Friday, October 21, 2016


by -

An earth-shattering report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found proof that the Pentagon paid a half a billion dollars to fake Al-Qaeda videos.

The BIJ found that the Pentagon paid a business in a foreign country to do the work.

U.K. based public relations firm, Bell Pottinger worked with the military to create fake news segments that looked and sounded like insurgents filmed them.

One employee of the company said that General David Petraeus signed off on a lot of the work, but occasionally approval came from the White House as well.

The operation to make the fake videos employed nearly 300 Iraqi and British workers all paid by the US government.

$540 million is a lot of money that could have been spent in America.

The PR firm claims that it only kept $15 million annually and the rest went to expenses and distribution.

One disturbing piece of information that came out in the report is that the PR firm helped to make propaganda videos and put them on discs that would be handed out in cities in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Those discs were coded in a way that Google Analytics could help figure out who is watching the video, where and the users IP address.

Not only is the government paying a foreign company to make fake propaganda video to be distributed in the Middle East, but they are tracking each person that views it.

The fact that Google is involved is another example how the tech giant has morphed into an important military asset.

What is still unclear is the president’s involvement. Was this his idea or did he just sign off on it and not really know what was going on?

If things were going really well in the Middle East nobody would question these kind of tactics, but things are not going well.

The money could have been spent better, obviously, but it wasn’t and now the Middle East is a bigger mess now than it was when Obama took office. Clearly he and the Pentagon need to come up with a new plan.

What do you think about Obama paying to make fake Al-Qaeda propaganda videos?

by -
illegal aliens

The Homeland Security agency responsible for enforcing the nation’s immigration laws is honoring a renowned open-borders activist dedicated to defending illegal aliens in the U.S. with a prestigious award. Known as “Outstanding American by Choice,” it’s bestowed annually by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to recognize the “significant contributions and achievements of a naturalized” American citizen.

This year’s winner is being crowned today at a ceremony in Los Angeles, California where she runs a billion-dollar charity largely dedicated to assisting immigrants.

Her name is Antonia Hernández, a civil rights attorney who spent two decades litigating on behalf of illegal immigrants at the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the powerful open borders group that specializes in discrimination lawsuits on behalf of illegal aliens. Promoted as a “Latino advocacy” group, MALDEF also pushes for free college tuition for illegal immigrants and lowering educational standards to accommodate new migrants.

The group’s leadership says it’s racist to make English the country’s official national language and inhumane to protect the southern border with a fence. Hernández was president and general counsel at MALDEF before becoming president and CEO at a like-minded nonprofit with deep pockets called the California Community Foundation.

The charity ranks among the nation’s top100 foundations by size and giving with an endowment exceeding $1 billion. Among its focuses is “immigrant integration.”

Hernández is the oldest of seven children born to poor Mexican immigrants, according to a magazine profile that says before she could drive Hernández walked the picket lines in support of California’s farm workers.

During twenty years at MALDEF Hernández successfully defeated a California measure—passed by voters—that would have denied health and education benefits to illegal immigrants, worked to create voting districts that equitably represented Latinos and litigated on behalf of limited-English proficient students in the nation’s public school system.

A California congresswoman who honored Hernández with a public service award years ago described her as a “tenacious defender of immigration reform” and a “devoted advocate on behalf of fair and just immigration reform.”

Under Hernández’s leadership the California Community Foundation has dedicated large amounts of resources to assist illegal immigrants, especially in the last two years. In 2014, Hernández led an effort to form an emergency relief fund to help the influx of illegal alien minors—mostly from Central America— that the Obama administration allowed to enter the U.S. through Mexico.

The government calls them Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) and many have ties to gang members in the U.S., specifically MS-13. In fact, earlier this year Judicial Watch reported that the execution-style murder of a Massachusetts man was committed by two Central American teens that came to the U.S. as UACs under the president’s open border free-for-all. Many of the UACs have also brought in dangerous diseases, including swine flu, dengue fever, Ebola virus and tuberculosis. Nevertheless, Hernández said this about the UACs when her nonprofit scrambled to help them: “They are our children.”

The award that Hernández is accepting today is supposed to go to a candidate that demonstrates “their commitment to this country and to the common civic values that unite us all as Americans,” according to a USCIS announcement. The agency purports to consider candidates’ civic participation, professional achievement and responsible citizenship.

The government’s goal is to recognize individuals who chose to become Americans and have made significant contributions to both their community and the United States. Deputy Security of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, shamefully ousted as a Clinton federal prosecutor after orchestrating the pardon of a big-time drug dealer, will give Hernández the award at today’s ceremony.

A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announcement of the event describes Hernández as a civil rights attorney who has demonstrated her commitment of social justice and civic engagement for over four decades.

What are your thoughts on illegal aliens? Should we welcome them or send them home?

by -

A federal appellate court has ruled against the Obama administration’s claims that firing a black woman for wearing dreadlocks constitutes racial discrimination and the government agency representing the employee poses an interesting question: Would a woman wearing a hijab face the same fate? The answer is no.

Muslims have more rights in the U.S. workplace than African Americans, it seems.

In the aftermath of several rulings protecting Muslim rights to wear religious head covers on the job, a black woman is being prohibited from sporting a hairstyle that is physiologically and culturally associated with people of African descent.

That constitutes racial discrimination, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that enforces the nation’s workplace discrimination laws. The agency filed the case in 2013 on behalf of an Alabama woman, Chastity Jones, who was told by an insurance claims processing company to cut her dreadlocks—long clumps of ungroomed hair, symbolizing the mane of the Lion of Judah—as part of its grooming policy. The EEOC argued that the company, Catastrophe Management Solutions, committed racial discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In announcing the lawsuit, the agency’s regional attorney in Birmingham said the litigation didn’t seek to attack policies requiring employees to maintain hair in a professional, neat or conservative manner but rather focus “on the racial bias that may occur when specific hair constructs and styles are singled out for different treatment because they do not conform to normative standers for other races.”

The EEOC’s district director pointed out that “generally, there are racial distinctions in the natural texture of black and non-black hair. The EEOC will not tolerate employment discrimination against African-American employees because they choose to wear and display the natural texture of their hair, manage and style their hair in a manner amenable to it, or manage and style their hair in a manner differently from non-blacks.”

A federal judge in Alabama didn’t buy the government’s seemingly far-fetched argument and in 2014 dismissed the race discrimination suit, finding that the company’s hairstyle policy did not violate federal anti-discrimination law. In his ruling the judge, Charles R. Butler, wrote that since Title VII of the Civil Rights Act only prohibits discrimination based on unchangeable characteristics, like sex and race, the company didn’t violate the law by banning the hairstyle.

The Obama administration appealed and this month the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Alabama judge’s decision, rejecting Jones’s right to keep the dreadlocks. The appellate court found that Catastrophe Management Solutions has a “race-neutral grooming policy” and that hairstyles are not “immutable physical characteristics,” though the court acknowledged they could be “culturally associated with race.”

On the EEOC’s twitter account, which is embedded in the agency’s official website, an official comments on the Jones case: “I wonder if a woman who wore a hijab would have been asked to not wear that when coming to work?” The EEOC post was written by a black official named Michelle Adams, who also includes a clip from a 1990s television comedy sitcom because it reminds her of Jones’s “choice to fight” the dreadlock ban (the reality is that taxpayers funded the fight because a federal agency represented Jones). In the TV clip a black male employee tells white managers that his hair is not just for fashion. “It’s part of my heritage,” the actor says. “It’s a statement of pride.”

The question comparing dreadlocks to hijabs was rhetorical because the EEOC employee knows Muslims have a legal right to wear religious head covers at work thanks to litigation initiated by her agency. Judicial Watch has reported on some of the cases, including a 2013 federal court ruling that a Muslim woman’s civil rights were violated by an American clothing retailer that didn’t allow her to wear a hijab at work. As it has in other instances, the EEOC accused the retailer of religious discrimination under the Civil Rights Act and a federal judge agreed.

In the ruling the judge wrote that the retailer acted with malice and reckless indifference by forcing the Muslim woman to remove her hijab, even though it had a company-wide policy prohibiting all types head cover.

The religious rights argument has also been used by the EEOC on behalf of dreadlocks. Over the summer the EEOC sued a private business for religious discrimination after it ordered a male employee to cut his dreadlocks. The man, a prep cook in central Florida, is Rastafari and the “Afrocentric” religion born in the slums of Jamaica requires followers to have long, matted and knotted hair. Judicial Watch will monitor the outcome of the case, which was filed in July. There is no formal, organized leadership in Rastafarianism which makes it difficult to accept as an official religion protected by federal law.

Rastafarians believe Haile Selassie, the former emperor of Ethiopia, is God and that he’ll help blacks living in exile as a result of the slave trade return to Africa. Jamaican reggae singer Bob Marley, who died in Miami in 1981, was among the best known Rastafarians and more recently a famous rapper known as Snoop Dogg became Rastafari and changed his name to Snoop Lion, according to a mainstream news report. “A key belief for Rastas is the notion of death to all white and black oppressors,” the story says, adding that “the most common outward expressions of Rastafari are Rastas’ dreadlocks, penchant for smoking marijuana and vegetarian diets.”

by -

As President Obama scrambles to release captives from the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba his own intelligence advisers reveal that a growing number of inmates freed from the compound reengage in terrorism.

This is nothing new and in fact, has been documented over the years in various government assessments but this latest information comes in the midst of a frenzy to clear out the maximum security facility in order to realize the president’s longtime dream of closing it.

A new report released this month by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) shows that of the 161 Gitmo detainees released by the Obama administration, nine are confirmed to be “directly involved in terrorist or insurgent activities.”

The ODNI, the broad agency that serve as an umbrella for the intelligence community and advises the president, also writes that 113 of the 532 Gitmo captives released during the George W. Bush administration have engaged in terrorist activities. This demonstrates that recidivism among this demographic is hardly earth-shattering news yet the administration keeps releasing more and more captives from the facility at the U.S. Naval base in southeast Cuba.

The ODNI further reveals that at least two prisoners released from Gitmo by Obama and two others released by Bush have returned to “terrorist activities” during the first half of this year alone. “Based on trends identified during the past eleven years, we assess that some detainees currently at GTMO will seek to reengage in terrorist or insurgent activities after they are transferred,” according to the ODNI, which is composed of more than a dozen spy agencies, including Air Force, Army, Navy, Treasury and Coast Guard intelligence as well as the Federal Bureau of Intelligence (FBI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

The agency also stated in its report that “former GTMO detainees routinely communicate with each other, families of other former detainees, and previous associates who are members of terrorist organizations. The reasons for communication span from the mundane (reminiscing about shared experiences) to the nefarious (planning terrorist operations). We assess that some GTMO detainees transferred in the future also will communicate with other former GTMO detainees and persons in terrorist organizations.”

Various government agencies have been documenting this for years. Back in 2009 the Department of Defense (DOD) reported a rise in the number of Gitmo detainees who rejoined terrorist missions after being released. At the time the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, which gathers foreign military intelligence, disclosed that the number of Gitmo prisoners that returned to “the fight” since their release from custody nearly doubled in a short time from 37 to 61.

The agency used data such as fingerprints, pictures and other intelligence reports to confirm the high rate of recidivism among released prisoners. By then around 500 had been transferred to other countries though defense officials maintained that most should never have been released because they pose a serious threat to the United States.

A perfect example is an Al Qaeda operative who was put on a global terrorist list a few years after the U.S. released him from Gitmo. Embarrassingly enough, the U.S. government even offered a $5 million reward for information on his whereabouts. The Saudi national, Ibrahim al-Rubaysh, was repatriated back home under a Saudi Arabian “rehabilitation” program that supposedly reformed Guantanamo Bay jihadists but instead has served as a training camp for future terrorists.

In fact, in 2008 counterterrorism officials confirmed that many of the terrorists who return to “the fight” after being released from U.S. custody actually graduated from the laughable Saudi rehab program, which started under Bush and continued under Obama.

In an effort to stop Obama from releasing more terrorists, a congresswoman from Indiana recently introduced legislation that would temporarily halt the transfer of Gitmo detainees. The House passed the measure last week by a 244-174 vote but it’s highly unlikely to get approved by the Senate, and even if it does, Obama will most certainly veto it. The lawmaker behind the bill, Jackie Walorski, said the president’s plan to close Gitmo is “reckless” and “puts American lives at risk.”

by -

When the world found out about the $400 million cash ransom to Iran last January, Obama lied to the American people about why it was cash.

August 4th, Obama tried to explain away the reason that his administration sent Iran $400 million in foreign cash.

“The reason that we had to give them cash is precisely because we are so strict in maintaining sanctions and we do not have a banking relationship with Iran that we couldn’t send them a check and could not wire the money.”

The truth is, we are learning now that America sent two wire transfers to Iran. One of the wire transfers happened before the ransom payment and one after.

In July of 2015, the same month that the Iran deal was announced, a wire payment was made from the U.S. to Iran for just under a million dollars. The payment was made to settle a claim over drawings in the Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art and one over fossils at the Iran Ministry of Environment.

Just as recent as April of 2016, we sent a wire for close to nine million dollars, to clean up radioactive water.

It is clear that Obama lied about being able to send wire transfers.

The admission came from a Treasury Department spokesman over the weekend.

Being able to make the wire payments and paying in cash gives more credibility that it was a ransom payment in January.

Once again we are getting conflicting stories from the administration and now lies directly from Obama’s mouth.

The Iran deal is something that Obama had hoped would be part of a positive legacy he left on the world, but it is turning into a nightmare.

When campaigning over the weekend for Hillary at a fundraiser, nobody applauded his Iran deal according to Mark Landler, a White House correspondent.

With the Iranian military threatening our ships in the Persian Gulf and taking more hostages, the Iranian deal has become a full-blown disaster and maybe Trump is right in ending the deal on his first day in office.

What do you think? Should the next president end the Iranian deal?

by -
michelle obama

Now that her husband will be leaving the White House soon, will Michelle Obama make the move to politics like Hillary or do something else?

Michelle Obama is a generally well-liked First Lady and in January she will be moving and having a new life.

What is she going to do next?

Michelle is trying out some new things in preparation for her big move, and Ellen decided to help her.

The first lady co-hosted the Ellen Show with Ellen Degeneres last week to see if she could have her own talk show one day.

As co-host Michelle teaches a lesson on trash talk and makes fun of her husbands ears.

The show took an awkward turn when Ellen and Michelle went to CVS. It was clear that Michelle hadn’t been shopping in a while and that Ellen can be really annoying. It is funny to watch.

Who knows what is next for Michelle, but doubt she will be taking over the Ellen show anytime soon.

What do you think Michelle will do next?

by -

Our immigration policies are not working in America and now Obama wants to bring in 57% more refugees in 2017.

Immigration is a big issue right now in the elections and Obama could be helping Trump when it was announced the White House and the Democrats want to raise the number of imported refugees to 110,000 next year.

The increase is huge.

We brought in 70,000 refugees in 2013, 2014, 2015 and the White House raised the number to 85,000 in 2016.

Now Obama wants to bring the number up to 110,000 in 2017 with most of the refugees coming from Syria.

Obama even took to the airways to urge Americans to accept the Syrian refugees.

Helping refugees is something that we should do, but importing so many people from a place that where core beliefs contradict with Western equality could become very dangerous.

One thing that Republicans must consider is the combination of the increased refugees and the illegal immigrants and the potential threat to the balance of power in America. If amnesty was pushed through, there could be a large amount of newly registered Democrats.

Amnesty could be devastating due to the fact that many live in red states like Texas, but many have also been settled in battleground states.

There have been reports that the government is even paying to relocate many illegals and refugees into the middle of America, the area that normally always goes red in most elections.

If Republicans ever want to keep any power they have, then they cannot allow a broad sweeping Amnesty deal that would make many illegals and refugees citizens of the USA.

Do you think we should bring in 110,000 new refugees next year? Let us know in the comments below.

by -

Days before the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history Obama’s Homeland Security secretary became the highest ranking government official—and first sitting cabinet member—to highlight a convention held annually by a radical Muslim group with extremist origins.

The Indiana-based nonprofit is called Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and it was founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the parent organization of Hamas and Al Qaeda. ISNA was a co-conspirator in a huge case involving an Islamic charity (Holy Land Foundation) that provided support to a foreign terrorist organization, mainly Hamas.

ISNA conferences often feature contentious speakers, including renowned Islamists and advocates of terrorism. Among them is Imam Warth Deen Umar, who referred to the 9/11 hijackers as martyrs that were secretly admired by Muslims and has called for violent jihad.

At one ISNA convention Umar portrayed the Holocaust as punishment of Jews for being “serially disobedient to Allah,” according to a research conglomerate recognized as the world’s most comprehensive data center on radical Islamic terrorist groups.

The nonprofit, Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), published a disturbing report on ISNA that documents its radical ideology and conference speakers throughout the years that include “some of the world famous Islamists and advocates of Jihad.”

About a week before the 15th anniversary of 9/11, Obama deployed Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson to ISNA’s annual powwow in Chicago. The appearance likely amounted to a slap in the face to many Americans, especially survivors of the 2001 attacks.

Johnson’s speech lasted about 22 minutes and he basically said ISIS/ISIL isn’t Islamic, that Islam is a religion of peace and that Islamophobia is the same as McCarthyism. In a press release announcing the appearance, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) writes that Johnson will discuss the Obama administration’s “continued commitment to build bridges to Muslim American communities, and encourage Muslim Americans—particularly youth—to continue to fully participate in American society.”

Johnson didn’t exactly receive a warm reception and was booed repeatedly, especially as he exited the stage. He told the crowd that a group of terrorists is attempting to hijack their religion and that he and Obama “refuse to bend to the political pressure to call terrorism Islamic extremism.”

He went on to say that “we know that ISIL, though it claims the banner of Islam, occupies no part of your religion, a religion founded on peace.” Then Johnson proceeded to compare the discrimination and vilification suffered by Muslims to the plight of African Americans, in particular to “tar you with a broad brush of suspicion.”

Johnson proclaimed that the bullying and physical attacks experienced by Muslims nationwide are familiar to him as a black man. “I look out at this room of American Muslims and I see myself,” he said, adding that theirs is a similar struggle to the one his African American ancestors fought to win acceptance in the U.S.

by -
World War

The notorious hacker groups Anonymous has a message to the citizens of the world, and it is not good.

Anonymous Official’s YouTube channel released a video on Sunday that spells out the reasons why we are literally on the doorstep of world war three.

As the video starts with the chilling computer voice, the narrator outlines why we are going to war and when it will start.

In the video, one thing that was pointed out was the American perception of “Russian aggression”.

Every time there is any hack on any agency, the DNC or Hillary, the Democrats are very quick to blame the Russians. In many cases, literally as the story breaks, news agencies claim a source that says, “The Russians may be involved in the attack”.

Anonymous also mentions the Chinese in the video regarding trade agreements.

Over the weekend when Obama met with the leader of China there were obvious tensions and they did not make any headway.

There is a tremendous amount of issues rising in the world right now. Everything from the economy to civil rights to terrorism to hunger is threatening our future.

While Obama is attending his last #G20, America looks weak right now. In the eyes of the world, Obama is out of office in the coming months and America is deeply divided in the election.

Americans don’t receive truthful news from American media and most people are too busy arguing about Colin Kaepernick to pay attention to real news.

Right now, it would be wise to pay attention to what is happening in the world, because if Anonymous is correct, then things could get very ugly, very fast.

Just make sure you are prepared for whatever comes next.

Do you believe that Anonymous is right or are they flat out wrong? Let us know in the comments below.

by -

Herds of African immigrants are being housed in shelters in the Mexican border town of Tijuana while they await entry into the United States under what appears to be a secret accord between the Obama administration, Mexico and the Central American countries the Africans transited on their journey north.

A backlog of African migrants is overwhelming limited shelter space in Tijuana and Mexican officials blame the slow pace of U.S. immigration authorities in the San Isidro port of entry for granting only 50 asylum solicitations daily.

Details about this disturbing program come from Mexico’s immigration agency, Instituto Nacional de Migracion (INM), and appear this week in an article published by the country’s largest newspaper. “Mexico is living through a wave of undocumented Africans, due to a humanitarian crisis on that continent, that has saturated shelters in Tapachula, Chiapas, and generated pressure on shelters in Tijuana, Baja California,” the news article states.

The African migrants’ journey begins in Brazil under a South American policy that allows the “free transit” of immigrants throughout the continent. Ecuador, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Panama facilitate the process by transferring the concentration of foreigners towards Mexico based on an agreement that Mexico will help them gain entry into the U.S. so they can solicit asylum.

The Africans are mostly entering Mexico through the southern state of Chiapas, which borders Guatemala. This week alone 424 Africans arrived at the Chiapas immigration station, which is situated in Tapachula.

Shelters in Tijuana currently have 154 migrants from African countries waiting on their U.S. asylum solicitations, according to figures provided by the INM. “The undocumented don’t want to stay in Mexico,” the news article clarifies.

“They want to make it to U.S. territory to solicit asylum based on the life conditions that prevail in the continent.” Authorities in Tijuana are offering support to migrants from El Congo, Somalia, Ghana and Pakistan to facilitate entering the U.S. through the San Isidro crossing, according to the news story. San Isidro is the largest land border crossing between San Diego, California and Tijuana.

The Obama administration has done a great job of promoting its various back-door amnesty programs, which include perpetually extending a humanitarian measure designed to temporarily shield illegal immigrants from deportation during emergencies.

It’s known as Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and in the last few years migrants from several African countries have received it so the new influx is not all surprising. Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone got TPS back in 2014 over the lingering effects of the Ebola Virus and earlier this year Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson extended it.

The administration cited the “continued recovery challenges” the African countries face for the extension.

Last summer Johnson extended a TPS for Somalians until March 17, 2017, which could have served as a driving force behind the sudden surge via Latin America. A notice in the Federal Register says the extension was warranted because the conditions in Somalia that prompted the TPS designation continue to be met.

“There continues to be a substantial, but temporary, disruption of living conditions in Somalia due to ongoing armed conflict that would pose a serious threat to the personal safety of returning Somali nationals, as well as extraordinary and temporary conditions in the country that prevent Somali nationals from returning to Somalia in safety,” the notice states. “The Secretary has also determined that permitting eligible Somali nationals to remain temporarily in the United States is not contrary to the national interest of the United States.”



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