mateen pulse

Facebook, Twitter SUED by more victims of Islamic terror

Filing a lawsuit against the internet is like filing a lawsuit against Johannes Gutenberg in the late 1400s. It’s absurd. Technology and progress are not the problem. Ideology is the problem. Why don’t victims of jihad terror sue the mosques and the world’s leading Islamic institutions such as Al Azhar university? Why not sue the publishers that print Qurans and hadiths that incite to jihad? Jihad terror has been plaguing humanity long before the interwebs came into existence.

Suing Twitter, Google, and Facebook is killing the messenger. It’s folly.


TWITTER, FACEBOOK TARGETED BY MORE PULSE SHOOTING VICTIMS

social-iconsBy Paul Brinkmann, Orlando Sentinel. April 3, 2017:

TEN NEW PLAINTIFFS HAVE JOINED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT THAT TARGETS TWITTER, GOOGLE, AND FACEBOOK WITH ALLEGATIONS THAT ISIS USED SOCIAL MEDIA TO RADICALIZE THE PULSE NIGHTCLUB GUNMAN.

The lawsuit is the second in recent weeks where more than a dozen Pulse victims or their families are now suing over the tragedy. The other big lawsuit is directed at the G4S security firm, where the shooter worked as a security guard, and his wife.

ne of the new plaintiffs in the social media case is Christine Leinonen, mother of deceased victim Christopher “Dru” Leinonen. She has been one of the most visible activists among the Pulse victims’ families, appearing at the Democratic National Convention during the presidential campaign to speak about curbing gun violence.

“I think this is one lawsuit that may actually work, so that we could prevent some future tragedies. It’s not going to eliminate them altogether because the [expletive] that want to distribute this kind of carnage can still meet in a coffeehouse or a cave or wherever,” Leinonen said. “They are taking men who might be slightly angry because they’re not getting along with their boss or their wife, and they’re making monsters out of them.”

Money from the lawsuit would be put into her son’s foundation, called The Dru Project, to help start up and support gay-straight alliances in schools.She said the lawsuit is not about money.

“Even if the damages are minimal, that’s irrelevant. I have the opportunity to eradicate future evil. That would promote my son’s honor, his name, his legacy,” Leinonen said.

The lawsuit seeks a judge’s order declaring the social media companies to have violated the Anti-Terrorism Act by allowing ISIS sympathizers to use their services. The act defines terrorism as acts dangerous to human life, which appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, among other things, and provides for penalties against anyone aiding terrorists.

Twitter, Google and Facebook have fought back in court, filing a motion to dismiss the case already.

The social media lawsuit was first filed in December by family members controlling estates of three deceased victims, by the Michigan-based firm 1-800-Law-Firm. Ten more joined the suit last week, according to a new amended complaint.

The social media suit alleges that the shooter, Omar Mateen, was radicalized by ISIS’s use of social media websites to conduct terrorist operations. However, the companies have argued that the suit alleges no facts indicating that the Orlando attack “was in any way impacted, helped by, or the result of ISIS’s presence on the social networks.”

Mateen opened fire at Pulse, a gay nightclub south of downtown Orlando, about 2 a.m. on June 12, killing 49 people and injuring at least 68 others.

Besides Leinonen, the new plaintiffs are family or estate representatives of deceased victims including: Lydia Perez and family members of the late Jean Carlos Mendez Perez; Carlos Sanfeliz and Maria Sanfeliz-Mendoza, family of the late Christopher Joseph Sanfeliz; Jose Luis Vielma, family of the late Luis Sergio Vielma; Jackson J. Josaphat, family of the late Jason B. Josaphat; Stanley Almodovar, family of the late Stanley Almodovar III.

Four of the new plaintiffs are Pulse victims who recovered: Chris Littlestar, Nicholaz Perez, Asael Abad and Jillian Amador.

The lawsuit cites numerous media accounts of investigations into the shooting by the FBI and by a Congressional committee.

Although the suit says the FBI believes Mateen was radicalized by viewing online material, including videos, the suit doesn’t have any specific examples of Mateen viewing ISIS material. The only direct reference in the lawsuit to Mateen using social media is about him going on Facebook during the shooting itself to find reaction.

Another lawsuit filed by victims’ families, filed targets the G4S security firm, where the shooter worked as a security guard, and his wife.

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

baltimore

Locals Address Crime Plagued Baltimore

I love conversations with my 89-year-old black preacher dad. We chat over the phone. I live in Florida and Dad lives in the Baltimore area of Maryland. Blacks are killing each other in record numbers in Baltimore. Dad said a young black male crazy from taking a new street drug held two elementary school kids hostage with a knife. Police tried to talk the man into letting the children go. Unfortunately, SWAT was called and they had to shoot him. He died.

We chatted a bit about how the police were in a no-win situation, branded racist whatever they did. Some said SWAT shot too quickly. Had the drug-crazed man stabbed the kids, SWAT would be criticized for acting too slowly.

The incident inspired a young black man from Pumphrey, Maryland, the community I grew up in, to plan a prayer vigil. He asked my dad to come and speak. The young man agreed to pick up Dad because he no longer drives. Dad will be 90 in April.

The prayer vigil was scheduled to be outside the Pumphrey Community Center because the young man who planned the event could not afford to rent the facility. When the custodian who was inside the center cleaning realized Rev Marcus was outside, she opened the doors.

Dad said over 100 black men (young, old, clergy, church deacons, community leaders) and around 50 women showed up inside the community center.

Dad shared with his audience a story from when I was around 9 or 10 years old. I remember the incident well.

A neighbor, Miss Frances cautioned dad not to go swimming in the huge body of water a few blocks from our home. She said it was deep with dangerous currents. Dad blew her off as a frightened old woman. Dad said, “You swim on top of the water so it does not matter how deep it is.”

After church one Sunday in August, Dad and I could not wait to go swimming at what we called “The River.” When we arrived, a crowd from the city was there swimming. Not 10 feet from the shore, a boy went under the water and did not come back up.

Dad and a couple of men dove in, looking for him. The pressure was hurting dad’s ears as he felt around for the boy in the dark cold water. Dad dove two times staying down as long as he could. Dad said just as he was about to dive for the third time, I said, “Dad don’t go back down there.” He obeyed my request.

It took the fire department three hours dragging the bottom before they hooked the boy’s body. Dad said his point in telling the story was somebody had to die before he listened to Miss Frances.

Dad said, “Somebody had to die to bring us here today.” He went on to speak about issues plaguing the black community. Knowing my dad, I’m sure he talked about the importance of having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Dad said after he spoke a man came forward and put a 20 dollar bill on the table. Spontaneously, the crowd followed his lead. The young prayer vigil organizer was blown away by the crowds’ generosity. He had more than a enough money to cover the rental fee of the center. Group consensus was to donate the rest to a needy family.

I told dad that sounds like the Bible story when Jesus fed the five thousand. Matthew 14:20 “…and there were twelve baskets left over.”

Dad chuckled.

Judge Derrick Watson

Hawaii Judge uses fake news about a fake document to halt President’s travel ban

by John Hindraker, PowerLineBlog.com, March 28, 2017

At Breitbart.com, Michael Patrick Leahy has what strikes me as an explosive story: “Mystery Surrounds Leaked Leaked Draft DHS Document at Center of Controversial Travel Ban Decisions by Two Federal Judges.” Actually, though, it doesn’t seem to be much of a mystery.

On February 24, AP reporters Vivian Salama and Alicia Caldwell published an AP “exclusive”: “DHS report disputes threat from banned nations.” The story was based on an anonymous draft Department of Homeland Services document that was leaked to the Associated Press, presumably by someone at DHS. The document seemed to have been created for the express purpose of undermining President Trump’s travel order. Indeed, it likely was created for that purpose.

The document is here. It says:

DHS I&A assesses that country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity.

The two judges who issued orders blocking implementation of the president’s travel ban relied explicitly on the AP story and the leaked DHS document. Judge Chuang, the federal district court judge in Maryland, wrote:

Among other points, they note that the Second Executive Order does not identify examples of foreign nationals from Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen who engaged in terrorist activity in the United States. They also note that a report from the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Intelligence and Analysis, concluded that “country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity” and that “few of the impacted countries have terrorist groups that threaten the West.” l.R. 158.

Emphasis added. The Hawaii judge, Derrick Watson, wrote:

The February 24, 2017 draft report states that citizenship is an “unlikely indicator” of terrorism threats against the United States and that very few individuals from the seven countries included in Executive Order No. 13,769 had carried out or attempted to carry out terrorism activities in the United States. …

According to Plaintiffs, this and other evidence demonstrates the Administration’s pretextual justification for the Executive Order.

Judge Watson was in error: the draft report, which was never approved or finalized by DHS, is neither dated nor signed. February 24 was the date of the AP story based on the leaked document. No one at DHS has taken responsibility for writing it.

The judges were wrong to base their decisions in part on the leaked document. President Trump had clear constitutional and statutory authority to issue the travel order, and whether the judges, or some anonymous person at DHS, agreed with his judgment is irrelevant.

But Leahy skillfully unpacks what happened here. The draft report came from DHS’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis, which was headed by David Grannis, an Obama holdover bureaucrat. Grannis is a partisan Democrat who previously worked as a staffer for Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Jane Harman. A DHS spokesman “would neither confirm nor deny that Grannis was the author of, or had reviewed, the leaked document….”

How about the reporters? It pretty much goes without saying that AP reporters are Democrats. But Leahy also points out that Vivian Salama formerly worked for Rolling Stone, where she wrote that Yemen–one of the countries covered by the travel order–“holds a special place in my heart.” She has bitterly denounced U.S. drone strikes in Yemen.

So it appears that what happened here is that Democratic Party activists in the Department of Homeland Security either created a bogus document or dug up a poorly-researched draft document that had never been issued, and fed it to Democratic Party activists at the Associated Press. The Democratic Party activists at the AP published a story based on the anonymous document, which two Democratic Party activists on the bench used as a pretext for orders enjoining the president’s travel order.

Those orders should be viewed as purely political acts that have no basis in any valid judicial reasoning or authority.

china spying

State Department Employee Arrested for working with Communist Chinese agents

state_departmentA federal complaint was unsealed today charging Candace Marie Claiborne, 60, of Washington, D.C., and an employee of the U.S. Department of State, with obstructing an official proceeding and making false statements to the FBI, both felony offenses, for allegedly concealing numerous contacts that she had over a period of years with foreign intelligence agents.

The charges were announced by Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary B. McCord for National Security, U.S. Attorney Channing D. Phillips of the District of Columbia and Assistant Director in Charge Andrew W. Vale of the FBI’s Washington Field Office.

“Candace Marie Claiborne is a U.S. State Department employee who possesses a Top Secret security clearance and allegedly failed to report her contacts with Chinese foreign intelligence agents who provided her with thousands of dollars of gifts and benefits,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General McCord. “Claiborne used her position and her access to sensitive diplomatic data for personal profit. Pursuing those who imperil our national security for personal gain will remain a key priority of the National Security Division.”

“Candace Claiborne is charged with obstructing an official proceeding and making false statements in connection with her alleged concealment and failure to report her improper connections to foreign contacts along with the tens of thousands of dollars in gifts and benefits they provided,” said U.S. Attorney Phillips. “As a State Department employee with a Top Secret clearance, she received training and briefing about the need for caution and transparency. This case demonstrates that U.S. government employees will be held accountable for failing to honor the trust placed in them when they take on such sensitive assignments”

“Candace Claiborne is accused of violating her oath of office as a State Department employee, who was entrusted with Top Secret information when she purposefully mislead federal investigators about her significant and repeated interactions with foreign contacts,” said Assistant Director in Charge Vale. “The FBI will continue to investigate individuals who, though required by law, fail to report foreign contacts, which is a key indicator of potential insider threats posed by those in positions of public trust.”

The FBI arrested Claiborne on March 28. She made her first appearance this afternoon in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

According to the affidavit in support of the complaint and arrest warrant, which was unsealed today, Claiborne began working as an Office Management Specialist for the Department of State in 1999. She has served overseas at a number of posts, including embassies and consulates in Baghdad, Iraq, Khartoum, Sudan, and Beijing and Shanghai, China. As a condition of her employment, Claiborne maintains a Top Secret security clearance. Claiborne also is required to report any contacts with persons suspected of affiliation with a foreign intelligence agency.

Despite such a requirement, the affidavit alleges, Claiborne failed to report repeated contacts with two intelligence agents of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), even though these agents provided tens of thousands of dollars in gifts and benefits to Claiborne and her family over five years. According to the affidavit, the gifts and benefits included cash wired to Claiborne’s USAA account, an Apple iPhone and laptop computer, Chinese New Year’s gifts, meals, international travel and vacations, tuition at a Chinese fashion school, a fully furnished apartment, and a monthly stipend. Some of these gifts and benefits were provided directly to Claiborne, the affidavit alleges, while others were provided through a co-conspirator.

According to the affidavit, Claiborne noted in her journal that she could “Generate 20k in 1 year” working with one of the PRC agents, who, shortly after wiring $2,480 to Claiborne, tasked her with providing internal U.S. Government analyses on a U.S.-Sino Strategic Economic Dialogue that had just concluded.

Claiborne, who allegedly confided to a co-conspirator that the PRC agents were “spies,” willfully misled State Department background investigators and FBI investigators about her contacts with those agents, the affidavit states. After the State Department and FBI investigators contacted her, Claiborne also instructed her co-conspirators to delete evidence connecting her to the PRC agents, the affidavit alleges.

Charges contained in a criminal complaint are merely allegations, and every defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The maximum penalty for a person convicted of obstructing an official proceeding is 20 years in prison. The maximum penalty for making false statements to the FBI is five years in prison. The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes. If convicted of any offense, the sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the court based on the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

At her court appearance today, Claiborne pleaded not guilty before the Honorable Magistrate Judge Robin M. Meriweather. A preliminary hearing was set for April 18.

The FBI’s Washington Field Office is leading the investigation into this matter. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys John L. Hill and Thomas A. Gillice for the District of Columbia and Trial Attorney Julie Edelstein of the National Security Division’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section.

2017 03 29 Claiborne Complaint and Redacted Affidavit

RELATED ARTICLE: Candace Claiborne: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

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 ARTICLES:

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

Nonprofits Help Illegal Immigrants With $291M Taxpayer Boost | The Daily Caller

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.

RELATED ARTICLE: What’s Happened to Gun Sales After Trump’s Election

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