Hey Jim Acosta, this Could be Why Media is an Enemy

Traveling over the CNN’s Jim Acosta’s Twitter account, this is his pinned tweet:

Then yesterday, he re-tweeted this:

And he retweeted this:

At the White House press briefing, Sarah Sanders called on @Acosta and he asked Sarah if she or the Trump White House would denounce that the media is an enemy of the people. She did not denounce that but went on to describe the media and progressive abuse the Trump administration endures, listing many nasty encounters.

What did @Acosta do?

He tweeted again:

As a conservative radio host, I watched that WH exchange between them and sent a tweet to @Acosta inviting him to an interview with me. ……crickets….

But there is more. It goes beyond CNN actually. Media and the left are simply branding all things law enforcement as racists including those in government, Republican voters and even some at Fox News. So we are in a posture war here that is undeniable. So….no sooner was all that over, here comes the New York Times.

***

Meet Sarah Jeong. She’s the newest member of the New York Times editorial board. She also has a history of saying pretty vile, racist things on Twitter.

Saved tweets from Sarah Jeong, the newest member of the New York Times editorial board. (source: Twitter)

Heck, just read more here, if you can stomach the vile branding of her and where the NYT’s is going in the future.

Tommy Robinson is Free, but Hold on….

Daniel Pipes posted:

But Robinson still has to go to court again for another hearing, where he could still be found guilty of contempt of court, which would be in breach of his suspended sentence that still stands, for doing the same thing previously.

Manchester far-right protestors tussle with police | Daily ...

Tommy Robinson has been freed from prison on bail after judges quashed findings that he committed contempt of court in Leeds.

But the Court of Appeal dismissed the far-right figure’s case against another incident in Canterbury and ordered him to attend a new hearing where he could be jailed again.

The Lord Chief Justice took little over a minute to read out the judgment to a packed courtroom, silencing Robinson’s supporters as they started applauding.

Lord Burnett said the court was allowing his appeal only “in respect of the committal for contempt at Leeds Crown Court” and granted Robinson bail ahead of a hearing to take place at the Old Bailey in London.

Supporters who had gathered outside the Royal Courts of Justice cheered as news of the judgment came through, as counter-demonstrators shouted “Nazi scum, off our streets” through a megaphone.

Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, was released from HMP Onley later on Wednesday.

“I have a lot to say, but not to you,” he told journalists while flanked by two men carrying his luggage, before being driven away.

High-profile backers including the Ukip leader Gerard Batten, Dutch opposition leader Geert Wilders and the former Breitbart London editor Raheem Kassam hailed the verdict as a victory for “freedom of speech”.

But judges did not say Robinson had not committed contempt of court, and accused him of delaying the appeals “for tactical reasons and collateral advantage”.

They dismissed calls to quash findings that he committed contempt at Canterbury Crown Court in May 2017, saying criticism by Robinson’s legal team “had no substance”.

Robinson was handed a three-month suspended sentence for trying to film defendants inside the court during jury deliberations, after being told to stop and warned filming was against the law.

But Lord Burnett, Mr Justice Turner and Mrs Justice McGowan found that procedural failings by a judge who later jailed Robinson for 13 months at Leeds Crown Court “gave rise to unfairness” and meant proceedings were “fundamentally flawed”.

Robinson was arrested on 25 May after broadcasting a Facebook Live video that broke a blanket reporting restriction on an ongoing set of trials, and jailed hours later.

The Court of Appeal previously heard that footage of Robinson discussing the ongoing case caused jury deliberations to be paused, sparking an attempt by defence lawyers to have the case dismissed.

Judges found that while Geoffrey Marson QC was right to bring Robinson before him to have the video deleted and protect jury deliberations, the case was dealt with too fast and did not follow criminal procedure rules.

“There was no clarity about what parts of the video were relied upon as amounting to contempt, what parts the appellant accepted through his counsel amounted to contempt and for what conduct he was sentenced,” the judgment said.

“Whilst the judge was entitled to deal with the contempt himself, the urgency went out of the matter when the appellant agreed to take down the video from Facebook. There should have been an adjournment to enable the particulars of contempt to be properly formulated and for a hearing at a more measured pace, as had happened in Canterbury.”

They ordered the matter to be heard again at the Old Bailey “as soon as reasonably possible”, and bailed Robinson on the condition he attends the new hearing and does not go within 400m of Leeds Crown Court. More here.

About that Time Obama Gave an AQ Affiliate Grant Money

There has been lots of chatter about removing the security clearance access of John Brennan and a few others. No one has asked about Hillary’s or…..Obama’s. There has been lots of chatter of impeachment, traitor and treason….but when it comes to aiding and supporting the enemy….check this out.

Grant money is a gift….by the way.

Islamic Relief Agency Admits Illegal Funds Transfer to ...

Islamic Relief Agency Admits Illegal Funds Transfer to ... story and photo, more detail here.

The Middle East Forum has discovered that the Obama administration approved a grant of $200,000 of taxpayer money to an al-Qaeda affiliate in Sudan — a decade after the U.S. Treasury designated it as a terrorist-financing organization. More stunningly, government officials specifically authorized the release of at least $115,000 of this grant even after learning that it was a designated terror organization.

The story began in October 2004, when the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated the Khartoum-based Islamic Relief Agency (ISRA), also known as the Islamic African Relief Agency (IARA), as a terror-financing organization. It did so because of ISRA’s links to Osama bin Laden and his organization Maktab al-Khidamat (MK), the precursor of al-Qaeda.

According to the U.S. Treasury, in 1997 ISRA established formal cooperation with MK. By 2000, ISRA had raised $5 million for bin Laden’s group. The Treasury Department notes that ISRA officials even sought to help “relocate [bin Laden] to secure safe harbor for him.” It further reports that ISRA raised funds in 2003 in Western Europe specifically earmarked for Hamas suicide bombings.

The 2004 designation included all of ISRA’s branches, including a U.S. office called the Islamic American Relief Agency (IARA-USA). Eventually it became known that this American branch had illegally transferred over $1.2 million to Iraqi insurgents and other terror groups, including, reportedly, the Afghan terrorist Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. In 2010, the executive director of IARA-USA and a board member pled guilty to money-laundering, theft of public funds, conspiracy, and several other charges.

ISRA’s influence also spread to Washington. Former U.S. congressman Mark Siljander (R., Mich.) pled guilty in 2010 to obstruction of justice and acting as an unregistered foreign agent after prosecutors found that IARA-USA had paid him $75,000 — using misappropriated USAID grant money — to lobby the government, in an attempt to remove the charity from the government’s terror list.

Despite this well-documented history, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in July 2014 awarded $723,405 to World Vision Inc., an international evangelical charity, to “improve water, sanitation and hygiene and to increase food security in Sudan’s Blue Nile state.” Of these funds, $200,000 was to be directed to a sub-grantee: ISRA.

Responding to a Middle East Forum (MEF) inquiry, a USAID official explains that World Vision had alerted it in November 2014 to the likelihood of ISRA being on the terror list. USAID instructed World Vision to “suspend all activities with ISRA” and informed the State Department, OFAC, and USAID’s Office of the Inspector General. USAID and World Vision then waited for OFAC to confirm whether ISRA was designated or not.

USAID emails obtained by the Middle East Forum reveal that in January 2015, World Vision was growing unhappy while waiting for OFAC’s assessment. Mark Smith, World Vision’s senior director of humanitarian and emergency affairs, wrote to USAID, stating that the Islamic Relief Agency “had performed excellent work” for World Vision in the past, and that “putting contractual relationships in limbo for such a long period is putting a significant strain” on World Vision’s relationship with the Sudanese regime. Smith also revealed that World Vision had submitted a notice to OFAC indicating its “intention to restart work with [ISRA] and to transact with [ISRA]” if OFAC did not respond within a week.

World Vision’s statement stunned USAID officials, who complained that World Vision’s behavior “doesn’t make sense.” USAID official Daniel Holmberg emailed a colleague: “If they actually said that they wanted to resume work with ISRA, while knowing that it was 99% likely that ISRA was on the list then I am concerned about our partnership with them, and whether it should continue.”

On January 23, OFAC confirmed that ISRA was a sanctioned entity and denied World Vision “a license to engage in transactions with [ISRA].” Mark Smith and World Vision’s country program director in Sudan expressed their disappointment, stating that they were in discussions with ISRA as well as the Sudanese regime’s Humanitarian Aid Commission, which regulates the activities of international charities in Sudan.

Despite OFAC’s ruling, in February, World Vision wrote to OFAC and Obama-administration official Jeremy Konyndyk (who then served as director of USAID’s Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance) to apply to OFAC for a new license from USAID to pay ISRA “monies owed for work performed.” According to Larry Meserve, USAID’s mission director for Sudan, World Vision argued that if they did not pay ISRA, “their whole program will be jeopardized.”

While World Vision waited for a decision, on February 22, a pro-regime Sudanese newspaper, Intibaha, reported that the Sudanese political leaders had requested that World Vision be expelled from Sudan’s Blue Nile state. USAID disaster operations specialist Joseph Wilkes and World Vision’s Mark Smith speculated that this was “punishment” for the cancellation of the grant with ISRA, which a USAID official noted is “well connected with the [Sudanese] government.”

Then, incredibly, on May 7, 2015 — after “close collaboration and consultations with the Department of State” — OFAC issued a license to a World Vision affiliate, World Vision International, authorizing “a one-time transfer of approximately $125,000 to ISRA,” of which “$115,000 was for services performed under the sub-award with USAID” and $10,000 was “for an unrelated funding arrangement between Irish Aid and World Vision.”

An unnamed World Vision official described the decision as a “great relief as ISRA had become restive and had threatened legal action, which would have damaged our reputation and standing in Sudan.” Senior USAID official Charles Wanjue wrote to colleagues: “Good news and a great relief, really!” In August 2015, USAID official Daniel Holmberg even told a State Department official that he had been approached by the executive director of ISRA, and requested guidance on helping ISRA remove itself from the U.S. government’s terror list.

Obama-administration officials knowingly approved the transfer of taxpayer dollars to an al-Qaeda affiliate, and not an obscure one but an enormous international network that was often in the headlines.

How was this prominent terror funder initially approved to receive American taxpayer funds ten years after it had been placed on the “Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons” terror list?

Existing measures to prevent the payment of government monies to designated terrorist organizations include: first, a requirement that all grantees and sub-grantees of U.S.-government grants register for a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number; and second, a requirement that all government vendors register with the government’s System for Award Management (SAM) database. A designated organization should not be able to acquire a DUNS number, and any designation is explicitly recorded in the SAM database with a note that the designated organization is excluded from government grants.

However, ISRA was in fact assigned a DUNS number — as recorded at the government’s USAspending.gov website — which matched no organization in the government’s SAM database. The only listings for “Islamic Relief Agency” or “ISRA” in the SAM database are the designated Sudanese al-Qaeda affiliate and its branches.

Whoever approved this grant to ISRA either failed to check the government’s database of designated groups or did so and then chose to disregard it. Both explanations are alarming. And neither answer explains how ISRA acquired a DUNS number.

Most important: Now we know that the government deliberately chose to transfer at least $115,000 to ISRA after confirming that it was on the terror-designation list. In other words, an al-Qaeda front received taxpayers’ money with the apparent complicity of public officials.

It is no secret that the Obama administration sought to downplay the threat of Islamism, and even to coopt some Islamist movements to promote its agenda. In its foreign policy, the administration expressed support for Mohamed Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, while domestically, the White House invited Islamists to design the government’s Countering Violent Extremism program. It is difficult to argue that these efforts were the product of anything but great naïveté and political dogma. Is it possible that this combination extended to deliberately funding an al-Qaeda affiliate?

Congress must investigate this question and, more broadly, where USAID is sending taxpayers’ money, for ISRA might not be the only example. The House’s Foreign Affairs, Oversight, and Financial Services Committees, along with the Senate Finance Committee, must examine how a designated group came to qualify for government monies, why OFAC and the State Department authorized the transfer of funds after learning of ISRA’s terror ties, and which bureaucrat or political appointee was responsible for this mess.

Asked to comment, current State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert told National Review: “As this occurred under the prior Administration, the current Secretary of the State, Secretary of Treasury, and USAID Administrator had no involvement in decisions surrounding this award or subsequent license.”

The American people need to know how their dollars funded an al-Qaeda affiliate. They need to know how deep this problem runs.

*** Millions upon millions come to mind shrink-wrapped on pallets on un-marked airplanes to Tehran comes to mind actually.

lndivisible vs. Trump, lmmigration and Kavanaugh

Ever wonder where all these protests come from and how they are coordinated? Checkout this out.

  Directly after President Trump announced Brett Kavanaugh as the Supreme Court nominee, there were protests on 1st Street in front of the Supreme court.

    Indivisible: A Practical Guide for Resisting the Trump Agenda is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- ShareAlike 4.0 International License. The organization issues call scripts for each issue, including Obamacare, immigration, civil rights, education, EPA and how to stop the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh. Grassroots at its best, designed by Obama and his sidekick, Valerie Jarrett.

This operation is located in Washington DC, with chapters in major cities and closely partnered with Act Blue.

This is not a new thing by the way, as it seems media did some reporting in 2017. n fact, you can click here and scroll down to see some interesting names that are part of this movement. Don’t forget those like Jennifer Palmeri as she is in this too. Soros money? Oh yes of course, all part of the resist and rebuild agenda.

Pushing the influence for many years, check out the background, the people, the money.

Meanwhile, the foot soldiers get training, perhaps as much as 6 weeks.  There have been summits like this one in 2017. The leadership of this operation includes:

lndivar Dutta-Gupta

Leah Greenberg

Ezra Levin

David Slifka

Meighan Stone, is Director of the Malala Fund. She served previously as Vice President of Communications and Special Projects at World Food Program USA and as President of the Developing Group, supporting the Global Partnership for Education’s 2011 $1.5 billion Replenishment Conference. Meighan has lead special projects in conjunction with the Clinton Global Initiative, World Economic Forum, 2010 FIFA World Cup and at UN and G8 summits globally. At Bono’s ONE Campaign, she was Communications Director and then Director of Special Projects, part of the team that helped build the organization in its early years. Meighan has also served as a Congressional Fellow, media consultant for the World Economic Forum and worked on HIV/AIDS projects in the office of President Clinton. A former campaign Press Secretary, Meighan has also worked on the Democratic National Convention and Inauguration of President Obama. She is a member of the Board for both Pencils of Promise and Good Labs.

Angel Padilla, Policy Director for The Indivisible Project. He has also served as the Health Policy Analyst for the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), an immigration policy consultant at National Council of La Raza, and a legislative assistant for Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-IL), advising on issues related to health care and the Affordable Care Act, among others. Mr. Padilla also has interned with the Department of Homeland Security Advisory Council and the U.S. House of Representatives. He holds a bachelor’s degree from the University of California, Berkeley, and a master’s degree from Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

Maria Urbina, is the VP of Politics and National Campaigns at Voto Latino where she is charged with developing a voter engagement strategy, running multiple national campaigns, and heading up the political and communications department of Voto Latino. Before joining Voto Latino, Maria served as the Senior Advisor for Hispanic and Asian Affairs in the office of Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). In this role, Maria advised Senator Reid on policy, political strategy and outreach affecting Latino and Asian American communities in Nevada and across the country. Maria also worked with influential Latino and Asian American groups to elevate their advocacy within the Democratic Caucus of the U.S. Senate. Prior to joining Senator Reid’s senior staff, Maria served as his legislative correspondence manager and immigration legislative aide. In addition to her Senate work, Maria has worked on Latino political outreach in several key campaigns, including for Senator Reid in 2010, President Obama in 2012 and Senator Mark Udall in 2014. Maria was raised in Carson City, Nevada, and is a graduate of the University of Nevada, Reno, where she majored in political science and journalism. Maria is a proud alumnus of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute Public Policy Fellowship program and American University’s Women & Politics Institute Leadership Training Program for young women in politics.

 

Summary

Here’s the quick-and-dirty summary of this document. While this page summarizes top-level takeaways, the full document describes how to actually carry out these activities.

Chapter One

Grassroots Advocacy

How grassroots advocacy worked to stop President Obama. We examine lessons from the Tea Party’s rise and recommend two key strategic components:

  1. A local strategy targeting individual Members of Congress (MoCs).
  2. A defensive approach purely focused on stopping Trump from implementing an agenda built on racism, authoritarianism, and corruption.

How your MoC thinks — reelection, reelection, reelection — and how to use that to save democracy. MoCs want their constituents to think well of them, and they want good, local press. They hate surprises, wasted time, and most of all, bad press that makes them look weak, unlikable, and vulnerable. You will use these interests to make them listen and act.

Chapter Three

Organize Locally

Identify or organize your local group. Is there an existing local group or network you can join? Or do you need to start your own? We suggest steps to help mobilize your fellow constituents locally and start organizing for action.

Chapter four

Advocacy Tactics

Four local advocacy tactics that actually work. Most of you have three MoCs — two Senators and one Representative. Whether you like it or not, they are your voices in Washington. Your job is to make sure they are, in fact, speaking for you. We’ve identified four key opportunity areas that just a handful of local constituents can use to great effect. Always record encounters on video, prepare questions ahead of time, coordinate with your group, and report back to local media:

  • Town halls. MoCs regularly hold public in-district events to show that they are listening to constituents. Make them listen to you, and report out when they don’t.
  • Other local public events. MoCs love cutting ribbons and kissing babies back home. Don’t let them get photo-ops without questions about racism, authoritarianism, and corruption.
  • District office visits. Every MoC has one or several district offices. Go there. Demand a meeting with the MoC. Report to the world if they refuse to listen.
  • Coordinated calls. Calls are a light lift, but can have an impact. Organize your local group to barrage your MoCs with calls at an opportune moment about and on a specific issue.

Facts are Stubborn Things Regarding Immigrants

So, a friend sent an article to me written by Victor David Hansen and published by National Review. It is about Mexico and this presidential candidate and the threat he has made to the United States. He encouraging a mass exodus of his own people to the United States. Why? Money. There is a protected $70 billion trade surplus for Mexico under NAFTA. Another item is, illegal immigrants and Mexican nationals remit $30 billion back to Mexico.

Hansen’s article is here for the full read and context.

So, doing just a few minutes of research, it seems countless left-leaning media operations are all stating that illegals are not only not eligible for entitlement programs while in the United States, they don’t get any Federal dollars. What?

In a 2013 study, meaning 5+ years ago, there were at the time 3.7 million unlawful immigrant households in the U.S. The financial burden was determined to be $54.5 billion at the time. Now, we can’t seem to get to a real true number of illegals in the United States. It ranges from 11 million to 20 million. But hey, we take in an estimate 500,000 each year….so 20 million appears to be a more accurate number.

That 2013 report also revealed: Unlawful immigration and amnesty for current unlawful immigrants can pose large fiscal costs for U.S. taxpayers. Government provides four types of benefits and services that are relevant to this issue:

Direct benefits.

These include Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation.
Means-tested welfare benefits. There are over 80 of these programs which, at a cost of nearly $900 billion per year, provide cash, food, housing, medical, and other services to roughly 100 million low-income Americans. Major programs include Medicaid, food stamps, the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit, public housing, Supplemental Security Income, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
Public education.

At a cost of $12,300 per pupil per year, these services are largely free or heavily subsidized for low-income parents.
Population-based services. Police, fire, highways, parks, and similar services, as the National Academy of Sciences determined in its study of the fiscal costs of immigration, generally have to expand as new immigrants enter a community; someone has to bear the cost of that expansion. Read that report here and then consider any updated statistics.

Further in 2017, illegals do receive benefits from the SNAP program. That summary is here.

With the Supreme Court decision today on the travel conditions regarding a handful of countries and presidential authority, it speaks to properly investigating and vetting those who come into our country. For those that flow across the border, we simply cant do that. Once here, our system is designed for those illegals to not be responsible or accountable for their illegal and fugitive actions or their status.

Just the mere fact they are in the United States is an entitlement in and of itself. They receive protections real citizens never receive. There is the matter of reduced or free college tuition, like that offered in Illinois.

The highest welfare use rates for immigrants are in New York (30 percent), California (28 percent), Massachusetts (25 percent), and Texas (25 percent).

Immigrants are eleven percent of our population, but they are 20 percent of the poor population. Unless our immigration policies are reevaluated and changed accordingly, welfare usage and subsequent costs will remain high.

Instead of addressing the problem, some in Congress have suggested measures that would make it even worse, such as proposals to increase immigrants’ eligibility for benefits. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that making legal immigrants eligible for Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) would cost an estimated $2.24 billion over ten years. More here.

There has been no real factoring on the cost to DHS and the taxpayer for ICE ad CBP. Then there is detention, the judicial process, deportation, ATF, DEA, education, and, and and…

Have you considered how many we are housing in jails and prisons? Have you considered the job you have where you may not be promoted as you don’t speak Spanish or perhaps not getting hired at all?

So, while Victor David Hansen has the summary very right, there are many more piece parts to the debate. Lastly, imagine the foreign aid given to countries that are exporting their human capital, criminals and entitlement seekers so money can be sent back.