Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Immigration

Homeowner Pays NASTY Price After Renting Home To Muslim Family When He Walked In At WRONG Time

This is why they should never be allowed in, Ever!

Published

on

In the most asinine news, I have read in decades!

It’s now being reported that a Canadian landlord has been fined $12,000 for entering the home he owns while wearing shoes. The issue seems to be that the tenants who were living there were, of course, disciples of the so-called “Religion of Peace.” The claimed to have been “humiliated” by the home owner’s so-called discretion. So a Canadian tribunal thought it was fair to award the scumbag Muslim renters 12k. Only in Canada!

52-year-old John Alabi from Brampton, who is a Christian, explained how he went above and beyond trying to accommodate the Egyptian-born couple who lived in the apartment for only two months. The foolish renter went on to explain that he just sees everybody as human beings like himself. So because of this, he took them in. He went on to add that they all got along with no issues but that all of a sudden he was branded as a racist. Welcome to the world on anyone here in the states who supports President Trump!

Since Alabi stated he does not have the money to pay this judgment so last week news site Rebel News Service launched a crowdfunding page to help Alabi pay the fine.

Al-Monitor Reports

Egypt’s glaring rights violations once again in global spotlight

An Egyptian court will resume its deliberations May 23 in a long-running, on again, off again human rights case that has placed the country at the center of an international controversy — again.

The controversy revolves around a case that began in 2011 and supposedly ended in 2013, but that Egypt recently resurrected, apparently in response to being roundly criticized by world leaders for new, high-profile human rights violations.

In 2011, the government raided 17 foreign and Egyptian nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in Cairo, confiscating their funds, documents and equipment and detaining numerous workers, challenging the NGOs’ right to receive foreign funding.

In 2013, Egypt sentenced 43 people in that case, including 19 Americans, to one to five years in prison.

Jump to March 10, when the European Parliament issued a resolution condemning the human rights situation in Egypt after the killing of Giulio Regeni, a young Italian doctoral student. Six days after the resolution was announced, the Egyptian government decided to renew its investigation into NGO funding and reopened the 2011 investigation, again freezing assets and detaining staff, and issuing a gag order on the media.

The targets of the new investigation include rights activists Gamal Eid, a lawyer, and Hossam Bahgat, a journalist. Both men are NGO founders, and both have had their assets frozen and are not allowed to travel. Human rights observers considered the occurrence a setback and feared a quick escalation in rights violations.

That prompted the European Parliament to issue another, harsher statement March 24 saying, “We are witnessing a mounting pressure on independent Egyptian civil society organisations, in particular human rights organisations and defenders. The recent imposition of travel bans, asset freezes and the summoning of human rights defenders are not in line with Egypt’s commitments to promote and respect human rights and fundamental freedoms as guaranteed by its Constitution and enshrined in the EU-Egypt Association Agreement, which is the basis for our partnership.”

The statement added, “The decision to revive the so-called ‘2011 foreign funding case,’ targeting EU partners who are crucial in the democratic development of Egypt, is of serious concern.” The EU also asked Egypt to “allow the independent functioning of civil society organisations and human rights defenders, free of fear of intimidation.”

That wasn’t the end of the international consternation. On April 20, as the Cairo Criminal Court prepared to address aspects of the cases of Eid and Bahgat, among others, a UN spokesman said UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon would follow closely the legal proceedings in Egypt against the NGOs and “human rights defenders.” The statement underlined a defendant’s right to a fair trial and convenient legal proceedings.

The Egyptian government immediately rejected the UN statement. The Foreign Ministry objected to any intervention in the Egyptian judiciary’s work, especially a few hours before the session was to begin.

Judge Ahmed Abu Zeid, spokesman for the Egyptian Foreign Ministry, said, “The statement is an attempt to target and terrorize the independent Egyptian judiciary, although such words are not in line with the UN’s powers and responsibilities and its constant claim to respect the state of law and the independence of the judiciary.”

Also on April 20, in a potential blow to the criminal court’s proceedings, an administrative court ruled that NGOs do have the right to receive foreign funding.

The Cairo Criminal Court decided to adjourn the April 20 session until May 23.

Eid, who is also head of the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information, told Al-Monitor, “This case is political and fabricated. The aim is to silence independent NGOs that enjoy credibility and independence.”

He said, “Civil society organizations are the last standing parties to criticize the government’s policies in political, economic, developmental and rights issues and to document rights violations committed by the state. Consequently, the government’s main aim is to eliminate these organizations, terrorize their members and mobilize Egyptian public opinion against them.”

Eid compared President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s rule to previous Egyptian regimes such as that of former Presidents Hosni Mubarak and Mohammed Morsi. He said, “Unfortunately, Sisi’s regime is the worst ever in Egypt’s history. Under previous regimes, nobody dared freeze money, forbid activists from traveling or threaten civil society members with imprisonment, as is currently the case.”

The organizations raided in the original case in 2011 included the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute, the American organizations Freedom House and the International Center for Journalists, and some Egyptian organizations. The reason given was that the foreign organizations did not obtain permits from the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, while the Egyptian organizations did not obtain permits from the Ministry of Social Security.

At the time, the government accused the groups of receiving foreign funding worth $60 million between March and December 2011 without notifying Egyptian officials. The organizations were also accused of using the money to serve foreign purposes, including political training, supporting the campaigns of representatives of political parties, mobilizing voters and preparing reports sent to the United States. The government said this shook Egyptian sovereignty and threatened security and stability in the country.

This here is what irks me the most about these Muslim savages that are invading the west. They come from a cesspool of a country where they are lucky if they even own a toilet with running water and are forced to live under the iron fist of Sharia Law. But they come here only to force their garbage of a culture and customs on the rest of us. What Canada should have done is put these two scumbag Muslims on the first cargo plane headed back to the middle east. But of course, we know that will never happen under “Pretty Boy Trudeau” who clearly suffers from an acute case of white guilt and low testosterone. What were the Canadian people thinking?

Please share if you are sick and tired of the Muslim invasion….

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Freedom Daily!

Al ran for the California State Assembly in his home district in 2010 and garnered more votes than any other Republican since 1984. He's worked on multiple political campaigns and was communications director for the Ron Nehring for California Lt. Governor campaign during the primaries in 2014. He has also held multiple positions within his local Republican Central Committee including Secretary, and Vice President of his local California Republican Assembly chapter. While also being an ongoing delegate to the California Republican Party for almost a decade.

Join the conversation

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Crime

Trump Was RIGHT! Look Who Was Just BUSTED For Starting DEADLY Cali Fire That Killed 41 So Far – Here’s Why

This is Sick & they Have to pay!

Published

on

The California wildfires have been raging for quite some time which has caused unprecedented damage in the region.

Now, it is important to note that fires in the California area are not unheard of, but they typically occur in December and January, and not October.

These fires have forced thousands of residents to leave their homes in terror not knowing what they will return to when they are able.

Law enforcement officials have been working tirelessly to figure out who started these horrific wildfires and it appears they may have the culprits that prove President Trump was right yet again. 

On Monday, firefighters have been able to gain control of the raging wildfires in the northern California area.

However, even though these brave firefighters have been able to make headway in containing the fire the death toll has risen to 41.

Over the last week, these raging fires have scorched more than 200,000 acres, destroyed or damaged more than 5,500 homes, and displaced 100,000 people. Though by some miracle on Sunday, the winds changed and the firefighters were able to take advantage of that situation and contain some of the fires.

Now that the firefighters have been able to make some headway in these deadly fires, law enforcement has been focusing on what caused them, and what they found is shocking. As officials were studying the fires, they noticed a pattern of where the majority of them occurred. It seems that areas hardest hit by these fires were in areas within the legal marijuana business, and they are now suspecting foul play.

As it turns out the areas that are being hit the hardest happens to be pot farms.

CNN Money reported:

Deadly wildfires in Northern California are burning up marijuana farms in the so-called Emerald Triangle.

Blazes have destroyed a number of farms in Mendocino County right before legal recreational sales begin in California.

Cannabis business owners who lose their crops have little reprieve.

“Nobody right now has insurance,” said Nikki Lastreto, secretary of the Mendocino Cannabis Industry Association. “They might have insurance on their house, but not on their crop.”

Here is more from Got News:

The suspicious timing and sheer destruction of the fires have led them to believe the Mexican drug cartels – infamous for their ruthless tactics – had a hand in starting them. These cartels, which run a large share of the world’s multi-billion dollar illegal drug trade, certainly have the means to pull of an attack like this.

They also have an enormous incentive to drive up prices and hurt their competitors, and these fires are already accomplishing that. If Mexican drug lord involvement is confirmed, it will likely spark an international crisis between the United States and Mexico over the latter’s failure to rein in its criminal cartels.

Facebook photos provided to GotNews show the wildfires have caused staggering damage, with several before-and-after pictures revealing the extent of the devastation:

Before the fire. (Photo Credit Facebook)

After the devastating California fires. (Photo Credit Facebook)

The New York Times reported yesterday that tens of thousands of marijuana growers live in this area, the vast majority of whom have no insurance. Furthermore, since marijuana remains an illegal drug under the Controlled Substances Act, the industry still uses cash.

GotNews can confirm that millions of dollars in cash has already been lost to the fires, in addition to tens of millions more in property damage.

According to NBC News, thousands of acres of marijuana have already been burned, and the fires have also wiped out “recent investments in infrastructure to comply with licensing regulations in preparation for recreational marijuana legalization next year.”

The total damage caused by these fires will be unclear for a while, as many of them are still burning.

So, what does this all mean and how does this prove that President Trump was right?

As stated previously law enforcement officials are suspecting that Mexican cartels started these devastating fires. The cartel does not like competition especially when it comes to making drug money and if California is now legalizing marijuana you can bet that the drug lords are not happy.

These ruthless individuals will continue on their path of destruction unless there is something to stop them. What that something is would be a wall between the Mexican border and the United States to prevent these people from entering our country. There is no reason that these criminals should be allowed to sneak into America and create havoc on innocent people.

These fires appear to be a message sent from the cartels to scare the legal marijuana farmers from continuing to grow their crop. Now, whether you agree with marijuana or not is not the issue considering that these farmers have the right to grow it, and no illegals should be able to prevent it from happening.

SHARE IF YOU WANT PRESIDENT TRUMP’S WALL BUILT TO PREVENT ILLEGALS FROM ENTERING AMERICA!

H/T [The Gateway Pundit]

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Freedom Daily!

Continue Reading

Featured

BREAKING: 15 Dead, 400 Hospitalized in San Diego After Illegals’ Disturbing Surprise

Published

on

Officials in the liberal southern California city of San Diego, have declared a state of emergency during the popular vacation weekend for the tourist town. Prior to admitting the problem believed to have been caused by illegal aliens in the area, fifteen people died and a whopping 400 are hospitalized.

California is one state which has led the charge against President Donald Trump’s crackdown on immigration, by deliberately giving illegals a “sanctuary” to escape to after crossing the southern border into the United States.

With that as their priority, they inadvertently invited in much more than a flood of new residents, which Trump had warned about. San Diego did things their way and now are suffering the horrific cost of that detrimental decision.

As many Americans were packing up for the long weekend to celebrate the final holiday of the summer, officials in SanDiegoo were dealing with a devastating issue. Rather than heading to the beach or other relaxing location, residents were flooding hospitals in droves, suffering from what quickly became a complete health crisis in the area.

A public health emergency was declared Friday over an outbreak of ‘hepatitis A’ that has been linked to at least 15 deaths and 400 hospitalizations, America’s Freedom Fighters reported.

According to Fox News, “The liver disease outbreak started last November, with the homeless population affected most. The emergency declaration will help the city access state funds and provide legal protection for new sanitation measures, the Union-Tribune reported.”

“Areas with high concentrations of homeless people will receive roughly 40 portable hand-washing stations to help combat the disease, which can spread through fecal matter when people fail to thoroughly clean their hands after using the restroom.”

“Crews also plan to use bleach-spiked water for high-pressure washing to remove “all feces, blood, bodily fluids or contaminated surfaces,” according to a sanitation plan outlined in a letter Thursday.”

The massive sanitization efforts could soon be imposed in surrounding areas to control the situation that’s spreading out of control.

“After previous vaccination and educational programs failed to significantly reduce the infection rate, and with death reports spiking in recent weeks, San Diego decided to mimic a campaign used in Los Angeles, which is home to tens of thousands of homeless, in an attempt to curb the outbreak,” Fox News explained.

While they are stating specifically who or which group of people started this, outbreaks of this kind are par for the course when unvaccinated people from other countries come in and bring diseases with them. It’s not a matter of being racist or bigoted to want to control immigration, it’s a health concern which could be prevented if people go about this process the correct way.

The backup efforts to the curb the problem as previously explained was too little and too late. The outbreak was already in San Diego and trying to stop it is far more difficult that preventing it in the first place.

Today, it’s Hep A, but next, it could be something worse which is what President Trump is trying to be proactive about with all of his anti-illegal immigration efforts. We’ve already seen the introduction of ancient disease brought into America with the influx of the Muslim refugee program that former President Barack Obama was adamant about.

Prodcons reported:

Seven refugees with active tuberculosis (TB) were diagnosed shortly after their resettlement in Idaho between 2011 and 2015, according to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare.

This makes Idaho the seventh state to confirm to Breitbart News that recently arrived refugees have been diagnosed with active TB.

The other states in which recently arrived refugees have been diagnosed with active TB include: Louisiana (twenty-one), Florida (eleven), Colorado, (ten), Indiana (four), Kentucky (where nine were diagnosed in one county), and North Dakota (where four refugees who resided in the United States for less than five years were diagnosed in one county).

Idaho is one of fourteen states that have withdrawn from the federal refugee resettlement program where the federal government has hired a voluntary agency (VOLAG) to resettle refugees under the statutorily questionable Wilson Fish alternative program.

In Idaho, the federal government has contracted the Idaho Office for Refugees (IOR), a division of the large non-profit known as Janus, to run the program. Janus is one of the largest organizations within the lucrative and politically connected refugee resettlement industry, which is paid more than $1 billion per year by the federal government.

There is no valid argument for allowing contagious disease such as these to run rampant in the name of political correctness. Immigration laws were never about being racist or insensitive, they were created for a reason and the control of a potential outbreak is just part of it. What San Diego is experiencing this holiday weekend could have potentially been avoided if laws were followed and immigrants were stropped from crossing into America at will.

Continue Reading

Immigration

Libs Sweating Bullets After Supreme Court Just Handed Trump The Best News Of His Entire Presidency

This will make you cheer!

Published

on

Winning, Winning and more Winning! Late last night President Trump won yet another legal battle against the American left wing and their bought and paid for activist judges and lackeys.

As expected, the United States Supreme Court on Tuesday night dismissed one of two cases over the President’s ban on visitors from majority Muslim nations. The court dismissed the case that originated in Maryland and involved a ban that has now expired and been replaced by a new version. But sadly the justices failed to take action on a separate case from Hawaii which was originated by Obama friend and lackey, Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin, who has been battling President Donald Trump over travel bans since February.

The one-page order states that the justices were unanimous in deciding against ruling in the Maryland case, although of course one of the liberal “Barry Soetoro” justices, Sonia Sotomayor, did note that she would not have wiped out the appeals court ruling in its entirety. The expired travel ban had included people from terrorist hotbeds such as Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and Sudan.

The new “open-ended” ban, scheduled to take effect on Oct. 18, removed Sudan from the list while blocking people from Chad and North Korea and certain government officials from Venezuela from entering the United States. Because we are all aware how dangerous starving people from North Korea and Venezuela are, but that’s what you have to do to satisfy the liberal mindset. Wonder why they didn’t add Ireland to the mix, I hear those Irish are really dangerous to our nation’s security.

The New American Reports:

Trump Travel Ban Unconstitutional? But Obama, Bush, Carter Travel Bans Constitutional?

Other presidents have suspended immigration without having their orders derailed by the courts. Why is Trump’s executive order being treated differently?

On Thursday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals kept to its activist ways by refusing to allow President Trump’s executive order suspending the controversial U.S. refugee program to be in effect as it continues to wind its way through the courts. The three-judge panel that denied the administration’s request to lift the temporary restraining order on the executive order was unanimous in its decision.

The judges — William Canby Jr., a Jimmy Carter appointee; Richard Clifton, a George W. Bush appointee; and Michelle Friedland, a Barack Obama appointee — wrote in their decision that the executive order likely violates “what due process requires, such as notice and a hearing prior to restricting an individual’s ability to travel.” The decision also says the “it is the Government’s burden to make ‘a strong showing that [it] is likely to’ prevail against the States’ procedural due process claims” and that the court is “not persuaded that the Government has carried its burden for a staying appeal.”

In plain English, that means that the three-judge panel decided that the restraining order against Trump’s executive order is unlikely to be overturned by a higher court, so it sees no reason to lift the restraining order as this case works its way through the labyrinth of legal red tape it faces.

Of course, the point that is largely overlooked in all of this is that each of these judges was appointed by presidents who also had policies “restricting an individual’s ability to travel.” Let’s just spend a few minutes unpacking that as we work our way backward through the timeline.

As The New American reported in a previous article:

In 2015, Obama signed H.R. 158, the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015. That bill clarified “the grounds for ineligibility for travel to the United States regarding terrorism risk, to expand the criteria by which a country may be removed from the Visa Waiver Program, to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a report on strengthening the Electronic System for Travel Authorization to better secure the international borders of the United States and prevent terrorists and instruments of terrorism from entering the United States, and for other purposes.”

The Huffington Post reported at the time of that bill’s passage:

In what could be a sign the administration is moving away from a policy seen as discriminatory, the Obama administration announced Thursday that it is restricting visa-free travel to the U.S. for recent visitors to three additional countries — but not for dual nationals with those passports.

Under the new restrictions, citizens of the 38 countries that are part of the reciprocal visa-waiver program will lose their visa-free travel status if they have traveled to Libya, Somalia or Yemen within the past five years. Thursday’s announcement is an expansion of a law passed late last year, which revoked the visa-waiver status of people who had recently traveled to Iraq, Syria, Iran or Sudan, and who hold dual citizenship with any of those four countries.

Interestingly, not only did the liberal mainstream media celebrate those restrictions (as the example from the Huffington Post shows), but there were no legal challenges brought against H.R. 158, either. Also, to put in the for-what-its-worth-column, that bill — signed into law by Obama and allowed to stand without being issued a restraining order — is one part of the legal framework on which President Trump’s executive order rests.

Before that, though, in 2011, Obama’s State Department quietly halted all refugees from Iraq for a period of six months after it was discovered (to the surprise of no one paying attention) that terrorists who had actually fought against U.S. soldiers in Iraq had gained entry in the United States as “refugees” and were planning attacks here. It seemed that reason dictated a more stringent vetting process. Now where has this writer heard that recently?

Going a little further back, in 2002 — in the wake of 9/11 — both houses of Congress unamimously passed, and President Bush signed — H.R. 3525, the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act. This legislation restricted travel to the United States “from countries that are state sponsors of international terrorism” and created a vetting process so extreme that any vetting process Trump comes up with would have difficulty appearing anything but moderate by comparison. Of course, it was reasonable then and it is reasonable now. But to those looking to attack Trump’s policy on this issue so critical to national security, reason is a stranger. Evidence of that can be seen in the fact that 73 Democrats who voted to pass that law in 2002 are still sitting in office and are among those decrying the suppposed evils of Trump’s executive order which rests as much on the legal framework of H.R. 3525 as it does on Obama’s H.R. 158.

H.R.3525 is still on the books and in effect, granting the president the authority to stop the issuance of non-immigrant visas from the very countries Trump’s executive order names. And as Conservative Review noted, Trump merely applied that law in conjunction with his authority under The Immigration and Nationality Act (§ 212(f)) which grants the president plenary power to “by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants.”

The next stop on our trip in the Wayback Machine is to April 7, 1980. America was in the midst of the Iranian hostage crisis. Five months into the 444-day-long ordeal, President Carter responded by issuing a series of proclamations under his executive authority. Here, in his own words, is the one that is germane to this issue:

Fourth, the Secretary of Treasury [State] and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly.

Now, here — in the present — three judges (appointed by presidents who not only did essentially the same thing Trump is doing, but laid the legal foundation and set the precedent for his actions) have the nerve to pretend that while it was fine and dandy when their presidents did it, it is somehow unconstitutional when Trump does it.

And there’s the rub. Constitutionality is not a matter of who (or which party) holds the office and issues the directives; it is a matter of what the Constitution allows and requires. In this case, Article IV, Sec. 4 of that Constitution seems apropos:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

President Trump’s executive order is a balanced attempt to secure the borders of this nation against a terrorist invasion under the guise of a refugee program. The alternative is an open-door policy that allowed Iraqi terrorists to enter this country in the wake of 9/11. President Obama blocked those “refugees” then and if his actions lacked prudence it was that they did not go far enough. The salient point, though, is that no one accused him of overstepping his Constitutional boundaries in taking the action he did. Or Bush before him. Or Carter before him. Why is this any different?

It’s really starting to look like no matter how hard the left tries they just can’t seem to get a leg up on President Trump. This particular case makes it even harder for them to win when you see how former President Barack Hussein Obama did the exact same thing. But with him it was OK because he’s black and has an Islamic name, let’s not kid ourselves here.

Share if you want a travel ban from all Islamic nations!

FOLLOW us on Facebook at Freedom Daily!

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Government Intel39 mins ago

BREAKING: Homeland Security On HIGH ALERT After Who Just Went Missing Within The U.S. And It’s BAD

One-hundred-and-fifty people brought to the U.S. for military training have gone absent without leave (AWOL) and they could be dangerous....

Featured54 mins ago

Trump Just Lit The Fire By Blasting Who’s Really Responsible For Rise In Crime, Doesn’t Care Who He Offends!

Donald Trump sparked controversy, possibly offending a lot of people, after Tweeting about a 13% crime rise in the United...

Culture1 hour ago

Racist Protesting Player Just Got Blindsided With BRUTAL Karma Have Tackling Ref In Fit Of Rage

One of the overpaid NFL players from the Raiders made a huge mistake in “Thursday Night Football” when his team...

Culture3 hours ago

Anti-American Spurs Just Enraged Every Fan With HUGE Message They Broadcasted Before Their Last Game

Prior to the year 2017, being a professional athlete was about your ability to play your chosen game and how...

Culture4 hours ago

Right After NFL Legend Mike Ditka SLAMS Obama As ‘Worst President In History’ He Gets NASTY Surprise

Being a conservative in TV isn’t good for your career. In fact, you don’t even have to be a conservative,...

Politics5 hours ago

Look What Just Happened To White Female Cop On Job After Who Saw What She Said About Anti-American NFL

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder has made a statement saying that Michigan State Police director Col. Kriste Kibbey Etue will lose...

Politics5 hours ago

Rogue Judge Just Stabbed Trump In Back With What She Did To Secretly DESTROY Pardoned Sheriff Joe

Here we go again. Once again an activist rogue judge intent on legislating from the bench has decided to not...

Trending