She Gets Asked The One Question A Democrat NEVER Wants To Hear, And It Gets Awkward…

What’s the difference between a Democrat and a socialist? I used to think there was a big difference. What do you think it is?


Photo from America’s Watchtower

via Watch: She Gets Asked The One Question A Democrat NEVER Wants To Hear, And It Gets Awkward….

I can’t get the video to embed, so you’ll have to click the link above, but you have to watch her stutter through that question. She keeps trying to get it back to “what’s the difference between a democrat and republican?” (the answer is: not much) but he isn’t letting her.

Sanders is open about his being a socialist. So yes, the question is relevant considering he’s doing so well in the polls.

Social Security Administration Confirms: Illegal Aliens To Begin Collecting Benefits In 2017

Back here in the real world, everyone with a lick of common sense knew the amnesty critics were correct. Over the past few decades, we’ve built up a welfare state so gigantic, and so aggressive about recruiting new dependents, that plenty of native-born citizens with fairly decent jobs are now collecting benefits. Even if a staggering percentage of the amnestied population immediately found entry-level work – a highly dubious proposition even in a booming economy, never mind the anemic “recovery” that occasionally crawls ahead with a quarter of halfway-decent growth before collapsing in an exhausted heap – they’d still be a net drain on taxpayers.

AP Photo/Bradly C. Bower

To understand just how unlikely that best-case scenario is, consider that we’ve only had a couple of months in the entire Obama era where the overall American workforce actually grew. Even in months where the headlines blare that the official unemployment rate has dropped, the workforce has almost always declined as well. Introducing millions of new job-seekers into such an economy by Presidential fiat is irresponsible lunacy.

The amnesty crowd’s biggest swindle has already been exposed as a ridiculous lie: the illegals aren’t going to be paying any “back taxes” to “earn” their citizenship. They’re going to be able to collect money from the IRS through tax credits, up to $35,000 apiece. Now the Social Security Administration has confirmed that amnestied aliens will be able to collect benefits from it as well, as early as 2017.

We’re not talking about people stealing Social Security numbers and using them to scam benefits – that’s already happening, on an incredible scale, and the SSA doesn’t take even the simple precautionary measure of questioning how nearly four thousand people could be collecting benefits while claiming to be older than 113. Its system doesn’t even seem to have problems with a few thousand active Social Security clients who claim to have been born before the Civil War.

We learned about that crisis thanks to an inquiry from Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI),
who also asked the SSA to run the numbers on how many of our New Americans would be collecting benefits legally after Obama illegally dismantles our citizenship laws. The chief actuary responded that he expects about 16,000 “New Americans” to begin collecting Old-Age, Survivor’s, and Disability Insurance benefits by 2017, with the total rising steadily over the next four decades until it hits 695,000.

As Ryan Lovelace at National Review observes, even this estimate is absurdly optimistic, because it assumes the flow of illegal aliens will decrease after 2016. In reality, we’ll be hit by wave after wave of new illegals looking for their piece of the amnesty pie.The flow will only decrease if Obama’s successor is extremely vigorous about building nearly impregnable border security, and fast. We always get promises of such security, of course – we’ve been hearing them for decades, while a mighty host of aliens marched across the border and ostensibly checkmated our Ruling Class into making them citizens. The chances of it actually happening are not favorable.

Social Security Administration Confirms: Illegal Aliens To Begin Collecting Benefits In 2017 – Breitbart.

Gun control advocates launch campaign to drop gun emoji from iPhones

“The gun emoji has taken root in our culture and our digital conversations,” said Leah Gunn Barrett, NYAGV executive director in a statement. “Let’s all call on Apple to get rid of the virtual gun and publicly join our call for universal background checks on all gun sales.”

via Gun control advocates launch campaign to drop gun emoji from iPhones (VIDEO).

Yes, because Apple just got rid of that gun emoji, there’d be peace on Earth!


How about fighting for stricter punishments for those who use guns in a crime? Or holding the government accountable when they screw up a background check, like they did with Dylan Roof? Ya know, real stuff that might actually do something for crime?

“My first reaction is, my life or theirs” — Concealed Carrier Unloads On Armed Robbers

A 25-year-old man is lucky to be alive after coming face-to-face with two armed robbers, and he has both his quick thinking and concealed carry firearm to thank.

“My first reaction is, my life or theirs” — Concealed Carrier Unloads On Armed Robbers | Concealed NationThat man, Joshua Hamadi, has a night job booting semi-trucks that are parked illegally on private property. During his 1 1/2 years on the job, he’s never had any real problems. However, the job can lead him to some less than desirable places.

Early Tuesday morning, things changed quickly for Hamadi. While he was in a parking lot processing a truck he had just booted, a black Kia Spectra pulled up behind him and stopped.

“For five or ten seconds they didn’t do anything,” he told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “… I thought that was odd. I had my gun in my holster waiting to go, and pulled it out just in case something happened.”

And something did happen. Two people got out of the car wearing ski masks. They ran up to Hamadi and pointed guns in his face just feet away.

“My first reaction is, my life or theirs,” he said. “I pulled the gun and started shooting.”

“My first reaction is, my life or theirs” — Concealed Carrier Unloads On Armed Robbers | Concealed Nation.

Obama administration will offer Pell Grants to prisoners without approval from Congress

President Obama plans to circumvent Congress once more, this time to open up Pell Grants to federal prisoners on the taxpayers’ dime.

President Barack Obama pauses for photo op as he speaks at the El Reno Federal Correctional Institution in El Reno, Okla., Thursday, July 16, 2015. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

The plan, which will be formally announced Friday, according to Inside Higher Ed, is to start a “limited pilot program” that would allow some incarcerated students the ability to apply for Pell Grants. The grants cover up to $5,775 a year in tuition, fees, books and other education-related expenses.

This designation allows the administration to bypass Congress because the Education Department then has the power under the Higher Education Act to temporarily waive certain requirements that would usually govern federal financial aid, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The Obama administration’s plan to open up Pell Grants to some incarcerated students, which will be announced formally on Friday, is already drawing criticism from some Republicans.

Congress explicitly cut most prisoners’ eligibility for Pell Grants in the mid-1990s. This was an effort led by Democrats and then-President Bill Clinton.

In 1993, the federal government spent more than $34 million on grants for inmates, the Washington Free Beacon noted. But since that time the prison population has swelled to roughly 1.6 million inmates and the cost would be significantly higher.

Some Republicans are pushing back and questioning the administration’s authority to start the pilot program, Inside Higher Ed reported.

Obama administration will offer Pell Grants to prisoners without approval from Congress – Red Alert Politics.

Gee, I’ve tried to get a Pell Grant in the past. Maybe where I went wrong was staying on the straight and narrow.

Obama Prepared to Go ‘Beyond What’s Allowed By Law’ to Push Iran Deal Through?

The Hill reported Wednesday that Sherman said Obama appeared ready to ignore Congress if members don’t sign off on the deal. The comments came after the president invited top Democrats to the White House to give them a personal presentation on the Iran deal.

(Photo by Aude Guerrucci-Pool/Getty Images)

“The main meat of what he said is, ‘If Congress overrides my veto, you do not get a U.S. foreign policy that reflects that vote. What you get is you pass this law and I, as president, will do everything possible to go in the other direction,’” Sherman said, according to The Hill.

“He’s with the deal — he’s not with Congress,” the California congressman added. “At least to the fullest extent allowed by law, and possibly beyond what’s allowed by law.”

Obama Prepared to Go ‘Beyond What’s Allowed By Law’ to Push Iran Deal Through? |

Georgia sues man for posting annotated state laws online

AP Photo/Branden Camp

You might think that legislation should be freely accessible as a matter of course, but the state of Georgia begs to differ. It’s suing Public.Resource.Org owner Carl Malamud for allegedly violating copyright by publishing the annotated versions of Georgia’s laws (that is, the ones that truly reflect the legislative process) online. While it’s fine to publish the basic, note-free laws, the state argues that you should pay Lexis Nexis up to $378 to read the context-laden versions. The state claims that it would have to dip into tax dollars if it wanted to make this information free, and citizens would supposedly be deprived of “valuable analysis and guidance” if it wasn’t published at all.

via Georgia sues man for posting annotated state laws online.