Friday, May 1, 2020

May 1, 2020 Trump Exposes the ‘Great Disparity’: Islam Good, Judaism and Christianity Bad By Raymond Ibrahim

American Thinker

Trump Exposes the ‘Great Disparity’: Islam Good, Judaism and Christianity Bad

Ramadan is upon us, and many Americans -- not least the millions who were denied church access during Easter -- are wondering: will mosques experience the same ban or will the usual double standard prevail?
Among those wondering is America’s president, Donald Trump.  Recently asked at a press briefing why he retweeted a tweet by author Paul Sperry -- “Let's see if authorities enforce the social-distancing orders for mosques during Ramadan (April 23-May 23) like they did churches during Easter” -- Trump said:
I would like to see that…  I would say there could be a difference. But we’ll have to see what will happen.  Because I’ve seen a great disparity in this country; I’ve seen a great disparity.  I mean, I’ve seen a very strong anti-Israel bent in Congress with Democrats…  The things they say about Israel are so bad, and I can’t believe it.  So I would be interested to see that, because they go after Christian churches, but they don’t tend to go after mosques.  And I don’t want to see them go after mosques, but I do want to see what their bent is…  Our politicians seem to treat different faiths very differently; and they seem to think -- I don’t know what happened to our country -- but the Christian faith is treated much differently than it was, and I think it’s treated very unfairly.
Needless to say -- and despite the fact that at least some mosques, including in NYC, America’s coronavirus “epicenter,” were reported as open for Ramadan -- Trump’s otherwise accurate observations were lambasted by politically active Muslims and their American allies/dupes.  The terrorist-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) did what it does best -- accuse Trump and his administration of being “insulting… Islamophobic, white supremacist and racist.”  All the Daily Beast could do was throw its hands up in the air and appeal to the Islamic deity in an article titled, “Allah Willing, Let This Be Donald Trump’s Last Ramadan in Office.”
Meanwhile, back in the real word, the concerns Trump raised -- particularly of the “great disparity in this country” concerning how Islam is treated on the one hand, and how Israel and Christianity are on the other -- have been validated over and over again, and often in more insidious ways.
Thus, in August 2019, after the Consortium for Middle East Studies (CMES), a program run by Duke University and the University of North Carolina, hosted what was described as a “Three-Day Anti-Israel Hate-Fest,” the U.S. Dept. of Education warned it in a letter to stop misusing federal grants by advancing “ideological priorities.” 
The letter further accused the consortium of “lack[ing] balance as it offers very few, if any, programs focused on the historic discrimination faced by, and current circumstances of, religious minorities in the Middle East, including Chri

American Thinker

Trump Exposes the ‘Great Disparity’: Islam Good, Judaism and Christianity Bad

Ramadan is upon us, and many Americans -- not least the millions who were denied church access during Easter -- are wondering: will mosques experience the same ban or will the usual double standard prevail?
Among those wondering is America’s president, Donald Trump.  Recently asked at a press briefing why he retweeted a tweet by author Paul Sperry -- “Let's see if authorities enforce the social-distancing orders for mosques during Ramadan (April 23-May 23) like they did churches during Easter” -- Trump said:
I would like to see that…  I would say there could be a difference. But we’ll have to see what will happen.  Because I’ve seen a great disparity in this country; I’ve seen a great disparity.  I mean, I’ve seen a very strong anti-Israel bent in Congress with Democrats…  The things they say about Israel are so bad, and I can’t believe it.  So I would be interested to see that, because they go after Christian churches, but they don’t tend to go after mosques.  And I don’t want to see them go after mosques, but I do want to see what their bent is…  Our politicians seem to treat different faiths very differently; and they seem to think -- I don’t know what happened to our country -- but the Christian faith is treated much differently than it was, and I think it’s treated very unfairly.
Needless to say -- and despite the fact that at least some mosques, including in NYC, America’s coronavirus “epicenter,” were reported as open for Ramadan -- Trump’s otherwise accurate observations were lambasted by politically active Muslims and their American allies/dupes.  The terrorist-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) did what it does best -- accuse Trump and his administration of being “insulting… Islamophobic, white supremacist and racist.”  All the Daily Beast could do was throw its hands up in the air and appeal to the Islamic deity in an article titled, “Allah Willing, Let This Be Donald Trump’s Last Ramadan in Office.”
Meanwhile, back in the real word, the concerns Trump raised -- particularly of the “great disparity in this country” concerning how Islam is treated on the one hand, and how Israel and Christianity are on the other -- have been validated over and over again, and often in more insidious ways.
Thus, in August 2019, after the Consortium for Middle East Studies (CMES), a program run by Duke University and the University of North Carolina, hosted what was described as a “Three-Day Anti-Israel Hate-Fest,” the U.S. Dept. of Education warned it in a letter to stop misusing federal grants by advancing “ideological priorities.” 
The letter further accused the consortium of “lack[ing] balance as it offers very few, if any, programs focused on the historic discrimination faced by, and current circumstances of, religious minorities in the Middle East, including Christians, Jews, Baha’is, Yazidis, Kurds, Druze, and others.”  Instead, “there is a considerable emphasis placed on understanding the positive aspects of Islam, while there is an absolute absence of any similar focus on the positive aspects of Christianity, Judaism, or any other religion or belief system in the Middle East. This lack of balance of perspectives is troubling…”
While the Dept. of Education letter was directed at CMES, virtually every other Middle East Studies department in America -- whence so many Middle East “experts,” “analysts,” and policymakers emerge -- can be accused of the same exact things, including whitewashing and promoting Islam, while ignoring its victims.
Nor is this double standard limited to higher education; basic indoctrination begins in public schools.  For example, Caleigh Wood, an eleventh grade Christian student in a Maryland high school received a failing grade because she refused to compromise her faith by making a written profession of the Muslim creed or shahada -- “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.”  
School officials denied her father’s request that she be allowed to be given an alternative assignment.  She was, moreover, forced to view a series of pro-Islamic PowerPoint slides, which included the following statements“Most Muslims’ faith is stronger than the average Christian”; “Men are the managers of the affairs of women” and “Righteous women are therefore obedient.”
Responding to the Supreme Court’s refusal to review Wood’s case, her lawyer, Richard Thompson, echoed Trump:
I’m not aware of any public school which has forced a Muslim student to write the Lord’s Prayer or John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”  Yet, under the pretext of teaching history or social studies, public schools across America are promoting the religion of Islam in ways that would never be tolerated for Christianity or any other religion.  It’s disappointing that the Supreme Court did not take this opportunity to clarify the test which lower courts should use when ruling on establishment clause and free speech challenges to public school classes on religion… Many public schools have become hot beds of Islamic propaganda. Teaching Islam in schools has gone far beyond a basic history lesson. Prompted by zealous Islamic activism and emboldened by confusing court decisions, schools are now bending over backwards to promote Islam while at the same time denigrating Christianity.
In short, Trump is right: there is “a great disparity in this country”; there is “a very strong anti-Israel bent”; and “the Christian faith” is “treated very unfairly.” 
Worse, the many “disparities” in the public education system -- those mentioned above are just the tip of the iceberg -- are insidiously dangerous in ways than the very visible disparity of having mosques open for Ramadan during COVID-19 are not.  For it is through schools -- to say nothing of media, Hollywood, and the newsrooms -- that the worldview of young Americans is forged: hence the often inexplicable admiration and/or sympathy for Islam; hence the often inexplicable contempt and worse for Christianity and Israel.
Raymond Ibrahim, author of the recent book, Sword and Scimitar, Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West, is Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute, and Judith Rosen Friedman Fellow at the Middle East Forum.stians, Jews, Baha’is, Yazidis, Kurds, Druze, and others.”  Instead, “there is a considerable emphasis placed on understanding the positive aspects of Islam, while there is an absolute absence of any similar focus on the positive aspects of Christianity, Judaism, or any other religion or belief system in the Middle East. This lack of balance of perspectives is troubling…”
While the Dept. of Education letter was directed at CMES, virtually every other Middle East Studies department in America -- whence so many Middle East “experts,” “analysts,” and policymakers emerge -- can be accused of the same exact things, including whitewashing and promoting Islam, while ignoring its victims.
Nor is this double standard limited to higher education; basic indoctrination begins in public schools.  For example, Caleigh Wood, an eleventh grade Christian student in a Maryland high school received a failing grade because she refused to compromise her faith by making a written profession of the Muslim creed or shahada -- “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.”  
School officials denied her father’s request that she be allowed to be given an alternative assignment.  She was, moreover, forced to view a series of pro-Islamic PowerPoint slides, which included the following statements“Most Muslims’ faith is stronger than the average Christian”; “Men are the managers of the affairs of women” and “Righteous women are therefore obedient.”
Responding to the Supreme Court’s refusal to review Wood’s case, her lawyer, Richard Thompson, echoed Trump:
I’m not aware of any public school which has forced a Muslim student to write the Lord’s Prayer or John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”  Yet, under the pretext of teaching history or social studies, public schools across America are promoting the religion of Islam in ways that would never be tolerated for Christianity or any other religion.  It’s disappointing that the Supreme Court did not take this opportunity to clarify the test which lower courts should use when ruling on establishment clause and free speech challenges to public school classes on religion… Many public schools have become hot beds of Islamic propaganda. Teaching Islam in schools has gone far beyond a basic history lesson. Prompted by zealous Islamic activism and emboldened by confusing court decisions, schools are now bending over backwards to promote Islam while at the same time denigrating Christianity.
In short, Trump is right: there is “a great disparity in this country”; there is “a very strong anti-Israel bent”; and “the Christian faith” is “treated very unfairly.” 
Worse, the many “disparities” in the public education system -- those mentioned above are just the tip of the iceberg -- are insidiously dangerous in ways than the very visible disparity of having mosques open for Ramadan during COVID-19 are not.  For it is through schools -- to say nothing of media, Hollywood, and the newsrooms -- that the worldview of young Americans is forged: hence the often inexplicable admiration and/or sympathy for Islam; hence the often inexplicable contempt and worse for Christianity and Israel.
Raymond Ibrahim, author of the recent book, Sword and Scimitar, Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West, is Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute, and Judith Rosen Friedman Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

American Thinker

The Illusion of Growth in Latin America

Despite its geographical breadth and abundance of natural resources, Latin America is a minor economic player on the global stage. Currently, its GDP corresponds to approximately 7% of the world total, a proportion that has remained relatively stable since the 1970s.
However, the most worrying part of this situation is Latin America’s chronic lack of growth. Recent data published by the IMF show that the region grows significantly less than the world average. In the last three years, global growth averaged 3.5% annually, while Latin America grew at 1%. The Latin American growth index, at 1%, is below the average of developed countries (approximately 2%) and much lower than that of countries with economies rated as emerging (around 4.5%).
What explains this complex and frustrating situation? There are some obvious issues related to politics (e.g., populism, lack of consistent national projects, an unclear vision of the structural elements of local economies) and social aspects (inequality, lack of access to the consumer market by the lower classes, a relatively small middle class). However, I would like to focus on the issue of productivity.
Looking very conceptually, economic growth can be largely explained by two components: the size of the labor force (i.e., the number of active workers in an economy) and its productivity (i.e., how much added value each person contributes through their work).
A recent study by McKinsey Global Institute (a “think tank” linked to the McKinsey & Co. consulting firm), analysed these issues to explain the growth of Latin American national economies between 2000 and 2016. The result is surprising, especially considering that these years Latin America saw a strong expansion of regional economies, due to the appreciation of prices of basic goods.

What is noteworthy is that for most countries in the region (with some exceptions, such as Colombia), around 70% of growth is explained by increases in the labor market. It’s especially surprising if we consider that this period was marked by greater inclusion of workers in the formal market, while only 30% is explained by higher productivity. If we look at the Chinese economy performance in the same period, we note that 94% of its growth is explained by the increase in productivity -- and only 6% by labor market expansion. And this is not low growth for China, since its GDP grew by more than 10 times in this cycle, from 1 to more than 11 trillion dollars!
In summary, the productivity of Latin American workers is low. But what are the key variables associated with productivity growth? Mainly two: one in the short term, and the other in the long term. They are not completely independent. In the short term, the adoption of technology is essential: new machinery, more robust and developed systems, automation, robotization, better production processes. In the long term, worker training and qualification is essential.
This brings us to one of the main Latin American tragedies: poor-quality education. If we look at the education indicators of the region, we see that practically all countries are in the same boat: they offer poor (public and private) education that generates people who are practically illiterate in the fundamental cognitive components of language, mathematics, and science.
This deficiency has already had an impact -- and will become even greater -- on the productivity of the region’s workers. In economic terms, productivity in Latin America has been stagnant for many years. The example that is always used as a benchmark for this topic is the comparison between the productivity of Brazilian workers and their Korean peers: in the 1970s, a Brazilian produced 10% more than a South Korean. Today, he produces a third. In other words, a Korean adds, on average, the same value as three Brazilians.
How did it come to this? The answer is simple: education. South Korea, since the 1950s, has invested heavily in education, and trained increasingly qualified people as a long-term bet.
So far, we’ve talked only about the problems. Now let’s talk about how to tackle them.
The most effective solution: Intraregional trade
Intraregional trade is vital to achieving economic prosperity, social progress, and political stability in Latin America. Increasing it can create more and better jobs, bring millions out of poverty, and improve standards of living across the region.
That’s why intraregional trade should be a central objective of every national and supranational agenda. However, it seems like Latin American countries do not want themselves as trading partners.
The Executive Secretary of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Alicia Bárcena Ibarra, said in an event held last year in Buenos Aires that intraregional trade had experienced one of its biggest drops in recent history, although this type of trade is precisely what could boost the economies of the region. “We (Latin America) tend not to buy each other’s goods, yet intraregional trade is precisely what we need that can take us to the productivity level of the developed countries. It is far from its historical level of 21%, which we reached when Mercosur [1991] was formed. Now it’s only 15.5%," she said. 
Unsurprisingly, intraregional trade is far below that of most other regions by international standards, accounting for just 16% of Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) total exports in 2017. In the developed economies of Europe and Asia, that total exceeds 50 percent.
There are various reasons for this, including Latin America’s poor logistics and transport infrastructure (only 23% of the roads in the region are paved); its gigantic size (over 20 million square kilometres); conflicts over energy and natural resources among many South American nations; and the gravitational pull that the United States of America exerts on many countries in the region.
This is the scenario we face in the region. The processes that will lead us to the fourth industrial revolution have already begun and shows signs of intense acceleration. Companies are beginning to prepare for digital transformation, developing their infrastructures, investing in digital solutions, and seeking to be more competitive in an increasingly globalized and disruptive world.
On the other hand, will the prominent leaders of Latin America -- the great political decision-makers, those who should think about creating long-term wealth, improving social conditions and reducing inequalities -- understand the bottleneck for development for the 8.42% of the total world population that lives in the region? Are they making the right decisions and prioritizing the really important issues?
Stevie Clark blogs at School Supplies and has worked as a support staff educator. She’s well-versed in issues of education policy.


American Thinker

Islam's False Claim to Democracy

The Islamic Republic of Iran held parliamentary elections a couple of months ago, and the second round will be held on 11 September 2020.  The Iranian regime is desperate to secure a smooth election in the fall, like the legislative one in Egypt scheduled for this November.  In Muslim states that hold elections, it would seem that Islam has incorporated a democratic body politic.  This is a definitely a ploy of the mainstream media and Islamists, such as House representative Ilhan Omar and the Islamic feminist Linda Sarsour.  After all, Muslims sustain "it was, in fact, the Prophet Mohammed who established the first known [democratic] constitution in the world — the Medina Charter — and that his life and the principles [were] outlined in his constitution."
They maintain that the Medina Charter, traditionally delineated by the Prophet Muhammad in 622 A.D., was the first ever constitution to historically establish certain democratic principles and peace among nations.  Far be it to challenge that it brought political harmony with the non-believers, let alone fostering human rights as the precursor to democracy, for historically, as soon as Muhammad had the upper hand with the tribes and nomadic peoples he negotiated with, he reneged on his promises.
It must first be pointed out that the Medina Charter was more of an agreement among tribal groups that singled out certain individual privileges and duties among them, as well as the limitations placed on non-Muslims. 
A constitution, instead, is the fundamental and organic law of a nation or state that establishes the institutions and apparatus of government, whereby the scope of governmental power is defined, in addition to guaranteeing individual civil rights, as our U.S. Bill of Rights — something the Charter of Medina did not do.  That being said, a constitution presupposes democracy, something completely absent in a state that relies on sharia law.
The concept of an Islamic constitutional tradition is complex in light of orthodox Islamic understandings of the utter sovereignty and agency of Allah over the entire world, governments and governed alike.  In any case, as the 20th-century Arab scholar Robert Bertram Serjeant explained, the Charter as a constitution is pretentious, especially since there is doubt among scholars as to whether it was written as a unitary document.  There is also a question as to its historicity — I being one of the doubters — since only fragments from early Islamic sources survive; most of it can be found in Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, the first biography of Muhammad two hundred years after his death.
Humoring the argument that the Charter is a constitution, two technical points are to be looked at that would disclaim this.  The first is that the Medinan period, in which the Charter was apparently written, occurred after Muhammad and a handful of followers were forced to leave Mecca since he was incapable of converting his fellow Meccans to his teachings.  Having heard of his gift of prophecy, he was invited to Medina to act as a judge to mediate disputes among the various clans and clan chiefs.  In Western terms, Muhammad was primus inter pares (first amongst equals), and the intent of the invitation did not include changing the status quo of power relationships within Medina beyond recognizing him as a prophet able to give rulings on behalf of God.
The second point to be looked at as that Ibn Ishaq relates: "The apostle wrote a document concerning the emigrants and the helpers in which he made a friendly agreement with the Jews and established them in their religion and their property, and stated the reciprocal obligations." 
This seems an odd introduction for something that is often referred to as a type of constitution.  In the first place, it mentions an agreement only between the emigrants and the helpers and the Jews, rather than with the people of Medina, as one might expect.  It clearly delineates a separate identity between the Muslims and the Jews rather than a unified populace.  What one may assume is that this served the purposes of Ishaq's narrative in explaining the eventual falling out between Muhammad and the Jews, an assumption bolstered by the fact that Muhammad himself went on to contradict this division when he asserted that various groups of Jews are one community with the believers.
President Bush, during his speech on the 20th anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy, stated: "It should be clear to all that Islam — the faith of one-fifth of humanity — is consistent with democratic rule.  More than half of all the Muslims in the world live in freedom under democratically constituted governments."  This could not have been any farther from the truth.
As I explain in my book Islam: Religion of Peace? The Violation of Natural Rights and Western Cover-Up, an Islamic country cannot separate itself from its religion since such unity is anthropologically based on sharia — the daily guide for Muslims forged from the Quran and the hadiths — which negates any sort of equity or social development within the socio-political field.  The problem between the unity of Islamic religion and the state, as has been historically shown, is sharia's refusal to allow any sort of equity or social development within the political field.
Democracy, from our Western perception, prevents government from making laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peacefully assemble, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.  Even in those states that have adopted a "democratic" structure of government, such as Iraq, which has a constitution that stipulates: "No law may be enacted that contradicts the principles of democracy," the same article (Art. 2, A) that says so states, "Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of legislation[.] ... No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam."  In like-minded countries, such as Egypt and the Kingdom of Morocco, there are still draconian laws, like the death penalty for apostasy or the suppression of the right to speak and the press, which is not unlike those of Iran and Saudi Arabia, where sharia law is the norm.
In Islam, society is ordained to be passive and socially underdeveloped because the sharia-based tenets, whether officially incorporated within a constitution or not, prevail.  This state of affairs automatically discourages people from thinking and deliberating in rational terms — not to mention that neither the rulers nor the ruled can reason beyond their divine legislation.  Man cannot exercise his free will and becomes a functionary individual.  Democracy in the Islamic world, therefore, becomes nothing more than a façade for oligarchic rule: the umma — i.e., the élite of society — who keep the poor and underdeveloped marginalized.  So much for the democracy the Prophet of Islam instituted.


American Thinker

Another bombshell about Flynn — and it may reach up to Obama and Biden

"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime." —Lavrentiy Beria (head of Stalin's secret police)
Under America's criminal law system, an investigation cannot begin unless there's a crime.  After that, one seeks the probable criminals.  These alleged criminals, in turn, are given myriad due process protections so the government, which is judge, jury, and executioner, does not violate their inherent civil rights.  Under Stalin's totalitarian system, the state targeted people for destruction, invented crimes against them, and then led them through a sham investigative and prosecutorial process that led to an inevitable conviction.
Newly released documents establish that beginning in the waning days of Obama's presidency, high-level FBI officials inflicted Soviet-style "justice" on General Mike Flynn.  It's also possible that both Obama and Biden were part of this plot.
The newest batch of documents reveals that, by January 4, 2017, the FBI had ruled Mike Flynn out as a possible suspect in its investigation into whether Trump or his associates had colluded with the Russians.  The agent reviewing the evidence against Mike Flynn wrote a memorandum explaining that there was no "derogatory" evidence against Flynn either in house or through an outside agency.
The investigating team concluded, therefore, that Flynn was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger [Russia investigation] umbrella case. A review of logical [redacted] databases did not yield any information on which to predicate further investigative efforts.

[snip]
The FBI is closing this investigation.
If the FBI knew as of January 4 that Flynn was innocent, why then did agents sneak into the White House and interview Flynn with an eye to getting "him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired"?
That was Peter Strzok's doing.  Immediately after receiving notice that the FBI intended to close the file, Strzok texted, "Hey if you haven't closed RAZOR [Flynn], don't do so yet."
(You can review all of the documents here.)
Strzok's conduct is interesting, but it still raises the question of why he wanted it open.  Sundance, at the Conservative Treehouse, looked at the chronology and thinks this peculiar conduct might have involved Obama and Biden trying to wipe out Trump's presidency from the get-go.
On January 4, case agents wanted to close the file on Flynn because he was innocent, but Strzok still wanted the file kept open.  That same afternoon, Strzok noted that the "7th floor [was] involved," which meant that Comey had inserted himself into the Flynn affair.
On January 5, Obama, Biden, Susan Rice, Sally Yates (who'd been focusing on Flynn), and Comey met in the White House.  Two weeks later, Rice emailed herself to say of that meeting that Obama stressed that everything should be "by the book."  Her email looked like "cover your a--" retrofitting, as did Obama's statement (assuming he made it).
On January 6, Comey went to Trump Tower to tell Trump about the Steele dossier, thereby giving the Deep Staters a justification for getting the Steele dossier to the media.  On that same day, Steele deleted all his files relating to the dossier.
At this point, everyone involved knew or should have known that Flynn was an innocent man.  By the end of the month, though, the FBI was entrapping Flynn, the DOJ was hell-bent on prosecuting Flynn, and Obama and Biden, who knew that Flynn was innocent, said and did nothing while that Soviet-style kangaroo process proceeded.  All had the same plan: destroy Flynn, whose policies they disliked, and undo the results of the November 2016 election.
Kimberly Strassel sums up nicely what happened to Flynn:
2) The new docs show FBI had already cleared Flynn of ludicrous claims that he was agent of Russian power; it moved to close that investigation on Jan 4 2017. But then DOJ cooked up the absurd Logan Act claim, the notion Flynn had violated an obscure 1799 law.
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) April 30, 2020
4) The real goal was trap him into saying something at odds with transcript, to "get him to lie." And the evidence of that strategy is everywhere. We have Comey bragging that they went around WH legal counsel, so Flynn would have no representation.
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) April 30, 2020
6) We have McCabe docs showing he discouraged him from getting lawyer. FBI decided to get rid of standard admonition altogether. Also did not tell Flynn he was being interviewed in an "investigatory" context, suggesting this was a chat between gov officials.
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) April 30, 2020
7) As for liberal commentators/legal scholars saying all this is "routine," well, let's sure as hell hope not. The FBI exists to investigate cries--not create them.
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) April 30, 2020
Money is not enough to compensate Gen. Flynn for what the Deep State did to him.  When these conspirators, who stomped on his civil rights and attempted to overthrow an elected government finally land in prison, Flynn needs a day pass so he can go visit them every day and spit in their faces.

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *