Featured Archives - Page 224 of 381

Arizona, Massachusetts and New Hampshire refugee contractors cutting back

March 21, 2017/in Culture War, Featured, Immigration, National Security, Policy, Politics, Taxes, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Ann Corcoran

In my previous post I told you about the reality setting in in Arizona, and now we see that New England refugee contractors are facing that reality too and cutting staff, or shortening hours.

I am delighted to see more effort being made on the part of reporters to get their facts.

Here at WBUR News (NPR Boston) reporter Shannon Dooling actually did some work (emphasis is mine)!

Immigration lawyer Kerry Doyle

Look at this, right up front—refugee agencies paid by the head!

Refugee resettlement agencies receive funding based on the number of people they anticipate resettling, so the uncertainty around President Trump’s travel ban has serious fiscal consequences. [They are paid by how many they actually resettle as they bid for bodies.—ed]

Jeff Thielman is the CEO of the International Institute of New England, a resettlement agency working in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. His agency expects eight refugees to arrive by March 28.

“It means that we have not filled a number of positions that were open in all three of our offices in the resettlement area,” he said. “It also means that we may have to make further reductions. We’re going to make those decisions in the next few weeks.”

Ascentria Care Alliance, a resettlement agency based in Worcester and operating in both Massachusetts and New Hampshire, announced Monday that as a result of Trump’s travel ban it had laid off or reduced hours for 14 employees.

“Although the orders have been stayed, even the most recent one, we are no longer receiving any refugees in the pipeline and we don’t anticipate receiving any more refugees until maybe four to six months out at the earliest,” said Jodie Justofin, Ascentria’s vice president of communications.

For new readers, see that in 2013, Ascentria’s CEO admitted that refugee resettlement IS A BUSINESS!

Dooling continues….

Despite that temporary freeze, the finances of resettlement agencies are still unstable. But a return to pre-Trump quotas could boost their coffers.

Before he left office, President Obama capped the number of refugees admitted into the U.S. during the current fiscal year at 110,000. Resettlement agencies engineered their budgets through September based on those projections. [If they did that it was really really dumb because that (110,000) was by far the highest ceiling proposed since before 9/11. The average for most of Bush and Obama years was 65,000.—ed]

[….]

President Trump cut that cap on refugees to 50,000. That’s an action within the powers of the executive.

But since Trump’s cap is part of an executive order, the constitutionality of which is under question, Boston immigration attorney Kerry Doyle says the quota may be challenged in the courts.

Ha! Wishful thinking?

“While the president does have broad authority to set the fiscal numbers, because it’s caught up in a lot of the other problems with this executive order being potentially unconstitutional, the question is whether the 50,000 is also stayed,” Doyle said.

Doyle confirms what we said that Trump did not have to reduce the CEILING or slow the flow through an Executive Order.

And Ms. Doyle does know that the judge can’t order the federal government to spend money and send agents abroad to process refugees. It would be insane if Trump’s people believed that! They should just go ahead and keep the numbers low (or at today’s level, see right hand sidebar, 38,111) ignoring the judge’s unconstitutional assertion.

More here at WBUR.

I want to reiterate another point I have been making. The resettlement agencies (aka contractors) are in a pickle because they have been running a kind of Ponzi scheme where they anticipate certain refugee numbers (paying clients) coming in in the future, but they never have enough private money in their budgets to tide them over if the flow slows. Why? I can only guess they have been operating for so long on mostly federal funding that they have gotten too lazy to do private fundraising.

Or, there aren’t enough private citizens willing to pay for refugee resettlement!

Top Countries where Christians face Egregious Persecution for their Faith

March 21, 2017/in Culture War, Featured, Policy, Politics, Religion, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Dr. Rich Swier

Jews and Christians of faith are under siege globally. It is important to understand in which countries Christians, and likely Jews, face terrible persecution.

To understand this we looked at two reports:

What inspired us to write this story are two missionaries. The first works to save persecuted Christians and the second to bring the Gospel of Jesus to countries that do not allow missionary visas.

The first man goes to the Middle East to save families captured by ISIS, many of them women and children who are sold in slave markets.

The second has just completed his missionary training and will be traveling to a predominantly Muslim country to bring the people the Gospel of Jesus of Nazareth.

Both are brave men. Both deserve our prayers and support.

While there are those who are fighting against President Trump’s “extreme vetting” of individuals from foreign countries, many of these same countries have their own brand of “extreme persecution.” Persecution not only of visitors, but of their own natural born citizens.

In many of these countries becoming a Christian leads to persecution and prison or at worst is a death sentence.

Each year, Open Doors publishes the World Watch List to highlight the plight of persecuted Christians around the world. The list represents believers in Jesus Christ who are arrested, harassed, tortured — even killed — for their faith. Here are the top 50 listed by Open Doors:

COUNTRY SCORE

1. North Korea ——– 92/100
2. Somalia ————- 91/100
3. Afghanistan ——– 89/100
4. Pakistan ———— 88/100
5. Sudan ————– 87/100
6. Syria —————- 86/100
7. Iraq —————– 86/100
8. Iran —————– 85/100
9. Yemen ————- 85/100
10. Eritrea ————– 82/100

11. Libya —————- 78/100
12. Nigeria ———— 78/100
13. Maldives ———- 76/100
14. Saudi Arabia —— 76/100
15. India —————- 73/100
16. Uzbekistan ——– 71/100
17. Vietnam ———— 71/100
18. Kenya ————— 68/100
19. Turkmenistan —- 66/100
20. Qatar ————— 65/100

21. Egypt ————— 65/100
22. Ethiopia ———— 64/100
23. Palestinian Terr. — 64/100
24. Laos——————— 64/100
25. Brunei ————— 64/100
26. Bangladesh ——– 63/100
27. Jordan ————– 63/100
28. Myanmar ———– 62/100
29. Tunisia ————- 61/100
30. Bhutan ————- 61/100

31. Malaysia ———— 60/100
32. Mali —————– 59/100
33. Tanzania ———– 59/100
34. Cen. Afr. Rep. —– 58/100
35. Tajikistan ———- 58/100
36. Algeria ————- 58/100
37. Turkey ————– 57/100
38. Kuwait ————- 57/100
39. China ————— 57/100
40. Djibouti ———— 57/100

41. Mexico ————- 57/100
42. Comoros ———– 56/100
43. Kazakhstan ——- 56/100
44. United Arab Em. – 55/100
45. Sri Lanka ———– 55/100 (New)
46. Indonesia ——— 55/100
47. Mauritania———- 55/100 (New)
48. Bahrain ———— 54/100
49. Oman ————– 53/100
50. Colombia ———- 53/100

NOTE: For in-depth research, stories, prayer updates and more for all 50 countries on the 2017 World Watch List, visit ODUSA.org/WWL

United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) 2016 Annual Report states, “The incarceration of prisoners of conscience – people whom governments hold for reasons including those related to religion – remains astonishingly widespread.”

The report lists 31 countries where religious persecution is extreme. These countries are broken down into Tier 1 and Tear 2 countries of particular concern as follows:

TIER 1 – Any country whose government engages in or tolerates particularly severe violations of religious freedom that are systematic, ongoing and egregious.

In 2016, USCIRF recommends that the Secretary of State re-designate the following nine countries as Countries of Particular Concern (CPC):

Burma,

China,

Eritrea,

Iran,

North Korea,

Saudi Arabia,

Sudan,

Turkmenistan,

and Uzbekistan.

USCIRF also finds that eight other countries meet the CPC standard and should be so designated:

Central African Republic,

Egypt,

Iraq,

Nigeria,

Pakistan,

Syria,

Tajikistan,

and Vietnam.

TIER 2 – Countries where the violations engaged in or tolerated by the government are serious and are characterized by at least one of the elements of the “systematic, ongoing, and egregious” CPC standard.

In 2016, USCIRF places the following ten countries on Tier 2:

Afghanistan,

Azerbaijan,

Cuba,

India,

Indonesia,

Kazakhstan,

Laos,

Malaysia,

Russia,

and Turkey.

It is important to note the similarities of the lists. Evil is rampant in these countries. Antisemitic, anti-Christian, persecution, hate, intolerance are the rule rather than the exception.

Matthew 10:22 reads, “And all nations will hate you because you are my followers. But everyone who endures to the end will be saved.”

RELATED INFOGRAPHIC:

Image processed by CodeCarvings Piczard ### FREE Community Edition ### on 2017-01-11 14:59:11Z | http://piczard.com | http://codecarvings.com

Hillary’s ‘Libyan legacy’ still responsible for invasion of Europe as Italy panics

March 19, 2017/in Featured, Immigration, National Security, Policy, Politics, Religion, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Ann Corcoran

Invasion of Europe news….

I’m not going to let you all forget that it was Hillary and her girls who were responsible for the overthrow of Libyan strongman Muammar Ghaddafi that resulted in the opening of the flood gates from Africa to Europe for tens of thousands of mostly economic migrants from the heart of Africa to countries like Italy geographically on the frontline of the invasion.

Left to right – Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power

Even Obama didn’t have the stomach for the slaughter of Ghaddafi. I followed the whole sorry tale from its earliest days here at RRW.

Of course the Europeans made that fatal mistake in the earliest days of the invasion by not turning back (using safe methods) the first boats that were launched from the Libyan coast. Now they rescue each one sending a signal to people smugglers to keep ’em coming!

Susan Rice, Hillary and Samantha Power. Hillary admitted that in 2011 Obama was reluctant to follow Europe’s lead and get involved in Libya, but that she marshaled the forces (including Susan Rice and Samantha Power) to persuade Obama to help overthrow Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. Ultimately, she said, it was the President’s decision thereby tossing blame back on Obama when the results of her actions have proven so disastrous.

Here is the latest news from Middle East Monitor:

Italy panics as North Africa migrants surge

Italy will host a meeting between European and North African countries next week in a bid to strengthen support for an agreement it struck with Libya to fight people smuggling as migrant arrivals surge.

The prime minister of the UN-backed government in Tripoli, Fayez Al-Seraj, will meet with Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni and interior ministers from eight European countries including Germany and France on Monday.

Last month, Italy pledged money, training and equipment to help Libya fight people smugglers, a deal that was endorsed by European Union member states.

But Libya is still far from stable. Two governments are vying for power – in Tobruk to the east and Tripoli to the west – and the country remains mired in factional fighting and lawlessness.

The authorities in eastern Libya have rejected the deal struck between Rome and Tripoli.

“I’m not so naive as to not understand the situation there,” Italian Interior Minister Marco Minniti told reporters. “But we cannot remain immobile and wait for the country to stabilise.”

He said the Libya agreement and next week’s meeting were not just “talk”, but strategic steps toward managing mass migration to Europe.

So far this year more than 16,000 migrants – a 36 per cent increase on the same period last year – have been rescued at sea and brought to Italy after Libya-based people smugglers piled them onto flimsy boats.

Don’t miss Hillary cackling about her success in killing Gaddafi. She looks like an absolute loon here:

Another version of Hillary’s looney laugh, is here. Don’t you think it might be too early for her to come out of the woods!

Our archives on the ‘Invasion of Europe’ are here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

If SD governor willing to do this, why not take next step, join the Tennessee States’ rights case?

MONTANA: Never too soon to make sure Islamic ‘sharia’ law doesn’t creep into your state as it has in others

The Hijab’s Progression To Symbol Of Political Oppression

HEALTHCARE REFORM: Freedom Is Its Own Indispensable Goal

March 18, 2017/in Culture War, Featured, Healthcare, News, Policy, Politics, Regulation, Taxes, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Rod Thomson

The healthcare debate in D.C. is following predictable form: Miles off track with the media hyperfocused on the politics, rather than the substance. The coverage focuses heavily on the daily ins and outs of the political struggle, the D.C. winners and losers.

Will Republicans be able to placate the Freedom Caucus and still keep moderates? Will they put together something that can get through the House and have any life in the Senate? Is Ryan back-peddling? Is Trump? Will McConnell detonate the nuclear option? Is it Trumpcare or Ryancare?

The thing is, most Americans outside of political junkies don’t really care about that.

They do care about whether they will be able to afford health insurance. They do care about whether our country will drowned itself in unsustainable debt. They do care about their children’s future. But those are rarely the story. Because the truth is that in Washington, D.C., Americans are basically pawns to be played in the furtherance of personal agendas.

On the rare occasions when the substance of the proposal is actually explored, it is mostly along the lines of how many people are covered, will be covered, won’t be covered, how much it will cost, how the changes will play out politically for each party, etc. Those are fine in their place, and should be regularly reported on. They are not.

What Washington and the media never, ever talk about is the principle of American freedoms, which is at the heart of this. Virtually no one wants to talk about it.

So, status quo in the swamp. And for Americans.

The Old Liberties for Security Trade

But here is the whittled down nub of the issue: How much personal freedom are we willing to give away to get a little healthcare security? Because the reality of the human condition always and forever is that some people will be irresponsible with their life decisions — from relationships to finances to health.

So there will always be a percentage of Americans who do not want to purchase, or simply will not purchase, health insurance. Here’s the thing: They should be free to not and that point of freedom should be argued strenuously.

Because the only way to stop that dynamic is to give government total authority to force every single person to have health insurance. That was what Obamacare attempted to do, require every American to either buy a product — health insurance — or be fined increasing amounts by the government to financially force them to to buy it.

In an enormously tragic precedence, the Supreme Court made a political calculation and approved the forcible purchase requirements under Obamacare by calling it what it was not, what is authors including President Obama argued it was not, so as the court could rule it “constitutional.” Truly, a constitutional travesty.

Among the many things wrong with Obamacare, this was perhaps the most egregious because it went to undermining fundamental freedoms. It wasn’t just bad policy, or inefficient, or expensive — which are all true. It was a denial of basic liberty, the concept upon which our nation was founded and thrived to be what she is today.

Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Franklin was looking at the real physical and economic threat of a distant tyrant.

And so are we, though not so distant.

The Real Cost

Obamacare undoubtedly reduced the percentage of uninsured Americans, or more accurately, uncovered Americans. This was accomplished by expanding Medicaid — direct welfare — subsidizing plans in the state exchanges — indirect welfare — and forcing every American to participate — coercion. Even then, the total number of Americans not covered in some fashion, only declined a few percentage points.

Trillions of dollars, catastrophic rises in premiums and deductibles, loss of health care insurance options — often down to one in an entire state — all to pick up a few percentage points. About 9 percent of Americans remain without health insurance.

If Republicans did nothing more than simply repeal the Obamacare mandate, at least 10 million people would no longer have coverage, according to the Office of Management and Budget estimate of the repeal measure. The media reports this as Americans who will “lose” their coverage, but this particular 10 million will actually choose not to have coverage.

Whether that is a good idea or not is debatable. What is not debatable is what it represents: Freedom.

Because unless the government forces people by law to have health insurance, some will not. Freedom calls us to allow them to not and accept the consequences. Otherwise, with this precedent in place, the government could also make the case for regulating what we eat (because eating healthy is good for us) and forcing us to exercise (because exercising is good for us.) It could also require us to buy, say, solar panels and electric cars, because it deems those to be a good thing like health care insurance is a good thing.

You see the problem here. There is really no end to it, which is why it was a line that should never have been crossed.

So yes, Obamacare is costing hundreds of billions of dollars and would continue to until its complete failure. But it’s real cost is the loss of American liberty. And precious few seem to care.

Alas, Republicans fighting on Democrat ground

Republicans however, will not fight this on the grounds of freedom, the high ground and the right ground. They allow Democrats and the media to define the terms and put Republicans on the defensive on bad ground.

Republicans are doing what they always do, and part of it is the swampy D.C. mentality. Republicans end up abandoning conservative principles and going with Democrat-lite. They are willing to expand government, just less so. They are willing to raise taxes, just not as high. They are willing to trade rights for securities, just not as fast. But inexorably this moves in the same direction: More government control, more “free” giveaways, fewer American freedoms.

The health care coverage debate is a perfect example.

Democrats built it on the Democrat ground of heavy-handed government control and giveaways, and dared Republicans to come after it. To boil it down, in Obamacare, Democrats gave more Americans more free stuff that was not their’s and that we cannot afford — at the cost of lost freedoms — and Republicans now want to take some of that free stuff and restore those freedoms.

Meanies.

This of course is rough politics for Republicans, as so many Americans have lost the sense of liberty, self-reliance and personal responsibility. Too many are willing to trade a lot of liberties for a little security. But part of the reason for that is that no one is making the case for this and other issues on the grounds of freedom.

But in reality, Republicans aren’t even making the freedom case — or do so rarely. They want to make sure enough Americans get enough free stuff so they can be re-elected.

Taking away an entitlement once in place is just never done, and Democrats knew that in 2010. A big part of Obamacare is the entitlement portion. But that is only a problem if Republicans fight this on the grounds of coverage and giveaways, and not on the grounds of essential liberties.

Republicans hold every nationally elected office of power and there is one window for fixing the Obamacare debacle. If it does not happen now, Obamacare will be a permanent fixture of our health care system until it totally fails, and sucks the healthcare system into its death swirl.

The final step will be nationalized healthcare.

And the result will be an even greater loss of freedoms, and precious little in the way of securities. The worst of trade-offs.

RELATED ARTICLES:

GOP leaders unveil changes to healthcare bill

Nearly 200 State Lawmakers Are Pushing for Changes to GOP Obamacare Repeal Plan

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

VIDEOS: Why We’re Being Watched by Kelly Wright

March 16, 2017/in Courts & Law, Cyberwarfare, Featured, National Security, Policy, Politics, Regulation, Religion/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

Wikileaks has just published over 8,000 files they say were leaked from the CIA, explaining how the CIA developed the capacity to spy on you through your phone, your computer, and even your television. And Wikileaks’s Julian Assange claims these “Vault 7” documents are just one percent of all the CIA documents they have.

The media will be combing through these for weeks or months, so now is a perfect moment for us to reconsider the role of privacy, transparency, and limited government in a free society.

We’ve put together a quick list of the six best Learn Liberty resources on government spying and whistleblowing to help inform this discussion.

1. War Is Why We’re Being Watched

Why is the US government spying on its citizens in the first place? Professor Abby Hall Blanco says that expansive state snooping at home is actually the result of America’s military interventionism abroad:

2. Is Privacy the Price of Security?

Yes, you may think, the government is snooping on us, but it’s doing that to keep us safe!

That’s the most common justification for sweeping and intrusive surveillance, so we held a debate between two experts to get right to the heart of it. Moderated by TK Coleman, this debate between Professor Ronald Sievert and Cindy Cohn, the Executive Director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, was inspired in part by the revelations about NSA surveillance leaked by Edward Snowden in June 2013.

3. Freedom Requires Whistleblowers

People are already drawing parallels between the Snowden leaks and the Vault 7 revelations. If the leaks are indeed coming from a Snowden-like whistleblower, that will once again raise the issue of government prosecution of people who reveal classified information to the public.

Professor James Otteson argues that a free society requires a transparent government, and whistleblowers play a key role in creating that accountability. Otteson also sounds a warning that should resonate with many Americans today:

Maybe you’re not concerned about the invasions of privacy that the federal government agencies are engaging in because you think, “Well, I haven’t done anything wrong. What do I have to fear?” Maybe you think, “I like and support this president. I voted for him.”

But what about the next president? The powers that we let the government have under one president are the same powers that the next president will have too.

What if the next president is one you don’t support? He, too, will have all the power that you were willing to give the president you now support.”

4. Encryption Is a Human Rights Issue

Documents from Vault 7 suggest that the CIA has been so stymied by encrypted-messaging apps, such as Signal and Whatsapp, that it has resorted to taking over entire smartphones to read messages before they are sent.

That turns out to be a costly, targeted, and time-consuming business that doesn’t allow for mass data collection. But for decades, government officials have tried to require tech companies to give the government a backdoor into their encryption. In “Encryption Is a Human Rights Issue,” Amul Kalia argues that protecting encryption from government is essential to our safety and freedom.

5. The Police Know Where You Live

It turns out that it’s not just spy agencies that have access to detailed information about your life. Ordinary police officers have it, too, and they often face little supervision or accountability. As Cassie Whalen explains, “Across the United States, police officers abuse their access to confidential databases to look up information on neighbors, love interests, politicians, and others who had no connection to a criminal investigation.”

Surveillance is a serious issue at every level of government.

6. Understanding NSA Surveillance

If you’re ready to take your learning to the next level, check out our complete video course on mass government surveillance with Professor Elizabeth Foley. In it, you’ll learn what you need to know to make sense of the NSA scandal in particular and mass surveillance in general.

Reprinted from Learn Liberty.

Kelly Wright

Kelly Wright is an Online Programs Coordinator at the Institute for Humane Studies.

RELATED ARTICLE: Deterrence and Human Nature

$38 Million in Taxes? Donald Trump Needs a Tax Shelter by Daniel J. Mitchell

March 15, 2017/in Featured, Taxes/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

The multi-faceted controversy over Donald Trump’s taxes has been rejuvenated by a partial leak of his 2005 tax return.

Interestingly, it appears that Trump pays a lot of tax. At least for that one year. Which is contrary to what a lot of people have suspected – including me in the column I wrote on this topic last year for Time.

Some Trump supporters are even highlighting the fact that Trump’s effective tax rate that year was higher than what’s been paid by other political figures in more recent years.

But I’m not impressed. First, we have no idea what Trump’s tax rate was in other years. So the people defending Trump on that basis may wind up with egg on their face if tax returns from other years ever get published.

Second, why is it a good thing that Trump paid so much tax? I realize I’m a curmudgeonly libertarian, but I was one of the people who applauded Trump for saying that he does everything possible to minimize the amount of money he turns over to the IRS. As far as I’m concerned, he failed in 2005.

But let’s set politics aside and focus on the fact that Trump coughed up $38 million to the IRS in 2005. If that’s representative of what he pays every year (and I realize that’s a big “if”), my main thought is that he should move to Italy.

Yes, I realize that sounds crazy given Italy’s awful fiscal system and grim outlook. But there’s actually a new special tax regime to lure wealthy foreigners. Regardless of their income, rich people who move to Italy from other nations can pay a flat amount of €100,000 every year. Note that we’re talking about a flat amount, not a flat rate.

Here’s how the reform was characterized by an Asian news outlet.

Italy on Wednesday (Mar 8) introduced a flat tax for wealthy foreigners in a bid to compete with similar incentives offered in Britain and Spain, which have successfully attracted a slew of rich footballers and entertainers. The new flat rate tax of €100,000 (US$105,000) a year will apply to all worldwide income for foreigners who declare Italy to be their residency for tax purposes.

Here’s how Bloomberg/BNA described the new initiative.

Italy unveiled a plan to allow the ultra-wealthy willing to take up residency in the country to pay an annual “flat tax” of 100,000 euros ($105,000) regardless of their level of income. A former Italian tax official told Bloomberg BNA the initiative is an attempt to entice high-net-worth individuals based in the U.K. to set up residency in Italy… Individuals paying the flat tax can add family members for an additional 25,000 euros ($26,250) each. The local media speculated that the measure would attract at least 1,000 high-income individuals.

Think about this from Donald Trump’s perspective. Would he rather pay $38 million to the ghouls at the IRS, or would he rather make an annual payment of €100,000 (plus another €50,000 for his wife and youngest son) to the Agenzia Entrate?

Seems like a no-brainer to me, especially since Italy is one of the most beautiful nations in the world. Like France, it’s not a place where it’s easy to become rich, but it’s a great place to live if you already have money.

But if Trump prefers cold rain over Mediterranean sunshine, he could also pick the Isle of Man for his new home.

There are no capital gains, inheritance tax or stamp duty, and personal income tax has a 10% standard rate and 20% higher rate. In addition there is a tax cap on total income payable of £125,000 per person, which has encouraged a steady flow of wealthy individuals and families to settle on the Island.

Though there are other options, as David Schrieberg explained for Forbes.

Italy is not exactly breaking new ground here. Various countries including Portugal, Malta, Cyprus and Ireland have been chasing high net worth individuals with various incentives. In 2014, some 60% of Swiss voters rejected a Socialist Party bid to end a 152-year-old tax break through which an estimated 5,600 wealthy foreigners pay a single lump sum similar to the new Italian regime.

Though all of these options are inferior to Monaco, where rich people (and everyone else) don’t pay any income tax. Same with the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. And don’t forget Vanuatu.

If you think all of this sounds too good to be true, you’re right. At least for Donald Trump and other Americans. The United States has a very onerous worldwide tax system based on citizenship.

In other words, unlike folks in the rest of the world, Americans have to give up their passports in order to benefit from these attractive options. And the IRS insists that such people pay a Soviet-style exit tax on their way out the door.

Republished from International Liberty.

Daniel J. Mitchell

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

If Geert Wilders’ wins today could there be a political crisis in The Netherlands?

March 15, 2017/in Elections, Featured, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Jerry Gordon

On Israel News Talk Radio’s -Beyond the Fringe program this week listen here , co- host Rod Bryant and I devoted a segment to the fracas between The Netherlands and Turkey this past weekend in the run up to today’s general election in what could be a crucial test of rising nationalist populism in Europe.

The race pits current ruling coalition Prime Minister Mark Rutte of the Freedom and Democracy Party VVD versus Geert Wilders, the tall bleached blonde leader of the breakaway Freedom Party (PVV) who espouses anti-Islam, anti EU and anti mass Muslim immigration stands crystallized in his campaign call to “take back our Netherlands.”

We pointed out to our global and Israeli listeners Wilders’ long held pro Israel stands and heroic opposition to the Islamic Republic in a visit to Tehran that had him ejected as persona non grata. Wilders also espouses the view that Jordan is Palestine.

How the Dutch Turkish faceoff could figure in today’s vote

Current Dutch PM Mark Rutte veered closer to Wilders’ positions with his dramatic actions the weekend prior to the March 15, elections. He denied a visit by the Turkish Foreign Minister preventing him from landing to attend a rally of Dutch Turks in Rotterdam and ejected a Dutch Families Minister to Germany, a move that was protested by Dutch Turks in Rotterdam with a Muslim mayor. The rallies by Turkish ministers of Erodgan’s government in Holland were scheduled to urge the 400,000 Dutch Turks to vote in the April 16th national referendum in Turkey making President a veritable autocrat extending his term by a decade to 26 years. There are 5.5 million Turkish ex pats in EU core countries in France, Germany, Austria and the Netherlands. All of whom have, with the exception of France have blocked rallies by Turkish officials of the AKP government in Ankara.

That sparked calls from aspiring neo Ottoman Caliph, Turkey’s President Erdogan, calling Rutte’s actions “Nazi Remnants”. Bryant and I commented that was bizarre coming from a Turkish leader who idealized Hitler.

Both Rutte and Erdogan demanded apologies and called in their respective ambassadors.

The weekend fracas has boosted polls figures on Monday for both Rutte and Wilders with just a three seat spread between the two parties; the VVD with 27 versus 24 for the PVV. Later polls taken following nationalized televised debates showed the results were even closer.

Dynamics behind today’s Dutch general elections

Dutch opinion polls show terrorism, anti immigration and preserving national values as leading issues. This race that culminates today could go either way or result in Wilders being first past the post with enough seats to possibly having King Willem ask Wilders to form a government in the Hague Parliament, the tweeder kamer. However that could be a long shot. Rutte of the VVD and other smaller center parties have said they would never join a PVV led coalition government making the possibility of Wilders being the next Dutch Prime Minister, Dutch political prognosticators in Holland suggest the prospects might slim to none.

An RT.com article showed final Dutch polls indicating that Geert Wilders Freedom Party (PVV) claiming upwards of 24 to 28 seats as voting opens today in the Netherlands.

The movement by Mark Rutte, leader of the VVD towards nationalist views in the confrontation with Turkish President Erdogan may have shifted un-decided Dutch voters towards the PVV and resurrected Sybrand Buma leader of the Christian Democrats (CDA) to poll in third position behind Wilders.

Rutte and Buma may have turned more nationalist in the waning days of the campaign. However, they cling to support of Dutch membership in the EU, while Wilders supports NExit which antedated that of the Brexit referendum vote in the UK.

One domestic issue that Wilders has flagged, protection of pension benefits has divided Dutch workers from their union leaders. That was evident in an interview with the union leader in the port Rotterdam. He noted his members would likely vote for Wilders.

It looks like whatever results from final polling results that the wrangling over formation of a ruling coalition from the 28 parties contesting for seats in the Hague parliament, the tweeder kamer, will take a while to sort it out. PM Rutte, as a formality, resigned as government leader on Thursday and informed King Willem setting the stage for today’s general election.

Could there be a political crisis in Holland?

Nevertheless, even if Wilders doesn’t get that opportunity, some observers suggest that by losing he has won because he has led Dutch popular opinion on national issues. A Politico EU article that looked at the prospects of prime contenders in today’s Dutch general elections commented on the masterful role of Geert Wilders staking out parliamentary positions and seizing the news cycle. As one Socialist party figure stated, if Wilders is first past the post “it might create a political crisis.”

None of the leading parties, whether, Mark Rutte’s Freedom and Democracy VVD or resurrected Buma’s Christian Democrats CDA, the latter polling in third position, and other smaller parties may be able to cobble together the requisite 76 votes in the 150 seat Hague Parliament, the tweeder kamer, to form a ruling coalition. That is the daunting task that King Willem will have to address when polling ends tonight.

One comment made in the Politico EU article may be prescient. Whatever the results, Wilders looks like the leader of the opposition. Stay tuned for the outcome of today’s momentous Dutch general election results.

RELATED VIDEO: The day before the Dutch election there were debates. The last of these debates was a debate between the leader of the Dutch Freedom Party Geert Wilders, and the leader of the Christian Union Party. This debate is translated into English.

Tennessee files suit against federal government over cost to state of refugee program

March 14, 2017/in Courts & Law, Culture War, Featured, Immigration, Policy, Politics, Religion, Taxes, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Ann Corcoran

It’s been a long time coming, but yesterday, the State of Tennessee filed its Tenth Amendment case against the US Department of State and the Department of Health and Human Services over the issue of cost-shifting of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program to the states.

Readers, this is big news!

Here is Michael Patrick Leahy at Breitbart yesterday (I see that Drudge featured the story last night and Fox News has picked it up as well):

The Thomas More Law Center filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the Tennessee General Assembly and the State of Tennessee in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on Monday challenging the federal refugee resettlement program for violating the state’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit places Tennessee at the center of the national debate concerning the operation of the federal refugee resettlement program.

President Trump will be holding a rally in Nashville on Wednesday to garner public support for his agenda. His revised Executive Order 13780 temporarily halting the federal refugee resettlement program and temporarily banning travel from six Middle Eastern countries goes into effect on Thursday.

[….]

The Refugee Act specified that 100 percent of each state’s cost of Medicaid and cash welfare benefits provided to each resettled refugee during their first 36 months in the United State would be reimbursed to each state by the federal government. However, within five years of having created the federal program, Congress failed to appropriate sufficient funding and instead, costs of the federal program began shifting to state governments.

Within ten years of passing the Refugee Act, the federal government eliminated all reimbursement of state costs, a huge financial cost to the states that was, in effect, yet another unfunded federal mandate.

[….]

The lawsuit seeks to define Tennessee’s rights in light of the forced expenditure of state funds in support of a federal program from which the state has formally withdrawn.

Continue here and see below the full text of the press release from the Thomas More Law Center.

For all of you in states that have withdrawn from the program***, you must push your governor and legislators to join this case.

If your state has not withdrawn and is willing to sue on states’ rights grounds, this is the direction you should be following: withdraw and then sue when the feds assign a non-profit to run the program!

To further your understanding, here (and below) is the full press release from the Thomas More Law Center, yesterday:

First in the Nation — Tennessee Files Lawsuit Challenging Constitutionality of the Federal Refugee Resettlement Program

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center, a national nonprofit public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, today filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the State of Tennessee, the Tennessee General Assembly, and two State legislators, challenging the constitutionality of the federal refugee resettlement program as a violation of the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the principles of State sovereignty.

Defendants in the lawsuit include the U.S Departments of State and Health and Human Services, and their respective Secretaries.

Assisting the Thomas More Law Center, pro bono, is attorney B. Tyler Brooks with the law firm of Millberg Gordon Stewart PLLC located in Raleigh, North Carolina.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, noted, “Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts has observed, ‘The States are separate and independent sovereigns. Sometimes they have to act like it.’ We intend to follow that advice in our lawsuit on behalf of the State of Tennessee and its citizens. We are asking the Court to stop the bleeding out of millions of Tennessee taxpayer dollars each year to fund a federal program from which the State officially withdrew in 2007.”

Thompson added, “Although there are compelling policy reasons to dismantle the existing refugee resettlement program in favor of resettling refugees in Middle East safe- zones as President Trump has suggested, this lawsuit focuses solely on the unconstitutional way the federal program is currently operating in the State of Tennessee.”

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The purpose of the lawsuit is not to inflict harm on refugees, but to preserve the balanced constitutional relationship between the federal government and the States. It seeks a court declaration that the federal government has violated the Tenth Amendment and an order permanently enjoining the federal government from forcing the State of Tennessee to pay money out of its treasury to finance the federal refugee resettlement program.

The Tennessee General Assembly, by overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate, passed Senate Joint Resolution 467 (“SJR 467”) during the 2016 legislative session, which authorized legal action to stop the federal government from unconstitutionally commandeering State funds to finance the federal refugee resettlement program.

State Senator John Stevens and State Representative Terri Lynn Weaver are the two legislators who joined the lawsuit as individual plaintiffs. Senator Stevens is First Vice-Chair of the Senate’s Standing Committee on Finance, Ways and Means, which is responsible for all measures relating to taxes and oversight of public monies in the State’s treasury. Representative Terri Lynn Weaver is the Chairman of the House Transportation Subcommittee which is charged with oversight of the budget relating to transportation.

Senator Stevens stated, “Through federal economic dragooning of our State’s budget, past Presidents and Congresses have quieted my vote and thereby my constituents’ voices. President Trump through executive action has reversed the overreaches of the Obama Administration in numerous ways. I trust President Trump in this regard. However, he needs our help.”

Continued Stevens, “The Constitution does not allow the Federal Government to force me as the elected representative of the 24th Senate District to implement federal programs while they sit in Washington insulated from the consequences.”

Representative Weaver, who played an instrumental role in mobilizing legislative support for passage of SJR 467, commented, “Of all the legislation that I have worked on, this by far is the most important. The only way we can get back to our constitutional beginnings and the intent birthed by our Founding Fathers is to go and take it back. We are looking forward to linking arms with the Thomas More Law Center for the long haul to regain sovereignty for our great State.”

Senate Majority Leader Mark Norris, another strong advocate for the lawsuit, emphasized the point that the lawsuit should not be taken as a criticism of the Trump Administration, “We want to convey to the President that we support his efforts concerning immigration and refugee resettlement and believe this suit for declaratory relief is consistent with what would likely be his position regarding states like Tennessee which have withdrawn from the refugee resettlement program but are forced to continue paying costs associated with it.”

When Congress enacted the Refugee Resettlement Act of 1980, the explicit intent was to assure full federal reimbursement of the costs for each refugee resettled and participating in benefit programs provided by the states. Eventually, however, federal reimbursements to the states for these benefit programs were reduced and, by 1991, eliminated entirely. The states thereby became responsible for the costs of the programs originally covered by the federal government.

Tennessee officially withdrew from participation in the refugee resettlement program in 2007. However, instead of honoring Tennessee’s decision to withdraw from the program, the federal government merely bypassed the State and appointed Catholic Charities of Tennessee, a private, non-governmental organization to administer the program. Catholic Charities receives revenue based upon the number of refugees it brings into the State.

Currently, Tennessee State revenues that could otherwise be used for State programs to help Tennesseans are, in effect, appropriated by the federal government to support the federal refugee resettlement program. This arrangement displaces Tennessee’s constitutionally mandated funding prerogatives and appropriations process.

The Complaint is here.

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at http://www.thomasmore.org.

NOTE: These are the so-called Wilson-Fish states that have withdrawn from the program over the years.

In addition to these below, several states have withdrawn in the last year and those include: Texas, Kansas, New Jersey and Maine. Florida is considering it right now.

Texas citizen activists must press your governor. He has already shown a willingness to sue the feds, but this is a much stronger case!

To the right of the state (and one county) is the federal NGO running the program in the state (I don’t know who has been assigned in the 4 recent withdrawals mentioned above):

Alabama: USCCB – Catholic Social Services
Alaska: USCCB – Catholic Social Services
Colorado: Colorado Department of Human Services
Idaho: Janus Inc. (formerly Mountain States Group), Idaho Office for Refugees
Kentucky: USCCB – Catholic Charities of Louisville, Kentucky Office for Refugees
Louisiana: USCCB – Catholic Charities Diocese of Baton Rouge, Louisiana Office for Refugees
Massachusetts: Office for Refugees and Immigrants
Nevada: USCCB – Catholic Charities of Southern Nevada
North Dakota: LIRS – Lutheran Social Services of North Dakota
San Diego County, CA: USCCB – Catholic Charities Diocese of San Diego
South Dakota: LIRS – Lutheran Social Services of South Dakota
Tennessee: USCCB – Catholic Charities of Tennessee, Tennessee Office for Refugees
Vermont: USCRI – Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program

RELATED ARTICLES:

Tennessee became the first state in the nation on Monday to sue the federal government over refugee resettlement

Hawaii teacher says he will not teach illegal immigrant students – Story | WFLD

President Trump’s First 50 Days of Action: Achieving Results for the American People

March 12, 2017/in Courts & Law, Culture War, Economy, Energy, Environment, Featured, Healthcare, National Security, Policy, Regulation, Science/by Dr. Rich Swier

JUMPSTARTING JOB CREATION: President Donald J. Trump is looking out for the American workers who Washington has left behind.

President Trump has worked with the private sector to deliver tens of thousands of new jobs for Americans.
President Trump ordered the United States to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and negotiations.
President Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum to clear roadblocks to construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline.
President Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum declaring that the Dakota Access Pipeline serves the national interest and initiating the process to complete its construction.
President Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum to help ensure that new pipeline construction and repair work use materials and equipment from the United States.

CUTTING GOVERNMENT RED TAPE: President Trump has quickly taken steps to get the Government out of the way of job creation.

President Trump directed each agency to establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force to identify costly and unnecessary regulations in need of modification or repeal.
President Trump has required that for every new Federal regulation, two existing regulations be eliminated.
President Trump directed the Department of Commerce to streamline Federal permitting processes for domestic manufacturing and to reduce regulatory burdens on domestic manufacturers.
President Trump signed legislation, House Joint Resolution 38, to prevent the burdensome “Stream Protection Rule” from causing further harm to the coal industry.
President Trump ordered the review of the “Clean Water Rule: Definition of Waters of the United States,” known as the WOTUS rule, to evaluate whether it is stifling economic growth or job creation.

REFORMING WASHINGTON: President Trump has taken actions to reform the old Washington way of doing business and to ensure that his entire Administration are working for the American people.

President Trump put in place a hiring freeze for Federal civilian employees to stop the further expansion of an already bloated government.
President Trump signed an Executive Order establishing new ethics commitments for all Executive branch appointees, putting in place a five-year lobbying ban and a permanent ban on lobbying for foreign governments, so that appointees serve the American people instead of their own interests.

PUTTING PATIENT HEALTHCARE FIRST: After years of false promises, rising costs, and shrinking accessibility, President Trump is championing reforms to put patients first.

President Trump has supported efforts by Republicans in Congress to repeal the worst parts of Obamacare and replace them with the American Health Care Act.
President Trump acted on his first day in office to instruct Federal agencies to minimize the burden of Obamacare on Americans.

PRIORITIZING AMERICAN NATIONAL SECURITY: President Trump has taken action to ensure the safety and security of the United States homeland, its borders, and its people.

Under President Trump’s leadership, the Department of the Treasury sanctioned 25 entities and individuals involved in Iran’s ballistic missile program.
President Trump implemented new protections against foreign terrorists entering our country.
President Trump has proposed increasing the military’s budget by $54 billion so that it can begin to rebuild.
As a result of a Presidential Memorandum President Trump signed on January 28, he has received a plan to defeat ISIS designed by the Secretary of Defense and other members of his Cabinet.
President Trump ordered a review of military readiness and made it the policy of the United States to rebuild the United States’ Armed Forces.
President Trump has negotiated to bring down the price of the F-35, saving millions of dollars.

DELIVERING ON IMMIGRATION REFORM: President Trump has made enforcing the Nation’s immigration laws a priority of his Administration.

President Trump signed an Executive Order to start work on a southern border wall.
President Trump signed an Executive Order to enhance the public safety of Americans through enforcement of immigration laws.
President Trump signed an Executive Order to halt funding to jurisdictions in the United States that do not comply with Federal immigration rules.
President Trump signed an Executive Order to begin the removal of illegal immigrants who have committed certain crimes.
Following through on President Trump’s direction, the Department of Homeland Security will hire 10,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and agents and 5,000 border patrol agents.

RESTORING PUBLIC SAFETY TO AMERICAN COMMUNITIES: President Trump is following through on his promise to restore public safety for all Americans.

President Trump signed an Executive Order directing the Attorney General to develop a strategy to more effectively prosecute people who engage in crimes against law enforcement officers.
President Trump signed an Executive Order to establish a task force, led by the Attorney General, to reduce crime and restore public safety in communities across America.
President Trump signed an Executive Order re-focusing the Federal Government’s energy and resources on dismantling transnational criminal organizations, such as drug cartels.

HELPING WOMEN AND MINORITIES SUCCEED: President Trump knows the country cannot reach its potential unless every American has a chance to prosper.

President Trump signed an Executive Order strengthening and repositioning the Historically Black Colleges and Universities initiatives within the White House to foster better opportunities in higher education.
President Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau launched the United States-Canada Council for Advancement of Women Entrepreneurs and Business Leaders.
President Trump signed into law the Promoting Women in Entrepreneurship Act to encourage the National Science Foundation’s entrepreneurial programs to recruit and support women to extend their focus beyond the laboratory and into the commercial world.
President Trump signed into law the Inspiring the Next Space Pioneers, Innovators, Researchers, and Explorers (INSPIRE) Women Act to encourage women to study science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), pursue careers in aerospace, and further advance the nation’s space science and exploration efforts.

KEEPING HIS PROMISE TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION: President Trump promised a U.S. Supreme Court justice in the mold of late Justice Antonin Scalia selected from his previously announced list of 20 judges

President Trump nominated Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court because of his consistent record defending the Constitution.

The Case for a ‘Religious Test’ in America

March 10, 2017/in Culture War, Featured, National Security, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Dr. Rich Swier

There has been a narrative that there cannot be a “religious test” for public office. This is based upon Article VI of the U.S. Constitution which reads:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Note that Article IV says “required as a qualification to any office or public trust.” Article VI does not say that citizens cannot establish a personal “religious test” when voting for anyone running for or currently holding public office. Voters do vote their values. This raises the question:

Should there be a religious test, and if so, who should be tested?

Recently Oklahoma State Representative John Bennett ask those visiting his office who are Mohammedans, followers of Mohammad, to fill out a questionnaire. The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Adam Soltani asked: “The question that comes to mind is, does he do this to others? Does he ask question to his Christian constituents? His Jewish constituents? If the answer is no, that’s discrimination. There’s no other way to call it.”

Mr. Soltani has a valid point, which raises two fundamental questions:

Do elected officials have the right to ask their constituents to take a “religious test” questionnaire before meeting with them?
Do citizens have the same right to present a “religious test” questionnaire to their elected officials?

In the United States there are voters who cast their ballots based upon their beliefs. These beliefs can be political, social and religious. Many argue that these three are inextricably linked. Whether you are an atheist, agnostic, Christian, Jew, Mohammedan, Democrat, Republican, Independent or other, you will vote your values.

So, where do values come from? Answer: Religious beliefs!

The First Amendment gives everyone the right to freedom of speech and to petition their elected representatives.

Religious beliefs are a measure of ones character as Dr. Martin Luther King noted in his “I have a dream” speech. Therefore a religious test is really a test of one’s character and is not only necessary but fundamental to our Constitutional republican form of government.

As John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

To help determine the character of citizens and elected officials alike, we have modified the questionnaire used by Representative Bennett and added another to be given to all those who are not Mohammedans.

Please feel free to use them as you wish.

Questions for non-Mohammedans

The the Book of Genesis states: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.” Do you agree with this?
“You shall have no other gods before me.” Do you agree with this? If not what God do you worship?
“You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.” Do you agree with this? Do you bow down to false images?
“You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.” Do you agree with this?
“Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” Do you agree with this?
“Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.” Do you agree with this?
“You shall not murder.” Do you agree with this?
“You shall not commit adultery.” Do you agree with this? Have you ever committed adultery?
“You shall not steal.” Do you agree with this? Have you ever stolen?
“You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.” Do you agree with this? Have you lied?
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” Do you agree with this? Have you coveted?

Questions for Mohammedans

The Sunna of Mohammed says that Muslims must be punished for leaving Islam. Do you agree with this?
Mohammed was a killer of pagans, Christians and Jews that did not agree with him. Do you agree with this example?
Mohammed repeatedly advised Muslims to deceive Kafirs to advance Islam. The Koran has over 90 versus that say Mohammed is the perfect example for Muslims to follow. Do you follow the perfect example of Mohammed? Have you deceived a Kafir?
The Koran, the Sunna of Mohammed and Shariah Law of all schools say that the husband can beat his wife. Do you beat your wife?
Shariah law says that if must rule over the kafirs, the non-Muslims. Do you agree with this?
I have heard that, according to accepted Islamic sources, Mohammed, at the age of 49, married a 6-year old girl, and that he had sex with her when he was 52 and she was only 9 years old. Is that really true?
In December 1948, the United Nations passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which enshrines the most important values of Western Civilization such as freedom of religion, freedom from religion, freedom of conscience, equality of religions, and equality of men and women. It is a fact that not a single one of the 57 Muslim countries has accepted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Instead, all of the Muslim countries signed the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam which makes Islam superior to all other religions, and which explicitly makes shariah Law, the only source of human rights. What, exactly, is it about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which shariah law finds unacceptable?
The Koran says: The unbelievers are your inveterate enemy. (4:101). The Koran also says that unbelievers are the “vilest of all creatures” (96:8) and “worst of animals” (8:55). What hope is there of coexistence when Mohammed teaches practicing Muslim to have this attitude toward non-Muslims?
A fundamental principle of Christianity and Judaism is the “Golden Rule” which says “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Yet, the Koran says: “Mohammed is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.” (48:29) With this attitude, how can orthodox followers of Mohammed possibly co-exist with non-Muslims?

RELATED ARTICLE: The Eighth Deadly Sin

Meet the Antisemitic Terrorist Leading #DayWithoutAWoman

March 8, 2017/in Featured, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Dr. Rich Swier

In the New York Post column “Meet the terrorist behind the next women’s march” Kyle Smith reports:

Instead of milling around Washington, organizers have in mind a “general strike” called the Day without a Woman. In a manifesto published in The Guardian on Feb. 6, the brains behind the movement are calling for a “new wave of militant feminist struggle.” That’s right: militant, not peaceful.

The document was co-authored by, among others, Rasmea Yousef Odeh, a convicted terrorist. Odeh, a Palestinian, was convicted in Israel in 1970 for her part in two terrorist bombings, one of which killed two students while they were shopping for groceries. She spent 10 years in prison for her crimes. She then managed to become a US citizen in 2004 by lying about her past (great detective work, INS: Next time, use Google) but was subsequently convicted, in 2014, of immigration fraud for the falsehoods. However, she won the right to a new trial (set for this spring) by claiming she had been suffering from PTSD at the time she lied on her application. Oh, and in her time as a citizen, she worked for a while as an ObamaCare navigator.

Rasmea Yousef Odeh. Photo: AP

You can see why she’s a hero to the left. Another co-author, Angela Davis, is a Stalinist professor and longtime supporter of the Black Panthers. Davis is best known for being acquitted in a 1972 trial after three guns she bought were used in a courtroom shootout that resulted in the death of a judge. She celebrated by going to Cuba.

A third co-author, Tithi Bhattacharya, praised Maoism in an essay for the International Socialist Review, noting that Maoists are “on the terrorist list of the US State Department, Canada, and the European Union,” which she called an indication that “Maoists are back in the news and by all accounts they are fighting against all the right people.” You know you’re dealing with extremism when someone admits to hating Canada.

Read more…

World Jewish Daily reports:

The lead organization behind the upcoming “International Women’s Strike” has called for the destruction of Israel and embraced a Palestinian terrorist as one of its leaders.

According to the Algemeiner, the organization behind the proposed “strike” issued a manifesto calling for “the decolonization of Palestine,” a euphemism for the genocidal desire to destroy Israel as a Jewish state.

It declares this racist goal “the beating heart of this new feminist movement” and states, “We want to dismantle all walls, from prison walls to border walls, from Mexico to Palestine.”

In addition, one of the movement’s most prominent organizers is the antisemitic, racist Palestinian terrorist Rasmea Odeh, who spent over a decade in an Israeli prison for murdering two Israelis in a pair of terrorist attacks.

Odeh has been charged with lying on her citizenship application by denying her terrorist history.

Indivisible North Coast Oregon (INCO) posted the following on its website:

MARCH 8 Women’s Strike and Postcard Party

From the Women’s March Instagram post:

In the spirit of women and their allies coming together for love and liberation, we offer A Day Without A Woman. We ask: do businesses support our communities, or do they drain our communities? Do they strive for gender equity or do they support the policies and leaders that perpetuate oppression? Do they align with a sustainable environment or do they profit off destruction and steal the futures of our children? We saw what happened when millions of us stood together in January, and now we know that our army of love greatly outnumbers the army of fear, greed and hatred. On March 8th, International Women’s Day, let’s unite again in our communities for A Day Without A Woman. Over the next few weeks we will be sharing more information on what actions on that day can look like for you. #DayWithoutAWoman #WomensMarch

Read more…

Regarding Indivisible and the Women’s March, Politico reported:

Indivisible is also embracing collaboration with other major anti-Trump protest outlets. Leaders of the group were in communication with Women’s March organizers before their main event on Jan. 21, and that partnership will become official when the March unveils the third in its series of 10 direct actions that attendees have been asked to pursue in their communities.

Obama, Organizing for Action, Indivisible, Women’s March and Day Without A Woman are all part of the same anarchist movement called “resist.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘A Day Without a Woman’ Strike Promotes the Liberal Idea that Women are Helpless

Jewish Students Counter Anti-Zionist Rhetoric at Columbia University

IMMIGRATION: President Trump’s Revised EO is Constitutional, Legal, and Common Sense

March 7, 2017/in Featured, Immigration, National Security, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Dr. Rich Swier

President Trump has signed a revised Executive Order (EO) on immigration and refugee resettlement. Democrats are already calling it a “Muslim ban.” A question that Democrats should ask themselves: What if former President Clinton had banned the 9/11/2001 hijackers from entering the United States, would we be better off today?

Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly released the following statement about the EO:

“The Executive Order signed today by President Trump will make America safer, and address long-overdue concerns about the security of our immigration system. We must undertake a rigorous review of our visa and refugee vetting programs to increase our confidence in the entry decisions we make for visitors and immigrants to the United States. We cannot risk the prospect of malevolent actors using our immigration system to take American lives.

The Executive Order signed today is prospective in nature—applying only to foreign nationals outside of the United States who do not have a valid visa. It is important to note that nothing in this executive order affects current lawful permanent residents or persons with current authorization to enter our country. If you have a current valid visa to travel, we welcome you. But unregulated, unvetted travel is not a universal privilege, especially when national security is at stake.

“The Department of Homeland Security has worked closely with the Department of Justice, the Department of State, and the White House to create an executive order that addresses our information concerns while protecting the homeland and our citizens.”

Hans von Spakovsky in his The Daily Signal article “Why Trump’s Revised Executive Order Is Constitutional, Legal, and Common Sense” writes:

President Donald Trump’s revised executive order restricting travel from terrorist safe havens is just as constitutional and legal as his original order, despite what some courts such as the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said about the original order.

But the revisions he has made, which clarify that the executive order does not apply to any foreigners who already hold visas to enter the U.S., will make it tougher for activist judges to justify any injunction orders they might be inclined to issue against it. Yet there is little doubt that progressive groups will seek such orders.

The executive order, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” confirms what the administration had previously announced, which is that the temporary, 90-day suspension of entry into the U.S. from certain designated countries will not apply to:

Lawful permanent residents as well as diplomatic, NATO, and U.N. personnel.

Foreign nationals admitted after the effective date of the executive order.

Individuals with a visa valid on the date of the executive order.

Dual nationals travelling on a passport issued by a non-designated country.

Individuals already granted asylum or refugee status before the effective date of the executive order.

This is an important revision because it voids the due process concerns that the 9th Circuit expressed—namely, that individuals who had already received approval to enter or reside in the United States might have that right taken away from them without a review and appeal process.

Read more…

Spakovsky concludes, “This executive order is clearly within the president’s authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (f), in which Congress clearly delegated to the president the authority to suspend the entry of any aliens into the U.S. when he believes it would be ‘detrimental to the interests of the United States’.”

ABOUT HANS VON SPAKOWSKY

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research. Twitter: @HvonSpakovsky

RELATED ARTICLES:

Tennessee Files Lawsuit Challenging Constitutionality of the Fed Refugee Resettlement Program

Who’s paying for the DACA program? | TheHill

Trump makes key changes to travel ban

Five takeaways from Trump’s new travel ban

Iraq’s lobbyists mobilized after travel ban, documents reveal

Politico: Fight will now focus on 120-day refugee moratorium

No One Mentions That The Russian Trail Leads To Democratic Lobbyists

Oklahoma lawmaker gives questionnaire to Muslims, Islamic Supremacists Outraged

March 6, 2017/in Culture War, Featured, National Security, Policy, Religion/by Jihad Watch

Rep. John Bennett. Photo: Oklahoma House of Representatives Legislature’s website.

Hamas-linked CAIR’s Adam Soltani asks: “The question that comes to mind is, does he do this to others? Does he ask question to his Christian constituents? His Jewish constituents? If the answer is no, that’s discrimination. There’s no other way to call it.”

All right. However, there have been 30,000 murderous jihad attacks worldwide since 9/11 carried out by Muslims who found impetus and justification for them in the Qur’an and Sunnah. Christians and Jews, meanwhile, are not committing acts of violence and pointing to their holy book to justify it and make recruits among peaceful Christians and Jews. Is John Bennett not allowed to notice that, and decry it?

Soltani also said: “Nobody should be vetted with stupid, Islamophobic, hateful, bigoted questions before they can meet with their representative.”

Well, in reality, if my representative asked me to fill out a questionnaire before he or she would meet with me, I would just fill it out. Soltani says that the questions are “stupid, Islamophobic, hateful, bigoted,” but he doesn’t explain why (and of course “journalist” Mary Ann Georgantopoulos of the establishment propaganda media organ BuzzFeed doesn’t ask him to). There is an important reason for this: Soltani knows full well that the Qur’an tells Muslim men to beat women from whom they fear disobedience (4:34), and that multiple hadiths record that Muhammad married a 6-year-old girl (Aisha) when he was 51 (or thereabouts), and that Bennett’s other questions also have a foundation in actual Islamic teaching and practice.

If Soltani and Hamas-linked CAIR were operating in good faith, they would admit that the Qur’an sanctions wife-beating and that spousal abuse is not just rampant but taken for granted in many areas of the Islamic world, and would detail a genuine program for reform and a determination that women not be beaten. Instead, Soltani dismisses the questions as “Islamophobic” and claims victim status. This is typical, but it doesn’t make the questions go away.

“This Lawmaker Asked Muslims If They Beat Their Wives Before He Would Allow A Meeting,” by Mary Ann Georgantopoulos, BuzzFeed News, March 3, 2017:

Muslims hoping to meet with a Oklahoma lawmaker during a special event had to first fill out a controversial questionnaire about Islam that included inquiries such as “Do you beat your wife?”

Oklahoma Rep. John Bennett asked his constituents taking part in the state’s third annual Muslim Day on Thursday — in which Muslims have the opportunity to interact with state legislators at the capitol — to fill out the questionnaire.

Adam Soltani, executive director of Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR) Oklahoma, told BuzzFeed News that high school students from Tulsa’s Peace Academy visited Bennett’s office to either meet with him or schedule a meeting.

The students were met by a legislative assistant, Soltani said, who gave the students a questionnaire, telling them it must be filled out in writing.

The nine-part questionnaire includes questions such as, “The Koran, the sunna of Mohammed and Sharia Law of all schools says that the husband can beat his wife. Do you beat your wife?”

Another question is, “I have heard that, according to accepted Islamic sources, Mohammed, at age of 49, married a 6-year-old girl, and that he had sex with her when he was 52 and she was only 9 years old. Is that really true?”

“I was distraught when [the students] showed me the questionnaire,” Soltani told BuzzFeed News. “I wasn’t completely surprised by it because obviously we have been challenging Bennett’s hate rhetoric for many years.”…

Soltani said he does not know how many people got the questionnaire because more than 200 people attended Muslim Day at the Capitol, adding that all the other legislators were very supportive and welcoming.The questionnaire was written up by anti-Islam group ACT for America — the group’s logo and email address are on the sheet of paper.

“The question that comes to mind is, does he do this to others?” Soltani said. “Does he ask question [sic] to his Christian constituents? His Jewish constituents? If the answer is no, that’s discrimination. There’s no other way to call it.”

Soltani said there shouldn’t be somebody working for the state of Oklahoma who doesn’t represent all citizens.

“Nobody should be vetted with stupid, Islamophobic, hateful, bigoted questions before they can meet with their representative,” Soltani said in a video posted to Facebook Thursday.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Explanatory Memorandum’ Detractors Ignore Evidence About MB in America by John Rossomando – IPT News

Toronto anti-Islamophobia rally opposes war against the Islamic State

“The leader of the SPLC is aware the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is a Hamas organization”

FULL TEXT OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE:

CENTRAL OKLAHOMA

Questions About Islam

The sunna of Mohammed says that Muslims must be punished for leaving Islam. Do you agree with this?
Mohammed was a killer of pagans, Christians and Jews that did not agree with him. Do you agree with this example?
Mohammed repeatedly advised Muslims to deceive kafirs to advance Islam. The Koran has over 90 versus that say Mohammed is the perfect example for Muslims to follow. Do you follow the perfect example of Mohammed? Have you deceived a kafir?
The Koran, the sunna of Mohammed and Shariah Law of all schools say that the husband can beat his wife. Do you beat your wife?
Shariah law says that if must rule over the kafirs, the non-Muslims. Do you agree with this?
I have heard that, according to accepted Islamic sources, Mohammed, at the age of 49, married a 6-year old girl, and that he had sex with her when he was 52 and she was only 9 years old. Is that really true?
In December 1948, the United Nations passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which enshrines the most important values of Western Civilization such as freedom of religion, freedom from religion, freedom of conscience, equality of religions, and equality of men and women. It is a fact that not a single one of the 57 Muslim countries has accepted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Instead, all of the Muslim countries signed the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam which makes Islam superior to all other religions, and which explicitly makes shariah Law, the only source of human rights. What, exactly, is it about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which shariah law finds unacceptable?
The Koran says: The unbelievers are your inveterate enemy. (4:101). The Koran also says that unbelievers are the “vilest of all creatures” (96:8) and “worst of animals” (8:55). What hope is there of coexistence when Mohammed teaches practicing Muslim to have this attitude toward non-Muslims?
A fundamental principle of Christianity and Judaism is the “Golden Rule” which says “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Yet, the Koran says: “Mohammed is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.” (48:29) With this attitude, how can orthodox followers of Mohammed possibly co-exist with non-Muslims?

actcentralok@gmail.com

TOWERGATE: Obama uses secret court and FBI to spy on Trump Campaign

March 4, 2017/in Cyberwarfare, Elections, Featured, Politics/by Dr. Rich Swier

Wikileaks released an email dated 2016-04-27 between two Democratic National Committee staffers (roberstske@dnc.org and BrinsterJ@dnc.org). In the email robertske@dnc.org wrote, “[T]he pro-Russia stuff ties in pretty well to the idea that Trump is too friendly with Putin/weak on Russia.”

We now learn that in June 2016 the Obama administration filed a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied. A subsequent request in October was approved by the FISA court.

Fox News “White House sources confirm: FISA court issued a warrant to wiretap Trump Towers, “Intelligence community did its due diligence given the threat of the Russian influence... they had to do it.” [Emphasis added]

“Due diligence” has no legal basis for spying on a U.S. citizen. There must be “probable cause” under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Are the two connected? Was the DNC colluding with the Obama administration to spy on the Trump campaign?

Breitbart’s Joel B. Pollack in a column titled “Mark Levin to Congress: Investigate Obama’s ‘Silent Coup’ vs. Trump” reports:

Radio host Mark Levin used his Thursday evening show to outline the known steps taken by President Barack Obama’s administration in its last months to undermine Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and, later, his new administration.

Specifically Levin gives a ten item timeline about the Obama administration spying on the Trump campaign. Here are the first four showing two involve using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA), Department of Justice and FBI to spy on the Trump campaign:

June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.
July: Russia joke. Wikileaks releases emails from the Democratic National Committee that show an effort to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) from winning the presidential nomination. In a press conference, Donald Trump refers to Hillary Clinton’s own missing emails, joking: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.” That remark becomes the basis for accusations by Clinton and the media that Trump invited further hacking.
October: Podesta emails. In October, Wikileaks releases the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, rolling out batches every day until the election, creating new mini-scandals. The Clinton campaign blames Trump and the Russians.
October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.

Read more…

Heatstreet reports:

Two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community have confirmed to Heat Street that the FBI sought, and was granted, a FISA court warrant in October, giving counter-intelligence permission to examine the activities of ‘U.S. persons’ in Donald Trump’s campaign with ties to Russia.

Contrary to earlier reporting in the New York Times, which cited FBI sources as saying that the agency did not believe that the private server in Donald Trump’s Trump Tower which was connected to a Russian bank had any nefarious purpose, the FBI’s counter-intelligence arm, sources say, re-drew an earlier FISA court request around possible financial and banking offenses related to the server. The first request, which, sources say, named Trump, was denied back in June, but the second was drawn more narrowly and was granted in October after evidence was presented of a server, possibly related to the Trump campaign, and its alleged links to two banks; SVB Bank and Russia’s Alfa Bank. While the Times story speaks of metadata, sources suggest that a FISA warrant was granted to look at the full content of emails and other related documents that may concern US persons.

The FBI agents who talked to the New York Times, and rubbished the ground-breaking stories of Slate ( Franklin Foer) and Mother Jones (David Corn) may not have known about the FISA warrant, sources say, because the counter-intelligence and criminal sides of the FBI often work independently of each other employing the principle of ‘compartmentalization’.

The FISA warrant was granted in connection with the investigation of suspected activity between the server and two banks, SVB Bank and Alfa Bank. However, it is thought in the intelligence community that the warrant covers any ‘US person’ connected to this investigation, and thus covers Donald Trump and at least three further men who have either formed part of his campaign or acted as his media surrogates. The warrant was sought, they say, because actionable intelligence on the matter provided by friendly foreign agencies could not properly be examined without a warrant by US intelligence as it involves ‘US Persons’ who come under the remit of the FBI and not the CIA.

Should a counter-intelligence investigation lead to criminal prosecutions, sources say, the Justice Department is concerned that the chain of evidence have a basis in a clear warrant. [Emphasis added]

This is the first time in history that a sitting president’s administration used government agencies to spy on an opposition candidate.

Senator Lindsey Graham at a town-hall meeting said, “If it is true, illegally, it would be the biggest political scandal since Watergate.”

For lack of a better term we have called this “spying on an opposition candidate” Towergate.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Who is Attorney General Loretta Lynch? FISA court handled two requests to wiretap Donald Trump

WikiLeaks: CIA Uses ‘Stolen’ Malware to ‘Attribute’ Cyberattacks to Nations Like Russia

Phished Wiretap Scandal Implodes by Dennis G. Hurst

Non-Denial “Denial” Demands Criminal Investigation Into Obama’s Silent Coup

Freedom Watch offers to represent President Trump and White House over illegal Obama wiretapping

Obama & FISA: Trump Wiretap May Have Been Sought | National Review

Obama spox says Obama never wiretapped a US citizen — immediately receives harsh history lesson – TheBlaze

DOJ seized phone records for Fox News numbers, reporter’s parents | Fox News

RELATED VIDEO: Barack Obama Funneled BILLIONS of Taxpayer Dollars Into a SLUSH FUND For Liberal Activists!

FBI Arrest Jew Hating, Black, Muslim Convert, Fake News Journalist, who hates Trump — Priceless

March 3, 2017/in Featured, National Security, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Dr. Rich Swier

You think it couldn’t get any worse for Democrats but then along comes Juan Thompson, from St. Louis, Missouri via Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Thompson is the gift that keeps on giving.

juan thompson brooklyn independent media

Juan Thompson. Screenshoot: Brooklyn Independent Media

Here are some notable facts about Mr. Juan Thompson:

The FBI arrested him in St. Louis on Friday, March 3rd, 2017.
He is due to appear in court in Manhattan, New York.
He allegedly conducted a campaign of harassment against at least eight Jewish community centers nation wide.
He was cyber stalking his ex-girlfriend, who is white.
He made bomb threats in his ex-girlfriend’s name to Jewish Community Centers and to the Anti-Defamation League.
During 2 threats he claimed there were bombs in a Middle School and that there was going to be a ‘JEWISH NEWTOWN’.
Thompson has a twitter account @JuanMThompson fulled with anti-Semitic and racist tweets.
From November 2014 to January 2016, while working at The Intercept as a journalist in Chicago, he fabricated sources in stories and made up quotes out of whole cloth. (Read The Intercept apology here.)
He previously worked as an intern at Chicago Public Media WBEZ FM 91.5 and at DNAinfo.com Chicago.
He is a Democrat.
He is black.
He is a convert to Islam, a follower of Mohammed.
He ran for Mayor of St. Louis, Missouri.
Juan Thompson (left) with Hillary Clinton. Photo: Twitter

He met and was photographed with Hillary Clinton (right). He said on Twitter, “In ’03 on a high school trip to DC I was obsessed w/@HillaryClinton. Man I was young and dumb.”
He voted for Bernie Sanders.
He accused President Trump of ethnic cleansing in a February 23rd, 2017 Tweet.
In another tweet Thompson calls 42% of Americans “filthy fascist appeasers, and says they should be “taken out along with (President) Trump”.
His Twitter profile reads, “You show me a capitalist, and I’ll show you a bloodsucker.”
His Twitter profile shows him as the Director of Communications for the Gateway Housing Foundation.
He is also accused of sending nude photographs of his white ex-girlfriend to her boss.
He said on Twitter a ‘NASTY/RACIST #WHITEGIRL’ he dated ‘SENT A BOMB THREAT IN MY NAME & WANTS ME TO BE RAPED IN JAIL’.
He wrote a December 2014 fake news story titled, “No Justice, No Respect: Why the Ferguson Riots Were Justified.”

Thompson tweeted this about becoming a follower of Mohammed:

During President Trump’s inaugural address and his recent address to Congress he denounced antisemitism and hate. President Trump, in the video below, denounces the recent wave of threats against America’s Jewish communities by whom we now know were perpetrated by Thompson in part.

The Geller Report notes:

I can see kapo-Jews like Chuck Schumer and Wasserman-Schlutz getting behind this black antisemite, can’t you? He is the perfect Democrat candidate – a hater, a racist, and an antisemite. Sounds like Keith Ellison and a host of other Dems.

And he’s a perfect journalist in Chicago – beloved racist, until two years of fake new stories and fake quotes became to ridiculous to ignore.

Thompson is the poster child for the party of Barack Obama. The party of Marx, Mohammed, Manning and Meryl.

FOLLOWING IS THE INDICTMENT:

u.s. v. Juan Thompson Complaint 0 by Jessica McBride on Scribd

RELATED ARTICLES:

FBI’s Suspect for Anti-Semitic Threats: Bernie Voter, Fake News Reporter

Man Arrested For Jewish Community Center Threats Was Previously Fired For Reporting Fake News

New York: Muslim denied visa until @SenSchumer intervened, arrested for sexual abuse of a child

MUSLIM CONVERT antisemite arrested for BOMB THREATS to Jewish Centers, promised a ‘Jewish Newtown’ – was RUNNING FOR MAYOR of St. Louis in 2017

Juan Thompson: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

Breaking: North St. Louis Man Juan Thompson Arrested for Threats Against Jewish Centers – NOT a Republican

Arrest backs Trump’s claim anti-Semitism from left