Skip to content

Rand Paul: ‘Somebody Was Spying On The Trump Campaign,’ Flynn ‘Lost His Job’ Because Of It

March 21, 2017

Chris Menahan


Source …..

Senator Rand Paul weighed in on James Comey’s “wiretap” denials Monday afternoon, telling Fox’s Neil Cavuto that “somebody was spying on the Trump campaign” even if they didn’t use an “old-fashioned bug.”

From Fox News:

“Everybody admits that somebody spied on Mike Flynn, and he was part of the Trump campaign,” Paul said. “It sounds like what the president said has already been proven to be true.”

He said that the media is confused, because they think that wiretapping means placing an “old-fashioned bug” on someone’s telephone.

If you haven’t looked recently, most of our telephones don’t have wires,” Paul said. “‘Wiretapping’ is a broad term for surveillance.

Cavuto said that surveilling Flynn is one thing, but he pressed Paul if Trump himself was tapped.

“I think ‘wiretapping’ to Donald Trump probably meant spying. And I think ‘Donald Trump’ or the ‘campaign’ also probably meant Mike Flynn,” Paul said. “So I think really we’re arguing circles around something that most people are admitting.”

“Somebody was spying on the Trump campaign and … Mike Flynn lost his job because of an illegal felony in which somebody released the results of spying on the Trump campaign.”

As the highest level ever NSA whistleblower William Binney said earlier this month, the government is spying on everyone, including Trump, and the FISA courts are “simply out there for show” to give the false impression “the government is following the law, and being looked at and overseen by the Senate and House intelligence committees and the courts.”

As Binney said, the real spying is being “done outside of the courts” and “outside of the Congress.”

I guarantee everything Trump and everyone connected to him did was being spied on by the deep state just as everything he and his staff are doing now is also being spied on by the deep state and leaked to The New York Times and The Washington Post.

Washington DC is the swamp and hack politicians like Trey Gowdy are not going to drain it. As Rush Limbaugh said rightly about these hearings earlier today: “the objective is that Trump either stops this reform business he’s got, stops this drain-the-swamp stuff, and starts letting the Washington Republicans run the town again, or they’re gonna impeach him.”

Trump Publishes 1st List of ‘Sanctuary Cities’ Protecting Illegal Aliens

March 21, 2017

Ben Kew


Source …..

In an attempt to increase pressure on sanctuary cities, the Department of Homeland Security has published its first weekly list of all 118 localities refusing to cooperate with the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

Each week, the list will publish every detention request rejected by local jails — detailing the relevant agency, the status of the immigrant, and the charges they are facing.

The first report was published this Monday, listing 206 cases in which illegal aliens were arrested and consequently released from jail without charge, despite recommendations from the Immigration and Crime Enforcement agency (ICE) to detain them for at least 48 hours.

The cases listed took place between January 28th to February 3rd, Donald Trump’s second week in office.

In his executive order signed January 25th designed to properly enforce immigration policy, Trump said regular lists were necessary to better inform the public “regarding the public safety threats associated with sanctuary jurisdictions.”

“When it comes to public safety, there is no place for politics; no Republicans, no Democrats, just citizens, and good citizens,” Trump said. We want safe communities. We demand safe communities for everyone.”

A poll conducted by the University of California Berkeley in January found that in the state of California, where sanctuary cities are particularly prominent, 74 percent would like to see them abolished.

In February, the state’s Democrat-controlled legislature proposed a bill to make California a “sanctuary state,” although it could risk the loss of federal funding if it does so.

The issue of “sanctuary cities” was a major theme in the 2016 presidential election. On July 1, 2015, a young woman, Kate Steinle, was shot and killed while walking on a pier with her father by an illegal alien who had several felony convictions and had been deported several times already.


23 Countries Refuse To Take Back Criminal Aliens

March 19, 2017

Leo Hohmann


Source …..

More than 2,000 criminal non-citizens, including many here illegally, are released from prison every year onto the streets of American cities.

Americans like Casey Chadwick, 25, have paid with their lives. She was stabbed to death outside her apartment in Norwich, Connecticut, by an illegal criminal alien from Haiti who had already served 17 years in prison for attempted murder. ICE had tried to deport him several times but Haiti would not accept him.

The problem is that 23 countries will not take back their criminal migrants, according to a DHS report cited by Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The government has not named all 23 uncooperative nations but WND has been able to identify 13 of them.

The five worst are Cuba, China, Somalia, India and Ghana.

Others on the list include:

  • Iraq
  • Iran
  • Afghanistan
  • Libya
  • Algeria
  • Vietnam
  • Haiti
  • Zimbabwe

The majority of the countries on the list are either communist or Islamic.

Three of the countries – Somalia, Iran and Libya – are on President Trump’s list of terrorist-sponsoring countries from which he wants to ban travel into the U.S. for 90 days while better vetting programs can be developed. His executive order on the temporary travel ban is being held up by federal district judges in Hawaii and Maryland.

The criminals include murderers, rapists and child molesters.

Fair is fair right?

Adding to the indignity and lack of fair play, the U.S. continues to grant visas and refugee status to foreign nationals from these 23 countries. And in many cases, the U.S. also continues to send foreign aid to these recalcitrant nations that refuse to cooperate with ICE in taking back their criminals.

Several congressmen have tried to rectify the injustice but have yet to get their bills passed. The latest is Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas, who has introduced a bill that would cut off all foreign aid to countries that don’t cooperate with ICE deportation efforts.

In a statement emailed to WND Babin’s office said:

“There is absolutely no reason that criminal aliens should be released back onto America’s streets, yet that is exactly what is happening by the thousands each and every year because their countries of origin refuse to take them back. My bill upholds the rule of law and holds these countries accountable by stripping their foreign aid and travel visas if they fail to cooperate. President Trump has announced that deporting the roughly 2 million criminal aliens in our country is a top priority for his presidency – and this legislation is a critical component to any such effort.”

Babin said only one Democrat in the House has supported his bill – Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas.

Investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson interviewed Cuellar for her upcoming Sunday edition of Full Measure in which she asked the congressman about the outrageous leniency with which the U.S. treats the 23 nations refusing to cooperate with U.S. immigration officials on deportations.

In addition to the 23 countries that don’t cooperate at all with ICE, another 60 cannot be counted on to consistently cooperate.

“There are about 30 countries that have been very difficult to work with that won’t take back their criminals, but at the same time we’re issuing business visas or student visas to those countries,” Cuellar told Attkisson. “So while we’re giving them the opportunity to come to the United States, they’re refusing, should I say, to take back the criminal aliens that belong to those countries.”

A bizarre Supreme Court opinion

Attkisson said a big part of the problem can be traced to a 2001 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Zadvydas v. Davis. In that case the high court ruled ICE may not keep criminal aliens in custody for longer than 180 days, with a few exceptions, from the time they are released from prison. Jacques was held for 205 days, but ultimately freed less than six months before he killed Chadwick.

“The Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. cannot indefinitely hold immigrant criminals if their own countries refuse to take them back. Cuban-born Abel Arango had multiple felony convictions in the U.S. for armed robbery, burglary and grand theft,” Attkisson said.

“A judge ordered his deportation, but Cuba refused to take him back. He was released in Miami, later arrested for five felony cocaine charges, released again, and — in 2008— he gunned down a Ft. Myers, Florida police officer, Andrew Widman,” she added.

An existing law goes unenforced

Cuellar, while backing Babin’s bill, said there is already a law on the books that the U.S. could enforce and clean up the mess with uncooperative nations.

While it doesn’t cut funding to those nations like Babin’s bill would, the existing law allows the U.S. to hold the visas of foreign nationals from nations not cooperating with ICE on criminal deportations.

“We found out that there’s a law already that allows us to hold those visas if a country’s not planning to take back their criminals,” he said in the Full Measure interview.

“We’re not enforcing it, which is amazing,” he added. “So now my intent is to go back to our committee on appropriations and affect their funding until they do that.”

Because of the Supreme Court decision, “that means you’re releasing criminals into our streets because those countries refuse to take back those criminal aliens. That’s wrong,” Cuellar said. “And especially I think it’s even worse that this is already on the books, and we’re still issuing business tourist visas and student visas to countries that refuse to take back their criminal aliens. That’s wrong, and we’re hoping to change that.So why does the U.S. not enforce an existing law that would provide a measure of pay-back to uncooperative nations? Cuellar lays the blame at the feet of the U.S State Department.

“… I’ve been working on this issue and they said ‘well you know you gotta understand diplomacy, we don’t wanna upset some of those countries,’” Cuellar told Attkisson.

“But my response is, but we can upset our constituents, we can upset our way of life that we have here by allowing those criminals to be released? And basically the response from the State Department is because you have to work with the State Department and Homeland Security. And the State Department, with all due respect, was focused on diplomacy. I understand that, but I’m also concerned about individuals here who are in their neighborhoods; and you can release a criminal because we can’t hold them anymore and that county refuses to take back that criminal alien.”

Cuellar says he plans to press for the U.S. to withhold visas from countries that won’t accept the return of their criminals.


Donna Brazile Admits to Sharing Debate Questions With Clinton Camp, Blames Russia

March 19, 2017

Jerome Hudson


Source …..

Former DNC chairwoman and disgraced CNN commentator Donna Brazile has admitted that she relayed confidential questions to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in advance of last year’s primary debate.

Writing in Time magazine, Brazile said she would “forever regret” the decision, which was revealed after WikiLeaks published thousands of emails belonging to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

“When I was asked last July to step in temporarily as D.N.C. Chair,” Brazile explained, “I knew things were amiss. The D.N.C. had been hacked, and thousands of staff emails and documents were plastered on various websites. Staff were harassed, morale suffered, and we lost weeks of planning. Donors were harassed, and fundraising fell off.”

“Then in October, a subsequent release of emails revealed that among the many things I did in my role as a Democratic operative and D.N.C. Vice Chair prior to assuming the interim D.N.C. Chair position was to share potential town hall topics with the Clinton campaign,” Brazil added.

On October 14th, CNN accepted Brazile’s resignation as a network contributor. CNN’s Reliable Sources host Brian Stelter said Brazile’s collusion with the Clinton campaign “embarrassed all of CNN.”

But in her Time letter, Brazile said “the media narrative” about her being in cahoots with the Clinton campaign “played out just as the Russians had hoped, leaving Sanders supporters understandably angry and sowing division in our ranks.”

The WikiLeaks hack, Brazile said, is evidence that there must be a continued investigation into Russia’s interference in the presidential election.

“Let me be clear,” Brazile wrote, “this is not just the price of politics. This is not normal. We cannot let this stand. Our democratic process itself was attacked and harmed, and all Americans should be concerned.”

Former Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has stated that he has seen no evidence — from the NSA, FBI, and CIA — proving “collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians.”


New York State Kills Literacy Test for Teachers: Minority Kids Hardest Hit

March 18, 2017

Mona Salama


Source …..

Teachers’ unions are cheering the news that New York state education officials have killed off a literacy test which successfully revealed that almost a third of candidate teachers cannot meet eight-grade standards.

Members of the New York state Board of Regents voted on Monday to eliminate the literacy exam which revealed the prospective teachers’ poor reading and writing skills, saying the controversial test is “flawed” and that it puts Latino and African-American teacher applicants at an unfair disadvantage.

Advocates of testing said the decision to kill the literacy test will lower teaching standards, especially for minority students in the city.

“Eliminating the [test just] to increase the number of unqualified, unprepared Black and Latino prospective teachers is the most racist and destructive action taken under the guise of diversifying NY’s teachers,” said Mona Davids, President of the New York City Parents Union, adding:

We, Black and Latino parents, do not want teachers who cannot pass a basic literacy test. We don’t care about the color or race of the teacher, we want highly effective teachers teaching our children.

“It’s alarming because we’ve now abandoned or watered down the teacher evaluation process, and now we’re lowering the bar for entry certification as well,” said Charles Sahm, Director of Education policy at the Conservative think tank Manhattan Institute.

“It is deeply disappointing that the Regents and State Education Department are lowering the bar for teacher literacy skills and astonishing that there has been virtually no public discussion of the potential impact on student learning,” said Ian Rosenblum, the Executive Director of Education Trust-New York, a non-profit advocacy organization that promotes high academic achievement for students of color and low-income students.

“We should be focusing on ensuring that prospective teachers receive the support they need in teacher preparation programs rather than weakening the teacher certification standards that can help ensure students have equitable access to strong educators,” he said.

The Academic Literacy Skills Test, one of the four exams aspiring teachers in New York must take to become certified, was introduced in 2013 to ensure teachers had strong language skills and to assess the ability to master the Common Core standards for English. Considered the hardest exam out of the four, it found that 32 percent of aspiring teachers statewide failed the test — even though it was passed by teachers who just met eighth-grade English standards.

The exam began to draw controversy when data from the State Education Department showed that only 41 percent of black test-takers and 46 percent of Hispanic test-takers passed on the first try, compared to 64 percent of white test takers. This disparate result also cut the pool of eligible teaching candidates by 20 percent in just one year.

A Manhattan Federal District Court judge in 2015 ruled that the ALST exam didn’t discriminate against minorities.

According to a report in the New York Times, Judge Kimba M. Wood ruled that just because racial minorities scored lower on the exam didn’t mean it was discriminatory. Wood determined that the state and Pearson, the company that creates the ALST exam, are doing a “proper job in making sure the content of the ALST is representative of the content of a New York State public school teacher’s job.”

State officials defended their vote to let the least literate teachers into classrooms.

“We’re not getting rid of literacy, so let’s dispel that right now,” said Kathleen Cashin, who chairs the board committee. “Just because the word ‘literacy’ is on the test doesn’t mean it’s a good test, does it? And if it’s not a good test, our students [teachers] shouldn’t be subjected to it.”

Cashin added, “It’s just that if you have a flawed test, does that raise standards or does that lower standards?”

State Education Commissioner MaryEllen Elia also supported the Board of Regents’s removal of the test. “The Regents and I continue to seek out expert advice from educators, parents and the public as we make important policy decisions,” Elia said, adding:

In this case, the experts and practitioners have suggested changes to our certification requirements that will help support teacher candidates and ensure students are taught by high-quality teachers while helping to address the national teacher shortage at the same time. New York’s teaching certification requirements remain some of the most rigorous in the country, requiring the vast majority of teaching candidates to pass three assessments before earning certification.

To replace the ALST, the New York State Education Department recommending on modifying one of the three remaining exams, the Educating All Students (EAS) test to “assesses both students’ ability to teach a diverse population and also their literacy skills.”

Since the federal ruling which supported the test, the Board of Regents, a powerful 17-member panel that sets education policy for New York, established an edTPA Task Force in 2016 to review issues with the teacher certification exams. According to

The Task Force subsequently complained about “the cost of the exam, the ongoing need for the exam in light of the other required exams and the total number of exams required for certification.”

Despite the 2015 ruling and findings from the Task Force that found no racial bias, members of the Task Force still claim the ALST exam has caused a shortage of minority teachers.

“Having a white workforce really doesn’t match our student body anymore,” Leslie Soodak, a professor at Pace University, who also serves as a member of the Task Force. “We want high standards, without a doubt. Not every given test is going to get us there.”

New York education leaders defended killing the test.

“The changes we advanced today strike the right balance for both teachers and students,” Board of Regents Chancellor Betty A. Rosa said in a statement. “Candidates for certification will still be required to demonstrate their teaching skills and knowledge before entering the classroom. At the same time, we are eliminating costly and unnecessary testing requirements that create unfair obstacles to certification for many applicants.”

According to the Albany Times-Union, Rosa slammed the critics who are critical of the changes, calling it “insulting.”

“We’ve got individuals out there who don’t even know what this [literacy] test looks like,” Rosa said. “The only thing they know is they hear the word ‘literacy’ and they don’t realize these people are going through a bachelor’s degree, English classes, writing classes. Getting a degree and all of that stuff becomes negated, and it’s so insulting that people make this an issue without having the complete story.”

The New York State United Teachers Union praised the removal of the test.

The changes adopted by the Regents will, when fixed, fix some of the worst problems associated with the botched roll-out of edTPA and high-stakes testing for aspiring teachers while maintaining high standards for those students who wish to enter the profession,” the teacher union said in a statement. “Eliminating the duplicative Academic Literacy Skills Test (ALST) — are pluses for students, and we support these changes.”

Advocates for better education were not mollified by the promise of from the anti-test advocates. 

“The Regents eliminating the ALST is again putting the interests of adults before our children,” Davids said. “By lowering the bar for prospective teachers to please the teachers union and sub-par, diploma mills, Schools of Education, the Regents is completely destroying the futures of Black and Latino students. The majority of students do not read, write or do math at grade level and we need teachers who are literate and effective.”

“It is important that we increase the share of black and Hispanic teachers, and we certainly don’t have enough here or anywhere, Sahm said. “I don’t think this is the way to go. This is a literacy exam. If you’re going to be a teacher in New York state, this is a criterion you should be able to meet.”


Thumb Your Nose at Usurping Judges

March 18, 2017

Thomas DiLorenzo


Source …..

Americans are ruled by a lawyereaucracy.   Most of our “citizen legislature” (i.e. Congress) is comprised of lawyers; executive branch agencies are crawling with them; and the federal judiciary is dominated by left-wing politicians posing as objective “judges.”  This last point was demonstrated once again when, after President Trump issued his revised “travel ban” executive order an old law school pal of Obama’s from Hawaii, who is now an Obama-nominated federal judge, issued another one of those lawyerly Decrees From Upon High declaring  the executive order null and void everywhere – not just in Hawaii.

This is a very old story:  Congress passes a law that the hardcore left-wing lawyereaucracy disapproves of; a leftist lawyer cherry picks a left-wing extremist judge somewhere, anywhere, to issue a decree invalidating Congress; and Congress (and everyone else) genuflects to the leftist lawyereaucracy’s wishes.

It wasn’t always that way in America.  As “progressive” icon Woodrow Wilson wrote triumphantly in his book, Constitutional Government in the United States (p. 178), “The War between the States established . . . this principle, that the federal government is, through its courts, the final judge of its own powers.”  No longer could the people of the “free and independent states,” as they are called in the Declaration of Independence, nullify a federal law that they thought was unconstitutional, as was very common prior to 1865.  No longer could a president or Congress even challenge the constitutional monopoly of the lawyereaucracy.

Prior to 1865 there were many instances of presidents, Congress, and the people of the free, independent, and sovereign states simply ignoring the opinions of the black-robed deities of the Supreme Court, under the quaint belief  that there are three branches of government, not just the judiciary branch, and on top of that, the people of the states also had and equal voice, as articulated in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.  New England states nullified the Jefferson/Madison trade embargo; Wisconsin and other states nullified the federal Fugitive Slave Act; Jefferson and Madison wrote articles of nullification regarding the suppression of free speech under the Sedition Act (the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves of 1798); South Carolina nullified the 1828 Tariff of Abominations; the New England states relied on the idea of state interposition or nullification to not participate in the War of 1812; and so on.

The words “judicial review” do not appear in the U.S. Constitution.  This was an invention of the Hamiltonian lawyer John Marshall when he was the chief justice of the U.S.  Judicial review existed, but it was not considered to be any more important than executive branch review, congressional review, or the review of the constitutionality of federal laws by the people of the free and independent states.  Perhaps the most famous example of this truth is how President Andrew Jackson responded to Marshall’s personal opinion that a bank run by politicians out of the nation’s capital, primarily for the benefit of politically-connected private stockholders in the government-subsidized bank, was constitutional.  In his veto message regarding the re-chartering of the Second Bank of the United States ( in 1832, Jackson wrote that “To this conclusion I can not assent.”  The states were opposed to the existence of such a bank by a four-to-one margin, he pointed out, and that carries more weight than the opinion of one man, John Marshall.

The opinions of the Supreme Court “ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government,” he wrote.  Furthermore:

The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution.  Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others.  It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision.  The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point  the President is independent of both.  The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities . . .

If President Trump were to begin defying the left-wing lawereaucracy, beginning with the absurd and ridiculously –worded ruling by Obama’s Hawaiian pal, he would be in sync with the man he looks up to as his presidential role model, Andrew Jackson.


Six-Time Deportee Arrested for Drunk Driving

March 18, 2017

John Binder


Source …..

An illegal immigrant recently arrested for drunk driving is facing deportation for the seventh time.

Obed Vasquez, 26, of Mexico, had been living in Mission, Texas, when he was pulled over in a vehicle and arrested by the Hidalgo Sheriff’s Office for possession of marijuana and drunk driving, according to CBS 4 News.

Vasquez pleaded guilty to the charges and has since been turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), where he is facing deportation on charges for illegally re-entering the United States.

In the criminal complaint, it was revealed that Vasquez was removed from the U.S. for the sixth time on June 28, 2016. Shortly after, Vasquez returned.

“The defendant claims to have illegally re-entered the United States on or about September 30, 2016 by wading the Rio Grande River at or near Hidalgo, Texas,” the complaint notes.


Countless teenage girls suffer paralysis, blood clots, brain damage and chronic pain from force-vaccination of Gardasil’s HPV “shot in the dark”

March 18, 2017


Source …..

A sexually transmitted disease called human papillomavirus (HPV) is the only form of cancer known to be contagious, but what the medical community won’t tell parents of teenagers and preteens is that HPV is easily defeated by a normal functioning immune system. Of the 120 or more different strains of HPV, only about 15 are carcinogenic, and the HPV vaccines, which have never been proven safe or effective in any clinical trials, literally take a shot in the dark at a couple of these strains, much like the haphazard flu shot administered every year to tens of millions of unsuspecting victims of neurological poisoning.

Still, the CDC and rogue hacks and shills from Big Pharma use scare tactics to all but force-vaccinate girls as young as 9-years-old with sodium chloride and two versions of the dormant HPV cancers hidden in protein and genetically modified organisms.

Scare tactics and medical propaganda con mothers into getting their young daughters jabbed with deadly neurotoxins

“You won’t be able to have children if you get cervical cancer.” “You can catch cancer from having sex and die.” “The shot will make you immune to cancer.” “The shot prevents cancer.” “You wanna have children later? You better get this shot.” The propaganda is mind-blowing, and it unfortunately works. It convinces parents to do the unthinkable: have their little girls (and boys) jabbed with some of the most dangerous carcinogens on earth to “prevent” a couple of strains of a rather benign, pre-cancerous STD. It doesn’t even make sense. What’s even worse is that the HPV vaccine’s protection effect wears off after a few years (as does the cancer itself under normal immune conditions), so what’s the use of taking the risk of getting jabbed with all these neurotoxins? Just how young are kids becoming promiscuous enough to worry about STDs anyhow?

More than 10,000 adverse events have been reported from victims of the HPV scam, including blood clots in the heart and lungs, anaphylactic shock, loss of muscle use and seizures. Most infections from HPV are benign and cleared rapidly by the human immune system and never progress to cervical cancer, or even precancerous lesions of the vagina, vulva or anus. No valid reason for administering the HPV vaccine has ever even been established.

Why are HPV vaccines, like Gardasil (made by Merck) and Cervarix (made by GSK) so dangerous? Answer: They’re made with “denatured” forms and fragmented strains of the virus, meaning the virus is weakened and can remain dormant for months, if not years, so if you do get the virus later, who’s to say you didn’t get it from the vaccine itself? No studies on this have ever been conducted, nor will they likely ever be. Plus, Gardasil contains aluminum, sodium chloride, polysorbate 80 and l-histidine, the latter of which interferes with the brain’s defenses against metal toxins. That means the aluminum has a heightened chance of crossing the blood/brain barrier. Got brain damage? No wonder. The following are just four examples of the hundreds (if not thousands) of girls permanently damaged by HPV vaccines.

Case I: 13-year old Norwegian girl never consented to Gardasil; now her face is half-paralyzed

Caroline is now 15 years old. She used to run, cycle and play football. At 13 years of age, two nurses force-vaccinated Caroline with Gardasil (one nurse literally held her down while the other stuck the needle in her), even after her mother had given notice that if she did not want it, she must not be given it. Within a few days, Caroline’s face became paralyzed. Doctors blamed Caroline’s condition on the fact that she was grieving her grandmother who had died six months earlier. Caroline only got one of the three recommended HPV jabs. She now feels pain throughout her body, suffers from poor memory and heart palpitations, and has breathing difficulties. She can’t walk or cycle much or her legs go weak and lose feeling. She is mostly bedridden. The nurses responsible have visited her home and told them not to ever mention the vaccine in connection with Caroline’s health problems or they will scare other children.

Case II: Healthy, athletic 13-year old girl’s menstrual period abruptly ends after toxic Gardasil jab

Back in November of 2014, Laura, a now 15-year-old girl living in Michigan, was a healthy, straight-A student and avid volleyball player. After the first Gardasil shot she got her first period, then never got a period again. After a second HPV jab, severe headaches kicked in, then constipation, nausea, brain fog and extreme abdominal pains, as attested by Laura and her parents. While Laura was sick from the first two toxic jabs, their “trusted” pediatrician conned and “guilted” them into getting a third HPV injection for Laura in order to further “protect her from cancer.” The doctor said, “While you’re here, you might as well get the third.”

Then, after the third toxic Gardasil jab, Laura’s skin turned a greenish-hue, her hair started falling out and she started experiencing intolerable muscle spasms to the point where she could no longer play volleyball. Her legs went weak like “Jello.” After the third jab, Laura was hospitalized for a full week, and her parents consulted seven doctors, who administered MRIs and CAT scans and prescribed anti-seizure medication. The doctors, according to the family, were rude and all denied any link to Gardasil.

One doctor went so far as to tell Laura that her severe health problems were “all in her head.” Since then, the family has completely stopped vaccinating all of their children and changed over to a doctor that does not push vaccines. Laura’s father, who is a school principal, is very angry about the whole extended health nightmare, saying, “You don’t know until something happens to you.”

Case III: Sydney Weggen of Iowa got the Gardasil jab in conjunction with Tdap vaccine, became anemic and one of her lungs filled with fluid

Sydney used to dance five hours a day, but can no longer dance at all. At just 11 years of age, she received three Gardasil STD jabs just a few months apart. After spending $20,000 on medical tests, losing over 20 pounds and getting a stint put into her lung to drain fluid and keep it functioning, Sydney almost died.

Case IV: Kate died at age 19 after suffering horrific pain for three years from Gardasil vax

The film VAXXED, produced by Del Bigtree, tells the story of the biggest medical scandal and cover-up in U.S. history regarding the dangers of vaccines. The film crew continues to interview parents and children who suffer from vaccine injuries and want to tell their stories to the world to help protect others from similar nightmares. One mother tells the story of the biggest regret of her life: allowing her teenage daughter Kate to receive the Gardasil HPV vaccine, here.

Want to build up natural immunity to cancer? Check out medicinal mushrooms like reishi and chaga, as well as garlic, vitamin C and D3, oil of oregano, licorice root, and of course, hemp seed oil. It’s all natural and perfectly legal, with no side effects!

Sources for this article include:


Judge Considers Ordering President Donald Trump to Double 50,000 Refugee Inflow to the United States

March 17, 2017

Neil Munro


Source …..

A federal District Court judge in Maryland is considering whether he should order President Donald Trump to double the annual inflow of refugees up to 100,000 per year.

Any demand by the judge that the federal government airbus an extra 50,000 migrants — including many adherents of Islam’s sharia legal system — into American neighborhoods would be an unusual intervention into government roles normally left to the elected President and Congress.

If actually implemented, the judge’s plan also would be extremely expensive for Americans, because state and local communities subsidize each new immigrant with roughly $1,600 each per year for decades.

The judge revealed his proposal in a footnote in his March 15 decision where he denounced Trump’s reformist Executive Orders, which sharply curbs the inflow of refugees from war-torn Islamic countries. The judge’s footnote declared:

On February 22, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction of S 5(d) of the Executive Order, ECF No. 64, requesting that the Court enjoin a specific provision of the First Executive Order. With the agreement of the parties, the Court set a briefing and hearing schedule extending to March 28, 2017. The Court will resolve that Motion, which the parties have agreed should be construed to apply to the successor provision of the Second Executive Order, in accordance with the previously established schedule.

The language targeted by the judge is in Trump’s first version of the Executive Order, the Jan. 27 E.O. 13769, “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.” The language announced the government’s intention to halve the annual inflow of refugees from the 100,000 level sought by former President Barack Obama, who frequently derided Americans for getting “attached to our particular tribe.”

According to Section 5 of Trump’s January E.O.:

(d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.

Similar language appears in Section 6(b) of the upgraded March 6 E.O. 13780, also titled “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.”

(b) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any entries in excess of that number until such time as I determine that additional entries would be in the national interest.

The plaintiffs’ request for 100,000 refugees each year was made by lawyers for the International Refugee Assistance Protect, HIAS Inc., a so-called “VOLAG” which is paid by federal agencies to import refugees, and by members of the Middle East Studies Association.

“Judge Chuang’s ruling … leaves the door open for further discussion of our challenges to the refugee ban, an opening we intend to pursue,” said a March 15 statement from HIAS. “So stay tuned for more news as our lawsuit continues.”  HIAS received at least $19.5 million in government grants in 2014, according to its federal 990 form.

HIAS employees did not answer calls and emailed questions from Breitbart.

Trump’s decision to reduce the annual inflow of refugees was promised and debated during the 2016 campaign. Based on his promise to the voters, Trump won, much to the distress of progressives. Multiple polls show Trump’s immigration reforms are popular.

The law cited by Trump, Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, gives the President near-complete power over who gets into the United States, according to a January 2017 report by Congress’ Congressional Research Service. The critical language declares, at 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (f)  that:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate

Section 214(a)(1) of the same law says that the “admission of any alien to the United States as a nonimmigrant shall be for such time and under such conditions as [the Executive] may by regulations prescribe.”

The President’s authority over immigration is bolstered by Supreme Court decisions. For example, the court declared in its 1950 judgment lawsuit, titled Knauff v. Shaughnessy, that “It is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by [congressional] law, to review the determination of the political branch of Government to exclude a given alien.”

In 2015, the Court reasserted that judgment, saying in Kerry v. Din, that:

Din attempts to bring suit on [her Afghan husband’s] behalf, alleging that the Government’s denial of her husband’s visa application violated her constitutional rights… In particular, she claims that the Government denied her due process of law when, without adequate explanation of the reason for the visa denial, it deprived her of her constitutional right to live in the United States with her spouse. There is no such constitutional right.

Already, the law and the Supreme Court’s rulings prompted a judge in Boston, Mass., to reject another lawsuit the Massachusetts’ government against Trump’s E.O. “Therefore, in light of the“plenary congressional power to make policies and rules for exclusion of aliens,” … which pursuant to8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), has been delegated to the President, the Court concludes that the [federal] government’s reasons, as provided in the EO, are facially legitimate and bona fide,” the judge declared Feb. 3. 


Plaintiff behind Trump travel ban runs Muslim Brotherhood mosque

March 17, 2017

Leo Hohmann


Source …..

The main plaintiff in the Hawaii case blocking President Trump’s revised temporary travel ban is an imam with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The irony is hard to miss: Trump has talked about declaring the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, and now it is a Brotherhood-backed imam who is playing a key role in blocking his executive order on immigration.

Imam Ismail Elshikh, 39, leads the largest mosque in Hawaii and claims he is suffering “irreparable harm” from the president’s executive order, which places a 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. from six countries.

One of those six countries is Syria. Elshikh’s mother in law is Syrian and would not be able to visit her family in Hawaii for 90 days if Trump’s ban were allowed to go into effect.

Hawaii’s Obama-appointed federal judge, Derrick Watson, made sure the ban did not go into effect, striking it down Wednesday while buying Hawaii’s claim that it amounts to a “Muslim ban.” The state’s attorney general, along with co-plaintiff Elshikh, claims the ban would irreparably harm the state’s tourism industry and its Muslim families.

According to the lawsuit:

“Plaintiffs allege that the Executive Order subjects portions of the State’s population, including Dr. Elshikh and his family, to discrimination in violation of both the Constitution and the INA, denying them their right, among other things, to associate with family members overseas on the basis of their religion and national origin. The State purports that the Executive Order has injured its institutions, economy, and sovereign interest in maintaining the separation between church and state.”

The vast majority of Hawaii’s roughly 5,000 Muslims attend Elshikh’s mosque, the Muslim Association of Hawaii, which is located in a residential area of Manoa, Honolulu. The mosque, despite its ties to what many believe is an extremist and subversive organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, may now hold the key to whether the Trump travel ban passes muster in the federal court system.

Elshikh was born and raised in Cairo, Egypt, the home base of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose stated goal is to spread Shariah law throughout the world.

The proof that his mosque is affiliated with the Brotherhood is found in the court records for Honolulu County, which lists the deed holder as the North American Islamic Trust.

John Guandolo, a former FBI counter-terrorism specialist and now private consultant to law enforcement at Understanding the Threat, said all mosques under the “Muslim Association of” moniker are typically affiliated with the Brotherhood.

But the clincher in this case is that the mosque property is traced to NAIT, “confirming it is a Muslim Brotherhood organization,” Guandolo told WND in an email.

The Trump administration has said it is considering banning the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. by including it on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations.

NAIT is one of more than 200 unindicted co-conspirators named in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing trial of 2007-08 in Dallas, Texas. The organization has direct ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, as documented by the FBI in evidence presented at the trial. (See Sec. VII, Page 8 of court document.)

NAIT is a financial subsidiary of the Islamic Society of North America and holds the deed to more than 325 mosques in 42 U.S. states that are controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, according to Discover the Networks.

“Because NAIT controls the purse strings of these many properties, it can exercise ultimate authority over what they teach and what activities they conduct. Specifically, the Trust seeks to ensure that the institutions under its financial influence promote the principles of Sharia law and Wahhabism,” according to Discover the Networks.

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 in Cairo, Egypt, by Hassan al-Banna. It has been banned by Egypt’s current regime, as well as in Saudi Arabia, Russia and the United Arab Emirates.

A bill in Congress, the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2015-16, has been languishing in committee since November 2015. House Speaker Paul Ryan has not advanced the bill or done anything to promote it.

Several members of the Trump administration have said they favor declaring the Brotherhood a terrorism organization, but so far that has not happened. One high-level Trump adviser, Mike Flynn, said he was in favor of banning the Brotherhood before he was forced to resign for misleading Vice President Mike Pence and other top White House officials about his conversations with the Russian ambassador to the United States.Trump’s secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, described the Brotherhood as “an agent of radical Islam” during his Senate confirmation hearing.

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton told Breitbart News last month that the U.S. should declare the Brotherhood a terrorist organization.

“The fact is, the Brotherhood is a front for terrorism,” he said. “A number of Arab majority-Muslim countries, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, have already designated it as a terrorist organization. I’ve had Muslim leaders from the Middle East say to me, ‘Are you people blind to what’s going on right in front of you and the role that the Brotherhood performs, really on an international basis?’”

But instead of banning the Brotherhood, the U.S. is letting a Brotherhood-backed imam dictate U.S. refugee and visa policy, Guandolo said.

Judge Watson, who was a Harvard law classmate of Barack Obama’s, issued an injunction halting Trump’s executive order from going into effect, agreeing with Hawaii’s claim that the temporary ban, 90 days on visa travelers and 120 days for refugees, would irreparably harm the state’s tourism industry and its Muslim families.

As for refugees, Hawaii takes very few. Of the 49 states participating in the federal refugee resettlement program, only Mississippi has taken in fewer refugees than Hawaii since 2002. Only 127 refugees have been sent to Hawaii since 2002, and nearly zero have been Muslims from the six nations on Trump’s list. The vast majority sent to Hawaii have been from Burma and Vietnam.

The six nations on Trump’s list for a 90-day moratorium on visas and a 120-day pause on refugee resettlement are Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Sudan and Somalia.

Of the 127 refugees Hawaii has taken since the State Department started keeping online records in 2002, only one refugee has been from a country on Trump’s list, Iran, according to the State Department’s Refugee Processing Center database.

“There was one refugee from Iran who went to Hawaii and that probably was a Christian. That is the majority of what we are taking from Iran are Christians,” said Ann Corcoran, editor of Refugee Resettlement Watch, which has been tracking resettlements in the U.S. for the past 10 years. “The biggest group were from Burma and Vietnam, and there were none from Africa, so what we have in Hawaii are a bunch of hypocrites whining about ‘irreparable harm’ from pausing refugee resettlement when, in fact, they take hardly any refugees and almost no Muslim refugees.”

%d bloggers like this: