House Judiciary Committee Calls for Second Special Counsel on Possible Comey Misconduct

FBI Director James Comey (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

PJ Media, by Patrick Poole, July 28, 2017:

Members of the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter Thursday to Attorney General Jeff Sessions calling for a second special counsel to be appointed to address the possible misconduct of former FBI Director James Comey. The letter also asked for an investigation into other matters not covered by the scope of the current special counsel’s investigation into Russia’s attempts to influence last year’s presidential election.

The press release from the House Judiciary Committee states:

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Judiciary Committee Republicans today sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein calling for the appointment of a second special counsel to investigate unaddressed matters, some connected to the 2016 election and others, including many actions taken by Obama Administration officials like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The letter follows yesterday’s House Judiciary Committee approval of H. Res. 446, as amended, to request documents pertaining to the FBI’s investigation of former Secretary Clinton.

In their letter, the Judiciary Committee members express concern that the directive given to Special Counsel Robert Mueller is narrow in scope and many concerns arising out of the 2016 presidential election and its aftermath are not being investigated. The members call for the appointment of a second special counsel to investigate grave concerns such as former Attorney General Lynch’s directive to former FBI Director Comey to mislead the American people on the nature of the investigation into former Secretary Clinton; the FBI and Justice Department’s investigative decisions related to the Clinton email investigation, including the immunity deals given to potential co-conspirators; selected leaks of classified information that unmasked U.S. persons incidentally collected upon by the intelligence community; and the FBI’s reliance on “Fusion GPS” in its investigation of the Trump campaign, among many others issues.

The full letter can be found here.

The letter lists as possible issues to be addressed by the second special counsel:

We call on a newly appointed special counsel to investigate, consistent with appropriate regulations, the following questions, many of which were previously posed by this Committee and remain unanswered:

  1. Then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch directing Mr. Comey to mislead the American people on the nature of the Clinton investigation;
  2. The shadow cast over our system of justice concerning Secretary Clinton and her involvement in mishandling classified information.
  3. FBI and DOJ’s investigative decisions related to former Secretary Clinton’s email investigation, including the propriety and consequence of immunity deals given to potential Clinton co-conspirators Cheryl Mills, Heather Samuelson, John Bentel and possibly others;
  4. The apparent failure of DOJ to empanel a grand jury to investigate allegations of mishandling of classified information by Hillary Clinton and her associates;
  5. The Department of State and its employees’ involvement in determining which communications of Secretary Clinton’s and her associates to turn over for public scrutiny;
  6. WikiLeaks disclosures concerning the Clinton Foundation and its potentially unlawful international dealings;
  7. Connections between the Clinton campaign, or the Clinton Foundation, and foreign entities, including those from Russia and Ukraine;
  8. Mr. Comey’s knowledge of the purchase of Uranium One by the company Rosatom, whether the approval of the sale was connected to any donations made to the Clinton Foundation, and what role Secretary Clinton played in the approval of that sale that had national security ramifications;
  9. Disclosures arising from unlawful access to the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) computer systems, including inappropriate collusion between the DNC and the Clinton campaign to undermine Senator Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign;
  10. Post-election accusations by the President that he was wiretapped by the previous Administration, and whether Mr. Comey and Ms. Lynch had any knowledge of efforts made by any federal agency to unlawfully monitor communications of then-candidate Trump or his associates;
  11. Selected leaks of classified information related to the unmasking of U.S. person identities incidentally collected upon by the intelligence community, including an assessment of whether anyone in the Obama Administration, including Mr. Comey, Ms. Lynch, Ms. Susan Rice, Ms. Samantha Power, or others, had any knowledge about the “unmasking” of individuals on then candidate-Trump’s campaign team, transition team, or both;
  12. Admitted leaks by Mr. Comey to Columbia University law professor, Daniel Richman, regarding conversations between Mr. Comey and President Trump, how the leaked information was purposefully released to lead to the appointment of a special counsel, and whether any classified information was included in the now infamous “Comey memos”;
  13. Mr. Comey’s and the FBI’s apparent reliance on “Fusion GPS” in its investigation of the Trump campaign, including the company’s creation of a “dossier” of information about Mr. Trump, that dossier’s commission and dissemination in the months before and after the 2016 election, whether the FBI paid anyone connected to the dossier, and the intelligence sources of Fusion GPS or any person or company working for Fusion GPS and its affiliates; and
  14. Any and all potential leaks originated by Mr. Comey and provide to author Michael Schmidt dating back to 1993.

Some will see this as a shot across the bow of current special counsel Robert Mueller to put some limits on perceived mission creep with his ongoing investigation.

One issue will be whether Attorney General Sessions’ recusal in the Russia investigation will limit his ability to appoint a second special counsel on unrelated matters. The thrust of the House Judiciary Committee letter seems to indicate they don’t believe it does.

Democrats may perceive a second special counsel as a corresponding threat of “mutual self-destruction” if the current investigation goes off course.

With Congress possibly leaving town tomorrow for the August recess, this could make for entertaining viewing during the congressional break.

***

Also see:

Islamic Society with Questionable Background Joins Forces with Justice Department to Intimidate Citizens Opposing Mosque

Thomas More Law Center, April 18, 2017:

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”) has learned that the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge (“ISBR”), which was trying to obtain zoning changes to build a mosque in Bernards Township, NJ, has hidden from public view anti-Christian and anti-Semitic verses on its website, as well as its connection to the Islamic Society of North America (“ISNA”)— an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing trial in America.  ISNA is claimed by the Muslim Brotherhood as one of “our organizations and . . . our friends.”  According to internal documents seized by the FBI, the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy is to engage in a “grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within . . .”—one of the stages of this civilization jihad is the building of mosques and Islamic centers.

Plaintiffs ISBR and Mohammad Ali Chaudry sued in March 2016, claiming that the denial of zoning changes to permit a mosque violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) of 2000 and reflected community “religious and cultural animus against Muslims.”  Within a week of the ISBR lawsuit, the Justice Department launched its own investigation and filed its own lawsuit.

While a visible link to the quotes below was once contained on the ISBR website, ISBR has now taken the extraordinary step of hiding the links from public view.  Accordingly, the quotes cannot be found through a simple internet search or a view of the public portion of ISBR’s website, they can only be found by access to the direct links here:

“Ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them.”

“Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war).”

“And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; … .”

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI entered the case solely to protect the constitutional rights of several Bernards Township citizens who exercised their fundamental right to publicly oppose proposed zoning changes.

These private citizens had no authority to deny the zoning application; nor did they have any official role in the Township.  Nevertheless, they were served with burdensome and harassing subpoenas which demanded: all their email addresses and social media accounts; all personal documents including emails, voicemails, text messages, and social media posts concerning Muslims, Islam, mosques, the Quran, Muslim worship or prayer services, wudu, imams, burkas, hijabs, Sharia, jihad, or anything else associated with or related to Muslims or Islam; any object inscribed with or containing the words “Preserve Liberty Corner,” or anti-mosque signs, flyers, banners, email messages, or pamphlets, distributed or otherwise existing at any time within the Township.  In addition, Department of Justice (“DOJ”) lawyers began a new front of intimidation by directly contacting these private citizens, asking them to come in for interviews concerning the mosque.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, stated: “Under Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the Justice Department, using politically driven DOJ attorneys, weaponized itself against fundamental constitutional principles to intimidate American citizens with whom they disagreed.  Immediately after the San Bernardino terrorist attack and just months before DOJ inserted itself into this case, Ms. Lynch made the infamous statement chilling free speech: ‘…when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric…. when we see that we will take action.’  This is exactly what happened to the citizens of Bernards Township. DOJ attorneys initiated a deep state inquisition, seeking to bring citizens objecting to the mosque in for questioning.”

Click here to read previous TMLC press release on Subpoenas.

Also see:

The 6 Things Obama Doesn’t Want You to Know About the Islamic State

AFP

AFP

Breitbart, by Dr. Sebastian Gorka, June 24, 2016:

It’s official. The Administration of President Barack Obama does not want you to understand the danger that you, your friends, your family, and your loved ones are in.

With the recent attempt at the Cabinet level of the U.S. Government by Attorney General Loretta Lynch to censor what the terrorist responsible for the greatest terror attack since 9/11 was saying on the phone to the 911 dispatcher during the Orlando massacre, we have the smoking gun of Orwellian “Newspeak” in America.

Barack Obama and his political appointees and cabinet members have been trying for more than five years to explain away the jihadi threat to America and misdirect your understanding of how serious the dangers are. To quote my good friend Tom Joscelyn atThe Long War Journal, it is a systematic effort to make you, “disconnect the dots.”

Here are the things that the Obama Administration does not want you to know.

One: America is losing the war against the global jihadi ideology.

Although written by a liberal scholar using politically correct verbiage, the facts detailed in a recent report published by Duke University titled “Muslim-American Involvement in Violent Extremism, 2015” cannot be denied. Figure One shows how many jihadi plots there have been in America since September 11th. As you can see, 2015 saw the greatest number of jihadi plots on U.S. soil since those horrific events in Manhattan, Washington, and Pennsylvania. This is despite the fact that just days before the San Bernardino attack, both President Obama and Secretary Kerry announced that ISIS is “contained” and “we are winning!”

Screen Shot 2016-06-24 at 11.07.02 AM

Two: There is no such thing as lone wolf terrorism.

The idea that we have disparate individuals across America that just decide one day to kill their fellow Americans is utterly and absolutely fallacious. Whether it is the first nineteen terrorists responsible for the original September 11th attacks, whether it is Major Nidal Hassan, the Fort Hood Shooter; or the Tsarnaev brothers responsible for the Boston Marathon Bombing; Malik and Farook, the San Bernardino killers; or last weekend’s attacker, Omar Mateen – these individuals are all connected. The connective tissue between them is the ideology of Global Jihadism, their belief that they are fighting for Allah (not “God,” as Loretta Lynch would have you believe, but Allah, the God of Islam).

Three: ISIS is much more powerful and much more dangerous than al Qaeda.

Unlike al Qaeda, ISIS has managed to achieve that which no other jihadi terrorist group has ever been able to achieve: the declaration of a theocratic Islamic state in the 21stCentury. At the end of June 2014, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi declared from the pulpit of the Grand Mosque in Mosul that the Islamic Empire is back and he is its new emperor, or Caliph. Unclassified U.S. Government estimates state that ISIS has been making between $2 and $4 million every day from its illicit activities, it has recruited more than 85,000 jihadi fighters, more than 6,000 of whom are Westerners, including Americans, and it now has 6 million people living on its territory in multiple countries. This is no “JV Team.” ISIS has taken their team to the Superbowl.

Four: ISIS is here in America.

Omar Mateen, the jihadi responsible for the Orlando atrocity, is the 103rd terrorist interdicted on U.S. soil since Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi declared the Caliphate than two years ago. This is not a question of a threat 8,000 miles away in Mesopotamia or in Afghanistan; this is a threat that is already well entrenched on the shores of the United States. If you examine the details in the report I co-authored with my wife, ISIS: The Threat to the United States, the most disturbing fact of all is that, of all the people we have interdicted on U.S. soil, a full third of them had no interest in traveling to the Middle East to be jihadis in Iraq or Syria, but had decided the best way to serve the new caliph, the new emperor of Islam, would be to kill American infidels on U.S. soil. The threat is not an if, it is NOW. And if the White House doesn’t change its strategy, there will be more attacks like Orlando.

Five: As a nation, we are weaker than we have ever been since September 11th.

Although America is the most powerful nation the world has ever seen, the systematic subversion of our national security establishment under the banner of inclusivity, cultural awareness, and political correctness has continued to increasingly endanger Americans. In a memo sent from the White House in 2011 to the then-Attorney General and the General of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Executive ordered that, in the name of multiculturalism and mutual respect, any mention of Islam was to be excised from government counterterrorism training within all of the armed services, and even federal law enforcement, including the FBI, and our various intelligence agencies. This means that even words like ‘jihad,’ which are the terms used by the terrorists to describe themselves, are and have been banned from use within the U.S. federal government. This means that our law enforcement, intelligence, and military operators have been denied access to accurate information and relevant training for several years. Subsequently, they are not in a position to understand our Enemy and defeat them.

Six: Lastly, the Obama Administration does not want you to know that the ideology of global jihad is more powerful than it has ever been.

ISIS has captured the brand of Global Jihadism from its former master, al Qaeda. Today, not only has it established a Caliphate in the Middle East, but it has also convinced tens of thousands of young Muslims that the End Times have begun, since the territory they have captured—referred to as “al Sham” in the Islamic eschatology—is the equivalent of Megiddo for Muslims, i.e. the site of the last Holy War before Judgement Day. As a result of this very effective exploitation of an apocalyptic religious theme being broadcast daily over social media (ISIS posts more than 55,000 social media posts every 24 hours), ISIS now has at least 43 affiliates in 19 countries, and they show no sign of losing momentum.

Loretta Lynch said this week, after the Orlando massacre, that our most powerful weapon against people like Omar Mateen is “love.” She is wrong. Love would not have worked against the Nazis or the totalitarians in the Kremlin. We are facing another totalitarian enemy that will not be negotiated with and that will not stop unless every “infidel” is enslaved or crushed. That truth is impossible for the President and his bubble-dwelling coterie to believe. As a result, Americans will continue to face an escalating risk until we have a change of administration.

The question is, will the new Commander-in-Chief perpetuate the lies and distortions of the last eight years or finally talk truthfully about the incarnate Evil that we face and what it will take to destroy it.

Dr. Sebastian Gorka is a National Security Editor for www.Breitbart.com and the author of the New York Times bestseller, Defeating Jihad. You can follow him on Twitter@SebGorka.

Loretta Lynch: ‘Islam,’ ‘ISIS’ to be Scrubbed from Orlando 911 Tapes

AP

AP

Update: DOJ releases unredacted Orlando jihad transcript after criticism

Breitbart, by Joel B. Pollak, June 19, 2016:

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch revealed Sunday that the government will release the transcripts of the 911 calls made by the Orlando terrorist during the attack last Sunday — scrubbed of any references to Islam or the Islamic State (ISIS).

She told Chuck Todd on NBC News’ Meet the Press that the “FBI is releasing a partial [printed] transcript of the killer’s calls with law enforcement, from inside the club,” but added: “What we’re not going to do is further proclaim this man’s pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups, and further his propaganda.”

Todd responded, incredulously: “We’re not going to hear him talk about those things?”

Lynch added: “We will hear him talk about some of those things, but we are not going to hear him make his assertions of allegiance and that.”

It is widely known that the terrorist, Omar Mateen, pledged allegiance to the Islamic State — also known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS — during the attack.

CNN reported last Sunday, citing a U.S. official: “Mateen called [911] dispatchers about 20 minutes into the attack, pledging allegiance to ISIS and mentioning the Boston Marathon bombers.”

Last week, the Washington Post reported that Mateen had called a local news station and said: “I did it for ISIS” and “I did it for the Islamic State.”

President Barack Obama himself has acknowledged that Mateen referred to ISIS (or “ISIL,” as the Obama administration insists on calling the group, swapping “Levant” for “Syria” for unknown reasons). However, he has insisted that Mateen likely was a “lone wolf,” and that any connection between the terror attack and radical Islam is either false or unhelpful to identify.

He defended his refusal to use the phrase “radical Islam,” saying that “there is no magic to the phrase “radical Islam.” He argued that connecting terrorists to Islam only furthered the interests of groups like the Islamic State, which wish to foment a war between the Islamic world and the West.

Lynch appears to be carrying out that instruction to an absurd extreme. While she claimed that “we’re trying to get as much information about this investigation out as possible,” she and the rest of the administration are deliberately suppressing any evidentiary link between Mateen and radical Islam, even though she has acknowledged that he did not mention other purported motives, such as prejudice against gays.

President Obama has also insisted that the culprit in Orlando was weak gun control laws — and, indirectly, the Republican Party, which has resisted further infringements on the Second Amendment.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. His new book, See No Evil: 19 Hard Truths the Left Can’t Handle, will be published by Regnery on July 25 and is available for pre-order through Amazon. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

***

‘I did the shootings’: DOJ releases some redacted transcripts of Orlando killer’s phone calls during massacre:

***

Andrew McCarthy: Obama Administration ‘Becoming Sharia-Adherent’ in Scrubbing ‘Islam’ and ‘ISIS’ from Orlando Jihadi’s 911 Call

***

Loretta Lynch and the Partisan Agenda Behind Orlando Transcripts:

Also see:

US Criminalizing Free Speech?

Gatestone Institute, by Judith Bergman, January 5, 2016:

  • Is this House Resolution a prelude? Has Attorney General Lynch seen the potential for someone lifting her “mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric”? And what is “anti-Muslim rhetoric” exactly? Criticizing Islam? Debating Mohammed? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation of Islam? Who decides the definition of “hate speech” against Muslims?
  • Of all 1,149 anti-religious hate crimes reported in the United States in 2014, only 16.1% were directed against Muslims, according to the FBI. By contrast, over half of all anti-religious hate crimes were directed against Jews – 56.8%.
  • Why this lopsided, discriminatory House Resolution in favor of a religious group that statistically needs it the least?
  • Are the Attorney General and the eighty-two House Democrats out to destroy the First Amendment and introduce censorship? A House Resolution could be reintroduced later as binding legislation.

Eighty-two leading Democrats have cosponsored a House Resolution (H.Res. 569) “Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric towards Muslims in the United States”.

The Resolution was introduced in the House of Representatives by Democrat Donald S. Beyer (Virginia) on December 17, 2015 — a mere 15 days after Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook gunned down 14 innocent Americans and wounded 23 in an ISIS-inspired terror attack at a Christmas party in San Bernardino, California.

The House Resolution states, “the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes and rhetoric have faced physical, verbal, and emotional abuse because they were Muslim or believed to be Muslim,” and the House of Representatives “expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes.”

What victims? Of all 1,149 anti-religious hate crimes reported in the United States in 2014, only 16.1% were directed against Muslims, according to the FBI. By contrast, over half of all anti-religious hate crimes were directed against Jews – 56.8%. The fewest, 8.6% of anti-religious hate crimes, were directed against Christians (Protestants and Catholics).

The Resolution goes on to denounce “…in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against mosques, Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslim.”

The House Resolution singles out Muslims in the United States as an especially vulnerable religious group that needs special protection to the extent that the Resolution “urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes.”

The reason for the introduction of this House Resolution at this point in time makes more sense if seen in conjunction with statements made by Attorney General Loretta Lynch on December 3, at a dinner celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Muslim Advocates — an organization that, according to its own website, has “powerful connections in Congress and the White House” and ensures that, “the concerns of American Muslims are heard by leaders at the highest levels of government.” Muslim Advocates goes on to say, “As a watchdog of justice, we use the courts to bring to task those who threaten the rights of American Muslims.”

At the dinner, Attorney General Lynch stated that she is concerned about an

“incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric… The fear that you have just mentioned is in fact my greatest fear as a prosecutor, as someone who is sworn to the protection of all of the American people, which is that the rhetoric will be accompanied by acts of violence. Now obviously, this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric — or, as we saw after 9/11, violence directed at individuals who may not even be Muslims but perceived to be Muslims, and they will suffer just as much — when we see that we will take action.”

Is this House Resolution a prelude to the Attorney General taking that action? Has she seen the potential for someone lifting her “mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric”? And what is “anti-Muslim rhetoric” exactly? Criticizing Islam? Debating Mohammed? Discussing whether ISIS is a true manifestation of Islam? Who decides the definition of what is considered hate speech against Muslims?

Are the Attorney General and the eighty-two House Democrats out to destroy the First Amendment and introduce censorship?

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch (left) said on December 3, “[W]hen we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric… when we see that we will take action.”

A House Resolution could be reintroduced later as binding legislation. Americans should be deeply concerned about this. The part of the House Resolution that should most concern Americans is the urging of “local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes.”

What is a hate crime in this context? The law already prohibits violence and threats of violence, and law enforcement authorities are supposed to prosecute those — intimidation, destruction, damage, vandalism, simple and aggravated assault. However, as this resolution includes “bigotry” and “hateful rhetoric” in its title, Americans should worry that it is those that the House Resolution is really alluding to, when it urges law enforcement authorities to prevent and prosecute hate crimes.

Why would the House of Representatives find it necessary to make such redundant statements, if not in order to redefine the concept of a hate crime?

Notably, no similar House Resolution has appeared condemning the much higher percentage of hate crimes against Jews — over three times as many as against Muslims. As long as the House is going down the road of condemning hate crimes, why does it not even mention once the much more widespread hate crimes that American Jews are experiencing? Why does it not mention the hate crimes against Christians, which after all are only 7.5% percent fewer than those against Muslims? Why this lopsided, discriminatory House Resolution in favor of a religious group that statistically needs it the least?

The House Resolution is unsettlingly similar to the UN Human Rights Commission’s Resolution 16/18, which is an attempt to establish Islamic “blasphemy laws,” making criticism of religion a criminal offense. The UNHRC Resolution would apply internationally (non-binding as of yet, except, presumably, for the countries that want it to be binding), and infractions would be punishable by law. In some Islamic countries, at the moment, the punishment is death — a sentence often handed down in trials that use questionable jurisprudence. Last year alone, a Saudi court sentenced a blogger, Raif Badawi to 1,000 lashes (“lashed very severely,” the court order read) and ten years in jail. Outside of any courts, in 2015 alone, in Bangladesh, four secular bloggers on four separate occasions were hacked to death by people who apparently did not agree with what they said.

The UNHRC Resolution, originally known as “Defamation of Islam,” was changed in later versions — it would seem for broader marketability — to “Defamation of Religions.”

Long sought by the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation, UNHRC Resolution 16/18 was co-sponsored by the United States, along with Pakistan. During a series of closed-door meetings over at least three years, it was spearheaded by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

“At the invitation of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,” begins the document of the US Mission in Geneva, “representatives of 26 governments and four international organizations met in Washington, D.C. on December 12-14, 2011 to discuss the implementation of United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution (UNHRC) 16/18 on ‘Combating Intolerance, Negative Stereotyping and Stigmatization of, and Discrimination, Incitement to Violence and Violence Against, Persons Based on Religion or Belief.'”

UNHRC Resolution 16/18, also known as the “Istanbul Process” (where the original meeting on the topic took place), is an Orwellian document that claims to protect freedom of religion, while attempting to criminalize internationally anything that might be considered “incitement to violence.” The late PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat used to tell his people, “I don’t have to tell you what to do. You know what to do.” Each word could be in Pat the Bunny. Would Arafat’s statement be considered incitement to violence?

UNHRC Resolution 16/18 was passed on March 24, 2011, without a vote.

According to the journalist Abigail Esman, writing in Forbes:

Resolution 16/18 seeks to limit speech that is viewed as “discriminatory” or which involves the “defamation of religion” – specifically that which can be viewed as “incitement to imminent violence… [T]his latest version, which includes the “incitement to imminent violence” phrase – that is, which criminalizes speech which incites violence against others on the basis of religion, race, or national origin – has succeeded in winning US approval – despite the fact that it (indirectly) places limitations as well on speech considered “blasphemous.”

In answer to a reproof — from the U.S Department of State, no less — Esman wrote, “By agreeing to criminalize ‘incitement to violence’ and to use all means at its disposal to prevent and to punish such actions, the US has – however unwittingly – enabled the OIC to use the measure against us – and other members of the free world.”

Many extremist Muslims, however, seem to have no problem criticizing other religions, as well as other Muslims. Some “criticize” Christians, as we have witnessed, by slitting their throats, or by burning or drowning them alive. Many extremist Muslims also seem to have no problem criticizing Jews – starting with calling them descendants of apes and pigs (Surah 5. Al-Maida, Ayah 60). Some Muslims write that all Jews should be killed:

the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

One therefore cannot help wondering — and one should wonder – to what extent H.Res. 569 is the “nose of the camel under the tent.”

As of now, H.Res. 569 has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Americans had better hope that the House Committee will see it for what it is: An attempt to destroy the First Amendment, shield Islam from criticism, and bring “Death to Free Speech.”

Judith Bergman is a writer, columnist, lawyer and political analyst.

Islamic Timelines Fueling Jihad

boom-timeline-bicubicGates of Vienna,  December 9, 2015,  by Sonia Bailley:

Summary: With the convergence of two Islamic timelines (al Qaeda, OIC) to destroy the West culminating THIS month (the OIC’s timeline ending Dec. 9th), along with the Muslim Brotherhood’s engagement in violent jihad, as opposed to the softer jihad of dawah (inviting non-believers to Islam, meant only as a preparatory phase to violent jihad), Westerners, as predicted by Major Stephen Coughlin, are in for the biggest shock of their lives in the dark times ahead, beginning this week, especially now that the caliphate has been re-established.

These two Islamic timelines, in addition to two Muslim Brotherhood documents — all of which were ignored by Western leaders — are mobilizing jihadists worldwide. The Muslim Brotherhood’s primary mission of dawah, which shakes the identity and faith of Westerners, making them more vulnerable to Islamic conversion and submission, has reached its goal and is ready to be superseded by the next jihad phase, that being all-out war, or violent jihad. All Islamic groups are working together to wage violent jihad on the West. Their intention to do so began ever since the first caliphate was abolished in 1924.

All-out war with the West has begun. With the culmination of two Islamic timelines imposing Islamic law or Sharia worldwide converging this month, in fact one this week, things are bound to get worse. More deadly terror attacks are expected worldwide as a result of this, as forecasted by Major Stephen Coughlin, a former U.S. army intelligence officer and Pentagon expert on Islamic law of jihad. The timelines are building momentum in parallel, with one plan using violent jihad to destroy the West, and the other using soft jihad to destroy Western civil liberties through the use of Sharia-compliant UN resolutions and hate speech codes to curtail any discussion or analysis of Islam.

Al Qaeda’s 20-year plan to violently impose Sharia on the West in stages is just entering Phase Six (2016-2020) of “Total Confrontation”. This timeline, hatched well before 1996, was known to the West for ten years.

The other death-to-the-West Islamic timeline implemented ten years ago by a highly powerful and influential organization — the world’s second largest intergovernmental organization (next to the United Nations) and largest Islamic organization — is also building momentum in a less violent but parallel way.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the largest voting bloc at the UN (comprising the world’s 57 Islamic states) proposed a Ten-Year Programme of Action (at a two-day summit in Mecca concluding on Dec.9th) to internationally criminalize any criticism of Islam or so-called Islamophobia, culminates this week (December 8th and 9th).

Criminalizing Islamophobia[1] was the OIC’s major initiative since 1999, at which time it began pushing for a blasphemy-against-Islam UN resolution. That resolution finally passed in 2011 as UN Resolution 16/18 — the underpadding of which is to establish a global Islamic hegemony or caliphate that subjugates the entire world to Sharia. UN Resolution 16/18 and the hate-speech laws that it gave rise to simply facilitate the Islamization of the West.

Both timelines are influencing, guiding, and mobilizing jihadists worldwide to launch attacks that are gaining momentum throughout the West. All-out war has begun with more and more Islamic terrorist attacks launching worldwide, including now in the U.S.

Coughlin attributes the recent escalation in worldwide Islamic terrorist attacks to the convergence of these two Islamic timelines culminating in December, and to the collaboration of leftists with Islamic organizations that include the Muslim Brotherhood[2], which was listed as a terrorist group in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Why has the media neglected to raise the alert and publish these Islamic timelines, known for over ten years, as front-page bold headlines in every major newspaper? Al Qaeda’s timeline is hell-bent on waging violent jihad on the West. The OIC’s timeline to criminalize speech deemed offensive to a Muslim, even when that criticism speaks the truth about Islam, is already underway in some European countries as hate speech laws that abridge our right to free speech and expression. Deadlines are quickly approaching, while Islamic terror attacks are escalating worldwide.

In all likelihood, the OIC-backed-and-boosted UN Resolution 16/18 will become law not only in Canada, beginning with Quebec as Bill 59[3] (which would criminalize websites offensive to Islam with fines of up to $20,000) — but in the U.S. as well, in light of Attorney General Loretta Lynch vowing just one day after the San Bernardino Islamic terrorist attack that she will prosecute anyone using “anti-Muslim rhetoric” — although she didn’t mention anything about prosecuting anyone using genocidal or jihadi rhetoric against non-believers.

What applies to one religion should equally apply to all, but it doesn’t. Drawing a cartoon of Mohammed warrants a death sentence, whereas a portrait of Pope Benedict XVI made out of 17,000 colored condoms (Eggs Benedict), a photograph of Christ on the crucifix in a glass of the artist’s urine (Piss Christ), and a painting of the Virgin Mary made of elephant dung and clippings of porno magazines (Black Madonna) all warrant center stage at the Museum of Modern Art. The same rules do not apply for Muslims whose religion is always protected from discussion, analysis, or criticism.[4]

Lynch’s promise conforms to UN Resolution 16/18, which, if it becomes international law, would enforce Sharia against Islamic blasphemy. This will be in accordance with those laws enforced by Mohammed 1,400 years ago that condemned to hell or called for the killing of his dissenters and insulters.

Any form of expression that reflects badly on Islam, or that is offensive or insulting to a Muslim, even if that criticism constitutes the truth, is in violation of Islamic law, and is considered a criminal offense in Islam. Those forms of informative expression might include the mere mention or criticism of jihad and its cruel and barbaric torture methods, the rape and enslavement of Christian and Yazidi women, the persecution of religious minorities, gays, and apostates, to name a few, and the motivating ideology behind all these horrific acts.

None of these topics are up for discussion or analysis, as they are considered blasphemous and shed a negative light on Islam — despite the fact that they were all committed in the name of Islam, described in the history of Islamic conquest, and mandated by Islamic doctrine. Mentioning Mohammed’s marriage to a six-year old girl, or female genital mutilation considered praiseworthy and recommended in Islam, is also considered offensive and not to be discussed.

Discussing the truth about Islam is diametrically opposed to Islam. It would enable its enemies to defeat it, as well as lure away potential converts to Islam. Islam obligates every Muslim to invite non-Muslims to the true path of Islam (dawah) through interfaith dialogue or bridge-building. According to Sayyid Qutb, the revered Muslim Brotherhood theorist and founding father of modern jihad, the bridge does not allow for people on both sides of the bridge to mix, but rather only for the non-believers to come over to Islam,

The aim of Dawah, as Coughlin points out in his new book, Catastrophic Failure — Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, is “to destroy our faith in God, our government, our legal system, our leadership, and our society” while strengthening the belief in Islam, so that we become defeated in mind and vulnerable to Islamic conversion and submission.

That is the primary mission of the Muslim Brotherhood, since the dissolution of the Ottoman caliphate in 1924 by Turkey’s first president, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Founded four years later in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood spent decades writing about reviving the Islamic faith through dawah, particularly for America.

America was viewed by the Muslim brotherhood as a powerful country devoid of human values, and therefore susceptible to dawah that would shape and direct this great country towards Sharia. Practising dawah enables the Muslim brotherhood to “destroy Western civilization from within”, as reflected in its 1991 Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the group in North America.

The sole purpose of dawah is preparing for jihad. Jihad will never end until the entire world shuns its false religious practices, accepts the one true religion of Islam, and unites under a global caliphate governed by Sharia. After all, “it is the nature of Islam to dominate and not be dominated, and Islam must impose its laws on all nations and extend its power to the entire planet,” according to the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna.

Coughlin often refers to a key Pakistani book that analyzes the Koran’s warfighting doctrine of jihad, The Quranic Concept of War (1976) by Brigadier General S. K. Malik of the Pakistani Army. Malik writes that when the non-believer becomes demoralized as his faith and identity are being destroyed, yet still refuses to convert or submit, then it becomes time to unleash the next phase of all-out kinetic jihad. It is this violent phase that instills terror into the non-believer’s heart. It is al Qaeda and other jihadist groups launching violent terrorist attacks on the West.

It should be emphasized that Malik’s radical views on the Koran’s warfighting doctrine of jihad were endorsed as national policy in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan — a country that implements the death penalty for those who insult Islam. It was Pakistan that introduced the first anti-Islam UN draft resolution in 1999. It was Pakistan that co-sponsored the Sharia-compliant UN Resolution 16/18 with none other than the U.S. Under the Obama administration and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the U.S. helped usher in a resolution that violates the very foundation of who we are as a nation, the First Amendment, the right to free speech and expression.

UN Resolution 16/18 also violates Article VI of the Constitution, which, as Coughlin writes, “states the supremacy of the Constitution and its laws, while Sharia states the same about its own laws.” Sharia is incompatible with the Constitutional rule of law or form of government in the U.S.; they cannot co-exist, as Islamic law dictates that man-made laws cannot be passed if they contradict the undisputed rules of Islam. In most of the Muslim world, Sharia is the law of the land. Coughlin writes that Sharia subordinates national security interests and undermines the Article VI requirement to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies.

Discovered in 2004, the Explanatory Memo, which describes how to take over North America, has been collecting dust in U.S. national security agencies for over ten years. The same can be said for the Muslim Brotherhood’s worldwide twelve-point strategy for Islamic policy, better known as The Project, which was written in 1982 and discovered shortly after 9/11. Both revealing documents, which direct Muslim Brothers to infiltrate and undermine the government and all U.S. institutions (which has already been done), have been relegated to nothingness, as have the death-to-the-West timelines of al Qaeda and the OIC, rather than be taken seriously as major threats to Western civilization, and dealt with accordingly.

Muslim Brotherhood groups, as well as other Islamic groups, such as the OIC and al Qaeda (an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood and forerunner to ISIS), have been patiently planning for decades to restore the caliphate. It was finally re-established last year, as per Phase Five(2013-2015) of al Qaeda’s timeline.

Despite the fact that most Muslim Brotherhood organizations appear moderate, they are becoming more confrontational and violent against the West at the urgings of al Qaeda, who feel that the time is ripe to leave the non-violent preparatory phase of dawah and wage a more violent jihad.

Coughlin writes that it was the Muslim Brotherhood, at the urging of al Qaeda, who brought on the 2011 collapse of Arab regimes (Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen). The purpose was not to promote Western freedom, as people were made to believe, but rather to do the very opposite by replacing these Westernized regimes with more Sharia-compliant ones. The events were naively portrayed by the media as the Arab Spring. That marked Phase Four (2010-2013) of al Qaeda’s timeline, and was right on schedule.

The call to violent jihad has become even stronger with the re-emergence of the caliphate, which, under Sharia, legally obligates Muslim to wage offensive jihad in non-Muslim lands through the authorization of the caliph (ruler of the caliphate). Offensive jihad first appeared in 632 AD when the first caliphate appeared, resulting in the eventual conquest by Islamic armies of Southwest Asia, North Africa, and Spain.

Today, nearly a quarter of U.S. Muslims believe that violent jihad is justified in establishing Sharia and is a legitimate response to those who insult Islam, and 51% agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah.” (according to a June poll of 600 Muslims living in the U.S.).

9/11 was referred to as “The Awakening” in Phase One (2000-2003) of Al Qaeda’s timeline, which was hatched well over 20 years ago. And events are playing out exactly as planned by Al Qaeda, despite Coughlin’s warnings to senior Pentagon officials and Congress members to name the enemy as he names himself in order to understand and defeat him. “What matters is that we understand the enemy’s doctrines, and not whether he is correct about them.”

Coughlin taught that we must identify the enemy (jihadist or Islamic terrorist) according to his fighting doctrine (Islamic law of jihad) that he himself says he is following, fighting for, and implementing. For that reason, the Pentagon dismissed Coughlin in 2008. Three years later, at the request of 57 Muslim groups, hundreds of documents and presentations from military training and counter-terrorism material critical to the national security of the U.S. were discarded for being offensive to Islam or Islamophobic, that is, containing references to Islam or jihad. Those documents were reviewed and tossed away by those same groups.

The U.S. military and law enforcement are no longer capable of defining the enemy, as their course material no longer teaches the truth about Islam and jihad. The fact of the matter is that Islamophobia prohibits any reference to Islam or jihad, not because it is offensive, but because it is informative: because it exposes the truth about the enemies and their fighting doctrine — information that would help us win the war against them.

With the help of leftists who blame Islamic terrorism on everything but Islam, including climate change, Muslim Brotherhood groups in North America are — besides infiltrating the Obama regime, including all its national security and intelligence agencies — progressively destroying the identity and soul of non-believers by slowly instituting Sharia standards to make Islam supreme: revising school history books in accordance with Islam, forcing people to eat or purchase only unlabelled halal products, allowing Muslim students to skip music or mixed-gender gym classes, removing Christian symbols considered offensive to Muslims, closing down major streets for Islamic prayer, and now imposing hate-speech laws to censor and criminalize any discussion or criticism of Islam.

None of this would be possible without the aid of leftist organizations doing the leg work for Muslim Brotherhood groups. There is cause for great concern when one such organization, the highly influential Arab Sp — the world’s largest security-oriented intergovernmental organization that helps shape the course of international relations and security policies — cooperates with the OIC by refusing to call the Islamic State Islamic.

The OSCE — as well as President Obama himself, along with other world leaders — believes that doing so wrongly links Islam with terrorism, despite the facts that Islamic State is what ISIS names itself and its state, and that ISIS clearly credits its acts to Allah.

The Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, and the OIC are working cooperatively with and in parallel to one another, fueling the jihadist frenzy worldwide, Coughlin recently asserted on Canada’s CFRA radio. The Muslim Brotherhood’s efforts are synchronized with those of al Qaeda’s and the OIC’s to ultimately re-establish the supremacy of Islam and gradually enforce Sharia worldwide through a more violent jihad.

The OIC continues going to great lengths to take the Islam out of the Islamic State. After proclaiming last year that the Islamic State has no connection with Islam, OIC Secretary General Iyad Ameen Madani has recently upped the ante by announcing at a UN General Assembly the establishment of a Messaging Center to counter “extremist discourse and propaganda”, meaning, any discussion critical of Islam.

Equally important, Coughlin adds, is the active alliance of hard-left groups with al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, heightened by the possibility of a nuclear armed caliphate. He warns that this is just the beginning.

As the holiday season approaches, numerous large-scale attacks in major Western cities will take place. With the final anniversaries of the two Islamic timelines quickly approaching, with one culminating this week, our submissive, politically correct and culturally sensitive politicians are still doing absolutely nothing. The clock is ticking…

Notes:

1. It is interesting to note is that Islamophobia is a term coined and promoted by a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate (International Institute for Islamic Thought, IIIT) back in the early 1990s to render the West impotent to defeat the enemy.
2. Some of the Muslim Brotherhood’s offshoots (al Qaeda, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad) have been declared foreign terrorist groups by the U.S. and Canada, while other offshoots, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) that deals with social justice and civil rights, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) were among the unindicted co-conspirators in the largest terrorist financing case in U.S. history in 2008: the Holy Land Foundation, the U.S.’s largest Islamic charity in Texas funneling millions of dollars to Hamas and other jihadist organizations.
3. Rest assured that the architect of Quebec’s Bill 59, Jacques Frémont, Emeritus University Law professor at the University of Montreal, will soon bring his Sharia-compliant blasphemy laws to Ottawa where he was recently named next president of the University of Ottawa. Frémont is also president of the Quebec Human Rights Commission, which will soon initiate hate-speech lawsuits against those who express anything deemed offensive to a Muslim (decided upon by the tribunals). It is of interest to note that Frémont is also the former director of a George Soros-funded progressive-leftist group called Open Society Foundations.
4. Is it any wonder why there are no UN resolutions to criminalize speech when it comes to advocating jihad against non-Muslims? To criminalize Muslims who deliver virulent mosque sermons that criticize and condemn to death Jews and Christians, portrayed as sons of apes and pigs, as mandated in Islamic doctrine? To criminalize Muslims who kill, torture, and terrorize non-Muslims worldwide to the point of genocide, such as the Yazidis and Christians in the Middle East, as well as other Muslims who are not considered Muslim enough by the perpetrators? To outlaw the Muslim slave and sex slave trade industry that continue to this day in Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Mauritania, and in other countries where Islam has become more prevalent, as mandated by the Koran that specifically allows taking slaves as war booty from non-Muslims? Regardless, UN Resolution 16/18 is a hot item on the UN Resolution menu, as far as UN Resolutions go, with defamation of Islam being the prime concern amongst voters.

7 Reasons You Should Buy a Gun After San Bernardino

United Artists

United Artists

Breitbart, by Ben Shapiro, Dec. 4, 2015:

You should buy a gun. You should learn how to use it. You should buy sufficient ammunition. You should get a license to carry, if you can.

You should do all of that now.

You should do it not just because President Obama and his administration are hell-bent on implementing some form of worse-than-useless gun control in the aftermath of the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California on Wednesday. You should buy a gun because the government cannot keep you safe. You should buy a gun because the government may in fact attempt to disarm you in violation of your Constitutional rights. You should buy a gun because the media will lie to you about the government’s ability to keep you safe.

That is the takeaway message from this week’s spate of events.

Here’s why.

Obama Said You Were Safe From ISIS. On the day before ISIS terrorists attacked Paris, Obama said, “We have contained them.” On the day of the San Bernardino ISIS-inspired terrorist attack, Obama assured Americans that they were safe from ISIS. He told CBS, “ISIL will not pose an existential threat to us…The American people should feel confident that, you know, we are going to be able to defend ourselves and make sure that, you know, we have a good holiday and go about our lives.” He said that at the same time that one of the San Bernardino terrorists, Tashfeen Malik, pledged her allegiance to ISIS on Facebook. At the same exact time.

And we know that Obama manipulates national security information for his own political gain. His own former head of intelligence admitted as much this week.

Do you feel safe from ISIS?

Obama Said You Could Trust The Government To Screen Immigrants. President Obama has derisively mocked Republicans for wariness over the government’s ability to screen Syrian Muslim refugees. Obama says that we have a thorough screening process for Syrian Muslim refugees; he scoffed at GOP critics: “Apparently, they’re scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America as part of our tradition of compassion.”

One of the San Bernardino terrorists, Malik, was in the country on a K-1 visa. That visa allows holders to come to the United States to get married, and as Breitbart reported, the State Department says that the K-1 visa does require that the fiancée “must meet some of the requirements of an immigrant visa.”

Oopsies.

But don’t worry – these weren’t refugees.

Do you feel safe?

Obama Thinks The Government Is Great At Tracking Down Terror Leads. President Obama repeatedly assures us that the government is doing amazing work in tracking down anti-terror leads. Surely that’s true. That doesn’t mean you’re safe. The FBI didn’t have Syed Farook on a watch list or a no-fly list, even though according to CNN, he was “in touch with people being investigated by the FBI for international terrorism, law enforcement officials said Thursday.” The suspects were watching ISIS propaganda online.

Because the Obama administration doesn’t take Islamic terrorism seriously – climate change is far more important – they have a long history of ignoring terror information. As Joel Pollak points out, the Obama administration still has not exploited the intelligence value of information obtained during the bin Laden raid, and they left the Benghazi consulate completely open after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2012, risking intelligence assets in the process.

Do you feel safe?

Obama Thinks Taking Your Guns Will Stop Terrorists. Josh Earnest said yesterday that gun control was the best way to stop terrorists. Fox News’ Peter Doocy asked if Obama thought gun control could deter terrorism; Earnest explained, “Yes. The president believes that passing common sense gun laws that makes it harder for people with bad intentions to get guns, makes the country safer.” But we know that the San Bernardino terrorists bought their guns legally, then modified them in illegal fashion. They also had IEDs. California has some of the strictest gun control in the nation. That fact led Sen. Barbara Boxer to declare, idiotically, that “Sensible gun laws work. We’ve proven it in California and we are not going to give up.” She said this the day after the shooting in San Bernardino that prompted the conversation in the first place – the day after a bunch of unarmed people were shot while waiting four minutes for the cops to arrive.

Do you feel safe?

Democrats Think They Can Disarm You Without Due Process. Two weeks ago, the media badgered Donald Trump after NBC’s Vaughn Hillyard asked Trump whether he wanted a Muslim registry. Trump thought they were talking about a registry of foreign Muslims – you know, like the kind of registry that could have helped gather information about Malik – but the media interpreted the question as one about monitoring of domestic Muslims. The media promptly labeled Trump a Nazi.

Well, over the past two days, Democrats have made it their chief talking point to blast Republicans for their failure to support removing guns from those on the terror watch list and no-fly list without due process of law. The New York Times editorial board used that vote to blame Republicans for San Bernardino. So did The New York Daily News, which headlined that Wayne LaPierre of the NRA was a terrorist. The Democratic National Committee tweeted that Sen. Marco Rubio and Sen. Ted Cruz  “just voted against legislation that could have prevented terrorists from getting guns.”

Neither Malik nor Farook were on the no-fly list or the terror watch list. There are, however, some 750,000 Americans on those lists. It requires no show of evidence to put someone on the list. But according to the left, mere presence on the list means we can remove guns from you in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Yes, they’re coming after your guns.

So, do you feel safe?

The Department of Justice Thinks Its Top Priority Is Prosecution of “Anti-Muslim” Speech. On Thursday, the day after the San Bernardino terror attack, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said her “greatest fear” is the “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric,” and then stated, “When we talk about the First Amendment, we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted.” Any anti-Muslim “rhetoric…[that] edges toward violence” would be prosecuted, she said. She also said that Muslim parents should contact the federal government in case of “bullying” at school.

So after attacking the Second Amendment, the feds want to attack the First as well. Worth noting: Lynch also said that the federal government would investigate the Irving Sheriff’s Department for their detention of Clock Boy Ahmed Mohammed.

Do you feel safe from your own government?

The Media Don’t Care About Your Safety. The media keep parroting the administration’s lies about keeping Americans safe, but they couldn’t care less about that. Today, they demonstrated their willingness to enter the apartment of terrorists, without official permission, destroying evidence in their wake. As CNN ‘s law enforcement analyst said while watching all of this happen:

I don’t see any fingerprint dust on the walls where they went in there and checked for fingerprints for other people that might have been connected with these two. You’ve got documents laying all over the place; you’ve got shredded documents…You have passports, you’ve got drivers’ licenses — now you have thousands of fingerprints all over inside this crime scene…I am so shocked, I cannot believe it.

These are the media who will supposedly keep our government honest.

Do you feel safe?

I grew up in a home without guns. I am not a gun enthusiast; I own a Mossberg shotgun and a Glock handgun for home security.

I’m planning on buying more, now, however.

I don’t feel safe.

Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News, Editor-in-Chief of DailyWire.com, and The New York Times bestselling author, most recently, of the book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.

***

‘It’s About Surviving’: Judge Jeanine Says U.S. Must ‘Stop Pussyfooting’ in Terror Fight with transcript

Also see: