victoria-accident-claim

Promising Advice on Car Injury Claims

When a person makes a car injury claim, two things come up to mind: settle or go to court?

Many people do not know that settling can be the more viable option. Settling is even a good choice even if the possibility of going to court has yet to surface.

Settling can be a good option, but what if the insurance company ignores you? Or the terms presented to you might be considered too small? How about when you strongly feel that you are a victim of injustice? Going to court might be the wisest option you can have.

In this article, we weigh in the advantages of both Settling and Going to court.

Settlement

As mentioned above, settlement can be the most viable option there is. If you find that the company that you are suing presents you with fair and appropriate solutions, settling may not be such a bad idea.

Here are some advantages of settling:

You can get compensation much faster

You’ll be able to get a quicker settlement because the terms between you and the company you are suing, are usually settled off the court. Therefore you can avoid those long hearing schedules which could delay you much more in the long run.

Avoiding Expensive Attorney’s fees

Depending on your agreement with your attorney, you might have to incur expensive costs. These charges are sometimes too expensive to the point that the whole settlement and compensation you make out of this lawsuit can be just for the payment fees.

Make it a point to your lawyer to talk about his fees and always consider some lawyers who do pro bono services that may greatly be beneficial for you.

Cost Efficient

Hearing schedules are what you need to endure should you decide to go to court. When you do go to court, hearings are not given automatically, instead they are scheduled. The wait for your time in court may reach a few weeks, months and even worse, some cases even take years.

Avoiding an Unpredictable Decision From the Jury

Panel members significantly affect the outcome of your trial. If you don’t understand how a jury makes its decisions, then settle to avoid any unpredictability when it comes to your trial.

Even if the trial or hearing has started, you can reach the company you are suing to agree on settling. It is always safe to say to try and talk at any point in the case to come to an agreement.

The central question that we should ask ourselves is, how much risk is there in losing the trial? If you are confident and feel good about the outcome of the case, ask for guidance from a good lawyer and proceed to court.

Going to Court

Proceeding to a hearing should be the last thing you consider. If all conditions do point towards it, then you must be prepared with the work that comes with it.

Here are some advantages of going to court:

Receiving full compensation

If a settlement is out of the question or if you feel that the compensation is unfair, then going to court can help you in claiming what is rightly yours. A court decision can legally enforce your rights for you, making the company liable for paying for the damages wrongfully done to you.

Gratification

Sometimes, companies can also refuse a re-negotiation. Compelling the defendant through the court’s powers can reverse that. If you do win in a court, gratification can sometimes be even a much greater thing than the compensation itself.

People at times feel that they have been wronged too much and be victims of injustice that they feel the whole process of going to court is the only way to alleviate their feelings. Compensation, as they say, can be the “icing on top.”

Takeaway

Settlement and going to court is a coin toss. Either you win the case, or you lose it. To avoid this situation, you have to carefully weigh your arguments and claims to make sure that no facts can disprove it. Knowing the advantages and the risks that come with it is hugely beneficial because it can make or break you when the time finally comes.

doj-building

Iraqis arrested in Virginia for lying on their refugee admission applications

They lied more than once!

The first whopper was a lie of omission.  They failed to mention that their brother was a terrorist. And, at least one of them made up his “persecution” story to justify his admission to the US as a refugee.

Hasan admitted to making false statements and creating his persecution story.

If the story sounds familiar, lying on ones refugee application is what caught the two Iraqi refugee terrorists in Kentucky now doing life in prison at taxpayers’ expense.

There were a couple of brief stories about this Virginia case in the news over the last few days which I never could find time to get to, but this morning I’m seeing the full Dept. of Justice press release and posting it below in its shocking entirety! (emphasis is mine)

Iraqi Refugees Arrested and Charged With Immigration Fraud

Yousif Al Mashhandani (“Yousif”), 35, of Vienna, Virginia, and Adil Hasan, 38, of Burke, Virginia, who are full biological brothers, were arrested this morning. The third individual charged is Enas Ibrahim, 32, also of Burke, who is the wife of Hasan. Each are charged with attempting to obtain naturalization contrary to law. The defendants will have their initial appearance today in front of Magistrate Judge Ivan D. Davis at 2 p.m. at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia.

Acting Deputy Attorney General and U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Dana J. Boente, Assistant Director in Charge Andrew W. Vale of the FBI’s Washington Field and Special Agent in Charge Patrick J. Lechleitner of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Washington, D.C., made the announcement.

According to the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint, on Nov. 1, 2004, a U.S. citizen, identified as R.H., was kidnapped and held with other hostages for months in horrible conditions in an underground bunker. After a raid in 2005 freed the hostages, Majid Al Mashhadani (“Majid”), who is a full biological brother of Yousif and Hasan, was detained and admitted his complicity in the kidnapping of R.H.

According to the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint, Yousif was admitted into the U.S. as a refugee in 2008.

In May 2013, Yousif resided in Vienna and applied for naturalization as a U.S. citizen. In connection with Yousif’s applications for citizenship, his fingerprints were taken. According to an FBI fingerprint specialist, analysis conducted in November 2013 determined that Yousif’s fingerprints match those found on a document at the underground bunker where forces rescued R.H. and others in Iraq in 2005.

According to the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint, Yousif, Hasan and Ibrahim are lawful permanent residents and have applied to naturalize and become U.S. citizens. On various applications and forms throughout their respective immigration processes, each has provided an extensive list of family members and information of their respective family trees; however, none listed any reference to Majid.

According to the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint, on March 4, 2016, FBI agents interviewed Yousif, Hasan and Ibrahim. When FBI agents asked Yousif why he failed to include reference to Majid on the family tree form, Yousif said he omitted reference to Majid because, when he was a refugee, he was told by others applying for refugee status that he would not be allowed into the U.S. if any immediate family members had a criminal background. Hasan admitted to FBI agents that Majid was his brother. Hasan and Ibrahim each admitted they discussed not including Majid’s name on their applications for refugee status because their connection to Majid might delay their ability to gain such status.

According to the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint, to justify his application for refugee status, Yousif reported that in 2006, while working as an anti-corruption investigator for the Iraqi Commission on Public Integrity in Iraq, he started receiving threats from a Shiite militia known as the “Al Mahdi Militia,” in order to coerce Yousif to drop a particular corruption investigation. Yousif said that in May 2006, Hasan was kidnapped by the Al Mahdi Militia, and was released only after Yousif arranged to drop the investigation in question and helped pay a large ransom. Yousif said that after Hasan was released, he reopened the corruption investigation, only to flee to Jordon in October 2006 after his parents’ house was burned down.

According to the affidavit in support of the criminal complaint, to justify his application for refugee status, Hasan provided sworn testimony that, in 2006, he had been kidnapped and tortured by members of the Al Mahdi Army and held for nearly a month. Hasan said he was released upon the payment of a ransom of $20,000. In an interview by FBI agents in April 2016, Hasan said he was threatened in Iraq on two occasions, but made no mention of being kidnapped, held hostage and tortured for nearly a month. In a subsequent interview in October 2016, FBI agents confronted Hasan about the discrepancy in his stories and Hasan admitted to making false statements and creating his persecution story.

A criminal complaint contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed to be innocent until and unless proven guilty in court. Each defendant faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison if convicted. The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes. If convicted of any offense, the sentencing of the defendants will be determined by the court based on the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

The FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, which includes ICE/HSI and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, investigated the case. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Gordon Kromberg and Collen Garcia for the Eastern District of Virginia are prosecuting the case.

No mention of deportation???

And, the big question is, how many more refugees (who don’t have a high profile terrorist brother!) have lied on their refugee applications to America?

BTW, Virginia ranks #7 in the nation for the number of Iraqis placed in the state by the U.S. Dept. of State and its contractors.  See my next post.

RELATED ARTICLE: In nearly 10 years we have admitted 139,695 Iraqi ‘refugees’ with no sign of flow stopping

RELATED VIDEO: The Vicious Snake

refugee-moratorium

No statutory authority underpinning refugee program in so-called Wilson-Fish states

The Refugee Act of 1980 does permit a state to withdraw from the UN/US Refugee Admissions Program, but here is the catch: Back in 1984 Congress passed an amendment to the act that was then completely abused by the bureaucrats in the federal government who did not want to stop sending refugees to those states.  They came up with a program (created through regulations with no backing in the law) to pass the responsibility off to non-profit groups.

Here James Simpson writing at the Daily Caller tells us more about the illegal program:

The Thomas More Law Center has initiated a lawsuit on behalf of the Tennessee General Assembly. The suit charges that the government is violating both the U.S. Constitution’s Spending Clause and the 10th Amendment by forcing Tennessee to cover the costs of refugee resettlement in the state even though Tennessee dropped out of the program in 2008.

Under the 1980 Refugee Act, the federal government promised to provide 100 percent of the state share of refugee cash and medical welfare costs for the first 36 months of their resettlement. That constituted a significant savings for participating states, especially considering that refugees use welfare at very high rates. However, by 1991 the feds had stopped reimbursing states altogether. The refugee program has become an unfunded mandate.

Adding insult to injury, starting in 1995, the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), began assigning a private refugee resettlement contractor (called Voluntary Agency or VOLAG) to keep the resettlement program running in states that drop out. This would ensure a continual flow of refugees to the state.

In addition to welfare, refugees bring significant other costs, including interpreters, English classes for students, medical and other services. For example, in 2016, Amarillo, Texas Mayor Paul Harpole complained, “We have 660 (refugee) kids who don’t speak English and the U.S. Department of Education says they have to be at grade level within one year. It’s a ludicrous requirement — they don’t even know how to use the bathroom.”

Simpson then points out that states which withdrew, and which then were turned over to a non-profit group to run, received many more refugees after the non-profit (VOLAG) began calling the shots along with the feds. His table  at right shows the dramatic jump in numbers when unelected non-profit group leaders placed refugees in unwilling states and effectively began spending state tax dollars.

Continue reading to learn more about the illegal placement of refugees in states that have wished to not participate in the program.

BTW, Texas recently dropped out of the USRAP—will the governor join Tennessee lawsuit???  Will Maine’s governor join the suit? How about Christie in NJ or Brownback in Kansas? See here.

More on Simpson, here.

RELATED ARTICLE: Australia plans to take mostly Syrian Christians for resettlement…

Inverted-Hawaiian-Flag

‘Sanctuary State?’—Hawaii Dems Pass Toothless Resolution to Fool Base

By Andrew Walden…

dph_joinus1A resolution urging city and county police to refuse to help federal agencies deport illegal immigrants was approved by a key House committee Thursday, but the leading sponsor of the measure said it isn’t meant to make Hawaii a “sanctuary” state.

House Judiciary Committee Vice Chairwoman Joy San Buenaventura said she introduced House Concurrent Resolution 125 at the request of a group called Hawaii J20+, which has been lobbying lawmakers to make Hawaii a “hookipa” or welcoming state for immigrants.

The resolution asks the city and counties in Hawaii to refrain from spending any state or local funds under any agreement that would make local law enforcement a partner with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for the purposes of immigration enforcement.

It also urges local law enforcement authorities to refuse to engage in any other law enforcement activities “that collaborate with ICE or any other federal law enforcement agency in connection with the deportation of undocumented immigrants who have not been convicted of committing a violent crime.”

The House Judiciary Committee approved the measure with little discussion, and only Rep. Bob McDermott voted against it.

“I am concerned that this is nothing but a thinly veiled poke in the president’s eye about being a sanctuary city,” said McDermott (R, Ewa Beach-Iroquois Point). “We are a welcoming state, we welcome everybody, but they gotta come here legally. There’s a rule of law.”…

San Buenaventura said the resolution “walks a fine line” but stops short of designating Hawaii as a sanctuary state, and will not result in punishment for the state.

“It is a policy. We haven’t actually done anything in furtherance of that, other than to say this is what we believe the policy of the state of Hawaii should be,” she said.

A spokeswoman for the Honolulu Police Department said in a written statement the department wants the public to know its officers do not actively participate in immigration enforcement, and the department does not keep immigration data.

“All HPD arrests are based on suspected criminal activity, not immigration violations,” according to the statement. “However, there are occasions when federal authorities, such as the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, will request that an individual who has been arrested by HPD be transferred to federal custody. This occurs infrequently as immigration enforcement is primarily a federal function, but we do honor specific requests when made by federal authorities.”

Hawaii island police Maj. Sam Thomas said in an interview he believes the resolution is “somewhat shortsighted.” Thomas cited the case of undocumented immigrant Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, who allegedly shot 32-year-old Katie Steinle on a San Francisco pier in 2015….

BB: Trump’s Laptop Ban Is Proof His Hands Aren’t Tied, Hawaii Says

read … Democrat Base is Easily Fooled

RELATED ARTICLES: 

We Need to Stop Sanctuary Policy: The Rockville High School Attack

The Left’s Sanctuary Cities Hurt Americans’ Safety

Maryland judge to hold hearing on Tuesday regarding FY2017 refugee ceiling issue

The Consequences of Immigration for America’s Public Schools

trump america first

Judge Sides With Trump Administration, Refuses To Block Travel Ban

“The injunction had been brought forward by Palestinian activist Linda Sarsour, who was represented by an attorney from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.”

What is the endgame of people such as Linda Sarsour and groups such as Hamas-CAIR, in seeking an injunction to prevent the President from protecting the American people from Islamic jihadists?

“Judge Sides With Trump Administration, Refuses To Block Travel Ban,” by Alex Pfeiffer, Daily Caller, March 24, 2017 (thanks to Todd):

A federal judge in Virginia ruled Friday against blocking President Trump’s executive order that called for temporarily stopping the entry of immigrants from six majority-Muslim nations and refugee admittance overall.

The decision against the injunction comes after federal judges in Maryland and Hawaii blocked the implementation of Trump’s executive order nationwide. The ruling in Maryland is set to be heard before an appeals court in May. These two past decisions keep the order at bay.

Judge Anthony Trenga of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that Trump was within his legal rights to impose the travel ban and that it was not discriminatory toward Muslims. The injunction had been brought forward by Palestinian activist Linda Sarsour, who was represented by an attorney from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Trenga, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote in his opinion that “the President has unqualified authority to bar physical entry to the United States at the border.” He said that the executive order makes no mention of religion and has a “state secular purpose” of protecting U.S. citizens from terrorist attacks.

The Hawaiian federal judge who knocked down the executive order cited past statements from Trump on the campaign trail talking about a “Muslim ban.” Judge Trenga, however, wrote, “In that regard, the Supreme Court has held that ‘past actions [do not] forever taint any effort on [the government’s] part to deal with the subject matter.’”

A Department of Justice spokeswoman said in a statement, “The Department of Justice is pleased with the ruling. As the Court correctly explains, the President’s Executive Order falls well within his authority to safeguard the nation’s security.”…

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report.

pen desk charts

More Firearms, More Firearms Owners, Fewer Fatal Accidents

The National Safety Council released the 2017 edition of its annual Injury Facts report this week, and it contains welcome news about firearm safety. 

The number of fatal firearms accidents dropped to the lowest point ever (since 1903, when the data was first tracked).  There were 489 total fatal firearm accidents nationwide – a 17% decrease from 2014. As a percent of the total number of fatal accidents, firearms accident rank very low: just 0.3% of all fatal accidents involved a firearm. 

Comparing the odds between the types of fatal accidents can help put these numbers into context, and the National Safety Council puts fatal injury data in this format to make comparisons easier. The odds of a fatal firearms accident are 1 in 6,905. You are more likely to be killed by:

  • Poisoning (1 in 96)
  • A motor vehicle crash (1 in 114)
  • A fall (1 in 127)
  • Drowning (1 in 1,188)
  • A bicycle crash (1 in 4,486)

What makes the record low number of fatal firearms accidents even more noteworthy is that it came at a time when the number of firearms in the country was skyrocketing. The year 2015 saw the most background checks ever conducted in a single year until that point (the number was surpassed in 2016).  More than 23 million NICS checks were conducted in 2015. Background checks don’t have a one-to-one correlation with firearms purchases, so we don’t know for sure how many more guns were bought in 2015 than previous years…. but we do know that the number of American gun owners was on the rise. 

PEW Research Center reported a five-point increase in the percentage of American households with a firearm between mid-2015 and mid-2016. Fox News reported on a host of other surveys with similar findings

So, in 2015 we had more background checks conducted AND more Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights AND a record low number of fatal firearms accidents. The safety efforts of the NRA, our partners and allies supporting the Second Amendment, and, most of all, responsible, law-abiding American firearm owners made the record-setting safety of 2015 possible.

neil gorsuch

Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee Embraces Heller and Originalism During Senate Hearings

Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, President Trump’s pick to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme court, asserted during his confirmation hearings this week that Scalia’s landmark Second Amendment opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller “guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.”

Gorsuch made the comment during an exchange with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who was trying to goad him into agreeing with the anti-gun opinion recently issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (see story at this link).

He refused to take the bait, however, telling her,

“Well, it’s not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, Senator, respectfully it’s a matter of it being the law. And — and my job is to apply and enforce the law.”

Throughout his hearings, Gorsuch deftly answered questions about his judicial philosophy and parried on inquiries that would have required him to prejudge legal issues that he could face as a Supreme Court justice.

His answers made clear, however, that he would staunchly defend Americans’ constitutional rights, including the Second Amendment.

They also reinforced his belief in Justice Scalia’s signature technique of constitutional interpretation known as originalism. This methodology focuses on the actual words of constitutional provisions as they would have been publicly understood at the time of their enactment.

This approaches ensures that the inalienable rights recognized at the founding cannot later be declared null and void by judges who might consider them outdated or counterproductive in the modern world.

As Justice Scalia put it in Heller:

A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.

Gorsuch paid homage to Justice Scalia in his opening statement at the hearings. Calling Scalia a “mentor,” Gorsuch stated, “He reminded us that words matter. That the judge’s job is to follow the words that are in the law, not replace them with those that aren’t.”

He also invoked the words of Alexander Hamilton:

“Liberty can have … nothing to fear from judges who apply the law. But liberty has everything to fear if judges try to legislate, too.”

President Trump promised to appoint Supreme Court justices who would respect constitutional rights, including the Second Amendment, and who would faithfully apply the law.

Judge Gorsuch embodies those ideals, and his performance this week before the Senate Judiciary Committee gives every indication he will soon get to exercise them as a U.S. Supreme Court justice.

And when he does, all Americans – including gun owners – will be better off as a result.

<> on July 25, 2014 in New York City.

Leader of Hillary supported ‘Day Without a Woman’ strike deported for naturalization fraud

We raised concerns that Rasmieh Odeh, one of the leaders of the Day Without a Woman strike, was a convicted terrorist. According to Fox News:

A convicted terrorist is reportedly among the organizers of the so-called “Day Without a Woman” strike.

In a letter posted by The Guardian, the female authors – including Rasmea Yousef Odeh – call on women around the world to join them in a “new wave of militant feminist struggle.”

Rasmea Odeh listens to supporters after leaving federal court in Detroit Thursday, March 12, 2015. A judge sentenced the Chicago activist to 18 months in federal prison Thursday for failing to disclose her convictions for bombings in Israel when she applied to be a U.S. citizen. Odeh, 67, also was stripped of her citizenship and eventually will be deported. But she will remain free while she appeals the case. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya)

Rasmea Odeh leaving federal court in Detroit Thursday, March 12, 2015. AP Photo/Paul Sancya

We now learn that Odeh has been deported for naturalization fraud. The Investigative Project on Terrorism in an article titled Breaking News: Rasmieh Odeh Reportedly Accepts Plea Deal reports:

Palestinian terrorist Rasmieh Odeh, who faces a May 16 retrial for naturalization fraud, reportedly has agreed to plead guilty and leave the United States in exchange for avoiding any prison time.

According to a statement from her supporters, Odeh “has made the difficult decision to accept a plea agreement.” [Emphasis original.] The statement hailed the decision as “a victory, considering that the government had earlier fought for a sentence of 5-7 years.”

No court papers have been filed to confirm the report.

Odeh was convicted in November 2014 and sentenced to 18 months in prison, the loss of her citizenship and deportation. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back to U.S. District Judge Gershwin A. Drain in February 2016, ruling that he improperly barred testimony supporting Odeh’s claim that she failed to disclose her Israeli conviction for participating in two 1969 Jerusalem bombings, including one at a grocery story that killed two Hebrew University students.

Drain granted a new trial including the testimony, prompting federal prosecutors to issue a new indictment adding greater emphasis on Odeh’s acknowledged membership in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) terrorist group.

Read more…

Refinery 29’s Landon Peoples in an article Why Hillary Clinton Wore A Red Pantsuit Today noted:

Hillary Clinton proved during the election that she knows the potential of a good pantsuit. At various times during her campaign, she’s chosen various colors to convey messages of empowerment and unity. And today, at the Girls, Inc. luncheon in New York, the former Democratic nominee wore a red pantsuit to add support to another important initiative: A Day Without A Woman.

Clinton spoke to the New York sector of Girls, Inc. as she honored Lisa Blau, Annie and Maggie Ford Danielson, Shaun Robinson, and Barry Sternlicht who were all dressed in red, too — the official color of A Day Without A Woman. “Sometimes the road to progress can feel like it’s two steps forward and one step back, particularly when it comes to advancing the rights and opportunities, and full participation of women and girls,” Clinton said in her speech. “It can seem discouraging whether you’ve been on that road for a long time, or you’re just starting out, but think how different the world would be today if the people who came before us had not just gotten discouraged, but because of that, had given up.”

It appears we once again see the Red/Green alliance in full force. Hillary the socialist wearing red and Rasmieh Odeh, an Islamic supremacist and convicted terrorist, representing the color green representing Islam.

When is comes to those who believe in the power of government over the people must be absolute, birds of a feather really do flock together. Most recently in support of the Day Without a Woman strike.

alachua county logo

DANGER ZONES: ICE List of Counties harboring Illegal Aliens includes Alachua County, Florida

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement published the list below of counties that have refused to detain criminal illegal aliens.

ICE Declined Detainer Outcome Report – Jan 28 to Feb 3 2017[1] by JessicaDurando on Scribd

Breitbart’s Ben Kew in his column Trump Publishes 1st List of ‘Sanctuary Cities’ Protecting Illegal Aliens reports:

In an attempt to increase pressure on sanctuary cities, the Department of Homeland Security has published its first weekly list of all 118 localities refusing to cooperate with the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

Each week, the list will publish every detention request rejected by local jails — detailing the relevant agency, the status of the immigrant, and the charges they are facing.

The first report was published this Monday, listing 206 cases in which illegal aliens were arrested and consequently released from jail without charge, despite recommendations from the Immigration and Crime Enforcement agency (ICE) to detain them for at least 48 hours.

The cases listed took place between January 28th to February 3rd, Donald Trump’s second week in office.

In his executive order signed January 25th designed to properly enforce immigration policy, Trump said regular lists were necessary to better inform the public “regarding the public safety threats associated with sanctuary jurisdictions.”

Read more…

Kew notes, “A poll conducted by the University of California Berkeley in January found that in the state of California, where sanctuary cities are particularly prominent, 74 percent would like to see them abolished.”

In our column Forget Sanctuary Cities — Florida has 7 Sanctuary Counties we reported:

Well San Francisco has nothing over the Sunshine State. Florida is home to seven “sanctuary counties.” The sanctuary counties are: Pasco, Hillsborough, Pinellas, Hernando, Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach.

These counties are perfectly located along Florida’s East and West coast lines to allow illegal felons, like Francisco Sanchez, to enter with ease.

Sanctuary-Cities-Map

Map of sanctuary counties (yellow) and cities (red) in the United States. Map courtesy of the Center for Immigration Studies.

shrf-darnell (1)

Sheriff Sadie Darnell

Harboring illegal aliens is wrong and endangers Florida’s citizens. Alachua County is now another danger zone in the Sunshine state.

Alachua County Sheriff Sadie Darnell has a constitutional duty to uphold the laws of the State of Florida and federal laws concerning illegal alien detention. Not to do so is simply wrong.

If Sheriff Darnell can break the law then anyone can.

RELATED ARTICLE: Sanctuary policies ‘led to’ brutal, bathroom rape of 14-year-old schoolgirl

EDITORS NOTE: It was San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi who allowed five time deported illegal alien Francisco Sanchez to kill helpless, unsuspecting Kate Steinle.

ROBERT SPENCER

Video: Why the blocks on Trump’s immigration ban are illegitimate

This morning I spoke at the Young America’s Foundation conference at the Reagan Ranch Center in Santa Barbara, California on Trump’s immigration ban and why the judicial blocks on it are illegitimate.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Paris airport jihadi had Qur’an, screamed “I’m here to die for Allah, there will be deaths”

Erdogan: EU ruling on headscarf bans starts “clash between Islam and Christianity”

us ag logo

Hawaii Judge Thumbs Nose at Attorney General Sessions

You probably heard on the news over the weekend that the Department of Justice sought clarification from Obama’s friend, Judge Derrick Watson, in Hawaii and asked if he really meant to include a stop order on the President’s 120-day moratorium on refugee admissions and the FY17 ceiling reduction when he was aiming at the travel freeze.

Imam Ismail Elshikh

The travel issue and the refugee admissions issue are two separate things. For the time being, take the so-called ‘travel ban’ from six countries out of your mind. It is not the main subject of this blog or what I want to try to make clear to readers (and the lazy, ignorant press).

BTW: A co-plaintiff in the case is Imam Ismail Elshikh. Question: Is he even a U.S. citizen? The story is here at a very unusual blog that I had never heard of.

The confusion comes from the fact that the first judge on the original order left the refugee admissions pause and ceiling portion of the EO intact and so did the Maryland judge last week.

It appears that Judge Derrick Watson believes he has the authority to set the ceiling for refugee admissions each year.

He emphatically does not have that authority.  He can’t make the Department of State resume overseas processing of refugees. He can’t make the Administration and Congress spend money on refugees.

The President has the explicit power in the Refugee Act of 1980 to set the CEILING (as we said here). In most years the President (Bush and Obama) has been well under the CEILING!

As I have said recently, the big mistake the Trump team made was putting the refugee pause into an Executive Order.

They have the power to slow the flow and stay under a proposed CEILING without an explicit order.  The only thing I can see that they should have done (maybe they did it) was to notify the House and Senate Judiciary Committees that they were lowering the ceiling.  However, the original act only gave Congress the power to ‘consult’ not stop the President. (In 1980, Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden and Jimmy Carter put a lot of power in the President’s hands when it comes to refugee admissions!)

If the controversy continues, more taxpaying Americans will be educated!

That said, there could be a silver lining.  The Trump State Department can keep the flow low (or at zero) for months to come, and because the refugee ceiling is in Watson’s case (a case that surely will now work its way through the courts), the subject of the US Refugee Admissions Program will continue to be in the national news.  Thus more and more Americans will be learning the facts about what they have been paying for since 1980!

Bill Frelick of Human Rights Watch

As for the contractors (see list below), they would have been better off just shutting up and taking the 120-day (16 week) pause because 7 weeks have already passed since the original EO was announced on January 28th and they would be on their way through the slowdown.

Before you read the latest news about the Judge sticking by his original decision last week, see what refugee advocate and longtime expert Bill Frelick (Human Rights Watch) said in November after Trump was elected and the refugee industry went in to shell-shock:

“In the U.S., there’s not a quota that has to be filled. The U.S. has a budgeted amount of money to do refugee resettlement, but there’s no requirement that the U.S. resettle a single refugee, and there’s no legal obligation to do it.”

Here is one of many stories (this one at Fox News) this morning about Judge Watson telling the DOJ—no way, not changing a thing!

The federal judge in Hawaii who halted President Trump’s new, revised travel ban denied the administration’s request for him to limit the scope of his ruling Sunday so that the United States can immediately stop taking in refugees worldwide.

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson on Thursday issued a temporary restraining order on Trump’s order that prevents travelers from six mostly-Muslim countries entering the U.S. and suspends the United States’ worldwide refugee program.

Justice Department attorneys argued in a motion Friday that Watson’s temporary restraining order was essentially based on the argument that the ban appears to unconstitutionally target Muslims.

They questioned whether his ruling was limited to the part of Trump’s March 6 executive order that temporarily bans visas to travel from the six countries into the U.S., and not to the temporary refugee ban.

Watson responded Sunday by saying there was nothing unclear about the scope of his order and that the ruling remains unchanged.

More here.

As I said above, keep it up! The more public controversy surrounding the UN/US Refugee Admissions Program the better because then more American taxpayers will be educated!
For a laugh, don’t miss the news that Hawaii has taken only a tiny number of refugees for the last 14 years!

*** Here (below) are the nine major federal refugee contractors who now will see their budgets slashed (because they are largely funded by you, the taxpayer).  They know this judge is on thin ice on the President’s power to determine the number of refugees being admitted to the US.

Are they hoping that Watson can bully his way through and singlehandedly re-write the Refugee Act of 1980 turning a ceiling in to a target/goal—something the refugee industry has wanted for a long time!

By the way, for new readers, you need to know that your local resettlement agency will be a subcontractor of one of the nine fake charities that monopolize the federal refugee contracting system listed here:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Britain will ban electronic devices on flights from six Middle Eastern nations amid terror threat

Federal refugee grants to special ethnic groups “to promote community organizing”

Montana: Bill to Ban Foreign Laws Including Sharia Passes in House Jdiciary

penn-state-university-logo

Penn State Scandal: When Child Sex Abuse is ‘Harmless’

Graham Spanier

Graham Spanier

On Monday, March 20, 2017, Graham Spanier, past president of Penn State University, is scheduled to go to trial on charges of criminal child endangerment and conspiracy related to former football coach Jerry Sandusky’s rapes of little boys. At issue is whether Spanier, who was president of Penn State at the time, failed to investigate or covered up Sandusky’s crimes.

Unfortunately, there has been of late a spate of highly educated authorities, from the Pentagon to other government workers, teachers, doctors, etc., who have been arrested and even convicted for child sexual abuse, including possession of child pornography. Dr. Lori Handrahan’s publication of “Professors & Staff Arrested for Trading in Child Rape,” has sparked public outrage as the report has been shared more than 390,000 times in a few weeks. People are asking, how is this happening?

Spanier is academia sexual liberalism writ large

In fact, Spanier’s story exemplifies the consequences of sexual liberalism in academia. During his 16 years at Penn State, Spanier oversaw a number of questionable sexually charged activities. For example, Spanier apparently had no problem with Patrick Califia-Rice, a transgender sadomasochism and pedophilia advocate who keynoted a speech at Penn State in 2002. The president likewise supported an on-campus Sex Faire sporting fun for all such as “orgasm bingo” and “the tent of consent.” When asked if the fair was morally wrong, Spanier said, “It depends on what your definition of immoral is.” Given his moral confusion, would reports of Sandusky’s child rapes have elicited concern?

That was one of the questions I was asked to answer in 2014, when an investigator for Pennsylvania’s attorney general asked me to study Spainer’s scientific writings to determine whether there was a factual trail pointing to his not taking child sexual abuse allegations seriously.

My investigation first confirmed that Dr. Spanier held himself out as a sexuality expert. His 1973 doctoral dissertation was titled “Sexual Socialization.” It focused on adult sex with small children. His most important foundational work – his Ph.D. thesis – opens the door to his pedagogical philosophy, which is currently shared by a multitude of similarly educated and credentialed men and women.

From page 3 of Spanier’s dissertation:

To study this relationship, data collected by the Institute for Sex Research will be used. … To the best of my knowledge, this is the first study that attempts to investigate empirically how the sexual socializing experiences of childhood and adolescence influence the nature and extent of subsequent sexual behavior during high school and college.

Spanier covers up Kinsey’s timed child ‘orgasms’

Spanier’s “objective” research was guided by Kinsey Institute/Playboy magazine writer, Dr. William Simon. Similar to the current charges of a cover-up of Sandusky’s child sex crimes, Spanier’s dissertation covered-up Alfred C. Kinsey’s criminal child sex abuse atrocities, instead skimming over Kinsey’s “data” of timed child “orgasms” for his doctoral thesis. He writes, “we” think:

… before age 12 or 13, the [sex assaults] experiences in question would not be interpreted as sexual. … [S]exual assault before ages 12 or 13 was not related to sexual behavior …. whereas sexual assault after ages 12 or 13 was. … [A] child’s sex education, sex knowledge, sexual values, and sexual behavior from adolescence onward will not be influenced by childhood [sex abuse] experiences since as a child he or she is not capable of interpreting sexual information and experiences in the same way an adult would. (:373)

It is likely that Spanier would not “label” Sandusky’s rapes as deviant, but rather as simple sex socialization of boys. That is illustrated further in a later article in which he found sex acts “deviant” only if we “labeled” them so. The observation below from his paper on one type of sexual deviance, “mate swapping,” could apply equally to child sex abuse.

We choose to view deviant behavior simply as behavior that some value and others consider wrong. An individual’s behavior becomes deviant only when others define it as deviant. Much of an individual’s behavior can be viewed as a response to this “labeling.” (:145)

According to that logic, Sandusky’s violent oral and anal sodomy of 10- and 11-year-old boys would not be viewed as “deviant” in and of itself.

Shortly after receiving his Ph.D., Spanier landed a Penn State professorship in 1977 and later served as vice provost at State University of New York at Stony Brook, provost at Oregon State University and chancellor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in 1991.

Spanier is representative of almost three generations of leaders who have embraced the mantra of Kinsey (a sadomasochistic, pornographic producing, pedophile professor), that “children are sexual from birth and unharmed by sex with adults.” Between justification by “science” and rampant pornographic stimuli, is it any wonder that so many of our leaders have succumbed to sadomasochistic pedophilia documented by Dr. Handrahan?

Spanier is credited with making Penn State “an internationally recognized institution.” The same claim was made for American University’s past president Richard Berendzen – until he was caught seeking sex with children, even telling Susan Allen, a day care owner, he had a 4-year-old “sex slave” imprisoned in his basement. Spanier, like others, is still a tenured professor at $600,000 a year.

So again, the question is what/when did Dr. Spanier know of Sandusky’s child sex assaults? And, how many other high-level authorities were trained by a similar sexual worldview as the football coach and the president?

Ladies and gentlemen, an investigation of Kinsey and the Kinsey Institute waits in the wings. It almost happened under President Reagan in 1995 with H.R. 2749, “The Child Protection and Ethics in Education Act.” With President Trump, that window into child sex crimes as the basis of false and damaging research and education can be opened once again. Let those who believe that the truth must be revealed and all children protected gather together to join in the demand to revisit H.R. 2749!

EDITORS NOTE: Readers may see all of Dr. Reisman’s books on sexual fraud at the WND Superstore. This column originally appeared on World Net Daily.

Sterling Heights mosque

Michigan Mosque Delayed as Local Community Files Lawsuit

For background see our earlier post, here. And, take note that the Obama U.S. Attorney who sided with the mosque builders was one of those asked to resign by President Trump a few days ago.

From Leo Hohmann at World Net Daily (Christians who escaped persecution in Iraq are fighting back!):

The saga of the 21,000-square-foot mega-mosque in Sterling Heights, Michigan, is not over yet.

The mayor and city council voted Feb. 21 to settle a lawsuit by a Shiite Muslim group and allow it to build a mosque in a residential neighborhood populated largely by Chaldean Christian refugees who escaped Islamic persecution in Iraq.

Nahren Anweya

A companion suit against the city by Barack Obama’s Department of Justice alleging the city had denied the mosque a permit based on “anti-Muslim” sentiments in the community was also settled at the Feb. 21 meeting, paving the way for the mosque to start construction.

But the counter-lawsuit filed Monday argues that city officials were actually favoring the Shiite Muslims of neighboring Madison Heights while ignoring the wishes of its own citizens who were overwhelmingly against the mosque.

If built, the American Islamic Community Center, or AICC, will become the third mosque in Sterling Heights.

Second DOJ-imposed win for Muslims in less than year

It was the second bitter mosque battle in Southeastern Michigan in less than a year.

Obama’s DOJ forced a madrassa on Pittsfield Township, near Ann Arbor, and that town had to pay out $1.7 million to the mosque while sending township employees to be trained on how not to discriminate against Muslims.

After the contentious Feb. 21 meeting in Sterling Heights in which the mayor ordered police to empty the city-hall chambers before the council took a vote on the mosque deal, WND reported that the Chaldean Christians were upset and talking about a counter-lawsuit.

On Monday, they acted. They had Ann Arbor-based American Freedom Law Center, or AFLC, file a civil rights suit on their behalf against the city and Mayor Michael C. Taylor, alleging violations of state and federal law.

“The mayor and the corrupted personal interests behind him have outraged a community which is comprised of the largest minority Assyrian/Chaldean Christians from Iraq,” said Nahren Anweya, spokeswoman for the Chaldean and Assyrian Christians in Sterling Heights. “This minority group consists of more than four generations of refugees and genocide victims under radical Islam.”

Nahren Anweya, “This minority group consists of more than four generations of refugees and genocide victims under radical Islam.”

CAIR crows and threatens:

Dawud Walid, CAIR Michigan.

When the city agreed to settle the suit and allow the mosque to be built, the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, said the victory for the mosque should teach Michigan cities a lesson.

“We hope that this settlement, along with last year’s settlement in Pittsfield Township regarding a previously blocked Islamic school project, sends a strong message to city governments in Michigan seeking to deny zoning of religious institutions simply because they are led by Muslims,” said CAIR-Michigan Executive Director Dawud Walid.

An attorney for the AICC mosque, Azzam Elder, threatened to “monitor” local residents he felt were Islamophobic.

“Moving forward, we’re very concerned about some of what you’ve seen at the public hearings with some of the residents,” Elder told the Detroit News. “We’ll be monitoring what we feel (could be) potential hate groups.”

Hohmann’s story is very thorough.  I have only snipped a small portion of it, go here to learn more.

Besides the lawsuit, I’m thinking that the citizens there might follow the Rutland model and work very hard to remove (at the ballot box!) the elected officials who caved!

One of the great and lasting legacies of a naive federal refugee program is that the US State Department and its contractors have placed Middle Eastern groups who have been in conflict for centuries in close proximity to each other in American cities assuming, we can only presume, that their religious conflicts will melt away in the great (mythical?) American melting pot.

Learn more about CAIR Michigan’s Dawud Walid here: http://www.investigativeproject.org/2438/dawud-walid-unhinged#

RELATED ARTICLE: Michigan: Muslims fear “undercover” Christian missionaries in Dearborn coffee shop

Judge Derrick Watson

Hawaii Judge Places Restraining Order on President’s Refugee Pause EO

Unless I find a definitive article about what exactly the judge in Hawaii ruled on the Trump Executive Order in the next couple of hours (I have a doc appt.), here is one news story from the AP (thanks to reader Theodore).

Judge Derrick Watson.

Also, according to several news sources discussing other pending cases, including Fox Newsone argument in the Maryland case is absolutely nuts.  I worry that judges ruling on the cases have no idea about what the US Refugee Act of 1980 says or how the program has been administered for 37 years!

Story “One Unelected Leftist Judge in Hawaii Decided Security for the Entire NationIt makes me want to scream!

The line that I see while searching just now, that is being spread by many news sources, is this one:

“The Maryland lawsuit also argues that it’s against federal law for the Trump administration to reduce the number of refugees allowed into the United States this year by more than half, from 110,000 to 50,000. Attorneys argued that if that aspect of the ban takes effect, 60,000 people would be stranded in war-torn countries with nowhere else to go.”

We are assuming that comes from the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society suit we reported here. The true gist of their argument is that they, the federal resettlement contractors, were expecting more paying “clients” and had built their budgets around the per head payment they were expecting with the unrealistic 110,000 refugees Obama said would come in the year he no longer was president!

For the umpteenth time, that 110,000 that Obama set last fall is a CEILING that the Administration says it will not surpass, it is not a goal!

And, that 110,000 was the highest Obama had ever set in his presidency.  Trump has the absolute authority to reduce the ceiling, but more importantly he can bring in any number under whatever he set, or whatever Obama set!

Forget the EO!

President Trump has all the authority he needs to not import any more refugees this entire year (I’m not sure that his team even knows that he has no legal obligation to bring in even 50,000!).

As of this morning, we have admitted 38,106 refugees this fiscal year (2017) via Wrapsnet.  783 refugees arrived in the ten day period from the announcement of this EO and today when the “moratorium” was to go in to effect.

I repeat!  The President does not have to call it a moratorium or include it in this EO. He can simply stop processing new refugees abroad with no further explanation!

President George W. Bush had 4 years under 50,000! His lowest year was 39,554.  Even Obama had two years under 60,000 and well below the ceiling!  See here.

Now look at this chart (below) very carefully.   When I found it at Wrapsnet, the last year, 2016, was not complete.  Know that we brought in just short of the 85,000 ceiling (a rare occurrence).

The federal refugee resettlement contractors have long wanted the president’s ‘determination’ each year to be a GOAL (a target) not a CEILING! But, the law says it is a ceiling. Look at the column for CEILING and the column for the number actually admitted!

What do you see?  Rarely does the number admitted reach the CEILING.

In FY2006, they were 28,777 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue the President?
In FY2007, they were 21,718 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue the President?
In FY2008, they were 19,809 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue the President?
In FY2009, they were 5,346 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue the President?
In FY2010, they were 6,689 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue the President?
In FY2011, they were 23,576 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue President Obama?
In FY2012, they were 17,762 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue President Obama for leaving thousands “stranded in war-torn countries”?

Obama got closer to the lowered CEILING over the next few years.

You get my drift!

Be sure to note that Obama never set a ceiling as high as 110,000 in all his previous years as president. That 110,000 was set in the final months of his final year! The average admissions over the years shown here is around 65,000. I could not find the chart that includes the last month of FY16, but we admitted only a few refugees short of the 85,000 ceiling because the Administration was hell-bent to get in thousands of Syrians.

I’m begging ignorant and lazy reporters to get the facts!

And, I am sure you are scared as heck, as I am, to see judges making decisions based on sheer ignorance of the law.

See my post from last Friday about how Hawaii hypocrites! have “welcomed” only a tiny number of refugees over the years—none from Africa and only 5 (total) from two Muslim countries.

This post is filed in our Trump Watch! category as well as ‘refugee statistics’ and ‘where to find information.’

RELATED ARTICLES: 

What 2 Obama Judges Got Wrong in Striking Down Travel Executive Order

California judge seeks to prevent immigration arrests inside state courts

Refuting, once again, the big lie about 18-24 months of vetting!

CIA

VIDEOS: Why We’re Being Watched by Kelly Wright

Wikileaks has just published over 8,000 files they say were leaked from the CIA, explaining how the CIA developed the capacity to spy on you through your phone, your computer, and even your television. And Wikileaks’s Julian Assange claims these “Vault 7” documents are just one percent of all the CIA documents they have.

The media will be combing through these for weeks or months, so now is a perfect moment for us to reconsider the role of privacy, transparency, and limited government in a free society.

We’ve put together a quick list of the six best Learn Liberty resources on government spying and whistleblowing to help inform this discussion.

1. War Is Why We’re Being Watched

Why is the US government spying on its citizens in the first place? Professor Abby Hall Blanco says that expansive state snooping at home is actually the result of America’s military interventionism abroad:

2. Is Privacy the Price of Security?

Yes, you may think, the government is snooping on us, but it’s doing that to keep us safe!

That’s the most common justification for sweeping and intrusive surveillance, so we held a debate between two experts to get right to the heart of it. Moderated by TK Coleman, this debate between Professor Ronald Sievert and Cindy Cohn, the Executive Director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, was inspired in part by the revelations about NSA surveillance leaked by Edward Snowden in June 2013.

3. Freedom Requires Whistleblowers

People are already drawing parallels between the Snowden leaks and the Vault 7 revelations. If the leaks are indeed coming from a Snowden-like whistleblower, that will once again raise the issue of government prosecution of people who reveal classified information to the public.

Professor James Otteson argues that a free society requires a transparent government, and whistleblowers play a key role in creating that accountability. Otteson also sounds a warning that should resonate with many Americans today:

Maybe you’re not concerned about the invasions of privacy that the federal government agencies are engaging in because you think, “Well, I haven’t done anything wrong. What do I have to fear?” Maybe you think, “I like and support this president. I voted for him.”

But what about the next president?  The powers that we let the government have under one president are the same powers that the next president will have too.

What if the next president is one you don’t support? He, too, will have all the power that you were willing to give the president you now support.”

4. Encryption Is a Human Rights Issue

Documents from Vault 7 suggest that the CIA has been so stymied by encrypted-messaging apps, such as Signal and Whatsapp, that it has resorted to taking over entire smartphones to read messages before they are sent.

That turns out to be a costly, targeted, and time-consuming business that doesn’t allow for mass data collection. But for decades, government officials have tried to require tech companies to give the government a backdoor into their encryption. In “Encryption Is a Human Rights Issue,” Amul Kalia argues that protecting encryption from government is essential to our safety and freedom.

5. The Police Know Where You Live

It turns out that it’s not just spy agencies that have access to detailed information about your life. Ordinary police officers have it, too, and they often face little supervision or accountability. As Cassie Whalen explains, “Across the United States, police officers abuse their access to confidential databases to look up information on neighbors, love interests, politicians, and others who had no connection to a criminal investigation.”

Surveillance is a serious issue at every level of government.

6. Understanding NSA Surveillance

If you’re ready to take your learning to the next level, check out our complete video course on mass government surveillance with Professor Elizabeth Foley. In it, you’ll learn what you need to know to make sense of the NSA scandal in particular and mass surveillance in general.

Reprinted from Learn Liberty.

Kelly Wright

Kelly Wright

Kelly Wright is an Online Programs Coordinator at the Institute for Humane Studies.

RELATED ARTICLE: Deterrence and Human Nature