U.S. Congress | WarSclerotic

Archive for the ‘U.S. Congress’ category

Trump to Designate Muslim Brotherhood as Terror Org.

November 13, 2016

Trump to Designate Muslim Brotherhood as Terror Org., Clarion Project, November 13, 2016

President-elect Donald Trump (Photo: © Reuters); Nihad Awad, founder and executive director of CAIR (Photo: © Getty Images)

Donald Trump will work to pass legislation designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, said Walid Phares, a foreign policy advisor for the president-elect.

Speaking to the Egyptian news outlet Youm7, Phares said the legislation, which was already approved by the House Judiciary Committee earlier this year and referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was held up due to the Obama administration’s support of the group.

Clarion Project spearheaded a campaign to educate legislators and move the bill forward over the past year. The bill currently has bipartisan support.

See below for a list of senators and representatives and their stance on the bill and what you can do to move the bill forward.

In November of 2015, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) introduced the bill, which identifies three Brotherhood entities in the U.S. including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

“We have to stop pretending that the Brotherhood are not responsible for the terrorism they advocate and finance … We have to see it for what it is: a key international organization dedicated to waging violent jihad,” Cruz told the Washington Free Beacon at the time.

You can read Clarion’s thorough rebuttal of the Brotherhood’s purported “non-violence” policy here.

The bill included is an unprecedented opportunity to educate members of Congress about the Muslim Brotherhood‘s involvement in terrorism. It reviews the Brotherhood’s terrorist history and how it is banned by the governments of Egypt, Russia, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Syria. Egypt released videos showing the Brotherhood’s involvement in terrorism and the Egyptian government’s website warns about the Brotherhood lobby in the United States.

The bill also outlines how the Brotherhood is linked to CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

The U.S. designated the Brotherhood’s Palestinian wing—Hamas— in 1997, but the group a whole is allowed to operate in the U.S.

You can tell your representatives to support the legislation in less than one minute by using our online form.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Members Without a Stated Position on S2230

Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

John Barrasso (R-WY)

Ben Cardin (D-MD); Ranking Member

Christopher Coons (D-DE)

Bob Corker (R-TN); Chairman

Jeff Flake (R-AZ)

Cory Gardner (R-CO)

Johnny Isakson (R-GA)

Tim Kaine (D-VA)

Edward Markey (D-WA)

Bob Menendez (D-NJ)

Chris Murphy (D-CT)

Rand Paul (R-KY)

David Perdue (R-GA)

James Risch (R-ID)

Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)

Tom Udall (D-NM)

Senators in Support of the Act

Ted Cruz (R-TX)	Original introducer of legislation
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)	Foreign Relations Committee member
Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Representatives in Support of HR3892 (Cosponsors and/or Voted Yay)

Mike Bishop (R-MI)	Diane Black (R-TN)
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)	Jim Bridenstine (R-OK)
Ken Buck (R-CO)	Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Steve Chabot (R-OH)	Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)
Curt Clawson (R-FL)	Doug Collins (R-GA)
Charlie W. Dent (R-PA)	Ron DeSantis (R-FL)
Scott DesJerlais (R-TN)	Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL)
Blake Farenthold (R-TX)	J. Randy Forbes (R-VA)
Trent Franks (R-AZ)	Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)	Trey Gowdy (R-SC)
Kay Granger (R-TX)	Vicky Hartzler (R-MO)
Darrell Issa (R-CA)	Bill Johnson (R-OH)
Jim Jordan (R-OH)	David P. Joyce (R-OH)
Steve King (R-IA)	Barry Loudermilk (R-GA)
Tom Marino (R-PA)	John L. Mica (R-FL)
Steven Palazzo (R-MS)	Colin C. Peterson (D-MN)
Ted Poe (R-TX)	Mike Pompeo (R-KS)
Bill Posey (R-FL)	John Ratcliffe (R-TX)
Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)	Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)
David Rouzer (R-NC)	Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
Lamar Smith (R-TX)	Steve Stivers (R-OH)
David A. Trott (R-MI)	Mimi Walters (R-CA)
Randy Weber (R-TX)	Mike Kelly (R-PA)
Duncan Hunter (R-CA)	Candice S. Miller (R-MI)
James B. Renacci (R-OH)	Daniel Webster (R-FL)
Peter J. Roskam (R-IL)	Tim Huelskamp (R-KS
Charlie J. Fleischmann (R-TN)	Jeff Duncan (R-SC)
Dave Brat (R-VA)	Todd Rokita (R-IN)
Kenny Marchant (R-TX)	Robert Pittenger (R-NC)
Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS)	Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC)
Rep. Gene Green (D-TX)	Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR)
Rep. Charles W. Boustany, Jr. (R-LA)

Representatives Opposed to the Act

Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA)	Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA)
Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN)	Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)
Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA)	Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL)
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX)	Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)	Rep. Pedro Pierluisi (D-Puerto Rico)

Categories: CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood, President Elect Trump, U.S. Congress
Tags: CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood, President Elect Trump, U.S. Congress

Comments: 1 Comment

Former AG Under Contempt Of Congress: “Deeply Concerned” Over Comey’s Actions

October 31, 2016

Former AG Under Contempt Of Congress: “Deeply Concerned” Over Comey’s Actions, Hot Air, Ed Morrissey, October 31, 2016

Nothing will start a morning off with a good laugh more than an op-ed from Eric Holder touting his record of fighting public corruption. The former Attorney General, who earned a contempt citation from Congress and who participated in one of the most corrupt presidential pardons in US history, took time out from his retirement to wag his finger at James Comey because the FBI director kept Congress informed. Why, Holder writes, that goes against everything I did as AG!

That may actually be one good argument in favor of Comey:

I began my career in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section 40 years ago, investigating cases of official corruption. In the years since, I have seen America’s justice system firsthand from nearly every angle — as a prosecutor, judge, attorney in private practice, and attorney general of the United States. I understand the gravity of the work our Justice Department performs every day to defend the security of our nation, protect the American people, uphold the rule of law and be fair.

That is why I am deeply concerned about FBI Director James B. Comey’s decision to write a vague letter to Congress about emails potentially connected to a matter of public, and political, interest. That decision was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and tradition. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an election season. That guidance, which reinforced established policy, is still in effect and applies to the entire Justice Department — including the FBI.

Let’s take a moment to recall the career of the man who issued this scolding. Holder most famously stonewalled Congress over the ATF’s Operation Fast and Furious program, which ran guns into Mexico in an attempt to make political hay over allegedly widespread “straw man” purchases of firearms in the US. Instead, the ATF thoroughly botched the operation and dumped thousands of guns into the hands of the drug cartels south of the border; the weapons were later traced to hundreds of murders, including those of two Border Patrol agents. When Congress demanded records and communications from the ATF and the Department of Justice, Holder refused to comply, offering a specious claim of “executive privilege” that only applies to the President. Congress approved a contempt citation that the DoJ refused to enforce, and a later court rejected Holder’s claims of executive privilege.

But Holder cites his earlier work on “public integrity,” too. What did that look like? Well, Holder’s approach to public integrity was to promote pardons for tax fugitives whose friends and family kicked in a lot of dough to the Clintons. Slate’s Justin Peters recalled the case of Marc Rich after his demise, the multibillionaire who got off scot-free thanks to Bill Clinton’s last-minute pardon while on the run for tax evasion:

Eric Holder was the key man. As deputy AG, Holder was in charge of advising the president on the merits of various petitions for pardon. Jack Quinn, a lawyer for Rich, approached Holder about clemency for his client. Quinn was a confidant of Al Gore, then a candidate for president; Holder had ambitions of being named attorney general in a Gore administration. A report from the House Committee on Government Reform on the Rich debacle later concluded that Holder must have decided that cooperating in the Rich matter could pay dividends later on.

Rich was an active fugitive, a man who had used his money to evade the law, and presidents do not generally pardon people like that. What’s more, the Justice Department opposed the pardon—or would’ve, if it had known about it. But Holder and Quinn did an end-around, bringing the pardon to Clinton directly and avoiding any chance that Justice colleagues might give negative input. As the House Government Reform Committee report later put it, “Holder failed to inform the prosecutors under him that the Rich pardon was under consideration, despite the fact that he was aware of the pardon effort for almost two months before it was granted.” …

Since then, Bill Clinton hasn’t stopped apologizing for the pardons of Marc Rich and Pincus Green. “It was terrible politics. It wasn’t worth the damage to my reputation,” he told Newsweek in 2002—and, indeed, speculation was rampant that Rich (and his ex-wife) had bought the pardon by, in part, donating $450,000 to Clinton’s presidential library. Clinton denied that the donations had anything to do with the pardon, instead claiming that he took Holder’s advice on the matter. Holder, for his part, has distanced himself from the pardons as well. As the House Government Reform Committee report put it, he claimed that his support for the pardon “was the result of poor judgment, initially not recognizing the seriousness of the Rich case, and then, by the time that he recognized that the pardon was being considered, being distracted by other matters.”

The excuses are weak. In the words of the committee report, “it is difficult to believe that Holder’s judgment would be so monumentally poor that he could not understand how he was being manipulated by Jack Quinn.”

Before the Washington Post offered its pages to Holder for this scolding on law-enforcement ethics, perhaps they should have consulted their own Richard Cohen. Not exactly a conservative activist, Cohen argued vehemently that Holder’s participation in the Rich pardon should have disqualified him for the AG position:

Holder was not just an integral part of the pardon process, he provided the White House with cover by offering his go-ahead recommendation. No alarm seemed to sound for him. Not only had strings been pulled, but it was rare to pardon a fugitive — someone who had avoided possible conviction by avoiding the inconvenience of a trial. The U.S. attorney’s office in New York — which, Holder had told the White House, would oppose any pardon — was kept ignorant of what was going on. Afterward, it was furious. …

But the pardon cannot be excepted. It suggests that Holder, whatever his other qualifications, could not say no to power. The Rich pardon request had power written all over it — the patronage of important Democratic fundraisers, for instance. Holder also said he was “really struck” by the backing of Rich by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and the possibility of “foreign policy benefits that would be reaped by granting the pardon.” This is an odd standard for American justice, but more than that, what was Holder thinking? That U.S.-Israeli relations would suffer? Holder does not sound naive. He sounds disingenuous.

And he sounds just as disingenuous here, too. Perhaps Holder feels that he has the moral standing to argue that Congress should be kept in the dark about executive-branch operations, especially when they have a potentially large impact on the body politic; Holder himself certainly exemplified that in Operation Fast and Furious. Or perhaps Holder’s convinced that the Department of Justice should direct all its efforts to get potential felons off the hook, especially in cases where it benefits the Clintons, and Holder has definitely made that part of his life’s work. But Eric Holder lecturing James Comey for not following the examples he set at the DoJ qualifies as farce, and would get gales of laughter had the political parties been swapped.

An argument might be made that shows Comey misstepped, but this isn’t it — and Eric Holder is near the bottom of any list of former officials with the moral authority for public lectures on clean government.

PS: The Marc Rich pardon continues to pay dividends for the Clintons, too. They did big business with former Rich partner Gilbert Chagoury, even while the FBI looked into his connections to terror groups. We can thank Holder for that, too — a dividend of his 2000 efforts for “public integrity” that paid off for the Clintons over and over again.

David Sirota offers another reason to doubt Holder’s moral standing on questions of public integrity:

I’d say my arguments are more directly on point, but YMMV.

Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton campaign, Clinton e-mails, Clinton Foundation, Clinton investigation, Clinton supporters, Comey, Corruption, Democrat establishment, Department of Justice, DIferent strokes for different folks, Eric Holder, FBI, Obama's America, Presidential pardons, U.S. Congress
Tags: Clinton campaign, Clinton e-mails, Clinton Foundation, Clinton investigation, Clinton supporters, Comey, Corruption, Democrat establishment, Department of Justice, Different strokes for different folks, Eric Holder, FBI, Obama's America, Presidential pardons, U.S. Congress

Comments: Be the first to comment

Comey Sends Letter To Congress Citing New Evidence (and An Investigation) In The Clinton Email Scandal

October 28, 2016

Comey Sends Letter To Congress Citing New Evidence (and An Investigation) In The Clinton Email Scandal, Jonathan Turley’s Blog, Jonathan Turley

There is a major news development with the release of a letter from FBI Director James B. Comey that the Bureau has decided that new evidence requires further investigation into the Clinton emails. It was a surprising change just days before the election. After all, as recently as September 27, 2016, Comey rejected the idea that the bureau would reopen its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state. Comey wrote in a letter to top members of Congress that the bureau has “learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.”

I have been critical recently of the handling of the FBI investigation, particularly in the granting of immunity to key potential targets. I recently wrote a column on FBI investigation into the Clinton email scandal and revised my view as to the handling of the investigation in light of the five immunity deals handed out by the Justice Department. I had previously noted that FBI Director James Comey was within accepted lines of prosecutorial discretion in declining criminal charges, even though I believed that such charges could have been brought. However, the news of the immunity deals (and particularly the deal given top ranking Clinton aide Cheryl Mills) was baffling and those deals seriously undermined the ability to bring criminal charges in my view.

Wikileaks disclosures have only embarrassed the Bureau further in showing Clinton aides debating how to explain the deletions and how to delay turning over material. Comey now has told legislators that “I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.”

He did note that the FBI could not yet assess whether the new material is significant. Comey clearly felt obligated to let the Committees know about the development. In making such a decision, Comey is caught in the horns of a dilemma. The Justice Department strongly discourages investigatory announcements or actions shortly before an election to avoid any claims of trying to influence the outcome. On the other hand, if this is significant, the FBI does not want to be accused of hiding material developments from Congress or the public, particularly after criticism over its alleged different treatment given Clinton and her aides as opposed to other recent cases.

In such a situation, caution favors disclosure. It is unlikely that we will see major developments in the remaining two weeks, but the announcement shows that this is not a closed matter. In many ways, the lingering character of this scandal was only worsened by the tactics of Clinton aides in changing explanations and refusals to cooperate absent immunity. That served to delay the investigation, which will now likely extend beyond the election.

Categories: Clinton e-mails, Clinton unsecured server, Comey, FBI, U.S. Congress
Tags: Clinton e-mails, Clinton unsecured server, Comey, FBI, U.S. Congress

Comments: Be the first to comment

Congress: Attorney General Lynch ‘Pleads Fifth’ on Secret Iran ‘Ransom’ Payments

October 28, 2016

Congress: Attorney General Lynch ‘Pleads Fifth’ on Secret Iran ‘Ransom’ Payments, Washington Free Beacon, Adam Kredo, October 28, 2016

US attorney general, Loretta E. Lynch attends a conference on organised crime in Rome, Thursday, Oct. 20, 2016. (AP Photo/Gregorio Borgia)

US attorney general, Loretta E. Lynch, AP Photo/Gregorio Borgia

Attorney General Loretta Lynch is declining to comply with an investigation by leading members of Congress about the Obama administration’s secret efforts to send Iran $1.7 billion in cash earlier this year, prompting accusations that Lynch has “pleaded the Fifth” Amendment to avoid incriminating herself over these payments, according to lawmakers and communications exclusively obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) and Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) initially presented Lynch in October with a series of questions about how the cash payment to Iran was approved and delivered.

In an Oct. 24 response, Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik responded on Lynch’s behalf, refusing to answer the questions and informing the lawmakers that they are barred from publicly disclosing any details about the cash payment, which was bound up in a ransom deal aimed at freeing several American hostages from Iran.

The response from the attorney general’s office is “unacceptable” and provides evidence that Lynch has chosen to “essentially plead the fifth and refuse to respond to inquiries regarding [her] role in providing cash to the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism,” Rubio and Pompeo wrote on Friday in a follow-up letter to Lynch, according to a copy obtained by the Free Beacon.

The inquiry launched by the lawmakers is just one of several concurrent ongoing congressional probes aimed at unearthing a full accounting of the administration’s secret negotiations with Iran.

“It is frankly unacceptable that your department refuses to answer straightforward questions from the people’s elected representatives in Congress about an important national security issue,” the lawmakers wrote. “Your staff failed to address any of our questions, and instead provided a copy of public testimony and a lecture about the sensitivity of information associated with this issue.”

“As the United States’ chief law enforcement officer, it is outrageous that you would essentially plead the fifth and refuse to respond to inquiries,” they stated. “The actions of your department come at time when Iran continues to hold Americans hostage and unjustly sentence them to prison.”

The lawmakers included a copy of their previous 13 questions and are requesting that Lynch provide answers by Nov. 4.

When asked about Lynch’s efforts to avoid answering questions about the cash payment, Pompeo told the Free Beacon that the Obama administration has blocked Congress at every turn as lawmakers attempt to investigate the payments to Iran.

“Who knew that simple questions regarding Attorney General Lynch’s approval of billions of dollars in payments to Iran could be so controversial that she would refuse to answer them?” Pompeo said. “This has become the Obama administration’s coping mechanism for anything related to the Islamic Republic of Iran—hide information, obfuscate details, and deny answers to Congress and the American people.”

“They know this isn’t a sustainable strategy, however, and I trust they will start to take their professional, and moral, obligations seriously,” the lawmaker added.

In the Oct. 24 letter to Rubio and Pompeo, Assistant Attorney General Kadzik warned the lawmakers against disclosing to the public any information about the cash payment.

Details about the deal are unclassified, but are being kept under lock and key in a secure facility on Capitol Hill, the Free Beacon first disclosed. Lawmakers and staffers who have clearance to view the documents are forced to relinquish their cellular devices and are barred from taking any notes about what they see.

“Please note that these documents contain sensitive information that is not appropriate for public release,” Kadzik wrote to the lawmakers. “Disclosure of this information beyond members of the House and Senate and staff who are able to view them could adversely affect the diplomatic relations of the United States, including with key allies, as well as the State Department’s ability to defend [legal] claims against the United States [by Iran] that are still being litigated at the Hague Tribunal.”

“The public release of any portion of these documents, or the information contained therein, is not authorized by the transmittal of these documents or by this communication,” Kadzik wrote.

Congressional sources have told the Free Beacon that this is another part of the effort to hide details about these secret negotiations with Iran from the American public.

One senior congressional source familiar with both the secret documents and the inquiry into them told the Free Beacon that the details of the negotiations are so damning that the administration’s best strategy is to ignore lawmakers’ requests for more information.

“Every Obama administration official and department involved in the Iran Deal appear to be running for cover,” the source said. “Like we feared, the [Iran deal] is turning out to be a disaster and Iran is emboldened in its aggression. Evidently Attorney General Lynch and the Department of Justice have decided ‘refusal to cooperate’ is their best strategy. But this is dangerous and ultimately won’t protect them from anything.”

Update: The headline has been updated to more accurately characterize the story.

Categories: Department of Justice, Iran - hostages, Iran - ransom payments, Iran - sanctions relief, Iran scam, Obama and Iran scam, Obama and ransom payments, U.S. Congress
Tags: Department of Justice, Iran - hostages, Iran - ransom payments, Iran - sanctions relief, Iran Scam, Obama and Iran scam, Obama and ransom payments, U.S. Congress

Comments: Be the first to comment

FBI Colluded with Democrats, Team Clinton on Email ‘Prosecution’

October 3, 2016

FBI Colluded with Democrats, Team Clinton on Email ‘Prosecution’, PJ Media, Michael Walsh, October 3, 2016

(AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)

[I]f we don’t stop it on Nov. 8, expect things to get much, much worse very, very quickly.

*********************

The fix was in from the start, and we are now being governed by a gang of criminals. How else to explain this:

Immunity deals for two top Hillary Clinton aides included a side arrangement obliging the FBI to destroy their laptops after reviewing the devices, House Judiciary Committee sources told Fox News on Monday.Sources said the arrangement with former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills and ex-campaign staffer Heather Samuelson also limited the search to no later than Jan. 31, 2015. This meant investigators could not review documents for the period after the email server became public — in turn preventing the bureau from discovering if there was any evidence of obstruction of justice, sources said. [Emphasis added — DM)

The Republican-led House Judiciary Committee fired off a letter Monday to Attorney General Loretta Lynch asking why the DOJ and FBI agreed to the restrictive terms, including that the FBI would destroy the laptops after finishing the search. “Like many things about this case, these new materials raise more questions than answers,” Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., wrote in the letter obtained by Fox News.

That last remark would be funny if it were’t so pathetic. The clueless Republicans — like most Americans — simply cannot bring themselves to realize what sort of government we are now living under. Destroying evidence? Impeding congressional inquiry? Granting immunity to some of the very persons likely involved in the crime?

The immunity deals for Mills and Samuelson, made as part of the FBI’s probe into Clinton’s use of a private email server when she served as secretary of state, apparently included a series of “side agreements” that were negotiated by Samuelson and Mills’ attorney Beth Wilkinson.The side deals were agreed to on June 10, less than a month before FBI Director James Comey announced that the agency would recommend no charges be brought against Clinton or her staff. Judiciary Committee aides told FoxNews.com that the destruction of the laptops isparticularly troubling as it means that the computers could not be used as evidence in future legal proceedings, should new information or circumstances arise.

As PJ Media columnist Andrew McCarthy writes at NRO:

In a nutshell, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Department permitted Hillary Clinton’s aide Cheryl Mills — the subject of a criminal investigation, who had been given immunity from prosecution despite strong evidence that she had lied to investigators — to participate as a lawyer for Clinton, the principal subject of the same criminal investigation. This unheard-of accommodation was made in violation not only of rudimentary investigative protocols and attorney-ethics rules, but also of the federal criminal law. Yet, the FBI and the Justice Department, the nation’s chief enforcers of the federal criminal law, tell us they were powerless to object. Seriously?I genuinely hate this case. I don’t mind disagreeing with the Bureau, a not infrequent occurrence in my former career. But I am hardwired to presume the FBI’s integrity. Thus, no matter how much irregularities in the Clinton investigation have rankled me, I’ve chalked them up to the Bureau’s being hamstrung. There was no chance on God’s green earth that President Obama and his Justice Department were ever going to permit an indictment of Hillary Clinton.

And that’s the bottom line. The Obama administration has corrupted and weaponized the major enforcement agencies of the federal government, including the IRS and the FBI, and now is reaching down to the local level in order to bring municipal police forces under Washington’s control. As Andy says in the context of Islam, it’s “willful blindness,” and if we don’t stop it on Nov. 8, expect things to get much, much worse very, very quickly.

Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton cover ups, Clinton e-mails, Comey, FBI, Republicans, U.S. Congress
Tags: Clinton cover ups, Clinton e-mails, Comey, FBI, Republicans, U.S. Congress

Comments: Be the first to comment

Refugee Bill Could Win Election for Republicans

October 3, 2016

Refugee Bill Could Win Election for Republicans, Counter Jihad, October 3, 2016

It’s a simple concept. Shouldn’t the states, who are going to end up footing the bill for refugees in so many ways, be involved in signing off on the decision to bring refugees in to their communities? Representative Scott Perry has a bill before the House that would make just this commonsense solution a reality.

Perry’s bill… would require that states affirmatively sign off on refugee resettlement proposals before the federal government and private [taxpayer-funded] refugee resettlement contractors can seed their communities with refugees. Under this legislation, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) would have to first submit a plan to the relevant state legislature that includes all of the information concerning costs, criminal history, and health records of prospective refugees. They would also have to provide information regarding said refugee’s affiliation with any Muslim Brotherhood group named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case. Most importantly, any plan for resettlement must be ratified by the state legislature and signed by the governor, otherwise no refugees can be settled in that state.

It is a solid idea even apart from the concerns about the Holy Land Foundation case, although that is a strong addition. The simple fact is that the Federal government is not going to come close to paying the full costs of these resettlements. Refugees will have children, and those children will almost certainly have to go to public school. They are likelier than other families to be poor, and thus to require state as well as Federal welfare. Our study of this issue suggests that refugees are very much more expensive than other immigrants. Surely states should have some say in whether or not they take on those costs.

Likewise, it is not first- but second-generation immigrants who are the most likely candidates to be radicalized into terrorism. Scientists continue to find, whether they are studying the issue in Denmark or broader Europe or America, that it is not the immigrant you bring into your country but his children who are most likely to turn against you. As long as that remains true, no background checks can suffice as a solution to the problem of terror. Unfortunately, the states need to be involved in deciding how much exposure to these risks they can afford.

Thomas Jefferson thought of the the bargain between the states and the Federal government as a question of whether an issue looked outside, or inside. The refugee issue, unlike many foreign policy issues, does not look only outside. The states will have to sustain and support immigrant populations who come into this nation with almost nothing. They have an interest in the question of whether such refugees are more or less capable of fitting into the existing culture.

Only such subdivision of power can be properly accountable to the people in a democratic form of government. It is the locality that has to sustain the hardest costs and the deepest dangers that ought to have the final say.

Categories: Islamic refugees, States, U.S. Congress
Tags: Islamic refugees, States, U.S. Congress

Comments: 1 Comment

Internet Giveaway Proceeds After Court Rejects Suit to Halt it

October 2, 2016

Internet Giveaway Proceeds After Court Rejects Suit to Halt it, Power Line, Paul Mirengoff, October 1, 2016

We have written about President Obama’s internet giveaway and how GOP congressional leaders effectively rubber stamped it. An aide to Majority Leader McConnell even tried to blame Donald Trump for the Republicans’ gutlessness.

After Congress failed to act, four Republican state attorneys general filed a lawsuit to stop the giveaway. The four state plaintiffs were Arizona, Oklahoma, Nevada and Texas. Their AGs are Mark Brnovich, Scott Pruitt, Adam Paul Laxalt, and Ken Paxton.

The suit made several arguments against the internet giveaway. Plaintiffs argued that, because it lacks congressional approval (Congress didn’t approve the action, it merely declined to block it) the giveaway amounts to an illegal ceding of U.S. government property. They also contended that the new steward of the internet domain system, an outfit known ICANN, will be so unchecked that it could “effectively enable or prohibit speech on the Internet.”

The AGs also noted that ICANN could revoke the U.S. government’s exclusive use of .gov and .mil, the domains used by states, federal agencies and the U.S. military for their websites. In a statement, Texas Attorney General Paxton said: “The president does not have the authority to simply give away America’s pioneering role in ensuring that the internet remains a place where free expression can flourish.”

The AGs’ suit did a good job of expressing key objections to Obama’s internet giveaway. Yesterday, however, a federal district court judge, George C. Hanks, Jr., rejected the legal challenge. The Obama-appointed judge found that there wasn’t enough evidence that the transfer would be harmful.

Thus, today oversight of the domain naming system has been transferred to “global stakeholders.”

The Obama Commerce Department had stressed that any last-minute attempt to abandon the giveaway would “hurt the credibility of America in the eyes of the rest of the world.” This is true. Blocking the giveaway would have upset what has become the world’s reasonable expectation that the U.S., under President Obama, is a pushover willing to cede control over key affairs to international bodies and even our enemies, and unwilling vigilantly to safeguard national interests.

Because congressional leaders are also pushovers, world expectations have been met and remain intact.

Categories: Internet, Obama and internet, Republicans, U.S. Congress, U.S. courts
Tags: Internet, Obama and internet, Republicans, U.S. Congres, U.S. courts

Comments: Be the first to comment

Another area where Congress must be ready to oppose the president.

October 2, 2016

Another area where Congress must be ready to oppose the president, American Spectator, September 30, 2016

President Obama is rumored to be considering a major reversal of decades-long U.S. policy toward Israel by supporting a UN Security Council resolution that unilaterally recognizes a Palestinian state before a peace agreement is negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians. Congress must act to counter this bold and reckless move that endangers Israel’s security and America’s strategic interests.

There is much at stake: Israel is a free and democratic ally in a hostile region that has been repeatedly attacked by its neighbors. Before it occupied the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan Heights in 1967, these territories were used as a base of war and terrorism against the Jewish state. Offers to create a Palestinian state in Gaza and most of the West Bank that would allow for a safe and secure Israel have been repaid by intifada after intifada.

Others have argued persuasively that any Palestinian state established in the absence of a peace agreement with Israel will become a virtually ungovernable hotbed of terrorism sure to threaten not just Israel, but also the region and the world. The events in Gaza in the past decade strongly support this position. Ordinary Palestinians will also suffer, forced to endure rule by the same Islamic fanatics and brutal, corrupt autocrats who have destroyed their economy.

A White House decision to support unilateral Palestinian statehood would unquestionably be contrary to the will of Congress: 88 senators recently signed a letter opposing such an action, while 388 members of the House have signed a similar letter supporting a veto of all “one-sided” UN resolutions concerning the Israel/Palestine issue.

And these numbers understate congressional opposition: several senators refused to sign the letter because they thought it was insufficiently strong. Furthermore, a White House reversal on unilateral Palestinian statehood would also be contrary to the stated policies of both the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees.

To dissuade a determined White House from this course of action, Congress will have to do more than write letters. Here are some of the legislative options that could throw significant roadblocks in its path.

First, Congress should make clear its intention to sanction any unilaterally-declared Palestinian state and its new leaders, blocking their access to U.S. banking and markets, similar tosanctions on the Iranian regime. Loss of access to the U.S. financial system would be extremely costly to any Palestinian regime.

Second, Congress should make clear its intention to immediately and completely cut hundreds of millions of dollars in annual U.S. direct aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the event that President Mahmoud Abbas succeeds in his bid to win Palestinian statehood recognition at the UN. Congress reduced this aid by 22 percent last year in retaliation for the PA’s continuing terrorism incitement. It would be a significant blow to a new state to cut all such aid.

Third, Congress should mandate that any newly-created Palestinian state be designated a state sponsor of terrorism. This designation would include restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance; a ban on defense exports and sales; and various other restrictions. The Palestinian Authority (PA) currently uses a shell-game topay the families of terrorists, something Congress is currently working to stop. Other PA ties to various terrorist activities go back decades.

Finally, Congress should review and update decades-old federal laws prohibiting U.S. funding of any UN organization that “accords the Palestine Liberation Organization the same standing as member states” to ensure that they apply and cannot be skirted if Abbas wins Security Council recognition of Palestinian statehood.

Congress should use its power boldly to exert influence over this vital issue. Large majorities in Congress opposed the Iran nuclear deal and had both the facts and public opinion on their side. But due to the peculiarities of the law and the politics of the situation, they were outmaneuvered. Congress should work to ensure this situation is not repeated.

Though knowledgeable and trusted congressional leaders like Senators Arthur Vandenberg and Henry “Scoop” Jackson once led coalitions in Congress that held great influence in foreign affairs, there is a bipartisan belief that Congress has shirked its duty to shape foreign policy in recent decades. Now would be a good time to start taking it back.

Categories: Israel, Obama and Israel, Palestinian state, U.S. Congress, UN Security Council
Tags: Israel, Obama and Israel, Palestinian state, U.S. Congress, UN Security Council

Comments: Be the first to comment

Jeff Sessions Slams Top Immigration Official for Suppressing Reports of Refugee Terrorism, Crime

October 1, 2016

Jeff Sessions Slams Top Immigration Official for Suppressing Reports of Refugee Terrorism, Crime, Breitbart, Katie Mchugh, October 1, 2016

CLEVELAND, OH - JULY 19: on the second day of the Republican National Convention on July 19, 2016 at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio. An estimated 50,000 people are expected in Cleveland, including hundreds of protesters and members of the media. The four-day Republican National Convention kicked off on July 18. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

CLEVELAND, OH – JULY 19: on the second day of the Republican National Convention on July 19, 2016 at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions is going after a top immigration official who earlier admitted the U.S. government has invited future terrorists into American communities, the Obama administration’s much-touted “vetting process” aside.

“The fact is—anybody that understands the challenge they face to do this vetting. You cannot vet people from Syria, because there’s no way, and we have no plans to send anybody into Syria to verify anything that they say,” Sessions told León Rodríguez during his testimony before a Senate panel.

“That’s the problem, fundamentally,” the Republican continued. “Are you not aware that I have written four letters to the Department, asking for information on how many refugees have been convicted of criminal and terrorist activities?”

Rodríguez, who directs citizenship and immigration Services for the Department of Homeland Security, said he wasn’t. “I confess Chairman, I am not. I will certainly make sure to follow up on those correspondence—”

“This is absolutely breathtaking,” Sessions cut in. “It is a total disrespect to this body, who is in charge of giving you money to run your business. We should quit giving you money if you don’t respond and you don’t know basic things.”

Sessions, who who chairs the Senate’s Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, listed the letters he sent to the Department of Homeland Security, along with one sent directly to the president demanding to know how many refugees were convicted on criminal or terrorism charges in the U.S. “So do you think we’re entitled to know this?” he asked.

“I will—of course you’re entitled to answers to your questions. I will follow up, sir,” Rodríguez said.

“Well, to me, it indicates the determination to promote an agenda without listening to the American people, without listening to their elected representatives, and to downplay and to misrepresent, really, the danger that this program presents,” Sessions said. “And we’re not having terrorists from a lot of areas, but some areas we’re having terrorists that threaten this country in a whole lot of ways.”

Sessions added that he had sent the letters to Department of Homeland Security secretary Jeh Johnson, and would take it as an “absolute refusal” to respond to legitimate requests to Congress if no one in the department brought them to Johnson’s or Rodríguez’s attention.

Rodríguez also tried to clarify “our operations are fee-funded, not tax-funded. They’re not funded by the taxpayers.”

“So you’re not funded by the taxpayers. And so you don’t have any responsibility to the taxpayers?” the Alabama senator asked.

“No, we have a responsibility to the taxpayers,” Rodríguez backtracked, “and the American people to do our job the right way. That’s not the point I was making.”

“You don’t get any fees that Congress hasn’t authorized, isn’t that true?” Sessions asked.

“That’s certainly true,” Rodríguez admitted.

Sessions’ office found in June that of the 580 people convicted of terrorism-related offenses between September 11, 2001, and December 31, 2014—which does not include the terrorist Muslims who carried the 9/11 attacks—380 were foreign-born, with 24 of those brought in as refugees.

Adding to the Department of Homeland Security’s immigration scandals, an audit revealed over 1,811 aliens from terrorist countries under final deportation orders were granted U.S. citizenship—giving them the right to vote and gain security clearances—with the Obama administration shutting down the program that uncovered the rampant fraud.

Another Obama administration official refused to say how many Syrian refugees specifically the government plans to ship to American neighborhoods. The outgoing Obama administration wants to ship 110,000 refugees altogether to the U.S. in fiscal year 2017, which begins October 1.

Categories: Islamic immigration, Islamic refugees, Islamist terror attacks, Obama administration transparency, Obama and Islam, Obama and Islamic terrorism, U.S. Congress, Vetting Immigrants and refugees
Tags: Islamic immigration, Islamic refugees, Islamist terror attacks, Obama administration transparency, Obama and Islam, Obama and Islamic terrorism, U.S. Congress, Vetting Immigrants and refugees

Comments: Be the first to comment

We Are the Third World

October 1, 2016

We Are the Third World, American Thinker, Timothy Birdnow, October 1, 2016

In the presidential debate last Monday Donald Trump warned America that she’s “become a third-world country” to the guffaws and disdain of the liberals, the media (but I repeat myself) and Hillary Rodham Clinton, who later accused Trump of talking smack about the country she wants to loot, er, lead.

One must ask, is Trump correct or do we continue to occupy the apex of the first world? Is there evidence to support Mr. Trump’s claim?

Let me offer exhibit A.

According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Two years after the University of Missouri closed the state’s lone hospital for treating tuberculosis and other infectious diseases, state health officials are looking at opening a new facility.

The Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services is seeking bids for a study that could provide officials with a roadmap for opening a new treatment center to replace the current process of sending patients to other states.

It comes amid a nationwide increase in the number of people contracting the airborne bacterial disease that attacks the lungs.

According to the request, Missouri has averaged 90 active tuberculosis cases in each of the past three years

Missouri has been more fortunate than many other states in this regard. Why? Because Missouri a series of strict laws against illegal alien encroachment, going back to 2007.

As a result Missouri has avoided many of the pitfalls — including third-world diseases — that are plaguing other states. But the power of the central government has grown to the point where it has managed to circumvent many of the laws put in place by the states and so the problems plaguing other states are starting to dribble in.

Let’s face it; tuberculosis is now a Third World disease. In the U.S. the number of cases of TB were cut in half between 1953 and 1968 due to better antibiotics and better medical care. (It is interesting to note that Operation Wetback repatriated up to 2 million trespassing aliens starting in 1954, thus helping to reduce the number of such cases.) The reduction in TB rates turned around in the mid ’80s as a result of the HIV/AIDS epidemic (which was not handled like any other infectious epidemics where authorities follow the chain of contagion and restrict the activities of the infected; AIDS was allowed to burn through the populace out of fears of stigmatizing homosexuals.) Still, rates remained low. Only now we see them rising — and HIV is fairly under control, so that is not the cause.

According to the CDC 88% of all antibiotic-resistant TB in the U.S. comes from immigrants.

And that is just one infectious disease. Consider that last year we had 15 cases of bubonic plague in the U.S. Bubonic plague is clearly a third-world disease, one long absent in America.

Another facet of Third Worldism is the export of raw materials rather than manufactured goods. America is now almost completely an exporter of coal, because the Federal government has used regulatory power to strangle the industry. In 2008 then President Obama famously stated: “If someone wants to build a new coal-fired power plant they can, but it will bankrupt them because they will be charged a huge sum for all the greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

He has since gone on to crush an entire industry. Peabody Energy and Arch Coal — the largest and second largest coal companies on Earth — both went into bankruptcy recently. We now export raw coal because we can’t use it for anything.

And Lead. The Doe Run smelter — the last in America — closed a couple of years ago as a result of pressure from the Federal government. America now cannot smelt lead, but rather is forced to sell the raw materials to others who process it. That is third world.

Meanwhile, Mr. Trump scolded Ford for moving all its small car manufacturing to foreign countries. Well, that is what they are doing. It’s what happens when you are providing an unfriendly environment to manufacturing businesses.

Then there is language. One of the characteristics of a third-world country is the preponderance of languages; multiple languages exemplify disunity, thus dividing the nation. Well, the U.S. is at least the fifth largest Spanish speaking country on Earth and may well be second only to Mexico with between 35 and 50 million speakers.

In fact, one in five households do not speak English at home. While this is not solely the fault of Barack Obama, the problem (and it is a problem) has clearly metastasized under Il Duce.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is calling for more spending on infrastructure, despite Obama’s trillion-dollar stimulus which supposedly funded “shovel ready jobs” and rebuilt these ailing roads and whatnot. If we can’t make basic repairs to infrastructure with a trillion dollars, how do we differ from a third-world country?

And violence. As I have noted, East St. Louis has levels of violence comparable to Honduras and other hellholes. We all know how many murders are occurring in Chicago, for instance, and we know of the rioting in Baltimore, in Charlotte, and in Ferguson. How does this differ from the war-torn, strife-filled third world?

Well, partly there is the rule of law. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama simply ignores the rule of law when it inconveniences him, granting an amnesty to illegals despite laws duly passed by Congress, for instance. He has simply gone ahead with many things he wanted, such as military action in Libya without Congressional approval, or forcing Boeing to shut down a factory for being non-union in 2011, or giving Mexican criminals thousands of illegal weapons in Fast and Furious. What about the drone strikes killing American citizens without due process? What about his use of executive orders to release people duly imprisoned by courts of law? How about his circumventing Congress to seize land?

And under Mr. Obama wealth has concentrated to just a few crony fat cats while everyone else lives hand to mouth due to underemployment. Even the liberal Huffington Post had to admit this fact. Rich oligarchs are another example of third worldism.

No Third World country is complete without vote fraud to keep the ruling junta in power. Consider the fact that fraud may well be the reason Obama won re-election last time.

A nation without the rule of law is a banana republic. Banana republics are inherently third world.

So Hillary and the Left may dismiss Mr. Trump’s argument that America is becoming third world, but the facts belie their claims.

Categories: Disease, Donald Trump, Economy, Hillary Clinton, Language, Lawlessness, Manufacturing, Mob violence, Obama and Congress, Obama and Constitution, Obama's executive orders on amnesty, Terrorism, U.S. Congress, Uncontrolled immigration
Tags: Disease, Donald Trump, Economy, Language, Lawlessness, Manufacturing, Mob violence, Obama and Congress, Obama and Constitution, Obama's executive orders on amnesty, Terrorism, U.S. Congress, Uncontrolled immigration

Comments: Be the first to comment