The Destruction of the American Medical Industry

/in , , , , , , , /by

“If the government controls your health care, the government controls you. Obamacare was never about health care. It was about government power, dependency, and control.”  – Monica Crowley, Asst. Sec. for Public Affairs for U.S. Treasury Dept.

“Obamacare, without a single Republican vote, cut $700 billion out of Medicare.” – Congressman Louie Gohmert

“Unfortunately, the health care bill commonly referred to as Obamacare is making it more difficult for employers to provide insurance to their employees. It limits individuals’ ability to pick their own doctors and, over time, decreases the quality of care we provide in this country.” –  Congressman Jeff Duncan

Thirty years ago, employer-supplied healthcare deductibles were $250.00 per person before going to an 80/20 payout and then shortly to 100% coverage by insurance.  This was pretty standard across the country.

Today, because of Obamacare, my family, like so many others are hit with thousands in deductibles before insurance covers 80 percent.  This is what Obamacare has done to middle-class Americans who receive their insurance from their employers.  Kaiser Family Foundation claims that over 156 million Americans are insured via employers.  It is breaking middle-class families which is exactly what it was designed to do.

When Obamacare came on the scene in 2010, things radically changed for patients as well as physicians.  The government required paperwork for each patient is astronomical and must be done only by the physician.  Many physicians have taken early retirement.  The changes in our healthcare have been destructive and often deadly.  One of the meat cutters at our local upscale market could no longer afford his blood pressure medication on their new employee healthcare.  Three months later he died of a stroke.

That’s not all, the yearly physicals which used to give women both pap smears and breast checks, along with EKGs and full physicals have disappeared and now the latest is the elimination of labs in the physicians’ offices.  Outside labs are hired for blood and urinalysis and there is no opportunity to sit down with the doctor 20 minutes later to review the results.  Results come via snail mail.

Worse yet, hospitals can no longer carry all the drugs patients use when in hospital.  I would urge everyone to carry their regular drugs with them.  Twice in the last five years the nursing staff has failed to give me the proper medications and told me I could not take my own.  Bring your own anyway and keep them close to your bedside as many of the “substitutes” are not equal to what you normally take.

Getting rid of folks who know what this country was built on, who know the Constitution, who received excellent educations, and who are patriotic Americans is exactly what Obamacare is designed to do.  Basically, the transnationalists (globalists on steroids) want us eliminated.  Remember when Obama said, “Just take a pill.”

The Opioid “Crisis”

The government tells us that 1.7 million Americans are addicted to opioids, but what they don’t tell you is that marijuana, heroin, cocaine and meth amphetamines are included in the overall list and those drugs are illegal in most states.  That is .0485 percent of the American public.  So, what is the real number of opioid addictions from prescribed drugs?  We don’t know, but what we do know is people who have gone through surgeries like knee, hip, or shoulder replacements need these drugs and because of the “crisis,” people who will never become addicted are being deprived of temporary use of drugs that will help them through the first few days or weeks of pain. Here is the U.S. Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration’s 2018 national drug threat assessment.

Mexican Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs) remain the greatest criminal drug threat to the United States; no other group is currently positioned to challenge them. The Sinaloa Cartel maintains the most expansive footprint in the United States, while Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generacion’s (CJNG) domestic presence has significantly expanded in the past few years via illegal aliens. Although 2017 drug-related murders in Mexico surpassed previous levels of violence, U.S.-based Mexican TCO members generally refrain from extending inter-cartel conflicts domestically.

The real cause of drug use?  Our elites were incentivized to deindustrialize the upper Midwest.  It’s the reason Donald Trump is President.  J.D. Vance, author of Hillbilly Elegy says the opioid crisis is directly correlated to the Midwest and upper Midwest loss of factories and jobs that went to China.  Human dignity and self-worth were lost when the ability to support your family was removed.  Wall Street and the Corporations benefited from it via lower costs, but America’s people suffered.  Prior to China joining the World Trade Organization and receiving “most favored nation,” our growth every year was 3.5 percent.  Once China came on the scene our growth dropped to 1.9 percent.  Trump is changing this…and we must stand with him. 

Chicago Communist Quentin Young

I’d bet few have heard of Dr. Quentin Young… a longtime friend and neighbor of Obama in Chicago and the primary figure who delivered Obama to the single-payer camp.  Young joined the Young Communist League as a teenager in the late 1930s.

From the mid-1940s through the mid-1970s, he was closely associated with the Communist Party. In October 1968 he was called to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee, which was probing the extent of his knowledge about the riots that had erupted at the Democratic National Convention.

Fires raged throughout the city during the Democratic National Convention which spawned an historic collision of politicians, protestors and police in the streets of Chicago.

The Committee accused Young of belonging to the Bethune Club, an organization for communist doctors; the group was named after Norman Bethune, a communist physician who devoted his services to the totalitarian regime of Mao Zedong.

Young founded the Medical Committee for Human Rights (MCHR), which initially aimed to secure medical care for civil-rights workers in the South, and later promoted “single-payer,” government-run healthcare. Through MCHR, Young in the ’60s helped establish neighborhood health clinics for the Black Panther Party and the Young Lords, a socialist organization of Puerto Rican nationalists. His MCHR provided emergency medical care to injured protesters and rioters at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago (including the infamous Chicago Seven, who were charged by the government with inciting to riot).

Dr. Young also was Martin Luther King Jr.’s personal physician.  King was assassinated in April of 1968.

In 1982 Young helped establish the Democratic Socialists of America, (DSA) now the largest socialist group in America, which, as the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International, asserts that “many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed.”  The DSA scored a huge number of wins in the 2018 mid-term election, including The Squad.

From 1970 until at least 1992, Young was affiliated with the Chicago Committee to Defend the Bill of Rights (CCDBR), which was founded in 1960 as a Communist Party USA (CPUSA) front group that sought to outlaw government surveillance of radical organizations. CCDBR later became heavily influenced by the Democratic Socialists of America and the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism.

In the early 1980s Young was a leading ally of Chicago Democratic Mayor Harold Washington, who appointed him as president of the Chicago Board of Health. Also during this period, Young served on the board of directors of the ACLU‘s Illinois branch.  In 1983 he sat on the national advisory board of the All-People’s Congress, a group heavily influenced by the Marxist-Leninist Workers World Party.

In 1995 Young attended the now-famous meeting at the Chicago home of former Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn where Barack Obama was first introduced to influential locals as the preferred successor to Illinois state senator Alice Palmer, a pro-Soviet radical who was planning to vacate her state senate seat. Young quickly became a friend and political ally of Obama, teaching the latter about the merits of single-payer healthcare. He also served as Obama’s personal physician for more than two decades.

Shortly after what he called Barack Obama’s “remarkable and historic victory” in the presidential election of 2008, Young wrote in the CPUSA magazine Political Affairs: “The only effective cure for our health-care woes is to establish a single, publicly financed system, one that removes the inefficient, wasteful, for-profit private health insurance industry from the picture.”

In 1970, Chicago radical activist Mike Soto gave testimony before the “Subcommittee to investigate the administration of the internal security Act…” in the aftermath of Students for a Democratic Society/Weathermen inspired student rioting in Chicago.  When questioned about fellow activist Bernardine Dohrn, Soto said “I have talked to her and she is a violent maniac, because when I talked to her, she said ‘let’s pick up arms, let’s blow up this country apart until we take over.’”

Conclusion

In 1938, Dr. Quentin Young was elected to the national executive committee of the American Student Union (ASU), an organization established by a merger between the Communist Party-sponsored National Student League and its Socialist Party counterpart, the Student League for Industrial Democracy.  After attending Northwestern University Medical School from 1944-47, Young fulfilled his internship and residency requirements at Cook County Hospital in Chicago.

Young was Obama’s longtime friend/doctor/mentor and political supporter. As stated above, he was present at the launching of Obama’s political career in the Hyde Park Chicago home of former Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, also patients of Young’s.

Quentin Young has explicitly stated that he influenced Obama towards “single payer,” socialized healthcare.  Obama did not conceive of socialized medicine on his own. His acceptance of such a system was cultivated and nurtured by the same types of Marxist revolutionaries with whom he has surrounded himself throughout his entire adult life – and who shaped the major policy agendas of his administration.

Those who wish to permanently change America into a third world socialist country are now working to destroy the very President who stands against it.  We must support him, even when we disagree with something he does.  Our lives literally depend upon doing just that.

P.S. Although not part of this article, I must ask every reader to help us stay alive and well on NewsWithViews.  We are a website who has been blackballed and censored time and again.  Even during the campaign in 2016, our readers would see virus warnings when they opened our articles…warnings that were false, non-existent, but were put there to keep people from reading the truth.  This is a constant fight for truth, for freedom to express that truth.  We need your help, we need funding, constantly because the costs continue to rise for us to fight against the censorship.  Please remember us in your monthly contributions, and tell others to sign up to receive daily articles.  You can donate here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Medicare for Bernie

I Was a Physician at a Federally Qualified Health Center. Here’s Why I No Longer Believe Government Health Care Can Work

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

Incentivized Arab Emigration: An idea whose time has come?

/in , , , , , /by

Of all the policy paradigms for the resolution of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian-Arabs, incentivized Arab emigration is the most humane if it succeeds and least inhumane if it does not.

“Past attempts to encourage Palestinians to voluntary emigrate have always failed, so time and effort would be better invested in reaching an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.” – Yossi Beilin, former Israeli government minister, and a principal architect of the Oslo Accords, Al Monitor, August 26, 2019

The above quote is from an article by Beilin, still an unchastened champion of the fatally flawed process he helped initiate in the early 1990s,  in response to a spate of recent reports indicating that Israeli officialdom is considering—albeit with some hesitancy—the idea of offering the residents of Gaza material assistance to facilitate their emigration to third party countries—see for example here, here, here, and here.

Disingenuous dismissal?

Of course, Beilin’s dismissal of the notion of Israel encouraging Arab emigration is more than a little disingenuous. For if past failure is his criterion for disqualifying a policy proposal, the first to incur such rejection should surely be his own preferred Oslowian land-for-peace, two-state formula.

After all, from Beilin’s critique, the uninformed reader would never guess that far more “time and effort” has been invested in an almost three-decade long endeavor to “reach an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement” than in any attempt at inducing Arab emigration.

Indeed, no other policy prescription has been backed with such massive and sustained outlays of treasure, political and diplomatic capital and…blood, as that embraced by Beilin and his like-mined pro-Oslowian ideologues—in their foolhardy gamble of trying to reach a resolution to the conflict with their overtly Judeophobic Palestinian interlocutors, by means of political appeasement and territorial withdrawal.

But setting aside for a moment Beilin’s disingenuous invocation of the lack of success of previous efforts to induce Arab emigration, there are substantive reasons why the past may well not be a reliable indicator of the future.

The first is that the Arab population—particularly in Gaza—have already experienced the onerous travails of life under a duly elected Palestinian-Arab government.

Documented desire to leave

This of course is particularly true for Gaza, although there is also considerable dissatisfaction in Judea-Samaria, where after over a quarter-century of government by Fatah, all that has been achieved is a dysfunctional polity and an emaciated economy, crippled by corruption and cronyism, with a minuscule private sector and a bloated public one, patently unsustainable without the largesse of its alleged “oppressor,” Israel.

But, it is Gaza, where the misguided experiment in two-statism was first initiated back in 1994, sparking a surge of deluded optimism fanned by the likes of Beilin, that has now become its gravest indictment—for both Jew and Arab alike.

The gross misgovernment of Gaza has left the general population awash in untreated sewage flows, with well over 90% of the water supply unfit for drinking, electrical power available for only a few hours a day, and unemployment rates soaring to anything between 40-60%–depending on the source cited or the sector involved.

Unsurprisingly, this has led to a wide spread desire to leave Gaza and seek a better future elsewhere—which is reflected in both numerous media reports and in statistical polling, which regularly shows that between 40-50% of respondents are willing to openly declare their desire to leave.

Significantly, according to some sources, since May last year, between 35-40,000 have  left—despite heavy restrictions at the border, ominous disapproval of the regime and the lack of any purposeful policy of Israel to incentivize their departure.

Enhanced scale & scope

Another reason why past failures to induce emigration may not necessarily indicate that future attempts are futile is that any envisaged future endeavor must be qualitatively different in nature, in size and in scope to those previously undertaken.

In the past, the emigration initiatives have been timid, hesitant and surreptitious, while the material inducements offered were decidedly miserly.

In prior attempts, Israeli authorities attempted to conceal the initiative to encourage emigration. Thus, one internal Foreign Ministry memo (1968) stipulated: “This must be done discreetly and ‘spontaneously’ and under no circumstances should this be declared as official policy or appear to be organized by us.”

By contrast, what is called for today is an overt, publicly declared strategic initiative, including an assertive public diplomacy offensive and accompanied by a comprehensive set of highly tempting incentives to leave and commensurately daunting disincentives for continued residency in Gaza.

The point of departure for any successful incentivized emigration policy is to identify the Palestinian-Arab collective for what it is—and for what it identifies itself to be: An implacable enemy and not a prospective peace partner—and to differentiate between the inimical collective and non-belligerent individuals, which it may include.

Disincentives for staying; incentives for leaving

This brings us to the disincentives for staying.

As its implacable enemy, Israel has no moral obligation or practical interest in sustaining the economy or social order of the Palestinian-Arab collective—either in Gaza or Judea-Samaria. On the contrary, an overwhelming case can be made – on both ethical and pragmatic grounds – that it should let them collapse by refraining from providing it with any of the goods or services it – perversely – provides today: water, electricity, fuel, tax collection and port services to name but a few. After all, these are in large measure used to sustain the hostility against Israel and imperil the lives of its citizens and undermine the security of the state.

Although this cessation of provision should be executed gradually over a defined period of time, it will undoubtedly precipitate a grave deterioration in the already dire situation that prevails in Gaza.

Which brings us to the incentives for leaving.

In order to allow non-belligerent Gazans to extricate themselves from the inevitable humanitarian crisis such measures will entail, non-belligerent individuals should be offered generous relocation grants to allow them—and their dependents—the opportunity to seek more prosperous and secure lives elsewhere.

As for the incentives, these need to be of a completely different order of magnitude to those of the past and sufficient not only to cover the travel cost of the recipients to their future countries of abode, but to make them relatively affluent and welcome emigres in those countries.

Approximating the Cost

It is not an easy task to determine the optimum compensation for prospective recipients, but for the sake of argument let us assume that 100 times the current Gazan GDP per capita per family is not an unreasonable point of departure. This would amount to about $250-300,000 per family. With the estimated number of families in Gaza around 400,000, the total cost would amount to about $100 billion or about one third of Israel’s total annual GDP.

At first glance this might appear daunting, but if the implementation of the initiative were spread over a period of a decade and half—far less than the efforts to effect a two-state outcome have been tried—this would come to only 2-3% of GDP—something Israel could probably shoulder on its own. If other OECD countries could be harnessed to participate, it could be implemented at a fraction of a percentage of their GDPs—showing that political legitimacy rather than economic cost is the principal obstacle to be overcome.

To give a sense of proportion, the US spent several trillion dollars on its military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan, which dwarfs the size of the budget required to resettle all the Gazans, together with all their kinfolk in the “West Bank”, safely and comfortably in some third party country.

Who will host them?

One of the questions inevitably raised regarding the incentivized emigration idea is that of who the host countries are likely to be—especially given the migration crisis in Europe following the chaos in the wake of the “Arab Spring” and the Syrian civil war.

Indeed, according to the previously cited reports regarding renewed Israeli interest in encouraging Gazans to emigrate, it was noted that there was some difficulty in locating countries willing to accept them.

Clearly, however, within the parameters of the initiative set out previously, the situation would be very different. After all, within these parameters, the Gazan emigrants will not be arriving at the gates of their prospective host countries as destitute—or at least desperate—refugees but, as mentioned above, as relatively affluent emigrants by the standards of many such potential host countries.

Indeed, by absorbing Gazan emigrants, the host countries will generate significant capital inflows into their economies. For example, a country that accepts 3000 Gazan families can expect a capital injection of almost a billion dollars!

If additional international aid can be extended to the host countries, absorbing the Gazan emigrants could be an act that is both profitable and humane.

The moral high ground

Israeli officials have erred badly in being reticent as to the intention of encouraging Arab emigration. Indeed, there is no reason for any sense of moral unease. To the contrary, incentivized emigration is clearly morally superior to any other policy paradigm addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—and certainly to that touted by Beilin calling for a two-state outcome. After all, any prospective Palestinian state will almost certainly be yet another homophobic, misogynistic Muslim majority tyranny—whose hallmarks would be: gender discrimination, gay persecution, religious intolerance, and political oppression of dissidents. Indeed, no two-stater, however fervent, has ever produced any persuasive argument why it would not be.

Here of course, a trenchant question must be forced into the public discourse on the legitimacy of incentivized emigration in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in general, and of Gaza in particular. This is the question of “Who has the moral high ground?”

Is it those who advocate the establishment of said homophobic, misogynistic Muslim majority tyranny which would comprise the very antithesis of liberal values usually invoked for its establishment?

Or is it those who advocate incentivized emigration and providing non-belligerent Palestinian individuals with the opportunity of building a better life for themselves elsewhere, out of harm’s way, free from the recurring cycles of death, destruction and destitution that have been brought down on them by the cruel corrupt cliques that have led them astray for decades.

The most humane; the least inhumane

Indeed, there is another, even more pertinent question to be asked of the proponents of Palestinian statehood:
Why is it morally acceptable to offer financial inducements to Jews to evacuate their homes to facilitate the establishment of said homophobic, misogynistic tyranny, which, almost certainly, will become a bastion for Islamist terror; while it is considered morally reprehensible to offer financial inducements to Arabs to evacuate their homes to prevent the establishment of such an entity?

The proponents of incentivized emigration need not feel any sense of moral discomfort as to their policy prescription—especially when compared to that of the proponents of Palestinian statehood.

Indeed, as I have demonstrated elsewhere, the incentivized emigration paradigm is in fact the most humane of all policy proposals if its implementation is successful; and the least inhumane, if it is not.

This is the message they should be propounding vigorously, openly and unabashedly–as the harbingers of an idea, whose time has come.

© All rights reserved.

When Counties Become More Diverse, Republicans Lose

/in , , , , , , /by

“Mass immigration is swamping the GOP base. Tens of millions of immigrants who vote Democratic, once they are naturalized and registered, have come and are coming to America.” – Pat Buchanan in 2006

It is true!

And, once again we hear the statistics that confirm that immigrants (‘new Americans’) choose Democrats over Republicans when they get a chance to vote.

Forget the humanitarian mumbo-jumbo from the Open Borders agitators.  This is all about changing America by changing the people.

Simply ‘new Americans’ want their government-funded social services and that is what the Dems promise them.

Republican suicide?

Yup! That is what every Republican who supports more immigration is doing—killing the Republican party.

Here is John Binder at Breitbart (hat tip: Julia),

Analysis: Increasingly Diverse U.S. Counties Quickly Turn Democrat

The more counties across the United States become diverse, the more quickly Democrat-majority they become, new analysis reveals.

The latest Pew Research Center study, as Breitbart News reported, finds that about 109 U.S. counties across 22 states that were once majority white in 2000 became majority-minority in 2018. Today, there are roughly 293 majority-minority U.S. counties, concentrated mostly along the coasts in states such as California, Florida, Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi.

Analysis conducted by One America News Network’s (OAN) Ryan Girdusky reveals that the overwhelming majority of these increasingly diverse 109 U.S. counties also became more and more Democrat over less than two decades.

“The big takeaway is this: Republicans were losing ground because of mass immigration long before Trump. The Republican vote declined in 81 of the 109 counties,” Girdusky wrote in his weekly newsletter of the analysis. “Formerly safe Republican districts in places like Georgia, especially, that went for George W. Bush by huge majorities in 2000 were lost by John McCain and Mitt Romney.”

Much more here.

See Binder’s earlier article with graphs and charts.

RELATED ARTICLE: Somali National, Others, Arrested in Brazil for Trafficking Africans and Middle Easterners to US Border

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

Medicare for Bernie

/in , , , , , , , /by

Preview: 

  • ​Bernie Sanders is strongly promoting “Medicare for All,” and claims to be its father (“I wrote the damn bill,” he proclaimed to the nation during the second round of Democratic Presidential debates).
  • His plan does not look like Medicare at all. It appears that he hardly knows anything about Medicare. He probably has no experience with it. Despite his advanced age, he does not need to depend on it.
  • If Bernie himself were stuck on Medicare with no way out, he might think it not so wonderful. Has anyone heard him tell people about these Medicare problems?

Bernie Sanders is strongly promoting “Medicare for All,” and claims to be its father (“I wrote the damn bill,” he proclaimed to the nation during the second round of Democratic Presidential debates).

His plan does not look like Medicare at all. It appears that he hardly knows anything about Medicare. He probably has no experience with it. Despite his advanced age, he does not need to depend on it. Members of Congress are allowed to receive Medicare benefits, but unlike most other Americans, they can receive other benefits in addition.

Sitting members of Congress can get routine examinations and consultations from the attending physician in the U.S. Capitol for an annual fee. And military treatment facilities in the Washington area offer free emergency medical and dental care for outpatient services.

Members are also eligible for the Federal Employees Health Insurance Program, and they won’t be kicked off as soon as they reach Medicare age. They do have to go through an ObamaCare exchange, but it is a small one, the DC Health Link, which reportedly functions well. There are 57 gold-tier plans to choose from, not one or two as in many states. Their portion of the premiums could be as little as 25 percent of the total premiums. Apparently, subsidies for senators don’t run out just because their salary exceeds 400 percent of the federal poverty level.

Funding for Medicare for All will apparently be vacuumed up from all other sources of payment for “healthcare,” and will go into the big collective pot. Then people can get everything without premiums, copays, or deductibles—so they say. This is not at all like Medicare.

Medicare Part A, for hospital care, is funded through the Medicare payroll tax: a 2.9% first-dollar tax—no deductions–on all employment income, half of which is paid by the employer. Seniors believe that they have been funding this through their working years, as they are constantly told. They have indeed paid, but their taxes were immediately used to pay for the care of older retirees. So, their hospital bill today will be paid from the wages of about 2.5 workers (say the persons pumping their gas, collecting their trash, and repairing their plumbing). Already that is not enough, so the IOUs in the “trust fund” are being redeemed from general tax revenues. That fund will soon be gone, according to the Medicare trustees, as Baby Boomers are flooding into the system. It would vanish in a nanosecond if we loaded in everybody, with or without illegal immigrants.

Medicare has long been implementing ways to curb runaway expenditures. From the mid 1980s comes the Prospective Payment System, or Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs), under which payment has nothing to do with services rendered to a particular patient. According to my 1985 “Ode to DRG Creep”:

“Now the pay’s by the head, if alive or if dead,

Diagnosis determines the money,…

We need costs less than average, and discharges quicker

We will get no advantage — For care of the sicker.”

Since “quicker and sicker” discharges might cause a need for readmission, the government penalizes hospitals for readmission. One way to prevent readmission is to discharge to hospice or directly to the morgue. If Bernie were an anonymous Medicare patient, he’d get a consultation on POLST. That’s Physicians Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment, which translates in the Newspeak Dictionary to “Legally Enforceable Orders to Terminate Life-Sustaining Treatment Including Food and Water.”

Bernie might think he had been admitted—say he had an IV in a hospital room. But if he gets discharged before his second midnight, he might be classified as an outpatient, which is covered under Medicare Part B, and get a “surprise” bill for thousands of dollars, because of the “Two-Midnight Rule.”

Or Bernie might expect to have a little rehab after an orthopedic procedure, but if he is in hospital for fewer than three midnights, rehab isn’t covered. He might have the choice of paying out of pocket, or going home where he will be alone, unable to get out of bed.

Yes, Bernie on Medicare will have free choice of doctors—except for the ones who aren’t accepting Medicare patients.

If Bernie himself were stuck on Medicare with no way out, he might think it not so wonderful. Has anyone heard him tell people about these Medicare problems?

Maybe he means the Canadian medicare system. It does have a way out for non-senators—called the United States.

The Inconvenient Truth about Public Charge Provisions of Immigration Laws

/in , , , , , , , /by

There are two broad categories of lies that could be referred to as crimes of commission and crimes of omission.

The crime of commission is when facts are blatantly misrepresented, while the crime of omission involves leaving out relevant information, for example, when statements are taken out of context or relevant information is left out of the report.

These tactics have become commonplace and routine particularly when the mainstream media reports on the Trump administration and also when it reports on issues pertaining to immigration.

When the Trump administration promulgates policies that impact immigration, synergy kicks in and the truth is likely nowhere to be found.

Over a century ago a popular expression, the streets are paved with gold, drew immigrants to the United States who were determined to strike it rich in America.  When they got here they found that the streets were paved, not with gold, but with cobblestones that came from the cargo holds of ships that used those cobblestones as ballast.

Back then the cargo holds of the merchant ships that arrived at America’s ports were filled with cobblestones that served as ballast to keep those ships stable on the voyage to the United States.  Once here, those stones were off-loaded and all sorts of products that were made in America replaced the cobblestones in the cargo holds of those ships that returned to their original ports with merchandise to be sold.

The cobblestones were used to pave the roads of the port cities.

Nevertheless the immigrants who came to America worked hard and earned a living and built their futures in our nation.  None of them expected, nor received a “free ride.”

You could say that rather than being paved with gold, the streets were paved with blood, sweat and tears of the immigrants.

With their new-found freedom to worship and to pursue their dreams, many succeeded in building successful and happy lives in the United States.

On August 12, 2019 Business Today breathlessly published a Reuters News report under the title, “New Trump administration rule to target legal immigrants who get public assistance”.  The subtitle of that report utterly twisted the truth:

U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration unveiled a sweeping rule on Monday that would limit legal immigration by denying visas and permanent residency to hundreds of thousands of people for being too poor

That article also included this excerpt:

The 837-page rule could be the most drastic of all the Trump administration’s policies targeting the legal immigration system, experts have said. Advocates for immigrants have criticized the plan as an effort to cut legal immigration without going through Congress to change U.S. law.

The new rule is derived from the Immigration Act of 1882, which allows the U.S. government to deny a visa to anyone likely to become a “public charge.”

That last paragraph creates the utterly false impression that President Trump had to dig back to law books published 137 years ago to find legal justification for invoking the concept of public charge to prevent aliens on public assistance from receiving lawful immigrant status.

In reality, while the notion of public charge was first codified in 1882, it has persisted in all subsequent rewrites of America’s immigration laws and, in fact, is still an element of the current Immigration and Nationality Act.

The claim that Trump’s public charge policies would deny entry to aliens who are poor is false.  This concern does not deny entry to aliens who are poor.  Historically many immigrants who were destitute have come to the United States.  However, they worked their way up the economic ladder to create the American Dream for themselves, their families and ultimately, for America.

The issue is not whether or not an alien seeking to enter the U.S. is poor but if that alien has the physical capabilities and skills and/or education to work and be self-sufficient in the United States.

In fact, Ellis Island was run by Public Health officials along with immigration officials.  Public Health officials had two concerns- that the arriving immigrants were not suffering from dangerous communicable diseases that could create a deadly epidemic and that the arriving immigrants were mentally and physically capable of working and supporting themselves and, perhaps, their families.

My earlier article, “The Left’s Immigration Con Game”, referenced the extraordinary documentary, “Forgotten Ellis Island”, that chronicles the true story about Ellis Island, and the story is not particularly pretty or romantic and runs contrary to the bogus mythology told by the immigration anarchists of today.

On August 16, 2019 CNBC reported, “Advocacy groups file suit to block Trump’s new ‘public charge’ immigration rule” that included this outrageous quote:

“This rule change is a direct attack on communities of color and their families and furthers this administration’s desire to make this country work primarily for the wealthy and white,” said Antionette Dozier, senior attorney at the Western Center on Law and Poverty. “Our immigration system cannot be based on the racial animosities of this administration or whether or not people are wealthy.”

More recently NBC reported, “New York, Connecticut and Vermont sue to block Trump’s public charge rule.”

Once again, the Left is resorting to “Lawfare”, filing lawsuits to achieve political objectives.

The quote that appears in the CNBC article noted above from Western Center on Law and Poverty was quick to invoke race.  Let us also be clear that race, religion and/or ethnicity play absolutely no role in determining whether or not to admit aliens into the United States.

The grounds for determining admissibility of aliens into the United States is codified in a section of the current Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S. Code § 1182.

Among the categories of aliens who are excludible are aliens who suffer dangerous communicable diseases, serious mental illness, are criminals, spies, terrorists, human rights violators, fugitives from justice, aliens who had been previously deported (removed) from the United States and aliens who have committed fraud in their applications for visas and/or immigration benefits.

Additionally, it establishes that aliens are inadmissible (excludible) if they are likely to become public charges.

This is how the current Immigration and Nationality Act unambiguously lays out the entire issue of public charge:

(4)  Public charge

(A)   In general

Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.

(B)   Factors to be taken into account

(i)  In determining whether an alien is inadmissible under this paragraph, the consular officer or the Attorney General shall at a minimum consider the alien’s–

(I)  age;

(II)  health;

(III)  family status;

(IV)  assets, resources, and financial status;  and

(V)  education and skills.

(ii)  In addition to the factors under clause (i), the consular officer or the Attorney General may also consider any affidavit of support under section 1183a of this title for purposes of exclusion under this paragraph.

The media has accused President Trump of wanting to separate families.  In point of fact, family members may provide an affidavit of support wherein they guarantee that they will provide financial assistance to their family members who seek to immigrate to the United States.  This would help to unite families not divide them.

The issue is not about dividing families or denying poor people an opportunity to immigrate to the United States, but to protect the financial solvency of the United States, an issue of increasing concern as the national debt continues to soar into the stratosphere, by simply enforcing existing laws.

I must remind you that the imposition of American policies to address public charge laws is not new, but has a long-established history that goes back 137 years.

It is clear that the United States is unable to secure its borders.  Billions of humans around the world live below the poverty line.  If the United States was to permit all of the world’s poor to come to America with the expectation of receiving free healthcare, free education, housing subsidies and other such free benefits, our nation would implode.

As it is, our national debt has soared into the stratosphere and continues its upward trajectory.

The time has come for the Radical Left to be reminded of one of their favorite chants, the one that deals with “sustainability!”

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

New York Times’ ‘1619 Project,’ the MacArthur Foundation and Eugenics

/in , , , , , , /by

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana

The New York Times “1619 Project” was funded by the MacArthur Foundation. Why is this important?

Because the MacArthur Foundation has also funded population control as a “major objective.”

In the 1998 book “Archons And Acolytes: The New Power Elite” Clarence C. Walton wrote:

Eugenics became a fashionable cause, and courses in the subject were soon introduced by a number of colleges and universities. The Rockefeller Foundation provided ample financial support, generously funding international conferences and research projects, and earning unwanted praise from the Nazis who welcomed the international respectability that their eugenicists needed. Today the Ford and MacArthur Foundations have also made population control a major objective of their funding efforts. In the first phase of the eugenics movement, artificial birth control (with Margaret Sanger identified as its major force) became the preferred method for controlling population growth.” [Emphasis added]

In 2013 the MacArthur Foundation presented their genius award to Angela Duckworth. Duckworth, a Christopher H. Browne Distinguished Professor of Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote a book titled “Grit: The Power Of Passion And Perseverance” in which she quoted Francis Gabon, the father of Eugenics. Duckworth wrote:

When I got to graduate school, I learned that psychologists have long wondered why some people succeed and others fail. Among the earliest was Francis Gabon, who debated the topic with his half cousin, Charles Darwin.

[ … ]

In 1869, Galton published his first scientific study [Hereditary Genius] on the origins of high achievement. After assembling lists of well-known figures in science, athletics, music, poetry, and law — among other domains — he gathered whatever biographical information he could. Outliers, Galton concluded, are remarkable in three ways: they demonstrate unusual “ability” in combination with exceptional “zeal” and “the capacity for hard labor.” [Emphasis added

Grit author Duckworth has also written for, or has been written about in, the New York Times here, here and here. SpeEdChange wrote:

The New York Times, have unquestionably accepted the work of a professor who has based her research in the work of a writer whose work brutalized and killed millions during the 19th and 20th Centuries, including the Nazi Holocaust, the Japanese assault on China during World War II, and the ethnic cleansing in Europe’s Balkans at the end of last century. There are also stories symbolized by the tale of Carrie Buck, where there’s an unquestionable direct line from Angela Duckworth’s favorite thinker to a deep well of human misery.

So the MacArthur Foundation has funded the New York Times‘ “1619 Project” and promoted population control and presented a genius award to a professor who idolizes the father of Eugenics.

Is there an affinity for racial purity in the form of population control espoused by Francis Gabon?

Is there a connection? We simply report, you will in the end decide.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: The Ford Foundation | Scott Walter – Capital Research Center

RELATED ARTICLES:

New York Times’ ‘1619 Project’ Has Key Error About Our Founding

New York Times’ 1619 Project: All the News that’s Fit for the MacArthur Foundation?

Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger In Her Own Words

How States Got Away with Sterilizing 60,000 Americans

New York Times’ 1619 Project: All the News that’s Fit for the MacArthur Foundation?

/in , , , , , /by

Editor’s Note: This article has been updated to reflect Bryan Stevenson’s 1995 MacArthur Fellowship.

The New York Times’s controversial “1619 Project” is a series of essays and features examining the history of slavery in the U.S. and how that still affects modern America. Commenting on the history of the project itself, the media giant credits the idea to staff writer Nikole Hannah-Jones “who won a MacArthur Grant in 2017,” and notes Ms. Hannah-Jones also brought aboard “Kellie Jones, a Columbia University art historian and 2016 MacArthur Fellow.”

Tens of thousands of acrimonious words have been written about 1619 since its release, but very little has been said about its connection to the MacArthur Foundation by way of the “MacArthur Fellows” program (the so-called “MacArthur Genius” grants). And—similarly—there is the affiliation with the Pulitzer Center (no relation to the famous journalism prize of the same name), the New York Times’ “education partner” for 1619. Pulitzer credits MacArthur as one if its “primary core” donors.

The fingerprints of this politically left-leaning “non-profit” seem to be all over this controversy.

The New York Times promoted 1619 non-controversially as “an invitation to reframe how the country discusses the role and history of its black citizens.” RSVP’s coming back on that “invitation” have included Republican U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (once better known as Newt Gingrich, Ph.D. – a former history professor), who went on Fox News to say the “whole project is a lie.” Meanwhile, on the “other side” a lot of the lockstep left media is preoccupied not with the invitation to discuss the contents of the work, but instead with analyzing and criticizing right-of-center critiques of the project.

In a more nuanced analysis, a researcher at the libertarian Cato Institute said the effort was “an ambitious collaboration to address the painful but necessary aspects of American history” that nonetheless contains debatable “claims about the relationship between modern American capitalism and slavery.” This perspective (shared by other libertarians over at Reason magazine) gets the controversy correct: 1619 is a mixed bag of both valuable fact and vapid fiction.

On the valuable (albeit controversial) side is the essay by the executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative, Bryan Stevenson, (also a 1995 MacArthur Fellow) linking the legacy of slavery to policies that built our dysfunctional criminal justice system. In the so-called “home of the free” we have the world’s highest incarceration rate and put more of our people in cages than does communist China, which has 4.5 times our population and little of our respect for civil liberties. One need not buy all of Stevenson’s conclusions to agree on the importance of opening this wound to inspection and cleansing.

The worst example on the “vapid fiction” side is a 1619 essay crediting racism as the reason we still don’t have universal health care. Fun fact: 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain’s health reform proposal would have created universal taxpayer-subsidized coverage if McCain had been elected and implemented it. Historical irony: John McCain was not elected because—demonstrating something clearly NOT fueled by racism—a clear majority of Americans voted instead for a guy whose plan did not provide universal coverage, namely Barack Obama.

But a close runner up for worst 1619 essay is Princeton University sociologist Matthew Desmond’s effort to both assert the dubious “brutality” of American capitalism and tie that to slavery. To pick on just the funniest of the many problems with this, the private university paying him teaches fewer than 10,000 students with a $26 billion endowment—an amount that exceeds the annual GDP of decidedly not-capitalist Laos (population 6.7 million). Desmond’s likely one-percenter Princeton salary and tenure is the bitter fruit of “brutal” capitalism.

MacArthur awarded Desmond a genius prize in 2015.

The MacArthur prizes come with a $625,000 no-strings-attached grant. And—as might be expected—“genius” is a rare thing to find; so difficult, in fact, that sharp-eyed genius spotters can’t find it if your brain doesn’t skew to the political left. According to a 2015 profile in Chicago Magazine discussing the political bias of the MacArthur staff, the “interests of the foundation have tended to be fairly liberal” and there “could hardly be a more liberal grant, for example, than the MacArthur Fellowship.”

That isn’t an exaggeration. In 1968, genius struck serial Doomsday alarmist Paul Ehrlich. He co-founded Zero Population Growth and began predicting the “utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity,” which he said would occur within the ensuing 15 years. But by the mid-1980s the world had added another billion-plus mouths to feed; still, famine has become a problem associated only with wars and bad policies inflicted on people by horrible (non-capitalist) societies. Ehrlich subsequently adjusted his End Times prophecies to fit the emerging field of climate change, and the folks at MacArthur (no doubt impressed by the flexibility of his genius) awarded him a fellowship in 1990.

The MacArthur Foundation—assets $6.2 billion, as of 2015—was funded by John D. MacArthur, a politically right-of-center billionaire banker who established the charity so as to keep big government from taking his money away via estate taxes. But, showing what was perhaps a lack of “MacArthur genius,” he failed to stipulate what should be done with the fortune before he died in 1978. His charity is now the plaything of capitalist-hating leftists.

Influencing media has become a big part of MacArthur’s business. A June 2018 report co-produced by the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, revealed MacArthur to be the sixth-largest funder of non-profit journalism for the years 2010-2015 (inclusive). Recipients of MacArthur media money included ProPublica and the left-leaning Center for Public Integrity (which currently sports a main page with a half-dozen links collectively headlined: “Trump’s Tax Cuts: The Rich Get Richer”).

There is nothing inherently wrong with mixing non-profit news sources with a for-profit newsroom like that at the New York Times. In theory, it could increase the important facts and perspectives reaching news consumers. As noted, there are essays in the 1619 Project that meet this standard, but they’re mingled with (to put it charitably) very debatable opinions, and (less charitably) fiction mislabeled as fact.

The New York Times masthead famously reads “All the news that’s fit to print.” At a minimum, that should mean fully disclosing to readers the ideological bias of sources—such as MacArthur—that get printed. At best, and just as mainstream media has done relentlessly for right-of-center donors, shouldn’t it also mean a critical, deep-dive research that reveals to readers the powerfully well-heeled funders of left-wing bias in media?

COLUMN BY

Ken Braun

Ken Braun is CRC’s senior investigative researcher and authors profiles for InfluenceWatch.org and the Capital Research magazine. He previously worked for several free market policy organizations, spent six… + MORE BY KEN BRAUN.

RELATED ARTICLE: New York Times’ ‘1619 Project’ Has Key Error About Our Founding

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

64% Of Federal Arrests Were Of Non-Citizens In 2018, DOJ Finds

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Federal arrests of non-citizens has increased exponentially over the past two decades, and account for the majority of all federal arrests, data released by the Justice Department revealed.

Non-citizens made up 64% of all federal arrests in 2018 despite making up 7% of the U.S. population, according to Justice Department data released Thursday and reviewed by the Daily Caller News Foundation. Between 1998 and 2018, federal arrests of non-citizens grew by 234%, while federal arrests of U.S. citizens climbed 10%.

While the numbers provide credence to President Donald Trump’s argument that illegal immigration results in increased crime, immigration experts also pointed out that migrant apprehensions make up a significant portion of current federal arrests.

“Experience has taught the immigration agencies and DOJ that this works to reduce recidivism — in other words, when illegal crossers face some more severe consequence than just being sent back home, they don’t keep doing it,” Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies told the Washington Examiner.

Trump made increased immigration enforcement a hallmark goal of his administration. His efforts at beefing up border security and providing additional funding to the Customs and Border Protection have yielded satisfactory results. Federal immigration apprehensions climbed more than 50,000 from 2017 to 2018, according to the Justice Department data.

Ninety-five percent of the increase in federal arrests over the past 20 years were, in fact, due to immigration offenses, the Justice Department data found. Non-citizens accounted for 28% of all federal fraud arrests, 25% of all federal property arrests, and 24% of all federal drug arrests. The Justice Department identified the top five crimes non-citizens were most likely be prosecuted for: illegal re-entry, drugs, fraud, alien smuggling and misuse of visas.

“Opponents of immigration enforcement are obsessed with trying to establish that illegal aliens and legal immigrants commit fewer crimes than Americans, and so, as their narrative goes, local law enforcement agencies should not cooperate with ICE and should adopt sanctuary policies,” Vaughan continued in her statement. “This is first of all not true, but is off-point and a dangerous conclusion.”

COLUMN BY

JASON HOPKINS

Immigration and politics reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Hundreds Of Illegal Migrants Carry Criminal Histories, DHS Investigation Finds

109 US Counties Have Become Majority Non-White Since 2000, Analysis Finds

Just 20 Miles From White House, Illegal Immigrant Rape Cases Keep Piling Up

New Report Shows Taxpayers Lost BIG TIME Last Year Because Of ‘Non-Citizens”

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Reps. Tlaib, Omar claim Israel is neither an ally nor a democracy

/in , , , , , , /by

“Denying visit to duly elected members of Congress is not consistent with being an ally. And denying millions of people freedom of movement or expression or self determination is not consistent with being a democracy.”

The sponsors of their trip have been linked to anti-Semitism and jihad terrorism. They had nothing to say about that.

The reason why the freedom of movement of any “Palestinian” is restricted is because of “Palestinian” genocidal incitement and celebration of the jihad murder of Israeli civilians. They had nothing to say about that.

The “Palestinians” have turned down numerous peace offers from Israel, not content with anything other than the total destruction of Israel, as I show in my forthcoming book The Palestinian Delusion: The Catastrophic History of the Middle East Peace Process. They had nothing to say about that.

“Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar denounce Israel’s travel restrictions during press conference,” by Camilo Montoya-Galvez, CBS News, August 19, 2019:

Standing side by side on Monday, Democratic Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar forcefully denounced the controversial decision by the Israeli government to deny them entry into the country, casting the travel restrictions as part of a broader effort to suppress voices of dissent against the treatment of Palestinians in occupied and disputed territories.

“Netanyahu’s decision to deny us entry might be unprecedented for members of Congress,” Omar said during a press conference, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “But it is the policy of his government when it comes to Palestinians. This is the policy of his government when it comes to anyone who holds views that threaten the occupation.”

“The only way to preserve unjust policy is to suppress people’s freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of movement,” Omar added….

The Israeli government did offer to let Tlaib in on humanitarian grounds to visit her 90-year-old Palestinian grandmother on the condition that she did not promote a boycott of Israel. Tlaib initially agreed, but later rejected the offer, saying she would not make the visit under “oppressive conditions.”

Getting visibly emotional, Tlaib said she made the decision to not accept the conditional travel permit after consulting with her grandmother and other family members.

“Through tears, at three o’clock in the morning, we all decided as a family that I could not go until I was a free, American United States Congresswoman coming there, not only to see my grandmother but to talk to Palestinian and Israeli organizations that believed that my grandmother deserves human dignity as much as anyone else does,” she said….

Omar suggested the travel restrictions contradict longstanding beliefs by Republican and Democratic administrations that Israel is one of America’s most steadfast allies and the sole true democracy in the Middle East.

“Denying visit to duly elected members of Congress is not consistent with being an ally,” she said. “And denying millions of people freedom of movement or expression or self determination is not consistent with being a democracy.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

It’s all about the Benjamins: Far-Left group fundraises on Tlaib/Omar Israel ban

“The Southern Poverty Law Center is a hate-based scam that nearly caused me to be murdered”

Al Jazeera Bemoans the Celebration, in Italy, of Oriana Fallaci

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

The Omar-Tlaib affair: Tough questions for AIPAC

/in , , , , , , /by

Notwithstanding AIPAC’s discomfort over the Omar-Tlaib case, there is more than a hint of hypocrisy in its joining the general assault on Israel.

The brouhaha over the ruckus that erupted last Thursday between the Netanyahu government and the two radical, anti-Israeli Congresswomen, Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), refuses to subside.

It continues to generate headlines even after almost a week since Israel reversed its original decision to allow them to visit the country—invoking a 2017 law that permits the government to bar entry to foreign citizens, who support anti-Israel boycotts. Coincidentally—or not—this dramatic change of heart took place soon after President Trump posted a somewhat caustic tweet, deriding Israel’s previous position to permit their arrival.

Thus, on Monday (8.19.2019), the two held a well-choreographed and emotive press conference , unsurprisingly well-covered in the international media, in which they lambasted Israel for its heavy-handed “oppression” of the Palestinians and its “undemocratic” prohibition of their planned trip. Likewise, they urged other US law-makers to visit Israel to discover for themselves the “iniquitous realities” that, according to them, prevail here.

Israel’s perceived capitulation to Trumpian pressure sparked wall-to-wall condemnation from the Democratic Party—even from long-standing Israel supporters. A good number of pundits warned that the barring of the Democratic Congresswomen could herald the end of the era of bipartisan support for Israel, and expressed concern over what might await it in a post-Trump era—or at least, a post-Republican era.

Clearly, the requested visit by two of Israel most vehement detractors created an extremely awkward situation for the Netanyahu government. Equally clearly, the government’s clumsy vacillation in dealing with the problem was anything but flawless, and created a number of irksome questions marks as to its conduct—for itself and for its advocates in the public arena.

However, despite any misgiving one may have over the government’s handling of the “hot potato” left at its doorstep, the Omar-Tlaib episode—and the intensity of the reactions to it—raise several troubling issues.

Bipartisanship: At what price?

The first of these is the question of the price that Israel is called upon to preserve bi-partisan support for it.  After all, no-one can assume that the two fiercely anti-Israel Congresswomen would not exploit their stay in Israel to inflict the maximum possible damage on it—irrespective of any “inconvenient facts” they might have happened to encounter on it.

Accordingly, if Israel is required to forsake important national interests in order to appease a party, in which some of its most prominent members are viscerally opposed to the Jewish state, one might very well question the value—even, the very point—of preserving such bi-partisanship. Indeed, at some point, bi-partisanship may well cease to be an invaluable asset and become a burdensome liability instead!

In this regard, perhaps the most telling—and most surprising—censure came from the prestigious and powerful pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC, which, as a rule, has consistently backed the decisions of the Israeli government—virtually without exception.  Accordingly, public reproach from an organization so closely identified with pro-Israel advocacy is, without doubt, extraordinarily significant.  Of course, for AIPAC, the issue of bi-partisanship is an almost sacred value, the very “holy grail” of its political influence. Indeed, it attributes—with considerable justification—much of its political stature and sway to its ability to harness such bi-partisan support for Israel. It is thus, clearly understandable that it will react negatively to any development that appears to threaten that ability.

AIPAC’s hypocrisy?

However, not withstanding AIPAC’s discomfort in the Omar-Tlaib case, there is more than a hint of hypocrisy in its joining the general assault on Israel.

After all, it would be difficult—even impossible—to imagine that the AIPAC leadership would extend an invitation to either Omar or to Tlaib to address its annual convention, and to provide them an opportunity to publicly berate Israel and blacken its name with baseless accusations.

Accordingly, the trenchant question that this raises is the following: If AIPAC would not permit access to Omar and Tlaib to allow them a platform to denigrate Israel, why would it find fault with Israel for not permitting them access to a very similar platform?

This, then, is the question, which should be directed at the AIPAC leadership—and which they should be called on to address.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Israel Right to Shut Out the Hostile Voices of Tlaib and Omar

House Democrats consider action against Israeli and U.S. ambassadors over banning of Tlaib and Omar

/in , , , , /by

Senior Democratic members of Congress are “are considering releasing a statement of no confidence” in Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer and “opening an inspector-general investigation” into U.S. envoy to Israel David Friedman over Israel’s decision to ban Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar from entering Israel.

The Democratic lawmakers are advancing the idea that Omar and Tlaib were banned from Israel because they are Muslim; nothing could be further from the truth. The Dems:

raised an incident in 1975 in which Henry Waxman, a longtime Democratic congressman from California, was initially banned from Saudi Arabia for his Jewish roots. He was eventually granted entry following pressure from the State Department.

Friedman’s endorsement of Israel’s decision to bar Omar and Tlaib’s entry into the country broke with that precedent, they argued, and as a result called for an investigation “the role the ambassador played in barring them from entering the country.”

The Waxman case is completely different from that of Omar and Tlaib. Waxman was banned from Saudi Arabia because he was Jewish, while Omar and Tlaib have been banned from Israel because they are a security threat to the Jewish state. They were going there with the intention of furthering the Palestinian jihad against Israel, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explained when he defended his decision on the basis that the “the two intended to use the visit to harm Israel.” He stated:

“Several days ago, we received [Omar and Tlaib’s] trip itinerary,” Netanyahu said, “which clarified that they planned a visit whose sole purpose was to support boycotts and deny Israel’s legitimacy. For example, they called their destination ‘Palestine’ and not ‘Israel,’ and unlike all Democratic and Republican members of Congress before them, they did not seek any meeting with any Israeli official, whether government or opposition.”

Omar and Tlaib have brought to the forefront a fact that has been virtually ignored since 1948: that the aim of the Palestinian Authority, Fatah, Hamas, the Palestinian Liberation Organization and every other Palestinian movement is to obliterate the state of Israel. Accusations against Israel about “racism,” “apartheid,” and the so-called “occupation” are intended to delegitimize the Jewish state. When Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas declared that “not a single Israeli” would live in a future Palestinian state, that was a demonstration of apartheid.

As Robert Spencer writes:

Omar and Tlaib are not just Congresswomen with opinions that are critical of Israel. They are not just spokesmen; they are activists. They are active apologists for the jihad terror networks Hamas and Hizballah.

In 2017, Israel passed a law that barred entry to those advocating for Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel, and “Israel’s Interior and Strategic Affairs Ministries have denied visas to students, activists and artists who have a proven record of publicly calling for the boycott of Israel.” Tlaib and Omar not only advocate for BDS; they also sponsored a bill in Congress to support it, and Tlaib has compared the boycott of Israel to the American boycott of Nazi Germany.

Without the support of useful idiots, the relentless Palestinian jihad would not have advanced into Congress and continued its dogged efforts there. In the words of Rashida Tlaib:

The more they try to silence us, our voices rise. The more they try to weaken us, the stronger we become.

But in reality, the supporters of BDS and other anti-Israel initiatives are emboldened by the weakness they perceive in their opposition.

“Report: House Democrats Weighing Action Against Israeli, U.S. Envoys over Tlaib, Omar Ban,” by Deborah Danan, Breitbart, August 18, 2019:

TEL AVIV – Senior Democratic members of Congress are said to have launched discussions to formally censure the U.S. Ambassador to Israel and Jerusalem’s envoy in Washington over Israel’s decision to bar entry to congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar.

Around a dozen lawmakers, several of whom are Jewish, have begun talks to communicate a “deep lack of confidence and trust” in Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer and U.S. envoy to Israel David Friedman, the McClatchy news service reported, citing congressional sources.

According to the report, the Democrats are considering releasing a statement of no confidence in Dermer and opening an inspector-general investigation into Friedman.

Among the twelve are House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel and House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey, two Jewish lawmakers from New York.

“We are reviewing all of our options,” McClatchy quoted a source as saying. “With Dermer, the issue is that there already was a severe lack of trust. But now there is a severe lack of confidence. It is completely unclear that he represents his government given he has made promises that he has not kept and wasn’t clear if he ever had any chance of keeping.”

Last month, Dermer assured lawmakers that Omar and Tlaib — open supporters of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel — would be allowed into Israel “out of respect for Congress.”

However, on Thursday, Israel said the two would be denied entry.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a statement defending the decision to bar entry to Omar and Tlaib, said the two intended to use the visit to harm Israel.

“Several days ago, we received [Omar and Tlaib’s] trip itinerary,” Netanyahu said, “which clarified that they planned a visit whose sole purpose was to support boycotts and deny Israel’s legitimacy. For example, they called their destination ‘Palestine’ and not ‘Israel,’ and unlike all Democratic and Republican members of Congress before them, they did not seek any meeting with any Israeli official, whether government or opposition.”

On Friday, Omar claimed that she had planned to meet with Knesset members and security officials, although the jam-packed itinerary — released days before their planned visit — showed otherwise.

The trip, according to the itinerary, would be based exclusively in the Palestinian territories with the exception of the first day that would take place in the primarily Arab-populated eastern area of Jerusalem. The two were slated to meet only with Palestinian officials as well as representatives from human rights groups and other organizations.

The congresswomen were scheduled to meet with representatives from Palestinian groups Miftah, a sponsor of the trip, and the Defense for Children International-Palestine (DCI-P), groups that have endorsed terrorism and have ties to terror organizations.

“In addition, the organization that is funding their trip is Miftah, which is an avid supporter of BDS, and among whose members are those who have expressed support for terrorism against Israel,” Netanyahu said.

The prime minister said that Tlaib was welcome to apply to visit on humanitarian grounds to see her family, with the caveat that she not engage in promoting boycotts of Israel while in the country. Tlaib acquiesced, and quickly received permission to visit. However, she changed her mind hours later, saying that coming to Israel on its terms would be “humiliating” and she would not “bow down to their oppressive & racist policies.”

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who recently led a large Democratic delegation to Israel, issued a statement Thursday censuring Israel over the decision and said it contradicted what he and others had been told by Dermer.

McClatchy quoted the source as saying, “Dermer is saying privately that he expects this to go away within a day — it’s a real lack of understanding on the consequences of this.”

In the discussions Friday, the lawmakers raised an incident in 1975 in which Henry Waxman, a longtime Democratic congressman from California, was initially banned from Saudi Arabia for his Jewish roots. He was eventually granted entry following pressure from the State Department…..

RELATED ARTICLES:

Rashida Tlaib Blames ‘Senior’ Democrats After Partnership With Terror-Linked Group Draws Backlash

Tlaib attends Shabbat event with far-Left Jewish pro-BDS group after rejecting Israel visit

Ilhan Omar Falsely Claims That ‘White Men’ Are Greater Threat Than Jihadis

Rashida Tlaib’s media darling grandmother on Donald Trump: “May Allah ruin him”

RELATED VIDEO: Tlaib’s Guest Praised Murderer of 4-Year-Old Einat.

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

Lessons from Weimar Germany for the Portland Extremists

/in , , , , , /by

Immediately following the conclusion of the First World War and the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was thrust into a state of economic, political, and social disarray. The infantile German state, which had recently been established in 1871, struggled to maintain its reputation as a global superpower. Kaiser Wilhelm II chose to abdicate the throne, a weak constitutional republic was recognized in Weimar, and the Dolchstoßlegende (the “stab-in-the-back” myth) soon spread across the wounded nation. By the early 1920s, many of Germany’s emerging political parties—both right- and left-wing—had formed paramilitary groups to intimidate and violently suppress their political advisories.

Though the history of the Weimar Republic is brief—it was dissolved in 1933—it is instructive. The period is filled with violent episodes carried out by baton-wielding ideologues who were determined to beat and assassinate their way into political power. These paramilitary units, which were so prevalent in post-war Germany, were hardly consistent in membership. Many individuals viewed their service to a paramilitary group as an extension of their time in the military during World War I and sought a form of camaraderie they found lacking after the war. Others affiliates were nothing more than enraged ideologues who viewed violence as the most effective method to ensure the establishment of their utopian vision.

As early as 1918, the Räterepublik Bayern (Bavarian Soviet Republic) was temporarily established in the midst of the German Communist Revolution. Immediately following its pronouncement, street brawls broke out between Nationalist, Socialist, and Communist groups. These brawls were nothing more than well-organized mob brutality. Hundreds of moderate and liberal politicians were murdered in the streets by both right- and left-wing extremists. Once nationalists began taking over the Reichstag, these assassinations were then typically blamed on rogue communists, rather than Nazi Sturmabteilung.

A hyperinflationary crisis and the looming threat of a communist revolution, in large part, made this environment of violence possible. By the beginning of the 1930s, however, Hitler’s National Socialist Party had come to power, banned all other political parties (including their paramilitary arms), and blindly set the country on a collision course for a Second World War. The rest, so it is commonly said, is history… and yet we see a strange pattern reemerging.

“History may not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”

While there is no conclusive evidence that the American novelist Mark Twain ever uttered or wrote these words, they are often attributed to him. Recent stories coming out of Portland, which is often regarded as the country’s mecca for progressive and peaceful individuals, sound more and more like a Dr. Seuss story every day as Twain’s supposed theory rings true.

Viral videos of masked left-wing extremists, typically identifying under the collective banner of Antifa, have been surfacing on the internet for well over a year. Andy Ngo, a prominent Portland journalist who was covering an Antifa rally, is just one of the latest victims of this widespread paramilitary street violence. The injuries sustained by Ngo—a brain hemorrhage, multiple contusions, and various other neurological complications—are still making headlines a month after the attack.

Despite a recent proposal from Republican Senators Ted Cruz (TX) and Bill Cassidy (LA) to classify Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization, not everyone is taking Antifa’s violence seriously.

Tae Phoenix, a musician and frequent op-ed contributor, scoffed at Cruz and Cassidy, claiming, “I’ve met golden retrievers who scared me more.” Progressive blogger Sarah Gailey actually had the gall to propose more violence, even going as far as suggesting Antifa members should start using bricks. The violence in Portland, notwithstanding Phoenix and Gailey’s comments, should bother everyone. Paramilitary street violence of this nature, whether it’s carried out by left- or right-wing groups, is not a new or comical phenomenon. It is the result of deep-rooted ideological conflict and often indicative of impending political chaos.

Michael Malice is correct when he asserts that “we live in a culture where everyone working for President Trump is brazenly referred to as a White Supremacist or a Nazi, even Jewish advisors like Jared Kushner” and that “there are very few people in Americans who are comfortable seeing their fellow citizens being assaulted.”

Antifa members like to think they are fighting actual fascists, or at least tend to label anyone who identifies as ideologically right of a self-proclaimed communist as one. But what they fail to realize is that they are just a catalyst for the return of real fascists. The response to the extremist violence will not be met with adherence to left-wing ideology but rather reactionary opposition. This effort to stifle and ban free speech defenders from vocalizing their opposition to leftist ideals is actually a march toward a totalitarian system rather than a step away from it.

In the face of extremist political violence, it is essential to remember all the past and not just that which is convenient for one’s particular narrative. The work of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn exposed the world to what left-wing ideologues were capable of implementing.

“Thanks to ideology,” Solzhenitsyn informed the world in The Gulag Archipelago, “the twentieth century was fated to experience evildoing calculated on a scale in the millions.”

Ideology is what is fueling the violence carried out by individuals on the streets of Portland. What Antifa fails to realize is that waving communist flags and punching Nazis doesn’t pacify hatred; it only incites more violence.

COLUMN BY

Griffin Daughtry

Griffin Daughtry is a Freelance writer, former graduate student of history, and a staunch advocate for individual liberty.

RELATED ARTICLE: A Bad Deal Between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, 80 Years Ago

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

Levi’s loves to take Middle America’s money…and use it to take your guns

/in , , , , , , /by

Levi Strauss ( 1 – Liberal)  is the world’s largest seller of jeans. They make billions of dollars off of Middle America’s desire to wear comfortable, affordable jeans in many walks of life – and this past March, they made even more money when they used Middle America’s jean purchases to become publicly traded.

However, they hate Middle America’s values. Their July 2019 investor report bragged about promoting left-leaning LGBT values, climate change activism, and gun control. They rank a paltry “1” on the 2ndVote scale, indicating that they are a full-tilt liberal activist organization.

This is especially true on guns. In September 2018, Levi’s donated one million dollars to gun control, partnered with former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown Business Leaders for Gun Safety, doubled employee matches to Levi’s new Safer Tomorrow Fund, and paid employees for up to five hours per month of gun control activism. They also launched a Get Out The Vote campaign in 2018.

It’s time to show Levi’s who’s in charge – not Wall Street, but Main Street. Middle America giveth, and Middle America taketh away. You can and must show Levi’s that their violation of customer values and shareholder ethics is unacceptable.

First, we urge you to buy at companies which focus on serving customers – Eddie Bauer, Carhartt , Land’s End, and Tommy Hilfiger are all neutral (3) in 2ndVote’s rankings.

Second, contact Levi’s CEO Chip Bergh through LinkedIn or email him at cbergh@levi.com. Let him know that you’ll be sending your jeans money to any firm but Levi’s.

Third, spread the word on social media. Our friends at the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project held Levi’s accountable at their shareholders’ meeting this summer. The National Rifle Association is likewise not backing down from this leftist pressure. Tell your social media audience that 2ndVote, the National Center, and the National Rifle Association won’t stop fighting for your Second Amendment rights, and neither will you.

Fourth, please donate to 2ndVote. We are sending a letter to Bergh on September 1, a year after he led Levi’s into the gun control activism camp. We plan to include all donors who want their names in the letter. If you would like to personally tell Bergh about your decision to shop elsewhere, send us an email at info@2ndVote.com.

For almost a year, Levi’s has dedicated itself to using your money to violate your values. Let them know you’re watching.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Company Contrast – Levi Strauss

This Week’s Scores At-A-Glance

Studies Find No Evidence That Assault Weapon Bans Reduce Homicide Rates

EDITORS NOTE: This 2nd Vote column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

What Happens On November 4, 2020?

/in , , , , /by

I asked this question on social media, where I interact with people across the political spectrum: What happens on Nov. 4, 2020, the day after the election?

It’s a legitimate worry. Based on what happened after November 2016, the day after this next election will tell us where our democracy stands. Because we’re setting the stage where whichever side loses they may feel justified in claiming it was rigged or illegal, and the 2020 winner is illegitimate.

This is hardly unfounded considering both what we know and what we are seeing coming.

First, on the Left.

Given that the Left and most Democrats have lived at Defcon One since the day after the 2016 election; given that they have called Trump a white supremacist, a racist, a Russian agent, an existential threat to the Republic, and have run from the beginning with the hashtag NotMyPresident; given that Antifa is allowed to grow and even control at times a major U.S. city and other violence has been common; given that Russia will interfere again (which can be assumed because they have for generations); then what can we expect on the day after the election if Trump is victorious?

Will the Left’s fury just be spent and they will attempt an inward evaluation of the Democratic Party as the GOP did in 2012? That doesn’t seem to be the tenor of the revolutionaries and those playing to them.

It seems more likely that there could well be a far worse response from the Left than there has been since 2016. Maybe not just mass demonstrations, but actual riots. After all, four more years of an existential threat, a foreign agent in the White House? Many would feel fully justified in taking extreme actions.

How about on the right?

If over the next 16 months the media continues to act in a blatantly partisan way; if social media increasingly bans, de-platforms and generally cuts off access to Republicans (under the guise of hate speech) while tilting the field to Democrats; if tech companies take conservative websites offline (not just the extremist fringe sites); if Democrats in Congress, no less, continue to dox and put a physical target on the back of Trump and GOP donors; if mainstream media outlets block effective Republican advertisements (essentially, the left greatly reducing Trump and Republicans’ ability to communicate with voters); and then Trump loses, how will the right respond?

There may be a sense of justification for extreme action. It seems less likely, because generally, other than the rather subdued Tea Party movement, conservatives rarely take to the streets and never refuse to accept election results. (Remember, Democrats already have twice this century.)

But we are in somewhat uncharted water. There would arise a fringe element on the right that could react in extra-legal ways. The frustration level would be sky-high if most of the above conditions are in place.

If neither side will accept 2020, then we actually do have an existential threat.

This situation is even more dangerous than a socialist winning the presidency, as horrible as that would  be. We have seen over and over how the Framers’ genius has spared us from terrible leadership. However, if the American public does not accept election results, that genius is for naught.

Democrats were right in saying ahead of 2016 — when they were sure Hillary would win — that Republicans and Trump need to accept the results (which was always going to happen) but then unfortunately those Democrats chose not to accept them when Hillary lost. Remember, Hillary still travels around saying she won, just as Democrat Stacey Abrams does after losing the Georgia governor’s race by a handy amount.)

On my social media, everyone on the right said they would accept the results, but almost none of them thought that Democrats would. Most on the left, but given that my connections are not the radical side of the Democratic Party, said they would essentially cry all night and move on. They were not so sure what the right and Trump supporters would do.

My guess, and it is only that, is that if Sen. Kamala Harris or Sen. Elizabeth Warren win the election, the right will essentially accept it, even with all those elements stacked against us. But it’s only a guess.

On the other side, I can barely imagine what the left and Democrats will do if Trump is re-elected, because I could never have imagined the hysteria and violence that has followed his initial election.

What happens Nov. 4, 2020 will tell us where our democracy stands.

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

HUMAN TRAFFICKING: “Women are significantly involved in trafficking of persons, both as victims and as offenders.” “75% of the sex traffickers were African American.”

/in , , , , , /by

We witnessed in the 1960s the feminist movement and feminist activism. More recently we have seen the rapid growth of the #MeToo movement in October, 2017. But to what end? Both movements have failed to stem the tide of human trafficking, which harms primarily underage girls and women. The #MeToo movement isn’t focused on the roles of women as both victims and perpetrators of human trafficking. Immigration and human trafficking go hand in hand. Organized crime and human trafficking go hand in hand. Businesses need for cheap labor and human trafficking go hand in hand.

Background

In preparing for this exposé we looked at four reports on human trafficking:

  1. The 2014 United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime’s Global Report on Trafficking in Persons.
  2. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Human Trafficking/Involuntary Servitude website.
  3. The McCain Institutes’ A Six-Year Analysis of Sex Traffickers of Minors.
  4. and The National Criminal Justice Services’ An Empirical Analysis of the Intersection of Organized Crime and Human Trafficking In the United States.

We selected these four reports to find commonalities and insights into human trafficking globally and within the United States. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security Blue Campaign defines human trafficking as:

Human trafficking involves the use of force, fraud, or coercion to obtain some type of labor or commercial sex act.

Homeland Security lists the following facts about human trafficking:

Human trafficking exists in every country, including the United States.  It exists nationwide—in cities, suburbs, and rural towns—and possibly in your own community.

Human trafficking victims can be any age, race, gender, or nationality.  They may come from any socioeconomic group.

Sex trafficking exists, but it is not the only type of human trafficking. Forced labor is another type of human trafficking; both involve exploitation of people.  Victims are found in legitimate and illegitimate labor industries, including sweatshops, massage parlors, agriculture, restaurants, hotels, and domestic service.

Under U.S. federal law, any minor under the age of 18 who is induced to perform commercial sex acts is a victim of human trafficking, regardless of whether he or she is forced or coerced.

Human trafficking is not the same as smuggling.  “Trafficking” is based on exploitation and does not require movement across borders.  “Smuggling” is based on movement and involves moving a person across a country’s border with that person’s consent in violation of immigration laws. Although human smuggling is very different from human trafficking, human smuggling can turn into trafficking if the smuggler uses force, fraud, or coercion to hold people against their will for the purposes of labor or sexual exploitation.  Under federal law, every minor induced to engage in commercial sex is a victim of human trafficking.

Human trafficking is often a hidden crime.  Victims may be afraid to come forward and get help; they may be forced or coerced through threats or violence; they may fear retribution from traffickers, including danger to their families; and they may not be in possession of or have control of their identification documents.

The Villainy of Human Trafficking – Key Findings

Here are some key findings taken from the the UN, FBI, McCain Institute and National Criminal Justice Services reports:

United Nations:

  • UN report detected victims of trafficking in persons, by age and gender, 2011: 49% women, 21% girls, 18% men, 12% boys.
  • Human trafficking for sexual exploitation by region: Europe and Central Asia 66%; Africa and Middle East 53%; Americas 48%; East Asia, South Asia and Pacific 26%.
  • Human trafficking for forced labour, servitude and slavery like by region: East Asia, South Asia and Pacific 64%; Americas 47%; Africa and the Middle East 37%; Europe and Central Asia 26%.

The Department of Justice Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit reports:

  • In recent months we have convicted labor traffickers who exploited victims in restaurants, bars, and cantinas on Long Island, New York, and in massage parlors in Chicago, Illinois.
  • We convicted a Seattle couple who held a young Micronesian woman in domestic servitude, and secured a 14-month sentence against a defendant who held two young Nigerian women in domestic servitude in Georgia.
  • We have indicted labor traffickers who exploited Vietnamese victims in bridal shops in Arizona, and we have dismantled organized criminal networks that held Dominican, Filipino, and Jamaican workers in forced labor on cleaning crews.

McCain Institute:

  • Three-quarters of the cases involved only minor victims.
  • The average age of the sex traffickers of minors was 28.5 years old and the average age decreased significantly from 2010 to 2015.
  • 24.4% of the sex traffickers were female and they were younger than the male sex traffickers.
  • 75% of the sex traffickers were African American.
  • Nearly one out of five arrests for sex trafficking of a minor involved a person who was gang involved.
  • 55.5% of the females arrested were identified in the report as the role of a“bottom” which is the most trusted sex trafficked person by the sex trafficker who may also be prostituted, may recruit victims, give rules and trainings, and may give out punishment.
  • 24% of the arrested sex traffickers had a previous criminal history, the most common previous crime was a violent crime. o4% had a previous arrest for sex trafficking of a minor.
  • The minor victims were transported to up to 17 states for the purpose of being prostituted with the average of 2.7 states.
  • 67.3% of the cases used technology (email, online ads, smart phones) in the sex trafficking activities. oBackpage.com was used by the sex trafficker in 592 cases (41.8%).
  • Recruitment tactics focused on runaways; friendship, romance, giving a place to stay to the victim, and promises of money and wealth.

National Criminal Justice Services:

  • 58% (1227) of all defendants in human trafficking cases operated as part of an organized criminal group.
  • Although Cartels/Mafias/Syndicates are not represented at all among the federally prosecuted human trafficking cases involving organized crime, there is evidence that they are involved in facilitating the human trafficking operations of other types of organized criminals (facilitating transportation, providing false documentation, etc.).
  • Defendants who trafficked minors for commercial sex come from 13 different countries of origin. The vast majority is from United States.
  • Primary push factors involve socio-environmental variables over which the individual has very little control. These include: childhood abuse and/or neglect, lack of education, and a destructive social network.
  • Secondary push factors are symptoms of the primary push factors. They include criminal history, drug and/or substance abuse, and financial stress. These lead to feeling a lack of control over one’s life.
  • Based on federal prosecution records, the counties in the United States with the most bases of operations of organized crime groups engaging human trafficking include: Harris County, Houston, TX; Fulton County, Atlanta, GA; and Queens County, Queens, NY.

Human trafficking for the purposes of either sexual or labor slavery is spreading across America. Congress needs to come together to address this growing problem in light of the Jeffery Epstein case.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Utah: Nigerian Man Charged in Killing of College Coed had Child Pornography in his Home