As I have been hinting here, I am slowing down. There are many many fantastic sites covering fraud especially now as it relates to the massive election fraud we are daily seeing exposed. With only so much time in a day that I can devote to posting, I’ll concentrate right now at RRW since it really isn’t covered much these days elsewhere.
I have posted 9,557 posts at RRW since 2007 and I need to continue to build on the archives there.
I will still post here, but am driving myself crazy trying to do both.
This morning I’m working on a post on China and the fact that they don’t want any Middle Eastern refugees (actually they don’t take refugees at all).
One last thing, before the speech police took down RRW I had thousands of subscribers that were lost and I have never regained them. Of course when Trump won in 2016 all of us naturally assumed the refugee controversy was behind us. It isn’t and now more than ever it will come raging back if Biden/Harris steal the election.
How can that be? Everyone KNOWS that since both groups are persecuted by white racist Islamophobic Americans they should be working together against their common enemy—us! Right?
And, everyone KNOWS that bringing diversity to impoverished American cities brings strength and “enriches” communities. Right?
One thing that George Floyd’s death has done is shine a spotlight on the tensions between African Americans and especially the Arabs who have moved into ‘their’ neighborhoods (largely thanks to the naive notions the Left peddles about multicultural enrichment). Or is it possible that it isn’t naivety? Maybe creating chaos and discord is the real goal! It surely is for Antifa!
Over the years, writing at RRW,I have come across the issue of poor blacks feeling left out when Arab migrants/refugees are placed in traditional black neighborhoods and just the other day I told you about wishful thinking on the Left that George Floyd would bring the two supposedly maligned groups together.
Now I see at Arab Newsthat there is a lot of work to do to bridge the divide especially as questions arise about Muslim Arabs placing shops that sell liquor and drug paraphernalia in African American neighborhoods, the subject of my post at RRW.
(It is haram for Muslims to drink alcohol, but fine and dandy to sell it!)
By the way there were reports that during the Baltimore riots a few years ago, black thugs directed looting toward immigrant Arab shops. African Americans don’t take kindly to diversity dumping in their neighborhoods it seems.
US riots take severe toll on Arab-American small businesses
CHICAGO: Stores owned by immigrants of Arab and Muslim origin are among the many businesses that were pillaged and destroyed during the protests triggered by the death in Minneapolis of George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man, while in police custody.
US media has focused almost exclusively on the continued anger over the circumstances of Floyd’s death on May 25, while choosing to ignore an inconvenient truth: the economic setback and mental anguish suffered by hard-working Arab American and Muslim immigrant communities.
Why does the US media ignore the facts surrounding the tension between African Americans and Muslims? Because it goes completely against the meme they are promoting daily—blacks and Muslims are being treated badly by whites and so therefore there cannot be any discord between the supposedly mistreated minorities.
Arab News continues….
Protesters burned vehicles, smashed windows, defaced buildings and clashed with police as civil unrest erupted in cities across the country. Atlanta, Seattle, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Denver, Salt Lake City, Nashville and Minneapolis imposed curfews while the governors of Minnesota, Georgia, Ohio, Washington and Kentucky mobilized their states’ National Guards.
Although there are Arab chambers of commerce in many of the cities heavily affected by the rioting and looting, none of the business bodies — except one in Chicago — have been able to collect accurate information on the losses suffered by the community.
Through tears, Ekhlas Salamy described how she and her sons, Steve and John, watched helplessly from across a main street as their store in Chicago was ransacked by looters.
“I am so frustrated by what happened to our store. My husband bought the business in 1988 and it is located in a mixed community of African Americans and Hispanics,” said Salamy, whose family emigrated to the US from the Palestinian city of Ramallah.
It is not fair says Mrs. Salamy!
“We have never had any problems before with the African American community. In fact, five of our employees are black and three others are Hispanic.
“We never treated them badly and never let them feel that they were any different from us. We have always treated them with respect.
She and her two sons took over the family’s Chicago business, Pete & Jack’s Liquor, at 4156 W Division Street when her husband died in August 2018.
“This is our livelihood. All my family has survived off this business,” Salamy told Arab News.
“The looters just destroyed all our hard work. I have tears in my eyes because we never did any harm to anyone. They stole everything and destroyed the entire store.”
Think it is bad now? Just wait till the Police Departments in major cities are stripped of funding and the power to arrest criminals. Steve and John will have to be hiring their own personal police force.
Less than a week ago I told you about how Facebook is blocking sites like VDARE that apparently the woke and oh-so-smart people at Facebook don’t like, and it is no surprise to see Google hard at work doing the same.
Here is Robert Spencer, whose blog Jihad Watchhas been the go-to site for the latest news about the ‘religion of peace’ for going on two decades, finding the site buried by Google.
And, look who is here—Imam-extraordinaire Omar Suleiman!
Google Erases the Existence of Those Who Speak Unwelcome Truths
Daniel Greenfield, the peerless Shillman Fellow and FrontPage writer, tweeted the news on May 7: “Google just erased my Sultan Knish blog and Front Page Mag articles from the first pages of results for my name doubt very much this is accidental.”
I did too, so I checked for myself, and sure enough: a Google search for “Robert Spencer” now does not bring up Jihad Watch, where most of my writing outside of books has been published for the last seventeen years, but it does give you defamatory and distorted attack pieces from the far-Left Southern Poverty Law Center*** and the Saudi-funded Bridge Initiative, and nothing that doesn’t portray me and my work in the most unfavorable possible light.
This latest example of the tech giants’ determination to silence all dissenting voices reveals one often overlooked fact: they are desperately afraid.
Google is so afraid of Jihad Watch, in fact, that it is going to great lengths to make you think that the site (which you can find here) doesn’t exist at all.
Several years ago, under pressure from the Texas-based imam Omar Suleiman, Google changed the algorithm for its search results so as to bury anything critical of Islamic jihad violence or Sharia oppression of women. Jihad Watch, which for years had been the first result in a Google search for “jihad” (back when Google searches were based solely on relevance and the popularity of the site), fell off the front page of “jihad” searches.
Now Google has gone even farther to make sure you don’t see Jihad Watch. Just this morning, I was looking for an old Jihad Watch article from a few years ago that I needed for a citation, and I entered an exact phrase from that article into the Google search bar. What came back were two sites where the article had been republished, but no indication that it had ever been at Jihad Watch at all.
In George Orwell’s dystopian novel of a totalitarian society, 1984, to which far more people refer than have actually read the book, the dissenter Winston Smith’s job in the Ministry of Truth involves erasing from all historical records any mention of people who have been declared “nonpersons.” Foes of the regime aren’t just vilified. Their very existence is erased. Dissent is easy to control if all record of it ever having been enunciated is eradicated, and Google has apparently taken a page from Orwell’s book.
Of course, Jihad Watch is one of the least of the concerns of Big Tech. They’re erasing all manner of people who dissent from the Leftist agenda. Greenfield notes that “Google controls 80% of search. That means it controls what the internet looks like. And it’s continuing to erase conservatives from the internet. I’m just the latest victim. Its censorship and creepy surveillance have reached new heights during the pandemic.”
*** One of the funniest things I ever read from someone who had newly been labeled a hate GROUP by the Southern Poverty Law Center was Daniel Greenfield’s post in 2012when he learned he (with his blog Sultan Knish) had been added to the SPLC’s Hate GROUP list.
HOW I BECAME A HATE GROUP
Here are just a few snips:
When I went to sleep last night, little did I know that while outside sirens competed with car alarms in the symphony that is New York City, I had already been declared a hate group.
Being declared a hate group wasn’t in my plans for the day, but like winning the lottery, it seems to be one of those things that happens when you least expect it. Except that as the little bald man in front of the bodega tells you, you have to play to win, but you don’t even have to buy a ticket to be declared an official hate group.
My first response on finding out that I was now a hate group was to look around to see where everyone else was. A hate group needs the “group” part, and one man and a cat don’t seem to be enough. Even when the cat is a well known bigot who hates mice, birds, car alarms that go off in the middle of the night, the plumber and sudden noises.
Still the Southern Poverty Law Center had listed, “Sultan Knish a blog by Daniel Greenfield” as one of their “Active Anti-Muslim Hate Groups…”
I suppose I found this so funny because the SPLC has done the same to me (I have a cat) too!
“If the SPLC were an impeccable civil rights organization, why would it hide money in offshore accounts?”
(Tyler O’Neill at Pajamas Media)
I haven’t paid much attention lately to the king of non-profit scammers—the Southern Poverty Law Center—so it’s good that watchdog Tyler O’Neill is doing the job along with others in the alternative media.
You won’t see this news at CNN, MSNBC or the New York Times.
Exaggerating Hate Pays: Scandal-Plagued SPLC Has Millions in Offshore Accounts, Half a Billion in Assets
What kind of civil rights nonprofit has millions of dollars in offshore accounts? According to recent reports, the scandal-plagued Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) does, and that’s just scratching the surface of its problems.
The SPLC recently published its updated “hate map” plotting “hate groups” across America, right as Americans are fearing for their lives and livelihoods in a deadly pandemic. That map inflated the numbers not only by listing “hate groups” that barely exist but by defaming mainstream conservative and Christian organizations as “hate groups” on par with the Ku Klux Klan. In fact, former SPLC employee Bob Moser exposed the map as a “highly profitable scam.”
According to the SPLC’s tax documents, the organization has $529,801,832 in its endowment, the second year it had more than half a billion dollars on hand. According to an accounting firm’s report first publicized by the Washington Free Beacon’s Joe Schoffstall, the SPLC has $570 million in assets, including the $41 million in its action fund launched just last year. Annual contributions in 2019 stood at $97 million, down from the $132 million it reported in October 2017.
Highly profitable, indeed.
Most astonishingly, the SPLC reported $162 million in offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands, $41 million more than the group previously reported. In fact, the SPLC’s tax documents also note that the nonprofit “has ownership in several foreign corporations. However, the center’s ownership percentage in these corporations does not rise to the level of reporting on the Form 5471.”
If the SPLC were an impeccable civil rights organization, why would it hide money in offshore accounts?Cayman Island bank accounts are notorious as a tool for tax evasion and the fact that the SPLC has such accounts should be a red flag for anyone examining its credibility.
Then again, this organization has so many red flags, it’s hard to know where to start. Someone should write a book about it! Oh wait, I already did that.
Editor: Sorry I haven’t been posting much here lately, I’ve been busy at RRW (as well as being distracted as I assume many of you are as well by of demands of just living these days!), but this is very important and I’m not sure how many of you read RRW.
Cross-postedthis morning in an effort to find groups that could support the Thomas More Law Center’s legal petition to the Supreme Court.
I know it’s a little hard to believe that there are other things going on in America besides the virus crisis, but here is important news I should have mentioned sooner.
The Thomas Moore Law Center has filed a petition to attempt to get the Supreme Court to review the Tenth Amendment case that has been working its way through the legal system.
The heart of the case is the Tenth Amendment argument that the federal government has no Constitutional power to shift the cost of refugee resettlement onto state governments as it has been doing for decades.
TMLC is looking for other like-minded organizations to file amicus briefs in support of their argument which has far-reaching implications beyond just the refugee program!
Thomas More Law Center Petitions U.S. Supreme Court to Review Tennessee’s Challenge to Federal Refugee Resettlement Program
ANN ARBOR, MI – In what could have far reaching implications for all states seeking to withdraw from the federal refugee resettlement program, the Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”) collaborating with attorney John Bursch, filed a certiorari petition Monday, March 16 in the U.S. Supreme Court.
The petition asks the Court to hold that the Tennessee General Assembly has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the federal government’s forced state funding of the federal refugee resettlement program.
The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”) is a national nonprofit public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Both TMLC and Mr. Bursch are representing Tennessee without charge.
John Bursch, a former Michigan state solicitor general, nationally prominent appellate lawyer and past chair of the American Bar Association’s Council of Appellate Lawyers, authored the petition for certiorari.
The petition argues that the issues presented in the Tennessee case cut to the core of the Constitution’s protection of states against overreach by the federal government. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to appropriate state funds, contrary to the wishes of the state, to fund a federal program.
According to the petition: “If a state legislature cannot vindicate its rights in court when the federal government picks the state’s pocket and threatens the state if it dare stop providing funds, then federalism is a dead letter.”
The petition seeks to overturn a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision which ruled that the General Assembly does not have institutional standing to challenge the constitutionality of the resettlement program. The cert petition does not challenge the federal government’s right to resettle refugees in Tennessee. What it objects to is forcing Tennessee taxpayers to pay the costs of the resettlement.
Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of TMLC, noted: “From the beginning, opposition to the federal refugee resettlement program has been about protecting Tennessee’s state sovereignty from impermissible federal interference. The federal government cannot simply commandeer state tax dollars to fund a purely federal program to extend benefits to noncitizens.”
Tennessee initially agreed to participate in the federal resettlement program because the federal government promised to reimburse 100 percent of the cost. In fact, Congress crafted the 1980 Refugee Act specifically intending that states not be taxed for programs they did not initiate and for which they were not responsible. As is often the case, however, the federal government began shrinking its financial support to the states and by 1991 eliminated it entirely. Due to the mounting costs the federal government was not covering as promised, Tennessee withdrew from the program effective June 30, 2008. But that didn’t stop the federal financial burden on Tennessee taxpayers. The federal government simply designated Catholic Charities of Tennessee, a non-governmental private organization, to continue the program with state dollars.
Between 2007 and the end of 2019, resettlement agencies pumped more than 15,000 refugees into Tennessee cities and towns. They came from Afghanistan, Bosnia, Burma, Central African Republic, Congo, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan 3 and many other countries. They often arrive from United Nations camps in poor health, with no job skills or English-language abilities.
The resulting cost to state taxpayers amounted to tens of millions of dollars. In 2015 alone, the refugee-related Medicaid costs paid by Tennessee tax dollars topped $30 million.
Instead of resolving the merits of Tennessee’s claim, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals sidestepped the pivotal constitutional issue concerning federalism by ruling that the Tennessee General Assembly lacked standing to bring its lawsuit.
The petition filed on March 16, 2020, argues that this was in error:
“The General Assembly is an institutional plaintiff asserting an institutional injury; the federal government has co-opted the General Assembly’s appropriation power and impaired its obligation to enact a balanced state budget. That is because the federal government can siphon state funds—to help pay for a federal program from which Tennessee has withdrawn.”
TMLC originally filed the federal lawsuit in March 2017 on behalf of the State of Tennessee, the Tennessee General Assembly, and state legislators Terri Lynn Weaver and John Stevens challenging the commandeering of millions in state taxpayer dollars for a purely federal program.
A U.S. district court judge dismissed the case on the federal government’s motion. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s dismissal on the sole grounds that the General Assembly lacked standing. It never reached the merits of the case.
The Supreme Court now has a chance to shed light on the proper role of the states relative to the federal government—which is the bedrock constitutional principle of federalism.
The petition states: “The (Tennessee) General Assembly does not object to the federal resettlement program. It does not even object to the federal government resettling 4 refugees in Tennessee. The General Assembly does object to the federal government reaching its hand into Tennessee’s pocket to pay for the cost of such a program, particularly when the enabling legislation was enacted with the promise to reimburse states for all expenses incurred in this program.”
The federal government mandates that states provide Medicaid to otherwise eligible refugees, or face termination of federal benefits.
Accordingly, the federal government forces Tennessee to continue funding the refugee program by threatening to pull $7 billion in federal Medicaid funding, which represents 20 percent of the state’s total budget.
The argument in favor of the General Assembly’s standing is bolstered by the fact that both chambers of the Tennessee General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in 2016 in favor of filing a civil lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal refugee resettlement program. The State Senate passed Senate Joint Resolution 467, by a vote of 27-5 while the House voted 69-25 to pass the same resolution.
And without any waiting period they can automatically apply for all welfare programs provided by the State of Tennessee.