The Mueller Deep State Collusion

John R. Houk

© August 4, 2017

Now that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller (James Comey good friend) has impaneled a Grand Jury giving him the power of the government with search warrants and subpoenas, it is time to look at the tainted witch hunt team Mueller has assembled.\

Michael Dreeben

Dreeben is a Dem donor meaning he is a Trump hater:

A fourth lawyer on Mueller's staff, Michael Dreeben, donated $1,000 to Clinton 2006 and $250 to Obama in both 2007 and 2008. (Robert Mueller Stocks Staff with Democrat Donors; By Brendan Kirby; Lifezette.com; Update 6/13/17 10:30 AM)

And here:

Dreeben donated $1,000 dollars to Hillary Clinton’s Senate political action committee (PAC), Friends of Hillary, while she ran for public office in New York. Dreeben did so while he served as the deputy solicitor general at the Justice Department. (SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TEAM IS FULL OF HILLARY CLINTON SUPPORTERS; By BRIAN ANDERSON; DownTrend.com; 6/12/17)

Andrew Weissmann

Weissmann donated a combined $2,300 to Obama’s campaign in 2008. In 2006, Weissmann contributed at least $2,000 to the DNC. (Mueller probe: Meet the lawyers who gave $$ to Hillary, now investigating team Trump; By Brooke Singman; Fox News; 7/24/17)

And here:

… Andrew Weissmann, who gave six donations to PACs for Obama in 2008, totaling $4,700 … (Ties to Comey Suggest Conflict of Interest for Special Counsel Mueller; By Joshua Philipp; Epoch Times; 6/15/17 12:19 PM – Updated 12:38 pm)

And here:

Andrew Weissmann defended the federal government’s surveillance rights in a panel discussion at the George Soros-funded New America Foundation, is also an Obama donor. (CONFIRMED: Mueller Team Can Be Disbarred For Clinton Conflicts In Trump Case; By Patrick Howley; Big League Politics; 7/23/17 5:07 am EST)

Jeannie Rhee

… Rhee represented Hillary Clinton in a 2015 lawsuit that sought access to her private emails. She also represented the Clinton Foundation in a 2015 racketeering lawsuit.

… She maxed out her donations both in 2015 and 2016 to Clinton's presidential campaign, giving a total of $5,400. (Meet the all-star team of lawyers Robert Mueller has assembled for the Trump-Russia investigation; By Michelle Mark and Madeleine Sheehan Perkins; Business Insider; 8/1/17 8:31 PM)

And here:

One of the hires, Jeannie Rhee, also worked as a lawyer for the Clinton Foundation and helped persuade a federal judge to block a conservative activist's attempts to force Bill and Hillary Clinton to answer questions under oath about operations of the family-run charity.

Campaign-finance reports show that Rhee gave Clinton the maximum contributions of $2,700 in 2015 and again last year to support her presidential campaign. She also donated $2,300 to Obama in 2008 and $2,500 in 2011. While still at the Justice Department, she gave $250 to the Democratic National Committee Services Corp. (Mueller staffs up to pursue obstruction of justice; By Thomas Lifson; American Thinker; 6/13/17)

James Quarles

According to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Quarles had made significant donations to Democratic candidates, including former President Barack Obama and Clinton. Most recently, in October 2016, Quarles donated $2,700 to Clinton’s presidential campaign. Quarles also donated over $7,000 to Obama over the last decade. Quarles did, however, donate $2,500 to former Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, in 2015. (Mueller probe: Meet the lawyers who gave $$ to Hillary, now investigating team Trump; By Brooke Singman; Fox News; 7/24/17)

And this:

Starting in 1987, Quarles donated to Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis’s presidential PAC, Dukakis for President. Since then, he has also contributed in 1999 to Sen. Al Gore’s run for the presidency, then-Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) presidential bid in 2005, Obama’s presidential PAC in 2008 and 2012, and Clinton’s presidential pac Hillary for America in 2016. (CORRECTED: Three members of Mueller's team have donated to Democrats; By OLIVIA BEAVERS; The Hill; 6/12/17 02:23 PM EDT)

Aaron Zebley

Aaron Zebley, who repped Clinton aide and key email-scandal figure Justin Cooper … (CORRECTED: Three members of Mueller's team have donated to Democrats; By OLIVIA BEAVERS; The Hill; 6/12/17 02:23 PM EDT)

More specifically:

Aaron Zebley represented Justin Cooper, a Hillary aide and one of two people with access to Clinton’s clandestine and illegal email server. Cooper helped set it up. (Corruption: 3 Reasons to Reset the ‘Russia’ Investigation; By Craig Huey; Election Forum; 6/21/17)

Greg Andres

A search of federal election records shows that Andres has donated at least a total of $3700 to federal Democratic candidates, including $2700 to New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand in March 2017.

…

Andres, 50, also has another connection to the Democratic Party as his wife, Ronnie Abrams, is a federal judge that was nominated by President Barack Obama in 2011. (Mueller Hires Yet Another Democratic Donor; By Alex Pfeiffer; Daily Caller; 8/1/17 7:36 PM)

Andrew Goldstein

Goldstein contributed a combined $3,300 to Obama’s campaigns in 2008 and 2012. (Mueller probe: Meet the lawyers who gave $$ to Hillary, now investigating team Trump; By Brooke Singman; Fox News; 7/24/17)

And this:

During his [i.e. Goldstein] time in the Manhattan attorney’s office, Goldstein served under Bharara, who up until March served as the chief federal prosecutor in Manhattan. Bharara was controversially fired by the Trump administration, along with 46 other Obama-era U.S. attorneys, earlier this year. (Robert Mueller just hired an Obama-era US prosecutor for Trump-Russia investigation; By Chris Enloe; The Blaze; 7/3/17 9:52 am)

Elizabeth Prelogar

Prelogar is an appellate attorney on detail from the Office of the Solicitor General. Prelogar donated $250 to Clinton in 2016 and $250 to Obama in 2012. (Mueller probe: Meet the lawyers who gave $$ to Hillary, now investigating team Trump; By Brooke Singman; Fox News; 7/24/17)

And this:

Elizabeth Prelogar, an appellate attorney on detail from the Office of the Solicitor General.

–Fluent in Russian; former law clerk to Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan. (Trump Team Digs Up Dirt on Mueller’s 15 Activist Attorneys; By Staff; The Daily Trump; 7/22/17)

In an attempt at fair and balanced, there are others on the Mueller legal team that have donated to the Dems but only to the tune of hundreds rather than thousands of dollars. I can’t believe any Dem will do a fair investigation into a Trump/Russia collusion crime any more than I can believe a Conservative (yet not necessarily a RINO GOP) would do a fair investigation of either Russian collusion with Trump or the Clinton Crime Syndicate. Conservatives would look for Trump exoneration or Crooked Clinton conviction evidence. I know my view is skewed, but it is my opinion to connect the Crooked Clintons/Obama and their minions to crimes more than there will ever be credible evidence against the Trump organization.

The hugest problem of a conflict of interest is in Special Prosecutor Mueller himself due to a close friendship to Comey. This is the kind of friendship that convinces me Mueller will do all in his power to make sure former FBI buddy Comey is not snared in any legal violations EVEN if Mueller has to fabricate evidence against President Trump.

Check out these thoughts from Abe Hamilton:

"I think the president has sound grounds to disqualify Mueller for a host of reasons," says Hamilton," the least of which is his personal relationship with James Comey."

There is no doubt, adds Hamilton, that at the center of the ongoing investigation is Comey himself.

"Brothers in arms: The long friendship between Mueller and Comey," reads the headline of a May story at the liberal Washington Post.

Meanwhile, fact-checking website Snopes insists the claim they are "best friends" is "mostly false" despite quotes from a former assistant FBI director who said they are close and suggested a conflict of interest is obvious.

The law codifying the special counsel would require Mueller to recuse himself, Hamilton advises, because his friendship with Comey "would likely induce partiality."

    

"At a minimum," Hamilton tells OneNewsNow, "the president has the legal grounds to remove him based on that alone."

Beyond that relationship, he further points out, is a conflict of interest with Rod Rosenstein, who hired Mueller. (Attorney: Oh, yeah, Mueller definitely has a conflict; By Chad Groening; One News Now; 8/2/17)

Mueller was involved in Crooked Hillary’s (then Secretary of State) Russia/American-Uranium collusion:

A top national attorney in consultation with U.S. attorneys confirmed to Big League Politics that special counsel Robert Mueller and members of his team can be formally disbarred for waging the “Russia” case against President Donald Trump. Mueller and his associates have glaring conflicts of interest in the case concerning Trump.

Mueller’s team is tainted not only by partisan political donations and activities, but by direct relationships with former clients like Hillary Clinton, who is integrally involved in most of the possible evidence in this case. These conflicts clearly violate American Bar Association guidelines.

Hillary Clinton colluded with the Russians in selling them our uranium. Clinton handpicked Mueller to give a sample of uranium to the Russians, and Mueller subsequently flew to Moscow, according to publicly available documents. (CONFIRMED: Mueller Team Can Be Disbarred For Clinton Conflicts In Trump Case; By Patrick Howley; Big League Politics; 7/23/17 5:07 am EST)

Those on the Mueller witch hunt legal team that have Dem Party agenda connections and/or connection to the Crooked Clintons have a huge conflict of interest according Big League Politics:

The American Bar Association’s Criminal Justice Standards for the Prosecution Function make clear that Mueller’s team is in violation of standards, according to the top national attorney. Here are the relevant sections (emphasis added):

“A prosecutor should not use other improper considerations, such as partisan or political or personal considerations, in exercising prosecutorial discretion. A prosecutor should strive to eliminate implicit biases, and act to mitigate any improper bias or prejudice when credibly informed that it exists within the scope of the prosecutor’s authority.

(b)  A prosecutor’s office should be proactive in efforts to detect, investigate, and eliminate improper biases, with particular attention to historically persistent biases like race, in all of its work.  A prosecutor’s office should regularly assess the potential for biased or unfairly disparate impacts of its policies on communities within the prosecutor’s jurisdiction, and eliminate those impacts that cannot be properly justified.”

 “Standard 3-1.7           Conflicts of Interest

(a)  The prosecutor should know and abide by the ethical rules regarding conflicts of interest that apply in the jurisdiction, and be sensitive to facts that may raise conflict issues.  When a conflict requiring recusal exists and is non-waivable, or informed consent has not been obtained, the prosecutor should recuse from further participation in the matter. The office should not go forward until a non-conflicted prosecutor, or an adequate waiver, is in place…”

“(c)  The prosecutor should not participate in a matter in which the prosecutor previously participated, personally and substantially, as a non-prosecutor, unless the appropriate government office, and when necessary a former client, gives informed consent confirmed in writing.

(d)  The prosecutor should not be involved in the prosecution of a former client. A prosecutor who has formerly represented a client should not use information obtained from that representation to the disadvantage of the former client.”

“(f)  The prosecutor should not permit the prosecutor’s professional judgment or obligations to be affected by the prosecutor’s personal, political, financial, professional, business, property, or other interests or relationships.  A prosecutor should not allow interests in personal advancement or aggrandizement to affect judgments regarding what is in the best interests of justice in any case.”

“g)  The prosecutor should disclose to appropriate supervisory personnel any facts or interests that could reasonably be viewed as raising a potential conflict of interest.  If it is determined that the prosecutor should nevertheless continue to act in the matter, the prosecutor and supervisors should consider whether any disclosure to a court or defense counsel should be made, and make such disclosure if appropriate.”

“(j)  The prosecutor should promptly report to a supervisor all but the most obviously frivolous misconduct allegations made, publicly or privately, against the prosecutor.  If a supervisor or judge initially determines that an allegation is serious enough to warrant official investigation, reasonable measures, including possible recusal, should be instituted to ensure that the prosecution function is fairly and effectively carried out.  A mere allegation of misconduct is not a sufficient basis for prosecutorial recusal, and should not deter a prosecutor from attending to the prosecutor’s duties.” (Ibid.)

AND how can American voters ignore the conflict of interest between Mueller and Comey:

Former FBI Director Jim Comey "closely coordinated" with Special Counsel Robert Mueller before his planned testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee about his interactions with President Trump.

Fox News reported a source close to Comey said the former FBI director consulted with Mueller about how to approach Thursday's Senate Intelligence Committee hearing. (Comey 'closely coordinated' with Mueller on Trump testimony: Report; By Josh Siegel; Washington Examiner; 6/7/17 5:05 PM) 

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) on Comey/Mueller collusion:

Rep. Louie Gohmert on Tuesday said the only collusion that should be investigated is between the "dirty" James Comey and Robert Mueller, who "conspired to violate the law" in order to "blackmail" the president.

…

"This thing stinks to high heaven," Gohmert said. "Comey is dirty, Mueller is dirty."

…

"Comey testified he ran things by Mueller before he testified, also ran things by other people in the Justice Department when he did the memo. There is so much collusion in the Justice Department."

Further, there was obviously no obstruction of justice or Comey would have acted long before he was fired. Instead, Gohmert believes Comey's testimony last week before the Senate Intelligence Committee further proves collusion.

"If (Comey) and the others at the Justice Department with whom he colluded had felt like there had been an obstruction of justice, then they conspired to violate the law by together holding that back so they could blackmail (Trump) later," Gohmert said. (Rep. Gohmert: 'Dirty' Comey, Mueller Colluded to 'Blackmail' Trump; By Mark Swanson; Newsmax; 6/13/17 01:13 PM) 

I realize the Dems will go ballistic if Mueller is fired. BUT you can expect the Trump base who elected him President will go medieval if some kind of loose change is tossed at Trump that is absolutely irrelevant to a Trump campaign colluding with Russia.

The lesser of two evils: Fire Mueller!

Then shut the Dems up by prosecuting real crimes like Crooked Hillary, her minions, Deep State Obama anti-government treason and Obama’s minions.

JRH 8/4/17

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

+++

WND has a great poll pertaining to Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller.

Here is the poll question and choices:

Do you have faith in objectivity of Special Counsel Mueller?

 Yes, of course. Trump just prefers someone whom he can manipulate

 Yes, he is the consummate professional

 Yes, he has a stable of great Democratic lawyers working for him

 I'm not sure yet

 No, he has a stable of hack Democratic lawyers working for him

 No, he's the ultimate Washington insider. He can't be trusted

 No, this is a witch hunt, and Trump needs to fire him posthaste

 Other

Go HERE to place your WND vote and get instant results

Sharia UK

Victoria Wasteney

A fellow member of the G+ Community Kafir Supremacist found a Jihad Watch post exposing European dhimmitude/submission to Islam by an employment tribunal and the UK judiciary.

This UK system judged that UK citizen Victoria Wasteney violated the rights of a Muslim colleague by sharing her Born-Again faith in a time the Muslim colleague appeared to have a personal crisis. Enya Nawaz indicated a receptivity to Wasteney’s offer of prayer on a personal level then turned around and filed a complaint of proselytizing on the job.

I find it interesting there seems to be no definitive photo of the 25-year-old Islamic Supremacist complainant on any searches I executed. I did find one photo of a twitter account attributed to an “Enya” but I have no idea if it is the same whiner. The twitter photo looks about the same age as 25 and her account is closed to non-approved viewing. Here is that photo:

Enya Nawaz – twitter:

I recently posted about how Islam stifles Free Speech with its intolerance of criticism by non-Muslims. God help America if the same Free Speech intrusion takes root in the USA when even non-critical offers of Christian empathy becomes against the law.

JRH 8/3/17

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

*******************

Sharia UK

Posted by Delenda Islam Est

By Christine Douglass-Williams & Samuel Smith

Aug 2, 2:04 PM

Kafir Supremacist

UK: Christian woman prosecuted for talking about Christianity to a Muslim colleague

August 2, 2017 12:30 pm; Jihad Watch; By Christine Douglass-Williams

A Christian therapist in England who was suspended after being accused of evangelizing to a Muslim colleague has suffered another loss in court.

Would a Muslim be taken to court for sharing his or her faith with a coworker? Whether or not Victoria Wasteney was proselytizing to her Muslim colleague on the job or not is to be determined in court. However, there remains a larger issue: Western authorities are giving the impression that while Christians are studied under a microscope for accountability, Muslims are not. Some examples:

University of California Berkeley Muslim professor Hatem Bazian has been openly calling for an intifada in America, and he has issued these violent calls at several venues throughout the United States.

Nadia Shoufani, a Toronto-area school teacher who called a Palestinian jihadist who crushed the skull of a four-year-old Israeli girl a hero and martyr, was said to have been investigated by her school board and by Toronto Police. But there has been no followup.

Farrah Marfatia, a principal of a Muslim academy in Mississauga, near Toronto, Canada was instructing parents to teach their children that “homosexuals are cursed by Allah as are the men who imitate or dress up like women.” Once again, there was no followup.

One can imagine the public outcry if Christians or Jews were preaching those same words — the court battles, the disdain. But where is the same reaction when Muslims say this? Instead, we see Victoria Wasteney, a Christian woman, in court for imparting messages about her faith’s love and healing to a Muslim colleague with whom she developed a relationship (or so she thought). While there are rules against proselytizing in places of employment, Wasteney was discussing her faith to a colleague, not to a client.

While Ms. Wasteney is being prosecuted in London, Sharia courts in Britain are sending Muslim women back to abusive husbands.

“Christian Hospital Worker Punished for Sharing Faith Loses Again in Court”, by Samuel Smith, Christian Post, July 29, 2017:

A Christian therapist in England who was suspended after being accused of evangelizing to a Muslim colleague has suffered another loss in court.

Victoria Wasteney, the former head of Forensic Occupational Therapy at a hospital in London, was issued a nine-month suspension by East London National Health Service in 2014 after an eight-page complaint was filed against her by a Muslim colleague named Enya Nawaz.

As has been reported, Nawaz and Wasteney, a born-again Christian, developed a relationship while working at the St. John Howard Centre in East London and at points discussed religious differences.

Nawaz’s complaint accused Wasteney of trying to convert her to Christianity. Wasteney reportedly offered to pray with Nawaz, gave her a book authored by a Muslim convert to Christianity and invited her to an event organized by her church.

Wasteney was also accused of putting her hand on Nawaz’s knee while in a prayer and asking God to come to Nawaz.

Wasteney was initially thrown off by the allegations because she thought they had developed a good relationship. She told the Daily Mail in 2015 that she only put her hand on Nawaz’s knee to comfort Nawaz when she was dealing with health problems.

“I put my hand on her knee to comfort her and asked if that was okay, and said, ‘Would you like me to pray for you?'” Wasteney told the Daily Mail, “She said yes, so I asked for God to bring peace and healing. She left the office afterwards and said she was okay.”

Wasteney has denied that her act of giving Nawaz the book I Dared to Call Him Father, was an attempt to convert her.

According to The Telegraph, an East London NHS Foundation Trust disciplinary hearing in February 2014 upheld three charges against Wasteney and found five charges to be unsubstantiated. In the hearing, Wasteney was convicted of “gross misconduct.”

In October 2015, Wasteney won the right to appeal the NHS’ action to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on the basis of religious liberty. However, Judge Jennifer Eady ruled against her in April 2016.

“What the court clearly failed to do was to say how, in today’s politically correct world, any Christian can even enter into a conversation with a fellow employee on the subject of religion and not, potentially, later end up in an employment tribunal,” Wasteney was quoted as saying at the time. “If someone sends you friendly text messages, how is one to know that they are offended? I had no idea that I was upsetting her.”

According to the U.K.-based Christian Legal Centre, Wasteney filed for an appeal against Eady’s 2016 decision and appeared in court Thursday. However, a tweet from the advocacy group on Thursday explained that Wasteney’s “permission to appeal has been rejected” and the “legal battle goes on.”….

[Blog Editor: This last sentence not a part of the Kafir Islamist/Jihad Watch post but in the Christian Post.]

In a video posted online Wednesday, Wasteney said she hoped Thursday's hearing would grant her permission to seek a full hearing on the matter in an appeals court.

+++

Blog Editor: Here is the short video of Victoria Wasteney speaking:

VIDEO: Christian NHS worker to appear in court in the next stage of her legal battle

Posted by Christian Concern

Published on Jul 26, 2017

Victoria, former Head of Forensic Occupational Therapy at a London hospital, was suspended for 'gross misconduct' for nine months, and then received a written warning following allegations of 'harassment and bullying' by a Muslim staff-member.

In October 2015, Victoria won permission to appeal when the judge recognised the significance of her case in protecting religious freedom.

The Judge had said that the Employment Appeal Tribunal should consider whether the original ruling had properly applied the European Convention on Human Rights' strong protection of freedom of religion and expression.

Victoria lost her appeal in April 2016. In the judgment, Judge Eady QC upheld the Tribunal's ruling, that the NHS had acted reasonably in disciplining Victoria for inviting her colleague to church-related events, praying with her (with consent), and giving her a Christian book.

Supported by the Christian Legal Centre, Victoria applied for permission to appeal the Employment Appeal Tribunal's decision, but this was rejected.

She is now seeking to challenge this.

_____________

Edited by John R. Houk

Robert Spencer Defends the West...

In America both the Left and the Right cherish Free Speech enshrined in the First Amendment. Or at least the First Amendment is cherished in the political spectrum’s right to criticize each other, but the Left questions the Free Speech ability of the Right to expose the truth of totalitarian issues supported by the Left. Why? Our Republic was established in rebelling against a totalitarian King between 1776 {actually battles fought in 1775 but Independence declared in 1776) and 1783 (Treaty of Paris). The Left pretends to be the Party of the People but supports Big Government control of society from top to bottom, aka totalitarianism.

With this all in mind, I think you will find Andrew Bostom’s book review of Robert Spencer’s “The Complete Infidel's Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies)” interesting. It points out that Islam is no friend of Free Speech and the irony of the Left trying to protect Islam from criticism.

JRH 8/2/17

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

**************

Robert Spencer Defends the West: 'The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech'

By ANDREW G. BOSTOM

JULY 31, 2017

PJ Media

FILE - DECEMBER 25, 2013: The Egyptian interim goverment has declared the Mohammed Morsi led 'Muslim Brotherhood' a terrorist organisation. The action was taken in response to the bombing of the police station in Mansoura earlier this week, which the government has stated was the responsibility of the Brotherhood, despite denials from the group itself. CAIRO, EGYPT - DECEMBER 14: Supporters of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi and members of the Muslim Brotherhood chant slogans during a rally on December 14, 2012 in Cairo, Egypt. Opponents and supporters of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi staged final rallies in Cairo ahead of tomorrow's referendum vote on the country's draft constitution that was rushed through parliament in an overnight session on November 29. The country's new draft constitution, passed by a constitutional assembly dominated by Islamists, will go to a referendum vote on December 15. (Photo by Daniel Berehulak/Getty Images)

A review of The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies), by Robert Spencer, Regnery Publishing, 2017, 274 pp.

----------

Twenty-four years ago, the late Mervyn Hiskett, renowned British scholar of the history of jihad and Islamization in sub-Saharan Africa, turned his attention to the looming impact of Islam on his own Britain and Western societies more broadly, including the United States. In his 1993 Some to Mecca Turn To Pray, he articulated presciently the Islamic conundrum now enveloping us, which requires an immediate response if we still cherish individual liberty:

As is so often the case when considering Islam, one has to concede the power of certain of its ideas. But when it comes to having these ideas advocated within our own shores, and as alternatives to our own insti­tutions, one must then ask oneself: Which does one prefer? Western secular, pluralist institutions, imperfect as these are? Or the Islamic theo­cratic alternative?

And if one decides in favor of one’s own institutions, warts and all, one then has to ask again: How far may the advocacy of Islamic alternatives go, before this becomes downright subversive? And at that point, what should be done about it? Finally, do liberal, demo­cratic politicians have the political and moral guts to do what is needed, or will they simply give way, bit by bit and point by point, to insistent and sustained pressure from the Muslim “Parliament” and other Muslim special-interest lobbies like it?

Robert Spencer’s concise, lucid analysis, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies), validates Hiskett’s gravest concerns about Islamic subversion: the relentless campaign to abrogate our most basic, unique Western liberty -- free expression. With characteristic erudition, attention to detail, and wit (see text box on p. 28, “Did Any Of Them Have Eating Disorders? Those Can Make You Crazy,” from this video), Spencer chronicles how free speech in Western societies has been dangerously eroded by what Hiskett aptly termed “the Muslim ‘Parliament’ and other Muslim special interest lobbies,” in full collaboration with statist Left cultural relativists.

The grotesque harmonic convergence between mainstream, totalitarian Islam -- epitomized by Sharia “blasphemy” law -- and the “democratic” totalitarianism of the Left, derived from Robespierre and the Jacobins through Communist ideologues and leaders Marx, Lenin, and Stalin, is an underlying, recurrent theme of Spencer’s urgent presentation. Indeed the latter, “Dr. Crankley’s Children” (per Whittaker Chambers’ acid 1948 discussion of the Communist legacy on the 100th anniversary of the publication of Marx’s manifesto), and their “softer” statist minions of our era, bear at least as much responsibility for the erosion of Western free speech as institutional Islam and its pious Muslim votaries. Spencer elucidates how, despite superficial appearances of being oddly conjoined:

… endeavoring to weaken and destroy the freedom of speech, leftists in the United States have found ready allies in the Muslim community. Many observers have remarked that the Left and Islamic supremacists make strange bedfellows: the former advocate a moral libertinism; the latter are attempting to impose a repressive moral code. What binds these unlikely allies is a shared taste for authoritarianism. Both parties want to stifle dissent, and in doing so both find themselves fighting the same foes. Why not join forces?

All 13 of Spencer’s carefully arranged, remarkably compendious chapters have germane (even pathognomonic!) titles, including 10 epigrams:

Chapter 1, “Just Stay Quiet and You’ll Be Okay”

Chapter 2, “Tailored in an Appropriate Way”: Can Free Speech Really Be Restricted in the United States?

Chapter 3, “Now Obviously This is a Country That is Based on Free Speech, but…,”: The U.S. Government vs. Free Speech

Chapter 4, The “Hate Speech” Scam

Chapter 5, “Peer Pressure and Shaming” to Rein in Free Speech

Chapter 6, “Is That Being Racist?”: Americans Learn Self-Censorship

Chapter 7, “Irresponsibly Provocative”: The Erosion of Free Speech From Rushdie to Geller

Chapter 8, “Can’t We Talk about This?”: The Death of Free Speech in Europe

Chapter 9, Catholics Against Free Speech

Chapter 10, “Not Conducive to the Public Good”: Free Speech Dies in Britain and Canada

Chapter 11, The New Brownshirts

Chapter 12, “The University Prides Itself on Diversity”: Administrators vs. Free Speech Chapter 13, “Facing the New Totalitarianism”: Fighting Back for the Freedom of Speech

Spencer traces the living Islamic law imperative to brook no criticism of the Muslim faith, or its prophet founder, to both canonical traditions of Muhammad and the Koran (9:14-15) itself, which exhorts Muslims to wage jihad to punish the “offending” infidels. Muhammad in effect created his own “Dead Poets Society” comprised of victims (men and women, elderly and young) slain at his behest by his most ardent early Muslim followers, for perceived “insults” to Islam’s prophet. Citing the contemporary example of the Islamic State of Pakistan (and the plight of Pakistani Christian, Asia Bibi), Spencer asks: to assure a “future free of offense to Islam,” what exactions will “our leftist politicians, media elites, and much of the Western intelligentsia” be willing to impose upon their own citizens?

For saying, “I believe in Jesus Christ who died on the cross for the sins of mankind. What did your prophet Muhammad ever do to save mankind?”, a Christian woman named Asia Bibi is on death row in Pakistan, where “wounding [Muslims'] religious feelings” is a crime and blaspheming Muhammad is punishable by death. Pakistan doesn’t have the First Amendment. Americans in the United States are in no danger of execution for testifying to their religious beliefs. But the Asia Bibi case illustrates the utter futility of attempting to keep Muslims from ever being offended -- unless we are willing to give up our right to freedom of speech entirely.

Americans should not be complacent about First Amendment protections. Reminding readers that the divide separating “treasonous and seditious speech and speech that is simply unwelcome to the government” has proven controversial throughout U.S. history, Spencer avers:

The Sedition Act [of 1791] and the Espionage Act [of 1917] demonstrate the U.S. government has placed severe restrictions on the First Amendment’s protection of the freedom of speech in the past, and indicate that it could do so again in the future. This history also shows that the First Amendment protections of free speech are most likely to be curtailed in a time of serious and imminent threats to the nation. That time may be upon us now.

Spencer emphasizes one particularly alarming Obama administration reaction to the 9/11/2012 jihad massacre at Benghazi -- “scapegoating a video [and subsequently the videographer] criticizing Muhammad” -- which illustrates such curtailment, “placing the onus on freedom of speech.” He adds: “The unmistakable implication was that if only Americans would not criticize Muhammad, attacks of this kind wouldn’t happen.” Worse still, two days following Barack Obama’s surreal Islamic blasphemy law-compliant pronouncement to the United Nations General Assembly on September 25, 2012, that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” America’s first Sharia blasphemy law victim, Egyptian Coptic Christian Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, producer of the Innocence of Muslims video, was arrested, declared a “danger to the community,” and imprisoned without bail. He was incarcerated for 12 months.

Devoid of First Amendment equivalent laws, governed by Left statists marinated for decades in cultural relativist claptrap ideology, and subject to the same forces of Islamization by Muslim immigrant populations, Western Europe, as Spencer demonstrates, including Britain as well as Canada, is even further along the trajectory towards self-inflicted full compliance with Sharia blasphemy law.

Perhaps the most illuminating and disheartening chapter of The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies) chronicles progressive Western supplication to Islam since Ayatollah Khomeini’s February 14, 1989 fatwa condemning novelist Salman Rushdie to death for his The Satanic Verses, and its perceived insults to the Muslim creed and Islam’s prophet. Spencer provides an especially astute observation regarding a follow-up Khomeini fatwa denying Rushdie any leniency for repenting, and offering a reward for any non-Muslim willing to execute the beleaguered author:

The invitation to non-Muslims to murder Rushdie was significant: Khomeini was inviting non-Muslims to share Muslim sensibilities regarding Rushdie’s alleged offense, and trying to induce them to do so by the prospect of financial reward. It would take years for this invitation and foreigners and non-Muslims to kill Rushdie to evolve into the “shaming,” as Hillary Clinton would put it, of those who dared to decline to participate in the de facto implementation of Islamic blasphemy laws. Clinton’s “peer pressure an shaming” imperative demonstrated that, in the two decades between the Rushdie fatwa and her endorsement of UNHRC 16/18 [i.e., the United Nations Human Rights Commission’s “defamation of religion” resolution which riveted upon Islam and was aggressively lobbied for by the UN’s Muslims nation members], non-Muslims had become the principal enforcers of Sharia blasphemy law in the West.

Drawing upon his shared experience with journalist and activist Pamela Geller in the wake of the May 3, 2015 Garland, Texas, jihadist attack on a staid exhibit of historical and contemporary depictions of Muhammad, Spencer concludes:

It is not an offensive act, but ultimately an act in defense of Western civilization to show Islamic jihadists that their violent threats will not cow me and that I will not allow violent intimidation to rule the day, and that I will not offend them in any larger sense by treating them as if they were demented children who cannot control their actions and must necessarily kill in the face of being offended. It was the murderous jihadis who made drawing Muhammad the flash point of the defense of free speech, not Pamela Geller, and I.

It is they who, by their determination to murder non-Muslims who violate their religious law on this point, have made it imperative that free people signal that they will not submit to them. If we give in to that demand that we conform to this Sharia principle, there will be further demands that we adhere to additional Sharia principles. It is ultimately a question of whether we will submit to Sharia or stand up for freedom. At Garland we were standing. In the aftermath, it is clear a huge segment of the Western political and media elites are ready, if not eager to kneel, daring not to “provoked” their new masters.

A quarter century after Hiskett’s Cassandra-like warning about the liberty-crushing peril of acquiescing to Islam within Western societies, Robert Spencer has meticulously documented its most dire consequences: de facto elimination of free speech criticism of the Muslim creed -- and, ultimately, free expression, overall. Spencer’s courageous and irrefragable analysis is simultaneously a tocsin of imminent calamity, and a clarion call to action in defense of free speech, our most fundamental, keystone liberty. Western freedom-loving citizens must help bring his message to American political and religious leaders before our liberties are transmogrified by the global Muslim “umma,” seeking unabashedly (since 1981) to impose “The Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights,” i.e., Sharia totalitarianism.

___________________

Copyright © 2005-2017 PJ Media All Rights Reserved.

About PJ Media

For media inquiries, please contact communications@pjmedia.com

Since its inception in 2005, PJ Media has been focused on the news that matters -- from the insightful commentary provided by our all-star lineup of columnists to our writers' quick takes on breaking news and trending stories. The media company's founders -- Academy Award Nominee Roger L. Simon, Charles Johnson (Little Green Footballs) and Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) -- brought together a tightly knit band of bloggers into an integrated website that has evolved into a reliable source for original, unique, and cutting-edge political news and analysis.

We've been there through primaries and general elections; the U.S. border crisis; doctored climate change data; the gunrunners' scandal; Department of Justice voter fraud and the Ground Zero mosque -- stories that others in the media initially passed by.

As a company, we've always felt a special connection to the values which make America special, as well as a dedication to keeping America great for our children and our children's children. That's why our main focus is on the three main areas that will have the most impact on the future of America: politics, parenting and lifestyle.

… READ THE REST

MSM-Dem Conspiracy Now PUBLIC –Treason/Sedition Charges ...

Could this Top Secret Leaks post be another dot to connect the Dems to outright treasonous corruption or an unverified Conspiracy Theory? I pray/hope it’s a dot.

JRH 8/1/17

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

**************

MSM-Dem Conspiracy Now PUBLIC –Treason/Sedition Charges Await Hillary, Obama & High-Level Appointees Now Incontestable – Trump to DROP THE HAMMER

By Elder Patriot

July 31, 2017

Top Secret Leaks

The MSM did its best to conceal sworn testimony given to the Senate Judiciary Committee last Thursday by William Browder a U.S.-born businessman who was instrumental in passing the Magnitsky Act that imposed targeted sanctions on Russia’s kleptocrats.

Browder told the committee that, “Targeted sanctions are a hundred times more upsetting to the Russian kleptocracy than broad sanctions,” and that among the revelations that Browder provided to the committee:

§  Fusion GPS — the firm hired by Clinton operatives to smear Donald Trump — also ran a smear campaign against Browder to bolster Russia’s effort to get the Magnitsky Act repealed.

§  The Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya who met with Donald Trump Jr. in June 2016 was a leading player in Russia’s effort to get the Magnitsky Act repealed. 

§  He saw no evidence that the Russians were trying to help Trump rather that Russian operatives were reaching out to everyone who might be convinced to repeal the Magnitsky Act and that is why Veselnitskyaka requested the meeting with Trump Jr.

So, repealing the Magnitsky Act was Putin’s “single most important foreign policy,” because Putin and his cronies stood to personally lose significant sums of money under the sanctions.  There was simply no case for collusion to be made.

If anything, Hillary Clintons’ opposition to the Magnitsky Act that netted Bill $500,000 for a one hour speech that trashed the sanctions imposed by the act, reeks of collusion.  Hillary had previously colluded with Russia in selling off 20% of our uranium stock for $145MM dollars in Russian “donations” to the Clintons’ slush fund aka the Clinton Foundation.

If you’re wondering why we didn’t we hear about this exculpatory testimony it’s because the MSM is still taking its marching orders from Obama and Valery Jarrett through “twice daily conference calls…. 8:30 and 9:45 every morning and they develop talking points for the media for the day to how to sabotage and how to undermine Trump,” according to Bill Clinton’s former senior advisor Dick Morris.

Further proof that the Russia-Trump collusion lie is and always was an organized effort to subvert and overthrow the duly elected president of the United States was exposed by us late last week when we revealed that Obama’s post-election strategy was to strip Trump of any loyalists that might be in position to prove that if anyone colluded with Russia it was Clinton and Obama, not Trump, by:

§  Demanding the recusal of Trump’s Attorney General that promoted lifelong Democrat Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein to replace him.

§  Demanding Devin Nunes, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee recuse himself that tilted the committee towards the hysteria of Democrat Adam Schiff – a virulent anti-Trumper intent on convincing someone that Russia and Trump colluded together.

§  Rewarding the two leading Dems on the House Ethics Committee for grinding the investigation into Nunes to a halt in order to block his return to the leadership of the Intel Committee.

As we pointed out, this was to give the Russia-Trump narrative time to fully bloom so that the Dems’ crimes under Obama might forever be obscured with the removal of President Trump.  It should also come as no surprise that the Deep State was similarly looking to obscure its role in criminally turning the intelligence community into a partisan political operation.

So the Dems’ mobilized large numbers of treasonous Obama-Clinton sycophants planted throughout every government agency to destroy the Trump presidency to conceal the criminal enterprise that they had turned the government into.

What they’ve done and what they’re continuing to do isn’t simply partisan politics.  They long ago crossed the line into seditious and treasonous behavior as clearly outlined in:

18 US Code Chapter 115 – TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

18 U.S. Code § 2382 – Misprision of treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 2383 – Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Here’s a section of the law that applies to our vaunted teachers and university professors and Obama’s OFA and Valery Jarrett:

18 U.S. Code § 2385 – Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

There’s still more violations of 18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 governing sedition and treason that the Obama administration engaged in while first mobilizing the levers of power (unlawful surveillance, widespread dissemination of classified information, and leaking that implicated our entire intelligence community) against candidate Donald Trump and then pivoting and attempting to unlawfully remove him from office using those same unlawful means.

Trump can no longer allow the Obama-Clinton criminal machine to hide behind Hillary’s pre-emptive defense that in the United States “we don’t jail our political opponents.”

VIDEO: Second Presidential Debate 2016: Trump-"You'd Be in Jail"

Posted by Optimize Optimism

Published on Oct 9, 2016

Hillary for Prison 2016.

When anyone, or any group of people – including politicians – engages in the unlawful sale of United States’ assets to foreign powers for their personal enrichment and then conspires against the duly elected authorities (President Trump and members of his administration) who have been empowered by the Constitution and the American people to enforce the law and bring violators to justice, they have engaged in sedition and treason.

They are no longer simply political opponents but have crossed the line into Manchurian traitors that must be exorcised from society.

______________

Top Secret Leaks HOMEPAGE

++++
Some Politically Incorrect Photos Making Dems the butt

9/11 America First Rallies

John R. Houk

© August 1, 2017

Brigitte Gabriel and the largest Expose Islam group in the USA is promoting coast to coast rallies on the anniversary of 9/11 with an America First theme. Find a local Act for America rally toward the bottom of this web page to find the closest rally in your area. Send a message to the transformist Left that politically correct Multiculturalism is Anti-American.

VIDEO: "America First" Rally - ACT for America

Posted by ACT for America

Published on Jul 31, 2017

Visit http://www.actforamerica.org for more info on attending an "America First" rally in your area on Saturday, September 9th, 2017.

Our objective is to be a unifying force for millions of Americans who support the policies of the White House to make America safe, to thank those like our first responders who help make us safe and to provide an opportunity to express our patriotism.

And here is ACT’s America First rally page (same place linked above to find closest rally near you).

JRH 8/1/17
Please Support SlantRight 2.0

******************

http://www.actforamerica.org/first

On Saturday, September 9th, join ACT for America, the largest national security organization in the U.S., for rallies around the country as we stand together to put America first and defend our citizens. Join your friends and neighbors in peaceful fellowship and advocacy for our national defense agenda:

§  To Secure Our Borders from threats to our safety.

§  To spare no effort to Defeat ISIS, Al Qaeda, & Affiliates

§  To Designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization

§  To Ensure Proper & Effective Vetting of Refugees for the protection of all Americans

§  To Respect Law & Order, our police, and our military

Sixteen years following the largest terrorist attack in the history of the United States, our nation remains the foremost target of radical Islamists. The America First Rally will be held in honor of the victims of 9/11, as well as dedicated to supporting and advancing national security policies that are critical to our country's survival.

We need your voice to make this rally a great success. Join us to stay updated on the rally nearest you. If you would like to lead or help at a rally, please scroll down to find one in your area.

Important: ACT for America is composed of patriotic citizens from all walks of life, proudly united under the same flag. Accordingly, any organizations or individuals advocating violence or hatred towards anyone based on race, religion, or affiliation is not welcome at this rally.

THE REST OF THE PAGE has PRESS RELEASE, FAQ, POLICY STATEMENT and rally location info.

_______________

DONATE to ACT for America

About ACT for America

ACT for America is committed to recruiting, training, and mobilizing citizens community by community to help protect and preserve American culture and to keep this nation safe.

ACT for America stands ready to take effective action as the only national security grassroots organization in America. If each of us does just a little, together we can accomplish a lot. We are America.

Who We Are

ACT for America is the NRA of national security. We are the nation’s largest nonprofit, non-partisan, grassroots national security organization with 750,000 members and more than 12,000 volunteer activists focused on educating, engaging, and mobilizing citizens and elected officials to impact legislative outcomes to protect America.

What We Do

ACT for America educates citizens and elected officials to impact public policy and protect America from terrorism. As a result, ACT’s grassroots network has driven the education process toward the successful passage of 84 bills in 32 states. ACT for America is continuing to expand its nationwide volunteer network that trains citizens to recognize and help prevent criminal activity and terrorism in the United States while preserving civil liberties protected by the United States Constitution.

Check out our victory timeline here.