Translate

Friday, September 23, 2016

UN'S "NEW URBAN AGENDA" TO ASSAULT LIBERTY IN A CITY NEAR YOU

UN'S "NEW URBAN AGENDA" TO ASSAULT LIBERTY IN A CITY NEAR YOU 
BY ALEX NEWMAN
SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/24110-un-s-new-urban-agenda-to-assault-liberty-in-a-city-near-yourepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

With its “New Urban Agenda” set to be formally adopted by dictators and member governments next month, the United Nations is plotting its latest monumental assault on private property, the free enterprise system, national sovereignty, and human liberty. Taken as a whole, the UN's radical new plan outlines a vision of an Orwellian world order of centrally planned, “compact” mega-cities run and guided by UN dictates and under total surveillance. Despite all the nice-sounding rhetoric about “equality” and “prosperity,” the text of the document also demands policies that have been repeatedly proven to cause misery, inequality, poverty, and death. Humanity should resist.  
The UN's “New Urban Agenda” seeks to hijack control from local voters and communities over the way cities and “human settlements” are “planned, designed, financed, developed, governed, and managed,” the document explains. The draft UN agreement, set to be “approved” at the UN Habitat III summit in Quito, Ecuador, next month, also purports to lay down “priorities and actions at the global, regional, national, sub-national, and local levels” that should be imposed on humanity. Why the dictator-dominated UN ought to be involved in local or even national policy in the first place is never adequately explained throughout the agenda's 24 pages.
What is clear, though, is that, if implemented, humanity will be subjected to unprecedented government controls on literally everything. That the UN envisions central economic planning, which has resulted in tens or even hundreds of millions of preventable deaths over the last century, is clear from the document itself. Consider, for example, the UN's demand that cities, in submission to the global agenda, “change to sustainable consumption and production patterns.” There is only one way for consumption and production patterns to be “changed” to fit the UN agenda, and that is through government control over consumption and production.
For evidence of how well the strategy works (or not), a quick trip to the enslaved nations of Cuba or North Korea that practice government control over consumption and production might be illuminating. The two are among the poorest nations on Earth. The former Soviet Union and other communist states also provide bountiful historical evidence of the brutality, terror, and death that is so often associated with central planning and government control. Yet the UN document gets even more explicit, using overtly Marxist rhetoric in calling on authorities to ensure “equal access for all to economic and productive resources and opportunities.”
In other words, private property rights need to be severely limited, if not quashed entirely. The rest of the document makes that clear, too, as do previous UN Habitat reports that explicitly call for ending private land ownership.  
Redistribution is also key. “We will support the development of vertical and horizontal models of distribution of financial resources to decrease inequalities across sub-national territories, within urban centers, and between urban and rural areas,” the document states. Put in simpler-to-understand terms, wealth must be commandeered and redistributed by central planners to level out society. Wealth redistribution at the international level is also called for repeatedly throughout the document, with the UN agenda making repeated reference to UN schemes by billionaires and dictators aimed at allowing the UN to acquire its own taxing power.  
The UN document is filled with blabbering about “inequality,” promising to redistribute the wealth of what remains of the Western middle class to the UN and its oftentimes brutal Third World member regimes that have impoverished billions. The word “inclusive” appears dozens of times in the document without definition as well. What the document does not explain is that the mysterious term was concocted and pushed by the wealthiest crony capitalists on the planet — including the Rothschild banking dynasty — who have absolutely no intention of surrendering their billions and trillions in ill-gotten wealth. Instead, it is an amorphous term serving mostly as cover for government control, much like the Orwellian phrase “sustainable development.” More on that later.  
Under the UN's “New Urban Agenda,” every facet of human life even beyond economics will be under the purview of authorities. For example, the document directly calls for governments to ensure that everyone receives “education, food security and nutrition, health and well-being,” areas of human life that in the free world have traditionally been considered primarily the responsibility of individuals, families, and voluntary associations such as churches and charities — and occasionally local communities. Governments are even expected to provide “adequate and affordable housing,” the UN agenda states.
There are already a number of UN member regimes that purport to provide “housing” — Cuba and North Korea again come to mind. Free people, of course, can solve their own housing needs. Cattle, prisoners, and slaves, by contrast, rely on their masters to provide housing for them, along with food, healthcare, and more. Left unsaid in the UN document is the fact that free markets and the free enterprise system have already provided a massive surplus of housing and an abundance of housing choices. Centrally planned economies, by contrast, have produced nothing but grinding and often deadly shortages for everyone except the ruling classes and their minions.
The radical UN “Urban” vision also purports to commit UN member governments and dictatorships to adopting what is known as the “smart city approach.” The document describes it in a rather innocuous way, saying the scheme “makes use of opportunities from digitalization.” “We will strengthen the data and statistical capacities at national, sub-national, and local levels to effectively monitor progress achieved in the implementation of sustainable urban development policies and strategies,” the agenda says. The agreement also vows that governments will “support the role and enhanced capacity of national, sub-national, and local governments in data collection.”
What it does not say is that the “smart city” agenda and the massively expanded data-gathering the UN envisions involve total surveillance of every individual in a way that even George Orwell could never have imagined. Privacy, in short, will become a thing of the past.
Another component of the totalitarian vision involves “sustainable development.” Despite sounding rather harmless, even the definitions of the term given by top UN officials and government bureaucrats reveal the real agenda: less freedom, more government, less prosperity, more control, less people, more centralization of coercive power. The new UN agenda is a “critical step” in imposing the totalitarian “sustainable development” agenda “at global, regional, national, sub-national, and local levels,” the document says.
Everybody must submit. To make sure nobody escapes the emerging UN control grid, the declaration calls for ensuring that the “informal economy” — the economy that exists outside of government regulation, control, and direction — is subject to a “sustainable transition to the formal economy.” Indeed, one of the key “principles” upon which the UN plot is based is described as “leave no one behind,” also a theme of the equally draconian UN Agenda 2030.
Even culture will be guided by the supposedly wise and benevolent overlords who will be taking charge of all other aspects of life under the emerging UN plans for humanity. “We will include culture as a priority component of urban plans and strategies,” the document says. “We will support leveraging cultural heritage for sustainable urban development.” With UN control over education and even “values” of children, who arereferred to as “key agents of change” in the New Urban Agenda document and other UN schemes, the future of human life will be easy for the would-be masters to engineer.
The nightmarish vision outlined in the UN document is completely alien to the American system of limited government and federalism. As just one example, the document purports to commit national governments and dictatorships to funneling “financial transfers from national government to sub-national and local governments.” That may work for totalitarian regimes, where local government works to implement the dictators' decrees. But in places such as the United States, sovereign state governments and independent local governments accountable to their communities are supposed to raise their own resources, rather than become administrative units of a centralized regime with no limits to its power.  
Another red flag is that the New Urban Agenda is “grounded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” Of course, the UN's declaration of pseudo-human rights is incompatible with real human rights, granted by our Creator, as enshrined, for instance, in the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights. The UN declaration even explains explicitly that the privileges governments and treaties purport to grant can be revoked under virtually any pretext. In Article 29, the declaration is clear that the UN's bogus “human rights” may “in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” By contrast, God-given rights cannot be legitimately infringed upon by government — period — whether it upsets the UN or not.  
The UN outfit behind the latest “agenda” has a long and controversial history of advocating totalitarianism. As Karl Marx and other totalitarians have understood, private land ownership and private property more broadly must give way if collectivist slavery is to succeed. The very first plank of the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto goes like this: “Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.” (Others include government education, progressive incomes taxes, government control of transportation and communication, and more.)
In its very first report on “Human Settlements” coming out of the 1976 UN Habitat I Conference, the dictator-dominated outfit made its agenda perfectly clear. “Land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market,” claimed the UN report, a predecessor of the latest agenda. “Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes.”
As has become typical in recent years, the mass-murdering communist dictatorship enslaving mainland China is blazing a trail on the totalitarian “urban” agenda. The New American reported in 2013 that the brutal regime is plotting to herd hundreds of millions of rural peasants into centrally planned Orwellian super-cities in the years ahead — at gunpoint if necessary. Similar outrages are regularly promoted to Americans by establishment voices. Obama has only been too eager to join in. In fact, just this week, in violation of every principle upon which the United States was founded, Obama called for surrendering more U.S. sovereignty and “binding ourselves to international rules” crafted by unelected, unaccountable, oftentimes murderous foreign regimes.
Indeed, one illegal Obama program to “diversify” American cities, known as the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing decree, is perfectly in line with the UN's “New Urban Agenda.” The Obama program uses federal bribes to break up higher income and ethnically homogeneous communities by encouraging and subsidizing the redistribution of people based on race, income levels, and other factors. So, for example, if your suburb is too wealthy, the federal government might seek to put government housing there to drop welfare recipients into it. The UN document outlines exactly such schemes, vowing, for instance, to “encourage mixed-income development to promote social inclusion and cohesion.”
In fairness to the UN, the economic model promoted in the latest “agenda” is not quite socialist or communist, but rather a hybrid of government-directed fascism and technocratic governance often described as “technocracy” by critics who have studied it. In many ways, it is similar to the horrifying  “governance” (more accurately described as oppression) practiced today by the Chinese Communist Party — an outfit that has murdered more innocent people than any other group in human history, with conservative estimates starting around 60 million victims, not including those slaughtered in forced abortions.
Regardless of labels, though, the UN vision outlined in the “New Urban Agenda,” the Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, the UN Paris Agreement, and other grandiose plots is deeply totalitarian. It is not compatible with human liberty or dignity. It replaces the choices of individuals with the choices of tyrants. Much of it is flatly unconstitutional when it comes to the United States. For the sake of humanity and prosperity, the UN's extremist agenda must be defeated. The surest way to do that is with an American exit, or Amexit, from the UN.
Related articles:

OBAMA: AMERICA FOUNDED WITH FREEDOM FOR THE FEW

OBAMA: AMERICA FOUNDED WITH FREEDOM FOR THE FEW
BY STEVE BYAS
SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/24109-obama-america-founded-with-freedom-for-the-fewrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Speaking this week to the United Nations General Assembly in his final address to that body, President Barack Obama continued to reveal his contempt for America’s founding. “Our nation began with a promise of freedom that applied only to the few,” Obama said during a speech whose theme was a call for an increase in the power of international institutions and a reduction in national sovereignty of individual nations, including the United States.
This assertion — that America’s founding brought the blessings of liberty only to a few Americans — should be coupled with Obama’s call for decreased American national sovereignty. After all, if America’s national founding is not all that special, then the submission of the United States into some global government is not all that big of a deal.
Obama did allow that “because of our democratic Constitution, because of our Bill of Rights, because of our ideals, ordinary people were able to organize, and march, and protest, and ultimately, those ideals won out — opened doors for women and minorities and workers in ways that made our economy more productive and turned our diversity into a strength.”
He concluded this thought by adding that all of this marching and protesting did eventually “make it possible for someone like me to be elected President of the United States.”
So summarizing Obama’s position, while the American Revolution brought liberty to a tiny number of individuals living in the new United States, the liberty of other “ordinary people” was non-existent until organizing, marching, and protesting won them that liberty. And elected a former community organizer such as Obama president.
This is a version of history that ignores the facts, substituting them for progressive ideology. The progressives of the early 20th century — the intellectual ancestors of Obama, Hillary Clinton, and large numbers of the political class of America today made no secret that they believed the American founding was, at the least, insufficient. In an interview in 2001, given long before Obama was in the U.S. Senate, he lamented the Constitution was just “a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”
Here we have an insight into what Obama meant by his recent statement to the United Nations that America was launched with a “promise of freedom that applied only to the few.” If one believes as Obama and others on the Left believe that the government doing something for you is “liberty,” then his statement makes sense. As Obama told Joe the Plumber back in 2008, he believes everyone does better if we “spread the wealth around.”
At another point in his speech to the UN, Obama said that in order to bridge the gap between rich and poor, we could not rely simply on “soulless capitalism,” but would need to increase the ability of government to respond to the demands for benefits. He took credit that, during his tenure as president, the United States has “worked with many nations to curb the excesses of capitalism.”
After telling the General Assembly delegates, “Our nation began with a promise of freedom that applied only to the few,” he added, “But because of our democratic Constitution,” this “promise” of share of the wealth was now additionally applied to the majority by organizing, marching, and protesting.
This has to be what Obama is really saying. The Constitution specifically protected religious liberty, the right to keep and bear arms, the right of free speech and press, peaceful assembly, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The Constitution did not say that these specifically protected rights only apply to the few, but rather to “the people.” All persons were included in the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches, for example.
And the Fifth Amendment’s statement is, “Nor shall any person be subject twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”
It doesn’t say, “Only the few shall be protected from double jeopardy.”
But admittedly, the founding generation did not believe it was the role of government to “spread the wealth around.” On the other hand, they firmly believed it was government’s role to protect private property, and the fruit of one’s labors. Because of this, Americans prospered, and millions came to these shores to share in that prosperity. They did not come, expecting some progressive politician was going to take wealth from one person who had more and give it to another person who had less.
In his address at the UN, Obama made it clear that not only should Americans redistribute the wealth of fellow Americans through government action, he wants the wealth of America shared with the rest of the world. “And just as we benefit by combating inequality within our countries, I believe advanced economies still need to do more to close the gap between rich and poor nations around the globe.”
Admitting the political difficulty of getting Americans to surrender their wealth to other peoples around the world, Obama continued, “It’s difficult to spend on foreign assistance. But I do not believe this is charity.” In one sense, Obama is right. It is not charity. Charity is when individual citizens voluntarily transfer some of their possessions to someone else. Government taking someone’s wealth and giving it to someone else down the street, or half-way around the world is certainly not charity. If you or I strong-armed some money away from some wealthy woman walking down the street and took it to a poor family in our town, we would most likely be visited by the police later that day. But if done by government, in either D.C., or perhaps at the UN, it is just “spreading the wealth around.”
It is clear, then, that Obama considers the redistribution of wealth “freedom.” This was not the prevailing viewpoint at the time of America’s founding. At that time, liberty meant the right to conduct one’s own affairs without thieves taking the fruit of one’s labors. And while Americans have gradually surrendered much of their liberty over the years in exchange for increased government-provided “security,” enough of the founding philosophy still existed in 2008 for candidate Obama to call for a “fundamental transformation” of America to change that self-reliant attitude.
For this to be accomplished, Americans must be convinced that their country held nothing special in its founding principles, and submersion into a world government (“integration” as they now put it) is no big deal. In that regard, Obama’s speech also called for the need for “global education” for young people. Accordingly, he offered what he called a “course correction” which is necessary to achieve “global integration.”
In order to achieve this, Obama said he is “convinced that in the long run, giving up some freedom of action … binding ourselves to international rules over the long term — enhances our security.”
This statement, in which Obama calls for the United States to bind ourselves to “international rules” is a contradiction of the “promise of freedom” that launched our nation with a Declaration of Independence. Instead of binding ourselves to the UN, we should bind governmental officials, whether found at the UN or in D.C. As Thomas Jefferson said in the Kentucky resolution opposing the Sedition Act of 1798, “In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution."
Of course, that is an example of negative liberty, and not the type of “freedom” sought by community organizers such as Barack Obama, who think “freedom” means spreading the wealth around.
______________________________________________________

RON EDWARDS: "HEY OFFICE HOLDERS, DO YOUR JOB"

RON EDWARDS: 
"HEY OFFICE HOLDERS, DO YOUR JOB"
SEE: http://newswithviews.com/RonEdwards/ron193.htmrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

September 23, 2016

NewsWithViews.com
OK, here we go again. More Islamic terrorist goons have seized upon the weakness displayed even in the highest levels of the government. Those committing Islamic terrorist attacks against Americans are simply taking advantage of what has been given to them over the past almost eight years. It’s like a football team taking what the defense gives them and if unchecked will score. Yes, these recent attacks were by those already living in the United States. Either through birth or allowed in by the government. They were most likely recruited via the internet before traveling abroad for further indoctrination against our republic.
Of course many young Americans today are easily recruited because, (thanks but no thanks) over the past four decades, American schools, colleges and universities have been systematically indoctrinating students against our nation and all of the good aspects of our way of life. In addition, the moral based lessons concerning right and wrong have been abolished along with proper teachings concerning the blessings of capitalism. Equally wrong has been the total purposeful neglect of instructing students about our Constitution, Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers, Blacks Law, the Magna Carta and even their great state constitutions. So, if you don’t know your rights, you don’t have any.
It is America’s self-induced ignorance which has led to chronic weakness, thus opening the door to and encouraging those who wish to do us deadly harm.
The Obama administration has willfully refused to properly identify those that have helped to embolden the Islamic enemies of our republic who are acting on their bigoted based hatred of us. It is also a shame when millions of Americans display more disdain against those of us who express strong opinions and observations concerning terrorism, than against those Islamists who would rape, kill, steal from and destroy both you and I if given the chance.
Such stupidity can only be remedied in the long run, by a complete overhaul of our nation’s school system. It must be placed back into local and state control in order to eliminate the need for the Department of education. That horrid entity has become the world’s largest waster of both young minds and money. One cannot defeat an enemy they refuse to properly identify and fight to overcome.
But despite the wretched offerings of the Obama regime and evil mission of Mrs. Clinton to continue the awful legacy of the White House occupier, I believe that America will soon arise from her current state of impairment. I have faith she will soon return to the One who shed His grace upon our republic and seek His providential guidance. Then America will once again be the land of the free and home of the brave. But while we hopefully turn to God on behalf of our nation, we must also keep up with whatever madness the Obama administration is doing or not doing in regards to the protection of America.
We all know that Obama almost foams at the mouth at the mere mention of protecting the United States from invading illegal immigrants. He and all of his progressive democrats and rino republicans have stated that Trump cannot build a wall for our southern border. To be honest, many among academe and activist groups have completely lost their grasp on common sense, rational thinking and putting America first. That is why I was not shocked when I read what I am sure is a tongue and cheek article in Financial Times which details how in 2015 Mexico deported 175.000 Central Americans from that nation after they strolled in illegally.
The humorous article also stated that Obama was against illegal immigration into Mexico, so much so that he has given $75 million U.S. tax dollars to that nation to help pay for a wall on the Mexican southern border. Now we all know that the same president who was willing to take Arizona to court for wanting to protect Arizonans from being brutalized by illegal immigrants streaming into our republic, couldn’t be helping another nation build a wall, right? The truth is, in this country, Obama does want illegal immigrants, Muslim refugees, even the diseased ones to pile into America and bring about a horrendous change.
So when you hear Obama, Mrs. Clinton, Black uncle Remus democrat types and others calling Donald Trump a bigot or xenophobe for wanting to build a wall on our southern border, watch out. Because you are witnessing well paid traitors who want to overrun our society with problems like illegal immigration in order to weaken America for globalization. If America is to be protected, reinvigorated and restored to greatness, “We the People” who pay the salaries of government officials must demand in masse they live up to their responsibility of protecting our republic.
Besides, no one forced politicians to run for office. If they cannot or will not do their job of protecting America, then their cushiony elected position should not be protected. In the private sector, if someone refuses to do their job for thirty days, they are sent packing. Thus it is immoral that many career politicians who have refused to support efforts to properly protect our borders are still allowed to hold political power.
Many of them have shown preference toward illegal immigrants, American and liberty hating Islamic refugees who will brutalize any community they live in when they reach a certain percent of the population, just like their brethren do in Europe. It’s either put up or shut up time for those elected to positions of responsibility in America.

It’s also wake up or don’t blame anyone but the person in the mirror time for “We the People.” The choice you make on election day could determine if our republic will ever be great again or permanently on the slippery slope to oblivion. Let’s get together Friday on KCKQ AM 1180 Reno, Nevada. Or click on to www.americamatters.us also join me Tuesdays and Thursdays at 5:05 AM and Saturdays at 4:05 AM on the best overnight radio talk show in the U.S. The Captain’s America Third Watch hosted by Captain Matt Bruce. It emanates nationwide from flagship station AM 860 WGUL to dozens of great affiliates, or am860theanswer.com. Also catch a nightly page from The Edwards Notebook commentary.

HILLARY REFUSES NEUROCOGNITIVE TEST; ARMY GENERAL SAYS HILLARY IS PSYCHOTIC~AMERICANS NEED GUTS-NOT HILLARY'S POLITICAL GARBAGE

AMERICANS NEED GUTS-NOT HILLARY'S POLITICAL GARBAGE
SEE: http://newswithviews.com/Roth/laurie513.htmrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:


September 23, 2016
NewsWithViews.com
In the final weeks of this history making election cycle, we hear the build up of name calling and assaults on Trump. They are growing to a loud, shrieking crescendo. The big assault from Hillary and her sell out supporters, which include the Bush family, Glenn Beck and others, is to say Trump doesn’t have the ‘temperament’ to be President. We are told non stop that he is dictatorial, Hitler like, racist, anti Gay, anti immigrant…anti everything that is good for America.
Hillary and her supporters declare that she is the one, she has the right temperament and she is great for America. Never mind the ‘failing health’ woman behind the curtain who is no ‘wizard’ character who will fix America. In truth, Hillary has the temperament of a calculated, liar and fraud. Her ‘temperament’ has betrayed our troops and Ambassador in Benghazi and put America in grave danger with what was shared on unsecured servers with her now famous sea of rogue emails. She and her sleep around honey - Bill have raised hundreds of millions, exchanging favors with Islamic and anti American regimes so her and Bill could hide behind the skirts of their pay for play foundation and get filthy rich. How is that for the right ‘temperament’ to be President?
In truth, Hillary has the temperament to star in a remake of the Gambino Crime family or be the President of a cell block, not the United States of America. Like never before in our history, America is in desperate need of a believer, patriot, God believing, real leader who will boldly put us back on top in every area and heal us on the way.
Most Americans who have any love for freedom and their country could care less about temperament and small style gibberish. They care about getting their jobs and careers back, lowering taxes, restoring our Judeo-Christian values and speech, securing our borders and national security, being our unique combination again of vision, achievement, compassion, spirituality and guts which the world must have and desperately needs.
‘Political temperament’ can go straight to hell. America needs real talk, real belief, real emotion, integrity and action. That is Donald Trump and never will it be Hillary Clinton.
______________________________________________________
Video: Reporter Asks Hillary To Take Neurocognitive Test, Hillary Refuses
Published on Sep 22, 2016
In an awkward exchange, an ABC reporter fawned over Hillary Clinton but also asked her if she would be willing to take a neurocognitive test. Clinton laughed off the suggestion and declared that “there’s no need for that.”

General Warns Hillary Is Psychotic; 
(And a Liar Too)
Published on Sep 22, 2016
A US General Michael Flynn warns that Hillary Clinton is unfit to be President and Commander and Chief of the United States and is mentally unstable.

WHITES HUNTED DOWN IN CHARLOTTE, NC: DAN BONGINO, EX SECRET SERVICE AGENT: "WHERE THE HELL IS OBAMA NOW?"~FAKE RIOTERS PAID FOR BY SOROS

WHITES HUNTED DOWN IN CHARLOTTE, NC: DAN BONGINO, EX SECRET SERVICE AGENT: "WHERE THE HELL IS OBAMA NOW?"

Charlotte Riots: What They're NOT Telling You
MAINSTREAM MEDIA'S LIES ABOUT RACE WAR BEING PEACEFUL, GENTLE PROTEST
Published on Sep 22, 2016
This is NOT a protest, it's a violent riot by criminal, gang-member thugs.

MSM and Justice Department Blame Whites For Charlotte Riots
Published on Sep 22, 2016
The mainstream media is once again covering up for the hate group Black Lives Matter and blaming the chaos in Charlotte on white people.

Fake Rioters Bussed Into Charlotte, Paid For by Mr. Soros
Published on Sep 23, 2016
The fraternal order of police in Charlotte confirmed that 70 percent of those arrested in the riots had out of state id cards. The Black Lives Matter movement has been accused of hiring protestors to riot and create chaos in the street. George Soros, a known funder of BLM through his open society foundation, gave $650,000 to fund the group.

Twitter: @Margaretjhowell

http://www.infowars.com/who-is-behind...

Thursday, September 22, 2016

TEXAS GOVERNOR ABBOTT THREATENS TO EXIT THE FEDERAL REFUGEE PROGRAM

TEXAS GOVERNOR THREATENS TO EXIT THE FEDERAL REFUGEE PROGRAM
Published on Sep 21, 2016
Texas Governor Greg Abbott has delivered an ultimatum to the Obama administration declaring that he does not want un-vetted "migrants" being housed in Texas.

Texas Governor Takes On Obama Refugee Invasion!
Published on Sep 21, 2016
InfoWars reporter Ashley Beckford went to the Texas State Capitol to discover the general public's opinion concerning Governor Greg Abbott's press release indicating Texas' intention to withdraw from Obama's refugee resettlement program.

Texas Threatens Withdrawal From Refugee Resettlement Program

BY WARREN MASS
SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/24114-texas-threatens-withdrawal-from-refugee-resettlement-program-over-security-concernsrepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

On September 21, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission sent a letter to Robert Carey, director of the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement, stating that unless the federal government “unconditionally” approves by September 30 the state’s new plan controlling refugee placements within Texas, the state agency will “exit” the U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program.
The commission told Carey that unless the Texas state plan is approved without changes by the end of the month “we will interpret your silence as a rejection of the application.”
The Houston Chronicle said that it had obtained a copy of the two-page letter, which was from Charles Smith, executive commissioner of the state commission. The letter advises the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement of the state's decision not to allow additional refugee resettlements “without assurances from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence that the refugees do not pose a security threat to our citizens.”
The Chronicle quoted from Smith’s letter further:
We remain willing to place refugees in Texas with the strict contingency that you and other specified federal security officials provide certification that each refugee does not pose a security threat.
Given your proclaimed confidence in your protocols, this appears to be a reasonable request. The State of Texas does not oppose the resettlement of all refugees, but we believe we are justified in our objection to the unmitigated placement of refugees from Syria and countries known to be supporters or propagators of terrorism.
If an agreement from the federal office is not forthcoming, Texas will join Kansas and New Jersey in withdrawing its participation in the refugee program. In the letter, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission provided a timetable for the Texas withdrawal, which would entail stopping all services and benefits that the state has been providing to refugee groups and contractors on January 31 — the first available date to withdraw under the state’s current agreement with the federal government.
The Chronicle cited a statement from Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who said that his agency’s letter was sent in response to the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement’s “unwillingness” to approve the state’s new refugee plan, which would require national security officials to ensure that refugees do not pose a security threat to Texas.
“Empathy must be balanced with security,” said Abbott, as quoted by the Chronicle
“Texas has done more than its fair share in aiding refugees, accepting more refugees than any other state between October 2015 and March 2016. While many refugees pose no danger, some pose grave danger, like the Iraqi refugee with ties to ISIS who was arrested earlier this year after he plotted to set off bombs at two malls in Houston.”
The Austin American-Statesman reported Abbott’s explanation that his state’s ultimatum was made because Texas officials don’t trust the federal government’s system of background checks for refugees “from terrorist-based nations.”
“The federal government lacks the capability or the will to distinguish the dangerous from the harmless, and Texas will not be an accomplice to such dereliction of duty to the American people,” Abbott continued.
“Even with the inability to properly vet refugees from Syria and countries known to be supporters or propagators of terrorism, President Obama is now ineptly proposing a dramatic increase in the number of refugees to be resettled in the U.S.,” said Abbott.
The American-Statesman noted that this latest Texas ultimatum follows a series of setbacks in the state’s attempts to curtail the resettlement of Syrian refugees within its borders.  
In several articles about the resistance presented by the governors of Texas and a majority of the other states (including Donald Trump’s running mate, Indiana Governor Mike Pence) to the Obama administration’s refugee plan, we quoted from an open letter that Abbott to President Obama shortly after the deadly terrorist attacks in Paris last November. That letter stated, in part:
As governor of Texas, I write to inform you that the State of Texas will not accept any refugees from Syria in the wake of the deadly terrorist attack in Paris.
Further, I — and millions of Americans — implore you to halt your plans to accept more Syrian refugees in the United States. A Syrian “refugee” appears to have been part of the Paris terror attack. American humanitarian compassion could be exploited to expose Americans to similar deadly danger. The reasons for such concerns are plentiful.
The FBI director testified to Congress that the federal government does not have the background information that is necessary to effectively conduct proper security checks on Syrian nationals, Director Comey explained: “We can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing show up because we have no record of them.”
The Austin American-Statesman noted that attempts by Texas to stop the arrival of Syrian refugees have been blocked twice during the past year by U.S. District Judge David Godbey, who said that Texans’ fears of terrorism were based largely on speculative hearsay and that the state failed to provide sufficient evidence showing that terrorists had infiltrated the refugee program.
Following Godbey’s last such ruling in June, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said he was disappointed that the judge’s decision meant “Texas cannot hold the federal government accountable.”
“We are considering our options moving forward to guarantee the safety of Texans from domestic and foreign threats,” said Paxton.
The ruling was also criticized by Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, who said:
“Texas has a right to know who the federal government is bringing to Texas, where they are being placed and what they are doing to guarantee the safety of all Texans.”
In a recently published articleThe New American posed the question of whether our country was actually importing Middle East terrorism into the United States. This week’s event indicate that the officials in Texas are concerned that that is exactly what might be happening — and are determined to prevent terrorists from being imported into the Lone Star State.
Related articles: