Monday, October 24, 2016


by -

Huma Abedin was an editor at a radical Muslim journal that claimed Bill bombed Iraq to distract the media from the Monica Lewinski scandal.

Huma is now the top aide to Hillary Clinton, but when she was a Muslim woman working at her mother’s radical Muslim journal, she had a different view on the Clintons.

The Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs claims that Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of Iraq in the height of the Monica Lewinski scandal.

Too young to remember the Monica Lewinski scandal or need a refresher?

The claim that Bill acted militarily to distract from the scandal is really hard to prove, but makes perfect sense.

What does the Hillary camp say about Huma’s past job?

The Clinton campaign says that Abedin was not involved in the work of editing the journal publication, but instead she was “just on the masthead”.

The Clinton campaign would like us to believe that even though she worked there for 12 years as the assistant editor, Huma was just on the masthead and had nothing to do with the content.

It’s no wonder that 70% of Americans don’t trust Hillary and her campaign; Huma was on the editorial board that made content decisions.

Something doesn’t add up, like usual with the Clinton campaign.

Do you think the Hillary Campaign in telling the truth about Huma and her radical past? Let us know in the comments below.

by -

Obama’s Department of Justice is going to make sure they cover up any reference that the Orlando killer made to Islam during his 911 calls the night of the shooting.

Omar Mateen made several calls to 911 and sent several texts to his wife during the shootout in the Orlando nightclub that killed 49 and injured over 50 more.

During the calls he professed his love to Allah, and committed his life to ISIS. He praised other ISIS fighters and made it very clear what his intentions were that night: to kill as many people as possible to praise Allah.

When the Department of Justice releases the transcripts this week, they will be heavily redacted and will not show any reference to Islam, but why?

Within hours of the shooting, all the media outlets and police were making the connection to radical Islam.

The reports have detailed what he said and his connection to ISIS, but for some reason the Department of Justice wants to remove anything about Islam before they release the transcript.

Does Obama really think that if they remove the Islam references from the transcripts that people will believe the narrative that guns are the problem?

If people forget he was a terrorist who left a wife and kid to kill people to support his religion, it will make it a lot easier for Obama to go after your guns.

This is political correctness run amuck. Taking out the references to Islam is just another step in trying to make people believe that gun are the threat to your family– not terrorists.

What do you think though? Is Obama taking out the Islam references to try to help us cope or is he doing it with a broader goal in mind? Let us know in the comments below.

by -
Christian Children

The Iraqi Parliament is taking great strides to ensure that Christians remain vulnerable in their country. While many are fleeing the country because of the violence of ISIS and others are simply too destitute to have means to leave the country, a law was passed late last month that affected children exclusively.

The Iraqi government passed into legislation that any children of a father who converts to Islam or a woman who marries a Muslim are automatically considered to be Muslim themselves.

An amendment was put forth by the Iraq’s non-Muslim religious communities that sought to allow children religious autonomy until age 18. It was rejected– 137 votes to 51.

Groups protested the law early this month before the UN office in country. They cite the total lack of regard for religious freedom and diversity as well as the inequality it creates among citizens.

Iraq’s constitution has a provision against religious coercion and this new law stands as the exact opposite. Christians are already facing a genocide in Iraq and the new law is a slap in the face to say the least.

Catholic Bishop, Rabban al-Qas, in Iraqi Kurdistan has already spoken up about how the law will only serve to “drive Christians away”. He makes clear the solemn state of the Christian faith in Iraq:

“We are facing a genocide in a country that knows only death and liberticidal laws…Here there is neither freedom nor respect.”

There are those who believe that Iraq will see the end of any Christian presence very soon.

by -

The capital of the free world has now banned all issue ads for the rest of 2015–just because controversial critic of Islam, Pamela Geller, tried to buy ad space.

The Board of the Directors of the Washington Metropolitan Transportation Authority (WMATA)–which runs the buses and subway in and around Washington, D.C.–announced the decision Thursday. For the remainder of 2015, they will ban all issue-oriented advertising which includes “political, religious, and advocacy advertising.”

While they didn’t cite Geller’s attempted ad buy as a reason for the sudden ban–Metro spokesman Dan Stessel claimed that Geller “did not come up in the discussion”–it came suspiciously on soon after Geller submitted a controversial ad.

Geller, who is the president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, gained headlines in early May when she hosted a “Draw Mohammed” contest, which allegedly led to a shooting in Texas by two apparently ISIS-affiliated Muslim gunmen. In Islam, it’s considered taboo to depict Mohammed. Geller claims the point of the contest wasn’t to defame Islam, but to display a defiant stance on free speech–saying that free speech, one of the bedrock American rights, won’t be sacrificed because someone considers it offensive.

The WMATA ad was to depict the winner of the contest.

Geller was, predictably, livid at WMATA’s decision. She wrote in an email to local Washington, D.C., news blog, DCist: “[WMATA] has suspended all issue-oriented ads [through the] end of the year after we submitted our free speech ad. Oh, the irony.”

She continued: “These cowards may claim they are making people safer but I submit to you the opposite. They are making it far ore dangerous for Americans everywhere. Rewarding terrorism w ith submission is defeat. Absolute and complete defeat. More demands, more violence will certainly follow.

“This is sharia in America,” she added.

by -
Alinsky Terrorism Islam

Yesterday, we published an opinion piece by former Congressman Bob Barr.

The piece addressed issues of censorship in relation to Charlie Hebdo and the attacks on the publication’s staff.

Readers of Liberty News Now had mixed reactions to the piece but one reader in particular brought up a few facts that are worth discussion.

“Kentclizbe” reacted with this comment:

You can’t be serious can you Bob?
“Free Speech?”
Charlie Hebdo and its staff were/are communists!
They fired a cartoonist in 2009 for “hate speech!” For a cartoon he published in their magazine!
In fact, they had him criminally prosecuted! For “hate speech” and “anti-semitism!”
Yay for Free Speech!
Who do you think you’re in bed with?
And, as you say, “The irony is, these chest-pounders are the ones stifling that very freedom here in the United States.” Isn’t it a bit ironic that the same communists at Charlie Hebdo who want to publish “hate speech” about Islam with no consequences, have their own cartoonists arrested for “anti-semitism?”
51% of Americans want to “criminalize hate speech?”
Well, guess what? Your new best friends in France already have!
Why, they’ve arrested 54 people in the last week, on charges of exactly that: “hate speech!”
Whose side are you on?

We took a look at these facts, and sure enough they are correct.

Charlie Hebdo, despite their tragedy, was a hypocrite of a publication.

But this gets into the deeper discussion of the lines that were drawn that led to this tragedy by two unyielding factions, Socialists and Radical Islam and their similarities.

Both Socialists and radical Muslims demand adherence and respect for their views, culture and laws.

Both factions also use tactics of aggression against their opposition. With Hebdo, it was delivered with a pencil, with the radical Muslims, it was delivered with a bullet.

Both can be devastating.

Among both groups, “hate” is a tank that must be filled daily.

The biggest difference between these factions is in their strategy in dealing with conflict and achieving victory.

Radical Muslims get straight to the point and start blasting without the chitchat.

Socialists on the other hand intentionally instigate violence to gain sympathy.

This is straight out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals:

Rule #10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.

And if you take a look of Alinsky’s 11 other rules, you’ll find that the Charlie Hebdo followed those rules to perfection.

While there is no excusing the despicable acts of the murderers who killed 12 people in France, the narrative leading up to the attacks should be a wakeup call to the opposition of the political left.

One of their goals is to push their opposition so hard, through ridicule and debasement, to the point were violence is the outcome – as Alinsky put it in Rule #5, “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.”

While the cultural mindset of a radicalized Muslim doesn’t allow them to simply ignore ignorance, for Christians, conservatives and libertarians, decades of political and cultural conflict with socialists and liberals have led to benign reaction in the face of provocation.

Others like Rush Limbaugh and James O’Keefe have turned Alinsky’s tactics against the left – which has and will continue to lead to violent reactions.

Because, in the end, Socialists and radical Muslims share one other common trait – irrational violence.

by -
Mayor or Rotterdam

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Paris, the Moroccan-born mayor of a Dutch city delivered a compelling message on live television to fellow Muslims who don’t appreciate the “freedoms” of living in the west: “Pack your bags and f*** off.”

A British newspaper reports the story this week that includes a video of the incredible broadcast unlikely to be covered by the ultra-politically correct mainstream media in the United States. It features the Muslim mayor of Rotterdam, the Netherlands’ second-largest city, blasting Muslims who don’t appreciate all the great perks of living in the west. The delivery is in Dutch but includes English subtitles, making it convenient for government officials in the U.S. to understand it.

The courageous politician’s name is Ahmed Aboutaleb and in 2008 he became the Netherland’s first immigrant mayor. Aboutaleb, a former journalist and the son of an imam, arrived in the Netherlands when he was 15, according to the news report. He was so outraged by the savage terrorist attacks in France that he hit the airwaves just hours after it was executed to lambast Muslim extremists. “It is incomprehensible that you can turn against freedom,” Mayor Aboutaleb tells Muslims during the broadcast. “But if you don’t like freedom, for heaven’s sake pack your bags and leave. If you do not like it here because some humorists you don’t like are making a newspaper, may I then say you can f*** off.”

He proceeds to label the attacks stupid and incomprehensible before calling on Muslim extremists to vanish from the Netherlands if they cannot find their place there. “All those well-meaning Muslims here will now be stared at,” the mayor says. In a media interview shortly after becoming mayor, Aboutaleb sent another message to immigrants: “Stop seeing yourself as victims, and if you don’t want to integrate, leave.” At least one western European official, London Mayor Boris Johnson, publicly hailed Aboutleb this week, calling him a “hero” and the “voice of the Enlightenment, of Voltaire.”

It’s highly unlikely we’ll hear a similar endorsement from the Obama administration, which instead has caved into the demands of radical Muslim groups in the U.S. In fact, Judicial Watch published a special report documenting how extremist groups got the U.S. government to purge law enforcement training material deemed “offensive” to Muslims. Leading the effort was the terrorist front organization Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), founded Middle Eastern extremists (Omar Ahmad, Nihad Awad and Rafeeq Jaber) who ran the American propaganda wing of Hamas, known then as the Islamic Association for Palestine. In 2008 CAIR was a con-conspirator in a federal terror-finance case involving the Hamas front group Holy Land Foundation. Read more in a separate JW special report that focuses on Muslim charities.

Supporting the theory that the Obama administration would never dare side with Rotterdam’s mayor on this issue is the fact that it even refuses to call the Al Qaeda operatives who terrorized Paris radical Islamists. Challenged by a reporter at yesterday’s White House press briefing, Obama’s press secretary rejected a “radical Islam” label for the terrorists. The reporter asked why the administration has refused to join French President Francois Hollande in saying “we’re at war with radical Islam.” Instead, the reporter pointed out, the administration has chosen a “formulation” that says the U.S. wants to “capture individuals who commit violence based on their warped view of Islam” rather than “radical Islam.” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest explained that the terrorists “would like to cloak themselves in the veil of a particular religion” but their actions are “entirely inconsistent with Islam.”



When Comey, the director of the FBI decided not to charge Hillary Clinton, it looks like it had more to do with money than...