Archive for June 27, 2016

The Democrat Media Complex

June 27, 2016

The Democrat Media Complex, Politically Short, June 26, 2016

media

The press toes the party line and advances the Democrat agenda to the point in which there is no objectivity and no resistance from any opposition. There simply is no neutrality.

*********************

The late Andrew Breitbart in his book Righteous Indignation perfectly captured the essence of the press in America when he labeled the press as being a Democrat-Media-Complex. Writing in Righteous Indignation, Breitbart noted that, “the left doesn’t win its battles in debate. It doesn’t have to. In the 21st century, media is everything. The left wins because it controls the narrative. The narrative is controlled by the media. The left is the media and narrative is everything.”

The people who are allegedly neutral reporters and journalists are on the frontline of the political battle and they use their objectivity as their greatest weapon against impressionable minds to reinforce a herd mentality that toes the Democrat party line within the culture. As Breitbart continued, “the mainstream media portrays themselves as objective observers of reality when they’re no such thing —they’re partisan critical theory hacks who think they can destroy everything America stands for by standing on the sidelines and sniping at patriotic Americans with all their favorite slurs. They have nothing but contempt for the American people.” What Breitbart was alluding to was the reality of the press in America as the press acts as a piano on which the government plays the public in whichever direction it desires. The objective of the press today is not merely to inform, but to instruct the millions of impressionable American minds on what to believe, who to believe, and how to believe.

The content is so rigidly controlled today that in a way the fourth estate has now become nothing more than an institution of the government restricted to publishing and advancing White House directives and Democrat policy agendas. The role that the press plays is to make clear to the American people what the Obama adminstration is doing, why the adminstration is doing it, and why it is forced to act in a certain way. Of course, as we have become accustom to hearing, the Obama adminstration is always forced to “act in a certain way” because of the “obstructionist” Republicans. The effect of this is to demonize the Republican party to the point of capitulation. This formula for “reporting” by the press encompasses every single issue advocated by the Obama adminstration and the Democrat party.

The press toes the party line and advances the Democrat agenda to the point in which there is no objectivity and no resistance from any opposition. There simply is no neutrality. For example, in the wake of the horrific terrorist attack on an Orlando night club by a jihadist who pledged allegiance to the Islamic State terrorist organization known as ISIS, the big three networks comprised of ABC, NBC, and CBS, immediately took to the airwaves before the bodies were even cold to push the political line of the Democrats for more gun control. In a study conducted by the Media Research Center (MRC) for the week immediately following the terrorist attack, it was shown that the network news programs flooded their shows with statements favoring gun control over gun rights by a ration of 8 to 1.

MRC analysts reviewed all 47 gun policy stories (41 full segments, 6 anchor read briefs), plus 10 other stories that mentioned gun policy on the Big Three networks’ evening (ABC’s World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News) and morning show programs (ABC’sGood Morning America, CBS This Morning, NBC’s Today), beginning with the evening (June 12) after the shooting through Friday evening, June 17. The study found that the time spent arguing in favor of more gun control overwhelmed time devoted to opposing gun rights by 65 minutes and 12 seconds, to just eight minutes and 12 seconds. Here are just a few of the examples listed by MRC:

  • CBS This Morning co-host Charlie Rose was enamored by the Boston Globe’s front page assault on the Second Amendment: “Pressure’s growing on Congress to act against gun violence after America’s deadliest mass shooting. Page one of this morning’s Boston Globe demands ‘Make it Stop.’”
  • NBC began their push for more gun control when correspondent Harry Smith closed the June 12 NBC Nightly News by yearning for action: “We have been here too many times before and with no sign that anything will change, we fear this will not be the last.”
  • When anti-gun rights guests like Senator Murphy, Hillary Clinton and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson were interviewed they were celebrated. On the June 14 CBS This Morning show, co-host Gayle King advocated to Jeh Johnson: “What will it take to move the needle when it comes to gun control? People thought it would be Sandy Hook.”
  • When Hillary Clinton showed up on the June 13 Today show, co-host Savannah Guthrie pushed: “Continually you hear policymakers and the President say, ‘The American people are with us, they don’t think that common sense gun reforms are a problem.’ And yet, even after you have 20 first graders killed, you can’t even get the bare minimum of gun legislation passed. Why is that? What needs to change?”

While this was just a handful of the examples given, one can begin to see how feverish the media has become in pushing for gun control in wake of the largest terrorist attack since September 11, 2001. It didn’t even take the New York Daily News twenty four hours before blaming the National Rifle Association (NRA) for the terrorist attack. On their front cover for the June 13th edition, the headline blared “Thanks NRA” while the piece went on to state that the jihadists “killing machine of choice was a mass murderer’s best friend — and his enabler a gun lobby that has long opposed efforts to keep assault weapons out of the hands of bloodthirsty maniacs.” Not to be outdone though, the Boston Globe published a full front page editorial three days later on June 16th with the headline “Make it Stop” featuring an image of an AR-15. The editorial of course goes on to attack the Second Amendment while calling for an “assault weapon and high-capacity magazine ban.”

If you were wondering why the Democrat Media Complex is pushing this agenda, in unison, it’s because they received their marching orders by the President himself the day of the attack on June 12th. Speaking during an appearance at the White House not even five hours following the attack, President Obama stated that “this massacre is a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or a house of worship, or a movie theater, or in a nightclub.”

The steady drumbeat by the President and the media continued as last week White House press secretary Josh Earnest revealed that Obama had become “profoundly frustrated” after Senate Republicans blocked anti-gun legislation from being rammed through Congress. Earnest continued by mocking Republicans as “cowards” who talked tough on terrorism, but were “AWOL” when it came to standing up to gun rights organizations like the National Rifle Association (NRA). Obama, like Hillary Clinton, believe that the “gun lobby” which is the NRA, is at the root of impairing progress to solving America’s “gun problems.” Moreover, the real impediment to their anti-Second Amendment agenda always traces back to Republicans, which Democrats and the media at large have asserted were the ones responsible for the Orlando terrorist attack.

To reinforce the Obama adminstration’s stance, the New York Times last Wednesday ran a piece by their editorial board in which they argued that Republicans were to blame for the Orlando terrorist attack committed by the jihadist Omar Mateen. In an excerpt from the piece the Times states that, “while the precise motivation for the rampage remains unclear, it is evident that Mr. Mateen was driven by hatred toward gays and lesbians. Hate crimes don’t happen in a vacuum. They occur where bigotry is allowed to fester, where minorities are vilified and where people are scapegoated for political gain. Tragically, this is the state of American politics, driven too often by Republican politicians who see prejudice as something to exploit, not extinguish.” Completely ignoring the fact that jihadist openly declared allegiance to ISIS multiple times to 911 operators, Alex Griswold of Mediate explains that the New York Times piece doesn’t even bother to mention ISIS or Islam (radical or otherwise), or even hint at Mateen’s faith or ideology at all. Griswold writes, “Were it not for his traditionally Arabic name, it’s not an exaggeration to say that one gets the impression from the Times piece that the shooter must have been an ultraconservative Christian nut,” which was precisely the effect of the piece. It could be argued that this was also the intended effect of Obama’s own statements following the attack.

Yet, this wasn’t enough for the Democrat-Media-Complex as this week the American people were treated to a full-court press by the media in their over the top coverage of the Democrats taking to the House floor to demand gun control with an all-night sit-in. On Thursday morning the media went into propaganda overdrive by promoting the Democrats childish sit-in as “unprecedented” and “historic.” Here are just a few of the examples:

  • On NBC’s Today, correspondent Peter Alexander declared the partisan political stunt to be “truly one of the most dramatic demonstrations on the House floor in modern American history.” Alexander continued by announcing that the “Democrats with signs bearing the names and faces of gun violence victims….Their voices echoed on the Capitol steps, hundreds gathering in support, rallied by Congressman John Lewis, the civil rights icon who spearheaded Wednesday’s sit-in.”
  • On ABC’s Good Morning America, co-host Robin Roberts stated, “breaking overnight, the historic sit-in showdown stopping Congress in its tracks as the battle over gun control boils over.”
  • On CBS This Morning correspondent Nancy Cordes asserted that “the rules appear to have gone out the window” and promoted the propaganda effort stating, “It started as a sit-in, but by nightfall, Democrats were on their feet, holding up the names and pictures of Orlando victims as a crowd of supporters swelled in the gallery and outside.”

From here, the media then perpetuated the myth that according to polls the majority of Americans want “common sense gun control” measures. As NBC’s Matt Lauer on Thursday’sToday show pleaded with Congress to take action. Lauer stated, “If you look at the polls…people across this country say they want more than a moment of silence after a mass shooting, they want some real change.”

In closing, with the media pushing the Democrats agenda and carrying weight for the Obama adminstration on not only gun control but issues ranging from Illegal immigration to Islamic terrorism, it is worth recalling the following statement delivered by Joseph Goebbels during his first official press conference as the head of the Third Reich’s Propaganda Ministry on March 15, 1933. Goebbels, whom turned press conferences into secret meetings where the Propaganda Ministry would pass on detailed instructions to selected journalists, supplying articles to be printed verbatim or used as the basis for reports stated the following to the journalists, “You are to know not only what is happening, but also the government’s view of it and how you can convey that to the people most effectively.” That they were not to convey or print any view in opposition to the regime did not need to be said. This applies to our own press today.

Worrying signs in Democratic platform

June 27, 2016

Worrying signs in Democratic platform, Israel Hayom, Zalman Shoval, June 27, 2016

Israel and its allies in the Democratic Party cannot afford to be complacent in light of the prevailing trends in the drafting committee.

*************

As is the case every four years before U.S. presidential elections, Israelis try to figure out which candidate will be better for Israel. The answer is often: Whoever is elected.

This does not mean that both presumptive nominees, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, are identical political twins. What it does mean is that candidates’ rhetoric on the campaign trail usually has little impact on their overall policy once they become president. In any case, it is not wise for Israelis to speak out on such issues. And in any event, such talk has no bearing on the election’s outcome.

But this should not prevent us from discussing the official party platforms, which are updated ahead of each election. Israelis will find it hard to stay ambivalent about the emerging Democratic platform in light of its clauses dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Although the new platform will only be formally adopted at the Democratic National Convention in July, the new language introduced over the weekend on Israel-related issues makes it abundantly clear that the party is distancing itself from its traditional pro-Israel stance.

This trend was evident in 2012 as well, when the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee removed a clause mentioning Jerusalem as Israel’s capital — only to have it reinserted following pressure by party leaders. This time the very nature of the drafting committee underscores the negativity toward Israel. Five members of the committee were appointed by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and six were appointed by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (and four more were appointed by the Democratic National Committee).

But what matters more is not the proportion of pro-Sanders members in the committee, but their identities. They include James Zogby, a leading pro-Arab activist; U.S. Representative Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a Muslim; and Dr. Cornel West, a professor with provocative views on Israel who has embraced the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement and has come out against the Israeli “occupation.”

The Clinton campaign is fully aware of the electoral damage an anti-Israeli platform could inflict on her candidacy, not to mention the financial fallout on her fund-raising efforts, even if the platform is described as “balanced.” This is why her allies took pains to make sure the drafting committee hears out expert testimony from the likes of Dennis Ross, who served as a Clinton’s Middle East adviser, and former key Democratic lawmakers, but this did not sway the hard-core Sanders loyalists. Sanders has been invigorated by his impressive campaign against Clinton, while Clinton has had to deal with very low favorability ratings.

Thus, Sanders has had the upper hand in the ideological arm twisting, even though Clinton’s supporters have gone out of their way to describe the new language as a compromise that does not depart from the party’s traditional stance. They explained that it was designed to help party unity.

But here are the facts. Ellison, who represents Sanders on the committee, and Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez from Illinois, who represents Clinton, wrote a joint statement calling on party delegates to adopt the new language on Israel during the convention. They published it on left-wing organization J Street’s blog. Gutierrez recently returned from a trip to Israel and the Palestinian Authority organized by a pro-Palestinian group.

“Israelis today live in fear of acts of terror that can turn peaceful marketplaces and neighborhoods into scenes of violence and horror,” the two warned in their statement. “Palestinians struggle under an unjust occupation that deprives them of the rights, opportunities and independence that they deserve.” The statement made no mention of Palestinian incitement, of the Palestinians’ unwillingness to hold talks without preconditions, of Hamas, or of the real reasons behind the century-old conflict.

The committee has yet to publish its views on Jerusalem, but judging from how things have recently unfolded, keeping the 2012 language on the city is anything but guaranteed.

Some play down the importance of party platforms, and sometimes this dismissive approach has merits, including in Israel. Having said that, Israel and its allies in the Democratic Party cannot afford to be complacent in light of the prevailing trends in the drafting committee.

Eric Trump Full Interview Fox & Friends On Donald Trump Brexit Speech

June 27, 2016

Eric Trump Full Interview Fox & Friends On Donald Trump Brexit Speech, Fox News via YouTube, June 27, 2018

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJlQgN5p7EE

Humor | Op-Ed: My chat with Abbas’s “blood libel” rabbi

June 27, 2016

Op-Ed: My chat with Abbas’s “blood libel” rabbi, Israel National News, Jack Engelhard, June 27, 2016

Last week PA “president” Mahmoud Abbas went to Europe with a bagful of accusations against Israel, namely that “rabbis are calling on Israel to poison Palestinian water.” In return, people accused Abbas of bringing up the oldest, vilest and most discredited blood libel of all time.

Some said no such rabbi existed and that no real rabbi would ever say such a thing.

But wait just a moment, please. I met this rabbi, the particular one Abbas had in mind.

I happened to be in San Francisco where this rabbi preaches and where he davens Zen with Michael Lerner, the renowned Seer of Berkeley. I caught up to him during a bowling tournament on Saturday, normally the Sabbath and a day of rest, but these were the finals. We talked when it wasn’t his turn to throw.

Rabbi Matt belongs to BDS Clergy for Abbas, which goes back to Jews for Arafat.

This rabbi knows Jewish suffering. His parents died during the Holocaust – in Cleveland.

He was happy to say that he knew Abbas personally and that Abbas had quoted him correctly.

“Too late,” said the rabbi when I told him that Abbas was trying to walk back that kind of talk. “You can’t UN-spill the beans.”

But the entire world already heard Abbas tell a big fat lie. “You can call it what you want,” challenged the rabbi. “You’re forgetting truth.”

Truth?

“We call it truth Palestinian-style.”

Good point.

“Don’t forget,” the rabbi said. “Like Abbas himself says, Palestinians were here before anybody.”

So was the cockroach.

The rabbi was full of information.

“Jesus was a Palestinian. Did you know?”

Incredible news.

“Just ask Mahmoud. He says so right here on Google.”

I will check this out.

“Columbus was a Palestinian. My pal Mahmoud. I choke up when he speaks. Don’t you?”

Absolutely.

“Abbas gets standing ovations at the EU and the UN. They love it when he talks dirty. One zinger after another. Abbas really knows how to kill.”

That is a fact.

“So is this. The Palestinians invented the wheel, the automobile, the airplane and the computer. Just ask him.”

Does he have proof?

“It’s enough that he’s a man of peace. He’s all in for a two-state solution. One half for Hamas, the other half for Fatah.”

That’s been clear for some time.

Zipping right along, was this rabbi aware that no legit rabbi would ever say what he’s been quoted as saying?

“I AM a legit rabbi. How dare you!”

“Where,” I asked him, “did you make smicha?”

“What’s that?”

I explained that it’s about being ordained from a qualified and certified yeshiva.

“Hell yeah I’ve been ordained. Cheap. For $180 I can get you ordained, too. For that price, anybody can become a rabbi.”

“Where?”

“Right around the corner. Mack’s Tattoo Shop.”

“Are you Jewish?”

“That costs an extra 800 bucks. For an additional 650 you can be an accredited expert in Cabbala. A 10-minute course. In and out.”

“I’ve heard enough.”

“No you haven’t. Mack is running a Tuesday Special. For a measly 2,000 bucks you get the works and Mack will throw in a full-body tattoo job. Like mine.”

Wow!

“Tell him Rabbi Matt sent you and he’ll discount 10 percent. Interested?”

“Sure. Maybe later. Right now I just wanted to know where Mahmoud Abbas gets his facts and information.”

“So now you know. His word is as good as mine.”

Right, truth Palestinian-style.

Terror Investigation Obstructer Nominated for Secretary’s Award for Valor

June 27, 2016

Terror Investigation Obstructer Nominated for Secretary’s Award for Valor, Front Page MagazineMichael Cutler, June 27, 2016

irene-martin

Generally that high honor, the Secretary’s Award for Valor, is bestowed upon government employees who, acting on or off duty, put their lives at risk to save the lives of others.  It is not clear if she has been nominated in spite of her outrageous actions or because of them.

Perhaps in the twisted parallel universe of the Obama administration, Ms. Martin “stood up” to five armed ICE agents, thereby “protecting” an alleged accomplice of a massive deadly terror attack and his alien wife.  Today we not only have the lunacy of “sanctuary cities,” but apparently “Sanctuary DHS Agencies” where illegal aliens and criminals and terrorists are safe from detection and arrest.

***********************

I have written a follow-up article to my March 18, 2016 piece with the sarcastic title, “Are DHS Leaders Seeking an MVP Award From ISIS?The day after the San Bernardino terror attack, why exactly did USCIS managers block a team of ICE agents from entering their facility?

I began my original commentary by saying that I was not trying to go “over the top” with the title of my article and that I had not lost my mind but that I was infuriated that a manager of USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) would block ICE agents from entering that facility.

It is worth noting that both USCIS and ICE are component agencies of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

At the time I wrote my original article, the actual identity of the manager who blocked five ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents was not known, however, it has been disclosed that the manager is Irene Martin.

It must be noted that these ICE agents were assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force and the office that they sought to enter was located in San Bernardino, the very same city where less than 24 hours earlier, on December 2, 2015, Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook carried out a terror attack that resulted in the murder of 14 and the wounding of 22 innocent victims.

Furthermore, Enrique Marquez, the individual the ICE agents were hoping to locate at the office, was believed to have provided the weapons used in carrying out that terrorist attack.  They had discovered that Marquez was scheduled to appear for an interview that day in conjunction with the application he filed for his wife to provide her with lawful immigrant status.

The agents were not only concerned about questioning and arresting Marquez because of the crimes he was alleged to have already committed in providing weapons and possibly other material support to the two terrorists, but the agents were greatly concerned that Marquez may have provided similar assistance to other terrorists who had not yet carried out additional attacks.  Time was obviously extremely critical and potentially innocent lives were hanging in the balance.  The clock was ticking and time was not on the side of the agents — or of possible additional victims, for that matter.

As for the supposed “marriage” between Marquez and his “wife” Chernykh, they have subsequently been charged with conspiracy to commit immigration/marriage fraud.  I addressed this issue in my May 3, 2016 article, “Immigration Fraud Linked to San Bernardino Jihadist’s Family.”

On April 28, 2016 ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) issued a press release about this case,  “3 people tied to shooter in San Bernardino terrorist attack arrested on federal conspiracy, marriage fraud and false statement charges.”

Additionally, it must be pointed out that if ICE agents had information about anyone who was seeking an immigration benefit for an alien, even if terrorism is not a component of the case, the adjudications officers should welcome any information that would provide relevant information about the bona fides of the petition/application that is to be adjudicated.  Immigration fraud is a felony without any other factors being involved.  Furthermore the 9/11 Commission noted that immigration fraud and visa fraud were key entry and embedding tactics of terrorists.

I am intimately familiar with these issues inasmuch as I served as an adjudications officer for one year, many years ago.  I volunteered to be a part of a pilot project that paired adjudications officers with Criminal Investigators (Special Agents) of the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) to uncover fraud.  During that assignment my colleagues and I collaborated closely with the agents.  When I became an INS Special Agent I worked closely with the adjudications officers who, back then, were referred to as Examiners.

However, in this case, Ms. Martin refused the ICE agents entry into her facility for reasons that have never been made clear.  This is especially insane given the nexus this all has with a terror attack that was conducted in the very same city as her office less than 24 hours earlier.

On March 16, 2016, Senator Ron Johnson, the Chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee (HSGAC), requested that the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Homeland Security conduct an investigation into the circumstances surrounding this monumental screw-up.  On June 1, 2016 the OIG report of the investigation was made public.

That OIG report noted, in part:

At approximately 12:20 p.m., December 3, 2015, less than 24 hours after the shooting, HSI was notified that the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), San Bernardino, CA, had developed information that Mariya Chernykh, a Russian national attempting to adjust her immigration status, was married to EnriqueMarquez, an associate of Syed Rizwan Farook, and that she had an appointment at 12:30 p.m. on December 3, 2015, at the USCIS Office, San Bernardino, CA.

The JTTF believed that Marquez might accompany her to the appointment. HSI dispatched a team to go to the USCIS office to prevent any possible further attacks as well as to detain Marquez and Chernykh for questioning.

The OIG report noted that the five ICE agents were wearing tactical gear and that they explained the importance of their mission and that time was critical.  They were delayed by approximately 30 minutes and when they were finally admitted into the offices, they were brought to an interview room.

This is how the GAO report described this meeting:

The Field Office Director told the agents they were not allowed to arrest, detain, or interview anyone in the building based on USCIS policy, and that she would need to obtain guidance from her superior before allowing them access. During this exchange, the agents also spoke by phone with the Acting Chief, Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS), USCIS, Los Angeles. According to the HSI agents, he told the agents that it was USCIS policy not to arrest, detain, or interview on USCIS property.

The OIG report also noted that Ms. Martin made statements that were contradicted by statements made by others — she apparently lied to OIG investigators.  Such lies are felonies and also subject employees to dismissal.

USCIS adjudicates more than 6 million applications for various immigration benefits. This process has serious national security implications.

Page 47 of “9/11 and  Terrorist Travel: Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” includes this paragraph that draws a clear nexus between immigration fraud and national security:

“Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.” Mohammed Salameh, who rented the truck used in the bombing, overstayed his tourist visa. He then applied for permanent residency under the agricultural workers program, but was rejected. Eyad Mahmoud Ismail, who drove the van containing the bomb, took English-language classes at Wichita State University in Kansas on a student visa; after he dropped out, he remained in the United States out of status.

The administration has apparently decided to take action concerning Ms. Martin, however, it is not the action that would make sense. But then when has this administration taken actions that makes sense especially where immigration and terrorism are concerned?

In my March 18th article I sarcastically suggested that whoever interfered with the ongoing terror investigation should be given the Most Valuable Player Award by ISIS.  So far ISIS has not weighed in, but, unbelievably, on June 23, 2016 Fox News reported, “Immigration boss who barred feds from terror suspect up for award, but agency won’t say why.”

Here is an excerpt from report about the egregious actions of the administration:

Irene Martin heads the San Bernardino U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office, where last December, she allegedly blocked five armed Department of Homeland Security agents from the man authorities say supplied the firepower in the deadly attack a day earlier. Although an Inspector General’s report found she acted improperly, and then lied to investigators, FoxNews.com has learned she has been nominated for the Secretary’s Award for Valor.

Generally that high honor, the Secretary’s Award for Valor, is bestowed upon government employees who, acting on or off duty, put their lives at risk to save the lives of others.  It is not clear if she has been nominated in spite of her outrageous actions or because of them.

Perhaps in the twisted parallel universe of the Obama administration, Ms. Martin “stood up” to five armed ICE agents, thereby “protecting” an alleged accomplice of a massive deadly terror attack and his alien wife.  Today we not only have the lunacy of “sanctuary cities,” but apparently “Sanctuary DHS Agencies” where illegal aliens and criminals and terrorists are safe from detection and arrest.

Exclusive – #FeelTheByrne: Secret Service Agent’s Expose Of Hillary Clinton Set To Rock 2016 Campaign

June 27, 2016

Exclusive – #FeelTheByrne: Secret Service Agent’s Expose Of Hillary Clinton Set To Rock 2016 Campaign, BreitbartMatthew Boyle, June 26, 2016

WASHINGTON, : US First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton (R) greets Phil Lader in the receiving line at the White House 08 April in Washington. The Clintons hosted the Prime Minister of Canada and his wife at an official White House dinner. (ELECTRONIC IMAGE) AFP PHOTO/STEPHEN JAFFE (Photo credit should read STEPHEN JAFFE/AFP/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON, : US First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton (R) greets Phil Lader in the receiving line at the White House 08 April in Washington. STEPHEN JAFFE/AFP/Getty Images)

A new trailer highlighting the media coverage of the forthcoming expose on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s time as an irate First Lady to former President Bill Clinton shows viewers how much the Clinton machine fears the book’s publishing.

“I believe if I answered that question, I would be revealing privileged information,” former U.S. Secret Service Agent Gary Byrne — who was stationed right outside the Oval Office for three years during the Clinton administration — says in a clip of a videotaped deposition that opens up the video. “Yes I do know where he was — but I believe if I tell you though I’d be revealing privileged information.”

The deposition was one Byrne gave to special investigators digging into Bill Clinton during his presidency, and specifically this clip comes in a section of the deposition that focused on Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky. That part of the three-hour-long videotaped deposition focused specifically on one of many incidents where Lewinsky was sneaking around the White House near the Oval Office — presumably to find the president and engage in sexual activity with him — and specifically whether Byrne knew the location of the president at that time.

“Without revealing any privileged information, do you know where the president was at that time?” the investigating attorney asked Byrne during that part of the deposition, which again focused on Lewinsky attempting to enter an area near the Oval Office where she was not supposed to go. The full June 25, 1998 deposition is available for the public to watch on C-SPAN and contains many details that prove, once again, Byrne is a completely credible source on everything Clinton.

As Hillary Clinton, Bill’s wife, runs for the presidency and has become the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee in 2016 after a failed White House bid of her own in 2008, the former president’s lurid history of affairs, alleged sexual assault and even alleged rape of various women during his time as president, as the governor of Arkansas and even before then have found their way back to the front and center of political discussion in America.

That’s thanks in no small part to the imminent book from Byrne, who for some time in the 1990s was the uniformed division officer posted right outside the Oval Office when Bill Clinton was president. He personally knew Monica Lewinsky, and his testimony was critical in proving the sex scandal toward the end of Bill Clinton’s presidency. The president originally denied the sex scandal then some months later admitted to it.

Byrne’s book, Crisis of Character, exposes the Clintons in a manner that’s never been done before. This new trailer promoting the book, which Byrne’s team provided exclusively to Breitbart News ahead of its public release, goes from that deposition clip to news clips about his forthcoming book.

“The man who stood outside the Oval Office door during the Bill Clinton presidency says he is doing what he can to prevent a Hillary Clinton presidency,” Bret Baier of Fox News’ Special Report says in the next clip in the video.

It then shifts through several media clips of several more news anchors and commentators discussing the book, including a clip of Fox News’ Steve Doocy who noted that “none of the other networks are going to book this guy to be on.”

“Team Hillary apparently is trying to put the kibosh on all that,” Doocy said, referencing reports that surfaced on The Drudge Report last week that detail how the mainstream media is colluding with the Clinton campaign to silence and discredit Agent Byrne’s story.

WATCH THE FULL TRAILER VIDEO

Drudge, in a rare and high profile Drudge Report exclusive, reported that “Hillary’s campaign has won assurances that he will not be invited to spread ‘lies’ on any of the nation’s broadcast networks.”

One Hillary Clinton campaign official, according to Drudge Report exclusive, even warned a television network producer that Byrne’s book is “trash for cash.”

Experts close with many agents and high-levels inside the Secret Service, however, including Ron Kessler — an award winning journalist formerly with both the Washington Post and Boston Herald — have backed up Byrne’s book. Byrne, as Breitbart News has reported, has also been commended not only by the agency but also by several political appointees of none other than President Bill Clinton for his service.

As Drudge predicted, Politico—the degrading mainstream media outlet that Breitbart News has exposed as having been taken over by a group of Democrats who are not impartial — sure enough ran a hit piece on Byrne shortly after details of the book started trickling out. Politico’s national editor now claims she is no longer a Democrat, but admits she was once a member of Clinton’s political party. Media Matters for America, the far-left progressive political operation that seeks to push the mainstream media in an even more liberal direction than it already is and is closely aligned with the Clinton machine through its founder and renowned Clinton enforcer David Brock, actually published its own attempted takedown of Byrne’s book that ran concurrently with the Clintons’ allies’ piece at Politico.

This new exclusive video also includes at the end a pun on the failed campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders against Clinton. Sanders’ slogan was #FeelTheBern, and this video includes the hashtag #FeelTheByrne.

This Breitbart News exclusive is the second such video promoting Byrne’s tell-all on the Clintons.

“It was a terrible tumultuous time for us,” Byrne says in the first video, out in early June. “We were being subpoenaed by the U.S. government. We didn’t have confidentiality agreements with our lawyers because we were government employees. It was horrendous and it affected over 20 Secret Service Uniformed Division officers and agents. So this story is all true — it is basically about my life and one of my biggest fears was, especially after President Clinton showed up one morning with a black eye after a fight that night in the mansion that everybody working that night heard it was: ‘How do you protect the president from his wife?’ I’m not telling this story, I didn’t write this book for partisan politics. I wrote it so I could get the truth out. Now that I’m retired, I also feel that I have a responsibility to the American public to tell my story so you know what the truth is. I was the first Secret Service employee to be subpoenaed to testify against the president in a criminal case. I was subpoenaed six times before the Supreme Court Justice [William] Rehnquist forced me to testify — and many other Secret Service employees. If she gets elected, it’s probably going to be another four to eight years of the same double standard: ‘Do as I say, not as I do. Do as I say, or off with your head.’ This is why I felt compelled to come out and tell my story.”

WATCH THE FULL FIRST TRAILER VIDEO

Another Terrorist Attack in Africa. Ho Hum

June 27, 2016

Another Terrorist Attack in Africa. Ho Hum, Power LineJohn Hinderaker, June 27, 2016

Yesterday afternoon, Muslim terrorists associated with al-Shabaab attacked a hotel in Mogadishu, Somalia, killing at least 35:

The assault, the latest in a series by the Islamist group targeting ­hotels and restaurants, began when a suicide bomber detonated a car laden with explosives outside the building.

Somalia terror attack

Gunmen then stormed Mogadishu’s Naasa Hablood hotel and gunfire rang out for several hours, witnesses said, before the authorit­ies declared the attack over.

The car-bomb blast came at about 4.30 pm on Saturday local time and produced a large column of smoke over the hotel, which is frequented by politicians.

A cabinet minister was among those murdered.

Gunmen fought their way ­inside, and a witness said they began shooting randomly at hotel guests.

Blood was splattered on the hotel floor. …

It is the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, when extremists often step up attacks in this volatile country in the Horn of Africa.

Likewise, Christians launch terrorist attacks during Lent. Just kidding.

“They came shouting ‘Allahu Akbar!’ and fired bullets on every side,” said a hotel staffer who ­escaped through the back door.

Of course they did. They always do, to emphasize that their murders have nothing to do with Islam.

“They are devils who merely care for death and blood.”

“Devils” is a fair, well-considered characterization. I have nothing particular to say about this attack–one of many–except that I don’t think it should pass unnoticed. al-Shabaab is devoted to establishing sharia law in Somalia. Who knows, it might succeed. Certainly it won’t fail due to any intelligent action on the part of the Obama administration or other Western powers.

mogadishu-attack-685x320

When Hate is Promoted by Religious Leaders, Why Blame the Followers?

June 27, 2016

When Hate is Promoted by Religious Leaders, Why Blame the Followers? Gatestone InstituteRaheel Raza, June 27, 2016

♦ Imam Abdullah Hakim Quick then goes on to connect being gay with Zionism — his anti-Semitic sentiments at their best. All this while standing at a pulpit. If this is not a crime of hate, then what is? Does this imam have nothing positive to speak about in his sermon, besides spreading the Islamist agenda of hate and bigotry?

♦ For years we have warned of the messages of hate emanating from the pulpit. We have spoken of the two different messages being given — one to the public and one in private.

♦ Why then do we act surprised when the Omar Mateens of the world take up arms and ruthlessly gun down an entire group of gays? This is what they are being taught by the likes of Imam Quick. They are acting out the hate that has been instilled in their minds and hearts.

♦ In the aftermath of the bloodbath created by Omar Mateen at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, a plethora of opinions, ideas and causes have been spoken about. At the same time, a very disturbing picture about a specific aspect of this hateful ideology of Islamists has emerged. In my opinion, there is no doubt that Mateen was an Islamist influenced by the jihadist agenda of fanatic hate for the gay communities.

For those of us reform-minded Muslims who have been battling the rise in radical Islamist agendas for the past decade, this development is no surprise. In our declaration, we say right at the top:

“We reject bigotry, oppression and violence against all people based on any prejudice, including ethnicity, gender, language, belief, religion, sexual orientation and gender expression.”

Why did we include this line in our message? Because we know of the hate that is directed towards the LGBTQ communities in Muslim lands. In Iran, thousands of gays have been executed; in Afghanistan, the Taliban bury them alive; in Saudi Arabia they are liable for death, and in other Muslim countries they are persecuted and abused if they admit to the preference.

One can always say that this is happening out there someplace else. We in North American pride ourselves on freedom of expression and tolerance towards those following a different lifestyle. We would never expect hate against others to be promoted in a liberal democracy.

However, not everyone in Canada thinks as we do. In our own hometown of pluralistic Toronto, hate against the LQBTQ community is alive and well.

Abdullah Hakim Quick is a Toronto imam who writes on his website:

“I have always stood against racism and ethnocentrism. I have been a lifelong advocate of women’s rights and for decades have encouraged the empowerment of young people. I pioneered the first social service agency for Muslims in Toronto, Canada (I.S.S.R.A.) whose doors were open to all — rich and poor, Muslim and non-Muslim, gay or straight. As a counselor I learned first-hand of the terrible violence inflicted upon gay people by bullies and I publicly spoke out against it….”

Yet in a YouTube video, the same Imam Quick says:

“… they said ‘What is the position of Islam on homosexuality?’ — they asked me this. This is a newspaper, right. So I said ‘Put my name in the paper. The position is death.’ And we cannot change Islam.”

Furthermore, Quick goes on openly to ridicule the Toronto gay community known as Salaam Canada. Many of them are my friends and I respect them. They have suffered at the hands of Islamists and felt they were safe in a city like Toronto. Not so anymore, and my heart goes out to them.

1668Abdullah Hakim Quick, a Toronto imam, makes a speech where he gives his answer to the position of Islam on homosexuality: “The position is death.” (Image source: TIFRIB video screenshot)

Mr. Quick then goes on to connect being gay with Zionism — his anti-Semitic sentiments at their best. All this while standing at a pulpit. If this is not a crime of hate, then what is? Does this imam have nothing positive to speak about in his sermon?

The point is that not only is he lying on his website, but he is spreading the Islamist agenda of hate and bigotry. He is also spouting an opinion that is not in the Quran. While the Quran (like other Abrahamic scriptures) does not condone homosexuality, there is no injunction to kill gays. However, because he is an imam and an imam is supposed to be knowledgeable, no one challenges him. Therefore, his opinion on gays (derived from sharia and concocted hadeeth perhaps) is that death is the solution for gays.

He’s not the only one. Not long ago, Florida religious scholar Shaykh Farrokh said gently but with conviction in a speech “death is the sentence. There’s nothing to be embarrassed about. Death is the sentence.” He goes on to explain that killing gays is an act of compassion.

Why then do we act surprised when the Omar Mateens of the world take up arms and ruthlessly gun down an entire group of gays? This is what they are being taught by the likes of Imam Abdullah Hakim Quick. They are acting out the hate that has been instilled in their minds and hearts.

For years, we have warned of the messages of hate emanating from the pulpit. We have spoken of the two different messages being given — one to the public and one in private. Well, we live in a world where the two are meshed and the culprits need to be exposed. It is time Muslims knew what their religious leaders are saying and promoting from the pulpit.

Is this what we want our youth to hear? If not, what are we doing about it?

Why Don’t Feminists Fight for Muslim Women?

June 27, 2016

Why Don’t Feminists Fight for Muslim Women? Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Prager University via YouTube, June 27, 2016

Why we must support Donald Trump

June 27, 2016

Why we must support Donald Trump, American ThinkerCarol Brown, June 27, 2016

I supported Ted Cruz during the primaries and struggled mightily with Donald Trump (and in many ways, still do). But I will vote for Trump in November because as intrigued as I was early on by the NeverTrump movement, it’s clear these folks (who stand on soap boxes of personal integrity) are putting self before country.

David Horowitz and Daniel Greenfield of Front Page Magazine are two conservatives among many who have been covering the urgent need to get behind Trump. Writing in forceful and eloquent ways, they are sounding the alarm, pointing out critical differences between Trump and Clinton. Most recently Horowitz wrote:

Barack Obama delivers nuclear weapons and $150 billion to America’s mortal enemy in the Middle East…

But when Donald Trump insinuates the president is a man of uncertain loyalties, Republican leaders back away from him. When Trump proposes fighting “radical Islam,” securing America’s borders, stopping unvetted immigration from Muslim terrorist states, surveilling mosques, and scrutinizing the families of terrorist actors, Republicans join Democrats in denouncing him, or take an uncomfortable distance or maintain a silence that leaves him to fend for himself. [snip]

…Democrat betrayers of America are on the attack, while Republican leaders who claim to be patriots are on the run…This is the sad state of the Republican forces in retreat in an election campaign that will decide the fate of our country.

The threat of Islam, terror, and open borders drives home the fact that without national security, all else is moot. And on this front alone, Donald Trump’s views are dramatically different from Hillary Clinton’s. The gap between Trump and Clinton on national security is so wide it is one that might one day save your life. Or mine. Or the lives of Republicans who will not vote for Trump because, you know: integrity. As if casting a vote that helps ensure that a criminal, socialist, Islamist sympathizer gets to plop herself down in the oval office in order to continue the destructive and downright evil work of the past eight years is an act brimming with integrity.

To those whose delicate sensibilities are offended by Trump, I ask: Are your sensibilities not offended by Clinton? Because if they’re not, then you should register as a Democrat. And if they are, then the reality is that it will be Clinton or Trump.

Choose one. “Conscientious objector” is an adolescent cop-out. Our nation is at war (albeit a one-sided one we refuse to fight). All adults are needed on deck.

As Daniel Greenfield wrote concerning those who are committed to abandoning our presumptive nominee and helping to “usher in eight years of left-wing rule” that embraces “positions well to the left of Obama”:

Political campaigns can get ugly and Trump’s style is, at times, to get as nasty as possible, but it’s a sign of misplaced insider priorities to allow personal animus to matter more than the war against the left. It’s not unreasonable for some conservatives to be angry at Trump and his tactics. It is unreasonable to let that anger turn into a petulance that would let the left rule the nation for another eight years.

So to those holier-than-thou conservatives who refuse to vote for Donald Trump because their personal integrity will not allow them to do so, I say: If you want more jihad, don’t vote for Trump and help Hillary win. If you want to be sure our borders remain open, don’t vote for Trump and help Hillary win. And if you want the next president to be someone who got Americans killed and then lied about it, don’t vote for Trump and help Hillary win. And when Hillary Clinton is sworn in as the next president, you can pat yourself on the back, know you did the right thing, and raise a glass to your integrity, which will have served your ego but not the nation.

The primaries are over. Whatever happened, happened. Whatever rude, obnoxious, manipulative behavior Trump engaged in is in the past. Voting for him doesn’t mean you condone such behavior, you support everything he has expressed, you trust him implicitly, or that you even like the guy. It means you understand what’s at stake and have the maturity to move beyond your own ego in order to be a true patriot.

We either have a shot at a future or we don’t.

Trump gives America a chance to survive. And maybe even do better than that.