Skip to content

Bombshell: James Comey willfully LIED to America about Hillary Clinton criminal investigation after being pressured by Loretta Lynch

June 8, 2017


Source …..

Multiple, shocking revelations are now being learned from the James Comey testimony on Capitol Hill. First, the testimony hasn’t revealed a single shred of evidence to support the delusional conspiracy theory that claims “the Russians hacked the election” for Donald Trump. If anything, Comey’s testimony underscores the knowledge that the Russians are NOT engaged in any “siding” with Republicans or Democrats, and that the Russians are simply “opportunists” who want to defeat the United State of America on the global stage. To put this in context, the United States routinely interferes with elections of dozens of other nations and even “installs” political leaders through various CIA operations, including CIA-led coups and assassinations of foreign leaders.

Arguably the most shocking revelation to come from Comey’s testimony is the admission that Loretta Lynch pressures James Comey to lie to the American public about the criminal investigation into the Hillary Clinton campaign. As Comey admitted in sworn testimony, Lynch directly pressured him to avoid using the term “investigation” when publicly discussing the investigation. Instead, he was told to use the term “matter,” and he promptly agreed to use that term in order to distort the public perception of the severity of the criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton. (Don’t forget that Bill Clinton also secretly met with Loretta Lynch to pressure the DOJ to back off any real investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server fiasco.)

If this had happened on behalf of Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton, the entire mainstream media would immediately characterize it as “obstruction of justice.”

“Comey added later that he was concerned about that direction as it was false,” reports The Daily Caller. “He was further concerned because it aligned with the Clinton campaign’s spin on the investigation. He said he complied, however, because he believed the media wouldn’t buy into that take on it… Comey cited that pressure from Lynch to downplay the investigation as one of the reasons he held a press conference to recommend the Department of Justice not seek to indict Clinton.”

Hillary Clinton’s campaign routinely lied to America about the seriousness of the criminal investigation into her illegal email server, pattern of corruption, selling influence and collusion. Via the Daily Caller:

The Clinton campaign consistently sought to mislead the public by denying that Clinton was the subject of an FBI investigation. Instead, the campaign claimed the investigation was a simple “security inquiry.” Comey said he was concerned by Lynch’s pressure on him and the FBI to use the campaign’s spin, as it appeared it appeared that Lynch was intentionally trying to align the language the FBI was using to match the angle pushed by the Clinton campaign.

James Comey confirms he orchestrated “leak” of memo to embarrass President Trump

Also today, Comey confirmed he orchestrated the “leak” of his memo by using a close friend to funnel the memo to the press. As explained by

After his firing and this Trump tweet, Comey asked a close friend of his — Columbia law professor Daniel Richman — to leak the content of his memos to the media with the hope of triggering the appointment of a special counsel.


UPDATE 11:45 A.M. Comey’s open admission he orchestrated a potentially illegal leak puts him in serious potential trouble, the New York Times people note. That’s the story folks. He vindicated Trump, and implicated himself. Wow, what a day.

You may recall that I nailed all this back in May when I wrote a story titled Wait a sec… You mean James Comey wrote a memo to HIMSELF, then “leaked” it to the NYT?

In that story, I unraveled the “leaked memo” B.S. being pushed by the rabid left-wing media:

The latest “bombshell” news story from the New York Times — entitled Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation — is based entirely on a memo that James Comey wrote to himself, then “leaked” to the NYT.

If you wrote it yourself, it’s not exactly a “leak,” is it? It’s actually some words scribbled on a napkin, all of which may or may not be accurate about what was actually said at the meeting. For all we know, James Comey decided to scribble his silly memo the day after he got fired by Trump.

It has no credibility at all, in other words. James Comey wants to damage the Trump administration, so he jots down whatever lies he wants the NYT to publish, then he calls it a “memo.”

The fact that the Comey memo is being widely reported as a “leak” to the NYT underscores the fact that nobody in the establishment media knows what a “leak” really is. It’s not a leak if you wrote it yourself, obviously, unless the words leaked out of a hole in your head and spilled onto the memo pad.

Comey also confirmed that Donald Trump was never under investigation by the FBI, shutting down the entire fake news narrative of the lying left-wing media which has repeatedly insinuated that Trump has been under constant criminal investigation by the FBI.


CNN, AP caught staging fake news protest in London to help cover up radical terrorism attack

June 8, 2017


Source …..

Once again the so-called “mainstream media” has been caught producing content that is specifically tailored to suit a pre-ordained political narrative, rather than just reporting on what is.

Both CNN and The Associated Press were caught staging a “protest” involving alleged anti-ISIS Muslims in Britain on the heels of the latest radical Islamic terrorist attack in the country’s capital of London over the weekend — this one again involving a vehicle-borne assault in which three terrorists ran down and stabbed scores of people, killing seven.

As reported by The National Sentinel, screenshots of video produced by bystanders and suspicious British media figures, then shared on social media, clearly show that the so-called protest by a handful of non-radicalized Muslims was an attempt to support the narrative that hey, not all Muslims are violent and evil (as if anyone but the Left has actually been suggesting that).

Both CNN and the AP were seen using the same small group of Muslims, and in each instance, were billing the protests as separate and spontaneous. But a closer examination of the photos shows that the people involved are the same.

In this screen grab, notice the man in the middle with green around his neck, and the other ‘demonstrator’ to the right of him with the beard; they are also in AP’s photo:

The top photo shows that the “protest” was clearly staged. The following video, posted by Mark Antro on Twitter, showing the CNN crew staging the protest:


British columnist and media personality Katie Hopkins also spotted the fakery and alerted her Twitter followers:

One follower wrote that it was almost like renting people of a certain ethnicity and faith in order to prove a point, and frankly, it’s hard to argue that.

There are additional examples tied to this particular story but you get the drift: It’s just the latest attempt by political hacks in the “mainstream” media pretending to be journalists in order to put forth a certain point of view that otherwise may not exist, at least in the way it’s being portrayed.

Given the fact that London has a Muslim mayor who was democratically elected certainly supports the contention by the AP and CNN that “not all Muslims are radical terrorists,” given that Sadiq Khan is no radical himself.

Got it.

But why do you have to manufacture a Muslim anti-ISIS “demonstration” if anti-ISIS sentiment among Britain’s Muslim population is strong? Wouldn’t such demonstrations just begin spontaneously? (RELATED: New watchdog website seeks to counter Left-wing extremism and fake news in the “mainstream”)

Of course they would, and that’s the point. But here is the mainstream media making something up again to support their personal political perspective.

What should also be noted is that this staged demonstration came just hours after the latest terrorist attack in a city and a country that is suffering more than their share of them. It’s like as soon as London authorities announced they had enough evidence to support the allegation that the attack was carried out by radicalized jihadists with loyalty to ISIS, the disgusting media jumped into action to mitigate the impact of the attack — and those killed in injured in it — with a counter-narrative that sought to avert everyone’s attention from what they know to be true: Britain has a radicalized Islam problem.

As we saw by the reaction to the staged protest, not all British media types are supportive of the fakery. And some British citizens are also trying to convince the British to get their heads out of the sand and understand that separating the violence from the Islamic faith is folly.

One of them is a one-time Islamic radical himself, Maajid Nawaz, a former leader of the UK branch of the hardline Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir (HuT). As reported by Breitbart News, he told a radio audience on London’s LBC radio in the wake of the Saturday attack to “stop pretending” that violence and terrorism are new to Islam.

“When the prophet Mohammad said, ‘I have been ordered to fight the people until they declare there is no god but God and Muhammad is his messenger,’ that’s clearly got something to do with violence, doesn’t it?” he asked one caller, who responded that he would have to know the context of the sentence before deciding.

“Ok, So let’s agree that context is important,” Maajid responded. “Interpretation is important, but let’s not pretend it’s got nothing to do with violence because making the argument that we need context acknowledges that we’re having a discussion about violence and placing violence in its context within Islam. That’s different to saying violence has got nothing to do with Islam.”

Unless it’s fake news.


All We Need Is Love … and Deportations

June 8, 2017

Ann Coulter


Source …..

In Britain, as in the U.S., when an Islamic terrorist is said to be, “known to law enforcement,” the translation is: “He is being actively ignored by law enforcement.”

After the latest terrorist attack in Britain — at least as of this writing — Prime Minister Theresa May bravely announced, “Enough is enough!”

What is the point of these macho proclamations after every terrorist attack? Nothing will be done to stop the next attack. Political correctness prohibits us from doing anything that might stop it.

Poland doesn’t admit Muslims: It has no terrorism. Japan doesn’t admit Muslims: It has no terrorism. The United Kingdom and the United States used to have very few Muslims: They used to have almost no terrorism. (One notable exception was chosen as the National Freedom Hero in this year’s Puerto Rican parade in New York!)

Notwithstanding the lovely Muslim shopkeeper who wouldn’t hurt a fly, everyone knows that with every tranche of peace-loving Muslims we bring in, we’re also getting some number of stone-cold killers.

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair dumped millions of Third World Muslims on Britain to force “multiculturalism” on the country. Now Britons are living with the result. Since the 9/11 attack, every U.S. president has done the same. President Bush admitted Muslim immigrants at a faster pace after 9/11 than we had been doing before 9/11.

Whatever the 9/11 attackers intended to accomplish, I bet they didn’t expect that.

Now we can’t get rid of them. Under the rules of political correctness, Western countries are prohibited from even pausing our breakneck importation of Muslims, much less sending the recent arrivals home.

In defense of the poor saps responding to every terrorist attack with flowers, candles and hashtags, these are people who have no ability to do anything else. Western leaders are in full possession of the tools to end Islamic terrorism in their own countries, just as their forebears once ended Nazi Stormtroopers.

Unable to summon the backbone to defeat the current enemy, the West is stuck constantly reliving that glorious time when they whipped the Nazis. In almost every Western country — except the one with an increasingly beleaguered First Amendment — it’s against the law to deny the Holocaust.

Are we really worried about a resurgence of Nazism? Isn’t Islamic terrorism a little higher on our “immediate problems” list? How about making it illegal to make statements in support of ISIS, al-Qaida, female genital mutilation, Sharia law or any act of terrorism?

The country with a First Amendment can’t do that — the most that amendment allows us to do is ban conservative speakers from every college campus in the nation.

But if our elected representatives really cared about stopping the next terrorist attack, instead of merely “watching” those on the “watch” list, they’d deport them.

To this day, we have a whole office at the Department of Justice dedicated to finding and deporting Nazis even without proof they personally committed crimes against Jews. But we can’t manage to deport hearty young Muslims who post love notes to ISIS on their Facebook pages.

If the Clinton administration had merely enforced laws on the books against an Afghani immigrant, Mir Seddique Mateen, and excluded him based on his arm-length list of terrorist affiliations, his son Omar wouldn’t have been around to slaughter 49 people at an Orlando nightclub last year.

If Secretary of State John Kerry, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson or anyone else in our vaunted immigration vetting system had done his job, Pakistani Tashfeen Malik never would have been admitted to this country to commit mass murder in San Bernardino a year after she arrived. Before being warmly welcomed by the U.S., Malik’s social media posts were bristling with hatred of America and enthusiasm for jihad.

We’re already paying a battery of FBI agents to follow every Muslim refugee around the country. When they find out that one of them lists his hobby as “jihad,” we need them to stop watching and start deporting.

Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, the rest of the useless GOP — and obviously every Democrat — have the blood of the next terrorist attack on their hands if they don’t make crystal clear that admiring remarks about Islamic terrorism is a deportable act.

But they won’t do it. That’s “not who we are,” as Ryan famously said.

True, most Muslims are peaceful. Guess what? Most Nazis were peaceful! We didn’t knock ourselves out to admit as many of them as we could, screening out only the Nazis convicted of mass murder.

Before we were even formally involved in World War II, the FBI was all over the German American Bund. No one worried about upsetting our German neighbors. (Perhaps because they knew these were Germans and wouldn’t start bombing things and shooting people.)

But today, our official position is: Let’s choose love so as not to scare our Muslim neighbors. Isn’t that precisely what we want to do? Facing an immobile government, two British men — by which I mean British men — were sentenced to PRISON for putting bacon on a mosque in Bristol last year. One died in prison just after Christmas, an ancient religious holiday recently replaced by Ramadan.

If we can’t look askance at Muslims without committing a hate crime, can’t we at least stop admitting ever more “refugees,” some percentage of whom are going to be terrorists and 100 percent of whom will consume massive amounts of government resources?

No, that’s “not who we are.”

Until any Western leader is willing to reduce the number of Muslims in our midst, could they spare us the big talk? “We surrender” would at least have the virtue of honesty.


Top intel chief shoots down Washington Post scoop

June 8, 2017

Garth Kant


Source …..

The nation’s top intelligence official essentially shot down a bombshell report that President Trump tried to interfere in the FBI’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election and possible collusion by his associates with Moscow.

Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats testified before the Senate Intelligence committee on Wednesday morning that, “In my time of service, which is interacting with the president of the United States or anybody in his administration, I have never been pressured, I’ve never felt pressure to intervene or interfere in any way with shaping intelligence in a political way or in relationship to an ongoing investigation.”

Coats initially declined to make any comment at all on the matter, stating, “I do not feel it is appropriate for me in a public session to breach confidential conversations between the president and myself in a public session,” and, “I don’t think this is the appropriate venue to do this in.”

However, under persistent grilling by the committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va, Coats then issued what appeared to be a blanket denial of a Washington Post report that Trump had tried to get him to interfere in the FBI’s Russia probe.

Coats even indicated he did not find the Post always credible.

When Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called the report detailed and disturbing, if true, Coats replied, with a smile, that he had been in Washington long enough not to take everything the paper reports “at face value.”

On Tuesday, the Post claimed that in a one-on-one meeting with Coats on March 22, Trump “asked him if he could intervene with then-FBI Director James B. Comey to get the bureau to back off its focus on former national security adviser Michael Flynn in its Russia probe.”

Basing its story on anonymous “officials,” the Post reported, “The events involving Coats show the president went further than just asking intelligence officials to deny publicly the existence of any evidence showing collusion during the 2016 election.”

But Coats appeared to flatly contradict that with his blanket statement that he never felt pressured to interfere or intervene in any investigation by the president or anyone in his administration.

Warner got an even more forceful denial from National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, who also initially declined to comment, saying, “I’m not going to discuss the specifics of any conversations with the president of the United States.”

But Rogers seemed visibly irritated when Warner continued to press him on the subject, finally stating with a flash of apparent anger, “In the three plus years that I have been the director of the National Security Agency, to the best of my recollection, I have never been directed to do anything I believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate.”

He added, “And to the best of my recollection, during that same period of service, I do not recall feeling ever pressured to do so.”

After repeatedly trying to get Coats to confirm the Post story, even after he had apparently flatly contradicted it, a frustrated Warner gave up, commenting, “At some point, these facts have to come out.”

He was, no doubt, expressing hope he will get a different answer from former FBI Director James Comey, who is scheduled to testify before the committee on Thursday.

But Warner may be in for more frustration.

ABC News reported late Tuesday evening that there will be much in Comey’s testimony “that will make the White House uncomfortable, but he will stop short of saying the president interfered with the agency’s probe into former national security adviser Michael Flynn.”

ABC said “a source familiar with the former FBI director’s thinking,” revealed that Comey “has told associates he will not accuse the president of obstructing justice.”

The New York Times has reported that on Feb. 14, the day after firing his national security director, Trump told Comey, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go.”

But the Times reporting was based on a memo of the meeting Comey supposedly drafted, a memo the Times did not see, but said was described to reporters by two anonymous sources.


YouTube Banned Me, But Not the Hate Imams

June 8, 2017

Michelle Malkin


Source …..

One of the many maddening takeaways from the London Bridge jihad attack is this: If you post videos on YouTube radicalizing Muslim viewers to kill innocent people, YouTube will leave you alone.

But if you post a video on YouTube honoring innocent people murdered by barbaric jihadists, your video will get banned.

I know. It happened to me in 2006. Eleven years later, the selective censors at Google-YouTube still can’t competently distinguish terrorist hate speech from political free speech. Islamic hate preachers such as Ahmad Musa Jibril, whose bloodthirsty rants against non-Muslims reportedly inspired the London Bridge ringleader, have flourished.

Meanwhile, other anti-jihad and conservative content creators have been throttled, flagged, demonetized and kicked off the site since the P.C. hammer first came down on me.

My two-minute clip, which I titled “First, They Came,” spotlighted authors, editors, politicians, and other targets of Islamic intolerance and violence. Among those featured in the video on radical Islam’s war on Western free speech: Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker murdered by jihadist Mohammed Bouyeri for his outspoken criticism of Muslim misogyny; Salman Rushdie, whom the Ayatollah Khomeini cast a fatwa upon after he published the “blasphemous” “The Satanic Verses”; Oriana Fallaci, the fiery journalist put on trial in Italy for “defaming Islam;” and the editors of the Danish Jyllands-Posten newspaper, who faced death threats for publishing cartoons of Mohammed, which prompted violent riots and terror plots around the world.

I contrasted the plight of those killed with the hordes of Muslim protesters in London’s safe spaces fearlessly waving their signs demanding that the faithful “Behead all those who insult Islam” and “Exterminate those who slander Islam.”

Several months later, YouTube yanked the innocuous, harmless, nonviolent, nonprofane, nonhateful, and nonthreatening mini-film. The company informed me that the video contained “inappropriate content.” I complained across social media — posting additional YouTube videos calling attention to the ban. But “First, They Came” stayed deep-sixed on my YouTube channel. Other bloggers and video consumers tried to subvert the censors by posting the clip on their sites; it became a game of whack-a-mole as the YouTube police hunted it down.

Counterjihad activists nicknamed YouTube “JihadTube” or “Dhimmitube” to mock the censors’ acquiescence to Islamist restrictions on acceptable speech by infidels — as Islamic radicalization videos festered on the site.

Three pieces in The New York Times covered my skirmish over the little video. Reporter Tom Zeller Jr. reported that YouTube had emailed him a statement suggesting that my video “violated the company’s terms of service.” YouTube also told the newspaper, “Our customer support team reviews all flagged videos before removing them.”

The statement “specifically referred to the part of the YouTube user agreement that forbids users from submitting material that is ‘unlawful, obscene, defamatory, libelous, threatening, pornographic, harassing, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive, or encourages conduct that would be considered a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, violate any law, or is otherwise inappropriate.’”

George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Rosen wrote in a New York Times magazine article on “Google’s Gatekeepers” that he “watched the ‘First, They Came’ video, which struck me as powerful political commentary that contains neither hate speech nor graphic violence, and I asked why it was taken down. According to a YouTube spokesman, the takedown was a routine one that hadn’t been reviewed by higher-ups.”

Only after receiving fair exposure in The New York Times (my, how times and the Times have changed) did the video magically reappear on my channel.

Now, contrast Google/YouTube’s ridiculous stifling of “First, They Came” with its hands-off treatment of murder-inciting videos of hate imams Ahmad Musa Jibril and Abu Haleema.

Their rancid rants encouraging jihad by the sword and murder of non-Muslims have racked up millions of views over the past five years. Millions. Counterterrorism officials in multiple countries have tied their social media poison to jihad plots. The company told Conservative Review’s Jordan Schachtel that it had reviewed the hate imams’ channels and “found that they do not violate YouTube’s guidelines on extremist or hateful content.”

The enlightened peace-and-love progressives of Silicon Valley don’t just have egg on their faces. They have blood on their hands.


Anti-Shariah rallies planned for 28 U.S. cities June 10

June 8, 2017

Leo Hohmann


Source …..

ACT! For America is planning a nationwide “March Against Sharia – March for Human Rights” on June 10 that so far has 28 cities signed up to participate.

Organizers say they will be taking a public stand against female genital mutilation, honor violence, the blasphemy and apostasy laws, among other elements of Shariah that are increasingly showing up in American society.

Brigitte Gabriel, the founder of ACT For America, said America is now starting to experience some of the same atrocities of Shariah that her family escaped in Lebanon decades ago.

“We want to increase awareness about certain practices that are starting to happen in our country with the rise of Islamic immigration, because we are now hearing about female genital mutilation, like the cases in Detroit recently announced by the Department of Justice,” she told WND. “Who would have thought in 21st century America, after what women did working so hard in defense of women’s rights that we’d be talking about little girls being horribly mutilated, and that 513,000 girls are at risk of this barbaric Third World procedure, according to the CDC [Centers for Disease Control].”

ACT! will also shine a light on honor killings and honor violence.

“It’s already here in America,” Gabriel said. “We’re seeing girls being killed simply for wanting to wear makeup. Under our Constitution they deserve the same rights and protections.”

She said U.S. feminists are “completely silent on this issue, and that is why we are trying to humanize this issue by putting names behind these atrocities. On our website we have faces of girls and woman who have been killed in the name of honor by their husbands in America. We want to personalize these faces so when people hear about honor killing and FGM they know it is happening here in America to American girls and women, not just in Pakistan or India or Saudi Arabia.”

Scott Presler, one of the organizers of the event, said the left will try to paint the rallies as “Islamophobic” and anti-Muslim, because that’s what the left always does in its defense of the Islamist agenda.

See an interactive map showing all 28 rally sites across the U.S.

If radical leftists want to hold counter protests in favor of female genital mutilations, honor killings and the death penalty for former Muslims who have left the faith, they are more than welcome to do so, he said.

“You cannot be pro-Shariah and call yourself a feminist – that is called fake feminism, people like Linda Sarsour are fake feminists and hypocrites,” said Presler, referring to the leader of the Women’s March on Washington after Donald Trump was elected president.

“And we’re not afraid to call them out,” he added. “We are here to protect our communities and educate them on the issues and get them to call their legislators to pass legislation that protects women and other victims of Shariah.”

Presler said his own wake-up call came one year ago on June 12, when the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Florida, was attacked by the son of an Afghan immigrant who killed 49 people in an act of jihad.

“I came out as gay after the attack on Pulse. I never intended to come out, at least not this soon, but after it happened, I felt I had to take a stand, I felt obligated, I had to fight for my community, my country,” Presler told WND.

In Muslim-majority countries where Shariah rules, there is no debate as to whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry. The debate is how best to punish them, and in some countries such as Saudi Arabia, how best to kill them – whether by beheading or throwing them off of tall buildings.

“We are under attack simply because of our sexuality. Just like women, just for being born a female you are already under attack, and I think that’s demonstrative of how extreme radical Islam really is,” Presler said. “I had to educate myself and now I’m trying to educate others.”

After the Orlando attack Presler said he joined ACT! For America.

“I had seen Brigitte Gabriel’s videos in the past, but after Orlando that was my wake-up call. Her wake-up call was 9/11, whereas my wake-up call was Pulse Nightclub,” said Presler, who grew up in northern Virginia and now lives in Virginia Beach.

Gabriel told WND the first national anti-Shariah rallies have the goal of humanizing the effects of Islamic law on real Americans.

Look to Europe for the model

“We have former imams speaking, former Muslims, gays, women who survived acid attacks, we have everybody coming together and speaking saying ‘we are fed up.’ We do not want to go down the path of Europe,” she said. “What is going on in Europe is a preview of what is coming to America and in fact is already here.”

Gabriel also points to the Orlando attack as an example of what can happen when Muslims fail to assimilate into American culture.

“We want to remind Americans what Shariah says about gays. We have a lot of people in America who may not agree with the gay lifestyle but they would never go out and kill gays, and certainly don’t teach their kids to go into gay nightclubs and blow people up,” she said. “So we want to wake up Americans and make them aware of who we are inviting into our country, we want people to come here who love America and our freedoms and who believe we are all equal in the eyes of God, we want them to assimilate, to adopt our laws, and respect the American culture, not go on importing people into our country who hold values that are completely opposed to our values, our country, our Constitution.

“They are welcome to come here but they are not welcome to mutilate their daughters’ genitals or beat their wives or kill homosexuals.”

Presler said any city can host a march but ACT! wanted to make sure a rally was scheduled for cities and states that have experienced terrorism, FGM or honor violence. Venues such as New York, Orlando, Atlanta, Minnesota, Michigan, and San Bernardino were a priority. Another rally is scheduled for Richardson, Texas, the site of the Holy Land Foundation terror-financing trial in 2008.

In Lawrenceville, Georgia, just outside Atlanta, a 42-year-old mother and her teenage daughter were attacked outside their own home by a Muslim refugee from Somalia one year ago. The Somali woman, dressed in a burqa with only her eyes showing, beat Dami Arno with her own American flagpole before she was subdued with the help of a neighbor.

  • At the rally in Austin, Texas, a survivor of female genital mutilation, Lauren Morris, will speak. Morris recently made a video about her experience.

“The left will try to make this about hate, saying this is anti-Muslim. No, who is affected by FGM more than Muslim women? We are working for human rights and to protect Muslim women everywhere,” Presler said. “The virtuous left pretends to be for human rights and women’s rights but then they’re defending those who want to establish Shariah law, it’s just very hypocritical.

“What we are doing with this march is uniting people together. You talk to the average guy in the street, he doesn’t know 513,000 girls in America are at risk of FGM. Silence is approval. I can’t be more adamant in making that statement, show up for the rallies or be OK with it.

“This is not anti-Muslim, this is helping to protect all women, including Muslims.”

  • Dr. Muhammad Hamzepour, founder of Iranian American Patriots, will be the featured speaker at the Virginia Beach march. The Iranian American Patriots were enthusiastic backers of Donald Trump for president in the run-up to last November’s election. While Muslim, Hamzepour is an outspoken critic of the current Iranian regime and has voiced hopes that Trump’s presidency will lead to the “overthrow of the terrorist government of Iran.”
  • Miriam Ibrahim will also speak in Virginia Beach about her experience being imprisoned for her Christian faith in Sudan.
  • Mark Lori, a former Muslim and Iranian ex-pat who is viewed as an apostate by Shariah-adherent Muslims, will be speaking in Seattle. Apostasy is punishable by death in many Islamic countries.  Lori converted to Christianity in 1993 and later founded Hayate Abadi Ministries, which means “eternal life” in Farsi, the predominant language of the Persian people. His ministry airs via TV, radio and the Internet. He was studying to be an imam when he discovered that the truth of God lies in Christianity.

Time is running short: America soon to become Europe

“So we have great speakers from all faiths, all walks of life, uniting for this common charge,” Presler said.  “And we will also be in San Bernardino literally outside the center where 14 people were killed by those two terrorists [Sayed Farooq and wife Tashfeen Malik].”

Both Farooq and Malik were Shariah-compliant and Malik was granted a fiancee visa to enter the U.S. from Saudi Arabia.

“So it’s very hard for the left to come against these speakers who have experienced these atrocities, in many cases first-hand,” Presler said. “The total count right now is 28 cities in 21 states and this has been put together in two months. The turn-around has been very quick.”

He said ACT! would like to make the March Against Sharia an annual event.

He expressed a sense of urgency to get the word out as more and more Americans shrink from criticizing Shariah out of fear they will be labeled “Islamophobic,” which is itself a form of the Shariah blasphemy laws.

“Brigitte Gabriel always talks about the 100-year doctrine, for [conquering] America,” Presler said. “It’s very true. Look at San Bernardino, the neighbor didn’t say anything to police because he was afraid of being labeled an Islamophobe. People are afraid to speak out.”

Gabriel told WND she sees ACT! for America as the “resistance movement” against Islamization of U.S. cities being brought on by out-of-control immigration policies.

“And we are going to protect America and preserve our freedoms like the Founding Fathers preserved it for us and that is exactly what we are trying to do with these rallies,” she said.


Idaho girl’s refugee sex attackers walk free?

June 8, 2017

Leo Hohmann


Source …..

Judge slaps gag order on parents of 5-year-old victim

It’s as if it never happened.

A judge sentenced three Muslim refugee boys in the sexual assault of a 5-year-old girl in Idaho, but nobody knows the length or terms of the sentence because the judge has barred everyone in the courtroom, including the victim’s own parents, from speaking about the case.

The three boys — two from Iraq ages 7 and 10, and one from Sudan aged 14 — pleaded guilty in juvenile court in April to multiple counts of sex crimes in an incident that occurred last June in Twin Falls. The assault occurred at Fawnbrook Apartments, when 5-year-old Jayla, who is developmentally disabled, was lured into a laundry room, stripped of her clothing and sexually assaulted while the oldest boy filmed the entire incident.

Now, following a sentencing hearing Monday at the Snake River Juvenile Detention Center in Twin Falls, Judge Thomas Borresen of Idaho’s 5th Judicial District issued a gag order preventing everyone in the courtroom from saying anything about the sentence received by the boys.

Borresen did allow the family to say they were unhappy with the sentencing, but threatened to jail them for contempt of court if they say why they are unhappy.

“We can’t talk about it since it’s a sealed case,” said Lacy Peterson, the girl’s mother, when contacted by WND Tuesday.

The family’s attorney also told WND he was bound by the judge’s gag order.

Mark Guerry sent the following text message to WND:

“Sorry but I am forbidden by court order from discussing anything that has gone on in the proceedings, especially the outcome of the sentencing. This is a juvenile case, which by its nature makes it a closed proceeding, and the judge has made it clear again that anyone who discusses it with the media, etc., will be held in contempt. Sorry but my hands are tied. All I can do is tell you the parents were not satisfied with the results of this case. They were especially upset with the prosecutor’s repeated statements in the media defending the juvenile defendants, rather than focusing on the victim. I can’t say anymore.”

Mathew Staver, chairman and co-founder of the nonprofit legal assistance agency Liberty Counsel, told WND that Judge Borresen was completely out of line in issuing a gag order after the fact in a criminal case.

“It’s unconstitutional for the judge to do that. There are gag orders that can be put on people during a jury trial, or if it’s a minor they can prohibit you from mentioning the name of the minor, but they can’t gag you after the fact,” Staver said. “This is public at this point. This judge, it just seems like he’s forgotten about the First Amendment in this case. He has no authority to do this, he can’t hold someone in contempt to keep them from speaking out about their displeasure with the case after the fact.”

Staver said case law is clear on the subject of gag orders.

“That’s a shame what happen to their little girl. This judge can’t gag them. They can voice their displeasure all they want to, this judge can’t do a thing to stop them,” he said. “Case law is clear. You cannot gag someone after the case is over. Anyone can comment on it, especially the victims. It’s my understanding what they wanted to do was criticize the outcome and they have that right.”

Staver said he feels so strongly about the issue of free speech that he would be willing to take the family’s case and challenge the judge’s order.

Liberty Counsel is an international nonprofit, litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family since 1989.

This isn’t the first time an official in Idaho has tried to squelch free speech in relation to the Twin Falls sexual assault case.

After the case came to light last summer, the former Obama-appointed U.S. attorney for Idaho, Wendy Olson, threatened to prosecute anyone who promulgated “false or inflammatory information” about the crime or the perpetrators. She was later forced to walk back the comments after being criticized by constitutional experts.

In a op-ed for WND, anti-Shariah activist Pamela Geller called the judge’s decision “a Travesty of Justice as Idaho Muslim Migrant Rapists Go Unpunished.”

“The travesty of justice in Idaho is now complete…instead of getting justice, the victim’s family has been abused by law enforcement and governing authorities as if they were the criminals – because what happened to their little girl contradicts the politically correct narrative about Muslim migrants,” Geller wrote. “On Monday, the perpetrators were sentenced, and the final injustice was done to this poor girl.”

Geller said there were 12 to 15 people in the courtroom for the sentencing hearing and one of them leaked the outcome to her anonymously.

“And the more I heard, the more I understood why this judge wanted to keep all the proceedings secret,” she said.

“Janice Kroeger, the senior deputy prosecuting attorney, who was supposed to be trying these boys for their crimes, defended the boys and repeatedly attacked Lacy, the victim’s mother. A therapist for the boys was present, as well as a parole officer and a detective. Everything that was said was designed to portray the perpetrators as victims. Throughout the proceedings, they were repeatedly called victims.”

The court heard about how the attackers are doing well in school, and about how smart they are, according to Geller.

“They were praised for the supposed ordeal they had to go through. It was claimed that all three are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder from having to go through courtroom proceedings.

“After this lovefest, which lasted for five hours in the courtroom, all three boys were sentenced, one after the other,” she continued. “All three were given probation. They were not found guilty of rape, but of sexually lewd conduct.”

Geller said every time the family’s lawyer, Guerry, tried to speak up, he was silenced.

The 5-year-old victim, Jayla, was never mentioned by Kroeger or the judge – or by the police.

Lacy, in her statement to the court, described how Jayla is still struggling with the trauma of the attack – wetting the bed and having bad dreams, among other issues.

“Yet when Lacy completed her statement, Kroeger lashed out not at the perpetrators or their parents, but at Lacy,” Geller writes. “She viciously tongue-lashed Lacy for a full 15 minutes, until finally Judge Borresen had to stop her.”

When the refugee boys pleaded guilty in April, Twin Falls County Prosecutor Grant Loebs said: “I am pleased that we were able to resolve this case in a way that was approved and agreed to by the victim’s family. This continues to be a serious and sad case, but it was resolved properly.”

Geller says nothing could be farther from the truth.

“The resolution of the case was not accepted by the victim’s family, and it was not resolved properly.”

She said Idaho officials were willing to sacrifice the wellbeing of a small girl in an effort to suppress negative information about the state’s growing refugee community.

“If there were any justice, Judge Borresen would be impeached and removed now,” Geller writes.

Meanwhile, the family is struggling to meet its expenses after having to leave the low-income apartment complex where they lived until their daughter was attacked. They were forced to live in a hotel for two months until they could find suitable living arrangements. They also have counseling expenses for their daughter and legal fees. Their GoFundMe account has raised $75,881 to date.


Immigration Officials Fail to Track Illegal Voting Rates, Say Reports

June 6, 2017

Bob Price


Source …..

The federal agency which “oversees lawful immigration to the United States,” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) does not track and retain the answers by legal noncitizen residents whether they have illegally voted or registered to vote. Furthermore, if they vote illegally or are even convicted of illegally voting, this does not necessarily disqualify them from becoming a citizen.

Using all caps and bold font to emphasize the importance of the word “ever,” USCIS form N-400 (Part 12) asks persons applying for naturalization:

  1. Have you EVER claimed to be a U.S. citizen (in writing or any other way)?
  2. Have you EVER registered to vote in any Federal, state, or local election in the United States?
  3. Have you EVER voted in any Federal, state, or local election in the United States?

When noncitizens fill out these forms, they do so under penalty of perjury.

Freedom of Information Act requests by both the Washington Times and the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) revealed there is no database to gather and track this information.

The Washington Times reported the U.S. Department of Homeland Security would have to review every application manually to get this information. One million of these applications were filed in 2016. It also reported that the Pence Commission intends to compare noncitizen permanent resident files with public voter rosters. President Trump signed an executive order in May creating the commission on election fraud. It is led by Vice President Mike Pence and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, as reported by Breitbart News and Breitbart News Daily.

Other problems revealed in the Washington Times report included USCIS policy discourages officials from disqualifying a naturalization applicant who was convicted of illegally voting if he or she has only one offense. Moreover, USCIS does not have a system or policy for notifying prosecutors about applicants who admit to illegal voting.

Applicants who deny illegal voting are also not verified by checking public voter rosters.

The Washington Times article reported an immigration services spokeswoman said that the USCIS does not have a policy, “official or otherwise, that discourages officers from denying naturalization applicants if they have voted unlawfully.”

The spokeswoman noted that although USCIS “does not have a mechanism in place to cross-check voter registration” the Pence Commission intends to work to fill-in for this gap.

“There’s no question that the Obama DHS looked past noncitizens participating in the electoral system before obtaining citizenship,” a PILF spokesman shared with Breitbart Texas in a statement. “Discerning the scope of this problem is another ideal area of study for the forthcoming presidential commission on election integrity.”

President Trump signed the EO on May 11 establishing a “Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.” The mission of the commission set-out in the EO is:

Sec. 3.  Mission.  The Commission shall, consistent with applicable law, study the registration and voting processes used in Federal elections.  The Commission shall be solely advisory and shall submit a report to the President that identifies the following:

(a)  those laws, rules, policies, activities, strategies, and practices that enhance the American people’s confidence in the integrity of the voting processes used in Federal elections;

(b)  those laws, rules, policies, activities, strategies, and practices that undermine the American people’s confidence in the integrity of the voting processes used in Federal elections; and

(c)  those vulnerabilities in voting systems and practices used for Federal elections that could lead to improper voter registrations and improper voting, including fraudulent voter registrations and fraudulent voting.

Vice-chairman Kobach told Breitbart News in an interview on May 11 that the bi-partisan commission can use federal data to help resolve the dispute about large-scale fraudulent voting. “The issue of voting fraud often gets politicized, and people are making statements with few foundations [of fact, so] this commission will provide a firm foundation [of] information and facts that are verifiable about the issues surrounding voter fraud.”

Kobach added, “The states are in the drivers’ seat, but this commission can offer recommendations and evidence” for state legislators. Kolbach recognized that many state elections are decided by less than 50 votes.

Kobach has also noted that the Obama Administration refused to check aliens on legal visas against voter rolls to determine ineligible voters. He said:

The federal government has consistently said no, under the Obama administration. Well, this commission will have the authority to maybe look at a couple of states and say, “okay, let’s check how many people who are registered voters in those states are also known aliens, non-citizens according to the federal government.” That’s going to be exciting, something never done before, and it will give us some sense of what the real numbers are of this problem.

Breitbart Texas reported that a Texas jury convicted a Mexican national of illegal voting in February. She was sentenced to eight years in prison. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Tarrant County officials put Rosa Maria Ortega to trial for voting in two Texas elections.


Watchdog Claims 5K Noncitizens Registered to Vote in Virginia

May 30, 2017

Brandon Darby


Source …..

A new report released shortly after the forming of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity finds that more than 5,000 individuals were determined to be non-U.S. citizens registered to vote in Virginia.

Dubbed a “sequel” to a similar 2016 effort, the latest study found 5,556 voters were “quietly removed” from the records for reasons related to non-citizenship “between 2011 and May 2017,” according to an advanced look at the findings provided by the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF). Of the total registered, one-third of unlawful voters managed to cast ballots—leading to a total of more than 7,400 illegal votes cast, according to the report.

The organization points out that it was unable to find any evidence that illegal registrations or votes were ever prosecuted.

The report details how ineligible individuals are slowly discovered by local officials—most often, the authors allege, by accident. Applicants for voter registration are not required to prove they are actual U.S. citizens in Virginia. The vast majority of states only require that people claim to be citizens during registration, PILF notes. The report details, however, that Virginia shares information when a claimed citizen indicates otherwise to a separate state agency. At that point, removal procedures begin:

In the absence of regular data-sharing arrangements between federal officials and the Commonwealth, the ability of election officials to identify aliens on the voter rolls is almost nonexistent. The most that happens in Virginia is that an alien on the voter rolls will sometimes tell the state DMV they are not a citizen. Without those leads, counties and municipalities must accept false claims of citizenship on their face.

The authors also shared with this reporter examples of how some ineligible noncitizens admitted their immigration statuses at the outset, but were still registered to vote. Some illegal registrants lasted on the rolls for years–risking possible deportation–until they were discovered.


Texas lawmaker claims your child “belongs to the state” and can be forcibly vaccinated

May 30, 2017


Source …..

Lawmakers in Texas have been attempting to restructure many of the laws governing Child Protective Services in the state, since children have been falling through holes in the system and being permanently damaged in the process. One of the proposed bills under consideration is House Bill 39, introduced by Representative Gene Wu (D-Houston). This bill would push for children taken into the foster care system to receive medical examinations more quickly – within three days for those in urban areas, and within no more than seven days for those in rural areas.

While the bill would seem fairly straightforward on the surface, it ran into a snag when lawmakers started debating whether these routine medical exams would include vaccinations. Rep. Bill Zedler (R-Arlington) of the Texas Freedom Caucus proposed an amendment to the bill which would exclude vaccines from the required treatments. He raised the issue that children could potentially receive vaccines or other medical interventions, including surgery, and then in some instances be returned to their parents a few days later if the Department of Family Protective Services had made a mistake.

Rep. Wu’s firm response has caused great concern among many, because it reflects his true feelings both about vaccinations and the rights of parents.

“Let me make it very clear,” he said. “The moment a child is removed from their home – the moment the child is removed – by law, the child is now a child of the state of Texas. We have the responsibility to make sure that child is safe and is given proper medical care. That is the law. [Emphasis added]

“When we put into the law that we are limiting the ability of our agency that is tasked with taking care of a child that is in their custody and they are legally responsible for, we are setting a dangerous precedent,” he added.

When Rep. Jonathan Strickland (R-Bedford) gave Wu the opportunity to amend his statement that such a child “belongs to the state of Texas,” Wu showed no inclination to back down. At that, Strickland asked him directly, “True or false: CPS has taken children and found that they were wrong in doing so and returned the child? Has that happened, Representative Wu?”

Wu grudgingly admitted that such mistakes have happened “on rare occasions.”

Other legislators also weighed in on the issue, with Rep. Sarah Davis (R-West University Place) pushing to amend the bill to mandate the administration of the HPV vaccine, which she claimed, “will eliminate cervical cancer.”

This statement is simply not true. Not only does the HPV vaccine not eliminate cancer, but hundreds, if not thousands, of children around the world have suffered irreversible harm from it. [Related: Read more about how the global media has revealed the devastating effects of this vaccine.]

Furthermore, the latest peer-reviewed study into the long-term damage of vaccines in general found that not only do they not protect the vaccinated from most of the targeted diseases, but vaccinated children are 420 percent more likely to be diagnosed with autism; 420 percent more likely to develop ADHD; 5.2 times more likely to have learning disabilities; almost three times more likely to have eczema, and a whopping 30 times more likely to suffer from allergic rhinitis. [Related: Discover the truth at]

If the “emergency” medical examinations proposed in House Bill 39 were to come to fruition, and they mandated the vaccination of the children involved, they would almost certainly do more harm than good. They would infringe on the rights of both the parents and the children, leaving families to deal with the devastating long-term effects of vaccines.

And if the bill passes, what’s to stop the Department of Family Protective Services from “innocently” grabbing children, vaccinating them, “realizing” their mistake and returning them to their parents? What a perfect way to enforce the vaccination of every child in the state!

Sources include:


%d bloggers like this: