Russian Collusion between Democrats( Leftists) and Soviet Union/Russia

The Democrat ( Leftists) have colluded with Soviets/Russians for years. the Leftist Media does not Report this because it dos not support their agenda. The Elimination of a Constitutional Republic called the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! 

 

 Here is evidence!

1) KGB Memo – Senator Ted Kennedy – Democrats

 

All the prior shenanigans of the 2016 Presidential election beg a look back. As to how far the Democrats are willing to go to foil and disrupt an election, an election as important as the ultimate prize, President of the United States.
Senator Ted Kennedy wanted to diffuse the arms race and run for President in 1984 against Ronald Reagan. Is this real collusion or not? There is no doubt in my mind at least that if Kennedy had been the Democratic nominee and beat out Reagan in 1984, there would still be a Soviet Union today along with the Warsaw Pact; Warsaw Pact countries that are free today as independent nations. The Berlin Wall would have never come down for East Berliners and the old Warsaw Pact countries would still be living under Communist tyranny today.

State Emblem of the Soviet Union

KGB Symbol

Before getting to the text about Kennedy contacting the Russians, what or better yet, who is the KGB (1954-1991)?  A short description may help us understand who they are – “Its main functions were foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, operative-investigatory activities, guarding the State Border of the USSR, guarding the leadership of the Central Committee of the Communist Party and the Soviet Government, organization and ensuring of government communications as well as combating nationalism, dissent, and anti-Soviet activities.”

FSB

Today the KGB was replaced with the FSB— Its main responsibilities are within the country. It does counter-intelligence, internal and border security, counter-terrorism, and surveillance.^[2] It also investigates some other types of serious crimes. Its headquarter is in Lubyanka Square, Moscow’s centre, in the main building of the former KGB. The Director of the FSB since 2008 is army general Aleksandr Bortnikov. Not much difference except the name has changed.
Now, what was Senator Ted Kennedy a Democrat doing, one who many considered ‘The Lion of The Senate”, up to as this KGB information indicates, if it is in fact true and I’ll bet the CIA knows one way or the other—
KGB MEMO ON SENATOR TED KENNEDY
_________________________________________
Special Importance
Committee on State Security of the USSR
14.05. 1983 No. 1029 Ch/OV
Moscow 
Regarding Senator Kennedy’s request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party Comrade Y.V. Andropov 
Comrade Y.V. Andropov 
On 9-10 May of this year, Senator Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant J. Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Center Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov. 
Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations. Events are developing such that this relationship coupled with the general state of global affairs will make the situation even more dangerous. The main reason for this is Reagan’s belligerence, and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons within Western Europe. 
According to Kennedy, the current threat is due to the President’s refusal to engage any modification on his politics. He feels that his domestic standing has been strengthened because of the well publicized improvement of the economy: inflation has been greatly reduced, production levels are increasing as is overall business activity. For these reasons, interest rates will continue to decline. The White House has portrayed this in the media as the “success of Reaganomics.” 
Naturally, not everything in the province of economics has gone according to Reagan’s plan. A few well known economists and members of financial circles, particularly from the north-eastern states, foresee certain hidden tendencies that many bring about a new economic crisis in the USA. This could bring about the fall of the presidential campaign of 1984, which would benefit the Democratic party. Nevertheless, there are no secure assurances this will indeed develop. 
The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations. These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign. The movement advocating a freeze on nuclear arsenals of both countries continues to gain strength in the United States. The movement is also willing to accept preparations, particularly from Kennedy, for its continued growth. In political and influential circles of the country, including within Congress, the resistence to growing military expenditures is gaining strength. 
However, according to Kennedy, the opposition to Reagan is still very weak. Reagan’s adversaries are divided and the presentations they make are not fully effective. Meanwhile, Reagan has the capabilities to effectively counter any propaganda. In order to neutralize criticism that the talks between the USA and the USSR are non-constructive, Reagan will grandiose, but subjectively propagandistic. At the same time, Soviet officials who speak about disarmament will be quoted out of context, silenced or groundlessly and whimsically discounted. Although arguments and statements by officials of the USSR do appear in the press, it is important to note the majority of Americans do not read serious newspapers or periodicals. 
Kennedy believes that, given the current state of affairs, and in the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan and his campaign to psychologically burden the American people. In this regard, he offers the following proposals to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Y.V. Andropov: 
1. Kennedy asks Y.V. Andropov to consider inviting the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. He would also like to inform you that he has planned a trip through Western Europe, where he anticipates meeting England’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and French President Mitterand in which he will exchange similar ideas regarding the same issues. 
If his proposals would be accepted in principle, Kennedy would send his representative to Moscow to resolve questions regarding organizing such a visit. 
Kennedy thinks the benefits of a meeting with Y.V.Andropov will be enhanced if he could also invite one of the well known Republican senators, for example, Mark Hatfield. Such a meeting will have a strong impact on American and political circles in the USA (In March of 1982, Hatfield and Kennedy proposed a project to freeze the nuclear arsenals of the USA and USSR and pblished a book on the theme as well.) 
2. Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA. A direct appeal by the General Secretary to the American people will, without a doubt, attact a great deal of attention and interest in the country. The senator is convinced this would receive the maximum resonance in so far as television is the most effective method of mass media and information.
If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interview. Specifically, the president of the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters could visit Moscow. The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side. 
Furthermore, with the same purpose in mind, a series of televised interviews in the USA with lower level Soviet officials, particularly from the military would be organized. They would also have an opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the USSR, with their own arguments about maintaining a true balance of power between the USSR and the USA in military term. This issue is quickly being distorted by Reagan’s administration. 
Kennedy asked to convey that this appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is his effort to contribute a strong proposal that would root out the threat of nuclear war, and to improve Soviet-American relations, so that they define the safety of the world. Kennedy is very impressed with the activities of Y.V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders, who expressed their commitment to heal international affairs, and improve mutal understandings between peoples. 
The senator underscored that he eagerly awaits a reply to his appeal, the answer to which may be delivered through Tunney. 
Having conveyed Kennedy’s appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Tunney also explained that Senator Kennedy has in the last few years actively made appearances to reduce the threat of war. Because he formally refused to partake in the election campaign of 1984, his speeches would be taken without prejudice as they are not tied to any campaign promises. Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. At that time, he will be 56 and his personal problems, which could hinder his standing, will be resolved (Kennedy has just completed a divorce and plans to remarry in the near future). Taken together, Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president. This would explain why he is convinced that none of the candidates today have a real chance at defeating Reagan. 
We await instructions. 
President of the committee
V. Chebrikov

_________________________________________

Now that we know that Fusion GPS was a go-between for the DNC to do what they call operation research, you know, the kind that included a false Dossier on Donald Trump’s campaign and the set-up with Trump Jr. luring him to sit down with the Russians over some Clinton information, which there was none, it was all just a set-up. A set-up to make it look more like what the Democrats were saying openly had to be true in order to ensure Clinton won the 2016 election.
It appears now all this fake collusion business was to stop President Trump’s agenda if he just happens to win, which of course he did. The American people have caught on and in particular many are upset with the Republicans’ in Congress for sitting on their hands about the fake “collusion business”. Besides Trump is an outsider anyway, not part of the “good ole boys club” and they would rather see the American people suffer than to do the right thing thus blaming Trump for it.

2) MANY OF YOU MAY NOT CONNECT THE DOTS FROM THIS HOT MIKE EXCHANGE.. WHEN OBAMA WAS CAUGHT TELLING MEDVEDEV THAT HE WOULD HAVE MORE "FLEXIBILITY" AFTER HIS 2012 ELECTION!

Ever ask yourself what Obama was being Flexible about ?? What did he do to appease the Russians?

Obama Offered Deal to Russia in Secret Letter
sent a secret letter to Russia’s president last month suggesting that he would back off deploying a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would help stop Iran from developing long-range weapons, American officials said Monday.

The letter to President Dmitri A. Medvedev was hand-delivered in Moscow by top administration officials three weeks ago. It said the United States would not need to proceed with the interceptor system, which has been vehemently opposed by Russia since it was proposed by the Bush administration, if Iran halted any efforts to build nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles.

The officials who described the contents of the message requested anonymity because it has not been made public. While they said it did not offer a direct quid pro quo, the letter was intended to give Moscow an incentive to join the United States in a common front against Iran. Russia’s military, diplomatic and commercial ties to Tehran give it some influence there, but it has often resisted Washington’s hard line against Iran.

“It’s almost saying to them, put up or shut up,” said a senior administration official. “It’s not that the Russians get to say, ‘We’ll try and therefore you have to suspend.’ It says the threat has to go away.”

On Tuesday, a press secretary for Dmitri A. Medvedev told the Interfax news agency that the letter did not contain any “specific proposals or mutually binding initiatives.”

Natalya Timakova said the letter was a reply to one sent by Mr. Medvedev shortly after Mr. Obama was elected.

“Medvedev appreciated the promptness of the reply and the positive spirit of the message,” Ms. Timakova said. “Obama’s letter contains various proposals and assessments of the current situation. But the message did not contain any specific proposals or mutually binding initiatives.”

She said Mr. Medvedev perceives the development of Russian-American relations as “exceptionally positive,” and hopes details can be fleshed out at a meeting on Friday in Geneva between Foreign Minister Sergei V. Lavrov and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

DID HE ?    YES HE DID

Obama abandons missile defence shield in Europe 

 Obama has abandoned the controversial Pentagon plan to build a missile defence system in Europe that had long soured relations with Russia.

In one of the sharpest breaks yet with the policies of the Bush administration, Obama said the new approach would offer "stronger, swifter and smarter" defence for the US and its allies. He said it would focus on the threat posed by Iran's short- and medium-range missiles, rather than its intercontinental nuclear capabilities.
Obama announced the reversal officially at a news conference today. "This new approach will provide capabilities sooner, build on proven systems to offer greater defences to the threat of attack than the 2007 European missile defence programme," he said.
He phoned the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic last night to tell them he had dropped plans to site missile interceptors and a radar station in their respective countries. Russia had furiously opposed the project, claiming it targeted Moscow's nuclear arsenal.
The change of tack had been prompted by advances in missile technology and new intelligence about Iran's existing missile capabilities, Obama said.
The US president said "updated intelligence" on Iran's existing short- and medium-range missiles showed they were "capable of reaching Europe". He added that the US would continue its efforts to end Iranian attempts to develop an "illicit nuclear programme".
He said: "To put it simply our new missile defence architecture in Europe will provide stronger, smarter, swifter defences of American forces and America's allies."
During a visit to Moscow in July Obama indicated he was ordering a 60-day review of the scheme. According to today's Wall Street Journal, the findings, to be released next week, conclude that Iran's long-range missile programme is progressing more slowly than previously thought. Citing US officials, the paper said the White House believes Iran's short to medium-range programme poses a more potent and immediate danger.
In his press conference today, Obama made a point of rejecting Russia's objections to the missile defence shield. "Its concerns about our previous missile defence programmes were entirely unfounded," he said.
The Russian response suggested Obama's decision would not be met by any swift or generous concessions. A foreign ministry spokesman, Andrei Nesterenko, described the move as "obviously a positive sign for us" but made clear the decision had been a unilateral one taken by Washington alone. He suggested there had been no deals with Moscow on Iran or other issues. "That would disagree with our policy of resolution of any problems in relations with any countries, no matter how difficult or sensitive they may be."
The US decision will cheer many in government in western Europe who believed the scheme was an unnecessary provocation to the Russians. But today the Czech Republic and Poland expressed disappointment at the White House's decision to reverse track after six years of difficult negotiations. Senior sources in Warsaw and Prague said they would insist on the Americans honouring pledges they made to the Nato allies in return for agreeing last year to the plan for missile defence deployments.
Alexandr Vondra, a former Czech deputy prime minister and ambassador to Washington intimately involved in the negotiations with the Americans, said he was surprised. "This is a U-turn in US policy," he said. "But first we expect the US to honour its commitments. If they don't they may have problems generating support for Afghanistan and on other things."
Under the Bush administration the Pentagon spent years planning and negotiating to place 10 silos with interceptor rockets in northern Poland and to build a large radar station south of Prague to defend against a perceived ballistic missile threat from Iran.
The central European countries were keen to acquire the US installations and other military hardware as partial security guarantees against a resurgent Russia. Moscow claimed the project was aimed against Russia and threatened to deploy short-range nuclear weapons in the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, which sits inside the European Union.
Obama's climbdown is likely to be seen by Russia as a victory for its uncompromising stance.
Today, however, analysts pointed out the decision would help Obama secure Moscow's co-operation on a possible new sanctions package against Iran and would further his desire to "reset" relations with Moscow following a dismal period under the Bush administration.
It would significantly boost the chances of a new treaty on strategic nuclear arms reduction between Washington and Moscow, they said. Both the US and Russia have agreed to come up with a successor treaty to Start 1 by December, when the current agreement expires.
"Hardliners in Russia don't want an agreement on Start. It will be very difficult now for Russia to avoid an agreement," said Ruben Sergeyev, a defence analyst in Moscow. "It [the decision to drop the US shield] creates a very positive ambience, despite the fact it was really an artificial thing."
The decision strengthens Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian president, who is due to make his first presidential trip to the US next week for the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh. The Obama administration has been keen to boost Medvedev's standing and authority at home, seeing him as a more moderate and less hostile interlocutor than Putin.
Today the Nato secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said Obama's decision was "a positive step". Rasmussen said he had been briefed by the US envoy to Nato about it.
But the timing of the announcement is regarded as disastrous by the Poles. Eugeniusz Smolar, a former chief of Warsaw's Centre for International Relations, said: "We are disappointed." But he added that the Polish government had been assured by the Americans that promises of training with Patriot missile batteries and help in modernising the Polish military remained valid.
A few weeks ago, in a cri de coeur to Washington, several senior eastern European officials and public figures wrote a public letter to Obama complaining that their security interests were being ignored by the west to improve relations with Moscow.
Rasmussen, in his first big speech, is to call tomorrow for a new relationship between the western military alliance and Russia, taking more account of Moscow's security and strategic interests.
Russian experts said Obama's decision could only be seen as an unambiguous concession to Moscow, adding that it would severely disappoint the new Nato countries of eastern Europe. Yevgeny Miasnikov, a senior research scientist at Moscow's Centre for Arms Control, said the US administration would now consider ways of assuaging the Poles and Czechs, which might include providing Poland with Patriot interceptors capable of shooting down short- and medium-range missiles.
"Obama has taken a step in the direction of improving US-Russian relations. This will definitely help build a partnership," Miasnikov said. "Russia will also now make some concessions, maybe on strategic talks over nuclear arms reduction or maybe over Iran.
"Moscow will try to catalyse the process of improving US-Iranian relations and will facilitate dialogue between the two sides. I don't think threatening Iran is the way to solve this problem."

COLLUSION  WITH RUSSIA?
Then he worked with Hillary Clinton to give Russia 20% of US Uranium. Why ? How Naive can you be ? If US Uranium shows up in a Suitcase bomb.. that Russia give to a 3rd party Rouge regime or Actor... the bomb signature will show US Uranium and so we will not be able to blame other countries!

Remember this..

              

What were they resetting?
  They were setting up the sale of Uranium to The Russians...
Robert Mueller Conspired with Hillary Obama Gang. Was a Secret Paid Uranium Mule..
Julian Assange at WikiLeaks has exposed a 2009 State Department cable to the Russians raises fresh questions about the objectivity of Special Counsel Robert Mueller (shown), the man named to investigate any possible “collusions” between the presidential campaign of Donald Trump and the Russians.
In 2009, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton directed FBI Director Mueller to deliver a sample of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) to Russia. The uranium had reportedly been stolen. It seems particularly odd, considering that the FBI is not under the supervision of the State Department, and that the FBI director would personally make the transfer.

Assange released the controversial cable on May 17, the same day that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein tapped Mueller as an “independent” counsel to investigate any supposed Trump-Russian ties. 
Obama and Hillary conspired on their secret email server to sell 20% of US URANIUM to the Russians..  
Click below for details

https://john-gaultier.blogspot.com/2018/02/robert-mueller-conspired-with-hillary.html

HERE is STATE DEPT (under HRC) cable documenting MUELLER secret squirrel TRAITOR mission to MOSCOW on Sept 21 2009 to DELIVER URANIUM to Russia 

Mueller’s Role in Delivering Uranium to Russians Raises Questions. HE WAS THE CLINTON OBAMA URANIUM MULE

 

5 Times The Obama Administration Helped Russia At The United States’ Expense

If Russian President Vladimir Putin really did think a Donald Trump presidency would be good for Russia, the first year of that presidency must be quite the disappointment. There has been no indication that the Trump administration’s policies are influenced by Russian preferences.
Perhaps that’s why some found interesting a recent Daily Beast article claiming Trump National Security Council senior staffer Kevin Harrington recommended withdrawing U.S. troops from Eastern Europe to curry favor with Russia. This, the article states, was “something that smelled, to a colleague, like a return on Russia’s election-time investment in President Trump.”
Sure, it’s the speculation of an anonymous source, but it would be bad, if true. Then the article goes on to say a second anonymous former colleague “noted that Harrington’s proposal was largely politely brushed aside, even at the uniquely chaotic early days of the Trump era.” Oh.
Yes, that was a horrible, dangerous, unbelievably stupid idea. It was also rejected. It never approached the possibility that it could become a reality—unlike all the times people in the Obama administration had ideas about capitulating to the Russians and then those ideas becoming reality.
Here are just five times the Obama administration considered then carried out bad policies that helped Russia and hurt the United States.
1. Choked at Russia’s Cyberattacks and Election Meddling
While there is no evidence that anything Russian efforts did affected the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, the intelligence community assesses Russia interfered in the months leading up to it to sow public discord and undermine confidence in the democratic process. The Obama administration knew about this for months. But President Obama opted to not call Russia out on it publicly or inform the American people.
In fact, his administration didn’t even draw public attention to this until October, just weeks before the election. In a hearing on the subject, Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff asked Obama Homeland Security Director Jeh Johnson, “Why wasn’t it more important to tell the American people the length and breadth of what the Russians were doing to interfere in an election than any risk that it might be seen as putting your hand on the scale? Didn’t the public have a compelling need to know?”
Indeed. Even Tom Donilon, a former Obama national security advisor, argues Obama should have made “aggressive public attribution” that Russia was responsible, long before the administration did.
Then there was all that Russian hacking that went on throughout the Obama presidency. The Russians pilfered American intellectual property and attacked private companies, Nasdaq, and banks, as well as government agencies, including the Pentagon.
2. Abdicated Leadership on Syria to Russia
The Islamic Republic of Iran funds and exports terrorism that has directly led to the deaths of American soldiers. Syria is a proxy state of Iran, and in 2011 an uprising challenged its brutal dictator Bashar al-Assad. In 2015 President Obama drew his infamous red line, threatening a U.S. military response if Assad used chemical weapons against the Syrian people.
Later that year, Assad used chemical weapons, killing more than 1,500 people. President Obama failed to enforce the red line, instead choosing to accept a deal with Russia to “remove” all of Syria’s chemical weapons. After some of the chemical weapons were removed, President Obama declared victory, saying, “American diplomacy, backed by the threat of force, is why Syria’s chemical weapons are being eliminated.”
Months later, Secretary of State John Kerry boasted, “We struck a deal where we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out.” That was false. Assad continued to use chemical weapons against his own people. According to former Obama administration officials, Obama’s failure to punish Assad and enforce prohibitions on chemical weapons was directly due to his administration’s desire to assuage Russia, Syria’s—and Iran’s—ally.
3. Cancelled U.S. Missile Defenses In Eastern Europe
Russia’s government strongly opposed Bush administration plans to deploy ballistic missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic. The pretext for their disapproval was that the system would weaken the effect of the Russian offensive force.
This was always nonsense. The defenses’ 10 interceptors and associated radar could not handle the massive offensive Russian force. The plan was to deploy the system to provide additional coverage of the U.S. homeland and European allies from Iranian long-range ballistic missiles. The placement in Poland provided an optimal angle from which to shoot at any incoming missiles. Russians actually opposed this because it would entail placing U.S. forces in Poland.
It took courage from the Polish and Czech governments to stick their necks out and push for these deployments, knowing it would anger the Russian government. This is why the missile defense initiative took on a greater political significance beyond the mere technical protection it would offer. Then in 2009, just as President Obama was kicking off his “Russia reset,” he pulled the rug out from under the Poles and Czechs and cancelled the missile defense plan.
Polish newspapers called the decision a betrayal and some Polish politicians wondered publicly if the United States under President Obama’s leadership was demoting Poland’s allied status. In 2012, still smarting over the cancellation, Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski said, “Our mistake was that by accepting the American offer of a shield we failed to take into account the political risk associated with a change of president… We paid a high political price.” Jan Vidim, a Czech lawmaker, told the Associated Press, “If the Administration approaches us in the future with any request, I would be strongly against it.”
Obama defenders will dispute this and argue the cancelation was due to the missile defense system’s ineffectiveness or that the administration merely wanted a different kind of missile defense architecture. WikiLeaks released the State Department cables in 2010, revealing that appeasing Russia was a motivator for canceling the plan with Poland.
But President Obama wasn’t done using missile defense as a negotiating chip with the Russians. Three years later the infamous “hot mic” incident occurred when President Obama met then Russian President Medvedev and was caught asking Medvedev to communicate to Putin, then prime minister, that he should give Obama “space” on “all these issues, but particularly missile defense” until after the U.S. presidential election, because once he had the headache of the American peoples’ wishes behind him, he’d have “more flexibility.” You can watch and listen to the exchange here.
4. Allowed Russia to Sell S-300 Air Defenses to Iran
Should the United States or Israel decide it is in their interest to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, the Iranians wouldn’t have a robust air defense system to shoot down the attacking aircraft. Unless, of course, the Russians sold the powerful S-300 air defense system to the Iranians, which they did.
The United States firmly opposed and prevented the Russians from doing this for years, threatening sanctions if they so dared. But in pursuit of the Iran deal, in 2010 the Obama administration opted not to prohibit the Russian sale of the S-300s to Iran. The Russians delivered the systems to Iran and Iran promptly deployed them around its nuclear facility at Fordow. The Obama administration declined to impose sanctions on Russia despite its clear violation of laws that opposed the move.
5. Ignored Russia’s Treaty Violations
U.S. congressmen from both parties grew increasingly frustrated when repeatedly seeking answers from the Obama administration over reports that Russia was violating the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, negotiated by President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev, that abolished an entire class of missiles. In 2014 the Obama administration finally publicly admitted that Russia had been violating the treaty as early as 2008.
What made this episode especially maddening was that the Obama administration negotiated yet another arms-control treaty with the Russians, the New START Treaty, and rushed it through the Senate, all while Russia was cheating on INF and appearing to keep this violation from Congress. (By the way, Russia is still cheating.)
So far, the Trump administration has been moving forward with a variety of initiatives that would strengthen U.S. security despite Russian objections. This includes its energy policy, arming Ukraine, rolling back Iran’s influence, investing in U.S. military preparedness, and significantly improving the U.S. nuclear deterrent and missile defense system.
The Trump administration should keep this up, and if it starts to do otherwise, it deserves every bit of criticism and condemnation from both ends of the political spectrum that is likely to follow. Thankfully, it certainly seems as though the policy of Russian appeasement ended with Trump’s predecessor’s second term.

SO YOU TELL ME WHO HAS COLLUDED WITH THE RUSSIANS AND THE SOVIETS?

They are trying t bring down The CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC AND THEY ARE HIDING THE TRUTH !!

Democratic ties to Russia are ample, and often ethically Crooked!

Here are just a few examples:
The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner (D-Va.), had extensive contact with a lobbyist for a Russian oligarch to help connect with the author of the anti-Trump “dossier.” Warner reportedly texted at the time that he didn’t wish to “leave a paper trail.” Warner allegedly waited six months before disclosing the contacts to the committee, which is investigating Russia matters. 
The anti-Trump “dossier” that the FBI secretly used to justify wiretaps on a Trump adviser was compiled by a man at a political opposition research firm, Fusion GPS, who relied on and quoted Russian sources who are close to President Putin.
According to anonymous intel officials quoted in the New York Times, U.S. intelligence officials made a deal with Russians who offered unverified, compromising material on Trump.
A Washington lobbying/consulting firm, the Podesta Group, founded by Obama adviser and Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and his brother, lobbied for Russia’s largest bank, owned by the government (or, as you like, President Putin). John’s brother, Tony, also lobbied for Ukrainian interests (reportedly in partnership with Trump associates Manafort and Gates). John Podesta left the firm years ago; Tony stepped down last November amid controversy over the lobbying. He has not been charged with any crimes.
The Podesta Group also represented Russia-owned Uranium One, which received approval from a federal oversight board that included the State Department under Hillary Clinton to buy about one-fifth of the U.S. production capacity of uranium, a key material for making nuclear weapons.
Uranium One interests reportedly contributed $145 million to Bill and Hillary Clinton’s charitable foundation.
Former Sens. John Breaux (D-La.) and Trent Lott (R-Miss.) lobbied for Russia’s banking giant, Gazprombank, owned by Putin’s government.
The lead Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), engaged with a Russian caller posing as a Ukrainian contact offering Russian blackmail material against President Trump. Afterward, Schiff made arrangements for his staff to try to collect the material. It turns out the caller was a Russian radio-host spoofer. Schiff has said he was not really fooled by the call.
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.),  and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) also reportedly engaged in conversations with Russian comedians who posed as Ukrainian officials.
McCain secretly delivered to the FBI a copy of the anti-Trump “dossier” opposition research, which quoted Russian sources.
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign funded the anti-Trump “dossier” that relied on Russian sources, who were close to Kremlin officials.

THE CENSUS QUESTION ABOUT CITIZENSHIP...The Democrat/Leftist Scheme: How Illegal Aliens in America will Impact Congressional seats if counted

WHY DO YOU THINK THE DEMOCRATS WANT ILLEGAL ALIENS COUNTED IN THE CENSUS?

THEY USE THE CENSUS NUMBERS TO APPORTION CONGRESSIONAL SEATS !

TRUMP NEEDS TO SIGN AN EXECUTIVE ORDER AND LET THE SUPREME COURT DEAL WITH THE ISSUE.

If you have not figured it out yet... let me make you aware that the plan to steal America is a Multi pronged approach ! Getting more Democrat Congressmen is part of the plan.

                                THAT'S THE PLAN!!

Those who have wanted to steal America for over 50 years have had a long term multi pronged approach to taking over America. Lets get this straight.. they do not want to "destroy America" .. They want to steal it intact with ALL its natural resources available to create their "New America" with the riches, resources and infrastructure in place so that their Gang can run a New Oligarchy that can economically sustain itself for the next 200+ years.

United States has
> Total resource value: $45 trillion
> Oil reserves (value): in top 3
> Natural gas reserves (value): 272.5 trillion cu. ft. ($3.1 trillion)
> Timber reserves (value): 750 million acres ($10.9 trillion) 

 and that excludes the Infra structure and  accessibility.

The U.S. has 31.2% of the world’s proved coal reserves. Worth an estimated $30 trillion, this is by far the most valuable supply of any nation on earth. There is also 750 million forested acres in the country, which are worth nearly $11 trillion. Timber and coal combined are worth roughly 89% of the country’s total natural resource value. The U.S. is also in the top five nations globally for copper, gold and natural gas.

If you read through my blog you will see various schemes of this multi pronged attack. They anticipated that Hillary Clinton would win and the march towards this Socialist Oligarchical State would continue... but Donald Trump won the Presidency and stopped the smooth transition they had expected!.. Their fight has become more complicated now and.. they have had to expose themselves for who they are much earlier than expected..

The following information is provided so that you can see how the Left has created a scheme to create more Congressional Seats that will vote for their cause. All their plans are very subtle and when observed one at a separate separate from other actions they look random.. but looked at from the elevated view where you can see all the pieces of this planned patchwork quilt you realize they have a plan and they are executing it effectively.

Conservatives are one dimensional actors.. and they love playing "Whack a Mole". The reality is that WE SHOULD BE DESTROYING THE WHOLE MOLE TABLE WITH ONE WHACK!

Read up and plan a Comprehensive Fight back.


Illegals do not have to vote just yet ... all they have to do is to be counted in every census! You must realize that when the Constitution was written the Founding Fathers had no idea that there would come a time when the Country would be attacked from within. They had no idea that the Infiltration of America would not be by Armed Enemies but a clever scheme to destroy us from within. That is why

Why the Census SHOULD NOT Count Undocumented Immigrants

A Matter of Equal Representation and Politics

Counting undocumented immigrants in the census undermines the fundamental principle of American representative democracy that every voter has an equal voice. Through the census-based process of apportionment, states with large numbers of undocumented aliens will unconstitutionally gain members in the U.S. House of Representatives thus robbing the citizen-voters in other states of their rightful representation.

In addition, an inflated population count resulting from the inclusion of undocumented immigrants would increase the number of votes some states get in the electoral college system, the actual process of electing the President of the United States.

In short, including undocumented immigrants in the census count will unjustly bestow additional political power in states where lax enforcement of immigration laws attract large populations of undocumented aliens, such as California, Texas and other states in which Democrats seek to gain greater influence over national politics.

In calculating congressional apportionment, the Census Bureau counts the states’ total population, including both citizens and non-citizens of all ages. The apportionment population also includes U.S. Armed Forces personnel and federal civilian employees stationed outside the United States — and their dependents living with them — that can be allocated, based on administrative records, back to a home state.

Get the Picture?

From

Testimony prepared for the House Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census

December 6, 2005

Steven A. Camarota

Director of Research, Center for Immigration Studies

Introduction
The United States is currently experiencing the largest sustained wave of immigration in its history, with 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants settling in the country each year. The foreign born or immigrant population stood at over 31 million in the 2000 Census, and the total has grown to 36 million by the end of 2005.¹ There is an unfortunate tendency to view this immigration one dimensionally. Some see immigrants only as workers, other see them as a potential voters, or only the fiscal problem they may create, still others see only possible terrorists. All of these perspectives capture some aspect of immigration. But immigrants are much more than this. Immigrants are not simply things, they are human beings. As a result, their presence in the United States has wide ranging economic, cultural, demographic, national security, and political effects on our country. Whether one thinks the effects of immigration is on balance a net gain or a net loss to the country, the fact remains its impact is very broad and not confined to one area.

This hearing is going to discuss one of the most often overlooked, but nonetheless important, effects they have: on political representation. If you take nothing else away from my testimony, it should be that allowing in people, even as guest workers or just tolerating illegal immigration, has board ranging effects. These effects include such things as the redistribution of House seats. For example, if we take the 11 million illegals already here and grant them temporary status, the Census in 2010 will still count them, and seats will still be apportioned to states based on their presence. On the other hand, if we enforce the law and make most illegals go home, this too will have apportionment consequences in 2010. In our discussion of immigration, therefore, we should not compartmentalize its various impacts; instead, we must recognize the broad implications of immigration on virtually every aspect of American life, including apportionment.

Overall Numbers
Number of Non-Citizens in 2000. The 2000 Census showed 18.6 million or almost 60 percent of the foreign born were not U.S. citizens.² It should be noted that figures for the foreign born, including those for citizenship, are from the Census long form, which only about one-sixth percent of the nation's population receives. Of the more than 18 million non-citizens who responded to the Census in 2000, there is widespread agreement that 7 or 8 million were illegal aliens, and 1 to 1.5 million were on long-term temporary visa, such as guest workers and foreign students.³ Non-citizens comprised 6.6 percent of the nation's total population in 2000.
Growth in Non-Citizen Population. Overall, growth in the non-citizen population is the product of new immigration, but this is offset by those green card holders who choose to naturalize, those non-citizens who die, and those who return home. In 1990, there were 11.8 million non-citizens, up from 7 million in the 1980 Census.
Thus, during the 1990s the number of non-citizens grew by some 680,000 a year. As a share of the total population, non-citizens increased from 3.1 percent in 1980 to 4.7 percent in 1990 to 6.6 percent in 2000. Data collected by the Census Bureau since 2000 shows that growth in the number of non-citizens has continued to increase. In March of 2005 there were 21.7 million non-citizens in the country and they comprised 7.4 percent of the total population.⁴ Again, this growth reflects continued high rates of new immigration.
Non-citizens over Age 18. For purposes of reapportionment, the Census counts all persons, including those too young to vote. However, in terms of the number of voters per district or per state, the share of the voting-age population that is non-citizen is also relevant. In 2000, some 7.6 percent of the nation's adult population (18 and over) were non-citizen, higher than the 6.6 percent of the total population. In 2005, of the over-18 population, 8.7 percent are not citizens. Most immigrants come as adults, and all children born to immigrants in the United States (even those born to illegal immigrants) are automatically citizens, thus non-citizens comprise a larger share of the 18-and-over population than of the total population. In other words, there are relatively few immigrant children because most children in immigrant families were born here. This means that vote counts in high immigration states and districts will be even lower than one might suspect given the share of the total population that is non-citizen.
Impact On Congressional Apportionment
Non-citizens Have Large Impact. Immigration has a significant effect on the distribution of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives for three reasons. First, seats are apportioned based on each state's total population relative to the rest of the country, including illegal aliens and other non-citizens. This, of course, is the issue at the center of Congresswomen Miller's proposal. Second, congress has chosen to allow in a large number of legal immigrants and to tolerate wide spread illegal immigration. After the 2000 Census, the average congressional district had roughly 650,000 people. Thus, the more than 18 million non-citizens in the 2000 Census were equal to nearly 29 congressional seats. The third reason is that non-citizens are not evenly distributed throughout the country. In 2000, half of all non-citizens lived in just three states and almost 70 percent live in just six states. States with a large non-citizen population will gain at the expense of states comprised mostly of citizens.
Impact of Non-Citizens on Apportionment. In a report entitled, "Remaking the Political Landscape: The Impact of Illegal and Legal Immigration on Congressional Apportionment," published by the Center for Immigration Studies in October of 2003, we calculated the impact of non-citizens on the distribution of seats in the House.⁵ Overall we found that the presence of non-citizens caused a total of nine seats to change hands. Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin each lost a seat that they had prior to the 2000 Census while Montana, Kentucky and Utah each failed to gain a seat they other wise would have gained, but for the presences non-citizens in other states. Of the nine seats redistributed by non-citizens, 6 went to California, while Texas, New York and Florida each gained a seat and New York retained a seat it otherwise would have lost. Analysis of this kind is very straightforward, involving a simple calculation of the apportionment of seats to states with non-citizens included and then without them. Other researchers have come to the same conclusion.⁶
Impact of Illegal Aliens. In our 2003 apportionment study we also tried to estimate the impact of illegal aliens by themselves. The former INS has estimated the size and state distribution of illegals who responded to the Census, and we used those figures to estimate their impact on the distribution of House seats. We found that of the nine states that lost seats due to non-citizens, four were the result of illegals. This makes perfect sense because 40 to 45 percent of non-citizens are illegal aliens. Indiana, Michigan, and Mississippi each lost one seat in the House and Montana failed to gain a seat it otherwise would have gained because of illegal aliens in other states.
Impact on Electoral College. Immigration and the resulting non-citizen population not only redistributes seats in the House, it has the same effect on presidential elections because the apportionment of the Electoral College is based on the same basic calculations as congressional delegations. Thus immigration policy and the resulting large non-citizen population it produces impacts the distribution of political influence both in Congress and in the Executive.
States That Lost Did Not Decline in Population. One common mistake is to think of the states that lost seats as losing population. It is very important to understand that the states that lost a seat due to the presence of non-citizens in other states are not declining in population. The population of the four states that lost seats due to illegals increased 1.6 million in the 1990s, and the population of the five states that lost a seat because of other non-citizens increased 2 million. However, immigration caused the population of other states to grow even faster.
States and Districts With Many Non-Citizens
Immigrant-induced Reapportionment. One way in which immigrant-induced reapportionment is different from reapportionment caused when natives relocate to other states is that immigration takes away representation from states composed almost entirely of U.S. citizens so that new districts can be created in states with large numbers of non-citizens. Again, I think this is the central concern behind Congresswoman Miller proposal. In the 9 states that lost a seat because of the presences of non-citizens, only 1 in 50 residents was not a U.S. citizens in 2000. In contrast, one in seven residents is a non-citizen in California, which picked up six of the nine seats redistributed by non-citizens. And 1 in 10 residents is a non-citizen in New York, Texas and Florida.
As a result, it often takes relatively few votes to win a district in some high immigration states. Our study of reapportionment found that in 2002, it took 101,000 votes to win the typical House race in the nine states that lost a seat because of non-citizens; in contrast it took only 68,000 votes to win the average district in California, and 67,000 to win the average district in Texas, and just 81,000 votes to win the typical district in New York. The political distortions created by non-citizens are even more pronounced in some districts. For example, 43 percent of the population in California's immigrant-heavy 31st district are not U.S. citizens, and in the 34th district, its 38 percent. In Florida's 21st district 28 percent of the population are not American citizens; in New York's 12th district it's 23 percent; and in Texas' 29th district its 22 percent.⁷ The large number of non-citizens would seem to create real tension with the principle of "one man one vote" because it now takes so few votes to win a congressional seat in many high immigration states. As already indicated, it takes about 100,000 voters to win the typical congressional race in the states that lost a seat due to the non-citizens. In contrast, it took less than 33,000 votes to win the 34rd district in California and only 34,000 to win the 31st district in 2002. The 12th district of New York took only 42,000 votes to win. Allowing in enormous numbers of immigrants has created a situation in which the votes of American citizens living in low-immigration states and districts count much less than that the votes of citizens living in high immigration districts.
Practical Issues to Consider
Can Non-citizens Be Excluded? Putting aside the legal and constitutional issues surrounding non-citizens and apportionment, which I will leave to others, there are practical issues to consider. For one thing, if we are to exclude non-citizens it would require Congress to instruct the Census Bureau to significantly change the way the Census itself is administered. The citizenship question is part of the Census "long form" that is received by only one-sixth of the population. This question would have to move to the short form in order to exclude non-citizens. There is also the question of how accurate respondents fill out the Census. Accuracy may become a much larger issue if persons are going to be excluded from apportionment counts based on their answers, which is not the case now. It should be noted that while there is some evidence that immigrants sometimes say they are citizens when in fact they are not, the overall number of citizens seems to be relatively accurate in the Census, though for some groups of immigrants this is less true.
Can Illegal Aliens Be Excluded? Excluding only illegal aliens from apportionment while perhaps politically popular and appealing from a fairness point of view, would be dramatically more difficult than excluding all non-citizens. The INS and Census Bureau and other outside researchers estimate the number of illegal aliens by comparing the demographic characteristics of those responding to the Census with administrative data on legal admissions. While such methods produce reasonably accurate estimates of the illegal population overall, they do not definitively identify individual illegal aliens in the Census. Any effort to pick out specific individuals are only highly educated guesses, that while useful to demographers and even policy makers, would almost certainly not pass constitutional muster. It is possible to simply ask all respondents if they are illegal aliens. While some may answer honestly, it seems certain that many if not most illegals would probably not identify themselves as such.
Encouraging Naturalization Is Helpful, But No Solution. One potential solution to the problem of citizens losing representation is to encourage those who are eligible for citizenship to naturalize. Of course, such efforts would not change the fact that low immigration states are losing political power. Moreover, even the most optimistic assumption about the impact of efforts to increase citizenship would still leave an enormous number of non-citizens. Illegal aliens are not eligible for citizenship, nor are persons on long-term temporary visa. As long as one million or more new legal immigrants are allowed to enter each year, the non-citizen population will continue to be very large. One study found that if every single eligible immigrant naturalized, there would still be roughly 15 million non-citizens (illegal aliens, legal immigrants, and long-term visitors) in 2002.⁸ As long as the level of legal and illegal immigration remain at record levels, American citizens in low immigration areas and states will continue to lose representation, even if naturalization rates increased dramatically.

Non-citizen and Apportionment Is Part of The Immigration Debate
It should be obvious that a large non-citizen population is an unavoidable product of large scale legal immigration (both permanent and temporary) and widespread toleration of illegal immigration. Because family relationships and existing cultural ties determine where immigrants go, changes in immigrant settlement pattern happen only slowly. Thus non-citizens will continue to cause a significant redistribution of seats in the House. While outside our discussion here, non-citizens have the same impact at the state and local level as well.
Rather than focus on just the impact of non-citizens on apportionment, it would make more sense to incorporate this issue into the overall immigration debate. Thus when thinking about a guestworker program, for example, advocates of allowing illegals to stay need to understand that this decision will have a significant impact on apportionment in 2010. This fact by itself does not mean that a guestworker program is necessarily a bad or good idea. But it does mean that a guestworker program has consequences that can only be seen with if we look beyond immigrants simply as workers. Whatever one may think of the overall costs and benefits of immigration, it should be obvious that our decisions about immigration need to take account of many issues, including, apportionment and political representation.

---

End Notes
¹This is based on my analysis of the Annual Social and Economic Supplement of the Current Population Survey done by the Census Bureau in March of 2005, and subsequent Current Population Surveys done with out the March supplement.
²There is some evidence that Hispanic immigrants in particular tend to overstate there citizenship. It is also important to note that although the number of non-citizens in the Census was 18.6, the number in the population used for apportionment was closer to 18.5 million. This is because the population of the District of Columbia and persons overseas are not included in apportionment calculations.
³The INS report estimating 7 million illegals in 2000 with an annual increase of about 500,000 can be found at www.uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/Ill_Report_1211.pdf . The Census Bureau estimate of 8 million illegals in 2000 report can be found at www.census.gov/dmd/www/ReportRec2.htm (Appendix A of Report 1 contains the estimates).
⁴This is based my analysis of the Annual Social and Economic Supplement of the Current Population Survey done by the Census Bureau in March of 2005.
⁵Those wanting a more detailed explanation of our methodology should read the entire report which can be found at www.cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/articles/2003/back1403.html .
⁶These results are the same as those obtained by Marta Tienda in her 2002 article in Demography entitled "Demography and the Social Contract," pages 587-616.
⁷These figures come from the Census Bureau's American Community survey collected in 2002. The results can be found at www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/index.htm .
⁸A report from the Urban Institute found that in 2002 there were an estimated 11 naturalized citizens and 8 million additional individuals who were eligible to naturalized out of the total foreign born population estimated by the Institute at 34 million. The entire report can be found at www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/310847_trends_in_naturalization.pdf .

MORE INFO TO UNDERSTAND!

Most Americans know that their representation in the U.S. House of Representatives is based on proportional representation as determined by the decennial Census. And, many Americans are aware that the Census takers try to count everybody residing in the country. But, most Americans do not make the connection that illegal immigrants and other foreigners who are not legal permanent residents are part of the calculation for the apportionment of Congressional representatives. If the population of illegal aliens and other long-term foreign residents were inconsequential, this would not be an important issue. However, with 18.5 million more persons counted in the 2000 Census than the number of U.S. citizens, this is a valid major concern.

Because illegal aliens should not even be in the country, and other nonimmigrants such as foreign students and guest workers are here only temporarily, it makes no sense to distribute Congressional seats as if these foreign nationals deserved representation the same as American citizens.

The U.S. population that logically should be enumerated includes U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents (immigrants). As only the former may vote in federal elections, the apportionment of seats in Congress should be done on the basis of the number of citizens in each state. ¹ Apportionment of federal funds should be based on the number of citizens and legal residents of each state.

Some federal funding programs provide compensation to the states based on mandated expenditures for foreign residents, i.e., emergency medical care, incarceration, English language learning. The number and identity of these non-citizen users of these services is appropriately collected by the service provider and should be provided to the federal government as a condition precedent to receiving any distribution of federal funds.

On the basis of the current Census questionnaire, however, there is no way to determine if a foreign resident is legally or illegally in the country. But the Census does ask whether persons are U.S. citizens. It could also ask persons who are not U.S. citizens if they are legal permanent residents ("green card" holders).

As a result of the current incoherent system of allocating seats based on all persons counted in the Census, some Member of Congress represent many fewer U.S. citizens and permanent residents than others. Similarly, some states that have large numbers of illegal aliens and other non-citizens gain the advantage of additional representation in Congress at the expense of states that have fewer illegal aliens and non-citizens, since the total number in the House of Representatives is currently fixed by law at 435 members.

Besides the distortions in apportionment of representation among the states and in the number of citizens represented by each representative, the Census also causes distortions when it is used to allocate federal public assistance funds among the states because nonimmigrants, including illegal aliens, are not entitled to public welfare.

If apportionment based on U.S. citizenship had been in force following the 2000 Census, the distribution of seats in the House of Representatives would have been as shown in the chart below, which also shows the actual apportionment and the difference (states not listed would have no change).

State	Reallocation		Current		Change
California	47		53		-6
Florida	24		25		-1
Indiana	10		9		1
Kentucky	7		6		1
Michigan	16		15		1
Mississippi	5		4		1
New York	28		29		-1
Ohio	19		18		1
Oklahoma	6		5		1
Pennsylvania	20		19		1
South Carolina	7		6		1
Texas	31		32		-1
Wisconsin	9		8		1

As may be seen from the reallocation of seats based on the distribution of U.S. citizens, the states with the largest illegal and resident nonimmigrant populations currently gain influence in the law making process as a result of the current distribution of congressional seats. The perverse effect of this current apportionment process is that it encourages states to accommodate the presence of persons who constitute a major fiscal burden on their citizenry.

If the seats in the House of Representative were reapportioned based on the distribution of U.S. citizens, the big loser of seats would be California, losing 6 seats. Three other states with large immigrant populations both legal and illegal would also lose one seat each, i.e., Texas, New York and Florida. The winners in this reallocation of congressional representation would be the residents of Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Wisconsin. Those states each would gain one additional representative.

The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers

Introduction

A continually growing population of illegal aliens, along with the federal government’s ineffective efforts to secure our borders, present significant national security and public safety threats to the United States. They also have a severely negative impact on the nation’s taxpayers at the local, state, and national levels. Illegal immigration costs Americans billions of dollars each year. Illegal aliens are net consumers of taxpayer-funded services and the limited taxes paid by some segments of the illegal alien population are, in no way, significant enough to offset the growing financial burdens imposed on U.S. taxpayers by massive numbers of uninvited guests. This study examines the fiscal impact of illegal aliens as reflected in both federal and state budgets.

The Number of Illegal Immigrants in the US

Estimating the fiscal burden of illegal immigration on the U.S. taxpayer depends on the size and characteristics of the illegal alien population. FAIR defines “illegal alien” as anyone who entered the United States without authorization and anyone who unlawfully remains once his/her authorization has expired. Unfortunately, the U.S. government has no central database containing information on the citizenship status of everyone lawfully present in the United States. The overall problem of estimating the illegal alien population is further complicated by the fact that the majority of available sources on immigration status rely on self-reported data. Given that illegal aliens have a motive to lie about their immigration status, in order to avoid discovery, the accuracy of these statistics is dubious, at best. All of the foregoing issues make it very difficult to assess the current illegal alien population of the United States.
However, FAIR now estimates that there are approximately 12.5 million illegal alien residents. This number uses FAIR’s previous estimates but adjusts for suspected changes in levels of unlawful migration, based on information available from the Department of Homeland Security, data available from other federal and state government agencies, and other research studies completed by reliable think tanks, universities, and other research organizations.

The Cost of Illegal Immigration to the United States

At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. The total cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling. In 2013, FAIR estimated the total cost to be approximately $113 billion. So, in under four years, the cost has risen nearly $3 billion. This is a disturbing and unsustainable trend. The sections below will break down and further explain these numbers at the federal, state, and local levels.

Total Governmental Expenditures on Illegal Aliens

Total Tax Contributions by Illegal Aliens

Total Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration 

Federal

The Federal government spends a net amount of $45.8 billion on illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children. This amount includes expenditures for public education, medical care, justice enforcement initiatives, welfare programs and other miscellaneous costs. It also factors in the meager amount illegal aliens pay to the federal government in income, social security, Medicare and excise taxes.

Federal Spending

The approximately $46 billion in federal expenditures attributable to illegal aliens is staggering. Assuming an illegal alien population of approximately 12.5 million illegal aliens and 4.2 million U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, that amounts to roughly $2,746 per illegal alien, per year. For the sake of comparison, the average American college student receives only $4,800 in federal student loans each year.
FAIR maintains that every concerned American citizen should be asking our government why, in a time of increasing costs and shrinking resources, is it spending such large amounts of money on individuals who have no right, nor authorization, to be in the United States? This is an especially important question in view of the fact that the illegal alien beneficiaries of American taxpayer largess offset very little of the enormous costs of their presence by the payment of taxes. Meanwhile, average Americans pay approximately 30% of their income in taxes.

Federal Education - $1.6 Billion

Federal Medical Costs - $17.1 Billion

Federal Justice Expenditures - $13.1 Billion

Federal Welfare Programs - $5.8 Billion

Total Federal Expenditures - $45.8 Billion

Federal Taxes

Taxes collected from illegal aliens offset fiscal outlays and, therefore must be included in any examination of the cost of illegal immigration. However, illegal alien apologists frequently cite the allegedly large tax payments made by illegal aliens as a justification for their unlawful presence, and as a basis for offering them permanent legal status through a new amnesty, similar to the one enacted in 1986. That argument is nothing more than a red herring.
FAIR believes that most studies grossly overestimate both the taxes actually collected from illegal aliens and, more importantly, the amount of taxes actually paid by illegal aliens (i.e., the amount of money collected from illegal aliens and actually kept by the federal government). This belief is based on a number of factors: Since the 1990’s, the United States has focused on apprehending and removing criminal aliens. The majority of illegal aliens seeking employment in the United States have lived in an environment where they have little fear of deportation, even if discovered. This has created an environment where most illegal aliens are both able and willing to file tax returns. Because the vast majority of illegal aliens hold low-paying jobs, those who are subject to wage deductions actually wind up receiving a complete refund of all taxes paid, plus net payments made on the basis of tax credits.
As a result, illegal aliens actually profit from filing a tax return and, therefore, have a strong interest in doing so.

Federal Tax Receipts from Illegal Aliens - $22.1 Billion

Total Federal Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration

Net Federal Impact of Illegal Aliens - $30.4 Billion

State and Local

Even though the costs of illegal immigration borne by taxpayers at the federal level are staggering, they only pale in comparison to the fiscal burden shouldered by taxpayers at the state level. Most government taxes and fees remitted to government by Americans are paid in forms other than income taxes submitted to the IRS on April 15th. There are city and state income taxes, fuel surcharges, sales and property taxes, etc…. States and localities also bear the main burden for costs associated with public education, city and county infrastructure, and local courts and jails.
A further complication is the fact that, while barred from many federal benefits, state laws allow illegal aliens to access many state-funded social welfare programs. Because so little data is collected on the immigration status of individuals collecting benefits, it is difficult to determine the rate at which illegal aliens use welfare programs. However, based on the average income of illegal alien households, it appears they use these programs at a rate higher than lawfully present aliens or citizens.

State and Local Spending

The combined total of state and local government general expenditures on illegal aliens is $18,571,428,571 billion. The services referenced in this section are supported directly by the payment of city and state taxes and related fees. At the state level, examples of general expenditures would be the costs of general governance, fire departments, garbage collection, street cleaning and maintenance, etc. The state, county or municipality — or even a special taxing district in some situations — may provide some of these services. In most cases, localities offer more services than the state. By FAIR’s estimate, there is approximately a 65 percent to 35 percent cost share between local and state governments.
The estimate of general expenditure services received by illegal alien households, beyond the specific outlays mentioned in the sections above, excludes capital expenditures and debt servicing. The calculation for each state is based on the state’s annual operating budget, reduced by the amount covered by the federal government. That expenditure is then reduced further based on the relative size of the estimated population of illegal aliens and their U.S.-born minor children. As noted in our population estimate, this means states like California, Texas, Florida, New York, etc., with larger illegal alien cohorts, will bear larger shares of these costs.

State Educational Expenditures - $44.4 Billion

State Medical Expenditures - $12.1 Billion

State Administration of Justice Expenditures - $10.8 Billion

State Welfare Expenditures - $2.9 Billion

State and Local Expenditures - $88 Billion

State and Local Taxes Collected

Offsetting the fiscal costs of the illegal alien population are the taxes collected from them at the state and local level. Many proponents of illegal immigration argue that the taxes paid to the states render illegal aliens a net boon to state and local economies. However, this is a spurious argument. Evidence shows that the tax payments made by illegal aliens fail to cover the costs of the many services they consume.

Illegal aliens are not typical taxpayers. First, as previously noted in this study, the large percentage of illegal aliens who work in the underground economy frequently avoid paying any income tax at all. (Many actually receive a net cash profit through refundable tax credit programs.) Second, and also previously noted, the average earnings of illegal alien households are considerably lower than both legal aliens and native-born workers.

State Taxes Collected - $3.5 Billion

Total State and Local Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration

Net State Impact - $85 Billion

Combined Federal State Cost Tables

Federal and State Fiscal Outlays - $134 Billion

Federal and State Tax Contributions - $18 Billion

Net Cost of Illegal Immigration - $115 Billion

Counting illegal aliens when dividing up congressional seats and electoral college votes is likely to strip some red states of representation and give blue states with large foreign populations more representation.

During an exclusive interview on SiriusXM Patriot Channel’s Breitbart News Saturday, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) revealed that red states like Alabama are set to lose congressional seats should illegal aliens — rather than only American citizens — continue to be counted in congressional apportionment.
Currently, congressional seats and electoral college votes are divided up by counting all persons in each district, including illegal aliens. This allows states like California and Florida to receive 20 additional congressional seats and electoral college votes, according to Brooks, as American citizens’ votes are diluted in the process.

Alabama is just one example of a red state with a small illegal alien population that is set to lose a congressional seat if illegal aliens keep being counted in the apportionment:

Going forward into 2020, the odds are, that Census will result in Alabama losing a congressional seat and an electoral college vote for the president of the United States if illegal aliens are counted. [Emphasis added]
So that will definitely be to the detriment to the people of the state of Alabama. It will deny our equal voting rights … under the 14th Amendment. [Emphasis added]
And so I have, as a plaintiff … filed a lawsuit in federal court to not allow the counting of illegal aliens in the Census for the purpose of distributing electoral college votes and congressional seats. Hopefully, the federal court will realize the wisdom of what we say and afford equal protection to American citizens and time will tell how it plays out. [Emphasis added]

Listen to the full interview here:
As Breitbart News has reported, the counting of only American citizens to divide up congressional districts and electoral college votes would shift power away from the affluent, metropolitan coastal cities of the U.S. and towards middle America.
If congressional districts were set by the number of citizens, the overall average population needed per congressional seat could decrease to about 670,000 citizens per district. This would give a stronger advantage for states with small illegal alien populations to gain and keep their current number of congressional seats.

Maybe this explains why Democrats are so much more concerned about illegals than they are about their own constituents!

Mo Brooks: The 15M Illegal Aliens in U.S. Give Blue States 20 Congressional Seats https://t.co/rjSxvMOQZj via @BreitbartNews
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) September 10, 2018

For instance, if by counting citizens, a state like Ohio, with few illegal aliens, could possibly gain a congressional seat, increasing the state’s total number of representatives to 17. Current projections suggest Ohio will lose a congressional seat.
In West Virginia, which is also slated to lose a congressional seat, the state could keep their three districts if the redistricting is counted by citizens. Indiana, as well, — with less than 180,000 noncitizen residents — would potentially increase its congressional seats from nine to ten if apportionment is based on the number of citizens in the state.
Currently, the U.S. admits more than 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants every year, with more than 70 percent coming to the country through the process known as “chain migration,” whereby newly naturalized citizens can bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the U.S. In the next 20 years, the current U.S. legal immigration system is on track to import roughly 15 million new foreign born voters. Between seven and eight million of those foreign born voters will arrive in the U.S. through chain migration.

So NOW YOU KNOW !

WHAT WILL YOU DO ABOUT IT ??