#FreeTheHammonds: Sign the Petition!

By: Renee Nal | New Zeal

Rally in support of the Hammonds

A petition is circulating to pardon two good men: Steve and Dwight Hammond, who continue to sit in prison because radical environmentalists hate ranchers.

Please sign the petition, which begins:

“​For decades agencies of the Department of Interior, namely the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), have deployed their administrative powers to punitively regulate and maliciously prosecute the Hammond family of Oregon in a thinly veiled attempt to drive them off their ranch, their historic grazing allotments and vested water rights.”

Sign the petition here.

Follow and support the cause on Facebook here.

A good summary of this case can be found in the video below.


3% 10-Year Treasury Again In View

By: Kent Engelke | Capitol Securities

A 3.0% 10-year Treasury is again in view. To remind all, about two months ago the prospect of this benchmark was almost a certainty after a relentless climb from 2.4% at the start of the year. But a retreat ensued sending the 10-year as low as 2.72% in early April. Today, the yield is 2.92%, the highest in about eight weeks.

The accepted reason for the increase is greater than expected growth and inflationary pressures. I would like to add another… the massive impact of electronic based trading. The SEC states 99% of Treasury trading is done electronically utilizing algorithmic models.

I believe the next market crisis will not be an economic crisis, but rather a liquidity crisis. Liquidity is virtually absent given the changes in capital requirements and the inability of money center banks to take risk… aka hold inventories.

The regulatory entities are more concerned about speed of execution and risked based capitalization. Treasury trading has morphed electronically, which emphasizes speed, but not capitalization. What happens if there is a systemic event that causes a dramatic change in economic or monetary assumptions?

Liquidity is absent and prices could fall dramatically.

I vividly recall three periods of a radical change in sentiment… 1987, 1994 and 2008. In both 1987 and 1994, yields rose dramatically and 2008 yields fell dramatically.

What are the odds 2018 will be the inverse of 2008, but only on steroids given the lack of liquidity?

As noted many times, oil is at the highest level since December 2014, an environment few thought would unfold. Steel, aluminum, copper and lumber prices are surging, another unexpected event. Will demand pull inflation morph into cost push inflation?

Like many, I believe the secular bond bull market is over. However, I believe few have experienced a selloff in prices given that last one took place over 24 years ago. I read a statistic that average tenure of a bond trader is about 7 years and the number of bond professionals have dropped by over 60% because of technology; technology that I will argue does or cannot factor a systemic event.

As written before, it is all about speed of execution and market stabilizing forces are no longer available because of the long arm of government.

What will happen today?

Last night the foreign markets were mixed. London was up 0.44%, Paris was up 0.41% and Frankfurt was down 0.19%. China was down 1.94%, Japan was down 0.13% and Hang Sang was down 0.94%.

The Dow should open flat. The 10-year is unchanged at 2.92%.


End Of The Castro Era, Yet Communism Prevails Under New Leader

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

In February of 2013, the 600 members of the National Assembly of People’s Power and the 1600 provincial government representatives voted for Miguel Diaz Canal to be vice president. As of April 2018, Miguel Diaz Canal will reign supreme over Cuba as Raul Castro steps down.

While the Cuban military runs most of the operations in Cuba including all tourism, it is predicted under Miguel Diaz Canal, the junta will expand in Cuba. Cuba remains on the U.S. State Department Tier 2 Watchlist because of human trafficking.

For a historic slide show on Cuba, go here.

Cuba remains in an economic crisis and has been patching this crisis with oil agreements with Venezuela, attempting to increase agriculture production and applying some reforms. Meanwhile Cuba has asked Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom for debt forgiveness which in total is estimated in the $11 billion range. Russia wrote off $32 billion in Soviet era debt of Cuba in 2014.

As a continued threat to the United States, Russia re-opened a signals intelligence facility at Lourdes and two Russian oil companies, Gazprom and Zarubezhneft, have continued offshore oil drilling exploration operations. In 2014, President Xi of China visited Cuba to sign 29 trade agreements along with debt and  credit cooperation concessions.

In 2013, a weapons shipment on board a North Korea ship that left Cuba bound for the return to North Korea was discovered raising additional concerns for sanctions violations of both countries. The ship’s cargo was discovered in Panama due to suspicions of carrying illicit narcotics.

In 2009, the Obama administration began a significant shift in policy toward Cuba launching a new beginning which led to the reopening of the U.S. embassy in Havana. Yet nothing in Cuba changed with regard to human rights violations but some dissident prisoners were released and there were some Cuba spies released from the United States back to Cuba. U.S. citizen Alan Gross was also released from prison by Cuba and returned to the United States. In at least four rounds of talks with Cuba to reestablish diplomatic relations with the United States, Barack Obama sent a resolution to Congress to removed Cuba from the designation of a State Sponsor of International Terrorism. There were no objections by Congress and the rescission of this designation was removed.

Further, under Barack Obama many other initiatives were launched including law enforcement cooperation, smuggling prevention, technical exchanges, environmental, banking, maritime issues, counter-narcotics, trade, travel and cyber-crime. Continued health cooperation, direct mail services and oil spill preparedness were all part of the Obama new era policies.

The Trump administration has made statements indicating a reversal to some of the policy changes made during the Obama administration. This also includes operations at Guantanamo Bay.Meanwhile, Cuba still protects fugitives from justice including Assata Shakur also known as Joanne Chesimard that killed a New Jersey State police officer when she was a member of the Black Liberation Army. Another fugitive is William Guillermo Morales, a member of FALN that a domestic terror group convicted in New York for bomb production and weapons charges in cases going back to 1978.

There are continued property claims totaling 5911 where private property and that of U.S. corporations were confiscated by the Cuban government. The value of these claims is in the $10.9 billion and no resolution is in sight.

So, as Raul Castro passe power to a younger groomed and mentored communist, there is no reason to consider that relations and conditions will improve or move closer to a democratic process in Cuba. Not to be overlooked, the matter of a still unclear health attack of U.S. and Canadian diplomats assigned to the embassy in Havana has not been resolved. Both the United States and Canada have removed personnel as a result of debilitating health issues where Cuba has not protected or mitigated these acoustic attacks in and around the homes of diplomatic housing quarters.

Miguel Diaz Canal will continue to carry on the Castro regime and communist party platform. In fact, it is said that Miguel Diaz Canal will in fact be much more of a hardliner than that of the previous Castro regime.

In a videotaped private meeting with Communist Party members, Cuban Vice President Miguel Díaz-Canel — often portrayed as a moderate politician with a quiet disposition — took on an all too familiar hardline tone that offered a rare glimpse into his ideology.

In the video, which has quickly spread across social media platforms, Díaz-Canel lashed out against Cuban dissidents, independent media and embassies of several European countries, accusing them all of supporting subversive projects.

For the United States, he had this message: Cuba will not make any concessions.

“The U.S. government… invaded Cuba, put the blockade [embargo] in place, imposed restrictive measures. Cuba did not do any of that, so in return for nothing they have to solve those asymmetries if they want relations and if they want normalization of the relations,” Díaz-Canel said in the February meeting captured on video and published by Cuban dissident Antonio Rodiles on YouTube this week.


Yes, Secretary Mattis, there IS a Land Bridge

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

Hezbollah, the Iranian militias and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps operates in select regions across the globe with wild abandon.

January 2018, in a question and answer session: Q: On Iran’s role in Iraq and Syria, do you believe that a land bridge exists between Iran and Syria through Iraq? And, if so, are you concerned about it? Is there anything the United States can do about it?

SEC. MATTIS: No, I don’t — I don’t think there’s a land bridge right now. There’s still enough rough times — you know, rough terrain, rough enemy units that haven’t been cleaned up, and all the usual cleanup going on, and — plus you’ve got the combination of where the people we’re fighting — advising and that sort of thing in Syria are abutting, in some cases, the Russian forces who are helping the regime, abutting the Turkish elements. There’s — I don’t think there’s a land bridge right now.

*** So, while the United States along with France and Britain delivered 105 missiles to take out three chemical weapons locations in Syria, other locations remain in addition to the Assad air assets. Russia, North Korea and Tehran were all watching for weeks the actions of the West. Russia declares the most recent chemical weapons attack was at the hand of the White Helmets, then it was a ploy by Britain, then it was a CIA operation. Meanwhile, the chemical weapons inspection envoy arriving in Douma, a suburb of Damascus, had to find cover after being fired upon.

That brings us back to domestic threats and the strategy as developed by the Trump administration in dealing with Iran and Russia, much less Iraq. Is there one other than the threat of exiting the JCPOA? Not so far it seems. The increasing threat? Satellite land bridges perhaps….from Latin America to covert cells across our homeland.


Iranian-backed militants are operating across the United States mostly unfettered, raising concerns in Congress and among regional experts that these “sleeper cell” agents are poised to launch a large-scale attack on the American homeland, according to testimony before lawmakers.

Iranian agents tied to the terror group Hezbollah have already been discovered in the United States plotting attacks, giving rise to fears that Tehran could order a strike inside America should tensions between the Trump administration and Islamic Republic reach a boiling point.

Intelligence officials and former White House officials confirmed to Congress on Tuesday that such an attack is not only plausible, but relatively easy for Iran to carry out at a time when the Trump administration is considering abandoning the landmark nuclear deal and reapplying sanctions on Tehran.

There is mounting evidence that Iran poses “a direct threat to the homeland,” according to Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.), a member of the House Homeland Security Committee and chair of its subcommittee on counterterrorism and intelligence.

A chief concern is “Iranian support for Hezbollah, which is active in the Middle East, Latin America, and here in the U.S., where Hezbollah operatives have been arrested for activities conducted in our own country,” King said, referring the recent arrest of two individuals plotting terror attacks in New York City and Michigan.

“Both individuals received significant weapons training from Hezbollah,” King said. “It is clear Hezbollah has the will and capability.”

After more than a decade of receiving intelligence briefs, King said he has concluded that “Hezbollah is probably the most experienced and professional terrorist organization in the world,” even more so than ISIS and Al Qaeda.

Asked if Iran could use Hezbollah to conduct strikes on the United States, a panel of experts including intelligence officials and former White House insiders responded in the affirmative.

“They are as good or better at explosive devices than ISIS, they are better at assassinations and developing assassination cells,” said Michael Pregent, a former intelligence officer who worked to counter Iranian influence in the region. “They’re better at targeting, better at looking at things,” and they can outsource attacks to Hezbollah.

“Hezbollah is smart,” Pregent said. “They’re very good at keeping their communications secure, keeping their operational security secure, and, again, from a high profile attack perspective, they’d be good at improvised explosive devices.”

Others testifying before Congress agreed with this assessment.

“The answer is absolutely. We do face a threat,” said Emanuele Ottolenghi, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who has long tracked Iran’s militant efforts. “Their networks are present in the Untied States.”

Iran is believed to have an auxiliary fighting force or around 200,000 militants spread across the Middle East, according to Nader Uskowi, a onetime policy adviser to U.S. Central Command and current visiting fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

At least 50 to 60 thousand of these militants are “battle tested” in Syria and elsewhere.

“It doesn’t take many of them to penetrate this country and be a major threat,” Uskowi said. “They can pose a major threat to our homeland.”

While Iran is currently more motivated to use its proxies such as Hezbollah regionally for attacks against Israel or U.S. forces, “those sleeper cells” positioned in the United States could be used to orchestrate an attack, according to Brian Katulis, a former member of the White House National Security Council under President Bill Clinton.

“The potential is there, but the movement’s center of focus is in the region,” said Katulis, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Among the most pressing threats to the U.S. homeland is Hezbollah’s deep penetration throughout Latin America, where it finances its terror activities by teaming up with drug cartels and crime syndicates.

“Iran’s proxy terror networks in Latin America are run by Tehran’s wholly owned Lebanese franchise Hezbollah,” according to Ottolenghi. “These networks are equal part crime and terror” and have the ability to provide funding and logistics to militant fighters.

“Their presence in Latin America must be viewed as a forward operating base against America’s interest in the region and the homeland itself,” he said.

These Hezbollah operatives exploit loopholes in the U.S. immigration system to enter America under the guise of legitimate business.

Operatives working for Hezbollah and Iran use the United States “as a staging ground for trade-based and real estate-based money laundering.” They “come in through the front door with a legitimate passport and a credible business cover story,” Ottolenghi said.

The matter is further complicated by Iran’s presence in Syria, where it has established not only operating bases, but also weapons factories that have fueled Hezbollah’s and Hamas’s war on Israel.

Iran’s development of advanced ballistic missile and rocket technology—which has continued virtually unimpeded since the nuclear deal was enacted—has benefitted terror groups such as Hezbollah.

“Iran is increasing Hezbollah’s capability to target Israel with more advanced and precision guided rockets and missiles,” according to Pregent. “These missiles are being developed in Syria under the protection of Syrian and Russian air defense networks.”

In Iraq, Iranian forces “have access to U.S. funds and equipment in the Iraqi Ministry of Defense and Iraq’s Ministry of Interior,” Pregent said.

The Trump administration has offered tough talk on Iran, but failed to take adequate action to dismantle its terror networks across the Middle East, as well as in Latin American and the United States itself, according to CAP’s Katulis.

“The Trump administration has talked a good game and has had strong rhetoric, but I would categorize its approach vis-à-vis Iran as one of passive appeasement,” said Katulis. “We simply have not shown up in a meaningful way.”


Has Giving Leftists What They Want Made America Better?

By: Lloyd Marcus

Leftists have made huge gains in stripping Godly traditional principles and values from our American culture. It is disturbing seeing Christians, Conservatives and Republicans surrendering more ground, allowing leftists to achieve their evil goal.

Beginning in kindergarten through college, our kids are poisoned with toxic liberalism. https://bit.ly/2FPJQDh Parents are poisoned with subliminal and in-your-face liberalism 24/7 via TV, fake news, churches, movies and so on. Suddenly, like in the movie, “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”, Christians, Conservatives and Republicans are stealthily transformed. They begin spewing leftist narratives. A relative whom I have known to be a strong Christian suggested that I soften my resistance to same sex marriage. This relative is a Christian who has surrendered to leftists’ attack on God’s plan for marriage.

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil” Isaiah 5:20

Folks, has giving leftists what they want made America better?

In 1963, the United States Supreme Court gave leftists what they wanted, the removal of prayer from public schools. So how has that worked out for us?

Since removing prayer from schools in 1963, out-of-wedlock births for girls 15-19 years old has tripled. Violent crimes have increased tenfold. Single parent female headed households have grown from 5 million in 1962 to 12 million and growing. https://bit.ly/2valh2R

Sexual transmitted diseases in kids 10-14 years old has skyrocketed, increasing 257% since 1963. https://bit.ly/2EJ1EOX Fifteen year olds having sex since 1963 is up 1,000%. For decades divorce rates were declining. Since 1963, divorce rates have increased 117% making America number one in the world for divorce. https://bit.ly/2EJ1EOX

After removing prayer in 1963, academic achievement severely declined. SAT (Scholastic Assessment Test) test scores fell each year for 18 years. Unprecedented, we are graduating students who academically know less than their parents. https://bit.ly/2EJ1EOX

We have allowed Leftists to lower academic and behavioral standards in public schools. An elementary school teacher friend told me she had a student who freely cursed her out, calling her an “m-f”. No matter how hard she tried, she could not get the unruly student disciplined or removed from her class. Remember when you were a child? The one kid who brought a switchblade to school was deemed a juvenile delinquent and sent to reform school. Today, weapons (knives and guns) are so prominent in public schools, students must walk through metal detectors. Has lowering academic and behavioral standards helped our kids?

To a large degree, we have allowed leftists to remove “healthy shame” from our culture. Leftists say the only thing anyone should be shamed of is being conservative, Republican, Christian or white. https://bit.ly/2GYgBTk Remember when it was shameful to not know the father of your baby? Today, pregnant women boldly appear on national trashy TV shows DNA testing 27 guys to determine the father. Leftists deem female promiscuity feminism at its best, women freely exploring their sexuality. Leftists are angry at God for unfairly sticking women with the annoying possibility of getting pregnant. Promiscuity carries health risks and emotional consequences. https://bit.ly/2JH1J9m Has the normalization of baby mommies and baby daddies strengthened our society?

Around 1993, the programming manager at WJZ-TV, ABC affiliate in Baltimore where I worked wrote a play. His play was an outrageous parody of talk shows. Talk shows today on national TV are 10 times more trashy than his play.

My 90 year old dad told me about an incident on a Baltimore transit bus when he was a kid. He and his buddy were purposely making annoying sounds to agitate passengers. Dad heard a woman say, “It’s how they were raised.” Dad said he immediately felt ashamed of himself. He knew Aunt Nee raised him better. Has the removal of healthy shame made our culture better?

SCOTUS complied with leftists’ demands to make same sex marriage the law of the land. This emboldened leftists to demand that LGBT lessons be required in public schools. The mandatory curriculum includes BDSM, asphyxiation, gender-bending, anal sex and rimming. https://bit.ly/2uOQloy

My wife chuckled about her parents forbidding her to say “pregnant” when she was a child. Seventh grade sex ed class was pretty mild. I asked, “How will the sperm know it is time to come out? The teacher replied, “It will know.”

Exposing kids too early to porn leads to imprinting, sex addictions and intimacy disorders. https://bit.ly/2ESpt7a Has robbing our children of their innocence as early as kindergarten improved their lives?

So I am visiting a relative when I look up to catch two guys kissing at the end of a TV drama. The camera followed the couple as they strolled away holding hands. I expected, “And they lived happily ever after” to appear on the TV screen. This is the new normal leftists demand we embrace. LGBT lifestyles have severe health risks. https://bit.ly/2HopvsG Next week’s episode will probably feature the same sex couple in a beautifully staged bedroom scene on national TV.

Folks, I ask you a simple question. Has allowing leftists to implement their vision for America made us better? I think not.

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Help Lloyd spread the Truth: http://bit.ly/2kZqmUk


A Democrat candidate for Governor of Michigan. Who Are His Friends/Supporters?

The United West

The following are pictures and endorsements for voters of Michigan to understand a candidate and his campaign.  An educated voter is a must in any election, but even more so in 2018!

As one correspondent with the Middle East Forum put it, both the Brotherhood and militant jihadists will “shout Allahu Akbar and bomb Israel, support jihad, and support the violation of the rights of women and non-Muslims. One will do it openly and loudly while wearing his primitive Islamic dress and his untidy beard, but the other will be a PhD holder from Oxford University or the Sorbonne, and he will do it cunningly and secretly while wearing his German or French suit and a tidy beard, from an air-conditioned office, all the while making deals with the Americans.”   . (Counter Jihad Report, August 11, 2017)

So the ideal Brotherhood politician would be someone who secretly harbors radical Islamic convictions, but looks, acts, and talks like a mainstream, major-party candidate. This candidate would not hide his Muslim identity, but instead would leverage it for political advantage, making Islam sound moderate and appealing to values like multiculturalism. (Counter Jihad Report, August 11, 2017)

Could Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed be giving the ISIS one-fingered salute?  Carefully look at the hand formation, then you decide.


  • Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed has substantial connections to the Muslim Brotherhood in both his past and present. So the suspicion that El-Sayed may harbor Islamist convictions and be a Trojan horse are not unfounded, especially given the reality of what some have dubbed a “stealth jihad.” (Jihad Watch, August 10, 2017)
  • El-Sayed is chummy with Linda Sarsour, the hijab-wearing Women’s March organizer who is a vocal proponent of jihad and sharia law (and who has enthusiastically endorsed his candidacy).   (PJ Media, Sept 5, 2017)
  • At the University of Michigan, El-Sayed was vice-president of the Muslim Student Association, an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood. (PJ Media, Sept 5, 2017)
  • The wife’s father is a former president and current board member of the Michigan chapter of the terrorist-linkedCouncil on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).  (PJ Media, Sept 5, 2017)
  • In 2012, when he was in med school, El-Sayed received a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellowship. Paul, George Soros’s brother.  Some sources maintain that the Soros empire is funding El-Sayed’s campaign and grooming him to eventually become president.  (PJ Media, Sept 5, 2017)

Abdul’s Family:
Father: Egyptian immigrant who remarried to a now converted white, rural Protestant mother. (The Guardian, Aug 24, 2017)

Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed,  posted this to his Facebook Page.  Highlights noted how proud he was of his father’s accomplishments.

What could some of those comments be stating?

  • What is meant by “students of color” and why is that important? Why does that distinction need to be made?
  • When referring to “America…it’s ideals, it’s diversity and its ability to correct.”  Why does America need to be “corrected”?
  • “more perfect union”, is that a reference to implementing a One World religion & caliphate w/Sharia as the legal code of the land?
  • His Dad reminds him “how incredible a place this can be”. How about telling his son how incredible this place IS & HAS BEEN, with opportunities, freedoms, and liberties not given  anywhere else in the world.  Established by our Founders!
  • “Let’s fight to keep it that way.”  Is that a reference to Jihad?  Could be!
  • Abdul’s wifeSarah Jakaku, wears hijab, a fact that seriously undermines the image he seeks to project.   (PJ Media, Sept 5, 2017)  [An indicator she is Sharia compliant]
  • His uncles learned to prepare venison Halal so his entire family could share in the meals. (The Guardian, Aug 24, 2017)
  • El-Sayed’s father-in-law is Jakaku Tayeb, former president and current board member of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Michigan. In 2007, CAIR was actually named by federal prosecutors as “unindicted co-conspirators” in a criminal plot to support the terrorist group Hamas.  (Jihad Watch, August 10, 2017)


Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed and the Brotherhood Stealth Model

  • According to the Middle East Forum, the Muslim Brotherhood differs from other radical jihadist groups in strategy, but not in goals. Both the Brotherhood and groups like ISIS seek to destroy the West and establish Sharia, or Islamic, law. But while groups like ISIS promote a military means of conquering the West, the Brotherhood, as stated in its internal documents, seeks to penetrate and destroy Western civilization from within — “‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their (own) hands.”  .”  (Jihad Watch, August 10, 2017)
  • Publicly, El-Sayed espouses a very tolerant form of Islam, once remarking that he was running for public office “because of the values my Islam teaches me” like beliefs in “equity” and “the fundamental rights of all people.” El-Sayed also frequently talks about people of different faiths coming together, upholding his “extremely diverse” family as a model. (El-Sayed’s father, Mohamed El-Sayed, married a white woman who converted to Islam. So now, through his step-mother, El-Sayed has a grandmother who’s a Presbyterian and apparently, an uncle who’s an atheist.) (Jihad Watch, August 10, 2017)
  • Al Jazeera does a “glowing” interview of this Democrat candidate… but never interviews any others… why? Approval of a Muslim candidate, possible run for President in 2020?
  • Abdul is quoted as saying, “I can tell you that my ability to practice my faith in person, in my own home, when I choose to, where I’m allowed to, because of freedoms in this country have everything to do with that separation of church and state,” he said. “If I am going to want to be able to put my face on the ground 34 times a day, like I do, because I’m Muslim, I want to make sure no one can take that right away from me. And I will not take that right away from anyone else.” (The Guardian, Aug 24, 2017)
  • He has pledged universal healthcare to all Michiganders if it fails on the federal level, says he will push to legalize marijuana and says he will raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and make Michigan a “sanctuary state”: as a spokesman puts it, he is “unwilling to waste state taxpayer money to enforce federal law that would rob small businesses of hardworking employees and tear apart families”.  (The Guardian, Aug 24, 2017)

  • Repeatedly, El-Sayed has described himself as a devout Muslim: he prays several times a day; he has said that “his Islamic values are at the center of his work as a civil servant”; his father is an imam. If he’s a devout Muslim, that means he firmly supports sharia law. But how does he square this with his purported approval of secular government? Is he a devout Muslim or a devout believer in the separation of religion and state? You can’t be both. (PJ Media, Sept 5, 2017)
  • While a student at the University of Michigan, El-Sayed was “an active member” and vice-president of the Muslim Students’ Association (MSA) – a group founded mainly by members of the Muslim Brotherhood for the express purpose of spreading Wahhabist ideology — an austere form of Islam that insists on literal interpretation of the Quran and views those who disagree as enemies.

According to terrorism expert Patrick Poole, the MSA “has been a virtual terror factory. Time after time after time again, we see these terrorists . . . MSA leaders, MSA presidents, MSA national presidents — who’ve been implicated, charged and convicted in terrorist plots.”  (Jihad Watch, August 10, 2017)

The extensive list of MSA terrorists includes (Jihad Watch, August 10, 2017):

  • Anwar al-Awlaki, an al-Queda senior recruiter and organizer.
  • Ramy Zamzam, convicted in Pakistan for attempting to join the Taliban and kill U.S. troops, was president of the MSA’s Washington, D.C. council.
  • Omar Shafik Hammami, the former president of the MSA at the University of South Alabama, who abandoned his wife and infant daughter to join the terrorist group Al-Shabaab in Somalia.

WHO/WHAT IS THE Muslim Student Association?


Friends engaging friends… “strong women leaders” – Sally Yates, Maxine Waters, and Elizabeth Warren?   And Bill Clinton hovering nearly on top of  Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed?

  • Sally Yates, an Obama hold-over, fired by President Trump for refusing to enforce the president’s Executive Order. But, she didn’t stand against anything Obama implemented.
  • Maxine Waters, who’s been in office since 2013 in her current position, but since 1990 in other positions. Basically a lifer who can’t seem to do anything but scream, “Impeach Trump”, without any reason other than she just doesn’t like him!
  • Elizabeth Warren, who thinks she’s American Indian, but just can’t seem to prove it. BUT… everyone MUST give her special status as she would then qualify as a minority.

These are his role models for “strong women leaders”?   Very disturbing!

Again, Linda Sarsour, who openly declared Jihad on President Trump!

This is who Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed feels compelled to stand with?  Makes for very dangerous liasions!

Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed and President Trumps Recent Tax Cuts

Tax cuts “Wont  grow #jobs”, only #inequality.  #fail”

I believe Abdul has it VERY Wrong!  But he’s following the Pelosi “Crumbs” mantra!

The following bullets from: New York Post, January 27, 2018:

  • The president’s policies of cutting high taxes and excessive regulationsare sparking a stock market surge and soaring economic confidence.
  • Millions of workers will get the bonuses, most of which are for $1,000, and untold others will get new or higher-paying jobs.
  • Most of those workers also will see their take-home pay increase because they will get personal income tax cuts and a doubling of the standard deduction.
  • The cash-in-the-pocket benefits are great news to many families, but the boom is doing something else too: It’s giving the millennials a firsthand lesson in economics.
  • As the Wall Street Journal reported Friday, the tax cuts are “rippling through” the economy and leading all kinds of firms to explore expansion and some to consider new plants and acquisitions.
  • Many companies also are increasing their charitable contributions, with JPMorgan Chase saying it will boost its community-based philanthropy by 40 percent, to $1.75 billion over five years.


The Dark Forces Behind the Transgender Revolution

By: Cliff Kincaid | America’s Survival

Mary McAlister of Liberty Counsel discusses the Soros-backed transgender revolution in America, including its “progress” under former President Obama and what President Trump is doing to reverse the damage to our nation and our families. Transgenders, including children forced to undergo these medical procedures and experiments, suffer genital mutilation, become sterile and have a high suicide rate. McAlister and host Cliff Kincaid also address the fact that one of the transgender pioneers was Dr. John Money, who also promoted sex between adults and children. Another current topic is the Sex Ed Sit Out on April 23, 2018, as parents take their kids out of school to protest pornographic sex education materials financed by Planned Parenthood.


Brennan Admits Obama Refused To Retaliate For Russian Cyber-Warfare Attacks On U.S.

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

Former CIA director John Brennan has admitted that not only was Barack Obama aware of cyber-attacks by the Russians, he refused to go on the offensive and retaliate against Moscow. He was afraid that the Russians would attack us even harder. That’s what Brennan claims stopped Obama. He stated, “There was consideration about rattling their cages with some type of cyber event.” The way that Obama acted during his tenure as president, he might as well have been a Russian or Iranian plant. Brennan was hardly any better and many claim he secretly converted to Islam, which would explain his hatred of Israel. Both of these men are deeply immoral and frankly, evil.

Speaking at the University of California, Berkeley, on Saturday, Brennan admitted that there was a plan to respond and retaliate against Moscow that had been formulated by the intelligence community, but Obama refused to act, instead weakly issuing a verbal warning to Russia. Brennan acknowledged, “President Obama was the ultimate decision-maker on that.” This is not something we didn’t already know, but now Brennan doesn’t care who knows. Instead of protecting the U.S., Obama groveled before our enemies.

Obama notoriously weakened our intelligence agencies. He crippled them and they now need a full reboot after being cleaned out. Too many spies, traitors, sycophants and political radicals are in the ranks. Last week, Michelle Van Cleave, a former national counterintelligence executive, said that in 2013, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper reduced the national counterintelligence program authority by directing that all counterspy programs be run by individual departments or agencies. When you do that, you weaken the overall agency and keep intelligence agents from working together. It’s a recipe for a national security catastrophe.

Van Cleave added: “The national head of counterintelligence was rebranded director of a security and CI center, his duties further dissipated by the fixation on leaks and insider threats driven by the grievous harm done by Snowden, Manning, et al. … Gone was any dedicated strategic [counterintelligence] program, while elite pockets of proactive capabilities died of neglect. Read between the lines of existing CI guidance and you will not find a whiff of a national-level effort left, other than caretaker duties such as taking inventory and writing reports.” Brennan, Clapper and Obama in essence destroyed our intelligence capabilities.

Brennan does get it right when he says he had “great confidence” Russian President Vladimir Putin had directed the Russian effort. The Obama administration first recognized Russian interference in late 2015 and early 2016; Brennan acknowledged Russian operations had been confirmed. But instead of doing something about them, they ignored them and gave Putin the green light to continue violating our networks. They gave limp, vague warnings to the Russians at best. Brennan called the meddling “unprecedented in terms of its scope and intensity, and made full use of the digital domain.”

Brennan stated, “We were really trying to strike the right balance between doing everything we could to prevent and thwart as well as to uncover and understand what the Russians were doing without doing anything that would almost advance their interests in trying to disrupt our election.” He added that Obama was concerned that U.S. action against the Russians might be perceived as Obama attempting to influence the 2016 election, saying, “So if we did more things and stood at the hilltops and cried out, ‘The Russians, the Russians are trying to help Trump get elected,’ and if President Obama who is the titular head of the Democratic Party were to do that, I think that there would have been a lot of people would believe, I think with some justification, that the President of the United States was trying to influence the outcome of a presidential election.”

So instead, Obama disrupted the election by spying on Republicans and Trump and targeting people on the right. All the while covering for Hillary Clinton’s crimes. And as Ed Morrissey at HotAir points out, Obama did go public with the Russian threat in October of 2016… to influence the election.

From Ed Morrissey:

There are only a couple of small holes in Brennan’s argument, though. The first is that Obama did go public with the Russian threat … in October 2016, no less, and it had been leaking out of the Obama administration for months at that point. In fact, the Obama administration also leaked out a CIA plan for massive cyber retaliation in the middle of the same month, just three weeks before the election, a plan which was never activated. Obama was in full “The Russians are coming” mode by that point anyway — so why not make the Russians pay for it?

Second hole: The US picked up on these efforts much earlier than the DNC hack. First, Russia has longstanding disinformation campaigns against Western elections, but as early as 2014, intelligence showed that Moscow was going to put more resources into it. Senator Tom Cotton warned the administration that they were unprepared for the hostile action to come and tried to get Obama to expand counter-propaganda resources in 2015, only to get his proposal shot down by Obama himself.

After the election, Obama ordered the expulsion of 35 Russian intelligence officers. And he deftly dumped the mess in Trump’s lap and it still has not been sufficiently addressed or dealt with. Both the FBI and CIA are charged with the conducting counterintelligence–detecting and thwarting hostile intelligence operations. Both agencies failed to halt the Russians in 2016 either in the United States or abroad. U.S. officials have said the targeting of U.S. and foreign elections by Russia is continuing. And after the latest Syrian strike, we now fear a massive infrastructure cyber-attack.

From The Washington Free Beacon:

Intelligence agencies concluded in a report issued in early 2017 that Russian civilian and military intelligence agencies conducted an aggressive operation to sow social discord during the 2016 election by opposing Hillary Clinton while seeking to boost Donald Trump’s campaign.

The Russian operation included the use of advertising on social media platforms like Facebook, and cyber attacks involving the cyber theft of emails and postings online using covert internet personas.

In February, 13 Russians were indicted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller for running a St. Petersburg, Russia-based internet troll farm that carried out influence operations during the elections.

So far, no action has been taken against the Russian hackers engaged in email thefts.

And one wonders exactly why.

Kenneth deGraffenreid, who is a former deputy national counterintelligence executive, said Obama’s inaction was a major counterintelligence failure. “If Brennan’s claims are true, the Obama administration’s inaction in the face of this Russian cyber aggression represents a serious counterintelligence failure that has had terrible consequences,” deGraffenreid said. “Good counterintelligence requires an active element beyond collecting and analyzing the secret information that has been uncovered–namely countering this serious foreign intelligence threat in an effective way. The U.S. has the sophisticated tools to do this. There simply is no excuse for not doing so,” he added. “Our national security depends on American leaders taking the action required.”

And remember, in 2016, Brennan disclosed that in 1976 he voted for the Moscow-backed Communist Party USA candidate for president, Gus Hall, during the height of the Cold War. He should never have headed the CIA to begin with. That should have disqualified him. We have a major issue with background checks and clearing people to be in positions of power it would seem.

Tantamount to this though has to do with an American president deferring to Putin, who is a former KGB thug, a current FSB strongman, a dictator and a murderer. Russia is one of our greatest enemies and cyber-attacks are acts of war. Perhaps our leaders need reminding of that.


Will Margins Come Under Pressure?

By: Kent Engelke | Capitol Securities

Equities advanced as focus was turned to profits and away from geopolitical tensions. Analysts are expecting results to increase anywhere between 17% and 19%. Perhaps the only definitive statement to make is short falls will be met with selling. Conversely because of huge expectations, profits must exceed the consensus view to advance.

I point to last week’s release of several mega-sized financials whose profits met expectations, but were greeted with general disappointment as evidence.

Late yesterday, Bloomberg wrote the odds are low earnings will quell volatility. The newswire states of the 29 S & P 500 companies that have thus posted earnings, all 29 “saw shares trail in the first day reaction…falling an average of 0.7%.” Bloomberg further writes tech stocks fared the worst “with shares falling 3.6% despite considerably better than expected results.”

As widely discussed, the PE for the S & P 500 is still selling at 21x earnings and data dating back to 1950 indicates any continuing advance may be difficult as this stage.

Some of the hurdles the averages could face are general inflation in production components and wages, both of which could be difficult to pass onto the consumer in the proverbial race to the bottom in today’s “cost is the only determinate of purchasing decision” environment. In other words, margin compression from today’s near record levels.

It is widely accepted the lack of wage inflation is a major reason for the rebound in corporate profits since the end of the Great Recession.

What will happen today?

Last night the foreign markets were up. London was up 0.20%, Paris was up 0.43% and Frankfurt was up 0.79%. China was down 1.41%, Japan was up 0.06% and Hang Sang was down 0.83%.

The Dow should open nominally higher ahead of earnings. To write the obvious, there is no shortage of catalysts to potentially roil the markets. The 10-year is off 1/32 to yield 2.80%.


What is the Syria Strategy from the West?

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

In the days ahead, it appears that Russia and the rogue friends they keep will respond to the West likely by an obscure cyber war. Take personal caution with your financial activity.

The other warning pertains to news reports indicating specific assassination attempts made to look like suicide. While we heard about the poison assassination attempt in Salisbury, England of Skripal and his daughter, the United States had it’s own successful assassination in 2015 of Mikhail Lesin in Washington, DC. Additionally, the UK had two other successful wet jobs, as they are called, going back to 20o6 and 2010. Those victims were Alexander Litvinenko and  Gareth Williams who worked for GCHQ

There are many other hit operations that happened in Russia including the recent death of Maxim Borodin.

There are an estimated 250+ journalists that have been killed since the fall of the Soviet Union.

So, it is now declared that the United Nations quit counting the dead from the Syria civil war since the number has officially exceeded 500,000. What is disgusting, however, is we sorta care about the dead, but the methods no longer matter unless chemical weapons are used. How nuts is that? So, France, Britain and the United States respond to the most recent attack –>

check – round one of airstrikes

check – round two of airstrikes

Let’s give credit where credit is due. By John Hannah

First, U.S. President Donald Trump set a red line and enforced it. He warned that the large-scale use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime would trigger a U.S. attack. When Syrian President Bashar al-Assad crossed that red line a year ago, Trump responded with 59 cruise missiles that took out about 20 percent of Syria’s operational aircraft. A year later, Trump has acted again after Assad chose to challenge him a second time. This attack was twice as big and hit multiple targets, including what U.S. defense officials called the “heart” of Syria’s chemical weapons program, substantially degrading Assad’s ability to produce the deadly agents.

That ain’t peanuts. No, there’s no guarantee it will end Assad’s use of chemical weapons — in which case Trump and his military have made clear that they’ll strike again, almost certainly harder than the time before. And no, nothing that happened Friday night will, in isolation, alter the trajectory of Syria’s bloody civil war. But the effective deployment of U.S. power in defense of a universal norm barring the use of some of the world’s worst weapons against innocent men, women, and children is nevertheless to be applauded — limited an objective as it may be. Also to be praised is the possible emergence of a commander in chief whose threats to use force need to be taken seriously by U.S. adversaries. Once established, this kind of credibility (while no panacea) can be a powerful instrument in the U.S. foreign-policy arsenal. Once lost, it is hard to recover, and the consequences can be severe. For evidence, just see the post-2013 results, from Crimea to Syria.

A second important virtue of Friday night’s attack was its multilateral character. With barely a week’s notice, Britain, France, and the United States, the three most powerful militaries of the trans-Atlantic alliance, all permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, seamlessly operated on the seas and in the skies of the Middle East to defend their common interests and values against a murderous Russian and Iranian client. What’s the worth of that kind of unity, coordination, and seriousness of purpose? It’s hard to quantify precisely. But anyone who’s ever toiled as a practitioner in the national security space knows, deep in their bones, that it matters — a lot. And it especially matters in the case of a U.S. president who has too often unfairly — and, to my mind, dangerously — discounted the value of Europe, the West, and the post-World War II system of institutions and alliances that his predecessors built. In that power and righteousness of the world’s leading liberal democracies acting in concert, there’s a significant value-added that no mere counting of ships, planes, and missiles can adequately capture. Kudos to the president and his team for their skill in mounting this posse. It’s an important framework that they hopefully will continue to invest in to confront the multitude of urgent international challenges now staring us in the face.

A few other related observations: Say what you will about the wisdom of some of the president’s public messaging last week, but once he made clear that he again would act to enforce his red line, U.S. adversaries took him deadly seriously. Russian ships dispersed from port. Syria abandoned its own air bases and rushed to co-locate its aircraft near Russian military assets. And Iranian-backed fighters, including Hezbollah forces, allegedly vacated certain positions and went to ground for fear of a possible U.S. strike. Again, the fact that the United States’ worst adversaries appear to take Trump’s threats with the seriousness they deserve is a very good thing, a genuine national security asset that needs to be husbanded, reinforced, and carefully but systematically exploited going forward. But hopefully last week’s experience also serves as a reminder to the president of the deep wisdom inherent in the criticism that he’s long leveled at his predecessors: Don’t telegraph your military punch.

Another observation: There was much nervous hand-wringing before the strike about a possible U.S.-Russia confrontation. Rightly so. No one wants World War III to break out over Syria. All prudent and appropriate measures should be taken to mitigate those risks. But in some circles, the hyping of the concern threatened to become absolutely paralyzing, a justification (or excuse) for doing nothing in the face of Assad’s abominable use of weapons of mass destruction.

In the end, of course, for all their chest thumping, the Russians did next to nothing as Western planes and missiles flew under their noses to strike a client that they’ve expended significant resources to save.

Just as the Israelis, for their part, have conducted nearly 100 strikes against Russia’s Iranian, Hezbollah, and Syrian allies with barely more than a clenched fist from Moscow. The fact is that for all the firepower they may have assembled in Syria, and for all the success they’ve enjoyed carpet-bombing defenseless civilian populations and poorly equipped Islamist radicals, Russian forces are severely overmatched — both in terms of quality and quantity — by what the United States and its allies can bring to bear in any head-to-head confrontation in the eastern Mediterranean. Putin knows it. So does his military. That reality of the actual balance of power — not only militarily, but economically and diplomatically as well — is always worth keeping in mind.

On their own, the Syrians and their Iranian allies were virtually defenseless against the U.S.-led strike. The best they had was a flurry of unguided missiles haphazardly fired after the mission’s designated targets had been turned to smoldering ruins. Of course, it was only a few years ago (well before the Russians intervened with their advanced S-400 surface-to-air batteries) that senior U.S. officials were pointing to the dangers of Assad’s air defenses as an excuse for not acting to protect Syrian civilians from being systematically terrorized by barrel bombs, indiscriminate artillery fire, and Scud missiles. Let’s hope that the overwhelming success of this attack puts the reality of that threat into somewhat better perspective for U.S. military planners — while also serving as a powerful reminder not just to Assad, but to Iran and other adversaries as well, of the extreme vulnerability they potentially face at the hands of U.S. air power and weaponry.

My criticisms of the U.S. strike? It was clearly at the lowest end of the options presented the president. As suggested by some of what I’ve said above, Trump was too risk-averse. Even with the president telegraphing that a strike was coming, the universe of targets that the United States could have attacked — while still minimizing collateral damage and the threat of great-power escalation — was far larger than what it ended up hitting. Trump could have done much more to degrade the Assad regime’s overall capability to wage war against its own people. The United States could have sent far more powerful messages to the Syrian government’s key military and intelligence power nodes of the risks they run to their own survival through mindless obedience to Assad’s genocidal criminality. Ditto the Russians and Iranians, and the realization that their failure to reign in the most psychotic tendencies of their client could substantially raise the costs and burdens of their Syrian venture if they’re not careful.

In short, everything the United States wanted to do with the strike — hold Assad accountable, re-establish deterrence against the use of chemical weapons, send a message to the Russians and Iranians about the price to be paid for failing to control their client, and move toward a credible political settlement — could have been done more effectively, at acceptable risk, with a significantly larger strike.

More fundamentally, I have deep concerns about what appears to be the president’s emerging strategy in Syria. It amounts to defeating the Islamic State, deterring the use of chemical weapons, and then withdrawing U.S. forces as quickly as possible from eastern Syria. As for the more strategically significant menace posed to vital U.S. interests by an aspiring Iranian hegemon seeking to dominate the Middle East’s northern tier, drive the United States out of the region, and destroy Israel, the administration’s strategy is not particularly compelling. As best as one can tell from the president’s recent statements — including the one he made on Friday night announcing the Syria strike — it amounts to encouraging some combination of regional allies (and perhaps Russia) to fill the vacuum the United States leaves behind.

That kind of abdication of U.S. leadership rarely works out well. Leveraging U.S. power to demand greater burden-sharing from partners who have even more at stake than the United States does? Definitely. Less effective: When the United States washes its hands of a problem with deep implications for U.S. national security in vague hope that other parties — smaller, weaker, more deeply conflicted and strategically myopic than the United States is — will organically rise to the occasion and mobilize a virtuous coalition that takes care of business and keeps at bay the country’s most vicious adversaries.

The president is right, of course: The Middle East is a deeply troubled place. There are no great victories to be won there. There is no glory to be gained. Just worst disasters to be avoided, threats contained, and important national interests preserved. Yes it is imperative that the United States does so smartly, prudently, by, with and, through local partners and multilateral coalitions, using all instruments of national power, and in a way that sustains the understanding and support of the American people. But do so the country must. Packing its bags and vacating the playing field to the likes of Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah is escapism masquerading as strategy. Trump’s important response to the Syrian chemical weapons attack last week is evidence that he may still be capable of grasping that unforgiving reality. He should be encouraged to build on it.

John Hannah