Refugee Resettlement Agency comes Out-of-the-Closet as a Political Agitation Group

Thanks to several readers who sent it, here is yet another reason for the U.S. government to cut off funding for refugee resettlement groups who have become out-of-the-closet political agitation groups. 

mark-hetfield

Mark Hetfield

Longtime readers know that HIAS receives millions of taxpayer dollars to place refugees in unsuspecting towns and cities and they have led the charge in the courts against Donald Trump’s efforts to keep us safe by limiting certain migrants entry in to the US.

HIAS also recently helped organize an anti-Trump rally along with CAIR in Washington, DC, here.

And, they invited Rep. Keith Ellison to speak at an anti-Trump rally here.

(Sure hope HIAS is keeping its pots of federal and private money separate! Is there a funding firewall at HIAS?)

Here is Greenfield on Mark Hetfield’s latest:

Is this the moment when Mark Hetfield and HIAS officially joined the anti-Israel lobby?

Mark Hetfield had already hijacked HIAS and transformed it from a Jewish organization to a radical left-wing group concerned entirely with Muslim migration.

Hetfield’s HIAS had already attacked Israel and collaborated with the anti-Israel group, J Street.

But signing a statement in support of Linda Sarsour, an Islamic anti-Semitic activist who celebrated throwing stones at Jews, is Mark Hetfield’s official coming out party.

The immediate trigger for this was having Sarsour head a New School panel accusing Jews of exploiting anti-Semitism. That’s quite a show for a woman who is quite comfortable with Louie Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.

[….]

Previously, Mark Hetfield had avoided getting his hands dirty. Now he no longer seems to care.

Continue here for more and to follow links.

Go here to see my ever-expanding file on HIAS (aka Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society) one of the U.S. State Department’s nine federal resettlement contractors.

Here are the nine (LOL! I haven’t named them often enough lately). I sure hope all of them have built firewalls between their federal funding and the money they use for political activities.

RELATED ARTICLE: US Catholic Bishops Thanksgiving message: we thank the US taxpayers for so generously supporting our good works

VIDEO: President Trump endorses Roy Moore for the U.S. Senate

President Trump decided to weigh in on the U.S. Senate race in Alabama. He not only endorsed Roy Moore but defended him against the unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct nearly 40 years ago.

Watch this Washington Post video of President Trump responding to reporters on November 21st, 2017 about Roy Moore:

RELATED ARTICLE: Alabama Senate hopeful Doug Jones defended man with ties to KKK, Holocaust deniers | Fox News

RELATED VIDEO: Judge Roy Moore’s Spokesman on Mitch McConnell, the establishment, the main stream media, fake news and Alabamans.

Feminists Own Words Condemn Them

As waves of sexual assault and harassment allegations roll in — and the media, liberals and feminists hyperfocus on the allegations against Roy Moore because of the opportunity to flip a very solid Republican Senate seat — it’s worth revisiting what leading feminists said on the exact same issue in 1998 when it was Democrat President Bill Clinton’s position at stake.

This is important because there are a stunning number of people today who seem to have amnesia about the Clinton years — or young people today who were never taught them.

The context is that just a few years earlier feminists ardently supported the less-than-credible allegations made by Anita Hill that almost sunk the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. They jumped in to support Anita Hill ostensibly because any woman alleging sexual harassment or worse must be believed. But in reality, it seems it was only a partisan attack against a conservative justice. Worse for Democrats, a conservative black justice. Thomas was brilliant in his defense, and his labeling it a “high-tech lynching.”

Fast forward to 1998 and Bill Clinton. Please read these in light of how both Anita Hill a few years earlier and the Roy Moore accusers today are treated by some of the same feminists.

⇢ “We’re trying to think of the bigger picture, think about what’s best for women,” said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation. When conservatives called hypocrisy on the feminists, Smeal said: “It’s a twofer for them. If they can get the president, great. And if they can get feminism, even greater.”

⇢ “It will be a great pity if the Democratic Party is damaged by this,” feminist writer Anne Roiphe told Vanity Fair’s Marjorie Williams in 1998. “That’s been my response from the very beginning — I just wanted to close my eyes, and wished it would go away.”

⇢ “We do not know what happened in the Lewinsky case,” said Kathy Rodgers, executive director of the NOW’s Legal Defense and Education Fund. “The only thing that is clear is that the facts are not clear.”

⇢ One feminist infamously said she would perform oral sex on Bill Clinton as long as he kept abortion legal up to nine months. Some campus extremist? Hardly. Nina BurleighTime magazine’s White House correspondent when Clinton was President. She wrote: “I’d be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.”

⇢ “If anything, it sounds like she put the moves on him,” said Susan Faludi, a feminist author, said of one of Clinton’s prominent accusers.

⇢ Bill Clinton’s “enemies are attempting to bring him down through allegations about some dalliance with an intern…. Whether it’s a fantasy, a set-up or true, I simply don’t care,” said high-profile feminist Betty FriedanOr true.

⇢ After 60 Minutes interviewed Kathleen Willey that Clinton had manhandled her in private when she was seeking a job, Anita Perez Ferguson — president of the National Women’s Political Caucus, said the charges were more “quantity rather than quality, in terms of my feelings…There’s no question that it’s disturbing…. But to come to any judgment now is definitely not something that I think is timely.”

⇢ “What is important for the American people to know is that there is a process in place to deal with these allegations,” said California Sen. Barbara BoxerSo let’s not be Roy Moore-like hasty.

⇢  “Not so many years ago, a woman couldn’t be a White House intern,” Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun said in an an amazing attempt at distraction on Meet the Press.

⇢ And finally Rep. Nancy Pelosi complained that Special Prosecutor Ken Starr was causing “humiliation” by calling Clinton’s female victims before the grand jury.

There is an obvious trend here. Against Republicans, feminists say the accusing female must be believed. Against Democrats, not so much. That’s not a philosophy, that’s straightforward partisan politics. And it makes their words today truly incredible.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

China, India, U.S., Nigeria, Haiti, Pakistan, Mexico, Somalia, Cuba, Jamaica refuse to take Canada’s illegal migrants

Although the story is headlined….

Canada Attempts To Deport Illegal Somali Immigrants

….the article makes the case that the Canadian government is not naming those countries, but obviously someone is naming the countries as we see in the headline and the last paragraph!

The United States is listed as one country not willing to take back its ‘citizens’ (probably for very good reasons!) who fled to Canada! 

From Shabelle News (a Mogadishu, Somalia news outfit):

Canada’s attempts to send up to 1,000 foreigners who are here illegally back to their home countries are being stymied by nations refusing to take them back, officials said Monday.

abdulahi-hasan-sharif

Somali ‘refugee’ Abdulahi Hasan Sharif fled to “welcoming” Canada and is one the U.S. doesn’t want back!

International and domestic laws in most countries require governments to allow their own citizens entry.

“But some countries are refusing to provide travel documents to their citizens or are just outright refusing to take them back,” Scott Bardsley, spokesman for Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, told AFP.

[….]

According to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), the current backlog of foreign nationals facing deportation from Canada tops 15,000.

[….]

The removal list includes rejected refugee claimants and persons deemed inadmissible because of a criminal background or because they pose a national security threat.

[….]

China, India, the United States, Nigeria, Haiti, Pakistan, Mexico, Somalia, Cuba and Jamaica are the top countries of origin on Canada’s deportation list.

Go here for my Canada category.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Talks collapse in Germany, specter of new election rises

Wholesale movement of Bhutanese refugees to U.S. to end!

Tillerson wants further investigation before jumping on the Buddhists are bad, Rohingya are victims bandwagon

The Iron Cage of Educational Bureaucracy

It is the nature of bureaucracy to get caught up in processes rather than persons; to focus on means and lose sight of the ends to be served by those means.

It was the nineteenth century “father of sociology” Max Weber who warned that bureaucracy would become an “iron cage,” a translation of the original German stahlhartes Gehäuse made popular by Talcott Parsons in the 1930s, but which more literally means a “steel-hard housing,” suggesting something that cannot be broken into.

Bureaucracies depend upon rigid rules to which all human affairs, no matter how complex, must be fitted. This can cause them to de-humanize persons into categories. Bureaucracies also tend to have a narrow focus, which can cause them to fail to see the good of the whole. This can put them in a perpetual trouble spot: too large to deal with individual needs and problems, and too narrow to serve the interests of the whole. With neither a vision broad enough to serve the common good nor a system flexible enough to provide for the individual, what do bureaucracies do well? Their claim is that they are “effective.”

But effective at what?

Alasdair MacIntyre in his groundbreaking book After Virtue describes the modern moral character he calls “the Manager” whose position is justified by the claim that he or she can coordinate materials and human resources most effectively to realize the goals of the corporation, whatever they are, which “the Manager” never questions. This is true enough, but MacIntyre’s description is too optimistic.

It often happens that the processes developed by mid-level managers become more important than the goals of the corporation. Requests that don’t fit into the current categories employed by the bureaucracy are taken to be “disruptive,” as are changes in the goals of the organization that disturb the mechanism of the bureaucratic process.

In a university, this can result in the needs and requests of students becoming an annoyance, even though the institution exists to serve them. And it can cause resistance to rededication to the mission of the institution when that mission has not been the animating principle for years. Such institutions are like the driver who, upon being told by his passenger consulting a map that they are going the wrong direction, responds: “Shut up, we’re making great time.” Too often, bureaucratic processes, created to serve an end, become the end to be served, and the tail begins to wag the dog.

It makes sense for leaders to delegate tasks to bureaucracies, but only if they understand their inherent weaknesses. A group involved with Catholic classical education told me a story of their appeal to the charismatic director of a major Catholic educational outreach program. “We need to be doing this!” he declared. “Let me put you in touch with my associate director.” After making the same impassioned appeal to the lower-level functionary, the response was: “We already do that,” which is the verbal equivalent of: “There is no problem.” Because, of course, if there were, they would have already fixed it. The processes work fine. End of discussion. This is the way to stifle innovation.

The claim isn’t that their current processes don’t work. No one would approach a broken institution with a new idea; you go to a working, dynamic one. The issue is whether a new approach might serve the students even better. But this is unthinkable to many mid-level bureaucrats. Their “effectiveness” is not measured by how well they foster new goals, but by how well they coordinate resources to meet current ones. Innovative ideas are a threat to a manager’s job security in one of two ways: because (a) they presume the current staff is not entirely self-sufficient and (b) they represent possible new priorities that, without new staff, will mean less efficiency at current priorities.

I once heard a prelate ask an assembled audience of academics to produce a resource to help his deacons understand the basic ideas of metaphysics. I spoke to him afterward and told him that the International Catholic University has a superb series of lectures on metaphysics by the late, great Ralph McInerny; that we could have them downloaded on each deacon’s computer for a minimal cost to each man; and that I could arrange on-line quizzes and tests if needed. “Wonderful!” he exclaimed, “Would you please contact Monsignor so-and-so.” I did, got a polite reply explaining they were “examining possibilities,” and then nary a word in response to any of my next five messages. I would be very surprised if the bishop ever got anything on metaphysics.

If leaders don’t know what ideas, facts, and potential innovations their staff is keeping from them, then they are like a mind floating in the mist without a body. We are an incarnational Church. It’s not enough to want good education for young people; you have to pry open the bureaucratic cage to make sure it happens.

If you really want something, you have to empower its implementation, saying: “I will send a note to my associate directing that this must be done, and I want a report in two weeks.” Anything less is an abdication of responsibility and simply an invitation for outsiders to beat their heads against the hard steel casing of the bureaucracy.

Pope St. John XXIII spoke about aggiornamento, about letting fresh air blow through the stuffy corridors of Church bureaucracy. If you hired someone from a mediocre school district to run yours simply because he or she had “experience,” what makes you think the results will be better? Maybe you should take a risk on some fresh blood.

If a person has been running a chancery office since the 1970s or 80s, he or she may not be innovating. Have things been good for the past 35 years or decaying? Someone should let that fresh breeze of the authentic Spirit blow, because the definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting different results.

VIDEO: Case Against Roy Moore Exposed as a Lie, former Waitress Disproves Accuser’s ‘Facts’

Here is an MSNBC interview with Janet Porter discussing the facts in the Roy Moore allegations:

The Janet Porter Report released the following press release on November 21st, 2017:

Former Olde Hickory House waitress disproves the “facts” asserted by accuser Beverly Nelson, who is represented by abortion-activist Gloria Allred in the effort to defeat Judge Roy Moore for the U.S. Senate.

Rhonda Ledbetter, who worked at the Olde Hickory House from 1977-1979, explained that the “facts” in Nelson’s story are simply untrue:

  •  “First, Nelson said she was 15 years old when she started working there but you had to be 16,” said Ledbetter.
  • “Second, Nelson said the restaurant closed at 10:00 p.m. but I know the earliest it closed was 11:00, though I believe it was midnight,” Ledbetter stated.
  • “Third, the area wasn’t dark and isolated as she described. Rather, the building was right off the busy four-lane highway and people and cars were always around…anyone in the parking lot was visible from the road,” she explained.
  • “Fourth, the dumpsters were to the side of the building, not around the back and there sure wasn’t room to park in between the building and the dumpsters,” Ledbetter said.

Ledbetter’s statements were confirmed by Renee Schivera, who worked at the Olde Hickory House in 1977, and by Johnny Belyeu, Sr., a former police officer with the Etowah County Sheriff’s Department, who was a regular customer at the restaurant.

“As the tangled web of lies unravels, Judge Roy Moore is being proven innocent,” stated Janet Porter, President of Faith2Action, who has known Judge Roy Moore for nearly 20 years.

“If the people of Alabama want to prevent child abuse and sexual assault they will vote FOR Judge Roy Moore and run from his opponent,” stated Porter.

  • “While Judge Roy Moore is a champion for the rights of children in the womb, his opponent supports the ultimate child abuse–taxpayer funded abortion until the moment of birth.” explained Porter.
  • “Unlike his opponent, Judge Moore stands for the Second Amendment so we can defend ourselves against sexual predators,” stated Porter.
  • “Judge Moore will protect our daughters, while his opponent will open the door of your daughter’s bathroom and locker room to every male who claims to ‘identify’ as a girl–literally putting out the welcome mat to predators,” she added.
  • “While Judge Moore wants to protect our borders from those who would enter our country illegally, his opponent said building a wall was ‘too expensive,'”said Porter.
  • “Most importantly, Judge Roy Moore will vote to confirm pro-life judges on the Supreme Court, but, if elected, his opponent will be the deciding vote to block them,” stated Porter.

“If we allow the establishment and the media to steal this election, we are handing over not just a Senate seat, but the Supreme Court along with it,” stated Porter.

EDITORS NOTE: Titles are for identifying purposes only.

How UNICEF has Abandoned its Morality and Endangered Children

A mission statement is defined on the Internet as “a written declaration of an organization’s core purpose and focus that normally remain unchanged over time.”  UNICEF’s mission, mandated by the UN General Assembly in December 1946, is to advocate for the protection of children’s rights, to help meet their basic needs, and to expand their opportunities to reach their full potential.  UNICEF’s website states, “Every day children face violence, disease and hunger. They are battered by the chaos of war and disaster and forced to flee their homes.They are denied an education . . . we have saved millions of children’s lives.”

A noble pledge, indeed, and UNICEF has remained faithful to some of its core purposes, yet our attention is drawn to the burgeoning globalist agenda, revealed through their literature and political involvements.  Neither the UN nor UNICEF was established for political advocacy, a particularly volatile issue in the Middle East, yet the following will show how UNICEF has abandoned its morality, betrayed the integrity of the organization, and deceived the generous countries who believed this was humanitarian aid for needy Palestinians.  Most importantly, it has forsaken a member state, seeking to undermine and marginalize the only homeland for the Jewish people, even in the most inhumane ways.

In 2013, the UN pledged its solidarity with Palestinians, and in 2015, when $380 million of US tax money was earmarked to UNWRA for Palestinian education, health, and social services, UNWRA workers were disseminating hate propaganda and Holocaust-denying literature to its schools, and inciting terrorism.   This year, the UN agreed to fund eight of its agencies, including UNICEF, with a $65 million grant to be used in lawsuits against Israel for alleged war crimes, apartheid, crimes against humanity, and to continue anti-Israel BDS campaigns.  This was then followed by an agreement signed by the UN and UNICEF with the Palestinian Authority, for $1.3 billion to “Palestine’s Path to independence.”  In an astonishing and unprecedented display of partiality in UN history, they will fund, train, and advise one side of a conflict to pursue legal advocacy against another within the UN!  The UN has essentially joined the Palestinian Authority in its delegitimization war against the sovereign state of Israel

Another website declaration reads: “UNICEF keeps children safe by providing vaccines against deadly diseases” and insists that “the survival, protection and development of children are universal development imperatives that are integral to human progress.”  In conformance, UNICEF and the World Health Organization (WHO), with the support of Bill Gates’s GAVI organizations, have promoted the highly controversial Pentavalent (5-in-1) vaccine, which combines hepatitis-B, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and Hib (haemophilus influenzae type-b) into one.  Although the Pentavalent was banned or not used by Japan, the UK, Canada and the US, several developing countries have been sites for clinical trials by large pharmaceutical companies, raising many human rights concerns about unprincipled experimentation, uninformed consent, and forced medical procedures.

The head of pediatrics at St. Stephens Hospital in New Delhi, Dr. Jacob Puliyel, wrote in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics regarding children’s deaths in Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Vietnam and India following WHO’s administration of the Pentavalent vaccine: “At best, vaccinating 25 million babies might save only about 350 children from Hib meningitis and Hib pneumonia, but that “3,125 children will die from the vaccine’s adverse effects.”  Meanwhile, UNICEF continues to try to smother concerns about the experimental treatments at Auschwitz, and California’s laws of vaccinating children without parental consent.

The Gates Foundation-supported Polio Global Eradication Initiative may have resulted in more than 47,500 cases of vaccine-induced paralysis in Indian children in 2011 alone – twice as deadly as the wild-type polio it claimed to have ended on January 11, 2012.  According to a 2010 BBC News report stated, “Children often survived better outside the UN scheme.”  It appears that UNICEF is evolving from a life-affirming, child-saving, Nobel peace prize-winning foundation to a contraceptive-distributing, abortion-performing, and sterilization-providing partner of notorious family-planning organizations.  Child mortality has increased in some parts of the world, among them sub-Saharan Africa.

UNICEF professes to be guided by the Convention on the Rights of the Child and promote ethical principles and international standards of behavior towards children – a daunting, if not impossible, task as long as its Board members represent the Islamic culture and a major source of its funding.  Today Arab children lead lives of desperation due to their cultural practices.  Early childhood rituals at home and in schools inhibit friendships and bonding, and severely restrict expression through music, art, song and dance.  They focus on stringent religious doctrine, hatred and war play, decapitation, explosives, and other jihadi activities.

Muslim girls learn of their comparative worthlessness immediately, living under the absolute power of the male over as many as four wives and his numerous children who cannot help but experience distrust and jealousy in this unhealthy, competitive household.   Sexualized and devalued as human beings, girls are candidates for Female Genital Mutilation from infancy on, another assault on their femininity.  Two hundred million around the world have undergone FGM as children, and 507,000 are at risk or already victimized in the US.

The girls are doomed to wearing a burqa that serves to defeminize as well as impose on them a sense of insignificance, anonymity, a nothingness that they are only to serve the man and bear responsibility for his honor in a shame/honor culture.  They are deemed unworthy of an education, banned from socializing with peers, entered into a loveless marriage where she will suffer psychological trauma from submission and rape, often bleeding to death from sexual intercourse or pregnancy.  The World Health Organization estimates that 100 million girls will marry before their 18th birthday over the next ten years.

Young boys, barely out of toddlerhood, may be kidnapped from their homes and used as camel jockeys, and for the sheikhs’ pleasure. “Bacha bazi” (boys for play), as young as age 11 (but photos show younger) may be bought from poor families for prostitution and sexual slavery. They are dressed and adorned as girls and forced to dance and sing at parties before they are taken by the men – unsurprising that this practice exists, given the culture’s extreme repression and gender apartheid.  The boys are conditioned to homosexuality through humiliation, and subject to being killed for being homosexuals.

UNICEF boasts of working for children’s rights to “survive, thrive and fulfill their potential” in 193 countries.  Yet benefactor Saudi Arabia is the go-to country for kidnapping, forced labor ad debt bondage, withholding wages and passports, forced prostitution, physical and sexual abuse, restrictions on movement, child sex tourism with “temporary marriages” and wife selling.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres revealed that UN members, Saudi Arabia and Iran, caused the death of 350 Houthi children in Yemen (2016), 333 injured, and 28 schools destroyed. Iran executed a gay teenager without benefit of legal representation and 48 inmates remain in death row since their youth.  With Iranian support, Syrian forces released 13,000 deadly barrel bombs, killing 166 of their own children in 2016.  Iranian children of the Baha’i faith are denied the right to higher education.  Assad’s chlorine gas attacks caused torturous deaths, also to children.   We need answers as to how UNICEF cannot only tolerate Board Members from countries with such heinous practices, but also receive financial donations via the parent, UN.

From a cursory reading of UNICEF’s website introduction, it is clear that the organization is accelerating its long-time pursuit of the globalist scheme that is now concealed behind the dismal euphemism, Agenda 21.  Using the “sustainable development” slogan, UNICEF is identifying itself with the creed that echoes a strategy for world development – the importance of the environment and earth conservation above the value of human beings.

UNICEF claims to strive for “For every child hope, a safe home, laughter, a future,” but Agenda 21 mandates that the world population be severely diminished, land masses seized, and humans confined to designated island areas.  Some hope. Some future.  It is time for America to leave the UN – gettheUSoutoftheUN.org – inhibit its progress and retake our sovereignty.

Enabling Jihad at Stanford, Georgetown and Beyond

Note: The other day, I asked Brad Miner, who tracks these things for TCT, about our worldwide readership. He reports: “Most (81%) come from the U.S., but we have sizable numbers of visitors (in the tens of thousands) from Canada, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Ireland, and Italy – who read us in English. And we’ve had thousands of additional readers this year from India, Singapore, Brazil, Mexico, Spain, Nigeria, Germany, South Africa, Portugal, Netherlands, Malaysia, Poland, Slovakia, Japan, Sweden, Indonesia, Kenya, Belgium, Norway, Switzerland, Argentina, Malta, Denmark, Croatia, Russia, the United Arab Emirates, Trinidad & Tobago, Hong Kong, the Czech Republic. . .and, in all, another 200 countries.” I probably don’t publicize this international reach enough. And if you look in the upper right-hand corner of the TCT home page, you’ll see that our work is also published in five languages. I know of no comparable Catholic publication that has that kind of global presence. People in other countries know how much America – for good and bad – influences their own nations. In fact, the editor of France Catholique told me he wanted to take as many of our articles as possible because his readers believe what is said and done in America will affect France and the world. That’s a proud Frenchman speaking; you can view some of the results here. And at our other partners in SpanishItalianPortuguese, and Slovak. We subsidize – which is to say, pay for – these translations. And I’m happy to do so and would even like to expand this work as opportunity and resources permit because a global Church requires global commentary. And that commentary needs supporters who appreciate what, at its best, American Catholicism can offer. If you haven’t already contributed to the end of year fund drive, you can be a part of this vital effort. You know the way: just click on the button and add your support to the work of The Catholic Thing. – Robert Royal


Enabling Jihad at Stanford, Georgetown, and Beyond

By Matthew Hanley

It’s harder to get into Stanford than any other American university (5 percent of applicants are admitted). Yet Stanford recently saw fit to admit someone who used his precious essay space – in response to the question: “What matters to you, and why?” – by repeating “#BlackLivesMatter” 100 times. Imagine the chagrin of the many other worthy applicants who didn’t make the cut.

Turns out he was an intern for Hillary (of course); he also happens to be Muslim, but media accounts invariably offered no word about how he might reconcile his ostentatious profession of concern with the fact that black lives are still enslaved in parts of Africa by Muslims – nowhere else and by no one else. Not a pretty picture.

So is this “celebrated” Stanford student repudiating the example of Mohammed, who personally owned slaves, and sanctioned slave raiding? Well, is he? We might just say this is all pretty “rich” and leave it at that. But more needs to be said about the fact that it is harder to broach uncomfortable facts about Islam at Stanford than it is to be admitted. Robert Spencer could tell you all about it.

A group of students invited him to come talk about his meticulous elucidation of the Islamic sources that justify and even mandate jihad. This sparked a flurry of indignation, including calls for the event to be canceled and boycotted. Though he is more knowledgeable than most imams, agitated students dismissed him as “not intelligible,” “not scholarly,” – in a word – “trash.” Administrators libelously bemoaned his supposed history of stirring up hatred.

Is standing against hideous things – jihad murder, slavery, the manifold indignities Sharia visits upon women, etc. – suddenly discouraged at Stanford when they happen to be embedded into the fiber of a religion deemed so worthy of uncritical adulation that they must be willfully overlooked?

Stanford did not mimic Berkeley by canceling the event or resorting to thuggery to prevent a curiously unwelcome voice from being heard. They just hatched a subtler plan – weeks in advance – to achieve the same end.

Shortly after his talk began, an Islamic chant was let loose for a tense moment – apparently on someone’s phone. A lot of people sure were looking at their phones, which was odd given that the room was so packed that many were denied entry. A few minutes later, the majority walked out in choreographed unison – with the aggressive, supremacist undertone of Islamic chant blaring from devices: Allahu Akbar without the violence. Those who had originally been barred due to lack of capacity were then denied the opportunity to occupy the vacated space.

Free speech, Stanford style

Spencer had just finished relaying an objective fact that belongs at any institution of higher learning: a key feature of jihad, according to the highest Sunni authority of jurisprudence (Al-Azhar University in Cairo) is that one’s blood and one’s possessions are only safe if one succumbs to the rule of Islam; nobody outside it merits protection. Substantively, this could qualify as an ingrained, religiously sanctioned form of “hate speech,” which the students imagined they were virtuously heading outside to condemn. 

Spencer maintains that administrators abetted the disruption and that, in any case, it amounted to a quintessential display of fascism; that may seem a loaded term, but by first mounting a defamation campaign against him and then forcibly preventing others from being exposed to his ideas, Stanford earned the characterization. 

His mere presence was alleged to make Muslims feel unsafe – and yet only Spencer needed a sizeable security detail. His contention all along has been that detractors resort to smear tactics because they cannot engage on the level of facts and ideas. Stanford’s walkout proved his point in spades, just as surely as those who committed violence in response to Pope Benedict critically remarking at Regensburg upon the violent tendencies associated with Islam proved him right.

By not allowing the examination of jihad on its own terms Stanford chose to enable it. Apparently, Islamic figures, approvingly repeating binding Islamic texts that, say, urge the wiping out of Jews must go unremarked. Only calling this out is problematic – the secular sin of “Islamophobia” (a Saudi-manufactured term).

Corporations also nurture this climate of conformity. Just down the road from Stanford, the boors at PayPal blocked Spencer’s web site from using their services, thereby depriving him of a source of financial support. Exactly what the Southern Poverty Law Center, specialists in declaring organizations it doesn’t like as “hate groups,” wanted. They merely declare Spencer’s outfit a “hate group” and the media dutifully echo it despite SPLC’s obvious bias.

Stanford, however, is far from being alone. Catholic Georgetown University hosts Saudi-funded initiatives designed to propagate the best spin on Islam. Threatening aspects are, it seems, of marginal concern. But what some people consider minor can be very consequential; New York, London, Paris, Brussels, Nice, Madrid, Barcelona, Berlin, even Scandinavia now can testify to that.

The stakes are similarly high when some allege that Spencer’s “marginal” stance does not align with the overall conciliatory thrust of the modern Church vis-à-vis Islam:

I disagree with Pope Francis’ claim that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence,” as any sane and informed person, Catholic or non-Catholic, should. If that is indeed “Church teaching,” then the Catholic Church has a massive problem: it is presenting outright falsehood as “Church teaching,” and cannot be trusted by Catholics or anyone else.

Several years ago, a man in the admissions office at Stanford left his post to become a priest. I cannot say if the inanities of university officialdom played any role. Yet I wonder: if the kind of naïve falsity that seems to prevail everywhere else also prevails within the ecclesiastic circles he now travels in, where would he go then?

Matthew Hanley

Matthew Hanley

Matthew Hanley is senior fellow with the National Catholic Bioethics Center. With Jokin de Irala, M.D., he is the author of Affirming Love, Avoiding AIDS: What Africa Can Teach the West, which recently won a best-book award from the Catholic Press Association. The opinions expressed here are Mr. Hanley’s and not those of the NCBC.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Stanford and Other Universities of Gleichschaltung [Nazification]

Stanford Ph.D. candidate says disruption of Robert Spencer event does “not befit an institution of learning”

How to make sure your kid doesn’t go to Snowflake U.

EDITORS NOTE: © 2017 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.orgThe Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Trump Administration’s 2 Priorities for Welfare Reform Executive Order

President Donald Trump is making welfare reform a major priority and will sign an executive order laying out the administration’s goals while also urging action by Congress, a White House official said Thursday.

Trump’s executive order will be twofold, said Paul Winfree, director of budget policy at the White House. The order will state the Trump administration’s principles for welfare reform of empowering individuals and learning from state and local initiatives, and then direct federal agencies to come back to the president with recommendations for implementing the principles.

“Welfare reform is something that is very important to the president,” Winfree said during a panel discussion at The Heritage Foundation’s anti-poverty forum on Thursday. “It’s something that excites him. It’s something that he has a lot of energy about.”

The White House is also working with Congress on reform proposals, Winfree said, but in the short term is looking at what federal agencies can do unilaterally. The federal government has 89 different welfare programs spread across 14 departments and agencies.

Winfree explained the two priorities of Trump’s upcoming executive order.

The first thing it does, it sets out a series of principles for welfare reform that we would like to be a message to Capitol Hill and the direction we want to take. … We want to empower people. We want to learn from the states. We want to learn from local communities.

One of the messages is that I’ve been driving to essentially our staff and our agencies on welfare reform and the direction we are taking is this message that it’s people that help people. It’s not governments that help people.

So, how do we learn from people who are actually in the communities actually helping people and then ultimately empower them by either getting out of the way or redirecting the resources in their direction to essentially reward successes without a unilateral approach or without just kicking it to the states and transition [to] what is essentially a federal role into a state role.

The second half of the executive order, which is yet to be signed, essentially directs agencies to take a look at the principles and then figure out what they can do on their own to start meeting some of the objectives that are out there through changes in regulation and guidance and then to ultimately submit those recommendations to the president for an evaluation.

The last sweeping welfare reform package came more than two decades ago, passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton. However, Robert Rector, who helped shape some of the 1996 bill, said new improvements are needed.

“The current welfare system harms the very poor that it’s trying to help,” Rector, a senior research fellow for domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation, said. “We need a reformed welfare system that promotes work and marriage, and rewards outcomes rather than simply greater spending.”

The Heritage Foundation is supportive of the principles in several proposals in Congress now.

A bill by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and companion House bill by Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, would require all welfare programs to strengthen existing work requirements in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program; and establish a real work requirement in food stamps. Separately, a bill by Rep. Garrett Graves would require work requirements for the food stamp program.

Other members of Congress have talked about saving $15 billion annually by eliminating fraud, waste, and excessive benefits in the earned income tax credit, while making the program more encouraging of work. Others call for removing the marriage penalty with regards to welfare programs.

VIDEO: Why Amnesty Should Not Be Part of any ‘Deal’ on DACA

Talk of amnesty deals are making the rounds again in Washington. Here’s what you need to know.

Apparently, the battles over tax reform, Obamacare, and the looming spending bill aren’t enough to keep Congress busy. There are increasing rumblings that some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are looking for ways to give legal status to illegal aliens currently in the United States.

When President Donald Trump was candidate Trump, he promised that if elected he would end the program known as DACA—the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals that gave legal status to illegal aliens brought to the U.S. as minors.

The program was one of President Barack Obama’s most famous and arguably unconstitutional runs around Congress. He couldn’t get lawmakers to do what he wanted so he took it upon himself to create a new law via unilateral executive action.

Not exactly what the Framers likely had in mind if you read Articles I and II of the Constitution on the roles of the legislative and executive branches of government.

Which is why the Trump administration’s Department of Justice was absolutely right earlier this year to announce a six-month wind-down of the program with an end date next March. And because Congress, not the president, has the power to make or alter our laws, the ball is now back in its court.

Unfortunately, the only actions many in Congress seem interested in taking when it comes to immigration reform are the tried and true failed policies of the past.

Give amnesty now to those here illegally with a promise of later securing the border and doing the hard work to improve our country’s immigration system.

Democrats are threatening to shut down the government if so-called “Dreamers” aren’t given a “pathway to citizenship” in the end-of-year spending bill Congress must pass in early December.

Meanwhile, some Republicans are also considering various legislative amnesties, including a Senate proposal dubbed SUCCEED, the Solution for Undocumented Children Through Careers, Employment, Education, and Defending Our Nation Act.

Here’s the deal: Whether it’s granting amnesty outright—as Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and a host of other Democrats want to do—or whether it’s granting amnesty to those here illegally if they agree to jump through some additional loopholes, it’s still amnesty and it is still unfair to the millions of people trying to come here legally.

And, oh, by the way, it does not solve our illegal immigration problem. History and previous flawed actions by Congress prove it makes it worse.

We tried in 1986 when we gave legal status, supposedly a one-time deal, to 2.7 million illegal aliens residing in the U.S. Fast forward to 2017, and we have 11 to 12 million illegal immigrants now living here.

And all the border security and serious enforcement measures promised in 1986 that were going to come later? They never materialized.

More recently, there was the surge in illegal border crossings during Obama’s second term as the president handed out promises of amnesty through executive orders and his administration did little to enforce our immigration laws.

Proponents of amnesty and those who don’t want to do the hard work of real immigration reform are likely to dangle smaller and unpopular measures like getting rid of diversity visas in exchange for granting amnesty to the DACA population.

There’s no doubt that the Diversity Visa Lottery Program needs to go, but we shouldn’t trade one bad policy for another.

The same goes for debates over family, or what is popularly referred to as chain migration, workplace visa programs, sanctuary cities, border security measures, and how to improve the legal immigration process itself. All of these policies should be debated on their individual merits and whether they benefit America.

Immigration, both legal and illegal, impacts our country’s culture, economy, and security.

Some in Congress may be tempted to play “let’s make a deal” on amnesty and pretend they are doing something about our broken immigration system.

It’s time lawmakers know that game is over.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Genevieve Wood

Genevieve Wood advances policy priorities of The Heritage Foundation as senior contributor to The Daily Signal. Send an email to Genevieve. Twitter: .

Catholic Charities employee arrested for allegedly producing child pornography

The story is here at KOIN.com: (Hat tip: Michael)

PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — FBI agents arrested a Portland man Thursday for reportedly producing child pornography after a criminal complaint filed against him alleged that he approached 2 young girls via an app.

juan-carlos-ramon

Juan “Carlos” Ramon

According to the criminal complaint, Juan “Carlos” Ramon is accused of contacting 2 Louisiana girls, ages 6 and 8, via an app called “Musical.ly.”

The complaint alleges Ramon convinced the children to send him sexually explicit photos and videos of themselves. According to the complaint, Ramon contacted multiple other minors for explicit material.

[ … ]

Due to previous jobs Ramon has held, investigators believe he may have had opportunities to be in direct contact with children over a period of years.It’s believed Ramon is currently employed by El Programa Hispano Católico (Catholic Charities) in Gresham. It’s also believed he worked for Metropolitan Family Service’s SUN school program in Gresham.

[ … ]

KOIN 6 News reached out to El Programa Hispano Católico and they provided the following statement,

This afternoon, El Programa Hispano Católico and Catholic Charities were notified that an employee was arrested by the FBI on charges related to allegations of child pornography involving two minors in Louisiana. Our organizations are fully cooperating with the FBI and law enforcement officials in this investigation.

This post is filed in RRW’s ‘crimes’ category, see a couple of thousand other posts in that category by clicking here.

Ramon’s immigration status is unknown. Gateway Pundit has a more explicit story here.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

CAIR Minnesota to host scare tactic propaganda event today in St. Cloud

The Tent Foundation hires Lutheran refugee contractor to write refugee hiring guide

Another Somali stabbing, Minnesota this time (again)

VIDEO: Ties between Hollywood Sex Abuse and the Left

DETROIT (ChurchMilitant.com) – As sexual harassment allegations sweep the American entertainment industry, some notice that many of the alleged harassers are active supporters of the Left.

The overhaul of sexual misconduct allegations began on October 5 with a New York Times exposé targeting Hollywood film mogul Harvey Weinstein.

A number of the celebrities being accused are outspoken supporters of leftist causes. This is unsurprising, given Hollywood’s propensity for progressive politics.

Free clip from CHURCH MILITANT Premium

WATCH MORE LIKE THIS

Weinstein, for instance, had longstanding ties with the Democratic Party and the Clinton Foundation. Hillary Clinton was slammed in the media for how slowly she responded to the allegations against Weinstein.

Weinstein is known for his activism against gun-rights group the National Rifle Association (NRA). Breitbart‘s John Nolte commented that Weinstein, Hollywood and the mainstream media are “anti-gun” because they are “pro-rape.” In other words, they oppose gun rights because they don’t want their potential victims to be able to defend themselves.

Another big-name celebrity whose reputation is tarnished by harassment allegations is actor Kevin Spacey. He is accused of trying to force himself onto underaged boys.

Spacey is a friend of former president Bill Clinton and a donor to the Democratic Party. In Netflix drama House of Cards, the actor played a Democratic congressman who manipulates, adulterates and (occasionally) murders his way into the White House. After the allegations of harassment, the actor was fired, and producers announced the show would go on for only more season — with Spacey’s character removed.

Reports say Spacey was also removed from upcoming film All the Money in the World, which is being reshot with Spacey’s character now being played by Christopher Plummer. Netflix also canceled a future film starring the accused celebrity.

Spacey and Weinstein are not alone in being outspoken leftists who have been accused of sexual misconduct.

Actor Jeremy Piven supported Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary, while Ben Affleck endorsed Hillary Clinton. Both of these men have been accused of sexual harassment.

Actor Alec Baldwin, a professed Catholic, was an outspoken Obama supporter. He is a longtime “animal rights activist,” same-sex marriage advocate and enthusiastic gun-control supporter. He too has been accused of harassment.

E! News reporter Ken Baker has been accused and is removed from broadcasting, pending a company internal investigation. He is a lax Protestant who advocates for Eastern meditation and attends the same “church” as the Kardashians.

Hamilton Fish V from left-leaning The New Republic was recently booted from his position owing to sexual misconduct allegations. In the 1990s, his same-named grandfather and father — the third and fourth generations of Republican politicians in the family line — opposed him when he ran for a U.S. Senate seat as a Democrat. He lost the election and never held office.

Church Militant has compiled a list of individuals accused of sexual misconduct in the wake of the Weinstein scandal. Similar lists have been compiled by The New York Times and Breitbart.

Our list includes all manners of celebrities connected with the entertainment and information media industries. We chose not to include government officials.

We tried to avoid linking reports with excessively graphic details. Our list has 53 entries, naming a total of 55 individuals:

  • New Orleans chef John Besh (stepped down and issued an apology)
  • Actor Jeremy Piven (denies the allegations: Late Show appearance was canceled)
  • Oscar-nominated director David O. Russell
  • Filmmaker Brett Ratner (claims he is innocent)
  • Marilyn Manson’s guitarist Twiggy Ramirez
  • NBC’s Mark Halperin (dismissed from MSNBC and NBC, his book was canceled; says he is “profoundly sorry”)
  • Hollywood director James Toback
  • NPR executive Michael Oreskes
  • The New Republic publisher Hamilton Fish V
  • Head of Amazon Studios Roy Price (resigned after initial suspension)
  • Actor Dustin Hoffman
  • Comedian Andy Dick
  • Talent agency CEO David Guillod
  • Nashville music publicist Kirt Webster
  • Oscar-winning actor and producer Ben Affleck
  • Nickelodeon producer Chris Savino (fired; claims he is “deeply sorry”)
  • Hollywood talent agent Tyler Grasham
  • Vox editorial director Lockhart Steele (fired on October 16)
  • Comedian Louis C.K. (admitted guilt and apologized)
  • Physician Lawrence G. Nassar, team doctor for U.S. Olympic gymnasts (already in jail for other sexual misconduct but now two Olympic gymnasts have accused him of harassment)
  • Warner Bros. producer Andrew Kreisberg
  • Benjamin Genocchio, executive director of Armory Show art fair
  • E! News correspondent Ken Baker (pulled from air while NBCUniversal investigates)
  • Director of CBS’s Diversity Showcase Rick Najera (resigned)
  • Publisher of Artforum, Knight Landesman (resigned)
  • Magazine Editor Leon Wieseltier (fired from upstart Emerson Collective; says, “I offer a shaken apology”)
  • Fashion photographer Terry Richardson (spokesperson denied allegations: Condé Nast International cut ties with him)
  • Tech blogger Robert Scoble (resigned but calls it a “false narrative”)
  • Actor Kevin Spacey
  • Film producer Harvey Weinstein and his brother Bob Weinstein
  • Actor George Takei
  • Writer-producer Gary Goddard
  • Producer Benny Medina
  • DC Comics editor Eddie Berganza (suspended)
  • Actor and activist Richard Dreyfuss (denies allegations but admits being a “flirt”)
  • Synth-pop musician Ethan Kath
  • Hollywood talent agent Adam Venit
  • Celebrity actor Alec Baldwin
  • Actor Ed Westwick
  • TV actor Alec Baldwin
  • Hollywood talent agent Adam Venit
  • Talent agent Ryan Ly
  • Ain’t It Cool News founder Harry Knowles (fired)
  • Talent agent Erik Horine
  • Actor John Grissom (named by Corey Feldman)
  • Actor Danny Masterson
  • Mother Jones reporter David Corn
  • Lionsgate executive Andrew Kramer
  • Oscar-winning director Oliver Stone
  • Honest Trailers creator Andy Signore (fired)
  • Magician/entertainer David Blaine
  • Actor Steven Seagal
  • Cinefamily executives Hadrian Belove and Shadie Elnashai (both resigned)
  • Famous actor John Travolta (accused of making inappropriate advances on a male hotel employee)

Have a news tip? Submit news to our tip line.

Refugee Charity Fraud: Humanwire took advantage of ‘gullible donors’

A non-profit group called Humanwire based in Boulder, Colorado was allegedly the piggy bank for the group’s founder—Andrew Baron.

How many more ‘non-profits’ have been set up to take advantage of gullible donors responding to the refugee ‘crisis’ around the world?

Watch Baron in September trying to explain-away the Denver Post story including bashing his whistleblower employee. He takes a whack at Trump too! This is incredible!

Here is the story from The Denver Post:

Andrew Baron

Boulder police on Thursday arrested Andrew Baron on felony charges of charity fraud and theft in excess of $100,000 from Humanwire, a nonprofit he said he established to help Syrian refugees.

The arrest follows an investigative report in The Denver Post on the practices of the Boulder-based charity, which managed refugee campaigns in Greece, Turkey and Lebanon.

Humanwire advertises on its website that pledges from donors go directly to needy refugees with “0 percent” going to operating costs. It offers itself up on its website as a one-to-one connection between donors and volunteers, promising to remove the “charity from the middle.”

But The Post revealed in September that amid delays in promised aid for refugees, the nonprofit’s bank records showed a steady stream of withdrawals from Humanwire’s accounts by Baron. Amid those withdrawals, more than 100 refugees who had been promised aid from Humanwire faced evictions and other deprivations, according to interviews with former Humanwire volunteers, workers and donors.

“Between October 2015 to present, Andrew Baron’s bank accounts have received all the donations for the Humanwire campaigns,” states an affidavit filed Thursday by Boulder Police Detective Traci Cravitz. “Despite stating that 100 percent of these donations would go to the intended families, at least $130,000 was used by Baron for his own personal expenses.”

Go here to read the remainder of the gory details that came to light when employees blew the whistle.  As of this writing, Humanwire’s website is still up.

Speaking of employees blowing the whistle, any more brave souls out there like the “source” of the news from Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service we told you about here?

Message to readers:  Feeling the desire to help those with less than you have? Find a needy local family and support them and know exactly where your money is going!  Thanksgiving is right around the corner after all.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

While Republicans welcome Chinese companies ($$$) to the US, Dems welcome new American voters….

Canadian meatpacker wants a piece of Montana too!

Ben & Jerry’s ice cream loves refugees too

Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society sues Trump Administration again

Drain the Swamp: Demand that Congress release all the information on sexual abuses by its members

There are 535 Members of Congress – 100 serve in the U.S. Senate and 435 who serve in the U.S. House of Representatives. The Daily Caller’s Henry Rodgers in a column titled “Congress Spent $17 Million Paying For Its Sexual Harassment Settlements” reported:

The OCC said it decided to release the information regarding payment of awards and settlements regarding all types of harassment due to the mass amounts of recent inquiries. In the released statement, OCC executive director Susan Tsui Grundmann explained that these cases originate from multiple offices inside of the legislative branch, other than the House or the Senate. [Emphasis added]

The Federal Office of Compliance has released a list of payouts to those who were sexually harassed in the past 20 years by members of Congress and others in the federal government.

The list shows that $17,240,854 dollars has been paid out to 264 recipients. This is an average payment per sexually abused individual of $65,306.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice NSOPW website, “Approximately 30% of sexual assault cases are reported to authorities.”

Therefore the number of persons sexually abused by members of Congress and others in the legislative branch of the federal government over the past 20 years could be as high as 871 individuals. The two largest annual payouts from this Congressional slush fund are: $3,974,077 to 10 individuals in 2002 and $4,053,274 to 25 individuals in 2007 under the administration of former President George W. Bush. Under the administration of former President Barack Obama the slush fund paid out a total of $5,034,508 to 111 individuals.

What we do not know is how many members of Congress and legislative branch are/were the sexual predators in the cases reported resulting in a payment made.

If each case reported that resulted in a payment was perpetrated by one member of Congress then potentially 49% of members of Congress and those serving in the legislative branch are/were sexual predators. We understand that the members of Congress as well as administrations have changed over the past 20 years. Different members of Congress and those in the Executive Branch retire or are voted out of office. However, the numbers are what they are.

It would be unthinkable that one person committed all 264 reported cases of sexual abuse that resulted in all of the over $17 million in payments made. Given the larger number of potentially 871 (reported and unreported) victims gives us an annual average of over 87 acts of sexual abuse by members of Congress and the legislative branch over the past 20 years.

We will only know the truth when:

  1. Congress release the names of those paid.
  2. Congress release the names of the members/employees who are/were a sexual predator.
  3. Others who did not report sexual abuse and did not receive a payment must be encouraged to come forward. Perhaps given immunity and compensation?

This is a major scandal that members of Congress and members of past administrations had to know about this sexual abuse, if for no other reason than money exchanged hands and non-disclosure documents were signed and records kept.

Perhaps it is time for President Trump to demand that the Republican leadership in Congress release all of the names, dates, payment details and release those who signed non-disclosure agreements from previous administrations if possible. Or the President demand that the U.S. Congress release the names, dates and payment details.

It is past the time to know how deep this rabbit hole truly is.

It is time to actually drain the swamp in Washington, D.C.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Florida Democratic Party chair apologizes after 6 women complain of ‘demeaning’ behavior – Politico

Liberals’ Sudden Concern About Bill Clinton’s Behavior Is Cynical And Self-Serving

The Left’s Deafening Silence on Bob Menendez

VIDEO: Will Congressman Vern Buchanan put his morals where his mouth it?

Congressman Vern Buchanan represents Florida’s 16th District. Buchanan is also co-chair of the 27 member Florida congressional delegation. He also sits on the powerful House Committee on Ways and Means including being the Chairman of its Subcommittee on Oversight.

Congressman Buchanan, along with Senator Mitch McConnell and Speaker Paul Ryan, recently called for Judge Roy Moore to step down as a candidate for the U.S. Senate in Alabama after unsubstantiated sexual misconduct allegations appeared in a Washington Post article.

Now it has been revealed that the U.S. Congress has a “secret slush fund” to pay off those who have accused members of Congress of sexual misconduct.  To date according to multiple sources over $15 million of taxpayer dollars have been used to hush up this scandal. Congressman Buchanan because of his Ways and Means position has to know about this “slush fund.”

QUESTION: Will Congressman Buchanan put his morals where his mouth is by exposing his predator colleagues in Congress and call for them to step down?

Laura Ingraham has this report by a former staffer speaking out about Congress’ sexual misconduct:

In a Breitbart column titled “Women on Capitol Hill Tell of ‘Sex Trade,’ ‘Creep List’ of Lawmakers” Kristina Wong reports:

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are so predatory that female staffers are advised not to ride in elevators alone with them, according to accounts compiled by CNN.

Females are also admonished to be careful of male lawmakers who sleep in their offices — another “unwritten” rule that women on Capitol Hill live by, according to the outlet.

The outlet spoke to more than 50 lawmakers, current and former staffers, and other political veterans, who revealed a culture so rife with sexual harassment that there is an informal “creep list” of lawmakers to avoid.

[ … ]

The “creep list” of male lawmakers — mostly in the House of Representatives but also in the Senate — are “notorious for inappropriate or predatory behavior,” according to the story. A female congresswoman said “half are harassers,” of her male counterparts, before quickly adding, only “some are harassers.”

In a June, 2016 Politico column titled “House Ethics Committee finds no wrongdoing by Rep. Buchanan” John Bresnahan reported:

The House Ethics Committee has ended its years-long probe into Florida GOP Rep. Vern Buchanan, finding no wrongdoing by the lawmaker, the secretive panel announced Friday.

The Justice Department and Federal Election Commission long ago stopped looking into Buchanan, the Ethics Committee noted in its report on the case.

Friday’s announcement is a highly unusual one for Ethics as it was not publicly known that Buchanan was still under investigation by the panel, and there was no requirement that a report or statement clearing him be issued.

“I’m very pleased the committee conducted a thorough review of the facts and reached a unanimous and bipartisan conclusion that I did nothing wrong,” Buchanan said in a statement.

Buchanan has been under scrutiny for the last several years after a former business partner alleged that the Florida Republican used straw donors to funnel tens of thousands of dollars in illegal campaign contributions to his 2006 and 2008 campaigns via employees at his car dealerships.

Read more.

When a woman accused of adultery was sentenced to death by stoning, Jesus’ in John 8:7, said, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

There is a proverb which states, “Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.” Perhaps no members of the House of Representatives should cast stones?

Congressional Office of Compliance just released a year-by-year breakdown of harassment settlements and awards:

NOTE: Congressman Buchanan was elected to the Congress in 2006 and sworn in in 2007. In 2007 according to the Congressional Office of Compliance over $4 million was awarded to 25 individuals. Every year since Mr. Buchanan has been in office more and more settlements have been made.

EDITORS NOTE: We have contacted Congressman Buchanan’s offices in Washington, D.C. and Sarasota, FL for comment but have not received a reply at the time of publication of this column. In an email to Congressman Buchanan we asked the following questions:

  1. Will you release the names of every member and demand that they step down?
  2. Will you disclose the names of those abused.
  3. Will you disclose the amount of money allocated to each victim?
  4. Will you disclose the process under which these cases are handled.

If we we receive a statement from Mr. Buchanan we will publish it.

UPDATE 11/17/2017: After repeated calls to Congressman Buchanan’s office we have yet to receive any response.