Who Is Dennis Michael Lynch?


.
Dennis Michael Lynch (born August 28, 1969) is an American entrepreneur, documentary filmmaker, and conservative commentator. He is the founder and CEO of TV360Media, a company specializing in the production and distribution of digital film, and often appears as a guest on Fox News and TheBlaze. He is currently running for President of the United States as a conservative Republican.

Official Campaign Website
Facebook
Twitter
Youtube
Documentary: They Come To America

.
VETERANS TEAR DOWN OBAMA BARRICADES AT WWII MEMORIAL

.
SEAN HANNITY TELEVISION SPECIAL: THE COST OF AMNESTY

.
BUNDY RANCH STANDOFF

.
DML FOR AMERICA PAC

.
SPEECH AT NEW HAMPSHIRE REPUBLICAN PARTY LEADERSHIP SUMMIT

……………………….Click on image above to watch video.

.

Iran “Deal”: West’s Surrender Triggering War (Guy Millière)

Iran “Deal”: West’s Surrender Triggering War – Guy Millière

Russia and China have also agreed to build nuclear plants for Iran. And North Korea has also been supplying Iran with technology, a “minor detail” hidden from the UN by U.S. President Barack Obama. And the U.S. thinks that if Iran is caught cheating, sanctions can be re-imposed?

Other countries in the region have already started scheduling delivery for their nuclear weapons. They have made it clear they will not sit idly by while Iran goes nuclear.

Iran has already bragged that it will sell “enriched uranium” on the open market, and will be “hopefully making some money” from it, said Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.

No agreement was signed between Iran and the P5+1 group [1] on April 2; no agreement will be signed on June 30.

The text defining the “framework” of some agreement to be signed in June was immediately challenged by Iran. Western leaders speak and act as if they have no idea what Iran is saying or doing.

Western leaders wanted something akin to an agreement. They got something akin to an agreement.

Iran’s leaders seem to have spotted pretty soon that Western leaders would willingly concede everything – and possibly more – to get any “agreement”; so that is what Western leaders got.

Western leaders not only failed to reach an agreement; they capitulated. The reason for the talks was to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. When, according to Western reports, they saw that Iran would not agree to stop, they “flipped” and instead became complicit.

All signs indicate that the West is planning to give a lawless, expansionist, terrorist regime nuclear weapons capability – as a reward for violating international treaties again and again. What message are other rogue nations to take from that?

.

.
Not only have Western leaders given the Iranian regime the opportunity to acquire nuclear weapons; they have let Iran initiate and sanctify a nuclear arms race to destabilize an already volatile region. They have also given Iran the opportunity to get billions of dollars to accelerate its nuclear weapons programs – and they are negotiating to lift all sanctions either early or late so that Iran can get still more.

They also allowed Iran to keep four American hostages: Jason Rezaian, Saeed Abedini, Amir Hekmati and Robert Levinson, who has not been heard from for years and may be dead. The State Department has said that “their freedom should not be linked to negotiations,” so their release was not even discussed. Their immediate release was the first matter that should have been discussed.

What Western leaders have deliberately ignored is the nature of the Iranian regime: Totalitarian regimes never abide by the agreements they sign. Islamists often refer to Muhammad’s treaty of Hudaybiyyah. In 628, Muhammad agreed to a 10-year truce with the Quraysh tribe of Mecca. Two years later, when Muslim forces had gathered strength, Muhammad broke the treaty and marched into Mecca. [2] Since then, in Islam, no treaty can be made for more than ten years, and even then, it is not a treaty, it is a truce – to be broken again if Islam’s side is strong.

This spring, while negotiations were held in Lausanne, Ali Khamenei, the “supreme leader” of Iran, led huge crowds, shouting “Death to America.” Every year, he promises a “world free of infidels” as well as the Messianic return of the “Twelfth Imam,” the Mahdi, a descendant of Muhammad who will guide martyrs during a “final battle”.

Western leaders act as if all important decisions in Iran are made by its President, Hassan Rouhani. They know perfectly well, however, that nothing happens in Iran without the approval of Ali Khamenei, and no one else. Perhaps Western leaders are hoping that Rouhani will unseat Khamenei, a succession scarcely conceivable. The Iranian leadership is not accountable to its people.

Moreover, based on Rouhani’s account of how he duped the West in previous negotiations, it is doubtful if Rouhani unseating Khamenei would be any more desirable for the West. Since Rouhani was elected President in June 2013, the number of executions carried out by the regime has soared compared to the number under his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Reportedly, 753 persons were executed in 2014, a 10% increase over 2013. Just 291 of these cases (39%) were announced officially. “The aim of these executions is not to fight crime, but to spread fear among the population,” according to Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, director of Iran Human Rights.

To paraphrase Natan Sharansky, [3] if a government does not treat its own people well, it is not likely to treat anyone else any better.

Iran is clearly interested in all oil producing regions. It has taken over four Arab capitals — Damascus, Beirut, Baghdad and Sana’a – while the U.S. has fled from three countries: Iraq, Libya and Yemen. Iran now surrounds all the oilfields of the Middle East.

Iran is also trying to take over the Middle East’s major sea lanes – the Strait of Hormuz, the choke point of the Persian Gulf, and the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait at the mouth of the Suez Canal. If Iran succeeds, it will be able to control most of the oil trade in the Middle East.

Iran also continues to repeat its threats of genocide against Israel. In late March, Mohammad Reza Naqdi, commander of Iran’s Basij paramilitary force, announced that “the destruction of Israel is non-negotiable.”

Hamas is still on the terrorist list maintained by the State Department but was removed from the list of the European Union in December 2014. No Western leader seems to know that Iran has been helping Hamas to build over 100 new tunnels and replenish its weapon stockpiles.

Although many of the terms of the “framework” are, we are told, known only to the negotiators, what we do know so far about what Iran wanted and got includes:

* Retaining its enriched uranium stockpile, not having to ship it abroad.
* Keeping thousands (at least 6000) centrifuges to produce weapons-grade uranium, and modernizing its Arak plutonium reactor.
* Continuing its operations at the Fordow plant, under a mountain, in bunkers designed to withstand aerial attacks.
* A massive lifting of sanctions. It wants still more, “immediately.”
* Continuing to develop its intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) program

Iran’s ICBM program was not even mentioned during discussions.

Also not included in discussions was Iran’s ongoing funding of terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran’s proxy, Hezbollah, was just removed by the U.S. State Department from its list of terrorist threats; and Iran was removed from its list of states that sponsor terrorism.

The “armed wing” of Hezbollah is still on the European Union’s list of terrorist organizations, but Hezbollah’s “political wing” is not. Iran can tell European leaders that the Iranian regime supports the political wing of Hezbollah, but not its military branch. There is no doubt that European leaders, pressured by companies eager to do business in Iran, will pretend they received a satisfying answer.

On April 12, Russia lifted its ban on the delivery of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Iran. Russia and China have also agreed to build nuclear power plants for Iran. And North Korea has also been supplying Iran with technology, “including components for a long-range nuclear missile,” a “minor detail” hidden from the UN by U.S. President Barack Obama. And the U.S. thinks that if Iran is caught cheating, sanctions can be re-imposed?

Iran says it will accept only scheduled visits by IAEA inspectors, and it can endlessly contest any findings. The IAEA in the past never found anything anyway. All the illegal nuclear facilities that Iran wanted to hide were discovered by Iranian dissidents, and American and Israeli intelligence agencies – not by the IAEA.

Senator Mark Kirk has said that Neville Chamberlain got a lot more out of Adolf Hitler at the Munich Conference. British commentators noted that the difference between Chamberlain and those who negotiated with Iran is that Chamberlain had never encountered that kind of duplicity before, and was the head of a weakened, and largely disarmed, Britain.

Iran supports Shiite militias fighting ISIS in Iraq, where the Shiite militias behave as wildly as ISIS.

Saudi Arabia’s King Salman and other Arab leaders have realized that they are facing a clear and present danger. At the Arab League summit on March 29, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi announced the creation of a joint Arab military force. The positions of Iranian-backed Houthi militias in Yemen are being bombarded, but the Houthis do not retreat. Other countries in the region have already started scheduling delivery for their nuclear weapons. They have made it clear that they will not sit idly by while Iran goes nuclear. Iran has already bragged that it will sell “enriched uranium” on the open market, and will be “hopefully making some money” from it, said Iran’s Foreign Minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif.

Benjamin Netanyahu knows that Israel faces an equally obvious danger. He said that “the agreement” would be a “threat to the survival of Israel.” Yesterday, on April 15, speaking at the state ceremony commemorating “Yom Hashoah” (the day of remembrance of the Holocaust), he stated, “The danger is there for all to see… and yet the blindness is vast. Even if we are forced to stand alone, we will not falter… We will not allow the State of Israel to become a passing phase in the history of our people.”

The U.S. President who cut off military supplies to Israel during the Gaza war, who has interfered in the Israeli elections to an unprecedented degree, and who wants to force Israel to return to indefensible borders, said he would “defend” Israel. It is not at all certain that Netanyahu can trust him.

Iran’s Defense Minister, Hossein Dehghan, hailed the framework as a step towards “establishing stability and security in the region.” Israel’s Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz said: “This is a direct result of the legitimacy that Iran obtained from the emerging deal.”

On the evening of April 3, Western leaders were smiling. Mohammad Javad Zarif, was smiling too. He was the only one who had good reason to.

.

.

Mexican Authorities: ISIS Has Camp A Few Miles From Texas Border

ISIS Camp A Few Miles From Texas, Mexican Authorities Confirm – Judicial Watch

.

.
ISIS is operating a camp just a few miles from El Paso, Texas, according to Judicial Watch sources that include a Mexican Army field grade officer and a Mexican Federal Police Inspector.

The exact location where the terrorist group has established its base is around eight miles from the U.S. border in an area known as “Anapra” situated just west of Ciudad Juárez in the Mexican state of Chihuahua. Another ISIS cell to the west of Ciudad Juárez, in Puerto Palomas, targets the New Mexico towns of Columbus and Deming for easy access to the United States, the same knowledgeable sources confirm.

During the course of a joint operation last week, Mexican Army and federal law enforcement officials discovered documents in Arabic and Urdu, as well as “plans” of Fort Bliss – the sprawling military installation that houses the US Army’s 1st Armored Division. Muslim prayer rugs were recovered with the documents during the operation.

Law enforcement and intelligence sources report the area around Anapra is dominated by the Vicente Carrillo Fuentes Cartel (“Juárez Cartel”), La Línea (the enforcement arm of the cartel) and the Barrio Azteca (a gang originally formed in the jails of El Paso). Cartel control of the Anapra area make it an extremely dangerous and hostile operating environment for Mexican Army and Federal Police operations.

According to these same sources, “coyotes” engaged in human smuggling – and working for Juárez Cartel – help move ISIS terrorists through the desert and across the border between Santa Teresa and Sunland Park, New Mexico. To the east of El Paso and Ciudad Juárez, cartel-backed “coyotes” are also smuggling ISIS terrorists through the porous border between Acala and Fort Hancock, Texas. These specific areas were targeted for exploitation by ISIS because of their understaffed municipal and county police forces, and the relative safe-havens the areas provide for the unchecked large-scale drug smuggling that was already ongoing.

Mexican intelligence sources report that ISIS intends to exploit the railways and airport facilities in the vicinity of Santa Teresa, NM (a US port-of-entry). The sources also say that ISIS has “spotters” located in the East Potrillo Mountains of New Mexico (largely managed by the Bureau of Land Management) to assist with terrorist border crossing operations. ISIS is conducting reconnaissance of regional universities; the White Sands Missile Range; government facilities in Alamogordo, NM; Ft. Bliss; and the electrical power facilities near Anapra and Chaparral, NM.

.

.

*AUDIO* Mark Levin: U.S. Senate Just Rewrote The Treaty Provision Of The Constitution


.

.

Hillary Deleted Emails After Congressman Issa Asked Her About Private Email Addresses In 2012

Issa Asked Hillary In 2012 About Private Email Address, Clinton Deleted Emails After Inquiry – Big Government

.

.
Former Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was asked in an official congressional inquiry from former House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) about whether she used a private email for government work as far back as 2012.

The letter from Issa to Clinton, sent on Dec. 13, 2012 and obtained by Breitbart News after an explosive New York Times expose on it late Tuesday evening, specifically asks eight detailed questions about government record-keeping.

“Have you or any senior agency official ever used a personal e-mail account to conduct official business?” the first question reads. “If so, please identify the account used.”

The next two questions asked about whether she or other senior agency officials used text messages or alias email accounts to send or receive government work messages – and the fourth question asks for specific details on the agency’s policies on such accounts.

“Please provide written documentation of the agency’s policies regarding the use of non-official e-mail accounts to conduct official business, including, but not limited to, archiving and record keeping procedures, as well as disciplinary proceedings for employees in violation of these policies,” Issa asked Clinton.

The next question follows up on that. “Does the agency require employees to certify on a periodic basis or at the end of their employment with the agency they have turned over any communications involving official business that they have sent or received using non-official accounts?” Issa asked Clinton.

The next question asks about social media accounts before the final two of the eight questions to Clinton hone in yet again on agency policies.

“What agency policies and procedures are currently in place to ensure that all messages related to official business sent or received by federal employees and contractors on private, non-governmental e-mail accounts or social networking platforms are properly categorized as federal records?” the seventh question to Clinton from Issa reads.

“Have any agency employees been subject to disciplinary proceedings for using non-official e-mail accounts to conduct official business since January 20, 2009?” the final question from Issa to Clinton reads. “If so, please provide a list of names, dates of proceedings, and final outcomes.”

An identical version of Issa’s letter to Clinton was also sent to U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Commerce Secretary Rebecca Blank, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Attorney General Eric Holder, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki, NASA administrator Charles Bolden, GSA administrator Daniel Tangherlini, Small Business Administration administrator Karen Mills, and Office of Management and Budget director Jeffrey Zients.

At this time, it is unclear if any other of the agencies responded to Issa’s inquiry. But thanks to a New York Times report from Michael S. Schmidt on Tuesday evening, it is now known that the State Department – through Thomas B. Gibbons, the acting assistant secretary for legislative affairs – responded to Issa’s letter after Clinton left office.

Clinton resigned from the State Department on Feb. 1, 2013 – as Schmidt wrote on Tuesday evening, “seven weeks after the letter [from Issa] was sent to her.”

Gibbons waited several more weeks, until March 27, 2013, to respond to Issa’s letter on the State Department’s behalf. Gibbons did not answer in that letter whether Clinton used a personal email address, and it’s unclear based on the Times report – which does not include the full text of the letter Gibbons sent back to Issa – how specific he was in answering any of the other questions Issa had for Clinton and her State Department.

“When Mr. Issa received a response from the State Department on March 27, all he got was a description of the department’s email policies,” Schmidt wrote.

From the two sections of the letter Schmidt did quote in his piece, however, it is clear that Clinton was in violation of the State Department policy that employees should not be using personal email addresses to conduct official business.

Any employee who had a personal account, Gibbons wrote in the letter according to Schmidt’s report, “should make it clear that his or her personal email is not being used for official business.”

Gibbons added, according to Schmidt, that “employees may use personal email on personal time for matters not directly related to official business, and any employee using personal email ‘should make it clear that his or her personal email is not being used for official business.’”

Schmidt also paraphrased another portion Gibbons’ letter by writing that the “State Department offered training on its record management programs to its employees.”

State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach on Tuesday, Schmidt wrote, “declined” to “answer questions about why it had not addressed Mr. Issa’s question about whether Mrs. Clinton or senior officials used personal email accounts.”

“The department responds to thousands of congressional inquiries and requests for information each year,” Gerlach told Schmidt instead of answering specific questions. “In its March 2013 letter, the department responded to the House Oversight Committee’s inquiry into the department’s ‘policies and practices regarding the use of personal email and other forms of electronic communications’ with a letter that described those policies in detail.”

There are several major takeaways from this development, as it breathes brand new life into the scandal rocking Clinton as she just launched her 2016 presidential campaign this week.

The first is that she was clearly aware that her private email account was a serious issue as far back as during her time at the State Department.

Secondly, she deliberately decided to not respond to the inquiry – waiting for officials at the State Department to do so well after she resigned, and even further after the deadline for a response. The actual deadline was Jan. 7, 2013.

The third major takeaway is that after Clinton was made aware this was an issue, she deleted upwards of 30,000 emails that she or her staff deemed to be private and not government-related. Since the full text of Gibbons’ response to Issa at this time is unavailable, it’s unclear what the official policy was – according to him – for preserving or archiving such records, or ensuring as Issa put it proper categorization of such messages.

At her widely panned press conference at the United Nations last month, Clinton herself claimed that it is a government official’s personal responsibility to determine what messages are worthy of keeping records of and which ones are not.

“In going through the emails, there were over 60,000 in total, sent and received. About half were work-related and went to the State Department and about half were personal that were not in any way related to my work,” she said in response to a question about that angle of the scandal. “I had no reason to save them, but that was my decision because the federal guidelines are clear and the State Department request was clear. For any government employee, it is that government employee’s responsibility to determine what’s personal and what’s work-related. I am very confident of the process that we conducted and the e-mails that were produced. And I feel like once the American public begins to see the e- mails, they will have an unprecedented insight into a high government official’s daily communications, which I think will be quite interesting.”

It’s absolutely clear at this time, however, that she deleted emails after receiving Issa’s inquiry.

In fact, in a document released in early March 2015 – in response to the widespread media scrutiny she was receiving – the “Office of Hillary Rodham Clinton” made clear the decisions about which emails to delete and which ones to keep was made after a 2014 correspondence with senior State Department officials, well after Issa’s letter.

“Following conversations with Department officials and in response to the Department’s October 28, 2014 letter to former Secretaries requesting assistance in meeting the Department’s record-keeping requirements, Secretary Clinton directed her attorneys to assist by identifying and preserving all emails that could potentially be federal records,” the Clinton document reads. “This entailed a multi-step process to provide printed copies of the Secretary’s work-related emails to the Department, erring on the side of including anything that might potentially be a federal record. As the State Department has said, Secretary Clinton was the first to respond to this letter.”

Kurt Bardella, a former senior adviser to Issa when he was chairman of the committee–who, in the interest of full disclosure, now serves as a communications aide for Breitbart News Network–but served with Issa at the time this letter was sent to Clinton, said there are more questions than answers that are coming from this development.

“The fact is in December of 2012, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was directly asked if she used a private e-mail account,” Bardella said. “Why did the State Department wait until after Secretary Clinton left office to respond to the Issa letter? Were Secretary Clinton’s efforts to deliberately conceal her official activities through use of her private e-mail prompted by then-Chairman Issa’s request? As is status-quo with the Clintons, there are far more questions than answers and it’s likely that these revelations of her secrecy are just the tip of the iceberg.”

Clinton has been oddly secretive in her first few days as a presidential candidate. In an interview with Breitbart News earlier on Tuesday, Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman Reince Priebus argued that Clinton’s campaign rollout has been deliberately underwhelming, and she is “hiding” because she is afraid of answering any real questions from press or voters about her email scandal.

“The reason why she didn’t give a speech is because she can’t avail herself to the media,” Priebus said. “She cannot get herself in a situation where she’s going to have to deal with a question about Benghazi or about the emails or about her speeches or about the Clinton Foundation or about her disastrous tenure as Secretary of State. She wants to be able to have a few days and a couple weeks of peace and change the subject from what’s been plaguing her and the only way she can do that is by hiding and that’s what she’s doing: Hiding.”

.

.

Gay TSA Agents At Denver International Airport Fired After Conspiring To Grope Men’s Genitals

Two TSA Agents Fired After Conspiring To Grope Men’s Genitals – Mediaite

.

.
According to a new investigative report from CBS4, two TSA screeners have been fired from their jobs at Denver International Airport after one of them admitted to manipulating the system to allow one of them to grope the genitals of male passengers he found attractive. The alleged incidents occurred about a dozen times over the past year.

“He related that when a male he finds attractive comes to be screened by the scanning machine he will alert another TSA screener to indicate to the scanning computer that the party being screened is a female,” a law enforcement report reads. “When the screener does this, the scanning machine will indicate an anomaly in the genital area and this allows (the male TSA screener) to conduct a pat-down search of that area.”

The TSA first learned of the scheme last November, but did not take action until months later when a supervisor caught the employees in the act. When confronted, the female agent “admitted that she has done this for (the male TSA officer) at least 10 other times” and “knew that doing so would allow (the male TSA officer) to perform a pat down on a male passenger that (the male TSA screener) found attractive.”

“These alleged acts are egregious and intolerable,” a TSA spokesperson said in a statement. “TSA has removed the two officers from the agency. All allegations of misconduct are thoroughly investigated by the agency. And when substantiated, employees are held accountable.”

Notably, CBS requested surveillance video of the known groping incident for its report but was denied.

.

.

AZ Sheriff Says He Can’t Get The Names Of 500 Criminal Illegal Aliens Released In His County By Obama

AZ Sheriff: I Can’t Get The Names Of Criminal Illegals Released In My County – Breitbart

.

.
Pinal County, AZ Sheriff Paul Babeu (R) said that he cannot get access to the names of the nearly 500 criminal illegal immigrants released in his county on Tuesday’s “Your World with Neil Cavuto” on the Fox News Channel.

“30,000 this year, 36,000 the year prior, and these aren’t the run of the mill illegals. There’s 11 to 20 million illegals that are here in the United States. This is the group that everybody, even President Obama, said that are the worst of the worst actors, that everybody agreed need to be shipped out of our country back to their country of origin. There [were] 193 of them that were convicted of murder. 300-plus that were convicted of rape and sexual assault, and there [were] another 200 to 300 that were convicted of kidnapping [that were released in 2013]. So, these are the worst criminals in our society, and they were not returned to their country of origin because of what she [ICE Director Sarah Saldana] said and Jeh Johnson said, ‘well, their countries don’t want them back’” he stated.

Babeu added, “we have no clue where they’re at today… they released nearly 500 in my county alone… I have demanded not only in formal letter, through FOIA, and legally have even talked to Senator McCain. Senator McCain, who’s a powerful Senator, said, ‘Sheriff, I promise you, I’m going to get you these names.’ He can’t get me the names. Nobody will get me these names, and the reason why they will refuse to provide the names is then we have a list of all these illegals that our government – President Obama has released into our communities that are committing new crimes, that are committing murder, that are committing rape, that are committing aggravated assault, armed robbery, and then we can directly link them back to the president’s action of this unlawful mass prison break.”

.

.

.