e White House is seeking to cut $1 billion in funding for U.N. peacekeeping operations and to eliminate hundreds of millions of dollars for other U.N. programs that care for needy children and seek to lift the world’s poorest out of a life of grinding poverty, according to two diplomatic sources briefed on the plan.The proposal is certain to face strong pushback from Democratic and Republican congressional leaders, who warned that President Donald Trump’s budget will never be passed. But it reflected the White House’s clear desire to jettison America’s traditional role as the champion of the downtrodden and embrace that of a military powerhouse to be feared.The White House budget office informed State Department officials this week that the administration plans to eliminate all U.S. funding to the $326 million International Organizations and Programs account, which provides more than $130 million to UNICEF — a sizable chunk of the more than $500 million the United States contributed to the U.N. agency in 2016 — and around $70 million to the U.N. Development Programme.They were also told to brace for a 40 percent cut to the State Department’s U.N. peacekeeping budget. The United States contributed more than $2 billion to the U.N.’s $8 billion-plus peacekeeping budget last year.In New York, Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is planning to host an April 6 meeting of the U.N. Security Council to discuss an ongoing U.S. review of the U.N.’s 16 peacekeeping missions.Haley, who will serve as the council’s president for the month of April, will make the point that some of the U.N. missions may have outlived their usefulness and may need to be shuttered, reconfigured or shrunk, according to a confidential U.S. concept paper.The paper, which was reviewed by Foreign Policy, urged Security Council members to “consider whether current peacekeeping operations continue to be the best-suited mechanisms for meeting the need of those on the ground and achieving the council’s political objectives, or if changes are needed. That is, are current missions ‘still fit for purpose’?”The proposed U.N. cuts, which were drafted by the White House Office of Budget and Management, show that the Trump administration is seeking far deeper cuts to the U.N. in the international affairs budget than to the State Department or USAID. Last week, the White House released a preliminary budget projection — known as the skinny budget — that called for cuts of 28 percent to international organizations in the 2018 budget.But big chunks of that outlay — including $3.1 billion in security assistance to Israel — are to be spared, and the White House has informed State Department officials that funding to NATO will also be left off the chopping block. That means the U.N. and other international organizations will have to absorb a far higher share of cuts. And programs that combat climate change or provide reproductive health services are likely to be cut altogether.The State Department and the White House declined to comment on the specific targets. A State Department official said simply that the 2018 “budget request will reduce funding requested for the U.N. and affiliated agencies. Beyond this, more details won’t be available until the president’s full FY 2018 Budget is rolled out later in the spring.”A White House official added that “the president’s America First blueprint seeks to place more focus here at home and less abroad. That having been said, internal deliberations surrounding the full fiscal year 2018 budget are ongoing and final details will be announced in the mid-May release.”U.S. government agencies contributed nearly $10.5 billion last year to a vast number of U.N. programs that vaccinate children, help keep the peace in conflict zones, care for refugees, feed the poor, and monitor the spread of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Since the United States helped create the United Nations in the waning days of World War II, the body has been seen as a way to promote stability around the world and advance U.S. interests, including economic development, conflict prevention, and nonproliferation.State Department officials had been informed by the White House budget office earlier this month that cuts to U.N. programs could run higher than 50 percent.
The mainstream media want you to know that the majority of the US citizens are against Trump’s executive orders, but that iѕ not the truth! Whoa, that’s the “first” time the mainstream media lies. A new poll on Fox News shows that the majority of Americans do not see Trump’s executive order as a “Muslim ban”.The poll says, 56 percent of the registered voters deemed the order a ” terrorist hot spot restriction,” while 37 percent said it is more likely “Muslim Ban.”Although more than half of the those polled do not believe the move was not an attempt to discriminate based on religion, a majority of the country disapproves of the executive order. Forty-six percent supported Trump’s Jan. 27 immigration order, according to Washington Examiner.1,013 registered voters nationwide voted through landline and cellphone interviews. The poll was conducted by the Anderson Robbins Research and Shaw & Company Research. The survey’s margin of error was three percentage points for all registered voters.Majority has always ѕided with Trump. All true patriotic Americans. And yes,we side with President Trump! Let him fix this and get on with the ban, he knows what he is doing!Donald Trump hasn’t even gotten started yet and the majority sides with him. And they’re right! Let’s share this with your friends and let them know that the MSM сan’t be trusted no more!
I don’t care how much liberals scream and protest… A NATION HAS A RIGHT TO POLICE ITS BORDERS, ESPECIALLY FROM VIOLENT CRIMINALS.According to the Wall Street Journal:Ramped-up immigration enforcement in several cities this week has resulted in the detention of hundreds or more people in the country unlawfully, according to attorneys and advocacy groups, who said they expected most of them to be deported.Illegal immigrants were rounded up in the metropolitan areas of Atlanta; Austin, Texas; Charlotte, N.C.; and across southern California, among others, they said.But his plans hit a roadblock when Seattle judge federal judges halted his travel ban on immigrants from seven Muslim-majority nations considered a terror threat, and the decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit court this week.The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency said the five-day enforcement “surge” began Monday and concluded midday Friday. Officials confirmed action in Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles and New York, though they didn’t dispute that the operation was also under way in other cities. THE AGENCY SAID 160 FOREIGNERS WERE ARRESTED IN SIX LOS ANGELES-AREA COUNTIES THIS WEEK, AND SAID ABOUT 150 OF THEM HAD CRIMINAL HISTORIES.ICE highlighted cases of several people suspected or convicted of serious crimes, including a Salvadoran national arrested in Huntington Park, Calif., who is wanted in El Salvador for aggravated extortion, a Brazilian arrested in Los Angeles who is wanted in Brazil for cocaine trafficking, and an Australian national taken into custody in West Hollywood who was previously convicted of “lewd and lascivious acts with a child.”source : http://conservativepost.com/
Donald Trump keeps on kicking the foundation’s framework by doing things the way he needs them done. In the wake of discovering that President Obama requested the Department of Education’s library division to occupy more than $8 million in assets to a store to manufacture the following Presidential Library, Trump composed the request cancelling it and putting the cash into enhancing the instruction of secretly held contract schools.Michelle Obama, who would get a free home on the best floor of the new building that was reputed to be an imitation of the White House Residence, was allegedly so resentful about the news that she crossed out her intends to go to the yearly Kumonawanna pig cook in Honolulu.Obama will have no plan of action yet to attempt to collect the cash or pay for the undertaking himself, yet without the enormous contributors and associations of an extraordinary Republican president, he’ll most likely be stuck purchasing something that resembles a Bush’s visitor home.Do You Support Trump In Canceling Funding For Obama’s Free House And Library ?
Is there some rule out there we don’t know about that states that founders of major DIY retail chains have to get involved in politics eventually?We saw that the people behind Hobby Lobby were all too eager to jump out of their lane (craft supplies) when the moment arose, and now and it is becoming clear that they learned by watching the founder of Home Depot, who just can’t stay out of the political arena (made in part, presumably, withPremium Birrill Fir Studs).Bernie Marcus wrote a piece for Real Clear Politics to announce that he is supporting Donald Trump. Granted, he is a home improvement store founder, so no one really asked him, but he did it, we have it, and we are moving forward with the new information now. If someone were to ask me, I’d say he’s just doing the same thing people speculated Ben Carson and Chris Christie might have been doingwhen they came out in favor of Trump. In the same way there were rumors that Carson and Christie were simply gunning for a chance at being vice president or getting into Trump’s cabinet, I think Marcus just wants to make sure that if Trump gets the presidency, Home Depot becomes the Official Sponsor of the Mexico-America Wall.Anyway, asking yourself what Marcus’ reasoning is? Here are a few snippets.A plug for the American Dream/Home Depot came first:BUT I DRAW EVEN MORE FROM LESSONS LEARNED WHEN WE FOUNDED THE HOME DEPOT IN 1978 RATHER THAN FROM THE CONTENTIOUS GOP PRIMARY OF 2016. I GENUINELY BELIEVE THAT IF WE TO STARTED THE HOME DEPOT TODAY, WE WOULD FAIL BECAUSE OF THE HURDLES GOVERNMENT, ESPECIALLY THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION, PLACES IN FRONT OF SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS. I NEVER FORGET THE HOME DEPOT’S SMALL BUSINESS ROOTS – WE STARTED AS A SMALL BUSINESS WITH FOUR STORES IN ATLANTA, GEORGIA. NEXT CAME A JUST-BECAUSE SORT OF ATTACK ON MEDIA AND ACADEMIA: POLITICIANS LIKE OBAMA AND CLINTON, AIDED BY THE MEDIA AND ACADEMIA, HAVE PEDDLED A DANGEROUS SENTIMENT THAT GOVERNMENT CAN PROVIDE FOR AMERICANS BETTER THAN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. THAT SHADE ON MEDIA AND ACADEMIA CAME AMIDST GLORIFICATION OF THE JOB CREATION INHERENT IN THE FOUNDING OF SMALL BUSINESSES. NOTE THAT MARCUS TOOK TIME TO PRAISE HIS EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET WEALTHY WITHOUT COLLEGE DEGREES, BUT IN ONE QUICK STATEMENT, TOOK A SWIPE AT EVERYONE WHO WORKS AT A UNIVERSITY, LAB, LIBRARY, NEWSPAPER, TELEVISION STATION, ETC. SO, ARE JOBS REALLY THE MAIN FOCUS HERE AT ALL? HE CONCLUDED BY TARGETING THE #NEVERTRUMP REPUBLICANS:AS A GOP DONOR WHO STOOD STEADFASTLY BEHIND JEB BUSH– AND WHO HAS CONTRIBUTED TO CANDIDATES FOR A GENERATION – I URGE ALL REPUBLICANS TO STAND UP AND BE COUNTED IN SUPPORT FOR DONALD TRUMP. IN TIME, WE WILL SURELY LEARN THE POLITICAL INCLINATIONS OF EVERY FOUNDER, MOGUL, AND, IN MARCUS’ WORDS, “YOUNG [MAN WILLING] TO SHAG CARTS FROM A PARKING LOT BECAUSE HE HAS FAITH THAT HE AND HIS FAMILY CAN BE GREAT.” MARCUS IS JUST ONE OF THE FIRST OF MANY THIS ELECTION SEASON. Source: http://proudemocrats.com/2017/05/09/home-depot-founder-vies-to-become-official-sponsor-of-mexico-america-wall-endorses-trump/
Over the past year, hundreds of NFL players have been taking a knee during the national anthem to protest against President Donald Trump and against racial inequality. Americans in turn have responded by turning off their televisions and not watching NFL games as they have no interest in watching our flag be disrespected.
Breitbart reported that this was shown once again on Sunday night when millions of people boycotted Super Bowl LII. Breitbart reported that American Legion and VFW posts officially boycotted the Super Bowl, as did bars and restaurants all over the U.S. The Oneota Veterans Club in New York even raised a sign announcing their boycott that read, “In honor of our country, our flag, our veterans.”
This club had been boycotting the NFL all season but decided to avoid criticism and continue the boycott through the big game.
“The members thought it would be kind of hypocritical if we just brought it back for the Super Bowl to make money,” said manager Wayne Gregory.
The Knights of Columbus chapter in Longview, Texas also decided to boycott the game.
“The veterans are especially aggravated by the course of events. This especially hits us as an insult when people are disrespectful of our flag and national anthem,” said KC member Vance Lowery.
Ray Steadmon, owner of Coloma Lanes in Coloma in southwestern Michigan, explained that even though he is a “huge football fan” he was going to sponsor a Stars and Stripes tournament instead of a Super Bowl party.
“This year when I watch these guys sitting in protest during our national anthem, disrespecting my country, disrespecting my flag, in my opinion, it made me so angry,” Steadmon said. “I had to kind of sit back and say, that’s why I was willing to give my life was to give them the right to do that. The only thing I had to rebuttal with was I have the right not to support (the NFL),”
What do you think about this? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section.
A judge recently struck down a case regarding the religious wording on U.S. currency. The plaintiff argued that the phrase “In God We Trust,” that is seen on American dollars, is a breach of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and places a burden on a person’s right to exercise religious freedom.The Ohio judge, Benita Pearson disagreed with the plaintiff, issuing that they had no proof of the claimed burden, and stated the following:“Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that the use of the motto on currency substantially burdens their religious exercise,” she wrote in her ruling.
“Credit cards and checks allow Plaintiffs to conduct the bulk of their purchases with currency not inscribed with the motto. And for cash-only transactions, such as a garage sale or a coin-operated laundromat, the use of the motto on currency does not substantially burden Plaintiffs’ free exercise.”The attorney who has been the main plaintiff and standing behind the case is California attorney Michael Newdow, who has been on a mission to rid the words “Under God,” from the Pledge of Allegiance. And now he is set on removing “In God We Trust,” from American currency. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court’s Northern District of Ohio in 2015. Newdow is claiming that the phrase is in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments, along with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
“Plaintiffs either specifically do not trust in any ‘G-d’ (with NOT trusting G-d being a basic tenet of their belief systems) or hold G-d’s name so dear and exalted that to inscribe it on a monetary instrument is deemed sinful,” said Newdow in his court documentation.Judge Pearson, on the other hand, felt differently about the plaintiff’s case and raised the following argument:“Plaintiffs argue that cash transactions force them to bear a message that they [feel] violate their religious beliefs,” she wrote. “But as the Supreme Court stated in Wooley v. Maynard, ‘The bearer of currency is thus not required to publicly advertise the national motto.’ Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ other concerns, that they may be subject to peer pressure or ridicule, or that their children may question their beliefs, are unlike the choice between a ‘basic benefit and a core belief’ described in the Supreme Court’s case law.
”And while the separation of church and state has been one of the nation’s founding principles, some commenter’s offered their own arguments on the topic…“Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion. It doesn’t matter if it violates free will or not. The words “In God We Trust” respects an establishment of religion.
On that grounds it should be stricken from government currency.”“The phrase “seperation of church and state” is a simplistic and misleading representation of the intent of the founding fathers. Their goal was to foster, nourish, and encourage religious belief in God (as oppposed to belief in no god) because they correctly believed that people who think they will someday return and report to their creator are much more likely to be peaceful, loving, thoughtful, forgiving, courteous, etc than people who do not hold such a belief.
History is proving the correctness of their perception. All the stats say we are becoming less and less believers in God and they also clearly show our slow decent into rudeness, selfishness, greed and violence. Some will say there is no connection, they need to think that through very carefully.”
When Texas Sheriff Parnell McNamara purchased an ad in the paper, he probably didn’t expect it to cause the controversy that it did.
The ad proclaimed,
“All lives matter!”
According to the Waco Tribune, McNamara was tired of people accusing the phrase, “All lives matter,” of being a racial slur, and tired of being told it was politically incorrect to say.
“All lives matter. Your life matters, mine, police, John Q citizen.
It doesn’t matter what color you are. Every human being has a right to live.”
McNamara is not backing down from the statement in his ad.
The Texas sheriff accused the Black Lives Matter movement of being nothing more than an anti-police movement.
“I know of no police officer that puts his badge and gun on in the morning and goes to work wanting to hurt someone or kill someone.”
However, critics of McNamara have condemned the phrase, “All lives matter,” and explained that black people are not treated equally in the United States.
Community Race Relations Coalition board chairman, Joe Welter told the Tribune,
“You can say, ‘All lives matter,’ but the fact is throughout our history, and even currently, we do not value black lives as much as we do other lives.”
To prove the point that this was the case, the articles cites a statistic that was published in the Washington Post:
“Of all of the unarmed people shot and killed by police in the United States in 2015, 40 percent of them were black men.”
To put that into perspective, black men make up 6% of the nation’s population.
While this sounds like a slam dunk statistic for the Black Lives Matter movement, and is a set of numbers that the Obama administration has repeatedly used to push the narrative that there is systemic racism, there is more to the story than what BLM, the Obama administration, and the Drive By Media will tell you.
For example, statistics also reveal that an American police officer is 18 times more likely to be shot and killed by a black man than an unarmed black man is to be shot and killed by an officer.
What that means, is that officers are already weary going into some situations like traffic stops or domestic violence disputes, not because of racism, but because of past results.
Secondly, many of these unarmed shootings occur while the victim is assaulting the police officer, or trying to steal the officer’s weapons.
For example, the case that essentially solidified the Black Lives Matter movement, Michael Brown of Ferguson, is a case where an unarmed black man was shot and killed by a police officer.
Therefore, Brown would be included in that 40% number from the Washington Post mentioned above.
However, what that percentage does not tell you is that Brown had already robbed a convenience store, manhandled a store clerk that was half his size, and then attacked a police officer that wanted to question him and his friend after realizing they matched the descriptions of the two men who had committed the robbery just a short time before.
All evidence except Brown’s friend, who was determined by a grand jury to be an “uncredible” witness, demonstrated that Brown had reached into Officer Wilson’s cruiser, and was trying to take the officer’s gun.
Brown was shot in the hand, while it was inside the vehicle, and the youth took off running.
Wilson pursued the fleeing suspect, and at one point, Brown turned, and charged at the officer.
Wilson had to make a split second decision as to whether or not to use lethal force, or let the 300 pound “gentle giant” bowl into him, and possibly kill him.
Brown was hit multiple times before finally going down.
Though this criminal, who is on video being a menace to society, was shot while attacking a police officer, the Left uses his case as an instance of police brutality. It doesn’t matter what he was doing at the time he was shot, it only matters that he was shot and unarmed.
This is exactly why the Black Lives Matter movement is based on a lie, and so dangerous for the future of the nations.
It’s using carefully selected stats, scripted narratives, and bumper stickers to convince a new generation of black men to not trust or comply with police officers.
It is also why Texas Sheriff Parnell McNamara is getting so much praise for standing up to the group with his, “All lives matter,” ad.
Share this if you agree that ALL LIVES MATTER!!
H/T US Herald
Amid the growing furor over the NFL’s acceptance of its players disrespecting our nation, the league is receiving some bad news from Washington.
As many are aware, the NFL benefits from billions in taxpayer subsidies, which help team owners build extravagant stadiums they claim help improve the local economies. However, with the recent spate of protests on the field, people from all over the country have been calling for these subsidies to be stripped from the league, and it looks like they’re going to get their wish.
According to Watchdog.org, the federal government has given the NFL over $7 billion in taxpayer cash to either build or revamp existing stadiums.
“Overall, taxpayers have spent nearly $3 billion on the 16 stadiums that will host NFL games during the season’s opening weekend. And over the past couple of decades, we’ve given NFL teams nearly $7 billion total in aid for their stadiums,” the website stated.
Some of these handouts were to the New England Patriots, who received $72 million to build Gillette Stadium in Foxboro, Mass., the Pittsburgh Steelers, who received $176.1 million for their stadium, while the Indianapolis Colts took a “modest” $619 million in taxpayer subsidies for their stadium.
As you can see, this costs us quite a lot of money. But because of the recent controversy surrounding the league, a bipartisan effort to strip the funding completely is once again gaining steam.
The Daily Caller reported that a bill to remove the subsidies introduced over the summer by Democrat Sen. Corey Booker and Republican Sen. James Lankford is gaining momentum in the Senate.
From the Caller:
Last June, New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker and Republican Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford put forth a bill that would ban professional sports teams from using municipal bonds in relation to federal funding to build their sports arenas.
“Professional sports teams generate billions of dollars in revenue,” Booker said in a statement. “There’s no reason why we should give these multimillion-dollar businesses a federal tax break to build new stadiums. It’s not fair to finance these expensive projects on the backs of taxpayers, especially when wealthy teams end up reaping most of the benefits.”
The Oklahoma Republican senator agreed, saying, “The federal government is responsible for a lot of important functions, but financing sports stadiums for multi-million – sometimes billion – dollar franchises is definitely not one of them.”
A spokesman from Lankford’s office told The Daily Caller Sunday that in the last four weeks interest in the bill has picked up since both members proposed it four months ago.
So that’s that. Protesting the country that’s given you everything, and then some, comes with consequences.
Now let’s just hope that the renewed interest in this bill doesn’t fade away with the controversy. Taxpayers shouldn’t be footing the bill for these billionaires to build stadiums only they benefit from, all while their players are protesting the country that made it possible.
For the show’s cold open, Alec Baldwin entered the fray with his latest Donald Trump skit, poking fun at the President-elect over his retweet of a 16-year-old boy’s support. During a “security briefing,” Baldwin’s character interrupted the session with “important” news.
“Kellyanne,” Baldwin rasped, “I just retweeted the the best tweet. I mean, wow,” he gushed.
“What a great, smart tweet. This could not wait. It was from a young man named Seth, He’s 16, he’s in high school, and I really did retweet him,” he insisted. “Seriously. This is real.” Kate McKinnon, playing Conaway, stared vacantly into the camera and said, “He really did do this.”
The real Donald Trump didn’t waste any time tweeting about the sketch, sharing his displeasure on, where else, Twitter.
Is Jennifer Aniston launching a clothing collection with HSN? A new report claims she’s teaming up with Sheryl Crow, who already has a line with the Home Shopping Network. But Gossip Cop has exclusively learned Aniston isn’t involved in any partnership.
The new issue of OK! is announcing, “Sheryl & Jen’s Home Shopping Hookup.” In the article, the tabloid claims the singer is “steering her pal toward the Home Shopping Network.” A so-called “insider” is quoted as saying of Crow, “She’s shocked at how much fun it is and how much money she is making relative to the time and effort she put into her last album. Now she wants Jen to team up with her on a collection they’ll design and sell together!”
According to the gossip magazine’s supposed source, Aniston is on board with the idea because she’s been “looking for more opportunities outside of acting.” Cautions the snitch, “The big leap would be hawking the collection on-air, but Sheryl makes that look easy, and Jen would essentially be a guest star.” The alleged tipster further contends to the outlet, “Jen is thrilled that Sheryl suggested it. She can dip her toe into a lifestyle brand and see if that’s something she wants to pursue. It’s kind of a no-brainer for her. She has a built-in fan base that’ll love her stuff.”
The publication notes this purported project is still in the “planning stages,” which could be why there are no specifics given about what type of apparel Aniston and Crow would design or when the clothing might debut. More likely, though, the real reason this article is so general and vague is because there’s no such collection in the works.
No one with whom Gossip Cop spoke, including Aniston’s rep, could confirm any plans to do a line for HSN. In fact, we’re told that the star’s agents and manager have not had any discussions about this alleged career move.
And there’s further reason to doubt the legitimacy of this supposed scoop: OK! has a beyond horrible track record when it comes to reporting on Aniston. The tabloid has spent years publishing untrue pregnancy reports about the actress, including a cover story two months ago that falsely claimed Aniston was expecting a “miracle baby at 48.”
The magazine that doesn’t care to be accurate on such important topics is not going to be the outlet that breaks real news about the star’s career..