Datasets:

tyyihg

/

propoganda_detection_final_Dataset

like 0

Groups of Migrants Heading to San Diego Will Be Met With Barricades And Razor Fences (Videos) The Military continues to put up razor wire at the border in San Ysidro as a migrant caravan is expected to reach Tijuana. United States military and border protection agents have been erecting barricades with razor wire at the point of entry near San Diego, California, as the first groups of migrants arrived at the US-Mexico border. Hundreds of migrants who had split off from the main ‘caravan’ of thousands arrived in Tijuana early Tuesday on nine buses. Numbering just over 350, they joined an initial smaller group of around 85 people, mostly members of the LGBT community, who’d experienced discrimination within the main crowd and were helped to make it to the Mexican border town even earlier on Sunday. Military crews continue to put up razor wire at the border in San Ysidro as a migrant caravan is expected to reach Tijuana. https://t.co/mQH6eqrBNy pic.twitter.com/4IXGNAfSem — Danielle Radin (@danielleradin) November 13, 2018 Here are the three lanes that were shut down at the San Ysidro port of entry in TJ today in anticipation of the caravan. There are seven US army members here with CBP at the moment. Story with @Haleaziz on this https://t.co/SpLVnl3bAT pic.twitter.com/1nGFRNJanJ 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 * Email 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. — Adolfo Flores (@aflores) November 13, 2018 RT reports: In anticipation of potential clashes at the border, American soldiers have begun reinforcing their positions. “Department of Defense personnel are installing concertina wire, and pre-positioning jersey barriers, barricades, and fencing,” US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) said in a statement. US Marines instal wire along the primary border wall at the port of entry next to Tijuana in San Ysidro, San Diego.🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/aX0bznl2bm — The Real Lonnieღ IV (@lonnieloveiv) November 13, 2018 A snaking line of traffic is visible at the San Ysidro Port of Entry after CBP announced it would close multiple entry lanes into the U.S. at two San Diego-area ports of entry in anticipation of the so-called migrant caravan's arrival. https://t.co/92mOg1XNqu pic.twitter.com/mrQU6HYAgH — #NBC7 San Diego (@nbcsandiego) November 13, 2018 To tackle any “potential safety and security risk,” the CBP also announced lane closures at the San Ysidro and Otay Mesa ports of entry, to install “port hardening infrastructure equipment” in preparation for the migrant caravan arrival. Currently, several thousand predominantly male Central American migrants heading for the US are in the western Mexico city of Guadalajara. Most of them intend to take the Pacific coast route to reach the US, which is still about 1,500 miles away. A group of migrants is gathered on the Mexico side of the U.S/Mexico border fence in San Diego. None have fully climbed over, just sitting on the fence. pic.twitter.com/S8nUzjzKyZ — Kelly Biele (@kellytvnews) November 14, 2018 Photos posted on WhatsApp of the San Ysidro port of entry today. pic.twitter.com/MzQoN4mbrr — Andrew Dyer 🛴 (@SDUTdyer) November 13, 2018 Troops getting ready to close off three NB vehicle lanes at the San Ysidro Port Entry and one at the Otay Mesa Port of Entry. They’ll be putting up barriers and razor wire in preparation for the migrant caravan headed to the US/Mexico border. @10News pic.twitter.com/rc6YsAF5VQ — Mimi Elkalla (@10NewsMimi) November 13, 2018 To deal with the perceived threat the US has deployed 5,200 troops to help more than 2,000 National Guardsmen thwart what President Trump describes as an impending migrant“invasion.” Over the past few weeks, the active-duty servicemen deployed under Operation Faithful Patriot have mainly been erecting barbed-wire fences along the border in Texas, California and Arizona, as well as building shelter accommodation for customs and border protection staff. To ensure the success of the military operation, in addition to sheer troop numbers, the US forces have drones, helicopters with night-vision capabilities, and fixed-wing aircraft at their disposal.

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.

Dem Congressman Praises Hitler-Loving Anti-Semite The media is very interested in racism. Except when it's coming from inside the house. It's maintained a solid boycott on reporting on the photo of Obama posing with Farrakhan. Don't count on these comments by a Congressional Black Cacus member to get reported either. Democratic Illinois Rep. Danny Davis defended Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan as an “outstanding human being” on Monday. Farrakhan’s history of racially extreme comments includes blaming Jews for the September 11 attacks, saying white people “deserve to die” and praising Adolf Hitler as a “very great man.” “I personally know [Farrakhan], I’ve been to his home, done meetings, participated in events with him,” Davis told TheDC. “I don’t regard Louis Farrakhan as an aberration or anything, I regard him as an outstanding human being who commands a following of individuals who are learned and articulate and he plays a big role in the lives of thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of people,” he emphasized later. When asked about Farrakhan’s history of anti-Semitic comments, Davis was dismissive and said that many people in politics have a history of inflammatory comments. Like this. Farrakhan had praised Hitler and declared that the Jews, "can't say 'Never Again' to God, because when he puts you in the ovens, you're there forever.” "Here come the Jews. They don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man." Would a Republican get a pass on meeting with a racist hate group leader? Obviously not. Obama's meeting with Farrakhan was part of a CBC event. The Caucus has yet to apologize for it. Don't expect it to condemn Rep. Davis' comments. He was just saying what most of them think. The media is happy to talk about anti-Semitism. It just won't address left-wing anti-Semitism and racism.

Solar Storm Will Strike Earth Tonight, ‘Weak Power Grid Fluctuations’ Possible The NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center forecasts an aurora could light up the sky above areas in the United State including Michigan and Maine. A solar storm, which occurred Monday, is expected to strike Earth tonight. On Monday, the sun spit out a slew of charged particles in a moderate solar flare. These particles are now making their way towards Earth. The planet’s magnetic field will block most of the particles, but some will make it into Earth’s atmosphere. The particles collect at the north and south poles and interact with atmospheric gases to create the aurora borealis or the Northern Lights. And some say this show could be quite spectacular. Solar flares have been known to cause power grid failures, but it looks like we’ll only get the light show this time. Although a grid failure is possible, it is unlikely. According to Seeker, the forecast calls for a high probability of a G-1 or “minor” storm, which could strengthen to a G-2 or “moderate” storm depending on how the stream of particles hit the Earth. Geomagnetic storms are ranked on a scale, with G at the bottom, R in the middle, and S as the most severe. Forecasts now say the particles will give our planet a glancing blow. Although this storm has been categorized as “G-1,” which means it is minor, it could still cause some havoc down on Earth. Solar flares and particle ejections are associated with sunspots — dark areas on the sun’s surface — that host intense magnetic activity. As the magnetic fields in a sunspot cross, NASA stated, this can cause a sudden energy explosion, also known as a solar flare. This sends radiation out into space, and that radiation can be hurled toward the Earth. G1-level storms, such as Monday’s, may affect migratory animals, and can cause “weak power grid fluctuations.” The barrage of particles may even have a minor impact on satellites. A gird failure would almost immediately fling the United States into a state of panic, and it’s always good to be prepared just in case. But it doesn’t look like there will be any serious damage to the power grid because of this storm as of right now.

Paul Manafort Secretly Met With Julian Assange Shortly Before Joining Trump's Presidential Campaign: Report A British newspaper alleges that Paul Manafort secretly met WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London within days or weeks of being brought aboard Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Lawyers for Assange and Manafort denounced the report as false. If confirmed, the report Tuesday would suggest a direct connection between the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks, which released tens of thousands of emails stolen by Russian spies during the 2016 election. The campaign seized on the emails to undermine Trump’s rival, Hillary Clinton. The Guardian, which did not identify the sources for its reporting, said that Manafort met with Assange “around March 2016” — the same month that Russian hackers began their all-out effort to steal emails from the Clinton campaign. In a statement, Manafort called the story “totally false and deliberately libelous” and said he was considering his legal options against the Guardian. “I have never met Julian Assange or anyone connected to him,” Manafort said. “I have never been contacted by anyone connected to WikiLeaks, either directly or indirectly. I have never reached out to Assange or WikiLeaks on any matter.” Assange’s Ecuadorean lawyer, Carlos Poveda, said the Guardian report was false. And WikiLeaks said on Twitter that it was “willing to bet the Guardian a million dollars and its editor’s head that Manafort never met Assange.” It later tweeted that Assange had instructed his lawyers to sue the Guardian for libel. The Guardian cited two unidentified sources as saying Manafort first met Assange at the embassy in 2013, a year after Assange took refuge there to avoid being extradited to Sweden over sex crime allegations. The Guardian said Manafort returned there in 2015 and 2016 and said its sources had “tentatively dated” the final visit to March. The newspaper added that Manafort’s visit was not entered into the embassy’s log book and cited a source as saying Manafort left after 40 minutes. There was no detail on what might have been discussed. The Trump campaign announced Manafort’s hire on March 29, 2016, and he served as the convention manager tasked with lining up delegates for the Republican National Convention. He was promoted to campaign chairman in May 2016. An AP investigation into Russian hacking shows that government-aligned cyberspies began an aggressive effort to penetrate the Clinton campaign’s email accounts on March 10, 2016.

SNL Indian Comedian Silenced for "Offensive Jokes" at Columbia Andy Warhol was only half-right. In the future everyone will be the subject of social justice crybullying for 15 minutes. Also the Left killed comedy. This is what its corpse looks like. Saturday Night Live writer and comedian Nimesh Patel was pulled from the stage by event organizers after telling jokes that were criticized as racist and homophobic during his performance at cultureSHOCK: Reclaim, an event held by Columbia Asian American Alliance on Friday night. Patel, 32, was the first Indian-American writer for SNL, and has since been nominated for an Emmy Award for Outstanding Writing. Patel has previously performed on Late Night with Seth Meyers and opened for comedians such as Chris Rock. During the event, Patel’s performance featured commentary on his experience living in a diverse area of New York City—including a joke about a gay, black man in his neighborhood—which AAA officials deemed inappropriate. Patel joked that being gay cannot be a choice because “no one looks in the mirror and thinks, ‘this black thing is too easy, let me just add another thing to it.’” That's what Columbia snowflakes thought was offensive. I can't imagine what they would have made of Richard Pryor, or at this point even, Chris Rock. It's also a version of a Sammy Davis Jr joke about converting to Judaism. Which is now a hate crime. About 30 minutes into Patel’s set, members of AAA interrupted the performance, denounced his jokes about racial identities and sexual orientation, and provided him with a few moments for closing remarks. Comrades, these jokes you have been listening to are thought crimes! Patel pushed back on the officials’ remarks, and said that while he stood in solidarity with Asian American identities, none of his remarks were offensive, and he was exposing the audience to ideas that would be found “in the real world.” Before he could finish, Patel’s microphone was cut from off-stage, and he proceeded to leave. The real world? This is Columbia. For Sofia Jao, BC ‘22, problems with the performance resided not in the set, but with Patel’s closing remarks. “I really dislike when people who are older say that our generation needs to be exposed to the real world. Obviously the world is not a safe space but just accepting that it’s not and continuing to perpetuate the un-safeness of it… is saying that it can’t be changed,” said Jao. “When older generations say you need to stop being so sensitive, it’s like undermining what our generation is trying to do in accepting others and making it safer.” Patel is 32. I'm sure Patel felt very, like, accepted.

Hungarian Prime Minister Hits Nail On The Head: Refugees Are Actually "Muslim Invaders" Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban doesn't mince words when it comes to the Muslim invasion in Europe and specifically to his own country. Orban says there is not only Muslim invaders in the mix of "refugees," but also “economic migrants" seeking better lives for themselves. Indeed, both of these are true. There are plenty of these people who are simply happy to have a place to live after many were driven from their homes due to the US, Russia and other countries putting their noses where they didn't belong and funding, training and arming Islamic jihadis there. Then, there are those who clearly come to the country to Islamasize the country because they have an Islamic dominionist attitude borne of the teachings of the Koran and Muhammad . RT reports: Refugees in Europe are just “Muslim invaders” and economic migrants seeking better lives, Hungarian PM Viktor Orban has said, adding that the large number of Muslims in the EU had led to the appearance of ‘parallel societies.’ Asked in an interview with the German Bild newspaper why Budapest does not want to accept any refugees, Orban replied: “We don’t consider these people to be Muslim refugees.” Instead, the tough-talking politician said they were regarded as “Muslim invaders.” Asylum seekers must cross four countries to reach Hungary from Syria, all of which are not as rich as Germany but are economically stable, the PM said. He was apparently referring to Turkey, Greece, Macedonia and Serbia – a common route for migrants heading for ‘wealthy’ Europe. “So, they are not running for their lives [in these countries]. They are merely economic migrants seeking a better life,” Orban concluded. He stressed though, that he can only speak for the Hungarians and they “don’t want” immigration. In his view, the government simply can’t go against the will of the people. And Orban has stayed the course, too while governments like that of Germany have ignored their people to allow for a clear invasion of Germany that has led to untold numbers of sexual assaults by Muslim migrants, attacks on Christians and there's no telling the amount of damage to the unethical welfare system in the country. RT continues: Going further, the prime minister noted that no refugee wants to go to Portugal, for example, adding that the majority of asylum seekers simply wanted to live in prosperous Germany. “The reason why people are in your country is not because they are refugees, but because they want a German life,” he said, describing the issue “politically” as a European problem but, “sociologically,” as a German problem. Orban specifically targeted Germany and Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ‘open-door’ policy towards asylum seekers. “I’ve never understood how chaos, anarchy and illegal border crossings are viewed as something good in a country like Germany, which we view as the best example of discipline and the rule of law,” he said. The recent wave of refugees reaching Europe is merely an invasion, according to Orban. “If someone wants to come to your house, he knocks on your door and asks: ‘Can we come in, can we stay?’ They [asylum seekers] didn’t do that, they crossed the border illegally,” he stated. Orban then did what most political representatives will simply not do, he told the truth about multiculturalism. He called it an "illusion" and said that Christian and Muslim societies “will never unite.” Of course, they won't. They have absolutely nothing in common. They cannot agree on God's law, which most Western societies were base on, including the united States. They cannot agree on the Scriptures. They cannot agree on the person and work of Jesus the Christ. They can't even agree on the means of proselytizing and of what real spiritual weapons are. PM Orban has remained consistent. He has publicly told the Muslim invaders to leave Hungary and never come back. He has rebuffed Brussels, which is largely Islamic, and told them that Hungary would defend its borders, and it has. Orban's border wall reduced illegal immigration by 99%! He has genuinely reached out his hand to help Christian migrants instead of Muslim migrants and he seems to be one that holds to the Christian faith, as emulated by the Protestant Reformers, saying, "That which serves the glory of God is the best for the people." Furthermore, Orban has also called out the man behind the curtain in a lot of the promoting of this Muslim invasion of the West, George Soros. Anti-jihadist activist Pamela Geller praised Orban for his honesty and wrote, "At last, a politician who speaks the truth about the Muslim invasion of Europe. And while Orban is right that these are 'economic migrants,' they are also 'Muslim invaders.'" "They don’t want a 'German life' in Germany in the sense that they are willing to accept German values," she added. "Many, all too many, of them want to overwhelm German values, and European values in general, with sharia values. They are in Europe to conquer and Islamize it, with willing and eager help from Europe’s short-sighted, self-serving, internationalist intelligentsia." Indeed! Thank you Prime Minister Orban for saying what needed to be said!

Congress’ Top Cop: House Democratic Caucus Server VANISHED In Muslim Spy Ring Investigation Why was the ringleader of the widespread Muslim spy scandal just offered a plea deal? Who has been exposed to blackmail and God knows what else? And how deeply has America been compromised? These crimes are treason and should be prosecuted as such. Break: Ex-Dem IT aide Imran Awan pleads guilty to loan application fraud in federal court, as part of plea agreement. Prosecutors drop charges against his wife. Prosecutors say they investigated allegations of improper behavior in Awan’s Congress role, but will bring no charges. — Alex Pappas (@AlexPappas) July 3, 2018 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 * Name 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. In Newly Obtained Memo, Congress’ Top Cop Said House Democratic Caucus Server VANISHED https://t.co/gTj2UgSZJr via @dailycaller — Luke Rosiak (@lukerosiak) July 2, 2018 A secret memo marked “URGENT” detailed how the House Democratic Caucus’s server went “missing” soon after it became evidence in a cybersecurity probe. The secret memo also said more than “40 House offices may have been victims of IT security violations.” In the memo, Congress’s top law enforcement official, Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving, along with Chief Administrative Officer Phil Kiko, wrote, “We have concluded that the employees [Democratic systems administrator Imran Awan and his family] are an ongoing and serious risk to the House of Representatives, possibly threatening the integrity of our information systems and thereby members’ capacity to serve constituents.” The memo, addressed to the Committee on House Administration (CHA) and dated Feb. 3, 2017, was recently reviewed and transcribed by The Daily Caller News Foundation. The letter bolsters TheDCNF’s previous reporting about the missing server and evidence of fraud on Capitol Hill. It details how the caucus server, run by then-caucus Chairman Rep. Xavier Becerra, was secretly copied by authorities after the House Inspector General (IG) identified suspicious activity on it, but the Awans’ physical access was not blocked. But after, the report reads, the server appears to have been secretly replaced with one that looked similar. The memo called for firing the Pakistani-born aides, revoking all their computer accounts, and changing the locks on any door they had access to. Rep. Louie Gohmert — a Texas Republican on the House Committee on the Judiciary who has done oversight work on the case — said the missing server contained copies of Congress members’ emails. “They put 40 members of Congress’s data on one server … That server, with that serial number, has disappeared,” he said. Multiple sources connected to the investigation told TheDCNF that shortly after an IG report came out identifying the House Democratic Caucus server as key evidence in a criminal probe, the evidence was stolen. “They [the Awans] deliberately turned over a fake server” to falsify evidence, one official close to the CHA alleged. “It was a breach. The data was completely out of [members’] possession.” The six-page letter says: • In September of 2016 … the CHA and [IG] briefed the former Chairman of the Democratic Caucus about suspicious activity related to their server that the [IG] identified. As a result, the former Chairman of the Democratic Caucus directed the CAO to copy the data from their server and two computers. • The CHA directed the IG to refer the matter to the US Capitol Police. The USCP initiated an investigation that continues to this day. • In late 2016, the former Chairman of the Democratic Caucus announced his intention to resign from Congress to assume a new position. The CAO and [sergeant-at-arms] worked with the Chairman to account for his inventory, including the one server. • While reviewing the inventory, the CAO discovered that the serial number of the server did not match that of the one imaged in September. [Investigators] also discovered that the server in question [the replacement server] was still operating under the employee’s control, contrary to the explicit instructions of the former chairman to turn over all equipment and fully cooperate with the inquiry and investigation. [A House source said the "employee” was Abid Awan.] • The USCP interviewed relevant staff regarding the missing server. • On January 24, 2017, the CAO acquired the [r[replacement]erver from the control of the employees and transferred that server to the USCP. President Donald Trump referenced the Democratic Caucus’ missing server in a tweet. But because the letter to the CHA was kept secret, many news outlets have not grasped that the House’s top cop documented a “missing server” connected to the Democratic Caucus. The timeline laid out in the letter also shows that Becerra — now California’s Democratic attorney general — failed to ensure that the Awans didn’t have access to House computer systems during the 2016 election, which was wrought with cybersecurity scandals. An IG presentation from September 2016 shows that Becerra knew of problems months before the server disappeared. “The Caucus Chief of Staff requested one of the shared employees to not provide IT services or access their computers,” it read. “This shared employee continued.” It’s unclear why that request was not granted or why it was a request rather than an order. A House official close to the probe said the employee was Abid, who was not on Becerra or the Caucus’s payroll. The official said Becerra Chief of Staff Sean McCluskie apparently knew Abid was accessing Caucus servers. According to payroll records, Abid’s sister-in-law, Hina Alvi, was the Caucus’ systems administrator. The Awans’ continued physical access to Becerra’s equipment after red flags emerged enabled the server to disappear after it became evidence, House officials close to the investigation told TheDCNF. (RELATED: Becerra Tried To Block Awan From House Democratic Caucus Server, But Logins Continued; He Didn’t Go To Cops) Becerra has refused to comment, citing an ongoing criminal investigation. The February 2017 memo itemizes “numerous and egregious violations of House IT security” by members of the Awan family, including using Congress members’ usernames and “the unauthorized storage of sensitive House information outside the House.” “These employees accessed user accounts and computers for offices that did not employ them, without the knowledge and permission of the impacted Member’s office,” it said, adding, “4 of the employees accessed the Democratic Caucus computers 5,735 times.” More than 100 office computers were open to access from people not on the office’s staff, it said. Chris Gowen — a former aide to Hillary Clinton who is now serving as Imran’s attorney — told TheDCNF, “There is no missing server and never was.” He didn’t provide any support for his claim, which is contrary to evidence Kiko and Irving presented to Congress. The memo said the CHA possesses voluminous evidence, including, “Interview notes with House Members’ Chiefs of Staff,” and “Logon activity and computer access logs.” Prosecutors have not brought charges. The Awans were banned from Congress’s computer network the day the letter was sent, and Kiko held a briefing to convey the message to chiefs of staff for members who employed them. But Democrats claim they were never told about any of the cybersecurity issues itemized in the urgent memo. Rep. Jackie Speier — a California Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence who employed Imran and his wife, Hina Alvi — said she never heard of any missing server. Joaquin Castro of Texas — another Democratic intelligence committee member who employed one of the Awans — told TheDCNF that Kiko never told him of any cybersecurity issues whatsoever and that the Awan probe was instead described as a theft issue. Indeed, the CHA issued only one public statement on the case and titled it the “House Theft Investigation” — wording that avoids cybersecurity words while political news coverage raged about other cybersecurity issues in the 2016 election. Yet even the alleged theft has not resulted in criminal charges — even though the letter also says House authorities have “purchase orders and vouchers” that allegedly show procurement fraud, as well as testimony from a Democratic chief of staff to Rep. Yvette Clarke, who warned of procurement fraud. The FBI arrested Imran at the airport in July 2017 for alleged bank fraud that occurred six months prior, and Democrats have since claimed that the case is about nothing but bank fraud. Bank fraud does not explain why the Awans were kicked off the House network concurrent with the urgent memo, which did not cite bank fraud. A Democratic IT aide who alleged that Imran solicited a bribe from him told TheDCNF he believes members of Congress are playing dumb and covering the matter up. Wendy Anderson, a former chief of staff to New York Rep. Yvette Clarke, told House investigators that she suspected that her predecessor, Shelley Davis, was working with Abid on a theft scheme, but Clarke refused to fire Abid until outside investigators got involved, TheDCNF reported. Eighteen months after the evidence was recounted in the urgent memo, prosecution appears to have stalled for reasons not publicly explained. Imran is in court July 3 for a possible plea deal in the bank fraud case. Gohmert said the FBI has refused to accept evidence demonstrating alleged House misconduct, and some witnesses with first-hand knowledge say the bureau has not interviewed them. Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller

Asteroid Will Skim By Earth Days Before Christmas: It Is ‘Potentially Hazardous’ An asteroid called 3200 Phaethon will skim past the Earth just days before many will celebrate with Christmas festivities. The three-mile-wide asteroid is expected to miss the Earth, but it’s still labeled as “potentially hazardous,” and for good reasons. With a diameter of about 3 miles, the asteroid named 3200 Phaethon (after the Greek demi-god who, according to legend, nearly set the Earth on fire) is classified as “potentially hazardous” by the Minor Planet Center. The asteroid will pass within 6.5 million miles of the Earth, which is relatively close in space terms, but still around 27 times the distance of the moon. Much closer flybys have occurred in the very recent past. Scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory are planning to use the opportunity to obtain a detailed 3D model of the asteroid, which has a particularly irregular shape. First detected in December 2007, 3200 Phaethon is widely thought to be the parent body for the Geminid meteor shower, which is due to peak this year on the night of December 13. This would make the Geminids one of only two major meteor showers not originating from a comet; the other being the Quadrantids in January. The main difference between asteroids and comets is their composition. Asteroids are made up of metals and rocky material, while comets are made up of ice, dust and rocky material. Comets which approach the Sun lose material with each orbit because some of their ice melts and vaporizes to form a tail. But the real question is will anyone be able to see the asteroid’s close approach to our planet. According to NASA, 3200 Phaethon will be visible in small telescopes for experienced observers in areas with dark skies. It is potentially detectable for three weeks but will be at its brightest between December 11 and 21. If you don’t see the asteroid itself, be sure to look out for the Geminid meteor shower, which is set to provide a spectacular show over the course of 10 nights in December, with as many as 100 shooting stars every hour.

Pro-Sharia Democrat Congressional Candidate Ilhan Omar Defends Tweet On “Evil Doings Of Israel” Retailing these poisonous lies ought to hurt her chances for election to Congress, especially after the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre. But she is a Leftist, and the Left is increasingly anti-Semitic, so she will cruise to victory. “Dem Candidate Ilhan Omar Defending Tweet On ‘The Evil Doings Of Israel,’” by Frank Camp, Daily Wire, October 28, 2018: take our poll - story continues below Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? * Yes, military force should be used. No, keep the military out of it. Email * Name 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. On November 16, 2012, Somali-born Minnesota state Rep. Ilhan Omar (D), who’s currently running for the state’s 5th Congressional District seat, sent out the following tweet: Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel. #Gaza #Palestine #Israel In May of this year, Twitter user John Gilmore dug up the six-year-old tweet, forcing Omar to defend herself. She responded: “Drawing attention to the apartheid Israeli regime is far from hating Jews. You are a hateful sad man, I pray to Allah you get the help you need and find happiness.” Omar’s initial tweet came three days after “Palestinian terrorists in Gaza launched more than 150 rockets at Israel” from November 10-13, 2012, reports the Jewish Virtual Library. On November 14, the Israeli Air Force killed Ahmad Jabari in an air strike. Jabari, the military commander of Hamas, was allegedly responsible for, or instrumental in, multiples terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians and military personnel since the 1990s. On November 15, another terrorist-launched rocket killed three Israeli civilians. This and other rocket launches from Palestinian militants in Gaza prompted Israel to initiate Operation Pillar of Defense. According to Israel’s official New York consulate website, during the operation, “the IDF targeted over 1,500 terror sites including 19 senior command centers, operational control centers and Hamas’ senior-rank headquarters, 30 senior operatives, damaging Hamas’ command and control, hundreds of underground rocket launchers, 140 smuggling tunnels, 66 terror tunnels, dozens of Hamas operation rooms and bases, 26 weapon manufacturing and storage facilities and dozens of long-range rocket launchers and launch sites.” Omar defended herself against charges of anti-Semitism in a July interview with ABC News, saying: “These accusations are without merit. They are rooted in bigotry toward a belief about what Muslims are stereotyped to believe.” The oft-repeated notion that Israel is an “apartheid” nation is incorrect on multiple grounds. Perhaps the most succinct refutation of this idea comes from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which writes:

Swiss bishop signs statement calling Pope’s reading of Amoris Laetitia “alien” to the Catholic Faith NewsCatholic Church, Family, Marriage ROME, February 2, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) —His Excellency Marian Eleganti, auxiliary bishop of Chur in Switzerland, today added his name to the “Profession of Immutable Truths about Sacramental Marriage,” bringing the total number of signatories to eight bishops and one cardinal, LifeSite has confirmed. Bishop Eleganti’s support of the profession comes just three days after Bishop Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary of Astana, Kazakstan, invited the world’s bishops to sign the document and join in raising a common voice in defense of the sanctity and the indissolubility of marriage. “God decides the time, and the time will come when the Pope and the episcopacy again will proclaim, with all clarity, unambiguity and beauty, the sanctity of marriage, and of the family, and of the Eucharist,” Schneider told LifesiteNews in an exclusive Jan. 15 interview. Raising a Common Voice In conversation with LifeSiteNews, Schneider said greater public support of the document from the world’s 5,000 bishops would be “a stronger voice for professing the constant truths of the Church, and it would be a beautiful common voice defending the sanctity and the indissolubility of marriage in the midst of a real neo-pagan society where divorce has become a plague and where sexual depravity is increasingly spreading.” The Profession of Immutable Truths about Sacramental Marriage was issued by three Kazakh Ordinaries, including Bishop Schneider, in early January. In the document, the three bishops solemnly professed the Church’s received teaching and discipline regarding sacramental marriage and the limited conditions (see Familiaris Consortio, n. 84) under which Catholics who are divorced and “remarried” may receive sacramental absolution and Holy Communion. They presented their profession “before God who will judge us,” in response to certain pastoral norms issued by several bishops’ conferences aimed at implementing chapter 8 of Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation on the family, Amoris Laetitia. Some of these norms, Schneider told LifeSiteNews, give “implicit approval” of divorce and of sexual activity outside a valid marriage. Such a reading is causing “rampant confusion,” will spread “a plague of divorce” in the Church, and is “alien” to the Church’s entire faith and Tradition, the three bishops said in the profession. “This is contrary to Divine Revelation,” Schneider further told LifeSite, adding that the “beautiful explanations” that are being presented to clergy and faithful as “discernment” and “pastoral accompaniment,” or a “change of paradigm” and “discovery of the subjective part of the truth,” when translated into “common sense language,” are tantamount to an allowance to sin. “Our conscience as bishops calls to us to do this,” Schneider explained. “We were forced by our conscience, in the conscience of the Successors of the Apostles and colleagues of the Pope.” As Successors of the Apostles, Schneider said they “could not act in another way.” Bishop Marian Eleganti The profession’s most recent signatory, Bishop Marian Eleganti, O.S.B., is a monk of the abbey of the Missionary Benedictines in St. Otmarsberg in Uznach, located in the canton of St. Gallen, Switzerland. He was ordained to the priesthood on June 23, 1995. In July 1999, the monks of St. Otmarsberg Abbey (the youngest abbey in Switzerland) elected Eleganti the second abbot of the monastery. The Missionary Benedictines in Uznach belong to the Benedictine Congregation of St. Ottilien near Munich, with branches in Europe, East, West and South Africa, South America, Cuba and the USA, India, Korea, China, Kazakhstan and the Philippines. In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Abbot Marian Eleganti as auxiliary bishop of the diocese of Chur, Switzerland. He was ordained a bishop on Jan. 31, 2010. Since 2011, Bishop Eleganti has served as the Swiss Youth Bishop for German-speaking Switzerland on behalf of the Swiss Bishops’ Conference, and as vicar for religious and monastic communities. He is also the vicar for the philosophical-theological education and ongoing formation and training of pastoral workers. Bishop Marian Eleganti’s public support of the Profession of Immutable Truths about Sacramental Marriage brings the number of signatories to nine. To date, in addition to the three original signatories from Kazakstan, the following prelates have signed the profession: Cardinal Janis Pujats, Emeritus Archbishop Metropolitan of Riga, Latvia; Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, former apostolic nuncio to the United States; His Excellency Luigi Negri, Archbishop emeritus of Ferrara-Comacchio, Italy; Bishop Andreas Laun, Emeritus Auxiliary of Salzburg, Austria; and His Excellency Rene Gracida, Bishop emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas, USA.

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

Cardinal O’Malley will head revived Vatican abuse panel Cardinal Sean O’Malley has been reappointed as the head of a Vatican commission on child sex abuse, as Pope Francis on Saturday revived the panel in the wake of widespread condemnation last month of the pontiff’s defense of a Chilean bishop accused of witnessing and ignoring abuse. The Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors lapsed in December, when its members’ terms expired, prompting concerns that the advisory body could be disbanded. In addition to O’Malley’s return as the panel’s president, Pope Francis named seven returning members and nine new members representing countries around the world, including Brazil, the Netherlands, Ethiopia, and India, according to a statement from the Vatican. Advertisement Some members are themselves survivors of abuse, according to the statement, but they were not identified to protect their privacy. Get Fast Forward in your inbox: Forget yesterday's news. Get what you need today in this early-morning email. Sign Up Thank you for signing up! Sign up for more newsletters here O’Malley, the archbishop of Boston, said in the statement that the pope had “given much prayerful consideration” to the membership of the panel. “The newly appointed members will add to the Commission’s global perspective in the protection of minors and vulnerable adults,” he said. “The Holy Father has ensured continuity in the work of our Commission, which is to assist local churches throughout the world in their efforts to safeguard all children, young people, and vulnerable adults from harm.” Local survivors of abuse greeted the announcement warily, hopeful that there could be positive change in the church but saying the panel accomplished little under its first three-year mandate. “The objectives of the commission when it was first announced, when it was just getting started. . . were never fulfilled,” said Phil Saviano, an abuse survivor who founded the New England chapter of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. Advertisement Saviano said the commission is “a good idea,” and added, “I’m not particularly optimistic that much will get accomplished, but a commission is better than no commission.” Given his long experience witnessing the church’s inertia on the issue, Saviano said, he has set his expectations at rock bottom. “That’s kind of my attitude now: If I don’t expect the Catholic Church to do anything, then I won’t be too disappointed when they don’t do anything,” he continued. Jim Scanlan, another survivor, said “the timing of it is too perfect” given the controversy last month surrounding Pope Francis’s remarks that accused victims of a notorious Chilean pedophile priest, the Rev. Fernando Karadima, of “slander” against Bishop Juan Barros, who the victims say was complicit in a cover up. The pope said he had seen no proof of Barros’s guilt, but the Associated Press reported that O’Malley and other members of the commission had in 2015 hand-delivered to him an eight-page letter from a survivor that graphically detailed his abuse and said Barros and other clergy had witnessed him being fondled but had not intervened. Advertisement Scanlan said his reaction to hearing that Francis has revived the commission was “hopeful but cynical.” Like Saviano, he said the panel accomplished little in its first incarnation. “My expectation is it will probably have the same outcome, because the church is the church, and they do it for appearance, but they’re still going to go by their own rules,” he said. “I’ve seen little that has changed.” Scanlan said Pope Francis has given him hope for progress on some issues in the church, but on sexual abuse, he “continues to be blind to what the church has done.” Last month, O’Malley denounced the pope’s controversial defense of the Chilean bishop. Despite distancing himself from Pope Francis’s comments, O’Malley said that he has witnessed the pontiff’s genuine compassion for abuse victims. “The Pope’s statements that there is no place in the life of the Church for those who would abuse children and that we must adhere to zero tolerance for these crimes are genuine,” O’Malley said, “and they are his commitment.” Jeremy C. Fox can be reached at jeremy.fox@globe.com

J Street "Kapos" May Un-Endorse Dem Rep Over "Jewish Question" Anti-Israel activist group J Street was very outraged when its leaders were described as "Kapos". The comparison of the Soros funded group that has stood with Hamas over Israel with Jews who were forced to collaborate with the Nazis during the Holocaust was indeed insulting. To Kapos. Jews under Nazi rule may have been forced to collaborate. No one forced J Street to collaborate with anti-Semites. And here's J Street trying to decide whether to stop endorsing a Democrat who pals around with Farrakhan and defended him by mentioning the "Jewish question." Democratic Illinois Rep. Danny Davis defended Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan as an “outstanding human being” on Monday. Farrakhan’s history of racially extreme comments includes blaming Jews for the September 11 attacks, saying white people “deserve to die” and praising Adolf Hitler as a “very great man.” “I personally know [Farrakhan], I’ve been to his home, done meetings, participated in events with him,” Davis told TheDC. The congressman wasn’t sure why the ADL wrote that he had been misquoted in his praise for the anti-Semite, and said he wasn’t sure if someone from his office had told the ADL he was misquoted, he told The Daily Caller News Foundation on Sunday. “I think that was what they wanted to write. Nah, I don’t have no problems with Farrakhan, I don’t spend a whole lot of my time dealing with those kind of things,” Davis said. “That’s just one segment of what goes on in our world. The world is so much bigger than Farrakhan and the Jewish question and his position on that and so forth. For those heavy into it, that’s their thing, but it ain’t my thing,” he said The "Jewish Question" is a term generally used by anti-Semites today. But J Street is stuck with its own Jewish Question. How much anti-Semitism is too much even for it. Left-wing advocacy group J Street said it is re-evaluating its endorsement of a congressman who praised Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. JStreetPAC, the arm of the NGO that funds and endorses candidates, currently lists Rep. Danny Davis, an Illinois Democrat from the virulently anti-Semitic Farrakhan’s home base of Chicago, as a candidate it supports. The endorsement, first reported in the Forward, calls Davis “a longtime supporter of Israel and a two-state solution.” In J Street's home dimension of Oceania, supporter of Israel means Farrakhan supporter. “We take anti-Semitism quite seriously,” J Street’s statement read. “We are currently in conversation with Representative Davis’ office about this issue. We will get back to you shortly with a more extensive response.” So seriously that J Street can't decide what to do about a politician who defends a Hitler-lover and raises the Jewish Question. That's serious all right. Seriously Kapo.

Here We Go Again - Leaked Documents: White House Planning Regime Change In Iran Don't say you were not warned, America. Apparently, the US didn't learn from its first dealings in regime change decades ago and is now prepared to give it another shot, according to leaked documents. Don't get me wrong here. I'm not for the government of Iran. I despise Islam and I despise the ideology of Muhammad and his devout followers. Overall, the people of Iran are probably some decent people, but those in leadership have issues, but that is something for the people there to deal with. Iran is not an actual threat to the united States. However, the US seems hell-bent on continuing to put its nose into other countries politics, including seeking to change its government while hypocritically pointing at other countries for trying to manipulate our own political system. 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. The Washington Free Beacon reports: The Trump administration is examining a new plan to help Iranians fighting the hardline regime in Iran following America's exit from the landmark nuclear deal and reimposition of harsh economic sanctions that could topple a regime already beset by protests and a crashing economy, according to a copy of the plan obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. The three-page white paper being circulated among National Security Council officials in the White House offers a strategy by which the Trump administration can actively work to assist an already aggravated Iranian public topple the hardline ruling regime through a democratization strategy that focuses on driving a deeper wedge between the Iranian people and the ruling 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 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. 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. Ah, yes, John Bolton. While I applaud Bolton for his willingness to call Islamic jihadis just that, I am not so naive as to consider that his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations has no effect in this decision. "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." Well, why is that? It's due to sanctions imposed by the likes of the US. As has been pointed out before, sanctions hurt the people, not the governments that lead them and then those same governments use the effects to propagandize the people against those who are ordering the sanctions. I'm not saying the Iranian government is good, but it is Iran's government. Honestly, I see a ton of corruption and warmongering in our own government that rivals some of that of governments that America stands against. Still, as was pointed out by Matt Agorist, Bolton told an audience of the Grand Gathering of Iranians for Free Iran: “There is a viable opposition to the rule of the ayatollahs, and that opposition is centered in this room today. I had said for over 10 years since coming to these events, that the declared policy of the United States of America should be the overthrow of the mullahs’ regime in Tehran. The behavior and the objectives of the regime are not going to change, and therefore the only solution is to change the regime itself. And that’s why, before 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran!” And again, this really has nothing to do with the US. 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 told 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.” OK, I get they may pose a danger, but let's look at the reality here. Those they pose a danger to, namely Saudi Arabia and Israel can both fend perfectly well for themselves and have demonstrated that ability to do it. There is no need for the US to be involved in it in any way. Why should we be fighting a battle or encouraging, funding, and I'm quite sure arming, a rebellion? Where is that authorized in our Constitution? Simple. It isn't. I care little for the Saudi government as they help push Sharia and is the land where many of the 9-11 hijackers came from. The Iranian government I care for even less, but out of each of those, which one should America have dealt with militarily following 9-11? Both, if you're going to go by information that we have a record on. Why can't America focus on it's own issues and solve those? It's because we are too busy trying to police the world, keeping the spotlight off of those in our government who are attacking our rights and spending us into more and more debt. And lest you think this is about the nuclear deal. It isn't. “The problem is not the Iran nuclear deal it’s the Iranian regime,” the source told the Beacon. “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.” Bolton says it will be accomplished in the next six months. I don't doubt it. This will probably end up being another Ukraine situation, something we just don't need to be in, and yes, I know, I'll be called a liberal but honest readers who have followed me for some time know that's not the case. Notice some things that are taking place in Iran that the plan speaks about. “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.” “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.” President Trump did made clear earlier in the week that we must make efforts to differentiate between the people of Iran and its ruling regime. Well, I agree, but that gets real messy when you start intervening in this manner. “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.” But the Trump administration has spoken out on other countries where the people want their independence. Remember the Kurds? How about the people in the Catalan region of Spain? No support for those people, and why? Cause it's not part of the agenda. I say if the Iranian people want their freedom, let them first free themselves from the bondage of Islam, and then let the passion that burns inside men to be free rise up as it did in our forefathers due to the teachings fo the Holy Scriptures and stand and fight. Then, they will be in a position to ask for aid, but only then.

The Obama Era Jade Helm Connection To The Current Illegal Immigration Policy On the surface, the latest illegal immigration debate between Leftists and the Administration looks like, yet another issue Progressives are trying to undermine progress being done by the president. No one should be surprised by the crackdown on illegals entering the country, especially since it was one of the major campaign promises Donald Trump made before getting elected. When it comes to the separation of children from their families, there is nothing new today that was not being done during the Obama reign. In 2013, Obama began bringing into the US literally over a hundred thousand people, mainly below age 21. They were bused, flown, and met at the US border with Mexico by the Department of Homeland Security under the direction of Obama to do so. Since most of them were adolescents and older teenagers they could not be set free, thus Obama ordered various military bases to house these children. 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 * Comments 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. The surge of children into the US from various countries south of the border was said to be the result of economics, high crime rates, and actual threats from organized crime entities. Another excuse used by the Obama government was to bring them here to find their families already in the US. Thus, the idea that separating children from their parents as being something new, done only by the Trump Administration is absurd, since we really have no idea whether the children brought here during the Obama reign were intentionally separated from their parents by the US government at that time, or not. We have only what little information the government told us then, which was not very much, considering the fact that Obama wanted to keep as much of this situation as secret as possible. What many do not realize is, today's policy of separating underage siblings from their parents once they cross the border illegally into the US seems to be a planned event by the US government going all the way back to the domestic military exercises known as Jade Helm in 2015. Many remember the military taking over several Walmart locations, mainly in Texas, during the Jade Helm exercises. This, along with the federal government grab of millions of acres of land during the Obama years, speaks volumes in the government's plan to be able to handle millions of people. Since Obama planned to have over a million Muslim refugees brought into the US over a short period of time, along with the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants coming in, one can understand the reason the Feds had to have the Walmart stores and so much land, as they needed housing for the millions they planned to bring in. Despite President Trump signing an Executive Order suspending Syrian refugees from entering the US for 120 days on Jan. 26, 2017 while security measures were reviewed, the US still imported 110,000 refugees from Syria and various other countries into the US in 2017 alone, up from 85,000 the previous year. These numbers follow Obama's projections of the expected amount of refugees permitted to come to the US. Of course, as with the number of illegal immigrants entering our county, the Feds downplay the actual number which always ends up to be more than quadruple their stated number. What we seem to have here with the illegal immigration situation today is some very good actors on the Left accusing the Trump Administration of being cruel and insensitive with separating children from their families once they cross the Mexican border into the US. When in fact, their idol, Obama did the same thing for years during his time in power. What they do not want to admit to is the fact that today's illegal immigration picture is one that follows the Obama plan on dealing with the influx of illegals to a carbon copy. President Trump, on the other hand, is following along with it by detaining illegal immigrants at the border and separating children from their apparent families. Since no one can know if the children really belong to the illegals who say they are their parents, they are separated until that can be verified, along with other background findings. The bottom line is, both the Left and the Trump Administration seem to be following along with a plan of action going back to Jade Helm which paved the way for the housing needed for such a huge influx of illegal immigrants and refugees. All of which seems to be a planned event. In any case, neither side in DC is really interested in solving the illegal immigration problem or cares about the children involved. If they were, there would be no detention and separation after illegally coming into the US, only an immediate deportation by US Border Patrol on the spot.

Exposing the Deep State Plotters President Trump’s sweeping order this week directing intelligence agencies to declassify documents from the more than 18-month-old investigation related to the Left’s electoral collusion conspiracy theory involving Trump and Russia may shed light on what really happened in the 2016 election. In an interview with Hill.TV yesterday, the president said he ordered the mass declassification to show the public that the FBI investigation of the conspiracy theory began as a “hoax.” Exposing it could be one of the “crowning achievements” of his presidency, he said. “What we’ve done is a great service to the country, really,” he said. “I hope to be able to call this, along with tax cuts and regulation and all the things I’ve done… in its own way this might be the most important thing because this was corrupt.” Trump criticized how the FBI handled the Russia probe, accusing it of misleading the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, and of spying on his campaign. “They know this is one of the great scandals in the history of our country because basically what they did is, they used [former Trump campaign aide] Carter Page, who nobody even knew, who I feel very badly for, I think he’s been treated very badly. They used Carter Page as a foil in order to surveil a candidate for the presidency of the United States.” “It’s a hoax, beyond a witch hunt,” Trump said. The documents affected involve a FISA warrant against Carter Page and text messages from disgraced ex-FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. (Carter Page is not related to Lisa Page.) Although the conspiracy theory is baseless nonsense, it continues to dog the Trump administration, providing cable television news outlets and late-night talk show hosts with endless fodder in the 24-hour news cycle. When Trump defenders have fought back, social media companies have colluded with the Left to silence and intimidate them. This declassification effort won’t make things any worse than they are for President Trump. It may even prove a political masterstroke of sorts for Trump. How else does one fight back against the nameless, faceless bureaucrats of the Deep State who hide behind anonymity to undermine the duly elected 45th president of the United States? Make the documents public and let the chips fall where they may. There is so much leftist dirt to uncover. For example, it was established some time ago that former President Obama was involved on some level in this shameful un-American plot to rig the 2016 election and undermine his successor by using the privacy-invading apparatus of the state. Obama wanted “to know everything” the FBI was doing in its investigation into claims that Russia was interfering in the 2016 election. Specifically, the statement that Obama wanted “to know everything we’re doing” came in a private Sept. 2, 2016, text message from FBI lawyer Lisa Page to FBI agent Peter Strzok, with whom she was having an extramarital affair at the time. (The exact message, time-stamped 1:50 p.m., reads "Yes, bc potus wants to know everything we are doing.") In a separate text message to Page, Strzok wrote something cryptic about an “insurance policy” in case Donald Trump got elected. Apparently, he was referring to the salacious, unverified dossier Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid rent-a-spy Christopher Steele to compile that purports to show Trump’s nefarious links to Russia. President Trump ordered that the relevant documents be released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Justice Department “[a]t the request of a number of committees of Congress, and for reasons of transparency,” read a statement issued by White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Trump ordered the “immediate declassification” of “pages 10-12 and 17-34 of the June 2017 application to the FISA court in the matter of Carter W. Page,” “all FBI reports of interviews with Bruce G. Ohr prepared in connection with the Russia investigation,” and “all FBI reports of interviews prepared in connection with all Carter Page FISA applications.” Trump also ordered the “the Department of Justice (including the FBI) to publicly release all text messages relating to the Russia investigation, without redaction, of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Bruce Ohr.” The chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Devin Nunes (R -Calif.), reportedly hailed Trump’s order, saying it covers “pretty much everything that he wanted … and the text messages are a bonus.” A handful of Democratic lawmakers alarmed at the prospect of being exposed as frauds and publicly humiliated wrote Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and FBI Director Christopher Wray on Tuesday. The letter, which is an attempt to usurp the powers vested in the president, asks the three agencies to defy the presidential directive. "Your agencies' review, and any communication with the White House on the substance of the material, should not proceed further until you have briefed the Gang of Eight in person." It claims that Trump’s declassification request constitutes improper intervention “in an ongoing law enforcement investigation that may implicate the President himself or those around him.” The authors of the letter even lie about the nature of the broad-based request, claiming Trump is selectively declassifying information to save himself. “The action he has taken, to direct your agencies to selectively disclose classified information that he believes he can manipulate publicly to undermine the legitimacy and credibility of the Special Counsel’s [Robert Mueller] investigation, is a brazen abuse of power.” The missive is signed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who is vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who is ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Intelligence agencies have already reportedly begun working to carry out the president’s orders and the first set of documents could be made public in a few days. “When the President issues such an order, it triggers a declassification review process that is conducted by various agencies within the intelligence community, in conjunction with the White House Counsel, to seek to ensure the safety of America’s national security interests,” a Justice Department official told Fox News. “The Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are already working with the Director of National Intelligence to comply with the President’s order.” Coats spokeswoman Kellie Wade also said that the agency was “working expeditiously with our interagency partners to conduct a declassification review of the documents the President has identified for declassification.” According to Fox News: The documents include all FBI reports on interviews, also known as 302s, with Justice Department official Bruce Ohr and all FBI reports of interviews prepared in connection with applications to surveil Carter Page, as well as 21 pages of one renewed warrant. The 21 pages make up only a small portion of the 412 pages of FISA applications and warrants related to Page released by the FBI earlier this year in a heavily redacted format. The June 2017 application was the last of four filed by the Justice Department in support of FISA court orders allowing the monitoring of Page for nearly a year. In comments to reporters and on Twitter, President Trump has been blasting Strzok and Page for months over their inappropriate behavior. Ditto for former FBI Director James Comey and one of his deputies, Andrew McCabe. Trump fired Comey in May 2017 and Attorney General Jeff Sessions canned McCabe in March. Page left the FBI in May and Strzok got the axe last month. That means there are still thousands of unaccountable Deep State operatives in the Trump administration that have yet to be dealt with.

Homeschooling Protects Children from Violence and Marxism The February mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida prompted many parents to consider homeschooling. This is hardly surprising, as the misnamed federal “Gun-Free Schools” law leaves schoolchildren defenseless against mass shooters. Removing one’s children from government schools seems a rational response to school shootings. School shootings are not the only form of violence causing more parents to consider homeschooling. Many potential homeschooling parents are concerned about the failure of school administrators to effectively protect children from bullying by other students. Of course, many parents choose homeschooling as a means of protecting their children from federal education “reforms” such as Common Core. Other parents are motivated by a desire to protect their children from the cultural Marxism that has infiltrated many schools. 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. The spread of cultural Marxism has contributed to the dumbing down of public education. Too many government schools are more concerned with promoting political correctness than ensuring that students receive a good education. Even if cultural Marxism did not dumb down education, concerns that government schools are indoctrinating children with beliefs that conflict with parents’ political, social, and even religious beliefs would motivate many families to homeschool. Even when government schools are not intentionally promoting cultural Marxism or other left-wing ideologies, they are still implicitly biased toward big government. For example, how many government schools teach the Austrian economics explanation for the Great Depression — much less question the wisdom of central banking — or critically examine the justifications for America’s hyper-interventionist foreign policy? Parents interested in providing their children with a quality education emphasizing the ideas of liberty should consider looking into my homeschooling curriculum. The Ron Paul Curriculum provides students with a well-rounded education that includes rigorous programs in history, mathematics, and the physical and natural sciences. The curriculum also provides instruction in personal finance. Students can develop superior oral and verbal communication skills via intensive writing and public speaking courses. Another feature of my curriculum is that it provides students the opportunity to create and run their own internet businesses. The government and history sections of the curriculum emphasize Austrian economics, libertarian political theory, and the history of liberty. However, unlike government schools, my curriculum never puts ideological indoctrination ahead of education. While government schools — and even many private schools — pretend religion played no significant role in history, my curriculum addresses the crucial role religion played in the development of Western civilization. However, the materials are drafted in such a way that any Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or atheist parent can feel comfortable using the curriculum. Interactive forums allow students to engage with and learn from each other. The forums ensure students are actively engaged in their education as well as give them an opportunity to interact with their peers outside of a formal setting. Concern about the safety of students in government-run schools is one reason many parents are considering homeschooling, but it is not the only reason. Many parents are motivated by a desire to give their children something better than a curriculum that has been dumbed down by federal initiatives like Common Core. Other parents do not wish to have their children indoctrinated with views that contradict the parents’ political, social, or even religious beliefs. I encourage all parents looking at alternatives to government schools —alternatives that provide children with a well-rounded education that introduces them to the history and ideas of liberty — to go to RonPaulCurriculum.com for more information about my homeschooling program. Article posted with permission from Ron Paul

A colossal Neptunian storm just vanished before our eyes You don’t have to look far for fresh news about Mars, Saturn, or Jupiter these days, but Neptune doesn’t always get the same kind of attention. The big frigid blue ball is the farthest planet from the Sun — since we don’t count Pluto as a planet anymore — and it hasn’t been studied with the same intensity of many of the others. Thankfully the Hubble Space Telescope hasn’t lost interest in the distant planet, because it just captured one of Neptunes massive storms losing steam as it roars across the planet. Storms on Neptune appear as giant dark ovals, a bit like Jupiter’s Great Red Spot. However, unlike Jupiter’s centuries-old storm, Neptune’s hurricane-like weather events only last a few years at a time before eventually dissipating. Of course, that’s not to say the storms are insignificant — many are large enough to swallow and entire continent here on Earth — so watching one breathe its dying gasps is still a special sight. The planet, which NASA says is the windiest in our Solar System, hosts regular storms which appear as large spots on its surface, but scientists are still at a loss as to how they actually occur. “We have no evidence of how these vortices are formed or how fast they rotate,” Agustín Sánchez-Lavega of the University of the Basque Country in Spain explains. “It is most likely that they arise from an instability in the sheared eastward and westward winds.” The observation of this particular storm dying out is significant because it’s the very first time one of Neptune’s storms has been observed in such a way. It also goes against everything that scientists thought they knew about how forms on Neptune live and die. “It looks like we’re capturing the demise of this dark vortex, and it’s different from what well-known studies led us to expect,” said Michael H. Wong of the University of California at Berkeley says. “Their dynamical simulations said that anticyclones under Neptune’s wind shear would probably drift toward the equator. We thought that once the vortex got too close to the equator, it would break up and perhaps create a spectacular outburst of cloud activity.” But this storm stayed its course, dying out in a horizontal path that didn’t bring it towards the Neptunian equator at all, forcing scientists to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new theory on the planet’s weather habits.

Stop Appeasing the Democrats Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. From the playground to geopolitics, appeasing an aggressor invites only more aggression. This timeless truth of human nature is one that we moderns can’t seem to accept. We reflexively assume that a rational accommodation or concessions will be reciprocated by those proven to be ready to use any means necessary to achieve their aims, no matter how amoral, unfair, or vicious. Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court illustrate that this false assumption leads only to more demands, and ultimately to defeat. The last-minute accusations from Christine Blasey Ford, a woman who claims that decades ago Kavanaugh groped her at a high school party, and Deborah Ramirez, who accused Kavanaugh of exposing himself to her at a frat party at Yale, are transparent acts of aggression against the judge and Republicans, one engineered by the Democrats. Senator Dianne Feinstein sat for months on Ford’s letter and then––just as the Dems did in 1991with Anita Hill’s charges of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas’s during his hearings––released it only when Kavanaugh appeared to be heading for confirmation. Feinstein still hasn’t given the Judiciary Committee an unredacted copy of the letter. A few weeks after Ford went public, and after Kavanaugh said he had dairies from that summer detailing his whereabouts, The New Yorker published Ramirez’s account of a drunken party filled with obscene drinking games where he exposed himself to Ramirez. Given that the Democrats had made public in advance their intention to derail the hearings and confirmation by any means possible, the timing of both sexual assault charges reeks of premeditated contrivance intended to delay confirmation as long as possible. But in the face of this naked ploy to bork Kavanaugh and derail the confirmation process for partisan advantage, the Republicans seem to be reverting to their customary preemptive cringe. All the Dems have to do is squeal “sexism” and Republicans start negotiating and offering concessions. Of course, after each concession comes another demand. First the Dems demanded that Ford, a long-time Democrat activist, “be heard.” So last week the Chairman of Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, granted another deadline extension for Ford to decide whether to testify before the Committee on Monday. Senator Dianne Feinstein calls these concessions “bullying deadlines.” As Feinstein put it, “Show some heart. Wait until Dr. Ford feels that she can come before the committee.” Ford doesn’t “feel” like she can testify on Monday because she’s afraid of flying, despite offers from the Committee to travel to her in California. Then she feared for her life because of death threats ––threats also made to Kavanaugh, his wife and two young daughters–– so she now demands enhanced security measures. The Committee caved and moved the date to Thursday. So of course, Grassley having been intimidated into giving Ford a chance to address the Committee, Ramirez and her handlers are now demanding the same privilege. “Creepy Lawyer” for porn star Stormy Daniels claims to represent a woman who also should be allowed to testify to the Senate Committee about Kavanaugh’s partying habits while at Yale. We’ll have to see whether Grassley can find the stomach to put an end to the farce of allowing unsubstantiated charges from Democrat activists to waste the Committee’s time. Ford and Dianne Feinstein also keep demanding an FBI investigation, even though no federal crime is being alleged, and any investigation 36 years after the offense is impossible. Ford can’t remember where and when the alleged assault took place, nor how she got to or went home from the party where it allegedly occurred. Her own details of the event don’t jibe (Four boys or three? One girl or two?). She told no one about the assault until 30 years later. A “lifelong friend” whom Ford claims was at the party has denied any knowledge of the it, and says she’s never met Kavanaugh. Another friend who reported that the school was abuzz with gossip about the attack (which apparently took place during summer break), retracted her statement. The two men Ford named as possible witnesses to the assault have contradicter her claims under oath. And the accused Judge Kavanaugh also under oath vehemently denies the charges. Given that 36 years have passed since the incident, and the accuser’s memory is so hazy and short on coherent details, the FBI has nothing to investigate. Ramirez’s charge is even flimsier. Here’s a catalogue from the Daily Wire: 1. The New Yorker could not find a single witness who could put Kavanaugh at the alleged party. 2. The New York Times could not find a single person who could corroborate Ramirez’s claims. 3. The man accused of egging on Kavanaugh denied Ramirez's allegations and vouched for Kavanaugh’s character. 4. A third person that Ramirez claimed was at the party says she was not there for the alleged incident. 5. Ramirez contacted her former classmates, asking about the incident, and admitted she was not sure that Kavanaugh was the male who exposed himself. 6. A woman who claims she was “best friends” with Ramirez says Ramirez never mentioned the story and initially said her friend's accusations against Kavanaugh might be “politically motivated.” 7. Ramirez, just like Christine Blasey Ford, is a registered Democrat and is dedicated to leftist causes. 8. Ramirez wasn’t even sure her memory was correct — until she spent six days going over it with her Democrat lawyer. 9. Ramirez admits there are holes in her memory due to how much she drank at the party. 10. People who knew Ramirez after her time at Yale say that she never once mentioned the incident — until Kavanaugh's nomination was pending. No law enforcement agency, let alone the FBI, would waste its time with an allegation of a crime decades in the past, and so patently incoherent and lacking in evidence. The “FBI investigation” is another delaying tactic. Ford has finally agreed to testify, set for Thursday for now. But it’s unclear whether Grassley has granted Ford any of her preposterous conditions for testifying: She will take questions from the Committee, but not from outside lawyers, who might not be as gentle as politicians with one eye on the polls. Only one camera can be in the room. Kavanaugh must testify first, a grotesque inversion of our bedrock principle that an accused has the right to confront his accuser’s charges. He can’t be in the room with her, apparently because she’s still traumatized and may start experiencing flashbacks. So much for “I am woman, hear me roar.” Grassley shouldn’t cave on these conditions. They all comprise the old tactic of serially escalating demands that cannot be satisfied in order to compel your enemy to give in. That Grassley and the Republicans would even participate in this absurd show trial is testimony to how deeply the progressive ideological narrative has burrowed into our social and political life. If Ford actually testifies on Thursday, or Ramirez is granted the same concession, nothing material will be gained. Her accusation will not be proved true or false. We will learn nothing about Kavanaugh that makes him any less eminently qualified for the Supreme Court, nothing that can add to the thousands of pages of documents already presented to the Committee, or the hundreds of hours of the judge’s testimony before rabid partisans and office-seekers. But vetting Kavanaugh’s qualifications isn’t the point. The point is to delay confirmation by slandering Kavanaugh and baiting the Republicans into appearing to abuse victims of sexual assault. Why? Facing his likely confirmation, the Dems, egged on by the mainstream media––especially The New Yorker, which published a story too badly sourced even for The New York Times–– are desperately attempting to obstruct and delay the process until after the midterm elections, when they hope they will retake the Senate and thus stop any more Constitutionalist judges from being confirmed to the Court for the rest of Trump’s term. The Democrats have stooped so low with these smears because they know the stakes. The courts and especially the Supreme Court have been critical to the progressives’ program since Woodrow Wilson. The biggest obstacle to the progressive dream of government controlled and managed by a technocratic oligarchy has been the Constitution. Its divided and balanced powers were designed precisely to rein in overreaching ambition and concentrations of power. Hence the Constitutional order must be subverted by the Supreme Court and its unaccountable justices enjoying lifelong tenure. But if Kavanaugh is confirmed, there will be five reliably Constitutionalist justices on the bench, who are unlikely to tolerate judicial usurpation of Congress’s law-making powers. That’s why this current nomination is a hill the Dems are willing to beclown themselves on. Given how obviously partisan and hypocritical this ploy is––doesn’t Keith Ellison’s accuser deserve to be heard and believed too? ––why has Grassley so far allowed himself to be played by the Dems? Because Republicans fear the backlash from all those women voters who presumably agree with the fundamentalist feminists, and insist that every accusation of sexual assault, no matter how much it’s unsupported by corroborating evidence or even plausibility, must be believed. This contention itself is an expression of the radical feminist narrative of innate male feral sexuality that makes them sexual predators. The irony is that today’s feminists have been willing to sacrifice the earlier narrative of female power and agency that had been stifled by traditional views of the sexes and their capabilities. Instead, now women are Victorian hothouse flowers too delicate to make their way through their lives without the paternal federal government protecting them with its coercive power. Women have exchanged one form of dependence, and one double standard for another. The Dems are using Ford and Ramirez as part of the Democrats’ transparently dishonest delaying tactics because they know that most Republicans have accepted this duplicitous feminist narrative and fear challenging it. Especially after the recent spate of sexual assault charges––many of them true, some false, others contested–– politicians consider bucking the narrative to be as politically suicidal as proposing to reform Social Security and Medicare. It’s the new third rail of American politics, one that transcends party affiliation. Hence the widespread virtue-signaling on the part even of conservative writers who preface their comments about Ford and Ramirez with prologues full of truisms about how horrible sexual assault is, how its self-proclaimed victims “must be heard,” and how churlish and sexist it is to question the truth of any charge. Grown-ups know all that and don’t have to be reminded every time the subject arises. The Dems know that most Republicans come to this conflict with the huge disadvantage that results from accepting your opponent’s dubious ideology and dishonest narrative. The progressive party can dare the Republicans to ignore the endless specious demands, stop the show-trial, and proceed to a vote on Kavanaugh, because they know the Republicans, fearful of the “optics,” will cave. They know that the eleven male Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee dread the #MeToo movement casting them as knuckle-dragging Neanderthal sexists who want to “silence” the accuser with their “cavalier treatment of a sexual assault survivor,” as one Ford lawyer has said. Republicans still don’t get that no amount of appeasement will stop the left from demonizing them anyway. Just ask Boy Scout Mitt Romney, who was savaged for his innocuous “binders full of women.” And don’t forget, the old sorta, kinda moderate Democrats like Feinstein and Chuck Schumer, who now have joined the crowd of trendoid socialists armed with torches and pitch-forks, will go along because they’re frightened of their party’s increasingly rabid left-wing base. What can we do to end these confirmation circuses? Just stop holding them. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the Senate’s power to give “advice and consent” to the president regarding his nominee must entail days of televised hearings replete with caterwauling protestors and grandstanding Senators who’ve already made-up their minds. Invite written questions from the Senate, then schedule one day for the nominee to respond. Don’t put it on television, but make public a written transcript. Remove the television cameras, and attention-craving, politically ambitious Senators will be gone like a cool breeze. For now, Grassley needs to end this farce if Ford doesn’t show up on Thursday or continues to negotiate for more delays and concessions. No more concessions. No more delays. No more ceding control of the process to Democrat Party lawyers. Don’t give Ramirez the time of day. Hold the vote no later than Thursday, or Friday if Ford does show up. Make Senators go on the record with their votes, and hold them to account in November. Put to the test the Dems’ claims that a critical mass of women, many of them with sons they don’t want falsely accused, believes the fundamentalist feminist narrative and will vote accordingly. To borrow Churchill’s definition of appeasement, stop feeding the alligator in the hopes that you will be eaten last. For fifty years the Democrats have proven they will demonize conservatives as racist and sexist no matter how often they bow and scrape. How about acting on principle for a change and shoot the alligator.

Israel Takes On the Shia Crescent Despite Israel's repeated warnings, Barack Obama's reckless appeasement of the Iranian regime has enabled its rise as a hegemonic threat in the Middle East region as well as a threat to international peace and security. In 2009, Obama turned his back on millions of dissidents in the streets of Tehran and other Iranian cities, who were peacefully protesting the rigged election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president. In 2011, Obama precipitously removed the remaining U.S. combat troops from Iraq, giving rise to ISIS’s re-emergence in Iraq from its bases in Syria. The radical Shiite Iranian regime purported to come to the “rescue” of both countries from the Sunni terrorists, turning Iraq into a virtual vassal state of the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the process. Obama's disastrous nuclear deal with Iran legitimized Iran's path to eventually becoming a nuclear-armed state, while immediately filling its coffers with billions of dollars to fund its aggression. Meanwhile, Syria has become ground zero for Iran's execution of its regional ambitions, which is to establish its Shiite Crescent connecting with its allies, including Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. This plan has included the establishment of a land route that Iranian-backed militias secured in June, beginning on Iran’s border with Iraq and running across Iraq and Syria all the way to Syria’s Mediterranean coast. This road makes Iran’s job easier in supplying arms by land, as well as by air and sea, to prop up Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime and to equip Iran’s own forces fighting inside of Syria in support of Assad. This helps explain why Iran has placed so much importance on helping the Syrian regime establish control over the Deir ez-Zor area in eastern Syria, near the Iraqi border. “Everything depends now on the Americans’ willingness to stop this,” said an Iraqi Kurdish official who was quoted in a New Yorker article. However, U.S.-led coalition forces apparently have done next to nothing to stop this major advance in Iran’s Shiite Crescent expansion. “Obama ran down our options in Syria so thoroughly, by the time this administration took over,” said Andrew Tabler, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “The Iranian influence is spreading because they are so heavily involved in regime activities,” Tabler added. “It’s a new monster.” Furthermore, Iran has funded and armed its terrorist proxy Hezbollah, which has sent its militia from its home base of Lebanon to fight alongside Assad's forces. And Iran has used Syria as a transit point for shipment of sophisticated rockets to Hezbollah in Lebanon for future use against Israeli population centers. Despite the fact that Hezbollah has American blood on its hands, the U.S.-led coalition has chosen not to do anything about Hezbollah’s presence in Syria, bought and paid for by Iran. While Israel chose not to take sides in Syria's civil war with military intervention of its own, it has bombed weapons storage facilities and convoys inside Syria for its own protection. Just recently, on September 7th, Israeli jets struck a Syrian weapons facility near Masyaf, which was reported to have been used for the production of chemical weapons and the storage of missiles. Israel will also do what is necessary to repel Iranian-backed forces if they edge too close to areas near the Golan Heights, shrinking the buffer between Israel and Iranian controlled territories. However, such tactical measures may not be enough to thwart Iran’s larger ambitions. In light of intelligence reports that Assad may be ready to invite Iran to set up military bases in Syria, Israeli leaders have concluded that they cannot wait until the Trump administration decides to deal more forcefully with Iran's growing use of Syria as a staging area for carrying out its expansionist Shiite Crescent strategy. “Their overriding concern in Syria is the free reign that all the major players there seem willing to afford Iran and its various proxies in the country,” wrote Jonathan Spyer in an article for Foreign Policy. As long as nobody else is addressing the concern Iran’s growing control raises in a satisfactory manner, “Israel is determined to continue addressing it on its own.” At least, Israel has a more sympathetic ear in the Trump administration than it did in the Obama administration for raising its concerns about Iran’s growing threat, not only to Israel but to U.S. interests in the region and beyond. President Trump’s sharp denunciation of the Iranian regime during his address to the UN General Assembly represented a welcome departure from the Obama administration’s milquetoast approach to Iran. As the U.S.-led coalition continues to drive ISIS from its bases of operation in Syria, the Trump administration has proclaimed its intention not to allow Iran to turn Syria into its own satellite, as Iran has essentially done in Iraq. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster said that the “so called liberation of areas by Assad’s forces and Iranian proxies could actually accelerate the cycle of violence and perpetuate conflict rather than get us to a sustainable outcome.” He claimed that the Trump administration’s “objectives are to weaken Iranian influence across the region broadly,” without discussing the means to accomplish those objectives. Whether the Trump administration follows through remains to be seen. In the meantime, Israel will have to deal with the fallout of Iran’s ambitions in Syria itself.

Deep State Insurrection Defying POTUS Trump’s Order Deep State officials like ex-CIA chief John Brennan are in panic mode. Deep State DOJ tool Rod Rosenstein refuses to comply with Trump’s executive order as afforded him by the US Constitution. Establishment Democrats are all over the mainstream media channels calling the act of releasing documents criminal. The US President wants every American citizen to see the full, unredacted version of the FISA documents used to spy on Carter Page. Trump is simply asking for full transparency, in what has become a two year, multi-million dollar witch hunt, to find collusion where there is none. This is all you need to know about the hoax that was and is Trump-Russia collusion and the Robert Mueller special counsel investigation. The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the insurrection taking place at the US Department of Justice, as Democrats, ex-Obama officials, and DOJ directors are doing everything in their power to make sure the truth, about how the FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page was obtained, remains hidden from the eyes of the American public.  Via Zerohedge… Despite President Trump’s Monday order for the “immediate declassification” of sensitive materials related to the Russia investigation, “without redaction,” the agencies involved are planning to do so anyway, according to Bloomberg, citing three people familiar with the matter. The Justice Department, FBI and Office of the Director of National Intelligence are going through a methodical review and can’t offer a timeline for finishing, said the people, who weren’t authorized to speak publicly about the sensitive matter. –Bloomberg The Deep State: The Fa... Mike Lofgren Best Price: $7.55 Buy New $6.00 (as of 11:45 EDT - Details) Trump ordered the DOJ to release the text messages of former FBI Director James Comey, his deputy Andrew McCabe, now-fired special agent Peter Strzok, former FBI attorney Lisa Page and twice-demoted DOJ official Bruce Ohr. Also ordered released are specific pages from the FBI’s FISA surveillance warrant application on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page, as well as interviews with Ohr. The DOJ and the FBI are expected to submit proposed redactions to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence – which will prepare a package for Trump to sign off on. “When the president issues such an order, it triggers a declassification review process that is conducted by various agencies within the intelligence community, in conjunction with the White House counsel, to seek to ensure the safety of America’s national security interests,” a Justice Department spokesman said in a statement. “The department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are already working with the Director of National Intelligence to comply with the president’s order.” The agencies are likely to cite national security concerns over revealing classified “sources and methods” pertaining to the Russia investigation – which will put them in direct conflict with Trump’s order. Trump, as president, has the power to override the agencies and declassify material on his own. Trump’s order to release the documents comes after months of requests from GOP lawmakers, while the DOJ has repeatedly denied their requests for more transparency. The FBI’s spy… According to Bloomberg, the DOJ is interpreting Trump’s request to include information about the use of confidential informant (spy) Stephan Halper during the early stages of the Trump-Russia investigation. After taking in over $400,000 from the Obama Pentagon under the auspices of a research contract, Halper befriended and spied on members of the Trump campaign, including aides Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. Showdown? Top Congressional Democrats Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff and Mark Warner penned a joint letter to ODNI Director Dan Coates, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray demanding that the agencies defy President Trump. Showdown? In letter, Pelosi/Schumer/Schiff/Warner order intel agencies to ignore presidential order on declassification until consulting with Congress. https://t.co/x7JDUJd4t0 pic.twitter.com/o64PC7EEFQ — Byron York (@ByronYork) September 19, 2018 In the letter, the lawmakers “express profound alarm” at the decision to “intervene in an ongoing law enforcement investigation that may implicate the President himself or those around him.” “Any decision by your offices to share this material with the President or his lawyers will violate longstanding Department of Justice polices, as well as assurances you have provided to us.” The letter then demands that the agencies brief the Gang of Eight before releasing the materials “to anyone at the White House.” Reprinted from The Duran.

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.”

Strange ‘Sonic Attacks’ Against Diplomats Reach Epic Proportions The bizarre “sonic attacks” against diplomats began in Cuba, but have now spread to other countries with over 200 illnesses reported. It all started in the fall of 2016 when diplomats at the United States Embassy in Cuba reported some hearing loss and mild brain damage after hearing unusual and puzzling sounds. SHTFPlan originally detailed the symptoms experienced by US diplomats in Cuba back in September of 2017. Several of the affected diplomats were recent arrivals at the embassy, which reopened in 2015 as part of Barack Obama’s reestablishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba. The Daily Mail reported that one diplomat described being jolted awake in a Havana hotel room by a grinding, blaring cacophony. When he moved a few feet across the room, the noise stopped. When he got back into bed, the agonizing sound hit him again; as if, he told doctors, he had walked through some invisible wall cutting straight down the middle of his room. –SHTFPlan But now, the sonic attacks have progressed beyond Cuba. Other embassies have now reported the debilitating conditions of diplomats. The U.S. State Department has remained all but silent on the issue as well, other than to characterize their suspicion as unknown “sonic attacks” targeted U.S. diplomats, according to WND. Diplomats in at least seven cities in four different countries have sought testing for strange symptoms. The victims’ symptoms include “hearing loss, dizziness, tinnitus, balance problems, visual difficulties, headaches, fatigue, cognitive issues and sleeping problems.” The latest incident occurred in conjunction with President Trump’s recent visit with Kim Jong-Un. As Trump was heading to Singapore for the historic summit with North Korea’s leader, a State Department diplomatic security agent who was part of the advanced team reported hearing an unusual sound he believed was similar to what was experienced by U.S. diplomats in Cuba and China who later became ill. The government employee experienced the symptoms from late 2017 until April of 2018, according to the U.S. State Department. “The employee was sent to the United States for further evaluation. On May 18, 2018, the Embassy learned that the clinical findings of this evaluation matched mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI),” Jinnie Lee, U.S. Embassy spokesperson in Beijing, told Gizmodo by email. “The Chinese government has assured us they are also investigating and taking appropriate measures,” Lee continued. –SHTFPlan  And now, some of the strange sounds have been now been recorded and released to the public. The U.S. government has issued an alert warning Americans traveling to China to seek medical attention if they experience “auditory or sensory phenomena” similar to what was reported in Havana. Additionally, the State Department recommended anyone traveling to Cuba should “reconsider” their plans.

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.

This Guardian Fake News Story Proves That The Media Can't Be Trusted November 29, 2018 This Guardian Fake News Story Proves That The Media Can't Be Trusted In 2015 the British Guardian appointed Katherine Viner as editor in chief. Under her lead the paper took a new direction. While it earlier made attempts to balance its shoddier side with some interesting reporting, it is now solidly main stream in the worst sense. It promotes neo-liberalism and a delves into cranky identity grievances stories. It also became an main outlet for manipulative propaganda peddled by the British secret services. Its recent fake news story about Paul Manafort, Wikileaks and Julian Assange aptly demonstrates this. The documentation of it is a bit lengthy but provides that it was a willful fake. On November 27 the Guardian prepared to publish a story which asserted that Paula Manafort, Trump's former campaign manager, had met Julian Assange, the publisher of Wikileaks, in the Ecuadorian embassy in London on at least three occasions. Some two hours before the story went public it contacted Manafort and Assange's lawyers to get their comments. Assange's Wikileaks responded through its public Twitter account which has 5.4 million followers. On of those followers is Katherine Viner: WikiLeaks @wikileaks - 13:06 utc - 27 Nov 2018 SCOOP: In letter today to Assange's lawyers, Guardian's Luke Harding, winner of Private Eye's Plagiarist of the Year, falsely claims jailed former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had secret meetings with Assange in 2013, 2015 and 2016 in story Guardian are "planning to run". It attached the email the Guardian's Luke Harding had send. 90 minutes later the Guardian piece went life. It led the front page and also appeared in print. The first version read: Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort held secret talks with Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and visited around the time he joined Trump’s campaign, the Guardian has been told. Sources have said Manafort went to see Assange in 2013, 2015 and in spring 2016 – during the period when he was made a key figure in Trump’s push for the White House. It is unclear why Manafort wanted to see Assange and what was discussed. But the last meeting is likely to come under scrutiny and could interest Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor who is investigating alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. A well-placed source has told the Guardian that Manafort went to see Assange around March 2016. Months later WikiLeaks released a stash of Democratic emails stolen by Russian intelligence officers. Manafort, 69, denies involvement in the hack and says the claim is “100% false”. His lawyers declined to answer the Guardian’s questions about the visits. The piece did not include the public denial Wikileaks issued to its 5.4 million followers one and a half hour before it was published. The Guardian piece came at a critical moment. Currently the U.K. and Ecuador conspire to deliver Julian Assange to U.S. authorities. On Monday special counsel Robert Mueller said Manafort lied to investigators, violating his recent plea deal. The new sensational claim was immediately picked up by prominent reporters and major main stream outlets. They distributed is as a factual account. It is likely that millions of people took note of its claim. But several people who had followed the Russiagate fairytale and the Mueller investigation were immediately suspicious of the Guardian claim. The story was weakly sourced and included some details that seemed unlikely to be true. Glenn Greenwald noted that the Ecuadorian embassy is under heavy CCTV surveillance. There are several guards, and visitors have to provide their identity to enter it. Every visit is logged. If Manafort had really visited Assange, it would have long been known: In sum, the Guardian published a story today that it knew would explode into all sorts of viral benefits for the paper and its reporters even though there are gaping holes and highly sketchy aspects to the story. Moreover, the main author of the story, Luke Harding, is known to be a notorious fraud, a russo-phobe intelligence asset with a personal grievance towards Assange and Wikileaks. A year ago an important Moon of Alabama piece - From Snowden To Russia-gate - The CIA And The Media - mentioned Harding: The people who promote the "Russian influence" nonsense are political operatives or hacks. Take for example Luke Harding of the Guardian who just published a book titled Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win. He was taken apart in a Real News interview (vid) about the book. The interviewer pointed out that there is absolutely no evidence in the book to support its claims. When asked for any proof for his assertion Harding defensively says that he is just "storytelling" - in other words: it is fiction. Harding earlier wrote a book about Edward Snowden which was a similar sham. Julian Assange called it "a hack job in the purest sense of the term". Harding is also known as plagiarizer. When he worked in Moscow he copied stories and passages from the now defunct Exile, run by Matt Taibbi and Mark Ames. The Guardian had to publish an apology. The new Guardian story looked like another weak attempt to connect the alleged Russian malfeasance with Assange and the Wikileaks publishing of the DNC emails. Assange and other involved people deny that such a relation existed. There is no public evidence that support such claims. Shortly after the Guardian's fake news story went public Paul Manafort issued an unequivocal denial: “I have never met Julian Assange or anyone connected to him,” the statement said. “I have never been contacted by anyone connected to Wikileaks, either directly or indirectly. I have never reached out to Assange or Wikileaks on any matter. We are considering all legal options against the Guardian who proceeded with this story even after being notified by my representatives that it was false.” At 16:05 utc the Guardian silently edited the story. Caveats (here in italic and underlined) were added to the headline and within several paragraphs. No editorial note was attached to inform the readers of the changes: Manafort held secret talks with Assange in Ecuadorian embassy, sources say ... It is unclear why Manafort would have wanted to see Assange and what was discussed. But the last apparent meeting is likely to come under scrutiny and could interest Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor who is investigating alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. ... Why Manafort might have sought out Assange in 2013 is unclear. ... Manafort, 69, denies involvement in the hack and says the claim is “100% false”. His lawyers initially declined to answer the Guardian’s questions about the visits. One paragraph was added to included Wikileaks' denial: In a series of tweets WikiLeaks said Assange and Manafort had not met. Assange described the story as a hoax. At 16:30 utc, under fire from other media and journalists, the Guardian issued a statement: This story relied on a number of sources. We put these allegations to both Paul Manafort and Julian Assange's representatives prior to publication. Neither responded to deny the visits taking place. We have since updated the story to reflect their denials. This defensive Guardian claim is, like its story, evidently completely false. Wikileaks publicly denied the Guardian's claims 90 minutes before the story was first published. Manafort asserts that his lawyers had notified the Guardian that the story was false before the Guardian 'proceeded with the story'. At 21:05 utc a third version was published which included Manafort's denial. Half an hour later Julian Assange instructed his lawyers to sue the Guardian for libel. Wikileaks opened a fund to support the lawsuit. A day after the Guardian smear piece the Washington Times reported that Manafort's passports, entered into evidence by the Mueller prosecution, show that he did not visit London in any of the years the Guardian claimed he was there to visit Assange. The story was completely false and the Guardian knew it was. It disregarded and left out the denials the subjects of the story had issued before it was published. The Guardian has become a main outlet for British government disinformation operations aimed at defaming Russia. It smeared Assange and Snowden as Russian collaborators. It uncritically peddled the Russiagate story and the nonsensical Skripal claims which are both obviously concocted by British intelligence services. That seems to have become its main purpose. As Disobediant Media notes (emphasis in the original): While most readers with functional critical thinking capacity may readily dismiss the Guardian’s smear on its face, the fact that the Guardian published this piece, and that Luke Harding is still operating with even the tiniest modicum of respect as a journalist despite his history of deceit, tells us something bone-chilling about journalism. It is no accident that Luke Harding is still employed: in fact, it is because of Harding’s consistent loyalty to establishment, specifically the UK intelligence apparatus, over the truth that determines his “success” amongst legacy press outlets. Harding is not a defacement or a departure from the norm, but the personification of it. Jonathan Cook, a former Guardian writer, makes a similar point: The truth is that the Guardian has not erred in this latest story attacking Assange, or in its much longer-running campaign to vilify him. With this story, it has done what it regularly does when supposedly vital western foreign policy interests are at stake – it simply regurgitates an elite-serving, western narrative. Its job is to shore up a consensus on the left for attacks on leading threats to the existing, neoliberal order: ... The Guardian did not make a mistake in vilifying Assange without a shred of evidence. It did what it is designed to do. We have previously shown that the Guardian even uses fascist propaganda tropes to smear the Russian people. It is openly publishing Goebbels' cartoons and rhetoric against Europes biggest state. There is no longer any line that it does not dare to cross. Unfortunately other 'western' media are not much better. Within hours of being published the Guardian piece was debunked as fake news. That did not hinder other outlets to add to its smear. Politico allowed "a former CIA officer," writing under a pen name, to suggest - without any evidence - that the Guardian has been duped - not by its MI5/6 and Ecuadorian spy sources, but by Russian disinformation: Rather than being the bombshell smoking gun that directly connects the Trump campaign to WikiLeaks, perhaps the report is something else entirely: a disinformation campaign. Is it possible someone planted this story as a means to discredit the journalists? ... Harding is likely a major target for anyone wrapped up in Russia’s intelligence operation against the West’s democratic institutions. ... If this latest story about Manafort and Assange is false—that is, if, for example, the sources lied to Harding and Collyns (or if the sources themselves were lied to and thus thought they were being truthful in their statements to the journalists), or if the Ecuadorian intelligence document is a fake, the most logical explanation is that it is an attempt to make Harding look bad. The is zero evidence in the Politico screed that supports its suggestions and claims. It is fake news about a fake news story. It also included the false claim that Glenn Greenwald worked with Wikileaks on the Snowden papers. That claim was later removed. We have seen a similar pattern in the Skripal affair. When 'western' intelligence get caught in spreading disinformation, they accuse Russia of being the source of the fake. Unfortunately no western main stream media can any longer be trusted to publish the truth. The Guardian is only one of many which peddle smears and disinformation about the 'enemies' of the ruling 'western interests'. It is on all of us to debunk them and to educate the public about their scheme. --- This is a Moon of Alabama fundraiser week. No one pays me to write these blog posts. If you appreciated this one, or any of the 7,000+ others, please consider a donation. Posted by b on November 29, 2018 at 10:23 AM | Permalink Comments

Iran Admits To Aiding Al-Qaeda and Facilitating 9/11 Jihad Terror Attacks This has long been known, although the mainstream media dismissed it as a conspiracy theory. But now we have definitive confirmation. It was Iran Bush should have invaded after 9/11 , not Iraq. Now consider this: even though, as President of the United States, Barack Obama had access to information that the general public does not have, and certainly knew of Iran’s involvement in the 9/11 attacks, Obama still pursued the Iran nuclear deal and gave billions to the Islamic Republic. The Iran nuclear deal should never have proceeded — President Obama, the worst president in American history . “Iran Admits To Facilitating 9/11 Terror Attacks,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, June 8, 2018: Iranian officials, in a first, have admitted to facilitating the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the U.S. by secretly aiding the free travel of al Qaeda operatives who eventually went on to fly commercial airliners into the Twin Towers in New York City, according to new remarks from a senior Iranian official. Mohammad-Javad Larijani, an international affairs assistant in the Iran’s judiciary, disclosed in Farsi-language remarks broadcast on Iran’s state-controlled television that Iranian intelligence officials secretly helped provide the al Qaeda attackers with passage and gave them refuge in the Islamic Republic, according to an English translation published by Al Arabiya. “Our government agreed not to stamp the passports of some of them because they were on transit flights for two hours, and they were resuming their flights without having their passports stamped. However their movements were under the complete supervision of the Iranian intelligence,” Larijani was quoted as saying. The remarks represent the first time senior Iranian officials have publicly admitted to aiding al Qaeda and playing a direct role in facilitating the 9/11 attacks. The U.S. government has long accused Iran of playing a role in the attacks and even fined the Islamic Republic billions as a result. The U.S. 9/11 Commission assembled to investigate the attacks concluded that Iran played a role in facilitating the al Qaeda terrorists. Larijani admitted that Iranian officials did not stamp the passports of the al Qaeda militants in order to obfuscate their movements and prevent detection by foreign governments. Al Qaeda operative also were given safe refuge in Iran…. Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller

Eyewitness Confessional: There Was An Active Shooter Targeting The Bellagio Hotel During The Las Vegas Massacre In yet another astonishing eyewitness report that contradicts the official story surrounding the worst mass shooting in American history, a married couple who were celebrating their 10th anniversary in Las Vegas at the time of the shooting have come forward to reveal that there was an active shooter inside the Bellagio Hotel around the same time that supposed lone gunman Stephen Paddock was found dead. During the confessional, a Canadian man by the name of Jeff detailed the fact that he and his wife were in the Bellagio Resort and Casino around 11:20pm on the night of the shooting when panic broke out in the hotels lobby. Jeff begins the interview by making clear his belief that there were multiple active shooters targeting different places in Las Vegas on the night of the attack. “First of all, I think what needs to be said is that, from my perspective, there were multiple events that occurred around Las Vegas, up and down the Strip that night. It wasn’t just centralized around the Mandalay Hotel,” the witness claimed. The eyewitness then goes on to directly say that he and his wife were involved in an active shooter situation at a different hotel that authorities have so far done everything in their power to cover-up. “My wife and I were in Las Vegas celebrating our 10th anniversary and on October 1st we were involved in an incident with an active shooter at the Bellagio. There is no mistake in my mind about it,” he continued. Jeff then describes a scene in which he and his wife were walking through the main lobby when screams and gunfire erupted. Keep in mind, this is all information that the police and the FBI has hidden from the American people. “All of a sudden there was just a crescendo of screams that started behind us in the lobby,” he claimed. “Then I heard somebody yell ‘there’s a shooter! There’s a shooter!’ And then I heard like five or six pops, like unmistakable gunfire, unmistakably.” “That was about 11:20 when we heard the shots and the screams… at that point you could hear and see the screams and see hundreds of people coming towards us.” Amazingly, as Shepard Ambellas noted, “The man’s claims match up to actual events captured in police audio recordings from the night of the shooting which confirms that between 11:15 and 11:18 p.m. on the night of Oct. 1 there was, in fact, something going on at the Bellagio.” This testimony also backs up claims by another eyewitness, Rene Downs, who has spent the past few days doing interviews about a shooter inside the Bellagio Hotel. Slowly but surely we are starting to see the official narrative regarding the Las Vegas Massacre be completely destroyed. At this point it is strikingly obvious that authorities have lied to the American people about the worst mass shooting in our countries history. One can only speculate as to what the reasons for these lies actually are?

‘Silent Donation’: Corporate Emails Reveal Google Executives Tried to Turn Out Latino Voters Who They Thought Would Vote For Clinton Google, once again, has been implicated in a story about how social media executives and employees are using their platforms to control and shutter conservative ideas. This time? This time, an email chain has emerged showing senior company executives pressing for the company to sway Latino voters to back Hillary Clinton. 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. Specifically, one executive suggests paying for the rides of Latinos to get them to the polls — if they vote for Clinton, that is. First censorship, now this. When will something be done about these tech and social media companies? From Breitbart: An email chain among senior Google executives from the day after the 2016 presidential election reveals the company tried to influence the 2016 United States presidential election on behalf of one candidate, Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton. In the emails, a Google executive describes efforts to pay for free rides for a certain sect of the population to the polls–a get-out-the-vote for Hispanic voters operation–and how these efforts were because she thought it would help Hillary Clinton win the general election in 2016. She also used the term “silent donation” to describe Google’s contribution to the effort to elect Clinton president. The main email, headlined, “Election results and the Latino vote,” was sent on Nov. 9, 2016—the day after Clinton’s loss to Trump in the 2016 presidential election—by Eliana Murillo, Google’s Multicultural Marketing department head. The four page email begins with Murillo claiming she and others at Google were engaged in non-partisan activities not designed to help any one candidate or another—only to undercut her own commentary in later passages in the emails by openly admitting the entire effort to boost Latino turnout using Google products with official company resources was to elect Clinton over Trump. The critical miscalculation, Murillo wrote in a stunning admission in the email, was that Latino voters backed Trump by higher margins than any experts had forecast in the lead-up to the election. Trump’s 29 percent among Hispanics nationally blew prognosticators away, and he hit even higher numbers—about 31 percent—in the key battleground state of Florida, Murillo admitted. Murillo wrote at the outset of the lengthy message: We worked very hard. Many people did. We pushed tp get out the Latino vote with our features, our partners, and our voices. We kept our Google efforts non-partisan and followed our company’s protocols for the elections strategy. We emphasized our mission to give Latinos access to information so that they can make an informed decision at the polls, and we feel very grateful for all the support to do this important work. Latinos voted in record-breaking numbers, particularly with early votes. A large percentage of Latino voters in Florida were new voters who had become citizens just in time to vote. We saw high traffic for the search queries ‘votar,’ ‘como votar,’ and ‘donde voter,’ in key states like Florida and Nevada. We will be pulling in more info in the coming hours/days but so far we definitely know there was high traffic on search in Spanish. Without translating our tools the users wouldn’t have found the information they needed. Objectively speaking, our goal was met — we pushed and successfully launched the search features in Spanish, and we thank Lisa for her support in advocating for this work. I sent Philipp a note yesterday to thank him because he and others voiced their support for this too, and we greatly appreciate it. Even Sundar gave the effort a shout out and a comment in Spanish, which was really special. “Sundar” presumably refers to Google’s chief executive officer Sundar Pichai, who took the reins of the massive search giant in October 2015. “Lisa” presumably refers to Lisa Gevelber, the vice president of Global Marketing for Google—who forwarded Murillo’s entire four-page email to several other Google executives in another chain also obtained by Breitbart News in which Gevelber praises Murillo’s activities with official company resources as having made a “great difference.” “Philipp” presumably refers to Philipp Schindler, a senior vice president and Google’s chief business officer per his LinkedIn page. The emails were first revealed on Fox News on Monday evening on Tucker Carlson Tonight by anchor Tucker Carlson in a special report. Breitbart News also obtained them, and has reached out to Google with a number of questions about the emails. Carlson, in his exclusive report on Fox News Monday night, compared the revelations in the Google emails to the probe of Russian interference in the U.S. election to Special Counsel Robert Mueller—raising the question about how much influence tech giants like Google and Facebook have on election outcomes in the United States. Carlson cited Dr. Robert Epstein, a social scientist and an expert on Google, who has said, in Carlson’s words, “Google alone could determine the outcome of almost any election just by altering its search selections and we would never know it.” Epstein has published research detailing how Google could influence the results of U.S. elections. Breitbart News has exclusively published several of Epstein’s reports, including a recent one showing that Google search manipulation can swing huge swaths of voters. In his report on Monday night, Carlson then described the emails he obtained, which Breitbart News also obtained. Carlson said: This wasn’t a get-out-the-vote effort or whatever they say. It wasn’t aimed at all potential voters. It wasn’t even aimed at a balanced cross-section of subgroups. Google didn’t try to get out the vote among say Christian Arabs in Michigan or say Persian Jews in Los Angeles—they sometimes vote Republican. It was aimed only at one group, a group that Google cynically assumed would vote exclusively for the Democratic Party. Furthermore, this mobilization effort targeted not only the entire country but swing states vital to the Hillary campaign. This was not an exercise in civics, this was political consulting. It was in effect an in-kind contribution to the Hillary Clinton campaign.” Carlson noted that in communication with Google, the company “did not deny that the email was real or that it showed a clear political preference.” “Their only defense was that the activities they described were either non-partisan or were not officially taken by the company,” Carlson said Monday night, describing Google’s official response to his requests for comment, before challenging the company’s response: “But of course they were both. Plenty of people in Google knew what was going on and we haven’t seen any evidence anyone at Google disapproved of it and tried to rein it in.” The email from Murillo continues by explaining just how expansive the efforts the company undertook to achieve its objective were: We had our partners help spread the word about our features on social media, including YouTubers and influencers like Dulce Candy, Jorge Narvaez, Jessie y Joy, Barbara Bermudo, and Pamela Silva of Univision, Jackie Cruz aka La Flaca from Orange is the New Black, and more. We promoted our partner the Latino Community Foundation’s non-partisan #YoVoyaVotaryTu (I’m going to vote, are you?) campaign and leveraged our social media influencer friends’ reach to hit over 11M impressions with that hashtag. We hosted an event with over 200 people and a hangout with social media influencers about the power of the Latino vote and the new research Nielsen published about the Latino electorate. This reached 4.4M social media impressions and signaled to many that Google and our partners value the Latino community and our role in this election. We brought the same research to the LATISM conference, where people were beyond thrilled to see Google’s support and acknowledgment of the Latino community. If Murillo had ended her email there, this probably would not amount to the level of a national news story. But she did not: She went on for another several paragraphs on the first page and an extra three pages to admit the openly partisan intent of Google’s actions, including a remarkable in-writing confirmation that at least one of Google’s actions amounted to a “silent donation”—something that could raise Federal Election Commission (FEC) red flags if authorities decide to launch an official investigation into this matter, now that these emails have been publicly revealed. It is in the next paragraph that Murillo openly admits that Google made a “silent donation,” in her words, paying for rides to polls via leftist organization Voto Latino. Murillo wrote in the next paragraph: We also supported partners like Voto Latino to pay for rides to the polls in key states (silent donation). We even helped them create ad campaigns to promote the rides (with support from HOLA folks who rallied and volunteered their time to help). We supported Voto Latino to help them land an interview with Senator Meza of Arizona (key state for us) to talk about the election and how to use Google search to find information about how to vote. They were a strong partner, among many in this effort. The next paragraph is where Murillo begins to make her next major admission: that the effort was not just to increase voter turnout generally but to elect Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. “Ultimately, after all was said and done, the Latino community did come out to vote, and completely surprised us,” Murillo wrote. “We never anticipated that 29% of Latinos would vote for Trump. No one did. We saw headlines like this about early voter turn out and thought that this was finally the year that the ‘sleeping giant’ had awoken.” On the next page, the email continues with a headline from an article in The Atlantic by James Fallows: “2016: The Year Latinos Saved America?” Under that was a tweet from Jon Ralston of Ralston Reports in Nevada saying, among other things, that “Trump is dead” because of Latino turnout in early voting in the state. Trump did not end up winning Nevada in the end, but he did beat Clinton in 30 and a half other states. … At that point, after the Ralston tweet, Murillo openly admits the partisan motives of Google’s electioneering efforts. “On personal note, we really thought we had shown up to demonstrate our political power against a candidate who had vehemently offended our community by calling us rapists and drug dealers,” Murillo wrote. “We read the headline and thought WOW, we did it!” Murillo’s email continues by including another headline, this time from the New Yorker’s Benjamin Wallace-Wells: “Latino Voters Show Trump What It Means to Be American.” That piece was written on Nov. 7, 2016, the day before the election. Then she begins writing again: “But then reality set in. Only 71% of Latinos voted for Hillary, and that wasn’t enough.” The third page of the email begins with another headline and image of a Latina woman in a red Make America Great Again hat and “Latinos for Trump” sign. The story, from Ruben Navarette, Jr., published in the Daily Beast, is headlined: “Why the Latino Vote Didn’t Save America.” The sub-headline, “Hispanic voters were supposed to be one of Clinton’s blue firewalls—but one in three ended up splitting for Trump,” is also included in Murillo’s Google email. From there, Murillo continues writing for another page and a half: The voters we wanted to reach did end up having an influence in the end, most notably in Florida. Latino voters voted for Trump more in Florida than in other states (31%), and FL was critical by popular vote and the electoral college. We’ll keep an eye on any other results that can show us the influence that our efforts had on the election. We know we gave this our best and are now figuring out what comes next. Thanks again for all your help and support in this effort. In the next paragraph, Murillo again openly admits she was not “objective” when it came to the election. “I have tried to stay objective, but I ask that you please give us some time to pause and reflect,” Murillo wrote. “This is devastating for our Democratic Latino community. After all these efforts and what we thought was positive momentum toward change, the results are not what we expected at all. We are afraid for our families, and especially for the millions of immigrants who now don’t know what the future holds for them.” After that, Murillo says she cannot communicate with key organizers of the effort by Google and its partners—a project known as HOLA—because she is afraid of secret pro-Trump spies on the listservs created. She also admits ongoing discussions among these people about meeting to give grieving Hillary Clinton supporters hugs after Trump crushed her on election day. She also says those involved in Google’s get-out-the-vote efforts were openly seeking consolation after Clinton lost, and that she and another person cried after Trump won – for the first time they have cried due to an election result. Murillo wrote: What’s most difficult for us is we can’t even email the HOLA list to reach our community and discuss what this means for us because we know that apparently some may actually be Trump supporters. There is a thread right now among the core HOLA group where people are sharing how much they hurt, how much they need support right now, and that they are coordinating in different offices to meet up to just hold each other. One in a remote office said ‘If you guys do any sort of meetings, I’d love to join virtually. I think I’m currently the only Latinx in my office. It’s kinda hard.’ #understatement. Another said, ‘I’ve never cried after an election until last night.’ Same here. She was not done there. In the next paragraph, Murillo wrote that this election result hurt her badly. She also admits the election result was a “loss,” another indication that Google’s efforts were clearly attempting to use company resources to elect Democrat Clinton over Republican Trump and influence the results of the election. She also says that the company—and herself in particular—will redouble efforts in the future to get a different and more desired result in future elections. “I’m in shock and it hurts more than I could have ever imagined, but trying to stay optimistic and keep my head high,” Murillo wrote. “Loss is a part of life, and I do think frustrations challenge us to work smarter and get creative. My partners have sent notes and are saying the same thing — time to keep working harder.” At the top of the fourth page of the email, Murillo asks her colleagues at Google to give out a “smile” to grieving leftist Latinos who work at the company. “If you see a Latino Googler in the office (California/New York), please give them a smile,” Murillo wrote. “They are probably hurting right now. It’s tough to handle now that we know not all of us were against this, so we may be even more divided than ever. At least in CA/NY though, you can rest assured that the Latinos of these blue states need your thoughts and prayers, at least for them and their families.” Then, she continues by stating she is going on a planned vacation she thought she was taking to “celebrate” a Clinton win, but after Trump won, she says, her vacation “will be time to reflect on how to continue to support my community through these difficult times.” Murillo, in the next line, reveals that she thought she was sharing her viewpoints on these matters in a tight circle that would not leak. “I’m not sharing my personal opinions very broadly, but wanted to share openly here in the circle of trust,” she wrote. This email leaked to Fox News and Breitbart News and is now likely to become a centerpiece in the case that Google is throwing its weight around to interfere in elections in the United States in a partisan manner against the duly elected President of the United States. This email from Murillo was not just from some rogue staffer inside Google. Her original email was forwarded on to other Google executives by the aforementioned Gevelber, according to another email obtained by Breitbart News. “Thought you all would want to read this,” Gevelber wrote in her own message endorsing Murillo’s email in a message to other Google bigwigs. “It’s from Eliana Murillo who runs US Hispanic Marketing on my team and who helped found HOLA our Hispanic ERC.” Gevelber continued by commending everyone she said, “worked so hard to ensure all the Get out the Vote were done in Spanish” that their efforts “made a giant difference” in the election “to Googlers and beyond.” President Trump and Republicans have just begun scratching the surface of bias against them among Silicon Valley’s elite, including, perhaps foremost alongside Facebook, from Google. A source close to the White House who has reviewed these emails ahead of their public release told Breitbart News that in a just world this would amount to, at a minimum, a clear violation of campaign finance law governing in-kind contributions to campaigns and causes. …

Guardian ups its vilification of Julian Assange It is welcome that finally there has been a little pushback, including from leading journalists, to the Guardian’s long-running vilification of Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks. Reporter Luke Harding’s latest article, claiming that Donald Trump’s disgraced former campaign manager Paul Manafort secretly visited Assange in Ecuador’s embassy in London on three occasions, is so full of holes that even hardened opponents of Assange in the corporate media are struggling to stand by it. Faced with the backlash, the Guardian quickly – and very quietly – rowed back its initial certainty that its story was based on verified facts. Instead, it amended the text, without acknowledging it had done so, to attribute the claims to unnamed, and uncheckable, “sources”. The propaganda function of the piece is patent. It is intended to provide evidence for long-standing allegations that Assange conspired with Trump, and Trump’s supposed backers in the Kremlin, to damage Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential race. The Guardian’s latest story provides a supposedly stronger foundation for an existing narrative: that Assange and Wikileaks knowingly published emails hacked by Russia from the Democratic party’s servers. In truth, there is no public evidence that the emails were hacked, or that Russia was involved. Central actors have suggested instead that the emails were leaked from within the Democratic party. Nonetheless, this unverified allegation has been aggressively exploited by the Democratic leadership because it shifts attention away both from its failure to mount an effective electoral challenge to Trump and from the damaging contents of the emails. These show that party bureaucrats sought to rig the primaries to make sure Clinton’s challenger for the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders, lost. To underscore the intended effect of the Guardian’s new claims, Harding even throws in a casual and unsubstantiated reference to “Russians” joining Manafort in supposedly meeting Assange. Manafort has denied the Guardian’s claims, while Assange has threatened to sue the Guardian for libel. ‘Responsible for Trump’ The emotional impact of the Guardian story is to suggest that Assange is responsible for four years or more of Trump rule. But more significantly, it bolsters the otherwise risible claim that Assange is not a publisher – and thereby entitled to the protections of a free press, as enjoyed by the Guardian or the New York Times – but the head of an organisation engaged in espionage for a foreign power. The intention is to deeply discredit Assange, and by extension the Wikileaks organisation, in the eyes of right-thinking liberals. That, in turn, will make it much easier to silence Assange and the vital cause he represents: the use of new media to hold to account the old, corporate media and political elites through the imposition of far greater transparency. The Guardian story will prepare public opinion for the moment when Ecuador’s rightwing government under President Lenin Moreno forces Assange out of the embassy, having already withdrawn most of his rights to use digital media. It will soften opposition when the UK moves to arrest Assange on self-serving bail violation charges and extradites him to the US. And it will pave the way for the US legal system to lock Assange up for a very long time. For the best part of a decade, any claims by Assange’s supporters that avoiding this fate was the reason Assange originally sought asylum in the embassy was ridiculed by corporate journalists, not least at the Guardian. Even when a United Nations panel of experts in international law ruled in 2016 that Assange was being arbitrarily – and unlawfully – detained by the UK, Guardian writers led efforts to discredit the UN report. See here and here. Now Assange and his supporters have been proved right once again. An administrative error this month revealed that the US justice department had secretly filed criminal charges against Assange. Heavy surveillance The problem for the Guardian, which should have been obvious to its editors from the outset, is that any visits by Manafort would be easily verifiable without relying on unnamed “sources”. Glenn Greenwald is far from alone in noting that London is possibly the most surveilled city in the world, with CCTV cameras everywhere. The environs of the Ecuadorian embassy are monitored especially heavily, with continuous filming by the UK and Ecuadorian authorities and most likely by the US and other actors with an interest in Assange’s fate. The idea that Manafort or “Russians” could have wandered into the embassy to meet Assange even once without their trail, entry and meeting being intimately scrutinised and recorded is simply preposterous. According to Greenwald: “If Paul Manafort … visited Assange at the Embassy, there would be ample amounts of video and other photographic proof demonstrating that this happened. The Guardian provides none of that.” Former British ambassador Craig Murray also points out the extensive security checks insisted on by the embassy to which any visitor to Assange must submit. Any visits by Manafort would have been logged. In fact, the Guardian obtained the embassy’s logs in May, and has never made any mention of either Manafort or “Russians” being identified in them. It did not refer to the logs in its latest story. Murray: The problem with this latest fabrication is that [Ecuador’s President] Moreno had already released the visitor logs to the Mueller inquiry. Neither Manafort nor these “Russians” are in the visitor logs … What possible motive would the Ecuadorean government have for facilitating secret unrecorded visits by Paul Manafort? Furthermore it is impossible that the intelligence agency – who were in charge of the security – would not know the identity of these alleged “Russians”. No fact-checking It is worth noting it should be vitally important for a serious publication like the Guardian to ensure its claims are unassailably true – both because Assange’s personal fate rests on their veracity, and because, even more importantly, a fundamental right, the freedom of the press, is at stake. Given this, one would have expected the Guardian’s editors to have insisted on the most stringent checks imaginable before going to press with Harding’s story. At a very minimum, they should have sought out a response from Assange and Manafort before publication. Neither precaution was taken. I worked for the Guardian for a number of years, and know well the layers of checks that any highly sensitive story has to go through before publication. In that lengthy process, a variety of commissioning editors, lawyers, backbench editors and the editor herself, Kath Viner, would normally insist on cuts to anything that could not be rigorously defended and corroborated. And yet this piece seems to have been casually waved through, given a green light even though its profound shortcomings were evident to a range of well-placed analysts and journalists from the outset. That at the very least hints that the Guardian thought they had “insurance” on this story. And the only people who could have promised that kind of insurance are the security and intelligence services – presumably of Britain, the United States and / or Ecuador. It appears the Guardian has simply taken this story, provided by spooks, at face value. Even if it later turns out that Manafort did visit Assange, the Guardian clearly had no compelling evidence for its claims when it published them. That is profoundly irresponsible journalism – fake news – that should be of the gravest concern to readers. A pattern, not an aberration Despite all this, even analysts critical of the Guardian’s behaviour have shown a glaring failure to understand that its latest coverage represents not an aberration by the paper but decisively fits with a pattern. Glenn Greenwald, who once had an influential column in the Guardian until an apparent, though unacknowledged, falling out with his employer over the Edward Snowden revelations, wrote a series of baffling observations about the Guardian’s latest story. First, he suggested it was simply evidence of the Guardian’s long-standing (and well-documented) hostility towards Assange. “The Guardian, an otherwise solid and reliable paper, has such a pervasive and unprofessionally personal hatred for Julian Assange that it has frequently dispensed with all journalistic standards in order to malign him.” It was also apparently evidence of the paper’s clickbait tendencies: “They [Guardian editors] knew that publishing this story would cause partisan warriors to excitedly spread the story, and that cable news outlets would hyperventilate over it, and that they’d reap the rewards regardless of whether the story turned out to be true or false.” And finally, in a bizarre tweet, Greenwald opined, “I hope the story [maligning Assange] turns out true” – apparently because maintenance of the Guardian’s reputation is more important than Assange’s fate and the right of journalists to dig up embarrassing secrets without fear of being imprisoned. I think the Guardian is an important paper with great journalists. I hope the story turns out true. But the skepticism over this story is very widespread, including among Assange's most devoted haters, because it's so sketchy. If Manafort went there, there's video. Let's see it. — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 28, 2018 Deeper malaise What this misses is that the Guardian’s attacks on Assange are not exceptional or motivated solely by personal animosity. They are entirely predictable and systematic. Rather than being the reason for the Guardian violating basic journalistic standards and ethics, the paper’s hatred of Assange is a symptom of a deeper malaise in the Guardian and the wider corporate media. Even aside from its decade-long campaign against Assange, the Guardian is far from “solid and reliable”, as Greenwald claims. It has been at the forefront of the relentless, and unhinged, attacks on Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn for prioritising the rights of Palestinians over Israel’s right to continue its belligerent occupation. Over the past three years, the Guardian has injected credibility into the Israel lobby’s desperate efforts to tar Corbyn as an anti-semite. See here, here and here. Similarly, the Guardian worked tirelessly to promote Clinton and undermine Sanders in the 2016 Democratic nomination process – another reason the paper has been so assiduous in promoting the idea that Assange, aided by Russia, was determined to promote Trump over Clinton for the presidency. The Guardian’s coverage of Latin America, especially of populist leftwing governments that have rebelled against traditional and oppressive US hegemony in the region, has long grated with analysts and experts. Its especial venom has been reserved for leftwing figures like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, democratically elected but official enemies of the US, rather than the region’s rightwing authoritarians beloved of Washington. The Guardian has been vocal in the so-called “fake news” hysteria, decrying the influence of social media, the only place where leftwing dissidents have managed to find a small foothold to promote their politics and counter the corporate media narrative. The Guardian has painted social media chiefly as a platform overrun by Russian trolls, arguing that this should justify ever-tighter restrictions that have so far curbed critical voices of the dissident left more than the right. Heroes of the neoliberal order Equally, the Guardian has made clear who its true heroes are. Certainly not Corbyn or Assange, who threaten to disrupt the entrenched neoliberal order that is hurtling us towards climate breakdown and economic collapse. Its pages, however, are readily available to the latest effort to prop up the status quo from Tony Blair, the man who led Britain, on false pretences, into the largest crime against humanity in living memory – the attack on Iraq. That “humanitarian intervention” cost the lives of many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and created a vacuum that destabilised much of the Middle East, sucked in Islamic jihadists like al-Qaeda and ISIS, and contributed to the migrant crisis in Europe that has fuelled the resurgence of the far-right. None of that is discussed in the Guardian or considered grounds for disqualifying Blair as an arbiter of what is good for Britain and the world’s future. The Guardian also has an especial soft spot for blogger Elliot Higgins, who, aided by the Guardian, has shot to unlikely prominence as a self-styled “weapons expert”. Like Luke Harding, Higgins invariably seems ready to echo whatever the British and American security services need verifying “independently”. Higgins and his well-staffed website Bellingcat have taken on for themselves the role of arbiters of truth on many foreign affairs issues, taking a prominent role in advocating for narratives that promote US and NATO hegemony while demonising Russia, especially in highly contested arenas such as Syria. That clear partisanship should be no surprise, given that Higgins now enjoys an “academic” position at, and funding from, the Atlantic Council, a high-level, Washington-based think-tank founded to drum up support for NATO and justify its imperialist agenda. Improbably, the Guardian has adopted Higgins as the poster-boy for a supposed citizen journalism it has sought to undermine as “fake news” whenever it occurs on social media without the endorsement of state-backed organisations. The truth is that the Guardian has not erred in this latest story attacking Assange, or in its much longer-running campaign to vilify him. With this story, it has done what it regularly does when supposedly vital western foreign policy interests are at stake – it simply regurgitates an elite-serving, western narrative. Its job is to shore up a consensus on the left for attacks on leading threats to the existing, neoliberal order: whether they are a platform like Wikileaks promoting whistle-blowing against a corrupt western elite; or a politician like Jeremy Corbyn seeking to break apart the status quo on the rapacious financial industries or Israel-Palestine; or a radical leader like Hugo Chavez who threatened to overturn a damaging and exploitative US dominance of “America’s backyard”; or social media dissidents who have started to chip away at the elite-friendly narratives of corporate media, including the Guardian. The Guardian did not make a mistake in vilifying Assange without a shred of evidence. It did what it is designed to do. UPDATE: Excellent background from investigative journalist Gareth Porter, published shortly before Harding’s story, explains why the Guardian’s hit-piece is so important for those who want Assange out of the embassy and behind bars. Read Porter’s article here. No one pays me to write these blog posts. If you appreciated it, or any of the others, please consider hitting the donate button in the right-hand margin (computer) or below (phone).

Two cases of Ebola confirmed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo Two cases of Ebola have been confirmed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), according to a government health official. Jean Jack Muyembe, head of the national institute for biological research, said that at least ten more cases were also suspected in the northwestern town of Bikoro. Local health officials in Democratic Republic of Congo reported 21 patients showing signs of hemorrhagic fever and 17 deaths in the affected area before an Ebola outbreak was confirmed on Tuesday, the health ministry said. Medical teams have taken five samples from suspected active cases and two tested positive for the Zaire strain of the Ebola virus, the ministry said in a statement. It is the ninth time Ebola has been recorded in the DRC. Last year, eight people were infected and four people died after an outbreak of the disease. Ebola virus disease, formerly known as Ebola haemorrhagic fever, is a severe, often fatal illness in humans. The virus is transmitted to people from wild animals and spreads in the human population through human-to-human transmission. It is believed to be spread over long distances by bats, which can host the virus without dying. These animals then infect other tree-dwelling creatures such as monkeys. Ebola can often spread to humans from infected bushmeat. Image: Ebola is a difficult illness to contain and efforts to stop it spreading are vital The World Health Organisation reports that the first Ebola outbreaks occurred in remote villages in Central Africa, near tropical rainforests. The two-year outbreak in West Africa that began in 2014 involved major urban areas as well as rural ones. More than 11,300 people died and some 28,600 were infected, most of them in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia. Sporadic cases of Ebola have occurred since the epidemic was brought under control, with a small number of patients being confirmed in 2017. The disease was first detected in 1976 in two simultaneous outbreaks, one in what is now Nzara, South Sudan, and the other in Yambuku in the DRC. The latter occurred near the River Ebola, after which the disease is named.

Records Support Claims That Minnesota Muslima State Rep Ilhan Omar Married Her Brother Ilhan Omar has accused Israel of “evil doings” in Gaza and called Israel an “apartheid state.” It isn’t surprising that Ilhan Omar would think this way. She is a hijab-wearing, devout Muslim, and Islamic Jew-hatred is in the Quran. What is shameful about this is that her views are mainstream in the Democrat Party today. She should never have been chosen as a candidate for Congress with hateful views of this kind, but this is the way the Democrat leadership, and the Democrat base, thinks. They want candidates like Ilhan Omar. And they know they’ll win, because this is their base today. take our poll - story continues below Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? * Yes, military force should be used. No, keep the military out of it. 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. Neither the Democrat leadership nor the Democrat base cares that she married her brother. She is a Muslim and a leftist, so she can further their identity politics. That’s all that matters to them. “Official School Records Support Claims That Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) Married Her Brother,” by David Steinberg, PJ Media, October 23, 2018 (thanks to Mark): Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller

Uranium One Informant Breaks Silence: Moscow Paid Millions To Influence Hillary Clinton The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. -Article 2, Section 4 of the US Constitution Right off the bat, this appears to be clear bribery, and a case could be made for treason. However, it is now being reported that an FBI informant that was involved in the Uranium One deal, has told congressional committees that Moscow paid lobbyists to influence then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by helping former President Bill Clinton’s charities during the Obama administration. The Hill's John Solomon reported on Wednesday: The informant, Douglas Campbell, said in the statement obtained by The Hill that he was told by Russian nuclear executives that Moscow had hired the American lobbying firm APCO Worldwide specifically because it was in position to influence the Obama administration, and more specifically Hillary Clinton. ... Campbell added in the testimony that Russian nuclear officials “told me at various times that they expected APCO to apply a portion of the $3 million annual lobbying fee it was receiving from the Russians to provide in-kind support for the Clintons' Global Initiative." “The contract called for four payments of $750,000 over twelve months. APCO was expected to give assistance free of charge to the Clinton Global Initiative as part of their effort to create a favorable environment to ensure the Obama administration made affirmative decisions on everything from Uranium One to the U.S.-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation agreement." APCO officials told The Hill that its support for the Clinton Global Initiative and its work with Russia were not connected in any way, and in fact involved different divisions of the firm. They added their lobbying for Russia did not involve Uranium One but rather focused on regulatory issues aimed at helping Russia better compete for nuclear fuel contracts inside the United States. In case you are unfamiliar with Uranium One, it is a Canadian mining company whose sale to a Russian firm was approved in 2010. The sale gave the Russians control of part of the US uranium supply, thus why I reference a case could be made for treason. While Democrats have unsurprisingly questioned Campbell's credibility, Campbell's attorney Victoria Toensing told Sean Hannity, “[The Russians] were so confident that they told Mr. Campbell with the Clinton’s help, it was a shoo-in to get CFIUS [The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] approval. They were so confident in that that they even had him open up the new office because they were planning on the kind of business they were going to do as soon as CFIUS approved it.” In a lengthy report by Award-winning National Security/War Correspondent Sara Carter, she pointed out that following: On Wednesday, he shared with the committee information he provided to the FBI and has in the past described his frustration with the Obama administration’s failure to stop Russia’s nuclear giant from purchasing 20 percent of American uranium mining assets. Campbell testified before numerous Congressional investigators that his extensive counterintelligence work on Russia and stated that during his time as an informant, he obtained information that Russia was continuing to aid the Iranian government. According to Campbell Russia provided the resources necessary for the nation’s nuclear reactors, despite promises that they were not sharing such technology with Iran. In an April 16, 2010, summary brief provided to his former FBI handlers and obtained by this reporter, he stressed his deep concerns about Tenex, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Russian state nuclear arm Rosatom and its ongoing work to provide Iran with the technology needed for its nuclear reactor program. At the time, Rosatom was seeking the approval to purchase the Canadian mining company Uranium One. “TENEX continues to supply Iran with fuel through their Russian company TVEL,” stated Campbell in a 2010 brief provided to the FBI. TVEL is a Russian nuclear fuel cycle company headquartered in Moscow. “They (TVEL) continue to assist with construction consult and fabricated assemblies to supply the reactor. Fabricated assemblies require sophisticated engineering and are arranged inside the reactor with the help and consult of TVEL.” Campbell informed the FBI of the close relationship between TVEL and TENEX, both a part of the Rosatom group. He stated in his brief that while spending time with the Russian executives from both Rosatom and Tenex, that any mention of “TVEL is a subject that is serious to all when mentioned. I do not even raise the subject of TVEL to our friends, but occasionally they speak of it and always in a guarded manner.” In the briefs, he informed the FBI that “occasionally someone will mention having been in Iran but usually it is long after the fact.” And when he asked the Russians about these connections, he stated that they “occasionally speak of the relationship, i.e. equipment, consulting. I asked Vadim (Mikerin) if they felt there was a serious problem, and would they adhere to sanctions and western opinion. His response was a smile and shoulder shrug.” But Campbell had provided the FBI with evidence of the criminal network and delivered the information to the FBI, which was monitoring his work as an informant and approving his transfer of bribery money to the Russians. Those transfers, which were made in bulk $50,000 sums and at times delivered in cash, occurred between senior executives of the American transportation company and the Russian executives connected to Rosatom. He had given the FBI irrefutable evidence showing how contracts obtained from the same Russian energy company Tenex, were based on contract bribery and other nefarious actions, he said. Senior members of the FBI, Department of Treasury, Department of Energy and Department of Justice were also briefed on Campbell’s information and were apprised of the various facets pertaining to Russia’s acquisition of the Canadian company. In fact, Campbell had been told by his FBI handlers that his work had made it at least twice into President Obama’s classified presidential daily briefings. Of course, we know what Obama did with his daily briefings. They are somewhere in the White House sewer system. Campbell's work has resulted in real justice being administered. In January, I reported: On Friday, the Justice Department unsealed an 11-count indictment concerning the Uranium One scandal. Sadly, it did not include former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, but rather former DoD intelligence analyst-turned uranium transportation executive Mark Lambert of Mount Airy, Maryland. Lambert, 54, was charged with one count of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and to commit wire fraud, seven counts of violating the FCPA, two counts of wire fraud and one count of international promotion money laundering. The charges stem from an alleged scheme to bribe Vadim Mikerin, a Russian official at JSC Techsnabexport (TENEX), a subsidiary of Russia’s State Atomic Energy Corporation and the sole supplier and exporter of Russian Federation uranium and uranium enrichment services to nuclear power companies worldwide, in order to secure contracts with TENEX. According to the DOJ: According to the indictment, beginning at least as early as 2009 and continuing until October 2014, Lambert conspired with others at “Transportation Corporation A” to make corrupt and fraudulent bribery and kickback payments to offshore bank accounts associated with shell companies, at the direction of, and for the benefit of, a Russian official, Vadim Mikerin, in order to secure improper business advantages and obtain and retain business with TENEX. In order to effectuate and conceal the corrupt and fraudulent bribe payments, Lambert and others allegedly caused fake invoices to be prepared, purportedly from TENEX to Transportation Corporation A, that described services that were never provided, and then Lambert and others caused Transportation Corporation A to wire the corrupt payments for those purported services to shell companies in Latvia, Cyprus and Switzerland. Lambert and others also allegedly used code words like “lucky figures,” “LF,” “lucky numbers,” and “cake” to describe the payments in emails to the Russian official at his personal email account. The indictment also alleges that Lambert and others caused Transportation Corporation A to overbill TENEX by building the cost of the corrupt payments into their invoices, and TENEX thus overpaid for Transportation Corporation A’s services. In June 2015, Lambert’s former co-president, Daren Condrey, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate the FCPA and commit wire fraud, and Vadim Mikerin pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering involving violations of the FCPA. Mikerin is currently serving a sentence of 48 months in prison and Condrey is awaiting sentencing. The indictment includes allegations against Lambert based on his role in effectuating the criminal scheme with Condrey, Mikerin, and others. We also know the following about Campbell: Undercover FBI informant William Campbell has given written testimony to Congressional investigators after an "iron clad" gag order was lifted in October Campbell was a highly valued CIA and FBI asset deeply embedded in the Russian nuclear industry while Robert Mueller was the Director of the FBI while Robert Mueller was the Director of the FBI Campbell was required by the Russians, under threat, to launder large sums of money - which allowed the FBI to uncover a massive Russian "nuclear money laundering apparatus " " He collected over 5,000 documents and briefs over a six year period, some of which detail efforts by Moscow to route money to the Clinton Foundation Campbell claims to have video evidence of bribe money related to the Uranium One deal being stuffed into suitcases. of bribe money related to the Uranium One deal being stuffed into suitcases. The Obama FBI knew about the bribery scheme, yet the administration still approved the Uranium One deal. To thank him for his service, Campbell was paid $51,000 by FBI officials at a 2016 celebration dinner in Chrystal City When it emerged that Campbell had evidence against the Clinton Foundation, a Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff (of FISA warrant application fame) slammed Campbell as a "disaster" potential witness All of this then goes back to things we have pointed out with ranchers in the western united States and how this impacts them, as well as the land grabs that are unconstitutionally orchestrated by the DC government and the Bureau of Land Management. There is also substantial documentation that was discovered in Oregon that relates to this deal during the Oregon occupation in 2016, which got zero coverage in the mainstream media. Are we about to see a serious shakedown in all of this? Time will tell, but I remain skeptical, as in the end, all we ever get is excuses rather than justice.

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.

Migrant Caravan Reach Border & Climb Atop Fencing Effortlessly (Video) Members from one of the migrant caravans finally reached the US border on Tuesday. Videos were captured and Border Patrol agents were on the scene as they were witnessed climbing effortlessly up the wall and standing and sitting atop it. Fox 5 reports: SAN DIEGO -- People on the Mexican side of the border could be seen climbing the fence near Border Field State Park Tuesday afternoon after part of the Central American migrant caravan arrived in Tijuana. 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 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. Several people scaled the fence and sat on top of it. A few jumped or crawled to openings in the fence onto U.S. soil but quickly ran back as Border Patrol agents approached. Several border agents were seen patrolling the area in trucks, 4-wheelers, a helicopter and on horses. Video of the migrants was captured in various reports. The caravan is here, illegally entering America This is a national disgrace Arrest and deport them all back to their home country pic.twitter.com/zmAvbC13eL — Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) November 14, 2018 Increased activity at the U.S.-Mexico border after part of the Central American migrant caravan arrived in Tijuana. Border Patrol has not confirmed whether this group is part of the caravan.STORY: http://via.kswbtv.com/Ky5E4 Posted by FOX 5 San Diego on Tuesday, November 13, 2018 US Customs and Border Patrol San Diego tweeted, "The first group of the migrant caravan arrived at the Tijuana border yesterday afternoon. # CBP has deployed resources to safely secure the area near Imperial Beach. All seeking entry into the U.S. are urged to present themselves at an official Port of Entry." The first group of the migrant caravan arrived at the Tijuana border yesterday afternoon. #CBP has deployed resources to safely secure the area near Imperial Beach. All seeking entry into the U.S. are urged to present themselves at an official Port of Entry. #USBP pic.twitter.com/uGWUKjxJkj — CBP San Diego (@CBPSanDiego) November 14, 2018 Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen said, "Border security is national security, and @ DHSgov will enforce our nation's laws. Today, I am at the # Texas border talking with @ CBP officials on how we are securing ports of entry." Border security is national security, and @DHSgov will enforce our nation's laws. Today, I am at the #Texas border talking with @CBP officials on how we are securing ports of entry. pic.twitter.com/fOlIQNF5pW — Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen (@SecNielsen) November 14, 2018 She also met with Secretary of Defense James Mattis in Texas. I met with #SecDef in #Texas today to highlight the work that we are doing together to secure our borders. I want to thank @DeptofDefense for their partnership across the full spectrum of @DHSgov missions. pic.twitter.com/eGyzwyXDw9 — Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen (@SecNielsen) November 14, 2018 So far, we are being told that authorities are keeping an eye on the migrants as they celebrate their journey, but no reports have been issued saying they have actually crossed over yet.

Mueller is ‘looking for trouble,’ Trump says cryptically WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump continued bashing Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation, saying cryptically Monday the special counsel is “looking for trouble.” Trump alleged in a morning tweet series that the former FBI director is “Disgraced and discredited,” claiming his staff amounts to nothing more than a “group of Angry Democrat Thugs.” That came hours after a Sunday tweet in which he referred to the special counsel team as a “gang.” Both are words with loaded meanings for his conservative political base. The president’s Sunday and Monday attacks on Mueller and his team came after reports that White House Counsel Donald McGahn was interviewed by Mueller and his team for more than one full day. Trump contends he signed off on the testimony; George W. Bush-era White House counsel and attorney general Alberto Gonzales, however, told CNN Monday morning that a sitting White House counsel would be required to fully cooperate with a federal investigation because he is a government lawyer, not a president’s personal attorney. But Trump on Monday morning tweeted that McGahn spoke with the special counsel team for “over 30 hours with the White House Councel, only with my approval, for purposes of transparency.” (The tweet included a misspelling of “counsel.”) The length of the Mueller-McGahn sessions led Trump to the conclusion the special counsel is “looking for trouble” because they “they know there is no Russian Collusion.” But Mueller reportedly is keenly interested in a widely studied June 2016 Trump Tower meeting arranged by Donald Trump Jr., which included a Russian attorney who promised to hand over negative information about Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. The session also was attended by then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner; the president dictated a misleading statement about it a year later and it remains murky just when he learned about the meeting. As Roll Call has reported, Trump was in the tower at the time of the session with the Russian lawyer. The president also continued to push a line first floated by his attorney, former New York mayor and U.S. attorney Rudolph Giuliani, tweeting that campaign collusion with Russia would be a “phony crime.” He’s right, there is no specific collusion statute. But legal experts say anyone in Trump’s orbit would be charged with conspiracy, making false statements to federal investigators or obstructing justice. All are federal crimes. Trump also continued to cast himself as a victim in the matter, saying when he attempts to “FIGHT BACK or say anything bad about the Rigged Witch Hunt,” his critics “scream Obstruction!” Mueller also is looking at whether some of Trump’s actions like firing then-FBI Director James B. Comey or statements about the Russia probe since taking office amount to an attempt to interfere illegally with the special counsel probe. — John T. Bennett CQ-Roll Call ——— ©2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All Rights Reserved, Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

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.

Conspiracy Theorists Seize on Mesa Man Who Sold Ammo to Las Vegas Shooter Thanks to crackpots online, a Mesa man has become embroiled in conspiracy theories after he sold ammunition to the Las Vegas mass shooter. Douglas Haig, a 55-year-old Honeywell engineer, sold more than 700 rounds of ammunition to Las Vegas mass murderer Stephen Paddock in September. Haig's name was inadvertently revealed this week when unredacted court documents were released to reporters. Search warrant records showed that Haig was a person of interest in the investigation of the mass shooting. As a result, Haig said that he has received death threats and people have pounded on his door to tell him that he deserves to die. "It makes me feel horrible," he said at a news conference Friday morning. "People need to do their research and think rather than just react viscerally.” It's not just people harassing Haig at his home: Conspiracy theorists online have seized on Haig's engineering background to lob wild claims about the Las Vegas shooting. Many of their theories lean heavily on Haig's LinkedIn profile, which says that Haig previously worked for Boeing and Northrop Grumman. Bonkers conspiracy site Intellihub posted an article this week that pointed to Haig's background in the aerospace industry as a sign of U.S. government involvement in the massacre. They noted Haig's LinkedIn page, which says he worked for Boeing in Mesa as a senior liaison engineer in their unmanned helicopter division from 2010 to 2013. "Let’s not forget that it is a fact that helicopters were lurking behind the Mandalay Bay during the attack which were not shown on the radar," author Shepard Ambellas writes. Ambellas claims helicopters provided an "air assault" during the massacre, a ludicrous theory he's expounded upon on InfoWars with the internet's conspiracy-theorist-in-chief Alex Jones. Ambellas and Intellihub claim that the FBI and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department are providing cover for the real story behind the massacre, with help from Haig. In public statements this week, Haig denied any connection to the massacre and said he merely sold Paddock the rounds. "However, don’t be fooled," Intellihub writes. "Haig is likely a CIA cut-out who is just upholding the public narrative in conjunction with the FBI Las Vegas and the LVMPD." Laura Loomer, a noxious far-right personality who formerly worked for Project Veritas, also started making hay with Haig's background in Arizona aerospace. She wrote on Twitter that the massacre "is starting to look more and more like a gun running operation gone wrong every day." Douglas Haig’s @LinkedIn Account says he also has “DOD Top secret clearance” on top of specializing in military ammunition. He is the second suspect in the #LasVegasShooting. This is starting to look more and more like a gun running operation gone wrong every day. pic.twitter.com/ifkkglZ4kw — Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) January 30, 2018 But Haig is an engineer, and he says he's not a former military officer. It should be noted that Haig's rounds were probably not even used in the massacre: Haig sold Paddock tracer ammunition, which emit a flare when fired making them easier to see. Had Paddock fired these rounds during the nighttime massacre at the concert, they would have been visible. Haig's attorney Marc Victor told reporters it was perfectly legal for Haig, a private citizen, to sell Paddock hundreds of rounds of tracer ammunition — the bullets are legal in Arizona. Paddock showed up to buy ammunition at Haig's home after meeting him at a gun show in Phoenix. "I sold him 600 rounds of .308 tracer, surplus U.S. military. I sold him 120 rounds of .556 tracer, again, surplus U.S. military," Haig said to ABC15. "I put it in a box for him. He paid me, put it in his car, and left." Haig said he's been legally selling ammunition as as a hobby since 1991, but after the massacre, he has stopped his side business. It wasn't unusual for a customer to buy over 700 rounds, he said. "I've seen all kinds of people. There were no tells," Haig said of Paddock. When asked about the threats, Haig said, “I’ve had people screaming they want me to die through my front door." Haig and his attorney did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the conspiracy theorizing. Haig said he's sorry that the massacre took place, but emphasized that he had nothing to do with Paddock's mass shooting. “I had no contribution to what Paddock did,” Haig said at the news conference. “I had no way to see into his mind. The product that I sold him had absolutely nothing to do with what he did.” Nevertheless, it's hard to believe that Haig's denials will dissuade the conspiracy-mongers. YouTube conspiracy theorist Jake Morphonios said that for all he knows, Doug Haig didn't play a role in Paddock's massacre. Even so, Morphonious still parlayed an innocent-until-proven-guilty stance into a 30-minute dissertation where he discussed a "shadow government in the United States" in the context of Haig's work for companies like Northrop Grumman. "Did he know something that Stephen Paddock was going to do? That I don't know — it's possible, but who knows." Morphonious said. He added, "I've got some questions of my own about Doug Haig that I'm going to continue seeking answers for."

US bloggers banned from entering UK Two prominent US bloggers have been banned from entering the UK, the Home Office has said. Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer co-founded anti-Muslim group Stop Islamization of America. They were due to speak at an English Defence League march in Woolwich, where Drummer Lee Rigby was killed. A government spokesman said individuals whose presence "is not conducive to the public good" could be excluded by the home secretary. He added: "We condemn all those whose behaviours and views run counter to our shared values and will not stand for extremism in any form." 'Right decision' Ms Geller, of the Atlas Shrugs blog, and Mr Spencer, of Jihad Watch, are also co-founders of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, best known for a pro-Israel "Defeat Jihad" poster campaign on the New York subway. On both of their blogs the pair called their bans from entering the UK "a striking blow against freedom" and said the "the nation that gave the world the Magna Carta is dead". They were due to attend a march planned by the far-right EDL to mark Armed Forces Day on 29 June, ending in Woolwich, south east London, where soldier Drummer Rigby was murdered last month. Keith Vaz, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, who had called for the bloggers to be banned from the UK, said: "I welcome the home secretary's ban on Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer from entering the country. This is the right decision. The UK should never become a stage for inflammatory speakers who promote hate." EDL leader Tommy Robinson, meanwhile, criticised the decision and said Ms Geller and Mr Spencer were coming to the UK to lay flowers at the place where Drummer Rigby died. "It's embarrassing for this so-called land of democracy and freedom of speech," he said. "How many hate preachers are living in this country? It just shows what sort of a two-tier system we have here." 'Foster hatred' Anti-fascism campaigners Hope Not Hate had campaigned for the pair to not be allowed into the UK. A researcher with the organisation, Matthew Collins, said it was "delighted" with the decision. "These two are among some of the most extreme anti-Muslim activists in the world. They've nothing to contribute to life in this country. "They're not here to contribute to good community relations. They only wanted to come here and help the EDL stir up more trouble. Britain doesn't need more hate even just for a few days." Mr Spencer put up a copy of what appears to be the exclusion decision from the Home Office on the Jihad Watch website, while Ms Geller posted a copy of her letter on her website, Atlas Shrugs. The letters, both dated Tuesday, claim that both activists have fallen within the scope of a list of unacceptable behaviours by making statements which may "foster hatred" and lead to "inter-community violence" in the UK. Both letters gave examples of anti-Muslim views stated by both and went on to say that should they be allowed to enter the UK the home secretary believes they would "continue to espouse such views".

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.

France Gives Muslim Killer of Elderly Jewish Woman a Pass Every other Muslim terrorist or killer in Europe has his actions blamed on mental illness or drug use. This just continues the pattern. I wrote about the murder of Sarah Halimi last year. Sarah Lucy Halimi was thrown out of the window of the third floor Paris apartment while she begged her Muslim killer to spare her life. The 66-year-old director of an Orthodox Jewish nursery was woken from her sleep when she was violently beaten by her twenty something Muslim neighbor who then dragged her to the window. She died on the street outside the building where she had lived for thirty years. The killer had allegedly shouted, “Allahu Akbar”. In the tragic comedy of denial that every Islamic terrorism investigation inevitably becomes, the authorities are still hunting around for his motiv Yonathan Halimi, Sarah Lucy’s son, describes the killer’s family as being known for its anti-Semitism. "One day, one of the killer's sisters pushed my sister down the stairs, and the next time she called her a dirty Jew," he described. Sarah’s brother said that the killer called Sarah and her daughter, “dirty Jews”. The authorities stonewalled at every turn. And, predictably, the killer gets a pass. Allahu Akbar usually means motive unknown. The 28-year-old Muslim man confessed to the killing and was heard shouting “Allahu Akbar” and calling Halimi “Satan” shortly before throwing her out the window of her three-story apartment. In January, Traore was determined to be fit to stand trial. He was placed in a psychiatric hospital for weeks after his arrest in the April 2017 killing despite having no history of mental illness. But a judge requested a second series of tests, which determined that the Malian immigrant was not able to stand trial, 20 Minutes reported Wednesday. This tired farce has dragged on. Kobili Traore was hit with hate crimes charges. Then they were dropped. The authorities allowed him to commit the crime. Now they're letting him get away with it. Three minutes later, a unit of the Anti-Crime Brigade (BAC) — who happened to be patrolling the area — took up position in front of Diara’s door. They heard Kobili Traore chanting Muslim prayers and Koranic verses. Unsure about the situation and the potential threats to the family, they asked for reinforcements. Additional policemen arrived quickly. However, for some unclear reason, the BAC unit still refrained from breaking in. In the meantime, Kobili Traore put on new clothes and climbed out of the window to reach Sarah Halimi’s apartment, which was at the same level as Diara Traore’s. He allegedly assaulted the Jewish woman and hit her mercilessly. From time to time he resumed Koranic recitation. Many neighbours, woken by the old woman’s screams or the assaulter’s religious chanting, called the police Some gave details about the exact location of the assault, the attacker’s identity, the fact he vilified his victim as a Jewish person and as “a Satan” while hitting her, or even — as far as the Muslim neighbours were concerned — the Koranic portions he chanted. Yet the police still failed to storm Sarah Halimi’s apartment and rescue her. Eventually, Kobili Traore is claimed to have shouted that the woman was “mad and about to commit suicide”, and threw her out of the window. He had time enough to climb back to Diara Traore’s apartment where he finally was arrested. His hands were covered in blood. There was blood everywhere in his victim’s apartment. Sure he was crazy. So crazy he tried to contrive an alibi for his crime. Kobili isn't crazy. But the system that keeps on protecting him is.

Confirmed: Authorities LIED About Las Vegas Shooter’s Hotel Check-In Date – What Else Are They Hiding? Over the last few days the alternative media has spent countless hours conducting their own investigations into what actually happened during the mass shooting in Las Vegas that left 59 dead and over 500 injured. From reports of multiple shooters to officials seemingly covering up the ISIS connection, many different theories have been put forth that counter the mainstream narrative. Now, new information released by investigative reporter Laura Loomer proves that authorities have directly lied to the American people about the case at least once by claiming that supposed shooter Stephen Paddock checked into the Mandalay Bay Hotel on September 28th when valet records (with photos) prove he actually arrived three days earlier. According to Loomer, she obtained the image from a source which shows that Paddock’s car first arrived September 25th. The photo even has a handwritten note that was reportedly written by an FBI agent – proving that the FBI specifically lied to the country. The picture “proves FBI misled public about #StephenPaddock’s check in date,” Loomer Tweeted. EXCLUSIVE PICS: LV Shooter’s car; @FBI note inside @MandalayBay valet center proves FBI misled public about #StephenPaddock‘s check in date. pic.twitter.com/sotjwX3o0i — Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) October 6, 2017 Shockingly, another Tweet by Loomer also revealed that the license plate numbers given out by police after the horrific shooting DO NOT match the actual license plate of Paddock’s vehicle. Law enforcement and @FBI misled the public about #Paddock‘s check in date and also provided public & media w/ wrong license plate number. pic.twitter.com/y9hS6GqdKI — Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) October 6, 2017 That’s right, photographic evidence from inside the hotel parking garage has confirmed that the FBI, along with state and local police, specifically lied about key details of the shooting. This throws their entire narrative into question and makes one wonder what else is being hidden from the public? Keep in mind that at least four videos from the scene of the shooting have already been released that indicate there were multiple shooters. In fact, there are so many unanswered questions that the Drudge Report even linked to an article asking them directly. As noted above, at this point literally every piece of so-called evidence put forth by authorities and then regurgitated by the mainstream media cannot be trusted and should be considered as disinformation until proven otherwise. And if Paddock really did act alone and this evidence is some sort of mistake, there is surely video footage proving so. Notice #StephenPaddock‘s van was last parked right next to a security camera inside “Garage East” @MandalayBay. There is definitely footage. https://t.co/L1caGn6uqw — Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) October 6, 2017 It is also important to note that Paddock’s brother Eric has conducted a series of bizarre interviews that have led to even more questions about what actually happened in Las Vegas and what Paddock’s role was in the worst mass shooting in American history.

The Hammond Pardons Bring Justice to Obama's Victims The media very deliberately misreported the Bundy standoff, ridiculing the men involved and shrugging at the murder of LaVoy Finicum. When the court case completely collapsed, the media buried the story. Just as it failed to provide any meaningful information about the background of the case. That was in part because it would have been damaging to Obama. And because they didn't care. But President Trump listened to the voices asking him for justice. Today, President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Grants of Clemency (Full Pardons) for Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., and his son, Steven Hammond. The Hammonds are multi-generation cattle ranchers in Oregon imprisoned in connection with a fire that leaked onto a small portion of neighboring public grazing land. The evidence at trial regarding the Hammonds’ responsibility for the fire was conflicting, and the jury acquitted them on most of the charges. At the Hammonds’ original sentencing, the judge noted that they are respected in the community and that imposing the mandatory minimum, 5-year prison sentence would “shock the conscience” and be “grossly disproportionate to the severity” of their conduct. As a result, the judge imposed significantly lesser sentences. The previous administration, however, filed an overzealous appeal that resulted in the Hammonds being sentenced to five years in prison. This was unjust. Dwight Hammond is now 76 years old and has served approximately three years in prison The same administration that was against mandatory minimums for its drug dealers and gang members went to court to defend mandatory minimums under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. While Obama pardoned drug dealers and locked up ranchers, Trump pardons ranchers and locks up drug dealers. Both men are currently in prison on five-year sentences, thanks in part to a 1996 antiterrorism law that imposed a mandatory minimum sentence on certain crimes on federal land. The length of their prison terms, in part, fueled outrage at their convictions. Federal Judge Michael Robert Hogan originally gave the Hammonds reduced sentences in 2012, arguing that the mandatory minimums were unjust. But the Obama administration appealed, and federal Judge Ann Aiken in 2015 imposed the full five-year sentences. Hogan was a Bush appointee who respected the law. Aiken was a Dem fundraiser, her husband was the chair of the Oregon Dem party, appointed by Bill Clinton. Aiken was unqualified for her role, except in the ways that mattered to the Clintons and their Dem allies. These pardons cleanse another stain from our nation's history in the dark years of Obama.

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?

Altered Election Documents Tied To Florida Democrats Reviewed By Federal Prosecutors It is high time that this begin. The Democrats are committing voter fraud on a massive scale, and not only in Florida, but in Arizona, Georgia, California and elsewhere. In Arizona, it is already over, and a pro-jihad Marxist Democrat who lost the election will be going to the Senate. In Florida, the Democrats are likewise working feverishly to overturn the will of the people. They are insane in their lust for power, and will destroy even our democratic system to get it. “Federal prosecutors reviewing altered election documents tied to Florida Democrats,” by Matt Dixon, Politico, November 14, 2018: TALLAHASSEE — The Florida Department of State last week asked federal prosecutors to investigate dates that were changed on official state election documents, the first voting “irregularities” it has flagged in the wake of the 2018 elections. 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 * Name 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. The concerns, which the department says can be tied to the Florida Democratic Party, center around date changes on forms used to fix vote-by-mail ballots sent with incorrect or missing information. Known as “cure affidavits,” those documents used to fix mail ballots were due no later than 5 p.m. on Nov. 5 — the day before the election. But affidavits released on Tuesday by the DOS show that documents from four different counties said the ballots could be returned by 5 p.m. on Thursday, which is not accurate. Audio of a Florida Democratic Party caller leaving a voicemail message asking a Palm Beach County voter to fix their vote by mail ballot after Election Day, which is not allowed, was also sent to POLITICO separately. It was not part of the information turned over to federal prosecutors. Among the counties in question is Broward, which emerged as the epicenter of controversy as three statewide races and three local legislative races went into recounts following the Nov. 6 elections. Republicans have pointed to embattled Broward Elections chief Brenda Snipes’ record of past election gaffes in arguing that the largely Democratic country is tilted against them — perhaps fraudulently so. DOS officials have repeatedly told the media that the monitors they sent to Broward County saw no election fraud. It wasn’t until Tuesday that the office revealed publicly that it had turned over information to federal prosecutors. The information was sent on Nov. 9 by Bradley McVay, DOS’ interim general counsel, who asked that the altered dates be investigated. “Altering a form in a manner that provides the incorrect date for a voter to cure a defect … imposes a burden on the voter significant enough to frustrate the voter’s ability to vote,” McVay wrote in a letter that was sent Nov. 9 and released publicly on Tuesday. The letter was sent to U.S. Attorneys Christopher P. Canova of the Northern District of Florida, Maria Chapa Lopez of the Middle District of Florida and Ariana Fajardo Orshan in the Southern District of Florida. The records released by DOS, which is part of Gov. Rick Scott’s administration, point the finger at the Florida Democratic Party. Political parties can get daily lists of people who had their mail-in ballots rejected. Political parties — or anyone else — can also get the publicly available cure affidavits and send them to voters who had a mail-in ballot rejected to encourage them to fix the ballots. In an email chain released as part of the Department of State’s Tuesday document dump, Citrus County Supervisor of Elections Susan Gill last week told DOS officials that a voter who received one of the cure affidavits with the wrong date had also received a call from a number identified as the Tallahassee office of the Florida Democratic Party, an indication the party was reaching out about her vote by mail ballot. “When I called it, it is the Democratic Party of Florida,” she said in a Nov. 8 email to DOS officials. She went on to write that she thinks the incorrect date was used because whoever sent the cure affidavit mixed up the deadline for cure affidavits with the deadline for provisional ballots. But, she said, “a bigger problem is the fact they actually changed one of the DOE forms.”…

End The Korean War! “I have some pretty severe things we’re thinking about,” Trump said of North Korea at a news conference in Warsaw. “Doesn’t mean we’re going to do them.” What President Trump really meant is that he has painted the US into a corner with all his threats of war and really does not know what to do next. North Korea called his ‘or else’ bluff. Good. No action on North Korea is better than any conceivable military operation. Last week the North Korea test fired a new, longer-ranged strategic missile, Hwasong-14, that US experts claimed was capable of hitting Alaska and perhaps even San Francisco. North Korea is now believed to have mastered a lightweight nuclear warhead that can be carried by the Hwasong and shorter-ranged Taepodong and Nodong missiles. North Korea can’t today seriously threaten North America with missile strikes, but it probably will by 2019. Meanwhile, North Korean nuclear and conventionally-armed missiles (and this could include poison gas and biological warheads) today threaten the 80,000 plus US military personnel based in Japan, South Korea and Guam. They would be immediate targets should the US and South Korea attack the north. American Raj: Liberati... Eric Margolis Best Price: $5.99 Buy New $46.29 (as of 07:40 EDT - Details) Add tens of millions of South Korean and Japanese civilians who are at risk of North Korean retaliation. Half of South Korea’s capitol, Seoul, is within range of North Korean heavy artillery and rocket batteries dug into the so-called Demilitarized Zone. It would take only three nuclear weapons to shatter Japan and just two to cripple South Korea, not to mention polluting the globe with radioactive dust and contaminating North Asia’s water sources. Nuclear explosions would spread radioactive contamination over northern China and Pacific Russia. Why are we even talking about nuclear war in North Asia? Because North Korea has scraped and skimped for decades to build nuclear weapons for the sole reason of deterring a major US attack, including the use by the US of tactical nuclear weapons. Pakistan ‘ate grass’ for decades to afford nuclear weapons to offset the threat from far more powerful India. Israel uses the same argument to justify its large nuclear arsenal. After Washington overthrew the rulers of Iraq and Libya, it became painfully apparent that small nations without nuclear weapons were vulnerable to US ‘regime change’ operations. The North Koreans, who are very eccentric but not stupid, rushed to accelerate their nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Almost equally important, North Korea boasts one of the word’s biggest armies – 1,020,000 men, 88,000 crack special forces, and an trained militia of over 5 million. The North’s weapons are obsolescent; its small air forces and navy will be vaporized by US power but its troops are deeply dug into the mountainous terrain and would be fighting from prepared positions. War against North Korea would be a slow and bloody slog– even a repeat of the bloody, stalemated 1950-52 Korean War in which 39,000 Americans and at least 2.5 million Koreans died. I’ve been in the deep North Korean-dug tunnels under the Demilitarized Zone. A full division can be moved through in only 60 minutes. Ever since being soundly beaten in Vietnam and fought to a draw in Afghanistan, the US military has preferred to attack small countries like Panama, Grenada, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq and Syria. The Pentagon is not eager to tangle with the tough North Koreans. Estimates of the cost of a US invasion of North Korea have run as high as 250,000 US casualties and tens of billions of dollars. Seemingly heedless of these hard facts, President Trump – who himself avoided national military service in the 1960’s – keeps beating the war drums over North Korea and needling its thin-skinned regime with naval exercises, over-flights, and intensifying bombast. North Korea’s Kim Jong-un has played right along, clearly relishing his game of chicken with tough-talking Donald Trump. Trump seemed certain he could somehow cajole China into disarming North Korea’s nuclear arsenal. But the administration’s amateur foreign policymakers failed to understand that the only “deal” that could get China to disarm the North was by agreeing to remove all US military bases from the region – South Korea, Japan and Guam – and also moving the US Seventh Fleet far from China’s coasts. War at the Top of the ... Eric Margolis Best Price: $2.60 Buy New $24.57 (as of 06:55 EDT - Details) Growing US hysteria over North Korea, a nation of only 25 million, recalls the propaganda storm launched by Washington to justify its invasion of equally small Iraq. The dim-witted US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, has become point-woman for hurling warlike threats at North Korea even though this neocon poster-girl’s foreign affairs experience appears to have been limited to the International House of Pancakes in her native South Carolina. Everyone seems to have forgotten, or ignores, that North Korea, South Korea and the United States remain in a state of war. The 1950-52 Korean War ended with a cease-fire, not a peace. The US has been trying to overthrow and undermine North Korea’s Stalinist regimes ever since, using military threats, subversion and economic warfare. Talk of US-South Korean plans to “decapitate’ North Korea’s leadership with missile strikes and commando raids keeps giving Pyongyang the jitters. South Korea’s new president, Moon Jae-in, demanded that his nation be consulted before any military action. But Moon’s pleas have been largely ignored by Trump. Most South Koreans shrug off the North’s threats and seek to avoid war at all costs. Of course. They would be the primary victims. The US has spent over $200 billion on ballistic anti-missile systems in recent years designed to stop North Korean missiles. Unfortunately, these ABM systems don’t work very well. More tens of billions will have to be spent before these anti-missile systems become reliable. Would it not be easier and less expensive for grand deal-maker Trump to recognize North Korea, set up diplomatic relations, stop trying to overthrow the Kim regime, and finally end the Korean War? The Best of Eric Margolis

Illegal Alien Wife Beaters Protected by Sanctuary City Mayor Busted Sanctuary cities are the real war on women. And Democrats are the ones fighting it. Democrats like Oakland's Mayor Schaaf. Three illegal immigrants, who avoided capture after Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf blew the whistle on a raid by federal immigration authorities last month, have since been re-arrested for new crimes including robbery and spousal abuse, ICE officials said. Schaaf tweeted out a warning ahead of the raid in northern California last month, infuriating Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials and the Trump administration. “How dare you!” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in California this month, addressing Schaaf. “How dare you needlessly endanger the lives of our law enforcement officers to promote a radical, open borders agenda.” ICE officials eventually caught 232 illegal immigrants, many of them criminals, in the four-day sweep but said that hundreds more escaped because of Schaaf’s warning. But on Tuesday, officials said that at least three of those who were targeted in the raid, but were not apprehended, had since been arrested for additional crimes. One was a Mexican national arrested for robbery and gun crimes, who was released back into the community for a prior offense despite an ICE detainer request in November. Another Mexican national was arrested for a DUI, despite having been deported three times and prior convictions for false imprisonment, DUI and battery of a spouse. The third was a Mexican national who was arrested for corporal injury of a spouse, despite being deported twice and criminal convictions including drug possession, hit-and-run, DUIs, possessions of narcotics equipment and a parole violation.

Julian Assange During World War II Cardinal Jozsef Mindszenty was a huge critic of fascism and wound up in prison. In Oct. 1945 he became head of the Church in Hungary and spoke out just as strongly against Communist oppression. He wound up back in prison for eight more years, including long periods of solitary confinement and endured other forms of torture. In 1949 he was sentenced to life in a show trial that generated worldwide condemnation. Two weeks after the trial began in early 1949, Pope Pius XII (having failed to speak out forcefully against the Third Reich) did summon the courage to condemn what was happening to Mindszenty. Pius excommunicated everyone involved in the Mindszenty trial. Then, addressing a huge crowd on St. Peter’s Square, he asked, “Do you want a Church that remains silent when she should speak … a Church that does not condemn the suppression of conscience and does not stand up for the just liberty of the people … a Church that locks herself up within the four walls of her temple in unseemly sycophancy …?” When the Hungarian revolution broke out in 1956, Mindszenty was freed, but only for four days. When Soviet tanks rolled back into Budapest, he fled to the U.S. embassy and was given immediate asylum by President Eisenhower. Speaking Freely: Ray M... Buy New $1.99 (as of 09:20 EDT - Details) There the Cardinal stayed cooped up for the next 15 years. Mindszenty’s mother was permitted to visit him four times a year, and the communist authorities stationed secret police outside the embassy ready to arrest him should he try to leave. Sound familiar? Where is the voice of conscience to condemn what is happening to Julian Assange, whose only “crime” is publishing documents exposing the criminal activities and corruption of governments and other Establishment elites? Decades ago, the U.S. and “civilized world” had nothing but high praise for the courageous Mindszenty. He became a candidate for sainthood. And Assange? He has been confined in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for six years —from June 19, 2012—the victim of a scurrilous slander campaign and British threats to arrest him, should he ever step outside. The U.S. government has been putting extraordinary pressure on Ecuador to end his asylum and top U.S. officials have made it clear that, as soon as they get their hands on him, they will manufacture a reason to put him on trial and put him in prison. All for spreading unwelcome truth around. A Suppression of Conscience One might ask, is “unseemly sycophancy” at work among the media? The silence of what used to be the noble profession of journalism is deafening. John Pilger — one of the few journalists to speak out on Julian Assange’s behalf, labels journalists who fail to stand in solidarity with Assange in exposing the behavior of the Establishment, “Vichy journalists — after the Vichy government that served ad enabled the German occupation of France.” Pilger adds: “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 … 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.’” WikiLeaks and 9/11: What if? In an op-ed published several years ago by The Los Angeles Times, two members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, Coleen Rowley and Bogdan Dzakovic, pointed out that — If WikiLeaks had been up and running before 9/11 — frustrated FBI investigators might have chosen to leak information that their superiors bottled up, perhaps averting the terrorism attacks. “There were a lot of us in the run-up to Sept. 11 who had seen warning signs that something devastating might be in the planning stages. But we worked for ossified bureaucracies incapable of acting quickly and decisively. Lately, the two of us have been wondering how things might have been different if there had been a quick, confidential way to get information out.” The WikiLeaks Files: T... WikiLeaks Best Price: $2.50 Buy New $7.00 (as of 05:50 EDT - Details) Fourth Estate on Life Support In 2010, while he was still a free man, the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity gave its annual award to Assange. The citation read: “It seems altogether fitting and proper that this year’s award be presented in London, where Edmund Burke coined the expression “Fourth Estate.” Comparing the function of the press to that of the three Houses then in Parliament, Burke said: “…but in the Reporters Gallery yonder, there sits a Fourth Estate more important far then they all.” The year was 1787—the year the U.S. Constitution was adopted. The First Amendment, approved four years later, aimed at ensuring that the press would be free of government interference. That was then. With the Fourth Estate now on life support, there is a high premium on the fledgling Fifth Estate, which uses the ether and is not susceptible of government or corporation control. Small wonder that governments with lots to hide feel very threatened. It has been said: “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” WikiLeaks is helping make that possible by publishing documents that do not lie. Last spring, when we chose WikiLeaks and Julian Assange for this award, Julian said he would accept only “on behalf or our sources, without which WikiLeaks’ contributions are of no significance.” We do not know if Pvt. Bradley Manning gave WikiLeaks the gun-barrel video of July 12, 2007 called “Collateral Murder.” Whoever did provide that graphic footage, showing the brutality of the celebrated “surge” in Iraq, was certainly far more a patriot than the “mainstream” journalist embedded in that same Army unit. He suppressed what happened in Baghdad that day, dismissed it as simply “one bad day in a surge that was filled with such days,” and then had the temerity to lavish praise on the unit in a book he called “The Good Soldiers.” Julian is right to emphasize that the world is deeply indebted to patriotic truth-tellers like the sources who provided the gun-barrel footage and the many documents on Afghanistan and Iraq to WikiLeaks. We hope to have a chance to honor them in person in the future. Today we honor WikiLeaks, and one of its leaders, Julian Assange, for their ingenuity in creating a new highway by which important documentary evidence can make its way, quickly and confidentially, through the ether and into our in-boxes. Long live the Fifth Estate!” Eventually a compromise was found in 1971 when Pope Paul VI lifted the excommunications and Mindszenty was able to leave the U.S. embassy. Can such a diplomatic solution be found to free Assange? It is looking more and more unlikely with each passing year. Reprinted with permission from Consortiumnews.com.

Not So Fast It’s got to be either one of the stupidest acts that I can recall or a very wicked plan by Washington neocons to sabotage Korean peace talks. How else to describe the decision by Big Brother USA and junior sidekick South Korea to stage major air force exercises on North Korea’s border. The prickly North Koreans had a fit, of course, as always when the US flexes its muscles on their borders. Continuing South and North Korean peace talks scheduled this week were cancelled by the furious North Koreans. The much ballyhooed Singapore summit between US President Donald Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un is now threatened with cancellation or delay. Who can blame the North Koreans for blowing their tops? As Trump administration mouthpieces were gabbing about peace and light, the US Air Force was getting ready to fly B-52 heavy bombers and F-22 Raptor stealth fighters around North Korea’s borders and missile-armed subs lurked at sea. This provocation was the first of two major spring military exercises planned by the US and its reluctant South Korean satrap. In case North Korea failed to get the message, the second exercise is code-named ‘Maximum Thunder.’ American Raj: Liberati... Eric Margolis Best Price: $5.99 Buy New $45.86 (as of 09:30 EDT - Details) And this right after Trump and his neocon minions reneged on the sensible nuclear treaty with Iran. In a policy one could call ‘eat sand and die,’ Trump demanded that Iran not only give up any and all nuclear capacity (Iran has no nukes), but also junk its non-nuclear armed medium range missiles, stop backing the Palestinians, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen, roll over and be good, don’t do anything to upset Israel, and pull out of Syria. In short, a total surrender policy leading to future regime change. Hardly an encouragement for North Korea. North Korea was right on target when it accused arch-neocon John Bolton of trying to sabotage the peace deal. In 2005-2006, Bolton served as the Bush administration’s ambassador to the UN. He established a tradition for the post of being anti-Muslim, pro-Israel and anti-Russian, a policy continued to this day by the current US UN rep, loud-mouthed neocon Nikki Haley. In the 2005-2006 period, after years of negotiations, the US and North Korea were close to a nuclear/peace deal. Enter John Bolton. He succeeded in sabotaging the US-North Korea deal. Why? Because Bolton, as an arch neocon, was fanatically pro-Israel and feared that North Korea might provide nuclear technology to Israel’s foes. As usual with the neocons, Israel’s interests came before those of the United States. Trump’s newly named Secretary of State, Michael Pompeo, is also an ardent neocon. Last week, Bolton went onto US TV and actually suggested North Korea might follow the course set by Libya, of all places. Libya’s then ruler, Muammar Kadaffi, bought some nuclear equipment from Pakistan so he could hand it over to the US as a gesture of cooperation after the Bush administration invaded Iraq. The handover was done with much fanfare, then the US, France and Britain attacked Libya and overthrew Kadaffi. The hapless Libyan leader was eventually murdered by French agents. War at the Top of the ... Eric Margolis Best Price: $2.60 Buy New $24.57 (as of 09:00 EDT - Details) Is this what Bolton has in mind for North Korea? The Northerners certainly seemed to think so. Some wondered if Bolton and perhaps Pompeo were trying to sabotage the North Korea deal. Or were at least being incredibly obtuse and belligerent. Was Trump involved in this intrigue? Hard to tell. But he can’t be happy. His minions and bootlickers are promoting Trump for the Nobel Prize – rather ahead of events. Or was the US military rattling its sabers and trying to protect its huge investments in North Asia? The Pentagon takes a dim view of the proposed Korean nuclear accords. The burst of sweetness and light coming from Pyongyang just sounds too good to be true. Veteran Korea observers, this writer included, find it hard to believe Kim Jong-un will give up his nuclear weapons, particularly after seeing Trump’s deceit in dealing with Iran and Kadaffi’s murder. Speaking of de-nuclearization, why does North Korea not demand that the US get rid of its nuclear weapons based in South Korea, Okinawa, Guam and with the 7th Fleet? Many are targeted on North Korea. US nuclear weapons are based on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Others are secretly based in Japan. Why not demand the US pull out all its 28,500 troops in South Korea and some 2,000 military technicians at air bases? Conclusively halt those spring and fall military maneuvers that raise the threat of war. End the trade embargo of North Korea that amounts to high level economic warfare. Establish normal diplomatic relations. Pyongyang has not even begun to raise these issues. Smiles and hugs are premature. The Best of Eric Margolis

Jewish and Pro-Israel Students Kicked Off University Board for Opposing BDS First they came for the Jews. And then they came for everyone else. Jewish students have already faced plenty of harassment and hate at McGill. The latest incident at the Canadian university comes with a rather blatant agenda. A Jewish student at McGill University has been kicked off the student government board for having “conflicts of interest” due to his pro-Israel activism. Third-year student Noah Lew was one of 12 board members up for general assembly ratification on Monday evening following his victory as vice-president finance of the Arts Undergraduate Society. The ratification vote is typically a mere formality, but Monday’s was different due to Democratize Student Society of McGill University (SSMU), an organization that was established to resist the university’s ban of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement on campus. Democratize SSMU was able to pass a motion that required each board member to be voted upon separately under the grounds that they weren’t a fan of the names. When it was Lew’s turn, he was voted down, 105 to 73 with 12 abstaining, with applause following the vote. Two other students who had criticized BDS, Alexander Scheffel and Josephine Wright O’Manique, were also voted down. Democratize SSMU had targeted Lew and the other two students on the board because they had connections to the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee (CJPAC) and were involved in getting the BDS ban passed, which Democratize SSMU claimed were “conflicts of interests.” Somehow I don't think being a member of a Muslim student group and supporting BDS would be considered a conflict of interest. But the campus anti-Israel crowd has been working rather hard to intimidate and penalize anyone involved in pro-Israel organizations. And to keep their racist boycott movement going by maintaining control over student governments. Lew shared the experience on Facebook. “I have no doubt from the information circulated about me and campaign run against me prior to this vote that this was about my Jewish identity, and nothing more,” wrote Lew. “I was blocked from being able to participate in my student government because I am Jewish, because I have been affiliated with Jewish organizations, and because I believe in the right to Jewish self-determination.” Lew added that the experience shows the inherent anti-Semitism in the BDS movement. “If BDS is not anti-Semitic, why did a BDS-led campaign name and shame me for my affiliation with a Jewish organization, and call on students to remove me from student government for this reason?” wrote Lew. “If BDS is not anti-Semitic, why was I barred from participating in student government because of my Jewish identity?” There are some more details here and a petition. On Monday night, three students were removed from the Board of Directors of the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU), McGill’s main student government. All three were targeted for removal either because they are Jewish or have vocally opposed anti-Jewish discrimination on campus. This episode is utterly unacceptable, and is merely the latest in a long string of antisemitic incidents at your university. Indeed, according to eyewitnesses, one of the members of the mob that removed the three directors was Igor Sadikov. You will remember Sadikov as the student politician who in February told his followers to “punch a Zionist today.” It is unclear whether Sadikov has faced any disciplinary action for this incitement to violence from your administration. Antisemitism at McGill does not emerge from a vacuum. Rather, it has been nurtured in part by a toxic campus press, especially the McGill Daily, a publication which openly refuses to publish any “Zionist” content. In practice, this prevents McGill’s Jewish community from defending itself against the absurd attacks to which it is subjected. If the Daily is committed to systematically excluding the voices of an ethno-religious community on campus, then it cannot continue to receive automatic student funding, as it does now. The double standard here is pretty clear. And we know exactly what the reaction would be if a student paper refused to publish any pro-Islamist content.

DOJ May Hit #Resistance Mayor Who Warned Illegal Criminals w/Obstruction of Justice ICE had already called out Oakland's radical leftist boss for helping criminals and endangering ICE personnel by tipping them off that a raid was coming. Her actions were quite clearly illegal, though she claimed that she had cleared her actions with lawyers beforehand, And now, a member of the #Resistance may actually end up fighting obstruction of justice charges. Thomas Homan, the acting director of ICE, slammed Mayor Schaaf, who on Saturday night released an unprecedented warning that ICE was about to begin arresting people. Schaaf said she issued the alert after receiving confidential tips from “credible sources,” and conferring with attorneys to make sure she wasn’t opening herself up to federal prosecution. The mayor’s move endangered ICE officers and alerted their targets, Homan asserted, “making clear that this reckless decision was based on her political agenda.” He said 864 “criminal aliens and public safety threats remain at large in the community, and I have to believe that some of them were able to elude us thanks to the mayor’s irresponsible decision.” Fox News, which was given a ride-along with ICE officers during the operation, reported that agency officials were asking the Department of Justice to investigate whether Schaaf broke any laws. Now the DOJ is looking into Schaaf. The Department of Justice is looking into whether Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf obstructed justice by warning Northern California residents of an impending raid by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The agency’s acting director, Thomas Homan, told “Fox & Friends” Wednesday morning that the DOJ is “reviewing” whether Schaaf broke any laws by telling her constituents ICE would be raiding the area in order to arrest people violating federal immigration laws. Schaaf, a Democrat, posted the warning to Twitter Saturday, writing that “multiple credible sources” told her the immigration agency was “preparing to conduct an operation in the Bay Area, including Oakland, starting as soon as” Sunday. “What she did is no better than a gang lookout yelling ‘police’ when a police cruiser comes in the neighborhood, except she did it to a whole community,” Homan told "Fox & Friends." "There's over 800 significant public safety threat criminals ... that we are unable to locate because of that warning, so that community's a lot less safe than it would've been." That's exactly it. And Dems have become honorary members of MS-13. And those who collaborate with illegal alien gang members should face the consequences.

New outbreak of Ebola kills 17 in northwest DR Congo Seventeen people in northwest Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) have died from Ebola, the health ministry said on Tuesday, describing the fresh outbreak as a "public health emergency with international impact." "Twenty-one cases of fever with haemorrhagic indications and 17 deaths" have been recorded in Equateur province, it said, citing a notification to the ministry as of May 3. It is the DRC's ninth known outbreak of Ebola since 1976, when the deady viral disease was first identified in then-Zaire by a Belgian-led team. In Geneva, the World Health Organization (WHO) said lab tests in the DRC confirmed the presence of Ebola virus in two out of five samples collected from patients. "WHO is working closely with the government of the DRC to rapidly scale up its operations and mobilize health partners, using the model of a successful response to a similar... outbreak in 2017," it said in a statement. It said it had released $1 million (840,000 euros) from an emergency contingency fund, set up a coordination group and deployed more than 50 experts to work with the DRC government and health agencies. "The action plan prepared by the health ministry has been approved," an official statement released after a cabinet meeting said. - No new deaths - "Since the notification of the cases on May 3, no deaths have been reported," it said, without specifying when the first case came to light. The outbreak occurred in Bikoro, on the shores of Lake Tumba. All the cases were reported from a clinic at Ilkoko Iponge, located about 30 kilometres (20 miles) from Bikoro, where treatment capacities are limited, the WHO said. A team of experts from the WHO, Doctors without Borders (DRC) and Equateur province travelled to Bikoro on Tuesday to beef up coordination and carry out investigations, it said. Ebola is one of the world's most notorious diseases, being both highly infectious and extremely lethal. It is caused by a virus that has a natural reservoir in the bat, which does not itself fall ill, but can pass the microbe on to humans who hunt it for "bushmeat". The virus is handed on by contact with bodily fluids -- touching a sick or dead person is a well-known source of infection. Following an incubation period of between two and 21 days, Ebola develops into a high fever, weakness, intense muscle and joint pain, headaches and a sore throat. That is often followed by vomiting and diarrhoea, skin eruptions, kidney and liver failure, and internal and external bleeding. The worst-ever Ebola outbreak started in December 2013 in southern Guinea before spreading to two neighbouring west African countries, Liberia and Sierra Leone. That outbreak killed more than 11,300 people out of nearly 29,000 registered cases, according to WHO estimates, although the real figure is thought to be significantly higher. More than 99 percent of victims were in the three West African countries, although cases occurred in other parts of the world, often stirring panic. There is no current vaccine to prevent Ebola or licensed treatment for it, although a range of experimental drugs are in development. Early care with rehydration may boost the chance of survival. Given the lack of a pharmaceutical weapon against Ebola, health experts have responded with time-honoured measures of control, prevention and containment. They use rigorous protocols to protect medical personnel with disposable full-body suits, masks, goggles and gloves and disinfecting sprays.

Archbishop Hebda and McCarrick's Scandal Archbishop Bernard Hebda of St. Paul, MN, responds to the McCarrick scandal (The Catholic Spirit): Every time Mass is celebrated, the priest prays that Jesus will “look not on our sins but on the faith of [his] Church… .” That’s been an important prayer for me in the time that I have been serving this archdiocese, well aware of our sins but equally aware of the strong and vibrant faith of this local Church. I’ve been praying that prayer even more earnestly in these past weeks as the Church in the United States has once again come face-to-face with its sins, with reports that former cardinal Theodore McCarrick, one of the most prominent Churchmen in the United States in the last quarter century, has been accused of abusing two minors and sexually harassing or assaulting a number of seminarians and young priests. To make matters worse (if that is even possible), evidence has surfaced that indicates that a bishop, as well as some priests and laity, had brought the allegations about misconduct with seminarians to the attention of Church authorities but to no avail: Archbishop McCarrick was nonetheless “promoted” to become the archbishop in our nation’s capital, and elevated to the College of Cardinals. While I realize that it is not always easy to evaluate the credibility of those bringing allegations, and that there’s often a tendency to believe those we know over those we don’t, I don’t think that the Church in the United States will rest — and confidence will be restored — until the matter is independently investigated and explained, and assurances are given that there are safeguards in place to make sure that something like this couldn’t happen again. The matter has been particularly troubling to me personally due to the fact that I had served in the Archdiocese of Newark as coadjutor archbishop from November 4, 2013, to March 25, 2016, when I was named archbishop here. It was while I was in Newark that I was introduced to then-Cardinal McCarrick. A number of good Catholics have written to ask for a personal accounting on my part, inquiring whether I was made aware in my time in Newark of the 2005 and 2007 settlements involving Archbishop McCarrick, or if I knew of any allegations against him. I can state unequivocally that I learned of those settlements only in June of this year, as news broke about the unrelated claim that had been filed in the Archdiocese of New York. What I know of the settlements I know from the newspapers. When serving in Newark, I was regularly briefed on current legal matters of all sorts, but not on past legal matters (unless they were still being discussed in the press). By the time I arrived in Newark in November 2013, the 2005 and 2007 settlements were apparently considered ancient history. It would be untrue to state that I had never heard any allegations about Cardinal McCarrick. Years before I ever lived in Newark, and never imagining that I would be assigned there, I had indeed read — as a somewhat geeky ex-lawyer — an allegation about Cardinal McCarrick in the context of a 2005 lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Archbishop Myers, Cardinal Eagan, Bishop Hubbard and the Irish Christian Brothers. While the complaint didn’t supply any details, the plaintiff was reported to have said to a journalist that “Archbishop McCarrick would share a bed with seminarians but not engage in any activity with them.” The complaint would later be formally amended to include that allegation. Knowing, however, that this lawsuit was completely dismissed by the state and federal courts, I never gave the particular allegation about Cardinal McCarrick any credence. I can also state without exception that no one in my years in Newark ever told me that they were improperly touched by Archbishop McCarrick, and no one ever told me that they had to share a bed with him or that they had seen anyone share a bed with him. I heard lots of gut-wrenching stories in my two-and-a-half years there, but none of them involved Archbishop McCarrick. With St. John Paul II’s 1995 visit, he was remembered for “bringing a saint to Newark,” not as an abuser of seminarians, minors or priests. When I was installed here in St. Paul, he joined me at lunch along with my father, sister, godmother and then 12-year-old nephew. I can assure you that I would never have allowed that to happen if I had any reason to know or even suspect the things that have been reported in the newspapers this past month. While the letters and emails of recent days are sober reminders that there’s still a long way to go in restoring trust, I nonetheless welcome the efforts to hold me accountable to you, the faithful of this archdiocese. The events of these past weeks have shown that no one can be above the law, regardless of rank or privilege. I was grateful for the opportunity to reinforce that with our seminarians this past weekend, and I look forward to continuing my work with the Office of Ministerial Standards and Safe Environment, and our Archdiocesan Review Board, in creating a culture in which no one need be afraid or reluctant to bring forth an allegation of misconduct. Our heavenly patron, St. Paul, reminds us that “where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more.” May these difficult days be days of great grace for this local Church. REMNANT COMMENT: While we certainly appreciate His Excellency's candid explanation of what he knew and did not know about this horrific scandal in the Church, we would also humbly beg him to take it one step further by publicly proclaiming his profession of belief in the Church's official teaching against the mortal sin of homosexual acts and the so-called "gay lifestyle," which includes her long-held teaching that homosexual activity between clerics is an ecclesiastical crime. Far from being reassured of this by their bishops, many Catholic faithful today are informed that the modern Catholic Church is now an "inclusive community" that "welcomes all" and "judges none." All very well and good, except for the fact that the Church's constant and unchanging moral teaching on this makes no such allowance. In fact, this binding and constant teaching of the Church was reaffirmed most recently in her most authoritative modern catechism, which holds the exact opposite position from that apparently held by many bishops: Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex... Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2357) Under no circumstances…except for those dreamed up by a number of bishops in this country who apparently think that it should be left up to individual parishes to decide if they are LGBTQ-friendly or not. Even Pope John Paul "The GREAT's" Vatican clarified the Church's teaching on October 31, 1986, in the “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons”: Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed to those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not. Notice the late pope does not say, “Let the practicing homosexuals have a spiritual home among your faithful,” as Father James Martin and his episcopal fans are at least implying on a regular basis in the media. Does Archbishop Hebda believe it is time for the Church to stop humiliating herself by stooping to accommodate a special interest group that obviously doesn't care about her or the moral code by which she governs? Does he believe that all Catholics must follow the rules of the Church pertaining to the Sixth Commandment...or just the straight Catholics? Does His Excellency believe that if some homosexual Catholics feel they need not bother following the rules they should be warmly welcomed into our "Catholic Christian" community anyway, even if they are in same-sex unions? Pope John Paul certainly didn't accept that. In his 2005 book Memory and Identity, John Paul referred to homosexuality as an “ideology of evil,” insisting of so-called 'gay marriage' that: “It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and man.” Was Pope John Paul THE GREAT an intolerant homophobe? Are Father Martin and his pals in the episcopacy really so enlightened over every pope, saint, and moral theologian in history? Or is it not so that it is both negligent and uncharitable for some bishops to refuse to inform their faithful that according to the Church's own infallible teaching, everlasting damnation is the price to be paid for this kind of inclusivity and toleration? And if the episcopal retort is going to be that this acceptance refers only to chaste homosexuals, then we call FOUL even louder since this crosses the line into willful deception. We're all sinners, of course--- and the Church already accepts repentant homosexuals as they are, just as she accepts repentant practitioners of ANY sins of the flesh. So why are our bishops playing dumb? Quite obviously, it is because what they are actually closing an episcopal eye to are the folks who want to keep right on sinning--and sinning proudly. This is what the Church of Accompaniment is all about! But, practically speaking--in the real world--this kind of "accompaniment" is only green-lighting vice and mortal sin, and as such constitutes a hideous violation of everything these bishops supposedly believe as Catholic priests. So what's going on here? Who are these bishops that think they can play fast and loose not only with the moral theology of the Catholic Church, but also with the immortal souls of their flock? Is it any wonder that priests and laity alike are changing their attitude on the "gay lifestyle" and violations of the Sixth Commandment when so many bishops are working to remove the stigma attached to this sin that Scripture tells us cries to heaven for vengeance? The Catholic Church's new-found "climate of tolerance" is exactly what McCarrick and company are counting on! It is truly homophobic for any bishop to lie to the gay community about this, and to risk the immortal souls of the sheep merely so that the shepherd might pride himself on occupying the politically correct high ground. This is gross dereliction of duty, and we hope and pray that all the good U.S. bishops would jump at the opportunity to issue statements reaffirming the Church's clear teaching against all sins of the flesh, homo- and heterosexual. Again, God bless Archbishop Hebda for this welcome statement, and may God grant him the courage now to finish the task by publicly reassuring the scandalized faithful that it’s not just abuse of minors or sexual harassment that’s going on here. Our bishops must make it absolutely clear that the Church's moral theology on homosexuality will not and can not be trumped by the dictates of political correctness. And neither can God's law be changed to accommodate the spirit of our “most enlightened” age---which is, of course, an evil spirit that can be driven out only by prayer and fasting. Until the Church and her bishops get back to reaffirming traditional Catholic teaching on human sexuality we can forget about seeing an end to the sexual abuse crisis and the massive problem of homosexuality in the clergy. McCarrick will become the norm, not the exception, and confidence in the leadership and moral authority of the Catholic Church will remain in the toilet indefinitely... exactly as the forces of darkness intended all along.

DOJ Surrenders: 3D Print Gun Files Are Protected Under First Amendment For those who remember Cody Wilson, the man who began developing 3D printing files so that you could manufacture your own guns, there is good news out. Cody finally won against the federal beast after intimidation tactics were performed against him by the Obama Justice Department. The Trump DOJ settled with Wilson, finally acknowledging that his 3D print gun files are protected as free speech under the First Amendment. I first reported that 3-D guns were for real back in July of 2012, when an internet gunsmith by the name of "Have Blue" produced an AR style pistol that fired both .22 and .223 caliber bullets. Later, Cody Wilson, 25, a law student at the University of Texas and founder of the non-profit group Defense Distributed, had produced a 3-D printed handgun made entirely of ABS plastic with only a metal firing pin. 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 * 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. In 2013, Wilson had the information on how to build the gun removed from public access at the request of the United States Department of Defense Trade Controls. According to Wilson, they seized control of the information. Clearly, they were acting unlawfully when they did what they did. "I thought my life was over," Wilson said after his attorneys told him he didn't fair well going up against the government. So, what did he do? He fired them, and got a new legal team. Wired has the story. Instead, Wilson has spent the last years on an unlikely project for an anarchist: Not simply defying or skirting the law but taking it to court and changing it. In doing so, he has now not only defeated a legal threat to his own highly controversial gunsmithing project. He may have also unlocked a new era of digital DIY gunmaking that further undermines gun control across the United States and the world—another step toward Wilson's imagined future where anyone can make a deadly weapon at home with no government oversight. Two months ago, the Department of Justice quietly offered Wilson a settlement to end a lawsuit he and a group of co-plaintiffs have pursued since 2015 against the United States government. Wilson and his team of lawyers focused their legal argument on a free speech claim: They pointed out that by forbidding Wilson from posting his 3-D-printable data, the State Department was not only violating his right to bear arms but his right to freely share information. By blurring the line between a gun and a digital file, Wilson had also successfully blurred the lines between the Second Amendment and the First. "If code is speech, the constitutional contradictions are evident," Wilson explained to WIRED when he first launched the lawsuit in 2015. "So what if this code is a gun?” The Department of Justice's surprising settlement, confirmed in court documents earlier this month, essentially surrenders to that argument. It promises to change the export control rules surrounding any firearm below .50 caliber—with a few exceptions like fully automatic weapons and rare gun designs that use caseless ammunition—and move their regulation to the Commerce Department, which won't try to police technical data about the guns posted on the public internet. In the meantime, it gives Wilson a unique license to publish data about those weapons anywhere he chooses. "I consider it a truly grand thing," Wilson says. "It will be an irrevocable part of political life that guns are downloadable, and we helped to do that." The Second Amendment Foundation has issued the following press release: BELLEVUE, WA – The Department of Justice and Second Amendment Foundation have reached a settlement in SAF’s lawsuit on behalf of Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed over free speech issues related to 3-D files and other information that may be used to manufacture lawful firearms. SAF and Defense Distributed had filed suit against the State Department under the Obama administration, challenging a May 2013 attempt to control public speech as an export under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), a Cold War-era law intended to control exports of military articles. Under terms of the settlement, the government has agreed to waive its prior restraint against the plaintiffs, allowing them to freely publish the 3-D files and other information at issue. The government has also agreed to pay a significant portion of the plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees, and to return $10,000 in State Department registration dues paid by Defense Distributed as a result of the prior restraint. Significantly, the government expressly acknowledges that non-automatic firearms up to .50-caliber – including modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms – are not inherently military. “Not only is this a First Amendment victory for free speech, it also is a devastating blow to the gun prohibition lobby,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “For years, anti-gunners have contended that modern semi-automatic sport-utility rifles are so-called ‘weapons of war,’ and with this settlement, the government has acknowledged they are nothing of the sort. “Under this settlement,” he continued, “the government will draft and pursue regulatory amendments that eliminate ITAR control over the technical information at the center of this case. They will transfer export jurisdiction to the Commerce Department, which does not impose prior restraint on public speech. That will allow Defense Distributed and SAF to publish information about 3-D technology.” The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. What does all this mean? Well, it's pretty simple, and I highly recommend the Wired article, which is quite lengthy and has lots of information, but what this does is demonstrates that the genie is out of the bottle and there is just no way for gun grabbing Communists the world over to be able to truly enforce their unlawful acts of fun gun confiscation. Why? Because now, anyone with access to the internet and a 3D printer can print their very own gun that is unregistered. That's right, and it's perfectly legal to do so. And we aren't just talking a rigid looking one-shot handgun. We're talking ARs, 1911s and a host of other guns. This actually may end up undermining the gun manufacturing industry in the future, as people will be able to build their own guns at home in a similar manner to how the internet has had a dramatic effect on the retail brick and mortar stores. Wilson boasted that his efforts have officially killed gun control. "I barely put a million bucks into this and I got you the Second Amendment forever," he told The Daily Wire in a phone interview. "What has the NRA done for you lately?" I don't know that I would go quite that far, after all, the settlement does state that "the government expressly acknowledges that non-automatic firearms up to .50-caliber – including modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms – are not inherently military." Therefore, the government still believes it has a right to regulate certain arms, which it does not have authority to do. "This doesn’t put the rifle in everyone’s hand, but it does that in essence" he added. "The DNA of our culture is preserved. This is the first pillar in the internet gun culture of tomorrow, and it is permanent." This is a huge milestone in the history of our county, and as such, it should be celebrated as a victory. As Joe Wolverton of The New American writes:

FBI Informant “Threatened” After Offering Details Linking Clinton Foundation To Russian Bribery Case This report was originally published by Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge While the mainstream media has largely ignored it, the scandal surrounding Russian efforts to acquire 20% of America’s uranium reserves, a deal which was ultimately approved by the Obama administration, and more specifically the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) which included Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder, is becoming more problematic for Democrats by the hour. As The Hill pointed out earlier this morning, the latest development in this sordid tale revolves around a man that the FBI used as an informant back in 2009 and beyond to build a case against a Russian perpetrator who ultimately admitted to bribery, extortion and money laundering. The informant, who is so far only known as “Confidential Source 1,” says that when he attempted to come forward last year with information that linked the Clinton Foundation directly to the scandal he was promptly silenced by the FBI and the Obama administration. Working as a confidential witness, the businessman made kickback payments to the Russians with the approval of his FBI handlers and gathered other evidence, the records show. Sources told The Hill the informant’s work was crucial to the government’s ability to crack a multimillion dollar racketeering scheme by Russian nuclear officials on U.S. soil that involved bribery, kickbacks, money laundering and extortion. In the end, the main Russian executive sent to the U.S. to expand Russian President Vladimir Putin’s nuclear business, an executive of an American trucking firm and a Russian financier from New Jersey pled guilty to various crimes in a case that started in 2009 and ended in late 2015. Toensing added her client has had contact from multiple congressional committees seeking information about what he witnessed inside the Russian nuclear industry and has been unable to provide that information because of the NDA. “He can’t disclose anything that he came upon in the course of his work,” she said. The information the client possesses includes specific allegations that Russian executives made to him about how they facilitated the Obama administration’s 2010 approval of the Uranium One deal and sent millions of dollars in Russian nuclear funds to the U.S. to an entity assisting Bill Clinton’s foundation. At the time, Hillary Clinton was serving as secretary of State on the government panel that approved the deal, the lawyer said. It has been previously reported that Bill Clinton accepted $500,000 in Russian speaking fees in 2010 and collected millions more in donations for his foundation from parties with a stake in the Uranium One deal, transactions that both the Clintons and the Obama administration denied had any influence on the approval. In the midst of the new discoveries revealed yesterday about the Uranium One case (see: FBI Uncovered Russian Bribery Plot Before Obama Approved Uranium One Deal, Netting Clintons Millions), “Confidential Source 1” has once again hired an attorney, Victoria Toensing, a former Reagan Justice Department official and former chief counsel of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to get his story out. Sitting down with The Hill earlier, Toensing said that the last time her client tried to speak out “both his reputation and liberty” were “threatened” by the Obama administration in a effort to force his silence. “All of the information about this corruption has not come out,” she said in an interview Tuesday. “And so my client, the same part of my client that made him go into the FBI in the first place, says, ‘This is wrong. What should I do about it?’” Toensing said she also possesses memos that recount how the Justice Department last year threatened her client when he attempted to file a lawsuit that could have drawn attention to the Russian corruption during the 2016 presidential race as well as helped him recover some of the money Russians stole from him through kickbacks during the FBI probe. The undercover client witnessed “a lot of bribery going on around the U.S.” but was asked by the FBI to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) that prevents him from revealing what he knows to Congress, Toensing explained. When he tried to bring some of the allegations to light in the lawsuit last year, “the Obama Justice Department threatened him with loss of freedom. They said they would bring a criminal case against him for violating an NDA,” she added. Emails obtained by The Hill show that a civil attorney working with the former undercover witness described the pressure the Justice Department exerted to keep the client from disclosing to a federal court what he knew last summer. “The government was taking a very harsh position that threatened both your reputation and liberty,” the civil lawyer wrote in one email. In another, she added, “As you will recall the gov’t made serious threats sufficient to cause you to withdraw your civil complaint.” As we pointed out last summer when Peter Schweizer first released his feature documentary Clinton Cash, the Uranium One deal at the center of this scandal is believed to have netted the Clintons and their Clinton Foundation millions of dollars in donations and ‘speaking fees’ from Uranium One shareholders and other Russian entities. Russian Purchase of US Uranium Assets in Return for $145mm in Contributions to the Clinton Foundation – Bill and Hillary Clinton assisted a Canadian financier, Frank Giustra, and his company, Uranium One, in the acquisition of uranium mining concessions in Kazakhstan and the United States. Subsequently, the Russian government sought to purchase Uranium One but required approval from the Obama administration given the strategic importance of the uranium assets. In the run-up to the approval of the deal by the State Department, nine shareholders of Uranium One just happened to make $145mm in donations to the Clinton Foundation. Moreover, the New Yorker confirmed that Bill Clinton received $500,000 in speaking fees from a Russian investment bank, with ties to the Kremlin, around the same time. Needless to say, the State Department approved the deal giving Russia ownership of 20% of U.S. uranium assets. Meanwhile, the ‘journalists’ over at CNN are still trying to get to the bottom of exactly who spent the $100,000 on Facebook ads…

Senator Lindsey Graham Unleashes Firestorm At Democrat Senators For "Most Unethical Sham" Since He's Been In Politics I'm not a fan of Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and he's my senator, but I have to tell you that he was right on point on Thursday when he berated Senate Democrats in their relentless assault on Judge Brett Kavanaugh while at the same time believing every word of Dr. Christine Ford without any evidence. In fact, all of the evidence and all of the witnesses to date, including Dr. Ford's friend, whom she claims was in the same house that the attack occurred refute her claims. When Graham had his time to speak, he said what many of us thought should have been said. After Kavanaugh unleashed his own refutation of the charges and blasted Democrats for their attacks on him, near the closing of the hearing, Graham finally said what everyone had been waiting on and said it with passion. "What you want to do is destroy this guy's life, hold this seat open, and hope you win in 2020," Graham blasted Democrat Senators on the committee. Sen. Lindsey Graham to committee Democrats: "This is the most unethical sham since I've been in politics...Boy, y'all want power. Boy, I hope you never get it. I hope the American people can see through this sham, that you knew about it and you held it." pic.twitter.com/NnpcF33smC take our poll - story continues below Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? * John Bolton Richard Grenell Dina Powell Heather Nauert Ivanka Trump Email * Comments 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. — Axios (@axios) September 27, 2018 Graham continued, "Would you say you've been through hell?" Kavanaugh responded, "I've been through hell and then some."

Cardinal Burke to Michael Matt: "Amoris Not An Exercise of Magisterium" (Now what?) Given that Pope Francis has, since that interview took place, attempted to make the Argentine bishops’ interpretation of AL 'magisterial'--an interpretation that allows public adulterers to receive Holy Communion--Cardinal Burke’s reply to my question on January 9th of this year would seem to take on new relevancy. In my interview of Raymond Cardinal Burke less than one year ago, I asked His Eminence to clarify what, exactly, is the level of authoritative weight of Pope Francis’s post-synodal exhortation, Amoris Laetitia. Now, Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, made it very clear to the Catholic News Service on December 5 what the Pope is up to: “The fact that the pope requested that his letter and the interpretations of the Buenos Aires bishops be published in the AAS means that His Holiness has given these documents a particular qualification that elevates them to the level of being official teachings of the church. While the content of the pope’s letter itself does not contain teachings on faith and morals, it does point toward the interpretations of the Argentine bishops and confirms them as authentically reflecting his own mind. Thus together the two documents became the Holy Father’s authentic magisterium for the whole church.” What Cardinal Burke rightly describes as lacking in any magisterial weight whatsoever—and, in fact, in dire need of clarification and correction— has by papal fiat been declared magisterial, and thus binding on us all. Francis made it clear that the Argentine bishops’ interpretation of AL allowing public adulterers to receive Holy Communion “explains precisely the meaning of Chapter VIII of ‘Amoris Laetitia.’ There are no other interpretations.” I would imagine this outrageous overreach of papal authority on the Pope's part would make it ominously clear to Cardinal Burke that the time has come to issue his public correction of Pope Francis's erroneous teaching. The moment, it would seem, has come. Cardinal Burke, please and in God's Holy Name, we beg you to act now -- before Pope Francis succeeds in tearing the Church in half completely. We fear that your silence now, in the face of this latest papal travesty, may suggest consent to the claim that Amoris Laetitia is magisterial, and thus prove more damaging than if you had never raised your voice at all. We thank God for the courage you've shown in defending His Church thus far, and we pray he will continue to bless and protect you as you do what must now be done.

Hillary Cracks Racist Joke After Mixing Up Cory Booker & Eric Holder: "They All Look The Same" So, you were actually asking yourself who the real people are who engage in identity politics and viewing people with different skin colors or ethnic backgrounds as inferior people? Well, this didn't come from President Donald Trump. Nope, Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton mixed up Senator Cory Booker and former Attorney General Eric Holder and blew it off with a joke saying, "They all look the same." Hillary Clinton sat down with Recode’s Kara Swisher over the weekend to talk propaganda against her conservative political opponents and how mean, nasty and evil they have been in the past few months. “What’s often called political correctness is politeness,” Clinton said. “It’s not being rude and insulting to people. It’s respecting the diversity that we have in our society." take our poll - story continues below Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? Should military force be used to stop the caravan of migrants marching toward the U.S. border? * Yes, military force should be used. No, keep the military out of it. 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. “The Democratic Party is a much more diverse political party, attracting people who are African-American, Latino, LGBT, whatever the reason why people feel more comfortable where they are taken in, where they are included as part of a political movement or party” she added. “And I don’t think it’s politically correct to say we value that," she concluded. "And I don’t want to go around insulting people. I don’t want to paint with a broad brush every immigrant is this, every African-American is that, every, you know, other person with different religious beliefs or whatever – that’s childish.” Right, except she does just that and so do many in her party. However, in less than a minute she would insult both Booker and Holder, and every person with dark skin on the planet. Swisher asked her, "What do you think of Cory Booker… saying ‘kick them in the shins,’ essentially?" Of course, Swisher meant Eric Holder and Clinton corrected her, adding, “Yeah, I know they all look alike." What was even more amazing is that the audience laughed hysterically. Can you imagine if a conservative person uttered those comments? There would be a near lynching of them on the spot and surely for days to come. They might lose their livelihood and get death threats, but not "Crooked" Hillary. Clearly, she was speaking of all black people and not being specific to Holder or Booker as they look nothing alike. The only thing the two of them have in common is that they are criminals and have black skin. Clinton's comments were clearly racist, and those fawning over her during the interview laughed it up right along with her. Here, take a look! Disgusting that she continues to move and speak freely in this country with no justice being brought to bear on her for her many crimes, something we were promised from then-candidate Trump.

A Dismal Record: Why Are They Destroying the Nuns? The meeting covered Carmels of the Teresian, Discalced, reform from Germany, five areas of Spain, three from France, Great Britain, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Croatia and the Holy Land [1] . The reports from each region showed that many of the provisions found in Cor orans were already in place: federations with broad powers, including financial control and combined formation courses, “religious assistant” priests appointed by the federation and overseeing individual monasteries and superiors giving up their authority to the federations. Given that this was 2009, it is clear that the plans to force all contemplative monasteries in the world into this disastrous European mould were well under way long before Pope Benedict was even considering resigning. Today I’ve received an interesting document issued by the Carmelite Order in Europe following a meeting of the “Federations of Discalced Carmelite Nuns of Europe & the Holy Land” in Avila, February 2009. As a snapshot of the current condition of Carmelite monastic life after it had been completely “federated,” it paints a depressing picture; but as a demonstration of what “federations” are likely to achieve once Cor orans is implemented universally, it clangs in the mind like a funeral bell. Reconciled to managed extinction The report shows average ages of nuns between 65 and 80, “infirmary Carmels,” nuns in state nursing homes, entire communities living in care facilities and half the Carmels with no one in formation. Solutions offered are equally uniform: heaped-up bureaucracy, common formation courses between monasteries developed by “religious psychologists,” ever more powers handed to federations. This is federated Carmelite monastic life under Pope Francis’ New Paradigm of fully implemented VaticanTwoism. Very little is said of any efforts being made to increase vocational outreach using the internet or through diocesan contacts. And perhaps most telling of all, not one word is offered of applying any systematic religious solutions; no one is suggesting increased prayer or fasting, Rosary campaigns or novenas in what has to be the Carmelite Order’s most desperate hour. Nothing is said of increased intensity of devotion to the charism, study of the foundress or returning to sources, still less of strengthening the Carmelites’ traditional independent self-governance or reconsidering the wisdom of “the path taken”. Indeed, in one case in Spain, the sisters themselves advocate abandoning traditional Teresian autonomy altogether. The report from Great Britain notes: “18 Carmels have closed in the last 40 years. There have been two amalgamations in recent years and another one involving three Carmels is in process. Two communities at present are living together in one monastery as a temporary measure.” The case of the Netherlands is downright bizarre; sisters so old that even the federation structures are breaking down. Only one fully autonomous functioning Carmel still exists in the Netherlands, and the remains of four entire communities are living in a single care home run by religious brothers. But in this situation, the “solution” undertaken has been an elaborate bureaucratic reshuffle, including gaining approval from Rome, for “a completely new structure,” whose main task, no doubt, will be the making of funeral arrangements and disposing of library books. The atmosphere is weirdly resigned – one federation report recommended simply “forgetting the numbers” – with many notes of mutual congratulation over “unity,” the creating of “links” and the “building of trust” and “dialogue” between communities. The report from Belgium – federated in 1997, average age 73 with one sister in formation for 11 monasteries – states tersely that their biggest problem is “ageing” but under “possible solutions” says only, “We want to continue along the path we have begun.” It is only in the report from Croatia where the problem changes abruptly from aging nuns and no vocations to too many vocations with not enough room[2]. It is also notable that it is only in the Croatian report that Christ gets a direct mention. Federation of Croatia & Bosnia-Herzegovina: 82 nuns in 5 convents, with an average age of 47, and eleven in formation. This outlier differs from the Western European federations in several respects, notably that it was only federated in 2002. But the effects of the federating/formation courses are already being felt: “Nowadays, two monasteries have difficulty because of a lack of vocations.” Path taken: Have made a foundation in Albania; however this community is not federated. From the beginning, our Association has organized formation courses for the younger sisters as well as courses of permanent formation. Each year, we have one or two seminars, which are also the occasion to the meeting of the Council of the Association. The duration is 3 to 4 days and they take place every time in a different Monastery of the Association. We invite the sisters of other Carmelite convents friends to our formation courses: sisters from Albania, Slovenia and Bulgaria. Present Problems: In general, in our Association the vocations continue growing, but there are differences between the monasteries. Nowadays, two monasteries have difficulty because of a lack of vocations. Possible solutions: We do all what is in our hands in the area of the vocational promotion, collaborating in this way with Christ who calls by his Spirit. These self-generated reports were made in response to a questionnaire set out for the meeting. All speak of nothing but bureaucratic responses: shared “formation courses,” meetings of superiors, amalgamations and suppression of houses and finally “care homes” and houses given over entirely as infirmaries. A tale of controlled, systematized extinction. ~~~ Federation: Germany date when erected: 1980 number of convents: 14 number of nuns: 178 solemnly professed: 170 in formation[3]: 8 average age: 66 Path taken: for 15 years they have organized formation courses: on-going & initial formation, and for formators. Meetings for prioresses. Present problems: have got very old. Some sisters are in care-homes run by Franciscans. Different sisters have volunteered to help there. Possible solutions: two convents intend to amalgamate. ~~~ Federation: Spain – Castile Burgos Date when erected: 1978 Number of convents: 20 Number of nuns: 245 Solemnly professed: In formation: 9 Average age: between 64 Path taken: they have worked on communion and systematic formation of the communities. They have established a formation-house for new vocations and held a month long intensive course according to the ratio, given by the same sisters of the federation. In 2004 they established a Carmelite infirmary to help the communities. Courses have been organized to accompany the youngest sisters of the federation, given by a religious psychologist. Present problems: ageing of the sisters and a lack of vocations; we have not arrived at any practical conclusion in the way of amalgamations-restructuring though attempts have been made. The incorporation of sisters from other countries without due discernment in some cases. Possible solutions: we are making enquiries. ~~~ Federation: Spain - Catalonia Date when erected: 1993 Number of convents 4 Number of nuns: 60 Solemnly professed: In formation: none Average age: 71 What has been done: there has been one suppression and two convents have amalgamated Present problems: ageing of the sisters and a lack of vocations. We need outside help. ~~~ Federation: Spain - Navarre Date of erection: 1994 Number of convents:16 Number of nuns: 229 Solemnly professed: In formation: 10 Average age: 69 What has been done: there has been work on formation: each year, a course on on-going formation and one for those recently professed. There have been 3 suppressions and 3 amalgamations. Work will continue in this area, in order to keep a balance within the communities, based on the present communities and the new vocations. Present Problems: Ageing of the communities, resulting in weakening of life in all its facets. It is not easy to express the reality. A lack of vocations is with us as a reality in everyday life. Moreover, the high number of Carmels makes difficult to maintain all presences. Possible Solutions: It is completely necessary to assume the way of the restructurings, in order to live what is essential, forgetting the numbers. The challenge to grow in confidence and communion should lead us to downgrade the famous and untouchable autonomy because, to a daughter of Saint Teresa, the really important thing is to look for HIM and to live in obedience. Another of our challenges is caring [for] the ecclesial presences. We think this is the way will lead us to recreate from the interior the Charism of the Mother Teresa. ~~~ Federation: France - Toulouse Bordeaux Date when erected: 1955 Number of convents: 20 + 1 abroad, Athens Number of nuns: 274 Solemnly professed: 268 In formation: 6 Average age: 70,6 What has been done: There have been 1 amalgamation & 6 suppressions. The federal priority is the formation. There has been a lot of work in formation: for prioresses, formators & initial. Also with the extern sisters. The infirmary Carmel was closed due to the difficulty of finding a prioress and other personnel. The sisters have gone to other Carmels, except some who have gone to state geriatric homes. ~~~ Federation: Italy - Lombardy Date when erected: 1996 Number of convents: 16 Number of nuns: 220 Solemnly professed: 209 In formation: 11 Average age: 65 Present problems: there are big differences between the various convents. The number of vocations has diminished quickly and the numbers increased of those who have left during formation and during the first years of solemn profession. Nonetheless there have not been amalgamations or suppressions. In some convents old age is a real concern. Possible Solutions: They are working on formation through courses. Also on communion between the communities. There are meetings of the Council with the communities. We are ready to accept sisters who cannot be cared for in their own communities. However, this has not been accepted because they do not want to be separated. The strangest report came from the Netherlands where, for a single surviving autonomous monastery and an average age of 81, resources were mobilised to create “a completely new structure,” complete with approval from the Congregation for Religious: Federation: Netherlands Date when erected: 1971 Number of convents: 6 Number of nuns: 73 Solemnly professed: 73 In formation: .... Average age: 81 [NB, the bold was in the original.] What has been done: 13 Dutch Carmels and one in Iceland have united in a Federation. This has created a close communion from the beginning. Everyone has collaborated in the process of amalgamations and suppressions. Present Problems: Only one Carmel functions fully autonomously in the Netherlands. 4 communities are in a care-home run by the Brothers of the Immaculate Conception. Another Carmel was renewed in 1990. At the original Carmel an infirmary wing has been added for those sisters who require nursing; it is run by Franciscan sisters. With the passing of time the Assembly of the Federation has transferred tasks to the President of the Federation, according to the faculties described in the statutes, in particular regarding our mutual solidarity. Also, with the passing of the years, the Congregation for Religious has placed responsibility directly into the hands of the Council of the Federation. Finally, the autonomous Carmels have asked help from the Federation in order to protect their interests. Due to our very advanced age in the Netherlands we have reached the moment when a General Assembly is no longer possible. We are left with the problem that in the communities there are no sisters who can or who want to be prioresses or council sisters. The structure of the Federation that we have had till now is thus no longer possible. Possible solutions: The Federation Council, the Religious Assistant, together with a canon lawyer of the Dutch Conference of Religious, have worked hard on a completely new structure, in which in its first draft the autonomy of the Carmel has been constantly kept in mind. We began from three points: 1)Maintenance of the formal autonomy of the Carmels that still exist, but with the chance to transfer tasks gradually to the council of the Federation. 2)Appointment of The Federal board or Federal Council of the Federation, preferably appointed by the Superior General. The team will consist of a president and vice-president who are members of one of the convents, appointed to functions, and of three people who are members, or not, of one of the convents. 3)A Supervisory council, also to be appointed periodically by the Superior General, which will be made up of three members, whose president will be, preferably, a member of a religious institute, preferably of the Carmelite Order and appointed to functions. This council sees itself as a supervisory body and to give advice that will more or less replace the Assembly of the Federation. In October 2008, the President, the Religious Assistant and a Lawyer were in Rome where they explained the proposals. They had meetings with Fr. General and with the Congregation for Religious. These were open meetings that helped us to clarify matters. An important concern was that they would allow us to use lay people on the Federal Council of the Federation and the Supervisory council. We were aware that we were not dealing with a simple matter, but we think that, in view of our present situation today, we do not have much choice. It is important to continue to protect the interests of our Federation in the most responsible and careful way, so that all the sisters, even those advanced in years, can continue to live their life in Carmel. Definitive permission came at the 25th of February. ~~~ Given this incredible picture of a Carmelite Order in the last rattle of its death throes, the rest of the summaries of speeches given at the meeting in Avila read as outright surreal, leaving us to wonder if any of these people are attached in any way to reality. Sr. Enrica Rosanna, the representative of the Vatican’s Congregation for Religious told them that the “two great challenges to our contemplative life” are “the challenge of globalization and the challenge of irrelevancy.” She warned the nuns against bringing vocations from other countries to keep their monasteries alive, dropping a hint about what now seems to be a particular obsession of the Congregation. Cor orans would take this subject up definitively in 2018: The nuns were exhorted to “stay awake to welcome the dawn” of a bright new future: “These are difficult and uncertain times, but it is also the time to stay awake as the new dawn is already announcing itself.” “Our aim must be to be open to the future. We should not forget that we are following in the tradition of Teresa of Jesus and in the tradition of all those who have followed in her footsteps. It is a wide road that opens up before us. We must be women of hope and faith. We must always believe that God is the one who directs history. From this derives our task, to be creative and, at the same time, faithful (creative fidelity).” [emphasis in the original.] While there can be no doubt that the impending total extinction of the Carmelite Order in Western Europe was foremost in the minds of the nuns present, it seems that the issue was simply not addressed out loud by the representatives of the bureaucracy. Instead, Sr. Enrica, after this bizarre and cryptic comment, spoke of the “problems and difficulties that we can encounter” in discernment of mostly non-existent vocations, including “consumerism, modern means of communication, difficulties in creating a stable personality, autonomy of the young, the need to be always supported, the ideology of subjectivism.” What are these people smoking? Given that this was three years or more from the abdication of Benedict and the installation of the New Paradigm of Francis/Kasper, one wonders what this “new dawn” was actually about. Perhaps a useful question for one of the nuns present could have been, “A ‘new dawn’ of what, exactly?” This kind of coded language has been popular with the progressivist faction in the Church since the 1960s, when the expectation was for the installation of a totally new Church. Was Sr. Enrica somehow anticipating the fulfillment of those hippie-era dreams in the years to come? It is certainly clear from Francis’ first acts as pope that he had dealing with conservative and Traditionalist nuns high on his list of priorities. His first appointment, no more than three weeks after the Conclave was Jose Rodrigues Carballo, the Religious Congregation’s Secretary and – given the scandal that erupted on his leaving them – the financial wrecking ball of the Franciscan Friars Minor. The first task Francis gave Carballo was the demolition of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate. Certainly this record of the European Carmelites’ meeting is jammed with hints that Cor orans was on the way. On the final day of the meeting, the “theme for the day” was offered by then-Father General Luis Arostegui: “Government: the need for change. Autonomy and Association; autonomy and Fr. General; other solutions to government.” The devolution of authority of superiors of individual monasteries to federations was obviously on someone’s mind, as was a plan to see to it that monasteries change superiors frequently: “Essential autonomy can fail due to the relationships within the community: abuses by permanent superiors who decide on the freedom and decisions of the community,” the Father General warned. And there were certainly hints that a general re-organisation of structures of authority was in the works. A common tactic of politicians who want to initiate changes is to “ask questions” rather than make suggestions, and Arostegui asked some very leading questions indeed in this closing address: “Who discerns the existence or not of vital autonomy; is it the community or chosen people? “Are there instances that work well within the Church which balance autonomy in a way that can be helpful in these situations? “At the time of St. Teresa she was an example of someone balanced. Stability is one reason [for autonomy], but is stability understood in such a way that it can obstruct the spirit of mission and your availability to the Order and to the Church? “The valiant and prophetic initiative of Pope Pius XII to create Associations and Federations opened up contemplative life, though it was also thought that it could harm cloister and autonomy. Can such essential autonomy continue as it is? “50 years ago there was stability. How do we conceive today the relationship between autonomy and Federation-Association and between autonomy and Fr. General? “Could there be other forms of government?” Following the Father General’s address are notes from the language groups, including the following: “While some communities do not want their autonomy to be touched, and have certain fears of ‘external’ interference, others want a more moderate and flexible autonomy that, without going to the Congregation would have a juridical form, where the President with her Council can intervene in extreme cases that today we watch with pain, our hands tied. Though we want these legal channels to be established, it must remain clear what the limits of the Federation Council are, in order to avoid abuses of power on the part of the same.” “...The absence of vital autonomy is also noticed when… the same person remains prioress for years.” “...We need criteria that expand number 203 of our Constitutions and clarify vital autonomy. We perceive that there is a shortage of authority figures. We do not want new figures but rather those that already exist (Associations, [federation] Presidents, Provincials...) be empowered in a legal way (canonically) to help communities in difficulty, for the mission to discern, to counsel, to accompany.” “...We are also concerned for those communities not affiliated to Federations, we see that we should be close to them.” Maybe this summary document of 2009 can give us an idea what to expect from Rome in 2018, now that the “progressivist” faction in the Vatican is in the ascendancy and is free to act without restriction. What comes clear comparing this document to Cor orans is that the Vatican’s machinery has long been at work forcing a uniform and essentially bureaucratic, heavily authoritarian and legalistic vision of contemplative life on anyone who fails sufficiently to resist it. And with the statistics offered at this meeting we can see clearly where this road leads. So many Catholics in the last 40 years assumed that under the “conservatives” John Paul II and Benedict XVI at least the Vatican was “onside.” At least in Rome they understood the terrible threat of the Bolshie VaticanTwoist revolutionaries. But this report of 2009 shows a clear picture of a Roman congregation determined to see the revolution through to its inevitable conclusion. _____________________ [1] An aside that will perhaps be noteworthy to traditionalist readers is the little comment in the report on the difficulty of having a liturgical observance between all the disparate nations represented at the meeting. “Eucharist and Lauds in Spanish. Fr. Isidore D’Silva had prepared a booklet with the liturgy for each day. Each psalm was in a different language, and was prepared by the corresponding liturgical group. However, having the text in front of us made it easier to follow the recitation in other languages. The end result was that we could all join in the liturgy. We were all united in the praise of the Spirit who had brought us there together from different languages and nations.” [2] Solution: new foundations, the spreading of the Carmelite charism into new territories. [3] This includes all sisters up to final profession, not just postulants and novices.

Dina Habib Powell: "Not Interested" In Replacing Nikki Haley As Ambassador To The UN Former Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategy Dina Habia Powell is rumored to be among the top candidates to replace outgoing United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley after her resignation earlier this week. However, it's being reported that Powell is "not interested" in the post, which is a good thing for Americans. Powell is on the short list of Trump's considerations to fill the position. Others on the list include Richard Grenell, the US ambassador to Germany, who previously served as a spokesman for the US Mission to the UN, and Kelly Craft, the US ambassador to Canada. First, Politico reports: take our poll - story continues below Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? * John Bolton Richard Grenell Dina Powell Heather Nauert Ivanka Trump 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. Powell, who returned to Goldman in a senior role after leaving her job as President Donald Trump’s deputy national security adviser, is said to be strongly considering the job but also weighing family concerns. Powell already lives in New York, where the U.N. is based, but has young children and left the administration in part to spend more time with family. She is also said to be happy in her job at Goldman. Born in Egypt and raised in the United States, Powell is well liked by Trump as well as the president’s daughter Ivanka and son-in-law, Jared Kushner. But she is already coming under criticism from some conservatives on social media who maintain that Powell is a “globalist” not closely enough aligned with Trump’s “America first” approach to foreign policy. Trump on Tuesday described Powell as a “person I would consider” when asked about her possible nomination. “She is under consideration. We have, actually, many names,” he said. However, according to Bloomberg, Powell isn't interested in the position. She says she is just fine at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. partner Dina Powell has told some colleagues that she’s leaning against leaving the firm to rejoin the Trump administration as ambassador to the United Nations, according to two people familiar with the matter. President Donald Trump has called Powell about the job twice, first on Sunday -- before current United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley announced her resignation -- and again on Wednesday, the people said. He made it clear that he’s interested in the idea of appointing Powell to the position, they said, though he has also talked to other candidates. Powell is not only a partner at Goldman Sachs, which has a sordid history of its own, but also worked in the George W. Bush administration. As for her ties with Goldman Sachs, Breitbart reported the following: 1 – When she served as president of the Goldman Sachs Foundation, the philanthropic arm of the Wall Street giant, Powell repeatedly partnered with the Clinton Global Initiative for a globalist women’s project that served as the centerpiece of Goldman’s foundation. 2 – Powell’s organization joined with the Clinton Global Initiative for globalist giving projects. 3 – Powell’s Goldman Sachs fund directly donated to the controversial Clinton Foundation. 4 – Powell’s Goldman Sachs group worked with Hillary Clinton’s State Department in a project announced by Clinton. 5 – Powell was a featured speaker at a Clinton Global Initiative event alongside Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton’s former campaign chief, John Podesta. 6 – There are crossover connections between employees paid by Powell’s 10,000 Women and the Clintons. 7 – Powell served on a global group alongside Hillary Clinton. 8 – In coming to Goldman Sachs, Powell joined a firm that has long been deeply tied to the Clintons. Daniel Greenfield wrote about Dina Habib Powell: “The media dubbed her the Republican Huma Abedin. She’s been one of the most powerful women in two Republican administrations. She’s friends with Valerie Jarrett….Habib Powell had all the right friends. Like Valerie Jarrett. Arianna Huffington praised the White House for bringing her in. Her ex-husband heads up Teneo Strategy: the organization created by the same man who made the Clinton Foundation happen and which employed Huma Abedin. You could see her posing next to Huma, Arianna and a Saudi princess. You can see her photographed at the American Task Force of Palestine gala. The ATFP was originally Rashid Khalidi’s American Committee on Jerusalem. Khalidi was the former PLO spokesman at the center of the Obama tape scandal. And Habib Powell was there as a presenter at the Middle East Institute after a speech by the PLO’s Hanan Ashrawi….Dina Habib Powell is a deep part of the Republican establishment. Her top role at the NSC represents McMaster’s vision for our approach to Islam. And it’s an echo of the failed approach of the Bush years. Flynn made the NSC into a tool that matched Trump’s vision. McMaster is remaking it to match Jeb Bush’s vision.” Greenfield also adds: When visiting Egypt, Habib-Powell had assured the locals of how Bush, after September 11, “visited a mosque, took off his shoes and paid his respects.” “I see the president talk of Islam as a religion of peace, I see him host an iftar every year,” she gushed. K.T. McFarland had written that “Global Islamist jihad is at war with all of Western civilization.” It’s not hard to see why McMaster pushed out McFarland and elevated Habib-Powell. Habib-Powell had attended the Iftar dinner with members of Muslim Brotherhood front groups. You can see her photographed at the American Task Force of Palestine gala. The ATFP was originally Rashid Khalidi’s American Committee on Jerusalem. She was there as a presenter at the Middle East Institute after a speech by Hanan Ashrawi. Her achievements under Bush included cultural exchanges with Iran, as well as cash for the Palestinian Authority and for Lebanon after the Hezbollah war with Israel. While President Trump fights to restrict Muslim immigration, at his side is the woman who had once bragged on CNN, “Over 90% of student visas are now issued in under a week, and that is in the Middle East.” Pamela Geller also pointed out why Powell should not be the UN ambassador. Dina Habib Powell is a deep part of the Republican establishment. She is part of the swamp, part of the willfully ignorant McMaster crowd that clearly opposed Trump’s agenda. Back in 2017, she resigned her post of Deputy National Security Adviser NSC under Islamic apologist H. R. McMaster, whose failed views she shared. McMaster subscribed to the Obama view that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, despite the numerous Islamic texts and teachings that incite Muslims to wage war against unbelievers. McMaster went so far as to claim that devout jihadis were “irreligious.” McMaster forced out superb K.T. McFarland from her role as Deputy National Security Advisor and inserted Dina Habib-Powell, former Bush gatekeeper whose pals included Huma Abedin and Valerie Jarrett. Again, and I have asked this before, how do you fight the Deep State by putting Deep State operatives in these positions? How do you drain the swamp by adding to it? The answer is clear: You don't. This would actually be the perfect time for Trump not to appoint an ambassador to the UN and call for the US to exit the anti-American organization and demand Congress stop funding it and evict the UN from US soil, but I'm not holding my breath.

Cardinal Müller: Blessing homosexual couples would be an ‘atrocity’ NewsCatholic Church BRATISLAVA, Slovakia, February 13, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Former Vatican doctrine chief Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller has decried the Church's current adaptation to the modern world and rejected the idea of blessing homosexual couples. The remarks, made in a February 6 talk in Slovakia, indirectly respond to new initiatives coming from Germany, especially from Cardinal Reinhard Marx and Bishop Franz-Josef Bode. Cardinal Müller, former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, spoke at a conference on John Paul II's encyclical Veritatis Splendor at the Comenius University in Bratislava, organized by the Slovakian Bishops' Conference. In remarks after his address, reported by the German Catholic newspaper Die Tagespost, the cardinal made it clear what he thinks about the recently presented German idea of blessing homosexual unions, even if only in individual cases: “If a priest blesses a homosexual couple, then this is an atrocity at a holy site, namely, to approve of something that God does not approve of.” According to the Tagespost report, Cardinal Müller said in his address that he regrets the separation of the Church's doctrinal and moral teaching and called Christianity a “theocentric humanism.” He said the “submissive change of the Church into a NGO for the embetterment of the this-worldly life conditions” is a “suicidal modernization” that denies mankind the Truth of God. In this context, the German cardinal also criticized Martin Luther's own denial of man's free will and his teaching about the total depravity of man that separates morality from the relationship with God. Morality, Müller explained, is rooted in Grace; that is why any teaching about “rules and exceptions” ignores the character of the ethics of the Covenant and of Grace. In the discussion following his talk, Cardinal Müller also responded to questions concerning Pope Francis' post-synodal exhortation, Amoris Laetitia. The cardinal said that he is “not happy” about the fact that there are different interpretations of this papal text by some bishops' conferences. “In dogmatic questions, there cannot be a plurality,” he added. There is only one Magisterium, he said, and bishops' conferences can only decide about pastoral questions. Contradictory conceptions concerning the Sacraments, said the cardinal, lead into chaotic conditions. Thus, explained the cardinal, the Sacraments have to be celebrated the way Christ Himself willed it when he instituted them. The controversial eighth chapter of Amoris Laetitia has to be understood “in an orthodox way,” namely that “he who lives in the state of mortal sin cannot receive Holy Communion.” It is, in Müller's eyes, the pope's duty “to unite the Church, that is what the pope is there for.” This is what he, Müller, himself told the pope: when the bishops' conferences present different interpretations of Amoris Laetitia, the Church enters “into a situation like the one before the Reformation.” Archbishop Stanislav Zvolensy, President of the Slovakian Bishops' Conference and archbishop of Bratislava, told Die Tagespost that Veritatis Splendor is not only still valid, but shows timeless truths. Promulgated 25 years ago, the encyclical rejects authoritatively the theory of situation ethics, a theory that seems to be getting again much attention in our time, for example by theologians such as Professor Maurizio Chiodi. Professor Livio Melina, the former President of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family, was another speaker at the February 6 conference. He stressed that Amoris Laetitia has to be “read in the context of the magisterial instructions of the encyclical Veritatis Splendor, which recalls the connection between conscience and truth, as well as the necessity of a well-formed conscience.” In returning to that encyclical, explained the Italian professor and theologian, Amoris Laetitia could be given a hermeneutic in light of a “continuity with the Magisterium of the Church.” He also said: “The Commandments are an expression of the Love of God for us. If we fulfill them, we are united with God.”

The Left’s Show Trial for Kavanaugh Two more women accusing Judge Brett Kavanaugh of dubious improprieties materialized out of thin air late Sunday, throwing Senate Republicans’ hope of finally confirming the Supreme Court nominee this week even more into doubt. The new allegations came yesterday amid reports that Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) tentatively scheduled a hearing for this Thursday to take testimony from Christine Blasey Ford, 51, who claims Kavanaugh, 53, sexually assaulted her decades ago when he was a high school student. Suspiciously, Ford can’t –or won’t— say when or where the alleged incident happened and can provide few details. As Paul Sperry writes at the New York Post, working with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and backed financially by George Soros’s money, Ford’s lawyers spent the last few days gaming the system. After stalling Grassley and getting repeated extensions, the attorneys got the chairman to cave on various demands, such as that Kavanaugh not be in the room when Ford gives evidence. Republicans never seem to learn from their mistakes. As usual, Republicans’ seeming reasonableness is rewarded with more abuse by the Left. Give left-wingers an inch and they’ll take a mile. Democrats, it turns out, used the extra time created through their delaying tactics to produce two new women with questionable claims against Kavanaugh. More accusers could be on their way. President Trump continues to support Kavanaugh, who maintains his innocence. “This alleged event from 35 years ago did not happen,” the nominee said Sunday of Ford’s accusations. “The people who knew me then know that this did not happen, and have said so. This is a smear, plain and simple. I look forward to testifying on Thursday about the truth, and defending my good name — and the reputation for character and integrity I have spent a lifetime building — against these last-minute allegations.” If Kavanaugh isn’t on the bench on October 1, the Supreme Court will be shorthanded as it begins hearing cases in its new term. The high court normally has a complement of nine justices but with Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement July 31, which cleared the way for Kavanaugh’s nomination, there have only been only eight justices in place. Roughly speaking there is a 4-to-4 liberal to conservative ideological split on the court. Democrats would prefer to drag the confirmation process into the next Congress where they stand a good chance of taking control from Republicans. Election Day is November 6. The GOP currently controls the Senate, which has the final say on judicial nominations, by an uncomfortably close margin of 51 to 49. Meanwhile, the New Yorker magazine reported Sunday that Deborah Ramirez, 53, suddenly claims to have been assaulted by Kavanaugh at a drunken party decades ago at Yale College. Ramirez claims Kavanaugh exposed himself to her and brushed his genitals against her. Also on Sunday, media-savvy sleazeball lawyer Michael Avenatti, who represents porn star Stormy Daniels, tweeted that he represents another woman who plans to accuse Kavanaugh of something. “I represent a woman with credible information regarding Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. We will be demanding the opportunity to present testimony to the committee and will likewise be demanding that Judge and others be subpoenaed to testify,” Avenatti wrote on Twitter. “My client is not Deborah Ramirez.” Washington insiders still believe Kavanaugh will be confirmed, or at least they did before the two new accusers popped up. For example, at a Friday afternoon preview of upcoming cases in the Supreme Court’s approaching October term that was hosted by the Federalist Society, panelist Thomas C. Goldstein of the law firm of Goldstein & Russell predicted that the high court would have nine members again soon. “There is exactly a zero percent chance that [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley will allow this thing to get past the lame-duck” congressional session after Election Day, said the co-founder of SCOTUSblog who has appeared before the Supreme Court many times. “I think we ought to recognize that. The prospect that the Democrats will take the Senate, albeit thin, is realistic, and so they will do whatever is necessary in order to make sure that there is a ninth member of the court there by the time a Democratic majority could take over in the Senate in January.” We’ll see soon enough if Goldstein’s prediction comes true.

West Virginia Middle School Instructs Children To Write Out Their Submission To Allah We see this again and again: schoolchildren have to make the Islamic profession of faith or affirm Islam as fact, in public schools. Then when administrators are confronted, they claim it was all just an educational exercise, not proselytizing. But we never, ever see Judaism or Christianity or Hinduism or Buddhism taught as fact in public schools, or schoolchildren being forced to make professions of faith in those religions. 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 * Name 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. For some reason, this form of educational exercise is only ever used regarding Islam. Now, why is that? “Christian Parent Furious After School Instructs Children To Write Out Their Submission To Allah,” by Joshua Gill, Daily Caller News Foundation, May 17, 2018 (thanks to the Geller Report): A West Virginia school has come under fire for instructing junior high students to write the Islamic profession of faith ostensibly to practice calligraphy. Rich Penkoski, a Christian parent and founder of online ministry Warriors for Christ, raised alarms over a packet on Islam his daughter’s seventh grade social studies teacher issued to students, according to Christian Post. The packet, edited from the full version of a world religions workbook, instructed students to practice writing the Shahada, or Islamic profession of faith, in Arabic calligraphy — an assignment that, if left undone, would result in detention, according to Penkoski’s daughter. The Shahada states: “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” Penkoski called Mountain Ridge Middle School Principal Ron Branch and objected to the packet, saying it disturbed him and had misinformation about the history of calligraphy. “I saw the assignment of writing the Shahada in Arabic. Their excuse was calligraphy,” Penkoski told The Christian Post. “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,” Penkoski added…. There were two different calligraphy assignments — one involving the Shahada and another instructing students to practice writing English letters in calligraphy, Branch told Christian Post. Hinson “told the students that they could do these activities if they wanted,” Branch claimed. “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,” Branch added. Penkoski claimed the teacher sent students home with the same packet the day after he lodged a complaint — this time, with certain sections crossed out but still including the Shahada assignment. Penkoksi called the principal again and confronted Hinson over the phone. “I said, ‘This is not OK in asking my kid to write down the Shahada.’ The teacher happened to walk-in and said she made it an option and that the kids didn’t have to do it. My daughter conflicted that story and said, ‘No, that is not what was said.’ What was said was, ‘Do the assignment; and if you want to learn more about the Quran, ask your parents,’” Penkoski told Christian Post. Each religion studied in the class, including Christianity and Judaism, received “equitable treatment,” Branch also told Christian Post. He said the class spent a week and a half on Christianity and Judaism — other religions took one week — and discussed each religion’s beliefs, history and practices. During the section on Christianity, “Jesus was taught,” Branch claimed. “The students read the chapter in our textbook that discusses Christianity’s belief that Jesus is the Son of God, and salvation. They also discussed the Sermon on the Mount, the Last Supper and Jesus’ Betrayal, the Trinity, and the Lord’s Prayer, among other topics,” Branch said. Penkoski and his daughter, Brielle, contested Branch’s claims. The Lord’s Prayer was not taught, and very little time was spent teaching about Jesus, they told Christian Post. “We did [the unit on Christianity] over a week and two days. We watched two different videos. We didn’t finish them. They taught a little bit about Moses and the Ten Commandments, Peter and Paul,” Brielle explained. “We learned about the Israelites and how they are being persecuted by the Romans. We were told about the Jews and told a little bit about Jesus.” Penkoski also shared with Christian Post the packets on Christianity and Judaism passed out in class and allegedly modified from the original full version. While the packet on Islam contained verses from the Koran, the packets for those religions did not contain scripture and did not encourage students to write prayers or faith statements, he said. “Notice no Bible verses, no reciting the Ten Commandments or the Lord’s Prayer,” he said. “[There’s] no practicing writing in Hebrew as compared to the Islamic packet,” he added…. Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer

Ebola outbreak declared in Democratic Republic of Congo Story highlights Two cases were confirmed, prompting the outbreak declaration In the past five weeks, there have been 21 suspected cases, including 17 deaths (CNN) The government of the Democratic Republic of Congo declared an outbreak of Ebola hemorrhagic fever, a rare and deadly disease, on Tuesday, the World Health Organization reported. The declaration came after laboratory results confirmed two cases of the disease in the province of Bikoro in the northwestern part of the country. Ebola virus disease, which most commonly affects people and nonhuman primates (monkeys, gorillas and chimpanzees), is caused by one of five Ebola viruses. The virus is transmitted to people from wild animals and spreads in the human population through human-to-human transmission. The average case fatality rate is around 50%. A government statement released Tuesday states that the Ministry of Health has "taken all necessary measures to respond promptly and effectively to this new epidemic of Ebola in the DRC's national territory". In the past five weeks, there have been 21 suspected cases of viral hemorrhagic fever , including 17 deaths. "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 WHO's regional director for Africa. "WHO will work closely with health authorities and partners to support the national response." Read More

Obama Secretly Tried to Get Banks to Aid Iran, Banks Refused International financial institutions get a lot of heat for terror state ties. But this is a case where Obama Inc. tried to get them to do the wrong thing. While they did the right thing. The Obama administration secretly sought to give Iran access — albeit briefly — to the U.S. financial system by sidestepping sanctions kept in place after the 2015 nuclear deal, despite repeatedly telling Congress and the public it had no plans to do so. Yet another Obama dirty deal with Iran that we're just learning about now. The question is how many more are there? And that's part of why Spygate is happening. The assault is also a cover-up. The report by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations revealed that under President Barack Obama, the Treasury Department issued a license in February 2016, never previously disclosed, that would have allowed Iran to convert $5.7 billion it held at a bank in Oman from Omani rials into euros by exchanging them first into U.S. dollars. If the Omani bank had allowed the exchange without such a license, it would have violated sanctions that bar Iran from transactions that touch the U.S. financial system. The effort was unsuccessful because American banks — themselves afraid of running afoul of U.S. sanctions — declined to participate. The Obama administration approached two U.S. banks to facilitate the conversion, the report said, but both refused, citing the reputational risk of doing business with or for Iran. That's how bad Obama was on Iran. The banking system was more reluctant to help Iran launder money than he was. Nor was Obama worried about the reputational risk of loading foreign currency on unmarked cargo planes and flying it to Iran. Issuing the license was not illegal. Still, it went above and beyond what the Obama administration was required to do under the terms of the nuclear agreement. Except Obama Inc. weren't trying to drive a hard bargain. So they didn't stick to it. They were trying to aid Iran. Shortly after the nuclear deal was sealed in July 2015, then-Treasury Secretary Jack Lew testified that even with the sanctions relief, Iran “will continue to be denied access to the world’s largest financial and commercial market.” A month later, one of Lew’s top deputies, Adam Szubin, testified that despite the nuclear deal “Iran will be denied access to the world’s most important market and unable to deal in the world’s most important currency.” This was typical of the worthless assurances that Obama officials made. And disgraced themselves by doing so. Obama administration officials at the time assured concerned lawmakers that a general license wouldn’t be coming. But the report from the Republican members of the Senate panel showed that a draft of the license was indeed prepared, though it was never published. And when questioned by lawmakers about the possibility of granting Iran any kind of access to the U.S. financial system, Obama-era officials never volunteered that the specific license for Bank Muscat in Oman had been issued two months earlier. Scandal-free administration, folks. Not a single scandal to see here. Not a one.

Facebook Lifts Frontpage Editor Jamie Glazov’s 9/11 Ban [Editors' note: To best understand why Facebook would ban Jamie Glazov on 9/11 in the first place, pre-order Jamie's new book, Jihadist Psychopath: How He Is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring Us: HERE. The book illustrates how the Jihadist Psychopath has, with the help of the Left, successfully built his totalitarian plantation in the West -- on which the political and cultural establishment is now enslaved and dutifully following his orders. Jamie outlines the frameworks of this tyrannical plantation and how those who are trapped on it, and yearn for freedom, can best escape.] Frontpage editors are happy to announce our free speech victory: Facebook has lifted Frontpage editor Jamie Glazov's 30-day ban on Facebook, apologizing and saying that the block was a “mistake”. We have no doubt, of course, that no “mistake” had actually occurred in this matter and that the ban has only been lifted because of the publicity that we engaged in -- and received. While it is a positive development that Facebook has lifted the ban on Jamie (for now), this story is crucial to amplify now more than ever, seeing that Facebook, and all of leftist-run social media, is, at this moment, clearly accelerating its totalitarian attack on the free speech of conservatives. (See Jamie's video on this whole surreal affair HERE). A brief recap of Jamie's story: on Sept. 11, the 17th Anniversary of the 9/11 terror strike, Facebook's Unholy Alliance masters informed Jamie that he was suspended from Facebook for 30 days due to his posting of his article, 9 Steps to Successfully Counter Jihad, which Facebook informed him violated their "community standards." This suggested, of course, that giving advice on how to prevent another 9/11, and all other Jihadist attacks against America, is now against Facebook’s ‘community standards’. (Read the whole story HERE.) Frontpage and Jamie immediately publicized this tyrannical behavior of Facebook. Then, yesterday, on Sept. 13, Facebook notified Jamie that it had made a mistake and that it was lifting his block. It goes without saying that this retraction and surrender by Facebook occurred only because of the wide publicity that Jamie's banning had received. And we are immensely grateful for all the massive support that was given to us across the Internet, including especially from Breitbart, PJMedia, WorldNetDaily and Thomas Lifson at American Thinker. Leading brave conservative figures such as Michelle Malkin and Laura Loomer also stood up for Jamie, tweeting about his ban -- and to them we send our heartfelt appreciation. Jamie is, of course, no stranger to social media censorship -- especially of the insane variety. The Counter Jihad Coalition's (CJC) Facebook page, which Jamie helped run with CJC President Steve Amundson, was removed a few years ago with absolutely no explanation. The CJC is a human rights and pro-national security group that is dedicated to protecting America and the West from Jihad -- and Muslim and non-Muslim people from Sharia oppression. The question remains: why would Facebook remove such a page, let alone in such a fascistic manner -- and never explain why? In April earlier this year, Jamie was suspended from Facebook for posting screenshots of a Muslim's threat to him on the platform. Then, in May, his Twitter account was temporarily suspended and he was forced to delete tweets he posted which directly quoted Islamic religious texts. His account was suspended for violating Twitter’s rules relating to “hateful conduct.” It is "hateful conduct", apparently, to reference what Islamic texts themselves say. Indeed, Frontpage's editor had simply referred to Sahih Bukhari’s texts discussing Mohammed’s marriage to Aisha when she was six years old (7.62.88) and to Qur'anic Suras that mandate the Hijab for women (24:31; 33:59) and sanction sexual slavery (4:3; 33:50). One thing we know for sure is that, despite this lifting of Jamie’s ban, Facebook and the leftist totalitarians in other social media venues and in the culture at large will continue their unrelenting effort to suffocate dissent and conservative voices. On Facebook, many brave conservative truth-tellers continue to be censored in myriad ways; these individuals include Anni Cyrus, Bosch Fawstin, Mark Lutchman and, of course, Diamond & Silk. The case of #WalkAway leader Brandon Straka is especially disturbing: he was recently banned by Facebook for the crime of announcing that he would be interviewed by Alex Jones. Prager U has had its videos mysteriously disappear off of Facebook and then, only after vociferous protest, re-appear. Facebook is, of course, just one terrain of this leftist brownshirt-style assault on free speech. Everyone knows by now, for instance, what has happened, in the most Orwellian sense, to Alex Jones and InfoWars on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. Leading scholar of Islam and JihadWatch.org Director Robert Spencer, meanwhile, is not just a target at Facebook, where his referrals are down 90% from what they once were; he has been banned by Patreon at the behest of MasterCard -- and MasterCard has yet to respond to his lawyer’s letter. GoFundMe has also banned Spencer because of a smear by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) hate machine. Speaking of Mastercard, the David Horowitz Freedom Center just recently won a major battle with the credit card, defeating well-financed leftwing groups that are trying to run the Center out of business and suffocate free speech in America. The Freedom Center emerged victorious, but it is clear that leftist hate groups such as the SPLC and Color of Change.org are preparing new attacks against the Freedom Center and other conservative groups and individuals 24/7. To be sure, the Left's attacks on the David Horowitz Freedom Center continue unabated: just recently a hit piece in the Washington Post smeared a stand-up noble gentleman like Florida Gubernatorial Candidate Republican Ron DeSantis, libeling David Horowitz in the process. The article stated falsely and maliciously that Horowitz's Restoration Weekend, that DeSantis had attended, was somehow “a racially charged event” -- a vicious lie that Frontpage has exposed and for which the Washington Post is still to apologize and issue a retraction. (To learn why David Horowitz is one of the central targets of the Left, make sure to watch this video). Thus, we clearly gauge that there is no disgusting and venomous level to which the Left will not stoop in its destructive agenda. Yes, Frontpage editor Jamie Glazov has had his ban lifted at Facebook, but this is clearly only a brief reprieve for him on that platform -- and it is only, obviously, a very tiny space in the Stalinist Left's war on America and on everything on which it stands. At this dire moment, we all need to amplify our voices in defense of free speech. And we need to adamantly defend all the truth-tellers at the very moment they come under attack. We also need to contact our representatives and to call for a Congressional investigation into this pernicious assault by the fascist Left on our liberties. The battle for America -- and for the West -- is on. [Editors' postscript: Please make sure to FOLLOW Jamie Glazov on Facebook as well as on Twitter (@JamieGlazov) to strengthen his social media strength in the face of the Left's vicious war on free speech. Thank you!]

Liberals Agree – Trump Tougher on Putin than Obama Was Leftwing journalist Glenn Greenwald is no fan of President Trump’s policies, but he simply cannot understand how the leftwing media keeps getting so riled up at everything that Trump does. In Greenwald’s mind, Trump is a fairly standard politician (when it comes to the policies he supports and implements), which is what makes the media’s constant flow of outrage so mystifying. In a recent debate over the Helsinki Hulabaloo, Greenwald told the leftists at Democracy Now! that getting all worked up over Trump’s press conference with Putin was ridiculous. Why? Because, when Trump’s Russia policies are measured against Obama’s… it becomes CLEAR that Trump has obviously been tougher against Russia than Obama ever was. 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 * Name 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. Here’s the crux of Greenwald’s argument: So let me just make two points. Number one is, if you look at President Obama versus President Trump, there’s no question that President Obama was more cooperative with and collaborative with Russia and the Russian agenda than President Trump. President Trump has sent lethal arms to Ukraine—a crucial issue for Putin—which President Obama refused to do. President Trump has bombed the Assad forces in Syria, a client state of Putin, something that Obama refused to do because he didn’t want to provoke Putin. Trump has expelled more Russian diplomats and sanctioned more Russian oligarchs than [Obama] has. Trump undid the Iran deal, which Russia favored, while Obama worked with Russia in order to do the Iran deal. So this idea that Trump is some kind of a puppet of Putin, that he controls him with blackmail, is the kind of stuff that you believe if you read too many Tom Clancy novels but isn’t borne out by the facts. The other issue that I want to make is that, you know, again, this idea that somehow that you are endorsing the repression of other countries’ leaders if you meet with them—it is true that Trump has never criticized Putin, although he has taken all the steps I just outlined against Putin. But he’s also never criticized Benjamin Netanyahu. He’s also never criticized the incredibly repressive leaders of Saudi Arabia. He’s never criticized the fascist president of the Philippines. It is true President Trump likes fascist and authoritarian leaders, and that is a problem, but it’s not like Putin is the only leader that he doesn’t criticize. The relevant portion of the debate begins about 21 minutes into the video: Article posted with permission from Constitution.com

ICE arrests 145 in South and Central Texas during 7-day operation targeting criminal aliens SAN ANTONIO — Deportation officers with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) arrested 145 criminal aliens and immigration violators in South and Central Texas during a seven-day enforcement action, which ended Feb. 16. During this operation, ERO deportation officers made arrests in the following Texas cities and towns: Austin (45), San Antonio (41), Rio Grande Valley (37), Laredo (15) and Waco (7). Of the 145 arrested, 86 had criminal convictions; 39 were arrested based on previous immigration encounters, four of which have pending criminal charges; 20 had no prior immigration history or encounters, one has pending criminal charges. Of the total arrests 135 were men and 10 were women. They range in age from 18 to 62 years old. Aliens arrested during this operation are from the following countries: Mexico (128), Guatemala (7), El Salvador (1), Honduras (7), Peru (1) and Jordan (1). Most of the aliens targeted by ERO deportation officers during this operation had prior criminal histories that included convictions for the following crimes: indecency with a child, assault, deadly conduct, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, drug possession, drug trafficking, burglary, resisting arrest, firearms offense, alien smuggling, illegally entering the U.S., and driving under the influence (DUI). Sixty one of those arrested illegally re-entered the United States after having been previously deported, which is a felony. Depending on an alien’s criminality, an alien who re-enters the United States after having been previously deported commits a felony punishable by up to 20 years in federal prison, if convicted. Following are criminal summaries of three offenders arrested during this operation: Feb. 14 – A previously deported 42-year-old illegal alien from Mexico was arrested in Harlingen, Texas. He was convicted in 2011 of indecency with a child, a felony, and was sentenced to 10 years’ probation. He is currently facing federal criminal charges for illegally re-entering the United States after having been deported. He remains in U.S. Marshals custody pending the outcome of his criminal case. Feb. 15 – A 42- year-old illegal alien from Mexico was arrested in San Antonio. He was convicted in 2008 for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to four months in federal prison. In October 2017, he was convicted for DUI and sentenced to 15 months in prison. He is currently in ICE custody pending removal. Feb. 13 – A previously deported 40-year-old illegal alien from Mexico was arrested in San Antonio. He was previously removed to Mexico in 2009 after he illegally entered the United States through Laredo, Texas. Sometime after 2009, he illegally re-entered the United States and was arrested at his residence where officers discovered six handguns in his possession. He is being prosecuted for re-entry after deportation, and illegal alien possessing a firearm. He remains in U.S. Marshals custody pending the outcome of his criminal case. “The results of this operation are a clear indication of ICE’s commitment regarding the role we play in keeping our communities safe by locating, arresting and ultimately removing at-large criminal aliens who pose a threat to public safety, and other immigration fugitives,” said Daniel Bible, field office director for ERO in San Antonio. “ICE’s leadership has made clear that ICE will no longer exempt classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement. All of those in violation of the immigration laws may be subject to immigration arrest, detention and – if found removable by final order – removal from the United States. By effecting these immigration enforcement operations, the dedicated men and women of ICE help keep our communities safe.” All of the targets in this operation were amenable to arrest and removal under the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act. ICE deportation officers carry out targeted enforcement operations daily nationwide as part of the agency’s ongoing efforts to protect the nation, uphold public safety, and protect the integrity of our immigration laws and border controls. During targeted enforcement operations, ICE officers frequently encounter other aliens illegally present in the United States. These aliens are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and, when appropriate, they are arrested by ICE officers.

We Should Be More Like Sweden: Gov May Use Army Against Immigrant Gangs Progressives say we should be more like Sweden. That means turning our country into a hopeless hellhole where the native population is overtaxed and terrorized by warring foreign gangs. We're getting there too. What should we do? Maybe we should be more like Sweden? Sweden will do whatever it takes, including sending in the army, to end a wave of gang violence that has seen a string of deadly shootings, Prime Minister Stefan Lofven said in Wednesday. Sweden's murder rate is relatively low in international terms, but gang violence has surged in recent years and Swedes are worried that the police are unable to cope. Of course they can't cope. It's Demolition Man in real life pitting refugee war criminals and terrorists against bureaucrats with badges who are used to telling people not to raise their voices. Four people were shot dead in the first week of this year. One man died after picking up a hand grenade outside a subway station in a suburb of Stockholm. Law and order is likely to be a major issue in a parliamentary election scheduled for September with the populist, opposition Sweden Democrats linking public concern about the rising crime rate to a large increase in the numbers of immigrants. "It would not be my first option to bring in the military, but I am prepared to do whatever is necessary to make sure that serious, organized crime is stamped out," Lofven told news agency TT. Bringing in the military comes in as an option ahead of cutting migration to Sweden. That tells you everything. Why would anyone associate rising crime and immigration? Maybe because the gangs in question are immigrant gangs. The government has promised police an extra 7.1 billion crowns ($880 million) through 2020, toughened laws on gun crimes and made it easier for the police to monitor private phone calls and emails, among other measures. Sound familiar? Mass repression and police powers that don't actually address the cause of the problem. Meanwhile the Grenade Amnesty doesn't seem to have worked. And the gang violence keeps rising. But who are these gangs? The criminal gang Loyal to Familia has already spread across Denmark from its base in the Nørrebro district of Copenhagen and now it appears to have set its sights on Sweden. Swedish police told the Danish tabloid Ekstra Bladet that the gang is trying to build a presence in both Malmö and Helsingborg. An expansion into Malmö could be a recipe for increased violence in light of the fact that gun violence claimed the lives of 11 people in the southern Swedish city last year. The gang's leader, Shuaib Khan, confirmed that the group is eyeing the two Swedish cities but denied that Loyal to Familia was a “criminal gang”. Just one of those Danish gangs led by a fellow named Khan.

Ammo seller to Las Vegas killer arrested on federal charge (CNN) Douglas Haig, an Arizona man who says he sold tracer ammunition to the gunman in October's Las Vegas massacre, was arrested Friday on a charge of conspiring to manufacture and sell another type of ammunition -- armor-piercing bullets -- in violation of federal law. A criminal complaint alleges two unfired .308-caliber (7.62mm) rounds found in gunman Stephen Paddock's hotel room had Haig's fingerprints on them as well as tool marks from his workshop. The bullets in the cartridges were armor-piercing, with an incendiary capsule in the nose, the complaint says. The FBI on October 19 searched Haig's Mesa home and seized ammunition the agency says is armor-piercing, the complaint said. Haig did not have a license to manufacture armor-piercing ammunition, documents said. Police say Paddock, 64, opened fire on October 1 from his 32nd-floor room at Las Vegas' Mandalay Bay hotel onto a crowd attending a music festival, killing 58 people and shooting and injuring 422 others. More than 850 others suffered other injuries in the attack. Investigators say Paddock died of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound. Douglas Haig's name was revealed in the release of search warrant records. Haig, 55, appeared in court Friday and was released on his own recognizance with specific conditions not spelled out in court proceedings. He is due in court again February 15 for a preliminary hearing. The maximum penalty for manufacturing illegal ammunition is five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Haig's attorney, Marc J. Victor, told CNN he had no comment. CNN affiliate KNXV caught up with Victor outside court, and the lawyer said he couldn't say anything because of the ongoing case. "My first obligation and only obligation is to my client," he told KNXV. The complaint Haig was publicly linked to the Las Vegas investigation Tuesday when a judge unsealed months-old police search warrant records that named him as a person of interest In a Friday morning news conference before his arrest, Haig, responding to the documents' release, said he sold tracer ammunition to Paddock at his home in September after they met at a gun show. Tracer ammunition has a pyrotechnic charge that, when fired, leaves an illuminated trace that can help a shooter have a more precise idea of where the bullet is going. Haig did not describe the ammunition as armor-piercing. Victor, at the same news conference at his Phoenix-area office, said the tracer ammunition that Haig sold Paddock "was not modified in any way ... from manufacturer's specs." But in Friday's criminal complaint, investigators say Haig and an associate also claimed they sold to Paddock other ammunition -- four or five 10-round packages of .308-caliber incendiary ammunition -- at a Las Vegas gun show in August. It's not clear from the complaint whether the two armor-piercing rounds with the incendiary capsule are from the packages Haig allegedly told investigators he sold Paddock at the gun show. The complaint also does not say whether Paddock fired any of the ammunition that he bought from Haig. Photos: Mass shooting at Las Vegas music festival Photos: Mass shooting at Las Vegas music festival Debris is scattered on the ground Monday, October 2, at the site of a country music festival held this past weekend in Las Vegas. Dozens of people were killed and hundreds were injured Sunday when a gunman opened fire on the crowd. Police said the gunman fired from the Mandalay Bay hotel, several hundred feet southwest of the concert grounds. It is the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history. Hide Caption 1 of 30 Photos: Mass shooting at Las Vegas music festival Broken windows of the Mandalay Bay are seen early in Las Vegas on Monday. Police said the gunman fired on the crowd from the 32nd floor of the hotel. Hide Caption 2 of 30 Photos: Mass shooting at Las Vegas music festival People cross a street near the Las Vegas Strip just after sunrise on Monday. Thousands were attending the music festival, Route 91 Harvest, when the shooting started. Hide Caption 3 of 30 Photos: Mass shooting at Las Vegas music festival People embrace outside the Thomas & Mack Center after the shooting. Hide Caption 4 of 30 Photos: Mass shooting at Las Vegas music festival Police arrive at the Sands Corporation plane hangar where some people ran to safety after the shooting. Hide Caption 5 of 30 Photos: Mass shooting at Las Vegas music festival A woman cries while hiding inside the Sands Corporation plane hangar. Hide Caption 6 of 30 Photos: Mass shooting at Las Vegas music festival Concertgoers dive over a fence to take cover from gunfire on Sunday night. Hide Caption 7 of 30 Photos: Mass shooting at Las Vegas music festival Police take position outside the Mandalay Bay. Hide Caption 8 of 30 Photos: Mass shooting at Las Vegas music festival A man lays on top of a woman as others flee the festival grounds. The woman reportedly got up from the scene. Hide Caption 9 of 30 Photos: Mass shooting at Las Vegas music festival Hide Caption 10 of 30 Photos: Mass shooting at Las Vegas music festival People are seen on the ground after the gunman opened fire. Hide Caption 11 of 30 Photos: Mass shooting at Las Vegas music festival People run from the festival grounds. Hide Caption 12 of 30 Photos: Mass shooting at Las Vegas music festival A woman is moved outside the Las Vegas Tropicana resort. Multiple victims were being transported to hospitals in the aftermath of the shooting. Hide Caption 13 of 30 Photos: Mass shooting at Las Vegas music festival People are searched by police at the Tropicana. Hide Caption 14 of 30 Photos: Mass shooting at Las Vegas music festival An ambulance leaves the intersection of Las Vegas Boulevard and Tropicana Avenue. Hide Caption 15 of 30 Photos: Mass shooting at Las Vegas music festival A man in a wheelchair is evacuated from the festival after gunfire was heard. Hide Caption 16 of 30 Photos: Mass shooting at Las Vegas music festival Victims of the shooting are tended to in the street. Hide Caption 17 of 30 Photos: Mass shooting at Las Vegas music festival Concertgoers help an injured person at the scene. Hide Caption 18 of 30 Photos: Mass shooting at Las Vegas music festival People gather around a victim outside the festival grounds. Hide Caption 19 of 30 Photos: Mass shooting at Las Vegas music festival A couple huddles after shots rang out at the festival. Hide Caption 20 of 30 Photos: Mass shooting at Las Vegas music festival An injured woman is helped at the Tropicana. Hide Caption 21 of 30 Photos: Mass shooting at Las Vegas music festival Police and emergency responders gather at the intersection of Las Vegas Boulevard and Tropicana Avenue. Hide Caption 22 of 30 Photos: Mass shooting at Las Vegas music festival A police officer takes position behind a truck. Hide Caption 23 of 30 Photos: Mass shooting at Las Vegas music festival A crowd takes cover at the festival grounds. Hide Caption 24 of 30 Photos: Mass shooting at Las Vegas music festival Police officers advise people to take cover in the wake of the shooting. Hide Caption 25 of 30 Photos: Mass shooting at Las Vegas music festival People tend to a victim at the festival grounds. Hide Caption 26 of 30 Photos: Mass shooting at Las Vegas music festival Police stand at the scene of the shooting. Hide Caption 27 of 30 Photos: Mass shooting at Las Vegas music festival A woman sits on a curb at the scene of the shooting. Hide Caption 28 of 30 Photos: Mass shooting at Las Vegas music festival Police are deployed to the scene. Hide Caption 29 of 30 Photos: Mass shooting at Las Vegas music festival A man makes a phone call as people run from the festival grounds. Hide Caption 30 of 30 Two law enforcement sources told CNN in October that Paddock, during the massacre, fired incendiary bullets at a 43,000-barrel fuel tank on the grounds of nearby McCarran International Airport in what investigators believe was a failed attempt to cause an explosion. Haig did not mention the incendiary rounds -- which are meant to ignite what they hit -- in Friday's news conference. Victor, his attorney, declined to comment about CNN's questions about the incendiary rounds. The complaint does not name Haig's associate. The law enforcement sources also said tracer rounds were found in Paddock's hotel room. But there was no evidence the tracer rounds were used during the attack, according to the sources, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about such details. Authorities have repeatedly said Paddock was the only shooter. Friday's charges do not allege that Haig knew of Paddock's intentions to kill in Las Vegas. Haig says he saw nothing suspicious Haig, an aerospace engineer and part-time ammunition reseller, said at Friday's news conference that he never saw anything suspicious in his brief interactions with Paddock. Paddock arrived at the seller's home in Mesa "very well-dressed, very well-groomed, very polite, very respectful," Haig said. "At no time did I see anything suspicious or odd or any kind of a tell, anything that would set off an alarm," he said. Haig also said that he received death threats after his name was revealed this week. He stressed that his sale made "no contribution" to the killings since Paddock didn't appear to have fired tracer rounds. "I hope today ends (the death threats) when people realize that I wasn't in collusion with Paddock -- that I was not in any way, shape or form associated with the horrible crime that he committed," Haig said. Timeline of sales Haig said he sold 720 rounds of surplus US military tracer ammunition to Paddock at his home in September after Paddock approached him or an associate at gun shows. JUST WATCHED Man who sold Vegas shooter ammo speaks out Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Man who sold Vegas shooter ammo speaks out 01:00 He held Friday's news conference to protect his reputation, he and his attorney said. They gave the following timeline: • Paddock first approached Haig's table at a Las Vegas gun show sometime last year but met another person who was behind the table. • Haig first met Paddock at a subsequent Phoenix gun show, where he was selling ammunition. • Paddock took Haig's business card because the seller didn't have the quantity of trace ammunition that he wanted. • Paddock later called Haig three times to arrange a sale at Haig's home. • In September, Paddock arrived at Haig's home, bought the tracer ammunition and drove away. The ammunition, he said, was: • 600 rounds of 7.62mm NATO, M62, tracer ammunition, manufactured by the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant in Independence, Missouri. • 120 rounds of 5.56mm M196 tracer ammunition, manufactured by the same plant. He said the 5.56mm rounds were in their original packaging. He did not comment on the 7.62mm rounds' packaging. Before the sale, Paddock told him "that he was going to go out to the desert and put on a light show" with the ammunition -- that he was "going to go out and shoot it at night with friends." Seller's reaction to massacre: 'Revulsion' Victor said police found his client's name and address on a box that Paddock had -- a box that Haig gave him to carry the tracer rounds he had bought. Haig said he learned of the massacre when authorities contacted him at work the next morning. "Revulsion," Haig said of his reaction. "Sickness. Horror that this man would do something like that." Haig spoke with investigators four times after the shooting, and has been "fully cooperative," Victor said. "This was a routine transaction to purchase a routine type of ammunition that is available in many different retail outlets throughout the state of Arizona," Victor said. "After that transaction, Doug had absolutely no further contact with Mr. Paddock." Death threats Haig said he's received death threats since the search warrant documents were released Tuesday. "One woman (was) screaming through my door that I should be killed and I should die," he told reporters at Friday's news conference. "It's been not a lot of fun, quite frankly." Haig added, "I had no contribution to what Paddock did. I had no way to see into his mind." Haig named as person of interest A Nevada judge on Tuesday unsealed police search warrant records -- prepared shortly after the shooting -- that mentioned two persons of interest in the case. The judge released the documents after CNN and other media outlets sued to obtain them. One person of interest, whom police had named previously, was the killer's girlfriend, Marilou Danley. Authorities subsequently cleared her publicly. The second name was redacted. But the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported it had a version of the search warrant that named, without redaction, Haig as that second person. The documents didn't explain why he was a person of interest. Las Vegas police officials told CNN the department couldn't comment on Haig or any names, and referred questions to federal authorities. Sheriff has said feds were investigating someone When the search warrant documents were released this week, Clark County District Court Judge Elissa Cadish allowed a small portion of those records to be redacted because "there is an ongoing investigation regarding charges against another individual, arising out of information obtained in connection with the ... shooting, but not directly related to the shooting." In response to a question from CNN in January, the Clark County sheriff, Joe Lombardo, said federal authorities are investigating a person in the case. That person could face federal charges not directly related to the shooting within the next 60 days, the sheriff said January 19. Lombardo didn't disclose the person's name, saying those details were "under federal grand jury disclosure" rules. On Friday morning, before his arrest, Haig answered a reporter's question about whether he believed he was that person. "No. I don't think it's me at all," Haig said.

3-D-printed guns put carnage a click away PEOPLE WHO are barred from purchasing firearms or want to own a gun that is illegal in the jurisdiction where they live may soon have an easy way to get around the law. All they would need to do is download a computer file and use a 3-D printer to stamp out a gun. No background check would weed out felons, those with mental illness, domestic abusers or possible terrorists. No serial number would allow police to trace a weapon used in a crime. And there would be no problem getting past metal detectors with a gun molded from high-quality plastic. Plans by a Texas organization to publish, starting Aug. 1, downloadable blueprints for 3-D-printed plastic firearms — so-called ghost guns — have rightly alarmed leading gun safety groups and law enforcement officials. Credit for this dangerous scenario — in which getting an AR-15-style rifle is just a matter of a few computer clicks — goes to the Trump administration for its inexplicable decision to settle a lawsuit it was on the verge of winning. The case involves Cody Wilson, founder of Defense Distributed, who sued the government in 2015 after the State Department under the Obama administration made him take down do-it-yourself gunmaking blueprints he had posted online, saying they violated export regulations governing military hardware and technology. Mr. Wilson, an avowed anarchist who hopes for a world in which governments can’t stop individuals from getting guns, claimed his First Amendment right to free speech was being violated. But he lost at every stage of litigation, including a refusal by the Supreme Court to review a decision that the code could not be published during the course of the lawsuit. So it was stunning — but not surprising, given this administration’s worship at the altar of gun rights — that the State Department elected last month to quietly settle the case. In addition to signing off on the public release of the 3-D printing tutorials, the State Department also agreed to pay nearly $40,000 of Mr. Wilson’s legal fees. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence has filed a Freedom of Information Act request to find out how this senseless decision was reached, and whether groups such as the National Rifle Association were involved. It, along with Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, tried unsuccessfully Friday to get a federal court in Texas to block what it called a “troubling” and “dangerous” settlement. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was pressed about the issue Wednesday during his appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “Why on earth would the Trump administration make it easier for terrorists and gunmen to produce undetectable plastic guns?” asked Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.). Mr. Pompeo promised to “take a look at it.” That’s not enough. Ghost guns are already a problem; they are used not just by lone shooters but as part of criminal enterprises. Releasing instructions for their manufacture, which now only circulate on the dark Web, will lead directly to the loss of more innocent lives. The administration should stop the State Department from going ahead with this foolhardy move, and Congress should act to plug the loopholes that these guns are designed to take advantage of.

Former Navy Sailor Pardoned By Trump To Sue Obama & Comey Kristian Saucier, a former Navy sailor who served a year in federal prison for taking photos of classified sections of the submarine he worked on but was later pardoned by President Donald Trump, says that he is going to pursue a lawsuit against several Obama administration members, including Former FBI Director James Comes and Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah. The same FBI that gave Hillary Clinton a pass for operating an illegal email server, which we have evidence for the fact that she sent and received classified documents through resulting in a national security breach and at least one death, but would not give the same leniency to Saucier who simply took some pictures of his submarine. Fox News reports: 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. 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.” Saucier's attorneys attempted to use the Hillary Clinton defense to get him out of hot water for taking pictures of classified systems aboard the USS Alexandria in 2009. Prosecutors sloughed off the defense, saying it was essentially “grasping at highly imaginative and speculative straws in trying to further draw a comparison to the matter of Secretary Hillary Clinton based upon virtually no understanding and knowledge of the facts involved, the information at issue, not to mention any issues if intent and knowledge.” Saucier confessed to taking photos of the submarine back in 2009 when he served as a 22-year-old machinist mate, saying he wanted to show the pictures to his family and future children. Following an interview with the FBI in 2012, he destroyed all evidence of the pictures, meaning the Naval Criminal Investigative Service could not confirm his claims that he did not share the photos with unauthorized people. “It was a foolish mistake by a very young man,” Saucier’s lawyer, Greg Rinckey, said. “It’s a very sad case because Kristian Saucier is a fine young man. We don’t believe this was really his true character.” “My case was usually something handled by military courts,” Saucier said. “They used me as an example because of [the backlash over] Hillary Clinton,” he continued, alleging his life was ruined for political reasons. President Trump had spoken of his support of Saucier on the campaign trail and blasted the Obama administration's handling of his case. “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.” That's a good attitude considering he has had his cars repossessed and is in a tremendous amount of debt due to his incarceration and now having a felony on his record. But hey, Hillary is free, right? That's all that matters, cause after all, they're (Bill and Hillary) good people, aren't they, Mr. President? I think it's great that Mr. Saucier has been pardoned, I really do, but I continue to ask what a lot of Americans continue to ask, why does the known criminal Hillary Clinton remain at large in our country with her corrupt foundation taking in billions, her trashing our Republic and continuing to have a national voice? The American people weren't promised pardons, we were promised a special counsel to dig into the Clintons and bring about justice. It's time that occurred.

Trump calls on Sessions to stop Mueller’s Russia probe, raising specter of attempted obstruction WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump called on Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now,” opening the president to further complaints that he is trying to obstruct the investigation into Russia’s election interference and his campaign’s possible complicity. Trump is already reportedly under investigation for potential obstruction of the Russia probe led by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. The tweet early Wednesday was the president’s most explicit post or statement to date seemingly aimed at getting his attorney general, the nation’s top law enforcement officer, to end the probe The tweet, along with several others Wednesday morning, accelerated the president’s attacks on the investigation, which he claims is tainted by bias. They were likely prompted by the start of the trial on Tuesday of Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman, on 18 charges of tax evasion, bank fraud and conspiracy. “This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further. Bob Mueller is totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace to USA!” Trump wrote. The president suggested in a subsequent tweet that Manafort was being treated worse than Al Capone, the notorious Prohibition-era Chicago gangster. “Where is the Russian Collusion?” Trump added. Trump’s tweets prompted Rep. Adam B. Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, to accuse the president of obstruction “hiding in plain sight.” “The President of the United States just called on his Attorney General to put an end to an investigation in which the President, his family and campaign may be implicated,” Schiff tweeted. “This is an attempt to obstruct justice hiding in plain sight. America must never accept it.” Although the White House has said that Trump’s tweets are official presidential statements, his lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, responded to the latest one as he has before, by brushing off suggestions that Trump’s tweets could be used as evidence of obstruction. “The president was expressing his opinion on his favored medium for asserting his First Amendment right of free speech,” Giuliani said in an interview. “He said ‘should,’ not ‘must,’ and no presidential order was issued or will be.” He said he spoke with Trump to make sure that the president wasn’t actually issuing an order. “I talked to him about it to make sure he was on the same page as we are,” Giuliani said, and the president indicated he was not ordering Sessions to act. On Sunday, Giuliani told CBS’ “Face the Nation”: “Obstruction by tweet is not something I think works real well. Generally obstruction is secret, it’s clandestine, it’s corrupt.” Giuliani added, “I’ve looked at all those tweets and they don’t amount to anything.” For months, Trump’s lawyers also have argued that it’s impossible for the president to obstruct justice because his constitutional authority extends over the Justice Department. That power allows him to direct officials where to focus their resources or to fire them when he chooses, as Trump did when removing James B. Comey as FBI director last year. That firing, however, led to Mueller’s appointment as special counsel. Wednesday’s tweet was a reminder of Trump’s unabated anger at Sessions, who recused himself from overseeing the Russia investigation on March 2, 2017 — as members of both parties and legal experts have contended that he should. Sessions pointed to Justice Department regulations to explain that, as one of Trump’s earliest and most active supporters, he shouldn’t participate in the investigation of the Trump campaign. He announced the decision after controversy over his own undisclosed contacts, both during the campaign and the post-election transition, with the Russian ambassador at the time, Sergey Kislyak. Two months ago, Trump tweeted that he should have chosen a different person as attorney general who wouldn’t have needed to recuse himself. “I wish I did!” he wrote. In his tweets, Trump also quoted criticism of the investigation from Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard Law School professor who frequently defends Trump on television. In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Dershowitz said he does not believe Sessions has the authority to end the probe. “You can’t be both recused and making decisions about the investigation,” he said. But Dershowitz also cast doubt on whether Trump’s tweets can be seen as an act of obstruction. “You cannot obstruct justice by openly exercising your First Amendment rights and openly criticizing a prosecution, whether you’re right or wrong,” he said. “Obstruction of justice is generally committed behind the scenes, so I think both sides are a little overwrought here.” Stephen Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor, agreed that Sessions cannot stop the Russia investigation given that he recused himself. “The president, intentionally or not, is misdirecting his ire,” Vladeck said. If Trump wanted to use his power to end the probe, he would have to give the order to Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general supervising the Mueller team’s work, and fire Rosenstein if he does not comply, according to Vladeck. Trump could also try to replace Sessions as attorney general with someone who does not have a conflict of interest from the campaign, allowing that person to relieve Rosenstein of the responsibility to oversee Mueller, Vladeck said. — Noah Bierman and Chris Megerian Los Angeles Times ——— ©2018 Los Angeles Times, Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

ICE Arrests Over 150 in Bay Area Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested more than 150 illegals in the San Francisco Bay Area this week -- no thanks to the Democrat mayor of Oakland, who tried to warn the constituents of her sanctuary city of impending ICE raids. Fox News reports that “targeted immigration enforcement operations” resulted in the arrests, about half of which snared fugitives with convictions for assault and battery, crimes against children, weapons charges and DUI. One such fugitive is a documented gang member whose “accumulated criminal convictions in California... have resulted in more than 15 years of prison sentencings” and who had previously been removed by ICE four times. Many of the other arrested illegals had criminal convictions from Mexico and Guatemala throughout Northern California. The arrests came despite a press release tweeted by Libby Schaaf, the Democratic mayor of Oakland, which noted that “multiple credible sources” told her ICE would be conducting the raids in the Bay Area. This did not win her any friends among law enforcement. ICE Deputy Director Thomas Homan said in a statement Tuesday, The Oakland mayor’s decision to publicize her suspicions about ICE operations further increased that risk for my officers and alerted criminal aliens — making clear that this reckless decision was based on her political agenda. Unlike the politicians who attempt to undermine ICE’s critical mission, our officers will continue to fulfill their sworn duty to protect public safety. True to the left's support for criminality over law and order, Mayor Schaaf declared that she considered it her "duty" to warn criminal illegals in her area. Fox News notes that ICE officials are asking the Department of Justice to look into whether she broke any laws by doing so. ICE reports that 864 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions and other public safety threats "remain at large" in the area -- an indeterminate number of whom may have been tipped off by a Democrat mayor who betrayed the law-abiding citizens of Northern California.

Soros-Funded Lawyers Helping Caravan Migrants Get Asylum in the United States Attorneys backed by George Soros are helping caravan migrants get asylum in the United States. 53 SHARES Facebook Twitter Globalist billionaire George Soros is backing attorney’s who are helping the Central American migrant caravans that are headed to the United States border with the intent of entering under the guise of seeking asylum. Currently, there are close to 3,000 migrants in Tijuana, Mexico, awaiting the arrival of other Central American migrants who will continue to travel to the U.S. southern border. There are reports that they plan to “rush” the border knowing that some will be caught, but the larger their numbers the more will have a chance to get through. On Monday afternoon, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen tweeted out photos of CBP officers in riot gear as well as the barbed wire and barriers citing the reports about plans to “rush” the border. . @CBP and @DeptofDefense appropriately responded by blocking the lanes, deploying additional personnel and seeking assistance from other law enforcement and federal assets. #CBP has reopened lanes for legitimate trade and travel. I want to thank them for their swift actions. pic.twitter.com/eJVVuAs0w6 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 * Email 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. — Sec. Kirstjen Nielsen (@SecNielsen) November 19, 2018 At one point the caravan was anywhere between 7,000 to 10,000 members strong and mostly consists of migrants with ineligible asylum claims, which include job-seekers, previously deported illegal aliens, and Central Americans looking to get away from crime. None of these are eligible asylum claims, Breitbart reports. According to the New York Times, lawyers with the National Lawyers Guild, a Soros-backed organization, are aiding the caravan migrants before they attempt to seek asylum in the U.S.: Others have begun to deal in practicalities, walking a mile from the shelter to enter their names on a waiting list for an asylum interview. Some clustered around volunteer American lawyers who arrived at the shelter to explain the basics of asylum law. [Emphasis added] “People don’t flee their country and go through the arduous trip on foot unless the situation is desperate,” said Gilbert Saucedo, a Los Angeles lawyer who helped organize the volunteers through the National Lawyers Guild. [Emphasis added] “I have talked to maybe 100 people today,” he said on Saturday, “and maybe 70 percent had credible cases on the surface.” Yet many lack the documents they need to provide evidence. [Emphasis added] Last week, Breitbart News reported how caravan migrants in Tijuana began scaling the U.S.-Mexico border fence. In response, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has placed razor wire along the fence. Locals in Tijuana protested against the arrival of the caravan migrants, as Breitbart News reported, demanding they leave the city. To deal with the perceived threat the US has deployed 5,200 troops to help more than 2,000 National Guardsmen thwart what President Trump describes as an impending migrant“invasion.” Over the past few weeks, the active-duty servicemen deployed under Operation Faithful Patriot have mainly been erecting barbed-wire fences along the border in Texas, California and Arizona, as well as building shelter accommodation for customs and border protection staff. To ensure the success of the military operation, in addition to sheer troop numbers, the US forces have drones, helicopters with night-vision capabilities, and fixed-wing aircraft at their disposal.

Archbishop Hebda and McCarrick's Scandal Archbishop Bernard Hebda of St. Paul, MN, responds to the McCarrick scandal (The Catholic Spirit): Every time Mass is celebrated, the priest prays that Jesus will “look not on our sins but on the faith of [his] Church… .” That’s been an important prayer for me in the time that I have been serving this archdiocese, well aware of our sins but equally aware of the strong and vibrant faith of this local Church. I’ve been praying that prayer even more earnestly in these past weeks as the Church in the United States has once again come face-to-face with its sins, with reports that former cardinal Theodore McCarrick, one of the most prominent Churchmen in the United States in the last quarter century, has been accused of abusing two minors and sexually harassing or assaulting a number of seminarians and young priests. To make matters worse (if that is even possible), evidence has surfaced that indicates that a bishop, as well as some priests and laity, had brought the allegations about misconduct with seminarians to the attention of Church authorities but to no avail: Archbishop McCarrick was nonetheless “promoted” to become the archbishop in our nation’s capital, and elevated to the College of Cardinals. While I realize that it is not always easy to evaluate the credibility of those bringing allegations, and that there’s often a tendency to believe those we know over those we don’t, I don’t think that the Church in the United States will rest — and confidence will be restored — until the matter is independently investigated and explained, and assurances are given that there are safeguards in place to make sure that something like this couldn’t happen again. The matter has been particularly troubling to me personally due to the fact that I had served in the Archdiocese of Newark as coadjutor archbishop from November 4, 2013, to March 25, 2016, when I was named archbishop here. It was while I was in Newark that I was introduced to then-Cardinal McCarrick. A number of good Catholics have written to ask for a personal accounting on my part, inquiring whether I was made aware in my time in Newark of the 2005 and 2007 settlements involving Archbishop McCarrick, or if I knew of any allegations against him. I can state unequivocally that I learned of those settlements only in June of this year, as news broke about the unrelated claim that had been filed in the Archdiocese of New York. What I know of the settlements I know from the newspapers. When serving in Newark, I was regularly briefed on current legal matters of all sorts, but not on past legal matters (unless they were still being discussed in the press). By the time I arrived in Newark in November 2013, the 2005 and 2007 settlements were apparently considered ancient history. It would be untrue to state that I had never heard any allegations about Cardinal McCarrick. Years before I ever lived in Newark, and never imagining that I would be assigned there, I had indeed read — as a somewhat geeky ex-lawyer — an allegation about Cardinal McCarrick in the context of a 2005 lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Archbishop Myers, Cardinal Eagan, Bishop Hubbard and the Irish Christian Brothers. While the complaint didn’t supply any details, the plaintiff was reported to have said to a journalist that “Archbishop McCarrick would share a bed with seminarians but not engage in any activity with them.” The complaint would later be formally amended to include that allegation. Knowing, however, that this lawsuit was completely dismissed by the state and federal courts, I never gave the particular allegation about Cardinal McCarrick any credence. I can also state without exception that no one in my years in Newark ever told me that they were improperly touched by Archbishop McCarrick, and no one ever told me that they had to share a bed with him or that they had seen anyone share a bed with him. I heard lots of gut-wrenching stories in my two-and-a-half years there, but none of them involved Archbishop McCarrick. With St. John Paul II’s 1995 visit, he was remembered for “bringing a saint to Newark,” not as an abuser of seminarians, minors or priests. When I was installed here in St. Paul, he joined me at lunch along with my father, sister, godmother and then 12-year-old nephew. I can assure you that I would never have allowed that to happen if I had any reason to know or even suspect the things that have been reported in the newspapers this past month. While the letters and emails of recent days are sober reminders that there’s still a long way to go in restoring trust, I nonetheless welcome the efforts to hold me accountable to you, the faithful of this archdiocese. The events of these past weeks have shown that no one can be above the law, regardless of rank or privilege. I was grateful for the opportunity to reinforce that with our seminarians this past weekend, and I look forward to continuing my work with the Office of Ministerial Standards and Safe Environment, and our Archdiocesan Review Board, in creating a culture in which no one need be afraid or reluctant to bring forth an allegation of misconduct. Our heavenly patron, St. Paul, reminds us that “where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more.” May these difficult days be days of great grace for this local Church. REMNANT COMMENT: While we certainly appreciate His Excellency's candid explanation of what he knew and did not know about this horrific scandal in the Church, we would also humbly beg him to take it one step further by publicly proclaiming his profession of belief in the Church's official teaching against the mortal sin of homosexual acts and the so-called "gay lifestyle," which includes her long-held teaching that homosexual activity between clerics is an ecclesiastical crime. Far from being reassured of this by their bishops, many Catholic faithful today are informed that the modern Catholic Church is now an "inclusive community" that "welcomes all" and "judges none." All very well and good, except for the fact that the Church's constant and unchanging moral teaching on this makes no such allowance. In fact, this binding and constant teaching of the Church was reaffirmed most recently in her most authoritative modern catechism, which holds the exact opposite position from that apparently held by many bishops: Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex... Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2357) Under no circumstances…except for those dreamed up by a number of bishops in this country who apparently think that it should be left up to individual parishes to decide if they are LGBTQ-friendly or not. Even Pope John Paul "The GREAT's" Vatican clarified the Church's teaching on October 31, 1986, in the “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons”: Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed to those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not. Notice the late pope does not say, “Let the practicing homosexuals have a spiritual home among your faithful,” as Father James Martin and his episcopal fans are at least implying on a regular basis in the media. Does Archbishop Hebda believe it is time for the Church to stop humiliating herself by stooping to accommodate a special interest group that obviously doesn't care about her or the moral code by which she governs? Does he believe that all Catholics must follow the rules of the Church pertaining to the Sixth Commandment...or just the straight Catholics? Does His Excellency believe that if some homosexual Catholics feel they need not bother following the rules they should be warmly welcomed into our "Catholic Christian" community anyway, even if they are in same-sex unions? Pope John Paul certainly didn't accept that. In his 2005 book Memory and Identity, John Paul referred to homosexuality as an “ideology of evil,” insisting of so-called 'gay marriage' that: “It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and man.” Was Pope John Paul THE GREAT an intolerant homophobe? Are Father Martin and his pals in the episcopacy really so enlightened over every pope, saint, and moral theologian in history? Or is it not so that it is both negligent and uncharitable for some bishops to refuse to inform their faithful that according to the Church's own infallible teaching, everlasting damnation is the price to be paid for this kind of inclusivity and toleration? And if the episcopal retort is going to be that this acceptance refers only to chaste homosexuals, then we call FOUL even louder since this crosses the line into willful deception. We're all sinners, of course--- and the Church already accepts repentant homosexuals as they are, just as she accepts repentant practitioners of ANY sins of the flesh. So why are our bishops playing dumb? Quite obviously, it is because what they are actually closing an episcopal eye to are the folks who want to keep right on sinning--and sinning proudly. This is what the Church of Accompaniment is all about! But, practically speaking--in the real world--this kind of "accompaniment" is only green-lighting vice and mortal sin, and as such constitutes a hideous violation of everything these bishops supposedly believe as Catholic priests. So what's going on here? Who are these bishops that think they can play fast and loose not only with the moral theology of the Catholic Church, but also with the immortal souls of their flock? Is it any wonder that priests and laity alike are changing their attitude on the "gay lifestyle" and violations of the Sixth Commandment when so many bishops are working to remove the stigma attached to this sin that Scripture tells us cries to heaven for vengeance? The Catholic Church's new-found "climate of tolerance" is exactly what McCarrick and company are counting on! It is truly homophobic for any bishop to lie to the gay community about this, and to risk the immortal souls of the sheep merely so that the shepherd might pride himself on occupying the politically correct high ground. This is gross dereliction of duty, and we hope and pray that all the good U.S. bishops would jump at the opportunity to issue statements reaffirming the Church's clear teaching against all sins of the flesh, homo- and heterosexual. Again, God bless Archbishop Hebda for this welcome statement, and may God grant him the courage now to finish the task by publicly reassuring the scandalized faithful that it’s not just abuse of minors or sexual harassment that’s going on here. Our bishops must make it absolutely clear that the Church's moral theology on homosexuality will not and can not be trumped by the dictates of political correctness. And neither can God's law be changed to accommodate the spirit of our “most enlightened” age---which is, of course, an evil spirit that can be driven out only by prayer and fasting. Until the Church and her bishops get back to reaffirming traditional Catholic teaching on human sexuality we can forget about seeing an end to the sexual abuse crisis and the massive problem of homosexuality in the clergy. McCarrick will become the norm, not the exception, and confidence in the leadership and moral authority of the Catholic Church will remain in the toilet indefinitely... exactly as the forces of darkness intended all along.

Dem Congressman Corrects ADL's Claim That He Isn't Into Farrakhan The media has maintained a tight embargo on the release of the photo of Obama meeting with Nation of Islam hate group leader Louis Farrakhan at a Congressional Black Caucus meeting. Almost no national media outlet has covered the story. CNN only mentioned it when it embedded Jake Tapper's tweets about the support for Farrakhan by Women's March leaders. But Rep. Danny Davis had defended Farrakhan. Democratic Illinois Rep. Danny Davis defended Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan as an “outstanding human being” on Monday. Farrakhan’s history of racially extreme comments includes blaming Jews for the September 11 attacks, saying white people “deserve to die” and praising Adolf Hitler as a “very great man.” “I personally know [Farrakhan], I’ve been to his home, done meetings, participated in events with him,” Davis told TheDC. The JTA's awkward attempt to whitewash the newly revealed CBC anti-Semitism included a claim from the ADL that Rep. Davis had been misquoted. An ADL official told JTA on Friday that the group had reached out to Rep. Danny Davis, a Democrat, after an article in The Daily Caller said he lauded Farrakhan on Monday as “an outstanding human being.” Farrakhan has calledJews “the enemy of God and the enemy of the righteous,” and said Jews were responsible for the 9/11 terror attacks and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the 20th century. “The congressman was insistent that The Daily Caller misquoted him during the interview and that he didn’t subscribe to Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic statements and actions in the past,” the ADL official told JTA in a statement. “He expressed an interest in seeing some of the latest statements made by Farrakhan vis-a-vis Jews, which we promptly shared with him.” The official said the ADL had shared information with Davis about Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic statements, and that the organization was waiting to hear back from him. Now, Rep. Davis would really like to emphasize that the ADL is wrong and he loves Farrakhan. Democratic Illinois Rep. Danny Davis confirmed in an interview Sunday that he has a personal relationship with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, a notorious anti-Semite, and said he isn’t bothered by Farrakhan’s position on “the Jewish question.” Farrakhan has repeatedly denounced Jews as “satanic,” praised Hitler as a “very great man” and has said that white people “deserve to die.” The congressman wasn’t sure why the ADL wrote that he had been misquoted in his praise for the anti-Semite, and said he wasn’t sure if someone from his office had told the ADL he was misquoted, he told The Daily Caller News Foundation on Sunday. “I think that was what they wanted to write. Nah, I don’t have no problems with Farrakhan, I don’t spend a whole lot of my time dealing with those kind of things,” Davis said. “That’s just one segment of what goes on in our world. The world is so much bigger than Farrakhan and the Jewish question and his position on that and so forth. For those heavy into it, that’s their thing, but it ain’t my thing,” he said The people who talk about the "Jewish question" are generally anti-Semites. Somehow I don't think a white congressman would get away with saying that he agrees with David Duke on the environment but isn't especially concerned about his racism. But black leaders have gotten away with playing that game with Farrakhan repeatedly. But the ADL and the JTA will whitewash this again. And if they can't whitewash this, they'll ignore it.

Vatican Theologian Sacked for Questioning “Merciful” Pope’s Pontificate By now the whole Catholic world has heard of the publication of a devastating letter to Pope Francis from Father Thomas G. Weinandy. The former head of the theological secretariat of the U.S. Bishop’s conference, Fr. Weinandy has taught at both Oxford and the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. None other than Francis appointed Fr. Weinandy to the International Theological Commission and awarded him the Pro Pontifice et Ecclesiae medal, the ecclesial equivalent of the Congressional Medal of Honor, for his work on behalf of the Pope and the Church. One of the world’s most renowned theologians, Fr. Weinandy is a “man of the Council” and a prominent figure of the post-conciliar mainstream. Yet Fr. Weinandy’s letter, sent to Francis privately last summer but predictably ignored by him—along with every other private entreaty concerning his destructive activity—is a withering indictment of a papacy that constitutes nothing less than a menace to the Church. The key passages (paragraph breaks added) rebuke Francis for his recklessness, his deliberate ambiguity, his fomenting of error, his sowing of disunity, his unheard-of calumnies of the faithful, and even his reduction of the faith to an ideology—precisely the wrong of which he accuses orthodox Catholics: Your Holiness, a chronic confusion seems to mark your pontificate…. This fosters within the faithful a growing unease …. In "Amoris Laetitia," your guidance at times seems intentionally ambiguous, thus inviting both a traditional interpretation of Catholic teaching on marriage and divorce as well as one that might imply a change in that teaching…. To teach with such a seemingly intentional lack of clarity inevitably risks sinning against the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth. The Holy Spirit is given to the Church, and particularly to yourself, to dispel error, not to foster it. [Y]ou seem to censor and even mock those who interpret Chapter 8 of "Amoris Laetitia" in accord with Church tradition as Pharisaic stone-throwers who embody a merciless rigorism. This kind of calumny is alien to the nature of the Petrine ministry…. Such behavior gives the impression that your views cannotsurvive theological scrutiny, and so must be sustained by “ad hominem” arguments. [T]oo often your manner seems to demean the importance of Church doctrine. Again and again you portray doctrine as dead and bookish, and far from the pastoral concerns of everyday life. Your critics have been accused, in your own words, of making doctrine an ideology. But it is precisely Christian doctrine… that frees people from worldly ideologies and assures that they are actually preaching and teaching the authentic, life-giving Gospel. Those who devalue the doctrines of the Church [i.e., Francis!] separate themselves from Jesus, the author of truth… What they [i.e., Francis] then possess, and can only possess, is an ideology – one that conforms to the world of sin and death. [F]aithful Catholics can only be disconcerted by your choice of some bishops, men who seem not merely open to those who hold views counter to Christian belief but who support and even defend them. What scandalizes believers, and even some fellow bishops, is not only your having appointed such men to be shepherds of the Church, but that you also seem silent in the face of their teaching and pastoral practice…. As a result, many of the faithful, who embody the "sensus fidelium," are losing confidence in their supreme shepherd. [T]he Church is one body, the Mystical Body of Christ, and you are commissioned by the Lord himself to promote and strengthen her unity. But your actions and words too often seem intent on doing the opposite…. You have often spoken about the need for transparency within the Church. You have frequently encouraged… all persons, especially bishops, to speak their mind and not be fearful of what the pope may think. But… what many [bishops] have learned from your pontificate is not that you are open to criticism, but that you resent it… Many fear that if they speak their mind, they will be marginalized or worse. I have often asked myself: "Why has Jesus let all of this happen?" The only answer that comes to mind is that Jesus wants to manifest just how weak is the faith of many within the Church, even among too many of her bishops. Ironically, your pontificate has given those who hold harmful theological and pastoral views the license and confidence to come into the light and expose their previously hidden darkness…. Father Weinandy reveals that he decided to publicize this historic missive only after receiving an unmistakable sign from heaven. As he recounts here, after repeatedly “beseeching Jesus and Mary, St. Peter and all of the saintly popes who are buried there to do something to rectify the confusion and turmoil within the Church today, a chaos and an uncertainty that I felt Pope Francis had himself caused,” he asked for a minutely specific sign from heaven on whether he should write the letter: that the next day he would meet someone he had not seen in a very long time, would never expect to see in Rome, and was not from the United States, Canada or Great Britain, which person would utter the particular phrase: “Keep up the good writing.” At lunch the next day, the sign was given. An old friend he had not seen in more than twenty years and would never have expected to meet in Rome, who is now an archbishop, appeared suddenly from between two parked cars, renewed acquaintances and, referring to one of Father Weinandy’s books, said: “Keep up the good writing.” Writes Fr. Weinandy: “I could hardly believe that this just happened in a matter of a few minutes. But there was no longer any doubt in my mind that Jesus wanted me to write something. I also think it significant that it was an Archbishop that Jesus used. I considered it an apostolic mandate.” Can we doubt that it was indeed an apostolic mandate? Can we not see in Fr. Weinandy a voice raised up by heaven itself to say, from deep within the post-conciliar ecclesial establishment, things that exceed in their candor what even certain traditionalist commentators have ventured to state? This article is featured in the new Print/E-edition of The Remnant. Check out the PREVIEW and Subscribe Today! As if to confirm the validity of his own indictment of this pontificate, only a day after this letter was published, the USCCB demanded that Fr. Weinandy resign his current position as a consultant to the U.S. bishops. He has done so. Fr. Fessio’s Catholic World Report, another voice of the rising mainstream opposition to Francis, notes that “In making such a request, the USCCB, it would appear, reinforces Fr. Weinandy’s very point about fearfulness and lack of transparency.” Fr. Weinandy’s intervention gives us hope that the plan to remake the Church according to the mind of Bergoglio will ultimately encounter a resistance that will bring an end to the Latin American-style dictatorship Francis has imposed upon the Church, even as he speaks of dialogue, collegiality, decentralization and parreshia (but only for those who agree with him). The plan that ultimately must fail may well fail even while Francis is attempting to carry it out. May Our Lady of Fatima intercede soon to thwart the designs of Francis and to rectify the grave harm he has already caused. "We don't like you 'rigid' Catholics!" Pope Francis meets meets with Lutheran leader, Bishop Munib Younan, in Sweden

MAJOR NEW STUDY: Homeschooling Spikes Due to School Violence, Far-Left Bias According to a 33-year-long study conducted by the National Home Education Research Institute in Oregon, the top three reasons that parents choose homeschooling are a desire to provide religious instruction or different values than those offered in public schools; dissatisfaction with the academic curriculum, and worries about the school environment. As reported by The Washington Times, the recent school shooting at Parkland, Fla., was the last straw for scores of parents. The paper noted that “the phones started ringing at the Texas Home School Coalition, and they haven’t stopped yet.” The Times added:The Lubbock-based organization has been swamped with inquiries for months from parents seeking safer options for their kids in the aftermath of this year’s deadly school massacres, first in Parkland and then in Santa Fe, Texas. “When the Parkland shooting happened, our phone calls and emails exploded,” said coalition president Tim Lambert. “In the last couple of months, our numbers have doubled. We’re dealing with probably between 1,200 and 1,400 calls and emails per month, and prior to that it was 600 to 700.” While the debate rages anew over familiar topics following such tragedies — tougher, more restrictive gun control laws and bolstering security at public schools — the revolution in homeschooling has been taking place quietly, behind the scenes and off the radar screens of most political organizations. But again, it’s not just the shootings, which admittedly have increased in the past couple of years. Christopher Chin, head of Homeschool Louisiana, told The Times that parents are fed up with “the violence, the bullying, the unsafe environments.” The Left is driving more kids OUT of public schools There is also the Left-wing social engineering. The craziness over transgender students and bathrooms/locker rooms, allowing students to “take a knee” during the playing of the National Anthem, the Left-wing curriculum, and refusing to allow students to wear shirts that praise POTUS Trump or feature the American flag are also driving parents into homeschooling. REMNANT COMMENT: We here at The Remnant are always eager to promote the home-schooling movement, and this report helps illustrate why. At the moment and personally speaking, my own family’s home-school is going great guns. We have a daughter still in high school and three in grade school. Our family couldn't be happier with our decision to homeschool---yes, all the way through high school. And as for our older home-schooled children: My third-eldest child is preparing to head off to college in the fall. Her older sister just finished a semester studying in Austria and will graduate with a double major and a minor degree next spring. My son will be a junior this fall, working on a Mass Communications degree at Franciscan University. Here's an example of his work: Perhaps this video from a couple of years ago will be useful to those considering home-schooling this fall: Friends, please give serious thought and prayer to home-schooling your children. I realize it’s a challenge, but few challenges have greater payoffs in this world or the next. There is no better way to keep the Catholic family together and committed to the Catholic restoration than the Catholic home school.

ICE removes Guatemalan national wanted for murder NEW YORK — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) removed a Guatemalan citizen Wednesday who was wanted in his home country on charges of homicide. Rigoberto Gonzalez-Aragon, 66, was returned to Guatemala City, via an ICE Air Operations charter flight, and transferred to the custody of Guatemalan law enforcement authorities. On March 9, ERO New York received a lead from the ICE Assistant Attaché for Removals in Guatemala that Gonzalez-Aragon was wanted for homicide and residing in the New York metropolitan area. On June 8, ERO deportation officers arrested Gonzalez-Aragon in Spring Valley, New York, for immigration violations. He had previously entered the country unlawfully at an unknown date and time. He had been in ICE custody since his June arrest. In September, he was ordered removed by an immigration judge, paving the way for his deportation. Since Oct. 1, 2009, ERO has removed more than 1,700 foreign fugitives from the United States who were sought in their native countries for serious crimes, including kidnapping, rape and murder. In fiscal year 2016, ICE conducted 240,255 removals nationwide. Ninety-two percent of individuals removed from the interior of the United States had previously been convicted of a criminal offense.

Patrick J. Buchanan: Boehner's Right—It's Trump's Party Now | Articles See, earlier Trump Victorious As GOP Transformed Into A National Conservative Party by James Kirkpatrick, May 3, 2016 "There is no Republican Party. There's a Trump party," John Boehner told a Mackinac, Michigan, gathering of the GOP faithful last week. "The Republican Party is kind of taking a nap somewhere." Ex-Speaker Boehner should probably re-check the old party's pulse, for the Bush-Boehner GOP may not just be napping. It could be comatose. Consider. That GOP was dedicated to free trade, open borders, amnesty and using U.S. power to punish aggressors and "end tyranny in our world." That GOP set out to create a new world order where dictatorships were threatened with "regime change," and democratic capitalism was the new order of the ages. Yet, Donald Trump captured the Republican nomination and won the presidency—by saying goodbye to all that. How probable is it that a future GOP presidential candidate will revive the Bush-Boehner agenda the party rejected in 2016, run on it, win, and impose it on the party and nation? Bush-Boehner Republicanism appears to be as dead today as was Harding-Coolidge Republicanism after 1933. And if Trumpism is not the future of the GOP, it is hard to see what a promising GOP agenda might look like. A brief history: In seven elections starting in 1992, Republicans won the presidency three times, but the popular vote only once, in 2004, when George W. was still basking in his "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. What fractured and overwhelmed the Bush-Boehner Republican Party? First, demography. The mass immigration of Third World peoples that began with the 1965 immigration act, and the decline in the birth rate of native-born Americans, began to swamp the Nixon-Reagan New Majority. Second, the collapse of the Soviet Empire and USSR removed the party's great unifying cause from Eisenhower to Bush I—the Cold War. After the Red Army went home, "America First" had a new appeal! Third, faithful to the free trade cult in which they were raised, Republicans championed NAFTA, the WTO, and MFN for China. Historians will look back in amazement at how America's free trade zealots gave away the greatest manufacturing base the world had ever seen, as they quoted approvingly 18th- and 19th-century scribblers whose ideas had done so much to bring down their own country, Great Britain. Between 1997 and 2017, the EU ran up, at America's expense, trade surpluses in goods in excess of $2 trillion, while we also picked up the bill for Europe's defense. Between 1992 and 2016, China was allowed to run $4 trillion in trade surpluses at our expense, converting herself into the world's first manufacturing power and denuding America of tens of thousands of factories and millions of manufacturing jobs. In Trump's first year, China's trade surplus with the United States hit $375 billion. From January to March of this year, our trade deficit with China was running at close to the same astronomical rate. "Trade deficits do not matter," we hear from the economists. They might explain that to Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania. And perhaps someone can explain the wisdom of handing 4 percent of our GDP each year to an adversary nation, as U.S. admirals talk tough about confronting that adversary nation over islets and reefs in the South China Sea. Why are we enriching and empowering so exorbitantly those whom we are told we may have to fight? Fourth, under Bush II and Obama, the U.S. intervened massively in the Near and Middle East—in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen. And the forces that pushed up into those conflicts, and so disillusioned the nation that it elected Barack Obama, are back, pushing for a new war, on Iran. They may get this war, too. Yet, given the anti-interventionist and anti-war stance of Trump's winning campaign, and of the Bernie Sanders campaign, U.S. involvement in Middle East wars seems less America's future than it does her past. After his 16 months in office, it appears as though the Trump presidency, no matter how brief, is going to be a watershed moment in U.S. and world history, and in the future of the GOP. The world is changing. NATO and the EU are showing their age. Nationalism, populism and tribalism are pervasive on the Old Continent. And America's willingness to bear the burden of Europe's defense, as they ride virtually free, is visibly waning. It is hard to see why or how Republicans are ever again going to be the Bush-Boehner party that preceded the rise of Trump. What would be the argument for returning to a repudiated platform? Trump not only defeated 16 Bush Republicans, he presented an agenda on immigration, border security, amnesty, intervention abroad, the Middle East, NAFTA, free trade, Putin and Russia that was a rejection of what the Bush-Boehner Party had stood for and what its presidential candidates in 2008 and 2012, John McCain and Mitt Romney, had run on. If the Republican Party is "napping," let it slumber on, undisturbed, for its time has come and gone. We are in a new world now. COPYRIGHT 2018 CREATORS.COM Patrick J. Buchanan needs no introduction to VDARE.COM readers; his books State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, and Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? are available from Amazon.com. Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority. His latest book, published May 9, is “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.” See Peter Brimelow’s review: “Wheel And Fight”—Pat Buchanan’s Nixon Book

Local Police & Feds Impose INFORMATION BLACKOUT in Las Vegas Shooting There already was a blackout on the worst mass murder in modern American history. 58 dead, hundreds wounded, the savagery of the Vegas attack is unspeakable, and still the incompetent, clueless authorities know nothing. That’s the information they seek to blackout. This botched investigation is a stunning indictment of the FBI. This is not the Soviet Union, this is not Iran or Riyadh – this is America. Where is the outrage? And while the bumbling FBI has dismissed out of hand jihad as a motive, here is what we know: ISIS has claimed responsibility for the Vegas slaughter. ISIS does not claim credit for events that are not theirs. They have double and tripled down on their claim. They have said that Stephen Paddock had converted to Islam six months ago, and they revealed his Islamic name as Abu Abd Abdulbar al Ameriki. Paddock made multiple trips to the Middle East. The FBI has not spoken of his itinerary or who he met with. His girlfriend Mari Danley had relatives in Dubai. Over 200 of Paddock’s foreign financial transactions were flagged for possible covert terrorism financing. Paddock transferred $100,000 to his girlfriend in the Philippines, now an ISIS foothold. Paddock removed the hard drive before he committed suicide. The San Bernardino jihad attackers did the same thing. If you recall, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik threw their hard drives in a lake near their home, and despite Herculean efforts by law enforcement, the hard drives were never recovered. AUTHORITIES PUT BRAKES ON INFORMATION FLOW IN LAS VEGAS SHOOTING By Rachel Crosby Las Vegas Review-Journal, October 26, 2017: Fifty-eight people killed. More than 500 injured. And yet, nearly a month after the Las Vegas Strip experienced the worst mass shooting in modern American history, local and federal authorities are refusing to fill in the blanks. It wasn’t always like this. In the days after Oct. 1, when Stephen Paddock opened fire on the Route 91 Harvest festival crowd from his Mandalay Bay corner suite, Las Vegas police were hosting multiple news conferences a day. Then, once a day. Then, once every few days. They compiled and released snippets of officers’ body camera footage. They spent several minutes answering specific questions. They released a comprehensive timeline, which ended up being wrong. They took it back, and tried to clarify the errors, but instead caused more confusion. By Oct. 13 — the last time the Metropolitan Police Department or the FBI addressed the media or public — something had changed. The sheriff, who had been straightforward and stern, was now emotional and at times combative. Both he and the FBI failed to provide much new information, and at the end of the meeting, they refused to take questions. Since that day, the only person who has shed more light on the investigation is Mandalay Bay security guard Jesus Campos, who was shot in the leg while approaching the gunman’s room. His platform to share that information? “The Ellen DeGeneres Show,” which aired last week. He hasn’t made himself available to the media since. “It doesn’t matter,” FBI spokeswoman Sandra Breault told the Las Vegas Review-Journal on Thursday, when asked why there had been no significant updates in two weeks. “It’s an ongoing investigation, and unless there’s something to report, there will not be a briefing.” Calls to the national FBI office were forwarded back to Breault at the Las Vegas office. At least twice this week, the Las Vegas Review-Journal has asked to speak with Sheriff Joe Lombardo about the shooting investigation. Both times, reporters were told by Carla Alston, the Police Department’s director of communications, that the sheriff “will not be conducting interviews.” “As he has stated previously, the case is still ongoing” she said in an email Thursday. “Another media briefing will be held when we have new and accurate information.” When asked when that briefing would be, Alston guessed it could occur in the next two weeks. The Review-Journal also specifically asked about the more than 50,000 hours of overtime that Metro officers have logged since Oct. 1 on work directly related to the shooting investigation. “Investigators have made progress on investigative leads and in mapping out Stephen Paddock’s life for the last few years — and they’re still not done,” Alston said. “We still have officers dedicated to this case 24/7.” She agreed that members of the public have a right to know more, “but they have a right to accurate information and not the speculation … that has filled so many news stories the past month.” Nearly a month after the mass shooting, the gunman’s motive remains a mystery. More straightforward questions also remain unanswered, including whether the 32nd floor of Mandalay Bay — where the gunman was staying — has surveillance cameras, and what exactly investigators collected in the gunman’s hotel room and homes. Authorities also have not said how long the gunman had a “do not disturb” sign on his hotel door, and whether hotel staff saw something suspicious in his room but failed to report it. Though authorities have described the investigation as a team effort, they have not explained what role Las Vegas police, the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are playing in the case. Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller. Pamela Geller's commitment to freedom from jihad and Shariah shines forth in her books

No sign of breakthrough after Pompeo meets with Saudi rulers over missing journalist WASHINGTON — On an emergency mission to resolve a diplomatic crisis, Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo held delicate talks Tuesday with the rulers of Saudi Arabia amid growing suspicions that a Virginia-based Saudi columnist was killed on their orders. Pompeo did not report any progress following a day of meetings in Riyadh with Saudi King Salman and his powerful son, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the country’s de facto ruler. President Donald Trump on Monday ordered Pompeo to rush to the desert kingdom to try to determine the fate of the missing journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, and the diplomat quickly hopped a plane. In his meetings, Pompeo conveyed “U.S. concern” about Khashoggi’s disappearance two weeks ago, the State Department said, and stressed “the importance of a thorough, transparent, and timely investigation.” The talks were “direct and candid,” State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said. Pompeo reminded his hosts that despite the numerous bilateral issues the two governments share, determining Khashoggi’s fate was the urgent purpose of this trip, she said. Khashoggi, a prominent critic of the autocratic Saudi leadership, was last seen entering the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, on Oct. 2, where he was seeking papers to marry his fiancée. Turkish media reports, based in part on apparent audio recordings, have said Khashoggi was beaten to death and then dismembered in the building. A 15-member Saudi military team had entered the consulate with a bone saw shortly before Khashoggi arrived, and flew out of the country soon after, the reports said. Saudi officials insisted that Khashoggi left the consulate but have provided no video or other evidence. They have denied any responsibility for his disappearance. Hoping to stem a growing furor, Trump on Monday suggested “rogue killers,” not the Saudi royal family, may have carried out the murder. Critics quickly said that Trump was providing an excuse for the Saudi leaders, and participating in a cover-up. That seemed to set the stage for Saudi officials to find a way to explain away the alleged shocking death. They floated the idea later Monday of claiming that Khashoggi, who wrote opinion pieces for the Washington Post and Arab media, was accidentally killed in an interrogation gone awry inside the consulate — supposedly without the approval of the king or crown prince. Publicly, Pompeo and his hosts looked calm and friendly when they met Tuesday in Riyadh. At one point, as they greeted each other, Prince Mohammed noted the two countries were important allies. “Absolutely,” Pompeo said, smiling. The United States long guaranteed Saudi security in exchange for a steady supply of oil. Those ties have frayed even as the Trump administration has embraced the Saudi rulers as a crucial regional ally in efforts to constrain Iran and to craft a peace plan between Israel and the Palestinians. The current crisis has put those broader goals at risk, and the White House has scrambled to find a face-saving solution for the Saudi rulers. Trump has said he would impose “severe” punishment if proof emerges that Saudi rulers sanctioned Khashoggi’s murder, but he has not said what that would entail. He has ruled out cancelling or suspending billions of dollars in arms deals with the oil-rich country. Many members of Congress have demanded the White House take tougher actions, including punitive sanctions on Saudi rulers. But Congress has taken no action on its own. — Tracy Wilkinson Los Angeles Times ——— ©2018 Los Angeles Times, Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

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

If Kavanaugh Is Not Confirmed By Senate, Then We Are All Just One Accusation Away From Ruin If Christine Ford were to make her accusation in any courtroom in America, even a mediocre defense attorney could shatter her credibility within minutes under cross-examination. Here's what that might look like: Defense Attorney : When did this occur Ms. Ford? Ms. Ford : I'm not exactly sure. I believe it was 1982. take our poll - story continues below Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.? * John Bolton Richard Grenell Dina Powell Heather Nauert Ivanka Trump 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. Defense Attorney : Where did it happen? Ms. Ford : At a house in our town. I'm not sure whose house it was or where it was. I don't remember how I got there. But, I can tell you that it had a swimming pool and I recall a narrow stairway. Defense Attorney : Who was present in the house? Ms. Ford : Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, two other boys and another girl. Defense Attorney : What are the names of the other boys and the girl who were present? Ms. Ford : I don't remember. Defense Attorney : Were you hurt? Ms. Ford : No. If this had been such a pivotal moment for her, how could she have forgotten any those facts? Most victims of sexual assault remember every detail – yes, even years later. No jury would send a young man to prison based on that testimony. Without a shred of evidence, a highly qualified judge, with no other blemish on his record, is being smeared on the national stage by a political lynch mob out for blood. Ben Shapiro spoke to Fox News' Martha MacCallum and said "you have to have some evidence before you destroy a man's life." Shapiro's comments can be heard in the video below. Jeanine Pirro spoke to Hannity on Thursday night and asked, "Since when does truth and justice or guilt and innocence depend on your political party. I fear for this nation when this is now the standard. You believe any woman who goes against a Republican and you don't believe any woman who goes against a Democrat." She continued. "I worry about this country. I don't want these people to sit on juries. It's no longer about truth and justice. It's about politics." Hannity asks, "Why are people willing to throw out due process, equal justice under the law and the presumption of innocence?" Gregg Jarrett says it's "because they're zealous to the point where they've lost their common sense." Their commentary on the video below is interesting. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) is to be commended on his handling of the situation. In the spirit of compromise, he called off the Senate committee vote that had been on the calendar for Thursday and scheduled a hearing for next Monday so that both Christine Ford and Brett Kavanaugh could state their cases. Kavanaugh immediately responded to Grassley. For 36 hours, there was silence from the Ford camp. Then, their demands began. First, it was reported that Ford would answer questions, but only at a closed hearing and only after an FBI investigation had been completed. Republicans felt that the request for a closed hearing was reasonable, but the demand for a new FBI investigation was not. The FBI investigates federal crimes and/or national security issues. When the FBI received Dianne Feinstein’s letter last week, they forwarded it to the White House to place in Kavanaugh’s background check file. (Note: The FBI has already conducted six background checks on Kavanaugh, the most recent one was done this summer.) It was announced later that Sen. Grassley would not change the date of the hearing set for Monday. Even Senators Jeff Flake, Bob Corker and Lindsey Graham, who have all said Ford needs to be heard, have indicated that if she does not show up for Monday's hearing, they will schedule a vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation. On Thursday afternoon, Ford's highly partisan, activist attorney emailed Grassley saying, although her client strongly prefers that an investigation take place beforehand, Ford will testify next week, but she cannot do so on Monday. And she will only be questioned by members of the Senate panel, not outside lawyers. Why not Monday? Does she have an important dentist appointment she can't get out of? In order to avoid the criticism that will no doubt come anyway, the Republicans on the Senate Judicial committee have tried very hard to oblige Ford's requests, even offering to go to California to hear her testimony. She and her attorneys feel that they are in the driver's seat and thus, can call all the shots. Democrats want to delay this vote until after the midterms because they believe they have a chance to retake the Senate as well as the House. Rush Limbaugh points out that the Senate has bent over backwards to accommodate the accuser. "I don’t care who you are, determine the scope and the parameters of an investigation. The accuser doesn’t get to determine when and who investigates. In no circumstance in the country does that happen." In addition to the political reasons for the delay requests, it appears as if this woman is reluctant to testify under oath, possibly because she doesn’t want to perjure herself. Maybe she realizes the magnitude of what her accusations have unleashed. Either this did not happen at all or a much milder version of the situation she alleges occurred. Kavanaugh may have made a pass at her as 17-year-old boys (and even some 17-year-old girls) are known to do. Ford said no and that was it. Even she admits, they did not have sex, nor was this a hostage situation. The perception of events by a 15-year-old girl may differ significantly from reality. And 36 years can distort memories, one way or another. What is happening in the Brett Kavanaugh nomination process should concern every American. Whatever happened or did not happen, it's difficult to feel sorry for someone who comes forward at such a politically opportune moment. There was ample time to have addressed this in July or August, but Dianne Feinstein chose to sit on it until the moment it could inflict maximum political damage. Democrats may be overestimating the strength of their hand. And Ms. Ford may be overestimating the integrity of the "supportive" lawmakers and lawyers currently handling her. Watch all these sensitive lawmakers and high profile, activist attorneys scatter like mice from her once the Senate vote is over (regardless of the result). Ford can choose to state her case on Monday or not, but she is not in a position to be calling the shots.

Avenatti’s Freak Show On the eve of a historic Supreme Court confirmation hearing, two more women have materialized out of thin air to accuse President Trump’s high court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual improprieties – bringing the total number of accusers to four. Even more eleventh-hour character-assassination attempts may be coming given the enraged Left’s determination to prevent the judge’s ascent to the Supreme Court at all costs. Whether the claims are true is irrelevant to these people. Only the seriousness and luridness of the charges matter as they get aired over and over again in the 24-hour news cycle. They don’t care about the victims they create. Only the headlines. The new allegations surfaced yesterday as the Senate Judiciary Committee battens down the hatches for a hearing today to receive oral evidence from the first accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, 51, who claims Kavanaugh, 53, tried to rape her decades ago when he was a high school student. The third accuser is Julie Swetnick, a 55-year-old certified systems engineer, who on Wednesday claimed that in the early 1980s Kavanaugh and others spiked the drinks of young women at high school parties with intoxicants to clear the way for them to be gang-raped. Incredibly, Swetnick said in a sworn statement that she witnessed gang rapes at these parties but kept on attending them anyway. It gets weirder. Kavanaugh was a “mean drunk,” she stated. He drank excessively at these parties and would grind against girls and try to take their clothing of, she said. Swetnick claimed to have been gang-raped at one of these parties in 1982 as a result of consuming a spiked drink that contained “Quaaludes or something similar.” Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge were present at the party at which she was raped, she states, but she doesn’t accuse them of participating in it. In response, Kavanaugh labeled Swetnick's salacious allegations "ridiculous and from the Twilight Zone." "I don't know who this is and this never happened," the judicial nominee added. A CNBC summary describes Swetnick: A 1980 graduate of Gaithersburg High School in Maryland, she said she has held multiple clearances for work done at the Treasury Department, U.S. Mint, IRS, State Department and Justice Department, among other government agencies. Swetnick says in her affidavit that she saw Kavanaugh in the early 1980s "drink excessively at many" house parties in suburban Maryland. At the time, Kavanaugh and Judge were students at Georgetown Prep, a private Catholic all-boys school. She said Kavanaugh and Judge engaged in "abusive and physically aggressive behavior toward girls," which "included the fondling and groping of girls without their consent" and "not taking 'No' for an answer." Predictably, all 10 Democrat members of the Judiciary Committee urged President Trump to either "immediately withdraw the nomination or order an FBI investigation into all the allegations." There is no indication so far that the president will oblige them. To no one’s surprise, Trump’s legal tormentor, Stormy Daniels attorney Michael Avenatti, whom Tucker Carlson has dubbed “creepy porn lawyer,” is representing Swetnick. "There should be an immediate investigation" of Swetnick’s dramatic allegations, Avenatti said on MSNBC, "and there should be no rush to confirm him to the U.S. Supreme Court." The president slammed Avenatti. “Avenatti is a third rate lawyer who is good at making false accusations, like he did on me and like he is now doing on Judge Brett Kavanaugh[,]” Trump wrote on Twitter. “He is just looking for attention and doesn’t want people to look at his past record and relationships - a total low-life!” He rejected Swetnick’s allegations as “another beauty” and described Avenatti as a “con artist.” “All of a sudden, the hearings are over, and the rumors start coming out,” Trump said. “And then you this other con artist, Avenatti, come out with another beauty today." A fourth accuser popped up yesterday, Politico reports. According to an interview transcript released Wednesday night by the Senate Judiciary Committee: An anonymous woman wrote to Sen. Cory Gardner’s (R-Colo.) office on Sept. 22 alleging that the Supreme Court nominee shoved another woman “up against the wall very aggressively and sexually” in 1998 after leaving a bar where both had been drinking, the transcript states. Kavanaugh denied any involvement in the events alleged in that complaint, which was first reported by NBC. Depending on how you do the counting, there may even be a fifth and sixth accusation against Kavanaugh. The newspaper account continues: The transcript of Kavanaugh's Tuesday interview also cited another anonymous claim of sexual misconduct involving Kavanaugh, dating back to 1985 and sent to the office of Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), which the judge also flatly denied to investigators. And GOP investigators said late Wednesday they received an additional anonymous claim of rape passed along by Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.). Accuser number two is Deborah Ramirez, 53, who went public with her claims in a New Yorker magazine article Sunday. Ramirez alleges she was assaulted by Kavanaugh at a drunken party decades ago at Yale College. She claims Kavanaugh exposed himself to her and brushed his genitals against her. If Kavanaugh isn’t on the bench Monday, the Supreme Court will be shorthanded as it begins hearing cases in its new term. It normally has a complement of nine justices but with Anthony Kennedy’s retirement July 31, which cleared the way for Kavanaugh’s nomination, there have been only eight justices. Roughly speaking there is a 4-to-4 liberal to conservative ideological split on the court. Democrats are trying to drag the confirmation process into the next Congress where they may seize control from Republicans. Election Day is November 6. The GOP currently controls the Senate, which has the final say on judicial nominations, by an uncomfortably close margin of 51 to 49. The proceedings Thursday are supposed to get underway at 10:00 a.m. Eastern time. Committee Republicans considered the political optics and didn’t relish the prospect of their all-male team of 11 senators questioning a woman so they hired sex-crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell of Maricopa County, Arizona, to ask the questions at what promises to be a highly-watched hearing. Democrats predictably freaked out at the decision to have a woman lead the questioning since their primary objective here is to embarrass and discredit Kavanaugh and other Republicans, not get at the truth. “It is going against everything I’ve seen for 44 years," huffed committee member Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). "They’re not following normal procedure." As expected, at today’s hearing Kavanaugh will firmly rebut the increasingly outrageous claims being leveled at him. According to prepared testimony provided to The Hill newspaper, he will say: I categorically and unequivocally deny the allegation against me by Dr. Ford. I never had any sexual or physical encounter of any kind with Dr. Ford. I am not questioning that Dr. Ford may have been sexually assaulted by some person in some place at some time. But I have never done that to her or to anyone. Kavanaugh added: "I am innocent of this charge." Not surprisingly Ford’s prepared testimony also found its way to reporters. “I am here today not because I want to be,” Ford says in her opening statement. “I am terrified. I am here because I believe it is my civic duty to tell you what happened to me while Brett Kavanaugh and I were in high school.” She describes the nominee as “Brett Kavanaugh, the boy who sexually assaulted me,” and claims “Brett’s assault on me drastically altered my life,” but at the same time acknowledges “Brett did not rape me.” Given that Kavanaugh has already passed six incredibly intrusive FBI investigations, odds are Ford is lying or suffering from some kind of psychological disorder such as false memory syndrome. Many commentators have drawn parallels between Ford and Anita Hill, who in 1991 accused then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual improprieties. Both women are college professors. Both claim to have reluctantly been drawn into confirmation battles. Ford claims to be a victim of attempted rape; Hill claims to have been a victim of sexual harassment in the workplace. Only left-wingers and feminists like Maureen Dowd still believe Hill, now an utterly undistinguished politically correct scholar who discredited herself by –among other things— following her then-boss Thomas as his subordinate when he switched jobs. An abused person wouldn’t do that. But all the lies about Thomas at what he described as a “high-tech lynching for uppity blacks” had an effect. In the end, the Senate barely approved his nomination 52 to 48 on October 15, 1991. With all the mud Democrats have been slinging at Kavanaugh, he would be thrilled to be approved by a margin as wide as 52 to 48. Conservatives need to remember that the purpose of the Left’s frenzied, demagogic assault is to damage the nominee, and by extension, the president who nominated him. If they can derail Kavanaugh’s nomination, that is an added bonus. The Left’s attacks on Kavanaugh in the #MeToo era are working, a USA Today article suggests: Disapproval for Kavanaugh … is at an unprecedented level for a Supreme Court nominee amid the allegations against him, according to a new USA TODAY/Ipsos Public Affairs Poll. Those surveyed said by 40 percent to 31 percent that the Senate shouldn't vote to approve his nomination, the first time a plurality of Americans have opposed a Supreme Court nominee since polling on the issue began. The case against confirming Kavanaugh may be somewhere between weak and non-existent, but the constant repetition of the unsupported allegations in the Trump-hating media is clearly taking its toll on the nominee. That said, the Senate Judiciary Committee is tentatively scheduled to vote on the nomination Friday at 9:30 a.m. "If we're ready to vote, we will vote,” Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) tweeted Tuesday at 6:46 p.m. “If we aren't ready, we won't.” Obviously, a lot is riding on the confirmation. “We're watching a period where what we have to understand is this is about raw power," former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said Tuesday. "And if the Left can stop Kavanaugh we will not get another conservative justice in our lifetime on the Supreme Court." President Trump quoted the nation’s most prominent conservative radio host as he urged GOP senators to get onboard Tuesday: “Rush Limbaugh to Republicans: ‘You can kiss the MIDTERMS goodbye if you don’t get highly qualified Kavanaugh approved.’” Trump is right.

Trump Threatens To Send Military To Block Honduran Migrant Caravan This is the second time a caravan of migrants have gotten together and seem intent on pushing towards and across the US/Mexico border. As a result of the news, President Donald Trump has threatened to send the military to the border to block them. Reuters reports on the caravan. More Honduran migrants tried to join a caravan of several thousand trekking through Guatemala on Wednesday, defying calls by authorities not to make the journey after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to cut off regional aid in reprisal. The caravan has been growing steadily since it left the violent Honduran city of San Pedro Sula on Saturday. The migrants hope to reach Mexico and then cross its northern border with the United States, to seek refuge from endemic violence and poverty in Central America. Several thousand people are now part of the caravan, according to a Reuters witness traveling with the group in Guatemala, where men women and children on foot and riding in trucks filled a road on their long journey to Mexico. In a series of tweets on Thursday, President Trump said the right things. I am watching the Democrat Party led (because they want Open Borders and existing weak laws) assault on our country by Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, whose leaders are doing little to stop this large flow of people, INCLUDING MANY CRIMINALS, from entering Mexico to U.S..... take our poll - story continues below Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House? Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House? Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House? * Yes, they will try. No, they won't try. If they do, they'll regret it in 2020. Email * Comments 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. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 18, 2018 ....In addition to stopping all payments to these countries, which seem to have almost no control over their population, I must, in the strongest of terms, ask Mexico to stop this onslaught - and if unable to do so I will call up the U.S. Military and CLOSE OUR SOUTHERN BORDER!.. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 18, 2018 ....The assault on our country at our Southern Border, including the Criminal elements and DRUGS pouring in, is far more important to me, as President, than Trade or the USMCA. Hopefully Mexico will stop this onslaught at their Northern Border. All Democrats fault for weak laws! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 18, 2018 “I must, in the strongest of terms, ask Mexico to stop this onslaught – and if unable to do so I will call up the U.S. Military and CLOSE OUR SOUTHERN BORDER!” Trump wrote on Twitter. “Hopefully Mexico will stop this onslaught at their Northern Border,” he added. “All Democrats fault for weak laws!” Not only did Trump threaten to send the military to the border, but he also threatened to stop all federal payments to Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador if they didn't block the caravan. The obvious question I have is: Why are you not stopping those payments now, Mr. President? They are unconstitutional and neither Congress nor you have the authority to give American's money to these countries. Trump also seemed ready to back out on his new trade deal, which is hardly a deal for the US, with Mexico if they failed to stop the caravan. He then pointed out that many who cross the border are criminals and are coming to engage in criminal activity. In fact, every single migrant who crosses over into our country will more than likely commit at least 28 crimes in order to present themselves as legal. “The assault on our country at our Southern Border, including the Criminal elements and DRUGS pouring in, is far more important to me, as President, than Trade or the USMCA,” he wrote. The USMCA is a disaster and should be done away with without this threat of a caravan of migrants. We'll see if these countries stop the migrants or if it continues to the border. If they make it here and Trump does nothing but arrest them and put them through the system rather than simply turning them away, then you know the words are empty and hollow. Time will tell what will take place.

3rd Highest Ranked Dem Civil Rights Hero Appeared w/Farrakhan, Won't Condemn The media's Farrakhan embargo is collapsing. And that's due to the hard work of committed conservative journalists who stayed on this story, especially at the Daily Caller, which got the Rep. Davis quotes, twice. Some credit also goes to Jake Tapper at CNN and Glenn Kessler at the Washington Post for a willingness to discuss the subject even when their media outlets didn't want to. The debate over the ties between Women's March leaders and Farrakhan made into a debate on the View. And that debate involved none other than Valerie Jarrett. The New York Times has now run its own explainer piece on Farrakhan and the Dems which mentions the infamous Obama-Farrakhan photo. There's also a quote from an Obama spokeswoman claiming that, “President Obama has denounced racism and anti-Semitism his entire life. That includes his public and repeated repudiations of Louis Farrakhan’s views over the years. Today is no different – he still rejects the harmful and divisive views Farrakhan continues to espouse.” That fails to explain why he met with him. And maybe one of these days someone will ask him that question. And then Obama can give a new remix of his Wright speech. "I can no more disavow Calypso Louie than I can my dead white grandmother." Rep. Danny Davis, after defending Farrakhan, now has a statement condemning him. But we've seen that before. So it likely doesn't represent his views. After a previous statement, Rep. Davis made an infamous comment about the "Jewish question". So it probably still isn't over. The statement though is full of conspiracy theories and blames everyone else for Davis' behavior except him. And now on to "civil rights hero" (TM) Rep. Clyburn. South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn attended a 2011 event with Farrakhan and shared the stage with him, even after Jewish groups voiced their opposition to Clyburn attending the event. Clyburn told the Final Call, a Nation of Islam publication, that he was “not bothered in the least bit” by criticisms of his attendance at the event. As the assistant Democratic leader, Clyburn is the third-highest ranked Democrat in the House. He declined to condemn Farrakhan in a statement released to The Daily Caller News Foundation on Thursday. “I have fought all my life to advance the cause of social justice and equality, and I have always opposed bigotry in all its forms,” Clyburn said in the statement. His office declined repeated inquiries regarding whether the congressman is willing to condemn Farrakhan, and whether he stood by his decision in 2011 to shrug off criticisms of Farrakhan. Clyburn is now the eighth House Democrat to have direct ties to Farrakhan. The Republican Jewish Coalition has already called on the seven other Democrats to resign over their ties to Farrakhan. Obviously not going to happen. But the story is breaking through the embargo. We're starting to have that "national dialogue" about racism that the left keeps wanting us to have.

SPECIAL REPORT: Pope Francis Accused of Inaction in Notorious Sex Abuse Cases The incident was brief: on the Thursday of the pope’s week-long South American trip, in response to an impromptu question tossed out by a Chilean reporter, the pope responded in what one reporter described as a “snippy tone”: “The day I see proof against Bishop Barros, then I will talk. There is not a single piece of evidence against him. It is all calumny. Is that clear?” This month has been quite a spectacle, even for this pontificate; an apparently unending stream of outrages and embarrassments, with the pope and his Vatican media support jumping from one scandal to the next. But among secular reporters the sex abuse issue trumps all others and the fallout continues to blaze down on the Bergoglian pontificate in response to his amazing accusation earlier this month that victims of sexual abuse by clergy were engaging in “calumny,” in their accusations against a Chilean bishop, Juan de la Cruz Barros Madrid. It seems the shine is coming off the papal penny among leftist secular journalists, his natural constituency. Writing for the Boston Globe, the paper that first broke the clerical sex abuse scandals all the way back in 2001, Kevin Cullen wrote, “Let the record show that the promise of Pope Francis died in Santiago, Chile, on Jan. 18, in the year of our Lord 2018… he has revealed himself like no one else could.” But it gets worse than this. When a “leftist” pope pressing a secularist agenda on the Church starts to lose the support of Michael Sean Winters and the National Catholic Reporter, he must know he’s in trouble. Though he’s “sticking with Francis” for now, Winters wrote, “I wish I knew what it was about Pope Francis that makes him fail to grasp the situation with Bishop Barros, the pain caused to the victims and the damage done to the church. I am gobsmacked that the pope twice declined to accept the bishop’s resignation.” On January 23rd, an unsigned NCR editorial opined, “Within the space of four days, Pope Francis twice slandered abuse survivors.” “These remarks are at the least shameful. At the most, they suggest that Francis now could be complicit in the cover-up. The script is all too familiar: Discredit the survivors’ testimony, support the prelate in question, and bank on public attention moving on to something else. “The insistence with which Francis defends Barros is mystifying. Three separate journalists on the papal flight gave the pope opportunity to say why exactly he believed the bishop instead of the survivors accusing him. The second journalist to ask Francis about Barros on the flight was a Chilean woman. As she spoke to the pope, her voice cracked with nervousness at questioning the church’s top leader. She asked: ‘Why are not the victims’ testimonies proof for you? Why do you not believe them?’ The pope gave no satisfying answer, only repeating a claim of ‘no evidence’ against the bishop.” Indeed, it was understood, as the Washington Post said, that Francis’ trip to Latin America – dogged by protests over Barros both in person at the pope’s appearances and in the press – was in part intended as “an apology tour” to abuse survivors. Which is why his accusation of calumny against those same victims the next day came as such a shock to observers unused to Bergoglio’s ability to turn on a dime. All was going as planned. On Wednesday, January 17, the pope met as scheduled with selected survivors of sexual abuse by priests. He made all the right noises, talking about his “pain and shame,” and reportedly even crying, at what happened. “I know the pain of these cases of child abuse and I am following how much is needed to overcome this serious and painful evil,” he said. 24 hours later he was calling them liars. James Hamilton, 49 and now a doctor, was one of the Barros accusers. He told the BBC at a press conference, “What the Pope has done today is offensive and painful, and not only against us, but against everyone seeking to end the abuses.” The lead voice of the victims in Chile, Juan Carlos Cruz, tweeting to one of Francis’s leading apologists, Austen Ivereigh, said, “Does he need a photo, a selfie, as proof? Sorry Austen, we didn’t think of it as we were being abused and Juan Barros watching.” Although the issue came to the attention of a much broader audience during the most recent papal trip, the outcry has been ongoing since his appointment to the southern Chilean diocese of Osorno in 2015. Barros was a student protégée of the charismatic homosexual/pederast predator Fernando Karadima, and went on to be ordained in 1984, made bishop in 1995 and appointed as bishop of the armed forces. Barros claimed in court that the first he knew of Karadima’s offenses was on a Chilean television programme in 2010. This is refuted by Karadima’s victims – deemed credible both by the secular courts and the Vatican tribunal – who testified that he personally witnessed the abuse at Sacred Heart of Jesus church in Santiago. Last Thursday, however, was not the first time Francis, confronted unexpectedly in public over the Barros question, has responded testily and with insults. In 2015 the Italian newspaper Il Fatto Quotidiano published a video of him scolding two women who spoke with him in St. Peter’s Piazza, asking that he reconsider the appointment, citing the “suffering” of the Church in Chile over the issue. The pope told the women, “The Church has lost its freedom, letting its head fill with politicians and accusing a bishop without having any proof, after twenty years of service, so think with your head.” He warned them not to allow themselves to be led by “leftists who have set up this thing.” “The only charge against this bishop has been discredited by the Court of Justice, so please do not lose your serenity, you suffer, but because you are foolish...I am the first to judge and punish those accused of similar crimes, but in this case there is not even a proof.” The insults were not forgotten. Among the signs held by protesters in Chile last week were those reading, “Ni zurdos, ni tontos,” (Neither lefties nor stupid). The jab certainly wasn’t lost on Francis, since the signs were being held by protesters the full length of his auto route to Santiago from the airport. One of the protesters told the BBC, “He doesn’t even know us, so how can he accuse us of being such things? He thinks we are politically motivated even though we come from different parishes in Osorno and are doing this because we are against priests being allowed to abuse children.” Apparently His Holiness was informed that the “calumny” comment had caused some blow-back because a couple of days later we got something touted – though somewhat skeptically – as a “contrite” papal apology. This also followed an astonishing public rebuke of the pope by Sean Cardinal O’Malley – a member of the C9 council of cardinals and the former head of the pope’s sex abuse commission – who said, “It is understandable that Pope Francis’ statements yesterday in Santiago, Chile were a source of great pain for survivors of sexual abuse by clergy or any other perpetrator.” “Pope Francis fully recognizes the egregious failures of the Church and its clergy who abused children and the devastating impact those crimes have had on survivors and their loved ones,” O’Malley said. Of course, Francis being Francis the apology was banked around with assertions of how right he was. “I have to ask forgiveness because the word ‘proof’ wounded,” he said. “It wounded many people who were abused…I ask them for forgiveness because I wounded them without realizing it, but it was an unintended wound. And this horrified me a lot, because I had received them.” “And I know how much they suffer, to feel that the Pope says in their face ‘bring me a letter, a proof.’ It’s a slap. And I agree that my expression was not apt, because I didn’t think.” He doubled down, saying, “I have not heard any victim of Barros. They did not come, they did not show themselves, they did not give evidence in court. It’s all in the air. It is true that Barros was in Karadima’s group of young people. But let us be clear: if you accuse someone without evidence with pertinacity, that is calumny.” “This is what I can say with sincerity. Barros will remain there if I don’t find a way to condemn him. I cannot condemn him if I don’t have – I don’t say proof – but evidence. And there are many ways to get evidence. Is that clear?” This “contrite” papal apology didn’t fly well even with the regular news reporters. Philip Pullela, a reporter on the plane for Reuters, described it as “an extremely rare act of self-criticism,” for the “unusually contrite” Bergoglio, and noted that, “While the pope has vowed ‘zero tolerance’ for sexual abuse, his efforts have sputtered.” Indeed, Francis claim that he met with and heard the “pain” of the victims is untrue in the specific case in hand. CBS News reports that though the Osorno group had tried to obtain a meeting during the trip they were refused. Greg Burke, the pope’s press officer, confirmed that “no papal meetings were planned with the Osorno group, which had formally requested to meet with the pope in July but were told by Vatican organizers that his schedule was already final, some six months before the trip.” Who is Barros? Some may remember a video that made the internet rounds of an uproar in a Chilean cathedral at the installation ceremony of a bishop. At the time it didn’t draw much attention from the English language press – mostly at that time distracted by the ongoing battle of the notorious Kasper Proposal and the oncoming Synods. But despite the pope’s claim, the charges against Barros are serious and have been deemed credible by a judge. He is accused of having covered up sexual abuse, including destroying evidence, committed by Karadima in the ‘80s and ‘90s. In fact – and this point has tended to get glossed over in the press – Barros is accused by the victims of having been in the room, watching at the time, and of engaging in sexual activity with Karadima. This is not, therefore, merely a matter of a bishop or colleague discovering the abuse after the fact, but of being a voyeuristic participant. Juan Carlos Cruz, told the press in 2015 that he and another boy – both in their teens at the time – “would lie down on the priest’s [Karadima’s] bed, one resting his head at the man’s shoulder, another sitting near his feet. The priest would kiss the boys and grope them, he said, all while the Rev. Juan Barros watched.” Cruz, now a 51-year-old “gay” journalist, told The Associated Press, “Barros was there, and he saw it all.” A Vatican investigation found Karadima guilty in 2011 and sentenced him to a life of seclusion in a monastery for “penitence and prayer.” Note that date; 2011 was when the processes for investigating and trying priest-abusers, put in place by the former Cardinal Ratzinger, were still in effect, and while he was still sitting on the Petrine throne. Things are a bit different now. Neither was the complaint against Barros without the support of responsible people. The media reported that over 1,300 Catholic faithful in Osorno, including 30 priests of the diocese and 51 members of Parliament, wrote to the pope asking him to rescind the appointment – none of which received any response. Fr. Peter Kleigel, a priest of Osorno, told Associated Press, “We’re convinced that this appointment is not correct because, following canon law, a bishop must be well-regarded. We need a bishop who’s credible.” The problem with getting the news out about Karadima, as in most of these cases, was the bishop, in this case Cardinal Francisco Javier Errázuriz of Santiago, who after the Conclave of 2013 was appointed a member of Pope Francis’s C9 inner council. It was certainly never a secret that Errázuriz was a close, like-minded friend and collaborator of then-Cardinal Bergoglio, the kingpin of South American Catholicism. Allegations against Karadima – that went back to 1962 – had certainly been reported to Church authorities well before a Chilean news agency revealed the case in 2010, but were ignored by Errázuriz. Even the National Catholic Reporter in 2014 pointed to the cover up and the relationship between the new pope and the accused cardinals, “Hamilton had applied for a marriage annulment, after telling his wife of a long psychosexual entanglement with Karadima that began when he was 17 in El Bosque. His wife confided in a priest, who told Errázuriz in 2006. When a canon lawyer and several priests close to the cardinal suggested that Hamilton not mention Karadima, he pressed on with his request in order to force the issue of punishment for the priest while having his marriage annulled. Again, Errázuriz refused to take action against Karadima.” The pope’s claim that there is “no evidence” flies in the face of the ruling of the civil judge in the Karadima case – a fact that ought to be of paramount consideration under the Vatican’s own rules for determining credibility in such cases. While Judge Jessica Gonzalez was forced to drop criminal charges because the statute of limitations had expired, she affirmed that testimony by Cruz and other victims was credible. After a full year of investigation, Gonzalez called their claims “truthful and reliable”. Victims said that a letter written to Church authorities complaining of Karadima’s abuse in 1982 was intercepted and destroyed by Barros, who was serving at the time as secretary to Cardinal Francisco Fresno, Errázuriz’s successor and collaborator. As for Barros’s general credibility as a Catholic bishop, the witness of the victims is damning. In a letter to Bishop Ivo Scapolo, papal nuncio to Chile, that Cruz gave to the Associated Press, he said he witnessed Karadima and Barros in an intimate relationship. “I saw Karadima and Juan Barros kissing and touching each other. The groping generally came from Karadima touching Barros’ genitals”. Barros has never denied having had a close friendship with Karadima. Hamilton confirmed this saying, “I saw how Barros watched it all.” And the matter didn’t end in 2010. Emails published in Chile in 2015 showed that Cardinal Errázuriz also blocked the appointment of Juan Carlos Cruz from the new child protection commission – a group plagued by such scandals and eventually ignored to death by Francis. Which brings us to Francis Bergoglio’s own record in this area. The pope claimed “I am the first to judge and punish those accused of similar crimes,” but this claim is not supported by the reality. Indeed, it has been pointed out that Francis has gone to considerable lengths to dismantle the efforts of his predecessor at “safeguarding” young people, punishing abusers and removing bishops who cover it up. In the case of Barros, the Associated Press obtained a confidential letter from Pope Francis dated 2015 that “reveals the [Chilean] bishops’ concern about Francis naming a Karadima protégé, Bishop Juan Barros.” Just days before the pope’s “calumny” comment, January 11, AP reported that Francis had full knowledge of the controversy he risked in appointing Barros to Osorno. “[H]is ambassador in Chile had tried to find a way to contain the damage well before the case made headlines.” The letter, addressed to the executive committee of the Chilean bishops’ conference, said, “Thank you for having openly demonstrated the concern that you have about the appointment of Monsignor Juan Barros. I understand what you’re telling me and I’m aware that the situation of the church in Chile is difficult due to the trials you’ve had to undergo.” The letter said that in 2014 the nuncio, Archbishop Scapolo, had asked Barros to resign as bishop of the armed forces and had “encouraged him to take a sabbatical year before assuming any other pastoral responsibility as a bishop.” There can also be little doubt the new pope was fully aware of the record of his close friend Cardinal Errázuriz in ignoring complaints of Karadima’s victims when he appointed him to the C9 council. And even if he didn’t then, he certainly knows now, and yet Errazuriz continues in that advisory role. Francis further appointed Cardinal Errázuriz to serve as his Special Envoy to World Apostolic Congress Of Mercy III meeting in Bogotá, Colombia in June 2014. Since 2001, Cardinal Ratzinger and later as Pope Benedict installed effective procedural reforms on clerical sexual abuse; Francis in his short five years has all but completely dismantled or reversed those changes. Among the earliest indications Catholics had that the new pope had no intention of getting to the bottom of the priest-abuser problem was his appointment of the notorious homosexual, Monsignor Battista Ricca, as head of the Vatican Bank and the man in charge of his own residence, the Casa Santa Martha. It is often forgotten that Bergoglio’s notorious comment “who am I to judge” was in response to a question on a plane-presser about Ricca, and was followed with a similar claim from Francis about there having been no proof of his misbehaviour. As the pseudonymous Marcantonio Colonna wrote in the book, “The Dictator Pope,” “In fact his patronage of Monsignor Ricca fits the pattern which was well established when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires, whereby he surrounds himself with morally weak people so as to have them under his thumb.” But even before this was the sinister appearance of Godfried Cardinal Danneels on the loggia on the night of Francis’s election to the papacy. Danneels’s prominence in the Bergoglian pontificate continues to be the most prominent indicator of the pope’s deprioritising of clerical sexual abuse. The former head of the Brussels archdiocese was a leading figure in the so-called St. Gallen Group, which he himself described as a “mafia,” who had worked against the election of Joseph Ratzinger in 2005 and to elect Bergoglio in 2013. At the end of a long career as Europe’s leading “liberal” Catholic prelate, Danneels came under a cloud of scandal when he was accused of having covered for a protégé bishop who admitted to having sexually abused his own minor nephew. In 2010 the publication of an audio recording determined undeniably that Danneels had told the victim to keep quiet and not cause trouble for the soon-to-retire Bishop Roger Vangheluwe of Bruges. The cardinal even went so far as to suggest that the victim should “ask forgiveness” for his own role in the scandal. Before the recordings were released, Danneels had also denied all knowledge of sexual abuse by clergy or cover-ups. In the book, Colonna asks the question, “What happened to ‘Zero Tolerance’ for clerical sexual offenders?” He wrote that data presented by the Vatican the UN Human Rights Commission in January 2014 showed that Benedict XVI “had defrocked or suspended more than 800 priests for past sexual abuse between 2009 and 2012,” including the notorious Fr. Maciel Degollado, founder of the Legionaries of Christ. Crucially, it was Ratzinger who moved the competence for sex abuse cases from the Congregation for Bishops to Doctrine of the Faith, with powers to suspend and punish offenders. His reforms specifically included bishops who had refused to act against priest-abusers. A senior member of the Vatican’s diplomatic corps, Archbishop Miguel Maury Buendia, confirmed this, saying, “This Pope has removed two or three bishops per month throughout the world... There have been two or three instances in which they said no, and so the Pope simply removed them.” These reforms – and removals – have ceased entirely under Francis. Despite his claims that he punishes the guilty, it was in fact Francis who reversed the previous, Benedict-era sentence against the notorious Italian priest-pederast Mario Inzoli at the request of the now-equally notorious Cardinal Coccopalmerio. Inzoli was found guilty in 2012 by an ecclesiastical court of abusing boys as young as twelve and suspended. Inzoli had even abused boys in the confessional, convincing them that the abuse was approved by God. Following an appeal by Coccopalmerio, Francis reduced the priest’s penalty to a “lifetime of prayer,” with permission to say Mass privately, and a promise to stay away from children. The uproar over this caused the Italian prosecutors to reopen the case against the priest, and eventually Inzoli went to prison and was laicized. As for Ratzinger/Benedict’s procedural reforms, rumours continue to circulate that the pope intends to reverse them as well, placing competence back into the hands of the same dicastery that held it when the scandals broke in 2001. This has been denied by Greg Burke, but given Francis’s usual methods, it’s anyone’s guess who in reality is actually dealing with these cases, if anyone. A tribunal of bishops, requested by his own sex abuse commission, was ignored and then Francis summarily removed two of the CDF staffers in charge of handling such cases, famously refusing to give any reasons to CDF prefect Cardinal Müller who was soon to be dismissed. In fact, the chaos and lack of commitment on the issue has come under harsh criticism from at least one member of the pope’s now-defunct sex abuse commission, a loudly trumpeted part of Bergoglio’s early scheme of reform. Marie Collins, an Irish abuse survivor, was appointed in 2014 to the new Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors. She resigned in 2017, citing “Vatican officials’ reluctance to cooperate with its work to protect children.” Collins released a damning statement, indicating that the commission had never seriously intended to change or reform anything. She said none of the commission’s recommendations had been implemented. “The reluctance of some in the Vatican Curia to implement recommendations or cooperate with the work of a commission when the purpose is to improve the safety of children and vulnerable adults around the world is unacceptable,” Collins wrote. As of December last year, the commission has been allowed to lapse, and no longer functions, though it has not been definitively dissolved. The terms of office of its members expired December 17th. This week Collins tweeted her question for Pope Francis on the Chilean situation: “Why does the Pope not believe these three men? They have been consistent over years in what they say. When asked why he believes his fellow cleric and not the survivors he can give no good reason.” Why indeed.

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.

Muslim Leader Calls for Conquest of “America, Britain, Russia, France, and Italy” Recently a Muslim spokesman in Tunisia named Said Khecharem, who is affiliated with the international pro-Sharia, pro-caliphate organization Hizb ut-Tahrir, declared (to delighted screams of “Allahu akbar” from his audience), that the “establishment of an Islamic state…requires the conquest of America, Britain, Russia, France, and Italy – Rome and other infidel lands will be conquered, Allah willing.” According to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Khecharem also said: “After the laws of Allah were abandoned, and the heretic regimes were imposed on the Muslims, the most important thing to do is to restore the rule of the Muslims, through the Quran and the Sunna, in order to renew Islamic life and to deliver the Islamic message to the world. My brothers, the implication of this today should be the establishment of an Islamic state over all the lands of the Muslims.”  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 * 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. And no call to restore the caliphate would be complete without a swipe at the Jews, whom the Qur’an designates (5:82) the worst enemies of the Muslims. Khecharem predicted that “this will happen, of course, after the elimination of the filthy Jewish entity, and after liberation of the lands under direct colonization, like Kashmir and others.” If Said Khecharem were a non-Muslim saying that Muslims needed to destroy “the filthy Jewish entity” and conquer America, Britain, Russia, France, and Italy, he would be accused of “Islamophobia” and “bigotry.” But no one will take any particular notice of this. They should, however. Khecharem is not some deluded fanatic raving on a Tunisian street corner. He was speaking at Hizb ut-Tahrir’s International Caliphate Conference; although Hizb ut-Tahrir is banned in many countries, it still has an international presence, and recently held a conference in Chicago. Nor is the desire to establish a global caliphate limited to Hizb ut-Tahrir alone. The word khalifa means “successor”; the caliph in Sunni Islamic theology is the successor of Muhammad as the military, political, and spiritual leader of the Muslims. As I show in my book The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS , the great caliphates of history, from the immediate post-Muhammad period of the “Rightly Guided Caliphs” to the Umayyads, Abbasids, and Ottomans, as well as other Islamic states, all waged relentless jihad warfare against non-Muslims, subjugating them under the rule of Islamic law and denying them basic rights. These weren’t the actions of a “tiny minority of extremists,” abhorred by the vast majority of peaceful Muslims for “hijacking” their religion. This was, for fourteen centuries, mainstream, normative Islam, carried forth by the primary authorities in the Islamic world at the time. The History of Jihad shows from the accounts of eyewitnesses and contemporary chroniclers through the ages that in every age and in every place where there were Muslims, some of them believed that they had a responsibility given to them by Allah to wage war against and subjugate unbelievers under the rule of Islamic law. And so it is today: Said Khecharem has enunciated that responsibility more clearly and directly than most Muslim spokesmen do these days, but he is by no means the only one who believes that it exists. What is noteworthy also about The History of Jihad is something that it does not contain. As the jihadis move against non-Muslim states without any letup, pause, period of coexistence, period of tolerance, reformation, or reconsideration, there never appears any force of Muslims to oppose them. While it is undoubtedly true that not all Muslims in any given age have ever waged jihad, there has never been in Islamic history an Islamic entity or organization that was opposed to waging jihad and dedicated to stopping those who were waging it. So it is today. Islamic groups in the West issue pro-forma condemnations after every jihad terror attack, but are doing little or nothing to try to prevent the next one. There is still no mosque or Islamic school in the United States that teaches young Muslims why they should reject the understanding of Islam taught by al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other jihad terror groups. Meanwhile, Said Khecharem and other Islamic spokesmen openly call for Muslims to engage in jihad conquest. Western authorities should be pondering his words, and their implications, very carefully. Instead, if they have taken any notice of him at all, which is unlikely, they have dismissed him as an “extremist.” They have yet to come to grips with the fact that “extremism” is and always has been so distressingly widespread in Muslim communities. But they will. Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer

Trump Pardons Hammonds! Now, this is good news! On Tuesday, President Trump Oregon cattle ranchers, Dwight and Steven Hammond, who had been serving sentences for arson. A Statement from the White House read as follows: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Grants of Clemency (Full Pardons) for Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., and his son, Steven Hammond. The Hammonds are multi-generation cattle ranchers in Oregon imprisoned in connection with a fire that leaked onto a small portion of neighboring public grazing land. The evidence at trial regarding the Hammonds’ responsibility for the fire was conflicting, and the jury acquitted them on most of the charges. 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 * Name 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. At the Hammonds’ original sentencing, the judge noted that they are respected in the community and that imposing the mandatory minimum, 5-year prison sentence would “shock the conscience” and be “grossly disproportionate to the severity” of their conduct. As a result, the judge imposed significantly lesser sentences. The previous administration, however, filed an overzealous appeal that resulted in the Hammonds being sentenced to five years in prison. This was unjust. Dwight Hammond is now 76 years old and has served approximately three years in prison. Steven Hammond is 49 and has served approximately four years in prison. They have also paid $400,000 to the United States to settle a related civil suit. The Hammonds are devoted family men, respected contributors to their local community, and have widespread support from their neighbors, local law enforcement, and farmers and ranchers across the West. Justice is overdue for Dwight and Steven Hammond, both of whom are entirely deserving of these Grants of Executive Clemency. Well, it took long enough, but thank you President Trump. You did the right thing in this matter. And for all those who took the time to keep this story alive and urge people to petition the White House on behalf of the Hammonds, thank you! It should be noted that the protests that took place in Oregon a couple of years ago were a response to the injustice the Hammonds faced. As a result, Robert "LaVoy" Finicum was killed by Oregon State Police. Those who led the protest were all acquitted of all charges and reporter Pete Santilli had all of his charges dismissed. No doubt, Finicum would have been found not guilty as well, but that's not how tyrants work, is it? Today is a day to celebrate a wrong that has not been fully made right, but has definitely turned in the right direction! Article posted with permission from The Washington Standard

Muslim Cleric: “There Were Jews In Islamic Countries & Caliphates, But We Never Killed Them Just For Being Jews” When he says that Muslims never killed Jews just for being Jews, he is lying, and relying on the historical ignorance of his audience. In my new book The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS , I detail many instances in which Muslims did exactly that. In 1013, Berbers from North Africa entered Spain and took Córdoba in 1013, they began massacring Jews, and initiated a wholesale slaughter of Jews in Granada. And again in 1066, rioting Muslims, enraged by the humiliation of a Jew who had been appointed to rule over Muslims, murdered four thousand Jews in Granada. 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 * Comments 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. The twelfth-century Muslim historian Ibn Baydhaq detailed how the Almohads treated the Jews as they advanced: Abd al-Mumin…the leader of the Almohads after the death of Muhammad ibn Tumart the Mahdi…captured Tlemcen [in the Maghreb] and killed all those who were in it, including the Jews, except those who embraced Islam…. [In Sijilmasa] one hundred and fifty persons were killed for clinging to their [Jewish] faith…. All the cities in the Almoravid state were conquered by the Almohads. One hundred thousand persons were killed in Fez on that occasion, and 120,000 in Marrakesh. The Jews in all [Maghreb] localities [conquered]…groaned under the heavy yoke of the Almohads; many had been killed, many others converted; none were able to appear in public as Jews. Don’t allow yourself to be deceived by the likes of Jihad Al-‘Ayesh. Preorder The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS. "Kuwaiti Cleric Sheikh Jihad Al-‘Ayesh Denies the Holocaust and the Existence of Gas Chambers: How Big a Bakery Would You Need to Make 50,000 Loaves of Bread?,” MEMRI, May 26, 2018: Kuwaiti cleric Sheikh Jihad Al-‘Ayesh delivered a speech in which he said that the figure of six million Jews killed in the Holocaust was a “historical lie,” but that Hitler “knew the truth about the Jews” and therefore began “tormenting and persecuting them.” “The Jews were banished, tortured and annihilated because of their deeds. They were not banished for being Jews,” he said. In an effort to dispute the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz, Sheikh Al-‘Ayesh, who heads the Bait Al-Maqdis Documentary Studies Center, drew the following analogy: “Imagine that you want to build a bakery. What size of bakery would you need to make 10,000 loaves of bread?… What if you wanted to make 50,000 loaves of bread an hour? You would need a larger bakery. How many ovens would you need to burn six million human beings?” Sheikh Al-‘Ayesh’s posted his address on his personal YouTube channel on May 26. The video was also posted on the Facebook account of Bait Al-Maqdis Documentary Studies Center. Following is a transcript: Jihad Al-‘Ayesh: “Some people have shown up with a new fashion. We used to think that fashion has to do with haircuts, clothes, or lifestyle, but the vogue today is to sympathize with the Jews and to shed crocodile tears about their sorrows, their heresy, and their historical lies. This is, indeed, a new fashion. Some esteemed people shed tears about what the Jews call ‘the Holocaust.’ […] “Did the Nazi annihilation – the Holocaust – target only the Jews? Anybody? The Jews claim that it happened to them alone and that the number of Jews who died in that Holocaust was six million. What we have here are historical errors. First of all, the figure of six million is a historical lie. In addition, claiming that it happened to the Jews alone excludes the non-Jews who were tortured by Hitler. So was it annihilation? Yes, it was. Who did Hitler annihilate? He annihilated a group of races and people, some of whom were even German. Hitler annihilated 400,000 Germans who were handicapped or suffered from chronic diseases. Hitler did not annihilate the Jews only. […] “Hitler was not the first in the West to perpetrate a genocide. Inhuman and criminal annihilation runs in the veins of many in the West. Hitler embodies one type of modern Western annihilation. When the Americans occupied the republics of the Indians, they annihilated millions of human beings. It is said that they annihilated 50-100 hundred million, but nobody ever mentions this. […] “Was there annihilation? Yes. Many races were annihilated. The Auschwitz camp, which is in southern Poland, was a major and exceptional camp for detention, torture, and forced labor. Many people were tortured and were starved to death there. […] “The Jews were banished, tortured, and annihilated because of their deeds. They were not banished for being Jews. There were Jews in the Islamic countries and caliphates as well, but we never killed them just for being Jews. No, it never happened. Hitler and the Nazi state knew the truth about the Jews, and therefore, they began tormenting and persecuting them. […] “That is when the Final Solution began. The Nazis called it the ‘Final Solution’ of the Jews. When we say ‘Final Solution,’ we realize that many of the terms used by the Zionist state constitute Nazi terms, ideas, and notions. It is as if they are two faces of the same coin. […] “Since Germany and Europe did not want the Jews, the Nazis came up with the idea of sending the Jews to another country. The Nazis suggested Madagascar, Ecuador, or an Arab country – Syria. But after a while, the Nazis discovered that there were groups of Jews calling for the establishment of a state. They were calling for a Zionist state. That is when the idea of deporting the Jews to Palestine arose…. Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer

President Donald Trump Proposes "Simple Immigration Plan": Illegals Have To Go! On Monday, President Donald Trump proposed what he sees as an ideal immigration plan during a meeting with the King and Queen of Jordan at the White House. “We want a system where when people come in illegally, they have to go out,” Trump told reporters. “A nice simple system that works.” Trump said that the system that Mexico uses to deal with illegals by holding them a few hours and then sending them away is preferable to how the long, drawn out process in the united States is conducted. 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. I completely agree. In fact, I've often said if we catch people close to the border, we should not even bring them into the system if they are not citizens, but walk them back over the border and make sure they keep walking. Often, by putting illegals into the system, it takes years to deport them, which costs the American people lots of money. That system would require more judges to handle more illegals and Trump ripped the calls for more judges in favor of a more "simple immigration plan." “We want strong borders and we want no crime,” Trump said. “The Democrats want open borders and they don’t care about crime.” Trump then called on Congress to correct the problems created by legislation with more legislation. “The laws are obsolete, the laws are horrible, having to do with the border, both in terms of security and in terms of taking care of people,” he said. “We want children staying together,” Trump said, blasting the New York Times report that said he didn't really want to sign his executive order last week that would keep families together in detention while they awaited the judicial process. Of course, Trump has inherited a problem that has existed for several administrations, both Republican and Democrat, for decades. It is time that Congress sure up things so that America's tax dollars are not bound up in a worthless judicial process when people are clearly in the country illegally. Sadly, too many people want more amnesty which begs the question if any of them take the law seriously in the first place. Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media

La Stampa’s Robert Fastiggi Replies to Chris Ferrara La Stampa’s Robert Fastiggi Replied to Chris Ferrara’s articles on Fastiggi and Goldstein’s defense of Amoris Laetitia and their criticism of the Filial Correction: Fastiggi’s exchange with Ferrara concerning “Wait, Wait, It’s all a mistranslation!” Robert Fastiggi • 13 hours ago In the article that I co-authored with Dr. Goldstein, we would have done better to speak of the “official” Latin text rather than the “original” Latin text. This, though, is no longer an issue because the normative text is the Latin text published in thr AAS. Mr. Ferrara, however, bases his critique upon an assumption that the “generous response” offered to God is a sin. This, though, is not what AL is saying. The generous response is a move away from sin and a move toward God. I explain this in my most recent response to Prof. E. Christian Brugger, which can serve as my response to Mr. Ferrara: Posted on LifeSiteNews: Prof. Brugger is a good theologian and a fine man, but he still seems to believe that AL 303 implies that God is asking people to continue to sin in some cases. In his April 22, 2016 article in Catholic World Report, Brugger writes that AL 303 suggests that “God can be ‘asking’ someone to live in a life-state in which they are objectively violating grave matter.” Then in a Sept. 28 ‘17 LifeSiteNews article, he states that “the generous response” owed to God is “a certain state that is objectively at variance with the universal command of the Gospel.” Now Prof. Brugger argues that, because the subject remains “this conscience” in AL 303, this proves that the “generous offering owed to God” is the recognition that one is living “contrary to “the universal command of the Gospel.” Prof. Brugger fails to see that AL 303 clearly distinguishes between a conscience’s recognition that “a given situation is objectively at variance with the general mandate of the Gospel” and this same conscience’s subsequent recognition of a “generous response owed to God in the present circumstances.” The subject “conscience” might be the same but the object is different. The “generous response” is not the situation that is at variance with the command of the Gospel but an offering that God is asking amid the mass of impediments even though it may not yet be the perfect objective model. What might be this “generous response?” Pope Francis does not give an example in AL 303 because he’s speaking in general terms of the dynamics of conscience. Moreover, he knows that concrete cases vary widely. In our Sept. 26 article in La Stampa, Dr. Goldstein and I provided a hypothetical example of a couple in a purely civil “marriage” recognizing that God is calling them to live in continence. We chose this example deliberately to demonstrate that “the generous response” could be the ending of a particular sin. Our example was an attempt to show that Professors Brugger and Seifert are wrong to believe AL 303 implies that God is asking some people to continue to live in an objectively sinful state. It’s really just the opposite. AL 303 teaches that conscience will come to recognize that God is asking for a step in the right direction away from sin. Pope Francis explains this again in AL 305 when he says “a small step, in the midst of great human limitations, can be more pleasing to God than a life which appears outwardly in order, but moves through the day without confronting great difficulties.’” In a recent interview (http://www.lastampa.it/2017..., the Italian philosopher, Rocco Buttiglione, provides this example for AL 303: “Imagine a father who has a sick son and the child improves. He still has fever but has stopped vomiting; the child manages to keep in his stomach what he eats and has started a therapy that seems to work. The father is happy. Is he happy about the fact that the child is sick? No, he is pleased that his son gives symptoms of improvement and healing.” This is what Pope Francis is saying in AL 303. God is not happy with situations that are objectively at variance with the command of the Gospel. God, however, is happy when people in such situations discern in conscience that He is asking them to make a choice that moves in the right direction—even if they still need to progress further toward a more complete fulfillment of His will. This is the law of gradualness not the gradualness of the law. It is sad that this beautiful and compassionate message of AL 303 has been so completely misunderstood by scholars who have failed to grasp its true meaning. Chris Ferrara to Robert Fastiggi • 9 hours ago I certainly agree that the Latin text is the normative text even if it comes later. I certainly do not agree that the Latin text eliminates the grave problems with Amoris Laetitia. Rather, as I show in my article, it only intensifies them. With all due respect to Dr. Fastiggi, his argument and that of Buttiglione, that a “move away from sin” is what is pleasing to God, even if the moral norm is not adhered to, is sophistical. What constitutes a “move away” from sin if not ceasing to commit the sin? No example is provided in AL because none can be. The notion is nonsensical. Just how nonsensical is demonstrated by Dr. Fastiggi’s claim that by “a move away from sin” in the case of a divorced and “remarried” couple Francis means their agreement to live in continence as brother and sister for the sake of children. But that would be ceasing to commit the sin of adultery altogether as it would involve abandoning the pretense that they are married along with the illicit sexual relation itself. Such a couple could always be absolved and receive Holy Communion under the Church’s constant practice, albeit privately to avoid scandal. At any rate, the “brother and sister” approach to the situation, which is that of Familiaris consortio 84, is certainly not the one advocated by Francis. As my article shows, Francis has made it quite clear that he approves of admitting to the sacraments divorced and “remarried” people who will continue to live as if they were married, including sexual relations, while “discerning” their situation, this “discernment” being a mere fig leaf to conceal the proposed toleration of public adultery in the Church. Thus, Francis thanked the Maltese bishops for their AL guidelines, which literally mandate admission to the sacraments of divorced and “remarried” people who believe themselves to be “at peace with God.” And, as he told the bishops of Buenos Aires in writing, “there is no other interpretation.” No amount of verbal artifice can conceal what is happening in the Church thanks to AL: Public adulterers are being admitted to Holy Communion without an amendment of life and the bimillenial discipline of the Church---which John Paul insisted involves a moral norm, not a mere ecclesiastical law, to which everyone is bound in conscience “without exception”---is being overthrown in place after place. It is a great disservice to the Church to maintain the pretense that there is nothing problematical about AL. A moral catastrophe is self-evidently underway and it is not possible honestly to deny its cause. Robert Fastiggi to Chris Ferrara • 2 hours ago Thank you for your response. You write well but you do not reveal a proper understanding of what Pope Francis is saying in AL 303. I can only ask that you to study the matter more carefully with an open heart and mind. Chris Ferrara to Robert Fastiggi • 16 minutes ago Tell that to the four cardinals, the 800,000 faithful, the 45 theologians and the 61 other original signers of the correctio, all of whom you insult with your superficial and I must say entirely sophistical attempt to explain away what Francis is clearly doing. Irony of ironies, the latter-day Pharisees and legalists Francis sees around every corner are hard at work defending Amoris Laetitia at the very moment it is being cited by bishop after bishop as their sole authority for admitting public adulterers to Holy Communion---while Francis does nothing but approve. I think you should follow your own advice about studying this matter with an open heart and mind, but above all with open eyes, for you have clearly shut them to what is going in the dioceses in the name of AL. Fastiggi’s exchange with Ferrara concerning “More Fake News: La Stampa Tries Again.” Robert Fastiggi • 12 hours ago I would like to thank Christopher Ferrara again for calling attention to an article I co-authored with Dr. Goldstein in La Stampa. I give him credit for his colorful style. Unfortunately, Mr. Ferrara provides no real evidence for his claim that Pope Francis “wishes the bishops to admit public adulterers in 'second marriages' to the sacraments while continuing their adulterous relations.” He mentions the Holy Father's letter to the Buenos Aires bishops, but he fails to take into account that the statement of those Argentine bishops can be interpreted in an orthodox way, as Cardinal Müller told Edward Pentin in a Sept. 28 interview published in the National Catholic Register. In fact the statement of the Argentine bishops only speaks of the possibility of “access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.” This could reasonably be interpreted as going to confession before receiving Holy Communion. The same applies to statements of Pope Francis and Cardinal Schoenborn mentioned by Ferrara. Pope Francis defers to the exposition of Amoris laetitia by Cardinal Schoenborn given in April 2016 when the exhortation was made public. I have read the Cardinal's exposition in both Italian and English, and I only find mention of the help of the sacraments in certain cases. Once again, Mr. Ferrara assumes this means access to Holy Communion without prior sacramental confession. With regard to the letter thanking the Bishops of Malta, it should be noted that Edward Pentin mentions a letter of Cardinal Baldiserri not a letter of Pope Francis. Moreover, this letter has not been made public so we don't know exactly what it says other than an expression of thanks. This seems to be very thin evidence for claiming Pope Francis wishes the bishops to admit public adulterers to the sacraments while continuing in their adulterous relations. As a lawyer, Ferrara should have a better sense of what really counts as evidence. As a Christian, he should also be mindful of the command against bearing false witness. Beyond these considerations, I wish to express a personal concern I have about Mr. Ferrara's standing in the Catholic Church. He says that Dr. Goldstein and I are “foot soldiers of a Leviathan Church” because we defend the Roman Pontiff. Does Mr. Ferrara believe that the Catholic Church under Pope Francis is a “Leviathan Church” and not the Catholic Church? If this is so, then it would suggest that Mr. Ferrara is refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff and communion with the members of the Church subject to him. This, though, is the very definition of schism found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2089 and the 1983 CIC canon 751. I hope Mr. Ferrara can clarify what he means by the “Leviathan Church” under Pope Francis. A more simple question to him would be this: “Are you refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff or communion with the members subject to him?” I apologize ahead of time if I misconstrued his words. I believe, though, my question is reasonable in light of his reference to a “Leviathan Church” distinct from “the dictates of the Immortal God in heaven.” Chris Ferrara to Robert Fastiggi • 9 hours ago If Dr. Fastiggi wishes to continue to pretend, despite a growing mountain of evidence, that Pope Francis has not in fact approved of the admission of public adulterers to Holy Communion--just as he did when Archbishop of Buenos Aires, and just as he did with the woman he telephoned in Argentina—then I cannot help him. As for my metaphorical reference to a “Leviathan Church,” I am afraid Dr. Fastiggi has succumbed to an unfortunate literal-mindedness. To make it clear for him, I am contending that he and his co-author treat the Pope as if he were the absolute ruler of Hobbes’s Leviathan. I do not, as should be obvious, argue that this Leviathan Church actually exists. That it does not and cannot exist is precisely my point. Dr. Fastiggi’s inapt citation to Canon 751 and his clumsy and insulting questions about my “standing in the Catholic Church” and whether I am “refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff” demonstrate a pronounced lack of comprehension of pertinent ecclesiological and theological basics, and a rather embarrassing lack of rhetorical finesse. Raising objections to a papal document because it appears to depart from sound orthodoxy is hardly “refusing submission to the Roman Pontiff,” who has not, at any rate, actually commanded anyone to “submit” to anything via AL. I respectfully suggest that Dr. Fastiggi’s comments evince a need for serious study and reflection before he ventures further opinions on this controversy in public. Editor’s Note: Paragraph breaks added for readability.

Trump suggests he would have picked another AG who could have blocked Russia probe Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump suggested Tuesday that he would have picked another attorney general if it would have stopped an investigation into Russia meddling in the 2016 election. In his latest public slam at Attorney General Jeff Sessions -- who, citing his involvement with the Trump campaign, recused himself from the investigation last year, paving the way for the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller -- Trump said he would have "quickly picked someone else" had he known about the recusal. "The Russian Witch Hunt Hoax continues, all because Jeff Sessions didn't tell me he was going to recuse himself," Trump tweeted Tuesday. "I would have quickly picked someone else. So much time and money wasted, so many lives ruined...and Sessions knew better than most that there was No Collusion!"

Ramadan Jihad 2018 Death Toll So Far Is 218 Another Ramadan is upon us, and the jihad death toll so far stands at 218 Infidels, murdered in 53 jihad attacks. Once again this year we see that Ramadan is quintessentially the month of jihad. A jihad group explained it back in 2012: “The month of Ramadan is a month of holy war and death for Allah. It is a month for fighting the enemies of Allah and God’s messenger, the Jews and their American facilitators.” Referring to a jihad attack that happened at that time, the message continued: “One of our groups aided by Allah managed to bomb a bus full of Jewish tourists, plunderers of holy lands, after careful tracking. The holy war is not confined to a particular arena and we shall fight the Jews and the Americans until they leave the land of Islam.” In contrast, President Trump issued a statement claiming that “Ramadan reminds us of the richness Muslims add to the religious tapestry of American life.” 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 * Comments 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. So which is it? Does Ramadan remind us of “the richness Muslims add to the religious tapestry of American life,” or is Ramadan “a month of calamity everywhere for nonbelievers”? Islam’s core beliefs make it clear that the latter statement is closer to the truth. During Ramadan, Muslims are exhorted to renew and deepen their devotion to Allah. Hence it is a time when they’re supposed to grow more generous and kind toward their fellow Muslims. However, the Qur’an says: “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves” (48:29). If the Ramadan imperative is to become more devout, the Muslim who applies himself diligently to the Ramadan observance will simultaneously become more both merciful to his fellow Muslims and more severe against the unbelievers. Murdering infidels thus doesn’t contradict the spirit of Ramadan; it embodies it. The Kavkaz Center, a website operated by Chechen jihadists, explained in a 2010 article that the idea of Ramadan as a time for warfare against infidels went back to Muhammad’s time: “The month of Ramadan in the life of the Prophet (pbuh) and the righteous ancestors was a month of forthcoming. The greatest battles during the lifetime of the Prophet (pbuh) occurred in this blessed month, the month of jihad, zeal and enthusiasm.” Trump was, unfortunately, following the example of his two immediate predecessors when he claimed that “Ramadan reminds us of the richness Muslims add to the religious tapestry of American life,” and was severely misleading the American people. Ironically, even in doing this he is likely to fail to satisfy Muslims, or anyone. After all, after the Trump White House issued a similar statement last year, the Washington Post ran a lengthy piece in which several Muslims explained why the statement was unsatisfactory to them. Shadi Hamid of the Qatar-funded Brookings Institution declared: “Trump has so rarely recognized that American Muslims even exist, but this offers apparent proof that he is aware of our existence. Great! Putting all that context aside, it’s offensive and pretty much terrible.” Why? Because Trump had the temerity to mention jihad terrorism. Hamid continued: “We, as American Muslims, shouldn’t be defined solely in our relationship to bad things that we have nothing to do with. We’re also normal people who happen to be Muslim and to see us and our history in America so narrowly is plain out offensive.” What is actually offensive is that Hamid would try in this way to absolve the Muslim community of any responsibility to root out jihad terrorist from its midst. There is certain to be more jihad terrorism during this Ramadan, and some of it may be committed by Muslims in the U.S. Hamid, if he cared about this, would be confronting honestly the teachings of Islam that make Ramadan the month of jihad, and working to reform them. Meanwhile, it would be dangerous, suicidal folly for Infidels to pretend that Ramadan is not the month of jihad. And as our Ramadan willful blindness continues, more Infidels will die. Article posted with permission from Robert Spencer

US embassy worker in China suffers 'brain injury' amid 'sonic attack' fears A US embassy worker in China has reported experiencing "abnormal sensations of sounds and pressure" amid fears of a "sonic attack". The state department has issued a health alert to its citizens in the country, adding that the unnamed staff member's symptoms indicate a "mild traumatic brain injury". The findings echo similar reports that caused the US to recall non-essential embassy staff from Cuba in 2017, after at least 24 US citizens suffered symptoms indicating they had been deliberately and covertly targeted. US investigators are looking into whether the employee in China has been affected by a "sonic attack", which was one of the theories behind the still-unexplained illnesses suffered in Havana. The unnamed government worker was based in the southeast port city of Guangzhou, where an American consulate is based. He has now been flown back to the US for assessment, according to reports. The state department has issued a health alert to its staff in China, which states: "While in China, if you experience any unusual acute auditory or sensory phenomena accompanied by unusual sounds or piercing noises, do not attempt to locate their source. "Instead, move to a location where the sounds are not present." Image: US secretary of state Mike Pompeo is set to meet with Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi on Wednesday The embassy in Beijing said it could not link the case in China to the health issues suffered by its staff in Cuba. In an email to citizens in China, the state department said: "A US government employee in China recently reported subtle and vague, but abnormal, sensations of sound and pressure. "The US government is taking these reports seriously and has informed its official staff in China of this event." They added that they are not sure what has caused the employee's symptoms. The US Secretary of Mike Pompeo has said he is concerned about the "serious health incident" that has affected an embassy worker in Guangzhou. China's foreign ministry and national health commission did not immediately respond to questions about the findings, the Associated Press reported. The US reduced its workforce in Havana, Cuba, in 2017 after its personnel and their families reported experiencing a range of health issues. Investigators have drawn theories including that were targeted by sonic attacks, where the symptoms included dizziness, headaches and vomiting. The attacks can sometimes be carried out by emitting "infrasounds", which are low frequency noises that can affect human hearing if they are loud enough. However, Dr Toby Heys told the New Scientist in 2017 that an infrasound attack wouldn't be "very covert" as a "large array of subwoofers" would be needed. Image: The US recalled non-essential embassy staff from Havana, Cuba, after potential sonic attacks in 2017 The other type is an "ultrasound" attack, whereby a high frequency noise inaudible to human ears can be targeted easily at potential victims. They can damage parts of the ear such as hairs that pick up sounds, but again it is reported that large equipment would be needed for such an attack. Other theories behind the health issues in Cuba include the use of electromagnetic weapons, which can target highly-focused energy at potential victims. This can include a laser, microwaves, or particle beams. Investigators also speculated that a flawed spy device could be behind the victims' ailments in Cuba. The US expelled 15 Cuban diplomats from the US after the alleged acoustic attacks. Secretary of state Mike Pompeo met with Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi in Washington on Wednesday. They were expected to discuss a planned meeting between President Donald Trump and the North Korea leader Kim Jong-Un, but concerns about the incident in Guangzhou are likely to have been raised. China and the US are considered strategic rivals for influence in Asia, but conduct hundreds of billions of dollars of annual trade with each other.

Kavanaugh and Last-Minute Accusations Democrats are pulling out all the stops and enabling salacious last-minute accusations against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh in order to sink his candidacy. Now that Christine Blasey Ford has finally agreed to testify this Thursday at an open hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding her charge that Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a long-ago high school party, these new charges have suddenly emerged from left field. On Sunday, a former classmate from Judge Kavanaugh's time at Yale accused the Supreme Court nominee of exposing himself to her at a party. The New Yorker has just published an article written by Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer, based on information that was reportedly sent to at least four Democratic senators. The article recounted a claim by Deborah Ramirez, a Yale classmate of Brett Kavanaugh’s, concerning “a dormitory party gone awry.” As the article acknowledged, however, “her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident.” The article goes on to say that in her initial conversations with The New Yorker, Ms. Ramirez was “reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty.” It was only after “six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney” that Ms. Ramirez was suddenly able to pinpoint Judge Kavanaugh as having committed an unsavory act, even though she admitted being “foggy” at the time. The New Yorker article also noted that the magazine “has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party.” Meanwhile, the ever-present Michael Avenatti, attorney of porn star Stormy Daniels, tweeted that he had information from anonymous sources that Judge Kavanaugh and his friend had "targeted" women with drugs and alcohol at parties to facilitate "gang rape." Haters of Judge Kavanaugh are turning the process of Senate confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee into something worse than a travesty. His opponents in the Senate have transformed their “advise and consent” function into a campaign of no-holds barred character assassination. While Judge Kavanaugh weathers these latest accusations, which he adamantly denies, his real test will be on Thursday, assuming that Christine Blasey Ford will follow through on her agreement to testify at an open hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Her attorneys stalled for a week before making the announcement that Ms. Ford would testify despite certain “unresolved” issues. Among the issues Ms. Ford’s attorneys have raised was the refusal of the committee to subpoena one of the purported witnesses, Mark Judge, who Ms. Ford reportedly claims was involved in the alleged incident, as well as “who on the Majority side will be asking the questions, whether senators or staff attorneys." A week has already gone by since Ms. Ford went public with her story in an interview with the Washington Post while Ms. Ford and her attorneys stalled for time. They raised one procedural issue after another while claiming that the committee majority was “bullying” Ms. Ford. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-I) has bent over backwards to accommodate Ms. Ford’s preferred scheduling for her appearance. He extended the deadline several times for her to come to a decision on whether to testify at all. He had offered various options for her to testify publicly or privately or to be interviewed by committee staff in her home state of California, whichever setting would make her more comfortable. However, in Senator Grassley’s e-mail thanking Ms. Ford for finally agreeing to a time certain for her testimony, Senator Grassley correctly reminded her attorneys that “the committee determines which witnesses to call, how many witnesses to call, and what order to call them and who will question them. These are nonnegotiable.” While the negotiations with Ms. Ford’s attorneys for her testimony were underway, Democrats were sitting on the latest allegations, ready to pounce as soon as Ms. Ford’s accusation was about to be heard. Some Democrats are already using the Ramirez episode to push anew for a fresh FBI investigation and to postpone Thursday’s scheduled hearing. Ideally, if the Democrats cannot apply enough pressure to force a withdrawal of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination through their relentless campaign of character assassination, they want to push any Senate votes until after the midterm elections at the earliest. Then they will claim that the newly elected senators should be involved in the confirmation decision. In the meantime, Judge Kavanaugh’s adversaries in the Senate, the mainstream media and progressive circles continue to bludgeon Judge Kavanaugh in the court of public opinion. All of their stratagems are an obvious attempt to buy time in order to persuade any wavering senators that Judge Kavanaugh is too tainted by sexual assault charges – whether proven or not - to sit on the Supreme Court. Proof does not matter to those wanting to bring Judge Kavanaugh down at any cost. Regarding Ms. Ford’s accusation, they know that the proof so far is non-existent, aside from Ms. Ford’s own assertions contained in her confidential letter given to Senator Dianne Feinstein, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, last July, and in her Washington Post interview. While a redacted version of Ms. Ford’s letter has been published, Senator Feinstein has refused to date to give even Senator Grassley a copy of the completely unredacted version. The FBI has already conducted 6 background checks, no federal crime is alleged, and there is no forensic evidence to investigate after 30 years at a site that Ms. Ford cannot even identify. What we do know so far tends to undercut the credibility of Ms. Ford’s accusation. Ms. Ford cannot corroborate her decades-old charge of sexual assault against Judge Kavanaugh. Whatever corroboration Ms. Ford was hoping for from “witnesses” she claimed were at the alleged party is non-existent. The individuals she reportedly named in her unredacted confidential letter given to Senator Feinstein have either denied being at such a party or do not recollect what Ms. Ford has alleged. Moreover, by her own admission to the Washington Post, Ms. Ford “said she does not remember some key details of the incident.” She does not remember, for example, where it happened, how the party came together in the first place, or how she got home after the alleged incident. She believes the alleged incident occurred during the summer of 1982, but reportedly could not be more precise on the day or even the month of the party. Afraid that Ms. Ford’s sexual assault allegation could be readily challenged and anxious to establish some sort of pattern of sexual misconduct beyond this single alleged incident, the Kavanaugh haters have latched onto Ms. Ramirez’s story. The New York Times published an op-ed column last week by a psychiatrist, Richard A. Friedman, who cited neurological science to conclude that Ms. Ford’s claim that she has “a vivid memory of an attack that took place when she was 15” is “credible.” The reason, he wrote, is that “memories formed under the influence of intense emotion — such as the feelings that accompany a sexual assault — are indelible in the way that memories of a routine day are not.” The only problem with Dr. Friedman’s thesis is that Ms. Ford has apparently forgotten such key details surrounding the alleged sexual assault as when and where it happened and how she got home. Moreover, when Ms. Ford finally told someone about the incident in any detail some 30 years later in 2012, during a couples therapy session with her husband, she did not name Judge Kavanaugh specifically, according to the therapist’s notes that Ms. Ford had provided to the Washington Post in connection with her interview. The Washington Post reported that the therapist’s notes it reviewed “do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students ‘from an elitist boys’ school’ who went on to become ‘highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.’” Ms. Ramirez’s story is even less credible. It took an attorney and six days of very belated reflection to help revive her memory of an incident she claimed happened while she herself was very drunk. Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), one of Judge Kavanaugh’s fiercest critics who told men to “shut up” regarding Ms. Ford’s allegations, said she doubts Judge Kavanaugh’s credibility because of “how he approaches his cases.” Aside from mischaracterizing the constitutional textualist reasoning underlying Judge Kavanaugh’s opinions, she is saying that she does not believe Judge Kavanaugh’s denial of the sexual misconduct allegations lodged against him because of the opinions he wrote that she does not like. Such circular “reasoning” would be amusing if it were not so emblematic of what one writer called “Kavanaugh Derangement Syndrome." Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is also suffering from the same syndrome. She said Thursday regarding Ms. Ford: "I believe her because she is telling the truth and you know it by her story." Ms. Ford’s supporters are exploiting the “Me Too” movement to declare Judge Kavanaugh guilty simply because Ms. Ford is a woman who has made what they call, without any corroborating evidence to date, a “credible” charge. The same would presumably be the case for Ms. Ramirez. They argue that since the Senate Judiciary Committee is not a criminal judicial trial, but rather a legislative hearing for confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee, the normal burden of proof shouldered by the accuser should not apply. Judge Kavanaugh should have to prove that he is not guilty, they are in effect insisting. This is another case of Kavanaugh Derangement Syndrome. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the normal burden on the prosecution in a criminal case - to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - is not applicable regarding the charge against Judge Kavanaugh since he is not a defendant in a criminal trial. However, that should not flip the burden of proof onto Judge Kavanaugh altogether. Judge Kavanaugh is being subjected to charges of a criminal nature that could not only deprive him of a seat on the Supreme Court for which he is otherwise eminently qualified. Ms. Ford’s unsubstantiated accusation can completely destroy Judge Kavanaugh’s life by causing irreparable damage to his reputation for integrity and good character and to his career, which he has built up during decades of public service. His family’s lives have been completely upended. Placing the burden on Judge Kavanaugh to prove that he was not involved in an uncorroborated incident from years ago, about which even his accuser does not recall key details, turns the fundamental constitutional principle of due process upside down. Ms. Ford should have the burden to prove her accusations by at least a preponderance of all the evidence presented. This charade must come to an end. No more extensions for Ms. Ford to come forward and testify. If Ms. Ford does not follow through with her agreement to testify in an open Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this Thursday and do so upon the conditions set by the committee, she should go home while the committee proceeds to an immediate vote on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination. If Ms. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh do testify, the senators deciding on whether to confirm Judge Kavanaugh as well as the American public following the testimony must remember one cardinal rule. In a nation guided by fairness and law, a person is innocent until proven guilty. Sadly, many of Judge Kavanaugh’s haters have thrown that rule aside. If Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination is pulled as a result of the smears and character assassination, President Trump should immediately nominate someone on his short list such as Amy Coney Barrett and the Senate Republican majority should then push through the new nominee’s confirmation as soon as possible. Delay is not an option.

A student failed an assignment because her professor believed Australia 'is not a country' Australia is a country. Just so we're all clear. Shutterstock A professor at Southern New Hampshire University failed one of her student's assignments because the professor incorrectly thought Australia "is not a country," according to a report in BuzzFeed News. Australia is, in fact, a country. The student, Ashley Arnold, is working towards an online sociology degree with the university. For one of her final assignments, she had to compare a social norm in the United States to another country. She chose to compare social media use in the US to what it's like in Australia. The professor, according to BuzzFeed News, failed Arnolds because "Australia is a continent; not a country," which, again, is incorrect, just so we're clear here. Australia is both a continent and a country. When Arnold complained, the professor said they'd reexamine the assignment, but did not concede that Australia was a country. "Australia is a continent; it is not a country. That error made it nearly impossible for you to accurately complete your week 2 research outline correctly," the professor wrote in an email obtained by BuzzFeed News. "As I mentioned above I will look over your week two paper once again and see if you earned more credits than I gave you." In another email exchange, Arnold correctly asserted that Australia is a country, linking to the "About Australia" section of the country's website: Australia is both a country and a continent. It's the only country that is both. I provided a resource in the first email that clarifies that for you. If you need further clarification google or the SNHU Shapiro Library has that information you. Again I mean no disrespect but my grade is affected by your assumption that Australia is not a country when it in fact is. Thank you and let me know if I need to provide further resources proving Australia is a country. The professor said they'd take Arnold's concerns into consideration. "Thank you for this web-address," they wrote. "After I do some independent research on the continent/country issue I will review your paper." After a period of review, the professor changed Arnold's grade to a B+, according to BuzzFeed News. The professor did not acknowledge their error. A representative for Southern New Hampshire University didn't immediately respond to INSIDER's request for comment. In a tweet, it said it refunded Arnold's tuition for the class and "replaced the instructor." Sign up here to get INSIDER's favorite stories straight to your inbox.