PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS, EVEN AFTER LOSING THE ELECTION, DON’T CARE ABOUT THE ‘WILL’ OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

By Jonathan E.P. Moore, and Friends of America!

PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS, EVEN AFTER LOSING THE ELECTION, DON’T CARE ABOUT THE ‘WILL’ OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

A new Gallup poll shows that Americans are now less satisfied with the state of the U.S.!

Not surprisingly, Democrats reported the greatest declines!

Prior to November 8, satisfaction among party members was polling as high as 62%.

That number has since dropped to 34%.

Sanctuary cities have one thing in common, and that is they run parallel with what happens when Liberals are in control of major American cities:

The fact that all our very poorest cities are run by Democrats doesn't prove that Democratic policies lead to poverty, but it sure suggests it.  Fortunately, sociologists and economists have

studied some of our older cities long enough to figure out what's going on.  We now know why Democratic policies lead to poverty.

Two Harvard economists described the "Curley Effect," named after Mayor James Curley of Boston who was elected to Boston's Board of Aldermen in 1904 despite being in prison on a fraud conviction when the election was held.

Mayor Curley showed Democrats how to win elections by taxing productive people and channeling the proceeds to less well-off groups.  This bought Irish votes.  As taxes went higher, productive citizens who tended to vote Republican fled to the suburbs, which tipped the balance further and further in favor of Democratic candidates.

In cities like Baltimore and Detroit, registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by 8 to 1 or more.  Is it any wonder that they've become single-party cesspools with no hope for change?

Taxing the productive to buy votes from government employees and the unproductive is good politics - it supported Democratic machines for decades on end - but it wrecks societies where Curley machines become entrenched.  Even though Democrats raise taxes in the name of helping minorities and the less well off, the latest census showed that minorities are leaving high tax states for places with lower taxes and fewer social programs but more jobs.

America, on all political aisles, are excited about Trump’s victory and ‘Making America Great Again,’ but for those who don’t feel the same, and your right, will have to sit on the sideline and watch the ‘New’ America Trump train pass you by!

"Sanctuary Cities, along with 'no' voter ID laws, has helped Obama and Hillary realize their dream, and with outside influences, financing, and the bipartisan Congress, A.K.A. ‘the swamp,’

still taking taxpayer’s money to finance Obama’s unconstitutional immigration policies would make a Hillary continuation platform win a disaster, and possibly ending 240 years of Constitutional rule! Obama’s ‘Pen and Phone’ was used to undermine our Constitution and destroy America from within by using their third world transformation of America through Socialism, and then eliminate our founding fathers vision for this exceptional country, but with a Trump win, we have been given that second chance to rise up, and retake our rightful place on the world stage!"

When America is still considered the most desirable place to live on the planet, immigration should be a huge boom to the country. At times in our nation’s past it certainly was, but today this potential source of strength is a wash at best and a drag on the country at worst.

For example, did you know that, “in 2010, 36 percent of immigrant-headed households receive benefits from at least one welfare program, compared to just 23 percent of households headed by U.S. natives. Among households with children, immigrant welfare households outnumbered non-immigrants by a similarly wide margin: 57 percent to 40 percent.”

The percentage of immigrants on welfare should be zero. After all, why would we want to bring someone into our country who’s going to end up on the dole? Instead of selecting the cream of the crop, the rich, the geniuses, the skilled, and people who can add to our tax base, we take pretty much anybody who has a relative here or who claims that he’d be in danger in his home country (and let’s face it, the clear majority of them are lying). Do we get SOME great Americans this way? Sure, but why not spend all our time searching out those people instead of getting a few of them, lots of welfare cases and a handful of Dzhokhar Tsarnaevs in the process?

This is even truer for illegal immigrants who are overwhelmingly poor, uneducated, minimally skilled and are not law-abiding people. In a world where an education and a high level of skill are becoming ever more necessary to get most jobs worth having, why import massive numbers of people who will never fit that definition to undercut poor American workers who are already struggling to climb the ladder?

Moreover, instead of encouraging immigrants to adapt to this most successful culture in recorded human history, they’re encouraged to nurse grievances, despise their own adopted

home country and cling to the cultures of the failed nations from which they’ve come. Instead of a source of strength, immigration is handled so poorly that we’d be better off stopping it entirely until our laws can be rewritten from top to bottom rather than continuing with a system that’s completely broken.

What it comes down to is the trust that your individual histories of coming to America instilled in your heart and soul and the same values and bonds of what being an American, while assimilating with all nationalities, religions, etc., means to you individually? Whether you, like our Founding Fathers, cares to save our way of life, our future, and the Constitution, which by the way our elected officials have decided to use for a doormat, will drive you to take that leap of faith and vote for the only outsider with no strings attached anti-Globalist Donald Trump! Trumps vision is the only rational direction that we all need to take to get America back to the basics and to ‘Make America Great Again!!’

SANCTUARY CITIES REPRESENT THE WORST KIND OF LIBERAL LAWLESSNESS!!

The debate over sanctuary cities is about far more than immigration; it's about who must obey the law and who doesn't.

So, let me get this straight: America is thrown into an overwrought political debate about the Confederate battle flag—a relic that has absolutely nothing to do with the shooting in Charleston—but is unwilling to engage in a conversation about the deliberate disregard of federal law that directly leads to the murder of at least one young woman?

That’s basically where we stand. After sending mixed signals, The Hill reports that Democrats will be making a concerted effort to defend San Francisco’s sanctuary laws and killing of Kathryn

Steinle along the city’s famous waterfront.  Most Republicans will avoid the matter altogether for the sake of political expediency. Soon enough, I imagine, it’ll be xenophobic to bring it up at all.  One of these conversations, after all, is risk-free, jammed with self-satisfying preening about the right sort of evils. The other, morally complex—especially for the supporters of immigration reform (like myself)—and fraught with electoral consequences.

But let’s set aside immigration politics for a moment and consider a detail that’s often lost in this debate: Fact is, some people in America are free to ignore laws they don’t like, while others are not.  Hundreds of jurisdictions nullify federal immigration law, not because they question the constitutionality of law, but because they find those laws ideologically problematic and immoral.  And when I say “some” jurisdictions, I mean entirely liberal ones.

When Alabama made noises about refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the incident was, rightly, treated as attack on the rule of law. There is simply no way the administration will allow any state to work around centralized control once it’s established. No city in America will be ignoring gay marriage any more than they will be bypassing Environmental Protection Agency control, or making health-care insurance decisions that aren’t dictated by

Obamacare (or retroactively whatever Democrats claim they meant in Obamacare), or welfare policy decisions that aren’t dictated by Washington, or housing decisions that undermine the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or education policy that directly conflicts with the wishes of the U.S. Department of Education. And so on.

The Tenth Amendment is viewed as an artifact of a regressive time that is only used to advance racism and impede progress. So, 1990s! So, when Jan Brewer signs an Arizona law requiring police to determine whether a person was in the country legally critics claim it will mean an explosion of racial profiling by the state, and the Obama administration does everything it can to stop it. Immigration law is a federal matter, as you all know.

And when the administration is unsatisfied with Texas and other states enforcing the same federal law, Obama unilaterally, and without any of the oversight from the democratic process he pretends to cherish, exempts undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children from the law. Now, immigration is a matter of Washington edict, not something for the states or, perhaps, even Congress, to worry about.

But San Francisco, well, it’s the purview of the city council to decide what happens—if those decisions comport with long-term liberal goals.

When cities—more than 200 of them—decide to pass their own laws “protecting” illegal immigrants, we are not talking about some calibration or prioritization of “enforcement” levels. The media often use a euphemism about a “lack of cooperation” between cites and DC when, in fact, jurisdictions are simply invalidating federal law. Can you imagine the reaction from the administration if Dallas passed an ordinance allowing local police to free criminals who had broken federal gun laws or hate-crime laws?  Can you imagine what would happen if 200 cities did the same?

Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez was deported five times and had seven felony convictions. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had even started another deportation process before San Francisco took him in for drug charges it soon dropped. Rather

than turning him over to ICE for deportation, as federal law stipulates, the sheriff’s department released him in adherence to the city’s sanctuary policies and never notified ICE. He then killed a woman.

Jessica Vaughan lays out some of the numbers in National Review:

Per ICE records, from January 1 to August 31, 2014, more than 8,100 deportable aliens were released after arrest in approximately 300 local sanctuary jurisdictions, even though ICE had issued a detainer seeking custody in advance of deporting them. Some 62 percent of these offenders had a prior criminal history, like Sanchez. Roughly 3,000 were felons, as was Sanchez. Of the 8,100 aliens who were released to the streets instead of to ICE, approximately 1,900 were later arrested, a total of 4,300 more times, on 7,500 different charges. The most common subsequent charge was dangerous drugs, followed by DUI.

You know, it is possible to simultaneously believe that a policy is wrong but that arbitrarily enforcing law is more problematic. No matter how hard-working illegal immigrants are or how many suffer in the shadows or how many would make incredible Americans, there are many illegal immigrants who are criminals. Ignoring the law allows criminality—not immigration—to fester and grow. In the end, this may hurt the cause of reform. It’s doubtful that peaceful Americans—citizens, immigrants, or illegal immigrants—want criminals traversing back and forth over the border with impunity and the protection of the state.

While Republicans who supported gun laws are vilified forever, though the laws liberals want to enact would be unlikely to stop mass shootings, people like Hillary Clinton, who has endorsed sanctuary cities in the past, will never have to answer for Steinle.  Hillary once claimed that “local law enforcement” should not have to “act like immigration authorities.” I agree. But of course,

local law enforcement officials turn over criminals of all types to federal authorities. We’re not talking about sending local cops out to bang down doors and throw single Mexican moms into vans. We’re talking about handing over illegal immigrants who have been accused of engaging in criminal acts (beyond crossing the border without permission).

Now, there is no doubt that anything dealing with “immigration” will be conflated and used for political purposes. This is about immigration, yes, but in some ways, it’s also about the lawlessness that’s become the most powerful tool in left-wing governance. If this kind of nullification and arbitrary enforcement of law becomes acceptable—as it has with the Supreme Court, for instance—what happens when conservatives begin doing the same? ~~By David Harsanyi, a Friend of America!

Sanctuary Cities and Obama's Failed Immigration Policies!

An illegal immigrant named Francisco Sanchez murdered Kathryn Steinle. While Sanchez alone is responsible for his crime, Steinle just might be alive had it not been for bad immigration policy from the Obama administration, and likewise the city of San Francisco.

The fact is Sanchez should not have been in the United States at all. Sanchez had already been convicted of seven felonies and deported five times before this murder. Yet he chose San Francisco as his dwelling because it’s a “sanctuary city.”

Sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants, that is. Cities like San Francisco that adopt such policies typically don’t necessarily seek out undocumented immigrants, but they also don’t enforce

deportation, which yields the same result. These cities — primarily run by Democrats — have a policy in place that benefits illegal aliens at the expense of citizens. Such a policy is detrimental to these communities, as evidenced by this recent killing, and the politicos responsible for this terrible policy should be held accountable.

Democrats, of course, claim creating sanctuary cities is good policy. One such enlightened progressive is Hillary Clinton, who claimed in a 2007 speech at Dartmouth College that sanctuary cities help to ensure the “personal safety and security of all the citizens.” (Note the irony of using the word “citizens.”) Furthermore, she claimed that if local police officers acted like immigration enforcement officers, then people would be hiding from the police instead of reporting crime.

We’re still waiting for the ‘Paid to Report’ Media to admit that the backing of Sanctuary Cities, even after her loss to Trump on her continued support of this policy, was the reason why a big part of Obama supporters voted for Trump, and why Trump's continued bombast on immigration seems to be hitting home with all voters on every political spectrum, and responsible for all voters going with the outsider, nonpolitician, and put him in the White House! It would be a prime opportunity for serious conservative candidates to say something about the failed policy of sanctuary cities, and to use it to united America behind the sovereignty issue in the 2018 Senate race mid-terms where 23 Democratic/Socialist, and 2 Independent seats are up for grabs!

Sanctuary cities aren’t the only problem with immigration policy. There is a massive problem at the federal level too, which is one of the reasons Sanchez wasn’t kept out of the U.S. for good. Yet he is just one of the many illegal immigrants who remain in or return to the U.S. because of a faulty deportation process.

Recent documents from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) show that “about 900,000

undocumented immigrants, including 170,000 criminals, have been ordered deported ‘in absentia,’ meaning a judge kicked them out without them even knowing it.” How can someone be deported for being here illegally when they don’t even know they have been ordered to leave?

Jessica Vaughn, director of policy studies at CIS, notes, “[E]ven those immigrants who are in court to receive their removal orders are not immediately removed. Instead, they are often told to report in with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement — but often vanish.”

Certainly, there could be more and better detention centers to hold these illegal aliens. After all, does anyone think that someone who is here illegally would turn himself into Immigration and Customs Enforcement? Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security doesn’t see the need for more detention facilities, as it has sought new rules that will loosen detention policies.

Per a recent DHS release, “[O]nce a family has established eligibility for asylum or other relief under our laws, long-term detention is an inefficient use of our resources and should be discontinued.” Can the Department of Homeland Security explain how this bolsters homeland security?

Not surprisingly, Obama spokesman Josh Earnest took to the stage to not only defend the administration’s immigration policies but to blast Republicans for blocking “common-sense” immigration reform.

Of course, Obama’s version of common-sense immigration reform was nonsense. Democrats

have made the issue of immigration a divisive one for their own political benefit. Forget security, they are worried about votes.

Republicans, on the other hand, need to do a better job at explaining how they are going to fix immigration policy. And there are basically four points to drive home:

First, the “immigration reform” pledges by Obama and his Democrat lackeys are disingenuous because they would undermine the Left’s entire “living wage” platform. Allowing 5-10 million immigrants to compete for low-wage jobs is certainly not consistent with that agenda.

Second, Obama is willing to trash the Constitution to advance

his ruinous policies. Republicans need to use his abject abuse of power and the threat it poses to Liberty as a constitutional teachable moment.

Third, any debate about immigration is useless unless it begins with a commitment to securing our borders first. That includes eliminating sanctuary cities. As Ronald Reagan declared, “A nation without borders is not a nation.” Likewise, it must address the issue of so-called “birthright citizenship,” which is a gross misinterpretation of our Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

And last, Republicans need to embrace the fact that Liberty is colorblind. It’s not a “white thing.” Essential Liberty is timeless.

And because it transcends all racial, ethnic, gender and class distinctions, it will appeal to all freedom-loving people when properly presented.

In the end, Americans like Kathryn Steinle shouldn’t pay the ultimate price for Democrats' vote-buying schemes. By Paul Albaugh, a Friend of America! 

Don't forget to follow the Friends Of Liberty on Facebook and our Page also Pinterest , Twitter , tumblr and Google Plus PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.

Friends Of Liberty is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights.
Don't forget to follow While You Were Sleeping on Facebook and our Page also Pinterest , Twitter , tumblr and Google Plus PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks!