McCarthy – Funding Government Constitutionally 101

Editor’s Note – In the Constitution, the power of the purse is the purview of the House of Representatives. Why? Because this is the people’s house, where the purse is controlled by the people, not a reigning monarch at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. nor a despot who has taken over the Senate as a one man wrecking crew.

As usual, Andy McCarthy tells us how it is supposed to work and how the House must act. Remember, the House passed a CR that fully funds the entire government at ‘Sequester’ levels, just no Obama Care funds. If the President continues to negotiate by saying he will not negotiate – then he is solely responsible if the government must shut down – we hope it does! But Harry Reid ADDED funds back into the CR – totally illegal as we see in McCarthy’s clarity of thought on what is constitutional in regard to spending:THE PEOPLE'S BUDGET(1)

“All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.”…

The Senate can tinker within the spending limits set by the House, but it must live within those limits. The continuing resolution to fund the government, which is the legislation at issue in the current controversy, is no exception. The Senate is not permitted to originate spending, as Majority Leader Harry Reid did on Friday, with the indulgence of Senate Republicans — who voted against his appropriation of Obamacare funds but did not challenge the validity of it.

In addition, always remember, Congress cannot bind the hands of a future Congress – therefore, Obama Care, labeled as a “mandatory liability” is no such thing, and not funding it is the will of the people! Mr. Obama and team use a lot of rhetoric about the people, but the castigate them none-the-less by disparaging those the people elected.

How to Constitutionally Fund the Government 

It’s the House’s prerogative to supply funds, or not, for Obamacare. 

By Andrew C. McCarthy – National Review Online

Republican leaders are right: There was a flaw in Ted Cruz’s plan to defund Obamacare: He took Republican leaders seriously.

Senator Cruz, along with Senator Mike Lee and House conservatives, devised a strategy to forestall the unpopular socialized-medicine scheme that Democrats unilaterally rammed through Congress in 2010. They would starve it of funds, not unlike the way Democrats and Republicans have slashed funds for fence construction along the Mexican border, even though the fence has been the law of the land for seven years. The Obamacare defunding strategy, though, depended on Republican fidelity to a ballyhooed campaign promise to reform Washington’s wayward legislative process by reimposing constitutional order — an order that gives the House of Representatives primacy over the spending of taxpayer dollars.

In the stretch run of what became the historic 2010 midterm elections, the Republican establishment issued its “Pledge to America.” If you flip past the many pin-up glossies of John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Kevin McCarthy, you occasionally find some text in the Pledge. Text such as this: “We pledge to honor the Constitution as constructed by its framers and honor the original intent of those precepts that have been consistently ignored.”

Members of the Republican House leadership, from left to right, Michigan Rep. Candice Miller, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, Illinois Rep. Peter Roskam, Washington Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, California Rep. Kevin McCarthy and House Minority Leader John Boehner, introduce the party's new "America Speaking Out" campaign at the Newseum May 25, 2010, in Washington. / GETTY IMAGES
Members of the Republican House leadership, from left to right, Michigan Rep. Candice Miller, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, Illinois Rep. Peter Roskam, Washington Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, California Rep. Kevin McCarthy and House Minority Leader John Boehner, introduce the party’s new “America Speaking Out” campaign at the Newseum May 25, 2010, in Washington. / GETTY IMAGES

Constitutional devotion was fashionable in 2010 — more fashion than substance, some of us suspected at the time. The GOP had been cast into the cold by angry voters in 2006 and 2008. The party had controlled the White House and both congressional chambers through most of the first six Bush years. As self-styled “compassionate conservatives,” Republicans bloated government, nearly doubling the debt the nation had previously taken over two centuries to accumulate. Fed up, conservatives stayed home in droves. The result was the Pelosi/Reid Congress and, later, the Obama administration.

There ensued a nightmare of full-throttle statism, exemplified above all by Obamacare. That, and not anything the Republicans themselves did, is what opened the door to a GOP comeback. The dynamic force in American politics was the Tea Party. Not an actual political party, the Tea Party is a grass-roots reform movement that calls for a return to limited central government on the original constitutional model — a model that promotes liberty by sharply restricting federal authority, and thus federal spending.

So out went the “compassion” garb, replaced by the GOP’s claim to be the “constitutional conservatives” that the Tea Party craved, the antidote to Obama. Republicans did not just expressly pledge to honor the Constitution as originally understood by the Framers. They promised: “We will require each bill moving through Congress to include a clause citing the specific constitutional authority upon which the bill is justified.”

As Cruz and Lee are learning, it turns out they were kidding.

A little over a week ago, with the October 1 implementation of Obamacare looming, the House voted not to fund the massive and massively unprepared program. This House bill has been scorned by the GOP establishment and its sympathetic scribes. Echoing Beltway oracle Charles Krauthammer, they tut-tut that Republicans only control “one half of one third of the government”; therefore, the refrain goes, they cannot reasonably expect to impose their policy preferences on an electorate that has placed the White House and Senate under Democratic control.

Yet the Constitution that Republicans claim to venerate does not assign power in proportion to the quantum of governmental departments or congressional seats won in elections. All or part of each enumerated power is assigned to specified components of government by subject matter. And significantly, at least if we are truly honoring the Constitution as originally designed, the Framers did not assign authority arbitrarily. Rather, supremacy over a given power was assigned to the component of government best suited to control its exercise in a free republic.

To take a few examples, decisions about military tactics are reserved to the president — regardless of whether Congress is overwhelmingly in the hands of the opposing party. Consent to the president’s appointment of high public officials is reserved to the Senate alone — it makes no difference whether the House or the presidency is controlled by the opposing party. Legal decisions are the province of the judiciary, and can be dictated by five Democratic justices — even if the rest of the Supreme Court and the rest of the government are solidly Republican.

And spending is the prerogative of the House. Not the Congress, the House.

The Constitution expressly provides (in Article I, Section 7): “All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” This Origination Clause applies to all spending legislation. As the clause elaborates, when the subject at issue involves spending public money, the Senate “may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills”; but it may not instigate spending. The Senate can tinker within the spending limits set by the House, but it must live within those limits. The continuing resolution to fund the government, which is the legislation at issue in the current controversy, is no exception. The Senate is not permitted to originate spending, as Majority Leader Harry Reid did on Friday, with the indulgence of Senate Republicans — who voted against his appropriation of Obamacare funds but did not challenge the validity of it.

The Republican establishment keeps flashing those “one half of one third” tablets Dr. Krauthammer carried down from Mount Sinai. But Republicans fulfilling a pledge to honor the Framers’ Constitution would do better to take their cues from James Madison. “The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of the government,” he explained in Federalist No. 58 (emphasis added).

Federalist Papers_0One could contend, as “organic Constitution” devotees do, that it makes no difference which congressional chamber initiates spending as long as both must vote to approve it. But besides improperly nullifying an explicit constitutional command, this contention ignores the Framers’ rationale. Putting the House in charge of spending was not an idle choice.

As Madison elaborated, the purpose of the Origination Clause is to put the “power of the purse” firmly in the hands of “the immediate representatives of the people.” Government has no resources of its own; it has only what it confiscates from the citizenry. In a free republic, liberty hinges on the ability of citizens to constrain the demands government can make. The Framers prudently concluded that the best means of constraint was to give the definitive word on taxing and spending to the House: The only legislators directly elected by the people at the time the Constitution was adopted (senators were chosen by their state legislatures until 1913); and, to this day, the only representatives who must face the voters every two years.

As noted above, the legislation at issue in the present controversy is not Obamacare specifically. It is a continuing resolution for funding the entire government. Under the Constitution, any funding in the continuing resolution must not only be approved by the House, it must originate in the House.

The House has declined to provide funding for Obamacare. Critics of Senator Cruz — and some of the most vicious imprecations come from his fellow Republicans — mock the defunding strategy as a divisive delusion. Cruz, they say, well knew that once the House defunding measure got to the Senate, Democrats would simply exploit their majority to provide the Obamacare mega-billions. That, indeed, explains the seeming anomaly that Cruz encouraged the House to pass defunding but tried to block the Senate from voting on it. Under Senate procedure, it is when debate ends and voting is about to commence that amendments are allowed, enabling Senator Reid to tack on the funding restoration.

In a properly functioning constitutional process, however, Reid’s maneuver would have failed. Not only Republicans but senators of both parties, in fidelity to the Constitution, would concede that, while the Senate may ask the House to fund Obamacare as part of the continuing resolution, it is the House’s call.

Positing one of the theories that have the country careening toward economic suicide, old Washington hands counter that the House may not cut off Obamacare funding because it is “mandatory” spending. That is, they argue that under decades-old federal budget legislation — somehow invoked without embarrassment by elected officials who go years without honoring the legislation’s mandate to pass a budget — Congress has no discretion to withhold entitlement spending (such as Social Security, Medicare, and now Obamacare). The spending, they say, is required by the authorizing legislation itself; it does not require any separate appropriation and can be reversed only by a separate, repealing act of Congress — passed by both houses and signed by the president. In essence, they claim that by passing Obamacare three years ago, the House has already originated the funding in today’s continuing resolution.

This contention fails for several reasons. To begin with, it should be obvious enough that the so-called “Affordable” Care Act that authorized Obamacare is not self-executing. Washington can call it “mandatory,” but if new spending approval were unnecessary, we would not be at a stalemate now. As the Heritage Foundation points out, supposedly mandatory spending is routinely withheld in the appropriations process, and key elements of Obamacare (such as the insurance exchanges, as Hans von Spakovsky explains) are not even deemed mandatory. More to the point, as I have argued and as Heritage documentsPresident Obama himself has defunded purportedly “mandatory” elements of Obamacare — in the absence of any legislative authority whatsoever. In the Beltway’s upside-down world, the House of Representatives is apparently the only part of government prohibited from cutting spending.

There are, moreover, higher principles involved here — particularly if Republicans are in favor of restoring constitutional order, as they proclaim. There is nothing in the Constitution about “mandatory” spending — a progressive contrivance to insulate the welfare state from adult decisions about living within one’s means. As argued here before, social-welfare policy is a matter for the states. Its management is among what Madison described as “the powers reserved to the several States [that] extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” Health-care regulation is plainly not among the “external objects,” such as foreign relations and national defense, that the federal government was created to manage. Furthermore, federal entitlement programs are rationalized by a contorted construction of the Constitution’s General Welfare Clause — one the Framers would not have recognized.

Nevertheless, in the current controversy, conservatives are not calling for the dismantling of the welfare state or even the repeal of Obamacare. Everyone recognizes that the latter would require an act of Congress. We are talking about the narrow Republican commitment to restore originalist constitutional principles to the legislative process. The legislation at issue is a continuing resolution for funding the government, not expunging Obamacare. Refusing to include Obamacare in that funding would not remove Obamacare’s statutory validity. It is black-letter law that a prior Congress cannot bind the present Congress, and a statute cannot supersede the Constitution. Prior law’s designation of Obamacare spending as “mandatory” cannot compel the current Congress to fund it as part of continuing-resolution legislation, nor does it alter the Constitution’s command that all spending in that continuing resolution must originate in the House.

Many will say this is a quaint way of looking at things, that in modern practice it is commonplace for the Senate to gut House bills, replace them wholesale with different Senate spending priorities (or even spending provisions helpfully drafted by the executive branch), and then send them back to the House for approval — or hammer differences out in a conference committee. True, but it is precisely because legislative practices and proposals violate the Constitution with notorious regularity that the Republican establishment — back when it was pleading for conservative votes — pledged (oh, let’s quote them again) “to honor the Constitution as constructed by its framers and honor the original intent of those precepts that have been consistently ignored.”

The American people do not want Obamacare, and the representatives closest to them have voted not to spend the people’s money on it. According to the Constitution, that should be the end of the matter.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute. He is the author, most recently, of Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy.

Negotiating with our enemies, not our representatives?

By Scott W. Winchell (SUA Editor) and Denise Simon (Associate Editor)

When your first statement in a negotiation is that you are not going to negotiate, how does that make it a negotiation and how is the other side doing something wrong as it tries to negotiate? “No negotiating…” “Not gonna happen…” “…this is not how a Democracy works…” – Obama today in a speech about the debt ceiling, the budget, and Obama Care – government shutdown is yours Mr. Obama, because you do not negotiate, you do not have a budget!

This is all being said and done as the current administration has embarked on negotiating with Iran, negotiating with the Palestinians, negotiating with the Russians over Syria, but you cannot negotiate with the people’s elected representatives?

By the way Mr. President, this is not a democracy, we are a Representative Republic with a Constitution, just a reminder as you lambaste Congress, or more precisely, House Republicans and the Tea Party as if they were not being Constitutional.

TeaPartyParadeThen, in the process of so-called negotiating, we have one question for you Mr. President, where is the people’s budget? These incessant continuing resolutions (CRs) are your fault, not the fault of Republicans in the House or the Senate.

You have sent uproarious budgets to Congress that even your party’s minions could not pass but everyone else is wrong? So to avoid the further embarrassment of losing 0-100 on the Senate floor, your party has decided to rule by fiat and CR.

Nancy Pelosi calls the Tea Party "arsonists"
Nancy Pelosi calls the Tea Party “arsonists”

You tell the country, and its echoed by the likes of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, that its the Tea Party’s fault. The last I looked, the Tea Party people are American citizens who voted for a certain candidate to carry out there wishes.

You call them anarchists, arsonists, kidnappers, “tea baggers“, the cult fringe, suicide bombers, and other derogatory names and then you excoriate our representatives as if they were petulant children. In fact, your Vice President calls us terrorists as does Bill Clinton – really?

The same week as the Nairobi attack, and the same time you open dialogue with a terrorist state called the Islamic Republic of Iran that is creating nuclear weapons?

You sir, and others, owe the American people an apology – how dare you castigate the very citizenry you were elected to lead while currying favor with our enemies? Blaming others is just another indicator of how bad a leader you are and what a farce you are on the international stage. You do not get your way, so you stomp on the ground, pound the podium, and read excoriating diarrhea from your teleprompter to adoring crowds that is in no way numerous enough for you to claim any mandate.

Each House Representative was elected by a majority of approximately 700-800,000 citizens that comprise each of the 435 districts in the United States. That means at least half of those voters lean toward or are actual Tea Party members if their representative calls themselves as part of the Tea Party Caucus. But that does not stop the name-calling, the innuendos, the gutter talk, the blatant maligning of a very large group of fellow citizens.

Instead, and many of us remember it vividly, your party forced this Obama Care/ACA abomination down our throats in 2010, by hook and crook and even through bribery, ask Mary Landrieu, et al. You had control of both houses of Congress and you had to cheat to get your way to victory on passing the ACA and now that America is pushing back, you divide and polarize the nation. See a comprehensive list of the bribery here. The worst was watching Mary Landrieu call Obama Care the ‘law of the land’ on the Senate floor today – one of the holdouts in 2010 who had to be bribed to vote for the ACA.

Obama Mocks
Obama mocks the GOP in a speech today over the possible shutdown of the federal government

You have the bully pulpit yet you cast the blame all the way back to Bush again. That is why your party took a shellacking in 2010 and the people elected representatives that reflect their views – and they view Obama Care as a complete failure that is tearing this nation apart.

In addition now, seems its time to bash Fox News again – the most watched TV news network for the past 13 years. So now, you insult that very large demographic? Again? What a “uniter”! Shameful! The only one practicing ‘brinkmanship’ is you, the Democrats – and the “manufactured crisis” is your tool, used frequently – yet you blame the right. That is guilt transference.

Boehner Ad Attacks Obama for Negotiating With Putin, but Not Congress

By Dan Weil – Newsmax

House Speaker John Boehner criticized President Barack Obama Thursday for negotiating with Russia over Syria but refusing to strike a deal with Congress over the debt ceiling. The attack came in an Internet video.

“The Obama administration on working with Congress to address the debt and deficit,” the ad reads. Then it shows the president and top White House officials saying they won’t negotiate with Republicans on the debt ceiling.

%CODE%

“The Obama administration on working with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin on Syria,” the ad continues before showing the president and his team talking about negotiations with Russia over Syria’s chemical weapons.

“Why is the Obama administration willing to negotiate with Putin on Syria, but not with Congress to address Washington’s spending problem?” it asks.

House Republican leaders want to add various provisions, including a one-year delay in the Affordable Care Act, to a bill that would raise the nation’s debt ceiling. But the president has insisted on a bill raising the nation’s borrowing limit that is free of amendments.

The debt limit must be raised by mid-October or the government will be unable to pay its bills, according to the Treasury Department.
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

CAIR Report – Lies about "Legislating Fear"

Editor’s Note – CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, has produced a report on its enemies; those who are exposing them as the propagandist apologists for the actions many Muslims commit under the guise of a religion that calls itself the Religion of Peace.

The report is contradiction unto itself as it calls for action against those they purport to expose as haters, as racists, as Islamophobes, yet it hides its ties to terror organizations and the growing number of Jihadist training camps and virulent anti-American rhetoric in its Mosques. CAIR is now in a suit with the American Freedom Law Center who revealed the following:

“The money laundering scheme was discovered in the course of legal discovery in unrelated federal litigation arising out of allegations by five of CAIR’s former clients that CAIR defrauded them by failing to provide the legal services they had been promised. (See here for the latest update in that case.”

These haters are calling their enemies that expose them – haters! All while they allegedly launder money in Washington D.C. meant for Hamas. In fact, they are so disingenuous, read what they did regarding their IRS status over these allegations:eric-holder-cair-holy-land-foundation-hamas-connection

To avoid reporting these millions of dollars from the dubious Islamist sources and to avoid registering as an agent for a foreign sovereign as required by federal law, CAIR created a separate company called CAIR-Foundation, Inc., to serve as an IRS-approved 501(c)(3) charitable organization. CAIR itself quit filing any federal tax returns from 2008-2010 and allowed the IRS to withdraw its status as a 501(c)(4), converting itself to a regular for-profit corporation. CAIR also stopped all of its operations and became simply a holding company, transferring, at least on the books, all of its employees and equipment to CAIR Foundation.

They also fail to point out the massive infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood into our institutions and governmental agencies, all the way to the White House – all at the same time that the terror attack on the Westgate Mall in Nairobi is still ongoing. Remember, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood are terrorist organizations. In fact, CAIR was also an unindicted co-conspirator in the now famous Holy Land Foundation trial, yet our Attorney General was invited to speak at one of their functions in 2009 and did so despite a ban and suspension of them as an appropriate liaison partner with the FBI .

Their hands are covered in deceit and blood and the global Caliphate is their goal. Taqiya is the Islamic art of condoned lying – always listen close to their words for they are never truthful to the infidel. The biggest problem they have is that the people the call out as Islamophobes are correct and factual, a tough pill to swallow.

One of the “Inner Core” they identify has offered a response posted below. As a close friend to many on their list, we are saddened they did not include SUA, MG Vallely and our staff because we too agree completely with these friends.

The problem is Islam, why, because those who follow its fundamentals closely are the most violent and they wish the end of the non-Muslim world. They try to hide this through political correctness angles but we will not be silent. They even attack Dr. Zhudi Jasser, a moderate Muslim who speaks truth to their taqiyah!

Select this link to see the entire 162 page CAIR Report: “Legislating Fear: Islamophobia and its Impact in the United States.”

Untitled

Hamas-linked CAIR has been running a global criminal money laundering operation out of Washington, DC

By Robert Spencer – Jihad Watch

It has been a bad week for the Islamic supremacist thugs of Hamas-linked CAIR: no sooner do they issue their wildly inaccurate “Islamophobia” report than Islamic jihadists commit major acts of jihad mass murder in Nigeria, Iraq, and Kenya, thereby giving the lie to the claim that people have negative views of Islam because of an alleged network of allegedly well-heeled alleged “Islamophobes,” rather than because of the actions of violent and supremacist Muslims avowedly acting the name of Islam. Then in the wake of the Kenya jihad murders, it came out that Hamas-linked CAIR was accused of interfering with the investigation into the Somali jihad group Al Shabaab’s recruitment activities in the U.S. — and American jihadis thus recruited are among the jihad murderers.

And now it turns out that they’re laundering money, too. Hamas-linked CAIR top dogs Nihad Awad and Ibrahim Hooper can still enjoy those Obama Justice Department soirees, but perhaps sanity will prevail and they will not be enjoying such access much longer.unindicteddoesntmeannotguilty-vi

“Council on American-Islamic Relations’ (CAIR) Legitimacy Undermined by its Criminal Money Laundering Scheme,” from the American Freedom Law Center, September 24:

Washington, D.C. (September 24, 2013) — The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which bills itself as “the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization,” released a so-called report last week entitled, “Legislating Fear: Islamophobia and its Impact in the United States,” which purports to identify dozens of organizations “dedicated to promoting anti-Islam prejudice in America.” CAIR’s report garnered significant media attention, including a full-length article posted in The Washington Post.In the report, CAIR highlighted the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), a national, nonprofit Judeo-Christian law firm, and its Co-Founders and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise, as being part of the “inner core” of the “Islamophobia network.”

In response to CAIR’s allegations, Yerushalmi commented: “For some time now, ‘anti-hate’ groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center and CAIR have been successful in promoting the notion that they are legitimate organizations that objectively highlight individuals and groups that promote ‘hate’ in America. In reality, these organizations use their compatriots in the mainstream media to advance their agendas through misinformation and duplicity.While the Southern Poverty Law Center is basically a self-serving fundraising machine masquerading as a civil rights organization, CAIR has a proven track record of dangerously waging what the Muslim Brotherhood calls ‘civilizational jihad’ to destroy the West from within. Indeed, CAIR is the largest Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas front group in America.”

After three years of litigation in federal court in Washington, D.C., AFLC has uncovered facts demonstrating that CAIR has been running a global criminal money laundering operation out of the nation’s capitol. The scheme was discovered in the course of legal discovery in two separate federal lawsuits arising out of allegations by five of CAIR’s former clients that CAIR defrauded them by failing to provide the legal services they had been promised.

While CAIR bills itself as the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights organization, it has been named by the U.S. Department of Justice as a Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas front group and an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation criminal trial, the nation’s largest terrorism finance prosecution to date, resulting in convictions in 2008 for all five leaders of the terrorist financing ring operating as the Holy Land Foundation Muslim charity. Prison sentences ranged from 20 years to 65 years.

As brought out in the Holy Land Foundation criminal trial, CAIR founders Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmad were participants in the conspiracy, although not formally charged. These two men formed CAIR in 1994 in an effort to create a front organization to further the Muslim Brotherhood goals in this country. But, like many criminal fronts, CAIR itself turns out to be a criminal organization.

Part of CAIR’s criminal operations included representing itself to be a public interest law firm created to protect the civil rights of Muslim Americans. In reality, however, CAIR has unlawfully employed non-lawyers to provide legal representation to Muslim Americans. In one case, CAIR employed a man by the name of Morris Days as its “Resident Attorney” who claimed to represent hundreds of CAIR clients in various state and federal litigation matters. In reality, CAIR and its “Resident Attorney” were not filing any actual lawsuits on behalf of these clients. Moreover, after the fraud was discovered, CAIR attempted to cover-up the whole affair with threats of litigation against the victims and finally with payoffs to other potential witnesses.

AFLC now represents five of these former CAIR “clients” who had sought out CAIR’s legal services for various matters, including workplace discrimination, immigration, and family law matters. Three of these former CAIR clients are Muslims, including two African Americans and a Pakistani.

Specifically, in 2010, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi filed suit in federal court in Washington, D.C., against CAIR on behalf of these CAIR victims, alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. After several years of legal discovery, which required Yerushalmi to go to court on numerous occasions to compel CAIR to turn over documents, which in turn led the court to warn CAIR’s in-house counsel, Nadhira Al-Khalili, that her conduct was unprofessional and would result in the court filing a formal Bar complaint against her if it did not cease, this case is now awaiting the court’s ruling on the extent of CAIR’s liability.

In the midst of gathering evidence to prove the plaintiffs’ case, AFLC discovered evidence of a criminal money laundering organization run out of CAIR’s Washington D.C. offices. The scheme was created in 2005 by CAIR, which at the time was an IRS-approved 501(c)(4) lobbying organization. CAIR’s problem was that as a registered lobbying group it had to report to the IRS the source of funds received over $5,000. The specific problem was that CAIR was receiving millions of dollars from oil-rich Gulf Arabs, the same sources that were also financing the Muslim Brotherhood to prepare for the “Arab Spring” and even Al Qaeda operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. CAIR’s expensive headquarters in the nation’s capitol was financed with millions of dollars from Gulf sovereign sources. At one point, CAIR even sought millions of dollars from Libya’s now dead strong man, Moamar Ghaddafi, in an effort to distribute to Muslim Americans Qurans with an Islamist translation and commentary together with Muslim Brotherhood literature.

To avoid reporting these millions of dollars from the dubious Islamist sources and to avoid registering as an agent for foreign sovereigns as required by federal law, CAIR created a separate company called CAIR-Foundation, Inc., to serve as an IRS-approved 501(c)(3) charitable organization. CAIR itself stopped filing any federal tax returns from 2008-2010 and allowed the IRS to withdraw its status as a 501(c)(4), converting itself to a regular for-profit corporation. CAIR also ceased all of its operations and became simply a holding company, transferring, at least on the books, all of its employees and equipment to CAIR Foundation.

The result is that CAIR, the for-profit, now receives millions of dollars from foreign Islamist sources every year, acting in effect as a foreign agent for these foreign governments, but only has to report the amounts of its income and not its sources. CAIR then transfers these monies to CAIR Foundation as loans or grants, and CAIR Foundation then only has to report its source as CAIR. The result is a criminal money laundering operation that allows CAIR to funnel millions of dollars from dubious foreign sources into a lobbying group fronting as a charity without the legally required disclosure of sources.

Indeed, CAIR is so brazen about its operation that it maintains only one website for CAIR, which does not even mention CAIR Foundation. In this way, CAIR receives smaller donations from presumably Muslim Americans made payable to “CAIR,” thus allowing CAIR to decide which “CAIR” will get the money. The small U.S. donations are deposited into CAIR Foundation’s bank account, which in turn reports these small innocuous donations to the IRS. The big money transfers from the Gulf, however, are conveniently deposited in the CAIR bank account, which does not require any disclosure of the source of the funds. This presents no problem to the Gulf Islamist terror financiers because they are obviously not looking for a U.S. tax deduction. What CAIR does not explain of course is why sovereign Gulf nations, like the UAE and Saudi Arabia, would be transferring these kinds of sums to a holding company that has no employees or operations.

Yerushalmi commented: “An interesting but unanswered question is why the IRS would have registered CAIR Foundation as a legitimate 501(c)(3) organization in 2005? An even more intriguing question is why, in 2012, the IRS re-registered CAIR Foundation as a legitimate 501(c)(3) charitable organization, particularly after it had lost its status because it failed to file the organization’s federal tax reports (on IRS form 990) for three consecutive years and in light of the obvious illegal use of CAIR as a money laundering front? And, all of this, at a time when the IRS was improperly holding up conservative and pro-Israel groups’ applications for the same 501(c)(3) status. At the very least this should give rise to heightened concerns.”

Robert Muise, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, concluded: “CAIR’s criminal financial operations raise a whole host of questions that the IRS and the Department of Justice should be investigating. The obvious question to be asked now is whether the IRS can get past its politically motivated witch-hunt of the Tea Party and pro-Israel groups and whether the Department of Justice will finally prosecute CAIR and its founders for their direct and indirect involvement in the material support of terrorism.”

The American Freedom Law Center is a Judeo-Christian law firm that fights for faith and freedom. It accomplishes its mission through litigation, public policy initiatives, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations, and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. Visit us at www.americanfreedomlawcenter.org.

In LA Alone, One Year – $650 Million In Welfare for Illegal Aliens

Editor’s Note – It is fast becoming clear that a dependent society is a compliant society – one that votes for the politician who is sure to keep those checks and EBT Cards coming. Now in LA alone, a whopping $650 Million in 2013 alone – for illegals. Its become a job, a career, a voting bloc. Last June the Daily Caller revealed this about what it means to be poor in America:

Looking for a good paying job? Well, look no further.

No, really, stop looking. In 35 states, welfare benefits pay more than a minimum wage job, according to a new study by the libertarian Cato Institute, and in 13 states welfare pays more than $15 per hour.

“One of the single best ways to climb out of poverty is taking a job, but as long as welfare provides a better standard of living than an entry-level job, recipients will continue to choose it over work,” said Michael Tanner, senior policy analyst and co-author of the study.

(Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
(Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

On top of this, in America, poor is a major step up from the older definitions of poor, especially when we look outside the USA. It is especially detrimental to all of us when our borders are so porous and visa jumpers are so rarely accounted for. What is poor? Take a look:

Americans who live in households whose income is below the federal “poverty” level typically have cell phones (as well as landline phones), computers, televisions, video recorders, air conditioning, refrigerators, gas or electric stoves, and washers and dryers and microwaves, according to a newly released report from the Census Bureau. (Read more here at the Western Center for Journalism.)

Then there are the obesity levels we are seeing across the land, free food, no work…and then there are those Obama Phones – but again, imagine, just in LA alone, $650 million in one year. But so much for illegal aliens alone in one city – what are we creating?

Rewarding failure is when you have jumped past helping those who need temporary help, this is a career now for so many. Now its a career for illegal aliens as well!

LA promises to remain deep blue for generations it appears!

Undocumented LA County Parents On Pace To Receive $650M In Welfare Benefits

LOS ANGELES (CBSLA.com) — A projected $650 million in welfare benefits will be distributed to illegal alien parents in 2013, county officials said Monday.

Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich announced the latest figures from the Department of Public Social Services, which showed more than $376 million in CalWORKs benefits and food stamps combined have been distributed through July to illegal alien parents for their native-born children.

Approximately $54 million in welfare payments are issued each month, consisting of nearly $20 million in CalWORKs and $34 million in food stamp issuances, according to the data.

An estimated 100,000 children of 60,000 undocumented parents receive aid in Los Angeles County, according to Antonovich, who said this year’s projections — up about $1 million from the nearly $53 million in total benefits issued in July 2012 — underscore the economic impact of the nation’s immigration debate.

“When you add the $550 million for public safety and nearly $500 million for healthcare, the total cost for illegal immigrants to county taxpayers exceeds $1.6 billion dollars a year,” Antonovich said in a statement. “These costs do not even include the hundreds of millions of dollars spent annually for education.”

NSA: Professional Voyeurism and Peeping Toms

Editor’s Note – Have you ever taken a call on your mobile phone and walked away from others seeking privacy in the call? Do you send text messages to unknown people and tell them your medical condition? Do you from time to time clear your internet cache and cookies to clear your computer of historical and unwanted tracks?

Sure everyone wants some sense of privacy and you expect that what you do in your own home should not be in the hands of others without your knowledge or approval, but that is NO longer reasonable or true. You have not only lost ANY privacy but your data travels the globe even to other countries, they know you but you don’t know them.

You may be doing anything in a private manner, so you think, but there are in fact others that are nothing more than peeping Toms who are capturing everything you do, whether it is acceptable, explicit, or just plain personal. This is all done without you being aware, much less with your permission.

We have been forced into a Constitutional crisis and it is time you learn the risks and fight back. Suppose you make a call to a crisis line for a gambling habit or call your bank to transfer money to a friend in need in another country. That meta-data is all collected by the NSA and with that data, an unknown  intelligence analyst can construe any scenario about your activities without notifying you.

Maybe it can be used in a divorce proceeding, or as cause to seek a warrant based on your history that they construe into making you a suspect in a criminal case you had no knowledge of. Think about it – they have evidence they can do anything with, including making up something to ruin a political ambition, or get you fired.

When you data is in the hands of people in a foreign nation that does not observe our laws, or has less stringent laws, how safe is your data?

NSA shares raw intelligence including Americans’ data with Israel

BY  , and  – The Guardian

NSA.USA.Isr

The National Security Agency routinely shares raw intelligence data with Israel without first sifting it to remove information about US citizens, a top-secret document provided to the Guardian by whistleblower Edward Snowden reveals.

Details of the intelligence-sharing agreement are laid out in a memorandum of understanding between the NSA and its Israeli counterpart that shows the US government handed over intercepted communications likely to contain phone calls and emails of American citizens. The agreement places no legally binding limits on the use of the data by the Israelis.

The disclosure that the NSA agreed to provide raw intelligence data to a foreign country contrasts with assurances from the Obama administration that there are rigorous safeguards to protect the privacy of US citizens caught in the dragnet. The intelligence community calls this process “minimization”, but the memorandum makes clear that the information shared with the Israelis would be in its pre-minimized state.

The deal was reached in principle in March 2009, according to the undated memorandum, which lays out the ground rules for the intelligence sharing.

The five-page memorandum, termed an agreement between the US and Israeli intelligence agencies “pertaining to the protection of US persons”, repeatedly stresses the constitutional rights of Americans to privacy and the need for Israeli intelligence staff to respect these rights.

But this is undermined by the disclosure that Israel is allowed to receive “raw Sigint” – signal intelligence. The memorandum says: “Raw Sigint includes, but is not limited to, unevaluated and unminimized transcripts, gists, facsimiles, telex, voice and Digital Network Intelligence metadata and content.”

According to the agreement, the intelligence being shared would not be filtered in advance by NSA analysts to remove US communications. “NSA routinely sends ISNU [the Israeli Sigint National Unit] minimized and unminimized raw collection”, it says.

Although the memorandum is explicit in saying the material had to be handled in accordance with US law, and that the Israelis agreed not to deliberately target Americans identified in the data, these rules are not backed up by legal obligations.

“This agreement is not intended to create any legally enforceable rights and shall not be construed to be either an international agreement or a legally binding instrument according to international law,” the document says.

In a statement to the Guardian, an NSA spokesperson did not deny that personal data about Americans was included in raw intelligence data shared with the Israelis. But the agency insisted that the shared intelligence complied with all rules governing privacy.

“Any US person information that is acquired as a result of NSA’s surveillance activities is handled under procedures that are designed to protect privacy rights,” the spokesperson said.

The NSA declined to answer specific questions about the agreement, including whether permission had been sought from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (Fisa) court for handing over such material.

The memorandum of understanding, which the Guardian is publishing in full, allows Israel to retain “any files containing the identities of US persons” for up to a year. The agreement requests only that the Israelis should consult the NSA’s special liaison adviser when such data is found.

Notably, a much stricter rule was set for US government communications found in the raw intelligence. The Israelis were required to “destroy upon recognition” any communication “that is either to or from an official of the US government”. Such communications included those of “officials of the executive branch (including the White House, cabinet departments, and independent agencies), the US House of Representatives and Senate (member and staff) and the US federal court system (including, but not limited to, the supreme court)”.

It is not clear whether any communications involving members of US Congress or the federal courts have been included in the raw data provided by the NSA, nor is it clear how or why the NSA would be in possession of such communications. In 2009, however, the New York Times reported on “the agency’s attempt to wiretap a member of Congress, without court approval, on an overseas trip”.

The NSA is required by law to target only non-US persons without an individual warrant, but it can collect the content and metadata of Americans’ emails and calls without a warrant when such communication is with a foreign target. US persons are defined in surveillance legislation as US citizens, permanent residents and anyone located on US soil at the time of the interception, unless it has been positively established that they are not a citizen or permanent resident.

Moreover, with much of the world’s internet traffic passing through US networks, large numbers of purely domestic communications also get scooped up incidentally by the agency’s surveillance programs.

The document mentions only one check carried out by the NSA on the raw intelligence, saying the agency will “regularly review a sample of files transferred to ISNU to validate the absence of US persons’ identities”. It also requests that the Israelis limit access only to personnel with a “strict need to know”.

Israeli intelligence is allowed “to disseminate foreign intelligence information concerning US persons derived from raw Sigint by NSA” on condition that it does so “in a manner that does not identify the US person”.  The agreement also allows Israel to release US person identities to “outside parties, including all INSU customers” with the NSA’s written permission.

Although Israel is one of America’s closest allies, it is not one of the inner core of countries involved in surveillance sharing with the US – Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. This group is collectively known as Five Eyes.

The relationship between the US and Israel has been strained at times, both diplomatically and in terms of intelligence. In the top-secret 2013 intelligence community budget request, details of which were disclosed by the Washington Post, Israel is identified alongside Iran and China as a target for US cyberattacks.

While NSA documents tout the mutually beneficial relationship of Sigint sharing, another report, marked top secret and dated September 2007, states that the relationship, while central to US strategy, has become overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of Israel.

“Balancing the Sigint exchange equally between US and Israeli needs has been a constant challenge,” states the report, titled ‘History of the US – Israel Sigint Relationship, Post-1992’. “In the last decade, it arguably tilted heavily in favor of Israeli security concerns. 9/11 came, and went, with NSA’s only true Third Party [counter-terrorism] relationship being driven almost totally by the needs of the partner.”

newtear3

 

In another top-secret document seen by the Guardian, dated 2008, a senior NSA official points out that Israel aggressively spies on the US. “On the one hand, the Israelis are extraordinarily good Sigint partners for us, but on the other, they target us to learn our positions on Middle East problems,” the official says. “A NIE [National Intelligence Estimate] ranked them as the third most aggressive intelligence service against the US.”

Later in the document, the official is quoted as saying: “One of NSA’s biggest threats is actually from friendly intelligence services, like Israel. There are parameters on what NSA shares with them, but the exchange is so robust, we sometimes share more than we intended.”

newtear1

 

The memorandum of understanding also contains hints that there had been tensions in the intelligence-sharing relationship with Israel. At a meeting in March 2009 between the two agencies, according to the document, it was agreed that the sharing of raw data required a new framework and further training for Israeli personnel to protect US person information.
It is not clear whether or not this was because there had been problems up to that point in the handling of intelligence that was found to contain Americans’ data.

However, an earlier US document obtained by Snowden, which discusses co-operating on a military intelligence program, bluntly lists under the cons: “Trust issues which revolve around previous ISR [Israel] operations.”

newtear2

The Guardian asked the Obama administration how many times US data had been found in the raw intelligence, either by the Israelis or when the NSA reviewed a sample of the files, but officials declined to provide this information. Nor would they disclose how many other countries the NSA shared raw data with, or whether the Fisa court, which is meant to oversee NSA surveillance programs and the procedures to handle US information, had signed off the agreement with Israel.

In its statement, the NSA said: “We are not going to comment on any specific information sharing arrangements, or the authority under which any such information is collected. The fact that intelligence services work together under specific and regulated conditions mutually strengthens the security of both nations.

“NSA cannot, however, use these relationships to circumvent US legal restrictions. Whenever we share intelligence information, we comply with all applicable rules, including the rules to protect US persn information.”

In fact the NSA is so out of control with limitations that a Federal Judge almost shut down the whole program.  Who is to really blame for the NSA surveillance program operating without restrictions? One must point to Barack Obama himself.

As Edward Snowden, the previous NSA employee has exposed over the last several months just what the NSA has in its possession. There are several organizations that have stepped up to protect our Constitutional rights at least as it relates to warrantless wiretaps and illegal search and seizures. Once such lawsuit relates to not only two clauses in the Patriot Act but the law now under scrutiny The Foreign Intelligence Services Act.

 Government Releases NSA Surveillance Docs and Previously Secret FISA Court Opinions In Response to EFF Lawsuit

The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) just today released hundreds of pages of documents related to the government’s secret interpretation of Patriot Act Section 215 and the NSA’s (mis)use of its massive database of every American’s phone records. The documents were released as a result of EFF’s ongoing Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

We’ve posted links to each document below. While the government also posted many of the documents here, our copies are completely searchable.

Our legal team is currently poring over them and will have much more analysis soon, but intelligence officials held a call with reporters about the content of the documents this morning, and made several revealing comments.

First, intelligence officials said they were releasing this information in response to the presidential directive on transparency surrounding the NSA. That statement is misleading. They are releasing this information because a court ordered them to as part of EFF’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, filed almost two years ago on the tenth anniversary of the Patriot Act.

In fact, up until the Snowden revelations started a couple months ago, the government was fighting tooth and nail to not only avoid releasing the content of the government’s secret interpretation of the Patriot Act, but even the number of pages that were involved. The government argued releasing a single word of today’s release would cause “serious and exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States.”

As it’s been clear to us and to an increasing percentage of the American public, making public how the government interprets our laws is not only NOT dangerous, but vital to our democracy.

Second, at least some of the documents relate to a “compliance issue” that was referenced in another FISA court opinion from 2011 that found some NSA surveillance unconstitutional, which released a few weeks ago as part of another EFF FOIA lawsuit.

According to intelligence officials, this FISA court opinion focuses on the NSA’s use of an “alert list” which is a list of “phone numbers of interest” that they queried every day as new data came into their phone records database. The court had told the NSA they were only allowed to query numbers that had “reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS)” of being involved in terrorism. Apparently, out of the more than 17,000 numbers on this list in 2009, the NSA only had RAS for 1,800 of them.

The NSA apparently believed that it had the authority to search the telephone records database in order to obtain the ‘reasonable articulable suspicion’ required to investigate those numbers. Essentially, they were conducting suspicionless searches to obtain the suspicion the FISA court required to conduct searches.

Incredibly, intelligence officials said today that no one at the NSA fully understood how its own surveillance system worked at the time so they could not adequately explain it to the court. This is a breathtaking admission: the NSA’s surveillance apparatus, for years, was so complex and compartmentalized that no single person could comprehend it.

The intelligence officials also acknowledged that the court has to base its decisions on the information the NSA gives it, which has never been a good basis for the checks and balances that is a hallmark of American democracy.

We also had hoped today’s release would contain a 2006 opinion describing how the FISA court re-interpreted the word “relevant” to mean the NSA could collect information on hundreds of millions of innocent Americans who had never been involved in an investigation of wrong doing. We don’t see that opinion in today’s release, but expect to get it soon.

As we stated, we’ll have much more on this soon.

Links to the documents: