Department of Justice | WarSclerotic | Page 9

Posted tagged ‘Department of Justice’

Obama Justice Department Laughed Off Armed New Black Panther Threat

July 9, 2016

Obama Justice Department Laughed Off Armed New Black Panther Threat, PJ Media, J. Christian Adams July 8, 2016

(Please see also, Dallas massacre of police: FBI investigating anti-police group that attended Dallas mosque.
— DM)

Micah-X.sized-770x415xt

In 2009 and 2010, lawyers working at the United States Justice Department warned top Obama political appointees and other Justice Department officials about the dangerous threats of New Black Panthers to kill police officers and other whites. I was one of those lawyers who delivered those warnings.

Our warnings came in the context of the Voting Rights Act case I and other lawyers brought against the New Black Panthers on behalf of the United States in 2009, a case the Obama administration ultimately abandoned. Both top DOJ officials, including now Labor Secretary Tom Perez, as well as rank and file employees in the Civil Rights Division, were warned but did not take the New Black Panther threat seriously or otherwise considered the organization to be a laughable joke.

Allies in the media echoed the narrative that the defendants in the voter intimidation case were harmless clowns.

Among the information presented to top officials was a video produced by the New Black Panthers entitled “Training Day.” The video proposes killing police officers by ambush. I wrote about the video:

Another New Black Panther posing in the above photo and kneeling with a shotgun is “Field Marshal” Najee Muhammad. As I wrote in my book Injustice: One of them was Panther “Field Marshal” Najee Muhammad, who is seen in a Panther video called “Training Day” in which he encourages blacks in DeKalb County, Georgia, to don ski masks, lie in wait behind shrubs, and kill police officers with AK-47s. Following that exhortation he mocks the hypothetical victims’ grieving widows.

Justice Department employees ridiculed the video and noted very few were in the video’s audience, apparently oblivious of the role and power of social media to reach people not sitting in an auditorium.

Attorneys working on the voter intimidation case made an effort to broadly educate employees of the Civil Rights Division about the murderous rhetoric of the New Black Panthers. We planned a screening of a National Geographic special on the New Black Panthers where members could be heard threatening to kill white babies. We widely disseminated information about the screening in a Justice Department conference room. On a floor with nearly one hundred employees, exactly two DOJ employees showed up to watch the screening, and one of them was the paralegal on the case.

As we shall see, Obama allies in the media could also be counted on to ridicule the seriousness of the New Black Panther organization.

The Obama Justice Department has also continued to give New Black Panthers who are in possession of illegal firearms a pass. I wrote here about New Black Panther (and Democrat) Jerry Jackson:

Jackson has a long violent criminal history. He is also a Democratic Party elected official in Philadelphia, not that those two facts have anything in common, of course. He was elected in May 2010 to a seat on the Philadelphia Democratic City Committee in the 14th Ward. … It is illegal under federal law (18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1)) for any felon to possess a firearm. As one federal prosecutor told me, “these cases are among the simplest to win. It’s like taking candy from a baby. Did a felon hold a gun, or not? Period. It matters not if the gun was loaded, or even works.” So, is the Democrat New Black Panther Jerry Jackson indeed a felon? . . . According to this criminal complaint, in 1978, Jackson “with another black man did stab and rob comp[lainant] on the highway 4024 W. Girard Ave. . . Charged: robbery, theft, possession of an instrument of a crime, probation offense with a weapon, criminal conspiracy, simple assault and aggravated assault.” On January 10, 1979, Jackson was sentenced for robbery and criminal conspiracy convictions, both first degree felonies under Pennsylvania law.

The Justice Department surely must be aware of the fact that Jackson and other New Black Panthers are felons in possession of firearms given the attention the matter has received. I have talked about this fact on Fox News repeatedly. Yet nothing has happened to them. Is it because, like Hillary, they are Democrats?

shabazz

As President Obama’s pastor put it, these chickens may have come home to roost.

Bob Price has this piece: Confirmed: Dallas Shooter was Member of Houston New Black Panther Party. The story has a disturbing video of an armed New Black Panther march in Texas where the armed uniformed panthers chant – “Off the pig,” and “Oink, oink, bang, bang.” They also note “Revolution has come. Time to pick up the gun.” The piece states:

One of the members holding an AR-15 style rifle appears to be Micah Xavier Johnson. During the march, the armed members of the New Black Panther Party stood off against Harris County Sheriff’s Deputies who came to Waller County responding to a request for assistance from Sheriff Glenn Smith

You can see the full video here of the Houston New Black Panthers armed formation and chants to “off the pig” with the individual armed with an M-16 with his finger positioned above the trigger guard as someone trained in firearms would do.

Since the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panthers was dismissed in 2009, racial violence in the country has spiked – on the streets of Baltimore, Dallas and cities in between. A phalanx of sycophantic media have done all they can to decouple the violence from the Black Lives Matter movement. No amount of snark or spin can decouple the violent rhetoric chanted at Black Lives Matter rallies from the violence that has followed. Americans watching on TV have ears.

The Black Lives Matter movement lost whatever moral authority it had on the streets of Dallas this week.

But that won’t stop the smart set from keeping the movement going. It reminds me of all the bloggers and columnists who spent so much time back in 2009 and 2010 ridiculing me, Megyn Kelly and any discussion of the New Black Panthers as a comic minstrel act.

That’s precisely what race-guilt addled Dave Weigel called it in the Atlantic: Megyn Kelly’s Minstrel Show. “No one cares what the NBPP thinks about anything,” Weigel quipped. “This is minstrelsy, with a fringe moron set up like a bowling pin for Hannity to knock down. And that’s the role the NBPP plays on Fox, frequently.”

Too bad Dave Weigel didn’t care a bit more about what the New Black Panthers thought about killing cops. Instead of giving rhetorical cover to the gangsters, we should have had a healthy discussion about the existence of violent black racism.

But Weigel was giving no quarter back in 2010. We were fools to devote air time to the New Black Panthers. Megyn Kelly was making monsters out of clowns. Weigel:

Watch her broadcasts and you become convinced that the New Black Panthers are a powerful group that hate white people and operate under the protection of Eric Holder’s DOJ. … They’ve been driven to fear and distrust of their DOJ by round-the-clock videos of one racist idiot brandishing a nightstick for a couple hours in 2008.

Will they admit their mistake now that one “racist idiot brandishing a nightstick” has become a racist monster with a high powered rifle and body armor? Based on what I know about this crowd, I doubt it. They are better at doubling down than expressing contrition.

It wasn’t just Weigel. The esteemed Clarence Page wrote at the Chicago Tribune the New Black Panther “party’s membership could probably squeeze into a small SUV.” Hopefull Clarence watches the video linked in this story.

That’s how they ridiculed the whole affair – make them crazy, make them small, make them harmless and make them clownish.

Bill Maher attacked anyone talking about the New Black Panthers:

Look, Republicans, I know this picture from Election Day 2008 scared you. . . . And now it’s two years later, and that picture still scares you. . . . But, it’s time you understood something: every black person scares you unless they look like Urkel, talk like Colin Powell and wear Bill Cosby sweaters, you fill your adult diaper.

A lie, but that’s how these people roll when it comes to race. Alex Pareene at Salon criticized the coverage of the New Black Panthers because they “were a couple of clowns.” The racialist Adam Serwer at least increased their membership to a “bunch of clowns.”

All of this snark is because the existence of threatening violent black racism must never be discussed in sophisticated circles.

When voter intimidation lawsuits are brought against an organization that produces “Training Day” videos describing how to ambush and kill cops, it is important to write it off as a couple of cranks. When a New Black Panther member threatens to kill white babies, that certainly must be a single nut. Surely uniformed black racists with weapons at polling sites couldn’t violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Anyone who would say otherwise can’t be taken seriously.

The truth is that everyone is fallen and imperfect, both black and white and every race in between. The law is designed to protect everyone equally.

Pay close attention to whether people like Maher and Page continue to use their talents to excuse evil. If they feel comfortable holding their course after Dallas and attacking anyone who would dare discuss the problem, it will say a great deal about where we are headed as as nation.

(Banner photo via You Tube and Breitbart Texas)

Categories: Dallas killing of police, Democrats, Department of Justice, Media, Obama administration, Obama and racism
Tags: Dallas killing of police, Democrats, Department of Justice, Media, Obama Administration, Obama and racism

Comments: Be the first to comment

Comey’s Peculiar Explanations

July 8, 2016

Comey’s Peculiar Explanations, Front Page Magazine, Joseph Klein, July 8, 2016

Comey

FBI Director James Comey testified Thursday before the House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the FBI’s probe of Hillary Clinton’s and her aides’ handling of e-mails containing classified information on her private e-mail system while she was Secretary of State. In more than four and a half hours of testimony, he sought to explain his recommendation, which he made public in his July 5^th press statement, that there was not sufficient evidence for a reasonable prosecutor to bring a criminal case against Hillary Clinton. He said the FBI had not developed clear evidence that Clinton intentionally violated the law. Attorney General Loretta Lynch closed the case on July 6^th based on the FBI’s recommendation.

When asked whether the FBI was looking into the Clinton Foundation, however, Director Comey notably declined to answer.

Director Comey admitted that he did not participate himself in the FBI’s interview of Hillary Clinton last Saturday, nor did he talk to all of the agents who were present at the interview. There evidently is no recording or full transcript of the interview, but there is an analysis which may or may not be provided to Congress. He also admitted that he did not compare Hillary’s FBI interview with her prior sworn testimony to Congress before he made his decision on what to recommend. Director Comey said a new referral from Congress for an investigation of possible perjury before Congress would be required. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) responded that such a referral would be forthcoming shortly. The referral could include Clinton’s testimony that her attorneys had actually read the e-mails that they then deleted and that “There was nothing marked classified on my emails, either sent or received.”

In defending his recommendation not to prosecute Hillary Clinton or her aides regarding their handling of e-mails containing classified information on insecure e-mail facilities, the FBI director declared that there was not sufficient proof of willful intent, which he said is regularly imputed as a requirement to convict in all applicable criminal statutes. He said that proof of Hillary Clinton’s knowledge that what she did was unlawful would be required to justify a referral for criminal prosecution, which he claimed was lacking. In response to questions, the director tried to distinguish the Hillary Clinton case from the prosecution of General David Petraeus, which he claimed was based on evidence of Petraeus’s knowing and willful wrong-doing.

Although denying that he was effectively re-writing the language of any relevant statute to reach his conclusion, Director Comey asserted that it was appropriate to ignore the express “gross negligence” element in one such statute dealing with the gathering of defense-related information (18 U.S. Code §793(F)). He based his decision to ignore the “gross negligence” statutory element, despite his own statement that Hillary Clinton had been “extremely careless” in the “handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” on his understanding of past precedent. He explained that federal prosecutors have brought only one case based on gross negligence in the last 99 years because, in part, of constitutional concerns with convictions in cases where there is no showing of criminal intent. He also concluded that it would be unfair to embark on what he called “celebrity hunting” by singling out Hillary Clinton for prosecution for “gross negligence” when only one such case has been brought in 99 years. Similarly, the director disputed that the requisite criminal intent was provable under a separate criminal statute involving the unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material in an unauthorized location (18 U.S. Code § 1924), even though that is precisely what Hillary Clinton did.

Director Comey walked a tightrope during the Congressional hearing. He tried to reconcile the findings he set forth in his July 5^th press statement and his Congressional testimony, which were at significant variance with assertions Hillary Clinton has made publicly over the last year and in her Congressional testimony under oath. He failed to square the circle.

Even assuming that Director Comey was correctly applying what he described as a criminal intent standard, he failed to take into account the relevant circumstantial evidence of such intent.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) had an exchange with Director Comey that set out the case for concluding that Hillary Clinton had criminal intent based on such circumstantial evidence. It is worth quoting from at length:

“GOWDY: …I’m going to ask you to put on your old hat. False exculpatory statements — they are used for what?

COMEY: Well, either for a substantive prosecution, or for evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.

GOWDY: Exactly. Intent, and consciousness of guilt, right? Is that right?

COMEY: Right.

GOWDY: Consciousness of guilt, and intent. In your old job, you would prove intent, as you just referenced, by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record. And you would be arguing, in addition to concealment, the destruction that you and I just talked about, or certainly the failure to preserve. You would argue all of that under the heading of intent.

You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme: when it started, when it ended, and the number of e-mails, whether they were originally classified or up-classified. You would argue all of that under the heading of intent…

She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, she kept these private e-mails for almost two years, and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private e-mail account.

So you have a rogue e-mail system set up before she took the oath of office; thousands of what we now know to be classified e-mails, some of which were classified at the time; one of her more frequent e-mailed comrades was, in fact, hacked, and you don’t know whether or not she was; and this scheme took place over long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records — and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent?

You say she was “extremely careless,” but not intentionally so. Now, you and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce, “On this day, I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this day.” It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence — or, if you’re Congress, and you realize how difficult it is to prove specific intent, you will formulate a statute that allows for “gross negligence.”

Congressman Gowdy asked Director Comey point-blank if Clinton’s testimony that she did not e-mail “any classified material to anyone on my e-mail” was true. Comey said it was not true. Was Clinton telling the truth when she said that she used only one device while Secretary of State? Comey said she used multiple devices. Did she return all work-related e-mails to the State Department as she had claimed? No was the reply. “We found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned,” Comey said.

Yet Director Comey skated by the voluminous amount of circumstantial evidence linking Hillary Clinton’s many lies demonstrating guilty knowledge to proof of her criminal intent. Contrary to common sense, Director Comey said he did not think that Clinton meant to erase any e-mails despite the volume of erased e-mails that were work-related and some of which contained information that was deemed classified at the time they were sent or received. He rationalized Clinton’s handling of classified information on her private unsecured server on the grounds that she appeared to be “unsophisticated” in such matters. He tried to explain away Clinton’s direction to have a classified marking removed from a document and sent to her unsecured system as a so-called “non-paper.”

In short, Director Comey did not budge from his recommendation, accepted by Attorney General Lynch, that there be no criminal prosecution of Hillary Clinton or her aides as a consequence of their handling of classified information in e-mails sent or received over insecure facilities. He insisted that the FBI investigation and his recommendation, to which he said there was no dissent within the FBI team that conducted the investigation, were honest, apolitical and even-handed. Whatever his reasons for reaching the legal conclusion that he did, Director Comey has at least provided enough factual findings for the court of public opinion to judge Hillary Clinton’s “extreme carelessness” and pattern of lies to cover up her wrong-doing.

The only real news to come out of the Congressional hearing was that there will be a new referral to the FBI to investigate Hillary Clinton for possible perjury and that she may not be out of the woods yet with regard to the Clinton Foundation.

Categories: Clinton e-mails, Clinton Foundation, Department of Justice, FBI, Hillary Clinton Perjury, U.S. Congress
Tags: Clinton e-mails, Clinton Foundation, Department of Justice, FBI, Hillary Clinton Perjury, U.S. Congress

Comments: Be the first to comment

5 Things You Should Know About the FBI Hearing With James Comey

July 7, 2016

5 Things You Should Know About the FBI Hearing With James Comey, PJ Media, Tyler O’Neil, July 7, 2016

FBI director

FILE – In this April 5, 2016 file photo, FBI Director James Comey speaks in Detroit. Comey hinted at an event in London on Thursday, April 21, 2016, that the FBI paid more than $1 million to break into the locked iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino attackers. (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio, File)

On Thursday, FBI Director James Comey testified in front of the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform about his recommendation for the FBI to issue no charges against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The hearing went on for nearly four hours, but PJ Media has compiled the 5 big statements during the event.

Just a brief recap: On Tuesday, Comey made a speech declaring Clinton’s use of a private email server as “extremely careless,” but effectively exonerating her from any federal charges. Many saw this as a “double standard,” especially because Comey’s comments revealed Clinton’s declarations on the email scandal to be huge lies — just check out this Reason TV video on it.

Republicans and Democrats asked important questions, and Comey responded or failed to respond. Here are the five big moments you shouldn’t miss:

1. This was not a Republican witch-hunt.

North Carolina Republican Representative Mark Walker asked Comey about the political nature of the FBI investigation. Comey made clear that “it wasn’t Republicans or Congress who asked for the investigation,” but it was suggested by the State Department Inspector General. “This was not a Republican witch-hunt,” he explicitly said.

Walker pointed out that many of the Congresswomen who have praised Comey as a public servant after his decision not to charge Hillary Clinton were the same people who attacked the FBI for running an investigation on “frivolous” issues earlier. These Democrats also argued that the entire investigation was a “Republican witch-hunt,” when it was not.

2. Hillary’s email was less secure than a Gmail account that hackers are paid $180 to hack into.

Iowa Republican Congressman Rod Blum asked Comey about the security of Hillary Clinton’s private email server. The FBI director said that yes, “even a basic free account, a Gmail account, had better security than she did.” Blum emphasized that people are paid roughly $180 to hack into a Gmail account, suggesting that it is relatively easy to do so, and that Clinton’s server was extraordinarily unprotected from potential foreign hackers.

Tyler O’Neil @Tyler2ONeil

Comey agrees that Hillary’s security was weaker than Gmail’s, which people are paid only about $180 to hack into #ComeyHearing @PJMedia_com

12:02 PM – 7 Jul 2016

3. There was “no double standard.”

During the hearing, Comey argued that his decision not to prosecute Clinton for her email scandal is not a “double standard,” because any government employee caught being this “extremely careless” would be punished but not prosecuted. There is no double standard because Clinton is no longer in public service, so she could not be punished with a demotion or some other work-related punishment. Georgia Republican Congressman Jody Hice noted that Comey admitted Clinton was extremely careless and put national security at risk, saying that “the American people are reasonably irate.” He didn’t seem to buy Comey’s explanation that there was no double standard. Americans will also likely find it hard to accept.

4. The State Department’s security culture is lacking, and the FBI is not investigating it.

California Representative Mark DeSaulnier — a Democrat — acknowledged that “the security culture of the State Department in general was lacking.” Then Kentucky Republican Congressman Thomas Massie asked Comey whether it would “require intent for someone to put a secure document into an insecure setting?” Comey said it might. Then Massie asked whether someone “down the chain” was being investigated for intent to send secure information on an insecure system, and Comey said they are not investigating anyone on this issue.

5. Does Clinton deserve prison time for lying under oath?

Representative Walker asked another key question. Noting that Clinton made comments under oath which Comey himself said were false, wouldn’t she be guilty of lying under oath? Comey said it wasn’t clear whether she did it or not (which was odd) but he did admit that “it’s a felony that carries years in prison.” If you have any doubt about Clinton lying about this issue, watch this video.

Categories: Clinton e-mails, Democrats, Department of Justice, Department of State, Hillary Clinton, Justice, U.S. Congress
Tags: Clinton e-mails, Democrats, Department of Justice, Department of State, Justice, U.S. Congress

Comments: 1 Comment

Why Hillary Clinton Must go to Jail

July 7, 2016

Why Hillary Clinton Must go to Jail, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, July 7, 2016

Jail to the Chief

In 1994, Hillary Clinton took questions under a portrait of Abraham Lincoln. Wearing a pink pantsuit, she offered what would become her customary mix of lies and defensiveness, admitting to something and then trying to shift the blame, denying that she had broken the law and then claiming ignorance.

It was an act that we would see over and over again for the next few decades, but back then it was still new when Hillary Clinton claimed that she couldn’t remember anything, that the whole Whitewater affair was an invasion of her privacy and that she had never meant to do anything wrong.

Some twenty years later, we have spent the past few months witnessing the same performance.

She blamed sexism for Whitewater. “It’s a little difficult for us as a country, maybe, to make the transition of having a woman like many of the women in this room, sitting in this house.” Her supporters claim that her email scandal is caused by sexism rather than her blatant violation of the law.

“I do feel like I’ve always been a fairly private person leading a public life,” Hillary Clinton whined about the examination of her shady investments. This time around she claimed that her whole rogue email server filled with classified documents was an attempt at protecting her classified yoga routines.

The truth, then and now, is that Hillary Clinton is a public figure who claims that her private life is being invaded whenever she gets caught violating the law.

Then there are the vague statements that almost sound like apologies, but aren’t. “I’m not in any way excusing any confusion that we have created,” she said of Whitewater. But the only confusion was Hillary’s efforts to make her critics appear to be confused. On her emails, she said that she was “sorry that it has raised all these questions.” Which is another way of saying that she was sorry she got caught.

Finally there is the politician who would be president playing dumb. Hillary Clinton didn’t understand how investments worked back then. She doesn’t understand how emails work now. When all else fails, Hillary Clinton will plead incompetence and then claim that she wants to focus on fixing health care.

Investments are confusing. Email accounts are confusing. Someone please put her in charge of something simple. Like health care for the entire country. Or maybe just the entire country.

No one trusts her and no one believes that she will ever be held accountable.

In 1998, prosecutors had the evidence to bring charges against Hillary Clinton. They chose not to act because they did notbelieve that she would be convicted. If that sounds familiar, it should.

FBI Director James Comey got up in front of the country and laid out a criminal case against Hillary over her email abuses and then announced that no prosecutor would ever take it. The material was there and it still is there. But no one in authority believes that Hillary Clinton will ever be held accountable.

Back then the evidence was too circumstantial. This time around there’s no definitive proof of criminal intent. Each time Hillary Clinton plays dumb, plays the victim and then urges everyone to move on.

Hillary Clinton lied about Whitewater. She lied about her covert email operation. Comey’s exoneration was more like an indictment, sweeping aside her lies about her classified correspondence. But that too is nothing new. Hillary Clinton has always lied and her lies are always exposed. Her fallback position is to argue that no one can prove that she knew she was committing a crime. Out of that mix of denials, partial admissions, non-apologies, misleading lawyerly statements, comes that final defense.

You can’t prove that I knew I was committing a crime.

This time around, the FBI could prove that she broke the law, that she lied about breaking the law and that she knew the law, but not that she intended to break the law. That brand of absurdity has gotten her off before. And it worked once again at the most crucial moment of her career.

Hillary Clinton trails a pattern of crimes and cover-ups dating back decades. And still no one can prove that she knew that was committing the crimes that she committed. Her associates have gone to jail. Her alibis have been shredded. But instead of heading to jail, she is aiming at the White House.

And that’s inevitable.

The Clinton crimes have always come down to politics. From Whitewater onwards, the Clintons got rich and powerful by exploiting their political connections. The Clinton Foundation and its rainbow of cash, from sources foreign and domestic, is just Whitewater writ large. The email scandal is the same old Clinton records game that they have been playing for decades being conducted with more high tech tools.

The Clinton server is more impressive than Sandy Berger burglarizing the National Archives for classified documents about Bill’s failure to fight Islamic terrorism, but it’s not really any different.

Berger’s burglary was dubbed an “honest mistake.” Hillary’s rogue email server? Another mistake, but only because “It’s caused all this uproar and commotion.” After she blatantly lied about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire, she smugly retorted, “So I made a mistake. That happens. It shows I’m human, which for some people is a revelation.”

It’s a revelation only because it’s the one single thing that she never lied about.

A trail of lies and scandals isn’t a mistake. It’s a record. Hillary Clinton has been entirely consistent in her criminal career. And just as consistently, she has never faced any consequences for her crimes.

Every time she might have been held accountable, investigations were written off as partisan witch hunts and prosecutors and law enforcement backed off convinced that trying to prosecute her would be futile. And that’s a mistake. Corruption grows when there is no accountability.

When Bill Clinton meets with the Attorney General, when the FBI Director makes a show of pardoning Hillary right before his boss goes to campaign for her, the message is that those in power can play by a different set of rules than ordinary people. And that is another way of saying that our society is corrupt.

If the Clintons can commit any crime that they like without being held accountable, that sends a message to ordinary people that we are not a nation of laws, but of special interests. It becomes harder to ask the average person to do the right thing when their leaders profit by doing the wrong thing.

The Clintons have amassed fortune, power and fame by being crooked. Holding them accountable is not just about partisan political battles, but about our integrity and our ethics as a nation.

Even many Democrats are disgusted by the Clintons. Comey’s speech was not met with celebrations, but with disgust. Media outlets compiled every example of how the FBI Director had shredded Hillary’s alibi. Everyone understood what had happened here. The only ones celebrating this shameful miscarriage of justice were the Clintons, their corrupt cronies and amoral associates.

During her Whitewater conference, Hillary Clinton claimed, “I don’t want anybody to have the wrong impressions of either of us.” The trouble is that the entire nation has the right impression of her.

America deserves leaders who inspire us to be better people. And we can’t have that until we start holding corrupt politicians accountable. It is time for Americans from all parties and political backgrounds to demand an end to the immunity of the Clinton Crime Family.

Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton Crime Family, Clinton e-mails, Department of Justice, FBI, Hillary Clinton, Sexist
Tags: Clinton Crime Family, Clinton e-mails, Department of Justice, FBI, Sexist

Comments: 2 Comments

Attorney General Lynch accepts FBI recommendation to clear Clinton of wrongdoing

July 7, 2016

Attorney General Lynch accepts FBI recommendation to clear Clinton of wrongdoing, Washington Free Beacon, Sara Westwood, July 6, 2016

(Surprise! Who would have expected Lynch to do that?. — DM)

Attorney General Loretta Lynch officially accepted the FBI’s recommendation that neither Hillary Clinton nor any of her aides should face criminal charges Wednesday, effectively ending the year-long investigation into their handling of classified information.

Lynch said in a statement she had met with FBI Director James Comey and career prosecutors earlier Wednesday and accepted their “unanimous” recommendations to close the case without bringing an indictment against anyone involved.

Her ruling came one day after Comey publicly blasted the former secretary of state for her “extremely careless” treatment of sensitive material before suggesting the FBI had not uncovered enough evidence to support a criminal case.

Categories: Clinton e-mails, Department of Justice, FBI, Hillary Clinton
Tags: Clinton e-mails, Department of Justice, FBI

Comments: 9 Comments

The FBI Recommendation Not to Indict Hillary Will Help Trump

July 6, 2016

The FBI Recommendation Not to Indict Hillary Will Help Trump, Dan Miller’s Blog, July 6, 2016

(The views expressed in this post are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

FBI Director Comey intimidated that anyone except a former high-ranking ~~Democrat~~ government official currently running for high office ~~as a Democrat~~ would have faced serious consequences. The exemption granted to Hillary Clinton does not sit well with many if not most Republican and Independent voters; even the generally supportive lamebrain media are finally attacking Her. Nevertheless, She will get the Democrat presidential nomination and “likable” but befuddled Joe Biden won’t. All of that is good for Trump.

Guilty as Hell and free as a bird

I’m Guilty as Hell and free as a bird. This is for the little people.

Here’s FBI Director Comey’s statement on his decision not to recommend Clinton’s indictment:

The GOP posted this advertisement on July 5th:

Shortly after Comey made his announcement, ABC hailed it as having “lifted a cloud” for Clinton and Obama. [All bold-face type is in the original at News Busters.]

In the moments following FBI Director James Comey’s announcement on Tuesday that Hillary Clinton should not face criminal charges for her private e-mail servers scandal, the cast assembled by ABC News hailed the “extraordinary decision” as “a momentous day” signaling that “a cloud is lifted” for Clinton to continue on with the presidential race and President Obama to give his own thoughts on the matter.

. . . .

Wrapping it all up, Stephanopoulos spun to Karl that “even though this report is kind of damning, the announcement of no indictment before that first joint campaign stop kind of clears the decks for [President Obama] as well.”

Karl gushed that “the timing is so extraordinary….to think you have that Air Force One on the tarmac ready to take them down to this first campaign appearance together, but this whole process has been a cloud hanging over the head of Hillary Clinton and her campaign so that cloud is lifted.”

“But as we pointed out — there’s so much bad here for Hillary Clinton. But ultimately when they get beyond this, they no longer have to have the possibility of an indictment,” he added.

According to a Rasmussen poll taken on the evening of July 5th,

37% of Likely U.S. Voters agree with the FBI’s decision. But 54% disagree and believe the FBI should have sought a criminal indictment of Clinton. Ten percent (10%) are undecided.

. . . .

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Democrats agree with Comey’s decision not to seek an indictment of their party’s presumptive presidential nominee. Seventy-nine percent (79%) of Republicans, 63% of voters not affiliated with either major political party and 25% of Democrats disagree with the decision. [Emphasis added.]

Director Comey has agreed to appear before the House Oversight Committee on July 7th to respond to questions about his decision not to indict Ms. Clinton.

The initial lamebrain media reaction was trumped by its own later reactions. The media picked up on Comey’s shredding of Clinton’s practices, particularly calling her “extremely careless” with classified information and refuting her talking points such as that she didn’t send or receive e-mail marked classified on her unsecured system.

The mainstream press across the dial commented on how this hurt Clinton’s campaign, played into the set narrative that she’s not trustworthy and called into question her judgment on matters of national security.

According to WaPo, a ~~member of the vast right-wing conspiracy~~ sycophantic long time advocate for Hillary,

THE BIG IDEA: Want to know why two-thirds of Americans do not consider Hillary Clinton trustworthy? Re-watch pretty much any public comment she’s made about her email use over the past 16 months and then watch James Comey’s speech yesterday.

The FBI director shredded so many of the talking points that the former Secretary of State and her top aides have used over and over again throughout this scandal, including that she never emailed classified material; that information in the emails was classified retroactively; that none of the emails were marked as containing classified information; that there were definitively no security breaches; that she turned over all work-related emails to the State Department; that the set-up was driven by convenience; and that the government was merely conducting “a security review.”

Rosalind Helderman, who has been covering this saga closely, writes that Comey “systematically dismantled” Clinton’s defenses. She juxtaposes Clinton quotes since last March against Comey quotes from yesterday. (Read her full piece here.)

— While Clinton dodged a legal bullet that could have been catastrophic to her candidacy, yesterday was neither vindication nor exoneration, and it certainly will not put the matter to rest. Instead, Comey’s declaration that she was “extremely careless” in handling classified material and should have known better will dog her through November. Though the FBI director said “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a criminal case against Clinton, his nearly 15-minute speech was tantamount to a political indictment.

Obama still maintains that Hilary is Great. Here’s what He said at a Clinton rally a couple of hours after the FBI decision not to recommend indictment had been announced.

I guess it all depends on what ~~sex~~ most “qualified” in history means. Please see also, Hillary is Best Qualified to Finish Imam Obama’s Work.

As noted by Michael Walsh at PJ Media,

A day after the Fourth of July, we’ve come to a new low in the history of the United States of America and of the criminal organization masquerading as a political party that has seized power . . . .

If on November 8th voters still remember the Clinton non-indictment and Director Comey’s remarks suggesting than anyone else would have been indicted — and it seems likely that Trump, et all will remind them — the impact should be significant.

Even if they don’t remember, at least Hillary will be the Democrat candidate and Joe Malaprop Biden won’t be. On July 5th, Allen West wrote,

Of course, the news cycle is completely dominated by FBI Director James Comey’s announcement yesterday recommending no criminal charges against Hillary Clinton. And my response is GREAT! I can’t thank Director Comey enough for coming to this decision. [Emphasis added.]

My concern has always been that Barack Obama would release the hounds on Mrs. Clinton and then push for his vice president, Joe Biden, to be the Democrat nominee. And then, to placate the far lefty socialists, who own the Democrat party, Obama would position Sen. Elizabeth Warren as Biden’s VP. That would be a really tough ticket to beat, since Joe Biden’s favorables, regardless of gaffes and such, are extremely high.

If the voters do remember or are adequately reminded, some NeverTrumpers may change their minds and vote for Trump; they should. A July 5th article at Maggie’s Farm posited,

Hillary Clinton is corrupt and corrupting of everyone she touches. President Obama has engaged in outrageous executive conduct so often as to be numbing. Those in powerful positions throughout this administration behave like lawless thugs and keep getting away with it. The courts have been packed with judges who find excuses to not enforce the laws or who create ones out of ideology contrary to intent. The major media shamelessly look away or cover up for the lawless and abusers, and seek every opportunity – or blow out of proportion every trivial thing – to damn opponents of the regime. Much of the Republicans in office lack the guts or integrity to fight back, outside of mewing noises.

Where does that leave us now?

The Tea Party movement occurred at a point in time between elections, and succeeded in electing many who promised to be better. Some have been. Many have been useless or become tools. Now, it is election time, and the demonstration we require is at the ballot box.

Donald Trump is far from the perfect leader. But, then it takes someone with gumption and determination who will not be intimidated to take on the rot that permeates our government and self-appointed ruling class. And, Trump is the only revolution we have available. [Emphasis added.]

Anyone deserves the end of our once-renowned Republic who stays home or turns coat or otherwise fails to stand up for recovering an America with basic laws and justice, an America which is not beholden to those who would exploit the government for self-aggrandizement or profits, an America with justice for all which does not favor the wealthy or powerful sycophants of state power. [Emphasis added.]

Donald Trump is not George Washington. But he’s the only revolution we have, and very probably our last chance. I have faith in the American people who will bring us back from tottering over the brink of ruination to make it work when Trump is elected. [Emphasis added.]

Get out and work for local candidates and for Trump. Otherwise, be part of the ruination. It’s that simple and brutal a truth.

Trump now has a very substantial chance of winning the November 8th election and the Hildabeast’s chances have diminished. For the “NeverTrumpers” and others who would otherwise vote for the Republican nominee either to stay home or to vote for the Hildebeast would be unconscionable. The nation might well not survive eight years of the Hildebeast, and the Republican Party almost certainly would not.

Don’t be “a day late and a dollar short.” Please.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDEkm4QBXb4

Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton e-mails, Democrats, Department of Justice, Donald Trump, FBI, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton indictment?, Law enforcement, Media, Never Trumpers, Obama and Hillary, Politics, U.S. Congress
Tags: Clinton e-mails, Democrats, Department of Justice, Donald Trump, FBI, Hillary Clinton indictmenr?, Law enforcement, Media, Never Trumpers, Obama and Hillary, Politics, U.S. Congress

Comments: 1 Comment

The FBI Interrogates Hillary Clinton at FBI Headquarters

July 2, 2016

The FBI Interrogates Hillary Clinton at FBI Headquarters, PJ Media, Debra Heine, July 2, 2016

Hillary FBI

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton marks the State Department’s observance of the first International Day of the Girl Child, Wednesday, Oct. 10, 2012, at the State Department in Washington.(AP Photo/Cliff Owen)

The Clinton campaign has long characterized the FBI investigation as a “security review” or “security inquiry” in order to downplay the severity of the probe. In what PJ Media’s J. Christian Adams interpreted as a very bad sign, Attorney General Loretta Lynch recently used the same language, calling it a “security inquiry.” But FBI Director James Comey said he wasn’t familiar with such language, saying in May, “we’re conducting an investigation… That’s what we do.”

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

Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton was questioned by the FBI for over three hours Saturday over her use of a private email server for official correspondence while secretary of state. The meeting — characterized as “voluntary” because there was no subpoena — lasted about three and a half hours according to reports, and was conducted at the FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Clinton “is pleased to have had the opportunity to assist the Department of Justice in bringing this review to a conclusion” campaign spokesman Nick Merrill said in a statement. He also said Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, will not make further comment about the interview.Clinton’s use of the private server and email address — particularly whether the setup was used for classified information and how secure they were — has cast a shadow over her campaign from the start.

The FBI investigation is purportedly coming to a close, and the Clinton interview is considered among the final steps in the case.

The Clinton campaign has long characterized the FBI investigation as a “security review” or “security inquiry” in order to downplay the severity of the probe. In what PJ Media’s J. Christian Adams interpreted as a very bad sign, Attorney General Loretta Lynch recently used the same language, calling it a “security inquiry.” But FBI Director James Comey said he wasn’t familiar with such language, saying in May, “we’re conducting an investigation… That’s what we do.”

“She is the main subject — we believe with good reason — of a criminal investigation here,” said former FBI Assistant Director Steve Pomerantz on Fox News today. “And this interview — interrogation if you will — is the culmination of that lengthy investigation.”

Pomerantz said, “the agents who conducted this interview have prepared for weeks, if not months, and have a list of questions very long to ask her. It’s an adversarial process.” He continued, “these agents — if you’ll excuse the terminology — they want to sweat her. They want to get her under pressure, and they want to get answers to tough questions that they have.”

The former G-man added, “this is not a pleasant process for her.”

The ongoing email scandal blew up earlier this week when Bill Clinton initiated a meeting with Lynch on her airplane on an airport tarmac in Phoenix, prompting calls for Lynch to recuse herself. “There’s no good reason for her to have met with him. None. Zip,” said former U.S. Attorney Joseph DiGenova during an interview with The Daily Caller.

Categories: 2016 elections, Department of Justice, FBI, Hillary Clinton indictment?
Tags: Department of Justice, FBI, Hillary Clinton indictment?

Comments: Be the first to comment

Halperin: Lynch Won’t Recuse Herself or Apologize for Meeting With Clinton

July 1, 2016

Halperin: Lynch Won’t Recuse Herself or Apologize for Meeting With Clinton, Washington Free Beacon, David Rutz, July 1, 2016

Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin reported Friday that Loretta Lynch will not recuse herself from the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server and reserves the right to overrule the guidance of prosecutors and FBI investigators.

Lynch set off a political firestorm this week when it was revealed she met privately with former president Bill Clinton on her plane in Phoenix, Arizona. She insisted repeatedly their conversation was innocent, but both sides of the aisle decried the appearances of their discussion. The New York Times reported Friday that she would accept recommendations by the FBI and career prosecutors over whether to file charges against Clinton, but Halperin’s revelation elaborates on that story:

Attorney General Loretta Lynch is reserving the right to overrule prosecutors and FBI investigators on whether to bring charges after their probe into Hillary Clinton’s personal e-mail server, but she is strongly inclined to follow their recommendation, a Justice Department official said.

The attorney general will discuss the inquiry during an appearance at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado on Friday, according to the official, who asked not to be identified in advance of Lynch’s comments that are aimed at reaffirming that she will follow usual Justice Department practices. News of a private meeting between the attorney general and former President Bill Clinton sparked rebukes from Republicans and concern among some Democrats about perceptions of impropriety.

Because Lynch will stop short of recusing herself, debate may continue over whether she will exert influence over the case as an appointee of President Barack Obama, who has endorsed Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid. The New York Times reported earlier that Lynch would accept whatever recommendation career prosecutors and the FBI director made, and a Justice Department official confirmed the gist of that report to Bloomberg News but later clarified Lynch’s intentions.

In a clip flagged by Breitbart on Morning Joe, Halperin said the DOJ official was “playing down that this is anything new” and that Lynch wouldn’t apologize for her meeting.

“Quote, she’s not recusing herself, she’s not stepping aside, and does not expect that the Attorney General today will say it was a mistake to meet with Bill Clinton for 20 or 30 minutes privately,” Halperin said.

He said the logic was “confusing” for her to be in a half-way position of being in the chain while still saying she would likely accept recommendations.

“She’s turned this over to [James] Comey now, and again, that’s just not good news for the Clintons on any front,” MSNBC host Joe Scarborough said.

Categories: Bill Clinton, Department of Justice, Hillary Clinton indictment?
Tags: Bill Clinton, Department of Justice, Hillary Clinton indictment?

Comments: 2 Comments

Freedom of Speech is not Free; it is Beyond Price

June 26, 2016

Freedom of Speech is not Free; it is Beyond Price, Dan Miller’s Blog, June 25, 2016

(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

Accurate speech, considered “Islamophobic” or otherwise offensive to some, is now deemed “hateful” and punishable under distorted visions of law or university rules. So, apparently is the mention of God. Sometimes, those who dare to speak are silenced before they even begin.

The First Amendment provides,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Congress is not permitted to ignore the First Amendment, but the U.S. Airforce and other government entities appear to have done so. Recently, Senior Master Sergeant Oscar Rodriguez, Jr. (ret.) was forcibly removed from a private retirement ceremony at an Air Force base because he was about to deliver his flag folding speech. The retiree had heard the speech previously and had asked Rodriguez to deliver it.

When Roberson’s unit commander discovered that Rodriguez would be delivering the flag-folding speech, which mentions “God,” during the ceremony, he attempted to prevent Rodriguez from attending. After learning that he lacked authority to prevent Rodriguez from attending, the commander then told Roberson that Rodriguez could not give the speech. Rodriguez asked Roberson what he should do, and Roberson responded that it was his personal desire that Rodriguez give the flag-folding speech as planned. . . .

Roberson and Rodriguez tried to clear the speech through higher authorities at Travis Air Force Base, even offering to place notices on the door informing guests that the word “God” would be mentioned. They never received a response from the authorities. As an Air Force veteran himself, Rodriguez stood firm on his commitment to Roberson. [Emphasis added.]

Here is the speech, as Rodriguez had given it previously:

What an offensive word! True, it’s in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, but that’s gotta go. Thought experiment: what if Rodriguez had said “Allah” rather than “God?” Might that have been viewed as sufficiently inclusive to be acceptable? Why not? In its “unredacted” version of the Islamist Orlando shooter’s phone calls, the Department of Justice translated “Allah” into “God.” The DOJ probably didn’t want to hurt Islamists’ feelings by suggesting that the Obama administration thinks that Allah and hence Islamists have anything to do with terrorism.

Are we just beginning to enter a new age of fascism? No, we are already well into it.

Here’s a Bill Whittle segment about Obama, Guns, Islam and Orlando

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas-linked “civil rights” organization, recently published an “Islamophobia” report. In Obama’s America, CAIR and its Islamist affiliates are the Government’s principal “go to” organizations for ~~limiting~~ access to the Muslim community in “countering violent extremism” efforts and during investigations of terror incidents.

According to CAIR, “Islamophobic” utterances are “hate speech;” it has provided a list of “Islamophobes” and their organizations. Below are comments about the list by Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a reformist Muslim. He, as well as The Clarion Project (also an advocate for Islamic reform), are on CAIR’s list of “Islamophobes.”

Europe and its Western culture, and now to a somewhat lesser extent our own American culture (such as it is) are being surrendered to Islam. Allied with government authorities, our leftist “friends” are in the forefront of the war on free speech.

[I]n recent years, we’ve witnessed an unrelenting assault on free speech with a concerted effort by the regressive Left to curtail thought and restrict the free exchange of ideas. Last week, I wrote about campus terrorism and how conservatives and others who maintain views that are inconsistent with the leftist narrative have been subjected to campaigns of harassment and abuse by campus hooligans.

Often university officials are apathetic, turning a blind eye to these transgressions, while in other universities the administration is complicit by instructing campus police to stand down, allowing the agitators free reign to shut down speaking engagements through use of bullying tactics. In at least two instances, university presidents were forced to issue rather craven apologies to an alliance of leftists and Islamists for having the temerity to defend the right to free speech.

This disturbing trend of muzzling free speech has now substantially broadened to include criminalizing speech that issues challenges to the so-called science of climate change. Some seventeen left-leaning state attorneys general have launched investigative and intrusive probes against Exxon Mobil and conservative groups because of their involvement in debunking alarmist claims of imminent doom issued by hysterical climate change proponents.

The ringleaders of this anti-free speech witch hunt include Eric Schneiderman (D-New York) and Claude Walker (I-Virgin Islands). At a recent speech at the Bloomberg’s Big Law Business Summit, Schneiderman was dismissive of his critics, accusing them of “First Amendment opportunism.” The more he spoke the more he sounded like Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey’s thuggish dictator who utilized the vast resources of the state to silence anyone who disagreed with him. [Emphasis added.]

I wish I could laugh at the next video. It’s funny in a way, but also deadly serious.

As the “best and brightest” from our top universities come of age and control “our” government, will the First Amendment be their principal target for destruction? Or will they also pursue with unabated vigor their war on the Second Amendment? Here is the text of the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Our British cousins just voted to leave the European Union to restore democracy at home.

For my final broadcast to the nation on the eve of Britain’s Independence Day, the BBC asked me to imagine myself as one of the courtiers to whom Her Majesty had recently asked the question, “In one minute, give three reasons for your opinion on whether my United Kingdom should remain in or leave the European Union.”

My three reasons for departure, in strict order of precedence, were Democracy, Democracy, and Democracy. For the so-called “European Parliament” is no Parliament. It is a mere duma. It lacks even the power to bring forward a bill, and the 28 faceless, unelected, omnipotent Kommissars – the official German name for the shadowy Commissioners who exercise the supreme lawmaking power that was once vested in our elected Parliament – have the power, under the Treaty of Maastricht, to meet behind closed doors to override in secret any decision of that “Parliament” at will, and even to issue “Commission Regulations” that bypass it altogether. [Emphasis added.]

Rather like our own distended Federal and State bureaucracies.

I concluded my one-minute broadcast with these words: “Your Majesty, with my humble duty, I was born in a democracy; I do not live in one; but I am determined to die in one.” [Emphasis added.]

And now I shall die in one. In the words of William Pitt the Younger after the defeat of Napoleon, “England has saved herself by her exertions, and will, as I trust, save Europe by her example.”

. . . .

The people have spoken. And the democratic spirit that inspired just over half the people of Britain to vote for national independence has its roots in the passionate devotion of the Founding Fathers of the United States to democracy. Our former colony showed us the way. Today, then, an even more heartfelt than usual “God bless America!” [Emphasis added.]

I am less than sanguine that we remain as deserving of the high praise the author offers. In any event, we have another version of Brexit coming up in November. Will we be as brave and as far-sighted as our founding fathers were long ago and as the Brits were a couple of days ago?

Quo vadis?

Categories: Academia, BREXIT, Britain, Christianity, Clash of civilizations, Democracy, Department of Justice, European Union, Fascism, Federal Government, First Amendment, Gun control, Hate speech, Islam - submission, Islam and terrorism, Islamic reformation, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Leftists, Obama, Obama's America, U.S. Military, Zuhdi Jasser
Tags: Academia, BREXIT, Britain, Christianity, Clash of civilizations, Democracy, Department of Justice, Euroean Union, Fascism, Federal Government, First Amendment, Gun control, Hate speech, Islam - submission, Islam and terrorism, Islamic reformation, Islamists in America, Islamophobia, Leftists, Obama, Obama's America, U.S. military, Zuhdi Jasser

Comments: Be the first to comment

Do Loretta Lynch’s Ties with ‘Muslim Advocates’ Org Explain Her Whitewash of Orlando?

June 23, 2016

Do Loretta Lynch’s Ties with ‘Muslim Advocates’ Org Explain Her Whitewash of Orlando? PJ Media, J. Christian Adams, June 22, 2016

(The entire “homeland security” operation, a.k.a. “Countering Violent Extremism,” is reliant on CAIR and related groups. — DM)

muslim-advocates-2.sized-770x415xt

Top Justice Department officials, including Attorney General Loretta Lynch, have worked with an organization dedicated to interfering with law enforcement efforts to monitor activities at the most radical mosques.

Lynch and DOJ Civil Rights Division head Vanita Gupta have appeared at gala events for an organization called Muslim Advocates. The George Soros-funded charity has badgered the New York City Police Department away from monitoring the most radical mosques in the city.

The organization is also responsible for rewriting training materials for federal law enforcement to decouple the role of radical Islam from terrorist acts. An inter-agency working group comprised of multiple federal law enforcement agencies in 2014 adopted this whitewash urged by Muslim Advocates.

The DOJ’s short-lived effort to airbrush Islam out of the 911 tapes from Orlando shows you how far they will go to twist the truth about what is causing these attacks. I appeared on Fox and Friends today to discuss the organization and the latest. (Video here).

Categories: Department of Justice, Homeland Security, Islamic terrorism, Islamophobia, Muslim Advocates Org., Orlando massacre
Tags: Department of Justice, Homeland Security, Islamic terrorism, Islamophobia, Muslim Advocaes Org., Orlando massacre

Comments: Be the first to comment

Archives