Skip to content

Democrats

WATCH VIDEO: Gang of Muslim migrant kids attack park goers in Lewiston, Maine

 

Echoes of Europe, and a glimpse into our future. This is more of the poison fruit of the reckless, feckless immigration policies that the Obama administration relentlessly pursued, bringing whole Somali Muslim communities into the U.S. and placing them in American communities that were ill-equipped to deal with the violence, tribalism, and ongoing gang warfare that is rapidly becoming a feature of all too many American cities. This is the America that the Democrats wanted, and still want. They don’t care about the welfare and safety of Americans; they only care about the votes that these migrant communities will deliver to them.

 

“Gang of Somali Kids Attack Park Goers in Lewiston,” Maine First Media, May 24, 2018:

It was an otherwise pleasant evening in Maine when two dozen Somali youth swarmed and attacked two local residents in Kennedy Park last Thursday evening.

The Somali mob attacked around 7:45 pm, just as the sun was setting on this historic city park in the heart of Maine’s second largest city.

A local mother recorded as a mob of teens and children, boys and girls as young as nine years old, brandishing wooden bats and other objects, along with fists, feet and sheer numbers to attack the two non-Somali defenders. At one point you can even here one of the hoodlums repeatedly daring the woman to, “stop me, b**ch.”

Lewiston Police tell Maine First Media one of the victims was taken to the hospital with minor injuries. However, no charges were filed.

Lewiston Mayor, Shane Bouchard says these types of incidents are common at Kennedy Park, but points to Lewiston’s low crime rate.

“Kennedy Park is a large common space in the middle of some of the poorest census tracts in the Northeast,” Mayor Bouchard said. “When you have large, diverse groups of people in the same place you are bound to have incidents. Lewiston is no different in that respect than any other medium to large city, except that Lewiston’s violent crime rate is one of the lowest in Maine.”

While the Mayor brings up Lewiston’s violent crime statistics, it is important to note, in this case, the victim didn’t press charges, meaning, statistically there was no crime. Incidents like this often go unreported and are not reflected in the numbers — something even Mayor Bouchard has to admit.

“In this particular case, the person who was attacked declined to press charges, therefore under the law, there was no victim, therefore no crime,” said Mayor Bouchard.

Witnesses at the park say the attack started when one of the victims asked one of the attackers to use a lighter for his cigarette. However, Lewiston Police are reviewing the video and have not determined an official motivation for this gang assault.

This is far from the first incident of Somalian attacks at Kennedy Park. Recently, a 10-year-old girl was jumped and beaten by a Somali girl at the park. As such occurrences become more common in Lewiston, many lifelong residents are now afraid to bring their own children to play.

Some residents say police officiers tell them the safest thing would be not to bring their kids to the park anymore. However, according to Lewiston Police Department Public Information Officer, Lieutenant David St. Pierre, that is not the department’s stance.

“I am not aware of officers advising parents to refrain from bringing their children to the park,” Lt. St. Pierre said. “We at the Lewiston Police strive to make it a safe and enjoyable environment for all.”…

Our community resource officers are reaching out to the leaders in our new Mainer community,” Mayor Bouchard said. “While we are fighting a cultural barrier, outreach to these groups has been successful in the past, and we are hopeful we can make some progress.”…

On any given day, dozens if not hundreds of Somali youth can be found occupying Kennedy Park and the violence is nothing new. Local residents bearing the brunt of these violent mobs are growing frustrated. Maine First Media was told it took police at least 7-8 minutes to arrive on the scene — despite the police station being right across the street from the park.

However, Lt. St. Pierre says they didn’t receive a call until about 8:05 pm and officers were on the scene in 2-3 minutes. And while the station may be across the street, patrolling officers are out making rounds….

Pamela Geller’s shocking new book, “FATWA: HUNTED IN AMERICA” is now available on Amazon.

It’s Geller’s tell all, her story – and it’s every story – it’s what happens when you stand for freedom today. Buy it. Now. Here.

 

    Avatar

    The police department is across the street from where the attack took place and NO ONE in the department noticed all those kids running around like wild dogs at that hour??? Then, to add insult to injury, the cops tell the law-abiding residents to stay out of the park!!! I’m sure the police and the mayor, etc., all know what they are doing to combat this type of crime, though. After all, their first response was ‘ you should expect this kind of thing from a city of this size. Wonderful example of municipal leadership. Those residents must be so happy come tax day when they hand over their hard earned money to the city.

      Avatar

      Yet, if one or more of those savages were in be shot/stabbed/etc., there’d be cops pouring out of that building to offer assistance….. just depends on WHO needs the help in the DEMOCRATIC SECTIONS.

      Avatar

      I now pack wherever I go!!!! 25 Berretta is enough to shut down any thing.. IF!!! You are in fear of your life,,,,,,,,,,, you have the right to defend yourself!! MAKE SURE YOU SHOOT TO KILL!!!!!

  •  

     

     

     

    Hillary Accuses Trump Of Ignoring Russian Threat, They Are “Still Coming”

    Many Democrats are backing this position.

    Austin Lewis by Austin Lewis

    It seems like the last few months have been nothing but a repeating story about the Russians and how they are poised to manipulate upcoming elections and America’s system of government as a whole.  As of now, nothing concrete has come from the Mueller investigation, but it still makes for a great story.

    Now, Hillary Clinton, who you may remember from her second failed attempt to become President of the United States of America in 2016, is screeching a warning, claiming that the Russians are “still coming” in 2018.  This is an interesting change from what she said during her time as Secretary of State, and it’s interesting to see her accuse President Trump of deciding to “ignore and surrender” to Russia.


    When talking about her fears that the Russians are “still coming,” Hillary Clinton cashed in on her ‘credibility’ as a former Secretary of State to push her claim that the Russians are a threat to the 2018 election.

    She accused President Donald Trump of ‘ignoring’ the Russian threat, and of not giving Admiral Michael Rogers, who currently heads up cyber command, direct orders to counter possible Russian meddling in the 2018 elections.


    Admiral Rogers, in testimony on Capitol Hill earlier this week, said that before he could take more steps, he would need the approval of the president.

    According to Rogers, he needs a policy decision to direct his movement on the cybersecurity front. That would mean the president would have to make a decision, which would likely be based on a policy recommendation from the current Secretary of Defense, James Mattis.

    Democrats, who suddenly seem to be spoiling for a fight with Russia after spending decades placating them and condemning aggression toward them, said that they were tired of President Trump being a “wuss” toward Russia.

    However, this ignores a lot of Democrat history. The Democrat party has not been willing to take on Russia until just recently.  In fact, going back as far as the second Obama term, they openly mocked Republicans who suggested Russia was a threat.


    During the presidential debates, incumbent candidate Barack Obama mocked challenger Mitt Romney for identifying Russia as an opposing foreign policy influence in the world.


    Hillary Clinton herself has a long history of being friendly to Russia. In fact, it was Hillary Clinton and her ‘Russian Restart’ that allowed Russia to seize the Crimea.

    In fact, if it had not been for pushback by the Polish and other former Soviet satellite states, Russia might have been able to take control of much of the former Soviet empire.

    When viewed in this light, it’s hard to take warnings by Hillary Clinton, who also approved a deal to sell much of America’s uranium to Russia, with any degree of seriousness.


    Hillary Clinton’s policy didn’t involve ‘taking on’ Russia in any way until the war in Syria began in earnest.


    Incidentally, the war in Syria was also the result of failed Clinton-Obama policy.  ISIS was armed, in no small part, by the State Department and intelligence agencies, against the wishes of the United States military.

    Thinking they were arming ‘Syrian rebels,’ they armed what turned out to be Islamic extremists.

    Hillary Clinton campaigned on the promise that, in order to stop the Syrian government and military from being able to bomb alleged Islamic extremists and rebels, she would declare a ‘no-fly zone’ above Syria.

    That would have brought the United States into direct confrontation with the Russian air force, which was supporting the Syrian government and military.

    This is in no way an attempt to say that Syria’s government or military were in the right. However, the pretense that the Democrats have a long and principled stand against Russia, in any way, is simply a lie.

    Despite claims that they took Russia very seriously, Obama’s administration outright failed to take ANY steps against Russian interference in the election or in multiple other facets of the American government.

    According to various sources, Russia even managed to hack voter rolls in multiple states (though, allegedly, they never managed to hack the results).

    Should Donald Trump take active steps against Russian interference in our elections? Absolutely.

    But is Hillary Clinton the person to talk to anyone about taking on Russia? After multiple failures to do so throughout her political career, absolutely not.

    Article Comments can be found here:

    ___________________________________


    Local Reporter Goes Rogue, Tells Truth …………


    During a report this week, a local Minnesota reporter blew some uninformed liberal minds by touting some basic facts about gun ownership in his state.

    “We took a very hard look at these numbers, and we did find that Minnesota has a very high rate of gun ownership — one of the highest in the country — but it has a relatively low rate of violent crime,” revealed Minneapolis station WCCO reporter Pat Kessler in a segment Thursday.

    He added that in 2017, Minnesota “set a new record for firearms background checks,” processing 473,975 checks on permits, 94,383 checks on handguns and 125,516 checks on long guns.


    In other words, more people attempted to purchase weapons in the state last year than ever before.

    “Minnesota set another 2017 record, too,” his report continued. “The State Department of Public Safety reports 283,188 Minnesotans now have permits to legally carry firearms in public.”


    Listen to the full report below:


    Interestingly, these numbers coincide perfectly with the research of economist, commentator and gun rights advocate John R. Lott, whose award-winning 1998 book, “More Guns, Less Crime,” centers around the thesis that a well-armed population deters crime.

    “Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself,” he explained in an interview that year with the University of Chicago Press.


    “There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate — as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.”

    Other research bears this out. Five years ago Forbes columnist Larry Bell pointed to a then-recent Pew Research Study that found that “(n)ational rates of gun homicide and other violent gun crimes” had dropped significantly since the mid-1990s.


    But as noted by Bell, “Those gun crime rates certainly aren’t diminishing for lack of supply…at least not for law-abiding legal buyers.”

    “Last December, the FBI recorded a record number of 2.78 million background checks for purchases that month, surpassing a 2.01 million mark set the month before by about 39 percent. That December 2012 figure, in turn, was up 49 percent from a previous record on that month the year before,” he wrote.


    And according to data from the FBI, the number of background checks conducted annually have only grown since then, jumping from a total of 19.6 million in 2012 to a high of 25.2 million in 2017.

    More people are seeking out and obtaining guns, and yet America’s top metropolitans are continuing to see record “drops in crime and murder.”


    Why is that? I’m not going to speculate because I’m not a trained researcher, but I will quote John R. Lott, who has said many times over, “More guns, less crime.”

    Please share this story on Facebook and Twitter and let us know what you think about the statistics out of Minnesota.

    What do you think about the “more guns, less crime” narrative? Scroll down to comment below!



    ——————



    Nancy Pelosi Sealed The Democrats Fate With This Insane Comment!!

    Democrats just can’t help themselves.

    Nancy Pelosi is leading the pack in exploiting the tragedy in Parkland, Florida.

    And she just made an insane comment that’s sealed the Democrats fate in 2018.

    Just 24 hours after the tragedy in Florida, Pelosi was already politicizing the deaths of 17 innocents.

    She attacked gun rights supporters and the National Rifle Association claiming they
    “cannot decide what the character of America is.”


    Breitbart reports:

    “THURSDAY AT HER WEEKLY PRESS BRIEFING, MINORITY LEADER NANCY PELOSI (D-CA) ADDRESSED THE PARKLAND, FL, SCHOOL SHOOTING.

    PELOSI SAID, “IT IS AN ASSAULT ON OUR WHOLE COUNTRY, AND THEY ARE PAYING THE PRICE FOR OUR INACTION. AS I HAVE SAID ON THE FLOOR MANY TIMES, WHOSE POLITICAL SURVIVAL IN THIS BODY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE SURVIVAL OF OUR CHILDREN? FOR EXAMPLE MOST RECENTLY YESTERDAY, SANDY HOOK FOR EXAMPLE, OR ON THE STREETS OF OUR CITIES. WHO OF US IN HERE IS MORE IMPORTANT, WHOSE POLITICAL SURVIVAL IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT? NOBODY’S.”

    SHE ADDED, “WE HAVE TO BE BOLD. WE HAVE TO GO FORWARD. WE CANNOT LET THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION —HOWEVER, THEY GET THEIR MONEY AND THAT’S ANOTHER SUBJECT —TO DECIDE WHAT THE CHARACTER OF AMERICA IS.”


    Pelosi was not alone.

    Both former President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden jumped at the chance to use this horrible event to demand politicians strip the Second Amendment rights away from Americans.

    This is the usual emotional blackmail routine Democrats engage in after horrific tragedies.

    But if Pelosi and the Democrats want to make 2018 a referendum on gun control they are playing a losing hand.

    The 1994 and 2014 midterms took place after Democrat Presidents pushed gun grabs.

    In 1994, Bill Clinton’s assault weapons ban was signed into law.

    Barack Obama’s national gun registration scheme failed in 2013.

    But both times in the following midterm elections Democrats were wiped off the map.

    President Trump and the GOP would be wise to stand by the Second Amendment and the Americans who put them in office.

    Do you agree?

    Let us know your thoughts in the comment section.



    ————



    AG Sessions Vows To End “Dangerous Trend” Of Legal Activism In Executive Branch

    Sam Di Gangi by Sam Di Gangi

    He pointed out that this got out of control under Obama.

    There are so many problems left over from the Obama administration that it would be impossible for any one person to list them all. Thankfully, Attorney General Jeff Sessions is tackling one of the major ones.

    As Breitbart News reports, the A.G. has pledged to end the dreadful “executive branch legal activism” that President Obama was known for. As DACA and other screeds of justice tell us, Obama was acting often more like a king than a president and those days are blessedly over. The actions of the former president was set to set a “dangerous trend” which is coming to a close with Mr. Trump in office.


    Sessions said that under Obama’s rule, “I think the department [of Justice] did become too political. Essentially, it was executive branch legal activism. They would take cases or regulations or statutes and expand or redefine the meaning of words in them to advance the agenda that they thought ought to be advanced — an agenda that often had zero chance of passing Congress, where the elected representatives sit.

    It remains no secret that both Bush and Obama were guilty of the sins described by Sessions. This made it really hard for the people and those who were voted to represent each state from having any say. This runs, of course, counter to everything that our representative Republic was meant to be.


    Sessions added, “So you have an agenda, and you can’t get Congress to pass it, so you use unelected regulatory officials and lawyers to draft regulations and enforcement policies that carry out a political agenda that the people don’t favor.

    He also said, “And I think that was a factor in this past [presidential] election, and it was an issue that was known to a lot of business and legal experts. They saw this as a dangerous trend.”

    Regarding his last point, there is no doubt that the Attorney General is speaking the truth. While U.S. voters felt that no one would stand for them in this matter, it was then-candidate Donald Trump who boldly did. That is one very big reason why he won. It had nothing to do with Mrs. Clinton be a lady or the color or anyone’s skin.

    Speaking about DACA, Sessions said, “[President Obama] said repeatedly that it was not legal, he couldn’t do it. Congress had took up an issue and it failed to pass. So they just did it anyway. But now when we tried … to withdraw the DACA policy … we’ve been sued and judges have stopped simple withdrawal of the policy.


    The mainstream media creates this impression that the administration is being stopped by wonderful judges in robes of neutrality, when in fact these are [judicial] actions that go beyond the law in many instances and will not be sustained, will be overturned.” Sessions also told Breitbart News.

    The whole interview is certainly worth the read. At last, something is being done about the pen replacing the scepter in the hand of a president who is pretending to be a king. The people again will be represented by those who they voted into office to do so, not by the whims of Obama or anyone else in the White House.

    Sessions is quite correct that Mr. Trump is being stopped from acting legally, not illegally, by activist judges. What the White House aims to do is in line with Constitution, a document that has long been ignored at our own peril.


    Some Article Comments from the website Article:


    • Avatar

      Mike Whitrock21 hours ago

      WHY DONT THEY FILE CHARGES ON THE JUDGES

    • 5

    • Reply
    • Share ›

        Avatar

        Ctaj Mike Whitrock16 hours ago

        That takes an impeachment process and 67 members of the Senate to convict. We need 16 more Republicans in the Senate, preferably not Establishment critters.

      • 1

      • Reply
      • Share ›

          Avatar

          Rufnuk Ctaj2 hours ago

          Congress needs to amend the laws so these activist, obstructionist judges can more easily be removed and charged. When their decisions are contrary to the Constitution they should be IMMEDIATELY dragged out in chains.

        • Reply
        • Share ›

            Avatar

            Ctaj Rufnukan hour ago

            I don’t think Congress has the authority to do that, as it would violate the Separation of Powers in the Constitution. The judiciary is a separate branch, and I could be wrong about this, but I think the only way to remove a judge from the federal judiciary is by the impeachment process. We’d have to amend the Constitution to change that, and it’s no small task to get 75% of the states to ratify it.

            But the Constitution left the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” to Congress, so it can mean whatever they want it to mean. A majority of the House can impeach, and 67 votes in the Senate can convict to remove someone from office for buttering his bread on the wrong side, or wearing the wrong color tie, if it wants to. Impeachment is a political process, not a court of law. By law, Clinton was guilty as sin and the evidence proved it, but neither party wanted him removed from office. The Dems didn’t want to go down as the only party to have their President removed by impeachment, and the GOP preferred to have the badly damaged Clinton remain if office going into the next election, rather than have Al Gore replace him and go into the next election as an incumbent with a clean slate. (Had that happened, Gore probably would have won.)

            I’m not sure the political consequences would be beneficial, but if the GOP holds the House and gets 67 seats in the Senate in November (a real possibility), it could conceivably remove every judge in the federal judiciary appointed by a Democrat.

            That said, Madison wrote that if one political faction controls all three branches of government, that’s the very definition of tyranny. I don’t think the people will support that, even if I would. When it happens, as it did in 2009-2010, the people generally respond by returning the opposing faction to power in at least one branch in the next election.

          • Reply
          • Share ›

        Avatar

        Kenneth Mauax Mike Whitrock20 hours ago

        I’d love to see that but unfortunately judges are protected by judicial immunity meaning they cannot be prosecuted unless they are dismissed from the bench and that is EVEN HARDER to accomplish

      • 1

      • Reply
      • Share ›

          Avatar

          Andy Kenneth Mauax19 hours ago

          Technically, Congress could disband every single court, except for the Supreme Court. It’s radical, but they do have the power in the Constitution. If they did so, in order to dump all of the bad judges, then the opposition party could do the same when they gained super majority status.

        • 3

        • Reply
        • Share ›

            Avatar

            KathiB. Andy5 hours ago

            Congress can also STOP PAYING the activist judges….they’d probably leave on their own.

            ALL Obama appointees need to be PURGED from ANY position in our government. Trump is doing all he can to un-do Obama’s executive orders.

          • 1

          • Reply
          • Share ›

      Avatar

      Charlotte K. Poirier14 hours ago

      I JUST WANT JUSTICE TO BEGIN , GO AFTER THE REAL CORRUPTIONISTS JUST DO YOUR JOB J.S. LEAVE WHAT THE PEOPLE VOTED FOR ALONE …..

    • 2

    • Reply
    • Share ›

      Avatar

      Christian Gains18 hours ago

      “We the People…” had BEST NOT get complacent, thinking that Sessions & Trump have GOT IT!!! SORRY, but those Judges aren’t going to sit back & not “be active”…Mike Whitrock…I’m not SURE whether they CAN or not…It MIGHT take the SCOTUS to get the Constitutional LAW re-established AS THE LAW of our LAND!!!

    • 2

    • Reply
    • Share ›


    ____________________________________________________________

    Dreamers Threaten Congress, We’ll Leave the United States if No DACA Deal Is Reached

     

    No More DACA

     

    It might be the worst “Mexican standoff” in history. As the deadline to renew the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program approaches, some illegal immigrants are issuing a bizarre ultimatum: Pass a deal to extend DACA, or else… we’ll leave the country.

    Which is, of course, exactly what the law says anyway. “Dreamers” have already been living in the country illegally for years, but now apparently think that threatening to leave will somehow motivate Congress to give them what they want.

    If a DACA extension isn’t passed, “I will leave. I will leave America as soon as possible,” illegal alien Alex Velez declared to CNN. She and her sister Daniela are due to have their protected status expire on March 6.

     

    Like the classic joke about being let go from a job — “You can’t fire me, I quit!” — the Velez sisters and other Dreamers seem to think that threatening to leave a country where they are staying illegally will somehow motivate lawmakers to keep them.

    “I want to be able to leave on my terms. I’m not going to be waiting for anyone to come for me,” Alex Velez stubbornly stated.

    TRENDING: Hunters Learn Painful Lesson After Kicking “Dead” Wolf

    That raises the obvious question: Why, then, has she and so many others waited in the U.S. for so long already?

    If Velez has declared that she will “leave America as soon as possible,” why didn’t she do that a long time ago? It was “possible” for years. Nobody was forcing her to stay.

     

    Alex and Daniela are both adults but have known that they were in America illegally since they were in middle school, after their parents overstayed visas from Venezuela.

    They both have two different countries to fall back on, being dual citizens of Ecuador and Venezuela, according to CNN. Ecuador is considered a safe and stable country that is a popular eco-vacation destination, and the sisters have family there.

     

    Yet despite knowing that they were illegal aliens for years and boasting about “leaving on their own terms,” it apparently never occurred to these Dreamers to prepare a backup plan.

    In fact, the Velez’s took complete advantage of their illegal status in the U.S., and despite their current demeanor seemed to have never considered that they might have to leave.

     

    “Alex will be abandoning the $10,000 in tuition she’s paid and the two years’ worth of community college credits she’s built up in her pursuit to become a veterinary technician,” said CNN.

    Remember, this was years after they found out that they were in the country illegally. This alien spent $10,000 in a country where she is not a citizen, knowing full well she might not be able to stay, and is now throwing a tantrum because that might not have been a great investment.

    RELATED: Mother Whose Son Was Brutally Murdered by an Illegal Throws Down Pelosi With a Shut-Up-A-Thon

    This, in a nutshell, is the problem so many Americans have with DACA: The absolute sense of entitlement.

    There is plenty of room for sympathy to the situation of Dreamers, especially those who were so young when they came to the U.S. that they barely remember the trip.

     

    However, the frustration of young illegal immigrants should perhaps be directed at their parents, not the country which has been incredibly lenient and has already taken in millions of refugees.

    Instead of gratitude for getting out of hellholes like Venezuela or crime-ridden streets in Mexico, however, a disturbing number of illegal aliens seem to have only contempt, and carry the flags of other countries as they march and protest against the same nation they refuse to leave.

    It’s become a parody, and a situation that the left has been all too eager to use for political advantage… but the American people have noticed.

    Please press “Share on Facebook” if you’re fed up with angry rhetoric from the Dreamer crowd!

    How would you respond to these “Dreamers?” Scroll down to comment below!

    ______________________________

     

    View Comments

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Report: Obama-era cash traced to Iran-backed terrorists in disturbing development

     

    foreinpolobummer

     

    $1.7 billion that the Obama administration sent to Iran two years ago found its way into the hands of Iran-backed terrorists, The Washington Times reports.

    Over the two years since the money was transferred, Iran has used the cash to fund terror groups such as Hezbollah as well as Houthi rebels in Yemen. That’s right — U.S. taxpayers financed terrorism at the behest of the Obama administration.

     

    The money was delivered in three separate payloads to Iran in January and February of 2016, allegedly to settle a decades-old arms deal.

    This is hardly an isolated example of Obama’s indulgences in favor of Iran. Politico reported in December that the Obama administration blocked criminal investigations of Iran-backed terror group Hezbollah to push the Iran deal through. Obama’s record on Iran looks instead like a pattern of appeasement.

     

    Obama millions went to terrorists

     

    The $1.7 billion in cash the Obama administration delivered to Iran in 2016 has been criticized by conservatives including President Trump, who claims the money was used to arm terrorists.

    According to sources in the U.S. government, he’s correct.

     

    The Times reports:

    The American money sent by the Obama administration was first flown to Switzerland aboard an unmarked chartered aircraft, and then converted into euros, Swiss francs and other currencies. An Iranian transport aircraft flew the cash to Iran in January and February 2016 in three shipments. The first aircraft arrived in Tehran on Jan. 16, 2016, with $400 million piled on wooden pallets. Two other aircraft shipments of cash were sent on Jan. 22, 2016, and Feb. 5, 2016, totaling $1.3 billion.

    U.S. intelligence officials have traced some of that money to multiple groups in Iran’s covert, far-flung terror network. The Washington Times details how Iran has used the cash to pay Lebanon-based terror group Hezbollah and to arm Houthi rebels in Yemen, where the Islamic regime is waging a proxy war with its chief regional enemy, Saudi Arabia.

    Iran has also used the money to pay the Quds Force, a special forces unit and primary foreign intelligence branch of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps.

    Obama cash

    The Obama administration then said that the money was sent to Iran as payment for an outstanding debt on a decades-old arbitration claim. The initial $400 million delivered to Tehran in January of 2016 was reportedly in return for an arms purchase made by Iran in the 1970s that never went through.

    Shah Pahlavi’s government bought American planes in the 1970s, but the deal went awry when the Revolution occurred in 1979. The Obama administration claimed it was paying that outstanding debt, with an additional $1.3 billion in interest delivered in two additional installments in January and February.

    Critics noted the timing of the $400 million initial payment and the release of four American hostages, provoking speculation that Obama was paying a ransom. The administration later acknowledged that the money was withheld as leverage to push for the hostages’ release.

    President Trump has criticized the Obama administration for helping to arm terrorists.

     

     

    ——————–

     

    “The enormous financial windfall the Iranian regime received because of the deal—access to more than $100 billion, including $1.8 billion in cash—has not been used to better the lives of the Iranian people. Instead, it has served as a slush fund for weapons, terror, and oppression, and to further line the pockets of corrupt regime leaders”, reads the White House’s statement on Iran.

    President Trump is correct. Obama had good reason to knew this cash would end up in the hands of terrorists.

     

    Iran’s connections with terror groups are not a secret. And recent reports demonstrate how the Obama administration deliberately blocked the Justice Department’s investigations into Hezbollah’s criminal activities.

    Regardless of intent, there is no doubt that Obama aided terrorists with these cash transfers. This either completely misguided policy or a failed attempt at appeasement.

     

    ___________________________________________________________________

    Obama Cover-up for Hillary Clinton Was Worse Than Collusion

    obacov121

    Who in his administration conspired to withhold damaging facts about failed Democrat candidate’s mishandling of classified info?

    by Charles Ortel | Updated 04 Feb 2018 at 10:31 AM


    Records available through the FBI Vault prove beyond any doubt that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her inner circle of trusted aides, including Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, were subjects of a formal investigation into the mishandling of classified information, beginning July 10, 2015.

    Yes, you read the above correctly: A formal FBI investigation commenced well before any 2016 Democratic presidential debates and primaries.


    Yet how many times did Clinton and her political and media allies claim that, whatever may have been happening, the review of her private servers and unsecured devices during her years as America’s chief diplomat was nothing more than a “normal security review,” not an “investigation”? Or, as then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch instructed then-FBI Director James Comey to describe it, just a “matter”?

    A 17-part treasure trove of documents concerning Clinton is linked here and includes much that we should all consider, starting with Part One, a 35-page summary of the contents.

    For example, in Part Six, starting on Page 11, we learn that a senior State Department informant walked into the Washington, D.C., FBI field office on Jan. 27, 2016, upset that Comey never acknowledged receipt of crucial evidence the confidential witness had earlier provided.

    Days later, Andrew McCabe was appointed deputy director of the FBI by then-President Barack Obama and tasked with oversight of the investigation into mishandling classified information by Clinton, Abedin, Mills and other key aides.

    Then, we learn on Oct. 30, 2016, through a different FBI Vault disclosure, that the Department of State had found by February 2016 more than 2,000 examples of mishandled classified information during Clinton’s tenure there (see Pages 12 and 13 of the preceding link):

    In February 2016, the State Department completed its review and determined that 2,115 of the 20,940 emails contain information that is presently classified.

    Out of these 2,115 emails, the State Department determined that 2,028 emails contain information classified at the confidential level, 65 contain information classified at the secret level, and 22 contain information classified at the top-secret level.

    Thereafter, at an undetermined date prior to October 2016, the FBI received further clarification concerning the scope of the apparent mishandling (see Page 14 of the preceding link):

    The FBI sought a determination by the relevant original classification authorities as to whether certain of the 30,490 emails contained classified information at the time they were sent.

    In response to the FBI’s requests for classification determinations, the relevant original classification authorities determined that 81 email chains, which the FBI investigation determined were transmitted and stored on the Clinton email server, contained classified information ranging from the confidential to top-secret/Special Account Program levels at the time they were sent between 2009 and 2013.

    To recap, the State Department concluded by February 2016 that classified information resided in more than 2,000 Clinton emails that were stored on a private server located in the Chappaqua, New York, mansion she shares with former President Bill Clinton, conveniently and completely outside of mandatory government security control for years.

    The FBI subsequently concluded that a significant number of Clinton’s declared emails were classified at the time they had been sent.


    Rather than inform American voters before the election, the Obama administration seems to have done its level best to bury these important facts. And they may have been aided in this cover-up by senior executives within the FBI, government employees the public expects to be scrupulously nonpartisan.

    Related: Here’s Why There May Be No More Free Passes for the Clinton Foundation

    When will those within government tell the American people the whole truth about Clinton’s stewardship of classified information while working as secretary of state?

    And, even more to the point, can the FBI or Department of Justice management — “swamp central” — be trusted to investigate themselves?

    Charles Ortel, a retired investment banker, concentrates on exposing complex frauds in his new career as an investigator, writer and commentator. Since August 2017, he has been hosting the Sunday with Charles podcast and covering the Clinton Foundation case in depth, using publicly available source materials.


    Some Article Comments copied from the webpage article below:


    • Tom Steele

    • While this may seem absolutely astonishing it is certainly readily explainable. Had they actually pursued prosecutions consistent with what the evidence proved they would have also caught up President Obama. He had sent HRC a number (no one knows how many) of emails containing confidential to top secret information UNDER AN ALIAS ACCOUNT that went through her server and were thus unprotected. Prosecutions were never going to happen and that’s why he started going public saying that while she might have been a little careless she really hadn’t done anything wrong. Can you believe that we actually elected a person who would do stuff like this?

      Reply

      Share

      20 Likes

      • <?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = “[default] http://www.w3.org/2000/svg” NS = “http://www.w3.org/2000/svg” />

        Leon

        Tom Steele

        2d

        We?

        Reply

        Share

        11 Likes

    • Chris

      2d

      No big surprise to anyone with a functioning brain. We knew Hillary was lying to us every time she opened her mouth. And most importantly, our Nobel Laureate (for doing nothing) president covered for her, protected her…and lied for her! I’m still waiting for some intrepid reporter to put a microphone in front of Obama and ask him why he used a pseudonym while communicating with Hillary on a private server he claimed to know nothing about!

      Reply

      Share

      16 Likes

      • scodougle

        Chris

        1d

        Obama wasn’t protecting her. He was protecting himself. This entire story is really about a sitting President using willing political appointees at the FBI and DOJ to cover up his own crimes. This didn’t include the women and men agents at the field level – in fact, I’ve heard that the New York office was going to leak the information about Weiner’s laptop having emails in October of 2016, and that is supposedly why Comey made the announcement that the investigation was “re-opened” after sitting on the information for several weeks, hoping to get past Hillary’s expected coronation. Of course, he closed the “investigation” just a few days later saying “Nothing there”.

        Reply

        Share

        5 Likes

    • njbobf

      2d

      Can you believe that regardless of what the evidence shows, nearly half the country won’t believe it or give it a pass?

      Reply

      Share

      7 Likes

    • jeff tarttLeader

      2d

      Bottom line: The ex-president is involved in a criminal act. It is almost impossible to expect that fact to hit a judges desk. Trust me, I would LOVE to have all those involved brought to justice, but reality dictates it will NEVER happen. It’s disgusting to think that we mere citizens must obey the law while those in power continue to break it.

      Reply

      Share

      7 Likes

      • scodougle

        jeff tartt

        1d

        These are some of the precise reasons this nation began. Our founding fathers were adamant that justice be blind specifically because those in power in England could avoid justice and basically do whatever they wanted.

        Reply

        Share

        4 Likes

      • Melvin E. HollidayContributor

        jeff tartt

        1dEdited

        Isn’t this the same President that produced a fake, forged birth certificate and claimed it was his while the rest of America remained silent and our law maker and breakers continued giving him an open leash to destroy everything in America we hold dear and it continues today while most of America seems uninterested about what is actually happening to our country and our Constitution and its laws. This is all very difficult for me to swallow coming from a man that doesn’t have an American Social Security card in his name and if he does then his name isn’t Barack Obama.

        Reply

        Share

        1 Like

      • jeff tarttLeader

        Melvin E. Holliday

        1d

        Well, we know his name is Barry, the media and others tried to hide the name change. I know, his “stepfather” was named Obama. Gander your glims on this fact folks. After joining the Islamic Religion, one must conform to it’s principles. Changing one’s name is part of that process.

        Reply

        Share

    • Myles L White

      1d

      She felt untouchable, and therefore complacent! Got away with so many lies over so many years. People need to quit being lazy and do what they can to fix this system.

      Reply

      Share

      5 Likes

      SHOW MORE COMMENTS…

      Click above and scroll to the bottom of the page….

      A year after Obama, Dems still looking for replacement!

      blinnews002


      POSTED BY: B J


      More than a year after former President Obama left the White House, the Democratic party is still trying to fill the void and find a leader who can take on President Trump.


      “There’s a definite yearning for ‘Who’s my next great love?’” Democratic strategist Patti Solis Doyle said in describing her party. “And the problem is we’re not really loving anyone we see. So we’re looking for someone we’re not expecting.”

      When Oprah Winfrey delivered a powerful speech at the Golden Globes last month, she provided a jolt of excitement to a party still reeling from a stunning 2016 election defeat. And some Democrats fell in love with the idea that the television personality could become their next standard bearer.

      They gloated about the prospects on cable news. Donors phones began to light up. A draft Oprah 2020 effort was quickly launched.

      Still, as primary season inches closer, the party’s desire to find anyone who could lead the “resist” movement to the Trump administration and its policies is on full display.

      David Wade, the Democratic strategist who served as a longtime senior aide to former Democratic nominee John Kerry, called it “the era of Democratic speed dating.”

      “It seems like every week, Democrats are swiping right on political Tinder trying to find the perfect match to send their hearts aflutter,” Wade said.bbbbbbbb

      But politics is like real life, you can’t force these things, it just has to happen and it usually happens when you least suspect it.”

      Solis Doyle said Trump is the main reason Democrats are anxious.

      “People are clamoring so early just because Trump is so bad,” she said. “So we keep looking for that person. ‘Who’s gonna be the best to battle Trump? Who’s charismatic enough? Who can go one-on-one with him in a debate?’”

      Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, said it’s not uncommon for the party not in office to search for the right party leader — particularly with more than two years until the Iowa caucuses.

      “But when there is no clear dominant pack of candidates, or the most prominent candidates all come with baggage, then this kind of show-and-tell becomes more pronounced,” Zelizer said.


      Trump has also upended the idea of who can run for president, leaving people wondering whether the next party leader will not come from the Senate or a governor’s mansion — but from the entertainment industry or business.

      It’s also possible that the Democratic flames for Winfrey or Rep. Kennedy, who is relatively unknown, shows some weakness.

      Zelizer cautioned that the flirtations are “a sign that not everything is right with Democrats as they get ready for 2018 and 2020.

      “Once dominant candidates are in the mix, these kind of pop-up appearances are interesting, but much less serious,” he said.

      Still, the courting of candidates can be a wild ride as recent history has proven, Wade said. “Democrats spent eight years pining for the next Bill Clinton, flirted with really bad boyfriends like John Edwards, and then ended up swooning for Barack Obama, the farthest thing from President Clinton.”

      Solis Doyle, who served as campaign manager for Hillary Clinton‘s 2008 presidential bid, suggested that Democrats just can’t wait to get to 2020, something on display during this week’s State of the Union, where Democratic politicians mostly had to sit there and take it as Trump gave his address flanked by the GOP leaders in Congress.

      She acknowledged liking the speech Kennedy gave in response to the address. “By contrast, I thought he was great. I thought that giving the response in front of an audience was brilliant.”

      Still, Solis Doyle added, “But one Democratic response does not a savior make.”

      “We’re shopping. We’re shopping. We’re shopping. But it’s fair to say no one has captured our hearts yet,” she said.

      Source: http://thehill.com


      _________________________________________________