Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Thursday, March 6, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 841)

isis-kidnapped-syrian-christians

Islamic State, or ISIS militants celebrate after capturing territories in Northeastern Syria.

ISIS militants have kidnapped roughly 90 Christians in Syria, including women and children after overrunning forces along the banks of the Khabur River near the town of Tal Tamr in Hassakeh province.

According to the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, ISIS sacked several small villages in northeast Syria around dawn Monday, driving back opposing Kurdish fighters and abducting roughly 90 people.

Nuri Kino, the head of the religious minorities’ rights group A Demand For Action, said the militants took between 70 and 100 Assyrians captive. Kino also said that some 3,000 people have managed to escape the Islamic terror army, seeking refuge in the cities of Hassakeh and the provincial capital of Qamishli.

Both activist groups said that most of the captives come from the village of Tal Shamiram, located roughly 50 miles southwest of Qamishli. The families of those kidnapped have lost communication and are scrambling to learn the fate of their loved ones, including an Assyrian woman from Tal Shamiram who now lives in Beirut. The woman, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of endangering the lives of her relatives, said she has been trying to find out what has become of her parents, her brother and his wife and kids.

“Land lines have been cut, their mobiles are closed. Have they been slaughtered? Are they still alive? We’re searching for any news,” she said on the phone with the AP as her voice was cracking. “My family visited me last month and returned to Syria. There were clashes but it was normal, nothing exceptional. I feel so helpless, I cannot do anything for them but pray.”

ISIS claimed on their online radio station, al-Bayan, Tuesday that they had captured a large number of “crusaders” while seizing 10 villages around Tal Tamr. ISIS frequently refers to Christians as “crusaders,” though they were Kurdish forces in actual clashes with the group. Meanwhile, Syria’s official SANA news agency reported that ISIS overran seven villages during an attack on Monday.

The kidnappings come after ISIS militants in Libya released a video showing the beheading of 21 Egyptian Christians, and an increase in violence in the area close to the Turkish and Iraqi border. Kurdish fighters from the YPG launched an offensive over the weekend, quickly seizing some 20 villages from the Islamic State.

The fighting continued through Tuesday, as the YPG has captured another 10 villages, the Observatory said.

ISIS militants have kidnapped roughly 90 Christians

Americans' Views on Israel

Video: Similar to more than a decade ago, Americans still view Israel’s actions against Hamas as justified, says Gallup Editor-in-Chief Frank Newport.

President Obama has had the worst relationship with Israel than any other post-1947 U.S. administration and is currently working to undermine the election of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. However, according to a new Gallup survey, Americans overwhelmingly support Israel, with a whopping 70 percent of Americans saying they now view the country favorably.

Further, despite unprecedented pro-Palestinian media coverage last summer, when asked Americans will choose Israel over Palestine. A near-supermajority — 62 percent — say they sympathize more with the Israelis than the Palestinians in the Mideast conflict. On the flip side, the Left’s increasing anti-Israeli sentiment is increasingly becoming a fringe position, as just 17 percent currently view the Palestinian Authority favorably, down from 19 in 2014.

Just 16 percent of Americans sympathize more with the Palestinians’ plight.

The results from Gallup’s Feb. 8-11 World Affairs survey suggest that neither President Obama nor the coverage during the 50-day conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip last summer had much of an impact on Americans’ views of their most-trusted ally in the region.

“In fact, Israel’s public image in the U.S. has been fairly strong since 2005, with an average 68 percent of Americans viewing it favorably,” said Lydia Saad of Gallup. “But from 2000 to 2004, when hostilities between Israel and the Palestinians were running high, its favorable score averaged 60 percent.”

Interestingly, Israel’s favorable rating was more volatile before President Obama’s tenure, but often not in the manner an increasing number on the Left would like. During the 1991 Gulf War, in the pre-Iron Dome era, positive views of Israel skyrocketed to 79 percent after that country suffered Iraqi rocket attacks that could not be trivialized by pro-Palestinian media outlets.

Since Gallup began measuring Americans’ impression of the Palestinian Authority, the percentage viewing it favorably has averaged just 17 percent, where it stand now. In 2005, when then-assumed moderate Mahmoud Abbas was elected to succeed now-known supporter of terror Yasser Arafat as Palestinian president, Americans’ views hit 27 percent favorable.

While increasing number of liberals are beginning to adopt anti-Israeli sentiment and, when asked to choose sides, will choose the side of the Hamas-supporting Palestinian Authority, 48 percent of the Democratic Party as a whole will choose Israel. However, when compared to Republicans — who are nearly unanimous in their support for Israel at 83 percent — and, independents who by a 59-percent majority agree, the Democrats’ support for Israel is on the decline.

In 2014, a 54-percent majority of Democrats chose the region’s only bastion of self-governance and liberty. Though the current 48 percent of Democrats is still slightly higher than the 42 percent measured in 1988, the trend is less than clear. In 1991, the number of Democrats who sided with Israelis was above 60 percent, and though we observe an increase from 1993 to 2014, the trend line suggests soft support.

“Throughout all of this, Israel’s positive image in the U.S. remains broadly intact nationally, even as Democrats’ sympathy for Israel may have slipped,” Saad added. “The percentage of Democrats viewing Israel favorably is also down, currently at 60 percent, vs. 74 percent a year ago.”

According to Gallup's Feb. 8-11 World Affairs

kay-bird-welfare-vacation

Unemployed single mother Kay Bird, who has admitted spending £3,000 of taxpayers’ cash on a round-the-world trip to far flung destinations with her 10-month-old baby Chloe. She is pictured with her daughter in Dubai. (Photo: @FrontPage/DailyMail)

Since I’m in the United Kingdom, it’s appropriate to announce that another Briton has been elected to the Moocher Hall of Fame. Ms. Kay Bird deserves this “honor” because it takes a very reprehensible entitlement mentality to brag about taking a global holiday with welfare cash.

And we’re talking about a global holiday that appears to be far more extravagant than the foreign trips enjoyed by Natalija, another member of the Moocher Hall of Fame.

Here are some of the jaw-dropping details from a report in the U.K.-based Daily Mail.

A single mother on benefits has admitted spending £3,000 of taxpayers’ cash on a dream round-the-world trip to far flung destinations with her 10-month-old baby daughter. …she still receives more than £8,500 a year in child benefit, income support and tax credits as it is considered that she has a low income. …she visited places such as Australia, Bali and Dubai. Miss Bird says she could work but chooses not to… She said: ‘No, I don’t need the money as such and I didn’t need to go travelling either but I wanted to so I did. ‘If someone’s offering you free money and telling you to take it, you’d have to be a fool not to – that’s all I did. …‘I don’t feel guilty and I don’t regret it. It started off just as a ­holiday to Athens, then things started to fall into place.

Let’s think through her statement about “free money.” Is she really so clueless that she doesn’t realize that her handouts are only possible because other people are actually working and producing?

She says “I don’t feel guilty,” which is remarkable because I doubt taxpayers who financed her jaunt have ever been to Dubai and Bali.

‘Each time some more money landed in my account, I booked something. ‘I started booking flights and accommodation in Europe in October and was booking something with every payment until a few days before I went.’ …She also visited Athens, Istanbul, Dubai, Colombo in Sri Lanka, Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta, Bali and Darwin before returning home via Amsterdam. In total, she spent four months worth of her benefits cash on the trip, paying for 13 flights, travel visas, accommodation and spending money. Her benefits continued to be paid into her bank account while she was away and she returned to the UK just before the five-week travel limit imposed on people claiming Jobseekers’ Allowance.

I have to confess that I’m mystified how someone who chooses not to work can get a handout called “jobseekers’ allowance.” I wonder if MHoF members Danny and Gina are benefiting from the same scam?

In any event, the bureaucrats seem more concerned with enabling welfare fraud than in protecting the interests of taxpayers.

She added: ‘I went to the job centre and told them I wanted to go travelling and they told me there was a five-week limit. I came home just within those five weeks so my benefits didn’t get cut off.’ …she was claiming £90 a week income support, £90 a month child benefit and £230 a month in tax credits. She said: ‘I told them I wanted to register back in the country and they told me I was already eligible for Jobseekers’ Allowance. ‘Then a couple of weeks later they said I could switch to income support which meant I didn’t even have to apply for jobs. ‘Then I was told I could get tax credits, too. I was really shocked at how generous it was but I wasn’t going to turn it down.’

I’m sure British taxpayers will be delighted to learn that Ms. Bird is already planning her next welfare-financed overseas holiday.

Now she says she is planning her next luxury trip for herself and daughter which will be to New Zealand. …She explained: ‘I’m not your regular single mum on benefits who spends it all in McDonald’s and never leaves the town they were born in. ‘I’m changing the image of what it is to be a benefits mum and proving that if you do it the right way, you can have ­anything you want. …’Of course people are negative and many people get very jealous. ‘But I had only been out of Europe once before I went on benefits and now I’ve had the chance to see some incredible things from tropical beaches to the ­skyscrapers of Dubai. ‘I never would have been able to afford it without benefits.’

Gee, doesn’t that warm your heart. She’s a trailblazer, showing other deadbeats how you can live like a jet-setter with other people paying the bills!

kay-bird-welfare-world-vacation

Miss Bird and her young daughter splash around in the Indian Ocean during the trip. The young mother receives more than £8,500 in various benefits. (Photo: @FrontPage/DailyMail)

Yes, Ms. Bird definitely deserves to be in the Moocher Hal of Fame.

P.S. Since we’re talking about reprehensible welfare moochers, let’s shift from the U.K. to Australia.

It appears that there are lots of Aussie Muslims who want to join the “Terror Wing” of the Moocher Hall of Fame.

Here are some excerpts in a story from the Aussie-based Daily Telegraph.

A federal investigation into the welfare status of Australian foreign fighters, prompted last year by revelations in The Telegraph, shows 96 per cent had been on welfare benefits when they fled to the Middle East. Most had continued to collect payments from Australian taxpayers while training with Islamic State to become terrorists intent on wanting to kill Australians. The investigation has captured the records of 57 Australians who left the country before October last year to fight with the Islamic State. Of that number 55 have been confirmed to have been on welfare payments.

Wow, 96 percent of the identified terrorists who came from Australia were subsidized by taxpayers.

And there are more welfare-fueled terrorists on the way, perhaps recruited by Abdul, who’s been sponging off Australian taxpayers for about two decades.

Since then, an estimated 50 more Australians have ­illegally travelled to the Middle East to join IS, with most believed to have been claiming some form of benefit. A subsequent audit of this group confirmed that most had been at one time in ­receipt of benefits such as Newstart, sickness, youth and carer’s allowances, as well as the Disability Support Pension.

So let’s summarize. Able-bodied young men who are healthy enough to join a fight in the Middle East somehow were somehow so helpless that they needed welfare handouts to survive in Australia.

In reality, of course, these low-life deadbeats surely were capable of working, but they doubtlessly thought it was wonderful that the people they hate were subsidizing their sloth.

All the more reason why policymakers in all nations should reduce the size of the welfare state.

But it’s equally important to decentralize so that local and regional governments are responsible for redistribution programs. Under such an approach, I suspect we’d be far more likely to see the imposition of standards to preclude mooching by able-bodied adults, whether they’re run-of-the-mill moochers or terrorists-in-training.

Ms. Kay Bird is now in the

Speaking at Christ Universal Temple in Chicago Sunday, the racist Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan attacked America’s Mayor Rudy Giuliani for his comment that Obama doesn’t love America. While giving a sermon during his annual  Saviours’ Day speech, he claimed former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani grew up “a privileged cracker,” and “a privileged devil.”

“How did you grow up, Giuliani? A privileged cracker? Or I should say, a privileged devil,” Farrakhan said. “You grew up on the sweat and the blood of black men and women who made America before your fathers got here. All of you Europeans, you recent immigrants that have found a home in America, and you are so happy. But you walking on our blood. Our blood soaks the soil of America.”

Not only were Farrakhan’s comments racist — again — but they aren’t factually correct. Mayor Rudolph Giuliani was born May 28, 1944 and raised in the Italian-American enclave in East Flatbush in the New York City borough of Brooklyn. He was the only child in a working-class family and the son of Harold Angelo Giuliani (1908–1981) and Helen (née D’Avanzo; 1909–2002), both first-generation Americans and children of Italian immigrants.

Rudy’s father, Harold Giuliani, had a difficult time gaining employment and subsequently holding on to it. Like many young Italian-American men living in Brooklyn during the 1940s – 1960s, opportunities in organized crime was an attractive proposition to Harold, who would be convicted of felony assault and robbery that led to a stint in Sing Sing. Unable to find a job, Harold Giuliani served as an enforcer for his brother-in-law Leo D’Avanzo, who ran an organized crime operation involved in loan sharking and gambling at a restaurant in Brooklyn.

In 1951, when Rudy Giuliani was seven, his family moved from Brooklyn to Garden City South, where much of the money the family did have went toward his attendance at St. Anne’s Catholic School until high school. Rudy commuted back to Brooklyn to attend Bishop Loughlin Memorial High School.

But despite the cultural pressures and his father’s background, Mayor Giuliani took another, harder path than so many other young Italian-Americans. He attended Manhattan College in Riverdale, Bronx, majoring in political science with a minor in philosophy.

He flirted with the idea of becoming a priest after also having studied theology for four years in college, but instead attended New York University School of Law in Manhattan. There, he made law review and in 1968 graduated cum laude with a Juris Doctor.

Upon graduation, Giuliani slowly began to build what has become an unmatched career in public and prosecutorial service, first clerking for Judge Lloyd Francis MacMahon, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York. In 1981, Giuliani was named Associate Attorney General in the Reagan administration, the third-highest position in the Department of Justice.

But he did it with something Mr. Farrakhan doesn’t even address in his sermons or grievance rants — work ethic. Work ethic and a solid foundation can conquer the challenges that stem from cultural and society norms, which left-wingers view as insurmountable obstacles. Giuliani build the life and career he did in spite of those at the time, not because of them.

Once more, Louis Farrakhan has proved he is all too willing to make racist inflammatory remarks, even if they are factually incorrect.

Speaking at Christ Universal Temple in Chicago

limited-government-are-you-kidding-cartoon

Monday, I gave a speech to some folks at London’s Institute of Economic Affairs about the failure of global financial regulation. I touched on some predictable themes:

The absence of cost/benefit analysis for regulatory initiatives.

The failure of anti-money laundering laws and their harmful impact on the poor.

How one-size-fits-all Basel rules led to imprudent risk and misallocation of capital.

How anti-tax competition schemes impose high costs on the financial system (which get passed on to financial consumers).

One thing I noticed, though, is that I didn’t get overly passionate when discussing these topics. I didn’t even get that worked up when talking about the OECD’s dangerous plan to create something akin to a World Tax Organization.

But I did get rather agitated when talking about how money-laundering rules and regulations have led to disgusting and reprehensible examples of so-called civil asset forfeiture.

This happens when a government decides to steal the property of citizens simply because they think it may have been involved in illegal activity.

Politicians and bureaucrats often use the failed Drug War as their rationale, but the activity doesn’t actually have to be illegal. I specifically cited the horrific example of the government stealing $35,000 from some folks in Michigan for no other reason than money from the family grocery business was generally deposited in amounts under $10,000.

I’m sure such government actions have a negative economic impact, but this is a case where the moral argument should take precedence.

Simply stated, all decent and humane people should stand united against thuggery by government.

And in an example of serendipity, after finishing my speech, I turned on my computer and came across more evidence against civil asset forfeiture.

Here are some truly disturbing passages from a report in the Detroit Free Pressthat showed up in my Twitter feed.

Thomas Williams was alone that November morning in 2013 when police raided his rural St. Joseph County home, wearing black masks, camouflage and holding guns at their sides. They broke down his front door with a battering ram. “We think you’re dealing marijuana,” they told Williams, a 72-year-old, retired carpenter and cancer patient who is disabled and carries a medical marijuana card. When he protested, they handcuffed him and left him on the living room floor as they ransacked his home, emptying drawers, rummaging through closets and surveying his grow room, where he was nourishing his 12 personal marijuana plants as allowed by law.

All this sounds horrible – and it is, but it gets worse.

They did not charge Williams with a crime… Instead, they took his Dodge Journey, $11,000 in cash from his home, his television, his cell phone, his shotgun and are attempting to take his Colon Township home. And they plan to keep the proceeds, auctioning off the property and putting the cash in police coffers. More than a year later, he is still fighting to get his belongings back and to hang on to his house. “I want to ask them, ‘Why? Why me?’ I gave them no reason to do this to me,” said Williams, who says he also suffers from glaucoma, a damaged disc in his back, and COPD, a lung disorder. “I’m out here minding my own business, and just wanted to be left alone.”

Why him? Well, one local attorney has a good idea of what’s really happening.

“It’s straight up theft,” said Williams’ Kalamazoo attorney, Dan Grow. “The forfeiture penalty does not match the crime. It’s absurd. …A lot of my practice is made up of these kinds of cases — middle-aged, middle-income people who have never been in trouble before. It’s all about the money.”

Just to be clear, Mr. Grow is emphasizing the utterly perverse incentive structure that exists when cops are allowed to steal money from citizens and use it to pad their own budget.

This system needs to be reformed.

And the second bit of serendipity is that a new report from the Institute for Justice showed up in my inbox. It explains why civil asset forfeiture should be abolished. And while the report focuses on the venal actions of the IRS, this reform should apply to all government agencies at all levels of government.

Civil forfeiture is the government’s power to take property suspected of involvement in a crime. Unlike criminal forfeiture, no one needs to be convicted of—or even a charged with—a crime for the government to take the property. Lax civil forfeiture standards enable the IRS to “seize first and ask questions later,” taking money without serious investigation and forcing owners into a long and difficult legal battle to try to stop the forfeiture. Any money forfeited is then used to fund further law enforcement efforts, giving agencies like the IRS an incentive to seize.

Here’s how IJ suggests that this type of abuse can be halted.

The surest way to prevent innocent people from losing money unjustly would be to end civil forfeiture and replace it with criminal forfeiture. Short of that, removing the financial incentive to seize, raising the standard of proof to forfeit and enacting other procedural reforms would help protect people from losing their bank accounts when the government has little or no proof of criminal wrongdoing.

While the Institute for Justice does great work, I don’t think they should have opened the door to halfway reforms.

Heck, even the two people who helped start up the Justice Department’s asset forfeiture program now say it should be abolished.

P.S. The Princess of the Levant is also in London, so I’m being forced to engage in tourist activities.

We took a ride on the London Eye, which wasn’t cheap but offers very good views of Big Ben, the House of Commons, Westminster Abbey, and other historic sites.

As far as I’m concerned, though, London is too cold and dreary. The only good tourism involves a warm beach in the Caribbean.

P.P.S. To close on a humorous note, here’s some anti-gun control humor with a rather pointed message.

Definitely worth adding to my collection.

[mybooktable book=”global-tax-revolution-the-rise-of-tax-competition-and-the-battle-to-defend-it” display=”summary”]

Monday, I gave a speech at London’s

obama-giuliani

President Obama, left, and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, right.

The firestorm of denunciation of former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani, for having said that he did not think Barack Obama loved America, is in one sense out of all proportion to that remark — especially at a time when there are much bigger issues, including wars raging, terrorist atrocities and a nuclear Iran on the horizon.

Against that background of strife and dangers on the world stage, it may seem as if Barack Obama’s feelings, or Rudolph Giuliani’s opinion about those feelings, should not matter so much, especially when it is hard to know with certainty how anyone feels. Yet when someone is the leader of a great nation at a historic juncture, it is more than idle curiosity to know what drives him.

It is not clear what the basis was for so much outrage at Mayor Giuliani’s opinion about President Obama. Was it that what Giuliani said was demonstrably false? Was it that Barack Obama is supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty?

Anyone who simply looks at the factual evidence as to whether Obama loves America, or does not, will find remarkably little to suggest love and a large amount of evidence, over a long period of years, showing his constant close association with people fiercely hostile to this country. Jeremiah Wright was just one in a long series of such people.

Barack Obama’s campaign promise to “fundamentally change the United States of America” hardly suggests love. Nor did his international speaking tour in 2009, telling foreign audiences that America was to blame for problems on the world stage.

President Obama’s record in the White House has been more of the same. Among his earliest acts were offending our oldest and closest allies, Britain and Israel, and betraying the country’s previous commitments to provide anti-missile defenses to Poland and the Czech Republic.

Obama’s refusal to let Ukraine have weapons with which to defend itself from Russian invasion was consistent with this pattern, and consistent with his whispered statement — picked up by a microphone that was still on — to tell “Vladimir” that, after the 2012 election was over, he would be able to “have more ‘flexibility.'”

Conceivably, these might all have been simply blunders. But such a string of blunders would require someone very stupid, and Barack Obama is by no means stupid. The net effect is that in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, America’s allies and America’s interests face far more setbacks and dangers today than when Obama took office.

His policies have been publicly criticized by two of his own former Secretaries of Defense, by two retired four-star generals who served during his administration, and a retired four-star admiral who also served in the Middle East during the Obama administration has called his policies “anti-American.”

Some people who are denouncing former mayor Rudolph Giuliani seem to be saying that it is just not right to accuse a President of the United States of being unpatriotic. But when Barack Obama was a Senator, that is precisely what he said about President George W. Bush. Where was the outrage then?

If all else fails, critics of Mayor Giuliani can say that a man is entitled to be considered “innocent until proven guilty.” But that principle applies in a court of law. Outside a court of law, there is no reason to presume anyone innocent until proven guilty. It is especially dangerous to presume a President of the United States — any president — innocent until proven guilty.

Whoever is president has the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans, and the fate of a nation, in his hands. It is those millions of people and that nation who deserve the benefit of the doubt. We need to err on the side of safety for the people and the country. Squeamish politeness to an individual cannot outweigh that.

We need to keep that in mind for the next president, and for all future presidents. We might have been better off if the question of Obama’s patriotism had been raised before he was first elected. Never should we ignore so many red flag warnings again.

There is little that can be done about President Obama now, no matter what he does. Impeachment, even if it succeeded, would mean Joe Biden as president and riots across the country. It is hard to know which would be worse.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com.

Sowell: It is not clear what the

obama_executive_order_immigration

The Department of Justice Monday filed a brief requesting a federal judge lift a temporary injunction blocking President Obama’s executive amnesty order. The Obama administration’s argument, which was filed with the same federal judge who issued the initial order temporarily blocking implementation, is two-fold.

First, the DOJ brief argues that the ability of the federal government to protect national security would be “irreparably harmed” if the request is not granted. The language is particularly noteworthy considering U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen wrote in his ruling last week that without a preliminary injunction the states would “suffer irreparable harm in this case.”

“A stay pending appeal is necessary to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS” or “Department”) is able to most effectively protect national security, public safety, and the integrity of the border,” the DOJ brief argues. “Specifically, the Deferred Action Guidance enjoined by this Court is an integral” program aimed at “the removal of threats to public safety, national security risks,” and without implementation, “DHS will sustain irreparable harm—harm that would not be cured, even if Defendants ultimately prevail on that appeal.”

Second, or the part of the argument most likely to be met with judicial wrath, the Obama administration argued that they don’t need to answer to anyone on the legality or merit of the president’s action and, further, the federal judge didn’t even have the authority to issue the temporary injunction last week.

“Defendants’ case is substantial indeed: the Court lacked authority to issue the preliminary injunction, both because Plaintiffs lack standing and because the Deferred Action Guidance is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion by the Secretary that is neither subject to challenge by the States, nor required to be issued through notice-and comment rule-making,” they argue.

However, Judge Hanen found that “at least” Texas had standing to sue. The states suing over Obama’s unilateral amnesty order include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

If Judge Hanen decides not to grant the Obama administration’s request, which experts say is highly likely, the case will head to the Fifth Circuit in Louisiana.

“I’d predict the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana will not interfere,” said Judge Andrew Napolitano, a judicial analyst and former federal judge. “I read the 250 pages and its thorough, complete, and a very sound opinion within the law.”

The president stated Monday that the injunction deprives states of tax revenue, but when asked at the press briefing to specifically identify how the government would suffer “irreparable harm” from an injunction blocking Obama’s amnesty program, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest had some trouble articulating their position.

“To put it bluntly, the Department of Homeland Security was ready last week to begin taking the steps that would bring millions of people out of the shadows,” Earnest said. “These are individuals who have been in this country for a substantial period of time and have family connections inside the country. These are individuals who would begin paying taxes. These are individuals who would submit to a background check. So every day that goes by we have individuals who will continue to be in the shadows, who will continue to not pay taxes, and who will continue to not have undergone a background check, which means that they could pose a threat to public safety.”

However, giving background checks to those who qualify for Obama’s Deferred Action order would not protect Americans from all of the illegal immigrants that certainly will not come out of the shadows because they know they will fail a background check.

Further, the Congressional Budge Office estimate cited by the White House as proof that Deferred Action would add to revenues and reduce the deficit is the greatest play on numbers since the CBO’s ObamaCare projection, which by the way they no longer have the courage to stand by.

The CBO estimates on Deferred Action omit the Social Security Trust Fund and assume all Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes go into the general fund used to pay for current government spending on benefits. If, however, Social Security payroll taxes from impacted immigrants are used to pay for their own Social Security benefits later in life, as current law requires, then the deficit balloons.

According to the CBO, when the law is actually followed and new revenues from immigrant workers are deposited into the Social Security Trust Fund, revenues only increase by $5.2 billion through 2025, as opposed to the initial estimate of $14.9 billion.

In reality, a fictitious $197 billion reduction in deficit spending through 2023, in practice becomes an $8.8 billion deficit increase.

The Department of Justice Monday filed a

kayla-mueller-family

Kayla Mueller’s mother gives a press conference in Arizona. (Photo: Video Screenshot)

The Mueller family said the Obama administration’s swap of the Taliban Five held at Guantanamo Bay for Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl may have doomed any hope to work out a deal with ISIS to get Kayla Mueller, the murdered aid worker back.

Carl Mueller told NBC in an interview that aired Monday that he and his wife believed they could arrange his daughter’s release with a $6.2 million ransom payment, though he admitted the family faced a challenge to raise the money. However, Mr. Mueller claimed that it was after the White House agreed last year to swap Sgt. Bergdahl, who was captured and held for five years after he deserted his unit on June 30 of 2009, ISIS raised the ransom for their daughter.

“That made the whole situation worse,” Kayla Mueller’s brother, Eric, told the network. “Because that’s when the demands got greater. They got larger. They realized that they had something. They realized that, ‘Well, if they’re gonna let five people go for one person, why won’t they do this? Or why won’t they do that?’”

Kayla-Mueller-Kiwanis

In this May 30, 2013, photo, Kayla Mueller is shown after speaking to a group in Prescott, Ariz. (AP/The Daily Courier)

The family confirmed earlier this month that the Islamic State informed them that Kayla Mueller, who was taken hostage Aug. 4, 2013, had been killed while in captivity. While the group claimed she was killed by a Jordanian airstrike that was conducted in retaliation for the terror group’s savage murder of a Jordanian air force pilot, the account has not been confirmed. The Islamist group provided the Muellers with undisclosed evidence that she was, in fact, dead.

Mueller, of Prescott, Ariz., had volunteered with aid groups in India, Israel and the Palestinian territories before going to Turkey to work with Syrian refugees. Her identity was not disclosed until the terror group claimed she was dead, because the family was still hoping to win her release. The parents pointed out the Obama administration’s clear double-standard on negotiating with terrorists for the release of Americans.

“We understand the policy about not paying ransom,” he told NBC. “But on the other hand, any parents out there would understand that you would want anything and everything done to bring your child home. And we tried. And we asked. But they put policy in front of American citizens’ lives.”

Bowe Bergdahl prisoner exchange

Clockwise from top left: President Obama with the Berghdal family; Bowe Berghdal in Taliban’s prisoner exchange video; the Taliban Five; and, National Security Advisor Susan Rice.

When the Bergdahl trade was announced, the Mueller family thought that it perhaps signaled the government might be willing to consider a similar deal for Kayla.

Bergdahl was freed May 31, 2014, in exchange for the infamous, and extremely dangerous Taliban Five. The deal faced heavy scrutiny for several reasons, including the details of Bergdahl’s desertion. The Department of Defense concluded in 2010 that Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was a deserter, after a formal 5 – 6-investigation definitely determined he deserted his post. The department then suspiciously reclassified the investigation into a 20-19, which classified the details of the initial investigation.

Soldiers serving with him confirm he deserted, and even that good soldiers died while attempting to locate and rescue him. While soon-to-be former Pentagon spokesperson Rear Admiral John Kirby denied reports that charges have been filed against Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, multiple sources have now confirmed that the U.S. Army has decided to charge Bergdahl with a water-down version of desertion.

bowe-bergdahl-haqqani-captive

US Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in captivity alongside a Haqqani network militant. (Photo: AP)

But for the Mueller family, it is of little consultation.

“If they’re gonna let five people go for one person, why won’t they do this? Or why won’t they do that?’” Carl Mueller said he thought at the time. “I actually asked the president that question when we were in the White House. Yeah, that was pretty hard to take.”

In the end, U.S. adherence to the policy of not negotiating with terrorists – at least in the case of Kayla Mueller – may have marked her for death.

Kayla-Mueller-ap

Kayla Mueller (AP/The Daily Courier)

A recent internal investigation by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office concluded that the Obama administration violated the law with the swap, as it was a clear failure to notify the relevant congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of the exchange.

The Mueller family said the Obama administration’s

al-Shabaab-Mall-of-America

A new video from al Shabaab purportedly shows the terror group calling for an attack on Mall of America, in Bloomington, Minnesota. The iconic mall is but one of three targets the Somali terror group specifically names, including West Edmonton Mall in Canada and the Oxford Street shopping area in London.

The video, which is roughly 6 minutes long and contains graphic images, depict terrorists celebrating the 2013 Westgate Mall attack in Nairobi, Kenya, which killed more than 60 people.

The narrator has his face wrapped in a black-and-white kaffiyeh-like scarf and is wearing a camouflage jacket. He spoke with a clear British accent and appeared to be of Somali origin. He accused Kenyan troops in Somalia of committing abuses against Somali Muslims.

He ended the video by calling on Muslim men to attack other shopping malls in Western countries, while an image of the Mall of America is shown to viewers complete with GPS coordinates. The mall says it is ramping up its security in response, but publicly U.S. officials say there was “no credible” evidence to suggest a plot to attack the U.S. mall was hatched.

“We will continue to monitor events with the help of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies,” Mall of America said in a statement. “As always, we take any potential threat seriously and respond appropriately. Mall of America has implemented extra security precautions, some may be noticeable to guests, and others won’t be. We will continue to follow the situation, along with law enforcement, and will remain vigilant as we always do in similar situations.”

However, privately, intel officials are taking the threat very seriously considering the state’s track-record of homegrown terrorists in Somali Muslim communities. Officials tell PPD they believe the group is rapidly gaining in capability, though they do not yet see them as a threat on the level of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. But that only serves as another reason for concern, officials say. The group aims to gain prominence and stature with an attack rivaling AQAP, such as one on the Mall of America.

Jim Kallstrom, the former assistant director of the FBI’s New York office, said the FBI has a “huge job in front of them.”

“You look at the Mall of America, you look at all the malls then you start to backtrack and say you know it would be nice if we knew what comes and goes into the country,” Kallstrom told Fox News on Sunday. “We don’t have a clue.”

The Department of Homeland Security and FBI issued a joint statement Sunday saying that both agencies were aware of the video, and have increased communication between agencies to “mitigate these types of threats.”

“In recent months, the FBI and DHS have worked closely with our state and local public safety counterparts and members of the private sector, to include mall owners and operators, to prevent and mitigate these types of threats,” the statement said.

The radical Islamist group has attracted several homegrown radical volunteers from Minneapolis, who began traveling to Somalia in 2007 to join the group. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said on NBC’s Meet The Press that “there needs to be an awareness.

“We’re in a new phase now, and I’m afraid that this most recent video release reflects that,” Joshnson said during an appearance on ABC’s This Week.

Al Shabaab, which was designated as a terrorist organization by the State Department in 2008, claimed responsibility for a Friday attack on a hotel in Somalia’s capital that killed 25 people and wounded 40, the country’s government said Saturday. As one Islamic terrorist drove an explosives-packed vehicle through the gate of the Central Hotel, a second blew himself up inside.

A statement from Prime Minister Omar Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke’s office confirmed government officials were meeting at the Central Hotel at the time of the attack, and that Mogadishu’s deputy mayor and two legislators were among the dead. It was unclear whether the government’s report of 25 dead included the two bombers.

Despite the loss of key strongholds in Somalia, al Shabaab, which has strong ties to al Qaeda, continues to successfully carry out attacks in the capital city of Mogadishu, as well as other locations.

This is the second attack on a hotel in Mogadishu in less than a month. On Jan. 22, three Somali nationals were killed when a suicide car bomber blew himself up at the gate of a hotel housing the advance party of the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who visited the country days later.

Al Shabaab controlled much of Mogadishu during the years 2007 to 2011, but was pushed out of Somalia’s capital and other major cities by African Union forces. Somalia’s President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud vowed to keep them out of Mogadishu in a statement used to condemn the Friday attack. He promised the group’s increased attacks would not derail efforts by his government to restore peace to Somalia, a country that is trying to recover after decades of war.

In Kenya, the government dismissed the Al Shabaab video.

“They’re using propaganda to legitimize what cannot be legitimized. When you lead a group to go and attack a shopping mall and kill innocent shoppers that cannot be legitimized, those were not soldiers,” Interior Ministry spokesman Mwenda Njoka said. “Muslims also died in the Westgate attack. It’s in our interest to ensure Somalia is stabilized because the instability affects us. The video is cheap propaganda trying to re-write history and to get more support from those support them.”

Officials in Kenya outright dismissed and downplayed the release and content of the al Shabaab video.

“They’re using propaganda to legitimize what cannot be legitimized. When you lead a group to go and attack a shopping mall and kill innocent shoppers that cannot be legitimized, those were not soldiers,” Interior Ministry spokesman Mwenda Njoka said. “Muslims also died in the Westgate attack. It’s in our interest to ensure Somalia is stabilized because the instability affects us. The video is cheap propaganda trying to re-write history and to get more support from those support them.”

A new video from the Somali Islamic

(Photo: REUTERS)

Existing home sales fell sharply in January, dropping to their lowest level in nine months in part due to an alleged shortage of properties on the market. The report is a clear reality check to those who had expectations for an improving housing market in 2015.

The National Association of Realtors said on Monday existing home sales declined 4.9 percent to an annual rate of 4.82 million units, the lowest level since April of last year.

“January housing data can be volatile because of seasonal influences, but low housing supply and the ongoing rise in home prices above the pace of inflation appeared to slow sales despite interest rates remaining near historic lows,” said Lawrence Yun, the NAR chief economist. “Realtors are reporting that low rates are attracting potential buyers, but the lack of new and affordable listings is leading some to delay decisions.”

December’s sales pace was revised up to 5.07 million units from a previously reported 5.04 million units. Revisions to sales data going back to 2012 were minor. Sales slumped last month despite a decline in mortgage rates, which saw the 30-year rate hitting a 20-month low. Existing-home sales fell in every region. In the West sales fell 7.1 percent to an annual rate of 1.04 million; 4.6 percent to an annual rate of 2.07 million in the South; 2.7 percent to an annual level of 1.08 million in the Midwest; and, 6.0 percent to an annual rate of 630,000 in the Northeast.

“Although sales cooled in January, home prices continued solid year-over-year growth,” adds Yun. “The labor market and economy are markedly improved compared to a year ago, which supports stronger buyer demand. The big test for housing will be the impact on affordability once rates rise.”

Inventory levels are hurting sales by limiting the selection of houses available to potential buyers and also keeping house prices higher than consumers can afford. Total housing inventory at the end of January increased 0.5 percent to 1.87 million existing homes available for sale, but still remains 0.5 percent lower than a year ago (1.88 million). Unsold inventory is at a 4.7-month supply at the current sales pace – up from 4.4 months in December.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast existing home sales falling only to a 4.97-million unit pace last month. Sales were up 3.2 percent from a year ago. Yet, while economists say a lack of equity and uncertainty about the economy’s true strength are forcing potential sellers to stay in their homes, the housing lobby is calling for more government intervention in the market via the Federal Housing Administration.

“Condominiums offer an affordable option and are the first step to homeownership for many homebuyers,” said President Chris Polychron, executive broker with 1st Choice Realty in Hot Springs, Arkansas. “NAR has urged the FHA to develop policies that will give buyers access to more flexible and affordable financing opportunities and a wider choice of approved condo developments.”

But a further loosening of restrictions will also serve to further increase risk in a market already artificially propped up by government intervention. The riskiness of mortgage loan originations in the U.S. housing market rose in January, marking the fifth straight month of risk increases. AEI’s composite National Mortgage Risk Index (NMRI) for Agency purchase loans hit a new series high of 11.94 percent in January, up 0.4 percent from the prior 3-month average and 0.8 percent year-over-year.

“With the NMRI once again hitting a series high, the risks posed by the government’s 85% percent share of the home purchase market continue to rise,” said Stephen Oliner, codirector of AEI’s International Center on Housing Risk.

The composites subindexes gauging risk for Fannie Mae, the FHA, and the Veterans Administration (VA) all hit new series highs in January, as well.

“Policy makers need to be mindful of the upward risk trends that are occurring with respect to both first-time and repeat buyers,” said Edward Pinto, codirector of AEI’s International Center on Housing Risk. “Recent policy moves by the FHA and FHFA will likely exacerbate this trend.”

Existing home sales fell sharply in January,

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