Trump’s Defense Brief Eviscerates the Democrats’ Case for Impeachment


Media is absolutely SHOCKED as the Second Impeachment Trial is Making President Trump Even STRONGER! In this video, we’re going to take a look at a number of pundits who are admitting that Trump is winning impeachment all over again, how his base continues to get even stronger, and why the globalist attempted reset is guaranteeing a worldwide populist surge like never before, you are NOT going to want to miss this!



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

On Monday, former President Donald Trump’s lawyers, Bruce L. Castor Jr., and David Schoen, filed the official defense brief for his second impeachment trial, which begins on Tuesday. The brief makes five powerful arguments for the president’s acquittal, eviscerating the Democrats’ case.

“One might have been excused for thinking that the Democrats’ fevered hatred for Citizen Trump and their ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ would have broken by now, seeing as he is no longer the President, and yet for the second time in just over a year the United States Senate is preparing to sit as a Court of Impeachment, but this time over a private citizen who is a former President,” the brief notes.

Trump’s lawyers argue that “through this latest Article of Impeachment now before the Senate, Democrat politicians seek to carve out a mechanism by which they can silence a political opponent and a minority party. The Senate must summarily reject this brazen political act.”

In the brief, Team Trump makes five arguments against the Democrats’ impeachment case.

1. The Senate cannot try a private citizen for impeachment

The defense brief echoed Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and the 44 other Senate Republicans who voted against holding the impeachment trial, claiming that it is unconstitutional for the Senate to try a former president and therefore a private citizen.

“The Senate is being asked to do something patently ridiculous: try a private citizen in a process that is designed to remove him from an office that he no longer holds,” the brief argues. It claims that if the Senate were to bar Trump from holding public office in the future, that would constitute a bill of attainder, “a legislative act which inflicts punishment without a judicial trial,” violating Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution.

The brief argues that the Founders did not explicitly give the Senate the power to try former officials and that the Senate failed to impeach former Senator William Blount and Secretary of War William Belknap. It also notes that Congress refused to impeach Richard Nixon after he resigned. While it notes that British law allows for post-office impeachment, it claims that the Founders did not.

Democrats have made a strong argument that there is no “January exception” for impeachable behavior, but Trump’s team may respond that there are other ways to punish behavior after a president has left office, such as censure.

Tellingly, Team Trump warns that if the impeachment managers have their way in arguing that a person may be impeached at any time after he or she leaves office, “a future House could impeach former Vice President Biden for his obstruction of justice in setting up the Russia hoax circa 2016. While he could not be removed from the Vice Presidency because his term ended in 2017, he could be barred from holding future office. The same flawed logic the House Managers advance could apply to former Secretary of State Clinton for her violations of 18 U.S.C § 793 [by mishandling classified information].”

Trump Eviscerates Democrats’ Impeachment Charges

2. Trump’s First Amendment rights

The brief argues that the Democrats’ impeachment would violate Trump’s First Amendment rights as a public official. The Democrat impeachment managers argue that “the First Amendment does not apply at all to an impeachment proceeding,” citing two cases concerning appointed public employees. Team Trump powerfully combats this claim with central free speech precedents.

“The Supreme Court of the United States has long held that the First Amendment’s right to freedom of speech protects elected officials such as Mr. Trump,” the brief explains. It cites the case Wood v. Georgia (1962), in which the Supreme Court ruled that Sheriff James Wood, an elected official who spoke out about voting patterns, “had the right to enter the field of political controversy. … The role that elected officials play in our society makes it all the more imperative that they be allowed freely to express themselves on matters of current public importance.”

“The House Managers have built their case against the First Amendment upon the  proverbial foundation of sand, and have no support for their argument that Mr. Trump lacks  protection under the First Amendment as all Supreme Court authority is directly contrary to their assertion.”

“Even political speech that may incite unlawful conduct is protected from the reach of governmental punishment,” the brief argues, citing Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly (2001). “Indeed, ‘[e]very idea is an incitement,’ and if speech may be suppressed whenever it might inspire someone to act unlawfully, then there is no limit to the State’s censorial power.”

“Rather, the government may only suppress speech for advocating the use of force or a violation of law if ‘such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action,'” (emphasis original) the brief notes, citing Brandenberg v. Ohio (1969).

The Trump Team argues that a plain reading of Trump’s speech on January 6, 2021, counters the Democrats’ claim that he “incited” the crowd to violence, much less insurrection. Trump said, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard” (emphasis original).

Tom Cotton Suggests It’s Unconstitutional to Impeach Trump After January 20

3. Democrats’ “incitement”

In order to bolster Trump’s free speech defense, the brief notes that Trump’s metaphorical use of the term “fight like hell” is well-established. In fact, the brief cites examples of Democrats’ rhetoric that would also constitute “incitement” by the standard of the impeachment article.

“It is truly incredible that House Democratic leadership is feigning horror at the President’s choices of words considering some of their own members' recent public comments,” the brief notes.

Team Trump cites House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) statement, “I just don’t even know why there aren’t uprisings all over the country. Maybe there will be.”

“Was she advocating violence? Sending a silent dog whistle to radical protesters? Should she be held accountable for her extremist rhetoric and removed from office?” the brief asks.

The document also cites Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), who said, “there needs to be unrest in the streets” as the Black Lives Matter protests devolved into violent and deadly riots. “Should we hold her liable to pay for all of the businesses that were destroyed when people heeded her call and removed from office?” the brief asks.

Finally, Team Trump cited Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), who infamously encouraged leftist demonstrators to harass Trump administration staff in public places.

“For those who would say that those quotes must be understood in their greater context, i.e., that they were clearly meant to be political speech- we say exactly. The truth is that both … Mr. Trump’s speech and these comments are acceptable political free speech; it is the double standard at play here that is entirely unacceptable, and Mr. Trump [asks] that the Senate reject it in no uncertain terms,” Team Trump argues.

4. Due process

Team Trump notes that House Democrats rushed the impeachment process after originally calling on Vice President Mike Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office. Bizarrely, Democrats waited five days before introducing the impeachment on January 11 and passing the impeachment on January 13.

“House Democrats completed the fastest presidential impeachment inquiry in history and adopted the Article of Impeachment over strong opposition and with zero due process afforded to Mr. Trump,” without an impeachment inquiry or a formal investigation into the Capitol riot.

“No exigent circumstances under the law were present excusing the House of Representatives’ rush to judgment, as evidenced by the fact that they then held the Article for another 12 days,” the brief notes.

Trump Responds to Second Impeachment With Strong Condemnation of Political Violence

5. “Structurally deficient”

Finally, Team Trump argues that “by charging multiple alleged wrongs in one article, the House of Representatives has made it impossible to guarantee compliance with the Constitutional mandate in Article 1, Sec. 3, Cl. 6 that permits a conviction only by at least two-thirds of the members. The House charge fails by interweaving different allegations rather than breaking them into counts of alleged individual instances of misconduct.”

This constitutes a sleight of hand in order to push conviction and removal, Team Trump argues.

These arguments build on claims in the president’s answer to the charges of the impeachment article. Together, they build a strong case for the former president’s acquittal.

While Trump’s arguments about the unconstitutionality of a Senate trial for a former president may be largely moot after the Senate voted 55-45 to take up the case, Team Trump was wise to cite those arguments because they provide Senate Republicans an easy case to make to the American people. While some Republicans may not wish to proactively defend Trump’s statements before the Capitol riot, Team Trump is also right to point out Democrats’ hypocrisy in claiming that Trump’s political speech constitutes incitement while theirs does not.

Democrats are gambling that the trial will make Trump look bad and tie Republicans to him, while Team Trump will use the opportunity to expose Democrats’ hypocrisy on political violence.

Tyler O’Neil is the author of Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Follow him on Twitter at @Tyler2ONeil.

House Votes to Impeach Trump a Second Time
Democrats Move to Impeach Trump for ‘Incitement of Insurrection’
VIP: Trump’s Impeachment Defense Has One Major Flaw
Democrats Make No Bones About Their Ultimate Goal in Impeachment

U.S. Supreme Court Blocks California Ban on Indoor Worship




republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The U.S. Supreme Court has solidified its support for religious freedom, delivering a blow last Friday night against arbitrary attempts by California's Governor Gavin Newsom to prevent people of faith from gathering indoors to worship. It follows on the heels of another Supreme Court decision last November, which disapproved of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s discriminatory edicts limiting group worship by the residents of New York State during the COVID-19 emergency.

By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court sided with the San Diego area South Bay Pentecostal Church, which challenged Newsom’s ban of indoor worship as part of his coronavirus lockdown orders. The Court issued a partial emergency injunction blocking the enforcement of the state of California’s prohibition on indoor worship services, pending disposition of a petition for the Court to undertake a full review of the constitutional issues in the case. For now, the Court was willing to allow a 25% capacity limitation on indoor worship services and the continuation of a prohibition of singing or chanting indoors because of the enhanced possibility that such activities can spread the virus.

The Supreme Court ruling left open the right of the plaintiff to present evidence that the state of California is “not applying the percentage capacity limitations or the prohibition on singing and chanting in a generally applicable manner.” South Bay Pentecostal Church operates in a county of California that has been designated Tier 1, which indicates that the virus is widespread in the county. At present, Tier 1 restrictions cover nearly all of the state. While churches and other places of worship in Tier 1 counties are not allowed to be open for indoor worship, secular businesses such as music, TV, and film production can conduct business indoors. This disparate treatment raises serious questions regarding discrimination against religious institutions and their congregants who wish to exercise their constitutionally protected right to freely assemble and pray inside their places of worship. In her concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted that “if a chorister can sing in a Hollywood studio but not in her church, California’s regulations cannot be viewed as neutral.”

Arthur Hodges, South Bay Pentecostal Church’s bishop, courageously stood up against the state’s trampling on the rights of his church and its parishioners. With a Sword of Damocles wielded by aggressive law enforcement officers hanging over his church and other places of worship, Bishop Hodges decided that a legal challenge to California’s state shutdown order was necessary to vindicate the primary importance of religious freedom. The Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, working with the Thomas More Society, stepped in and filed a complaint on South Bay’s behalf.  These non-profit organizations were able to do so with the generous financial support of individuals, including entrepreneur and philanthropist Dr. Robert Shillman.

“The only way that we can preserve our rights is by standing up to those evil persons who want to take them away,” Dr. Shillman declared. “Americans have inalienable rights and one of those rights is to peacefully assemble to pray, which cannot be taken away while others are free to engage in secular activities. There is absolutely a clear line of discrimination against people of faith.”

The lead attorney on behalf of South Bay, Charles LiMandri, said after the Supreme Court issued its ruling on Friday:

“We are heartened by this order from the United States Supreme Court allowing South Bay to gather for worship this weekend while our case against Governor Newsom continues. Throughout the COVID lockdown, the governor has demonstrated a flagrant disregard for California’s citizens and their deeply and sincerely held religious beliefs. His so-called ‘reopening plan’ is structured on the same discriminatory principles as those of New York’s Governor Cuomo, which were soundly denounced by the Supreme Court in their Thanksgiving Eve decision in Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo…It is time for the United States Constitution to be honored in the State of California and we thank the high court for upholding religious liberty and acting on South Bay’s behalf.”

For his part, Bishop Hodges said, “We are thrilled and excited to go back to church without legal threat of fines or arrest. This opens up churches in the entire state of California.” Despite being a practicing Jew, Dr. Shillman participated in services on Sunday at the South Bay Pentecostal Church to celebrate this victory for religious freedom for people of all faiths.

The Supreme Court decision was unsigned. However, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a concurring opinion in the case. He joined the majority, reversing the stance he took when the case first came to the Court last year. At that time, the Chief Justice expressed no reservation in deferring to those he considered to be politically accountable officials with the “background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.”  This time around, Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his concurring opinion that “Deference, though broad, has its limits.” Roberts drew the line at the California government’s “present determination—that the maximum number of adherents who can safely worship in the most cavernous cathedral is zero,” which “appears to reflect not expertise or discretion, but instead insufficient appreciation or consideration of the interests at stake.” However, the Chief Justice was willing to defer to the state public health expert judgment that singing indoors poses a heightened risk of transmitting the coronavirus.

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch viewed California’s restrictions on places of worship more skeptically. Justice Gorsuch wrote, “Since the arrival of COVID–19, California has openly imposed more stringent regulations on religious institutions than on many businesses.”  While acknowledging that justices are not scientists, Justice Gorsuch cautioned that “neither may we abandon the field when government officials with experts in tow seek to infringe a constitutionally protected liberty.”

Justice Gorsuch observed that California had “singled out religion for worse treatment than many secular activities.” The state did not extend the same options for conducting religious services indoors with health safety precautions as it does in allowing secular businesses to operate with some constraints indoors. “In my view, the State must do more to tailor the requirements of public health to the rights of its people,” he wrote. Justice Gorsuch concluded his concurring opinion by noting that “if Hollywood may host a studio audience or film a singing competition while not a single soul may enter California’s churches, synagogues, and mosques, something has gone seriously awry.”

The three liberal justices on the Supreme Court, Justices Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor, did not think that anything had gone awry. They dissented, bowing down to the unquestioned authority of the state. In her dissenting opinion, Justice Kagan complained that “the Court will not let California fight COVID as it thinks appropriate.” That’s as it should be, if what California “thinks appropriate” includes trampling on the First Amendment rights of its citizens based on sketchy evidence. Justice Kagan tried to pose the issue as a choice between the state’s reliance on “the best science” and “making a special exception for worship services.” That’s a false choice. What the government must do is prove with solid evidence that its prohibitions on the exercise of a constitutionally protected right are necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and that there are no less restrictive means to satisfy that interest.

Heaven forbid that, in Justice Kagan's words, “the Court second-guesses the judgments of expert officials.” The Court must do so where fundamental liberties are at stake.

America's earliest settlers risked their lives to flee religious persecution they had endured in Europe. Although religious intolerance did rear its ugly head on these shores during colonial times and afterward, the flame of religious liberty was not extinguished. It burns brightly in the words of the First Amendment’s guarantee of the free exercise of religion. Every generation is called upon to guard this flame. It is a beacon of hope for so many people of faith in other parts of the world who are still facing persecution for their beliefs. We must not take it for granted. Today, religious liberty in this country hangs by a slender thread, held up for now by a conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

The progressive left authoritarians inside government and out believe that they have a monopoly on the truth. Their “religion” consists of an amalgam of critical race theory, identity politics, social justice, censorship of politically incorrect viewpoints, and the power of the all-knowing bureaucratic state. These authoritarians want to pack the Supreme Court to remove the last remaining major obstacle to their plans for a fundamentally transformed America. It will take valiant Americans who still believe in this country and its founding principles to stop them.

Vaccination and Censorship: The Truth Will Set Us Free – The Vaccine Reaction

On Dec. 22, 2020, a non-profit limited company based in Great Britain that calls itself the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) published a report entitled The Anti-Vaxx Playbook. It contains false and misleading information about the Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination, which was sponsored by the 39-year old U.S. non-profit educational charity the National Vaccine Information Center, and held online in October 2020. Promotion of the CCDH report resulted in the spreading of fake news and misinformation by mainline media outlets in Great Britain and the U.S. NVIC’s pay-for-view digital conference was transparently open to the public and featured presentations by 51 speakers from the U.S. and other countries discussing vaccine science, public health policy and law, informed consent and civil liberties. Dedicated to “Protecting Health and Autonomy in the 21st Century,” the conference was made available on Feb. 2, 2021 for free viewing online.

Shock Claim: AG Barr Fast-Tracked Biden’s Executive Orders

Not unexpected given that Barr is a beltway insider



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Then-Attorney General William Barr helped fast-track proposed executive orders by Joe Biden while Trump was still president, according to Trump aide Peter Navarro.

The shocking revelation helps to explain how Biden was able to hit the ground running with a flurry of executive orders during his first week in office.

“Bill Barr, President Trump’s attorney general, actually turns out to be Joe Biden’s first attorney general,” Navarro told Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo on Feb. 7. “[Trump] had over 30 executive orders queued after Election Day, ready to go, but we kept running into all these roadblocks and hurdles.”

“It turns out that Bill Barr’s Office of Legal Counsel was fast-tracking all of these Biden EOs [executive orders], and basically, it was a deep-state coup.”

Even more surprising, Navarro said Barr’s DOJ helped approve a proposed Biden EO that would allow China to have access to the US power grid.

“Yeah, we got slow-walked at the Department of Justice,” he added. “The problem I told Barr about numerous times and he should have been fired months before he was.”

“By the last year of [the Trump] administration, he was really working against this administration in a lot of ways.”

American Thought Leaders: Hadley Manning-The Hidden Costs of School Closures

Rumble — After 18 students committed suicide in Las Vegas, the Clark County school district decided to reopen for in-person learning. The youngest was a nine-year-old.

In Chicago, home to the nation’s third-largest public school district, teachers unions have rejected calls by Democratic mayor Lori Lightfoot to re-open, citing concerns about health and safety.

In this episode, we sit down with Hadley Heath Manning, director of policy at the Independent Women’s Forum, to understand what recent studies have to say about schools reopening and the sometimes-hidden costs of keeping children and teenagers isolated.

This is American Thought Leaders, and I’m Jan Jekielek.

#coronavirus #schoolsreopening #mentalhealth

American Thought Leaders: Lawyer Lisa Haba on Lawsuit-Section 230 Does Not Protect Sex Trafficking

Rumble — Twitter is being sued for refusing to remove a video of alleged child sex abuse from its platform.

According to the lawsuit, a child was coerced by sex traffickers to record sex acts with another minor. A video of this was later posted on Twitter. When he asked for the video to be removed, Twitter allegedly said it “didn’t find a violation of our policies, so no action will be taken at this time.” It was only when the Department of Homeland Security stepped in that it was finally removed.

In this episode, we sit down with attorney Lisa Haba. The case was jointly filed by The Haba Law Firm, The Matiasic Firm, and The National Center on Sexual Exploitation Law Center (NCOSE).

This is American Thought Leaders, and I’m Jan Jekielek.

Note: Twitter did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

#twitter #section230 #lisahaba

‘O Allah kill the disbelievers’: Jihadis in Kenya release video of raid on US base, vow more attacks on US targets

On January 29, 2021, Al-Qaeda’s Somali affiliate Al-Shabab Al-Mujahideen released a new video documenting the preparations for the raid it conducted on the U.S. military base at Camp Simba near Manda Bay, Kenya on January 5, 2020 in which three Americans were killed and several aircraft destroyed.

Commander of the raid, Ahmad Al-Muhajir, wearing a red headband with the slogan "Jerusalem Will Never Be Judaized.":



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Old Joe has emboldened jihadis not just in Iran, but all over the world. But what is with all the Islamic terminology in the communiques from al-Shabaab quoted below? Don’t these guys know that they have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam? John Kerry should fly his private jet over to Kenya and explain the true, peaceful Islam to them.

“Al-Shabab Releases Video Of Attack On U.S. Base In Kenya, Vows To Continue Attacks On U.S. Targets,” MEMRI, January 31, 2021 (thanks to the Geller Report):L

January 31, 2021:

The following report is now a complimentary offering from MEMRI’s Jihad and Terrorism Threat Monitor (JTTM). For JTTM subscription information, click here. 

On January 29, 2021, Al-Qaeda’s Somali affiliate Al-Shabab Al-Mujahideen released a new video documenting the preparations for the raid it conducted on the U.S. military base at Camp Simba near Manda Bay, Kenya on January 5, 2020 in which three Americans were killed and several aircraft destroyed.[1] The 55-minute video was produced by the group’s Al-Kata’ib media wing and distributed by the Global Islamic Media Front (GIMF) on its Rocket.Chat platform and on Telegram. The video features never-before-seen footage of a meeting between Al-Shabab leader Abu Ubaydah Ahmad Omar and the attackers; training and preparations for the raid; final messages from the attackers; and drone footage of the raid in progress. The video is interspersed with archival audio clips from Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri and past leaders Osama bin Laden, Anwar Al-‘Awlaki, Abu Mus’ab Abd Al-Wudoud, and others. It stresses that the Manda Bay raid was perpetrated as part of Al-Qaeda’s “Jerusalem Will Never Be Judaized” campaign which was launched in response to the U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.[2]

The excerpts in the following report are based on the English translation provided by Al-Shabab:

The video opens with audio clips of bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri describing Al-Qaeda’s commitment to the cause?] of Palestine and the Al-Aqsa Mosque. It then shows the meeting of Al-Shabab leader Abu Ubaydah with the men who subsequently carried out the attack. In his address to his men, Abu Ubaydah rejoices that Al-Shabab is currently “in a direct confrontation with the U.S. He instructs the men to confirm the killing of wounded U.S. soldiers, and states that their top priority is to destroy as many U.S. aircraft as possible at the base.

Abu Ubaydah begins his speech by celebrating the fact that his group is fighting the U.S., and speaks about the U.S. base in Manda Bay and its importance. He boasts that in spite of all its intelligence capabilities the U.S. is completely unaware of the impending attack “You are headed towards the American military base in Kenya. Allahu Akbar! Our war has passed through several stages, hasn’t it? … Today, we are engaged in a direct war against the Americans. As you sit here now, do you think that the Americans know that you are about to attack them? No they don’t. They can continue to boast about having intelligence, advanced technology, surveillance cameras and drones but know that you are more powerful than their drones. The U.S. military base is located in Kenya. It is known as Manda Bay base and it is situated in Lamu County. It is a secret military base on which the Mujahideen have conducted extensive reconnaissance and you will soon be shown more information regarding the base.

“The base is one of the major military bases belonging to US-AFRICOM in East Africa, particularly in Lamu, Kenya. It is the equivalent of Ballidoogle in Kenya and that is where you are headed. It is a base of evil and disbelief. It is the base from where attacks against innocent Muslims are launched. That is where you are headed. You are going to retaliate on behalf of those innocent Muslims and on behalf of the Mujahideen leaders who were killed by the Americans. They are in an alliance with the Kenya Defence Forces (KDF). The base serves to protect the Kenyan invaders and train their forces. That is where you are headed. Therefore, you will engage the Americans directly in a close combat.”

Abu Ubaydah then prioritizes the targets for the attackers after they enter the base:

“When you reach the base, know that your mission, which the Muslims are waiting for you to accomplish, is to kill the American forces present there and finish off their wounded. Your mission is to destroy and set ablaze the equipment and military hardware present in the base. There are many military aircraft in the base and you will be shown a visual evidence of them. We will confront the Americans who are flying above us now in their own base. Yes, you will encounter many military aircraft in the base and destroying them should be your primary objective. If you used to hide from those planes under the trees, you will soon target them in their airfield. The blaze of the burning aircraft should be visible to all the people in Lamu and we will watch it through the lens of Al-Kataib Foundation. Beware of leaving anything intact. Target the military aircraft in particular and proceed according to priority. Your first priority is to destroy the aircraft in the base, and then followed by the armored military vehicles and storage facilities.”

Abu Ubaydah rallies his fighters, hailing them as “soldiers of Allah” and saying that many other jihad fighters will follow in their path:

“I hope that base becomes the place where we hear the defeat of the disbelievers, where you attain your martyrdom and that this operation soothes the hearts of the Muslims. Know that other military detachments will come after you, by the permission of Allah. Your blood will draw other Mujahideen to the cause, like a magnet… Allah will defeeat the enemy and protect the religion through your blood… Are the disbelievers able to penetrate the Wilaayaat [the Somali territories controlled by Al-Shabab] and abduct the teachers? No, they cannot, because there are Mujahideen fighters in front of them…”

Abu Ubaydah encourages Muslims, especially those in the Horn of Africa, to join the ranks of his group: “We tell the Muslims living in the lands of Kufr, particularly the youth in East Africa, that it is obligatory upon you to make Hijra [to immigrate to a Muslim land, i.e. to join Al-Shabab] and wage Jihad. On whom do you entrust the responsibility of defending your religion, preserving the honour of Muslim women and fighting the enemies of Islam? How is it acceptable to any Muslim with a conscience that young disbelieving men of your age plunder your wealth, violate your dignity, and send to prison whomever they will among you whenever they will and torture him? It is only through Jihad that you can regain your honour and dignity, as well as a pleasant life in both this world and the hereafter and a justification in front of Allah. Therefore, rise and stand up for Jihad. Emulate your brothers who made Hijra before you and sacrificed their lives for the sake of Allah…”

Drone footage of burning aircraft in Camp Simba

He concludes his exhortations with a prayer: “O Allah kill the disbelievers who are hindering people from Your path and are belying Your messengers and cast upon them Your punishment and torment. O Allah kill the disbelievers from the people of the Book…” This segment is followed by a scene in which Abu Ubaydah is seen handing the “flag of tawhid[3] [which symbolizes the Islamic concept of monotheism] to the commander of the operation, Ahmad Al-Muhajir, who states: “By the will of Allah, this banner will not be raised in any other place other than the American base in Manda Bay…”

The video then shows original footage of the attack which Al-Shabab filmed with drones, against a backdrop of audio from Al-Qaeda cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki and the commander of the U.S. military’s AFRICOM. The footage shows fire and smoke rising from Camp Simba.

This section is followed by a commemoration of each of the five operatives who participated in the attack, including a short biography and each one’s final message. The common themes among all the messages are threats to “Jews and Americans;” the vow that the attacks in the framework of the “Jerusalem Will Never Be Judaized” campaign will continue; and the reassurance to the Palestinians that Al-Qaeda and Al-Shabab are committed to fighting for the “liberation” of Al-Aqsa, and so on. The fighters all wear red headbands bearing the slogan “Jerusalem Will Never Be Judaized.”

Commander of the raid, Ahmad Al-Muhajir, wearing a red headband with the slogan “Jerusalem Will Never Be Judaized.”

For example, in his final message before embarking on the operation, the leader of the raid, Ahmad Al-Muhajir, declares:

“O Jews and Americans! Do not think that we are wearing these headbands for adornment or for exhibition purposes only. Know that Al-Quds [Jerusalem] belongs to the Muslims and it will forever belong to the Muslims. It does not belong to filth like you who spread corruption in the land. O America! If you did not learn anything from the operations in 14 Riverside [in Nairobi] and Ballidoogle,[4] then you will now learn a lesson that you did not expect. What is coming your way is not words, it is action, and not just mere action, but rather a great deal of action. Masha-Allah, Allah made it possible for the brothers to carry out the operations in 14 Riverside and Ballidoogle with success. May Allah accept their martyrdom as they proved that they are the brave ones and you are the cowards. Right now, we are on our way to continue in this series of operations and we will not stop there; many other brothers will come after us. By the will of Allah, we will not stop until the Shari’ah rules over the whole world and the Muslims live in a state of glory while you, the Kufr, live in humiliation. Islam will rule over the whole world. The word of Allah will be uppermost and the word of those who disbelieved will be lowermost.”…




republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

On Tuesday, Alejandro “Ali” Nicholas Mayorkas was sworn in as Director of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under the newly-installed Joe Biden. Mayorkas, who was born in Cuba, has been referred to as the “chief architect” of former President Obama’s amnesty plan known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

This, on the same day Joe Biden signed three new executive orders reversing President Trump’s immigration policies. As reported at RAIR, Joe Biden intends on increasing the number of “refugees” by 700 percent.

Mayorkas has engaged in cronyism for his entire career, protecting those in positions of power. For example, Alejandro Mayorkas was infamously involved in the Clinton-era pardon of the drug-trafficking son of Democrat donor Horacio Vignali. Along that vein, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) also criticized the new swamp leader:

“As a high-ranking official in the Obama administration, Mr. Mayorkas did his best to turn US Citizenship and Immigration Services into an unethical favor factory for Democratic Party royalty — governors, the DNC chair, Hollywood executives, a Senate majority leader from Nevada, they all received special treatment to a degree that stunned and disturbed the Obama administration’s own inspector general.”

Mayorkas vowed to “end construction of the Mexico border wall in accordance with Biden’s directive, even though Congress in December approved $1.4 billion in new funds for the project,” as reported at the New York Post. Mayorkas continued to say that he will look into what can be done with the wall that has already been built, signaling that the newly installed lunatics in the federal government would actively remove the border wall.

The White House tweeted about the Mayorkas appointment last month, which featured a list of pro-amnesty endorsers (see video below), including big unions United Farm Workers, SEIU and AFL-CIO, as well as radical groups such as the Soros-Funded UnidosUS (formerly National Council of La Raza), the Coalition for the American Dream, and Community Change.


It appears that the swearing in video has a disproportionate amount of “dislikes” on YouTube, which is representative of other official White House videos, as reported at RAIR.

*UPDATE: In the few short hours since this article was published, another 4k “dislikes” were added to the video.

*Funny, at 11:42 PM, the “dislikes” were drastically deflated. Huh.


*11:42 PM.


Watch as Red Diaper Baby Kamala Harris swears In Alejandro Mayorkas as Secretary of Homeland Security. What a slap in the face that this man is swearing on a Bible to defend America against foreign and domestic enemies as he plans to flood the borders with illegal aliens.

Support our work at RAIR Foundation USA! We are a grassroots activist team and we need your help! Please consider making a donation here: