Trump Impeachment Not Justified by Evidence and Testimony Made Public So Far

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., hasn’t yet produced most of his witnesses in the public impeachment hearings regarding President Donald Trump. But if the State Department’s George Kent and acting Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor are representative of the testimony Democrats are relying on, future historians may label this episode “The Big Impeachment Blowout.”

The House impeachment inquiry is not a criminal proceeding. But as I listened to the hearsay and speculation that Kent and Taylor were offering Wednesday at the opening public hearing on impeachment, I couldn’t help thinking of REO Speedwagon’s song “Take It on the Run.”

One line of the song says: “Heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from another you been messin’ around.”

Both Kent and Taylor admitted they never talked to Trump and only heard thirdhand what supposedly occurred in the president’s July 25 telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Congress is moving to impeach the president. But will their plan to remove him from office succeed? Find out more now >>

Democrats seem to have dropped the quid pro quo claim, since there was no evidence of it in the rough transcript the White House released of the call. The claim does not seem to be playing with the American public.

Taylor admitted in the hearing that Zelenskyy had no idea that U.S. aid was being delayed, and Zelenskyy himself has said there was no quid pro quo.

Democrats have now switched to using the terms “bribery” and “extortion,” no doubt because those terms sound more sinister, despite the fact that they’ve produced no evidence—so far—that would come even close to showing a violation of the federal laws defining bribery and extortion.

Both witnesses expressed their opinions disagreeing with the way Trump has conducted diplomatic relations with Ukraine and the handling of U.S. aid to the country.

But the president is not a postman for Congress or the State Department. His job is to faithfully execute the law. As the chief diplomat of the United States, he defines our foreign policy, not George Kent or William Taylor.

Our country doesn’t give money or aid to other countries for no reason. We give it with specific conditions attached.

The president has a duty to make sure that our money is going to countries that will use it as we intend and not divert it into profiteering and personal corruption. State Department bureaucrats have never been good at ensuring that countries prevent such corruption.

The priority of our diplomats is to maintain their access to government officials in the countries in which they are stationed. This too often overrides their duty to guard against corruption. The president has the final responsibility for ensuring U.S. aid is not improperly diverted in other nations.

It was widely known that Ukraine had, and still has, a corruption problem. It would have been irresponsible for Trump not to look into corruption and demand changes before our money went there.

Even Kent admitted in his testimony that Burisma, the Ukrainian company that employed former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden as a highly paid board member, was part of the “pervasive and longstanding corruption in Ukraine.”

Of course, we will not hear any facts about that because Schiff has refused to allow the Republicans to call Hunter Biden as a witness, which would enable the younger Biden’s possible self-dealing in Ukraine to be investigated.

If everything Hunter Biden and his father Joe Biden did was ethical and above board when it came to Ukraine, why wouldn’t Democrats want Hunter Biden to testify?

And why has Schiff’s committee blocked the Republicans from being able to call the so-called whistleblower who started this whole show trial that Democrats call an impeachment inquiry? What are they afraid will come out about this government employee that might damage his credibility and the claims he is making?

Apparently, Schiff doesn’t want any testimony that would support the legitimacy of the president’s corruption concerns about Ukraine or would somehow detract from the impeachment narrative Democrats are trying to weave into the minds of the American public.

We certainly won’t have an objective, bipartisan inquiry into all of the relevant aspects of what happened here—and why it happened. Schiff even interrupted Republican questioning to tell witnesses they should not answer questions based on “facts not in evidence,” a bizarre statement given the nature of a congressional hearing and how it is normally conducted.

Schiff used to be an assistant U.S. attorney—a federal prosecutor. Like all people in that position, he had to follow the U.S. Attorneys’ Justice Manual.

Before taking a case to a grand jury, much less to trial, Schiff had to convince his boss, in writing, that he had evidence establishing a case. He couldn’t just wing it and submit a case, however weak, based entirely on hearsay, to the grand jury on the off-chance it would indict.

Yet that is exactly what Schiff is doing here—throwing witnesses into closed and now open hearings hoping that he can stir the political pot into an impeachment boil.

It would undermine our system of government for a duly elected president to be removed through impeachment for partisan reasons.

Impeachment should only be used when there has been serious, substantial misconduct of such a nature that we can’t wait for the next election. As far as is publicly known at this time, that standard has not been met regarding Trump.

Originally published by Fox News

COMMENTARY BY

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

Adam Schiff, Founding Father: The chief impeacher tries to redefine ‘bribery’ under the law.

Here Are the Backgrounds of 4 Lawyers for Impeachment Witnesses

Everything You Need to Know About What’s Happening in Impeachment Process


A Note for our Readers:

As we speak, Congress is moving to impeach the president.

We do not have all the facts yet, but based on what we know now, there does not seem to be an impeachable offense.

The questions stand: In drafting the Constitution, how did America’s founders intend for impeachment to be used? How does the impeachment process work, and what can history tell us about whether or not President Trump faces the real threat of being removed from office?

The Heritage Foundation is making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

PODCAST: “It’s Their Fear.” Hong Kong Protesters Persevere.

“It’s their fear.” That’s what’s motivating the young protesters of Hong Kong to continue demonstrating after months of mounting threats from the Chinese government, according to Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.). As Hawley told me on Washington Watch this week, “Beijing promised the people of Hong Kong when they took back over the city that they would protect the basic liberties of the Hong Kong residents — their right to worship, their right to speak, their right to assemble, free press. And now they’re trying to take those things away.”

Hong Kong protesters have continually appealed to the United States for help in the face of Chinese oppression. They often wave American flags or carry Captain America shields, hoping that the land of the free will be sympathetic to their own demands for freedom and democracy. As the demonstrations continue and the police violently crackdown, protesters are becoming more desperate and more afraid of Beijing’s encroachment into Hong Kong.

One request of the protesters is that the U.S. Congress pass the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019. This legislation would require the U.S. Secretary of State to determine whether Hong Kong remains sufficiently autonomous from Beijing to justify its unique treatment under U.S. law. Thus, incentivizing China to maintain Hong Kong’s unique “one country, two systems” arrangement under which Hong Kong has thrived. Sen. Hawley says this bill will give the U.S. government new foreign policy tools to use with China. “It also gives our government the power to reassess our trade status with Hong Kong if Beijing decides to try and do something truly foolish, like overrun the city.”

Hawley has been an ardent supporter of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, because he knows just how real the threat of losing their freedoms is to the people there. “The people of Hong Kong realize that if Beijing succeeds, they’ll never get their rights back. And so they’re standing up.”

While Hong Kong residents make their stand, Hawley had some advice for how U.S. leaders should deal with China. “Beijing only understands pressure… They’re a bully. So, they only understand if you stand up to them. You can’t you can’t be passive.” Indeed, facing off with the world’s most powerful authoritarian country requires courage. Such courage is shown by tireless protesters in Hong Kong and the U.S. politicians willing to spend political capital to send a powerful message to Beijing.


Tony Perkins’s Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Bible Versus Secular Elites

As Kanye Takes The Stage, Let’s Encourage His Growth In Faith

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column with podcast is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Inside Mosques: Arlington, Texas and Tampa, Florida

INSIDE MOSQUES

INVESTIGATING AND EVALUATING THREAT LEVELS

INTRODUCTION:

Dave Gaubatz is a former U.S. Federal Agent with Top Secret/SCI clearance, expert in counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism on national security issues, highly trained in Islamic ideology and tactics, Arab linguist, author of Muslim Mafia, has investigated over 300 mosques/Islamic Centers in the USA and 150 outside USA, and after leaving his position in the government continued this work as a Civilian Agent. Using firsthand investigation, he then evaluates Risk/Threat Levels based on multiple factors including Materials on Premises and What They Advocate, Ties to Muslim Terrorists, and Sharia Adherence. Mr. Gaubatz estimates that 80% of mosques in America recruit and train in jihad (violent & civilization). Finally, he makes Recommendations to protect America, our citizens, our children. He asks about each mosque: Would ISIS be proud?

NOTE: Several Reports/Affidavits will be published. When you read one from earlier dates, note that Dave Gaubatz issued Risk/Danger warnings ahead, but in some cases, violence occurred later from a member of one of those reported mosques (ex: Trolley Square, Salt Lake City, Utah shooting; child abuse Nashville, TN). When you read a report that came after an attack (Ex: Report 2017, Boston Marathon Bombing by the Tsarnaev brothers in 2013), note that violence had already occurred, Mr. Gaubatz reported continued Risk/Danger years later from the same mosques terrorists had attended.  Reading professionally investigated and evaluated Reports/Affidavits from various years is important so the American public is aware of new or continuing Risk/Danger and can demand protection from all levels of government officials and law enforcement that they are sworn to provide.

Significant Incident Report #3 (SIR)

Location: Arlington, TX (TX17) and Tampa Florida

Date of Significant Incident: 28 Dec 2007 — 17 Jan 2008

Synopsis: During the above period Field Researcher (FR) met with four Imams from TX#17. FR spent several days with the Imams to include some in Arlington, TX, Austin, TX, and Tampa, FL. In addition FR had numerous telephone conversations with the Imams. FR also had the opportunity to meet with many worshippers and Imams from the areas they traveled to.

FR opines based on the below information and his continuous interaction with the Imams that he considers them to be dangerous. Since they are leading Islamic scholars and many worshippers follow the advice they are given, it is likely the worshippers will follow the violent Wahhabi ideology of the Imams.

Listed below are some of the significant events during this time period:

  • There are four Imams at TX#17. Jordan and Palestine.
  • “Osama” Imam from Jordan, informed FR he should not accept any gifts from Shia, Christian, or Jewish people because it is haram.
  • Osama said it is normally haram (illegal) to commit suicide bombings like it is being done in Iraq, but the /Iraqi situation is a gray area. The Iraqi people are being killed, and it is justified to explode yourself, because you are defending yourself.
  • Imam Mohammad Shakib and Shaykh Hassan are the primary fundraisers for TX17.
  • Imam Shakib subsequently introduced an administrative assistant at TX17. The man had a long beard and is from Jordan (according to both the imam and the man)
  • The Jordanian (Imam in Texas) told FR he is originally from Jordan and he had a very close relationship with Tarik Aziz (close friend of Saddam Hussein and former Deputy Prime Minister from 1979 — 2003). The Jordanian further informed FR that Tarik Aziz (before 2003) would often travel to Jordan from Iraq. When Aziz would come to Jordan he would always visit him at his home. FR opines it is likely the Jordanian had other ties to senior Baath Party members.
  • FR advised the Imams collected money from many worshippers in Arlington, TX, Austin, TX, and Tampa, FL. Most of the time the money was provided in cash. The worshippers would not provide checks, but subsequently Shaykh Mohammad would tell them he knows “Ghassan” and has his contact information.
  • FR was invited to the homes of the Imams, travel to Austin, TX, and for a 3 day visit in Tampa, FL. The purpose of the trip was for fundraising for the mosque, but FR opines based on his discussions with the Imams that money was being used for other purposes. The Imams themselves would argue amongst themselves.
  • A Florida Imam (Ibriham Aboamer, from Egypt) was observed by FR as having a book, “Down to the United States.” He also had a collection of Siraj Wahhaj CDs. When the Imam saw FR looking at the book, he hid it in his desk drawer.
  • A man “named” Ghassan who is from Jordan or Palestine, was mentioned by the Imams. They advised he is either wanted or been questioned by the FBI for terrorism related charges. The Imams were evasive about Ghassan. They did state Ghassan had traveled from mosque to mosque in various states hiding from authorities. He had been an Imam in Chicago, IL.

Director Gaubatz comments: Concur with reporting to law enforcement. The individuals mentioned above are highly likely to be involved in supporting terrorist organizations and it is probable they are linked to additional “sleeper cell” activity.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Utah: Imam loses appeal to be removed from terrorism watchlist

Federal judge rules that Alabama Muslima who joined the Islamic State is not a citizen and can’t come back

RELATED VIDEO: Taqiyya in Dearborn Heights

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

How To Make The National Security Council Great Again

Very few political problems can actually be solved by Washington’s favorite solution: throwing more money at it. Here’s one that can: the much-in-the-news turmoil on the National Security Council (NSC) staff.

But first, you may ask: what’s the problem? If you interpret the recent spate of anti-Trump leaks and congressional testimony from NSC staffers as “heroic military officers and civil servants standing up to a dastardly illegitimate president,” then clearly you think the current system is fine. But if you think elections should have consequences, that presidents should be entitled to hire people who agree with them, and shouldn’t have to face constant leaking, criticism and disloyalty from their own team, then the problem is obvious.

ery few political problems can actually be solved by Washington’s favorite solution: throwing more money at it. Here’s one that can: the much-in-the-news turmoil on the National Security Council (NSC) staff.

But first, you may ask: what’s the problem? If you interpret the recent spate of anti-Trump leaks and congressional testimony from NSC staffers as “heroic military officers and civil servants standing up to a dastardly illegitimate president,” then clearly you think the current system is fine. But if you think elections should have consequences, that presidents should be entitled to hire people who agree with them, and shouldn’t have to face constant leaking, criticism and disloyalty from their own team, then the problem is obvious.

It should be obvious, then, that to fulfill both these roles the NSC staff needs to be well-aligned with the president’s views. Yet if one thing is clear from the impeachment brouhaha, it’s that a great many former and current staffers on the Trump NSC do not agree with his views. Nearly all of the recent leaks and public statements from disgruntled staffers don’t, in fact, allege that the president broke the law or abused his power but rather complain that he’s pursing “wrongheaded” policy. In particular, the opening statement of Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman, the former NSC “country director” for Ukraine, made clear that his real beef with President Donald Trump was that the president might set a policy “inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency.” (RELATED: Trump Teases Evidence That Alexander Vindman Is A ‘Never Trumper’)

Well, but who’s supposed to set policy? The president, or the “interagency” — which is just a fancy term for bureaucrats? Presidents are elected; bureaucrats aren’t. The entire purpose of elections is to confer a grant of latitude, within constitutional parameters, to make policy according to the convictions of the elected and their voters. Especially in a government as big as the United States’, that’s difficult for any president to do without a cadre of staff committed to those convictions.

Why doesn’t Trump have such a staff? Simple: because he doesn’t have the money to hire them.

The “business model” of the NSC is to rely on “detailees” — that is, career officials at other agencies who are loaned, or “detailed,” to the organization, typically for a year or two. There are three core reasons why detailees make up more than 80% of the NSC staff, which in recent years has fluctuated between 200 and 400 “professionals” (i.e., not counting administrative assistants and such).

First, it is thought that having a wide range of backgrounds and experiences — diplomatic, military, intelligence, etc. — on the staff will broaden the NSC’s institutional knowledge and versatility. Detailees “understand the system” and “know how to get things done.” They also have extensive contacts within the bureaucracy which they can “leverage” to help smooth the operations of government. And by being exposed to the inner core of American policy-making, they further develop their own skills and bring valuable experience back to their “home agencies.”

Second, by law anyone who works at the NSC must have a very high security clearance, no exceptions. Clearing people from scratch can take months and cost thousands. Detailees, on the other hand, are for the most part already cleared to the appropriate level. Most of them can walk in the door and start working the day they’re selected.

Third and most important, the NSC’s budget is tiny — by Washington standards, microscopic. The money available for “direct hires” is small, and most of it goes to permanent administrative staff that doesn’t turn over with a new administration. That leaves very little for hiring “professional” staff — typically the national security adviser himself, his deputy, and a handful of others. That’s it.

It should not shock anyone to hear that the vast majority of career national security officials favor the government line. They after all are the government. This means that in practice they’re mostly liberal Democrats, for liberal Democrats are the party of government and thus government attracts liberal Democrats. Not entirely, of course. There’s also a smallish cadre of centrist Democrats, Republicans and independents rounding out the federal menagerie. But one type you won’t find are serious critics — in either or neither party — of Beltway groupthink. Anti-establishment presidents — anti-establishment Republicans especially — are therefore inherently at a disadvantage under the current system.

That in mind, let’s reconsider the reasons for the reliance on detailees. The first is not bad as far as it goes. But do the benefits of institutional knowledge and career development so outweigh a president’s prerogative to hire people he wants, who agree with his agenda, that the overwhelming majority of the NSC staff should always be from permanent Washington?

Legally, everyone in the executive branch works for the president. But the NSC is the president’s personal national security staff, the people who work most directly for him in the chain of command, who are physically closest to him, who provide him information and material daily, and who are most responsible for seeing that his directives are carried out throughout the vast national security bureaucracy.

A balance could surely be struck. The government being large, there will always be at least a few people within it who are aligned with any president’s convictions. But when the number of detailees the NSC is obligated to hire is well into the hundreds, finding a sufficient number to staff an anti-establishment president is difficult and probably impossible.

The solution is simple: give the NSC more money: say, one or two hundred million dollars (its current budget is not even $15 million). That sounds like a lot to ordinary folk but it’s couch-cushion change in a federal budget that now tops four trillion. The notion that “we can’t afford this” is transparently phony. Money could easily be found to enable the NSC to hire most of its professional staff directly. Detailing could then be practiced strategically, to bring in people who actually believe in and want to further the president’s agenda.

More money could also solve the security clearance issue. Background investigations are conducted by other agencies — typically the FBI — who have to clear personnel for a wide range of positions across the government and whose first priority is more than likely not NSC personnel. Clearances are expensive and time-consuming because investigators have to do fieldwork and their caseloads and backlogs are enormous. Others have proposed reforming the process and reducing the number of positions that need high-level clearances. I’m all for that, but it won’t solve the NSC’s problem — at least not soon. But budgeting for investigators who work directly for the NSC and whose sole task is to clear NSC officials would.

Another simple, and cost-free, reform would be to allow the NSC to “adjudicate” and “hold” — that is, maintain on its own books — the clearances of all its direct hires. Forgive me for getting into the weeds, but this detail is important. To work at the NSC, one must be cleared to TS/SCI, or “Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information.” Under current practice, only the CIA can hold the SCI portion of that clearance for NSC direct hires. What this means is that Langley can disallow a president’s choice for the NSC by denying the SCI portion of his clearance — “Top Secret” alone doesn’t cut it. Theoretically this power is not supposed to be abused for political reasons, but there’s no guarantee it never is. True, a president can overrule a refusal, but that rarely happens, in part because presidents and their staffs know that if they take on the “Intelligence Community,” its well-connected operatives will retaliate with a leak war no White House can win.

But there’s no reason why NSC clearances must be held anywhere but the NSC. In fact, that’s precisely where they were held until very recently, when the Obama administration sent them to the CIA — presumably to give that agency a veto over future NSC staff. That’s an administrative matter that can easily be reversed by order of the president.

Some will no doubt object that these proposals, if enacted, would give the president too much latitude to appoint “unqualified” people. But let’s unpack what that means. If the concern is that people with suspect pasts will be given security clearances they shouldn’t have, remember that the investigators doing the background checks will still be career civil servants — and we’re all supposed to trust career civil servants, right? As government officials, they’re still likely to have typical government biases. But at least their first loyalty will not be to specific agencies with institutional interests in blocking critics, dissidents and Washington outsiders from serving a disruptive president.

Others will voice concern — disingenuously — that without government officials, the NSC will lack sufficient expertise to deal with the world’s complexities. But the proposal is not to deny the NSC recourse to sitting officials; the president could still detail over as many as he wants. It’s to end the practical requirement that he rely almost solely on career staff. More important, it’s arrogant and untrue to suggest that no one outside government has subject-matter expertise or good ideas. There are in fact many foreign policy experts — in academia, think tanks, and the private sector, among other places — who could do these jobs as well or better than career civil servants the president doesn’t know (and who likely voted against him). Indeed, by looking outside the government, the president is more likely to find staff whose views align with his own — a factor which is at least as reliable a predictor of how good they will be at their jobs than their credentials.

To object to a president hiring his own people is tantamount to saying that elections shouldn’t matter. It’s obvious that most of official Washington believes this, but at least until recently, they were reluctant to say it. There is of course an electoral remedy to the problem of a president hiring people you think he shouldn’t: run against him and beat him.

It’s hard not to conclude that the current system is designed to limit presidential — and therefore electoral — control of American foreign policy, to prevent change. But so long as we maintain our ostensibly democratic system, our democratically elected presidents should have the resources to hire people who actually want to help them carry out their Constitutional duties, according to the views that got them elected in the first place.

The core purpose of the NSC is to help the president govern, not thwart his agenda. Let’s make the NSC great again!

Michael Anton is Lecturer in Politics and Research Fellow at Hillsdale College’s Kirby Center in Washington, D.C and a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute. He served on the NSC staff from 2001-2005 and 2017-2018.


The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.


COLUMN BY

Michael Anton

Senior Fellow, Claremont Institute.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Should Do More Than Cut Security Council — He Should Gut Bureaucrats At CIA, State, Pentagon.

Former CIA Acting Director Praises ‘Deep State’ For Role In Trump Impeachment Push

Reminder: Schiff Reportedly Hired Two Of Trump’s NSC Staffers

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Iranian Engineer in US Sent Tech Secrets Back to Iran: FBI

An Iranian visiting scholar at the University of Michigan is in FBI custody after being charged with stealing and sending tech secrets back to Iran.

Amin Hasanzadeh, the accused, is an electrical engineer and Iranian military veteran who worked at a company linked to the Iranian government’s Cruise Division of Air & Space Organization. Hasanzadeh is also a permanent resident of the U.S.

He is accused of sending the sensitive information to his brother who worked at a number of companies connected to Iran’s military programs, including one that “contributes to Iran’s proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities.”

Hasanzadeh started working as a defense contractor in Florida in 2011 developing power electronics computer designs. He worked in a similar job in Maryland before landing a job in Michigan in January 2015.

The FBI says Hasanzadeh stole the information from the company in Michigan over the period of a year and a half and began sending sensitive information to his brother in Iran just six days into the job.

The information was covered by a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) he had signed.

According to an FBI affidavit, “A senior company official advised that any unauthorized disclosure or theft of partner company documents and information protected under an NDA could be ‘catastrophic.’”

The information he stole and sent to his brother included information about the company’s products, including trade secrets, and a prototype for a part of one of the company’s “important products,” stated the FBI complaint.

“Iran certainly does have as a goal improving its military capabilities and uses espionage as a means at its disposal to acquire information and technology it would have a hard time developing indigenously,” said Eric Brewer, deputy director and fellow with the Project on Nuclear Issues at the Center for Strategic & International Studies, speaking to The Jerusalem Post.

Brewer said the theft is part of Iran’s strategy to steal trade secrets from the West to improve their military and defense systems.

Hasanzadeh is charged with interstate transportation of stolen property and fraud (for not disclosing he had been in the Iranian military).

Last week, two Iranians pleaded guilty to acting as illegal agents of the Iranian government in the U.S.

Ahmadreza Mohammadi-Doostdar, 39, an Iranian with dual U.S. citizenship, and Majid Ghorbani, 60, were caught running surveillance on Jewish facilities and events in the U.S. in support of the Mujahdein-e Khalq (MEK), an exiled Iranian resistance group that advocates for the complete overthrow of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his Islamist regime.

According to an FBI affidavit, the two Iranian agents were also preparing “target packages” – i.e., attacks — on individuals who posed threats to the Iranian regime on American soil.

RELATED STORIES:

Trump Bars Iranian Gov’t Officials & Relatives From US 

Iranian Agents in US Plead Guilty; Saudi Agents Arrested

LOL: Europe ‘Comes Out’ Against Iran for Attack on Saudis

EDITORS NOTE: This Clarion Project column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

‘Consider This A Warning’: ICE Agents Arrested Thousands Of Sexual Predators In 2019

  • Homeland Security Investigations agents made 3,771 criminal arrests relating to child exploitation in the 2019 fiscal year, marking an 18% increase from the previous fiscal year, officials said. 
  • Special agents with Homeland Security Investigations, which operates under the umbrella of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, increasingly cracked down on child sex exploitation, particularly child sex tourism.
  • Immigration and Customs Enforcement opened the Angel Watch Center on Thursday, which is dedicated to alerting foreign governments of incoming U.S. sexual predators.

FAIRFAX, Virginia — Immigration and Customs Enforcement revealed Thursday that it arrested well over 3,700 sexual predators in the past fiscal year, as the agency’s announcement coincided with its grand opening of a facility dedicated to monitoring convicted sexual predators traveling internationally.

Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the investigative unit of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), announced it initiated 4,224 child exploitation cases during the 2019 fiscal year, which began in October 2018 and concluded at the end of September. Those cases led to a total of 3,771 criminal arrests, and the identification or rescue of 1,066 victims.

The numbers reflected a significant uptick — 18% — from the previous fiscal year. It’s a result, HSI contended, of its commitment to ending crimes against children.

“HSI’s agents, in cooperation with our law enforcement partners, work tirelessly to find and bring to justice, individuals who commit these heinous crimes,” acting special agent in charge of HSI Seattle Eben Roberts said in a prepared statement. “Moreover, we are dedicated to rescuing from harm’s way our most precious population — our children — and those who seek to harm them should consider this a warning.”

ICE published a short list of individuals arrested by HSI agents in the Pacific Northwest area, who were later convicted of various child exploitation crimes, such as child pornography, and the sexual abuse and molestation of minors.

The news release coincided with the Thursday opening of HSI’s Angel Watch Center in Fairfax, Virginia — an addition to the agency’s Cyber Crimes Center. When convicted and registered child sex offenders are anticipated to travel to another country, it’s the job of the Angel Watch Center to notify the country’s government. The overall goal of the facility’s operation is the prevention of child sex tourism — the act of traveling internationally for the purpose of sexually exploiting minors.

Watch the Impeachment shoe of Marie Yovanovitch fall.

Following the failure of the two witnesses on Day One of the Schiff Impeachment Star Chamber to land a blow on the US President, the “star” performer on Day Two promises to be the Obama-appointed US Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch.

Yovanovitch was an enabler of the DNC’s attempts in Kiev to access Ukrainian officials to dig up dirt on candidate Trump prior to the 2016 election. They ended up with zero dirt of Trump but moved to target anyone in Trump’s inner campaign circle.

Yovanovitch also protected George Soros’s meddling in the Ukraine via his faux “anti-corruption” NGO, Anti-Corruption Action Center.  A Soros representative told John Solomon that the anti-corruption group was a Trojan Horse in advance of Soros’s intention to invest a billion dollars in the Ukraine.

George Kent, the bow-tied witness on Day One of the Hearing, actually signed a letter to Yuriy Stolyarchuk, the Ukrainian Deputy Prosecutor General, dated April 4, 2016, in which he spoke about the financial assistance for joint US projects with the Prosecutor General’s office more than hinted for them to lay off their investigation into Soros’s NGO.

“The investigation into the actions of the Anti-Corruption Action Center, based on the assistance they have received from us, is similarly misplaced.”  Get the hint?

As John Solomon of The Hill exposed. Yovanovitch gave a speech on March 5, 2019, in which she called for Ukraine’s special anticorruption prosecutor to be removed, and the Ukrainian media went wild that a US official was interfering in their internal affairs. Under Secretary of State, David Hale, got peppered with questions whether her actions and statements violated international code of behavior under the Geneva Convention.

Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, was alerted to Yovanovitch’s anti-Trump statements by a senior Congress member. It was echoed by Republican lawmaker.

In mid-March, 2016, the new Ukraine Chief Prosecutor, Yuri Lutsenko, told John Solomon, that in his first meeting with Ambassador Yovanovitch, she gave him the names of several Ukrainians she did not want investigated and prosecuted!  This was a very strange request for a foreign ambassador to ask of a host country.

John Solomon received confirmation from a Ukrainian official who confirmed that,

“at least some of the names are those that US Embassy Kiev raised with the General Prosecutor because we were concerned about retribution and unfair treatment of Ukrainians viewed as favorable to the United States.”

In other words, the State Department was confirming that its own embassy under Yovanovitch had engaged in pressure on Ukrainian prosecutors to drop certain cases and investigations, as the new prosecutor was admitting.

This ties in with the letter signed by George Kent, the Democrats prime witness, that demanded the Ukrainian prosecutor drop the case against Soros’s NGO.

The bow-tied Kent had also demanded that the Ukrainian prosecutor drop investigations into Sergey Leschenko, a Ukrainian parliamentarian, and Artem Sytnyk, a senior law-enforcement official, who had assisted the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 US elections by divulging information about a former Trump campaign figure, Paul Manafort.

When pressed by the New York Times, Ukrainian prosecutor Lutsenko stood by his statement that Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch did provide him with names of individuals and groups she did not want investigating.

One final point. The writer has been told that Marie Yovanovitch denied a US entry visa to prosecutor Lutsenko to visit with the US Department of Justice to provide them with documents and information on this issue. I am still waiting for verification and confirmation on this point. I hope it will be brought up during her Impeachment cross examination by Republican lawmakers.

© All rights reserved.

VIDEO: How Marxism weaponized homosexuality, artists, and a fresh look at Gramsci and the Long March

Posted by 

This is the 4th clip of the Polish intellectual Ava Lon has done for us, as part of a series from this video. The man who made it, is well known in Poland for explaining the nature of leftism and Marxism. The First three clips can be found on our D Tube channel, as well as here.

Direct link

Third clip from the same video

Second clip from the same video

First clip from the same video

(Will add other clips as they are found. The original entire clip in Polish can be seen here below)

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Warren Calls Trans and Gender Nonconforming “Women” the ”Backbone of Our Democracy”

The Democrats’ Election Interference Projection

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column with videos is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Sheriff David Clarke on What President Trump is up against during the impeachment circus!

GUESTS AND TOPICS:

Sheriff David Clarke is America’s Sheriff and he now serves as a Senior Advisor and Spokesman for America First Action, dedicated to supporting the Trump/Pence agenda. He recently retired as the Sheriff of Milwaukee County after nearly 40 years in law enforcement. The Sheriff’s latest book is: Cop Under Fire: Beyond Hashtags of Race, Crime and Politics for a Better America. We will talk with Sheriff Clarke about draining the swamp (with Drano) and how the resist movement is trying to protect the swamp. TOPIC…What President Trump is up against during the impeachment circus!!

Tom Del Beccaro is an acclaimed author, commentator and analyst and an opinion writer at Fox News, Fox Business & Epoch Times. Tom is also the former Chairman of the California Republican Party. Tom is author of two excellent books — The Divided Era and The New Conservative Paradigm and is publisher of PoliticalVanguard.com. He also has a new website — TomDel.com where all his work can be found. As a frequent talk radio and television commentator, he has appeared across the Country on TV and Radio Shows, heard by millions each year, including the Conservative Commandoes, Fox & Friends, Fox Business News, and the Wall Street Journal’s Opinion Journal. TOPIC…The freak show that is being called the impeachment inquiry!!

Is America Moving Toward the ‘Upper House’ of Islam?

Former Muslim and Christian convert, Pastor Shahram Hadian, who was born in Iran and came to the United States as a youngster, regularly tours the country warning about jihad in America. In 2013, he founded his Truth in Love Christian Fellowship near Spokane, Washington, as a “free church,” meaning it rejected a religious tax exemption in order to spread his crucial, political message without restrictions.  That message is that our country has precipitously moved from the Dar al-Harb (lower house of Islam), or “world of war,” and is now dangerously close to the Dar al-Islam (upper house) or “world of submission.” He warns that Americans must preserve our way of life by eschewing political correctness and speaking out about this threat.

The threat arises from the obligation on every Muslim to bring all non-Muslim territory under Islamic rule.  Islamic believers declare war against a non-Muslim region which becomes enemy territory and part of the “lower house” of Islam, called the Dar al-Harb or “world of war.”  During this lower-house period, deception, taqiyya, is freely used. Islamic canonical law, shariah, a totalitarian doctrine with hudud punishments, such as stoning or amputation, is also sanitized or denied.  Muslims living in the region follow its secular laws, even though they ardently believe in the supremacy and eventual victory of shariah over all man-made laws.

Non-Muslims living under Dar al-Harb may be unaware of their plight as devout Muslims pursue their duty to declare jihad on all infidels and secure the entire world for Islam.  In the “lower house” phase, Islam is presented as a peaceful and tolerant faith.  The Koranic verses, suras, from Mohammed’s Meccan period, before he amassed power as a warlord, are emphasized as “true” Islamic beliefs.  The voiding and replacement of these verses by the later Medinan suras of violence and conquest is denied.  For example, an early sura 2:256 states, “there is no compulsion in religion,” but its replacement, sura 9:5, commands Muslims to fight unbelievers until they submit to Islam.

Muslims in the Dar al-Harb typically accentuate their victimization, calling attention to alleged “Islamophobia” and anti-Muslim bias.  Yet, attacks against Muslims are frequently revealed as self-perpetuated.  For example, Ahmed Mohamed, the Clock Boy, became an example of Islamophobia after the then-14-year-old brought to school a beeping device resembling a bomb with a timer and was questioned by police. The incident generated Twitter tweets, death threats against police and school officials, extensive media coverage and a White House visit by the student. Following multiple failed lawsuits against the school, the city and FOX news, the Mohamed family was ordered to pay court costs and subsequently moved to Qatar.

In a region under the “lower house” of Islam, resident Muslims typically declare shariah as unfit for democratic societies and applicable only to Muslim countries or communities.  They may, however, defend shariah used in a strictly Muslim context and cite religious freedom as in a stunning 2018 court verdict. In that instance, a Detroit federal judge dismissed charges against two Michigan doctors accused of genital mutilation of at least nine minor girls.  The doctors’ lawyers argued that laws against genital mutilation violate religious freedom after one doctor maintained she merely performed a religious custom.

Also, during the lower-house period, Muslims begin politically organizing, building a Muslim power base.  In 2014, the executive leadership of eight Muslim Brotherhood organizations announced formation of the United States Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO) at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.  The USCMO, a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity, is the first religion-based political party in U.S. history.  One of the founding members, Nihad Awad, is the executive director of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism funding trial in U.S. history, the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial.  His statement at the event was particularly alarming:  “This is the dream of every American Muslim, to unify the approach, agenda and vision of the Muslim community.”

U.S. political parties have never exclusively served one religious group. Yet, the USCMO endeavors to increase political participation of Muslim voters, support Muslim-friendly politicians and encourage more Muslims to run for office at all levels of government.  In 2020, an unprecedented 500 Muslims are expected to run in local, state and federal races.

During Dar al-Harb, Muslims also become involved in other critical sectors of society, including law enforcement, intelligence, national security, education, media and non-Muslim religious communities.  They push to purge counter-terrorism programs, thwarting attempts to apprehend Islamic terrorists.  They demand elimination of negative portrayals of Muslims in popular culture and ask for positive, abridged or even apocryphal versions of Islamic doctrine.  In 2011, the Obama administration expunged training materials deemed offensive by Islamist organizations.  In 2015, Obama instituted the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) program which focused on “right-wing extremists” and white supremacists.

In education, publicly-funded programs and textbooks promoting Islam and denigrating other faiths appear and proliferate as part of curriculums that include Muslim prayers.  Alleged and often fictional Muslim participation in history, scientific discoveries or other fields of study is emphasized to establish a false sense of Muslim supremacy.  Despite the first amendment and its non-establishment clause and the 1969 decision to remove prayer from schools, the Supreme Court recently refused to rule on a public school curriculum that promotes Islam and allows Islamic prayer in school.

During Dar al-Harb, worldwide acts of terrorism are portrayed as “un-Islamic” activities and the perpetrators as those who have “misinterpreted” Islamic doctrine.  Further, jihadist attacks, a key requirement for Muslims, are used as opportunities to advance the “Islamophobia” or “Muslims qua victims” narrative, as in the aftermath of the 2015 San Bernardino attacks.  In that instance, jihadists Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook murdered 14 people and wounded 21 at a county holiday party.  But Muslim spokesmen expressed concern that the shooting might “embolden Trump supporters” and that Muslims would be punished for actions by bad actors not representative of bona fide Muslims.

During Dar al-Harb, interfaith activities, portrayed as attempts to reach out to other religious communities, are actually all one-way, with accommodations and compromises favoring Muslims. They serve as intelligence-gathering missions. They also seek to develop trust to soften non-Muslims for dawah efforts, the required “welcoming” to Islam, that precedes complete submission required by the “upper house” period.

When Pastor Hadian warns of our descent into the upper house, he is describing the obliteration of our constitutional republic and all the protections and freedoms it guarantees.  He is talking about the near future that will soon see the impact of significant increases in the Islamic population and their efforts to transform America.  Hadian sees the targeting of “right-wing extremists” and white supremacy as attempts to keep Americans in the dark about the Islamist Trojan horse. These tactics are effectively designed to make it more difficult to expose the truth about the Koranic-mandated war to overtake the non-Muslim world.

Indeed, according to Hadian, current practices validate his premise that the U.S. is transitioning to a period of shariah promotion, a definitive characteristic of the “upper house.”  Noteworthy are the shariah patrols with look-alike NYPD vehicles that regulate neighborhood behavior in Brooklyn, as well as an increasing number of spontaneous, New York City street closings for Islamic prayer that inconvenience non-Muslims.  An ear-piercing, five-times-daily call to prayer occurs in Hamtramck, Michigan.  Workplaces have seen increased demands for special accommodations exclusively for Muslims, like prayer breaks and prayer facilities, and halal products in school cafeterias and in the general food supply.  The political elite, especially Democrats, now accept radical anti-Semitic positions from two Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated members of the so-called “Squad” – Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib – and are unwilling to censure them or investigate Omar’s alleged illegal activities.

Tellingly, a recent White House meeting with Vice President Mike Pence on our nation’s “safety and security” included Muslim Brotherhood members, including USCMO head, Ousamma Jammal. Muslim Brotherhood attendees presented Pence with the American Muslim Agenda, citing Muslim contributions to “Making America Great Again” and spoke of their aspirations for a Muslim female president in 2036.

All this points to undeniable progress toward the American Muslim community securing the  “upper house” in the United States and makes Pastor Hadian’s warning even more serious.  Once the Dar al-Islam is firmly in place, it will be too late to wage an effective defense to preserve our way of life.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Muslim Brotherhood’s Info Op Against Trump.

Everything you need to know about today’s partisan impeachment stunt

Nineteen minutes after Donald J. Trump was sworn in as America’s 45th President, The Washington Post published this headline on its website: “The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun.” For once, anyway, the media was telling it like it is.

Democrats in Congress have been selling their far-left base on impeachment since Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential race. After nearly 3 years of coming up empty—including $32 million of taxpayer money spent on the Russia collusion hoax—Democrat leaders knew they needed to do something to appease their party’s left fringe.

That’s why Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the impeachment “inquiry” in a hastily organized press conference—before the full House voted, and before any of the relevant evidence could even come to light. This time, Democrats knew they couldn’t risk letting the facts derail their momentum, as had happened with the Mueller Report flop.

Watch: The Swamp wanted a media circus, and they got it!

House Democrats are effectively shutting down Congress—yet again—over their impeachment sham. Nothing substantive can get done while the left remains fixated on undoing the 2016 election. They have repeatedly ignored opportunities to work with President Trump and take action on issues that will help the very people they represent.

The President continues to push forward on trade deals, healthcare, our booming economy, immigration, and other areas where Americans want real solutions. Democrat leaders, unable to control their far-left fringe, can only stage TV hearings. Meanwhile:

  • Speaker Pelosi still refuses to hold a vote on USMCA to replace NAFTA—despite growing pressure from manufacturers, labor unions, farmers, and workers.
  • Democrats have failed to come up with any areas where they’ll work with President Trump to lower medicine prices for our families and seniors.
  • House Democrats have failed to do anything to help rebuild our country’s crumbling infrastructure.
  • They continue to ignore loopholes in our immigration laws that drive the border crisis, fuel human smuggling, and hurt both U.S. citizens and legal immigrants.

Americans have every right to be angry. It’s remarkable to think about where our country could be if Democrats in Congress put country before party. Under President Trump, the U.S. economy has hit its lowest unemployment rate in 50 years. Illegal immigration is finally starting to come under control after decades of neglect.

If House Democrats were as committed to helping Americans succeed under President Trump as they are to tearing him down, imagine where we could be now.

Instead, bring in the cameras. The one bright spot from today’s embarrassing spectacle is that American families finally got front-row seats to how Congress wastes its time—and spends millions of their taxpayer dollars—on partisan stunts. No wonder Americans don’t trust Washington. Who can blame them?

Don’t rely on 2nd, 3rd, and 4th-hand accounts. Read the transcript yourself here.

Impeachment czar Adam Schiff has lied to Americans—over and over again.

Impeachment Hearings Stumble Out of the Blocks

Red Latex-Clad Drag Queen Attends Trump Impeachment Hearings

What I Have Learned About The Democrats

I have been active in politics for nearly 48 years now as a Republican and have witnessed many changes to the party over the years. I have campaigned for candidates, served on political board of directors, served as a correspondent at political events, and have written about politics for well over a decade. As a political pundit, I am pleased to have correctly predicted the outcome of the 2016 and 2018 elections, and No, I certainly didn’t do it by studying the polls (which are useless).

I have also watched as the Democrats have shifted from moderate positions to the far left. When I write about the Democrats I can always expect some visceral rebuttal. From this, I have learned some of their fundamental characteristics:

1. Democrats do not know how to argue, only attack. This is particularly true in Letters to the Editor or on-line replies. They usually rely on visceral sarcasm and obscene expletives to make their point in a Pavlovian type of response. This reflects their hatred and attempt to discredit the author by assassinating his/her character. Some have been so offensive, I have seen such postings automatically deleted by a publication. My question is, can you not argue without becoming belligerent?

Quite often, the Democrats set down a smoke screen in order to create a diversion and not answer a pointed question. They regularly parrot talking points as prescribed by the media. For example, they accuse President Trump of being a liar, a racist, a homophobic, xenophobic, etc. They have repeated it so often, they treat it as gospel. In reality, there is no evidence to indicate he is any of these things, only conjecture.

In my case, I have also noted Democrats do not read an article in its entirety, resulting in convoluted comments totally unrelated to the subject at hand. Strange.

Democrats honestly think they are smarter than everyone else; as such, they believe they are the only ones who know what is best for the country. Their arrogance is their Achilles’ Heel and explains why they look upon the president’s supporters as “deplorables” who are condemned for their “inferior intellects.” This also contributes to their problem in arguing a point as Democrats believe it is below their dignity to argue with deplorables, only to dismiss them outright.

Democrats tend to see a conspiracy in everything they oppose which is why they insist on political correctness. Again, only their views are considered acceptable. This implies they want control, not compromise.

So, how do you argue with a Democrat? Stick to the facts and your principles. On-line, they do not believe in a fair debate, and rely on vicious discourse instead. As such, do not waste your time arguing with them. Also, in a public setting, do not allow yourself to be baited. The worst thing you can do is to engage in a heated rhubarb and be dragged down to their level where you may say something inappropriate and lose the respect of your audience. It is just not worth it.

2. Democrats understand the power of culture control. Not surprising, they set the trends in fashion, music, entertainment, and news media, anything appealing to the five senses. By doing so, they subliminally influence the perceptions of people as to what should be right and wrong.

Not surprising, they are mindful of the power of symbols which they either embrace or disgrace, such as the Black Lives Matter Flag vs. the Police Thin Blue Line American Flag, desecration of historical symbols, and treatment of patriotic icons, such as the American flag. In my travels with the press corps, it was rather obvious they choose their party over God and country.

Democrats have the luxury of controlling the public narrative, thanks, in large part, to their incestuous relationship with the news media. The morality of the Democrats is not the same as the public’s. This was revealed not long ago by a Gallop Report, all because they are acutely aware of controlling the culture.

The party’s political campaign playbook has long been that prescribed by Saul Alinsky, author of the book, “Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals Paperback.” Alinsky, of course, is the well known Socialist community organizer who greatly affected the political schemes of President Obama, and Secretary Hillary Clinton. In a nutshell, his underlying theme in terms of politics is, “All is fair in love and war.” This includes cheating and deceit in political campaigns.

3. Democrats do not assume responsibility for their actions. This became rather obvious recently with the resignation of Rep. Katie Hill (D-CA) after reports surfaced of alleged sexual indiscretions with a congressional staffer and an admission to a relationship with a campaign aide. In her final speech on the House floor, she blamed others for revealing her indiscretions and claimed the role of victim. There was no admission she was at fault, that someone else must be.

4. Democrats believe they can buy votes simply by offering free goods and services. To illustrate, programs such as the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and Free College Tuition, may sound nice to the uninformed, but the country simply cannot afford to implement any of it. These programs appeal to people who want a free lunch which simply doesn’t exist as somebody has to pick up the bill. Somehow the Democrats have forgotten what President Kennedy, of their party, said at his inauguration, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” Today, it is just the reverse.

So far the Democrats have been playing with money in the trillions of dollars. Let’s hope they never discover what “quadrillion” means as they would spend it.

Most politicians tell the people what they want to hear. Conversely, President Trump tells the people what they need to hear. There is a difference.

Conclusion

I am certain my old moderate Democrat friends will argue with me on these points, but I would remind them it is a new day in Democrat politics. This is no longer your father’s Democrat party. However, I’ll be interested to read their response to this. Let’s see if they know how to effectively argue.

Keep the Faith!

P.S. – Also do not forget my new books, “How to Run a Nonprofit” and “Tim’s Senior Moments”, both available in Printed and eBook form.

EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

VIDEO HIGHLIGHTS of the now open ‘impeachment’ process

Posted by Eeyore

More will be added as the day progresses.

RELATED VIDEOS:

Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) states, “Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct [proof].”

Matt Bracken speaks with Brad Johnson on the state of the impeachment hearings against President Donald Trump.

Tom Fitton on Coup Attempt against President Trump: ‘Adam Schiff’s Job Will be to Protect Joe Biden’

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ukrainian Officials Release Records of 46 Payments to Hunter Biden from Burisma Holdings, 38 Payments were for $83,333 Totaling Over $3.1 Million

Mike Quigley Claims That Hearsay Can Be Better Than Direct Evidence

6 Key Moments From the First Day of Public Impeachment Hearings

White House Visitor Logs Detail Meetings of Eric Ciaramella

Impeachment Is the Left’s Sad Final Attempt to Beat Trump

Trump had a constitutional duty to ask Zelensky about Hunter Biden

4 GOP torpedoes aim to sink Dems’ impeachment hopes

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column with videos is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

CAIR’s Goal: 30 Islamists into Congress

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) recently held its 25th Annual Gala in Washington, D.C, in which CAIR’s executive director announced a goal of pushing more Islamists into Congress. 

As the  Investigative Project on Terrorism reports, CAIR’s executive director Nihad Awad shares the “formula” he believes will secure Islamists greater political power: 

“A strong CAIR equals a strong community. A strong community will produce a strong and confident and successful Muslim … “So I’m telling you tonight we are going to work in the next years, inshallah (God willing], to elect at least 30 Muslims in the Congress. This number is equivalent to our size and our potential as American Muslims. Including at least two [U.S.] senator Muslims.”

In addition, Awad envisions Muslim judges, including a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, along with an Islamist extension of Hollywood. 

No matter that Awad got his numbers wrong, this has been the Islamist agenda since at least the 2000s, when I heard the same professional targets outlined at national conventions. But as Middle East Forum’s Daniel Pipes wrote in 2003, it goes further.

Pipes documents how, in 1998, CAIR’s Chairman Omar M. Ahmad told a crowd of Muslims in California:

“Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant.” 

In 2008, I heard this message echoed at a southern California mosque by Imam Siraj Wahhaj at an event sponsored by the Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA), where Wahhaj said: 

“There is no America. There is only Islam.” 

None of these views have been clandestine. Over the years the message has been consistent. What has changed is that the Islamist candidates they produce are more vocal about exactly which interests they represent.

Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s support of the Hamas terror group and the anti-Semitic BDS movement against Israel is the most recent demonstration of that. 

Within this discussion of CAIR’s vision of Muslim in Congress — that is, Islamists in Congress — and those seeking other avenues of political power, it’s important to underscore that not all Muslims are Islamists. Not all Muslims are race and religious supremacists who believe that the politicization of faith is the way to go. Many Muslims stand opposed to the politicization of faith; many stand opposed to Islamists. 

Veteran military serviceman and former California congressional candidate Omar Qudrat is an example of the type of Muslims who deserve to be elected —Muslims who put duty to constitution and country ahead of any religious agendas. 

Dalia Al-Aqidi is another — a veteran Iraqi American journalist poised to challenge Ilhan Omar in Minnesota in the 2020 race for Omar’s congressional seat in district 5. 

Both candidates are steadfast opponents of Islamists, their agenda and ideology. Both are allied with Muslim reformers.

Neither CAIR nor their allies represent the Muslim community. The American Muslim diaspora is so diverse that it would be dishonest to say that any one person or organization represents them. There is no central representation and there shouldn’t be. All our voices deserve to be heard, but what you keep seeing be pushed by mainstream media is this fabricated monolith fantasy of a Muslim — in short, an Islamist.

RELATED STORIES:

Omar Qudrat: Tired of Islamist & Apologist Narratives

Dalia Al-Aqidi: The Interview Ilhan Omar Refused to Accept

Why CAIR Doesn’t Represent American Muslims

Was Virginia Doctor Performing a Kind of Demographic Jihad?

Helping turn Virginia blue?

Because so many readers sent the news about a Pakistani doctor in Virginia under arrest for performing unwanted and unneeded medical procedures on women in his care, I need to post the news.

Even if there weren’t questions about why some women were unknowingly (allegedly) made infertile, Dr Perwaiz would have come to our attention, joining a growing list of ‘new American’ doctors who are busy committing Medicaid/Medicare fraud one of the interests highlighted here at ‘Frauds and Crooks.

Here is Robert Spencer’s (Jihad Watch) take on the incredible news at PJ Media

Demographic Jihad? Virginia Muslim Doctor Tied Women’s Tubes Without Their Consent

The details of this case are simply horrifying. One woman tried for years to conceive a child, but couldn’t. When she finally consulted a fertility specialist, she discovered, according to the Virginian-Pilot, that her “Fallopian tubes had been burned down to nubs, making it impossible to conceive naturally.” It turned out that her physician, Dr. Javaid Perwaiz of Chesapeake, Virginia, had tied her tubes without telling her was doing it or obtaining her consent. And she was by no means the only woman whom Dr. Perwaiz victimized in this way.

[….]

About the good doctor we are told that he was “educated abroad,” with no hint as to where – it was actually in his native Pakistan, as the Virginian-Pilot notes: “Perwaiz has had a medical license since at least 1980, according to state records, having attended medical school in his native Pakistan and completed a residency at Charleston Area Medical Center.”

Read the Virginian-Pilot story to see what Perwaiz is being charged with.

Spencer wraps with this after telling us what Muslim leaders have said in the past about demographic jihad:

Is it possible that Javaid Perwaiz has the same kind of mindset, believing that he is performing an Islamic duty by preventing infidel women from having children? It cannot be discounted, but of course the possibility will never be investigated; to do so would be “Islamophobic.”

Continue reading here.

One reader who sent me the story remarked that any woman who goes to a Muslim doctor is foolish (harsher words than that).  However, I will bet most American women have no clue if their ‘new American’ doctor is a Muslim and if they do they don’t know any basic tenets of Islam.

Changing America by changing the people!

Don’t miss my RRW story about how Muslims are winning big in local elections. Virginia was a big winner for them on election day 2019.

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.