Friday, September 30, 2016

Internet Giveaway Today

I'm disgusted... again... with the GOP Congress.

Yesterday, both the House and the Senate FULLY SUPPORTED President Obama's Internet Surrender -- and now we are in the FINAL COUNTDOWN to the full surrender of the Internet to foreign powers.  Internet Surrender Is Irreversible!

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai warned yesterday that the Obama Internet Surrender is "irreversible" and means that control of the Internet will be "ceded to potentially, foreign governments who might not share our values."

Security expert Frank Gaffney issued a similar warning, stating that countries like "Russia, and China, and Saudi Arabia, and Iran, and North Korea" will put given authority over the Internet.

+ + Take Action NOW: Let Republican Turncoats Know You Object!

Let's be clear -- the Republicans in the House are responsible for this latest betrayal. GOP leaders can stop the Obama Internet Surrender, but instead they refuse to fight Obama.

We have just hours to let our voices be heard!

Source: Grassfire

See the updated Countdown here

Clinton vs. Trump Tax Plans

The tax brackets below are the Single rates. 

Clinton Tax Bracket
Earnings under $9275 pay 0%
$9275 to $37650 pay 15%
$37650 to $91150 pay 25%
$91150 to $190150 pay 28%
$190150 to $415050 pay 35%
$415050 to $ $5000000 Pay 39.6%
Over $5000000 pay 43.6% (new bracket)

Hillary raises taxes on everybody.  Hillary wants to tax the poor. A 15% bracket for those who make $9275 is crazy. Everybody who makes under $29000 should vote for Trump.

Trump Tax Bracket
Earnings under $29000 pay 0%
$29000 to 54000 pay 12%
$54000 to 154000 pay 25%
Over 154000 pay 33%

Trump lowers taxes on everybody. He would eliminate the Inheritance Tax, so that family farms won’t be taxed into oblivion when grandpa dies. He restores the family as the basic economic unit in the US.  Trump’s 25% bracket is still too high.

Sources: Forbes, Tax Foundation, Money Morning staff research

Trumps Jobs Plan includes lowering the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15% to give overtaxed small businesses a break and to give big companies the ability to stay in the US and move operations back to the US.  He would also give big companies a lower tax to return $Trillions earned overseas back to the US to invest in US-based operations. 

Lowering taxes and regulations, returning to coal-fired electric plants, immigration reductions and resurgence in oil and gas production and mining will make more jobs available to US citizens.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Refugee Invasion Senate Hearing

The Senate hearing includes questions from Cruz and Sessions who prefer that we set up Refugee Centers in Syrian safe zones rather than resettling them in the US.

Muslim Invasion is Hijrah

What is Hijrah? June 25, 2016, by Jack Smith

We understand far too little about Muslims leaving their homes. What is Hijrah? Obama is well educated in the Muslim religion since he studied it while living in Indonesia. He does not want this email to be spread all over the US because he wants us to be totally ignorant of what is really going on with the ISIL movement. This makes all the turmoil now make sense.  Sad, and doesn't bode well for us.

What is a Hijrah?  Hijrah is when large scale mass migrations become invasions. What is happening in parts of Europe right now, actually appears to be a hijrah as the Quran describes it. This is NOT going to end well. Because it appears the policies of the liberal socialist leaders in Europe and the US do not want to keep their lands from being overrun.

Why? I couldn't figure out why other Arab countries (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, etc.) weren't taking in refugees, so I started digging. Hijrah is jihad by emigration. It means moving to a new land in order to bring Islam there and is considered in Islam to be a holy and revered action. "And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many locations and abundance, and whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him, his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah." Surah 4:100.

So, if a Muslim dies in the process of immigrating to another country, that's essentially the same as being a suicide bomber, his reward is automatic. This explains the great eagerness to undertake such a perilous journey. Muhammad and his followers emigrated from Mecca to Yathrib/Medina in 622 CE. It was there that he became a military leader though still uneducated. This is where all the commands to commit violence against unbelievers originated. It's important to note that the Islamic calendar marks this as the beginning of Islam.

This current massive hijrah was announced last January, although few Muslim countries paid the announcement much attention. A supporter (or member) of ISIS uploaded a document in Arabic that urged Muslims to get to Libya because of its proximity to southern Europe and for the important tactical value of its illegal immigration circuits to facilitate infiltration of European cities. Libya has a long coast and looks upon the southernmost countries of western European, which can be reached with ease by even a rudimentary boat.

In February, transcripts of telephone intercepts published in Italy said ISIS was threatening to send 500,000 migrants as a "psychological weapon" against Europe. The Italian Minister for the Interior, Angelino Alfano, said at the time, "If the militias of the Caliphate advance faster than the decisions of the international community how can we put out the fire in Libya and stem the migration flows? We are at risk of an exodus without precedent."

Also in February, the Turkish intelligence service warned police that up to 3,000 trained jihadists were seeking to cross into Turkey from Syria and Iraq and then travel through Bulgaria and Hungary into Western Europe and then into the rest of Europe. Sound familiar. In May, a Libyan government adviser warned that Islamic State operatives were being" smuggled to Europe in migrant boats. "ISIS is profiting from the human trafficking trade, forcing boat owners to hand over their profits or be killed. Some ISIS operatives are already sheltered in safe houses in the south of Europe.

Groups of men, 17 to 25, from Palestine and Syria, cross into Bulgaria and from there move into the rest of the EU. A former Al Qaeda double agent told the BBC that he knew of two Egyptian brothers who reached Italy from Libya, accompanied by men who were deeply religious and fluent in Italian and French.

Go watch the videos of those "refugees" again. How many of the "refugees" are 17-25 year old men and of military age? If that doesn't convince you, we already know terrorists are coming through with the waves of refugees: a week ago five men were arrested attempting to cross the Bulgarian-Macedonian border with Islamic State propaganda, specific Jihadists prayers and decapitation videos on their phones. They had been posing as refugees.

UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage warned: "I fear we face a direct threat to our civilization if we allow large numbers of people from that war torn region into Europe.

Other Muslim countries are not "taking in" these "refugees" because this is a Hijrah into Europe. This is no humanitarian crisis. It is an invasion. Its goal is to transform Europe: overtax its economies, tear down its wealthiest nations, re-draw the demographics and, of course, the culture. Obama, having already announced over 100,000 are going to arrive in the USA in 2017.

In Freedom, Jack & Joyce Smith, Liberty Group, Ellijay, Ga.
"Working to preserve our Constitution"

Hillary wants 65,000 Syrians in FY2017

Obama’s 110,000 refugee plan for 2017 is a CEILING! A Trump administration could turn off the spigot, by Ann Corcoran 9/29/16

For all the years I’ve been writing RRW (9 now), I’ve seen the Open Borders advocates and the Resettlement contractors try to make the President’s proposed numbers (his determination) for the upcoming fiscal year a REQUIRED GOAL.  It is not! It is a CEILING. There is no requirement that they must reach that number and in fact most times they don’t.

If Donald Trump is elected and uses his power by cutting refugee admissions, expect much wailing and gnashing of teeth from Senators Dick Durban and Patrick Leahy, two of the most important members of the Senate welcoming tens of thousands of Middle Eastern and African refugees to your towns.

I’ve posted a table below from the Refugee Processing Center so you will have some idea what the ceiling was each year since 2006 and the number they hit.

By the way, failure to reach that number can usually be attributed to not enough resettlement sites and capacity in those sites (very often a limiting factor is the availability of enough cheap housing), or it might simply be that the UNHCR hasn’t processed enough refugees for us that year.

However, I doubt that this administration in its waning months is going to be responsible and consider capacity.  My guess is that the refugee flow is going to be on steroids for October and in to November.

If Trump is elected they will go completely insane pouring people in here before his inauguration (unless in December the lame duck Congress severely curtails their funding).
To accommodate these vast new numbers Obama has proposed, and because they are wearing out their welcome in existing resettlement sites, we are hearing that there  are as many as 47 new targeted towns to be seeded with mostly Middle Eastern and African refugees.

The Continuing Resolution, being voted on this week, will give them enough money (since the Republican leadership has failed us) to get that ball rolling in the first few months. In fact, that ball will get rolling in two days, on October first!

What about Hillary’s 65,000 Syrians?

In yesterday’s hearing someone (Sen. Sessions?) asked about Hillary’s proposed 65,000 Syrians and if there had to be any “consultation” with Congress if she is elected and wants to bring that many in the opening days of her administration. The answer is yes, probably, but what the hell is Congress going to do other than say, ‘thanks for stopping by and informing us!’  Congress’ only recourse is to stop the funding! Don’t hold your breath!

Conversely, because the Refugee Admissions Program is heavily weighted toward the President’s wishes, if Donald Trump should be elected, he has great leeway to cut back, or even propose a moratorium on Obama’s 110,000 goal. He does not have to reach the ceiling!

Of course, he would have to “consult” Congress too.  The likes of Senators Patrick Leahy and Dick Durban will be WAILING! (That would be fun to see!)

So, bottomline, Donald Trump must win the Presidency and Congress must cut the funding for the program, or we are finished.

Here is the table I mentioned above.  You will be looking at the columns labeled “ceiling” and “admitted.”

Keith Scott had a gun, not a book

DEAR RIOTERS: Your Boy Was Carrying A STOLEN Gun And His WIFE Filed This Against Him. Does THIS change the story a little?

Keith Scott was carrying a stolen gun when he was shot and killed during a confrontation with police in Charlotte, North Carolina, authorities have said.

The gun was reported stolen after a breaking and entering, according to the police. A breaking and entering suspect told agents at the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives that he had sold the gun to Scott, ABC 11 reported Monday. He is now in custody.

Scott’s wife Rakeyia, who filmed her husband’s killing on Tuesday, had filed for a restraining order against him and had told authorities he carried a gun, hit her as well as one of her children and had threatened to kill her, records have shown.

That gun his wife says he doesn’t own? It showed up in the paperwork when she filed a restraining order against her husband. Who had a LOADED gun on him when he was shot.

The guy who’s being held up as Charlotte’s BLM martyr? Not such a sweet guy.…’He hit my 8 year old in the head a total of three times with is [sic] fist,’ she wrote on the form published by TWC News. ‘He kicked me and threaten [sic] to kill us last night with his gun. He said he is a “killer” and we should know that.’ - Daily Mail  This fits with ClashDaily’s report about his ‘Traumatic Brain Injury’ which includes information on his previous interactions with Police officers.

There’s also the small matter of what *EXACTLY* he served 7 years in prison for. According to court records, Mr. Scott was born in South Carolina, was about six feet tall and weighed 230 to 250 pounds. While living in South Carolina in the 1990s, he was charged with a number of offenses including check fraud, aggravated assault and carrying a concealed weapon. Later, he moved to Texas where he shot and wounded a man in San Antonio in 2002, for which he was convicted and sentenced, in 2005, to seven years in prison. He was released in 2011. - New York Times

It’s hard to paint someone as a ‘victim’ with someone know for attacking others. But that hasn’t stopped anyone from trying.

Share if people should realize just WHO it is they are smashing up Charlotte over.

Crime is up in the US

BREAKING: FBI Releases Bombshell Report That Proves Trump Is Right

During the first presidential debate Monday night, GOP nominee Donald Trump and Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton clashed over how to handle violent crime in our communities.

Trump contended that statistics showed an increase in violent crime and that our elected officials should stop cutting the legs out from under police officers and just let them do their jobs.

Clinton and her left-wing team “fact-checked” the statistics, claiming that Trump was wrong about the increase in crime — but an FBI report released Monday showed that Trump was correct.

The FBI found that homicides in the United States went up by more than 10 percent in 2015 when compared to the year prior, while all “violent crime” had increased by nearly 4 percent in the same period, according to The Washington Post.

In fact the 2015 numbers reflected the highest estimated violent crime rate in three years, the report explained.

While Clinton may be correct that crime rates were higher in prior decades, it doesn’t change the fact that we have experienced a recent surge in violent crime in recent years — a surge that must be effectively addressed by the next wave of leadership in Washington, mostly by getting federal bureaucrats off the backs of local law enforcement personnel.

FBI Director James B. Comey said the fact that crime was far lower than during the late 1980s and early 1990s was of “little comfort” to him.

“Something people say to me, ‘Well, the increases are off of historic lows,’” Comey explained. “How does that make any of us feel any better? I mean, a whole lot more people are dying this year than last year, and last year than the year before, and I don’t know why for sure.”

Perhaps it’s because, as Trump argued during the debate, liberal politicians and activists have made it harder for police officers to do their jobs and stop violent criminals.

Furthermore, a large percentage of these violent crimes take place in cities that have the nation’s strictest gun control measures.

The Brennan Center for Justice, a law and policy institute, recently found that Chicago has accounted for nearly half –yes, half — of the total spike in the nation’s homicides since last year, according to The Post.

The Center found that Chicago, Washington and Baltimore were responsible for most of the increase in homicides in 2015.

Unsurprisingly to those of us who understand that lawful gun owners can play a vital role in minimizing homicides and other violent crime, these cities make it highly difficult for law-abiding citizens to own firearms — which of course does nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

The truth is that the liberal policies of President Barack Obama and company, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have done nothing except exacerbate the problems in cities where violent crime has ravaged communities.

We need a president who will respect our law enforcement, promote lawful gun ownership and encourage law and order across the nation.

Like and share on Facebook and Twitter and let us know what you think about this FBI report proving Trump was right at the debate.

Do you think Donald Trump will be able to decrease the violent crime rate? Scroll down to comment below!

Senate Hearing on Refugee Resettlement

Senators Cruz and Sessions let loose in yesterday’s Senate hearing on FY17 refugee plan by Ann Corcoran 9/29/16

Yesterday the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, grilled three members of the Obama Administration on the plan to admit 110,000 refugees to the US in the next fiscal year which begins on Saturday (Oct. 1).

This is a required hearing under the Refugee Act of 1980 and we will be looking for the House hearing (where are your Reps Goodlatte and Gowdy?).

Senators Ted Cruz and Jeff Sessions were not happy (understatement!) when they heard details of so-called screening of refugees from the failed state of Syria.
Many issues were raised, but naturally the one that brought out the most angry exchanges involved the vetting process.

Leo Hohmann, of World Net Daily, watched and summarized those key points in his lengthy report, here.

This is how he begins: President Obama’s top official responsible for vetting refugees testified before the Senate Wednesday that it’s possible for people from Syria and other terrorist-infested countries to have their refugee applications approved based simply on personal interviews with a “highly trained” immigration officer.

Leon Rodriguez, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, could not deny that in many cases there is no data from the refugee’s home country that would corroborate or refute his story. He tried to reassure the committee by saying the screening process is lengthy and continuously being improved, noting that the United Nations pre-screens the refugees before his office even sees them.

Under questioning from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Rodriguez at first avoided giving a direct answer on whether it was possible to gain admission as a refugee based solely on an interview. That infuriated Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who chairs the subcommittee on immigration and the national interest. His subcommittee conducted the hearing Wednesday on Obama’s refugee plans for fiscal year 2017, which begins Saturday, Oct. 1.

Obama plans to bring 110,000 refugees to the United States in 2017, up from 85,000 in 2016 and 70,000 in 2015.

The administration has exceeded its 2016 target on Syrian refugees by 30 percent, resettling 12,500 in dozens of U.S. cities and towns, rather than the 10,000 it had promised the U.N.

At Wednesday’s hearing, administration officials refused to say how many refugees they intend to bring in from Syria in fiscal 2017, only that it would likely exceed the 12,500 brought this year. (See my post on that portion of hearing, here.)

Nor did they say how many would come from Somalia, Iraq, Burma, Afghanistan and other hotbeds of Sunni radicalism.
When the subject turned to the process of “vetting” the refugees, sparks began to fly.

Continue reading and see embedded clips (sparks flying) from the hearing.

Internet Giveaway

Can the GOP stop Obama's internet giveaway? By Rick Moran 9/8/16

As the October 1 deadline approaches for the US to turn over control of ICANN, the domain name nonprofit, to the international community, several congressional Republicans are vowing to fight the move because they say it's dangerous and premature.

Politico: GOP lawmakers have long warned that the administration's plan to relinquish its authority over ICANN, the global nonprofit that manages the internet's domain name system, could give authoritarian countries like China and Russia an opening to make an online power grab.

Now, as the actual date of the transition approaches — Oct. 1 — Republicans are looking at throwing up new obstacles.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is pledging to make the issue his primary focus this month, beginning with a floor speech on Thursday, in which he's expected to rail against the Obama administration's strategy. Cruz has already launched a website claiming the president is “giving away the internet," complete with a spinning countdown clock against a black background. And he's scheduled a hearing of the Senate Judiciary oversight subcommittee he chairs next week to “investigate the possible dangers” of the plan.

Meanwhile, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) said Wednesday that language to delay the transition could be included in the continuing resolution to fund the government past this month. And House Republicans are considering their options in the coming appropriations bill, a GOP aide confirmed this week.

“I don’t think the foundation has been appropriately laid for this,” Thune said in an interview. “Some members are adamantly opposed to transition, period, and a lot of them just think now is not the time, and it really just hasn’t been vetted, and it’s not ready yet.”

Can Republicans succeed in stopping the transfer?  They can definitely delay it – perhaps for a couple of years – but the momentum for international control of the internet is very strong.  And tech companies are fully supportive of the giveaway.  Most of them have already made their peace with the dictators and willingly go along with the censorship. 
But a broader concern has to be this: is the international community ready for the responsibility?  ICANN has not demonstrated the independence necessary to resist individual countries from imposing their will on the internet.  The danger is that ICANN will become a tool of powerful nations like China and Russia, which would threaten internet freedom.

Obama refuses to follow the simple, time-tested adage: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."  This transfer is being done to kowtow to Arabs, the Russians, and the Chinese, who have their own ideas of what "internet freedom" means, and it's not what our idea of the concept is.


The Internet is the only free press on the planet.  If the US refuses to protect free speech, we are doomed.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

US is Pro-Life

New Poll Shows Americans are Pro-Life on Abortion as Roe v. Wade Turns 43, by Steven Ertelt, 1/19/16

As Roe v. Wade turns 43 this week and Americans mark more than four decades of unlimited abortions, new polling data shows they want a change in the direction of protecting unborn children.

A new national poll shows a strong majority of Americans — including a majority of those who consider themselves “pro-choice” on abortion — support substantial abortion limits. That’s according to a new national survey of 1,686 adults conducted at the end of November by the Marist Institute for Public Opinion at Marist University.

Here’s a list of the findings: The survey found that more than 8 in 10 Americans (81 percent), including women (82 percent) and nearly two-thirds of pro-choice supporters (66 percent), would restrict abortion to — at most — the first three months of pregnancy. The answer to this question has been approximately 8 in 10 since the survey was launched in 2008.

Additionally, 77 percent of Americans, including 79 percent of women and 71 percent of “pro-choice” supporters, say that laws can protect both a mother and her unborn child.

Only about 1 in 5 (17 percent of Americans, 15 percent of women, 23 percent of pro-choice identifiers) disagree.

The poll also found majorities of Americans see abortion as both ultimately harmful to women and morally wrong.
By a 25-point margin, Americans (55 to 30 percent) say that abortion ultimately does a woman more harm than good. A similar proportion of women agree (56 percent to 31 percent). More than 1 in 4 who identify as pro-choice (27 percent) also share this view.

Six in 10 Americans (60 percent), including 61 percent of women, say abortion is “morally wrong.” One-third of pro-choice Americans agree (33 percent).

In addition, nearly 7 in 10 Americans (68 percent), including 69 percent of women, oppose taxpayer funding of abortion. This includes 51 percent of those who consider themselves pro-choice. Fewer than 3 in 10 Americans (29 percent) support it.

Similarly, more than 6 in 10 Americans (61 percent), including 60 percent of women, support laws that would ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, except to save the life of the mother. The percentage was the same for pro-choice supporters (62 percent).

Fifty-one percent of Americans — including 50 percent of women — believe health care providers and organizations should have the right to opt out of providing abortion services if they have moral objections. About 4 in 10 (42 percent) of both groups disagree. Notably, even one-third (34 percent) of those who identify as pro-choice would protect the right to opt out.

The Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization, commissioned the university to take the poll and the head of the group said the polling data shows it’s time to dramatically change U.S. abortion law to limit abortions further.

“Year in and year out since we began polling on this issue, the American people have understood that the law can protect mother and child alike and have expressed a strong consensus in favor of abortion restrictions,” said Knights of Columbus CEO Carl Anderson. “It is time for a new national conversation on abortion — one that begins with this consensus in favor of restrictions: a consensus that American women and men have already reached, and that includes a majority even of those who call themselves pro-choice.”

Thursday, September 29, 2016

Trump Won Debate

Online Polls Show Overwhelming Winner of First Presidential Debate, by Jack Davis 9/27/16

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump was the hands-down winner of Monday’s presidential debate, according to online polls conducted by CNBC and Time magazine.

Trump came out on top over Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton at 67 percent to 33 percent according to CNBC

According to Time, Trump was the winner at 55 percent over Clinton’s 45 percent.

“Trump won hands down,” commented Brian Earl on CNBC‘s poll. “Not in the debate itself but after. He did well in the first half of the debate, lost a little in the second half, but after it was over Hillary vacated so fast the camera man was running trying to keep up.

Trump stayed with his wife and daughter and answered questions for a good 20 minutes. He also referenced a Clinton (ad) on the birther issue. CNN pulled up the Wolf (Blitzer) clip and proved she was (lying).”

Others saw the candidates’ performance as a window to their character. “Hillary looked smug during the entire debate, and she has a fake smile,” commented Kendoaz. “I give her credit for not falling over and lasting 90 minutes.

Hillary looked fake, had prepared lines and did good remembering them, but we don’t want fake we want the truth. I’m tired of politicians BS and Trump just delivers well.

With Trump it looks like it comes from the heart, not a paid political junkie. I bet the next debate Trump will be on the attack more, he let her off the hook a few times.”

Many viewers found there to be a heavy hand of bias in the debate. “Where was the discussion about illegal immigration? That’s the number 1 issue in the election.

Where was the discussion about radical Islamic terrorism? That’s the number 2 issue in the election. Hillary and the 3rd debater, Lester Holt, spent most of the time trying to play “Gotcha” with Donald Trump,” commented Tom Johnson. “Holt tried to rebut Trump 41 times. He only followed up with Hilary 7 times. Hilary came across as a smug, pompous insider politician. Trump came across as a leader.”

Others felt the media bias was present during the post-debate spin cycle. “What was pathetic was the spin room reporters of ABC, NBC and CBS immediately after the debate. My God those people have no shame and ran to tell us all how bad Trump did, how Trump failed, never saying any bad about Secretary Clinton’s performance. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at anything the media does this cycle, but it was sickening to watch,” commented Rockerfeller.

Fox News, in fact, noted that online polls showed Trump largely being cited as the winner, but the media analysis of the debate largely gave the victory to Clinton.

Trump himself gave Clinton a grade of  C+ for her performance. “I thought she was very bad in the first half when they were asking normal questions,” he said, “and when they were asking bad questions she did better.”

Trump said he had planned to hit the Democratic nominee on her husband Bill Clinton’s infidelities but in the end could not bring himself to do so in front of their daughter, Chelsea Clinton. “See, I do have a heart,” he said.

What do you think? Scroll down to comment below.