Tag Archives: Harry Reid

BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith: “I’m proud we published the Trump-Russia dossier”

Posted on by

BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith, Editor-In-Chief, responds on the one year anniversary of the release of the so-called “Trump Dossier.” It’s all, of course, proper and warranted.

This is from the NYTimes.com, written by Ben Smith in the opinion section.

Exactly one year ago BuzzFeed published what’s now known simply as “the dossier”: a set of reports put together by a former British intelligence officer named Christopher Steele during the 2016 presidential campaign. The 35-page dossier suggested that the Russian government had both compromised and colluded with President-elect Donald Trump.

Our choice to publish the dossier was greeted by outrage from two sources. Journalistic traditionalists didn’t like the idea of sharing an unfiltered, unverified document with the public, whatever the caveats and context. NBC’s Chuck Todd told me on air, “You just published fake news.” Mr. Trump agreed. He described CNN’s reporting on the dossier as “fake news” and called BuzzFeed a “failing pile of garbage.”

Correct. Label applied accurately.

But wait. The “dossier” is available online here. Read it. You be the judge. Golden showers and all.

But a year of government inquiries and blockbuster journalism has made clear that the dossier is unquestionably real news. That’s a fact that has been tacitly acknowledged even by those who opposed our decision to publish. It has helped journalists explain to their audience the investigation into Russian influence on the 2016 election. And Mr. Trump and his allies have seized on the dossier in their efforts to discredit the special counsel leading the investigation, Robert Mueller.

Because the dossier is specious. It is theoretical. It is unconfirmed and, further, disavowed. Contested. It is not a clear given. Persons specifically mentioned within its pages have proven that what was attributed to them was physically impossible and hence a bald-faced lie. Mueller has an agenda — as he is a good and proven friend and ally of James Comey — and has somehow magically found the only legal team in DC employing nothing but Demorats and those with anti-Trump agendas. Peter Strzok anyone? DC is literally festooned with attorneys. They’re a dime a dozen. Yet Mueller could only hire those who are Demorats? Ahem. Uh, yeah.

Further, the investigation by Mueller was spurred by an illegal action via another individual with “hurted feewings” and a personal revenge agenda, James Comey.

Without the dossier, Americans would have found it difficult to understand the actions of their elected representatives and government officials. Their posture toward Mr. Trump was, we now know even more comprehensively than we did in January 2017, shaped by Mr. Steele’s report. The Russia investigation, meanwhile, didn’t turn out to be some minor side story but instead the central challenge to Mr. Trump’s presidency.

Correct. Because Leftists like yourself made it so. What we are lacking, however, is something quite necessary in a civilized society and a nation given to the rule of law. That is commonly called evidence.

When we published the dossier, we knew a lot: We knew that it had been written by the former head of the Russia desk at Britain’s main foreign intelligence agency, a man whose job had made him a leading source on Russian espionage. We knew that key members of the Senate — Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat, and John McCain, the Arizona Republican — had acted on its contents. We had also learned that intelligence officials had briefed President Barack Obama and President-elect Trump on the dossier, and that the F.B.I. was already looking into it.

Hold up on that car wash. Harry Reid had an obvious agenda as does John McCain. McCain, presidential loser in 2008. McCain, who threatened to change his (R) to a (D) because he wasn’t sufficiently revered by the ‘phants.

McCain didn’t just “act” on the contents. This teeny-weeny bit from Breitbart.com:

Fusion GPS Admits They Used John McCain to Pass Anti-Trump Dossier to Obama-Era Intel Agencies

by Aaron Klein

EILAT, Israel — The founders of the controversial opposition research firm Fusion GPS admitted that they helped the researcher hired to compile the infamous, largely discredited 35-page dossier on President Donald Trump to share the document with Sen. John McCain.

Imagine that. I wrote about the very same thing back in January of 2017, a year ago. Far before anyone else. Please read my blog post here. Also read the buttressing attribution here.

The disclosure raises questions about whether McCain knew that the information he delivered to the intelligence community was actually an opposition document reportedly funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

McCain’s office did not reply yesterday to a Breitbart News request for comment on the matter.

Let’s make no mistake. McCain is all about McCain. Prototypical GOP EstabliHack. Quintessential. The source of the word RINO.

Back to Ben Smith.

We didn’t discount the arguments against publishing salacious allegations — which reporters do all the time in covering lawsuits, internal investigations or reports like Mr. Steele’s. And we understand why President Trump’s supporters remain furious at the airing of a disturbingly vivid unproven allegation about encounters with prostitutes.

But we never bought the notion, made by the traditionalists, that a main threat to journalism is that journalists might be too transparent with their audience. Keeping the reporting process wrapped in mystery only helps those who oppose the free press. This is why The New York Times posts leaked audio recordings, and why news organizations routinely publish raw court documents underlying their articles.

Of course you discounted the arguments. You published the entire thing. Disingenuous at best, lying outright at worst, Ben.

You admit that the dossier is an “unproven allegation.” Your own words.

Best practices for “standard journalism” historically, until the 70s, was at minimum two sources and, best yet, three sources. Others say that for every positive source there should be a negative source. That standard is now out the door. Completely. “Anonymous” sources are, even at major papers, sufficient. Depending upon the agenda, they are the best. Allegations. Hints. Rumors. All fair game in today’s American Media Maggot landscape.

We strongly believed that publishing the disputed document whose existence we and others were reporting was in the public interest.

Define “the public interest.” I dare you. Define pornography. Define proper. Define free speech. According to Leftists that varies. Depending upon the prevailing political prairie winds, tidal pull, sunspots, solar flares.

Since we published, the public has learned a great deal more about how seriously the F.B.I. took the dossier. The F.B.I., CNN reported, used the dossier to justify its effort to spy on an American citizen, and reimbursed Mr. Steele for some of his expenses. The BBC reported that the dossier was a “road map” to the F.B.I. investigation. Fox News recently reported that a top Department of Justice official met with Mr. Steele during the 2016 campaign. And on Tuesday, the public was given a glimpse, in the release of secret testimony, into the fierce battle between Senate Democrats and Republicans over the dossier and how the F.B.I. made use of it during the 2016 campaign.

Wait. Did Ben Smith just say that the “dossier” was utilized by the FBI to justify a FISA warrant request in order to surveil the Trump campaign prior to the election?

Yes. Confirming everything I have suspected up to this point. Thanks Ben. This is an astounding, amazing revelation. Is anyone listening or reading? Does anyone care? Do you Grok the implications of this? Confirmation of a soft coup upon a potential sitting administration? Early? Prior to the actual election? And continuing post-election?

As the seriousness of the Russia investigation has become clearer, the pro-Trump line has shifted from dismissing the dossier to stressing its role in the investigation: The dossier, some of Mr. Trump’s defenders now say, played too big a part, given that a portion of Mr. Steele’s funding came from political enemies of Mr. Trump, including the Democratic National Committee. “Are we in the midst of a major criminal investigation against the president of the United States as a result of this dodgy dossier?” asked Tom Fitton, a Trump ally, on “Fox & Friends” recently.

Because Leftists, Demorats and the American Media Maggots continue to stress the role in the investigation. Yes. The dossier was a major component in a fated, illegal and conspiratorial, false application for a FISA warrant in order to destroy the Trump campaign.

While Mr. Trump’s camp dismiss the dossier as malicious fiction or pure political opportunism, some elements have been corroborated. For example, that the Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort hid payments for his work in Ukraine, as federal authorities have alleged; that the Russian diplomat Mikhail Kalugin was withdrawn suddenly from the United States; and that Mr. Trump sought, but never consummated, business deals in Russia.

Odd. Now Manafort is suing Robert Mueller. From TheHill.com:

Manafort sues Mueller, challenging scope of Russia investigation

by Katie Bo Williams

Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort is suing the Department of Justice and special counsel Robert Mueller in an attempt to kneecap the federal probe into alleged coordination between the campaign and Russia during the 2016 election. 

In a court filing on Wednesday, lawyers for Manafort argue that the order establishing Mueller’s investigation is overly broad and not permitted under Justice Department regulations. 

Mueller should be ordered to stop investigating any of Manafort’s conduct that doesn’t relate to his time as campaign chair, the suit says, and the appointment itself should be declared invalid.

“By ignoring the boundaries of the jurisdiction granted to the Special Counsel in the Appointment Order, Mr. Mueller acted beyond the scope of his authority. Mr. Mueller’s actions must be set aside,” the filing states.

Manafort, whom Mueller is prosecuting on tax fraud and money laundering charges, is also suing Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who issued the order in May appointing Mueller as special counsel. 

That appointment, according to Manafort’s lawyers, was “arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance” with a law governing the implementation of federal regulations — in this case, the regulation that allows for the appointment of a special counsel.

Ben Smith continues.

Mr. Steele also reported, in pages submitted just 11 days after a Russian lawyer reportedly promised Mr. Trump’s aides negative information on Hillary Clinton during a meeting in Trump Tower, that “the Kremlin had been feeding Trump and his team valuable intelligence on his opponents, including Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.”

Wait. Isn’t that what oppo research is all about? And why the Demorats have been doing that for years against Republicans to no one’s chagrin? Oppo research illegal? Unlawful? Please.

“Valuable intelligence” is in the eye of the reader. It’s only “valuable” if it’s true. Perhaps that is what the Leftist feared most?

But wait, there’s more. If you haven’t larfed yet you’ll larf at this.

“One large portion of the dossier is crystal-clear, certain, consistent and corroborated,” a C.I.A. veteran, John Sipher, wrote recently. “Russia’s goal all along has been to do damage to America and our leadership role in the world.”

Well fuck me. I never saw that coming. Up until Trump considered becoming president, the Russians and, before them, the Soviets were always our best friends. Right?

AYFKM?

Yes. Leftists and the American Media Maggots are in truth that stupid. Demorats knew it all along. Millennials and GenZ’rs are incredible and willing dupes.

For all these reasons, the chorus of criticism of our decision to publish has faded. I haven’t had a single person approach me to say, “I wish I hadn’t read the dossier, and wish I had less insight into the forces at play in America.” Do you feel that way? Does anyone?

Nope. Because it continues to provide insight into your skewed and clear agenda.

If it isn’t a Demorat thought or idea, it isn’t valid.

Simple as that.

It is you, Ben Smith, who continues to emphasize the moribund status of US journalism.

And you wonder why you bleed readers and advertisers.

BZ

 

 Share

Reid retires: fears prosecution

Posted on by

Harry Reid lied then and lies now.

You cannot trust anything that comes out of the foul, dirty mouth of Harry Reid.

He lied about birthright citizenship, when it served his purposes.

And he lied about his son and about most everything during his tenure as a politician.  Because he knew that he could readily take advantage of his position due to the general and overall ignorance of the Average American Taxpayer, whose job it was and is to work every day, without cease, in order to send cash to DC.

Harry Reid lied again and again, when it served his purposes, about Mitt Romney during Romney’s bout against Obama.

Harry Reid did whatever it took, whenever required, to shoot down Conservatives and Republicans at will.  Of that he has no regrets.

From OutsideTheBeltway.com:

Harry Reid Doesn’t Regret Spreading False Charges About Mitt Romney’s Taxes

by Doug Mataconis

During the height of the 2012 Presidential campaign, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who announced last week that he was retiring at the end of his current term, made several outlandish claims regarding Republican nominee Mitt Romney that became the focus of a media firestorm. It all began in late July of that year, when Reid claimed in an interview that a source he would not name had contacted him out of the blue and claimed that Mitt Romney had not paid any Federal income taxes at all over the previous ten years. As I noted at the time, even though Romney had not yet released his 2011 taxes or other information regarding previous tax years, the claim itself was outlandish on its face. For one thing, as one CNN Money analyst noted, it simply was not possible that anyone who might have been inclined to release information like this to Reid would have had access to Romney’s tax information for the previous decade. More importantly, the entire tale that Reid was telling sounded so utterly absurd that there was no reason to believe it was true and that either Reid was letting himself get duped by a source who was telling him what he wanted to hear, or there never really was a source at all and Reid was making the whole thing up. Despite these questions about his claims, though Reid persisted in making the arguments and it wasn’t until Romney finally released a more detailed tax report that we learned, not surprisingly, that the claims Reid was making were utterly false.

Utterly false.

Harry Reid couldn’t care less that he lied and lied and lied, and was not only not held accountable, but was responsible for shooting down his opponent because of his lies.

Harry Reid has the regrets of an Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake.  Because he does not possess the Truth Gene or the Reality Gene or the Guilt Gene.

Reid only possesses the Narcissist Gene.

Just like Barack Hussein Obama.

Harry Reid justifies his position immured:

But one important question: why does Reid decide to not run again now?

It’s clear: because he knows, after three decades of immunity, he’ll quite possibly be prosecuted by the US DOJ under the next president, which in all likelihood will be a Republican.

Little Chuckie Schumer will probably take Reid’s place.  Another liar, another snake, another eel.

Senate GOP And Democrats Hold Weekly Policy LuncheonsFrankly, I couldn’t think of a man I’d most wish smacked in his head than Harry Reid.  Except that, of course, he managed to do that himself.  I can only hope that he was in the most intense pain of his life during the past two months.  Lies and corruption and Evil behind plots should have terrible consequences.  I can only hope that pain relievers don’t.

Harry Reid and his family live beyond their means because and due to corruption and greed.  American Taxpayers have funded his largesse, of which he has no regrets whatsoever.  He only knows that he hurts now.  He couldn’t care less that you, the American Taxpayer, have hurt for years and years and years.

BZ

 

 Share

In the US: end “birthright citizenship”

Posted on by

Because, after all, if it’s good enough for Harry Reid, it’s good enough for me.

It’s also apparently good enough for Louisiana Senator David Vitter:

Vitter happened to quote from another figure who advocated for the end of birthright citizenship: Harry Reid.

In 1993, Reid introduced S.1351, called the Immigrant Stabilization Act.  As you can see when you click the link, this bill was proposed solely by Reid himself, fully credited.

Reid said then, in a 1993 speech:

If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee full access to all public and social services this society provides. And that is a lot of services.

Reid is entirely correct.  Vitter agrees.  And so do I, wholeheartedly.  Reid continued:

Is it any wonder that two-thirds of the babies born at taxpayer expense in county-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?”

No wonder at all.  True then and true now.  Want proof of Reid’s words?  Here it is:

Reid later verbally regretted the move in 1999.  That was because he realized he was moving closer and closer to more true power in DC and his seniority in the Demorat Party helped immensely.  Demorats counseled him to walk back his earlier remarks.  Also, Nevada became flooded with illegal Mexicans, a firm expanding base of Demorat voters who filled the mandatory two-pronged ideal: 1) ignorant and 2) needy, not independent.

And nothing smells better to a Demorat than another ignorant, needy, Mexican voter.

Demography is prophecy.  As such, we are well on our way to turning the Left Coast into what Victor Davis Hanson calls “Mexifornia.”  That is to say: purposely “importing” the same ignorant mindset that has turned Mexico into the southern country from which people have, for decades, wanted to escape.  DC is purposely importing unskilled, uneducated and disease-ridden illegals into the United States.  For one reason only: votes.

When illegal children began flooding our southern border in huge waves roughly two years ago, is it any surprise whatsoever that diseases the US hadn’t seen in any kind of significant numbers shot skywards?  TB?  Pertussis?  Swine flu?  Dengue?  Measles? All over the US?  DC purposely took those children and hid them in communities all around the states, refusing to tell anyone what they had done and where they had stashed those children, in order to hide them.  Then it lied about the statistics.

Like Vitter, like the younger Harry Reid, I too support the end of “anchor babies” and birthright citizenship.

The 14th Amendment says:

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

But: does the 14th absolutely guarantee birthright citizenship?

No European country does this, and much of Europe is either based upon actual, perceived or wished Socialism.

Some people think the 14th Amendment actually allows Congress to end “birthright citizenship” once and for all.

The 14th Amendment only commands citizenship to persons born on US soil to parents who are not citizens of a foreign country.  It does not command “anchor babies” or “birthright citizenship.”

Jeremy Buck writes cogently:

RUMOR: The 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to children born to parents illegally in the U.S.

FACT: The current law that grants automatic citizenship to children born to illegal aliens is Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1401, which uses language similar to the 14th Amendment, regarding persons born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Critics argue that automatic birthright citizenship could be changed by revoking the statute.  Others say it would require a constitutional amendment because they believe the 14th Amendment requires birthright citizenship. However, nobody can say what the 14th Amendment means until the Supreme Court interprets it.  The court has not done that (The 19th century case – United States v. Wong Kim Ark – that some outlets are reporting concerned a legal Chinese immigrant).

The Birthright Citizenship Act would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act – not the constitution – to consider a person born in the United States “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is: (1) a U.S. citizen or national; (2) a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States; or (3) an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces.

And there you go.  Just a modicum of logic used.

I say: end automatic “anchor babies” and birthright citizenship.”

Leftists will squeal like stuck pigs.

Because: there goes their ignorant and needy voting base.

BZ

 

 Share

Harry Reid wants to REMOVE our First Amendment from the Bill of Rights

Posted on by

Harry Reid LG

Harry Reid = short eyes.

I never thought I’d see this in my lifetime.

I never envisioned having to actually write about the topic.

I never thought that there would be even one American politician that would want, in any way, to reduce Our American Freedoms.

Until now.  Until today.

Someone in American politics actually wants to amend the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights.  The actual United States of America Bill of Rights.

Which states, beautifully and succinctly:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I don’t suspect that there could be a more plain directive than that.

Who is the person who wishes to amend such a simple and beautiful foundational precept?

Demorat Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid.

In my opinion, the Wall Street Journal nails the problem and the issue:

Harry Reid Rewrites the First Amendment

When politicians seek to restrict speech, they are invariably trying to protect their own incumbency.

by Theodore B. Olson

Liberals often deplore efforts to amend the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights and especially when the outcome would narrow individual liberties. Well, now we know they don’t really mean it.

Forty-six Senate Democrats have concluded that the First Amendment is an impediment to re-election that a little tinkering can cure.

Yes.  Tinkering can cure that aged and so-“yesterday’s news” tragic document.

Because, after all, the US Constitution and its concomitant Bill of Rights need to be “living documents.”  Read: documents that need to be changed when it is convenient to the purpose and agenda of Leftists.

They are proposing a constitutional amendment that would give Congress and state legislatures the authority to regulate the degree to which citizens can devote their resources to advocating the election or defeat of candidates. Voters, whatever their political views, should rise up against politicians who want to dilute the Bill of Rights to perpetuate their tenure in office.

And oh yes, oh they should.  And that rising up should include black powder and brass and torches and pitchforks.

Led by Majority Leader Harry Reid, these Senate Democrats claim that they are merely interested in good government to “restore democracy to the American people” by reducing the amount of money in politics. Do not believe it. When politicians seek to restrict political speech, it is invariably to protect their own incumbency and avoid having to defend their policies in the marketplace of ideas.

And let us examine, fundamentally, the foundational precepts of the Constitution and what it protects and what it doesn’t.

This scheme is doomed to fail when it comes to a vote in the Senate, perhaps as soon as Monday. The Constitution’s Framers had the wisdom to make amending the Constitution difficult, and Mr. Reid’s gambit won’t survive a filibuster. But Senate Democrats know their proposal is a loser. They merely want another excuse to rail against “money in politics” and Supreme Court justices they don’t like.

But there’s a point here.  What’s the point?

The rhetoric of these would-be constitutional reformers is focused on two Supreme Court decisions: Citizens United v. FEC (2010) and McCutcheon v. FEC (2014). In Citizens United, the court struck down a law prohibiting unions and corporations from using their resources to speak for or against a candidate within a certain time period before an election.

In other words, money can find itself supporting what it will, and — with teeth-gritting enamel flecks populating the various keyboards of Leftists — corporations are still considered as “people.”

The Obama administration conceded during oral argument that the law would permit the government to ban the publication of political books or pamphlets. Pamphlets and books ignited the revolution that created this country and the Bill of Rights. In pushing to overturn the court’s decision, Mr. Reid and his Democratic colleagues apparently wish they had the power to stop books, pamphlets—as well as broadcasting—that threaten their hold on their government jobs. 

Ban the publication of books and pamphlets.  That translates, these days, to BANNING MY BLOG and blogs of a like mind.

Under this proposal, I would have to face jail if I continued writing.

Let me quote a so-called “lion” of the Demorat Left:

“In the entire history of the Constitution,” the late Ted Kennedy once stated on the Senate floor, “we have never amended the Bill of Rights, and now is not the time to start. It would be wrong to carve an exception in the First Amendment. Campaign finance reform is a serious problem, but it does not require that we twist the meaning of the Constitution.”

One important notation: Saturday Night Live, look out.

You’d best not poke fun ever again.

And let me quite plainly make — as I wrote earlier — the argument regarding Positive vs Negative Rights.

Our current Constitution frames much of what we value in terms of what we cannot do.

The government cannot engage in unreasonable searches and seizures.

It cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment.

By our current Constitution, it does NOT “guarantee” so-called “rights” to such things as housing, clothing, food, jobs — rights that place upon the state to obtain the resources from other citizens to pay for them.

Let me make this abundantly clear: “RIGHTS THAT PLACE UPON THE STATE TO OBTAIN THE RESOURCES FROM OTHER CITIZENS TO PAY FOR THEM.”

The First Amendment should NEVER be touched.  EVER.

Have I made myself sufficiently plain?

BZ

 

 Share

The federal government: transporting diseases to as many states and towns as possible

Posted on by

Illegals, Brownsville TX Overcrowding US Customs & Border Protection Processing FacilityFrom ABCNews.com:

Exclusive: Feds Struggling to Cope With Medical ‘Breakdown’ at the Border

by Jim Avila

The federal government is so overwhelmed by the current tide of migrants crossing the border it can’t provide basic medical screening to all of the children before transporting them – often by air – to longer-term holding facilities across the country, ABC News has learned.

I hope you read that properly: your federal government is placing medically-unscreened illegals aboard various forms of transportation — to include buses and aircraft — in order to move them around the country to other holding facilities.

Diseases and ailments that haven’t been seen in the US for years are being discovered carried by children and other illegal invaders at the border, such as TB, lice, scabies, Hepatitis, chicken pox, meningitis, influenza and H1N1, to name a few.

ABC revealed:

But, according to the memo ABC News reviewed, “Curi Kim [the HHS director of the Division of Refugee Health] has identified a breakdown of the medical screening processes at the Nogales, Arizona, facility.  The  [unaccompanied children] were initially screened and cleared upon entry into that facility with no fever or significant symptoms.  They were not however re-screened and cleared for travel and placement at a temporary shelter.”

So these are the people who are being transported in buses and aircraft that you could potentially be using in the future.

Look for a ramping-up of various diseases in your community, should you be lucky enough to receive this gift from the federal government.

And the kicker, from TheHill.com?

Reid: Southern border is secure

by Alexander Bolton

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday asserted the southern border is secure despite the massive surge of illegal minors from Central America that has overwhelmed federal agencies.

“The border is secure,” he told reporters after the Senate Democrats’ weekly policy lunch. “[Sen.] Martin Heinrich [(D-N.M.)] talked to the caucus today. He’s a border state senator. He said he can say without any equivocation the border is secure.”

Plus:

He also dismissed a bipartisan proposal by Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn (Texas) and Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar (Texas) to expedite deportations as “too broad.”

“From all the reports I’ve gotten, the answer for me is no, I won’t support it,” he said.

Yes.  Expediting deportations is “too broad.”

And there you have it.  Harry Reid and the Demorats are clinically insane.

BZ

 

 Share