In My Opinion: President Obama a man of his ‘word’!

It is hard to believe that a “Barry Goldwater” Conservative is claiming that President Obama is a “man of his word.”  But it is true!  Please read on.

My perspective is absolutely unique.  TWICE a year I travel to Islamic State (ISIS) – controlled borders to oversee the rescue efforts of women and families who are held against their will by ISIS.  I literally RESCUE them from ISIS!  Then I sponsor intense rehabilitation efforts for them.

As I witness first-hand the unbelievable effects of ISIS control, I now totally understand how the West must, I repeat, MUST defeat ISIS at every turn.  I’ve spoken personally to women (former sex slaves) and families who are now “survivor of ISIS” and understand the vulgarity of the beast.

It is against my personal backdrop, that I genuinely oppose the Obama/Clinton narrative about ISIS!

Obama is a “man of his word.”

But let me refresh you about the “word” that Barrack Obama made just before assuming the presidency.

Let’s refresh our memory to a September 7, 2008 Sunday morning televised “Meet the Press” .  Then, Senator Barrack Hussein Obama, was asked about his stance on the American flag.

Senator Obama commented:

As I’ve said about the flag pin, I don’t want to be perceived as taking sides.  There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression… The anthem itself conveys a war-like message.  You know, the bombs bursting in air and all that sort of thing.

The National Anthem should be ‘swapped’ for something less parochial and less bellicose.  I like the song, ‘I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing’.  If that were our anthem, then, I might salute it.  In my opinion, we should consider reinventing our National Anthem as well as ‘redesign’ our flag to better offer our enemies hope and love.

It is my intention, if elected, to DISARM America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East brethren.  If we, as a nation of warring people, conduct ourselves like the nations of Islam, where peace prevails…perhaps a state or period of mutual accord could exist between our governments…

When I become President, I will seek a pact of agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and a freedom of disquieting oppressive thoughts.  We, as a nation, have placed upon the nations of Islam, an unfair injustice which my wife disrespects the flag and she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past.

…I have found myself about to become the President of the United States and I have put my hatred aside.  I will use my power to bring CHANGE to this nation, and offer the people a new path.

My wife and I look forward to becoming our country’s first black family.  Indeed, CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of America.

Well. Mr. President, judging by what is happening around the world, you sure are a “man of your word!”

In my opinion from ISIS borders…

PODCAST: Hillary’s Email Kills, #NeverTrumpers Find An Idiot, Saudi Offer To Russia

The media’s premature reports of Donald Trump’s demise are greatly exaggerated. Did Trump really have a bad week? And what role could the clown third party candidate play in the 2016 election?

On a more serious note, Hillary’s emails have gotten at least one high value asset executed in Iran. A top U.S. spy on the Iranian nuclear program did meet his demise, and there is precisely one person to blame – the Democrat nominee for president.

Finally, we bring you the latest critical international developments and their relevancy to the state of world affairs. Join us tomorrow as we discuss these topics and more…

Topics of Discussion:

  • Hillary’s email gets top U.S. Asset in Iran Executed
  • #NeverTrumpers find their idiot
  • Did Trump have a bad week, or not really?
  • Saudi Arabia offers Russia billions of dollars to abandon Assad
  • DHS gives Somali group first ever security tour of major airport

and more…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Leftist Activists Crash Trump Fundraiser, Attack Motorcade, Assault Trump Supporters in Violent ‘Gauntlet’

Hacker Reveals Personal Information for Almost 200 Democrats

Wikileaks’ Assange – TPP Not Only Trade, 83% Is Fascists Controlling Our Daily Lives – YouTube

When History Repeats Itself: Gun Control Means Losing Control

On the 75th anniversary of Kristallnacht 1938, when thousands of Jews were kidnapped and thrown into concentration camps, synagogues were burned, Jewish homes and businesses were destroyed, and Jewish property was seized, author Stephen Halbrook explained in his frightening Washington Times article “What made the Nazi Holocaust possible? Gun Control” that the simplest answer was the correct one: Jewish-owned guns were registered “and thus easily confiscated.”

gun control in the third reichThe Al Katz Center will host a series of lectures throughout September on the lessons of gun control for the Jews in Nazi controlled nations, as a German child’s eyewitness account describes:

The doorbell rang, and they came in demanding, “We are looking for weapons.” My father answered that we didn’t have any weapons.  They shouted back, “Get out….”  We went outside in the yard  – other[s] … stood around, just looked at us never saying a word … The mob finally left and we went inside ….

They had wrecked the furniture. Dishes, glass, and ornaments were broken …. I remembered the smell for years.

Another eyewitness of Kristallnacht lost her beloved father that night:

“At our house, the men searched my dad for weapons or something and then took him away.  We learned later that all Jewish men between 18 and 60 had been arrested,” including Louis Katz, father of Al Katz, for whom the Al Katz Center is named.

The schedule of lectures is:

September 11 – The 1931 Nazi takeover plot to deny food to Jews and to execute persons refusing to surrender their guns leading to German registration of all firearms and confiscation thereof

September 13 – Use of gun registration records to identify, disarm, and attack Jews and political opponents of the Nazis accompanied by mass seizures of guns and revocations of gun licenses; Gestapo ban of gun clubs, arrests of their leaders, opponents placed in concentration camps, and prohibition of firearm permits to Jews

September 20 – The new Nazi Weapons Law of November 11, 1938, two days after Kristallnacht, prohibiting all Jews from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms, ammunition, and stabbing weapons, under penalty of imprisonment for up to five years

September 27 – Jewish armed resistance in the Warsaw Ghetto, Sobibor concentration camp, and other sites, saving many thousands of lives, despite the fact that weapons were very scarce.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama Claimed It’s Easier in Some Areas to Get a Gun Than a Book

AG Lynch Announces Global Police Force Partnership With UN

EDITORS NOTE: Stephen Halbrook is an author and lawyer known for his litigation on behalf of the National Rifle Association. He has written extensively about the original meanings of the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.

The cost of each of the events is $7 per adult; $3 per student; healthy kosher refreshments with vegan options and discussion materials included

To order autographed copies books by Stephen Halbrook, famed Nazi gun control author, will be taken. RSVP – Beverly Newman at 941-313-9239 or visit our website www.alkatzcenter.org to register.

Obama looking to ‘welcome’ 213,000 humanitarian arrivals in FY17 with $2.2 billion budget

…..and that $2.2  billion is only for the Office of Refugee Resettlement (HHS) portion of the costs!  It does not include the US State Department funding or the cost of security screening. Nor does it cover the cost of most welfare, subsidized housing, medical care and most of the cost of educating the children.  They aren’t saying yet how many Syrians Obama will be requesting.

While I was on my 30 day ‘listening tour’ that took me to 13 mid-western and western states, the Obama Administration held a press conference call about the stepped-up Syrian Muslim refugee flow in to the US.  Thanks to Christine for sending the transcript which I decided to post below in full.

Just so you know, all of the officials on the call are Obama appointees.  Remember them! These are the people who are changing the demographics and the character of your home towns.

Anne Richard and Robert Carey both revolved in to their government perches from a refugee resettlement contracting agency (the International Rescue Committee). Shin Inouye is a former Washington, D.C. spokesman for the ACLU.  And, for my friends in Montgomery County, MD, León Rodríguez was once your county attorney.

These Obama appointees are all hard core open (NO!) borders advocates, and if Hillary is elected they will likely be able to stay on and continue their work of changing America by changing the people!

And, if you are wondering, Obama has one more shot in September to make a determination about how many refugees will be admitted to the US in the next fiscal year.

We know what Obama is going to do, but what will Paul Ryan do?

It will be up to Speaker Paul Ryan and the REPUBLICANS to decide if the numbers Obama is requesting will be acceptable because it is Congress that will fund (or not fund!) the President’s final request!

This (below) is from a press conference call on August 5th. Those of you doing research around the country on what is happening where you live will find this useful.

BTW, I am struck by how little the reporters know about the program and so they largely wasted their questions.

See phone numbers at the end for the public affairs office of each government agency responsible for the refugee program.  If you are reporting via alternative media about what is happening where you live, try calling those numbers!  Call and ask questions even if you already know the answers!

Coordinator: 

Welcome and thank you for standing by. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode until the Question and Answer session of today’s conference. At that time you may press Star 1 on your phone to ask a question.

I would like to inform all parties that today’s conference is being recorded. If you have any objections you may disconnect at this time. I would now like to turn the conference over to Shin Inouye, USCIS. Thank you, you may begin.

inouyeshin

Shin Inouye

Shin Inouye:   

Thank you (Sheila) and thank you all for joining us today to discuss the current state of Syrian refugees security screening and admissions. As a reminder this call is on the record and without embargo. On the call we have Assistant Secretary of State, The Bureau of Population Refugees and Migration, Anne C. Richard, US Citizenship and Immigration Services or USCIS Director Leon Rodriguez, and Health and Human Services Director of Refugee Resettlement, Robert “(Bob)” Carey.

We’ll have our speakers offer remarks about their agency’s respective roles in the refugee process and then open up the call to your questions. Let me first turn it over to Assistant Secretary Richard.

Anne Richard:  

anne-richard

Anne Richard

Thanks, this is Anne speaking. The United States has been a global leader in the resettlement of refugees. That’s why last year the President made a renewed commitment to help in some of the most vulnerable refugees in the world, pledging to increase the number of refugees we will accept from around the world to 85,000 from 70,000 per year over the last three years. As part of this commitment we also pledged to welcome at least 10,000 refugees fleeing the terrible conflict in Syria.

To that end early in the fiscal year we began working to adjust the capacity of our refugee admissions program, to bring many more refugees to the United States. To welcome more refugees from Syria we worked with the Department of Homeland Security, with our intelligence community and with other relevant agencies to upgrade our capacities to conduct security screening. DHS increased the number of the DHS offices available to interview applicants so that more security screening interviews could take place for more applicants, resulting in more refugees approved for travel.

In Jordan, for example, between February and April of this year we worked with DHS to surge additional staff to Jordan where DHS offices conducted interviews for about 12,000 UNHCR referred refugee applicants. In Beirut, Lebanon we restarted interviews of refugees in February. These had stopped for a year because of space limitations in the embassy compound. In Turkey we added staff to the resettlement support center in Istanbul that covers refugee processing in Turkey and Lebanon and DHS sent additional officers to conduct interviews.

In Iraq we began processing refugee resettlement cases in Erbil in December 2015. Thanks to these efforts and through the coordinated efforts of the Department of State, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Health and Human Services, we can now say that we have 8,000 Syrian refugees so far this year and that we are very confident that we will welcome at least 10,000 refugees from Syria by the end of this fiscal year. Monthly totals have climbed from low numbers of refugees admitted in the first half of the year to higher numbers recently.

In May, June and July the impact of our investments in and the enhancements to the process began to be realized. Our expectation from the beginning was that the rate of Syrian refugee admissions would increase over time as referrals from UNHCR — the Human Refugee Agency — UNHCR increased as we added to the capacity to process more cases referred to us and as DHS sent more DHS officers to the field to conduct the necessary rigorous and exhaustive security screening.

Briefly and in closing we want to reiterate that this is just one line of multiple lines of effort that the US government is undertaking to help the victims of terrible conflicts and crisis around the world. I want to remind you all that President Obama will convene the leader’s summit on refugees on the margins of the 71st session of the UN General Assembly in September. This summit is about encouraging all countries to take action and do more now.

Wealthy governments are asked to make new and significant contributions relating to humanitarian financing and refugee resettlement or admissions – other forms of admission to their country. Countries that host refugees are asked to make new commitments related to refugee self-reliance and inclusion, with a specific focus on letting refugees work and allowing refugee children to go to school. The purpose of the summit is to recruit other countries to join with us and make a real difference in the world’s contributions towards helping refugees.

At this point I’d like to turn to my colleague, the head of USCIS, Leon Rodriguez.

Leon Rodriguez:  

Thank you Anne and thank you for your presentation. I too am gratified with the success that we’ve had in refugee admissions, particularly with respect to Syrian admissions. The process that we have applied to reach those admission levels is the same process that we have applied for many years – actually with a few enhancements that have further strengthened that process.

LeonRodriguez

Leon Rodriguez

There are basically two critical components to the process and adjudicating, whether an individual is admitted to the United States as a refugee after that individual has been referred to us by the United Nations high commissioner and refugees and by the State Department. The first is to determine – this is what our officers do to determine whether that individual actually qualifies as a refugee – whether they meet the legal definition.

The legal definition that we use is derived from the United Nation’s convention on refugees, and that definition is used by all of the signatory countries to the convention, although in many cases each country interprets the conventions slightly differently. The second aspect and probably particularly critical for this discussion is we determined if — notwithstanding the fact that the individual meets the legal definition of refugee — if there is still some basis to deny that individual admission to the United States.

That can occur in one of two ways. In some cases we have – we exercise our discretion. For example if we have concerns about that individual’s credibility. In other cases we may have evidence that that individual falls under a specific category of inadmissibility. For example, if there is evidence that they are a known or suspected terrorist. To do that we used a number of tools. From my perspective the most critical of those tools is the refugee officer – is our highly trained, highly experienced staff that we deployed throughout the world to screen refugees.

Before they get there they have been extensively trained both in the legal tenants surrounding refugee law — the grounds inadmissibility that I discussed before — but also very critically in fraud detection and prevention, security protocols, interviewing techniques, credibility analysis.

They’ve also been briefed in country conditions and in regional conditions and again that briefing is often extensive, and the depth of that briefing grows as we spend more time in a particular refugee environment, be that the Syrian environment, the Iraqi environment, the Somalian environment, or as the case may be, the central American environment. The interviews that are conducted by those officers are frequently extensive – pro-credibility issues and pro-particular basis of inadmissibility.

In the specific cases of Syrians there are additional steps that are also taken. All of those cases or the majority of those cases, rather, are subject to something we call Syrian enhanced review, which provides us specific in-depth support both from our Refugee Affairs division and our Fraud Detection and National Security directorate to provide enhanced view of those cases before the interviews even occur overseas. This is intelligence-driven support – for example it yields specific lines of questioning that our officers are prepared to ask.

It also includes social media review of certain Syrian refugee applicants. Additionally and during the course of the interview an officer identifies areas of national security concern about a candidate, and that case moves into what we call the controlled application review and resolution process – essentially a hold process where further investigation and inquiry into that case occurs.

At the same time we have a number of law enforcement and intelligence resources that our officers utilize in order to determine whether there is any derogatory — and that’s a critical term — derogatory information about that individual. Those sources can come from State Department databases, databases of customs and border protection, the Department of Defense, but most critically from both the United States law enforcement and intelligence communities, including the FBI as well as a number of intelligence community partners as well.

One particularly important aspect there is a process that we call the intra-agency check which involves queries of a series of intelligence community holdings. That occurs not only prior to the interview of the individual but actually occurs on the recurrent basis during the entire process of that individual’s adjudication, and in many cases actually beyond the period of that individual’s admissions. So that if new derogatory information arises about that individual we are able to act on that derogatory individual – derogatory information at any time that that information may arise.

We have on an ongoing basis the implementing improvements to these processes – much of that is law enforcement sensitive or intelligence community protected. But those improvements have been occurring on an ongoing basis. I believe that this information is very critical because it really rebuts what is a widely held view that in fact we do not have resources against which to vet these individuals.

In fact literally hundreds of individuals from different countries, including hundreds of individuals from Syria, have had their admissions to the United States denied because of information that was found in these databases. Additionally, a number of other individuals have been denied admissions or have been placed on hold because we have determined – we have accessed that there are credibility concerns that have arisen during the interview process.

And that process is the same one that we conducted a year ago, two years ago and last week, and we will continue as we move through the process of screening refugees to apply those methodologies. Thank you.

Shin Inouye:     

Thank you Director Rodriguez. Next we’ll hear from Director Carey.

Robert Carey: 

bob carey

Robert Carey

Okay thank you. (Bob) Carey here. We could go to the work of your Office of Refugee Resettlement, under the Refugee Act of 1980 Congress created within the Department of Health and Human Service and the Office of Refugee Resettlement, and we are charged with providing refugees with resettlement assistance. This assistance includes employment training and placement, English language instruction, cash assistance and additional social services, all of which are designed to assist refugees in integrating into their new communities and to promote early self-sufficiency.

ORR carries out this work through an extensive public-private partnership network and funding to state governments and non-profit organizations across the US. In fiscal year 2016 ORR expects to serve upwards of 200,000 humanitarian migrants. So these humanitarian migrants include refugees, but also asylees, keeping Asian entrance on unaccompanied refugee minors, victims of torture and unaccompanied children.

Our work includes collaborations at the federal and state level with resettlement agencies, resettled refugees themselves and members of the communities that welcomed them. A central goal of the program is to ensure that states and municipalities have the best information available to help them prepare for incoming refugees. To this end each state has a state refugee coordinator, and often a state refugee health coordinator who oversees services and refugee benefits provisioned to eligible individuals in the given state.

The President’s fiscal year 2017 budget requests include $2.2 billion for ORR programs and that represents the cost of maintaining services for additional refugees and other entrance and unaccompanied children primarily from Central America. The President’s budget request would support a total of 213,000 humanitarian arrivals including 100,000 refugees in 2017. Once a refugee arrives in the US they are eligible to access the same benefits as American citizens who are here legally including temporary aide to newly families, Medicaid, SSI, and SNAP.

When refugees do not meet eligibility requirements for these programs ORR provides time-limited refugee cash assistance and refugee medical assistance. Social services and targeted assistance funds are allocated to states based on a formula tied to the prior two years of refugee arrivals, and that accounts for refugees and other entrance movements to other states after their initial resettlement on their path to legal permanent residence and citizenship.

ORR also supports additional programs to refugees and integrating which include migrant enterprise development assistance for ethnic community organizations, agricultural partnerships and services for survivors of torture. Another critical service we provide is school impact program funding which provides approximately $15 million for activities that assists children in adjusting to school after the trauma of war flight and all too often interrupted education.

As an alternative to access and cash assistance refugees may also enroll in what is known as the Matching Grant program – that’s Intensive Case Management program conducted by private non-profit organizations which assists refugees in finding employment and in economic self-sufficiency – self-sufficiency within four to six months after their arrival in the US and which is funded with a combination of private and government funds. And at the end of the program last year 82% were self-sufficient at the end of 180 days. [This is a joke, refugees can still be receiving most forms of welfare, such as food stamps and housing help and still be labeled “self-sufficient.”—-ed]

In summary, the Office of Refugee Resettlement stands committed to welcoming integrating newcomers into the fabric of our society. We believe this goal benefits not only refugees and their families, but strengthens communities and our nation as a whole and refugee resettlement is a reflection of our core value of who we are as a country, providing protection to individuals fleeing persecution on the basis of their race, religion, political opinions or membership in a social group. So thank you.

Shin Inouye:   

Thank you Director Carey and thank you to all of our speakers. Operator if we can go ahead and open it up or if you could provide the instructions for how folks can ask questions.

Coordinator:

Thank you. We will now begin the Question and Answer session. If you would like to ask a question please press Star 1 to unmute your phone and record your name clearly. If you need to withdraw your question press Star 2. Again to ask a question please press Star 1.

Our first question comes from Julia Edwards with Reuters – your line is open.

Julia Edwards:      

Hi, thank you. I was wondering if you could quantify how many refugees or how refugees were not considered after the additional screening procedures that were put in place by Congress at the end of last year? Or was there anyone who was ruled out as a result of this additional screening measures being put in place?

Leon Rodriguez: 

I think that the screening measures were never actually voted into effect that you’re discussing, so when I talk about screening measures they’re basically the ones that we apply as our part of our ordinary process – that is joined between USCIS, State Department, the law enforcement intelligence community partners. And again what I would say is based on that screening – just speaking to the Syrian case, you know, hundreds – I wouldn’t be able to put a specific number on it now but hundreds have been denied.

There are even larger numbers of individuals who go on hold because concerns have been raised or – and also individuals who are denied on a credibility basis because our officers determined that there are concerns about the accounts that they’re given when we interview them.

Coordinator:       

Our next question comes from Julie Davis with the New York Times. Your line is open.

Julie Davis:  

Hi there. Well I was hoping you could be more specific about how many of the Syrian applicants had been denied because of the information that was found on the databases or put on hold because of credibility concerns. It sounds like you don’t have those numbers now. Would that be something you could get to us after the call potentially?

Leon Rodriguez:   

Yes we can see if we can get you those numbers. Again what I will share are those numbers are large. When we’re talking still about, you know, we’re talking about 8,000 who have been cleared for admission this year we’re still talking about a substantial number who have either been denied or held because of these types of concerns.

Julie Davis:      

Okay and also I’m wondering whether you can say, based on the up-ticks that you described, just in May, June, July – I assume August, you’re expecting will be the same if not larger in terms of refuge – Syrian refugees resettled. Do you expect that to continue rising into fiscal 2017, and do you have any estimate at all of how many Syrian refugees you may be looking at welcoming as a result of this surge in the next, you know, after the fiscal year ends?

Leon Rodriguez:

Actually I’m going to share a little bit more of an answer to your first question and I think I’m going to defer to my State Department colleagues. So our approval rates are 80%, denial rate is 7%, and the balance is hold – that kind of reflects the overall universe. So, you know, I can’t give you specific numbers that reflects about our clip of approvals denials and holds.

Julie Davis:     

Got it.

Leon Rodriguez:  

And Anne I’m wondering if you want to – I don’t know if you’re in a position to talk about next year or not…

Anne Richard:   

Well just to say the current pace of arrivals will continue through the end of this fiscal year so we may exceed 10,000 and for next year we will continue to welcome large numbers of Syrians, but it’s too soon to have a target figure established.

Coordinator:     

Thank you. And our next question comes from Jared Goyette with PRI. Your line is open.

Jared Goyette:  

Hi I was just wondering if you could provide any detail to the I-130 program and if that’s had any impact in terms of the numbers of, you know, the number of Syrian refugees coming in – that’s of course the family petition? Thank you.

Anne Richard:  

No we don’t have numbers for you for this call but we can follow-up on that after the call.

Jared Goyette:

Okay thanks.

Coordinator:   

The next question comes from Nick Ballasy with PJ Media News your line is open.

Nicholas Ballasy: 

Thanks for taking the question. My first – the first part of my question is among the applications for refugee status that have been denied, you said some of them were denied – was it because of national security or terrorism issues? And then the second part of my question is as you know, if you’re applying for legal status by marrying a US citizen or in a different category, you have to prove you have the financial support and you’re not a public charge and you also have to pay thousands of dollars in fees for those applications.

Why are refugees treated differently than people seeking legal status in the United States through the legal immigration process?

Leon Rodriguez:   

Sure, this is Leon Rodriguez and I’ll invite my colleagues to chime in as well. You know, the fact is that refugees are refugees because they’re often coming out of war-torn countries or countries devastated in some other way. Frequently individuals have been living away from their countries without any means of securing a livelihood, or in many cases when we’re talking about Syrians, of having their children educated. So more typically individuals do not have the economic wherewithal. It’s also – frankly it’s a statutory decision that was made. We do not have authority to charge any kind of fee for refugees – it’s not a legal authority that we have.

Nicholas Ballasy:  

And then the issue of the denied applications, was the reason for any of those denials national security or…

Leon Rodriguez: 

Yes.

Nicholas Ballasy:

…(test) and concerns?

Leon Rodriguez: 

Yes.

Shin Inouye:      

All right (Sheila) if you could move to the next question please?

Coordinator:   

Absolutely and as a reminder if you would like to ask a question you can press Star 1 on your phone and record your name when prompted. Our next question comes from Lauren Ashburn with EWTN. Your line is open.

Lauren Ashburn:   

Thank you very much and thank you for taking my call. The percentage of those Syrian refugees who have been let into the country – what percent are Muslims? Do you have that breakdown?

Anne Richard:     

Yes, most are Muslims over 99% are Muslims. [At least she is being honest! But, the reporter wasted her question because that information is readily available elsewhere.—ed]

Lauren Ashburn:  

And then what percent are of religious (execution) are fleeing (because they) say religious persecution?

Anne Richard:   

I don’t have that breakdown for you.

Lauren Ashburn:  

Okay and then you mentioned, Secretary Carey – you mentioned that 82% are self-sufficient at the end of 180 days and I was wondering how long do the rest of them stay on benefits? How long do you extend the benefits?

Robert Carey:    

The benefits access depends on the category. There are some individuals for whom, you know, refugee cash assistance can be extended for up to eight months for certain individuals, and then others may be eligible for mainstream benefits if they fit the qualifications.

Lauren Ashburn:   

Okay, thanks.

Coordinator:  

Our next question comes from (Esa Gomez) with ABC News. Your line is open.

(Esa Gomez):    

I was wondering out of the 8,000 of the admitted refugees how many of them were children?

Anne Richard:      

I should – we should have that number for you. Seventy eight percent were women and children and the number of children we’ll have to get you but let’s see  – nearly – let’s see, 4,576 were under 18 – just a little under half female and roughly half male of the children. [Does this really give us any comfort when we know it is the Somali “children” who grew up in America that have been the most radicalized of the Muslim migrants?—ed]

(Esa Gomez):   

Is that of the children or women and children?

Anne Richard:     

So the first number I gave you the 78% were women and children. And then the second that’s 78% out of 8,000. And then the number of children is – or under 18 year olds is 4,576 and they’re roughly half and half men and – girls and boys rather.

(Esa Gomez):       

Oh okay, thank you.

Coordinator: 

And again as a reminder you can press Star 1 on your phone and record your name if you have a question. One moment please for any additional questions. We are showing no further questions at this time. (Unintelligible)…

Shin Inouye: 

(Unintelligible) (a couple). All right, well thank you (Sheila). Thank you all for joining us. As a reminder this call is on the record and without embargo. If you have any additional questions here are the phone numbers for the respective public affairs offices for the participants on the call. The State Department is at 202-647-2492. Once again The State Department is 202-647-2492. USCIS is at 202-272-1200. Once again USCIS is at 202-272-1200. And HHS is at 202-401-9215. Once again HHS is at 202-401-9215. Thank you very much.

Coordinator:     

That does conclude today’s conference. Thank you for participating. You may disconnect at this time.

This post is filed in our ‘where to find information’ category, here.

Political Correctness Taints the Rio Olympics

The opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games are always a breathtaking spectacle.  With each Olympic experience, one wonders what great technical and artistic miracles special effects technicians will produce for future Olympic ceremonies.  This year we were told that we could also look forward to seeing the greatest Olympian of all time, Michael Phelps… the winner of 19 gold medals in previous Olympics… marching at the head of the U.S. contingent, proudly carrying the stars and stripes.

But when the U.S. team entered the stadium we were immediately distracted.  There, in the first row of athletes, just off Phelps’ left shoulder, was a young Muslim woman wearing a hijab.  What were the chances that, of the 554 members of the U.S. team, the one Muslim athlete on the team would end up marching in the front row?  Was it an accident… pure chance?  Or was she purposely placed in the front row by U.S. Olympic officials in an excess of political correctness?

It didn’t take long for the young woman, Ibtihaj Muhammad, to answer that question for us.  In an interview with the Associated Press, she said,

“I wish that, not just my life, but the lives of Muslims all over the world were a little bit easier, particularly in the United States.  I’m hoping that with my first time appearance as a member of Team USA here at the Olympics, I’m hoping that the rhetoric around the Muslim community will change.”  She went on to say, “I am excited to represent not just myself, my family, and my country – but also the greater Muslim community.”

A report in the August 8, 2016 edition of Frontpagemag.com, titled “Muslim-American Olympian Criticizes her Country,” explained that, while Michael Phelps was elected by his teammates to carry the American flag, he was pressured to decline the honor in favor of Ms. Muhammad.  According to the report, a CNN op-ed piece addressed to Phelps by W. Kamau Bell, suggested, “America has enough tall, successful rich white guys hogging the spotlight,” and that, “Muhammad carrying the flag would be nearly a one-stop inclusion shop.”

One wonders whether Ms. Muhammad has ever expressed concern over the difficulty of everyday life for Christians living in countries with Muslim majorities… assuming they are even allowed to live there.  It is difficult to avoid the thought of what fate might have in store for a young Christian or Jewish woman who might go to a Muslim country and complain publicly about her “treatment.”

It was also interesting to ponder the nature of Ms. Muhammad’s sport.  Was she a swimmer, a diver, a volleyball player, or a gymnast?  We could quickly reject all of those possibilities because of the skimpiness of the costumes worn in those events.  Participation in any of those sports would have made her an immediate target of Muslim religious police who might have had her stoned to death for exposing too much of her body.  Or they might have ordered her father or a brother to kill her in an “honor killing” for bringing shame upon her family name.

As it turns out, Ms. Muhammad’s sport of choice is fencing.  This is understandable because, given the penchant of Muslims for hacking, stabbing, or slashing non-Muslims with knives, axes, machetes, and other sharp instruments, it’s only natural that Ms. Muhammad would gravitate toward the fencing competition.  Fighting and attacking others with knives and other sharp objects appears to be in the Muslim DNA.

If Ms. Muhammad is unhappy in America, or made to feel ill at ease, one wonders why she continues to live here.  She is certainly free to live in any one of the many majority Muslim countries of the world.  She would likely be unable to drive an automobile, go to college, marry the man of her choice, participate in sports, or leave her home without being accompanied by her father or a brother.  But what the heck… if that would make her happy then she should go for it.  Most Americans would be happy to help defray the cost of a one-way plane ticket to the destination of her choice.

Like most Muslims in the U.S., Ms. Muhammad appears to be upset that she is expected to fully assimilate into American society.  It has apparently escaped her attention that, when Germans, Swedes, and Norwegians arrived in America, they made no demands that the people already here must become Lutherans.  She is apparently unaware that, when Italians and the Spanish arrived here in large numbers, they made no demands that all Jews and Protestants must convert to Catholicism.  And when the British began arriving here in the 16th century, they made no demands that all Native Americans must swear allegiance to the Anglican Church or forfeit their lives.  Yet, in the late 20th century and the early 21st century, Muslims emigrating to America arrive here fully convinced that it is their duty to ultimately convert all non-Muslim Americans, and that the U.S. Constitution and U.S. federal and state law should be superseded by Sharia law.

In a July 14, 2016 article in the Washington Times, titled “Deport all Muslims who support shariah law,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is quoted as saying that, while all Muslim mosques should be monitored, the American ruling class is afraid to do so.  He said, “This is the fault of Western elites who lack the guts to do what is right, to do what is necessary…  We better rethink the rules, or we’re going to lose the war.”  He concluded by suggesting that we should identify all Muslims who believe in Sharia law over U.S. law and deport those who do.

Gingrich’s politically incorrect suggestion created a firestorm of criticism from liberals and Democrats, much like Donald Trump’s suggestion that all Muslim immigration should be put on hold until we find a way to adequately vet them.  What critics fail to understand is that we already have sufficient statutory authority to do exactly as Trump and Gingrich suggest.

For example, every Muslim immigrant who obtains U.S. citizenship though the naturalization process is required to take the statutory citizenship oath, as prescribed by Congress.  The oath reads, in part, as follows:

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same… and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

Martin Luther King, Jr. Saluted Hawaii Statehood on September 17, 1959

EDITORS NOTE: As Hawaii this week celebrates its statehood, it’s worth remembering that the archipelago was once staunchly Republican territory.  In fact, it was southern Senate Democrats who blocked its statehood for decades over fears that the minority-majority state would elect two senators who would tip the balance in the civil rights debate.

Therefore, Hawaii’s prospects at statehood were tied to Alaska’s, which many thought would be more Democratic.  They would only be admitted as a package deal – a modern day Missouri Compromise of sorts. As Hawaii Free Press reporter Ryan Yasukawa explained in a 2009 article, “The state of Hawaii being theHawaii Statehood 50th state and not the 49th is no coincidence.”

“With a Republican President Eisenhower and Democratic majority in Congress, Democrats first sent an Alaska bill to the president to see if he would sign the bill admitting a state which at the time was expected to elect two Democrat senators.  If Eisenhower signed the Alaska bill, a Hawaii bill would be sent up thereafter.”

It was an unjust reality for the island territory.  Hawaii had 499,000 people in 1950 (more than Wyoming’s 290,000 or Nevada’s 160,000) while Alaska had only 128,000.  “Hawaii also had a competent private sector economy (tourism) while Alaska’s economy was government-dependent,” Michael Barone told me an email. “Nevertheless, Hawaii subordinated its case to Alaska.”

With fervent opposition from leading Democrats such as Sens.William Fulbright (Ark.), Albert Gore Sr. (Tenn.), Sam Ervin (N.C.) and Richard Russell (Ga.), it’s understandable that Hawaii favored Republicans.  But Barone explained that southern Democratic segregationalists were not the only reason why Hawaii was traditionally Republican.


The following remarks were made by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on Thursday, September 17, 1959 at the Hawaii House of Representatives 1959 First Special Session:

“Mr. Speaker, distinguished members of the House of Representatives of this great new state in our Union, ladies and gentlemen:

It is certainly a delightful privilege and pleasure for me to have this great opportunity and, I shall say, it is a great honor to come before you today and to have the privilege of saying just a few words to you about some of the pressing problems confronting our nation and our world.

I come to you with a great deal of appreciation and great feeling of appreciation, I should say, for what has been accomplished in this beautiful setting and in this beautiful state of our Union. As I think of the struggle that we are engaged in in the South land, we look to you for inspiration and as a noble example, where you have already accomplished in the area of racial harmony and racial justice, what we are struggling to accomplish in other sections of the country, and you can never know what it means to those of us caught for the moment in the tragic and often dark midnight of man’s inhumanity to man, to come to a place where we see the glowing daybreak of freedom and dignity and racial justice.

People ask me from time to time as I travel across the country and over the world whether there has been any real progress in the area of race relations, and I always answer it by saying that there are three basic attitudes that one can take toward the question of progress in the area of race relations. One can take the attitude of extreme optimism. The extreme optimist would contend that we have come a long, long way in the area of race relations, and he would point proudly to the strides that have been made in the area of civil rights in the last few decades. And, from this, he would conclude that the problem is just about solved now and that we can sit down comfortably by the wayside and wait on the coming of the inevitable.

And then segregation is still with us. Although we have seen the walls gradually crumble, it is still with us. I imply that figuratively speaking, that Old Man Segregation is on his death bed, but you know history has proven that social systems have a great last-minute breathing power, and the guardians of the status quo are always on hand with their oxygen tents to keep the old order alive, and this is exactly what we see today. So segregation is still with us. We are confronted in the South in its glaring and conspicuous forms, and we are confronted in almost every other section of the nation in its hidden and subtle forms. But if democracy is to live, segregation must die. Segregation is a cancer in the body politic which must be removed before our democratic health can be realized. In a real sense, the shape of the world today does not permit us the luxury of an anemic democracy. If we are to survive, if we are to stand as a force in the world, if we are to maintain our prestige, we must solve this problem because people are looking over to America.

MLK and other civil rights leaders wear lei on 1965 march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama.

While on the 1965 march from Selma to Montgomery, marchers wore leis to symbolize their peaceful intentions.

Just two years ago I traveled all over Africa and talked with leaders from that great continent. One of the things they said to me was this: No amount of extensive handouts and beautiful words would be substitutes for treating our brothers in the United States as first-class citizens and human beings. This came to me from mouth of Prime Minister Nkrumah of Ghana.

Just four months ago, I traveled throughout India and the Middle East and talked with many of the people and leaders of that great country and other people in the Middle East, and these are the things they talked about: That we must solve this problem if we are to stand and to maintain our prestige. And I can remember very vividly meeting people all over Europe and in the Middle East and in the Far East, and even though many of them could not speak English, they knew how to say ‘Little Rock.’

And these are the things that we must be concerned about – we must be concerned about because we love America and we are out to free not only the Negro. This is not our struggle today to free 17,000,000 Negroes. It’s bigger than that. We are seeking to free the soul of America. Segregation debilitates the white man as well as the Negro. We are to free all men, all races and all groups. This is our responsibility and this is our challenge, and we look to this great new state in our Union as the example and as the inspiration. As we move on in this realm, let us move on with the faith that this problem can be solved, and that it will be solved, believing firmly that all reality hinges on moral foundations, and we are struggling for what is right, and we are destined to win.

We have come a long, long way. We have a long, long way to go. I close, if you will permit me, by quoting the words of an old Negro slave preacher. He didn’t quite have his grammar right, but he uttered some words in the form of a prayer with great symbolic profundity and these are the works he said: ‘Lord, we ain’t what we want to be; we ain’t what we ought to be; we ain’t what we gonna be, but thank God, we ain’t what we was.’ Thank you.”

At the conclusion of his address, there was much applause.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Our American Triumph: Civil Rights and Hawaii Statehood

Pearl Harbor, Civil Rights, and Hawaii Statehood

Prince Kuhio: The bridge from Kingdom to State

Hawaii Statehood: Tiny 1959 opposition was anti-Japanese, not anti-American

EDITORS NOTE: Photos: MLK in Hawaii 1959. PDF: Hawaii House Blog.

EMAILGATE: How George Soros controls Hillary, her campaign and the U.S. Dept. of State

Emails have been trickling out from Wikileaks that continue to show unusual influence and connections from globalist George Soros within the Hillary State Department and with current members of the Hillary for president campaign.

As we have previously reported Donald Trump is under attack by 187 organizations directly funded by the George Soros Open Society Foundations. Many of these same organizations are working to elect Hillary as president.

A specific email shows how much Hillary Clinton, the U.S. Department of State and now members of Hillary’s campaign staff have embraced Mr. Soros.

An email was sent by Mr. Soros to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (see the original email here). Soros sent the email on January 23rd, 2010. On January 24th the email was forwarded by Jonas Rolett, who is the special advisor to George Soros who chairs the Open Society Foundations, which are funding the anti-Trump effort. Rolett sent the message to Richard R. Verma, former U.S. Ambassador to India, stating, “Here’s the text of the message [from George Soros]. I’m available to talk at any time.”

Verma then sent the email to Hillary’s former senior State Department advisor and current campaign manager – Huma Abedin.

Also copied on the email are:

  1. Jacob J. Sullivan, who is an American policymaker and the top foreign policy advisor to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 election campaign,
  2. Philip H. Gordon, who from 2013 to 2015 served in the White House as Special Assistant to the President and White House Coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa, and the Persian Gulf Region,
  3. and William J. Burns the president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a former U.S. deputy secretary of state under Hillary Clinton.

Below, with my emphasis, is the full text of the message:

Dear Hillary,

A serious situation has arisen in Albania which needs urgent attention at senior levels of the US government. You may know that an opposition demonstration in Tirana on Friday resulted in the deaths of three people and the destruction of property. There are serious concerns about further unrest connected to a counter-demonstration to be organized by the governing party on Wednesday and a follow-up event by the opposition two days later to memorialize the victims. The prospect of tens of thousands of people entering the streets in an already inflamed political environment bodes ill for the return of public order and the country’s fragile democratic process.

I believe two things need to be done urgently:

1. Bring the full weight of the international community to bear on Prime Minister Berisha and opposition leader Edi Rama to forestall further public demonstrations and to tone down public pronouncements.
2. Appoint a senior European official as a mediator.

While I am concerned about the rhetoric being used by both sides, I am particularly worried about the actions of the Prime Minister. There is videotape of National Guard members firing on demonstrators from the roof of the Prime Ministry. The Prosecutor (appointed by the Democratic Party) has issued arrest warrants for the individuals in question. The Prime Minister had previously accused the opposition of intentionally murdering these activists as a provocation. After the tape came out deputies from his party accused the Prosecutor of planning a coup d’etat in collaboration with the opposition, a charge Mr. Berisha repeated today. No arrests have been made as of this writing.

The demonstration resulted from opposition protests over the conduct of parliamentary elections in 2009. The political environment has deteriorated ever since and is now approaching levels of 1997, when similar issues caused the country to slide into anarchy and violence. There are signs that Edi Rama’s control of his own people is slipping, which may lead to further violence.

The US and the EU must work in complete harmony over this, but given Albania’s European aspirations the EU must take the lead. That is why I suggest appointing a mediator such as Carl Bildt. Martti Ahtisaari or Miroslav Lajcak, all of whom have strong connections to the Balkans.

My foundation in Tirana is monitoring the situation closely and can provide independent analysis of the crisis.

Thank you,

George Soros

Connecting the dots is critical if one is to understand how deep and how broad are the connections between George Soros and Hillary Clinton. His influence with Mrs. Clinton and her campaign staff is a clear and present danger to the national security of the United. States.

RELATED ARTICLE: Wikileaks’ Assange – TPP Not Only Trade, 83% Is Fascists Controlling Our Daily Lives – YouTube

Socialists Are Scarcity Deniers by Jeffrey A. Tucker

Amnesty International has finally had enough of the goings-on in Venezuela. With a population starving, the government issued a forced-labor edict. Amnesty said: “Trying to tackle Venezuela’s severe food shortages by forcing people to work the fields is like trying to fix a broken leg with a band aid.”

Actually it’s more like fixing a broken leg with a bullet to the head.

Forced labor is indeed a human-rights abuse. Maybe you notice a pattern here. Wherever socialism is tried, people suffer. Each case is different because no tyrannical regime behaves exactly like any other. But the root of the problem is the refusal to allow people to own, accumulate, trade, and associate.

Surely that is the core of the problem in Venezuela.

Here We Go Again

No, say the socialists. “The problems plaguing the Venezuelan economy are not due to some inherent fault in socialism.”

Socialism seems to be the most persistent non-falsifiable ideology on planet earth. The socialists are like people who swear that gravity doesn’t exist and keep hopping around on two feet, expecting to rise into the clouds at any moment. It never happens, but the faith that there is no gravity remains unshaken.

What, in any case, is socialism? No matter how one describes it, no matter how many failed cases you point to, no matter how often all its central ideas are refuted, the socialist refuses responsibility.

So let’s just take at least someone’s word for it. The Socialist Party of Britain gives this shorthand description of what socialism is: “free access to all goods and services.”

Interesting idea. I think I’ll take a Bentley, a vacation to Europe, a custom-made suit, and a lifetime of haircuts. For free. Thank you very much.

Fundamental Misunderstanding

This claim seems to confirm everything I’ve ever suspected about socialism. It’s rooted in a very simple error, one so fundamental that it denies a fundamental feature of the world. It denies the existence and the persistence of scarcity itself. That is to say, it denies that producing and allocating is even a problem. If you deny that, it’s hardly surprising that you have no regard for economics as a discipline of the social sciences.

To be sure, economists use the term “scarcity” in a particular way. It does not mean a shortage, though the possibility of shortages are a feature of scarcity. But a good or service can still be scarce even if it exists in abundance.

So, for example, just because the stores overflow with groceries, or because Internet startups are begging you to download applications, it doesn’t mean that we live in a post-scarcity age. There is no such thing as post-scarcity in this life.

So long as there is a contest for control over something, it is a scarce good. Let’s say you are sharing a pizza with friends. Every time you take a slice, another appears in its place. The pizza is magically reproducing itself. At some point, once having noticed this phenomenon, your behavior begins to change. There is no more rivalry over slices. Your control over a slice does not forbid another’s control. In this case, pizza has indeed become non-scarce.

Scarcity is baked into the nature of a good. If you can imagine people in some sort of argument about who gets to control or consume it, it is scarce. And fighting over “intellectual property” doesn’t count, because what that really involves is fighting over whether someone can use their scarce resources (computer drives, guitar strings, etc) to reproduce patterns (software, songs, etc). More on this below.

Even copious goods can be scarce. Think of an Easter egg hunt with 100,000 eggs on a lawn. The kids will still run and struggle to collect them. They still have the features of scarcity.

No Collective Ownership of Scarce Goods

Here’s the key point. So long as anything is scarce, there cannot be free, unlimited, collective access to it. Whatever it is will be over-utilized, depleted, and finally vanish following the final fight for the last scrap – sort of like what is happening in Venezuela today.

That is to say, you can’t have socialism in a scarce good or service. Instead, it has to be allocated. Things can be allocated by arbitrary decision backed by force, or they can be allocated through agreement, trading, and gifting. The forceful way is what socialism has always become. This is for a reason: socialism does not deal with reality.

What doesn’t have the feature of scarcity? Think of any good or service over which there is no contest to control and consume. You can consume it and so can everyone else, unto infinity. The last word is key. For a good to be non-scarce, there can be no limits to its reproducibility.

Does air qualify? Not always, as you know if you have ever been stuck between floors on a crowded elevator. What about water? No, there is a reason why the bottled water market is so huge. These are like all things in the physical word: subject to limits and hence must be allocated.

On the other hand, let’s say you hear a catchy song like “Happy”; you can take the tune, sing it all day, and share it with your friends. Doing this takes nothing away from the original. In the same way, you can stare at an image, remember it, and reproduce it. And so it is with the ideas in this article. You can take them. I can’t stop you unless I attack or threaten your scarce body, or someone else (like the government) does so on my behalf. The idea portion of all these goods is non-scarce, so they do not need to be priced or owned.

How is it that you still end up paying for downloading books and purchasing music? The reason isn’t entirely due to copyright; it’s also because what you are paying for is not a good as such but a scarce service: all that is associated with accessing servers. Here is the scarce, and hence priced, service.

Socialism is indeed the problem. It truly makes no sense.

All this aside, socialists often don’t seem to get the very first point: there is no imagined heaven on earth of unlimited plenty. All we can do is struggle to make more of everything available to as many people as possible, and encourage trading to take advantage of the division of labor. This is called a market, and it is based on the notion of private ownership in all scarce things (including capital goods) – the very thing that socialists want to end.

Then they look at Venezuela and think: my goodness, something seems to be going wrong! Whatever it is, it can’t be socialism!

But you know what? Socialism is indeed the problem. It truly makes no sense.

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Content for the Foundation for Economic Education and CLO of the startup Liberty.me. Author of five books, and many thousands of articles, he speaks at FEE summer seminars and other events. His latest book is Bit by Bit: How P2P Is Freeing the World.  Follow on Twitter and Like on Facebook. Email

After the DOJ’s Report, Where are the Calls for Baltimore’s Mayor to Resign?

On Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a scathing report on the state of the Baltimore City Police Department (BPD) as a part of its civil rights investigation following the death of Freddie Gray.

The press release about the report stated,

“The Justice Department announced today that it found reasonable cause to believe that the Baltimore City Police Department (BPD) engages in a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution as well as federal anti-discrimination laws. BPD makes stops, searches and arrests without the required justification; searches and arrests; uses excessive force; and retaliates against individuals for their constitutionally-protected expression. The pattern or practice results from systemic deficiencies that have persisted within BPD for many years and has exacerbated community distrust of the police, particularly in the African-American community. The city and the department have also entered into an agreement in principle to work together, with community input, to create a federal court-enforceable consent decree addressing the deficiencies found during the investigation.”

I have been stunned by the muted reaction by both the Black community and the media.

Let me remind you that at the time of Gray’s death last year, Baltimore had a Black mayor, a Black police chief, a Black prosecutor, a Black president of the city council, a Black congressman and an almost fifty percent Black police force.

Juxtapose that with the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., a few years ago. The Justice Department, led by then-Attorney General Eric Holder, went to Ferguson and did a similar investigation and found identical results to Baltimore. The Ferguson reports are very similar to the report issued about the Baltimore Police Department.

The media narrative about Ferguson was that the police force was racist. White cop kills unarmed Black man. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, Blacks make up roughly 70 percent of the population in Ferguson and more than 20 percent live in poverty. When Michael Brown was shot and killed in Ferguson, the mayor was White, there was only one Black on the six-member city council (.096 percent) and only three Blacks out of 53 policemen (5.6 percent) and was listed as the sixth most segregated city in the U.S.

The NAACP’s president and CEO, Cornell Brooks basically copied and pasted the statement he issued after the Ferguson reports and reused it for the Baltimore report.

The NAACP is “supposed” to be the nation’s premier civil rights organization, but time after time they have been shown to be huge hypocrites. Upon the Justice Department’s release of their damning report on Ferguson last year, Brooks said to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, “the mayor needs to resign.”

Strangely enough, Brooks never called for the resignation of the Mayor of Baltimore Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, who is a Black Democrat.

I am really trying hard to understand what is going on here. Ferguson and Baltimore were both run from top to bottom by Democrats, both cities had an unarmed Black male killed at the hands of their police and both cities erupted in violence after the incidents. The Justice Department came to the same conclusion about both cities: that the cities and their police forces were incompetently run and employed policemen who violated a plethora of federal and civil rights laws.

The only difference between the two cities comes down to race. Ferguson was run by all Whites and Baltimore was run by all Blacks.

So, if Ferguson was a “racial” issue, what do you call Baltimore? Why have our Black civil rights leaders and activists reacted differently to the Justice Department’s report on Baltimore’s police department?

Where are the cries for Rawlings-Blake to resign? She also serves as the secretary of the Democratic National Committee and president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Why is she not being asked to resign from those positions?

Most of the violations listed by the Justice Department happened during her time as mayor. Is she not also a racist? Americans, in general, and Blacks specifically must be consistent in their calls for justice and equality, whether the mayor of a city is Black or White.

If they preside over a law-breaking, corrupt police department and allow that type of culture to fester, shouldn’t that elected official be forced out of office?

We, as Blacks, lose the moral high ground when we are not consistent in our quest to make America a better nation. Whites lose the moral high ground when they constantly try to minimize the role that race plays in our society. Both approaches are equally as wrong, but we both must strive to be equally right.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Black Press USA.

Someone’s Loss is Someone’s Gain

Being a Spanish speaking American by birth gives me a very unique stage to see the political area in three dimensions; as a native Puerto Rican, as an American citizen by birth, and as a woman.  It is not logical to me that my Republican Party that I have served for more than 26 years don’t get it as yet. They continue making the same mistakes over and over again. I have been part of races from National, State and local. Also have been a very strong advocated for education, juvenile justices our seniors as well as a candidate.

Being trained in Public Relations and International model, I was trained to learn how to read candidates body language; their hand shake is enough for me.  Candidates who are first time runners because they have not been mold by the establishment ideology or corruption.

This is the case with Donald J. Trump, knowing of him from the Miss America and Universe Pageants and Puerto Rico winning 5 tittles, the man is a household name. The amount of young women he has opened the doors to phenomenal futures and the dreams for little girls he has imprinted in their brains are the testaments of this man love for women and their future.

The man is a true genius in his own right. When years ago were rumors of him to running, I was ready to fold my sleeve and get to work. But it did not happen, and Romney came to be the one. Was great disappointment for me and many others not having Trump in the race. To me being involved in Romney’s race and see a winner-able race to a loser race was heart crushing, just because the people he surrounded with did not reach out to those who knew the ground game.

Florida is a very special animal, with 67 counties and not two are the same is a great mistake not to include the leaders instead of elected officials. This brings me to Trump’s Campaign; is Trumps campaign making the same mistake?   The Tampa rally where the Puerto Rican community continues growing the lack of volunteer and respectable leaders was not visible, last night event in Kissimmee, the heart of the Puerto Rican community paraded speakers who has no knowledge of the terrain, also big mistakes.  How dreadful that Spanish speaking Americans were not able to be part of a historical moment, because the lack of Spanish speaking Americans and advertising. It’s very sad when the supposed campaign workers, staff and volunteers do not understand the state makeup because they are from others states or counties.

Why the Florida Puerto Rican community is the make it or breaks it in these elections? Puerto Rico is a territory of USA, we are citizens by birth, we are legal citizens and we are not able to vote for the Presidential elections but yes for the primaries in Puerto Rico. As soon a Puerto Rican cross the ocean to the main land are able to immediately register and vote. Puerto Rico has a very serious problem when the democrats (PPD) infiltrated the REPUBLICANS (PNP) and now both parties are the same. It is a big disservice to the inhabitant of the islands, the future and the economy.

Upon arrival because the Democratic Party, they think that is democracy and we love democracy, so they register democrat. The soul of Puerto Ricans is Republican, we love family, we love the entrepreneurial spirit, and we believe the marriage between a man and a woman, WE LOVE GOD, NATION and FAMILY.

The event in Kissimmee was a great lost opportunity not to bring the right speakers who can and will make a difference, and bring aboard the Puerto Rican voters with the message of prosperity and small business, and the returned of companies which have left the island, with a commentary of empty buildings and an economy of bankruptcy.  Trump has been defamed even by people who were supporters of Jeb’s and Rubio in our island. Today you see them been part of Trumps Campaign.

My question is are they to help win or to sabotage Trumps opportunity to “Make America Great Again” Those of us who do work in the Path the Peaceful Warrior are concerned with Agenda 21 One World Government.


ALGUIEN PERDIO Y OTRO GANO

“ser un americana de habla española por nacimiento me da una única tarima para ver el arena política en tres dimensiones; como una nativa puertorriqueña, como un ciudadana americana por nacimiento y como mujer.  No es lógico para mí que mi partido republicano al cual he servido por más de 26 años no la adquiero todavía la responsabilidad de instruir a los Puertorriqueños la diferencia de los partidos. Siguen haciendo los mismos errores una y otra vez. He sido parte de las carreras políticas de los nacionales, estatales y locales. También he abogado con fervor por la educación, menores, nuestros ancianos y como candidata.

Adiestramiento en relaciones públicas y modelo internacional, fui entrenada para aprender a leer lenguaje corporal de los candidatos; su movimientos son suficiente para mí.  Los candidatos que son primerizos me interesan porque no han sido moldeados por la ideología del establecimiento o la corrupción.

Este es el caso de Donald, sabiendo él de la Miss América y Miss Universo concursos y Puerto Rico tiene 5 títulos de ganadoras, Mr. Trump es un hombre de nombre familiar en nuestra isla.

Puerto Rico es un territorio de Estados Unidos, somos ciudadanos por nacimiento, legales y no somos capaces de votar para las elecciones presidenciales en la isla pero sí para las primarias en Puerto Rico. Tan pronto un puertorriqueño cruzar el océano  a USA tienen el derecho de registrarse y votar de inmediato.

Puerto Rico tiene un problema muy grave cuando los demócratas en Puerto Rico (PPD) se infiltraron con los republicanos (PNP) y ahora ambos partidos son lo mismo demócratas (dos manos izquierdas no pueden aplaudir). Es una gran pérdida para los habitantes de las islas, y el futuro y la economía.  A su llegada piensan que el partido demócrata, es democracia y amor democracia, se registran demócratas. El alma de los Puertorriqueños  es republicana, amamos a familia, nos encanta al espíritu emprendedor, y creemos en el matrimonio entre un hombre y una mujer, amamos Dios, nación y familia.

El evento en Kissimmee fue una gran oportunidad que se perdió no llevaron los altavoces de la comunidad Puertorriqueña que puede hacer una gran diferencia y llevar a bordo los votantes puertorriqueños  en Florida con el mensaje de prosperidad y una economía abrumadora para la isla y la verdad, porque Trump es el único que puede ayudar a resolver la economía de Puerto Rico primo. Porque con Trump  América y Puerto Rico serán grandes otra vez.

Gun-Haters Deride First American Gold Winner at Rio Summer Olympics

Signs of the cultural schisms and declining love of country that are the chief legacy of the Obama presidency are all around us. And while not the most serious, one of the most unfortunate and pathetic is that Americans can no longer agree that a fellow patriot’s gold medal at the Olympics is something to be celebrated. At least not when the gold involves pulling a trigger.

Nineteen-year-old Virginian Ginny Thrasher became the first gold medalist of the 2016 Summer Olympiad last Saturday, winning the women’s 10-meter air rifle competition in an upset over heavily-favored China, whose competitors in the event have six prior Olympic medals between them.

Ginny’s is a classic Cinderella story of a young athlete ascending to the top of her sport in her very first Olympic appearance. And while her stiffest competition have long been dominating international matches, Ginny’s first exposure to the shooting sports occurred only few years ago, on a hunting trip with her grandfather. Taking her first whitetail proved to be a formative experience for Ginny, as the then-figure skater began devoting her full competitive energies to marksmanship.

Fortunately, in addition to her grandfather, she had support and training from her father, who is retired from the U.S. Air Force. She also had ready access to firearm safety training and scholastic shooting programs at two public institutions, West Springfield High School and perennial NCAA shooting standout West Virginia University. During her freshman year last season at WVU, Ginny won the individual small-bore and air rifle titles, paving her way to national prominence and a place on the U.S. shooting team.

Ginny’s story could only be written in America, where firearms are woven into the fabric of ordinary life and where even a suburban teenage girl can find top notch marksmanship training and support right in her own neighborhood.

“I am so proud of being American,” she told ABC News. “I am so proud to stand on that podium, to listen to my nation’s anthem and to just be able to represent, and start off this Rio 2016 games on such a positive note.”

Now it’s no surprise that the chattering classes from abroad haven’t been as enthusiastic in embracing Ginny as the vast majority of Americans. Gun-hating Piers Morgan, a sterling example of why the British Empire has declined so precipitously, weighed in early with his mockery. “LEAST SURPRISING BREAKING NEWS EVER,” he tweeted, “America’s 1st Olympic Gold Medal is for Shooting. #Thrasher.”

But it’s disappointing that antigun politics prevent even some Americans from celebrating their countrywoman’s outstanding accomplishment. Wil Wheaton (yes, we checked, and apparently he’s a celebrity of sorts), reacted to Ginny’s win with this tweet: “America’s first gold medal in the 2016 Olympics was won by a teenager for shooting. Because we now live inside @TheOnion.”

The Twittersphere featured a number of similar comments, albeit many by people who have no public persona or whose public persona is even more obscure than Wil Wheaton’s.

And the Washington Post, in an otherwise relatively straightforward profile of the golden girl, nevertheless could not help commenting on her “menacing name” and “high-powered, German-made weapon.”

In that regard, the Post was wrong on everything except the origin of Ginny’s Feinwerkbau 700. While it was made in Germany, it’s basically a more sophisticated version of the pellet guns many American children grow up with and use to learn the fundamentals of safe shooting and gun handling. It is designed specifically for marksmanship competitions, not as a weapon. And propelling a .177 caliber pellet at a maximum velocity of 570 feet per second, it’s not even especially powerful by air gun standards. What distinguishes it most is its pinpoint accuracy at competition range, something that only really matters in the hands of an expert user like Ginny Thrasher.

Simply put, any suggestion that Ginny’s participation in elite shooting competition on behalf of her university and country somehow promotes a “culture of violence” or firearm-related crime is like suggesting that the Olympic torch should be faulted for contributing to global warming.

Indeed, a variety of shooting sports have a long-established history in the Olympic Games. And for good reason. Many traditional Olympic events are rooted in disciplines that have a martial pedigree, including biathlon, wrestling, boxing, archery, javelin, and equestrian events. Yet according to the International Olympic Committee’s charter:

“The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of humankind, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.”

In other words, the Olympics provide a forum for countries to contend with one another in contests of strength, courage, precision, speed, and skill, but without bloodshed and with the goal of mutual elevation, not conquest or subjugation.

That’s a pretty intuitive concept for most people to grasp.

As for Ginny, she’s not letting ginned up “controversies” interfere with the achievement of her Olympic dreams. You don’t become Olympic shooting champion, after all, if you are easily distracted. Rather than focus on polemics, Ginny said, “I just tried to focus on the competition.”

That’s what makes Ginny an international winner and an American success story.

And while most Americans will continue to embrace her as a hero, her detractors on Twitter will no doubt keep making fools of themselves, 140 characters at a time.

UK: Massive Muslim voter fraud not challenged because of ‘political correctness’

The more we continue our “over-sensitivity about ethnicity and religion,” the more our Western democracies will continue their descent into crime, human rights abuses, and the general anarchy that is entrenched in the Islamic regimes that Muslim migrants have escaped. Now, massive voter fraud is reported in Muslim areas in the UK, a prevalent phenomenon from “back home” under corrupted regimes.

The Daily Mail also reported that an ex-Cabinet minister, Sir Eric Pickles, lambasted the police, election watchdogs and town halls for ignoring evidence of electoral abuse, and he stated that “the intimidation of voters on religious grounds was so bad that police should be allowed to put cordons outside polling stations to protect frightened voters.”

Leftists and cowards keep denying the truth about Islamic supremacist intimidation in the West, Sharia incursions, migrant crime, deadly jihad attacks, and the like; and according to Hillary Clinton, Muslims have “nothing to do with terrorism.”

A key point to note in the article below:

In 2014, Breitbart London reported on threats and chaos at Tower Hamlets polling stations.

Meanwhile…

First Lady of the U.S. Michelle Obama visited a school in Tower Hamlets in the summer of 2015 where she declared: “When I look out at all these young women, I see myself. In so many ways your story is my story”. She added, in her speech to the Mulberry School for Girls – most of whom where hijab-clad, that the area was full of “families [who] are tight knit… with strong values.”

Govt: Massive Voter Fraud In Muslim Areas, No Challenge Because Of ‘Political Correctness’”, by Raheem Kassam, Breitbart, August 12, 2016:

Massive levels of electoral fraud have gone unchallenged as a result of “political correctness”, according to an official new report from the UK government.
The Telegraph reports that a new report commissioned by former Communities Secretary Sir Eric Pickles reveals that UK authorities are in a “state of denial” and are “turning a blind eye” to election fraud in heavily populated Muslim areas.

According to the report, voter fraud is occurring “especially in communities of Pakistani and Bangladeshi background”, but concerns have been largely ignored due to “over-sensitivities about ethnicity and religion”.

The new information confirms reports repeatedly raised by Breitbart London. In 2014, Breitbart London reported on threats and chaos at Tower Hamlets polling stations.

First Lady of the U.S. Michelle Obama visited a school in Tower Hamlets in the summer of 2015 where she declared: “When I look out at all these young women, I see myself. In so many ways your story is my story”. She added, in her speech to the Mulberry School for Girls – most of whom where hijab-clad, that the area was full of “families [who] are tight knit… with strong values”.

According to the Telegraph, the new report sees Sir Eric warning that “challenging issues” over community cohesion should not be an “excuse” for failing to “uphold the rule of law and protect British liberties”.

His recommendations include banning officials from using any other language than English to communicate with voters at polling stations, as well as calling for voter identification and police cordons around polling stations.

According to Sir Eric, who was removed as Communities Secretary in May 2015, a lack of action by police to tackle electoral fraud “sends a worrying signal that the police are soft on tackling and prosecuting electoral fraud, when faced with competing operational demands”.

He said: “We should never be frightened to look under the rock when what is crawling underneath threatens us all. It is time to take action to take on the electoral crooks and defend Britain’s free and fair elections.”

And he specifically attacked “foreign languages” used to communicate with voters at polling stations.

The report highlights “abuses of postal voting” and “evidence” of “pressure being put on vulnerable members of some ethnic minority communities, particularly women and young people”.

“There were concerns that influence and intimidation within households may not be reported,” the report states, “and that state institutions had turned a blind eye to such behaviour because of ‘politically correct’ over-sensitivities about ethnicity and religion”….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Mayor bans burkinis on Cannes beaches: they show “allegiance to terrorist movements at war with us”

“Islamophobia” shock horror: Muslim Bollywood star detained at U.S. airports

U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency document: Obama and Hillary’s ‘willful decision’ to create ISIS

Strictly speaking, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi founded the Islamic State (ISIS) as al-Qaeda in Iraq. But it was Obama and Hillary who empowered it and made the decisions that led to it occupying and holding an expanse of territory larger than Great Britain. The media is acting full-on as the Democratic Party’s press agency now, firing at Trump in every possible way, and thereby showing how deeply threatened the political and media elites are by his candidacy. This attack is particularly egregious: trumpeting as a “gaffe” a statement that, while manifesting some rhetorical overstatement, has a great deal of truth to it.

Obama Hillary

“Trump Claims Obama and Hillary Are ‘Founder’ and ‘Co-Founder’ of ISIS, Media Feign Amnesia,” by Jim Jatras, Chronicles, August 12, 2016:

No one paying attention with even one eye and half an ear can be ignorant of the fact that when it comes to this year’s election the MSM are lying shills for Hillary. But now it seems they’re all suffering from amnesia too.

The latest “OMG, Trump said that!” moment is The Donald’s claim that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are, correspondingly, the “founder” and “cofounder” of ISIS. True to form, the media reaction has been to shriek in outrage that he would cast aspersions on such august personages.

As of this writing, not one American media source of which this writer is aware has brought up in relation to Trump’s claims the August 2012 report (declassified and released in 2015 under a FOIA request from Judicial Watch) from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) stating that “there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria, and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.” The “supporting powers” are identified as “western countries” (no doubt including and led by the United States), “the Gulf States” (presumably including and led by Saudi Arabia), and “Turkey” (just Turkey).

In August 2012 the Secretary of State at the time was one Hillary Rodham Clinton. The President was and still is one Barack Hussein Obama.

The DIA report said, in essence, that if we (the U.S. and our local cronies) keep aiding al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other such sterling democrats, something really nasty would arise in eastern Syria. Several months later, it did, when ISIS declared itself a state straddling the Syria-Iraq border.

At some point, even a three-year-old picks up on the concept of causation. “Johnny, if you keep doing that, you’ll [break it, hurt yourself, whatever].” The MSM would have us think that Obama and Hillary are less intelligent than a three-year-old. By dumping funds and arms into the hands of terrorists—only the supposedly “moderate” head-choppers, of course—they had no idea, poor dears, what might happen.

Except they did. Aside from the cautionary example of the chaos Libya was thrown into by “regime change” in 2011, not to mention the appearance of al-Qaeda in the first place as a precipitate from the Afghan war against the Soviets, they had every reason to heed what amounted to a forewarning from DIA. Instead, they decided to press on, aware of the likely result. This was intended: “ . . . this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want.”

General Michael Flynn, currently a Trump adviser, took over as head of DIA a month before the issuance of the report in question. Whether it was his personal effort to caution the administration or simply the professional analysts in the DIA apparatus laying out the facts as they saw them, the 2012 report made no difference. As Flynn confirmed last year, this was not a matter of the administration’s turning a “blind eye” but of their “willful decision” that led to ISIS:

Hasan: You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn’t listening?

Flynn: I think the administration.

Hasan: So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?

Flynn: I don’t know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.

Hasan: A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?

Flynn: It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing.

Let’s put into broader context the Fourth Estate’s malfeasance in not connecting the 2012 DIA report to Trump’s accusation. In the last couple of weeks we’ve seen a steadyparade of Republican poobahs and mandarins coming out against Trump (some overtly for Hillary though most pretending there’s some other alternative), plus a veritableWho’s Who of the Deep State responsible for every God-awful mess abroad, in both a GOP lineup and a bipartisan one. (If Trump does win, he’ll at least save time not having to draw up his own Enemies’ List.)  And let’s not forget the former Acting CIA Director who’s calling for assassinations of Russian personnel (and Iranians) in Syria. Sure! It’s all in good fun! What could possibly go wrong?…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Wikileaks Confirms Hillary Sold Weapons To ISIS

Egyptian judo star refuses to shake Israeli’s hand at Olympics

Czech bishop decries “ruthless welcome policy” and obfuscation about jihad terror, is censored by his own paper

Fact Check: Were Obama and Hillary Founders of ISIS? You Bet!

Even the left-stream media is now acknowledging that Donald Trump “has a point” when he blasts Hilary and Obama for creating ISIS.

“Hillary Clinton is vulnerable. ISIS did gain strength during her time as Secretary of State,” said ABC News correspondent Martha Raddatz.

Conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt tried to give Mr. Trump an out. “I know what you meant,” he suggested. “You meant that he [Obama] created the vacuum, he lost the peace.”

Video: Obama: Increasing Support to Fight ISIS in Syria

“No,” Trump replied. “I meant, he’s the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.”

Trump is correct – and quite literally, so.

First, a document. Then some history.

Thanks to Judicial Watch, we now have an August 2012 defense intelligence report on the civil war in Syria and the situation in Iraq that openly states that the policy of the United States and its allies was to support the Salafist opposition to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.

That opposition, at the time spearheaded by Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), soon morphed into the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, ISIS.

The report appears to have originated from U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) in Iraq, well before their intelligence product was tarnished by political interference from top commanders in 2014 aimed at diminishing the threat from ISIS.

Here’s what the report, originally stamped SECRET, actually says:

 AQI, through the spokesman of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), Abu Muhammad al- Adnani… is calling on the Sunnis in Iraq, especially the tribes in the border regions (between Iraq and Syria), to wage war against the Syrian regime…

Opposition forces are trying to control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor) adjacent to the Western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar), in addition to neighboring Turkish borders. Western countries, the Gulf States and Turkey are supporting these efforts… [emphasis mine]

There is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria (Hasak and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want…

It is no secret that the United States was supporting the Syrian opposition in 2012 and even until very recently. In December 2012, thanks in large measure to the active lobbying of Mrs. Clinton and U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford, Obama declared that the United States considered the opposition as “the legitimate representative of the Syrian people.”

What was secret until the release of this August 2012 defense intelligence report is that the United States knew that the Syrian opposition was dominated by al Qaeda in Iraq and the Islamic State of Iraq, groups that merged and morphed into what today we call ISIS.

So Donald Trump is literally correct. Obama and Hillary created ISIS. They figure among the founding fathers of the world’s most brutal terrorist organization. They deserve ISIS Most Valuable Player awards for their efforts.

Some of America’s enemies, such as Ayatollah Khamenei of Iran, have also accused the United States of creating ISIS – but as a tool for encroaching on Iran’s efforts to dominate the Muslim world. In fact, Obama and Hillary’s policies have simultaneously favored Iran and its rise to regional dominance, standing aside as Iran filled the vacuum in Iraq with its own militias and allowing Iranian troops and weapons to flow onto battlefields in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Libya and beyond.

Other documents obtained by Judicial Watch show that the United States was also complicit with arms shipments from Benghazi to the jihadi rebel groups in Syria.

These particular shipments were distinct from the more publicized case of al Entisar, a Libyan fishing vessel that arrived in Iskanderiyah, Turkey, crammed with weapons in late August 2012.

The shipments described in this recently declassified document were sent directly to small Syrian ports under rebel control and included RPG grenade-launchers, sniper rifles, and ammunition for 125mm and 155mm howitzers.

As I revealed two years ago, the U.S. backed arms shipments to ISIS and its allies in Syria appear to have been run out of the White House by then-counterterrorism advisor (and current CIA director) John Brennan. Running the clandestine arms shipments outside official channels allowed Obama and his allies – including Mrs. Clinton, who supported the arms shipments – to withhold that information from Congress.

Deflecting attention from these arms shipments is precisely why Obama and Hillary hatched their “blame-it-on-a-YouTube-video” narrative as the cause of the Benghazi attacks. It was a deliberate deception to trick the American people and cover-up their misdeeds.

Obama’s disastrous withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq in December 2011 clearly enhanced the ability of AQI and ISI to seize control of large portions of Iraqi territory and certainly contributed to the birth of ISIS. It also opened the door for Iran to fill the vacuum.

But as the August 2012 defense intelligence report states, that was the plan all along. Obama and Hillary wanted to create an ISIS-controlled enclave in Syria, “in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).”

Donald Trump was right. Again.

Listen to Timmerman on Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Wikileaks Confirms Hillary Sold Weapons To ISIS

Media in frenzy over Trump claim that Obama and Hillary founded ISIS, ignores DIA document showing how they did

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Breitbart.com. Kenneth R. Timmerman is the author of Deception: the Making of the YouTube Video Hillary and Obama Blamed for Benghazi, released on July 19 and is now in its 4th printing.

More of the Same Will Not Help You

Want extreme poverty?  Then by all means, vote for Hillary Clinton.  There is an old saying that the proud citizens of Michigan have said to me many times.  “As Detroit goes, so goes the nation.”  That proclamation is an old holdover from the days when Detroit was the undisputed motor capital of the world.  There was a time when Detroit automaker General Motors was the largest and most influential company of any kind on earth.  Detroit’s other manufacturing heavyweights included Ford, Chrysler, Dodge and the largest network of auto supplier companies in the world.

Until the end of the year 1966, Detroit was the wealthiest city in America and perhaps the world on a per capita basis.  After a lengthy history of successful republican mayors, in the year of 1962 Detroit voters took a political left turn and elected progressive democrat Jerome Cavanagh.  After only five years of a preponderance of socialist leaning policies and the negatives outcomes that accompany them, Detroit experienced the largest urban riot in American history in 1967

Quite often, rather than seeking real solutions to the problems plaguing the onetime industrial behemoth, Detroit city government totally turned away from the blessed capitalist principles that had made that city an American cornerstone of industry.

So after five decades and counting, it would seem that the voters in Detroit and other urban centers would grow tired of such weariness and seek a more economically viable situation.  But just like their socialist leaning counterparts in places like Venezuela, they seem unable to comprehend that maybe trying something different might render a more positive living outcome.  Unfortunately, far too many urban oriented Americans have allowed many generations of their children to be brainwashed to the point that they are seemingly unable to appreciate, or even desire a better way.

In fact, people in places like Detroit are more in favor of centralized heavy handed government over America.  Therein lies their overwhelming support for Mrs. Clinton for president.  Also, American government schools have done a masterful job of brain damaging so many students that on one hand they decry past slavery, yet on the other they complain of the lack of opportunity.

But when principles and viable solutions to lack, that have worked are presented, the brainwashed urbanites show vigorous disdain and often hurl accusations of racism.  Meanwhile, their standard of living continues to decline and the misery of poverty continues to be their way of life.

Before the first election of president Barack Obama I had warned listeners to my syndicated radio commentary (The Edwards Notebook) that Obama wants to do to America what has been done to Detroit.  Unfortunately, I was correct about Mr. Obama’s intentions toward America.  At every single opportunity, the president either blocked needed projects like the Keystone pipeline. He also continued to enact a record number of executive orders, making it more difficult to open or operate a viable business in the United States.

If Obama and Mrs. Clinton have their way, the United States will go the way of Venezuela.  Ultimately, as the American government centralizes more power in Washington D.C. it becomes a bigger drain on our overall economy and more indifferent to our unalienable rights.

Speaking of unalienable rights, urban dwellers who stupidly support president Obama no matter what are being trashed by Obama’s open border policy.  He allows a nonstop flow of both illegal immigrants and American hating Muslim refugees into the country and directly compete with black Americans for the shrinking level of opportunities available due to Obama’s dreadful economic policies.  But still, America’s black urbanites are in favor of the president and are prepared to support and vote for Margaret Sanger award winner, Mrs. Clinton in her quest for the presidency.

Unfortunately, every year more and more indoctrinated college graduates join the ranks of socialist loving black Americans who clamor for the most progressive candidates and equate that with being black. It seems that the more political candidates promote ideas that gravitate toward economic misery, the more black Americans are ready to vote for them and then will turn around and blame republicans for their worsening problems.  One of the biggest indicators of the success of government school brainwashing efforts, is how black Americans support the flooding of our republic with illegal immigrants and hateful Muslims.  They even approve of illegal immigrants and hateful Muslims being allowed to vote.

No wonder Russian dictator Nikita Khrushchev decades ago go said “we shall bury you.”  He was pointing out what would happen if or when, progressives control the education of America’s children they would be brainwashed into supporting America’s decline and demise.

As you consider the crossroads our nation now faces, please remember that if you want to live life more abundantly, there must be a noticeable reduction in the size, scope and influence of the centralized federal government.  If not, we could soon witness America ending up like Detroit or even worse, like Venezuela.  Choose, but choose wisely, for the life you affect will be your own.

EDITORS NOTE: Readers may join Ron Edwards Fridays on AM 1180 KCKQ on www.americamatters.us at 5:00 PM EST and 2:00 PM PST.