Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY.
BLOGSPOT.COM
Friday, August 17, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
Respect
‘Queen of Soul’ Aretha Franklin Passes at 76
Midterm Meddling: Twitter Follows Facebook, Blacklists GOP Candidate Elizabeth Heng’s Family Story Because It’s Critical of Communism
Minnesota Dem Candidate Voted Against Bill to Stop Insurance Payments to Convicted Terrorists
Ilhan Omar accused of being fringe, anti-Israel
BY: Adam Kredo
Ilhan Omar, the former Minnesota legislator who won the Democratic primary for a House seat on Tuesday, once voted against a state bill to stop insurance payments to those convicted of terror acts, adding more fuel to accusations the candidate represents a fringe, anti-Israel section of the Democratic Party.
Omar, a Muslim Somali-American who has come under fire for her harsh criticism of Israel, was one of just two lawmakers in 2017 who voted against a Minnesota bill to deny life insurance payments to any person convicted of aiding or committing terror acts, according to official vote tallies.
Omar's objection to the bill has stoked critics on both sides of the political aisle who say the candidate's anti-Israel positions and soft stance on terrorism puts her in a growing stable of fringe Democratic lawmakers who single out the Jewish state for criticism.
Omar is vying to replace Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison, also a Muslim who has taken a hardline position on Israel and who has come under fire for his close association with groups and individuals labeled as anti-Semitic and anti-Israel.
Omar has dubbed Israel an "apartheid regime" in past comments and has been forced to defend herself against allegations of anti-Semitism for these and other similar comments.
Her vote against the bill to end life insurance payments for those involved in terrorism raised questions and some criticism at the time, though Omar has not recently been asked to explain the vote.
Omar's campaign did not immediately respond to a Washington Free Beacon request for comment on the vote and her reasons for opposing the measure.
In 2012, Omar claimed that Israel had "hypnotized the world" to turns its back on the state's "evil doings."
As she seeks to win Ellison's seat in Congress, Omar has attempted to walk back her previous comments and acknowledge Israel's right to exist.
However, pro-Israel organizations and others have shunned the candidate, saying she represents a growing fringe section of the Democratic Party that must be opposed by the Jewish political community.
"Saying that Israel ‘hypnotized the world' and calling the Israeli government an ‘apartheid Israeli regime,' is not only offensive and wrong, but hurts the progressive cause," one veteran Democratic political operative told the Free Beacon. "Ilhan Omar will either moderate her extreme and dangerous rhetoric or, at least when it comes to Middle East issues, she will be shunned by the Congressional Democratic Caucus and the Party as a whole."
The Jewish Democratic Council of America, one of the leading organizations supporting pro-Israel Democratic candidates, has declined to endorse the candidate over what it says is her anti-Israel sentiment.
"Now that Ms. Omar has emerged as the Democratic candidate, JDCA will not support her candidacy—and certainly will not endorse her—because her views are not aligned with our positions and values," the organization said in a recent statement to the Jewish press.
In addition to her anti-Israel comments, Omar came under scrutiny last year for opposing a Minnesota bill that would penalize parents who perform genital mutilations on their children. In that instance, Omar was one of four state lawmakers who opposed the bill.
Omar has been endorsed by prominent Muslim-American community organizations, including ones known for their use of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic rhetoric. Omar was also endorsed by Democratic-Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
The Arab-American Anti-Discrimination League, or ADC, a group known for promoting anti-Israel materials, has endorsed Omar, as has the Council on American Islamic Relations, or CAIR, another prominent Muslim organization known for its anti-Israel rhetoric.
"We are proud of the strong voter turnout of all Minnesotans in last night's primary, especially Minnesota Muslim voters, in making democracy work for everyone," said CAIR's Minnesota executive director Jaylani Hussein said in a statement. "Last night's historic primary exemplified the trust Minnesotan voters place in Muslim candidates running for office."
Nancy Pelosi claimed on Wednesday that Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) “strikes fear in the heart” of President Donald Trump. Hokum...
Representative Nancy Pelosi believes that President Trump is fearful of crazy Maxine Waters. Maxine is famous for calling for President Trump's impeachment and for being coined as the most corrupt member of Congress. No small task.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) claimed on Wednesday that Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) “strikes fear in the heart” of President Donald Trump.
Pelosi was responding to Trump’s tweet that wished “Happy Birthday to the leader of the Democrat Party, Maxine Waters!”
Happy Birthday to the leader of the Democrat Party, Maxine Waters!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 15, 2018
Happy birthday to my friend and colleague @RepMaxineWaters. You are a strong, courageous and dedicated role model who knows how to get the job done. And that strikes fear in the heart of @realDonaldTrump. pic.twitter.com/a5wyMd9wX7
— Nancy Pelosi (@NancyPelosi) August 15, 2018
Over the weekend in interviews with MSNBC and PoliticusUSA, Pelosi claimed that Republicans were scared of Waters and her because the California Democrats were effective female legislators.
Pelosi, who got Democrats Obamacare and infamously said that Congress had to pass the bill to find out what was in it, even said Republicans were scared of her because she eats their lunch and outsmarts them at the negotiating table.
Pelosi never fails to disappoint in her salacious claims. If Maxine and Nancy are the faces of the Democrat party the Republicans should have a good November.
Pelosi was responding to Trump’s tweet that wished “Happy Birthday to the leader of the Democrat Party, Maxine Waters!”
Happy Birthday to the leader of the Democrat Party, Maxine Waters!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 15, 2018
Happy birthday to my friend and colleague @RepMaxineWaters. You are a strong, courageous and dedicated role model who knows how to get the job done. And that strikes fear in the heart of @realDonaldTrump. pic.twitter.com/a5wyMd9wX7
— Nancy Pelosi (@NancyPelosi) August 15, 2018
Over the weekend in interviews with MSNBC and PoliticusUSA, Pelosi claimed that Republicans were scared of Waters and her because the California Democrats were effective female legislators.
Pelosi, who got Democrats Obamacare and infamously said that Congress had to pass the bill to find out what was in it, even said Republicans were scared of her because she eats their lunch and outsmarts them at the negotiating table.
Pelosi never fails to disappoint in her salacious claims. If Maxine and Nancy are the faces of the Democrat party the Republicans should have a good November.
'Unprecedented:' Why John Brennan's Extraordinary Partisanship Justifies Revoking His Security Clearance
President Trump's decision to strip former CIA Director John Brennan of his security clearance, announced yesterday, clearly lies within the president's authority. But was it the right thing to do? Officially, the White House says the move comes as a result of Brennan's 'erratic' behavior and history of dishonesty. Here's a portion of President Trump's statement on the matter -- which was originally dated late July, stirring speculation that the administration tactically released it yesterday to deflect from other news cycle items:
Historically, former heads of intelligence and law enforcement agencies have been allowed to retain access to classified information after their Government service so that they can consult with their successors regarding matters about which they may have special insights and as a professional courtesy. Neither of these justifications supports Mr. Brennan’s continued access to classified information. First, at this point in my Administration, any benefits that senior officials might glean from consultations with Mr. Brennan are now outweighed by the risks posed by his erratic conduct and behavior. Second, that conduct and behavior has tested and far exceeded the limits of any professional courtesy that may have been due to him. Mr. Brennan has a history that calls into question his objectivity and credibility.
More than a few people snarked that it's quite rich to see Donald Trump, of all people, warning that someone exhibiting "erratic conduct and behavior" shouldn't have access to classified materials. But Trump is the legitimately-elected President of the United States, accountable to the people. Figures like Brennan are accountable to elected civilian leadership. As for the alleged "history that calls into question [Brennan's] objectivity and credibility," Trump has a point. Several, actually. A few months back, Victor Davis Hanson ran through a number of Brennan's most serious credibility-destroying misadventures:
{1) In 2011, Brennan, then the country’s chief counterterrorism adviser, had sworn to Congress that scores of drones strikes abroad had not killed a single noncombatant — at a time when both the president and the CIA were both receiving numerous reports of civilian collateral deaths.
(2) In 2014, John Brennan, now as CIA director, lied emphatically that the CIA had not illegally accessed the computers of U.S. Senate stafferswho were then exploring a CIA role in torturing detainees...Brennan’s chronic deceptions drew the ire of a number of liberal senators, some of whom echoed the Washington Post’s call for his immediate resignation. After months of prevarications, but only upon release of the CIA inspector general’s report, Brennan apologized to the senators he had deceived.
(3) Brennan, in May 2017, as an ex-CIA director, again almost certainly did not tell the truth to Congress when he testified in answer to Representative Trey Gowdy’s questions that he neither knew who had commissioned the Steele dossier nor had the CIA relied on its contents for any action. Yet both the retired National Security Agency director, Michael Rogers, and the former director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, have conceded that the Steele dossier — along with the knowledge that it was a Clinton-campaign-funded product — most certainly did help shape the Obama’s intelligence communality interagency assessments and actions, often under the urging of Brennan himself.
There are also numerous reports that, despite his denials about knowledge of the dossier, Brennan served as a stealthy conduit to ensure that it was disseminated widely, at least in the sense of meeting in August 2016 with Senator Harry Reid to brief the senator about its unverified contents in hopes that he would pressure the FBI to further its investigations, which Reid did in a call two days later to James Comey.
(2) In 2014, John Brennan, now as CIA director, lied emphatically that the CIA had not illegally accessed the computers of U.S. Senate stafferswho were then exploring a CIA role in torturing detainees...Brennan’s chronic deceptions drew the ire of a number of liberal senators, some of whom echoed the Washington Post’s call for his immediate resignation. After months of prevarications, but only upon release of the CIA inspector general’s report, Brennan apologized to the senators he had deceived.
(3) Brennan, in May 2017, as an ex-CIA director, again almost certainly did not tell the truth to Congress when he testified in answer to Representative Trey Gowdy’s questions that he neither knew who had commissioned the Steele dossier nor had the CIA relied on its contents for any action. Yet both the retired National Security Agency director, Michael Rogers, and the former director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, have conceded that the Steele dossier — along with the knowledge that it was a Clinton-campaign-funded product — most certainly did help shape the Obama’s intelligence communality interagency assessments and actions, often under the urging of Brennan himself.
There are also numerous reports that, despite his denials about knowledge of the dossier, Brennan served as a stealthy conduit to ensure that it was disseminated widely, at least in the sense of meeting in August 2016 with Senator Harry Reid to brief the senator about its unverified contents in hopes that he would pressure the FBI to further its investigations, which Reid did in a call two days later to James Comey.
In addition to these examples of documented dishonesty, it's important to consider Brennan's astonishing hyper-partisanship and "resistance"-style histrionics, both in televised commentaries and on social media. Two representative examples, starting with a blistering tweet sent in response to the firing of ex-FBI official Andrew McCabe (who, I'll remind you, repeatedly lied to federal investigators, prompting the Inspector General to recommend criminal charges):
When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America...America will triumph over you.
Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
Andrew McCabe FIRED, a great day for the hard working men and women of the FBI - A great day for Democracy. Sanctimonious James Comey was his boss and made McCabe look like a choirboy. He knew all about the lies and corruption going on at the highest levels of the FBI!
Andrew McCabe FIRED, a great day for the hard working men and women of the FBI - A great day for Democracy. Sanctimonious James Comey was his boss and made McCabe look like a choirboy. He knew all about the lies and corruption going on at the highest levels of the FBI!
8:00 AM - Mar 17, 2018
And then there's this breathless, hyperbolic use of the T-word, employed after the president's strikingly weak performance at a press conference alongside Vladimir Putin in Finland:
Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of “high crimes & misdemeanors.” It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???
Brennan and other former national security officials -- including figures with their own serious credibility problems -- are absolutely free to engage in any sort of political speech they see fit. But considering the unprecedented, explicitly partisan vitriol they're resorting to (I've written previously that this type of rhetoric does damage to the institutions they claim to care about so profoundly), it's not unreasonable to expect the Trump administration to respond with a commensurate breach of precedent. Former Deputy National Security Adviser to President George W. Bush, Elliott Abrams, persuasively advances this point in a Politico column:
I cannot recall previous high intelligence officials acting the way Brennan and Clapper have in vocally assaulting the succeeding administration in a highly partisan manner...what’s happening now is unprecedented. Brennan and Clapper may well believe that Trump is a threat to the country and as such, merits a break from the norms. They are entitled to their beliefs and can go on attacking—but they shouldn’t have access to classified information. One has to assume that the partisan views Brennan and Clapper now express were the same views they held when in office, and it is impossible to believe such views did not affect their conduct of their offices. They have done real damage to the belief and expectation that partisan politics will not affect the way our intelligence agencies operate, or the advice they give. They have also led to a reasonable suspicion they might deliberately leak something that could in their view damage the administration or contradict its assertions.
Of course, former officials—including presidents—do not take a vow of silence upon leaving office. But former presidents have usually been circumspect in attacking their successors (Jimmy Carter is an exception), and former intelligence chiefs have generally avoided partisan attacks as well. In behaving this way, they are changing the rules, and Trump is justified in changing the rules to reflect their conduct. Needless to say, lines have to be drawn. Security clearances should not depend on party loyalty and should not be routinely and immediately revoked when a word (or many words) of criticism are spoken. But it is reasonable to ask our highest former national security officials to consider the integrity of their former offices and agencies and ask that they decide carefully before entering the political and media fray. They are free to choose that path, but if they do, they relinquish the perquisites that have traditionally gone with their long careers—like a security clearance.
Of course, former officials—including presidents—do not take a vow of silence upon leaving office. But former presidents have usually been circumspect in attacking their successors (Jimmy Carter is an exception), and former intelligence chiefs have generally avoided partisan attacks as well. In behaving this way, they are changing the rules, and Trump is justified in changing the rules to reflect their conduct. Needless to say, lines have to be drawn. Security clearances should not depend on party loyalty and should not be routinely and immediately revoked when a word (or many words) of criticism are spoken. But it is reasonable to ask our highest former national security officials to consider the integrity of their former offices and agencies and ask that they decide carefully before entering the political and media fray. They are free to choose that path, but if they do, they relinquish the perquisites that have traditionally gone with their long careers—like a security clearance.
Brennan has chosen to become an unrestrained, untethered partisan combatant. It's therefore hardly out of bounds to cease affording him certain traditional courtesies in response -- especially if there's any reasonable suspicion that he'd be willing to weaponize intelligence in furtherance of his undisguised political agenda (see bullet point three from VDH's piece above). That said, it's worth pointing out that maintaining former officials' clearances doesn't grant access to new intelligence, and typically is used to tap into an official's specialized knowledge from previous operations without violating the law. In other words, stripping Brennan's clearance is mostly symbolic and could potentially hamper future intelligence efforts. The White House acknowledged this trade-off in Trump's statement, concluding that the upsides of taking this step based on Brennan's conduct 'outweigh' possible drawbacks.
I'm inclined to defend this move for the reasons cited above, but if you tend to view all of this through the prism of a vindictive president seeking to punish his critics or retaliate against people he blames for the "witch hunt" against him, Trump seems determined to vindicate your suspicions:
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Trump made a more direct connection between his action against Brennan and the investigation than he had in a statement released Wednesday. He told the newspaper he believes Brennan is one of the people responsible for special counsel Robert Mueller's probe. "I think that whole – I call it the rigged witch hunt – is a sham," Trump told the Journal on Wednesday. "And these people led it!" "So I think it's something that had to be done," he added, referring to his revocation of Brennan's clearance.
Even when he has a chance to be correct on the merits, he can't help himself. As for Brennan, he's indignantly vowing to never stop speaking out. Now that's a Brennan claim I most certainly believe.
Bruce Ohr May Have Broken More Than The Law By Pushing His Wife’s Opposition Research To The FBI
Did Ohr 'personally and substantially' participate in a particular matter in which his spouse had a 'financial interest' while he worked for the Justice Department?
By Adam Mill
A review of publicly available information causes a reasonable person to wonder whether Bruce Ohr broke the law by promoting his wife’s anti-Trump research to the FBI when he was working at the Justice Department.
The law prohibits public officials from involvement in matters in which their spouse has a financial interest. The question is, Did Ohr “personally and substantially” participate in a particular matter in which his spouse had a “financial interest” while he was employed by the Justice Department as the assistant attorney general? Let’s take a closer look.
Recall that the Hillary Clinton campaign (through its law firm Perkins Coie) hired opposition research firm Fusion GPS to generate dirt on Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential campaign. Fusion GPS in turn hired former British spy Christopher Steele, who compiled the Trump dossier containing as yet unproven allegations of Russian dirt on Trump.
We learned in December that Ohr met with Fusion GPS in November 2016 — a critical time frame — while he was the associate deputy attorney general. Former FBI agent Peter Strzok has confirmed Ohr fed the FBI documents pertinent to the investigation into Trump’s Russia ties, and The Hill reported the FBI used Ohr to continue collecting information from Steele, even after it terminated him as a source for leaking word of the investigation to the media.
John Solomon filled in the contours of Ohr’s role in the investigation, writing in The Hill of recently disclosed emails:
They also confirm that Ohr later became a critical conduit of continuing information from Steele after the FBI ended the Brit’s role as an informant. …
The FBI specifically instructed Steele that he could no longer ‘operate to obtain any intelligence whatsoever on behalf of the FBI,’ those memos show.
Yet, Steele asked Ohr in the Jan. 31 text exchange if he could continue to help feed information to the FBI: ‘Just want to check you are OK, still in the situ and able to help locally as discussed, along with your Bureau colleagues.’
‘I’m still here and able to help as discussed,’ Ohr texted back. ‘I’ll let you know if that changes.’
Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy recently expressed alarm that Ohr would insert himself into the ongoing Russia investigation. Understandably so. The FBI acts as the Justice Department’s investigator, and normally must convince the DOJ that the quality and quantity of gathered evidence will support a case before a federal court. When a senior DOJ prosecutor gives the FBI information, it comes with the DOJ’s implied endorsement of the evidence. This kind of implied endorsement may have played a role in the FBI’s decision to pay Steele to continue research on the Trump dossier.
Ohr sponsored Steele’s research in spite of the fact that, as Steele later admitted, critical allegations in the dossier remain unverified. In particular, Steele now refuses to stand by his allegations of Russian hacking. Steele reportedly said his dossier allegations were never supposed to be made public, which is incongruous with his dissemination of the allegations to Ohr and his decision to leak word of the investigation to the press.
Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson disclosed in a sworn declaration that Fusion GPS paid Ohr’s wife, Nellie Ohr, a Russia expert, to help research and analyze potential opposition research on Trump.
Curiously, it appears Ohr’s relationship with both Simpson and Steele predated his wife’s work for Fusion GPS, which raises the question whether Simpson may have hired her to gain favor with him. We don’t know how long Nellie Ohr worked for Fusion GPS, but Simpson’s December 2017 declaration indicates bank records from August 2015 through that time reflected she contracted with the firm to help research Trump. Ohr’s promotion of his wife’s research to the FBI potentially helped stoke continued demand for her services.
As pointed out by The Daily Caller, Ohr failed to disclose that his wife was being paid by Fusion GPS in his mandatory public financial disclosure form. The purpose of the form is to “identify potential or actual conflicts of interest.” Thus, The Daily Caller posits that when Ohr became involved in brokering his wife’s Trump-Russia research to the FBI, he deprived DOJ of the opportunity to identify this potential conflict of interest by failing to disclose the source of her “consulting” income. The DOJ had a legal right to know that Ohr’s wife was personally profiting from the research he promoted to the FBI.
One question that remains unanswered is whether Ohr also had a role in approving or overseeing the Trump-Russia investigation from within the DOJ. As noted by The Daily Mail, he “worked closely” with both Sally Yates, former assistant attorney general, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
Also of note is that both Yates and Rosenstein signed off on one or more of the spy warrants for Trump associate Carter Page. If either Yates or Rosenstein consulted Ohr on the propriety of those applications, Ohr would have been in a position to endorse the validity of research for which his spouse was paid.
Violation of the law prohibiting public officials from involving themselves in matters in which their spouse has a financial interest (18 U.S.C. §208) is a crime punishable for up to five years in prison, if the conduct is deemed willful. The DOJ has the power to enforce this law civilly and criminally, and as Ohr’s employer, has a responsibility to do so if he violated it. So the DOJ’s perceived inaction in response to Ohr’s actions may set a government-wide precedent.
Steele openly sought to use the dossier to interfere with the election. Ohr promoted his work in spite of the fact that Steele made no secret to Ohr that he was desperate to stop Trump from becoming president. And he acted on it. Solomon reports, based on notes he reviewed of Ohr’s meeting with Steele: “‘Glen asked Chris to speak to the Mother Jones reporter. It was Glen’s Hail Mary attempt,’ Ohr wrote.”
In December 2016, Ohr received a memory stick with early versions of the dossier allegations. But why would he continue to receive Fusion GPS dirt even after the election? Perhaps because the campaign to stop Trump didn’t end after the election.
That December, Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta supported calls to brief members of the Electoral College on the investigations into Trump’s Russia ties and into Russian meddling in the election. He openly advocated nullifying the election result by using the requested briefing to persuade members of the Electoral College to break with their voters.
The description of the requested briefing clearly matched the same “intelligence” that the Clinton campaign procured and Nellie Ohr helped Fusion GPS produce. Ohr may have conferred undeserved legitimacy on the “intelligence” when he promoted it to the FBI. This raises the question of whether his actions also constitute an attempt to “use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election,” in violation of another law.
Russian interference in an American election is obviously a serious concern. But public officials here in the United States are in an even greater position to use their power to tilt and influence future American elections. Ohr’s wife was indirectly hired by the Clinton campaign to help defeat Trump. Ohr seems to have used his position in the DOJ to help his wife further this contractual objective.
If we allow the government to pick its own leaders by interfering in elections, our democracy will quickly become a sham. That’s why Congress passed the law in the first place. Has the DOJ done enough to reassure Americans that officials within the DOJ will not interfere with future elections?
The DOJ might not have known the extent of Ohr’s involvement in 2016. But it certainly knows now. And government officials are undoubtedly watching how Ohr’s case plays out. Unfortunately, his continued presence in the DOJ sends them a powerful message about the relatively low risk of following his example.
Adam Mill works in Kansas City, Missouri as an attorney specializing in labor and employment and public administration law. He frequently posts to millstreetgazette.blogspot.com. Adam graduated from the University of Kansas and has been admitted to practice in Kansas and Missouri.
Sen. John Kennedy: John Brennan Is ‘a Butthead’ Who Gave Intel Community ‘a Bad Name’
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) (Screenshot)(CNSNews.com) - Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) told CNN's Manu Raju on Wednesday that former CIA Director John Brennan is “a butthead” and has given the intelligence community “a bad name.”
As CNSNews.com previously reported, the White House announced Wednesday that President Donald Trump revoked Brennan’s security clearance, citing his conduct and behavior that the president said “has tested and far exceeded the limits of any professional courtesy that may have been due to him.”
Kennedy also questioned why Brennan even needs a security clearance.
“I think most Americans look at our national intelligence experts as being above politics. Mr. Brennan has demonstrated that that’s not the case. He’s been totally political. I think I called him a butthead, and I meant it. I think he’s given the national intelligence community a bad name. I don’t see why he would need a security clearance. I really don’t,” Kennedy said.
Meanwhile, retired U.S. Army Brigadier Gen. Anthony Tata told “Fox & Friends” that “Communist John Brennan” never should have had a security clearance and Trump was justified in revoking it.
Tata noted that Brennan admitted to voting for the Communist presidential candidate while in college in 1976. Brennan also has called for Trump to be removed from office. Tata pointed out that question 29 of the security clearance form asks, “Have you ever supported overthrowing the U.S. government?”
"I think that John Brennan is a clear and present danger and a threat to this nation," Tata said. "He supports the overthrow of this particular president, and he needed to have his access to information revoked."
California Arrest Vindicates President Trump’s Travel Ban
A woman carrying a child is escorted by authorities to an apartment following the arrest of a 45-year-old Iraqi refugee, Omar Ameen, Wednesday, Aug. 15, 2018, in Sacramento, Calif. Ameen was arrested on a warrant alleging that he killed an Iraqi policeman in 2014 while serving with the Islamic State terror organization. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)
One of the interesting side effects of the reflexive opposition to Trump that has flooded many parts of the political spectrum is that even when he’s right, it becomes a badge of honor to oppose him. Case in point: the revocation of John Brennan’s security clearance. “National defense conservatives” are literally squirting their drawers in defense of Brennan’s First Amendment right to be able to discuss classified information for profit. Perhaps the most odious example of this was opposition to his executive order restricting travel from a small number of failed states and from one state sponsor of terrorism (Iran). The anti-Trump forces successfully framed this as a “Muslim ban” despite the fact that a huge majority of Muslim-majority nations was not on the list.
Omar Ameen, 45, an Iraqi national, wanted on a murder charge in Iraq, appeared before a federal magistrate judge in Sacramento, California today in connection with proceedings to extradite him to face trial in Iraq. Ameen settled in Sacramento as a purported refugee and attempted to gain legal status in the United States.
…
The Iraqi arrest warrant and extradition request allege that after the town of Rawah, Iraq fell to the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) on June 21, 2014, Ameen entered the town with a caravan of ISIS vehicles and drove to the house of the victim, who had served as an officer in the Rawah Police Department. On the evening of June 22, 2014, after the caravan arrived at the victim’s house, Ameen and other members of the convoy allegedly opened fire on the victim. Ameen then allegedly fired his weapon at the victim while the victim was on the ground, killing him.
Ameen, originally of Rawah, in the Anbar province of Iraq, fled Iraq following the alleged murder, and later settled in Sacramento as a purported refugee. It is alleged that Ameen’s family supported and assisted the installation of al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) in Rawah, and that Ameen was a member of AQI and ISIS. It is also alleged that he participated in various activities in support of those terrorist organizations, including helping to plant improvised explosive devices, and committing the murder that is the subject of the extradition request. Ameen concealed his membership in those terrorist groups when he applied for refugee status, and later when he applied for a green card in the United States.
This guy was a member of ISIS and of al-Qaeda, his family were al-Qaeda and ISIS supporters, and yet, the Obama administration allowed him into the United States as a refugee and he used that status to start the process of becoming a permanent resident.
Seamus Hughes, the deputy director of the George Washington University Program on Extremism, said the case was likely to put a further spotlight on the already red-hot issue of refugees.
“It’s clear there were breakdowns in the refugee vetting system on this case as a lot of the information on him was readily available,” said Mr. Hughes, who maintains a thorough database of Americans who joined the Islamic State. “The F.B.I. has been watching him for the last two years, but he was a known commodity in Iraq for nearly a decade. This is not the first case of a failure in the refugee screening process, but one of the most serious I have seen.”
And, believe it or not, we’ve had the attacks on Trump’s executive order repeated right here on RedState despite ample evidence that there was a widespread breakdown of screening of alleged refugees (my post at the time).
Several dozen suspected terrorist bombmakers, including some believed to have targeted American troops, may have mistakenly been allowed to move to the United States as war refugees, according to FBI agents investigating the remnants of roadside bombs recovered from Iraq and Afghanistan.
The discovery in 2009 of two al Qaeda-Iraq terrorists living as refugees in Bowling Green, Kentucky — who later admitted in court that they’d attacked U.S. soldiers in Iraq — prompted the bureau to assign hundreds of specialists to an around-the-clock effort aimed at checking its archive of 100,000 improvised explosive devices collected in the war zones, known as IEDs, for other suspected terrorists’ fingerprints.
The infusion of ISIS and al-Qaeda soldiers into the refugee stream is not unique to the United States. Earlier this month, a young Yazidi woman who had been kidnapped and sold to an ISIS soldier ran face-to-face with her “owner” on a German street. He had been admitted to Germany as a refugee, just like her.
Former Clinton Campaign Manager: Democrats Shouldn’t Be Campaigning With Ellison
BY: David Rutz
Hillary Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said Thursday Democrats should not be campaigning with Rep. Keith Ellison (D., Minn.) as he faces allegations he abused a former girlfriend.
"Right now, in this moment, should Democrats be campaigning with him? Like Amy Klobuchar? What should she be doing?" CNN host Kate Bolduan asked.
"To your point, I think it's still very early," Mook said. "I think we need to let the process play out to look if this is true. And if it's true, you know, I think he needs to be held accountable. I don't think people should be campaigning with him."
Ellison is one of the Democratic Party's most prominent members, serving as the vice chair of the Democratic National Committee.
He is running for Minnesota attorney general and won the Democratic primary on Tuesday, but the win was overshadowed by the allegations made days earlier by ex-girlfriend Karen Monahan that he physically and emotionally abused her during their relationship. Her son posted on Facebook he had seen a video of Ellison dragging her from a bed by her feet.
Ellison told CBS Minnesota affiliate WCCO that he didn't understand Monahan's accusations and denied any wrongdoing. He said there "couldn't be" any video because he "never did that. Simply didn't happen."
When he said "we don't have to destroy each other," his interviewer asked if he thought that's what she was trying to do.
"I don’t want to speculate on motive; I don’t know. I’ve asked myself many times, why? But I’m not going to try to speculate on motive," he said.
G’ day…Ciao…Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus articles
that is all articles
This time, hopefully can provide benefits to you all. Okay, see you in another article post.
You are now reading the article the link address https://fairyforreference.blogspot.com/2018/08/www_16.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment