Posts

Jared Kushner TRUMP

Jared Kushner, an advisor with eyes on ISIS who Trump can actually trust

My father liked to say that a man’s judgment is only as good as his information — and that was decades before the era of “fake news.”

President Trump clearly understands that he needs multiple sources of information on sensitive issues, from the intentions of the Republican caucus on the Hill, to the status of our war on ISIS.

Bad information leads to bad decisions. This is the main reason why the Republican plan to reform ObamaCare failed.

Jared Kushner

Jared Kushner

By dispatching his trusted son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to Iraq in the company of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Trump is telling us that he is not entirely happy with the information he has been getting from Special Envoy for ISIS, Brett McGurk, an Obama holdover. Nor does he entirely trust the information he has been getting from the intelligence community, a raging elephant that has shown itself to be totally outside of his control.

The problem is the politicization of intelligence, a phenomenon that has afflicted Republican presidents more than Democrats in recent years.

LTG Mike Flynn understood this problem well. As director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, he felt it was his duty to give unvarnished advice to the president and the Congress, instead of dressing up his assessment to meet the wishes and policies of his political bosses.

Flynn’s truth-telling enraged Obama, who fired him in 2014 after he testified to Congress that the war on radical Islamic terrorism wasn’t all peaches and cream, as the White House was telling the American public.

In particular, Flynn warned that the U.S. drawdown in Afghanistan would embolden the Taliban, that al Qaeda in the Arabia Peninsula (AQAP) “remains resolute in targeting the (U.S.) Homeland,” and that al Qaida in Iraq, “also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant … probably will attempt to take territory in Iraq and Syria to exhibit its strength in 2014.”

All three of these predictions turned out to be accurate.

Even worse, Flynn had the audacity to tell Congress that Obama’s Iraq pullout at the end of 2011 had emboldened ISIL “to increase its operations and presence.”

During his brief stint as National Security Advisor for President Trump, Flynn was careful to establish his own channels of communications to field intelligence officers, in order get “ground truth” instead of politicized analysis.

His pick as liaison to the intelligence community, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, shared his skepticism of the Washington-based analysts and reportedly angered many of the old guard at the CIA, who tried to get Flynn’s successor, LTG H.R. McMaster, to fire him.

According to Politico, Cohen-Watnick kept his job after he appealed to top White House advisors Steve Bannon and Jared Kusher, who got the president to over-rule McMaster and the Agency mandarins.

Cohen-Watnick also reported to Jared Kushner on his review of requests by the Obama White House to “unmask” top Trump transition officials, arguably the only “crime” committed in the whole Russian-related investigation.

Bloomberg’s Eli Lake reported on Monday that former National Security Advisor Susan Rice made “multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities,” and that Cohen-Watnick relayed that information to House intelligence committee chairman, Devin Nunes.

Any wonder now why Kushner has been sent to Iraq? President Trump has good reason to not to trust intelligence bureaucrats who owe their jobs to former CIA director John Brennan, a highly-partisan pol, and wants a second opinion on the information he’s been getting through official channels.

Here are some of the questions that Kushner will likely be asking:

  • How well are the various elements of the coalition against ISIS actually fighting? Are the Kurdish peshmerga as effective as they claim to be? Are regular Iraqi army forces fighting at all?

  • What role are Iranian forces playing on the ground? Are they seeking a permanent presence in northern Iraq? How deeply do they influence the Baghdad government?

  • How effective are the newly-formed Christian militias in the Nineveh Plain?

  • How close to implosion is Iraq as a unitary state? Can the Kurdish Regional Authority successfully conduct a referendum on independence without exploding Iraq and provoking a Turkish invasion?

  • How can the U.S. neutralize an increasingly aggressive Turkey, and in particular, keep them from shooting in the backs of our Kurdish allies in northern Syria?

The president will be making life-and-death decisions in the weeks to come that will impact his presidency for years to come. No wonder he wants a trusted advisor on the ground to provide him with an independent assessment.

rand_amash_massie_mini

Why Is Trump Waging War on the Freedom Caucus? by Jeffrey A. Tucker

Why is Trump attacking the House Freedom Caucus? He has tweeted that “we must fight them.”

My first thought: this is inevitable. Destiny is unfolding before our eyes!

There is the obvious fact that the Freedom Caucus was the reason the GOP’s so-called replacement for Obamacare went down to defeat. They fought it for a solid reason: it would not have reduced premiums or deductibles, and it would not have increased access to a greater degree of choice in the health-insurance market.

These people knew this. How? Because there was not one word of that bill that enabled the health care industry to become more competitive. Competition is the standard by which reform must be judged. The core problem of Obamacare (among many) was that it froze the market in an artificial form and insulated it from competitive forces.At minimum, any reform must unfreeze the market. The proposed reform did not do that.

Bad Reform

That means the reform would not have been good for the American people. It would not have been good for the Republican Party. And then the chance for real reform – long promised by many people in the party – would have been gone.

Trump latched on to the proposal without understanding it. Or, other theories: he doesn’t care, he actually does favor universal coverage even if it is terrible, or he just wanted some pyrrhic victory even if it did nothing to improve the access.

The Freedom Caucus killed it. And I’m trying to think back in political history here, is there another time since World War Two that a pro-freedom faction of the Republican Party killed a bill pushed by the majority that pertained to such a large sector and dealt with such a hugely important program?

I can’t think of one.

What this signifies is extremely important. We might be seeing the emergence of a classically liberal faction within the GOP, one that is self consciously driven by an agenda that is centered on a clear goal: getting us closer to an ideal of a free society. The Caucus isn’t fully formed yet in an ideological sense, but its agenda is becoming less blurry by the day. (And please don’t call them the “hard right wing.”)The old GOP coalition included nationalists, militarists, free enterprisers, and social conservatives. The Trump takeover has strained it to the breaking point. Now the genuine believers in freedom are gaining a better understanding of themselves and what they must do.

For the first times in our lives! Even in our parents’ and grandparents’ lives!

The Larger Picture

Trump is obviously not a student of history or political philosophy, but he does embody a strain of thinking with a history that traces back in time. I discussed this in some detail here, here, and here, among many other places. The tradition of thought he inhabits stands in radical opposition to the liberal tradition. It always has. We just remain rather ignorant of this fact because the fascist tradition of thought has been dormant for many decades, and so is strangely unfamiliar to this generation of political observers.

So let us be clear: this manner of thinking that celebrates the nation-state, believes in great collectives on the move, panics about the demographic genocide of a race, rails against the “other” invading our shores, puts all hope in a powerful executive, and otherwise believes not in freedom but rather in compliance, loyalty, and hero worship – this manner of thinking has always and everywhere included liberals (or libertarians) as part of the enemy to be destroyed.

And why is this? Liberalism to them represents “rootless cosmopolitanism,” in the old Nazi phrase. They are willing to do business with anyone, move anywhere, and imagine that the good life of peace and prosperity is more than enough to aspire to in order to achieve the best of all possible worlds. They don’t believe that war is ennobling and heroic, but rather bloody and destructive. They are in awe of the creation of wealth out of simple exchanges and small innovations. They are champions of the old bourgeois spirit.To the liberal mind, the goal of life is to live well in peace and experience social and financial gain, with ever more alleviation of life’s pains and sufferings. Here is magic. Here is beauty. Here is true heroism.

The alt-right mind will have none of this. They want the clash, the war, the struggle against the enemy, big theaters of epic battles that pit great collectives against each other. If you want a hilarious caricature of this life outlook, no one does it better than Roderick Spode.

Natural Enemies

This is why these two groups can never get along politically. They desire different things. It has always and everywhere been true that when the strongmen of the right-Hegelian mindset gain control, they target the liberals for destruction. Liberals become the enemy that must be crushed.

And so it is that a mere few months into the presidency of this odd figure that the Freedom Caucus has emerged as a leading opposition. They will back him where they can but will otherwise adhere to the great principle of freedom. When their interests diverge, the Freedom Caucus will go the other way. It is not loyalty but freedom that drives them. It is not party but principle that makes them do what they do.To any aspiring despot, such views are intolerable, as bad as the reliable left-wing opposition.

Listen, I’m all for working with anyone to achieve freedom. When Trump is right (as he is on environmental regulation, capital gains taxes, and some other issues), he deserves to be backed. When he is wrong, he deserves to be opposed. This is not about partisanship. It is about obtaining freer lives.

But let us not languish in naïvete. The mindset of the right-wing Hegelian is not at all the same as a descendant of the legacy of Adam Smith. They know it. We need to know it too.

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Content for the Foundation for Economic Education. He is also Chief Liberty Officer and founder of Liberty.me, Distinguished Honorary Member of Mises Brazil, research fellow at the Acton Institute, policy adviser of the Heartland Institute, founder of the CryptoCurrency Conference, member of the editorial board of the Molinari Review, an advisor to the blockchain application builder Factom, and author of five books. He has written 150 introductions to books and many thousands of articles appearing in the scholarly and popular press.

RELATED ARTICLE: GOP Repeal Bill Left Too Much of Washington Power Grab in Place

trump america first

Judge Sides With Trump Administration, Refuses To Block Travel Ban

“The injunction had been brought forward by Palestinian activist Linda Sarsour, who was represented by an attorney from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.”

What is the endgame of people such as Linda Sarsour and groups such as Hamas-CAIR, in seeking an injunction to prevent the President from protecting the American people from Islamic jihadists?

“Judge Sides With Trump Administration, Refuses To Block Travel Ban,” by Alex Pfeiffer, Daily Caller, March 24, 2017 (thanks to Todd):

A federal judge in Virginia ruled Friday against blocking President Trump’s executive order that called for temporarily stopping the entry of immigrants from six majority-Muslim nations and refugee admittance overall.

The decision against the injunction comes after federal judges in Maryland and Hawaii blocked the implementation of Trump’s executive order nationwide. The ruling in Maryland is set to be heard before an appeals court in May. These two past decisions keep the order at bay.

Judge Anthony Trenga of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that Trump was within his legal rights to impose the travel ban and that it was not discriminatory toward Muslims. The injunction had been brought forward by Palestinian activist Linda Sarsour, who was represented by an attorney from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Trenga, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote in his opinion that “the President has unqualified authority to bar physical entry to the United States at the border.” He said that the executive order makes no mention of religion and has a “state secular purpose” of protecting U.S. citizens from terrorist attacks.

The Hawaiian federal judge who knocked down the executive order cited past statements from Trump on the campaign trail talking about a “Muslim ban.” Judge Trenga, however, wrote, “In that regard, the Supreme Court has held that ‘past actions [do not] forever taint any effort on [the government’s] part to deal with the subject matter.’”

A Department of Justice spokeswoman said in a statement, “The Department of Justice is pleased with the ruling. As the Court correctly explains, the President’s Executive Order falls well within his authority to safeguard the nation’s security.”…

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

ismail-elshikh

The Radical Ties of the Imam Behind the Trump Immigration Lawsuit by Jordan Schachtel

Originally published in the Conservative Review, March 10, 2017:

The plaintiff listed in Hawaii’s lawsuit against President Trump’s executive order on immigration is a member of an organization that has several current and former leaders tied to terrorist activity.

Dr. Ismail Elshikh — the imam of the Muslim Association of Hawaii — is suing Trump in reaction to the second version of his immigration moratorium, which was signed on Monday. The order imposed a 90-day hold on foreign nationals from six terror-tied countries from entering the United States.

According to the Muslim Association of Hawaii website, Imam Elshikh is a member of the North American Imam Federation (NAIF), a fringe Islamic organization that has a board and current leadership stacked with radical Islamic connections.

Kyle Shideler, a terrorism expert and director of the Threat Information Office at the Center for Security Policy, tells CR that it’s concerning that Imam Elshikh is a part of NAIF.

“Given NAIF’s history it should come as no surprise that the end goal of this lawsuit is, ultimately, weakening American counter-terrorism or immigration security efforts,” Shideler said.

He added: “That a member of an organization whose leaders have included a convicted war criminal, an individual who defended donating money to a Hamas linked charity, and an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism bombing wants to tell the American people who they can admit for immigration should say a lot about why such an executive order is needed in the first place.”

Steven Emerson, the executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, also voiced his concerns about Elshikh’s associations. He tells CR:

“NAIF is an extremely radical Islamist group whose leaders and members have defended some of the most violent terrorist groups in the world. Some members have been found to be actually linked to acts of Islamist terrorism. This is a group, some prosecutors have argued, whose incitement for violence could qualify their categorization as a providing material support for terrorism.”

Current NAIF board members include the former leader of an al-Qaeda-connected mosque and a radical preacher. Former leaders include a man convicted of leading an international death squad, and a prominent Islamist preacher who has praised Osama bin Laden.

Current NAIF leadership

Omar Shahin, a current board member of NAIF, is the former president of the Islamic Center of Tucson, a mosque that was once utilized as the “de-facto al-Qaeda headquarters in the United States,” according to the Investigative Project on Terrorism. As imam of the mosque, Shahin raised funds for the Holy Land Foundation, which was later shut down for funneling money to the terrorist group Hamas. He also held fundraisers for the Global Relief Foundation, which was later deemed by the U.S. Treasury Department to be connected to al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

El Shikh received his PhD from the Graduate Theological Foundation Islamic Studies Department, which is headed by Shahin. The program was created in collaboration with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an organization that was started as a Muslim Brotherhood front group.

Dr. Waleed Meneese, another NAIF board member, has explicitly called for fellow Muslims to kill Jews. “When the Children of Israel returned to cause corruption in the time of our Prophet Muhammad,” Meneese said in a recent sermon. “And they disbelieved him, God destroyed him at his hand. In any case, God Almighty has promised them destruction whenever they cause corruption,” he said of the Jewish people.

Meneese has also called for the killing of apostates from Islam, and for the treating of non-Muslims as second-class citizens.

Former NAIF leadership

Ashrafuzzaman Khan is the former president of NAIF and a current leader at the Muslim Brotherhood-connected Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA). In 2013, he was tried in a Bangladesh court as he was accused of drafting a kill list of intellectuals inside the country. He was charged with 11 counts of war crimes as the alleged leader of the Al-Badr death squad. In 2013, he and an accomplice were sentenced in absentia for the abduction and murder of 18 people, including nine university professors, six journalists, and three physicians.

Egyptian cleric Wagdi Ghoneim was the chairman of NAIF at the turn of the century. In 2005, he agreed to deportation to Qatar after U.S. authorities were concerned about his potential connections to terrorist organizations. Ghoneim has called Osama bin Laden a “martyred heroic mujahid” and is now closely tied to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. He has been banned from entering several countries due to his radicalism.

LINK: Wagdi Ghoneim Video

Another former NAIF board member is Siraj Wahhaj, who was infamously listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. Wahhaj testified in defense of the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel-Rahman, who served a life sentence for being the mastermind behind terrorist plots in the United States.

What else?

The North American Imam Federation is perhaps best known as the group that allegedly planned and staged the “flying imams” incident. After a 2006 NAIF conference, several imams connected to the group were booted from a domestic flight after exhibiting bizarre, threatening behavior, terrifying fellow passengers. NAIF and the Hamas-tied Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) showcased the incident as a prime example of America’s supposed problem with “Islamophobia.”

President Trump’s immigration moratorium, blocking non-citizens from coming into the U.S. from the six terror havens of Iran, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Libya, will go into effect next week, barring a successful legal challenge by Elshikh and Hawaii or other actors.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

A Short History of Islam in Hawaii

DTN: North American Imams Federation 

Japan

Japan holds firm, admits only TINY number of refugees

I haven’t written about Japan for awhile, and since we have so many new readers, I figured it was time to point this out (again)—Japan only takes a tiny number of refugees!

trump-and-prime-minister-shinzo-abe

President Donald J. Trump and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe

And, consequently, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has been haranguing Japan for years to open its doors (and begin diluting their culture!) to the masses of Middle Eastern and African (mostly Muslim) migrants on the move around the world.  Japan has resisted.

And I have not seen the UNHCR harangue China, Saudi Arabia or some other Middle Eastern countries in the same way they nag Japan.

Here is an activist from the UK badmouthing Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, at The Diplomat:

When asked for his view on the U.S. president’s executive order to ban the entry of people from seven Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East and Africa, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s response was very disappointing.“We are not in a position to express the view of the Japanese government,” he said at the Upper House on January 30. Not surprisingly, he did not bring up the travel ban’s issue when he met President Donald Trump earlier this month.

In contrast to the clear disagreement with the travel ban expressed by other world leaders, the Japanese leader’s response received criticism from the opposition and civil society. Many theorized that the prime minister had avoided criticizing the new U.S. president in order to protect Japan’s national interests, in particular its economy and security. Yet others pointed out a more fundamental problem: Japan cannot point its finger at any other country’s immigration policy.

Japan’s record on immigration and refugees is not something that the country can be proud of. In 2016, Japan granted refugee status to only 28 people out of 10,901 applicants. In other words, 99 percent of applications were rejected.

It is not enough for the nags that Japan is one of the world’s top contributors to the UNHCR:

Japan is one of the top donors to the UN Refugee Agency (UNCHR). It contributed $164,726,114 in 2016, making Japan the fourth largest donor after the United States, European Union, and Germany. Yet instead of turning this generosity to welcome refugees on its soil, Japan crosses its arms to those who actually arrive on its doorstep. On January 30, when discussing the U.S. travel ban, Abe added after his response, “At any rate, we believe the international community should jointly cope with refugee issues.”

To learn more about Japan’s limited involvement with ‘welcoming’ disparate cultures to the country, read on.

So far, Japan’s leadership is smart enough to look around the world and ask—why should we invite the problems we see in Sweden, Germany, France, The Netherlands and the US to our tiny country?

For my previous posts on Japan, go here.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Texas immigration control citizen activists must lead!

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

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

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

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

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

John-McCain

Dear Senator McCain please follow or get out of the way!

Dear Senator John McCain (R-AZ),

You had your chance to become the leader of the free world. You failed. As General George S. Patton said, “Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way.”

Since you are not President of the United States then you have a duty to follow Donald J. Trump as a Republican, based upon your oath to uphold the Constitution and as an American citizen to allow President Trump to conduct foreign policy as he sees fit.

There is a long standing tradition that members of the Senate do not criticize a sitting President overseas.

Speaking in 1947, Senator Arthur Vandenberg (R-MI), the influential chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, provided key support to Democratic President Harry S. Truman and admonished his colleagues that “[W]e must stop partisan politics at the water’s edge.”

You are the current chairman of the Senate Armed Forces Committee. You have a duty to speak with President Trump privately on issues important to you but you have no right to suggest the POTUS is a dictator or dictatorial in a foreign land.

President Trump has the power to conduct U.S. foreign policy under Article II Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Please remember President Trump took the oath of office which states, ”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Gateway Pundit reports that in a February 2017 recording in what appears to be a conversation between Senator McCain with Russian comedians Vladimir Kuznetsov and Alexei Stoliarov — known as Vovan and Lexus — posing as Prime Minister of Ukraine Volodymyr Groysman in a prank phone call, you discussed key national security issues on U.S. policy towards Ukraine and Russia.

Please understand that President Trump won the election. Therefore you are bound by your oath of office and the rules of the Republican Party to follow the lead of President Trump or get out of the way.

Sincerely,

The American People

Michael-Flynn

Former Obama officials, loyalists waged secret campaign to oust Flynn to preserve Iran deal

“Former Obama Officials, Loyalists Waged Secret Campaign to Oust Flynn,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, February 14, 2017:

The abrupt resignation Monday evening of White House national security adviser Michael Flynn is the culmination of a secret, months-long campaign by former Obama administration confidantes to handicap President Donald Trump’s national security apparatus and preserve the nuclear deal with Iran, according to multiple sources in and out of the White House who described to the Washington Free Beacon a behind-the-scenes effort by these officials to plant a series of damaging stories about Flynn in the national media.

The effort, said to include former Obama administration adviser Ben Rhodes—the architect of a separate White House effort to create what he described as a pro-Iran echo chamber—included a small task force of Obama loyalists who deluged media outlets with stories aimed at eroding Flynn’s credibility, multiple sources revealed.

The operation primarily focused on discrediting Flynn, an opponent of the Iran nuclear deal, in order to handicap the Trump administration’s efforts to disclose secret details of the nuclear deal with Iran that had been long hidden by the Obama administration.

Insiders familiar with the anti-Flynn campaign told the Free Beacon that these Obama loyalists plotted in the months before Trump’s inauguration to establish a set of roadblocks before Trump’s national security team, which includes several prominent opponents of diplomacy with Iran. The Free Beacon first reported on this effort in January.

Sources who spoke to the Free Beacon requested anonymity in order to speak freely about the situation and avoid interfering with the White House’s official narrative about Flynn, which centers on his failure to adequately inform the president about a series of phone calls with Russian officials.

Flynn took credit for his missteps regarding these phone calls in a brief statement released late Monday evening. Trump administration officials subsequently stated that Flynn’s efforts to mislead the president and vice president about his contacts with Russia could not be tolerated.

However, multiple sources closely involved in the situation pointed to a larger, more secretive campaign aimed at discrediting Flynn and undermining the Trump White House.

“It’s undeniable that the campaign to discredit Flynn was well underway before Inauguration Day, with a very troublesome and politicized series of leaks designed to undermine him,” said one veteran national security adviser with close ties to the White House team. “This pattern reminds me of the lead up to the Iran deal, and probably features the same cast of characters.”

The Free Beacon first reported in January that, until its final days in office, the Obama administration hosted several pro-Iran voices who were critical in helping to mislead the American public about the terms of the nuclear agreement. This included a former Iranian government official and the head of the National Iranian American Council, or NIAC, which has been accused of serving as Iran’s mouthpiece in Washington, D.C.

Since then, top members of the Obama administration’s national security team have launched a communications infrastructure after they left the White House, and have told reporters they are using that infrastructure to undermine Trump’s foreign policy.

“It’s actually Ben Rhodes, NIAC, and the Iranian mullahs who are celebrating today,” said one veteran foreign policy insider who is close to Flynn and the White House. “They know that the number one target is Iran … [and] they all knew their little sacred agreement with Iran was going to go off the books. So they got rid of Flynn before any of the [secret] agreements even surfaced.”

Flynn had been preparing to publicize many of the details about the nuclear deal that had been intentionally hidden by the Obama administration as part of its effort to garner support for the deal, these sources said.

Flynn is now “gone before anybody can see what happened” with these secret agreements, said the second insider close to Flynn and the White House….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama’s Shadow Presidency

Why does General Flynn hate Iran? – The Duran

James Mattis’ 33-Year Grudge Against Iran

Islamic State video shows two young boys blowing themselves up as jihad suicide bombers

Robert Spencer: Answering an Islamic apologist (Part V)

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch.

Trump-executive-order-701x402

Majority of Americans support Trump immigration ‘ban’ from terror hotspots

You are not alone!

Check it out!  Vox (the website that featured my work recently, here) reports that the majority of Americans support President Trump’s Executive Order to keep us safe from immigrants coming from certain parts of the world—keep us safe from terrorists trying to enter the country.

But, if the pollsters throw in mumbo-jumbo about “refugees” and phrases like “in keeping with US’s founding principles” they get more respondents to oppose the order.   The key message that resonates is one that uses the word “terrorism.”

Read it here.  Very interesting as Vox sends a message to its mostly Leftwing and Open Borders readers on how to use certain language to make their case.

I haven’t seen anything like this on mainstream cable media have you?

immigration poll supports trump ban

POLLS ON TRUMP EOS

Don’t waver Donald!

CNN and other Left-leaning news sites will show us non-stop clips of protesters opposing this EO making us all believe that we are in the minority, but never reveal that average Americans agree with Donald Trump on this! It is, as Trump says, “common sense!”

Sick of it? You can join like-minded Americans at upcoming rallies.  Go here (Spirit of America Rallies) and see if one is scheduled near you!

RELATED VIDEO: Pamela Geller on Trump’s “gorgeous” executive order is NOT a “Muslim ban.”

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Does Donald Trump know he can cap refugee program now?

The Trump Effect

Bloomberg: Trump’s refugee ceiling of 50,000 could hurt BIG MEAT

The Ninth Circuit Ignores Precedent and Threatens National Security – Wall Street Journal

Trump White House Says All Legal Options Still Being Considered, Ninth Circuit Court Judge Calls For En Banc Hearing

Krauthammer: 9th Circuit Ruling ‘A Disgraceful Conclusion’ – VIDEO

Hundreds Of Syrian, Iraqi Refugees Admitted To U.S. Since Trump Order Halted

Why the 9th Circuit Order Was Wrong, and What Trump Should Do About It

BREAKING: New Poll Shows SURPRISING Numbers For Trump….Liberals DUMBFOUNDED [VIDEO]

trump-extreme-vetting

1,051 Refugees from banned countries admitted to U.S. since Presidential Executive Order

And, since October 1, 2016 (the first day of fiscal year 2017) we are up to 34,430—still time for the Trump Administration to cap entry for this year at less than 50,000 (my suggestion is 35,000).

I’m glad to see so many news outlets now tracking refugee numbers, something not done until the last year or so. (You will see some slight discrepancies in numbers depending on what parameters are entered at Wrapsnet and what time of day the reporter accessed the State Department data base.)

Here is what I have this morning:

Since President Trump’s Executive Order on the evening of 1/27, the State Department and its contractors have hustled and placed 2,305 refugees.  (Remember that although the ‘ban’ has been stymied by court wrangling, the 50,000 ceiling, a reduction from Obama’s proposed 110,000, stays in effect.)

Of the 2,305, 1,051 come from the countries that were included in the ban as follows:

Iraq (341)
Iran (115)
Somalia (156)
Sudan (37)
Syria (402) (400 of the Syrians are Muslims and only 2 Christians)
Libya (0)
Yemen (0)

Total:  1,051

Religions?

An Indonesia policeman distributes used clothes to migrants believed to be Rohingya inside a shelter in Lhoksukon, Indonesia's Aceh Province May 11, 2015. Nearly 600 migrants thought to be Rohingya refugees and Bangladeshis were rescued from at least two wooden boats stranded off the coast of Indonesia's northern Aceh province, authorities said on Sunday. REUTERS/Roni Bintang

An Indonesia policeman distributes used clothes to migrants believed to be Rohingya inside a shelter in Lhoksukon, Indonesia’s Aceh Province May 11, 2015. REUTERS/Roni Bintang

One thing you need to know is that all of those coming from places like Iran and Iraq are not Muslims, some are Christians and other minorities.

It defies all common sense to believe Rohingya boat people can be security screened. Story and photo here. 

But the total number of Muslims in the group of 2,305 is 1,022.

In addition to those countries above, we admitted Muslim refugees from the following countries: Afghanistan, Burma, DR Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Jordan and Palestine.

In fact 19 of the 87 Burmese we admitted are Muslims.  These are probably the Rohingya boat people who went illegally to places like Malaysia, and I maintain cannot be thoroughly vetted any better than Syrians or Somalis.

This post is filed in our Trump Watch! category as well as ‘refugee statistics’ and ‘where to find information.’

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Refugees entering U.S. doubled in rate since ruling on Trump travel ban – Washington Times

Virginia: Immigrant Ex-National Guardsman Gets 11 Years for ISIS Support

Springfield, Mass mayor blasts Jewish Family Services for placing more refugees without notice

U.S. halts vetting of Australia’s rejected asylum seekers

Hohmann’s “Stealth Invasion” is Amazon #1 best seller in Terrorism category

Trump-Bannon2

The End of Countering Violent Extremism, the Start of Countering Radical Islamic Extremism

A few days ago, I correctly pointed out that by far the most important paragraph of the President Trump’s Executive Order on immigration was being widely overlooked by the media. While they carried on their endless discussion of the completely tangential list of exactly which countries citizens had their nonexistent “right” to enter the United States curtailed, the administration continued to pursue its clearly defined purpose. That purpose is to focus the full resources of the federal government on the only ideology that threatens the republic at this time.

From Reuters:

Exclusive: Trump to focus counter-extremism program solely on Islam – sources

The Trump administration wants to revamp and rename a U.S. government program designed to counter all violent ideologies so that it focuses solely on Islamist extremism, five people briefed on the matter told Reuters.

The program, “Countering Violent Extremism,” or CVE, would be changed to “Countering Islamic Extremism” or “Countering Radical Islamic Extremism,” the sources said, and would no longer target groups such as white supremacists who have also carried out bombings and shootings in the United States.

Such a change would reflect Trump’s election campaign rhetoric and criticism of former President Barack Obama for being weak in the fight against Islamic State and for refusing to use the phrase “radical Islam” in describing it. Islamic State has claimed responsibility for attacks on civilians in several countries.

The Reuters piece goes on to say that the Trump administration is now looking carefully at all grant allocations, the precise nature of the recipients of taxpayer money, and resource usage. The implication is that only Islam will be considered a threat, and whatever resources are currently directed at other forms of “extremism,” such as “Life After Hate which rehabilitates former neo-Nazis and other domestic extremists,” will be removed. No doubt there are threats (even deadly, murderous ones) from non-Islamic terrorists, but they are for criminal agencies to work on; they don’t represent a credible threat to overturn the entire US Constitution. That is what makes Islam and jihad unique.

None of this will come as a surprise to those of you who read the guiding paragraph of the executive order, which I wrote about. The entire thrust of this administration is to tackle Islam as an political ideology incompatible with the Constitution.

At the same time, CNN has dug up an interview Steve Bannon gave in 2010 on the late Avi Davis’s podcast, in which:

Bannon mocked Bush for proclaiming “Islam is a religion of peace.”

“Islam is not a religion of peace. Islam is a religion of submission. Islam means submission.”

One small step for Jihad Watch readers, one giant leap for mankind, when the direction of the new administration is to replace the lie of “Islam is a religion of peace” with a more realistic assessment of jihadi goals and methods. Especially those methods such as indoctrination and infiltration, which the Muslim Brotherhood and its front organisations have been employing so successfully for years.

This Bannon quote on Islam came up in a White House Press briefing.

Sean Spicer deflected the question; importantly, he did not counter, criticise or address what the journalist reported that Bannon had said; nor did he say that Trump would distance himself from it.

Once again, the new administration is going in a very interesting direction, and the old media is unable to understand what has changed. They’re not ready to come to terms with the complete removal of the “Islam is a religion of peace” doctrine and its replacement with treating Islam and jihad in the West as a hostile political movement.

One final piece to bring back. At times on the campaign trail, before he switched almost exclusively to teleprompter speeches, Donald Trump recited a poem about a snake. He made it very clear in the introduction that he was talking about Islam. Not just immigration. Again, that was largely overlooked by the media.

The press is attacking Bannon and Trump for holding these views. They’re going to try to coerce either of them back to the politically correct “Islam is a religion of peace” doctrine. As you Americans are fond of saying, good luck with that.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Venezuela selling passports to Iraqis, may have sold them to jihadis

“Aren’t You Tired of Writing Your Stupid Articles?” Georgetown Prof Jonathan Brown Expels Critic From Lecture

devos+mgn

DeVos Confirmed: Everything They Said about Her Is False by James Agresti

Betsy DeVos has been confirmed as Secretary of Education, but just barely. In the course of the hearings, outrageous claims were made about her views. Most originated from the public school industry itself, which is clinging to old forms for dear life. The result has been nothing but confusion. Let’s look more carefully.

In an op-ed for the New York Times, U.S. Senator Maggie Hassan (D-NH) alleges that she is voting against Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education because:

  • DeVos opposes policies that allow “our young people, all of them, to participate in our democracy and compete on a fair footing in the workforce.”
  • DeVos supports “voucher systems that divert taxpayer dollars to private, religious and for-profit schools without requirements for accountability.”
  • “The voucher programs that Ms. DeVos advocates leave out students whose families cannot afford to pay the part of the tuition that the voucher does not cover; the programs also leave behind students with disabilities because the schools do not accommodate their complex needs.”

Each of those claims is belied by concrete facts, and Hassan is guilty of most of the charges she levels at DeVos. Also, Hassan sent her own daughter to a private school, an opportunity that she would deny to other children.

A Fair Footing

Under the current U.S. education system, the quality of students’ schooling is largely determined by their parents’ income. This is because wealthy parents can afford to send their children to private schools and live in neighborhoods with the best public schools. Such options narrow as income declines, and the children of poor families—who are often racial minorities—typically end up in the nation’s worst schools.

Contrary to popular perception, funding is not the primary cause of differences between schools. Since the early 1970s, school districts with large portions of minority students have spent about the same amount per student as districts with fewer minorities. This is shown by studies conducted by the left-leaning Urban Institute, the U.S. Department of Education, Ph.D. economist Derek Neal, and the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Moreover, contrary to the notion that certain minorities are intellectually inferior, empirical and anecdotal evidence suggests that with competent schooling, people of all races can excel. For example, in 2009, Public School 172 in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, New York, had:

  • a mostly Hispanic population.
  • one-third of the students not fluent in English and no bilingual classes.
  • 80% of the students poor enough to qualify for free lunch.
  • lower spending per student than the New York City average.
  • the highest average math score of all fourth graders in New York City, with 99% of the students scoring “advanced.”
  • the top-dozen English scores of all fourth graders in New York City, with 99% of students passing.

These and other such results indicate that school quality plays a major role in student performance. Hassan and other critics of school choice are keenly aware of this, as evidenced by the choices they make for their own children. For example, Obama’s first Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, stated that the primary reason he decided to live in Arlington, Virginia, was so his daughter could attend its public schools. In his words:

That was why we chose where we live, it was the determining factor. That was the most important thing to me. My family has given up so much so that I could have the opportunity to serve; I didn’t want to try to save the country’s children and our educational system and jeopardize my own children’s education.

Duncan’s statement is an admission that public schools in the D.C. area often jeopardize the education of children, but he would not let this happen to his child. Few parents have the choice that Duncan made because most cannot afford to live in places like Arlington, where the annual cash income of the median family is $144,843, the highest of all counties in the United States.

Other prominent opponents of private school choice—like Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Bill Clinton—personally attended and also sent their own children to private K-12 schools. Likewise, Hassan’s daughter attended an elite private high school (Phillips Exeter Academy) where Hassan’s husband was the principal.

The existing U.S. education system does not provide an equal footing for children, but Hassan criticizes DeVos for supporting school choice, which would lessen this inequity. By its very definition, school choice allows parents to select the schools their children attend, an option that Hassan and other affluent people regularly exercise.

Taxpayer Money and Accountability

Four lines of evidence disprove Hassan’s claim that DeVos wants to “divert taxpayer dollars” to non-public schools “without requirements for accountability.”

First, private school choice generally increases public school spending per student, which is the primary measure of education funding. As explained by Stephen Cornman, a statistician with the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics, per-pupil spending is “the gold standard in school finance.”

Private school choice programs boost per-student funding in public schools because the public schools no longer educate the students who go to the private schools, which typically spend much less per student than public schools. This leaves additional funding for the students who remain in public schools.

According to the latest available data, the average spending per student in private K-12 schools during the 2011-12 school year was about $6,762. In the same year, the average spending per student in public schools was $13,398, or about twice as much. These figures exclude state administration spending, unfunded pension liabilities, and post-employment benefits like healthcare—all of which are common in public schools and rare in private ones.

Certain school costs like building maintenance are fixed in the short term, and thus, the savings of educating fewer students occurs in steps. This means that private school choice can temporarily decrease the funding per student in some public schools, but this is brief and slight because only 8% of public school spending is for operations and maintenance.

Second, school choice provides the most direct form of accountability, which is accountability to students and parents. With school choice, if parents are unhappy with any school, they have the ability to send their children to other schools. This means that every school is accountable to every parent.Under the current public education system, schools are accountable to government officials, not students and parents. Again, Hassan knows this, because her son has severe disabilities, and Hassan used her influence as a lawyer to get her son’s public elementary school to “accommodate his needs.”

Unlike Hassan, people without a law degree, extra time on their hands, or ample financial resources are at the mercy of politicians and government employees. Short of legal action or changing an election outcome, most children and parents are stuck with their public schools, regardless of whether they are effective or safe. That is precisely the situation that DeVos would like to fix through school choice, but Hassan talks as if DeVos were trying to do the opposite.

Third, taxpayer funds are commonly used for private schools, and Hassan actually wants more of this. Her campaign website states that she “will fight to expand Pell Grants” but fails to reveal that these are often used for private colleges like, for example, Brown University, the Ivy League school that she, her husband, and her daughter attended (disclosure: so did this author).

In other words, Hassan supports using taxpayer money for top students to attend elite private universities, but she opposes the same opportunity for poor students to attend private K-12 schools.

Hassan’s position on college aid also undercuts her objection that DeVos supports programs that “leave out students whose families cannot afford to pay the part of the tuition that the voucher does not cover.” If that were truly Hassan’s objection, she would also oppose aid that doesn’t cover the full costs of every college, because that would leave out students who can’t pay the rest of the tuition.

Fourth, contrary to Hassan’s rhetoric about accountability to taxpayers, she supports current spending levels in public K-12 schools, “debt-free public college for all,” and expanding “early childhood education” in spite of the facts that:

  • the U.S. spends an average of 31% more per K-12 student than other developed nations, but 15-year olds in the U.S. rank 31st among 35 nations in math.
  • federal, state, and local governments spend about $900 billion per year on formal education, but only 18% of U.S. residents aged 16 and older can correctly answer a word problem requiring the ability to search text, interpret it, and calculate using multiplication and division.
  • the average spending per public school classroom is $286,000 per year, but only 26% of the high school students who take the ACT exam meet its college readiness benchmarks in all four subjects (English, reading, math, and science).
  • federal, state and local governments spend $173 billion per year on higher education, but 80% of first-time, full-time students who enroll in a public community college do not receive a degree from the college within 150% of the normal time required to do so.
  • 4-year public colleges spend an average of $40,033 per year for each full-time student, but one-third of students who graduate from 4-year colleges don’t improve their “critical thinking, analytical reasoning, problem-solving, and writing” skills by more than one percentage point over their entire college careers.
  • the federal government funds dozens of preschool programs, and the largest —Head Start—spends an average of $8,772 per child per year, but it produces no measurable benefit by the time students reach 3rd grade.

In sum, Hassan supports pumping taxpayer money into programs with high costs and substandard outcomes, but she opposes doing the same for private K–12 schools that produce better outcomes with far less cost.

Left Behind?

Hassan’s claim that private school choice programs “leave behind students with disabilities because the schools do not accommodate their complex needs” is also false.

In Northern and Central New Jersey, there are more than 30 private special education schools that are approved by the state. As far as parents are concerned, these schools serve the needs of their children better than the public schools in their areas. If this were not the case, these private schools would not exist.

More importantly, if parents don’t think that a private school will be best for their special needs child, school choice allows them to keep the child in a public school that is better-funded thanks to the money saved by school choice.

In a recent brief to the Nevada Supreme Court, the nation’s largest teachers’ union, and its state affiliate argue that free-market voucher programs will lead to “cream-skimming—the drawing away of the most advantaged students to private schools––and lead to a highly stratified system of education.”

As detailed above, the current public school system is highly stratified by income, and income and education go hand in hand. Hence, the real issue is not stratification but what happens to students who stay in public schools. Contrary to the belief that school choice will harm these students, a mass of evidence shows the opposite.

At least 21 high-quality studies have been performed on the academic outcomes of students who remain in public schools that are subject to school choice programs. All but one found neutral-to-positive results, and none found negative results. This is consistent with the theory that school choice stimulates competition that induces public schools to improve.

Who Wins and Who Loses?

Wide-ranging facts prove that school choice is a win for students, parents, and taxpayers. However, it financially harms teachers unions by depriving them of dues, because private schools are less likely to have unions than public ones.

In turn, this financially harms Democratic politicians, political action committees, and related organizations, which have received about $200 million in reported donations from the two largest teachers’ unions since 1990. Unions also give many unreported donations to Democratic Party causes.

Teachers’ unions are firmly opposed to private school choice, and the National Education Association has sent an open letter to Democrats stating that “opposition to vouchers is a top priority for NEA.”

So why does Hassan oppose giving other children opportunities that she gave to her own children? Motives are difficult to divine, but the reasons she gave in her op-ed are at odds with verifiable facts and her own actions.

James Agresti

James Agresti

James D. Agresti is the president of Just Facts, a nonprofit institute dedicated to publishing verifiable facts about public policy.

RELATED ARTICLE: Bill to Shut U.S. Education Department Introduced in Congress

boycott macys

Retail Misogyny: Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus, Macy’s Drop Ivanka Trump’s Collections

Retailers are dying so what do they do?

They decide to insult 62,000,000 voters.

Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus and Macy*s? No more business from me and no doubt millions of others will decide the same thing.

Idiots.

CLICK HERE to go to Amazon.com and make your Ivanka purchase.

ivanka nordstrom


Macy’s Pressured to Drop Ivanka Trump Brand [Business Insider] (thanks to Katherine P)

Last week, Nordstrom announced it would be dropping the Ivanka Trump brand from its stores starting in fall 2017, citing flagging sales. One day later, all traces of Ivanka Trump jewelry disappeared from the Neiman Marcus website, and the retailer said that it would be carrying the label only in a handful of stores based on consignment. Now, Macy’s is being pressured to follow suit. The department store’s social media feeds are flooded with comments from customers and #GrabYourWallet boycotters asking Macy’s to drop Ivanka Trump shoes and clothing. According to Business Insider‘s sources, pressure is coming from inside the company as well, with corporate employees reportedly feeling uneasy about marketing the Ivanka Trump brand following the election. Currently, almost all of the 74 products listed for sale are marked down.

More at Hollywood Reporter.

 

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ivanka Trump Brand Soars to #1 on Amazon Best Sellers List

Exclusive — Women Nationwide Cut Up Nordstrom’s Cards, Plan Boycotts After Political Decision to Drop Ivanka Trump Line – Breitbart

Macy’s Announces Store Closings for 2017

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

protect america sign

Citizen on President Trump: ‘I think he’s doing a lot, every day I’m turning on CNN to see what he did & who he pissed off’

They may not be protesting in the streets, but voters in towns seeing their communities transformed by refugees almost overnight, support Donald Trump’s efforts to rein-in immigration from certain countries.

No time to thoroughly analyze both reports, but here is a bit of the story from Lewiston, Maine where many residents are happy with President Trump’s temporary slowdown of refugees from certain countries.  I don’t know this guy, but he speaks common sense, and I know exactly how he feels about watching CNN!

From Maine Public Radio:

Somali refugees in Lewiston, Maine. (AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty)

I think he’s doing a lot,” says Jim Nelson. “Every day I’m turning on CNN to see what he did and who he pissed off.”

Nelson says he voted for Trump and he’s happy he did. He says doesn’t always like how the president acts, but that Trump is quickly fulfilling campaign promises.

That includes the president’s recent travel ban, which affects immigrants from seven countries, including Somalia.

“This country was made on immigrants. I mean, that’s exactly why the United States exists. We’re a melting pot. We can’t lose sight of that,” Nelson says.

But he says he’s truly mystified by the local protests sparked by Trump’s order.

“On the front page of yesterday’s paper you got this little girl crying, and she’s a Somalian (sic) and she can’t see her grandmother, and ‘Oh, my God.’ You know, she can’t see her grandmother for six months. What about the people that got blown up down in Florida? What about those people? They can’t ever see their people again.” Nelson says.

More here.

We have a huge archive on Lewiston, see here.

Faribault, Minnesota:

Here is the Minneapolis Star Tribune about reactions in Faribault, another small city being overloaded with Somali refugees.  By the way, the population of Faribault was 23,594 in 2014, and Lewiston was 36,299 in 2014 (it had lost 293 residents since 2010, wonder why?).

FARIBAULT, MINN. – In her years of selling burgers and omelets in the heart of downtown Faribault, Janna Viscomi has seen changes she never expected.

[….]

For Viscomi, the new travel ban ordered by President Donald Trump that suspends refugee resettlement for 120 days and blocks entry for 90 days for citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries comes as mostly welcome news.

jennie-o

Jeenie-O plant which employs Muslim refugees

“I think slowing things down would be good,” she said this week, taking a short break after the lunch rush. “I don’t want to see families separated, but in the other regard, there needs to be somebody saying, ‘Hey, Let’s breathe here. Let’s breathe.’ ”

Reporter then describes pro-immigrant rallies in big cities. (Faribault is Trump country as was Lewiston on November 8th!)

Yet in other places, such as Faribault, the move has been welcomed by residents who feel the cost and pace of immigration is too much too fast. Trump won Faribault’s precincts with 50.4 percent of the vote in November, compared with 41.5 percent for Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Faribault, like other small- to medium-sized cities throughout Minnesota in recent years, has seen its mostly European ancestry make room for new arrivals from Cambodia, Laos, Mexico, Central America and Somalia.

And, of course, like much of Minnesota we see Somalis are supplying the cheap labor for BIG MEAT!

In many places, it’s the food processing plants that draw immigrants eager for work. It’s no different here, where the Jennie-O Turkey Store operates.

Continue reading here.

See our previous post on the welfare costs of refugee resettlement.  Somalis are among the greatest users of welfare including benefits provided at the state and local level.

So next time you are tempted to say that you want your meat to be cheap, remember it isn’t! Your tax dollars for refugee welfare subsidize the meat industry!

act logo trump

ACT for America Stands with President Trump and the American People

As the nation’s largest grassroots national security organization, ACT for America wholeheartedly commends President Trump for his actions to curb the influx of refugees from countries with significant terrorist activity.

For too long, our nation has been weakened by the tyranny of political correctness, and as a result, the American people have paid the ultimate price.

There is absolutely no rational reason for the United States of America to be blindly admitting individuals from countries with notable terrorist activity.

Those who claim there is no evidence to suggest that refugees from these countries with terrorist activity pose no threat are at best, guilty of willful ignorance, and at worst, intentional deception.

There is incontrovertible evidence that refugee populations have been infiltrated by sympathizers of the Islamic State, and have already carried out jihadist attacks against the Western world.

act for america logoHere are just a few of the recent refugee attacks on innocent Americans…

  • Somali refugee Abdul Razak Ali Artan went on a jihadi stabbing rampage at Ohio State.
  • In 2016, an Iraqi refugee Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan was accused of planning to bomb a local mall in Texas.
  • In September 2016, a Somali refugee named Dahir Adan went on a stabbing spree at a mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota.
  • Somali refugee, Mohamed Osman Mohamed, was arrested for planning to blow up a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon back in 2010.
  • In 2012, Abdullatif Ali Aldosary, an Iraqi refugee, bombed a Social Security Office in Arizona.
  • Two Iraqi refugees were convicted for having aided Al-Qaeda in Iraq to kill American servicemen. These so called “refugees,” lied on their applications, and as proof that the screening process is ineffective, were allowed entry without issue.
  • Both Boston Bombers were refugees. The Tsarnaev brothers were brought here courtesy of your paycheck, killing and maiming innocents as a result.

ACT for America, along with President Trump, have had enough innocent American bloodshed, courtesy of our own tax dollars.

The American people need not be lectured by baseless and cliché cries of “Islamophobia,” given that refugees have proven themselves time and time again to be a danger to American citizens.

These protests taking place around the country, are financed largely by those who have no respect for rule of law, or the average American citizen.

To think that in a post 9/11 world, we should have to tolerate anarchist mobs at our airports, disrupting and scaring passengers as they try to make their way through security gates peacefully, is a disgrace to no end.

Rule of law in this country must be restored and power must be used to benefit the average American citizen, not anti-American mobs, nor the politicians who benefit from enabling them.

So, bravo to our new Commander-in-Chief, and our leaders who have supported his dire actions regarding this matter.

No longer should the American people be forced to finance their own endangerment.

We call on all our nation’s representatives to stand with President Trump, and more importantly, the American people on this critical issue.

The risk posed to American lives for suspending refugee resettlement from high risk countries is zero. The risk posed to American lives for not taking such action, is significant.

Case closed.

tucker carlson extreme vetting

VIDEO: Fox News’ Tucker Carlson eviscerates former US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ lobbyist

There is so much I could start with today, but this has to be it!  If you want to start your day with a smile, watch this! Hat tip: Rosemary

Obviously Carlson has done his homework on the UN/US Refugee Admissions Program, especially as it relates to the taxpayer-funding the nine major refugee contractors receive to do their “Christian” charity. A national news outlet is finally reporting on the fact that money (your money) runs the US refugee program!

Kevin Appleby laughably claims that ISIS and other Islamists are going to hate us even more now!

Yes, maybe because President Donald Trump has slowed their migration (Hijra!) to America!

To learn more about the extremely controversial EO signed by Trump last night, go here.

We have written about Kevin Appleby many times over the years during his time as a lobbyist for the US Conference of Catholic BishopsClick here to read those posts.

One thing that has always troubled me is the 2013 trip by the USCCB to Central America and subsequent report, penned by Appleby, which predicted the huge wave of invading ‘children’ that swamped our border beginning in earnest within months of the trip.

Maybe the Trump team could investigate what happened on that trip—did the Bishops encourage the migration of the ‘children?’

Who benefited financially from that huge influx of ‘Unaccompanied alien children?’ The USCCB and Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services (two of the nine major refugee contractors) which have been paid for years to take care of the ‘children’ as their ‘Christian charitable’ work, for refugees and for the illegal alien children.

To learn more about what President Trump’s executive order on refugees contains, click here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

U.S. Cases of refugees arrested or convicted on terror charges, and other heinous crimes

Trump bans Syrian refugees, restricts entry from Muslim states

New Study Emphasizes Islamism as Foreign Fighters’ Main Motivation by IPT

Trump’s Immigration Actions Reverse Obama’s Open Borders Policy

Another way to skin the cat: Starve the UN beast