2016 Election

[Ryan Ruck]

Literally just saw my first Hillary bumper sticker.

[American Patriot]

I saw one a few days ago.

[Ryan Ruck]

Dinesh D'Souza's 'America' Warns Hillary Clinton Will 'Finish Off' The Country

May 30, 2014

In his highly anticipated new book and movie "America," conservative author Dinesh D'Souza is warning that Hillary Clinton won't be a clone of her moderate husband, but will instead take the baton from President Obama to continue radicalizing the country and “undo the nation's founding ideals.”

"America -- Imagine a World Without Her," published by Regnery and set for release Monday, charges that as students of radical organizer Saul Alinsky, Obama and Clinton could have enough time to “unmake and then remake America” into a nation the founding fathers wouldn't recognize.

“They may not be responsible for the suicide of America, but they certainly will have helped to finish off a certain way of life in America, and they will leave us with a country unrecognizable not only to Washington and Jefferson but also to those of us who grew up in the 20th century,” wrote D’Souza.

“If they succeed, there may be no going back. Then it will be their America, not ours, and we will be a people bereft of a country, with no place to go,” he adds on page 87.

“America” is D’Souza’s latest book and movie on how he sees progressive politics hurting the nation. He also created the movie “2016: Obama’s America,” which was the second highest-grossing political documentary.

An advance copy of the book provided to Secrets suggests that progressives aim to remake the nation into one that is less powerful, less wealthy and less influential. If that happens, he warns, “We have committed national suicide.”

He focuses on Obama’s and Clinton’s links to Alinsky in a chapter titled “The Plan.” He claims the two followed the radical’s master plan that they hide their views and ideas until they get into power.

“If you see early pictures and video of Hillary, she looks and sounds like a former hippie. Overtime, however, Hillary started dressing like a respectable middle-class mother and speaking in a clipped, moderate sounding voice. Young Barack Obama, too, looked like a bit of a street thug -- in his own words, he could have been Trayvon Martin. Over time, however, Obama started dressing impeccably and even practiced modulating his voice,” the popular author writes.

“Hillary and Obama have both learned the Alinsky lesson that your should aggressively pursue power while pretending to be motivated by altruism,” he added.

“More importantly, Hillary and Obama both adopted Alinsky’s strategic counsel to sound mainstream, even when you aren’t,” wrote D’Souza. “These are the ways in which our two Alinskyites make themselves palatable to the American middle class, which to this day has no idea how hostile Hillary and Obama are to middle-class values.

“If Hillary Clinton is elected in 2016, the baton will have passed from one Alinskyite to another. In this case, Alinsky’s influence will have taken on a massive, almost unimaginable, importance. Obama will have had eight years to remake America, and Hillary will have another four or perhaps eight to complete the job,” he wrote.

[American Patriot]

The country is gone NOW.

We're long past the time when taking it back by votes might have worked. We still need to keep talking and telling others, but the truth is there's too many brainwashed people who don't even REALIZE they are brainwashed.

I had conversations with my own kids in the last week that tell me they are lost. 30-somethings, who spout the bullshit coming out of the Left on television as if it were true.

Lost

[American Patriot]

Meet your next President


By Obie Usategui September 29, 2014 | Comments| Print friendly | You know, the closer we get to the 2016 presidential elections, the more I fret the uncertain future which may lay ahead for our great nation, courtesy, if you will, of some of my fellow-Americans lackadaisical deportment regarding our decadent State of the Union; a paradoxical departure from everything that America stood for just prior to our president Barack Obama’s untimely election, as he claimed on October 30th, 2008, to being just five days away [election day] from fundamentally transforming the nation. A feat, which, in hindsight, he was able to consummate fully and unobstructed.

As far as I am concerned, one of America’s worse political blunders, ever, in the history of this nation, was, of all things, the election of Barack Hussein Obama to be our president, not once but twice, first in 2008 and then again in 2012. And, whereas there was plenty of blame to go around for the iniquitous error of electing this man to lead America, I was impelled, at the end of the day, to lay blame solely on our trite laissez-faire conduct regarding Americans’ most basic commitment to democracy and our democratic system; to wit: our compromise with destiny to elect someone to the highest office of the land willing to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America gallantly willed to us by the Founding Fathers - a task arduously despoiled off by all those who voted this man into office.


Americans’ apathy and political inertia have been, in fact, an illness now reaching epidemic levels of untenable proportions, albeit paving the way for yet more of the same in 2016. For those of us who think it cannot not get any worse than what it already is, brace yourselves for the election of a Hillary Rodham Clinton to the presidency of the U.S. It would probably make Obama’s tenure on this post pale in comparison to what lies ahead, so help us God. Be mindful, though, the chances for this uneventful political faux pascoming of age, are as great or greater than Americans’ irresponsiveness would care to own up to.


In lieu of the eminent threats posed by Clinton’s chances of becoming our next president, I deemed it a solemn and sober responsibility of mine to share with you some of the most troublesome and worrisome issues surfacing in Clinton’s library of public life history. Issues which, at worst, can impoverish her chances of being elected as president, and, at best, would outright disqualify her from her audacious run for the presidency, provided of course, that Americans would find it in their best interests to becoming au fait with their political future; with the implausibly high stakes, earlier forsaken in the presidential elections of 2008 and 2012. For Americans to replicate the electoral blunders which ensued the election of Barack Obama twice in the past by electing Hillary Clinton as their next president, could be, indeed, a fatal error of unprecedented consequences; a presumption largely founded on Clinton’s controversial chronicles; a prosaic life riddled with scandals and turmoil as she has, throughout time, left behind a trail of serious discredits amidst an eerie career in pursuit of political prowess - a career which would easily earn Clinton the right to becoming the poster child of Prince Machiavelli’s school of evilness given her uncanny talents in making the ‘ends justify the means’.

Clinton’s wearisome past, from Whitewater to Benghazi to her sneering role in her husband Bill’s scandal with Monica Lewinsky,

Clinton’s wearisome past, from Whitewater to Benghazi to her sneering role in her husband Bill’s scandal with Monica Lewinsky, are but a testament to our raison d’etres dreading the election of this woman to becoming the next president of the United States of America. Both Hillary and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, have lived contemptuous lives climbing social and political ladders; all as a self-serving means to their madness in becoming rich, powerful, and famous, commendable were it not for the way in which they went about their climb. In fact, the Clinton’s rise to power has all the elements of a well scripted Hollywood suspense novel including but not limited to some dead people along the way, such as was the highly mysterious death of Vince Foster on July 1993 - the deputy White House counsel during Bill Clinton’s presidency.


Although Foster’s death was ruled to be a suicide, to this day, some of the Clinton’s most assiduous detractors continue to believe his death was more of a conspiracy, alleging there was more to it than first met the eye and that the president and first lady [Bill and Hillary Clinton] tried to cover it up. Foster’s untimely death, during the first few months of Bill Clinton’s administration, was associated to his role and participation with them [the Clintons] in their legendary Whitewater scandal - a real estate deal gone bad; a deal where the Clintons, had, allegedly, used their political clout to coerce an employee at Madison Guaranty Savings and Loans in Little Rock, Arkansas, owned by Jim and Susan McDougal into making an illegal loan to the latter. Madison Guaranty eventually went bust, costing taxpayers millions of dollars. The McDougals, coincidentally, just happened to be partners with the Clintons in the infamous Whitewater real estate investment. By the same token, throughout all the scandals, Madison Guaranty was legally represented by Arkansas’ Rose Law Firm, where Hillary and Vince Foster had become firm partners and friends - a quintessential Clinton soap-opera.

While the Rose law firm had been subpoenaed for papers presumably incriminating the Clintons for their potential criminal involvement in all the scandals surrounding Whitewater and Madison Guaranty, the papers had suddenly vanished, while later appearing in the Clinton’s White House; the presumption at the time by the conspiracy theorists was that Foster had played a key role in the disappearance of the evidence, thus his eminent suicide as investigators appeared to be drawing closer to making a connection which would criminally incriminate both Foster and the Clintons in the Whitewater controversy. Ultimately the Clintons were never charged, but 15 other persons were convicted of more than 40 crimes, including Bill Clinton’s successor as Arkansas Governor, Jim Guy Tucker, who was removed from office. A vintage finale to yet one more of the Clinton’s unending melodramas.

Hillary Clinton Thesis: There is Only the Fight: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model

Then again, if anyone is seriously considering to vote for this woman to becoming our next president, they should equally and just as seriously begin to probe into her background and qualifications for the most powerful job on the planet; one with ad nauseam power in changing the future course of mankind - that simple. Are we as Americans going to trust Hillary Clinton to guide our destinies? And if we are, we better know what we are getting into. Our first stop in reviewing the plenteous questionable issues surrounding Clinton is while she attended Wellesley College circa 1969, and published her 92-page undergraduate thesis “There is Only the Fight: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model”. In her thesis, Rodham allegedly advocates Alinsky’s most important contribution to the radical cause as his embracing of political nihilism. In other words, our ex-First Lady, ex-Senator to the United States Congress, ex-presidential candidate, and ex-Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton advocated Saul Alinsky’s commitment to:

“blame political systems such as capitalism and democracy for mankind’s shortcomings andhardships, therefore essentially a need to doaway with them [the systems] in their entirety.”

Are you kidding me? Is this really the person we want to elect as our next president? Do we really want our next president to be one that advocated getting rid of capitalism and democracy?
Do we really want our next president to be one that advocated getting rid of capitalism and democracy?

I personally believe the Clinton-Alinsky connection to be [the] most troublesome issue of all as to any foregoing considerations for Clinton’s presidency, if nothing else, because this connection reflects the woman’s true political identity; her backbone and hidden political agendas. That being the case, I must then refer you to more recent discoveries regarding previously unpublished correspondence between Hillary and the late left-wing activist Saul Alinsky, with a revealing insight regarding Clinton’s relationship with [the] most controversial anti-U.S. activist in recent history, shedding more light yet into Clinton’s hypocritical stands on fundamental ideological beliefs regarding everything our nation stands for, just as did her soul-mate, Barack Obama.


Clinton’s newly-published letters were obtained from the Washington Free Beacon and are a part of the archives for the Industrial Areas Foundation - a training center for community organizers founded by Alinsky. Whereas Clinton and Alinsky had several meetings in 1968 as the former was writing her thesis on Alinsky’s community organizing, the letters suggest that Alinsky had indeed a much deeper influence on Clinton than previously thought. In 1971, while Clinton attended Yale Law School, she reached out to Alinksy, suggesting to him her dire need for more of his [Alinsky’s] radical material such as toaid and abet her with her political activism on issues such as what she refers to as: “the Yale-Cambodia [Vietnam] madness”. The letters also suggest that Alinsky had assisted Clinton with all her political activism throughout the years while attending Yale. Picture, if you will, an untamed and wild young political activist amidst a turbulent collegiate environment provoked by the 1960s Vietnam war, and just as soon you would be picturing the image of a rebellious left-wing radical militant by the name of Hillary Rodham - a quintessential anti-establishment disciple of the Alinsky model.
Alinsky advocated guerilla warfare tactics and civil disobedience

For all those readers who may not be familiar with Saul Alinsky, you would probably be shorn of the ability of making an honest judgment in attempting to assess the gravity of the Clinton connection with this man. Suffice it to say that Saul Alinsky was, as far as I am concerned, the 20th century version of Karl Marx. A self-proclaimed radical, Alinsky advocated guerilla warfare tactics and civil disobedience in order to correct what he perceived to be an institutionalized power gap between government and the underprivileged classes in deprived communities throughout the land. Like Marx before him, Alinsky’s philosophy divided the world into the “haves” [the middle and wealthy classes] and the “have-nots” - [the poor]. He, like Hillary after him, both embraced an “ends-justify-the-means” approach to a political model which ultimately promoted the redistribution of power and wealth, hence, Barack Obama’s beloved platform reform, as the latter also had, at one time, become a stout supporter and promoter of the Alinsky model. As if this were not enough,one year prior to his death, in 1971, Alinsky published his book Rules for Radicals, which he symbolicallydedicated to the anti-Christ “Lucifer” - coincidentally, the same book, mind you, which presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, incessantly asks Alinsky, in her newly-published letters, if his book had yet been published, as if it had, she would be: “missing the fulfillment of Revelation”.


For all the evidence tying Hillary to this despicable man, and upon the realization that her close association with Alinsky could ensue substantial collateral damage to her public image, she does, find a way, as she always does, to manipulate the issues to where she appears to be promoting a detachment from Alinsky and his model, in the name, of course, of political correctness, whereas in her Wellesley College thesis, she appears to be largely sympathetic to Alinsky, while at the same time, critical on some of his tactics. Clintons’ fabricated departure from the Alinsky model argues that the latter is “unrealistic” to implement and/or difficult for others to replicate, albeit the fact, she does not, mind you, at any time, reject or disavow the model itself, but merely the way of implementing it. As the model portends for the destruction of capitalism to be Alinsky’s ultimate objective, I can only conclude the same objective to hold true for our esteemed presidential candidate - to Clinton, I conclude, it was not a matter of whether or not the nation should adopt Alinsky’s model; it was just a matter of how to do it.


So, yes, I will spare giving you the multiple other reasons why you should never vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016 as I deem her Alinsky connection to be more than enough to discourage anyone from voting for her and/or de-facto disqualify her to run for the office of the president. I personally believe her entire political trajectory, or otherwise her flight as a political figure, beginning as a First Lady during her husband’s presidency; later as a U.S. senator; and finally as Secretary of State, are saturated with controversies of one kind or the other, however, none as contentious as her ties with a renown communist and U.S., hater, such as Saul Alinsky. Hillary’s presumed stoicism during husband Bill’s Monica Lewinsky crisis, was really meant for Americans to believe she was standing by her man, however, it was all but a rehearsed rendition of an act, part of ploy, warily crafted to allow her unwavering race of her own presidential aspirations to continue without any bruises from the latent scandal, as otherwise, a faintly human showing of emotions, anger even, by her during the controversy, could have seriously hampered her chances of reaching her ambitious objective of yet becoming president of the United States of America.


Ditto for the Benghazi controversy, where, once again, just like in the Whitewater scandal, there are four deaths instead of just one. The death of four innocent human beings, who would probably be alive today were it not for this woman’s disconnect with the pleas to increment security in our Libyan embassy. Clinton’s testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the 2012, 9/11 Benghazi terror attack where she infamously declared “What difference does it make?” when pressed for answers on how and why four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed, is a telltale indication, once again, of what this woman is all about. On and on. There are not many things that truly ‘make a difference’ in Clinton’s life other than her boundless “ambitions”.


Finally, I have, for the past few years, been dedicating a good part of my life to warning you, my fellow-Americans, of the dangers posed by a Barack Obama as president of this great land as I am, once again, given to the task of warning you, all over, of the dangers posed by Hillary Clinton. If upon reading the foregoing dissertation, you, my fellow-Americans, decide, still, to go on and vote for this lady as our next president in 2016, then I shall peacefully lay blame on no one else but you for all the perils now looming over our nation; for our decadent state of the Union; for the clear and present dangers now a part of our lives; for ISIS or ISIL; for the beheadings of innocent people around the world; for the ever-growing threats posed by Islamic extremists. If, after reading the foregoing dissertation, you make up your mind and decide that you still want to vote for this ruthless communist, Hillary Clinton, so be it.


I remind you all that, however, we do get in life what we bargain for. Remember the old adage, “be careful what you wish for”. As our world continues to deteriorate, first with president Barack Obama at the helm and now possibly in the future with Hillary Clinton, do not, I repeat, do not try to find or lay blame on anyone else but yourselves for the unending apathy and lethargy now akin to most Americans are all to blame for. We are, after all, our own worst enemies. The time has come to fetch up to the dreadful conditions now prevalent in our great nation. The time has come, mind you, to cleanse our government of all the Saul Alinsky disciples; of his model; and of all those seeking power strictly for their own self-advancement. God save us from the evils reservedly promoted by all left-wing radicals, socialists and cloaked communists, and last but not least, by all the world terrorists, including our own home-bred version. The time has come, my fellow-Americans, to pick-up where we left off in 2008. Just remember, for all the flaws you may have come across in our capitalist and democratic society, it is still, to this day, the greatest political system there ever was, bar none. Our renovation and plight to recover America starts with but one vote and one vote only - your vote. Do not throw it away. Do not elect Hillary Clinton in 2016, as if you do, you could, for all intents and purposes, just be posing for the end to come sooner than later.


May God save us all and may God save America!

[American Patriot]

Breaking: Ted Cruz clarifies that he has not decided to run for president in 2016

Posted at 1:54 pm on September 29, 2014 by Twitchy Staff | View Comments

• Share on Facebook

@tedcruz run ted run!!!
—
am (@am77933250) September 29, 2014

Senator Ted Cruz just tweeted this to his followers:

Contrary to media reports this AM, Heidi & I haven’t made any decisions about political plans past the mid-terms: https://t.co/teB4c3Y97D
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) September 29, 2014

And here’s what Sen. Cruz posted on Facebook:

Contrary to media reports this morning, Heidi and I have not made any decisions about political plans past the mid-term elections. Clearly we have an overzealous supporter out there making freelance comments, but to be clear, no decision has been made. Whoever this “anonymous advisor” was, he or she had no authority to speak, and doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

Follow @twitchyteam

[American Patriot]

A TALE OF TWO TWEETS

[American Patriot]

Onward and upward folks.


16 Charts That Explain 2016

By KYLE KONDIK and DAVID FOSTER
November/December 2014

As 2014 midterms race to their nail-biting conclusion, many Democrats are already setting their sights on 2016, when they hope Hillary Clinton lifts all ballots and leads the party back to the White House. But will 2016 be like 1988, when George H.W. Bush won a third straight term for the Republicans? Or will it be like 2008, when George W. Bush’s unpopularity helped sink John McCain—and elect Barack Obama? Some of 2016’s key factors, like the crafting of a winning message and the selection of the nominees, will be in the hand of the campaigns and the voters. Others, like the president’s popularity and the state of the economy, will not. With that in mind, here’s a visual look at what matters going into another presidential marathon—and what doesn’t.

***

Kyle Kondik is managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball, a nonpartisan political newsletter produced by the University of Virginia Center for Politics. He also directs the center’s Washington, D.C., office.
David Foster is the former graphic editor for Fortune magazine and is now an information graphics designer at Vindico Group in New York.

[American Patriot]

I seriously don't like Mitch McConnell as the Senate leader. Ick....

[American Patriot]

On the other hand, I hope Putin is shitting himself this morning.

Presidential elections will be a blood bath this time around.

[Toad]

On the otherhand, I have complete faith in the GOP establishment to F this up and pull defeat out of the jaws of victory. They've been handed 2016 on a silver platter. Next 2 years will be a little tense.

[American Patriot]

/chuckles

I agree with you. Completely. I didn't say they were GOING to do anything I said in the other thread. I said "if there is horse sense".

Which there isn't.

[Ryan Ruck]

First Major Endorsement Of 2016: Mitch McConnell Backing Rand Paul For President

November 7, 2014

To be clear, this is the first major Republican endorsement of 2016. A few big-name Democrats, like Tim Kaine and Claire McCaskill, are already busily kissing Hillary’s ass to atone for having supported Obama early in the 2008 primaries. Almost as if they think the Clintons are bitter grudge-holders who’ll be eager to retaliate against their enemies once they’re back in power.

Anyway, congrats to Rand for having landed the support of a tea-party icon. Can the John Boehner endorsement be far behind?

It’s a safe bet that Paul won’t be the only member of McConnell’s GOP caucus who considers trying for a move to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Does that require a tricky balance?

“(It’s) not tricky at all,” McConnell said. “Obviously, I’m a big supporter of Rand Paul. We’ve developed a very tight relationship, and I’m for him.”
For president?

“Whatever he decides to do,” McConnell said. “I don’t think he’s made a final decision on that. But he’ll be able to count on me.”

Interesting question here: Who’s the target audience for this endorsement? Obviously it’s not grassroots conservatives. If anything, as a few of our commenters in the Headlines thread on this demonstrate, it’ll call Paul’s tea-party credentials further into question. Rand’s not worried about that, though — if you’re a “conservatarian” or someone who wants a nominee more heterodox than the usual establishment/conservative choices, McConnell’s endorsement won’t scare you away. The target audience here in theory is the GOP establishment itself, particularly the donor class to whom Rand will soon be appealing for contributions. They’re worried that he’ll be too dovish as commander-in-chief and, more importantly, that he’ll be agreeable to draconian spending cuts that might hurt business. Establishmentarians don’t like unpredictability and Paul’s the least predictable man in the GOP. The endorsement of McConnell, a Beltway chieftain, is designed hypothetically to reassure them that he’s not a loose cannon after all.

As I say — that’s the theory. In practice, though, won’t the donor class view this endorsement as essentially transactional? There was a quiet deal here, obviously, that developed out of the two men’s differing ambitions, Rand’s to be president and Mitch’s to be majority leader. Rand would use his sway with Kentucky conservatives to get McConnell reelected, not only endorsing Mitch over tea partier Matt Bevin in the primary but lending McConnell one of his top advisors, Jesse Benton, as campaign manager for the effort. (Benton, a veteran of Ron Paul’s campaigns, famously told a friend in a leaked phone call, “Between you and me, I’m sort of holdin’ my nose for two years because what we’re doing here is going to be a big benefit to Rand in ’16, so that’s my long vision.”) In return, McConnell would endorse Paul for president, granting him the establishment benediction he needs to shield himself from the eventual “kook” attacks from other GOP candidates. “How radical can I be,” Paul will say at the debates, “if even Mitch McConnell is backing me?” All of this is obvious — but since it’s obvious, how likely is it that establishmentarians will take it as a serious vouching for Rand’s credibility? Paul did McConnell a favor and now McConnell’s doing one back. As such, he was more of a lock to endorse Rand than Ron Paul is. Why would a hawkish Republican millionaire feel better about Rand because of that?

So maybe the establishment isn’t the real target. The real target, I think, are the “somewhat conservative” rank-and-file voters who tend to swing the primaries. Many of them don’t follow politics day to day and either won’t know or won’t care about the McConnell/Paul quid pro quo. To them, the endorsement of the highest-ranking Republican in the Senate could be a big deal, especially as a rebuttal to the “kook” attacks. In fact, McConnell may be better positioned to deliver that rebuttal than any Republican in the country. He supported Paul’s more mainstream opponent, Trey Grayson, in the GOP primary when Paul first ran for Senate in Kentucky in 2010. Paul crushed Grayson by nearly 25 points that year in riding a tea-party wave, an early warning to McConnell that he’d better get right with conservatives before his own seat was up in 2014. Now Mitch can go out there next year and say this to GOP primary voters: “Like some of you, before I got to know Rand, I believed the warnings from fellow Republicans that he was too ‘extreme’ to govern responsibly. I ended up supporting his opponent in a primary. Boy, was I wrong. He’s been one of our most creative policymakers in the Senate and has reached out to constituencies that have been impenetrable to our party for years. Ignore the people calling him a radical and embrace him as an agent of real change.” That’s worth something to Rand in the primary, even if tea partiers will hiss at the idea of McConnell’s support carrying weight.

Imagine the irony when Rand ends up losing the general election because Gary Johnson draws just enough libertarian votes to tip the race to Hillary. A libertarian Ouroboros! Exit question via Leon Wolf: All of this is moot because Chris Christie’s going to be the nominee, right?

The truth is, I am much less enthused with Paul than I was recently.

Since his pandering to blacks over Ferguson I've been pretty turned off on him. Between that and throwing his support behind McConnell instead of "fellow" Tea Partier Matt Bevin in the primary has left a very sour taste in my mouth on him.

In the end I suppose he'd be head and shoulders above Christie, Romney, or Jeb Bush but I don't think he's going to be my first or second vote. I'm thinking at this point if Allen West isn't in, Rick Perry will be my #2 choice assuming he's in.

[Toad]

First Major Endorsement Of 2016: Mitch McConnell Backing Rand Paul For President

Ghhhhaaaa. And Paul has been beating the immigration amnesty drum lately too. He's wanting to put together a bill as early as 12/2014. That fast.

[American Patriot]

1) Close the borders.
2) Round up and detain illegals.
3) Kill Obamacare.
4) Impeach Obama.
5) Strengthen the military
6) Arrest Holder, Jarret and others for excesses against the Constitution and the people of the United States.

After all that we can discuss whether there should be amnesty to anyone. There shouldn't.

There, my mind is made up. No discussion.

Fix the fucking border, Kill Obamacare. Then and only then can we "talk".

[Ryan Ruck]

Ghhhhaaaa. And Paul has been beating the immigration amnesty drum lately too. He's wanting to put together a bill as early as 12/2014. That fast.

Yep. He's gone Rubio. I'm pretty much done with him unless he's the primary winner.

And that's too bad. If you read back on here, you can see I thought he was a decent choice and wouldn't have minded voting for him at all.

[Malsua]

As much as I despise amnesty, there are simply too many sympathizers among us. Some kind of documentation must happen. This is clearly a Cloward PIven engineered issue, but it worked and we have to deal with reality, not what we'd like to think is reality.

[Ryan Ruck]

As, I believe, Ann Coulter pointed out if that happens there will instantly be millions of new Democrat voters and the Republican Party stands very likely to never get voted into any meaningful national office again.

[American Patriot]

They need to round them up and deport them. Period. Fuck this "strategy" of changing America by ruining our voting system.

[American Patriot]

Political Strategist Has House, Cars Blown Up

Strategist for pro-solar candidate loses all of his belongings


By Neal Colgrass, Newser Staff


Posted Nov 9, 2014 3:50 PM CST

• STORY
• COMMENTS (52)

(Newser) – A political strategist in Louisiana saw his possessions go up in smoke this week when two firebombs blew up his cars and spread far enough to burn down his home, WWL reports via Fusion. Mario Zervigon, his family, and fellow tenants escaped their New Orleans apartment building on Thursday, leaving Zervigon stunned by an attack that investigators say is clearly arson. "I don't know if I was targeted," he tells the Times-Picayune. "I don't know what's what. It's just a shock." Zervigon works as a fundraiser for state utility regulatory board candidate Forest Bradley-Wright, who believes that people with solar panels should be allowed to sell off their extra electricity to utility companies.


Bradley-Wright is in a runoff with incumbent Eric Skrmetta, who wants to limit the amount that solar users can sell. "I don't know if [the attack] is connected to anything I do," says Zervigon. What he's done lately: help Bradley-Wright raise about $210,000, including $100,000 over the past 10 days—which nearly equals the $215,000 that Skrmetta has raised. The ATF, which is investigating because the blaze destroyed a commercial building, says it will take "a few weeks" to turn up lab results on the fire. "Obviously, someone did this," says Zervigon's wife. "Why would you think anything like this would ever happen in New Orleans?" (Read about the brutal fight over an environmental lawsuit in Louisiana.)