Keith Ellison sweats, melts down over Farrakhan lies-

18mh.,b60- — June 27, 2018

This is stuff the media would be all over if it involved a Republican. But this exchange is as close as it comes. The rest of the media mainly tossed Ellison softball questions and ignored the evidence.

Keith Ellison has spent a lot of time avoiding questions about his extensive history with Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. The Women’s March leaders have proven that it’s possible to just grin and shrug it off. And still have enough political influence in lefty circles to ban Jewish critics from Starbucks. Obama has gone virtually unchallenged on his own photo with Farrakhan.

But Ellison has invested time and energy into denying his heavily documented past with the Nation of Islam, a racist anti-Semitic black nationalist hate group. And the media has mostly given him a pass.

Jake Tapper has been one of the few to call out lefties for their Nation of Islam ties. So Ellison should have been expecting something. Instead he came unprepared to this. So did Tapper, who focuses on a more recent Farrakhan meeting while failing to call out Ellison for blatantly lying about his past with the hate group. Ellison rants, talks over Tapper, sweats and insists that he should be immune from questions about the NOI. If a Republican had put on that kind of performance, every media shark would have smelled blood in the water. But it’s Ellison and Farrakhan, so expect no follow ups.

The exchange is a mess. But Ellison denies that he was a follower of Farrakhan, whose name he won’t even say.

That’s easy enough to disprove. Ellison’s extended history with the hate group, as documented at PowerLine by Scott Johnson includes his first entry into politics. There Keith Ellison is calling himself Keith Ellison-Muhammad, an NOI name, and is repeatedly described as affiliated with the Nation.

This is stuff the media would be all over if it involved a Republican. But this exchange is as close as it comes. The rest of the media mainly tossed Ellison softball questions and ignored the evidence.

source- freedom outpost-Daniel Greenfield

 

Advertisements

Assault charges filed against Maxine Waters by journalist Laura Loomer-

-9mh.,b63- — June 27, 2018

It’s about time someone took it to these corrupt politicians and I hope that Loomer will prevail in her charges against Maxine Waters.  That woman needs to face some serious justice, and I’m talking criminal justice, not social.

Well, I called it, didn’t I?  In reporting on investigative journalist Laura Loomer’s attempted interview with Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA), I pointed out that Loomer could possibly file charges against Waters for assault, and she had the video evidence to prove it as in several instances Waters pushed at her and her camera.  On Wednesday, Loomer filed a police report with Capitol Police claiming that she had been assaulted by Waters.

“Today I filed a police report w/ @CapitolPolice against @RepMaxineWaters. Yesterday when I confronted her on Capitol Hill, she ASSAULTED me. She hit my hand, then she swatted me in the face twice w/ her papers. I’m pressing charges against her,” Loomer tweeted.

Following my piece on Tuesday, Loomer was reportedly going to press charges, and she confirmed that.

I guess Maxine thought she could just continue to do as she wants, but there’s a new breed of journalist rising up that are simply not going to take it from open avowed Socialists like Maxine Waters and their elitist attitudes.

However, Maxine Waters is not immune from justice in the matter of inciting the people to harassment nor her assault on a member of the press.

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office. -Article 1, Section 6

Loomer posted the report number in a photo.

“When I confronted her regarding her call for targeted harassment of Trump administration officials, Ms. Waters assaulted me 3 times,” Loomer wrote.  “She hit my hand to try to knock my phone out of my hand, and then she hit me in the face with her papers twice.”

Dr. Jane Ruby filed a witness statement for the charges Loomer made.

Laura also received high praise from
Michelle Malkin on Fox and Friends, who said that Loomer dished out some of Maxine’s own medicine to her.  Malkin also recounted the fact that Waters has been an instigator for decades, even saying the LA riots were justified by social justice.

It looks like in about 5 days, we’ll see whether or not anything comes of it, but Loomer has tons of social media presence and support.  It’s about time someone took it to these corrupt politicians and I hope that Loomer will prevail in her charges against Maxine Waters.  That woman needs to face some serious justice, and I’m talking criminal justice, not social

source- freedom outpost-Tim Brown– Laura Loomer-. Dr. Jane Ruby

 

 

Arizona ranchers To Nancy Pelosi: “come down here and see where the bad guys are coming through the border”

43gh.,b25—— June 23, 2018

The men are seen standing in areas of fencing along the edge of their property that is held together with barb wire only a few feet off the ground.

Arizona ranchers have issued a cordial invitation to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-) to come down to the Arizona border and “see where the dope and the bad guys are coming in.”

In a short video presentation, John Ladd, Fred Davis, and Chris Burgard point out how insecure the southern border is, and offer Ms. Pelosi a very hospitable invitation to come down and view it for herself.

“She went to Texas to see the kids, so come here, see where the dope and the bad guys are coming through the border,” said rancher John Ladd.

“Arizona is insecure,” added rancher Fred Davis.  “Half of the drugs, half of the people are smuggled in the Tucson sector.  Come see why your $2 million a mile fence is trash.”

The ranchers said they would send a plane for Pelosi and even put her up at their house.

Chris Burgard added, “We’ve been doing this for over nine years.  Anybody that tells you this southern border is secure, is full of crap.”

The men are seen standing in areas of fencing along the edge of their property that is held together with barb wire only a few feet off the ground.

However, this was not the first time the men spoke out and while they find it refreshing to hear some of President Donald Trump’s statements, they are not sure that a wall will solve the problem.  In their opinion, it works similar to criminals obtaining guns.  In other words, you can put up all the deterrents you want, but someone intent on violating the law will find a way to do it.

Take a look at this short video from The Wall Street Journal, which interviewed these ranchers and others.

One woman said that many people think there’s a great wall on the southern border, but she said that even the Great Wall of China isn’t going to stop the influx of illegal aliens.  Watch the video to find out why that is.

source- freedom outpost-Tim Brown– John Ladd, Fred Davis, and Chris Burgard

secret Obama-era license let iran tap dollars-

-16lh.,b62- 06 June 2018–

The Obama administration secretly sought to give Iran access — albeit briefly — to the U.S. financial system by sidestepping sanctions kept in place after the 2015 nuclear deal, despite repeatedly telling Congress and the public it had no plans to do so.

An investigation by Senate Republicans released Wednesday sheds light on the delicate balance the Obama administration sought to strike after the deal, as it worked to ensure Iran received its promised benefits without playing into the hands of the deal’s opponents. Amid a tense political climate, Iran hawks in the U.S., Israel and elsewhere argued that the United States was giving far too much to Tehran and that the windfall would be used to fund extremism and other troubling Iranian activity.

The report by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations revealed that under President Barack Obama, the Treasury Department issued a license in February 2016, never previously disclosed, that would have allowed Iran to convert $5.7 billion it held at a bank in Oman from Omani rials into euros by exchanging them first into U.S. dollars. If the Omani bank had allowed the exchange without such a license, it would have violated sanctions that bar Iran from transactions that touch the U.S. financial system.

The effort was unsuccessful because American banks — themselves afraid of running afoul of U.S. sanctions — declined to participate. The Obama administration approached two U.S. banks to facilitate the conversion, the report said, but both refused, citing the reputational risk of doing business with or for Iran.

“The Obama administration misled the American people and Congress because they were desperate to get a deal with Iran,” said Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, the subcommittee’s chairman.

Issuing the license was not illegal. Still, it went above and beyond what the Obama administration was required to do under the terms of the nuclear agreement. Under that deal, the U.S. and world powers gave Iran billions of dollars in sanctions relief in exchange for curbing its nuclear program. Last month, President Donald Trump declared the U.S. was pulling out of what he described as a “disastrous deal.”

The license issued to Bank Muscat stood in stark contrast to repeated public statements from the Obama White House, the Treasury and the State Department, all of which denied that the administration was contemplating allowing Iran access to the U.S. financial system.

Shortly after the nuclear deal was sealed in July 2015, then-Treasury Secretary Jack Lew testified that even with the sanctions relief, Iran “will continue to be denied access to the world’s largest financial and commercial market.” A month later, one of Lew’s top deputies, Adam Szubin, testified that despite the nuclear deal “Iran will be denied access to the world’s most important market and unable to deal in the world’s most important currency.”

Yet almost immediately after the sanctions relief took effect in January 2016, Iran began to complain that it wasn’t reaping the benefits it had envisioned. Iran argued that other sanctions — such as those linked to human rights, terrorism and missile development — were scaring off potential investors and banks who feared any business with Iran would lead to punishment. The global financial system is heavily intertwined with U.S. banks, making it nearly impossible to conduct many international transactions without touching New York in one way or another.

Former Obama administration officials declined to comment for the record.

However, they said the decision to grant the license had been made in line with the spirt of the deal, which included allowing Iran to regain access to foreign reserves that had been off-limits because of the sanctions. They said public comments made by the Obama administration at the time were intended to dispel incorrect reports about nonexistent proposals that would have gone much farther by letting Iran actually buy or sell things in dollars.

The former officials spoke on condition of anonymity because many are still involved in national security issues.

As the Obama administration pondered how to address Iran’s complaints in 2016, reports in The Associated Press and other media outlets revealed that the U.S. was considering additional sanctions relief, including issuing licenses that would allow Iran limited transactions in dollars. Democratic and Republican lawmakers argued against it throughout the late winter, spring and summer of 2016. They warned that unless Tehran was willing to give up more, the U.S. shouldn’t give Iran anything more than it already had.

At the time, the Obama administration downplayed those concerns while speaking in general terms about the need for the U.S. to live up to its part of the deal. Secretary of State John Kerry and other top aides fanned out across Europe, Asia and the Middle East trying to convince banks and businesses they could do business with Iran without violating sanctions and facing steep fines.

“Since Iran has kept its end of the deal, it is our responsibility to uphold ours, in both letter and spirit,” Lew said at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in March 2016, without offering details.

That same week, the AP reported that the Treasury had prepared a draft of a license that would have given Iran much broader permission to convert its assets from foreign currencies into easier-to-spend currencies like euros, yen or rupees, by first exchanging them for dollars at offshore financial institutions.

The draft involved a general license, a blanket go-ahead that allows all transactions of a certain type, rather than a specific license like the one given to Oman’s Bank Muscat, which only covers specific transactions and institutions. The proposal would have allowed dollars to be used in currency exchanges provided that no Iranian banks, no Iranian rials and no sanctioned Iranian individuals or businesses were involved, and that the transaction did not begin or end in U.S. dollars.

Obama administration officials at the time assured concerned lawmakers that a general license wouldn’t be coming. But the report from the Republican members of the Senate panel showed that a draft of the license was indeed prepared, though it was never published.

And when questioned by lawmakers about the possibility of granting Iran any kind of access to the U.S. financial system, Obama-era officials never volunteered that the specific license for Bank Muscat in Oman had been issued two months earlier.

According to the report, Iran is believed to have found other ways to access its money, possibly by exchanging it in smaller quantities through another currency.

The situation resulted from the fact that Iran had stored billions in Omani rials, a currency that’s notoriously hard to convert. The U.S. dollar is the world’s dominant currency, so allowing it to be used as a conversion instrument for Iranian assets was the easiest and most efficient way to speed up Iran’s access to its own funds.

For example: If the Iranians want to sell oil to India, they would likely want to be paid in euros instead of rupees, so they could more easily use the proceeds to purchase European goods. That process commonly starts with the rupees being converted into dollars, just for a moment, before being converted once again into euros.

U.S. sanctions block Iran from exchanging the money on its own. And Asian and European banks are wary because U.S. regulators have levied billions of dollars in fines in recent years and threatened transgressors with a cutoff from the far more lucrative American market.

Associated Press.- newsmax- Carolyn Kaster- Adam Szubin,-

 

 

Matching Serial Numbers

—48g.,b17

Also thought that she didn’t make “ANY” safety arrangements to protect those she sent back in and there was a mention of drugs to keep people quiet????

  1. U.S. Code› Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 115 › § 2381

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645,   62 Stat. 807;   Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J),   Sept. 13, 1994,   108 Stat. 2148.)

 
AND THE STORY NOW COMES FULL CIRCLE…. You decide for yourself but the swamp is wide and deep. Why are there never consequences for the politicals?????

Subject: Matching Serial Numbers

 

Date: May 3, 2018

Benghazi and the Matching Serial Numbers

Hopefully we are now witnessing the death throes of the LYING liberal media!
May they go the way of Montgomery Ward!

Benghazi and the Matching Serial Numbers

So here’s the REAL story. Ambassador Stevens was sent to Benghazi in order to retrieve US made Stinger Missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia WITHOUT Congressional oversight or permission.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton brokered the deal through Ambassador Stevens and a Private Arms Dealer named Marc Turi.
Then some of the shoulder fired Stinger Missiles ended up in Afghanistan and were used against our own military.

It was July 25th, 2012 when a US Chinook helicopter was TAKEN down by one of our own Stinger Missiles, because the idiot Taliban didn’t ARM the Stinger Missile and the US Chinook helicopter didn’t explode, but had to LAND anyway. An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stinger Missiles being kept in Qatar by the CIA.

Obama and Hillary were now in FULL panic mode; so Ambassador Stevens was sent back to Benghazi to retrieve the rest of the Stinger Missiles. This WAS a “do-or-die” mission, which explains the Stand Down Orders given to Multiple commando teams.

It was the State Dept, NOT the CIA, that supplied the Stinger Missiles to our sworn enemies, because Gen. Petraeus wouldn’t approve supplying these deadly missile weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft.

Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK’d the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a YouTube video.

Obama and Hillary committed TREASON!

THIS is what the investigation is all about, WHY she had a Private Server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and WHY Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was the result of a YouTube video, even though everyone KNEW it was not.

Further…the Taliban KNEW that this administration aided and abetted the enemy WITHOUT Congressional oversight or permission when Boehner created the Select Cmte; so the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of five Taliban Generals.

Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn…everyone KNEW he was a traitor.

So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised and a woman that is a serial liar, who PERJURED herself multiple times at Congressional Hearings.

Perhaps this is why NO military aircraft were called in because the administration KNEW our enemies had Stinger Missiles.

Forward this again and again and again until everyone reads the true story. And JUST think over half of the US population doesn’t KNOW this.

 

Our responsibility to criticize islam

May 13, 2018–34kh.,b7

A commonplace has emerged among media and political elites that criticism of Islam or even of radical Islam will only serve to drive moderate Muslims into the radical camp.

That argument should be questioned because it can just as easily be that lack of criticism has led to the rebirth of militant Islam. Far from being critical of Islam, Western governments, media, academia, and even churches have bent over backward to claim that all the atrocities committed in the name of Islam have nothing to do with Islam. Indeed, the Western media have adopted a rigid system of self-censorship that keeps them from admitting that these atrocities are in fact committed in the name of Islam.

The latest example is the reporting on the assassination of a Russian ambassador by a Turkish policeman. Almost the first words out of the assassin’s mouth after the shooting were: “We are those who have given a pledge of allegiance to Muhammad that we will carry on jihad.” If you don’t remember him saying that, it’s because that part of the statement was omitted from almost all news and television reports. Apparently, our betters in the media were afraid that if we were aware of the man’s devotion to Muhammad, we might say something provocative that would turn untold numbers of peaceful Muslims into bomb-throwing jihadists.

Perhaps the prime example of the wages of silence is the current crisis in Europe. Islamic terrorists have declared war on Europe and the result has been a series of deadly attacks – at airports, subways, cafés, concert halls, and, most recently, Christmas markets. All this mayhem is the indirect result of ignorance about Islam – an ignorance that, in turn, is the result of an almost complete blackout of news unfavorable to Islam.

Anyone with a thorough understanding of Islamic culture and religion could have predicted that, even without the 2015-16 flood of Muslim migrants, the steady flow of Muslim immigrants over the years would create a combustible situation. The amazing thing is that the consequences of this massive migration were never discussed – except in glowing terms. Just about the only thing allowed to be said about the migrants was that they would solve labor shortages, refill welfare coffers, and bring cultural enrichment to Europe.

That was the official line. Anyone who deviated from it could expect censure, possible job loss, or even a criminal trial. Say something negative about Muslim immigration on your Facebook page and you would be visited by police. Say it in public and you would receive a court summons. It didn’t matter if you were a famous writer (Oriana Fallaci), the President of the Danish Free Press Society (Lars Hedegaard), or a popular member of the Dutch Parliament (Geert Wilders). If you couldn’t say something nice about Islam, then you shouldn’t say anything at all.

In the European case, the idea that criticizing Islam will create an army of radicals doesn’t hold up. Criticism of Islam is essentially a crime in many parts of Europe and has been for a long time. In Europe, few dared criticize Islam, but the radicals came anyway. More than anything else, it was silence that allowed Islamization and radicalization to spread through France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Sweden.

Practically no one spoke up about no-go-zones, sharia courts, polygamy, and forced marriages, refusal to integrate, crime waves, and the rape epidemic. Now that many are finally beginning to speak out, it may be too late to avoid capitulation (Sweden’s likely fate) or bloody conflict (more likely in France).

The very argument that criticism of Islam will drive moderates into the radical camp suggests that criticism is needed. If Islam is such a hair-trigger religion that the slightest offense might radicalize adherents, there is something radically wrong with the religion itself. We don’t worry that criticizing Catholicism is going to produce angry Catholic mobs rampaging through the streets. We don’t fear that one wrong word is going to cause a young Southern Baptist to strap on a suicide belt.

Islam invites criticism. Given its bloody past and present, it would be highly irresponsible not to subject it to a searching analysis and critique. Such a critique would not aim at alienating Muslims (although some will inevitably be alienated), but at alerting likely victims of jihad.

One of the basics that non-Muslims need to know is that Islam divides the world in two – the House of Islam, and the House of War (all non-Islamic societies). And every Muslim is expected to do his part to make the House of War submit to the House of Islam. Europeans are now experiencing a “don’t-know-what-hit-me” sense of bewilderment because they never learned this basic fact about Islam.

One reason for our reluctance to analyze and criticize Islam (an idea) is that such criticism seems tantamount to criticizing Muslims (a people). Unfortunately, even if that is not the intention, it is often the result. A person can’t separate himself entirely from his beliefs, and, consequently, we take criticism of our religion personally. That’s a good reason for presenting the critique as tactfully as possible. But it’s not a good reason for offering no critique at all.

If you can’t criticize a belief system because it would hurt the feelings of people who subscribe to that system, then we were wrong to criticize Nazism, Communism, and Japanese imperialism. Ordinarily, we refrain from criticizing other religions. Such a live-and-let-live approach is generally sensible, but when the other religion takes the attitude that you must either convert, submit, or die, then live-and-let-live is no longer an option. That is the position that we are in with regard to Islam. And it is suicidal to pretend that things are otherwise.

source- Carl Goldberg, PhD- by William Kilpatrick

 

Giuliani: top Obama officials knew about campaign informant

59jh.,b26- –Sunday, 27 May 2018

Former President Barack Obama likely was generally aware of the informant embedded into the Trump campaign, because both the CIA director and director of national intelligence knew about it and they briefed the president daily, Rudy Giuliani said Sunday.

The alleged informant, Stefan Halper, reportedly met with Trump campaign officials during the 2016 presidential race and Obama’s top intelligence officials, CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper were aware of Halper’s intel, according to Giuliani, President Donald Trump’s attorney.

“Brennan and Clapper knew about it,” Giuliani told “The Cats Roundtable” on 970 AM-N.Y., per The Hill.

Giuliani added if those top administration intelligence officials knew, that is not the type of information that would be withheld from the daily presidential briefings, according to The Hill.

“Brennan briefed [President Obama] everyday,” Giuliani told host John Catsimatidis. “Obama, well to the extent that he got briefed everyday, you would have to have brought this up, wouldn’t you?

“Gosh, I can’t see how you would escape it.”

President Trump has been advancing the narrative of a surveillance and spying mission against his campaign that was politically motivated to keep the ruling party in the White House. Both Clapper and Brennan maintain the informant was solely intended to track Russia’s campaign meddling objectives.

Giuliani’s assertion would at least suggest the Obama administration was complicit in some unethical political maneuvers in what was a tightly contested and well-funded 2016 presidential election.

The Justice Department held a classified briefing with lawmakers last week, including with the Gang of Eight leadership of both major parties. After the briefing, both Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and House Intelligence Ranking Member Adam Schiff, D-Calif., were unmoved in their positions on the special counsel investigation into 2016 presidential election and the ensuing Inspector General probe into potential surveillance abuses.
source- newsmax- Eric Mack- informant, -Stefan Halper- The Hill.- John Catsimatidis-