US Household Debt

Household debt is $13.5 trillion.

US Mortgage Debt topped the list in 2018 at $9.1 trillion. This is good debt, because it turns into an asset to be added to your net worth.  The best home mortgage is the 15 year mortgage that enables homeowners to pay off their homes early. Single-Family homes pay for themselves, because their value appreciates more than the payments. It makes no sense to pay rent.

Auto loan debt - This is often unavoidable, even if you get a great deal on a used car, you will probably need to make car payments for 2 years.  Most consumers need to avoid buying a new car. Auto Loan Debt is $1.1 trillion.

Student loan debt - This is really bad debt for most people and needs to be avoided at all costs. Student Loan Debt is $1.5 trillion.

Credit Card Debt - This is the worst debt and is avoidable. All monthly credit card bills need to be paid off in full.  US Credit Card Debt is $420.22 billion.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

U.S. Federal Budget 2019

The Budget Components and Impact on the US Economy, BY KIMBERLY AMADEO, 8/14/18.

In Fiscal Year 2019, the federal budget will be $4.407 trillion. The U.S. government estimates it will receive $3.422 trillion in revenue. That creates a $985 billion deficit for October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019. 

Medicare is already underfunded. Medicare taxes don't pay for all benefits, so this program relies on general tax dollars to pay for a portion of it. Medicaid is 100 percent funded by the general fund
 
Military Spending - Military spending was budgeted at $886 billion. The biggest expense is the Department of Defense base budget at $597.1 billion. Overseas Contingency Operations will cost $88.9 billion.

Spending is in three categories: Mandatory, which is at $2.739 trillion; Discretionary at $1.305 trillion; and Interest on the National Debt, $363 billion. This article provides a detailed breakdown of each. You can also find links to past budgets at the end. 

Revenue - The federal government will receive $3.422 trillion in revenue. Most of the taxes are paid by you, either through income or payroll taxes: Income taxes contribute $1.622 trillion or 49 percent of total receipts.

Social Security, Medicare, and other payroll taxes add $1.238 trillion or 36 percent.

Corporate taxes supply $225 billion or 7 percent.

Excise taxes and tariffs contribute $152 billion or 4 percent.

Earnings from the Federal Reserve's holdings add $55 billion or 2 percent. Those are interest payments on the U.S. Treasury debt the Fed acquired through quantitative easing.

Estate taxes and other miscellaneous revenue supply the remaining 2 percent.

It's estimated that each taxpayer works until late April each year to pay for all federal revenue collected. That's Tax Freedom Day. Can you think of any other purchase you make for which you've worked as hard and long?

Spending - The government will spend $4.407 trillion. Most of this, about 62 percent of expenditure, pays for mandated benefits such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. 

Interest on the U.S. debt is $363 billion. The U.S. Treasury must pay it to avoid a U.S. debt default. The United States has been fortunate because interest rates have been low. A worldwide flight to safety increased demand for Treasury notes, lowering rates. Now that the global economy is strengthening, Treasury yields are rising. So will interest payments. Interest on the $21 trillion debt is already the fastest growing federal expense.

The remaining 38 percent of the budget pays for everything else. It's called discretionary spending. The U.S. Congress changes this amount each year. It uses the president's budget as a starting point. 

Mandatory Spending - Mandatory spending is $2.739 trillion. Social Security is by far the biggest expense at $1.046 trillion. Medicare is next at $625 billion, followed by Medicaid at $412 billion.

Social Security costs are currently covered 100 percent by payroll taxes and interest on past payroll taxes that have been invested. Until 2010, there was more coming into the Social Security Trust Fund than being paid out. Thanks to interest on investments, the Trust Fund is still running a surplus. But, the Trust Fund’s Board estimates that this surplus will be depleted by 2036. Social Security revenue, from payroll taxes and interest earned, will cover only 77 percent of the benefits promised to retirees.

Discretionary Spending - The discretionary budget is $1.203 trillion. More than half goes toward military spending, including the Department of Veterans Affairs and other defense-related departments. The rest must pay for all other domestic programs. The largest are Health and Human Services, Education, and Housing and Urban Development.

There is an emergency fund of $111.4 billion that's not included in the budget process. Most of that, amounting to $88.9 billion, goes to Overseas Contingency Operations to pay for wars.

Military spending also includes $181.3 billion for defense-related departments. These include Homeland Security, the State Department, and Veterans Affairs. These departments also receive emergency funding of $18.7 billion. That pays for the war on terror costs triggered by the 9/11 attacks. These include ongoing costs from the war in Iraq and the Afghanistan war.

Congress approved a spending bill of $892.7 billion. It includes $616.9 billion for the DoD base budget, $69 billion for the OCO, and $21.9 billion for the National Nuclear Security Administration within the Department of Energy.

The Deficit - The budget deficit will be $985 billion. That's the difference between $3.422 trillion in revenue and $4.407 trillion in spending. The article on “Deficit by President” shows which U.S. president racked up the highest expenses.  A look at the deficit by year will reveal trends in the country’s annual deficits.

How the Deficit Contributes to the National Debt

Each year, the deficit adds to the U.S. debt. This anticipated tax slows economic growth. It’s like driving a car with the brakes on. It raises interest rates, as investors demand more return. They become hesitant to purchase Treasury Bills because they fear not being repaid.

Now that the economy has recovered, deficit spending is not necessary. Congress should create a budget surplus to reduce the national debt burden. But it isn’t being done because politicians, who slice popular programs, usually find themselves cut out from the next election.

Budget Process - Congress created the budget process. First, the Executive Office of Management and Budget prepares the budget. The president submits it to Congress on or before the first Monday in February. Congress is supposed to respond with spending appropriation bills that go to the president by June 30. The president has 10 days to reply.

Most important, the deadline for budget approval is September 30. If it isn't approved, the government can shut down, as it did in January 2018 and in 2013. To avoid that, Congress usually passes a continuing resolution. It keeps the government running at spending levels of the last budget. Since the FY 2010 budget, Congress has only followed the budget process twice. 

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown-3305789

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

US Law

Why Supreme Court opinions are not the 'Law of the Land,' and how to put federal judges in their place, By Publius Huldah, 11/15/18

Central to the silly arguments made by the "Convention of States Project" (COSP) is their claim that 200 years of Supreme Court opinions have increased the powers of the federal government (as well as legalized practices such as abortion); that all these opinions are "the Law of the Land"; and we need an Article V convention so we can get amendments to the Constitution which take away all these powers the Supreme Court gave the federal government.
But the text of Article V contradicts COSP's claim. Article V shows that our Constitution can be amended only when three fourths of the States ratify proposed amendments. The Supreme Court has no power to amend our Constitution. And it's impossible for an amendment to take away powers our Constitution doesn't grant.

1. First Principles
Let's analyze COSP's silly argument. We begin by looking at First Principles:
Article VI, cl.2, US Constit., the "supremacy clause," defines "supreme Law of the Land" as the Constitution, and acts of Congress and Treaties which are authorized by the Constitution. Supreme Court opinions aren't included!
Furthermore, Art. I, §1, US Constit., vests all law-making powers granted by the Constitution in Congress. Our Constitution doesn't grant any lawmaking powers to the Judicial Branch.
So why does everybody say, as we heard during the Kavanagh confirmation hearings, that Roe v. Wade is "the Law of the Land"? Because Americans have been conditioned to believe that the Supreme Court is superior to our Constitution; that their opinions about our Constitution are "law," and we are bound by them unless and until they issue new opinions which release us from their previous opinions.

3. Organic & statutory law and the totally different "common law" precedent followed in courts
Americans have been conditioned to ignore the huge distinctions between organic and statutory law, on the one hand; and the common law which is embodied in the precedents followed by judges in litigation.

Organic Law
Black's Law Dictionary defines "organic law" as
Do you see how absurd is the claim that the Supreme Court, a mere "creature" of the Constitution of 1787, has the power to change the Organic Law of the United States?
Statute Law - Black's Law Dictionary defines "statute law" as the "Body of written laws that have been adopted by the legislative body." As we saw above, all legislative Powers granted by our Constitution are vested in Congress (Art. I, §1). Acts of Congress qualify as part of the "supreme Law of the Land" only when they are made pursuant to Authority granted to Congress by the Constitution (Art.VI, cl. 2). When Acts of Congress are not authorized by the Constitution, they are mere usurpations and must be treated as such.⁶
Now let's look at the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal courts.

4. What kinds of cases do federal courts have constitutional authority to hear?
So if a State enters into a Treaty, or grants Letters of Marque & Reprisal, or issues paper money, or does any of the other things prohibited by Art. I, §10, the controversy would "arise under the Constitution" and the federal courts have constitutional authority to hear the case.

Likewise, if a State passed a law which violated the Constitution – say one requiring candidates in their State for US Senate to be 40 years of age – instead of the 30 years prescribed at Art. I, §3, cl. 3 – the federal courts have constitutional authority to hear the case.

Likewise, if a State passed a law which violated the Constitution – say one requiring candidates in their State for US Senate to be 40 years of age – instead of the 30 years prescribed at Art. I, §3, cl. 3 – the federal courts have constitutional authority to hear the case.

5. How the Supreme Court violated the "arising under" clause to hear cases they have no constitutional authority to hear
Let's use "abortion" to illustrate the usurpation. Obviously, "abortion" is not "expressly contained" in the Constitution. So abortion doesn't "arise under" the Constitution; and the constitutionality of State Statutes prohibiting abortion doesn't fit into any of the other nine categories of cases federal courts have authority to hear. 

Accordingly, federal courts have no judicial power over it. The Supreme Court had to butcher words in our Constitution in order to usurp power to legalize abortion. This is what they did:
That's the "due process" clause. As Professor Berger points out [ibid.], it has a precise meaning which goes back to the Magna Charta: it means that a person's life, liberty or property can't be taken away from him except by the judgment of his peers pursuant to a fair trial.
The Supreme Court redefined words in Our Constitution to justify the result they wanted in the case before them.

The Supreme Court didn't "enforce" the Constitution – they butchered it to fabricate a "constitutional right" to kill unborn babies.
And the lawyers said, "It's the Law of the Land"; the People yawned; and the clergy said, "the Bible says we have to obey civil government – besides, we don't want to lose our 501 (c) (3) tax exemption!"

6. What are the remedies when the Supreme Court violates the Constitution?
2. In Federalist No. 78 (6th para), Hamilton shows the Judicial Branch must rely on the Executive Branch to enforce its judgments. If the President, in the exercise of his independent judgment and mindful of his Oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution," determines that an opinion of a federal court is unconstitutional; his Duty is to refuse to enforce it. The President is also competent to decide whether federal judges have violated the Constitution! Refusing to enforce their unconstitutional judgments is his "check" on the Judicial Branch.
3. On the Right & Duty of the States – who created the federal government when they ratified the Constitution – to smack down their "creature" when their "creature" violates the Constitutional Compact the States made with each other, see Nullification: The Original Right of Self-Defense.

· The Judicial Branch was created by Art. III, §1, US Constitution. Accordingly, it is a "creature" of the Constitution. ¹

· The federal government came into existence when the States, acting through special ratifying conventions held in each of the States, ratified the Constitution.²

Since the Judicial Branch is merely a "creature" of the Constitution, it follows that it is subordinate to the Constitution, and is completely subject to its terms. It may not annul the superior authority of the States which created the Judicial Branch when they ratified the Constitution; ³

and as a mere "creature" of the Constitution, it may NOT change the Constitution under which it holds its existence! ⁴

2. Supreme Court Opinions are not "the Law of the Land"

"The fundamental law, or constitution, of a state or nation, written or unwritten; ⁵ that law or system of laws or principles which defines and establishes the organization of its government."

The organic laws of the United States are

· The Declaration of Independence – 1776

· Articles of Confederation – 1777

· Ordinance of 1787: The Northwest Territorial Government

· Constitution of the United States – 1787

The Articles of Confederation was our first Constitution. It was replaced by our Constitution of 1787 when it was ratified June 21, 1788. The Northwest Ordinance was superseded by the transformation of the area covered by the Ordinance into States [pursuant to Art. IV, §3, cl. 2, US Constit.].

Common Law - The "common law" applied in courts in the English-speaking countries came from the Bible.⁷ The Bible has much to say about our relations with each other: don't murder people, don't maim them, don't steal, don't bear false witness, don't tell lies about people, don't be negligent, don't cheat or defraud people, and such. The Bible provides for Judges to decide disputes between people and empowers Judges to require the person who has violated these precepts to pay restitution to the person whom he harmed. So, e.g., the Biblical prohibitions against bearing false witness and slandering people became our modern day concepts of slander, libel, and defamation. These principles were applied in the English courts from time immemorial, and are applied in American Courts. Modern day American attorneys litigate these common law concepts all the time. So if I am representing a client in an action for say, fraud, I look at the previous court opinions in the jurisdiction on fraud, and see how the courts in that jurisdiction have defined fraud – i.e., I look for "precedents" – the courts' previous opinions on the subject – and I expect the Judge on my case to obey that precedent. ⁸

THIS is the "common law." It is "law" in the sense that it originated with God's Word; and from "time immemorial" has been applied in the Courts of English speaking countries. But this precedent is binding or persuasive only on courts.⁹ As precedent for judges to follow, it is never "the law of the land"!

So, keep these three categories – organic, statutory, and common law – separate, and do not confuse court precedent with the "Law of the Land." The latter is restricted to the Organic Law, and statutes and treaties authorized by the Organic Law.

The ten categories of cases the Judicial Branch has authority to hear are enumerated at Art. III, §2, cl. 1, US Constit. ¹⁰

The first category is cases "arising under this Constitution." In Federalist No. 80 (2nd para), Hamilton shows these cases concern "provisions expressly contained" in the Constitution. He then points to the restrictions on the authority of the State Legislatures [listed at Art. I, §10], and shows that if a State exercises any of those prohibited powers, and the federal government sues the State, the federal courts would have authority to hear the case (3rd & 13th paras).

So the purpose of this category is to authorize the Judicial Branch to enforce the Constitution – not re-write it!! ¹¹

Now let's look at one way the Supreme Court butchered our Constitution in order to strike down State Laws they didn't like.

The original intent of §1 of the 14th Amendment was to extend citizenship to freed slaves and to provide constitutional authority for the federal Civil Rights Act of 1866. That Act protected freed slaves from Southern Black Codes which denied them God-given rights. ¹²

Now look at §1 where it says, "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

But this is how the Supreme Court perverted the genuine meaning of that clause: In Roe v. Wade (1973), they looked at the word, "liberty" in the due process clause and said, "liberty" means "privacy," and "privacy" means "a woman can kill her unborn baby." ¹³

And they claimed they had jurisdiction to overturn State Laws criminalizing abortion because the issue arises under the Constitution at §1 of the 14th Amendment! [ibid.]

The opinions of which the convention lobby complains constitute violations of our Constitution. ¹⁴ The three remedies our Framers provided or advised for judicial violations of our Constitution are:

1. In Federalist No. 81 (8th para), Hamilton shows Congress can impeach and remove from office federal judges who violate the Constitution. Congress is competent to decide whether federal judges have violated the Constitution!Impeachment is their "check" on the Judicial Branch.

Endnotes:

¹ "Creature" is the word our Founders used – e.g., Federalist No. 33 (5th para) & Jefferson's draft of The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 (8th Resolution).

² Art. VII, cl. 1, US Constit., sets forth ratification procedures for our Constitution.

³ Madison's Virginia Report of 1799-1800 (pp 190-196).

⁴ Madison's Journal of the Federal Convention of 1787 shows that on July 23, 1787, the Delegates discussed who was competent to ratify the proposed new Constitution. Col. Mason said it is "the basis of free Government" that only the people are competent to ratify the new Constitution, and

"...The [State] Legislatures have no power to ratify it. They are the mere creatures of the State Constitutions, and cannot be greater than their creators..."

Madison agreed that State Legislatures were incompetent to ratify the proposed Constitution – it would make essential inroads on the existing State Constitutions, and

"...it would be a novel & dangerous doctrine that a Legislature could change the constitution under which it held its existence...."

It's equally novel & dangerous to say that the Supreme Court may change the Constitution under which it holds its existence.

⁵ It is said England doesn't have a written constitution.

⁶ Acts of Congress which are not authorized by the enumerated powers are void.They are not made "in Pursuance" of the Constitution and have supremacy over nothing. Federalist No. 27 (last para) says:

"...the laws of the Confederacy [the federal government], as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land; to the observance of which all officers, legislative, executive, and judicial, in each State, will be bound by the sanctity of an oath. Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members [the States], will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS..." [capitals are Hamilton's]

See also Federalist No. 33 (last 2 paras) and Federalist No. 78 (10th para).

⁷ John Whitehead mentions the Biblical origin of the common law in The Second American Revolution.

⁸ Art. III, §2, cl.1 delegates to federal courts power to hear "Controversies between Citizens of different States." Much of the litigation conducted in federal courts falls into this category. These lawsuits aren't about the Constitution. Instead, they involve the range of issues people fight about in State Courts: personal injury, breach of contract, business disputes, fighting over property, slander & libel, etc. In deciding these cases, federal judges are expected to follow the "common law" precedents.

⁹ In Federalist No. 78 (next to last para), Hamilton discusses how judges are bound by "precedents" which define and point out their duty in the particular cases which come before them.

¹⁰ In Federalist No. 83 (8th para), Hamilton says:

"...the...authority of the federal ...[courts]...is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits, beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction..."

¹¹ James Madison agreed that the purpose of the "arising under this Constitution" clause is to enable federal courts to enforce the Constitution. At the Virginia Ratifying convention on June 20, 1788, he explained the categories of cases federal courts have authority to hear. As to "cases arising under this Constitution," he said:

"...That causes of a federal nature will arise, will be obvious to every gentleman, who will recollect that the states are laid under restrictions; and that the rights of the union are secured by these restrictions. They may involve equitable as well as legal controversies..."

¹² This is proved in Harvard Professor Raoul Berger's meticulously documented book, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

¹³ In Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court said under Part VIII of their opinion:

"...This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is ... is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy..."

¹⁴ Many Supreme Court opinions violate our Constitution. Wickard v. Filburn (1942), discussed HERE, is another of the most notorious. But we elect to Congress people who don't know our Constitution or The Federalist Papers; and they are unaware of their Duty – imposed by their Oath of office – to function as a "check" on the Judicial Branch by impeaching federal judges who violate our Constitution.

© Publius Huldah

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/huldah/181115

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Islamic US Congress

New Muslim Congresswoman Wants Israel Wiped Off the Map, by tpcadmin, 12/26/18.

Rashida Tlaib, a Palestinian-American who was just elected to Congress to represent Michigan’s 13th District is a fervent anti-Semite, who supports the one-state solution by wiping Israel off the map and giving the country to Palestinians.

At her victory party, there was no American flag at all and she wrapped herself up in the Palestinian flag. She has said that she plans on wearing the traditional clothing of the Palestinians and will be sworn in with a Koran. She is close friends with Linda Sansour, who supports terrorism and advocates for Sharia Law while at the same time billing herself as a feminist.

She also fought to keep Rasmea Odeh from being deported just because she killed 2 Jewish American citizens with a bomb in a terror attack. Tlaib called Trump heartless for deporting the convicted terrorist.

From The Conservative Tribune: Tlaib is also known to be in the same circles as prominent anti-Semite and leftist Women’s March organizer Linda Sarsour, and has expressed her admiration for a Palestinian woman named Rasmea Odeh who was convicted of a murderous terrorist act.

The Jewish media outlet The Algemeiner dug a little deeper on Tlaib and her “anti-Israel agenda” during the Democratic primary in Michigan in August, and brought to the fore some rather concerning details about her.

Furthermore, Tlaib has also made public her support for Islamic Relief, a group with links to the Muslim Brotherhood that was officially listed as a terrorist organization in 2014 by the government of the United Arab Emirates.

She has also issued sharp criticism toward fellow Democrats — such as California Sen. Kamala Harris — for having the audacity to reach out in cooperation with Israel on a number of issues, even accusing Harris of being “racist” for having met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

https://thepatriotchronicles.com/news-for-you/new-wants-wiped-off-the-map/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=subscriber_id:1095731&utm_campaign=New%20Muslim%20Congresswoman%20Wants%20Israel%20Wiped%20Off%20the%20Map

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Protests in France Continue

More 'yellow vest' protests to take place in France on Saturday and New Year's Eve.

Yellow vests (Gilets jaunes) protesters demonstrate in Nantes, western France, on December 22, 2018. 

The "yellow vest" anti-government protests that have rocked France will be held on Saturday and New Year's Eve, and continue into 2019, several sources in the movement have said. 

"The yellow vests are still mobilized," said Laetitia Dewalle, one spokeswoman of the protest movement which does not have a traditional leadership structure.

Several of the movement's representatives said a seventh straight Saturday of protests will take place across the country this weekend. Yellow-vest representative Benjamin Cauchy said protesters would be out on New Year's Eve as well, "to show that the mobilization will not end in the New Year". 

   

Cauchy also warned that if the concessions made so far by President Emmanuel Macron did not add up, "we will end up with a large-scale mobilization in late January".

Earlier on Thursday, Paris city officials said that New Year's Eve celebrations on the Champs-Elysees will go ahead despite the protest plans on the famed avenue.

Tens of thousands of tourists and locals traditionally ring in the New Year on the wide shopping boulevard, which ends with the Arc de Triomphe monument.

The Champs-Elysees has since last month been the epicentre of repeated violent protests against Macron's government, with the Arc de Triomphe ransacked on December 1.

   

While the numbers turning out at protests across the country have dwindled dramatically, several thousand people are listed on Facebook as planning to attend what it calls a "festive and non-violent event" on New Year's Eve.

Paris officials said they would continue as planned with preparations for a fireworks display and sound and light show on the Champs-Elysees under the theme "fraternity".

The avenue is a regular gathering point for national celebrations such as Bastille Day, the Tour de France and France's victory this summer in the football World Cup.

   

But on recent Saturdays it has been the scene of violent clashes between riot police and "yellow vest" protesters who accuse Macron of favoring the rich with his policies.

   

The movement sprang up online in October and spiraled into the worst crisis of Macron's presidency, with tens of thousands blocking roads and protesting across France.

   

Macron sought to defuse the crisis in mid-December by announcing a 10 billion euro ($11.4 billion) package of measures to help pensioners and low-paid workers.

   

Since then the "yellow vests" have been split between moderates willing to engage in dialogue with the government and others intent on remaining at the barricades.

   

Priscillia Ludosky, who launched an online petition against rising fuel taxes in May that is credited with a major role in sparking the movement, said the measures announced by Macron were "insufficient and without any real desire to improve the living standard of the French".

https://www.thelocal.fr/20181228/more-yellow-vest-protests-planned-in-france-for-saturday-and-new-years-eve

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Islam in Germany

Germany to curb mosque funding from Gulf States.

The German government has started to request that those countries register any funding they may provide to mosques in Germany, a report says. The move aims to discourage radicalization in German mosques.

The German Foreign Ministry wants Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and other Gulf states to register any donations or state subsidies intended for mosques in Germany.

According to daily Süddeutsche Zeitung and German broadcasters WDR and NDR, the government has involved both the domestic and foreign intelligence services to monitor who sends the money and who receives it.

The Gulf states are also required to alert German authorities if a religious group from Germany seeks support or advice in their country.

The new practice, which the report says has already been in place since the spring, follows on from Interior Minister Horst Seehofer's comments at Germany's Islam conference in November, where he pledged to reduce "foreign influence" on Germany's mosques.

The report says that cooperation with Kuwait, in particular, on this issue is already bearing fruit. Other states are apparently more hesitant.

Mosque tax floated - One controversial idea that has been floated in the last few weeks is to introduce a mosque tax that – similar to the German church tax that members of the Protestant and Catholic churches have to pay – would make mosques more financially independent and thus minimize the risk of radicalization fueled by money from rich Muslim-majority states.

Based on reports from Germany's Joint Counter-terrorism Center (GTAZ), the government has been surveilling "Salafist missionary activities from the Arab Gulf states" since 2015, when tens of thousands of refugees came to Germany.

Read more: Germany to slash funding for Islamic organization DITIB

The GTAZ says countries like Saudi Arabia have "long-term strategies" to influence radical groups of Islam, which Riyadh has denied. German intelligence also suggests that "missionary groups" from the Gulf States are increasingly interlinked with Salafists in Germany and Europe.

The report published by German broadcasters points out that there are no reliable figures on exactly how much money has been transferred to radical groups in Germany from the Gulf States.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-curb-mosque-funding-from-gulf-states/a-46882682

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader