The Indivisible Team planning to use ‘Aggressive Tactics’ to ‘Destroy’ Trump Presidency

/in , , , /by

The Indivisible Team (IT) was established by a group of five former Democratic congressional staffers in the immediate aftermath of Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton in the November 2016 presidential election. One of the five founders, IT board president Ezra Levin, had previously served as associate director of government affairs at the Corporation for Enterprise Development, and as an AmeriCorps VISTA employee in the Homeless Services Division of the San Jose Department of Housing. Another key founder, IT board secretary Angel Padilla, had worked as an immigration policy consultant at the National Council of La Raza, and as an adviser to Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Illinois) from 2009-11.

IndivisibleGuide_2016-12-31_v1-1-232x300Upon its inception, IT’s first order of business was to launch a website devoted to providing leftists and liberals with strategies for countering the “radical, racist, and sexist” objectives of President Trump. This website features a tool kit for local IT organizers, a daily calendar that lists national events and calls-to-action, and most importantly, the group’s signature publication, Indivisible: A Practical Guide for Resisting the Trump Agenda. During December 2016 and January 2017, this Guide was downloaded more than 1 million times.

Rejecting the very legitimacy of Donald Trump’s presidency, the IT Guide portrays him as “the biggest popular-vote loser in history to ever call himself President-Elect.” And because Trump “will attempt to use his congressional majority to reshape America in his own racist, authoritarian, and corrupt image” despite the fact that he “has no mandate” from the voters, IT pledges to “stand indivisibly opposed to Trump and Members of Congress [MoC’s] who would do his bidding.”

The tactics and strategies advanced in the IT Guide are modeled on those of the conservative Tea Party movement that came to prominence during President Barack Obama‘s first term in office. Though the principles of the Tea Party are anathema to IT, the Guide points out that “we saw these activists take on a popular president with a mandate for change and a supermajority in Congress.” “If a small minority in the Tea Party can stop President Obama,” IT reasons, “then we the majority can stop a petty tyrant named Trump.”

Specifically, the IT Guide advises leftists to follow the Tea Party model of being “locally focused” rather than attempting to appeal to people across broad geographic areas, and “almost purely defensive” – meaning that they should expend their energies chiefly on opposing Trump rather than on “developing their own [alternative] policy agenda.” “Defining a proactive agenda,” said IT in December 2016, “is time-intensive, divisive, and, quite frankly, a distraction, since there is zero chance that we as progressives will get to put our agenda into action at the federal level in the next four years.” The goal, therefore, should be to “stall the Trump agenda by forcing [Congressional Republicans] to redirect energy away from their priorities,” on the theory that “a day that they spend worrying about [rowdy IT-affiliated protesters] is a day that they’re not ending Medicare, privatizing public schools, or preparing a Muslim registry.”

A related objective of IT is to “sap Representatives’ will to support or drive reactionary change.” “Every time your MoC signs on to a bill, takes a position, or makes a statement,” says the Guide, “a little part of his or her mind will be thinking: ‘How am I going to explain this to the angry constituents who keep showing up at my events and demanding answers?’”

The IT Guide advises progressive activists to form local groups of people who reside in the same congressional district, to fight “the racism, authoritarianism, and corruption” of the Trump agenda which “explicitly targets immigrants, Muslims, people of color, LGBTQ people, the poor and working class, and women.” “We strongly recommend making a conscious effort to diversify your group,” adds the Guide, “and particularly to center around and defer to communities of people who are most directly affected by the Trump administration’s racism, xenophobia, transphobia, homophobia, and antipathy toward the poor.” As of January 27, 2017, IT claimed that “more than 4,500 local groups” had already been formed “in nearly every congressional district in the country.”

In addition, the IT Guide instructs progressives to attend local “town halls” or public listening sessions held by Republican MoC’s, where they should each try to ask at least one prepared question designed to put the MoC on the defensive. The Guide recommends that the IT members in attendance should: (a) sit separately in different sections of the room, so as to avoid the appearance of collaboration and to “reinforce the impression of broad consensus”; (b) applaud in response to one another’s questions and/or comments; (c) collectively boo in response to things said by the MoC; and (d) “record everything” with a smart phone or video camera, and subsequently post those clips on social media or make them available to reporters.

The IT Guide also encourages activists to attend other local public events where MoC’s sometimes appear, such as parades, infrastructure groundbreakings, etc. To “optimize visibility,” says IT, these confederates should “stick together as a group, wear relatively similar clothing / message shirts, and carry signs in order to be sure that [their] presence is noticeable.” Further, they should “be prepared to interrupt and insist on [their] right to be heard”; chant slogans about an issue of concern; try to speak with reporters who are present at the scene; and threaten to hold local sponsors of the event accountable with bad publicity if they support MoC’s who back the Trump agenda.

Moreover, the IT Guide exhorts progressives to visit their MoC’s District Office, where they can either meet with the MoC directly or with staffers, and to subsequently publicize their visits via social and traditional media. Similarly, IT advocates the use of mass telephone and email campaigns targeting the offices of MoC’s.

On January 2, 2017, Ezra Levin, Angel Padilla, and fellow IT founder Leah Greenberg co-authored a New York Times op-ed introducing their fledgling organization to the American public. While characterizing the Tea Party’s political success as “a disaster for President Obama’s agenda and for our country” because the movement’s “ideas were wrong” and its “often racist rhetoric and physical threats were unacceptable,” the authors noted that the Tea Partiers “understood how to wield political power.” Specifically, said Levin et al, Tea Party activists had “rattled our elected officials” by: (a) waging “a relentless campaign to force Republicans away from compromise and [to] tank Democratic legislative priorities”; (b) “ensur[ing] that legislation that did pass, like the Affordable Care Act, was unpopular from the start”; and (c) “hijack[ing] the national narrative and creat[ing] the impression of broad discontent with President Obama.” The Indivisible Team would seek to use these same tactics against President Trump and the Republicans.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama’s Organizing for Action Partners with Soros-Linked ‘Indivisible’ to Disrupt Trump’s Agenda

How Obama is scheming to sabotage Trump’s presidency

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Discover The Networks.

Former Obama officials, loyalists waged secret campaign to oust Flynn to preserve Iran deal

/in , , , /by

“Former Obama Officials, Loyalists Waged Secret Campaign to Oust Flynn,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, February 14, 2017:

The abrupt resignation Monday evening of White House national security adviser Michael Flynn is the culmination of a secret, months-long campaign by former Obama administration confidantes to handicap President Donald Trump’s national security apparatus and preserve the nuclear deal with Iran, according to multiple sources in and out of the White House who described to the Washington Free Beacon a behind-the-scenes effort by these officials to plant a series of damaging stories about Flynn in the national media.

The effort, said to include former Obama administration adviser Ben Rhodes—the architect of a separate White House effort to create what he described as a pro-Iran echo chamber—included a small task force of Obama loyalists who deluged media outlets with stories aimed at eroding Flynn’s credibility, multiple sources revealed.

The operation primarily focused on discrediting Flynn, an opponent of the Iran nuclear deal, in order to handicap the Trump administration’s efforts to disclose secret details of the nuclear deal with Iran that had been long hidden by the Obama administration.

Insiders familiar with the anti-Flynn campaign told the Free Beacon that these Obama loyalists plotted in the months before Trump’s inauguration to establish a set of roadblocks before Trump’s national security team, which includes several prominent opponents of diplomacy with Iran. The Free Beacon first reported on this effort in January.

Sources who spoke to the Free Beacon requested anonymity in order to speak freely about the situation and avoid interfering with the White House’s official narrative about Flynn, which centers on his failure to adequately inform the president about a series of phone calls with Russian officials.

Flynn took credit for his missteps regarding these phone calls in a brief statement released late Monday evening. Trump administration officials subsequently stated that Flynn’s efforts to mislead the president and vice president about his contacts with Russia could not be tolerated.

However, multiple sources closely involved in the situation pointed to a larger, more secretive campaign aimed at discrediting Flynn and undermining the Trump White House.

“It’s undeniable that the campaign to discredit Flynn was well underway before Inauguration Day, with a very troublesome and politicized series of leaks designed to undermine him,” said one veteran national security adviser with close ties to the White House team. “This pattern reminds me of the lead up to the Iran deal, and probably features the same cast of characters.”

The Free Beacon first reported in January that, until its final days in office, the Obama administration hosted several pro-Iran voices who were critical in helping to mislead the American public about the terms of the nuclear agreement. This included a former Iranian government official and the head of the National Iranian American Council, or NIAC, which has been accused of serving as Iran’s mouthpiece in Washington, D.C.

Since then, top members of the Obama administration’s national security team have launched a communications infrastructure after they left the White House, and have told reporters they are using that infrastructure to undermine Trump’s foreign policy.

“It’s actually Ben Rhodes, NIAC, and the Iranian mullahs who are celebrating today,” said one veteran foreign policy insider who is close to Flynn and the White House. “They know that the number one target is Iran … [and] they all knew their little sacred agreement with Iran was going to go off the books. So they got rid of Flynn before any of the [secret] agreements even surfaced.”

Flynn had been preparing to publicize many of the details about the nuclear deal that had been intentionally hidden by the Obama administration as part of its effort to garner support for the deal, these sources said.

Flynn is now “gone before anybody can see what happened” with these secret agreements, said the second insider close to Flynn and the White House….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama’s Shadow Presidency

Why does General Flynn hate Iran? – The Duran

James Mattis’ 33-Year Grudge Against Iran

Islamic State video shows two young boys blowing themselves up as jihad suicide bombers

Robert Spencer: Answering an Islamic apologist (Part V)

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch.

Organizing for Action: Obama’s Army of 32,500+ Soldier Anarchists

/in , , , , , , , /by

Discover the Networks reports:

OFA logoOrganizing for America (OFA) is a project of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The American public first heard about OFA on January 17, 2009, when President Barack Obama announced that the organization would soon open its doors for business. Two months later, in mid-March, OFA was officially launched.

Basing its operations on the third floor of the DNC’s Capitol Hill headquarters, OFA consists of a vast network of volunteers whose mission is to “let their friends and neighbors know about the President’s plan to invest in America’s future, improve health care and education, create green jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and cut the deficit in half over the next four years.”

A New York Times report describes OFA as “an army of [Obama] supporters talking, sending e-mail and texting to friends and neighbors as they try to mold public opinion.”

Read more…

OFAction logoThe Office of Barack and Michelle Obama website lists Organizing for Action as its primary political activist organization.

It appears that Organizing for America has now morphed into Organizing for Action (OFA).

It was and continues to be Barack Obama’s army of activists and, in some cases, violent anarchists. The OFA website states:

OFA is committed to mobilizing and training the next generation of progressive organizers and leaders, because real, lasting change doesn’t just happen on its own—it requires a program, it requires organizing, and it requires people like you.

With grassroots chapters in neighborhoods across the country, OFA volunteers are building this movement from the ground up, person to person, community by community—because democracy isn’t a spectator sport. [Emphasis added]

Organizing for Action has more than 250 local chapters around the country. According to it’s website OFA has the following six policy objectives:

  1. Turning up the heat on climate change deniers, because the stakes are too high not to act. [silencing science]
  2. Calling for lawmakers to stop standing in the way of comprehensive immigration reform. [open borders]
  3. Telling the stories of the millions who are seeing the life-saving benefits of Obamacare. [“resist” the repeal and replacement of ACA]
  4. Rallying around the simple principle that love is love and that no one should ever be discriminated against because of who they are or whom they love. [radical homosexual agenda]
  5. We organize because too often a woman’s health care is debated as a political issue, not as a basic right. [abortion]
  6. And we believe that anyone who works hard and plays by the rules deserves a fair shot at the American dream. [amnesty]

Paul Sperry writes in the New York Post:

When former President Barack Obama said he was “heartened” by anti-Trump protests, he was sending a message of approval to his troops. Troops? Yes, Obama has an army of agitators — numbering more than 30,000 — who will fight his Republican successor at every turn of his historic presidency. And Obama will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House.

In what’s shaping up to be a highly unusual post-presidency, Obama isn’t just staying behind in Washington. He’s working behind the scenes to set up what will effectively be a shadow government to not only protect his threatened legacy, but to sabotage the incoming administration and its popular “America First” agenda.

He’s doing it through a network of leftist nonprofits led by Organizing for Action. Normally you’d expect an organization set up to support a politician and his agenda to close up shop after that candidate leaves office, but not Obama’s OFA. Rather, it’s gearing up for battle, with a growing war chest and more than 250 offices across the country.

Read the rest of the article here.

As Sperry points out, “Run by old Obama aides and campaign workers, federal tax records show ‘nonpartisan’ OFA marshals 32,525 volunteers nationwide. Registered as a 501(c)(4), it doesn’t have to disclose its donors, but they’ve been generous. OFA has raised more than $40 million in contributions and grants since evolving from Obama’s campaign organization Obama for America in 2013.”

Shadow government, anti-Trump protests, OFA, anarchist army, Barack Obama, the media, Democrats and sabotage are all united against President Donald J. Trump.

So, what’s new? These efforts may border on sedition.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy reads:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Obama’s Shadow Presidency

The Left Is Self-Destructing: Stand Back and Enjoy It

OBAMA’S PERMANENT PROTEST: Why the rise in rioting and civil unrest under Obama is no coincidence, but part of the plan

How Obama is scheming to sabotage Trump’s presidency

Sabotage: Obama is commanding an Army of 30,000 anti-Trump activists from his home 2 miles from the White House

EDITORS NOTE: Paul Sperry is the author of “The Great American Bank Robbery,” which details the link between race-based housing policies and the mortgage crisis.

Georgetown Islamic studies professor: Slavery is Moral, Rape is Normal

/in , , , , /by
Georgetown professor jonathan brown

Jonathan Brown, Georgetown University professor of Islamic Studies and Muslim Christian Understanding

IPT News in a column titled “Prof’s Slavery/Sexual Consent Comments Become Georgetown’s Latest Outrage” reports:

A Georgetown University Islamic civilization professor’s lecture on slavery, asserting that it isn’t “morally evil to own somebody” and minimizing the need for sexual content from a spouse is bringing the school renewed criticism and scrutiny.

Jonathan Brown’s remarks came last week during a lecture at the International Institute for Islamic Thought (IIIT), an organization Brown works closely with, and one that law enforcement has long suspected of being a Muslim Brotherhood front.

People obsess too much over the word “slavery,” Brown said, when what matters are the conditions, whether people were treated well or harshly.

In fact, “I don’t think you can talk about slavery in Islam until you realize that there is no such thing as slavery,” he said. “As a category, as a conceptual category that exists throughout state and time trans-historically, there’s no such thing as slavery.”

Brown is a Georgetown associate professor and the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Chair of Islamic Civilization in the School of Foreign Service.

Read more…

These comments support Islam’s view of slavery and dominance over women.

David Wood discusses the issue of slavery in Islam in his video “The Islamic View of Black Slaves.”

For more on slavery in Islam, be sure to watch “Muhammad: The White Prophet with Black Slaves”

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Trump Terrorism Adviser Says War on ISIS About Ideology

Defense Leaders Agree: US Military Readiness Is at a Dangerous Low

#BLM Protester Who Assaulted DeVos from Entering School is Actually Afghani Refugee, Charged With Crime

Majority of Americans support Trump immigration ‘ban’ from terror hotspots

/in , , , , , , /by

You are not alone!

Check it out!  Vox (the website that featured my work recently, here) reports that the majority of Americans support President Trump’s Executive Order to keep us safe from immigrants coming from certain parts of the world—keep us safe from terrorists trying to enter the country.

But, if the pollsters throw in mumbo-jumbo about “refugees” and phrases like “in keeping with US’s founding principles” they get more respondents to oppose the order.   The key message that resonates is one that uses the word “terrorism.”

Read it here.  Very interesting as Vox sends a message to its mostly Leftwing and Open Borders readers on how to use certain language to make their case.

I haven’t seen anything like this on mainstream cable media have you?

immigration poll supports trump ban

POLLS ON TRUMP EOS

Don’t waver Donald!

CNN and other Left-leaning news sites will show us non-stop clips of protesters opposing this EO making us all believe that we are in the minority, but never reveal that average Americans agree with Donald Trump on this! It is, as Trump says, “common sense!”

Sick of it? You can join like-minded Americans at upcoming rallies.  Go here (Spirit of America Rallies) and see if one is scheduled near you!

RELATED VIDEO: Pamela Geller on Trump’s “gorgeous” executive order is NOT a “Muslim ban.”

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Does Donald Trump know he can cap refugee program now?

The Trump Effect

Bloomberg: Trump’s refugee ceiling of 50,000 could hurt BIG MEAT

The Ninth Circuit Ignores Precedent and Threatens National Security – Wall Street Journal

Trump White House Says All Legal Options Still Being Considered, Ninth Circuit Court Judge Calls For En Banc Hearing

Krauthammer: 9th Circuit Ruling ‘A Disgraceful Conclusion’ – VIDEO

Hundreds Of Syrian, Iraqi Refugees Admitted To U.S. Since Trump Order Halted

Why the 9th Circuit Order Was Wrong, and What Trump Should Do About It

BREAKING: New Poll Shows SURPRISING Numbers For Trump….Liberals DUMBFOUNDED [VIDEO]

Germany has 450,000 failed Muslim asylum seekers they plan to deport!

/in , , , , , /by

You might want to read my post on asylum here last week.  Asylum seekers differ from the refugees we normally talk about because they get to a country like Germany (or the US, or Canada) and ask for asylum claiming they will be persecuted if returned home.  The refugees we write most about here are selected abroad and we fly them in.

So the next time you hear that Germany is welcoming refugees in greater numbers than the US, remember these hordes who arrived in Europe with a goal of getting to Germany over the last two years are migrants seeking asylum.  Now we are learning that, yikes! Germany has 450,000 who failed to prove their asylum claims and will now be deported.

Gee, wouldn’t it have been a better idea to close their borders in the first place!

From the Daily Mail (a department in Berlin will be created to organize the mass deportations!):

Merkel offers cash handouts worth millions of pounds for migrants to return home in an embarrassing U-turn

Angela Merkel will offer cash handouts worth millions of pounds for migrants to leave Germany in an effort to silence criticism of her ‘open-door’ border policy.

In a highly-embarrassing U-turn over the ill-fated plan, which saw 1.2million migrants flock to the country, Mrs Merkel has now vowed to send many of them home.

The German chancellor agreed a package of measures to speed up the deportation process for an estimated 450,000 migrants who have been rejected asylum.

The controversial plan, which marks a significant toughening of previous proposals, includes a £76million scheme that will offer migrants cash incentives to leave Germany voluntarily.

Many will see the move as a desperate attempt for Miss Merkel to claw back support ahead of her challenging re-election bid in September.

Criticism of her decision to leave Germany’s borders open and welcome all refugees during Europe’s migration crisis in 2015 has led to a surge in support for anti-immigrant parties.

[….]

The proposed crackdown, which has been criticised by human rights groups, will also include the creation of a department in Berlin to co-ordinate mass deportations.

Continue reading here.

The Trump message for Leftwing politicians worldwide: not a winning strategy to promote the replacement of your own people with migrants.

Our entire ‘Invasion of Europe’ archive is here (extends back many years).

RELATED ARTICLES: 

The Flow of Asylum Seekers Into the West

Which countries host the most refugees?

White House Petition: Issue an International Arrest Warrant for George Soros

/in , , , , /by
soros9

George Soros

Petition Title: Issue an International Arrest Warrant for George Soros

George Soros is a menace to the free world and stands in the way of making America great again. He is guilty of the following crimes:

1) Financially supports open sedition in major American cities resulting in millions of dollars of property damage as well as loss of life.

2) Attempts to manipulate democratic elections by donating millions of dollars to his preferred candidates.

3) Seeks to curtail American sovereignty. In his own words: “The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States … Changing [the] attitude and policies of the United States remains my top priority.”

4) Is a currency manipulator. Soros initiated a British financial crisis by dumping 10 billion sterling, forcing the devaluation of the currency and gaining a billion-dollar profit.

Those readers who wish may sign the petition by clicking here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump to Use Obama Executive Order to declare George Soros a National Security Threat?

‘Indivisible,’ With Ties to George Soros, Sows Division Against Trump, GOP Lawmakers

How Trump’s Executive Orders Line Up With Past Presidents

North Korea Tests a Missile, and Donald Trump

Democrat Leaders Protest President Trump’s Determination to Keep Americans Safe

/in , , , /by

Spurious moral equivalence employed in order to divert attention from the real threat. My latest at The Geller Report:

It was reported Friday that “a trio of House Democrats say President Trump is making a mistake pushing for counter-extremism efforts to focus only on radical Islam….Friday’s letter was signed Democratic Reps. Bennie Thompson (Md.), Eliot Engel (N.Y.) and John Conyers (Mich.).”

Thompson, Engel and Conyers wrote: “Such a move is wrongheaded insofar as persons who commit acts of violent extremism are inspired by diverse political, religious and philosophical beliefs, and are not limited to any single population or region.”

In reality, there have been over 30,000 murderous jihad terror attacks worldwide since 9/11. What other political, religious and philosophical beliefs have been responsible for any comparable number? A widely publicized study purporting to show that “right-wing extremists” have killed more people in the U.S. than Islamic jihadis, and thus pose a greater threat, has been debunked on many grounds.

These representatives also wrote: “Changing the name to ‘Countering Islamic Extremism’ or ‘Countering Radical Islamic Extremism’ would have damaging effects to our national security by feeding into the propaganda created by terrorist groups and child domestic and international diplomatic relations. Additionally, it could further alienate and create distrust with the Muslim-American communities when the program depends on close cooperation with law enforcement.”

Islamic jihadis routinely cite the texts and teachings of Islam to justify their actions and make recruits among peaceful Muslims. The idea that Muslims who reject jihad terror will be enraged if the U.S. government takes note of this is absurd. If they reject jihad terror, they won’t embrace it because officials are saying things they don’t like; in fact, if they really reject it, they should welcome and cooperate with efforts to identify its causes and eradicate them. These Congressmen are recommending that we curtail our speech to avoid criticizing Islam, which is a Sharia blasphemy provision that the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has been trying to foist upon the U.S. by means of “hate speech” laws for years. That the statements of Thompson, Engel and Conyers are simply today’s conventional wisdom is one indication of how successful these efforts have been.

Critics of President Trump’s plan have complained: “The program, ‘Countering Violent Extremism,’ or CVE, would be changed to ‘Countering Islamic Extremism’ or ‘Countering Radical Islamic Extremism,’ the sources said, and would no longer target groups such as white supremacists who have also carried out bombings and shootings in the United States.”

Indeed, but the white supremacist threat has been wildly exaggerated by Soros-funded groups (which exaggerations have been pushed by Soros-funded media) that downplay and deny the jihad threat. Reuters’ equivalence here also ignores the fact that the jihad is an international movement set on destroying the U.S. and found on every continent; white supremacism is not.

What Trump is really doing here is reversing Obama’s bow to Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups in scrubbing counter-terror training materials of all mention of Islam and jihad. On October 19, 2011, Farhana Khera of Muslim Advocates delivered a letter to John Brennan, who was then the assistant to the president on National Security for Homeland Security and Counter Terrorism. The letter was signed by the leaders of virtually all significant Islamic groups in the United States: 57 Muslim, Arab, and South Asian organizations, many with ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Islamic Relief USA, and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).

The letter denounced what it characterized as U.S. government agencies’ “use of biased, false and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam.” Khera complained specifically about me, noting that my books could be found in “the FBI’s library at the FBI training academy in Quantico, Virginia”; that a reading list accompanying a slide presentation by the FBI’s Law Enforcement Communications Unit recommended my book The Truth About Muhammad; that in July 2010 I “presented a two-hour seminar on ‘the belief system of Islamic jihadists’ to the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) in Tidewater, Virginia”; and that I also “presented a similar lecture to the U.S. Attorney’s Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council, which is co-hosted by the FBI’s Norfolk Field Office.”

These were supposed to be terrible materials because I was supposedly bigoted and hateful. However, many of the examples Khera adduced of “bigoted and distorted materials” involved statements that were simply accurate. The only distortion was Khera’s representation of them.

For instance, Khera stated:

A 2006 FBI intelligence report stating that individuals who convert to Islam are on the path to becoming “Homegrown Islamic Extremists,” if they exhibit any of the following behavior:

“Wearing traditional Muslim attire”

“Growing facial hair”

“Frequent attendance at a mosque or a prayer group”

“Travel to a Muslim country”

“Increased activity in a pro-Muslim social group or political cause”

The FBI intelligence report Khera purported to be describing didn’t actually say that. Rather, it included these behaviors among a list of fourteen indicators that could “identify an individual going through the radicalization process.” Other indicators included:

“Travel without obvious source of funds”

“Suspicious purchases of bomb making paraphernalia or weapons”

“Large transfer of funds, from or to overseas”

“Formation of operational cells”

Khera had selectively quoted the list to give the impression that the FBI was teaching that devout observance of Islam led inevitably and in every case to “extremism.”

Despite the factual accuracy of the material about which they were complaining, the Muslim groups signing the letter demanded that the task force, among other actions:

“Purge all federal government training materials of biased materials.”

“Implement a mandatory re-training program for FBI agents, U.S. Army officers, and all federal, state and local law enforcement who have been subjected to biased training.”

They wished to ensure that all law enforcement officials ever learn about Islam and jihad would be what the signatories wanted them to learn — and Brennan was amenable to that. He took Khera’s complaints as his marching orders.

In a November 3, 2011, letter to Khera that — significantly — was written on White House stationery, Brennan accepted Khera’s criticisms without a murmur of protest and assured her of his readiness to comply. He detailed specific actions being undertaken, including “collecting all training materials that contain cultural or religious content, including information related to Islam or Muslims.” In reality, this material wouldn’t just be “collected”; it would be purged of anything that Farhana Khera and others like her found offensive. Honest, accurate discussion of how Islamic jihadists use Islamic teachings to justify violence would no longer be allowed.

The alacrity with which Brennan complied was unfortunate on many levels. Numerous books and presentations that gave a perfectly accurate view of Islam and jihad were purged. Brennan was complying with demands from quarters that could hardly be considered authentically moderate.

This Obama policy of the U.S. government ensured that numerous jihadists simply could not be identified as risks. The Obama administration was bound, as a matter of policy, to ignore what in saner times would be taken as warning signs. Now we can hope that Trump will reverse all that. Indeed, it is our only hope of defeating this scourge.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

How Trump’s Immigration Executive Order Honors the Spirit of the Statue of Liberty

House Committee members compromised by rogue IT staff: Abid, Imran and Jamal Awan

Canada’s Trudeau sets up “war room” to monitor not jihad terrorists, but Donald Trump

List of Soros Politicians ‘Bought, Paid For’ Includes Republicans | Politics

The Enemies Within: Ryan, Rubio, McCain and Graham funded by George Soros

/in , , , , , /by

There have been many articles written about George Soros and his collectivist activism. Discover the Networks has published a comprehensive list of 187 organizations funded by Soros and his Open Society Institute who are actively working against President Donald J. Trump.

Some of these groups have actively opposed candidate and now President Trump. Some of these Soros organizations have funded the recent levels of violence and chaos via the group “Refuse Fascism” in Berkeley, California. Many of the groups favor: open borders, amnesty, giving illegals voting rights, Muslim migration and social justice over the rule of law. All are aligned against President Trump and his policies.

We now learn that Soros’ tentacles have ensnared key Republicans.

In a column titled “Records: Soros Fund Execs Funded Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, John McCain, John Kasich, Lindsey Graham in 2016” Breitbart’s Matthew Boyle reports:

Employees of a hedge fund founded by the king of the Institutional Left, billionaire and Democratic Party mega-donor George Soros, donated tens of thousands of dollars to top Republicans who fought against President Donald Trump in 2016, donation records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics show.

[ … ]

But more importantly, perhaps, than the unsurprising giant lump sums of cash funneled into Democratic Party and Clinton coffers is the revelation thanks to the Center for Responsive Politics that employees of the Soros firm—now run by his son Robert Soros—pumped tens of thousands of dollars into the campaigns of top anti-Trump Republicans over the course of 2016.

In total, executives with the Soros-founded company pushed $36,800 into the coffers of these GOP candidates just this past cycle.

[ … ]

The biggest recipient of Soros-connected cash in the GOP was none other than House Speaker Paul Ryan, who repeatedly attempted to undermine Trump over the course of the election. According to the records available online, the Soros firm’s workers gave $10,800 to Ryan. Included in that are two separateMay 2, 2016, donations from David Rogers, a then-employee of Soros Fund Management who lives in New York City. Rogers left the Soros Fund Management firm right around that time.

In a column titled “Mrs. Janna Little Ryan: A Liberal running the show from the family kitchen table?” Geoff Ross writes:

The marriage between a man and a woman is a mutual political-spiritual co-joining of forces and ideologies including love. The man will support and encourage his wife and the wife her husband.

So to fully understand a man and or a woman in their decision making processes one must first understand that its a team effort working together for the good of the family unit. This includes all external decision making processes too. A solid marriage will have the man supporting the wife’s decision’s and vice versa.

So if you are scratching your head and rubbing your rabbit foot in an expression of confusion and lack of understanding of Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and his blatant liberal agenda and decision making processes all you have to do is look into his family unit. Then you will learn that he supporting his wife’s ideology. As a man should and probably to remain in good graces in a supportive marriage.

Paul Ryan is married to Janna Little a liberal, left wing progressive, anti-Constitutional, big government George Soros supporter who voted for Barack Hussein Obama twice.

Ross noted Paul Ryan’s ex-flame and last love of his life before getting married to Janna Little was his ex-girl friend and black American Democrat Daneeta Pope. She too voted for Obama twice and also supports his Communist Agenda.

The Daily Mail’s Belinda Robinson, Emily Anne Epstein. Toby Harnden and Hugo Guy in 2012 reported:

Paul Ryan’s African-American college sweetheart has spent time in prison for wire fraud, it emerged today.

Deneeta Pope hit headlines after MailOnline revealed that she was the Republican vice-presidential candidate’s ex-girlfriend who opened his eyes to the evils of racism.

She served five months in prison after defrauding her employer Ernst & Young out of $77,000 in 1999, according to the federal Bureau of Prisons.

Ms Pope admitted claiming funds from work to attend an educational course which did not exist.

Mr Ryan has stayed in touch with his ex over the two decades since they broke up – he even attended Ms Pope’s wedding in May this year.

Read more.

There are enemies within the Republican Party.

They call themselves moderates but they are anything but moderate. They are a “shadow party” funded by George Soros. Their ideology is to be politically correct career politicians who supported and funded everything former President Obama wanted. They failed to stand up against him then and are now dragging their collectivist feet to delay President Trump’s agenda.

Their names are Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, John McCain, John Kasich, Lindsey Graham.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

List of Soros Politicians ‘Bought, Paid For’ Includes Republicans | Politics

Republican Lawmakers Yet to Deliver Early Wins for Trump

Trump’s Executive Order on Immigration Is Both Legal and Constitutional

How Neil Gorsuch Could Help Courts Take Power From ‘Unelected Bureaucrats’

97 companies file opposition to Trump’s immigration order | TechCrunch

Left uses violence but decries ‘speech as violence’

Georgetown University scholar calls for ‘public uprising’ to overthrow Trump

/in , , , , , /by

Georgetown’s Nathan Lean is a supreme example of how academia has become a radioactive desert of hard-Left indoctrination and opposition to the freedom of speech. He is supposedly an expert on “Islamophobia,” which really means that he is an expert on character assassination of those whom he deems “Islamophobes.”

Nathan-Lean-public-uprising

A longtime foe of the freedom of speech, Lean has dedicated his life to defaming and lying about anyone and everyone who dares to utter a critical word about the religious ideology that guides Islamic jihadists and incites them to commit mass murder. His targets have included Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Maajid Nawaz and me, and in every case, Lean plays fast and loose with the facts, cheerfully purveying falsehoods even when he has been shown that they are false (the images are gone from that old post, but it still conveys the substance), so desperate is he to clear away all obstacles to the advance of jihad terror. Not content to defame his targets over their opposition to jihad terror, he stalks them elsewhere: I was scheduled to speak several years ago at an education conference that had nothing to do with Islam, but Lean mounted a defamation campaign that intimidated a cowardly Catholic bishop, Jaime Soto, to cancel the event (it was held at another location) because of my work on Islam.

Lean is not content to spread lies about those whom he hates; he is also the lowest kind of thug, and has repeatedly tweeted out links to what he thinks is my home address and places that I frequent (he was wrong in both cases, but that’s beside the point), in an obvious attempt either to frighten me into silence or to signal to his jihadi friends and allies where I can be found and killed. He is an expert, practiced hater — a look at his Twitter feed shows that he regularly revels in crude and vicious abuse of those who dare to say the slightest negative word about the Religion of Peace. As he claims to be opposing “haters,” he is easily one of the most hateful individuals I have ever encountered in my entire life.

And now he has shown his true colors. This is sedition. Will Georgetown University continue to employ someone with such contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law? Of course they will, because the Saudis remunerate them handsomely.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Left uses violence but decries ‘speech as violence’

Theresa May bans Muslim migrant from leaving UK because he’s a suspected terrorist

Uber driver gets fired for disliking Islam

RELATED VIDEO: A self-proclaimed professor at New York University (NYU) demonstrated a lack of temperament when she lashed out at NYPD for not arresting people with opposing political views.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch. On the Georgetown University website Nathan Lean’s profile reads:

Nathan Lean is a writer and scholar of the Middle East and director of research for the Pluralism, Diversity and Islamophobia project at Georgetown University’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. His research interests focus on Islam, Islamophobia, the Middle East, Muslim-Christian relations, and other issues. Lean’s publications include The Changing Middle East: Power and Politics in an Age of Revolution (forthcoming 2015, with Jalil Roshandel), The Moral Psychology of Terrorism (2013, ed. with Jalil Roshandel), The Islamophobia Industry (2012), and Iran, Israel and the United States (2011, with Jalil Roshandel). His articles and op-eds have been published in the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, Salon, CNN, Religion Dispatches, and the Huffington Post, among others. Lean holds a master’s degree in International Studies from East Carolina University and a master’s degree in Arab Studies from Georgetown University.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy reads:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

How to Drain the Judicial Swamp

/in , , , , , /by

It’s no surprise the Democrats plan to fight against the nomination of President Trump’s Supreme Court pick, 10th Circuit Court of Appeals judge Neil Gorsuch. There are no confirmation battles like Supreme Court confirmation battles because, as we always hear, such a decision can “shape the country for a generation.”

This doesn’t sound like the role envisioned by the founders. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist No. 78, the judiciary is (theoretically) the “least dangerous” branch of government because it “has no influence over either the sword or the purse.” So how have the courts been afforded so much power?

“Afforded” is the word. In reality, the judiciary has become the most dangerous branch due to ignorance and congressional abdication of responsibility.

Conservatives often complain that the courts thwart the people’s will, act unconstitutionally and impose their own biases via judicial fiat. A good example is the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision dictating that states must recognize faux (“same-sex”) marriage. What most don’t know is that Congress could long before have prevented the courts from weighing in.

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts below the Supreme Court and the appellate jurisdiction of the latter. In other words, Congress could simply have prevented federal courts below the SCOTUS from ruling on marriage (and other issues) to begin with and the SCOTUS from reviewing lower-court decisions on those issues. This would, essentially, have left marriage where it belongs: in the states.

Why was this not done?

Cowardice.

Congress would’ve had to take a firm stand on a contentious issue and perhaps suffer electoral consequences. It’s easier for politicians to just puff up their chests, complain of judicial overreach, then throw up their hands and say “The courts have ruled — there’s nothing we can do.” Few today understand the Constitution, so who will argue?

Congress also has the power under Article III to eliminate any and every federal court except the SCOTUS. For example, it could have sent the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit — known for insane rulings and as the nation’s “most reversed” court — packing long ago. It certainly would make judges mind their p’s and q’s, too, if they knew acting unconstitutionally could mean their jobs.

Again, though, this would require Congress to take a stand. Besides, if it actually did so and drained the judicial swamp, what could Congress blame for divisive political outcomes? The transgressing courts would be gone and the remaining ones chastened, and judges would more often leave issues (e.g., abortion, marriage) in the legislature’s hands, putting politicians on the hot seat. Can’t have that. Federal judges don’t have to be reelected — congressmen do.

Yet this is why courts are going rogue. How can there be a balance of power in our system, as the founders intended, if one branch refuses to exercise its power?

The kicker is that accepting the courts’ current role is not only misguided, but, according to Thomas Jefferson, makes our Constitution a “felo de se” — a suicide pact.

Jefferson was warning of judicial supremacy, the idea that courts have the power to determine what law means and thus constrain not only their own branch, but the other two as well. Why did this bother Jefferson?

The legislature’s power to create law and the executive branch’s power to enforce it are granted by the Constitution. But what of judicial supremacy?

It is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

Rather, this “power” was declared by the courts themselves, most notably in the Marbury v. Madison decision in 1803. Talk about circular reasoning: The SCOTUS has trump card power….

Because the SCOTUS says so.

The result? The Supreme Court was only meant to be supreme among courts. Instead, in a government supposedly of, by and for the people, five lawyers can determine what law means for 320 million Americans.

With Trump poised to transform the SCOTUS, conservatives may say that now isn’t the time to question its power. But Republican judicial nominees have often disappointed. Moreover, draining the swamp is fine, but if we want the right kind of governmental revolution, perhaps we should start by listening to the revolutionaries who created our government.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Putting Iran on Notice: When uncertainty is our friend

/in , , , , /by

The announcement from National Security Advisor Lieutenant General Michael Flynn on Wednesday that the Trump administration was “putting Iran on notice” after its latest ballistic missile test is bad news for the ruling clerical elite and its Revolutionary Guards, and potentially good news for Iranians who love freedom.

Pundits in the United States and Europe bemoaned a lack of specificity, although one snarky establishment commentator noted, it sounded like Flynn was saying, “do that again, and we’ll pop you.”

The Iranians responded with predictable chest-thumping. “Iran is the strongest power in the region and has a lot of political, economic and military power,” said former foreign minister Ali Akbar Velayati, now a top advisor to absolute ruler Ayatollah Khamenei.

He and other Iranian leaders warned that Iran would act in “self-defense” if the United States struck first, a scarcely-veiled threat to attack U.S. assets, U.S. friends and allies in the region, and possibly to carry out terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

So what exactly did Flynn mean?

First, the obvious: there is a new Sheriff in town. Donald Trump is not Barack Obama. Nor is he George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton, or any of his predecessors who for the past 38-years have pretty much given the Islamic regime in Tehran a pass whenever it has attacked Americans.

What will the new Sheriff do? It’s easy to imagine Tehran’s leaders with their turbans in a twist, trying to read between General Flynn’s lines.

Did he mean the United States will blow Iranian patrol boats out of the water the next time they try to “swarm” a U.S. navy vessel in the Persian Gulf? The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) has been practicing such tactics for years, breaking off just hundreds of meters short of collision.

Those swarming attacks are a serious threat, since our naval gunners cannot know which of a dozen small boats may be intending to break off from the swarm in a suicide attack against our ship.

Or did he mean that the U.S. will respond if Iran test-fires another long-range ballistic missile? How so? Militarily? With new sanctions? Or with some form of technical sabotage such as Stuxnet?

That’s just it: they can’t know.

Perhaps General Flynn was referring to the “emergency” United Nations Security Council meeting on Tuesday, convened by the United States? But that’s where both Russia and France came to Iran’s aid, praising the nuclear deal and calling on the United States to maintain it.

Perhaps General Flynn was responding to the failure of the United Nations to respond, meaning that the U.S. is planning unilateral measures?

Oh, my: in Tehran, they just can’t know.

Strategic uncertainty, as long as it is followed up at some point with concrete action, is a huge advance in our policy toward the Islamo-fascist regime in Tehran. Keeping the Iranians guessing exactly what we will do, and how hard, potentially could even deter them from taking some aggressive actions.

A new, more muscular policy toward the Islamic state in Iran will have many moving parts. But first and foremost, it will identify the regime as an enemy of the United States of America. Because that is how they have behaved since their inception thirty-eight years ago next week.

America has never used the powerful tools at our disposal to punish – or heaven forbid, actually undermine – the Iranian regime. Here are just a few of the options that should be on the table:

  • The U.S. could intensify Persian-language broadcasting from the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, providing Iranians deprived of a free press with accurate information about the United States and about their own country. This will require major reforms at both services spearheaded by a dynamic new CEO at the Broadcasting Board of Governors.
  • The U.S. could use the levers of power diplomacy to shun Iran at international organizations such as the United Nations Human Rights Council and UNESCO, and to prevent Iranian diplomats from international travel.
  • The U.S. could use our permanent delegation to the IAEA in Vienna, Austria, to intensify intelligence sharing with UN inspectors to ensure they conduct rigorous inspections of Iran’s nuclear installations.
  • The U.S. could take steps to curtail Iranian expansionism into Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon.
  • The U.S. could actually punish the Iranian regime for its acts of international terrorism, including the 1983 Beirut bombings of our embassy and the U.S. Marine barracks, the 1996 attack on the Khobar Towers, the 1998 attacks on U.S. embassies in Africa, the 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole, the September 11, 2001 attacks, the ongoing supply of Explosively Formed Projectiles (EFPs) to militias in Iraq that have taken the lives of an estimated 1,500 U.S. servicemen, the bounty offered by the IRGC to Taliban terrorists for every American they kill, and the September 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi.

Many of these attacks were carried out in conjunction with al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliates, a relationship long pooh-poohed by the U.S. intelligence community but which in recent years has been well-documented.

Punishment could include identifying as war criminals the Iranian regime officials responsible for these acts, indicting them, and issuing Interpol Red Notices on them to prevent them from international travel. It could also include Treasury and intelligence community efforts to identify, block, and seize their overseas assets.

Finally, and most important of all, the U.S. could provide support for opponents of the Iranian regime to include open support for human rights and freedom advocates similar to what President Reagan did for Soviet refusniks, and covert support for active opposition groups inside Iran.

What will President Trump choose from this menu – and from the many other policy proposals that undoubtedly are being floated by his advisors?

Oh, my: in Tehran, they don’t know.

If it were my decision, I would say: let’s keep them guessing until the policies are ready for prime time. Then let’s roll them out and watch the Islamic State of Iran’s leaders squirm.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

Why Democrats are declaring war on Trump: They’re terrified

/in , , , , , /by

In a panic over their unexpected losses in November, Senate Democrats have declared war on Donald Trump.

It’s not just Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer’s (N.Y.) pledge to filibuster the new Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, before his name was even announced, although that was indicative of a dangerous new tone that I have never witnessed in 30 years of covering Washington politics.

In just the second week of the Trump administration, Schumer announced that America was “on the cusp of a constitutional crisis.” Why? Because the president fired an Obama political appointee serving as acting attorney general after she refused to carry out a lawful order.

Forget the fact that every president has the right to appoint his own people to executive branch positions, or that the listing of these well-defined positions is known as the “Plum book.”

Forget the fact that Bill Clinton fired all 93 U.S. attorneys when he took office in 1993, replacing them with his own political picks.

Democrats have entered a zone where facts don’t matter; even actions don’t matter. Whatever this president does, they will oppose. Why? Because this is war.

Listen to the words chosen yesterday by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in his floor speech announcing his opposition to Rex Tillerson as the Secretary of State.

Cardin’s main beef with Tillerson was that he “demonstrated business orientation in his responses to questions during the confirmation hearing.”

Now, that should not come as a surprise to the good Senator, given that for his entire career, Mr. Tillerson has been a businessman — and a very successful one, at that.

American history has many examples of businessmen serving as secretaries of State or secretaries of War with great success. Think George Schultz or Henry Stimson.

But for Cardin, that was enough. In fact, that was his only direct criticism of Tillerson. He immediately pivoted to name-calling and invective.

“The first 10 days of the Trump administration shows that the president is intent on compromising our values, abandoning our allies,” Cardin declared on the Senate floor Tuesday, calling Trump’s executive orders the sign of an “unstable, reckless foreign policy.”

He then accused unnamed individuals in the new administration of mounting “a willful, dangerous campaign … to bend or potentially even break the law.”

Tillerson, he claimed, was likely to be “another ‘yes’ man, enabling the risky, chaotic whims of a demagogue president,” who Cardin claimed was engaging in “hate-mongering.”

Calling the president a “demagogue” after just 10 days in office is extraordinary. These are not normal terms of senatorial discourse. And if you had watched the good senator on C-SPAN, he seemed at times on the verge of apoplexy or tears.

And yet, I am sure that many Democrats reading this will agree with Sens. Schumer and Cardin. Some have already compared Trump to Hitler.

What explains the unusual vitriol?

I believe it stems from the inability of many Democrats to accept their defeat in November, or to understand that the people of mainland America — that heartland between California and New York — overwhelmingly rejected their elitist vision and collectivist values.

During the campaign, Donald Trump made a number of specific promises to the American people. Over the past 10 days, he has been fulfilling them one by one and the Democrats are tearing out their hair, because they know what this means for 2018.

Democrats are terrified that Trump will succeed. They are terrified that his border wall will stem the tide of illegal immigration and dramatically reduce the flow of illegal drugs into this country.

They are terrified that his temporary ban on refugee resettlement that empowers Customs and Border Patrol agents to devise a more rigorous vetting process will keep America safe.

They are terrified that he will defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and forge stronger ties with Arab nations such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia who are on the front lines of that fight.

They are terrified that key European countries will turn to the right in this year’s elections, rejecting the new world order ruled by an unelected globalist elite.

They know that if Trump succeeds, as they fear, he will sweep the U.S. Senate and they will become a dwindling minority party representing the globalist, high-tech elite and an army of pajama boys based on the two coasts.

Democrats are going to war because their schemes have been exposed and they fear they are about to lose their jobs.

I hope everyone in the White House is wearing body armor by now, because this is going to get much worse.

EDITORS NOTE: This column and featured images first appeared in The Hill.

Democrat Party and the Media are going Nucking Futs

/in , , , /by

The Democrat Party can’t believe that President Trump is doing exactly what he said he would do on the campaign trail. Daily the media and Democrats are deluged with new actions, new Executive Orders, Presidential tweets, meetings with union members, small business owners and corporate CEOs. The news cycle has become overwhelming for those who have now come to hate President Trump and his cabinet for being and doing what they said they are and will do.

Democrats and the media are going “nucking futs.”

The media and Democrats are Orwellian in their narratives. It began with the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Repealing and replacing Obamacare according to House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer will cause “tens of millions of Americans lose their coverage” without actually knowing what the replacement for the ACA is.

The media then began pushing the narrative of a future totalitarian state under President Trump and a Republican controlled Congress.

After signing an Executive Order (EO) pausing migration, from seven failed countries with known terrorist ties, the media labeled the EO “a Muslim ban” rather than a “terrorist ban.” Senator Schumer (D-MA), shedding tears called it “mean spirited” and “un-American.”  Schumer said it was “inflicting wounds on this country.” Making America safe from the infiltration of ISIS sympathizers according to former President Obama is “discriminating against individuals because of their faith or religion.” With Obama, and the media, adding fuel to the fire stating that he is “heartened” by the amount of “engagement” (a.k.a. incivility and riots) taking place in U.S. communities.

After these statements all gloves are off on the streets of Seattle, San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles and overseas. Violence is the new normal.

In a Daily Signal article titled “The Left Holds Itself to Lower Standards of Behavior” Walter E. Williams writes:

One can only imagine the widespread media, political, and intellectual condemnation of Republicans and conservatives if, after the inauguration of President Barack Obama, they had gone on a violent and vicious tear all over the nation as did Democrats and liberals after the inauguration of President Donald Trump.

They committed acts such as assaulting Trump supporters, setting fires, and stoning police.

Suppose Republicans/conservatives had carried signs that read “F— Obama” or talked about “blowing up the White House.” The news media, instead of calling them protesters, would have labeled them evil racists, obstructionists, and everything else except a child of God.

[ … ]

One of the nastiest more recent liberal events was the Occupy movement around the nation.

During Occupy protests, there were rapes, assaults, robberies, and holdups. These people publicly defecated and urinated on police cars. The mess they left after their demonstrations can be described as no more than a pigsty.

Does anybody recall any Democratic official, from the president on down, admonishing them to behave?

Read more…

University of California Berkeley Rioting:

WARNING GRAPHIC LANGUAGE: A Seattle pre-school teacher who is a member of Black Lives Matter at a anti-Trump protest states, “White people give your f__king money, your f__king house, your f__king property, we need it, f__k it, all. We need to repatriate black and indigenous people right now. Pay the f__k up, pay the f__k up. And we need to start killing people. First off, we need to start killing the White House. The White House must die. The f__king White House, your f__king president.”

Here is a May 2016 CNN video of protesters at a Trump rally in Albuquerque New Mexico chanting “F__K DONALD TRUMP.”

Another video of Democrats and their supporters chanting “f__k Donald Trump” not “f__k Oakland.”

So who is funding these F-bomb protesters?

Newsmax published an article titled “Soros Funding Airport Protests, Ban Lawsuits Against Trump’s Order” written by Eric Mac. Mac reported:

Billionaire liberal activist George Soros is helping fund the airport protests against President Donald Trump’s executive order to ban refugees from war-torn Syria indefinitely and suspend visas from seven countries for at least 30 days, as PJ Media reported Sunday.

This Soros connection, including reports of funding lawsuits to block the orders, begs the question: Are these protesters being paid to be there?

The rhetoric is becoming more unhinged as Democrats and the media cannot deal with a President who is moving ahead at light speed to do what he told the American people he would do.

Expect the media and Democrats to attain levels of resistance (a.k.a. anarchy) never before seen in America. The Democrats are now the party of the Nucking Futs.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Left uses violence but decries ‘speech as violence’

FDR knew of Nazi euthanasia gassings but remained silent, research shows

The Betrayer: You’re Fired

/in , , , , /by

The United States Attorney General, the head of the United States Department of Justice per 28 U.S.C. § 503, is concerned with legal affairs, and is the chief law enforcement officer and chief lawyer of the United States government.

The rule of law has been restored with the firing on January 30th, 2017 of acting Attorney General Sally Yates. Yates is an Obama appointee who is used to the civil rights and civil liberties model under the former president. Yates in a letter to all Department of Justice attorneys wrote:

My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. OLC’s review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC’s view, a proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted. Its review does not take account of statements made by an administration or it surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose. And importantly, it does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just. [Emphasis added]

Determining the wisdom or justness of a Presidential Executive order is not the role of the United States Attorney General. Statements made by the “administration or its surrogates” have been eminently clear in protecting the American people from radical Islamic terrorists. Enforcing the Constitution, defending the United States government and the American people are the primary roles of the U.S. Attorney General. Justice is blind.

Yates, like Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder, all looked at justice via the prism of civil rights/civil liberties rather than the rule of law. Certain groups were treated differently under the law during the previous administration. Yates, Lynch and Holder were more concerned with social justice (a political position) rather than the rule of law under the U.S. Constitution.

With the firing of Yates and the appointment of Acting Attorney General Dana Boente, the rule of law has been reinstated.

The U.S. Government Accounting office in a January 2017 report titled “BORDER SECURITY: CBP Aims to Prevent High-Risk Travelers from Boarding U.S.- Bound Flights, but Needs to Evaluate Program Performance wrote:

CBP [U.S. Customs and Border Protection] data show that it identified and interdicted over 22,000 high-risk air travelers in fiscal year 2015 through its predeparture programs. CBP officers at Preclearance locations determined that 10,648 of the approximately 16 million air travelers seeking admission to the United States through such locations were inadmissible. Similarly, CBP, through its IAP, JSP, and RCLG locations, made 11,589 no-board recommendations to air carriers for the approximately 88 million air travelers bound for the United States from such locations. While CBP’s predeparture programs have helped identify and interdict high-risk travelers, CBP has not fully evaluated the overall effectiveness of these programs using performance measures and baselines. [Emphasis added]

Read the full report…

President Trump released the following statement on his Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States:

Statement Regarding Recent Executive Order Concerning Extreme Vetting

“America is a proud nation of immigrants and we will continue to show compassion to those fleeing oppression, but we will do so while protecting our own citizens and border. America has always been the land of the free and home of the brave.

We will keep it free and keep it safe, as the media knows, but refuses to say. My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror. To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting.

This is not about religion – this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order. We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days.

I have tremendous feeling for the people involved in this horrific humanitarian crisis in Syria. My first priority will always be to protect and serve our country, but as President I will find ways to help all those who are suffering.”

White House statement on firing of Sally Yates:

The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States. This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.

Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.

It is time to get serious about protecting our country. Calling for tougher vetting for individuals travelling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country.

Tonight, President Trump relieved Ms. Yates of her duties and subsequently named Dana Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to serve as Acting Attorney General until Senator Jeff Sessions is finally confirmed by the Senate, where he is being wrongly held up by Democrat senators for strictly political reasons.

“I am honored to serve President Trump in this role until Senator Sessions is confirmed. I will defend and enforce the laws of our country to ensure that our people and our nation are protected,” said Dana Boente, Acting Attorney General.”

Full text of Sally Yates sent the following letter to all attorneys in the Department of Justice:

On January 27, 2017, the President signed an Executive Order regarding immigrants and refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries. The order has now been challenged in a number of jurisdictions. As the Acting Attorney General, it is my ultimate responsibility to determine the position of the Department of Justice in these actions.

My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. OLC’s review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC’s view, a proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted. Its review does not take account of statements made by an administration or it surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose. And importantly, it does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just. 

Similarly, in litigation, DOJ Civil Division lawyers are charged with advancing reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive Order. But my role as leader of this institution is different and broader. My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts. In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.

Consequently, for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.

[Emphasis added]

There’s a new reality show in Washington, D.C. called “The Betrayer.” The White House will ferret out those bureaucrats and political appointees who do not abide by their sacred sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

By writing her letter Yates betrayed the United States and endangered its national security. The result: Your fired!

RELATED:

Experts Debate Whether Trump’s Refugee Order Will Make America Safer

What Republican Lawmakers Say About Trump’s Order on Refugees

8 Things You Need To Know About Trump’s Executive Order On Refugees, Immigration

President Trump’s Immigration Ban is Magnificently Right

(Another) Media Fail: 57% Support Temporary Ban on Refugees From Terror-Exporting Countries

United States Government Accountability Office – BORDER SECURITY: CBP Aims to Prevent High-Risk Travelers from Boarding U.S.- Bound Flights, but Needs to Evaluate Program Performance