president trump signing executive order

PresidentTrump Signs Executive Order Defunding Planned Parenthood International

Donald J. Trump has taken the first step confirming his promise to be a pro-life President. The day after the rallies by pro-abortionists across the United States and overseas, the President by executive order defunded Planned Parenthood International.

Steven Ertelt from Life Site News reports:

President Donald Trump today signed an executive order to defund International Planned Parenthood.

Most pro-life Americans are anxiously awaiting Congress to pass a bill to defund the Planned Parenthood abortion business. While that defunding legislation concerns the domestic-based Planned Parenthood abortion corporation, President Trump has the ability to put in place an executive order that would revoke funding for its International affiliate.

When pro-abortion former President Barack Obama took office, Obama overturned a policy that prevented funding of groups that promote or perform abortions overseas. The Mexico City Policy covered over $400 million in federal funds, part of which flowed to the abortion businesses International Planned Parenthood and Marie Stopes International for their foreign efforts.

As LifeNews.com reported, the pro-life policy had been in place during the entirety of the Bush administration and Obama rescinded it on his first week in office. Named for a 1984 population conference where President Reagan initially announced it, the Mexico City Policy made it so family planning funds could only go to groups that would agree to not do abortions or lobby foreign nations to overturn their pro-life laws.

Today, Trump restored the Mexico City Policy by executive order.

Read more…

Every day Americans learn that President Trump is a man of his word. Tens of thousands of the innocent will now live with this stroke of a pen.

RELATED ARTICLE: Pastors lift Trump administration as ‘God’s instruments for good’

trump-twitter

WH Press Secretary echos Hillary Clinton who labeled fake news ‘an epidemic’ with real world consequences

Dan Merica, from CNN in a column titled “Hillary Clinton calls fake news ‘an epidemic’ with real world consequences” wrote:

Hillary Clinton, speaking in public Thursday [December 8th, 2016] for one of the first times since losing the presidential election a month ago, called the proliferation of fake news “an epidemic.”

[ … ]

Clinton said the spread of fake news, which has “flooded social media over the past year,” is a trend that “can have real world consequences.”

Read more…

The media is up in arms after White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer held an impromptu press conference on Saturday, January 21st, holding the press accountable for two fake news reports during and after the inauguration. Watch what Spicer said in the video below:

Every media outlet, with few exceptions, is out to get President Trump and those who elected him as the 45th President of the United States.

The media is in lock step with organizations such as George Soros’ Open Society, MoveOn.org, Code Pink, Planned Parenthood, Muslim supremacist members of the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Democrat Party, the Communist Party USA and many more.

There, unlike the love and tingle of an Obama by the media, is no honey moon. Rather there is all out assault, even rape, of the First Family, including President Trump’s 10-year old son.

The media war against President Trump mirrors the media war against candidate Trump. The people hated the media during the general election for publishing reams of fake news including fake polls. The people hate the media even more today than yesterday after seeing how it lies, cheats and tweets fake news.

The fakestream media has a new sheriff in town and his name is Sean Spicer. Don’t tread on him or the President. A fair warning was given, those editors, reporters, correspondents and pundits are put on notice.

We’re mad as hell and aren’t going to take it anymore.

 

refugees

Let’s pay the refugees to go home using $3 billion in U.S. dues to the UN

Reader Harold made a suggestion this morning.  But it isn’t completely new to us. It is an idea another reader proposed in 2015—let’s pay refugees to go home!  I know many of you balked at the idea of using more of our money, but here Harold makes a suggestion for how to pay for it.

Ann.

A suggestion to send back refugees to their homeland.

How about a Refugee Repatriation Act [RRA]? The government would pay each refugee wishing to return to their home country $20,000 and provide free air fare in exchange for their US papers and/or citizenship and would NOT be eligible to return to the USA. With the United Nations handling the relocation of refugees and since the USA pays over 3 Billion of the UN’s regular and peacekeeping budget, the $20,000 dollar RRA amount would be deducted from dues the US pays to the United Nations.

St Cloud, MN and surrounding area, where I live, has a refugee problem and assimilation in our area is not taking place.

Ann, you have been out front on this refugee problem so give this suggestion some consideration.

Keep up the good work, Ann. (The $20,000 is just a suggested amount.)

Harold

I’m sure many of you assume that all the refugees we are hauling in here now want to be here.  Over the years I’ve heard from those who want to go home! They were mislead about what it was like in America and are unhappy, but they cannot afford the airfare to leave.  Setting up a program like the one Harold proposes would help identify those who hate it here and have no intention of becoming patriotic Americans.

Along these same lines, I would like to see a hotline established at the US State Department where unhappy refugees could call in to voice concerns, and the line could also be used for whistleblowers (I hear from those too!) from within the refugee contracting agencies to call in.

Although whistleblowers might now want to contact the Inspector General offices at the State Department and in the Dept. of Health and Human Services. Less chance right now of retaliation against you!

Comments worth noting is a special category at RRW to highlight readers’ ideas.  See more here.

trump inauguraton abc news

President Donald J. Trump: Of the people, by the people and for the people

President Donald John Trump took the oath of office on January 20th, 2017. The first non-politician since George Washington to hole the office of the President of these United States. A historic moment.

Some pundits called President Trump’s inauguration speech just another campaign speech. CNN’s James Tapper got it right when he called President Trump’s inaugural speech “purely populist.”

But it was more than that, it was also purely patriotic. It was a speech by a man who is of the people,  a builder of buildings who has never held public office. It was a speech by the people, for it was the “forgotten men and women” who placed him in the highest office in the land. Finally, is was a speech for the people, all of the people who love America and its values of hard work, success, love of country, love of family and most of all a love of God, the Father.

As I listened to President Trump it was clear to me that this speech, his inauguration, the Presidency was not about him but rather about me.

Here are my favorite populist quotes, with emphasis added, from a historic and unprecedented inaugural speech:

  • Today’s ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another, or from one party to another — but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People. 
  • For too long, a small group in our nation’s Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished — but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered — but the jobs left, and the factories closed.
  • The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation’s capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.
  • That all changes — starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.
  • What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people. January 20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again. The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.
  • You came by the tens of millions to become part of a historic movement the likes of which the world has never seen before. At the center of this movement is a crucial conviction: that a nation exists to serve its citizens.

Here are my favorite patriotic quotes, with emphasis added, from President Trump’s inaugural speech:

  • From this moment on, it’s going to be America First.
  • At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.
  • When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice. The Bible tells us, “How good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity.”
  • Do not let anyone tell you it cannot be done. No challenge can match the heart and fight and spirit of America.
  • A new national pride will stir our souls, lift our sights, and heal our divisions.

President Trump is a Christian President. He is a man who understands the power of God, the Father. I end my column with his words:

And whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the windswept plains of Nebraska, they look up at the same night sky, they fill their heart with the same dreams, and they are infused with the breath of life by the same almighty Creator.

Let us all pray for President Trump, Vice President Pence and our leaders in the U.S. Congress that they heard the clarion call of We The People.

Here is the video of President Trump’s full speech:

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of ABC News.

faith leader for america logo

New Group ‘Faith Leaders for America’ Launched

I wanted to share with you a most extraordinary experience I had today.  At the National Press Club in Washington, nine courageous Christian and Jewish clerics announced the formation of a new group, Faith Leaders for America.  The mission they have undertaken, together with more than sixty-five other influential clergy of different faiths and denominations, is to promote and protect our constitutional freedoms increasingly under assault – in this country, as well as overseas – from adherents to the totalitarian Islamic doctrine known as Sharia.

You can see below the presentations and responses to questions by the following remarkable men: Rev. Jerry Johnson, Rev. Jim Garlow, Rev. David Barton, Rabbi Jonathan Hausman, Lt. Gen./Rev. William G. “Jerry” Boykin (Ret.), Bishop Aubrey Shines, Bishop E.W. Jackson, Hon. Sam Rohrer and Rev. Rick Scarborough.  I strongly encourage you to watch the press conference in its entirety if you can.

Alternatively, click here if you want the highlights of these Faith Leaders’ discussion of:

  • the danger we face from Sharia supremacism;
  • the role played in advancing that agenda by the Muslim Brotherhood;
  • the insidious techniques used by the Brothers to pursue their goal of destroying Western civilization from within – including, notably, so-called “interfaith dialogue”;
  • and the necessity of designating the Brotherhood as terrorists.

It is to be profoundly hoped that the prayers offered by the Faith Leaders for America that Donald Trump will designate the Muslim Brotherhood will be answered early in his new administration.  If so, the appeal from these faith leaders will truly be the prayer heard around the world.

ABOUT FAITH LEADERS FOR AMERICA

Faith Leaders for America are clerics of various religious beliefs who share a common commitment to freedom – freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the other liberties guaranteed by our Constitution.

We oppose those who seek to restrict our freedoms on the grounds that we cannot offend their faith.

Specifically, Faith Leaders for America is an effort to assist the clergy of America in promoting real tolerance and freedom of religion in the face of the intolerant and repressive agenda of Islamic supremacists.  This is made the more urgent because of inroads that Muslim Brotherhood front groups, mosques and other Islamist organizations are making in into our nation’s religious life, communities and national fabric.

We reject intolerance promoted in the guise of tolerance.

We will work together to challenge Islamic supremacists who demand our submission to their totalitarian Sharia doctrine. They profess to be bridge-building, but theirs are one-way bridges, used for proselytizing and recruitment (dawa), not promoting true, mutual, ecumenical respect and coexistence.

We will also seek to counter the enabling of such activities by non-Muslim clerics who legitimate the Islamists and provide political cover to their subversion.

To these ends, we will provide information and facilitate training to our fellow clergy members and their congregations. In the near term, the object will be to raise their awareness of and assist in their opposition to this clearly fraudulent “interfaith dialogue” – and the larger, stealthy Brotherhood “civilization jihad” agenda it serves.

Over time, we pray that Faith Leaders for America will become an authoritative counterweight to Islamic supremacism, helping the pastoral and lay communities to understand and to meet this danger with truth, courage and conviction. 

To learn more about Faith Leaders for America go here: http://faithleadersforamerica.com/

obama wikileaks

WikiLeaks Vindicated: Understanding the Three-Faces of Barack Obama

President Obama in the waning hours of his administration has commuted the sentence of Bradly Manning. Manning, a former Army intelligence analyst, was convicted July 30, 2013. He was found guilty of 20 of the 22 charges he faced, mostly for espionage, theft and fraud. The judge found him not guilty of the most serious charge of aiding the enemy, which carries a life sentence, and treason which carries the death penalty. Manning transmitted the first classified documents to WikiLeaks in February 2010. This, the largest leak by a member of the U.S. military, came to be known as the Iraq and Afghanistan “War Logs.” He continued to transmit more material, including a video that showed a U.S. Apache helicopter in Baghdad opening fire on a group of individuals that the crew believed to be insurgents. Among the dead were Iraqi children and two journalists.

Many are wondering why President Barack Obama would commute Manning’s sentence. The answer: When you understand the Obama is not on our everything he does makes perfect sense.

The message is clear. If you expose our military secrets, the names of those who support and work with U.S forces fighting radical Islam you are deserving of a commutation. If you are a homosexual and a traitor, you are deserving of a commutation.

Who does this commutation benefit? The radical Islamists such as ISIS, Muslims who vote Democrat, the LGBT community which votes Democrats and the Alt-Left anarchists who hate America. Obama gets a thumbs up from those who hate America the most with this single commutation.

As I have written Obama has fundamentally transformed the Democrat Party into the Obamacrat Party. The three faces of which are now Marx, Mohammed and Manning.

The followers of Mohammed hate America, the followers of Marx hate America and Manning, the poster child of an LGBT traitor, hates America and betrayed his country and his fellow soldiers. Today there are some Democrats who are objecting to the commutation of Bradly Manning, but what did they do anything to stop it? Answer: NO. Silence is consent. Not to speak is to speak, not to act is to act.

Democrats knew what Obama was going to do, and by their silence endorsed this action. According to the White House website Obama has granted more commutations than any President in American history granting, as the date of this column, 1,597 clemency requests and 212 pardons.

 in a Washington Post column titled “Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years in WikiLeaks case” dated August 21, 2013 reported:

“I do not think the sentence has a legal effect on the continued investigation of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks,” said Michael Ratner, the U.S. attorney for Assange and WikiLeaks and president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights. “However, it may well embolden the government in its efforts to indict journalists such as Julian Assange. The length of the sentence demonstrates what Assange and Edward Snowden face if they are ever taken into custody by the U.S. — draconian sentences.”

This commutation has changed all of this. Obama has vindicated WikiLeaks. If you commute the sentence of the leakier, how can you try let alone condemn, the actions of WikiLeaks to publish the documents? Answer: You can’t.

With the Manning commutation WikiLeaks and Julian Assange are vindicated. We are now entering the age of leaks, courtesy of Obama and the Democrats.

RELATED ARTICLEs:

Obama’s Commutation of Manning Sentence Sends a Horrible Message

Julian Assange ‘to hand himself in and be extradited to the US’

Ryan: Obama’s Manning commutation ‘outrageous’

trump mkl iii

Michelle Obama throws support behind John Lewis’s treasonous remarks

One might think after eight years of enjoying supreme power and all that goes along with the Oval office, Michelle Obama might act as a statesman, a world leader. No she did not come to love America.  Instead, in an unprecedented act of subterfuge coming out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Michelle Obama is inciting and undermining America’s peaceful transition of power. It is vile and seditious for the First Lady, the President’s wife to publicly support treason and challenge the legitimacy of the American presidential process. The right fell into line when her radical husband was elected.

It is an outrage and wildy inappropriate for a congressman to question an incoming president’s legitimacy.

But do we expect anything else from these haters?

MICHELLE OBAMA THROWS SUPPORT BEHIND JOHN LEWIS AS NUMBER OF DEMOCRATS BOYCOTTING DONALD TRUMP’S INAUGURATION GROWS TO 26

By Barney Henderson, New York, The Telegraph, 16 January 2017 •

MICHELLE OBAMA HAS EXPRESSED HER SUPPORT FOR JOHN LEWIS FOLLOWING PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP’S RECENT ATTACK ON THE CIVIL RIGHTS ICON.

Mr Lewis, 76, a contemporary of Martin Luther King, who was badly beaten by police when marching in Selma, Alabama in 1965, said last week that Mr Trump was not a “legitimate president”.

The president-elect responded by saying Mr Lewis was “All talk, talk, talk – no action or results”

michelle obama john lewis tweet

Dr King’s youngest daughter, Bernice King, said on what would have been his 88th birthday that “God can triumph over Trump”. She was making an emotional address at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, the house of worship in Mr Lewis’ district where Dr King once preached.

“Many of you here are proud residents of the fifth congressional district and we are proud of the progress we have made here and in this city,” she said, in response to Mr Trump, who had described the area as “crime-infested” and “falling apart”.

Dr King’s oldest son, Martin Luther King III, met Mr Trump in New York on Monday and struck a conciliatory tone afterwards

US President-elect Donald Trump shakes hands with Martin Luther King III after meeting at Trump Tower in New York City on January 16, 2017

“First of all I think that in the heat of emotion a lot of things get said on both sides. I think at some point I bridge-build. The goal is to bring America together,” Mr King told reporters.

trump mlk day tweet

As a result of the row, 26 Democratic members of Congress have said they will boycott Mr Trump’s inauguration on Friday, including Mr Lewis himself.

“When you insult Rep John Lewis, you insult America,” said Yvette Clarke, a New York representative.

Some Republicans have defended Mr Trump’s criticism of Mr Lewis, arguing it was inappropriate for a congressman to question an incoming president’s legitimacy.

Following the clash with Mr Trump, book sales of Mr Lewis’ work have increased dramatically.

The top three current bestsellers on Amazon are related to the politician, while sales of his 1998 memoir, Walking with the Wind, have increased 800,000 per cent in the days following the tweets.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Geller Report.

dr martin luther king

It’s about your mental and moral qualities, not the color of your skin

“I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,” – Martin Luther King, Jr.

That was the message of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. A message lost on many in the black, white and brown communities today.

It is out of character for any race to think themselves superior to another race. It is out of character for one race to receive special treatment, regardless of past injustices, above another race. It is out of character for one to believe they are above another in their mental or moral qualities based upon the color of their skin. Every race has been enslaved, history tells us so. Dr. King wanted every American to understand that and do something about it.

Today people of color expect, no demand, that they be judged by the color of their skin rather than their mental and moral qualities.

Slavery is defined as, “a condition compared to that of a slave in respect of exhausting labor or restricted freedom.” Being superior to and demanding power over another based solely on skin color is the definition of slavery. The new slavery is being labeled a “racist.” Being labeled a racist has caused people to lose their jobs, impacted religious liberty and restricted freedom of speech.

That is not what Dr. King would have wanted.

Dr. King spent his life seeking equal justice under the law for all. That was his mission, that is his legacy. He left a legacy behind of always fighting for truth and justice. Dr. King was never ashamed of his faith and love for God the Father and His son Jesus Christ.

In 1983, Republican President Ronald Reagan signed the bill to make the third Monday in January a national holiday in honor of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. This day is set aside to commemorate and remember all the hard work and change that Dr. King achieved for racial equality during his short time on earth.

In 1963, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested for demonstrating without a permit. He wrote a letter from Birmingham Jail to call out the Birmingham government for their racial injustice.

Dr. King wrote in his letter,

In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action.

These steps are missing today. Americans witnessed a rush to violence in Orlando, Florida after the shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman, followed by riots in Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore, Maryland. There are those in the black, white and brown community who want to jump to judgement without doing their due diligence when it comes to identifying injustice. Injustice cuts both ways.

One cannot demand justice while denying justice to another. That is immoral. That is out of character.


Here is the full transcript of Dr. King’s letter from a Birmingham Jail:

16 April 1963

My Dear Fellow Clergymen:

While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities “unwise and untimely.” Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.

I think I should indicate why I am here in Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against “outsiders coming in.” I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eighty five affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Frequently we share staff, educational and financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promise. So I, along with several members of my staff, am here because I was invited here. I am here because I have organizational ties here.

But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their “thus saith the Lord” far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.

Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial “outside agitator” idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.

You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city’s white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.

In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action. We have gone through all these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiation.

Then, last September, came the opportunity to talk with leaders of Birmingham’s economic community. In the course of the negotiations, certain promises were made by the merchants–for example, to remove the stores’ humiliating racial signs. On the basis of these promises, the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to a moratorium on all demonstrations. As the weeks and months went by, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. A few signs, briefly removed, returned; the others remained. As in so many past experiences, our hopes had been blasted, and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon us. We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: “Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?” “Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?” We decided to schedule our direct action program for the Easter season, realizing that except for Christmas, this is the main shopping period of the year. Knowing that a strong economic-withdrawal program would be the by product of direct action, we felt that this would be the best time to bring pressure to bear on the merchants for the needed change.

Then it occurred to us that Birmingham’s mayoral election was coming up in March, and we speedily decided to postpone action until after election day. When we discovered that the Commissioner of Public Safety, Eugene “Bull” Connor, had piled up enough votes to be in the run off, we decided again to postpone action until the day after the run off so that the demonstrations could not be used to cloud the issues. Like many others, we waited to see Mr. Connor defeated, and to this end we endured postponement after postponement. Having aided in this community need, we felt that our direct action program could be delayed no longer.

You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: “Why didn’t you give the new city administration time to act?” The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, “Wait.” But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can’t go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: “Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?”; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading “white” and “colored”; when your first name becomes “nigger,” your middle name becomes “boy” (however old you are) and your last name becomes “John,” and your wife and mother are never given the respected title “Mrs.”; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of “nobodiness”–then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an “I it” relationship for an “I thou” relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man’s tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state’s segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s antireligious laws.

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn’t this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn’t this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn’t this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God’s will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: “All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth.” Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self respect and a sense of “somebodiness” that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle-class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad’s Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro’s frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible “devil.”

I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the “do nothingism” of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as “rabble rousers” and “outside agitators” those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies–a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare.

Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides -and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: “Get rid of your discontent.” Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist. But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” Was not Amos an extremist for justice: “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream.” Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: “I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.” Was not Martin Luther an extremist: “Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God.” And John Bunyan: “I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience.” And Abraham Lincoln: “This nation cannot survive half slave and half free.” And Thomas Jefferson: “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . .” So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary’s hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime–the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action. I am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are still all too few in quantity, but they are big in quality. Some -such as Ralph McGill, Lillian Smith, Harry Golden, James McBride Dabbs, Ann Braden and Sarah Patton Boyle–have written about our struggle in eloquent and prophetic terms. Others have marched with us down nameless streets of the South. They have languished in filthy, roach infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of policemen who view them as “dirty nigger-lovers.” Unlike so many of their moderate brothers and sisters, they have recognized the urgency of the moment and sensed the need for powerful “action” antidotes to combat the disease of segregation. Let me take note of my other major disappointment. I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership. Of course, there are some notable exceptions. I am not unmindful of the fact that each of you has taken some significant stands on this issue. I commend you, Reverend Stallings, for your Christian stand on this past Sunday, in welcoming Negroes to your worship service on a nonsegregated basis. I commend the Catholic leaders of this state for integrating Spring Hill College several years ago.

But despite these notable exceptions, I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was nurtured in its bosom; who has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of life shall lengthen.

When I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt we would be supported by the white church. I felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained glass windows.

In spite of my shattered dreams, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern, would serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed.

I have heard numerous southern religious leaders admonish their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers declare: “Follow this decree because integration is morally right and because the Negro is your brother.” In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: “Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern.” And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.

I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South’s beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: “What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of Governor Barnett dripped with words of interposition and nullification? Where were they when Governor Wallace gave a clarion call for defiance and hatred? Where were their voices of support when bruised and weary Negro men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright hills of creative protest?”

Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? I am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.

There was a time when the church was very powerful–in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators.”‘ But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were “a colony of heaven,” called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be “astronomically intimidated.” By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests. Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church’s silent–and often even vocal–sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today’s church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.

Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true ekklesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to God that some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the struggle for freedom. They have left their secure congregations and walked the streets of Albany, Georgia, with us. They have gone down the highways of the South on tortuous rides for freedom. Yes, they have gone to jail with us. Some have been dismissed from their churches, have lost the support of their bishops and fellow ministers. But they have acted in the faith that right defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. Their witness has been the spiritual salt that has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. They have carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment. I hope the church as a whole will meet the challenge of this decisive hour. But even if the church does not come to the aid of justice, I have no despair about the future. I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham, even if our motives are at present misunderstood. We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with America’s destiny. Before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson etched the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence across the pages of history, we were here. For more than two centuries our forebears labored in this country without wages; they made cotton king; they built the homes of their masters while suffering gross injustice and shameful humiliation -and yet out of a bottomless vitality they continued to thrive and develop. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands. Before closing I feel impelled to mention one other point in your statement that has troubled me profoundly. You warmly commended the Birmingham police force for keeping “order” and “preventing violence.” I doubt that you would have so warmly commended the police force if you had seen its dogs sinking their teeth into unarmed, nonviolent Negroes. I doubt that you would so quickly commend the policemen if you were to observe their ugly and inhumane treatment of Negroes here in the city jail; if you were to watch them push and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you were to see them slap and kick old Negro men and young boys; if you were to observe them, as they did on two occasions, refuse to give us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. I cannot join you in your praise of the Birmingham police department.

It is true that the police have exercised a degree of discipline in handling the demonstrators. In this sense they have conducted themselves rather “nonviolently” in public. But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany, Georgia, but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot has said: “The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason.”

I wish you had commended the Negro sit inners and demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their willingness to suffer and their amazing discipline in the midst of great provocation. One day the South will recognize its real heroes. They will be the James Merediths, with the noble sense of purpose that enables them to face jeering and hostile mobs, and with the agonizing loneliness that characterizes the life of the pioneer. They will be old, oppressed, battered Negro women, symbolized in a seventy two year old woman in Montgomery, Alabama, who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her people decided not to ride segregated buses, and who responded with ungrammatical profundity to one who inquired about her weariness: “My feets is tired, but my soul is at rest.” They will be the young high school and college students, the young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders, courageously and nonviolently sitting in at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience’ sake. One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Never before have I written so long a letter. I’m afraid it is much too long to take your precious time. I can assure you that it would have been much shorter if I had been writing from a comfortable desk, but what else can one do when he is alone in a narrow jail cell, other than write long letters, think long thoughts and pray long prayers?

If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.

I hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. I also hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a civil-rights leader but as a fellow clergyman and a Christian brother. Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.

Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood,

Martin Luther King, Jr.

RELATED ARTICLE: Why Martin Luther King, Jr. Still Matters

trump-inaguration

Shootout at U.S. Consulate Part of Terrorist Attack Plan for Inauguration

Over the years we have educated American on a dire threat as a result of our open southern border.  It consists of the deadly drug cartels, of course, but also Islamic terrorists who find common ground with the narcotics traffickers.

This week our Corruption Chronicles blog tells of an imminent threat from this unholy alliance that is tied to the inauguration of Donald Trump:

A deadly shootout at the construction site of the new American consulate occurred this week in a Mexican border town where Islamic terrorists and drug cartels plan to launch attacks against the U.S. during the period surrounding the presidential inauguration, high-level government sources tell Judicial Watch.

An unknown number of gunmen fired multiple rounds adjacent to the new U.S. consulate compound in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, a crime-infested city in the state of Tamaulipas that lies directly across from Laredo, Texas.

The Mexican military responded to the attack, law enforcement sources on both sides of the border confirm, insisting that their identities be kept confidential for security reasons, and at least three soldiers were either killed or critically wounded in the ambush.

A local newspaper in Tamaulipas reported that 13 people died during a shootout in Nuevo Laredo, referring to the deceased as heavily armed “delinquents”  with an arsenal that includes 12 automatic weapons, a rocket launcher, grenade, loads of ammunition and drugs in three vehicles, one of them armored. The deceased have not been identified and Mexican authorities will continue to investigate, the article states, attributing the information to a press release issued by Mexico’s Defense Secretary.

Judicial Watch’s law enforcement and intelligence sources say the barrage outside what’s soon to be the new U.S. consulate is connected to a broad operation between Islamic terrorists and Mexican drug cartels to send President-elect Donald Trump a message by engaging in attacks at border ports.

“Cartels usually don’t work with jihadists for fear of having the border shut down,” a veteran federal law enforcement official told Judicial Watch. “But Trump is causing so much disruption in Mexico that they are partnering to send a message as to who is in control. This is as outrageous as a small group of guys crashing planes into U.S. buildings.” Another official who has worked in the region for years said “Trump is causing a huge amount of fear in Mexico throughout all sectors; private, government, business, criminal, police….”

Nuevo Laredo is among the border towns that the terrorists and narcotraffickers plan to launch attacks in, according to intelligence gathered by law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and Mexico. Others include Matamoros, Reynosa and Ciudad Juárez. In 2015 Judicial Watch reported  that ISIS is operating a camp just west of Ciudad Juárez, around eight miles from El Paso. Sources that include a Mexican Army field grade officer and Mexican Federal Police inspector revealed that, during a joint operation, they discovered documents in Arabic and Urdu, as well as “plans” of Fort Bliss – the sprawling military installation in El Paso that houses the US Army’s 1st Armored Division. Muslim prayer rugs were recovered with the documents during the operation.

Just last week Judicial Watch reported  that a Jihadi-cartel alliance in the Mexican state of Nuevo León is collaborating to carry out attacks in American cities and ports of entry along the southern border. Confidential U.S. and Mexican law enforcement sources said that, as part of the plan, militant Islamists have arrived recently at the Monterrey International Airport situated in Apodaca, Nuevo León, about 130 miles south of the Texas border. An internal Mexican law enforcement report obtained by Judicial Watch confirms that Islamic terrorists have “people along the border, principally in Tijuana, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo León and Tamaulipas.” Cartel informants tell law enforcement contacts that “they are only waiting for the order and the times to carry out a simultaneous attack in the different ports of entry or cities of the United States of America.”

The area where this week’s shootout originated is a 5.6-acre parcel just south of downtown Nuevo Laredo on Paseo Colon. The State Department predicts that by September the new U.S. consulate compound, which broke ground in mid-2015 and will cost $155 million, should be completed. It will have multiple buildings, including an office structure, U.S. Marine Security Guard residence, support annex and other facilities for the consulate community. The primary function of consulates is helping and protecting Americans abroad.

Unfortunately, given the Obama Administration’s criminal laxity with anything to do with border safety, the term “Wild West” is a reality. And because the press isn’t interested, most Americans aren’t aware of the threat.

Let’s pray law enforcement is paying attention to our clarion calls on this issue and nothing terrible happens. 

We will monitor the serious situation and will alert you on any major new developments.

GQ_logoRedBlack

The Face of GQ Magazine: Obama should ‘murder Trump & Pence’ for ‘Humanity’

A writer for GQ Magazine posted the below tweet:

rupert myers tweet obama assassinate trump

NOTE: This screen capture of the Tweet by Rupert Myers has been since taken down.

Rupert Myers, according to his Facebook page, is a “Political correspondent, British GQ. Also writes about society, politics and law for the Telegraph and the Guardian.” He is also a barrister, a British lawyer.

To answer Mr. Myers legal question, yes U.S. Presidents may pardon themselves. Mediateite.com’s Alex Griswold reported:

For those who were wondering, Law Newz’s Chris White argued in October that the president actually can pardon themselves for federal crimes.

So that answers barrister Myers first question. Now let’s look at the second part of his tweet – “Asking for humanity.” Griswold wrote,

“Still, Myers took a rather flippant attitude towards the angry responses. His explanation for the tweet varied, with Myers saying that it was only a joke but elsewhere claiming it was an innocent question about the president’s pardon power.”

Joke? This is more than a joke. Innocent? Myers is a barrister and a political correspondent. His tweet, when put into the context of his background, is anything but innocent.

It is here that Myers reveals his rational to commit two murders, justifying murder in the name of “humanity.” Killing in the name of humanity is evil on its face. In 1759 a classics scholar named Beilby Porteus wrote Death: A Poetical Essay”. The following excerpt discusses tyranny and provocatively contrasted the ramifications of small and large murders:

To sate the lust of power; more horrid still,
The foulest stain and scandal of our nature
Became its boast — One Murder made a Villain,
Millions a Hero. — Princes were privileg’d
To kill, and numbers sanctified the crime.
Ah! why will Kings forget that they are Men?

[Emphasis added]

Myers Tweeted this about the ABC News story of outgoing President Obama awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom to outgoing Vice President Joe Biden:

We are going to miss the heck out of these guys

Myers also promotes the fake new story about President-elect Trump on his Facebook page stating:

By me on #Watersportsgate : If you decry fake news but revel in sordid claims about Trump, you’re a hypocrite http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/decry-fake-news-revel-sordid-…/

Myers in his Telegraph article notes,

golden opportunity has presented itself to mock the President elect. Leaks about Trump’s predilections have produced a cascade of stories – a shower if you will – about the incoming President’s alleged fondness for an unusual sex act which does not bear describing.” His tweet is intended to murder Trump and Pence, his article is meant to “mock the President elect.”

Myers, as a correspondent and barrister, understands what he is suggesting will “sate the lust for power” by those who want to impose tyranny globally. Myers exemplifies the “foulest stain and scandal of our nature.” Myers, should something happen to either President-elect Trump or Vice President-elect Mike Pence or their families, will have blood on his hands.

Myers is the poster boy for what is wrong with journalism.

Myers, and others in the media, have gone beyond bias, beyond hate, beyond bizarre. A call to murder in the name of humanity is an oxymoron like cruel kindness. How is it that one human calls for the murder of two innocent men because they disagree with them?

History has seen this hate in other regimes, Nazi Germany, the former Soviet Union, Communist China, Communist Cuba, Cambodia and on and on.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Protesters Vow to ‘Shut Down’ Inauguration, Related Celebrations

Trump’s Entrepreneurial Approach Threatens the Washington Establishent

Rosie O’Donnell: Declare MARTIAL LAW to Stop Trump!

EDITORS NOTE: 18 U.S.C. § 879 : US Code – Section 879: Threats against former Presidents and certain other persons:

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully threatens to kill, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm upon

(1) a former President or a member of the immediate family of a former President;

(2) a member of the immediate family of the President, the President-elect, the Vice President, or the Vice President-elect;

(3) a major candidate for the office of President or Vice President, or a member of the immediate family of such candidate; or

(4) a person protected by the Secret Service under section 3056(a)

(6); shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

tillerson-for-secretary-of-state

Rex Tillerson is neither a yes man nor will he be boxed in on U.S. foreign policy

In a The Daily Signal article titled “9 Issues Discussed at Rex Tillerson’s Confirmation Hearing to Be Trump’s Secretary of State” Josh Siegel reported on the confirmation hearing of U.S. Secretary of State designate Rex Tillerson.

Reading Siegel’s article I came away with two impressions of Mr. Tillerson, first he will not be boxed in and second he is not a yes man. How refreshing.

First let’s look at Tillerson as a man who will not be boxed in when it comes to U.S. foreign policy. Siegel reported:

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who ran for president against Trump, pressed Tillerson on whether he backs the assessment of U.S. intelligence agencies about Russia’s election-year hacking.

“Do you believe during the 2016 presidential campaign that Russian intelligence services directed a campaign of measures involving the hacking of emails, the strategic leak of emails, the use of internet trolls, and dissemination of fake news to denigrate a presidential candidate and undermine faith in our election process?” Rubio asked.

Tillerson described the findings by the intelligence agencies as “clearly troubling,” and called cyber attacks from foreign actors such as Russia “the greatest and most complex threat” facing the country today. He labeled Russia’s annexation of Crimea to be “illegal” and proposed tougher measures to combat the Kremlin’s invasion of eastern Ukraine, vowing that he would advocate providing Ukrainian soldiers with weapons.

But Tillerson expressed hope that he could help improve relations with Russia, potentially seeking to ally with it in areas of common interest even if America “will not likely to be ever friends with the Kremlin.”

“Dialogue is critical so these [issues] don’t spin out of control,” Tillerson said. “We need to move Russia from adversary always to partner at times.”

Read more…

Tillerson clearly understands that Russia, and many other countries, act in their own self interests and against the interests of the United States. His reply was measured in that he understood that cyberwarfare is a national security threat, that invading another country is wrong and both must be punished. However, diplomacy is not just about jumping into a hot or cold war, as Senator’s Marco Rubio, John McCain and Lindsey Graham seem to want. Rather it is about pressuring those who would do us harm using all means available. The above interaction shows the sophistication of Tillerson, a man who thinks outside the box. Tillerson’s statement, “We need to move Russia from adversary always to partner at times” is that of a man who understands Russia more than some members of the U.S. Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike. Again, refreshing.

Tillerson is not a yes man for President-elect Trump either. Siegel noted:

In the presidential campaign, Trump questioned the NATO alliance, and said members need to do more to earn the U.S.’ support.

Tillerson expressed a stronger commitment to NATO, promising to follow Article 5 of the treaty that enshrines the principle that an attack against one member is an attack against all.

“The Article 5 commitment is invaluable and the U.S. will stand by the commitment,” Tillerson said.

He also expressed concern for Baltic states that worry about Russian incursion on their borders.

“Our NATO allies are right to be alarmed about a resurgent Russia,” Tillerson said.

[ … ]

In another contrast with Trump, Tillerson did not say he explicitly opposes the Obama administration’s Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

“I do not oppose TPP, but I share some of Trump’s concerns that it doesn’t fully support American interests,” Tillerson said.

[ … ]

Echoing Exxon Mobil’s evolving calculus on climate change, Tillerson said he recognized the threat of a warming planet, and that the U.S. should “be at the table” in coming up with solutions to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

If confirmed, he said he and others in the Trump administration would review the 180-country Paris climate change agreement before deciding whether to remain party to it.

“It’s important that the United States maintain its seat at the table with the conversations around how to deal with the threats of climate change,” he said.

As chief of Exxon Mobil, Tillerson publicly backed a tax on carbon in 2009, and expressed support for the Paris Agreement in 2015.

Yet, late in the hearing, he seemed to downplay the threat of climate change.

“I don’t see [climate change] as the imminent national security threat as perhaps other do,” Tillerson said.

Read more…

Tillerson will, on some issues, present a President Trump with differing views. That is healthy. It shows that President-elect Trump is filling his cabinet with quality people who think differently than him and provide opposing views. Once again, refreshing.

Donald Trump’s selection says as much about the President-elect as it does about Mr. Tillerson. There is a new way of thinking about foreign policy and a fresh approach that is pro-U.S. interests.

After reading Mr. Tillerson’s testimony it is clear he will not be foreign a policy rubber stamp as were former Secretaries Hillary Clinton and John Kerry and that he will think outside the foreign policy box of the Obama administration.

Very refreshing indeed.

RELATED ARTICLE: Secretary of State Nominee Tillerson Criticizes U.S. Decision to Abstain from UN Israel Vote

obama-dictator

Obama farewell: Half the nation can’t wait to be rid of him

Obama the dreamweaver will leave office with the highest favorable ratings he has enjoyed since the honeymoon months following his 2008 election. Despite this, in the latest RealClearPolitics average of polls judging whether the country is heading in the right direction, roughly the same percentage of Americans who approve of Obama also believe the country is headed the wrong way.

This is not a new phenomenon. Indeed, the growing realization that Obama’s massive social spending programs that have doubled our national debt in just eight years were doing serious damage to our economy has been building for the past four years, and led to Donald Trump’s victory in November.

A majority of Americans are fed up with Obama’s policies, while paradoxically they still retain a favorable view of Obama the person.

Every president should be so lucky.

But a president who is so lucky should also be clear-headed enough to recognize the distinction, and not take his success in the personality contest to mean the American people approve of his policies.

Clearly, Obama has not understood this. His limitless narcissism continues to cloud his view of himself, his policies, and his impact on America.

Obama believes that he is leaving the country with an economy far stronger than the economy he inherited. On the surface, that is true. When you come to office as the economy lurches into an apparent death spiral, any recovery seems good.

Certainly, the economy has climbed back from the depths of the recession. But this has been a jobless recovery, with 95 million Americanswho have bowed out of the labor force, an unprecedented number.

These are not fantasy numbers, but official U.S. government numbers compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), based on a total of 252 million Americans over the age of 16 in the labor pool. The under or unemployed equal 37.7% of that total workforce.

In an effort to minimize those disastrous results, the BLS claims that the majority — including an overwhelming majority of young people aged 16-24 — “do not want a job now.” That is just patently absurd.

Along with this unprecedented rise in unemployment, under Obama the number of Americans receiving food stamps has also risen to historic highs, growing from 28 million when he took office to more than 44 million today, or 14.5% of the U.S. population.

Even left-wing websites such as the DailyKos cannot mask the outrageous — and tragic — rise in dependence on government handouts under this president.

And yet, this president claims that “we’ve turned an economy that was shrinking and losing jobs into one that’s growing and creating jobs, with poverty falling, incomes rising, and wages that have jumped faster over the past few years than at any time in the past four decades.”

He claimed unbelievably in Chicago that health care costs are “rising at the slowest rate in fifty years,” when anyone paying for health insurance today knows just the opposite is the case.

Obama believes he can build his legacy on a tissue of lies, just as he built his presidency.

He wants us to believe that he has reduced race tensions, when any sentient being can see just the opposite is the case. He wants us to believe that crime is down, incomes are up, and terrorism is no more than a law enforcement issue.

He wants us to believe that his withdrawal from Iraq has led to a “sustainable” U.S. presence in that country, when in fact our totally unnecessary and unwanted (by the Iraqi people) withdrawal has led to massive bloodshed and an ISIS takeover of one-third of the country.

In addition to creating ISIS, the power vacuum created by the U.S. withdrawal has handed much of Iraq over to Iranian control, with Iranian government agents now running Iraq’s central government and Iranian-backed militias poised to overrun much of the country.

Since the 2008 election, Obama has proclaimed that Afghanistan was the “right war.” And yet, despite his surge loss of more Americans than during the entire Bush years, Afghanistan is a shambles and the Taliban controls more territory today than it did when he took office.

The Obamas are such phonies, it’s hard to confront their lies with a straight face.

To an enthusiastic crowd in Chicago who had drunk the Kool-Aid, Obama claimed that America was “a better, stronger place than when we started.” And then he set to firing up his base, blaming his opponents for dividing America, when he himself bears the greatest responsibility pitting Americans against each other by race, creed, and income.

Obama’s legacy is a graveyard of disasters.

  • Libya: an unnecessary war, where the United States deposed a pro-U.S. authoritarian who had given up his WMD and joined the fight against al-Qaeda. Today, that country is controlled by ISIS and other Islamist groups.
  • Syria: Obama proclaimed “red-lines” in 2012 and stood by passively as Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad trampled them repeatedly. Today, Russia for the first time since the Cold War has military bases in the country, while Iran and its proxies physically occupy a third of the country.
  • Iran: The nuclear deal Obama heralded? It legitimates Iran’s nuclear weapons program, and actually commits the United States to helping Iran develop its nuclear infrastructure. It also commits us to helping Iran defeat cyber attacks, such as Stuxnet the U.S. and Israel jointly launched under Obama’s stewardship to crash Iran’s uranium enrichment centrifuges.

Obama hinted he wants to become the leader of the anti-Trump movement in the next four years. Certainly, an anti-Trump U.S. media will welcome and promote him.

But as the new president actually grows the economy, expands prosperity, and makes America stronger and safer again in clearly demonstrable ways, my guess is Obama’s game will soon get old.

Let’s hope reality will win out over the delusions of the past eight years.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obamacare’s ’20 Million’ Number Is Fake

In Revealing Article, Obama Puts ‘Progressive Goals’ Before Due Process

13 Inconvenient Truths About Obama’s Legacy

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Hill.

aashiq-hammad

Airport Shooter Converted to Islam, Identified as Aashiq Hammad Years Before Joining Army

Judicial Watch published the following on its website:

The Ft. Lauderdale Airport shooter is a Muslim convert who years before joining the U.S. Army took on an Islamic name (Aashiq Hammad), downloaded terrorist propaganda and recorded Islamic religious music online, according to public records dug up by the investigative news site of an award-winning, California journalist.

This is pertinent information that the Obama administration apparently wants to keep quiet, bringing up memories of the Benghazi cover up, in which the president and his cohorts knowingly lied to conceal that Islamic terrorists attacked the U.S. Special Mission in Libya.

Information is slowly trickling out that links the Ft. Lauderdale Airport shooter to radical Islam while the official story from authorities is that the gunman is a mentally ill, Hispanic Army veteran named Esteban Santiago that became unhinged after a tour in Iraq. Only one mainstream media outlet mentions the possibility of Santiago’s “jihadist identity,” burying it in a piece about New York possibly being his initial target. A paragraph deep in the story mentions that investigators recovered Santiago’s computer from a pawn shop and the FBI is examining it to determine whether he created a “jihadist identity for himself using the name Aashiq Hammad…”

The reset of the traditional mainstream media coverage promotes the government rhetoric that omits any ties to terrorism even though early on a photo surfaced of Santiago making an ISIS salute while wearing a keffiyeh, a Palestinian Arab scarf.

The public records uncovered in the days after the massacre suggest Santiago (Hammad) is a radical Islamic terrorist that’s seriously committed to Islam. Besides taking on a Muslim name, he recorded three Islamic religious songs, including the Muslim declaration faith (“there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger”) known as the Shahada. He also posted a thread about downloading propaganda videos from Islamic terrorists on a weapons and explosives forum. The investigative news site that unearthed this disturbing information connected the dots between Santiago, who is of Puerto Rican descent, and Hammad, an identity he created in 2007.

This week a prominent Ft. Lauderdale businessman and longtime resident addressed a letter to the city’s mayor and commissioners blasting county and federal officials for covering up that “Aashiq Hammad, not Esteban Santiago, attacked our city and county.” The businessman, respected Ft. Lauderdale real estate entrepreneur Jim Morlock, specifically names Broward County’s elected sheriff Scott Israel, Florida senator Bill Nelson, the first to identify Santiago as the shooter on national television, and congressman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, ousted last summer as Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair over a scandalous plot to damage Bernie Sanders during the primary.

“Since when does a US Senator (Bill Nelson), not law enforcement, be the one to so quickly release this terrorist’s Hispanic name but nothing about his more relevant Islamic background?” the letter asks. Obama must have told Sen. Nelson to keep this from looking like a Muslim Terrorist attack during the last 12 days of his watch. Bad for his legacy.” Morlock goes on to state that it’s “better to portray this atrocity as white Hispanic Alaskan mental Iraq war vet gun violence.” The real estate entrepreneur proceeds to reveal that Santiago lives in walking distance to the only mosque in Alaska, was radicalized before he entered the military and was knowingly allowed to serve despite his Islamic sympathies thanks to “Obama’s PC military.”

The letter poses interesting questions, including why this Muslim terrorist chose Ft. Lauderdale out of all the nation’s airports and who Santiago knows in Broward county, which has a large and growing Islamic community.

In 2015 Judicial Watch obtained records from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) that show and Al Qaeda terrorist who helped plan several U.S. attacks lived in Broward County and graduated from the local community college with a degree in computer engineering. His name is Adnan G. El Shukrijumah, but he also had a Hispanic identity, Javier Robles, and for years he appeared on the FBI’s most wanted list.

Back in 2012 Judicial Watch reported on a terrorist front group’s demands that Broward County public schools close twice a year to celebrate Islamic holy days, illustrating the influence that Muslims have in the region.

[Emphasis added]

RELATED PODCAST: On Beyond the Matrix author and columnist Jerry Gordon discusses the possible trigger of events like the Fort Lauderdale Airport terrorist attack, and the Armon Netziv ISIS ramming incident.

ira-madison-iii

Who is Ira Madison III and why does he hate Asian children and America?

Daily we see the fringe become more fringe. The latest example is a MTV News reporter named Ira Madison III. Madison, who is black, hates America, loves Obama and takes cheap shots at the grandchild of U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions. Katie McHugh from Breitbart reports:

Culture writer for MTV News Ira Madison III attacked Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions and his Asian-American granddaughter as a “prop” to distract from his “racism.”

ira-madison-iii1

Ira Madison III (left).

In the article “Ira Madison III: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know” by  from Heavy.com describes Madison’s background:

Madison was named in the piece as a “young activist-writer” who was “deeply entrenched” in “identity politics.”

[ … ]

According to his LinkedIn page, Madison is a gradaute [sic] of Loyola University of Chicago where he studied theater and NYU where he studied dramatic writing.

[ … ]

When asked about racism in America, Madison said, “I think at this point, the world has changed so much where I don’t afford people the right to have “different perspectives” if they’re damaging to others. Like, if you’re an asshole and homophobic and racist now, you were the same when you were younger and you knew it was wrong then.”

[ … ]

The day after Donald Trump won the presidency of the United States, Madison posted this throwback photo on Facebook. Madison regularly posts photos of the first family on his photostream. A few days later on his MTV.com column, Madison wrote, “This week, all of America needs to get deleted. You made Barack Obama utter the words “President-elect Donald Trump” and I will honestly never forgive my country for this.”

Here is Madison’s tweet, which has since been taken down:

iramadison-tweet-sessions-granddaughter

Can you feel the hate and anger in this black man for an innocent Asian child?

ira-madison

Ira Madison III

After taking down the above tweet Madison attempted to justify himself by Tweeting, “Why is she a prop? Sessions argued for policy that in the 1880s was used to discriminate against Asian Americans https://t.co/sZitqzLBS4.” The link is to a Think Progress article about a 2013 U.S. Senate committee meeting on comprehensive immigration reform, of which Senator Sessions was a committee member. When you go to the link you find that Senator Sessions was not arguing to discriminate against Asian Americans at all. Rather Senator Sessions asked the President of the Asian American Justice Center Mee Moua “if a country should legitimately decide that it wants to admit one productive family member, but not another, less motivated individual.” Sessions noted:

It’s perfectly logical to think there are two individuals, let’s say in a good friendly country like Honduras. One is a valedictorian of his class, has two years of college, learned English and very much has a vision to come to the United States and the other one has dropped out of high school, has minimum skills. Both are 20 years of age and that latter person has a brother here. What would be in the interest of the United States? …

Clearly it would be in the best interest of the United States to only grant a visa, work permit or citizenship to those who benefit the host country, in this case the United States. Immigration is a key issue for Americans and impacts the economy, jobs, security of the homeland, education, public policy and the criminal justice system.

As the U.S. Attorney General Senator Sessions will be dealing with law and order issues and enforcing the immigration laws of the United States. Laws that make it illegal for someone to come here without permission.

That is something Madison, Obama, Democrats and others fail to understand. When you lose elections, just as when you break the law, there are consequences.

jared-kushner

President-elect Trump appoints Orthodox Jew as Senior White House Adviser — Democrats outraged

Democrats do not like Jews, especially Orthodox Jews. President-elect Trump’s recent appointment of Jared Kushner as his senior adviser has Democrats outraged.

Michael F. Haverluck from OneNewsNow.com in an October 2016 article titled “Remark by Hillary’s top aide infuriates Jewish people” reported:

Huma Abedin – the longtime top aide of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – was caught disparaging the Jewish community in an email exchange that recently surfaced in the Democratic presidential nominee’s ongoing private email scandal.

Volumes of emails that President Barack Obama’s State Department was ordered to release in its ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit were obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation, which discovered a problematic troubling email trail involving involving an anti-Semitic comment made by Abedin while serving under Clinton during the standing president’s first term.

According to the Daily Caller, Abedin portrayed a hostility toward the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) – and toward Jewish People in general.

Read more…

World Israel News reports:

Dubbed “the world’s most powerful son-in-law,” Jared Kushner, an Orthodox Jew, will be named as senior adviser to the president.

Jared Kushner, US President-elect Donald Trump’s son-in-law, will be appointed senior White House adviser, presidential transition officials confirmed.

Kushner, an orthodox Jew, is married to Trump’s daughter Ivanka and served as a close advisor to the Republican candidate during the 2016 presidential election campaign.

Trump is working with a legal team, which reportedly managed to circumvent any nepotism laws that would bar a politician from promoting family members. These laws, however, may not be applicable to the White House.

Read more…

Outgoing President Obama appointed Valerie Jarrett as his closest White House adviser. Jarrett is a shariah (Islamic) law compliant Muslim. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s closest adviser was Huma Abedin, also a Muslim. What’s ironic is the Kushner appointment, like Jarrett and Abedin, does not require Congressional approval. From a group of Muslims to an Orthodox Jew as closest White House adviser, refreshing.

This appointment is a strong signal to Israel that the Trump administration is on their side.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump’s Jews and Obama’s Jews

Progressives take lessons from the Tea Party movement to try to beat Trump agenda