Media Silent on Venezuelan Depths of Socialism
MRCtv tells of Chaos in Venezuela
Through a series of short videos, MRCtv tells of the political assassinations, attacks on police, attacks by police on protesting civilians, and attacks on army vehicles.
Venezuelan government kidnaps opposition leaders
In a 1 August 2017 article, The Guardian provides proof of political kidnappings in Venezuela.
Venezuela opposition leaders Leopoldo López and Antonio Ledezma have been taken from their homes, where they were under house arrest, family members of the two have tweeted.
López’s wife and Ledezma’s daughter said they would hold President Nicolás Maduro responsible for the fate of the two men.
Both leaders in recent days have called on Venezuelans to join protests against Maduro over the creation of an all-powerful legislative body called the constituent assembly, which was elected on Sunday.
The vote for the assembly was boycotted by the opposition and has been criticised around the world as an assault on democratic freedoms.
“12:27 in the morning: the moment when the dictatorship kidnaps Leopoldo at my house,” López’s wife, Lilian Tintori, wrote on Twitter.
She included a video of what appears to be López being led into a vehicle emblazoned with the word Sebin, Venezuela’s intelligence agency. Vanessa Ledezma posted a similar video of Ledezma.
(Read more on The Guardian)
As these current videos and articles and previous posts on the starving Venezuela prove, socialism provides little to anyone but those at the top of the socialistic pyramid. Socialism works only as the worst of all Ponzi schemes.
Media Silent on Democrats with Felony Charges
Media Silent on the Conviction of the Doctor Accused of Bribing Senator Menendez
USA Today reported in a 28 April 2017 article on the half of this equation who has been accused of bribing Senator Menendez and now stands convicted of medicare fraud.
A Florida jury convicted eye doctor Salomon Melgen of Medicare fraud on Friday, increasing the pressure he may face to testify against Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., in September when the two go on trial in New Jersey on corruption charges.
“By having two separate trials, it raises the stakes for Dr. Melgen and gives the government enormous additional leverage,” said Robert Mintz, a former federal and state prosecutor who chairs the white collar criminal defense section at McCarter & English in Newark, N.J.
“Rather than being able to roll the dice on the question of whether to go to trial or cooperate — assuming he has information the government would be interested in — he knows with certainty he’s going to jail and the only way to reduce his sentence would be to cooperate,” Mintz said.
An April 2015 indictment handed up by a Newark grand jury accused Melgen of providing contributions to political committees and luxury travel, including flights on his private jet and vacations at his home in a Dominican Republic resort, as bribes to get Menendez to take official actions to benefit Melgen financially. One charge accuses Menendez of pressuring Medicare officials about a regulation at the heart of a $9 million billing dispute Melgen had with the government.
Both Menendez and Melgen have pleaded not guilty to the charges in Newark.
Menendez’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, said Melgen’s convictions related to “day-to-day operations of his medical practice and the private care of his patients — specifics of which the senator could not be aware, nor has it ever been suggested otherwise.”
“From the beginning, Senator Menendez has been clear that he has always acted in accordance with the law and his appropriate legislative oversight role as a member of Congress. When all the facts are heard, he is fully confident that a jury will agree and he will be vindicated,” Lowell said.
(Read more at USA Today)
Senator Menendez Shows His Faith in the Democrat Media through a Request to the Judge
In a 25 August 2017 Politico article, Senator Bob Menendez demonstrated extreme chutzpah even for a Democrat senator.
With numerous high-stakes votes approaching in Congress, lawyers for U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) are pleading with a federal judge to recess the Democrat’s impending corruption trial on days he is needed in Washington.
The lawyers, who were unable to convince U.S. District Court Judge William H. Walls of their arguments during a hearing in New Jersey earlier this week, say in a new motion that the senator’s absence from the Capitol could imperil votes to raise the debt ceiling and to avoid a government shutdown.
The situation is creating a “clash of values,” the senator’s lawyers say, that could force Menendez to make an unfair choice: Set aside his right to confront his accusers so he can make it to Washington for big votes, or shirk his constitutional obligations to the people who elected him so he can sit through the full trial.
“Senator Menendez, like any criminal defendant whose individual liberty is at stake, has a clear and unqualified interest in being present at his own trial,” attorneys Abbe Lowell and Raymond M. Brown wrote in their motion, filed Thursday evening.
“However,” the lawyers wrote, “a trial taking place during a session of Congress risks involuntarily denying Senator Menendez his rights to due process and confrontation, unless he elects to forego his constitutional duty to cast his vote on critical issues pending before Congress so that he can be present in the courtroom.”
Menendez, New Jersey’s senior senator, is accused of dolling out political favors for Florida eye doctor Salomon Melgen, a close friend, in exchange for lavish vacations, private jet flights and campaign cash.
The trial, set to begin on Sept. 6 in Newark, could last for months and also butt up against a vote on the National Flood Insurance Program, which covers 200,000 New Jersey policyholders and is a top issue for Menendez.
(Read more at Politico)
Should Anyone be Surprised When We Consider a 2016 National Review Article
Michelle Malkin produced a 13 July 2016 National Review article detailing the corruption of several members of the Congressional Black Caucus. This post teases with Michelle’s first two picks.
Too many black leaders would rather break the law to line their pockets than take care of their constituents. We’re naming names.
If Black Lives Matter, then why have entrenched members of the Congressional Black Caucus spent more time enriching themselves than taking care of their neglected constituents?
Too many social-justice protesters are busy throwing shade, rocks, bottles, concrete blocks, and vicious death threats at police officers of all colors who are trying to keep the peace.
Instead of moaning about “#WhitePrivilege,” I invite radical racial identity warriors to join me in taking on the black political elites selling out their people.
- Corrine Brown:This twelve-term Democrat from Florida received a 24-count federal indictment last week while her Congressional Black Caucus colleagues tried to drown out the news with diversionary gun-control theatrics. Brown and her chief of staff are charged with creating a fraudulent education charity to collect over $800,000 in donations from major corporations and philanthropies for their own private slush fund between 2012 and early 2016.
The director of the hoax group, dubbed One Door for Education, Inc., pleaded guilty last year to fraud and conspiracy. Prosecutors say that two relatives of Brown and her chief of staff steered tens of thousands of dollars in cash deposits to their accounts. The charitable contributions paid for lavish galas, NFL tickets, concert luxury box seats, golf tournaments, and apparently Brown’s tax bills.
Despite raising nearly a million bucks, Brown’s “charity” issued only two measly educational scholarships for minority students. So while shamelessly claiming this week to be a martyr akin to the murdered Dallas police officers and victims of the Orlando jihad, Brown is embroiled in a sordid scandal that exploited black children to line her own pockets.
You can’t blame righty or whitey this time, Crooked Corrine.
- Chaka Fattah: This eleven-term Pennsylvania Democrat was convicted in late June on 23 charges of racketeering, money laundering, and fraud, along with four other co-defendants. His son was sentenced earlier this year to a five-year prison term after being found guilty of 22 counts of separate federal bank- and tax-fraud charges related to his misuse of business loans and federal education contracts to pay for designer clothes, massive bar tabs, and luxury cars.
Fattah the Elder’s crimes are tied to schemes to repay an illegal $1 million campaign loan. Like his rotten apple of a son, Fattah siphoned off federal grant money and nonprofit funds (including donations to his educational foundation — sound familiar?) to pay off political consultants.
The con artists inside your own communities are your own worst enemies.
(Read Michelle’s full list of corrupt Democrats at National Review)
For those of us who remember Ray Nagin, Marion Barry, William J. Jefferson, Rod Blagojevich, Anthony Weiner, Jesse Jackson, Laura Richardson, Frank Ballance, and Jim Traficant, there remains a bit of distrust of Democrats.
The Trump Administration on Religious Freedom
The 2016 International Religious Freedom Report Underscores Foundational American Values
In the following 15 August 2017 announcement by Secretary Tillerson, the Trump administration acknowledged America’s basis in religious freedom and the genocide occurring among Christians in the Middle East.
Why would the media want to ignore a statement that affirms the religious freedom? The Democrat-favoring media might skip over this report in order to hide the pro-Muslim bias of the Obama administration.
Secretary Tillerson Contradicts the Anti-Terrorism Stance of Trump
According to a 15 August 2017 Clarion Project article, the Tillerson State Department has taken a different route than the stated route of Donald Trump.
On the very positive side, an alliance of Gulf and other Muslim states led by Saudi Arabia and including Egypt, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen and others severed all relations with Qatar because of Qatar’s funding of terrorism (Hamas, the <a class="glossaryLink " data-cmtooltip="A worldwide Islamist organization founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna that seeks to implement Sharia-based governance globally.
” href=”https://clarionproject.org/glossary/muslim-brotherhood/” rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” title=”Glossary: Muslim Brotherhood”>Muslim Brotherhood, the Taiban and Al Qaeda) and Qatar’s ties with Iran and Turkey.
Yet, while Trump himself expressed support for the Arab World’s unprecedented pressure on Qatar and described Qatar as a major terror-financier, Trump’s Secretary of State Rex Tillerson publicly criticized Saudi Arabia, called Qatar “very reasonable” in its reaction to the pressure, said the U.S. is “mystified” by their complaints and made moves towards Turkey (who was aiding Qatar in the crisis).
Tillerson then signed a counter-terrorism agreement with Qatar, spitting in the faces of the Arab countries fed up with Qatar’s support of terrorism.
(Perhaps Tillerson’s favoring of Qatar has something to do with the close relationship he had with the Qatari government as a businessman with ExxonMobil, which has a decades-long association with Qatar’s rulers.)
Immediately after signing the deal, Qatar reiterated its commitment to Hamas, a foreign terrorist organization as designated by the U.S.
The Trump administration agreed to sell 36 fighter jets to Qatar right after the Arabs launched their campaign.
Tillerson also signaled his opposition to designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization in mid-June.
(Read more at the Clarion Project)
Why is it that the Department of State always runs counter to American values? It doesn’t matter whether an anti-American president like Obama directs the US or a populist like Trump, the Department of State does its own thing. Maybe we should have new blood in the department.
Five of the Clarion Project‘s 25 Reasons to Reassign General H.R. McMaster
In a 27 August 2017 Clarion Project article, Ryan Mauro presented 25 reasons why President Trump should remove Gen. McMaster from his current position. Here are the first five.
- He is not on board with Trump’s vision of waging an ideological war against radical Islam (or whatever terminology you prefer).
You simply cannot have a national security adviser who is at odds with the fundamental pillar of your national security strategy.
In that speech, he rejected the notion that jihadists are motivated by a religion-based ideology. Instead, he claimed they are motivated by “fear,” a “sense of honor” and their “interests,” which he described as the roots of human conflict for thousands of years. He recommended that the U.S. must begin “understanding those human dimensions.”
In May, McMaster stated in an interview that the jihadists “are not religious people.”
A source close to National Security Council (NSC) personnel revealed that McMaster opposed President Trump’s summit in Riyadh, one of the high points of his presidency thus far. McMaster felt it was “too ambitious.”
In Trump’s speech announcing his strategy for Afghanistan, words like “radical Islamic terrorism” were missing. This is clearly the influence of McMaster. In his resignation letter to Trump, Dr. Gorka referenced these omissions and said it “proves that a crucial element of your presidential campaign has been lost.”
Here’s the Clarion take:
- Endorsed a book favorable towards “non-militant” Islamists
In 2010, McMaster endorsed a book that states, as one of its central arguments, “It is the Militant Islamists who are our adversary…They must not be confused with Islamists.”
The book contends that our policy should not be aimed at Islamism overall but only Islamist terrorist groups. That is the mindset of those who advocate working with the “moderate” <a class="glossaryLink " data-cmtooltip="A worldwide Islamist organization founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna that seeks to implement Sharia-based governance globally.
” href=”https://clarionproject.org/glossary/muslim-brotherhood/” rel=”nofollow” target=”_blank” title=”Glossary: Muslim Brotherhood”>Muslim Brotherhood and the “moderate” Taliban.
McMaster describes the book as “excellent” and “deserv[ing] a wide readership.” Raymond Ibrahim reviewed the book and found serious errors, ones that now have dangerous consequences with McMaster as national security adviser.
- Opposes designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization
Based on the above two issues, it should be no surprise that McMaster reportedly opposes designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
- Opposes a tough stance on Qatar’s support of terrorism and extremism
McMaster opposed President Trump’s tough stance on Qatar when our Arab allies confronted the tiny country, despite the sea of proof that our so-called “ally” is a major sponsor of Islamist terrorism and extremism, including the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Al-Qaeda.
McMaster, like Secretary of Defense Mattis, was concerned about the U.S. base in Qatar.
This means that McMaster essentially supports allowing the Qatari government to use our own base—which protects them—to decide U.S.policies.
The UAE has recommended that we move the base. There are no indications that McMaster is advocating that we do that so we can exert more pressure Qatar in the future.
- The book endorsed by McMaster legitimizes Hamas
Aaron Klein, a senior Middle East reporter, read the book that McMaster endorsed as “excellent” and, shockingly, found that the author never characterizes Hamas as a terrorist group. Instead, the author refers to Hamas as an “Islamist political group” that is among Islamists “who do not fit into a neat category.”
“The question for Americans is whether Hamas is an Islamist or Militant Islamist group,” the author, Youssef H. Aboul-Enein, writes.
He’s as wrong as someone can possibly be wrong. Beside the fact that Hamas has been designated by the U.S. as a Foreign Terrorist Organization for 10 years, there is no question that Hamas is a terrorist group. In fact, there isn’t much of a substantive difference between Hamas and ISIS.
Aboul-Enein’s argument is that the U.S. should only target “Militant Islamists” and not more generic Islamists. By questioning whether Hamas qualifies as Militant Islamist, Aboul-Enein is questioning whether the U.S. should target Hamas.
The book also moves the reader away from understanding that Islamists’ preaching of armed jihad rests upon a strong theological foundation. Based on Klein’s description, the author makes it sound as if Islamists are motivated by reasonable grievances against policies and then sit down and conjure up a convoluted way to describe their violent response as “jihad.”
If we don’t acknowledge the deep theological basis of the Islamists’ worldview, we will not be able to effectively respond to the ideology and its related narratives.
There is an important side note as well: Klein points out that the author of the book is the chair of Islamic Studies at National Defense University (which is funded by the Department of Defense) and a senior adviser and analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Joint Intelligence Task Force for Combating Terrorism. This means that these views are being taught to very important students.
(Read the other 20 reasons at the Clarion Project)
The first reason was enough for me.