The Elephant in the Living Room

When Dwight Eisenhower left the White House in January 1961 he retired quietly to his farm in Gettysburg.  When Richard Nixon left the White House he retired to his seaside home in San Clemente to write a memoir and to begin the painful reconstruction of his shattered reputation.   When Jerry Ford left Washington he bought a house in Palm Springs and headed for the golf course.  When Ronald Reagan left the White House he retired quietly to his home in Pacific Palisades and to his ranch in the hills above Santa Barbara.  When George H.W. Bush left the White House, he retired to his home in Houston and to his seaside home on the rugged coast of Kennebunkport, Maine.  And when George W. Bush finished his second term he retired to his ranch in Crawford, Texas, and to a new home in Dallas.  In no case did any of those Republican ex-presidents attempt to insert themselves into the debate over the issues of the day, or waste their time sniping at their successors from the sidelines.

But now it appears that Barack Obama has something quite different in mind.  He has let it be known that he intends to remain in Washington, D.C., where he expects to establish something of a legacy by commenting regularly on a broad range of issues.  He may see himself as the “toast of the town” in Washington, adored by the masses and consulted by the mainstream media on everything from world peace to the pros and cons of the cross-handed putter grip, but his days of moving about town in long motorcades, with hundreds of aides at his beck and call, are over.  It remains to be seen how he’ll adapt to his new role, moving about Washington in a single black SUV with two Secret Service agents in the front seat, looking more like a one-car funeral than a once-powerful president.  He will learn very quickly that a failed ex-president with nothing more to offer than a toothy smile is not worth much more than… to quote former Democratic vice president John Nance Garner … “a bucket of warm piss.”

But what is most disturbing about the current transition is the number of liberals, Democrats, and media elites who refuse to accept the fact of Donald Trump’s victory and who continue to propagate the fiction that he is not a legitimately elected president.   This is an exceptionally dangerous game for liberals and Democrats to be playing, given that the Democrat who has just vacated the White House has still not provided, to this day, convincing proof of who he is.

It is an indisputable fact that two of Obama’s principal identifying documents… his draft registration card and his long form Hawaiian birth certificate… are both rather clumsy forgeries, while the Social Security number he uses on his state and federal tax returns is not his own and will not pass a simple Social Security E-Verify test.

When Obama was first elected in 2008, it was the fundamental imperative and inherent responsibility of the delegates to the Democratic national convention, the leadership of the Democratic Party, the Democratic members of the Electoral College, and the members of the U.S. House and Senate… Democrats and Republicans alike… to assure themselves of his qualifications and his constitutional eligibility.  They all failed, utterly, in that responsibility.

Unfortunately, when it comes to political advantage or disadvantage, Democrats have no qualms about such things.  When the members of the House and Senate met in joint session on January 6, 2017 to certify the election of Donald Trump and Mike Pence, a number of Democrats rose to object… precisely what House and Senate Republicans should have done in January 2009, and again in January 2013, but failed to do so for fear of creating turmoil in the black community.

While some might assume that Obama intends to play the role of the “spoiler” for the Trump administration, that assumption overstates the role that he might play as a former president.  And while he clearly sees himself as the hero of the leftward march, he gives himself far too much credit.  He may be liked, personally, by millions of Americans who fail to separate the man from his politics, but as a leader of the free world he has been an abysmal failure.

Now, as he leaves the White House and members of his party continue to make false claims regarding Trump’s legitimacy, the specter of Obama’s own lack of eligibility looms large over the nation’s capital.  Although inside-the-beltway Republicans and political pundits have not as yet recognized it as such, Obama’s constitutional ineligibility may yet be the “elephant in the living room” of the current political environment.  And if Democrats persist, a vengeful Donald Trump might be searching for a major diversion to keep Obama busy.  How could he better accomplish this end than by causing an enterprising investigative reporter, eager to earn a Pulitzer, to begin digging into the question of Obama’s presidential eligibility, retrospectively?

Few Trump supporters have forgotten the shameless treatment he received at the April 30, 2011, White House Correspondents dinner when Obama and “Saturday Night Live” comic, Seth Meyers, used him as a human punching bag, ridiculing him unmercifully from the podium.  Many feel certain that, it was in that moment in time, that Trump’s need to seek the ultimate revenge became the deciding factor in his decision to run for president of the United States.

But why was he there?  He was not a White House correspondent and he was certainly not a member of the Washington political elite.  According to an April 28, 2016 Washington Post story by writer Roxanne Roberts, “In 2011, Trump had become more than a reality TV star.  He was one of the leaders of the ‘birther’ movement, a loud campaign that insisted that Obama had not been born in the United States and was not eligible for the presidency.  Although the claim was discredited, Trump (publicly toying with a presidential campaign) remained unconvinced of the president’s citizenship.  The story was everywhere; Hawaii released Obama’s original long-form birth certificate just days before the April 30 dinner.”

In questioning why Trump was invited to the dinner, it is important to recall that just days earlier, on April 13, 2011, Obama gave then-House Budget Committee Chairman, Paul Ryan, a public dressing-down.  In a budget speech delivered at George Washington University, Obama ridiculed the budget proposal by House Republicans unmercifully, while Ryan sat, stone-faced and unamused, in the front row… literally within spitting distance of Obama.  And while Obama later insisted that he was unaware that Ryan had been invited to the event, what we have come to know about Obama’s political instincts tells us that the public humiliation of Ryan was carefully planned, a well-thought-out political ambush, as was Trump’s presence at the April 30 White House Correspondents dinner just two weeks later.

The Post story continued,

“Word that Trump was attending as a guest of The Post landed in the newsroom with a thud.  Inviting a reality star was fine.  Inviting a leading voice of the ‘birthers’ was a problem for many reporters, who were concerned that it appeared as though one of America’s most respected newspapers was giving Trump (and by extension, ‘birthers’) credibility.”

As The Post writer described the scene, the audience had been consuming “adult beverages” for more than three hours.  And when Obama rose to speak the “Hulk Hogan” theme song “Real American” blared from the sound system while a representation of Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate flashed on video screens around the room.  Noting that Trump was in the audience, Obama said, “Now, I know that he’s taken some flak lately, but no one is happier, no one is prouder to put this birth certificate matter to rest than The Donald.  And that’s because he can finally get back to focusing on the issues that matter… like, did we fake the moon landing? (laughter)  What really happened in Roswell? (laughter)  And… where are Biggie and Tupac? (laughter)”

Then, speaking directly to Trump, he said, “But all kidding aside, obviously, we all know about your credentials and breadth of experience. (laughter)  For example – no, seriously, just recently, in an episode of ‘Celebrity Apprentice’ – at the steakhouse, the men’s cooking team did not impress the judges from Omaha Steaks.  And there was a lot of blame to go around.  But you, Mr. Trump, recognized that the real problem was a lack of leadership. (laughter)  And so ultimately, you didn’t blame Lil Jon or Meatloaf. (laughter)  You fired Gary Busey. (laughter)  And these are the kind of decisions that would keep me up at night. (laughter)  Well handled, sir.  Well handled. (laughter)”

When it was Seth Meyers’ turn at the podium he continued the evisceration by saying,

“Donald Trump has been saying he will run for president as a Republican… which is surprising, since I just assumed he was running as a joke. (laughter)

“Trump owns the Miss USA Pageant, which is great for Republicans, because it will streamline their search for a vice president. (laughter)

“Donald Trump said recently he’s got a great relationship with ‘the blacks.’  Unless the Blacks are a family of white people, I bet he’s mistaken. (laughter)”

New Yorker Magazine writer Adam Gopnik sat just a few tables away where he was not only able to observe Trump but also believed that he could read Trump’s mind.  He later wrote,

“On that night, Trump’s own sense of public humiliation became so overwhelming that he decided, perhaps at first unconsciously, that he would, somehow, get his own back – perhaps even pursue the Presidency after all, no matter how nihilistically or absurdly, and redeem himself.”

Given what we already know about Obama’s lack of presidential eligibility, Trump would be a fool not to use that powerful weapon to destroy him.  And so long as liberals, Democrats, and the mainstream media continue to question Trump’s legitimacy, Obama would be wise to simply fold his tent and quietly sneak out of town… while he still can.

Donald Trump is the sort of man who understands that “revenge is a dish best served cold,” and it is his seething, unquenchable thirst for revenge against Barack Obama that is “the elephant in the living room,” circa 2017.

ISIS Using Drones To Kill Civilians and Soldiers in Mosul

Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) is using attack drones to drop grenades while fighting to keep hold of the Iraqi city of Mosul. Captured by ISIS in 2014, Iraq’s second largest city is in the process of being recaptured from the terrorist group by the Iraqi army.

One strike in eastern Mosul, which has been liberated by Iraqi national forces, wounded eight people.

Previously, ISIS was known to use drones for surveillance purposes. Now the drones have been upgraded to be used as attack weapons. “This is the first time I’ve heard of ISIL dropping weapons from a drone,” Iraqi special forces medic Colonel Khalil Jawad told The Telegraph.

ISIS is thought to be using easily-purchasable hobbyist drones such as quadracoptors along with slightly larger fixed-wing aircraft.

As this technology advances, ISIS and other terrorist groups will come up with new ways to apply the technology to terrorism.

They have already used social media to their benefit, using it to recruit people online to their cause. They have used cars and trucks to carry out terrorist attacks in Europe and Israel.

In the latest issue of Al-Qaeda’s propaganda magazine Al-Risalah, the magazine explains to jihadists how to use the deep web to communicate effectively without alerting the watchful eye of the state.

Until the underlying ideology fuelling jihadist terrorism is addressed, coping with each developing security threat as new technologies and methods of slaughter emerge will simply be a game of wack-a-mole.


ISIS Graphic Video: Kids’ Shooting Exercise With Living Targets

Teens Fighting With ISIS Captured

Child Terrorists Come to Europe

Islamic State Moving Fighters to Turkey

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is an illustrative picture of a Quadracopter drone. (Photo: © Creative Commons/Simon Jardine)

Treating the Six Known Symptoms of ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’

I suspect all of us who are on social media, or are known to have voted for Donald Trump, have felt the escalating malice and name-calling from Trump-haters, now nobly referring to themselves as #theresistance. Yeah, they’re the flippin’ French Underground fighting the Nazis.

What we are seeing is the worldview epidemic of Trump Derangement Syndrome, which can be defined as an irrational level of hatred of Donald Trump the man, the businessman, the husband, the father, the candidate, the President.

All hate all the time, to the point that many are professing upfront that they will never accept him as president (including sitting congressmen such as John Lewis) and plan marches against the Great Oppressor before he is even sworn in as president. Yes, the derangement reached the point that a businessman who had no effect on almost anyone’s life, and was given awards for his work with the inner city (see picture) was protested as an oppressor before he had any power whatsoever.

Since this contagion is spreading among one type of political person, and they live among us all, herewith are some treatment options you can try on those suffering from the disease. There’s no cure beyond a worldview revelation and some historic context, which will be difficult to realize while suffering under this, but there are treatments to lessen the severity of certain symptoms.

Symptom 1: Trump is an illegitimate president

The disease here forces its sufferers to undermine a newly elected United States President before he is inaugurated. This means making the case that the President of the United States is not really president. Dangerous to the country, delusional for the individual.

Treatment: Suggest that this overt anti-patriotism is unbecoming of Americans who have a history of pulling together after an election, even Republicans after the two elections of Barak Obama. No Republicans acted in such ways. Further, point out that the last newly elected Republican president that bitter Democrats did this to was Abraham Lincoln. Heads will spin. Spittle may fly. But Trump Derangement Syndrome is not contagious by touch. It’s an infection of the rational thought process.

Further treatment for this syndrome is listing all of the items that have been blamed for Trump’s win (none of which ever actually include Hillary Clinton.) The first thing blamed was the racist Electoral College. (Sorry, but you just need to understand that sufferers see everything as racist.) The popular vote is what should count! Hillary is our President! Well, no. The rules are the rules and we don’t change rules after a game is concluded because the losers don’t like the results. Then it was fraud in Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania and Jill Stein was going to uncover it. There was fraud all right, but not committed by Trump voters. Then it was another try at FBI Director Jim Comey. If not for Comey, Hillary would have won. Well, if she hadn’t played the Nixon card and deleted 33,000 emails from her unsecured server that had classified documents and more on it, there would have been no need for Comey. And now finally, it’s the Russians.

The disease comes with a fever.

Symptom 2: Putin/Russia hacked the election

Since Russia “hacked” the election on Trump’s behalf — or so the claim goes — then Trump will be in the back pocket of the Russians and will go easy on them.

Treatment: Very easy. Treat with context. Point out that he couldn’t go easier on them than Obama/Clinton did. After the embarrassing “reset” button — remind them how terrible they claimed relations were because of Bush to set the first context — point out that the Obama administration did nothing when Russia invaded and took over Crimea; nothing when Russia invaded eastern Ukraine and appears to have annexed it; and nothing in Syria despite the cries for help, allowing the Russians to go back in for the first time since the Cold War to help their old ally crush the rebels ruthlessly. This gave us the humanitarian disaster that is Aleppo.

Trump could hardly do worse than this record.

Symptom 3: Outrage over a foreign nation interfering with our elections

This is meant to keep focus on the nefarious Russian nemesis that now owns Trump and further the narrative that the Trump presidency is illegitimate. (Actually, Russia really is a problem that Obama’s weakness enabled and emboldened and is now leaving for his predecessor.)

Treatment: Easiest yet. Casually point out that the Obama Administration overtly worked to defeat Brexit and made threats that Britain would no longer enjoy its trade status under a Bexit approval. No outrage though by those suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome. Add that Obama’s campaign team was sent to Israel to work on behalf of Benjamin Netanyahu’s opponent. Again, no outrage by those suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome. In 1996, the Clinton Administration tried to bolster the election of Boris Yeltsin by endorsing a $10.2 billion loan from the IMF that was to be linked to privatization, more open trade policies further steps toward capitalism. Yeltsin used the loan to bolster support among voters. And, once again, no outrage by those suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome. This symptom is a classic case of selective outrage and reveals mere partisanship and nothing higher.

It’s unknown the course this syndrome will take, but with treatment, we hope it can be managed and those suffering from it will over time regain their proper faculties.

Symptom 4: Fight the Oppressor!

The claim that Donald Trump was a great oppressor gained currency weeks before he was elected. A businessman with no power and who had no effect on almost anyone’s life, and was given awards alongside Muhammad Ali and Rosa Parks, was protested as a racist oppressor before he had any power whatsoever. That’s TDS.

Treatment: It’s important that those suffering from this symptom be treated with some honest context. While Trump had no power to oppress, President Obama did. And did.

First, the Obama Administration sicked the most feared of U.S. institutions, the IRS, directly on his political opponents. Any group seeking tax exempt status that had Tea Party or Conservative in its name was targeted for denial through attrition. Dozens of those applied — a relatively quick and simple process — but were run through the wringer, some for years, until they ran out of money to keep filing. They never received that and so could not raise money to oppose President Obama’s 2012 reelection. Obama denied Americans their Constitutional rights to further his personal political career. That was oppressive.

Second, Obamacare fines people for not buying a product President Obama decided Americans should buy. That’s oppressive and would have been unconstitutional but for a politicized Supreme Court.

Symptom 5: Protests, threats of impeachment before he’s president

I wanted to start a pretend pool on how long it would take for sufferers of Trump Derangement Syndrome to call for impeaching Trump after the moment of inauguration. Measured in months, weeks, days, hours or seconds. Well, I was too late, because calls for impeachment began before he was sworn into office. No matter, there will be members of Congress who will call for it within days, weeks at the longest

Treatment: Inform the TDS sufferers that there are actually tight controls on impeachment, and they do not include vulgar behavior or ideas with which opponents disagree.

Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, is helpful here: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Symptom 6: 66 members of Congress boycotted the inauguration

Clearly, Trump Derangement Syndrome has affected the highest levels of our government — if not the actual strongest of our people. A rather astounding 34 percent of the Democrat members of Congress boycotted the inauguration and were cheered on by other fevered sufferers of TDS. It was a tragic moment for them and an embarrassment.

Treatment: Remind TDS sufferers that one of the greatnesses of the United States is the peaceful transition of power between political opponents. Since the Civil War, this has always been the case. The Obamas, the Clintons, the Carters, along with the Bushes, all participated in this American truth. All handled with dignity and class — which could not have been easy for Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama. But they did it.

We will update symptoms and treatment as they become visible and available.

EDITORS NOTE: The column is a combination of two columns which originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

Suggestion for President Trump: Save up to $45 billion by cutting International Rescue Committee funding

Everyday I start my day at around 5 a.m. with CNN.  I recommend that you all consider doing that (not necessarily at that hour!) because it is so informative to see how they spin the news each and every day. Kind of fires me up to get to work!


David Miliband (left) and George Soros.

In 2013, Miliband awarded George Soros the IRC’s Freedom Award (this is not a joke, or fake news!).

This morning CNN showed a clip of the International Rescue Committee’s CEO David Miliband whining (in his snooty British accent!) about Trump’s EO on refugees.  I tried to find the clip just now, but couldn’t.  But it doesn’t matter.

This is what you need to know (especially you lazy reporters who never mention that the refugee contractors, including the IRC, are largely taxpayer funded while you pretend their intentions are pure as the driven snow!).

The IRC is one of the nine major federally funded refugee contractors.

David Miliband is a British national who came over from the UK a few years back to run the International Rescue Committee which places refugees in a couple dozen US cities. He was a former Foreign Secretary and is the brother of ‘Red’ Ed.


The International Rescue Committee had an annual income stream of $688,920,920 for the year ending September 2015 according to ‘Charity Navigator.’ 

66.5% of that income came from you—the U.S. taxpayer!


Miliband is paid annual compensation of $591,846! What the h*** does he do for that kind of money? Doing well by doing good, but is he?


And, here is where the IRC is placing refugees in America (screenshot from their website):

Think about it! A rich British elitist is changing American cities and we taxpayers pay him to do it!So my suggestion to the President is to begin balancing the US budget by cutting off the supposed humanitarians, especially the foreign ones being paid handsome salaries out of the US Treasury! Let them raise PRIVATE money from those who want refugees seeded throughout America. Heck, the US taxpayer could save almost a half a billion bucks annually by pulling them off the federal teat!

We have a lot more on Miliband (Hillary had a crush on him, he likes her smile), click here for more.


U.S. Cases of refugees arrested or convicted on terror charges, and other heinous crimes

NYT reports first hardship story as refugees entering the US last evening being detained

Judge orders ‘stay’ of Trump’s executive action for arriving refugees

Twin Falls, Idaho: Former Idaho Chief Justice calls out Breitbart and World Net Daily for their refugee coverage

North Dakota: Bill introduced to try to get some local/state control of refugee program

How U.S. Charities Fund Terror — Some with your tax dollars

Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society bringing Syrian Muslims to Philly

It’s Naive to Think Not One of the Millions of Aliens in the U.S. is Voting

It’s now officially an issue: illegal aliens are voting. President Donald Trump has announced a major investigation into the charges and counter charges surrounding this phenomenon. At Judicial Watch, however, it’s nothing new. We’ve had our eye on this for years, and our Election Integrity Project  was active in monitoring polling places in the most recent election.

I was interviewed some time ago (when the issue was first raised around the November election) by Breitbart Daily News about illegal voting, and I want to share that with you. Here is a report at Breitbart on the interview:

On…Breitbart News Daily, SiriusXM host Alex Marlow asked Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton about a study from the Center for Immigration Studies that revealed that “there could be as many as 43 million non-citizens in the United States right now.” Fitton had previously spotlighted this study on Twitter as evidence of potential voter fraud issues.

“There’s 43 million people who are not citizens and are ineligible to vote, but a good percentage of them do register to vote. And of those that do, some vote,” Fitton explained.

“Most tend to vote Democrat. It’s a fact,” he continued. “There’s been a study out of Old Dominion University that shows it is enough of a vote to sway elections, one way or another. It may have resulted in election, specifically, of Al Franken to the United States Senate, and all the bad things politically or public policy-wise that happened as a result, like Obamacare and things like that.”

“Are we supposed to be so naive as to think that tens of millions of people are here, present in the United States, and none of them are illegally voting?” Fitton asked. “In states where you don’t have voter ID, in states where most voter registration, you’re not required to certify citizenship, other than signing and saying you’re a citizen?”

“It happens repeatedly where you have these voter registrations signed by aliens because they shouldn’t be voting, so they’re registered to vote – and the irony is, once they’re registered to vote, voter ID ain’t gonna protect you,” he noted, “because they have the ID necessary to vote, once they’re registered. So you have many non-citizens voting in elections, and they vote in large numbers in a way to sway elections.”

“The number of non-citizens in the United States are at record proportions – about as big as it’s been in 105 years, according, I think, to CIS, the Center for Immigration Studies,” he observed. “It is looking at U.S. Census data, and there’s just been this massive uptick, just even the last few years.”

“And it’s not just illegal aliens. We’re talking about aliens who are here legallywho are also voting illegally,  potentially,” he added. “That’s why we’re gonna be in Virginia, trying to monitor elections, because we know this is an issue. This is one of the issues that can lead to voter fraud and a stolen election.”

The Washington Times published a big story today following up on this issue and featuring JW:

But conservative activists say the liberal media are ignoring evidence – that noncitizen voting is illegal and, thus, fraud. They say the Justice Department in the Obama administration was more concerned with preventing states from cleansing rosters of dead and inactive voters than in mounting any investigation into fraud.

“Most voters are never asked for voter ID, so it is dishonest to suggest that with the tens of millions of illegal and legal aliens here, there is no voter fraud,” said Tom Fitton, who heads the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch. “If the key Old Dominion study results on the 2008 election are applied to 2016 – 1.41 million aliens may have voted illegally, with 1.13 million voting for Democrats.”

“A federal voter fraud investigation is long overdue,” Mr. Fitton said. “It would be a simple matter of analyzing voter registration databases against federal databases of aliens and deceased individuals. Why is the left afraid to even ask the questions? The jig is up.”

President Trump is right.  A full-scale, non-partisan federal voter fraud investigation is long overdue.  I’m not aware of any systematic federal investigation of voter fraud – ever.  Initially, such an investigation would be a simple matter of analyzing voter registration databases against federal databases of aliens and deceased individuals.

Judicial Watch’s Election Integrity team, headed up by Robert Popper, former deputy chief of the Voting Section in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, would be more than happy to help.

In the meantime, you can sample our comprehensive efforts on election integrity here.

VIDEO: Fox News’ Tucker Carlson eviscerates former US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ lobbyist

There is so much I could start with today, but this has to be it!  If you want to start your day with a smile, watch this! Hat tip: Rosemary

Obviously Carlson has done his homework on the UN/US Refugee Admissions Program, especially as it relates to the taxpayer-funding the nine major refugee contractors receive to do their “Christian” charity. A national news outlet is finally reporting on the fact that money (your money) runs the US refugee program!

Kevin Appleby laughably claims that ISIS and other Islamists are going to hate us even more now!

Yes, maybe because President Donald Trump has slowed their migration (Hijra!) to America!

To learn more about the extremely controversial EO signed by Trump last night, go here.

We have written about Kevin Appleby many times over the years during his time as a lobbyist for the US Conference of Catholic BishopsClick here to read those posts.

One thing that has always troubled me is the 2013 trip by the USCCB to Central America and subsequent report, penned by Appleby, which predicted the huge wave of invading ‘children’ that swamped our border beginning in earnest within months of the trip.

Maybe the Trump team could investigate what happened on that trip—did the Bishops encourage the migration of the ‘children?’

Who benefited financially from that huge influx of ‘Unaccompanied alien children?’ The USCCB and Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services (two of the nine major refugee contractors) which have been paid for years to take care of the ‘children’ as their ‘Christian charitable’ work, for refugees and for the illegal alien children.

To learn more about what President Trump’s executive order on refugees contains, click here.


U.S. Cases of refugees arrested or convicted on terror charges, and other heinous crimes

Trump bans Syrian refugees, restricts entry from Muslim states

New Study Emphasizes Islamism as Foreign Fighters’ Main Motivation by IPT

Trump’s Immigration Actions Reverse Obama’s Open Borders Policy

Another way to skin the cat: Starve the UN beast

Disinformation Campaign on the Hearing Protection Act Continues [Video]

This month the Hearing Protection Act of 2017 was introduced in the Senate by Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) with co-sponsors Sens. Jerry Moran (R-KS) and Rand Paul (R-KY) as S.59. Representatives Jeff Duncan (R-SC) and John Carter (R-TX) – together with 42 co-sponsors – introduced a similar bill in the House as H.R. 367.

The bill would remove suppressors from the provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA), which requires buyers to pay a $200 tax and undergo an enhanced background check that can take up to nine months to complete. Suppressors would continue to be regulated like non-NFA firearms, which require a background check when sold by a licensed firearms dealer or across state lines.

Not surprisingly, anti-gun advocates and their media allies are furious that the gun community would dare remove an onerous and unnecessary law that limits their ability to protect against hearing loss while target shooting and hunting.

Washington Post reporter Michael S. Rosenwald announced that “violence prevention advocates are outraged that the industry is trying to ease silencer restrictions by linking the issue to the eardrums of gun owners.” Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times piled on, declaring that the naming of the “Hearing Protection Act” was “so absurdly transparent an effort to deceive that voters may be prompted to ask an obvious question: ‘What are they hiding?’”

Joining the anti-gun tirade, Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center contended that “they want the general public to think it’s about hearing aids or something,” arguing that “when the general public finds out what’s really happening, there will be outrage.” Kristin Brown of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence went so far as to argue “there’s no evidence of a public health issue associated with hearing loss from gunfire.

Let that sink in.  A representative of the Brady Campaign argues that there is no evidence of hearing loss from gunfire.  One is left to wonder if their zealotry blinds them to the truth or if they really are that ill-informed on firearms and their use.

Other anti-gun advocates argue that “silent” guns make it easier to commit crimes, citing YouTube videos and television shows where silencers reduce a gunshot to a faint cough. Professor Robert J. Spitzer, writing in the Washington Post, even argued that deafening noise “is an important safety feature of any firearm” and that “the lifesaving safety benefits of gun noise should weigh far more in the silencer debate.”

Supporters of so-called “common sense gun safety” are willfully blind to the reality that clear, objective scientific evidence demonstrates that suppressors prevent hearing loss. Noise-Induced Hearing Loss and tinnitus are high-priority health issues – and the only type of hearing loss that is completely preventable.

The benefits of suppressors are scientifically proven. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) have both determined that even a single noise over 140 decibels causes hearing loss. The peak sound pressure of a gunshot ranges from a low of 144 decibels (.22 caliber rifle) to 172 decibels (.357 caliber revolver). A suppressor reduces the sound by approximately 30 decibels. In consequence, even suppressed firearms are loud – about 120-130 decibels – and louder than a car horn three feet away. It is, therefore, both inconsistent and illogical for the government to recommend – and even legally mandate – noise abatement for loud machines like lawn mowers and chainsaws while simultaneously setting large regulatory hurdles that discourage suppressor use with firearms.

Furthermore, suppressed firearms are not the choice of criminals, and the more than 100-year history of suppressors in both the United States and Europe demonstrates that anti-gun fearmongering is unfounded. A study of the criminal use of suppressors between 1995 and 2005 found only 15 used in crimes – and only two instances of being used in a murder. Indeed, as the number of federally-registered suppressors has nearly quadrupled in the last decade (from 150,364 in 2006 to 902,805 in 2016), the Violence Policy Center can identify only a scant handful of crimes committed with them. As Chicago Tribune editorial board member Steve Chapman notes, “any useful technology can be put to villainous ends,” and common sense demonstrates that the existing rule on silencers is “a major hassle for the law-abiding” while being “an irrelevance to criminals.”

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Violence Policy Center are counting on public ignorance and disinformation to derail a legitimate effort to allow gun owners to protect their hearing and the hearing of those around them. Armed with facts and scientific evidence, the National Rifle Association urges its members to contact their lawmakers to support the Hearing Protection Act of 2017.

You can contact your member of Congress via our Write Your Reps tool by clicking HERE or use the Congressional switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

Congress Set to Roll Back Social Security Gun Ban

Next week, Congress is expected to begin the review and potential repeal of a host of Obama Administration regulations put in place during the last 60 days of Obama’s tenure under the Congressional Review Act (CRA).  Among the regulations specifically targeted for action is the Obama-era Social Security Administration (SSA) gun grab, enacted in the waning days of the anti-gun president’s tenure.

As we reported last month, the rule would for the first time in the nation’s history co-opt the SSA into a gun control apparatus by labeling certain Supplemental Security Income and Disability recipients as “mental defectives” and reporting them to the FBI’s gun ban database. Possession of firearms by these individuals would then become a federal felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

The rule, as the SSA itself has admitted, has nothing to do with the individuals’ propensity for violence or self-harm. Rather, the affected persons would be mostly law-abiding individuals singled out because they receive benefits for any of a wide-range of mental disorders (e.g., anxiety, bulimia, obsessive compulsive disorder, etc.) and have a representative payee assigned to help them manage their SSA funds. The Obama White House estimated that some 75,000 people would be reported each year under the new guideline.

While the rule would require reported beneficiaries to be notified of their banned status, it would not give them a chance to defend their suitability to exercise their Second Amendment rights until after they had already been prohibited. At that point, they would be required to file a petition, at their own expense, for “relief from disabilities.” The rule requires petitioners to obtain an expensive and time-consuming mental health evaluation and to disprove risks to the public safety and interest the government never established, or even tried to establish, in the first place.

More than 91,000 comments were submitted on the rule, the overwhelming majority of them in opposition to it. Comments submitted by mental health professionals and advocates for the mentally ill pointed out that the proposal was not supported by evidence or science, added to the stigma of mental illness, and created disincentives for mentally ill persons to seek help and benefits to which they are entitled.

Yet the SSA brushed all these concerns aside in rushing the rule to completion before Barack Obama left office. Confronted with evidence that the rule was illegal, unconstitutional, counter-productive, and would do nothing to further public safety, the SSA simply asserted it was necessary to fulfill a bureaucratic imperative urged on the agency by the Obama Department of Justice.

It’s a shame that the already crowded congressional calendar has to be burdened simply with clearing the minefield Barack Obama intentionally laid to stall and hinder his successor. But it’s encouraging that Congress is taking such swift action to do exactly that.

NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox praised the move in statements to the press on Wednesday. “Congress’ decision to review the Obama administration’s back-door gun grab is a significant step forward in protecting a fundamental constitutional right for law-abiding gun owners,” he said.

You can help by contacting your Congressional representative and urging him or her to vote “yes” on the joint resolution to overturn the SSA’s gun ban rule under the Congressional Review Act. Use the Write Your Federal Lawmakers feature on the NRA-ILA’s website or call the Congressional Switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

True Hatred Exposed

We regret to inform you of a shocking verbal attack launched against me and the courageous Ayaan Hirsi Ali, by an Islamic extremist named Linda Sarsour.

Although Sarsour’s disgusting verbal assault took place back in 2011, it has only now been brought to light, given her active and particularly ironic involvement in the supposed women’s rights march, which took place last weekend in Washington, D.C.

WARNING: The language and content of these comments are extremely offensive.

march2.pngThese comments are all the more appalling when one considers that Ayaan Hirsi Ali was a victim of Female Genital Mutilation.

Sarsour’s comments, reprehensible as they are, do not surprise anyone who knows the truth about her radical ties.

Ms. Sarsour has been an open advocate for Sharia law, and has connections to terror groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and ISIS.

In fact, Sarsour has three known relatives who have been arrested for terrorist activity!

Sarsour had come under fire for her radical ties before a spotlight was recently shined on her jaw dropping comments about Gabriel and Ali.

march3.pngAs usual, the anti-American fringe defended her, and mainstream media refused to cover the truth behind Sarsour’s extremist connections.

march4.pngHere’s what the anti-American Southern Poverty Law had to say about their darling Sarsour:

“Islamophobes have been attacking #WomensMarch organizer @lsarsour. We stand with her against this type of hate and bigotry. #IMarchWithLinda”

So, what does this story tell you about groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center and other anti-American outlets who attack ACT for America as a “hate group?”

It tells you that they are the true haters. They are the bigots who cower under the cloak of political correctness, and seek to enable even the most dangerous radicals.

More to it, this uncovers the nefarious alliance between the far-left and radical Islam, and shows any rational citizen that the SPLC and other anti-American groups are not genuinely interested in human rights.

Rather, they are interested in the destruction of Western Judeo-Christian civilization, and willing to align with anyone who shares their devious vision.

Here are two survivors of Islamic extremism, Brigitte Gabriel, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, fighting for true women’s rights, and this Sharia sympathizing extremist attacks them with the most vile and hateful comments imaginable.

So now the question remains, will the mainstream media cover this abomination, or sweep it under the rug to continue their politically correct narrative about radical Islam?

For those who have Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram, we ask that you show your support for Brigitte and Ayaan, by using the hashtag #IStandWithBrigitteAndAyaan, which was started by Dave Rubin, host of The Rubin Report and an open-minded ally of true human rights.

Please check our social media pages and share with us why you stand with Brigitte and Ayaan against true hatred and radicalism.

Israel in Dispute

The New York Times is among the most sorely-biased mainstream media outlets for its pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel reportage. The editors and numerous offending writers ignore the watchdogs that continue to cite the Times for its inaccuracies and biases, refusing to be held accountable.

Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) and StandWithUs (SWU) are two of numerous groups that have called the paper out for its particularly jaundiced language to describe Israel-Palestinian issues.  Of all the disputed territories worldwide, only Israel’s has consistently been mischaracterized “occupied.” Of all the new home construction, only Israel’s is inaccurately called “settlements.” Islamic terrorism is given legitimacy with the use of “uprisings,” while Israel’s self-defense is publicized as “massacres, with an exaggerated body count that includes human shields designed to amplify Islamic “victim hood.”  By contrast, the horrific massacre of the Fogel family was under-reported and understated.  The reporters weep for the Palestinian children whose parents eagerly sacrifice them for an ideology and largess, but they scorn the Jewish victims.  These egregious deeds of false news, alternative or selected facts, are inexcusable pro-Islamic propaganda.

The NYT prefers the dictatorships that peddle totalitarian ideologies and the destruction of fundamental rights.  The reporters weep for the Palestinian children whose parents eagerly sacrifice them for an ideology and largess, but they scorn the Jewish victims.

Above criticism, the reporters subvert history, morality, and democracy. Their weapon of words is designed to market the Islamic cause and facilitate its ongoing civilizational jihad.  It is not unreasonable to suggest that the Times, by choosing a topic of assault already implemented by the Islamists, and then developing it into a viable concept, has become a shop window for terrorism, presenting a vendible narrative to educate the masses.

Contrary to all genuine world religions, the ideology of Islam has been territorial since its bloody conquest of Medina in the 7th century, through fourteen centuries and thousands of miles of what we now accept as the Islamic world, including Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, and parts of India and China.  They sacked the Romans and the Vatican in 846 (returning to Italy with a vengeance) and Christendom’s Constantinople in 1453.  They went as far as Iceland, and plundered America in the 1800s, when they captured citizens and sailors and sold them into slavery in Algiers.   They proceeded into Albania, Armenia, Austria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Crete, Cyprus, France, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Romania, Russia, Sardinia, Serbia, Sicily, Slovakia, Switzerland, and Ukraine, yet they paint Islam as a genuine religion and themselves as victims in a world of intolerance.

But always the battle is fiercest over Israel.  Where Muslims cannot migrate, flood the land, infiltrate the infidels and impose their rules for Western accommodation, they create a false narrative of previous existence and ownership, such as in Israel, with accusations that Jewish population growth is overtaking “Palestinian land.”  The Jewish population of the West Bank, historically and biblically called Judea and Samaria, has been part of the landscape for centuries.  Despite Arab revisionism and the New York Times’ insistence, the homes are not settlements and the territory is neither “occupied” nor Palestinian.

In 1994, Madeleine Albright, then-Ambassador to the UN, said, “We simply do not support the description of the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 war as ‘occupied Palestinian territory.’ In the view of my government, this language could be taken to indicate sovereignty; a matter which both Israel and the PLO have agreed must be decided in negotiations on the final status of the territories.  The land is “disputed.”  The mischievous and inaccurate term “occupied territories” should never be parroted by a journalist trained to value truth above all.

In 2013, Ambassador to Canada and expert in international law, Alan Baker, penned Ten Basic Points: Israel’s Right to Judea and Samaria.  He explained that the legality of the Judean and Samarian communities, stemming from the historic, indigenous and legal rights of the Jewish people to settle in the area, were granted pursuant to valid and binding international legal instruments accepted by the international community – and they remain undeniable and unquestionable.  The Palestinian leadership, in the still valid 1995 Interim Agreement (Oslo 2), agreed to and accepted Israel’s continued presence pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations, without restrictions of planning, zoning, home construction or communities.  Israel’s presence in the area is not illegal. This expert in international law affirmed that the “oft-used term in the UN resolutions ‘occupied Palestinian territories’ has no legal basis or validity whatsoever.”  The Palestinian leadership was to settle all outstanding issues (borders, settlements, security, Jerusalem and refugees) by negotiation only; their calls for preconditions or settlement freezes are in violation of the agreements.

When Israel took control of the area in 1967, as a result of its defensive war against the attacking Arabs, the Kingdom of Jordan did not have prior legal sovereignty and has since officially renounced such rights. When Israel became the administering power, she chose to implement the humanitarian provisions of the Geneva Convention to ensure basic day-to-day rights of the local populace as well as to protect her own forces. There are no special laws that apply to Israelis’ choosing to reside in Judea and Samaria; therefore, ‘settlement’ activity does not violate international law. No legal instrument has ever determined that the Palestinians had or have sovereignty over them.  Judea and Samaria remain in dispute between Israel and the Palestinians, subject only to the outcome of permanent status negotiations between the two parties.

These “settlements,” incidentally, are not rag-tag collections of huts, but fully functioning communities with public services such as transport, schools, shops, and libraries.
Any Palestinian attempt to unilaterally change the status of the territory would violate Palestinian commitments set out in the Oslo Accords and prejudice the integrity and continued validity of the various agreements with Israel, thereby opening up possible unilateral action by Israel.

After the election of President Donald Trump, the publisher and executive editor of the Times attempted an unprecedented outreach to their diminishing readership, professing a rededication to honest reporting.  Disappointingly, they followed with a promise for the same fairness, same level of scrutiny, and the same corruption of facts; and they continue to summarily award the land to Palestinians.  Despite the verification, The New York Times recently informed CAMERA that their reporters do not like and will not use the term “disputed.”

Now, the Palestinians are exploring new tactics to delegitimize Israel.  They brought suit in France against two French companies that were building a light rail system in Israel, but their efforts were to seriously backfire.

The bid took place in the 1990s, the rail was completed in 2011, and the system crossed Jerusalem to the east side into “occupied territories.”  Following the completion, the PLO filed a complaint that the tram construction was illegal since the UN, EU and many NGOs and governments consider Israel as illegally occupying Palestinian territories. The lawsuit was built upon a lie and serves as a perfect example of the power of words to falsify reality.

International legislation had to (1) establish whether the light rail construction was legal, (2) seek texts of international law, and (3) examine international treaties, in order to establish the respective rights of Palestinians and Israelis. This was the first time that an independent, non-Israeli court would examine the legal status of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria). Although this would not affect international law, it would clarify the legal reality.

The Versailles Court of Appeals considered all arguments on both sides, and concluded that propaganda (such as the PLO’s assessment) is not international law, that humanitarian law (conjured by the Palestinians) was not violated, and that the Palestinians have no rights, in the international legal sense, to the region, unlike Israel, who is legitimately entitled to occupy all the land beyond the ’67 line.  Inasmuch as Israel has real rights to the territories, its decision to build a light rail or anything else in that area is legal, and the judges rejected all arguments presented by the Palestinians.  The Court of Appeals sentenced the PLO (and Association France Palestine Solidarité AFPS (co-appellant) to pay 30,000 euros ($32,000) to each of the two construction companies.

In an historical trial carefully forgotten by the media, the 3rd Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Versailles declared that Israel is the legal occupant of the West Bank.  Not surprisingly, the New York Times did not report this story on their respected pages.

RELATED ARTICLES: Trump is right: Settlements don’t impede peace by Jeff Jacoby – The Boston Globe

How many Muslim migrants have entered the U.S. since President Trump’s Inauguration?

rpcLogoSmall [Converted]

For new readers, here is the Refugee Processing Center (Wrapsnet) website where you find the numbers of refugees entering the U.S.—where they are from and where they are going.

Click here and see the various choices you can make in pulling up data. Try it yourself!

By the way, this was information not available to the general public for many of the early years of RRW.  It was a password protected site.

The problem (and one that caught me yesterday) is that we don’t know exactly when in the course of 24 hours data is being posted, so by going back later in the day on any given day, one can get deceptive results.

So, I’m going back to my previous (safe) methodology of checking numbers at only one time of the day, between 5 a.m. and 6 a.m., and capture all the entries for a previous 24 hour period.

This is what I know:

On the morning of President Trump’s inauguration the number of refugees admitted to the U.S. this fiscal year (which began on October 1, 2016), the same fiscal year that Obama had proposed entry numbers of 110,000 *** (the highest since way before 9/11), it was 29,895.

This morning, one week later the number is 32,094.  That means 2,199 refugees arrived in the U.S. since Inauguration Day. That is a daily rate of 314 per day!

Here are the numbers I recorded each day (all between 5:00 and 6:00 a.m.):

January 20th: 29,895
January 21st: 30,063
January 22nd: 30,063
January 23rd: 30,063
January 24th: 30,063
January 25th: 30,885
January 26th: 31,521
January 27th: 32,094

We added 2,199 refugees in the week. It is still a mystery why there were no refugees being recorded on those 4 days. The data began to be updated in the afternoon of the 24th.

If you play around with Wrapsnet, you can find out how many refugees of each nationality were placed in your towns (since 2002).

New readers looking for which resettlement agencies are working in your cities and towns, go here.

***Obama proposed 110,000 for this fiscal year, and as of today we are already at 32,094. If Trump changes the number to 50,000, yes that is a reduction from Obama’s proposal, but it is not that significant when looking back ten years.  Obama had 2 years under 60,000 and Bush had 4 years under 50,000. (See my next post)


Texas Officials Warn of ISIS Threat to U.S.-Mexican Border


‘Super Cop’ Bo Dietl to run for Mayor of New York City

FAR HILLS, N.J. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — In August 2016, former cop and NY super cop Bo Dietl announced his candidacy for mayor of New York City.  In a recent twist, however, debate has arisen about which party Dietl will be allowed to represent.  While the GOP would love Dietl to run as a Republican, Dietl is seeking to challenge current mayor Bill de Blasio as a Democrat.  Regardless of how the legal wrangling works itself out, New Jersey entrepreneur Tom Maoli announced on December 12, 2016 at the New York Viceroy Hotel Roof that he is fully supporting personal friend Dietl either way.

“With my business ventures now spreading across the bridge to NYC, it’s much more important that we have elected officials who are transparent, honest and not bought and paid for by special interests.  We need to level the playing field for everyone,” says Maoli.  “Bo Dietl’s long and distinguished career proves he cannot not be bought.  And, I can personally vouch for his integrity.  That’s why I am supporting his run for mayor.  I spend lots of time in New York City, and the people of New York City deserve better than Bill de Blasio.”

Richard “Bo” Dietl was a New York City Police Officer and Detective from June 1969 until he retired in 1985. During that time, he was one of the most highly decorated detectives in the history of the police department, with several thousand arrests to his credit.  In 1998, Dietl authored his autobiography, “One Tough Cop.” He founded and is current CEO of Beau Dietl & Associates and Beau Dietl Consulting Services.  Dietl is also a media personality, lending his expertise on matters concerning the law and national security on Fox News and “Imus in the Morning.”

Bietl’s decision to challenge current Mayor DeBlasio stems from the various scandals surrounding the mayor.  The Observer online puts it this way.  “First, it appeared to be politics as usual. We’re referring, of course, to the mayor’s hobbyhorse campaign to ban horse-drawn carriages from New York in exchange for a $1 million contribution from a group called NYCLASS.

“Then there was the sale of the nursing home on the Lower East Side where friends of the mayor managed to get a deed restriction removed. Next came the police corruption scandal with several of the mayor’s contributors receiving significant favors and improperly awarded gun licenses. Then there were campaign finance abuses so startling that the State Board of Elections called them “willful and flagrant.” After that came a garbage bag contract for a political donor. And now federal and Manhattan prosecutors are looking into a sweetheart deal for the development of property held by the Brooklyn Heights library. Every week there seems to be another serious scandal involving Mayor de Blasio or those close to him.”

Maoli’s involvement in politics is not new.  In 2009, he was a member of the Executive Finance Committee for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.  In 2015, he was named to Governor Chris Christie’s Presidential Leadership team, and last year he joined then candidate Donald Trump for President’s fundraising team and then served on the Trump transition team.

Tom Maoli will use his prodigious fundraising ability and business network to help Dietl get his message out, regardless of whether Dietl runs against de Blasio in the New York City primary as a Democrat or in a general campaign as a Republican.

Maoli states “I am behind people who do not have an agenda, are honest, loyal and want to make things better and cut out the red tape for business men like me.”

VIDEO: British Prime Minister Theresa May Praises President Trump, defends principles of Western Culture

British Prime Minister Theresa May spoke at the Republican Party retreat in Philadelphia on January 26th, 2017. PM May stated:

“We must never cease”, Churchill said, “to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law, find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence”.

So it is my honour and my privilege to stand before you today in this great city of Philadelphia to proclaim them again, to join hands as we pick up that mantle of leadership once more, to renew our Special Relationship and to recommit ourselves to the responsibility of leadership in the modern world.

And it is my honour and privilege to do so at this time, as dawn breaks on a new era of American renewal.  For I speak to you not just as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, but as a fellow Conservative who believes in the same principles that underpin the agenda of your Party. The value of liberty. The dignity of work. The principles of nationhood, family, economic prudence, patriotism – and putting power in the hands of the people.

Watch PM May’s full speech courtesy of Bloomberg News:

As PM May noted:

President Trump’s victory – achieved in defiance of all the pundits and the polls – and rooted not in the corridors of Washington, but in the hopes and aspirations of working men and women across this land. Your Party’s victory in both the Congress and the Senate where you swept all before you, secured with great effort, and achieved with an important message of national renewal.

And because of this – because of what you have done together, because of that great victory you have won – America can be stronger, greater, and more confident in the years ahead.

And a newly emboldened, confident America is good for the world.  An America that is strong and prosperous at home is a nation that can lead abroad. But you cannot – and should not – do so alone. You have said that it is time for others to step up. And I agree.

RELATED ARTICLE: U.S. Cases of refugees arrested or convicted on terror charges, and other heinous crimes

Eliminating the Strongest Magnet Attracting Illegal Aleins to Florida

Representative Joe Gruters R FL Dist 73

Florida Representative Joe Gruters (R-Dist 73)

Several years ago I met Joe Gruters, now just elected State Representative Joe Gruters of District 73, at a Republican Executive Committee meeting. During the course of our conversation he mentioned we shared the same views on opposing illegal immigration.

Just elected to the State House, Joe has wasted no time in going after the strongest magnet attracting illegal aliens and that is jobs. Eliminate the jobs magnet and illegal aliens have no reason to come. He just filed HB 443 which requires all employers to employ legal workers only. Failure to do so and if caught can result in fines and loss of license for extended periods of time.

If passed and enforced it will be the most important tool in removing the magnet attracting illegal aliens. Without jobs, illegal aliens will self deport to other states or back to their home country dramatically reducing Florida taxpayer costs to educate, medicate and incarcerate them and their families. In our school system alone it costs taxpayers $1,600.00 more per year to teach non English speaking students how to speak English.

No one knows the exact number of illegal aliens in the state but estimates range around 900,000 with approximately 600,000 currently illegally employed. The impact of Joe’s legislation can have a significant impact on Florida’s economy over time reducing costs and freeing up jobs for legal workers.

Please contact your state representative and ask them to support HB 443. It will not be easy to get the bill passed with strong democrat opposition expected but the benefits it will bring are well worth the effort.

EDITORS NOTE: Florida House Bill 443 synopsis reads:

HB 443: Verification of Employment Eligibility


Verification of Employment Eligibility; Requires employers to use E-Verify system to verify employment eligibility; prohibits employer from knowingly or intentionally employing unauthorized alien; requires DBPR to adopt rules; provides responsibilities & powers of department; provides procedures for filing of complaint; provides criminal penalties; requires department to establish website for specified purposes; provides rebuttable presumption of compliance with this act; provides applicability; provides for severability.

To read the full bill click here.


Trump’s Immigration Actions Reverse Obama’s Open Borders Policy

The Showdown Over Sanctuary Cities

Comment worth noting: Rohingya are economic migrants, fake refugees, do not admit to U.S.

Trump Watch! Is rumored refugee cap reduction to 50,000 that significant?

Dear Ms. Albright: The U.S. already collects religious identity data — including for Muslims

Madeleine Jana Korbel Albright is an American politician and diplomat. She is the first woman to have become the United States Secretary of State under former President Bill Clinton. After President Trump signed several Executive Orders dealing with immigration and refugee resettlement Albright tweeted the following:

alright muslim tweet

Dear Ms. Albright, there already is data available on the religious affiliation, a registry if you will, of millions of Americans and immigrants, including Muslims.  Even the U.S. Department of State has a Temporary Religious Worker Visa form. The U.S. State Department is also required to enforce the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 which was meant to exclude certain immigrants from immigrating to America. The McCarran-Walter Act moved away from excluding immigrants based simply upon country of origin. Instead it focused upon denying immigrants who were unlawful, immoral, diseased in any way, politically radical etc. and accepting those who were willing and able to assimilate into the U.S. economic, social, and political structures, which restructured how immigration law was handled.

According the U.S. Census Bureau website, the bureau “statistics on the growth, distribution, and characteristics of the U.S. population. The principal source of these data is the U.S. Census Bureau, which conducts a decennial census of population, a monthly population survey, a program of population estimates and projections, and a number of other periodic surveys relating to population characteristics.”

The U.S. Census Bureau collects religious identity as follows:

The methodology of the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) 2008 replicated that used in previous surveys. The three surveys are based on random-digit-dialing telephone surveys of residential households in the continental U.S.A (48 states): 54,461 interviews in 2008, 50,281 in 2001, and 113,723 in 1990. Respondents were asked to describe themselves in terms of religion with an open-ended question. Interviewers did not prompt or offer a suggested list of potential answers. Moreover, the self-description of respondents was not based on whether established religious bodies, institutions, churches, mosques or synagogues considered them to be members. Instead, the surveys sought to determine whether the respondents regarded themselves as adherents of a religious community. Subjective rather than objective standards of religious identification were tapped by the surveys] [Emphasis added]

Here are links to three Census Bureau documents on religious identification in the United States:

xls file   75 – Self-Described Religious Identification of Adult Population

xls file   76 – Religious Bodies–Selected Data

xls file 77 – Christian Church Adherents and Jewish Population, States

 It is the role of all U.S. government agencies to insure those coming to America are properly vetted, whether they here temporarily or are seeking citizenship. It is important for U.S. government agencies to maintain data on the religious identification of America citizens, temporary visitors and those seeking citizenship. Not to do so impacts many programs and the national security of the United States.

Therefore, Ms. Albright you may contact the U.S. Census Bureau and take their questionnaire for the 2020 Census and declare yourself a Muslim. Your religious identification will be duly recorded and noted.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (Walter-McCarran Act)

EDITORS NOTE: The Library of Congress lists countries who have a religious basis for legislation and those whose constitution designates a religious state.

II. Countries Whose Constitutions Indicate a Religious Basis for Legislation

III. Countries Whose Constitutions Simply Indicate a Religion of the State