Heaven Is Our Destination Where We Will Be ONE With The Lord Forever

Today, we are in The Season Of The Last Generation. The Birth Pains that Christ Jesus spoke about are currently under way, including natural and unnatural disasters. They will be ever increasing. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold. Social, economic and political turmoil will be ever increasing, causing people's hearts to be weighed down with dissipation, drunkenness and the anxieties of life. An apostasy within the Church of God is currently under way. This will all reach a climax with Satan revealing his Antichrist and requiring that everyone worship him; That every one receive his "mark" in order to buy or sell; The new currency of the New World Order, the New Tower of Babel.

Today, it is critical that those who have a heart for God are aware of what God is doing and speaking today. God is opening up His Word like never before in preparation for The Time Of The END. I exhort you to open up your heart and your eyes to see what He is doing and your ears to hear what God is speaking at this time. My prayer is that we will be able to stand before the Son of Man at His appearing, without fault and with great joy. I encourage you to read David Wilkerson's book, America's Last Call at davidwilkersontoday.blogspot.com. Also, Google, Tommy Hicks Prophecy, 1961 for a view of the End Times.

Tom's books include: Called By Christ To Be ONE, The Time Of The END, The Season Of The Last Generation, Worship God In Spirit And In Truth, Daniel And The Time Of The END, and Overcoming The Evil One. They are available at amazon.com. They can also be read without cost by clicking on link: Toms Books.

Other publications by Tom at the same link include: You Are Unique In Christ, Demonic Activity Increasing, America: A Nation Of Cowards, LIFE: Knowing The Voice Of God, The Earth Full Of Violence: Christ's Sign, Reality: The Realm Of The Spirit, What Is Detestable To God, America At The Crossroads, Many Are Invited but Few Are Chosen, Christian Beware, The Antichrist of Scripture, The Marks Of A Christian, The Apostasy/Rebellion, Satan's Scheme, The Anointing, The Good News, The Water of LIFE, The World Against Christ, The Commands Of Christ, America's New Civil War, America Is Cursed Because Of Its Abortion Murder, America Unprotected, America's Irreconcilable Differences, Evil Begets Evil, America's War Against Christ, America Is Babylon and IN Christ: There Are No Limitations.

To receive Christ Jesus as a child by faith is the highest human achievement.

Today, the Bride Of Christ is rising up in every nation in the world! Giving Glory to Her Savior and King, Christ Jesus!
Today, the world is Raging against God, Rushing toward Oblivion! Save yourself from this Corrupt Generation!
Today, America is being ground to powder because of it's SIN against God!

Product DetailsProduct DetailsProduct DetailsProduct DetailsProduct Details

Friday, June 30, 2017




Pat Buchanan: No vital U.S. interest requires us to defend the South

“The North Korean regime is causing tremendous problems and is something that has to be dealt with, and probably dealt with rapidly.”
So President Trump told reporters in the Rose Garden this week.
But how this is to be done “rapidly” is not so easy to see.
North Korea has just returned to us Otto Warmbier, a student sentenced to 15 years hard labor for stealing a propaganda poster. Otto came home comatose and died within days.
Trump’s conundrum: How to keep such a regime from acquiring an ICBM with a nuclear warhead, which Kim Jong-un is determined to do.
Having seen us attack Iraq and Libya, which had no nukes, Kim believes that only nuclear weapons that can hit America can deter America. He appears willing to risk war to achieve his goal.
Trump’s options as he meets South Korean President Moon Jae-in?
First, the decapitation of the Kim dynasty. But the U.S. has been unable to accomplish regime change for the 64 years following the Korean War. And killing Kim could ignite a war.
Then there is a U.S. pre-emptive strike on North Korea’s nuclear sites and missile arsenals. But this would surely mean a war in which Americans on the DMZ would be among the first to die, as thousands of North Korean artillery and mortar tubes fired into the suburbs and city of Seoul, which is as close as Dulles Airport is to the White House.
Asked by Rep. Tim Ryan why we don’t launch a war to end this threat, Defense Secretary James Mattis replied that, while we might “win … at great cost,” such a war would “involve the massive shelling of an ally’s capital … one of the most densely packed cities on earth.”
Seoul has a metro-area population of 25 million.
We are thus approaching a point where we accept North Korea having a nuclear weapon that can reach Seattle, or we attack its strategic arsenal and bring on a war in which millions could die.
What about sanctions?
The only nation that could impose sufficient hardships on North Korea to imperil the regime is China. 
But China refuses to impose the Draconian sanctions that might destabilize the regime and might bring Korean refugees flooding into China. And Beijing has no desire to see Kim fall and Korea united under a regime aligned with the United States.
What FDR said of one Caribbean dictator, the Chinese are probably saying of Kim Jong-un, “He may be an SOB, but he’s our SOB.”
Early in his presidency, Trump gave the franchise for dealing with the North Korean threat to Beijing. But his friend Xi Jinping has either failed Trump or declined to deliver.
As for President Moon, he wants to negotiate, to engage the North economically, to invite its athletes to join South Koreans on joint teams for the Winter Olympics in 2018. Moreover, Moon is said to be willing to cut back on joint military exercises with the U.S. and regards the THAAD missile defense we introduced into South Korea as a negotiable item.
China, whose missile launches can be detected by THAAD radar, wants it removed and has so informed South Korea.
Where does this leave us?
We are committed to go to war to defend the South and have 28,000 troops there. But South Korea wants to negotiate with North Korea and is prepared to make concessions to buy peace.
As the nation that would suffer most in any second Korean War, South Korea has the sovereign right to play the hand. But what Seoul considers best for South Korea is not necessarily best for us.
What would be an America First Korea policy?
The U.S. would give Seoul notice that we will, by a date certain, be dissolving our mutual security treaty and restoring our full freedom to decide whether or not to fight in a new Korean War. 
Given the present risk of war, possibly involving nuclear weapons, it is absurd that we should be obligated to fight what Mattis says would be a “catastrophic” war, because of a treaty negotiated six decades ago by Eisenhower and Dulles.
“The commonest error in politics,” Lord Salisbury reminded us, “is sticking to the carcass of dead policies.”
But we should also tell South Korea that if she desires a nuclear deterrent against an attack by the North, she should build it. Americans should not risk a nuclear war, 8,000 miles away, to defend a South Korea that has 40 times the economy of the North and twice the population.
No vital U.S. interest requires us, in perpetuity, to be willing to go to war to defend South Korea, especially if that war entails the risk of a nuclear attack on U.S. troops or the American homeland.
If the United States did not have a mutual security pact that obligates us to defend South Korea against a nuclear-armed North, would President Trump be seeking to negotiate such a treaty?
The question answers itself.




Exclusive: Joseph Farah indicts those 'reaching way outside the strike zone'

racism – a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
— Dictionary.com
“Racism” has taken on some twisted new meanings of late – far from the dictionary definition, which I, for one, embrace.
Racism to me is abhorrent, detestable, idiotic, nonsensical and loathsome.
But according to some – including a Fairfield University professor – questioning Barack Hussein Obama’s constitutional eligibility for president is enough to have the label hurled at you. Oh, and by the way, so is simply using his legal middle name, Hussein. (At least we think it’s his legal middle name. Who knows with Obama?)
Why would this be so?
Does it mean questioning the ideas, conduct and behavior of anyone who is black is racist?
And why would using a middle name Obama himself uses on occasion be a racial slight?
Here we are in 2017, six months after Obama left office, and these kinds of assertions, which were common during his eight-year presidency, are still being made.
The latest one to label at least half of Americans racist for questioning Obama’s eligibility as a “natural born citizen” is communications professor Audra Nuru who lodged these accusations at a “diversity” conference earlier this month. Right off the bat, I have to wonder how many Republicans, conservatives, or Trump supporters were invited to speak at the event. 
Of course, diversity only goes so far on college campuses, these days. These folks don’t ever consider the kind of diversity than can actually make a meaningful difference – ideological and philosophical diversity. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a smidgeon of that in academia, the media and other key cultural institutions?
Nuru may have gotten one thing right in his address. He did acknowledge that the Obama presidency actually led to more racial polarization in the U.S., rather than the kind of reconciliation Obama promised and many assumed would follow the first black president’s term of office.
“I’m not saying by any means that Barack Obama incited racism,” Nuru said. “I’m saying that him being in office, people who were already racist got a platform to address this publicly and reify it.”
How did racists express their contempt for Obama?
As examples, Nuru mentioned the birtherism movement and people who used Obama’s middle name.
The result of these incidents, Nuru said, “was that explicitly racist messages have steadily increased since 2010.”
You know what I have to say about that? If those are real examples of the kind of racism Obama faced during eight years of being in the White House, I would have to conclude that America’s race problems are over. The only other conclusion I can draw is that certain people are so vested in institutional racism for their own reasons, that they are reaching way outside the strike zone to find it.
And I’m not drawing these conclusions based on one obscure professor of communications at an obscure university.
I remember what I went through from 2008 through 2016 as a prominent investigator of Obama’s constitutional bona fides.
I’ll never forget one NPR interviewer who, after exploring the case against Obama’s eligibility, concluded in apparent frustration, unable to refute a single thing I said, “But, at the end of the day, Mr. Farah, doesn’t this all just come down to racism?”
Until that moment, I don’t ever recall anyone accusing me in public or private of being a racist.
I had marched with Martin Luther King in the 1960s. Indeed, later, I had been a misguided but, nevertheless, enthusiastic supporter of the Black Panther Party in the 1970s. 
The very idea of racism to me was so repugnant, it never even occurred to me that someone would ever hurl that epithet at me.
But, that’s the way things are in 2017.
Thank you, Barack Hussein Obama.
My comments: A Muslim name brings to account all that Islam stands for. It is a False and Evil Religion--The most Anti-christ Religion on Earth. That is the banner Obama's name elicited. And he proved himself to be the most Anti-Christ President in the History of the Nation. It is not Racist to be suspect of those against Christianity, it is Prudent.


Fort Caroline, Florida, 1564



Bill Federer recalls grisly fate of many who fled persecution

The Pilgrims fled from England to Holland in 1607. When Spain threatened to invade Holland, the Pilgrims considered sailing to Guyana in South America, as they heard of its tropical climate.
Pilgrim Governor William Bradford wrote in Of Plymouth Plantation: “Some … had thoughts and were earnest for Guiana. … Those for Guiana alleged that the country was rich, fruitful, and blessed with a perpetual spring. …”
But the Pilgrims were reminded of how close Guyana was to the “Spanish Main,” the Caribbean Sea controlled by Spain, and the massacre of the French settlement of Fort Caroline, Florida.
William Bradford added: “… but to this it was answered, that it was out of question. … If they should there live, and do well, the jealous Spaniard would never suffer them long, but would displant or overthrow them, as he did the French in Florida.”
The French attempted a settlement in Florida in 1564 on the banks of St. John’s River. It was the first French settlement in area of present-day United States. Named Fort Caroline, it was founded by French Protestant Christians known as Huguenots, who came for religious freedom. Huguenots were escaping the Wars of Religion which ravaged France for over a century.
During this era in Europe, whatever a king believed, his kingdom had to believe. There was little freedom of conscience, as governments dictated the religious beliefs of citizens and persecuted those believing differently.
Due to his hateful contempt for the Catholic Holy Roman Emperor Charles V of Spain, France’s King Francis I did the unimaginable – he made an alliance with the Muslim Ottoman Sultan, Suleiman the Magnificent. This was the first time a European monarch made such an alliance with a Muslim power, resulting in calls being made for Francis I to be excommunicated.
Francis I was originally tolerant of Protestants, but he soon turned to aggressively persecute them, having thousands killed in the Massacre of the Waldensians of Mérindol in 1545. Religious persecutions increased in France with battles and tragedies such as the Massacre of Wassy in 1562, the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre in 1572, instigated by the queen consort Catherine de’ Medici. The Edit of Nantes in 1589 provided some relief until it was officially revoked by King Louis XIV who resumed persecution with the Edict of Fontainebleau in 1685.
Government persecution against Huguenots for their religious beliefs increased after the assassination of King Henry IV on May 4, 1610. When Louis XIII became the French king in 1610, he had as his Chief Minister, Cardinal Richelieu. Cardinal Richelieu consolidated state power, crushed dissent, confiscated lands, and laid the groundwork for the creation of an absolute monarchy in France.
Cardinal Richelieu destroyed the castles of the princes, dukes, and lesser aristocrats so they could not rebel. He imposed burdensome taxes, censored the press, and had such a broad network of internal spies spying on citizens that it is considered the origin of the modern secret service.
Arresting and executing his political rivals, Cardinal Richelieu was portrayed as a power-hungry villain in Alexandre Dumas’ “The Three Musketeers” (1844).
Cardinal Richelieu’s strengthening of the French state led to the absolute rule of Louis XIV – the “Sun King,” who is credited with saying “It is legal because I wish it”; and “L’État, c’est moi” (“I am the state”).
Louis XIV reigned over 72 years (1643-1715), longer than any major monarch in European history. France’s power led to the eventual bankrupting and decline of the powerful Spanish-Austrian Habsburg Dynasty and Holy Roman Empire in Europe. During the Europe’s religious wars, indefensible injustices were committed by both sides.
Though millions died in these wars, the numbers are dwarfed when compared with the hundreds of millions killed in atheistic genocides, socialist/communist purges, expulsions, ethnic cleansings, and Islamic jihads.
Commemorating the French Huguenots and their attempt at seeking religious freedom in America, Rep. Charles E. Bennett sponsored a bill on Sept. 21, 1950, to establish the Fort Caroline National Memorial.
In 1989, Rep. Charles E. Bennett recited the history: “The 425th anniversary of the beginning settlements by Europeans … renamed from Fort Caroline to San Mateo, to San Nicolas, to Cowford and finally to Jacksonville in 1822. … Three small ships carrying 300 Frenchmen led by Rene de Laudonniere anchored in the river known today as the St. Johns.”
Rep. Bennett continued: “On June 30, 1564, construction of a triangular-shaped fort … was begun with the help of a local tribe of Timucuan Indians. … Home for this hardy group of Huguenots … their strong religious … motivations inspired them.”
The French Christian Huguenots in Florida set a day of Thanksgiving and offered the first Protestant prayer in North America on June 30, 1564: “We sang a psalm of Thanksgiving unto God, beseeching Him that it would please Him to continue His accustomed goodness towards us.”
Rep. Bennett related the colony’s unfortunate end: “Fort Caroline existed but for a short time. … Spain … captured … the fort and … slaughtered most of its inhabitants in September of 1565.”
The Spanish governor of Florida, Don Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, then founded St. Augustine, Florida, in 1565 – the first permanent settlement in North America.
Other first settlements were:
  • 1607 – English Colony of Jamestown
  • 1608 – French Colony of Quebec
  • 1624 – Dutch Colony of New Amsterdam (New York)
  • 1638 – Swedish Colony of New Sweden (Delaware and New Jersey)
Adam Smith wrote in “The Wealth of Nations,” 1776: “The Spaniards, by virtue of the first discovery, claimed all America as their own, and … such was … the terror of their name, that the greater part of the other nations of Europe were afraid to establish themselves in any other part of that great continent. … But … the defeat … of their Invincible Armada … put it out of their power to obstruct any longer the settlements of the other European nations. In the course of the 17th century … English, French, Dutch, Danes, and Swedes … attempted to make some settlements in the new world.”
Brought to you by AmericanMinute.com.


(Photo: Twitter)



'Restore strength of our military and put an end to political correctness in the Pentagon'

A leading military readiness expert is urging President Trump and Secretary of Defense James Mattis to revoke former President Obama’s directives on transgenders serving in the U.S. Armed Forces.
The Center for Military Readiness, or CMR, has released a new report titled “The President, Defense Department and Military Services Should Revoke Problematic Transgender Policy Directives and Instructions.” It analyzes 15 different Obama directives and training documents that promote retention and transgender recruiting.
“The Trump administration has a mandate to restore the strength of our military and to put an end to political correctness in the Pentagon,” the 27-page report states. “This will not be possible if problematic policies, issued and implemented during the Obama administration, are retained.”
CMR said Obama’s policies order the U.S. military to “assume the risks of retaining and recruiting a cohort of persons who are suffering from gender dysphoria – a difficult condition involving confusion about gender identity. Gender dysphoria and its treatments are among several psychological conditions that negatively affect personal deployability and mission readiness.”
Why is all this happening? In his widely acclaimed new book, “The Snapping of the American Mind,” award-winning journalist David Kupelian stunningly documents – in a chapter titled “Gender Madness” – precisely what the transgender phenomenon is really all about. Prepare to be shocked.
In an opinion piece on the issue published in the Military Times, CMR President Elaine Donnelly wrote:
It must be difficult to live life with profound confusion about gender identity. This psychological condition, called gender dysphoria, requires compassion and competent medical treatment.  The military health system, however, is designed to serve purposes of national defense.
Properly understood, military medicine is a force multiplier. It should not be considered a venue for controversial hormone treatments and surgeries. Some studies, including a long-term report from distinguished medical scholars at Johns Hopkins University, have found that such transgender treatments do not reduce rates of psychological problems and suicide.
DoD instructions that politicize military medicine force commanders, doctors and nurses to approve, participate in, or perform body-altering procedures that many consider to be contrary to medical ethics or personal convictions. The only way to avoid disobeying orders is to leave the service.
CMR provided the following list of problematic Obama-era transgender mandates:
  • Open-ended costs for lifetime hormone treatments and sometimes irreversible surgeries. (Transgender advocates demand special status for recruits seeking lifetime medical benefits despite deployability problems. They also demand coverage for veterans in an already overloaded system, and for family dependents, including minor children);
  • Infringements on personal privacy in conditions of forced intimacy;
  • Demoralizing pressures on military commanders, doctors, and nurses to approve, participate in, or perform procedures that violate medical ethics or sincerely-held personal or religious convictions;
  • Negative impacts on morale and cohesion when transgender treatment side effects negatively affect combat deployability and readiness;
  • Establishment of a network of remote “Service Central Coordination Cells” (SCCCs) allowing LGBT consultants to politicize the military health system;
  • Erosion of trust in military leaders who endorse medical delusions; and
  • Diversion of scarce time and resources in pursuit of politically correct social agendas that are not consistent with sound priorities in the military.
The Army and Air Force requested a two-year delay on implementation of the transgender policies, according the the Associated Press. But that request was rejected, and now military chiefs are asking for a six-month delay before allowing transgenders to enlist in the Armed Forces.
Transgenders have been permitted to serve openly in the military for a year. Then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter ended the ban in June 2016. Carter gave the military branches a deadline of July 1 to develop policies allowing transgender individuals to enlist in the services if they meet physical and medical standards and have remained stable in their genders for 18 months.
Currently, there are 250 members of the military who are transitioning to their preferred genders, the Associated Press reported.
The CMR says Obama “holdovers” – such as Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert O. Work and Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Anthony Kurta – are actively pushing the former president’s policies on transgenders and LGBT activities in the military. CMR says Work is specifically advocating for the shorter six-month delay. Kurta, meanwhile, called for and participated in an “LGBT Pride” event at the Pentagon June 12, even though President Trump chose not to issue a “LGBT Pride Month” proclamation.
The new six-month delay request will go to Mattis for approval. CMR and Donnelly are urging Mattis to revoke Obama’s policies.
“We don’t need a ‘mad dog’ or a sleeping dog – we need a vigilant and fearless watchdog who will strengthen our military by restoring sound priorities that are long overdue,” Donnelly wrote in her Military Times opinion piece.
She called on President Trump and Mattis to grant the original two-year delay request and allow the service branches to publicly voice concerns about the policy.
“This is even more important since Marine General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently told a Senate committee that there have been some issues identified with recruiting transgender individuals that ‘some of the service chiefs believe need to be resolved before we move forward,’” 
Donnelly said. “Secretary Mattis and members of Congress should invite medical experts (not LGBT activists) to present testimony addressing the transgender issue in terms of military readiness, not political correctness taken to extremes. There is no good time to implement a bad policy.”
My comments: Transgenderism is an Assault on God and His Word. If Trump keeps the Obama Policy regarding Transgenderism, his term in office will Fail. It will make the U.S. Military Impotent, as God Almighty is the only One Who Protects America.


DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz



Is top Democrat being blackmailed and obstructing justice?

WASHINGTON – One of the most bizarre spectacles in Washington is flying almost completely under the radar, even though much of it is playing out in public.
And, it begs one simple question:
Is someone blackmailing one of the top members of Congress in plain sight?
It’s a question that demands to be asked, given the basic known facts.
Former Democratic Party nominee for president Hillary Clinton embraces Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Photo: Twitter)
Wasserman Schultz embraces dormer Democratic Party nominee for president Hillary Clinton (Photo: Twitter)
Democratic bigwig Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., has become the central figure in two major computer hacking scandals, but she has responded to the incidents in completely opposite ways.
When WikiLeaks published 19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments from the Democratic National Committee, or DNC, on July 22, 2016, Wasserman Schultz resigned as the group’s chair two days later, the day before the start of the Democratic National Convention.
She didn’t really have much choice.
  • The emails revealing DNC leaders conspired to sabotage the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders to secure the nomination of Hillary Clinton was an embarrassing political disaster.
  • Wasserman Schultz was told to resign by then-President Obama, according to CNN.
In that first hacking scandal, Wasserman Schultz simply resigned. In her own hacking scandal, she has shown all the signs of stonewalling.
With evidence piling up that her own congressional office computer was hacked, Wasserman Schultz has:
  • Refused to fire the suspect;
  • Given him a new title and kept him on her payroll;
  • Apparently allowed him to continue access to her computer system;
  • Demanded Capitol Police return her laptop, a key piece of evidence in a criminal investigation;
  • Seemingly threatened to cut the department’s budget if it did not comply;
  • Admitted to violating official information security policy, but she blamed the House’s chief administrative officer for not stopping her.
Her behavior is so extraordinary, it would seem to raise a question as to whether she is even trying to obstruct justice.
Why would she take such risks?
And why would she protect the person who is accused of victimizing her?
The suspect had access to any and all of the sensitive, and/or confidential, information in her congressional computer system, including any material that could be politically embarrassing, as was the case with the DNC emails.
If the hack were to put her career on the line, she may have nothing to lose by trying to bury the case.
But there’s another salient factor to consider.
The key suspect had what cyber-security experts consider numerous red flags indicating a potential blackmailer.
The secret scandal
Conservatives are frustrated that the scandal has received virtually no national attention and has been ignored by the major media.
Politico, BuzzFeed News and WND have covered the story, while the Daily Caller has devoted an investigative team to digging up details for months.
When the story broke five months ago, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, called for a congressional investigation, saying, “The facts regarding technology procurement and potentially illegal violations of the House IT network by several Democratic staffers is very concerning.”
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio
But as far as is publicly known. soon-to-retire Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, never did launch an investigation.
And, as even more damning and bizarre revelations began piling up, the national media kept turning a blind eye to the story.
These are the basic facts of the case.
In early February, three brothers and two of their wives who managed information technology, or IT, for some 80 Democratic lawmakers were relieved of their duties and barred from computer networks at the House of Representatives.
Not all of the lawmakers required full-time IT services, so the brothers worked as shared employees, and the offices split their salaries. It was up to each lawmaker to decide whether to fire them.
The brothers and their associates are now under criminal investigation by the U.S. Capitol Police, which is getting expert technical assistance, presumably from the FBI.
The criminal investigation actually began in late 2016, with the brothers under suspicion of secretly accessing the lawmakers computer networks, storing information on secret servers, and stealing equipment from Congress.
The IT techs were employed by three members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and five members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, which store sensitive national security documents, including material related to terrorism, on their own committee servers.
U.S. House of Representatives
U.S. House of Representatives
Representatives for the two committees said those systems are sealed off from the lawmakers’ own office computer systems, they have their own IT staff and security measures, and that officials are confident no sensitive material was taken from committee servers.
In theory, at least, it was technically not impossible for a lawmaker to have transferred classified material from committee servers by merely remembering it and then typing it up on his or her own office computer. However, as that would be illegal and even potentially treasonous, any lawmaker would be taking a substantial risk by doing so.
Still, there is one additional odd detail that makes the case all the more peculiar: The IT workers under investigation are Muslims and Pakistani nationals.
Meet the Awans
Imran Awan has worked for Wasserman Schultz since 2005, the year she became the congressional representative from Florida’s 23rd district.
Imran and his wife, Hina Alvi, are personal friends with the congresswoman, according to multiple sources.
Imran has “unusual clout among House Democrats,” according to the Daily Caller, and he has been photographed with former President Bill Clinton.
Imran Awan pictured alongside former President Bill Clinton (Photo: LinkedIn)
Imran Awan pictured alongside former President Bill Clinton (Photo: LinkedIn)
Payroll records show that soon after Wasserman Shultz hired Imran, other House Democrats hired him, his wife, his two brothers Abid and Jamal, and his brother’s wife, Natalia Sova, as IT workers. (From Ukraine, Sova is the only one of the group who is not a Pakistani national.)
Public records show Imran was paid $165,000 a year; Abid made $161,000; Jamal, Hina Alvi and Natalia Sova earned $160,000 each.
Those salaries are comparable to what top House aides such as chiefs of staff earn, not IT workers. Why these computer technicians made such exorbitant salaries has never been explained by their Democratic employers.
In fact, $160,000 a year is three times the average House IT staff salary, according to InsideGov, which lists the median salary for legislative assistants as $43,000 annually.
Since they began working for the government, the family members have made $5 million overall, according to Legistorm.com.
Imran has been paid $2 million and Abid $1.5 million.
Only 100 of the 25,000 people who have worked in the House since 2010 have made more than Imran.
U.S. Capitol
U.S. Capitol
But, despite all that income, the Awans have had persistent money problems, including huge debts. Imran’s wife took out multiple second mortgages.
House staffers told the Daily Caller that Imran (and, recently, Jamal) did the bulk of the work and the others were rarely seen on Capitol Hill.
The staffers alleged the no-show workers were only on the payroll to collect three more big salaries and to get around a rule that prevents aides from making larger salaries than members of Congress.
Imran arrived on Capitol Hill in the early 2000s, and Abid joined him in 2005. Alvi was put on the congressional payroll in 2007 and Sova in 2011. Jamal was added in 2014.
It’s not clear how many of them are now suspects in a criminal case and a cyber-security investigation into whether sensitive congressional information was compromised, as well as the possible theft of money and equipment.
Most Democrats apparently fired the four after the investigation was announced in February.
Wasserman Shultz has refused to fire Imran, and she has given him a new title of “adviser” to get around his ban from the House computer network imposed by Capitol Police since Feb. 2.
Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-NY, who is also reported to be friends with Imran and his wife, has also refused to fire Imran.
Meeks blamed the investigation on Islamophobia and said “their background as Muslim Americans, some with ties to Pakistan, could make them easy targets for false charges.”
‘These are very bad people’
Someone who knows the Awan brothers disagrees.
A relative of the brothers’ stepmother, Samina Galani, said she has spoken out against the Awansbecause, “I am fighting to protect the country. These are very bad people.”
And she says she’s speaking out because she believes lawmakers have tried to limit the investigation and downplay any crimes.
The relative said the brothers threatened Galani (identified sometimes as Gilani) with violence and held her in virtual captivity from Oct. 16, 2016, to Feb. 2, which was, perhaps not coincidentally, the day the Capitol Police announced the investigation of the Awans.
According to court documents filed April 14 in Fairfax County, Virginia, Galani claimed the Awan brothers warned her not to talk to U.S. law-enforcement authorities and demanded she give them access to assets belonging to their dying father, Muhammad Shah, her husband of eight years.
Fairfax Co., Va, Police
The relative said they used high-tech listening devices to ensure Galani’s compliance and repeated her private conversations back to her to prove she was being monitored.
The relative urged Galani to get a secret cell phone. Galani called police in Fairfax County, Virginia, just before the House investigation became public.
The police report obtained by the Daily Caller said Galani claimed the brothers were denying her access to her dying husband and scheming to get his life insurance by forcing her to give them power of attorney.
“I made contact with her stepson, Abid, who responded to location and was obviously upset with the situation. He stated he has full power of attorney over his father and produced an unsigned, undated document as proof,” said the police report. “He refused to disclose his father’s location.”
Galani’s relative said Abid then “threatened her very severely, made her fearful, they told her they are going to abduct or kidnap her family back in Pakistan, and she had to apologize.”
The court documents show Galani, herself, said, “Imran Awan threatened that he is very powerful, and if I ever call the police again, [he] will … kidnap my family members back in Pakistan.”
The relative said a life-insurance executive told Galani, “a few days before the father’s death, the beneficiary was changed and Abid became the beneficiary.”
The Daily Caller reported Galani escaped from the brothers and filed a second police complaint with Fairfax County for insurance fraud and other abuses.
In the court documents, Galani said Imran portrays himself abroad as a powerful person in Congress and travels with a VIP police escort in Pakistan, because of what he describes as his political power in the U.S.
In May, Imran’s wife, Hina, who may be a criminal suspect in the House hacking investigation, fled to Pakistan where she reportedly has “significant assets and VIP-level protection.”
Bad business
Despite Meeks’ suggestion that the Awans are being investigated because of Islamophobia, it’s not their first brush with the law.
Abid was convicted of drunken driving one month before he started his job at the House. He was arrested for public intoxication a month after his first day.
His record also includes driving with a suspended or revoked license.
Imran has also been convicted of criminal misdemeanors, using an illegal radar detector and driving an unregistered vehicle.
While earning $161,000 a year since 2005 for a House job where he was rarely seen, Abid appeared to spend most of his time running a car dealership that went bankrupt.
Abid listed $1 million in liabilities in his 2012 bankruptcy.
He managed to keep ownership of two houses by telling the court that he and his estranged wife, Soba, needed separate homes.
Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz found herself fending off a barrage of calls for more debates while at the New Hampshire Democratic Party convention in Manchester, Sept. 19, 2015. (Image: C-SPAN)
Former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz fending off calls for more debates while at the New Hampshire Democratic Party convention in Manchester, Sept. 19, 2015. (Image: C-SPAN)
Before the business folded, a congressional credit union repossessed two of Abid’s personal cars. He owed the credit union $10,000, which was never repaid. Debts to numerous other small businesses and individuals also went unpaid.
In 2010, after just one year in business, Imran began running the floundering dealership, which was called Cars International A, LLC, and referred to as “CIA” in court documents.
Imran forbade Abid to even to talk to anyone about the business.
Meanwhile, somehow, Imran was also working as a realtor, in addition to running the dealership and his attending to his House IT duties.
Abid’s one-time business partner, Nasir Khattak, said the dealership’s finances involved bizarre and complicated transfers, including the swapping of staff and cars with a dealership next door.
“It was very bad record-keeping in Cars International … it is close to impossible to make any sense out of all the transactions that happened,” the Daily Caller found Khattak had said in court documents.
Those documents also showed business associates have accused Abid of stealing money and vehicles from them.
But perhaps the most bizarre – and suspicious – aspect of the House investigation occurred when a creditor who threatened to sue the Awans, Rao Abbas, suddenly appeared on the congressional payroll and ended up receiving $250,000 in taxpayer-financed salary through the end of 2016.
On top of all that, the Awans’ dealership was unable to repay a $100,000 loan to an Iraqi businessman, Dr. Ali Al-Attar, who has ties to the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah, and fled to the Mideast to avoid prosecution for tax fraud in the U.S.
According to the Daily Caller, that loan was “funneled through a company with impossible-to-decipher financial transactions that the congressional information technology staffers controlled.”
Extraordinary access
Given the Awans’ business dealings, it may be no surprise that their work in the House was not done by the book, to say the least.
These are the key elements of the case that make its so extraordinary and so potentially troubling:
  • The Awan group had access to all of their bosses’ emails, documents and confidential files: everything on the lawmakers’ office computers and other electronic devices.
  • That gave the technicians illegal access to all secret and privileged congressional information, including any potentially sensitive material that could be compromising and/or politically embarrassing.
  • Lawmakers have no way of knowing if anything on their electronic devices was copied.
  • The technicians had no oversight, and there was virtually no tracking of what they did.
  • That was an extraordinary violation of the House security rules.
  • The Awans are suspected of setting up a secret server to store information.
  • They were paid much more than those in similar positions.
The suspects were all banned from the House of Representatives computer network back in February when the investigation was announced. But, despite all the damning evidence that continues to accumulate, no one has been charged or arrested. It also appears that none of their passports has been confiscated.
The Awan group had access to all the lawmakers’ emails and confidential files on office computers because they had set up the user accounts.
It appears the investigators might have begun looking into the Awans when they discovered congressional information was being sent to an off-site server, leading to suspicions the brothers were accessing and stealing the material.
The Daily Caller spoke with a former House IT staffer who said there was virtually no in-house tracking of what the suspects did.
That’s because, the paper reported, “Awan bullied central IT to bend the rules for him so there wouldn’t be a paper trail about the unusually high permissions he was requesting.”
It was a major violation of House rules that the suspects’ actions were not logged.
“IT staff at HIR can be tracked for every keystroke they make,” said the source. However, “when these guys were granted access to the Member’s computer systems, there is no oversight or tracking of what they may be doing on the Member’s system. For example, they could make a copy of anything on the Member’s computer system to a thumb drive or have it sent to a private server they had set up, and no one would know.”
DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz in the spin room of the 2012 CNN/Tea Party Debate in Tampa, Florida. (WND photo / Joe Kovacs)
Former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz in the spin room of the 2012 CNN/Tea Party Debate in Tampa, Florida. (WND photo / Joe Kovacs)
“After being notified by the House Administration Committee, [Abid] was removed from our payroll. We are confident that everything in our office is secure,” Hilarie Chambers, chief of staff for Democratic Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan, told the Daily Caller.
But she really had no way of knowing if that was true, according to what multiple House IT workers told the paper.
All told, the Awans are accused of doing so much that was so illegal, a House source told WND the suspects will likely receive prison sentences.
That fact makes it all the more curious that House Democrats are downplaying the apparent seriousness of the investigation.
‘They have something on someone’
“I don’t know what they have, but they have something on someone. It’s been months at this point,” Pat Sowers, who has managed IT for several House offices for 12 years, told the Daily Caller. “Something is rotten in Denmark.”
“There’s no question about it: If I was accused of a tenth of what these guys are accused of, they’d take me out in handcuffs that same day, and I’d never work again,” said the manager of a company that provides high-tech services for House Democrats.
House IT workers have a number of reasons to openly wonder if the Awans are blackmailing members of Congress.
For starters, money trouble and access to sensitive government information is a bad mix.
Security experts consider the combination a bright red flag marking a security risk with the potential for blackmail.
While congressional committees dealing with national security are confident their computer systems were not compromised, the length of the investigation suggests the FBI may be looking into whether sensitive material may have been illegally accessed on the individual computer systems of the Democratic lawmakers on the committee who employed the Awan group.
And, even if portrayed to WND as unlikely, it is not impossible lawmakers stored classified information on their own electronic devices, including office computers.
But information doesn’t have to be classified to be private, privileged, extremely sensitive and of the utmost importance. Or, embarrassment.
President Obama may finally take action against China for a series of hack attacks.
According to House IT workers, the term “classified” is used to describe secret and important material by spy agencies and intelligence committees, but not by regular members of Congress.
Sensitive material stored on their computers need not be related to national security to be so politically embarrassing as to be useful to a potential blackmailer.
When congressional staffers downplayed the significance of the Awan investigation because they apparently did not have access to classified information, multiple House IT workers told the Daily Caller that rankled them, because “those semantics misleadingly made it seem like they didn’t have access to extremely sensitive information.”
That was especially true because the Awans had installed everything on their clients’ systems, set up all the accounts and granted all the required permissions and restrictions, which effectively gave them full control over the lawmakers computer systems.
And their remote access meant lawmakers would never even know when the Awans were on their system.
A central IT worker said members of Congress were simply trying to ignore the seriousness of the problem, and “security of computer systems on the Hill is not really taken seriously.”
Five congressional IT aides told the Daily Caller they were baffled by the loyalty shown by lawmakers who had not fired Awan group suspects.
That led them to wonder if the lawmakers were being blackmailed.
Especially as there still have been no arrests.
As of May, only 20 lawmakers out of the some 80 who employed the Awans at some point had publicly confirmed firing them.
A House IT employee said the new technicians who took over those offices found some had all the office computer data sent to a secret offisite server.
They also discovered a non-government iTunes account to which staffers’ iPhones were linked.
And while the Awans were allegedly committing all those security risks, it doesn’t appear lawmakers were getting stellar service in return.
An IT specialist who took over an Awan office told the Daily Caller they did not keep a hardware inventory and had a lawmaker paying for phone lines that hadn’t been used for years.
Sowers said the number of lawmakers who showed such loyalty for such bad customer service “would definitely be suspicious.”
He added, “I love the Hill, but to see this clear lack of concern over what appears to be a major breach bothers me. Everyone has said for years they were breaking the rules, but it’s just been a matter of time.”
And yet, despite all the problems, the Awans reportedly worked for more congressional offices than any other IT group.
A Democratic IT contractor implied there was a cover-up, telling the Daily Caller that lawmakers are saying, “Don’t say anything, this will all blow over if we all don’t say anything.”
The technician said the Awans “had [members of Congress] in their pocket,” and “there are a lot of members who could go down over this.”
Obstruction of justice?
It may be difficult to imagine how the demand to return of a key piece of evidence in an ongoing criminal investigation, and the threat of “consequences” if that were not done, would not amount to obstruction of justice.
But that’s what Wasserman Schultz did in public, in an incident that received remarkably little press coverage, and none in the mainstream media.
It happened as she was questioning Capitol Police Chief Matthew Verderosa during the annual police budget hearing of the House Committee On Appropriations’ Legislative Branch subcommittee on May 18.
The Florida congresswoman’s questions were triggered by investigators’ seizure of a laptop of hers.
A federal employee told the Daily Caller, as investigators were zeroing in on the Awan brothers, someone had hidden a laptop used by Imran in a crevice of the Rayburn House Office Building. (Rayburn is connected by a tunnel to the adjoining Longworth House Office Building, where Wasserman Schultz’s office is located.)
The source said police later found the laptop and seized it as evidence in the criminal investigation.
But, during the May 18 hearing, Wasserman Schultz openly pressured police to return the evidence to her.
“My understanding is the Capitol Police is not able to confiscate Members’ equipment when the Member is not under investigation,” she told the police chief.
“We can’t return the equipment,” replied Chief Verderosa.
Wasserman Shutlz then responded with a not-so-veiled threat, warning the chief, “I think you’re violating the rules when you conduct your business that way and you should expect that there will be consequences.”
In the context of the hearing, the most obvious “consequence” would be cutting the Capitol Police budget.
Wasserman Schultz is one of the eight members of the subcommittee in charge of that budget.
All told, she spent three minutes of the hearing trying to get the chief to return her laptop, without apparent success.
Wasserman Shultz had another bizarre moment the day before, also during an appropriations hearing, when she admitted to violating official information security policy “for years and years and years.”
And then she curiously blamed the House’s chief administrative officer for not stopping her.
“If a member is using an application outside of the House infrastructure and the protection of the, [of] our cybersecurity network, they’re in violation of House policy?” asked Wasserman Schultz.
“Of the House Policy 17, yes ma’am,” replied House information security officer John Ramsey.
“So members are not supposed to be using Dropbox?” she asked, referring to a popular Internet site used to share and store files.
“Not according to the policy,” Ramsey replied.
For some reason, she chose to reply: “I am more than happy to admit that I use Dropbox. I have used it for years and years and years. It is not blocked. I am fully able to use it.”
The congresswoman then blamed security officials for not preventing her from using the site.
“So, there is a vulnerability in our network in spite of the fact that you say that you’ve taken steps to address it,” she surmised. “And there is not enough of a – of a policy that – that applies across the board. And you need to make sure that you tighten up your rules and policies so that you can really take and assure us that you take seriously protecting our network.”
Wasserman Schultz then seemed to use that line of questioning to ask if House security officers were spying on her.
Former DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D- Fla.
“Are members monitored?” she inquired. Then she asked how they made sure lawmakers were following the rules and whether security officers contacted members of Congress directly.
“When the policy came out, ma’am, we had sent some targeted communications out to the various IT systems administrators that service … the members,” Ramsay explained.
But instead of faulting Imran for not informing her of security policy, Wasserman Schultz blamed security officers for not contacting lawmakers directly.
Deriding the practice of “just lobbing e-mail into a tech person’s inbox,” she persisted, “Wouldn’t you think that you would have a policy where you inform every single member and that we actually have a meeting with each member’s tech person so that you can inform them exactly what the rules are, what is allowable, what is not allowable?”
“We do inform every IT person, IT administrator in every congressional office. If that’s not enough …” replied Chief Administrative Officer Phil Kiko.
Link to DNC hacks?
Another oddity of the case is the question of whether it is mere coincidence that there were computer security breaches at both Wasserman Schultz’s congressional office and the DNC that she headed, or whether the two incidents may be related.
The Daily Caller learned that Imran had the password to an iPad used by Wasserman Schultz and the DNC at the time of the publication of the hacked emails by WikiLeaks.
The paper reprted “Imran was on call for, and on a first-name basis with, top DNC staff,” and that Wasserman’s “world – and iPad – mixed DNC, House and campaign business.”
When the DNC emails were published by WIkiLeaks, with the politically toxic information that cost Wasserman Schultz her party chairmanship, former interim DNC Chair Donna Brazile initially claimed the emails might have been fabricated.
When that soon turned out not to be true, Brazile then blamed the Russians for wanting to hurt Clinton’s presidential candidacy.
2016 Democratic National Convention
What was the truth? The DNC would not let investigators find out. They refused to let the FBI examine its server, according to former director James Comey.
A logical conclusion might be the DNC did not want still secret but embarrassing information on the server to be revealed.
The same conclusion might apply to Wasserman’s Schultz’s attempt to retrieve her laptop held by Capitol Police as evidence.
Was Imran connected to the DNC hacks and leaks? Ironically, it was hacked DNC emails that showed Imran’s unusual access to the DNC computer system.
WikiLeaks published an email chain that showed Garret Bonosky, deputy director of the DNC, wrote on May 4, 2016: “Amy – I will call you shortly. I have to get this ipad thing figured out. Need to make sure I have her username and password.”
“I do not have access to her ipad password, but Imran does,” replied DNC Assistant to the Chair Amy Kroll.
In March, the Daily Caller asked Wasserman Schultz spokesman David Damron whether the hacked DNC emails might have come from Imran, but did not receive a response.
He also did not respond to a request for any stronger evidence the Russians were responsible for the hacks.
The paper also reported on the greater likelihood the DNC was hacked by someone known to them and trusted rather than by a foreign government: “Computer security experts say the most common threat comes from someone abusing a position of trust, trusting the wrong person or a perpetrator manipulating someone using ‘social engineering’ to gain access; all such explanations defy the prevalent stereotype of distant strangers using high-tech tricks.”
Ghosts in the machine?
The case of one member of the Awan group, the aforementioned Rao Abbas, might illustrate how the brothers apparently used congressional employees who actually performed little, if any, work, to increase the brothers’ own income. and conducting what the Daily Caller termed a “multi-million-dollar IT scam.”
The paper reported that although Abbas made $250,000 in his role as a House IT administrator, his most recent job experience had been working at McDonald’s, which had fired him.
Abbas was said to be Imran’s best friend and lived in the basement of a house owned by Imran’s wife. It was a basement he rarely left, according to his upstairs neignbor.
Imran was also reportedly having that neighbor make rent checks payable to Abbas.
Payroll records dug up by the Daily Caller showed Abbas was the only IT worker on Capitol Hill serving Reps. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., and Ted Deutch, D-Fla. Spokesmen for the lawmakers refused to say if if they had ever seen Abbas in their offices.
If Imran was doing the actual work, that would have violated House rules against using non-staff members.
Cleaver, at one point, had five of the six members of the Awan group on his payroll. Deutch had three, but only Abbas for the last two years.
Abbas was also on the payroll of former Florida Rep. Patrick Murphy, and Reps. Charlie Crist of Florida and Jacky Rosen of Nevada, who took office in January.
Spokesmen for Crist and Rosen declined to say who recommended Abbas.
A House IT worker told the Daily Caller about “ghost employees … When a new Congress would come in, they would have the members of the offices they were servicing vouch for them.”
Another congressional IT worker, one who took over some of the Awans’ clients, said office workers “weren’t used to seeing their technicians.”
The Daily Caller reported that someone had to do the work for what it called “no-show employees,” and one of those people, from 2013 to 2014, was Imran’s old high-school friend, Haseeb Rana.
Rana wouldn’t comment, but his father told the paper “they made him do all the work … After three months, he wanted to leave. We were having a very charged relationship with Imran. [Haseeb] was not satisfied with their behavior.”
Who used the Awans?
Although the Awan ring reportedly worked for some 80 Democrats in the House, it is difficult to identify all of them, given all the murky arrangements.
But the list of those reportedly employing the Awans and their associates includes these 23 current or former Democrats in Congress, in no particular order:
Andre Carson, Luis Guiterez, Jim Himes, Terri Sewell, Jackie Speier, Mike Quigley, Eric Swalwell, Patrick Murphy, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Joaquini Castro, Lois Frankel, Ted Lieu, Robin Kelly, Tammy Duckworth, Mark Takano, John Sarbanes, Diana DeGette, Cedric Richmond, Charlie Crist, Jacky Rosen, Sandy Levin, Karen Bass and Marcia Fudge.