Skip to content

The Welfare State

August 29, 2014
Michael Tanner
Source …..


One hundred ten million! That’s how many Americans now live in households that receive some form of means-tested welfare benefit from the federal government. According to a report from the Census Bureau released last week, that’s the highest absolute number in American history, and it represents 35.4 percent of the American population. Think about it — more than one out of every three Americans live in households that are now on welfare. Looked at another way, America’s welfare state now has nearly three times the population of the largest actual state.

Because many of these households include more than one person, the number of individual households is smaller, but still a record – roughly 33.5 million, more than a quarter of the country’s households. Worse, 10.5 million households receive benefits from three or more separate programs.

While liberals would undoubtedly like to blame this on the bad economy, the welfare rolls have actually grown by nearly 4 million households since the end of the recession. Welfare is rising even as unemployment declines.

On the other hand, the growing welfare caseload cannot be blamed solely on President Obama. True, the number of people on welfare has increased by 12.5 million since he took office. But welfare also increased during the Bush administration: The proportion of households receiving SNAP (food stamps), TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), or SSI (Supplemental Security Income for the disabled) increased 36 percent during his presidency.

And none of these numbers include the middle-class social-welfare programs like Medicare and Social Security. Counting these programs, more than 153 million Americans, nearly half the population (49.5 percent), are living in households now dependent on government for a significant portion of their income.

Of course seniors may object to linking entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare with welfare programs, since they paid payroll taxes that they were told financed those programs. But, in reality, payroll taxes are simply taxes like any other form of tax and are unrelated to benefits. As the Supreme Court held in Helvering v. Davis (1937), “The proceeds of both [the employer and employee] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.”

Besides, if you counted taxes paid into the system, today’s seniors get back far more than they ever contributed. For example, a two-earner middle-income couple will pay roughly $150,000 in Medicare taxes over their working lifetimes. While that is a great deal of money, that family can also expect to receive more than $350,000 in benefits. Young people may end up net losers when it comes to Social Security, but today’s retirees can expect to be big winners.

There are also some 2.76 million non-military federal employees, and millions more who depend on government contracts. Nor should we forget government subsidies paid to corporations, farmers, and others.

According to calculations by Harvard’s Greg Mankiw, based on data from the Office of Management and Budget, roughly 60 percent of Americans receive more in government benefits than they pay in federal taxes. A Tax Foundation study suggests that as many as 70 percent of Americans are net recipients of government largesse. Those numbers will only grow worse in the future.

Increasingly, the welfare state is us.

These numbers should scare us for two reasons. A healthy economy cannot realistically depend on an ever-shrinking number of people to produce the wealth that will be distributed to the larger population. As Margaret Thatcher reputedly said about the problem facing modern welfare states, eventually they “always run out of other people’s money.”

Yet, it should also be clear that the more people there are who depend on government programs, the harder it becomes to cut those programs. That is not to say that the people on those programs are freeloaders or refuse to take responsibility for their lives. But it does mean that they have a vested interest in maintaining those programs. Simply look at what is happening in European countries today. Despite the fact that their welfare states have become unaffordable, any attempt to trim benefits leads to massive resistance.

Have we reached that tipping point yet? No, but we may be getting perilously close.

DOJ to Give Leftist Groups Cut of B of A Settlement

August 29, 2014
Irene Garcia
Source …..

BankOfAmericaThe Department of Justice (DOJ) keeps giving radical leftist groups that support President Obama huge amounts of cash collected from big banks to settle discrimination and mortgage abuse lawsuits filed by the government.

Judicial Watch first reported the scheme two years ago when Countrywide Financial Corporation doled out $335 million to settle its discrimination lawsuit with the feds. The money was supposed to be distributed to more than 200,000 minority victims who supposedly were charged higher interest rates and fees than white borrowers based on their race not their credit. Instead, a chunk of the money went to Democrat-tied groups not connected to the lawsuit, including the scandal-plagued Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and the open-borders National Council of La Raza (NCLR).

Now many of the same groups will get more money from a record $16.65 billion settlement with Bank of America. It’s a “historic resolution,” according to Attorney General Eric Holder, and the money will help make amends to borrowers and communities that were negatively affected by the bank’s conduct. Besides settling civil penalties at the state and federal level, the billions will bring relief to struggling homeowners and communities by, among other things, offering new loans and providing financing for affordable rental housing. Delinquent borrowers in Democrat strongholds like Chicago, Oakland and Detroit will also benefit from debt forgiveness.

Leftover funds will go to politically-connected community groups—like the NCLR, Operation Hope and National Community Reinvestment Coalition—that intimidate banks into qualifying more minorities for home loans, even if they really can’t afford it. This part of the deal is conveniently buried in the 37-page DOJ agreement, but a publication dedicated to covering business, finance and economics draws attention to it in a scathing editorial that refers to the arrangement as extortion.

“In effect, the government has ordered the nation’s largest bank to create a massive slush fund for Democrat special interests,” states the editorial which reveals that radical Democrat activist groups stand to collect millions from Holder’s record deal with Bank of America. “The recession has dried up funding for such groups. But Holder’s massive bank shakedown could rebuild their war chests in a hurry.” The piece also points out that Holder has brokered other similar deals that will provide more back-door funding for the Democrat groups. They include a $13 billion agreement with JPMorgan Chase and a $7 billion deal with Citibank.

Judicial Watch has investigated these controversial arrangements of funneling big portions of cash settlements from civil rights lawsuits to organizations not officially connected to the cases. In fact, back in 2010 JW sued the DOJ to obtain information about the outrageous policy. In response to our lawsuit the DOJ was forced to acknowledge that it has no official guidelines regarding “qualified organizations” that get leftover settlement funds and that it doesn’t monitor how the money is used.

Obama named in RICO lawsuit

August 29, 2014
Bob Unruh
Source …..

JamesMadison-TyrannyAttorney Larry Klayman, fresh off a preliminary court ruling that the National Security Agency’s spying on Americans likely is unconstitutional, now has named President Obama and others in a racketeering complaint.

Klayman, founder of Freedom Watch and a columnist for WND, alleges the president and others laundered U.S. taxpayer money that was spent on Hamas rockets fired against Israel.

The civil lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington falls under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, alleges criminal acts by Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon.

Seeking $1.5 billion in compensatory damages as well as punitive damages, it accuses the global figures of “laundering U.S. dollars” to Hamas, which is officially designated by the U.S. government as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

“This money has been foreseeably used to buy rockets and construct tunnels to attack Israel and terrorize and kill American and dual American-Israeli citizens who reside or are located in Israel,” Klayman said in a statement.

“The nation and the world have increasingly come to see that Obama views himself primarily as a Muslim and acts accordingly in favoring Islamic interests over Judeo-Christian ones, and the complaint lays out Obama’s history in documented detail,” he said.

Klayman said Obama’s actions “were calculated to harm the nation of Israel.”

“His facilitating and ordering financial and other material aid to Hamas, along with his equally anti-Israel Secretaries of State Kerry and Clinton, and the U.N. Secretary General, is just the latest deadly chapter in what amounts to criminal activity which has logically resulted in harm and death to Jews and Christians and threatens the continued existence of Israel,” he said.

“That is why he and the other defendants were sued under RICO and other relevant laws,” said Klayman.

The White House media office declined to respond by telephone to a request from WND for comment, instructing a reporter to send an email. There was no immediately response to the email inquiry.

The case, No. 14-1484, alleges the defendants conspired to send hundreds of millions of dollars to Hamas “under the false pretext that this financial support will be used for humanitarian purposes.”

“However,” the complaint states, “as recently reported by Voice of America and the New York Times, the recent killing of the chief Hamas financial officer by the IDF confirmed that these U.S. dollars, only some of which [were] found in his bombed out car, [have] predictably fallen into the hands of Hamas’ terrorist wing, which controls and was elected by Gazans to govern over them.”

Klayman’s recent case against the NSA challenged its program of spying on Americans. Two privacy-rights heavyweights, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, recently filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of Klayman’s arguments.

The case has been advanced to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Help Larry Klayman with his class-action suit against Obama’s use of the NSA to violate Americans’ rights

Klayman sued the NSA over the collection of telephone metadata from Verizon customers that was detailed in documents released by intelligence-document leaker Edward Snowden. In December 2013, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon issued a preliminary ruling that the program was likely unconstitutional, and the case is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

His newest complaint, with himself and a number of John Does as plaintiffs, is a civil action and seeks damages from the defendants “for violating plaintiffs’ and decedents’ rights, for engaging in racketeering and other prohibited activities, for engaging in international terrorism, for harboring and concealing terrorists, for providing material support to terrorists and terrorist groups, for directly and proximately causing the deaths of plaintiffs’ decedents, and for directly and proximately causing mental anguish, severe emotional distress, emotional pain and suffering, and the loss of society, earnings, companionship, comfort, protection, care, attention, advice, counsel or guidance, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and their sons, plaintiffs’ decedents, have experienced and will experience in the future.”

It alleges fraud, money-laundering, mail fraud, wire fraud, conversion and corruption.

The complaint notes Klayman recently was in Israel when it was attacked by Hamas.

Klayman, it says, “was subject to terroristic threats, fear, intimidation and blackmail from Hamas, aimed at coercing him from the exercise of his legal rights in violation of the Hobbs Act by Hamas seeking to deny his freedom of travel and public advocacy and business activities in Israel and other activities in Israel by threats and intimidation aimed at coercing him as a person engaged in public advocacy and business activities in and with Israel to leave Israel and disengage with Israel.”

Other “John Doe” plaintiffs also were in Israel at the time of the attacks, the complaint states.

It explains that, according to the law, a person “knowingly finances terrorism when fully aware of facts that would inform an alert person of average intelligence that the probable results of their actions will be to provide funding to a terrorist organization.”

“One may not naively turn a blind eye, not even a president of the United States,” the complaint states.

It says considerable amounts of charity money, public assistance, international assistance and humanitarian aid is motivated toward ending the violence in the Holy Land, but it “gets diverted to the corrupt enterprise, and becomes money that – fell off a truck into the hands of the criminals actually causing the violence and their enablers.”

The complaint says all of the defendants know or have reason to know that “funds and material support provided to Gaza under Hamas’s rule are actually used entirely or in the most part to finance the acts of terrorism, violence, murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, assault, injury, physical attacks, and other criminal activity by Hamas.’

The complaint says the defendants known Hamas uses building materials for home-made rockets and underground bunkers.

The complaint also notes Obama knows Hamas is officially designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by State Department and uses resources it receives for terrorist attacks, including the $900 million the Obama administration sent to Gaza in 2009.

It even accuses Obama of “siding with” militants known as “ISIS or ISIL, signaling to the people of Israel and Jews and Christians that Hamas’ crimes against Israel and Jews and Christians are tacitly supported and approved of by the president of the United States.”

The case also names Malik Obama, a half-brother of the president who runs the Barack Obama Foundation. The case alleges the organization raises money for the Muslim Brotherhood.

“Two leaked classified documents show Egyptian security forces have been monitoring Malik Obama’s activities and they also implicate President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton in the aiding and abetting of terrorists.”

Klayman explained the documents were entered as evidence in the criminal trials of former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi and other top Muslim Brotherhood leaders.

Another victory for the Heckler’s Veto

August 29, 2014
Source …..


The Heckler’s Veto is becoming one of the preferred instruments of cultural control and speech suppression in America.  It’s fairly easy to pull off: you just have to convince the authorities – college administrators, the police, the hosts of a speaking event, etc. – that you’ll respond with violence to speech you disfavor, leading the authorities to conclude that suppressing the speech is the easiest way to avoid trouble.

The winning Heckler’s Veto formula involves credible promises of violent unrest – the people you’re bullying have to know you mean business – coupled with a lazy reluctance to treat you as the problem, instead of standing up for the rights of those you wish to silence.  This state of affairs can come to pass because the targets of the veto are unpopular, the authorities aren’t terribly committed to exercising themselves in the defense of free speech, and/or because those doing the muzzling come from a politically preferred “victim” group, making them above criticism.  Thus we’ve had speakers like Ayaan Hirsi Ali chased off campuses, and the wearing of American flag T-shirts banned at American schools.

Eugene Volokh, in his “Volokh Conspiracy” legal column for the Washington Post, has another successful example of the Heckler’s Veto to report, in which a rather obnoxious group called the “Bible Believers” turned up at the Arab International Festival in Dearborn, Michigan in 2012, bearing shirts and banners with slogans that ranged from straightforward expressions of Christian belief to confrontational messages like “Islam Is A Religion of Blood and Murder.”  One of the Bible Believers was carrying a severed pig head on a stick.  Megaphones came out, and denunciations of the “pedophile prophet” of Islam were made.

This did not go over well with the crowd at the Arab International Festival.  Unfortunately, they did not restrain themselves to the honorable course of answering speech with speech, as Volokh relates:

As the Bible Believers moved deeper into the Festival, the crowd — a good portion of which appeared to be minors — continued to gather and yell. Some people started throwing debris — including rocks, plastic bottles, garbage, and a milk crate — at the Bible Believers. Someone in the crowd also shoved one Bible Believer to the ground. Some WCSO [Wayne County Sheriff's Office] officers detained debris-throwers while other officers hovered at the edges of the crowd. Eventually, after about thirty-five minutes, the Bible Believers temporarily stopped preaching and stood as the crowd harangued them and hurled objects. Several officers, including some mounted units, attempted to quell the crowd.

After about five minutes of standing quietly, the Bible Believers began to move and preach again. As they did so, the cascade of objects intensified. Deputy Chiefs Richardson and Jaafar approached them a few minutes later. Jaafar explained that they could leave and that their safety was in jeopardy because not enough officers were available to control the crowd.

The Bible Believers, however, continued to preach, followed by what had swelled into a large crowd. Richardson and Jaafar then took Chavez aside to speak with him. Richardson noted his concern that [Bible Believer founder Ruben] Chavez was bleeding from where a piece of debris had cut his face. Richardson explained that he was responsible for policing the entire Festival, that Chavez’s conduct was inciting the crowd, and that he would escort the Bible Believers out of the Festival …

It is important to note that this was a public festival, not a private event.  The only ordinance violated by the Bible Believers, as confirmed by subsequent court proceedings, was the use of the megaphone, which they stopped using as soon as they were told it was not permitted.  (I find it a remarkable minor detail that the severed pig head on a stick didn’t violate anything.)  The Bible Believers were nevertheless threatened with arrest for disorderly conduct and escorted from the fair after less than an hour.  The police made good on their threat with a few arrests and citations.

An angry Ruben Chavez snapped at the officers, “I would assume a few hundred angry Muslim children throwing bottles would be more of a threat than a few guys with signs.”  Ah, but that’s how the Heckler’s Veto works.  The path of least resistance is to hassle the few guys with signs, and give the mob of bottle-throwers their way.  The Sixth Circuit Court ratified the Heckler’s Veto by upholding the actions of the police in an opinion released last Wednesday:

The majority concluded that, under Feiner v. New York (1951), the actions of the police were permissible. First, the majority concluded, the speakers actually intended to produce violence: “The video from the 2012 Festival demonstrates that Appellants’ speech and conduct intended to incite the crowd to turn violent.” There was no need, in the majority’s view, for a jury to determine this as a matter of contested fact. (The majority also suggested that speech that “statements ‘likely to provoke violence and disturbance of good order’” might be properly suppressed, at least when they lead to such violence, “‘even if no [responsive violence] be intended,’” citing Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940); the majority did not discuss Cohen v. California (1971), which seemed to limit Feiner to speech “intentionally provoking a given group to hostile reaction.”) Second, the majority argued, violence was actually produced and couldn’t reasonably be controlled in ways besides restricting the speech.

The dissenting judges explicitly described this as court sanction for the Heckler’s Veto, and worried about the perverse incentives it provided:

It does not take much to see why law enforcement is principally required to protect lawful speakers over and above law-breakers. If a different rule prevailed, this would simply allow for a heckler’s veto under more extreme conditions. Indeed, hecklers would be incentivized to get really rowdy, because at that point the target of their ire could be silenced.

More perniciously, a contrary rule would allow police to manufacture a situation to chill speech. Police officers could simply sit by as a crowd formed and became agitated. Once the crowd’s agitation became extreme, the police could swoop in and silence the speaker. The First Amendment does not contain this large a loophole….

I’m old enough to remember when schoolchildren were taught about the importance of “letting the Nazis march in Skokie, Illinois.”  Putting up with obnoxious but lawful exercises of speech is part of the price we pay for upholding the sacred principle of free speech.  The Nazis-in-Skokie parable is an extreme demonstration of the idea that neither government officials, nor public mobs, are gifted with the transcendent wisdom to decide which messages should be excluded from the public square, even when the scene involves 99 percent of the public fighting to keep their lunches down while a couple of Nazis march past.

Decisions like this one, coupled with the many other recent successful deployments of the Heckler’s Veto, illustrate the price we pay for setting aside that absolute commitment to free expression.  As Volokh observes, it’s easy to sympathize with attendees of the Dearborn Arab Festival who just wanted to have a nice day on the block, not get into a heated religious debate with a loud band of uninvited guests… but then again, it’s the public square, which means all guests are invited, subject to civic ordinances.  Previous generations of Americans understood that annoyance is a small price to pay in the defense of free speech.  But now the revised rules of engagement are clear: demonstrate your will to disorder, or even violence, clearly enough, and you can stamp out anything you don’t feel like hearing.

CA Lawmakers Aim To Ban English Only Instruction in Public Schools

August 28, 2014
Source …..


On Tuesday, a few hours after Mexican president Enrique Pena Nieto said that Illegal Aliens deserve justice in the USA and Gov. Jerry Brown welcomed all illegal immigrants to California, lawmakers in Sacramento passed a proposed ballot measure seeking to dismantle the English-only mandate for public schools and increase multilingual education programs.

The Los Angeles Times reported that Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Los Angeles), chairman of the Latino Legislative Caucus, asserted “I think Californians’ attitudes have changed and they understand the need, now that we are in a global economy, to have a multilingual workforce.” Moreover, Lara says the timing is right “to revisit multilingualism, bilingualism and language immersion programs.”

Senate Republican leader Bob Huff of Diamond Bar called the bill “an end run around the vote of the people.” He believes that the language in the proposed ballot measure would make it easy for legislators to eliminate the English language instruction law by a simple majority vote, reported the Times.

The proposal by California lawmakers is designed to jettison the 1998 law which required English-only instruction in California classrooms. Many believe that inserting Spanish into the classroom only delays and hinders learning for English as second language children.

Obama – the Al Capone of Climate Change – launches his next assault on democracy, the Constitution and the US economy

August 28, 2014
Source …..

sotu-finger-wagThere are two main reasons why President Obama stands a polar bear’s chance in hell of imposing a binding carbon emissions reduction treaty on the US in the name of combating catastrophic, unprecedented man-made global warming.

1. It will kill the jobs, prosperity and personal freedom on which the American dream was built.

2. There is absolutely no hard evidence that catastrophic, unprecedented man-made global warming is anything more than a figment of the President’s and his greenie chums’ warped imaginations.

Fortunately for all the rent-seeking one percenters, bent climate ‘scientists’, green activists, ‘clean’ ‘energy’ lobbyists, environment correspondents and professional victim groups who depend on the “global warming” scare for their livelihood, the president has hit on the perfect solution.

Obama plans to bypass the democratic process, override all those pesky checks and balances, and railroad through that legislation anyway by appealing to the higher authority of the United Nations.

According to the New York Times:

President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path.

“If you want a deal that includes all the major emitters, including the U.S., you cannot realistically pursue a legally binding treaty at this time,” said Paul Bledsoe, a top climate change official in the Clinton administration who works closely with the Obama White House on international climate change policy.

Lawmakers in both parties on Capitol Hill say there is no chance that the currently gridlocked Senate will ratify a climate change treaty in the near future, especially in a political environment where many Republican lawmakers remain skeptical of the established science of human-caused global warming.

That article provides a useful insight into the mentality of the kind of people who are pushing for this legislation.

Obama seeks to bypass Congress for U.N. climate change deal: report …..

First, they are determined to misrepresent this as a party political issue – in which ignorant, ideologically motivated, Big-Oil-funded Republican “denialists” are wilfully and perversely obstructing the perfectly sensible climate policies fully supported by all Democrats. This wasn’t true in 1997 when the Senate voted down the first attempt at a binding international climate treaty – Kyoto – by 95 to 0. It isn’t true today.

Second, it refers to “established climate science” as if – to quote Al Gore – the science on global warming were “settled.” This was a risible notion even at the height of the global warming scare back in 1992 during the Rio Earth Summit when for a period global mean temperatures were actually rising but when scientists couldn’t agree why. It is even less plausible now, given that as all half-way serious scientists – alarmists and realists, alike – now acknowledge there has been no global warming in over 17 years.

So what, exactly, does the President think he is playing at?

Simple. He has been casting around for a legacy issue on which his disastrous presidency can be judged and realized that neither his handling of the economy, nor his universal healthcare program, nor his foreign policy are quite going to pass muster with future historians. So instead he has decided to stake his reputation on climate change.

Climate change, for a man of Obama’s principles, has many merits.

First – if he is right, which unfortunately he isn’t – it will enable him to go down in history as the man who saved the world from the Greatest Threat It Has Ever Known.

Second, it is the perfect way of shoring up his left-wing voter base while simultaneously rewarding all those rich liberal donors who have bankrolled his presidency. From Solyndra and BrightSource to the monstrously corrupt wind industry, Obama’s cronies have been enabled, by presidential fiat, to make many billions of dollars – much of this money funneled straight from the pockets of US taxpayers, either in the form of stimulus loans for ventures which certainly would never have survived in a free market or in the form of compulsory subsidy payments for “clean” energy.

This crony capitalism is one of the blackest marks against the Obama administration. These “clean energy” businesses would never survive in a free market because there are so many better, cheaper and, indeed, more environmentally friendly ways of producing energy, such as shale gas. If the climate change scare were to end, these Potemkin industries would collapse (those that haven’t already done so) in a trice. Which is why it is so imperative for all those rent-seekers with their snouts in the green trough that the climate change remains a live issue for as long as possible. And why Obama will live in infamy as the instigator of corrupt parallel economy not unakin to the one established by fellow Chicagoans like Al Capone during Prohibition – but on a much bigger scale.

The overwhelmingly skeptical US public is proving very unhelpful to Obama. In survey after survey, they fail to be nearly as concerned about global warming as Obama would like them to be. But his friends at the United Nations are proving much more sympathetic. It is the UN which hosts all the annual climate conferences, like the one in Paris next year, where Obama plans to slip through his new legislation. It is the UN which created the Intergovernmental on Climate Change (IPCC) – the heavily politicized body responsible for all those scary reports which insist, against all evidence, that climate change becomes a greater threat with each passing year.

It is no coincidence that just before news broke of Obama’s plans for a new international climate agreement, the IPCC leaked to the media drafts of a “synthesis” of its most recent assessment report. The “synthesis” is replete with dire warnings:

‘Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems.’

The word “risk” is used 351 times in just 127 pages.

But there’s a reason for this, as Breitbart London reported when the initial reports were released, here, here and here. All the scariest predictions come not in the body of the scientific assessment reports, but rather in the sexed-up summaries produced by spin-doctors for the purpose of galvanizing policy-makers into action. The summaries, in other words, have very little to do with current scientific understanding of climate change. Rather, they are designed to give people like Barack Obama the fig-leaf of justification they so desperately need to reward their liberal cronies and burnish their green credentials while bombing the global economy back to the dark ages.

Jindal: Feds Dumped ‘Over a Thousand’ Illegals on My State

August 28, 2014
Source …..

Jindal ImmigrationGov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA) reported that the Obama administration dumped over a thousand illegal immigrants on his state without notifying him.

“In my state, the Obama administration sent over a thousand children without telling us, without telling social services, without telling the schools” he said on Wednesday’s “Laura Ingraham Show.”

Jindal added that Jefferson Parrish was “literally having to hire more and more teachers that speak Spanish, they’re thinking about having to offer bonuses and stipends.”

He alleged that dumping these children without warning broke a promise made by the federal government to keep state governments in the loop, stating “about a month ago, we were on a phone call with cabinet secretaries in the Obama administration, they swore up and down ‘we’ll tell you before we send these kids to your states, this won’t have any costs to your states.’” Despite this promise, Jindal said “we have no information whatsoever from the federal government.”

Jindal also responded to pushes for immigration reform that include a pathway to legal status for illegal immigrants, suchs the initiative pushed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) by arguing “we tried this in the 80s and if we do not secure the border, this is going to be a recurring issue.” And “we don’t need a comprehensive bill … we need them to secure the border.”

Listen to Gov. Jindal on The Laura Ingraham Show …..


Gang of Black Men Attack White Man in Mississippi, Leaving Him Brain Damaged

August 27, 2014
Source …..

police_tapeA white, former Marine was badly beaten and possibly left with brain damage by a crowd of racial epithet-yelling African Americans at an all night restaurant near West Point, Mississippi apparently in retaliation for the shooting of Missouri teen Michael Brown. Police are hastening to avoid calling the attack a “hate crime.”

Ralph Weems IV, 32, a former Marine who served in Iraq, is now in a medical coma but listed in fair condition at a Tupelo hospital. He may have brain damage from the attack, doctors say.

The altercation began when Weems and his friend David Knighten went to eat an early morning meal at a Waffle House in West Point, Mississippi, a small town south of Tupelo in the northern part of the state.

Knighten says that they were told by a black patron that white people weren’t safe in the area because locals were still riled up about the shooting of black teen Michael Brown that occurred two weeks ago in Ferguson, Missouri.

The pair went into the establishment anyway, and soon got into a verbal argument with seven black customers. Knighten and Weems left after police were called to the scene and before any fighting broke out.

Knighten and Weems then drove to a nearby Huddle House restaurant but they were apparently followed by a large group of blacks.

After coming out of the bathroom, Knighten says he found a large group of locals surrounding his friend. They were all arguing. It all turned physical in short order and Weems was beaten down quickly by overwhelming odds. Knighten says he was unable to reach Weems to help.

Knighten took severe injuries, but Weems was left on the floor kicked into unconsciousness. Knighten says that the crowd was hurling “racial slurs” at them during the attack.

“All my injuries were minor fractures and lacerations,” Knighten told the Clarion-Ledger. “I just wish I could have reached him sooner. Please keep your thoughts and prayers on Ralph.”

West Point police, however, are quick to deny that this is a “hate crime.”

“This does not appear to be a hate crime,” Police Chief Tim Brinkley said in a statement.

“We are investigating this as an aggravated assault. It’s very early in this investigation but thus far the evidence and statements suggest that a verbal altercation turned physical and somebody got hurt,” the Chief said.

Thus far one man, 22-year-old Courtez McMillian of Okolona, Mississippi, has been arrested for the assault.

Muslim Activists Demand Overhaul of All U.S. Law Enforcement Training

August 27, 2014
Irene Garcia
Source …..

politicallycorrectphotoIslamic activists that strong-armed the FBI to purge anti-terrorism training material considered “offensive” to Muslims have made their next wave of demands, which include an overhaul in the way all law enforcement officers are trained in the United States.

The coalition of influential and politically-connected Muslim rights groups is demanding that the Obama administration implement a mandatory retraining program for all federal, state and local law enforcement officials who may have been subjected to materials they deem “biased and discriminatory” against Muslims. There must also be an audit of all federal law enforcement and intelligence gathering training and educational materials to identify and remove information that could exhibit bias against any race, ethnicity, religion or national origin, the groups demand.

Additionally, the administration must pursue disciplinary action against agents and officials who engage in discriminatory conduct as well as those responsible for the anti-Muslim training materials. Finally, the coalition insists that all federal funding to local and state law enforcement agencies be withheld unless they ban all training materials considered to be biased against race, ethnicity, religion or national origin. In short, these empowered Muslim activists want to dictate how our nation’s law enforcement agencies operate at every level.

The outrageous demands were made this month in a letter to Lisa O. Monaco, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Among the signatories is the terrorist front organization Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has repeatedly proven that it wields tremendous power in the Obama administration. Founded in 1994 by three Middle Eastern extremists, CAIR got the FBI to purge anti-terrorism material determined to be offensive to Muslims. Judicial Watch uncovered that scandal last summer and obtained hundreds of pages of FBI documents with details of the arrangement. JW also published a special in-depth report on the subject in December.

CAIR also got several police departments in President Obama’s home state of Illinois to cancel essential counterterrorism courses over accusations that the instructor was anti-Muslim. The course was called “Islamic Awareness as a Counter-Terrorist Strategy” and departments in Lombard, Elmhurst and Highland Park caved into CAIR’s demands. The group responded with a statement commending officials for their “swift action in addressing the Muslim community’s concerns.” CAIR has wielded its power in a number of other cases during the Obama presidency, including blocking an FBI probe involving the radicalization of young Somali men in the U.S. and pressuring the government to file discrimination lawsuits against employers who don’t accommodate Muslims in the workplace.

Other signatories include the powerful open borders group Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), Muslim Advocates, the Sikh Coalition, Women in Islam Inc., the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), to name a few. The group’s claim that recent administration directives to promote multicultural and diversity sensitivity training in law enforcement aren’t enough because they don’t specifically address anti-Muslim materials.

“Without executive branch actions, including those we recommend below, trainings that perpetuate gross stereotypes and false information about Islam and Muslims will continue to proliferate at the state and local level,” the letter says. It continues: “The use of anti-Muslim trainers and materials is not only highly offensive, disparaging the faith of millions of Americans, but leads to biased policing that targets individuals and communities based on religion, not evidence of wrongdoing.” This will foster fear and suspicion of Muslims and will lead to an increase in discrimination, bullying, harassment and anti-Muslim violence, the letter asserts.

Pat Buchanan: Holder Acts More Like Al Sharpton Than an Attorney General

August 27, 2014
Source …..



Tuesday on Newsmax TV’s “The Steve Malzberg Show,” bestselling author and conservative commentator Pat Buchanan said Attorney General Eric Holder acted more like the so-called civil rights leader Al Sharpton than the top law enforcement official in the land and tainted the jury pool by going to Ferguson MO to talk to community leaders about the Michael Brown shooting case.

Buchanan said of Holder’s action, “To go out there and take sides, I find appalling.”

“He is someone who puts the issue of race front and center always and I don’t think that is not the mindset you want someone you want as Attorney General especially in a case which obviously has a deep racial component to it,” he added.

Watch the video …..



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 491 other followers

%d bloggers like this: