Will the Supremes Hear Ultimate States Rights Case?

Editor:  Sorry I haven’t been posting much here lately, I’ve been busy at RRW (as well as being distracted as I assume many of you are as well by of demands of just living these days!), but this is very important and I’m not sure how many of you read RRW.

Cross-posted this morning in an effort to find groups that could support the Thomas More Law Center’s legal petition to the Supreme Court.

I know it’s a little hard to believe that there are other things going on in America besides the virus crisis, but here is important news I should have mentioned sooner.

The Thomas Moore Law Center has filed a petition to attempt to get the Supreme Court to review the Tenth Amendment case that has been working its way through the legal system.

The heart of the case is the Tenth Amendment argument that the federal government has no Constitutional power to shift the cost of refugee resettlement onto state governments as it has been doing for decades.

TMLC is looking for other like-minded organizations to file amicus briefs in support of their argument which has far-reaching implications beyond just the refugee program!

Here is their press release from earlier this month.

Thomas More Law Center Petitions U.S. Supreme Court to Review Tennessee’s Challenge to Federal Refugee Resettlement Program

ANN ARBOR, MI – In what could have far reaching implications for all states seeking to withdraw from the federal refugee resettlement program, the Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”) collaborating with attorney John Bursch, filed a certiorari petition Monday, March 16 in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The petition asks the Court to hold that the Tennessee General Assembly has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the federal government’s forced state funding of the federal refugee resettlement program. ​

The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”) is a national nonprofit public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Both TMLC and Mr. Bursch are representing Tennessee without charge.

John Bursch, a former Michigan state solicitor general, nationally prominent appellate lawyer and past chair of the American Bar Association’s Council of Appellate Lawyers, authored the petition for certiorari.

The petition argues that the issues presented in the Tennessee case cut to the core of the Constitution’s protection of states against overreach by the federal government. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to appropriate state funds, contrary to the wishes of the state, to fund a federal program.

According to the petition: “If a state legislature cannot vindicate its rights in court when the federal government picks the state’s pocket and threatens the state if it dare stop providing funds, then federalism is a dead letter.”

The petition seeks to overturn a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision which ruled that the General Assembly does not have institutional standing to challenge the constitutionality of the resettlement program. The cert petition does not challenge the federal government’s right to resettle refugees in Tennessee. What it objects to is forcing Tennessee taxpayers to pay the costs of the resettlement.

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of TMLC, noted: “From the beginning, opposition to the federal refugee resettlement program has been about protecting Tennessee’s state sovereignty from impermissible federal interference. The federal government cannot simply commandeer state tax dollars to fund a purely federal program to extend benefits to noncitizens.”

Tennessee initially agreed to participate in the federal resettlement program because the federal government promised to reimburse 100 percent of the cost. In fact, Congress crafted the 1980 Refugee Act specifically intending that states not be taxed for programs they did not initiate and for which they were not responsible. As is often the case, however, the federal government began shrinking its financial support to the states and by 1991 eliminated it entirely. Due to the mounting costs the federal government was not covering as promised, Tennessee withdrew from the program effective June 30, 2008. But that didn’t stop the federal financial burden on Tennessee taxpayers. The federal government simply designated Catholic Charities of Tennessee, a non-governmental private organization, to continue the program with state dollars.

Between 2007 and the end of 2019, resettlement agencies pumped more than 15,000 refugees into Tennessee cities and towns. They came from Afghanistan, Bosnia, Burma, Central African Republic, Congo, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan 3 and many other countries. They often arrive from United Nations camps in poor health, with no job skills or English-language abilities.

The resulting cost to state taxpayers amounted to tens of millions of dollars. In 2015 alone, the refugee-related Medicaid costs paid by Tennessee tax dollars topped $30 million.

Instead of resolving the merits of Tennessee’s claim, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals sidestepped the pivotal constitutional issue concerning federalism by ruling that the Tennessee General Assembly lacked standing to bring its lawsuit.

The petition filed on March 16, 2020, argues that this was in error:

“The General Assembly is an institutional plaintiff asserting an institutional injury; the federal government has co-opted the General Assembly’s appropriation power and impaired its obligation to enact a balanced state budget. That is because the federal government can siphon state funds—to help pay for a federal program from which Tennessee has withdrawn.”

TMLC originally filed the federal lawsuit in March 2017 on behalf of the State of Tennessee, the Tennessee General Assembly, and state legislators Terri Lynn Weaver and John Stevens challenging the commandeering of millions in state taxpayer dollars for a purely federal program.

A U.S. district court judge dismissed the case on the federal government’s motion. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal on the sole grounds that the General Assembly lacked standing. It never reached the merits of the case.

The Supreme Court now has a chance to shed light on the proper role of the states relative to the federal government—which is the bedrock constitutional principle of federalism.

The petition states: “The (Tennessee) General Assembly does not object to the federal resettlement program. It does not even object to the federal government resettling 4 refugees in Tennessee. The General Assembly does object to the federal government reaching its hand into Tennessee’s pocket to pay for the cost of such a program, particularly when the enabling legislation was enacted with the promise to reimburse states for all expenses incurred in this program.”

The federal government mandates that states provide Medicaid to otherwise eligible refugees, or face termination of federal benefits.

Accordingly, the federal government forces Tennessee to continue funding the refugee program by threatening to pull $7 billion in federal Medicaid funding, which represents 20 percent of the state’s total budget.

The argument in favor of the General Assembly’s standing is bolstered by the fact that both chambers of the Tennessee General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in 2016 in favor of filing a civil lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal refugee resettlement program. The State Senate passed Senate Joint Resolution 467, by a vote of 27-5 while the House voted 69-25 to pass the same resolution.

And without any waiting period they can automatically apply for all welfare programs provided by the State of Tennessee.

Read TMLC’s Petition for Certiorari here. 

If you know any organization that is in agreement with the broad-reaching tenets of the case, please have them contact the Thomas Moore Law Center immediately.  Time is short!

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Borders Matter to Dems! When the Border is Between New York and Rhode Island! LOL!

This story gave me a laugh (I know it is a serious issue)!  However, I can’t help chuckling about the Open Borders Dems who all of a sudden are becoming tribal about their people in their states. Civil liberties be damned!

Not sure how this fits into Frauds and Crooks, but what the heck, I’ll archive it in my ‘Politicians as frauds’ category.

From Bloomberg:

Rhode Island Police to Hunt Down New Yorkers Seeking Refuge

Rhode Island police began stopping cars with New York plates Friday. On Saturday, the National Guard will help them conduct house-to-house searches to find people who traveled from New York and demand 14 days of self-quarantine.

“Right now we have a pinpointed risk,” Governor Gina Raimondo said. “That risk is called New York City.”

[….]

Rhode Island has just over 200 [cases of COVID-19 at the time this story was posted—ed], and it has begun an aggressive campaign to keep the virus out and New Yorkers contained, over objections from civil liberties advocates.

Raimondo, a Democrat, said she had consulted lawyers and said while she couldn’t close the border, she felt confident she could enforce a quarantine.

Many New Yorkers have summer houses in Rhode Island, especially in tony Newport, and the governor said the authorities would be checking there.

“Yesterday I announced and today I reiterated: Anyone coming to Rhode Island in any way from New York must be quarantined,” the governor said. “By order. Will be enforced. Enforceable by law.”

More here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Minnesota: Woman Charged with Visa Fraud; Injured Illegals to Help them Get Special Visas

Michelle Malkin Blasts ADL for Demanding a Piece of the COVID-19 Relief Pie

Pressure on ICE to Release Detained Illegal Aliens; First Case of Alien with Coronavirus is in NJ

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

U.S. Finally Suspends Refugee Admissions

Finally.

It’s surreal that major cities and states are being shut down, and people ordered to stay in their homes, but the stream of migrants keeps on coming. And there’s a push to have the bailout/stimulus bills include even more immigration.

Finally we’re suspending refugee processing.

The United States is putting a temporary pause on refugee admissions in light of the coronavirus pandemic, according to two sources familiar with a Trump administration call to refugee organizations Wednesday morning.

The move comes after the International Organization for Migration, which is in charge of booking refugees on their travel, and the UN refugee agency announced a temporary suspension of resettlement travel. The agencies shared concerns in a statement Tuesday, saying international travel “could increase the exposure of refugees to the virus.”

At least they’ve got their priorities in order. We wouldn’t want the next Tsarnaev brothers to catch some coronavirus from the infidels.

A State Department spokesperson confirmed the temporary suspension, saying that the pause is expected to be in place from March 19 through April 6. Wednesday is the last day for refugee arrivals.

It’s incomprehensible that we still have refugees coming in. But every single American be have their doorknobs welded shut, but the migrant flow must go on. The Democrats won’t be able to turn more states blue without it while destroying the country.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Iran: Top Muslim cleric says reports that he approved use of Israeli coronavirus vaccine are “absolutely fake news”

More Coronavirus Craziness From Turkey

Pakistan: Muslim leader says coronavirus is wrath of Allah on non-Muslim nations that have persecuted Muslims

Iranian TV: Coronavirus may be “ethnic weapon” that US developed to target Iranians and Chinese

Islamic State calls on Allah to increase coronavirus torment against idolatrous nations

ISIS, Muslim Brotherhood fatwas forbid new churches, allow looting non-Muslim money and say women inferior to men

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Protecting America’s Borders Is Critical to Combating Coronavirus

In mid-March, President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador closed his country’s borders to foreigners. At that point, his country had zero confirmed cases of COVID-19, commonly known as the coronavirus.

Bukele closed down schools, temporarily shut down the international airport, and banned flights from Mexico when he believed the Mexican government allowed corona-positive passengers to board El Salvador-bound flights.

While these measures might seem extreme, to date El Salvador has only one confirmed case.

El Salvador’s actions demonstrate that borders play a key role in combating against the coronavirus.


In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>


On Friday, the U.S. and Mexico announced a joint agreement to close their shared border for nonessential travel over the next 30 days.

This means that for the next month, the U.S. Border Patrol will immediately return illegal immigrants across the border instead of processing and holding them in immigration facilities. Points of entry across the border are operational only for trade and commerce.

Closing the border to nonessential travel while still allowing trade was the right move by President Donald Trump.

The U.S. and Mexico are each other’s largest trade partners and with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, there are safety guarantees to protect lawful cross-border trade. Americans should be confident that necessary supply chains like food and manufactured goods are well-protected.

More importantly, this travel restriction protects border agents from unnecessary exposure to the coronavirus and reduces the workload they are experiencing from the border crisis.

It is also a smart move as it allows Customs and Border Protection to redirect manpower and sanitary resources that would have gone to inadmissible migrants toward first responders and critical industries.

Border agents are at the front lines and put their lives at risk every day protecting the country. With the coronavirus, they are now unwittingly risking their family, friends, and Homeland Security co-workers. Trump was right to give them this momentary reprieve and, should the crisis continue, the travel restrictions should be extended.

A recent Politico article reported that “nearly 500 Homeland Security employees are quarantined because of the novel coronavirus, and at least 13 are confirmed or presumed COVID-19 positive.”

Despite what partisan pundits in the mainstream media want you to think, travel restrictions are not racist or xenophobic. Currently, 41 countries have implemented travel restrictions or border control policies.

It is important to note that Friday’s border action was a joint agreement with Mexico. Hopefully, the Trump administration is deepening cooperation with Mexico on their domestic efforts to counter the coronavirus.

As cases of the virus increase in Mexico, the Mexican government is seriously falling behind on developing and executing a plan.

The capital city has only prohibited events larger than 1,000 people and recently allowed a concert of 70,000 people to take place.

Flight restrictions from high-risk countries are not in place and President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador continues traveling around the country, hugging and kissing supporters.

Recently, around 400 Mexican businessmen chartered private planes to Vail, Colorado, for a skiing trip. Upon return, a few tested positive for COVID-19. The Jalisco government is looking for them and asking them to self-isolate.

Should Mexico’s lack of internal enforcement continue, the U.S. should also consider banning flights.

In the midst of a highly contagious global pandemic, definitions of normalcy are rewritten. Viruses do not respect borders or boundaries. What was extreme a month ago is now prudent and responsible.

COMMENTARY BY

Ana Quintana is a senior policy analyst for Latin America and the Western Hemisphere in The Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies. Twitter: .

Lora Ries is a senior research fellow specializing in homeland security at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

As Businesses Struggle Amid COVID-19, Here’s the Conservative Way the Government Can Help

‘Not at This Time’: DHS Chief Says Nationwide Lockdown Not Happening Yet

What a Nurse Wants You to Know About the COVID-19 Pandemic

COVID-19 Pandemic Highlights Importance of Economic Freedom

Top WHO Official Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus Won Election With China’s Help. Now He’s Running Interference For China On Coronavirus

Josh Hawley Says WHO Sided With China, Needs To Face ‘Consequences’


A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET ACCESS NOW! >>


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

The Media’s Appalling Fixation on Trump’s Use of ‘Chinese Virus’ [Video]

America is in a state of lockdown, the stock market is plummeting, and countless people around the world could get sick and die as the result of a deadly pandemic, but still many in the American press will use their time to give cover to the People’s Republic of China.

At a press conference Wednesday, President Donald Trump was asked why he used the phrase “Chinese virus” to describe the new coronavirus disease, known as COVID-19.

Cecilia Vega of ABC News asked: “Why do you keep calling this the Chinese virus, there are reports of dozens of incidents of bias against Chinese Americans in this country. Your own aide, [HHS] Secretary [Alex] Azar, says he does not use this term. He says ethnicity does not cause the virus. Why do you keep using this? A lot of people think it’s racist.”

Other reporters asked essentially the same question.


In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>


“Because it comes from China,” Trump responded to Vega. “It’s not racist at all. No, not at all. It comes from China, that’s why. It comes from China. I want to be accurate.”

Trump doubled down, explaining that he chose to use the “Chinese virus” phrase to push back on the idea, spread by Chinese officials, that the virus was started by the U.S. military.

Again, in this time of crisis, our esteemed press is asking the questions most on the minds of the American people, right?

Just unbelievable. What’s worse than the knee-jerk speech-policing in such a serious time is how it’s clearly being used for the purposes of China’s propaganda.

Trump is right about his rhetoric. The virus originated in Wuhan, China, and it’s appropriate to label it by where it came from, as we do with many other viruses.

Just a few months ago, most American media outlets had no problem identifying COVID-19 with China, unless they think they were peddling racism and xenophobia as many now claim.

What changed?

As Trump noted, Chinese officials and various state-backed media outlets have stepped up their campaign to lay this disaster at the feet of the United States.

They are using the idea that calling COVID-19 the “Chinese virus,” “China coronavirus,” “Wuhan virus,” or anything else that may direct attention toward their government’s misbehavior is racist and must be silenced.

It’s a message that’s well-tailored to suck in the social justice warrior journalists and left-wing commentariat to carry out the goals of the communist Chinese regime.

It’s important to keep a focus on the origin of the pandemic in light of the fact that the actions of the Chinese communist government to suppress information in the early stages of the outbreak have deeply exacerbated this catastrophe.

It’s incredible that in the face of the Chinese government’s expulsion of American journalists and refusal to provide reliable information about the outbreak in China, our own press is most troubled by the president’s attempt to draw attention to this with a simple phrase of identification.

And if American journalists are so concerned about racism and government mistreatment of minorities, why not get more worked up about China’s current treatment of Muslim Uighurs who’ve been detained in concentration camps and, according to reports, are being used as essentially slave laborers to make up for labor shortages.

The biggest threat we will face in coming months isn’t racism, it’s the potential for a massive pandemic worse than any we’ve seen in a century.

It’s especially important that as we first manage the very serious health crisis, we also remember how a ruthless authoritarian regime turned a limited catastrophe into a global one.

Hopefully this message will get through to the press. Maybe now is the time to restore some of their lost credibility rather than further damaging it.

COMMENTARY BY

Jarrett Stepman is a contributor to The Daily Signal and co-host of The Right Side of History podcast. Send an email to Jarrett. He is also the author of the new book, “The War on History: The Conspiracy to Rewrite America’s Past.”Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

4 Ways Coronavirus May Change How You Vote

Churches on the Front Lines of Responding to Coronavirus

Sebastian Gorka Exposes the Great Lie of Socialism

Expelling US Journalists, China Escalates Political Warfare Over Coronavirus


A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET ACCESS NOW! >>


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

House Democrats: Let Convicted Terrorists Work for the TSA!

My latest in PJ Media:

This was utterly predictable in today’s atmosphere of leftist insanity, but it’s appalling nonetheless. As the sage Joe Biden would say, Look, Fat, look, here’s the deal: I’ve been warning for years that it would sooner or later become “Islamophobic” to offer even the mildest opposition to jihad violence and that the “Islamophobia” mongers would become increasingly open about their support for jihad terrorists, and here we are. On Thursday, 174 Democrats in the House of Representatives voted against an amendment to the Rights for Transportation Security Officers Act that would prevent the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) from hiring convicted terrorists.

Yes, that’s right: if these House Democrats had gotten their way, on your next flight, you could have gotten a pat-down from a TSA agent who previously conspired to down the airplane you were planning to fly on. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.) explained that the amendment “was pulled back by leadership because the socialist wing of the party did not want to have that amendment go forward on this bill. When it was offered, overwhelmingly the majority of the House would like to see the TSA not hire terrorists or those who have been convicted of sexual misconduct with minors and others. But the socialist wing of the party, that controls now the Democratic Party, said that that could not be offered.”

However, as these prospective TSA employees might have said, Allahu akbar! The whole thing exploded in their faces: enough Republicans and renegade Democrats voted for the amendment to pass it. But among the luminaries who thought it so important to avoid even the appearance of “Islamophobia” that they opposed an amendment barring terrorists from pawing through your belongings as you made your way through security were the infamous “Squad,” Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D, Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.), and Ayanna Pressley (D., Mass.), along with the supposedly sane and responsible House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D., Md.).

The TSA has always been more security theatre than actual security, but that’s beside the point here: AOC, Omar, Tlaib, and the 171 other House Democrats who opposed this measure didn’t vote against it because it would be ineffective, but clearly because it would offend a key portion of their constituency, which for most, if not all, Democrats today consists of people who believe that terrorists are victims, that American imperialism is the real problem, and that Donald Trump is “racist” for wanting to protect Americans from jihad terror attacks by foreign nationals coming from the countries included in his travel ban and from violent crimes by illegal aliens coming into the country from Mexico.

There is much more. Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

New York: Muslima stole over $150,000 to support the Islamic State, tried to join

Islamic State issues “Sharia” advisory telling Muslims not to travel to Europe because of coronavirus

UK: Muslim rape gang causes “severe psychological harm” to 15-year-old non-Muslim girl with multiple rapes

India: Four Muslims returning from Dubai refuse coronavirus tests, say Islam does not permit such tests

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Most House Democrats Vote Against Amendment that Would Keep Convicted Terrorists from Working for the TSA

What could possibly go wrong? Convicted terrorists are simply people who have acted upon their justifiable grievances against the U.S. and Israel, right? Don’t you stand against colonialism, imperialism, and racism, you greasy Islamophobe?

“174 Democrats Vote Against Amendment That Aims To Make It Harder To Hire TSA Employees With Terrorist Or Sexual Crime Record,” by David Krayden, Daily Caller, March 6, 2020:

House Republicans and 42 Democrats joined forces Thursday to pass an amendment to the Rights for Transportation Security Officers Act that would keep people convicted of sexual assault, terrorism and other violent crimes from working for the Transportation Security Agency (TSA).

But 174 House Democrats — including House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer — did not support the legislation.

The vast majority of Democrats voted against the amendment, which was authored by Democratic Illinois Rep. Lauren Underwood.

Republican House Leader Kevin McCarthy was quick to criticize the Democratic leadership for rejecting the law.

“[The amendment] was pulled back by leadership because the socialist wing of the party did not want to have that amendment go forward on this bill,” the California representative said Thursday, according to the Washington Free Beacon. “When it was offered, overwhelmingly the majority of the House would like to see the TSA not hire terrorists or those who have been convicted of sexual misconduct with minors and others. But the socialist wing of the party, that controls now the Democratic Party, said that that could not be offered.”

Every member of the “squad” voted against the amendment. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not cast a vote….

Critics have also faulted TSA for being lax when it comes to identifying people on the terror watch list….

The Rights for Transportation Security Officers Act passed the House with a vote of 230-171….

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Democratic Party—No More Moderates

Bloomberg Was ‘Never Prouder’ Than When He Supported the Ground Zero Mosque

At AIPAC, Biden Disappoints (Part 3)

Fresh from signing peace deal, Taliban murder 20 soldiers and cops in jihad massacres

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Marine Le Pen Demands a Real Immigration Policy, Not a Fake One to Anesthetize the Public

Marine Le Pen, French National Front political party leader and candidate for the National Front. Marine demands a real immigration policy, not a fake one to anesthetize the public.

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog video posted by Eeyore is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Pentagon failed to vet Saudi military recruit who murdered three Americans in jihad massacre in Pensacola

“Despite security screening of these individuals, it became clear in the wake of the attack that the federal government failed to pick up on clear warning signs, such as the attacker’s anti-American social media posts.”

Clearly the screening process is inadequate, in large part because of the Pentagon’s denial and willful ignorance regarding the motivating ideology behind the jihad threat. Pentagon officials know it would be “Islamophobic” to take note of such social media posts. They don’t want to see a big CNN exposé on “Islamophobia in the Pentagon,” featuring Hamas-linked CAIR’s Nihad Awad and Ibrahim Hooper lamenting the persecution of Muslims in the U.S. Armed Forces. And so three people are dead in Pensacola.

“Pentagon Failed to Vet Saudi Military Recruit Who Killed 3 Americans,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, March 4, 2020:

The Pentagon failed to adequately screen a Saudi military recruit who carried out a deadly 2019 attack at a U.S. military installation in Pensacola, Fla., officials testified on Wednesday.

Garry Reid, director for defense intelligence at the Pentagon, said during a public congressional hearing that a failure to properly screen and share critical information about Saudi military recruits led to the attack, which killed three American service members and wounded eight others.

In addition to relying too heavily on State Department vetting procedures, the Pentagon found in its review of the incident that gaps in federal law enabled the Saudi terrorist to legally obtain a firearm in the United States, despite not being a citizen or having an immigrant visa.

The attack at Naval Air Station Pensacola triggered a nationwide crackdown on foreign nationals participating in U.S. military programs. Despite security screening of these individuals, it became clear in the wake of the attack that the federal government failed to pick up on clear warning signs, such as the attacker’s anti-American social media posts….

The government-wide security review also found that “policies for international military student possession of firearms varied at the installation level, and that at the federal level, there are ways to bypass firearms restrictions for non-immigrant visa holders.”

These loopholes should be closed to prevent another attack, officials said.

Following last year’s attack, all Saudi Arabian military students in the United States for training were screened “using new procedures we had recently put in place as part of our personnel vetting transformation initiative,” Reid said. Twenty-one Saudis were also ejected from the country for misconduct as the result of an FBI investigation.

Reid said the new vetting procedures “produced only a small number of returns that required additional analysis within the Department of Defense.” He added that none of the returns “triggered any remedial action or further investigation by federal authorities relative to the current population.”…

Sen. Joni Ernst (R., Iowa), a combat veteran and the subcommittee’s chair, said in the hearing that more must be done to ensure an attack of this nature does not take place again. While the foreign military exchange programs are vital to building closer global alliances, they cannot come at the risk of American service members’ lives, she said.

“The attacker … arrived in the United States in 2017 and harbored anti-U.S. sentiments, which he broadcasted on social media,” Ernst said. “All the while he was able to purchase a firearm, access U.S. military installations, and ultimately carry out a deadly attack against Americans. We must do more to protect our military personnel.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Muslim Migrant Attack in St. Louis You Heard Nothing About

US Supreme Court refuses to review terrorism convictions of Muslim who plotted to behead Pamela Geller

NYC: Muslima scratches Jewish woman’s face while screaming “Allahu akbar,” “Allah will kill you” and “nasty Jews”

India: Muslim rioters murder Hindu factory worker, his wife calls for help, no one comes for fear of the Muslim mob

RELATED VIDEO: How terrorists are treated in Canada.

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Virginia US Senate Candidate, Victor Williams, Speaks on Dual Threats of Coronavirus and Democrats’ Leftist Lurch to Socialism

ARLINGTON, Va.March 3, 2020 /PRNewswire/ — “The Fed must act immediately to cut interest rates and boost liquidity” says Prof. Victor Williams. “The Fed must act now.  The Fed has foolishly fallen behind other central banks. The US Fed must lead in rate cuts and liquidity boosts immediately.”

According to Prof. Williams, a Law & Economics expert who is also a 2020 candidate for the U.S. Senate in Virginia, the Fed is again showing a woeful lack of leadership.  Prof. Williams stated:

“By its delayed response to coronavirus uncertainty, the Fed threatens to stall the booming American economy.  A significant (75 basis point) rate cut and a substantial boost to liquidity is needed now.  By delay, the Fed jeopardizes America’s economy and its own credibility.”

Williams argues that American markets actually face two different threats – coronavirus uncertainties and the Democrats’ leftward-lurch to socialism:

“The Fed must act now to protect the economy against uncertainties of coronavirus but Fed action is also needed to buffer the markets reaction to the Democrat Party’s hard-left lurch to economic socialism.”

Williams continued:

“We do not know the extent of future disruptions by coronavirus. However, we know from history — with absolute certitude – what horrendous economic and social damage will be caused by the Democrats’ dangerous socialism.”

“For America’s economic health and future, Democrats like Bernie SandersJoe Biden, AOC+3, and Mark Warner must be stopped.  There is not a dime’s worth of difference between Sanders, Biden, and Warner. Warner has joined in the hard-left lurch as his party threatens to:

  • Legalize and Encourage Late Term Abortions (including post-birth infanticide);
  • Kill Economic Growth and Fiscal Stability (with increased taxes and regulations bankrupting Virginia’s coal industry);
  • Throw Open the Southern Border (to allow a massive flow –invasion — of aliens who will then be given free health care and other largess);
  • Eliminate Medicare (insuring “Medicare for None” with socialist schemes raising taxes on American workers and making private-employer insurance illegal).”

Williams’ statement against Warner continued:

“Virginians remember that Mark Warner has never adequately explained his own 2014 Phil Puckett scandal.  He has never explained his offer to sell a federal judgeship in a quid pro quo for a local politician’s partisan cooperation?  “Puckettgate” remains a viable issue in 2020. “

Warner’s weak and conflicting responses to the 2019 Northam/Fairfax scandals are best described as Puckettgate II” as Warner again chooses corrupt politicians over Virginia’s interests.  Sen. Warner actually said that Ralph Northam had a “right” to keep his high office if the Governor could manage to talk his way out of the racist scandal. ”

16 years of Warner is enough.  Virginia deserves much better.”

On July 4, 2019, Prof. Williams announced his campaign with the intention of promoting an early, strong GOP field of candidates.

Today, Williams praised all his competitors in the primary contest.  However, Williams gave special praise to veteran Daniel Gade for his proven fundraising abilities and his tireless campaigning throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia:

“I announced my campaign stating that I wanted to encourage the strongest, best Republican candidate to emerge early.

As Virginia filing deadline approaches, veteran Daniel Gade is fast emerging as that strongest candidate.

Dan Gade clearly has the public support, dedication, and passion to defeat Mark Warner in November 2020.

Williams, who is the  founder of “Law Professor for Trump” also predicted that Donald Trump will win Virginia in the 2020 presidential contest.

Prof. Williams returned to his more immediate message:

“But meanwhile, the laggard Fed must significantly cut rates and substantially boost liquidity.”

Paid for by: Victor Williams for Virginia  vw4v.com.

© All rights reserved.

ST. LOUIS: Muslim migrant robs, beats, stabs woman with a metal rod. He is let off because he has an IQ of 49

“It’s not feeling safe and honestly feeling like I’ve been failed by the system,” says the victim, Alicia Clarke, and she is right. Not only has she been failed by law enforcement authorities, but also by the establishment media. The KSDK story below contains no hint of the fact that the attacker was a Muslim migrant. It was left to the victim’s sister to reveal that on Facebook. It is clear from KSDK’s coverage that Muslim migrants are a protected class, and that the establishment media avoids reporting on anything that might reflect poorly upon them. Was a concern to protect their image also part of the authorities’ considerations in dismissing the case? That’s what the KSDK reporters should have been asking. Instead, they completely whitewashed that aspect of the story.

“‘I’ve been failed by the system’ | Teen walks free after neighbor says he broke her nose, left her in bruises,” by Justina Coronel and Robert Townsend, KSDK, February 24, 2020 (thanks to Gateway Pundit):

ST. LOUIS — A St. Louis woman feels like the judicial system failed her, after she said her teenage neighbor attacked her and walked away free.

Alicia Clarke said exactly a week ago she went for a quick run outside her south city home. When she came back, she noticed her shoes had been moved to a different spot and her cell phone was gone.

From there, she used Find My iPhone to search for it. The location said it was on her property grid. She used her work phone to call it.

“I open my back door to call it and I hear it in my neighbor’s backyard behind me,” Clarke said.

Clarke said she hopped the fence to get it and jumped back over to her yard. Another neighbor yelled out to her and said, “Hey, I told him, ‘I know you did this and I’m calling the police!’”

Clarke said that’s when the 6-foot teen jumped the fence and tackled her.

“He knocked me down, pulling my hair, kicking,” she recalled.

Before he ran off, she said he grabbed her personal cell phone again. She used her work phone to call police.

“I am on the phone with St. Louis police dispatch, making my way to my backdoor, when he comes back with a weapon. He is on top of me. There was blood everywhere. I was literally fighting for my life at that point,” she told 5 On Your Side.

Clarke said as he was on her back, he stabbed her in the head and face with a metal rod.

She was able to get the weapon out of his hand and ran inside. He ran away again, taking her second cell phone this time.

Police arrested the teen on charges of first-degree robbery, second-degree burglary and third-degree assault.

Clarke thought the fight was over. But when she went to juvenile court a few days later, she learned his case was dismissed.

“The most hurtful thing of all of this, is the dropped charges. That was much more hurtful than the physical assault,” Clarke said.

A juvenile court official said a staff attorney dropped the case before even going to the judge. The courts weren’t able to comment specifically on this incident, since it involves a juvenile. Clarke said she was told her accused attacker was found incompetent to aid in his own defense because he has an IQ of 49….

“It’s not feeling safe and honestly feeling like I’ve been failed by the system,” Clarke said….

Andrea Clarke Flatley, Facebook, February 20, 2020 (thanks to Gateway Pundit):

Updated 2/26. See addendum #6 below. It’s worth the scroll!!!

This is my sister. On Monday night she was attacked by her 15 year old neighbor. He stabbed her in the head and face with a screw driver. She fought him off and was able to escape to a neighbors house to call the police. The boy was taken into police custody and brought to juvenile detention center. No clear motive was ever established.

Alicia has a broken nose, staples in her head and stitches to the puncture wound under her eye.

Hassan is a 15 year old refugee from Somalia who lives with his family. He is 6’ and approx 175lbs, much larger than my sister. He has broken into Alicia’s car 3 different times and broken into another neighbors house. The police were involved every single time and reported that nothing could be done since he was a minor. Surely this time would be different, though.

This morning we went to the juvenile courts building for the deposition hearing where we would find out if he would be held in custody while he awaits his court date, or if he would be allowed to return home. It had been explained to alicia by the victims advocate that the 3 charges he was facing each independently carry a strong recommendation of remaining detained; all three compiled was almost a sure thing. We arrived feeling very hopeful.

On arrival, we learned from that same patient advocate that Hassan’s IQ is 49. This makes him incompetent to aid in his own defense, therefore all charges were formally dismissed by the prosecutor, Sakina Ahmad. We never entered a courtroom, saw a judge, nothing. Hassan was able to go home with a family member. He likely left the building as a free person before we even learned all the above information.

The prosecutor sympathized with our frustration and explained that because he is a mentally handicapped, juvenile refugee, every safeguard available is to his benefit and to Alicia’s detriment. She went on to tell us, VERBATIM, that even if alicia had been KILLED, the outcome would be the same and that this case would be dismissed. Now, Go ahead and read that last sentence again….

RELATED ARTICLES:

India: Muslim rioters molest 6th-8th grade Hindu schoolgirls

A Letter to Michelle Malkin: I urge you to rethink your defense of a Jew-hater and Holocaust-denier

Paris: Muslim who fatally stabbed four cops ran web search on “how to kill infidels” an hour before rampage

Czech Republic: Muslim cleric gets 10 years prison dawah for supporting jihad terror

Germany: 500 Muslim migrants hunt Germans celebrating carnival and beat them up

Greece: Muslim migrants vandalize Greek Orthodox Church, stone Greek authorities

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEOS: Our Children, Our Country, Heart of Oaks Launch

And if YouTube takes them all down, I will see to it that there is a version we can watch. And damn the censors.

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog posted by Eeyore is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Sanders: Trump’s Plan to Deal With Coronavirus ‘Disgusting’

Democrat presidential contender Bernie Sanders on Wednesday called the Trump administration’s response to the coronavirus threat “disgusting.”

“We are ready to adapt and we’re ready to do whatever we have to as the disease spreads, if it spreads,” Trump said on Wednesday, noting his request for $2.5 billion from Congress to tackle the disease. “If they want to give more, we’ll do more, we’re going to spend whatever’s appropriate.” Trump also announced that VP Mike Pence would lead a coronavirus task force. “Mike is going to be in charge and Mike will report back to me, but he has a certain talent for this,” the president said.

Sanders tweeted falsely in response that Trump’s game plan was to “Cut winter heating assistance for the poor. Have VP Pence, who wanted to ‘pray away’ HIV epidemic, oversee the response. Let ex-pharma lobbyist Alex Azar refuse to guarantee affordable vaccines to all.” Sanders concluded by calling it “Disgusting.”

Like the rest of the Democrat Party, Sanders is hyping the threat of the coronavirus and lying about the Trump administration’s response because pinning the “crisis” on Trump is crucial for the left’s election hopes.


Bernie Sanders

139 Known Connections

Sanders Says That U.S. Criminal Justice System Is Racist & Less Fair Than China’s System

During a February 2020 campaign rally in Texas, Sanders said: “This is the United States of America. We should not be having more people in jail than any other country on earth including Communist China [which is] four times our size.” Lamenting America’s “racist and broken criminal justice system,” he stated: “The people in jail, as everybody here knows, are disproportionately African American, Latino, and Native Americans.” Sanders also  pledged that, as president, he would invest money in more education for young people instead of “more jail and incarceration,” and that he would end the cash bail system.

To learn more about Sanders, click here on the profile link.

The Scale of the Chinese Lockdown — What to make of these scary figures?

The official death toll from the Covid-19/coronavirus now stands at over 2,500 people. There are over 80,000 cases worldwide.

The people I’ve talked to about this epidemic fall into two camps.

Those in the first camp say that this needs to be put into perspective, the number of people who die each year from the flu dwarf the number of coronavirus deaths and it is likely that survival rates will be much better in a first-world, Western health system where the doctors aren’t in fear of the secret police when they say that there is something wrong.

Those in the second camp say that we can’t trust any of the numbers coming out of China, that it is worrying that there seem to be cases cropping up in countries around the world, and that China would not lock down half of its country for a disease that is less deadly than the flu.

“But Marcus!” I hear you say, “Don’t use hyperbole for effect! China hasn’t locked down half of its country!”

Well, according to this report from CNN, I am not exaggerating that much. Almost half of China’s 1.3 billion-strong population remain subject to varying forms of travel restrictions and other quarantine measures. Or, to put it another way, some 780 million people are living under some form of restrictive movement. This is an unbelievably large number.

These restrictions are in place across all of Hubei, the northeastern province of Liaoning, as well as Beijing and Shanghai. Now, these restrictions are not uniform and range from self-quarantine (also known as my normal Friday night … thank you, yes I’m here all week – try the veal) to limits on who can come and go from neighbourhoods.

Some of the restrictions are very strict: Wuhan, Huanggang, Shiyan and Xiaogan (the four cities at the epicenter of the outbreak in Hubei province) have completely sealed off all residential complexes and communities and the use of non-essential vehicles is banned. Residents have food and other necessities delivered to them because they are not permitted to leave their homes. (Apparently online gaming is surging in China at the moment…)

This is all having a massive effect on the Chinese economy. I saw a graph based on shipping that showed that imports to China were down a third and exports from China were 50 percent below their post-Chinese New Year historical averages. For a country that is heavily dependent on its economic growth to distract its citizens attention from its horrific human rights abuses, restricting half of its citizens’ movements in some degree seems an overreaction to what is apparently less deadly than the flu.

But let us have some optimism!

China has announced that some of the restrictions in Wuhan have been lifted…oh wait, no, it has renounced that announcement and the officials that prematurely announced that easing have been “reprimanded” (and their families have been invoiced for the 5.8mm “reprimand”).

What a wonderful country we have economically bound ourselves to hand and foot.

COLUMN BY

Marcus Roberts

Marcus Roberts is co-editor of Demography is Destiny, MercatorNet’s blog on population issues.

RELATED ARTICLES:

CDC announces first US case of coronavirus with ‘unknown’ origin

Trump offers coronavirus reassurance as he tries to end days of mixed messaging and market free fall

Death is becoming very efficient in Canada

Nigeria must be held to account over Christian persecution

Divided loyalties: the 737 Max warning light glitch

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

What the New Self-Reliance Rule Means for Immigrants

Politicians across the political spectrum have a penchant for bragging about how their parents or ancestors came to the U.S. with next to nothing, but worked hard to provide a better life for their children.

Yet when the Department of Homeland Security proposed taking self-reliance into account in weighing applications for green cards or immigration visas, liberals condemned the proposal as harsh and sued to block the proposed rule from taking effect.

Initially, they won court injunctions in several jurisdictions. Now, however, all have been dismissed. And so, the Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds rule took effect nationwide Monday.

If you think that means poor immigrants must now abandon all hope of entering the U.S. or becoming permanent residents, think again. The left has tremendously overblown the scope of this rule.


In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>


The rule defines a “public charge” as one who receives one or more designated public benefits for more than 12 months, in the aggregate, within any 36-month period (such that, for example, receipt of two benefits in one month counts as two months).

The rule defines “public benefit” to include any federal, state, local, or tribal cash benefits for income maintenance (including Social Security, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, General Assistance), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, most forms of Medicaid, Section 8 Housing/Rental Assistance, and public housing.

Benefits not considered include emergency medical assistance, disaster relief, national school lunch programs, the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, foster care and adoption subsidies, government-subsidized student and mortgage loans, energy assistance, food pantries, homeless shelters, and Head Start.

The rule will not be applied retroactively. It does, however, apply to future applicants for visas and green cards. According to Homeland Security,  each year about 382,000 immigrants seek a change in status that would make them subject to a public charge review.

The rule also sets forth the factors U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services must consider in whether an applicant is likely to become a public charge. Those factors include age, health, income, education, and skills.

The agency also can, in certain circumstances, offer an applicant the opportunity to post a public charge bond. The final rule sets the minimum bond amount at $8,100, but the actual amount will depend on an individual’s circumstances.

The rule has many exceptions. It does not apply to humanitarian-based immigration programs for refugees, asylees, special immigrant juveniles, certain trafficking victims, victims of qualifying criminal activity, or victims of domestic violence. Members of the military and their families are also exempt.

The public charge rule is really nothing new. Long before there was any federal agency charged with implementing immigration policy, seaboard states enacted laws to restrict immigration by those deemed likely to become dependent on public welfare.

The first federal immigration law, the Immigration Act of 1882, reflected this concern, excluding from entry “any person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.” The act also created a federal immigration head-tax, the proceeds from which were used to care for immigrants arriving in the U.S., including those who fell into economic distress.

In 1996, Congress passed, and President Bill Clinton signed into law, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. It includes statements of national policy on welfare and immigration, including:

—Self-sufficiency has been a basic principle of U.S. immigration law since this country’s earliest immigration statutes.

—Immigrants will not depend on public resources to meet their needs, but rather rely on their own capabilities and the resources of their families, their sponsors, and private organizations.

—The availability of public benefits will not constitute an incentive for immigration to the U.S.

Although the Immigration and Naturalization Service published a proposed rule to define “public charge” in 1999, it wasn’t finalized. As of Monday, however, that job was completed.

No, this limited rule will not cause the immigration sky to fall. It will, however, reaffirm the essential American value of self-reliance through hard work—a value that politicians from both parties claim to esteem.

COLUMN BY

Lora Ries

Lora Ries is a senior research fellow specializing in homeland security at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: @lora_ries.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Arizona GOP Leader Explains Why Area Voted Against Sanctuary Status

‘Endangers the Lives of the Public’: Trump Tears Into LA Mayor Over Sanctuary Status

Arizona Sheriff Describes Fight to Stop Cartels From Trafficking Drugs, Humans

What’s Really Driving the Homelessness Crisis

Cuban Americans Tell What Life Under Castro Was Really Like


A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET ACCESS NOW! >>


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.