German asylum seekers refuse to work: ‘We are Merkel’s guests’

Decisions on Muslim migration made by leftist politicians have become a scourge on the German people and other European citizens, who have witnessed the slow metamorphosis of their peaceful communities while they pay with their tax dollars for the recklessness of their leaders such as Angela Merkel. Tens of thousands of crimes and assaults have been committed by Muslim migrants in Germany, but these are less of a concern to the politicians who walk with their security detail and their bank accounts intact.

Even in the midst of the Muslim migrant crisis in Germany, Mayor Bernd Pohlers of the eastern town of Saxony Waldenburg, where the asylum seekers refused to accept work, stated his concern about this latest piece of news playing “into the hands of those opposing the mass migration,” evincing yet again the all too familiar stench of political posturing and a cruel disregard for those who cast their votes in trust.

“German asylum seekers refuse to work insisting ‘We are Merkel’s GUESTS’”, by Siobhan McFadyen and Monika Pallenberg, UK Express, August 18, 2016:

ASYLUM seekers in Germany are refusing to undertake work to counteract boredom – using Chancellor Angela Merkel’s generous hospitality as an excuse.

According to mayor Bernd Pohlers of the eastern town of Saxony Waldenburg, the asylum seekers refused to accept the work that was offered to them after they arrived in the country.

The local council spent £600 arranging for the men to have uniforms but were stunned when they were told they would not complete it because they were “guests of Angela Merkel”.

While asylum seekers are not allowed to work under immigration rules within the EU, they are allowed to do voluntary work.

However officials in the district of Zwickau came up with a plan to help encourage those without employment to get back to work and to help them become more accepted within the local community.

In order to do this they created voluntary jobs which included a nominal payment of £18 for 20 hours work.

But all of the male residents of the local refugee accommodation who initially agreed to get involved in the charitable activities quit after discovering there was a minimum wage £7.30 (€8.50) in Germany.

The men had been picked up and offered transportation from their paid-for housing where they are also given food and then dropped home.

Mayor Pohlers said: “It was subsequently argued by these people that they are guests of Mrs. Merkel and guests do not have to work.

“Furthermore, they were of the opinion that there is a minimum wage (€8.50) in Germany, and that this had to be paid by the City Waldenburg.”

Despite attempts at mediation the asylum seekers refused to return to work.

Mayor Pohlers added: “In a specially convened meeting with an interpreter the authorities explained the rules again.

“Unfortunately, no agreement could be reached on the continuation of the measure.”

Now all seven of the jobs have been scrapped.

The mayor spoke out in a bid to highlight the issue of the asylum crisis in Germany.

He said he is aware his statements could play into the hands of those opposing the mass migration.

However after having raised money from the local community to help aid the asylum seeker’s transition into the community, he felt compelled to speak out…..

RELATED ARTICLE: Italians reject plans for mosque next to the Leaning Tower of Pisa

Florida Ground Zero for Voter Fraud: Broward County Supervisor Changes Absentee Ballot Rules

Part II:  Investigative Report on Voter Fraud in Florida

In my previous article, I revealed that a lawsuit had been filed against Broward County Supervisor of Elections Dr. Brenda Snipes, which alleges that voter rolls have not been properly maintained, in accordance with federal law.  Moreover, citizen complaints against Dr. Snipes to clean up the voter rolls date back to October 2015 and no overt actions have been taken to address this.

Another component of voting that has a potential for fraud is Early Voting, which provides a minefield of opportunities for a determined S.O.E. to change the outcome of an election, which is executed through voter dilution and is the ‘tool of choice’ for those engaging in election fraud.  This was evident in a Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement investigation of the 1997 Miami mayoral election which uncovered massive fraud involving more than five thousand absentee ballots, which resulted in the overturning of the election itself.

In Broward County, S.O.E. Snipes and her Registration Director, Mary Hall has received the following registered complaints during Regular and Early Voting:

  • Poll workers were not asking potential voters for their ID’s
  • Poll workers did not challenge potential voters when their signature did not match their ID
  • Eyewitness testimony that Broward poll workers were instructed not to ask for a proper ID
  • Individuals returning to vote twice were not challenged
  • No early voting sites were established in many Republican districts
  • Partisan ratio of scanners in precincts
  • Insufficient number of scanners in Republican districts resulting in long lines of people to wait vote (in the hot sun)
  • Voters were instructed to place their ballots in a box when the only assigned scanner in that precinct malfunctioned
  • Favored Democrats by adding early voting sites in their districts
  • Disenfranchisement tactic: No ballots at selected sites because they ran out of ballots
  • Disenfranchisement tactic: Doors locked at designated opening time of early voting site
  • Disenfranchisement tactic: Closing early voting sites earlier than posted
  • Busloads of H.S. students dropped off to vote and then bribed with lunches
  • Ballot-stuffing empirical eyewitness account of a 6” pile of un-scanned but filled out ballots placed in collection well of a scanner by an IT worker

Now a red flag is raised after Dr. Snipes recently submitted a press release in which she states that she has changed the rules; this time with absentee ballots, which she has renamed ‘vote by mail ballots.’ The press release states that people can bring up to 10 absentee ballots to 11 of the 20 Early Voting Sites.  This unethical procedure is a first, as no previous election has permitted Absentee Ballots to be “voted” at an Early Voting Site.  In the past, Absentee ballots could be mailed in by the voter or turned in at the S.O.E.’s office or the auxiliary S.O.E office.  The number of ballots that could be turned in by any one person had a limit as well. Florida statues state’ “Any elector may designate in writing a person to pick up the ballot for the elector; however the person designated may not pick up more than two vote-by-mail absentee ballots per election, other than the designee’s own ballot.” Could this be a subliminal manipulation leading to widespread voter fraud?  It certainly appears to be suspicious especially because there is no reasonable way to monitor this activity with so many early voting sites. Furthermore, an alarm is raised because of the unpredictable timing of this rule change, three days before the execution of early voting, which begins Saturday, August 20th.

Despite the fact that a lawsuit has been filed against Dr. Snipes for dereliction of duty for not maintaining proper voting rolls, now she is OVERTLY VIOLATING FLORIDA VOTING STATUTES.  Where is the oversight to reign in a rogue S.O.E that has the power to change laws?

The voting public needs to insist that Tallahassee will provide prosecutors and then issue a warning right before Election Day that fraudsters will be prosecuted.  It should be made universally known, that a person who commits or attempts to commit any fraud in connection with voting, uses a fraudulent ballot, or votes more than once in an election can be convicted of a felony of the third degree and fined up to $5,000, and /or imprisoned for up to five years, in accordance with Florida Statue 101.657.

RPOF letter to Brenda Snipes on violating Florida law governing vote-by-mail ballots dated November 2nd, 2016:

rpof-letter-to-brenda-snipes-november-2nd

RELATED ARTICLES:

Fox News: Florida GOP Will File Voter Fraud Lawsuit Thursday, November 3rd, 2016

FL GOP Accuses Election Officials of Opening Mail-In Ballots

Broward County Creates Phantom District to Allow Illegal Voting

Voter Fraud Is Real. Here Are 4 More Cases

Virginia Hasn’t Stopped Noncitizens From Voting, Watchdog Finds

References:

“Who’s Counting?” John Fund, Hans Von Spakovsky

Florida Absentee Ballot Rules

Immigration ‘Trojan Horse’: ‘Pay-For-Citizenship’ Visa a National Security Threat

Washington, D.C.: Investigations into the checkered personal story of Islamic supremacist Khyzr Khan following his speaking appearance at the Democratic National Convention in July 2016 have called attention to the focus of his legal practice.  As an immigration lawyer, he has specialized in  the little-known “EB-5 Visa Program” – a visa that permits would-be immigrants effectively to purchase U.S. legal residency status and puts them on an accelerated path to citizenship.

The Center for Security Policy is pleased to publish as the latest in its Occasional Papers series a detailed critique of the EB-5 Program by another experienced immigration attorney, Shae Armstrong.  Entitled, EB-5 Trojan Horse: How an American Pay-for-Citizenship Immigration Program Poses a National Security Threat, Mr. Armstrong’s case study examines the ominous use being made of this vehicle by Communist China in order to insinuate its nationals and strategic investments into the United States.

Given the opportunity the EB-5 process affords the Muslim nations served by Mr. Khan, the Chinese and/or other actual or potential hostiles to introduce here a variety of national security threats, it is clearly time to revisit whether it is prudent to afford large numbers of such individuals access to this country and guaranteed rights – with little, if any, regard for their backgrounds, motives or future conduct.

On the occasion of the publication of EB-5 Trojan Horse, Center for Security Policy President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. said:

This insider account – and warning – from a patriotic, experienced EB-5 attorney is made all the more timely as it not only helps illuminate the use that might be made of that visa program by Khyzr Khan’s clients and their Chinese counterparts to our national detriment.  It also provides a basis for a fundamental reconsideration of this program and, as appropriate, an overhaul of the terms under which those with their own fortunes, or access to other capital, can buy into America.

Fortunately, Congress has in the immediate future an opportunity, as well as a responsibility, to undertake such a reconsideration.  The EB-5 Program will expire unless it is reauthorized by the end of the current fiscal year on September 30th.  Shae Armstrong is right to urge that the current EB-5 Program either be allowed to expire or be considerably reformed in order to eliminate national security risks plaguing this program.

Fore more information including a free PDF of the paper, CLICK HERE.

ABOUT THE CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY

The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public. For more information visit www.securefreedom.org.

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.

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.

Hillary’s emails tied to Iranian execution of nuclear spy?

Five years into a ten year jail sentence for espionage, former nuclear scientist Shahram Amiri was executed on Saturday by hanging and his body returned to his family.

amiri

Shahram Amiri

Amiri “disappeared” while making the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca in 2009. The Iranian regime accused the United States of kidnapping him because he was engaged in sensitive nuclear research. Later, Mr. Amiri surfaced in the United States, and published reports said the U.S. government paid him $5 million for providing information on Iran’s nuclear program.

In July 2010, Mr. Amiri had remorse, after several emotional phone calls with his five-year old son, who he had left behind in Iran. He traveled from Arizona to the Iranian Interests Section in Washington, D.C., asking to be taking back to Iran.

Those events led to crudely-coded email exchanges between Jake Sullivan and his boss, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, that were released in July 2015 under the Freedom of Information Act.

“The gentleman you have talked to Bill Burns about has apparently gone to his country’s Interests Section because he is unhappy with how much time it has taken to facilitate his departure,” Sullivan wrote in an email to Mrs. Clinton private email server on July 12, 2010. “This could lead to problematic news stories in the next 24 hours. Will keep you posted.”

This is the type of email exchange, containing classified information, that Mrs. Clinton’s aides never should have communicated over an unclassified system, giving rise to the charge by FBI Director Comey that Mrs. Clinton had been “reckless” in her handling of classified material.

So reckless, in fact, that now someone clearly referred to in her emails is dead, executed by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

“Something dramatic happened that caused the regime to execute Shahram Amiri on Saturday, half-way through his ten-year sentence for espionage,” said Roozbeh Farahanipour, an Iranian human rights activist who has been nominated to become the next United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Iran.

Did the release of the Hillary Clinton emails provide the Iranian regime with some proof it had previously lacked that Shahram Amiri was a U.S. spy? If so, it shows once again the reckless disregard of Mrs. Clinton and her aides for protecting U.S. national security – and indeed, the lives of individuals who had a secret relationship to the U.S. government.

For more background on Amiri’s initial defection to the United States, see our July 20, 2010 blog post.

RELATED ARTICLE: Iranian nuclear scientist Shahram Amiri ‘executed’

Florida Voter Rolls at Risk: Broward County Supervisor of Elections put on Notice

PART I:   Investigative Report — Voter Fraud in Florida

Broward County Supervisor of Elections, Dr. Brenda C. Snipes has adopted a logo which reads: “Vote with confidence;” unfortunately, if past elections under her tutelage are an indicator, we are in for an array of disenfranchisement tactics aimed to skew the electoral process in a fraudulent and partisan fashion.  In subsequent articles, these practices will be elaborated on with the fervent expectation that voter awareness will not only condemn the contemplation of such activity, but will rise to prevent it.

Voter integrity and potential voter fraud has been a major topic of concern for many watchdog groups in Florida for quite some time.  In my investigative Report in November of 2012, after the last presidential election, I interviewed a whistleblower from Broward County Supervisor of Elections Office of Brenda C. Snipes, who revealed to me that many election laws were broken when:

  • Election officials were assisting voters who were not handicapped and were using special unauthorized forms to do this
  • There were obvious irregularities in the absentee ballots
  • There was a lack of scanning machines during the voting process, despite the fact that there were plenty in storage that could have been used.

Dr. Snipes duties and obligations as an elected official, are to uphold voter integrity in a non-partisan fashion, ensuring that no voter is disenfranchised.  This investigative report will reveal that not only have voter records not been maintained properly, Brenda Snipes has not been in compliance with the law.

On June 27, 2016, a lawsuit was filed against Brenda Snipes, Supervisor of Elections, after her refusal to discuss a resolution with the American Civil Rights Union in regard to its claim of potential violations of federal election law in Broward County, Florida.

In this case, Andrea Bellitto and the American Civil Rights Union vs. Brenda Snipes, Supervisor of Elections, allegations put forth reveal that:

  • Snipes has been negligent in maintaining accurate voter rolls and removing names of ineligible voters from the official list of voters by reason of death or change of residence of the registrant as pursuant to federal election law.
  • Over the past several election cycles the voter rolls maintained by Dr. Snipes have either more total registrants than eligible voting citizens or an implausibly high number
  • Approximately 106% of the citizens of voting age were registered to vote and cast a ballot in Broward County. Snipes in this case, received information regarding over 200 registered voters in one community in Coconut Creek who have either died or who no longer reside in the community.
  • The National Voters Right Act 1965 requires that Dr. Snipes shall complete, not later than 90 days prior to the date of a primary or general election for federal office, any program that systematically removes the name of ineligible voters from that official lists of eligible voters.

My investigation reveals that Dr. Snipes’ has received citizen complaints to clean up the voter rolls dating back to October of 2015, also followed by a November 2015 Public Records request.  However, there has been no resolution to them.

Surprisingly, another watchdog organization, True The Vote, in its 16 Florida County investigation, discovered at least 36,000 voter registrations that had serious problems.  Their investigation uncovered over 15,400 sets of duplicated voter registrations, 221 potential cases of double voting, 2,400 cases of voters over the age of 105 displaying recent periods of inactivity, 185 cases of illegally claimed residential addresses located at commercial mailbox stores, 500+ cases of incomplete voter registrations, 2,500+ cases of incomplete voter registrations entered into the Florida voter roll that were missing legal names.

Dr. Snipes, S.O.E., holds a Constitutional Office in the State of Florida and has taken an oath to: “conduct successful elections in compliance with the law to ensure that every eligible voter can exercise the right to vote, while providing a non-partisan, stable and positive environment built upon respect, growth, creativity and freethinking.”  It is a felony to willfully submit any false voter registration information, in accordance with F.S.104.011(2).

No voter in the State of Florida should be disenfranchised and Ms. Snipes has a responsibility to her constituents to abide by the law.  Perhaps, the Broward County voter rolls will be cleaned up, as have been in other state counties.  However, time is of the essence, as we have a critical presidential election in November; the time for action is now. We must anticipate and challenge any protocol or activity that enables fraud or partisanship behavior and hold Dr. Snipes and her staff accountable.

RELATED ARTICLE: Voter Fraud Alert: Interview with a Whistleblower

Panic mode: Khizr Khan deletes Muslim immigration law firm website

You would almost think he has something to hide. Along with the Democratic Party. And the Saudis.

khizr

Khizr Khan

“Panic Mode: Khizr Khan Deletes Law Firm Website that Specialized in Muslim Immigration,” by Matthew Boyle, Breitbart, August 2, 2016:

Khizr Khan, the Muslim Gold Star father that Democrats and their allies media wide have been using to hammer GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump, has deleted his law firm’s website from the Internet.

This development is significant, as his website proved—as Breitbart News and others have reported—that he financially benefits from unfettered pay-to-play Muslim migration into America.

A snapshot of his now deleted website, as captured by the Wayback Machine which takes snapshots archiving various websites on the Internet, shows that as a lawyer he engages in procurement of EB5 immigration visas and other “Related Immigration Services.”

The website is completely removed from the Internet, and instead directs visitors to the URL at which it once was to a page parking the URL run by GoDaddy.

The EB5 program, which helps wealthy foreigners usually from the Middle East essentially buy their way into America, is fraught with corruption. U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has detailed such corruption over the past several months, and in February issued a blistering statement about it.

“Maybe it is only here on Capitol Hill—on this island surrounded by reality—that we can choose to plug our ears and refuse to listen to commonly accepted facts,” Grassley said in a statement earlier this year. “The Government Accountability Office, the media, industry experts, members of congress, and federal agency officials, have concurred that the program is a serious problem with serious vulnerabilities. Allow me to mention a few of the flaws.”

Grassley’s statement even noted that the program Khan celebrated on his website has posed national security risks.

“There are also classified reports that detail the national security, fraud and abuse. Our committee has received numerous briefings and classified documents to show this side of the story,” Grassley said in the early February 2016 statement. “The enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security wrote an internal memo that raises significant concerns about the program. One section of the memo outlines concerns that it could be used by Iranian operatives to infiltrate the United States. The memo identifies seven main areas of program vulnerability, including the export of sensitive technology, economic espionage, use by foreign government agents and terrorists, investment fraud, illicit finance and money laundering.”…

What’s perhaps interesting is that also on this website that he has now deleted, Khan revealed that he spent nearly a decade working for the mega-D.C. law firm Hogan & Hartson—now Hogan Lovells LLP—which connects him directly with the government of Saudi Arabia and the Clintons themselves. Saudi Arabia, which has retained the firm that Khan worked at for years, has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation. Hillary Clinton, despite the repeated urging of Trump, has refused to return the Clinton Cash money to the Saudis. What’s more, Hogan Lovells also did Hillary Clinton’s taxes—and helped acquire the patents for parts of the technology she used in crafting her illicit home-brew email server that the FBI director called “extremely careless” in handling classified information….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Clinton Cash: Khizr Khan’sDeep Legal, Financial Connections to Saudi Arabia, Hillary’s Clinton Foundation Tie Terror, Immigration, Email Scandals Together

EB-5 immigrant investor program hit by massive fraud investigation

“I had never been known for bigotry, racism, sexism…But within a month, I was all of those”

Islamic State: If Muslims ran America, black slave trade would have continued

WikiLeaks Voicemail Dump: For Democrats its All About the Money! [Video]

“Ouch! This is going to sting and I hope a LOT! The Washington Times has just released an article with the most recent dump from Wikileaks. This time it is not emails. It is voice mails. Judging by what Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is doing with his timing, it appears he is very much Anti-Hillary Clinton. I wonder why that could be? Voice mails show former ambassadors calling DNC officials for time with Obama. This is a huge no-no. Pay to play much DNC?” writes former Congressman Allen West.

ABC News report “What’s in the WikiLeaks DNC Recordings”:

Readers may search the DNC Email Database by clicking here.

Read may also watch the full version of Clinton Cash the official documentary:

EU – USSR: Bleeding Utopias by Alexander Maistrovoy

After the Brexit and recent attacks against migrants in Britain, I can’t get rid of a deja vu feeling. As if I’ve already watched this movie a quarter century ago. I know its end, and it’s not a happy one.

In summer of 1989, the Lithuanian Sejm decided to withdraw from the Soviet Union and establish Lithuanian laws in the country. It was the beginning of the end for USSR — a giant corrupt monster, which for 70 years bullied the world and its people under the pretense of communist ideology.

Intimidation and sanctions could not prevent the collapse. A fabricated artificial entity, thoroughly impregnated with falsehood and lies, fell apart like a house of cards.

It came out of the clear blue sky, but the collapse was inevitable, due to the very nature of the “Red empire” — as was the inevitable disintegration of the EU.

Set aside the scenery and the nuances. Without a doubt, EU’s bright and vivid facade does not resemble the meager greyness of the Soviet entourage. Of course, EU hasn’t the power, assertiveness and strict centralization that USSR had. However, supporting structures and the foundation were made from the same materials with the same guidelines.

Lenin_Stalin

Lenin with Joseph Stalin.

One can easily find numerous and fundamental similarities between these two entities.

  • The Soviet Union created a planned, controlled, and unsustainable economy managed by bureaucratic apparatus. The EU did the same, has tried to regulate economy artificially. USSR has redistributed wealth on an equal basis — the EU has been wasting money on benefits to those who refuse to work.
  • The USSR and the EU had imposed an artificial universalist ideology on their people that promised a paradise on earth for next generations. In the USSR it was called Communism. EU calls it “postmodernism”. Using this slogan — “Let’s denounce the old world!” — Soviet apparatchiks, like the European bureaucrats, drove their people to hell.
  • The USSR created a huge bureaucratic machine, dictated ideology in all spheres of life — from politics to theater, architecture and fashion. This bureaucracy was completely cut off from the reality and the citizens. The same happened in the EU.
  • The USSR instituted most severe censorship with persecution of dissidents. By subjugating governments, national media, the academy and the judicial system, the EU has established a cultural totalitarianism. The pursuit of dissidents has been more sophisticated, thus more efficient, veiled by concepts of “tolerance”, “human rights” and “cultural diversity” — a demonic invention.
  • The Soviet Union cultivated a new “formation of people” — the “Soviet people”. Like the unskillful Gnostic Demiurge, the EU cultivated “post-modern people” – consumers without roots, values and moral compass, unable to see the difference between good and evil, fact and fiction. In order to create a “Soviet man”, the USSR deliberately carried out migration of nations, while destroying homogeneous historical communities and arbitrarily creating alien enclaves in the social body of other republics: Ukraine, Baltic States, Moldova, the Caucasus and in Central Asia. EU has intentionally flooded its countries with masses of migrants from Third World countries and Muslim countries to destroy national cultures — labeling the process “multiculturalism”.
  • Communists created the fussy, worthless and senseless art of “Socialist realism”, symbolized by “Worker and Kolkhoz Woman”. Postmodernists invented infantile “postmodern art” with cult of primitivism, rafting archaic forms, meaningless set of sounds and wall paintings.
  • The USSR intimidated its people with the threat of a nuclear apocalypse to distract them from poverty. EU frightens Europeans with environmental apocalypse; promulgating doubtful ideas about global warming by suppressing the real threat of global terrorism, the clash of civilizations and the collapse of the national states.
  • The USSR drained the resources of wealthy republics — the Baltic States and Ukraine — to feed the weak, unproductive South. The EU doesn’t fall behind.
  • The USSR treated the Jews with the “fifth column”, regardless of their contribution to science and medicine. The EU has betrayed the European Jews while obstinately undermining Israel, despite its contribution to science and medicine, only to appease Muslims. The USSR had created the “Palestinian people” and the PLO, coining “anti-Zionism” to ram through its “anti-imperialist” policies. The EU has turned the creation of “a Palestinian state” into “the sacral dogma” of its foreign policy, ignoring the geopolitical reality, Islamic fanaticism and the Middle East chaos.
  • The USSR has been limitlessly and greedily wasting resources to feed its various regimes until it had ultimately collapsed from exhaustion. In its greediness and unscrupulousness, the EU is infinitely expanding by association with Turkey, North Africa and the Caucasus.
  • The USSR had dispersed the miasma of its pseudo-ideology throughout the world under the pretense of “fighting for the freedom of peoples” and “social justice.” The EU is operating in a similar manner.

Wasn’t it a cruel mockery of History that the European Union that was on the verge of collapse virtually awarded itself the Nobel Peace Prize, as it was done by senile Soviet leaders?

I’ve claimed that I know the end of this “movie”. At first, the collapse will occur alongside the borders of “Pink Empire” countries. After that, the very fabric of the social organism of the countries will start to decay. Alien and hostile enclaves already exist in European cities in the form of extraterritorial “Sensitive Urban Zones”, with laws of sharia or clan and tribal law codes. They will expand and become quasi-states inside states. Territorial entities will appear in Europe similar to Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria and Chechnya, the republic of Donetsk and Luhansk Republic. In the former USSR, these entities get the support of Russia. In the EU, they will get support from giant Islamic world.

Timeworn grievances will flare up. The body of the crumbling “United Europe” will be covered with ulcers and bleeding wounds. European states (including perhaps new ones such as Scotland, Catalonia, Wallonia and so on) will have to regain power with force, to declare states of emergency, to carry out repressive measures. Dictatorship will be the alternative for chaos, and it will be the end of democracy. Bellum omnium contra omnes (“The war of all against all”) will bring Western Europe back to the “Social Contract” of Hobbes, i.e. to voluntary tyranny. Ironically, hundreds of thousands of migrants will become victims of “multiculturalism”.

The elite will either flee or will “adapt”, like Soviet apparatchiks after “Perestroika” who became oligarchs and Orthodox nationalists.

One more experiment comes to an end, leaving behind anarchy and ruin. The EU-SSR elite has destroyed prosperous countries just in a few decades – ironically, they’ve achieved even more than geriatric Soviet elite.

Alexander Maistrovoy is the author of Agony of Hercules or a Farewell to Democracy (Notes of a Stranger), published recently by Xlibris, Available at Amazon and Barnes & Noble.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Germany: Muslim migrant murders pregnant woman with machete

DC: “Muslims Against ISIS” rally attracts only “small crowd”

Wikileaks DNC Document Dump: Detailed List of Findings

Wikileaks released nearly 20,000 hacked emails from the accounts of Democratic National Committee officials. Gateway Pundit posted a detailed list of findings from the Wikileaks document dump.

The list was compiled thanks to the work of Reddit Bernie Sander supporters and Donald Trump supporters: Hat Tip Steve A.

Here is their list of findings:

DNC member killing horses for insurance money.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/578
DNC making fun of black woman’s name.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/17942
DNC telling each other, “I love you too. no homo.”
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/425
DNC requesting a pull an MSNBC commentary segment.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/6107
DNC controlling the narrative with time released stories.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12450
DNC conspiring to create false Trump information and release with Reuters.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7102
DNC Hillary supporters infiltrated Sanders campaign.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4776
DNC members going to complain to Morning Joe producers about his mentioning of a “rigged system.”
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8806
DNC discussing their relationship with NBC/MSNBC/CNN and how to get better treatment.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13762
Super PAC paying young voters to push back online Sanders supporters. Paid shills.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8351
DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz having an off the record meeting in MSNBC President Phil Griffin’s office.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8867
DNC being messed with by the Washington Examiner.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/5304
DNC discussing Hillary’s policies as unfeasible.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/519
$200k for a private dinner with Hillary.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/17287
Offering to send interns out to fake a protest against the RNC.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13366
Faking outrage and pasting in a video later.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7102
A mole working inside of the Sanders campaign.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7793
Bringing up Sanders religion to scare the southern voters.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11508
Possible money laundering by moving money back and forth to bypass legal limits.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/6230
Politico writer sending his stories to the DNC before he sends them to his editor.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808
DNC feeding CNN the questions they want to be asked in interviews.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4077
Creating a fake job ad for a Trump business to paint him as a sexist.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803
Hillary funding 2 million dollars in a coordinated campaign in battleground states to win back the Senate.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7784
DNC is upset that their “allies” didn’t send in protestors so they sent out interns.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13366
“Clinton Foundation quid-pro-quo worries are lingering, will be exploited in general.”
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8351
$50,000 – Lawrence Benenson.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/14700
Daily Fundraising Report for the DNC.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2875
Content & Social Strategy Discussion.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7512
Re: BuzzFeed and DNC connection.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10933
Draft linking news articles about trump to use as negative press.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7586
Fwd: State Dinner Countdown.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/1901
Some chick is angry she hasn’t been given more stuff from the Obama administration…might be interesting to follow up.
Re: State Dinner Countdown.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2946
Tim O’Brien: Trump’s Fixation on Inflating his Net Worth is a Cause for Concern.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4496
RE: May Fundraising Numbers.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/5615
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7720
Hillary for America Raised $26.4 Million in April, Began May with More than $30 Million Cash on Hand.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13986
Re: For approval: Trump supporter graphics.
https://www.wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/788
Press talking points, states Hillary is their candidate, dated May 5, 2016. More of a smoking gun than the ambiguous talk in the emails themselves.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/fileid/5254/2728
Consultant calling megyn kelly a bimbo. Has PDF attached that says the same.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/6087
DNC trying to get away with violating the Hatch Act.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/20148
Democrats using interns to organize fake “protests.”
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13830
RE: Action on DNC tomorrow (Immigration Raids).
https://www.wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/9736

The Democratic National Convention may be over before it even starts.

Georgia v. Scott: ‘Talking Dirty’ to a Child is Not Protected by the First Amendment

In January, the National Center on Sexual Exploitation submitted an amicus brief to the Georgia Supreme Court urging the court to uphold a statute criminalizing obscene Internet contact with minors.

This statute is vital to protecting children from sexual predators in the digital age but was facing a First Amendment challenge. The American Center for Law and Justice recognized the significance of this case as well and their Chief Counsel, Jay Sekulow, was appointed special district attorney to represent the state at the Georgia Supreme Court. Mr. Sekulow defended the statute eloquently at oral argument before the Court in February. In a huge victory for children, on Tuesday, July 5, 2016, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld the statute! This was a very important step in protecting children and curbing the vast amount of sexual exploitation occurring in Internet space.

The statute at issue criminalized Internet contact with a child, or a person believed to be a child, containing “explicit verbal descriptions or narrative account of sexually explicit nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse that is intended to arouse or satisfy the sexual desire of either the child or the person.”

The appellant, Jack Bernard Scott, who was arrested for violating this statute, challenged its constitutionality claiming it was overbroad on its face—that it criminalized lawful speech protected by the First Amendment. Among the arguments his defense counsel made to the Court was that Scott had a First Amendment right to “talk dirty” to a child as long as this talk did not rise to the level of obscenity. But the National Center on Sexual Exploitation wrote to inform the court that sexual objectification of children by adults is inherently harmful to children and a form of child exploitation that is not protected speech. The Court agreed.

This was a huge victory in a time when child predators have instant, anonymous access to children all over the country via the Internet while at the same time the Internet remains fairly unregulated and unchecked.

Since the Internet’s earliest beginnings child sex predators were some of theFirst Amendment Free Speech Childfirst adopters of the technology and we have seen massive harms to children occurring online. Not only can children be lured and solicited for sex acts via online communications, but also they are often gravely harmed without ever meeting their predator in person. Children are frequently exposed to hardcore pornography, images of adult sex organs and sex acts via live webcam chat, coerced into sending nude photos of themselves which are then used to blackmail these children into sending more and increasingly explicit photos, as well as remote sexual abuse.

As amazing and incredible as the Internet has been in promoting education, connecting humanity worldwide, and astronomically improving the free flow of ideas, it has also presented some very grave dangers. The First Amendment has always excluded child sexual exploitation and obscenity from its protection and it is important in our digital age that these same principles apply to online speech. The Georgia Supreme Court has recognized this and rightfully protected children from grave harm resulting from predatory and unprotected speech.

EDITORS NOTE: Readers may donate by clicking here to ensure the National Center on Sexual Exploitation’s Law Center continues to defend dignity across the nation.

Hillary’s 65,000 Syrians would cost U.S. over $400 Billion over their lifetimes

That is the estimate the highly respected Heritage Foundation expert on welfare, Robert Rector, has estimated.

Hillary got the 65,000 number from her pal, former British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who is now the head honcho at the financially largest U.S. refugee resettlement contractor (International Rescue Committee).

The Daily Caller has the story, here.

Hillary Clinton’s proposal to accept an additional 65,000 Syrian refugees annually could potentially cost $403 billion in lifetime costs if implemented all four years in a hypothetical first term.

David-Miliband-Hillary-Cl-002

David Miliband with Hillary Clinton.

That’s according to a new analysis released Monday by the Senate subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest.

Currently, the Obama administration is planning to take in 10,000 Syrian refugees in fiscal year 2016, which ends September 30.

In total, the Obama administration is planning to take in 85,000 refugees, while the original plan was to take in 100,000 refugees. Clinton’s proposal would potentially increase that number to 155,000 refugees entering the United States annually.

Robert Rector, a scholar at the Heritage Foundation, estimated the costs of local, state, and federal benefits for refugees and found that the lifetime cost of admitting 10,000 refugees is $6.5 billion.

It is extremely hard to estimate the cost of the massive welfare that refugees receive so we have never even tried here at RRW, but Rector has put pencil to paper to do the calculations. Continue reading here for more.

Where does this 65,000 number come from? Well initially it came from David Miliband, Hillary’s pal who runs the International Rescue Committee.  The other nine federal contractors followed suit and then the Senate Jihad Caucus (our name!) sent a letter to Obama telling him that they want 65,000 Syrians ASAP.   We addressed the demand here in a YouTube video last year.

The resettlement contractors subsequently upped their demand to 100,000 Syrians.

Galling isn’t it to think that you pay for the resettlement of third worlders who will ultimately out-populate you and your posterity.

RELATED: All the World’s Immigration Visualized in One Animated Map

Petition for new Brexit vote gets 39,411 signatures from Vatican City – population 800

This reminds me of Left-fascist Nick Lowles’ Hope Not Hate petition to ban me from the UK, which gained an extraordinary number of signatures in a very short time, no doubt including many more people than had ever actually heard of my existence — and was never examined by parliamentary authorities. Clearly the European political and media elites are scrambling to maintain their hegemony amid increasing popular discontent with, among other things, their suicidal Muslim immigration policies. Even if they force what is already a shattered dhimmi Britain to remain in the EU, their hegemony is inexorably crumbling.

Let's stick together Cameron

“Second referendum petition: At least 77,000 ‘fake’ signatures removed hours after inquiry launched,” by Luke Heighton, Telegraph, June 26, 2016 (thanks to Blazing Cat Fur):

Parliamentary authorities have moved swiftly to remove around 77,000 allegedly fake signatures from an online petition which calls for a re-run of the Brexit referendum.

It follows a formal inquiry launched less than three hours earlier, amid claims some of the more than three million signatures it has gained since Friday may be fraudulent.

A statement posted on the House of Commons’ petitions committee Twitter account on Sunday afternoon said: “We are investigating allegations of fraudulent use of the petitions site. Signatures found to be fraudulent will be removed”.

It came as the ‘EU Referendum Rules triggering a 2nd EU Referendum’ petition posted on the UK Government and Parliament Petitions website showed a suspicious number of signatures attributed to places outside the UK – in some cases more than their total population.

Some 39,411 residents of Vatican City, home to Pope Francis, appeared to have signed the petition by Sunday morning, despite the tiny city state having a total population of just 800.

In isolationist North Korea, one of the least internet-connected countries in the world, 23,778 people had apparently gone online to express their frustration at the UK’s decision to quit the EU.

Located 800 miles south east of the Falklands, and with a permanent population of zero, the South Atlantic British Overseas Territory of South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands was responsible for more than 3,000 signatures

That was some 300 more than those coming from the British Antarctic Territory, which though home to some 400 researchers also has no settled population of its own.

Signatories are also recorded in places as far flung as the Caribbean island of Aruba (101), Bermuda (564), China (432), Hong Kong (2,089), Japan (742) Venezuela (24) and the South Pacific Islands of Tuvalu (18), Wallis and Fortuna (8) and Vanuatu (31).

Overall, close to 2.5 million signatures had been added from within the UK by midday on Sunday, making up an overwhelming proportion of the whole….

RELATED ARTICLE: After Paris and Brussels jihad massacres, Europe to hold “Islamophobia” summit