Senate “oversight” hearing on Muslim Refugee Admissions Program set for October 1st, 2015

Don’t get me wrong, I am thrilled that some Congressional committee is attempting to review the UN/US State Department Refugee Admissions Program and as far as I can tell, it will be the first time Congress takes seriously its “consultation” responsibility since before 911.  That said, as I review the list of those testifying, do the Senators really think they will get anything but a snow-job from two of those on the list of entrenched bureaucrats (Bartlett and Carey) who have every incentive to keep the monster going.

Bartlett with map

Do Senators really think that Asst. Sec. of State Anne Richard’s right hand man (Larry Bartlett pictured here) is going to tell the Senators anything negative about how refugees are resettled in America. By the way, see the newest version of that map behind him,

Just last week Lawrence Bartlett traveled to Twin Falls, Idaho to participate in a laughable demonstration of a stacked public “forum” to attempt to quell the citizen criticism of the program there in Magic Valley.  Watch Bartlett in action here.

I do need to comb through that entire video and pull out some Bartlett gems for you.  When I posted on the “forum” here I hadn’t watched the videotape, so to clarify: Bartlett didn’t say they don’t drop off refugees in unwelcoming towns, he actually (with a malevolent look) said “unsafe” towns implying that opponents of refugee resettlement might be violent people!  It is an outrage!

Also, when asked why local citizens don’t have more say in who and how many will be resettled, he made it clear that this was designed as a federal program administered from Washington (so tough luck to local communities, we call the shots).  He didn’t exactly say it that way, but that was the clear message he was sending.

***Update*** Jim sends this link for the segment of Bartlett’s remarks just mentioned. More great information on the Twin Falls “forum” from opponents, here.

The Refugee Act of 1980 (Kennedy, Biden, Carter) does require consultation with local elected officials, something that is done (if at all) in the most cursory fashion and with local ‘friendly’ officials first and foremost.

Anyway, back to the hearing for October 1 (the first day of the 2016 fiscal year where 10,000 or more Syrian, mostly Muslim, refugees will be on the way to these towns and more).

Will those testifying say anything more than all is well, every town is welcoming, Syrians will be screened, blah, blah, blah.

I would like to have seen a mayor*** with problems be among the witnesses.

I’m told if you go to the Judiciary Committee website at the time of the hearing you can watch it live.

Oversight of the Administration’s FY 2016 Refugee Resettlement Program: Fiscal and Security Implications

Immigration and the National Interest
Date: Thursday, October 1, 2015 Add to my Calendar
Time: 02:00 PM
Location: Dirksen Senate Office Building 226
Presiding: Chairman Sessions

Agenda
September 21, 2015

NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary has scheduled a hearing of the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest entitled “Oversight of the Administration’s FY 2016 Refugee Resettlement Program: Fiscal and Security Implications” for Thursday October 1, 2015 at 2:00 p.m., in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

By order of the Chairman.

Witnesses

Mr. Larry Bartlett
Director Of Admissions
Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration | United States Department of State
Washington , D.C.

Ms. Barbara Strack
Chief, Refugee Affairs Division
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services | United States Department of Homeland Security
Washington , D.C.

Mr. Matthew Emrich
Associate Director, Fraud Detection And National Security Directorate
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services | United States Department of Homeland Security
Washington , D.C.

Mr. Robert Carey
Director, Office Of Refugee Resettlement
United States Department of Health and Human Services
Washington , D.C.

Incidentally, Carey is one of the many in federal government who rotated in from a contractor’s job.  Think about it, now he is the dispenser of federal grants to the contractor he once worked for—the International Rescue Committee.

***In Twin Falls, Bartlett did mention some cities where they have problems with mayors, but implied they had been resolved. (He also whacked the citizens of Spartanburg).  He said they had pushback from mayors in Manchester, NH, Amarillo, TX, and Springfield, Massachusetts—all three of which we have covered extensively on these pages.  

RELATED ARTICLES:

Scottish first minister changes her mind about inviting Syrians to share her home

Connecticut elected officials welcome Syrian (Muslim) refugees

Carson favorability numbers jump dramatically after Muslim President comments last Sunday

Iraqi headed to Germany: “Inshallah, we hope to be rich there.”

Death by demography….

Border Arrests of Children, Families Surge 52% in August

Republican Leadership Trumped Again

The political story of the year by far is the sudden resignation of House Speaker, John Boehner.  His announcement last Friday sent tectonic shock waves throughout the body politic.

Boehner’s resignation was a direct result of Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy; not Trump the person, but rather what Trump represents.

In many ways, as a candidate, Trump is very flawed; but what he represents is very much real.

Trump’s unconventional approach to campaigning and his theatrics are wearing very thin on the voters.  He must now begin to address the American people with substantive policy initiatives.  We know he is  very wealthy, we know he loves Mexicans and they love him too, and we know his hair is real, etc.

But now Trump has to convince the electorate that he has a plan to deal with ISIS, that he has a plan to reduce government spending, and that he has a plan to create jobs in this anemic economy, etc.

That’s Trump the candidate.  Trump the symbol is totally different.

Trump is the vessel the Republican base has chosen to represent their anger and disillusionment with the party.  The party establishment refused to listen to the base when they quietly voiced their dissatisfaction.  They were simply told to write a check, vote for them, and just shut the hell up.

Many in the party no longer know what we stand for as Republicans; other than Trump (illegal immigration), can you name the signature issue of any other candidates for president?  The world is falling apart right in front of us, both domestically and internationally and Republicans are not putting forth any solutions; just caving in to Obama at every chance.

I think it is extremely condescending for some to attempt to chide the base of the party for having “unrealistic” expectations from the Republican Congress.  Well, if this be true, the fault clearly falls on these same people for raising the expectations thusly.

The base was told last year that if they voted for Republicans, they would stop Obama’s amnesty; repeal Obamacare, and cut spending.  Congress has not done nor attempted to do any of these things.

The base doesn’t need lecturing and condescension; they are fully aware that Obama has the power of the veto.  The base doesn’t mind losing a vote, but they at least want to see Congress put up a fight for the principles that they claim to believe in.  Make Obama veto a border bill or make Obama veto a spending bill.

The base will respect and support loses when the leadership stands by their (and our) principles.

The unwillingness of our leaders to fight for our values has led to the creation of Donald Trump.  Trump would have no raison d’etre for his candidacy if Republicans had fought against Obama’s liberal agenda.

So, replacing Boehner with someone who is going to continue the status quo is not the solution.  Republicans should pick up to three issues that they are going to focus on like a laser beam for the rest of the year.  I would choose national security, a border bill, and decreasing spending as the three priorities for the rest of this year.  Force Obama to come our way on these issues or use the power of the purse to force his hand and use the nuclear option in the senate.

Even if the party’s establishment is successful at getting rid of Trump, who will address the issues that he represents?  The American people don’t want amnesty, yet it seems the Republican Party’s leadership is hell-bent on giving it to those in the country illegally.

The American people want us to take a tougher stand on China’s hacking and espionage; but instead they get a state dinner.

Again, Trump is not the problem, so take him down if you must; but then what?  To be very candid, several of our guys running in the presidential primary could legitimately be running in the Democratic primary based on where they stand on the issues.

We know we can’t count on the mainstream media to fairly portray the Republican message.  But there are over two hundred Black newspapers begging the Republican leadership to engage with them.  There are many Black reporters who can’t get Republican leaders or their staffs to return their calls.

The Black media is not hostile to Republicans; they don’t know Republicans.  How many Republican presidential candidates have engaged with the Black media?  When has the House/Senate leadership ever engaged with the Black media?

When oil companies have depleted the oil from their known reserves; they begin to engage in “exploratory” drilling to find that new source of reserves.

To my Republican Party, the Black community is that new source of oil.  You have thoroughly depleted your proven reserves (the White, male vote).  When will you start drilling for “Black gold” (pun intended)?

If you don’t want to engage with the Black community because it’s the smart thing to do; at least do it for political survival.  Please, don’t get trumped again by your ego.

ALERT: Burmese Muslims on the way to the U.S.

Rohingya (Burmese) Muslims are coming to the U.S. This group of young men was apprehended by the Malaysian government, a Muslim government, that doesn’t want the Rohingya. So we are taking them!

I thought I was done today.  I was just going to tackle my bulging e-mail in box when I came across an e-mail from reader Judith alerting me to this news from the Bangkok Post yesterday.

24 Rohingya (Burmese) Muslims are on the way to the US, but the article tells us that since right after 911 we have admitted 13,000 Burmese Muslims (how many are Rohingya?).

Ahhhh!

While we focus on the fact that Syrians can’t be screened, frankly neither can Muslims who get on boats in Southeast Asia (claiming to have been kidnapped) be properly screened!

New readers of RRW don’t know that we have an entire category on the very ‘observant’ followers of Islam that are known as the Rohingya.

We have 180 posts in our ‘Rohingya Reports’ category extending all the way back to 2007.  Back in 2007 and early 2008 there was no way the US State Dept. was going to admit Rohingya Muslims, but clearly all that has changed

Here is the story at the Bangkok Post (which won’t let me snip much, so please go read it yourself):

At 46 years old, Basamai, an ethnic Rohingya Muslim man, will for the first time obtain identity documents that will allow him to resettle in the United States next week, along with 23 other trafficking victims.

The 24 to be resettled follow four who left Thailand earlier this month, in a humanitarian programme that has resettled 13,000 Muslims from Myanmar since 2002, according to the US Department of State Refugee Processing Center.

They are not saying if they are coming to your town!

Following their arrival in the U.S. — the exact location remains unknown — the Rohingya group will undergo Cultural Orientation Training before they can be resettled, said a source from the Ministry of…

Cultural Orientation Training, here? in the US?  That is a new one on me.

They were screened by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and the star of this story hopes to bring his wife and 8 daughters to America real soon!

RELATED ARTICLE: The Rising Tide of Third World Refugees and the Plight of NATO’s Southeastern Flank

RELATED VIDEO: Final Thoughts on Islam and violence from News Anchor Tomi Lahren

18 U.S. Mayors: We want More Muslim refugees! Is one of them yours?

This story is from Syracuse, NY, but it is all about a letter 18 mayors sent to Obama telling him that they want MORE Syrian refugees now!

Remember Syracuse is the city that saw a beautiful Catholic Church become a mosque.  I’m guessing the mayor wants to see more of that because the majority of the Syrians to be admitted to the US through the UN are Sunni Muslims.   Kind of ironic that they penned this letter when the Pope was here.  Does he want more Muslims to take over more Catholic Churches worldwide?

Clearly Catholic Charities and Mayor Miner of Syracuse do!

From Syracuse.com:

SYRACUSE, N.Y. — Mayor Stephanie Miner is one of 18 mayors encouraging President Barack Obama to accept additional Syrian refugees into the United States.

miner and Obama

Mayor Stephanie Miner: “[I]…urge you to increase still further the number of Syrian refugees the United States will accept for resettlement.”

Miner signed a letter, sent to Obama, that calls for an increase of the number of refugees the U.S. will accept in the next two years. Obama has already pledged to take 10,000 Syrian refugees and increase the overall refugee allowance to 100,000 by 2017.

“Our cities have been transformed by the skills and the spirit of those who come to us from around the world,” the letter reads. “The drive and enterprise of immigrants and refugees have helped build our economies, enliven our arts and culture, and enrich our neighborhoods.”

All 18 mayors are members of Cities United for Immigration Action, a coalition pushing for immigration reform. Along with Miner, mayors from Los Angeles, New York City, Pittsburgh, Boston and Chicago signed the letter. [I bet if you dug into this group, you would find it another George Soros-funded group.—ed]

Syracuse currently accepts between 1,100 and 1,200 refugees each year. Two organizations — Catholic Charities of Onondaga County and Interfaith Works CNY — resettle refugees in Syracuse.

“We have taken in refugees, and will help make room for thousands more,” the letter reads.”

See the letter at Syracuse.com.  And here are the 18 cities which need new mayors!

  1. Ed Pawlowski, Mayor of Allentown, PA
  2. Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Mayor of Baltimore, MD
  3. Martin J. Walsh, Mayor of Boston, MA
  4. James Diossa, Mayor of Central Falls, RI
  5. Mark Kleinschmidt, Mayor of Chapel Hill, NC
  6. Rahm Emanuel, Mayor of Chicago, IL
  7. Edward Terry, Mayor of Clarkston, GA
  8. Nan Whaley, Mayor of Dayton, OH
  9. Domenick Stampone, Mayor of Haledon, NJ
  10. Pedro E. Segarra, Mayor of Hartford, CT
  11. Eric Garcetti, Mayor of Los Angeles, CA
  12. Betsy Hodges, Mayor of Minneapolis, MN
  13. Bill de Blasio, Mayor of New York City, NY
  14. Jose Torres, Mayor of Paterson, NJ
  15. William Peduto, Mayor of Pittsburgh, PA
  16. Javier Gonzales, Mayor of Santa Fe, NM
  17. Francis G. Slay, Mayor of St. Louis, MO
  18. Stephanie A. Miner, Mayor of Syracuse, NY

Be sure to check out the hundreds of comments this story generated.  I skimmed some and it sure looks like Mayor Miner’s constituents aren’t too thrilled by her invitation.

If you live in any of those 18 cities be sure the citizens there know what their mayor is doing.

Addendum:  I just remembered, you can go to this post from a few days ago to see if your city is already getting Syrian Muslims. Note to Catholic Charities, of the 1,700 plus Syrians who were admitted to the US so far, 43 were Christians and there was 1 (one!) Catholic in the bunch.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Dayton, OH mayor: Bring us some Syrian (Muslim) refugees! Congressman says NO way!

Boise, Idaho: Much wailing and gnashing of teeth as refugees get evicted, will they send some to Twin Falls?

Invasion of Europe: In Germany they are all claiming to be Syrians!

NY Times goes to Spartanburg, spin in first paragraph shows reporter’s bias

Drilling down on federal contractors that launder your money to local agencies—Twin Falls again

Big business drives refugee resettlement in America: Could Chobani Yogurt be behind the drive in Twin Falls?

Hungarian foreign minister: Mass migration is the beginning of a new world order

LIKELY FOES: CNN’s Liberal vs. Rising Conservatism in Black Americans

AUSTIN, Texas, /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Brad O’Leary, publisher of TheOLearyReport.com, former NBC News Radio/Westwood One talk show host, author of the The United States Citizens’ Handbook and former feature writer for USA Today Weekend magazine, is bringing light to the current rise stemming from longstanding historical roots in conservatism within the Black community in his latest Op-Ed piece, listed below and on TheOLearyReport.com:

How much of the Black population will support Republicans on the three major issues in the 2016 Presidential election?

When George Bush ran for president he got 8% of the Black population’s vote. There was a time when Republican candidates could only count for 8% of the Irish population’s vote. It is perhaps time for the Black voters to feel just as the Irish did, that the Democratic Party deserted them.

According to CNN’s most recent poll, the three major issues that American voters will focus on will be immigration, abortion and guns.

Now, who am I to say that CNN’s liberal bias, if correct may be a danger for the Democratic Party?

CNN will tell you that according to the polls, that the Democrats will be favored. However if you look at that result and the results from other polls in judging Black population responses, it may explain one of the reasons that Donald Trump seems to have the support of 20% of the Black population.

In addition to political polls there is an incredible amount of consumer polling that has been done on the Black population. That polling should frighten the Chairman of the Democratic Party.

First let’s take the Second Amendment and gun ownership. There is no question that gun control was historically a major political effort started at the beginning of the Civil War and was principally designed by the leadership of the Ku Klux Klan, who did not want Black people, especially in the South, to own guns, not even for hunting.

In some places in the South, if a Black person wanted to hunt and keep in mind that most families were fed that way, they had to get permission from the sheriff for a twenty-four hour period for hunting. We have heard stories from many people about that era, including from Condoleezza Rice, who has always supported the 2nd Amendment because her family historically owned guns namely to protect themselves from the Ku Klux Klan.

Today we have many significant Black leaders like Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke and Detroit Police Chief James Craig, who both urged people to buy guns to protect themselves.

We have seen a number of consumer polls indicate that a majority of the Black community, following recent riots, does not fear the police. Instead they fear the drug dealers and the hoodlums who are trying to stir up division and hatred making Black neighborhoods and streets unsafe. It is no wonder that the percentage of the Black population that supports the Second Amendment has increased in the last few years. Recently during the Miss Universe contest, one of the contestants, Miss South Carolina USA, Meagan Pinckney was asked about gun ownership, presumptuous but possibly by a judge, who might have believed that since she was Black and from the South she would give a gun control answer. Contestant Pinckney stunned the television audience by showing her knowledge and support of firearm ownership. Her opinion is not just from her but it is from her peers as well.

Hillary Clinton has made her position clear. She would make it difficult for anyone who is White, Asian or Black to buy a gun, particularly in the cities. At the same time Donald Trump and all the other candidates for president are the strongest group of 2nd Amendment supporters that this country has ever seen.

The second issue CNN touts is such a clearly a Democratic majority supported issue. This issue is abortion.

Now there is no question that a majority of voters believe in a woman’s right to choose. But in a paradox of thinking, a greater majority of Americans think that abortion is either manslaughter or morally unacceptable in today’s society. That doesn’t include the rather substantial number of Americans who believe that 3rd term abortions where a fetus can be seen as moving, breathing and is deemed capable of life outside the womb, is acceptable in massive numbers.

The number of people in the Black population who believe that abortion is morally unacceptable is greater than anyone has ever believed.  The reason that Proposition 9, a heated topic of its own, which would allow gays to marry in California, was defeated at the ballot box largely due to the rallying of Black Christian voters who voted against it in massive numbers. This supports the concept that the Black population is actually quite conservative.

If you do not believe me, do your own test. In New York, five Black fetuses are aborted for every one White fetus. So go to the Black churches in a very liberal city like New York and ask the pastor and congregation what they think of abortion?

Frankly every time Hillary fights for more abortions and protecting the bargain basement selling of fetuses by Planned Parenthood she is also turning off church going Black women. Now that is an issue that no one can claim any of the Republican presidential candidates, including Trump, doesn’t have a clear opinion on. That opinion is there needs to be a stop to aborting Black babies.

Now we get to the third issue that CNN is so excited about, the issue of immigration, which clearly makes Trump and most Republicans extremists. Once again let’s consider how the Black population views immigration and some of the other effects that come from immigration. A rapper by the name of Azealia Banks unexpectedly reflected the conservative outlook of the Black population with her recent pro-Trump comments,

“Do you think it’s bad that I sort of agree with Trump’s stance on immigration? Not for any reason other than black Americans still not having been paid reparations for slavery and the influx [of] INTERNATIONAL immigrants (not just Mexicans), are sucking up state aid, and government money, space in schools, quality of life etc.?? It’s selfish, but America has been really good at convincing me that everyone else’s problems are more important than my own. I want my f*****g money!!…Me first!!!…Thoughts?”

Two areas of life that are directly impacted by immigration are job creation and drivers licenses.

Let me be clear about what the Black population thinks about immigration. For the most part they think the same as Whites and Asians. They think it favors Wall Street, it boosts corporate profit and it increases the value of many stocks. And no one polled is aware of how big immigration is every year. Only 10% of all Americans select the correct immigration numbers.

The Black population is opposed to Hillary’s immigration policy and they are opposed to the attempt by states to let illegals (“Sorry Mr. President that is my word.”) have driver’s licenses without automobile insurance. There is such a law that was just passed in California and the governors in other red states are completely supportive of giving illegals documentation. Now if anybody out there would like to see the polling that proves that this is true, I would be happy to send it to you. 65% of Hispanic citizens of the United States also opposed driver’s licenses without insurance. No surprise because illegal Hispanics hiding from “White” justice aren’t hiding in White neighborhoods.

The Black population believes and correctly so, that Hispanics take jobs away from them, particularly Hispanic teenagers versus Black teenagers.

EDITORS NOTE: For more analysis and commentary from pollster Brad O’Leary, please contact: Radio/TV Show Bookings: grassrootsbehavioral@gmail.com or (737) 704-1578. Readers may download The United States Citizens’ Handbook at no cost: www.USCH.us . Please visit: www.TheOLearyReport.com.

The Speech Pope Francis Should Have Given by Lawrence W. Reed

Pope Francis, Address to the United States Congress — September 24, 2015:

Members of the U.S. Congress and the American people:

I come before you in glowing admiration for the historic accomplishments of your spirit of enterprise. In the pursuit of personal gain — the desire to improve your lives while serving others in the process — you Americans have fed, clothed and housed more people at higher levels than all the combined efforts of humanitarians worldwide throughout history.

In my profession, we speak of “collecting” money. Americans practically coined the phrase, “making money.” After 36 hours in the United States, I now realize that we can’t collect it until you first make it, and while both activities are motivated at least in part by a shared desire to “do good,” the one that your risk-taking, visionary entrepreneurs, investors, builders, inventors and job creators do so well is by far the bigger challenge.

I’ve said some things lately that gave you reason to think I was hostile to the dynamic spirit of enterprise that made this country a beacon for the world and the most generous society in history. I’ve spoken about excessive greed in the capitalist system, but now I realize that no variant of socialism ever does away with greed. It simply ensures that the only way a person can satisfy it is by using his political connections to steal what he wants, to pillage hapless value-creators while condemning the poor to a life of politicized dependency. I’m a little ashamed now that I fell for such nonsense, but I am happy to be here to begin my education in economics and politics in earnest.

One of the beautiful things about your country is the intellectual diversity. One example is my conversations with American Christians who have spent much time in thought and prayer on the question of Jesus’s views on property and politics. In my conversations, we have discussed how Jesus, the man whose teachings I regard as sacred and divine, never once argued for redistribution of income by political power.

While he disdained the worship of money, he never disparaged the crucial role of money as a medium of exchange or as a wealth-creating motivator. I had apparently forgotten Jesus’s advice (in the Book of Luke) to a man who asked him to redistribute some wealth. “Who made me a judge or divider over you?” he asked. I think as legislators, you should ask that very question of yourselves.

So rather than read a stock speech of clichés and finger-wagging, I’m simply going to implore you to keep learning, as I have dedicated my life to doing. And before any of us are quick to jump to policy prescriptions on things about which we know so little, let’s all remember what the Austrian economist Murray Rothbard advised:

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a “dismal science.” But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

Thank you.

Unfortunately, this was not the speech the Pope delivered to Congress today.

The good news is that you don’t have to wait for the Pope’s next encyclical to benefit from the insights on property, economics, and Jesus’s teachings on them that the Pope is no doubt gleaning on his American tour.

You can order a copy of Rendering Unto Caesar: Was Jesus a Socialist?yourself. In fact, you can even order multiple copies, get a bulk discount, and start informing others of the important principles the pamphlet champions! What are you waiting for?

Lawrence W. Reed
Lawrence W. Reed

Lawrence W. (“Larry”) Reed became president of FEE in 2008 after serving as chairman of its board of trustees in the 1990s and both writing and speaking for FEE since the late 1970s.

Vast majority of U.S. Muslims are Democrats, so why does Marco Rubio want more?

Julia Hahn, who has been doing a fantastic job at Breitbart on the UN/US State Department Refugee Admissions Program has another good article yesterday entitled, ‘REPORT: MUSLIMS ARE THE FASTEST GROWING IMMIGRANT COMMUNITY‘  (hat tip: Cathy).

Here is how she begins (with some much-needed data!):

Zuckerberg

Trump, never shy to speak up, said in August that the billionaire Facebook founder and No Borders advocate, Mark Zuckerberg, had his own personal U.S. Senator—Marco Rubio.

“Muslims are the fastest growing bloc of immigrants, according to new census data published by the Center for Immigration Studies.

The report, which analyzes data from American Community Survey (ACS), finds that the foreign-born population in the U.S. hit a new record high 42.4 million in July 2014.

The report details that some of “the sending countries with the largest percentage increases in the number of immigrants living in the United States since 2010 were Saudi Arabia (up 93 percent); Bangladesh (up 37 percent); Iraq (up 36 percent); Egypt (up 25 percent); Pakistan, India, and Ethiopia (all up 24 percent); Nigeria and Ghana (both up 21 percent).”

“In contrast to most sending regions and countries, the number of immigrants from Europe and Canada declined,” the report notes.

As Breitbart News has previously documented, every year the United States voluntarily imports more than a quarter of a million– or 280,000– Muslim migrants. This number includes 117,423 migrants who were permanently resettled with Legal Permanent Resident status, as well as an additional 122,921 temporary Muslim workers and foreign students, and 39,932 Muslim refugee and asylees. This means that each year, the U.S. admits a number of Muslim migrants larger in size than the entire population of Des Moines, Iowa.”

Readers, although the number of refugees and asylees is lower than some other categories, remember that they are eligible for all forms of welfare immediately upon arrival as compared to those who entered under other legal immigration programs.  They also get a federal resettlement contracting agency to hold their hands as they sign up, so they are much more costly to the US taxpayer.

What is up with Rubio? 

Muslim immigrants (like most immigrants) are going to vote for Democrats, so why should Senator Marco Rubio be open to inviting more to America?   On the Syrian issue he squished out here earlier this month by saying he was “open” to taking in Syrians Muslims who are now swamping Europe.

Hahn continues at Breitbart:

According to Pew Research, only 11 percent of Muslim Americans identify as Republican or leaning-Republican, making them one of the most reliable Democrat voting blocs in the country.

[….]

Despite the fact only 11 percent of Muslim voters say that they “lean” Republican, many Republican presidential candidates would like to see the number of Muslim immigrants expanded even further.

For instance, GOP presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)—whose campaign predicts he will be in first place by February—has introduced a new foreign worker bill which would substantially increase Muslim immigration. His bill, known as the I-Squared bill, has been described as the “gold standard of high-tech reform,” by billionaire Mark Zuckerberg’s immigration lobbying group.

[….]

In addition, Rubio has also his argued that the United States should increase the number of poor Muslim migrants the United States admits as refugees— on top of the tens of thousands already admitted each year. Experts project that the cost of admitting just ten thousand additional refugees will cost U.S. taxpayers $6.5 billion dollars.

There is much more, continue reading here.

I have a hunch that Fox News is hankering for a Rubio/Fiorina ticket in 2016 (or at least that could be Fox owner Rupert Murdoch’s dream team),here.  Both could be counted on to do as they are told and support bringing in cheap immigrant labor for big business, something Murdoch has been openly supporting.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Senator Sessions Unswayed by Pope Francis on Immigration, Ect.

Germany PM Merkel in the news trying to extricate Germany from the “chaos” she created!

The Climate Skeptic’s Guide To Pope Francis’ U.S. Visit

CLIMATE DEPOT SPECIAL REPORT

Full PDF Report Available Here: http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Climate-Depot-special-report-on-Papal-encyclical.pdf

CLIMATE OF FAITH:  Talking Points about Pope Francis’ Climate Encyclical

Do Catholics have to believe in man-made global warming in order to be good Catholics? No. The Pope’s view on climate science and its alleged “solutions” are not part of the faith and moral teachings of the church. When the Pope speaks on climate change, he is not speaking authoritatively on Catholic doctrine. He is merely offering his opinion. Catholics are not bound to follow the Pope’s view on global warming.

Is climate change a part of Catholic teachings now? No. Climate change is not part of Catholic doctrine. It is just another political issue to be debated among Catholics and the general public. The Federalist’s Rachel Lu: “The pontiff clearly has high authority to speak (at least to Catholics) on questions of faith and morals, but when it comes to predictive pronouncements on the Earth’s climate, he is not a definitive expert. Nor does he claim that mantle in Laudato Si.”

Does the Pope’s encyclical present accurate climate science? No. Noted climate statistician Dr. William Briggs was blunt in his assessment. “Most of the scientific claims cited in Pope’s encyclical are not true,” Briggs said. “For example, the claim that the world’s temperature has been increasing is demonstrably false: it hasn’t, and not for almost two decades. Another is the claim that storms are increasing in size and strength: also false; indeed, the opposite is true. Another is the claim that thousands of species are going extinct: false, and easily proved to be so,” Briggs added.

Who is advising Pope Francis? Sadly, there has been nothing short of an “Unholy Alliance” between the Vatican and promoters of man-made climate fear. The Vatican advisors can only be described as a brew of anti-capitalist, pro-population control advocates who allow no dissent and who are way out of the mainstream of even the global warming establishment.  Regrettably, the Vatican only listened to extreme voices within the climate movement with whom even other climate activists are not comfortable. Many of the Vatican’s key climate advisors have promoted policies directly at odds with Catholic doctrine and beliefs on such issues as population, contraceptives, abortion, and euthanasia. But despite these advisors, “Population control is condemned at some length, and in no uncertain terms, in the encyclical itself,” as The Federalist’s Rachel Lu points out.

Did the Vatican allow a climate debate at the Vatican before the encyclical was issued? No, none at all. In fact, the Vatican went out of its way to exclude skeptics from participating in their meetings. The Vatican banned a skeptical French scientist from its climate summit. The scientist who was invited then uninvited said the reason was that the Vatican “did not want to hear an off note” during the summit with UN officials.

Is the Pope hoping to use the encyclical to bring Catholic teachings to the secular environmental Left? Father Dwight Longnecker explains the strategy behind the encyclical: “The Pope successfully integrates a theology of creation into the ecology debate. He affirms, as so many environmentalists affirm, that ‘all things are connected.’ In doing so he then connects the rights of the unborn, the needs of the poor, the rights of immigrants, the needs of the elderly and disabled, and the rightful demands of the workers.” Many non-Catholics who are interested in reading the Papal encyclical will learn about Catholic teaching on a host of moral issues that they have probably have never been willing to listen to before. There is a lot in this encyclical that the global warming establishment will not like. For example, warmists will be challenged by Pope Francis when he states that it is “incoherent” to be concerned with climate change while at the same time supporting abortion.

The Pope’s strategy may be working. None other than Al Gore is being swayed. Gore said: “I was raised in the Southern Baptist tradition, I could become a Catholic because of this Pope. He is that inspiring to me.”

Update: Vatican banned skeptical French scientist from climate summit – ‘They did not want to hear an off note’

Should Catholics ask God for a successful outcome to the UN climate summit in Paris? No. But Pope Francis did summon a lobbying tone when he urged prayers for the passage of a UN climate treaty, specifically exhorting Catholics “to ask God for a positive outcome” for a Paris UN agreement. Pope Francis: “We believers cannot fail to ask God for a positive outcome to the present discussions, so that future generations will not have to suffer the effects of our ill-advised delays.” So no matter how nuanced and faithful to Catholic teachings this encyclical seeks to be, the Pope urging Catholics to “ask God for a positive outcome” to the current UN global warming treaty process will overpower every other message. The Pope is essentially endorsing a specific UN political climate treaty and implying that God is smiling upon the treaty process.

Is the state of the planet as dire as Laudato Si claims? No. The Pope’s general point that man has a moral duty to care for creation is traditional Catholic moral teaching.  However, Catholics need not agree with his encyclical’s opinion on the dire state of the planet. The Pope declared in the encyclical: “The Earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth.” But Alex Epstein, author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, responded: “If the pope from 300 years ago could see our world today, he’d say it was actually cleaner and healthier than his own era.” Another climate skeptic responded: “We live in luxury that even kings a few centuries ago could only dream of. You only have to look at the filth and squalor in which previous generations lived to know that most people in the past would have given anything to be born now.” As FrontPageMag.com noted in its article “Sorry Pope Francis, the State of the Planet Is Getting Better,”  “If it’s covered in trash, it’s a strange kind of trash that has caused global crop yields to increase by 160% since 1961 and deaths from droughts to be reduced by 99.8% since the 1920s. It’s an odd kind of ‘mistreatment’ of the planet over the life of the Industrial Revolution that’s resulted in the global life expectancy rising from 26 years in 1750 to 69 years in 2009. This is in spite of the fact that Earth’s population increased from 760 million to 6.8 billion and incomes (in real dollars) rose from $640 to $7,300 during the same period.”

Doesn’t the encyclical discuss other things besides climate? Yes. In fact, climate is a very small part of it, less than 2%. But it was the focus of intense media coverage. The Federalist‘s Rachel Lu points out: “It’s very misleading to refer toLaudato Si as ‘the climate change encyclical.’ Climate change is one of a variety of environmental problems with which the pontiff is concerned, but even his general interest in the environment is embedded within a broader critique of modernity.”

If the encyclical essentially has clauses that allow for debate, why is there such a media uproar? The encyclical has many carefully worded clauses and caveats, but key newsworthy parts were the Pope’s foray into climate science and his alignment with a UN climate treaty.

How does the Pope link economics and climate change together? Some observers have speculated that the Pope’s South American poverty perspective makes him very suspicious of modern capitalism, and thus more open to the centralized planning ideas of the UN climate agenda. A leader of the UN IPCC stated that their goal is to “redistribute wealth” by climate policy. By contrast, Pope John Paul II grew up in Soviet-dominated Poland and saw what centralized planning and restrictions did to human liberty and development.

Are Catholic climate skeptics still in good standing with the Church? Yes. The Pope’s opinion on scientific and economic matters is not the same as his authority on issues of faith and morals. Climate skeptics can agree with his teaching that we have a moral duty to care for creation without agreeing about man’s impact on climate change.

Is there a ‘consensus’ inside the Vatican on global warming? No. There is major climate dissent inside the Vatican. Skeptical Vatican Cardinal George Pell took a swing at the Pope’s climate encyclical, declaring the Catholic Church has “no particular expertise in science.”  Pell, who now serves at the head of the Vatican bank, declared in 2006: “In the past, pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in CO2 emissions.” 

How did previous popes deal with the issue of global warming? Previous popes allowed debate and dissent. In 2007, during the tenure of Pope Benedict XVI, the Vatican hosted a climate summit through the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace and invited many different perspectives in the climate debate to participate. The 2007 event included atmospheric physicist and climate skeptic Dr. Fred Singer, skeptic and theologian Dr. E Calvin Beisner, and the climate skeptic president of the World Federation of Scientists, Dr. Antonio Zichichi. In 2007, Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, sought out different perspectives on climate change. Also in 2007, Pope Benedict was on record denouncing the type of alarmist activists that Pope Francis invited into the Vatican in 2015. Pope Benedict condemned what he termed the “climate change prophets of doom.”

Does Pope Francis have a degree in chemistry? Via the myth-busting Snopes.com: This claim is “false.” “According to the pontiff’s official biography on the Vatican’s web site, Pope Francis ‘graduated as a chemical technician’ before entering the priesthood, received a degree in philosophy and theology from the Colegio de San José in San Miguel … the only mention of the Pope’s chemistry education was the notation that he graduated as a ‘chemical technician’; whether his training constituted the equivalent of a university degree, and where he undertook that course of study, was not specified.”

The Pope relies on UN science claims to promote climate action. How reputable is the UN IPCC? The UN IPCC is a political organization masquerading as a “science” body. Many UN lead authors have now resigned from the IPCC or had their names removed due to the politicization of science to fit the climate “narrative.” The former chief of the UN IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, declared global warming “is my religion.” Former Thatcher advisor and climate skeptic Christopher Monckton explains: “It is not the business of the Pope to stray from the field of faith and morals and wander into the playground that is science. Do not invite only one narrow and boisterous scientific viewpoint that has been repeatedly discredited as events and the science and the data have unfolded.”

Why are skeptics in an uproar over the Pope’s climate actions?  Climate skeptics have been shut out of the debate by the Vatican, and opponents have exploited and exaggerated the Pope’s support of their side to use his influence. Having a pope personally lobby for a UN agreement and hype climate fears is confusing to Catholics who may falsely believe one’s views on climate change and alleged “solutions” are now part of being a good Catholic. A major difference in what this pope has done versus previous popes is that he is taking the extra step of endorsing a UN climate treaty. This is a game changer from previous popes and previous Vatican statements on climate. It is especially frustrating for Catholic skeptics to be pitted against the Pope on climate issues because their political opponents disagree with him on just about all of the moral issues raised in the encyclical, but they have ignored their disagreement to “cherry pick” this one issue.

Why are many Catholic pro-life activists upset at the Vatican’s climate campaign? Many pro-life activists believe the Vatican is aligning itself with a UN climate agenda that is at odds with major aspects of Catholic teachings and doctrine. The UN’s climate agenda includes heavy doses of development restrictions, promotion of contraceptives,population control, abortions, etc.  Despite these strange bedfellows, the encyclical is clear in condemning abortion, contraception, and population control. Pro-life activists believe the Pope is causing Catholics who oppose climate fear predictions and UN “solutions” to feel as if they are not properly following their faith.

Will the Pope’s endorsement of the UN climate agenda harm the world’s poor? Yes. The Vatican is being misled on development and poverty issues as they relate to “climate change.” The Vatican’s well placed and long established concern for the developing world’s poor is being hijacked by a radical UN agenda that seeks to prevent life-saving fossil fuel energy development in the world’s poorest regions. The Pope’s concern that climate-change impacts are going to harm the world’s poor the most was entirely misplaced. Preventing poverty-stricken nations of the world from obtaining affordable and plentiful fossil fuels means they cannot develop and thus insulate themselves from climate change whether it be man-made or natural. The Pope’s claim that “it is man who has slapped nature in the face” needs to be weighed against the fact that fossil fuels have allowed mankind to stop nature from slapping man in the face. The more we develop with fossil fuels and increase our wealth and standard of living, the more we can inoculate ourselves from the ravages of nature. Centrally planning energy economics by restricting fossil fuels due to unfounded climate fears in the developing world is immoral. The Vatican and the Pope should be arguing that fossil fuels are the “moral choice” for the developing world for people who don’t have running water, electricity, or other basic needs.

Is the case for man-made global warming getting stronger or weaker? The science behind man-made global warming fears is actually weakening considerably. The 97% “consensus” claims are a fallacy – studies by UN lead authors now say such 97% claims are “pulled out of thin air” with no basis in fact. Extreme weather was stable or declining on almost every measure, and global temperatures have been in a standstill for over 18 years.  On everything from sea levels to polar bears, the climate narrative is failing. In addition, prominent scientists (many politically left) who used to believe in man-made global warming fears are now reversing themselves and becoming skeptics, including many UN scientists.

Related Links:

Watch: Morano ‘talks’ to (Cardboard) Pope on TV: ‘We are asking you to reconsider. Please don’t confuse Catholics…you have been horribly misled by extreme UN advisors’

Pope at White House compares action on climate change to Martin Luther King

Climate Depot’s Mission to Rome – Persuading the The Vatican on ‘Climate Change’

Climate Depot’s Mission to Rome – Persuading the The Vatican – VATICAN HEAVIES SILENCE ‘CLIMATE HERETICS’ AT UN PAPAL SUMMIT IN ROME

Climate Skeptics In Rome Warn Pope Francis of ‘Unholy Alliance’ With UN Climate Agenda –  More on Heartland Institute’s sponsored skeptical trip to Rome here

Watch Now: Marc Morano’s Presentation in Rome to Vatican – April 28, 2015

Watch video hereMarc Morano, executive editor and chief correspondent at ClimateDepot.com, gives a presentation at The Heartland Institute’s climate science and policy event outside the Vatican on April 28, 2015.

The Pope Is Morally and Factually Wrong about Capitalism by Daniel J. Mitchell

The biggest mistake of well-meaning leftists is that they place too much value on good intentions and don’t seem to care nearly as much about good results.

Pope Francis is an example of this unfortunate tendency. His concern for the poor presumably is genuine, but he puts ideology above evidence when he argues against capitalism and in favor of coercive government.

Here are some passages from a CNN report on the Pope’s bias.

Pope Francis makes his first official visit to the United States this week. There’s a lot of angst about what he might say, especially when he addresses Congress Thursday morning. …

He’ll probably discuss American capitalism’s flaws, a theme he has hit on since the 1990s. Pope Francis wrote a book in 1998 with an entire chapter focused on “the limits of capitalism.” …

Francis argued that … capitalism lacks morals and promotes selfish behavior. …

He has been especially critical of how capitalism has increased inequality… He’s tweeted: “inequality is the root of all evil.” …

He’s a major critic of greed and excessive wealth. …”Capitalism has been the cause of many sufferings…”

Wow, I almost don’t know how to respond. So many bad ideas crammed in so few words.

If you want to know why Pope Francis is wrong about capitalism and human well-being, these videos narrated by Don Boudreaux and Deirdre McCloskey will explain how free markets have generated unimaginable prosperity for ordinary people.

But the Pope isn’t just wrong on facts. He’s also wrong on morality. This video by Walter Williams explains why voluntary exchange in a free-market system is far more ethical than a regime based on government coercion.

Very well stated. And I especially like how Walter explains that markets are a positive-sum game, whereas government-coerced redistribution is a zero-sum game (actually a negative-sum game when you include the negative economic impact of taxes and spending).

Professor Williams wasn’t specifically seeking to counter the muddled economic views of Pope Francis, but others have taken up that challenge.

Writing for the Washington Post, George Will specifically addresses the Pope’s moral preening.

Pope Francis embodies sanctity but comes trailing clouds of sanctimony. With a convert’s indiscriminate zeal, he embraces ideas impeccably fashionable, demonstrably false and deeply reactionary.

They would devastate the poor on whose behalf he purports to speak… Francis deplores “compulsive consumerism,” a sin to which the 1.3 billion persons without even electricity can only aspire.

He specifically explains that people with genuine concern for the poor should celebrate industrialization and utilization of natural resources.

Poverty has probably decreased more in the past two centuries than in the preceding three millennia because of industrialization powered by fossil fuels.

Only economic growth has ever produced broad amelioration of poverty, and since growth began in the late 18th century, it has depended on such fuels. …

The capitalist commerce that Francis disdains is the reason the portion of the planet’s population living in “absolute poverty” ($1.25 a day) declined from 53 percent to 17 percent in three decades after 1981.

So why doesn’t Pope Francis understand economics?

Perhaps because he learned the wrong lesson from his nation’s disastrous experiment with an especially corrupt and cronyist version of statism.

Francis grew up around the rancid political culture of Peronist populism, the sterile redistributionism that has reduced his Argentina from the world’s 14th highest per-capita gross domestic product in 1900 to 63rd today.

Francis’s agenda for the planet — “global regulatory norms” — would globalize Argentina’s downward mobility.

Amen (no pun intended).

George Will is right that Argentina is not a good role model.

And he’s even more right about the dangers of “global norms” that inevitably would pressure all nations to impose equally bad levels of taxation and regulation.

Returning to the economic views of Pope Francis, the BBC asked for my thoughts back in 2013 and everything I said still applies today.

This first ran at Cato.org.

Daniel J. Mitchell

RELATED ARTICLE: No, America Was Not Founded on Racist Principles

Texas: Judgment Protects Overpasses for America ‘s Right to Display “Secure Our Borders” Signs

The North Dallas Chapter of Overpasses for America and its leader Valerie Villarreal, yesterday, obtained a federal court consent judgment against the City of Dallas, Texas, which declared that the Dallas city ordinance prohibiting demonstrations on city overpasses violated their constitutionally protected First Amendment rights.

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs in August 2014, challenging the enactment of the ordinance which restricted the plaintiffs’ right to demonstrate and display signs calling for the impeachment of President Obama and the end to illegal immigration on city overpasses over designated highways.

U.S. District Judge David Godbey for the Northern District Court of Texas entered the consent judgment, marking the first time that the City of Dallas admitted its ordinance was an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

Erin Mersino, TMLC Senior Trial Counsel handling the case, commented, “It is a good day for free speech. Overpasses for America and Valerie Villarreal may now resume their important demonstrations without fear of being fined or retaliated against by the City.”

In November 2014, just three months after TMLC filed their initial lawsuit against the city, the Dallas City Council voted to repeal the ordinance. During the repeal process, however, the City refused to acknowledge that the ordinance unconstitutionally attacked Free Speech that criticized President Obama and the flood of illegal immigration encouraged by the Obama administration’s complete disregard of federal immigration laws. The judgment entered by the District Court, however, specifically declares that the Dallas ordinance was a violation of Overpasses for America’s First Amendment rights to free speech and free assembly. The judgment also awarded nominal damages as requested by the Plaintiffs in recognition of the City of Dallas’ violation of the Overpasses members’ Free Speech and Freedom of Assembly rights, and provided a settlement amount for attorneys’ fees and costs.

Before the enactment of the City’s ordinance, the North Dallas Chapter of Overpasses for America had held over 75 demonstrations on the pedestrian overpasses in Dallas, without a single traffic incident. Nevertheless, the City Council moved forward with the restrictive ordinance under the guise that it was necessary for public safety.

Overpasses for America is a nonpartisan grassroots movement that calls for accountability among our nation’s leaders. Overpasses for America demonstrators frequently use pedestrian overpasses to spread their messages and to reach a large and diverse audience. Several cities, however, have sought to silence these concerned citizens.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of TMLC, stated: “The concerns of a majority of Americans on crucial public issues have little impact on the Washington political establishment. That’s why it’s so important to defend the free speech rights of grassroots organizations like Overpasses for America, whose members feel it’s their patriotic duty to get their message out and mobilize their fellow citizens.”

TMLC is currently representing two plaintiffs in a case challenging a similar ordinance in the Town of Campbell, Wisconsin—that case is currently pending before the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Hamas-linked CAIR ejects Breitbart reporter from anti-Ben Carson press conference

“We believe in a conversation,” Awad said, but Hamas-linked CAIR really only wants a conversation with those who toe its line. In reality, Hamas-linked CAIR works hard to shut down, demonize and marginalize anyone who speaks honestly about the jihad threat. The only conversation they want is one with their sycophants in the mainstream media and the Obama Administration.

It’s a manifestation of a deep insecurity, as well as an underlying authoritarianism and thuggery, for Hamas-linked CAIR to expel Munro and bar him from the premises. It demonstrates that underneath all Hooper’s bluster, he is a coward: he knows he can’t counter what Munro says, and can’t answer any probing questions (as opposed to the loving softballs he routinely gets from the mainstream media), so he has to resort to strongarm tactics. There are cowardly little bullies like Hooper all over America today — on college campuses, in the media, in politics, and in general almost every place where there used the possibility of free and honest discourse.

Munro Hooper

“CAIR’s Islamists Eject Breitbart From Their Anti-Carson Press Conference,” by Neil Munro, Breitbart, September 21, 2015:

Islamic advocates ejected a Breitbart News reporter from a Sept. 21 news conference in Washington D.C. The Council on American-Islamic Relations was hosting the event to complain about Dr. Ben Carson’s criticism of Islamic intolerance.

Ibrahim Hooper, an American convert to the 1,200 year-old religion, also threatened to eject the Breitbart reporter from any future conferences, and admitted in front of multiple TV cameras that he had ejected the reporter from a prior press conference.

Speakers at the event included CAIR’s co-founder Nihad Awad and several others. “We believe in a conversation,” Awad said. “What unites us as Americans is…. our Constitution,” he claimed.

At the end of the statements, Awad’s spokesman announced that Breitbart’s reporter he would not be allowed to ask questions during the short question and answer period.

Immediately after the question and answer session, Hooper intervened again to stop a conversation about Islam between Breitbart and one of the speakers.

“He is just one of the hate-mongers,” Hooper said about the Breitbart reporter. The CAIR speaker said he wanted to continue the conversation, but Hooper insisted that the reporter be forced out from the event. “Could you take it outside? We have you to leave. We have to ask him to leave. We have asked him to leave in previous news conferences, so we just ask you to leave, please,” Hooper said.

To clarify: “Yes, I’m throwing you out,” Hooper added.

U.S. soldiers ordered to ignore Afghan allies’ abuse of boys

What are we in Afghanistan for, if not to stand for our own values and the principles of human rights? Instead, U.S. officials are aiding and abetting the destruction of these boys’ lives — and in the case of Lance Corporal Buckley, sacrificing our own troops. This is beyond shameful.

“Those are the ones brought near in the Gardens of Pleasure, a company of the former peoples and a few of the later peoples, on thrones woven, reclining on them, facing each other. There will circulate among them young boys made eternal with vessels, pitchers and a cup from a flowing spring.” — Qur’an 56:11-18

“And they will be given to drink a cup whose mixture is of ginger, a fountain within Paradise named Salsabeel. There will circulate among them young boys made eternal. When you see them, you would think them scattered pearls. And when you look there, you will see pleasure and great dominion.” — Qur’an 76:17-20

afghan rape of little boys“U.S. Soldiers Told to Ignore Afghan Allies’ Abuse of Boys,” by Joseph Goldstein, New York Times, September 20, 2015:

KABUL, Afghanistan — In his last phone call home, Lance Cpl. Gregory Buckley Jr. told his father what was troubling him: From his bunk in southern Afghanistan, he could hear Afghan police officers sexually abusing boys they had brought to the base.

“At night we can hear them screaming, but we’re not allowed to do anything about it,” the Marine’s father, Gregory Buckley Sr., recalled his son telling him before he was shot to death at the base in 2012. He urged his son to tell his superiors. “My son said that his officers told him to look the other way because it’s their culture.”

Rampant sexual abuse of children has long been a problem in Afghanistan, particularly among armed commanders who dominate much of the rural landscape and can bully the population. The practice is called bacha bazi, literally “boy play,” and American soldiers and Marines have been instructed not to intervene — in some cases, not even when their Afghan allies have abused boys on military bases, according to interviews and court records.

The policy has endured as American forces have recruited and organized Afghan militia to help hold territory against the Taliban. But soldiers and Marines have been increasingly troubled that instead of weeding out pedophiles, the American military was arming them in some cases and placing them as the commanders of villages — and doing little when they began abusing children.
Gregory Buckley Sr. believes the policy of looking away from sexual abuse was a factor in his son’s death.

“The reason we were here is because we heard the terrible things the Taliban were doing to people, how they were taking away human rights,” said Dan Quinn, a former Special Forces captain who beat up an American-backed militia commander for keeping a boy chained to his bed as a sex slave. “But we were putting people into power who would do things that were worse than the Taliban did — that was something village elders voiced to me.”

The policy of instructing soldiers to ignore pedophilia by their Afghan allies is coming under new scrutiny, particularly as it emerges that service members like Captain Quinn have faced discipline, even career ruin, for disobeying it.

After the beating, the Army relieved Captain Quinn of his command and pulled him from Afghanistan. He has since left the military.

Four years later, the Army is also trying to forcibly retire Sgt. First Class Charles Martland, a Special Forces member who joined Captain Quinn in beating up the commander….

The American policy of nonintervention was intended to maintain good relations with the Afghan police and militia units the United States has trained to fight the Taliban. It also reflected a reluctance to impose cultural values in a country where pederasty is rife, particularly among powerful men, for whom being surrounded by young teenagers can be a mark of social status.

Some soldiers believed that the policy made sense, even if they were personally distressed at the sexual predation they witnessed or heard about.

“The bigger picture was fighting the Taliban,” a former Marine lance corporal reflected. “It wasn’t to stop molestation.”

Still, the former lance corporal, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid offending fellow Marines, recalled feeling sickened the day he entered a room on a base and saw three or four men lying on the floor with children between them. “I’m not a hundred percent sure what was happening under the sheet, but I have a pretty good idea of what was going on,” he said.

But the American policy of treating pedophilia as a cultural issue has often alienated the villages whose children were being preyed upon. The pitfalls of the policy emerged clearly as American Special Forces soldiers began to form Afghan Local Police militias to hold villages that American forces had retaken from the Taliban in 2010 and 2011.

By the summer of 2011, Captain Quinn and Sergeant Martland, both Green Berets on their second tour in northern Kunduz Province, began to receive dire complaints about the Afghan Local Police units they were training and supporting.

First, one of the militia commanders raped a 14- or 15-year-old girl whom he had spotted working in the fields. Captain Quinn informed the provincial police chief, who soon levied punishment. “He got one day in jail, and then she was forced to marry him,” Mr. Quinn said.

When he asked a superior officer what more he could do, he was told that he had done well to bring it up with local officials but that there was nothing else to be done. “We’re being praised for doing the right thing, and a guy just got away with raping a 14-year-old girl,” Mr. Quinn said.

Village elders grew more upset at the predatory behavior of American-backed commanders. After each incident, Captain Quinn would gather the Afghan commanders and lecture them on human rights.

Soon another commander absconded with his men’s wages. Mr. Quinn said he later heard the commander had spent the money on dancing boys. Another commander murdered his 12-year-old daughter in a so-called “honor killing” for having kissed a boy. “There were no repercussions,” Mr. Quinn recalled.

In September 2011, an Afghan woman, visibly bruised, showed up at an American base with her son, who was limping. One of the Afghan police commanders in the area, Abdul Rahman, had abducted the boy and forced him to become a sex slave, chained to his bed, the woman explained. When she sought her son’s return, she herself was beaten. Her son had eventually been released, but she was afraid it would happen again she told the Americans on the base.

She explained that because “her son was such a good-looking kid, he was a status symbol” local commanders coveted, recalled Mr. Quinn, who did not speak to the woman directly but was told about her visit when he returned to the base from a mission later that day.

So Captain Quinn summoned Abdul Rahman and confronted him about what he had done. The police commander acknowledged that it was true, but brushed it off. When the American officer began to lecture about “how you are held to a higher standard if you are working with U.S. forces, and people expect more of you,” the commander began to laugh.

“I picked him up and threw him onto the ground,” Mr. Quinn said. Sergeant Martland joined in, he said. “I did this to make sure the message was understood that if he went back to the boy, that it was not going to be tolerated,” Mr. Quinn recalled….

Sergeant Martland, who received a Bronze Star for valor for his actions during a Taliban ambush, wrote in a letter to the Army this year that he and Mr. Quinn “felt that morally we could no longer stand by and allow our A.L.P. to commit atrocities,” referring to the Afghan Local Police.

The father of Lance Corporal Buckley believes the policy of looking away from sexual abuse was a factor in his son’s death, and he has filed a lawsuit to press the Marine Corps for more information about it.

Lance Corporal Buckley and two other Marines were killed in 2012 by one of a large entourage of boys living at their base with an Afghan police commander named Sarwar Jan.

Mr. Jan had long had a bad reputation; in 2010, two Marine officers managed to persuade the Afghan authorities to arrest him following a litany of abuses, including corruption, support for the Taliban and child abduction. But just two years later, the police commander was back with a different unit, working at Lance Corporal Buckley’s post, Forward Operating Base Delhi, in Helmand Province.

Lance Corporal Buckley had noticed that a large entourage of “tea boys” — domestic servants who are sometimes pressed into sexual slavery — had arrived with Mr. Jan and moved into the same barracks, one floor below the Marines. He told his father about it during his final call home.

Word of Mr. Jan’s new position also reached the Marine officers who had gotten him arrested in 2010. One of them, Maj. Jason Brezler, dashed out an email to Marine officers at F.O.B. Delhi, warning them about Mr. Jan and attaching a dossier about him.

The warning was never heeded. About two weeks later, one of the older boys with Mr. Jan — around 17 years old — grabbed a rifle and killed Lance Corporal Buckley and the other Marines.

Lance Corporal Buckley’s father still agonizes about whether the killing occurred because of the sexual abuse by an American ally. “As far as the young boys are concerned, the Marines are allowing it to happen and so they’re guilty by association,” Mr. Buckley said. “They don’t know our Marines are sick to their stomachs.”

The one American service member who was punished in the investigation that followed was Major Brezler, who had sent the email warning about Mr. Jan, his lawyers said. In one of Major Brezler’s hearings, Marine Corps lawyers warned that information about the police commander’s penchant for abusing boys might be classified. The Marine Corps has initiated proceedings to discharge Major Brezler.

RELATED ARTICLE: Hillary “appalled” that Trump questioner said Obama was a Muslim

List of 190 U.S. Agencies Receiving Muslim Refugees Released — 27 are in Florida

The Obama State Department has released a list of 190 agencies located in cities throughout the United States that will be releasing unvetted and unscreened Muslim “refugees” into Main Street, USA. Here’s the list:

Hiram Ruiz

Hiram Ruiz is the Director of Refugee Services in the Florida Department of Children and Families. Ruiz was born in Cuba and raised in Miami.

Ann Corcoran has been covering what is going on and it isn’t just the Obama administration who is neglecting their constitutional duties. It’s also a Republican-controlled House and Senate.

Corcoran writes:

Has Congress been shirking its duty for decades?  

Sure looks like it!  Because of the proposals to bring in as many as 100,000 Syrians in the next 12 months, there must be hearings!  Come on Trey Gowdy!  Come on Bob Goodlatte! Where are you?

History tells us that the House (and the Senate) have been shirking their duties under the Refugee Act of 1980 for twenty years!

One should not be surprised to find the designated terror group Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) behind trying to move some of these potential jihadists into areas like St. Louis.

Read more.

Florida has 27 cities on the list including Tampa, Tallahassee, Miami and Pensacola. According to Mr. Yuri Kaplun, Catholic Charities Relocation he has no knowledge of any refugees from the Middle East slated to arrive in Sarasota, thru his agency, during calendar year 2015. Further he states that his agency’s agreement is only to resettle persons that have family ties or a sponsor in the area.

Does this mean Islamic State terrorists are coming to the Sunshine State? Is this al Qaeda’s migration to Florida just prior to 9/11/2001 redux?

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Syrian Refugee Crisis is Not America’s Problem

Lobbying arm for refugee contractors holds press conference, wants 200,000 refugees and $2 billion in additional funding

Surge of Syrian Muslim refugees to hit U.S. in late 2015, Florida doomed

Pope takes in Christian Syrian family, so why can’t we?

Common Law Grand Juries: Myths and the Truth by Kathy Bolam

On Sept 6th, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune (SH-T) published an article on the front page titled:  “People’s jury idea gets some traction” by reporter Lee Williams.  On Tuesday, Sept 8th, Tom Lyons followed up with his comments and Wednesday Sept 9th the Opinion column was titled “Charter Review Board ‘jury’ idea is alarming”.  Each article was fraught with errors and unsubstantiated claims.

I sent the following letter to SH-T to point out the errors made by Mr. Williams and as of today they have not printed my letter or any letter written by other people.

Guest Columnist or Letter to the Editor

Re: Lee Williams 9/6 and Tom Lyons column 9/8 reporting on the People’s Grand Jury.

Both columnists omitted factual information.  Rather than use as much column space as they needed to discredit the people and Charter members as they did, I ask the people of Sarasota to listen to the actual presentation made to the Charter on May 13, 2015. On the computer, go to Sarasota County Government, at top right click on A – Z, arrow down to Charter Review Board, on the lower right select CRB links, and click Meeting Agendas, next screen click video on right for the May 12, 2015 meeting.  Arrow down to #8 on the left.  Listen to the actual presentation made at the Charter meeting.  If you have comments either pro or con, be sure to attend the next Charter Board Meeting on Wednesday, October 14th at 6PM in the County Building at 1669 Ringling Blvd.  Judge for yourself.

Correction:  The people presenting the People’s Grand Jury are not Sovereign Citizens and do not endorse the movement. Please name those people so we will know who they are.  Mr. Williams asked me about the Sovereign movement and I sent him information stating that We the People seeking an amendment to the Charter are not following that movement.  Mr. Williams ignored my information. I believe his source, the Anti-Defamation League sought to discredit us.

Omitted Information: The 5th Amendment of the Constitution allows the people to establish a Grand Jury that is not part of any government agency.  The leaders of People’s CLGJ have received appeals from local people who have had violations of the 5th, 7th and 8th Amendments of the US Constitution perpetrated against them.  Financially most are unable to hire an attorney to have their rights restored through the legal system.  Many of our current elected officials choose not to get involved in Constitutional issues, so where does a person go, who will listen.  Our taxes pay the attorneys that protect whatever government does, and then we have to pay our own attorney if we want justice.

Omitted Information: Supreme  Court Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority opinion in US v Williams in 1992 said “Because the Grand Jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it is clear that, as a general matter at least, no such “supervisory’ Judicial Authority exists……….in fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the People.”   Justice Scalia continued:  “The Grand Jury can investigate merely on the suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.  Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said that the Fifth Amendment’s constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge.”

I applaud the 4 members of the Charter Review Board that voted to examine the People’s Common Law Grand Jury in a Special Committee for having an open mind. After you listen to the Video of the proceedings of May 13th, you will be able to make your own judgment of the columnists reporting and this information.

I ask of Mr. Williams

How do you explain the words: “creating fake quasi-governmental groups like common law grand juries” when the 5th Amendment of the Bill of Rights acknowledges the establishment of Grand Juries and our Constitution is based on Common Law and Supreme Court Justice Scalia makes reference to it and when the Florida Constitution, Statute title 1, Chapter 2, Section 2.01 states “common law and certain statutes declared in force.”

Please name the city, state, date and criminal where police officers and federal agents have been killed by advocates of common law grand juries (not sovereign citizens).

Identify Roger Dowdell’s ties to the sovereign citizen movement.

Did the county officials become concerned that the People’s CLGJ might be closely examining their actions?  Don’t all the people in the County have that right to government? Are they trying to hide something?

Mr. Williams, you have been used and manipulated in doing this article by the Sarasota Elite Power Brokers both elected and un-elected.   You have slanted the topic in a slandering fashion. Is that your style of reporting?

The group of citizens in the People’s CLGJ are not trying to go around elected officials, they are exercising their right as each person in the county can, to be sure the elected officials are true to their oath and job description.

Mark Pitcavage of the Anti-Defamation League should continue to fight anti-Semitism and intolerance.  He has shown his intolerance and is guilty of accusing people whom he does not know. Has he or you interviewed any of Mr. Dowdell’s or Kathy Bolam’s friends, neighbors, relatives?  No, but he sure is good at accusations. Maybe, I should characterize him as anti-American and anti-Constitution because all his comments reflect that view.

Abraham Lincoln said “The people are the masters of both Congress and Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow men who pervert it.”      Maybe Sarasota officials have something to be concerned about and that’s why they are using the SHT to do their dirty work.

The Declaration of Independence (2nd paragraph) states: WE hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Right, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.  That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it and to institute new Government.”

The Charter Review Board is our local Constitution and We The People have the right to alter or abolish items from that document because all County elected officials are given their powers from US, THE GOVERNED.   Don’t allow anyone to tamper with the current Charter Review Board.  It’s our last bastion of Freedom.

kathy bolamABOUT KATHY BOLAM

Kathy Bolam has lived in Venice, Florida for 30 years with her husband Ed. They are parents to 9 Children, 25 grandchildren and 2 great-grandchildren.­

EDITORS NOTE: Interested readers may attend the next Charter Review Board meeting on Oct. 14th at 6:00 PM at the County building, 1660 Ringling Blvd, Sarasota, FL.

When Will the GOP Start Fighting?

The debt ceiling.

The Obama income tax hike.

The Obamacare fight.

The sequester caps.

The Cromnibus.

President Obama’s executive amnesty.

Now, Planned Parenthood.

When does the GOP start winning? Here’s a better question, more appropriate to the times, when does GOP leadership even begin fighting? The GOP leadership has forfeited every one of the above battles without much more than a token, ex-post-facto, response, long after the outcome of the battles were determined.

While the GOP leadership continues to view its own base as problematic and unreasonable, the base is in full revolt, viewing the GOP leadership as deceitful and ineffective.

While the GOP leadership continues to view its own base as problematic and unreasonable, the base is in full revolt, viewing the GOP leadership as deceitful and ineffective. Many in the grassroots community are leaning towards non-politicians in the early presidential selection process as a result of the continued failures of Party leadership. Most unfortunate is that the GOP leadership has made little effort to understand the frustrations of the base, or course correct itself and win back those who have knocked on the doors, waved the campaign signs, manned the polls, and donated their hard earned money. It is my sincere hope to be able to explain to them, in the simplest terms possible, why we have lost faith in their ability to do anything other than make flowery campaign promises.

First, what the heck is their strategy? Do they even have one?

They have forfeited nearly all of the important fights with nothing to show for it. Having campaigned for office myself I have found even the most passionate grassroots conservatives to be very reasonable when it involves using the political machinery to achieve conservative goals. Conservatives largely understand that not every legislative battle will be won but that principles matter and over time, principled votes, even if they fall short, will demonstrate to America that the GOP stands for something.

Being consistently on the right side of the debates on taxes, the debt, healthcare, defense, abortion, immigration, school choice and other issues important to conservatives would have earned GOP leadership a tremendous amount of “trust capital” with the base that would have afforded them some leeway in implementing a strategic legislative strategy. Stated simply, a history of principled leadership would have allowed them to lose a couple of short-term battles without significant consequences from the base because most of us would have understood that these short-term losses were critical towards marshalling resources for long-term, and lasting, Conservative victories.

Sadly, GOP leadership has no such political capital with the base because that’s not their strategy. Their strategy appears to be to forfeit the short-term battles, forfeit the long-term battles, and to do whatever it takes, and to say whatever it takes, to maintain power while ignoring most of what the Party actually stands for. How long do they think this can continue?

This is a fight with such a clear and distinct, right and wrong side that it’s hard to believe even the insulated GOP leadership team is having a tough time picking a side.

After punting on the debt ceiling, we wound up with the sequester spending caps which they then proceeded to punt on as well. After telling the base they would repeal Obamacare they forfeited that fight for a series of show votes, and many in GOP leadership have since moved on. Now we have the Planned Parenthood fight. This is a fight with such a clear and distinct, right and wrong side that it’s hard to believe even the insulated GOP leadership team is having a tough time picking a side. Then, doubling down on silly, they parrot the Left and the media’s ridiculous arguments about government shutdowns insisting, preemptively, that the shutdown would be the GOP’s own fault.

Yes, this is the utter fecklessness of this failed leadership team. A first-grader could follow, logically, that the GOP leadership CAN’T shut down the government. How can they shut down the government if they pass a proper budget, without funding for the organ traffickers at Planned Parenthood, using all of their assigned constitutional duties, and put that budget on the President’s desk? If the President refuses to sign that budget, knowing that his refusal to sign the budget will shut down the government, then the responsibility lies with him. Is this really that difficult for the allegedly bright people elected to GOP leadership on Capitol Hill to comprehend? Or, are they so afraid of the media, the Left, academia, the blogosphere, and just about anyone else with a platform, that they are afraid to take this common sense message to the American people?

If, as a Party, we are going to forfeit the short game, and the long game, because we are afraid to stand on principle, then what’s the point of the Party? If the constitutional power of the purse delegated to the congress is irrelevant, then why not just forfeit away the constitutional republic for a monarchy? Why continue to waste America’s time? Look no further for an explanation as to why there is a rebellion brewing in the ranks of the GOP. We are tired of being tired. We want our Party back and we refuse to waste another dollar, or another bead of sweat, on GOP leaders who are leading us across the eventual horizon of a political black hole.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The featured image of Senator Mitch McConnell is by Douglas Graham | AP Photo.