cj.myfreeforum.org Forum Index cj.myfreeforum.org
NEWS, prophecy, dreams, ZionsCRY, Bible, teaching, visions
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

House of Representatives (Nunes, Chaffetz)
Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    cj.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> America NEWS
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.






Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
BornAgain2



Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17196



PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:41 pm    Post subject: House of Representatives (Nunes, Chaffetz)  Reply with quote




House rejects farm bill
21 Jun 2013
House rejects massive farm bill that would have cut food stamps;
62 Republicans vote no
The House rejected a five-year, half-trillion-dollar farm bill Thursday that would have cut $2 billion annually from food stamps and let states impose broad new work requirements on those who receive them.

Those cuts weren't deep enough for many Republicans who objected to the cost of the nearly $80 billion-a-year food stamp program, which has doubled in the past five years. The vote was 234-195 against the bill, with 62 Republicans voting against it.

The bill also suffered from lack of Democratic support necessary for the traditionally bipartisan farm bill to pass. Only 24 Democrats voted in favor of the legislation after many said the food stamp cuts could remove as many as 2 million needy recipients from the rolls. The addition of the optional state work requirements by Republican amendment just before final passage turned away many remaining Democratic votes.

Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., and No. 2 Democrat Steny Hoyer of Maryland, both of whom voted for the bill, immediately took to the House floor and blamed the other's party for the defeat.

Cantor said it was a "disappointing day" and that Democrats had been a "disappointing player."

Hoyer suggested that Republicans voted for the food stamp work requirements to tank the bill.

"What happened today is you turned a bipartisan bill, necessary for our farmers, necessary for our consumers, necessary for the people of America, that many of us would have supported, and you turned it into a partisan bill," he said.

The Senate overwhelmingly passed its version of the farm bill last week, with about $2.4 billion a year in overall cuts and a $400 million annual decrease in food stamps — one-fifth of the House bill's food stamp cuts. The White House was supportive of the Senate version but had issued a veto threat of the House bill.

If the two chambers cannot come together on a bill, farm-state lawmakers could push for an extension of the 2008 farm bill that expires in September or negotiate a new bill with the Senate and try again.

Some conservatives have suggested separating the farm programs and the food stamps into separate bills. Farm-state lawmakers have for decades added food stamps to farm bills to garner urban votes for the rural bill. But that marriage has made passage harder this year.

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., said Thursday that the committee is assessing all its options and will continue its work in the "near future."

Just before the vote, Lucas pleaded with his colleagues' support, saying that if the measure didn't pass people would use it as an example of a dysfunctional Congress.
"If it fails today I can't guarantee you'll see in this Congress another attempt," he said.
http://news.yahoo.com/house-rejects-farm-bill-62-180541628.html


So the Dem-lead Senate passes it, but the GOP-lead House didn't, largely b/c of the lack of GOP votes and the Dems not voting for it?
Pt being that it just seems like more Hegelian Dialectic/play-the-blame-game, etc mumble-jumble nonsense that Congress almost always does to end up getting what they want in the long run. Remember the bank bailout bill in 2008 when it was initially defeated by the House? Next thing everyone knew, Henry Paulson started making threats of Martial Law, and voila the bank bailout bill passed through with ease - the part where it was initially defeated by the House was probably show and tell as well to trigger Paulson's antics.


USA CONGRESS
http://cj.myfreeforum.org/about1556.html

USA SINATE
http://cj.myfreeforum.org/about1983.html

USA HOUSE of Representatives
who no longer represent Americans
http://cj.myfreeforum.org/about4339.html


              Posted   <*))))><   by  

HARBINGER  WARNINGS - Isaiah 9 prophecy
When GOD destroys USA, you cant say He didnt WARN us!
http://cj.myfreeforum.org/about2307.html


     
DAILY NEWS with prophetic analysis    
http://tinyurl.com/ZcryNEW


 
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BornAgain2



Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17196



PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Again, I know everything we see on Capitol Hill is nothing more than a dog and pony show(good vs evil, where you pick the good side of your choice), but nonetheless at the same time we can see how the world's powers operates through what scripture says.

Looks like John Boehner(House Speaker) is getting all the blame for this, and not Obama nor his fellow "Democrats". But again, all of this is nothing more than a puppet show to get the citizens of the country distracted one way.

House's rejection of farm bill leaves few options
http://news.yahoo.com/houses-reje...leaves-few-options-075057840.html
6/21/13
Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House's broad rejection of a massive farm bill could signal a shift in the way Congress views agriculture policy.

Farm issues once had enormous clout on Capitol Hill, but the healthy agriculture economy and an increased interest in cutting spending have worked against farm-state lawmakers who are now trying to push a farm bill through for a third year in a row.

The five-year, half-trillion dollar measure would have expanded some subsidies while saving about $4 billion annually overall, including a 3 percent cut in the almost $80 billion-a-year food stamp program. The vote Thursday was 234-195 against the bill, with 62 Republicans voting "no," arguing it was too expensive.

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., said after the vote that the committee is assessing its options.

But just before the vote, he signaled that he was not optimistic he would be able to get another bill to the floor.

"I can't guarantee you'll see in this Congress another attempt," he said.

Lucas and other rural lawmakers argue that a farm bill is needed to avert crises stemming from bad weather or price collapses. They could push for an extension of the 2008 farm bill, which expires in September, or negotiate a new bill with the Senate and try again. Some conservatives have suggested separating the farm programs from the food stamps into separate bills.

Lawmakers on the agriculture committees have for decades added food stamps to farm bills to garner urban votes. But that marriage has made passage harder this year.

Cont'd

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BornAgain2



Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17196



PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://news.yahoo.com/house-gop-r...icially-no-control-192900400.html
6/20/13
The House GOP revolts: John Boehner officially has no control over his caucus

The speaker suffers another embarrassing defeat at the hands of his own party

In a stinging blow to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), the House on Thursday voted down a five-year farm bill, with 62 Republicans siding against the party leadership and voting no.

By a vote of 234 to 195, the House defeated the measure, largely over objections to proposed cuts to food stamps. Democrats decried those cuts as too deep, while conservative Republicans who joined them said those cuts should have been much deeper.

The embarrassing defeat for Boehner comes one year after he opted to not even bring the massive, $940 billion measure to the floor for a vote because of Republican objections. The bill was thought to have had more bipartisan support this time around, and its defeat came as a surprise.

Boehner even took the unusual step of publicly backing the bill — to no avail. And to pour salt in the wound, the divisive food-stamp cuts that scuttled the legislation had been pushed by Boehner's top lieutenant, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.).

Republicans tried to pin the blame for the bill's defeat on Democrats, saying they'd been banking on 40 promised votes from across the aisle that allegedly evaporated at the last moment; only 24 Democrats voted in favor of the bill. Yet as Roll Call pointed out, even with all 40 of those votes, the bill still would have failed.

Many pundits pointed to the defeat as further evidence that Boehner is a singularly ineffective speaker who cannot control the far right wing of his caucus. "House Republicans simply cannot be led by anyone at the moment," the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza observed.

"The majority party in the House should never — repeat NEVER — lose floor votes on major (or, really, minor) pieces of legislation," he said. "Republicans, literally, write the rules governing the debate — and, as the majority, must ensure that even in the worst case scenario that they can get the 'yeas' they need from their own side."

National Review's Daniel Foster concurred, saying Boehner had made a "tactical mistake" in forgetting that "the Honey Badger that is the House GOP don't care."

The fact is House Republicans remain untamable. This isn't the first — or fifth — time John Boehner has been dealt a surprise defeat on a floor vote. I don't think he's a bad Speaker, per se, but this caucus is unusually independent for a House majority, and the institutional levers that have traditionally afforded leadership great control over the herd have proven insufficient with this group." [National Review]

Remember, Boehner has been badly burned by his own party before. After much chest-thumping aimed at President Obama during last year's budget negotiations, he ultimately had to pull his "Plan B" budget bill last December for lack of Republican support. Once the new Congress convened in January, there were even concerns he'd get booted from the speakership.

Following the farm bill's defeat, Red State's Erick Erickson wondered if it was only a matter of time before Boehner lose his post.

Does John Boehner have any clout left after publicly saying he would take the rare act as Speaker of voting for the farm bill? Pasture time?
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) June 20, 2013

The farm bill defeat also underscored why Boehner has taken such a delicate approach toward the massive immigration bill winding through the Senate. Even though the bill is gaining strong bipartisan support in the upper chamber, it contains a pathway to citizenship loathed by many on the far right.

If Boehner couldn't get his party in line on a largely bipartisan farm bill, what are his odds of wrangling party members on a more controversial one to completely overhaul the immigration system?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BornAgain2



Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17196



PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/0...rm-bills-failure-right-about-now/
6/21/13
Agribusiness lobbyists pretty upset about that farm bill’s failure right about now

The House version of the farm bill that failed to glean the necessary votes to pass and move to conference with the Senate’s version on Thursday afternoon certainly might not have been the most watched or well-known piece of legislation hanging over the country, but the fact that it was unexpectedly thwarted was quite the dramatic turn of events on Capitol Hill.

The many farm and agribusiness lobbyists who were relying on the bill’s passage to safeguard the status quo and their countless specially interested, pork-tossing programs were shocked — righteously, indignantly shocked, I say! — and plan to continue to press the House leadership so that they can get theirs, ****, no matter how much market distortion and taxpayer money it costs the American economy and budget. Via The Hill:

Quote:
“We were shocked. We were watching the vote on TV and in the final minutes were saying ‘what are they doing? This thing isn’t going to pass!” said one commodity group lobbyist.

“I’m shocked,” said another lobbyist. “Our job as agriculture is to go to the House and say Mr. Speaker what is your plan for getting this done?” …

Lawmakers on the House Agriculture Committee were holding calls and frantic closed-door meetings with lobbyists to discuss their next moves, sources said. …

The House bill was heavily backed by commodity groups, from rice and peanut producers in the South to corn, wheat and soy growers in the Midwest to the American Farm Bureau Federation and National Farmers Union. …

The gloom in the official statements from farm organizations was pervasive.

“Rather than pass a bill that reduces the deficit by $40 billion while meeting the commitments of a farm bill, the country was treated to more Washington dysfunction,” USA Rice Producers’ Group chairwoman Linda Raun said. “Patience in farm country is wearing thin.”


The heart bleeds.

The bill failed because of a number of Republicans’ insistence that the bill needed to make deeper cuts to both certain farm programs and food stamps (which, I would merely add, have grown about 70 percent in less than five years to an $80 billion/year program), which, when combined with a number of Democrats’ intransigence on allowing what they interpreted as too many, too draconian cuts to food stamps (by a little over $2 billion a year and adding work requirements, gasp!), took the bill down.

As one lobbyist put it, “I don’t know how you solve this. If you reduce the food stamp cuts to $16 billion how many Democrats do you gain, how many people do you lose?” One solution might be to end the marriage-of-convenience between food stamps and farm programs so that we can at least have a more transparent and honest debate about the wisdom of federal policy on both, except that neither lobbyists nor many lawmakers would care for that solution — it’s the very omnibus nature of the so-called farm bill that usually helps the farm bill’s spectacular awfulness to speed beneath the radar and garner both urban and rural votes.

It would seem that lawmakers are, for the moment, at an impasse — as Conn Carroll pointed out at the Washington Examiner, that doesn’t seem to bode well for the Senate’s immigration debate, does it?

Quote:
After the Senate voted 66 to 27 to pass the Farm Bill two weeks ago, the House rejected the bill 234-195 yesterday. …

A majority of the House Republican Caucus will never vote for any bill that gives citizenship to those illegal immigrants already in the country. The only hope Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, ever had of moving amnesty through the House was on the backs of Democratic votes. After the Farm Bill, House Republican leaders are reassessing that strategy.

“I’d think that Democrats’ decision to sandbag us on the farm bill today makes it obvious how impractical it would be to rely on them for votes on immigration,” a GOP leadership aide told Roll Call.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BornAgain2



Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17196



PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Remember when GOP Scott Brown was elected Senator in MA to replace the recently deceased Ted Kennedy in a special election? At the time, everyone thought it put Obamacare legislation dead in the water b/c the Dems no longer had the 60 votes. Even the "truth movement" was buying into this and calling this a big victory(ie-there were "truth movement" people in MA getting people to vote for Brown).

Again, I know the whole GOP vs Dem thing is nothing but a puppet show, but point being that this is one of the tactics TPTB seems to use - they'll make you think draconian legislation is put away for good one minute when something like this happens to the "party" that is pushing it, but the next minute when pretty much everyone isn't looking, they'll slip it right under everyone's noses(ie-Obamacare eventually got passed a couple of months later with a mere 51 votes in the Senate, and Brown pretty much voted with Obama on a number of other pieces of legislation).

Same I potentially see with this one - they're trying to make everyone believe immigration reform might be put away for good b/c the GOP Congress couldn't pass this Farm Bill(after the Dem-lead Senate passed it). No, I'm not saying it will or won't pass, but nonetheless it's a good idea we don't count those chickens before their eggs are hatched!

Also - the fact that Rudy Guilliani(another globalist) was campaigning for Brown at the time should have raised red flags!

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_new...s-about-immigrations-chances?lite
6/21/13
First Thoughts: What the farm bill's defeat tells us about immigration's chances

By Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Brooke Brower, NBC News

Quote:
*** What the farm bill’s defeat tells us about immigration’s chances in the House: The farm bill’s surprising defeat in the House yesterday was a stinging defeat for Speaker John Boehner and the GOP leadership, as well as another sign of the dysfunction on Capitol Hill. And the legislation’s defeat reminds us of some important lessons, especially when it comes to how the House might handle the immigration legislation the Senate is debating. First, conservative outside groups -- like Heritage Action and Club for Growth -- are almost as powerful (maybe more so) than GOP leaders. They opposed the farm bill, and 62 Republicans voted against it. Second, when those groups are part of the opposition, that means the GOP leadership needs to find Democratic votes for passage. Yesterday, just 24 Democrats supported the farm bill due in large part because the House legislation cut the food-stamp program more than the already-passed Senate bill did and because the GOP added an amendment applying welfare-work requirements for food stamps; the White House had also issued a veto threat. In other words, the so-called “Hastert Rule” -- only bringing legislation to the floor that has support from a majority of the majority -- goes so far; if enough Republicans are going to vote against legislation, then they have to be replaced by Democratic votes. Third and perhaps most importantly, the House is so unpredictable. Yesterday, in fact, was hardly the first time that Republican leaders thought they had the votes to pass something but ultimately didn’t. They can’t count votes.

Cont'd


Well - will stop right there after this first paragraph - look how much confusion they throw at you. The GOP is (supposedly)known for wanting to cut welfare/food stamps(which this bill pretty much does - cutting down on giving out free lunches). But this bill gets voted down b/c of their own 62 GOP Congressmen AND powerful GOP lobbyists, the same ones that support cutting welfare/food stamps?

And even if the House did pass it, Obama was going to likely veto it, so what was the big deal?

Again, this whole thing may just have been a sideshow to intensify the Hegelian Dialectic talk over immigration reform. Or it may have been just a distraction while this same Capitol Hill quietly pushes immigration reform.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BornAgain2



Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17196



PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

U.S. likely to extend old farm law after House derails new bill
6/21/13  WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Congress is headed for a second stop-gap extension of current farm law if Republican leaders in the House of Representatives cannot get new legislation back on track after a stunning defeat.

Farm lobbyists and analysts on Friday said a short-term extension was the easiest resolution of the previous day's legislative chaos, which derailed Republican plans for major reform to crop subsidies and food stamps.

As the debate rolls on, there will be no impact on food stamps, which account for about 75 percent of farm bill spending, and crop insurance, now the largest part of the safety net for farmers.

Both programs are permanently authorized and would stay in operation if the current law is allowed to lapse, funded via annual appropriations bills.

On Thursday, the House, in an unprecedented step, defeated the five-year, $500 billion bill after Republican leaders were unable to get the votes they expected from fiscally conservative members of their party's Tea Party wing.
http://news.yahoo.com/u-likely-ex...-law-house-derails-231104182.html


ADDED ......

DREAM or Nightmare
House passes Dream Act
Amnesty for criminals almost law in USA
December  9,  2010  
 - The House passed legislation Wednesday to give hundreds of thousands of foreign-born youngsters brought to the country illegally a shot at legal status, a fleeting victory for an effort that appears doomed in the Senate.

The so-called Dream Act, which passed the House 216-198, has been viewed by Hispanic activists and immigrant advocates as a downpayment on what they had hoped would be broader action by Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress to give the nation's 10 million to 12 million undocumented immigrants a chance to gain legal status.
Critics railed against the measure, calling it a backdoor grant of amnesty that would encourage more foreigners to sneak into the United States in hopes of being legalized eventually.

The Senate is expected Thursday to vote on whether to advance similar legislation, but it's unlikely Democrats can muster the 60 votes needed to advance it past opposition by Republicans and a handful of their own members.
"It's an uphill struggle," Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat, acknowledged.
http://www.scpr.org/news/2010/12/08/dream-act-passes-house
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BornAgain2



Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17196



PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/th...-recipients-record-150015885.html
6/27/13
Food Stamp Issue Derails Farm Bill as Recipients at Record High

Last week's dramatic defeat of the farm bill in the House put a fresh emphasis on the issue of food stamps in the U.S., just as the number of recipients for the program sits at a record high.

The 195-234 vote against the $500 billion farm policy bill, a version of which the Senate passed earlier this month, came amid congressional disagreements regarding cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Keen focus was placed on an amendment put forth by Republican Rep. Steve Southerland, which required beneficiaries to sign up for employment-training programs in order to continue receiving food stamps. Many Democrats, who may have been willing to OK the $20 billion in food-stamp cuts the House version included, balked at the amendment, and only 24 ultimately voted for passage of the bill. Another dysfunctional-family blame game between the GOP and Democrats ensued as the defeat provided a serious blow to House Speaker John Boehner.

What will happen next with the farm bill, which has been operating under rolling extensions since the the old bill's 2008 expiration, remains to be seen. But its failure to thrive in the face of the food-stamp fight comes as the number of U.S. citizens receiving this benefit, at 47.7 million as of March of this year, exceeds the entire population of Spain, the sixth-most-populous country in the European Union.

Enrollment in SNAP has soared by 70% in the past five years; the U.S. shelled out a record $74.6 billion on the program in 2012, more than double what was spent in 2008, when the financial crisis hit in full force toward the end of the year. The U.S. officially exited the Great Recession, which began in 2007, in June of 2009. Since then, the economy has experienced a slowly churning recovery — with plenty of hiccups — marked by an increase in payroll levels, a slow-and-steady housing comeback and a massive pop in equities that's been at least partially fueled by unprecedented monetary stimulus.

But amid the recovery, the U.S. has also seen an increase in poverty levels, which the Census Bureau puts at 15.9% of the total population, or close to 50 million citizens. The Census Bureau puts close to 50 million Americans, or 15.9% of the total population, at or below the poverty level. In 2008, that figure was 13.2% of the population. And, while the unemployment rate has fallen from 10.1% at its Great Recession peak to 7.6% in May, 11.8 million Americans still remain without work, while 4.4 million are among the long-term unemployed.

Along with a push from many states to encourage more eligible people to apply for the federally funded SNAP program, the rise in food-stamp recipients can also be traced to rules with roots in former President Bill Clinton's sweeping 1996 welfare overhaul. The rules allow for a slight relaxing in the income and asset tests for eligible food stamp recipients, meaning they can apply for such benefits before they wipe out all their savings and need even more assistance. The Obama administration encouraged states to ease these rules during the financial crisis, in an attempt to stem rising poverty rates in a critical economic hardship environment. So while the gross monthly income for an eligible household (with three members) must generally be at or below 130% of the poverty line (around $23,800 annually), and assets must typically not go above $3,250, exceptions can be made. For example, a recent Wall Street Journal article  interviewed a SNAP recipient who had more than $5,000 in savings but was still eligible for the program.

As the article points out, the relaxed rules are "one reason why SNAP appears to have evolved from a program that rose and fell with the unemployment rate to a more permanent feature of the landscape."

Almost 75% of of SNAP beneficiaries are families with one or more child; more than one-quarter of homes that receive food stamps include senior citizens or people with disabilities. The typical SNAP recipient received about $133.41 in benefits per month in fiscal year 2012. -- Rebecca Stropoli
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BornAgain2



Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17196



PostPosted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 5:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

House Passes Republican Farm Bill Without Food Stamp Aid
11 July 2013, by Alan Bjerga & Derek Wallbank (Bloomberg)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/201...-bill-without-food-stamp-aid.html

Excerpt:

House Republicans passed a five-year U.S. farm-policy bill that retains subsidies to farmers and strips out food-stamp spending, costing it Democratic support.

The plan was approved today 216-208, with all Democrats and 12 Republicans in opposition.

The measure also would repeal underlying provisions that potentially would double milk prices when a new law isn’t passed.

The measure, scaled back after the House defeated a bill that included food stamps three weeks ago, is “extremely flawed,” said Senator Debbie Stabenow, chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

“The bill passed by the House today is not a real farm bill and is an insult to rural America,” the Michigan Democrat, who will lead Senate negotiators to work out a final bill with House lawmakers, said in a statement after the vote.

The legislation, which benefits crop buyers such as Archer-Daniels-Midland and insurers including Wells Fargo, has been working through Congress for almost two years.

The Senate on June 10 passed S. 954, a plan that would cost $955 billion over a decade. Current law begins to expire Sept. 30.

The Obama administration has threatened to veto the farm measure that excludes food stamp and nutrition programs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BornAgain2



Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17196



PostPosted: Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.clarionproject.org/ana...muslim-brotherhood-farm-subsidies
U.S. Gov't Gives Muslim Brotherhood 'Farm Subsidies'

The payments are just one of many examples of American taxpayer money being spent to benefit Islamist groups.

2/3/14

The North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity, has been given over $10,000 in farm subsidies since 1998. The payments are just another example of taxpayer money being spent to benefit Islamist groups.

Fox News reports that NAIT is being funded by 34 different government programs and receives subsidies for its two “agricultural” lands that are not being used for agricultural purposes. The report quotes an expert as assessing that NAIT’s activity in this regard is “probably legal,” as shocking as it seems.

NAIT was first identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front by the FBI in the 1980s. A declassified FBI memodocuments that a source inside the American Muslim Brotherhood said that NAIT is “under the direction and control of the IKHWAN[Muslim Brotherhood] in the United States has as its ultimate goal political control of all non-Islamic governments in the world.”

Another declassified FBI memo from 1987 states that NAIT is receiving money from Iran, Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries and “many” of its leaders supported the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran. The FBI’s source reported on NAIT’s “support of JIHAD (a holy war) in the U.S.” and “support of terrorism in the U.S. to further the revolution.”

A 1991 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood document says its U.S. operations are “kind of a grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.” It lists NAIT as one of “our organizations and the organizations of our friends.”

In 2007, the U.S. government described NAIT as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity and labeled it an unindicted co-conspirator in a major terrorism-financing trial. The designation was upheld in 2009 by a federal judge, but he ruled against the previous public disclosure of the designation. This has been repeatedly misreported, including in the Fox News report, as a lifting of the designation.

NAIT says it holds the titles to over 325 properties in 42 states. The Fox report states that NAIT uses Allied Asset Advisors, a company it owns and shares an address with, to buy mosques.

The subsidies to NAIT were sent to the Islamic Center of Central Missouri Mosque. The mosque’s constitution says it is “entrusted” with NAIT and officially affiliated with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim Students Association, two other groups with Muslim Brotherhood origins. Like NAIT, ISNA was also designated an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial.

According to Fox, the farm subsidies were temporarily halted between 2008 and 2011.

It cannot be argued that NAIT has shed its past extremism. One of its current trustees is Muzammil Siddiqi, a former president of ISNA. In 1996, while president of ISNA, he said Muslims “should participate in the [democratic] system to safeguard our interest and try to bring gradual change…We must not forget that Allah’s rules have to be established in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction.”

In 2001, he even called for the brutal judicial system of Sharia to eventually be established in America. He said that Muslims are not required to follow Sharia’s criminal law when they live in a non-Muslim country, but “Once more people accept Islam, insha’llah, this will lead to the implementation of Sharia in all areas.”

NAIT isn’t the only radical group getting farm subsidies courtesy of American taxpayers. Last year, it was discovered that the Nation of Islam was awarded $103,539 between 2008 and 2011. It also got a $26,357 “community loan” when the Bush Administration was in office.

The funding went to a Nation of Islam charity named Three Years Economic Savings, even though its status with the Illinois Secretary of State is “not in good standing.” The charity also operates under the name of “Muhammad Farms” in Georgia and is listed at Louis Farrakhan’s address.

The Clarion Project also discovered that the U.S. Air Force is paying ISNA for advertisements in its magazine. A spokesperson for the Air Force confirmed to Clarion that $4,800 was spent on two ads to recruit Air Force chaplains. When Clarion provided the spokesperson with documentation about ISNA’s past and asked whether such payments would continue, the spokesperson said:

The Islamic Society of North America is one of many religious organizations recognized by the Department of Defense that satisfy the ecclesiastical requirements to endorse qualified religious ministry professionals to serve as chaplains within the Military Departments.”

Another example is the radical mosque, Dar al-Hijrah, that has significant links to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. Its current imam is an open supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood and he preached in favor of violent jihad last year inside a Virginia high school.

In 2010, it was found that the Census Bureau was paying $23,000 per month since 2008 to rent space owned by the mosque. The total contract for the lease was $582,000 through 2010. The discovery prompted members of Congress to demand accountability.

The U.S. Debt Clock has the deficit at over $648 billion and the total debt at over $17 trillion. The Islamist cause is the last thing the U.S. government should be spending money on.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    cj.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> America NEWS All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 1 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum