Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Friday, February 7, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 416)

Canadian Prime Minister Justice Trudeau, left, Ivanka Trump, to his right, and President Donald J. Trump, right to back of room, greet before a roundtable discussion on women business leaders.

Canadian Prime Minister Justice Trudeau, left, Ivanka Trump, to his right, and President Donald J. Trump, right to back of room, greet before a roundtable discussion on women business leaders.

President Donald J. Trump, his daughter Ivanka and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the creation of a council for female business leaders and entrepreneurs. The new project called the United States Canada Council for the Advancement of Women Business Leaders-Female Entrepreneurs aims to addressed topics such as childcare for working mothers, recruiting and retaining women in the workplace and encouraging a higher level of female entrepreneurship.

“In order to create economic growth and well-paying jobs we must assure the economy is a place where women can work and thrive,” President Trump said as he introduced the roundtable.  “Ivanka is very much involved in this.”

The president’s comment clearly was meant to show his appreciation to his daughter’s work in the effort. Ivanka was also a key figure in the crafting of the president’s proposed plan to help working mothers unveiled on the campaign trail.

Prime Minister Trudeau said the council will address the “significant barriers” women face in the working world.

Among the business leaders in attendance were Elyse Allan, the CEO of General Electric Canada, Accenture North America CEO Julie Sweet, TransAlta Corp. CEO Dawn Farrell and Investissement Québec’s Monique Leroux.

“It is a priority of both countries to ensure equal opportunities for women in the workforce,” the White House said in a statement. “We are committed to removing barriers to women’s participation in the business community and supporting women as they advance through it.”

“We expect this initiative to promote the growth of women-owned enterprises and to further contribute to our overall economic growth and competitiveness, as well as the enhanced integration of our economies,” the administration’s statement added.

[social-media-buttons]

President Donald J. Trump, Ivanka and Prime

A 1040 tax form appears on display, Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2017, in New York. (Photo: AP)

A 1040 tax form appears on display, Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2017, in New York.

For those claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit or the Additional Child Tax Credit, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will not start releasing your refund until Feb. 15. Over the last few years, identity theft via small but fraudulent claims to the credits have grown into a multi-billion dollar problem.

This year, the IRS is taking precautions to prevent some of these nightmares. Still, the IRS aims to issue most refunds to taxpayers within 21days–that is, if you filed your return electronically.

Below is the schedule and resources, but remember they are estimates.

The “Where’s My Refund?” tool can be used as a guide as to when you can expect to receive your tax refund. Also, there’s an IRS2Go. mobile app.

[social-media-buttons]

Date IRS Receives Your Return

 

 

Refund Date If e-Filed With Direct Deposit

 

 

Refund Date If e-Filed With Refund Mailed

 

 

Refund Date If Paper Filed With Direct Deposit

 

 

Refund Date If Paper Filed With Refund Mailed

 

 

January 23

 

 

February 6

 

 

February 13

 

 

February 20

 

 

February 27

 

 

January 30

 

 

February 13

 

 

February 20

 

 

February 27

 

 

March 6

 

 

February 6

 

 

February 20

 

 

February 27

 

 

March 6

 

 

March 13

 

 

February 13

 

 

February 27

 

 

March 6

 

 

March 13

 

 

March 20

 

 

February 20

 

 

March 6

 

 

March 13

 

 

March 20

 

 

March 27

 

 

February 27

 

 

March 13

 

 

March 20

 

 

March 27

 

 

April 3

 

 

March 6

 

 

March 20

 

 

March 27

 

 

April 3

 

 

April 10

 

 

March 13

 

 

March 27

 

 

April 3

 

 

April 10

 

 

April 18

 

 

March 20

 

 

April 3

 

 

April 10

 

 

April 18

 

 

April 24

 

 

March 27

 

 

April 10

 

 

April 18

 

 

April 24

 

 

May 1

 

 

April 3

 

 

April 18

 

 

April 24

 

 

May 1

 

 

May 8

 

 

April 10

 

 

April 24

 

 

May 1

 

 

May 8

 

 

May 15

 

 

April 18

 

 

May 1

 

 

May 8

 

 

May 15

 

 

May 22

 

The IRS will not release your tax

U.S. President Donald J. Trump, right, holds a joint press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, left, during his visited to the White House on Monday Feb. 13, 2017.

U.S. President Donald J. Trump, right, holds a joint press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, left, during his visited to the White House on Monday Feb. 13, 2017.

President Donald J. Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spoke about trade and security at a joint press conference in the East Room on Monday. The two leaders, who have been at odds over refugee resettlement, were expected to answer questions about a number of issues, including U.S.-Canada trade relations, immigration and the environment.

Despite the best efforts by the media, the press conference was friendly. The first question posed asked how the leaders see their relationship considering their difference on immigration and trade. President Trump said his administration would have a “great relationship with Canada” and that they both have tough stances on terrorism, adding the two leaders will work to secure their borders while keeping them open for trade and technology.

Prime Minister Trudeau said Canada has tried to keep security in mind as it relates to immigration. When asked about refugees and if the northern border was secure, President Trump said ” you can never be totally confident,” but the Department of Homeland Security is doing a great job of stopping criminals, drug lords and gang members seeking to exploit the border.

The two men took questions after the president held a Business Round Table with women CEOs at the White House. As a result of the meeting, Prime Minister Trudeau announced the formation of the United States-Canada Council for Advancement of Women Entrepreneurs and Business Leaders. The aim is to “promote the growth of women-owned enterprises and to further contribute to our overall economic growth and competitiveness, as well as the enhanced integration of our economies.”

President Donald J. Trump and Canadian Prime

Muslims in Saudi Arabia protest Valentine's Day in 2013.

Muslims in Saudi Arabia protest Valentine’s Day in 2013.

A judge in Pakistani has banned Valentine’s Day celebrations in the capital of Islamabad, declaring they are against the teachings of Islamic law. Court official Niaz Saleh says the judge ruled Monday on a petition seeking to ban public celebrations in Islamabad. He says the order has been sent to the nation’s media regulatory agency to ensure they impose the blackout on Valentine’s Day promotions in print or electronic media.

Islamists in Pakistan and the Middle East view Valentine’s Day as vulgar Western import. The ruling was a victory in a larger movement that includes Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim nation, as well as other Muslim-majority nations to outlaw all the holiday of love.

The Aceh Assembly of Clerics in Indonesia issued a ban, as well. Tengku Faisal Ali, a spokesman for the Ulema–a group of so-called scholars who issue opinions on Islamic law–told the Jakarta Globe said holiday “does not accord with Islamic Sharia.”

“It is haram [forbidden] for Muslims to observe Valentine’s Day because it does not accord with Islamic Sharia.”

The PAS, the opposition Islamist party, blamed Valentine’s Day for rising societal collapse in the country and had also called on the government to ban the media from promoting the event.

“This is not an occasion for Muslims,” PAS youth secretary Khairul Faizi Ahmad Kamil said. “That’s why we want to send this memorandum to the government to remind them it’s decreed by the National Fatwa Council.”

Saudi Arabia has also already implemented a ban relating to Valentine’s Day. In 2013, the religious police issued a fatwah banning the color red on the holiday.

A judge in Pakistani has banned Valentine's

Georgetown Professor Jonathan AC Brown gives a seminar entitled, the Challenges of Campus Life for Muslim Students on August 18, 2014. (Photo: YouTube)

Georgetown Professor Jonathan AC Brown gives a seminar entitled, the Challenges of Campus Life for Muslim Students on August 18, 2014. (Photo: YouTube)

Jonathan Brown, Professor of Islamic Studies at Georgetown University, defended and justified rape and slavery under Sharia law during a lecture to an Islamist group. As reported by The Clarion Project, Professor Brown made the comments during a lecture to the International Institute of Islamic Thought, a grouped with ties to the Muslim-Brotherhood.

“It’s not immoral for one human to own another human,” Brown, a convert to Islam said during the lecture. “The Prophet of God [Mohammed] had slaves … There’s no denying that. Was he—are you more morally mature than the Prophet of God? No you’re not.”

Robert Spencer, known for his work at JihadWatch.org, recently challenged Brown to a debate over his less-than moderate views. The professor declined, insinuating that the anti-Islamic supremacist activist wasn’t worth debating. Yet, he told the International Institute of Islamic Thought he doesn’t “think it’s morally evil to own somebody because we own lots of people all around us, and we’re owned by people.”

In fact, the immorality of slavery doesn’t actually exist according to Brown, at least not as it is generally thought of in the West.

“There is no such thing as slavery, as a category, as a conceptual category that exists throughout space and time trans-historically,” he said. “Slavery cannot just be treated as a moral evil in and of itself because slavery doesn’t mean anything.”

Brown argued Islamic slavery was not comparable to slavery practiced in the U.S.-or, as immoral even if it was immoral, at all–because it was not racially motivated. Putting aside the fact the slave might disagree, the statement is factually inaccurate. The Arab slave trade in Africans is well-documented and disputes Professor Brown’s revisionist version of history.

Further, abeed, the Arabic word for slaves, is in fact a racial slur still widely used to refer to black people even today.

This isn’t just some teacher’s aide. Professor Brown is the Alwaleed bin Talal Chair of Islamic Civilization in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown. He is also the Director of the Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim Christian Understanding, according to the university’s website.

On rape, or “nonconsensual sex” as he called it, is basically an legal impossibility because consent “isn’t necessary.”

“Consent isn’t necessary for lawful sex,” he said, adding that it is really the fault of western society for being “obsessed with the idea of autonomy and consent.”

Jonathan Brown, Professor of Islamic Studies at

Joy Villa wears a gown that says "Make America Great Again" at the 59th annual Grammy Awards at the Staples Center on Sunday, Feb. 12, 2017, in Los Angeles.  (AP)

Joy Villa wears a gown that says “Make America Great Again” at the 59th annual Grammy Awards at the Staples Center on Sunday, Feb. 12, 2017, in Los Angeles. (AP)

At the 59th Annual Grammy Awards Sunday, singer Joy Villa proudly rocked a red, white and blue gown displaying “Make America Great Again” with “Trump” in sparkly letters on the back hem. The dress was designed by an immigrant to the U.S., who supports President Donald J. Trump.

Ms. Villa, 25, who was not nominated for an award, stunned the anti-Trump attendees at the event. She explained her controversial getup on Instagram.

“Go big, or go home. You can either stand for what you believe or fall for what you don’t. Above all make a choice for tolerance and love. Agree to disagree,” she wrote after her red carpet appearance.

Andre Soriano, the designer of the dress, said on Facebook and Instagram that the gown is a “tribute [to] OUR President Of The United States Of America,” adding the hashtag #MAGA. Mr. Soriano revealed that the inspiration from the dress came from Madonna talking about blowing up the White House during a so-called “women’s” march organized by Linda Sarsour, a radical Islamist.

Villa, who is now getting death threats from angry liberals, quickly received support from fans and Trump supporters, as well as a YUGE increase in online sales. “I Make the Static” shot up and is now sitting at number seven on the iTunes top album chart.

At the 59th Annual Grammy Awards Sunday,

Judge Richard R. Clifton, left, Judge William Canby, center, and Judge Michelle T. Friedland, right, from the leftwing U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge Richard R. Clifton, left, Judge William Canby, center, and Judge Michelle T. Friedland, right, from the leftwing U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Pretend you are a family physician in Baghdad. You have a wife and five young children. You have no connection to America, but you imagine that your life there can be much better than in Iraq. You’ve heard that many American communities, especially in inner cities have a real shortage of physicians and you are dreaming of a quiet life with safety and opportunity for you and your children. So one day you buy bus tickets for you and your family to Amman, Jordan, and from there plan a direct flight to JFK. When you check in for your flight, you present your Iraqi passports to the ticket agent. The agent peruses carefully and asks you where your American visas are. You say that you don’t have any. The surprised agent informs you that she cannot honor your tickets and board you on that flight.

Normally, you’d be horrified; the long bus ride, the crying babies, the thousands of dollars spent on airfare, all lost. But as it happens, these are not normal times; it turns out you have been in touch with the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and an attorney, licensed in the State of New York, is already at the check-in counter. She informs the ticket agent that under the ruling of the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals no person can be denied entry into the US without due process and that therefore a boarding pass must be issued. If it isn’t, irreparable harm is sure to befall this family who have already spent all of their life savings on the airfare. Furthermore she shows them a letter of employment from a clinic in Compton, Los Angeles, California that provides pro-bono healthcare to addicts; they have already extended the Iraqi physician an offer of employment and in fact his first day is tomorrow. The irreparable harm now extends to all the addicts who will not be able to see a doctor and may in fact die because of that. The press, of course, has been duly notified days in advance and is already there. The entire interaction is live on every screen in the world. The airline supervisor is called in; she enters a code, the NO BOARD loses the NO. Your family is on its way.

Three people whom nobody elected have just extended American constitutional protections to any person on the planet who may wish to claim them by trying to come to America. The implications of this action are truly mind boggling and beg the simple question: why? Why did these three individuals of varying ages and ethno-cultural backgrounds (one is Jewish, the two others appear to be Christian) decide to ignore and in fact countermand both Constitution and statute to visit this act of mass destruction on their own homeland? The surprising answer is that even if unwittingly the three justices are converts to Bolshevism.

Bolshevism was the brainchild of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, later V.I. Lenin (after the Siberian river Lena on the banks of which he was once exiled). Developed in the first two decades of the twentieth century, Bolshevism is less of a political ideology and more of a mindset. Here are several of its main attributes:

Hate. The Bolshevik must hate with true passion and at all times. The object of hate is less important and is a matter of expediency. Do our justices possess this attribute? In spades. They hate Trump, his followers, and everything he represents with a burning passion. In fact, they hate America.

Passion for destruction. The Bolshevik is hell bent on destruction. Again, the object of the destruction is a matter of expediency. For Lenin it was the Russian empire and all it represented. For our justices it is America. They quite simply are filled with burning desire to destroy it.

Devil may care attitude about what comes next. The Russian Bolsheviks had no idea what they were going to do with Russia once they had managed to destroy the old order. They had no plans and it was not by omission. Our justices, having voted to in effect destroy the Constitution, never wondered if they had a better plan or a better set of ideas. They simply do not care.

Effacement of cultural, ethnic, and religious boundaries. The rallying cry of the Russian Bolsheviks was “Working People of All Nations Unite!” The early USSR had no national anthem, only the Internationale, a proto-Bolshevik anthem written Eugene Pottier in France in 1871. Its first stanza, translated from the Russian version reads:

“Stand up, ones who are branded by the curse,
All the world’s starving and enslaved!
Our outraged minds are boiling,
Ready to lead us into a deadly fight.
We will destroy this world of violence
Down to the foundations, and then
We will build our new world.
He who was nothing will become everything!”

The themes of destruction, hatred, effacement of boundaries, are all present in these words. And no, the following stanzas do not offer a recipe for reconstruction. It is clear from the decision handed down by the three justices that they valued unbridled immigration above all else. This kind of immigration from countries such as the seven Muslim majority countries subject to their decision, is desirable from their point of view precisely because it dilutes and destroys the unique American culture built by generations on the foundation of the U.S. Constitution.

Total disdain for honor. For the Bolsheviks, adhering to an honorable code of behavior was the hallmark of a fool and demanding such adherence was the hallmark of the oppressor. No oath was to be taken to heart, no promise to remain unbroken. The first actions undertaken by the Bolsheviks as they took power was to renege on all of the obligations undertaken by the previous government: private and public debt, military alliances, etc. Our justices took solemn oaths to defend and protect the Constitution. They swore to have had taken that oath “without mental reservation or purpose of evasion” and yet they gave their oaths not even a passing thought when they issued their Constitution-annulling decision.

Total disdain for positive outcomes. We normally think of successful governance as one that produces positive outcomes in terms of better healthcare, education, standard of living, etc. All of these things are considered negative outcomes by the Bolsheviks. Lenin famously (notoriously) said “the worse things are the better they are”. When a small community in Minnesota experiences an outbreak of drug resistant tuberculosis brought by Somalian refugees who were not properly vetted for health, the three justices of the 9th Circuit do not consider this a negative outcome in any way. For them it is a desired effect, part and parcel of the destruction of yet another quintessentially American community.

Hatred for law and order. Bolsheviks demolished the Russian Imperial criminal police. They viewed crimes such as murders, rapes, and crime against property as nothing to worry about and in fact well-aligned with their desired outcome of destruction. The 9th Circuit in particular and the American Left in general are well known for their anti-law enforcement decisions and policies.

Unsurprisingly, Bolshevism as a governing philosophy fails quickly and dramatically. Within the first five years of its existence three of which were taken up by a bloody civil war, the USSR experienced mass starvation, collapse of civil society, collapse of the military, and was for all intents and purposes a failed state frighteningly one that occupied a full one sixth of the world’s landmass. Thus the result of the Bolshevik experiment in Russia was the incubation within it of a brutal military dictatorship that we all know as the USSR. Starting with Stalin’s ascension to power, the Bolshevik mindset disappeared from all but official propaganda. The military had officers again. Law and order was restored by all means necessary and the USSR undertook international obligations, both financial and military, which it scrupulously upheld. When the time came to repel the German invasion, Stalin did not hesitate to resurrect Russian nationalism and even appeal to their Orthodox Christian faith.

The Bolshevik mindset that in the past permeated only the most rabid fringes of the American left, had in recent years gone mainstream and consumed its host, the hapless Democratic Party. Fortunately for America, a set of antibodies, dormant since the time of the Founding Fathers, have been activated, resulting in the historic electoral defeat handed to the Democrats in the 2016 general election. It now remains to be seen whether the Bolshevik cells in the judiciary, the military, the Deep State, and the civil service can be flushed out and eliminated before they can destroy America and once again plunge the world into darkness.

This article first appeared on Tsarizm.com, bringing you news you need to know RIGHT NOW about Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

[social-media-buttons]

Even if unwittingly, the three judges on

Vice President Mike Pence, right, swears in Jeff Sessions, left, as the next U.S. Attorney General under President Donald J. Trump, second from the right. (Photo: Courtesy of the White House)

Vice President Mike Pence, right, swears in Jeff Sessions, left, as the next U.S. Attorney General under President Donald J. Trump, second from the right. (Photo: Courtesy of the White House)

One of the unfortunate features of Washington is that people often wind up in places that bring out their worst behaviors.

The classic example is Jack Kemp, who did great work as a member of Congress to push a supply-side agenda of low marginal tax rates and less double taxation. Indeed, it’s no exaggeration to say that the Reagan tax cuts were made possible by Kemp’s yeoman efforts. But when President George H.W. Bush brought Kemp into his cabinet back in 1989, it wasn’t to head up the Treasury Department. It was to be Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, a department that shouldn’t even exist. And because Kemp was weak on spending issues, he predictably and unfortunately presided over an expansion of HUD’s budget. If he was at Treasury, by contrast, he may have been able to stop Bush’s disastrous read-my-lips tax deal.

Another example is that Republicans members of Congress from farm states generally favor small government. So if they wind up on committees that deal with overall fiscal issues, they usually are allies in the effort to restrain Leviathan. Unfortunately, they more often wind up on the Agriculture Committee, which means they accumulate power and expertise in the area where they are least likely to favor free markets and limited government. They net effect is that  they may still have a decent voting record, but their actual impact on public policy will be harmful. The same thing happens with Republicans who get on the transportation committees.

Today’s example is Attorney General Jeff Sessions. When he was Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, he was an ally in the fight against big government. He favored decentralization. He supported rolling back the welfare state. He favored entitlement reform. He supported tax cuts. He used his power and position to try to do the right thing. But when Trump asked Sessions to join his cabinet, it wasn’t to head the Office of Management and Budget, a position that would have been a good fit. Instead, Trump picked him to be Attorney General, which is problematical because Sessions is an advocate of the failed War on Drugs. And he’s also a supporter of “asset forfeiture,” which occurs when governments steal money and property from citizens without convicting them of any crime. Or sometimes without even charging them with a crime.

I’m not joking. This happens with distressing regularity. It’s called “policing for profit.”

In poor nations, a corrupt cop will stop motorists to shake them down for pocket change. In the United States, we’ve legalized a bigger version of that sleazy behavior. George Will shared a reprehensible example last December.

The Sourovelises’ son, who lived at home, was arrested for selling a small amount of drugs away from home. Soon there was a knock on their door by police who said, “We’re here to take your house” and “You’re going to be living on the street” and “We do this every day.” The Sourovelises’ doors were locked with screws and their utilities were cut off. They had paid off the mortgage on their $350,000 home, making it a tempting target for policing for profit. Nationwide, proceeds from sales of seized property (homes, cars, etc.) go to the seizers. And under a federal program, state and local law enforcement can partner with federal authorities in forfeiture and reap up to 80 percent of the proceeds. This is called — more Orwellian newspeak — “equitable sharing.” No crime had been committed in the Sourovelises’ house, but the title of the case against them was “Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. 12011 Ferndale Street.” Somehow, a crime had been committed by the house. In civil forfeiture, it suffices that property is suspected of having been involved in a crime. Once seized, the property’s owners bear the burden of proving their property’s innocence.

The good news is that there’s a growing desire to stop governments from stealing.

Indeed, Will points out that there was “a 2015 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on forfeiture abuses.”

Unfortunately, not everybody at the hearing agreed that it’s wrong for governments to arbitrarily engage in theft.

…one senator said “taking and seizing and forfeiting, through a government judicial process, illegal gains from criminal enterprises is not wrong,” and neither is law enforcement enriching itself from this. …this senator asserted an unverifiable number: “Ninety-five percent” of forfeitures involve people who have “done nothing in their lives but sell dope.” This senator said it should not be more difficult for “government to take money from a drug dealer than it is for a businessperson to defend themselves in a lawsuit.” In seizing property suspected of involvement in a crime, government “should not have a burden of proof higher than in a normal civil case.”

The Senator who made these statements was Jeff Sessions.

And, as George Will explains, the then-Senator missed a few points.

In civil forfeiture there usually is no proper “judicial process.” There is no way of knowing how many forfeitures involve criminals because the government takes property without even charging anyone with a crime. The government’s vast prosecutorial resources are one reason it properly bears the burden of proving criminal culpability “beyond a reasonable doubt.” A sued businessperson does not have assets taken until he or she has lost in a trial, whereas civil forfeiture takes property without a trial and the property owner must wage a protracted, complex, and expensive fight to get it returned.

The Wall Street Journal also opined about the new Attorney General’s indefensible position.

The all-too-common practice allows law enforcement to take private property without due process and has become a cash cow for state and local police and prosecutors. …Assets are often seized—and never returned—without any judicial process or court supervision. Unlike criminal forfeiture, civil forfeiture doesn’t require a criminal conviction or even charges. According to the Virginia-based Institute for Justice, which tracks forfeitures, 13% of all forfeitures done by the Justice Department between 1997 and 2013 were in criminal cases while 87% were civil forfeitures. And 88% of those forfeitures were done by an administrative agency, not a court. …The lack of procedural protection coupled with financial incentives has turned policing for profit into a slush fund for governments hungry for cash, and the payouts too often come at the expense of civil liberties. We’d like to hear what Mr. Sessions thinks of the practice today.

Sadly, it doesn’t appear that President Trump is on the right side either.

In a new column on the topic, George Will addresses this unfortunate development.

There is no reason for the sheriffs to want to reform a racket that lines their pockets. For the rest of us, strengthening the rule of law and eliminating moral hazard are each sufficient reasons. Civil forfeiture is the power to seize property suspected of being produced by, or involved in, crime. If property is suspected of being involved in criminal activity, law enforcement can seize it. Once seized, the property’s owners bear the burden of proving that they were not involved in such activity, which can be a costly and protracted procedure. So, civil forfeiture proceeds on the guilty-until-proven-innocent principle. Civil forfeiture forces property owners, often people of modest means, to hire lawyers and do battle against a government with unlimited resources. And here is why the sheriffs probably purred contentedly when Trump endorsed civil forfeiture law — if something so devoid of due process can be dignified as law: Predatory law enforcement agencies can pocket the proceeds from the sale of property they seize.

The folks at Reason have a new video on Trump’s support for theft-by-government.

[brid video=”112700″ player=”2077″ title=”3 Reasons Trump is Wrong to Oppose Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform”]

By the way, I hold out some hope that Trump may not be completely bad on the issue. It’s possible that he’s never considered the issue and doesn’t understand that it involves over-the-top government thuggery. He may simply think it’s some sort of procedural issue involving good cops against bad crooks.

So perhaps when he is briefed on what the issue really means, he’ll be in favor of protecting Americans from the kind of horrible abuse that the Dehko family experienced. Or the mistreatment of Carole Hinders. Or the ransacking of Joseph Rivers. Or the brutalization of Thomas Williams.

I could continue, but I think you get the point.

Let’s close, though, with some good news. I wrote two years ago about the case of Charles Clarke, who had $11,000 that was stolen by government. Thanks to the Institute for Justice, that stolen money has been returned.

Charles Clarke, the college student who was robbed of $11,000 in cash by cops at the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport two years ago, will get his money back with interest under an agreement he reached with the Justice Department this week. …To keep the money, the government theoretically had to show that it more likely than not came from selling drugs or was intended to buy them. But that burden applied only if Clarke had the means to challenge the forfeiture once the government had taken his savings. Innocent owners often find that standing up for their rights costs more than the value of the property they are trying to get back. Luckily for Clarke, he had the Institute for Justice in his corner.

And the other bit of good news is that New Mexico has curtailed the disgusting practice of asset forfeiture. Hopefully Trump won’t try to destroy the careers of the lawmakers who decided the Constitution was more important than lining the pockets of the bureaucracy.

As Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee,

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe, left, looks on as U.S. President Donald J. Trump, right, speaks during a joint press conference at the White House in Washington, U.S., February 10, 2017.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe, left, looks on as U.S. President Donald J. Trump, right, speaks during a joint press conference at the White House in Washington, U.S., February 10, 2017.

President Donald J. Trump responded to North Korea testing a missile at a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe on Saturday night.

“The United States of America stands behind Japan, its great ally, 100 percent,” Trump said during the conference at Trump’s south Florida estate.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe condemned North Korea’s latest missile launch calling it, “absolutely intolerable.” In a prepared statement, Prime Minister Abe said President Trump assured him the U.S. supports Japan and that he showed determination and commitment to strengthen the alliance.

He also called on North Korea “to fully comply with relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions.”

The projectile was fired from an area in the country’s western region near Banghyon, North Pyongan Province, which is where South Korean officials have said the country test launched its powerful midrange missile Musudan on Oct. 15 and 20.

A spokesman for U.S. Strategic Command said in an emailed statement to Fox News that the, “U.S. Strategic Command systems detected and tracked what we assess was a North Korean missile launch.”

North Korea has attempted 24 missile launches and two nuclear tests just this year, alone. The tests included eight launches of the Musudan missile. Th intercontinental ballistic missile can be fired from concealed road-mobile vehicles, travel 4,000 kilometers and hit the U.S. mainland.

In June of 2016, North Korea successfully fired a Musudan, which landed 250 miles away in the Sea of Japan. The latest launch comes after four unchecked nuclear tests during the Obama administration, and one under the Bush administration.

The most recent attempt to launch an intermediate-range ballistic missile, which subsequently failed, was within hours of a U.S. presidential debate in October.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said in his annual New Year’s address that the North’s preparations for launching an intercontinental ballistic missile have “reached the final stage.”

[brid video=”112694″ player=”2077″ title=”President Trump Holds a Joint Press Conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinz Abe”]

President Donald J. Trump responded to North

North-Korean-Leader-Kim-Jong-Un

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un attends an emergency meeting on Thursday. (Photo: AFP – Getty Images)

The North Korea launched a missile in what the South Koreans are calling a “show of force” against U.S. President Donald J. Trump. The U.S. Pentagon detected the test and is assessing the launch, though it was unclear whether the projectile that plunged into the eastern sea on Sunday was a ballistic missile.

The White House is continuing to monitor the situation, a White House official said on Saturday according to Reuters.

“We are aware of the missile launch by North Korea,” an administration official told Reuters. “The President has been briefed and we are continuing to closely monitor the situation.”

The launch is a likely effort to advance its weapons program and is the first since President Trump assumed office.

Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said the missile test-fired by North Korea did not hit Japanese territorial seas. Meanwhile, South Korea’s Yonhap news agency reported that the Japanese government confirmed that the missile fell in the waters between the Korean Peninsula and Japan.

The South’s Joint Chiefs of Staff confirmed in a statement that the projectile was fired from an area in the country’s western region near Banghyon, North Pyongan Province, which is where South Korean officials have said the country test launched its powerful midrange missile Musudan on Oct. 15 and 20.

north-korean-missile-launch

North Korean Missile Capabilities

North Korea has attempted 24 missile launches and two nuclear tests just this year, alone. The tests included eight launches of the Musudan missile. Th intercontinental ballistic missile can be fired from concealed road-mobile vehicles, travel 4,000 kilometers and hit the U.S. mainland.

In June of 2016, North Korea successfully fired a Musudan, which landed 250 miles away in the Sea of Japan. The latest launch comes after four unchecked nuclear tests during the Obama administration, and one under the Bush administration.

The most recent attempt to launch an intermediate-range ballistic missile, which subsequently failed, was within hours of a U.S. presidential debate in October.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un said in his annual New Year’s address that the North’s preparations for launching an intercontinental ballistic missile have “reached the final stage.”

The North Korea launched a missile in

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial