Saturday, July 22, 2017


by -

The United States remains the largest funder of the United Nations today and another $5 billion has been requested to fund UN operations in 2017.

The U.S. Department of State has requested $3.9 billion to fund the United Nations and “international organizations” which partially funds the full $5 billion requested by the United Nations and recommended by Ted Turner’s group, A Better World Foundation.

That amount represents an additional forty-one dollars that 122 million American taxpayers must pony up.

Following fallout from the UN’s resolution condemning Israel’s settlements in the West Bank, incoming President Donald Trump already has a few choice words for the United Nations that he expressed on Twitter:

Even worse for the UN, Israeli officials plan to provide Trump and his team with “detailed, sensitive information” that uncovers the “covert” role that President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry played in drafting the resolution.

The federal government is currently funded through April 28, 2017 through a Continuing Resolution (CR) passed by the 114th Congress.

Trump would have the power to veto the 2017 Federal Budget if it includes funding for the United Nations.

Additionally, President-Elect Trump may use the power of “Impoundment” that gives him authority to rescind funds that have been already approved by Congress. However, the rescission must then be cleared by Congress, creating a never-ending fight to not spending money.

Before the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, Presidents enjoyed the liberty of not spending money that had been appropriated by Congress.

Thomas Jefferson was the first to use the power to prevent debt spending in 1801.

Donald Trump will have a number of options to cut funding to the United Nations . . . as well as other wasteful budget items that taxpayers are currently involuntarily funding.

Will Trump kill funding to the United Nations or maintain the status quo?

Do you want your forty-one dollars back? Comment below.

by -

Right now the US government controls the Internet and has the ability to shut it down, but Obama doesn’t want the responsibility.

The Department of Commerce is going to turn over American control over the Internet to an international group. The transfer is to be finalized by October 1st.

Control of the Internet is moving to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which is a multistakeholder group that includes countries like Russia and China.

China already regulates the Internet for it’s citizens and controls the news and information they get. Now the leaders in China that censor information to their people will also be one of the groups in charge of our Internet.

By giving up control of the Internet, it does allow the possibility that a foreign group could shut down of web or all of it.

Why would Obama do something like this?

Obama has been pushing to give up the control of the Internet, but there is no concrete reason. IT could have something to do with his legacy or even plans he has after the White House, but many people think this is a bad idea and could be illegal.

Republicans are trying to fight the move by saying the President does not have the authority to use tax dollars to give federal property to foreign countries.

Many group are concerned about the move to. 25 conservative groups like Heritage Action and Americans for Tax Reform sent a letter to Congress urging them to stop the transfer.

Many are upset that this was done unilaterally again and without Congress’ approval. You would think if we are giving up the power to control one of the greatest inventions of all time, then we should at least get Congress to approve.

That is not the case, Obama doesn’t need Congress and apparently we don’t need control of the Internet.

Do you think Obama should give up the control of the Internet? Let us know in the comments below.

by -
western wall

A key United Nations agency is under fire–for declaring that Judaism’s holiest site in Jerusalem shouldn’t be considered a part of Jewish heritage, and should instead be considered part of a nearby Islamic mosque.

The United Nation’s Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) ruled that Jerusalem’s famed Western Wall–which is one of the most holy sites in all of Judaism, but also a major site in Islam–is part of the al-Aqsa Mosque.

Israeli Ambassador to UNESCO Carmel Shama Hacohen immediately slammed the resolution, calling it “a total Islamization” of a site that’s important to both religions.

Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs added, in a statement: “This is a clear endeavor to distort history, in order to erase the connection between the Jewish People and its holiest site, and to create a false reality.”

Even Israel’s President Benjamin Netanyahu joined the fray: “If the places where the Jewish nation’s forefathers and mothers–Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Rebecca, Leah and Rachel–were buried 4,000 years ago is not part of the Jewish nation’s heritage, then what is a heritage site?”

UNESCO’s five-page draft resolution was written by Muslim powers like Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Kuwait, Morocco, and the United Arab Emirates on behalf of the Palestinian Authority (which is not fully recognized as a country by the UN.) It makes no mention of the site being a Jewish holy site, dating back thousands of years. But it does condemn Israel’s recent military actions in Palestinian-claimed territories like the West Bank and Gaza. It refers to Israel as “Israel, the Occupying Power.”

Currently, the Western Wall is overseen by an Islamic trust called the Waqf. Jews, by religious decree, are not allowed to pray at the Muslim-controlled Jewish holy site, Temple Mount; the Western Wall is the closest they’re allowed to get.

But, under the new UNESCO rules, even that could be scrapped.

The line assigning the Western Wall to Islam is only one sentence in the larger document–but it could threaten the entire resolution, which is now expected not to pass.


PR Firm

A Democrat Florida state lawmaker helped pass a bill that allocated $1.5 million to a nonprofit that she founded and pays her a six-figure...