Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton in a new poll of “usual” New Hampshire Democratic primary voters. According to Public Policy polling, a Democratic firm, Sanders has 42 percent support to Clinton’s 35 percent support.
The Vermont senator also has great favorability ratings among New Hampshire Democrats, with 78 percent viewing him favorably and just 12 percent viewing him unfavorably. Compare that to just 63 percent who say they have a favorable view of Clinton and 25 percent who say they have an unfavorable view.
PPP notes that Democrats of different ideological groups appear somewhat evenly split between Sanders and Clinton, but the former secretary of state is hurting among Democrats under the age of 65. Clinton leads with seniors, 51 percent to Sanders’s 34 percent, but Sanders does much better with younger voters, 45 percent to Clinton’s 29 percent.
This isn’t the first poll to show Sanders leading in New Hampshire, and according to the Real Clear Politics average of polls, Clinton’s lead in the Granite State has shrunk to just one point.
Breitbart News has exclusively obtained text and a chart from the Senate’s Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, chaired by Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), concerning America’s ongoing policy of massive legal immigration:
The overwhelming majority of immigration to the United States is the result of our visa policies. Each year, millions of visas are issued to temporary workers, foreign students, refugees, asylees, and permanent immigrants for admission into the United States. The lion’s share of these visas are for lesser-skilled and lower-paid workers and their dependents who, because they are here on work-authorized visas, are added directly to the same labor pool occupied by current unemployed jobseekers. Expressly because they arrive on legal immigrant visas, most will be able to draw a wide range of taxpayer-funded benefits, and corporations will be allowed to directly substitute these workers for Americans. Improved border security would have no effect on the continued arrival of these foreign workers, refugees, and permanent immigrants – because they are all invited here by the federal government.
The most significant of all immigration documents issued by the U.S. is, by far, the “green card.” When a foreign citizen is issued a green card it guarantees them the following benefits inside the United States: lifetime work authorization, access to federal welfare, access to Social Security and Medicare, the ability to obtain citizenship and voting privileges, and the immigration of their family members and elderly relatives.
Under current federal policy, the U.S. issues green cards to approximately 1 million new Legal Permanent Residents (LPRs) every single year. For instance, Department of Homeland Security statistics show that the U.S. issued 5.25 million green cards in the last five years, for an average of 1.05 million new legal permanent immigrants annually.
These ongoing visa issuances are the result of federal law, and their number can be adjusted at any time. However, unlike other autopilot policies – such as tax rates or spending programs – there is virtually no national discussion or media coverage over how many visas we issue, to whom we issue them and on what basis, or how the issuance of these visas to individuals living in foreign countries impacts the interests of people already living in this country.
If Congress does not pass legislation to reduce the number of green cards issued each year, the U.S. will legally add 10 million or more new permanent immigrants over the next 10 years – a bloc of new permanent residents larger than populations of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina combined.
This has substantial economic implications.
The post-World War II boom decades of the 1950s and 1960s averaged together less than 3 million green cards per decade – or about 285,000 annually. Due to lower immigration rates, the total foreign-born population in the United States dropped from about 10.8 million in 1945 to 9.7 million in 1960 and 9.6 million in 1970.
These lower midcentury immigration levels were the product of a federal policy change: after the last period of large-scale immigration that had begun in roughly 1880, immigration rates were lowered to reduce admissions. The foreign-born share of the U.S. population fell for six consecutive decades, from 1910 through 1960.
Legislation enacted in 1965, among other factors, substantially increased low-skilled immigration. Since 1970, the foreign-born population in the United States has increased more than four-fold – to a record 42.1 million today. The foreign-born share of the population has risen from fewer than 1 in 21 in 1970, to presently approaching 1 in 7. As the supply of available labor has increased, so too has downward pressure on wages.
Georgetown and Hebrew University economics professor Eric Gould has observed that “the last four decades have witnessed a dramatic change in the wage and employment structure in the United States… The overall evidence suggests that the manufacturing and immigration trends have hollowed-out the overall demand for middle-skilled workers in all sectors, while increasing the supply of workers in lower skilled jobs. Both phenomena are producing downward pressure on the relative wages of workers at the low end of the income distribution.”
During the low-immigration period from 1948-1973, real median compensation for U.S. workers increased more than 90 percent. By contrast, real average hourly wages were lower in 2014 than they were in 1973, four decades earlier. Harvard Economist George Borjas also documented the effects of high immigration rates on African-American workers, writing that “a 10 percent immigration-induced increase in the supply of workers in a particular skill group reduced the black wage of that group by 2.5 percent.” Past immigrants are additionally among those most economically impacted by the arrival of large numbers of new workers brought in to compete for the same jobs. In Los Angeles County, for example, 1 in 3 recent immigrants are living below the poverty line. And this federal policy of new large-scale admissions continues unaltered at a time when automation is reducing hiring, and when a record share of our own workers here in America are not employed.
President Coolidge articulated how a slowing of immigration would benefit both U.S.-born and immigrant-workers: “We want to keep wages and living conditions good for everyone who is now here or who may come here. As a nation, our first duty must be to those who are already our inhabitants, whether native or immigrants. To them we owe an especial and a weighty obligation.”
It is worth observing that the 10 million grants of new permanent residency under current law is not an estimate of total immigration. In fact, the increased distribution of legal immigrant visas tend to correlate with increased flows of immigration illegally: the former helps provide networks and pull factors for the latter. Most of the countries who send the largest numbers of citizens with green cards are also the countries who send the most citizens illegally. The Census Bureau estimates 13 million new immigrants will arrive, on net, between now and 2024 – hurtling the U.S. past all recorded figures in terms of the foreign-born share of total population, quickly eclipsing the watermark recorded 105 years ago during the 1880-1920 immigration wave before immigration rates were lowered. Absent new legislation to reduce unprecedented levels of future immigration, the Census Bureau projects immigration as a share of population will continue setting new records each year, for all time.
Yet the immigration “reform” considered by Congress most recently – the 2013 Senate “Gang of Eight” comprehensive immigration bill – would have tripled the number of green cards issued over the next 10 years. Instead of issuing 10 million green cards, the Gang of Eight proposal would have issued at least 30 million green cards during the next decade (or more than 11 times the population of the City of Chicago).
Polling from Gallup and Fox shows that Americans want lawmakers to reduce, not increase, immigration rates by a stark 2:1 margin. Reuters puts it at a 3:1 margin. And polling from GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway shows that by the huge margin of nearly 10:1 people of all backgrounds are united in their belief that U.S. companies seeking workers should raise wages for those already living here – instead of bringing in new labor from abroad.
A New Hampshire mailman has some explaining to do, after being arrested for allegedly breaking into a house on his route.
The homeowner on Piscataqua Road in Dover recently installed a new security system with motion-sensitive surveillance cameras that send an alert to her phone. On Wednesday morning, she got an alert that someone was inside her house.
When the homeowner, who does not want to be identified, saw the surveillance images, she recognized the man who had broken in and she also recognized his footwear.
“He didn’t take anything from the house,” according to Lt. Brant Dolleman of the Dover, N.H. Police Department. “Apparently he went into the house once, left the house and went back into the house. While in there, he put on some boots that she had and wore them inside the house, walked around with those on inside the house for some reason.”
The intruder, police say, is 39-year-old Richard Ringer, who lives in nearby Raymond, N.H. But he also knows Dover very well since he’s the mailman in the area.
“Obviously in cases like this you’re always checking to see who is in the neighborhood; it’s not that big a town,” Lt. Dolleman explained. “He’s a recognizable face in the neighborhood and as I said, we were able to locate him pretty quickly. We were able to find him by about 2 o’clock. He was still wearing the same clothes. Not the boots, but the clothes.”
The homeowner also told WBZ the boots her mailman is wearing were kept in a box under her bed. On the surveillance video, she said, Ringer finds them in quite a hurry, suggesting to her that he’s broken into her house and worn them before today.
Police are concerned there may be other houses he’s broken into.
“That’s one of the reasons to get this story out there – not just to talk about what a strange story it is,” Dolleman said. “It’s to see, do we have other victims out there?”
Ringer was released on bail.
Democratic Presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton’s security detail led a handful of journalists on two lengthy high-speed chases to homes of influential Democrats on Monday.
Her lone official appearance on her first day in New Hampshire was a carefully stage-managed small-business roundtable in Keene.
But a lunchtime visit to a main-street bakery and two more appointments later in the day were off-the-books and under the public’s radar.
If police radar had been engaged, however, it would have clocked Hillary’s signature black conversion van – ‘Scooby’, for the uninitiated – hitting 92 mph in a driving rainstorm on Interstate 89, where the top speed limit is 65.
No one in the motorcade displayed flashing lights or blasted a siren.
TRIAL BALLOON: A New Hampshire political operative described Hillary Clinton’s afternoon meeting at this Claremont, NH home as an entree toward an endorsement by Senator Jeanne Shaheen. The home belongs to one of Shaheen’s trusted aides
OFF TO THE RACES: Clinton returned to her beloved Mystery Machine following her afternoon house party
FINISH LINE: Clinton’s entourage dined and partied at the home of former New Hampshire state Senate President Sylvia Larsen
After Clinton emerged from Whitney Brothers, a children’s furniture manufacturer, her black Chevy conversion van raced an hour north to the town of Claremont, hitting 73 in a 55 mph zone.
Two hours later Scooby was on the move to Concord, bookended by a Secret Service detail that parted the puddles and kept the motorcade nose-to-tail – with the caboose car slamming on the brakes time and again.
The Claremont event took Clinton to the home of Bethany Yurek, a constituent services ‘special assistant’ to New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen.
Yurek is not a Washington heavy-hitter, but is part of Shaheen’s inner circle.
A political operative close to Shaheen’s New Hampshire office said the meeting was meant to include a discussion about nudging the senator toward a presidential endorsement.
In the nation’s first presidential primary voting state, an early nod from a sitting senator to a former senator could carry enough weight to ward off Clinton’s potential competitors.
Yurek did not respond to phone messages seeking comment, and Clinton’s campaign made arrangements only for the New York Times to attend.
SCOOBY SIGHTINGS: On Monday the CLinton campagin-mobile made stops in three New Hampshire towns
PIT STOP: Scooby’s Secret Service driver gassed up Hillary’s chariot before opening up her engine and pushing it to 92 mph
MEET MOLLY: Clinton enjoyed the oldest campaign tactic in the book – posing with a baby – on Monday in the New Hampshire town of Keene, and gushed that she wanted to bring the infant home with her
In Claremont, according to tweets from a Times reporter, the wealthy former secretary of state’s messaging featured progressive-friendly lines about income inequality.
‘The deck is stacked in their favor,’ she said of America’s super-rich. ‘My job is to reshuffle the cards.’
Clinton and her husband, the former president, are themselves among America’s much-derided ‘one per cent’ richest.
She also sounded an alarm about capital gains tax cuts for big banks being the ‘root’ of America’s economic malaise.
That seems calibrated to appeal to Democrats on her left flank – those who are pining for Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren to enter the race.
Clinton’s Concord stop was a 7:00 dinner event at the sprawling home of former New Hampshire state Senate President Sylvia Larsen.
GOOD NIGHT’S REST: Clinton and her traveling campaign team stayed Monday night at the Centennial hotel, a Victoria property full of ’boutique furniture pieces and chic art taken from the pages of Vogue’
TOP AIDE: Huma Abedin, Hillary’s right-hand woman, is on the campaign trail and stayed by Clinton’s side as they stopped at a bakery in Keene on Monday
Larsen is a longtime Clinton loyalist who endorsed Hillary’s first presidential bid in 2007. She hosted a ‘Ready For Hillary’ house party in February at the same home that hosted the candidate herself on Monday night.
That house is steeped in Clinton lore. When then-Governor Bill Clinton filed his papers to run in the 1992 New Hampshire primary, it was Hillary who delivered the documents to the state capitol.
Her last stop before making that trek in the rain was a gathering of professional women at Larsen’s home.
On Tuesday the Clinton campaign will remain in Concord for a second roundtable event – this time at the New Hampshire Technical Institute, the local community college.
They’ll be well-rested.
On Monday night Clinton and her team stayed at the Centennial hotel in Concord, a Victorian-era complex full of ’boutique furniture pieces and chic art taken from the pages of Vogue,’ according to the hotel’s website.
Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Rand Paul, Governor Scott Walker, Senator Kelly Ayotte, and Governor Bobby Jindal take part in the New Hampshire Republican Party’s “First in the Nation” leadership summit in Nashua, NH. Streaming begins at 9:00am eastern time.
………………………Click on image above to watch stream.
Click HERE to visit the official website of the New Hampshire Republican Party Leadership Summit
Click HERE to watch day 1 of the summit.
Former Governor Rick Perry, Senator Marco Rubio, former Governor Jeb Bush, and Governor Chris Christie take part in the New Hampshire Republican Party’s “First in the Nation” leadership summit in Nashua, NH. Streaming begins at 11:00am eastern time.
………………………Click on image above to watch stream.
Click HERE to visit the official website of the New Hampshire Republican Party Leadership Summit
Day 2 Speakers: Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Rand Paul, Governor Scott Walker, Senator Kelly Ayotte, and Governor Bobby Jindal.
I am sure you can recall the type I am talking about. They ask the pretty girl out, she says no, so they start bragging about how they banged her in the back seat of their car, or somewhere else. Those guys were pricks in high school, and they grew up to become Democrats!
Via NH Journal:
New Hampshire Democrats were quick to attack Republican State Representative Marilinda Garcia once she made her intention to seek the her party’s nomination for the second congressional district seat official. Garcia announced her candidacy via a press release on Monday morning; she joins former Republican State Senator Gary Lambert in the race to take on Democratic Congresswoman Anne Kuster.
Within moments of her announcement, prominent Democratic State Rep. Peter Sullivan attacked Garcia on Twitter using sexist language and imagery. Sullivan compared the three-term State Representative, who holds a Master’s degree from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, to reality television celebrity Kim Kardashian. He went on to refer to her as “[Republican State Rep.] Al Baldasarro [sic] in stiletto heels” and “a lightweight.”
Throughout the 2012 and 2013 election cycles, national Democrats launched repeated attacks accusing Republicans of using rhetoric they claimed was demeaning to women.
Democrats do what they accuse Republicans of doing. And poking fun of a woman who dares to think for herself, rather than knowing her place, as Democrats prefer, is typical Democratic behavior.
Yes, it is true that Marilinda Garcia is quite pretty, and smart, and a Republican Democrats just hate that
… Joe Scarborough, you mean Mika’s Bitch boy?
“Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough says the senators who voted against expanded background checks for gun buyers on Wednesday are providing “the opportunity for terrorists, for gang members, for criminals, for violent rapists” to purchase firearms.
“I got to say just really quickly, I know we got to go to break, but Mark Halperin, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, voting against background checks for terrorists, voting against background checks for violent rapists, voting against background checks for gang members — I don’t know that she really helped her cause in New Hampshire for re-election, did she?”
The former Florida congressman then declared the Republican Party is “moving toward extinction.”
So, is Scarborough actually saying that terrorists, rapists, and gang members do not have to go through background checks now? Of course not Joe, and this bill would not have forced them to go through background checks either. I will say this slowly Joe. Terrorists, gang members and violent felons do not obey laws. they get guns ILLEGALLY now, and no new law will suddenly force these evil beasts to transform into law-abiding citizens.
Yes dodgeball is “just” a game, but the move to ban it at schools is another victory for the Nanny State
The classic gym class game has been a rite of passage for years, but dodgeball may have met its match in the form of the Windham School board, which at a recent meeting voted 4-1 to end dodgeball and other so-called “human target” activities, games with names like bombardment and slaughter.
“It’s almost turning into a nanny state,” said school board member Dennis Senibaldi, the one school board member who voted against the ban. “What happens when they replace that game with something different that another group doesn’t want to play, do we eliminate that group of games?”
One of the posters in the front window of a New Hampshire gun shop depicts President Obama as “Firearms Salesman of the Year.” Below the president are two AK-47 rifles.
A second poster featuring the images of Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong accompanies a statement that reads, “All Experts Agree, Gun Control Works.”
The signs are in the front window of Collectable Arms & Ammo in Merrimack. Store Co-owner Keith Cox makes no apologies for the storefront that has irritated some neighbors.
“We like to have the creative storefronts which are sort of fun in one aspect and in another aspect if we have an opportunity to make a statement we’ll do that as well,” said Cox.
Cox says he is sending two separate messages and is not connecting Obama to the dictators.
He says Obama’s picture is meant to thank him for sending gun sales surging with all the talk in Washington about gun control.
As for the images of the three dictators, Cox says his message is that people armed with guns are better able to protect themselves against tyranny.
Chuck Mower, who lives down the street from the shop, says he understands free speech, but says the message is over the top and unnecessary.
“I can’t even imagine any president’s picture being portrayed on the front of a business with crossed assault weapons underneath it,” Mower said. “When those kinds of things appear and take the public presence…they paint us more as a gooberville in Arkansas.”
Mower, a longtime Merrimack resident (aka a whiny, leftist douchebag) has filed a complaint with the city.
“It’s not a good community standard message and it doesn’t add to solving any of the complicated issues,” he said.
Outside the store on Friday, there was curiosity about the controversy.
“If people want to show it then so be it, it’s their freedom of rights,” said one Merrimack resident.
“One thing great about this country is you can agree to disagree, but to take these extremes I think it’s shameful and I’m sad to say it’s the town I live in,” said another resident.
Regardless of the controversy, the signage is not coming down.
“I certainly would not ask them to change a flag hanging on their homes or a sign in their yards because I am offended by it or disagree with it,” said Cox. “I will support anybody’s freedom of speech.”
Town officials in Merrimack tell WBZ-TV the storefront is not breaking any town ordinances.
It might seem odd that the Left always wants to talk about gun crimes, gun murders, gun deaths as if putting a gun into the equation makes a violent crime less violent somehow. Personally, I do not wish to get shot, nor do I wish to be stabbed, or beaten with a bat, or hammer, or to be jumped by a gang of thugs, a gang of NFL cheerleaders is a different story but that is a another matter altogether. The point here is that the Left cannot win the debate over guns by sticking with legitimate stats. So they use emotional appeals, or cooked statistics that are meant to make us believe that gun violence is a raging epidemic, and that America is awash in gun deaths. Of late their tactic seems to be to segregate crimes, committed with a gun from other violent crimes committed with other weapons. Zion’s Trumpet links to Mark Steyn who explains that while the Left loves to hold the UK up as a shining example of the glorious bliss that are gun bans, the truth is that the UK is a lot more violent than America.
Between the introduction of pistol permits in 1903 and the banning of handguns after the Dunblane massacre in 1996, Britain has had a century of incremental gun control—“sensible measures that all reasonable people can agree on.” And what’s the result? Even when you factor in America’s nutcake jurisdictions with the crackhead mayors, the overall crime rate in England and Wales is higher than in all 50 states, even though over there they have more policemen per capita than in the U.S., on vastly higher rates of pay installing more video surveillance cameras than anywhere else in the Western world. Robbery, sex crimes, and violence against the person are higher in England and Wales; property crime is twice as high; vehicle theft is higher still; the British are 2.3 times more likely than Americans to be assaulted, and three times more likely to be violently assaulted. Between 1973 and 1992, burglary rates in the U.S. fell by half. In Britain, not even the Home Office’s disreputable reporting methods (if a burglar steals from 15 different apartments in one building, it counts as a single crime) can conceal the remorseless rise: Britons are now more than twice as likely as Americans to be mugged; two-thirds will have their property broken into at some time in their lives. Even more revealing is the divergent character between U.K. and U.S. property crime: In America, just over 10 percent of all burglaries are “hot burglaries”—committed while the owners are present; in Britain, it’s over half. Because of insurance-required alarm systems, the average thief increasingly concludes that it’s easier to break in while you’re on the premises. Your home-security system may conceivably make your home more safe, but it makes you less so.
Conversely, up here in the New Hampshire second congressional district, there are few laser security systems and lots of guns. Our murder rate is much lower than Britain’s and our property crime is virtually insignificant. Anyone want to make a connection? Villains are expert calculators of risk, and the likelihood of walking away uninjured with an $80 television set is too remote. In New Hampshire, a citizen’s right to defend himself deters crime; in Britain, the state-inflicted impotence of the homeowner actively encourages it. Just as becoming a drug baron is a rational career move in Colombia, so too is becoming a violent burglar in the United Kingdom. The chances that the state will seriously impede your progress are insignificant.
Now I’m Canadian, so, as you might expect, the Second Amendment doesn’t mean much to me. I think it’s more basic than that. Privately owned firearms symbolize the essential difference between your great republic and the countries you left behind. In the U.S., power resides with “we, the people” and is leased ever more sparingly up through town, county, state, and federal government. In Britain and Canada, power resides with the Crown and is graciously devolved down in limited doses. To a north country Yankee it’s self-evident that, when a burglar breaks into your home, you should have the right to shoot him—indeed, not just the right, but the responsibility, as a freeborn citizen, to uphold the integrity of your property. But in Britain and most other parts of the Western world, the state reserves that right to itself, even though at the time the ne’er-do-well shows up in your bedroom you’re on the scene and Constable Plod isn’t: He’s some miles distant, asleep in his bed, and with his answering machine on referring you to central dispatch God knows where.
Yes, I know, Liberals will screech that this piece was written over a decade ago, but, as recent stats show, the UK is still a lot more violent than America. The murder rate, burglary rate, robbery rate and stabbing rate are all much higher in the UK. Yes, I understand the Left will ignore those facts. In fact, I have heard more than one Liberal say that somehow a gun makes every crime worse. Not sure how that happens, but we are dealing with Liberals here, their arguments do not have to make sense, they just have to feel like they do to Liberals. Despite the negative impact on the feelings of liberals facts still do matter. And the fact is this. the Left has been pushing gun control for a long time, and they often use the UK as the shining example of how the UK is a more safe nation. This is simply not true
Britain’s violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.
Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa – widely considered one of the world’s most dangerous countries.
The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.
The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:
- The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
- It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
- The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
- It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.
But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.
In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.
Less guns means less crime? No, it does not. The USA has a violent crime rate of 466 per 100,000 people. Canada, another panacea of strict gun laws has a rate of 935 per 100,000 people. In the UK, which bans guns, the rate is 2,034 per 100,000 people. FIVE TIMES the rate in America.
This is why the Left talks only of GUN crimes, rather than violent crimes. They are lying by omission. And they KNOW they are lying. So, ask yourself this. Why? If their agenda is not truly reducing crimes, what is it?
According to the latest Rasmussen state polls, Mitt Romney is in position to win the presidency; he should win at least 279 electoral votes. Romney leads in Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and New Hampshire; Obama leads in Pennsylvania and Nevada. Wisconsin and Iowa are tied. Were Romney to win both Wisconsin and Iowa, he’d secure another 16 electoral votes, putting him at 295 electoral votes. By way of contrast, George W. Bush won 286 electoral votes in 2004.
But they seem to jealously defend voter fraud….
Michael Delaney is a Democrat who is attorney general of New Hampshire. James O’Keefe is a journalist who exposed the fact that it was possible for dead people to vote in New Hampshire.
In reaction to O’Keefe’s blockbuster investigative report, the New Hampshire legislature enacted a voter ID law.
Amen! We absolutely support him! And, we oppose politicians who support voter fraud!
A New Hampshire man stumbled upon the terrifying sight of a burglary in process in his home, and took decisive action with a firearm, but now he could face years in jail for foiling the robbery.
Foxnews.com has the details of the incident which already has 2nd Amendment advocates up in arms:
“Dennis Fleming, 61, of Farmington, was arrested for reckless conduct after the Saturday incident at his 19th century farmhouse. The single grandfather had returned home to find that his home had been burglarized and spotted Joseph Hebert, 27, climbing out of a window at a neighbor’s home. Fleming said he yelled “Freeze!” before firing his gun into the ground, then held Hebert at gunpoint until police arrived.”
Simply unbelievable. This nation has lost its freaking mind. Yes, that rumbling sound you hear IS the Founders rolling in their graves!
Question: is the TSA “racist” for requiring a picture ID?
I’m curious, because somehow we’re supposed to believe it’s somehow “racist” to require you to prove yourself yourself before you cast a vote (as a way to combat voter fraud — which of course isn’t a big problem, and even if it is, well, RACISTS!), and yet it’s not considered “racist” to require people to show a picture ID to board a plane.
More double standards from the left I plan to use this question the first chance I get.
Maybe this is yet another Liberal malady? Double Standard Dysfunction?