Archive for the ‘America’s Future’ Category

Missouri has no illegal’s

Missouri has no illegal’s; go figure… Shouldn’t the other states do the same? Missouri’s approach to the problem of illegal immigration appears to be more advanced, sophisticated, strict and effective than anything to date in Arizona . Does the White House appreciate what Missouri has done? So, why doesn’t Missouri receive attention? Answer: There are no illegal’s in Missouri to demonstrate.

The “Show Me” state has again shown us how it should be done. There needs to be more publicity and exposure regarding what Missouri has done. Please pass this around.

In 2007, Missouri placed on the ballot a proposed constitutional amendment designating English as the official language of Missouri . In November, 2008, nearly 90% voted in favor! Thus, English became the official language for ALL governmental activity in Missouri . No individual has the right to demand government services in a language OTHER than English.

In 2008, a measure was passed that required the Missouri Highway Patrol and other law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of any person arrested, and inform federal authorities if the person is found to be in Missouri illegally. Missouri law enforcement officers receive specific training with respect to enforcement of federal immigration laws.

In Missouri, illegal immigrants do NOT have access to taxpayer benefits such as food stamps or health care through Missouri Health NET.

In 2009, a measure was passed that ensures Missouri ‘s public institutions of higher education do NOT award financial aid to individuals who are illegally in the United States .

In Missouri all post-secondary institutions of higher education are required to annually certify to the Missouri Dept. Of Higher Education that they have NOT knowingly awarded financial aid to students who are unlawfully present in the United States .

So, while Arizona has made national news for its new law, it is important to remember, Missouri has been far more proactive in addressing this horrific problem. Missouri has made it clear that illegal immigrants are NOT WELCOME in the state and they will NOT receive public benefits at the expense of Missouri taxpayers.


PA School DUMPS Michelle Obama Lunch Program….Then Look What Happens

A Pennsylvania high school’s decision to eschew former first lady Michelle Obama’s widely panned lunch program in favor of a free-market alternative has proven to be a great success this year.


Previously plagued by long wait lines, low participation rates, calorically inadequate meals, overfull trash bins and a burgeoning budget deficit, Penn-Trafford High School’s lunch program is now a hit with students and administrators alike.

From Western Journalism

“We’ve lost, to date, about $40,000 worth of reimbursement, but our sales are up about $50,000 over last year,” district business manager Brett Lago explained to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

Likewise, the participation rate has climbed from 25 to 45 percent, while the trash bins have grown far less cluttered.

“The trash cans were always full, sometimes overflowing,” recalled senior Brianna Lander. “You don’t see that now. People would go up to the snack line and get random junk food, where now you can get an actual meal and eat it.”

Speaking with the Tribune-Review, junior Chase Zavarella attributed the lunch program’s success to the free-market notion of choice.

“You get to choose what you want instead of being sort of funneled in and only having one choice,” she noted. “I think everyone is happier with the new selection.”

Obama’s lunch program is based on the belief that children lack the wisdom to make quality choices in the lunchroom. As such, they allegedly need cookie-cutter programs to direct their eating habits, regardless of their varying ages, sizes and genders.

“(Y)ou can’t say that a 300-pound football player and a 90-pound cheerleader have the same (dietary) needs on a daily basis,” Lago remarked.

Tucker Carlson clashes with violent Berkeley protester who wants to ‘shut down’ free speech

Fox News host Tucker Carlson had a heated 10-minute interview on his show Monday night with Yvette Felarca, a middle school teacher and organizer for the violent, left-wing protest group By Any Means Necessary.

Felarca, who helped organize the violent protests at UC Berkeley two weeks ago over a scheduled speech by alt-right commentator Milo Yiannopoulos, was unapologetic for her desire to use violence and force to “shut down” people she believes are “fascists.”

In fact, a television station in Sacramento videotaped Felarca assaulting a man at a neo-Nazi rally last year, leading her school district to place her on administrative leave for “personal matters.”

The activist told Carlson that she believes so-called “fascists” need to be “shut down” because they incite and organize violence against “women, immigrants, black people and other minority groups,” in addition to “espousing genocide.”

“In all of his talks all over the country, what Yiannopoulos has done is whip up a whole lynch mob mentality where people who come to see him or his supporters not only agree with his views but also attack other people,” she claimed.
“In Berkeley we made sure that didn’t happen because we were able to shut him down,” she added.

Felarca went on to allege that Yiannopoulos is funded by Breitbart News and chief White House strategist Steve Bannon to recruit young people at colleges to “carry out fascist attacks” on behalf of himself and President Donald Trump.

Noting that she’s an organizer for an organization that uses violence to restrict the rights of others, Carlson pressed Felarca on what exactly should happen to “fascists” like Yiannopoulos.

“If you think that someone is espousing genocide, what should we do with them?” he asked. “Should that person be allowed to walk free? Should we put them in jail? Should we kill them? Should we exile them?”

Felarca responded with her most honest answer: “[Yiannopoulos] should not be allowed to speak in public to spread his racist and misogynistic and homophobic lies. No, he does not have the right to do that.”

“When he’s using his speech to whip up … and spread lies about our humanity? No he doesn’t have the right to do that,” she explained.

Carlson continued to press Felarca over what she thinks should happen to “fascists” who “espouse genocide,” but the teacher dodged the question. In the end, when Carlson reminded her that Americans have the First Amendment right of free speech, Felarca broke to an entirely separate topic to allege that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) had her First Amendment rights violated last week when the Senate voted to stop her from talking during debate over the confirmation of former Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions to be attorney general.



Americans overwhelmingly oppose sanctuary cities

An overwhelming majority of Americans believe that cities that arrest illegal immigrants for crimes should be required to turn them over to federal authorities.

The poll shows that President Trump has broad public support in his effort to crack down on sanctuary cities.

A survey from Harvard–Harris Poll provided exclusively to The Hill found that 80 percent of voters say local authorities should have to comply with the law by reporting to federal agents the illegal immigrants they come into contact with.
As it stands, hundreds of cities across the nation — many with Democratic mayors or city councils — are refusing to do so.
Trump has signed an executive order directing Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly to find ways to starve these sanctuary cities of federal funding. A Reuters analysis found the top 10 sanctuary cities in the U.S. receive $2.27 billion in federal funding for programs ranging from public health services to early childhood education.

Kelly is expected to hire thousands of new immigration enforcement agents with broad authority to detain and deport those in the country illegally, potentially setting up a showdown between the federal government and sanctuary cities.

The Harvard–Harris Poll survey found strong support for an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws, with 77 percent saying they support comprehensive immigration reform against only 23 percent who oppose.

“While there is broad support for comprehensive immigration reform, there is overwhelming opposition to sanctuary cities,” said Harvard–Harris co-director Mark Penn. “The public wants honest immigrants treated fairly and those who commit crimes deported and that’s very clear from the data.”

The finding is one of several in the survey that show Trump has support for some of the controversial immigration proposals that were a hallmark of his campaign.

A majority — 52 percent — say they support Trump’s two executive orders allowing for the construction of a southern border wall, increasing the number of immigration officers by 10,000 and finding a way to revoke federal funds for sanctuary cities.

The crackdown on sanctuary cities is the most popular feature of those actions, followed closely by the directive to increase the border patrol, which is backed by 75 percent of voters.

The wall is the most divisive element of Trump’s plan, with 53 percent opposing its construction.

Meanwhile, 53 percent of voters surveyed said they back Trump’s travel ban, which was rejected by the courts. That order temporarily suspended the United States’ refugee program for 120 days, indefinitely suspended resettlement for Syrian refugees and imposed a 90-day travel and immigration ban from seven predominately Muslim nations: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia.

Kelly has said the administration will roll out a “tighter, more streamlined version” of the executive order some time soon.

Trump’s new order is expected to target the same seven countries but will not include people who already have a visa to travel to the U.S. It will also exempt green card holders who are citizens of one of the countries in question.

Fifty-six percent say they support the specific aspect of Trump’s order that pauses immigration from the seven countries on the terrorism watch list until a new vetting system is in place.

Support for that policy goes up to 60 percent when the seven nations are described as “Muslim majority countries.”

Voters are worried that the federal judge’s suspension of Trump’s order — a ruling that was upheld this month at an appeals court in San Francisco — could put the nation at risk.

A plurality — 38 percent — say the federal judge’s suspension makes the nation less safe. Thirty-six percent said the court’s ruling will have no impact, and 26 percent said it will make the country safer.

The survey also found there are deep concerns among Americans over refugees fleeing their homelands for safety in the U.S.

Forty-seven percent said allowing refugees into the country has a negative impact on the nation, compared to only 33 percent who said it has a positive effect.

When voters are told that the U.S. is slated to receive 100,000 Syrian refugees, 51 percent said that number should be lower, 34 percent said it is an appropriate number, and 15 percent said the U.S. should allow more.

“Americans support both comprehensive immigration reform and stronger vetting and reduced refugees — they want a mix of compassion, strong borders,” said Penn. “They see ISIS as the greatest threat to the country and that is spurring concerns about refugee migration.”

The online survey of 2,148 registered voters was conducted between Feb. 11 and 13. The partisan breakdown is 39 percent Democrat, 30 percent Republican, 27 percent independent and 5 percent other. The Harvard–Harris Poll survey is a collaboration of the Harvard Center for American Political Studies and The Harris Poll.


Homeland Security Plans Aggressive Stance on Illegal Immigration


NEWSER) – “The surge of immigration at the southern border has overwhelmed federal agencies and resources and has created a significant national security vulnerability,” Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly writes in sweeping new guidelines on immigration policy. According to draft guidelines seen by the Washington Post, Kelly plans to hire 10,000 more enforcement agents and 5,000 Border Patrol officers, speed up deportation hearings, prioritize more people for immediate removal, and prosecute parents who pay to have their children smuggled into the US. Kelly’s guidelines also call for Customs and Border Protection to “immediately begin planning, design, construction, and maintenance of a wall,” the AP reports.

The guidelines, which also enlist local law enforcement personnel to help with immigration arrests, are still awaiting White House approval. “The White House has raised objections to some aspects of these memos and we are working with DHS to finalize the policy,” an administration official tells NBC News, adding that they’re not going to “litigate this in the open.” Critics are calling the proposals “draconian” and “inhumane,” especially the plan to prosecute parents who pay smugglers to bring minors across the border. USA Today, however, notes that the guidelines don’t include any changes to Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals plan, which Trump recently said he would “show great heart” toward.

Trump Takes Aim at United Nations Funding, International Bodies and Treaties

By Tim Brown

In another round of executive orders that are coming, President Donald Trump took aim at global funding and treaties, including funding of United Nations agencies.

The New York Times reports:

The Trump administration is preparing executive orders that would clear the way to drastically reduce the United States’ role in the United Nations and other international organizations, as well as begin a process to review and potentially abrogate certain forms of multilateral treaties.
The first of the two draft orders, titled “Auditing and Reducing U.S. Funding of International Organizations” and obtained by The New York Times, calls for terminating funding for any United Nations agency or other international body that meets any one of several criteria.

Those criteria include organizations that give full membership to the Palestinian Authority or Palestine Liberation Organization, or support programs that fund abortion or any activity that circumvents sanctions against Iran or North Korea. The draft order also calls for terminating funding for any organization that “is controlled or substantially influenced by any state that sponsors terrorism” or is blamed for the persecution of marginalized groups or any other systematic violation of human rights.
“At least a 40 percent overall decrease” in remaining United States funding toward international organizations is called for in the order.

It also establishes a committee to recommend where funding cuts should be made. That committee would look specifically at US funding for peacekeeping operations, International Criminal Court, development aid to countries that “oppose important United States policies,” and the United Nations Population Fund.

The funding would seriously cripple the UN’s funding for a lot of its work because it depends on billions from the US.

NYT went on to report on another executive order:

The second executive order, “Moratorium on New Multilateral Treaties,” calls for a review of all current and pending treaties with more than one other nation. It asks for recommendations on which negotiations or treaties the United States should leave.

The order says this review applies only to multilateral treaties that are not “directly related to national security, extradition or international trade,” but it is unclear what falls outside these restrictions.

For example, the Paris climate agreement or other environmental treaties deal with trade issues but could potentially fall under this order.
I must say, this is probably the most welcome move from President Trump I have seen thus far, and the others have been very impressive also. It’s a good start towards fully defunding the anti-Christian, anti-American United Nations.

Don’t forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.


The Left is Blinded by The Light of Donald J. Trump

Foxconn CEO says investment for display plant in U.S. would exceed $7 billion

By J.R. Wu

TAIPEI (Reuters) – Foxconn, the world’s largest contract electronics maker, is considering setting up a display-making plant in the United States in an investment that would exceed $7 billion, company chairman and chief executive Terry Gou said on Sunday.

The plans come after U.S. President Donald Trump pledged to put “America First” in his inauguration speech on Friday, prompting Gou to warn about the rise of protectionism and a trend for politics to underpin economic development.

Foxconn’s proposal to build a display plant, which would be planned with its Sharp Corp <6753.T> unit, depend on many factors, such as investment conditions, that would have to be negotiated at the U.S. state and federal levels, Gou told reporters on the sidelines of a company event.

Gou said that Foxconn, formally known as Hon Hai Precision Industry Co <2317.TW>, had been considering such a move for years but the issue came up when Foxconn business partner Masayoshi Son, head of Japan’s SoftBank Group Corp , talked to Gou before a December meeting Son had with Trump.

As a result of the meeting, Son pledged a $50 billion of investment in the United States and inadvertently disclosed information showing Foxconn’s logo and an unspecified additional $7 billion investment. At the time, Foxconn issued a brief statement saying it was in preliminary discussions to expand its U.S. operations, without elaborating.

“Son is a good friend,” Gou said, adding that Son had asked for his views about investing in the United States.

Gou said he told Son that the United States has no panel-making industry but it is the second-largest market for televisions. An investment for a display plant would exceed $7 billion and could create about 30,000-50,000 jobs, Gou told Son.

“I thought it was a private conversation, but then the next morning it was exposed,” Gou said. “There is such a plan, but it is not a promise. It is a wish.”

Foxconn has existing cooperation and operations in Pennsylvania, which is a state Foxconn would prioritize, depending on land, water, power, infrastructure and other investment conditions, he said.

Gou added that Foxconn would also remain active in China, dispelling talk that Beijing may be pressuring Foxconn about its investments.

Taiwan’s tech-dominated manufacturers have been nervous about potential U.S. trade policies because Trump has threatened to raise tariffs on imports from some countries, notably China.

Foxconn is one of the biggest employers in China, where it operates factories that churn out most of Apple Inc’s iPhones.