Is God Calling America, The Last Revival


June 13, 2107 by Michael Bresciani


Some would argue that revival is for the church and renewal is for the nation, semantics notwithstanding, it is clear that a new strong message is being issued across our nation for a return to our foundations, and the faith of our fathers.

It is being issued through the preachers, messengers, writers and musicians with a renewed fervor, boldness and a sense of purpose not seen in this last generation. It is the very fulfillment of God’s promise to pour himself out just before he intervenes once again in the affairs of men.

It is a guarantee given to all messengers many years before these days.

“Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets. The lion hath roared, who will not fear? the Lord GOD hath spoken, who can but prophesy?” (Amos 3: 7-8)

It is a call to all people to be issued in the very last days.

“And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.” (Joel 2: 28-29)

It was not the jingle I heard Dinah Shore belting out each week that started with the line – “See the USA in your Chevrolet” that sent me out across this nation, but whatever it was, I have been there. I travelled to many foreign nations and across every state in this nation except Alaska before I finished high school and college.

I can summarize my entire life’s experience with three cogent points.

  1. What I’ve seen.
  2. What I’ve heard.
  3. What I have to say.

Watching this nation change to a liberal bastion of politically correct hype, is to have witnessed its very decline. The PC proclivity of today goes beyond nonsense, but is now approaching a highly destructive state of lies, propaganda and collective national suicide.

I have seen that Hollywood and main stream media have lied to us and do not reflect the ebb and flow of the real America and its people. They once showed us a little of ourselves and our best and worst behaviors, now they have decided to manipulate our behaviors in a way that fits their ideological and philosophical predisposition.

We are being – faked out.

I’ve also seen America go dumb and become doltish, concupiscent and morally depraved to a fault.

What I’ve heard was the call of God on my life to repent and serve him after living any way I chose for too many years of my life. That was followed by a call to ministry and the special call to prophesy to people in this great nation. My message is not new, but is at the heart the same simple gospel message that all God’s people are commanded to preach – the repentance and salvation of all people one person at a time. Beyond that I received a special message that we will undergo an economic collapse like none we have seen to date.

It may be triggered by world events or we may be the trigger that draws the world into the great fiscal decline – I do not know how it will begin. Over fifty years of seeing and hearing future events, where not one has ever failed regardless of how unlikely they appeared to be, has convinced me of one sure thing – the economic decline is as sure as the rising of the sun.

The ‘how’ of it may be unclear, but the ‘when’ of it is far closer than anyone may be willing to believe. Get prepared!

What I have to say to this nation is both profoundly simple and quite complex all at same time. It is not, incongruous, but it is replete.

Besides two books, I have written thousands of articles calling for those with ears to hear, to respond with a change in direction and attitude. In any language or any time period throughout history the message boils down to the clarion call to repent. That simply means to turn around and go another way. This may have religious connotations, but largely it is a call to a new national direction. Don’t worry, I was also warned that the crowds will not be lining up at the doors to comply, but some will hear and some will awaken.

We did not recently elect the aging Billy Graham to become our president, but a new beginning has been offered in answer to much prayer with a man who like other great leaders has a profound love of this nation and wants only the best for us all.

President Trump may not be a polished statesmen or orator, but his love for our nation is unquestionable. We are working on the rest, and he is a quick understudy.

One person in the Bible was granted an interventional healing of his servant by Jesus and was strongly commended by the Jewish leaders only as a man who “loveth our nation.” (Lk 7: 5)  Can it be that God has supplied one man to head up our affairs whose singular qualification is that he loves our nation? You can bet on it.

But for the nation to renew, it will take the participation of many Americans. The messengers are issuing a bold and impassioned call to our nation to return to the faith of our fathers. Can this be the last call? You can count on that too.

What I have to say can be summarized by the words penned by Frederick William Faber in the beloved hymn entitled “Faith of our Fathers.” Hearing and acting on these words will always be accepted by the Living God to bolster and save a dying nation.

Come home America, the call has gone forth.

Faith of our fathers, living still

In spite of dungeon, fire and sword,

O how our hearts beat high with joy

Whene’er we hear that glorious word!

Faith of our fathers! holy faith!

We will be true to thee till death!

Faith of our fathers, we will love

Both friend and foe in all our strife,

And preach thee, too, as love knows how

By kindly words and virtuous life.

Faith of our fathers! holy faith!

We will be true to thee till death!


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

VIDEO No More Free Lunch – We can’t import poverty

White House - Sunset

June 19, 2017 by J. Kenneth Blackwell

While the Left promotes fake scandals, President Donald Trump proposes real change. Congressional Republicans should keep their eyes on the ball and enact his reforms into law.

President Lyndon Johnson unleashed “the Great Society” on America. It treated welfare as a right and created a culture of dependency. Expanded benefits encouraged illegitimacy, discouraged education, punished work and undermined families. Entire communities suffered as families dissolved and values deteriorated.

Seeing political advantage in making more people dependent on government, Democrats ignored the ill consequences. But President Ronald Reagan, who pressed welfare reform as California governor, took up the challenge in Washington. He was advised by Bob Carleson, who led the California effort.

A Democratic House limited President Reagan’s ability to make changes. Then came the GOP Congress elected in 1994. Carleson helped draft a new style of reform that passed in 1996. It changed the dynamic of welfare in key ways, one of which was permitting the states to require the able-bodied to work in exchange for their monthly benefit check. The legislation helped reduce welfare rolls —- by about 50 percent in just five years —- save taxpayer dollars and make recipients independent.

Now, President Trump is following in the Gipper’s footsteps. With welfare costing $1.1 trillion last year, most paid for by the federal government, the administration has proposed tightening eligibility requirements for several programs and hopes to cut outlays by $274 billion over the coming decade.

President Trump’s initiative revives the federal workfare requirement. Wrote the president to Congress: “Work must be the center of our social policy.” The purpose is not to punish the needy, but to ensure that they are taken care of. Wasted welfare “takes away scarce resources from those in real need,” he explained.

The president targeted Food Stamps, now formally the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). In 1996, Congress required work or its equivalent for cash benefits. But the Obama administration wanted to expand welfare dependence and allowed states to waive a provision that Congress intended to be mandatory. Analyst James Bovard notes that the administration even ran campaigns to recruit SNAP recipients. In 2000, 17 million people received Food Stamps. The SNAP rolls are now at a staggering 44 million, at a cost of $71 billion annually.

Congress needs to act. The Trump administration would require states to toss in a buck for every four spent by Washington. Moreover, it would be conditional upon the states requiring their able-bodied to earn their benefit. Explained the head of the Office of Management and Budget, Mick Mulvaney: “If you’re on Food Stamps and you’re able-bodied, then we need you to go to work.”

It turns out that work works. In 2014, Maine added a requirement that able-bodied Food Stamp recipients find a job, get job training or volunteer at least 24 hours a month. Within a year the number of people getting Food Stamps dropped from more than 13,000 to barely 2,700. That’s a cut of 80 percent.

At the start of 2017, thirteen Alabama counties began mandating their able-bodied adult SNAP recipients to work, seek work, or get approved job training. By May, the rolls had dropped by 85 percent. Statewide, since January, the number of able-bodied adults on SNAP has declined by 55 percent.

Those of us who understand human nature are not surprised by this outcome. The idea that giving away “free stuff with no strings attached,” in this case, food, to anyone who signs up for it results in a whole lot of people signing up is pretty basic reasoning, except perhaps at some Ivy League institutions.

The administration expects its reforms, including workfare, will save taxpayers roughly $193 billion over the coming decade. Equally important, noted Mulvaney, “We’re no longer going to measure compassion by the number people on these programs. We’re going to measure compassion by how many people we can get off these programs.”

Which is why the administration shouldn’t stop with Food Stamps. Work requirements should be expanded to programs such as public housing. Even if Congress passes workfare for Food Stamps, work requirements will apply to only three of the more than 80 federal welfare programs.

The administration should move to consolidate overlapping programs and block grant them to the states. Welfare is an issue that belongs at the state level. The Carleson Center for Welfare Reform has designed a program that would give states greater flexibility, provide a continuing incentive to innovate, and cap federal expenditures.

Finally, the U.S. needs to get back into job creation. More jobs need to be generated for all Americans. That’s why the president is pushing serious deregulation, proposing tax reform and challenging environmental extremism. The result will be more opportunities for all.

Some people need federal help. But it always should be the last resort, delivered cost-effectively by institutions closest to those in need.

Moreover, there should be reciprocity. It is only fair to request that those who receive benefits work to earn them. It’s the Biblical model. And it is supported by nine out of every 10 Americans.

President Trump’s workfare proposal demonstrates that he is busy doing what is important for Americans. Congress should join him.

This column by ACRU Senior Fellow and Policy Board member J. Kenneth Blackwell was published June 15, 2017 by Townhall.

David Webb on immigration: We can’t import poverty

Trump calls for 5 year welfare ban for new immigrants

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

VIDEO ObamaCare Death Spiral Continues, GOP Senators: Healthcare Bill ‘Definitely Not Repealing ObamaCare’

GOP Senators: Healthcare Bill ‘Definitely Not Repealing Obamacare’

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (C) approaches the microphones before talking with reporters with Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) (L) and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) following the weekly GOP policy luncheon at the U.S. Capitol June 20, 2017 in Washington, DC. Senate Republicans said that Democrats were not invited to participate in the writing of new health care legislation to replace Obamacare because they would attempt to obstruct the process. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

22 June 2017 by Tony Lee

Soon after the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) released the draft of the Senate’s healthcare bill on Thursday, Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) blasted the bill for not fully repealing Obamacare.

Johnson told NBC News that he “would not call this Obamacare repeal,” adding that “it’s definitely not repealing Obamacare.”

“I’m just saying, I think I have a difficult time thinking, again, I’m an accountant, I’m a business guy, I know it takes time to develop this information in such a complex system, I have a hard time believing I’ll have the information prior to when leadership may want to vote on it,” Johnson reportedly said. “I would certainly say it’s trying to address and fix some of the mess, just some of the mess, created by Obamacare. But that’s my concern, I’m not sure it’s fixing enough.”

Paul, who has criticized the House’s bill, told MSNBC that “it looks like we’re keeping Obamacare” and “not repealing it.” He said he and other Senators would be releasing a more detailed statement on the matter later in afternoon.

President Donald Trump said that “a little negotiation” would be needed but the end product would “be very good.”

“Obamacare is dead and we’re putting a plan out today that is going to be negotiated,” Trump reportedly said.

Democrats have slammed McConnell for writing the bill in secrecy. Democrats like Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) are also trying to paint Republicans as “heartless” for supporting a bill that cuts Medicaid while giving tax breaks to “millionaires.”

McConnell reportedly wants to have a vote on the bill before July 4.

Update:  Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT), Paul, and Johnson released this statement:

Rand Paul on Senate GOP Health Care Bill: ‘Looks Like We’re Keeping Obamacare, Not Repealing It’

22 June 2017 by Jeff Poor

Thursday shortly after Senate Republicans released their version of health care legislation, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who has been skeptical of Republican efforts, went told MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt it appeared that the bill would keep Obamacare instead of repealing it.

“We’re going to have a statement in about an hour and my concern from what I’ve been able to see so far — it looks like we’re keeping Obamacare, not repealing it,” Paul replied.

When he was asked by Hunt if he was a “no” vote, Paul said to wait for the forthcoming statement.

Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor

Breaking News: Sen.Ted Cruz Opposes GOP Health Care Bill


Donald Trump: Senate Obamacare Replacement ‘Going to Be Negotiated’

22 June 2017 by Charlie Spiering

President Donald Trump asserted that the first draft of the Senate healthcare bill released on Thursday was work in progress.

When reporters asked him if he felt that the bill had “heart,” Trump replied, “A little negotiation, but it’s going to be very good.”

Trump made his remarks after meeting at the White House with technology CEOs about drones and automation.

“Obamacare is dead and we’re putting a plan out today that is going to be negotiated,” Trump said.

He suggested it was difficult to work on a bill, as Democrats remained entirely opposed to it.

“We’d love to have some Democrats’ support, but they’re obstructionists,” he said.

ObamaCare Death Spiral Continues as Anthem to Leave Exchanges in Several States

June 22, 2017  by 


ObamaCare Death Spiral Continues as Anthem to Leave Exchanges in Several States

Yet another health insurance company has announced that it will be leaving the ObamaCare exchanges in two states, citing market uncertainty. This is just the latest announcement in a trend that experts claim will ultimately result in the national collapse of ObamaCare.  

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield announced that it will be leaving the ObamaCare exchanges in Wisconsin and Indiana, stating that the “volatile” market under ObamaCare is “shrinking” and that the “continual changes and uncertainty in federal operations, rules and guidance, including cost sharing reduction subsidies and the restoration of taxes on fully insured coverage” has created too much uncertainty.

Anthem, like numerous other insurance companies, has indicated it is struggling, largely because not enough young, healthy individuals have signed up for plans to balance the costs of the older, sicker enrollees, the Washington Examiner reports.

“A stable insurance market is dependent on products that create value for consumers through the broad spreading of risk and a known set of conditions upon which rates can be developed,” the company said in a statement. “Today, planning and pricing for ACA-compliant health plans has become increasingly difficult due to a shrinking and deteriorating individual market, as well as continual changes and uncertainty in federal operations, rules and guidance, including cost sharing reduction subsidies and the restoration of taxes on fully insured coverage.”

Those who have signed up for Anthem in these states through the ObamaCare exchange will therefore lose their insurance by the end of 2017.

Earlier this month, Anthem also announced it would be exiting the exchange in Ohio as well, provoking a scathing statement from Ohio’s Insurance Department against the healthcare law.

“Before the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Ohio had a very competitive health insurance market,” Ohio’s Insurance Department said. “New regulations from ACA have driven some companies out of Ohio and made it harder for them to do business, both of which have driven up the cost of health insurance in Ohio.”

“The best long-term fix is to repeal the ACA and replace it with better regulations.”

Anthem spokesman Tony Felts claims its too difficult to price health plans in the exchange because it’s unclear whether the federal government will continue to pay insurance companies for the discounts they’re required to give low-income customers to help offset the costs of the health plans. But to blame subsidy cuts for the implosion of the ObamaCare exchanges ignores the fact that government intervention in healthcare, which started long before the Affordable Care Act, is what caused health care costs to skyrocket in the first place. ObamaCare exacerbated the problem by further increasing demand while restricting the supply of doctors and hospitals.

Health insurance companies are leaving ObamaCare exchanges in droves, and some states and cities will be left without any companies on the exchange as a result. In Iowa, for example, the three remaining healthcare providers — Aetna, Wellmark, and Medica — announced that they would be pulling out.

These companies, many of which lauded the healthcare law at its inception, have cited significant financial losses as the driving force behind their exits. Aetna reported losing $430 million since 2014 from participation in the exchanges. United Healthcare announced it would end its participation in all but a small handful of exchanges in 2017 once it realized it would lose as much as $800 million in 2016. Likewise, Humana, Blue Cross, and Anthem have all reported struggles with plans that were sold on the exchanges, indicating that they were not ready for the increased number of particularly high-risk customers, many of whom have generated far more claims than insurers predicted, though critics of the law have from the beginning forecast such outcomes.

Humana was the first to announce that it was opting out of ObamaCare altogether in 2018, which has resulted in the all-out collapse of ObamaCare in Knoxville, Tennessee, where Humana was the only remaining provider on the ObamaCare exchange.

Critics of ObamaCare are pointing to the health insurance companies’ mass exodus from the exchange as proof of the unsustainability of the healthcare system it created, noting that its continual death spiral underscores all of the broken promises made by the Obama administration: The MacIver Institute, a national think tank that advocates for the free market, issued the following statement in response to Anthem’s announcement:

Anthem now joins other major health insurers like UnitedHealth, Aetna, and Humana that have been forced to withdraw from this government-run debacle in order to stop their financial hemorrhaging. President Obama promised the American public that, under Obamacare, we would see competition, lots of choices and lower health care costs. Unfortunately for the American people, President Obama was wrong and taxpayers will be stuck with the tab to fix his problem.

And while these announcements underscore the need for a full repeal of ObamaCare and a restoration of a free market healthcare system, it appears that most of the law will remain intact despite promises made by Republican lawmakers.

McConnell: Obamacare is a Direct Attack on the Middle Class

Sept 14, 2016

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

VIDEO MB Obama DHS Dem lack credible evidence – Will Mueller, Comey false obstruction case trigger impeachment?

Gregg Jarrett: Will Mueller & Comey use a false case of obstruction to trigger impeachment?

June 22, 2017 By Gregg Jarret


“The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.”  — DOJ opinion, October 16, 2000

The Department of Justice has long held that it would be unconstitutional to criminally charge and prosecute a sitting president. The Constitution itself expressly states that “indictment, trial, judgment and punishment” can occur only after a president is convicted upon impeachment (Article 1, Section 3).

However, there is nothing to prevent a special counsel from investigating a president and leveling an accusation with no formal charge. The accusation could be completely manufactured and meritless. Proving it in a court of law would be irrelevant because impeachment is a political act, not a legal one.

A similar scenario has played out before. Independent Counsel Ken Starr investigated President Bill Clinton and leveled accusations of obstruction and perjury which then triggered Clinton’s impeachment.  After he was acquitted and left office, Clinton was never indicted because prosecutors knew the case lacked the kind of proof needed in court.

So, is this what special counsel Robert Mueller and fired FBI Director James Comey have in mind? Are they now acting in concert to conjure a case of obstruction where none exists … for the sole purpose of precipitating possible impeachment proceedings? There is nothing to stop them from doing it.

It is a legitimate question, given their cozy relationship. They also have a motive to harm President Trump – retaliation for the firing of Comey.

Mueller Has Unfettered Discretion

Mueller, as special counsel, has unlimited latitude and unchecked discretion.  Because he cannot indict the president, he is unconstrained by the usual burden of proof to which prosecutors must adhere in bringing a case.

The Washington Post reports that Mueller is investigating whether Trump obstructed justice during a White House meeting with Comey and in his subsequent termination. If the Post story is true, the president should be concerned that he may not be treated fairly. Why?

Is Mueller determined to exact retribution for the firing of his good friend? Will he be tempted to ignore the law, the paucity of evidence, and the normal requirements of proof in order to bring a specious case of obstruction against the president?

Because on its face, there is no obstruction of justice. Trump’s alleged statement to Comey bears no resemblance to the requirements of the statute.  “Hoping” that “a good guy” will be cleared is not a “corrupt act” as the law defines it and as the U.S. Supreme Court interprets it. There must be a lie, threat or bribe.  Comey alleges none.

Moreover, the act must be, as the high court said, “immoral, depraved or evil.”  An expression of compassion is the antithesis of that. Therefore, under no legal interpretation could the president have obstructed justice.

Forgotten in all of this is the fact that the president denies he ever uttered the words ascribed to him. With no known witnesses, no reasonable prosecutor would ever consider bringing such a case based on one person’s word.  It is the definition of reasonable doubt.

As for Comey’s firing, it is evidence of nothing. Comey admitted this himself when he wrote, “A president can fire an FBI Director for any reason, or no reason at all.” He reiterated the point during his Senate testimony.

Indeed, the president has the constitutional authority to end an investigation, which Comey also admitted, albeit reluctantly.

Even if Trump canned Comey out of frustration because the Director refused to tell the public that the president was not suspected of Russian collusion, it is still not the corrupt act required for obstruction of justice.

Why, then, would an obstruction investigation be undertaken at all?

Mueller Has Not Recused Himself

The special counsel’s failure to disqualify himself as the law demands invites suspicion that any desire to bring an obstruction case rests not in the law and the facts, but in something else.

As explained before, the special counsel statute requires Mueller to step down if he has a personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the investigation or prosecution.”  It then defines personal relationship as a friendship… normally viewed as likely to induce partiality” (28 CFR 45.2).

The Mueller-Comey friendship is well-documented and indisputable. They have long been friends, allies and partners.  Their bond is driven by a mentor-protégé relationship which makes the likelihood of favoritism and partiality self-evident.

Yet Mueller shows no sign of disqualifying himself from the case in which his close friend is the pivotal witness. It is an acute conflict of interest. Even the appearance of a conflict merits mandatory recusal.

Perhaps this means that the special counsel is not investigating an obstruction charge against the president, as the Post claims. Maybe the reporting based on anonymous sources is erroneous.

But if there is such a probe, then Americans are entitled to wonder why Mueller has not recused himself.

Is he determined to exact retribution for the firing of his good friend?  Will he be tempted to ignore the law, the paucity of evidence, and the normal requirements of proof in order to bring a specious case of obstruction against the president – knowing full well that Congress might take it up as grounds for impeachment once the accusation is made?

It is also suspicious that the Acting Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, has not recused himself.  As Mueller’s boss, he oversees the investigation.  If obstruction is, in fact, being examined, then Rosenstein is a key witness in the firing of Comey.  It is inconceivable that Rosenstein could serve in the capacity of both prosecutor and witness without rendering the entire matter a charade.

Trump has referred to Mueller as “conflicted” and has questioned the objectivity of Rosenstein.  But the president and his legal team have yet to mount a strong public case that both men should be allowed nowhere near the investigation.

If it becomes clear that obstruction of justice is the subject of the special counsel’s probe, President Trump should not fire Mueller and Rosenstein.  Instead, he should demand they resign so that a fair and impartial special counsel can be appointed to preside.

Anything less might permit a false case of obstruction to trigger a debate in Congress over impeachment.

Gregg Jarrett is a Fox News Anchor and former defense attorney.


Under oath, Jeh Johnson also admits Dem lack credible evidence for their narrative

Obama's DHS Head Admits: Russia Did NOT Rig US Election

June 22, 2017 by Jamie White


The Russian government did not interfere with or alter votes in the 2016 election, said former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson under oath.

“To my current knowledge, the Russian government did not through any cyber intrusion alter ballots, ballot counts or reporting of election results,” Johnson told the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday. “I know of no evidence that through cyber intrusion, votes were altered or suppressed in some way.”

The Democratic National Committee also turned down his agency’s offer to protect its network despite being warned about hacks, Johnson said.“Sometime in 2016, I became aware of a hack into systems of the Democratic National Committee,” he continued. “…I pressed my staff to know whether DHS was sufficiently proactive, and on the scene helping the DNC identify the intruders and patch vulnerabilities.”“The answer, to the best of my recollection, was not reassuring: the FBI and the DNC had been in contact with each other months before about the intrusion, and the DNC did not feel it needed DHS’s assistance at that time.”

Soon after, the DNC’s emails were released by WikiLeaks just prior to the Democratic National Convention last summer, leading to DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schulz’s resignation days later.

Johnson then attempted to salvage the narrative in his testimony, saying the Russian government under Vladimir Putin’s orders “orchestrated cyberattacks on our nation for the purpose of influencing our election,” despite the fact he admitted they lack tangible evidence showing the Russians had any measurable effect on the U.S. election.

It’s worth noting that that former FBI Director James Comey offered to write an op-ed last summer making the case that the Russians were meddling in the U.S. election, but the Obama administration rejected the offer, likely confident that Hillary Clinton would win regardless of outside interference.

“The White House shut it down,” one source told Newsweek magazine in March. “They did their usual – nothing.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

‘Dreamers’ not entitled to in-state tuition, court rules

Laura Reyes said she has a personal reason for hoping DACA is upheld - it would allow her to pay in-state tuition in college - as well as helping “my brother, my sister and a lot of people.” (Photo by Madison Alder/Cronkite News)

June 20, 2017  By: Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services


“Dreamers” are not in this country legally and not entitled to reduced tuition available to in-state students, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled today.

In a unanimous decision, the judges rejected the arguments by attorneys for the Maricopa County Community College District that the legal status of dreamers under the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program means the federal government considers them to be legally present in the country. Based on that, the college governing board voted in 2015 to say they no longer had to pay non-resident tuition.

But Judge Kenton Jones, writing for the court, said that’s not the case.

He said DACA, instituted in 2012 by the Obama administration, simply protects those in the program from being deported. And DACA status also allows them to work legally while they are here.

Jones noted, however, that in 2006 Arizona voters approved a law which says in-state tuition is reserved for those with “lawful immigration status.” And he said the decisions by the government to let those who arrived in this country illegally as children remain – and even to work – “do not translate into the recipients’ eligibility for in-state tuition or other state and local public benefits.”

Tuesday’s ruling affects more than the Maricopa colleges, which took the lead in deciding to offer resident tuition to dreamers.

In 2016, after a trial judge sided with the colleges, the Arizona Board of Regents changed its policy and also offers in-state tuition to DACA recipients who meet other residency requirements. And several other community colleges also have similar policies.

But Tuesday’s ruling is unlikely to be the last word. The college still has the option of seeking review by the Arizona Supreme Court.

Nothing in the ruling keeps DACA recipients – and even those who have no legal status at all – out of either community colleges or universities. But requiring them to pay out-of-state tuition would be a significant, practical hurdle.

At the University of Arizona for example, tuition and mandatory fees for Arizona undergraduates this past school year was $10,872 for continuing students and $11,403 for new ones; for non-residents the comparative numbers were $30,025 and $32,630.

Tuesday’s ruling also does not affect the separate legal question of whether DACA recipients are legally entitled to state-issued driver’s licenses. A federal appeals court has concluded they are; the state is seeking U.S. Supreme Court review.

At issue is that question of the legal status of DACA recipients.

The 2012 action by the Obama administration says those who arrived illegally as children and meet other conditions can qualify for the program. Put simply, that status, which can be renewed biennially, means they are in no danger of being deported.

But Jones pointed out that DACA is not law and the legal status of those in the program has never been approved by Congress.

“They are more aptly described as beneficiaries of an executive branch policy designed to forego deportation of those who lacked unlawful intent in entering the country and have, since their arrival, led productive lives,” the judge wrote. “However, even accepting DACA recipients’ positive societal attributes, Congress has not defined them, or deferred-action recipients generally, as ‘qualified aliens’ who are ‘lawfully present’ and therefore eligible to receive in-state tuition benefits.”

Jones acknowledged that the federal Department of Homeland Security has “broad discretion” in determining its enforcement priorities. That includes administrative decisions, like DACA, about who to deport and who to let stay.

“DHS is not free, however, to disregard legislative direction in the statutory scheme that the agency administers,” the judge continued.

Those federal laws, Jones noted, specifically prohibit states from restricting access by anyone not here legally – DACA or not – from access to public benefits like emergency and medical assistance. But the judge said that’s quite different than offering in-state tuition, which is effectively subsidized by taxpayers.

“The ability to obtain financial assistance for postsecondary education … is not synonymous with emergency assistance,” Jones wrote. “Nor does access to postsecondary education impose an obligation upon taxpayers to offset the cost.”

Jones acknowledged that Congress has given individual states the option of offering state or local public benefits. But he said the 2006 voter-approved law settled that, making any action to the contrary by college governing boards illegal.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

VIDEO Sen Rand Paul Berates Senate “Are we going to defeat an ideology by killing people?” – SF in the Philippians


Video: Rand Paul Berates Senate - "We've Been At War Illegally For A Long Time Now"

June 21, 2017


Senator Rand Paul once again proved that he is a Constitutionalist and a principled non-interventionist by reminding the Senate of his staunch opposition to the US being illegally engaged in war for the best part of two decades.

Paul was speaking at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing Tuesday, arranged to review congressional authorizations for the use of military force, when he made the argument against military engagement in Syria without Congressional approval.

Paul made specific reference to The War Powers Act, which as he noted has been abused by the government to wage war in the Middle East and beyond.

“Madison wrote that the executive branch is the branch most prone to war; therefore, the Constitution, with studied care, granted that power or vested that power in the legislature.” the Senator noted.

“In no way did they argue that Article II was unlimited authority to commence, initiate or engage in war, at all. In fact, most of the founding fathers would disagree with you on saying that Article II gives the president power to commence in war. To defend the country under imminent attack, to execute the war once the war is initiated — the initiation of war is congressional duty, not — not the president’s at all.” Paul continued.

“There’s nothing in the War Powers Act about unauthorized war, because we’re not supposed to be doing it… There’s supposed to be no war without an AUMF. We have been illegally at war for a long time now. This is illegal war, at this point,” Paul urged.

The Senator further argued that proposed Senate reforms fail to address this problem, and will not stop the military industrial complex from continuing on a path toward world war three.

“Are we going to limit the president’s power? Are we going to take back our powe?” Paul asked.

The Senator also addressed a proposed sunset clause, a move that has been used time and again to stretch out the Authorization of Use of Military Force signed by George W. Bush in 2001, essentially an open-ended mandate for war.

“I think a five-year sunset, is–you know, and I don’t mean to be mean, but–is essentially nothing. I mean, we’ve had millions of people die in five-year wars before, so I think it’s — it’s virtually meaningless,” Paul said.

“The document, as Senator Cardin said, was very, very specific to 9/11,” Paul said. “And we’ve had people just saying, “you can do anything you want” now for 15 years… The practical question is, is doing anything you want, killing every perceived enemy and every perceived leader or chieftain of five people in some misbegotten village, is it helping?”

“I’m not going to vote to go to war in 50 or 60 countries,” he added, saying he rejects the proposed legislation.

“I was all for going after the people after 9/11, I would have voted for that, but I don’t think that war in Yemen is necessarily helping us.”The Senator exclaimed.

Paul concluded by warning that a continued policy of endless war will lead to more conflict and the ultimate destruction of the Republic.

“For a hundred years, they’ll be talking about the time the Americans came and killed the people and killed our women and children. For a hundred years, they’re going to be talking about the Saudis dropping bombs on a funeral procession. That does not go away. These people remember the battle of Karbala in 680 A.D. They have long memories,” Paul said.

“They’re just going to be there and they will wait us out. But we’re not going to defeat terrorism by having war in 60 some odd countries and dropping drones on everybody that we think in a village is of a radical ideology. We have to defend ourselves but we should be much more specific than this.” Paul urged.

U.S. Special Forces Have “Boots on the Ground” in Philippines

June 22, 2017  by 

U.S. Special Forces Have "Boots on the Ground" in Philippines

American Special Forces have “boots on the ground” and are helping Philippine troops and police fight Islamist rebels in the Southern town of Marawi, according to U.S. and local officials cited in news reports around the world. The news comes after firebrand Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte, accused of extra-judicial killings as part of his war on drugs, repeatedly threatened to evict all U.S. troops from the Philippines. A number of legal concerns have been raised surrounding the operations for both governments. However, with officials and media outlets arguing that the fighting is aimed at stopping Islamists supposedly “loyal” to the Islamic State (ISIS), even as U.S. forces bomb the enemies of ISIS in Syria, the legal issues have been mostly swept under the rug so far.  

The ongoing battle, which centers around the largely Islamic town of Marawi on Mindanao island, began in May, when Islamist militants under the leadership of alleged terrorist Isnilon Hapilon overran the area. Since then, Filipino forces, with U.S. support, have been battling those jihadists with bombs, planes, and guns, leaving the town of some 200,000 people looking like a “ghost town,” reporters said. According to media reports citing officials, hundreds of “militants” have been killed in the fighting, along with more than 50 soldiers and dozens of civilians. As of last week, some 20 percent of the city was reportedly still under the control of the rebels, whom various officials and media reports have said are trying to create a new province for the Islamic State “Caliphate” in the predominantly Catholic Philippines. The entire island of Mindanao is under martial law, and the city is reportedly close to ruins.

The Filipino military officials and U.S. embassy officials who admitted the role of U.S. troops there have all claimed that American forces were not actually involved in combat. Technically, that may be correct, if combat includes only shooting. However, despite earlier official statements claiming there were not even U.S. boots “on the ground” near the hostilities, it turns out that American forces are, indeed, operating “on the ground” in and around Marawi, and presumably they are all wearing boots. U.S. troops are reportedly helping with everything from training local forces to gathering intelligence and conducting surveillance. A local camera crew even caught a group of American operatives flying a drone from a truck near the battlefield.

The U.S. embassy in Manila confirmed that U.S. forces were aiding Filipino authorities in the war, but denied that they were involved in combat operations. “At the request of the government of the Philippines, U.S. special operations forces are assisting the AFP with ongoing operations in Marawi that helps AFP commanders on the ground in their fight against Maute and ASG militants,” an embassy spokesperson was quoted as saying, with ASG referring to the Islamist Abu Sayyaf group and the AFP a reference to the Armed Forces of the Philippines. The U.S. military also confirmed that Special Forces were giving “security assistance and training” to their counterparts in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. “For security reasons, we are not able to to discuss specific technical details,” the Pentagon statement added.

And finally, Filipino military officials confirmed the scheming as well. Brigadier-General Restituto Padilla, for example, while he denied that U.S. troops were actually in combat, admitted that the group of men captured on film operating drones from a truck were in fact U.S. troops. “In a battle the most important item for the commander is to be able to determine what is happening,” Padilla said to explain why the U.S. troops were doing that. “It’s called situational awareness and that is the sort of assistance being given.” He did admit, too, that American forces were carrying rifles and were authorized to shoot if fired upon, which is fairly standard when U.S. troops assist their foreign counterparts on or near a battlefield. In a strange twist, President Duterte claimed repeatedly he was not aware of U.S. aid amid the battle.

It was not clear under what constitutional authority U.S. forces were supposedly operating under in the latest clashes to break out in the Philippines. But there have been no declarations of war by Congress authorizing the intervention. Instead of the constitutionally required declaration, U.S. officials have argued that the support for Filipino forces was part of a “counter-terrorism” program. An official statement cited in press reports also noted that U.S. Special Forces have been providing “support and assistance” to their counterparts in the Philippines “for many years,” as if that legitimized it. Various establishment media organs and officials have implied that a mutual defense treaty from the 1951 even requires U.S. forces to aid the Filipino government.

The U.S. Constitution, of course, requires that the U.S. Congress issue an official declaration of war before the United States is committed to war. The Founders insisted on it, because they wanted the American people’s elected representatives to have a proper debate prior to entering a war. They also sought to prevent a situation in which one person could embroil America in foreign conflicts. And yet, the last time Congress actually declared war was during World War II. Since then, legal quackery has been used to develop a variety of pseudo-“legal arguments” purporting to authorize the deployment of U.S. troops to fight all manner of wars abroad. On more than a few occasions — most recently in Libya, with disastrous effects — U.S. forces have been illegally used to overthrow foreign governments under the guise of enforcing unconstitutional United Nations resolutions. But in theory, at least, the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land.

It was also not clear whether the U.S. operations were legal or authorized under Filipino law. As far as the Philippines is concerned, the deployment of U.S. troops might be considered unconstitutional, according to news reports and various analysts. The Filipino Constitution prohibits foreign combat troops operating on Philippines’ soil. But top officials were quick to deny that the support being provided so far was unconstitutional. “What is prohibited under the Constitution is the joining of U.S. troops in actual combat,” Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II was quoted as arguing in news reports. “But sharing of intelligence and equipment is allowed under the EDCA (Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement).” The EDCA is the legal agreement that purports to authorize the U.S. military presence in the Philippines.

While President Duterte conceded that his military men were very pro-American, public calls for evicting U.S. troops have been growing louder for years. Duterte himself, who often speaks in obscenities and even described former U.S. President Obama as the offspring of a prostitute, using more vulgar terms, has expressed outrage toward the U.S. government on multiple occasions. In view of his disagreements between the two sides, he appears to be hoping for a stronger alliance with the Communist Chinese dictatorship in Beijing instead. Much of the press coverage of his administration in the international media has focused on his highly controversial war on drugs and widespread allegations of extra-judicial killings of drug dealers. Some analysts have argued that his allegedly narrow focus on fighting drugs left the Philippines vulnerable to jihadists groups, as evidenced most recently by the takeover of Marawi.

Of course, on the campaign trail, then-candidate Donald Trump hit the nail on the head when he exposed the true origins of ISIS. Far from being some sort of organic development, official U.S. military documents revealed that the Obama administration and its allies — including Arab dictators and European governments — were supporting an uprising in Syria that they knew was led by al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. One of the goals, according to a 2012 U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency document obtained by Judicial Watch, was the creation of a “salafist principality” in Eastern Syria. Today, that principality is known as the Islamic State, or ISIS. “In many respects, ISIS is honoring President Obama,” Trump said at a campaign rally, referring to Obama by his full name, Barack Hussein Obama. “He’s the founder of ISIS. He’s the founder. He founded ISIS. And I would say the co-founder would be Crooked Hillary Clinton.”

Instead of getting American troops embroiled in all sorts of foreign quarrels and wars, and squandering American money and lives variously supporting and then opposing both dictators and terrorists, Congress and the Trump administration should follow the Constitution and the advice of America’s Founders. That means, first of all, no more committing U.S. troops to conflicts without a proper declaration of war, as required by the Constitution — and that, following a thorough debate on the objectives and merits of U.S. involvement. Second, it means Washington, D.C., must quit going abroad seeking “monsters to destroy,” as John Quincy Adams put it. Not only would that save American lives and vast sums of taxpayer wealth, it would also probably leave the world a better place. Plus, it’s the law. The people and the authorities of the Philippines are perfectly capable of handling these problems without U.S. “help.”

Photo of U.S. soldiers: U.S. Army

Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe but has lived all over the world. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook. He can be reached at

Related articles:

The War Power Belongs Only to Congress

President Duterte Wants U.S. Special Forces to Leave Southern Philippines

Filipinos want US soldiers out

Philippines President Threatens to Withdraw From UN

Trump Highlights Huge Role of Obama and Hillary in Rise of ISIS

U.S. Intel: Obama Coalition Supported Islamic State in Syria

U.S. Defense Intel Chief: Obama Gave “Willful” Aid to Al-Qaeda

ISIS: The Best Terror Threat U.S. Tax Money Can Buy

Little Known Episode in U.S. History Explains Executive War Powers

Is U.S. in Syria to Fight ISIS — or Assad?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

VIDEO TERRORIST in Mich. airport attack named plus details about how he got into the country


June 21, 2017 BY DML DAILY


The FBI is officially investigating the stabbing of a police officer at a Flint, Michigan, airport on Wednesday “as an act of terrorism.”

Amor Ftouhi, a 50-year-old native of Canada, has been charged with violence at an international airport.  As heard in the video below, authorities say he screamed “Allah” several times, and said everyone was going to die for killing people in Syria and Iraq.

Ftouhi entered the United States legally through Lake Champlain, New York, on June 16 and made his way to Bishop International Airport, where he arrived Wednesday, Gelios said.

According to authorities Amor Ftouhi,  spent a little time in the restroom, dropped both bags and came out, pulled out a knife, yelled ‘Allahu akbar’ and stabbed Lt. Neville in the neck.

Neville is expected to recover from his injuries.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments