Tom Trento, an international lecturer, author and SE Florida radio talk show host on WNN AM 1470/FM 99.9, reveals new information about Huma Abedin Weiner and her husband Anthony’s finances. Anthony Weiner and his wife, Huma Abedin Weiner are back in the public eye as the former Congressman is now running for the Mayor of New York City.
According to Raymond Hernandez of the New York Times, “The State Department, under Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton, created an arrangement for her longtime aide and confidante Huma Abedin to work for private clients as a consultant while serving as a top adviser in the department.”
Because Anthony is running for public office he released his and his wife’s income tax statements for 2012. At the time Anthony was a consultant but listed “no income”. However his wife Huma, was working for Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of the Department of State. In December 2011 Huma had a baby and was placed on maternity leave. However, she continued to receive her full salary from the Department of State even though she only worked part-time. In addition to drawing her full salary of $135,000, she and her husband Anthony reported total combined income for 2012 of $490.000.
According to Trento this money was paid to Huma by the Clinton Foundation and a Saudi think tank for consulting services. The question is how can one be a paid as a full time employee at the Department of State working directly for Hillary Clinton and still be paid as a consultant for the Clinton Foundation and a foreign entity?
Here is a short video clip from Tom Trento’s show where we raises some serious, and funny, questions about the Huma Abedin Weiner’s income in 2012:
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Huma-Abedin-Weiner.jpg448635Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2013-05-22 07:04:002013-12-12 16:10:53Hillary's top advisor at the State Department was a consultant for Bill Clinton's Foundation at the same time?
Jon Feere, the Legal Policy Analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies, reviews an ad released by the “Gang of Eight” featuring Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL). The ad is playing nationwide, including in Florida.
Feere states, “The minute-long advertisement calls the proposal ‘conservative immigration reform’ and attempts to make amnesty appealing to Republican voters. Partisan politics aside, the amnesty ad is misleading on a number of counts…”
The ad was produced by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg who created FWD.us, an advocacy group aimed at promoting amnesty. One of the group’s offshoots is “Americans for a Conservative Direction“, which is cited at the end of the ad.
Americans for a Conservative Direction’s board members include: Haley Barbour: former Governor Haley Barbour served as the 62nd governor of Mississippi from 2004 to 2012 and served as Chairman of the Republican National Committee in the mid ’90s; Sally Bradshaw: former Florida Governor Jeb Bush’s Chief of Staff from 1999-2001, and served as a Co-Chair of the Republican National Committee’s Growth and Opportunity Project; Joel Kaplan: currently Vice President of US Public Policy at Facebook, Joel also served as Deputy Chief of Staff to former President George W. Bush; Dan Senor: former chief advisor to Representative Paul Ryan on the Romney-Ryan 2012 campaign; Rob Jesmer: former Executive Director at the National Republican Senatorial Committee from 2008 – 2012.
Below is the ad:
Here is Feere’s analysis of the ad phrase by phrase:
RUBIO: “Anyone who thinks what we have now in immigration is not a problem is fooling themselves. What we have in place today is de facto amnesty.”
Very few Americans believe that we don’t have a serious problem with illegal immigration. It is true that this country is experiencing a de facto amnesty for illegal aliens, and it is largely the result of the Obama administration refusing to enforce immigration laws on the books. The problem is that Rubio wants to turn this “de facto” amnesty into a formal amnesty, and grant millions of law-breakers work permits, driver’s licenses, Social Security accounts, travel documents, and an unknown number of additional state-level benefits. Rubio is trying to help President Obama fulfill his campaign goal of keeping all illegal aliens in the country and giving them benefits reserved for legal residents. If Rubio was actually troubled by the de facto amnesty being advanced by the Obama administration, Rubio would side with the ICE officials who are suing the Obama administration over the president’s effort to prevent them from doing their jobs. Top-ranking ICE official Chris Crane explained the lawsuit to Fox News, here. Mr. Crane’s recent congressional testimony, available here, raises many troubling issues. ICE’s additional concern is that the amnesty bill would make permanent their inability to enforce the law by giving DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano “virtually unlimited discretion” to waive all enforcement of immigration law. If an amnesty is passed, the Obama administration will likely continue to undermine any immigration enforcement provisions in the bill.
ANNOUNCER: “Conservative leaders have a plan, the toughest immigration enforcement measures in the history of the United States.”
The so-called “Gang of Eight” senators who wrote the bill aren’t all “conservative leaders”, unless you consider Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) to fit that description. True, the gang also includes Republican senators, but it is up for debate whether one considers Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), and Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) to be conservative on immigration. Their immigration report card grades, from the pro-enforcement group NumbersUSA, are troubling: Graham has a “C”, McCain a “D”, and a Flake “C”. This is in contrast to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has an “A+” from NumbersUSA.
The voiceover in the ad also cites a newspaper article for the “toughest enforcement measures in the history of the United States” language. This commercial carefully avoided some of the language in the article’s full sentence, particularly the part noting that this bill would allow previously deported illegal aliens to return to the country. The article’s full sentence reads:
The controversial proposal would grant most of the 11 million people here illegally a path to citizenship and give thousands of deported individuals a chance to return, but would also adopt some of the toughest immigration enforcement measures in the history of the United States.
No immigration bill in the history of the United States has ever permitted previously deported illegal aliens to return to the United States to receive citizenship, so it is difficult to see how this news organization concluded that the bill is the “toughest” our country has ever seen. Of course, the article is really claiming that the bill would “adopt some” tough enforcement measures, not that the bill itself is tough.
On closer inspection, many of these measures (noted below) are not as tough as they seem to be.
RUBIO: “They have to pass the background check, they have to be able to pay a registration fee, they have to pay a fine.”
Within six months of the bill’s passage, illegal immigrants would become immediately eligible for legal status, and many of the hoops that illegal immigrants would have to jump through to get such status do not amount to much. It is likely that any illegal immigrants who simply claim to be eligible will be able to avoid deportation, even if they’re already in detention. This is exactly what is already happening under President Obama’s deferred action program. ICE agents are being instructed to release any illegal aliens who claim to be eligible, even if they haven’t filled out an application form. The same situation will unfold under the large-scale amnesty bill. ICE will be virtually handcuffed and will not be able to carry out most enforcement.
To acquire the primary legal status offered under this bill, illegal immigrants would have to undergo a simple background check. But the bill would still grant legal status to illegal immigrants with a significant amount of criminality on their rap sheet. For example, crimes like ID theft and vandalism are not considered serious enough to deny a person status, despite the fact that such crimes create real victims. Specifically, two misdemeanors will not result in legal status being denied and under the bill multiple misdemeanors could be counted as “one” misdemeanor, provided they occur on the same day. Additionally, any problematic history an illegal immigrant has in his home country is unlikely to be uncovered; in a sense, our public safety would depend on the bookkeeping of police departments in the alien’s homeland, and there are many things that Americans consider criminal that are not criminal overseas.
Finally, the government’s capacity to conduct background checks on millions of illegal immigrants is questionable. ICE Union head Chris Crane explained in a video interview with the Daily Caller that there is “no such thing as a background check on a foreign national.” The 1986 amnesty also had background checks, but hundreds of thousands of fraudulent applicants were rubber-stamped. The amnesty granted legal status to someone who used his new status to freely travel to the Middle East to pick up terrorist training and helped lead the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Had we enforced our immigration laws, he would have been removed from the country and the attack might never have occurred.
The recent Boston Marathon bombing should also illustrate the government’s inability to carefully vet backgrounds. The FBI interviewed at least one of the terrorists, his family members, and his neighbors, in addition to analyzing his Internet usage. They apparently found nothing that would have raised a red flag. Despite the fact that DHS estimates there are many problematic foreign-born people living in the United States, the millions of illegal aliens applying for the amnesty will not have nearly as vigorous of a background check as the Boston bombers had, suggesting that some bad people will receive legal status through the bill. As written, the bill would allow known gang members to become U.S. citizens if they simply “renounce” their gang affiliation.
Rubio also claims that illegal aliens applying for the amnesty would have to pay a fee, but there are waivers and no specificity. The bill simply notes that illegal aliens aged 16 and older who want legal status will have to pay a fee “in an amount determined by [DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano]”. While it is unclear how much the fee would be, the bill says it should be enough to cover processing the applications. (See here for David North’s estimate of the size of the fee needed to process applicants properly.) But in the next section, the bill gives Napolitano the power to limit the fee and to exempt “classes of individuals” altogether. With such broad authority granted by Congress, it is unclear whether this fee would apply to most amnesty applicants.
It should also be noted that USCIS already offers waivers for those who cannot afford certain fees — in fact, the Obama administration created a form for such waivers in 2010 — and similar waivers may apply to any future amnesty. To obtain a fee waiver for some existing immigration benefits, an applicant simply must show that they are currently using a welfare program. Currently, 71 percent of illegal alien households with children make use of at least one form of welfare.
Rubio also claims that amnesty applicants would have to pay a fine. A fine is different from a fee and, by definition, a fine is meant to be a punishment for breaking a law. The bill puts the fine at $500 for the initial legal status — not much of a punishment considering the laws that have been broken. This initial status turns the illegal aliens into legal residents and grants them work permits, driver’s licenses, Social Security accounts, and many other benefits. Applicants would have to pay another $500 over the next six years. If a person wants to upgrade from this provisional status to full green card status (and eventual U.S. citizenship), they would have to pay another $1,000 many years down the road. But there are many exceptions. For example, people of any age who claim to have entered before age 16 and have a high school degree or GED would not have to pay either of the $500 fines, nor would they have to pay the $1,000 fine for green card status. Also, all people under 21 years of age, regardless of when they entered and whether they have a high school degree, would be exempted from both of the $500 fines.
Furthermore, it is likely that some pro-amnesty groups will assist applicants in paying the fines — some of which will be using taxpayer-provided funds to do so. The bill would actually grant groups like La Raza $150 million of taxpayer dollars to help illegal aliens apply for the amnesty, and the bill grants them a lot of discretion to decide how to spend the money. In reality, the fine may not be much of a punishment at all — particularly if American taxpayers are the ones footing the bill.
Absent from Rubio’s list is the requirement that illegal aliens pay back taxes. The reason he is no longer citing it is because that provision never made it into the bill. For months Rubio and other amnesty advocates sold the bill on the notion of requiring illegal aliens to pay back taxes for the years they have worked off the books. But it was simply part of an attempt to mislead the public into thinking this bill is tougher than it really is. Only “assessed” taxes have to be paid, and if the IRS doesn’t audit illegal immigrants working off the books — which is won’t — then there will be no “assessed” taxes to pay.
ANNOUNCER: “Border security on steroids. Tough border triggers have no giveaways for law breakers.”
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano Napolitano simply has to submit a plan for border security and a fencing plan within six months of the passage of this bill. As soon as she submits the plans, illegal aliens become eligible for work permits, Social Security accounts, driver’s licenses, travel documents, and countless state-level benefits. Past amnesties show that these benefits are mostly what illegal aliens are looking for; green card status and U.S. citizenship are not priorities for most illegal immigrants. No border security has to be in place for these benefits to be handed out. A proposed amendment to the bill that would have made border security come before these benefits are handed out was rejected by the Senate. Sen. Jeff Flake and Sen. Lindsey Graham, two of the alleged “conservative leaders” who helped authored this bill, voted against the amendment along with all of the Democrats.
The “triggers” — border security, an entirely new electronic verification system (to replace E-Verify), and an operational exit-tracking system — are required to be in effect before illegal immigrants can upgrade to a green card. But even this isn’t exactly true.
The bill does provide a significant amount of funding for border security, but it remains unclear how that money would be spent and whether the border would ever actually be secured. The bill requires an “effectiveness rate” of 90 percent and defines such a rate as “the percentage calculated by dividing the number of apprehensions and turn-backs in the sector during a fiscal year by the total number of illegal entries in the sector during such fiscal year.” This equation requires some estimate of the number of missed illegal entries, but the metrics of border security have been up for debate for many years and it’s unclear how such an estimate would be reached. Shawn Moran, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council asks, “How are they going to measure effectiveness?” He fears the bills language “will put pressure on Border Patrol management to fudge the number in order to fit political purposes.”
Rubio has said that if effective control of these sections of the border is not met within five years, “it goes to a border commission made up of people that live and have to deal with the border and they will take care of that problem.” But in the bill, the “Southern Border Security Commission” would be made up of six Washington-appointed members (two by the president and four by congressional leaders), plus one from each southern border state (appointed by the governor), and it could do nothing but issue recommendations. But it gets worse. The bill also says that if “litigation or a force majeure” prevents the border from being secured then Secretary Napolitano has the authority to go ahead and issue illegal aliens U.S. citizenship anyhow.
One member of the Gang of Eight has asserted that citizenship for illegal immigrants will not be conditioned on actually having a secure border. Sen. Charles Schumer (R-N.Y.) explained, “We are not using border security as a block to a path to citizenship. This [the trigger] will not be a barrier to giving citizenship to the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in our country.”
In other words, there really aren’t any border security triggers at all.
RUBIO: “No federal benefits, no food stamps, no welfare, no Obamacare, they have to prove that they’re gainfully employed.”
Rubio is simply wrong with these assertions. Illegal immigrants are already receiving federal benefits and this bill would do nothing to stop that. This bill would actually extend greater amounts of benefits to illegal immigrants by giving them legal status.
We estimate that 71 percent of illegal immigrant-headed households with children use at least one welfare program. Illegal immigrants generally receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children, but they, not the children, are collecting the benefits, which support the entire family. Illegal immigrant households with children primarily use food assistance and Medicaid, making almost no use of cash or housing assistance. In contrast, legal immigrant households tend to have relatively high use rates for every type of welfare program. It is undeniable that if the amnesty bill becomes law, the legalized illegal immigrants will have greater access to the welfare state.
As for Obamacare, illegal immigrants who get green card status will have access to Obamacare, causing the aggregate annual deficit to soar to around $106 billion, finds the Heritage Foundation. Heritage also concludes that the amnesty applicants who receive green card status would also receive full eligibility for more than 80 means-tested welfare programs.
As to the “gainfully employed” requirement, Rubio is not being completely honest. The most important exemption comes toward the end of the bill, but it’s worth noting at the outset: All education and job requirements in the bill are waived if the immigrant is unable to work or go to school “due to circumstances outside the control of the alien”. The bill provides no explanation of what this might include, and one must ask whether high unemployment rates would count as something outside the control of the amnesty applicants.
Acquiring provisional status does not require evidence of employment. Renewing the status after six years does trigger an employment section of the bill. The section requires that the legalized immigrant fulfill one of two options. In the first option, the alien must prove that he “was regularly employed throughout the period of admission as a registered provisional immigrant, allowing for brief periods lasting not more than 60 days” and “not likely to become a public charge”. But this means that the immigrant could be unemployed for a two-month period and still meet this requirement. Plus, the wording is such that it leaves some interpretation to the courts. What if the immigrant has two “brief periods” of unemployment “lasting not more than 60 days”? By some interpretations, the immigrant would still be able to meet this requirement. Can an immigrant have five such brief periods? Ten? If the bill were written to limit unemployment to 60 days, then it would read “allowing for brief periods of unemployment totaling not more than 60 days”. It is a simple wording change, but it leads to a significantly different outcome.
As an alternative, the alien can “demonstrate average income or resources that are not less than 100 percent of the federal poverty level” for the period he lived here as an alien legalized under the bill. If the alien is the only person in his household, this requirement means that he would have to be making at least $11,490 a year.
But standards are low here. Amnesty applicants can submit a number of different documents to prove they worked. This includes any paperwork from a day laborer hiring center or even sworn affidavits from an alien’s family member who is willing to claim that the alien was working.
On top of all this, the work requirements do not have to be met if an amnesty applicant is going to school. The bill defines the education requirement quite broadly.
Furthermore, the employment and educational requirements do not apply to anyone under age 21 at the time of applying for the amnesty’s provisional legal status, nor do they apply to people over age 60. Also exempted is anyone who is a “primary caretaker of a child or another person who requires supervision or is unable to care for himself or herself.”
ANNOUNCER: “Bold, very conservative, a tough line on immigration.”
Considering all the exemptions and waivers already laid out above, it is difficult to conclude that this bill is bold with a “tough line” on immigration. The phrasing in this portion of the Rubio commercial is taken from quotes from pro-amnesty columnists in the media. The word “bold” was used by a Washington Post blogger who supports amnesty. The phrase “very conservative” is from the same writer; the full sentence is more illuminating:
In essence, if you accept that you have to start somewhere and we have no capability to uproot 11 million people, this is a very conservative-friendly plan.
So the writer called the bill “very conservative-friendly” and the ad shortened it to “very conservative.” One could certainly argue that these have different meanings. But the premise of the full quote is also worthy of debate. Does the United States have no capability to send 11 million people back home? Amnesty advocates constantly argue that the only alternative to mass amnesty is mass deportations. But in reality, both are unworkable. The only solution to the illegal immigration problem is the “attrition through enforcement” policy where we consistently enforce our immigration laws for a period of years and encourage illegal immigrants to go home in greater numbers than they already are. The Post blogger does not entertain this option and presents only a choice between amnesty and mass deportations, one embraced by Rubio.
The phrase “tough line on immigration” was taken from a pro-amnesty columnist from CNN. The same columnistcalled Arizona a “rogue state at war” for passing laws attempting to curb illegal immigration. That the pro-amnesty columnist opposed Jan Brewer’s efforts but embraces Rubio should raise flags about Rubio’s commitment to immigration enforcement.
RUBIO: “It puts in place the toughest enforcement measures in the history of the United States, potentially in the world and it once and for all deals with the issue of those that are here illegally but does so in a way that’s fair and compassionate but does not encourage people to come illegally in the future and isn’t unfair to the people that have done it the right way.”
Rubio claims that this comprehensive amnesty will fix the illegal immigration problem “once and for all”. But the American people have been told this before. The 1986 comprehensive amnesty, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was sold to the public as a one-time plan that would not have to be repeated because the bill contained sanctions against employers for hiring illegal immigrants, and other enforcement provisions. But after IRCA legalized about three million illegal aliens, the enforcement provisions never materialized. Today, about 7.5 million illegal aliens are holding jobs and their employers are not being held accountable. Why would anyone believe that the enforcement provisions in yet another amnesty would ever be enforced? In fact, only a few years after IRCA passed, the National Council of La Raza issued a report calling for the end to workplace enforcement. Interestingly, the author of that report was Cecilia Munoz, who today is President Obama’s chief immigration advisor. Odds are high that she will be working to undermine the enforcement in Rubio’s bill the moment it becomes law. Just last week President Obama told a roomful of amnesty advocate groups that if the bill becomes law, he will “revisit” the enforcement provisions. In other words, Obama has pledged to administratively narrow the scope of enforcement as soon as 11 million illegal immigrants and their family members acquire legal status through the bill. This is why enforcement must come before any type of legal status. Rubio’s bill is backwards, and it’s clear he hasn’t learned from the mistakes of IRCA.
Rubio also claims that the bill “does not encourage people to come illegally” but he apparently hasn’t been listening to border officials in the field who have come to Washington to testify before Congress. Rubio didn’t see thisWashington Times article:
“We have seen an increase in attempted entries,” Border Patrol Chief Michael J. Fisher told a Senate committee.
He said part of the reason for an increase is that Congress is talking about legalizing illegal immigrants, which is luring more foreigners to try to be in the U.S. when amnesty takes effect.
This should not come as a surprise. Amnesties always encourage illegal immigration because they send the message that illegal entry is a feasible path to legal U.S. residence.
Rubio also claims that amnesty is not unfair to those who are attempting to come to the United States the legal way. The reality is that illegal aliens get to stay in the country the moment they apply for amnesty. If they pass the simple background check, they receive legal status and nearly all the benefits of citizenship, including a work permit, a Social Security account, travel documents, a driver’s license, and many additional state-level benefits. While green card status may be delayed for a period of years, it is undeniable that amnesty applicants are in a much better position compared to those overseas who have applied to come to the United States legally. The amnesty applicant is only in the “back of the line” in the sense that the green card — and eventual U.S. citizenship — would allegedly be delayed until after all existing green card applications are processed. But the fact is, the genuine back of the line is in the illegal alien’s home country.
ANNOUNCER: “Stand with Marco Rubio to end de facto amnesty, support Conservative Immigration Reform.”
Again, Rubio wants to turn the de facto amnesty we’re currently experiencing as a result of non-enforcement of immigration laws into a de jure amnesty for millions of people who do not belong here. Rubio asks you to “stand” with him, but Rubio himself is standing with Obama, Napolitano, La Raza, the ACLU, and many other amnesty supporters who cannot be described as “conservative” in any sense of the word.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/deception.jpg376600Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2013-05-16 06:37:502013-12-21 19:07:06Center for Immigration Studies calls Rubio's amnesty ad "deceptive" (Video)
Rubio: “But the message is clear, and that is: ‘If we don’t like what you are saying or what you are doing, then we are going to use the apparatus of government to intimidate you and make you very uncomfortable.’ That is the story of the IRS, that is the story of the Justice Department via the AP issue, and that is the story with Benghazi.”
Excerpts from Interview with FOX News’ Bill O’Reilly
Senator Marco Rubio
May 14, 2013
Senator Marco Rubio: “I don’t know if the President did though. We don’t have evidence of that. I can tell you that what has become clearly apparent is a culture throughout the federal government, not just the IRS, but the Department of Justice, the State Department, etc. We have seen that now in three different incidents that basically use the government as an instrument of political activity to target your political opponents, to make life difficult for the people that are saying things that you don’t like, to make life difficult for whistle blowers that are saying things about the State Department that you don’t like, and I believe that all that comes from the top of any organization. So, I think that is where the questions are increasingly leading, and it is embarrassing for the country. These are things you typically see in the third world, from un-established republics and other places. You don’t see that here, and I think that is what is really troubling about the recent string of events.”
Rubio: “Right, so we have to be careful about that, but let me just say this. I don’t think that kind of environment can flourish unless there is created a space or an environment where it is encouraged. So, this is what we do know. We do know that donors to Mitt Romney and the Republican causes last year where targeted by Obama’s campaign apparatus, and the gentleman in Idaho that was targeted in his operation. We know others that complained about it. So, it is a general culture of the willingness to use the instruments of government to put what you consider to be your political opponents in a bad position, and you’ve seen that now on issue after issue. You have a whistle blower last week saying that in Benghazi that they felt threatened for their job. You have the AP now being targeted in a widespread effort to find out information about them, and you have this incident with the IRS.”
Rubio: “If this was just targeted at the leaks, that is a valid law enforcement endeavor. The problem is this is so widespread. If you look at what the request was and how widespread it was, what it basically feels like, and you’re seeing people in the press saying that. By the way, the curiosity in all this is how the press wanted to ignore Benghazi. They wanted to ignore all this other stuff. But when it touches them, now this thing is ‘the next Watergate.’ But back to the point about the AP, the request was so widespread; it wasn’t targeted. It was so widespread, it was like a fishing expedition.”
Rubio: “But the message is clear, and that is: ‘If we don’t like what you are saying or what you are doing, then we are going to use the apparatus of government to intimidate you and make you very uncomfortable.’ That is the story of the IRS, that is the story of the Justice Department via the AP issue, and that is the story with Benghazi.”
Rubio: “We did a hearing and Secretary Clinton came before us and answered questions and obviously as more information comes out, what she said at that hearing will have to be compared to what the facts are that are being uncovered, and I hope that they match up. And if they don’t, then obviously, there will be consequences for that. But look here is the bottom line: there are two separate issues to look at in Benghazi. One is were the talking points manipulated for political purposes? And number two, should we even have been there to begin with, in Benghazi, after a steady stream of intelligence reporting that told the State Department that it is a very dangerous environment to have been there? They should have closed it down, and if they were going to keep Benghazi open, they should have had an adequate security and an adequate plan to rescue those people, and they did not.”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/target-e1387671009607.jpg399640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2013-05-15 07:35:212013-12-21 19:10:21RUBIO: Federal government used to target political opponents
A report issued by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS-a component of the Justice Department) shows that firearm homicides in general, and violence at schools, have decreased substantially during the last two decades; the percentage of homicides committed with firearms has decreased; and only a tiny percentage of state prison inmates imprisoned for gun offenses obtain their guns from gun shows.
As the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin characterizes it, the report is “wonderful news for the country and rotten data for anti-gun advocates.”
To make matters worse for anti-gun advocates, the story has been picked up by the national news media. In an article for U.S. News and NBCNews.com, veteran reporter Pete Williams points out that the BJS report shows that 40 percent of criminals get their guns from friends and family members, and another 37 percent get theirs from theft or other illegal sources. Lest gun control advocates accuse the BJS or Williams of having a pro-gun political agenda, Williams notes that “The report is strictly factual.”
In his article for the Washington Post, Jerry Markon says that while “gun shows were central” to the recent debate in the U.S. Senate over expanding background checks to cover private firearm transactions, “Less than 1 percent of state prison inmates who possessed a gun when they committed their offense obtained the firearm at a gun show,” according to the report. The figure reported by the BJS is 0.8 percent.
NRA members probably are not surprised at the gist of the BJS report.
In the NRA’s magazines and NRA-ILA’s Grassroots Alerts, we’ve been reporting the decline in violent crime, the relative safety of schools, and the relative rarity of criminal acquisition of firearms at gun shows, for nearly 20 years. But for the general public, the contents of the BJS report may come as a revelation, especially given the way that many in the media have reported on the gun control issue over the last few months.
As another U.S. Newsarticle and a Fox Newsarticle that covered the BJS report point out, a recent Pew Research Center poll found that while “The gun homicide rate in 2010 was the lowest it had been since [the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] began publishing data in 1981,” 56 percent of respondents believe that gun crime is higher than it was two decades ago, against 12 percent who believe it is lower.
To be clear, 2010 is the most recent year for which the CDC has released homicide data. For the record, FBI data show that the murder rate dropped again in 2011, and again in the first half of 2012.
Purchase of Firearms by Mentally Ill Persons; Provides conditions under which person who has been voluntarily admitted to mental institution for treatment & has undergone involuntary examination under Baker Act may be prohibited from purchasing firearm; provides requirements for examining physician; provides for judicial review of certain findings; provides specified notice requirements; provides form & contents of notice; provides requirements with respect to filing of specified records with court & presentation of such records to judge or magistrate; provides lawful authority of judge or magistrate to review specified records & order that such records be submitted to FDLE; provides a timeframe for submission of records to FDLE upon order of record by judge or magistrate.
In an email to supporters Dudley Brown, Executive Vice-President of NGR states, “If a gun owner is voluntarily committed for a mental health issue and the doctor feels they might be a danger to themselves or others, they will forfeit their gun rights. This is even if the physician recommends outpatient treatment for the condition.”
“The doctor would then give the law-abiding gun owner a written notice saying they will be losing their gun rights, whether they AGREE to treatment or not! The requirement for ‘involuntary commitment,’ as is currently in Florida law, would be thrown out the window along with the requirement for due process in a court before taking your gun rights away,” notes Brown.
Following the shooting at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Conn., Sunrise Mayor Mike Ryan has become one of the leading advocates in Broward County for changing laws to improve school safety. Ryan, a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, called for several measures, including the need to address mental health and guns, in the political blog BrowardBeat.com.
“It [CS/CS/HB 1355] is singling out people who have mental illness and are seeking out treatment voluntarily,” exclaimed Pam Gionfriddo the CEO of the Mental Health Association of Palm Beach County, “My fear is that people who need help aren’t going to seek it out, cause nobody wants to be on a database.”
NBC News Channel 5 reports, “Gionfriddo believes measures like HB 1355 could take away rights from people. She wants more effort and funding for mental health care. Funding for mental health programs has been decreasing in recent years, she said. ‘My fear is that people who need help aren’t going to seek it out, cause nobody wants to be on a database’.”
Mike Ryan from the Tampa Bay Times/Miami Herald wrote, “We should point out that the simple act of being held under the Baker Act doesn’t mean the person is mentally ill or in need of commitment. In 2010, less than 1 percent of about 140,000 involuntary examinations led to involuntary placement in a mental health treatment facility, according to the Florida Department of Children and Families. This number doesn’t account for people who voluntarily remained in facilities.”
Ryan states, “We found many law enforcement agencies — including the sheriff’s offices in Broward and Hillsborough and police departments in the cities of Fort Lauderdale, Hollywood and nearby town of Davie — do require a court order.”
“We couldn’t find data regarding how often someone who is Baker Acted has their firearm taken. ‘Most individuals don’t have weapons at the time of the Baker Act,’ said Miami-Dade County Judge Steve Leifman, who chairs judicial committees on mental health,” writes Ryan.
Ryan notes, “Under the Baker Act, people who haven’t committed crimes are not supposed to be treated as criminals and they do retain their constitutional rights — including the right to own a gun.”
00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2013-05-11 06:32:292013-05-11 06:32:29NRA helps pass Anti-Second Amendment Bill in Florida
D’Vera Cohn, Paul Taylor, Mark Hugo Lopez, Catherine A. Gallagher, Kim Parker and Kevin T. Maass from Pew Research released their study of gun homicide rates in the U.S. since 1993.
According to the research team, “Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.”
U.S. Firearm Deaths
In 2010, there were 3.6 gun homicides per 100,000 people, compared with 7.0 in 1993, according to CDC data.
In 2010, CDC data counted 11,078 gun homicide deaths, compared with 18,253 in 1993.5
Men and boys make up the vast majority (84% in 2010) of gun homicide victims. The firearm homicide rate also is more than five times as high for males of all ages (6.2 deaths per 100,000 people) as it is for females (1.1 deaths per 100,000 people).
By age group, 69% of gun homicide victims in 2010 were ages 18 to 40, an age range that was 31% of the population that year. Gun homicide rates also are highest for adults ages 18 to 24 and 25 to 40.
A disproportionate share of gun homicide victims are black (55% in 2010, compared with the 13% black share of the population). Whites were 25% of victims but 65% of the population in 2010. Hispanics were 17% of victims and 16% of the population in 2010.
The firearm suicide rate (6.3 per 100,000 people) is higher than the firearm homicide rate and has come down less sharply. The number of gun suicide deaths (19,392 in 2010) outnumbered gun homicides, as has been true since at least 1981.
U.S. Firearm Crime Victimization
In 2011, the NCVS estimated there were 181.5 gun crime victimizations for non-fatal violent crime (aggravated assault, robbery and sex crimes) per 100,000 Americans ages 12 and older, compared with 725.3 in 1993.
In terms of numbers, the NCVS estimated there were about 1.5 million non-fatal gun crime victimizations in 1993 among U.S. residents ages 12 and older, compared with 467,000 in 2011.
U.S. Other Non-fatal Crime
The victimization rate for all non-fatal violent crime among those ages 12 and older—simple and aggravated assaults, robberies and sex crimes, with or without firearms—dropped 53% from 1993 to 2000, and 49% from 2000 to 2010. It rose 17% from 2010 to 2011.
Although not the topic of this report, the rate of property crimes—burglary, motor vehicle theft and theft—also declined from 1993 to 2011, by 61%. The rate for these types of crimes was 351.8 per 100,000 people ages 12 and older in 1993, 190.4 in 2000 and 138.7 in 2011.
The number of firearms available for sale to or possessed by U.S. civilians (about 310 million in 2009, according to the Congressional Research Service) has grown in recent years, and the 2009 per capita rate of one person per gun had roughly doubled since 1968. It is not clear, though, how many U.S. households own guns or whether that share has changed over time.
Crime stories accounted for 17% of the total time devoted to news on local television broadcasts in 2012, compared with 29% in 2005, according to Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. Crime trails only traffic and weather as the most common type of story on these newscasts.
00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2013-05-08 16:52:012013-05-08 16:52:01Pew Study: Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) issued the following statement announcing his opposition to the nomination of Assistant U.S. Attorney General Thomas Perez to be the next U.S. Secretary of Labor:
“After carefully reviewing Thomas Perez’s, record, views and conduct during his confirmation process, it is clear to me he should not be confirmed to be America’s next Secretary of Labor. For a Cabinet position that oversees the country’s workforce, our nation deserves a proven administrator who is committed to maximizing opportunities for the American worker, not a liberal activist who has pushed the boundaries of public office to advance his agenda.
“Before joining the Obama Administration, Mr. Perez built a long record as a committed liberal activist and politician, particularly in the areas of labor and immigration. It was that record that gave many senators pause over his initial nomination to be Assistant U.S. Attorney General. Those who voted against his confirmation then feared that he lacked the capacity to put his political agenda aside when he became a federal official tasked with enforcing the law. Unfortunately, his record as Assistant U.S. Attorney General confirmed those fears.
“During his tenure at the Justice Department, Mr. Perez has been associated with some of the Department’s most controversial decisions and appears to have engaged in selective and politically motivated applications of the law. The Department of Justice’s own Inspector General recently concluded that the division led by Mr. Perez continues to suffer from ‘polarization and mistrust.’
“As the son of immigrants, Mr. Perez rose from modest beginnings to the highest levels of government through his obviously sharp intellect and impressive work ethic. Many Americans, especially those of us of Hispanic descent, celebrate his success and his personal story as yet another example of all that’s possible in America no matter where you or your family came from. Unfortunately, intellect and work ethic are not sufficient qualifications for a cabinet secretary.
“Mr. Perez’s far left views and troubling record at the Justice Department simply do not qualify him to lead the Labor Department, and I will strongly oppose his confirmation.”
00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2013-05-08 13:22:182013-05-08 13:22:18Rubio: Thomas Perez would be a disastrous Labor Secretary
Over the past few months, 135 Republican lawmakers, or “a majority of the majority,” have said a select committee is needed to further investigate the 9/11 attacks on Benghazi, Libya.
Now, that committee has the support of a very vocal former lawmaker, too. Tea partier Allen West, who represented Florida in Congress before he narrowly lost his seat to a Democratic challenger last November, sent a letter Thursday night to Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., who introduced legislation for a select committee. In the letter, shared with Whispers, West writes:
“As a former Member of Congress who also served in uniform, I know how important it is that we learn the truth about why military support was never sent to the Americans under fire at the U.S. annex in Benghazi last September …. We owe it to the families of the four victims and the survivors — some of whom sustained serious injuries and were still at Walter Reed hospital months after the attack — to fully investigate this terrorist attack and the Obama Administration’s questionable response in the days and weeks that followed.”
House committees released an “interim progress report” on Benghazi last Wednesday, but a number of Republican lawmakers said the report raised more questions than gave answers – and some even alleged a government cover-up.
A new study by the Heritage Foundation on the cost of amnesty will reveal the following:
The immigration debate is about to get a lot more concrete.
Lawmakers need to be honest about the cost of their proposed immigration plans—and a new study due out today from The Heritage Foundation calculates the cost to taxpayers of granting amnesty to unlawful immigrants.
Yesterday on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” Heritage President Jim DeMint said:
The study you’ll see from Heritage this week presents the staggering costs of another amnesty in our country and the detrimental effects, long-term, that that will have. There’s no reason we can’t begin to fix our immigration system so that we won’t make this problem worse. But the bill that’s being presented is unfair to those who came here legally; it’ll cost Americans trillions of dollars; it’ll make our unlawful immigration system worse.
DeMint previewed the study, conducted by Heritage senior research fellow in domestic policy Robert Rector, who studied the cost of amnesty under a similar proposal in 2007. DeMint said:
The way that we calculated the cost, and I read the study over the weekend, I don’t think anyone can argue with it. If you consider all the factors related to the amnesty—and believe me, this is comprehensive, that it will have a negative long-term impact on our gross domestic product. We just want Congress for once to count the cost of a bill. They are notorious for underestimating the cost and not understanding the consequences.
Heritage’s Jason Richwine, the senior policy analyst in empirical studies, says the new report will be a “resounding rebuttal to the claim from amnesty supporters that a long waiting period between the initial amnesty and citizenship will eliminate any major costs to taxpayers.”
This window of ineligibility for many government services has led supporters to argue that an amnesty will not be costly. There are two problems with this argument. First, households headed by illegal immigrants today consume some government services and pay far less in taxes….The second problem with the view that amnesty would not be costly because of the waiting period is rather obvious: After the waiting period is over, lifetime costs will be substantial.
To make sure that costs are counted accurately, Richwine says, “The estimates for the final period in our research will be calculated beginning 14 years after the initial amnesty, which is the point at which recipients could become naturalized citizens.”
Heritage’s cost analysis is unique. DeMint dismissed the idea that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) could be trusted with calculating the bill’s costs, because it is bound by the way that Congress asks it to add the numbers. He said:
CBO said Obamacare wouldn’t cost us anything—they’re basically puppets of the Congress and the assumptions that they put in the bill. Heritage is the only organization that has done an analysis of the cost. Unlawful immigrants make up about 2 percent of our GDP, and they consume most of that. If you consider all the factors of amnesty and unlawful immigration, the cost will be in the trillions of dollars over the lifetime of these unlawful immigrants.
DeMint said that Members of Congress must read the Gang of Eight immigration proposal to make sure they know what is on the table.
“I think if people read the bill, that it will be blocked,” he said. “Because once you get into it, just like Obamacare, it is not the way it’s being advertised.”
The following op-ed is posted with permission of the author Joseph R. John, Captain, USN (Ret), a 1962 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress:
Admiral James A. Lyons, US Navy (Ret.) USNA ‘52, USN (Ret) former Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Fleet and the former Senior US Military Representative to the UN
After eight months of stonewalling the Congress, an article by Admiral James A. Lyons, US Navy (Ret.) titled “A call to courage over Benghazi” calls for Congress to take action to force the Obama Administration to provide the American people with the truth about what happened leading to the attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. The article is a further attempt to shed light on the heroic actions of two Navy SEALS who saved 32 American lives during the assault on the Benghazi Consulate.
That attack was perpetrated by over 150+ Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorists, from Ansar al-Shariah, in a well-coordinated and premeditated commando style assault on the US Consultant. US Ambassador Stevens, two heroic Navy SEALs (Glen Doherty and Tyrone Wood), and the Ambassador’s aide were assassinated.
The two Navy SEALs were not part of the Ambassador’s security detail, yet the White House intentionally misreported their status as such.
They were killed in the Consul Annex. They had previously jumped into the breach to try to save the lives of the Americans in the Consulate. Despite urgent and desperate calls for help from Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens sent directly to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, she and her staff ignored Ambassador Stevens repeated cries for help, and let him twist in the wind for 8 hours, until he was delivered to a hospital with severe wounds, where he finally died about 4 hours after the attack began.
The article was forwarded by ADM James A Lyons, Jr., USNA ‘52, USN (Ret) former Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Fleet and the former Senior US Military Representative to the UN. He is calling for the establishment of a Select Committee in the House of Representatives to investigate and respond to the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi. To date 122 Congressmen have signed on to House Resolution 36 calling for the establishment of a House Select Committee on the Benghazi Attack.
House Speaker John A. Boehner has been stonewalling the establishment of such a Select Committee.
Everyone in the Benghazi Consulate knew in the very beginning of the attack at, 9:40 PM on September 11th, that the attack was a well-planned and premeditated attack by Al Qaeda terrorists with heavy weapons, RPGs, and mortars, and Ambassador Stevens reported that fact, over and over again the Consulate and the Navy SEALs kept requesting support, to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the White House Situation Room, and to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.
Yet for a period extending for over 2 weeks after the terrorist attack, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Obama in his speech to the UN (2 weeks after the attack) kept repeating that the attack was the result of a Libyan civilian demonstration against a YouTube video on the Internet that went bad—we do not think anyone in Libya has ever seen that that fathom video.
On March 28, the Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens requested additional security of Secretary Hillary Clinton; she turned him down on April 12th.
On May 3rd, the State Department turned down a request for a Security Team from the Libyan Embassy.
On May 22nd Terrorist attack Red Cross Office in Benghazi (the Red Cross Office in Benghazi was closed after the attack); at that time, the US Consulate was warned of a pending attack. On June 6th, terrorists attacked the US Consulate and blew a hole through Consulate wall.
On June 6th, Ambassador Stevens was told his Security Team contract would “not” be renewed. June 22nd, Ambassador Stevens warned the State Department that extremist groups were operating openly in Benghazi.
On June 7th, Ambassador Stevens asked the State Department for two Security Teams to protect US personnel in Benghazi (the request was rejected). On June 10th, the British Ambassador survived an assassination attempt on his convoy and Al Qaeda Terrorists openly rallied in Benghazi (the British Consulate in Benghazi was closed after the assassination attempt).
On July 9th, Ambassador Stevens mad a request for 13 more security personnel to protect the Benghazi Consulate. Instead, to protect the embattled diplomatic mission in Benghazi, the State Department hired the Libyan Militia Group, the February 17th Martyrs Brigade, that had clear Al Q’ieda sympathies; they were hired to protect the Consulate, even though it had prominently displayed the black Al Q’ieda flag on its Facebook page for many months.
On July 21th, the Regional State Department Security Officer warned the State Department that the risk to the US Consulate in Benghazi was HIGH.
On August 2nd, Ambassador Stevens sent another urgent cable directly to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton requesting a “protective bodyguard detail” for him because he was in danger.
On August 5th, the State Department ordered the “removal” of Ambassador Stevens Security Team.
On August 15th, there was an emergency meeting in the US Consulate in Benghazi on security matters.
On August 16th, the Regional Security Officer sent a direct E-mail to Secretary of State Clinton warning of the dire security situation developing in Benghazi.
On September 8th, the Benghazi Security Officer warned the Department of State and the Secretary of State of imminent attacks.
On September 10th, the Al Qaeda Leader, Ayman al-Zawahri publically called for Libyans to avenge the death of Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri’s deputy, Abu Yahya al-Lib, on September 11, 2013, the anniversary of the Al Q’ieda terrorist attack on the Twin Towers in New York.
On September 11th:
Ambassador Stevens warned the State Department via cable of the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi, and meets with a Turkish diplomat at 7:30 PM in the Benghazi Consulate.
At 8:00 PM, Al Qaeda terrorists set up check points around the Benghazi Consulate. At 8:30 PM. Ambassador Stevens ended his meeting with the Turkish diplomat.
At 9:40 PM, terrorist fire the first shots in the coordinated attack on the Benghazi Consulate, and Ambassador Stevens called Hicks in Tripoli to tell him that he was now under attack by terrorists, and asked for help.
At 9:59 PM, the Pentagon ordered a surveillance drone to overfly the Benghazi Consulate; from that point on, the White House Situation Room, the CIA, the State Department, and the Pentagon could view live video feed of the ongoing attack in Benghazi (the live feed continued for 8 hours with a second relief surveillance drone).
At 10:05 PM, the Benghazi Consulate was in flames for all to see on live video feed, and messages were being transmitted between the White House, the State Department, the CIA, and the Pentagon.
At 00:06 AM on September 12th, Ansar Al-Sharia claimed responsibility for the attack on the Consulate.
At 1:00 AM, on September 12th, the body of Ambassador Stevens was transported to the hospital by friendly local Libyans for medical attention; that was 3 hours and 20 minutes after the attack began.
At 4:00 AM, on September 12th, two Navy Seals were killed on the roof of the Consul Annex; that was 6 hours and 20 minutes after the attack began.
On September 12th, at 3:00 PM Washington, DC time, about 3 hours after the Navy SEALs were killed, Obama departed for a Las Vegas fundraising rally.
THE MILITARY SUPPORT THAT WAS AVAILABLE:
It is a well-known fact that F-16 fighter aircraft based in Aviano, Italy could have arrive over the scene of the attack on the Consulate in 90 minutes, and could have retaliated against the Al Qaeda terrorists to save the lives of those under attack. In addition, there was also a 130-man US Marine Corps Marine Force Recon Team at Sigonella, Italy that was on the tarmac, ready for deployment, which could have arrived at the compound within 2 hours. General Carter Ham, Commander African Command, was relieved of his command, when he ignored the White House’s order to “stand down”, and tried to send a military reaction force to save the lives of the Americans under attack, which was only several hours away.
General Petraeus at CIA put out an urgent request for military assistance to the White House, in order to save American lives, but the White House ignored his request. The entire attack was viewed by live video feed from two separate drones overflying the on-going attack for 8 hours; one of those drones could have been armed and to strike the terrorist. For 8 months 32 survivors of the attack, whose lives were saved by the two Navy SEALS, have relayed their fear of intimidation from the Obama Administration; they hired attorneys and informed congressmen that they have been threatened and were warned not to testify as to what actually happened leading up to, during, and following the Benghazi attack. The Foreign Emergency Support Team that is required to be called up by the Secretary of State, to arrive a US Mission within 48 hours to preserve and protect all forensic evidence after an attack for FBI investigation, was never called up by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and 8 months later, the Foreign Emergency Support Team still has not been called up.
Even before the attack in Libya ended, intelligence officials pieced together the puzzle of the events unfolding in Benghazi, and concluded that Q’ieda-linked terrorists were responsible for the attack; the Obama administration asked to modify the findings. Senior Obama Administration Officials in the State Department, the National Security Council, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the White House, sought to cover-up the emerging picture and downplayed the significance of the attack just before the national election. On September 15, three days after the Navy SEALs were killed by Al Qaeda, and everyone in Obama’s National Security apparatus knew the attack was perpetrated by Al Qaeda terrorists; Obama publicly blamed the attack on Libyan civilians, who he said were demonstrating against a YouTube video on the Internet.
The next day, on the morning of September 16th, UN Ambassador Susan Rice in 5 Sunday morning TV network programs, stated the attack was by Libyan civilians demonstrating against a YouTube video on the Internet, even though she knew that Al Qaeda terrorist executed the attack. On the same day, Susan Rice kept repeating the same lie, over and over again, the Libyan President reported to the world press that the attack that killed US Ambassador Stevens and two Navy SEALs was planned and executed by terrorist. Four days later, on September 20th, once again Obama blamed the attack on civilians demonstrating against a YouTube video on he Internet. On September 25st, even though he knew it was a lie, Obama, in a speech at the UN, blamed the attack on Libyan civilians who were demonstrating against a YouTube video on the Internet. On October 10th, the State Department said they had no previous warnings of the September 11th attack on the Benghazi Consulate.
The former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen, who headed up the Accountability Review Board, the Obama Administration’s Official Investigation of the Benghazi terrorist attack.
His official report, alleged that for over an 8 hour period, no military assistance was available or could be deployed in time to oppose the Al Q’ieda terrorist attack. That unconscionable and flagrant lie by Mullen has been proven to be a false whitewash and was only inserted in the report, to give the Obama Administration’s political cover for the deceitful and shameful failure by a Commander-in-Chief’s dereliction of duty; he ignored repeated and desperate requests for help from Ambassador Stevens and the two Navy SEALs, requesting protection of their lives and the lives of State Department personnel under attack in Benghazi by Al Qaeda terrorists. The then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey, the current head of the CIA John Brennan, and the National Security Agency have all been involved in a massive cover-up; they all knew full well that F-16 fighters support was just 90 minutes away and that other military reaction teams were just several hours away.
Mullen knows that his statement that military protective support was not available was a cover-up. Mullen’s report covered up the murder of two Navy SEALs. He disgraced the Navy uniform he once wore.
The Heritage Foundation reports, “Senators return to Washington next week to debate the Gang of Eight’s comprehensive immigration bill. Heritage President Jim DeMint has said the bill is ‘unfair, it costs too much, and it’s going to make the problem worse’.”
The below video is testimony before the US Senate by the ICE Union Chief, Chris Crane, in his testimony on the 884 page new Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744). The ICE Union won an initial court victory in its lawsuit against the Obama Administration. Federal Judge Federal Judge Reed O’Connor told the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that they had no power to refuse to deport illegal aliens.
Crane testifies before the Senate expressing his concern that law enforcement was shut out of the negotiations on the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act.
Crane testified the Act is flawed as currently written because it:
(1) does not provide for tamper proof Federal ID cards to keep track of illegal aliens
(2) does not have any provision to arrest and remove 400,000 criminal Illegal Aliens who are fugitives from justice with felony warrants
(3) does not deal with the inability of the federal government’s bureaucracy to process 18+ million Illegal aliens when the federal government hasn’t even been able to process 900,000 Veterans disability claims over a 4 year period
(4) does nothing to make Universities report (which should be under threat of felony criminal charges) the names and locations of the hundreds of thousands foreign students like the terrorists who were involved in the Boston bombing who no longer attend college classes
(5) does nothing to provide a means to cover the $6 trillion cost of the flawed 884 page Act according to research by the Heritage Foundation (the Senate Bill intentionally misled the American people by saying it would cost $22.5 billion)
(6) doesn’t cover the cost because the Senate bill provides for charging each of the 18+ million illegal aliens $500.00 when the real cost per illegal is $335,000.00
(7) intentionally misleads the American people by saying the Act would not be enacted until the border was secured when there is no provision to guarantee the border is secure after 29 years of failed promise (THE ONLY ORGANIZATION THAT CAN BE TRUSTED TO VERIFY THE BORDER HAS BEEN CLOSED IS THE ICE UNION)
(8) flagrantly discriminates against nearly 4 million unemployed Veterans by giving employers a $3000 tax credit for employing illegal aliens and relieves them from having to cover illegal aliens under the Obama Health Care law without giving those same benefits to unemployed US citizens
(9) does absolutely nothing to locate the many terrorists in the US among the 18+ million illegal aliens like the Chechen terrorists, the Times Square bomber, the first World Trade Union bombers in 1993, and Major Hassan who had all been affected by the Islam jihadists outreach program underway in the US by remaining under the radar scope of CIA and the FBI’s Watch Lists (the requirement in the Act for a tamper proof Federal ID card requiring fingerprints would help locate those terrorist suspects)
(10) does not provide provisions to prevent 80 million unskilled relatives of the 18+ million illegal aliens form coming into the US which would destroy the fragile US Welfare system & bankrupt the Republic
(11) does not have a provision to deport anyone who fails in their application (Mohammed Salameh who applied for amnesty in 1984 but was turned down was a co-conspirator in the in the first World Trade Center attack in 1993)
(12) does not provide annual quotas to process applicants so the crush of applicants won’t bring the process to a full stop, and does not have provisions in it to do a thorough background investigation of applicant from high threat countries/regions.
Heritage put together an info-graphic that explains some of the major problems with a ‘comprehensive’ approach to immigration reform. Forward this to a friend to share these concerns.
Joe Saunders of BizPac Review reports, “Point made. Now, let’s get this session over with. That was the message Tuesday from two key Republicans about House Democrats’ decision to slow down business in protest over the GOP’s refusal to accept federal funding for Medicaid expansion under Obamacare. Slowing floor action to a crawl, House Democrats under Minority Leader Perry Thurston invoked the state Constitution Tuesday to force line-by-line readings of bills before they could be discussed on the House floor.”
“By purposefully slowing deliberations at this critical juncture, I and other House Democratic Caucus members seek to bring greater public attention to our desire for legislative passage of the health coverage expansion plan that the Florida Senate approved [Tuesday,]” Thurston said in a statement.
“The maneuver marred what had so far been a reasonably congenial session, said state Rep. Dennis Baxley, a veteran legislator and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee,” notes Saunders. Read more.
Avik Roy from Forbes reports, “On April 11, the GOP-controlled Florida House of Representatives passed an innovative, consumer-driven replacement for Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, one that could be a national template for free-market health reform. But Republicans in the state Senate rejected the House plan, electing instead to expand Medicaid, as Obamacare prescribes. Senate Republicans’ inexplicable decision makes it likely that free-market reform will fail in Florida, an outcome that could easily have been avoided.”
“The House, led by Speaker Will Weatherford and PPACA Committee Chairman Richard Corcoran, passed a bill in which uninsured adults with children would receive $2,000 a year—plus their own contribution of $300—to fund a health savings account called a CARE account, which recipients could use for any health expense of their choice. They could use it to buy catastrophic coverage, or a high-end concierge primary care physician, or anything in between. In order to benefit from the subsidy, recipients would have to meet work requirements similar to those in the landmark, bipartisan 1996 welfare-reform law,” notes Roy.
In light of the recent terrorist bombing in Boston, national attention is refocused on the case of Thomas More Law Center client, Army Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley (pictured above). In 2012, LTC Dooley was fired from the National Defense University’s Joint Forces Staff College for teaching an elective course on Radical Islam because it was offensive to Muslims.
Thomas More Law Center is renowned as a national nonprofit public interest law firm, based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, the Thomas More Law Center’s mission is to restore and defend America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and moral values, and to preserve a strong national defense, and a free and sovereign United States of America. In courtrooms throughout our Nation, Law Center lawyers fight for the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, the sanctity of human life, and a strong national defense. The Law Center does not charge for its legal services, and relies on tax-deductible donations from concerned patriotic Americans and charitable foundations. To learn more click here.
00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2013-04-29 13:25:132013-04-29 13:25:13Army officers career ruined in the name of Islam
Karen Bracken ( http://tnacc.weebly.com ) presented Common Core: Subversive Threat to Education on 18 April 2013 at the Chattanooga TEA Party meeting. Introduction is by Mark West, President of the Chattanooga TEA Party.
Bracken states, “Jeb Bush is deeply embedded in this [Common Core] process”.
Karen Bracken with former Florida Governor Jeb Bush.
ABOUT KAREN BRACKEN:
I am almost 64 years old and the grandmother of 4 almost grown grandchildren. Gladly I won’t have to worry about Common Core affecting them. But lord knows the indoctrination of our children has been going on in our public school system for many years. But at least I won’t have to worry about my grandchildren getting sucked up in to Common Core. BUT they will have children someday and I just felt I had to do something. I am already very active in my community. I have a national Agenda 21 coalition, a Tennessee Legislative Team, speaking engagements on Agenda 21 and Common Core, local and state politics and just day to day life. My goal is to educate people about what is happening in our country. What shocks me most is how many people refuse to admit or to see what is taking place. It is a true indication that our public school system has been failing students for many years. I learned about Communism in school. I learned what it was and how it destroys free will, free thinking and freedom in general. Whether we want to admit it or not Communism is what we are fighting in our country right now. It might have names like Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, Smart Growth, Biodiversity, Common Core but at the end of the day it is Communism just dressed up in a new wrapping. They keep changing the names when people start to catch on. Think about it. We had Global Warming and when it was exposed for the lie it is they changed the name to Climate Change in order to keep the hoax alive. I pray ever day that people get their heads out of the sand and stand up for our country because once freedom is lost it can never be regained. Our children are what they want. They know that in one generation they can brainwash enough children to finally get what they want. The total destruction of America and freedom. Remember “Freedom is never more that one generation away from extinction.” Ronald Reagan.
To learn more about Karen Bracken visit her website by clicking here.
Family Research Council (FRC) officials released [the below] video of federal investigators questioning convicted domestic terrorist Floyd Lee Corkins II, who explained that he attacked the group’s headquarters because the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) identified them as a “hate group” due to their traditional marriage views.
“Southern Poverty Law lists anti-gay groups,” Corkins tells interrogators in the video, which FRC obtained from the FBI. “I found them online, did a little research, went to the website, stuff like that.”
The Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard reported that Corkins, who pleaded guilty to terrorism charges, said in court that he hoped to “kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-Fil-A sandwiches in victims’ faces, and kill the guard.” As Bedard explained, “the shooting occurred after an executive with Chick-Fil-A announced his support for traditional marriage, angering same-sex marriage proponents.”
Robert Spencer from Jihad Watch states, “The SPLC, the well-heeled propaganda machine that smears conservatives for cash, is an integral part of the ongoing Leftist effort to demonize and destroy legitimate conservative voices — like our American Freedom Defense Initiative, which they also classify as a “hate group” — by lumping them in with the likes of the KKK. The SPLC turns a blind eye to the real hate that comes from the Left and Islamic supremacists, and offers with its hate group listings not only an incitement to violence, but a handy tool that lazy Leftist mainstream media journalists use to try to intimidate people away from supporting our message of human rights. The SPLC richly deserves its place on AFDI’s Threats to Freedom Index.”
Tom Trento, well known SE Florida radio talk show host, did a five part series on the SPLC. Trento states, “The TrentoVision Team launches an investigation into the so-called, Southern “Poverty” Law Center to find out why the Obama Administration works so closely with this “filthy rich” front group for the radical left! Our special guest is Tony Perkins, President of the prestigious Family Research Council. August 2012, Tony was the target of a radical homosexual activist who wanted to kill him and 14 others at FRC. Throughout this five-part series we will look at the finances, pro-gay agenda, pro-Islamic jihad agenda and the all around anti-American activities of the SPLC.”
Below is part one with special guest Tony Perkins, Executive Director of the Family Research Council, of a five part series on the SPLC:
Watch the other four parts of the series:
Monday April 22 – SPLC overview, with Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council