Since the border surge gained coverage from the mainstream media last month, the Obama Administration has tried to relocate tens of thousands of newly-arrived illegal aliens to communities across the country.

NumbersUSA is daily updating this interactive map to show which communities are under threat of the federal government moving large numbers of illegal aliens there from the border.

NumbersUSA is providing its members actions they can take to help stop the government's dispersal of illegal aliens in a way that usually means they never go back home. Because people living in communities across the Americas rarely see one of their neighbors ever returned after illegally entering the United States, most of the population in those countries believe crossing the border illegally will bring great rewards.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul might be onto something.

For all the hand-wringing about whether his foreign-policy views could disqualify him from winning the Republican presidential nomination, recent polls suggest his skepticism about foreign entanglements might not be quite so out of step with GOP voters.

As troubles mount overseas, the Republicans’ once-steadfast support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has crumbled since President Barack Obama was sworn in for a second term, according to the results of a June Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll and a related Journal/NBC/Annenberg Survey.

In the latest Journal poll of 1,000 adults, conducted June 11-15, 58% of the Republican respondents said the war in Afghanistan wasn’t worth it, compared with the 37% who said it was. That’s an abrupt shift from January 2013, when just 37% of Republicans said the war wasn’t worth it. The Annenberg survey conducted days later found similar erosion in views about Iraq.

I figure the US reaction might be the same wild reaction if the US found Russian spies living in the United States working for the SVR.

Oh come on, the same hands reaching into US pockets are reaching into soviet pockets.  Both hands belong to the same person.  Whether you want to believe it's illuminati or whatever they're called, the wealthy oligarchs are not far removed from either country.

Fact #1: Yanukovych Was Legitimately Elected

Ousted Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych was elected in 2010 in an election that was deemed “transparent and honest” by hundreds of international election observers. That of course is not my personal endorsement of the man or of democracy (I am a fan of neither). In fact, I’m sympathetic to H.L. Mencken’s view that “Democracy, too, is a religion. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses.” But that’s a story for another day.

Bottom line, regardless of whether one loves him or hates him, one cannot deny that Yanukovych was elected fair and square.

Fact #2: Billions Spent Stirring Up Trouble

The US has spent $5 billion since the 1990s on “democratization” programs in Ukraine. (What would the US reaction be if Russia spent $5 billion promoting communism in Mexico?)

In addition to overt US government programs from the US State Department, USAID, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, the International Republican Institute, nominally nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) like Freedom House, George Soros’ Open Society Institute, and the National Endowment for Democracy have all been heavily involved in “promoting democracy” in Ukraine for many years.

Fact #3: Yanukovych’s Ouster Had No Basis in Law

When Yanukovych was overthrown in February, it was done in a fashion that didn’t really comply with Ukrainian law. In effect, what happened was an illegal overthrow of a legitimately elected government. There’s a word for this—coup. And I bet it would have been labeled as such by the US media had it happened to a pro-US leader instead of a pro-Russian leader.

So what was the real objective of all those sneaky NGOs and the billions of dollars in covert and overt aid if its ultimate effect was to overthrow a legitimately elected government? Sounds like the exact opposite of their stated goal of “promoting democracy,” if you ask me.

Fact #4: The Sniper Killings, a Known Unknown

The real push for the immediate overthrow of Yanukovych came after the mysterious deaths of 75 or so people in the streets of Kiev by unknown snipers in late February 2014. The protesters blamed the government. However, later a leaked phone call between the Estonian foreign minister and Catherine Ashton (the EU foreign policy chief) showed that both the police and protestors were shot by the same people, leading these two EU officials (who are very anti-Russian, by the way) to think that this incident was some sort of false flag provocation.

The Estonian foreign minister said, “So there is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition.”

The fact is, to this day we really don’t know who was behind the sniper attacks. But this deep uncertainty didn’t prevent the incident from being used as a casus belli to remove the Yanukovych government.

Fact #5: Neo-Nazi Shock Troops

The two most prominent neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine are the Right Sector and Svoboda, which hold positions in the new government. While they aren’t the main political force, their power shouldn’t be underestimated. Just because the new Ukrainian government has a bunch of outwardly facing, pro-EU, empty-suit bureaucrats, that isn’t necessarily reflective of who has the real power on the streets. Right Sector and Svoboda were the real armed muscle on the ground—like the shock troops of the opposition—during the unrest that overthrew Yanukovych. Absent their help, it’s questionable whether the uprising would have succeeded.

McDaniel was supported by the Tea Parties and the Liberty Movement (Ron and Rand) up against an insider establishment neocon sitting US Senator in the recent Mississippi US Senate Primary. The big money from the chamber of commerce republicans poured in from DC and elsewhere and some of it was used to get african american democrats to vote in the GOP primary, many of which had already voted in their own democratic primary earlier in the month. It's illegal to do both. Cochran's staffers were paying a pastor to dole out $15 to each person that voted afterwards.

State Sen. Chris McDaniel’s campaign told Breitbart News that the conservative firebrand is already halfway to finding enough allegedly ineligible votes counted to launch a legitimate challenge to the results of last Tuesday’s GOP primary runoff against incumbent Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS).

With more than half of the state’s counties—and many of the state’s African American-majority counties, where many of the ineligible crossover votes are suspected to have occurred—still uncounted, McDaniel’s team told Breitbart News he has at least 3,300 ineligible votes counted. That 3,300 is, according to the McDaniel campaign, just from looking at voters who voted in the June 3 Democratic primary, then crossed over—allegedly illegally—to vote in the June 24 GOP primary runoff.

“Our volunteers on the ground have found over 3,300 irregular votes after examining fewer than half of Mississippi's counties, and that total does not include the Delta counties or even the more than 18,000 absentee ballots, which are sure to include many more irregularities, since that was the prime focus of Cochran's Get Out the Democrat Vote strategy,” McDaniel spokesman Noel Fritsch told Breitbart News.]State Sen. Chris McDaniel’s campaign told Breitbart News that the conservative firebrand is already halfway to finding enough allegedly ineligible votes counted to launch a legitimate challenge to the results of last Tuesday’s GOP primary runoff against incumbent Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS).

With more than half of the state’s counties—and many of the state’s African American-majority counties, where many of the ineligible crossover votes are suspected to have occurred—still uncounted, McDaniel’s team told Breitbart News he has at least 3,300 ineligible votes counted. That 3,300 is, according to the McDaniel campaign, just from looking at voters who voted in the June 3 Democratic primary, then crossed over—allegedly illegally—to vote in the June 24 GOP primary runoff.

“Our volunteers on the ground have found over 3,300 irregular votes after examining fewer than half of Mississippi's counties, and that total does not include the Delta counties or even the more than 18,000 absentee ballots, which are sure to include many more irregularities, since that was the prime focus of Cochran's Get Out the Democrat Vote strategy,” McDaniel spokesman Noel Fritsch told Breitbart News.

Darrin Manning’s unprovoked “stop and frisk” encounter with the Philadelphia police left him hospitalized with a ruptured testicle. Neykeyia Parker was violently dragged out of her car and aggressively arrested in front of her young child for “trespassing” at her own apartment complex in Houston. A Georgia toddler was burned when police threw a flash grenade into his playpen during a raid, and the manager of a Chicago tanning salon was confronted by a raiding police officer bellowing that he would kill her and her family, captured on the salon’s surveillance. An elderly man in Ohio was left in need of facial reconstructive surgery after police entered his home without a warrant to sort out a dispute about a trailer.

These stories are a small selection of recent police brutality reports, as police misconduct has become a fixture of the news cycle.

But the plural of anecdote is not data, and the media is inevitably drawn toward tales of conflict. Despite the increasing frequency with which we hear of misbehaving cops, many Americans maintain a default respect for the man in uniform. As an NYPD assistant chief put it, “We don’t want a few bad apples or a few rogue cops damaging” the police’s good name.

This is an attractive proposal, certainly, but unfortunately it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Here are seven reasons why police misconduct is a systematic problem, not “a few bad apples”:

1. Many departments don’t provide adequate training in nonviolent solutions.

This is particularly obvious when it comes to dealing with family pets. “Police kill family dog” is practically its own subgenre of police brutality reports, and most of these cases—like the story of the Minnesota children who were made to sit, handcuffed, next to their dead and bleeding pet—are all too preventable. Some police departments have begun to train their officers to deal more appropriately with pets, but Thomas Aveni of the Police Policy Studies Council, a police consulting firm, says it’s still extremely rare. In the absence of this training, police are less likely to view violence as a last resort.

2. Standards for what constitutes brutality vary widely.

“Excess is in the eyes of the beholder,” explains William Terrill, a former police officer and professor of criminal justice at Michigan State. “To one officer ‘objectively reasonable’ means that if you don’t give me your license, I get to use soft hands, and in another town the same resistance means I can pull you through the car window, [or] I can tase you.” The special deference police are widely given in American culture feeds this inconsistency of standards, producing something of a legal Wild West. While national legislation would likely only complicate matters further, local or state-wide ballot propositions should allow the public—not the police—to define reasonable use of force.

3. Consequences for misconduct are minimal.

In central New Jersey, for instance, 99 percent of police brutality complaints are never investigated. Nor can that be explained away as stereotypical New Jersey corruption. Only one out of every three accused cops are convicted nationwide, while the conviction rate for civilians is literally double that. In Chicago, the numbers are even more skewed: There were 10,000 abuse complaints filed against the Chicago PD between 2002 and 2004, and just 19 of them ”resulted in meaningful disciplinary action.” On a national level, upwards of 95 percent of police misconduct cases referred for federal prosecution are declined by prosecutors because, as reported in USA Today, juries “are conditioned to believe cops, and victims’ credibility is often challenged.” Failure to remedy this police/civilian double standard cultivates an abuse-friendly legal environment.

4. Settlements are shifted to taxpayers.

Those officers who are found guilty of brutality typically find the settlement to their victims paid from city coffers. Research from Human Rights Watch reveals that in some places, taxpayers “are paying three times for officers who repeatedly commit abuses: once to cover their salaries while they commit abuses; next to pay settlements or civil jury awards against officers; and a third time through payments into police ‘defense’ funds provided by the cities.” In larger cities, these settlements easily cost the public tens of millions of dollars annually while removing a substantial incentive against police misconduct.

5. Minorities are unfairly targeted.

“Simply put,” says University of Florida law professor Katheryn K. Russell, “the public face of a police brutality victim is a young man who is Black or Latino.” In this case, research suggests perception matches reality. To give a particularly striking example, one Florida city’s “stop and frisk” policy has been explicitly aimed at all black men. Since 2008, this has led to 99,980 stops which did not produce an arrest in a city with a population of just 110,000. One man alone was stopped 258 times at his job in four years, and arrested for trespassing while working on 62 occasions. Failure to address this issue communicates to police that minorities are a safe target for abuse.

6. Police are increasingly militarized.

During President Obama’s gun control push, he argued that “weapons of war have no place on our streets;” but as Radley Balko has amply documented in his 2013 book, Rise of the Warrior Cop, local police are often equipped with weapons powerful enough to conquer a small country. Police use of highly armed SWAT teams has risen by 1,500 percent in the last two decades, and many police departments have cultivated an “us vs. them” mentality toward the public they ostensibly serve. Although possession of these weapons does not cause misconduct, as the old saying goes, when you have a hammer everything begins to look like a nail.

7. Police themselves say misconduct is remarkably widespread.

Here’s the real clincher. A Department of Justice study revealed that a whopping 84 percent of police officers report that they’ve seen colleagues use excessive force on civilians, and 61 percent admit they don’t always report “even serious criminal violations that involve abuse of authority by fellow officers.”

This self-reporting moves us well beyond anecdote into the realm of data: Police brutality is a pervasive problem, exacerbated by systemic failures to curb it. That’s not to say that every officer is ill-intentioned or abusive, but it is to suggest that the common assumption that police are generally using their authority in a trustworthy manner merits serious reconsideration. As John Adams wrote to Jefferson, “Power always thinks it has a great soul,” and it cannot be trusted if left unchecked.

The good news is that the first step toward preventing police brutality is well-documented and fairly simple: Keep police constantly on camera. A 2012 study in Rialto, Calif. found that when officers were required to wear cameras recording all their interactions with citizens, “public complaints against officers plunged 88% compared with the previous 12 months. Officers’ use of force fell by 60%.” The simple knowledge that they were being watched dramatically altered police behavior.

Coupled with additional reforms, like making officers pay their own settlements and providing better training for dealing with pets, camera use could produce a significant decrease in police misconduct. It is not unrealistic to think that police brutality reports could be made far more unusual—but only once we acknowledge that it’s not just a few bad apples.

by SEN. RAND PAUL
2 Jul 2014, 4:48 AM PDT

I voted no on the Gang of Eight’s recent immigration reform bill for one reason—it did not include border security first.

Any immigration reform plan that does not include border security is not real reform, precisely because any plan that does not increase security insures that we will revisit this problem again in the future.

Right now we have a situation where people are rushing to our southern border because our current policy makes us a beacon for illegal immigration. Our hearts go out to these people, many of whom just want what’s best for themselves and their families.

President Obama now threatens to enact immigration reform by executive fiat. He says he's got his phone and his pen and he will use them. If he takes his royal pen in hand and beckons the world to come across our borders without adequate border security, it will be a disaster for the country, and it will be the death knell for any meaningful bipartisan immigration reform.

Thanks to our current system, we have no way to properly accommodate people who want to come to this country to work. This is a failure of Washington, not the average American and certainly not would-be immigrants.

Our problem now is that we have 12 million illegal immigrants in this country. If steps are not taken to secure our border, 12 million more will come illegally. This is unacceptable. Any plan that encourages more illegal immigration is no plan at all.

You have to wonder exactly what the angle is here. Is it just people pouring in in hopes of amnesty or something more nefarious?

President Obama's approval numbers are in the cellar, a new Quinnipiac University survey just dubbed him the worst president in six decades, so maybe it's no surprise that analyst and pollster John Zogby is asking: “Is it all over for him?”

Armed with new numbers that are depressing to an already deflated White House, Zogby on Wednesday found that most don't believe that Obama can lead the country and he compared the president to Bill Clinton following the Democrat's sweeping 1994 Congressional loss and when former White House Correspondent Brit Hume asked if Clinton was even relevant.

“Mr. Obama finds himself in the uncomfortable position where every age group, independents, and whites all agree that the public has given up on his ability to accomplish anything before the end of his term,” said Zogby in releasing his latest numbers.

A Health and Human Services official refused to allow a member of Congress to enter a facility in his district where some of the unaccompanied immigrant children are being housed.

Representative Jim Bridenstine (R., Okla.) was told he could schedule an appointment for July 21. “​What are they trying to hide?” Bridenstine said after the incident. “​Do they not want the children to speak with Members of Congress? As a Navy pilot, I have been involved in operations countering illicit human trafficking. I would like to know to whom these children are being released.”

There are 1,200 immigrant children at the base. Bridenstine’s office explained that HHS releases the children to a “sponsor” in the United States. The congressman said that a security guard at the Fort Sill, Okla., facility refused to let him enter the barracks without HHS approval even though he is a member of Congress.

“There is no excuse for denying a Federal Representative from Oklahoma access to a federal facility in Oklahoma where unaccompanied children are being held,” Bridenstine said in the press release. ”Any Member of Congress should have the legal authority to visit a federal youth detention facility without waiting three weeks.”

That's fine I'm watching it now.

He has confirmed he is not going to release the amount bid. Says he is not concerned about price fluctuations as he is not a trader and he is in it for the long term investment. Wants to put the coins to good use and allow the coins to proliferate.