HILLARY IS TERMINALLY ILL. HERE IS ENOUGH PROOF. READ AND SHARE!!.

HILLARY CLINTON IS TERMINALLY ILL. DEMAND TO SEE HER MEDICAL RECORDS!

CHECK OUT HILLARY'S HANDLERS WHO PROP HER UP... PS WHO IS THE BIG FAT BALD GUY??

Michael Jackson, Prince, and Elvis would travel with a personal doctor who could administer needed life-saving drugs and attention during a crisis. Remember when you thought famous people like Michael Jackson and Elvis had good medical care? What’s Clinton on?

Hillary appears to travel with her own Michael Jackson/Elvis style doctor.
Who is the big fat bald dude??

We saw this first “doctor” or handler during Hillary’s recent freeze-up. You can see Hillary’s handler, who at first glance would not be considered the alpha male of the group, reassure Hillary, speak to her using hypnotic language, and then move the Secret Service Agents out of the way. This handler is not an ordinary SS agent.


Reactions to the first video were similar. This is a weird situation, and clearly the handler is not ordinary Secret Service.

@Cernovich the way she says "we're just going to keep talking…" just repeating back the command… fucked

— KGB Agent Milo (@screenwriter) August 6, 2016

You can watch the full video here.

Hillary’s handler is part of her inner circle.

Huma Abedin is the only person closer to Hillary than this man who handles her, picured on the left.

Here you see Hillary’s handler helping her walk up stairs.

Why can’t Hillary walk up a flight of steps?

What is going on here?

Hillary looks “out of it” again. You can see her handler whispering into her ear.

Something very clearly is wrong with Hillary.


Hillary tries playing off the seizure by acting as if she had a “brain freeze.” As my medical experts explained to me, patients who suffer seizures become experts at playing it off.

Hillary also had a seizure at the DNC.

Watch the full video of Hillary’s seizures here:
Hillary has suffered a brain injury during a fall. She either had a stroke, causing her to fall, or the fall caused her stroke. (Doctors were unsure whether the fall was the cause or effect of the stroke.)
The media is covering up Hillary’s obvious health problems.
Hillary’s health problems date back several years. Here you can see Hillary struggle to board an airplane, and then she falls down at the very end of the video.
Here you can see Hillary clearly fall down. Poor balance is associated with strokes/head injuries.
Hillary has frequent coughing fits, a side effect of her anti-seizure medication.

What drugs does Hillary take?

Where is her medical history?
The media is completely covering up this story.

Hacked messages of #BlackLivesMatter leader reveal Obama admin’s plan for ‘summer of chaos’ and martial law

If they want war we will give these people WAR. We out number them 5 to 1 and they stand out in a crowd. I AM SICK AND TIRED OF "REACTING" Time for ACTION..
As A MARINE... I HAVE BEEN TRAINED TO TAKE CARE OF THIS KIND OF ACTIONS OVERSEAS. ITS DOABLE IN AMERICA!
Sic Semper Tyrannis!  SHARE AND AWAKEN REGULAR AMERICANS !!

July 5, 2016 by Dr. Eowyn 

 

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch is coordinating with Democratic activists to so disrupt the upcoming Republican and Democratic National Conventions that martial law will be declared.
That’s the stunning discovery revealed in a series of direct messages between three activists.
On Friday, June 10, 2016, someone hacked into the Twitter account of #BlackLivesMatter (BLM) leader and former Baltimore mayoral candidate DeRay McKesson. McKesson later confirmed the hack to The Baltimore Sun.
On June 11, 2016, a Twitterer who calls himself The Saint (@TheSaintNegro) tweeted a direct-message conversation on June 10 between KcKesson and another BLM leader Johnetta Elzie (Netta), in which the two discussed talking with Attorney General Loretta Lynch about plans to bring on martial law by causing chaos at the upcoming Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, and the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, PA, so as to keep Obama in office.
 

Here’s the conversation over the course of several days between black activists DeRay McKesson (DM) and Johnetta Elzie (JE), and between McKesson and a “white ally” named Sam (S):

JE: “Have you spoken with Mrs. Lynch [Attorney General Loretta Lynch] recently about the plan for the summer and fall leading up to the elections.”
DM: “We spoke two weeks and they want us to start really pushing how racist Trump is now instead of waiting so the others can start getting the protesters ready to shut both conventions down.”
DM: “If we can get both conventions shut down for messing over Bernie and for having racist Trump, then get martial law declared so Obama can stay in office we will win. Call you soon when I get to my dads so I can use his landline and we can talk more on this.”
DM: “We have to make sure that we use our voices to keep people disrupting Trump all summer and through the fall so martial law can be declared….”
S: “I wanted to touch base with you about the summer of chaos. So far we have over 2,000 people bused in from different cities and another 6,000 to 8,000 expected to drive into Cleveland for the Convention.”
S: “They will not be ready for the crowds we are bringing and they will blame Trump for it, especially if we shut it down. The GOP will have to replace him at that point or we will continue the disruptions nationwide.”
DM: “I will pass the info along. Good work, Sam. You never let us down. It’s so important we stop Trump. He can not be president. He will destroy everything we worked so hard for and we can’t trust….”
DM: “…today and he [Sam?] confirmed that there will be around 10,000 protesters disrupting the [Republican] convention. Plans are being made for other cities as well for upcoming Trump events. Ads have already been placed looking for people to help. I know you don’t care for them [white people] but this is the time we need our white allies doing a lot of the work for us. They are the ones who listen the best.”
JE: “That will put fear into the GOP and the country when they can’t have their convention for all their racist supporting Trump. We’ve worked too hard and closely with the Obama administration to have that racist ass take it all away and Hillary…. You know I can’t stand those white allies, but yo right this is the best to use them. They hang on every word you say and will do whatever is asked. I just hate all that kiss ass they try to do. Like that changes who they are.”
DM: “We have a lot of white allies volunteering for Trump’s campaign to pass along information to us before it’s made public so we know when rallies are coming up before they are announced. That way we can plan major disruptions in those cities in advance. We just have to keep our names out of this and let these [white] people do the work for us by pushing how Trump’s racist ways will destroy….”
JE: “That’s all those white people are good for in my eyes. I couldn’t imagine even pretending to like that racist ass Trump even to get info on his events. I’ll be glad when we shut his ass down.”
DM: “With the support we have from Mrs. Lynch and the help we’ve got from Sam and others it won’t be hard to cause enough….”

Here are screenshots of The Saint‘s series of tweets:
The authorities seem to be taking the plan to disrupt the Republican Convention seriously.
As reported by Alice Speri for The Intercept, June 23, 2016, local police and federal agents from the FBI, DHS, and Secret Service are knocking on the doors of activists and community organizers in Cleveland asking about their plans for the Republican National Convention in July.
On June 29, 2016, Deray McKesson sort of confirmed the plan when he went public with warnings about “possible” protests at the DNC and RNC, as reported by USA Today.

FACT IS THE "REPUBLIC" CALLED AMERICA IS DEAD! ITS AN OLIGARCHY NOW!

Has America Become an Oligarchy? 

 

Yes, America has indeed become an oligarchy, by badly mixing democracy and oligarchy! Hear me out …
One of the biggest educational benefits for American voters throughout the 2016 Presidential election so far has, hopefully, been an improved understanding of how oligarchic, and rigged, our political system has become.

Simply put, it is heavily in favor of establishment candidates, and specifically against outsiders, with some party elites having profound influence over the outcome of an election, sometimes decisively!
1. What is an oligarchy?
Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia - Oligarchy:

Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people might be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, religious or military control. Such states are often controlled by a few prominent families who typically pass their influence from one generation to the next, but inheritance is not a necessary condition for the application of this term.
Throughout history, oligarchies have often been tyrannical, relying on public obedience or oppression to exist. Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as a synonym for rule by the rich,[4] for which another term commonly used today is plutocracy.

2. Who are the oligarchs in America?
Some elected officials and some elites in the political parties! Many candidates are chosen by the oligarchs, and become oligarchs themselves over time. It's the elites choosing the future elites who will dictate how we, the people, will be allowed to vote and live! THE BUSH's THE CLINTONS, THE OBAMA'S AND THEIR SYCOPHANTS. IT LIKE THE MOB FAMILIES !!


3. Oligarch vs. democracy
In a nutshell, democracy simply means one person, one vote. Americans naively believed they had finally achieved this ideal in 1965 (Voting Rights Act of 1965).
Unlike a parliamentary system (e.g. the U.K., Japan, and Canada), in which the majority party of the parliament (via a coalition if necessary) elects the head of the government, Americans elect their President directly via a democratic process (with the electoral-college system notwithstanding), as clearly defined in the U.S. Constitution.
It turns out that American voters no longer really elect the President directly, at all. Instead, the two major parties each offer their choice of candidate, selectively chosen via their own primary processes. Worse yet, neither of the primary processes are truly democratic. Rather, they are oligarchic, with some party elites having profound influence over the outcome, sometimes decisively. Worst of all, there is no direct relationship between the primary voters and the party elites, because many primary elections are open, with no party affiliation required!
In short, the election process for American President is not truly democratic. Rather, it is a bad mixture of democracy and oligarchy!

4. America's 2-party system
Like Yin and Yang, it was natural for America to end up with two major political parties, currently the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.
Both parties are private, like elite private clubs, with their own rules, hierarchies, and steep entrance dues to become elites. For example, Senator Ted Cruz, just like Senator Obama, promised heavy future favors for support of his presidential run. American taxpayers would have to pay hugely to cover his campaign promises, just as we did after Senator Obama won the Presidency. Both of them are obviously top elites in their respective parties!
However, unlike private clubs with exclusive memberships, both parties are “open”, with arbitrary party memberships. For example, an Independent (who belongs to neither party) may choose to participate in the Democratic primary (in states with open primaries), but eventually vote for the Republican nominee in the general election. He (or she) may never have voted for either party before, thus having nothing to do, previously, with the elites of either party.

In short, democratically speaking, the oligarchs in America are not legitimate, because of the disconnection between them and the voters!

5. How do the two parties choose their respective Presidential nominee?
Each party has its own primary elections, which vary from state to state, to select a party nominee. Basically, a nominee is selected by the delegates, who are not necessarily directly chosen, even proportionately, by the voters.
On the Republican side, the problem is less obvious this year, because Donald Trump is already the presumptive nominee, thanks to an overwhelmingly large number of votes he has received.
In contrast, the Democratic Party may have a big problem coming up, if Bernie Sanders ends up with more "pledged delegates" via public voting than Hillary Clinton, who obviously has far more super-delegates to eventually out-number him!
What, then, is a super-delegate?
Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia - Super-delegate:

In American politics, a "super-delegate" is a delegate to the Democratic National Convention who is seated automatically and chooses for whom they want to vote. These Democratic Party super-delegates include distinguished party leaders, and elected officials, including all Democratic members of the House and Senate and sitting Democratic governors.

Note: Many voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries for the person, not the party! Some of them may have never voted before, let alone voted Democrat. So they had zero input as to who would become a super-delegate, who could not therefore possibly represent them in any way!

Bottom line: How could our political system have devolved to the point that some party elites end up with so much more power than the people, deviating from the ideal of "one person, one vote"?
"They know what's better for the party" is obviously the pretended logic behind the set-up. In reality, however, it's just another power grab by the elite few: the oligarchs!
6. Do they know better, really?
Yes, they do, as most of them are career politicians!
What, then, is the problem? Most of them work primarily for their own benefit (aka "getting re-elected ad nauseam"), with their party a distant second, their constituents a remote third, and their country dead last!
To know what a typical Congressman like David Jolly does on daily basis, read: Republican congressman exposes one of Congress' dirty little secrets on '60 Minutes'. Here is an excerpt:

Jolly said, as a member of Congress, entire schedules work around making time to fundraise, in his case $18,000 per day, for their reelection campaign.
"Republicans, Democrats and Independents can all agree on one thing - the public did not elect Members of Congress to go to Washington and spend their time raising money for their re-election," Jolly said. "They are not paying members $174,000 a year to spend, in some cases 20 or 30 hours a week, on the phone dialing for dollars. But that is exactly what is happening."

Bottom line: In politics, money is not everything; money is the only thing!

7. What's the end result?
Because of the link between money and elections/re-elections, the two parties often end up with similar candidates, especially in terms of ferocious spending and the resultant requisite taxation and borrowing! Specifically,

1. The Democrats tax-borrow-&-spend for entitlements. For more, read: Democratic Socialism.
2. The Republicans tax-borrow-&-spend for wars, for more, read: Democratic Imperialism.

Still wondering why our national debt already exceeds $19 trillion, and continues to rise rapidly?
Wonder not! It's the political system, stupid!

8. Discussion
Both parties are oligarchic, but the Democratic Party seems much worse. For more on the history of “super-delegates” and its implications this year, read: No, Sanders doesn’t stand much chance.
Now, why the Democratic Party is more oligarchic than the Republican Party? Maybe it has something to do with the nature of the Democratic Party? Three informative readings:

1. The Democratic Party is the Party of New Slavery!
2. Stupid Voters.
3. Stupid Media.

For those “intelligent” Sanders voters, if you feel disenfranchised by his party, it’s time to board the Trump train for one main reason, at least: Trump is the candidate best at addressing your critical issues, such as fair trade and anti-war!
More profoundly, electing Donald Trump may be a unique opportunity for us to break the cycle of money and politics by both parties!
Yes, Trump, a de facto Libertarian (Who is Donald Trump, Anyway?), has already hijacked the Republican Party, by beating all its establishment candidates! He will hopefully unite, reform, and expand the GOP in the coming weeks and months, leading to a victory in November.
On the Democratic side, Sanders is unlikely to beat the Democratic establishment. So Hillary Clinton will certainly be the nominee, thanks to the super-delegates!
Between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the general election, here is a basic question for all Americans: America: Are We Still A Republic?

9. Closing
Give Donald Trump a chance to "make America great again", which may include changes to campaign financing and even the oligarchic system!

HILLARY EMAIL LIES DOCUMENTED.. and the time line too!

AMERICA HAS BEEN CO_OPTED:

 

THE FBI, THE DOJ, THE IRS, THE EPA, THE DHS , THE SUPREME COURT ...ALL TOOLS OF THE OLIGARCHY TO CLAMP DOWN ON AMERICA.. IF YOU DO NOT SEE THAT YOU ARE A FUCKING FOOL OR A LEFTIST IDEOLOGUE OR A USEFUL IDIOT.. AND YOU SEE IT AND YOU DO NOTHING ABOUT IT YOU ARE A FUCKING COWARD.

 

 

In a statement made by FBI Director James Comey, the Bureau will recommend to the Justice Department that no charges be filed against Hillary Clinton in light of the FBI’s investigation into her usage of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State.
The details revealed by Director Comey in his statement today, however, draw attention to a few inaccuracies made by Secretary Clinton regarding the email controversy since the New York Times first broke the story in March 2015.
The following is a timeline of the 5 most egregious inaccuracies, alongside Director Comey’s new information revealed today:

Date: March 10, 2015, United Nations Press Conference

LIE #1: “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email.”
TRUTH: As FBI Director James Comey revealed in the press conference today, 108 of the emails in more than 52 chains she sent were, in fact, considered classified. And 8 of those chains contained a “Top Secret” classification.

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent

LIE #2: “First, when I got to work as Secretary of State, I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two.”
TRUTH: The Director pointed out that Hillary Clinton used “numerous mobile devices to view and send email on that personal domain.”

Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.

LIE #3: “It [her email system] was on property guarded by the Secret Service. And there were no security breaches.”
TRUTH: It turns out, however, there might have been a successful security breach on Secretary Clinton’s email. While the FBI Director that this is “unlikely,” he states that “it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.”

We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

Date: August 8, 2015, Signed Declaration to Federal Judge

LIE #4: “While I do not know what information may be ‘responsive’ for purposes of this lawsuit, I have directed that all my e-mails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or potentially were federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done.”
TRUTH: According to FBI Director James Comey’s statement today, “several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014.”

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.

Date: September 7, 2015, Interview with Associated Press

LIE #5: “What I did was allowed. It was allowed by the State Department. The State Department has confirmed that.”
TRUTH: According to an official report released in May by the State Department Office of the Inspector General, the department “found no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server.”

OIG found no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server. According to the current CIO and Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs. However, according to these officials, DS and IRM did not—and would not—approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business, because of the restrictions in the FAM [Foriegn Affairs Manuel] and the security risks in doing so.

FBI Director Comey said the followed regarding the issue:

“Any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.”

In conclusion…

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information,” said Director Comey in his statement today, “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
He closed his statement with the following:

“I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.”

I REPEAT... 

AMERICA HAS BEEN CO_OPTED:

THE FBI, THE DOJ, THE IRS, THE EPA, THE DHS  ALL TOOLS OF THE OLIGARCHY TO CLAMP DOWN ON AMERICA.. IF YOU DO NOT SEE THAT YOU ARE A FUCKING FOOL OR A LEFTIST IDEOLOGUE OR A USEFUL IDIOT.. AND YOU SEE IT AND YOU DO NOTHING ABOUT IT YOU ARE A FUCKING COWARD.

Hussein Obama Islamo-Doctrine at work. The Diluting of American Culture through immigration Policy

THE HUSSEIN OBAMA 

ISLAMO-DOCTRINE AT WORK

The Diluting of American Culture through Immigration Policy.. Hussein Admin has issued 832,014 green cards to migrants majority-Muslim countries,

There something very sinister going on in America. It seems that the Politicians are only willing to play with these facts around the edges and not even CONSIDER the SINISTER NATURE of these activities....

Hussein Obama and his lackey administration is on pace to issue more than a million green cards to migrants from majority-Muslim countries, according to an analysis of Department of Homeland Security data. ONE MILLION. THAT'S MORE THAN ANY OTHER GROUP IN THE WORLD... WHY ? I KNOW WHY AND YOU KNOW WHY BUT THE FREAKING IDIOTS THAT REPRESENT US ARE TOO AFRAID TO VOICE THE FACTS BECAUSE THEY ARE CHICKEN SHITS.

Why are a whole mass of people being brought into our country from areas of the world whose cultures are polar opposite to ours? The only logical answer is to re structure the culture that exists in America. There is no other explanation.. It is to restructure and re populate America with alien cultures that will destroy America as we know it.

In the past, immigrants to America were encouraged to assimilate, learn English, Learn the Culture of America and become a part of our great Land. Husseins people.. the Islamic people come to America as they do in Europe and congregate in enclave ghettos and DO NOT ASSIMILATE. They bring their primitive religion and they primitive laws and continue to live and breed as though they are still in their home land. Then when they reach a critical mass in a neighborhood they co-opt it and attempt to govern it as though that area is not part of America. Its happening all over America. Dearborn MI is an example.

THIS IS THE HUSSEIN ISLAMIC DOCTRINE. TO INFILTRATE THE AMERICA CULTURE A LITTLE BIT AT A TIME. I million Muslims with a Birth rate of an average of 3.1 children. is significantly higher than the Native Population of America which is 1.8. THE HISPANIC PEOPLE have a higher birthrate ( 2.8 ) and that is why Obama allows them to scurry across the Southern Border. Between the Hispanics and teh Muslims... America WILL BE CHANGED AS A NATION from a Caucasian dominant hard working culture to a Islamo-Hispanic dominant one. It is the goal of the Progressives to make this happen. IT IS HAPPENING UNDER THE HUSSEIN ISLAMIC DOCTRINE.

AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO SEES THIS.. WAKE UP AMERICA!

June 18, 2016. A chart released by the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest Friday details the surge in immigration to the U.S. from majority-Muslim countries since President Barack Obama took office in 2009.

Specifically, in the first six fiscal years of Obama’s presidency (FY2009 – FY2014), his administration issued 832,014 green cards to migrants majority-Muslim countries, the most of which were issued to migrants from Pakistan (102,000), Iraq (102,000), Bangladesh (90,000), Iran (85,000), Egypt (56,000), and Somalia (37,000).

The total 832,014 new permanent residents do not include migrants on temporary, non-immigrant visas — which allow foreign nationals to come to the U.S. temporarily for work, study, tourism and the like. As the subcommittee notes, the number also does not include those migrants who overstayed the terms of their visas.

Regardless, as the subcommittee explained in its analysis, the U.S. is playing host to immigrants from majority Muslim countries at an increasing pace.

Between FY 2013 and FY 2014, the number of green cards issued to migrants from Muslim-majority countries increased dramatically – from 117,423 in FY 2013, to 148,810 in FY 2014, a nearly 27 percent increase. Throughout the Obama Administration’s tenure, the United States has issued green cards to an average of 138,669 migrants from Muslim-majority countries per year, meaning that it is nearly certain the United States will have issued green cards to at least 1.1 million migrants from Muslim-majority countries on the President’s watch. It has also been reported that migration from Muslim-majority countries represents the fastest growing class of migrants.

Green cards, or Lawful Permanent Residency, puts immigrants on the path to citizenship and allows for lifetime residency, federal benefits, and work authorization. Included in the totals are refugees, who are required to apply for a green card after one year of residency in the U.S. Unlike other types of immigrants, refugees are immediately eligible for welfare benefits including Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), food stamps, and Medicaid.

A report from the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) indicated that in FY 2013, 91.4 percent of Middle Eastern refugees (accepted to the U.S. between 2008-2013) received food stamps, 73.1 percent were on Medicaid or Refugee Medical Assistance and 68.3 percent were on cash welfare.

Green Card Totals, FY09-FY14:

Pakistan (102K),

Iraq (102K),

Bangladesh (90K),

Iran (85K),

Egypt (56K),

Somalia (37K),

Uzbekistan (30K),

Turkey (26K),

Morocco (25K),

Jordan (25K),

Albania (24K),

Afghanistan (21K),

Lebanon (20K),

Yemen (20K),

Syria (18K),

Indonesia (17K),

Sudan (15K),

Sierra Leone (12K),

Guinea (9K),

Senegal (8K),

Saudi Arabia (9K),

Algeria (8K),

Kazakhstan (8K),

Kuwait (6K),

Gambia (6K),

United Arab Emirates (5K),

Azerbaijan (4K),

Mali (4K),

Burkina Faso (3K),

Kyrgyzstan (3K),

Kosovo (3K),

Mauritania (3K),

Tunisia (2K),

Tajikistan (2K),

Libya (2K),

Turkmenistan (1K),

Qatar (1K),

Chad (1K)

CONVINCED YET ??

Share and REVOLT... OR IF NOT ... YOU MIGHT BE WATCHING YOUR COUNTRY BE USURPED RIGHT UNDER YOU NOSE.

Share... please. I have posted this on my blog and also on facebook. They will probably block me another 30 days.

The Myth of Mass Unfair Black Incarceration

Truth of the matter based on Justice Department & FBI Statistics in that Violent crime, not drugs "use", has driven up imprisonment rates. And drug offenses usually are for DEALING DRUGS and not just for being apprehended with some. Not for using.

It has become a boogeyman in public discourse: “mass incarceration.” Both left and right, from Hillary Clinton to Rand Paul, agree that it must be ended. But a close examination of the data shows that U.S. imprisonment has been driven largely by violent crime—and thus significantly reducing incarceration may be impossible.
Less than one-half of 1% of the U.S. population is incarcerated, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), so “mass” is a bit of hyperbole. The proportion of African-Americans in prison, 1.2%, is high compared with whites (0.25%), but not in absolute terms.
There’s a lot of historical amnesia about the cause of prison expansion, a mistaken sense that it was all about drugs or race and had very little to do with serious crime. This ignores the facts. Between 1960 and 1990, the rate of violent crime in the U.S. surged by over 350%, according to FBI data, the biggest sustained buildup in the country’s history.
One major reason was that as crime rose the criminal-justice system caved. Prison commitments fell, as did time served per conviction. For every 1,000 arrests for serious crimes in 1970, 170 defendants went to prison, compared with 261 defendants five years earlier. Murderers released in 1960 had served a median 4.3 years, which wasn’t long to begin with. By 1970 that figure had dropped to 3.5 years.
Unquestionably, in the last decades of the 20th century more defendants than ever were sentenced to prison. But this was a direct result of changes in policy to cope with the escalation in violent crime. In the 1980s, after well over a decade of soaring crime, state incarceration rates jumped 107%.
When crime began to drop in the mid-1990s, so did the rise in incarceration rates. From 2000 to 2010, they increased a negligible 0.65%, and since 2005 they have been declining steadily, except for a slight uptick in 2013. The estimated 1.5 million prisoners at year-end 2014 is the smallest total prison population in the U.S. since 2005.
Those who talk of “mass incarceration” often blame the stiff drug sentences enacted during the crack-cocaine era, the late 1980s and early ’90s. But what pushed up incarceration rates, beginning in the mid-1970s, was primarily violent crime, not drug offenses.
The percentage of state prisoners in for drug violations peaked at only 22% in 1990. Further, drug convictions “explain only about 20% of prison growth since 1980,” according to a 2012 article by Fordham law professor John Pfaff, published in the Harvard Journal on Legislation.
Relatively few prisoners today are locked up for drug offenses. At the end of 2013 the state prison population was about 1.3 million. Fifty-three percent were serving time for violent crimes such as murder, robbery, rape or aggravated assault, according to the BJS. Nineteen percent were in for property crimes such as burglary, car theft or fraud. Another 11% had been convicted of weapons offenses, drunken driving or other public-order violations.
That leaves about 16%, or 208,000 people, incarcerated for drug crimes. Of those, less than a quarter were in for mere possession. The rest were in for trafficking and other crimes. Critics of “mass incarceration” often point to the federal prisons, where half of inmates, or about 96,000 people, are drug offenders. But 99.5% of them are traffickers. The notion that prisons are filled with young pot smokers, harmless victims of aggressive prosecution, is patently false.
The other line of attack is that the criminal justice system is racist because blacks are disproportionately imprisoned. About 35% of all prisoners, state and federal, are African-American, while blacks comprise about 13% of the U.S. population. But any explanation of this disparity must take blacks’ higher rates of offending into account.
From 1976 to 1995, blacks were identified by police as the perpetrators in more than half of homicides, according to FBI data compiled by the BJS. During this same period, individuals interviewed for the national crime-victim survey described robbery perpetrators as black more than 60% of the time. While the rate of black violent crime fell dramatically after the mid-1990s, it remains disturbingly high. From 2000 to 2014, African-Americans were murdered eight times as often as whites per capita, nearly always as a result of black-on-black assaults.
Such serious crimes are still the main driver of African-American incarceration. The latest BJS figures, from the end of 2013, show that 57% of blacks in state prison were convicted of violent crimes. Only 16% were in for drug crimes. Those numbers nearly match the figures for the state prison population overall.
Nor have blacks always served longer sentences than whites once incarcerated. In 1993, at the peak of the prison buildup, blacks and whites in state prison served identical terms, a median 12 months, for all offenses. For drug crimes, whites actually served slightly more time than blacks, 12 months to 11 months.
A growing consensus now supports making the criminal-justice system less punitive. But prison rates won’t drop dramatically unless serious crime declines further, which is unlikely. It certainly didn’t happen in 2015, when homicides in the 50 largest U.S. cities increased 17%. Nor are racial disparities likely to diminish so long as African-Americans commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes.

From:
Mr. Latzer, an emeritus professor of criminal justice at the City University of New York, is the author of “The Rise and Fall of Violent Crime in America” (Encounter Books, 2016).

There's a Reason We Mostly Hear About White 'Micro-Aggressions'

Ann Coulter · Jun. 25, 2015

The massacre of black churchgoers in Charleston by an evil psycho is a hideous thing. The case is especially sickening because the victims were chosen specifically because of their race. Thank God it’s extremely rare for whites to target black people for attack.
And yet the public is being told by The New York Times, The Washington Post, MSNBC and Salon that the Charleston massacre is proof that we live in a country packed with marauding racist murderers. It’s like saying we have an epidemic of men flying gyrocopters onto Capitol Hill. Yes, there’s that one time, but I notice you keep citing the same case.
In The Washington Post, for example, columnist Lonnae O'Neal blamed the Charleston attack on “white supremacy,” claiming that “racial sickness is all around us.” (I guess the one upside of the horror in South Carolina is that we can FINALLY have a national conversation about race.)
The media’s WHITES ARE TERRORIZING BLACKS campaign reflects reality as accurately as the media’s other campaign, WHITE MALE COLLEGE STUDENTS ARE RAPING EVERYTHING IN SIGHT!
In a country of more than 300 million people, everything will happen eventually. That doesn’t make it a trend. Go up to any ordinary, sentient person and ask: Which race assaults the other race more?
Remember the “knockout game” — or as its devotees called it, “polar bear hunting”? Black teenagers would go looking for white people to knock unconscious with a single punch, videotape the attacks and post them online. The knockout game was a real trend — which the media denied was a trend.
Just last month, we saw videos of white reporters from the Daily Caller being mugged by black men in Baltimore.
Ask around. You might be surprised at how many whites you know have been physically attacked by a black person at least once in their lives.
Ordinary people keep hearing that we are in the middle of an epidemic of white-on-black violence and think, Surely the media wouldn’t be making this up, so I must be misinformed.
According to a preposterously, laughably, ridiculously bogus report on “hate crimes” produced by Eric Holder’s Justice Department, blacks are far more likely to be victims of hate crimes than whites are. It would be like a government report asserting that most rapes are committed by elderly white women.
Holder’s DOJ got to the desired outcome by:
(1) Defining “hate crime” only as those in which the perp uses a racial epithet.
(Because that’s what people fear most: I don’t mind getting the crap kicked out of me — as long as no one calls me a “cracker”!)
(2) Defining Hispanic perpetrators as “white.”
(Yes, according to our federal government, Hispanics are “Hispanic” when they are victims of crimes, but “white” when they are the perpetrators.)
(3) Defining less than 0.1 percent of all violent crimes as “hate crimes.”
(According to the FBI’s detailed crime victimization report, there were about 1.2 million violent crimes in 2012, but Holder’s Justice Department characterized less than 1,000 of those as “hate crimes.”)
The FBI’s crime victimization surveys tell a very different story, one more in line with a normal person’s life experience.
In 2008, the most recent year for which such data seems to have been collected, FBI surveys show that, out of 520,161 interracial violent crimes, blacks committed 429,444 of them against whites, while whites committed 90,717 of them against blacks.
In other words, blacks commit more than 80 percent of all interracial violent crime.
Going for the element of surprise, columnist Brit Bennett recently complained in The New York Times that “white violence is unspoken and unacknowledged” by the media.
Yes, I barely heard a thing about such alleged white-on-black crimes as: Tawana Brawley (hoax), the Duke lacrosse gang rape (hoax), Trayvon Martin (self-defense), Ferguson (hoax) and Eric Garner (justified police arrest). Other than the wall-to-wall, 24/7 coverage for months on end, there was barely a peep out of the media about these cases.
The media will pounce on any suspicion of a white-on-black crime, spend a year being hysterical about it, and, if it turns out to be a false alarm, refuse to apologize, before quickly moving on to the next hoax.
The Charleston church shooting is the first case in a very long time in which blacks really were targeted by a white person because of their race (and had the misfortune of being in a gun-free zone). Even Bennett had to reach back to stories her grandmother told her about the Ku Klux Klan (100 percent Democratic) to come up with a previous example of whites terrorizing blacks.
The Charleston attack was a hideous, sickening crime. But that’s why we should thank our lucky stars that it was so unusual. White-on-black violence is freakishly rare everywhere in America, except liberal imaginations.
COPYRIGHT 2015 ANN COULTER

DID YOU KNOW THAT the Cherokee Nation Allied Themselves With the Confederate States of America in 1861.

DID YOU KNOW THAT the Cherokee Nation Allied Themselves With the Confederate States of America in 1861.

Many have no doubt heard of the valor of the Cherokee warriors under the command of Brigadier General Stand Watie in the West and of Thomas' famous North Carolina Legion in the East during the War for Southern Independence from 1861 to 1865. But why did the Cherokees and their brethren, the Creeks, Seminoles, Choctaws, and Chickasaws determine to make common cause with the Confederate South against the Northern Union? To know their reasons is very instructive as to the issues underlying that tragic war. Most Americans have been propagandized rather than educated in the causes of the war, all this to justify the perpetrators and victors. Considering the Cherokee view uncovers much truth buried by decades of politically correct propaganda and allows a broader and truer perspective.

On August 21, 1861, the Cherokee Nation by a General Convention at Tahlequah (in Oklahoma) declared its common cause with the Confederate States against the Northern Union. A treaty was concluded on October 7th between the Confederate States and the Cherokee Nation, and on October 9th, John Ross, the Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation called into session the Cherokee National Committee and National Council to approve and implement that treaty and a future course of action.

The Cherokees had at first considerable consternation over the growing conflict and desired to remain neutral. They had much common economy and contact with their Confederate neighbors, but their treaties were with the government of the United States.

The Northern conduct of the war against their neighbors, strong repression of Northern political dissent, and the roughshod trampling of the U. S Constitution under the new regime and political powers in Washington soon changed their thinking.

The Cherokee were perhaps the best educated and literate of the American Indian Tribes. They were also among the most Christian. Learning and wisdom were highly esteemed. They revered the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution as particularly important guarantors of their rights and freedoms. It is not surprising then that on October 28, 1861, the National Council issued a Declaration by the People of the Cherokee Nation of the Causes Which Have Impelled them to Unite Their Fortunes With Those of the Confederate States of America.

The introductory words of this declaration strongly resembled the 1776 Declaration of Independence:

"When circumstances beyond their control compel one people to sever the ties which have long existed between them and another state or confederacy, and to contract new alliances and establish new relations for the security of their rights and liberties, it is fit that they should publicly declare the reasons by which their action is justified."

In the next paragraphs of their declaration the Cherokee Council noted their faithful adherence to their treaties with the United States in the past and how they had faithfully attempted neutrality until the present. But the seventh paragraph begins to delineate their alarm with Northern aggression and sympathy with the South:

"But Providence rules the destinies of nations, and events, by inexorable necessity, overrule human resolutions."

Comparing the relatively limited objectives and defensive nature of the Southern cause in contrast to the aggressive actions of the North they remarked of the Confederate States:

"Disclaiming any intention to invade the Northern States, they sought only to repel the invaders from their own soil and to secure the right of governing themselves. They claimed only the privilege asserted in the Declaration of American Independence, and on which the right of Northern States themselves to self-government is formed, and altering their form of government when it became no longer tolerable and establishing new forms for the security of their liberties."

The next paragraph noted the orderly and democratic process by which each of the Confederate States seceded. This was without violence or coercion and nowhere were liberties abridged or civilian courts and authorities made subordinate to the military. Also noted was the growing unity and success of the South against Northern aggression. The following or ninth paragraph contrasts this with ruthless and totalitarian trends in the North:

"But in the Northern States the Cherokee people saw with alarm a violated constitution, all civil liberty put in peril, and all rules of civilized warfare and the dictates of common humanity and decency unhesitatingly disregarded. In the states which still adhered to the Union a military despotism had displaced civilian power and the laws became silent with arms. Free speech and almost free thought became a crime. The right of habeas corpus, guaranteed by the constitution, disappeared at the nod of a Secretary of State or a general of the lowest grade. The mandate of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was at naught by the military power and this outrage on common right approved by a President sworn to support the constitution. War on the largest scale was waged, and the immense bodies of troops called into the field in the absence of any warranting it under the pretense of suppressing unlawful combination of men."

The tenth paragraph continues the indictment of the Northern political party in power and the conduct of the Union Armies:

"The humanities of war, which even barbarians respect, were no longer thought worthy to be observed. Foreign mercenaries and the scum of the cities and the inmates of prisons were enlisted and organized into brigades and sent into Southern States to aid in subjugating a people struggling for freedom, to burn, to plunder, and to commit the basest of outrages on the women; while the heels of armed tyranny trod upon the necks of Maryland and Missouri, and men of the highest character and position were incarcerated upon suspicion without process of law, in jails, forts, and prison ships, and even women were imprisoned by the arbitrary order of a President and Cabinet Ministers; while the press ceased to be free, and the publication of newspapers was suspended and their issues seized and destroyed; the officers and men taken prisoners in the battles were allowed to remain in captivity by the refusal of the Government to consent to an exchange of prisoners; as they had left their dead on more than one field of battle that had witnessed their defeat, to be buried and their wounded to be cared for by southern hands."

The eleventh paragraph of the Cherokee declaration is a fairly concise summary of their grievances against the political powers now presiding over a new U. S. Government:

"Whatever causes the Cherokee people may have had in the past to complain of some of the southern states, they cannot but feel that their interests and destiny are inseparably connected to those of the south. The war now waging is a war of Northern cupidity and fanaticism against the institution of African servitude; against the commercial freedom of the south, and against the political freedom of the states, and its objects are to annihilate the sovereignty of those states and utterly change the nature of the general government."

The Cherokees felt they had been faithful and loyal to their treaties with the United States, but now perceived that the relationship was not reciprocal and that their very existence as a people was threatened. They had also witnessed the recent exploitation of the properties and rights of Indian tribes in Kansas, Nebraska, and Oregon, and feared that they, too, might soon become victims of Northern rapacity. Therefore, they were compelled to abrogate those treaties in defense of their people, lands, and rights. They felt the Union had already made war on them by their actions.

Finally, appealing to their inalienable right to self-defense and self-determination as a free people, they concluded their declaration with the following words:

"Obeying the dictates of prudence and providing for the general safety and welfare, confident of the rectitude of their intentions and true to their obligations to duty and honor, they accept the issue thus forced upon them, unite their fortunes now and forever with the Confederate States, and take up arms for the common cause, and with entire confidence of the justice of that cause and with a firm reliance upon Divine Providence, will resolutely abide the consequences.

The Cherokees were true to their words. The last shot fired in the war east of the Mississippi was May 6, 1865. This was in an engagement at White Sulphur Springs, near Waynesville, North Carolina, of part of Thomas' Legion against Kirk's infamous Union raiders that had wreaked a murderous terrorism and destruction on the civilian population of Western North Carolina. Col. William H. Thomas' Legion was originally predominantly Cherokee, but had also accrued a large number of North Carolina mountain men. On June 23, 1865, in what was the last land battle of the war, Confederate Brigadier General and Cherokee Chief, Stand Watie, finally surrendered his predominantly Cherokee, Oklahoma Indian force to the Union.

The issues as the Cherokees saw them were 1) self-defense against Northern aggression, both for themselves and their fellow Confederates, 2) the right of self-determination by a free people, 3) protection of their heritage, 4) preservation of their political rights under a constitutional government of law 5) a strong desire to retain the principles of limited government and decentralized power guaranteed by the Constitution, 6) protection of their economic rights and welfare, 7) dismay at the despotism of the party and leaders now in command of the U. S. Government, 8) dismay at the ruthless disregard of commonly accepted rules of warfare by the Union, especially their treatment of civilians and non-combatants, 9) a fear of economic exploitation by corrupt politicians and their supporters based on observed past experience, and 10) alarm at the self-righteous and extreme, punitive, and vengeful pronouncements on the slavery issue voiced by the radical abolitionists and supported by many Northern politicians, journalists, social, and religious (mostly Unitarian) leaders. It should be noted here that some of the Cherokees owned slaves, but the practice was not extensive.

The Cherokee Declaration of October 1861 uncovers a far more complex set of "Civil War" issues than most Americans have been taught. Rediscovered truth is not always welcome. Indeed some of the issues here are so distressing that the general academic, media, and public reaction is to rebury them or shout them down as politically incorrect.

The notion that slavery was the only real or even principal cause of the war is very politically correct and widely held, but historically ignorant. It has served, however, as a convenient ex post facto justification for the war and its conduct. Slavery was an issue, and it was related to many other issues, but it was by no means the only issue, or even the most important underlying issue. It was not even an issue in the way most people think of it. Only about 25% of Southern households owned slaves. For most people, North and South, the slavery issue was not so much whether to keep it or not, but how to phase it out without causing economic and social disruption and disaster. Unfortunately the Southern and Cherokee fear of the radical abolitionists turned out to be well founded.

After the Reconstruction Act was passed in 1867 the radical abolitionists and radical Republicans were able to issue in a shameful era of politically punitive and economically exploitive oppression in the South, the results of which lasted many years, and even today are not yet completely erased. 

The Cherokee were and are a remarkable people who have impacted the American heritage far beyond their numbers. We can be especially grateful that they made a well thought out and articulate declaration for supporting and joining the Confederate cause in 1861.
The largest force in Indian Territory was commanded by Confederate Brig.Gen. Stand Watie, who was also a chief of the Cherokee Nation. Dedicated to the Confederate cause and unwilling to admit defeat, he kept his troops in the field for nearly a month after Lt. Gen.E.Kirby Smith surrendered the Trans- Mississippi May 26. Finally accepting the futility of continued resistance, on June 23 Watie rode into Doaksville near Fort Towson in Indian Territory and surrender his battalion of Creek, Seminole, Cherokee, and Osage Indians to Lt.Col.Asa C.Matthews, appointed a few weeks earlier to negotiate a peace with the Indians. Watie was the last Confederate general officer to surrender his command.

  

     Certainly the most famous American Indian of the War of Northern Aggression and the first American Indian to ever earn the rank of a general officer was Stand Watie. On the wild frontier of the Trans-Mississippi west he earned a reputation as one of the most daring and courageous warriors to ever ride a horse. He was born on December 12, 1806 near Rome, Georgia to David Uwatie and Susanna Reese who was of mixed Cherokee and European blood. He was named Isaac S. Watie or Degataga which can be translated as "standing together as one" or "stand firm" which in either event led to him being known as Stand Watie. Educated by missionaries and instilled with a sense of his southern as well as Indian heritage, he and his brother Buck Watie, along with Major Ridge and John Ridge were in favor of moving the Cherokee to Oklahoma but were opposed in this by their Chief John Ross though both sides knew that their position in Georgia was unsustainable. Ultimately the Cherokees were moved to Oklahoma in 1838, but the feud between the Ross and Ridge factions and of the two Ridge brothers and two Watie brothers Stand was the only one not assassinated by Ross partisans.

     Stand Watie became a prominent man in the Indian Territory (as Oklahoma was called) where he established a flourishing plantation on the Spavinaw Creek (numerous Native American elites were slave owners) and from 1845 to 1861 he served on the Cherokee Council. When the War Between the States commenced in 1861 the Indian tribes were somewhat divided. Some feared that a failure to support the Union would lead to the revocation of the treaties they had signed with the federal government while others were quick to take up arms against the government which had already broken numerous treaties and seemed to regard them as enemies anyway. Questions of states' rights and other political controversies also existed, though not to the same degree since the Indian Territory was not a state and there were relatively few slaves west of the Mississippi.

     Ultimately, most of the Cherokees favored the Confederacy, but fear of having their treaties with the Union nullified led Chief John Ross to try to remain neutral in the conflict. For Stand Watie, however, there could be no neutrality and he left no doubt about his sympathy being with the Confederate States. As more Chickasaw, Choctaw and Creek Indians expressed their desire to ally with the Confederacy, Chief John Ross altered his position and the Cherokee Council voted for an alliance with the Confederate States of America. Stand Watie had pushed for this development and had constantly urged his countrymen to join with the Confederacy in fighting their common enemy; the United States government. As soon as the choice was official Stand Watie organized the First Cherokee Mounted Rifles of which he was commissioned colonel in October of 1861. He was on his way to becoming the most legendary American Indian of the war.

     With his hard fighting Cherokee cavalry Stand Watie battled Union incursions into the Oklahoma territory was well as Creek and Seminole Indians who had sided with the United States. His first major engagement and rise to notoriety came at the battle of Pea Ridge, Arkansas where the Confederate Army of the West attempted an attack on Union forces that would allow them back into southern Missouri. The battle was a southern defeat, but Stand Watie and his men acquitted themselves bravely, charging Union artillery and fighting hard to cover the retreat of Confederate forces. On the home front, however, there was to be no unity to back up the heroic actions of Stand Watie and his men. Many of the Indians dropped their support of the Confederacy at the first indication that the north might win, nonetheless, others remained committed to the cause they endorsed and in 1862 the Confederate sympathizers or Southern Cherokee elected Stand Watie their chief. In 1863 pro-Union Cherokees captured the tribal council headquarters at Tahlequah which Watie and his men later burned.

     Stand Watie led his cavalry in constant raids against Union forces, tying down thousands of federal troops that could have been employed elsewhere. He was so successful that General Samuel B. Maxey promoted him to brigadier general, the first American Indian to achieve that rank, and gave him command of a brigade of two regiments of mounted rifles, three Cherokee, Seminole and Osage infantry battalions based just south of the Canadian River. General Watie led these men in daring attacks all across Oklahoma and into parts of Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas and Texas. No brigade west of the Mississippi fought more battles that General Stand Watie and his Indians. All Confederate units were undersupplied but the situation was even worse on the western frontier and Watie had to sustain his men almost totally off of captured Union supplies. One raid saw the capture of a federal supply train loaded down with 16,000 pounds of bacon which his troops put to good use. On another occasion General Watie was wearing a captured Union overcoat that was much too large for him. As he sat outside his tent with his head down one of his soldiers tried to make off with the prize only to be startled when Watie shouted, "Hold on! There's a man in this coat!"

     Despite all of the efforts of the vastly more numerous Union forces, they could never catch or defeat General Watie and his men and his harassment continued until the end of the war. Ultimately, Stand Watie fought on longer than any other Confederate general of the war. It was not until June 23, 1865 that he signed a cease-fire agreement with Union forces at Fort Towson in the Choctaw area of Oklahoma, bringing his troops in to lay down their arms worn and weary but never defeated. After the war, Stand Watie continued to work on behalf of his people as Chief of the Southern Cherokee and negotiated the 1866 Cherokee Reconstruction Treaty which aimed at helping the Indian Territory recover from the devastation of the war. He died in 1871 and is buried in Polson Cemetery, Oklahoma. Among all of the accounts of the Civil War out west the name of General Stand Watie will always be remembered for his boldness, courage and dogged determination which knew no equal in the territory.

Source: Crisp Confederacy

Sergeant Swimmer. NC Cherokee, Thomas Legion	Col. Tandy Walker, CSA Choctaw	Col. John Jumper, CSA Seminole

PRINCIPAL REFERENCES:

• Emmett Starr, History of the Cherokee Indians, published by the Warden Company, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 1921. Reprinted by Kraus Reprint Company, Millwood, New York, 1977.
• Hattie Caldwell Davis, Civil War Letters and Memories from the Great Smoky Mountains, Second Edition published by the author, Maggie Valley, NC, 1999.