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

Connect with us

Obama’s Pal Showed Up In Iran Last Week Chanting Death To USA And Israel – Caught On Video!

Published

on

Ever notice how a certain political party doesn’t ever denounce this anti-american, jew-hating monster? That really explains everything you need to know about them.

This man is pure evil.

From Hannity:

Nation of Islam leader and vicious anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan traveled to Iran this week; delivering a hate-filled speech to law students and leading the crowd in a ‘Death to Israel, Death to America’ chant.

Trending: Trump Gives Adam Schiff New Nickname And He Is Fuming

The 85-year-old Farrakhan addressed law school students at the University of Tehran Monday; the same day the Trump administration unveiled a series of crippling new sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

“Today, I warn the American government that sanctioning Iran is a big mistake,” said Farrakhan. “America has never been a democracy.”

Donald Trump, Jr. weighed-in on Farrakhan’s hate-filled address minutes later, asking “When will the democrats disavow this guy? Answer: NEVER.”

This is just the tip of the iceberg of Barack Obama’s corruption. Let’s also remember what else has been uncovered since he left office, specifically, why he spend $36.2 Mil to hide certain records in his final months.

As Right Wing News previously reported, we found out what he was up to and just how bad it is for America:

There are things that just are not cool. One of those according to former President Barrack Obama is ignorance.

In 2016, then-President Obama said during a Rutgers University commencement address: “It’s not cool to not know what you’re talking about,” in what could be clearly viewed as a swipe at Donald Trump, who at the time was the likely Republican nominee for president.

It seems to be quite a mouthful for a man who during his 2008 campaign promised to be part of the most transparent administration ever.

The entirety of the Obama presidency was one shrouded in secrecy and innuendo and division. If you were not on Obama’s side and 100% in compliance with his agenda? You were the enemy and you would be eliminated, sometimes through very public and scandalous means.

Far from transparency, the Obama administration is most likely to go down in history as the LEAST transparent and the MOST corrupt in history.

CBS News reports:

“The Obama administration in its final year in office spent a record $36.2 million on legal costs defending its refusal to turn over federal records under the Freedom of Information Act, according to an Associated Press analysis of new U.S. data that also showed poor performance in other categories measuring transparency in government.

“For a second consecutive year, the Obama administration set a record for times federal employees told citizens, journalists, and others that despite searching they couldn’t find a single page of files that were requested.

“And it set records for outright denial of access to files, refusing to quickly consider requests described as especially newsworthy, and forcing people to pay for records who had asked the government to waive search and copy fees.

“The government acknowledged when challenged that it had been wrong to initially refuse to turn over all or parts of records in more than one-third of such cases, the highest rate in at least six years.

“In courtrooms, the number of lawsuits filed by news organizations under the Freedom of Information Act surged during the past four years, led by the New York Times, Center for Public Integrity and The Associated Press, according to a litigation study by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University. The AP on Monday settled its 2015 lawsuit against the State Department for files about Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state, at AP’s request, and received $150,546 from the department to cover part of its legal fees.

“The AP has pending lawsuits against the FBI for records about its decision to impersonate an AP journalist during a criminal investigation and about who helped the FBI hack into a mass shooting suspect’s iPhone and how much the government paid to do it.

“Of the $36.2 million in legal costs fighting such lawsuits last year, the Justice Department accounted for $12 million, the Homeland Security Department for $6.3 million and the Pentagon for $4.8 million. The three departments accounted for more than half the government’s total records requests last year.

“The figures reflect the final struggles of the Obama administration during the 2016 election to meet President Barack Obama’s pledge that it was “the most transparent administration in history,” despite wide recognition of serious problems coping with requests under the information law.”

“It received a record 788,769 requests for files last year and spent a record $478 million answering them and employed 4,263 full-time FOIA employees across more than 100 federal departments and agencies. That was higher by 142 such employees the previous year.”

The mainstream media continues to cry about current President Donald Trump and his accusations of “fake news”… factually based accusations mind you… and claim that he is a threat to the so-called “free press.”

It is vitally important to remember that in addition to restricting the access to information that should be freely available, costing American taxpayers exponential amounts in court costs and attorney fees in an effort to hide their shady business, journalists that attempted to expose the nature of that business were targeted and systematically attacked.

Read More on this from Right Wing News HERE

 

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.

Trending Now on Right Wing News


WHOA: Trump Admin Reveals BIGGEST Move Again Yet Again Acosta — ‘Permanently’

Published

on

...

* By

As the most reliable and balanced news aggregation service in the world, RWN offers the following information published by: Sara Palin

The drama between the Trump administration and CNN reporter Jim Acosta may not be done anytime soon as it is being reported the White House press staff are looking to have Acosta permanently banned.

The ban comes amid a legal feud between Acosta, CNN, and the White House.

Here’s how everything has gone down:

Acosta initially refused to hand over a microphone to a White House intern, resisting her attempt to retrieve it.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders accused Acosta of putting his hand on the intern, called the incident unacceptable, and subsequently banned him.

They took his press credentials and suspended him from covering events at the White House.

CNN and Acosta sued the Trump administration over the incident, claiming Acosta’s First and Fifth Amendment rights were violated.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly said the White House violated Acosta’s right to a due process as they pulled his media pass and denied Acosta an option to repeal his revocation.

The judge ordered the White House to immediately restore Acosta’s press credentials.

So…

The Trump administration is complying with the order and will reinstate Acosta, but they are making a move to have him permanently banned from the White House, the Daily Caller reports.

The White House sent a letter to Acosta notifying him that his pass granting him temporary access to the White House grounds would be suspended after a temporary restraining order runs its course. The letter is the latest in the fight between the White House and the CNN reporter who caused a fracas at a recent presidential press conference when he refused to give up the microphone.

Judge Timothy J. Kelly issued an injunction Friday morning ordering the White House to reinstate Acosta’s credentials, saying his Fifth Amendment right to due process was violated. The judge was clear, however, that he made no ruling on whether the First Amendment right applies for any reporter to be at the White House.

According to the report, President Trump admitted he was not sure whether the administration would ultimately win the CNN lawsuit.

“We’ll see how the court rules,” the president said.

“Is it freedom of the press when somebody comes in and starts screaming questions and won’t sit down?” he added, speaking of Acosta.

Should the administration lose the lawsuit, Trump revealed his administration has a strategy.

During an interview with Fox News, Trump said the White House press team would implement new policies and rules for reporters such as turning off cameras.

“I think one of the things we’ll do is maybe turn the camera off that faces them because then they don’t have any airtime, although I’ll probably be sued for that and maybe, you know, win or lose it, who knows,” Trump said, as the Daily Caller reports.

As the legal feud continues, the Trump administration announced they would be “temporarily” reinstating Acosta’s press pass and would be complying to the order, BUT they are giving him a 14-day pass and will resume their suspension once it expires.

The Hill reports CNN is already responding to the move by requesting an emergency court hearing:

CNN on Monday requested an emergency hearing in the U.S. District Court after the White House threatened to again pull the press credentials of the network’s chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta.

CNN said the letter amounts to an “attempt to provide retroactive due process,” calling for a hearing on a preliminary injunction during “the week of November 26, 2018, or as soon thereafter as possible.”

Note: The author of this article has included commentary that expresses an opinion and analysis of the facts.


Continue Reading

Continue Reading

Democrat-Controlled House Just Changed Major 181-Year Rule For Muslims

Published

on

...

* By

181 years is a long time for a dress code to stay in place… even for Congress. Hats were forbidden in the House of Representatives, but no more. Of course, members are being told to use good judgment but given their track record, this should be interesting to watch. Now, men and women will be allowed to wear ‘hats’ in the chamber.

Change is not always good and this will probably wind up being a circus. Ilhan Omar, a newly elected Democratic congresswoman from Minnesota, is behind this move. She will be the first to wear an Islamic hijab in the chamber. Lawmakers will be allowed to wear religious headwear and coverings for medical reasons – so there are some restrictions on this at least for now.

Chicks on the Right has the scoop on this story:

Ok…so I have a feeling some “traditionalists” are going to have an issue with this. CHANGE IS BAAD.

But honestly, after hearing from Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, I don’t have a problem with this at all. I think (I hope) that Congresspeople will go about this with respect and their best judgment. (That’s… a high hope for Congress.)

So anyway, the U.S. House has changed a 181-year-old dress code rule against hats.

According to Daily Wire:

Back in 1837, the U.S. House of Representatives banned the wearing of hats in the chamber in a move to differentiate itself from the British Parliament.

But in 2018, the elected lawmakers have voted to rescind the rule. Ilhan Omar, a newly elected Democratic congresswoman from Minnesota, will be the first to wear a hijab in the chamber.

“There are those kinds of policies that oftentimes get created because people who have blind spots are in positions of influence and positions of power,” Omar told the New York Post on Thursday. “I think it will be really exciting to see the stuff that we notice within the rules that don’t work for a modern-day America.”

Under the revised rules, lawmakers will be allowed to wear religious headwear and coverings for medical reasons.

I’m not a fan of Ilhan Omar’s, but I am a staunch supporter of religious freedom. I’m not the kind of hypocrite who supports the rights of Christians not to have their religion infringed upon, and will not do the same for others. It’s Omar’s constitutionally-protected RIGHT to wear her hijab. She was elected by her constituents to represent them. She should not have to choose between upholding her religious dress code and that of her congressional position. The END.

And that’s not all. The new rule allows for head covering for religious AND medical reasons. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman made a compelling point.

The New Jersey Democrat had a tumor successfully removed and has undergone chemotherapy since September to ensure she’s cancer-free.

The treatment caused her hair to fall out. She wears a hat outside, but when she votes on the House floor she takes it off.

“I just have a bald head and I’m somewhat getting used to it hoping that it’s a very temporary thing,” Watson Coleman told The Post. “I don’t think I would start wearing a (hat) now, but I recognize that if someone else has the same issue and wants to, they should be able to.”

So sure… I’m as traditional as the next guy. But I ABSOLUTELY think the “no-hat” rule can be bent for religious and medical reasons.

I’m SURE some of you will disagree with me on this one.

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