Congressman Steve King: Democrat Muslim IT spy ring is ‘an enormous act of treason’

There is a reason the fake news media is filling the airwaves with Trump/Russia bunk. It’s the old sleight of hand. Don’t look there, look here?

Where’s Jeff Sessions? Where the hell is everyone?

The scandal goes all the way to the top – Clinton and Pelosi. The list of those reportedly employing the Awans and their associates includes these 23 current or former Democrats in Congress, including: Andre Carson, Luis Guiterez, Jim Himes, Terri Sewell, Jackie Speier, Mike Quigley, Eric Swalwell, Patrick Murphy, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Joaquini Castro, Lois Frankel, Ted Lieu, Robin Kelly, Tammy Duckworth, Mark Takano, John Sarbanes, Diana DeGette, Cedric Richmond, Charlie Crist, Jacky Rosen, Sandy Levin, Karen Bass and Marcia Fudge.



The Pakistan-born longtime congressional Democratic IT consultant was arrested by federal authorities as he tried to flee the country Tuesday, sending hundreds of thousands of dollars ahead of himself to Pakistan.

Rep. King, a staunch conservative and ally of populist nationalism, stressed that the facts are anything but clear at this stage. The surface narrative itself was suspisious enough for King even before getting into the extensive criminal allegations against Awan and his brothers. The trio is reported to have been paid over $4 million over the last last eight years for providing IT services for Wasserman Schultz and up to 24 other Democratic congressman. Imran Awan himself was reportedly kept on as a “part-time” employee at a $165,000 salary.

“If the reports are right, if these three individuals…drew down, over this period of time, $4 million and Debbie Wasserman Schultz had a part-time employee who’s making $165,000 that she just fired – what – yesterday afternoon?” King mused with Schilling.

Talk, however, quickly turned to the terrible implications of the evidence so far. Reports of smashed computer hard-drives, desperate attempts to recover seized computer equipment and years of access to the computer systems of the House Democratic caucus naturally raise alarms when considered with Awan’s ties to Pakistan. King said:

They had access to the information on the multiple clients that they had, and that number is nearly a score, as I recall, they would have had access to all the information that came through all those computers in all those offices and access to…all the communications of the foreign affairs committee.

“I think this could be an enourmous act of treason with a lot of people complicit,” Schilling said in reply.

Democrat Muslim IT Spy Scandal Spreads to Pelosi and Clinton


By  – on 

Where did Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s Muslim spy get 300K? Blackmailing House members? Foreign jihad funding?


By  – on 

This is the biggest blockbuster spy story.of the 21st century that no one is talking about. Dems and Muslims – enemedia dieties.


By  – on 

To understand how corrupt and compromised the enemedia is, this story is getting no ink. This hack is real Three Muslim members of the intelligence panel and five members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs were among the dozens of members who employed the suspects on a shared basis. They were illegally accessing info from House Intel, Foreign Affairs servers.

The two committees deal with many of the nation’s most sensitive issues and documents, including those related to the war on terrorism.


By  – on 

This is the biggest blockbuster spy story.of the 21st century that no one is talking about. Dems and Muslims – enemedia dieties.


By  – on 

FBI agents are reportedly holding several smashed computer drives taken from the home of Debbie Wasserman Schult’s information technology aide, the one who’s at the heart of a criminal investigation.


By  – on 

You know the Pakistani-born guy who’s been accused of using his Capitol Hill IT position to improperly access congressional files? Well apparently, he’s charmed the pants off key Democrats.


By  – on 

What a shocker — Pakistanis under investigation for the unauthorized sharing of IT information with Democrats wanted all their private business dealings conducted in cash only.


By  – on 

Months ago, there was a substantial IT breach in the House of Representatives. But the five identified as suspects — a House aide and his relatives — have curiously avoided any sort of punitive backlash.


By  – on 

“I’m surprised that the media hasn’t made a bigger deal about this,” Labrador said. “This is pretty outrageous. These are people who had direct connections and access to the House, to intelligence information, and the media has said very little about it. “

‘Through the Looking Glass’ – An Analysis of Linda Sarsour’s July 01, 2017 Speech at the 54th Annual ISNA Convention

Where ever you came from, you came to America.  And you came for one reason – for one reason only – to establish Allah’s deen [a complete way of life, governed by a system of law]. Imam Siraj Wahhaj, November 15, 1991

As long as you remember that if you get involved with politics, you have to be very careful that your leader is for Allah.  You don’t get in politics because it’s the American thing to do.  You get involved in politics because politics can be a weapon to use in the cause of Islam. Imam Siraj Wahhaj, November 15, 1991

Before beginning an analysis of Linda Sarsour’s speech at the 54th Annual ISNA Convention, I’d like to thank Ms. Sarsour for doing all of us here in America (and the West) an invaluable favor.

What favor, you may ask?

Linda Sarsour has graciously accompanied us right up to the shore of the Great Sea of Islam, and allowed us to capture a rare glimpse into its impressive breadth and depth.

However, this thoughtful gesture comes with caveat, because even though Ms. Sarsour has granted us this unique opportunity to see Islam more clearly, we must still overcome the strong temptation to either hide our eyes (and ears), or to simply walk away entirely.

Perhaps now, thanks to you, Ms. Sarsour, we’ll all be delivered from the powerful grip of ignorance and delusion about Islam, and we’ll finally be able to gain a better, correct understanding of The Religion of Peace ®.

More specifically, Thank You, Linda Sarsour, for so graciously showing us:

Yes, Linda Sarsour, Thank You, for showing us the best possible reflection of what a first-generation, native born Palestinian-American Champion of Change really should look like.

Analysis of Linda Sarsour’s July 01, 2017 Speech At The 54th Annual ISNA Convention

His announcements and his talk have made an incredible measure of mischief [to] the American Muslim people group.

ISNA President Azhar Azeez, June 30, 2017 (referring to President Donald Trump’s efforts to reform  immigration)

This is a ‘through the looking glass’ analysis of Linda Sarsour’s July 01, 2017, speech at the 54th Annual Islamic Society of North America Convention, entitled Hope & Guidance Through the Quran, which was held in Chicago, IL from June 30 through July 03, 2017.

Just above, I summarized several years of opinions and public statements that have made Linda Sarsour a highly visible media figure.  This is the ‘looking glass’ (mirror) that the general public gets to see.

Meanwhile, as we’ll see in the following phrase-by-phrase analysis of Linda Sarsour’s ISNA speech, there is an entirely different dimension of meaning that lies camouflaged behind the everyday words and phrases she used during her presentation.

Let us now walk through this looking glass, into Sarsour’s ISNA-endorsed world of the Quran, Hadith and Shariah, as we examine the deeper Islamic meanings that lie hidden behind the veil of common American English.

Also, we should keep in mind that the federal government has already proven that the ISNA is a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood, the parent organization of Hamas, and that for nearly 10 years, the ISNA has remained listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial, still the largest terrorist financing trial in American history.

It should also be noted that the ISNA is prominently listed in a May 05, 1991 document entitled An Explanatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal for the Group In North America, as one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s self-described ‘organizations of our friends.’

The same Muslim Brotherhood strategic document, which was drafted for internal review as early as 1987, also lists the ISNA Fiqh Committee, the ISNA Political Awareness Committee, and the ISNA+Dr. Jamal Badawi Foundation (Islamic Information Foundation), as friends of the ‘Muslim Brotherhood Group in North America.’

In addition, Jamal Badawi, who also remains listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the HLF trial, has been an ISNA member since its inception on July 14, 1981.  Dr. Badawi joined the ISNA Board of Directors (Majlis Ash-Shura) in 1988 and also served on the board of the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) from 1991 until 1993.  Along with the ISNA and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the NAIT was also named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trail.

With all this in mind, we might ask: Who was the real target audience for Linda Sarsour’s speech?  Was it the American general public, or was it the ISNA’s core leadership (Majlis Ash-Shura), who were assembled there at the annual conference?

A partial answer to this question will be found in a particular phrase on Page 1, Paragraph 1, of the Explanatory Memorandum.  In Arabic, the phrase is Al-Qaeda Al-Islamia Al-Moltzema, while in English, it is translated as the Observant (Obedient) Muslim Base.

Yes, Al-Qaeda, the word translated here as ‘Base,’ is the very same word we commonly associate with Jihadist groups throughout the world.  However, in its original meaning, Al-Qaeda is actually an important socio-political concept, i.e., a ‘base of operations,’ rather than a violent terrorist organization operating somewhere far away in Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria.

In the context of her ISNA-endorsed speech, this is the ‘Base,’ (audience), i.e., the ISNA Board of Directors, or Majlis Ash-Shura, that Ms. Sarsour was specifically addressing.

Ms. Sarsour’s calls to socio-political tactical action are actually based on well-established Islamic strategic principles, and were closely parallel to the call(s) to action (and Quranic warnings) found in a carefully-written document entitled AMJA Post-Election Statement: Principles and Roadmap, which was published by the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) on November 28, 2016.

A careful analysis of this 14-paragraph document, which regards the election of Donald Trump as President a disruptive calamity and source of oppression (see Sarsour’s comments on oppression below) for the Muslim community, can be found here.  Officially known in Arabic as the Majama Fuqaha Al-Shariah B’Amrikia (Group of Shariah Specialists in America), the AMJA is openly promoting the implementation of Islamic Shariah, right here in America.

This is in direct violation of Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, which reads:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby.

To put this all in context, Sarsour’s speech before the ISNA leadership echoes the strategic and tactical plans of both the ‘Muslim Brotherhood Group in North America,’ as outlined in the Explanatory Memorandum, drafted thirty years ago, and in the AMJA Roadmap, published just two weeks after the November 2016 election.

Note: This analysis is presented in a chronological time sequence.  Specific comments or phrases are cited by marking the time they occurred in Ms. Sarsour’s speech, e.g., (3:01)

Honoring Imam Siraj Wahhaj as ‘My favorite person in the room’ (1:50-2:33)

Much has already been written about Siraj Wahhaj, Imam of Masjid At-Taqwa in Brooklyn, NY, who was listed as an “unindicted person who may be alleged as co-conspirators” in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and stated that the bombing was a terrorist attack staged by the U.S. government and possibly Israel as a “conspiracy” against Islam.

What does it say about Ms. Sarsour, who considers Imam Wahhaj to be her mentor, when Wahhaj supported Blind Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, who was charged with the attempted assassination of Egyptian leader Anwar Al-Sadat, and said while leading the Al Farouq mosque in Brooklyn that, “We must terrorize the enemies of Islam and…shake the earth under their feet.”

In fact, what does endorsing and supporting Siraj Wahhaj say about the leadership of the ISNA?

To be fair, we should also ask why the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, NC would feature Siraj Wahhaj as their ‘Grand Imam’ at its first everJumah [Gathering] At The DNC”?

Allah is the Best of Protectors (3:01)

This phrase is taken directly from Quran 3.150 and Quran 12.64, Allah is the Best of Protectors (Al-Hafiz in Arabic).

For more on this concept from an Islamic perspective, especially the severe admonition not to take non-Muslims as helpers or protectors, or against obeying disbelievers and hypocrites, because such obedience leads to utter destruction in this life and the Hereafter, see here, here and also see Tafsir Ibn Kathir for Quran 3.150.

In America, Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism (5:32-5:45)

Patriotism in your home country is different than patriotism in these United States of America.  In this country, in the land of freedom of speech, in the land of democracy, dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

Is Linda Sarsour correct?  Is dissent really the highest form of patriotism in America?

Apparently, the earliest documented use of this phrase is found in a 1961 Friends Peace Committee publication entitled, The Use of Force in International Affairs: “If what your country is doing seems to you practically and morally wrong, is dissent the highest form of patriotism?”  The Friends Peace Committee is a Quaker anti-war group that was founded in the 1880’s.

It was also used repeatedly during the Vietnam era, as when New York Mayor John Lindsay declared during an October 15, 1969, speech at Columbia University, “We cannot rest content with the charge from Washington that this peaceful protest is unpatriotic…The fact is that this dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”

In a July, 03, 2002 interview, Howard Zinn said, “While some people think that dissent is unpatriotic, I would argue that dissent is the highest form of patriotism.  In fact, if patriotism means being true to the principles for which your country is supposed to stand, then certainly the right to dissent is one of those principles.  And if we’re exercising that right to dissent, it’s a patriotic act.

While dissent may truly be a form of patriotism (depending on the circumstances), so is defending the freedoms and liberties that our Creator endowed us with, as documented in the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution.

Whether or not dissent is a higher form of patriotism than defense of our Constitutional freedoms depends entirely on motive, i.e., is it designed to undermine or supplant the Constitution, or strengthen and support it?

Sorry, Ms. Sarsour, but according to Article 6, Islamic Shariah will never be compatible with the Constitution, which means that, here in America, dissent for the sake of Islam cannot possibly be the highest form of patriotism.

Policies that Oppress the communities that they came from…(5:45-5:55)

This is the moment when Ms. Sarsour introduces the central theme of her speech, which is the volatile Islamic concept of fighting or striving (Jihad) against Oppression (Fitnah فِتْنَةَ, which occurs at least 60 times in the Quran).  Fitnah is also translated as Affliction, Confusion, Disbelief (Shirk), Discord, Dissention, Distress, Domination, Mischief, Sedition, Strife, Testing, Trials, Tumult, Opposition, Persecution and Punishments.

To further build her case, Ms. Sarsour goes on to say that if you [the ISNA audience] maintain the current status quo that not only oppresses Muslims…you, my dear sisters and brothers, you are aligned with the oppressor…if you are neutral in the face of oppression in this country…you are not a patriot, you are aiding and abetting the oppressors in these United States of America (6:09-6:35)

The concept of fighting or striving (Jihad) against Oppression (Fitnah) is a 1,400 year old doctrine, deeply embedded within the founding ideology of Islam.  From such a Quranic perspective, the consequences of transgressing the statutes and commandments of Shariah law, or of oppressing (opposing or preventing ) the Islamic community from following the laws of Allah, warrants a Shariah-authorized violent response toward all such ‘rulers and tyrants.’

For example, in 2014, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, wrote to President Barack Obama about his views on the situation in Iraq, Gaza and Palestine, while also commenting about “Muslim oppression at the hands of the West in general and the United States in particular.”

For three explicit Quranic examples, see Quran 2.190: Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress.  Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors, Quran 21.9: Then We fulfilled for them the promise, and We saved them and whom We willed and destroyed the transgressors, and Quran 2.193 Fight them until there is no [more] Fitnah [oppression] and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression, except against the oppressors.

The concept of Oppression is also discussed in extensive detail in the Hadith (Bukhari), Volume 4, Section 43, and in Tafsir Ibn Kathir for Quran 8.73

What is the Best Form of Jihad, or Struggle? (7:02-7:04)

After introducing the concept of Oppression (Fitnah), Ms. Sarsour segues into a discussion of fighting or striving (Jihad) against Oppression, by recounting a passage from the Hadith: “What is the best form of Jihad”?

Paraphrasing the Hadith, Ms. Sarsour then provides the answer, which is, “A word of truth, truth in front of a tyrant, ruler or leader, that is the best form of Jihad.”

At this point, it is also important to note that the phrase “The best Jihad is speaking the truth to an unjust ruler” also occurs in Chapter Q1.2(3) of Reliance of the Traveller, which is the world’s most authoritative English translation of Islamic Shariah.

Also, Chapter Q2.4(4) of Reliance begins a section entitled Being Able To Censure, which includes the following incredible endorsement of what we call lone-wolf terrorists, or lone-wolf Jihadists:

There is no disagreement among scholars that it is permissible for a single Muslim to attack battle lines of unbelievers headlong and fight them even if he knows he will be killed…Such censure is only praiseworthy when one is able to eliminate the wrong and one’s action will produce some benefit.

The phrase eliminate the wrong in Chapter Q2.4(4) is just the theological equivalent for what we call Socio-Political Activism in the secular (non-Islamic) arena.

All of Book Q in Reliance is under the main heading of THE OBLIGATION TO COMMAND THE RIGHT (AND FORBID THE WRONG), which is derived from Quran 3.104.

For additional detail on the concept of enjoining Al-Maruf (all that Islam orders) and forbidding Al-Munkar (all that Islam has forbidden), see Tafsir Ibn Kathir for Quran 3.104.

It is disingenuous, at best, for Ms. Sarsour to claim that she wasn’t talking about violence, or that she is being persecuted by the alt-right, for her statements about the Best Form of Jihad, when she is well aware (and so is her ISNA audience), of the deeper, inflammatory, theological connotations of her remarks.

A Note on Linda Sarsour’s use of the phrase ‘A Word of Truth’ (7:10-7:18)

In his July 11, 2017 article entitled Linda Sarsour Defends Her Call for Jihad Against President Donald Trump, writer Neil Munro made the following observation:

Sarsour’s “word of truth” phrase seems like a Western-style appeal for debate, but for Muslim activists, truth is only found in the Koran’s transcribed instructions from Allah, which include his frequent calls for warfare against his enemies.

That ‘word of truth’ phrase also evokes the dramatic courtroom defense strategy adopted by the “Blind Sheik” Omar Abdel Rahman, who was accused by the Egyptian government of urging the murder of Egyptian dictator Anwar Sadat in 1981.

Shortly after Sadat was murdered, Rahman was accused by the Egyptian government of urging the murder of Sadat in prior religious tracts.  But Rahman pressured the Egyptian government and judges to declare him innocent by portraying himself as merely a blameless messenger of the Koran’s denunciations against oppressors.

This is what ‘A Word of Truth’ looks like, when you go through the looking glass, and look at the world through the eyes of Islam.

And I hope…that Allah accepts from us that as a form of Jihad, that we are struggling against tyrants and rulers…but here in these United States of America (7:23-7:29)

This is the part of Ms. Sarsour’s speech that received the most attention (and criticism) in the media.  In an attempt to defend her comments, she posted a July 09, 2017 editorial in the Washington Post, entitled Islamophobes Are Attacking Me Because I’m Their Worst Nightmare.

In her editorial, Ms. Sarsour made the following assertions:

Most disturbing about this recent defamation campaign is how it is focused on demonizing the legitimate yet widely misunderstood Islamic term I used, “jihad,” which to majority of Muslims and according to religious scholars means “struggle” or “to strive for.”  This term has been hijacked by Muslim extremists and right-wing extremists alike, leaving ordinary Muslims to defend our faith and in some cases silenced.  It sets a dangerous precedent when people of faith are policed and when practicing their religion peacefully comes with consequences.

At this point, an obvious question arises: Is Linda Sarsour correct that the term Jihad “has been hijacked by Muslim extremists and right-wing extremists alike”?

Let’s start with Chapter O9.0 of Reliance, which defines Jihad in the following manner:

Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word Mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion.  And it is the lesser Jihad . As for the greater Jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (Nafs), which is why the Prophet said as he was returning from Jihad.

Then, in Chapter H8.17 of Reliance, in a section entitled Those Fighting for Allah, we find the following discussion of Jihad:

The seventh category [of giving charity] is those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster (O: but who are volunteers for jihad without remuneration).  They are given enough to suffice them for the operation, even if affluent; of weapons, mounts, clothing, and expenses (O: for the duration of the journey, round trip, and the time they spend there, even if prolonged.  Though nothing has been mentioned here of the expense involved in supporting such people’s families during this period, it seems clear that they should also be given it).

In addition to what is found in Reliance, it is also important to note that variants of the root word Jihad occur about 40 times in the Quran.  In virtually every case, it is obvious from the plain Arabic meaning of the text, that Jihad means to wage war against non-Muslims.

It seems pretty obvious that the leaders of Turkey recognize the full meaning of Jihad, too.  On July 22, 2017, Ahmet Hamdi Çamlı, a deputy of the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP), participated in a debate about the introduction of the concept of jihad, or holy war, into the national school curriculum.  During the debate, Çamlı said it is useless to teach math to a child who does not know the concept of jihad, while also asserting that jihad is one of the main pillars of Islam.  The previous week, Ankara Minister of Education İsmet Yılmaz said, “Jihad is an element in our religion; it is in our religion…”

Fascists, and White Supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House (7:30-7:38)

This is another subject that is discussed extensively in the Quran (for example, see verses 10.83, 28.19 and 40.35), and in Reliance.  Chapter P13.0 of Reliance is entitled The Leader Who Misleads His Following, the Tyrant and Oppressor.  Section P13.1 refers to Quran 42.42, which says: “The dispute (lit. “way against”) is only with those who oppress people and wrongfully commit aggression in the land; these will have a painful torment.”

In Section Q1.2(4) of Reliance, it is written: The Prophet said, “When you see my Community too intimidated by an oppressor to tell him, ‘You are a tyrant,’ then you may as well say goodbye to them.”

The Tafsir Ibn Kathir for Quran 40.35 says, [Tyrants] who attempt to refute truth with falsehood and who dispute the proof without evidence or proof from Allah, Allah will hate them with the utmost loathing.  It is greatly hateful and disgusting to Allah, and to those who believe…

From an Islamic perspective, Ms. Sarsour is well aware of the volatile implications of calling President Trump a tyrant, fascist, white supremacist or Islamophobe.

Islamophobia Industry…if those who choose to vandalize our masjids [mosques]…if they are treating us like we are one community, why are we not acting like one community…(8:42-9:06)

According to Nathan Lean, author of The Islamophobia Industry,

Fear sells and the Islamophobia Industry – a right-wing cadre of intellectual hucksters, bloggers, politicians, pundits, and religious leaders – knows that all too well.  For years they have labored behind the scenes to convince their compatriots that Muslims are the enemy, exhuming the ghosts of 9/11 and dangling them before the eyes of horrified populations for great fortune and fame.

Their plan has worked.  The tide of Islamophobia that is sweeping through Europe and the United States is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. It is their design.

A June 24, 2016 Al Jazeera article entitled Report: Islamophobia Is A Multimillion-Dollar Industry claims that,

More than $200m was spent towards promoting “fear and hatred” of Muslims in the United States by various organisations between 2008 and 2013, according to a fresh joint report by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the University of California, Berkeley.

Released on Monday , the report [Confronting Fear] identifies 74 groups, including feminist, Christian, Zionist and prominent news organisations, which either funded or fostered Islamophobia.  “It is an entire industry of itself.  There are people making millions of dollars per year from promoting Islamophobia. They often present themselves as experts on Islamic affairs when they are not,” Wilfredo Amr Ruiz, a spokesman for CAIR, told Al Jazeera.

At least 32 states have introduced and debated anti-sharia or anti-foreign law bills.  And, according to our research, 80 percent of legislators who sponsor this type of legislation also sponsor bills restricting the rights of other minorities and vulnerable groups.

If Ms. Sarsour wants to put an end to the Islamophobia Industry, she should simply stand up for the Constitution, and stop promoting the normalization of Shariah in America.

Potentially horrific time that could come (9:20)

This is a direct parallel to Paragraph 8 of the AMJA Roadmap, which states:

Islam, with respect to its belief and legal foundations is unalterably fixed.  It does not accept any replacement for change…A Muslim must comply with his faith and refer confusing or troublesome matters to the well-grounded scholars. AMJA is of the view that there has yet to occur – and they do not expect to occur – a situation in which one is required to flee with one’s faith, or wherein one is excused from performing some parts of the faith’s teachings.

Note on the phrase Flee With One’s Faith’: This refers to the Hijrah (Migration), another fundamental concept in Islam, with connotations going back 1,400 years, to the founding history of Islam.  At this point, the Roadmap introduces the possibility that Muslims in America may have to flee to a safer location, for the sake of their faith.  Socially, this is a very provocative (and potentially inflammatory) statement by the AMJA.  It engenders immediate animosity and tension, and serves to further alienate and marginalize the Muslim community in America.

Notice also that in this time of crisis, the AMJA is not encouraging Muslims to assimilate into American mainstream culture, but instead advises them to further distance themselves from it, while surrounding themselves with the protective wall of Shariah law, and preparing for the possibility of leaving the country entirely.

We need to build coalitions; we need allies…in communities who are marginalized and oppressed in this country (10:23-10:32)

Ms. Sarsour also refers to building coalitions as “creating intersectional alliances within communities of color, and other oppressed minorities,” while her biography says she is “most known for her intersectional coalition work and building bridges across issues, racial, ethnic and faith communities.”

Remarkably, building coalitions is also specifically called for in Paragraph 11 of the AMJA Roadmap:

Among the most important of obligations during these days is to open our doors to all sectors of our society and to reach out to the other ethnic and religious groups as well as political movements on both the left and right of the political spectrum.  This will be the only way to stop those who deal in hate.

This is AMJA’s call (and official authorization) for American Muslims to form coalitions with a diversity of ethnic and religious groups, as well as movements on the left and right of the political spectrum.  In other words, to start forming new alliances, in as many different arenas as possible, to build a wall of resistance.

Some of the organizations involved in this AMJA-authorized effort to develop common-cause alliances include the 2017 Women’s March on Washington, the Black Lives Matter movement, ANSWER Coalition, the Tides Foundation, and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

In Islamic terms, phrases like creating intersectional alliances and building bridges across issues, racial, ethnic and faith communities are socio-political substitutes for what is known as Dawah, which means to invite or summon someone, in order to teach them more about Islam.

Quran 16:125 calls Muslims to, “Invite (all) to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious.”  Dawah is mentioned at least 19 times in the Explanatory Memorandum.  In fact, Mohamed Akram Adlouni, the author of the memo, signs the Foreword with the salutation, May God reward you good and keep you for His Daw’a, Your brother, Mohamed Akram.

Paragraph 12 of the AMJA Roadmap reinforces this premise:

From among the most important obligations during this stage is to support those institutions and organizations that serve the Muslim community, such as those interested in defending freedoms, civil rights and political activism, those dedicated to social services and relief, and those dedicated to Dawah, religious instruction and providing religious rulings. It is most unbelievable that there are some who cry over the state of the community and then they are too stingy to donate their time or money to such organizations. Worse than that are those who are even too stingy to pray for them or give them a kind word.  But the worst of all are those who seek to destroy such organizations.

U.S.-based Shariah-promoting organizations include the AMJA itself, as well as the Fatwa Center of America, the North American Imam’s Federation (NAIT), and the Institute of Islamic Education (IIE), which is part of a network of Islamic schools (Madrassas) operating across America.

So, when we go through the looking glass, we find out that Linda Sarsour is channeling (mainstreaming) the strategic goals of the Muslim Brotherhood here in America, as found in both the Explanatory Memorandum, and in the AMJA Roadmap.

We also discover that creating intersectional alliances is really just the cynical use of American style politics and social activism for the promotion of Islam, and, ultimately, to push us toward acceptance (normalization) of Islamic Shariah.

Giving support to ICNA Relief, ISNA, CAIR, MAS (13:43-13:48)

All four of these organizations are known front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood.  CAIR and ISNA remain unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial, while ICNA Relief and the Muslim American Society (MAS), have also been linked to support of terrorism (specifically, to the support of Hamas).

What does it say about Linda Sarsour, that she would encourage (exhort) Muslims in America to increase their financial support of these known pro-Shariah, pro-Jihad Muslim Brotherhood organizations?

And we still as a community find ourselves unprepared, in so many moments…Why, sisters and brothers, why are we so unprepared, Why are we so afraid of this administration, and the potential chaos, that they will ensue on our community…? (14:10-14:45)

At this point, Ms. Sarsour reinforces her basic theme, which is to resist the tyrannical, racist, relentlessly Islamophobic Trump administration.  She also uses the word ‘chaos,’ which is just another adjective for the Islamic concept of Fitnah.

From an Islamic (Quranic) perspective, she is now calling for the Muslim community in America to Prepare themselves fight Jihad against the Fitnah of the Islamophobic Trump administration.

The motto of the Muslim Brotherhood is Wa’a’idu (وَأَعِدُّو), which is translated ‘Be Prepared,’ or ‘Make Ready.’  Make ready for what, exactly?

The answer is found in Quran 8.60 (Al-Anfal – The Spoils of War), which says:

And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged.

Also see Tafsir Ibn Kathir for Quran 8.60, which makes it very plain that this entire verse (in fact, the entire Chapter) is about preparing to wage war against unbelievers.

Once again, the Explanatory Memorandum has already laid the groundwork for the path that Ms. Sarsour (and the ISNA) are now following.  In a section entitled Understanding The Role Of The Muslim Brother In North America, the following emphatic declarations are made:

The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal.

Page 8 of the Memo also addresses the theme of being prepared:

And in order for the process of settlement to be completed, we must plan and work from now to equip and prepare ourselves, our brothers, our apparatuses, our sections and our committees in order to turn into comprehensive organizations in a gradual and balanced way that is suitable with the need and the reality

All of this sounds remarkably similar to the major themes that Linda Sarsour emphasized during her ISNA speech.  In fact, Ms. Sarsour was obviously warning her ISNA audience, as well as the wider Muslim community, not be caught unprepared, or to be numbered among those who are counted as ‘slackers’ by Allah.

Now that we’ve gone through this part of the looking glass, we can finally get beyond the outward persona, and the social media hype, and the cultural barriers, and the gender sensitivities, and just listen to the actual words that Ms. Sarsour is saying.

When we do that, we soon discover that she is speaking a dialect of English that is 100 percent pure Muslim Brotherhood.

When I think about building power, I think about brothers like Abdul Sayed, who is in this room today, who is running to become the first Muslim Governor of the state of Michigan (14:49-16:07)

To set an example of taking direct action (i.e., political Jihad), Ms. Sarsour now endorses Abdul Sayed [Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed], who was seated in the audience, while urging the audience to donate to his political campaign (cue the applause).

At the same time, Ms. Sarsour also criticized “establishment Democrats” who have blocked Muslims from succeeding within the Democratic Party in the past, and declared that brother Sayed would change that.

On February 25, 2017, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed announced his bid to become the Democratic candidate for Governor of Michigan.  Dr. Sayed graduated from the University of Michigan on June 11, 2007, where he served as Vice President of the Muslim Students Association (MSA), and was also chosen for a [Paul & Daisy] Soros “New American” Fellowship.

With nearly 600 chapters located in the United States and Canada, the Muslim Students Association (MSA) is the most visible and influential Islamic student organization in North America.  The MSA was incorporated in January of 1963 by members of the Muslim Brotherhood at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign,  with the goal of “spreading Islam as students in North America,” and for the specific purpose of Dawah (promoting Islam, as discussed above).

Dr. Sayed has grown up in an environment saturated with Muslim Brotherhood ideology.  If he is selected to run as the first Muslim Democratic candidate for Governor of Michigan, it will likely draw national (and international) interest.

We have to stay outraged…We as a Muslim community in these United States of America have to be Perpetually Outraged every single [day] (18:52-19:01)

Even this concept – Staying Perpetually Outraged – is alluded to in Reliance.  The title of Book Q is COMMANDING THE RIGHT AND FORBIDDING THE WRONG, which is based on a passage from the Hadith, “Command the right and forbid the wrong, or Allah will put the worst of you in charge of the best of you, and the best will supplicate Allah and be left unanswered.”

To add further context, Book Q of Reliance specifically discusses how Muslims should actively oppose the unjust leader (the tyrant, the oppressor), who does not rule his people according to Islamic Shariah.  Perhaps now, we can better understand why Ms. Sarsour’s determination to stay perpetually outraged is actually authorized by Islamic law.

Then, Chapter Q5.0 of Book Q, which is entitled THE ACT OF CENSURING, provides eight ‘degrees’ (levels) of authorized response when a Muslim encounters a non-Islamic ‘wrong act.’  Each one of these progressively more violent eight levels of response has ‘various degrees of severity and rules.’

For brevity, I will just include the main title of each one of the eight authorized degrees of response to a wrong act (i.e., Fitnah).

Q5.2: Knowledge of the Wrong Act

Q5.3: Explaining that Something is Wrong

Q5.4: Forbidding the Act Verbally

Q5.5: Censuring with Harsh Words

Q5.6: Fighting the Wrong By Hand

Q5.7: Intimidation

Q5.8: Assault

Q5.9: Force of Arms

Ms. Sarsour, haven’t we been told repeatedly that Islam is a benign, harmless religion of peace?

Do not ever be those citizens that normalize this administration, because when the day comes that something horrific happens to us, or to another community…you will be responsible for normalizing this administration…(19:18)

Once again, we can turn to the Quran, and to Reliance to find the deeper source of what Ms. Sarsour refers to as ‘normalization’ of a corrupt, tyrannical regime.

For example, Quran 4.89 warns Muslims that:

They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.

Quran 5.51 gives an even more specific warning:

O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you – then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.

Section R7.1 of also Reliance reiterates this theme:

It is not permissible to give directions and the like to someone intending to perpetrate a sin, because it is helping another to commit disobedience. Allah Most High says, “Do not assist one another in sin and aggression” (Quran 5.2).

Once again, as we go through another part of the looking glass, we find that Ms. Sarsour’s use of the term ‘normalization’ is just a secular (political) equivalent of the well-established Islamic concept of opposing (‘striving against’ = Jihad) tyrants and unjust rulers.

Our number one and top priority is to protect and defend our community; it is not to assimilate and to please any other people in authority…(19:32-19:36)

The admonition to avoid assimilation into non-Muslim cultures is found in multiple places in the Quran (as in verse 5.51, cited above), as well as in the fundamental Islamic doctrine known as Al-Wala’ Wa’l-Bara (Loyalty and Enmity; see here and here), and in the Explanatory Memorandum, as stated here in paragraph 7 of the section entitled The Process of Settlement:

The success of the [Islamic] Movement in America in establishing an observant Islamic base with power and effectiveness will be the best support and aid to the global Movement project…the global Movement has not succeeded yet in “distributing roles” to its branches, stating what is needed from them as one of the participants or contributors to the project to establish the global Islamic state. The day this happens, the children of the American Ikhwani [Brotherhood] branch will have far-reaching impact and positions that make the ancestors proud.

In other words, more than thirty years ago, the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood movement in North America was already looking ahead, to the time when an entire generation of American children would be raised under the influence of orthodox Ikhwan ideology, with the hope that this future American Muslim generation would play a central role in the establishment of a Shariah-compliant, global Islamic state (= Caliphate).

Nor is this strategic goal of non-assimilation and separation unique to North America.  Islamic communities in many western countries are in the process of balkanizing, as they rapidly transform into Shariah-compliant ‘no-go zones.’

Finally, if we refer one last time to the AMJA Roadmap, we find that in this time of calamity, chaos and crisis (i.e., the tyrannical Trump Administration), the AMJA scholars are not encouraging American Muslims to assimilate into mainstream culture, but instead advising them to further distance themselves from it, while building a protective barrier of Shariah, and preparing for the possibility of leaving the country entirely.

No wonder, then, that Linda Sarsour would feel compelled remind the audience of the ISNA, the premier Muslim Brotherhood organization in America, that their top priority is to “defend and protect our community; it is not to assimilate.”

Our top priority…even higher than all those [other] priorities, is to please Allah, and only Allah (19:52)

The concept of pleasing only Allah is found in at least 110 verses in the Quran, such as this example from Quran 5.55:

Your Guardian [Friend, Helper or Protector] can be only Allah; and His messenger and those who believe, who establish worship and pay the poor due, and bow down (in prayer).

As Linda Sarsour has said, we must be prepared.

Even if you don’t believe me (yet), then at least take a look at the world around you.

It remains my hope that America will never succumb to the temptation to hide our eyes (and ears) from the threat(s) we face.

Jared Kushner and the collusion between the media and Democrats

It seems that the media can’t get enough of the word collusion when it comes to President Trump, his family and his administration. We now know the truth about Jared C. Kushner and the Russia, the media’s boogeyman to discredit this President. It seems that the real collusion is between the media and Democrats.

Collusion is defined as “a secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.”

Does this not describe what the media, the deep state and Democrats are doing? Are they not colluding?

The public is tired of eating nothing burgers. Its time for the media to be called out for what it is, the propaganda arm of the Democrat party.

Please take the time to read the statement of Jared Kushner that he released to the press. He’s honest, straight forward, working for the good of the United States and the state of Israel.

These attempts to discredit Mr. Kushner, who is Jewish, is akin to the kind of hate we saw during the rise, and eventual fall, of the Nazi Party.

The comparisons are too stark and too consistent. The media did collude with the Clinton campaign during the primary and general election. The media created conspiracies during the election and since President Trump was inaugurated. The media, the deep state and Democrats have cheated and deceived the American people.

But, thankfully, its not working. The resistance is dying of its own hate. The Democrats can’t win even one of the special elections since President Trump’s inaugural. Finally, the Democrats, in a fit of desperation, have re-branded themselves in name only. Democrats keep losing, the media keeps losing and the deep state keeps harming the national security of the United States of America.

Time for this to end and end now. Report what is important, what is relevant and what is truthful. You already know the cost CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS. You already know the cost Democrats.

You are all committing suicide by collusion.


July 24, 2017

I am voluntarily providing this statement, submitting documents, and sitting for interviews in order to shed light on issues that have been raised about my role in the Trump for President Campaign and during the transition period.

I am not a person who has sought the spotlight. First in my business and now in public service, I have worked on achieving goals, and have left it to others to work on media and public perception. Because there has been a great deal of conjecture, speculation, and inaccurate information about me, I am grateful for the opportunity to set the record straight.

My Role in the Trump for President Campaign

Before joining the administration, I worked in the private sector, building and managing companies. My experience was in business, not politics, and it was not my initial intent to play a large role in my father-in-law’s campaign when he decided to run for President. However, as the campaign progressed, I was called on to assist with various tasks and aspects of the campaign, and took on more and more responsibility.

Over the course of the primaries and general election campaign, my role continued to evolve. I ultimately worked with the finance, scheduling, communications, speechwriting, polling, data and digital teams, as well as becoming a point of contact for foreign government officials.

All of these were tasks that I had never performed on a campaign previously. When I was faced with a new challenge, I would reach out to contacts, ask advice, find the right person to manage the specific challenge, and work with that person to develop and execute a plan of action. I was lucky to work with some incredibly talented people along the way, all of whom made significant contributions toward the campaign’s ultimate success. Our nimble culture allowed us to adjust to the ever-changing circumstances and make changes on the fly as the situation warranted. I share this information because these actions should be viewed through the lens of a fast-paced campaign with thousands of meetings and interactions, some of which were impactful and memorable and many of which were not.

It is also important to note that a campaign’s success starts with its message and its messenger. Donald Trump had the right vision for America and delivered his message perfectly. The results speak for themselves. Not only did President Trump defeat sixteen skilled and experienced primary opponents and win the presidency; he did so spending a fraction of what his opponent spent in the general election. He outworked his opponent and ran one of the best campaigns in history using both modern technology and traditional methods to bring his message to the American people.

Campaign Contacts with Foreign Persons

When it became apparent that my father-in-law was going to be the Republican nominee for President, as normally happens, a number of officials from foreign countries attempted to reach out to the campaign. My father-in-law asked me to be a point of contact with these foreign countries. These were not contacts that I initiated, but, over the course of the campaign, I had incoming contacts with people from approximately 15 countries. To put these requests in context, I must have received thousands of calls, letters and emails from people looking to talk or meet on a variety of issues and topics, including hundreds from outside the United States. While I could not be responsive to everyone, I tried to be respectful of any foreign government contacts with whom it would be important to maintain an ongoing, productive working relationship were the candidate to prevail. To that end, I called on a variety of people with deep experience, such as Dr. Henry Kissinger, for advice on policy for the candidate, which countries/representatives with which the campaign should engage, and what messaging would resonate. In addition, it was typical for me to receive 200 or more emails a day during the campaign. I did not have the time to read every one, especially long emails from unknown senders or email chains to which I was added at some later point in the exchange.

With respect to my contacts with Russia or Russian representatives during the campaign, there were hardly any. The first that I can recall was at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. in April 2016. This was when then candidate Trump was delivering a major foreign policy speech. Doing the event and speech had been my idea, and I oversaw its execution. I arrived at the hotel early to make sure all logistics were in order. After that, I stopped into the reception to thank the host of the event, Dimitri Simes, the publisher of the bi-monthly foreign policy magazine, The National Interest, who had done a great job putting everything together. Mr. Simes and his group had created the guest list and extended the invitations for the event. He introduced me to several guests, among them four ambassadors, including Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. With all the ambassadors, including Mr. Kislyak, we shook hands, exchanged brief pleasantries and I thanked them for attending the event and said I hoped they would like candidate Trump’s speech and his ideas for a fresh approach to America’s foreign policy. The ambassadors also expressed interest in creating a positive relationship should we win the election. Each exchange lasted less than a minute; some gave me their business cards and invited me to lunch at their embassies. I never took them up on any of these invitations and that was the extent of the interactions.

Reuters news service has reported that I had two calls with Ambassador Kislyak at some time between April and November of 2016. While I participated in thousands of calls during this period, I do not recall any such calls with the Russian Ambassador. We have reviewed the phone records available to us and have not been able to identify any calls to any number we know to be associated with Ambassador Kislyak and I am highly skeptical these calls took place. A comprehensive review of my land line and cell phone records from the time does not reveal those calls. I had no ongoing relationship with the Ambassador before the election, and had limited knowledge about him then. In fact, on November 9, the day after the election, I could not even remember the name of the Russian Ambassador. When the campaign received an email purporting to be an official note of congratulations from President Putin, I was asked how we could verify it was real. To do so I thought the best way would be to ask the only contact I recalled meeting from the Russian government, which was the Ambassador I had met months earlier, so I sent an email asking Mr. Simes, “What is the name of the Russian ambassador?” Through my lawyer, I have asked Reuters to provide the dates on which the calls supposedly occurred or the phone number at which I supposedly reached, or was reached by, Ambassador Kislyak. The journalist refused to provide any corroborating evidence that they occurred.

The only other Russian contact during the campaign is one I did not recall at all until I was reviewing documents and emails in response to congressional requests for information. In June 2016, my brother-in-law, Donald Trump Jr. asked if I was free to stop by a meeting on June 9 at 3:00 p.m. The campaign was headquartered in the same building as his office in Trump Tower, and it was common for each of us to swing by the other’s meetings when requested. He eventually sent me his own email changing the time of the meeting to 4:00 p.m. That email was on top of a long back and forth that I did not read at the time. As I did with most emails when I was working remotely, I quickly reviewed on my iPhone the relevant message that the meeting would occur at 4:00 PM at his office. Documents confirm my memory that this was calendared as “Meeting: Don Jr.| Jared Kushner.” No one else was mentioned.

I arrived at the meeting a little late. When I got there, the person who has since been identified as a Russian attorney was talking about the issue of a ban on U.S. adoptions of Russian children. I had no idea why that topic was being raised and quickly determined that my time was not well-spent at this meeting. Reviewing emails recently confirmed my memory that the meeting was a waste of our time and that, in looking for a polite way to leave and get back to my work, I actually emailed an assistant from the meeting after I had been there for ten or so minutes and wrote “Can u pls call me on my cell? Need excuse to get out of meeting.” I had not met the attorney before the meeting nor spoken with her since. I thought nothing more of this short meeting until it came to my attention recently. I did not read or recall this email exchange before it was shown to me by my lawyers when reviewing documents for submission to the committees. No part of the meeting I attended included anything about the campaign, there was no follow up to the meeting that I am aware of, I do not recall how many people were there (or their names), and I have no knowledge of any documents being offered or accepted. Finally, after seeing the email, I disclosed this meeting prior to it being reported in the press on a supplement to my security clearance form, even if that was not required as meeting the definitions of the form.

There was one more possible contact that I will note. On October 30, 2016, I received a random email from the screenname “Guccifer400.” This email, which I interpreted as a hoax, was an extortion attempt and threatened to reveal candidate Trump’s tax returns and demanded that we send him 52 bitcoins in exchange for not publishing that information. I brought the email to the attention of a U.S. Secret Service agent on the plane we were all travelling on and asked what he thought. He advised me to ignore it and not to reply — which is what I did. The sender never contacted me again.

To the best of my recollection, these were the full extent of contacts I had during the campaign with persons who were or appeared to potentially be representatives of the Russian government.

Transition Contacts with Foreign Persons

The transition period after the election was even more active than the campaign. Starting on election night, we began to receive an incredible volume of messages and invitations from well-wishers in the United States and abroad. Dozens of messages came from foreign officials seeking to set up foreign leader calls and create lines of communication and relationships with what would be the new administration. During this period, I recall having over fifty contacts with people from over fifteen countries. Two of those meetings were with Russians, neither of which I solicited.

On November 16, 2016, my assistant received a request for a meeting from the Russian Ambassador. As I mentioned before, previous to receiving this request, I could not even recall the Russian Ambassador’s name, and had to ask for the name of the individual I had seen at the Mayflower Hotel almost seven months earlier. In addition, far from being urgent, that meeting was not set up for two weeks — on December 1. The meeting occurred in Trump Tower, where we had our transition office, and lasted twenty- thirty minutes. Lt. General Michael Flynn (Ret.), who became the President’s National Security Advisor, also attended. During the meeting, after pleasantries were exchanged, as I had done in many of the meetings I had and would have with foreign officials, I stated our desire for a fresh start in relations. Also, as I had done in other meetings with foreign officials, I asked Ambassador Kislyak if he would identify the best person (whether the Ambassador or someone else) with whom to have direct discussions and who had contact with his President. The fact that I was asking about ways to start a dialogue after Election Day should of course be viewed as strong evidence that I was not aware of one that existed before Election Day.

The Ambassador expressed similar sentiments about relations, and then said he especially wanted to address U.S. policy in Syria, and that he wanted to convey information from what he called his “generals.” He said he wanted to provide information that would help inform the new administration. He said the generals could not easily come to the U.S. to convey this information and he asked if there was a secure line in the transition office to conduct a conversation. General Flynn or I explained that there were no such lines. I believed developing a thoughtful approach on Syria was a very high priority given the ongoing humanitarian crisis, and I asked if they had an existing communications channel at his embassy we could use where they would be comfortable transmitting the information they wanted to relay to General Flynn. The Ambassador said that would not be possible and so we all agreed that we would receive this information after the Inauguration. Nothing else occurred. I did not suggest a “secret back channel.” I did not suggest an on-going secret form of communication for then or for when the administration took office. I did not raise the possibility of using the embassy or any other Russian facility for any purpose other than this one possible conversation in the transition period. We did not discuss sanctions.

Approximately a week later, on December 6, the Embassy asked if I could meet with the Ambassador on December 7. I declined. They then asked if I could meet on December 6; I declined again. They then asked when the earliest was that I could meet. I declined these requests because I was working on many other responsibilities for the transition. He asked if he could meet my assistant instead and, to avoid offending the Ambassador, I agreed. He did so on December 12. My assistant reported that the Ambassador had requested that I meet with a person named Sergey Gorkov who he said was a banker and someone with a direct line to the Russian President who could give insight into how Putin was viewing the new administration and best ways to work together. I agreed to meet Mr. Gorkov because the Ambassador has been so insistent, said he had a direct relationship with the President, and because Mr. Gorkov was only in New York for a couple days. I made room on my schedule for the meeting that occurred the next day, on December 13.

The meeting with Mr. Gorkov lasted twenty to twenty-five minutes. He introduced himself and gave me two gifts — one was a piece of art from Nvgorod, the village where my grandparents were from in Belarus, and the other was a bag of dirt from that same village. (Any notion that I tried to conceal this meeting or that I took it thinking it was in my capacity as a businessman is false. In fact, I gave my assistant these gifts to formally register them with the transition office). After that, he told me a little about his bank and made some statements about the Russian economy. He said that he was friendly with President Putin, expressed disappointment with U.S.-Russia relations under President Obama and hopes for a better relationship in the future. As I did at the meeting with Ambassador Kislyak, I expressed the same sentiments I had with other foreign officials I met. There were no specific policies discussed. We had no discussion about the sanctions imposed by the Obama Administration. At no time was there any discussion about my companies, business transactions, real estate projects, loans, banking arrangements or any private business of any kind. At the end of the short meeting, we thanked each other and I went on to other meetings. I did not know or have any contact with Mr. Gorkov before that meeting, and I have had no reason to connect with him since.

To the best of my recollection, these were the only two contacts I had during the transition with persons who were or appeared to potentially be representatives of the Russian government.

Disclosure of Contacts on My Security Clearance Form

There has been a good deal of misinformation reported about my SF-86 form. As my attorneys and I have previously explained, my SF-86 application was prematurely submitted due to a miscommunication and initially did not list any contacts (not just with Russians) with foreign government officials. Here are some facts about that form and the efforts I have made to supplement it.

In the week before the Inauguration, amid the scramble of finalizing the unwinding of my involvement from my company, moving my family to Washington, completing the paper work to divest assets and resign from my outside positions and complete my security and financial disclosure forms, people at my New York office were helping me find the information, organize it, review it and put it into the electronic form. They sent an email to my assistant in Washington, communicating that the changes to one particular section were complete; my assistant interpreted that message as meaning that the entire form was completed. At that point, the form was a rough draft and still had many omissions including not listing any foreign government contacts and even omitted the address of my father-in-law (which was obviously well known). Because of this miscommunication, my assistant submitted the draft on January 18, 2017.

That evening, when we realized the form had been submitted prematurely, we informed the transition team that we needed to make changes and additions to the form. The very next day, January 19, 2017, we submitted supplemental information to the transition, which confirmed receipt and said they would immediately transmit it to the FBI. The supplement disclosed that I had “numerous contacts with foreign officials” and that we were going through my records to provide an accurate and complete list. I provided a list of those contacts in the normal course, before my background investigation interview and prior to any inquiries or media reports about my form.

It has been reported that my submission omitted only contacts with Russians. That is not the case. In the accidental early submission of the form, all foreign contacts were omitted. The supplemental information later disclosed over one hundred contacts from more than twenty countries that might be responsive to the questions on the form. These included meetings with individuals such as Jordan’s King Abdullah II, Israel’s Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, Mexico’s Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Luis Videgaray Caso and many more. All of these had been left off before.

Over the last six months, I have made every effort to provide the FBI with whatever information is needed to investigate my background. In addition, my attorneys have explained that the security clearance process is one in which supplements are expected and invited. The form itself instructs that, during the interview, the information in the document can be “update[d], clarif[ied], and explain[ed]” as part of the security clearance process. A good example is the June 9 meeting. For reasons that should be clear from the explanation of that meeting I have provided, I did not remember the meeting and certainly did not remember it as one with anyone who had to be included on an SF-86. When documents reviewed for production in connection with committee requests reminded me that meeting had occurred, and because of the language in the email chain that I then read for the first time, I included that meeting on a supplement. I did so even though my attorneys were unable to conclude that the Russian lawyer was a representative of any foreign country and thus fell outside the scope of the form. This supplemental information was also provided voluntarily, well prior to any media inquiries, reporting or request for this information, and it was done soon after I was reminded of the meeting.

As I have said from the very first media inquiry, I am happy to share information with the investigating bodies. I have shown today that I am willing to do so and will continue to cooperate as I have nothing to hide. As I indicated, I know there has been a great deal of speculation and conjecture about my contacts with any officials or people from Russia. I have disclosed these contacts and described them as fully as I can recall. The record and documents I am providing will show that I had perhaps four contacts with Russian representatives out of thousands during the campaign and transition, none of which were impactful in any way to the election or particularly memorable. I am very grateful for the opportunity to set the record straight. I also have tried to provide context for my role in the campaign, and I am proud of the candidate that we supported, of the campaign that we ran, and the victory that we achieved.

It has been my practice not to appear in the media or leak information in my own defense. I have tried to focus on the important work at hand and serve this President and this country to the best of my abilities. I hope that through my answers to questions, written statements and documents I have now been able to demonstrate the entirety of my limited contacts with Russian representatives during the campaign and transition. I did not collude, nor know of anyone else in the campaign who colluded, with any foreign government. I had no improper contacts. I have not relied on Russian funds to finance my business activities in the private sector. I have tried to be fully transparent with regard to the filing of my SF-86 form, above and beyond what is required. Hopefully, this puts these matters to rest.

RELATED ARTICLE: Liberals’ Allegations of Treason Against Don Jr. Fall Short

Trump Supporters Prepare for Battle

Since the day Donald J. Trump announced his bid for the White House, he has been embattled with globalist “never-Trumpers” across the aisle, around the globe and in his own party.

They tried to prevent him from entering the race – tried to defeat him in the primaries with a dozen high-profile contenders – tried to defeat him in the general election with “sure thing” Hillary Clinton and her global war machine… and have since thrown everything including the kitchen sink at him in an effort to remove him from the Oval Office.

No U.S. President in history has survived so much assault in such little time… but the opposition will not give up or give in, no matter the sentiments of 63 million Americans who chose Trump to lead America out of the anti-American secular-socialist abyss that the global left led us into.


Talk of impeaching Trump is nothing but a diversionary tactic designed to manipulate broad public opinion into believing that Trump has committed “impeachable offenses” when it’s no secret that no such offenses have been committed by Trump or anyone in his administration.

Despite zero evidence of successful “Russian hacking” into the 2016 elections or any “collusion” between the Trump Campaign and Russia, the “fake” narrative and ongoing “investigations” continue. Meanwhile, evidence of real criminal collusion and corruption committed by Clinton and the Democratic Party is not being investigated. Trump should have kept his promise to “lock them up” immediately following his inauguration and he is paying a price for not doing that today.

Impeachment was never really on the table for following three reasons;

  1. There are no impeachable offenses
  2. They don’t have the votes in congress
  3. Impeachment would allow Trump a defense

But they can use impeachment chatter to convince many Americans that Trump is “impeachable” and provides aid and cover for the real plan, while move public opinion in their direction and blocking the “Trump agenda” from moving forward under a cloud of doubt.


Because the three above reasons make impeachment of Trump impossible, “never-Trumpers” needed a different plan, one that did not require impeachable offenses of any evidence thereof, impeachment votes in congress or would allow Trump a defense against his accusers.

Trump’s opposition has worked feverishly around the clock to find a way to legally remove Trump from the Oval Office without using impeachment. They searched high and low for that solution, while they used impeachment chatter to raise doubts about Trump’s ability to serve.

They found their solution in two alternative forms…

  1. A 25th Amendment removal based on “unfit to serve” for any number of reasons.
  2. An obscure memo from Ken Starr alleging a President may be indicted outside of impeachment.

The 25th Amendment Solution

Section 4. reads in part as follows – “Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.”

Section 1. reads – “In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.”

Key to using the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from the Oval Office is the Vice President, Mike Pence. In order to use the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from power, Vice President Mike Pence must be on-board. No one can remove Trump from the presidency via the 25th Amendment without Vice President Mike Pence leading that effort.

So, where do Vice President Mike Pence’s loyalties stand? With 63 million voters, or with his globalist friends in the GOP?

The Ken Starr Solution

In the massive search for how to remove Trump from the Oval Office, an obscure memo written by then Special Prosecutor Ken Starr was discovered, in which Starr states his legal opinion that a sitting President can be indicted outside of impeachment proceedings.

This opinion flies in the face of Article II – Section IV of the U.S. Constitution, which reads – “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment.” Further, they can only be impeached – “for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

It also flies in the face of Oval Office immunity from prosecution, other than by way of impeachment. Presidents are not to be removed from office by any other means than impeachment, nor for light and transient political reasons.

Congress alone has the constitutional power to remove a sitting president by way of impeachment. The impeachment of a sitting president is an indictment, which requires the accused be given a right to a defense against the charges asserted.

Ken Starr may have a different opinion, but even he did not act on that opinion. Bill Clinton was impeached.


63 million Americans did not buy into a “Trump agenda.” Trump bought into their agenda. So, any effort to remove Trump from power or obstruct “the people’s” agenda is not just an assault on Donald J. Trump, it is an act of war against 63 million Americans who elected Trump to lead the way on their agenda and they are getting sick and tired of watching their President under constant attack.

If the globalist left “never-Trumpers” want a war with 63 million Americans, they will get it… If they think they can thwart the will of 63 million Americans, they had better think a bit more carefully.

Americans went incumbent, career-politician hunting in 2016 for a reason and they are just getting started in their revolution to reclaim control over the future of freedom in America.

Subversive actions have consequences.

RELATED ARTICLE: To Sink Trump is to Sink Ordinary Americans | Opinion – Conservative

Supreme Court Rejects Parts of Hawaii Judgment, 24,000 Muslims Blocked from Country

AP: …The Supreme Court says the Trump administration can strictly enforce its ban on refugees, but is leaving in place a weakened travel ban that includes grandparents among relatives who can help visitors from six mostly Muslim countries get into the U.S.

The justices acted Wednesday on the administration’s appeal of a federal judge’s ruling last week. U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson ordered the government to allow in refugees formally working with a resettlement agency in the United States. Watson also vastly expanded the family relations that refugees and visitors can use to get into the country.

The high court blocked Watson’s order as it applies to refugees for now, but not the expanded list of relatives. The justices said the federal appeals court in San Francisco should now consider the appeal. It’s not clear how quickly that will happen.

In the meantime, though, up to 24,000 refugees who already have been assigned to a charity or religious organization in the U.S. will not be able to use that connection to get into the country…..

Read … 24,000 Muslims


News Release from Hawaii Attorney General, July 19, 2017

HONOLULU – This morning Attorney General Doug Chin issued the following statement in response to today’s order from the United States Supreme Court:

“Today the United States Supreme Court denied the Trump Administration’s motion to clarify. They confirmed the Hawaii federal court order that grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, and cousins are indeed close family. This confirms we were right to say that the Trump Administration over-reached in trying to unilaterally keep families apart from each other, in violation of the Supreme Court’s prior ruling. The Supreme Court did stay Judge Watson’s order with respect to refugees covered by a formal assurance, pending resolution by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. We are currently preparing our arguments for the Ninth Circuit to resolve that issue.”

PDF: A copy of the Supreme Court’s order is attached.

Minneapolis police chief resigns — Michele Bachmann says grand jury must be impaneled

Apparently Mohamed Noor still won’t talk to police investigators in the wake of the worst disaster for advocates of ‘diversity hires’ in America—the shooting by a Somali former refugee of an unarmed woman, an immigrant, who had called 911 looking for help.

Noor is not talking (to investigators) but he has reportedly talked to friends in the Somali community. Time for a grand jury! Sure hope they keep him under surveillance. Too many Somalis simply disappear before they can appear in court when in legal trouble.

Former presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann, not silent in her home state: Where is the grand jury? And, could this have been a hate crime?

Presidential candidate and former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann

Not only has the police chief resigned, announced by the mayor at a tempestuous press conference, but the people of Minneapolis are out for the mayor’s head as well.  Here is one report from The Guardian (foreign press isn’t giving up on the story!).

Here is what Leo Hohmann (WND) reported yesterday in an update of the story we reported herehere and here.

A day before submitting her resignation, Minneapolis Police Chief Janeé Harteau, in her first public statement on the killing nearly a week ago of an unarmed woman by a Somali refugee cop, called her death “unnecessary” and said it went against the protocol and training given to her officers.

“Justine [Damond] didn’t have to die,” Harteau, the city’s first openly lesbian police chief, said at a press conference Thursday night. Harteau had been hiking in Colorado all week in the aftermath of the shooting.

Harteau said based on current information about the case, there was no justification for officer Mohamed Noor’s decision to shoot Damond, a 40-year-old bride-to-be and yoga instructor who had moved to the U.S. from Australia to be with her fiancée.

Harteau submitted her resignation Friday in the wake of the fatal shooting at the request of Mayor Betsy Hodges, according to a statement from the city.


Noor has refused to talk with police investigators since the July 15 incident.

Mohamed Noor

Former Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann said Harteau has to accept a large part of the blame for putting an unqualified officer on the street.

“Finally the female chief of Minneapolis police came out and said Justine Damond should still be alive. She said Mohammad Noor had no reason to shoot Justine,” Bachmann told WND. “He violated police policy and training. Noor refuses to cooperate with investigators. He refuses to give a statement.

“Firing him isn’t enough, the question is whether a grand jury will be impaneled. Manslaughter charges should be considered,” she added.

Again, will the prosecutor and police department work to determine whether this was in fact a hate crime. Clearly it wasn’t premeditated, but was it a gut reaction of Mohammad Noor resulting from his cultural beliefs? What mosque did he attend? What are his beliefs?”

Another mystery about what happened last Saturday night involves a missing two minutes from the official police log of the incident.

Hohmann continues:

As noted by a media outlet in Damond’s native Australia, the 9-1-1 tape reveals a “critical missing two minutes.”

A timeline pieced together through the bride-to-be’s 911 calls and a newly released police incident report shows Damond was shot two minutes after police officers arrived at the alleyway behind her home.

“What it doesn’t explain is what happened in those two crucial minutes that prompted officer Mohamed Noor to draw his gun, reach over his partner and discharge his weapon through the open window, delivering a fatal shot to Ms Damond’s abdomen,” reports, an Australian outlet.

Go here for the rest of the story and the actual time line.

For new readers!

Don’t miss this post from 2011 where we first learned how so many Somalis ‘found their way’ to Minnesota.  Hint! The US State Department hired Catholic, Lutheran and evangelical contractors*** to place them there because the welfare was so generous and as I later learned, some big industries needed cheap labor including a window company in Owatonna and poultry plants scattered around the state including near St. Cloud and Wilmer.

***Federal contractors/middlemen/lobbyists/community organizers paid by you to place refugees in your towns and cities. At this minute they are sending ‘abstracts’ to Washington which are their personal wish lists and plans for who will be ‘welcomed’ to your towns for the upcoming  fiscal year that begins October 1, 2017.

Because their income is largely dependent on taxpayer dollars based on the number of refugees admitted to the US, the only way for real reform of how the US admits refugees is to remove the contractors from the process.


The questions that won’t be asked about Minneapolis police shooting of Australian woman

Wishful thinking in West Virginia? New resettlement office to be up and running in October

Don’t get too bogged down in legal wrangling on refugees….

Oh geez, WaPo raises the (obligatory) Islamophobia backlash issue in story on Minneapolis police shooting

Refugee contractors increasingly admitting they can’t survive without your money

Letter to Sec. of State Tillerson is plea to keep Refugee Program at State Department

Obamacare Is Dying. Let It. by John Tamny

The alleged failure of Republicans to repeal the misnamed Affordable Care Act (ACA) predictably has the conservative punditry up in arms. “Why Can’t Republicans Get Anything Done?” was one of many frustrated headlines lamenting the GOP’s lack of legislative success.The politics of repeal would have been worse than doing nothing.

One editorial asserted that Republican failure to ‘do something’ about the ACA “is one of the great political failures in recent U.S. history, and the damage will echo for years.” Really?

Implicit in all the conservative ranting about the need to repeal, or worse, fix the ACA, is that health care was a wholly unfettered, dynamic source of free-market driven innovation before President Obama was elected. Let’s try to be serious for a moment.

Letting Obamacare Fail

Repeal of the ACA would have been an impressive headline, but the short and long-term politics of repeal for Republicans would have been worse than doing nothing. That is so because expectations about a looming nirvana would have been created, only for health care to, at best, return to its less-than-stellar-self that existed before passage of the ACA in 2010.

Importantly, none of what’s been written so far should be construed as support for the ACA. It was foolish legislation, and evidence supporting the previous contention is that the ACA was already dying before our eyes. No surprise there. Legislation meant to give some Americans a lot for a little, with a lot taken from others in return for very little, was bound to fail.

The ACA was plainly imploding as the constant rush of insurance companies out of ACA exchanges revealed in bright colors. Why abolish what the laws of economics were already abolishing?The half-measures offered by Republicans were plainly worse than simply doing nothing.

And that’s why the half-measures offered by Republican compromisers were plainly worse than simply doing nothing. Why legislate away one central plan in return for an allegedly improved central plan; essentially exchanging bad legislation for bad legislation on top of what already wasn’t working before 2010? The politics of repeal or partial repeal spoke to the horror of Washington doing anything to legislate a right to what was and is a market good like any other.

Not discussed enough by either side is that it’s impossible to invent a right to a good or service of any kind to begin with. This is certainly true with regard to health care when we remember that it didn’t realistically exist until the 20th century. Lest we forget, in the 19th it was a death sentence if you were shot in the abdomen. If you broke your femur, you had 1 in 3 odds of dying. Broken hip? Dead. Cancer? Forget about it. You were going to die.

Legislation didn’t reverse the previously mentioned odds as much as trial and error in the area of healing led to healing advances such that a market eventually formed. The shame here is that politicians discovered health care in the first place. Imagine how much more advanced we’d be had they left what was advancing alone.

We Don’t Have a Crystal Ball

All of the above has seemingly been ignored by Republicans ever eager to prove they’re as compassionate as their reliably hysterical opponents on the other side of the aisle. And there lies the problem.

Much as health care didn’t broadly exist when the 20th century dawned, so were automobiles the microscopic exception to the horse rule. Imagine if politicians, sensing what few did about the car’s potential, had legislated broad access to what very few people owned. If so, it’s safe to say that the American automobile industry would never have taken shape, mainly because politicians can’t possibly divine what we want, let alone need. The car evolved into a common good thanks to relentless experimentation that occurred alongside a 99% percent failure rate for American car companies.

Thinking about the computer, while few could get by without one today, as late as 1943, IBM Chairman Tom Watson confidently asserted that the market for computers wouldn’t expand beyond five total computers. Decades later, and billions of dollars worth of failed companies later, the computer is the can’t-live-without rule, including the supercomputers that increasingly line the pockets of rich and poor alike.

At present, politicians in both major political parties are thinking about ways to spend trillions in tax dollars on enhanced roads, just as entrepreneurs like Jeff Bezos are aggressively thinking of ways to deliver us goods and services by air, care of drones. Yet conservatives are comfortable allowing Republicans to add more laws to an already over-controlled health care market?

Despite the historical truth that the present rarely predicts the future of goods and services, politicians in both parties pretend that they know what the market for health care should look like. But how could they?

For Republicans and Democrats to legislate a right to medical services in the present is every bit as lame-brained as it would have been had they legislated access to specific kinds of cars, computers, and smartphones in 1900, 1950 and 2000. Whatever they would have dreamed up for all three would have been a fraction of what intrepid entrepreneurs divined through feverish trial and error.

What Is and What Will Be

Seemingly forgotten by Republicans is that legislation is the absolute worst way to solve any problem, real or imagined, particularly one involving goods and services created in the marketplace.

Lawmaking by definition deals with what is while thriving markets are all about sleuthing out what will be. We’ll only arrive at what will be in the health care space insofar as individuals and businesses are free to experiment without limits, yet Republicans and Democrats in their infinite confusion are trying to create rights for people with what already is.

Ok, but that’s cruel. It’s the hypothetical equivalent of politicians legislating access to the cars, computers, and smartphones of today at a time when all three were likely on the verge of rapid evolution. Health care is no different. If the goal is that everyone should have access to it, the only response from Congress should be that it will cease legislating access to what it can’t give, and more important, what it doesn’t understand. If so, watch health care markets evolve in amazing ways that redound to us all.

Reprinted from Real Clear Markets.

John Tamny

John Tamny

John Tamny is a Forbes contributor, editor of RealClearMarkets, a senior fellow in economics at Reason, and a senior economic adviser to Toreador Research & Trading. He’s the author of the 2016 book Who Needs the Fed? (Encounter), along with Popular Economics (Regnery Publishing, 2015).


The Obamacare Facts That Liberals Don’t Want You to Know

Victims of Obamacare Have a Warning for Senate Republicans

We Hear You: The Failure of Republicans to Repeal or Replace Obamacare

One Mom’s Fight for Her Special Needs Son in the Age of Obamacare

VIDEO: Health Care Is a Mess… But Why? by Seamus Coughlin and Sean Malone

You probably know a couple who both work full time to support their children, but even with their dual incomes, they’re finding it more and more difficult to afford health insurance.

Everyday incidents like sports injuries, asthma, and blood pressure, combined with their anxiety over rising premiums, are turning their American dream into sleepless nights.

Why can’t people catch a break? It wasn’t always this way!

Everyone wants health care, but there’s only so much to go around.

According to the Consumer Price Index and Medical-care price index from 1935 to 2009, the health care spending crisis didn’t start until the mid 1960s, around the same time when Medicare and Medicaid were signed into law, and at the same time that we began requiring doctors to go through all sorts of expensive licensing procedures beyond medical school.

Since then, health care spending has doubled, even adjusted for inflation. Why? Well, there are a few reasons.

Everyone wants health care, but there’s only so much to go around. And short supply leads to high prices. Normally what happens in a marketplace is that when prices are high, entrepreneurs try to profit by finding more affordable ways to provide goods and services.

The more people become involved in providing these services, the less scarce they become and the lower the prices drop, so that over time, more and more people can afford them.

This is what happened to televisions, microwaves, computers, cell phones, internet service, delivery services, food, shipping, transportation/air-travel, entertainment, home security, fitness, yoga, massages, and even all the medical technology, like LASIK, that isn’t as heavily regulated or controlled by government.

Can’t government drive down the price of goods and services like the free market?

Let’s look at what happened with Medicare and Medicaid as an example. In 1965, these two single payer health insurance programs were instituted in the US. These programs made the unfortunate less dependant on impartial private charities and more dependant on political institutions and pharmaceutical companies.

On top of that, these programs constantly require tax increases, and because they function more to satisfy the health care industry than the worker, they continually lead to more expensive and wasteful ways of treating patients.

As a result, prices shot up, making it even more difficult for people to afford health insurance. Not only that, but in 1965, government took over the training of new doctors, and in 1997 they limited the number of new doctors they would train at 110,000 per year – and the number hasn’t changed since!

Even worse, our government won’t let migrant doctors from developed western countries practice in the US without undergoing this training. So, not only do experienced doctors from other countries not want to practice medicine here, but the ones who do are taking up 15% of those few 110,000 slots, limiting the supply of doctors even more.

Won’t Obamacare solve these problems?

Unfortunately, Obamacare suffers from similar problems. It eliminated the pricing structure by seriously restricting competition because all providers have to offer the same kinds of plans at the same price. And because that price isn’t really determined by the market, providers can charge the taxpayer way more than they could otherwise. It’s basically just a handout to big insurance companies.

But it doesn’t have to be this way! If we get the government out of health care, more people like those you know will be able to get the care they need.

Seamus Coughlin

Seamus Coughlin

Seamus Coughlin is a comedy writer and animator with a deep interest in politics and morality. A good deal of his work can be found on the FreedomToons YouTube channel.

Sean Malone

Sean Malone

Sean Malone is the Director of Media at FEE. His films have been featured in the mainstream media and throughout the free-market educational community.

VIDEO: Repeal and Don’t Replace Obamacare

Obamacare has led to higher costs and fewer health insurance options for millions of Americans. The 2010 healthcare law has brought the American people rising premiums, unaffordable deductibles, fewer insurance choices, and higher taxes. President Donald J. Trump promised to repeal and replace this disaster, and that is exactly what he is working with Congress to achieve.

The Humanitarian Hoax of Raising the Minimum Wage: Killing America With Kindness

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

Obama, the humanitarian huckster-in-chief, weakened the United States borders for eight years presenting his crippling policies as altruistic when in fact they were designed for destruction. His legacy, the Leftist Democratic Party with its “resistance” movement, is the party of the Humanitarian Hoax attempting to destroy American democracy and replace it with socialism.

Raising the minimum wage has been an anthem for the leftist Democratic Party. They rail against the “heartless” Republicans for not caring and having loving kindness for the little people. The Leftist insist the 99% are being victimized by the ruthless 1%. So let’s examine the subjective reality of leftist fiction being propagated by these humanitarian hucksters.

Raising the minimum wage to $13 or $!5 is a great sound bite repeated incessantly by the colluding mainstream media for the hucksters. In objective reality raising the minimum wage to the $13 or $15 threshold has resulted in devastating consequences for the poorest working Americans. Instead of working a full-time 40 hour week the workers’ hours were reduced to a part-time 20 hour week and their benefits were reduced accordingly.

The humanitarian hucksters are not stupid – they are just deceitful. They knew the outcome because there are many educated economists among them who know that businesses that cannot sustain the wage increase will reduce hours to keep their businesses open. So why would the leftist humanitarian hucksters deliberately make such a destructive demand?

The answer is that the goal of the leftist Democratic Party is to destroy American democracy and replace it with socialism. The leftists already know that unsustainable wage increases that result in reduced hours also result in increased welfare roles that will overwhelm the system and devastate the economy. Obama’s mentor radical socialist Saul Alinsky hoped to change American democracy into socialism in the 1970s.

Alinsky’s Columbia University proteges Richard Cloward and Frances Piven devised the strategy to deliberately overload the US welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to “a replacement of the welfare system with a national guaranteed annual income and thus end poverty.” The problem is that the guaranteed annual income is guaranteed to collapse the economy and increase poverty. As Margaret Thatcher so succinctly remarked, “Socialism cannot work – eventually you run out of other peoples’ money.” Demanding the unsustainable raise in the minimum wage was a humanitarian hoax.

What is essential to understand is that socialism may have been the end game for the left-wing liberal lemmings determined to replace American democracy with socialism – but it was never the end game of the globalist elite who actually have the power and intend to rule the world with their own new world order of one-world government.

The Leftist Democratic Party and their leaders are the useful idiots being used by the globalist elite (monarchs, aristocrats, royalty, world bankers, and industrialists) to transform America into socialism. The Leftists are too arrogant to understand that they are participating in their own destruction. They have been indoctrinated to believe that they are fighting for “social justice and income equality” when in fact they are helping to establish the dystopian nightmare of one-world government where there is no middle class, no upward mobility, no national sovereignty, and no individual freedoms. There is only the ruling globalist elite and the enslaved population who serve them.

Socialism with its complete government control is the prerequisite social structure for the globalist elite to internationalize the socialist countries, internationalize the police force, and impose enforced one-world government. One-world government is the new world order that the globalist elite intend to rule themselves. It is unapologetically described in chilling detail in Lord Bertrand Russell’s 1952 book “The Impact of Science on Society.” One-world government is a binary socio-political system of masters and slaves. There is no social justice in one-world government, there is no income equality in one-world government, there are no Leftists or political agitators of any kind in one-world government – only a docile, compliant population of slaves ruled by the globalist elite.

One-world government is the goal and the underlying motive of the campaign to destroy America from within. American democracy is the single greatest existential threat to one-world government and President Donald Trump is America’s leader. If the globalist elite are successful in their efforts to weaken the US military, create social chaos through open borders and illegal immigration, collapse the economy through an unsustainable minimum wage, overthrow the US government of President Donald Trump, and transform America into socialism the next step is globalist conquest and the imposition of one-world government.

After 241 years of American freedom the world will be returned to the dystopian existence of masters and slaves because a willfully blind American public was seduced by leftist humanitarian hucksters promising kind social justice and compassionate income equality to surrender their sovereign borders and freedoms by demanding unsustainable economic benefits without commensurate work. The Humanitarian Hoax will have succeeded in killing America with “kindness.”

Trump Jr.’s Email: Want to Talk About Treason? Okay….

The obsession with Donald Trump Jr.’s “Russian” email chain is just the latest example of what the Media/Democrat Party/Establishment Axis does best: engage in misdirection to confuse people about who America’s real enemies are.

Now, since the emails are currently Exhibit A in Trump treason allegations, let’s talk about treason. No, we don’t have to go back to when Democrat senator Ted Kennedy secretly approached the murderous Soviets and asked for help defeating Ronald Reagan in 1984. That’s too old and too obvious. But try this on for size.

We’ve now learned that U.S. soldier Ikaika Erik Kang, just arrested for Islamic State ties, expressed allegiance to the group as early as 2011 (which is much like a serviceman having expressed support for the Nazis during WWII). Instead of being immediately put in the stockade, however, Barack Obama’s military and FBI, the Daily Mail reports, “investigated to determine whether he posed a threat, authorities said.”

They must have still been wondering in 2013, because that’s when they gave Kang back his security clearance after having revoked it the year before.

This clearly was part of the leftist Obama mentality that sought to elevate anything contrary to Americanism. It didn’t matter that Kang had already threatened “to hurt or kill other service members back in 2011,” as the Mail relates it. It doesn’t matter that he could have been the next Major Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 at Ford Hood in 2009 after he, too, expressed jihadist sentiments but wasn’t stopped. Hey, if you want to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs.

Some will point out that the Left’s enabling of intra-military jihad isn’t, technically speaking, treason. That’s true. Neither is what Trump Jr. did, with experts saying it wasn’t illegal. But we’re talking here about treason in spirit, which is often worse than the illegal variety.

The Trumps also aren’t inviting aliens into the nation to overwhelm the natives. But that’s precisely what the Left has been doing for ages via im/migration, with Obama ratcheting the process up to a fever pitch. He used every trick in the book — granting gratuitous “refugee” status, ceasing border enforcement, etc. — to ensure that as many non-Americans as possible would occupy America.

Obama did this because, as the Daily Caller reported in 2015, he believes “immigration will drown conservatism.” Actually, it drowns Americanism.

But the Left knows what it’s doing. Eighty-five percent of our legal immigrants come from the Third World (also, in part, Ted Kennedy’s handiwork); 70 to 90 percent of them vote for leftist Democrats upon being naturalized. Obama hailed this, mind you, saying that becoming a “hodgepodge of folks” extinguishes Americanism.

No, he wasn’t as blunt as overseas soul mate and Social Democrat politician Mona Sahlin, who said, alluding in 2001 to “her nation’s” immigration-born changes, “[T]he Swedes must be integrated into the new Sweden; the old Sweden is never coming back.” But what do you call people who import foreigners for the purposes of disempowering and defeating fellow countrymen? What do you call those who use demographic genocide against “their own people”? At least, I guess, they aren’t doing it via email.

In his famous quotation, Roman statesman Marcus Cicero remarked 2000 years ago that “the traitor appears not a traitor.” This is especially true today because the Left has made treason the norm, birthing something I’ll call “treasonism.” It inverts reality and institutionalizes treason, creating a situation in which

  • desiring to secure your border and stem a foreign invasion makes you a xenophobe.
  • complaining about another nation’s flag flown in your own country gets you fired and branded a hater.
  • American high-tech workers are replaced with foreigners, whom they’re forced to train.
  • an illegal alien is called an “undocumented worker” (much like calling a rapist an undocumented husband).
  • warning of your nation’s demographic and cultural genocide makes you a “racist.”
  • defending Western civilization, as Trump did in Poland recently, brings accusations of “racial and religious paranoia.”

Add to this Obama’s/the Left’s efforts at

  • foisting a contraception mandate on Christian entities, a complete betrayal of our traditional understanding of freedom of religion.
  • forcing private businessmen to cater events (e.g., faux weddings) against their will, a complete betrayal of religious freedom, freedom of association and private property rights. (When in American history did we ever compel businessmen to service events they find morally objectionable?)
  • removing historically present Christian symbols and sentiments from public property while opening the door to Satanism, Wicca and Islam, a complete betrayal of our cultural and religious tradition.
  • using the courts to unconstitutionally overturn the people’s will (e.g., Obergefell marriage opinion), a complete betrayal of our republican government and founding principles.

In fact, it’s hard to think of anything authentically American the Left doesn’t aim to destroy. Say what we will about President Trump’s style and ideology, he’s not a treasonist. Trump is putting America first.

The Left is trying to put America down.

Trump is accused of “colluding” with an enemy of America.

Our leftists are enemies of America.

These are the things that matter. These are the matters that affect your life and those of your children and grandchildren. This leftist treasonism, if not entirely upended, will destroy our nation. Yet we’re worried about — and very well may vote next year based on — issues such as a stupid (but legal) email.


Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to

Progressives Should Look to Their Own Troublesome History by Donald J. Boudreaux

I’m sure that the irony has struck others whose wits are sharper and quicker than mine.

This morning my eyes happened upon my copy of Thomas Leonard’s excellent 2016 volume, Illiberal Reformers. It sat innocently on one of my bookshelves.

In that book, Princeton economist Leonard documents the overt racism of “Progressivism’s” founders. Leonard documents the overt belief by early “Progressives” that genetically caused differences in ability justify repressive government measures to protect the better-abled from the less-abled – and especially from the economic competition that these less-abled posed. (Minimum-wage statutes, for example, were originally designed – and promoted by “Progressive” scholars – as a fine mechanism for protecting white workers from having to suffer the competition of black and other non-white workers.)

Human society was to progress as it is engineered by the state to improve the gene pool.

And now, a century or so later, “Progressives” are patting themselves on the back for having had nothing to do with the late Nobel laureate economist James Buchanan (1919-2013). The cause of this self-celebration, of course, is the recent publication of Nancy MacLean’s Democracy in Chains, in which Buchanan is portrayed as a closet racist whose lifelong exploration of the nature of constitutional rules (and of democratic governance under such rules) was used by greedy plutocrats as ideological cover for their rapacious policies.

The trouble with MacLean’s story, however, is that – in the words of Phil Magness – “it appears to be completely made up.”

Whether MacLean believes her narrative or not, everyone with any genuine knowledge of Buchanan’s works understands that her narrative is complete bunk. It is, as they say, “not supported by the facts.”

Put differently, MacLean’s books appears to have about as much truth-content as any randomly selected 2:00am tweet from the current president of the United States. There is zero evidence, either overt or hidden, that Buchanan was a racist. He was anything but.

So if an ideology is to be damned because of its racist origins and uses, it is not the classical liberalism, or libertarianism, of Jim Buchanan – for as Jim’s (and my) long-time colleague David Levy (and Sandy Peart) point out, that ideology has an honorable history of opposing racism when opposing racism wasn’t cool.

The ideology that we should damn – were we to follow the implied counsel of all of the “Progressives” who are praising MacLean’s book – is none other than “Progressivism.” That ideology, as Thomas Leonard documents with evidence (rather than innuendo), truly is rooted in racism.

Reprinted from Cafe Hayek.

Donald J. Boudreaux

Donald J. Boudreaux

Donald Boudreaux is a senior fellow with the F.A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a Mercatus Center Board Member, a professor of economics and former economics-department chair at George Mason University, and a former FEE president.

RELATED ARTICLE: As a Teen Cashier Seeing Food Stamp Use, I Changed My Mind About the Democrat Party

VIDEO: Russian Hacking in 3 Minutes by Stefan Molyneux

In this video Stefan Molyneux  addresses the issue of Russian hacking in just 3 minuted.

Molyneux states:

Many Democrats believe that Russian hackers targeted the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta, providing private information about Hillary Clinton to Wikileaks which ultimately swung the U.S. Presidential election to Donald Trump. If we accept this theory as true, Stefan Molyneux puts it into the proper perspective and highlights it’s outright absurdity.

RELATED ARTICLE: A Russia collusion story worth pursuing

EDITORS NOTE: Your support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at:

Get more from Stefan Molyneux and Freedomain Radio including books, podcasts and other info at:

American Eagle Outfitters uses oppressive Islamist symbol in its advertising

It is predominantly the ignorant, greedy, and/or leftist part of the American market place that is helping Islamist Sharia doctrine to advance in the United States.  Whether attempting to appear politically correct to their leftist customers or deliberately targeting Islamist customers, their embracement and glamorization of Islamist tenets advances Sharia law in America.

American Eagle Outfitters hijab.

American Eagle Outfitters used photographs of Halima Aden wearing a hijab in its latest product promotion.  Halima Aden is the Muslim woman who wore a hijab on the cover of allure magazine.

American Eagle Outfitters’ product promotion is pushing the hijab which symbolizes and epitomizes Islamist oppression of women and is rejected by 57% of the Muslim women living in America.

Two Muslim women, Asra Q. Nomani and Hala Arafa, wrote a column titled “Wearing the Hijab in Solidarity Perpetuates Oppression” that was published on January 14, 2016 by The New York Times.  The column states in part:

In the eight times the word hijab, or a derivative, appears in the Koran, it means a “barrier” or “curtain,” with spiritual, not sartorial, meaning. Today, well-intentioned women are wearing headscarves in interfaith “solidarity.” But, to us, they stand on the wrong side of a lethal war of ideas that sexually objectifies women as vessels for honor and temptation, absolving men of personal responsibility.   This purity culture covers, segregates, subordinates, silences, jails and kills women and girls around the world.

Pew Research found that only forty three percent (43%) of American Muslim women wear hijabs according to an article published by NPR on April 21, 2011.  The NPR article states in part,

“The split between women who’ve covered and women who’ve never done so has existed for decades. But now a generation of women is taking off the headscarf, or hijab.” Therefore, after six years of “a generation of women taking off the hijab” the number of Muslim women now wearing the hijab in America is likely even less than forty three percent.  NPR reports:   Rasmieyh Abdelnabi, 27, grew up attending an Islamic school in Bridgeview, Ill., a tiny Arab enclave on Chicago’s southwest side. It’s a place where most Muslim women wear the hijab.  Abdelnabi explains why she stopped wearing the hijab.  She says that Islam teaches modesty — but wearing the hijab is taking it a step too far.  “I’ve done my research, and I don’t feel its foundation is from Islam,” she says. “I think it comes from Arab culture.”

The majority of Muslim women in America reject the hijab because:

  • The hijab symbolizes Islamist oppression.
  • These Muslim women live in America where the law of the land gives them that right.
  • These Muslim women want to Americanize their appearance and blend in not stand out.

American Eagle Outfitters certainly has the right to use whatever content it chooses in its advertising campaigns.  Likewise, you have the same right to express disappointment and patronize companies that do not promote symbols of Islamist doctrine.  Please urge American Eagle Outfitters to use advertising content that embraces the liberties of the United States Constitution instead of Islamist tenets that oppress women and minorities.

Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send to urge American Eagle Outfitters (DSW) officials to discontinue inclusion of women wearing hijabs, a symbol of Islamist oppression, in its advertising campaigns.

Click here to send your email to urge American Eagle Outfitters (DSW) officials to discontinue inclusion of women wearing hijabs, a symbol of Islamist oppression, in its advertising campaigns.

Contact information:

Jay Schottenstein, Executive Chairman, DSW, Inc
CEO American Eagle Outfitters

Roger L. Rawlins, CEO

Jared Poff, CFO

Laurie Bibbo Zuckerman
American Eagle Outfitters, Inc.

Does your state care about voter fraud, people stealing elections? These states don’t…

The PEW Center on the States in a 2012 study titled “Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient: Evidence That America’s Voter Registration System Needs an Upgrade” found:

  • Approximately 24 million—one of every eight—voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate.
  • More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters.
  • Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.

PEW researchers estimated at least 51 million eligible U.S. citizens are unregistered, or more than 24 percent of the eligible population. In contrast the PEW study noted that “Canada, which uses modern technology to register people as well as data-matching techniques common in the private sector, spends less than 35 cents per voter to process registrations, and 93 percent of its eligible population is registered.”

In a Daily Signal article titled “Some States Have No Interest in Fighting Voter Fraud” John G. Malcolm and Jason Snead report:

It was a simple request—hardly one to stir up controversy.

Kris Kobach, Kansas secretary of state and vice chair of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, recently sent letters to his fellow secretaries of state requesting “publicly-available voter roll data” and soliciting feedback on ways to secure America’s electoral system against fraud.

Yet the response has been as swift as it is absurd. Liberal activist groups, many media outlets, and politicians—predominantly left-leaning ones—assailed the commission for somehow invading the privacy of American voters.

Some went even further. Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh tweeted that the request was “repugnant.” Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe labeled the commission a “tool to commit large-scale voter suppression.” California Secretary of State Alex Padilla called it a “waste of taxpayer money.”

All three indicated their states will provide no information to the commission. They apparently believe that their voter registration rolls are 100 percent accurate.

They must agree with New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who publicly proclaimed voter fraud to be just a “myth”—so why bother investigating it?

Read more.

As Malcolm and Snead note:

According to a provision in Section 20507 of Title 52, part of the National Voter Registration Act (52 U.S.C. § 20507(i)):

Each state shall maintain for at least two years and shall make available for public inspection and, where available, photocopying at a reasonable cost, all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters …

Federal law (52 U.S.C. §§ 20701 & 20703) also mandates that election officers must “retain and preserve, for a period of 22 months from the date of any general, special, or primary election” for a federal office all records pertaining to “any application” or “registration” to vote.

If Americans want to make sure their votes counts and is not negated by an illegal vote then they should contact their elected representatives and support the Presidential Commission looking at the integrity of our voting system.


John G. Malcolm

Portrait of John G. Malcolm

John G. Malcolm

John G. Malcolm oversees The Heritage Foundation’s work to increase understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law as director of the think tank’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read his research.

Jason Snead

Portrait of Jason Snead

Jason Snead

Jason Snead is a policy analyst in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read his research.


Undocumented immigrant driver’s licenses near milestone in California

My Parents’ Experience With Dictatorships Inspired Me to Fight Voter Fraud

The Atlantic Publishes All You Need to Know About the Left

Meet the Elected Democrat Who Wants to Fight Voter Fraud

RELATED VIDEO: Judicial Watch convened four of the nation’s top experts on election integrity to discuss the very timely topic of voter fraud. Please watch the webcast to understand what’s really going on out there in our election system.