“Islamic teachings are consistent w many libertarian principles, such as tolerance, property rights & individualism,” the CATO Institute’s Libertarianism.org website tweeted recently. To support this claim that was immediately derided by Pamela Geller (“Let the laughter begin“) and others, the tweet linked to a website entry by Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, a Muslim “libertarian” whose radicalism has long remained unexamined.
Ahmad, a Palestinian-American Harvard graduate with an astrophysics doctorate, runs the Washington, DC-area think tank Minaret of Freedom (MFI), an organization with extensive Muslim Brotherhood (MB) affiliations. By contrast, his Libertarianism.org entry reiterated Islamic proclamations of liberty that he has previously expressed at the other right-leaning venues like the Catholic Acton Institute. “Islam established a form of pluralism that, although not secular, was more extensive than anything before the American era.” Thus “religious minorities were allowed to follow their own religious laws in all matters internal to their own communities.”
What was previously widely suspected has now been confirmed. In its latest bombshell report that – for once – doesn’t include some nefarious allegations of wrongdoing or incompetence involving President Donald Trump or members of his administration, the Washington Post reported Tuesday that the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign jointly financed the creation of the infamous “Trump dossier,” which helped inspire the launch of the floundering investigations into whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians.
Though neither the DNC nor the Clinton campaign worked directly with former British spy Christopher Steele as he compiled the document, the fact that Democrats funded the dossier – which includes information primarily gleaned from sources in Russia – ironically suggests the Democrats indirectly leveraged Russian sources to try and spread information of dubious veracity about a political opponent to try and sway an election.
Even though the scandalous accusations contained within the dossier weren’t made public until after the vote, presumably waiting to see what foot the shoe would end up on, this would’ve provided serious grist for the collusion narrative, which we imagine would’ve been stretched to include the entire Republican establishment as accomplices.
While it’s impossible to determine exactly how much money was spent on the dossier, the Clinton campaign paid Perkins Coie – the law firm of Clinton superattorney Marc Elias – $5.6 million in legal fees from June 2015 to December 2016, according to campaign finance records, and the DNC paid the firm $3.6 million in “legal and compliance consulting’’ since Nov. 2015. Some of that money was presumably used to pay for the dossier.
Fusion GPS’s work researching Trump began during the Republican presidential primaries when an unidentified GOP donor reportedly hired the firm to dig into Trump’s background. The Republicans who were involved in the early stages of Fusion’s efforts have not yet been identified. Fusion GPS did not start off looking at Trump’s Russia ties, but quickly realized that those relationships would be a fruitful place to start, WaPo reported.
Steele previously worked in Russia for British intelligence. The dossier, which was primarily compiled in Moscow, is a compilation of reports Steele prepared for Fusion. Allegations contained in the dossier included claims the Russian government collected compromising information about Trump and the Kremlin was engaged in an active effort to assist his campaign for president.
Fusion turned over Steele’s reports and other research documents to Elias, and it’s unclear how much of it he shared with the campaign.
The revelation about who funded the dossier comes just days after Trump tweeted that the FBI and DOJ should publicly reveal who hired Fusion GPS. And lo and behold, that information has now been made public.
Read more at ZeroHedge
Not only the Clintons are implicated in a uranium deal with the Russians that compromised national-security interests.
Family Security Matters
Let’s put the Uranium One scandal in perspective: The cool half-million bucks the Putin regime funneled to Bill Clinton was five times the amount it spent on those Facebook ads – the ones the media-Democrat complex ludicrously suggests swung the 2016 presidential election to Donald Trump.
The Facebook-ad buy, which started in June 2015 – before Donald Trump entered the race – was more left-wing agitprop (ads pushing hysteria on racism, immigration, guns, etc.) than electioneering. The Clintons’ own long-time political strategist Mark Penn estimates that just $6,500 went to actual electioneering. (You read that right: 65 hundred dollars.) By contrast, the staggering $500,000 payday from a Kremlin-tied Russian bank for a single speech was part of a multi-million-dollar influence-peddling scheme to enrich the former president and his wife, then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton. At the time, Russia was plotting – successfully – to secure U.S. government approval for its acquisition of Uranium One, and with it, tens of billions of dollars in U.S. uranium reserves.
Here’s the kicker: The Uranium One scandal is not only, or even principally, a Clinton scandal. It is an Obama-administration scandal.
By Rick Moran
According to a report from the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction, 152 soldiers from the Afghan army who had been selected for special training in the United States have gone AWOL while on U.S. soil.
According to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, 13 of the 152 who had gone AWOL were still at large as of March 7 of this year. Seventy of the 152 had fled the United States; 39 gained legal status in the U.S.; and 27 were arrested, removed or in the process of being removed from the U.S. Three no longer were AWOL or returned to their training base in the U.S.
“There are so many problems here, it’s hard to know where to start,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said in a statement. “This is bad for national security, bad for Afghan military readiness, and bad for U.S. taxpayers.”
AWOL Afghans are considered a security risk in the U.S. because they have military training and are of fighting age, and relatively few are ever arrested or detained.
It is a sad day for America when the nation is so divided our government refuses to prosecute traders because fear of civil war. With our media the truth is always first to die.