Gold Star Widow Natasha De Alencar releases audio from phone call with President Trump

Army Staff Sgt. Mark R. De Alencar

This video released by a Gold Star widow Natasha De Alencar is especially touching to me because her husband was assigned to the 7th Special Forces Group as indicated by the red shield worn on his black beret. I served in the 7th Special Forces Group in the late 1970s. Each man knew what he signed up for, each man was prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice in defense of the Constitution and the nation.

The Special Forces crest has the Latin phrase “De Oppresso Liber” which translated means “To Free the Oppressed.” The motto of the 7th Special Forces Group is the Spanish phrase “Lo Que Sea – Cuando Sea – Donde Sea” which translated means “Whatever – Whenever – Whatever.” The U.S. Special Forces soldiers are the tip of the spear and they know it.

May God bless and comfort the De Alencar family.

The Washington Free Beacon’s Conner Beck in a column titled “Gold Star Widow on Call With Trump: ‘It Felt Like I Was Talking to Another Regular Human’“reported:

Natasha De Alencar returned home on April 12 after making t-shirts and pillowcases in her husband’s memory when the Army casualty assistance officer told her that President Donald Trump was on the phone for her.

De Alencar’s husband, Army Staff Sgt. Mark R. De Alencar, had been killed during a firefight with Islamic State fighters in eastern Afghanistan on April 8, the Washington Post reported Thursday night.

He left behind five children, one of whom recorded the conversation with Trump.

Trump opened by saying he was sorry about the “whole situation” and called Mark De Alencar “an unbelievable hero.” Natasha De Alencar thanked Trump for the call and told him about her family. She noted that her oldest son, Deshaun, is playing college football at Missouri Valley College in Marshall, Mo. on an academic scholarship.

Read more.

NewsThisSecond Published the full video on YouTube released by Gold Star Widow Natasha De Alencar of her phone call with President Trump.

Valdimir, Barack, Hillary, UraniunOne: The media coverup of the coverup begins!

The media coverup of the coverup begins.

The Washington Post ran a column titled “Making sense of Russia, uranium and Hillary Clinton” by Callum Borchers on October 19, 2017. The WaPo’s Borchers admits, in part, that, “Investigators’ findings suggest that maybe it wasn’t such a good idea to let Russia buy the [Uranium One] mining company.”

Why? Because by selling Uranium One to the Russians, Vladimir Putin, “controls one-fifth of uranium mining capacity in the United States.” Borchers notes, “Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security…”

But Borchers begins to defend the deal in general and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a member of the committee that approved the sale, in particular. Borchers begins his column with these three paragraphs:

To hear Sean Hannity tell it, the media is ignoring “what is becoming the biggest scandal — or, at least, one of them — in American history.”

Hannity is jumping waaay ahead of the facts. So is Breitbart News, which has been running misleading headlines like this: “FBI uncovers confirmation of Hillary Clinton’s corrupt uranium deal with Russia.”

Brent Bozell, founder of the conservative Media Research Center, claims that there is “another coverup in the making.” And President Trump chimed in Thursday morning on Twitter.

Borchers gives his rationale for starting his column in this way when he wrote:

New reporting this week by the Hill has, indeed, added a layer of intrigue to the sale of a uranium mining company to Russia’s atomic energy agency, which was approved by the Clinton-led State Department and eight other U.S. government agencies. But the latest developments, as they relate to Clinton, are not as explosive as certain news outlets — eager to draw attention away from reporting on President Trump and Russia — would have you believe.

Borchers is saying don’t look at what at the left hand did, focus on what the right hand may or may not have done.

Borchers quotes the October 17th story by John Solomon and Alison Spann published in The Hill.  But Borchers only mentions in his column the FBI investigation of Russian bribery of a trucking company that carries nuclear materials. Borchers ignores the opening paragraph of the Solomon and Spann article:

Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.

Solomon and Spann also reported:

They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.

The racketeering scheme was conducted “with the consent of higher level officials” in Russia who “shared the proceeds” from the kickbacks, one agent declared in an affidavit years later.

[ … ]

The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns. And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions,” a person who worked on the case told The Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by U.S. or Russian officials

Borchers asks: So, did committee members — especially Clinton — know what the FBI had found? His answer: That’s unclear.

Borchers claims, “But there is reason to doubt that Clinton would have been in the know. The FBI investigation was still four years from completion at the time that the uranium deal was approved.”

The issue is not the completion of the FBI investigation, the issue is that the investigation was initiated and going on while Clinton was negotiating the deal, which became part of the Obama legacy.

Maybe Uranium One is what Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton were discussing during their meeting on the tarmac during the election? We won’t know for sure what was discussed until the FBI releases their 30 page document, which the FBI said didn’t exist, about the Lynch/Clinton meeting.

Level of intrigue indeed.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Wall Street Whistleblower Says Clinton Foundation Purposely Hid Russian-Uranium One Payments

Why Trump’s Not Replacing Bureaucrats Enables the ‘Deep State’

All 9 federal refugee resettlement contractors support Oct. 18th #NoMuslimBanEver rally

That is a rally partially sponsored by the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) to be held in Washington, D.C. this coming week. (As of this writing they have 847 confirmed planning to attend, here.)

I told you about it here when the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society was pushing its groupies to attend.

Curious about whether the other eight federal refugee contractors (some receiving nearly all of their funding from the US Treasury)*** were involved, I asked in that post if anyone knew.

I got my answer just now at twitter when the lobbying arm of the refugee industry (Refugee Council USA) put out this message:

 

Screenshot (969)

So who are the members of the refugee lobbying consortium.  Here they are:

Screenshot (970)

Screenshot (971)

Screenshot (972)

***Check out those logos, below are the nine contractors. Where is Congress? Shouldn’t there be a law that if you take most of your funding from taxpayers, you shouldn’t be marching in the streets against the President and us!

Think about it!  All nine contractors (the Catholic church included!) are telling their people to march against the President and for CAIR! 

Why don’t they just take good care of the refugees they are being paid to care for!

LOL! I’m on a roll today, energized by Ms. Wolfe!

RELATED ARTICLES: 

US immigration population hits record 60 million, 1-of-5 in nation – Washington Examiner

City Mayors shirking responsibility regarding Refugee Admissions Program

JW: US Dept. of State says they have NO records on refugee travel loans/repayment (really?)

Australian Socialists march, want detainees admitted to Australia

McConnell Wants to Ditch the Blue Slip for Judicial Nominees, and He’s Right

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., supports an important step toward fixing the backlog of judicial nominations that are piling up in the Senate.

McConnell told The Weekly Standard that blue slips—the practice of asking senators from a nominee’s home state for their opinion before the Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing—should no longer be used to bring a confirmation to a crashing halt.

Instead, they should be treated as “simply notification of how [a senator is] going to vote, not as an opportunity to blackball.”

Soon after, however, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, stated that ditching the blue slip is his call to make, not McConnell’s.

Grassley did not refuse to ultimately change the practice, but he wasn’t enthusiastic about McConnell’s plan. Grassley’s spokesperson indicated that, at this point, the chairman would respond to “abuses” of blue slips on a “case-by-case basis.”

Blue slips have a long history, dating back to 1917. As part of the process for evaluating a judicial nominee, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee would ask senators from the nominee’s home state to select “I approve” or “I object” on a blue slip of paper.

The rationale was that home state senators may be more familiar with a nominee and have better insights into his or her suitability for a judgeship.

Except for a brief period in the 1960s and ‘70s, blue slips were never used as a way to veto nominees. Unfortunately, some Democratic senators have recently refused to turn in their blue slips in an attempt to prevent or delay the confirmation of conservative judges.

McConnell’s proposed change would be welcome news for David Stras, Michael Brennan, and Ryan Bounds—three nominees to federal appeals courts who have been waylaid by Democrat senators seeking to block their confirmations.

While the blue slip tradition remains in limbo for now, it’s not the only problem judicial nominees face. Once they are voted out of committee, many nominees have languished without a vote by the full Senate.

Fortunately, McConnell also made clear that confirming judicial nominees will be a top priority going forward. He said, “I guarantee they will be dealt with … [r]egardless of what tactics are used by Democrats, the judges are going to be confirmed.”

Judicial nominees aren’t the only ones waiting for a vote, but McConnell further explained, “Priority between an assistant secretary of state and a conservative court judge—it’s not a hard choice to make.” Federal judgeships are, after all, lifetime positions.

To date, the Senate has confirmed only seven judges, including Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch. Meanwhile, 53 nominations are still pending, and the president is sending more nominees to the Senate each month, working to fill more than 160 vacancies.

At bottom, the Senate needs to get to work holding hearings and confirming these roughly five dozen nominees.

Whether Grassley gets on board with McConnell’s plan or deals with the Democrats who are stonewalling nominees on a “case-by-case basis,” he needs to take steps to ensure the president’s highly qualified nominees are confirmed to the bench expeditiously.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Elizabeth Slattery

Elizabeth Slattery writes about the rule of law, the proper role of the courts, civil rights and equal protection, and the scope of constitutional provisions such as the Commerce Clause and the Recess Appointments Clause as a legal fellow in the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read her research. Twitter: .

Portrait of Tiffany Bates

Tiffany Bates serves as legal policy analyst in the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: 

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

RELATED ARTICLE: How to Stop Democrats From Stonewalling Judicial Nominees

Was Vegas Massacre a Federal Sting Operation Gone Bad, Like Fast and Furious?

Perhaps Stephen Paddock was a “lone wolf” who somehow “snapped.” But his arsenal, designed for a small terrorist army, and his “secret life” have led to speculation he was part of a gun-running and bomb-making operation similar to the federal ATF ‘Fast and Furious’ gun-walking scandal in the early Obama Administration. In this case, however, the targets were Islamists, not Mexican drug traffickers.

blue_logo
By Cliff Kincaid

Why is there no motive for the Vegas massacre? Why did Stephen Paddock have a secret life?

It is terrible to contemplate, but the possibility that Stephen Paddock was an undercover federal operative or informant cannot be ruled out. He may have been either set up or used by ISIS and/or a federal agency in a scheme that backfired.

The feds may have thought they were going to catch ISIS in the act of preparing a major terrorist attack. ISIS terrorists may have thought Paddock was one of them but realized at the last minute that it was a set-up. So, they claimed him as one of their own.

Perhaps he did convert to Islam after trying to get local Jihadists to buy his weapons. Or perhaps they thought he did, and he used his “conversion” to convince them he was one of them.

In short, Paddock may have approached potential terrorists with offers of weapons and bomb-making material. Or they may have approached him.

Those of us who have been around Washington D.C. for a while know that the FBI has been rocked by scandals of all kinds and a series of failures, ranging from Ruby Ridge to Waco to 9/11. Because these scandals involve death, stonewalling, and cover-up, the agencies cannot be trusted to investigate themselves.

For someone with even elementary knowledge of government incompetence and corruption, it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to consider the possibility that Paddock was a government informant or operative in a scheme that backfired.

We can anticipate there will be obligatory denials.

Reports indicate that the materials found in Paddock’s car included 1,600 rounds of ammunition, fertilizer that could be used to make explosives, and 50 pounds of the explosive substance Tannerite. He had 23 weapons in the hotel room and had reportedly bought 33 guns in the past year. This guy was the perfect operative to be used in undercover stings. He had everything they needed to carry out major terrorist acts.

Paddock was a one-stop-shop for terrorists. He had the guns and the bombs. He was a one-man Weather Underground.

Read Mr. Kincaid’s full column by clicking here.

Cliff Kincaid

Cliff Kincaid is the President of America’s Survival, a public policy organization and author of numerous books covering the United Nations and national security issues. He is also a contributor to SFPPR News & Analysis, of the conservative-online-journalism center at the Washington-based Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Las Vegas: A THIRD Timeline Emerges

The Las Vegas Massacre and the Many Unanswered Questions

Las Vegas police now say critical 6-minute shooting gap doesn’t exist

Harvey Weinstein — Question: Why? Answer: It’s in the Holy Bible!

American poet Criss Jami wrote, “The motive behind criticism often determines its validity. Those who care criticize where necessary. Those who envy criticize the moment they think that they have found a weak spot.”

I have been watching the unfolding of the Harvey Weinstein scandal. Weinstein was born in the borough of Queens, New York City, to a Jewish family. His parents were Max Weinstein, a diamond cutter, and Miriam (née Postel).

There are currently ten U.S. Senators and nineteen members of the U.S. House of Representatives who are Jewish. Of these twenty nine members of Congress twenty seven are Democrats, one, Bernard Sanders is an Independent and one, Lee Zeldin, is a Republican.

As a Christian I believe that Jews are the “chosen people.”

The Jewish Virtual Library notes:

In Judaism, “chosenness” is the belief that the Jewish people were singularly chosen to enter into a covernant with G-d. This idea has been a central one throughout the history of Jewish thought, is deeply rooted in biblical concepts and has been developed in talmudic, philosophic, mystical and contemporary Judaism.

Most Jews hold that being the “Chosen People” means that they have been place[d] on earth to fulfill a certain purpose. Traditional proof for Jewish “chosenness” is found in the Torah, the Jewish bible, in the Book of Deuteronomy (chapter 14) where it says: “For you are a holy people to Hashem your God, and God has chosen you to be his treasured people from all the nations that are on the face of the earth.” In the Book of Genesis (chapter 17) it also written: “And I [G-d] will establish My covenant between Me and you [the Jewish people] and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you.”

The Jewish people have suffered great persecution and continue to do so. The Jewish state of Israel is hated by many but still stands as a shining light of freedom in the most dangerous neighborhood in the world – the Middle East.

You would expect that Jews in America would understand their “covernant with God.” That they would live up to be His “holy people.”

So why do we see one of His chosen people, Harvey Weinstein, fail so miserably?

Covenant is defined as, “[T]he agreement between God and the ancient Israelites, in which  God promised to protect them if they kept His law and were faithful to Him.”

Faithful to Him means faithful to His laws. His laws are contained in Exodus 31:18, known as the Ten Commandments. Perhaps the commandants that strike home in the case of Harvey Weinstein are:

You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

You shall not commit adultery.

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Washington, D.C., deemed “the swamp” by President Trump, is guilty of breaking their agreement with God by coveting. Hollywood, what some call a cesspool, is guilty of breaking its agreement with God by worshiping false idols and adultery.

Washington, D.C. covets power, wants our property our wages, homes, and possessions. Hollywood wants our souls. Hollywood wants us to worship them and not the God of Abraham.

I write this not because I found a weak spot named Harvey Weinstein. We all have weak spots and we are all sinners.

I come to criticize where necessary. To help those in Washington, D.C. and Hollywood to embrace God in all of His glory. This is a time for prayer. Prayers for all sinners.

As it says in John 3:16 (KJV):

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

As a Christian I pray for President Trump, all members of Congress and those in Hollywood that they see the light, that they believe in Him and have everlasting life.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

George Clooney Accused of Helping Blacklist Actress Who Complained of Sexual Harassment – Breitbart

Why Hollywood is the perfect hunting ground for pervs

RELATED VIDEO: Cecil B. DeMille – The Ten Commandments – Trailer – Charlton Heston As Moses And The Voice Of GOD.

My Fourth Health Care Plan Just Died Thanks to Obamacare by Michelle Malkin

Cue the funeral bagpipes. My fourth health insurance plan is dead.

Two weeks ago, my husband and I received yet another cancellation notice for our private, individual health insurance coverage. It’s our fourth Obamacare-induced obituary in four years.

Our first death notice, from Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, arrived in the fall of 2013. The insurer informed us that because of “changes from health care reform (also called the Affordable Care Act or ACA),” our plan no longer met the federal government’s requirements.

Never mind our needs and desires as consumers who were quite satisfied with a high-deductible preferred provider organization that included a wide network of doctors for ourselves and our two children.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>

Our second death knell, from Rocky Mountain Health Plans, tolled in August 2015. That notice signaled the end of a plan we didn’t want in the first place that didn’t cover our kids’ dental care and wasn’t accepted at our local urgent care clinic.

The insurer pulled out of the individual market in all but one county in Colorado, following the complete withdrawal from that sector by Humana and UnitedHealthcare.

Our third “notice of plan discontinuation,” again from Anthem, informed us that the insurer would “no longer offer your current health plan in the state of Colorado” in August 2016.

With fewer and fewer choices as know-it-all Obamacare bureaucrats decimated the individual market here and across the country, we enrolled in a high-deductible Bronze HSA EPO (Health Savings Account Exclusive Provider Organization) offered by Minneapolis-based startup Bright Health.

Now, here we are barely a year later: Deja screwed times four. Our current plan will be discontinued on Jan. 1, 2018.

“But don’t worry,” Bright Health’s eulogy writer chirped, “we have similar plans to address your needs.”

Riiiiight. Where have I heard those pie-in-the-sky promises before? Oh, yeah. Straight out of the socialized medicine Trojan horse’s mouth.

“If you like your doctor,” President Barack Obama promised, “you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.”

Is pathological lying covered under the Affordable Care Act?

Speaking of Affordable Care Act whoppers, so much for “affordable.” Our current deductible is $6,550 per person—$13,100 for our family of four. Assuming we can find a new plan at the bottom of the individual market barrel, our current monthly premium, $944.86, will rise to more than $1,300 a month.

“What’s taking place is a market correction; the free market is at work,” says Colorado’s state insurance commissioner, Marguerite Salazar. “[T]his could be an indication that there were too many options for the market to support.”

This presumptuous central planner called federal intervention to eliminate “too many” options for consumers the free market at work. Yes, friends, the Rocky Mountain High is real.

This isn’t a “market correction.” It’s a government catastrophe.

Premiums for individual health plans in Virginia are set to skyrocket nearly 60 percent in 2018. In New Hampshire, those rates will rise 52 percent.

In South Carolina, individual market consumers will face an average 31.3 percent hike. In Tennessee, they’ll see rates jump between 20-40 percent.

Private, flexible preferred provider organizations for self-sufficient, self-employed people are vanishing by design. The social-engineered future—healthy, full-paying consumers being herded into government-run Obamacare exchanges and severely regulated regional health maintenance organizations—is a bipartisan big government health bureaucracy’s dream come true.

These choice-wreckers had the arrogant audacity to denigrate our pre-Obamacare plans as “substandard” (Obama), “crappy” (MSNBC big mouth Ed Schultz), and “junk policies” (Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa).

When I first called attention to the cancellation notice tsunami in 2013, liberal Mother Jones magazine sneered that the phenomenon was “phony.” And they’re still denying the Obamacare death spiral. Liberal Vox Media recently called the crisis “a lie.”

I don’t have enough four-letter words for these propagandists. There are an estimated 450,000 consumers like us in Colorado and 17 million of us nationwide—small business owners, independent contractors, and others who don’t get their plans through group coverage, big companies, or government employers.

The costs, headaches, and disruption in our lives caused by Obamacare’s meddling meddlers are real and massive.

But we’re puzzles to corporate media journalists who’ve never had to meet a payroll and don’t even know what is the individual market.

We’re invisible to late night TV clowns who get their Obamacare-at-all-costs talking points from Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

We’re pariahs to social justice health care activists and Democrats who want us to just shut up and subsidize everyone else’s insurance.

And we’re expendables to establishment Republicans who hoovered up campaign donations on the empty promise to repeal Obamacare—and now consider amnesty for immigrants here illegally and gun control higher legislative priorities than keeping their damned word.

We’re the canaries in the Obamacare coal mine. Ignore us at your peril, America. You’re next.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Michelle Malkin

Michelle Malkin is the senior editor of Conservative Review. She is a New York Times best-selling author and a FOX News Channel contributor. Twitter: 

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Why Trump’s Executive Order on Health Care Is a Positive Step

Trump, Paul Forge Alliance on ‘Biggest Free-Market Reform of Health Care in Generation’

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

Supreme Court throws out appeals court ruling that struck down Trump’s previous temporary travel ban

It’s still amazing that acting in the interests of national security would be remotely controversial. There are two choices: keep out some harmless people or let in some harmful people. For years, Democratic and Republican governments have opted for the latter and claimed that to make the other choice was racist, bigoted and “Islamophobic.” Trump has grasped the nettle and chosen it anyway, and is being duly smeared. Future free people, if there are any, will look at the battles he had to fight to protect the American people from jihad terror and marvel at the insanity of our age.

“Supreme Court tosses one of two travel ban challenges,” by Lawrence Hurley, Reuters, October 11, 2017:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out an appeals court ruling that struck down President Donald Trump’s previous temporary travel ban targeting several Muslim-majority nations countries that has now expired.

In a one-page order, the court acted in one of two cases pending before the nine justices over Trump’s travel ban, a case from Maryland brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued to stop the ban contained in a March executive order.

For now, the court did not act on a separate challenge brought by the state of Hawaii, which the court had also agreed to hear. That case also features a challenge to a separate 120-day refugee ban, which has not yet expired.

That case could yet be dismissed once the refugee ban expires on Oct. 24, meaning the court remains unlikely to issue a final ruling on whether the ban was lawful.

The justices were unanimous in deciding against ruling in the Maryland case, although one of the liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, noted that she would not have wiped out the appeals court ruling.

The justices had been scheduled to hear arguments in the case on Tuesday, but removed it from their calendar after Trump’s 90-day ban expired on Sept. 24 and was replaced with a reworked ban.

The expired ban had targeted people from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan. The new open-ended ban, scheduled to take effect on Oct. 18, removed Sudan from the list while blocking people from Chad and North Korea and certain government officials from Venezuela from entering the United States….

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK: Policeman fired for Facebook comment about wrapping jihad terrorists in bacon

Rapists and wife-beaters flocked to join the Islamic State

U.S. Mayor Assures Mexican Consul His ‘Sanctuary City’ Will Provide Safe Spaces for Illegal Aliens

Shortly after Donald Trump got elected president, a California mayor arranged a meeting with the Consul General of Mexico to assure the diplomat that his “sanctuary city” will continue providing safe spaces for illegal immigrants, according to records obtained by Judicial Watch. The documents show that Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin’s top aide, Stefan Elgstrand, sent an electronic mail to the Mexican Consul General in San Francisco, Gemi Jose Gonzalez Lopez, stating the following: “The recent events around Trump’s executive order reminded me to reach out to you. We are a sanctuary city and will continue to be. I imagine you are very busy dealing with the concerns and fears of many residents in the Bay Area, and we want to assist in providing safe spaces for them.”

Judicial Watch obtained the files as part of a California Public Records Act request for information surrounding riots by the radical leftist Antifa movement against President Trump and conservative personalities scheduled to speak at the University of California Berkeley. Media reported that fires were set, fences and windows broken, firebombs launched and commercial-grade fireworks thrown at police. A renowned, San Francisco-based pop culture magazine wrote that the uprising raised some big questions about the future of the free speech movement. Judicial Watch requested the files to shed light into how city, police and university officials handled the lawlessness, which received global news coverage. The request asked for records of communications between officials in the Berkeley mayor’s office and the Berkeley Police Department as well as records of communications between the mayor’s office and officials at UC Berkeley, one of the nation’s top public research universities.

The documents show a coordinated effort between Democratic city officials nationwide to “build the movement to resist Trump.” The operation is being financed by leftwing billionaire philanthropist George Soros through one of his groups called Center of Popular Democracy. Earlier this year Judicial Watch uncovered a scandal in which the U.S. government quietly gave millions of taxpayer dollars to destabilize the democratically elected, center-right government in Macedonia by colluding with Soros’ Open Society Foundation. The U.S. Ambassador to Macedonia, Jess L. Baily, worked behind the scenes with Open Society Foundation to funnel large sums of American dollars for the cause, constituting an interference of the U.S. Ambassador in domestic political affairs in violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The cash flowed through the State Department and the famously corrupt U.S. Agency of International Development (USAID) and Judicial Watch sued both agencies for records related to funding and political activities of the Open Society Foundation in Macedonia.

The Soros-backed, northern California movement includes a taxpayer-salaried physics professor at UC Berkeley who advises Mayor Arreguin on how to handle conservative protestors at a spring rally. The professor, James McFadden, tells the mayor in an electronic mail obtained by Judicial Watch to “create a corral” and ask the Trump supporters to “get in the corral.” He describes Trump supporters as “delusional and paranoid about the world around them” and says they’re “willing to use violence to impose that order on us, especially when they have the blessing of a narcissistic authoritarian president.” A professor at another California public university tells the Berkeley mayor that the arrest of Antifa leader/middle school teacher Yvette Felarca for assaulting a political opponent (captured on video) at a Sacramento rally, in which seven people were stabbed, was a “McCarthyist political persecution” and he condemned Felarca’s arrest and teaching suspension “in the strongest possible terms.”

Ironically, Berkeley’s official government website brags about being a bastion of the free speech movement. “In Alameda County alone, Berkeley is ranked fourth in population behind Oakland, Fremont, and Hayward,” the website states. “And yet, we are famous around the globe as a center for academic achievement, scientific exploration, free speech and the arts.” Indeed, Berkeley is renowned as the birthplace of the free speech movement in in the 1960s. An opinion piece in a California newspaper points out that the city’s free speech movement has gone full circle, however. “Nowadays, Berkeley is rapidly becoming famed as one of the least tolerant cities in the country — where any challenge to left-wing orthodoxy is met with terrorist threats and mob violence.”

Value Voter Summit Goes Presidential!

Last year, he spoke to the Values Voter Summit as a candidate — this year, it will be as the 45th President of the United States. Today we have confirmation from the White House that President Donald Trump will speak to the VVS crowd this Friday morning. If you’re on the fence about attending, jump on over to the VVS website to secure your spot now!

The October 13-15 event in Washington, D.C. is only a few days away, and President Trump won’t be the only newsmaker on the platform. You’ll hear from hero and House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), Reps. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), RSC Chairman Mark Walker (R-N.C.), Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Dr. Bill Bennett, Dana Loesch, “Duck Dynasty’s” Phil Robertson, Laura Ingraham, Todd Starnes, Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Steve Bannon, Judge Roy Moore, Lt. Col. Oliver North, and more. Click here to seize the moment in Washington next week!


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


Also in the October 10 Washington Update:

Judge: Tax the Pastors

Prison for Pronouns: California’s New Law on Speech

The European Union Is Doomed to Fail

How on earth can the European Union unite that which history forced asunder?

Marian L. Tupy

by  Marian L. Tupy

Have you ever heard of Deutsch Jahrndorf? No? I don’t blame you. The tiny Austrian village, which is situated four miles from the Danube, is utterly unremarkable, except for the fact that it sits on the border of three countries. To the east is Slovakia. To the south lies Hungary. As such, within shouting distance of one another, live three peoples speaking completely unintelligible languages. Austria belongs to the West Germanic language group, Hungary to Finno-Ugric and Slovakia to West Slavic.

I thought about the exquisitely rich tapestry of European languages, cultures, customs, and nationalities as I watched the sad spectacle of Spanish riot police and Catalan separatists confronting one another on the streets of Barcelona. How on earth can the European Union unite that which history forced asunder?

The Folly of the EU

The European Union, French President Emmanuel Macron has recently declared to almost universal acclaim, needs more unity, including the creation of “a eurozone budget managed by a eurozone parliament and a eurozone finance minister”.

Therein lies the conundrum of European unification.

The need for the centralization of power in Brussels is, apparently, the lesson that the EU establishment has learned from the outcome of the British referendum on EU membership. Meanwhile, in Catalonia, millions of people have set their sights on independence from Spain. Foremost among their complaints is that the Catalan budget is influenced by Madrid.

Independence, the Catalans feel, will rectify a grave injustice occasioned by the French capture of Barcelona in 1714. The conqueror, Duke of Anjou, became the first Bourbon king of Spain under the name of Philip V. His descendant, Philip VI, is on the throne today. In Europe, ancient lineages last as long as ancient resentments.

Therein lies the conundrum of European unification. On the one hand, people throughout much of Europe desire greater autonomy. Madrid has the vexing problem of the Basque Country to worry about as well as Catalonia. In Italy, Padania and South Tyrol in the North don’t feel like they have very much in common with the Mezzogiorno in the South. Corsica does not want to be French and Britain has only recently revisited a territorial arrangement that dates back to 1707.

On the other hand, every separatist movement in Europe declares its support for the project of European unification. But, how likely is it that people annoyed by Madrid, Rome, Paris, and London will be happy to have their affairs decided upon in Brussels? Will the Catalans, resentful of subsidizing farmers in Andalusia, quietly have no problem with subsidizing Polish peasants in Lower Silesia?

How Did It Go So Wrong?

Speaking of Brussels, it is both the seat of the increasingly dysfunctional EU and the capital of Flanders, which wants to separate from Belgium. It’s complicated.

On a continent inhabited by a multitude of diverse peoples with no shared identity, Macron’s proposal, if implemented, will surely prove to be the EU’s undoing.

Years from now, when the EU is either reformed beyond recognition or gone, historians will debate what went wrong and when. The Maastricht Treaty of 1992, which reinvigorated the British Eurosceptic movement that ultimately delivered Brexit, will be one of the obvious culprits. But I think that the problems of European integration are of an older vintage. Perhaps because it was signed by none other than Margaret Thatcher, the Single European Act of 1986 does not get the attention it deserves. Yet it was SEA that eliminated the national veto in a number of crucial policy areas and replaced it with qualified majority voting (QMV). Thatcher acceded to this new arrangement, for it was meant to break down intra-European trade barriers and transform the fledgling “common market” into a freer “single market”. Unfortunately, the introduction of QMV also meant that, occasionally, individual nation states got outvoted on issues they cared deeply about. Accusations of “meddling from Brussels” grew.

To make matters worse, the SEA engorged the powers of the Commission. That proved to be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the Commission went after the anti-competitive practices of nation states with gusto. On the other hand, it used its new powers to start over-regulating economic activity. The regulatory and protectionist impulses of the nation states, in other words, were replaced by regulatory and protectionist impulses at the pan-European level and Europe became less competitive vis-á-vis the rest of the world. Maastricht and the Lisbon Treaty sped up the excessive centralization of power in Brussels that was already underway and transformed the European Economic Community into the EU with its own flag, anthem, and currency.

To those symbols of statehood, President Macron now wishes to add a financial transfer union, which, he feels, is necessary to make a success of the single currency. On a continent inhabited by a multitude of diverse peoples with no shared identity, Macron’s proposal, if implemented, will surely prove to be the EU’s undoing.

Reprinted from CapX

Marian L. Tupy

Marian L. Tupy

Marian L. Tupy is the editor of HumanProgress.org and a senior policy analyst at the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.

Taxpayer funded resettlement contractor helps organize march opposing Trump ‘Muslim ban’

I continue to be amazed that a quasi-government agency receiving millions of dollars from the US taxpayer is a leading agitator in marches against the hand that feeds them—in this case the Trump Administration.  Chutzpah! I suppose!

The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society is helping get people out to the #NoMuslimBanEver rally scheduled for a week from tomorrow—October 18th—in Washington, DC.

mark-hetfield-hias logo

Before I get to their latest appeal for marching bodies, here is just a reminder of their financial position.

According to the most recent Form 990 for 2016, they had income from government grants to the tune of $24,493,763 in a category (p. 9) of contributions, gifts and grants of $41,855,465 putting them at 58% funded by the US taxpayer.

58% of course isn’t as bad as some contractors***Episcopal Migration Ministries is 99.5% funded from the US Treasury, but it is still a significant chunk of change.

According to that same Form 990, CEO Mark Hetfield pulls down a salary, benefits and other compensation package of $343,630 (p. 8).

If the nine contractors*** were truly private non-profit charitable organizations, salaries would not be any of our business, but when organizations like these (really quasi-government agencies) receive taxpayer dollars, it becomes our business.

It seems to me that HIAS is always out as the leader of the pack when it comes to demonstrating against the Trump Administration and filing lawsuits to stop them, all the while taking money from Washington (from us!).

Here they are again!

Screenshot (942)

Screenshot (943)

Screenshot (944)

You should know that HIAS has long supported a ‘religious test’ known as the Lautenberg Amendment that gave preferential treatment to Jews and other religious minorities coming from places like Russia and Iran.

The above is a screenshot so the links are not ‘hot.’  Go to Facebook to learn more about the #NoMuslimBanEver event.

I sure would like to know who is behind this event??? Muslim Brotherhood? CAIR?

***For new readers, these are the nine major federal refugee resettlement contractors. There are over 350 subcontractors working for them throughout the country.  Basically they pass federal grant money through their headquarters to their subcontractors and keep a certain amount of it for their headquarters/office/travel/salaries etc.

HIAS has 20 subcontractors, here they are.

It would be important to find out if the other eight contractors (besides HIAS) will be marching next Wednesday.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Scranton, PA school district struggling under weight of needy immigrant students, working poor

New York Times spins Twin Falls rape case story

Refugee resettlement contractors get platform to complain at Christian Post, but….

Donors of Anti-Trump ‘Resistance’ Group Revealed

The United States Rejected Obamacare in 1918

The AMA set out to destroy the excellent system of healthcare insurance set up by fraternal societies.

Roger McKinney

by  Roger McKinney

The US rejected Obamacare in 1918. What a difference a mere hundred years makes! US voters rejected mandatory health insurance, or Obamacare, at the turn of the last century. It took supporters almost another century, but they finally won.

For a quarter century before WWI, many of the nation’s young people went to Germany to complete their college education and returned determined to recreate the US in the image of socialist Germany. Richard Ely was one. He founded the American Economic Association for that sole purpose. He and economist Irving Fisher would lead the drive for universal, mandatory health care insurance.

At the time, middle class and wealthier Americans paid a fee each time they visited a doctor. But the fees were too high for the working poor who instead organized into mutual aid societies to help each other with medical costs. Known as lodges, such as the Elks, or secret societies such the International Order of Odd Fellows (IOOF) or the Freemasons, or just fraternal organizations, mutual help societies existed for centuries. They followed the ancient guild practices of mutual aid to craft members. David T. Beito beautifully writes their history in his book From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services 1890-1967, published by the University of North Carolina Press in 2000.

Socialists became wary of lodges, or fraternal societies, partly because of their secret passwords and handshakes. But the societies developed those for security purposes because they suffered from fraud by non-members wanting to cash in on the benefits. Two centuries ago an IOOF chapter in one state couldn’t easily contact another out-of-state chapter to confirm the membership of someone who wanted aid. The passwords and handshakes solved the problem.

In the earliest day, the lodges offered burial insurance because poor people were terrified of suffering the indignities of a pauper’s burial. Later, they added healthcare and life insurance, built orphanages and hospitals, and provided pensions. The Shriners branch of the Freemasons still maintain children’s hospitals. Without the lodges, most members could not afford to pay fee-for-service doctors and would otherwise go without medical care. Readers who want to know how medical care should operate and what is wrong with today’s system should read Mr. Beito’s book.

Medical Establishment Attack on Mutual Aid

The medical establishment began attacking the lodges as early as the 1890s because the lodges would contract with doctors for a flat fee per year per member to provide medical care for lodge members. The practice, known as “capitation,” is making a comeback with the federal government as a means to restrain the explosive growth in the costs of medical care. Lodges usually contracted with doctors from private medical schools set up by other doctors to fill the deficiency in the supply of new doctors by the state schools.

The American Medical Association (AMA) claimed that the lodges kept doctor pay too low, causing some to starve. So they launched public relations campaigns to stigmatize the lodge system and the doctors who served the working poor. They bribed politicians to shut down the medical schools they didn’t approve of, of course in the interest of “public health and safety” in the Baptists and Bootleggers style, in order to create a shortage of doctors. They bribed hospitals to reject doctors who worked with lodges and convinced medical organizations to ostracize them. AMA doctors refused to work at lodge-owned hospitals and the AMA worked tirelessly to shut those hospitals down. The AMA’s assault on “low pay” for their doctors finally worked,

Lodge practice was also a victim of an overall shrinkage in the supply of physicians due to a relentless campaign of professional “birth control” imposed by the medical societies. In 1910, for example, the United States had 164 doctors per 100,000 people, compared with only 125 in 1930. This shift occurred in great part because of increasingly tight state certification requirements. Fewer doctors not only translated into higher medical fees but also weaker bargaining power for lodges. Meanwhile, the number of medical schools plummeted from a high of 166 in 1904 to 81 in 1922. The hardest hit were the proprietary schools, a prime recruiting avenue for lodges.

When socialists and the AMA proposed mandatory health insurance for every citizen in the early 1900s, the lodges saw it as an attack on their system of self-reliance and mutual aid. Enough Americans shared the same values as the lodges that they defeated the proposals in two referenda. In 1918 the citizens of California voted three to one to reject mandatory health insurance. It failed again in New York in 1919.

Abandoning Traditional Values

But the times they were a-changing, and morality with it. Americans were abandoning traditional Christianity rapidly and its values of self-reliance and mutual aid. Of course, churches had always provided charity to the poorest since the early days of Christianity recorded in the Book of Acts in the Bible. But until the 1920s, Americans resisted accepting charity as much as they could out of a sense of honor. The lodges intended to help the working poor, not supplant charitable work. By the 1920s Americans interpreted self-reliance as selfishness. As Beito wrote,

The traditional fraternal worldview was under attack. Age-old virtues such as mutual aid, character building, self-restraint, thrift, and self-help, once taken for granted, came under fire either as outmoded or as drastically in need of modification.

In 1918 Clarence W. Tabor used his textbook, Business of the Household, to warn that if savings “means stunted lives, that is, physical derelicts or mental incompetents…through enforced self-denial and the absence of bodily comforts, or the starving of mental cravings and the sacrifice of spiritual development – then the price of increased bank deposits is too high.” An earlier generation would have dismissed these statements. Now they were in the mainstream. Bruce Barton, the public relations pioneer and author of the best-selling life of Christ, The Man Nobody Knows, espoused the ideal of self-realization rather than self-reliance, declaring that “life is meant to live and enjoy as you go along…. If self-denial is necessary I’ll practice some of it when I’m old and not try to do all of it now. For who knows? I may never be old.”

JM Keynes echoed Barton in the 1930’s with his famous line, “In the long run we’re all dead,” and with his continual assault on the evils of the Protestant work ethic and savings. The ideal of “service” replaced that of self-reliance. By “service” socialists meant that the wealthy should give to the poor. They helped remove the stigma of charity by convincing the poor that they shouldn’t be ashamed of receiving aid because the wealthy owed it to them.

The U.S. Became Increasingly Socialist

In addition to the efforts of the AMA to destroy the excellent system of healthcare insurance set up by the fraternal societies, the progress of socialism continued to erode the appeal of self-help. For example, the federal government gave favorable tax treatment to corporations who offered group insurance without extending that to individuals while members of fraternal organizations received no tax deductions for their healthcare insurance.

Corporations then paid the premiums so workers were fooled into thinking their insurance was free. Good economists understand that corporations merely deducted the premiums from future pay raises. The lodges argued that group insurance from the employer would enslave workers to a single company because they would lose their insurance if they lost their job whereas lodge insurance traveled with the individual. The lodges were right as we have found out.

The Great Depression weakened lodges as the bulk of the 25% unemployment came from their ranks, the working poor. More assaults on mutual aid came with the passage of social security legislation, company pensions, and worker’s compensation insurance. Again, the government allowed corporations to deduct expenses for those from their taxes without extending the privilege to individuals in fraternal organizations. Then came Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s.

The book exposes the lie that socialists proposed their welfare measures because they saw a desperate need for them. Churches and charities had provided for the poor who couldn’t work since Biblical times, while the fraternal societies took care of the working poor very well. In 1924, 48% of working-class adult males were lodge members.

Socialists opposed the lodge system, not because it failed; it hadn’t. They opposed it because they wanted the services provided by the state as they were in Germany. They convinced the American people that socialism would not just help the poor, as the churches and fraternal organizations were, but would eliminate poverty. And as Helmut Schoeck warned us in his Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior, the lust to destroy successful people served as fuel for the fire. Beito’s concluding paragraph is worth reprinting in full:

The shift from mutual aid and self-help to the welfare state has involved more than a simple bookkeeping transfer of service provision from one set of institutions to another. As many of the leaders of fraternal societies had feared, much was lost in an exchange that transcended monetary calculations. The old relationships of voluntary reciprocity and autonomy have slowly given way to paternalistic dependency. Instead of mutual aid, the dominant social welfare arrangements of Americans have increasingly become characterized by impersonal bureaucracies controlled by outsiders.

Roger McKinney

Roger McKinney

Roger D. McKinney works as an analyst for a tiny healthcare insurance agency in Tulsa and writes a blog about economics at rdmckinney.blogspot.com. He has an MA in economics from the University of Oklahoma and is author of the book Financial Bull Riding.

Homeland Security Uncovers Massive Immigration Failures

The devastating consequences for national security.

President Trump has been rightfully demanding that aliens who are citizens of countries that have an involvement with terrorism must undergo “extreme vetting.”

This is certainly an important and commonsense requirement. However, the computer systems used by both Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) inside the United States are unable to provide CBP inspectors at ports of entry the data they need to prevent transnational criminals and international terrorists from entering the country. Nor can these systems provide the vital information and records to USCIS adjudications officers that would allow them to prevent aliens present in the United States from improperly acquiring immigration benefits such as political asylum, lawful immigrant status and even United States citizenship.

Simply stated, today — more than 16 years after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 — the effective vetting of any alien seeking entry into the United States or for any alien seeking immigration benefits has been elusive goals.

The September 28, 2017 Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General’s (DHS OIG) report, “CBP’s IT Systems and Infrastructure Did Not Fully Support Border Security Operations,” noted:

CBP’s IT systems and infrastructure did not fully support its border security objective of preventing the entry of inadmissible aliens to the country. The slow performance of a critical pre-screening system greatly reduced Office of Field Operations officers’ ability to identify any passengers who may represent concerns, including national security threats. Further, incoming passenger screening at U.S. international airports was hampered by frequent system outages that created passenger delays and public safety risks. The outages required that CBP officers rely on backup systems that weakened the screening process, leading to officers potentially being unable to identify travelers that may be attempting to enter the United States with harmful intent.

On September 25, 2017, a report was published by DHS OIG on the distressing issue of individuals with multiple identities in US fingerprint enrollment records receiving immigration benefits. This disastrous situation has profound national security and public safety implications. Yet the report stated in part:

As of April 24, 2017, 9,389 aliens USCIS identified as having multiple identities had received an immigration benefit. When taking into account the most current immigration benefit these aliens received, we determined that naturalization, permanent residence, work authorization, and temporary protected status represent the greatest number of benefits, accounting for 8,447 or 90 percent of the 9,389 cases. Benefits approved by USCIS for the other 10 percent of cases, but not discussed in this report, include applications for asylum and travel documents. According to USCIS, receiving a deportation order or having used another identity does not necessarily render an individual ineligible for immigration benefits.

That last sentence should give us all serious cause for pause.

Apparently the “get to yes” philosophy of the Obama administration still permeates management at USCIS where adjudications officers were ordered to do whatever they had to do in order to approve virtually all applications for various immigration benefits.

We will, a bit later on, take a look back at how the Obama administration dismantled a program that sought to uncover immigration fraud and imbue the immigration benefits program with integrity.

But let’s first consider some additional facts.

The official report 9/11 and  Terrorist Travel was issued well over a decade ago and focused specifically on the ability of the terrorists to travel around the world, enter the United States and ultimately embed themselves in the U.S. as they went about their deadly preparations to carry out an attack.

The report noted:

Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.” Mohammed Salameh, who rented the truck used in the bombing, overstayed his tourist visa. He then applied for permanent residency under the agricultural workers program, but was rejected. Eyad Mahmoud Ismail, who drove the van containing the bomb, took English-language classes at Wichita State University in Kansas on a student visa; after he dropped out, he remained in the United States out of status.

Under the title “Immigration Benefits” the following paragraph on page 98 of the same report states that

[t]errorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition. As already discussed, this could be accomplished legally by marrying an American citizen, achieving temporary worker status, or applying for asylum after entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.

These multiple serious failures of the immigration system today are hardly new.

Roughly one year ago a disturbing DHS/OIG Report prompted me to write an article about Weaponized Immigration. I focused on the fact that 858 aliens who had been ordered deported were improperly granted United States citizenship through the process of naturalization due to the fact hat their fingerprints were not on file because they were not properly uploaded when INS, the predecessor agency to DHS, digitized these fingerprints.

As bad as that was, that report went on to state:

Later, ICE identified missing fingerprint records for about 315,000 aliens who had final deportation orders or who were criminals or fugitives, but it has not yet reviewed about 148,000 aliens’ files to try to retrieve and digitize the old fingerprint cards.

The report noted that in 2010 a program known as “Operation Janus” was created to identify aliens who may have committed immigration fraud, yet the report documented that in the final months of the Obama administration, inexplicably, the Operation Janus working group was disbanded, stymieing efforts to identify aliens who had committed naturalization fraud and thereby seriously undermining national security.

While it was in operation, the working group of Operation Janus identified wrongly naturalized aliens who had been able to parlay their U.S. citizenship into sensitive jobs at airports and seaports and at least one of these individuals became a law enforcement officer.  Consequently, appropriate actions were taken to denaturalize some of these individuals and seek criminal prosecutions, although only a small percentage of these aliens were dealt with effectively.

What was even more disconcerting was that some of these aliens were citizens of “Special Interest Countries,” that is to say, countries that are associated with possible terrorist links.

Nevertheless, consider how many politicians from both political parties are determined to provide lawful status to unknown tens of millions of illegal aliens whose true identities are unknown and unknowable. These politicians all know that the immigration bureaucracy is unable to effectively deal with its current workload. Any massive legalization program would cause this already failing system to implode.

We must also consider how many cities and states have declared themselves to be “sanctuaries” for illegal aliens who entered the United States surreptitiously or who may have lost their lawful status because of the serious crimes that they committed.  These jurisdictions have become magnets for foreign criminals and terrorists and undermine national security and public safety.

The immigration system lacks meaningful integrity while the Damoclean Sword of terrorism hangs above our heads each and every day.  Every year thousands of innocent victims lose their lives to criminal aliens, yet the immigration anarchists and their allies in the media castigate anyone who would dare suggest that the United States must act to secure its borders and enforce its immigration laws, branding them xenophobes, racists and haters.

Suicide is not an act of compassion.  All of the failing and dysfunctional elements of the immigration system must be repaired as swiftly as possible — not as a prerequisite for any additional action, but simply as ends unto themselves.  The potential for massive losses of life should provide the clear imperative for getting the job done- for once and for all.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on FrontPage Magazine.

NFL Players’ Union Teams up with Soros, Planned Parenthood to Support Anti-Trump ‘Resistance’

“A prominent anti-Trump ‘resistance’ organization” and several other leftist groups receive direct donations from the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA).

2ndVote has found the NFLPA provides financial support to the Center for Community Change Action, which according to the Washington Free Beacon, “has been involved in direct action against President Donald Trump and Republicans before and after the November elections.” 2ndVote’s research team found the NFL Players Association is identified as an organization that donates in support of the center’s work in the latest available annual report.

The NFLPA is an AFL-CIO affiliated labor union that represents all NFL players and has defended those participating in the controversial national anthem protests in recent weeks. 2ndVote has also found dozens of major corporations such as Pepsi, Verizon, and USAA sponsor the NFLPA.

According to the Free Beacon, millions of dollars in contributions flow to the Center for Community Change, a Washington, DC-based 501(c)(3) non-profit, from major liberal foundations such as the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and George Soros’s Open Society Foundation. The Center for Community Change Action is the group’s 501(c)(4) “social welfare” arm, which has received contributions from organizations affiliated with Soros, labor unions, and left-wing activists.

The Center for Community Change helped organize the “Families Fight Back” campaign during the 2016 presidential elections to mobilize Latino voters in response to then-candidate Trump’s positions on immigration policy. The Free Beacon reports the center also supported United We Dream, a “sanctuary campus” advocate, in protests of Trump’s inauguration.

2ndVote also found Planned Parenthood Federation of America is listed on the annual report as donor to the Center for Community Change Action. The abortionist and tech giant Google will be sponsors of the center’s “Change Champions Awards” event later this month. Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards, along with noted left-wing activist and billionaire Tom Steyer, will be honored at the event.

Earlier this week, the NFL and NFLPA met to “discuss social activism” by players. While discussion likely focused on the national anthem protests, the NFLPA’s “social activism” is very much in support of the leftist agenda.

In addition to support for the Center for Community Change, 2ndVote has uncovered the NFLPA has financially supported at least two more left-wing, anti-Trump activist groups. Two of the union’s last three tax filings (20132015) show donations to Working America, a Steyer-supported organization that used Craigslist in Cleveland, Ohio to apparently recruit paid activists to protest the 2016 GOP convention. The NFLPA’s 2014 tax filing shows a donation to Jobs With Justice, another organization backed by Soros that actively opposes the president’s tax cuts.

Clearly, “social activism” by NFL players includes aligning with George Soros and other liberal organizations like Planned Parenthood in support of the left’s agenda. With television audiences declining every week and fans growing increasingly tired of the disrespect of the flag, the league and the players’ union would find it in their best interest to end the liberal activism and focus on football. After all, millions are finding it in their best interest not to watch the NFL at all.

Help us continue creating content like this and educating conservative shoppers by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

RELATED ARTICLES:

(Updated) NFL Sponsors Jittery Over Protests; Major Corporation Asks Customers for Feedback

Kellogg’s Cereal for Breakfast? The Dollars You Spend Could Be Going to Soros-Backed Leftists