PipeLineNews Archives: November 2018

Andrew McCarthy On Pal James Comey – “I know him to be a patriotic American”

January 17, 2020 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org – On a recent Fox segment regarding the allegation by the New York Times that the “apparent” investigation regarding James Comey’s leaking to media sources is “politically” motivated, Andrew McCarthy, former US Attorney made an outrageous statement, defending his buddy; referencing Comey, McCarthy said “I know him to be a patriotic American…I don’t believe that he would knowingly leak classified information…”

The statement was memorialized in a Fox video so there is no disputing the exact wording of his defense of the most corrupt FBI director in a very long while...the mind reels, Comey admitted in Congressional testimony that he leaked documents to a Harvard pal who then passed them off to the New York Times.

"Today, Mr. Comey admitted that he leaked to friends his purported memos of these privileged conversations, one of which he testified was classified," [Trump personal attorney, Marc Kasowitz

Listening to other recent statements by McCarthy it’s pretty obvious that his ties to Federal law enforcement run deep and after reading and reviewing his latest book, Ball of Confusion came to the conclusion that the work was “a travesty of the highest order,” filled as it was by evidence of his personal malice to the President.

“This is a failed work, overly long [by at least 100 pages] dryly written, shallow [the reader would be well served to mine the outstanding journalism of the Epoch Times’ Jeff Carlson regarding “Russia-gate” - the Epoch Times, a weekly, being the hands down the best newspaper in America] and nasty, with heaps of abuse directed at the victim of Obama’s attempted coup, President Donald Trump.

It is actually unbecoming for someone of the stature of McCarthy to write with such invective.

Oh…and on page 337, McCarthy mounts a defense of ta-da-da…one James Comey, with the author coming to the aid of his long-time pal, saying that Trump “lost perspective” in firing the crooked plotting ex-FBI Director.

End of review, this book is garbage, it blazes NO new trails and fails to capture even the already established outlines of what is factually an ongoing attempted coup to remove a sitting president because he came to DC to drain the Swamp and defeat the Deep State. [see, Ball of Collusion Review ]”

Now for the rest of the story…

On the evening of Comey’s now infamous private briefing to the President Elect in Trump Tower, Comey - breaking his normal protocol - had requested a laptop computer be available in the vehicle in which he arrived and then departed, so that he could memorialize his version of the meeting.

[Read More]
Obama GAO Levels Charge Against President, Then Runs Away


January 16, 2020 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - We will get to the GAO mater, but, just in case the reader is not familiar with the broad outlines of the Deep State attempted coup, please allow a brief summary

From early 2016 DOJ and assorted intelligence branches, CIA among them, conducted a counter-intelligence operation [a decapitation strike] against Candidate, then President Trump. This is unassailable, there is entirely too much evidence in the form of cascading emails to deny it.

Needing some form of predicate upon which to falsely base a claim that Trump was acting as an agent of Vlad Putin [a narrative spun by the Clintonistas], they sought out UK spy Christopher Steele an old hand at these things. Steele then proceeded to tap into a working relationship with a key inside Kremlin oligarch Oleg Derispaska according to several reports – “congressional investigators are thus concerned that his memos may have been a channel of Russian disinformation.”

From this union either partly or totally, there came what has become known the “Dossier,” an assemblage of unsubstantiated [and by design unsubstantiable] crazy assertions regarding Mr. Trump. Perhaps the most absurd being that Mr. Trump had hired Russian hookers to pee on a bed slept in by former President Obama.

Again no proof, no video no nada, absolutely nothing that would rise to the status of probative evidence.

When the Mueller persecution concluded with Mr. Mueller outing himself in Congressional testimony as possibly affected by dementia and general confusion , the entire case fell apart largely under its own weight, betraying its authors as traitorous liars.

It bears stating at this point the conspiracy appeared to have been run out the Brookings Inst by way of those charged with manning one of its blogs, the Lawfare Blog, some of whom then bled seamlessly into the Nadler/Shiff nexus where they served as staff attorneys!

Those Brookings/Lawfare authors would be Norman Eisen - Editor & Chief, Lawfare blog and Sr. Fellow at Brookings, and Barry Berke - a Founding Editor, Lawfare blog, Sr. Fellow Brookings. Berke and Eisen being two total dickheads to whom the narrative because a religious or sacred object which by its nature was at war with the truth.

[Read More]
Shock…Not - 93% Of Elected Muslims Choose Shari’a Rather Than U.S. Constitution


January 6, 2020 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org We are very pleased to offer this brilliant piece of analysis from a true subject expert - ED

It’s more than just about having three Muslims in Congress. I think symbolically it has great value, but I won’t rest until 2020 we have five more members of Congress; 2022 and 24, we have ten more Muslims in Congress. In 2030 we may have about 30, 35 Muslims in Congress. Then we’re talking about Madame Chair Rashida. We’re talking about Madame Chair Ilhan. Hell, we could be saying Speaker of the House Ilhan, Speaker of the House Rashida, Senator Rashida, Governor Ilhan, President Fatima, Vice President Aziza, Inshah’ Allah…Each and every one of us has a directive to represent Islam, in all of our imperfections, but to represent Islam and let the world know that Muslims are here to stay, and Muslims are a part of America. And we will, we will have a Muslim caucus that is sizable, that is formidable, and that is there for you.

U.S. Congressman Andre Carson at the CAIR Community Congressional Reception, January 10, 2019

People in public office at the local, state, and federal levels are required to take an oath of office that requires them to swear, or affirm, to support the U.S. Constitution. This is based on Article 6, Clause 3 of that Constitution (the “Oaths Clause”):

The Senators and Representatives [in Congress] before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…

As David Shestokas noted:

This constitutional requirement is binding upon every government official in the United States from state governors and judges to members of city councils, police officers, firefighters or board members of mosquito abatement districts and library boards. [1]

The 2019 elections saw an increase in the number of Muslims re-elected and newly elected to public office across the United States, and as part of their oaths of office they each swear to support the U.S. Constitution. However, as I showed in my latest book Islamic Doctrine versus the U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials , [2] there are many core tenets of Islam that are in direct conflict with much of that Constitution.

In theory, however, one would think that after a Muslim public official had publicly taken an oath to support the U.S. Constitution, having to publicly choose between either following that Constitution or following Islamic Doctrine would be simple: a Muslim public official would abide by the oath of office and choose the Constitution. [3]

[Read More]
Thoughts On Iran - Roast In Hell Soleimani

January 6, 2020 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org – Ok, so first what happened? In case you haven’t heard, early Saturday morning Iraqi time a U.S. MQ-9 Reaper drone fired 4 Hellfire missiles at a small but important convoy located in the environs of Baghdad airport [fortified with your tax dollars to the tune of billions of dollars].

The convoy in question carried the number one terror figure in the world, Iran’s second in command actually, General Qassem Soleimani, officially the commander of Iran’s Quds Force, one of the Ayatollah’s many armies.

But along the way a slight problem arose…

“Upon disembarking from the plane that an Iraqi security official said arrived from either Syria or Lebanon, Soleimani and Mohammed Ridha, a senior figure in the Hashed Al-Shaabi paramilitary force, were whisked away from the airport in two cars.” [source, Times of Israel ]

It was a brief trip because the Reaper did what it does so well, meaning the missiles connected with the twin car caravan [cue Toyota truck commercial] obliterating the “revelers” who were literally ripped to shreds.

So sad…too bad…

Soleimani was the party responsible for the killing and maiming of hundreds of U.S. military personel as well as directing friendly diplomatic relations with the government of Iraq, yes the same government we naively stood up with the expectation of injecting a bit of civilization into a part of the world notably lacking it.

Both GW Bush and Obama had numerous opportunities to croak this guy but of course demurred so that the United States wouldn’t rile the natives too much.

[Read More]
Dossier: Iran’s Soleimani, Master Terrorist

Sometimes it's useful to remind our loyal readers how much ahead of the curve we can be in identifying major Islamist threats well before our government takes actions. So with that in mind we are pleased to reprint this dossier on the now deceased [Hellfire missile time, wahoo] that was originally posted 5 years ago, so please enjoy [- Ed]

November 6, 2015 - San Francisco, CA – PipeLineNews.org – Hat tip to Steven Emerson and the folks at The Investigative Project on Terrorism for making available an important new 50 plus page study [prepared by Dr. Raz Zamit, The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center] detailing the activities of Qasem Soleimani who leads Iran’s QUDS/QODS Force, considered the elite cutting edge of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps [IRGC].

“The Qods Force was established in 1990 as an organized, operational framework for the extensive activities Iran conducts to export the Islamic Revolution to other countries.” [source, study, p. 1]

Soleimani has run the Quds operation since the late 1990’s and is the face of the Iranian effort to promote the revolutionary ideology of Shia Islam throughout the ME [targeting its Sunni majority] and indeed the world.

Soleimani was instrumental in coordinating the Iranian funded and trained Shia militias during the United States’ Operation Iraqi Freedom campaign and is now responsible for leading the Ayatollocracy’s efforts in support of Syria’s embattled president Bashar al-Assad as various stripes of Sunni jihadists try to destabilize this key Iranian buffer state.

Though quite successful, from the standpoint of creating thousands of additional casualties among U.S. troops [many of which were killed or seriously wounded by Iranian IEDs] serving in Iraq, his Syrian operation has run into difficulties, especially in its ground campaign:

“The Syrian regime's strategic distress is forcing the Qods Force, under Soleimani's command, to concentrate its efforts to help the Syrian army repel the rebels in northwestern Syria (in the regions of Homs, Hama, Idlib and Aleppo), with Russian aerial support. So far the Syrian offensive has had difficulties and IRGC fighters in the front lines have suffered serious losses (more than thirty dead, among them three senior officers with the rank of colonel or brigadier general).” [p. 5]


“The Qods Force, commanded by Qasem Soleimani, has been in the forefront of Iran's effort to prevent the fall of Damascus and other strategic strongholds, and the collapse of the Syrian regime. Iran provided Syria with weapons, strategic guidance and military advisors, and sent Hezbollah and Shi'ite foreign fighters (primarily from Iraq and Afghanistan) to active duty in Syrian territory.” [p. 12]

To a very large degree it is Soleimani who is responsible for bringing Russia into the Syrian conflict via his direct negotiation with Vlad Putin

[Read More]
Stephen Kirby - Islamic Doctrine Versus the U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials - The PipeLineNews.org Review

Islamic Doctrine Versus the U.S. Constitution
Stephen M. Kirby, PhD
ISBN: 9781709741067
210 ppg.


January 4, 2020 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - Dr. Stephen M. Kirby, a noted expert on Islamic doctrine has written what will prove to be essential guide for enabling citizens to determine if their Muslim elected official’s loyalty is to the Constitution or the Qur’an.

With the increasing advent of self-proclaimed "devout" Muslim public officials into American political life the conflict between their religious beliefs and obligations to Shari’a [Islamic law] and their sworn duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution has become obvious and highly problematic.

In order to clarify their stances and explain the dilemma which being a Shari’a compliant Muslim and political figure in America entails, Dr. Kirby has compiled this guide elucidating what is mandated by the Constitution and its Amendments, explaining why it is virtually impossible for a devout Muslim to be able to comply with them.

To this end he presents painstakingly curated research into Qur’anic stipulations versus Constitutional dictates which are in direct opposition to one another.

One example can be found in the chapter "Islam And The Second Amendment" where Kirby observes.

"The 2nd Amendment prohibits the government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms But under Islam, there would be no right for non-Muslims to keep and bear arms."

He then proceeds to cite the relevant Qur’anic injunctions pertaining to this.

One of the biggest problems for Muslim public officials, and the question which much be asked of them, is how they can truthfully swear an oath to uphold the Constitution which is considered by them to be "man-made law" with the Qur’anic declaration that Allah's law supersedes all others thus rendering any oath taken by a practicing Muslim to be null and void.

[Read More]
Robert Spencer’s The Palestinian Delusion - The PipeLineNews.org Review


December 9, 2019 – San Bernardino, CA – PipeLineNews.org - Robert Spencer's latest book, "The Palestinian Delusion,” will once again please his legion of fans, undoubtedly win him new ones and of course inflame the usual suspect. His work brings into clear perspective the reasons behind the seemingly endless and apparently insoluble Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Palestinian Delusion is scrupulously documented - more than a fifth of its pages are dedicated to references as the author exposes the basic myths and misinformation about the nature of the conflict, its origins and history, noting that the version that has been presented to the West is far more myth than reality. Witless dupes, the American presidents who have been a party to the elusive “peace processes” clearly seem far more comfortable with the big lie, that Islam and modernity are amenable entities.

Dr. Spencer examines the untruths that inform the popular understanding of repeated failed negotiations - each one a journey down a predictably blind alley.

To begin at the beginning, the most important piece of misinformation - which Dr. Spencer simply destroys, and certainly the most fundamental - is the entirely created narrative that the roots of the conflict are based on a simple territorial imperative.

Instead, he correctly identifies that the goal of what are undeniably Arab Muslims operating under a false-flag, is the same as that of their co-religionists in the Ummah - the annihilation of world Jewry, or at least that portion which is within convenient reach - a second Holocaust motivated by a jihadist mentality rather than one grounded in state socialism - one solidly based on theological antisemitism. War to the death against Israel should be understood as merely another facet of global Islamic jihad.

Citing the foundational documents of Islam, most importantly the Qur’an itself, Spencer makes his case beyond dispute. This will be a little difficult at first for Americans - unfamiliar with a genuine understanding of comparative religion - to comprehend. The disconnect here really is civilizational since Westerners, enveloped within a post-modern reality, grasp only with great difficulty that the elemental bifurcation between church and state that we take for granted has no applicability within Islam. To our way of thinking, theocratic belief structures can find no purchase this side of Europe’s Middle Ages.

Importantly, "Palestinians" and their sympathizers would have the public believe that their grievances are genuine, arising from Israel’s “seizure” of “their” land. The author points out that this leads to a flawed conception of the Israeli-Palestinian impasse, namely that there is such an entity as the "Palestinian" people who are beleaguered beyond all measure. Robert’s book makes clear that there is not and never has been a Palestinian people, let alone a Palestinian state. Historically, Palestine has always been a kind of amorphous territorial entity on a map, nothing more, and the Jewish people have, in considerable numbers, been residents of that area since Biblical times - most certainly far-longer than the Arab pretenders.

One of Islam’s ugly truths is that, far from being repressed, Arab immigration to this area has vastly increased under a soft-handed Israeli rule that allows for full citizenship and even participation in its parliamentary form of government.

[Read More]
So You Want to Look into the Religious Beliefs of Public Officials?


November 24, 2019 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - Article VI, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution prohibits a “religious test” from being required in order to qualify for any office or “public trust” in the United States. But in the last few years we have seen some interesting examples in which a person’s religion was examined when that person was being considered for public office.

In September 2017, Senator Diane Feinstein expressed concern about a judicial nominee’s Christian religion and stated:

Whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you... [1]

In December 2018, Senators Mazie Hirona and Kamala Harris expressed concern about a judicial nominee’s membership in the Knights of Columbus, a 137-year-old fraternal Catholic charitable organization. These Senators considered positions taken by the Knights, which simply conformed to Catholic teachings, as “extreme” and raised the question about whether the nominee would end his membership if he was confirmed as a judge. [2]

It seems now that even current elected officials are not exempt from this religious scrutiny. In April 2019, Pete Buttigieg,a potential Democrat presidential candidate and current Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, was asked if he thought President Trump was a Christian. Buttigieg responded:

I'm reluctant to comment on another person's faith, but I would say it is hard to look at this president's actions and believe that they're the actions of somebody who believes in God. [3]

That same month, Buttigieg had criticized Vice President Pence for his opposition to homosexual marriage based on Pence’s Christian faith; Buttigieg added:

I don't have a problem with religion, I'm religious too. I have a problem with religion being used as a justification to harm people. [4]

There was even an April 2019 article in The Atlanticabout how potential Democrat presidential candidates were now bringing up their religious beliefs, and some were even referring to the Bible and to the importance of Christ.[5]

With these precedents in mind, let’s turn our attention to the current U.S. Congress.

[Read More]
Islam in Conflict with the Constitution: Holding Muslim Public Officials Accountable to the 1stAmendment



Novenber 24, 2019 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - As I pointed out in a previous article , it has become increasingly common to question the beliefs of Christian public officials, or those Christians aspiring to public office in the United States. With this as our precedence, let’s take a similar approach to the religion of Islam and those who follow that religion.

This is the first in a series of articles in which we will see that Islamic Doctrine is largely incompatible with, and often violates many of the fundamental tenets found in the United States Constitution. In this first article, we shall be looking at Islam and the 1stAmendment guarantee of freedom of speech and freedom of religion; this is part of the Constitution that Muslim public officials publicly swear to support, defend, and bear allegiance to, while their religion demands the very opposite.

We must start holding Muslim public officials accountable for those contradictions between their religion and the Constitution they swear to uphold. This article provides you the information you need to understand those contradictions, and then ends with suggested action items.

The Oath of Office

Public officials and elected representatives at all levels of government across the United States take an oath of office. This includes school board and city council members, mayors, law enforcement officers, state officials and members of the United States Congress.

For example, here is the Oath of Office for members of the United States House of Representatives; it starts out:

I, [state your name] , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same… [1]

[Read More]
Islam in Conflict with the Constitution: Holding Muslim Public Officials Accountable to the 8thAmendment


November 24, 2019 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - The first article in this series[1]explained the purpose of the series and then briefly examined the significance of the oath of office for public officials and the foundations of Islamic Doctrine. The article then looked at Islam and the 1stAmendment to the U.S. Constitution, focusing on freedom of speech and freedom of religion. If you have not read the first article, I strongly encourage you to do so before proceeding with this article.

This is the second article in the series, and it looks at Islam and the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 8thAmendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment; this is part of the Constitution that Muslim public officials publicly swear to support, defend, and bear allegiance to, while their religion demands the very opposite.

We must start holding Muslim public officials accountable for those contradictions between their religion and the Constitution they swear to uphold. This article provides you the information you need to understand those contradictions, and then ends with suggested action items.

We will be examining the following punishments which are allowed, and even sometimes commanded by the Koran and/or the teachings and example of Muhammad, Islam’s final prophet:

  • Amputation and death for theft
  • Amputation of a hand and foot from the opposite sides
  • Amputation of the fingers and toes
  • Beheading
  • Burning people to death
  • Crucifixion
  • Flogging
  • Stoning to death
  • Torture

Let’s start out with the punishments for theft allowed under Islam.

[Read More]