Saudis "foremost" among countries who bankroll terror in UK
Tom Wilson, writing for The Henry Jackson Society
“Foreign funding for Islamist extremism in Britain primarily comes from governments and government linked foundations based in the Gulf, as well as Iran. Foremost among these has been Saudi Arabia, which since the 1960s has sponsored a multimillion dollar effort to export Wahhabi Islam across the Islamic world, including to Muslim communities in the West.” Across the United Kingdom, this funding has primarily “taken the form of endowments to mosques and Islamic educational institutions, which have apparently, in turn, played host to Islamist extremist preachers and the distribution of extremist literature.” Other European nations, notably Austria and France, have taken steps to limit the funding of mosques from abroad. Even if the British government stops short of blocking foreign funding, “measures might be considered that would oblige institutions to show more transparency on certain kinds funding from abroad.”
Localities are driving the train on legalizing immigrants
Tanvi Misra, writing for CityLab
With citizenship applications at their highest rate in two decades, it is important to note that much of the increase is not necessarily due to anxiety over the administration’s immigration policies but “a push for citizenship by city and local governments, especially those so-called heartland states.” Getting immigrants out of legal limbo “can help the average immigrant improve earnings by $3,200 a year, and also improve homeownership and employment rates,” leading to a larger tax base and increased revenue. “Still, many legal permanent residents who are eligible to apply don’t. The reason? Prohibitive application fees and language barriers. That’s where local governments can help. Among other things, they can promote English language programs, citizenship classes, and mitigate some of the rising costs.”
Donald Trump as George Costanza?
Jacob Sullum, writing for Reason
Journalists who cover President Trump “tend to treat every inaccurate, unfounded, or even debatable statement he makes as a lie.” This is a mistake. While he certainly utters many untruths, such statements “are best understood not as lies but as ego-stroking delusions,” from the crowd sizes at his inauguration to the size of his electoral victory. The media must be cautious in judging “the president’s state of mind when he says things that are inconsistent with reality. Pointing out the inconsistency is fair and necessary in reporting the news; reaching a conclusion about the president’s motive is neither.” After all, maybe it’s not a lie if the president truly believes it.