Leatherneck Blogger

Posts Tagged ‘Income Tax

Clinic Confirmed Baby Survived Abortion, Offered to Kill Her Again. Her Mom Refused: “God Preserved Her”

leave a comment »

By Gwen Irwin
LifeNews.com
January 11, 2018

When “Lisa,” a 25-year-old woman, called Crossroads Care Center in Auburn Hills, Mich., in the fall of 2015, she felt like she was out of time, out of options, and destined to endure the remaining stages of an abortion she already regretted.

A week earlier at a nearby abortion business, Lisa had ingested mifepristone—the first of two pills in the chemical “abortion pill” regimen, meant to end the life of her preborn child. She had even taken the second pill in the regimen (misoprostol) to induce labor, but the contractions never came.

Lisa felt something was going drastically wrong.

In a follow-up appointment at the abortion business, Lisa told the clinic staff about her symptoms, and they confirmed via ultrasound that the chemical abortion had failed and her baby was still alive.

From there, abortion workers gave Lisa two “options”: they could finish the abortion via surgery or make another attempt at a chemical abortion.

“She chose neither of those,” Tracey Fish, a physician assistant who works with Crossroads Care Center, said. “She wanted to keep her child, but they didn’t offer her that option. So, she called us wondering if we could help her.”

Calling during off-hours, Lisa—who’d been to Crossroads while she was still trying to decide whether or not to keep her baby—reached Tim Stickel, the center’s executive director, who happened to be in the office.

Crossroads then connected Lisa with a high-risk ob-gyn for emergency treatment, and for care the rest of her pregnancy. In the meantime, Stickel, Fish and others spent precious hours in prayer, mentorship and biblical counseling with Lisa and the father of her baby—both during and after pregnancy.

In the spring of 2016, Lisa gave birth to a healthy baby girl.

“It was God who preserved her,” Stickel said. “We’ve never cried more and prayed more for somebody. It was an emotional roller coaster. There was a huge time investment, but it was only after God had done His work of preserving this child.”

As Stickel and his team at Crossroads—which serves over 200 clients each month—watched Lisa change her mind and successfully rescue her baby from an in-progress abortion, they began exploring new ways to help women like her.

Starting this March, Crossroads is joining the Abortion Pill Reversal Network—over 350 medical providers that are equipped to rescue babies from abortion with the Abortion Pill Reversal protocol.

Well over 400 mothers have successfully rescued their babies through Abortion Pill Reversal since 2007, when two doctors pioneered the life-saving treatment—an emergency injection and follow-up schedule of progesterone treatments that have been used to prevent miscarriage since the 1950s.

For Stickel, as well as Fish, the decision to join the network has been an easy one, especially after watching Lisa rescue her child.

“We want to open up opportunities for women to have options if they change their mind,” Fish said.

Putting Clients First

Determining to help women, meet their needs and offer options has been Crossroads’ focus since it opened its doors in 1984 in nearby Rochester. At the end of 2017, its local Chamber of Commerce honored the center—which relocated to its Auburn Hills location 17 years ago—as exemplifying the Golden Rule.

Stickel knew Crossroads was nominated for the award, but he didn’t expect too much.

“I was totally surprised,” Stickel said. “In most cities, pro-life organizations are not very welcomed. We are blessed with a great Chamber of Commerce.”

In fact, the Chamber of Commerce was on hand when Crossroads held an open house and ribbon-cutting for its newly rebranded facility in early 2017. There was a significant reason for the rebrand—from Crossroads Pregnancy Center to Crossroads Care Center—better identifying the center’s concern for its community.

“We started doing STD testing in March 2016 and we thought it advantageous,” Stickel said. “It’s changing the face of who we are. Our clientele is changing, [seeking] more medical services: more ultrasounds, more pregnancy tests, more STI/STD testing.”

Services Beyond the Center

Stepping outside the center’s walls, Crossroads brings a sexual risk avoidance program to about 10,000 students in 52 schools in nine districts—another way the center positively affects Auburn Hills.

Those opportunities, which are often criticized by abortion advocates, often bring about better long-term results than Stickel and his team could expect to find. Recently, one high school senior who had mocked a Crossroads teacher as a freshman stood up to tell his classmates the real change their sexual risk avoidance program had made in his life, Stickel said.

“I took to heart what she said four years ago,” the young man had said. “I’ve been celibate the whole time, and I have no intention of having any sexual relations until I get married, and I just want to say thank you.’”

Stickel, who has guided Crossroads for 13 years, is quick to credit the God for any success the center has seen as it seeks to bring about a cultural shift in its community.

“It’s nothing we do—it’s all God,” he said. “God knows what He’s doing, and He’s been very gracious to us.”

LifeNews Note: Gayle Irwin writes for PregnancyHelpNews, where this originally appeared. File photo.

Christian Science Monitor: Right to Self-Defense Added to 2nd Amendment ‘Only Recently’

leave a comment »

By Awr Hawkins
Breitbart
January 9, 2018

In a long and circuitous piece intended to explain that national reciprocity violates states’ rights, the Christian Science Monitor claimed the right to self-defense was added to the Second Amendment “only recently.”

Their exact claim: “[National reciprocity legislation] has pitted a sense of overriding states’ individual wishes and local character against shifting legal views of the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court has expanded only recently to include self-defense.”

This appears to be a not-so-veiled reference to District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), although neither case created or added a right to the Second Amendment. Rather, the ruling in Heller reaffirmed the individual nature of the rights that had always been protected by the Second Amendment and the ruling in McDonald held that the rights protected by the Second Amendment are incorporated via the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, they are doubly protected.

To be clear, Justice Samuel Alito wrote the McDonald majority opinion and did use a small portion to explain that self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment, but he did not do this because SCOTUS made it central. Rather, he did it as a way of showing self-defense has always been a crucial right protected by the Second Amendment. It was the centrality of self-defense that supported the ruling of incorporation, not the other way around.

Nevertheless, the Christian Science Monitor says the right to defend oneself was added to the Second Amendment “only recently.”

They also suggested Americans may not even possess a right to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense. They said, “The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether there is a right for law-abiding Americans to carry a concealed weapon.” This would be strange thinking to our Founding Fathers, who risked their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor, to secure the exercise of God-given rights that predate the United States, and certainly the Supreme Court.

The Founders hedged in the right not simply to keep arms but to bear them as well, as the Second Amendment plainly states. And the Founders also used the words “shall not be infringed” to ensure a widespread understanding that keeping and bearing arms was not something placed under the purview of government. Rather, it was (and is) a natural right possessed and exercised by free men.

 

Well Done, Hollywood Left: You Just Got The Second Amendment Totally Wrong (Again)

with 2 comments

By Matt Vespa
Townhall
December 29, 2017

If there’s a reason why Hollywood should just stay out of politics, especially gun politics, and this is your classic example. Ed Asner and Ed Weinberger, a screenwriter, decided to teach the National Rifle Association a history lesson on the left wing site Salon. It dropped a little before Christmas, and it ended with both men getting a face full of buckshot. They argued that our Founders were pro-gun control, which is odd given that the first shots fired in our American Revolution at the battles of Lexington and Concord, were in response to British soldiers trying to seize our guns. Still, let’s go through their arguments:

Now that we have your attention, let’s consider the case made by the NRA, its Congressional hired hands, the majority of the Supreme Court, and various right wing pundits who claim the Second Amendment is not simply about state militias but guarantees the unfettered right of everyone to own, carry, trade and eventually shoot someone with a gun.

[…]

First, here’s that elusive Second Amendment as it now appears in the Bill of Rights: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Arguably not the clearest amendment in the Constitution. And that’s the problem with it: While stating the need for a “well-regulated Militia,” does it at the same time also guarantee the individual citizen the personal right to “keep and bear arms?” In 2008, Justice Antonin Scalia, ruling for the Majority, said that it was. Ignoring over 200 years of precedent, historical context, the Framers’ Intent and the D.C. laws of its elected officials, Scalia relied solely on the text, arbitrarily dividing the Amendment into two parts. The first – “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” — he called the prefatory clause. The second part – “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” — he called the operative clause. Claiming that second part was all that really mattered; Scalia discarded as irrelevant that inconvenient reference to a “state militia.

[…]

Here is Madison’s first draft of the Second Amendment:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Madison’s intent could not be more obvious: his Second Amendment refers only to state militias. If not, why include that exemption for what we now call “conscientious objectors?”

When Madison’s amendment was rewritten by a joint committee from the House and Senate in 1791, the “religious” exemption was lopped off as too cumbersome in language and too complex to enforce. Thus, the Amendment as it now stands.

Okay—what am I missing here? Asner and Weinberger really just ignore the Supreme Court to peddle a recycled liberal talking point. Of course, the anti-gun Left peddled the tired and disregarded state militia provision, just as they ignore the Citizens United decision and its implications on expanding free speech rights. Also, this line, “the unfettered right of everyone to own, carry, trade and eventually shoot someone with a gun” is just pure trash. Law-abiding gun owners are not killers in waiting. Second, it’s not an unfettered right; Justice Scalia said so in the Heller decision, which they don’t mention in their piece:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire- arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

You hear that guys. You have the right to own a firearm unconnected to a militia, but states have the right to impose their own restrictions, like on concealed carry rights. This is a rather explicit recognition of federalism, along with limiting the Court’s impact so as to not produce challenges to laws prohibiting domestic violence abusers, the mentally ill, and convicted felons from owning firearms—all common sense provisions. Stephen Gutowski found some of Madison’s quotes about the Second Amendment as well. It doesn’t help the pro-gun control hypothesis that’s rather shoddy in this piece. In fact, if these two guys had read Heller, they would see it’s not some SCOTUS opinion intended to turn the country into the Wild West. Anti-gunners, you guys have lost this debate. Gun rights have expanded since this landmark 2008 decision. Every state recognize concealed carry rights, even in Washington D.C. The Second Amendment isn’t going anywhere. Deal with it.

 

Why Colorado Doesn’t Need New Gun Laws

with one comment

By Tom Knighton
Bearing Arms
January 5, 2018

Almost any loss of life qualifies as a tragedy. Even the loss of someone so despicable that most of us would gladly have pulled the trigger may well be an unmitigated tragedy for someone who cared about that individual.

However, even the loss of a deputy’s life shouldn’t spur new gun laws without a darn good reason. Luckily, it seems people in Colorado get that.

After the killing of Douglas County sheriff’s deputy Zackari Parrish on Sunday as well as the shooting of others, including four other deputies, some gun control activists are calling for new state laws.

“We don’t have any tools in Colorado for the police to disarm the individual,” said Eileen McCarron, president of Colorado Ceasefire, a gun control advocacy group.

McCarron is arguing for the Gun Violence Restraining Order, which would allow family members and police to ban gun ownership from individuals for up to a year.

Any request for a ban would have to be signed off by a judge. California, Washington, Oregon and Connecticut have signed similar measures into law.

The gunman had an apparent history of mental illness, including a psychotic episode with the Wyoming VA in 2014 as well as concerns from the University of Wyoming.

But multiple sources said there is little appetite for new gun control laws at the state Capitol — at least right now.

That’s because Colorado, nor any state for that matter, has a need for additional tools to disarm people.

The gunman in question should have been mentally adjudicated as being a danger and he wasn’t. Had he been, his ability to legally own firearms would have ceased and this incident wouldn’t have happened.

The problem with these Gun Violence Restraining Orders is that they allow people to be disarmed over some awfully tenuous circumstances. Note the phrasing here. It “would allow family members and police to ban gun ownership.” Family members.

How many of us have family that disagrees with gun ownership? Do you really think someone won’t try to use this to settle personal scores?

No, don’t get me wrong, I’m sure there needs to be more to it than a family member’s desire to disarm someone. And yes, there needs to be a judge’s approval for anything to happen. Yes, I get all that.

However, people lie and judges believe those lies all the time.

Plus, there are plenty of existing laws on the books that could have averted this particular tragedy if only someone had utilized them. They didn’t. Why didn’t they? Who knows. Maybe they thought the killer would get better. Maybe they thought that while he was disturbed, he wasn’t a threat. Who knows.

What we do know is that the ball got dropped plenty of places along the way.

So why wouldn’t the gun grabbers in Colorado want to try and push for one more anti-gun law in the process? Why not? It’s what they do, especially when it’s just too damn hard to look at the problem objectively and try and address the root of the problem for a change.

Anti-Gun Celebs Gather For Golden Globes Under Protection Of Men With Guns

with 2 comments

By Tom Knighton
Bearing Arms
January 7, 2018

One of Hollywood’s premiere events is taking place later today with the Golden Globes set to take the stage. Host Seth Meyers has already promised to get political during the show–which never turns out badly for Hollywood, now does it–and that may well mean some slams on guns and gun ownership.

Even if it doesn’t, however, the audience will be filled with people who have pontificated on the topic of firearms and the Second Amendment, usually without having a freaking clue what they’re talking about. They’ll be sitting there with their fellow celebrities and, oddly enough, they’ll be nice and safe.

Why?

Because despite their insistence that guns are a problem, they’ll be protected by men with guns.

With this year marking the 75th anniversary of the Golden Globes, organizers have heightened security for the event.

With the Globes and subsequent after-parties scheduled to take place Sunday at and around the Beverly Hilton, the Beverly Hills police are collaborating with multiple law-enforcement agencies on security. The FBI and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department are working with Beverly Hills P.D.

Meanwhile, private security officers employed by event organizers are expected to play a major role. The Hilton on Wednesday provided Variety with details of its plan to move after-party attendees through a revised transportation and security system following last year’s check-in meltdown that saw long wait times for guests arriving at the after-parties from off-site. The new plan calls for an increase in the number of security stations processing party-goers as they check in to the event, and expedited travel for shuttle buses through security checkpoints.

Asked whether attendees can expect to once again see armed officers wearing body armor at and around the Globes and related events, as was the case last year, Hoshino said, “Absolutely. That’s the norm.” He added, “I know that we’re using a lot of technology at the event. We consider this a large-scale event, and there’s going to be a multi agency response.”

For all their arrogant talk about guns and gun ownership, they have no problem hiding behind armed security, not just in their day-to-day lives, but in their social lives as well.

The thing is, most Americans don’t get armed security everywhere they go. We don’t get the virtual army of private security that celebrities at the Golden Globes get. We get whatever we can muster ourselves, and only an elite few can afford professional bodyguards. Most of us can’t.

That means we buy guns. We get guns to protect our homes and our families because we don’t have the resources to hire security.

It remains to be seen just what topics Meyers will spout off on. He may be wise enough to leave guns off the table, especially if he’s self-aware enough to understand that pontificating on guns for average Americans while surrounded by armed men paid to keep you safe is just begging to get everyone labeled as hypocrites.

As it stands, plenty of them are. They enjoy the safety provided by men with guns, but would rather see you unable to provide that safety to your family, just because it makes them feel funny.

Pro-life Pregnancy Center Files HHS Complaint Over Illinois Law that Requires Them to Promote Abortion

with one comment

By Lauretta Brown
Townhall
January 5, 2018

The Thomas More Society filed a complaint Thursday with the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights (OCR) against the state of Illinois over a new law that requires pro-life pregnancy centers to discuss the benefits of abortion and sterilization procedures. The law also requires the centers, if asked, to refer patients to abortion providers despite the centers’ opposition to these procedures.

The Thomas More Society is representing Dr. Jim Gallant and Hope Life Center, a pro-life pregnancy center in Sterling, Illinois.

In the complaint, the groups argue that the new requirements violate existing federal law including the Hyde-Weldon Amendment which forbids state and local governments from discriminating against healthcare providers based on their refusal to “provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for” abortions.

They argue that the law also specifically targets pro-life healthcare providers and infringes on their First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion.

Thomas Olp, Vice President and Senior Counsel for the Thomas More Society, said that federal and state courts have issued injunctions blocking the law while litigation is pending.

He explained the group’s purpose in filing a complaint to HHS.

“We believe that P.A. 99-690 violates several federal laws that protect the conscience rights of physicians and other healthcare providers,” he said. “But some courts have held that only the federal government, not individual citizens, can enforce these laws. Our administrative action is designed to trigger enforcement action by the federal government. We are hopeful the Trump administration will act on the pro-active pro-life principles it has articulated since the President took office.”

The complaint also calls on HHS to “issue interpretive guidelines making it clear that the cited federal laws reach, and prohibit, any state law which, like P.A. 99-690, targets and punishes religious and conscience-based opposition to the practice of abortion. The cited federal laws were enacted precisely to protect conscience-based refusals to participate in abortion, and should be interpreted so as to be effective in prohibiting state laws like P.A. 99-690, which seek to force conscience objectors to participate in and promote abortion against their will.”

“Without this office’s interpretive guidance some states will continue to interpret these laws in ways contrary to their manifest purpose, and will continue to enact laws punishing conscience-based refusals to participate in abortion, as did Illinois through enactment of P.A. 99-690,” the complaint continues. “Such state actions flouting the federal laws cited should not be countenanced. This office’s regulatory guidance would facilitate that desired outcome.”

The Illinois law is similar to a California law, which the Supreme Court will examine this year, that requires pregnancy centers, despite conscience objections, to disseminate a message to their clients promoting free and low cost contraception and abortion services.

Planned Parenthood Closes Abortion Clinic Operating for 18 Years After It Loses Taxpayer Funding

with one comment

By Steve Ertelt
LifeNews.com
December 27, 2017

LifeNews can report excellent news today from the state of Iowa. There, a Planned Parenthood abortion business that had been killing unborn children for 18 years is closing down. The abortion company blamed the Iowa state legislature for revoking its taxpayer funding as the reason why.

“After nearly two decades [of doing abortions] in the Quad Cities, on Friday, December 29, 2017, Planned Parenthood of the Heartland (PPHeartland) will officially close their Bettendorf location, a move directly resulting from defunding by extreme Iowa lawmakers,” the abortion giant grumbled in its press statement.

Earlier this year, PPHeartland announced the Quad Cities health center, located at 2751 Tech Drive, would stop dispensing contraception after June 30th but would continue profiting from abortions until the sale of its building. Now the abortion center will close.

“Gov. Kim Reynolds and anti-woman lawmakers forced us to make some extremely difficult changes this year in order to continue providing care for as many patients as possible. It is as devastating today as it was last spring to announce that we are no longer able to serve our patients in Bettendorf,” said Suzanna de Baca, PPHeartland president/CEO.

Planned Parenthood is apparently sore that Reynolds supports defunding the abortion business. She doesn’t want Iowa linked to a company that aborts baby girls. Because she hates women. Or something.

The Planned Parenthood abortion affiliate in Iowa received about $2.7 million in tax dollars per year from the grant and the state. Instead the money is going to places that don’t do abortions. Iowa will now spend an equal amount on family planning services by tapping a separate federal grant. This money will go to organizations that don’t perform abortions.

While Planned Parenthood no longer would receive tax dollars, community health care facilities would. These clinics are far more numerous than Planned Parenthoods, and they offer comprehensive health services that the abortion chain does not.

In 2015, Alliance Defending Freedom and the Charlotte Lozier Institute reported there are 13,540 medical clinics providing whole-woman healthcare in the United States versus 665 Planned Parenthood facilities, which offer only limited services including abortion.

As LifeNews previously reported, a 2015 public opinion poll conducted in Iowa found that the majority of the state’s residents support de-funding Planned Parenthood and sending government funding to legitimate health care clinics instead. The survey, commissioned by the pro-life legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, found that 69 percent of Iowans agree that taxpayers should not subsidize groups like Planned Parenthood that perform abortions.

Savor the irony: 3 sanctuary cities sue feds for lapses in adding names to gun background check database

with one comment

By Thomas Lifson
American Thinker
December 27, 2017

Some reporting requirements are more equal than other reporting requirements, it seems. New YorkPhiladelphia, and San Francisco all proudly and deliberately flout reporting requirements that would allow federal authorities to keep illegal aliens who have committed crimes out of our country, and unable to victimize future Kate Steinles.

Yet, these same reporting scofflaws now are hardliners when it comes to inadvertent failures to add names to the federal firearms background list. This would have done nothing to save Kate Steinle, whose assailant illegally obtained his weapon (he claims he found it under a bench).

Colleen Long of the Associated Press reports:

Three large U.S. cities filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday against the Department of Defense, arguing that many service members who are disqualified from gun ownership weren’t reported to the national background check system. (snip)

The lawsuit filed in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, seeks an injunction and judicial oversight to ensure ongoing compliance with the Defense Department’s obligation to submit records. (snip)

“The department continues to work with the services as they review and refine their policies and procedures to ensure qualifying criminal history information is submitted to the FBI,” said Tom Crosson, a Pentagon spokesman.

Just so. It is important in ensuring the safety of Americans that dangerous people – including veterans who were disqualified from firearms during their service – be added to federal databases. But the same logic also applies to dangerous illegal alien criminals when they are released from custody by states and localities.

How stupid do the Democrats running  these big cities think we are?

Refugee Resettlement: The High Cost of Good Intentions

with one comment

By Peter B. Gemma
American Thinker
December 19, 2017

The Refugee Act of 1980 created the official United States Refugee Admissions Program, and like any other government-funded industry, their original mission has long been forgotten. Resettlement policies have devolved into another bureaucracy, where government and non-profit agencies work to protect their jobs and expand “services.”

Currently, legitimate refugees must prove that they are persecuted for one of several reasons: political persuasion, religion, race, etc., but efforts are underway by the refugee industry to expand the definition to anyone moving anywhere for any reason. The latest designation is the “climate refugee:” people escaping changing weather patterns where they live are now “refugees” too.

To give an idea of the staying power of the refugee program, consider this: when the U.S. began taking Southeast Asian refugees in the late 1970s, the refugee agencies hired temporary workers, thinking the program would only go for a few months. Now, 40 years after the last American left Vietnam, we are still taking refugees from Southeast Asia. At least 1.5 million have come in as refugees alone, and it has detonated a chain of non-refugee immigrants.

One of the greatest misunderstandings about the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program is that anyone getting into the country as a refugee, or anyone who was granted asylum (after getting here on their own), becomes a legal, permanent resident on track to citizenship. Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, and other nations take many more refugees than the U.S., but there is no comparison: in those countries, refugees are only hosted temporarily and will never be voting citizens.

In the U.S., they are permanent residents and ultimately become voting citizens. In fact, we allow in the largest number of permanent refugees of any country in the world. Those who don’t have a firm handle on legal immigration policies sometimes confuse the refugee program with temporary protected status of immigrants.

In 2007, there were about 48,000 refugees who settled here; by 2013, that number rose to 70,000. Last year, 85,000 were welcomed to our shores. Over the last 10 years, more than 700,000 refugees have come to live in America permanently.

Refugee contractors receive over $2 billion in taxpayer dollars annually — between $2,000 and $5,000 per refugee — to create resettlement plans for hundreds of unsuspecting towns and cities. And it’s nice work if you can get it: the Ethiopian Community Development Council President, Tsehaye Teferra, makes $275,000; Linda Hartke, head of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, has a $307,000 compensation package; and Mark Hetfield, CEO of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, pulls down $358,517 per annum.

The contractors’ job is to help refugees find work and housing, sign them up for welfare, medical care, get the children enrolled in school… then move on to a new set of paying “clients.” The result? The cost of the English Language Learner program in Lewiston, Maine has increased 4,000 percent since 2000. Seventeen percent of Lewiston’s population is Somali; 27 percent of the student body speaks 24 languages. Amarillo, Texas was targeted to take in 600 refugee children and told to make them fluent in English. Tutors cost the school system $1,300 per student per month. The federal government reimburses Amarillo $100 per student per year.

The refugee industry sends their wish list — created in virtual secrecy — to Washington, where the State Department and the White House set a limit based on the number of refugees contractors claim that cities and towns can absorb. Congress’ only role is to “consult” and, of course, appropriate money. According to Ken Tota, Deputy Director at the Office of Refugee Resettlement, Congress has never in his 25-year tenure questioned the refugee quota proposed by the administration.

In recent years, as many as 95 percent of the refugees coming to the U.S. were referred by the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees or were the relatives of U.N.-picked refugees. Until the late 1990s, our government picked the large majority of refugees for resettlement in the U.S. Considering that the refugee influx causes increases in all legal and illegal immigration expenditures — as family and social networks are established in the U.S. — the U.N. is effectively dictating much of Washington’s immigration policy.

There is simply no logic to U.S. refugee policies. In July, a State Department report named Somalia as “a safe haven for terrorists,” yet 2,775 Somali refugees arrived in the United States last year. That rate is more than 30 percent higher than the previous record in the last 14 years. Some 98,000 Somalis refugees have entered into the U.S. since 2002.

The Obama administration placed a priority on asylum seekers and refugees who claim discrimination and prosecution because of their sexual identity. This resulted in an upsurge of asylum requests — even from countries like the UK. One private refugee agency has set up an office in Nairobi, Kenya to advise gay asylum seekers about how to get into the refugee pipeline; a private contractor is recruiting refugees who will eventually become the contractor’s profit-generating clients. At one conference sponsored by the Office of Refugee Resettlement, a refugee contractor demanded that Medicaid pay for sex change operations if needed by newly arrived refugees.

The Trump Administration has slowed the flow of refugees and there are reports that the administration has beefed up security screening. However, nothing has been done about the negative impact on communities and the secrecy by which refugees are placed in unsuspecting locales.

President Trump had an opportunity in September to simply stop the program altogether when he submitted his first full-year limit on refugee settlement for FY 18. He did not.

Just recently, President Trump announced that the United States is withdrawing from the Global Compact on Migration. That nonbinding pact coordinates international migration and refugee issues, but it is not some longstanding agreement: it was created in 2016 by President Obama, and has little weight.

President Trump has yet to put his own person at the head of the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, which has resulted in “deep state” bureaucrats undermining the White House at every turn. If the administration does not get a handle on the intricacies of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, no wall building will stop the flow of vaguely defined “refugees.”

If the White House doesn’t catch on to the intricacies of this program, they will be continually snookered.

Because next year is another election cycle, there is only a slight chance for Congress to remake the United States Refugee Admissions Program into an America First policy.

Florida: Shaun King and Hamas-linked CAIR claim girl was attacked for being Muslim, but fight was really over a boy

leave a comment »

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
December 25, 2017

Not just race-baiter Shaun King, who like the Palm Beach Post is apparently unaware that Islam is not a race, but also Hamas-linked CAIR has been all over this: see its press release, “CAIR-Florida Seeks Criminal Charges for Assault on Muslim Teen in Boca Raton.”

Shakeel Munshi, the father of the girl, is responsible. He posted the video of the fight at YouTubeand Facebook, with this claim: “My daughter Manaal munshi(14 years – 9th grade student) was getting bullied by couple of school (West Boca High School, Boca Raton, FL) girls because she was Muslim.”

But it’s all yet another lie, yet another fake hate crime, designed to enhance the false impression that Muslims are the victims of wholesale persecution and harassment in the U.S., and thus should be spared law enforcement scrutiny over jihad terror plotting: “The Sheriff’s Office said they spoke with the mother of the girl who was beaten and ‘at NO time was race or bullying ever discussed, determined or considered to have played a role in the altercation.’…’Nothing at this time indicates a hate crime. It was apparently over a boyfriend,’ the Sheriff’s Office told King on Twitter.”

“Girl’s attacked over a boy, not race, sheriff says,” by Hannah Winston, Palm Beach Post, December 23, 2017:

PALM BEACH COUNTY, Fla. – The Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office is investigating the assaultof a high school student in suburban Boca Raton that was captured on video and has been viewed thousands of times on social media.

Investigators said one student from West Boca Raton High School and another from Olympic Heights High School agreed to meet at 2 p.m. about an unresolved dispute at South County Regional Park, north of Glades Road and west of State Road 7.

The video shows one girl attack another and bring her to the ground. Then, several girls gang up on the girl who is in a fetal position and beat her. A crowd gathers,  and many of its members use their cellphones out to record the attack. At some point, another girl walks over and attempts to pull two of the girls off each other. Though they stop for a moment, two of the girls go back at her….

One of the video’s of the fight has been viewed more than 72,000 times on Twitter. One of the people to share the video was Shaun King, a columnist for the online publication The Intercept. King directed his tweet at Boca Raton police — who are not investigating the incident — and said he “was told this is in your town and that this young Muslim girl had been harassed for months before she was brutally assaulted here.”

King asked why they allow “this culture of Islamophobia to grow.”

The Sheriff’s Office said they spoke with the mother of the girl who was beaten and “at NO time was race or bullying ever discussed, determined or considered to have played a role in the altercation.”

A man who identifies himself as the girl’s father posted the video on Facebook late Thursday and said his daughter was attacked because she was a Muslim. He said the girl had been bullied at school for her religion.

The video he posted was viewed more than 464,000 times as of Friday evening.

The Palm Beach Post called a telephone number listed for the father, but the person who answered the phone hung up. A text message was also sent to the same phone number, and the person on the other end identified himself as the girl’s uncle. The man, who did not give his name, said the family is “in deep shock.”

The Post made another attempt on a different telephone number listed for the father, but messages and phone calls were not answered. To protect the girl’s identity the Post is not identifying the girl’s father at this time.

King did not reply to either to Boca Raton police or the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office, which replied to his tweet. Boca Raton said it was not its case and the Sheriff’s Office said criminal charges are pending.

“Nothing at this time indicates a hate crime. It was apparently over a boyfriend,” the Sheriff’s Office told King on Twitter. “Our deputy will be following up with the School Board to identify the multiple subjects in the video.”

%d bloggers like this: