Category: Criminals

President Trump vs Kim Jong Un

BEFORE  TRUMP :

140806-kim-jong-un-lubricant-factory-1030a_57ddcc648149ca988729a77e720e3a22-nbcnews-fp-1200-800

 

 

AFTER TRUMP :

6

 

Enough said….

Advertisements

Six other times the US has banned immigrants

Donald Trump’s ‘Muslim ban’ is not the first time specific groups or nationalities have been blocked from the US.

Over the past 200 years, US presidents have placed restrictions on the immigration of certain groups [File: Reuters]

On Friday, Donald Trump barred citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries – Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen – from entering the United States for at least the next 90 days.

He also suspended the US refugee programme for 120 days, specifically banning Syrian refugees until further notice, reduced the number of refugees who would be admitted this year to 50,000 and specified that refugees who were from a religious minority and fleeing religious persecution should be prioritised.

A federal judge has blocked part of Trump’s executive order, ruling that travellers who have already landed in the US with valid visas should not be sent back to their home countries, and protests in response to passport holders from some Arab countries, including US green card holders, being blocked from passing through customs or prevented from boarding US-bound planes, have taken place at airports across the country.

But this is not the first time that the US has banned immigrants from its shores. Over the past 200 years, successive American presidents have placed restrictions on the immigration of certain groups.

Here are six occasions when laws have been passed to restrict some people from entering the country.

READ MORE: Donald Trump’s #MuslimBan sparks outrage and fear

 

Exclusion of the Chinese

President Chester A. Arthur.

Signed on May 6, 1882. 

The Chinese Exclusion Act, which banned “skilled and unskilled labourers and Chinese employed in mining” from entering the US for 10 years, was the first significant law restricting immigration to the country. It came at a time when the US was struggling with high unemployment and, although Chinese made up a very small segment of the country’s workforce, they were nevertheless scapegoated for its social and economic woes.

The law also placed restrictions on Chinese who were already in the US, forcing them to obtain certificates in order to re-enter if they left the country and banning them from securing citizenship.

The act expired in 1892 but was extended for a further 10 years in the form of another – the Geary Act. This placed additional restrictions on Chinese residents of the country, forcing them to register and to obtain a certificate of residence, without which they could be deported.

This changed in 1943 with the Magnuson Act – which allowed some Chinese immigration and for some Chinese already residing in the country to become naturalised citizens, but which maintained the ban on property and business ownership. This came at a time when China was a US ally during World War II.

 

Jewish refugees during World War II

President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

As millions of people became refugees during World War II, US President Franklin D Roosevelt argued that refugees posed a serious threat to the country’s national security. Drawing on fears that Nazi spies could be hiding among them, the country limited the number of German Jews who could be admitted to 26,000 annually. And it is estimated that for most of the Hitler era, less than 25 percent of that quota was actually filled.

In one of the most notorious cases, the US turned away the St Louis ocean liner, which was carrying 937 passengers, almost all of whom are thought to have been Jewish, in June 1939. The ship was forced to return to Europe, where more than a quarter of its passengers are thought to have been killed in the Holocaust.

 

Anarchists banned

President Theodore Roosevelt.

Signed on March 3, 1903.

In 1903, the Anarchist Exclusion Act banned anarchists and others deemed to be political extremists from entering the US.

In 1901, President William McKinley had been fatally shot by Leon Czolgosz, an American anarchist who was the son of Polish immigrants.

The act – which was also known as the Immigration Act of 1903 – codified previous immigration law and, in addition to anarchists, added three other new classes of people who would be banned from entry: those with epilepsy, beggars and importers of prostitutes.

The act marked the first time that individuals were banned for their political beliefs.

READ MORE: EU looks to fund camps in Africa to cut immigration

 

Communists banned

Passed by Congress on August 23, 1950, despite being vetoed by President Harry Truman.

The Internal Security Act of 1950 – also known as the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 or the McCarran Act – made it possible to deport any immigrants believed to be members of the Communist Party. Members of communist organisations, which were required to register, were also not allowed to become citizens.

Truman opposed the law, stating that it “would make a mockery of our Bill of Rights”.

Sections of the act were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1993. But some parts of the act still stand.

 

Iranians

President Jimmy Carter, April 7, 1980.

Following the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis, during which the US embassy in Tehran was stormed and 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days, American President Jimmy Carter cut diplomatic relations with and imposed sanctions on Iran. He also banned Iranians from entering the country.

Today, Iranians have again been banned – one of seven Muslim majority countries included in Trump’s executive order.

 

Ban on HIV positive persons

Under President Ronald Reagan, the US Public Health Service added Aids to its list of “dangerous and contagious” diseases. Senator Jesse Helms’ “Helms Amendment” added HIV to the exclusion list.

In 1987, the US banned HIV positive persons from arriving in the US. The laws were influenced by homophobic and xenophobic sentiment towards Africans and minorities at the time, as well as a false belief that the HIV virus could be spread by physical or respiratory contact. Former US President Barack Obama lifted it in 2009, completing a process begun by President George W Bush.

Pope Francis and the anti-Trump Wall speech

Pope Francis decries President-elect Donald Trump’s Wall…

Meanwhile churches continue to build them. Here is Sacred Heart in Lawrence, MA a year earlier and a year later.

See any difference??:

nowall

One year later… after Pope Francis condemns Donald Trumps wall of Mexico:

wall

This new wall is almost 20 feet high complete with huge doors fronted with wrought iron gates.

Remember, it’s OK when they do it.

13754631_10153834673217993_8405528933593808375_n

THIS is how you protect citizens… certainly not the way things are done now:

“Even before the operation had ended, President Reagan went on national television to discuss the air strikes. “When our citizens are abused or attacked anywhere in the world,” he said, “we will respond in self-defense. Today we have done what we had to do. If necessary, we shall do it again.”

READ MORE From the History Channel

Continue reading

UK condemns Muslim Brotherhood in break from Obama administration

1450985951981

A powerful report by the U.K. government accuses the Muslim Brotherhood of being sympathetic to terrorists and a risk to British national security, striking a contrast with the Obama administration’s more conciliatory approach – and fueling criticism that the U.S. government should wake up to the threat.

“I think the report is a damning indictment of the Muslim Brotherhood, and it’s a very realistic assessment of the nature of the Brotherhood itself,” Nile Gardiner, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, told FoxNews.com. “The British government has taken a far more serious approach compared to the Obama administration’s.”

The internal review of the Muslim Brotherhood was ordered by Prime Minister David Cameron in April 2014 and while the report is classified, Cameron ordered the main findings of the report to be made public.

Click here to read the findings of the report.

The report found that supporting Hamas was an important priority for the Brotherhood. It noted that while the group at times has renounced violence, senior figures have repeatedly defended Hamas attacks on Israel and justified attacks against coalition forces in the U.S. and Afghanistan.

Also, while the Muslim Brotherhood has criticized Al Qaeda, leaders have claimed that the 9/11 attacks were fabricated by the U.S. government, and that the war on terror is merely a pretext to attack Muslim countries.

The report concludes that while the Brotherhood has preferred non-violent methods on the grounds of expediency, “they are prepared to countenance violence – including, from time to time, terrorism – where gradualism is ineffective.”

“Aspects of Muslim Brotherhood ideology and tactics, in this country and overseas, are contrary to our values and have been contrary to our national interests and our national security,” the report says.

Egypt’s military-backed government labeled the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group in December 2013, a matter of months after the military helped topple the government of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi.

Morsi’s overthrow put western countries like the U.S. and Britain in an awkward spot, after having spoken in favor of Arab Spring revolutions in Egypt and beyond. But in a written statement to the House of Commons after the release of the report, Cameron told MPs that association with the Brotherhood “should be considered as a possible indicator of extremism.”

He also said the U.K. would continue to refuse visas to those associated with the group who have made extremist comments, and would continue to review whether the group should be banned.

The Obama administration, by contrast, often has taken a more neutral stance toward the organization. In January, the State Department met with members of the Egyptian Freedom and Justice Party that was established by the Muslim Brotherhood.

In 2011, the Obama administration also had to correct Director of National Intelligence James Clapper after he described the group as “mostly secular” at a Capitol Hill hearing.

“To clarify Director Clapper’s point, in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood makes efforts to work through a political system that has been, under Mubarak’s rule, one that is largely secular in its orientation. He is well aware that the Muslim Brotherhood is not a secular organization,” DNI spokesperson Jamie Smith said.

When asked in an interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly in 2011 if the Brotherhood was a threat to the United States, Obama said “they are well organized and there are strains of their ideology that are anti-U.S.” but did not call them a threat. Also in 2011, when asked if the U.S. should fear the Muslim Brotherhood, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said “the jury is out.”

In a 2013 address to the United Nations, Obama said on the issue of Egypt that America had been both accused of “supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and engineering the removal of power. In fact, the United States has purposely avoided choosing sides.”

In a response to a 2013 petition to call the group a terrorist organization, the White House pushed back. “We have not seen credible evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood has renounced its decades-long commitment to non-violence,” the White House said in a statement.

Questions also have long been raised about the group’s connections inside the U.S. While some critics claim the Council on American-Islamic Relations is tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR has called such accusations “false and misleading.”

“Undoubtedly this report will embarrass the Obama administration because the White House has gone out of its way to try to appease the Muslim Brotherhood, and so this report I think dramatically undercuts the Obama presidency’s weak-kneed approach on this matter,” Gardiner said of the U.K. findings.

The State Department did not respond to a request for comment by FoxNews.com. A spokesman for 10 Downing Street said they were not prepared to comment on any difference of opinion with the United States.

Other analysts suggest the report shows the fundamental difference in the understanding of the Islamic threat between the two governments.

“The Muslim Brotherhood plays word games, they know how to pretend to be moderate,” Ryan Mauro, national security analyst at The Clarion Project, told FoxNews.com. “If the Obama administration is saying the Muslim Brotherhood is non-violent  and democratic then they do not understand the Muslim Brotherhood and do not understand the overall threat of radical Islam.”

Mauro says this misunderstanding has been present in both the Bush and Obama administrations, and could ultimately drive a wedge between America and European countries.

“We’ve already been seeing this wedge between Europe and the U.S. where our politically correct approach — where we describe the threat as generically violent extremism — is very different from what Europe has been talking about, about striking at the ideology,” Mauro said.

Source

Medicare Paid $30M for Ambulance ‘Mystery Rides,’ Audit Says

A recent federal audit has uncovered that in the first six months of 2012, $30 million was billed to Medicare for some ambulance transports later termed “mystery rides” because agents could not determine whether the patient had actually received any medical care after the purported ambulance ride.

“[They’re] mystery rides because we don’t have any information in our files, in Medicare files, to show what medical service the person received, of if they received a medical service,” said Suzanne Murrin, deputy inspector general at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “Certainly, Medicare was not billed for a medical service, either on the way, where the person left or where the person arrived at.”

The audit, conducted by HHS’ inspector general’s office, dug into Medicare claims for 7.3 million ambulance transports from the first six months of 2012. Medicare pays for ambulance rides for patients to see their doctors, if there is a medical need like the patient cannot walk.

The audit found that $24 million also had been paid out by Medicare “for ambulance transports that did not meet certain program requirements to justify payment.”

“I think what we are finding is that there is a great deal of questionable billing, and there is a great deal,” Murrin said. “This is still a program that needs further action to address weaknesses.”

Philadelphia and Houston are trouble spots but investigators say Los Angeles and New York should be added to the list.

The Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services told ABC News recently that it was “strongly committed to eliminating fraud, waste and abuse in ambulance transports” and had put several initiatives in place to fight the problem since 2012.

More Gun Control? The FBI Just Released Its List of Things Deadlier Than ‘Assault Rifles’

Everyday there’s a murder in the United States. And everyday, the U.S. public gets hit with another demand for more “gun control.”

The FBI just released its 2014 list of crime statistics, and there are some data findings that conflict with the calls for more firearms regulations.

The Uniform Crime Reports “2014 crime in the United States” breaks down murder by state, and includes the U.S. territories of the Virgin Islands and Guam.

It shows that there were 11,961 murders in 2014 (there were 31 total in the U.S. territories). And 8,124 of those were committed by firearms.

This is how those numbers look in perspective:

Notice that total murders and firearms murders have droppedagain.

More salient for the “gun control” conversation, however, is the focus on so-called “assault rifles.” It turns out that murders by all rifles (as reported by the FBI), including homicides by those semi-automatic rifles that some refer to as “assault rifles,” were only 248 of those murders.

Further contextualizing this statistic is that the total number of murders committed by people’s hands and feet came to 660 – more than double the homicides committed by all rifles.

More precisely, there were 142% more murders by hands and feet in 2014 than by all rifles combined.

This all means that punching hands and kicking feet are deadlier than “assault rifles” in the United States.

Source