Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Friday, January 12, 2018

How Long Is It Going To Be Before People Awaken To The Cost Of Illegal Aliens

Nearly 50 Percent of Illegal Aliens in State Prison Are Sex Offenders

 Print
One in fifteen prisoners incarcerated in Oregon are illegal aliens, and a whopping 50 percent are in jail for sex crimes.
According to a study called “Oregon Department of Corrections: Criminal Alien Report December 2017” by David Cross, 6.60 percent of the prison population in Oregon is comprised of illegal aliens.
Once again, the most concerning aspect of this study is why exactly these illegal aliens are serving prison time.
According to Cross, nearly 50 percent of all illegal aliens in state prisons are serving time for sex crimes.
Here’s the break down:
TRENDING: Dog Gets Stuck in a Tree, 20 Years Later They Make a Discovery When It’s Cut Down
Illegal aliens account for 200 cases of sex abuse, 175 cases of rape, and 101 cases of sodomy in the state of Oregon.
Illegal aliens also commit more than 100 homicides in the state, as well as other violent crimes.
ICE has identified the 973 illegals in the state’s prisons, and has placed detainers on them.
Illegal immigrants committing crime is something Oregon has apparently gotten used to.

Is President Trump doing a good enough job securing our borders?

   
Completing this poll entitles you to our news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
For example, in Portland, a sanctuary city, an illegal alien was sentenced to 35 years in prison after he was deported to Mexico 20 times but kept returning to Portland to commit crime.
According to KATU-TV, Sergio Martinez faces jail time for assaulting two women in December 2017.
This isn’t Martinez’s first run in with the law.
He also faces a slew of other charges including robbery, kidnapping, assault charges, burglary, sodomy and sex abuse.
RELATED: ICE Director Calls for Criminal Charges Against Cali Politicians Promoting Sanctuary State
How much longer will it be until our lawmakers realize they are putting the American people at risk by inviting illegal aliens into our country?
Until Congress decides to do something about these illegal criminals, we are forced to stand idly by while sanctuary cities harbor violent offenders and turn a deaf ear to the American people’s calls for help.
Share this story on Facebook and Twitter if you think we need to get tougher on illegal immigration.
How do you think we can we stop illegal immigrants from committing crime in the U.S.? 

Doc Who Diagnosed Trump As Mentally Ill Has Major Legal/Ethical Problem!

Psych Professor Says Trump is Mentally Ill, Then Her Records Surface

 Print
Diagnosing patients from afar is a pretty tricky business, and one ought to be awfully sure before offering a diagnosis to anyone — especially if the patient is the president, the disease is mental illness, and you’re offering the diagnosis to the general public.
That didn’t stop Bandy Lee, a Yale University psychology professor, from being one of the loudest voices insisting that the president was some sort of narcissistic sociopath with a “mental impairment” who represents a danger to himself and America at large.
Lee is best known as one of 25 mental health professionals who contributed to a book titled — with no small degree of ominousness — “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump.”
The American Psychiatric Association called the work “tawdry, indulgent, fatuous, tabloid psychiatry” and accused the authors of shirking the Goldwater Rule — a 1973 APA dictum which prohibits mental health professionals from publicly diagnosing individuals they haven’t personally examined. (Perhaps unsurprisingly, the rule was named after another GOP presidential candidate who many psychiatrists publicly declared was unfit to hold office.)
Lee continued to defend the book, co-authoring a Politico piece in which it was stated that “(w)ithout diagnosing Trump in a specific way, as the Goldwater rule prohibits, it is not only acceptable but vitally necessary to have a public conversation about mental state of our nation’s leader.”
TRENDING: Dog Gets Stuck in a Tree, 20 Years Later They Make a Discovery When It’s Cut Down
However, it turns out her analysis and/or diagnosis of Trump was missing something: namely, the professional qualifications to actually do so.
According to a piece published earlier this week by Campus Reform, records show that Lee’s physician/surgeon license — necessary to practice psychiatry — lapsed in Connecticut in 2015. Meanwhile, her “controlled substance registration for practitioner” license lapsed in February 2017.
A renewal on both have been pending since then.
When asked about the discrepancy, Lee told Campus Reform that “I need only one license,” although she didn’t specify which license that was or whether she currently had it.

Do you think psychiatrists should face consequences for violating the Goldwater Rule?

 
Completing this poll entitles you to our news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Lee has also deleted her Twitter account, clearly a sign absolutely nothing is up and everything is kosher with her license after all.
Meanwhile, while not mentioning Lee and her cohort by name, the APA seemed to have them in mind in a recent statement they issued regarding the Goldwater Rule.
“We at the APA call for an end to psychiatrists providing professional opinions in the media about public figures whom they have not examined, whether it be on cable news appearances, books, or in social media,” the statement read, according to the Washington Examiner.
“Arm-chair psychiatry or the use of psychiatry as a political tool is the misuse of psychiatry and is unacceptable and unethical.”
RELATED: Libs Meltdown Over Trump “S**thole” Comment, Forget What Kennedy Said 53 Yrs Ago
Well, at least Ms. Lee doesn’t have to worry about that. After all, if the records of the state of Connecticut are any indication, she’s not even a psychiatrist at the moment.
Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter with your thoughts on this “psychiatrist’s” diagnosis.
What are your thoughts on what this professor had to say?

One Cannot Have A Reasonable Conversation Without The Left Going Politically Correct

Harvard Professor Steven Pinker Points Out How Political Correctness Drives The Alt-Right. The Idiot Left Responds By Using Political Correctness To Rip Him.

Steven Pinker
Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Famed Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker is under fire from the Left for making some obvious statements regarding the nature of political correctness. On January 2, 2018, a conversation with Pinker was posted from Spiked Magazine’s “Unsafe Space Tour” panel at Harvard. During that panel, Pinker explained that attempts to quash statements of fact led people to embrace radical interpretations of those facts, leading to political extremism — political correctness, in other words, fueled the fire of the alt-right. Here’s what Pinker had to say:
In relevant part, Pinker explains:
The other way in which I do agree with my fellow panelists that political correctness has done an enormous amount of harm in the sliver of the population that might be, I wouldn't want to say persuadable, but certainly whose affiliation might be up for grabs, comes from the often highly literate, highly intelligent people who gravitate to the alt-right, internet savvy, media savvy, who often are radicalized in that way, who swallow the red pill, as the saying goes, the allusion from The Matrix. When they are exposed the first time to true statements that have never been voiced in college campuses or in The New York Times or in respectable media, that are almost like a bacillus to which they have no immunity, and they're immediately infected with both the feeling of outrage that these truths are unsayable, and no defense against taking them to what we might consider to be rather repellent conclusions.
Lest it be argued otherwise, Pinker is condemning the alt-right. He’s saying that if you refuse to allow people to speak facts, they will think that not only are the facts being censored, the truest explanations are being censored as well. He gives a few examples:
Here is a fact that's gonna sound ragingly controversial but is not, and that is that capitalist societies are better than communist ones. If you doubt it, then just ask yourself the question, would I rather live in South Korea or North Korea. Would I rather live in West Germany in the 1970s or East Germany or in the 1960s? I submit that this is actually not a controversial statement, but in university campuses, it would be considered flamingly radical.
Here's another one. Men and women are not identical in their life priorities, in their sexuality, in their tastes and interests. This is not controversial to anyone who has even glanced at the data. The kind of vocational interest tests of the kind that your high school guidance counselor gave you were given to millions of people, and men and women give different answers as to what they wanna do for a living and how much time they wanna allocate to family versus career and so on. But you can't say it. A very famous person on this campus did say it, and we all know what happened to him. He's no longer, well, he is on this campus, but no longer in the same office.
Here's a third fact that is just not controversial, although it sounds controversial, and that is that different ethnic groups commit violent crimes at different rates. You can go to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Look it up on their website. The homicide rate among African Americans is about seven or eight times higher than it is among European Americans. And terrorism, go to the Global Terrorist Database, and you find that worldwide the overwhelming majority of suicide terrorist acts are committed by Islamist extremist groups.
If you've never heard these facts before and you stumble across them or someone mentions them, it is possible to come to some extreme conclusions, such as that women are inferior, that African Americans are naturally violent, that we all ought to be Anarcho-capitalists and do away with all regulation and social safety nets, that most terrorism in this country is the fault of Muslims. These are unwarranted conclusions because for each one of these facts there are very powerful counterarguments for why they don't license racism and sexism and Anarcho-capitalism and so on. …
Now let's say that you have never even heard anyone mention these facts. The first time you hear them, you're apt to say, number one, the truth has been withheld from me by universities, by mainstream media, and, moreover, you will be vindicated when people who voice these truths are suppressed, shouted down, assaulted, all the more reason to believe that the Left, that the mainstream media, that universities can't handle the truth. So, you get vindicated over and over again, but, worst of all, you're never exposed to the ways of putting these facts into context so that they don't lead to racism and sexism and extreme forms of Anarcho-Libertarianism. So, the politically correct Left is doing itself an enormous disservice when it renders certain topics undiscussable, especially when the facts are clearly behind them because they leave people defenseless the first time they hear them against the most extreme and indefensible conclusions possible. If they were exposed, then the rationale for putting them into proper political and moral context could also be articulated, and I don't think you would have quite the extreme backlash.
The fact that Pinker had the guts to say this led the Left to attack him wholesale, proving his point. For example, PZ Myers of FreeThoughtBlogs.com wrote that Pinker’s sympathies “lie with the alt-right,” an absolute slander. He states, “I am shocked that a Harvard professor would promote such ignorance and falsehoods.” But, of course, none of the facts Pinker states are rebuttable, and Myers makes no attempt to do so — so he’s schoolmarming Pinker for repeating those facts and then distinguishing them from the opinions people wrongly draw from them. Professor Joshua Loftus of New York University said that Pinker’s ideas were “worse than the edited clip … just amazing.” Jamelle Bouie of Slate suggested that Pinker had claimed that “blacks cause crime … jews control the world.” Professor Jesse Daniels of Hunter College stated, “If one were, say, writing a book about the mainstreaming of white nationalism, one would certainly consider featuring this as supporting evidence for one’s main point.” Here are just a few of the people who bought the lie about Pinker’s statements:
But as Jesse Singal of New York Magazine tweeted:
It’s demonstrative of how true Pinker’s argument is that he was shellacked even for making it. But the Left can’t be bothered to think about their own role in provoking the rise of the despicable and atrocious alt-right movement with their identity politics and intellectual censoriousness.

Trump Is Only Saying What Most People Think Of Haiti And Other Countries Which Contribute Nothing To The World.

Was Trump's 'S***hole' Commentary Racist?

VIEWpress/Corbis via Getty Images
The world is aflame with talk of s***holes.
Let’s begin with what we know about the newest scandal to plague the Trump administration: the president’s shocking comments about immigration from countries like Haiti. The Washington Post originally cited Trump’s comments, apparently during a conversation about “protecting immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador and African countries.” We don’t actually know the context of the comments – he could have been discussing the visa diversity lottery program, or he could have been talking about the targeted deportation of illegal immigrants from particular countries. That makes a rather large difference in interpreting his remarks. In any case, Trump reportedly stated, “Why are we having all these people from s***hole countries come here?” The Post continues:
Trump then suggested that the United States should instead bring more people from countries such as Norway, whose prime minister he met with Wednesday. The president, according to a White House official, also suggested he would be open to more immigrants from Asian countries because he felt they help the United States economically.
He then reportedly continued, “Why do we need more Haitians? Take them out.” The Postattributed knowledge of these comments to “people familiar with the meeting,” as opposed to participants in the meeting.
The White House didn’t deny the comments. Spokesman Raj Shah stated, “Certain Washington politicians choose to fight for foreign countries, but President Trump will always fight for the American people…Like other nations that have merit-based immigration, President Trump is fighting for permanent solutions that make our country stronger by welcoming those who can contribute to our society, grow our economy and assimilate into our great nation.”
Resistance to Trump’s comments has split along two lines, one utterly illegitimate, the other quite legitimate.
First, the illegitimate: people angry that Trump called some countries “s***holes,” because they object to the idea that countries are different. That's idiotic. It is absolutely inarguable that some countries are awful. North Korea is a horror show. Sudan is a dumpster fire. Haiti is, by statistics, a terrible place to live, which is why so many people want to immigrate to the United States. The argument that Trump is wrong to call some countries s***holes comes down to nicety, not truth – which is why Rich Lowry of National Review took Joan Walsh of CNN to the woodshed over whether she’d rather live in Haiti or Norway.
Which brings us to the second complaint: that Trump seems to be slandering immigrants from these “s***holes.”
Now, there are two reasons that Trump could have said he wanted curbs on immigration from those countries. The first is racist: the suggestion that ethnicity dictates the possibility of good Americanism. That’s obviously garbage, and bigoted garbage at that. That’s why Trump’s alleged comment, “Why do we need more Haitians?” is far worse than his comment about s***holes. It suggests that Haitians – who may or may not already be here – are somehow incapable of assimilation. That’s ridiculous. Some of our greatest Americans have been immigrants from s***holes. Immigrants leave s***holes seeking the American way of life, and embrace our Constitutional order, our Western culture, and our perspective God-given freedoms. That’s the essence of Americanism.
The second rationale for restricting immigration from so-called s***holes has nothing to do with ethnicity. It’s quite possible, as the White House suggests, that the president meant that if we’re looking to choose immigrants solely based on country of origin – a dubious and quasi-racist concept that prizes group identity over individual qualification – we should prioritize immigration from countries that have values similar to our own. Great Britain is more likely to send, on average, immigrants who assimilate more easily than, for example, Russia. That has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with culture and language and history; the same president who smacked Haiti said he wanted more Asian immigrants, for example, according to The Washington Post, so this isn't just a question of white vs. non-white. A merit-based individual system would take country of origin into account, but it would certainly not be the primary qualifier.
With that said, Trump must clarify what in the world he was talking about – particularly if the comment about not needing “more Haitians” is accurately reported. The president has a shocking capacity to utter precisely the most inflammatory thing in precisely the most inflammatory way – and it’s no wonder that so many people are interpreting his comments in the worst possible light. He owes it to the country to clarify what the hell he meant.

Facebook Censorship Starts In Earnest

Facebook Bans Bestselling Author over 'The Scandalous Presidency of Barack Obama'

(Image Credit Shutterstock)
Bestselling conservative author Matt Margolis has a new book coming out that is already banned on Facebook. Margolis's first book, The Worst President in History,  which detailed the failures of the Obama administration, was an instant hit last fall. Margolis used social media to market his presidential biography to #1 on Amazon. When he tried to market his latest, The Scandalous Presidency of Barack Obama, he was banned from Facebook groups for six days with no explanation. This is the ad Margolis created and posted.
Shockingly, Margolis paid for this ad to be "boosted" throughout Facebook using the advertiser program they offer. Facebook had no problem taking his money for this ad but banned him directly after he posted it to several groups. The groups he sent it to were all conservative-friendly groups that normally welcome such announcements and buy conservative books.
Message Facebook sent to Margolis
When Margolis attempted to appeal the ban, he was unable to. This is suspicious timing considering that James O'Keefe just released videos of Twitter executives admitting to "shadow banning" conservative content creators and even those who are associated with conservative sites.
They also seem to silence people who like American flags and the Bible.
"I hate to think I'm being censored, and hope that's not the case," Margolis told PJM, "but Facebook's reputation makes that possibility hard to ignore. We're seeing companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google actively censoring conservative ideas on their platforms. It is hardly far-fetched that big-tech censorship wouldn't include a book that doesn't fit the narrative they support."
Margolis's book details the many scandals of Barack Obama's presidency, including the illegal gun running with the cartel dubbed "Fast and Furious" and the treacherous abandonment of Americans in Benghazi that led to many deaths. Contrary to Democratic claims that the Obama administration was "scandal-free," the truth could (and did) fill a book with the many outrages that occurred over the last eight years.
SPONSORED
Margolis believes that there is a concerted effort to silence conservative points of view. "I fear this is only the beginning. Far -left trolls often posted bogus reviews of my last book on Amazon, calling it racist," revealed Margolis. "Companies like Facebook/Twitter/Google are certainly likely to take bogus accusations of racism to justify their censorship."
A spokesperson for Facebook told PJM that Margolis had shared his advertisement to too many groups in one hour and that several had deleted the post, leading to the ban. But upon investigation, Margolis found none of the groups in which he shared the post appeared to have deleted his post and, in fact, they have had discussions in the comments sections. Facebook rules are very ambiguous, however, not detailing how many posts are too many, but threatening to delete your account if you violate their unstated standards.  No group contacted Margolis asking him to take down his posts. In fact, Conservative Libertarian Fiction Alliance group administrator Marina Fontaine expressed shock that Facebook would ban a conservative author from posting to conservative groups. "The purpose of conservative groups is to share ideas and support each other. What else are they for?" she asked.
PJM offered to send the evidence that the groups did not delete Margolis's ads in the form of screengrabs, but Facebook was unresponsive and the ban still stands.