Should Natural Born Citizenship Be a Requirement for All Federal Elected Offices?

 

American Thinker

By Dean Malik

On February 27, 2019 at a speaking engagement held at a Washington D.C.  bookstore, newly elected Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar stated, with apparent reference to both American Jews and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (“AIPAC”), “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”  This comment followed recent tweets from Omar suggesting that American elected officials were “bought off” by the pro-Israel lobby, and earlier tweets from before she was elected, beseeching Allah to punish Israel for its “evil deeds.”

The tweets were roundly condemned as dog whistle anti-Semitism both by conservatives and members of her own party.  However, the greater question raised by Omar’s conduct before and after her election pertains to the path that brought her to the United States as a young refugee from a war-torn country on the Horn of Africa and ultimately lead to her becoming a powerful elected official.  In an attempt to defend or minimize Omar’s statements, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi offered, “She didn’t have a full appreciation of how [her words] landed on other people where these words have a history and cultural impact that might have been unknown to her.”

The import of Pelosi’s comments is clear.  Omar comes, as an immigrant, from a different cultural milieu, and she could not be expected to understand how Americans, given our culture and history, would interpret her statements.  Whether joking about the American view of terrorist organization al Qaeda, dismissing the notion that America is a “Christian” nation, or referring to the 9/11 terrorist attacks as “some people did something,” Omar’s apparent indifference to American culture and history has been showcased on multiple occasions.

It is fitting, albeit ironic, that Omar, a naturalized American citizen, by raising an accusation of dual loyalty and self-dealing against other Americans, has opened the door to a conversation about whether natural born citizenship should in fact be a requirement for the very office she holds.

Continue reading

6 Dem Senators Sell Out Jewish Terror Victims to Restore Cash to Islamic Terrorists

Frontpage mag

In 2002, Shmuel Waldman, an American from New Jersey, was shot while boarding a bus in Israel. The terrorist attack killed 2 people and left 40 injured. Among that 40 was Shmuel whose leg was blown apart, forcing him to undergo multiple surgical procedures, and leaving him suffering from PTSD.

The terrorist who shot him was Said Ramadan, a “police officer” working for the terrorists who run the Palestinian Authority. The attack had been planned by senior Palestinian Authority officials and the Palestinian Authority viewed Ramadan as a hero. Waldman joined other victims of terrorism in a lawsuit against the terrorist group, which is funded by American taxpayers, under the Antiterrorism Act.

Waldman v. PLO resulted in a record award of $655 million in damages against the Palestinian Authority terror network. But the verdict was thrown out because an American court lacked jurisdiction over the terrorist group even though the United States provides much of the cash flow that its terrorists rely on.

The Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act was introduced and approved to make it clear that accepting security assistance for its “police force” would place the Palestinian Authority under judicial jurisdiction for lawsuits such as these. The PA could stop funding terrorism or face lawsuits from its victims.

A ruthless battle was waged against ATCA by a variety of groups which understood that the Palestinian Authority would not stop funding and promoting terrorism under any circumstances. These groups falsely claimed that ATCA would undermine American and Israeli security. That was a blatant lie.

The only thing that ATCA would undermine was the flow of tax dollars to Islamic terrorists.

 

Last year, the Palestinian Authority informed the United States that the terror group would no longer accept any aid from the United States that would expose it to ATCA lawsuits. The terror group’s letter suggested that it might revisit its refusal if the law were changed. That’s just what 6 Democrat senators, led by Senator Dianne Feinstein have set out to do, using the false claim of a humanitarian disaster.

“President Trump’s refusal to provide humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people is a strategic mistake,” Senator Feinstein claimed, accusing him of “denying funding for clean water, health care and schools in the West Bank and Gaza.”

Senator Chris Coons urged that, “It is critical that we restore lifesaving aid to the West Bank and Gaza.” Senator Jeff Merkley insisted that, “Aid to innocent civilians should not be caught up in broader geopolitical battles. We can and should restore aid to children and other vulnerable populations at the same time as we stand steadfastly by Israel’s security.”

But the real agenda revealed by their resolution shows that it’s not about humanitarian aid, but about restoring funding to the Islamic terrorists of the Palestinian Authority.

While Feinstein claims that Trump is preventing “clean water” and “health care” aid, her own resolution actually begins by admitting that, “the Palestinian Authority’s interpretation of the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act… led the Palestinian Authority to reject all forms of United States assistance.”

The problem isn’t Trump. It isn’t the United States. It’s that the Palestinian Authority is a terror group.

The Palestinian Authority, on whose behalf Senator Feinstein is advocating, rejected the money that Dianne wants to give the terror group, because it doesn’t want to face American terror victims in court.

Rather than telling the truth about that, Senator Feinstein and her five accomplices start out by lying about the problem, and about what they want to accomplish, while assuming that the media will never report the truth. They are almost certainly right about that. But wrong about everything else.

The resolution, “Expressing the sense of Congress regarding restoring United States bilateral assistance to the West Bank and Gaza”, specifically demands $196 million for the Economic Support Fund, $60 million for International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement; and another million for anti-terrorism.

But the Palestinian Authority is a terrorist coalition. Some of its components, such as the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, are even officially listed as terrorist groups by the United States. Palestinian Authority “police” deserve the name the same way that ISIS cops did. They’re armed members of a terrorist network with a history of participating in terrorist attacks. This network was set up with United States aid in the Clinton era. Senator Feinstein is vocally insisting that we continue funding terrorists.

If Feinstein, Coons and Merkley were really just concerned about humanitarian assistance, they would not have pushed for funds for the armed components of a terrorist network. This is not about “clean water”, it’s about dirty cash flowing to the enforcers for a terrorist group while leaving their victims out in the cold.

The six senators want the PA’s thugs to get paid, while their victims are left unable to sue them.

Continue reading

Judicial Watch: FBI Admits Hillary Clinton Emails Found in Obama White House

Also Confirms Over 49,000 Clinton Server Emails Found on Weiner Laptop

 

Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that a senior FBI official admitted, in writing and under oath, that the agency found Clinton email records in the Obama White House, specifically, the Executive Office of the President. The FBI also admitted nearly 49,000 Clinton server emails were reviewed as result of a search warrant for her material on the laptop of Anthony Weiner.

E.W. (Bill) Priestap, assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division, made the disclosure to Judicial Watch as part of court-ordered discovery into the Clinton email issue.

U.S District Court Judge Royce Lamberth ordered Obama administration senior State Department officials, lawyers, and Clinton aides, as well as Priestap, to be deposed or answer writer questions under oath. The court ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”

Priestap was asked by Judicial Watch to identify representatives of Hillary Clinton, her former staff, and government agencies from which “email repositories were obtained.” Priestap responded with the following non-exhaustive list:

  • Bryan Pagliano
  • Cheryl Mills
  • Executive Office of the President [Emphasis added]
  • Heather Samuelson
  • Jacob Sullivan
  • Justin Cooper
  • United States Department of State
  • United States Secret Service
  • Williams & Connolly LLP

Priestap also testifies that 48,982 emails were reviewed as a result of a warrant for Clinton email account information from the laptop of Anthony Weiner, who had been married to top Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

A complete copy of Priestap’s interrogatory responses is available here. Priestap, is serving as assistant director of the FBI’s counterintelligence division and helped oversee both the Clinton email and the 2016 presidential campaign investigations. Priestap testified in a separate lawsuit that Clinton was the subject of a grand jury investigation related to her BlackBerry email accounts.

“This astonishing confirmation, made under oath by the FBI, shows that the Obama FBI had to go to President Obama’s White House office to find emails that Hillary Clinton tried to destroy or hide from the American people.” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “No wonder Hillary Clinton has thus far skated – Barack Obama is implicated in her email scheme.”

Priestap was ordered to answer the written questions by United States District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth when he ruled in January that Judicial Watch’s discovery could begin in Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. This action came in Judicial Watch’s July 2014 FOIA lawsuit for:

Copies of any updates and/or talking points given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency concerning, regarding, or related to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Any and all records or communications concerning, regarding, or relating to talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency.

Judicial Watch’s discovery seeks answers to:

  • Whether Clinton intentionally attempted to evade the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by using a non-government email system;
  • whether the State Department’s efforts to settle this case beginning in late 2014 amounted to bad faith; and
  • whether the State Department adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request.