Lies, damned lies and statistics

Benjamin Disraeli was one of England’s most notable prime ministers. Around the English-speaking world he may be most remembered for a funny, but true, statement he once made.

He quipped that there were three types of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.

It’s the latter lie I want to focus on.

The statistics we hear, and “what the numbers say,” are incredibly vague. We hear about unemployment, payrolls or inflation and we generally take them at face value, assuming that they’re pretty straightforward measurements.

And when a number comes out, the news tells us the markets are “reacting” to that. We figure the market pros know what those numbers mean, even if we have trouble sorting through all the data. We let the markets decide.

But that has never been a good strategy, because, as we’re all painfully aware, the “market” is people making decisions, and people will go until things break. It’s never been about sustaining a long-term growth trend. It’s about exploiting a sector, blowing that bubble until it bursts and then finding the next market to inflate.

Worse, the statistics we’re told matter don’t really matter more than others that are buried, especially in an election year. In a major election year it’s in the best interests of Wall Street and Pennsylvania Avenue to put lipstick on the economy.

The politicians want people energized to go vote and the markets get to look like mighty free market engine of the U.S. economy. And so they not only choose the statistics they want to share and pay attention to, but they also find ways to build them so they suit their purposes.

One classic example is this site’s comparison of the Consumer Price Index and the government’s version. Basically, it takes the current government version of inflation and compares it to the how it was calculated before 1990, and before 1980. By comparing the methods you see vast differences in what the “real” inflation rate looks like — it’s four to seven times higher using the old ways of calculating inflation than the current model shows.

To drill down a little more, let’s use the Mylan EpiPen controversy. The EpiPen was discovered using U.S. government research and was available for a very reasonable price — initially. Then Mylan bought it. It moved its headquarters to Ireland to avoid paying U.S. taxes and raised the price 548 percent over the past eight years.

There were no R&D costs to recoup and an expanding market for EpiPens due to lobbying the government to have it on hand at government schools… you get the idea.

I’m not bringing this up to debate corporate taxes or drug companies’ greed. It’s bigger than that. And it’s bigger than EpiPens.

In the healthcare sector there are two measures of inflation. One is consumer based — how much individuals are paying for healthcare out of pocket. The other is corporate based — how much insurance companies paid for healthcare claims by their customers.

In the Mylan case, the cost was shifted from the insurers to the customer, so much of that price increase  (as well as scores of other medications, treatments and surgeries) was passed on to the consumer, which would be a rise in inflationary costs for consumers.

But the Federal Reserve doesn’t look at the consumer based model. It looks at healthcare inflation from the corporate side. And there, costs aren’t going up quickly because they’re shifting their costs onto consumers.

This is simple example of how the government supports big business at the expense of its citizens.

Other examples are in home sales, office space and consumer spending. Healthcare is not unique. It’s a simple illustration of how the current U.S. government is set up for corporate interests, not individuals. The “people” that matter are corporations, not citizens.

One other stat worth mentioning here: in July investors sold more of their hedge fund assets than they have since February 2009. And it was the second straight month of outflows. These are Wall Street’s elite insiders. This is a troubling sign.

And it’s one of many warning signs that the stock market — and the bond market — are on thin ice here.

Stay away from all stocks here. Small caps (stocks with a market cap under $2 billion) are on a roll here but that’s simply because large cap gains are exhausted. It’s not a sustainable rally.

Here you look for safe ports in the storm. If you own what I call “Century Stocks” — stocks that have been around for more than 100 years — or precious metals like gold and silver, or both, you’re in a much better position to weather the next correction profitably.

— GS Early

The post Lies, damned lies and statistics appeared first on Personal Liberty®.

from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2016/09/01/lies-damned-lies-and-statistics/

from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2016/08/31/lies-damned-lies-and-statistics/

Gold and silver outrun all paper currencies

I began publishing my monthly newsletter The Bob Livingston Letter™ (subscription required) in 1969. The following appeared in the September 2006 issue where I reinforced my earlier call (from February 2006) for readers to buy silver. Silver was early in a run that would take it from $8.65/ ounce in August of 2005 to more than $51 when it hit its peak in April 2011. So while silver was returning a 493 percent increase, the Dow increased 8 percent and the S&P increased 4 percent. Indications are we are once again on the cusp of a bear market and I’m again urging readers to buy gold and silver – including junk silver – to  hold in their possession. 

 

Once before we wrote that gold broke out against all currencies. Now look at silver for 2005 against the currencies. Silver was itself the world’s strongest currency. It rose by 29 percent against the U.S. dollar, 46.9 percent against the Japanese yen, and 47.7 percent against the Euro.

The upside for silver is very high. I still consider it to be a good buy. As I said before, silver is ready to go into circulation again as money as the U.S. dollar goes down. It looks like present coinage. It is still legal tender. I fully expect a silver dime to again someday fetch a loaf of bread. For everyday barter or exchange, I don’t think silver can be beat. Your gold is for large items. Besides all of this, your dollar profits will be unbelievable. Look at what has happened since we last recommended that you buy the “junk” silver… that is U.S. pre-1965 silver coins in dimes, quarters, and half dollars.

You can buy mixed bags as well. My wife loves silver dimes because that’s all she had as a girl on the farm. She remembers how much those silver dimes would buy.

Editor’s note: The best way to buy silver and gold is from a reputable local coin dealer. Look for one with a good Better Business Bureau history that has been in the community for a long time. That way you can see what you’re buying  and evaluate who you are buying from. Also, I recommend buying with cash so there is no record of your purchase. Store it in a fire-proof safe secreted somewhere in your home, and tell only one or two of your most trusted friends and family members that you have and where it is. For more options for buying precious metals, see “How to buy gold.” For more storage options, see “How to securely store precious metals” and “Keep your gold safe.”  — BL

The post Gold and silver outrun all paper currencies appeared first on Personal Liberty®.

from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2016/09/01/gold-and-silver-outrun-all-paper-currencies/

from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2016/08/31/gold-and-silver-outrun-all-paper-currencies/

Illegals steal 1 million Social Security Numbers, IRS turns blind eye

The IRS inspector general says the tax-collection agency is aware of more than one million illegal immigrants stealing Social Security numbers of citizens to file tax returns, yet has done virtually nothing to stop the practice and has not even notified the Americans victimized by identity fraud.

According to reports, the IRS has been aware of the problem for at least five years but nothing has been done to combat it. A test program to combat the fraud was scrapped and was deemed to be thoroughly insufficient anyway.

Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., won his seat in Congress by toppling sitting House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in 2014, running on combating illegal immigration and promoting fiscal discipline. He told WND and Radio America this is a textbook case of the government ignoring one of its fundamental responsibilities.

“I used to teach ethics for 18 years at the college level, along with economics. You can’t make up a case study that is this crazy,” Brat said. “I think I would give the students a migraine if they had to piece together the logic of everything that’s wrong here.”

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

Brat said there’s really only one explanation for the IRS ignoring this problem.

“The politics are inescapable,” he said. “At the top of the tickets, we have Trump, who is going to be tough on illegal immigration, and Hillary Clinton, who wants a 500 percent increase in some of the categories of illegal immigration, the refugee crisis, etc.”

He concludes this dereliction is the result of politics based in part on his own encounter with embattled IRS Commissioner John Koskinen at a congressional hearing.

“Koskinen was in front of us, and I asked him, ‘If you know that you have illegal aliens and they’re asking for tax refunds or asking for any tax status, would you do anything about it?’ He said no. I was stunned,” said Brat, who noted that Koskinen made the same assertion in Senate testimony.

“When he says it’s not my job to report illegal, much less unethical behavior, we’ve got a problem,” Brat said.

Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va.:

http://ift.tt/1UyqoPZ

if(typeof(jQuery)==”function”){(function($){$.fn.fitVids=function(){}})(jQuery)};
jwplayer(‘jwplayer_l2488jSN_pszPfxYQ_div’).setup(
{“playlist”:”http://ift.tt/2cgcXEz”}
);

Brat said that sort of brazen defiance shows an agency that does not remember who it works for.

“Your ethical duty is to the American people,” he said. “If they are now in harm’s way because their information has been stolen, my goodness, you have to let your constituents know. And they failed that test as well, much less going after the illegals, which I’m sure would be at the bottom of the priority list.”

Brat also cited Koskinen for disregarding the rule of law, but he added that problem extends throughout the Obama administration.

“The premise in the first place has to be that you believe in the rule of law,” he said. “So illegal immigrants who offend while they’re here, violating the law. So it’s two strikes, and then this kind of a breach that effects the American people directly is strike three. We need to take action, and we know President Obama won’t. We know Loretta Lynch won’t.”

That leaves the job to other prominent leaders.

“It’s up to leadership on the Republican side,” Brat said. “Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell need to step up and represent the American people when their rights are being violated and when their own personal, private financial information is being hijacked by folks who mean to do them harm. There’s no other conclusion.”

Get the hottest, most important news stories on the Internet – delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as they break! Take just 30 seconds and sign up for WND’s Email News Alerts!

Just prior to the current summer recess, members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus introduced a “privileged resolution” demanding a House vote to impeach Koskinen. Brat said this latest episode makes removing Koskinen a no-brainer.

“It’s a softball one foot in diameter going one mile an hour over home plate. If you can’t hit that, you’ve got problems,” Brat said. “I hope leadership takes it up and runs with it because it’s the right thing to do, and the American people will applaud us.”

But he said leadership remains reluctant to pursue impeachment of Koskinen despite a laundry list of serious allegations.

“We’ve had a little push-back from our own leadership,” Brat said. “I do not understand why. People across the United States are upset enough with the IRS targeting of conservatives and ethical breaches in the past. They’ve withheld evidence. They’ve destroyed evidence. And now you get stories like this.

“For some reason, leadership doesn’t want to fight on this one. I think they just don’t want to rock the boat before an election, but elections are about serving the American people.”

Brat admits impeachment is not a tool to be wielded lightly, but he said it is thoroughly warranted in Koskinen’s case.

“There are high standards, and you’re going to set a precedent, but this is a pretty good precedent,” he said. “I don’t think you need to be Harvard Law to understand this is a pretty good precedent when you have the head of the IRS involved in so many unethical and illegal activities at the same time.”

from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2016/09/01/illegals-steal-1-million-social-security-numbers-irs-turns-blind-eye/

from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2016/08/31/illegals-steal-1-million-social-security-numbers-irs-turns-blind-eye/

Supremes kill popular voter-ID law in 4-4 ruling

In a stunning decision that other states may want to be monitoring closely, the Supreme Court on Wednesday, on a 4-4 split, left standing a lower appeals court decision that gutted North Carolina’s voter ID provisions.

The plan by the state to protect the integrity of its elections had been affirmed in a nearly 500-page decision by a district court judge, but this summer a panel from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals claimed it targeted minority voters.

The single-page order from the Supreme Court provided no explanation at all for the decision, but it revealed Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas would have given the state at least temporary relief until the full arguments were heard.

Ruth Ginsberg, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer, the well-established liberal coalition on the bench, turned their backs on the state.

It means the state’s planned cutbacks on early voting, limits on the preregistration of those who are 16 and more, won’t be on the books for the 2016 election.

An analysis at Scotusblog explained North Carolina lawmakers adopted the law after the 2013 Shelby County decision which banished a federal plan to determine “which state and local governments must obtain advance approval for any changes to their voting rules.

Trust the government? Maybe you shouldn’t. Read the details in “Lies the Government Told You,” by Judge Andrew Napolitano.

They proposed having voters show one of a multitude of government-issued photo IDs, reduce the number of days for early voting and “eliminate out-of-precinct voting, same-day voter registration” and the preregistration.

Then the lower appeals court panel claimed the law “hinges explicitly on race – specifically its concern that African Americans, who had overwhelmingly voted for Democrats, had too much access to” voting, the analysis said.

The state had wanted the high court to allow enforcement of several of the key provisions for 2016, but the decision rejected that request.

The lead lawyer for the state, Paul Clement, had explained in court filings the appeals court had tossed a law that was more “sensitive” than similar laws in other states.

The Obama administration, which has run a number of programs that have had the impact of creating additional Democrat voters, such as releasing felons from prisons, suggested strongly that the court should not agree with the state’s request.

“Once an electoral law has been found to be racially discriminatory, and injunctive relief has been found to be necessary to remedy that discrimination, the normal rule is that the operation of the law must be suspended,” wrote acting Ian Gershengorn, of the solicitor general’s office.

In July, the 4th Circuit said, “The [district] court seems to have missed the forest in carefully surveying the many trees. This failure of perspective led the court to ignore critical facts bearing on legislative intent, including the inextricable link between race and politics in North Carolina.”

About the same time, a Rasmussen Reports poll showed 76 percent of Americans support photo voter ID laws.

A separate court decision also recently said that Texas’ voter ID law violates the Voting Rights Act.

And two years ago, a statement from Obama seemed to support the perspective that his administration’s attacks on voter ID laws were a “con job.”

That was when the DOJ was arguing against Texas’ law, in alignment with the governments almost exclusive attacks on GOP-majority southern states.

The New York Times reported testimony in the Texas case could come from Imani Clark, 22, a college student who used to vote in Waller County using her student ID but has not voted since the law took effect. She claims she doesn’t have an approved form of ID and no access to a car or public transportation to travel to a state office to apply.

But a new confession from Obama himself, reported by The Hill, could be a game-changer.

“Most of these laws are not preventing the overwhelming majority of folks who don’t vote from voting,” Obama said in a radio interview with civil rights activist Rev. Al Sharpton. “Most people do have an ID. Most people do have a driver’s license. Most people can get to the polls. It may not be as convenient. It may be a little more difficult.”

In short, Obama affirmed, minorities aren’t hindered from voting because of voter-ID laws.

“The bottom line is, if less than half of our folks vote, these laws aren’t preventing the other half from not voting. The reason we don’t vote is because people have been fed this notion that somehow it’s not going to make a difference. And it makes a huge difference,” Obama was quoted saying.

“If we have a high turnout in North Carolina, then we will win. If we have a high turnout in Georgia, we will win. If we have a high turnout in Colorado, we will win. So, across the board, it is important for us to take responsibility and not give away our power,” Obama said.

DOJ attacks on state laws have come in Texas, Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida.

The description of Obama’s DOJ campaign regarding voting rights as a “con job” comes from Hans S. von Spakovksy and J. Christian Adams in a commentary published by the Heritage Foundation.

Their argument came up when online gatekeeper Politifact released a list purporting to be more than 100 voting cases pursued by the DOJ.

Obama had made a reference to the cases in a speech to Sharpton’s National Action Network earlier this year.

He said his administration had “taken on more than 100 voting-rights cases since 2009, and they’ve defended the rights of everybody from African Americans to Spanish speakers to soldiers serving overseas.”

Reality, the two wrote at Heritage, is “far less impressive.” That’s because among the cases listed are dozens that were brought against the Justice Department alleging that it was not doing what it should to protect someone’s voting rights.

“It even includes cases where the DOJ wasn’t even a party but had filed a single amicus curiae (‘friend of the court’) brief,” they reported. “In other words, in these cases the DOJ did not, in its view, have a strong enough interest in protecting minority voting rights to do what it usually does in such cases – file a motion to intervene and become an actual party.”

They said the list actually includes 28 cases “approving a ‘bailout’ from the Voting Rights Act – that is, cases in which the Justice Department agreed to extinguish the special protections that the Voting Rights Act affords to minorities.”

“It also seems frankly a little much to claim credit for cases in which courts dismissed DOJ claims as not being credible, such as State of South Carolina v. United States. … In that case, a three-judge federal panel threw out DOJ’s claims that South Carolina’s voter-ID law was discriminatory.”

Actually, they pointed out, the DOJ fought a move by residents of a 65 percent black town in North Carolina to change municipal elections from partisan to nonpartisan. The DOJ argued, until its attorneys could no longer support the claim, that “it was discriminatory because black voters would not know whom to vote for if there was no party label next to a candidate’s name.”

“In giving this trumped-up case list to Politifact, the Obama administration made one thing quite clear: It is trying to mislead the public. For all of its talk, it has filed far fewer lawsuits to enforce the Voting Rights Act than the Bush administration did,” the commentary said.

The National Conference of State Legislatures documents that 34 states have laws requesting or requiring voters to show identification at polls. Thirty-three are in force for 2016.

“The remaining 17 states use other methods to verify the identity of voters. Most frequently, other identifying information provided at the polling place, such a a signature, is checked against information of file.”

The Supreme Court decision, however, raises questions about whether those requirements will be allowed to stand, and for how long.

Trust the government? Maybe you shouldn’t. Read the details in “Lies the Government Told You,” by Judge Andrew Napolitano.

from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2016/09/01/supremes-kill-popular-voter-id-law-in-4-4-ruling/

from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2016/08/31/supremes-kill-popular-voter-id-law-in-4-4-ruling/

Trump gives juicy details on his immigration plan

GOP nominee Donald Trump (Photo: Twitter)

GOP nominee Donald Trump delivered his highly anticipated speech spelling out his “broader vision” on immigration policy in Phoenix, Arizona, on Wednesday.

At the event, which took place at the Phoenix Convention Center, Trump presented a range of policy proposals to stop the influx of illegal immigrants entering America through the porous U.S.-Mexico border.

To fix America’s immigration system, Trump said, “We must change our leadership in Washington, and we must change it quickly.”

He said, “The truth is, our immigration system is worse than anybody ever realized.”

What do YOU think? Who will win the race for the White House? Sound off in today’s WND poll

But he said the mainstream media won’t report the truth on the issue – and politicians aren’t motivated to fix it.

“The fundamental problem with the immigration system in our country is that it serves the needs of wealthy interest, political activists, and powerful politicians,” he said.

When politicians speak of immigration reforms, they talk about amnesty, he said. But Trump said it should mean improving policies and making life better for American citizens.

“We have to be honest about the fact that not everyone who wants to join this country will assimilate.”

Trump listed a number of Americans who were killed and victimized by “illegal immigrants with criminal records a mile long.”

Trump noted that, in many cases, “Illegal immigrants are treated better than our vets.”

He continued, “The central issue is not the needs of the 11 million illegal immigrants … It will never be a central issue. It doesn’t matter from that standpoint. Anyone who tells you that the core issue is the needs of those living here illegally has simply spent too much time here in Washington.”

“There is only one core issue in the immigration debate, and that issue is the well-being of the American people. Nothing even comes a close second.”

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

Trump blasted President Obama and Hillary Clinton for supporting sanctuary cities, the release of dangerous illegal immigrant criminals, and executive amnesty.

“We have no idea who these people are, where they come from,” he said.

He criticized Clinton’s plans to bring more unscreened refugees into the U.S.

“What is wrong with our leaders, if we can call them that? What the hell are we doing?” he asked.

Trump’s plan

Trump outlined the following plan Wednesday evening:

• “We will build a great wall along the southern border. And Mexico will pay for the wall. 100%. They don’t know it yet, but they’re going to pay for the wall.” On Day 1, Trump said we will begin working on an impenetrable, tall, powerful, beautiful southern wall. He promised to use above and below-ground sensors, aerial surveillance and increased manpower. He said he will find and destroy tunnels.

• “We are going to end catch and release. Under my administration, anyone who illegally crosses the border will be detained until they are removed out of our country and [sent] back to the country from which they came.” Trump said his administration will “take them to the country where they came from.”

• “Zero tolerance for criminal aliens, zero, zero, zero! They don’t come in here.” Trump said, according to federal data, there are at least 2 million “criminal aliens” inside America. “We will begin moving them out, Day 1, as soon as I take office, Day 1, in joint operation with local, state and federal law enforcement. … Day 1, my first hour in office, those people are gone. You can call it deported if you want. The press doesn’t like that term. You can call it whatever the hell you want, they’re gone!”

• “We will issue detainers for illegal immigrants who are arrested for any crime whatsoever and they will be placed into immediate removal proceedings, if we even have to do that.” Trump said he will terminate the Obama administration’s non-enforcement policies that allow illegal aliens to roam the streets of America committing crimes without consequence. “My plan also includes cooperating closely with local jurisdictions to remove criminal aliens immediately.”

• On his first day in office, Trump said he will ask Congress to pass Kate’s Law, named for Kate Steinle. He also pledged to push for passage of the Davis-Oliver Act to enhance cooperation between authorities and ensure criminal aliens are deported quickly.

• Trump pledged to triple the number of ICE deportation offices across America. “We will turn the tables, and law enforcement and our police will be able to clear up this dangerous and threatening mess.”

• “We’re also going to hire 5,000 more border agents … and put more of them on the border instead of behind desks.” He said his administration will expand the number of Border Patrol offices significantly.

• Block funding for sanctuary cities. “We will end the sanctuary cities that have resulted in so many needless deaths.”

• Cancel unconstitutional executive orders and enforce all immigration laws. “We will immediately terminate President Obama’s two illegal executive amnesties.”

• “Suspend the issuance of visas to any place where adequate screening cannot occur.” Trump said, as soon as he enters office, he will ask the Department of State, Homeland Security, and the Department of Justice to develop a list of countries from which immigration must be suspended until an “extreme” vetting process can be put in place. Such countries include Syria and Libya, he said. “We are going to stop the tens of thousands of people coming from Syria.” Trump called for new screening tests for all applicants that include an “ideological certification to ensure that those admitted to our country share our values and love our people.”

• “We will ensure that other countries take their people back when we order them deported. There are at least 23 countries that refuse to take their people back after they have entered the United States. … Not gonna happen with me, folks. Not gonna happen with me.”

• “We will finally complete the biometric entry-exit visa tracking system, which we need desperately. … We will ensure that this system is in place. It will be in land, it will be on sea, in air.”

• “We will turn off the jobs and benefits magnet. We will ensure that E-verify is used to the fullest extent possible under existing law.” Trump said he will work with Congress to expand E-verify.

• “We will reform legal immigration to serve the best interests of America and its workers, the forgotten people, workers.”

Meeting with Mexican president

Before the big event in Phoenix, Trump met with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto in Mexico City Wednesday.

At the meeting, Nieto said illegal immigration into the U.S. has slowed down consistently in the last 10 years. He said Trump presents “an incomplete version” of border issues between the countries because he “doesn’t account for the illegal flow” of cash in firearms flowing into Mexico from the U.S.

“Every year, millions of dollars and weapons come in from the north that strengthen the cartels and other criminal organizations that generate violence in Mexico,” Nieto said, adding that American criminals benefit from illicit drug sales.

Nieto also defended the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, saying it’s good for both Mexico and the U.S.

Trump has called NAFTA a “disaster” and pledged to renegotiate the trade agreement.

“I’m going tell our NAFTA partners that I intend to immediately renegotiate the terms of that agreement to get a better deal for our workers. And I don’t mean just a little bit better, I mean a lot better,” Trump said in June. “If they do not agree to a renegotiation, then I will submit notice under Article 2205 of the NAFTA agreement that America intends to withdraw from the deal.”

Trump called Wednesday’s talk “substantive” and “direct.”

“As you know, I love the United States very much, and I want to make sure the people of the United States are protected,” he said.

Trump added, “No one wins in either country when human smugglers and drug traffickers prey on innocent people, when cartels commit acts of violence, when illegal weapons and cash flow from the United States into Mexico or when migrants from Central America make a dangerous trek, and it is very very dangerous, into Mexico or the United States without legal authorization.”

Watch Trump’s Wednesday speech in Mexico:

http://ift.tt/1UyqoPZ

if(typeof(jQuery)==”function”){(function($){$.fn.fitVids=function(){}})(jQuery)};
jwplayer(‘jwplayer_dJsSaC8D_pszPfxYQ_div’).setup(
{“playlist”:”http://ift.tt/2c9wd30″}
);

Trump outlined five shared goals: 1) ending illegal immigration (including from Central and South Americans), 2) having a secure border as a “sovereign right” and a “mutually beneficial” goal, 3) dismantling drug cartels and ending the movement of illegal drugs, weapons and funds across the border, 4) “improving” and “updating” NAFTA to “keep industry in our hemisphere,” 5) “keep manufacturing wealth in our hemisphere,” rather than allowing it to go overseas.

“Having a secure border is a sovereign right,” Trump said. “We recognize and respect the right of either country to build a physical barrier or wall on any of it’s borders. to stop the illegal movement of people, drugs, and weapons.

“Cooperation toward achieving the shared objective, and it will be shared, of safety for all citizens is paramount to the United States and Mexico.”

Trump said he discussed the border wall with Nieto but didn’t address who will pay for it.

“That’ll be for a later date,” he said. “This was a very preliminary meeting. I think it was an excellent meeting.”

However, Nieto later tweeted: “At the beginning of the conversation with Donald Trump, I made clear that Mexico will not pay for the wall.”

‘Softening’ but ‘no amnesty’

When Trump announced his candidacy for the White House in June 2015, his statements about illegal immigration made headlines across the nation for weeks.

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best,” Trump said when he announced his run. “They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

Trump has since clarified numerous times his comments were in reference to illegal aliens crossing into the U.S. from Mexico.

As WND reported, FBI data appeared to back up Trump’s contentions regarding illegal aliens from Mexico committing drug and violent crime offenses in the U.S.

According to the FBI’s 79-page National Gang Report published in 2013, criminal gangs – in some regions comprised significantly of illegal aliens – are wreaking havoc in the U.S., with 65 jurisdictions nationwide reporting gang-related offenses committed with firearms account for at least 95 percent of crime in those areas. The FBI further documented gangs in Southwestern border regions consisting of up to 80 percent illegal aliens were committing a multitude of crimes in America, “including drug-related crimes, weapons trafficking, alien smuggling, human trafficking, prostitution, extortion, robbery, auto theft, assault, homicide, racketeering, and money laundering.”

At a Fox News town hall in Austin on Aug. 23, Trump said he’d be open to “softening” on the issue of illegal immigrants who have raised children in the U.S.

“There certainly can be softening because we aren’t looking to hurt people,” he told Fox News’ Sean Hannity. “We want people – we have some great people in this country.”

Trump added, “We are going to follow the laws of this country.”

As for those who overstay their visas, Trump said, “You have to get them out. You have to get them out.”

Trump told Fox News there would be “no amnesty” for illegal immigrants, but that “we [would] work with them.”

Developing …

from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2016/09/01/trump-gives-juicy-details-on-his-immigration-plan/

from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2016/08/31/trump-gives-juicy-details-on-his-immigration-plan/

At least 5 felons among Clinton Foundation donors

NEW YORK – A list that has been largely ignored by establishment media is the remarkable number of foreign millionaire and billionaire donors to the Clinton Foundation who have been convicted of crimes.

At least five individuals are on the list, including several the Clintons treated as international celebrities at various Clinton Global Initiative annual meetings, even after their criminal convictions.

Some have been convicted of crimes in the United States and are currently serving sentences in federal prisons.

It raises the question of whether or not Hillary Clinton, should she be elected president, would pardon the donors. Or, would President Obama pardon them before he leaves office to spare Clinton the embarrassment?

Now more than ever, Bill and Hill are “Partners in Crime.” Jerome Corsi reveals “The Clintons’ scheme to monetize the White House for personal profit.”

The Clinton Foundation has been under scrutiny during the presidential campaign for allegations that the Clintons have personal profited from the charity and that many prominent donors, particularly foreigners, have given millions of dollars with the expectation it would provide access to the secretary of state.

Nigerian billionaire Gilbert Chagoury

The Clinton Foundation donor conviction list headlines with Nigerian-Lebanese industrialist Gilbert Chagoury whose name turned up in an email exchange released by Judicial Watch in which Teneo head Doug Band pressed longtime Clinton aide Huma Abedin to put Chagoury in touch with the State Department’s “substance person” on Lebanon.

Gilbert Chagoury

Chagoury is also notorious for having been denied entry into the United States last year because of suspected terrorist ties as well as for having been placed on the TSA “no-fly” list in 2010.

Chagoury’s name appears near the top in the 2008 list of more than 200,000 donors to the Clinton Foundation. He contributed between $1 million and $5 million in 2008 and again in 2009. He also pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative in 2009.

The Wall Street Journal reported in 2008 that Chagoury contributed to Bill Clinton’s 1996 presidential campaign and to Hillary’s 2004 presidential campaign, and paid “a lucrative speaking fee” to the former president.

“A few weeks later, prior to the 1996 U.S. presidential election, Mr. Chagoury contributed $460,000 to a tax-exempt voter-registration group connected to the Democratic National Committee,” reporter John R. Emshwiller noted in the 2008 Wall Street Journal article. “A 1997 Washington Post article said that Mr. Chagoury subsequently received an invitation to a White House dinner for Democratic Party supporters. He also met with Clinton administration officials on Nigeria and later talked privately about his efforts to influence U.S. policy toward that country, says a person familiar with the matter.”

In 2000, according to a PBS Frontline report, Chagoury was convicted in Geneva, Switzerland, of laundering money and aiding a criminal organization with the billions stolen from Nigeria during the rule of the late dictator Sani Abachi. Chagoury’s criminal record was expunged after he paid a fine.

In 2015, Sen. David Vitter, R-La., one of two U.S. senators to vote against Clinton’s confirmation as secretary of state, produced evidence that shows Clinton Foundation employees who worked for the State Department were directly involved with the decision to avoid labeling Boko Haram a terrorist group, according to a Judicial Watch report dated May 6, 2015.

“Boko Haram is the same group that kidnapped over 200 female students from Chibok in Borno State, Nigeria, just over a year ago. Clinton, the self-described champion of women’s rights, was first presented with reports highlighting Boko Haram’s aggressive posture back in 2010,” the Judicial Watch report noted. “Yet, the State Department did not officially designate the group as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) until December 2013. During that time, Boko Haram gained significant footing at the expense of vulnerable populations.”

Indian entrepreneurs Rajat Gupta and Raj Rajaratnam

On Jan. 26, 2001, six days after Bill Clinton left the White House, on the day India was celebrating its 52nd Republic Day, the western part of the nation suffered one of the worst earthquakes in history, killing more than 19,727 people and injuring 166,000, with property damage estimated at more than $4.5 billion. Registering a massive 7.9 on the Richter scale, the Gujarat state of India suffered more than 500 aftershocks, lasting until March and destroying 20 out of the 25 districts in Gujarat, according to the Indian Metrology Department.

As covered in the WND book “Partners in Crime: The Clintons’ Scheme to Monetize the White House,” one week after the earthquake, Bill Clinton mobilized the Clinton Foundation to form the American Indian Foundation, with a board of directors chaired by Rajat Gupta, senior partner of McKinsey and Company, with Raj Rajaratnam, a prominent New York hedge fund manager.

Michael Rothfeld of the Wall Street Journal reported in 2012 that stbeginning around 2003, Gupta and Rajaratnam began investing millions of dollars together in financial vehicles related to Rajartanam’s hedge fund Galleon Group and in an Asia-focused private-equity fund Gupta had helped to start.

In the ensuing years, Gupta leaked to Rajaratnam inside information, both because of their friendship and business dealings, according to information prosecutors developed. Prosecutors alleged Gupta became a “secret pipeline” to Rajaratnam from 2007 until early 2009 for inside information on the boards of Goldman and Proctor & Gamble Co.

He provided advance tips about, among other things, a $5 billion investment in Goldman by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. at the height of the financial crisis and the investment bank’s first quarterly loss as a public company.

For their involvement in the Galleon inside trading scandal, both Rajaratnam and Gupta are in federal prison. Rajaratnam was forced to pay a criminal and civil penalty of over $150 million and sentenced to 11 years in a federal prison, while Gupta was fined $5 million and sentenced to two years in federal prison.

“Before his arrest, Gupta was a top player in Democratic circles with close personal ties to the Clintons,” reporter Bill McMorris wrote in a Washington Free Beacon article published in April 2015. “He served as global managing director of consulting giant McKinsey & Company from 1994 to 2003 before the company’s board removed him from the position and reduced his role to senior partner. On his way out the door he presented a 23-year-old Oxford graduate (namely, Chelsea Clinton) with no experience.”

Federal Election Commission records show Rajaratnam contributed to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign in 2005 and to her presidential campaign in 2008. In 2009, Rajaratnam and his wife gave a total of $118,000 to Democratic Party candidates, including to Chuck Schumer and Barack Obama, as well as to Hillary Clinton. After Clinton dropped out of the 2008 presidential campaign, Rajaratnam switched over to contributing to Obama.

Indian restaurateur and hotelier Singh Chatwal

Sant Singh Chatwal, known for moving to New York in 1979 where he built Bombay Palace into a chain of Indian restaurants, is another Clinton Foundation donor who was sentenced to federal prison.

Singh Chatwal and Bill Clinton

In May 2001, in one of his many trips to India with Bill Clinton, Chatwal, who then reportedly owed $22 million to three banks owned by the government of India, was arrested by authorities and charged with defrauding the New York City branch of the Bank of India out of $9 million he borrowed in 1994.

According to a New York Daily News article published in November 2002, Chatwal posted bail equivalent to $32,000 then fled to India, boarding a flight to Vienna despite an attempt by authorities to detain him.

The year before – after Chatwal paid a $125,000 federal government fine to settle the charges in 2000 that he owed governments, banks and creditors tens of millions of dollars – Bill and Hillary Clinton attended the wedding of Chatwal’s youngest son, Vivek, at the posh Tavern on the Green in New York City’s Central Park.

Beginning on page 62 of his book “Clinton Cash,” Peter Schweizer detailed the relationship that began when Chatwal first raised money for the Clintons, starting with Bill Clinton’s 1996 presidential run and continuing through Hillary’s run for the Senate in 2000.

“By the time Bill left the Oval Office in 2001, Chatwal was firmly in the Clintons’ inner circle,” Schweizer wrote. “Bill appointed him a trustee for the Clinton Foundation, an appointment reserved only for long-time friends and large financial benefactors. Chatwal had lavished money on the Clintons, including hundreds of thousands in soft-money donations and millions in campaign funds raised, and he continued his largesse once Bill was a private citizen.”

Schweizer pointed out that Chatwal helped arrange for millions of dollars in lucrative speaking fees for the former president, while he steered additional millions to the Clinton Foundation.

“When Hillary ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2007, [Chatwal] was cochair of her presidential exploratory committee,” Schweizer noted. “He even received that most prized of gifts in the Clinton universe: an invitation to attend Chelsea’s wedding.”

In 2007-2008, Chatwal raised about $100,000 for Hillary Clinton’s first presidential campaign.

The problem was that Chatwal raised money by engineering a massive and blatant violation of federal election laws in which he illegally reimbursed donors for their contributions in an elaborate straw-donor scheme.

In April 2014, Stephanie Clifford and Russ Buettner reported in the New York Times that Chatwal had pleaded guilty in federal court in Brooklyn to violations of federal campaign contribution laws.

In federal court, Chatwal admitted he had funneled more than $180,000 in illegal contributions between 2007 and 2011 for three Democratic Party federal candidates, including Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.

Noting that Chatwal, in addition to his other legal problems in the United States and India, had filed for bankruptcy twice and owes millions in back taxes to the IRS and the state of New York estimated at $30 million, the New York Times article observed Chatwal was a “regular” at the Clinton Global Initiative.

In December 2014, Stephanie Clifford reported in the New York Times that Judge I. Leo Glasser of Federal District Court in Brooklyn sentenced Chatwal to three years of probation, a fine of $500,000 and 1,000 hours of community service.

Indian entrepreneur Vinod Gupta

Vinod Gupta, who is not related to Rajat Gupta, collaborated with Rajat Gupta in forming American Indian Foundation and was an early AIF board member.

Bill Clinton and Vinod Gupta

Vinod Gupta, CEO of InfoUSA, was charged by the Securities and Exchange Commission with misappropriating almost $9.5 million in company funds to support his lavish lifestyle, causing the company to enter into $9.3 million of undisclosed business transactions between InfoUSA and other companies in which he had a personal stake. Vinod Gupta was ultimately forced to pay back the money to the company.

In 2010, Vinod Gupta stepped down as chairman and CEO of InfoGroup Inc. after agreeing to pay more than $7.3 million to settle U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission allegations that he improperly used the company “as a piggy bank.”

Jonathan Allen, reporting in Bloomberg News in January 2015 that Hillary Clinton flew from White Plains, New York, to Washington to pick up top aide Huma Abedin on the way to Charleston, South Carolina, on December 30, 2005, according to records kept by the Senate.

“They rode aboard InfoUSA’s jet, which company founder Vinod Gupta, a close family friend, often used to transport and entertain the Clintons and other recognizable figures, according to court filings. Hillary Clinton billed the Senate for $858 to fly on his company’s plane,” Allen wrote.

“Bill Clinton made more than $3 million as an adviser to InfoUSA after leaving the White House in January 2001 and also was given options on 100,000 shares of stock, which were never exercised,” Allen continued. “In 2010, Gupta paid a $7.4 million settlement after the Securities and Exchange Commission charged him with misappropriating company funds, and he later paid a larger sum to settle a shareholder suit.”

Bill McMorris, writing in the Washington Free Beacon in April 2015, reported Rajat Gupta “presented Bill Clinton with an opportunity to cash in on their relationship” in 2001. The deal was secretly engineered by Gupta and Anil Kumar, a McKinsey consultant who later testified against Gupta in the criminal trial in which Gupta was found guilty of insider trading with Rajaratnam’s Galleon hedge fund. Gupta and Kumar set up their own consulting company, Mindspirit LLC, in the names of their wives, Anita Gupta and Malvika Kumar, without disclosing to McKinsey their ownership of the consultancy.

For advice Mindspirit gave Vinod Gupta in his role as CEO of InfoGroup, InfoGroup compensated Mindspirit with 200,000 stock options that Rajat Gupta and Anil Kumar exercised for an undisclosed amount. According to an SEC filing that exposed the scam, Bill Clinton, the honorary chairman of the American India Fund, was granted 100,000 InfoGroup stock options that Clinton claimed he never exercised.

Additionally, McMorris reported, Clinton received $3.3 million from 2002 through 2008 for advising Vinod Gupta, during which time Clinton got the free personal use of Gupta’s InfoGroup corporate jets for the entire Clinton family.

The SEC complaint against Vinod Gupta noted: “Former President Clinton and his family, and other prominent individuals made improper, personal use of the Company’s private jets, and Vinod Gupta did not reimburse the Company, The consulting agreements executed between the Company and former President Clinton in 2002 and 2005 were without any consideration to the Company, and the agreements were arranged without Board or Committee approval.”

Despite Vinod Gupta having to pay back $9.3 million to InfoUSA and $7.3 million to settle the SEC suit against him, he still managed to contribute between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation, with his most recent contribution being in 2014, as reported by McMorris.

Now more than ever, Bill and Hill are “Partners in Crime.” Jerome Corsi reveals “The Clintons’ scheme to monetize the White House for personal profit.”

from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2016/09/01/at-least-5-felons-among-clinton-foundation-donors/

from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2016/08/31/at-least-5-felons-among-clinton-foundation-donors/

‘Hillary’s America’ hitting screens again as race heats

Hillary Clinton, among all the other accusations she’s leveled against Donald Trump, has opined he’s a bigot. And she’s unleashed the claim that he’s normalizing white nationalism.

Such incendiary comments have put racism in the center of the 2016 presidential race and that means that filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza’s “Hillary’s America” is at a political “ground zero.”

So the movie, which earlier grabbed marquees across America, is being re-released this weekend in 400 theaters – a sure way to give most Americans access now to the project that will, eventually, be released on DVD.

D’Souza told WND that the demand for the information the movie holds about race is “driving this release.”

“It happens to be the case the themes of the movie are at ground zero of this election debate,” he said.

The project looks at the history of the Democrat party, and features details about its advocacy and more for the Ku Klux Klan.

See D’Souza’s works at the WND Superstore, including “Hillary’s America,” “America: Imagine The World Without Her,” “2016: Obama’s America,” “God Forsaken,” “Roots of Obama’s Rage” and “What’s So Great About Christianity.”

And its opposition to the freeing of the slaves.

It first opened on July 15 and took in $12.5 million, making it already the most successful documentary this year.

It will be appearing in AMC Entertainment, Regal Entertainment and Cinemark venues. Insiders told the Hollywood Reporter the move “is due to demand from fans who lobbied the theater owners.”

When Clinton released snide suggestions that the GOP was somehow racist, Trump unleashed the truth, “It is the Democratic party that is the party of slavery, the party of Jim Crow. The Republican party is the party of Abraham Lincoln. Not bad. It is also the party of freedom, equality and opportunity.”

D’Souza points out that the issue of racism largely has been controlled by Democrats.

Until now.

“This is a first for a GOP candidate in modern times,” D’Souza said during a recent interview. “It’s important for Trump and the Republican Party to break the virtual monopoly Democrats have had on the black vote, but also to explode the moral capital of the Democratic Party.”

Beginning with a speech in Dimondale, Michigan, Aug. 19, Trump has been actively courting black voters to leave the Democratic Party, citing the worsening conditions for blacks in big cities run by Democrats for decades and asking, “What do you have to lose?”

In Fredericksburg, Virginia, Trump sounded themes that echo D’Souza’s film.

“The GOP is the party of Abraham Lincoln, and I want our party to be the home of the African-American voter once again,” Trump said. “I want a totally inclusive country and I want an inclusive party.”

He said Democrats “claim to be for the underdog – for women and minorities – while in reality the Democratic Party has been systematic oppressors of underdogs, including African-Americans.”

D’Souza commended Trump for his recent speeches and urged the campaign to utilize his movie.

“Our film, ‘Hillary’s America,’ makes the argument the Democratic Party has oppressed African-Americans by citing historical facts in depth to destroy the progressive myth that since Abraham Lincoln the parties have switched sides,” D’Souza said.

Dinesh D’Souza

D’Souza said he would like to assist the Trump campaign, the Republican National Committee and pro-Trump Super PACs in any way he can to bring the argument to independent voters and minorities.

He contends, as does Trump, that the Republican Party is an inclusive party open to advancing the interests of black voters.

Trump: See ‘Hillary’s America’

D’Souza confirmed he has sent copies of the “Hillary’s America” DVD to the Trump campaign.

And ln July 16, Trump retweeted a message encouraging his supporters to see “Hillary’s America.”

In a review of “Hillary’s America,” WND exclusive columnist Chuck Norris pointed out the Democratic Party was the original pro-slavery and anti-minority party, and contends it still is. In contrast, Norris noted D’Souza’s film argued the Republican Party “was founded as the anti-slavery and pro-freedom movement.”

“Not one Republican politician in the 19th century owned slaves. All of them fought to free slaves,” Norris wrote. “Republicans also fought for minorities’ votes – including women’s suffrage – through the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, which the Democrats opposed.”

See a stunning snippet from the footage assembled for the movie:

http://ift.tt/1UyqoPZ

if(typeof(jQuery)==”function”){(function($){$.fn.fitVids=function(){}})(jQuery)};
jwplayer(‘jwplayer_1HvEUBf0_pszPfxYQ_div’).setup(
{“playlist”:”http://ift.tt/2aZjKzC”}
);

And here’s the trailer:

from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2016/09/01/hillarys-america-hitting-screens-again-as-race-heats/

from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2016/08/31/hillarys-america-hitting-screens-again-as-race-heats/

Wyoming judge on trial for being Lutheran

The state Supreme Court in Wyoming is considering charges that a municipal judge should banned from the judiciary permanently and fined $40,000 for following the tenets of her Lutheran faith regarding marriage.

The claims against Judge Ruth Neely, a municipal judge in the small town of Pinedale as well as a part-time circuit court magistrate, were brought by the Wyoming Commission on Judicial Conduct and Ethics.

The state agency got involved after a local reporter, upon the U.S. Supreme Court’s creation of same-sex “marriage,” asked Neely whether she was excited to perform such ceremonies.

Well, no, the judge responded, because her faith wouldn’t allow her to do that.

The dispute has caught the attention of two major defenders of religious rights, the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing Neely, and the Becket Fund for Religion Liberty, which took up her cause in a friend-of-the-court brief.

Oral arguments were held recently at the state’s highest court, and court officials told WND this week that a decision could come in a matter of a few weeks or months.

The issue is that Neely is not allowed to solemnize marriages in her role as a municipal judge. And while she is allowed to do so as a magistrate, it is not required of her. There is no pay for it, and magistrates can decline for personal reasons.

“Outlasting the Gay Revolution” spells out eight principles to help Americans with conservative moral values counter attacks on our freedoms of religion, speech and conscience by homosexual activists

“It takes real chutzpah for the government to come in like the Keystone Kops but still ask an innocent judge to pay the price,” Becket Fund legal counsel Daniel Blomberg said as the case developed.

“If you ask the people of Pinedale, they say that Judge Neely has served the town with fairness and integrity for decades, and that they want to keep her. This judge shouldn’t lose her job because a bunch of bureaucrats decided they don’t like Lutherans.”
The organization said Neely “faces an unprecedented lifetime ban from the judiciary and $40,000 in fines for merely stating that her Lutheran faith prevents her from personally performing same-sex marriages.”

Even “local LGBT citizens” have been calling the state agency’s prosecution “obscene and offensive,” Becket reported.

The organization also pointed out that the government’s prosecutor, Patrick Dixon “fumbled” the case.

He admitted that neither the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell “nor any other law says that Judge Neely has to perform any given marriage,” the organization said.

Dixon also admitted that several of the assertions that the government made in its briefs were wrong, conceding the state does not pay small-town judges like Neely to perform weddings and that judges can decline to personally perform them.

Blomberg noted that same-sex couples can have state marriage ceremonies performed, but “judges like Judge Neely don’t have to participate.”

ADF explained the details, including her responsibilities as a municipal judge for traffic cases, animal control issues, public intoxication cases and more.

“Judge Neely has also served as a part-time circuit court magistrate for approximately 14 years. In that capacity, she has the authority to do things like administer oaths, issue subpoenas, conduct bond hearings, issue warrants, and solemnize marriages. Although Judge Neely ‘may perform the ceremony of marriage’ as a magistrate, she has no legal obligation or duty to do so.”

The Commission on Judicial Conduct eventually alleged that “by merely communicating her religious beliefs about marriage and her inability to serve as a celebrant for same-sex marriage, Judge Neely failed to follow the law and manifested bias and prejudice.”

The commission’s website lists current members as Priscilla Dillon of Sheridan, Barbara Dilts of Cheyenne, Ray Elser of Jackson, Mary Flitner of Greybull, Donna Heinz of Torrington, Leslie Petersen of Wilson, Jay Gilbertz of Sheridan, Melvin Orchard III of Jackson, Scott Ortiz of Casper, Wendy Bartlett of Gilette, Wade Waldrip of Rawlins and Norman Young of Lander.

A WND message left with the commission director, Wendy Soto, requesting comment did not generate a response.

Court documents note the threat that the state commission’s action presents.

“In a chilling forecast, the commission leaves no doubt that if it has its way, no judge who holds Judge Neely’s religious beliefs about marriage can remain on the bench once the public learns of those beliefs. According to the commission, any judge who believes as Judge Neely does must hide the very convictions that animate her life.”

The briefs also explain that Wyoming’s constitution was framed specifically with the intention of forbidding “the state from invoking religious beliefs about marriage” to disqualify citizens from public office because of its Mormon population.

The Supreme Court, therefore, “should conclude that the framers’ intent confirms what plain language says: that the state cannot remove Judge Neely from her … position because of her religious beliefs and expression about marriage.”

Her defenders continued, “The commission’s insistence that Judge Neely has a duty to solemnize marriages serves only to highlight that it is targeting her because of her religious beliefs.”

Wyoming legal officials are not the only ones trying to restrict the exercise of religion. WND reported only weeks ago two simultaneous rulings.

The U.S. Supreme Court left standing a lower court decision that Washington state pharmacists who are Christian must violate their faith to practice their profession by dispensing abortion pills.

The second decision came from a federal judge in Mississippi with a reputation for ruling against Christians who said county clerks in the state must violate their faith to hold their office.

The Supreme Court’s move alarmed Justice Samuel Alito, who warned there was evidence that the “impetus for the adoption of the regulations was hostility to pharmacists whose religious beliefs regarding abortion and contraception are out of step with prevailing opinion in the state.”

The Mississippi ruling from Judge Carlton Reeves, who once punished a school district for allowing a voluntary prayer at an optional awards ceremony, said clerks in the state cannot cite their religious beliefs to excuse themselves from issuing marriage licenses to homosexual duos.

That case already had been litigated in Kentucky, where Judge David Bunning reached the same conclusion, ordering Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis to violate her faith. When she declined, Bunning abruptly jailed her with no due process.

But Kentucky’s legislature simply adopted a provision protecting clerks’ religious rights, and Davis asked that the federal case be closed.

In Mississippi, however, not even action by state lawmakers was sufficient for Reeves, who ordered not only that clerks be required to provide services that violate their faith, they must be given “formal notice” of the requirement that they violate their faith.

WND previously has documented the Big List of cases where there have been government rulings that removed religious rights from Christians.

Missouri State University, for example, dismissed a student from a counseling program for expressing opposition to counseling same-sex duos.

In Iowa, Gortz Haus Gallery and bistro owners Betty and Richard Odgaard were sued by a homosexual duo.

In Texas, David and Edie Delmore, who own a bakery, were approached by Ben Valencia and Luis Marmolejo about a cake for a “gay wedding.” They declined, referring the potential customers to other bakers. Subsequently, they claim their home has been vandalized and their son has been threatened with rape by a broken beer bottle.

One business even was attacked for answering a hypothetical question on the issue.

Family owned Memories Pizza in Indiana came into the crosshairs of homosexuals when an owner was interviewed by a local TV station in the aftermath of the adoption of the state’s religious freedom law. Responding to a reporter’s question, the owner said that while her restaurant serves “gays,” her Christian faith wouldn’t allow her to cater a “gay wedding.” The restaurant immediately became a focal point of outrage toward the law, with threats of death and destruction, causing the owners to shut down their business.

“Outlasting the Gay Revolution” spells out eight principles to help Americans with conservative moral values counter attacks on our freedoms of religion, speech and conscience by homosexual activists

from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2016/08/31/wyoming-judge-on-trial-for-being-lutheran/

from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2016/08/31/wyoming-judge-on-trial-for-being-lutheran/

Illegal alien trying to restore Obama’s executive amnesty

President Obama’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) is far from dead, even though it’s been blocked by a federal judge.

In fact, an illegal alien may soon help resuscitate it.

Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal, a Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) beneficiary from Mexico, filed suit in federal court last week seeking to have the nationwide injunction against Obama’s executive amnesty overturned.

Daniel Horowitz, senior editor at Conservative Review, wonders how Vidal can even bring a lawsuit.

“The real question is how illegal aliens can even get standing in court to openly sue for affirmative rights against longstanding congressional statutes governing sovereignty?” Horowitz wrote in a recent column.

After Obama took executive action to expand DACA and create DAPA in November 2014, 26 states filed a lawsuit over the unilateral actions. In February 2015 U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Texas issued a preliminary injunction blocking the administration from moving forward with its plans.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently upheld the injunction, and then the Supreme Court deadlocked on the issue, thereby leaving Judge Hanen’s decision in place.

Batalla Vidal’s lawsuit alleges Hanen’s injunction should only be valid within the 26 states that were plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Batalla Vidal lives in New York, which was not one of the plaintiff states.

According to the suit, Batalla Vidal initially received a three-year work authorization under the Obama administration’s expanded DACA. But Hanen’s injunction led to the rescinding of that three-year permit in May 2015, and it was replaced by a two-year employment authorization.

The alien is now suing for reinstatement of his three-year work permit, claiming its revocation was unlawful because Hanen’s injunction does not apply to New York residents.

Batalla Vidal is being represented by the National Immigration Law Center, a left-wing immigration advocacy group funded by George Soros and the Ford Foundation.

Horowitz knew it was too early to celebrate when the Supreme Court upheld Hanen’s decision. In his view, the federal courts had already done much harm by overturning immigration enforcement actions and granting rights to illegal aliens. These harms far outweighed any benefit conservatives may have gotten from the DAPA decision.

In fact, in his new book “Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges From Transforming America,” Horowitz shows it is Congress, not the courts or the president, that the framers of our Constitution intended to give power over immigration. He argues Congress should strip the courts of jurisdiction over immigration because the issue deals with the very sovereignty of the United States.

Who REALLY rules America? Stand up against the unelected tyrants in black. Find out how in “Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges From Transforming America.” Available now at the WND Superstore!

The Supreme Court’s ruling on Hanen’s injunction provided Horowitz no comfort.

“To begin with, the court never addressed the DACA amnesty, and indeed, the lower courts and the Supreme Court refused to grant standing to ICE agents and states in their challenge of the 2012 amnesty,” Horowitz argued. “In fact, the Ninth Circuit has already legitimized and codified Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) by forcing states to issue driver’s licenses to recipients of that executive amnesty program.”

What’s more, Horowitz pointed out the court may have been able to stop Obama from issuing work permits and Social Security cards to DAPA recipients, but no court can force the president to deport illegal aliens. In fact, deportations are at a nine-year low.

Now that an illegal alien threatens to restore DAPA, Horowitz fears the increasingly left-leaning judicial system will let him succeed.

“The scary thing is this alien will likely get standing in court and might succeed in reconstituting Obama’s executive amnesty for half the country,” Horowitz warned. “If the plaintiff is able to get a hearing before a liberal judge in the Eastern District of New York, a favorable decision would likely be upheld by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which is full of post-constitutionalists.

“Thus, if Congress fails to stand its ground, the one benefit we’ve ever gotten from court intervention in immigration might be overturned.”

And isn’t it ironic, Horowitz mused.

“In the irony of all ironies a recipient of DACA might get standing to bring back DAPA – all because ICE agents, states and taxpayers couldn’t get standing to bring a lawsuit against Obama’s original executive amnesty.”

from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2016/08/31/illegal-alien-trying-to-restore-obamas-executive-amnesty/

from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2016/08/31/illegal-alien-trying-to-restore-obamas-executive-amnesty/

Trump to Mexican president: Border wall ‘paramount’

GOP nominee Donald Trump (Photo: Twitter)

Just hours before a planned major speech on immigration issues on Wednesday, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump told Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto that a wall to enhance the security of the Mexican-U.S. border, which runs some 2,000 miles, is “paramount.”

In a meeting with the press after his quickly assembled private meeting set up at Nieto’s invitation, Trump ticked off five shared goals for the North American neighbors.

Ending illegal immigration took the No. 1 spot, and having a secure border was second.

It’s mutually beneficial, he pointed out, that the nations “recognize and respect the right of either country to build a physical barrier or wall to stop the illegal movement of people, drugs and weapons” across the border.

“This shared objective of safety is paramount to both the United States and Mexico,” he said.

He immediately was castigated, however, by a commentator on Fox News for not pinning down the payment for the wall during his first meeting with Nieto.

Hillary for prosecution, not president! Join the sizzling campaign to put Mrs. Clinton where she really belongs

State Department-linked David Tafuri said on Fox that it was a “complete capitulation” on the part of Trump, who has made border security a significant issue in his campaign. He has promised to build a border wall and have Mexico pay for it, a promise that infuriated Mexican officials to the point they were using objectionable language to deny it.

See Trump’s speech:

http://ift.tt/1UyqoPZ

if(typeof(jQuery)==”function”){(function($){$.fn.fitVids=function(){}})(jQuery)};
jwplayer(‘jwplayer_dJsSaC8D_pszPfxYQ_div’).setup(
{“playlist”:”http://ift.tt/2c9wd30″}
);

Both Nieto and Trump described their private meeting and profitable.

Another goal for Trump was to dismantled the drug cartels and “end the movement of illegal drugs, weapons and funds across the border.”

It was earlier in Barack Obama’s tenure that the U.S. government allowed some 2,000 weapons to be sold to illegal purchasers and moved into Mexico to arm drug warlords. The plan had been to trace the guns and through that, reduce the violence, but the federal agents simply lost track of virtually all of the weapons, many of which remain in the drug cartel ranks today.

Last was improving NAFTA, the free trade agreement that binds the nations, because it benefits Mexico much more than the U.S., and keep manufacturing “in our hemisphere.”

Trump had said in June, ‘I’m going tell our NAFTA partners that I intend to immediately renegotiate the terms of that agreement to get a better deal for our workers. And I don’t mean just a little bit better, I mean a lot better. If they do not agree to a renegotiation, then I will submit notice under Article 2205 of the NAFTA agreement that America intends to withdraw from the deal.”

Both Nieto and Trump expressed their love for their own nations, and their dedication to protecting their citizens.

“As you know, I love the United States very much, and I want to make sure the people of the United States are protected,” Trump said.

“No one wins in either country when human smugglers and drug traffickers prey on innocent people, when cartels commit acts of violence, when illegal weapons and cash flow from the United States into Mexico or when migrants from Central America make a dangerous trek, and it is very very dangerous, into Mexico or the United States without legal authorization,” he said.

Trump, in response to questions after the prepared statement, confirmed he had discussed the wall with Nieto, but had not discussed payment.

Nieto emphasized working together on solutions to the problems that do exist, in light of the many areas where cooperation is very successful, such as the more than one million legal border crossings each day between the country.

And the estimated $200 billion in trade between the countries.

Through a translator, he said, “[We] had an open and constructive discussion. The purpose of our meeting was to get to know each other and exchange visions about bilateral trade.”

Trump praised the Mexican people as “beyond reproach.”

Nieto noted he also had invited Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Hillary for prosecution, not president! Join the sizzling campaign to put Mrs. Clinton where she really belongs

from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2016/08/31/trump-to-mexican-president-border-wall-paramount/

from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2016/08/31/trump-to-mexican-president-border-wall-paramount/