[FONT="]2016 Presidential Election Polls > Arkansas[/FONT]
[FONT="][h=1]Arkansas 2016 Presidential Election Polls[/h][/FONT]
[FONT="][h=2]Clinton vs. Trump[/h]
[h=2]Including Johnson and/or Stein[/h]
* The average includes the most recent poll from each source released within the past ten days. If there are fewer than five qualifying polls, we look back, by date, until up to five^ qualifying polls are found. However, no polls older than 30 days are considered in the average.
^ All qualifying polls released on the same calendar date as the fifth poll will also be included in the average.
[/FONT]
[FONT="][h=1]Arkansas 2016 Presidential Election Polls[/h][/FONT]
[FONT="][h=2]Clinton vs. Trump[/h]
| Source | Date | Sample | Clinton | Trump | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll Averages* | 35.0% | 55.5% | 9.5% | ||
Emerson College | 9/15/2016 | 600 LV ±3.9% | 29% | 57% | 14% |
Washington Post / Survey Monkey | 9/06/2016 | 765 RV | 41% | 54% | 5% |
Hendrix College | 6/26/2016 | 751 LV ±3.6% | 36% | 47% | 17% |
[h=2]Including Johnson and/or Stein[/h]
| Source | Date | Sample | Clinton | Trump | Johnson | Stein | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll Averages* | 33.0% | 51.5% | 8.0% | 3.0% | 4.5% | ||
Emerson College | 9/15/2016 | 600 LV ±3.9% | 29% | 57% | 5% | 3% | 6% |
Washington Post / Survey Monkey | 9/06/2016 | 765 RV | 37% | 46% | 11% | 3% | 3% |
Hendrix College | 6/26/2016 | 751 LV ±3.6% | 36% | 47% | 8% | - | 9% |
* The average includes the most recent poll from each source released within the past ten days. If there are fewer than five qualifying polls, we look back, by date, until up to five^ qualifying polls are found. However, no polls older than 30 days are considered in the average.
^ All qualifying polls released on the same calendar date as the fifth poll will also be included in the average.
[/FONT]
- SEPTEMBER 16, 2016 -
CROOKED HILLARY QUESTION OF THE DAY
Why Did The Clinton Foundation Flip-Flop On Disclosing The Donors To Bill’s Birthday Bash?
QUESTION OF THE DAY:
“Secretary Clinton, yesterday the head of the Clinton Foundation said it would release the names and dollar amounts for all the donors to tonight's high-dollar fundraiser only to reverse itself several hours later. What is your so-called charity trying to hide?" – Jason Miller, Senior Communications Advisor
WHY IT MATTERS
On Thursday Morning The Head Of The Clinton Foundation Announced That They Would Disclose The Donors To Their Fundraiser On Friday Night For Bill Clinton’s Birthday. “The Clinton Foundation has no plans to reveal who is paying for a lavish birthday party Friday for former President Bill Clinton, a spokesman said just hours after Donna Shalala, president of the foundation, indicated that it would. Shalala told CNN's Alisyn Camerota Thursday that she had reviewed the list of donors to Bill Clinton's Manhattan bash, which was first reported by Politico on Wednesday, and planned to disclose them.” (Sarah Westwood, “Clinton Foundation Won't Disclose Donors For Bill Clinton's Party,” Washington Examiner, 9/15/16)
By Thursday Afternoon The Clinton Foundation Said They Would Not Specifically Disclose The Donors To The Birthday Bash Or The Amount Given. “But a foundation spokesman told the Washington Examiner that the disclosure will come in the form of a "donor update" including the names of everyone who gave to the charity over the past quarter. By doing so, the identities of who paid for Bill Clinton's party — and how much they spent — will be indistinguishable from the rest of the contributions the charity raked in over the past three months.” (Sarah Westwood, “Clinton Foundation Won't Disclose Donors For Bill Clinton's Party,” Washington Examiner, 9/15/16)
CROOKED HILLARY QUESTION OF THE DAY
Why Did The Clinton Foundation Flip-Flop On Disclosing The Donors To Bill’s Birthday Bash?
QUESTION OF THE DAY:
“Secretary Clinton, yesterday the head of the Clinton Foundation said it would release the names and dollar amounts for all the donors to tonight's high-dollar fundraiser only to reverse itself several hours later. What is your so-called charity trying to hide?" – Jason Miller, Senior Communications Advisor
WHY IT MATTERS
On Thursday Morning The Head Of The Clinton Foundation Announced That They Would Disclose The Donors To Their Fundraiser On Friday Night For Bill Clinton’s Birthday. “The Clinton Foundation has no plans to reveal who is paying for a lavish birthday party Friday for former President Bill Clinton, a spokesman said just hours after Donna Shalala, president of the foundation, indicated that it would. Shalala told CNN's Alisyn Camerota Thursday that she had reviewed the list of donors to Bill Clinton's Manhattan bash, which was first reported by Politico on Wednesday, and planned to disclose them.” (Sarah Westwood, “Clinton Foundation Won't Disclose Donors For Bill Clinton's Party,” Washington Examiner, 9/15/16)
By Thursday Afternoon The Clinton Foundation Said They Would Not Specifically Disclose The Donors To The Birthday Bash Or The Amount Given. “But a foundation spokesman told the Washington Examiner that the disclosure will come in the form of a "donor update" including the names of everyone who gave to the charity over the past quarter. By doing so, the identities of who paid for Bill Clinton's party — and how much they spent — will be indistinguishable from the rest of the contributions the charity raked in over the past three months.” (Sarah Westwood, “Clinton Foundation Won't Disclose Donors For Bill Clinton's Party,” Washington Examiner, 9/15/16)
[h=6]- SEPTEMBER 15, 2016 -[/h][h=1]MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR CLINTON FOUNDATION DONOR IMPLICATED IN CHINESE VOTE BUYING SCHEME[/h]
“This is the latest in a seemingly endless stream of troubling revelations involving the Clinton Foundation and a reminder of how badly compromised Hillary Clinton would be as president. If this is the type of person Hillary Clinton would let into her private home, it should trouble every American who she might let into the White House.” – Jason Miller, Senior Communications Advisor
This Week 45 Members Of China’s Legislature Was Expelled In A Vote-Buying Scandal That “Snared” Wang Wenliang, A Chinese Billionaire. “China’s legislature has expelled 45 of its members in a vote-buying scandal that has snared a prominent businessman who is active in donating to American universities, foundations and political campaigns. Some of the lawmakers whose dismissals were announced on Tuesday, all from the economically struggling northeastern province of Liaoning, had bribed their way into the National People’s Congress by buying votes, according to the official news agency Xinhua. … The businessman, Wang Wenliang, is a billionaire who made his fortune in the construction business and from operating a strategic port on the North Korean border.” (Michael Forsythe, “An Unlikely Crime In One-Party China: Election Fraud,” The New York Times, 9/14/16)
Wenliang’s Company, Rilin Enterprises, Gave $2 Million To The Clinton Foundation.“One donor - Rilin Enterprises- pledged $2 million in 2013 to the Clinton Foundation's endowment. The company is a privately-held Chinese construction and trade conglomerate and run by billionaire Wang Wenliang, who is also a delegate to the Chinese parliament.” (Julianna Goldman, “Chinese Company Pledged $2 Million To Clinton Foundation In 2013,” CBS News, 3/16/15)
Wenliang Visited Clinton’s Washington, DC House In 2013 For A Fundraiser For Now-Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe.“Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe invited the Chinese businessman whose donations to him have been named as a focus of Justice Department investigators to a 2013 fundraiser at Hillary Clinton’s personal Washington, D.C., residence. Wang Wenliang, a Chinese national with U.S. permanent residency, briefly shook Clinton’s hand at the Sept. 30 event, a representative for Wang told TIME.”(Michael Scherer, “Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe Invited Chinese Donor To Hillary Clinton’s Home,” Time, 5/25/16)
The Donor, A Chinese Citizen, Attended A 2013 Fundraiser At Hillary Clinton’s DC Mansion
“This is the latest in a seemingly endless stream of troubling revelations involving the Clinton Foundation and a reminder of how badly compromised Hillary Clinton would be as president. If this is the type of person Hillary Clinton would let into her private home, it should trouble every American who she might let into the White House.” – Jason Miller, Senior Communications Advisor
This Week 45 Members Of China’s Legislature Was Expelled In A Vote-Buying Scandal That “Snared” Wang Wenliang, A Chinese Billionaire. “China’s legislature has expelled 45 of its members in a vote-buying scandal that has snared a prominent businessman who is active in donating to American universities, foundations and political campaigns. Some of the lawmakers whose dismissals were announced on Tuesday, all from the economically struggling northeastern province of Liaoning, had bribed their way into the National People’s Congress by buying votes, according to the official news agency Xinhua. … The businessman, Wang Wenliang, is a billionaire who made his fortune in the construction business and from operating a strategic port on the North Korean border.” (Michael Forsythe, “An Unlikely Crime In One-Party China: Election Fraud,” The New York Times, 9/14/16)
Wenliang’s Company, Rilin Enterprises, Gave $2 Million To The Clinton Foundation.“One donor - Rilin Enterprises- pledged $2 million in 2013 to the Clinton Foundation's endowment. The company is a privately-held Chinese construction and trade conglomerate and run by billionaire Wang Wenliang, who is also a delegate to the Chinese parliament.” (Julianna Goldman, “Chinese Company Pledged $2 Million To Clinton Foundation In 2013,” CBS News, 3/16/15)
Wenliang Visited Clinton’s Washington, DC House In 2013 For A Fundraiser For Now-Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe.“Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe invited the Chinese businessman whose donations to him have been named as a focus of Justice Department investigators to a 2013 fundraiser at Hillary Clinton’s personal Washington, D.C., residence. Wang Wenliang, a Chinese national with U.S. permanent residency, briefly shook Clinton’s hand at the Sept. 30 event, a representative for Wang told TIME.”(Michael Scherer, “Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe Invited Chinese Donor To Hillary Clinton’s Home,” Time, 5/25/16)
[FONT="]“I think that her bodyguards should drop all weapons,” Mr. Trump, the Republicans’ presidential nominee, said at a rally on Friday night in Miami.[/FONT]
[FONT="]“I think they should disarm. Immediately. What do you think. Yes? Take their guns away. She doesn’t want guns. Take them. Let’s see what happens to her. Take their guns away, O.K. It will be very dangerous.”[/FONT]
[FONT="]“I think they should disarm. Immediately. What do you think. Yes? Take their guns away. She doesn’t want guns. Take them. Let’s see what happens to her. Take their guns away, O.K. It will be very dangerous.”[/FONT]
Compassion:
Just 5.7 Percent Of Clinton Foundation Budget Actually Went To Charitable Grants
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/16/j...udget-actually-went-to-charity/#ixzz4KWcF23Iz
Just 5.7 Percent Of Clinton Foundation Budget Actually Went To Charitable Grants
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/16/j...udget-actually-went-to-charity/#ixzz4KWcF23Iz
[h=6]- SEPTEMBER 17, 2016 -[/h][h=1]CROOKED HILLARY QUESTION OF THE DAY[/h]
QUESTION OF THE DAY: “Secretary Clinton, last night the Clinton Foundation hosted a large fundraiser at New York City’s Rainbow Room with performances by Jon Bon Jovi and Barbara Streisand. Did the Foundation make payments of any kind to those acts in order to secure their services and, if so, is this a good use of money by a nonprofit?” – Jason Miller, Senior Communications Advisor
WHY IT MATTERS
Last Night Bill Clinton Is Hosted A Fundraiser For The Clinton Foundation At The Rainbow Room In New York City Featuring Performances By Jon Bon Jovi and Barbra Streisand.“Even as the Clintons are touting plans to distance themselves from their foundation and limit its fundraising if Hillary Clinton is elected president, they’re planning one last glitzy fundraising bash on Friday to belatedly celebrate Bill Clinton’s 70th birthday. The fundraiser is being held at the Rainbow Room, a fine-dining restaurant on the 65th floor of a Manhattan skyscraper. The fundraiser is being held at the Rainbow Room, a fine-dining restaurant on the 65th floor of a Manhattan skyscraper. Plans called for performances by Wynton Marsalis, Jon Bon Jovi and Barbra Streisand, according to people briefed on the planning.” (Kenneth P. Vogel And Gabriel Debenedetti, “Bill’s Glitzy Birthday Bash Raises Money For Clinton Foundation,” Politico, 9/14/16)
“Major Donors Are Being Asked To Give $250,000 To Be Listed As A Chair For The Party, $100,000 To Be Listed A Co-Chair And $50,000 To Be Listed As A Vice-Chair.”(Kenneth P. Vogel And Gabriel Debenedetti, “Bill’s Glitzy Birthday Bash Raises Money For Clinton Foundation,” Politico, 9/14/16)
Is The Clinton Foundation Paying For The Jon Bon Jovi And Barbara Streisand Performances At Bill’s Birthday Bash?
QUESTION OF THE DAY: “Secretary Clinton, last night the Clinton Foundation hosted a large fundraiser at New York City’s Rainbow Room with performances by Jon Bon Jovi and Barbara Streisand. Did the Foundation make payments of any kind to those acts in order to secure their services and, if so, is this a good use of money by a nonprofit?” – Jason Miller, Senior Communications Advisor
WHY IT MATTERS
Last Night Bill Clinton Is Hosted A Fundraiser For The Clinton Foundation At The Rainbow Room In New York City Featuring Performances By Jon Bon Jovi and Barbra Streisand.“Even as the Clintons are touting plans to distance themselves from their foundation and limit its fundraising if Hillary Clinton is elected president, they’re planning one last glitzy fundraising bash on Friday to belatedly celebrate Bill Clinton’s 70th birthday. The fundraiser is being held at the Rainbow Room, a fine-dining restaurant on the 65th floor of a Manhattan skyscraper. The fundraiser is being held at the Rainbow Room, a fine-dining restaurant on the 65th floor of a Manhattan skyscraper. Plans called for performances by Wynton Marsalis, Jon Bon Jovi and Barbra Streisand, according to people briefed on the planning.” (Kenneth P. Vogel And Gabriel Debenedetti, “Bill’s Glitzy Birthday Bash Raises Money For Clinton Foundation,” Politico, 9/14/16)
“Major Donors Are Being Asked To Give $250,000 To Be Listed As A Chair For The Party, $100,000 To Be Listed A Co-Chair And $50,000 To Be Listed As A Vice-Chair.”(Kenneth P. Vogel And Gabriel Debenedetti, “Bill’s Glitzy Birthday Bash Raises Money For Clinton Foundation,” Politico, 9/14/16)
[h=6]- SEPTEMBER 17, 2016 -[/h][h=1]ICYMI: NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL CONDEMNS CLINTON’S IMMIGRATION POLICY[/h]
NBPC Statement on Hillary Clinton’s Immigration Policies
July 28, 2016
Click Here to Read
“History will not look kindly on President Obama’s border security policies and his conscientious efforts to mislead the American people. Historians may refer to this period as the “Era of No Consequences,” which resulted in the increase of dangerous drugs like meth and heroin, as well as criminal aliens flooding our communities. Obama’s efforts to deceive the American public about border security, in order to pursue amnesty programs that were eventually rejected by Congress and the American people will go down as this Administration’s biggest -- and deadliest -- lie.
In reality, President Obama’s policies created the illegal immigrant crisis that dogged his presidency. For seven years, the President’s marketers sold him as the “Deporter in Chief.” There was no truth behind that marketing campaign. The truth is that those living in the U.S. illegally were less likely to be deported than under any previous administration. Interior deportations under Obama were down 40 percent and at a nine-year low. In addition, eight out of ten illegal immigrants caught at the border were allowed to stay. In many cases, they were given taxpayer-funded bus tickets to relocate to cities in the interior of the nation. Finally, the administration intentionally misled the public on how many criminal aliens ICE released into the country. It has been reported that the agency released more than 80,000 illegal aliens with criminal records. This number was significantly larger than what Director Saldana told Congress during her testimony. The Boston Globe reported that 30 percent of those released in New England re-offended and were charged with rape, child molestation, aggravated assault, armed robbery and attempted murder. This is Obama’s true legacy on border security.
President Obama’s immigration policies, the product of special interest collusion, have decimated border security. These failures have flooded our communities with illegal immigrants, criminals, and dangerous drugs, such as meth and heroin. The refusal to enforce our immigration laws has given drug cartels the opportunity to expand their territory across America and access lucrative revenue streams, as illegal immigrants have paid billions of dollars to these organizations to smuggle family members into the U.S.
A reasonable person would think that, after reviewing this abysmal record, Obama’s potential successor would distance themselves from this disaster. However, Secretary Hillary Clinton’s only criticism was that Obama did not go far enough. Clinton and Obama both agree that they must appease the radical extremists in their party’s furthest fringe. Unfortunately, the citizens who were victimized by criminal aliens paid the cost of that appeasement, as well as cities that were flooded with meth and heroin, and the crimes associated with the illegal drug trade.
President Obama and Secretary Clinton fail to recognize we live in a world where religious and political fanatics are actively plotting to harm U.S. citizens at home and abroad. Instead of investing in measures to secure our nation’s borders, they have openly and actively pursued what Secretary of State John Kerry called a “borderless world.” Americans need to ask themselves: Do we want to risk the safety and security of our family, businesses and communities on the dangerous and extreme policies supported by the ACLU, American Friends Service Committee, and other ideological extremists?
To our deep dismay and concern, the Clinton Immigration Plan embraces and expands the Obama policies that created the “Era of No Consequences.” These policies fueled the illegal immigration crisis and drug epidemic that victimized entire cities and destroyed families. Those that were hardest hit by these policies included minorities, single mothers, existing lawful resident aliens, and others who had to compete for services and charities that were overwhelmed by the massive influx of illegal aliens.
Secretary Clinton’s call for amnesty in her first 100 days and expanding these dangerous policies demonstrates her deeply alarming willingness to sell out the security of American families to advance her political or financial interests. Her immigration plan is not only dangerous for all American families, but previews an Administration that will once again defy the will of the voters and Congress to implement a divisive, reckless, and partisan agenda.
Secretary Clinton calls immigration a family problem. However, the families she ignored are all American. Her plan does nothing to protect those who are victimized every day by our blind pursuit of open borders, and in fact subjects them to a greater threat. No one, in either party, should run for office unless they are willing to put the interests of American families above anything or anyone else.
Every American family should be alarmed that her plan leaves their children vulnerable to drug cartels that control the Mexican border. Last year, 150,000 people were killed by these ruthless criminal organizations. Anyone who opposed them quickly discovered that these cartel leaders were morally bankrupt. Hundreds of journalists, activists, politicians and law enforcement officers simply disappeared or fled to the U.S., as the cartels used forms of terror such as torture, dismemberment and beheadings to control people. Clinton’s failure to recognize this pending threat leaves all of us vulnerable to the growing power and influence of these criminal organizations.
We are already seeing a massive influx of activity on our southern border. Secretary Clinton’s very candidacy, and the amnesty she promises, is luring families into the U.S. and wrecking innocent lives.
We would face an unprecedented crisis if she was elected and allowed to implement her plan. Cartels and Islamic extremists would quickly manipulate this chaos and further their plans to harm innocent American citizens. Clinton has pledged to close detention centers, release immigrant family members and offer American citizenship, Obamacare, education, and amnesty to all. She mysteriously chooses to ignore the lessons from recent terrorist attacks in San Bernardino, Paris, Belgium, Nice, Orlando and London, as she pushes to drastically expand refugee admissions to citizens from countries not friendly to the U.S.
Clinton’s plan is another troubling example of her eagerness to ignore the inconvenient truth that we live in dangerous times. She continues to put the desires of social elites above the deafening choir of hard-working everyday citizens who are demanding real border security. We can no longer afford to weaken border security and hope for the best. Clinton’s Immigration Plan is dangerous, and may win her fringe voter support at the risk of every family’s security.
We believe that once the American public reads Clinton’s immigration plan, they will agree it is weak, dangerous, panders to extremists, and will result in their families and communities becoming vastly less safe and more at-risk. Simply put, this plan is a catastrophe and will threaten countless Americans. As the Obama “Era of No Consequences” demonstrated, weak or non-existent enforcement equals greater opportunity for terrible things to happen.
Chaos is the enemy of peace. The public must get the facts and reject this plan, and its architect, Secretary Clinton.
The National Border Patrol Council, and its 16,500 Border Patrol Agent members stand in opposition to this reckless, radical and deeply dangerous plan."
“Secretary Clinton’s Call For Amnesty In Her First 100 Days And Expanding These Dangerous Policies Demonstrates Her Deeply Alarming Willingness To Sell Out The Security Of American Families To Advance Her Political Or Financial Interests.”
NBPC Statement on Hillary Clinton’s Immigration Policies
July 28, 2016
Click Here to Read
“History will not look kindly on President Obama’s border security policies and his conscientious efforts to mislead the American people. Historians may refer to this period as the “Era of No Consequences,” which resulted in the increase of dangerous drugs like meth and heroin, as well as criminal aliens flooding our communities. Obama’s efforts to deceive the American public about border security, in order to pursue amnesty programs that were eventually rejected by Congress and the American people will go down as this Administration’s biggest -- and deadliest -- lie.
In reality, President Obama’s policies created the illegal immigrant crisis that dogged his presidency. For seven years, the President’s marketers sold him as the “Deporter in Chief.” There was no truth behind that marketing campaign. The truth is that those living in the U.S. illegally were less likely to be deported than under any previous administration. Interior deportations under Obama were down 40 percent and at a nine-year low. In addition, eight out of ten illegal immigrants caught at the border were allowed to stay. In many cases, they were given taxpayer-funded bus tickets to relocate to cities in the interior of the nation. Finally, the administration intentionally misled the public on how many criminal aliens ICE released into the country. It has been reported that the agency released more than 80,000 illegal aliens with criminal records. This number was significantly larger than what Director Saldana told Congress during her testimony. The Boston Globe reported that 30 percent of those released in New England re-offended and were charged with rape, child molestation, aggravated assault, armed robbery and attempted murder. This is Obama’s true legacy on border security.
President Obama’s immigration policies, the product of special interest collusion, have decimated border security. These failures have flooded our communities with illegal immigrants, criminals, and dangerous drugs, such as meth and heroin. The refusal to enforce our immigration laws has given drug cartels the opportunity to expand their territory across America and access lucrative revenue streams, as illegal immigrants have paid billions of dollars to these organizations to smuggle family members into the U.S.
A reasonable person would think that, after reviewing this abysmal record, Obama’s potential successor would distance themselves from this disaster. However, Secretary Hillary Clinton’s only criticism was that Obama did not go far enough. Clinton and Obama both agree that they must appease the radical extremists in their party’s furthest fringe. Unfortunately, the citizens who were victimized by criminal aliens paid the cost of that appeasement, as well as cities that were flooded with meth and heroin, and the crimes associated with the illegal drug trade.
President Obama and Secretary Clinton fail to recognize we live in a world where religious and political fanatics are actively plotting to harm U.S. citizens at home and abroad. Instead of investing in measures to secure our nation’s borders, they have openly and actively pursued what Secretary of State John Kerry called a “borderless world.” Americans need to ask themselves: Do we want to risk the safety and security of our family, businesses and communities on the dangerous and extreme policies supported by the ACLU, American Friends Service Committee, and other ideological extremists?
To our deep dismay and concern, the Clinton Immigration Plan embraces and expands the Obama policies that created the “Era of No Consequences.” These policies fueled the illegal immigration crisis and drug epidemic that victimized entire cities and destroyed families. Those that were hardest hit by these policies included minorities, single mothers, existing lawful resident aliens, and others who had to compete for services and charities that were overwhelmed by the massive influx of illegal aliens.
Secretary Clinton’s call for amnesty in her first 100 days and expanding these dangerous policies demonstrates her deeply alarming willingness to sell out the security of American families to advance her political or financial interests. Her immigration plan is not only dangerous for all American families, but previews an Administration that will once again defy the will of the voters and Congress to implement a divisive, reckless, and partisan agenda.
Secretary Clinton calls immigration a family problem. However, the families she ignored are all American. Her plan does nothing to protect those who are victimized every day by our blind pursuit of open borders, and in fact subjects them to a greater threat. No one, in either party, should run for office unless they are willing to put the interests of American families above anything or anyone else.
Every American family should be alarmed that her plan leaves their children vulnerable to drug cartels that control the Mexican border. Last year, 150,000 people were killed by these ruthless criminal organizations. Anyone who opposed them quickly discovered that these cartel leaders were morally bankrupt. Hundreds of journalists, activists, politicians and law enforcement officers simply disappeared or fled to the U.S., as the cartels used forms of terror such as torture, dismemberment and beheadings to control people. Clinton’s failure to recognize this pending threat leaves all of us vulnerable to the growing power and influence of these criminal organizations.
We are already seeing a massive influx of activity on our southern border. Secretary Clinton’s very candidacy, and the amnesty she promises, is luring families into the U.S. and wrecking innocent lives.
We would face an unprecedented crisis if she was elected and allowed to implement her plan. Cartels and Islamic extremists would quickly manipulate this chaos and further their plans to harm innocent American citizens. Clinton has pledged to close detention centers, release immigrant family members and offer American citizenship, Obamacare, education, and amnesty to all. She mysteriously chooses to ignore the lessons from recent terrorist attacks in San Bernardino, Paris, Belgium, Nice, Orlando and London, as she pushes to drastically expand refugee admissions to citizens from countries not friendly to the U.S.
Clinton’s plan is another troubling example of her eagerness to ignore the inconvenient truth that we live in dangerous times. She continues to put the desires of social elites above the deafening choir of hard-working everyday citizens who are demanding real border security. We can no longer afford to weaken border security and hope for the best. Clinton’s Immigration Plan is dangerous, and may win her fringe voter support at the risk of every family’s security.
We believe that once the American public reads Clinton’s immigration plan, they will agree it is weak, dangerous, panders to extremists, and will result in their families and communities becoming vastly less safe and more at-risk. Simply put, this plan is a catastrophe and will threaten countless Americans. As the Obama “Era of No Consequences” demonstrated, weak or non-existent enforcement equals greater opportunity for terrible things to happen.
Chaos is the enemy of peace. The public must get the facts and reject this plan, and its architect, Secretary Clinton.
The National Border Patrol Council, and its 16,500 Border Patrol Agent members stand in opposition to this reckless, radical and deeply dangerous plan."
[h=2]VideoExhausted Clinton Struggles with 11pm Call[/h]
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton referred to the explosions in New York City as “bombings,” then attacked her Republican rival, Donald Trump, for using the word “bomb” before authorities had publicly confirmed the facts of the attack.
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton referred to the explosions in New York City as “bombings,” then attacked her Republican rival, Donald Trump, for using the word “bomb” before authorities had publicly confirmed the facts of the attack.Wrong. Don't you get tired of me breaking your teeth?
www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
[h=6]SEPTEMBER 18, 2016 -[/h][h=1]CROOKED HILLARY QUESTION OF THE DAY[/h]
WHY IT MATTERS
In 2014 The Clinton Foundation Spent 5.7 Percent Of Its Total Budget On Grants To Charitable Organizations. “During the 2014 tax year, the tax-exempt (Clinton) foundation spent a total of $91.2 million, but less than $5.2 million of that money, or 5.7 percent, was granted to charitable organizations, the group’s tax filings show.” (Sean Davis, “Clinton Foundation Spent Less Than 6 Percent On Charitable Grants In 2014,” The Federalist, 9/16/16)
The Clinton Foundation Spent More Money On Overhead Than It Did On Charitable Grants. “The tax records, which were filed with the IRS in November of 2015, show that the Clinton Foundation spent far more on overhead expenses like travel ($7.9 million) than it did on charitable grants in 2014.” (Sean Davis, “Clinton Foundation Spent Less Than 6 Percent On Charitable Grants In 2014,” The Federalist, 9/16/16)
Why Is The Clinton Foundation Spending So Little On Charitable Grants?
QUESTION OF THE DAY: “Secretary Clinton, in 2014 the Clinton Foundation spent less than 6 percent of its budget on charitable grants. Why is it that your Foundation spent more money on overhead than it did on direct charitable grants?” – Jason Miller, Senior Communications AdvisorWHY IT MATTERS
In 2014 The Clinton Foundation Spent 5.7 Percent Of Its Total Budget On Grants To Charitable Organizations. “During the 2014 tax year, the tax-exempt (Clinton) foundation spent a total of $91.2 million, but less than $5.2 million of that money, or 5.7 percent, was granted to charitable organizations, the group’s tax filings show.” (Sean Davis, “Clinton Foundation Spent Less Than 6 Percent On Charitable Grants In 2014,” The Federalist, 9/16/16)
The Clinton Foundation Spent More Money On Overhead Than It Did On Charitable Grants. “The tax records, which were filed with the IRS in November of 2015, show that the Clinton Foundation spent far more on overhead expenses like travel ($7.9 million) than it did on charitable grants in 2014.” (Sean Davis, “Clinton Foundation Spent Less Than 6 Percent On Charitable Grants In 2014,” The Federalist, 9/16/16)
