The U.S. Supreme Court Friday permitted billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, a key player in President Donald Trump’s drive to slash the federal workforce, broad access to personal information on millions of Americans in Social Security Administration data systems while a legal challenge plays out.
At the request of the Justice Department, the justices put on hold Maryland-based U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander’s order that had largely blocked DOGE’s access to “personally identifiable information” in data such as medical and financial records while litigation proceeds in a lower court.
Hollander found that allowing DOGE unfettered access likely would violate a federal privacy law.
The chairman of the House intelligence committee, Rep. Mike Turner, issued an unusual cryptic statement on Wednesday saying the committee had made available to all members of Congress information about an unspecified “serious national security threat.” But sources close to ABC News report that the threat relates to Russia’s plans to place a nuclear weapon in space.
According to ABC: “This is not to drop a nuclear weapon onto Earth but rather to possibly use against satellites.”
The network said the development is “very concerning” and “a big deal.”
Turner wants the White House and Pentagon to release information about the threat.
“I am requesting that President Biden declassify all information relating to this threat so that Congress, the Administration, and our allies can openly discuss the actions necessary to respond to this threat,” Representative Mike Turner said in the statement.
Turner provided no further information, and his office did not immediately respond to requests for further comment.
Turner’s statement was released in the midst of intense debate in Congress over how the United States should be dealing with global threats from Russia and other rivals, with security hawks urging greater global involvement and some lawmakers most closely allied with former Republican President Donald Trump advocating for a more “America First” approach to world affairs.
The Biden administration has been ramping up its criticism of House Republicans for possibly blocking a $95-billion bill passed by the Senate that would supply aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. Supporters of the bill argue that a major reason for the United States to back the government in Kyiv is to push back against threats from Russia that extend beyond Ukraine.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, a staunch Trump ally who says he will not rush to allow a vote on the Senate bill, told reporters at the Capitol there was no need for public alarm. “Steady hands are at the wheel. We’re working on it and there’s no need for alarm,” he said.
‘NOT A CAUSE FOR PANIC’
Senators Mark Warner and Marco Rubio, the Democratic chairperson and Republican vice chairperson of the Senate Intelligence Committee, issued a joint statement saying their panel has the intelligence in question and has been “rigorously” tracking the issue.
“We continue to take this matter seriously and are discussing an appropriate response with the administration. In the meantime, we must be cautious about potentially disclosing sources and methods that may be key to preserving a range of options for U.S. action,” the statement said.
A source familiar with the matter said Warner and Rubio had been briefed on the threat two weeks ago. The source said the issue was not unrelated to the security spending bill, but there is no direct tie between them.
Representative Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House intelligence panel, said the issue in Turner’s statement is significant, “but it is not a cause for panic.”
“As to whether more can be declassified about this issue, that is a worthwhile discussion but it is not a discussion to be had in public,” Himes said in a statement.
Jake Sullivan, President Joe Biden’s national security adviser, declined to provide specifics. He said he had arranged a briefing for Thursday with congressional leaders and that he was surprised by Turner’s decision to issue the statement.
“That’s been on the books so I am a bit surprised that Congressman Turner came out publicly today, in advance of a meeting on the books, for me to go sit with him alongside our intelligence and defense professionals tomorrow,” Sullivan told a briefing.
“I’m not in a position to say anything further today. Like I said, I look forward to the discussion with (Turner) and obviously from there we will determine how to proceed, but standing here at the podium today I can’t share anything further,” Sullivan said.
Sullivan made clear that he had initiated the meeting with the Gang of Eight scheduled for Thursday. The Gang of Eight refers to the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate, and the top Republican and Democrat on the House and Senate intelligence committees.
Rep. Victoria Spartz, R-Ind., told Newsmax on Friday that Republicans must make it clear that they “will hold the ground on border security” when it comes to passing additional aid for Ukraine. Spartz, the first native Ukrainian to serve in U.S. Congress, told “Newsline” in an interview that there’s “no doubt” that negotiations on a deal on border security and Ukraine aid haven’t progressed as far as some would hope.
She said that Republicans must ensure that “Democrats understand … that we will hold the ground on border security because if we don’t protect our country there is no hope for anyone else in the world.”
Spartz went on to accuse President Joe Biden of “slow-walking aid to Ukraine” and allowing Russian President Vladimir Putin “to advance that far and fortify … which costs a lot of money and a lot of lives for Ukrainians.”
She continued, “I think we need to be tougher, but we have to have … [an] agreement on border security and [Biden] needs to understand we will hold the ground.”
The congresswoman said Biden is “getting better” when it comes to policies for asylum seekers, “but he’s not willing to … tighten the parole that he’s been abusing.”
About NEWSMAX TV:
NEWSMAX is the fastest-growing cable news channel in America!
Find Newsmax channel in your home via cable and satellite systems – More Info Here
Watch Newsmax+ on your home TV app or smartphone and watch it anywhere! Try it for FREE — See More Here: NewsmaxPlus.com
On Sunday, members of the far-left Antifa (“anti-fascist”) fascist group stormed a free-speech demonstration known as the “Rally Against Hate,” destroying public and private property and viciously attacking and intimidating journalists, police officers, and those whom members of the group deemed its political opposition.
Sunday’s violent display was just one of the countless nationwide flare-ups this year in which Antifa rioters used physical force against innocents, using deadly weapons and homemade items to batter and intimidate people the group opposes.
Given the group’s barbarity and lawlessness, some have floated the idea that Antifa should be considered a domestic terrorist organization. Members of the public have petitioned the White House to recognize Antifa as such. As of this writing, the petition has almost 311,000 signatures. It only needed 100,000 to force an official response from the White House.
So, should Antifa be declared a terrorist group, or something else?
To determine if Antifa should be designated, we must first explore its roots.
Antifa is modeled after Antifaschistische Aktion, a 1930s communist organization controlled by the Soviet Union that climbed to prominence during the simultaneous rise of the Nazi Party in Germany. During this time, the group was explicitly a militant organization that used violence to achieve its political ends. Similar to today’s Antifa, Antifaschistische Aktion supported a totalitarian communist society and labeled all of its opponents (including the ones who supported capitalism and liberal democracy) as “fascists.” While these “red shirts” became famously known for their anarchic street battles against Nazi devotees, under a Weimar Republic government that was unable and unwilling to keep order, they also targeted other political outfits that opposed communist rule.
However, there is no longer a Soviet Union, and today’s U.S. branch of Antifa appears to be operating independently of any foreign state.While Antifa demonstrations have flared up in other countries, there is no current evidence its U.S. branch is being directed by any international bodies. Therefore, a debate over Antifa’s criminal status should center around whether the group should be considered a domestic terrorist organization.
The FBI defines domestic terrorism as the “unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
Furthermore, under the Patriot Act, independent acts of domestic terrorism are defined by the following criteria:
“(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended – (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”
Antifa certainly uses intimidation and violence to suppress its opponents. Its members often attempt to influence and coerce policy through mob violence. Members of the group have yet to engage in murder and assassination; it appears to only be a matter of time before its extremely violent gatherings result in the killing of innocents to further its political ends.
The evidence makes a serious case that Antifa should be declared a domestic terrorist group. However, the United States does not designate domestic extremist groups as terrorist organizations, because it would interfere with First Amendment protections under the Constitution.
Given its lack of proven foreign influence, Antifa members should be considered part of a domestic extremist group, comparable to the likes of the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nations, the Animal Liberation Front, Black Liberation Army, and countless other U.S.-based extremist outfits. Law enforcement should use all resources available to fight back against the organization’s extremist activities.
Jordan Schachtel is the national security correspondent for Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @JordanSchachtel.
Bill and Hillary Clinton | USMC Lance Cpl. Cristian L. Ricardo | WikimediaCommons
The attorney for a prominent Democratic congressional employee at the center of a major criminal investigation has deep ties to the Clinton machine in Washington.
Attorney Chris Gowen is serving as the lawyer for Imran Awan, a Pakistani-American IT professional who was apprehended at Dulles Airport this week as he reportedly attempted to leave the country for Pakistan.
Awan has been chargedwith bank fraud (which the Daily Caller reports as a potential “placeholder” charge for much more serious coming charges), and the FBI has been deeply involved in the process, leading some to suspect that there may be a foreign espionage component to the investigation. As an IT staffer, Awan secured highly sensitive information from several members of Congress, including representatives in the House Intelligence and Foreign Affairs committees. Imran Awan is just one of the individuals in a criminal probe. Other suspects in the investigation reportedly fled to Pakistan.
After Awan’s arrest, Gowen immediately jumped into the fray, alleging that Awan was a victim of Islamophobia.He labeled Awan’s arrest as part of “a right-wing media-driven prosecution by a United States Attorney’s Office that wants to prosecute people for working while Muslim.”
His statement displays a remarkably similar tone to the one often promulgated by his former boss, Hillary Clinton, who often spoke of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” to undermine her family and her leftist ideals.
Gowen’s past includes several stints in the Clinton machine’s orbit. He began his legal life as a public defender but left that job for the Bill Clinton White House. At the time, he also worked for then-Senator Hillary Clinton. Years later, he jumped on board Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, directing advance operations there, according to his biography from his law firm, Gowen Rhoades Winograd & Silva, PLLC. In another bio page, Gowen states he has consulted with former Democratic presidential contenders John Kerry and John Edwards.
Another biography, from American University, says Gowen worked with several controversial Clinton projects, including The Clinton Global Initiative, The Clinton Foundation, and The Clinton Health Access Initiative.
In 2012, Gowen went to bat for Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin, whose family is deeply connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. After GOP reps explored Abedin’s nefarious ties, Gowen pledged to “stand with Huma.”
Along with his private practice, the longtime Clinton aide is also an adjunct professor at American University Washington College of Law, where he teaches courses in legal ethics and law practice management.
Gowen’s Clinton connections are intriguing on another level, given that Awan’s employer in the House, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, remains a close Clinton confidant. The former Democratic National Committee chair resigned from her position after emails surfaced alleging she attempted to tip the scales of the Democratic primary in Clinton’s favor. Wasserman Schultz was also the 2008 campaign co-chair of Hillary Clinton’s first failed run for president.
It remains unclear at this time how Imran Awan managed to link up with Gowen and retain his services.
A preliminary hearing for Mr. Awan is scheduled for August 21.
Linda Sarsour, a Hamas-tied and prominent Women’s March leader, Islamic supremacist, and anti-Semite, has called for a “jihad” (Islamic holy war) against President Trump.
Addressing the 54th Annual ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) Convention this past weekend, Sarsour delivered a 22-minute screed attacking the Trump administration and called on the Muslim community to unite against the White House.
Sarsour began the speech thanking her “favorite person in this room … Imam Siraj Wahhaj, who has been a mentor, motivator, and encourager of mine.”She does not mention that Wahhaj was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.
“Why sisters and brothers, why are we so unprepared. Why are we so afraid of this administration and the potential chaos that they will ensue on our community?” she said.
Then, in a particularly vague, yet terrifying, segment of her speech, Sarsour said, “I hope, that when we stand up to those who oppress our communities, that Allah accepts from us that as a form of jihad.”
“We are struggling against tyrants and rulers not only abroad … but here in the United States of America, where you have fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House,”she continued.
“When I wake up in the morning, and I remember who is sitting in the White House, I am outraged,”Sarsour exclaimed. “This is not normal, sisters and brothers. Those people sitting in the most powerful seats in this country, is not normal.”
She continued, calling upon Muslims to refuse to assimilate into America.
“Our number one and top priority is to protect and defend our community. It is not to assimilate and to please any other people in authority,”she said. “And our top priority … is to please Allah, and only Allah.”
Sarsour’s address was delivered in front of the nation’s largest Islamic advocacy group, one which has deep ties to extremism. Federal prosecutors have labeled the Islamic Society of North America as part of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood network that was initially set up to raise funds for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.
The annual ISNA convention has often featured radical Islamists. In 2001, Anwar al-Awlaki (who later became the leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula), gave a keynote lecture on “tolerance.” The ISNA convention is consistently rife with anti-Semitism and serves as support for U.S.-designated terrorist organizations.
Those sharing the stage with Sarsour at this year’s convention included a Holocaust denier, multiple imams who support the death penalty for homosexuals, the daughter of a convicted terrorist, and others who say Muslims should never cooperate with law enforcement. One speaker has, in the past, threatened fellow Muslims with physical violence for cooperating with police.
An estimated 20,000 people attended this year’s convention in Rosemont, Ill.
Linda Sarsour alleges ‘right-wing Zionist’ media conspiracy
“Every right-wing Zionist outlet in the country engaged in coordinated attacks against me to discredit my leadership.”
Video has surfaced of Women’s March organizer Linda Sarsour blaming a “coordinated,” “Zionist” plot to discredit her reputation. The speech, which had anti-Semitic overtones, was delivered at the same conference where she called for Muslims to commit to “jihad” against President Trump.
Sarsour explained to the crowd how she received blowback as a Women’s March organizer, proclaiming how proud she was to lead the march as a supporter of BDS, the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement.
She then alleged a coordinated right-wing smear campaign that seeks to damage her reputation.
“Every right-wing media outlet in the country. Every right-wing Zionist outlet in the country engaged in coordinated attacks against me to discredit my leadership,”Sarsour told the 54th Annual Islamic Society of North America Convention.
Sarsour added that she is thankful to have a platform as a Women’s March organizer and past keynote speaker at a City University of New York school, because it allows for her to continue to push for the boycott of Israel.
“There are people and Palestinians and solidarity activists who have been working on the issue of BDS for a long time,”Sarsour said. “Because I am privileged to have a platform, I have been able to have our country reckon with this conversation about what does it mean for a Muslim or a Palestinian-American to be part of the resistance, and to be working with allies who are now taking up the cause of BDS.”
Sarsour added that she refuses to condemn terrorism as a Muslim, because “terrorism should never be framed as a conversation that should be just had with Muslims in a country where white supremacists have killed more people since 9/11 than Muslims have.”
She later seemed to imply that U.S. foreign policy — not Muslim extremists — is responsible for terrorism.
“We have to get to the root of the problem when it comes to terrorism. The root of the problem doesn’t come from within the Muslim community – it comes from a politicized foreign policy of war on our people,”Sarsour added.
She revealed that she has “people on the inside” of Qatar state-run Al Jazeera who “can help frame those stories”to portray her side in a positive light.
That same weekend, Sarsour called for Muslims to resist Trump by utilizing the concept of “jihad.” She also said that Muslims should not assimilate into America and should focus only on pleasing “Allah.”
The Hamas-tied, Islamic supremacist Women’s March organizer shared a stage at the ISNA gathering with countless radical extremists.
President Donald Trump gives a ‘thumbs up’ as he walks across the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, June 7, 2017. Pablo Martinez Monsivais | AP Images
After months of wrangling against the mainstream media and liberal federal judges, President Trump’s moratorium on immigration from six Middle Eastern countries has not only won at the Supreme Court, but is winning in the court of public opinion, according to a new Politico/Morning Consult poll.
Per the story at Politico Wednesday, when asked about the administration’s “new guidelines which say visa applicants from six predominantly Muslim countries must prove a close family relationship with a U.S. resident in order to ender the country,”60 percent of those surveyed supported the measure, while a mere 28 percent were against it.
The survey of almost 2,000 registered voters also found that the policy was a big hit with independents in addition to Republicans. While 84 percent of GOP voters support the revised measure, 56 percent of independent voters got behind it as well, with just 30 percent opposed.
Finally, registered Democrats signaled more of a split on the policy than a decided opposition to it, showing only a five-point discrepancy with no majority either way. A mere 46 percent of Democrat voters opposed the moratorium, with 41 percent in favor.
And with the GOP’s efforts to repeal/address/bail out Obamacare stuck in political limbo and tax reform far away on the horizon, it would appear that the kind of tough anti-terror and immigration policy that got him elected might just be the clearest winner in the president’s political arsenal.
When news of the unanimous Supreme Court decision holding up the substantive portions of the moratorium came out, Conservative Review’s Daniel Horowitz pointed out that the win provided the administration an opportunity to seize and expand upon. The new polling numbers this week appear to have proven him correct, on some level.
“With Obamacare repeal going down in flames and Republicans accomplishing nothing else, Trump needs to notch up some transformational victories on immigration,”Horowitz wrote. “Ensuring that America doesn’t self-immolate as a civilization, as Europe is doing before our very eyes, should be at the top of that list.”
He goes on to suggest that Trump should continue charging forward on his national security agenda by imposing a full-year moratorium on refugee resettlement until the full impact of the program can be evaluated, especially since the highest court in the land has issued the no-brainer ruling that he has the authority to do so.
He goes on to argue that the current Obama-designated cap of 50,000 resettlements per year is too high and that lowering it would “send a clear message that security is paramount and that such a move is well within his authority.”
As of the time of this writing, the current number of refugee resettlements for this fiscal year is at 49,255.
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Opinion
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
You Version
Bible Translations, Devotional Tools and Plans, BLOG, free mobile application; notes and more
Political
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Spiritual
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Bible Gateway
The Bible Gateway is a tool for reading and researching scripture online — all in the language or translation of your choice! It provides advanced searching capabilities, which allow readers to find and compare particular passages in scripture based on
Posted August 28, 2017 11:13 AM by Jordan Schachtel 
influence and coerce policy through mob violence. Members of the group have yet to engage in murder and assassination; 
What Did You Say? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.