A Different Perspective On Children Separated At The Border.

When I was in India as a kid, other kids that were professional beggars would show me their bodily mutilations that their parents gave them just so they can be professional beggars. They had hideous scars, missing fingers and hobbled legs. Parents all around the world sell their kids to gangs or use them as a commodity, or tool, to get something better for themselves. I don’t automatically assume all parents are noble and virtuous when in Mexico, they stuff their kid into the trunk of a coyote’s car or have them journey with drug mules where they get raped or inducted into a gang. If some of those kids end up in foster care, that’s alright by me if their parents are that reckless, careless and selfish.

Of course there are real asylum seekers, and it's too bad that the U.S immigration system is clogged up by so many fake asylum seekers that the real ones can't get adequately processed.

I find it curious that all the people on Facebook posting about kids being separated at the U.S. - Mexico border never had a single thing to say about all the thousands upon thousands of unaccompanied minors that also, by definition, were separated from family. They are a much larger group than the ones separated from family at the border. Nobody gave a crap about them as they struggled through a dangerous desert with coyote rapists and drug mules.

...BUT if Trump is involved, then the Left is outraged about kids separated from families even though they are removed from detention centers in usually 24 hours and put into nice facilities with plenty of food, games, doctors, councilors and teachers which these biased Facebook videos NEVER show.

They also never talk about the unsanitary conditions of these adult detention centers where a child with a less mature immune system is more susceptible to tuberculosis which is common in these holding facilities as well as lice and scabies. Why would anyone in their right mind want to subject a child to that?

However, the accompanying adult can get the child back in 24 hours if they agree to leave the country. By law, the kids are held a max 20 days (Flores v. Lynch). I was forced to go to summer camp every year way longer than that, and I didn't have the entertainment these kids have in their facilities.

This selective outrage reminds me of the Iraq war. When Saddam was killing 10's of thousands of his own people every year you didn't hear a peep from liberals, but as soon as George Bush got involved then all of a sudden liberals cared so much about the poor Iraqi people suffering, even though the war killed less Iraqis than Saddam actually killed. Democrats know the Inspector General is killing their fake Russia investigation so they have to "wag the dog" with these kids. Pelosi and all the Trump resisters don't give a rat's fart about those kids.

I'll ask the same question I always ask my friends that don't seem to care about illegal crossings...

We already turn a million new immigrants into U.S. citizens every year. So, how many immigrants, legal or illegal, can this country absorb annually before they overwhelm our Welfare System, School System, Healthcare System and Justice System? ...What is the number?

The Left never gives you that number. They don't want to answer that question.

Keep in mind...

1. Most illegals don't pay federal and state income tax. Less than half have an SSN or are on payroll. Illegals also displace American citizens from jobs where they would be paying taxes at higher wages.

2. U.S. citizen children get less attention from teachers and less services at school because of illegal immigrant kids increasing class sizes. Taxpayers pay to accommodate them.

3. Taxpayers foot the bill for emergency room and medical services to illegals. In fact, healthcare for illegals costs almost double what illegals themselves pay in taxes.

4. According to the U.S. sentencing commission Illegals commit disproportionately more crime than U.S. citizens, double the murder and robberies. Besides the burden to the victims, taxpayers have to pay for the Justice System to deal with that.

5. Australia has a living wage of $17.70 per hour because they don't import a glut of low wage workers into their country. They have way stricter immigration laws than we do. They'll put you on an island, then deport you. Mexico itself has tougher immigration laws than the U.S.

6. Illegal immigrants obtain welfare through their U.S. born kids. Approximately 62 percent of households run by an illegal immigrant receive welfare of some sort.

7. The Mexican government actively assists its own poor and other migrants to illegally cross the border because the United States is Mexico's social safety net. Mexico receives more money sent back by illegal immigrants than from sales of its greatest export, oil. Billions of dollars that illegal immigrants make in the U.S. get sent out of the U.S. economy. Besides the awful trade deficits, Mexico is a huge leech on the U.S. taxpayer.

8. In Japan you can leave your wallet on a bus stop bench all day long and it won't get taken. If Mexico was Japan, any typical Japanese wanting to get into this country would patiently wait in line. They wouldn't dare try to bum rush the border and break the law because that's their CULTURE, their mindset.

It's not about race, it's about culture. People coming from south of the border come from very dysfunctional cultures and they bring that dysfunction into the U.S. That's why there's so many Hispanic gangs in the U.S. ...Yes, of course there are many illegals that are great and decent, but the aggregate influx of illegals also brings many problems. This is what Trump said in his simple, New York construction guy way.

Under Trump, unemployment for Blacks and Hispanics in this country is the lowest IN ALL HISTORY, partly because of less illegals. If you care about poor people in this country having jobs, then stop supporting illegals and support more legal work visas and merit based immigration. We need immigrants, but the process must be SMART AND LEGAL.

There's a simple way to not get your kids taken by Border Patrol: Don't cross the border illegally.
My dad is an immigrant and my grandparents on my mother's side were immigrants, they did it legally.

~Dhruva Aliman

Hypocrisy of Ivory Tower Hollywood Elites


On stage at the Oscars, actor, director, producer Gael GarcĂ­a Bernal said, “As a migrant worker, as a Mexican, as a Latin American, as a human being, I am against any wall that wants to separate us.” Then, the entire elite of Hollywood applauded, completely oblivious to the irony that all of them live and work behind massive walls and a shit-ton of security.

The movie studios that the Hollywood elite create in have enormous barriers around them. Their expensive, multi-million dollar homes and gated communities have a level of security most Americans could never dream of. Why do they have walls around their studios? If Joe Shmo was walking down Melrose Ave. and wanted to enter Paramount Studios to ask for a job or just look around, why can't he go in? Maybe it's true that the majority people that would like to peruse Paramount Studios would be respectful, maybe they'd be quiet while filming was in progress, and maybe they wouldn't bother anyone.

However, we all know that there's a minority of visitors that would be a problem, and that's why Hollywood has walls. Does that make Hollywood racist or xenophobic? Or separatists? Of course not.

The majority illegal immigrants coming over the border are not "bad" people, but a minority of them are. And in the same way Hollywood erects walls to protect itself from a dangerous minority, millions of Americans would like at least a small fraction of the security that the Hollywood elites enjoy. That's one of the reasons they voted for Trump, who wants safe, LEGAL immigration, not illegal immigration, a distinction Hollywood and the Left can't seem to understand.

Yet somehow, if you want more careful vetting of visitors from 7 countries that the Obama administration singled out for special screening, you are xenophobic. Roughly 90% of Muslims on planet Earth can enter the U.S. just like Europeans can. Yet, Iranian Director Asghar Farhadi skipped accepting his Oscar to protest Trump's "Travel Ban"...and the "Liberal" Hollywood elites who live and work surrounded by armed guards and high walls to keep people away from them gave up another round of applause.
Total Hypocrisy.

And so, these elites in their ivory towers look down at the rest of the nation, at their less affluent fellow Americans and tell them, "You don't need a wall, I'm secure, and that's good enough." Average American Kate Steinle, who was shot dead in the bloom of her life by an illegal alien felon who was deported 5 times didn't need a wall or more security according to the Hollywood elites. And all the other Americans who suffer the consequences of illegal immigration, whether it's crime or employment issues, are not a concern to the Hollywood elites. They have their high paying jobs and their armed guards, let the rest eat cake.

If you're a rancher on the Texas-Mexico border and want a wall because you're sick of illegal aliens looting your property and endangering your family, or if you're a minority citizen whose child is getting a lackluster education in a school system overburdened by illegal immigrants, you are of no concern to the Hollywood elite whose kids go to private school.

Blacks who have the highest unemployment rate in the U.S. are detrimentally impacted the most by an uncontrolled stream of low skilled labor. For all their bleeding heart concern for blacks and obsequious support of "Black Lives Matter", the Hollywood elites are completely out of touch with the needs of not just average minority Americans, but all Americans.

And the host of the Oscars Jimmy Kimmel proved how out of touch the Left is when he said the following...

"...if every one of you took a minute to reach out to one person you disagree with ... and have a positive, considerate conversation — not as liberals or conservatives, but as Americans. If we would all do that, we would make America great again. We really could. It starts with us."
And then Kimmel did the exact opposite of what he said about having a positive, considerate conversation and basically called Trump a racist with a racist joke.


The prior Oscars had a racial controversy because not enough blacks won awards so, Jimmy Kimmel thanked President Donald Trump for making the Oscars appear less racist.

Calling conservatives racist is exactly NOT the way to have a positive, considerate conversation.
That kind of disgusting demagoguery is why Trump won.

- Dhruva Aliman

Indicrat Policy On Religious Tests For Immigrants And Citizens.

If a U.S. citizen said that a very important requirement of his religion was to eat a human heart once a month, would Liberals allow it? Or would Liberals say there's a limit to that particular religious freedom? What if there were 5 million adherents of this hypothetical religion living in the United States and another 10 million living in other parts of the world? And some had the desire to immigrate to America. How would Liberals wish to process them into the country?

Koran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

There are MANY kill commands in the Muslim holy book, far more than in the holy books of other major religions. Some adherents to this religion (Islam), commonly known as "Radical Islamic Terrorists", act on the commands of their religion.

In U.S. we have "Freedom of Religion", but what does that mean exactly?
We also have "Freedom of the Press" and "Freedom of Speech", but Liberals and Conservatives alike have settled on the premise that "Freedom of Speech" does not mean yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

There are LIMITS. We have limits to all our "Freedoms".

The intention of the Founding Fathers of the U.S. was for people to be able to practice their religion
peacefully, without hurting others.
But religions have physical rituals that can impact society at large. What if a ritual was so unsanitary it spread a biological contagion? Would that be permitted?
The answer, even for Liberals, is of course no.
But what about a thought contagion? What if the doctrine of a religion was so virulent that on average, one out of a thousand adherents would be seduced to act out in some physical form to comply with that virulent doctrine?
Well, there seems to be no answer from Liberals about how to deal with this type thought contagion, just denial. Ironically, a "racist" or "sexist" thought contagion is attacked relentlessly by Liberals. Also, Liberals will mock and criticize a Christian thought contagion, but will not attack a "Muslim" one.

If someone wants to practice their right to free speech by yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, what do the authorities do? They stop him. They shut him down. They remove him from public places.
They confine him. They extricate him from places where he could do harm.

If this person belonged to a cult that commanded in their doctrine to do this, but most members did not have the proclivity to act on it, should theater employees knowingly allow members of that group into their premises without anyway of determining if one or more of those visitors intended to disrupt their establishment? And allow them in for the sake of politically correct inclusiveness?

Common Sense dictates the owner of that theater has the right to deny service to help insure the safety of all his costumers, staff and property. And that owner is backed up by legal precedent.

The Muslims that act on the kill commands of their holy book are at war with the U.S., therefore we must defend ourselves.

So, is it constitutional to ban Muslims if an unknown, hidden element of them are at war with us?

The writers of the constitution left a document that had to be interpreted with common sense by
future U.S. citizens. It is beyond human capacity to anticipate every contingency.

When the Founders wrote about "Freedom of Religion", apparently, they failed to make it abundantly clear if that applied to all religions, or only to religions that did not have a significant portion of their adherents bent on the destruction of the American way of life.
That question was left for future generations to answer just like the meaning of the "right to bare arms" has been. Some Liberals will tell you that the "right to bare arms" only applies to militias. Conservatives say it means that individuals can have arms to protect themselves and their property.

So the question is - Can we have a RELIGIOUS TEST for immigrants if there are existing religions that not only threaten national security, but have sects that have either declared war on us or engaged in war on us?

THAT IS THE KEY.

Should the limit to religious freedom be where the religion in question, either fully or in part, declares or conducts war on the rest of society?

The founders never answered that question. The Founders left it up to future generations
to answer that question.

For an INDICRAT, the answer is YES.

The Founders said we cannot favor one religion over others. They did not address what to do if we are forced to have more circumspection towards a specific religion because it is so damn virulent.

If you have 3 kids and one of them is out of control, so much so you have to send them to boarding school, that doesn't mean you necessarily favor your other two kids more. It just means you did what you had to do.
We did not let Germans into our country during WWII because some of them might be Nazis. "Germany" is not a religion but the comparison applies because both Nazism and Religion are, for better or worse, forms of ideology. Why do we have to treat religious ideologues differently than political ideologues when they have declared and conducted war against us?

Or to frame it a different way...
Suppose all religions were as violent and problematic as Islam is in this day and age.
Then, we would be treating them all with the same level of circumspection. There would be no accusations that we were "favoring" one, or some religions over others.
This distinction illustrates that it is not our intention or purpose to treat Muslims a certain way that is different than the way we treat Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, etc. 
The fact is, we are forced, by some Muslims, to treat them differently with no prior intent of favoritism. All Islamists are Muslim, but not all Muslims are Islamists. It is the Islamists we have a problem with.

If a cop smells alcohol on a driver he stopped, there's noting wrong with drinking alcohol per se, but the cop gives them a sobriety TEST to makes sure they are not too inebriated and are safe to drive.
In the same, way if we know someone is Muslim we should have a religious TEST to see if they are not too radical, not a jihadist, not an Islamist, and are safe to be in our country. Immigration authorities should be allowed to examine their social media, personal connections and past activities. This would be similar to checking out why a German is entering the United States in WWII. We were at war with Nazis and we are at war with Islamists. It's that simple.

It is not a violation of the constitution to examine a person's background with regards to religion
because scrutinizing a person's religious fervor is not the same as favoring one religion over another.

Once we accept the notion that it is okay to apply reasonable discretion and judgement
on a problematic religious faction because they forced us (in the same way that prosecutors use their discretion whether to prosecute a criminal case), then we can tackle this problem in logical and humane way that just makes sense.

~ by Dhruva Aliman

Captain Kirk Meets Ashley Judd - F*#%-ing Hilarious!


The Enterprise has a very strange encounter in the far left reaches of outer space. Star Trek will never be the same after Ashley Judd's Nasty Women's March Speech is transmitted into the Galaxy.
Trump said in his Inaugural speech "When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice" and “Whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots.” And he made history as the first Republican Nominee to support gay rights in a Republican Convention speech saying, “Only weeks ago, in Orlando, Fla., 49 wonderful Americans were savagely murdered by an Islamic terrorist,” Trump said. “This time, the terrorist targeted the LGBTQ community. No good, and we’re going to stop it. As your president, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology. Believe me.”
The audience at the Quicken Loans Arena applauded and in response, Trump ad-libbed: “And I have to say, as a Republican, it is so nice to hear you cheering for what I just said. Thank you.”

However,  unhinged "liberal" demagogues like Ashely Judd, with Trump Derangement Syndrome, only want to hate. They will never acknowledge anything good that Trump says or does because they live in an alternate universe where Trump and Republicans can only be evil.

Best Compilation- People Who Laughed at TRUMP...and said he would never be President

Celebrities, Pundits, and Politicians made their predictions and had their laughs like George Clooney, Tom Hanks, Bernie Sanders, Seth Meyers, Joy Behar (The View), Bob Beckel (CNN), Julia Roberts, Ann Coulter, Bill Maher (HBO), Stephen Colbert (The Late Show), Nancy Pelosi (congresswoman, former house speaker), Harry Reid (senator), Barack Obama, The Simpsons (TV show), Elizabeth Warren, Fareed Zakaria, George Stephanopoulos (ABC News), Mark Cuban (Billionaire), Chris Matthews (Hardball MSNBC), John Oliver (The Daily Show Comedy Central), Keith Ellison (Congressman), Ron Reagan....and More!