(from Free North Carolina, in part)
Trump isn’t up against “sore losers.” He’s facing an army of saboteurs bent on destroying the elected government.Via Billy
As I predicted in my best-selling book about President Trump’s plan to save America, the Democrats and their media accomplices have declared all-out war on the Trump White House. Under the guise of “resistance” – as though the Trump was the head of an occupying army rather than an elected president – they have set out to destroy his administration. They are not “sore losers,” as many had surmised when their hysterical attacks on Trump as an American Hitler began, they are an army of saboteurs bent on destroying the government the voters preferred. Their general, Barack Obama, is an unrepentant radical who abused the office of the presidency when he was in power, and as ex-president is now leading a war to overthrow his successor.More @ Front Page
(from Judicial Watch)
JW Files Suit For ‘Refugee Travel Loans’ Information
Tightening our immigration and refugee programs is a matter of national security (despite what some out-of-control judges may think), and it is also a matter of cost.
In this regard, we have filed a lawsuit against the State Department for records on the number of “Refugee Travel Loans” issued by State’s Bureau for Population, Refugees, and Migration to the United Nation’s International Organization for Migration from 2010 to the present.
We are also seeking the number of loans defaulted upon and the amount of money written off on each defaulted loan. We filed the suit on January 24, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:17-cv-00157)).
Judicial Watch filed the suit after the State Department failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on February 5, 2016, seeking the following:
- All records reflecting the number of Refugee Travel Loans furnished by the State Department’s Bureau for Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) to the International Organization for Migration (IOM) per year; the number of travel loans that are defaulted upon per year; and the amount of money written off per defaulted loan.
The Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration provides funding for aid and relief work abroad and the bureau’s admissions office handles settling refugees in the United States. According to the agency’s website, it spent nearly $545 million “to provide new beginnings to the world’s most vulnerable refugees” in 2016 and more than $2.8 billion to “humanitarian assistance overseas.” It provided $103 million directly to the UN’s International Organization for Migration.
The International Organization for Migration, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, has an annual budget of $1.4 billion and (as of 2014) a staff of 9,000 throughout the world. According to the International Organization for Migration website, the organization provides interest-free loans “furnished by the Department of State” to “all refugees arriving in the United States:”
All refugees arriving in the United States are offered interest-free travel loans by IOM. Refugees who accept these travel loans are required to sign a promissory note prior to departure, committing themselves to repayment of the debt within 46 months after arrival in the United States.
IOM arranges for refugee travel using funds furnished by the Department of State, and is mandated to subsequently effect collections on behalf of the Department of State. Repayments made by refugees toward their loans are returned to the Department of State for use by the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) to defray the cost of future refugee travel.
In July 2016, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution making the International Organization for Migration part of the UN.
Even The Washington Post reported that the nine resettlement agencies contracted by the State Department to help resettle refugees in the U.S. actually make more than $5 million a year in commissions on refugee debt collection.
The State Department has stonewalled our request for refugee loan information and associated taxpayer losses for a year – an unlawful delay that screams “cover up.” This is an opportunity for the Trump State Department to come clean and clean up this refugee welfare program.
And there’s a lot more for the Trump administration to clean up when it comes to “refugee loans.” In June 2016, Judicial Watch reported:
The U.S. government gives refugees on public assistance special “loans” of up to $15,000 to start a business but fails to keep track of defaults that could translate into huge losses for American taxpayers, records obtained by Judicial Watch reveal. The cash is distributed through a program called Microenterprise Development run by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Refugee Resettlement.
HHS is not the only government agency doling out huge sums of cash for this cause, though its focus on refugees appears to be unique. Others, such as the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Labor (DOL) also dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars to various microenterprise causes. For instance, in one recent year alone USAID spent $223 million on microenterprise development activities, according to figures released by the agency. The USDA also allocates large sums to provide loans and grants to microenterprise development through a special “Rural Microloan Revolving Fund” and the DOL regularly pours lots of money into various microenterprise projects that are promoted as workforce investments in areas with high rates of poverty.
So the debate about refugees is more than about keeping dangerous refugees out, but there is also the matter of asking just how much it costs to make politicians to feel good about themselves by using our tax dollars to provide special assistance to these foreign nationals.
I have no problem with legitimate, vetted refugees or immigrants following protocols for legal residency and eventually even citizenship. I used to know a guy who, with his family, escaped Saddam Hussein and Chemical Ali’s tyranny, to arrive here, become a citizen, and open a liquor store. He practically hugged every customer who walked in!
And I remember wondering where Lee Harvey Oswald got the ‘Traveler’s Aid'(CIA) funds of $200, after renouncing his U.S. citizenship and living in the Soviet Union. And was allowed to return back to the United States after purportedly giving away military secrets to the Russians. With nary a hitch.
Much has changed since the 1960’s.
And not for the better.
I suppose that all depends on how it’s imposed…
(from Brock Townsend)
This essay was first published in Southern Partisan in the Winter, 1985.
Southerners rarely while away their leisure hours by contemplating Yankees, for there is no point in thinking of unpleasant things if one is not obliged to do so. Yet the practice does have value; to some extent, at least, we are defined by those attributes which set us apart from others, and sometimes we can be made aware of such attributes only by observing people who do not share them. Another virtue of thinking about Yankees, in the long run perhaps a more important one, is that it serves to remind us that they have repeatedly tried to make us over in their own image. Indeed, though it may seem that they have been off our backs since the demise of the civil rights movement, their latest campaign to reform us is actually well under way.
What is there about us that has made us so offensive to them? Or, conversely, what is there about them that has compelled them to meddle in our affairs? The late great Richard M. Weaver, in The Southern Tradition at Bay, addressed himself to analyzing the qualities that distinguish the South from North, and for the nineteenth century he was perfectly on target. “The North had Tom Paine and his postulates assuming the virtuous inclinations of man,” Weaver wrote; “the South had Burke and his doctrine of human fallibility and of the organic nature of society.” The North embraced rationalism and egalitarianism; the South had a “deep suspicion of all theory, perhaps of intellect,” and clung to a hierarchical and deferential social order. The North bowed down before science and material progress; the South “persisted in regarding science as a false messiah,” and remained into “our own time” (the 1940s) “the last non-materialist civilization in the Western World.”More @ The Abbeville Institute
I’m speaking of this Republic.
With Rome, it was either when the Ottoman Turks took Byzantium (Constantinople) 1453 AD or when a barbarian deposed the last western Roman emperor 476 AD (ancient history About.com)
My Western Civilization professor said it began with (and I’m quoting here) “Moral decadence and pleasures of the flesh!” (to the cheers of the 400 or so horny underclassmen)
What is/was the beginning of the end of this Constitutional Republic we know as The United States?
The Whiskey Rebellion? (1791)
The Civil War? (1861)
Federal income tax (1913)
Direct election of Senators? (1913)
Establishment of the Federal Reserve? (1913)
The National Firearms Act (1934)
Or is it an amalgamation of these and many other things, eating away at our Constitutional substance, punctuated by further federal government oversteps such as Ruby Ridge and Waco? No-knock warrants, followed by airport searches and sobriety checkpoints. Massive surveillance of our electronic communications. Prohibitions of Speech seen as ‘politically-incorrect’. The killing of Blacks by police – whether or not legitimate actions – spun by self-serving propagandists into an ersatz race war?
Now followed by widespread racial civil unrest, punctuated by acts of terrorism against civil authority.
I’m certain all ‘civilizations’, be they primitive neolithic cultures like the American Indian when the White man first laid eyes on him, or the Romans, or the Christian Turks all thought they would endure forever.
And so have most of we Americans.
I guess the true question isn’t what was the tipping point.
It’s what do we do NOW?
Yes. That’s exactly what it is.
MURDER as a political act.
Murder is illegal. Murder toward a political end is illegal. Assault with intent to commit murder is illegal. Use of firearms by criminals is illegal. Evading the police after the act is illegal. Hiding perpetrators and evidence is illegal. Hindering prosecution is illegal.
Some folks will focus on the motivation of the perpetrators. Is it a ‘hate crime’? WHY would the bad guys do such a thing?
As far as I’m concerned, when it comes to motivation, I DON’T CARE! Hate crime is code for ‘you are not thinking correctly – report to the reeducation camps‘. I’ll be a truant, thank you. What I think Is MY business! An assault remains an assault. A murder a murder.
Like them or not, The Police are the thin blue line between most communities and anarchy. Sure most homogenous communities would have some crime with or without the police. My white-bread college town doesn’t have too much crime. Under-age drinking; drug use and related offenses. But what about minority communities with a fractured social structure? South Chicago, for example? Where the crime is largely Black-on-Black?
So, where does such criminality to attack police come from? Certainly from police abuse against minorities, real and imagined, as propagandized by certain political movements (communists, anarchists, Black power advocates) – politicians and community organizers meeting with their leaders, and making anti-law enforcement statements(!)
And there we have it. If these ‘reverends’, ‘community organizers*’ and politicians actually stood up for non-violence, peace, and brotherhood. And facts. Perhaps acts such as occurred in Dallas would not have happened.
Facts. That recent shooting where the Black man had a gun. And a violent criminal record. Not unlike that Missouri guy. The tall, athletic guy, with a history of strong-arm-robbery, going for the security guy’s gun.
Do we not think that certain powers won’t utilize Dallas as yet another stepping stone toward abridging the rights of the law-abiding?
Double-secret probation, if you will? Making it MORE illegal?
Our focus should first be on the good thoughts and prayers for the deceased, injured and their families. Second, on bringing the perpetrators to justice.
And third, on stopping crime in fractured neighborhoods. Instead of just letting them fester.
A tall order, I know.
(courtesy of Joel, in part)
Here’s a little something to pressure-test those cerebral arteries*:
The tide of red tape that threatens to drown U.S. consumers and businesses surged yet again in 2015, according to a Heritage Foundation study we released on Monday.More than $22 billion per year in new regulatory costs were imposed on Americans last year, pushing the total burden for the Obama years to exceed $100 billion annually.
After spelling out (this tiny piece of) the problem of overregulation, the writer goes and spoils it all by offering a plan for “reform” …
Congress needs to take immediate action to control the continued expansion of the administrative state, prevent further harm to the economy, and stem the erosion of individual liberty.
Right. Good. While we’ve got their attention, we should force the congress critters to promise to slow the earth’s rising sea levels and heal the planet, too. Then all our problems will be fixed.
Anyone who still thinks there’s a constituency in congress actually in favor of reducing the size and influence of government – or even ‘controlling its continued expansion’ – has not been paying the slightest bit of attention.
Personally, I see this as not just petty power and control (or even Grand power and control) but as yet another addition to the whole Cloward & Piven strategy. Just keep adding stressors to the bureaucracy of government until the whole thing collapses under it’s own weight.
Then, some savior will step forward to save us from the cataclysmic mire, involving controls we’ve dared not yet imagined, complete with the largest showers ever!
When I ran across this article on Facebook, I truly thought it must be either dizinformazia, or an article culled from The Onion.
After a little side research, I determined this to be the genuine article. By a genuine LGBT activist. Who is quite obviously NOT a libertarian!
Famous LGBT Activist Reveals The Scary, Real Goal Of The Bathroom Battle (And It’s Not Bathrooms…It’s Way Worse)
What you may have been suspecting has been confirmed. LGBT activists’ end goal is not ruling over the bathroom. It’s obliterating the family. Riki Wilchins, a famous transsexual who recently wrote a piece in the gay publication The Advocate, revealed that many conservatives and even LGBT activists are missing the forest for the trees.
Titled,“We’ll Win the Bathroom Battle When the Binary Burns,” Wilchins says the real goal is to kill the notion of male and female altogether. The “binary” refers to gender distinction, and getting rid of the “heterobinary structure” is the goal. Wilchins writes that the fact that we are arguing over male and female facilities is proof that we still have far to go–that there should be no gender distinctions in general.
In fact, Wilchins points to an emerging group of people who don’t want to affiliate as any gender. Life Site News explains, “’Non-binary’ people don’t identify as male or female and they often want to be referred to as ‘they’ or ‘hir’ or ‘zer.’ So the fact that there are even intimate facilities that reflect the “binary” truth about gender should change, Wilchins wrote.”
If you are confused, you are not alone. But beneath all of the titles and non-titles, the insidious plan is the destruction of the family, reveals Stella Morabito, senior contributor to The Federalist.
“What we are really talking about is the abolition of sex. And it is sex that the trans project is serving to abolish legally, under the guise of something called ‘the gender binary.’ Its endgame is a society in which everyone is legally de-sexed. No longer legally male or female. And once you basically redefine humanity as sexless you end up with a de-humanized society in which there can be no legal ‘mother’ or ‘father’ or ‘son’ or ‘daughter’ or ‘husband’ or ‘wife’ without permission from the State. Government documents are already erasing the terms. In such a society, the most intimate human relationships take a hit. The family ends up abolished.”
Morabito hits home the point: “Sex distinctions are the germ of all human relationships. Abolishing them legally basically abolishes family autonomy. And this is an act of violence against children because it would serve at some point to separate them from their origins. Every child’s first transcendental question is ‘Where did I come from?’ If the law will not allow the child to see his own origins and wholeness in the faces of a mother and a father, it destabilizes the child’s sense of self. It creates personal dysfunction in children and basically ends up spreading more dysfunction and even dystopia in society.”
This is scary. If Morabito and other cultural watch-dogs are right, the bathroom battle is far more serious than many think. We need to really pray and ask God for help–before it’s too late and our future generations end up really damaged. Do you agree? (Faith Family America)
SO. Either Ms. Wilchins is a dystopian uber-Statist of the first order, or is a deepest cover agent promoting such nonsense reductio ad absurdum*!
I truly hope it is the second choice offered.
If this is indeed the true ultimate agenda, it goes way beyond men ‘self-identifying’ as female to visit women’s rooms and/or taking surreptitious photos of women and girls, or worse!
But, as The President is taking a hard line on this issue, ‘blackmailing’ the States to conform to this agenda in their schools, or lose federal funding(!), and many believe him to be a variety of Marxist…
Reductio ad absurdum, also known as argumentum ad absurdum, is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance. (Wikipedia)
Having issues, yet again, with computers.
First, printer problems.
In an effort to fix those, after much rebooting and gnashing of teeth (and other technical stuff), I ‘got rid’ of programs I thought might be gumming up the works, by restarting my computer.
The reconfigured, updated machine seemed very slick! But then, the ghost in the machine appeared.
I was (and am) unable to access the INTERNET via my PC. I called the ‘tech support’ number provided, and believe it to be a spam site trying to extort funds from me to get my computer back!
They said I owed money for the FREE Windows 10 upgrade I did a month or more ago!
And kept pressuring me, in an East Indian accent! (Not that all help desk folks with that accent are crooked!)
SO, here I am doing my blog post from my cheap, PRC tablet.
And I don’t know how long (or if) I’ve the technical expertise – or patience – to update my quote, funny and video. 😢
And if Microsoft is indeed extorting funds, I’ve no way to pay them.
(This just in – after running limited diagnostics, and system restore, I seem to be ‘back’. Yes, some programs are now gone from the reconfigure, but the spam (or MS extortion attempts) seem to have abated!)
(Yeah, I pretty much assumed so. Because I SO trust government. – Guffaw)
The Supreme Court was asked in a petition to force the government to disclose the US clandestine plan to disable cell service during emergencies.
The case concerns Standard Operating Procedure 303. A federal appeals court in May said the government did not have to release its full contents because the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) allows the authorities to withhold records if they would “endanger” public safety.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center told the high court’s justices Tuesday that the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s decision created a new “catchall provision that can be used in any case involving records related to domestic and national security programs.” (PDF)
The privacy group had demanded the documents from the Department of Homeland Security in 2011 following the shuttering of cell service in the San Francisco Bay Area subway system to quell a protest. The Department of Homeland Security refused to divulge the documents associated with SOP 303, which the appeals court described as a “unified voluntary process for the orderly shut-down and restoration of wireless services during critical emergencies such as the threat of radio-activated improvised explosive devices.”
Under the direction of the so-called National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee, SOP 303 allows for the shuttering of wireless networks “within a localized area, such as a tunnel or bridge, and within an entire metropolitan area.”
The telecoms have agreed to shutter service when SOP 303 is invoked, but there are no publicly disclosed instances of the measure ever being invoked.
I’m guessing the Internet is included, as well. Guess it’s back to smoke signals for us!
(Is it only me, but did ‘Rule 303’ pop into your head when you read this?)
h/t Ars Technica
Will martial law be declared on American soil?
Will economic collapse and urban riots result in the final and total loss of civil liberties right here at home?
It could happen, and it is one of the “eventualities” that the military is preparing for, though they are constitutionally barred from being used domestically against the American people.
Part of the U.S. Army’s latest ad campaign, broadcast frequently during football games and sporting events, and widely across many television programs, includes a 30-second spot that shows soldiers training with shields used for domestic riot control.
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/12/ad-shows-army-prepping-for-martial-law-this-is-not-battle-training-this-is-riot-control/#UWWgLoaZPrJYQoIV.99
I understand the military plays ‘games’ wherein various eventualities are planned and discussed. But for domestic riot control?
Just as the ‘poll’ taken a few times over the past 20 years (regarding will rank-and-file troops follow orders to disarm civilians) I fear this is a portend of things not good in our future.
And just like the cop who wants to keep bringing home a paycheck, who in the military will refuse to comply?
Or, more specifically, how many?
I see troops and cops battling each other regarding what orders are legal and constitutional, even before civilians are involved.
And, my friends, it won’t be pretty.