Who Pays for the Arms Trade Treaty? You Do

The nations that ratified a global Arms Trade Treaty are gathering for their third annual conference this week in Geneva, Switzerland. As always, this conference features many nations declaring unwavering commitment and support for the treaty, which purports to require nations to regulate the conventional arms trade.

What the Arms Trade Treaty actually does is give left-wing activists a platform to mount campaigns against U.S. and British arms sales, while ignoring Iran, Russia, China, Syria, and all the other dictatorships.

And how many of those nations meeting in Geneva are willing to put their money where their mouth is?

Not many, it turns out.

And yet the United States, which hasn’t even ratified the Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT, pays more to administer it than any other nation except Japan. More on that later.

A total of 130 nations, including the U.S., so far have signed the treaty, according to the secretariat, or administrative office. Of these, 92—not including the U.S.—also have ratified the pact, making them “states parties.”

In 2015, at the first annual Conference of States Parties in Cancun, Mexico, the nations that had ratified the treaty agreed that their annual get-togethers, and the budget of the administrative office, would be paid for by national contributions from states parties, other signatories, and observer nations.

Contributions are assessed according to a modified United Nations formula. Otherwise, many poorer nations would owe so little that it would not be worthwhile to collect their contributions.

You might think all that agreement would be worth something. Well, you’d be wrong.

We now have two years of data on the Arms Trade Treaty budget available, and here’s what it looks like: In 2015-16, assessments went to 124 nations, but only 66 (or 53 percent) actually paid. So far in 2017, assessments went to 121 nations, but only 63 (or 52 percent) actually paid.

So administrators of the Arms Trade Treaty have assessed a total of $2.04 million in contributions, but received only $1.67 million, for a deficit of $370,000, or 18 percent.

And the shortfall is growing: The payment rate in 2017 to date is down 5 percent from the previous year, and the shortfall is $60,000 larger this year than last.

Of the 137 nations assessed either or both years, 77 are behind on their payments. Of these, 40 were assessed and failed to pay in both years, meaning they are unlikely ever to meet their arrears.

So even if the payment rate picks up over the rest of 2017, a significant minority of Arms Trade Treaty states parties and signatories will still (if not forever) be behind on their bills.

The performance of the states parties, the nations that ratified the treaty, is particularly remarkable.

Of the 86 nations assessed for 2017, only 49 (or ­­­­57 percent) paid up. That was down from the previous year, when 62 percent did so. All of the nations are legally committed by ratifying the treaty, and virtually all voted in favor of it in the U.N. General Assembly in 2013.

The simple fact is that only a bare majority of the nations that are party to the Arms Trade Treaty are willing to do anything more than utter sweet nothings in support of it.

So how is the treaty getting by? The answer is clear: by relying on a few big contributors to pay the bills. That’s the reason the failure of a near-majority of nations to get out their checkbooks hasn’t bankrupted the treaty (yet).

Together, over half the administrative budget, $860,000, has been paid by Japan ($217,000), the U.S. ($187,000), Germany ($145,000), France ($114,000), the U.K. ($106,000), and Italy ($91,000).

Yes, you read that right. Even though the U.S. has not ratified the Arms Trade Treaty, even though Congress never has appropriated any money for this purpose, and even though Congress repeatedly has banned funding to implement the treaty, the U.S. is paying $93,000 into the treaty each year, or about 11 percent of the entire budget. Only Japan pays a greater share of the expenses than America does.

By the standards of the U.S. government, $187,000 is not much money. But it’s incredible that the executive branch could commit to pay into the treaty without congressional sanction, actually make the payments, and do so in the face of congressional opposition.

It’s equally incredible that the Trump administration hasn’t put a stop to this folly by withholding all U.S. payments except for costs incurred by the U.S. delegation attending the Conference of States Parties.

Right now, America is paying the tabs of quite a few other nations—which, unlike us, actually are parties to the treaty. If they like the Arms Trade Treaty so much, they should pay their own bills.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Ted Bromund

Ted R. Bromund, Ph.D., is the Margaret Thatcher senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Read his research. Twitter: 

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.
Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.
Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.
Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.
The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.
Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.
Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.
You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.
Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of a poster, like this, which decorated the August 2015 gathering of nations behind the Arms Trade Treaty in Cancun, Mexico. (Photo: Victor Ruiz Garcia/Reuters/Newscom)

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

Decorated Combat Commander’s Career destroyed due to ‘political correctness’, case goes to Supreme Court

ANN ARBOR, MI—On Monday, September 11, 2017, the Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari asking the United States Supreme Court to correct the injustice done to Lieutenant Colonel (“LTC”) Christopher Downey after the United States Army violated its own regulations, effectively ending his stellar career.

In a footnote, the U. S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that the Army applied the incorrect burden of proof to LTC Downey’s case, contrary to its own regulations.  However, it shrugged off this fundamental error. LTC Downey’s petition to the Supreme Court points out that the error was so manifest and so serious that nearly every other appellate court in the land would have required the Army’s final review board to rehear his case.

TMLC attorney, Jay Combs, the principle author of the Petition to the Supreme Court, commented: “The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals threw away the exceptional career of Lieutenant Colonel Downey in a footnote.  The issue that the Fourth Circuit so cavalierly disposed of in a footnote was so serious that nearly every other circuit in the United States, on this issue alone, would have reversed the entire Army Board process without the need to even address any of the other issues in the case.  Most circuits recognize that the rule of law is dealt a crippling blow if an agency does not have to follow its own regulations.”

Combs was assisted by attorney Erin Kuenzig, who had handled the District Court and Fourth Circuit arguments.

LTC Downey’s troubles began in 2012 when he made the “politically incorrect” effort to prevent two lesbian female officers under his command from violating Army regulations regarding public displays of affection. The two officers, a Captain and a Lieutenant, were in uniform at a formal military ball and were on the dance floor engaged in prolonged French kissing, publicly taking off each other’s uniform jackets, and other intimate and salacious conduct.  Once he became aware of the situation, LTC Downey took immediate action to stop the inappropriate behavior.  He also attempted to prevent other soldiers from photographing and videotaping the officers’ inappropriate conduct, which he believed would embarrass the unit as well as the offending officers. In the process of lowering the camera of an enlisted soldier, the camera accidentally made contact with the soldier’s nose. As a result, despite the recommendations of LTC Downey’s immediate superior, General Mark Milley ordered an investigation and a subsequent Article 15 hearing where he acted as the presiding officer on charges of assault consummated by battery and violation of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

The Article 15 proceeding, which lasted approximately 5 hours, was more concerned about offending homosexual advocacy groups than the guilt or innocence of LTC Downey. General Milley found LTC Downey guilty of the charge of assault consummated by battery. LTC Downey was issued reprimands for both violations, relieved of command, issued a negative Officer Evaluation Report, and removed from the attendance list of the National War College.

A formal board hearing was convened to review the same matters to decide whether LTC Downey should be retained in the Army. The formal board, unlike General Milley in the Article 15 proceedings, conducted an exhaustive adversarial hearing in which the Army was represented by an attorney and LTC Downey was also represented by counsel.  The hearing board listened to the testimony of multiple witnesses, reviewed evidence, and listened to the arguments of government and defense attorneys. Afterwards, the formal board unanimously determined the allegations against LTC Downey were not supported by even a preponderance of the evidence.

Despite the unanimous decision of the formal board of officers, the prior contrary findings of the Article 15 hearing remained a part of LTC Downey’s official record, destroying the further progression of his stellar career and tarnishing his good name.

Downey was well on his way to becoming a high-ranking officer in the Army, as evidenced by the glowing remarks from his commanding officers. In early April of 2012, Downey received a prestigious award recognizing him and the unit that he commanded as the best aviation battalion in the United States Army. He has been awarded 3 Bronze Stars and 7 Air Medals, one with a “V” device for valor in combat. The Air Medal with “V” device was awarded for valor he displayed on May 25, 2011, in “complete disregard for his own safety while initiating multiple engagements against an enemy with superior fields of fire over friendly forces.  His actions were decisive in saving the lives of soldiers on the ground.”

His performance reviews uniformly painted a picture of one of the Army’s most skilled and accomplished combat aviators.

Former Secretary of the Army, Louis Caldera, wrote of Downey:

“As former SecArmy I had the honor of working with strong officers daily, Chris Downey stands out among them. A clearly superior performance by a leader with phenomenal potential.”

White House Military Office Operations Director, Marcy Steinke-Fike:

“He is clearly in the top 1% of the handpicked officers of the White House Military Office Operations Directorate and in all of the Lieutenant Colonel’s I have known in my 20 years of military service. Chris planned the most sensitive and complex missions in support of the President, Vice President, First Lady and other White House delegations. Absolutely unlimited potential – a future General Officer!”

Commanding General John F. Campbell:

“Lieutenant Colonel Chris Downey’s performance in combat has been spectacular, he is my best aviation task force commander among the top three out of 70+ commanders that I senior rate. Strong General Officer potential.”  

The Administrative Board Applied the Wrong Burden Of Proof

In order to remedy the injustice caused by the erroneous Article 15, LTC Downey appealed to the Army Board for the Correction of Military Records (“ABCMR”). Unfortunately for LTC Downey, the ABCMR applied the wrong burden of proof to his case. The Board is governed by 32 C.F.R. § 581.3(e)(2) which provides: “Burden of proof. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.” (emphasis added). Rather than holding LTC Downey to the correct burden of proof, the Board held him to the much more difficult burden of proving an error or injustice by clear and convincing evidence.  Finding that LTC Downey had not met this illegitimately high standard, the Board denied him relief.

Richard Thompson, President and chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center commenting on what happened to LTC Downey, stated: “There is no question in my mind that Lieutenant Colonel Downey was a victim of the military’s efforts to appease homosexual advocacy groups. As a result of political correctness gone amuck, America lost an outstanding combat commander who had given his country over 24 years of loyal service.”

Click here to read the Petition

How a Fraudulent Guardianship/Conservatorship Commences and Continues

This column examines conditions in Florida but the same problems exist in many states.

Step One: Eminent danger —The initial court petition

The professional guardian [or conservator], with the assistance of her attorneys, commences the embezzlement process by filing an emergency petition in the probate courts to become the “emergency” “temporary” guardian.

Florida guardianship statutes (Chapter 744), like many states, require that there be an “eminent danger” in order for the petitioner to become the “emergency temporary guardian.”

The guardian oftentimes fabricates the “eminent danger” by stating that there is a neighbor or relative or stranger who is taking advantage of the elderly person. In some cases, this may be a somewhat true statement, albeit an exaggerated claim. In most cases, upon further investigation, there has been no “eminent danger”whatsoever.

Step One takes away all of the victim’s civil rights and therefore gives the guardian and her attorneys full control over the victim and his or her assets.

Step Two: The examining committee

Once the professional guardian has taken control of the victim on a temporary basis (the emergency temporary guardianship order expires in 60 days [in Florida]) an examining committee of three medical “professionals” steps in to verify the allegation of mental incapacity. Oftentimes, the victim is administered a cocktail of psychotropic drugs to enhance the claims that he or she is incompetent.

“Ward” Elizabeth Faye Arnold, for instance, stated, “They put me on drugs that made me feel very drunk. I couldn’t even remember my name. Now that they have all my money, they don’t medicate me that way anymore.” One of the three medical professionals must be a psychiatrist and the victim is generally always found to be mentally incapacitated. The guardian usually has her own set of medical professionals that she utilizes on a regular basis. For instance, one professional guardian is married to a medical doctor and therefore has an entire fleet of medical professional associates available to her.

Back in the courtroom, soon after the three medical professionals file their reports, there is a capacity hearing. The victim seldom is permitted to attend this hearing. The judge quickly scans the medical examinations that “verify” that the victim is “mentally and/or physically incapacitated.” The judge then signs an order that gives the professional guardian full and permanent legal authority over the victim’s person and property.

Step Three: The “feast” begins

Property is sold for below market value and the deeds switch and switch several times. (kick backs are suspected). Bank accounts, annuities, stocks, and Certificates of Deposit are liquidated into one big guardianship account.

Out of this large bank account, the guardian is expected to pay all the victim’s, but bills oftentimes go unpaid.

How the victim’s money is spent

1. Attorney’s fees and guardianship fees for “services rendered to ‘Benefit’ the ‘Ward.”

A large part of the victim’s money is spent on attorney’s fees and guardian’s fees. As long as there is ample money in the victim’s guardianship account, the guardian and her attorney cohorts will file motion upon motion after motion to the courts, such as:

  • A motion to sell the ward’s furniture.
  • A motion to liquidate stocks and Certificates of Deposit.
  • A motion to transfer the ward to a different nursing home.
  • A motion to sell the ward’s homesteaded house.
  • A motion to open up a safety deposit box.

Each motion can cost the “ward” in excess of $2,000 because the motion must be written, researched, filed, and then a hearing is scheduled. Oftentimes, the motions cost more than what is being petitioned for.

2. Puffing the monthly budget

The guardian frequently doubles the monthly expenses then keeps the remainder.

3. Selling the “Ward’s” personal belongings for below market value then pocketing the difference

The guardian underestimates the amount of the sale of personal items, such as jewelry, paintings, and antiques, for the purpose of the court record inventories, then is free to keep the difference. There is little and often no court oversight.

4. Bills are simply not paid

Often times, the bills of the “ward” are not even paid. When the “ward” dies, the guardian simply places an ad in an obscure newspaper, if there is money left for an estate to be probated.Assuming creditors do not see the ad and file a claim against the estate within 30 days, their claims are forever barred and so the guardian was able to fool creditors and abscond with the money and not have to pay any of the bills. If she is caught, she simply pays the bills of the creditors who caught her. This frequently includes Medicaid.

5. Accounting is not accurate

The guardian can claim a much lower amount of liquid assets than what the victim is actually worth and then pocket the rest.

  • Julie Sweeten–$400,000.00 estate with an alleged $80,000.00 remaining when Sweeten died. More than $300,000.00 was spent in three years.
  • Louise A. Falvo started off with approximately $800,000.00. Two months into the guardianship, her guardian filed an accounting with the court stating that Falvo was worth only $672,000.00. Shortly thereafter, a bank statement from Bank of America stated that Falvo now had $449,000 after all accounts had been liquidated. So, approximately $200,000 turned up missing.

6. Fake wills

In this scenario, the guardian claimed that Julie Sweeten desired to leave her estate to her bank. A forged will was entered into the record. Wachovia Bank trustee was then given $80,000 from the uncontested, probated estate.

Step Four: The mysterious deaths

Once the funds have been spent, the “ward” oftentimes suddenly dies.

The “ward” dies when there is still plenty of money — if a huge probate battle can commence, thereby further enriching the attorneys and guardian.

Examples:

  • Carlisle Bosworth died soon after his $250,000 had been spent.
  • James Deaton — $5 million, three years in probate — $3 million in attorney’s fees with a pittance finally paid out to his family members.
  • Louise A. Falvo — suspected morphine sulfate overdose as cause of death; huge probate battle to enrich attorneys ensued even though her bank accounts were all Pay On Death/In Trust For (POD/ITF) to her daughter, so probate should have been completely unnecessary.

NASGA, National Association to Stop Guardianship Abuse, has adopted a three part theme to succinctly describe the legally sanctioned exploitative guardianship process:

Isolate, Medicate, Take the Estate.”

Predatory guardians: How courts are allowing professional guardians/conservators to rob your assets

Examples:

  • Marie Long was worth $1.3 million when she suffered a stroke and came under the “protection” of a professional guardian. Three short years later, she is penniless and subsisting off of a meager social security pension and Medicaid.
  • Louise A. Falvo, 91, had accumulated nearly one million dollars when she was placed under a guardianship that was commenced with a forgery of her daughter’s signature by a probate attorney. Within three months, Louise A. Falvo was dead. Two and a half years later, the guardianship remains open. The guardian and her attorneys have, to date, been awarded by the judge more than $350,000.00 of Falvo’s estate — “to benefit the ‘ward'” — who is deceased.
  • Corretta Brown was placed under guardianship when the Department of Children and Families discovered that her home was uninhabitable. Today, Brown is deceased, her assets have disappeared (more than $100,000), and all of her debts — totaling more than $75,000 in nursing home costs, remain unpaid. The professional guardian, it was discovered, was not licensed and has since fled the state of Florida with Brown’s assets.
  • Marie Sandusky signed a power of attorney to guarantee that her beloved daughter, and not her rejected son, would manage her financial affairs and health care directives. Today, Sandusky has a court-appointed guardian who has spent more than $300,000 of Sandusky’s money in attorney’s fees. The reason? Sandusky’s rebuked son hired an attorney and together they made false allegations against Sandusky’s beloved daughter. As the “wheels of justice” move forward, Sandusky’s money is legally used to fund the frivolous feud.
  • Debra Duffield, 58, has been under the control of a professional guardian for the last four years. She was only 54-years old when an involuntary guardianship was petitioned against her by a professional guardian who gleefully discovered (tipped off by a social worker) Duffield’s substantive worth when Duffield was hospitalized for anorexia and a broken hip. During the last four years, the vast majority of her assets have been converted to attorney and guardian fees. Duffield, who was diagnosed as merely bipolar, had allegedly been financially exploited by a friend — hence, the rationale for the guardianship. She is confined to a nursing home without rehabilitation. She sits in a bed, smelling of urine and fecal matter, watching television. The guardian and her attorney regularly and steadfastly bill her account for merely “reading her file” or checking on the latest whereabouts of her former girlfriend. Soon, Duffield, who once owned a fabulous house complete with expensive antiques, valuable imported rugs and fine paintings, will be penniless.

When you hear the word “professional guardian,” what do you think? Do you think of someone who protects the elderly? Assists them with their daily needs? Guarantees they are protected from financial exploitation and physical neglect?

Think again.

The pristine image of professional court-appointed guardians who allegedly protect the elderly is being challenged. Grass root organizations, such as the National Association to Stop Guardian Abuse (N.A.S.G.A.) and Advocates for National Guardianship Ethics and Reform (A.N.G.E.R.) are claiming that professional guardians, their attorneys — and even judges — need to be watched.

May 25, 2010. Latifa Ring of Elder Abuse Victims Advocates addressed the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security stating, “… exploitation in guardianships is rampant. It is largely kept out of the public eye under the guise of ‘protection.'”

“Family members are portrayed as “Osama Bin Laden” or the devil incarnate,” David Newman said, a guardian reform advocate.

These “unproven and often false allegations” commence a flurry of legal activity that can only be likened to Charles Dickinson’s Bleakhouse. While family members are forced to spend thousands of dollars defending themselves against the false accusations, these same accusers — oftentimes, the professional guardians– handsomely profit from the legal havoc they create.

The guardians need to be watched

Take, for example, the recently widely publicized case of Clay Greene and Harold Scull, a gay couple who had cogently cohabitated together for more than 20 years, rendering mutual durable powers of attorney, wills, and other legal declarations upon one another. When Scull, 89, unexpectedly fell onto a stone patio, paramedics were called and the local sheriff department hastily alleged that Greene had intentionally shoved Scull to the ground. Yet, despite the fact that all charges were subsequently dropped, the public guardianship office for Sonoma County used the already disproved physical abuse allegation to commence an involuntary guardianship against Scull. Scull was removed to a nursing home, isolated him from Greene, and the couple’s jointly owned property which included valuable paintings, expensive Persian rugs, antiques, silverware, jewelry, and real estate — was sold for far less than appraised value — at least according to the court records. It was later discovered that the items had been sold for far more by the public guardianship office.

These types of guardianship irregularities have sparked a guardianship task force Special Committee on Aging, which reported, “…guardianship…has the potential of harming older adults rather than protecting them…The…continuing reports of the failure of courts…to prevent [financial] exploitation of incapacitated adults by their guardians have long been of concern to this Committee.”

Greene sued the public guardianship office who settled with him for approximately $600,000.00 just days before trial. Amy Todd-Gher, Greene’s attorney, stated:

“This victory sends an unmistakable message that all elders must be treated with respect and dignity…and that those who mistreat elders must be held accountable. [But] Even as we celebrate this victory…we are deeply troubled that the Sonoma [County] continues to refuse to take responsibility for their egregious misconduct…We urge every citizen…to demand more oversight of the Public Guardian’s office. They need to be watched.”

An alarmingly common practice

Is elder financial exploitation by professional guardians and their attorneys a commonplace occurrence? According to John Caravella, a former detective and office manager for Seniors vs. Crime, a special project of the Florida Attorney General’s Office, Gainesville, Florida, the answer is “Yes.”

Caravella became simultaneously intrigued and disturbed by the court-sanctioned practices of professional guardians on their “wards” (the legal term dubbed to those who have lost all of their civil rights under court-mandated guardianship) when one of his neighbors mysteriously disappeared shortly after receiving an inheritance of more than a quarter of a million dollars. The neighbor, referred to as “Adelle” in Caravella’s book, Marked for Destruction, had been falsely induced by a stock broker, whom she had consulted about her fledgling inheritance money, to sign papers that authorized a professional guardian and her attorney to manage Adele’s finances — if she should become mentally incapacitated. Within a few weeks, the guardian and her attorney petitioned the court alleging that Adele was not competent to manage her own affairs. The court authorized that she be stripped of all of her civil rights and placed in a nursing home. Soon thereafter, Adele’s recently acquired $250,000+ was quickly consumed by the attorney and guardian for “professional services” fees. And Adele soon passed away.

How it all begins

Kevin Gallagher had a trusted, longstanding pact with his beloved parents: When the time was “right,” he would make arrangements for their safe return to Maine where they would reside in assisted living. That “right time” came unexpectedly one day after Sunday services when Robert and Elsa Gallagher became slightly disoriented in traffic when they happen chanced upon orange cones in a road detour. Kevin and Lisa, delighted to hear that their parents were ready to journey home, began making all of the necessary arrangements. Kevin even phoned his estranged Orlando-based sister, Lori, and asked if she would simply “telephone” Mom and Dad during the interim. The sister, however, consulted the Yellow Pages and telephoned a company, Geriatric Care Management, that specializes in elder care.

The sheriffs arrive

Within 48 hours a professional guardian, and owner of the elder care company, arrived at the Gallagher’s doorstep with a court order and two deputy sheriffs. She had hastily petitioned to become the couple’s “emergency temporary guardian” after learning of their substantive assets. Upon her arrival, the couple were forcefully removed from their home and placed in separate nursing home facilities. Mrs. Gallagher, hysterical, secretly phoned her daughter-in-law, her speech slurred, crying for help. She had been forcibly administered psychotropic drugs. Three medical professionals quickly examined her while under the influence of the narcotics, and declared both she and her husband simultaneously 100% mentally incapacitated. The temporary guardian was then quickly appointed the permanent, plenary guardian.

The guardians first move was to encumber all of the couple’s assets.

The legal contest commences

Instead of making arrangements for their safe return home, Kevin Gallagher suddenly found himself furiously searching for Florida attorneys. Meanwhile, the guardian’s legal counsel quickly filed papers to block Kevin’s attempts at removing his parents from Florida to Maine. A hotly contested guardianship soon commenced with attorneys from both sides legally authorized to generously pay themselves from the Gallaghers’ assets.

“The story is always the same,” states Newman, a guardianship reform advocate. “A family member fights the guardianship; then the family member later ‘wins’ the contest — when all the assets have been spent in attorneys’ fees.”

Three years passed. Kevin found himself switching attorneys four times in an attempt to get the legal nightmare to stop

Then, suddenly, it did stop. Kevin was declared the winner of the contest.

All of the assets had been spent.

“They then placed my parents on a airplane with a single suitcase with a broken zipper,” Kevin stated. “Inside the suitcase were tattered clothes that had the names of other people in Magic Marker inside the clothes. Everything they had owned — even their clothes — had been sold or trashed by the guardian.”

Both Elsa and Robert died shortly after returning to Maine.

Family feud — or — an open invitation for fraud?

Corrine Branson, 82, had been happily living in Miami Beach with the daily assistance of a CNA when her grandson secretly petitioned the court to become his grandmother’s guardian. When Branson learned that she was to be moved into a nursing home, she quickly phoned her beloved daughter, aunt to the grandson, who had been granted a springing power of attorney many years before. Bonnie Reiter, with little knowledge of guardianships or guardianship law, quickly hired an attorney who suggested that a “professional guardian” be appointed during the interim legal contest.

It turned out that the guardian he suggested works with him on a regular basis. Reiter fired her attorney, hired another, and then moved for a court hearing which her mother planned to attend.

“Two weeks prior to the hearing, my mother ended up mysteriously dead,” Reiter stated.

The guardianship remained open after Branson’s death with Reiter, alone, having spent $130,000.00 in attorneys’ fees.

“They took more than $800,000 of my mother’s money in attorneys’ fees. The guardianship, in which my mother had never even been declared mentally incapacitated, lasted less than three months. This is a racketeering scheme that needs to be investigated. The F.B.I. should step in.”

Different names, same story

  • An Orange County court auditor discovered $50,000.00 missing three days before the ward died. The judge ordered an “Order to Show Cause.” Prior to the hearing, the guardian and her attorney simply brought back the missing money and placed it back with the court. The judge dropped the scheduled hearing.
  • Court records show that the guardian received $12,000 a month to pay the nursing home bills for Carlisle Bosworth. However, the skilled nursing home facility where he was placed charges only $6,000 a month. No investigation has ever been conducted regarding what happened to the extra $6,000 per month. Bosworth died shortly after all of his money had been spent.
  • Marion Copley was placed on Medicaid — even though her guardian sold her home for more than $250,000.
  • In another case a professional guardian petitioned the court to become an elderly woman’s guardian when she discovered the woman had no living relatives. She told the judge that the woman, who was still living independently in her home, had “bats flying all over the inside of the house.” The allegation resulted in a guardianship and the victim was removed from her home. Neighbors later stated that they had never seen “bats flying all over the house.”
  • In yet another case a professional guardian obtained a guardianship over Christian Van Beekum stating that neighbors had exploited him. A quick search of the property records showed that the neighbors who had allegedly exploited Van Beekum had actually sold their home and moved to another state six years prior.
  • James Deaton had owned an extensive coin collection, an expensive baseball card collection, and his deceased mother’s diamond rings and pearl necklaces, according to relatives. None of these items were ever listed on the guardian’s inventory report.
  • The Denver Post has several times( 2010, 2011 ) published investigative reports exposing the problems with the probate court there.
  • In July 2012 World News posted a video by Lisa Flurie and story about what has been done to her brother Mark in Florida probate courts. Links to many other stories of guardianship/conservatorship fraud are available there as well.

Law enforcement agents, social workers, and judges have been trained to maintain a watchful eye over exploitative family members. Yet no one seems to be guarding the guardians. Family members have complained to local law enforcement, the state attorneys’ office, and even the F.B.I.without any significant action being taken.

The problems grow worse with time as the courts become ever more dysfunctional.

The Hospital Gestapo: You May Never See Home Again

American hospitals have devised a scheme to guarantee they never get stuck with an unpaid bill.  It’s called guardianship.

Thinking of checking into a hospital?  Think again.  You may never see home again.

  •  Ginger Franklin, Hendersonville, Tennessee, fell down the stairs in her condo and suffered a bump on her head.  She was declared “temporarily mentally incapacitated” and a guardian was appointed through the courts.  Within six weeks, the guardian had sold Franklin’s home, car, furniture, and drained her bank account. Today, Franklin has her freedom back, but she is having to start all over.
  • Michael Kidd, 72, of Richardson, Texas, fell in his yard and broke a hip.  Now, he is living in Countryside Nursing Home with his wife.  Both were removed from their home when the state of Texas petitioned the courts claiming that the Kidds were mentally incompetent.  Their house sits vacant and neglected, with rotting food still remaining in the refrigerator.  The Kidds have been confined to a single room in the nursing home, while the state appointed guardian burns through their money an gives them a mere $60 a month spending allowance which they have been using to buy “real” food.
  • Robert Milton (not his real name) was taken to the hospital because he fell “one time too many” at his home, and although his stepson had been given power of attorney to make all of his health care decisions, a court-appointed corporate guardian placed Milton against his will in a nursing home where he is now isolated from his family and friends.  Meanwhile, his money is being spent as quickly as possible by the Orlando-based guardian and her attorneys.

Elderly couple kidnapped by Texas Adult Protective Services:

How It Commences

Joseph Niedesky (not his real name) was air lifted to a hospital in Orlando from Ocala by helicopter after he was the victim of a motorcycle crash.  But something went terribly wrong during Niedesky’s surgery and he aspirated on his own vomit, causing some brain injury. That’s when a corporate guardian was contacted by the hospital and appointed by the court as Niedesky’s full plenary, permanent guardian.

What Happens Next

The corporate guardian who petitioned the court stated in the court papers that Niedesky had no family.  In reality, Niedesky had been married for more than 20 years and had four teenage children.  It took more than two months for Niedesky’s wife to discover what had happened to her husband and where he was located.

The Family is Always Portrayed as the “Devil Incarnate”

What happened to Niedesky is becoming a commonplace occurrence in America.  A family member is rushed to the hospital.  Surgery occurs and something sometimes goes terribly wrong.  However, by quickly petitioning the courts for guardianship, the hospital avoids any kind of lawsuit for negligence or wrongful death.  Niedesky’s wife wanted to bring him home and get him out of the guardianship.  The guardian, however, kept moving Niedesky from location to location, city to city, until the statute of limitations for suing the hospital had expired.  Shortly after the statute of limitations ended, Niedsky just happened to die.

“The hospital saved itself millions in a lawsuit.  It is typical that shortly after the statute of limitations runs out, the ward just happens to suddenly die,” stated David Newman, Gainesville, Florida, a civil rights guardianship reform advocate.

Niedesky’s wife was portrayed in the court record as uncaring, incompetent, over-meddling, and negligent, and although these descriptors seem to be a contraction of terms, you will typically find the most cynical descriptions of family members in most court files where an involuntary guardianship has been granted by the courts to a total stranger.

For example, in Milton’s case, Milton’s stepson had been named long ago as his power of attorney and health care surrogate.  That designation, however, was destroyed by the court and the corporate guardian even accused the stepson of stealing several thousands over the years from his stepfather.  Today, Milton’s stepson, a 65 year old retired veteran, finds himself in a legal nightmare gathering bank records and hiring attorneys and forensic accountants to prove his innocence.  Meanwhile, the corporate guardian is spending Milton’s money like water.

The Other Scenario

Tom Griffith (not his real name) wonders why an Orlando-based corporate guardian would be interested in his father at all.

“He has no money.  All he gets is a small monthly cheque from Social Security of about $800.00.”

I explained to Griffith that his father has been marked for destruction and will mostly likely not be among the living in a very short period of time.  “We live in a country that is ruled by corporations, not the U.S. Constitution.  If there is not enough money for the nursing home to cover its expenses, there is ‘no reason’ to keep your father alive.”  I explained to Milton how Thomas Chada’s father was sent to him as a box of ashes and how other wards seem to always turn up “expired” shortly after a corporate guardian and her attorneys have burned through all of an elderly person’s money.

But in this case, Griffith said there was no reason to destroy his father.  “There is no money to gain.”

“Yes, but that is the point.  The corporate guardians have a symbiotic relationship with the nursing homes.  Sometimes, the nursing home gives them a wealthy resident that they can bilk.  At other times, the corporate guardian does them a favor by making premature end-of-life decisions when there is not enough finances to cover the elderly person’s day-to-day expenses.”

In the case of Griffith’s father, who just received quadruple open heart bypass surgery, it was determined that the ward, age 74, now needed dialysis, a very costly ongoing treatment.

“The doctors said my father does not want dialysis,”Milton stated.  “But I know my father wishes to live; he is only 74.”

“They probably got your father to sign such a statement without him even knowing what he was signing,” I explained.

Milton wanted to know what he could do to rescue his father out of this dangerous and life-threatening situation.

“You can hire an attorney, but you might end up spending more than $500,000.00 of your own money to become your father’s guardian.”

“I don’t have that kind of money,”Griffithdeclared, shocked.

It was obvious that the scenario I was describing was greatly upsetting Griffith.   Those of us who have already lived this scenario remember going through the predictable stage of “mental shock” followed by the overwhelming urge to seek justice—at any cost.  I explained to Griffith that he may find himself bankrupt as a result of trying to help his father out of this doomed guardianship situation.

My phone continues to ring as victims, desperate to find a solution, want to know what they can do.

In a country that is ruled by corporations and corporate greed, there will be no solution to The Guardianship Nightmare until a public uprising is so severe that these kinds of abominable– yet commonplace situations– will no longer be able to occur.

Can a Christian Serve as a Judge Anymore?

Earlier this month, during a judicial confirmation hearing for 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Amy Barrett, who is a Catholic law professor, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., questioned whether Barrett could be a Christian and a judge at the same time:

Why is it that so many of us on this side have this very uncomfortable feeling that—you know, dogma and law are two different things. And I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.

What caused Barrett to draw such a charge?

Feinstein appeared to be questioning Barrett based on a scholarly article she wrote exploring what a Catholic judge should do when the law required something that went against their faith.

What did Barrett say in the article? Based on Feinstein’s question, one would think she brought down the theological cudgel and sided with faith over the law.

Hardly so. Barrett actually wrote that the judge should recuse him or herself in such cases, as “[j]udges cannot—nor should they try to—align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge.”

Let us assume that Feinstein actually read the article. Instead of questioning her over such sentiments, Feinstein should be happy that Barrett would bind her public service by moral principles. Does she want judges who are not so bound?

Perhaps Feinstein should direct her own question toward herself. What is her own dogma? Her own beliefs obviously cause her “concern” that someone of serious Christian faith would hold a position of public service.

The point is that everyone has private beliefs that guide the way they live their lives. The only question is what those beliefs are.

As the writer David Foster Wallace noted during a commencement speech to Kenyon College graduates many years ago, “In the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship.”

So, what does Feinstein worship? What personal beliefs guide her? It sounds like she believes in a public square scrubbed clean of Christians. If so, what gives her the right to impose that “dogma” on Barrett and others?

Feinstein should be happy that Barrett has a moral code by which she will act ethically. Why would anyone want a judge who lacks such a code?

The more people believe there is a higher power watching their actions and requiring them to do the right thing (such as telling the truth and refusing a bribe), the less likely they are to act unethically—a crucial quality for judges and other public servants.

Later in the same hearing, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.,—not to be outdone—jumped in with his own inquisition into her religious beliefs and asked Barrett: “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?”

This isn’t the first time we’ve seen this type of anti-religious grilling resurface in our modern political era.

When Russell Vought was nominated for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget earlier this year, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., thought it appropriate to quiz him about a blog post he wrote defending the Christian view of salvation in the context of a private theological debate.

As I wrote at the time, Sanders’ views­—refusing to approve of a nominee for nothing but his private religious beliefs—were the ones that were bigoted, not the other way around.

Durbin should realize his intolerance is showing in this case.

Regardless, this whole episode exposes a flaw in thinking about the connection between one’s core beliefs and the law. Everyone has beliefs that guide their lives. The only question is what they are.

As a society, we should want people in positions of public trust who have principles guiding them to act ethically and serve the public well. No American should ever be forced to choose between their faith and public service.

If Feinstein and Durbin realized that, they would vote to confirm Barrett immediately.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Travis Weber

Travis Weber is the director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council, where he focuses on all manner of legal and policy issues pertaining to religious freedom. Twitter: .

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.
Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.
Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.
Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.
The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.
Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.
Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.
You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.
Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

RELATED ARTICLE: Report: Religious Freedom At Risk In America

EDITORS NOTE: Several leading Democrats have explicitly raised concerns about the religious views of judicial nominees (Photo: iStock Photos). Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>

The National Debt Just Hit $20 Trillion. Here’s How Congress Can Restore Fiscal Sanity.

Our national debt just topped $20 trillion. That’s 13 zeros, or $20,000,000,000,000.

This also means that the federal government now owes almost $1.5 trillion more than the entire U.S. economy produced in 2016. To put this number into context, here are some other things that add up to $20 trillion:

So how exactly did we get here?

Simply put, massive government spending is the single largest driver of high national debt.

Of the entire federal budget, just four entitlement programs—Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, and Social Security—account for most of that spending. In fiscal year 2016, these entitlements consumed 52 percent of all tax dollars.

Without reforms, these programs and interest on the debt will be driving 83 percent of all spending growth projected over the next decade.

Entitlements continue to grow at this rate because they are on autopilot. The programs were enacted in law years ago so that agencies are authorized to spend whatever is needed to keep them running.

Congress has the final say about funding for these programs, but lawmakers choose not to reform them because it is politically difficult to cut popular programs—even if they are unsustainable.

Safeguards could prevent these programs from growing to unsustainable levels in the absence of political will.

Normally, Congress limits how much debt the government can take on by enforcing a debt limit. When the government reaches this limit, the Treasury Department no longer can borrow money to finance government operations.

Reaching the debt limit should be a wake-up call to lawmakers that their level of spending is unsustainable and that they need to enact budget reforms.

But that’s not the effect that reaching the debt limit has had in recent years.

Indeed, spending and debt have grown and the government has repeatedly hit the debt limit, only to be raised without making any reforms. Lawmakers have failed to adopt any long-term solutions.

The debt limit has been suspended since November 2015. Congress just suspended it again through Dec. 8 as part of the Trump-Pelosi-Schumer deal that provided relief for victims of Hurricane Harvey.

Suspending the debt limit lets the Treasury borrow unlimited funds to pay for governmental operations. Basically, this is a blank check for government borrowing. Once the suspension ends, the debt limit is raised based on how much debt was issued during the suspension.

For example, in February 2014, Congress raised the debt limit to $17.2 trillion and then suspended the debt limit until March 2015. When the suspension ended and Congress reset the debt limit, it set it nearly $1 trillion higher at $18.1 trillion.

The United States cannot afford to keep ignoring the debt limit and taking on more debt without serious reform. If the U.S. remains on the current fiscal course, publicly held debt will reach 90 percent of gross domestic product in 10 years.

As the debt grows, so will debt-servicing costs.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that in 2027, net interest payments on the national debt will consume $768 billion tax dollars. When the government is forced to spend more money servicing the debt, there is less money available for other national priorities, like national defense or lower taxes.

This massive, now $20 trillion debt is a threat to the economy and the American people. Lawmakers and the new administration must reform entitlements, enforce the debt limit, and put the budget back on a path to balance to truly control the national debt.

Mollie McNeill is a research assistant for economic and budget policy at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: 

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.
Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.
Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.
Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.
The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.
Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.
Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.
You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.
Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

EDITORS NOTE: Safeguards could prevent government programs from growing to unsustainable levels in the absence of political will (Photo: Ingram Publishing/Newscom). Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>

VIDEO: Farmers Banned From Farmers Market Over Religious Beliefs Get Their Day in Court

The case of a Michigan city that banned family farmers from selling their goods at a local farmers market due to their religious beliefs about marriage headed to court Wednesday, where lawyers from both sides argued before a federal district judge.

Lawyers for Steve and Bridget Tennes, owners of Country Mill Farms in Charlotte, Michigan, asked the court to grant the Tennes family a preliminary injunction, a temporary order that would allow them to sell their produce at the East Lansing Farmer’s Market while the case proceeds.

“Since June 1, we’ve already missed three and a half months of being able to attend East Lansing Farmer’s Market, where we’ve served everyone for the last seven years,” Steve Tennes told The Daily Signal by phone after the hearing.

“Now we only have about six weeks left of the market to be able to sell, and the … East Lansing Farmer’s Market was the largest farmers market [where] our family sold organic apples and cider.”

In May, the Tenneses filed a federal lawsuit against East Lansing after the city banned them from selling produce at its farmers market because they said on Facebook that they don’t host same-sex weddings on their farm.

“Due to our religious beliefs, we do not participate in the celebration of a same-sex union,” they wrote in part on Facebook in August 2016.

The city responded by filing a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Both motions were heard for an hour Wednesday before Judge Paul Maloney.

Maloney did not issue an oral decision, but is likely to issue a written order in coming weeks.

Country Mill Farms is located 22 miles from East Lansing in the neighboring town of Charlotte. The Tenneses, who never received a discrimination complaint, say selling their apples and other goods at the city’s farmers market was an important source of income.

The Tenneses are represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal nonprofit that also represents Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker whose case is going to the Supreme Court after he declined to create wedding cakes for same-sex couples.

John Bursch, a Michigan lawyer who argued before the Supreme Court in favor of that state’s ban on same-sex marriage in the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges case, recently joined Alliance Defending Freedom in defending the Tenneses.

East Lansing officials argue that the Tenneses’ policy violates the city’s anti-discrimination law.

The Daily Signal sough comment from city officials but did not receive a response by publication time. In an interview with the Lansing State Journal, East Lansing Mayor Mark Meadows said businesses need to “act in a certain way” to sell their goods on city property.

“It has nothing to do with free speech,” Meadows said. “They can say whatever they want, but their corporation needs to act in a certain way to qualify to sell products at the East Lansing Farmer’s Market on publicly owned land.”

Lawyers on both sides vowed to appeal if necessary. Because only a few weeks remain for the Tenneses to sell produce, they are hoping for a swift decision.

“We think the law is fully behind us, that the city has reached beyond its borders to specifically punish one farmer because of his beliefs,” said Kate Anderson, a lawyer for Alliance Defending Freedom who argued the Tenneses’ case.

“No one should have to censor their views to participate in a market and no one should have their economic freedom threatened just because of what they believe,” Anderson said. “We’re hopeful the judge will rule quickly on that basis.”

This article was updated to correct the month the Tenneses filed their lawsuit.

Kelsey Harkness

Kelsey Harkness is a senior news producer at The Daily Signal. Send an email to Kelsey. Twitter: @kelseyjharkness

A Note for our Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Steve and Bridget Tennes own a 120-acre farm in Charlotte, Michigan, where they raise their five children (Photo: The Daily Signal). Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>

VIDEO: The missing memos of James Comey

Below, is the latest edition of “Inside Judicial Watch,” with Mark Tapscott, executive editor at the The Daily Caller, on Wednesday, September 13, 2017, where Mark discussed the missing memos of James Comey and the controversy surrounding the former FBI director.

DayWatch Update: 

Judicial Watch Announces an Expert Special Panel Presentation: ‘Exposing the Deep State’​
-Judicial Watch announced today that it is hosting special educational panel on Friday, September 15, 2017, from 2 to 3 pm ET to discuss “Exposing the Deep State.”

Contribute

So what would motivate Chechens to kill gay men?

Just now I was scrolling around to see what the reaction is among members of the refugee industry about the Kennedy decision at the Supreme Court yesterday.

So I stopped by Amnesty International and see that, of course, they are not thrilled, here.

(But, as I have told you innumerable times, the Supremes went too far in the first place and much of what people are having anxiety attacks over will be moot in a few weeks.)

But, then I noticed this action item and was interested to see their involvement in saving gay men in Chechnya from kidnapping and death (that is good), but I noticed one important item not mentioned in their action item for supporters.

Amnesty to their supporters: Tell those bad Russians what you think…..

Screenshot (830)

Screenshot (831)

So tell me, what have they failed to mention?

95% of Chechnya is Muslim. Islam directs the killing of gay men.

As the demographic makeup of a country becomes more Islamic, they become emboldened.

Maybe if Amnesty was more honest about the source of the prejudice they could save more people instead of making it sound like the bad ol’ [rightwing] Russians (who have little control over Chechnya!) are to blame.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Reporters just too lazy to get their facts when bashing Trump is the goal!

White House could announce refugee ceiling for FY18 this week

Is the Heritage Foundation selling you out on UN/US Refugee Admissions Policy?

RELATED VIDEO: LGBT survivors of torture in Chechnya speak out

Top 25 most dangerous Congressional ‘Republicans in Name Only’

The D.J. Trump Network has decided to publish a list of the 25 dangerous RINOs in Congress. We have called many of these Senators and Representatives Charlie Crist republicans.

In my column New Democrat Party: The Red-Green-Rainbow Troika we took a look at the Democratic Party and how former President Obama has fundamentally changed it by forming political alliances, creating a Troika. The members of the Red-Green-Rainbow Troika are certainly strange bedfellows but politics makes for strange bedfellows.

Now let’s look at the Republican Party.

Who has fundamentally changed it, why and is it for the better or worse? Who are members of the New Republican Party Troika (NRPT)? These are questions that may help voters understand what happened during the lead up to the 2018 midterm elections.

Just like the Democratic Party, the GOP is make up of a Troika. The Republican Troika consists of three major factions:

  1. Conservative Republicans (a.k.a. the reds). These are the Grand Old Party elite (GOPe). They joined the party after the Goldwater years and have gained in power and prestige due to their unwavering party loyalty. They normally vote the Republican ticket.
  2. Republicans In Name Only (a.k.a. the purples or RINOs). These are individuals who joined the Republican party solely to win a political seat or appointment. A perfect example is former Florida Governor, former Republican and now Democrat Representative Charlie Crist. The purples do not hold conservative values, rather they change as quickly as does the weather in the Sunshine State. The RINOs will not necessarily vote for Republican policies (e.g. repeal of Obamacare). Some have joined movements to undermine President Trump and other presidents dating back to the days of Barry Goldwater.
  3. Constitutional Conservatives (a.k.a. the TEA Party). They embrace the parchment upon which the Constitution and Bill of Rights are written and signed by the Founding Fathers. This group includes Libertarians.

What differentiates these three factions is their commitment to “conservative values”, which are defined differently by each faction.

Arizona Republican Senator Barry Goldwater and presidential candidate in his book “The Conscience of a Conservative” wrote:

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.

This statement, to many Republicans, defines Conservative values at every level of government. The idea of limited government as envisioned by the Founders and enshrined in the Constitution. States rights are paramount and trump efforts to impose government laws and regulations upon the population.

Here is the D.J. Trump Network list.

MEMBER STATE

1

Paul Ryan

Representative from WI

18 years in DC

2

John McCain

Senator from AZ

30 years in DC

3

Lisa Murkowski

Senator from AK

14 years in DC

4

Lindsey Graham

Senator from SC

14 years in DC

5

Thad Cochran

Senator from MS

38 years in DC

6

Mitch McConnell

Senator from KY

32 years in DC

7

Orrin Hatch

Senator from UT

40 years in DC

8

Kevin McCarthy

Representative from CA

10 years in DC

9

Lamar Alexander

Senator from TN

14 years in DC

10

Bob Corker

Senator from TN

10 years in DC

11

Susan Collins

Senator from ME

20 years in DC

12

Tom Cole

Representative from OK

14 years in DC

13

Jeff Flake

Senator from AZ

4 years in DC

14

John Cornyn

Senator from TX

14 years in DC

15

Peter King

Representative from NY

24 years in DC

16

Mike Simpson

Representative from ID

18 years in DC

17

Harold Rogers

Representative from KY

36 years in DC

18

Don Young

Representative from AK

43 years in DC

19

Rob Portman

Senator from OH

6 years in DC

20

Cathy McMorris Rodgers

Representative from WA

12 years in DC

21

Johnny Isakson

Senator from GA

12 years in DC

22

Richard Burr

Senator from NC

12 years in DC

23

Charlie Dent

Representative from PA

12 years in DC

24

Susan Brooks

Representative from IN

4 years in DC

25

Shelley Capito

Senator from WV

16 y

Readers may share this list on there social media sites here:

I did not leave Liberalism — Liberalism left me!

I did not leave Liberalism. Liberalism left me and most of my friends who at one time were Liberals . What occurred is that the Left today (predominately anti-liberal) took over the mantel of Liberalism. Unfortunately most Liberals don’t realize the Left no longer believes in Liberalism and indeed abhors Liberalism. The current Left identify themselves as Liberals but are the antithesis of Liberalism parading as Liberals.

To a great extent the Left falsely parading as Liberals have taken over the Democrat Party. As a former Liberal I ask myself where have the Liberals of my youth gone?  Are we witnessing the demise of Liberalism in America?

Leftism Is Not Liberalism

By Dennis Prager

What is the difference between a leftist and a liberal?

Answering this question is vital to understanding the crisis facing America and the West today. Yet few seem able to do it. I offer the following as a guide.

Here’s the first thing to know: The two have almost nothing in common.

On the contrary, liberalism has far more in common with conservatism than it does with leftism. The left has appropriated the word “liberal” so effectively that almost everyone — liberals, leftists and conservatives — thinks they are synonymous.

But they aren’t. Let’s look at some important examples.

Race: This is perhaps the most obvious of the many moral differences between liberalism and leftism. The essence of the liberal position on race was that the color of one’s skin is insignificant. To liberals of a generation ago, only racists believed that race is intrinsically significant. However, to the left, the notion that race is insignificant is itself racist. Thus, the University of California officially regards the statement “There is only one race, the human race” as racist. For that reason, liberals were passionately committed to racial integration. Liberals should be sickened by the existence of black dormitories and separate black graduations on university campuses.

Capitalism: Liberals have always been pro capitalism, recognizing it for what it is: the only economic means of lifting great numbers out of poverty. Liberals did often view government as able to play a bigger role in lifting people out of poverty than conservatives, but they were never opposed to capitalism, and they were never for socialism. Opposition to capitalism and advocacy of socialism are leftist values.

Nationalism: Liberals deeply believed in the nation-state, whether their nation was the United States, Great Britain or France. The left has always opposed nationalism because leftism is rooted in class solidarity, not national solidarity. The left has contempt for nationalism, seeing in it intellectual and moral primitivism at best, and the road to fascism at worst. Liberals always wanted to protect American sovereignty and borders. The notion of open borders would have struck a liberal as just as objectionable as it does a conservative. It is emblematic of our time that the left-wing writers of Superman comics had Superman announce a few years ago, “I intend to speak before the United Nations tomorrow and inform them that I am renouncing my American citizenship.” When the writers of Superman were liberal, Superman was not only an American but one who fought for “Truth, justice, and the American way.” But in his announcement, he explained that motto is “not enough anymore.”

View of America: Liberals venerated America. Watch American films from the 1930s through the 1950s and you will be watching overtly patriotic, America-celebrating films — virtually all produced, directed and acted in by liberals. Liberals well understand that America is imperfect, but they agree with a liberal icon named Abraham Lincoln that America is “the last best hope of earth.”

Read more.

EDITORS NOTE: This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.

Progressive Doublethink: ‘Barbarianism is as valid as civilization and worthy of equal respect!’

Barbarism is defined as: absence of culture and civilization; extreme cruelty or brutality.

Pat Condell in a YouTube video titled “Europe is Killing Itself” states:

The progressive thing is to merge the two cultures the civilized one and the barbarous one. Of course they know civilized people will reject barbarism. Therefore civilized people need to be reeducated to believe that barbarianism is as valid as civilization and worthy of equal respect or you’ll be a criminal. Which is pretty much where we are now.”

After listening to Mr. Condell’s commentary, while reflecting on what happened on 9/11/2001, I realized that those who embrace open borders policies, sanctuary cities, labeling people as Islamophobes, shout the word “racism” based upon the notion that Islam is a race rather than a global political ideology, are in the business of reeducating Americans to embrace barbarism as “worthy of equal respect.” If you fail to do so the courts can, and in some places do, make you a criminal.

Groups that are merging barbarism with civil society to further their political goals include but are not limited to: Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, Antifa, Organizing for Action, some followers of Mohammed, some followers of Bernie Sanders and some members of both the Democrat and Republican Parties.

This is happening in our public schools, colleges, universities, in the media, in the halls of Congress and in our courts. Our “civilized” society is being reeducated to believe what George Orwell called “doublethink.” In his book “1984” Orwell defined doublethink as:

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”

The progressive ideal is the embracing of relative truth. Relative truth is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths. Revelatory truth is the knowledge that there are absolute truths. Truths that transcend culture, civilization and mankind itself. Progressive reject absolute truths such as: barbarism is evil.

Relative truth allows those in power to stay in power. Because its always about power.

Antifa protester.

Orwell wrote:

“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.” ― George Orwell, 1984 [Emphasis added]

Just as the object of torture is torture and power is power, the object of barbarism is barbarism. Barbarism is not a means; it is an end.

Those who embrace barbarism are themselves barbaric. Those who, by omission or commission, accept barbarism are encouraging more cruelty and brutality.

“War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” ― George Orwell, 1984

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Robin Rayne Nelson / ZUMA Press / Global Look Press

Thousands of impoverished people arriving in the U.S. while Americans are homeless

The image above is of Irma damage in Florida. The cost of hurricanes Harvey and Irma to the U.S. economy can be $290 billion or more.

As I have said until you are surely sick to death of it, President Donald J. Trump is expected to present to Congress a ‘determination’ within days about how many third world impoverished people will be admitted to the U.S. beginning on October 1.

But, here is the thing—he has complete authority to say that NO refugees will be admitted in FY18 because the Refugee Act of 1980 gives that power to the President!

In the last 2 days, three reporters (that I know of) wrote about suspending, or shutting down, the UN/US Refugee Admissions Program for this year.

Frank Sharry

Frank Sharry, open borders advocate.

First, Thomas Allen at VDARE wrote this (read it all, it is full of historical knowledge about the program).  Allen mentions this:

But even Open Borders activists recognize Trump has the legal authority to set the number at zero for 2018. Frank Sharry [Email him] a leading Treason Lobbyist, told a group of activists at the National Partnership for New Americans conference in September 2017 that Trump could “zero the program out” if he chose to. And Congress certainly could zero out the funding of the program if it chose to.

Not only did Sharry acknowledge this, but so did Bill Frelick from Human Rights Watch, here.

Bill Frelick of Human Rights Watch: “…there is no requirement that the U.S. resettle a single refugee….”

And, indeed HIAS executives reported (here) that George W. Bush delayed a Presidential determination in the wake of 9/11 without any legal consequences to him. (The administration must have been worried about Islamic terrorists getting in to the U.S. even then!)

Harvey leaves American homes in Texas ruined by flood waters. Maybe the refugee contractors could get their volunteers busy helping Americans first!

Harvey trash

Destruction from hurricane Harvey.

Next, read Daniel Horowitz yesterday at Conservative Review.

And, finally don’t miss Leo Hohmann at World Net Daily where I am quoted saying this:

Ann Corcoran, who has followed refugee resettlement for more than a decade, said Trump has plenty of reason to do just that and still come across as a great humanitarian by focusing on needy Americans.

“The public should be outraged to learn that in the wake of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, which have left tens of thousands of Americans homeless, that we are poised to take in thousands of impoverished refugees when we now have our own refugees, struggling people who have lost their homes, lost everything, with their lives shattered, living in tents, shelters and RVs,” Corcoran said.

To bring in more from other countries in a time like this would be the ultimate insanity.”

Read it all.

The refugee industry (the resettlement contractors and the cheap labor lobby) want you to think that the President must submit a determination of at least 50,000 for the upcoming fiscal year, but it just isn’t so!

Tell the President what you think by clicking here to get instructions…Tell your members of Congress and U.S. Senators too!

America First!

The Sixteenth Anniversary of the 9/11 Terror Attacks

The way we relate to our memories and recollections creates a dichotomy. Sometimes our memories of events make it appear that the event happened just days ago and sometimes we perceive our memories of the same events as through they happened a lifetime ago.Some events are so startling for good or evil that we will forever remember precisely where we were when that event occurred.

Those of us who are old enough to remember the assassination of President John F. Kennedy will forever remember where we were when we first learned about his death. The same can be said of the destruction of the Space Shuttle Challenger 72 seconds after liftoff on that cold January morning in 1986.

Similarly the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, were seared into our memories, if we are old enough to remember that horrific day, now 16 years ago.

As a New Yorker, I can never, ever forget the ashes from the conflagration at what came to be known as “Ground Zero” fluttering down on my neighborhood in Brooklyn less than ten miles away. I can never forget my neighbors screaming as they ran out of their homes and looked up at those ashes knowing that they likely contained the remains of people, including possibly, their family members who had just gone to work a couple of hour earlier.

I will never forget the cars that began driving around New York decorated with American flags and bearing the photos of their loved ones who had gone missing. Those photos were almost always accompanied by the plaintiff question, “Have you seen my son?” “Have you seen my wife?” “Have you seen my dad?”

It is sobering, however, to consider that there are millions of Americans who were too young on that day to remember the events surrounding the most massive terror attacks ever carried out on U.S. soil. There are also millions of American children who were born after that horrible day.

Recently I spoke with the producer of a radio show who called to invite me on his program. He was in his early 20’s and when I began discussing the attacks of 9/11 I was startled when he told me that he really did not know much about the attacks of 9/11. I asked him if he was taught about that savage act of mass murder in his classes. It was upsetting to hear that he had not learned much about that terror attack during the course of his education.

However, when I asked him about whether he had been taught about the attack at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, he immediately responded by saying, “Of course we learned about that attack, it led to America’s entry into World War II!

I decided that this was a moment to provide him with a bit of perspective about 9/11.

I asked him if he realized that on September 11, 2001, nineteen radical Islamic terrorists barely out of their teens, for the most part, had inflicted more casualties on the United States that did the entire Japanese fleet at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

It took him nearly a minute to respond. He told me that he had never heard anyone make that comparison before, nor did he himself ever consider that comparison.

I went on and told him that the Second World War ended back in 1945 and Japan was no longer an adversary but an ally. In point of fact, I had worked with the Japanese government to help them to bring one of their citizens to justice, a young Japanese woman who was the final co-conspirator of a massive international drug trafficking organization, to be arrested.

The organization she was a part of smuggled cocaine from the United States to Japan. At the time that I assisted with that investigation I was the first INS agent assigned to the Unified Intelligence Division of the Drug Enforcement Administration in New York City.

I was awarded a medal by the Japanese National Police for my assistance in that case.

The “War on Terror” however, is still very much ongoing. The “All clear” has not yet been sounded. No armistice is on the horizon.

As you read this members of the U.S. Military are engaged in the life and death struggles that go with combat, waging a war against an enemy that is determined to kill as many Americans, and others, as possible and destroy our freedoms and our way of life.

The terror attacks of 9/11 have changed America profoundly. Privacy afforded by the Fourth Amendment has all but vanished in many aspects of our lives whether we are boarding airliners, conducting business or engaging in so many other aspects of our day-to-day lives, concerns about safety and national security have stripped us of our privacy.

In point of fact, the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, have yet to claim their last victim. In addition to the nearly 3,000 people who were slaughtered on September 11, 2001 even more people were injured or sickened by their exposure to deadly toxins released when the World Trade Center Complex was destroyed.

Because the illnesses and suffering and death attributable to the attacks of 9/11 continue to this very day, legislation known as H.R.1786 – James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Reauthorization Act was passed to provide billions of dollars to address the massive expenses for providing medical care for these victims of 9/11. That bill and the legislation that preceded it was named for NYPD Detective James Zadroga, one of the first responders who perished because of his exposure to those toxins released at “Ground Zero.”

Every year since the attacks of 9/11 I have committed myself to doing whatever I could to alert and educate as many folks as possible about the nexus between immigration failures and national security and America’s vulnerability to international terrorists.

As an INS agent I have investigated and arrested terrorists.

I was called upon to provide testimony to the 9/11 Commission about the nexus between the terror attacks of 9/11 and multiple failures of the immigration system.

I have testified before numerous Congressional hearings in both the House and Senate.

Open borders/immigration anarchists attempt to bully and intimidate those who call for secure borders and effective immigration law enforcement by accusing them of being “anti-immigrant” and, for the most part, the mainstream media has been more than complicit in their deception using that language to deride anyone who would dare suggest that America’s borders must be secured and our immigration laws must be enforced.

All too often he media equates demands for effective immigration law enforcement with xenophobia and racism.

However, our immigration laws have nothing, whatsoever, to do with race, religion, or ethnicity. As an INS agent I frequently investigated and arrested aliens who were not from Latin America. I have investigated and arrested aliens who were citizens of countries from around the world and were of every race, religion, and ethnicity.

Because of my advocacy for secure borders and effective immigration law enforcement I have been referred to as “anti-immigrant” in some articles. Let’s set the record straight. I am the son of an immigrant. My mother legally came to the United States at the age of 13 and lived by herself in a rooming house and supported herself by working in an umbrella factory for $3 per week. Her mother, my grandmother, died in the Holocaust — I was named for her.

As an Immigration Inspector I gladly admitted many, many more aliens than I denied entry. When I was assigned as an Adjudications Officer to adjudicate the immigration marriage petitions as you’ve no doubt seen in some movies, while I did uncover a major fraud ring for which I received an award, I happily granted Green Cards to many more aliens than I denied.

Enforcement of our immigration laws is not about bigotry but about protecting America and Americans.

Inspectors of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are charged with enforcing our immigration laws at ports of entry. It is a job I am intimately familiar with because it is the job I did for the first four years of my thirty year career with the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) before I became an INS Special Agent.

Those inspectors are charged with preventing the entry of aliens whose presence would be dangerous or otherwise problematic for America and Americans.

They are law enforcement officers and the law that governs their decisions are comprehended within one of the sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), specifically Title 8, United States Code, Section 1182 which enumerates the categories of aliens who are to be excluded. Among these classes of aliens who are to be prevented from entering the United States are aliens who suffer from dangerous communicable, diseases or extreme mental illness.

Additionally, convicted felons, human rights violators, war criminals, terrorists, and spies are to be excluded as well as aliens who would seek unlawful employment thus displacing American workers or driving down the wages of American workers who are similarly employed and aliens who would likely become public charges.

Racism is not behind our immigration laws but survival most certainly is.

The racists in the immigration debate are those who freely talk about “Latino Voters” as though American citizens who are of Latino ethnicity have different values, goals, and dreams than other Americans. By definition, anyone who makes such proclamations about people based solely on their race is a racist.

All reasonable Americans, Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, Liberals and Independents, irrespective of superficial factors, race, religion, or ethnicity, have essentially the same concerns and desires. All Americans want our military to keep our enemies as far from our shores as possible. They want our police to keep our streets safe and they want our schools to educate our children so that any American of any race, religion, ethnicity, or gender who is willing to study hard, work hard and perhaps benefit from a bit of good luck, can write the next success story.

For the first time since the attacks of September 11, 2001, I truly believe that the United States has in Donald Trump a President of the United States who is determined to use the The 9/11 Commission Report and official companion report, “9/11 and Terrorist Travel – Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” as the starting point for formulating immigration enforcement strategies and policies.

The preface of that latter report began with the following paragraph:

It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.

Page 47 of this report noted:

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

Page 61 contained this passage:

Exploring the Link between Human Smugglers and Terrorists

In July 2001, the CIA warned of a possible link between human smugglers and terrorist groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad.149 Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that since 1999 human smugglers have facilitated the travel of terrorists associated with more than a dozen extremist groups.150 With their global reach and connections to fraudulent document vendors and corrupt government officials, human smugglers clearly have the “credentials” necessary to aid terrorist travel.

This paragraph is found on page 98 under the title “Immigration Benefits:”

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

As we have seen, the 9/11 Commission identified immigration fraud as the key entry and embedding tactics of terrorists. I have therefore come to refer to this issue as Immigration fraud: the lies that kill.

In the years since 9/11 still more terror attacks have been committed in the United States by aliens who committed visa fraud and/or immigration fraud.

Case in point, the Tsarnaev brothers who were granted political asylum and subsequent lawful status before they carried out the deadly terror attack on the Boston Marathon.

The news media is also guilty of committing fraud. President Trump’s Executive Order on Immigration is always referred to as the “Travel Ban” and it is then generally followed up with the statement that he has focused on “Muslim majority nations.”

In point of fact, the actual executive order does not include one word about the religion of the aliens impacted by his Executive Order. Furthermore, many other countries that are also “Muslim majority” are not on the list, including Indonesia whose population alone is nearly as great as the population of all of the countries on the list combined.

It is frustrating, at the least, that the mainstream media refuses to publish the actual name of President Trump Executive Order. If they did the manufactured “controversy” would evaporate.

The actual name of President Trump’s Executive Order is:

Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States

For Americans who are justifiably concerned about the dangers posed to America and Americans, especially in the wake of a series of worrying reports about terror attacks carried out overseas, the title of President Trump’s Executive Order would be comforting and reassuring.

A review of that Executive Order makes it clear that its purpose is not to single out aliens by religion but by the potential threat that they pose to national security and public safety and that where this Executive Order is concerned, “beauty is more than skin deep.”

Other Executive Orders issued by President Trump call for ramping up the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States to identify and remove criminal aliens and aliens who are members of violent gangs such as the notorious MS-13.

Sanctuary Cities obstruct all of these important efforts.

The globalists of both political parties are adamantly opposed to the notion of secure borders and effective immigration law enforcement.

While our borders are America’s first line of defense and last line of defense, to these globalists, borders are an impediment to their wealth.

They want our borders to be wide open to permit America to be flooded with as many exploitable workers as possible, including high-tech workers, to drive down wages and benefits.

Pure and simple this is a matter of unbridled and immoral greed.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and their allies including major corporation and a wide array of special interest groups, often from seemingly divergent positions are far more concerned with head counts on airliners, theaters, and hotels than they are with body counts in the morgue.

Lives are sacred and We the People must focus on what unites us as Americans and ignore the immigration scammers who engage in Theft By Deception: The Immigration Con Game.

As we contemplate the terror attacks of 9/11 and the victims of that horrific day, we must, as rational and moral Americans, resist those who would put America and its citizens in harms way.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Newsmax. The featured image is of the ‘Tribute in Light’ illuminating the night sky, on September 10, 2017, in New York City, on the eve of the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. (Kena Betancur/AFP/Getty Images). The image appeared in the original column and is reprinted with permission.

An Open Letter to the American People: A Destiny-Changing Proposal

I’m reaching out to you to consider a needed message, God Bless America? His Rescue Plan…

It begins with this Prologue: “The Great Sign of Revelation 12” in the sky on September 23, 2017.

The sign, according to astronomers, is a complex convergence of aligning planets and constel-lations that unfolds over 9 months that fits Revelation 12:1,2. Starting September 23, 2017, the sun will be in the virgin, Virgo, and the moon will be at her feet. She will have a crown of nine stars and three planets in alignment making 12. Jupiter, symbol of deity, will be in the womb area, exiting at her feet. A 90-sec YouTube video asks us what it means.

Christians might think the child that is birthed and caught up to heaven would be Christ, but if God guides the stars and if He meant this sign to be about the birth of Christ, He is 2000 years late.

But we know God is on time, and He’s the Author of nature and the Bible. We should wonder if the Bible explains what nature doesn’t? The answer is Yes!…

God called Israel His “first-born” in Exodus 4:22, but 1st-born implies another event. Paul supports this when he included the Exodus in writing that “All those things happened to them for examples …ends of the world.” 1 Corinthians 10:1,11. The Exodus then, is an example of an event that’s impending, signaled by the imagery of Revelation 12:1,2. It’s also the imagery of ‘travail on a woman with child’ when the ‘day of the Lord’ (end-times) comes with sudden destruction in 1 Thessalonians 5:1-3.

America has many parallels to Egypt as the greatest nation then and now.

  1. They killed babies; the United States has aborted over 60 million babies.
  2. Egypt was a source of food in times of famine as America is for some nations now.
  3. Israel went to Egypt in a famine. Pioneers came when the Bread of Life was banned by the papacy in medieval times. Pioneers risked their lives for relief.
  4. Egypt enslaved Israel, but the United States has enslaved most of its people with alcohol, tobacco, drugs and bondage to food, gambling, greed, crime, sex, perversion, music videos, games, TV, etc.

God is going to execute judgment on the United States as He did on Egypt. Then Israel made a covenant at Sinai and they became God’s kingdom and Bride, Exod 19:5,6; Jer 3:14. This brings us to a more biblical understanding of the wedding parables, not a rapture. Readiness for the calamity in those parables is the key to high destiny. The Rule of 1st Use helps us understand them. For example…

The cry at midnight in Matthew 25:6 is first found in Exodus 12:29,30 as calamity fell on Egypt. The ‘knock’ in Luke 12:36 is an earthquake because Laodicea (where He knocked) ended that way. “The day of the Lord’ begins with an earthquake in Joel 2:10,11; Paul says ‘sudden destruction.’

God Bless America? shows how we can be ready for that event by ‘watching’ on the eve of Pass-over (all the wedding parables have Passover imagery) and it’s the authentic night for communion and the key to high destiny, Luke 12: 35-37,44.

If readiness for the event that affects destiny is important to you, please reply with a request for God Bless America? His Rescue Plan and How We Can Be “Ruler Over All That He Has.” He is offering us a huge reward and it must be important to Him for our answering His end-time call.

Thank you for considering this message. May God bless and guide America.

EDITORS NOTE: Dr. Richard Ruhling is an author on current events and Bible prophecy. His latest book, God Bless America? is subtitled His Rescue Plan & How We Can Be ‘Ruler Over All That He Has,’ is offered at no charge this Saturday, October 16th, 2017 at http://amzn.to/2grtEQx.