NY Governor: If Trump Moves to Deport Immigrants, Deport Me First…

 

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo exhibited full-blown Trump Derangement Syndrome in comments attacking President Donald Trump’s immigration policies.

Yesterday, Cuomo tweeted out the following video of comments he made in November.

“If there is a move to deport immigrants, then I say start with me because I am the son of Mario Cuomo, the son of Andrea Cuomo, a poor Italian immigrant, who came to this country without a job, without money, without resources. And he was here only for the promise of America. And if we’re going to question immigrants, and deport immigrants, then who is safe? And who is left? Because we are all immigrants.”

Let’s see how many inanities he managed to strew in there.

There is no move to deport immigrants, only actions to prevent aliens from breaking the law and coming into the country illegally, ahead of all the people who are actually following the law.

There’s an intellectual dishonesty to drop the ‘illegal’ from the description.

Moreover, Andrew Cuomo is not an immigrant, much less an illegal alien, so he could not be deported. Although many hearing his comments seemed perfectly amenable to have him go.

His grandfather, Andrea Cuomo, may have been a poor immigrant. But Andrew was the pampered son of N.Y. Governor Mario Cuomo. He grew up with privilege, basically feeling that being the governor of New York was a birthright. Hardly the normal immigrant experience.

People who have sworn to uphold the laws of our land, such as Gov. Cuomo, should also be upholding the immigration laws otherwise they are violating their oaths.

Palm Beach County Could Add Aging Submarine to its Artificial Reef Program

Jan 22, 2017 George Winston

 

Palm Beach County in Florida may soon have a new addition to the 45 ships making up its artificial reef program.

The USS Clamagore, a Cold War-era submarine currently on exhibit at a South Carolina maritime museum, may be scuttled approximately one mile off Palm Beach County’s coast. It’s one of three vessels displayed at the Patriots Point Naval & Maritime Museum on Charleston Harbor. It never saw action in World War II but did service during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1952 patrolling the Caribbean, according to records provided by the U.S. Department of the Interior.

Officials at the museum say keeping the aging sub is proving to be too expensive to maintain as an attraction. Restoring the sub would cost an estimated $6 million. The annual upkeep totals about one-quarter of a million dollars, said museum spokesman Chris Hauff.

The expenditure to maintain 70-year-old warships sitting in salt water in Charleston Harbor is huge, he said. All other options for finding a new home for the submarine have been exhausted.

Commissioned in 1945, the USS Clamagore could be put on the sea bottom off Juno Beach (Florida). The county’s plan includes removing some of the sub’s paneling so divers can see the interior.

  

USS Clamagore (SS-343), 1948.

The U.S. Navy withdrew the submarine from service in 1975, and it was opened for public display in 1981 at Patriots Point.

“It would be a unique dive site,” said Dan Bates, assistant director of environmental resources management. “This is an excellent way to preserve the vessel instead of destroying it.”

Bates estimates that the overall cost of transporting, cleaning and sinking the sub will increase the total cost four-fold with funding derived from donations, grants, and sponsorships. The U.S. Navy also needs to consent to the sinking, he said.

Chairman Tom Lufkin of the Clamagore Restoration and Maintenance Association said many of those who served aboard the sub don’t want to see boat sunk. The boat could be preserved for less if it were situated on land. The association has so far raised $40,000 towards its preservation, Sun Sentinel reported.

Efforts to sell the vessel or obtain donations for its preservation over the last five years have proved unsuccessful.

CAIR leader calls for overthrow of Trump’s administration. Now that he is aware of the penalty for sedition, he is claiming it was “an inside joke

• BY THOMAS MADISON
 
• JANUARY 24, 2017

 

The sort of rhetoric being used by the left to voice their displeasure with America’s choice for president is incredibly dangerous, should never be permitted, and is likely to result in criminal investigations and possibly criminal charges.

Such is the case with Madonna who declared to a large crowd that she thought an awfully lot about blowing up the White House. This is NOT free speech. This is as criminal as screaming “FIRE!” in a crowded theater that results in death and injury, and I don’t believe Donald Trump and Jeff Sessions are going to put up with it.

When Madonna and others get away with inciting violence, it causes others to also push the envelope to see what they can get away with.

Case in point, Hussam Ayloush, LA Executive Director of CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) who is openly advocating the overthrow of Donald Trump’s three-day old administration.

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is controversial, to say the least.  It is an organization whose leaders have claimed to be above the laws in the US because they are Muslims.  They’ve also called for an alliance with groups such as Black Lives Matter in order to accomplish their agenda, according to Truth and Action.

CAIR has a history of using intimidation to advance its goals.  However, when it starts advocating the violent overthrow of the US Government it has stepped outside the bounds of constitutionally protected free-speech and has engaged in criminal behavior.  Those perpetrating this should be charged and prosecuted.  And racism has nothing to do with it.

So when Hussam Ayloush, the Los Angeles head of CAIR tweets on election night the line which translated from Arabic means, “The people want to overthrow the regime,” it’s worth taking a look to see if this is his organization’s real position or not.  After all, this isn’t a slogan Ayloush just thought up — “It was a slogan first used during the Tunisian revolution, which kicked off the Arab Spring, where dozens of totalitarian Islamic nations were either toppled or faced serious street demonstrations. It was also the slogan during the overthrow of Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak.”

  

According to Daniel Pipes of the Mideast Forum, “that second line is Arabic (“الشعب يريد إسقاط النظام‎‎”) for ‘The people wants to bring down the regime.’”

Not exactly subtle.

The slogan was first used during the Tunisian Revolution which kicked off the Arab Spring. It was also used frequently during the Egyptian revolution in which the regime of Hosni Mubarak was overthrown.

Despite Ayloush’s tweet, other CAIR leaders showed restraint in the face of Trump’s election.

According to The Daily Caller, Nihad Awad, the longtime CAIR executive director and Hamas sympathizer, struck a conciliatory tone.

“As citizens of this great nation, we accept the result of the democratic process that has bound us together as one nation,” Awad said. “Regardless of who won or lost yesterday’s election, American Muslims are here to stay. We are not going anywhere, and will not be intimidated or marginalized.

Like those who have made similar comments, Mr. Ayloush has backtracked by saying it was something of an inside joke.  If so, it’s not funny.  Perhaps he should check out the law.

In 18 U.S. Code § 2385, it reads:

“Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States… Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”

The law is for everyone.  And there’s no racism in that statement

Calexit' organizers can now start collecting signatures to get California secession on the ballot

Christine Mai-Duc Supporters of the campaign for California to secede from the United Statescan now begin collecting the hundreds of thousands of signatures they need to get a proposed "Calexit" initiative on the ballot. California Secretary of State Alex Padilla cleared the proposed initiative to begin collecting signatures on Thursday. If the measure gets on the ballot and gains approval by a majority of voters, it would repeal clauses in the California Constitution stating that the state is an "inseparable part of the United States" and that the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme law of the land," according to the title and summary prepared by the state attorney general's office. The measure would place another question on the ballot in 2019, asking whether California should become a separate country. If at least half of registered voters participate in that vote, with at least 55% of those voting to approve, the results would be treated as California's declaration of independence. The current measure's fiscal effect is "dependent on various factors," writes the state's nonpartisan legislative analyst, and if it succeeds would result in "major, but unknown budgetary impacts." The proposal's backers, known as Yes California, have argued that the state is culturally out of step with the rest of the U.S. and that California pays more money to the federal government than it receives in spending. The election of President Trump has only strengthened their argument, they say. "California loses [by] being a part of America culturally and financially," said Marcus Ruiz Evans, one of the group's founders. "It could be a nation all its own, everybody knows that. The only question is if they want to break off." It's unclear how the group will collect the required 585,407 valid signatures from registered voters over the next 180 days to qualify for the ballot. A campaign committee, Yes California Independence Committee, has raised no funds so far, according to records from the secretary of state. But Evans says that his group has more than 7,000 volunteers (significantly down from a 13,000 estimate in December) ready to gather signatures and that voters can expect to see signature gatherers on the streets in the next couple of days. Yes California says that even if the proposed initiative does land on the ballot and voters approve it, such an unprecedented move to secede would need to receive approval of at least a majority of the states in the union,among other legal hurdles . Evans says he's not fazed. "America already hates California, and America votes on emotions," he said. "I think we'd have the votes today if we held it." UPDATE 7:01 p.m.: This post has been updated to clarify that the proposed initiative would place a future vote on California's secession on the ballot in 2019.

: ASSANGE REVEALS CIA HACKED INTO CONGRESS FOR OBAMA ADMINISTRATION COVERUP

Posted by Conservative Daily Post | Jan 23, 2017 


 

What is worse than finding out you can’t trust the government? Arguably it would be finding out that you couldn’t trust the intelligence agencies that are supposed to keep the country safe. Just think about that; you can’t trust any intelligence agency that comes out with a report.

Recently some of these intelligence agencies have come out and said that Russia was indeed responsible for hacking the election. So they prepared a report and everything similar to that, except that they don’t have any proof it happened. It’s hard to believe someone when they don’t have proof.

However an agency that is much more trustworthy than some of the United States intelligence agencies has come out and said Russia wasn’t responsible for the hacks. WikiLeaks, the group started by Julian Assange, stated several times that their source wasn’t Russian.

To prove that they should be trusted, WikiLeaks brought up an older article that showed that the Central Intelligence Agency, or CIA, was responsible for hacking into the 

Senate group charged with overseeing them. Are we really supposed to listen to a group that hacked our own Congress?

  The CIA Hacked Our Own Congress!

Back in 2014, the CIA was responsible for hacking a computer network used by the Senate Intelligence Committee. The network was being used to prepare a report on the CIA’s detention and interrogation program. In other words, they were doing what they could to make sure that the Committee didn’t find anything too harmful.

If that wasn’t bad enough, the officers read the emails of the investigators and even sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department that was based on false information. They created a false online identity to gain access to computers used by the staff on more than one occasion.

Needless to say, members of the Senate Committee were furious. Members of both parties wanted to see the CIA officers responsible and have consequences take place. The ranking Republican at the time, Senator Saxby Chambliss, said, “This is a serious situation and there are serious violations,” and called for the employees to be “dealt with very harshly.”

the resignation of the CIA Director, John O. Brennan. “These offenses, along with other errors in judgment by some at the CIA demonstrate a tremendous failure of leadership, and there must be consequences.”

So we have an agency that was responsible for hacking into Congress, and yet there was no action taken against them. Despite that whole incident, which included false information presented to the White House, we should just trust the CIA in whatever they say?

Of course we need to look at how President Obama reacted when the public knew this report. As usual, he tried to remain neutral, but there was one sentence that he uttered that showed he took the side of the CIA. “With respect to the issues that are going back and forth between the Senate committee and the CIA, [Director] John Brennan has referred them to the appropriate authorities and they are looking into it and that’s not something that is an appropriate role for me and the White House to wade into at this point.”

   

Right there, that statement shows that Obama was taking the side of the CIA. He is always going to take the side of the CIA. Except that this report showed that the CIA wasn’t trusting of CONGRESS. If they don’t trust their own government, what makes them eligible to trust anyone? Not to mention that we don’t know what Obama was going to do with that information.

That immediately throws a wrench into the claim by the other intelligence agencies that this year’s election was hacked by Russia. Are we really going to just trust an agency that has no proof and has a history of hacking our own government? I sure wouldn’t.

At this point, I’m much more willing to trust Assange and his organization that has shown the corruption of the Democrats. They are pushing and pushing to just accept that Russia was responsible for the hacking instead of just accepting that Americans didn’t want to deal with Hillary Clinton.

   

Assange Showed Everyone Why Hillary Was A Horrible Choice For President

Of course having proof of the hacking would end everything. As it turns out, they don’t have any proof available. That hasn’t stopped Obama from pushing for war however. He has labeled even more punishments on Russia, which is only going to anger the country. Why are you pushing for war right before Donald Trump gets into office?

Obama has actually gone further than that as well, as he sent over tanks and troops to the border of Poland and Russia. He is literally gearing up for war with another nation, and with the military technology that each country faces we are facing World War III. He’s literally pushing to end the world before Trump takes office.

Share this article to show that Julian Assange has once again proven that the intelligence agencies that the Democrats want you to blindly accept have turned on our government before. Why should we blindly trust an agency that Obama defended for hacking Congress?