VIDEO: George Lopez’s Mexican Donald Trump Wants to ‘Make Mexico Great Again’

Donaldo Trumpez hopes to “Make Mexico Great Again” in the latest satirical video from the folks over at Funny or Die.

Comedian George Lopez plays the Mexican version of the 2016 GOP presidential contender Donald Trump, and he’s not at all happy with the state of things in Mexico. Why? Honestly, because of all the Americans who keep coming to his country who are making it worse:

“The first thing I’m going to do is build a wall on the border of the United States to keep out the Americans, who are coming here and ruining Mexico… Let me tell you something. When the United States sends their people, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people with lots of problems. They only come to Mexico to watch a show with a donkey, and to watch women lift their tops. Mexico is more than that!”

Trumpez also notes that it was Mexico, after all who “gave America Salma Hayek.”

Check out the clip above, courtesy of Funny or Die.

 

BIGOTRY IN AMERICA IS REAL

Bigotry in America.
Baseball Fans SUPER ANGRY Hispanic American Superstar Sang ‘God Bless America’ at All-Star Game

DEFINITION OF SPIC: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=407722516003802&set=a.404921959617191.1073741828.404777999631587&type=1&theater

PUERTO RICANS ARE AMERICANS:https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=407728256003228&set=a.404921959617191.1073741828.404777999631587&type=1&theater

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE

 

PUERTO RICANS ARE AMERICANS

994211_407728256003228_565461454_n

Puerto Rican citizenship was first legislated by the U.S. Congress in Article 7 of the Foraker Act of 1900 and later recognized in the Puerto Rican constitution. On October 25, 2006, Juan Mari Brás became the first person to receive a Puerto Rican citizenship certificate from the Puerto Rico State Department. According to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, “Under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, those persons born in Puerto Rico and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of Puerto Rico. Such citizenship is not the national citizenship of an independent country or state, but it does not imply mere residency either.”

Puerto Rican citizenship was first legislated by the U.S. Congress in Article 7 of the Foraker Act of 1900 and later recognized in the Puerto Rican constitution. On October 25, 2006, Juan Mari Brás became the first person to receive a Puerto Rican citizenship certificate from the Puerto Rico State Department. According to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, “Under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, those persons born in Puerto Rico and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of Puerto Rico. Such citizenship is not the national citizenship of an independent country or state, but it does not imply mere residency either.”

United States recognition of Puerto Rican citizenship

Front and back pages of a Certificate of Puerto Rican Citizenship application form as provided by the Puerto Rico State Department in the Summer of 2007

On April 12, 1900, the Congress of the United States enacted the Foraker Act of 1900, which replaced the governing military regime in Puerto Rico with a civil form of government. Section VII of this act created a Puerto Rican citizenship for the residents “born in Puerto Rico and, therefore, subject to its jurisdiction”. The Puerto Rican citizenship replaced the Spanish citizenship that Puerto Ricans enjoyed at the time of the American invasion in 1898.[5] Such Puerto Rican citizenship was granted by Spain in 1897.[6] This citizenship was reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court in 1904 by its ruling in Gonzales v. Williams which denied that Puerto Ricans were United States citizens and labeled them as noncitizen nationals. In a 1914 letter of refusal to the offer of U.S. citizenship and addressed to both the President of the United States and the U.S. Congress, the Puerto Rico House of Delegates stated “We, Porto Ricans, Spanish-Americans, of Latin soul … are satisfied with our own beloved Porto Rican citizenship, and proud to have been born and brethren in our own motherland.” The official 1916 Report by the American colonial governor of Puerto Rico to the U.S. Secretary of War (the old name for the Secretary of the Army), addresses both citizenships, the Puerto Rican citizenship and United States citizenship, in the context of the issuance of passports, further evidencing that the Puerto Rican citizenship did not disappear when the Americans took over the island in 1898. A similar 1918 official report, this one after the Jones Act of 1917 had become law, states that the “passports…[are used to] prove a person’s nationality”, thus making clear that Puerto Rican citizenship and Puerto Rican nationality were one and the same.
United States citizenship

On March 2, 1917, the Jones-Shafroth Act was signed, granting collective United States citizenship to Puerto Ricans collage2002.web.PA162211901without rescinding their Puerto Rican citizenship. In 1922, the U.S. Supreme court in the case of Balzac v. Porto Rico ruled that the full protection and rights of the U.S constitution do not apply to residents of Puerto Rico until they come to reside in the United States proper. Luis Muñoz Rivera, who participated in the creation of the Jones-Shafroth Act, gave a speech in the U.S. House floor that argued in favor of Puerto Rican citizenship. He declared that “if the earth were to swallow the island, Puerto Ricans would prefer American citizenship to any citizenship in the world. But as long as the island existed, the residents preferred Puerto Rican citizenship.” In 1952, upon U.S. Congress approving the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, also reaffirmed that Puerto Rican citizenship continued in full force. This was further reaffirmed in 2006 while the U.S. Senate probed into the President’s Task Force on Puerto Rico’s status.

In 1953, U.S Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., in a memorandum sent to the United Nations, recognized that “the people of Puerto Rico continue to be citizens of the United States as well as of Puerto Rico.”

Puerto Rican citizenship reaffirmed

Juan Mari Brás Puerto Rican citizenship certificate
In 1994, Puerto Rican activist Juan Mari Brás flew to Venezuela and renounced his US citizenship before a consular agent in the US Embassy. Mari Brás through his renunciation of U.S. citizenship, sought to redefine Section VII as a source of law that recognized a Puerto Rican nationality separate from that of the United States.[16] In December 1995, his denaturalization was confirmed by the US State Department. Among the arguments that ensued over his action was whether he would now be able to vote in elections in Puerto Rico. On November 18, 1997, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico through its ruling in Miriam J. Ramirez de Ferrer v. Juan Mari Brás reaffirmed the Puerto Rican citizenship by ruling that U.S. citizenship was not a requirement to vote in Puerto Rico. According to the court’s majority opinion, the Puerto Rican citizenship is recognized several times in the Puerto Rican constitution including section 5 of article III, section 3 of article IV, and section 9 of article V. In a 2006 memorandum, the Secretary of Justice of Puerto Rico concluded, based on the Mari Brás case, that the Puerto Rican citizenship is “separate and different” from the United States citizenship.

The Puerto Rico Supreme Court decision affirm that persons born in Puerto Rico and persons subject to their jurisdiction are citizens of Puerto Rico under the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Constitution. The Court cited as part of the applicable jurisdiction to decide this case, United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) pp 549, the U.S. Supreme Court affirm: There is in our political system a government of each of the several States, and a Government of the United States. Each is distinct from the others, and has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of those governments will be different from those he has under the other.[17]

Also the Puerto Rico Supreme Court cited U.S. Supreme Court case Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 7 (1943) that affirm: The protection extended to citizens of the United States by the privileges and immunities clause includes those rights and privileges which, under the laws and Constitution of the United States, are incident to citizenship of the United States, but does not include rights pertaining to state citizenship and derived solely from the relationship of the citizen and his state established by state law. The right to become a candidate for state office, like the right to vote for the election of state officers, is a right or privilege of state citizenship, not of national citizenship, which alone is protected by the privileges and immunities clause.

Finally, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court affirms that Puerto Rican citizenship identifies the persons that have it as integral members of the Puerto Rican community. This is the integral juridical tie between the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and their citizens.[2] The court stated that “Puerto Rican political community is defined better by the citizenship of Puerto Rico than by US citizenship. That is a fact not subject to historical rectifications and a reality which no law can change.”

Since the summer of 2007, the Puerto Rico State Department has developed a protocol to grant Puerto Rican citizenship certificates to Puerto Ricans.[19] Certificates of Puerto Rican citizenship are issued to any persons born on the island as well as to those born outside of the island that have at least one parent who was born on the island. Any U.S. citizen with at least one year of residence on the island is also eligible for the official citizenship certificate. The certificate is not a valid travel document.

Judicial review

In the case of Colon v. U.S. Department of State, 2 F.Supp.2d 43 (1998), plaintiff was a United States citizen born in Puerto Rico and resident of Puerto Rico, who executed an oath of renunciation before a consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. In rejecting Plaintiff’s renunciation, the Department notes that Plaintiff demonstrated no intention of renouncing all ties to the United States. While Plaintiff claims to reject his United States citizenship, he nevertheless wants to remain a resident of Puerto Rico. Plaintiff’s response to the Secretary’s position is to claim a fundamental distinction between United States and Puerto Rican citizenship. The U.S. Department of State position asserts that renunciation of U.S. citizenship must entail renunciation of Puerto Rican citizenship as well. The court does decide to not enter to the merits of the citizenship issue; however the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected Colon’s petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary of State to approve a Certificate of Loss of Nationality in the case because the plaintiff wanted to retain one of the primary benefits of U.S. citizenship while claiming he was not a U.S. citizen. The Court described the plaintiff as a person, “claiming to renounce all rights and privileges of United States citizenship, [while] Plaintiff wants to continue to exercise one of the fundamental rights of citizenship, namely to travel freely throughout the world and when he wants to, return and reside in the United States. The court based this decision on the Immigration and Nationality Act section 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(38), that provide the term “United States” definition and evince that Puerto Rico is a part of the United States for such purposes.

Based on the federal court ruling on Colon v. U.S. Department of State, months after the U.S. State Department accepted his renunciation, Juan Mari Bras was notified on June 4, 1998, by the U.S Department of State, that they were rescinding their acceptance, and refused to accept Juan Mari Bras renunciation, determining that Mari Brás could not renounce his American citizenship because he did not request another national citizenship, and he was born and remains living and working in Puerto Rico. This, said the federal agency, makes Mari Brás a U.S. citizen, the only national citizenship that Washington recognizes for Puerto Ricans.

SOURCE

Hillary Clinton “Was Not Violating Policy” With Personal Email

11890980_769329076509809_4597479652123109028_nDear Republican FYI…Please clean up your own crap.

Another fake, GOP, FOX lying, dirty trick, mud slinging, fraudulant scandal falls apart. Yep and noted when this BS came out.
_____
State Dept. Spokesman Tells CNN: Hillary Clinton “Was Not Violating Policy” With Personal Email

John Kirby: “At The Time, When She Was Secretary Of State, There Was No Prohibition To Her Use Of A Private Email”

The Republican Hillary Clinton email scandal is falling apart as the State Department confirmed that there was no policy against Clinton using private email.

Video:

On CNN’s New Day, State Department spokesman John Kirby said, “We have said in the past, Chris that there was no policy prohibiting the use of a private email account here at the State Department, and that is still a fact. Now, obviously, we have policies in place now that highly discourage that, and you are supposed to use your government account so that there is a constant, permanent record of it, but at the time she was not violating policy….I can tell you that there was no prohibition for her use of this, and we’ve since changed the policy to discourage that greatly, and in fact, the policy is that you have to use your government account for business.”

Kirby added that he didn’t believe that the policy changed while she was Secretary of State, which means that Hillary Clinton was doing nothing wrong when she used private email.

In a recent interview, also on CNN, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) admitted that the number of emails that Republicans claim were classified information in Hillary Clinton’s email account was not accurate due to retroactive classification.

The great email scandal that Republicans hoped would destroy Hillary Clinton’s candidacy is heading down the same path as “IRS scandal,” the “Benghazi scandal,” and President Obama’s birth certificate.

The email scandal is being revealed as another in a long series of election-year stunts. Republicans are set to waste millions of taxpayer dollars on politically driven investigations into Clinton’s use of email, and their efforts are likely to result in nothing.

A CNN poll released last week revealed that voters don’t care about Hillary Clinton’s emails. Clinton still leads every Republican presidential candidate, and Republicans are now confronted with the reality that if Hillary Clinton did not violate any policies regarding the use of email, there is no scandal to investigate.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/08/24/clinton-email-scandal-falls-state-dept-policy-private-email.html

______

Hillary Clinton’s Emails: What You Need to Know
BY TAYLOR WOFFORD 8/13/15 AT 6:08 PM
Hillary_Clinton_Emails
Hillary Clinton listens to a question from the audience during a community forum in Keene, New Hampshire, on August 11. REUTERS/BRIAN SNYDER

FILED UNDER: U.S., Hillary Clinton, 2016 Presidential Campaign, Clintonemail.com, Hillary Clinton Email
How Did This Story Start?

In March 2013, a Romanian hacker named Marcel Lazăr Lehel, aka Guccifer, disclosed the existence of a private email address belonging to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The Smoking Gun, Gawker and others reported that Clinton had been receiving emails at the address from Sidney Blumenthal, a close ally, concerning the storming of the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, by Islamic militants in 2012.

A little less than two years later, on March 2, 2015, The New York Times reported that Clinton’s exclusive use of a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state “may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.”

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

On March 4, Clinton addressed the story on Twitter:

Also on March 4, Media Matters for America, a progressive watchdog group founded by Clinton ally David Brock, published two stories accusing the Times of “deceptive” reporting. Media Matters reported that the law requiring retention of private emails was not changed until after Clinton left the State Department.

On March 10, Clinton told reporters she set up the private email server because she did not want to carry two devices with her. She also said she had handed over 30,490 work-related emails to the State Department and deleted 31,830 emails she considered personal.

On March 28, Representative Trey Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican who was a member of the House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks, said Clinton’s lawyer had told the committee the former secretary had deleted all emails from her personal server, which meant that those emails deemed “personal” by Clinton herself (and therefore not handed over to the State Department) were presumably gone for good.

In May, a U.S. District Court ordered the State Department to release Clinton’s emails to the public in batches. So far, the department has released three batches of emails, in May, June and July, which are available on its website.

Then, in July, the Times once again dropped a bombshell, in the form of a story headlined “Criminal Inquiry Sought in Clinton’s Use of Email.” In it, the Times reported that two “inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as Secretary of State.”

The story began to unravel almost immediately and was altered extensively by the Times, at first without notice to readers (the original version can be found here). Clinton allies and those not in her camp, including former Times and current Newsweek reporter Kurt Eichenwald, panned the story.

Most recently, McClatchy DC reported that two “top-secret” emails have been uncovered among those on Clinton’s private server. Clinton announced she will hand over to the Department of Justice her private email server and copies of emails deleted from the server.

Why Does Any of This Matter?

There are laws that specify which forms of communication government officials can use as part of their official duties. These laws are designed to improve transparency. The question from the start has been whether Clinton violated any of these laws, in letter or in spirit.

As NPR reported in early April, the Federal Records Act, which became law in 1950, requires federal employees to keep copies of their communications. It was amended in 2014 by President Barack Obama to require federal employees to transfer personal emails to government servers within 20 days. But that change to the law was made after Clinton left the State Department, her attorneys have argued, and therefore did not apply to her when she was secretary.

Plus, Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill argues, Clinton didn’t break any rules because “for government business,” she had used her State Department colleagues’ official government addresses. Copies of those emails would therefore be retained by the State Department, Merrill said, which satisfies the requirements of the Federal Records Act as it was written when Clinton was secretary:

“Like Secretaries of State before her, she used her own email account when engaging with any Department officials. For government business, she emailed them on their Department accounts, with every expectation they would be retained,” Merrill said in a statement.

However, some transparency advocates, like the Sunlight Foundation’s John Wonderlich, argue that while Clinton may not have violated the letter of the law, she violated it in spirit. Wonderlich told NPR that “the spirit of the law is—and our expectations for public service—are public servants use their official email accounts.”

Wonderlich also argues that it should not be Clinton’s attorney who determines which emails contain “government business” and which are purely personal, but State Department employees.

Had Clinton used a State Department address for email, her communications would presumably be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. They could then be requested by journalists or other members of the public. However, since Clinton used a private server, which is not subject to the FOIA, journalists won’t be able to request them.

Another important question is whether “classified” material ever passed through Clinton’s private email server. On August 11, the inspector general of the intelligence community reported to Congress that emails were found that contained “classified State Department information when originated” among those Clinton handed over to the State Department. However, Clinton aides have said that the emails were not labeled “classified” or “top secret” when they were on Clinton’s server (even though they should have been so labeled). In July, Clinton told reporters at a campaign event in Iowa, “I am confident I never sent or received anything that was classified at the time it was sent or received.”

If it is discovered that Clinton did in fact have classified material on her personal email server and knew about it, it could mean trouble for her—both in a legal sense and in her campaign for president. Former National Security Agency employee John Schindler writes in The Daily Beast:

People found to have willfully mishandled such highly classified information often face severe punishment. Termination of employment, hefty fines, even imprisonment can result. Yes, people really do go to jail for mishandling classified materials. Matthew Aid, a writer on intelligence matters, served more than a year in prison for mishandling TOP SECRET//SI information from the NSA, for example. The well-connected tend to avoid jail, however. Sandy Berger and John Deutsch—who both served in high-level positions under President Bill Clinton, did not go to prison for mishandling TOP SECRET intelligence (though Berger got probation and was fined $50,000).
Could This Hurt Hillary’s Chances of Becoming President?

Possibly. The story isn’t going away, especially if investigators at the Justice Department find more “classified” or “top secret” emails among Clinton’s private stash. The most recent poll shows most Democrats in New Hampshire (a key primary state) think Clinton will be their party’s nominee, even though they prefer Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

Clinton’s Republican opponents have used her email practices against her. Businessman Donald Trump, who currently leads in the GOP polls, said he thinks Clinton “committed a crime” by using a private email server. At a campaign event in Nevada, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush argued that Clinton’s use of a private email server outside the State Department’s firewalls put American state secrets within reach of hackers, comparing the former secretary of state to Edward Snowden, whom Bush called “a traitor to our country.”

Florida Senator Marco Rubio called Clinton’s use of a private email server “irresponsible.” Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker called Clinton’s email habits a “potentially criminal offense.” And former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee called it “beyond outrageously illegal.”

Meanwhile, Clinton still leads in most polls.

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-email-private-server-top-secret-362822