• Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • About
  • Store
  • Videos
  • Breaking News
  • Articles
  • Contact

ET Williams

The Doctor of Common Sense

Blog

11/23/2011 by The Doctor Of Common Sense

Newt's amnesty for illegal immigrants

Share

By David Gardner and Thomas Durante

Frontrunner Newt Gingrich came under fire at the Republican presidential nomination debate tonight after he was accused of proposing an amnesty for illegal immigrants.

The former House Speaker’s rivals pounced after he said he supported finding a way to allow longtime illegal immigrants to stay in America legally.

‘I’m prepared to take the heat for saying let’s be humane about enforcing the law,’ said Mr Gingrich, clearly anticipating a backlash from grass roots conservatives angry over the 12 million immigrants living illegally in the US.

 

Michele Bachmann immediately claimed: ‘If I understand correctly, that would make eleven million people here illegally be legal.’

Mitt Romney, sitting just behind Mr Gingrich in the latest polls, added: ‘Amnesty is a magnet. There is no question that we are going to say to people who came here illegally that they are going to stay and become permanent residents of the United States.

‘This is a party that loves legal immigration. But we have to stop illegal immigration. People respond to incentives. If people can become permanent resident of the United States by coming here illegally, that’s what they will do,’ he added.

 

Until immigration was broached, none of the other candidates had dared to challenge Mr Gingrich, fearing his sharp tongue and vaunted debating skills.

He stole a march on his rivals by producing confident responses to key foreign policy questions.

Mr Gingrich produced his strongest words for the Middle East, claiming the west ‘could break Iran within a year if governments worked together’.

 

He said that ending gasoline sales to Iran and sabotaging its refineries would lead to the collapse of the Iranian government and end its nuclear ambitions.

Bombing Iran would only be a last resort and would come with a goal of bringing about the downfall of the government, he added.

When the first jab came, it was predictable that it would come from the combative Mrs Bachmann, who has made a point of attacking the favourite-of-the-week in most of the first 10 GOP showdowns.

It was equally predictable that the veteran politician wouldn’t back down.

He claimed that if foreigners came to the U.S. recently they should be kicked out.

But he insisted: ‘I don’t see any reason to punish someone who came here at three years of age and wants to serve the United States of America.’

‘I do not believe that the people of the United States are going to take people who have been here for a quarter of a century and who have children and grandchildren and who are members of the community who might have done something 25 years ago and split them up from their families and expel them,’ he added.

He said he cannot believe that ‘the party that says it’s the party of the family is going to adopt a policy that destroys families that have been here a quarter century.’

Unwilling to concede the point, Mr Romney said: ‘I am not going to start drawing the line here about who gets to stay and who gets to go.

‘The point is that we are not going to have an amnesty system that says that people should come here illegally and stay here legally.’

The row was the chief sticking point in CNN’s ‘National Security Debate’ screened live from ‘Constitution Hall’ in Washington, just steps from the White House.

As expected, President Obama was the chief target of all eight presidential hopefuls.

But there was little of the bickering – or gaffes – that have characterized some of the past showdowns.

Other than perhaps the ex-Speaker’s controversial stand on immigration, there was nothing that was likely to alter the basic contours of the race so far.

Mr. Gingrich, fresh from a spurt in the polls, was otherwise sure-footed on subjects like foreign policy that played to his strengths.

He conceded he would support an Israeli strike against Iran, but only as ‘a last recourse’ and if it brought about regime change in Tehran.

THE DEBATE’S WINNERS

NEWT GINGRICH: The former House speaker and presidential frontrunner took an ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ mentality as he cruised through another debate.

MITT ROMNEY: Though he didn’t have the same lustre, even Newt Gingrich admitted after the debate that Romney will be one of the last two Republicans standing.

MICHELE BACHMANN: Serving on the House Intelligence Committee has served her well, as she seemed to have the best answers on dealing with Pakistan.

JON HUNTSMAN: He’s got a lot to say when the other candidates let him speak, and was much more aggressive, not backing down on U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan when challenged by Romney.

THE DEBATE’S LOSERS

HERMAN CAIN: The former Godfather’s Pizza CEO struggled through this one, proving that he may be able to spin a good ‘9-9-9’ plan, but foreign policy’s not his strong suit.

RON PAUL: Though a Libertarian favorite, he was shamed by Newt Gingrich after offering that the U.S. caught Timothy McVeigh without the Patriot Act – AFTER the terrorist had killed 168 people, including dozens of children.

RICK PERRY: Though he made leaps and bounds from his cringe-worthy ‘oops’ catastrophe two weeks ago, there was nothing unforgettable about his performance.

RICK SANTORUM: This guy should leave many to believe that he introduces himself before vacating the stage and leaving a Rick Santorum cardboard cutout in his place.

Texas Governor Rick Perry also regained his strut following his ‘oops’ moment when he forgot his own economic plan. He proposed a no-fly zone over Syria and repeated his demands for more border security with Mexico.

There was a spat between Mr. Romney and former U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman who claimed US troops in Afghanistan should be slashed from 100,000 to about 10,000 to 15,000.

The former Massachusetts governor shot back: ‘This is not a time for America to cut and run.’

Although the debate was dominated by security questions, there was no avoiding the spectre of the so-called Washington super committee’s failure to agree on ways to slash $1.2 trillion from the country’s ballooning deficit.

But the candidates were too wary to fall into the trap laid by monitor Wolf Blitzer’s question over whether any of them were prepared to compromise on their pledges not to raise taxes in order to reach a deal.

They argued over cuts to the military, with the very anti-war Ron Paul making his position amply clear to the right-leaning audience.

Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum controversially said he was in favour of religious profiling at airports, specifically mentioning Muslims should be singled out.

Had Mr Gingrich or Mr Romney suggested something similar it would have certainly roused more debate, but few credit Mr Santorum with any real chance of securing the nomination.

Several heated discussions broke out almost from the get-go, as Mr Gingrich and Mr Ron Paul sparred over the Patriot Act as the Washington debate, hosted by CNN kicked off.

Gingrich said he supports the anti-terrorism law that civil liberty activists object to for its powers.

The former House speaker said that the United States needs to use every power at its disposal to protect the country from another attack, such as a nuclear weapon.

Paul, a favorite of his party’s libertarian wing, said that police could prevent wife and child beating by putting an officer in every home, and said that’s the same level of intrusion as the Patriot Act.

Paul made that point, and said other investigative techniques captured Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.

Gingrich jumped at that. ‘Timothy McVeigh succeeded. That’s the whole point. Timothy McVeigh killed a lot of Americans,” the former House speaker said.

‘I don’t want a law that says after we lose an entire American city we’re going to find you.’

Bottom of Form

The other candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul agreed that the Patriot Act needs to be strengthened.

Mrs Bachmann and Mr Perry clashed over whether the United States should continue to provide more than $1 billion in aid to Pakistan.

The Texas governor said Pakistan has shown ‘time after time’ that it cannot be trusted and that he would not send the country ‘one penny – period.’

But Bachmann called Perry’s approach is ‘naive,’ arguing that the U.S. needs to have a presence in the region to protect its national security.

She called Pakistan a ‘violent, unstable nation’ with more than a dozen nuclear sites that could be penetrated.

The conversation also got heated between former Utah Gov Jon Huntsman and former Massachusetts Gov Mitt Romney over the war in Afghanistan.

Huntsman said he stands by a reducing troop levels in the country, saying ‘We have 100,000 troops nation building in Afghanistan when this nation so desperately needs to be built.’

Romney asked Huntsman if he was talking about a withdrawal beginning immediately, chiding Huntsman for a view that puts American advances in Afghanistan ‘at risk.’

‘Did you hear what I said?’ Huntsman asked across the stage, noting that under the Constitution the president is commander in chief.

A few moments later, referring to Vietnam, he said a president had listened to the generals in 1967, and the outcome was not in the interests of the United States.

On immigration, Gingrich said he wouldn’t ‘expel’ those who have come illegally but have made lives in the U.S.

He added that the GOP cannot call itself a party for family when it separates parents from their children born in the U.S.

Bachmann charged that allowing illegal immigrants to stay is a form of amnesty. She and Romney said benefits for illegal immigrants attract others.

But Romney added that he wants to encourage immigration, especially among those educated at U.S. colleges.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry argued that the priority should be securing the border.

Some of the candidates agreed that the effects of plans to cut the defense budget could be devastating.

Romney said the cuts are undermining troop capacity, delaying the building of aircraft carriers and cutting the capacity of the U.S. to defend itself.

Perry argued that even Defense Secretary Leon Panetta opposes the cuts, and said that if Panetta is ‘an honorable man,’ he should resign in protest.

The Pentagon is already facing $450billion in cuts to projected spending over the next 10 years, an amount that could more than double beginning in 2013 under automatic cuts established by the failure of the deficit-reduction supercommittee.

But Gingrich and Paul, refused to say defense spending would be off-limits to budget cuts.

‘DID YOU HEAR WHAT I JUST SAID?’: MEMORABLE QUOTES FROM DEBATE

Ron Paul (on the Patriot Act): ‘I think the patriot act is unpatriotic because it undermines liberty… Don’t be willing to sacrifice liberty for security. You can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights.’

Ron Paul: ‘[Timothy] McVeigh was a vicious terrorist. He was arrested. Terrorism still on the books, internationally and nationally, is a criminal – it’s a crime, and we should deal with it. We dealt with it rather well with Timothy McVeigh.’
Newt Gingrich: ‘McVeigh succeeded. That’s the whole point.’

Mitt Romney: ‘Are you suggesting, governor, that we just take all our troops out next week?’
Jon Huntsman: ‘Did you hear what I just said? I said we should draw down from 100,000. We don’t need 100,000 troops.’

Debate moderator Wolf Blitzer: ‘Is it ok for Muslim Americans to get more intensive pat downs or security when they go through airports than Christian Americans or Jewish Americans?’
Herman Cain: ‘No Blitz, that’s oversimplifying it. I happen to believe that if you allow our intelligence agencies to do their job, they can come up with an approach – I’m sorry Blitz, I meant Wolf, OK? Blitz, Wolf – Since we’re on a blitz debate, I apologize.’

Rick Perry (on the Super Committee’s failure): ‘The president was an absolute failure when it came to this budget process.’

Jon Huntsman: ‘As we talk about forging policy, we need a Washington that works. Today we have a president who can’t lead. We have a congress that can’t make a decision.’

Newt Gingrich: I’m happy to play by the rules – I just don’t really know what they are.

Rick Santorum (on profiling at airports): ‘We should be trying to find the bomber

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2065002/Republican-debate-Candidates-come-swinging-GOP-national-security-debate-stage-event-begins-fireworks.html#ixzz1eaJ8cwJQ

Filed Under: Common Sense, Politics, White House Tagged With: GOP Debate, illegal immigrants, Newt Gingrich

11/22/2011 by The Doctor Of Common Sense

Alice in Wonderland

Share

BY: Thomas Sowell

 

“Alicein Wonderland” was written by a professor who also wrote a book on symbolic logic. So it is not surprising that Alice encountered not only strange behavior in Wonderland, but also strange and illogical reasoning — of a sort too often found in the real world, and which a logician would be very much aware of.

If Alice could visit the world of liberal rhetoric and assumptions today, she might find similarly illogical and bizarre thinking. But people suffering in the current economy might not find it nearly as entertaining as “Alicein Wonderland.”

Perhaps the most remarkable feature of the world envisioned by today’s liberals is that it is a world where other people just passively accept whatever “change” liberals impose. In the world ofLiberalLand, you can just take for granted all the benefits of the existing society, and then simply tack on your new, wonderful ideas that will make things better.

For example, if the economy is going along well and you happen to take a notion that there ought to be more home ownership, especially among the poor and minorities, then you simply have the government decree that lenders have to lend to more low-income people and minorities who want mortgages, ending finicky mortgage standards about down payments, income and credit histories.

That sounds like a fine idea in the world ofLiberalLand. Unfortunately, in the ugly world of reality, it turned out to be a financial disaster, from which the economy has still not yet recovered. Nor have the poor and minorities.

Apparently you cannot just tack on your pet notions to whatever already exists, without repercussions spreading throughout the whole economy. That’s what happens in the ugly world of reality, as distinguished from the beautiful world ofLiberalLand.

The strange and bizarre characters found in “Alicein Wonderland” have counterparts in the political vision ofLiberalLandtoday. Among the most interesting of these characters are those elites who are convinced that they are so much smarter than the rest of us that they feel both a right and a duty to take all sorts of decisions out of our incompetent hands — for our own good.

In San Francisco, which is Liberal Land personified, there have been attempts to ban the circumcision of newborn baby boys. Fortunately, that was nipped in the bud. But it shows how widely the self-anointed saviors ofLiberalLandfeel entitled to take decisions out of the hands of mere ordinary citizens.

 http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2011/11/22/alice_in_liberal_land

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Alice in Wonderland, Liberal, minorities.

11/21/2011 by The Doctor Of Common Sense

The Corruption of the White House

Share

By Judd Gregg – 11/21/11 05:15 AM ET

The president was in Hawaii while the supercommittee hit stall speed. What is new about this? Very little.

Throughout his term, President Obama has avoided leading on the issue of fiscal responsibility. He walked away from his own commission, the one led by former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, when he found its report filled with inconvenient choices.

Now in a week when leadership is needed to push this critical committee to do something big and bring the nation’s fiscal house back into order, the president once again disappears. It causes one to wonder, why?

The general consensus is that neither he nor the people around him feel there is a great upside to doing something that involves making so many difficult decisions to straighten out our nation’s fiscal future.

Like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), he sees no real need to move in this direction. After all, any significant action would require fixing Social Security; overhauling taxes; returning to healthcare reform, especially as it affects Medicare and Medicaid; and, most importantly, agreeing not just to slow growth of the federal government but in fact to reduce it.

There is no great concern at the White House that our government is getting too large. They look atEurope— where governments routinely absorb 30 percent to 40 percent of the economy — and believe we can certainly have the same, especially considering that higher taxes will inevitably follow such a growth, maybe even a value-added tax. As far as the White House is concerned, the taxing potential of our nation has miles to go.

So why would you wish to rein in the growth of the federal government — and power that comes with that growth — if you wish to pursue social justice agendas?

This idea of expanded government meshes perfectly with the message of class warfare that has been chosen as the course to reelection for Obama and his minions in Congress. After all, the only effective way to deal with class envy and create a truly divided nation is to take from those who are deemed to have too much and redistribute that take. And who better to choose how to redistribute than the elite of the left, who have flocked to the battlements of expanding government, demanding permission to choose the winners and losers in our society?

It might be an old and tired idea that has not done much to create general prosperity, but it has always done a lot to empower the few to tell the many how to live their lives. It concentrates power, which is, of course, what growing government is mostly about.

The irony at this time is that while the president does not lead he might be missing his best chance at reelection.

It is reasonably clear that the American people are tired of a Congress that does not work and a president who does not lead. They expect more from the people they elect. Even inItaly, the governing class seems to have gotten the message that it is time to act and that the march toward large debt through expanded and unaffordable government is not politically acceptable. It is difficult to believe we might need to turn to the Italians for ideas on how to govern, but without presidential leadership we seem to have come to that point.

The advantages to the president of visibly trying to move this process to a major agreement that would restore some confidence in our nation’s fiscal future are tremendous.

First, such an agreement would give the nation and people a massive confidence boost. This in turn would lead to a real potential for economic growth as a result of Americans going back to doing what they do best — which is invest, take risks and create jobs.

Second, it would eliminate one of the most effective charges Republicans can make against the president and his allies, which is that he has significantly aggravated the nation’s fiscal problems through profligate spending.

Third, it would show Obama as a leader, rather than a person who seemingly got a job he was not ready to do. Americans like leaders. Class warfare has never been a majority position in our country — the American dream is not based on envy but on the belief that as a nation we are capable of taking on and solving problems, usually in a united manner.

It might be a nice change of pace to see a little leadership from the president, even if it means he has to put aside his desire to see the government grow long enough to help himself get reelected and help Americans feel good about their government again.

 http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/judd-gregg/194747-where-in-the-world-is-obama

 

Filed Under: Common Sense, Congress, Corruption, Hypocrisy, Idiots, No Common Sense, Politics Tagged With: Congress, Corruption, Hypocrisy, Idiots, Whatever Happen? To Common Sense

11/21/2011 by The Doctor Of Common Sense

Occupy Santa Cruz leave 200 lbs of Human Feces

Share

 

John on November 19, 2011 at 9:55 pm

The city of Santa Cruz put together a list of 93 complaints about behavior at Occupy Santa Cruz. This was just one of them:

At least one incident on the county list wasn’t noted by the Sheriff’s Office: the discovery of an estimated 200 pounds of human feces near the county Veterans Memorial Building, just across theWater Streetbridge from the camp.

The county called in a hazardous materials team to clean up the mess, and installed a security fence around the building, which is closed for renovations. There is no evidence that linked the excrement to the camp.

Who would dump feces on a Veterans building? It didn’t make sense to me. But the story isn’t that specific. It says “near” the building. Guess what happens to be near the Veterans building:

 

Is this proof that the Occupiers dumped 200lbs of poop near some banks? Definitely not. It’s not proof.

Did I mention that the camp has a history of sanitation complaints from the city?

So, just speculating here, who would have 200lbs of human feces on hand to dump anywhere? Maybe somebody camping with inadequate bathroom facilities. But that’s a lot of poop so it would have to be pretty close. Let’s say within 1/4 mile.

Hmmm…could be anybody I guess.

Update 11/21: Members of Occupy Santa Cruz are arguing that a) they didn’t do this b) poop is pretty normal in downtownSanta Cruz and c) the cleanup never happened. So take your pick I guess. I’m not inclined to believe them but I’m noting the denial out of fairness. I contacted the reporters on the original story and will post any response I get.

Update 11/21 5:45PM: I received a reply from one of the reporters on the original story. He has seen an invoice and photos of the clean up. The spill and the cleanup did happen.

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=33789

Filed Under: Common Sense, Idiots, No Common Sense, Politics Tagged With: Corruption, Occupy, Santa Cruz

11/20/2011 by The Doctor Of Common Sense

Obama Administration Ignores Subpoena in order to Protect Illegal’s

Share

Republican Threatens Legal Action Against DHS Over Immigrant-Data Subpoena

A top House Republican is threatening to enforce a subpoena for criminal immigrant information “to the fullest extent” of the law, after claiming the Obama administration “stonewalled” his request. 

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith for months has been seeking a comprehensive list of names and other information for the thousands of immigrants who are flagged, but not taken into custody or deported through a program known as Secure Communities. 

Earlier this month, a subcommittee on his panel subpoenaed the Department of Homeland Security for the information, claiming it was “not acting in good faith.” It was the first subpoena issued by the committee since it came under GOP control. 

The department ended up turning over documents by a Nov. 10 deadline — but Smith claimed all he received was a list of numbers. 

“Instead of providing this information, all DHS gave was a list numbered 1 through 220,995. Proving the administration can count is not what we asked for,” Smith said in a statement. 

He wrote a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Friday urging her to “immediately comply” with the subpoena. 

“If you do not, the committee will be forced to seek enforcement of the subpoena to the fullest extent allowed by the law,” Smith wrote. 

Secure Communities is a program that allows federal immigration officials to check the names and fingerprints of suspects booked at federal, state and local jails against their immigration databases. 

Republicans want detailed information about criminal immigrants who were not pursued by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, so they can then check their records and see if they went on to commit more crimes. 

Smith said he received a sprawling list from the department on Nov. 10 that included just three things for each entry — a “unique ID,” a date and time for each “encounter,” and the national origin for a few hundred of them. He said the “unique ID” was merely a number, from 1 to 220,955, which he described as “useless.” 

The Department of Homeland Security said it is trying to comply with Smith’s requests. 

“DHS previously told to the committee it would provide the data requested without being compelled by subpoena. We have begun to provide that data as it becomes available and will continue to do so,” DHS spokesman Matthew Chandler said in a statement Saturday. 

Chandlerstressed that ICE removed 216,000 criminal immigrants in fiscal 2011, described as an 89 percent increase from 2008. 

According to DHS, more than 107,000 immigrants convicted of crimes have been removed after being flagged through Secure Communities. 

The number represents a fraction of all immigrants flagged through the program. But DHS claims many immigrants who are flagged could not be arrested or deported. 

Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Nelson Peacock earlier wrote a letter explaining to Smith that many of the immigrants whose names show up in their system through Secure Communities are legal and would simply not count as a “removable alien.” 

He said, for instance, that naturalizedU.S.citizens or legal permanent residents could show up. Peacock also noted that ICE would not take somebody into custody if they are already serving time for a criminal offense. 

Smith, though, wrote in his letter to Napolitano that it appears that either DHS “never planned to comply” with his request or that the White House intervened for “political reasons.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/19/republican-threatens-legal-action-against-dhs-over-immigrant-data-subpoena/?test=latestnews#ixzz1eIjafBkl

 

Filed Under: Common Sense, Corruption, Idiots, Politics Tagged With: Corruption, Illegal Immigration, Obama Administration, Subpoena, What Ever Happen To Common

11/20/2011 by The Doctor Of Common Sense

Occupy Wall Street Training Illegal Aliens

Share

Written By Carolyn Salazar

Published November 18, 2011

Fox News Latino

 The Occupy Wall Street movement has made it its mission to include immigrants into their growing social movement.

But there is one segment of this population they have reluctantly, almost nervously, brought into the fold: the undocumented.

As images of mass arrests at Occupy Wall Street demonstrations across the country have dominated TV news, an unspoken question has been whether undocumented immigrants who rally should put themselves at risk of arrest, and possible deportation.

Once they know the issues and are aware of the risks, it is up to the people to make up their mind. Sometimes, the issues and the cause are more important than deportation.

The issue was put on the front burner this week when Francisco “Pancho” Ramos-Stierle, a former astrophysics doctoral student inCalifornia who happened to be undocumented, was arrested while meditating during a raid at an Occupy Oakland encampment. His charges were dropped but he was taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement after his fingerprints showed up in federal database.  

Ramos was released Thursday, though he could still be called for deportation proceedings at any time.

The Occupy movement has pointed to his case as a symbol of a broken federal system and they say his plight shows that social changes – from the financial system to immigration – needs to happen. And, they say, it shows the two go hand in hand.

“His intention was just to meditate. And he felt whatever needed to happen would happen,” said his friend Melissa Dickman, who organized a petition to free Ramos. “He was aware of the risks. But he refuses to live in fear, and he won’t let that fear control his life or prevent him from becoming involved in causes he believes in.”

But, Dickman acknowledged, she sees that fear keeping many undocumented from joining the movement. Where she lives, inArizona, she sees a large disconnect between the proactive immigration rights groups and the Occupy movement.

“They know that there is a threat of arrest, and they live in fear of deportation,” she said.

Occupy groups, who have said they need Hispanics and other immigrants to rally to their cause, have realized that the growing number of arrests could frighten undocumented immigrants – and they’ve taken steps to make sure they aren’t a neglected group.

Mariano Muñoz, who is part of the Spanish assembly for Occupy Wall Street inNew York, said it is an issue they are aware of and trying to address.

He said immigration training classes are offered to undocumented who want to join, where legal experts and lawyers address any questions they may have, any issues they could face and how to deal with worst-case-scenario cases. The classes offer police procedure and immigration rights instruction. 

“Once they know the issues and are aware of the risks, it is up to the people to make up their mind,” Muñoz said. “Sometimes, the issues and the cause are more important than deportation.”

Meanwhile, Ramos’ Free Pancho petition has gathered almost 8,500 signatures, and a website details his legal updates. And while he free and the threat of deportation still looms, he’s not letting that keep him from speaking his mind.

Once he was released, he had a vegan lunch, held a press conference, and did a few media engagements. And he may very well rejoin Occupy.

“What he saw out of this arrest,” Dickman said, “was a chance to bring the dialogue not only of immigration but to tie it into the Occupy movement and really help immigration, migration and also the Occupy movement understand that they are interrelated and they need to be the same movement.”

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2011/11/18/occupy-wall-street-are-undocumented-putting-themselves-at-risk/#ixzz1eIt3eayh

 

Filed Under: Common Sense, Corruption, Hypocrisy, Idiots, Politics Tagged With: Idiots, No Common Sense, Politics, Whatever Happen? To Common Sense, White House

  • « Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • …
  • Page 252
  • Page 253
  • Page 254
  • Page 255
  • Page 256
  • …
  • Page 265
  • Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Doctor of Common Sense Ring Tones

  • The Doctor $2.99
  • How Many Times...
    Rated 5.00 out of 5
    $2.99
  • Are You Freaking Kidding Me?!
    Rated 3.50 out of 5
    $2.99
  • Answer The Damn Phone
    Rated 3.00 out of 5
    $2.99

Recent Articles

  • The Pope Says Feminism Is Machismo With A Shirt While Speaking On The Child Abuse In The Catholic Church
  • Kavanaugh And Roberts Both Join Liberals To Protect Planned Parenthood
  • Liberals Are Making Jussie Smollett The Victim After His Arrest
  • Tennis Gay Icon Navratilova Is Attacked LGBTQ Movement Because She Says Men Should Not Compete With Women

Donate To Free Speech

Footer

Connect with Me

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter

Copyright © 2019 · Workstation Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in