Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

More Than 90 Muslims Running For Office Across U.S. All Have The Same Thing In Common

Published

on

As the 2018 midterms heat up, the choice of political candidates is becoming ever more diverse and somewhat confusing. There are a ton of Muslim candidates running for office across the United States. Most are Democrats as far as I know and support a liberal agenda. This election cycle has seen more Muslim candidates running for office than I can ever remember in my lifetime. At least one in Minnesota is pretty much a done deal and others may follow suit.

Fayaz Nawabi, who is 31 years old, is one such candidate in San Diego, California. He has never met President Trump, but he does give him credit for his running for office currently. He is running for San Diego City Council. Nawabi is pro-affordable housing, pro-environment, pro-immigrant and pro-refugee. He’s also pro-gun control. That makes him part of the blue wave of new liberal candidates that are spurred to run by Trump’s election and his conservative policies. The blue wave’s political platform is exceedingly liberal in all respects and pretty much the polar opposite of Trump’s.

In fact, Nawabi is part of a new subset of liberal politics… the blue Muslim wave. More than 90 American Muslims are running for office this time around. They are young and new to politics. They all have in common that they are long shots, stand against President Trump’s policies and are primarily Democrats. But even if they lose, they will surely run again next time around and they are gaining experience on the ground this campaign season.

Trending: Criminal Evidence On Hillary Judge Sends Earthquake Through Democrat Swamp

Their numbers may seem relatively small, but their candidacies are a trend. This is an unprecedented rise in political numbers for the nation’s diverse Muslim community that typically has been underrepresented in American politics. Currently, there are more than 3.3 million Muslims that live in the United States. And that number is increasing every year. Right now, they hold just two of the 535 seats in Congress. Voter participation in Muslim communities is very low as well. That’s something these candidates are trying to rectify.

From The Counter Jihad Report:

“The rise of Muslim candidates coincides with the growth of the predominantly immigrant population and a partisan shift that has played out over a generation. In a 2001 Zogby poll of American Muslims, 42 percent said they voted for Republican George W. Bush in the previous year’s presidential election, while 31 percent said they voted for Democrat Al Gore. By last year, just 8 percent of voting American Muslims in a Pew poll said they voted for Trump, while 78 percent said they voted for Democrat Hillary Clinton.

“While Clinton’s campaign never garnered broad enthusiasm from Muslim communities, Trump’s campaign — which called for the monitoring of mosques and a ban on Muslims entering the United States — delivered a jolt on election night that some American Muslims likened to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

“’It woke everyone up,” Nawabi said.

“Now, Muslim candidates are running for a wide range of offices across the country, from local school boards to the U.S. Senate. Some are making their Muslim identity central to their campaigns.

“’When you put someone in a corner and they’re in survival mode, they have a tendency to come out and speak more prominently about their beliefs,” said Nawabi, who considers himself an “unapologetic Muslim” who can quote the Koran from memory and moonlights as a “freelance imam.’”

In Michigan alone, there are thirteen Muslim candidates running for office. Physician Abdul El-Sayed is hoping voters will elect him to be the first Muslim governor in the United States and he has used his religious affiliation unapologetically in his campaign ads against Republican front-runner Bill Schuette, whom Trump has endorsed. “Donald Trump and Steve Bannon would love to see a right-wing radical like Bill Schuette elected in Michigan,” reads a Facebook ad for El-Sayed, who faces a Democratic primary in August. “You know what would be sweet justice? If we elected a 33-year-old Muslim instead of Bill Schuette. Send a message and help elect the first Muslim governor in America.” Michigan is pretty much ground zero for Muslim politics these days. A fierce battle in politics is playing out there in Muslim communities.

Another candidate is Asif Mahmood, a 56-year-old pulmonologist. He would be the first Muslim insurance commissioner in California. Deedra Abboud, 45, in Arizona, or Jesse Sbaih, 42, in Nevada, could be the country’s first Muslim senator. And any one of four Muslim women running for office: Nadia Hashimi, 40, in Maryland; Sameena Mustafa, 47, in Illinois; or Fayrouz Saad, 34, and Rashida Tlaib, 41, in Michigan could be the first female Muslim in Congress.

As I said, many of these new candidates may not win this time around, but give it time. They are determined and their communities are pulling together behind them. The proof will be in the statistics, polls and voter turnouts come election day. This demographic is growing quickly and you will definitely see more Muslims in office in the next election cycle or two should this trend continue.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Why Did FBI Keep Separate Set Of Crucial Records For ‘Upper Echelon’? Now We Know…

Published

on

...

* By

If the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are still the Supreme Law of the Land, if any law is truly to be considered valid, then the Fourth Amendment is clear on the issue of warrants. They require probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and must describe in detail with particularity the specific place to be searched and/or the persons or things subject to seizure. This is true in every single case, regardless of the circumstances.

In every single case, the officer must provide to the Court enough facts and circumstances to demonstrate probable cause, as well as swear before the Court as its officer, that the person to be searched is worth searching. Should such an Oath be taken dishonestly, then such an officer is guilty of perjury and should be charged with such. The officers executing such a warrant as officers of the government but also as citizens in their own right should have a very good idea of what they expect to find.

The Fourth Amendment was not written for people with nothing to hide any more than the First Amendment was written for people with nothing to say and the Second Amendment was clearly never written for those with nothing whatsoever to defend.

Secret FISA courts and their warrants do not meet the standard set by the Fourth Amendment under any definition, and neither do the sneak and peak searches authorized by the Patriot Act, among others. Instead, they allow surreptitious usurpations of the freedoms of Americans on unprecedented levels, allowing investigators to snoop on Americans without any traditional court warrant, only a secret and unaccountable administrative or judicial decree. Such is the current state of Washington, specifically amongst the FBI.

Journalist Sara Carter dropped a bombshell in a recent interview with Sean Hannity on his radio show with the startling revelation that the FBI did not keep a single set of records in the investigation into Russian collusion. Instead, two sets of records were kept, not copies of one another, but two sets of documents containing with distinctly different information.

Carter further revealed that “certain people above Peter Strzok and above Lisa Page” were aware of it and therefore specifically implicating former FBI Director James Comey and former FBI Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe.

The transcript is as follows –

Hannity – Sara, I’m hearing it gets worse than this–that there is potentially out there–if you will, two sets of record among the upper echelon of the FBI–one that was real one that was made for appearances. Is there any truth to this?

Carter – Absolutely, Sean. With the number of sources that I have been speaking with as well as some others that there is evidence indicating that the FBI had separate sets of books.

I will not name names until all of the evidence is out there, but there were certain people above Peter Strzok and above Lisa Page that were aware of this. I also believe that there are people within the FBI that have actually turned on their former employers and are possibly even testifying and reporting what happened inside the FBI to both the Inspector General and possibly even a Grand Jury.

The FBI essentially attempted to stage a coup of a duly elected president utilizing the public’s tax dollars to create fake “evidence” to tie President Donald Trump and his campaign with Russia with a fabricated narrative all for the sake of the Clintons’ hurt feelings.

In so fabricating said evidence, the FBI willfully concealed pertinent details which they were required by law to turn over to the FISA court when seeking the initial surveillance warrant on former Trump campaign aide, Carter Page.

Comey signed three FISA applications on behalf of the FBI, and McCabe, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente, and acting Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, each signed one or more applications on behalf of the DOJ. Every single one of which took an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land, INCLUDING the Fourth Amendment.

Under 50 U.S.C. § 1805(d)(1), a FISA order on an American citizen must be renewed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) every 90 days. In order to protect the rights of Americans, each subsequent renewal requires a separate finding of probable cause. This means that the in order to be granted a renewal, the government is required to produce all material and relevant facts to the court, including any information which may be potentially favorable to the target of the FISA application.

Some would argue that the very existence of such a court is a violation of an American’s guaranteed right to privacy and that such a right is an essential component of liberty, foundational to a maintaining a free people. Part of citizenship in a free society is the expectation that one’s personal affairs and physical person are inviolable, one of which is the freedom from constant and intrusive government surveillance of one’s life.

The Obama administration made a mockery of any such right, specifically for Carter Page, but also setting a precedent for doing the same to other American citizens by invading the privacy of law-abiding citizens by monitoring their daily activities and laying hands on their person without any evidence of wrongdoing.

Encroachments on individual privacy undermine democratic institutions by stifling free speech. When the citizenry becomes aware that the intimate details of their personal lives are being pervasively monitored by the government, and they may be singled out or targeted by that same government especially those espousing unpopular viewpoints, they will cease freely expressing their dissident views. The government will no longer be held accountable by the people and political despotry reigns.

On four separate occasions, the Obama administration lied to the Court knowingly providing false information, as well as withholding other crucial and pertinent information with claims Page betrayed his country in choosing to work a hostile foreign nation. As a result of this fabricated “evidence”, the government repeatedly violated his Fourth Amendment rights, not once but repeatedly.

While it is extremely disconcerting that the government willfully concealed the existence of their financial relationship with Christopher Steele, a foreign national and author of the false Steele Dossier, used to justify multiple FISA warrants. Even more troubling, is they used American taxpayer dollars to do so and enlisted the media to perpetuate their narrative.

In other words, every single American who did not vote for Hillary Clinton, whether they voted for President Trump or a third party candidate or did not vote at all – were forced to finance the Clinton campaign-funded opposition research. Furthermore, every single American is now being forced to fund Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian collusion based on fabricated evidence and the FBI maintaining two sets of records in order to perpetuate the lies the people were forced to finance.

When they took the Fourth Amendment, I was silent because I do not deal drugs. If you are not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide, right? I also choose to keep quiet when they took the Sixth Amendment because I know that I am innocent.  When they took away the Second Amendment, I again said nothing because I do not own a gun. Now they have come for the First Amendment, and I cannot say anything at all.

Speak up. Your freedom depends on it.

Continue Reading

Melania Goes Full Grizzly-Wife On Coward Who Attacked Her Husband – She’s In Rare Form!

Published

on

...

* By

The Daily Caller is reporting that our first lady Melania Trump heavily criticized the author of an “anonymous” New York Times op-ed which was critical of President Trump on Thursday. And even went as far as to accuse them of “sabotaging” the country.

“If a person is bold enough to accuse people of negative actions, they have a responsibility to publicly stand by their words and people have the right to be able to defend themselves,” Melania Trump said in a statement.

“To the writer of the op-ed — you are not protecting this country; you are sabotaging it with your cowardly actions,” she said in a Thursday statement provided to CNN. She preceded her declaration on the op-ed with a lengthy condemnation of anonymous sources generally.

“Unidentified sources have become the majority of the voices people hear about in today’s news. People with no names are writing our nation’s history. If a person is bold enough to accuse people of negative actions, they have a responsibility to publicly stand by their words and people have a right to defend themselves,” she explained.

This is the NY Times opinion piece in question:

“President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.

It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.

The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

I would know. I am one of them.

To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.

But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

How McCain Got the Last Word Against Trump
In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.

Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.

“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.

The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.

The result is a two-track presidency.

Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.

Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.

On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.

This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.

Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.

The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.

Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.”

Although there has been a lot of speculation as to who this mystery writer is the article was said to have been written by a self-described “senior administration official” who writes.“ And in a foolish way is trying to say that although Trump is supposedly not doing the right thing that they the American people should know that there are many adults in the room who are doing the right thing.

This mystery writer described themselves as a “cabal of administration officials actively circumventing the president’s daily desires.” The op-ed comes just as excerpts from Bob Woodward’s new book on the administration are being released. Which show a similar culture of senior aides who do not think highly of the president and work constantly to control his behavior.

The Swamp Strikes Back, but now Melania is Unleashed!

Continue Reading




Latest Articles

Become an insider!

Thank you for your interest in receiving the Right Wing News newsletter. To subscribe, please submit your email address below.

Send this to a friend