Leatherneck Blogger

Posts Tagged ‘Income Tax

Crash Me Ousside, Howbow Da? Tulsa’s Most Wanted RUN DOWN By Cop

leave a comment »

By Bob Owens
Bearing Arms
March 23, 2017

A woman on a multi-day violent crime spree who was firing at Tusla (OK) police officers trying to arrest her was intentionally struck and killed by another officer in a dramatic conclusion to a deadly-force situation.

A woman wanted for a string of gun-related crimes was killed Saturday afternoon when an officer intentionally ran over her in south Tulsa after she exchanged gunfire with police following a vehicular chase.

Madison Sueann Dickson, 21, was pronounced dead at 3:07 p.m., Tulsa homicide Sgt. Dave Walker said.
Officers roped off the scene in the 8900 block of South Harvard Avenue outside of Jenks East Elementary School.

Police had been searching for Dickson because of her alleged involvement in a spree of gun-related crimes over the past week.

Officers found Dickson at an apartment at 81st Street and Sheridan Road on Saturday, police spokesman Leland Ashley said. Dickson then got into a pickup as a passenger and fled from the officers, Ashley said.

Dickson eventually bailed out of the truck and presented a handgun, Ashley said, which was when at least two officers shot at her. She fired gunshots at officers, Ashley said.

During the altercation, she was run over by a patrol cruiser, Ashley said, noting police desperately were trying to stop her because of the threat she represented. He said no one was struck by gunfire.

“She had every opportunity to stop and turn herself in,” he said.

 

10 Points You Won’t Hear About Trump’s Revised Travel Restrictions

with one comment

By Ryan Mauro
The Clarion Project
March 7, 2017

President Trump has issued an executive order modifying his controversial travel restrictions which have been incorrectly derided as a “Muslim ban.”

Of course, despite major changes, groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are still calling it a “Muslim ban” and are committed to retaining the issue’s divisiveness so they can endlessly bash Trump as a bigot and raise their own profile in the process.

“This executive order, like the last order, is at its core a Muslim ban, which is discriminatory and unconstitutional,” said the executive-director of CAIR, Nihad Awad, who nonetheless touted the revisions as a “partial victory.”

Below are 10 points about the revised executive order that you’re unlikely to hear from media outlets and politically-driven organizations who have are dependent upon continued controversy:

  1.  As previously, it is not a “Muslim ban.”
    As explained by Clarion Project advisory board member and leader of the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow in this video (see below), the restrictions are based on an intersection of geography and security risks. They are limited to 6 of 50 Muslim-majority countries and impact non-Muslims as well. And, just as before, the restrictions are a pause rather than a ban.The order is for between 90 to 120 days, depending on whether the person is a visitor or a refugee. As we’ll discuss, the exceptions are so wide that even describing this order as a “pause” is a bit of an overstatement.
  2. Iraq is removed from the list, bringing the list of impacted countries down to 6.
    Including Iraq (and especially the autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan) was a mistake from the beginning. That is now fixed. The executive order implies that this change is due to the fact that the Iraqi government agreed to improved intelligence-gathering and security measures.Those conversations with the Iraqis obviously took place after the initial executive order, which shows the Trump Administration can be influenced by constructive criticism.
  3. The executive order justifies the inclusion of the other six countries.
    The order explains why the president chose these six countries, which is a scaling back of Trump’s campaign pledge to ban immigration from all terror-prone countries (which in itself is a scaling back of his initial pledge to ban all Muslim immigration).Iran, Syria and Sudan are designated as State Sponsors of Terrorism and  the former two are explicit enemies of the U.S. Libya and Yemen are failed states with inadequate counter-terrorism abilities and so much chaos that the U.S. doesn’t even have operating embassies in these locations. Somalia is similarly unstable and contains a major al-Qaeda foothold. In addition, the Somali community in the U.S. is known for its high rate of radicalism.
  4. The six countries were chosen based on the Obama Administration’s determination.
    The executive order explains that these six countries were selected based on the Obama Administration considering them to be “countries of particular concern” that could not participate in the visa waiver program.It was the Obama Administration that stated that persons coming to the U.S. from these countries pose a greater security risk than those from other countries. Everyone who argues that there’s no reason to treat these countries as unique risks is arguing with Trump and Obama. Where were the condemnations of President Obama’s “Islamophobia” for identifying these Muslim-majority countries as posing a special danger?
  5. Three hundred refugees are currently under FBI investigation.
    It is true that refugees undergo a lengthy screening process, unlike typical visa applicants. Opponents of the travel restrictions point to how only a small percentage of refugees have been convicted of terrorism-related offenses. The Senate Judiciary Committee said only about 40 had been convicted, representing about 7 percent of the total of 580 since the 9/11 attacks.The executive order points out that 300 people who were admitted into the U.S. as refugees are now under FBI counter-terrorism investigations; a much higher number than the previous figures used for gauging the risk.However, in fairness, a Department of Homeland Security report says most refugees who become terrorists are radicalized years after arriving in the U.S., so we don’t know if this figure necessarily proves there’s a major gap in the refugee vetting process. We also don’t know how many of the 300 refugees are from the six affected countries.
  6. There is a 10-day advance notice.
    The previous executive order went into effect immediately, catching airlines and governments off-guard. This one goes into effect in 10 days, giving time for preparation.
  7. The new executive order explicitly does not apply to current visa and green card holders.
    Permanent residents and current visa-holders are not affected this time. The original executive order’s unclear language has been fixed.
  8. Syrian refugees are no longer singled out.
    The original executive order suspended refugee admission for 120 days but singled out Syrian refugees for indefinite exclusion “until such time” that the government determines that they can be safely admitted. The singling out was unnecessary, as that’s the same standard for allowing refugees from other places, but the original language emphasized that Trump was delivering on a campaign promise to reject Syrian refugees.That language is no longer. A refugee of Syrian nationality is not viewed as inherently more objectionable than a refugee of another nationality.
  9. There are very wide exceptions.
    This executive order uses clearer language to allow for major exceptions even within the 120-day refugee pause and the 90-day pause on visitors from the six countries.Far from a wholesale treatment, it emphasizes that each applicant will be handled on a “case-by-case basis” in case they qualify for a waiver. There are waivers for when the applicant’s entry into the U.S. is in our “national interest” or rejection of the person would cause them “undue hardship.”The order gives various examples of what qualifies as “undue hardship,” for example people who have worked in the U.S. and are seeking re-entry; those coming to reside with a family member; those with a significant network of contacts in the U.S.; those with business or professional obligations here; children; those in need of medical attention; those previously or currently employed by the U.S. government, and other situations where rejection would cause an “undue hardship.”These are the reasons most people from these countries are coming to the U.S. How many other situations are left where a waiver isn’t suitable?Of course, some biased critics aren’t paying attention to these very important facts. Right after the executive order was released, Grace Meng of Human Rights Watch was uncritically quoted in an article on Politico as saying that the new executive order is “going to harm people fleeing gender-based violence” like women trying to escape rapists.Actually, such women would obviously qualify for the “undue hardship” exception. But readers of that article wouldn’t know that because Politico unquestionably posted her quote.
  10. The type of vetting that is being proposed is in alignment with the Founding Fathers’ opinions on immigration.
    Joshua Charles, an expert on the Founding Fathers, collected some of the founders’ most insightful quotes on immigration in an article he wrote in January. They explained the U.S. is more than a piece of land with opportunities for wealth. Rather, it is a country held together by foundational beliefs that are unique and not inherently understood and embraced by all persons upon birth.The executive orders emphasize improving the overall vetting process to screen for hostile ideologies. It’s not just about discovering covert terrorists and criminals; it’s about separating those who support the U.S.’ secular-democratic values from those views are incompatible with that, such as (but not limited to) Islamist extremists.Opponents of Trump and this policy have a choice to make: They can emphasize (or lie about) the parts they continue to disagree with, elongating a cycle of divisiveness, or they pair their criticism with positive reinforcement that acknowledges the improvements that have been made.Decreasing the sound of the alarm is not in the best interest of hyper-partisan commentators or Islamist activists like CAIR who are enjoying the limelight and seeking increased donations, but it is in the best interest of the country.


Ryan Mauro is
ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio.

 

Gabby Giffords Dishonors Slain Police Officer, Gets Slammed By Widow

with one comment

By Bob Owens
Bearing Arms
March 7, 2017

Gun-grabbing grifter Gabby Giffords recently attempted to use the killing of Albuquerque Police Department officer Daniel Webster to argue for more infringement on the rights of American citizens.

Webster’s widow Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Detective Michelle Carlino-Webster, is outraged at Gifford’s attempt to exploit her husband’s death to go against everything he stood for in life.

Former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords’ recent visit to New Mexico to call for restrictive firearms legislation is further evidence that House Bill 50 and Senate Bill 48 are products of a national gun control agenda. Her organization, Americans for Responsible Solutions, joins the chorus of outside groups led by billionaire New Yorker Michael Bloomberg pushing for burdensome regulations on the sale and temporary loaning of your personal firearms, even to people close to you, such as friends, neighbors, co-workers and even some family members.

I am offended by the tactics that some of the sponsors, advocates and organizations backing these bills are using to push their unpopular proposals. It is bad enough that they have poured more than a quarter of a million dollars into our state over the past few months in an attempt to influence elections and legislation. Then, at the public hearing on HB50 before the New Mexico House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee, it became more personal for me. The bill’s author, as well as her lead witness, both invoked the name of my late husband, Albuquerque Police Department officer Daniel Webster, to promote the measure. Along with the media, they continue to imply that had these proposed laws been in place, my husband’s death would have been prevented; in doing so, they actually remove accountability from the criminal who caused it. Focus must be placed on the individual who committed the horrific crimes. We, as a nation, have gotten too far removed from self-accountability and responsibility for one’s actions.

I am not okay with this, and I know Dan would not have wanted his name associated with this bill either. He was against expanded background checks of any kind and stood behind our Second Amendment rights with honor and appreciation. The idea of him having to go to a licensed firearms dealer, complete federal paperwork and pay a fee for a records check on his buddy at work or on my dad if he wanted to sell or loan a gun to either of them is not only ridiculous, but intrusive. He certainly did not believe this type of gun control would solve the larger problems in our communities.

Dan believed that tough-on-crime legislation, such as increased penalties and stiffer sentencing, would have the most positive effect on violence in our state.

Abortionist Sifted Through Dismembered Aborted Baby: “Now Where’s Your Little Arm?”

with one comment

Liveaction
LifeNews.com
March 7, 2017

A new video provides a shocking look inside the abortion industry. Featuring interviews with former Planned Parenthood staffers, the video presents a look at how abortion clinic staff view unborn children.

Compiled by LiveAction, the video includes testimonials from a former Planned Parenthood manager and nurse describing in detail what happens immediately following abortions in the “products of conception” lab where abortionists sift through the dismembered body parts of the babies they just killed.

The gruesome process these women describe exposes not only the barbarism of abortion, but also that Planned Parenthood isn’t aborting “clumps of cells” or “products of conception” – euphemisms the abortion industry often uses to mislead women about how developed their babies are – but rather children with beating hearts at just three and a half weeks old.

Nurse Marianne Anderson describes how one abortionist sifted through dismembered body parts and talked to them as if they were live children. “Now, where’s your little arm?” he asked.

Former Storm Lake, IA, Planned Parenthood manager Sue Thayer witnessed the abortion process and the aftermath numerous times:

  • “I remember standing there looking at that, and I said, ‘Why are there three arms?’ You know, and we’re looking, and the gal training me said, ‘Twins – it was twins.’ And I said, you know, ‘Do you tell the mom that she had twins?’ And she says, ‘No, it usually just upsets them.’”

Former Indianapolis, IN, Planned Parenthood nurse Marianne Anderson describes the callous disrespect abortionists showed the deceased children in the lab:

  • “He would sometimes talk to [the aborted child], saying – I’ll never forget him saying, ‘Now, where’s your little arm? I didn’t see – I’m missing this arm.’ And he would sift through it, trying to find the pieces, make sure he had everything. And then he’d say – I remember him saying, ‘Oh, there you are! Now, where’s the head and where’s this?’… There was another doctor who also visited… He really seemed to kind of get into it. He – I’ll never forget the first day he was there – and he goes, ‘Look at this – this is so cool!’”

 

CNN cuts feed on guest after he cites jihad terror cases involving “refugees”

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
March 7, 2017

The establishment propaganda media is desperate, and doing all it can to prevent people from knowing the truth about the national security aspects of the “refugee” issue.

“CNN cuts feed right after guest cites refugee crime stats,” by Kyle Olson, American Mirror, March 6, 2017:

There CNN goes again.

During a segment on Donald Trump’s travel ban from terror-prone countries, the news network mysteriously lost its guest as he made a point about refugees.

During an interview with Dana Bash, Congressman Scott Taylor cited a sobering statistic about refugees — and seconds later, his feed from Miami disappeared.

“Just today, the FBI comes out and says 30% — 30% — of their domestic terrorism cases that they’re investigating are folks who are refugees,” Taylor said.

“It’s important not to label all refugees bad people — that’s not why I’m here, but…”

Just as he uttered those words, he wasn’t there.

Multi-colored test bars were in his place.

Bash blamed the “TV gremlins” for the incident.

It wasn’t the first time CNN mysteriously lost its feed as someone was running counter to the network’s editorial narrative.

After playing a clip of the president in February saying he was unaware of discussions his National Security Advisor reportedly had with the adversary, Sanders was asked if it was a problem and he said, “Well, I don’t know. Maybe he was watching CNN fake news. What do you think?” he said with the smirk, apparently attempting to crack a joke.

After an awkward silence, and Burnett smiling and saying, “You don’t buy it…” Sanders replied, “That was a joke.”

But the mystery gremlins apparently didn’t find it funny.

Instantaneously, Sanders earpiece stopped working.

“You don’t buy what he said, obviously,” Burnett continued.

Sanders sat staring, mouth agape.

“Erin?” he said.

“Yes,” she responded. “I’m sorry, senator, you obviously don’t buy what he said.”

“Are we on?” Sanders said, looking off camera.

“Looks like we lost connection with Sen. Sanders so let’s try to get that back up,” Burnett concluded before going to a commercial break.

Two days later, President Trump weighed in on the strange occurrence.

“While on FAKE NEWS CNN, Bernie Sanders was cut off for using the term fake news to describe the network. They said technical difficulties!” Trump tweeted….

The Truth About a Court Decision ‘Banning’ AR-15s

with one comment

By Todd Woodard
US Law Shield
March 5, 2017

You might have read some articles or seen headlines about a court upholding a ban on “assault rifles,” including the AR-15. Independent Program Attorneys at the law firm of Walker & Byington, PLLC have received many questions from Members concerned that this ruling has made the AR-15 (and similar semi-automatic firearms) illegal “assault weapons” everywhere in the country. Is this the truth of the matter, or a case of media misinformation?

It is true that a federal appellate court did uphold an “assault weapon” ban; the Maryland federal appeals court, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, upheld a Maryland law as being constitutional that banned certain semi-automatic weapons, including AR-15s. While the decision is disappointing to gun owners everywhere, the good news is that the only people affected by the ruling will be individuals living in the Fourth Circuit. To give North Carolina and Virginia Members peace of mind, this decision upheld a Maryland law that was on the books; it does not apply the law to North Carolina or Virginia.

The bad news, though, is that Marylanders just lost a little more of their Second Amendment rights. Chances are that the case will go to the U.S. Supreme Court in the next few years, so that the Court can decide whether these types of bans are unconstitutional. Until then, the people living in Maryland will not be able to own, protect themselves, or protect their families with so-called “assault rifles.”

Thankfully, Members in most other states can continue to exercise their 2nd Amendment right and own AR-15s and other semi-auto firearms. And as always, this ban is just a reminder that you visit certain states at your own risk! — by Walker & Byington, PLLC

 

Democrats Kill Bill to Protect Babies Born Alive After Botched Abortions

with one comment

By Micaiach Bigler
LifeNews.com
March 6, 2017

New Mexico House Democrats blocked a bill Thursday that would have required doctors to provide life-saving medical care to babies born alive after botched abortions.

The Democrat-majority state House committee voted to table the bill in a 3-2 party line vote, The Albuquerque Journal reports.

The bill, sponsored by Minority Whip Rod Montoya, a Republican, would have required abortion practitioners and other doctors to try to preserve the life and health of a baby born alive after a botched abortion. The bill also would have required the same protections for babies born in miscarriages and natural births, according to the report. It would have made it a first-degree felony to intentionally kill an infant born alive after one of these procedures.

“This is not an abortion bill,” Montoya said. “This is a human rights bill for infants who are born alive – whether it’s following an abortion, a miscarriage or a natural birth.”

Here’s more from the report:

The House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee heard emotional testimony and debate for about two hours – as supporters of the legislation described the horrors of botched abortions and the killing of infants.

But in the end, the committee’s three Democrats voted to table the bill, preventing it from proceeding through the Legislature.

Opponents of the bill said that laws and medical standards are already in place covering how to handle abortion and other procedures.

Dr. Sandra Penn, a physician for more than 30 years, urged the committee to avoid “political interference” in medical care.

On Sunday, the state House committee rejected two more abortion-related bills, New Mexico Politics reports. One bill would have prohibited abortions after 20 weeks when strong scientific evidence indicates unborn babies can feel pain. The second would have required that a parent or guardian be notified before a minor has an abortion.

Both bills failed in 3-2 party line votes, according to the report.

Though abortion advocates sometimes deny it, babies are born alive after failed abortion attempts. Nurse Jill Stanek became a nationally-known figure after she testified to Congress about finding a baby who was born alive after a botched abortion and left to die at a Chicago-area hospital.

Stanek’s experience shocked and horrified millions of people, and her testimony helped to pass the Born Alive Infants Protection Act under President George W. Bush.

A new federal bill, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, introduced by U.S. Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska, would strengthen these protections.

In February 2016, LifeNews reported a baby was born alive after a botched abortion at a late-term abortion facility in Phoenix, Arizona. The baby later died at the hospital.

A 911 audio file, obtained by NBC 11 in Arizona, confirmed that the abortion clinic staff saw the 21-week baby was alive and breathing before it died. Reports did not indicate whether the baby was a boy or girl.

One of the nurses said she saw the baby move more than 10 minutes after it was taken from the womb, according to KPNX 12 News. When the nurse took the baby to weigh it on a scale, she said she saw it move and struggle to breath. “Oh my God, this fetus is moving,” she said, according to police.

LifeNews has documented dozens of cases of babies who were miraculously born alive after failed abortions. Melissa Ohden, Gianna Jessen and Claire Culwell are just a few examples. The three women are strong pro-life advocates who speak across the country about how their lives are valuable, even though they almost were killed in the womb by abortionists.

In March 2016, Ohden shared her story during a U.S. Senate Judiciary hearing, and urged lawmakers to support the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

“What I would hope that comes out of this is not only that more children like me are protected and given proper medical care when we survive, but that women receive education,” Ohden told CNSNews.com following her testimony. “Let’s talk about the truth, the truth behind how children feel pain, the truth about what abortion does, the truth of what abortion is.”

The leader of the SPLC is aware the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is a Hamas organization

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
March 5, 2017

This news story is something so rare that I can’t think of even a single other example of it: mainstream media space given to a figure vilified by the Leftist establishment, to rebut that establishment’s charges. Usually the media presents the defamation of the hard-Left Southern Poverty Law Center and the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations as if it were objective, unimpeachable fact. Ordinarily, no mainstream media reporter ever asks why the word of such organizations should be taken as gospel, and no dissenting voices challenging those organizations ever appear. But in this NOLA.com/Times Picayune piece, JR Ball allows former FBI agent John Guandolo space to rebut the SPLC/CAIR charges, and to explain what these organizations are really all about. If the establishment media did this regularly, the influence of both of these unsavory and dishonest groups would vanish in a matter of weeks.

“Louisiana anti-jihad seminar leader fires back at critics, takes aim at Southern Poverty Law Center,” by JR Ball, NOLA.com, March 4, 2017:

Declaring that the Southern Poverty Law Center is giving aid to a terrorist organization, John Guandolo, a former FBI agent and founder of a consulting group focused on the jihadi movement, strongly took issue with those raising concerns about an upcoming law enforcement seminar that his Understand the Threat organization will host in Alexandria. Billed as “understanding and investigating the jihad movement,” the three-day program, scheduled March 7-9 at the Bentley Hotel, is sponsored by the Rapides Parish district attorney’s office.

The event received little public attention until Wednesday (March 1) when the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Ala., took to social media to protest the seminar and Guandolo, a former counter-terrorism specialist who resigned from the FBI in 2008. Among other stains on his record: While working on the federal investigation of U.S. Rep. William Jefferson, D-New Orleans, Guandolo was having an affair with a key witness against the congressman.

The posts, asserting that Guandolo “often” targets and vilifies mainstream Muslim leaders in his presentations, were quickly — and widely — shared and debated. Heidi Beirich, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project director, said Guandolo “is a known Islamophobe, and his misinformation adds fuel to the hateful environment targeting Muslim community members.”

Guandolo, who did not respond to an earlier interview request, sent a statement to The Times-Picayune following the publication of an earlier story.

“The Southern Poverty Law Center is giving direct aid and comfort to Hamas which is a terrorist organization,” Guandolo, founder of Understanding the Threat, wrote in his emailed response. “The leader of the SPLC is aware the Council on American Islamic relations [sic] (CAIR) is a Hamas organization because he sat next to (Understanding the Truth Vice President) Chris Gaubatz at a Senate hearing where (he) spoke about it.”(Gaubatz) spent six months undercover (at CAIR) where he retrieved over 12,000 documents indicating (CAIR) is directly involved in fraud, sedition and terrorism. So we can only assume SPLC is intentionally supporting a terrorist organization in violation of U.S. law.”…

. . . . . . .EDITOR’S NOTE: An earlier version of this story called Understanding the Threat anti-Islamic; that is an allegation made by the Southern Poverty Law Center against Guandolo….

National Reciprocity Bill Makes its Way to Congress

with 3 comments

By Beth Baumann
Bearing Arms
March 4, 2017

Earlier this week, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) introduced Senate Bill 446, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, which would allow Americans to conceal carry a firearm across state lines.

“This bill strengthens both the constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and the power of states to implement laws best-suited for the folks who live there,” Cornyn said in a statement obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. “This legislation is an important affirmation of our Second Amendment rights and has been a top priority of law-abiding gun owners in Texas for a long time.”

Both the NRA and Gun Owners of America (GOA) came out in favor of SB 446.

“The current patchwork of state and local gun laws is confusing and can cause the most conscientious and law-abiding gun owner to run afoul of the law when they are traveling or temporarily living away from home,” Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA-ILA, said in a statement. “Senator Cornyn’s legislation provides a much needed solution to a real problem for law-abiding gun owners. Law-abiding citizens should be able to exercise their fundamental right to self-defense while traveling across state lines.”

“GOA is very grateful to Sen. Cornyn for introducing legislation into the Senate that will allow citizens to protect themselves and families while traveling across the country,” Erich Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said in a statement. “Let’s hand gun grabbers a crushing defeat. Rolling back the restrictions that have prevented gun owners from fully exercising rights protected by the Second Amendment will go a long way in saving lives.”

The bill currently has 31 co-sponsors, all of which are Republican Senators.

Back in January, a similar bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC).

Trump administration and Congress seek to slash UN funding in wake of new anti-Israel action

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
March 3, 2017

“Classifying the IDF, one of the most professional and responsible military forces in the world, alongside terrorist groups like ISIS and Boko Haram is an absurdity.”

And more than an absurdity: it’s a monstrous injustice, and it clearly demonstrates the perfidy of the United Nations, which at this point is little more than a tool of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The U.S. shouldn’t just slash funding to it, but defund it altogether, withdraw from it, and expel it from New York.

“Trump Admin, Congress Seek to Slash U.N. Funding in Wake of New Anti-Israel Action,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, March 2, 2017:

The White House and Congress are considering slashing U.S. funding to the United Nations in light of its most recent effort to declare the Jewish state’s fighting forces a chief violator of children’s rights, according to multiple conversations with U.S. officials.

The U.N. is working to add the Israeli Defense Forces, or IDF, to a list of entities such as terror groups that are responsible for inhumane acts against children.

The move would be just the latest anti-Israel salvo by the U.N., which caused controversy late last year when, with the backing of the Obama administration, it moved to condemn Israel for building homes for Jewish people in Jerusalem.

The latest action against Israel would add the IDF to the Watchlist on Children and Armed Conflicts, which would designate the Jewish state’s fighting forces as one of the worst offenders of children’s human rights in the world. Other groups and entities on the list include terrorist entities and forces that kill children en masse.

The move has prompted outrage in the White House and on Capitol Hill, where multiple U.S. officials told the Washington Free Beacon that they will no longer stand by as the U.N. singles out Israel for criticism. The effort to counter what they described as the U.N.’s anti-Israel bias is likely to include cutting a large portion of U.S. funding to the organization.

One senior White House official familiar with the Trump administration’s thinking on the matter told the Free Beacon that the president and his senior-most advisers are sick of seeing Israel treated as a pariah by the U.N.

“The Israeli Defense Forces are among the most humane, professional armed forces on the planet,” said the official, who was not authorized to speak on record. “Israel has been aggressively refining its protocols to minimize civilian casualties—so much so that after the 2014 conflict in Gaza the United States sent a delegation to study their best practices.”

The White House official signaled that the Trump administration would pursue a vastly different approach to the U.N. than its predecessor.

The Obama administration came under criticism from the pro-Israel community on numerous occasions for failing to defend Israel adequately in the face of international criticism. This culminated in a flurry of anger late last year when the Obama administration, in one of its final official acts, permitted the U.N. to officially chastise Israel in a break with decades of U.S. policy.

“In a region where the use of civilians, including children, as human shields is routine, singling out Israel for condemnation is, in a word, ridiculous,” the White House official said. “If the United Nations’ Watchlist on Children and Armed Conflict has nothing better to do with the United States taxpayer dollars that fund it than engage in a vendetta against our ally Israel, perhaps we should rethink that support.”

Rep. Peter Roskam (R., Ill.), a vocal defender of Israel, expressed disappointment in the U.N.’s latest action. He told the Free Beacon that Congress is prepared to reduce U.S. financial support for the U.N., which comprises a significant share of the organization’s operational budget.

“The United States Congress is already taking a serious look at United Nations funding levels in light of a number of recent actions unfairly targeting Israel,” Roskam said. “Classifying the IDF, one of the most professional and responsible military forces in the world, alongside terrorist groups like ISIS and Boko Haram is an absurdity.”

“If the U.N. goes through with this,” Roskam said, “the calls for reduced funding will grow even louder.”…

%d bloggers like this: