participating in, any proposal calling for the dismantling of the government created by the Articles of Confederation? What of the states represented by those delegates? Yet after ratification of the Constitution crafted in Philadelphia, the citizens and governments in those states were considered to be equally bound to abide by the terms of that contract.
Furthermore, regardless of any state or congressional legislation requiring them to consider only a balanced budget amendment, the assembled delegates to some future convention of the states would possess unlimited, though not unprecedented, power to propose revisions to the existing Constitution, based on the inherent right of the People in convention to alter or revise their government.
Unfortunately for these convention coordinators, their account of those seminal events is not completely accurate. One of the core premises relied on for the Mount Vernon Assembly’s conclusion in this regard is that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of Philadelphia did not exceed their mandate. In an earlier report on the subject published by the Goldwater Institute, the claim was made that “48 of the 55 delegates [to the Philadelphia Convention] had instructions which allowed them to go beyond amending the Articles of Confederation.”
To assert, then, that the Constitutional Convention was not “runaway” with regard to those 48 delegates is arguably true. However, what of the seven delegates whose commissions expressly forbade them from ratifying, or even participating in, any proposal calling for the dismantling of the government created by the Articles of Confederation? What of the states represented by those delegates? Yet after ratification of the Constitution crafted in Philadelphia, the citizens and governments in those states were considered to be equally bound to abide by the terms of that contract.
Furthermore, regardless of any state or congressional legislation requiring them to consider only a balanced budget amendment, the assembled delegates to some future convention of the states would possess unlimited, though not unprecedented, power to propose revisions to the existing Constitution, based on the inherent right of the People in convention to alter or revise their government.
Some irrefutable historical and legal facts must be understood about the type of convention being proposed by the Article V advocates.
First, the members of a Constitutional Convention are the direct representatives of the people.
Second, as such, they may exercise all sovereign powers that are vested in the people of the state.
Third, these delegates, regardless of how they are chosen, derive their powers, not from the various state legislatures, but from the people. In fact, in her synopsis of the Mount Vernon Assembly, Townsend admits that the convention being planned by the group is “an effort by the people, and needs to remain as such.”
Next, as a corollary of this fact, the convention delegates’ power could not in any legal manner be restricted or restrained by the legislature, despite the Article V supporters’ reassurances to the contrary.
Finally, in light of the foregoing, a convention of the states, once convened, would possess ultimate power and would be authorized to not only propose some as yet unidentified amendment, but could propose and promulgate a new constitution for the United States.
The prospect of a convention endowed with power of this magnitude, populated by politicians (many of whom would likely be bought and paid for by powerful lobbyists and special interest groups) determined to tinker with the precision gears that give movement to works of our mighty Republic, is frightening and should give pause to everyone considering supporting the crescendo of calls for a “convention of the states.”
While an anxiety for the salvation of our Constitution and our constitutional Republic is laudable and never to be dismissed, the author of that last warning fails to take into account other remedies for the cancer afflicting our body politic.
To begin with, rather than expose the Constitution to the whims of special interest groups, political action committees, corporations, and the politicians they pay for, why not enforce the Constitution as written?
For example, there is not a single syllable in the Constitution providing for foreign aid ($74 billion spent from 2010-2011), undeclared wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (nearly $4 trillion spent since 2001), or the 185 federal welfare programs (nearly $2 trillion spent from 2010-2011). In the past decade, based on just those three examples alone, Congress has authorized the spending of over $6 trillion for unconstitutional purposes!
To begin with, rather than expose the Constitution to the whims of special interest groups, political action committees, corporations, and the politicians they pay for, why not enforce the Constitution as written?
For example, there is not a single syllable in the Constitution providing for foreign aid ($74 billion spent from 2010-2011), undeclared wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (nearly $4 trillion spent since 2001), or the 185 federal welfare programs (nearly $2 trillion spent from 2010-2011). In the past decade, based on just those three examples alone, Congress has authorized the spending of over $6 trillion for unconstitutional purposes!
Wouldn’t the country’s economic outlook be improved by forcing our federal representatives to obey the limits on their power as provided by the Constitution, rather than allowing the delegates to a con-con (and the powerful interests many of them would be financially beholden to) to hold a new constitutional convention that not only would do nothing to restrain the federal government, but could potentially rewrite our Constitution?
The certain risks associated with a con-con far outweigh the promised benefits.
Constitutionalists recognize that there is another way for states to exercise their collective authority on the federal government without resorting to a constitutional convention. It is the concept described by Thomas Jefferson as the “rightful remedy” for any and all unconstitutional acts of the federal government: nullification.
Simply stated, nullification is a concept of legal statutory construction that endows each state with the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal measure that a state deems unconstitutional. Nullification is founded on the assertion that the sovereign states formed the union, and as creators of the compact, they hold ultimate authority as to the limits of the power of the central government to enact laws that are applicable to the states and the citizens thereof.
In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, Madison reaffirms this fundamental principle of constitutional construction:
Simply stated, nullification is a concept of legal statutory construction that endows each state with the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal measure that a state deems unconstitutional. Nullification is founded on the assertion that the sovereign states formed the union, and as creators of the compact, they hold ultimate authority as to the limits of the power of the central government to enact laws that are applicable to the states and the citizens thereof.
In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, Madison reaffirms this fundamental principle of constitutional construction:
Encroachments springing from a government, whose organization cannot be maintained without the co-operation of the states, furnish the strongest excitements upon the state legislatures to watchfulness, and impose upon them the strongest obligation, to preserve unimpaired the line of partition.
With these facts in mind, it would seem that our nation’s fiscal and political well-being is better served by governors jealous of their states’ sovereignty and their rightful role as “shelters against the abuse of power,” signing into law state bills nullifying unconstitutional federal measures (including those that have propelled our national indebtedness into the stratosphere) than by elected delegates uniting at a constitutional convention with unchecked power to amend our Constitution out of existence in the name of balancing the budget or some other otherwise noble purpose.
What’s more, by seeking out and electing federal representatives committed to never voting for a single spending bill that violates the enumerated powers of the Constitution and refusing to reelect those members of Congress that do vote for such measures, the federal budget would be balanced — by following the Constitution, not “fixing” it.
What’s more, by seeking out and electing federal representatives committed to never voting for a single spending bill that violates the enumerated powers of the Constitution and refusing to reelect those members of Congress that do vote for such measures, the federal budget would be balanced — by following the Constitution, not “fixing” it.
According to a tweet sent out by state representative Brett Hildabrand of Kansas, the Mount Vernon Assembly was recorded and the entirety of the meeting will be uploaded to YouTube.
Finally, remember the words of Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. “Conventions are serious things,” he warned, “and ought not to be repeated.” “Nothing but confusion and contrariety could spring from the experiment,” he continued.
The experiment being proposed by the promoters of the Mount Vernon Assembly is one that could blow up in all our faces and destroy our Constitution.
Photo of Mount Vernon, George Washington's home
Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels frequently nationwide speaking on topics of nullification, the NDAA, and the surveillance state. He is the host of The New American Review radio show that is simulcast on YouTube every Monday. Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at jwolverton@thenewamerican.com
Did Obama know date of Mandela’s death was June 26, 2013?
Did Obama know date
of Mandela’s death was June 26, 2013? http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/59749
It’s reasonable to
wonder how many Western leaders in South Africa for Mandela’s memorial today
have been keeping their tears of grief in check since June
Did Obama know date of Mandela’s death was June 26, 2013?
Did Obama know date of Mandela’s death was June 26, 2013?
Did Obama know date of
Mandela’s death was June 26, 2013?
Claiming to defer to Mandela family members on visiting the ailing Mandela during his June 28-30 whistle-stop trip through Johannesburg, Obama instead met with South African President Jacob Zuma.
Zuma was one of the key figures who kept the news that doctors had been keeping Mandela alive in a vegetative state, a top world secret.
Among thousands of news outlets, only one newspaper made a valiant attempt to get the true story out and keep it there.
According to the read-by-millions Las Vegas Guardian Express, Mandela died on June 26th, 2013, but was kept on life support until December 2013.
On December 5, 2013, the White House tweeted a picture showing Obama behind the bars of the Robben Island prison, where Mandela had been incarcerated for 27 years. The picture tweeted on Dec. 5, 2013 had been taken on June 29, 2013, when Barack and Michelle Obama visited the world famous site.
As president and first lady of the USA, the Obamas make pretty good vultures.
This is the story of Mandela’s June 26 death following his persistent vegetative state as reported by the Guardian Express:
“On the morning of June 26, we received a message from one of our South African correspondents, Laura Oneale that Nelson Mandela had passed away the previous evening. The news had come to her in the form of a text message from an acquaintance who was well-placed in the South African media. It should be understood that this organization was not authorized to break the news. Clearly, the South African government and the Mandela family had already decided that the news would not be made public. Undoubtedly, this decision had been made even before his death; at least, that’s what we were thinking.
“Our assumption, at the time, was two-fold: firstly, we doubted that such news would not long escape the attention of the international media, even if the South African media was being muzzled. As is the nature of the news media industry, we saw that we had been handed a major scoop and that our window of opportunity to be the first to break this news was limited. Cynical? Perhaps, but we did not doubt the integrity of the source, given that individual’s position. We are in the news business. What other publication – given the gravity of the story and the knowledge of Mandela’s health condition – would not have immediately prepared to publish? We began both to work on a couple of articles and to seek out verification. We found no other corroborating evidence. We wrote our stories.
“In the interests of being completely honest, we cannot say that we did not second–guess ourselves. Did we have direct, first-hand proof that Nelson Mandela was dead? No, we didn’t. One must look at how news stories are broken, though: A media publication receives information from a trusted source; every good faith attempt is made to verify the information. In the absence of verification, the editor or editorial team must make a decision to publish or not to publish. What we did have was the best source we could have, other than first-hand, eye-witness testimony. Moreover, Mandela was seriously ill; according to reports, the icon and former African leader was on his deathbed; hooked up to medical devices that enabled him to breathe.
“We published.
“Now, we were walking on eggshells; our reputation was at stake. What were we thinking? Other news outlets actually published stories announcing Mandela’s death; they quickly retracted, without actually justifying why they had done so. To us, that in itself indicated that they had been told to retract, rather than doing so because they had discovered that Mandela was still alive. The Las Vegas Guardian Express, however, was a relatively new and completely independent publication with no government ties and no corporate owners or shareholders. We could not be pressured into retracting, other than through legal action. In addition, we were a tiny speck on the world news radar.
“Naturally, it was in our own interests to quickly verify Mandela’s condition. Is that an admission that we published news of his death without being sure? No, it is not; we were sure and we could clearly see that an official announcement could be kept under wraps for any number of reasons; a visit by US President Barack Obama was already scheduled and there were obvious security implications. Additionally, the South African government is absolutely capable of using such news for political purposes. Our only misgiving was that we had failed to uncover any corroborating source. The strength of our conviction is proven by the fact that, even as the days went by and no word of his death came from official or family sources, we maintained our position. It seemed logical enough that there was no reason to retract without absolute proof that Nelson Mandela still lived.
“As the few articles we published drew attention – along with numerous comments – it became self-evident that both the South African government and the Mandela family were aware of our reports. Had we been wrong – and had the family been able to prove that Mandela was still alive – it is beyond doubt that the Las Vegas Guardian Express would have received some form of legal threat. Not only did such action never transpire, but our publication was subjected to cyber-attack: Denial of Service attacks, originating in South Africa, disabled our site on more than one occasion. We took this as proof that we were reporting something that the South African government did not want us to report.
“It should be remembered that our publication was relatively small and generated only modest revenue through advertising. Nevertheless – and at considerable expense – we dispatched a senior editor to South Africa. During his time there, Michael Smith uncovered intriguing details of the situation regarding Nelson Mandela, the family, the African National Congress and South African President Jacob Zuma. Our investigations opened a door into the corruption and dishonesty of the aforementioned parties. During a Mandela family legal battle, documents emerged which stated that doctors had advised the family to turn off Mandela’s life support as he was brain-dead. At a later point, Zuma made a statement denying this, but we noted carefully that, while other news organizations were reporting that the doctors themselves had retracted their claims that Mandela was brain-dead, no such retraction had been made; Zuma himself claimed that the doctors had retracted this assertion.
“Now that it has been officially announced that Nelson Mandela has passed away, our position on the matter has not changed in any way. Inevitably, his passing had to be revealed. Many of our South African readers have believed us from the start; those that have criticized us have presented not one shred of evidence that we were wrong. The idea that we are proven wrong because the official announcement comes only now is absurd.
“This article has not detailed every piece of evidence that fell into place during our investigation into why Nelson Mandela’s death was covered up. One of the most compelling discoveries was brought back from South Africa by Michael Smith: He returned with an audio tape of a recorded telephone conversation Between a South African Defense Force officer and a private security contractor. The audio can be found in the first of the links listed at the foot of this article. For the reader who wishes to get the full story of our reporting on this story, each of those articles listed provide, collectively, the complete picture. During the call, the officer details the circumstances of Mandela’s death – which, according to him, occurred even earlier than we reported – and the possible implications of it, as well as the Mandela family’s motives for not releasing the news.
“Even now, the South African government, it seems, is attempting to prevent the Las Vegas Guardian Express from revealing the truth to the people of South Africa. Our Facebook page received a telling comment today. The comment reads:
Hallo I am from South Africa and for some reason I cannot view your website or any articles regarding Nelson Mandela. Is it possible that your site being blocked by our country? could you kindly send the the articles you recently wrote.
Kind regards
“Nelson Mandela is now officially dead – but he was already dead. Nothing has transpired between our initial June 26 reports and the present time to prove otherwise.
“Nevertheless, we would be remiss if we did not convey to the South African people, that we have the utmost respect for Madiba and the great legacy he has left the world. However, as a publication, read by millions across the globe, we have an obligation and responsibility to report the truth and what we were thinking.”
On the White House.gov website, the itinerary for Michelle Obama’s June African trip is still online. The links from her page to Barack Obama’s page with information of the South African trip produce an error advising viewers that the page they’re looking for can’t be found.
It would take six months or more to plan a state funeral that would be the biggest since Winston Churchill’s.
It’s reasonable to wonder how many Western leaders in South Africa for Mandela’s memorial today have been keeping their tears of grief in check since June, 2013.
Was this week’s grief-stricken Obama let in on Mandela’s June 2013 death by family or the African National Congress (ANC) South African government when he was in South Africa June 28-30?
Or did Obama know they were keeping Mandela alive on life support courtesy of the international spying NSA?
Meanwhile, in a world where the mainstream media feeds government lies and propaganda to readers, listeners and viewers, the courageous Las Vegas Guardian Express stands alone.
Resources:
Guardian Express: Mandela Dead or Alive
Guardian Express Nelson Mandela Cover Up Timeline
4
Comments
Copyright © Canada Free Press
Copyright © Canada Free Press
RSS Feed for Judi McLeod
Judi McLeod is an
award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former
Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work
has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and
Glenn Beck.
Judi can be emailed at: judi@canadafreepress.com
Federal reserve notes Are Not Legal Tender
Federal reserve
notes Are Not Legal Tender (HJR-192 Repealed 1982)
As of October 27, 1977 legal tender is no longer required and
repayment need only be made in equivalent kind; A negotiable instrument.
Fidelity Bank Guarantee Trust of New York v Henwood, 307 U.S. 847 (1939).
Public Law 95-147.
IN KIND defined: Of the same species or category. In the same
kind, class, or genus. A loan is returned "in kind" when not the
identical article, but one corresponding and equivalent to it, is given to the
lender. See Distribution in kind; In genere; Like-kind exchange.
ALL Federal
reserve/Federal Reserve notes Are Without Authority Of Law.
Whereas defined
pursuant to section one of HJR-192 “Any such provision contained in any law
authorizing obligations to be issued by or under the United States, is hereby
repealed.”
Whereas defined
pursuant to section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act the Federal reserve notes
issued pursuant to section 16 were expressly said to be obligations of the
United States. In June of 1933 the authority to issue those section 16 Federal
reserve notes was repealed! Resulting with ALL Federal reserve/Federal Reserve
notes are without authority of law.
Integrity
defined: As used in statutes prescribing the qualifications of public officers,
trustees, etc., this term means soundness or moral principle and character, as
shown by one person dealing with others in the making and performance of
contracts, and fidelity and honesty in the discharge of trusts; it is
synonymous with "probity," "honesty," and
"uprightness."
BANK HOLIDAY OF
1933 defined: see; http://www.scribd.com/doc/179548063/Common-Law-Trust-Bank-Holiday-of-1933-Defined-Public-Notice-Public-Record
"Good
faith" means honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial
standards of fair dealing.
In Bankruptcy all
debts are discharged
"Forgive us
our debts, as we forgive our debtors." Matthew 6:12.
For full
disclosure Please See: http://www.scribd.com/doc/191127862/Federal-Reserve-Notes-Are-Not-Legal-Tender-HJR-192-Repealed-1982
What if they left.....AND ENTERED LEGALLY?
|
What if
they left.....AND ENTERED LEGALLY?
Somebody really did their homework on this
one. Best on the subject to present date.
What if 20 Million Illegal Aliens Vacated America? I, Tina Griego, journalist for the Denver Rocky Mountain News wrote a column titled, "Mexican Visitor's Lament". I interviewed Mexican journalist Evangelina Hernandez while visiting Denver last week. Hernandez said, "Illegal Aliens pay rent, buy groceries, buy clothes. What Happens to your country's economy if 20 million people go away?" Hmmm, I thought, what would happen? So I did my due diligence, buried my nose as a reporter into the FACTS I found below. It's a good question it deserves an honest answer. Over 80% of Americans demand secured borders and illegal migration stopped. But what would happen if all 20 million or more vacated America? The answers I found may surprise you! In California, if 3.5 million illegal aliens moved back to Mexico, it would leave an extra $10.2 billion to spend on overloaded school systems, bankrupt hospitals and overrun prisons. It would leave highways cleaner, safer and less congested. Everyone could understand one another as English became the dominant language again. In Colorado, 500,000 illegal migrants, plus their 300,000 kids and grandchildren would move back 'home', mostly to Mexico. That would save Colorado an estimated $2 billion (other experts say $7 billion) annually in taxes that pay for schooling, medical, social-services and incarceration costs. It means 12,000 gang members would vanish out of Denver alone. Colorado would save more than $20 million in prison costs, and the terror that those 7,300 alien criminals set upon local citizens. Denver Officer Don Young and hundreds of Colorado victims wouldn't have suffered death, accidents, rapes, other crimes by illegals. Denver Public Schools would not suffer a 67% dropout/flunk rate because of thousands of illegal alien students speaking 41different languages... At least 200,000 vehicles would vanish from our grid locked cities in Colorado. Denver's 4% unemployment rate would vanish as our working poor would gain jobs at a living wage. In Florida, 1.5 million illegals would return the Sunshine State back to America, the rule of law, and English. In Chicago, Illinois, 2.1 million illegals would free up hospitals, schools, prisons and highways for a safer, cleaner and more crime-free experience. If 20 million illegal aliens returned 'home', the U.S. Economy would return to the rule of law. Employers would hire legal American citizens at a living wage. Everyone would pay the fair share of taxes because they wouldn't be working off the books. That would result in an additional $401 Billion in IRS income taxes collected annually, and an equal amount for local, state and city coffers. No more push '1' for Spanish or '2' for English. No more confusion in American schools that now must contend with over 100 languages that degrade the educational system for American kids. Our overcrowded schools would lose more than two million illegal alien kids at a cost of billions in ESL and free breakfasts and lunches. We would lose 500,000 illegal criminal alien inmates at a cost of more than $1.6 billion annually. That includes 15,000 MS-13 gang members who distribute $130 billion in drugs annually would vacate our country. In cities like L.A., 20,000 members of the '18th Street Gang' would vanish from our nation. No more Mexican forgery gangs for ID theft from Americans! No more foreign rapists and child molesters! Losing more than 20 million people would clear up our crowded highways and gridlock. Cleaner air and less drinking and driving American deaths by illegal aliens! America's economy is drained. Taxpayers are harmed. Employers get rich. Over $80 billion annually wouldn't return to the aliens' home countries by cash transfers. Illegal migrants earned half that money untaxed, which further drains America's economy which currently suffers an $15 trillion debt. $15 trillion debt !! At least 400,000 anchor babies would not be born in our country, costing us $109 billion per year per cycle. At least 86 hospitals in California, Georgia and Florida would still be operating instead of being bankrupt out of existence because illegals pay nothing via the EMTOLA Act.
Americans wouldn't suffer thousands of TB and
hepatitis cases rampant in our country-brought in by illegals
unscreened at our borders.
Our cities would see 20 million less people driving, polluting and grid locking our cities. It would also put the 'progressives' on the horns of a dilemma; illegal aliens and their families cause 11% of our greenhouse gases. Over one million of Mexico's poorest citizens now live inside and along our border from Brownsville, Texas to San Diego, California in what the New York Times called, 'colonias' or new neighborhoods. Trouble is, those living areas resemble Bombay and Calcutta where grinding poverty, filth, diseases, drugs, crimes, no sanitation and worse. They live without sewage, clean water, streets, roads, electricity, or any kind of sanitation. The New York Times reported them to be America's new 'Third World ' inside our own country. Within 20 years, at their current growth rate, they expect 20 million residents of those colonias. (I've seen them personally in Texas and Arizona; it's sickening beyond anything you can imagine.) By enforcing our laws, we could repatriate them back to Mexico. We should invite 20 million legal aliens to go home, fix their own countries and/or make a better life in Mexico. We already invite a million people into our country legally more than all other countries combined annually. We cannot and must not allow anarchy at our borders, more anarchy within our borders and growing lawlessness at every level in our nation. It's time to stand up for our country, our culture, our civilization and our way of life. Interesting Statistics! Here are 13 reasons illegal aliens should vacate America, and I hope they are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them:
1. $14 billion to $22 billion dollars are spent
each year on welfare to illegal aliens. (that's Billion with a B') http://tinyurl.com/zob77..html
2. $7.5 billion dollars are spent each year on
Medicaid for legal aliens
3. $12 billion dollars are
spent each year on primary and secondary school education for children here illegallyand they still cannot
speak a word of English!
4. $27 billion dollars are spent each year for
education for the American-born children of illegal
aliens known as anchor babies.
5. $3 Million Dollars 'PER DAY' is spent to incarcerate illegal
aliens That's $1.2 Billion a year. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
6. 28% percent of all federal prison inmates are illegal
aliens.
7. $190 billion dollars are spent each year on illegal
aliens for welfare & social services by the
American taxpayers. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0610/29/ldt.01.html
8. $200 billion dollars per year in suppressed
American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
9. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's
two and a half times that of White non-legal aliens. In particular, their children, are
going to make a huge additional crime problem in the U.S. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0606/12/ldt.01.html
10. During the year 2005, there were 8 to 10 MILLION
legal aliens that crossed our southern border with as many
as 19,500 legal aliens from other terrorist countries. Over
10,000 of those were middle-easternterrorists. Millions of
pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin, crack, guns, and marijuana crossed
into the U.S. from the southern border. http://tinyurl.com/t9sht
11. The National Policy Institute, estimates that
the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion, or
an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year
period and nbsp; http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/publications.php?b=deportation
12. In 2006, legal
aliens sent home $65 BILLION in remittances back to
their countries of origin, to their families and friends.
13. The dark side of illegal
immigration: Nearly one million sex crimes are committed
by illegal immigrants in the United States!
TOTAL COST, a whopping, $538.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR!
If this doesn't bother
YOU, then just delete the message....
Otherwise send it on to
your congresspersons and all the folks you know.
|
Loretta Fuddy killed in plane crash
Press Release: Within hours after Attorney Orly Taitz published a press release of Johanna Ah’Nee-Randolph’s “control” birth certificate showing the same evidence of forgery and backdating as Obama’s alleged birth certificate, which was certified as genuine by director of Health of HI Loretta Fuddy, it was announced that Loretta Fuddy was the only passenger to die in a small plane accident. Attorney Taitz calls on 8 courts and judges who received her cases to rule expeditiously on the merits and review the evidence of forgery and theft in Obama’s IDs before more people die in strange accidents
Riots... Singapore, Thailand, Italy, Greece, India, Etc.... Are You Ready For When They Hit Home??
The Rumor Mill News Reading Room
Riots... Singapore, Thailand, Italy, Greece, India, Etc.... Are You Ready For When They Hit Home??
Posted By: Watchman
Date: Thursday, 12-Dec-2013 09:17:29
Date: Thursday, 12-Dec-2013 09:17:29
|
Think Hillary Is The Most Dangerous Woman In America?? Nope: She Can't Hold A Candle To Valerie Jarrett...
The Rumor Mill News Reading Room
Think Hillary Is The Most Dangerous Woman In America?? Nope: She Can't Hold A Candle To Valerie Jarrett...
Posted By: Watchman
Date: Thursday, 12-Dec-2013 09:22:55
Date: Thursday, 12-Dec-2013 09:22:55
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
