Court to Texas College Professors: Your Irrational Fear of Gun Owners Is Not Legally Addressable

/in , , , /by

Last Thursday, a federal judge in Austin, Texas, dismissed a lawsuit by several professors who sought to block the University of Texas from implementing a state law that provides for the lawful carrying of concealed handguns on campus. The case is Glass v. Paxton.

In a filing with the court, one of the professors claimed that the presence of armed students in their classrooms would impede their “ability to create a daring, intellectually active, mutually supportive, and engaged community of thinkers.” The court, however, noted the plaintiffs did not specify what subject matter or point of view they expected to be suppressed. Instead, the judge wrote, they appeared to claim that they would censor their own opinions for fear that an armed student would harm someone.

Yet the judge stated that the professors’ “subjective fear” that an unnamed, unknown student would be moved to future violence because of a differing opinion was based on “mere conjecture.” The judge accordingly ruled that the plaintiffs had not articulated enough of an injury for the court to have standing to hear the case.  Stripped of its legal jargon, Thursday’s ruling basically states that the professors’ own rank biases against law-abiding concealed carriers does not constitute a legally addressable injury. 

Because the judge ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing, he did not opine on the substance of their novel First and Second Amendment claims. We had discussed the implausibility of those claims at length in a prior article on the case. It’s particularly notable that the learned professors hoped to convince the court that the Second Amendment itself REQUIRES the university to BAN law-abiding students from possessing firearms on campus.

Stripped of its legal jargon, Thursday’s ruling basically states that the professors’ own rank biases against law-abiding concealed carriers does not constitute a legally addressable injury. The UT professors bootstrapped their claims essentially by insisting that their own irrational prejudice of lawful concealed carriers was so acute that it would cause the professors to avoid expressing opinions they themselves believed would be offensive. The court in this case wisely chose not to entertain or dignify this self-delusion.

This makes sense. Campus carry is hardly a new or isolated phenomenon, and there is no evidence (or intuitive force) to support the idea that differences of academic opinions will lead otherwise law-abiding carriers to suddenly become violent toward classmates or instructors. Indeed, as economist and former university instructor John Lott recently reiterated, concealed carry permit holders are among the most law-abiding of Americans. It’s ironic that a group of professors supposedly taking a stand for academic freedom did so with such a paucity of empirical or evidentiary support and on such highly emotional grounds.

Unfortunately for the Constitution and for whatever legitimacy remains in higher education, Thursday’s ruling may not be the end of the case. The plaintiffs could still ask the judge to clarify or reconsider his decision or appeal it to a higher court. Considering their unique legal claims, we don’t expect the professors will be deterred from doing so by the sound legal reasoning of the judgement against them.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Run, Hide, Perish – Survival Do’s and Don’ts from Across the Pond

Gun Control Groups: Good at Gloating, Bad at Counting on Advancing National Reciprocity Effort

Commerce Subcommittee Chairman John Culberson Steers Pro-Gun Spending Bill to House Floor

VIDEO: Who Fights For Black Gun Rights?

/in , , , , /by

The Black Lives Matter movement began as a way to shed light on what they saw as the unjustified killings of black men by police officers. Millions of dollars from liberal organizations and billionaires like George Soros later, they’re attacking the NRA and taking on extreme leftist issues that have nothing to do with the original purpose of #BlackLivesMatter.

So Colion Noir asks them: What are you really fighting for?

RELATED ARTICLES:

Run, Hide, Perish – Survival Do’s and Don’ts from Across the Pond

Court to Texas College Professors: Your Irrational Fear of Gun Owners Is Not Legally Addressable

Gun Control Groups: Good at Gloating, Bad at Counting on Advancing National Reciprocity Effort

Commerce Subcommittee Chairman John Culberson Steers Pro-Gun Spending Bill to House Floor

Fewer Muslim refugees entering U.S. since President Trump inaugurated

/in , , , , , , /by

UN camp for DR Congolese ‘refugees’

Pew Research Center has done some useful number crunching using the data available to you as well at Wrapsnet.

DR Congo tops the list!

Here are their findings in two simple graphs.  Readers should know that the flood of refugees coming in from the DR Congo are part of a five year plan agreed to during the Obama Administration to clean out the UN camps housing ‘refugees’ from the DR Congo. We reported this news in June 2013, here.

We agreed to take 50,000 over five years!  As of today we have admitted 40,204!

The group contains many women with mental health issues and children (very costly to the US taxpayer). And, if other UN camp clean outs are any indication, we won’t stop at 50,000!

Last fall we showed you where 33,000 from the DR Congo were placed in America. Most from the DR Congo are not Muslims.

From Pew Research:

I have two categories that might be useful to readers wanting to dig in to data. One is entitled ‘refugee statistics’and the other is ‘Where to find information,‘ but I warn you both are huge.  This post is archived in both.

American Eagle Outfitters uses oppressive Islamist symbol in its advertising

/in , , , , /by

It is predominantly the ignorant, greedy, and/or leftist part of the American market place that is helping Islamist Sharia doctrine to advance in the United States.  Whether attempting to appear politically correct to their leftist customers or deliberately targeting Islamist customers, their embracement and glamorization of Islamist tenets advances Sharia law in America.

American Eagle Outfitters hijab.

American Eagle Outfitters used photographs of Halima Aden wearing a hijab in its latest product promotion.  Halima Aden is the Muslim woman who wore a hijab on the cover of allure magazine.

American Eagle Outfitters’ product promotion is pushing the hijab which symbolizes and epitomizes Islamist oppression of women and is rejected by 57% of the Muslim women living in America.

Two Muslim women, Asra Q. Nomani and Hala Arafa, wrote a column titled “Wearing the Hijab in Solidarity Perpetuates Oppression” that was published on January 14, 2016 by The New York Times.  The column states in part:

In the eight times the word hijab, or a derivative, appears in the Koran, it means a “barrier” or “curtain,” with spiritual, not sartorial, meaning. Today, well-intentioned women are wearing headscarves in interfaith “solidarity.” But, to us, they stand on the wrong side of a lethal war of ideas that sexually objectifies women as vessels for honor and temptation, absolving men of personal responsibility.   This purity culture covers, segregates, subordinates, silences, jails and kills women and girls around the world.

Pew Research found that only forty three percent (43%) of American Muslim women wear hijabs according to an article published by NPR on April 21, 2011.  The NPR article states in part,

“The split between women who’ve covered and women who’ve never done so has existed for decades. But now a generation of women is taking off the headscarf, or hijab.” Therefore, after six years of “a generation of women taking off the hijab” the number of Muslim women now wearing the hijab in America is likely even less than forty three percent.  NPR reports:   Rasmieyh Abdelnabi, 27, grew up attending an Islamic school in Bridgeview, Ill., a tiny Arab enclave on Chicago’s southwest side. It’s a place where most Muslim women wear the hijab.  Abdelnabi explains why she stopped wearing the hijab.  She says that Islam teaches modesty — but wearing the hijab is taking it a step too far.  “I’ve done my research, and I don’t feel its foundation is from Islam,” she says. “I think it comes from Arab culture.”

The majority of Muslim women in America reject the hijab because:

  • The hijab symbolizes Islamist oppression.
  • These Muslim women live in America where the law of the land gives them that right.
  • These Muslim women want to Americanize their appearance and blend in not stand out.

American Eagle Outfitters certainly has the right to use whatever content it chooses in its advertising campaigns.  Likewise, you have the same right to express disappointment and patronize companies that do not promote symbols of Islamist doctrine.  Please urge American Eagle Outfitters to use advertising content that embraces the liberties of the United States Constitution instead of Islamist tenets that oppress women and minorities.

Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send to urge American Eagle Outfitters (DSW) officials to discontinue inclusion of women wearing hijabs, a symbol of Islamist oppression, in its advertising campaigns.

Click here to send your email to urge American Eagle Outfitters (DSW) officials to discontinue inclusion of women wearing hijabs, a symbol of Islamist oppression, in its advertising campaigns.

Contact information:

Jay Schottenstein, Executive Chairman, DSW, Inc
CEO American Eagle Outfitters
jayschottenstein@dswinc.com

Roger L. Rawlins, CEO
rogerrawlins@dswinc.com

Jared Poff, CFO
jaredpoff@dswinc.com

MediaRelations@dswinc.com
rawlins@dswinc.comd

Laurie Bibbo Zuckerman
American Eagle Outfitters, Inc.
BibboL@ae.com

Muslims for Same-Sex ‘Marriage’?

/in , , , , /by

Der Feind vor den Toren (the enemy at the gate).

William Kilpatrick notes the passage in Germany of a law legalizing same-sex “marriage.” Curiously, all Muslims in the Bundestag voted yes. The question is: why?

The German parliament just voted in favor of same-sex “marriage,” and to the wonder of all, all six Muslim members of the Bundestag also voted in favor.

Well, make that to the wonder of all the “rubes.” Sophisticated people wouldn’t be astonished. They’ve always contended that Muslims will have no problem assimilating into Western culture, even with all its oddities. For example, after the vote, activist Felipe Henriques tweeted, “Most Germans and all Muslim MPs believe in equality. Who needs integration?”

“Who needs integration?” The implication is that Muslims are by and large already integrated into German society. In other words, they’ve learned to go with the flow. And the flow, judging by the 393-226 vote in the Bundestag, is in the direction of sexual license.

So according to one sophisticate, Muslim MPs voted for same-sex marriage because they believe in equality. That’s one way of looking at it. But is it possible that they could have had another motive?

Did the 387 non-Muslim MPs stop to think that the legalization of same-sex “marriage” is just a step on the way to the legalization of polygamy? The arguments that are used to justify SSM can just as easily be used to justify multiple-partner marriages. If marriage is no longer to be confined to one man and one woman, why not allow one man and four women?

Italy’s largest Muslim umbrella group, the Union of Islamic Communities and Organizations, has already demanded the legalization of polygamy on the grounds that Italian law permits same-sex civil unions.

Could it be that the Muslim MPs in Germany who voted “for” had something else in mind besides equality for gays and lesbians? In the long run, the decision will work to the advantage of Muslims, even those Muslims who are adamantly opposed to same-sex “marriage.”

Some believe the advantage is a demographic one. For instance, the founder of the aforementioned Italian Islamic union has stated that polygamy will increase the population. That’s not necessarily so, because polygamy for some men acts to squeeze other men out of the marriage market altogether, thus potentially cancelling out the higher birth rates of polygamous families. Whatever the case, there are other more subtle advantages that will accrue to the Muslim community if polygamy is legitimized.

Click here to read the rest of Mr. Kilpatrick’s column . . .

William Kilpatrick

William Kilpatrick

William Kilpatrick is the author of Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West, and a new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad. For more on his work and writings, visit his website, The Turning Point Project

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is titled Feind am Tor. [Enemy at the Gate.]

Does your state care about voter fraud, people stealing elections? These states don’t…

/in , , , , , , /by

The PEW Center on the States in a 2012 study titled “Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient: Evidence That America’s Voter Registration System Needs an Upgrade” found:

  • Approximately 24 million—one of every eight—voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate.
  • More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters.
  • Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.

PEW researchers estimated at least 51 million eligible U.S. citizens are unregistered, or more than 24 percent of the eligible population. In contrast the PEW study noted that “Canada, which uses modern technology to register people as well as data-matching techniques common in the private sector, spends less than 35 cents per voter to process registrations, and 93 percent of its eligible population is registered.”

In a Daily Signal article titled “Some States Have No Interest in Fighting Voter Fraud” John G. Malcolm and Jason Snead report:

It was a simple request—hardly one to stir up controversy.

Kris Kobach, Kansas secretary of state and vice chair of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, recently sent letters to his fellow secretaries of state requesting “publicly-available voter roll data” and soliciting feedback on ways to secure America’s electoral system against fraud.

Yet the response has been as swift as it is absurd. Liberal activist groups, many media outlets, and politicians—predominantly left-leaning ones—assailed the commission for somehow invading the privacy of American voters.

Some went even further. Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh tweeted that the request was “repugnant.” Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe labeled the commission a “tool to commit large-scale voter suppression.” California Secretary of State Alex Padilla called it a “waste of taxpayer money.”

All three indicated their states will provide no information to the commission. They apparently believe that their voter registration rolls are 100 percent accurate.

They must agree with New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who publicly proclaimed voter fraud to be just a “myth”—so why bother investigating it?

Read more.

As Malcolm and Snead note:

According to a provision in Section 20507 of Title 52, part of the National Voter Registration Act (52 U.S.C. § 20507(i)):

Each state shall maintain for at least two years and shall make available for public inspection and, where available, photocopying at a reasonable cost, all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters …

Federal law (52 U.S.C. §§ 20701 & 20703) also mandates that election officers must “retain and preserve, for a period of 22 months from the date of any general, special, or primary election” for a federal office all records pertaining to “any application” or “registration” to vote.

If Americans want to make sure their votes counts and is not negated by an illegal vote then they should contact their elected representatives and support the Presidential Commission looking at the integrity of our voting system.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS:

John G. Malcolm

Portrait of John G. Malcolm

John G. Malcolm

John G. Malcolm oversees The Heritage Foundation’s work to increase understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law as director of the think tank’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read his research.

Jason Snead

Portrait of Jason Snead

Jason Snead

Jason Snead is a policy analyst in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read his research.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Voter Fraud Is Real. This Searchable Database Proves It.

Florida Democrat Election Official Admits Noncitizens, Felons Voting

Undocumented immigrant driver’s licenses near milestone in California

My Parents’ Experience With Dictatorships Inspired Me to Fight Voter Fraud

The Atlantic Publishes All You Need to Know About the Left

Meet the Elected Democrat Who Wants to Fight Voter Fraud

RELATED VIDEO: Judicial Watch convened four of the nation’s top experts on election integrity to discuss the very timely topic of voter fraud. Please watch the webcast to understand what’s really going on out there in our election system.

Refugee resettlement contractors 57% to 98% funded by U.S. taxpayers

/in , , , /by

I hadn’t checked the most recent data on how much of your money goes to the nine federal refugee resettlement contractors (aka VOLAGs) lately.  So here is the latest information I could find. I had to use several sources mostly because some contractors do not file a Form 990 (They claim they are churches and are thus exempt).

Unfortunately I couldn’t find all income information for all nine for the same year, so it is a little hard to make a direct comparison, but you get the idea.

These are the nine major federal resettlement contractors.  (Go here to see a data base with the hundreds of subcontractors working for them in a town near you.)

Church World Service (71% funded by taxpayers)

Church World Service as of June 2016 had a total revenue for the previous year of $88,455,527.

71.3% of their millions comes from you—the taxpayer—according to Charity Navigator, here. You are the source of government grants:

Their chief executive, Rev. John McCullough makes an annual salary of $251,224.

Ethiopian Community Development Council (93% funded by taxpayers)

ECDC is not rated at Charity Navigator so I had to use their most recent Form 990, see here.

(If you have trouble opening the Form 990, go here and then download the document.)

Their total revenue for the year ending September 30, 2014 was $17,448,992. You will see on page 9 that they received $16,290,580 in government grants making them 93% funded by you, the taxpayer.

ECDC’s President Tsehaye Teferra has income listed on page 7 in three columns. The first is direct compensation of $171,683 and the two other columns involve other  income from this organization and from “related” organizations of $57,857 and $46,843 (don’t ask me what that is!).

Episcopal Migration Ministries (aka Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Episcopal Church) (99.5% funded by taxpayers)

We know they are 99.5% funded by you because they admitted it here.  But, because their federal funds flow in to a church ‘kitty’ and because churches don’t file Form 990’s (or most churches don’t), we have no idea how much they are getting or what the program leaders are being paid.  Frankly, this is shameful!

If you are of the Episcopal faith, you need to start asking questions!

Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (aka HIAS) (57% funded by taxpayers)

According to Charity Navigator for the year ending 12/2015, HIAS had a total revenue of $40,565,891.

Chief executive Mark Hetfield‘s annual salary in that report is $358,718.

International Rescue Committee (66.5% funded by taxpayers)

Be sure to focus on how much bigger the IRC is with an annual revenue of $688,920,920! From Charity Navigator:

66.5% is in the vicinity of $455 MILLION of your dollars annually!

Head honcho David Miliband hit the jackpot with this annual salary: $591,846!

US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI) (98% funded with taxpayer dollars)

USCRI is a little harder to figure out. Charity Navigator does not rate them for this reason:

This organization is not eligible to be rated by Charity Navigator because, as a service for individual givers, we only rate organizations that depend on support from individual contributors and foundations. Organizations such as this, that get most of their revenue from the government or from program services, are therefore not eligible to be rated.

You could say that USCRI is a quasi-government organization masquerading as a non-profit!

Lavinia Limon (left)

So we go to the most recent Form 990 available for year ending September 30, 2015.  (Or download PDF at ProPublica, here)

On page 9 you can see that they only take in less than $1 million of their $51,524,570 from private gifts and contributions. All of their “program income” is likely through taxpayer dollars as well.

President and CEO Lavinia Limon makes $260,258 in annual compensation plus pulls down another $42,231 from this and related organizations (whatever that is!).

NOTE: We have a lot on Lavinia Limon here at RRW. She was Bill Clinton’s director of the ORR!

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS) is 96-97% funded by taxpayers

Like USCRI it’s a little hard to figure out, from their recent Form 990 here where their total income is $55,983,615, exactly which of the fees in their income column actually are taxpayer dollars too.

We can assume there isn’t much private charity going to LIRS because Charity Navigator says the same thing they did for USCRI which is:

This organization is not eligible to be rated by Charity Navigator because, as a service for individual givers, we only rate organizations that depend on support from individual contributors and foundations. Organizations such as this, that get most of their revenue from the government or from program services, are therefore not eligible to be rated.

Hartke (blue jacket front row picture right) with refugee lobbyists last month.

Just a reminder that USCRI and LIRS are really quasi-government agencies yet they are busy lobbying Congress and otherwise community organizing in order to influence the media and Congress to support more refugees (aka paying clients!) coming to America.

LIRS President and CEO Linda Hartke makes an annual salary of $274,632 and an additional $33,401 from this and related organizations (page 8).

US Conference of Catholic Bishops Migration Fund (97% taxpayer funded)

Now it gets even trickier! The Bishops don’t file a Form 990 and their operations are so vast, I could spend the whole day and still not sort it out.  Also, maybe you can find one, but I have not found an annual report for their refugee program since I found this one for 2014.

So we will have to rely on it (again). Keep in mind these funds for their refugee resettlement program do not include millions that go directly from the feds to some individual Catholic Charities and Dioceses around the US. (If you are researching your local CC or Dioceses, you can often find good numbers at USASpending.gov)

“Federal grants” is your money, so is the Travel Loan Collection Fees, so that puts the Bishops’ refugee resettlement program at 97% taxpayer funded.  (I am not sure if the Unaccompanied Alien Children fall in to yet another fund!).

I would like to get a more up-to-date accounting for the Bishops, but they must be hiding those reports really well!  I suspect they are pulling down even more payola in more recent years.

Obviously we don’t know what salaries are being paid for their Washington, DC lobbying shop. Their previous head lobbyist was Kevin Appleby.

World Relief (Corp. National Association of Evangelicals) is 72.8% funded by taxpayer dollars

That is according to Charity Navigator, here.  Total revenue is $62,583,313 for the year ending September 30, 2015.  But, I did find a more recent Form 990, here, with a huge jump in income in one year to $71,022,032.  I thought World Relief was broke and closing offices??? (Gives me an idea for another post and that is to report on some of the contractors increases in funding over several years).

That Form 990 shows something I hadn’t seen in other Form 990’s and that is that the Prez/CEO doesn’t make a whole lot, but some financial officer (Barry Howard) is making over $250,000 big ones (see pages 7 & 8).

Here is Charity Navigator’s “contributions” breakdown. Ha! Ha! your tax dollars for government grants are contributions!

Whew!  What a job searching for all that financial information! Hope you made it this far!

Can you see now why I say there will be no reform of the UN/US Refugee Admissions Program as long as these nine contractors, masquerading as charities, are sucking on the federal teat and bidding for bodies (aka refugee ‘clients’)?

And, adding insult to injury, they lobby, kiss up to the media, and community organize against you who are paying for the whole refugee racket!

None of these organizations would survive very long if Congress and the President cut them loose (or stated more kindly and so as not to mix metaphors!—weaned them!).

Your daily assignment! Write to the White House, here.

RELATED ARTICLE: The 20 diseases ‘refugees’ bring into the West

The Startling Impact of Illegal Immigration in Florida

/in , , , , , , , /by

Jonathan Hanen, the Atlantic regional field representative from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) recently spoke to the Champions of Liberty Tea Party in Ft. Lauderdale, joined by members of F.L.I.M.E.N, and presented a comprehensive list of statistics which reveal the startling impact of illegal immigration in the state of Florida and the taxpayer’s ultimate burden.

Immigration by the Numbers

  • Population (2011 Census Bureau estimate)            19,057,542
  • Illegal Alien Population (2010 FAIR estimate)           820,000
  • Illegal Alien Share (2010 FAIR estimate)                     4.3%
  • Projected Population 2050 (2006 FAIR estimate)     31,750,000

Dept. of Motor Vehicles, Florida Data 2017

According to the Florida Dept. of Motor Vehicles, in 2017 there was an excess of 20 million registered motor vehicles.  They project by 2050 there will be 30% more residents in the state, which means 26 million more autos on the highway.  Does anyone believe that this is sustainable?

Cost to the Florida Taxpayer

There is an estimated 820,000 illegal aliens living in Florida and ‘in state’ and ‘local’ cost to the taxpayer of $5.5 billion.  F.A.I.R estimates that they may pay an estimated $261 million in taxes collected by the state, leaving a burden of more than $5.2 billion for Florida taxpayers to absorb.

Sanctuary Cities

The number of Sanctuary Cities and Counties in Florida has exploded to at least twelve.  They are:

  • Broward County
  • Miami-Dade County
  • Herano County
  • Hillsbourgh County
  • Palm Beach County
  • Pinellas County
  • Pasco County
  • DeLeon Springs
  • Jupiter
  • Lake Worth
  • Deltona

Sanctuary cities have chosen to protect the illegal immigrant, despite the fact that he could have a criminal history or could be a terrorist that just snuck across the border.  What about the protection of the citizens and their families?

What Are Florida Taxpayers Supporting?

Illegal immigration has placed a $3.34 billion burden on the taxpayer for education, $660 million for healthcare, $579 million for law enforcement, $317 million for public assistance, and $568 million for general government services. These figures equate to $5.2 billion (2010), which amounts to $981 per household headed by a U.S. citizen.  We must remind those that support open borders that there is an ultimate burden each Florida family must bear and sacrifice for this.

In Florida, natives accounted for most of the increase in the working age population, (16-65), but more than half of the employment gains went to immigrants, (2000-2014). According to Floridians for Immigration Enforcement, (F.L.I.M.E.N.), since the jobs recovery began in 2010, 64% of net employment growth among the state’s working age population has gone to immigrants.  While agriculture is important to the state, it employs a tiny share of immigrant workers, less than one percent.

The supply of potential workers in Florida indicates that a half a million native-born college graduates were not working in the first quarter of 2014, as were one million with some college and 1.4 million with no more than a high school education.  The labor force participation of black, Hispanic and less educated worker show the biggest declines.

Illegal Alien Crime

In April of 2017, U.S. Customs Enforcement, I.C.E., arrested 73 criminal illegal aliens across Florida.  Of those arrested, 57 had criminal records including felonies for such crimes as sexual battery, child sex crimes, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and other weapons and drug violations.  According to I.C.E. 2016 records, they conducted 240,255 removals nationwide; 92% of those removed had previously been convicted of a crime.  In April, 2016, Miami-Dade authorities announced arrest warrants for 22 people suspected of laundering money for Mexican drug cartel kingpin, Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman.  In March, 2016, Feds arrested 26 suspected MS-13 gang members from the notoriously vicious South American Mara Salvatrucha international gang, seizing narcotics and 150 firearms in Miami-Dade County.  The impact of lives lost, crime and narcotic trafficking impacts all Floridians, despite age, gender or income level.

Floridians for Immigration Enforcement

FLIMEN has been actively encouraging E-Verify for all employers in the state of Florida and nationwide, requiring them to confirm the legal status of new hires.  By doing so, the job magnet would be squelched and illegal immigration could be curbed.  Unfortunately, after years of pushing this mandate, despite the fact that Florida has a Republican governor and legislature, E-Verify still has not be voted on.  Perhaps the special interest groups and employers in the state would rather turn a blind eye to the hiring of illegal immigrants over native Floridians.

Illegal immigration may have temporarily slowed down because of President Trump’s mandate to ‘Build The Wall’ on the southern border, however, the impact of illegal immigration has not dissipated, as every taxpayer is still burdened with the ultimate absorption of costs, decline in pay and quality of living as a result of years of illegal border crossings.

RELATED ARTICLES:

DHS: 23% of all federal prisoners are illegals, just 7 of 42,034 saved from deportation

The American People, Not Unelected Judges, Must Control U.S. Immigration and Refugee Policy

Trump puts brakes on Obama immigration plan

Minnesota needs more money to combat refugee communicable diseases

Sanctuary Cities Promise to Grant Citizenship to 1 Million Immigrants in 2017

‘Sanctuary cities’ giving citizenship to migrants to oppose Trump

US News study: America seventh most popular country according to migrants

B’nai Brith Slams Canada’s Funding for Anti-Israel Exhibit

/in , , , , /by

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau praying in mosque.

LONDON, Ontario – B’nai Brith Canada is strongly condemning an anti-Israel art exhibit on display at Western University’s McIntosh Gallery which received grants from a federal funding agency, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).

The display, entitled “Choreographies of Resistance,” glorifies the actions of Palestinian protesters, including stone-throwers who promote violence under the guise of resistance. In Israel, a reported fourteen civilians have been murdered by Palestinian stone-throwers, including infants such as Adele Biton and Yehuda Shoham, as well as three Israeli Arabs who were attacked because they were mistaken for Jews.

The creator of the exhibit is Rehab Nazzal, the sister of Palestinian terrorist leader Khaled Nazzal. In 2014, Rehab drew condemnation for a similar display at Ottawa City Hall which glorified Khaled and other Palestinian terrorists. Rehab continues to justify terrorist attacks plotted by her brother, including the 1974 massacre of 22 Israeli schoolchildren, describing him as a “martyr” who fought for “justice.”

Despite Rehab’s abuse of art to whitewash acts of terror, research by B’nai Brith shows that the SSHRC handed her $35,000 in 2015 in order to continue her work.

“It is irresponsible that taxpayer dollars are being used to finance this anti-Israel exhibit,” said Michael Mostyn, Chief Executive Officer of B’nai Brith Canada.

“The false narrative of victimhood on display at this exhibit deliberately ignores Palestinian car rammings, suicide bombings, the recent knife intifada and lethal use of rocks targeting civilians due to a continual campaign of incitement. Rehab Nazzal’s public support for her terrorist brother is deplorable.”

The McIntosh Gallery says the exhibit “pays tribute to Palestinians who have lost their lives in what the artist notes is an ‘intifada, or uprising.'” The term ‘intifada’ actually refers to violent Palestinian uprisings that have left thousands of Israeli civilians dead or wounded.

RELATED ARTICLE: Palestinians to U.S. Ambassador: Drop Dead!

EDITORS NOTE: To share this story via social media, please click here.

Hungarian PM Orban: European Union following George Soros’ migration plan

/in , , , , , , /by

He also suggests Italy will soon attempt to close its borders.  I won’t hold my breath on that one, political correctness has most of Europe by the short hairs.

Invasion of Europe news…..

From Breitbart London (which has been doing a great job of reporting on the invasion):

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has claimed the European Union are implementing migration plans designed by left-wing billionaire Geroge Soros to bring in a million migrants per year to Europe with the help of his army of NGOs.

Hungarian Prime Minister Orban (left) George Soros (right).

Orbán claimed the EU and Soros wish to bring in the one million migrants annually to create an EU immigration force to undermine the national sovereignty of member states, Die Presse reports.

According to Orbán, many heads of government across Europe agree with his government’s policy on migration but will only say so in private. He also said that because of the recent surge of migration into Italy, he expected the southern European nation could soon join Hungary and others in wanting to secure their national borders.

The Italian government have already made several steps toward securing their border after they saw 13,500 migrants arrive by naval vessels and NGO rescue ships in a 48-hour period. The NGO ships have been accused by Italian prosecutors of cooperating with people smugglers and Italy has even threatened to close its ports to their boats if the traffic continues at the same pace.

Orbán also mentioned former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi who once warned that if his government should fall, then millions of people would flood Europe from Africa.

The Hungarian prime minister said that although Gaddafi was no democratic ruler, Western interventionism in Libya was partly responsible for the current crisis.BTW, it was Soros’ pal Hillary Clinton who is responsible for getting Gaddafi out of the way, see here. Watch her laugh like a mad woman!

Come on Donald! You visited Poland, now invite Viktor Orban to the White House and give him a lavish state dinner—make the heathen rage!

Tell the President, here, to invite the brave Orban to the White House!  Soros might be a friend of your son-in-law, but he is not your friend.

All of my ‘Invasion of Europe’ news is here.  The archive extends back to about 2011.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Israel: George Soros Behind Groups That Defame Jewish State

WaPo: Stirring the pot, highlighting controversy between White House and Department of State on refugees

Supreme Court is giving permission for the refugee ceiling to be surpassed for first time

Missing in America: Muslims charged with crimes have disappeared

Cambridge, Mass: No refugees for you! Neighborhood is too wealthy!

Every day tell the White House what you think about refugee program!

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of one of many NGO ships bringing African migrants to Italy. Photo: Breitbart

Trump’s New Foreign Policy of ‘Principled Realism’ by José Azel

/in , , , , /by

The new U.S.-Cuba policy emphasizes our democratic values, but allows for negotiations responsive to the requirements of U.S. national interests. It is a policy of principled realism. The symbolism of a change to a policy that now embraces our values was richly expressed by U.S. Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart: “We will no longer have to witness the embarrassing spectacle of an American president doing the wave at a baseball game with a ruthless dictator.”

American foreign policy has historically fluctuated between two competing approaches that transcend our left-right political spectrum. Political scientists label these schools of thought Idealism and Realism.

Idealism holds that the purpose of U.S. foreign policy is to advance American values by fomenting freedom and democracy throughout the world. The ultimate goal of Idealism is to bring about a just and peaceful world by ending tyrannies. In the idealist view, the United States should engage in humanitarian missions, military interventions, and nation building, to advance this goal. Idealists believe that U.S. foreign policy should not be determined by what is best for the United States, but by what is, morally, the right thing to do.

In contrast, Realism holds that the purpose of U.S. foreign policy is to secure America’s national interest. Realists believe that moral principles are incompatible with the protection of our national interest. Interests come before values, and U.S. foreign policy should set aside moral considerations, and focus on whatever works.

Because interests are placed before values, foreign policy Realism enables policymakers to immorally embrace tyrannical regimes as President Obama did with Iran and Cuba in the name of the national interest.

President Trump has been very critical of Obama’s realist-inspired foreign policy as well as of the idealistic interventions favored by President Bush. President Trump’s foreign policy will not follow the Idealist approach of military interventions or nation building designed to foment freedom and democracy throughout the world. Nor will his foreign policy pursue national interests devoid of moral principles as in the Realist tradition.

President Trump’s foreign policy breaks from Idealism and Realism into a new foreign policy doctrine the President has labeled “Principled Realism.” Two recent overt military actions are illustrative of what the President means by principled realism.

First, the attack with Tomahawk cruise missiles on the Al Shayrat airbase, home of the Syrian warplanes that had carried out chemical attacks against civilians; the attack was timely, focused and proportional.

Second, the first use ever, in eastern Afghanistan, of the Massive Ordinance Air Blast (MOAB) that targeted an ISIS tunnel and cave complex; according to military analysts, the MOAB was precisely the right weapon for that target.

Independently of their military efficacy, both of these actions signaled an approach that, while in-line with our values, does not commit U.S. resources beyond what is necessary to protect our national interest and to make a point.

And, on June 16, the President, outlining his new U.S.-Cuba policy, explicitly referred to his Cuba foreign policy approach as: “the United States is adopting a principled realism, rooted in our values, shared interests, and common sense. We will not be silent in the face of communist oppression any longer…America will expose the crimes of the Castro regime and stand with the Cuban people in their struggle for freedom.”

Given Cuba’s intransigence, the new policy is an intelligent, measured, and practical approach that, while not prohibiting travel to, or doing business in Cuba, forbids Americans from doing business in partnership with the Cuban military. The policy focuses directly on the adversary: The Cuban military.

In practice, American travelers will not be able to stay in the hotels of the Cuban Armed Forces but can stay in individually owned facilities. Doing business with the Cuban people is encouraged, but doing business with the military dictatorship is prohibited. The policy seeks to limit cash flows to the military enterprises while increasing cash flows to the people. Symbolically and practically, it embraces the oppressed and not the oppressors.

Principled realism opens up diplomatic possibilities anchored on the intersection of our values and our interests. President Trump’s foreign policy will not be one that puts fear in the minds of oppressive regimes as some had hoped. Dictatorships offend our values, but not necessarily our national interests.

The new U.S.-Cuba policy emphasizes our democratic values, but allows for negotiations responsive to the requirements of U.S. national interests. It is a policy of principled realism.

The symbolism of a change to a policy that now embraces our values was richly expressed by U.S. Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart: “We will no longer have to witness the embarrassing spectacle of an American president doing the wave at a baseball game with a ruthless dictator.”

ABOUT JOSE AZEL

José Azel arrived in the U.S. in 1961 from communist Cuba as a 13 year-old political exile with Operation Pedro Pan, the largest unaccompanied child refugee movement in the history of the Western Hemisphere. He is currently a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies (ICCAS) at the University of Miami. Dr. Azel earned a Masters Degree in Business Administration and a Ph.D. in International Affairs from the University of Miami, and is author of Mañana in Cuba: The Legacy of Castroism and Transitional Challenges for Cuba, and Reflections on Freedom. He is also a contributor to SFPPR News & Analysis of the online-conservative-journalism center at the Washington-based Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research.

RELATED ARTICLES:

When did ‘freedom’ become a dirty word?

Trump Defends the West

Raymond J. de Souza: If Europe’s elites think Trump’s defence of Western liberty is ‘racist, they’d have hated Churchill – National Post (Canada)

US shuts the door on refugees, wails ‘Think Progress’

VIDEO: America Under Siege — Soviet Islam

/in , , , , /by

In my December 2015 column “The neo-Democrat Party: Devout followers of Marx, Mao and Mohammed” I wrote:

Numerous writers and political pundits have written on President Obama’s pledge to “fundamentally transform America” when elected in 2008.

I believe what President Obama has truly done is fundamentally transformed the Democratic Party of JFK to the Democrat Party of BHO. I use the word Democrat because the Party of Obama is not Democratic, as envisioned by Thomas Jefferson. The membership of the neo-Democrat Party are made up primarily of the devout followers of Marx, Mao and Mohammed.

Those who oppose Obama and the neo-Democrat Party, including JFK Democrats, are subject to ridicule, rejection and bullying.

Extremism in the name of the collective is the over riding strategy of the neo-Democrat. Radicalism is the tactic. The more extreme the ideal, the more it is embraced. This leads to what some have labeled a form of political insanity. I call it political suicide. History teaches us that tyrants and tyranny ultimately lose the support of the masses. Why? Because the policies implemented harm the masses.

Trevor Loudon has released a new episode in the America Under Siege series titled “Soviet Islam.” Loudon writes:

“Soviet Islam” is the second episode in the five-part “America Under Siege” documentary web-series releasing over the course of 2017. Each episode profiles the influence of radical Marxists on various segments of American society.

The film uncovers the secret history of how the Soviet Union used Islamists and dictators in the Middle East to further its objectives and how Vladimir Putin’s Russia continues this strategy today, endangering Americans and all freedom-loving peoples.

After World War II, the Soviet Union used Muslim intelligence assets to subvert neighboring Muslim-majority nations. Putin’s Russia continues to infiltrate Islamic communities around the world, including Chechnya, Iran, Syria, and Palestine, and also at home in the United States, where Islamists and communists have joined in an unlikely alliance.

Please watch Trevor Loudon’s latest documentary “America Under Siege: Soviet Islam”:

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Soviet Fascism in America: Agents of Influence

The Political Mafia and Soviet Fascism in America

Donald J. Trump versus the Ideology of Soviet Fascism

Terrorism and the Ideology of Soviet Fascism

EDITORS NOTE: The film is narrated and written by conservative author Trevor Loudon, directed by Judd Saul, and produced by Cohesion Films in partnership with Dangerous Documentaries, a project of the Capital Research Center.

VIDEO: If I Were the Devil

/in , , , /by

In 1965 Paul Harvey, an American radio broadcaster for the ABC Radio Networks and author who wrote Our Lives, Our Fortunes, Our Sacred Honor, did one of his “The Rest of the Story” broadcasts addressing what he would do if he were the devil. Harvey’s words have today become reality, the new-normal, the doctrine preached in our public schools and in the public square. His words were a warning, they are worth hearing over and over again.

Time to take back America. Time to make America great, again, by embracing God. As President Trump said in Warsaw, Poland, “‘Together, let us all fight like the Poles—for family, for freedom, for country and for God’.

Joe Donahue writes:

Dear American Citizen: Most would agree the reach of the Federal Government is simply too big, and has lacked true accountability by the press – Yet now the mainstream media (seemingly) is beginning to show signs of investigative journalism. And they should! Admittedly, the IRS has been targeting “Pro-America, Patriot, less Government, more God” non-profit groups. Using Paul Harvey’s words and images from our current culture, this video has a message that clearly speaks into the souls of American citizens.

America is not lazy. America is not apathetic. America is not complacent. Yes, some American’s are lazy, complacent and apathetic. Some choose laziness and complacency over hard work and creativity. Some stumble through this life completely dependent upon the government, faith based organizations, and the kindness of neighbors…and as American’s we support them, not because we have to – but because we want to. We want to help our fellow countryman. But their comes a point where a line must be drawn. There comes a time when we say, “We will go this far, but no further.” We cannot carry you forever. You must “want it” yourself. You must begin to walk…and run – on your own. And in time, you will see, that you must begin to help others as well.

And the hard workers? Yes, we dream. We work. We keep the country rolling. We give financially to our churches. We help our neighbors. We pay our taxes. Not out of any sense of shame or compulsion but because we WANT to…

Between the two Paul Harvey Videos I have made they have been viewed over 2,000,000 times. Not bad for a video I put together for our student ministry…but future America needs your help today in spreading the message of this video.

Please share, post, embed, re-post, email and get this message into the hands of Americans. This is not about an election. This is about fighting for the Heart of America…Freedom. You would be surprised who may watch this video and begin to reject complacency and dependency upon the government…together we can slowly rise to rebuild America.

RELATED ARTICLE: ACADEMIA – Discover the Networks

VIDEO: Obamacare’s ‘People Will Die’ Canard by Charles Blahous

/in , , , , /by

Passions are high in the national health care debate. Some supporters of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have taken to asserting that hundreds of thousands of “people will die” if it is repealed or significantly altered. These claims do not withstand scrutiny, and those who wish their policy arguments to be taken seriously would be well advised to avoid them.

These sensational claims rest on fallacious reasoning, which I’ll describe later in this piece. But first let’s acknowledge that neither I, you, nor anyone else has any idea how many Americans will live or die under alternative federal health care policies. It’s an inherently fruitless exercise to attempt to quantify these effects. However, if one seriously wished to attempt it, one would not do so via the methods now being employed to promulgate the “people will die” claim.

Effects of the ACA

The claims are based on extolling a single effect of the ACA: increasing health insurance coverage, which is said to reduce mortality. Of course, the ACA didn’t magically produce its coverage increase out of thin air. To finance it, the law included several features that likely have countervailing effects on mortality.

Below is a partial list of such effects, provided with the caveat that it would be just as silly to charge the ACA with killing people as it is to attribute deaths to its possible repeal:

  • CBO also found the ACA to reduce workforce participation. Although there is a fierce national debate over the effects and causes of unemployment, there is broad understanding that unemployment correlates with worsened health.
  • The ACA imposed substantial taxes on medical devices and drugs, inhibiting their development and use. We do not know how many lives these products would otherwise have saved.
  • Most of the ACA’s coverage expansion occurred through Medicaid, which has a limited supply of providers and services. Those who gained Medicaid coverage via the ACA gained access to subsidized health services. But unless the number of providers, facilities and services accessible through Medicaid grew at least as fast as enrollment did, there has been a corresponding reduction in health service availability to people previously on Medicaid.

What Studies Show

But even a balanced attempt to weigh the ACA’s net effects on longevity would be inherently problematic under the methods currently being employed to estimate them.

The widely-circulated figures for deaths supposedly caused by replacing the ACA are extrapolated from a study of the Massachusetts health reform experience. That study found that post-reform (2007-10) mortality rates in Massachusetts improved relative to pre-reform (2001-05) mortality rates more than was the case in other US counties after controlling for demographic and economic conditions.

The study is credible, interesting, and suggestive, but does not offer any generalizable proofs of the effects of national health policy on longevity. To the contrary, the authors state that “Massachusetts results may not generalize to other states.”

The study merely shows that longevity improved within Massachusetts after health legislation, more than can be accounted for by economic and demographic trends. This indeed might plausibly have happened because of Massachusetts’s particular health reforms but as the authors acknowledge, it could also have arisen from any of countless factors specific to Massachusetts.

Indeed, a similar study of Oregon’s experience with Medicaid expansion “did not detect clinical improvements other than depression reduction.” In any case, the Massachusetts study only tells us what didn’t cause its longevity improvement; it cannot definitively explain what did.

Killing Your Credibility

But the biggest problem with the “people will die” claim is that it rests on a fundamental logical fallacy. It is related to the familiar “Fallacy of Composition,” which any discerning interlocutor will call you on if you commit it. An oft-cited example of the fallacy is that just because a standing spectator can see a baseball game better than the patrons seated near him, this doesn’t imply that everyone will see better if they all stand up.

The application of the fallacy to health insurance is straightforward. One cannot leap solely from the observation that “having health insurance. . . results in better health” to the conclusion that “the more we expand health insurance, the healthier we all will be.”

Health insurance reduces the out-of-pocket costs individuals face when they buy health services. Expanded insurance coverage increases health service consumption which, considered by itself, should improve health. But it also increases cost growth, an effect widely recognized in health expenditure forecasting. People with insurance feel this cost growth through rising premiums, but the cost inflation is felt especially keenly by the uninsured, who must pay more whenever they buy health services (or receive less care for what they pay).The observation that the insured are relatively healthier doesn’t by itself imply that expanding coverage will save lives.

Thus, even if health insurance did absolutely nothing to improve national health outcomes, we’d still expect the insured to be healthier than the uninsured. Thus, the observation that the insured are relatively healthier doesn’t by itself imply that expanding coverage will save lives.

There are countless potential examples of the fallacy in operation. For example, consider the current tax preference for employer-sponsored insurance (ESI). Those who receive health insurance through their employer enjoy an advantage in these benefits’ exemption from taxation. This tax preference steers additional health benefits to these individuals. However, this does not mean improved health for the nation as a whole. To the contrary, the ESI tax preference is widely recognized as a driver of health market inefficiency, reducing the value of health services relative to dollars spent.

An even simpler example: the government could easily add to the wealth of ten individuals by sending them each a million-dollar check. It is a non-sequitur to infer from this that the national wealth would be increased by the government’s sending a million-dollar check to every American.

In short, the “people will die” argument is premised on an easily-recognized logical fallacy. Don’t use it if you want to convince others to adopt your health care policy views. If you do, the only thing certain to die will be your credibility.

Reprinted from Economics 21.

Editor’s Note: Check out this hilarious video, parodying the “people will die” argument.

Charles Blahous

Charles Blahous

Charles Blahous is a senior research fellow for the Mercatus Center, a research fellow for the Hoover Institution, a public trustee for Social Security and Medicare, and a contributor to e21.

Actor Clooney flees Europe: Do as I say, not as I do!

/in , , , , , /by

These super rich Lefty celebrities have no shame!

In 2016, Clooney and his wife praise German Chancellor Angela Merkel [pictured right] for her welcome to the migrant invaders (not using those words of course!). Italy as an escape? Maybe not so much!

George Clooney is reportedly moving his young family to his Los Angeles mansion which is deemed safer (from Jihadists) than is his property in the UK or his Italian get-away mansion at Lake Como.

From Breitbart (hat tip: Brenda):

Report: Open Borders Advocate George Clooney Moving Family Back to Trump’s America for ‘Security Reasons’

Actor and immigration activist George Clooney will move to Los Angeles with his wife Amal and newborn twins Ella and Alexander due to security concerns at his England estate, according to a report.

Life & Style magazine reported last week that the 56-year-old Oscar-winner will move his newly-expanded family to his mansion in Studio City, California, after deeming his 17th century mansion in Sonning, England to be not sufficiently safe for them.

“As soon as Amal found out she was pregnant, he hired former Secret Service agents to assess all his properties and make recommendations for improvement,” an unnamed Clooney “insider” told the magazine. “His mansion in Studio City [Calif.] was deemed the most secure, and it’s within minutes of an LAPD station.”

[….]

In May, British government officials disclosed that 23,000 known jihadi terrorists are believed to be residing in Britain, far more than the 3,000 that had initially been reported.

[….]

In February of last year, the actor met privately with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and praised the German leader’s acceptance of refugees from Syria and other countries. The same month, Clooney told Sky News in an interview that the United States is not doing “enough” to help Syrian refugees, and that 10,000 refugees per year was too low a figure to be admitting into the country.

[….]

In July of last year, a makeshift refugee camp was established in Lake Como after the Swiss government decided to close its southern border with Italy. Dozens of refugees arrived from African and Asian countries were housed in tents close to the Clooneys’ home, with a local tour guide telling the Daily Mail that the refugee camps were a “big problem because of the huge numbers [of refugees] who are arriving all the time.”

More here.

Bill Gates woke up and smelled the coffee, any chance Clooney will get it?

This post is filed in my ‘Laugh of the day’ category.  I have another good laugh for later (or tomorrow), so come on back!

Click here for my complete archive on the Invasion of Europe.