FILE - In this Dec. 10, 2014 file photo, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe speaks during the official opening of the new I-95 Express Lanes at the Express Lanes Operations Center in Alexandria, Va.  McAuliffe is set to present  a midcourse correction to the state’s two-year budget that will include expanding publicly funded Medicaid health insurance eligibility to about 400,000 to able-bodied, low-income adults, according to two state officials who have been briefed on the governor’s plans but are not allowed to discuss them publicly.   (AP Photo/Molly Riley)

Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, vetoes Refugee Reporting Bill

Bills like these are really innocuous.  They don’t stop any refugee placement in the state, they simply tell state officials and the public who is in the state. The information would aide local officials in determining school capacity, housing availability and other welfare services that would need to be provided to these legal immigrants.

From CBS:

terry-and-hillary

Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe (left)

RICHMOND, Va. (NEWSPLEX) — A bill requiring an annual report on refugees resettled in Virginia has been vetoed.

Governor Terry McAuliffe vetoed House Bill 2002 on Friday, saying the report would “send a message of exclusion to people looking for the chance to rebuild their lives” and poses a danger to them.

The legislation would have required nonprofit resettlement agencies and local affiliates that provide refugee or other immigrant resettlement services, like the International Rescue Committee, to report information regarding those settled in the Commonwealth.

The state Department of Social Services would then collate and submit a report to the governor’s office and the General Assembly each year.

The report would include information such as the total number of individuals resettled in Virginia by the agency; the locality where the individual was resettled; the individual’s age, gender and nation of origin; and whether the individual was placed through the U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program.

More here.

It would be interesting to see if Maryland Republican Governor Larry Hogan would veto a similar bill! Hogan has spoken in favor of more refugees for Maryland.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

South Africa: Is the Rainbow Nation headed to black on black riots again?

Beware Somalis, others, coming from US claiming a passion for Canada as they illegally cross the border

salem_va

Salem Virginia Veterans Hospital Lies, Misinforms, and Harasses Veterans

Over the years and currently each day veterans who risked their lives to save our beautiful country have been lied to, misinformed, and harassed by Veterans Hospital  (VH)  staff on a routine basis.  All one has to do is Google  this topic and  sadly you will see thousands of instances in which veterans were being treated as criminals by their physicians and their assistants.  I could write a book on these atrocities but for  today I am going to give readers an example of an abuse that has been committed by VH Salem (VHS) upon me over the last few years and as recent as of 21 Feb 2017.  I write this article with the intention of alerting other veterans to this form of physical and mental abuse.  It is also written so people who truly care about our veterans will step up and demand our veterans stop being mistreated at  the civil and criminal level by the government agency who are supposed to and being paid to help veterans and not treat them as useless pieces of human matter and used for experimentation.

A short bio:  I served in the USAF from 1977 until 1999.  Then I took a position with our government as a U.S. Federal Agent with our countries highest clearances until late 2003.  My last assignment with the government was in 2003 at the start of Operation Iraqi freedom.  I was in Nasiriyah, Iraq on the front lines.  I have since written two best selling books related to counterterrorism issues inside America.  During my time on active duty and as a civilian employee I suffered injuries that are well documented and I have Veterans disability for several injuries.

Throughout my military career I had severe teeth, jaw, gums, and other ailments related to this.  Again I have service connected ratings for these injuries and others.  During my years I also had been diagnosed with PTSD and have been obtaining treatment at our VHS for several years.

In late 2015 my dental rated injuries had risen to a level that I had been overridden with severe pain and infections in my jaw and teeth.  It was like having 30 awful toothaches at the same time.  Continuously for years I had requested the VHS to help me.  They refused and would not even give me medicine for the pain.  Finally in Nov 2015 I went to the Emergency room of VHS and begged for treatment because I was in severe pain and could no longer  tolerate it.  My face was swollen, my teeth and gums were severely infected, and I now suffered intolerable headaches.  The VHS did nothing and sent me home.  I am not a physician but even a child in the first grade could determine something was not right.  I immediately went to the emergency room of a local civilian hospital.  Within five minutes they realized I needed emergency treatment and as they said I was near death because of the out of control infections   I was immediately rushed to a trauma  hospital out of state (Duke University, NC).  I stayed several days and when I was getting better after surgery, I was sent to a hospital near my home in Roanoke, VA.  From Thanksgiving 2015 until Christmas I was in the hospital near death.  The infection had spread to my heart and my temperature was a constant 104 degrees.  Finally I was release but still in pain.

I immediately went to the VHS to see my physician (Dr. Gaylord).  He was sympathetic to the manner I had been treated by the VHS in regards to my teeth and infections which had occurred on active duty and documented on my DD 214 that upon my retirement  they had not corrected my dental issues.  The dental clinic at the VHS  still would not provide medical assistance for my teeth even after being in the hospital for a month.  Dr. Gaylord knew I was in pain and gave me a much needed pain medicine (hydrocodone).  Dr. Gaylord kept me on this pain medicine until he left for another department within VHS).  With the pain medicine the VHS mandates the patient and provider sign an opiate pain medicine contract.  Within the contract the patient has to agree to take the medicine as prescribed and mine was for as needed.  Since I had been prescribed this I had always taken when I was in severe pain and did not take if the pain was not severe (again per my prescription). This was the start of my continued nightmare with the VHS and Dr. Debra Mcginn (and her nurse and Resident Doctor).

The VHS never told me that Dr. Mcginn had replaced Dr. Gaylord.  I did not find out until I went to an appointment on 14 Feb 2017 and was told I had a new DR. (Mcginn).  I was expecting my new DR. who had suddenly appeared in my health part of my life to introduce herself and go over my years of medical records.  She did not.  Instead I was sent to her Resident Assistant Dr. in training (a young guy who could not go two minutes with me without running to Dr. Mcginns office for advise).  He seemed to be a poor chose to see a veteran with several disabilities and who did not know my past medical history.  On this date I had scheduled this appt. to be seen for a simple non emergency that had nothing to do with any form of pain.  This was a very very simple request for a medicine that was not even above the scale of vitamins.  Surprisingly I was eventually told by  this Resident and Dr. Mcginn who never even bothered to introduce herself to me to go to the lavatory for tests.  I asked what for and she told me it was for the minor reason I was there today and after the labs she would send my medication..  I was stunned. I could not figure out why lab tests were needed for such a simple ailment (again nothing was for pain).

I went immediately to the lab and was told I needed to give blood and urine.  It was getting stranger.  I gave all of my blood samples but could not urinate.  I had done so previously be fore I saw Dr. Mcginnis.  I eventually told the lab tech I could not urinate and since it was for a very simple medical issue I asked if I could come back.  She said it was fine.  From this point hell broke out in the VHS against me and instigated by Dr. Mcginn.   Finally on 21 Feb 2017, only a week later I went to the hospital to ask about my medications for the minor treatment and my pain medicine was up for refill.  I had arrived at the VHS at 0800 hours.  finally around 100 hours I was seen by Dr. Mcginns nurse.  I asked her about my medications.  She said Dr. Mcginn would no longer fill my pain medicine because I had refused a urine test for my pain medicine on 14 Feb 2017.  I was confused.  I said I had never been told about a urine drug test and I could not urinate and I had  told the lab tech.  I was shocked.  She said Dr. Mcginn had put in my records I had refused a drug test.  I told her I had never been told I was being sent for a drug test and again I had not refused, I just could not pee at the snap of their fingers!  I was very frustrated and felt betrayed by Dr. Mcginn and her staff.  The nurse was very very rude and treated me like a major narcotics offender.  After about two more hours the nurse told me to go to the lab for more tests.  I asked why, she would not tell me.  I tromped up to the lab for some unknown tests.  When I got there I told the lab tech Dr. Mcginn had sent me for more lab tests.  I asked her what the test was for.  She said it  was a urine sample for my pain medicine.  I was again stunned but not really surprised at Dr. Mcginns Gestapo tactics against me.  I was literally pissed off!  I gave the urine anyway by but only provide a small sample.

I then immediately went to the VHS patient advocates office to complain about Dr. Mcginns deceitful treatment of me.  Then I went back to the nurse.  She refused to hear my complaint about Dr. Mcginn.  She told me Dr. Mcginn would speak with me.  Finally I get to see my Doctor!!!  I knew she was only seeing me because  I had filed a complaint. When I went in Dr. Mcginn was all smiles.  Apparently she had forgotten or more correctly since I filed a complaint she wanted to appease me.  She said I had REFUSED a Drug urine test on 14 Feb 2017 and I had violated the Pain medication contract I had signed.  I tried to tell her I had not refused any tests, I simply could not urinate at that time.  Am I the first person who could not pee at the snap of a finger?  I emphasized she was also required to inform me and other vets if they were being sent to the lab for a drug test.  She said there was no requirement to do this.  I asked her repeatedly to review this contract and she will find out very clearly that a Dr. MUST inform the patient about drug urine or blood tests.  She barked at me that she does not need to do so.  She then told me I had FAILED the drug tests during the 17 months I had been on it.  I asked her how I failed because I have always used my medicines correctly to the tee.  She said I failed because on two occasions I did not have hydrocodone in my system.  I was now immune from being stunned.  I said you mean a patient fails the drug tests because even if their prescription says take as needed they still must have the med in their system?  She started mumbling and had no answer.  She said because of my failure to have no pain med in my system she was terminating me cold turkey!!!!  I thought, “God help other poor veterans who are going through tactics from alleged doctors but in reality were acting as narcotics officers!).

The day of this incident my stress and depression dramatically increased and I was sick to my stomach by the treatment of Dr. Mcginn and her staff.  I had to be seen at VHS mental health for the PTSD.  The treatment I have had at mental health for the PTSD has always been helpful, but the actions of Dr. Mcginn sent me rock bottom.  Again on 22 Feb 2017 the mental health doctor stabilized me to a degree that I could at least live with it.  He told me it was wrong that Dr. Mcginn had not informed me of the drug urine test and it is his opinion as a doctor that all actions affecting the patient should be discussed with the patient.  He advised he has seen more and more of this type treatment being used against patients and it concerned him.  I said it concerns me also.

A short message to other U.S. armed forces veterans:

  1. Understand you have a VHS mandated right to be told of any drug tests. The doctor is not given any option in this.  The doctor must inform you of a drug test, and you have the right to consent or not.  A doctor must inform you before hand of any tests outside of her office because it is and has been a medical ethical and lawful practice for centuries.
  2. Do not be intimidated by unprofessional treatment by Veterans Hospital personnel. Start with a complaint with your doctor, then patient advocacy, and then go right to your Congressman or Senator.  Also inform other veterans through the media.  If all else fails, then file a civil lawsuit as I have started and consider a trip to your local FBI office if you feel the VH staff have conducted criminal activities such as “falsifying your medical records”.  VH doctors can no more falsify and lie in your medeical records than they can in any other U.S. government record.  It is a crime for them to intentionally (doctor a document) to fit their untrue perspective.
  3. Consider lawful protests with other veterans at your local VH.
  4. Most importantly do not let VH personnel treat you as a useless human. Remember you have served your country by being willing to die for your country and other Americans.  Most of the VH doctors have never served in wartime and seem to care for their salary and playing narcotics officers than they do helping our young men and women.

I request all veterans and non veterans who care about our troops to complain to the VHS hospital for the unethical and criminal actions they have conducted against me.  The VHS number is 540-982-3463 and ask for Dr. Mcginn at Primary Care Group Clinic #2.   In addition please forward me any unfair or unethical treatment you may have received at a veteran hospital.  Veterans and their supporters must unite as one if we are to get the vet hospitals to provide positive treatment to the vets.

CNN LOGO

VIDEO: CNNgate — Project Veritas Exposes the Fakestream Media

The founder of Project Veritas James O’Keefe released hundreds of hours of recordings of the bias in the main stream media out CNN. In an email O’Keefe stated:

Before you watch the video below, it is EXTREMELY important that you read this message. That’s because I’m handing the baton over to you.

A few weeks ago, over 200 hours of undercover footage from inside of CNN’s news offices were handed over to me. This is part of our new strategy to infiltrate every corporate media outlet in America. By turning the tables on them, we’re exposing their bias in reporting and exactly how they manipulate the public.

From what I’ve heard so far on these tapes, CNN will have a lot of explaining to do. But here’s my problem, my staff and I have only been able to get through a small percentage of the footage – it’s too much for us to handle. So rather than take months to listen to all of these audiotapes, I’m releasing all of them to you (and the public) so that you can help go through everything.

I realize that is a lot to ask – maybe too much. Time is incredibly valuable to all of us and I understand if you can’t spend hours and hours listening to raw footage.

Instead, if you can support this project with a donation, I would be extremely grateful.

The tapes show CNN’s misrepresentation of polling data:

Miss X: “I read a CNN poll that was taken on June 26 and 28th, and I know that the hearing for the case, the fire fighters case was on the 29th, so the poll was done right before it, and those are still the poll results we’re reporting, so I asked someone in DC who does the poll results about why we hadn’t updated it, and said there were a few newer polls from last week and the week before and there’s CBS news polls and a Rasmussen poll, and he said we don’t use Rasmussen, and I said does CNN plan to do another poll if we’re only using that. He said we’re not going to be doing another poll, those are the results we’ll be using. So I don’t see how that’s reporting all sides because that poll said hold for release until Friday the 10th.”

Arthur Brice: “Who did you talk with?”

Miss X: “Paul [CNN’s Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser].”

Arthur Brice: “Yeah, he’s your director. Yeah, he’s pretty high up in the food chain. I agree. I think it’s dishonest to use outdated information if new information shows something that is in variance with what you’re reporting. It’s just, it’s dishonest.”

The same apathy towards reporting accurate poll numbers was seen in the way CNN released inaccurate poll numbers about Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor.

Miss X: “This wasn’t released until two weeks after. So can we say a newly released poll?”

Joe Sterling: “No, you can’t say that. You can’t say that at all. This isn’t a newly released.”

Miss X: “But it says newly released on Friday.”

Joe Sterling: “I know, how did we write about this? Did we write a wire about this? “I don’t think we stand to change how people think of her [Sotomayor]. Geez, I mean if someone picked this up it’s not going to change – it’s not going to change anybody’s opinion.”

Richard Griffiths, who is now CNN’s Vice President and Senior Editorial Director, was caught explaining that the role of a journalist is to “aid the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”

“If we are journalists, what is our role as a journalist? What is the fundamental role as a journalist, for us to do? “Tell a story. Tell what’s going on. There’s a secondary corollary to that, right? Aid the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. To a degree, right? Is that not part of the traditional role of a journalist. It’s actually one of the things I can be most proud of as a journalist. You know we try to show the ugly side of humanity so we can do something about it. It’s hard, very hard.”

In the secretly recorded tapes, CNN’s liberal, anti-Republican, and anti-Fox News bias is clear. “Fox News, I think Fox News is unbearable. It’s horrible,” said Nicky Robertson, who was at that time the CNN Assignment Desk Editor. Joe Sterling, who was then the News desk editor for CNN’s online venue ‘The Wire’ was also recorded speaking profound liberal bias.

“That issue, climate change, I mean science is pretty much on board and there are a few dissenters. There’s no debate. It’s like you know, born-agains saying there’s a debate over, you know creationism, and all that stuff. There is no debate.”

Here is the video in which O’Keefe announces that he is releasing over 100 hours of CNN news room audio:

James O’Keefe is offering a $10,000 award for content which exposes media malfeasance.*

AUDIO PLAYLIST:

Project Veritas is serving these audio files on the Amazon S3. Currently the audio player which plays these audio files is experiencing a very heavy load, so it may time out or not load. Please bear with us and the audio files will load more easily over the next few hours as traffic slows down.

*Rules to receive the up-to-$10,000 award from Project Veritas – Project Veritas only offers awards for valuable video or other media types which was legally obtained. It is important for the submitter to follow all local, state and federal laws while obtaining video or other media for submission. – This Project Veritas award is for submitted pieces that expose media corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, waste, fraud, and other misconduct deemed valuable after review by the Project Veritas editorial staff. – Project Veritas will protect the identifies of individuals submitting material to the fullest extent allowable by law.

RELATED ARTICLES:

MSNBC Slips: It’s “Our Job” to “Control Exactly What People Think”

Fake News Drawn from a Flimsy Study

BBC_logo_at_Broadcasting_House_in_London

BBC: The Gold Standard of Fake News

The devil is in the details. And this, but one example, shows how the enemedia deceives and disarms an increasingly skeptical public.

There is no one thing the media does where you can say, aha! It’s in everything they write, say, and frame. They underhandedly and insidiously destroy people with whom they disagree.

JAMES O’BRIEN SPREADING ‘FAKE NEWS’ VIA THE BBC IS A MUST-WATCH

Douglas Murray, The Spectator, February 20, 2017:

The row about ‘fake news’ and the ‘crooked media’ appears to be ongoing.  And every time the BBC and other mainstream media mention it they present themselves solely as the victims of such phenomena.  So let us turn to just one edition of the BBC’s Newsnight.

On Wednesday of this week the programme was presented by James O’Brien.  Now in the first place Mr O’Brien is a strange choice to present this programme.  Not just because his awkward, cut-out, Lego man gait makes it obvious why he has made his career in radio, but because he is the sort of hyper-partisan figure who, if they came from the opposite political side, would never be hired by the BBC.

But back to Wednesday’s Newsnight. Just after a ‘Viewsnight’ slot given to Tariq Ramadan – dauphin of the Muslim Brotherhood – it was back to the studio for a discussion about President Trump with two guests down the line from Washington.

Here is how O’Brien introduced them: ‘Anne Gearan from the Washington Post and Asra Nomani who has written for outlets such as Breitbart and The Hill.’  To say that the way in which O’Brien introduced the latter was acidic is to understate matters.  Even on the Cathy Newman scale of ‘ostentatiously introducing someone as though they are a bad smell’ O’Brien excelled.  ‘Here’ – he was clearly saying – ‘is a really reputable woman.  And here, by comparison is a lowly, nuts-oid blogger lady who we can all interrupt and laugh at.’

Unfortunately for O’Brien the technology failed and we lost Anne Gearan.  Then, even more unfortunately for O’Brien, Nomani used her opening moments to politely correct the BBC’s introduction of her.  An introduction that had indeed been fake and crooked.  For as Nomani informed O’Brien, she is not just some broad who has ‘written for outlets such as

Breitbart [lemony face] and The Hill [expectorate]’.  On the contrary, as she had to waste her opening moments explaining, not only has she never ‘written for Breitbart’, the more pertinent fact about her life is that she spent fifteen years at the Wall Street Journal.

So why did Newsnight’s James O’Brien – in a discussion about ‘fake news’ – spread false information about Nomani before he had even begun his first question?  Why did it not concern him that any fair-minded viewer might easily come away with the impression that O’Brien knew nothing about his guest and that he or someone else from the Newsnight team had simply spent the period before transmission lazily searching Google for the most hostile intro they could put together?  Might precisely this type of media ‘bias’ be one of the things that fuels the perception that the mainstream media are intent on bringing down everyone and everything associated not just with Trump but with any of the arguments he makes?

For her part, Nomani went on to calmly explain her concerns about ‘The vilification of both the Trump administration and anybody who might say that there’s any rational discourse to be had about the administration and its policies.  That’s what really concerns me as a journalist.’

As it happens, I am fairly sure that the reason why Nomani came across the BBC and James O’Brien’s radar would have been for a piece she wrote in the Washington Post after the election titled ‘I’m a Muslim, a woman and an immigrant.  I voted for Trump.’  The piece got a justifiable amount of attention and a disgusting amount of vitriol.  But there is something I would like to add about her.

Nearly two years ago Nomani and I shared a platform in Brooklyn in a debate against a number of Islamists including the vile (apparently now leading feminist icon) Linda Sarsour.  I already admired Nomani and her work, but nothing prepared me for the woman herself.  I trust readers know I’m not given to overpraise.  But as I related in a column at the time, Nomani and I appeared that evening under somewhat strained circumstances.  Our event took place just days after two jihadists had attacked an event in Garland, Texas, and as a result the third member of our team – Ayaan Hirsi Ali – had been advised that it wasn’t safe to join us.  With considerably heightened amounts of security

Nomani and I appeared as normal.  But one detail sang out.

In the days before the event Nomani had received a highly specific threat to her life.  And the person who had promised to punish her for her alleged ‘heresy’ turned out to have RSVP-ed as an attendee at our event.  Despite being warned off, Nomani insisted that she would still be there.  Near the start of the event, in the face of mocking opponents and a deeply hostile crowd (and with her young son in the audience) Nomani called out this would-be assassin.  She insisted that she would continue to say what she did, whatever they tried to do to her.  She did all this calmly, and without any ostentation.  It was one of the bravest things I have ever seen.

As I say – James O’Brien doesn’t know any of this, or doesn’t care about any of this.  He saw a woman he felt he could belittle and diminish as though she were calling in to one of his daytime phone-in shows.  O’Brien and Newsnight don’t need to ask why people are losing trust in mainstream media.  Programmes like theirs on Wednesday night – and their treatment of one guest in particular – are the reason.

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

hijrah

All they needed to do to save Europe from invasion was to turn back just a couple of boats

….but it is too late.

Here is a long story at Bloomberg Businessweek that you don’t have to read. It is an overly-long, detailed account of the travails of a Somali migrant (is he even telling the truth?) being trafficked in to Europe.

The invasion began in earnest when Obama and Hillary destabilized Libya opening the best migrant launchpad ever available on the coast of North Africa.  (I have many posts here on Hillary and Libya).

In 2015, then Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott told the Europeans what they must do.  They didn’t listen!

He said to begin (safely) turning boats back to the African coast.  It would only take a few returns to derail the network of traffickers making millions by moving Africans to Europe.

I can’t believe that we might see the end of Europe as a bulwark of western civilization even in my lifetime (and I am old!), my children will certainly see it!

MEDIA CALL: Gillard, Abbott to hold Q&A session at Rooty Hill RSL Wednesday, 11 August 2010 from 6.00pm Sydney, Australia, August 9, 2010 – Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott will be holding a people’s forum at Rooty Hill RSL on Wednesday, 11 August 2010 from 6.00pm. The event will be facilitated by political editor David Speers and telecast live across Australia. The audience, which will include approximately 200 swinging voters from Western Sydney chosen by Galaxy Research, as well as media representatives, will have the opportunity to ask the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader questions related to their policies and in particular, how it affects the local community. Gillard, Abbott Q&A session details Date: Wednesday, 11 August 2010 Time: 6.00pm (media can set up from 5.15pm) Where: Rooty Hill RSL Waratah Room 55 Sherbrooke Street, Rooty Hill NSW 2766 RSVP: chris@dashpr.com.au Schedule 6.00pm Prime Minister Julia Gillard address – Q&A 7.00pm Break for refreshments 7.30pm Opposition Leader Tony Abbott address – Q&A 8.30pm Close A limited number of seats are available for media representatives for this event. To attend this media call or for further information regarding the Gillard, Abbott Q&A session, please contact Christine Kardashian at Dash PR on 02 8084 0705 / 0416 005 703 or email chris@dashpr.com.au. ________________________________________ MEDIA RELEASE: Rooty Hill RSL to host Gillard, Abbott Q&A session Wednesday, 11 August 2010 from 6.00pm Sydney, Australia, August 9, 2010 – Rooty Hill RSL, Australia’s largest RSL club, will host the highly anticipated people’s forum with Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott. The event will be held on Wednesday, 11 August 2010 from 6.00pm, facilitated by political editor David Speers and telecast live across Australia. Why Rooty Hill RSL? Rooty Hill RSL

Australian PM Tony Abbott

In my opinion, only two paragraphs matter in this long Bloomberg piece that followed the route of one Somali star of the story. Here they are:

At last, one night in the spring of 2015, some men moved him to a rubber boat on the beach. With a hundred other people, he moved out onto the darkened Mediterranean. “We were on the water for 16 hours,” he said. One migrant carried a satellite phone and called an Italian number when the boat started to leak. “Then we were rescued by the Italian Coast Guard,” said Ahmed.

The rescue ships on the Mediterranean—the U.S. Coast Guard, NGO vessels, Eunavfor frigates—try to give some comfort to the people they scoop from the sea. They offer thin, warm stew and a quick medical checkup before delivering them to an Italian port. Ahmed arrived in Sicily in about March 2015. He’s still there, at the CARA Mineo refugee camp, waiting for European asylum.

The traffickers know how to get the invaders ‘rescued.’

I didn’t know that the US Coast Guard was involved in the European invasion, but, if so, it’s time for Trump to pull them back.

Our complete ‘Invasion of Europe’ archive is here.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Texas immigration control citizen activists must lead!

Tucker to World Relief Prez: How can you claim it is Christian charity when you take millions from taxpayers?

Poll: Majority Want Fewer Refugees, Support Donald Trump’s Migration Cuts

‘IT WAS NORMAL’ Captured ISIS militant who ‘killed 500 people and raped 200 Yazidi women’ says he has few regrets

Young Iranian chess grandmaster expelled from national team for not wearing hijab

Austria: Nine Muslim “refugees” gang-rape woman for two hours, ignoring her pleas

SPLC_Hate_Group

VIDEO: Southern Poverty Law Center is a Hate Group

The word “haters” is a very loaded term, and a nonsensical one to boot. The left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), for example, claims to be the ultimate arbiter of “hate,” “haters,” “hate groups,” and “hate crimes.” This 501(c)(3) nonprofit collects handsome sums of money under the pretext of keeping what they call a hatewatch. At the end of 2016 their endowment stood at $302.8 million. That means they have a direct financial interest in painting a picture of a widespread organized hatred in the United States, which “proves” their importance and scares the donors into parting with even more of their money.

As of this writing, the official SPLC list contains 917 “hate groups” – a strikingly high number that makes one wonder just how arbitrary their criteria of “hate” are. A closer look at the numbers and at the SPLC interactive Hate Map shows a bizarre mix of patriot, Christian, and conservative groups, including ACT for America and Center for Security Policy, lumped together with KKK, neo-Nazis, and black separatists.

A “chilling” SPLC chart shows a 197 percent increase in “anti-Muslim hate groups,” with top three featured “extremists” being – wait for it – David Yerushalmi, Robert Spencer, and Frank Gaffney Jr.

This author, who happens to be friends with Robert Spencer and has had the pleasure of shaking hands with David Yerushalmi and Frank Gaffney, can testify that these three gentlemen are highly intelligent, rational, accomplished, and good-natured people without any signs of “extremism” one would expect from such a characterization.

Just what exactly makes one a “hater” in the eyes of the SPLC?

They would argue that a “hater” is a member of a “hate group” who commits “hate crimes” and/or engages in “hate speech.” The key word here is “hate.” Apparently, to make it easier for the SPLC donors to part with their tax-deductible dollars, they are led to believe that America is so full of hateful, one-dimensional psychopaths that if it weren’t for the SPLC’s courageous efforts, the above donors would be hanging from trees, their families raped, and their estates pillaged and burned.

No doubt, the donors only want to protect their families and their communities out of great love. It’s a natural human trait: if you love something, you hate those who endanger the things you love. But here’s the thing: doesn’t the irrational fear and hatred of conservative groups make these SPLC donors “haters” and “conservaphobes”? And doesn’t this make the SPLC itself a “hate group” that engages in “hate speech” against some of America’s most upstanding citizens with whom they disagree ideologically? In fact, doesn’t their effort to mislead people into hating their fellow citizens qualify as a “hate crime”? Why not? By what objective criteria can this be determined?

Is it acceptable for an American citizen, who loves his family and his country, to hate those who mean them harm? Not according to the SPLC, whose “hate watchers” document all such patriotic utterances as “hate speech.” How far does this principle go? Do American soldiers and intelligence operatives who capture and kill Islamic extremists commit “hate crimes” and does that make the U.S. Department of Defense an “anti-Muslim hate group”? Why not?

Curiously enough, the SPLC list of “hate groups” excludes any existing jihadist groups or associations. Neither does it include the anti-Semitic SJP groups with over 126 chapters at American universities. Is the SPLC losing money by not expanding its “hate group” list? Or is it rather saving money by appeasing certain deep-pocketed donors with an anti-Israel agenda?

Even more telling is the absence of violent left-wing groups on that list – especially those responsible for the recent riots in Washington, D.C., Berkeley, and elsewhere. If these don’t qualify as “hate groups” that engage in “hate speech” and commit “hate crimes” then none of these terms has any meaning at all.

One suspects that in the SPLC book of virtues, violent leftist and Islamic extremists are probably listed as “love groups” that engage in “love speech” and commit “love crimes.” It is quite obvious that the SPLC considers itself a “love group.”

That, in the SPLC mind, gives it the moral license to dehumanize conservatives by implying that they have nothing but hatred in their dark, shriveled hearts, and that they have no other motivation than a burning, all-consuming hatred towards women and minorities. How else can we interpret the SPLC’s effort to reduce the entire life’s work and intellectual accomplishments of their fellow citizens to a single disparaging word, “hate”?

This can go both ways, though. Looking at the motivation of leftist groups and their icons, one could say that the SPLC’s portrayal of conservatives is a mere projection of their own condition.
Until now conservatives didn’t call the left “haters” because this was not their game. The best they could do was to quote Matthew 7:5: “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” But that cumbersome phrase doesn’t fit into a 140-character Tweet, unlike the pithy and effective “hate speech.”

But that is changing. Encouraged by President Trump’s example, conservatives have begun to talk back, causing the SPLC “hate counter” to go through the roof.

In SPLC’s own words, all “hate groups” are characterized by “beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.” That perfectly describes the left’s own beliefs and practices, starting with the original attacking and maligning of all business owners, bankers, traders, and their top-level employees (the so-called “bourgeois class”) as parasites and vicious oppressors.

Hasn’t Barack Obama attacked and maligned white blue collar workers in the flyover country as “bitter clingers”? The SPLC definition makes him a hater. Hasn’t Hillary Clinton attacked and maligned a significant portion of Americans as “deplorables”? She must be a hater. Hasn’t the “mainstream” media attacked and maligned Trump supporters as racist, sexist, uneducated bigots? That makes the “mainstream” media a “hate group.”

A wide array of leftist groups is currently busy spreading hatred among Americans by attacking, maligning, dividing, and pitting classes of people against each other: the poor against the rich, women against men, blacks against whites, gays against straights, transgendered against cisgendered, minorities against majorities, blue states against red states, the north against the south, nature against humans… Entire classes of people are being attacked and maligned for their immutable characteristics. The entire human race is being demonized for being a carbon-based life form.

The left has become the largest and most powerful “movement of hate” the world has ever known.

They’ll tell you that “in order to qualify as a ‘hater’ one must be in a position of power,” but such excuses no longer work. The left is the power. Having taken over the media, education, publishing, entertainment, most corporations and charities, all government bureaucracies, and even some churches, let alone what is now called the “deep state,” the left is unabashedly flexing its muscles, trying to show Donald Trump who the real boss is, unwittingly abandoning the old game of pretense and making it known that the left is no longer the underdog and hasn’t been one in a long time.

Though the leftists still cling to their masks of valiant rebels, Americans increasingly see them for who they really are – deposed despots who’ll stop at nothing to get their power back. The true rebels of today are fighting the leftist establishment. The left loves being in control and hates the American people who threaten to take it away.

Here are some quotes from a revered leftist icon, Ernesto “Che” Guevara, whose image is emblazoned on countless T-shirts around American campuses.

To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary. These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. We must create the pedagogy of the paredón [execution wall].

Hatred as an element of the struggle; a relentless hatred of the enemy, impelling us over and beyond the natural limitations that man is heir to and transforming him into an effective, violent, selective and cold killing machine.

Granted, Che was a revolutionary who loved big ideas and hated those who stood in their way. The same applies to some of the leftist leaders in America today. Some other leaders hate the “deplorables” for their refusal to submit to their dictate. But what explains the unprecedented hatred coming from those at the bottom of the leftist food chain, who have neither the big ideas not the power?

The latter include most Democrats, government workers, welfare recipients, establishment media, certain unions, career politicians, crony capitalists, and other beneficiaries of the corrupt redistributive hierarchy that is now endangered by Trump’s presidency. They love their unearned material and emotional comfort; while that great passion stays under the radar, their hatred of anyone who wants to disrupt it is rather conspicuous. You haven’t seen a hater until you’ve tried to take drugs away from a drug addict.

Thus the left has become the reactionary force of today. Paradoxically enough, in an abstract semantic way, the leftists are now the true “conservatives” as they try to “conserve” the existing system that ensures their comforts. At the same time, the traditional “American conservatives” who have been “conserving” the ideas of America’s founding, have now become the true revolutionary vanguard.

Until recently, many conservatives dismissed the left as bumbling incompetent fools, who weren’t smart enough to experience cognitive dissonance.

How is it possible to hold so many mutually exclusive beliefs?

  • To preach tolerance and be so intolerant?
  • To grieve for terror victims and justify terrorism?
  • To stand up for workers and destroy their jobs?
  • To march for peace and defend the militants?
  • To denounce corruption and vote for the corrupt?
  • To espouse non-violence and commit violent acts?
  • To speak of liberties and promote government dictate?
  • To bolster feminism and deride successful women?
  • To cheer gays and aid the gay-bashers in the Middle East?
  • To champion minorities as a group and hold them down as individuals?
  • To care about the children and mutilate their minds?
  • To denounce guns and hire armed bodyguards?
  • To support the troops and side with their murderers?
  • To demand love and be full of hate?

As it turns out, those are not contradictions; they contain a very consistent logic. The key to cracking this logic is a statement attributed to Karl Marx, which, regardless of whether he wrote it or not, is perfectly aligned with the moral philosophy of progressivism:

“The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.”

This also clarifies the Orwellian leftist slogan, “no justice, no peace.” In other words, true love awaits those who join the march towards socialism over the bodies of fallen enemies. With all the talk of love and unity coming from the left, we have yet to hear a call to start loving and stop hating the enemies of socialism. “Love trumps hate” is for suckers. “Trample or be trampled” is more like it. There can be no peace and there can be no love between the left and their opponents.

For more insight into the real meaning of love and hate coming from the left, watch this 5-minute animated video.

LOVE and HATE: Written by Oleg Atbashian. Narrated, animated, and produced by James Lorenz.

EDITORS NOTE: This column was first published in Bombthrowers

hais sues trump

Refugee contractor Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society one of the groups suing Trump Administration

mark-hetfield

Mark Hetfield, CEO Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society.

Today there is a sob story about how some of the refugees expected to be resettled in Delaware by the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) might not be coming. Longtime readers know that Delaware has only received a handful of refugees over the years and I have always suspected that somehow good ol’ might have had a hand in keeping the numbers small (not in my backyard!).

But, near the end of the Delaware news we see that the HIAS is a plaintiff in at least one of the lawsuits against the Trump Administration and I thought it might be a good idea to show you their complaints which seem to center around the idea that they were promised so many refugees (paying clients) this fiscal year and now they might not get them.

See one of our recent reports on HIAS federal funding.

Can you sue the federal government to get grants you were hoping for?

Below are some screenshots from the lawsuit which could be moot by the time I post this!

 

screenshot-348

screenshot-349

screenshot-350

screenshot-351

screenshot-352screenshot-353

Amazing isn’t it!  It is all about their money! (and protecting their Muslim clients). The brief continues about individual cases. Continue reading here if you are interested.

As I said in my previous post about Catholic Charities crying foul, shouldn’t there be a federal law disallowing non-profits receiving federal grants from working against the hand that feeds them?

Click here for our HIAS archive.

export import bank logo

The Ex-Im Bank Is the Heart of the Swamp by Daniel J. Mitchell

I’ve written many times that Washington is both a corrupt city and a corrupting city. My point is that decent people go into government and all too often wind up losing their ethical values as they learn to “play the game.”

I often joke that these are people who start out thinking Washington is a cesspool but eventually decide it’s a hot tub.

During the presidential campaign, Trump said he wanted to “drain the swamp,” which is similar to my cesspool example. My concern is that El Presidente may not understand (or perhaps not even care) that shrinking the size and scope of government is the only effective way to reduce Washington corruption.

In any event, we’re soon going to get a very strong sign about whether Trump was serious. With Republicans on Capitol Hill divided on how to deal with this cronyist institution, Trump basically has the tie-breaking vote on the issue.

In other words, he has the power to shut down this geyser of corporate welfare. But will he?

According the Susan Ferrechio of the Washington Examiner, Trump may choose to wallow in the swamp rather than drain it.

President Trump now may be in favor of the Export-Import Bank, according to Republican lawmakers who met with him privately Thursday, even though Trump once condemned the bank as corporate welfare.

Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center is one on the Ex-Im Bank’s most tenacious opponents, and she’s very worried.

…if the reports are true that Trump has decided to support the restoration of the crony Export-Import Bank’s full lending authority, it would be akin to the president deciding to instead happily bathe in the swamp and gargle the muck. …If true, the news is only “great” for Boeing, GE, and the other major recipients of Ex-Im’s corporate welfare. It is also at odds with his campaign promises since much of the way the program works is that it gives cheap loans — backed by Americans all over the country — to foreign companies in China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. Restoring Ex-Im’s full lending-authority powers is renewing the policy to give cheap loans backed by workers in the Rust Belt to companies like Ryanair ($4 billion in guarantee loans over ten years) and Emirates Airlines ($3.9 billion over ten years) so they can have a large competitive advantage over U.S. domestic airlines like Delta and United. It continued to subsidize the large and prosperous state-owned Mexican oil company PEMEX ($9.7 billion over ten years). Seriously? That’s president Trump’s vision of draining the swamp?

Ugh. It will be very disappointing if Trump chooses corporate welfare over taxpayers.

What presumably matters most, though, is whether a bad decision on the Ex-Im Bank is a deviation or a harbinger of four years of cronyism.

In other words, when the dust settles, will the net effect of Trump’s policies be a bigger swamp or smaller swamp?

The New York Times opined that Trump is basically replacing one set of insiders with another set of insiders, which implies a bigger swamp.

Mr. Trump may be out to challenge one establishment — the liberal elite — but he is installing one of his own, filled with tycoons, Wall Street heavyweights, cronies and a new rank of shadowy wealthy “advisers” unaccountable to anyone but him. …Take first the Goldman Sachs crowd. The Trump campaign lambasted global financiers, led by Goldman, as having “robbed our working class,” but here come two of the alleged miscreants: Gary Cohn, Goldman’s president, named to lead the National Economic Council, and Steven Mnuchin, named as Treasury secretary. …Standing in the rain during Mr. Trump’s inaugural speech, farmers and factory workers, truckers, nurses and housekeepers greeted his anti-establishment words by cheering “Drain the Swamp!” even as the new president was standing knee-deep in a swamp of his own.

I’m skeptical of Trump, and I’m waiting to see whether Gary Cohn and Steven Mnuchin will be friends for taxpayers, so I’m far from a cheerleader for the current administration.

But I also think the New York Times is jumping the gun.

Maybe Trump will be a swamp-wallowing cronyist, but we don’t yet have enough evidence (though a bad decision on Ex-Im certainly would be a very bad omen).

Here’s another potential indicator of what may happen to the swamp under Trump’s reign.

Bloomberg reports that two former Trump campaign officials, Corey Lewandowski and Barry Bennett have cashed in by setting up a lobbying firm to take advantage of their connections.

The arrival of a new president typically means a gold rush for Washington lobbyists as companies, foreign governments, and interest groups scramble for access and influence in the administration. Trump’s arrival promises to be different—at least according to Trump. Throughout the campaign, he lambasted the capital as a den of insider corruption and repeatedly vowed to “drain the swamp,” a phrase second only in the Trump lexicon to “make America great again.” …Trump’s well-advertised disdain for lobbying might seem to augur poorly for a firm seeking to peddle influence. …“Business,” Lewandowski says, “has been very, very good.”

This rubs me the wrong way. I don’t want lobbyists to get rich.

But, to be fair, not all lobbying is bad. Many industries hire “representation” because they want to protect themselves from taxes and regulation. And they have a constitutional right to “petition” the government and contribute money, so I definitely don’t want to criminalize lobbying.

But as I’ve said over and over again, I’d like a much smaller government so that interest groups don’t have an incentive to do either the right kind of lobbying (self-protection) or the wrong kind of lobbying (seeking to obtain unearned wealth via the coercive power of government).

Here’s one final story about the oleaginous nature of Washington.

Wells Fargo is giving a big payout to Elaine Chao, the new Secretary of Transportation.

Chao, who joined Wells Fargo as a board member in 2011, has collected deferred stock options —  a compensation perk generally designed as a long-term retention strategy — that she would not be able to cash out if she left the firm to work for a competitor. Her financial disclosure notes that she will receive a “cash payout for my deferred stock compensation” upon confirmation as Secretary of Transportation. The document discloses that the payments will continue throughout her time in government, if she is confirmed. The payouts will begin in July 2017 and continue yearly through 2021. But Wells Fargo, like several banks and defense contractors, provides a special clause in its standard executive employment contract that offers flexibility for awarding compensation if executives leave the bank to enter “government service.” Such clauses, critics say, are structured to incentivize the so-called “reverse revolving door” of private sector officials burrowing into government. …Golden parachutes for executives leaving firms to enter government dogged several Obama administration officials. Jack Lew, upon leaving Citigroup to join the Obama administration in 2009, was given a cash payout as part of his incentive and retention awards that wouldn’t have been paid if he had left the firm to join a competitor or under ordinary circumstances. But Lew’s Citigroup contract stipulated that there was an exception for leaving to work in a “full time high level position with the U.S. government or regulatory body.” Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Northrop Grumman are among the other firms that have offered special financial rewards to executives who leave to enter government.

This rubs me the wrong way, just as it rubbed me the wrong way when one of Obama’s cabinet appointees got a similar payout.

But the more I think about it, the real question isn’t whether government officials get to keep stock options and other forms of deferred compensation when they jump to government.

What bothers me much more is why companies feel that it’s in their interest to hire people closely connected to government. What value did Jacob Lew bring to Citigroup? What value did Chao bring to Wells Fargo?

I suspect that the answer has a lot to do with financial institutions wanting people who can can pick up the phone and extract favors and information from senior officials in government.

For what it’s worth, I’m not a fan of Lew because he pushed for statism while at Treasury. By contrast, I am a fan of Chao because she was one of the few bright spots during the generally statist Bush years.

But I don’t want a system where private companies feel like they should hire either one of them simply because they have connections in Washington.

I hope that Trump will change this perverse set of incentives by “draining the swamp.” But unless he reduces the size and scope of government, the problem will get worse rather than better.

Republished from International Liberty.

Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review.

soros

VIDEO: Lawmakers probe U.S. embassy funding of George Soros groups

This is skulduggery of the Obama’s State Department. And no enemedia coverage on this subterfuge.

Macedonia: Leading Republican House representative Christopher Smith announced an investigation in the activities of the US Embassy in Macedonia, and the allegations that it has acted in an openly partisan way in the past years, supporting the left wing SDSM party. The call comes after the Embassy failed to respond to a letter signed by Smith and five other GOP representatives, who demanded answers over meddling in domestic politics, but also over Embassy funding for activities of the George Soros led Foundation Open Society Macedonia.

“The US Ambassador should have absolutely no role in forming a Government and taking sides in putting together a coalition. That is not the place of the United States of America or its representative in Skopje. I asked specific questions in this letter. We asked, the group of members of the House of Representatives whether or not there was any collaboration with the center-left parties on when elections should take place. We should have no role in that! We should be talking about free and fair elections, unfettered access to the media, but in no way should we take sides. So, if this Ambassador has taken sides, he should be fired! He should be fired immediately!”, representative Smith told the Macedonian Television correspondent in Washington D.C.

Representative Smith reacts following numerous reports that the US Embassy has extended significant funds to activities of NGO groups associated with the Soros network. According to Smith, if the US Government gives funding to NGO activities, they should go to non-partisan and neutral groups, and not to the Soros led groups for whom there are long-standing allegations that they are coordinating their actions with the social-democratic SDSM party.

Republican lawmakers in Washington have started asking questions about whether U.S. tax dollars also were being used to fund Soros projects in the small, conservative-led country of Macedonia.  Rep. Christopher Smith, R-N.J., led a group of House lawmakers in writing to Ambassador Jess Baily — an Obama appointee — demanding answers. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, also expressed concerns about USAID money going to Soros’ Open Society Foundations as part of a broader concern that the U.S. Embassy has been taking sides in party politics.

“I have received credible reports that, over the past few years, the US Mission to Macedonia has actively intervened in the party politics of Macedonia, as well as the shaping of its media environment and civil society, often favoring groups of one political persuasion over another,” Lee said in his letter.

US Congressman Trent Franks, Republican representative from Arizona), has joined the calls of his colleagues for investigating the role of the US Embassy in Macedonia regarding the allegations about using the US tax dollars for funding NGOs close to George Soros. (FOX)

It’s a suspicious financing of NGOs, something the US Embassy has failed to explain and justify thus far, Franks told the Macedonian Television.

‘We make efforts to promote human rights and freedom, something we believe in. We are grateful for the critical reports coming from your country as we wish to keep nourishing the good relations with Macedonia. We are facing suspicious US Mission’s financing of Soros-linked organizations, whose standards are counter to everything America believes in’ Franks said.

MINA: He pointed out that Macedonia could rely on US support for preserving own freedom and democracy,

Earlier, Republican lawmakers in Washington started asking questions about whether US tax-payers money also was being used to fund Soros projects in Macedonia.

Rep. Christopher Smith, led a group of House lawmakers in writing to Ambassador Jess Baily, appointed by the Barack Obama administration, demanding answers. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, also expressed concerns about USAID money going to Soros’ Open Society Foundations as part of a broader concern that the US Embassy has been taking sides in party politics.

“I have received credible reports that, over the past few years, the US Mission to Macedonia has actively intervened in the party politics of Macedonia, as well as the shaping of its media environment and civil society, often favoring groups of one political persuasion over another,” Lee said in his letter.

Baily lies on Macedonian TV

In an interview with Sitel TV, the US Ambassador was probed on his activities and coordination with the SPO to which he had no response, but afterwards lied that he has provided an answer to the official questions from US Congress on his illegal activities in Macedonia. Members of US Congress just yesterday stated they have not received any response from the US Embassy in Macedonia. Knowing his days are numbered, it’s likely much better for Baily to simply remain silent and await the slow moving US bureaucracy to begin a recall case against him which could take months. Unless Rex Tillerson himself makes a phone call, then he would be removed at once.

US CONGRESSMAN FRANKS SLAMS BAILY: STILL NO EXPLANATION ON FUNDING SOROS NGOS

February 19, 2017, Independent Insider:

The challenge that we’ve seen is some questionable funding that the US mission has made to organization associated to George Soros, which are really the antithesis to many of the things that America believes, said USCongressman and Arizona Republican Trent Franks, in an interview with the Macedonian National Television (MRTV).

Franks has joined the Congress and Senate in criticizing the USEmbassy to Macedonia for financing NGOs related to George Soros’s foundation.

Below we have featured the video interview with Congressman Franks.

RELATED ARTICLE: Obama’s Organizing for Action Partners with Soros-Linked ‘Indivisible’ to Disrupt Trump’s Agenda

drain the clerical swamp

DRAIN THE CLERICAL SWAMP: Until things change, nothing will change!

Last week, in Friday’s Vortex, we asked the question directly to Fr. James Martin: Do you identify as a homosexual? Yes or no?

There are many reasons for that question to be asked, and those reasons criss-cross over theological, spiritual and political lines. Let’s begin our further examination of this question about Fr. Martin with the understanding that there are many priests and bishops and even cardinals who are either secret homosexuals, or at least way too friendly to that agenda. Pope Benedict said so. Pope Francis has said so, and the raw facts of the state of the Church these days say so, not to mention the gigantic homosexual priest sex abuse scandal that cost the Church in the U.S. nearly $3 billion.

Men who identify as homosexuals who go on to get ordained are an extreme danger to the Church and the average Catholic. It’s why the Church forbids them from being ordained in the first place — a rule that many liberal and Church of Nice bishops simply ignore — and they were doing it long before Pope Francis arrived on the scene.

Many bishops today still seem unconcerned about ordaining a man who identifies as homosexual — perhaps because they feel an affinity with them — as long as that man doesn’t appear to display traits which might make him a financial or legal liability down the road for abusing altar boys.

Read more and watch the video on “Drain the Clerical Swamp”…

EDITORS NOTE: This column with videos is by Church Militant.

trump-refugees

Breitbart: Refugees cost taxpayers BILLIONS each year

While bringing refugees to the US from certain parts of the world poses a security risk for America, often forgotten is the huge cost to US taxpayers (federal, state and local) of placing them in communities already loaded with poor people, a practice the mayor of Springfield, Mass. recently pointed out.

domenic-sarno

Democrat Domemic Sarno, Mayor Springfield, Massachusetts.

And, before the refugee industry starts shouting about the fact that some refugees ultimately pay taxes, in reality very few even reach the income threshhold to pay taxes and many who make small amounts of income can actually file to get money back from the government through earned income tax credits while not ever having paid in anything.

The Democrat mayor of Springfield, Mass recently said that the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program concentrates “poverty on top of poverty!

Here is Michael Patrick Leahy at Breitbart in an article entitled: ‘Refugees Will Cost Taxpayers an Estimated $4.1 Billion in FY 2017’ says:

American taxpayers will spend more than $4.1 billion in the 2017 budget to support the 519,018 refugees who have been resettled by the federal government in the United States since October 2009, according to a cost estimate by Breitbart News.

To put that very large number in context, $4.1 billion can buy 10,677 new homes for $384,000 each, which is the average price of a new home sold in the United States in December 2016. Or it could buy 170,124 new autos for $24,100 each, which is the manufacturer’s suggested retail price for a 2017 Chevrolet Malibu.

Even if the Trump administration were to entirely shut down the flow of refugees into the United States in FY 2018 and beyond, the refugees who have already arrived in the country will cost at least another $3.5 billion in 2018, and about $2 billion to $3 billion annually thereafter until FY 2022 and beyond.

Here is one of several useful charts prepared by Leahy. This summarizes the COST PER REFUGEE:

screenshot-323

For more fun with numbers, continue reading here.

Where is Congress?

Donald Trump can cut the numbers arriving in the US while he is in office and can tinker with the regulations, but unless Congress grows a spine and reforms this out-of-control federal program, in 4 or 8 years we will go back to a wide open spigot! There is a limit to what can be done with a phone and a pen as Obama learned the hard way.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

How Illegal Immigration Hurts Black Americans, According to Civil Rights Commissioner

Obama’s Organizing for Action Partners with Soros-Linked ‘Indivisible’ to Disrupt Trump’s Agenda

Malta takes ‘refugees’ from Greece and Italy and passes others on to U.S.

Government demographic studies all wrong on Somali numbers in U.S.

Will new EO slow the Syrian migration to the US?

Nebraska Republican Governor supports security screening, BUT wants refugee admissions to resume ASAP

WSJ explains (sort of) what that March 3rd date means for slowing U.S. refugee admissions

America-Voter-Fraud

VIDEO: Expert Panel — Voter Fraud Is Real

We convened four of the nation’s top experts on election integrity this week to discuss the very timely topic of voter fraud, and you should watch the webcast to understand what’s really going on out there in our election system.

I thought that Cleta Mitchell, partner and political law attorney at Foley & Lardner LLP, summed it up succinctly when she said: “There is a systematic, well-funded, left wing, liberal, progressive and now Democratic Party open effort to dismantle the election administrative system in our country that over the past century grew up to maintain the integrity of our elections.”

The evidence is stunning. Hans von Spakovsky, manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative, and Senior Legal Fellow for the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, said:  “The United States has a long history of voter fraud that has been documented and can make a difference in close a election. Those are the words of the Supreme Court. We started a database and started putting in it cases as we ran across them. All we’re putting in are cases where individuals have been convicted and cases where judge ordered new election. Without much effort on our part, we found 462 case and 742 criminal convictions.”

Our own Robert Popper, Senior Attorney and Head of Election Integrity Project at Judicial Watch, who was in the Justice Department during the Obama Administration, added: “We don’t know the extent of voter fraud activity. The Obama administration made this a political football at the same time the president was giving speeches saying there is no voter fraud.” To the contrary, Popper said, “A Pew Foundation study found 1.8 million deceased registrants on the rolls. Two hundred and twenty six counties in 42 states had more actual voters than registered voters.”

The fourth panelist was Jesse Richman, Political Science & Geography Professor at Old Dominion University, who has been frequently quoted in the press for his study of potential voter fraud. “Many instances of fraud don’t get prosecuted,” he said. “There are limited resources and there’s prosecutorial discretion. If a non-citizen decides to vote it’s difficult to detect. And it doesn’t take much illegal voting to change an outcome.”

This panel comes on the heels of President Trump’s announcement that he wants a national voter fraud investigation. From our perspective this would be the most important civil rights investigation in a generation. These are votes stolen from Americans voting lawfully. If we don’t have clean elections all these debates about policy are for naught.

We have 20 million plus aliens of age who could vote. The left says just a few are voting, Trump says 3.5 million. Obviously the number is somewhere in between. Federal officials could figure this out – probably within weeks.

Whatever the Trump administration does, however, we at Judicial Watch are going to be active – in terms of investigations, lawsuits, and education – on behalf of election integrity.

I encourage you to watch the entire hour-long panel discussion:

stab in the back

With Flynn leaks, the White House ‘shadow warriors’ draw first blood

The rogue weasels have struck. Terrified that Lieutenant General Michael T. Flynn would tear them out root and branch, they connived and colluded, anonymously of course, to leak highly-sensitive intelligence information to destroy Flynn before he could destroy them.

This type of operation is not new. I wrote a whole book about it in 2007. I called them, the “shadow warriors.”

Then as now, the shadow warriors excelled at covert operations. After all, they lived in the darkness in a universe of lies.

Their technique “involved deep penetration of a hostile regime by planting a network of agents at key crossroads of power, where they could steal secrets and steer policy by planting disinformation, cooking intelligence, provocation, and outright lies.”

As I wrote at the time, this effort “involved sophisticated political sabotage operations, aimed at making regime leaders doubt their own judgment and question the support of their subordinates… It was war — but an intelligence war, played behind the scenes, aimed at confusing, misleading, and ultimately defeating the enemy. Its goal was nothing less than to topple the regime in power, by discrediting its rulers.”

These are powers and skills most Americans ascribe to our nation’s clandestine intelligence services, right? Don’t we want to have spies at the heart of the Iranian Supreme Leader’s entourage? Or planted next to whichever Kim is ruling his North Korean hermit kingdom? Isn’t that the type of capability we spending more than $80 billion a year to develop?

Alas, none of those very real targets is the target of these rogue weasels. Their target is the president of the United States.

flynn 1

The shadow warriors began leaking even before President Trump was sworn into office.

“According to a senior U.S. government official, Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29… What did Flynn say, and did it undercut the U.S. sanctions?” Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrote on January 12.

Later, news reports surfaced with more information about the calls, quoting “three sources familiar with the matter.”

But that wasn’t enough. To hound Flynn out of office required a full court press, and so last week the rogue weasels came out of the shadows and all began talking to the same reporters.

By the time these scribes had assembled their indictment (for that’s what it was), they now had heard the story corroborated from “nine current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls,” and who spoke, of course, “on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.”

In so doing, they exposed a sensitive, ongoing signals intelligence operation to intercept the electronic communications of the Russian ambassador. Who cares, right, if your goal is to sabotage the president?

flynn 2

What sets off this particular episode of the shadow warriors is the willingness of former top officials to leave their fingerprints behind.

Call it, payback. It began with Sally Yates, the Obama administration deputy attorney general who the Trump transition team improvidently named as acting attorney general while awaiting the confirmation of Senator Jeff Sessions — the same Sally Yates who was summarily fired by President Trump when she refused to support and defend his executive order calling for a temporary moratorium on immigration from seven Middle East countries.

Yates “informed the Trump White House late last month that she believed Michael Flynn had misled senior administration officials about the nature of his communications with the Russian ambassador to the United States,” the Washington Post wrote on Monday.

The scribes added: “In the waning days of the Obama administration, James R. Clapper Jr., who was the director of national intelligence, and John Brennan, the CIA director at the time, shared Yates’s concerns and concurred with her recommendation to inform the Trump White House.”

Brennan and Clapper knew they were on the way out, and so arguably had nothing to lose by going public. But clearly, both intelligence chiefs also knew they had seeded their agencies with loyalists — career officials who they could rely on to leak sensitive information to them in the future that would embarrass or confuse President Trump.

Government officials take an oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies — foreign and domestic.

No one says you have to like the president or his policies. But senior officials are expected to serve him and carry out lawful orders.

When domestic enemies rear their head and seek to undermine the president and his lawful orders, that’s called sedition.

General Flynn made the mistake — perhaps inadvertently, as he says – of not telling the truth about these calls to the Vice President. That is a mistake.

But the leakers disclosed to the public — and our enemies — sensitive and classified information. That is illegal.

It’s time for the Attorney General to launch a thorough investigation to unmask the leakers, before the damage gets worse.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Hill.

brown

Georgetown Islamic studies professor: Slavery is Moral, Rape is Normal

Georgetown professor jonathan brown

Jonathan Brown, Georgetown University professor of Islamic Studies and Muslim Christian Understanding

IPT News in a column titled “Prof’s Slavery/Sexual Consent Comments Become Georgetown’s Latest Outrage” reports:

A Georgetown University Islamic civilization professor’s lecture on slavery, asserting that it isn’t “morally evil to own somebody” and minimizing the need for sexual content from a spouse is bringing the school renewed criticism and scrutiny.

Jonathan Brown’s remarks came last week during a lecture at the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), an organization Brown works closely with, and one that law enforcement has long suspected of being a Muslim Brotherhood front.

People obsess too much over the word “slavery,” Brown said, when what matters are the conditions, whether people were treated well or harshly.

In fact, “I don’t think you can talk about slavery in Islam until you realize that there is no such thing as slavery,” he said. “As a category, as a conceptual category that exists throughout state and time trans-historically, there’s no such thing as slavery.”

Brown is a Georgetown associate professor and the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Chair of Islamic Civilization in the School of Foreign Service.

Read more…

These comments support Islam’s view of slavery and dominance over women.

David Wood discusses the issue of slavery in Islam in his video “The Islamic View of Black Slaves.”

For more on slavery in Islam, be sure to watch “Muhammad: The White Prophet with Black Slaves

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Trump Terrorism Adviser Says War on ISIS About Ideology

Defense Leaders Agree: US Military Readiness Is at a Dangerous Low

#BLM Protester Who Assaulted DeVos from Entering School is Actually Afghani Refugee, Charged With Crime

TruthfeedFeaturePage

PROMISES TO KEEP: The ‘Law and Order’ President hits the ground running

During his campaign for the presidency Donald Trump frequently disdainfully scowled when he spoke about how most politicians were “All talk and no action.”

Candidate Trump promised that immigration would be a primary focus of his administration.

President Trump has indeed focused on multiple aspects of the immigration crisis that go well beyond building a wall along the U.S./Mexican border.

His selection of Senator Jeff Sessions to be his Attorney General was the best possible choice for this important position.

Sessions had chaired the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest.

Consider that on February 25, 2016 that subcommittee conducted a hearing on the topic, “The Impact of High-Skilled Immigration on U.S. Workers.”

When the Obama administration conducted meetings for “Stakeholders” on the immigration issue corporate leaders were invited to attend as were immigration lawyers representing illegal aliens and special interest groups that advocate for illegal aliens.

However, no one in attendance represented the “average American.”

Even the union leaders representing the Border Patrol, ICE agents and the adjudications officers were barred from participating in those meetings.

On February 9, 2017 President Trump held a news conference in the Oval Office to conduct a public swearing in ceremony of Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Immediately after Vice President Pence swore in Jeff Sessions, President Trump signed three executive orders:

  1. Presidential Executive Order on Enforcing Federal Law with Respect to Transnational Criminal Organizations and Preventing International Trafficking
  2. Presidential Executive Order on Preventing Violence Against Federal, State, Tribal, and Local Law Enforcement Officers
  3. Presidential Executive Order on a Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety

President Trump promised to be the “Law and Order” President and he has certainly hit the ground running.

His executive order to prevent violence against law enforcement officers is tangible evidence of his keeping his promise to look out for law enforcement officers.

Let’s next consider how he articulated the purpose for his executive order on enforcing federal laws to attack transnational criminal organizations:

Section 1.  Purpose.  Transnational criminal organizations and subsidiary organizations, including transnational drug cartels, have spread throughout the Nation, threatening the safety of the United States and its citizens.  These organizations derive revenue through widespread illegal conduct, including acts of violence and abuse that exhibit a wanton disregard for human life.  They, for example, have been known to commit brutal murders, rapes, and other barbaric acts.

These groups are drivers of crime, corruption, violence, and misery.  In particular, the trafficking by cartels of controlled substances has triggered a resurgence in deadly drug abuse and a corresponding rise in violent crime related to drugs.  Likewise, the trafficking and smuggling of human beings by transnational criminal groups risks creating a humanitarian crisis.  These crimes, along with many others, are enriching and empowering these organizations to the detriment of the American people.

A comprehensive and decisive approach is required to dismantle these organized crime syndicates and restore safety for the American people.

That statement underscores his understanding of how important immigration law enforcement and border security are to combatting transnational criminals.

What is unfathomable is how many politicians who have to understand this issue have opposed Trump at every opportunity.  Only they can explain their conduct.  However, I have to conclude that those who would oppose President Trump’s efforts to secure our nation’s borders and effectively enforce our immigration laws are siding with the cartels and transnational criminal organizations.

This certainly apply to mayors of “Sanctuary Cities” and governors who want to create “Sanctuary States.”

Sanctuary Cities should be called “Magnet Cities” because they attract criminal aliens including members of transnational gangs, fugitives and international terrorists.

The politicians’ claims that by shielding vulnerable illegal aliens from immigration law enforcement they would be willing to come forward when they fall victim to criminals is a blatant lie that ignores that Sanctuary Cities Endanger – National Security and Public Safety.

Sanctuary policies attract more violent criminals who are likely victimize members of the ethnic immigration communities.  However the false narrative serves to vilify valiant ICE agents who go in harms way every day they report for duty, seeking to protect national security and innocent lives.

Statutorily, U Visas are available for victims of human trafficking and other crimes if they come forward and assist with law enforcement efforts to apprehend the criminals.  Similar visa programs are available for illegal aliens who provide assistance to criminal investigations.

If those duplicitous politicians really wanted to assist illegal alien victims of crimes they would bring them to immigration offices and urge them to cooperate with the investigations of their criminal assailants.

That way everyone would win.

But then the politicians would not get their campaign contributions from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a host of special interest groups, and who know who else, who are literally and figuratively making out like bandits by exploiting the immigration system.

In continuing to consider Trump’s executive order on trafficking I call your attention to two of the key elements of this executive order are proverbial “music to my ears.”

(e)  develop strategies, under the guidance of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, to maximize coordination among agencies — such as through the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF), Special Operations Division, the OCDETF Fusion Center, and the International Organized Crime Intelligence and Operations Center — to counter the crimes described in subsection (a) of this section, consistent with applicable Federal law; and

(f)  pursue and support additional efforts to prevent the operational success of transnational criminal organizations and subsidiary organizations within and beyond the United States, to include prosecution of ancillary criminal offenses, such as immigration fraud and visa fraud, and the seizure of the implements of such organizations and forfeiture of the proceeds of their criminal activity.

I speak from extensive experience when I say that this task force approach to identifying, investigating and dismantling international drug trafficking organizations is extremely effective.  I spent the final ten years of my career with the INS as a Senior Special Agent assigned to the OCDETF program in New York City.

As for immigration fraud and visa fraud, these two issues are elements of “Extreme vetting” that Trump promised when he campaigned for the presidency.

On May 18, 2004 I testified at a hearing by the House Immigration Subcommittee on the topic of Pushing the Border Out on Alien Smuggling: New Tools and Intelligence Initiatives that addressed the issues of visa fraud and also the strategy of providing visas for illegal alien informants.

On May 20, 1997 I testified before the House Immigration Subcommittee on the topic, Visa Fraud And Immigration Benefits Application Fraud.

That hearing was predicated on two deadly terror attacks carried out in 1993 at the CIA and first World Trade Center Bombing.

In one way or another, all of those involved with those attacks had gamed the visa system and/or the immigration benefits program.

The Clinton administration’s failures to address these vulnerabilities of visa fraud and immigration fraud that enabled these two deadly attacks to be conducted on American soil literally and figuratively, left the door open to the deadly terror attacks of 9/11.

The report, “9/11 and  Terrorist Travel – Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” included this excerpt found on pages 46 and 47:

In addition, Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the attack, and Ahmad Ajaj, who was able to direct aspects of the attack despite being in prison for using an altered passport, traveled under aliases using fraudulent documents. The two of them were found to possess five passports as well as numerous documents supporting their aliases: a Saudi passport showing signs of alteration, an Iraqi passport bought from a Pakistani official, a photo-substituted Swedish passport, a photo-substituted British passport, a Jordanian passport, identification cards, bank records, education records, and medical records.6

“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.

In the years since the terror attacks of 9/11 more terror attacks were carried out in the United States while other attacks, for one reason or another, failed.  Most of those attacks involved aliens who committed visa fraud and/or immigration fraud.

Trump’s executive orders address our immigration vulnerabilities and Attorney General Sessions will provide the legal horsepower.

All Americans should be thrilled that this President is keeping his promises.

RELATED ARTICLE: Federally-funded refugee resettlement contractor, HIAS, organized NY rally against Trump

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.