Displaying posts published in

October 2016

Undercover Video: Democrats Caused Violence at Trump Rallies “Conflict engagement” means paying leftist agitators, the homeless and the mentally ill, to cause melees at Trump rallies. Matthew Vadum

The frequent outbursts of violence at Republican candidate Donald Trump’s campaign rallies have been orchestrated and paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign, a stunning new undercover video suggests.

Why isn’t the mainstream media apart from Fox News covering this new scandal? Perhaps because reporters overwhelmingly support Hillary Clinton in the election. In terms of dollars donated to the Clinton and Trump campaigns, journalists favor Clinton by a factor of 27 to 1. They’ve given more than $382,000 to Clinton’s campaign compared to just $14,000 to Trump’s campaign, according to the Center for Public Integrity.

This newly revealed Reichstag fire of a plot by Democrats at the highest levels is “a direct assault on democracy and the rule of law,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) told Sean Hannity on Fox News Channel last night. “This is a hundred times bigger than Watergate.”

Gingrich may be on to something. Thanks to the video provided by Project Veritas Action, Americans will now be able to see that the Left has been running a clandestine operation against Trump for some time now.

The idea was to concoct evidence that Trump supporters were crazy, knuckle-dragging thugs in order to discredit the billionaire businessman’s campaign for president. Many left-wingers already call Trump a fascist or a Nazi so creating the appearance at Trump rallies that the candidate’s supporters are violent put some meat on the bone, so to speak. It’s the Big Lie American-style, a huge false-flag operation generated by a real-life vast left-wing conspiracy.

This, of course, is what the Left does. Its agenda-setters dislike stories that deviate from their preferred narrative. They will lie and distort in order to shoehorn events to support their worldview. This is why Americans were told over and over again that the Tea Party movement was violent and dangerous, while Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street are gentle and benign. This is why we are told Republicans are greedy, heartless, and racist, while Democrats are selfless, compassionate, and color-blind.

In the video, Americans United for Change (AUfC) operative Scott Foval is shown on camera saying, “One of the things we do is we stage very authentic grassroots protests right in their faces at their own events. Like, we infiltrate.”

Vassar College’s Propagandists for Hamas “Resistance is not Terrorism.”

Last night the Freedom Center’s poster campaign to expose the links between campus anti-Israel activists and Hamas terrorists targeted the terrorist-supporting network at Vassar College. Vassar is the smallest campus on the Center’s list of “Top Ten Schools Supporting Terrorists,” but one of the most extreme in its advocacy of the genocidal claims of Students for Justice in Palestine and the BDS movement against Israel.

Vassar College supports a highly active Hamas-inspired and funded boycott movement that successfully passed a BDS resolution on campus last spring. BDS is a toxic movement that even Hillary Clinton has denounced as anti-Semitic The Vassar chapter of SJP also distributed a pamphlet celebrating Omar Barghouti the founder of the BDS movement, which is a genocidal attempt orchestrated by terrorists to strangle the Jewish state. Vassar SJP celebrates terrorism by selling T-shirts picturing convicted anti-Israel terrorist Leila Khaled holding a gun with the words “Resistance is not Terrorism.” The chapter also posted a 1940’s era anti-Semitic Nazi graphic on social media.

The Freedom Center’s poster operation campaign identifies Students for Justice in Palestine as a campus front for Hamas terrorists and the Hamas intermediary American Muslims for Palestine (AMP). AMP was revealed in recent congressional testimony to be funneling terrorist dollars to Students for Justice in Palestine to support the Hamas-sponsored, anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign in America.

One of the posters features Vassar College Professor Joshua Schreier who is described on the poster as “SJP Supporter, BDS Supporter, Anti-Israel Activist.”

The posters are part of a larger Freedom Center campaign to Stop the Jew Hatred on Campus. The campaign is designed to confront the agents of campus anti-Semitism and expose the financial and organizational relationship between the terror group Hamas and Hamas support groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine. As part of the campaign, the Freedom Center has placed posters on several campuses including San Diego State University, Brooklyn College, San Francisco State University, and the University of California-Los Angeles. The campaign also recently released a report on the “Top Ten Schools Supporting Terrorists” which may be found on the campaign website, www.StoptheJewHatredonCampus.org. Vassar College is among the campuses listed in the Top Ten report. The section of the report demonstrating Vassar College’s support of anti-Israel terrorists follows below.

Seven Clinton Policy Priorities That Would Devastate America Staring at years 9 to 12 of the Obama administration. John Perazzo

If Hillary Clinton is elected president, she will seek to move the country in the same hard-left direction as Barack Obama. This article focuses on seven Clinton policy priorities that will have the most devastating impact on the American people.

1. Importing 65,000 Syrian “Refugees”

In order to address “the worst refugee crisis since the end of World War II,” Mrs. Clinton has explicitly called for bringing some 65,000 refugees from Syria into the United States as quickly as possible. This represents a 550% increase over Barack Obama’s 2016 goal of 10,000 Syrian refugees, which Clinton describes as merely a “good start.”

Clinton is committed to this reckless policy even though ISIS has vowed to infiltrate the flow of Syrian refugees with its own bloodthirsty operatives; even though more than 30,000 illegal immigrants from “countries of terrorist concern” entered the United States through America’s Southwestern border with Mexico in 2015 alone; and even though high-ranking officials like FBI Director James Comey, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, CIA Director John Brennan, and FBI Deputy Assistant Director Michael Steinbach have all made it clear that it is impossible to reliably screen out terrorists who could be posing as refugees.

2. Amnesty & Open Borders

Mrs. Clinton vows to “introduce comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to full and equal citizenship” within her first 100 days in office, and pledges to “go even further” than the two unconstitutional executive orders (DACA and DAPA) by which President Obama has already protected millions of illegal aliens from deportation. It is all part of the Democrats’ long-term master plan to transform the American electorate into a permanent Democrat voting bloc by importing massive numbers of people who can be counted upon to support the political party that offers them the largest number of welfare-state benefits. Clinton also supports what she terms “a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders.” And she smears those people who wish to enforce immigration law as “obstructionists” whose “backward-looking” mindset is “fundamentally un-American.”

3. Sanctuary Cities

Clinton unequivocally supports the “sanctuary” policies that bar police officers and other public-sector employees in some 340 U.S. cities from notifying the federal government about the presence of illegal aliens residing in their communities. Though sanctuary policies have turned hundreds of U.S. cities into very dangerous places, Clinton explains that without such arrangements, “people from the immigrant community … may not talk” to police who are trying to solve crimes there because “they think you’re also going to be enforcing the immigration laws.” As Xochitl Hinojosa, a Clinton presidential campaign director, puts it: “Hillary Clinton believes that sanctuary cities can help further public safety, and she has defended those policies going back years.”

Exxon Fighting Back Against Dem AG Climate Change Witch Hunters By Rick Moran

Exxon is fighting back against subpoenas filed by 16 state attorneys general who accuse the company of state securities violations and consumer fraud in their views on climate change.

Last Thursday, the company won a significant victory in Massachusetts. And now they’ve filed an injunction request, accusing the AGs of mounting a“coordinated effort to silence and intimidate one side of the public policy debate on how to address climate change.”

Washington Times:

The filing represents a more aggressive approach for Exxon, which has fought the Massachusetts civil investigative demand while cooperating with the New York subpoena issued last year, turning over more than 1 million documents so far.

Since then, however, the oil and gas giant has gained the upper hand in court, most recently with Thursday’s ruling by a federal judge ordering Ms. Healey to submit to discovery over concerns about her “bad faith” in pursuing the investigation.

The order could allow Exxon to obtain emails, phone records and other internal communications related to her probe.

“Attorney General Healey’s actions leading up to the issuance of the [civil investigative demand] causes the Court concern and presents the Court with the question of whether Attorney General Healey issued the CID with bias or prejudgment about what the investigation of Exxon would discover,” U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade said in his order.

His ruling cited concerns about the “anticipatory nature” of her statements, including her comments at a March 29 press conference with former Vice President Al Gore and 16 other attorneys general announcing the launch of a joint prosecutorial effort called AGs United for Clean Power targeting fossil-fuel companies and their supporters.

At the press event, Ms. Healy vowed to combat climate change in her role as an elected official and said that “[f]ossil fuel companies that deceived investors and consumers about the dangers of climate change should be, must be, held accountable.”

In its Monday filing in federal court in Fort Worth, Texas, Exxon said the Democrats “are incapable of serving as “disinterested prosecutors required by the Constitution” as a result of their “improper political bias.”

“Attorney General Schneiderman has publicly accused Exxon Mobil of engaging in a ‘massive securities fraud’ without any basis whatsoever, and Attorney General Healey declared, before her investigation even began, that she knew how it would end: with a finding that Exxon Mobil violated the law,” Exxon said in the amended complaint.

Ms. Healey and Mr. Schneiderman have defended their investigations as legitimate inquiries into whether Exxoncommitted fraud by misleading the public about its climate change research.

Project Veritas: Political Operatives Describe Clinton Camp and DNC Plot to Incite Violence at Trump Rallies By Debra Heine

A new Project Veritas investigation confirms our worst suspicions about the DNC/Clinton campaign collusion behind violent protests that have been “bird-dogging” Trump at so many of his rallies. “Bird-dogging” is a practice where trained left-wing activists infiltrate Republican rallies and try to provoke violence. WikiLeaks in July published DNC emails that showed DNC involvement with these anti-Donald Trump protests. The extent of the DNC and Clinton campaign’s involvement and the dark money funding the anti-Trump violence has not been made plain until now.

A shady coordinated communications chain between the DNC, Clinton Campaign, Hillary Clinton’s Super PAC (Priorities) and other organizations are revealed. A key Clinton operative is on camera saying, “It doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherf*cker.”

In James O’Keefe’s explosive undercover video, you hear a Democrat operative describe a text-messaging chain of communications about the protests between the Clinton campaign, Democracy Partners and other super PACs that they call “the Pony Express.” These communications may be illegal or even criminal, legal experts say.

The video features one of the most nefarious creatures of the organized left — convicted felon Bob Creamer, the Alinskyite agitator husband of Illinois Socialist Democrat Rep. Jan Schakowsky. Creamer has been a frequent visitor to the Obama White House.

He now heads up an organization called Democracy Partners, a group with deep ties to the Clinton campaign as well as to Barack Obama’s White House and the DNC. “Wherever Trump and Pence are, we are going to have events, and we have a whole team across the country that does that,” Creamer said. “Both consultants, and people from the Democratic party and the Democratic party apparatus and people from the campaign — the Clinton campaign” are involved with the effort, he added.

The narrative that they have endeavored to project — which has been picked up and disseminated by the mainstream media — is that the people at Trump rallies are violent crazies. The truth is — and has always been — that left-wing agitators protesting Trump are the violent crazies. And I mean that quite literally.

Scott Foval, another nefarious actor, actually said on tape, “We have mentally ill people that we pay to do sh*t — make no mistake.”

A Month of Islam and Multiculturalism in Britain: by Soeren Kern

“Sharia councils are thriving because there is no other authentic and credible mechanism for Muslim women to obtain an Islamic divorce. If the government offered an alternative, 90% of the work of sharia councils would end.” — Moulana Raza, Director of the Muslim Law Council UK.

Peter Sutcliffe, who was convicted in 1981 of murdering 13 women and attempting to kill seven more, has faced daily death threats since arriving at Frankland Prison. Muslim gang members have offered to protect him, but only if he converts to Islam. They told Sutcliffe that changing faith will also allow him access to a special diet, more time out of his cell and the right to refuse certain types of prison work.

Kamran Ahmed, 27, was sentenced to ten years in prison for raping a 12-year-old girl. Ahmed, a Pakistani man who moved to the UK to wed a British-born woman in an arranged marriage, had been in the country less than six months when he raped the girl after trying to groom her for sex.

“Take off your tight jeans or you’re going to burn in hell, kafir [unbeliever]. I’m going to follow you home and blow up your house.” — Krissoni Henderson, a 31-year-old Muslim bodyguard.

“If they arrest me and put me in prison, I will carry on in prison. I will radicalize everyone in prison.” — Anjem Choudary, sentenced to five years, six months in prison for activities supporting Islamic State.

“There is only one punishment for insulters: cut off their heads, cut off their heads, cut off their heads.” — Tanveer Ahmed, 32, who murdered a Glasgow shopkeeper for “disrespecting Islam,” calling on supporters to behead other “insulters.”

Home Office statistics released to the Daily Express under Freedom of Information laws revealed that 12,000 migrants seeking asylum in the UK are missing.

September 1. A team of University of Oxford sociologists published a paper about why young, highly educated Muslim women who live in modern urban environments are choosing to wear Islamic veils. The report says that in social situations in which Muslim women mix with non-Muslim friends, work outside the home or interact with strangers, they may wear the veil as “a signal to others in their community to show that mixing with others does not compromise their religious piety.” Veils may also be used “to strengthen their own sense of commitment to their faith and its values in a secular world.” The report says that efforts by Western governments to ban the veil in public might be counterproductive because it would “deprive Muslim women from integrating.” It suggests that if they cannot signal their piety through wearing the veil, they might be forced to stay at home.

Obama Quietly Empowers Iran’s Military by Majid Rafizadeh

This sanctions relief not only gives legitimacy to the Revolutionary Guards globally, but emboldens and empowers Iran’s elite military unit by allowing them legally to conduct business and transfer money.

Many Iranian companies are owned by senior figures from Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and judiciary who have been involved in crimes against humanity, violating international laws, breaching UN resolutions, money laundering and monstrous human rights violations. Nevertheless, the new sanctions relief allows foreign companies to do business with them without repercussions.

Furthermore, the Obama administration secretly agreed to remove sanctions on several Iranian banks, including banks have long been sanctioned by the UN due to their illegal activities in missile financing and skirting UN security resolutions regarding the arms embargo.

Iranian leaders have become cognizant of the fact that their hardball political tactics pay off very well with President Obama. They continue to obtain concessions from President Obama even in his last few months in office. They see that intransigence works with the White House, and that threatening the U.S. will lead to Obama offering more concessions to Iran. For Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), giving concessions means weakness.

After a series of anti-American statements and lashing out at the U.S. by Ayatollah Khamenei, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Iran’s foreign minister Javad Zarif, the Obama administration eased more critical sanctions on Iran through new regulatory measures by the Treasury department.

The new measures, in loosening further sanctions against Iran, are critical, as they directly lift sanctions against powerful entities in Iran’s elite military unit, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The timing of the new sanctions reliefs is also intriguing: it was implemented quietly, right before the presidential debate and before the three-day holiday in Congress, probably in an attempt not to attract media attention or Congressional criticism.

Both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, have been extremely critical of the Obama administration’s continuing appeasement policies and loosening of sanctions against Iran.

According to the Treasury’s website, one of the new guidelines in easing crucial sanctions on Iran is:

“It is not necessarily sanctionable for a non-US person to engage in transactions with an entity that is not on the SDN (Specifically Designated Nations) List but that is minority owned, or that is controlled in whole or in part, by an Iranian or Iran-related person on the SDN List.”

Is poll-leading Hillary Clinton the Ghost Candidate? By Joseph Smith

No crowds, no sales, no signs, no inspiration. Something doesn’t add up.

Hillary Clinton is all but measuring the drapes for the Oval Office, but some things in this campaign don’t add up:

Trump supporter Wayne Allen Root paints Hillary Clinton as the political equivalent of the “ghost cities” of China that no one lives in:

This reminds me of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. She exists, but are there any real people behind her? Are you certain anyone is voting for her?

While Trump rallies are “once-in-a-lifetime experiences … like Woodstock for working-class conservatives,” Hillary is lucky to draw 200 people.

No one buys Hillary’s books or campaign gear, either. Root tells of a friend who found only Hillary gear at the airport gift shop and, on inquiring, was told that the Trump hats and shirts that come in twice a week are sold out “within hours.”

Hillary’s gear? They can’t give it away.

… This doesn’t appear odd to you? Hillary is leading in the polls, but no one attends her rallies, no one buys her books and no one buys her merchandise[.] … She is a candidate whose own supporters don’t like her.

… Hillary is the “Ghost Candidate.”

V.P. candidate Tim Kaine is equally uninspiring, drawing just fifty people to a rally last Friday in Miami. Mr. Kaine spoke from the back of a pickup truck with a street-art poster for a back drop, and the estimate of fifty attendees appears to include organizers, a few photographers, and at least two children well under voting age.

Yet Mr. Kaine may be one dizzy spell from the Oval Office.

Ed Klein, author of several books on the Obamas and the Clintons, has a column out on Mrs. Clinton’s maladies.

Mr. Klein reveals that President Obama and his senior adviser, Valerie Jarrett, “have been so worried about Hillary’s health that they recently offered to arrange a secret medical checkup for her.” Mrs. Clinton refused the offer, fearing that “a leak to the media would prove fatal to her presidential campaign.”

America’s Most Honorable Men Stand with Trump By Karin McQuillan and Carol Greenwald

When Hillary Clinton’s media tried to make Trump’s crude sexual banter the centerpiece of the last debate, Trump pivoted to national security and once again said how proud he is to be backed by 200 generals and admirals.

These are among America’s finest, bravest, most admirable men. Seventeen medal of honor winners endorsed Trump. So did fifteen brigadier generals, thirty-four major generals, eighteen lieutenant generals, forty-one rear admirals, six vice-admirals, and three 4 star generals and admirals.

Such men do not put their names down for a candidate and a cause without serious thought.

This is what they signed their names to on the choice between Hillary and Trump:

The 2016 election affords the American people an urgently needed opportunity to make a long-overdue course correction in our national security posture and policy. As retired senior leaders of America’s military, we believe that such a change can only be made by someone who has not been deeply involved with, and substantially responsible for, the hollowing out of our military and the burgeoning threats facing our country around the world.

For this reason, we support Donald Trump’s candidacy to be our next Commander-in-Chief.

For the past eight years, America’s armed forces have been subjected to a series of ill-considered and debilitating budget cuts, policy choices and combat operations that have left the superb men and women in uniform less capable of performing their vital missions in the future than we require them to be.

Simultaneously, enemies of this country have been emboldened, sensing weakness and irresolution in Washington and opportunities for aggression at our expense and that of other freedom-loving nations.

In our professional judgment, the combined effect is potentially extremely perilous. That is especially the case if our government persists in the practices that have brought us to this present pass.

For this reason, we support Donald Trump and his commitment to rebuild our military, to secure our borders, to defeat our Islamic supremacist adversaries and restore law and order domestically. We urge our fellow Americans to do the same.

This letter from our military leaders to the voting public was organized by Major General Shachnow.

Did Iran Launch Missiles at US Warships? By Stephen Bryen and Rear Admiral Norman Saunders

A big question surrounding missile attacks against two U.S. ships ( the USS Mason and USS Ponce) is whether it was the Yemeni rebel Houthis (also known as Ansar Allah) who did it? Or, instead, did Iran carry out the attacks? A related question is what were these U.S. ships doing near the Bab el-Mandab straits in the Red Sea? The Ponce is, admittedly, an at-sea forward staging base.

Iran has been harassing U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf for some time, and on each occasion the Iranians appear to have been bolder in what looks like a naval game of chicken. So much so that most recently Iranian fast boats equipped with missiles and torpedoes literally parked in front of the U.S. destroyer Nitze, forcing it to alter course to avoid a collision. But that is not nearly as serious the as events that unfolded starting on October 1st. Early in the morning the Houthis fired a C-802 missile that hit the HSV-2 Swift, a very fast and relatively large catamaran ship originally built by Incat in Australia. Acquired by the U.S. Navy in 2003, the Navy’s Sealift Command operated the vessel for ten years. Then it went out of service in 2013, replaced by another Incat-built catamaran. In an unusual move, in fact a strange one, the Sealift Command leased the Swift to a UAE organization called the National Marine Dredging Company. According to various news reports, the Swift was shuttling supplies and passengers between the UAE and Eritrea on the one hand and Aden on the other. So-called independent experts speaking on Iranian TV say that the Swift was moving troops from a training base in Eritrea to Aden, controlled by the Hadi government (Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi) backed by Saudi Arabia and its allies. According to Aden, the ship was evacuating wounded persons and bringing in humanitarian supplies.

The problem is that the Swift was nowhere near Aden. It was just off the coast of Houthi-controlled areas north of the Ban el-Mandab close to the Port of Mocha.

As acknowledged by the Houthis, they fired on the Swift and caused almost catastrophic damage. There is a video of the attack that appears to have been made from a small skiff. The video shows the missile launch and the missile hitting the target. The Swift is very close by. What follows is a terrific explosion and fire. The Swift did not sink, but it did burn. According to reports from some of the crew who survived the attack, another small boat fired at the survivors with a machine gun as they fled the Swift. The Houthis declared they used a C-802 missile to hit the Swift.