Datasets:

tyyihg

/

propoganda_detection_final

like 0

Barack Hussein Obama Hid Efforts to Aid Iran’s Windfall A new Senate report reveals that Barack Obama secretly paved the way for Iran to tap into U.S. banks to convert cash it received from sanctions’ relief to dollars — despite the face the White House assured lawmakers it would do no such thing. The report shows how State Department and Treasury Deparment officials during the Obama era quietly gave a special license for a major Omani bank to do business with two U.S. banks. Barack Obama spent considerable time selling the American people on the idea of a cooperative Iran — all the while cutting quiet deals, behind closed doors, with the rogue nation. take our poll - story continues below Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? The U.S. banks were pressured into complying with the deal. The Washington Times has more: The Obama administration — despite repeatedly assuring Congress that Iran would remain barred from the U.S. financial system — secretly mobilized to give Tehran access to American banks to convert the windfall of cash it received from sanctions relief under the 2015 nuclear deal into dollars, an investigative report by the Senate has revealed. A copy of the report, obtained by The Washington Times, outlines how Obama-era State and Treasury Department officials discreetly issued a special license for the conversion to a major Omani bank and unsuccessfully pressured two U.S. banks to partake in the transaction, all while misleading lawmakers about the activities. The document, compiled by the Senate’s Republican-led chief investigative subcommittee, began circulating Tuesday, just as the Trump administration issued its harshest warnings to date to foreign governments and companies to avoid doing business with Iran or find themselves in the crosshairs of Washington’s reimposition of sanctions as part of Mr. Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal. “Companies doing business in Iran face substantial risks, and those risks are even greater as we reimpose nuclear-related sanctions,” said Sigal Mandelker, Treasury Department undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence. She also called on foreign governments to harden their financial systems against “deceptive” Iranian transactions that ultimately channel money to terrorists. The Iranian government “uses shell and front companies to conceal its tracks” as part of an elaborate scheme designed to procure cash for the Quds Force of Iran’s militant Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which the U.S. designates as a terrorist organization, Ms. Mandelker said. She issued the warnings in a speech at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank as Iran announced Tuesday that it was formally moving ahead with preparations to increase its nuclear enrichment capacities — the sharpest response to date by the Islamic republic to Mr. Trump’s pullout from the nuclear accord. Iranian officials said the increase, while provocative, does not violate its commitments under the nuclear accord. The president sent shock waves around the world with his May 8 decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear pact and begin reimposing U.S. sanctions, which the U.S., Europe, China and Russia had collectively lifted in 2015 in exchange for Iran’s promise to curb its suspect nuclear programs and allow international inspections. While Iran told the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency on Tuesday that it plans only to increase enrichment within limits set by 2015 deal, the announcement came with threats from a top Iranian official that the activities could be quickly expanded. The warning put fresh pressure on European leaders to keep the nuclear accord alive despite Mr. Trump’s withdrawal. The head of Iran’s nuclear agency, Ali Akbar Salehi, said Tehran is prepared to dramatically increase its capacity for enrichment but that the work so far is limited to building a facility for assembling the centrifuges. He made the comment a day after Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, ordered the increase in capacity and vowed that Iran would preserve its nuclear program despite the U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 accord. The Senate report focuses new scrutiny on the lengths President Obama’s team was willing to go to ensure the deal’s success as it was still being negotiated. The Senate Homeland Security Committee’s permanent subcommittee on investigations probe contends that the Obama administration went out of its way to keep U.S. lawmakers in the dark about calculated and secretive efforts to give Tehran a back channel to the international financial system and to U.S. banks, facilitating a massive U.S. currency conversion worth billions of dollars. “Senior U.S. government officials repeatedly testified to Congress that Iranian access to the U.S. financial system was not on the table or part of any deal,” according to a draft copy of the document obtained by The Times. “Despite these claims, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, at the direction of the U.S. State Department, granted a specific license that authorized a conversion of Iranian assets worth billions of U.S. dollars using the U.S. financial system. “Even after the specific license was issued, U.S. government officials maintained in congressional testimony that Iran would not be granted access to the U.S. financial system,” the report said. Sen. Rob Portman, the Ohio Republican who chairs the subcommittee, is set to outline his panel’s findings Wednesday. Under terms of the nuclear deal, Iran was given the right to reclaim billions of dollars in state assets and bank accounts frozen by international sanctions, but it remained “illegal for U.S. persons, entities, and financial institutions to do business with Iran or parties on behalf of Iran.” The ban included any “intermediary” transactions by U.S. banks to convert currency for Iran — a development that would have elevated the value of the Iranian assets on the global market and allowed Tehran to more easily move the money through the international banking system. On the day the nuclear deal was implemented in 2015, Tehran had some $5.7 billion worth of assets at Bank Muscat in Muscat, Oman, according to Senate investigators, who said Tehran moved quickly to request access to the U.S. dollar. On Tehran’s request, Bank Muscat contacted the U.S. Treasury Department’s office of foreign assets control. According to the Senate report: “Muscat sought to convert $5.7 billion in Omai rials into euros. [But] because the rial is pegged to the U.S. dollar, the most efficient conversion was with an intermediary step through a U.S. bank using U.S. dollars.” Obama Treasury Secretary Jack Lew told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in July 2015 that Iran would “continue to be denied access to the [U.S.] financial and commercial market” under the proposed accord, but the Treasury office went ahead with attempts to quietly allow the currency transaction sought by Iran. “On February 24, 2016, OFAC issued a specific license to Bank Muscat authorizing Iranian assets worth roughly $5.7 billion to flow through the U.S. financial system,” according to the Senate report, which claims the move was made “even though U.S. sanctions prohibited it.” Even as office of foreign assets control officials directly “encouraged two U.S. correspondent banks to convert the funds,” the Treasury Department continued to deny it was working to facilitate the currency transaction, said the report, which cites a 2016 letter from the department to Sen. Marco Rubio, Florida Republican, and Sen. Mark Kirk, Illinois Republican, that contended the Obama “administration has not been and is not planning to grant Iran access to the U.S. financial system.” The catch, according to Senate investigators, was that neither of the U.S. banks approached by the office of foreign assets control would take on the Iranian currency exchange — in part because of political concerns over the prospect of being found out to have secretly circumvented the remaining ban on U.S. transactions with the Islamic republic. Despite the Obama administration’s efforts, Iran was ultimately forced to convert its Bank Muscat assets to euros in small increments using European banks and without accessing the U.S. financial system, the Senate investigators said. Mr. Portman said in a statement Tuesday night that “the Obama administration misled the American people and Congress because they were desperate to get a deal with Iran.” “Despite claims both before and after the Iran deal was completed that the U.S. financial system would remain off limits, the Obama administration issued a specific license allowing Iran to convert billions of dollars in assets using the U.S. financial system,” Mr. Portman said. “The only reason this transaction wasn’t executed was because two U.S. banks refused, even though the administration asked them to help convert the money.” Such sanctions, he added, “are a vital foreign policy tool, and the U.S. government should never work to actively undermine their enforcement or effectiveness.”

Coroner Defies Court Order: Won't Release Las Vegas Shooter's Autopsy Report Clark County Nevada Coroner John Fudenberg has determined to defy a court order from a district court judge to release the autopsy report of Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock. Though the order was issued on Tuesday, Fudenberg conferred with others and seems determined to not release the autopsy report until, as he said, it is "finalized," The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported, which sued for the autopsy report. Seriously, it's been four months already! The body has been cremated! The family finally got the remains in a box marked "evidence" over three months after the shooting and the autopsy report hasn't been finalized? Wait, were the same guys in the autopsy room that were there when the doctors and coroners examined John F Kennedy ? “I don’t believe this is consistent with what the court ordered,” said Las Vegas attorney Maggie McLetchie, who represents the Las Vegas Review-Journal and The Associated Press in their November action demanding the release of the reports. “They (the coroner’s office) have delayed this for too long, and whatever stage the coroner’s report on Paddock is in, it should be provided to the Review-Journal and Associated Press without further delay. No more games. Release the records.” “The court correctly recognized the presumption of public access to records, even when a mass tragedy occurs,” McLetchie added. “(The judge) also rejected arguments by the coroner’s office that there were any privacy interests with regards to the autopsy of Stephen Paddock, let alone any that outweighed the strong presumption of access to records in Nevada.” “The shooter’s body was cremated Dec. 21," said Review-Journal Editor-in-Chief Keith Moyer added. "How can the autopsy report not be ‘finalized’ when the body was cremated more than five weeks ago? The law is squarely on the side of the public’s right to open government.” That's exactly right! Something is rotten in Denmark! On top of that, we have questions as to whether the body was even that of Stephen Paddock, given the fact that certain elements of the Paddock in the preliminary police report, which mentioned the autopsy, are apparently at odds with the Paddock of other documentation. McLetchie has been trying to obtain as much information for the public as possible, including video of Paddock at the Mandalay Bay Hotel and Casino. However, she has been told by Las Vegas Metro Police Department attornies that they can't release that information until they finalize their investigation into other suspects which may also produce charges in the case. “The coroner’s office has fought to keep autopsy reports confidential,” the Review-Journal. The coroner was ordered on January 11 to pay nearly $32,000 in legal costs to the Review-Journal because it refused to release public records. While the preliminary report indicated the Paddock died of a gun shot wound to the head through the mouth, it's all the details that aren't given that seem to be problematic for the coroner to release. By the way, the toxicology report was not mentioned in the preliminary report. Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media

The American Jewish Historical Society Hosts Destroy Israel Event Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism. The American Jewish Historical Society was founded to study and preserve Jewish history. These days it’s instead partnering with Jewish Voice for Peace: an anti-Israel BDS hate group that defends anti-Semitism and which sponsored talks by an anti-Semite who accused Jews of drinking blood. The fruits of the AJHS and JVP partnership have been a series of events attacking Israel. Coming up in late October is “The Balfour Declaration: Support for a Jewish Homeland or Jewish State?” The two speakers are Robert Herbst, the coordinator of the Westchester chapter of JVP, and Jonathan Kuttab, who advocates a one-state solution for eliminating Israel. He had tweeted, "EU no longer considers #Hamas a terrorist group. Time for US to do same." Kuttab has defended Islamic anti-Semitism by claiming that the “distrust Moslems feel towards Jews” is due to “two acts of betrayal by Jewish tribes against the Prophet.” And that Jews suffer from a “Holocaust Syndrome” of entitlement. He justified hijacking planes, described suicide bombers as “taking the supreme sacrifice” and defended Hezbollah as “an armed-resistance movement” He has claimed that the "Jewish community gradually consolidated its power, wealth, and influence in all sectors of society" especially in "crucial sectors like banking, finance, media” where "their influence both as individuals and an organized community far exceeded their numbers" and that their power strengthens “conspiracy theories about ‘Jewish control’ that are reminiscent of the infamous “’Protocols of the Elders of Zion.’” Robert Herbst and Jonathan Kuttab are both supporters of a one-state plan for eliminating Israel. The American Jewish Historical Society is co-sponsoring a JVP anti-Israel event by two opponents of Israel, one of whom has defended Hamas. An organization that hands out the Emma Lazarus Award, named after a passionate Zionist, at its posh dinners is hosting attacks on the existence of Israel. The “Jewish Homeland” or “Jewish State” argument is a hook for contending that the Balfour Declaration didn’t endorse Israel, but some sort of Jewish Bantustan within a Muslim country. That worked so well for the Christians and Jews of the Middle East. The American Jewish Historical Society is not only co-sponsoring a one-state event by an anti-Israel hate group. But it’s also hosting it at the Center for Jewish History’s headquarters. AJHS is a component of the Center for Jewish History. And the partnership between AJHS and JVP sheds light on the controversy over the appointment of David N. Myers, an anti-Israel activist, to head the Center for Jewish History. During the Myers controversy, the Center took pains to disassociate Myers and themselves from JVP because a JVP handout had listed him as a “JVP Academic Advisory Board Member.” But in reality the Center, through AJHS, has an ongoing relationship with JVP. The Balfour event was not AJHS’ only partnership with JVP. In December, the AJHS will feature “Rubble Rubble”, a play by Dan Fishback based on his trip to Israel. Fishback is a BDS supporter and a member of the JVP Artists Council. His goal is to “normalize Jewish anti-Zionism”. AJHS and JVP members get discounted admission. The venue is once again the Center for Jewish History. Specifically the Leo and Julia Forchheimer Auditorium at CJH. Leo Forchheimer’s philanthropy had left its mark on Israel. What would he think if he knew the anti-Israel purposes that CJH is putting his gift to? A third AJHS-JVP event featured Efrat Yerday, an anti-Israel activist, accusing Israel of racism. Efrat has claimed that, "Zionism does not only dispossess Palestinians, but it also dispossesses in a very sophisticated way, non-white Jews. Being Jewish is highly identified with being white because of Zionism." AJHS will claim that it is only offering different perspectives. But when it comes to Israel, there’s only one perspective. “Balfour” and “Rubble Rubble” are to be part of AJHS’ “1917: How One Year Changed the World”. The exhibition is supposed to cover WWI, the Bolshevik Revolution, and the Balfour Declaration. But the only Balfour program on the list questions whether Israel should even exist. The exhibition closes with Fishback’s anti-Israel agenda. And these are the only listed AJHS programs that focus on Israel. JVP is also the only organization that AJHS chooses to partner with on political events. The American Jewish Historical Society appears to be uninterested in holding any pro-Israel events. It’s uninterested in partnering with pro-Israel groups. Instead it’s providing a forum for a BDS hate group. And it’s no mystery why. The AJHS Academic Council is packed with anti-Israel activists. Lila Corwin-Berman, the chair of the AJHS Academic Council who also serves on its board of trustees, is a member of the Open Hillel Academic Council. Open Hillel seeks to "open" the campus group to BDS and other anti-Israel views. Berman has defended the anti-Israel hate group IfNotNow, which employs JVP tactics, and condemned efforts to fight BDS. She signed a petition in support of BDS activists being allowed to enter Israel. Other AJHS Academic Council members who signed the pro-BDS activist petition include Ari Kelman, Riv-Ellen Prell, Deborah Dash Moore, Rachel Kranson, Libby Garland and Kirsten Fermaglich. When we look at what is going on in CJH’s components like the AJHS, the elevation of David N. Myers to head CJH is unsurprising. Myers is a symptom of the problem. As is AJHS’s partnership with JVP. A great deal of shocking behavior is taking place inside Jewish organizations whose inner workings most people in the Jewish community generally pay very little attention to. Unlike CJH, the American Jewish Historical Society is an organization that dates back to the 19th century. Its perversion by the radical anti-Jewish and anti-Israel left to serve anti-Semitic narratives is tragic. And yet it’s inescapable. Even as the Myers scandal continues to simmer, the AJHS partnership with JVP is making the choice painfully clear. The radical anti-Israel left will not be satisfied with embedding “moderate” opposing voices into Jewish organizations. Instead it seeks to normalize the furthest extremes of anti-Israel hatred. And it will not be satisfied with anything less. During the Myers controversy, defenders of his appointment, including some figures named here, claimed that it was an issue of apolitical scholarship. Is co-sponsoring events with a hate group that has sponsored talks by a woman who accused Jews of drinking blood also apolitical scholarship? The anti-Israel leftists at the AJHS are clearly not leaving their politics at home. And support for them and for Myers cannot be distinguished from support for their views. Not when JVP is at AJHS. We all have choices to make. Sometimes the choices are murky. Other times they are simple and easy. When the American Jewish Historical Society hosts and co-sponsors an event by a BDS hate group attacking the existence of Israel and featuring a speaker who had defended terrorism and anti-Semitism, the choice becomes easy. Either you stand with BDS, Hamas, blood libels and those who want to destroy Israel or with Jews. As the anti-Israel radicalism of the left grows, such choices will become even more obscenely simple. But they will not be any less difficult. Opposing the anti-Israel left makes many important enemies and wins few friends. The anti-Israel left has built networks that can blacklist, smear and silence almost anyone in an academic field. Speaking out against hate is easiest when it’s weakest. It’s hardest when it’s strongest. When we think about Nazi Germany, we remember those who spoke out. We don’t remember those who were too intimidated and uncertain to rise against anti-Semitism when they saw it and heard it. History tells us why so many people are afraid to do the right thing when it counts. It also tells us how irrelevant history makes them. There are lessons here for the Center for Jewish History and the American Jewish Historical Society, for those on the inside who see the corruption of their organizations every day and for those on the outside who are worried about speaking up. There are lessons here for all of us. If you can’t speak out against the American Jewish Historical Society’s partnership with a hate group linked to a literal blood libels and a speaker who defends Hamas, when will your voice be heard?

FBI IG Report: A Slap On The Wrist Department of Justice Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz has released his 500 plus-page report, which purports to shine a light on the mishandling at top levels of the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation of the 2016 investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server while she served as Secretary of State under former President Obama. Such mishandling included violations of Department of Justice standards and FBI protocols. The report from the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) criticized certain actions and decisions of former FBI Director James Comey, together with those of other senior FBI officials who were involved in the probe, including former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. Mr. McCabe is already the subject of an earlier criminal referral from the OIG for his alleged unauthorized leaks to the media and lying to federal investigators about his media contacts. Special FBI agent Peter Stzrok and Lisa Page, an attorney who has since left the FBI, were targeted in this report for their blatantly anti-Trump text messages. Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch was also criticized for exercising bad judgment in connection with her infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton. Mr. Horowitz’s report focused on process and procedures. The inspector general made clear when he launched his investigation in January 2017 that “his review will not substitute the OIG's judgment for the judgments made by the FBI or the Department regarding the substantive merits of investigative or prosecutive decisions." Moreover, this report did not address whether the Department of Justice or FBI abused the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to obtain a surveillance order against former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page, or the government’s reliance on former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele’s salacious and unverified “dossier” in its FISA court application, which the OIG is investigating separately. In analyzing the highly anticipated OIG report’s conclusions, it is clear that either Mr. Horowitz himself decided to pull his punches or that the final version, which had been reviewed by upper echelons in both the FBI and Justice Department before its public release, emerged in a disappointingly watered-down form. To be sure, the report faulted Comey for deviating from FBI and Justice Department procedures in handling the probe into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server while she served as Secretary of State, thereby negatively impacting “the perception of the FBI and the department as fair administrators of justice.” Comey, according to the OIG report, “engaged in ad hoc decision making based on his personal views even if it meant rejecting longstanding Department policy or practice.” Starting with Comey’s public announcement on July 5, 2016 criticizing Hillary Clinton and her staff for being “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” but also announcing that the FBI was “expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case,” Comey was taken to task for insubordination and usurping the authority of the attorney general. He “upset the well-established separation between investigative and prosecutorial functions,” the report said. Comey’s follow-up letters to Congress on October 28 and November 6, 2016 were similarly criticized. The first letter informed Congress that agents were reopening their probe into Clinton’s handling of classified material after discovering her e-mails on the laptop of Andrew Weiner, the husband of Clinton’s top aide Huma Abedin. This letter was followed on November 6, 2016 by Comey’s statement that the review of the additional information had been completed and that the FBI remained convinced that charges were not appropriate. Comey acted against the advice of senior Justice Department officials in making these disclosures the way he did. The OIG report was highly critical of the FBI’s failure to take immediate action on the Weiner laptop when they first learned about it in late September 2016, rather than waiting another month so close to the election. The criticisms of Comey's undisciplined behavior was all well and good, but it was reasonable to expect something more than the equivalent of a departmental employee review after nearly a year and a half of investigation. Hillary Clinton’s supporters will no doubt jump on the inspector general’s criticisms of Comey’s handling of the July 5th announcement and subsequent letters as proof that he improperly influenced the outcome of the election in President Trump’s favor, even if he did not do so deliberately for political reasons. However, what Comey really did was to give Hillary Clinton a Get Out of Jail Free card. The fix was in as early as May 2016, well before the FBI interviews of Hillary Clinton and of as many as 17 other key witnesses, when Comey began the process of drafting an exoneration memo. Comey’s initial draft statement, which he shared with FBI senior leadership on May 2, criticized Clinton’s handling of classified information as “grossly negligent,” but concluded that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case based on the facts developed in the investigation. Indeed, Comey admitted in his book that “we started the Clinton investigation aware that it was unlikely to be a case that career prosecutors at the Department of Justice would prosecute.” If putting the cart of exoneration before the horse of investigation were not enough, Comey’s draft statement underwent various language changes over the course of the next two months, including, most importantly, changing the description of Clinton’s handling of classified information from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless.” This change was critical because “gross negligence” is specifically the legal term used in stating the statutory requirement in 18 U.S. Code § 793(f) for a finding of criminal conduct. Comey’s substitution of a legally meaningless phrase, “extremely careless,” for the “gross negligence” statutory legal standard he had originally used, had the effect of prejudging the facts in Hillary Clinton’s favor. Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were involved in the edits. Inspector General Horowitz saw no problem with this pattern of obfuscation regarding the deletion of the legally significant phrase “gross negligence” from Comey’s statement. Mr. Horowitz relied in part on opinions from prosecutors that there was not enough evidence to charge Clinton with acting in a manner that rose to a level of criminal gross negligence with respect to sending or receiving e-mails determined to contain classified information. Mr. Horowitz’s report thus concluded, “We did not identify evidence of bias or improper considerations.” This conclusion defies common sense. Gross negligence is not the same as willful intent, which Comey and his team sought to conflate in exonerating Hillary Clinton before the investigation was concluded. Clinton was fully aware of what she was doing when she set up the private server arrangement in the first place and knowingly used it to send and receive e-mails involving official government business, which by their very nature would be expected to include classified information. It turns out that some of the e-mails were accessed by foreign parties. Hillary lied repeatedly when she first denied there were any classified e-mails on her system and then described some of the e-mails involved in the investigation as having been classified after the fact. As Comey has admitted, several e-mail chains concerned matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received by Clinton. Coupled with her agents’ destruction of thousands of e-mails that had been subpoenaed by Congress, Hillary’s conduct was criminally reckless at the very least, if not constituting willful intent to commit an act she knew was wrongful. Yet Mr. Horowitz saw no reason to doubt the sincerity of Comey's explanations for giving Hillary a free pass. The failure to at least empanel a grand jury to compel testimony from Hillary Clinton and key witnesses was itself a complete dereliction of duty, which could have only been motivated by a desire to treat Hillary Clinton with kid gloves for improper reasons. Incredibly, however, Mr. Horowitz’s report “found no persuasive evidence… that the outcome of the investigation would have been different had Clinton been subpoenaed before the grand jury.” Mr. Horowitz also did not deem Comey’s possible perjury in his testimony before Congress to be an appropriate subject for criminal referral. Comey testified that his decision to exonerate Hillary was not made before her interview took place, when for all intents and purposes it was. Mr. Horowitz simply took Comey’s word for what he had meant. Inspector General Horowitz again emphasized form and process over substance in finding a “troubling lack of any direct, substantive communication” between Comey and Attorney General Lynch ahead of Comey’s July 5 press conference on Clinton and his October 28 letter to Congress. Attorney General Lynch’s infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton was discussed in the report, but mostly in the context of how it affected Comey’s decision to go rogue, so to speak, in making his July 5th announcement without prior approval from the Justice Department. As to the substance of Ms. Lynch’s decision to meet with Bill Clinton at all before his wife’s FBI interview, all Mr. Horowitz’s report had to say was that it was “an error in judgment.” The OIG report also criticized the conduct of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, who had exchanged text messages sharply critical of Mr. Trump before and after the election, for casting “a cloud over the entire FBI investigation.” The report referenced a text message on August 8, 2016, in which Strzok reassured Page that she need not worry about Donald Trump becoming president. Trump is “not ever going to become president, right? Right? !” Page texted Strzok. “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it,” Strzok responded. Mr. Horowitz wrote that this exchange was “not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects.” The inspector general questioned whether Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia collusion investigation over following up on the Clinton e-mail-related investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias. Ultimately, however, he inexplicably concluded that there was no finding of “documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions” discussed in the OIG report. Strzok should have been subject to a criminal referral for arguably violating 18 U.S.C. § 595, enacted as part of the original 1939 Hatch Act, prohibiting any public officer or employee, in connection with an activity financed wholly or in part by the United States, from using his or her official authority to interfere with or affect the nomination or election of a candidate for federal office including the president of the United States. The punishment for violation is a fine, imprisonment for not more than one year or both. Instead, Strzok's punishment will most likely be limited to disciplinary action and possibly dismissal. In sum, the long-awaited inspector general report on the FBI’s and Justice Department’s handling of the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation is as disappointing as the rigged outcome of the e-mail investigation itself.

They Are Coming: Migrant Caravan Resumes March to US Border (Video) Thousands of migrants are making their way to the US border where they will be met with barbed wire and American forces blocking their illegal entry into the United States. 665 SHARES Facebook Twitter The migrant caravan has resumed their march through Mexico towards the U.S. border that is being reinforced by the Army and Marine Corps. President Trump has effectively suspended the granting of asylum to migrants who cross illegally. Trump signed the order on Friday, and it went into effect on Saturday. The order means that migrants will have to present themselves at U.S. ports of entry to qualify for asylum and follow other rules unveiled on Thursday that seek to limit asylum claims. After spending almost a week in Mexico City, where many refused to accept asylum from Mexico, the caravan, made up mostly of male Hondurans, but also nationals of other Central American countries, is now on the move towards the United States border. A Ruptly video shows hundreds of people getting on trains in Mexico subway, and boarding heavy trucks or buses somewhere outside the city. Others are seen using cars to continue their trek towards the border. take our poll - story continues below Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back? Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back? Should Jim Acosta have gotten his press pass back? * Yes, he should have gotten it back. No, you can't act like a child and keep your pass. Maybe? I'm not sure if he should have. Email * Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Truth Uncensored updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. RT reports: To get there, migrants will have to travel some 1,700 miles (2,735km) to the northwest, a much longer route than to the nearest US border crossing at McAllen, Texas, which many consider to be the safest option. Meanwhile on the other side of the US border, efforts are being made to reinforce it and make it less penetrable from the outside. The US has deployed 5,200 troops to help border protection thwart what Donald Trump has described as an impending migrant “invasion.” Troops setting up barb wire under the Hidalgo Reynosa bridge #RGV -Miltares colocan cerca alámbrica en la frontera #Texas #Telemundo40 vid @AntonioNewsT40 pic.twitter.com/8cr3XfH2T6 — Iris Rodriguez (@IrisNews) November 2, 2018 For now, the active-duty servicemen have mainly been erecting barbed-wire fences along the border and building shelter accommodation for customs and border protection staff. In addition to sheer numbers, the US forces will have drones, helicopters with night-vision capabilities, and fixed-wing aircraft at their disposal to ensure the success of the military operation.  As the caravan approaches the US border, President Donald Trump has signed an immigration decree requiring asylum seekers to apply at their point of entry to the country and barring illegal immigrants from requesting asylum. “We need people in our country but they have to come in legally and they have to have merit,” Trump told reporters before departing for Paris.

Julian Assange The persecution of Julian Assange must end. Or it will end in tragedy. The Australian government and prime minister Malcolm Turnbull have an historic opportunity to decide which it will be. They can remain silent, for which history will be unforgiving. Or they can act in the interests of justice and humanity and bring this remarkable Australian citizen home. Assange does not ask for special treatment. The government has clear diplomatic and moral obligations to protect Australian citizens abroad from gross injustice: in Julian’s case, from a gross miscarriage of justice and the extreme danger that await him should he walk out of the Ecuadorean embassy in London unprotected. We know from the Chelsea Manning case what he can expect if a U.S. extradition warrant is successful — a United Nations Special Rapporteur called it torture. I know Julian Assange well; I regard him as a close friend, a person of extraordinary resilience and courage. I have watched a tsunami of lies and smear engulf him, endlessly, vindictively, perfidiously; and I know why they smear him. In 2008, a plan to destroy both WikiLeaks and Assange was laid out in a top secret document dated 8 March, 2008. The authors were the Cyber Counter-intelligence Assessments Branch of the U.S. Defence Department. They described in detail how important it was to destroy the “feeling of trust” that is WikiLeaks’ “centre of gravity”. Against the State: An ... Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. Best Price: $9.95 Buy New $9.95 (as of 06:00 EDT - Details) This would be achieved, they wrote, with threats of “exposure [and] criminal prosecution” and a unrelenting assault on reputation. The aim was to silence and criminalise WikiLeaks and its editor and publisher. It was as if they planned a war on a single human being and on the very principle of freedom of speech. Vichy Media Their main weapon would be personal smear. Their shock troops would be enlisted in the media — those who are meant to keep the record straight and tell us the truth. The irony is that no one told these journalists what to do. I call them Vichy journalists — after the Vichy government that served and enabled the German occupation of wartime France. Last October, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation journalist Sarah Ferguson interviewed Hillary Clinton, over whom she fawned as “the icon for your generation”. This was the same Clinton who threatened to “obliterate totally” Iran and, who, as U.S. secretary of State in 2011, was one of the instigators of the invasion and destruction of Libya as a modern state, with the loss of 40,000 lives. Like the invasion of Iraq, it was based on lies. When the Libyan President was murdered publicly and gruesomely with a knife, Clinton was filmed whooping and cheering. Thanks largely to her, Libya became a breeding ground for ISIS and other jihadists. Thanks largely to her, tens of thousands of refugees fled in peril across the Mediterranean, and many drowned. WikiLeaks Exposed Clinton Leaked emails published by WikiLeaks revealed that Hillary Clinton’s foundation – which she shares with her husband – received millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the main backers of ISIS and terrorism across the Middle East. As Secretary of State, Clinton approved the biggest arms sale ever — worth $80 billion — to Saudi Arabia, one of her foundation’s principal benefactors. Today, Saudi Arabia is using these weapons to crush starving and stricken people in a genocidal assault on Yemen. Sarah Ferguson, a highly paid reporter, raised not a word of this with Hillary Clinton sitting in front of her. Instead, she invited Clinton to describe the “damage” Julian Assange did “personally to you”. In response, Clinton defamed Assange, an Australian citizen, as “very clearly a tool of Russian intelligence” and “a nihilistic opportunist who does the bidding of a dictator”. She offered no evidence — nor was asked for any — to back her grave allegations. At no time was Assange offered the right of reply to this shocking interview, which Australia’s publicly-funded state broadcaster had a duty to give him. As if that wasn’t enough, Ferguson’s executive producer, Sally Neighour, followed the interview with a vicious re-tweet: “Assange is Putin’s bitch. We all know it!” There are many other examples of Vichy journalism. The Guardian, reputedly once a great liberal newspaper, conducted a vendetta against Julian Assange. Like a spurned lover, the Guardian aimed its personal, petty, inhuman and craven attacks at a man whose work it once published and profited from. The WikiLeaks Files: T... WikiLeaks Best Price: $2.50 Buy New $7.00 (as of 05:50 EDT - Details) The former editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, called the WikiLeaks disclosures, which his newspaper published in 2010, “one of the greatest journalistic scoops of the last 30 years”. Awards were lavished and celebrated as if Julian Assange did not exist. Maligning and Profiting off Assange WikiLeaks’ revelations became part of the Guardian’s marketing plan to raise the paper’s cover price. They made money, often big money, while WikiLeaks and Assange struggled to survive. With not a penny going to WikiLeaks, a hyped Guardian book led to a lucrative Hollywood movie deal. The book’s authors, Luke Harding and David Leigh, gratuitously abused Assange as a “damaged personality” and “callous”. They also revealed the secret password Julian had given the Guardian in confidence and which was designed to protect a digital file containing the U.S. embassy cables. With Assange now trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, Harding, who had enriched himself on the backs of both Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, stood among the police outside the embassy and gloated on his blog that “Scotland Yard may get the last laugh”. The question is why. Julian Assange has committed no crime. He has never been charged with a crime. The Swedish episode was bogus and farcical and he has been vindicated. Katrin Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff of Women Against Rape summed it up when they wrote, “The allegations against [Assange] are a smokescreen behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on WikiLeaks for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret planning of wars and occupations with their attendant rape, murder and destruction… The authorities care so little about violence against women that they manipulate rape allegations at will.” This truth was lost or buried in a media witch-hunt that disgracefully associated Assange with rape and misogyny. The witch-hunt included voices who described themselves as on the left and as feminist. They willfully ignored the evidence of extreme danger should Assange be extradited to the United States. According to a document released by Edward Snowden, Assange is on a “Manhunt target list”. One leaked official memo says: “Assange is going to make a nice bride in prison. Screw the terrorist. He’ll be eating cat food forever.” In Alexandra, Virginia – the suburban home of America’s war-making elite — a secret grand jury, a throwback to the middle ages — has spent seven years trying to concoct a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted. This is not easy; the U.S. Constitution protects publishers, journalists and whistleblowers. Assange’s crime is to have broken a silence. They Never Happened No investigative journalism in my lifetime can equal the importance of what WikiLeaks has done in calling rapacious power to account. It is as if a one-way moral screen has been pushed back to expose the imperialism of liberal democracies: the commitment to endless warfare and the division and degradation of “unworthy” lives: from Grenfell Tower to Gaza. When Harold Pinter accepted the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2005, he referred to “a vast tapestry of lies up on which we feed”. He asked why “the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought” of the Soviet Union were well known in the West while America’s imperial crimes “never happened … even while [they] were happening, they never happened.” No Place to Hide: Edwa... Glenn Greenwald Best Price: $1.49 Buy New $3.70 (as of 06:30 EDT - Details) In its revelations of fraudulent wars (Afghanistan, Iraq) and the bald-faced lies of governments (the Chagos Islands), WikiLeaks has allowed us to glimpse how the imperial game is played in the 21st century. That is why Assange is in mortal danger. Seven years ago, in Sydney, I arranged to meet a prominent Liberal Member of the Federal Parliament, Malcolm Turnbull. I wanted to ask him to deliver a letter from Gareth Peirce, Assange’s lawyer, to the government. We talked about his famous victory — in the 1980s when, as a young barrister, he had fought the British Government’s attempts to suppress free speech and prevent the publication of the book Spycatcher — in its way, a WikiLeaks of the time, for it revealed the crimes of state power. The prime minister of Australia was then Julia Gillard, a Labor Party politician who had declared WikiLeaks “illegal” and wanted to cancel Assange’s passport — until she was told she could not do this: that Assange had committed no crime: that WikiLeaks was a publisher, whose work was protected under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Australia was one of the original signatories. In abandoning Assange, an Australian citizen, and colluding in his persecution, Prime Minister Gillard’s outrageous behaviour forced the issue of his recognition, under international law, as a political refugee whose life was at risk. Ecuador invoked the 1951 Convention and granted Assange refuge in its embassy in London. Gillard has recently been appearing in a gig with Hillary Clinton; they are billed as pioneering feminists. If there is anything to remember Gillard by, it a warmongering, sycophantic, embarrassing speech she made to the US Congress soon after she demanded the illegal cancellation of Julian’s passport. Malcolm Turnbull is now the Prime Minister of Australia. Julian Assange’s father has written to Turnbull. It is a moving letter, in which he has appealed to the prime minister to bring his son home. He refers to the real possibility of a tragedy. I have watched Assange’s health deteriorate in his years of confinement without sunlight. He has had a relentless cough, but is not even allowed safe passage to and from a hospital for an X-ray. Malcolm Turnbull can remain silent. Or he can seize this opportunity and use his government’s diplomatic influence to defend the life of an Australian citizen, whose courageous public service is recognised by countless people across the world. He can bring Julian Assange home. Reprinted with permission from Consortiumnews.com.

Sodom and Gomorrah was Judged by God Because Men Refused to Keep His Commandments in Dealing with the Wicked! “How ridiculous to overlook judgment because of kindness then love wounds itself by killing justice!” -Charles Haddon Spurgeon How often I see and hear the professors of Christianity today walking contrary to the word and spirit of the Living Christ (2 Corinthians 3:6). How willing they are to overlook judgment when it comes to the criminals that run rampant in this country, and on the other hand how willing they are to show compassion to the criminals while overlooking the victims. Why? “Evil men understand not judgment” (Proverbs 28:5). If you read the preceding verse, you will see that Scripture tells us “they that forsake the law praise the wicked.” take our poll - story continues below Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will Brett Kavanaugh be confirmed to the Supreme Court? * Yes, he will be confirmed. No, he will not be confirmed. Email * Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. This is exactly the Scriptural point that I want to make. From the pulpits in America today we here the events unfold of Sodom and Gomorra and how Abraham should have prayed longer in hopes that God would have spared them rather than the righteous people in Sodom and Gomorra doing what God had commanded. And of course, not a second thought on man's behalf is given concerning the victims in these two cities. Here is Abraham’s account… “And the men rose up from thence, and looked toward Sodom: and Abraham went with them to bring them on the way. And the Lord said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do; Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him. And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the Lord. And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein? That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes. And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes: Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it. And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty's sake. And he said unto him, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there. And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto theLord: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty's sake. And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake. And the Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place." -Genesis 18:16-33 Got questions.org explains very well… Genesis chapter 19 records the two angels, disguised as human men, visiting Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot met the angels in the city square and urged them to stay at his house. The angels agreed. The Bible then informs us, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them. Genesis 19:4-5 The angels then proceed to blind all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah and urge Lot and his family to flee from the cities to escape the wrath that God was about to deliver. Lot and his family flee the city, and then "the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah — from the LORD out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities..." (Genesis 19:2 4) . In light of the passage, the most common response to the question, "What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?" is that it was homosexuality. That is how the term ”sodomy” came to be used to refer to anal sex between two men, whether consensual or forced. Clearly, homosexuality was part of the reason God destroyed the two cities. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to perform homosexual gang rape on the two angels, who were disguised as men. At the same time, it is not biblical to say that homosexuality was the exclusive reason why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were definitely not exclusive in terms of the sins in which they indulged. Ezekiel 16:49-50 declares, "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me..." The Hebrew word translated "detestable" refers to something that is morally disgusting and is the exact same word used in Leviticus 18:22 that refers to homosexuality as an "abomination." Similarly, Jude 7 declares, "...Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion." So, again, while homosexuality was not the only sin in which the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah indulged, it does appear to be the primary reason for the destruction of the cities. Those who attempt to explain away the biblical condemnations of homosexuality claim that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were certainly being inhospitable. There is probably nothing more inhospitable than homosexual gang rape. But to say God completely destroyed two cities and all their inhabitants for being inhospitable clearly misses the point. While Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of many other horrendous sins, homosexuality was the reason God poured fiery sulfur on the cities, completely destroying them and all of their inhabitants. To this day, the area where Sodom and Gomorrah were located remains a desolate wasteland. Sodom and Gomorrah serve as a powerful example of how God feels about sin in general, and homosexuality specifically. The point is that there were no righteous to be spared and the Lord did what man failed to do when they had the time to do it. Question: How do you show mercy to a people who observe lying vanities (Jonah 2:4) and refuse to return to the Lord (Jeremiah 6:16) on His terms? (Jeremiah 22:3) God must be true and judgment must commence. Men today, like those of Sodom and Gomorrah, are not valiant for the truth. They are valiant to proceed from evil to evil (Jeremiah 5). They care more about the pleasures of sin for a season, than they are grieved for the afflictions of Joseph (Amos 6:6; Hebrews 11:25). Men today care more of compromise (where two men both agree on what they both know is wrong) and diplomacy (seduction in another guise) in promoting anarchy through “antinomianism” than they do the Law of God against the sins unto judgment that enslave men (John 8:34). Instead of establishing judgment within the gate and hating the evil and loving the good (Amos 5:15) in hopes that the Lord may be gracious to their repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10), they reject the counsel of God against them by hating the good and loving the evil, and that to their own damnation. They care more about the approbation and favor of men than they do that of the Living God and what His Word declares (Galatians 1:10),not knowing that which his highly favored among men is an abomination unto the Lord (Luke 16:15). They wear the cross. Yet, they have no testimony of the power of God unto salvation by the cross because they do not practice what Christ required: “Deny yourselves and take up your cross and follow Me” (Matthew 16:24; Romans 1:16; 2 Corinthians 5:15, 13:4-5; Galatians 2:21). Professed Christians in America today talk much of love through inaction, and yet know nothing of it (1 John 3:18). They read what to do, but do it not! In fact, they declare and proclaim how much they love God, and yet if you were to have them read His moral law and look to their own lives, they would find how much they actually hate God through their actions (Matthew 15:8). Then again, these were the same types of people in Jerusalem crying out "Crucify him! Crucify him! We have no king but Caesar" (John 19:15). And these are the same people today persecuting living Christians while praising the dead ones (Matthew 5:10). They continuously preach of the heroism of Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, Gideon, Samson and others from the pulpit and fail to understand what these men were doing when serving their generations (Psalm 71:18-19; Isaiah 51:4). Today, instead of doing the same, they simply hide under a false grace (Isaiah 30) and give themselves over to a man, the president, and declare end times. They declare we're in the end times because they have failed to stand up and fight for their posterity in keeping the Lord's commandments and His judgments (Psalm 78:1-11). Ungrateful reprobates, pretenders, counterfeits and hypocrites are what they are (Matthew 23:3). Instead of reaching out to the greatest demographic here in America, public high schools, they send missionaries to foreign lands to do there what they fail to do for their own here. Instead of fighting for their posterity and shutting down the illegalities of sodomy in all 50 states, they teach them to just do their best to understand that they cannot help themselves while God say’s the opposite (Leviticus 20:18). Instead of fighting on their behalf against the federal government that is illegally indoctrinating them, they simply give their kids over to them to be dumbed down. And instead of protesting the murder of 58 million innocent babies (Proverbs 6:17), they merely pass it off as a "choice," that being the lessons that they learned from the media that they say that they do not believe (Romans 1:18). The American Church, instead of protesting corruption in government through the example of the Biblical patriarchs and our American forefathers (Matthew 5:17-18), teach to submit to tyranny as if to suggest that it is somehow obedience to God (Romans 12:21). The Church in America has failed to keep the Commandments of the God of Israel. Instead of preaching out against sin, they advocate for that which God clearly condemns, thereby making war against God (Micah 3:5), which at length destroys our government, our country and our families. Look to their feigned strength that they profess to possess. It is gauged by simply looking to the prevailing immoralities and debauchers of society. They are weak and pathetic and they have no excuses as to why America is where we is today! Why did God judge Sodom and Gomorrah? It's the same reason that he is judging America today (Amos 4:12), He cannot find the righteous in order to spare her (Jeremiah 22:3). Defining the Wicked… Wicked men in the sight of God are those who have the knowledge of what to do when it comes to the right, but over and over again, they turn their shoulders and choose the wrong, through tolerance and apathy Americans are bringing upon themselves destruction (Deuteronomy 30:19) that will not be reversed, which leaves no alternative as to why God judges and is judging America today (Deuteronomy 28:63). Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media

Bishop Morlino Targets ‘Homosexual Subculture’ in the Church, Calls for Reparation to Sacred Heart of Jesus Editor’s Note: Over the years, Bishop Robert Morlino of the Diocese of Madison has confirmed several of my children according to the traditional Rite of Confirmation, as his diocese has been a port in the storm for many displaced and disillusioned Catholic families. We don’t see eye-to-eye on everything, of course, but his faith and pastoral solicitude have for us been a light in the darkness and proof that God has not left us orphans. And now this, finally, a bishop with the courage to look the beast in the eye and speak its name out loud. Bishop Morlino does this in a moment when he is under heavy attack as a “hater” for defending the Church’s teaching on marriage—an attack, by the way, which prompted us here at The Remnant to join the fight to DEFEND BISHOP MORLINO last year. "If you'll permit me, what the Church needs now is more hatred! As I have said previously, St. Thomas Aquinas said that hatred of wickedness actually belongs to the virtue of charity. As the Book of Proverbs says 'My mouth shall meditate truth, and my lips shall hate wickedness (Prov. 8:7).' It is an act of love to hate sin and to call others to turn away from sin. – Bishop Robert Morlino This is what a courageous shepherd looks like! In our opinion, during the most vile clergy sex scandal in history, every bishop in the country must do exactly what Bishop Morlino has done, i.e., issue a statement of fidelity to the Church’s moral theology, specifically her teaching against the mortal sin of homosexual acts. In so doing, the bishops will incur the wrath of the enemies of the Church, yes. They will be crucified in the media, yes. But they will also be doing their sacred duty before God in reassuring their thoroughly scandalized flocks that they are absolutely committed to the defense and enforcement of the Church’s moral teaching at a time when it is under scurrilous attack from within. Nothing less will do. Bishop Morlino has now done it, and we respectfully demand that the rest of the American bishops either follow suit or face the charge of being complicit with the degenerate and even criminal shepherds, accounts of whose betrayal and vice now dominate the news. May God bless and keep Bishop Robert Morlino. MJM Bishop Robert C. Morlino's letter to the faithful on the ongoing sexual abuse crisis in the Church August 18, 2018 Dear brothers and sisters in Christ of the Diocese of Madison, The past weeks have brought a great deal of scandal, justified anger, and a call for answers and action by many faithful Catholics here in the U.S. and overseas, directed at the Church hierarchy regarding sexual sins by bishops, priests, and even cardinals. Still more anger is rightly directed at those who have been complicit in keeping some of these serious sins from coming to light. For my part — and I know I am not alone — I am tired of this. I am tired of people being hurt, gravely hurt! I am tired of the obfuscation of truth. I am tired of sin. And, as one who has tried — despite my many imperfections — to lay down my life for Christ and His Church, I am tired of the regular violation of sacred duties by those entrusted with immense responsibility from the Lord for the care of His people. The stories being brought into light and displayed in gruesome detail with regard to some priests, religious, and now even those in places of highest leadership, are sickening. Hearing even one of these stories is, quite literally, enough to make someone sick. But my own sickness at the stories is quickly put into perspective when I recall the fact that many individuals have lived through them for years. For them, these are not stories, they are indeed realities. To them I turn and say, again, I am sorry for what you have suffered and what you continue to suffer in your mind and in your heart. If you have not already done so, I beg you to reach out, as hard as that may be, and seek help to begin to heal. Also, if you’ve been hurt by a priest of our diocese, I encourage you to come forward, to make a report to law enforcement and to our Victim’s Assistance Coordinator, so that we might begin, with you as an individual, to try and set things right to the greatest extent possible. There is nothing about these stories that is okay. These actions, committed by more than a few, can only be classified as evil, evil that cries out for justice and sin that must be cast out from our Church. Faced with stories of the depravity of sinners within the Church, I have been tempted to despair. And why? The reality of sin — even sin in the Church — is nothing new. We are a Church made of sinners, but we are sinners called to sanctity. So what is new? What is new is the seeming acceptance of sin by some in the Church, and the apparent efforts to cover over sin by them and others. Unless and until we take seriously our call to sanctity, we, as an institution and as individuals, will continue to suffer the “wages of sin.” For too long we have diminished the reality of sin — we have refused to call a sin a sin — and we have excused sin in the name of a mistaken notion of mercy. In our efforts to be open to the world we have become all too willing to abandon the Way, the Truth, and the Life. In order to avoid causing offense we offer to ourselves and to others niceties and human consolation. Why do we do this? Is it out of an earnest desire to display a misguided sense of being “pastoral?” Have we covered over the truth out of fear? Are we afraid of being disliked by people in this world? Or are we afraid of being called hypocrites because we are not striving tirelessly for holiness in our own lives? Perhaps these are the reasons, but perhaps it is more or less complex than this. In the end, the excuses do not matter. We must be done with sin. It must be rooted out and again considered unacceptable. Love sinners? Yes. Accept true repentance? Yes. But do not say sin is okay. And do not pretend that grave violations of office and of trust come without grave, lasting consequences. For the Church, the crisis we face is not limited to the McCarrick affair, or the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report, or anything else that may come. The deeper crisis that must be addressed is the license for sin to have a home in individuals at every level of the Church. There is a certain comfort level with sin that has come to pervade our teaching, our preaching, our decision making, and our very way of living. If you’ll permit me, what the Church needs now is more hatred! As I have said previously, St. Thomas Aquinas said that hatred of wickedness actually belongs to the virtue of charity. As the Book of Proverbs says “My mouth shall meditate truth, and my lips shall hate wickedness (Prov. 8:7).” It is an act of love to hate sin and to call others to turn away from sin. There must be no room left, no refuge for sin — either within our own lives, or within the lives of our communities. To be a refuge for sinners (which we should be), the Church must be a place where sinners can turn to be reconciled. In this I speak of all sin. But to be clear, in the specific situations at hand, we are talking about deviant sexual — almost exclusively homosexual — acts by clerics. We’re also talking about homosexual propositions and abuses against seminarians and young priests by powerful priests, bishops, and cardinals. We are talking about acts and actions which are not only in violation of the sacred promises made by some, in short, sacrilege, but also are in violation of the natural moral law for all. To call it anything else would be deceitful and would only ignore the problem further. There has been a great deal of effort to keep separate acts which fall under the category of now-culturally-acceptable acts of homosexuality from the publically-deplorable acts of pedophilia. That is to say, until recently the problems of the Church have been painted purely as problems of pedophilia — this despite clear evidence to the contrary. It is time to be honest that the problems are both and they are more. To fall into the trap of parsing problems according to what society might find acceptable or unacceptable is ignoring the fact that the Church has never held ANY of it to be acceptable — neither the abuse of children, nor any use of one’s sexuality outside of the marital relationship, nor the sin of sodomy, nor the entering of clerics into intimate sexual relationships at all, nor the abuse and coercion by those with authority. In this last regard, special mention should be made of the most notorious and highest in ranking case, that being the allegations of former-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick’s (oft-rumored, now very public) sexual sins, predation, and abuse of power. The well-documented details of this case are disgraceful and seriously scandalous, as is any covering up of such appalling actions by other Church leaders who knew about it based on solid evidence. While recent credible accusations of child sexual abuse by Archbishop McCarrick have brought a whole slew of issues to light, long-ignored was the issue of abuse of his power for the sake of homosexual gratification. It is time to admit that there is a homosexual subculture within the hierarchy of the Catholic Church that is wreaking great devastation in the vineyard of the Lord. The Church’s teaching is clear that the homosexual inclination is not in itself sinful, but it is intrinsically disordered in a way that renders any man stably afflicted by it unfit to be a priest. And the decision to act upon this disordered inclination is a sin so grave that it cries out to heaven for vengeance, especially when it involves preying upon the young or the vulnerable. Such wickedness should be hated with a perfect hatred. Christian charity itself demands that we should hate wickedness just as we love goodness. But while hating the sin, we must never hate the sinner, who is called to conversion, penance, and renewed communion with Christ and His Church, through His inexhaustible mercy. At the same time, however, the love and mercy which we are called to have even for the worst of sinners does not exclude holding them accountable for their actions through a punishment proportionate to the gravity of their offense. In fact, a just punishment is an important work of love and mercy, because, while it serves primarily as retribution for the offense committed, it also offers the guilty party an opportunity to make expiation for his sin in this life (if he willingly accepts his punishment), thus sparing him worse punishment in the life to come. Motivated, therefore, by love and concern for souls, I stand with those calling for justice to be done upon the guilty. The sins and crimes of McCarrick, and of far too many others in the Church, bring suspicion and mistrust upon many good and virtuous priests, bishops, and cardinals, and suspicion and mistrust upon many great and respectable seminaries and so many holy and faithful seminarians. The result of the first instance of mistrust harms the Church and the very good work we do in Christ’s name. It causes others to sin in their thoughts, words, and deeds — which is the very definition of scandal. And the second mistrust harms the future of the Church, since our future priests are at stake. I said that I was tempted to despair in light of all of this. However, that temptation quickly passed, thanks be to God. No matter how large the problem, we know that we are called to go forward in faith, to rely upon God’s promises to us, and to work hard to make every bit of difference we can, within our spheres of influence. I have recently had the opportunity to talk directly with our seminarians about these very pressing matters, and I have begun to, and will continue to, talk with the priests of the diocese, as well as the faithful, in person and through my weekly column and homilies, making things as clear as I can, from my perspective. Here now, I offer a few thoughts to those of my diocese: In the first place, we must continue to build upon the good work which we have accomplished in protecting the youth and vulnerable of our diocese. This is a work on which we can never rest in our vigilance, nor our efforts to improve. We must continue in our work of education for all and hold to the effective policies that have been implemented, requiring psychological exams for all candidates for ministry, as well as across-the-board background checks for anyone working with children or vulnerable individuals. Here again, I state, as we have done consistently, if you have knowledge of any sort of criminal abuse of children by someone in the Church, contact law enforcement. If you need help in contacting law enforcement contact our Victim’s Assistance Coordinator and she will help connect you with the best resources. If you are an adult victim of sexual abuse from childhood, we still encourage you to reach out to law enforcement first, but even if you don’t want to, please still reach out to us. To our seminarians: If you are unchastely propositioned, abused, or threatened (no matter by whom), or if you directly witness unchaste behavior, report it to me and to the seminary rector. I will address it swiftly and vigorously. I will not stand for this in my diocese or anywhere I send men for formation. I trust that the seminaries I choose, very discriminately, to help form our men will not ignore this type of scandalous behavior, and I will continue to verify that expectation. To our priests: Most simply, live out the promises you made on your ordination day. You are called to serve Christ’s people, beginning with praying daily the Liturgy of the Hours. This is to keep you very close to God. In addition, you promised to obey and be loyal to your bishop. In obedience, strive to live out your priesthood as a holy priest, a hard working priest, and a pure and happy priest — as Christ Himself is calling you to do. And by extension, live a chaste and celibate life so that you can completely give your life to Christ, the Church, and the people whom he has called you to serve. God will give you the graces to do so. Ask Him for the help you need daily and throughout every day. And if you are unchastely propositioned, abused, or threatened (no matter by whom), or if you directly witness unchaste behavior, report it to me. I will not stand for this in my diocese any more than in our seminaries. To the faithful of the diocese: If you are the victim of abuse of any kind by a priest, bishop, cardinal, or any employee of the Church, bring it forward. It will be addressed quickly and justly. If you have directly witnessed sexual advances or any type of abuse, bring it forward as well. Such actions are sinful and scandalous and we cannot allow anyone to use their position or power to abuse another person. Again, in addition to injuring individuals, these actions injure the very Body of Christ, His Church. Furthermore, I add my name to those calling for real and sustained reform in the episcopate, priesthood, our parishes, schools, universities, and seminaries that would root out and hold accountable any would-be sexual predator or accomplice; I will hold the priests of the diocese to their promise to live a chaste and celibate life of service to you and your parish, and evidence of failure in this regard will be justly addressed; I will likewise hold every man studying for the priesthood for our diocese accountable to living a chaste and celibate life as part of his formation for the priesthood. Failure to do so will lead to dismissal from diocesan sponsorship; I will continue to require (with our men and our funds) that all seminaries to which we send men to study be vigilant that seminarians are protected from sexual predators and provide an atmosphere conducive to their holistic formation as holy priests, in the image of Christ; I ask all the faithful of the diocese to assist in keeping us accountable to civil authorities, the faithful in the pews, and to God Almighty, not only to protect children and the youth from sexual predators in the Church, but our seminarians, university students, and all the faithful as well. I promise to put any victim and their sufferings before that of the personal and professional reputation of a priest, or any Church employee, guilty of abuse; I ask everyone reading this to pray. Pray earnestly for the Church and all her ministers. Pray for our seminarians. And pray for yourselves and your families. We must all work daily on our own personal holiness and hold ourselves accountable first and, in turn, hold our brothers and sisters accountable as well, and Finally, I ask you all to join me and the entire clergy of the Diocese of Madison in making public and private acts of reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary for all the sins of sexual depravity committed by members of the clergy and episcopacy. I will be offering a public Mass of reparation on Friday, September 14, the Feast of the Triumph of the Holy Cross, at Holy Name Heights and I ask all pastors to do the same in their own parishes. In addition, I ask that all priests, clergy, religious, and diocesan employees join me in observing the upcoming Autumn Ember Days (Sep. 19, 21, and 22) as days of fasting and abstinence in reparation for the sins and outrages committed by members of the clergy and episcopacy and I invite all the faithful to do the same. Some sins, like some demons, can only be driven out by prayer and fasting. This letter and these statements and promises are not intended to be an exhaustive list of what we can and need to do in the Church to begin to heal from, and stave off, this deep illness in the Church, but rather the next steps I believe we can take locally. More than anything else, we as a Church must cease our acceptance of sin and evil. We must cast out sin from our own lives and run toward holiness. We must refuse to be silent in the face of sin and evil in our families and communities and we must demand from our pastors — myself included — that they themselves are striving day in and day out for holiness. We must do this always with loving respect for individuals but with a clear understanding that true love can never exist without truth. Again, right now there is a lot of justified anger and passion coming from many holy and faithful lay people and clerics across the country, calling for real reform and “house cleaning” of this type of depravity. I stand with them. I don’t know yet how this will play out nationally or internationally. But I do know this, and I make this my last point and last promise, for the Diocese of Madison: “As for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.” Faithfully yours in the Lord, Most Rev. Robert C. Morlino Bishop of Madison This text first appeared in the Madison Catholic Herald.

Ex-Navy sailor pardoned by Trump says he's suing Comey and Obama A former Navy sailor who is one of five people to receive a pardon from President Donald Trump is planning to file a lawsuit against Obama administration officials, alleging that he was subject to unequal protection of the law. Specifically, Kristian Saucier, who served a year in federal prison for taking photos of classified sections of the submarine on which he worked, argues that the same officials who meted out punishment to him for his actions chose to be lenient with Hillary Clinton in her use of a private email server and handling of classified information. His lawyer, Ronald Daigle, told Fox News on Monday that the lawsuit, which he expects to file soon in Manhattan, will name the U.S. Department of Justice, former FBI Director James Comey and former President Barack Obama as defendants, among others. “They interpreted the law in my case to say it was criminal,” Saucier told Fox News, referring to prosecuting authorities in his case, “but they didn’t prosecute Hillary Clinton. Hillary is still walking free. Two guys on my ship did the same thing and weren’t treated as criminals. We want them to correct the wrong.” Daigle said that a notice about the pending lawsuit was sent to the Department of Justice and others included in it in December. There is usually a six-month period that must lapse before the lawsuit actually is filed. “We’ll highlight the differences in the way Hillary Clinton was prosecuted and how my client was prosecuted,” Daigle said. “We’re seeking to cast a light on this to show that there’s a two-tier justice system and we want it to be corrected.” While campaigning, and after taking office, Trump frequently voiced support for Saucier, who in March became the second person he pardoned. Trump often compared the Obama administration’s handling of Saucier’s case with that of Clinton. Saucier, who lives in Vermont, pleaded guilty in 2016 to taking photos inside the USS Alexandria while it was stationed in Groton, Connecticut, in 2009. He said he only wanted service mementos, but federal prosecutors argued he was a disgruntled sailor who had put national security at risk by taking photos showing the submarine's propulsion system and reactor compartment and then obstructed justice by destroying a laptop and camera. Saucier said that he recognized he had erred in taking the photos, which he said he wanted to show only to his family to show them where he worked. But he lashed out at Obama officials, saying that his prosecution was politically motivated, prompted by sensitivity about classified information amid the scandal involving Clinton's emails. “My case was usually something handled by military courts,” he said. “They used me as an example because of [the backlash over] Hillary Clinton.” Saucier, 31, said that the pardon has enabled him to pick up the pieces and rebuild his life with his wife and young daughter. A felony conviction left him scrambling to find work; he finally landed a job collecting garbage. Now, he works on design and engineering projects for an industrial boiler company. “Things are starting to go in the right direction,” Saucier said. “I work with a group of really great people, I get to use my skills set.” Because of the loss of income during his imprisonment, as well as earning below his potential when he collected garbage, he and his wife Sadie lost their home to foreclosure. Debt collectors called and his cars were repossessed. “With a pardon there’s no magic wand that that gets waved and makes everything right,” he said, “But I try to stay positive and look forward.” He praises the pardons that Trump has granted, and takes exception at the criticism. “The Obama administration singled out Dinesh for things most people don’t even get charged for,” Saucier said. “President Trump noticed that my career was exemplary and that I didn’t deserve what happened to me. Conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza, who was pardoned by Trump last week, had pleaded guilty to campaign finance fraud. Trump tweeted Thursday: "Will be giving a Full Pardon to Dinesh D'Souza today. He was treated very unfairly by our government!" D'Souza was sentenced in 2014 to five years of probation after he pleaded guilty to violating federal election law by making illegal contributions to a U.S. Senate campaign in the names of others. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The Islamization of the Public Schools Muslims anxious to use schools and textbooks to proselytize for Islam have found a welcoming environment in American public schools that are indefatigably committed to multiculturalism. With the imperative to be “tolerant” robbing many educators of their ability to evaluate non-Western cultures critically, all too many public schools and individual teachers have proven to be susceptible to an organized campaign by U.S.-based Islamic organizations and their primary benefactor, Saudi Arabia, to present a view of Islam that whitewashes its violent history and intolerant doctrines. Many of the Islamic groups that vet American public school textbooks for the accuracy of their material on Islamic doctrine and history are Saudi-funded. They make sure that the Islamic instruction in these textbooks presents a picture of Islam that is so pristine and whitewashed that it sometimes crosses the boundary from mere pro-Muslim bias into outright Islamic proselytizing. The taboo about teaching religion in the public schools, so zealously established and guarded against Christian prayer by the ACLU and the Supreme Court over the last few decades, is increasingly set aside in American public schools, as presentations on Islam frequently cross the line between teaching facts about the religion and teaching the religion as fact. take our poll - story continues below Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? * Dianne Feinstein Maxine Waters Adam Schiff Chuck Schumer Kamala Harris Kirsten Gillibrand Keith Ellison Cory Booker Email * Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. We have seen this just recently, when Mountain Ridge Middle School in Gerrardstown, West Virginia instructed students to copy out the Islamic profession of faith (shahada), ostensibly as a calligraphy exercise. Parent Rich Penkoski recounted: “I saw the assignment of writing the Shahada in Arabic. Their excuse was calligraphy. I was like, ‘Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!’ First of all, calligraphy was invented in China 3,000 years prior to Muhammad. The fact that they were trying to get my daughter to write that disturbed me. I said, ‘That is not happening. My daughter is not doing that.’ My daughter told me that if she didn’t do the assignment, then she was going to get a [detention] slip.” Branch contradicted Penkoski, claiming: “The teacher has told her class several times that this is a study of world religions and that she is not trying to advocate for any religion over another. She has told her class that if they had questions about religious beliefs, that those conversations should take place with their parents.” He said that Christianity and Judaism were given “equitable treatment” in the same class. Penkoski’s daughter, Brielle, however, said that the class spent much less time on Christianity and Judaism than it did on Islam. Penkoski pointed out that the accompanying exercises were also less extensive for Christianity and Judaism than they were for Islam: “Notice no Bible verses, no reciting the Ten Commandments or the Lord’s Prayer. [There’s] no practicing writing in Hebrew as compared to the Islamic packet.” This stealth proselytizing is nationwide. Last January, parents filed a federal complaint against Chatham Middle School in Chatham, New Jersey, for forcing students to watch videos that proselytized for Islam. One video, according to the complaint, describes “Christians and Jews as ‘infidels’ and prais[es] Muhammad in gruesome detail for slaughtering them.” Parent Libby Hilsenrath characterized the accompanying assignment as “replete with biased, chastising statements encouraging the students…to follow the Quran and become Muslim.” Another video, according to Hilsenrath, depicts a Muslim boy teaching his non-Muslim friend about Islam, after which both go to “learn how to pray.” The complaint adds: “Due to the fact that these doctrinal messages calling for conversion to Islam were included in video format with vivid images and text, they possess greater communicative impact and are more likely to be accepted by the students viewing them than information that is spoken in a classroom or even written in a book.” These accounts are not singular. High school students in Newton, Massachusetts in October 2017, according to Fox News, “pretended to be Muslims in the ‘Islamic’ city of Jerusalem as part of a class assignment.” The assignment also included a pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel article. Judicial Watch Senior Investigator Bill Marshall remarked: “Citizens of Newton have been waging a minor war with school officials for years now, trying to get them to use balanced curriculum in their teaching materials on the subject of Islam and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” Dr. Bill Saxton, chairman of Citizens for National Security, said that the assignment was a “purposeful attempt to indoctrinate our impressionable high-schoolers with the ‘virtues’ of Islam at the expense of Christianity, Judaism and other religions.” Meanwhile, Georgia parent Michelle King noted in 2016: “My daughter had to learn the Shahid and the Five Pillars of Islam, which is what you learn to convert,” while not teaching Christianity or the Ten Commandments. One homework assignment in Walton County, Georgia, stated: “Allah is the [blank] worshiped by Jews & Christians,” with students having to fill in the blank with “same God.” Parent Steve Alsup added: “It seemed like half the truth to me, they didn’t talk about the extreme Islamics.” Kim Embry, a spokesperson for Walton County Public Schools, said revealingly: “We are teaching the same stuff that everyone else is teaching.” Indeed. In 2015, students at Spring Hill Middle School in Spring Hill, Tennessee were forced as part of an assignment to write, “There is no god but Allah; Muhammad is his prophet.” Mother Joy Ellis remarked: “This is a seventh grade state standard, and will be on the TCAP. I didn’t have a problem with the history of Islam being taught, but to go so far as to make my child write the Shahada, is unacceptable.” Another mother, Brandee Porterfield, observed: “It really did bother me that they skipped the whole chapter on the rise of Christianity and they spent three weeks just studying Islam….I spoke with the teacher and the principal,” she said. “They are not going to learn any other religion, doctrines or creeds and they are not going back over this chapter. Even though they discuss Christianity a little bit during the Middle Ages, they are not ever going to have this basis for Judaism or Christianity later.” Maury County Director of Schools, Chris Marczak, defended the curriculum: “It is our job as a public school system to educate our students on world history in order to be ready to compete in a global society, not to endorse one religion over another or indoctrinate.” Porterfield, however, shot back: “They are not going over anything else. So for the students to have to memorize this prayer, it does seem like it is indoctrination.” None of the encroachments of Islam in public schools should come as any real surprise. Multiculturalism, after all, amounts to respect for every culture except one’s own. The embarrassment, regret, and even self-hatred that has been inculcated in American public school students for decades now has created a vacuum, which Muslims have shown themselves to be all too eager to fill. Certainly, those who are furthering the Islamization of the schools would deny that they would like to see Islamic law implemented in the United States, and would indignantly reject the claim that their efforts were furthering that end in any way. They would say that they are doing it all for tolerance, pluralism, and multiculturalism. Unfortunately, in the end, it amounts to the same thing. Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer

Newt Gingrich: The truth about Trump, Putin, and Obama President Trump’s summit Monday with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki created a firestorm of controversy. President Trump seemed to be publicly siding with the Russian dictator against the American intelligence agencies. The initial appearance was so bad that I tweeted: “President Trump must clarify his statements in Helsinki on our intelligence system and Putin. It is the most serious mistake of his presidency and must be corrected – immediately.” After flying home from Helsinki and reviewing the tape and transcript of his press conference with Putin, President Trump said he has “full faith and support for America’s great intelligence agencies” and that he accepts “our intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election took place.” In his remarks to members of Congress Tuesday that were televised by the media, President Trump went on to admit that he realized he needed to clarify his statements in Helsinki. The president said: “It should have been obvious – I thought it would be obvious – but I would like to clarify, just in case it wasn’t. In a key sentence in my remarks, I said the word ‘would’ instead of “wouldn’t.” The sentence should have been: I don’t see any reason why I wouldn’t – or why it wouldn’t be Russia. So just to repeat it, I said the word ‘would’ instead of ‘wouldn’t’ … “I have, on numerous occasions, noted our intelligence findings that Russians attempted to interfere in our elections. Unlike previous administrations, my administration has and will continue to move aggressively to repeal any efforts – and repel – we will stop it, we will repel it – any efforts to interfere in our elections. We’re doing everything in our power to prevent Russian interference in 2018.” Anyone who has studied President Trump knows he hates to admit a mistake. His natural pattern is to move forward and ignore mistakes. For him, this was a big correction (and as I noted the day before, it was an absolutely necessary one). President Trump then reminded everyone of the Obama administration’s failures in dealing with Russian meddling in the election. President Trump noted that President Obama and his advisers had information that the Russians had been working to interfere in the election and they ignored it, because they thought Hillary Clinton was going to win. President Trump said: “President Obama, along with (then-CIA Director John) Brennan and (then Director of National Intelligence James) Clapper and the whole group that you see on television now – probably getting paid a lot of money by your networks – they knew about Russia’s attempt to interfere in the election in September, and they totally buried it. And as I said, they buried it because they thought that Hillary Clinton was going to win. It turned out it didn’t happen that way. “By contrast, my administration has taken a very firm stance – it’s a very firm stance – on a strong action. We’re going to take strong action to secure our election systems and the process.” There are two key facts in this statement. First, the very people who have been loudest in attacking President Trump about his performance at the Helsinki summit are the people who failed to protect America from Russian meddling in 2016. The very intensity and nastiness of former CIA Director Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence Clapper is an attempt to distract attention from their failure to protect America. It was their duty in 2016 – not candidate Trump’s. Second, the Trump administration has been far tougher on Russia than President Obama ever dreamed of being. The Trump administration is taking real actions designed to weaken Russia and force Putin to change his aggressive behavior. The Trump administration has levied tough sanctions on Russia. Also, President Trump’s public lecture about Germany not buying natural gas from Russia was aimed at cutting Putin off from hard currency worth tens of billions of dollars and further weakening the Russian economy. Furthermore, President Trump’s efforts to get our European allies to increase their defense spending has a direct impact on Putin. The stronger NATO is, the less maneuvering room Russia has. Beyond pressuring our allies, consider these specific steps President Trump has taken against Russia: Where President Obama refused to provide serious weapons to the Ukrainians to help them defend themselves (his response was weakness on a pathetic scale), President Trump has approved the sale of offensive weapons to enable the Ukrainians to increase the cost of Russian aggression. When the Russians used chemical weapons in Great Britain, President Trump joined our allies and expelled 60 Russian intelligence officers from the United States. When the Russians retaliated, the Trump administration closed the Russian consulate in Seattle. President Trump had previously shuttered the Russian consulate in San Francisco and smaller annexes in Washington and New York. More than 100 Russian individuals and companies have been sanctioned for a variety of reasons. Despite the hysteria of the left, it is impossible to see the Trump administration as anything but firm in its dealing with Russia. Nothing done in Helsinki made life easier for the Putin regime in its continued economic decay and diplomatic isolation due to the sanctions regime. Finally, a brief word about the strong language and vicious comments about the president. We are in the early stages of a cultural civil war in which the left sees itself losing. This is what led me to write my new New York Times best-selling book, “Trump’s America: The Truth About Our Nation’s Great Comeback.” With each passing month the radical-extremist wing of the Democratic Party dominates the progressive wing more and more. With President Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, it was clear that anyone Trump nominated was going to be attacked. In fact, the demonstrators protesting the nomination had signs for all four of the finalists and were instantly ready to oppose the president regardless of his choice. Similarly, Obama-era national security officials seem determined to use the harshest possible language to attack President Trump. I think their strong words and hysteria are driven by their own guilt. Whatever the Russians did, they did while Brennan was director of the CIA, Clapper was director of national intelligence, and James Comey was head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. These former officials attack Trump ferociously to hide their own failure and their own guilt. Just keep that in mind the next time you see one of them on TV. My prediction is that President Trump will remain tough on Russia, and the Helsinki press conference will be seen as the aberration it was.

Ebola Outbreak Confirmed in Democratic Republic of Congo On Tuesday, the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo announced an outbreak of Ebola hemorrhagic fever, a deadly virus that causes severe bleeding and organ failure, among other unpleasant symptoms. The declaration was made after two cases of the diseases were confirmed in the Bikoro province in the northwestern part of the country ten months after the end of an earlier outbreak. © AP Photo / Abbas Dulleh Ebola-Like Marburg Virus Kills Two People in Uganda According to the country's Health Ministry, five samples were taken from suspected cases in Bikoro. Out of the five samples sent to the National Institute of Biological Research in Kinshasa, two tested positive for Ebola. However, no deaths have been reported among those with the disease. "We will gather more samples, conduct contact tracing, engage the communities with messages on prevention and control and put in place methods for improving data collection and sharing," said Dr. Matshidiso Moeti, the World Health Organization's (WHO) regional director for Africa, following the outbreak announcement. "WHO will work closely with health authorities and partners to support the national response," Moeti added. This is the Congo's ninth outbreak of the virus since it was discovered in the country in 1976. The last outbreak occurred in the northern Bas Uele province in 2017. However, it was quickly contained due to swift action taken by the government and the WHO.

Nigel Farage Warns “We’ll Lose” A Battle Between the West and Islam British politician Nigel Farage once helped convince Britons to vote for Brexit and separate from the European Union, but British establishment politicians have done everything they could to sabotage that vote since then. Now Farage has apparently decided that if he can’t beat them, he’ll join them — if not on Brexit, then in their stance of denial and appeasement regarding the global jihad threat.’ At a recent dinner of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), which he formerly headed, Farage said: “If dealing with Islamic fundamentalism becomes a battle between us and the entire religion, I’ll tell you the result: we’ll lose. We will simply lose….We absolutely have to get that Muslim majority living in many of our towns and cities on our side, more attuned to Western values than some pretty hardline interpretations of the Qur’an.” Sure. Now how does Farage propose to do that? His warning against making the resistance to jihad a “battle between us and the entire religion” is odd. No sane person is saying that the West should go to war with the entire Islamic world. The likeliest interpretation of his statement is that he is saying that we must not speak about how jihadis find justification for their actions in the Qur’an and Sunnah, as that will alienate the “moderates.” take our poll - story continues below Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician? * Dianne Feinstein Maxine Waters Adam Schiff Chuck Schumer Kamala Harris Kirsten Gillibrand Keith Ellison Cory Booker Email * Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. But if we don’t speak about such facts, how will we ever convince Muslims not to follow “hardline interpretations of the Qur’an”? Another problem with Farage’s statement is that it manifests a remarkable ignorance of history. While he is deeply concerned that British people not begin to think that resisting jihad terror means that they are in a “battle” with the “entire religion” of Islam, he appears unaware of the fact that many Muslims throughout history have considered their entire religion to be at war with the entire non-Muslim world. I document this abundantly in my new book The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS . To take one of innumerable examples, Sharaf ad-Din Ali Yazdi, a fifteenth-century Persian who wrote a biography of the Mongol Muslim warrior Tamerlane, observed that “the Qur’an says the highest dignity man can attain is that of making war in person against the enemies of his religion. Muhammad advises the same thing, according to the tradition of the Muslim doctors: wherefore the great Temur always strove to exterminate the infidels, as much to acquire that glory, as to signalise himself by the greatness of his conquests.” After conquest came dhimmitude, the subjugated status that the Qur’an mandates for “the People of the Book” (primarily Jews and Christians). In the early twelfth century, the Fatimid caliph Al-Amir bi-Ahkamillah issued this edict: Now, the prior degradation of the infidels in this world before the life to come—where it is their lot—is considered an act of piety; and the imposition of their poll tax [jizya], “until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled” (Koran 9:29) is a divinely ordained obligation….The dhimmi’s payment of his dues by a bill drawn on a Muslim, or by delegating a real believer to pay it in his name will not be tolerated. It must be exacted from him directly in order to vilify and humiliate him, so that Islam and its people may be exalted and the race of infidels brought low. The jizya is to be imposed on all of them in full, without exception. Underlying this subjugation is a deep contempt for non-Muslims. In the year 718, the Umayyad caliph Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz sent out a message to the governors of the various Islamic provinces: O you who believe! The non-Muslims are nothing but dirt. Allah has created them to be partisans of Satan; most treacherous in regard to all they do; whose whole endeavor in this nether life is useless, though they themselves imagine that they are doing fine work. Upon them rests the curse of Allah, of the Angels and of man collectively We must not think that we are at war with the entire religion. But what, Mr. Farage, are we to think about the Muslims who consider themselves and their religion to be at war with us? Nigel Farage has become just another mainstream hack politician. Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer

Communion to Adulterers Promulgated as "Authentic Magisterium" Last week, Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS)—the Vatican's organ for promulgating the Official Acts of the Apostolic See—published Pope Francis' October 2016 letter to the bishops of Buenos Aires in which he praised their episcopal guidelines allowing divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion in some cases while living in a state of objective mortal sin. If papal clarification was ever needed on the long-debated issue of the intended meaning of Amoris Laetitia chapter VIII, such clarification has now been provided for the Church at large. Concerning these guidelines that allow "the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist" in "complex circumstances" where "limitations that lessen the responsibility and guilt" permit adulterous couples to continue in adultery, the pope said in his letter: "The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations." Until now, the pope's letter to the Argentinian bishops had been considered a private letter with no binding force, whereas AAS has now elevated Pope Francis' letter to the official magisterial status of an "Apostolic Letter," while including a special rescript as an addendum by Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State. The rescript declares that Pope Francis expressly intends both documents—the papal letter and the episcopal guidelines—to bear the character of his "authentic Magisterium," and that the pope has personally ordered their publication in AAS and on the Vatican website. Hence Amoris Laetitia VIII, which proposes that people living in adultery can be guiltless and thus be admitted to the sacraments of Confession and Communion when "concrete circumstances" make it difficult to renounce their adulterous state, is now declared "magisterial" by the Holy See. The problem with this is that heresy or sacrilege can never be declared magisterial, so that if it is, it not only has no binding force, but the faithful are obliged to resist and refute such a declaration. St. Thomas Aquinas says in his Summa Theologiae: "If the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate [pope] even publicly." The fact is that this latest promulgation is counter-magisterial, but the pope and his right-hand man now feel they have enough support from the dissenting left that enables them to come forward with it. Cardinal Parolin's rescript on the papal and episcopal documents reads as follows: Rescript "from an Audience with His Holiness" The Supreme Pontiff decreed that the two preceding documents be promulgated through publication on the Vatican website and in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, as authentic Magisterium. From the Vatican Palace, on the day of June 5 in the year 2017 Pietro Card. Parolin Secretary of State The Catholic Encyclopedia defines a papal rescript as follows: "Rescripts are responses of the pope or a Sacred Congregation, in writing, to queries or petitions of individuals. Some rescripts concern the granting of favors; others the administration of justice, e.g. the interpretation of a law." It appears then that Parolin's rescript constitutes a direct reply to the dubia of the Four Cardinals. Pope Francis' praise of the episcopal guidelines clearly answers the cardinals' query concerning his intention in Amoris Laetitia VIII, so will Cardinals Brandmuller and Burke now proceed to issue the formal correction of it? As reported in The Dictator Pope—a remarkable new book which provides an inside look at the most tyrannical and unprincipled papacy of recent history—English Cardinal Cormac Murphy O’Connor who was largely responsible for the vote canvassing behind Francis' election told journalist Paul Valley in 2013, "Four years of Bergoglio would be enough to change things." Each day, we see new evidence that this might have been a gross understatement. We shouldn't rule out the possibility that Francis may come forward one day and declare "ex-cathedra" that the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia VIII, as now taught by the Holy See, is promulgated as "extraordinary magisterium." Should this happen, the Mystical Body would then be without its head. In an interview with Catholic World Report (CWR) in December 2016, Cardinal Raymond Burke, who is presently a member of the Apostolic Signatura, said that if a pope were to "formally profess heresy he would cease, by that act, to be the Pope." Burke was reiterating Church teaching, as expressed by famed canonist Franz Wernz in his Ius Canonicum: "In sum, it needs to be said clearly that a [publicly] heretical Roman Pontiff loses his power upon the very fact."

Trump's North Korean gamble ends with 'special bond' with Kim Nearly five hours of unprecedented and surreal talks between US President Donald Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong Un culminated on Tuesday with fulsome declarations of a new friendship but just vague pledges of nuclear disarmament. For Trump, that amounted to a triumphant outcome in his extraordinary gamble with the rogue kingdom's despotic leader. But there were scant details on what new commitments had been secured from Kim, even as Trump announced he would end the regular military exercises the US conducts with South Korea. Whether nuclear disarmament is indeed the final outcome of Tuesday's summit won't be known for years, if not decades. But the dramatic act of extending his hand to one of America's longtime adversaries will forever illustrate Trump's gut-driven, norm-shattering tenure. "We both want to do something. We both are going to do something. And we have developed a very special bond," Trump said at the conclusion of the landmark summit. "People are going to be very impressed. People are going to be very happy." The document he and Kim signed said the North Korean leader "reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula." In exchange, Trump agreed to "provide security guarantees" to North Korea. But there was no mentioning the previous US aim of "complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization." And Kim's commitments did not appear to go beyond what he already pledged to do in April when he met South Korean President Moon Jae-in along their countries' border. Trump insisted during a news conference the agreement went further than many people expected. But he acknowledged the effort to rid North Korea of its nuclear arsenal was in its early stages. "We will do it as fast as it can mechanically and physically be done," he said. More critical, in Trump's telling, was the development of a personal bond with Kim, a brutal dictator responsible for the deaths not only of his own citizens but of at least one American, Otto Warmbier, who was returned to the US in a coma only to die days later. "I think our whole relationship with North Korea and the Korean Peninsula is going to be a very much different situation than it has in the past," Trump said during the summit. Later, during his news conference, Trump said Warmbier's death contributed to the summit taking place. "Without Otto, this would not have happened," Trump said. Trump and Kim -- both intent on making history -- greeted each other early in the day with extended hands in front of a row of US and North Korean flags, a previously unthinkable sight that reflects a new chapter in the two countries' acrimonious relationship. Trump's threats to politely walk out of the meeting if his expectations were unmet did not materialize. Instead he predicted he could "solve a big problem, a big dilemma" alongside his new partner. "Working together, we'll get it taken care of," Trump said. The remarks came amid an improbable series of events that few could have anticipated even three months ago. The unlikely images of US and North Korean counterparts engaging in friendly dialogue lent the day an air of unreality. In a detailed menu, the White House said the men were served Häagen-Dazs vanilla ice cream for dessert. Other unforeseen events also surrounded the summit, increasing the drama. Minutes before the historic handshake, Trump tweeted that his top economic adviser Larry Kudlow had suffered a heart attack. Immediately after the encounter, Dennis Rodman -- one of the only Americans to have met Kim -- was openly weeping while being interviewed by CNN's Chris Cuomo. Even Kim seemed to acknowledge the surreality of the day. "Many people in the world will think of this as a (inaudible) form of fantasy ... from a science fiction movie," his translator was overheard saying as the two leaders walked down a white-columned colonnade. At the conclusion of the summit, Trump hailed the talks as a historic, and personal, achievement. "We learned a lot about each other and our countries," Trump said. "I learned he's a very talented man." When pressed about those comments in light of Kim's brutal tactics, Trump continued praising the North Korean leaders' ability to run a country at a young age. "He is very talented," Trump said, citing Kim's ability to "take over a situation like he did at 26 years of age and run it, and run it tough." Kim assumed power after his father Kim Jong Il, also a brutal dictator, died in 2011. Throughout the day, Trump and Kim's body language was openly friendly, a striking warmth given Kim's iron grip on power and dismal record on human rights. Trump's move to meet him attracted fierce criticism for normalizing a regime routinely called out for its human rights abuses, that over years has built an image of fearsome renegade regime, throwing around threats of nuclear war. The day began with Trump patting Kim on the back and placing his hand on the North Korean's shoulder as they walked into their first meeting. Later they were seen smiling and laughing over lunch. Trump told reporters he would "absolutely" extend an invitation to the White House to Kim, who also heralded a new era. "Today, we had a historic meeting and decided to leave the past behind," Kim said through a translator. "The world will see a major change." The meeting came only months after the two men traded nuclear taunts, ratcheting up tensions and leading to fears of war. By contrast, Trump appeared to back off a military footing on Tuesday, declaring the US will stop the "war games," an apparent reference to joint military exercises with South Korea that North Korea has long rebuked as provocative. Trump also said he hopes to eventually withdraw US forces from South Korea, but said "that's not part of the equation right now." "I want to get our soldiers out. I want to bring our soldiers back home," Trump said. "But that's not part of the equation right now. I hope it will be eventually." Tuesday's meeting, convened at a luxury hotel on the island of Sentosa, came just three months after Trump accepted North Korea's invitation for talks on the spot. It was an extraordinarily compressed timeline for the landmark summit, which at one point was called off entirely as communication broke down between Washington and Pyongyang. The talks were quickly revived, leading to the highly choreographed event that unfolded Tuesday. After the men shook hands, they repaired inside for one-on-one talks. In that first meeting they were joined only by translators, a break from standard practice of having at least one aide present for high-stakes huddles. Later in the day, advisers joined the talks for a larger bilateral session and a working lunch. Trump took keen interest in the pageantry of the day, insisting the pictures beamed around the world reflect a commanding leader making a decisive, world-altering move. At the same time, he'd admitted he didn't believe he required extensive preparation to take stock of Kim. As part of the advance work, Trump commissioned a highly produced video meant to convince Kim to relinquish his weapons and open his country to outside investment. Trump showed Kim the movie on an iPad during their talks. Here in futuristic Singapore, however, Kim was able to view the benefits of economic advancement at close range. He was spotted taking a moonlit stroll around the high-end Marina Bay Sands hotel and casino, owned by GOP mega-donor Sheldon Adelson, the type of glitzy development few North Koreans could ever imagine coming to their country. Kim was cheered by onlookers who caught sight of the dictator, who until earlier this spring was not believed to have ever left North Korea as supreme leader.

Uranium One Bombshell: Evidence of Bribery, Extortion, Kickbacks, Money Laundering, and More! Right about now the people in the Clinton camp should be getting very nervous about the ongoing investigations into the Uranium One deal. What must be most annoying for the Clinton team is that these investigations all started as a way to undermine the Trump administration and continue to push connections between Trump and Russia. Now, more than a year after the investigations began, it’s looking less likely than ever that President Trump did anything wrong… but the investigations seem to be zeroing in on key Clinton team members (including the Clintons themselves). On Tuesday night Fox News Sean Hannity sat down to talk about the exploding scandal that is the Uranium One deal, and what it could mean for the Clinton family. Hannity spoke with investigative reporter Sara Carter of Circa, John Solomon of The Hill, and Victoria Toensing, an attorney representing the FBI informant who allegedly possesses documents on the sale of Canadian mining company ‘Uranium One’ to Russia interests back in 2010. Now that the NDA (non disclosure agreement) has been lifted Circa’s Sara Carter is “reporting that she has received a treasure trove of documents that in fact prove tonight the FBI informant has knowledge of Russia’s involvement in uranium one.” Not to be outdone, the Hill’s John Solomon had found even more dirt on this ugly Clinton led deal. Apparently, Solomon has learned that the FBI informant “has evidence, was on the inside, directly from Putin’s Russia, the push for nuclear fuel deals, and all the crimes we talked about, bribery, kickback, extortion, money laundering, racketeering, all knelt corroborating and will be corroborated even further. Go into your report.” This is all about to get very ugly. https://youtu.be/_DFeri21hlc HANNITY: Breaking news tonight, the Hills John Solomon, investigative reporter Sara Carter, they released bombshell reports equally tonight. Solomon reporting according to the memos obtained, the FBI informant that now has had his NDA lifted at the center of this case gathered years and years of evidence of Russia’s plot to control U.S. Nuclear fuel, which included the uranium one deal. And Sara Carter reporting that she has received a treasure trove of documents that in fact prove tonight the FBI informant has knowledge of Russia’s involvement in uranium one. Also joining us now is the attorney for the FBI informant, Victoria Toensing along with John and Sara. Sara, let’s start with your report. A treasure trove, that is huge. SARAH CARTER, CIRCA NEWS: It is Sean. I mean there’s over 5,000 documents which include emails, briefs, other documentation, memorandums that the informant had turned over to the FBI and Justice Department, and within these documents, it’s very evident of Russia’s intention to enter the American market, energy market. And their intentions to acquire uranium one. HANNITY: John, you go into extensive detail in a very long and hard-hitting piece tonight and revealing piece, how the FBI informant — you actually said six years, I thought he was only an informant for four years. He has evidence, was on the inside, directly from Putin’s Russia, the push for nuclear fuel deals, and all the crimes we talked about, bribery, kickback, extortion, money laundering, racketeering, all knelt corroborating and will be corroborated even further. Go into your report. JOHN SOLOMON, THE HILL: You know, Sara just said something about the importance of the dominance of the uranium market. This is an email that the FBI has had for six years. It shows that uranium one was part of a Russia strategy to control, not just benefit from the global market, controlled the global market. That would put the United States at a disadvantage. That is the sort of evidence that this FBI informant has right now. If you go back on the last week we heard several things from the Justice Department, there’s no connection to uranium one. These are emails that say uranium one that are in the FBI files. They said that there was no connection between the uranium one case and the criminal case. We now know the criminal case got its first evidence in 2009, a whole year before the uranium one deal was approved by the Obama administration. There are a lot of things that people have been saying that these documents simply don’t agree with. HANNITY: All right. I got a very high ranking Congressman and that knows, let us put it that way, and actually sent me a note. The knowledge of key administration officials will be the next thing proven by both of you, and the links to the Clinton foundation. Sara, is that true? CARTER: I believe that is true. I mean especially when we at — HANNITY: Do believe or you know? I can’t ask Victoria that question because she won’t tell me. CARTER: I know it’s true. I know that looking at these documents following the money, following the money is what’s important here. The Justice Department has not pointed out that they will possibly call a special counsel to this. This is still out there. They are looking into it. That is something that they need to decide. But whether it’s a special counsel or whether it’s a prosecutor that is investigating this, they will be able to follow the money. There are somethings said … HANNITY: When you say follow the money, my suspicion would go to the money came directly from Russia, was funneled through the Canadian donors to the Clinton Foundation. How good are my instincts? CARTER: You have pretty good instincts. I think there’s a lot of other areas that they will be looking at as well. Remember this is like peeling back an onion. You peel one part and then you find another part. And that is what’s going to require somebody to do an extensive investigation. HANNITY: But it is beginning to cascade Sara. CARTER: It is. HANNITY: John, I want her to respond to the same thing, that the Clinton Foundation, that this will be traced back to high-ranking Obama administration officials and the Clinton Foundation, and if you add the money portion Sara mentioned? SOLOMON: I do. I think the place we will be talking about in the next couple weeks as the Clinton global initiative. Sort of a side project of the Clinton Foundation. There are new flows of money there that we will report on then the next couple of weeks. There were also some personal business projects, some very senior Clinton people that got a remarkable infusion of cash from Russia. It will be able to talk about that in the next couple of weeks. Another layer of interest of the story. HANNITY: All right. We have a lot of time in the segment so I want to go very slowly here. Both of you, before I get to Victoria, Sara and John, you both in your pieces said 5,000 documents. I hear the number the FBI informant is much, much greater, tens of thousands. True or false? SOLOMON: That seems to be accurate. We have a subset of the documents and they are very voluminous. HANNITY: Now let me go to Victoria. One of the great attorneys. She is the most difficult to get any information out of. Victoria, one of the things I’ve known about you, and I’ve interviewed you so many times over the years, you now have been doing a deep dive into all of this. You are now representing this FBI informant. I think they will become an American hero out of all of this, but apparently, he was fighting and begging and pleading and saying the Russians are here, they are doing this, why are you paying attention? I hope my instincts are right there, and number two, how devastating it legally is this going to be based on what I was just asking Sara and John about impacting former Obama officials, money, Clinton foundation? VICTORIA TOENSING, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING FBI INFORMANT: Let me go to number one first, that is the whole essence of what John and Sara and I are talking about is that in 2009, 2010, our FBI and presumably our Justice Department, and the White House, as my client was told, all knew about this corruption in the Russian nuclear energy area. There’s no separate companies. They are all related. The Russian nuclear energy is controlled from the top, from Putin. They are all one. They all talk to each other. So the evidence about this corruption was known to our government in 2009, 2010, and why is it that CFIUS either wasn’t told, or CFIUS people knowing about it — HANNITY: Explain CFIUS, 13 agencies, I am sorry 9 agencies approving the deal that gave control of uranium one to the bad actor, hostile regime, Putin Russia. TOENSING: They said, the CFIUS board said that the bad Russians could buy uranium one, which contains access to 20 percent of the U.S. Uranium, why was that decision made? Was CFIUS told? Did Bob Mueller go to Eric Holder and tell him? Eric Holder sat on it. HANNITY: He was one of the nine. TOENSING: Did Bob Mueller go to the White House and tell him? The FBI agents told my client that they were briefing the President about his conduct. Of course, when the CFIUS decision was made. My client said, what happened? HANNITY: Back to my original question, counselor, if I may. You are too good at your job. This is a very serious point. Putting your legal hat on, objectively speaking, yes they knew, the evidence will prove it based on the documents and your client, crimes committed on a high level? National security compromise? TOENSING: Of course, it goes without saying giving the Russians control of the uranium was a national security compromise. I think that we are going to have to do is continue to follow the money because the reporting that John and Sara are going to be doing in a few days will be revealing about where lots of the various money went and where it came from. HANNITY: Always we go back, and I believe at the end of this you guys deserve a Pulitzer, and I’m not the only one thinking that. You have dug so deep on this, this has been a deep dive and I applaud you both. I want to ask as it relates to who knew what, and when. What did they know, when did they know it, John Solomon? I’m talking about Obama, Mueller, Eric Holder, and Hillary Clinton. SOLOMON: We are at a little disadvantage right now, because we don’t have those records, and also the records that Congress needs to go get, but I can tell you I have a person quoted in my story who has direct knowledge of what the Justice Department knew. This person said without a shred of doubt, we knew in 2009 a year before CFIUS ruled that Thomas were engaged in criminality, without a shadow of a doubt, we knew that Russia was trying to gain a corner on the U.S. market, get a strong hold on our uranium, and without a doubt we knew they were using political levers to try to get their way here. We are talking about control, like this document says, they are trying to gain control of our markets. That has to be national security interest that should have been raised in CFIUS. HANNITY: President daily briefings were told. Had this information in it before CFIUS approves this. CARTER: Sean. That is what we need to find out. We need to see those Presidential daily briefings. Congress can get those. They will be able to know whether or not President Obama was briefed on this and according to a number of people that I have spoken with as well, he was. I think that will reveal a whole other layer of who knew what, where and when. And we follow the money and it will reveal even more about Hillary Clinton and what she knew and when did she know it, and the other members of the CFIUS board. HANNITY: And Obama and Holder and Mueller? John, real quick, we are running out of time. SOLOMON: yes listen, I think even Sessions and Rosenstein have questions to answer. There are people in Congress who don’t think they’ve gotten a straight answer from them. HANNITY: All right. Victoria, we get the last word from you, laws broken? TOENSING: Well, of course. HANNITY: You are so good at your job. You are so annoyingly good. The American people deserve the truth varied our security was compromised, we import uranium, because we don’t have enough. Newt Gingrich will weigh in on this and more things and about the Clintons. Are they facing their day of reckoning? And a big announcement at the end of the show. Article posted with permission from Constitution.com

Trump Slams “Disgraceful Verdict” After San Francisco Jury Acquits “Kate’s Law”-Victim’s Killer This article was originally published by Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge Update 2 : Just as we suspected, President Trump has tweeted his opinion on this decision… A disgraceful verdict in the Kate Steinle case! No wonder the people of our Country are so angry with Illegal Immigration. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 1, 2017 Update 1: AP reports that U.S. immigration officials say they will deport the Mexican man found not guilty of murder in San Francisco pier shooting. * * * As we detailed earlier, in a verdict that has shocked many in the Bay Area (and across America), a jury of six men and six women in sanctuary city San Francisco found illegal immigrant (and five-time deportee) Jose Ines Garcia Zarate not guilty in the death of Kate Steinle. Mr. Garcia Zarate had been homeless at the time of the shooting and had multiple felony convictions and five prior deportations to Mexico. He had been set free from jail only months before the shooting, in defiance of requests by federal immigration authorities, who had asked that he be held longer so he could be deported again. The backlash to his release into the community crescendoed when Donald Trump invoked Ms. Steinle’s killing as he campaigned for president. As The New York Times reports, Ms. Steinle’s death in July 2015 fed into a fierce debate over whether immigrants without legal status should be deported more aggressively, and over the role local law enforcement should play. Ms. Steinle, known as Kate, a 32-year-old medical equipment saleswoman, was walking along Pier 14 in San Francisco when she was struck by a bullet and collapsed into her father’s arms. Mr. Garcia Zarate acknowledged firing the weapon, but said it was an accident. Zarate and his defense team maintained the argument that the suspect found the stolen weapon on the pier that day and it “just fired.” The gun belonged to a federal Bureau of Land Management ranger and was stolen from his parked car a week earlier. The bullet ricocheted on the pier’s concrete walkway before it struck Steinle, killing her. Zarate has admitted to shooting Steinle, but says it was an accident. Defense attorney Matt Gonzalez said Garcia Zarate found the gun at the pier… but the stories of what happened copntradicted one another… He said it was wrapped in cloth, and when Garcia Zarate unwrapped it, the gun accidentally discharged. But in a police interrogation, Garcia Zarate admitted to firing the gun, saying he was aiming at a seal. He also told police that he stepped on the gun, causing it to fire. But still, after six days of deliberation, the illegal Mexcian immigrant was acquitted of murder and manslaughter charges and also found not guilty of assault with a firearm. Garcia Zarate was found guilty of illegal firearms possession, which carries a sentence of 16 months to three years. * * * The public defender wasted no time in focusing his thoughts on President Trump and his administration…saying Zarate was “extremely relieved” by the outcome and that while Steinle’s death “was a horrible tragedy,” it was used as “political fodder for then candidate Donald Trump’s anti-immigration agenda.” Adachi added, “Despite the unfairly politicized atmosphere surrounding this case, jurors focused on the evidence, which was clear and convincing, and rendered a just verdict.” In a response to the verdict, Attorney General Jeff Sessions released a statement saying that despite California’s attempt at a murder conviction, Zarate was able to walk away with only a firearm possession conviction because he was not turned over by San Francisco to ICE. “When jurisdictions choose to return criminal aliens to the streets rather than turning them over to federal immigration authorities, they put the public’s safety at risk,” the statement said. “San Francisco’s decision to protect criminal aliens led to the preventable and heartbreaking death of Kate Steinle.” Sessions continued, “I urge the leaders of the nation’s communities to reflect on the outcome of this case and consider carefully the harm they are doing to their citizens by refusing to cooperate with federal law enforcement officers.” Social media erupted with outrage at the verdict (with very few – if any attempting to defend the verdict)… I don't know any American citizen who is a 5x felon and could get away with killing someone with a stolen gun. #KateSteinle #KatesLaw #JoseZarate — Ginger (@SpicyMustang) December 1, 2017 I seriously feel like buying my own damn bricks & building this damn wall myself! So flipping outraged by this unjustice! #BuildtheWall #KatesLaw — ???Steff??? (@Steffs_tweets) December 1, 2017 May San Francisco rot in hell! #KatesLaw — Mike (@Bigly45) December 1, 2017 Insist that KATES LAW is passed. When illegals have more rights and protection than American Citizens. This MUST STOP!!!! — Diana Batissa (@DianaBatissa) December 1, 2017 SF city just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they dont care if YOU, or others get killed by their policies. They will continue to shelter illegals and allow them to do as they please and dont care about the innocents hurt by them. ? SICK!#KateSteinle #KatesLaw — Constitutional-TQN? (@TechQn) December 1, 2017 If Hillary Clinton were in office, we'd all be in danger. The #KateSteinle verdict is an endorsement of murder. There is no way to spin this, there is no defense, today the mask came off. — Mike Cernovich ?? (@Cernovich) December 1, 2017 And even politically-correct politicians piped in… Kate Steinle’s murderer not guilty? This is outrageous! A great injustice has been done. No Californian can feel good about their justice system today. I grieve from the bottom of my heart for the Steinle family who must be personally suffering from this injustice. — Senator Jim Nielsen (@CASenatorJim) December 1, 2017 We suspect it will not be long before President Trump has something to say about this verdict.

There Were “Active Shooters On The Runway” Bombshell Air Traffic Control Audio From The Night Of The Las Vegas Massacre Reveals In yet another striking example of a widespread cover-up currently underway regarding the worst mass shooting in American history, new air traffic control audio has been released that details the fact that there were multiple active shooters on the airports property which is extremely close to the venue where at least part of the attack took place. The audio recordings, taken from the night of the October 1st massacre that left 58 dead and over 500 injured, are further proof that multiple shooters were used throughout the area, a fact that directly contradicts the official story. During the air traffic control recordings, which were released by political strategist and co-founder of “The New Right” Mike Tokes, one of the dispatchers is heard telling an incoming plane that landing might not be a good idea because there were multiple active shooters on the airport property itself. “Shutting down might not be a good idea, there’s active shooters on the runway,” he declared. “The 19s are closed, we are in the process of trying to round them up, they are on the airport property.” Air traffic control tapes on the night of the Las Vegas shooting: “There’s active shooters on the runway. They’re on the airport property” pic.twitter.com/HZf3LBeAgk — Mike Tokes (@MikeTokes) October 29, 2017 This stunning tower audio once again provides proof that the entire narrative that claims that Stephen Paddock operated alone from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Hotel is complete nonsense and that authorities are actually actively covering up what really happened on that fateful night. While there have been countless stories since the attack that raise the very real possibility that this was a false flag, one has stood out due to the fact that the person who released the information died shortly after. As Shepard Ambellas reported in a now viral article, “Kymberley Suchomel, who posted her eyewitness account of the Las Vegas massacre in astonishingly vivid detail to her Facebook page on Oct. 4, subsequently passed away in her home on Oct. 9 from what reports are claiming are natural causes.” “Shockingly, just days before her death, Suchomel posted key details about the shooting to Facebook that contradicted the official narrative which claims that Stephen Paddock was the lone gunman.” From dozens of eyewitness reports, including Suchomel’s, that clearly indicate the presence of multiple shooters, to the possibility of helicopters being used in the attack, the American people are clearly not being told the truth. It is also important to keep in mind that multiple investigative reports conducted by other alternative media outlets have actually named government officials and private companies that may be behind the attack and so far there has been no official denial from either.

Las Vegas Shooting: A THIRD Timeline Emerges Editor's Note: This is probably a reason why reporters Laura Loomer and Mike Tokes were barred from entering the presser. They would have posed real genuine questions of Sheriff Lombardo and forced him to stumble all over himself in answering them. The words “conspiracy theorists” are being bandied about. Are they for real? A well-coordinated, meticulously planned attack on concertgoers leads to the murder of 58 Americans at a country music festival in Las Vegas, with over 500 injured, and they have no explanation or motive. Do the FBI and law enforcement think people won’t talk about it or speculate as to what happened? Are they for real? Further, the FBI insists there is no jihad motive, while saying they don’t know his motive. How can they possibly hold those two contradictory ideas at the same time? The sheriff, alluding to allegations of a conspiracy between his department, the F.B.I., and MGM — supposedly in an effort to establish a legal case — said, “there is no conspiracy.” William Jacobson explains the latest “revise” by the authorities is the now infamously botched Vegas investigation: October 13, 2017, Legal Insurrection Police and hotel still don’t agree on some details. I realize that in the heat of a shooting, particularly a mass shooting, it may take some time for a precise timeline to develop. But it didn’t take very long for the Las Vegas police to release a precise timeline. The initial timeline was that Stephen Paddock’s shooting stopped when, approximately 6 minutes after he started, he was interrupted by a security guard from the Mandalay Bay hotel. Paddock then turned his fire into the hallway, firing some 200 bullets, and after that the shooting stopped as police arrived. That was Version No. 1. Some days later, the Las Vegas police backed away from that timeline, and stated that the security guard actually arrived 6 minutes before Paddock started shooting into the crowd 32 stories below him. That raised a number of question, including why no one called 911 after what must have been a loud volley of shots in a hotel hallway. That was Version No. 2. But now that is disputed, in Version No. 3. WaPo reports: Las Vegas police said Friday that the gunman who opened fire on a country music festival far below his hotel suite did not shoot a security guard six minutes before that rampage, contradicting a timeline they had offered earlier this week…. The confusion began Monday when police said that the gunman fired at the hotel security guard, Jesus Campos, six minutes before the mass shooting began, not during the massacre as they had said. Lombardo also said police had hunted for the source of the gunfire and that officers responding to the gunman’s floor were unaware that a guard was shot until they arrived there, at which point the shooting rampage had ended. MGM Resorts pushed back on this account, first saying Tuesday that there were unspecified inaccuracies and then, on Thursday, releasing a statement directly contradicting parts of what the police had said…. Lombardo had said Monday that Campos, the guard, was shot at 9:59 p.m. and that the mass shooting began at 10:05 p.m. This six-minute gap relayed by Lombardo left uncertain whether there was any lag in alerting police to the source of the gunfire during critical moments. Police said officers arrived on the 32nd floor at 10:17 p.m., two minutes after Paddock had stopped firing. MGM, though, said it was “confident” that the 9:59 p.m. time was inaccurate and “was derived from a Mandalay Bay report manually created after the fact without the benefit of information we now have.” The company also disputed the suggestion of a lag, saying the shooting rampage began within a minute of Campos reporting his injury on the 32nd floor. On Friday, Lombardo effectively agreed with the company’s statement, though he argued that the 9:59 p.m. time he had offered four days earlier “wasn’t inaccurate when I provided it.” Lombardo said he was told this time had been written by someone in a security log. Upon investigation, Lombardo said, police learned that Campos first encountered a barricaded door on the 32nd floor at 9:59 p.m. The guard was eventually fired upon by Paddock “in close proximity to” 10:05 p.m., when the mass shooting began, Lombardo continued. Clear, right? Not so fast, the police and hotel still have disagreement over important details, such as when police arrived relative to Paddock’s shooting at the crowd: An enormous, important discrepancy has emerged over what happened during the Las Vegas massacre: When did police arrive on the 32nd floor where Stephen Paddock was firing his deadly fusillade onto concertgoers below? Las Vegas police say they didn’t get to the floor until after the shooting was over. But MGM Resorts International, the owner of Mandalay Bay, says police officers were there shortly after the shooting began, responding to a report of a security guard being shot. The discrepancy could raise questions about whether police might have taken steps to intervene while Paddock was launching his devastating 10-minute onslaught…. … on Thursday, in response to inquiries about when Mandalay Bay notified police of the Campos shooting, MGM Resorts issued a statement that was unequivocal: Las Vegas police officers accompanied Mandalay Bay security to the Campos shooting and “immediately responded.” MGM said that “Metro officers were together with armed Mandalay Bay security officers in the building when Campos first reported that shots were fired over the radio. These Metro officers and armed Mandalay Bay security officers immediately responded to the 32nd floor.” The statement says MGM believes Paddock began firing out the window of his room within 40 seconds of Campos reporting his shooting, and Lombardo said Friday, “I agree with the statement.” These discrepancies on basic facts are feeding conspiracy theories. As to Paddock’s motive, still nothing from the investigation. Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller

Leaked Doc Reveals White House Planning “Regime Change” In Iran This report was originally published by Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge It appears Rudy Giuliani wasn’t lying. Just a few days after the former NYC mayor and latest member of President Trump’s unexpectedly let it slip that “we got a president who is tough, who does not listen to the people who are naysayers, and a president who is committed to regime change [in Iran]”, the Washington Free Beacon has obtained a three-page white paper being circulated among National Security Council officials with drafted plans to spark regime change in Iran, following the US exit from the Obama-era nuclear deal and the re-imposition of tough sanctions aimed at toppling the Iranian regime. The plan, authored by the Security Studies Group, or SSG, a national security think-tank that has close ties to senior White House national security officials, including – who else – National Security Adviser John Bolton, seeks to reshape longstanding American foreign policy toward Iran by emphasizing an explicit policy of regime change, something the Obama administration opposed when popular protests gripped Iran in 2009, writes the Free Beacon, which obtained a leaked copy of the circulating plans. The regime change plan seeks to fundamentally shift U.S. policy towards Iran and has found a receptive audience in the Trump administration, which has been moving in this direction since Bolton—a longtime and vocal supporter of regime change—entered the White House. It deemphasizes U.S military intervention, instead focusing on a series of moves to embolden an Iranian population that has increasingly grown angry at the ruling regime for its heavy investments in military adventurism across the region. –Free Beacon “The ordinary people of Iran are suffering under economic stagnation, while the regime ships its wealth abroad to fight its expansionist wars and to pad the bank accounts of the Mullahs and the IRGC command,” SSG writes in the paper. “This has provoked noteworthy protests across the country in recent months” it further claims as an argument to push a “regime change” policy. For now – at least – overthrowing the Iran government, with its extensive and close ties to the Kremlin, is not official US policy; SSG president Jim Hanson told the Free Beacon that the Trump administration does not want to engage in direct military intervention in Iran – and is instead focusing on other methods of ridding Iran of its “hardline ruling regime.” “The Trump administration has no desire to roll tanks in an effort to directly topple the Iranian regime,” Hanson said. “But they would be much happier dealing with a post-Mullah government. That is the most likely path to a nuclear weapons-free and less dangerous Iran.” That will likely change, however. One source close to the White House who has previewed the plan told the Free Beacon that the nuclear deal, also known as the JCPOA, solidified the Iranian regime’s grip on power and intentionally prevented the United States from fomenting regime change “The JCPOA purposefully destroyed the carefully created global consensus against the Islamic Republic,” said the source, who would only speak to the Free Beacon on background about the sensitive issue. “Prior to that, everyone understood the dangers of playing footsie with the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism. It’s now Trump, Bolton, and [Mike] Pompeo’s job to put this consensus back in place.” The source tells the Beacon that Bolton is “acutely aware of the danger the Iranian regime poses to the region.” “John is someone who understands the danger of Iran viscerally, and knows that you’re never going to fundamentally change its behavior—and the threats against Israel and the Saudis especially—until that revolutionary regime is gone,” the source said, adding that “nothing’s off the table right now if Israel is attacked.” That said, Bolton is confident that an Iranian regime change will occur in the next six months: John Bolton – We Will Be Celebrating in Tehran Before 2019 >You can’t say you weren’t warned pic.twitter.com/F1dvZAVQaF — Battle Beagle 🇺🇸 🇬🇧 (@HarmlessYardDog) May 7, 2018 A second source tells The Beacon that the Trump administration recognizes that the “chief impediment to the region is Iran’s tyrannical regime.” “The problem is not the Iran nuclear deal it’s the Iranian regime,” said the source. “Team Bolton has spent years creating Plans B, C, and D for dealing with that problem. President Trump hired him knowing all of that. The administration will now start aggressively moving to deal with the root cause of chaos and violence in the region in a clear-eyed way.” Regional sources who have spoken to SSG “tell us that Iranian social media is more outraged about internal oppression, such as the recent restrictions on Telegram, than about supporting or opposing the nuclear program. Iranian regime oppression of its ethnic and religious minorities has created the conditions for an effective campaign designed to splinter the Iranian state into component parts,” the group states. –Free Beacon “More than one third of Iran’s population is minority groups, many of whom already seek independence,” the paper explains. “U.S. support for these independence movements, both overt and covert, could force the regime to focus attention on them and limit its ability to conduct other malign activities.” Without a regime change, the United States will continue face threats from Iranian forces stationed throughout the region, including in Iraq, Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon. “The probability the current Iranian theocracy will stop its nuclear program willingly or even under significant pressure is low,” the plan states. “Absent a change in government within Iran, America will face a choice between accepting a nuclear-armed Iran or acting to destroy as much of this capability as possible.” That said, President Trump made clear earlier in the week that US officials must make efforts to differentiate between the people of Iran and its ruling regime. “Any public discussion of these options, and any messaging about the Iranian regime in general, should make a bright line distinction between the theocratic regime along with its organs of oppression and the general populace,” according to the plan. “We must constantly reinforce our support for removing the iron sandal from the necks of the people to allow them the freedom they deserve.”

Ex-Sailor Pardoned By Trump Says He’s SUING Obama And Comey A former Navy sailor, who is one of five people to receive a pardon from President Donald Trump, is planning to file a lawsuit against Obama administration officials. Kristian Saucier, who served a year in federal prison for taking photos of classified sections of the submarine on which he worked, says he was subject to unequal protection of the law. Saucier said that he realizes he had erred in taking the photos, which he said he wanted to show only to his family to show them where he worked. He has also lashed out at Obama officials, saying that his prosecution was politically motivated, prompted by sensitivity about classified information amid the scandal involving Clinton’s emails. According to Fox News, Saucier argues that the same officials who sought out punishment to Saucier for his actions chose to be lenient with Hillary Clinton in her use of a private email server and mishandling of classified information. Saucier’s lawyer, Ronald Daigle, told Fox News on Monday that the lawsuit, which he expects to file soon in Manhattan, will name the U.S. Department of Justice, former FBI Director James Comey and former President Barack Obama as defendants, among others. Saucier, who lives in Vermont, pleaded guilty in 2016 to taking photos inside the USS Alexandria while it was stationed in Groton, Connecticut, in 2009. He said he only wanted service mementos, but federal prosecutors argued he was a disgruntled sailor who had put national security at risk by taking photos showing the submarine’s propulsion system and reactor compartment and then obstructed justice by destroying a laptop and camera. –Fox News “They interpreted the law in my case to say it was criminal,” Saucier told Fox News, referring to prosecuting authorities in his case, “but they didn’t prosecute Hillary Clinton. Hillary is still walking free. Two guys on my ship did the same thing and weren’t treated as criminals. We want them to correct the wrong.” Daigle said that a notice about the pending lawsuit was sent to the Department of Justice and others included in it in December. There is usually a six-month period that must elapse before the lawsuit actually is actually filed. “My case was usually something handled by military courts,” he said. “They used me as an example because of [the backlash over] Hillary Clinton,” he continued, alleging his life was ruined for political reasons. “With a pardon, there’s no magic wand that gets waved and makes everything right,” Saucier said, “But I try to stay positive and look forward.” Saucier has had cars repossessed and is in debt due to the loss of income after having a felony on his record. The government actively destroyed his life an made it all but impossible for his family to get back on track. But Hillary Clinton is running around free, to this day. And that is what Saucier is so burnt about, with good reason.