Skip to content

Sweet Cakes

Sweet Cakes published on



10432-justicepoliticalsxc-1331968892-881-640x480

AMEN! Oregon Democrat who put Christian bakers out of business gets served JUSTICE

By The Analytical Economist
11:56am  November 15, 2016

You’ve seen the story multiple times already: a Christian baker declines to cater a gay wedding, and gets sued in the process. The most publicized came out of Oregon, where the bakery Sweet Cakes by Melissa chose not to bake a wedding for a same-sex wedding.

Rachel Bowman-Cryer and her mother visited Sweet Cakes planning to order a wedding cake. Bowman-Cryer had purchased a cake previously from the Kleins for her mother’s sixth wedding. Bowman-Cryer wanted to have the same cake she had purchased for her mother. That’s when Aaron Klein asked what the name of the bride and groom were.

“It’s two brides,” Bowman-Cryer said.

‘I think we may have wasted your time,” Aaron Klein told Bowman-Cryer. “We don’t do same-sex weddings.”

That answer led to a complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, and what happened as a result? As the Conservative Tribune reported, In 2013, Oregon Democrat Brad Avakian, as commissioner of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, put a Christian bakery out of business because its owners stood up for their religious convictions.

Sweetcakes by Melissa, owned by Melissa and Aaron Klein, was forced out of business by Avakian and the BOLI in 2013. Klein told Independent Journal Review that they were fined $135,000 and the state garnished their bank accounts to cover it. When all was said and done, Klein said that the state took $144,000 from them.
office.

In the Red tsunami that swept the nation last Tuesday, however, justice was served to the politician behind putting the bakery out of business.

Fast forward to 2016 and Avakian, not unlike many of his fellow Democrats, got served a big slice of sweet justice. The people of Oregon ended his run for Oregon secretary of state in favor of Republican Dennis Richardson — the first time in 14 years the solidly blue state elected a Republican for state office.

Rob Kremer, an Oregon political analyst, told the Review: “I think people in Oregon were uncomfortable with Avakian’s stated objective of expanding the scope of the secretary of state’s office to broaden a progressive agenda. “While I don’t think the Sweetcakes by Melissa case was the only thing that turned off voters, it was certainly an example people could point to to show that he was abusing his authority.”

In addition to the voters, of all the major newspapers in the very blue state, not a single one offered Avakian its endorsement.

Aaron Klein told the Review: “His losing was a good sign that people don’t agree with somebody who is anti-constitutional to the nth degree. He never recognized our religious constitutional rights in his office. He just ignored them. And then he went off-kilter with ideas about what he wanted to do in his new office.”

Good riddance! And Sweet Cakes is still appealing their lawsuit to the Oregon Supreme Court, so they may rise again as Avakian falls out of employment.

[Note: This post was written by The Analytical Economist]

Think Twice about Going West, Young Man

Think Twice about Going West, Young Man published on



×
November 13, 2016

Think Twice about Going West, Young Man

By Doug Thorburn

west

I’m an Enrolled Agent tax pro based in California with clients all over the country. Recently, the son of a client who had moved to a more free state than ours asked whether I thought he should move back here to start a business.

I suggested not. Why?

While California suffers from the highest income tax rate in the country and mountains of regulations that cause everything from housing costs to the price of power to be among the highest, the most destructive regulation of all is arguably an up-and-coming one. It mandates annual increases to the minimum prices of wages. They will go from $10.50 to $15 per hour in five years — a nearly 50% increase, which will end up at twice the current national minimum wage.

I love higher real wages, created by supply and demand and fueled by increasing productivity as people voluntarily interact in the marketplace. But government can’t create wealth by mandate. If it could, why doesn’t it reach all the objectives of a minimum wage in one fell swoop and enact a minimum of $100 an hour? It can’t. Government is, however, very good at destroying jobs and incentivizing the reallocation of jobs to more highly skilled people and even to robots.

Today, apart from teenagers and other unskilled people with little job experience (especially in rural areas), very few workers actually earn the minimum wage. As that minimum is hiked, more workers will earn it, true — at least the ones who manage to get and keep a job. But unfortunately, there will be fewer of them.

For as government demands higher minimum prices for labor, more workers will be priced out of jobs. Many currently employed workers will become unemployable at the higher mandated wages in California. And this will affect those currently earning higher wages: as they see lower-skilled workers earning as much as they do, they will demand even higher wages and increasingly price themselves out of jobs, too.

The Competition Here

Businesses must compete with other businesses. Some only have local competition, such as most grocery stores. Large stores have a huge advantage over small ones by being able to move much greater volume. They can afford either to pay higher wages or to purchase labor-saving machinery, such as scanners and self-check-out lanes, which will help them avoid paying those higher wages. But start-up are much less likely to be able to do both: either to pay these higher wages or to purchase labor-saving machines and equipment.

Other businesses have national and international competition. Nationally, my budding young entrepreneurial client will be competing with employers in other states who can pay as little as $7.25 per hour. Not that many do so, but they clearly can pay less and hire more where the cost of living is so much lower. Internationally, he will be competing with employers in emerging economies where capital hasn’t been around long enough to make good economic sense of paying the same wages as Hong Kong, Singapore, or the United States.

The Minimum-wage Prospects Here

Government-imposed mandates do not create wealth. Instead, they create a misallocation of resources. For example, a minimum mandated price for cars would eliminate the economic demand for many of the cheaper models, leaving only the more upscale cars on the market. Think of an unskilled young person as one of those cheaper models, and 40-to-60-year-olds as upscale models. Under minimum prices of wages, the unskilled, the newly sober, the recently-released felon and those re-entering the workforce for other reasons (such as raising children) are reallocated from starter jobs where they can acquire basic job skills, to the unemployment line. And because less is produced, lower overall aggregate living standards are the long-term result.

The higher the mandated minimum relative to median wages, the greater is the damage. Puerto Rico offers a shining example. Its minimum wage is the same as the U.S. minimum, $7.25 per hour; that is 77% of the Puerto Rico median wage. One-third of Puerto Ricans earn that minimum wage. At the same time, Puerto Rican employers are required to provide 15 days of vacation and 12 sick days annually, equivalent to an 11% increase in the minimum wage, on top of the cost of worker-related administrative burdens and risk of lawsuits for labor law violations. Not surprisingly, the labor force participation rate — the percent of able-bodied adults working — is only 40-43%. All this in an economy where the annual per capita income is $11,000, half that of the poorest state, Mississippi.

By comparison, in the U.S. only 16% of the workforce with less than one year on the job earns the minimum wage (the relatively unskilled and teens, especially in lower cost-of-living rural areas); only 5% of the workforce earns the minimum wage after they’ve been on the job for a year; the minimum wage is only 28% of U.S. median; and 63% of able-bodied adults (down from 69% in 2008) are in the workforce. No wonder Puerto Ricans are relatively poor and the commonwealth is effectively bankrupt.

Today’s reality for Puerto Rico is the prospect for the California economy our budding entrepreneur would be joining, if minimum wages are hiked far enough.

Why do Real Wages Rise?

The example of Hong Kong versus Mainland China is instructive. In 1950, they had roughly equal per capita annual incomes. Thirty-five years later, Hong Kong’s per capita income was roughly 30 times that of the mainland. Yes, Hong Kong benefitted from the totalitarian mainland’s brain-drain, but they had zero natural resources, demonstrating that natural resources are unrelated to societal wealth. The entire time, Hong Kong had no minimum wage (and didn’t until recent years — silly Hong Kong). Wages, then, increase for some other reason.

That reason is capital, which poured into Hong Kong but not into the socialist mainland, giving Hong Kong the machinery and equipment that allowed for a massive increase in living standards.

What makes those of us working at a desk more valuable than we were 50 (or even 30) years ago? Computer chips, which require billion-dollar factories in faraway lands to produce. What makes those who haul goods from one place to another so much more valuable than the Chinese coolie of yesteryear? Motorized vehicles, especially trucks and ships, requiring billions of dollars of capital to produce. What makes actors so much more valuable today than in Elizabethan times? Networks, cables, television and movie theaters — all recipients of massive amounts of capital. And that capital makes us all more productive. Which is the primary reason wages rise.

(Education and training can be considered capital, but they are at best secondary reasons why wages rise in the aggregate. Greater education and training primarily give some people an advantage in societies with large amounts of capital; without capital, little if any advantage is provided.)

The Balance Sheet

The problems with a $15-an-hour mandated minimum are many. Small employers starting out and those with little capital will not able to pay unskilled workers so high a wage; workers who would be hired at lower wages will not be hired. Small businesses, which sometimes become big businesses later, will not be able to start up, lowering long-term employment and wealth creation. Those thinking of starting a business won’t; or they’ll move to another state (or another country) more hospitable to entrepreneurs; or they won’t come here to start a business. Californians will forever forfeit the brilliance and productivity and an unknown number of entrepreneurs; the state government will never see the tax dollars of any of those.

Consider, too, the effect of $15 an hour on rural areas. Picture a store in an urban area with shoppers coming and going in massive numbers. Compare that to a similar store in a rural area with an occasional shopper. A store in an urban area can afford to pay much higher wages to workers because they are much more productive than employees of a similar store where customers are few and far between. The fact there are more customers is the primary reason city wages in the aggregate are always higher than rural ones. It’s the reason people left farms for cities in early America; it’s the reason today’s Chinese peasants move to cities in increasing numbers.

Robotic-enhanced businesses will do well. Young, unskilled workers, newly sober addicts and newly-released felons may never get their first job. What do young men sometimes do when they don’t work? Make trouble. This does not bode well for California’s civil society.

I must add that the biggest reason to oppose mandated prices for labor is not a matter of economics at all, but of rights — property rights and contractual rights. Viewing my body as my property, I have an inalienable right to agree to work for $1 per hour if someone else will have me. I don’t have to do so, but I want to know I have that choice. After all, it’s my body.

If I were a budding young entrepreneur I’d find a state or country more hospitable to and appreciative of those willing to forfeit current consumption for the opportunity to build a business and provide value for others. I do love California. It’s got about the best weather on the planet, the best water skiing (the Sacramento Delta), and the best snow skiing (Mammoth). But it’s like a gorgeous alcoholic: enabled because of her beauty but, without recovery, due for a premature death.

Guess Who CNN Is Blaming For Hillary’s Loss

Guess Who CNN Is Blaming For Hillary’s Loss published on



Guess Who CNN Is Blaming For Hillary’s Loss?

cnn-logo

POLITICS

by Renaldo Keys – Nov 10, 2016

CNN was wrong about their polls and picked the wrong candidate and now they have to blame someone. Guess who it is?

CNN is saying Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are to blame for the epic failure of Hillary’s campaign.

Gary Johnson got about four million votes and carried just over 3% of the vote.

Jill Stein got over a million votes and carried one percent of the popular vote.

The total vote that Jill Stein and Gary Johnson received was just over five million. Out of 125 million votes, they only received five million. Less than 5% of the vote went to third party candidates.

CNN and the corporate media want to blame Hillary’s historic loss on two people that got less than 5% of the vote. They don’t want to focus on the fact she is under criminal investigation by the FBI, she is reckless with national security and takes money from the people that supports ISIS.

CNN couldn’t be more wrong.

The third party candidates drastically underperformed in this election. In 1992, Ross Perot got almost 20 million votes. That is influencing the eletion.

In 2016, a year where the two major candidates were hated more than any time in history, the third party candidates couldn’t must 5% of the popular vote together.

The fact is they didn’t influence the election at all, no matter how CNN wants to spin it.

The Democrats picked a flawed candidate and tried to push her on the American people. She lost. Get over it and stop blaming Gary and Jill.

Let us know your thoughts. Do you think that Gary Johnson and Jill Stein changed this election? Let us know in the comments below.

How the Tea Party helped Trump

How the Tea Party helped Trump published on 1 Comment on How the Tea Party helped Trump



Fox News
Opinion

 

 

 

How the Tea Party helped Trump win the election

By Jenny Beth Martin

tea

Published November 12, 2016

NOW PLAYING

Trump’s transition team considers Cabinet, key appointments

Now that the American people have hired Donald Trump and the Republicans to right the ship of state, it’s time to get to work.

Trump’s stunning win on Election Night defied the pollsters’ expectations, conventional wisdom about how campaigns must be run, and even the Washington Establishment’s narrative about what it is, exactly, that American voters want.

That last point is of particular interest to Tea Party conservatives. We have long argued that the Washington Establishment is disconnected from (and sometimes simply disinterested in) the issues that are most pressing to American voters.

By all accounts, Donald Trump should not have won. In fact, looking at any number of metrics, Trump’s campaign lagged far behind Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

For months, he consistently trailed Clinton in every major national poll. He raised significantly less money than she did (and as of the end of October, had raised only roughly half as much as Clinton’s campaign).

He underperformed in the first debate. And his campaign, we were constantly reminded, was light-years behind Clinton’s campaign in terms of a ground game, grassroots operations, and Get Out the Vote (GOTV) efforts.

The Republican nominee’s win, then, is nothing short of remarkable, and it challenges many of the fundamental beliefs held by the political class.

Donald Trump won because, at the end of the day, this election was not about money raised, or slick campaign operations. This election was about one overarching theme: ending the status quo in Washington, D.C.

Throughout his campaign, Trump reiterated his willingness to disrupt all of the “norms” in Washington. Those “norms” include the culture of cronyism, the backroom deals, and the pervasive notion that rules simply do not apply to the Washington Elites.

In electing Donald Trump, the American people delivered a firm repudiation of “business as usual” in Washington.

Donald Trump won his bid for the White House because he ran on overwhelmingly popular and commonsense issues, including bringing accountability to Washington, D.C., enforcing our nation’s immigration laws, and restoring fiscal sanity to the out-of-control spending culture that reigns in Washington.

If that agenda sounds familiar, it should. It’s the same agenda the Tea Party movement broadly, and Tea Party Patriots specifically, has helped to advance over the last several years.

Because of his willingness to stand up for our economic principles and our commitment to enforcing the country’s existing immigration laws already on the books, Tea Party Patriots activists across the country came together to back Mr. Trump.

Our army of activists engaged in a variety of voter-to-voter contacts, including knocking on tens of thousands of doors in swing states, writing out postcards with personal messages, and making more than 1.5 million volunteer phone calls.

Our efforts have paid off, and Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund is proud of our tens of thousands of volunteers who devoted time and energy to ensuring that Donald Trump would win, and that the GOP would retain its majority in the Senate.

President-elect Donald Trump deserves to be congratulated, not only for winning the presidency, but also for campaigning so unabashedly on his promise to shake things up in Washington. Because of Trump’s consistent emphasis on his intentions to rein in the federal government, it turns out that the real loser in this election cycle was not primarily a political candidate or campaign, but, rather a political philosophy – namely, the political viewpoint that Big Government is the end-all and be-all solution to every problem. This viewpoint was the signature feature of Barack Obama’s presidency, and it was the campaign platform for all of the Democrats, from Hillary Clinton to Senate Democrat candidates. Americans resoundingly rejected that viewpoint this election cycle.

In addition to defeating the Big Government philosophy, another significant collateral “win” from this election is that it effectively mutes the Washington Establishment’s oft-repeated allegation that the tea party movement is dead.

The myth that the Tea Party movement has run its course and is on the decline is a convenient narrative, and a clever technique to dismiss and sideline an effective political opponent. After all, no one needs to take seriously a dormant or dead movement.

This election, however, is definitive proof not only of our ability to engage in political races and help the candidates win, but also affirms the broad popularity of our message and agenda.

Winning elections is only half the battle, of course. While we celebrate the election victories this week, we are also preparing for the next phase – helping Mr. Trump and the Republicans in Congress live up to their campaign pledges to repeal ObamaCare, pursue a balanced budget, immigration policies that respect the rule of law, and sound tax policy. In other words, the hard work really begins in January.

The Tea Party is looking forward to rolling up our collective sleeves and getting to work.

Jenny Beth Martin is co-founder and national coordinator of Tea Party Patriots, a national grassroots organization with more than 3500 chapters.

Prop 63 Whats Next Gun Control

Prop 63 Whats Next Gun Control published on





🌵 Yes, Prop 63 passed. Here’s what happens next.  🌵gun-control-210x210

Statement on Prop 63 & Where To Go From Here
November 9, 2016 By CRPA
With the passage of seven new gun bills in July that essentially duplicated Gavin Newsom’s Proposition 63, Prop 63 became redundant. So while still opposing the initiative aggressively, the Coalition for Civil Liberties’ partners, including the NRA, shifted some of their resources to fighting the battle that mattered most. With our victory in the presidential election, successful legal challenges will now be filed against all these new ill-conceived and unconstitutional laws, and those cases will be heard by a new Supreme Court that will see these laws as the Second Amendment violations that they are.

Meanwhile, Newsom’s self-promoting initiative has caused all of the major law enforcement associations to join with the Coalition and to uniformly condemn ill-conceived gun control efforts, while prompting hundreds of thousands of law abiding California gun owners to join NRA and CRPA, and to engage politically at a level not seen in decades. Those activists are now a part of the self-defense civil rights coalition political action committee, and a grassroots activist force that anti-gun-owner politicians will have to reckon with for years to come.

All of the Coalition partners greatly appreciate the efforts of and donation from these grassroots activists. NRA and CRPA are committed to marshalling our forces and newly developed resources to defend the right to choose to own a gun for sport, or to defend your family in California.

CRPA will be distributing more information about Prop 63 and the newly passed gun laws, and the Coalition for Civil Liberties’ plans for future advocacy on behalf of California gun owners within the next few days. In the meantime, you can learn more about these laws by watching the free webinars that NRA / CRPA prepared at www.crpa/org/webinars.

Chuck Michel
President
California Rifle & Pistol Association

Four ways Trump’s victory will change the Supreme Court

Four ways Trump’s victory will change the Supreme Court published on



Trump’s victory has enormous consequences for the Supreme Court

Four ways Trump’s victory will change the Supreme Court

1280px-supreme_court_us_2010

For starters, President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, can go back to his day job. (Video: Gillian Brockell/Photo: Bill O’Leary/The Washington Post)

By Robert Barnes November 9 at 8:27 AM

The political earthquake that hit Tuesday night has enormous consequences for the Supreme Court, swallowing up Judge Merrick Garland’s ill-fated nomination and dismantling Democratic hopes for a liberal majority on the high court for the first time in nearly a half-century.

In the short term, Republican Donald Trump’s victory means that at some point next year, the nine-member court will be restored to full capacity, once again with a majority of Republican-appointed justices.

Democratic attempts to filibuster Trump’s choice would likely lead Republicans to end that option for Supreme Court justices, just as Democrats did for other judicial nominations when their party controlled the Senate.

Trump’s upset victory likely changes the court’s docket as well: Court challenges to President Obama’s regulations regarding the Affordable Care Act and immigration, which have preoccupied the justices in recent terms, will likely disappear under a President Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress.

These former Obama strongholds sealed the election for Trump

The long-term question will be Trump’s ultimate impact on the court’s membership, and whether he gets the chance to do more than choose the successor to Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February.

Two of the court’s liberals, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, are 83 and 78, respectively. Moderate conservative Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is 80.

As long as those three stay, the court’s rulings on sensitive social issues — protecting abortion rights, affirmative action and gay rights, for instance — are secure.

“A lot of the big things are actually ones on which the court already has a so-called liberal majority,” Neal K. Katyal, the acting solicitor general under President Obama, said before the court’s term began last month.

Tuesday’s election assures that Kennedy will remain the court’s pivotal justice, for now. Trump has said he will draw his Supreme Court nominee from a list of 20 judges and one senator: Mike Lee of Utah. All appear to be more conservative than Kennedy, the court’s longest-serving justice.

[

TODAY IS TO VOTE ⚡ 🌀

TODAY IS TO VOTE ⚡ 🌀 published on


Congratulations Donald Trump

The Country Just Won   Leave a Comment
trumpwins

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blue Cross and Illegal Immigrant Care – Your $$

Blue Cross and Illegal Immigrant Care – Your $$ published on 1 Comment on Blue Cross and Illegal Immigrant Care – Your $$


Thrifty American Deplorables Can Compete With Billions Spent To Lobby For Illegals

⚡ 🌀 Blue Cross Invests in Undocumented Alien Kare ⚡ 🌀
blue-cross-hi

vota

Dear Friends,

I wanted to bring to your attention some Advertisements that are appearing in the town I live in,Valencia, California. Valencia is a quiet suburban town in Los Angeles County roughly 40 miles North of Downtown Los Angeles.

The Billboard advertisement that I am showing you gained my attention because it occupies a very prominent location on the I-5 freeway just as you enter the town. This sign occupies an extremely pricey piece of billboard real estate. My initial reaction after seeing these signs was; what kind of group has the money to pay for this kind of political advertising in a prominent area of Northern Los Angeles County?
Los Angeles County is not a cheap area to advertise in, and an advertiser would need deep pockets to pay for this.

The advertisement also does not advertise its name or it’s business, or its product, it only advertises one word. VOTA!

Lets dissect the advertisement. It has three easily recognizable elements in the image.

The clenched fist

The tattoo of the Virgin of Guadalupe

The English word “vote”, which is graffitied out and changed to the Spanish language word for vote

It also has tiny almost unreadable letters in the bottom right hand corner the words “Health and Justice 4 All “.

The clenched fist is an unmistakable power image symbolizing defiance, anger and strength.

The Virgin of Guadalupe is a unique and unmistakable symbol, an icon of Mexican/Hispanic culture and the Mexican nation. The word “Vota” is the Spanish word for vote.

Put it all together and it basically says ; “We’re strong, we’re powerful, we’re Hispanic…Let’s vote!

Every eligible citizen who can legally vote in America has the right to vote if they choose, I don’t think anyone has a problem with that, Only This Ad is promoting the idea that Hispanic viewers should emphasize their Hispanic identity and demonstrate their strength and racial interests when they cast their vote.

This is an Ad directed to Hispanic and Mexican Americans and stokes the interests associated with Hispanic ethno-nationalism in America.

The advertisers also have the many tens of thousands of dollars needed to place them.
This Ad doesn’t advertise its product or its producer or a business name, just it’s political message.

I did an internet search on the words “Health and Justice 4 All” and The California Endowment, popped up.
Glancing at their web site I gathered that it’s basic mission is to promote access to health care and healthy living for poor and underserved Californians including illegal aliens. It’s mission statement included words that said: “ Access to affordable healthcare, fixing broken systems and outdated policies, working with citizens and elected leaders for lasting solutions.”.

For those who have followed immigration politics for a while the words “Broken systems” sounds a little too close to; “our broken immigration system” which of course is code for amnesty and massive immigration increases.

I also found out that this endowment was endowed with one billion dollars from Wellpoint, which is a subsidiary of Blue Cross.

Curious to understand more, I called the media spokesperson of the California Endowment. When I talked to their spokesman, he let me know that The California Endowment invests their endowment and annually gives out $200,000,000 to further their goals.
A core part of its mission is healthcare for all and one quickly sees that healthcare for the “undocumented” is clearly part of that mission. And working with elected officials to further that goal is also quite clearly stated. That equals lobbying and paying for Ads.

In other words, it’s another a billion dollar slush fund to lobby for illegal aliens.

It seems Blue Cross is very willing to invest a billion dollars, if it thinks it will eventually get paid Trillions to annually insure tens of millions of these undocumented individuals.

I have to admit That would be quite a handsome and lucrative reward on Blue Cross’s initial billion dollar investment.

My point in writing this report is to show you the billions of dollars out there and at work in the industry of gaining legalization for illegal aliens.

If you thought the “undocumented” were just a poor penniless mass of foreigners, you were wrong. They’re really a highly profitable group, that health insurers can make billions from by getting endless direct payments from the State and Federal government to provide taxpayer paid health coverage… And they lower labor costs for businesses, and elect Democrat politicians all at the same time.

WHAT A GREAT COMBINATION!!!!

If only those deplorable Americans would somehow stop stalling all of this wonderful profit.

As for the Deplorable Americans that are opposing all of this, what do we have?

Nothing!

Nada!

Our leading groups combined have nothing near a billion dollar endowment. How about the money for a prime billboard on the I-5 freeway in Valencia?

We don’t even have THAT!

We have nothing!

Yet somehow with all of our nothingness we’ve three times stopped the combined efforts and combined power of the entire Democrat Party, The leadership of the Republican Party, The Bushes, Clintons, Obama’s, Kennedys, the US Chamber of Commerce, Billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Sheldon Adelson, George Soros, The Koch Brothers and a list of corporations a mile long that all lust for massive labor increases designed to flood the labor markets and depress wages. Then there are the Catholic and Protestant Churches are paid billions to resettle refugees. And let’s not forget La Raza. All of these individuals and groups that profit from open borders, all have billions of dollars at their disposal, and billions of dollars to gain if they can just pass amnesty. And we’ve stopped them three times.

Not bad for a bunch of deplorables with no money!!!

Currently we’ve enlisted Donald Trump (A billionaire) to lead our fight against our familiar open borders enemy. As part of the deal he’s utilizing some of his money to fight our battle, and he’s taking the attacks they normally launch at us.

Kind of a sweet heart deal for us don’t you think?

Despite the blitzkrieg of attacks coming from the mainstream media and a recent mutiny of Congressional open borders Republicans in an effort to sabotage and crush our campaign, we’re still neck and neck with our open borders opponent Hillary Clinton.

If we lose, we’re in the same defensive position we’ve always been in.

If we win and Donald Trump defeats Hillary Clinton, our Representative Donald Trump becomes President and he gets to utilize the resources of the US treasury to implement important items of our agenda. Not bad for a bunch of deplorables that collectively don’t even have the money to pay for a billboard on the I-5 freeway.

It seems we deplorables have been thrifty and smart all at the same time!
I think that’s a wonderful combination, don’t you think?.

Best regards,

Greg Aprahamian

Free Market and Racial Discrimination

Free Market and Racial Discrimination published on



🌀 Racism, Really 🌀

Gun Show Loophole and Hillary

Gun Show Loophole and Hillary published on



🌀 Again 🌀

Primary Sidebar

Secondary Sidebar