Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us


The “Nation Of Immigrants” Half-Truth And Its Corporate Sponsors

The Supreme Court momentarily impeded President Obama’s attempt to “fundamentally transform America” last week with its 4-4 vote on his executive amnesty action plan



The Supreme Court momentarily impeded President Obama’s attempt to “fundamentally transform America” last week with its 4-4 vote on his executive amnesty action plan. When the court is deadlocked, previous decisions by lower courts are allowed to stand. In this case, Obama lost because the lower court found that his plan exceeded his executive authority, which is actually what Obama himself said before he decided to do it.

The evenly divided court apparently couldn’t make up its mind as to whether the president is permitted to act like a dictator and suspend laws he doesn’t like. That’s a tough question, you see, with half of our best legal minds leaning toward dictatorship. Scary.

After the ruling, President Obama held a press conference to assure the public that “comprehensive immigration reform” is still inevitable, if only delayed. He’s probably right about that. Like water on a rock, the Left just keeps wearing us down.

He began the press conference with a lot of feel-good pap about the glories of immigration—while lumping legal migrants together with illegal aliens, as the Left always does. “…[O]ne of the reasons why America is such a diverse and inclusive nation is because we’re a nation of immigrants,” said the president. “Our Founders conceived of this country as a refuge for the world. And for more than two centuries, welcoming wave after wave of immigrants has kept us youthful and dynamic and entrepreneurial.”

That’s the fifth grade version of history that I was taught in school too. My well-meaning teacher taught us that immigration is part of our national ethos. We learned about Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty and looked at a lot of pictures of young women wearing babushkas, staring out from the decks of ocean liners. It was all nice and corny.

Obama has seized on that familiar history lesson for his own advantage, clearly implying that unfettered immigration is all-American—which renders opposition to it un-American. Make no mistake about it, the president’s appeal to the Founders (whom he hates, by the way) and our supposed tradition of immigration is an attack on his opponents’ patriotism.

Usually when people talk about the Founders’ intentions they are referring to the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or its offspring, the Bill of Rights. Nothing in any of those documents even hints that the Founders “conceived of this country as a refuge for the world.” Thomas Jefferson’s philosophical brief to King George doesn’t mention it. The Bill of Rights enshrines in law many freedoms, most of which are under siege in Obama’s America, but it does not include a “right” to immigrate. The Constitution even empowers Congress (not the Executive!) to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization.” (Article I, Section 8) Congress did their duty and established an immigration code, which happens to be very liberal, but the president has nonetheless sought to nullify it via executive order because some people still can’t come in the right way.

By empowering Congress to regulate immigration, the Constitution necessarily implies that we have the prerogative to set limits. We Americans are the gatekeepers because American immigration policy is supposed to benefit us. It doesn’t matter a lick if immigrants come here “looking for a better life.” If their addition to our society doesn’t make our lives better then we have no obligation to take them. This idea is exactly the opposite of the Obama philosophy on immigration which says that anyone who can get here has a right to come in—except apparently devout Christians from Germany who want to homeschool their children. Under Obama’s plan, newcomers don’t even have to go through a screening process to make sure that they don’t carry contagious diseases or terrorist sympathies. All they have to do is run across the border and Obama will be waiting there for them with a welfare check in one hand and a voter registration card in the other. If you oppose him, your patriotism is suspect.

Obama compounded his historical error with his reference to “wave after wave” of immigrants to our shores “for more than two centuries.” The truth is more complicated. Over the course of our history, Congress has used its rightful authority to adjust immigration levels as it saw fit. Sometimes immigration was a mighty river and sometimes a trickle. It has not been, as Obama implied, two hundred years of sustained mass migration—and it certainly hasn’t been two hundred years of lawless open borders, which is his actual goal.

There have really been two great “waves” of immigration to this country, and we’re living in one of them. The most recent began in 1965 with Ted Kennedy’s Immigration and Nationality Act. The United States opened its doors very wide indeed, accepting about 59 million immigrants over the course of fifty years. That’s more people than live in California, our most populous state, by the way, and it doesn’t include illegal aliens. Yet despite this very liberal policy, some people still can’t be bothered to come in the right way. Obama considers these people to be victims, probably because he views them and their children as potential voters. They are not victims, you are–the law-abiding, tax-paying citizen.

The other “wave” occurred between the years 1880 and 1921. This is the much romanticized “Ellis Island” era of immigration. Though not without its problems, America managed this period of rapid change reasonably well because it subscribed to the melting pot model. These days, just saying that America is a melting pot is a “microaggression” on some college campuses.

An argument could be made that America needed the Ellis Island wave of immigrants because we were in the midst of westward expansion and rapid industrialization. In 1901, the United States became the world’s largest manufacturer, which was both the cause and effect of mass migration. There was certainly work in those days for anyone who wanted it—bridges and tunnels to be built, coal and ore to be extracted from the earth, and goods of every imaginable variety to be manufactured. New railroads were being laid across the continent, often by Irish and Chinese immigrants.

But that was then and this is now. America is becoming one big rust belt and yet we’re bringing in more immigrants than we did when we were a budding industrial power. It’s madness.

An alternative argument could also be made that we brought in those immigrants not because we needed them but because employers wanted them. The elite’s desires are not the same as the country’s needs, though the two are easily confused when the elite get to tell the story.

Employers have traditionally welcomed immigrants because immigration makes the workers fight each other for coveted jobs. In times of high immigration, wages tend to remain stagnant or even decline. Whenever the workers start getting uppity, employers seek labor in ever more exotic locales—first Ireland and Germany, then China and Italy, now Laos and Guatemala. The best way to make workers toil longer for less is to keep them in constant fear for their livelihood.

This idea that we are a nation of immigrants was advanced in no small part by exactly those employers. Call it corporate propaganda, if you will. I would compare it the diamond industry’s not-so-subtle suggestion to young men that spending two months salary on a diamond ring before proposing to a lady is some kind of obligatory right of passage. Though this practice may seem like an age old tradition it was actually conceived of in a DeBeers boardroom. It’s the same with the American immigration ethos. Though we have been led to believe that America has always been open to absolutely anyone who wants to come here for a better life, that just isn’t the case. Our immigration policy has sometimes been liberal and sometimes conservative, but it has never been boundless. Our current president and his party don’t want any limits, nor do they want an orderly screening system. They want a free-for-all—and they’ll probably get it.

Immigration is certainly part of our history, though not because it had to be that way. The number of immigrants admitted was determined by a tug-of-war between employers and the working public. When the employers had their way, the flood gates were thrown open, whether we needed them or not. When workers had their way, the flood gates were closed.

Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate immigration was narrowly upheld but the fight is not over. The Left hasn’t given up and neither should we.


Michelle Tries To Convince Crowd That She’s A ‘Sex Symbol’ – Gets Wrecked Instead



Barack and Michelle have had quite a hard time relinquishing the power they once held ever since the Trumps took over at the White House. As Obama remains obsessed with trolling President Trump with his “shadow government,” Michelle has been obsessed with maintaining the media spotlight she once held as First Lady, where she’s been frantically booking up interviews and public appearances to compete with the beautiful and sweet Melania. But shortly after Michelle decided to tout herself as America’s “sex symbol,” her ridiculous claim has now come back to haunt her, after the American people who have finally had enough of her revolting lies are making their voices known.

After spending the last 8 years race-baiting and blasting our country alongside her treasonous American-hating husband, Michelle is trying desperately to maintain her relevance in American society, which is proving just like her school lunch programs, to be a massive failure. Several weeks ago, rather than slipping into obscurity like we had hoped, Michelle helped host ESPN’s ESPY awards, where just the mere sight of her ugly mug resulted in millions of viewers turning off the show. Breitbart reports the awards show resulted in a historic new low in viewership for ESPN, leaving Michelle embarrassed and licking her wounds. But in her latest pathetic effort to be important, the backlash from Americans this time is massive, and will leave you laughing your ass off.

In a recent interview while bragging about her “accomplishments” as First Lady, Michelle touted herself as America’s “sex symbol,” claiming that she has issues simply walking down the street because men barely can barely contain their lust at the mere sight of her.

“As I got older, I found that men would whistle at me or make comments about how I looked as I walked down the street,” saying that men would routinely cat call as she walked by. “As if my body were their property. As if I were an object to be commented on instead of a full human being with thoughts and feelings of my own.”

The words had barely left her fat lying mouth and people across America were already questioning what alternate reality Michelle Obama resides in where she seriously thinks she’s America’s “sex symbol.” Here’s some of the most politically incorrect responses that were posted in response to Michelle’s claim:

“What sex and what species? Maybe a Congress of Baboons or Silverbacks. Pesky liberals and Democrats, if it is not dead people for votes in a poll, then it is raiding the zoo.”

“More like an abstinence symbol, I think.”

“These people are totally delusional – Obama thinks he’s a straight guy born in Hawaii that did a great job as President – WRONG. Michael thinks he is a woman who was the best first lady every and is a sex symbol in America – WRONG. These two guys need help – they are living in a fantasy world.”

“There is not enough alcohol or drugs available that could ever make Manchelle Obama a sex symbol. That would be like dragging your balls across 5 miles of broken glass just to hear Michael Moore fart in a payphone.”

“Her poor attitude and condescending arrogance is a symbol for abstinence. A person’s charm is what attracts. She is disgusting. Every parent of a horny teenage boy should make certain he has a picture Michelle in his wallet next to the Trojan.”


“She may be a sex symbol on the planet the Predator came from.”

“She is a sex symbol….a symbol for not wanting sex. Picture her every time you look at someone and you definitely won’t want sex.”

“I think I just up threw up in my mouth and shit my self laughing to hard.”

“First, if she’s a sex symbol, what does that make Melania? And in all seriousness, she could be the most beautiful person on the planet, but to me, she’s ugly on the inside.”

It’s truly startling how huge Michelle Obama’s ego is, which apparently has grown exponentially since she left the White House. Sorry Michelle, there’s lots of things you can claim about yourself, but sex symbol is not one of them. Now if you want to tout yourself as the “most race-baiting” or the “most anti-American first lady in American history,” then THAT is claim that the American people can rally behind!

H/T [America Now]




Continue Reading


Jerry Jones Has Awesome Plan To Stop Anthem Protesters But Racist Player Has SICK New Way To Disrespect Americans

He should be fired, just like Trump said!



Jerry Jones has been a vocal opponent of the national anthem protests in the NFL. He is well known as the owner of the Dallas Cowboys. However, one of his own players is appearing to defy him. Lord only knows how this is going to end for all of them. The player, in particular, was defensive lineman David Irving.

Jones told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram,

“I’ve made a call. You’ll just have to wait till Sunday.”

However, Irving has raised his fist in the past in display and solidarity with those who protest against the national anthem. He did it again prior to the Cowboys Week 5 game in front of the entire stadium and reporters. Rumor is that he plans to repeat this again on Sunday when the Dallas Cowboys play the San Francisco 49ers. The same team that Colin Kaepernick played for and who originated the protest.

Irving said the following about protesting,

“I’ve had way more support. I’m not disrespecting the flag. I really haven’t gotten anything negative. It’s all positive.”

CBS Sports reported the following,

That could change in the future, because ahead of the Cowboys’ Week 6 bye, Jerry Jones said that any player that disrespects the flag will not play. Jerry demurred on whether raising a fist at the end of the anthem — as Irving (and Damontre Moore) did in Week 5 — qualifies as disrespect, but said, “If there is anything disrespecting the flag, then we will not play,” per the Dallas Morning News. “Period. We’re going to respect the flag and I’m going to create the perception of it.”

Jerry knows all about creating that perception, as he was himself criticized by a reader letter to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram for remaining seated during the national anthem at the first home game of his tenure as the Cowboys’ owner.

JEERS: To Jerry Jones and Liz Taylor, who were the only two people at last Sunday’s Cowboys-Redskins game not standing when the national anthem was played. Riding out in a cart … was bad enough, but sitting while it was played was more than many of us could handle. Jerry, please note that in Texas, we stand for the national anthem.”
Jones now believes — having been told by the president that it was the case — that there is actually a rule requiring players to stand for the national anthem. However, NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy told that players are not required to stand for the anthem. That fact was reinforced this week when owners and players met to discuss the national anthem policy, player protests, and several other social issues and came away not having changed anything regarding the lack of a requirement to stand during the anthem, but instead endorsing criminal justice legislation and deciding to finance an activism bootcamp.”

Irving has told reporters that his actions have nothing to do with the President, the owner of the team or the flag. Instead, he says the protest is about speaking out against police brutality against people of color, particularly African American people. Something that many of the protestors are echoing.

Jones has made his intentions clear. However, he hasn’t clarified whether kneeling, sitting, or raising or fist, or doing anything similar would be a fireable offense. Since Irving has been the most ardent supporter of the protest on the team it is likely he will continue to protest. Watching Jones’ reaction and seeing what will happen as a result of the protest will be interesting. Especially given how vocal he has been about it.

CBS Sports also reported,

Cowboys players were reportedly angered by Jones’ public hard-line stance, and the team had a meeting with Jones about it during the bye week. They mostly declined to talk about what was said during the meeting, but Irving apparently emerged determined to demonstrate in some fashion this weekend. Irving is an incredibly important player for the Cowboys. The clear weakness of their team is the pass rush, and though DeMarcus Lawrence has been an absolute monster this season, Irving was clearly the team’s best defensive lineman last season, when Lawrence was alternately injured and ineffective. We know Jones would do anything to win, but we also know he would do anything to project the appearance of total control. Depending on what Irving’s specific actions are on Sunday, those two desires could come into conflict with one another.”

While Jones has been harsh in his stance, many others have been the exact opposite showing solidarity with protestors, whether it be public servants, politicians, celebrities, businessmen, and women, making Jones more of a lone wolf for opposing it in the league. If all of his players protest is he really going to fire them all? That is the real question that needs to be answered. While it seems highly improbable he may very well just do that and if that is the case the entire team will be flipped upside down for the season.

Join the “Support our Vets – Boycott the NFL & their Sponsors” Facebook page by liking it, and Share if you’re boycotting the NFL and the companies that support them! 

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Freedom Daily!

Continue Reading


Fierce Little Dolly Parton Brings HELL On Racist Woman Who Tried To Destroy Her ‘Dixie Stampede’



Country legend Dolly Parton is synonymous with the Tennessee, where she was born and raised and left her stamp on with multiple amusement parks and attractions. She doesn’t call herself the “daughter of the old South” without cause and for her small stature, packs a lot of grit behind that sweet facade.

One particularly ruthless Black Lives Matter activist didn’t like what this notable white woman had done in her neck of the woods and recently showed up to destroy all that Dolly has built. Perhaps she thought the singer would be an easy target found out how wrong she was when Dolly brought hell on this racist woman trying to shut down her “Dixie Stampede.”

There’s never been a question how much Dolly loves America which is part of the problem activist Aisha Harris’ has with her. Loving our country and having respect for the history of our nation is not in the racist playbook, especially lately.

After several months of lying dormant, BLM terrorists re-emerged with a new resolve in the last couple of weeks. It didn’t end well for Harris who picked Dolly Parton and her Civil War-theme dinner theater to attack and brought a war on herself.

Harris works for the staunch liberal site, Slate, who perhaps purposely employs Black Lives Matter supporters as to push their leftist agenda in their pieces for the online magazine. Frustrated that there hasn’t been as much racist unrest in the last couple of weeks as she’d like, Harris stirred the pot by calling for the closure of Dolly’s supposedly violent dinner theater by pointing out what she hilariously thought was racist.

“Advertised as an ‘extraordinary dinner show … pitting North against South in a friendly and fun rivalry,’ Dolly Parton’s Dixie Stampede is the Lost Cause of the Confederacy meets Cirque du Soleil,” Harris wrote in her hit piece on Parton for Slate. “It’s a lily-white kitsch extravaganza that play-acts the Civil War but never once mentions slavery.”

The “smoking gun” of proof of Dolly’s supposed racism that Harris thought she had on this lighthearted venue was that audience was divided into two sides – the “north” and the “south.” When Harris checked the venue out for herself, she found that there were people of both races sitting on each side of the dinner theater, and it wasn’t racially divided as she wrongfully assumed.

In fact, her whole point in exposing little Dolly Parton and her dinner theater as a hotbed of hate backfired when the only shred of racism she “uncovered” was wood finishes on the bathroom signs. With the “Northerners” sign painted black and the “Southerners” in yellow, this was all Harris could contrive in her own twisted mind as being bigoted.

“I did at least have time to run to the bathroom—a necessity after three and a half hours of sucking down lemonade by the bootful. This seemed like it could be a nice break, but when I got there, I stumbled upon this:”

“’Southerners Only’ on a light-colored placard and ‘Northerners Only’ on a dark-colored placard,” Harris noted.

“This was, at best, horrifyingly tone-deaf, but I went in the ‘Southerners Only’ stall anyway because it was the only one open and my bladder felt ready to explode.”

However, just when Harris thought she had all the supposedly racist propaganda to take Dolly and her Dixie Stampede down, she emerged from the restroom to catch the final act of the show. If she hoped that Dolly was going to come out and don a white sheet and pointed KKK cap, she got the complete opposite.

The country singer secretly won this silent fight against her despite the subsequent slam piece on Slate that followed. Rather than looking like a racist, she proved to be just the opposite in the closing act when Dolly brought both sides together in a way that racist rioters can’t, by saying “We’re all Americans.”

This simple, yet profound three-word sentiment followed by Dolly’s song “Color Me America,” written after the terrorist attack on September 11, was beyond what Harris could handle. She wanted a racist brigade and got a history lesson with a healthy side of patriotism, which she concluded was all “too American.”

If her point was to prove how un-American BLM and Antifa are as well as their intentions, then Harris did just that. She brought racism to light, alright, her own and the groups she represents who are rioting around the country right now. Their cause has never been about unity, in fact, they want just the opposite.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Featured35 mins ago

11 Cleveland Browns Players Protest After Coach Warned Them – Got What They Deserved 12Hrs Later

The largest sideline protest among professional players took place at the Monday night preseason game between the Cleveland Browns and...

Terrorism38 mins ago

ALERT: US Marine Patrolling US Border Has A Terrifying Warning For Americans After What He Found

Liberals did this to our country & they should pay!

Featured40 mins ago

Racist NFL Player Just Started SICK New Trend With What He’s Doing After Tackling ANY White Player

As the 2018 football season is now officially underway, it’s been a rough couple of weeks for the NFL. Over the...

Featured43 mins ago

Badass Texans Player Just Shut Down Every Whiny Protester On His Field With What He Brought To Game

As tens of thousands of Texans and Floridians battle the aftermath of the hurricane that ripped through their communities, we’re...

Featured45 mins ago

Trump Just FIRED 800 Gov’t Workers And Put 200 More On Notice After Uncovering SICK Thing They ALL Did

President Trump has demonstrated his deep appreciation and love for our military ever since taking office, a drastic change from...

Politics13 hours ago

Obama Started Bashing Trump Today, And Instantly Everyone Noticed Something Was Seriously Wrong With Him

Hope this isn't contagious!

Culture15 hours ago

Michelle Tries To Convince Crowd That She’s A ‘Sex Symbol’ – Gets Wrecked Instead

Barack and Michelle have had quite a hard time relinquishing the power they once held ever since the Trumps took over...