CAIR is Deceptive – Islam Hates Judeo-Christianity


John R. Houk

© March 24, 2017

 

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) bills itself as a Muslim civil rights organization. But the Mainstream Media too often fails to tell you is that CAIR subscribes to the Salafist teachings of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). The MB has a goal to reestablish an Islamic Supremacist Caliphate and spread Islam globally under the paradigm established by the founding pseudo-prophet Muhammad and his four succeeding “Rightly Guided” Caliphs that expanded a Muslim empire by the sword which included booty raids, slave trading, repression of non-Muslims and often death for those refusing submission either by conversion or subscribing to an inferior second class citizen that must honor all Islam or else. The MB has developed a fifth column/Trojan horse path for ending Constitutional Rights in America and initiate Islamic domination in the USA.

 

CAIR is one of many MB and Saudi/Wahhabi allies that have nefarious designs for the home of the brave and the land of the free. To note the Islamic agenda check out the transnational motto of the MB:

 

The Muslim Brotherhood’s motto is ‘Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Quran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope’. (Ban the Muslim Brotherhood; From Party for Freedom)

 

Exposing the truth about Islam and its global agenda should be enough for any American to take pause of all the glorification of the religious freedom based on the U.S. Constitution. As a Christian I do have some specific issues against Islam relating to the tenets found in the theo-political religion’s revered writings found in the Quran, Hadith and Sunna.

 

The Islamic religion is extremely hostile to non-Islamic religions. Islam reserves a special hostility toward polytheistic religions while Judaism and Christianity are singled out by name often times referenced as the People of the Book; i.e. the Judeo-Christian Holy Bible.

 

Jews are referenced as pigs and apes. Christians are often related as deceived polytheists because of our faith in the Trinity as Three Persons are one single God. Muslims have a difficult time understanding the Christian Oneness of God and instead label Trinitarianism as polytheism.

 

Even worse from a Christian perspective, Islam denies that Jesus is the Son of God, that the Lord Jesus died on the Cross and most reprehensibly, that Jesus Christ the Son of God never arose bodily from death to life. These are all factors that define Christian Salvation from the curse of this age presented to humanity and Earth after Adam and Eve willingly and at the behest of Satan ate from the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and Good and Evil. That act of eating forbidden fruit separated Adam and Eve and their descendants from God’s Presence. This was a curse that could only be redeemed by a man born without a sin nature as Adam’s nature was created by God without sin before his rebellious disobedience. The price of Redemption was the sacrifice of this sin-free nature man. The unjust death replaced Adam and Eve’s just death. Here “death” refers to separation from the Presence of God not instant physical death. The separation from the Divine changed humanity from immortal to mortal in which the body decays from birth until physical death occurs.

 

Islam calls all this Christian centrality of faith baloney, worthy of death because it is blasphemous in the eyes of Muhammad and his demon-god Allah. The supremacist theo-political ideology of Islam gives Muslims the perceived right to enforce diminishing any religion or ideology that disagrees with Islam.

 

Hence, where Islam dominates, non-Muslim people culturally and too often legally face extreme persecution that can devolve into murder.

 

This makes Islam – at least from a Christian perspective – an antichrist religion. I would not be surprised if other non-Muslim faiths give Islam their version of an “anti” appellation. Here is the universal Scriptural warning for Christians to heed:

 

1 John

Chapter 2

 

22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

 

Chapter 4

 

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that[a] Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. (1 John 2: 22-23; 4: 1-3 NKJV)

 

If speaking against Islam to point out this antichrist ideology is Islamophobic, then I where that moniker gladly. The difference between exposing the truth about an antichrist religion and a religion reaching out in violence because it is offended is the difference between Christianity and Islam. Christians that reach out toward Muslims with violence are violating Holy Scripture. Muslims reaching out in violence are in tune with their Quran, Hadith and Sunna.

 

And this brings me back to CAIR.

 

CAIR anti-Americanism and Anti-Christian attitudes can be seen in the propaganda campaign against the Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton for taking issue with providing an Islamic prayer room available only to Muslims. There is – hypocritically – no Leftist uproar for the unconstitutional paradigm of Separation of Church and State that is typically cried about for less Christian-involved in the Public School arena. When the law balks at giving Islam a singular privilege denied to Christianity, CAIR brings out the Islamophobia train to intimidate a favorable from Texas AG Ken Paxton.

 

Texas AG Ken Paxton

 

Liberty High School of the Frisco Independent School District in Texas claims the prayer room is open to all faiths. Hmm … Devout Muslims pray five times a day. I have to wonder how it would it go over if a Christian went into the pray room while Muslims were praying and prayed in the name of Jesus Christ the Son of God. Given Islamic intolerance, it is a more likely a scenario in which the Muslim students beat up Christian students. Or School Principal Scott Warstler would prevent Christian prayer to head off strife making the School District a liar about the all faiths assertion.

 

Florida Family Association is passing a letter/petition to support AG Ken Paxton.

 

JRH 4/24/17

Please Support NCCR

****************

Defending American Values

 

Sent by Florida Family Association

Sent 3/22/2017 11:48 AM

 

Second email alert regarding CAIR bullies Texas Attorney General for challenging a public school’s use of a classroom exclusively for Muslim pray.  Please send your email to express appreciation to Texas AG Ken Patton.

Florida Family Association has determined that it is very productive to send out email alerts again for supporters who missed the first alert.  FFA’s budgeted email software does not eliminate subscribers from the second email alert who have responded to the first email.


Click here to send email to thank Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton for challenging the use of public school classroom exclusively for Muslim prayer.
  A copy of the email will be sent to the Liberty High School Principal Scott Warstler and the Frisco Independent School District Board Members.

Liberty High School in Frisco, Texas is allowing Muslims to have a dedicated classroom to pray during the school day.  See Liberty High School March 3, 2017 Wingspan newspaper article below titled Classroom becomes prayer room.

WFAA 8 ABC reported on March 19, 2017 Paxton’s office outlines concerns over ‘prayer room’ in letter to Frisco ISD

DALLAS – The office of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton wrote a letter to Frisco ISD Friday expressing concern over a “prayer room” in one of the district’s schools.

Liberty High School has an empty classroom where students can pray during the school day. Deputy Attorney General Andrew Leonie’s letter to Frisco ISD’s superintendent questioned the legality of the prayer room, saying the room is dedicated to Islamic students and excludes other religions.

“Liberty High School’s policy should be neutral toward religion,” the letter reads. “However, it appears that students are being treated different based on their religious beliefs. Such a practice, of course, is irreconcilable with our nation’s enduring commitment to religious liberty.”

The letter references a March 3 article in the Liberty High School Campus Wingspan — the school’s student-run news outlet — that says the prayer room “addresses the religious needs of some students.”

CAIR Texas issued a news release on March 19, 2017 titled CAIR Condemns Texas Attorney General’s ‘Cheap Islamophobic Publicity Stunt’

(AUSTIN, TEXAS, 3/19/17) The Texas office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-Texas) today condemned what it called a “cheap Islamophobic publicity stunt” by that state’s Attorney General Ken Paxton, whose office has raised objections to the use of a spare classroom by Muslim middle school students to perform their daily prayers.

Paxton’s office sent the Frisco school district superintendent a letter Friday expressing “concerns” that the classroom is being used by Muslim students. In a news release, Paxton’s office falsely stated: “Recent news reports have indicated that the high school’s prayer room is. . .apparently excluding students of other faiths.”  .

Ironically, it appears that CAIR is “falsely” accusing “Paxton’s office of falsely stating: ‘Recent news reports have indicated that the high school’s prayer room is. . .apparently excluding students of other faiths.’”  The high school’s own article about this situation posted below clearly states that this classroom is used to provide a place for Muslims to pray throughout the school day.

Florida Family Association has prepared a short email for you to send to thank Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton for challenging the special prayer room for one religion.  A copy of the email will also be sent to Liberty High School Principal Scott Warstler and the Frisco Independent School District Board Members.

To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button. You may also edit the subject or message text if you wish.

Click here to send email to thank Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton for challenging the use of public school classroom exclusively for Muslim prayer A copy of the email will be sent to the Liberty High School Principal Scott Warstler and the Frisco Independent School District Board Members.

 

For contact information please click here.

 

Liberty High School March 3, 2017 Wingspan newspaper published the following article titled:  Classroom becomes prayer room

 

At many public schools, religion isn’t talked about openly.

But here on campus, there’s a room dedicated to the religious needs of some students.

Every day during lunches, room C112 is utilized as a prayer room.

While most religions do not dictate specific times to pray, Islam is different in this regard.

“By praying five times a day, which includes movements such as bowing and prostrating where you actually place your forehead and the tip of your nose on to the floor and also facing a specific direction, not only shows uniformity, in terms of how Muslims pray together and come together for that purpose,” Islamic Association of Collin County Youth Director Ryan Hilliard said. “But even more importantly it shows that they’re willing to put their entire body and their entire mind and their soul into this act and be able to focus on that moment where they’re able to have this conversation with God, when in many other places they would not be able to do so.”

The campus prayer room has been available for students since 2009.

“This is my seventh year at Liberty, my first year it kind of started when a core group of students were leaving campus every Friday for Friday prayer,” Principal Scott Warstler said. “Their parents would come pick them up, so they may miss an hour and a half to two hours to two and a half hours of school every Friday, so I met with those students and a couple of their parents and suggested if they would be okay if the students were able to lead the prayer at school as a group, and we gave them a space to do that so they didn’t have to be in a car traveling thirty minutes each way on a Friday missing an hour, hour and a half, of class.”

It  started with a small group of students in one of the AP conference rooms, but as more and more students got involved, it was moved to a classroom.

“I think the trademark of what makes Liberty High so great is our diversity and in how our students respond to the different cultures and diversity on campus,” Warstler said. “Like I’ve said, this is the seventh year that we’ve been doing this and we’ve never had one issue. You know we have other religious student groups that meet maybe before school or maybe after school. As long as it’s student-led, where the students are organizing and running it, we pretty much as a school stay out of that and allow them their freedom to practice their religion.”

 

_________________

CAIR is Deceptive – Islam Hates Judeo-Christianity

John R. Houk

© March 24, 2017

___________________

Defending American Values

 

Florida Family Association, Inc.
P.O. Box 46547, Tampa, FL 33646-0105
Telephone 813-690-0060

Email:  ffa@floridafamily.org

 

About FFA

 

Florida Family Association is a national organization that is made up of tens of thousands of online subscribers across America who share in the same goal of defending American values.  These supporters send close to two million emails every month to corporate and public officials associated with issues posted on this web site.  Florida Family Association’s accomplishments are a direct result of the dedicated people across the country who support the efforts of this organization.  The organization is not an affiliate or subsidiary of any other group.  It is an independent organization with tens of thousands of supporters outside of Florida.

Christianpost.org reports the following regarding Florida Family Association:  “Don’t let the name deceive you. Florida Family Association is a national organization that harnesses online  citizen activism through its massive email list to change organizations through economic and public pressure. They urge companies not to advertise on the Islamic terror apologist network Al Jazeera,  remind  universities  to  support  free speech and not cancel films and speakers critical of Islamism, and hold the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) feet to the fire for their leaders past support for terrorism and saying Muslims are above the law of the land.”  Christianpost.org report.

 

Florida Family Association does not sell online advertising, books or memorabilia.  This is done to maintain independence from the market place that Florida Family Association seeks to influence. Therefore, all READ THE REST 

 

Fox News Censors Judge Andrew Napolitano


John R. Houk

© March 22, 2017

 

Judge Andrew Napolitano has caused quite a stir amongst the Media, the UK’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), and officials in the U.S. government when the Judge stipulated that GCHQ surveilled the Trump campaign for the treasonous President Barack Hussein Obama. Here is the segment on Fox & Friends Tuesday March 14 morning:

 

VIDEO: Obama went to British intelligence to spy on Trump says Judge Napolitano

 

 

Posted by HX Video

Published on Mar 14, 2017

 

Very shortly after the Judge said he had three sources, the Judge mysteriously – without comment – was removed from Fox News air time. Incidentally, if you listened to the segment, the Judge remarked that the GCHQ person who complied with Obama resigned after Trump was inaugurated. Fox’s censorship means Napolitano can neither name the three intelligence sources nor the name of the person who resigned from GCHQ. ALSO, Fox News used later-in-the-day news anchors to walk back Napolitano’s GCHQ/Obama assertion.

 

OF COURSE, GCHQ denied any connection to wiretapping (i.e. surveilling) the Trump campaign AND the U.S. government has apologized of the implication because the GCHQ story showed up in official channels via Press Secretary Sean Spicer answers to press questions.

 

Fox censorship, Napolitano silence on suspension, GCHQ public denial and an U.S. apology is a set-up the typically credible Napolitano to look like a tinfoil conspiracist.

 

AND YET, is Judge Andrew Napolitano a discredited source on Obama surveillance of President Trump’s campaign? Since I have contended that Barack Hussein Obama was a crooked President from day one of his Administration, I am not prepared to throw the Judge under the bus as all others have seeming done.

 

Below are two articles that should give you pause before you consider throwing Napolitano under the bus. The first article is from today (3/22/17) from Bob Unruh and the second is from Cliff Kinkaid of AIM posted on 3/21/17.

 

The first is close to breaking news corroborated by Fox News. The second article pretty much elaborates the details that Judge Andrew Napolitano alluded to in his 2-minute 50-second Fox & Friends segment. In fact, there is so much detail in the second article it is a bit lengthy. You may want to come back a few times to complete and digest the information that demonstrates a Crooked Obama and a nefarious Intel community, not to mention an extremely untrustworthy Director James Comey of the FBI.

 

JRH 3/22/17

Please Support NCCR

*******************

WHISTLEBLOWER’S LAWYER: COMEY ‘FALSELY’ DENIED EVIDENCE OF SURVEILLANCE

 

By BOB UNRUH

March 22, 2017

WND

 

Larry Klayman

 

The lawyer who founded Judicial Watch and later Freedom Watch, Larry Klayman, has sent a letter to Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, asking him to look at a whistleblower’s evidence of “systematic illegal surveillance on prominent Americans, again including the chief justice of the Supreme Court, other justices, 156 judges, prominent businessmen such as Donald Trump, and even yours truly.”

 

That spying was done, Klayman’s letter contends, by the FBI.

 

It’s become a major issue following President Trump’s assertion that he and Trump Tower were spied upon by the federal government, and the subsequent denials by intelligence and law-enforcement officials, including FBI Director James Comey, who famously cleared Hillary Clinton on accusations she mishandled classified information as secretary of state.

 

Klayman has been working with Dennis Montgomery, a former NSA and Central Intelligence Agency contractor who “left the NSA and CIA with 47 hard drives and over 600 million pages of information, much of which is classified.”

 

Montgomery then “sought to come forward legally as a whistleblower to appropriate government entities, including congressional intelligence committees, to expose that the spy agencies were engaged for years in systematic illegal surveillance on prominent Americans.”

 

Explained Klayman: “Working side by side with former Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who lied in congressional testimony, and former Obama Director of the CIA, the equally ethically challenged John Brennan, Montgomery witnessed ‘up close and personal’ this “Orwellian Big Brother’ intrusion on privacy, likely for potential coercion, blackmail or other nefarious purposes.”

 

Trust the government? Maybe you shouldn’t. Read the details in “Lies the Government Told You,” by Judge Andrew Napolitano.

 

But he said the testimony has been essentially ignored.

 

Now, however, with the issue pending before Congress, there even are media reports that appear to substantiate the general claims that the government has been spying. The New York Times in January referenced wiretapping at Trump Tower, and just this week ABC News documented that the FBI monitored Trump Tower.

 

The report claimed, “But it was not placed at the behest of Barack Obama, and the target was not the Trump campaign of 2016. For two years ending in 2013, the FBI had a court-approved warrant to eavesdrop on a sophisticated Russian organized crime money-laundering network that operated out of unit 63A in Trump Tower in New York.”

 

It resulted in the indictments of more than 30 people, ABC said.

 

Explained the report: “The FBI investigation did not implicate Trump. But Trump Tower was under close watch. Some of the Russian mafia figures worked out of unit 63A in the iconic skyscraper – just three floors below Trump’s penthouse residence – running what prosecutors called an ‘international money-laundering, sports gambling and extortion ring.’”

 

Klayman, a Washington watchdog who repeatedly took on the Clinton political machine to investigate suspicion of wrongdoing, explained in his letter to Nunes, which was copied to other members of Congress, that he previously won a judgment from U.S. District Judge Richard Leon preliminarily halting the “illegal, warrantless, and massive surveillance of U.S. citiznes [sic] and lawful residents” in 2015.

 

As part of Nunes’ hearing on claims of government spying, he invited “anyone who has information about these topics to come forward.”

 

Klayman said that is exactly what Montgomery has done.

 

“There is a myriad of evidence, direct and circumstantial, of the illegal and unconstitutional surveillance disclosed to the FBI by Montgomery,” said Klayman, describing how his client made an on-camera interview with the agency about the misdeeds some time ago.

 

He said Montgomery “holds much of the roadmap to ‘draining the swamp’ of this corruption of our democracy.”

 

Montgomery, Klayman said, has information “that the spy agencies were engaged for years in systematic illegal surveillance on prominent Americans.”

 

During Montgomery’s interview with FBI General Counsel James Baker, under grants of immunity, he “laid out how persons like then businessman Donald Trump were illegally spied upon by Clapper, Brennan, and the spy agencies of the Obama administration.”

 

“He even claimed that these spy agencies had manipulated voting in Florida during the 2008 presidential election, where illegal tampering resulted in helping Obama to win the White House.”

 

But that interview, “conducted and videotaped by Special FBI Agents Walter Giardina and William Barnett, occurred almost two years ago, and nothing that I know of has happened since.”

 

Klayman wrote that it appears to have been “buried” by Comey, possibly because “the FBI itself collaborates with the spy agencies to conduct illegal surveillance.”

 

He said he previously visited with a staff lawyer, Allen Souza, to inform Nunes of questions that needed to be put to Comey while under oath.

 

“My expressed purpose: to have Chairman Nunes of the House Intelligence Committee ask Comey, under oath, why he and his FBI have seemingly not moved forward with the Montgomery investigation while, on the other hand, the FBI director recently claimed publicly, I believe falsely, that there is ‘no evidence’ of surveillance on President Trump and those around him by the Obama administration.

 

“Indeed, there is,” he wrote.

 

He tells members of Congress that Comey needs to be grilled during a subsequent hearing, now set for March 28. He asks Nunes to respond by March 24 to let “the American people, and Mr. Montgomery … know where you and the other members of your committee stand.”

 

“Do you intend to get at and investigate the full truth, or as has regrettably been the case for many years in government, sweep the truth under the carpet?”

 

Other recipients of the letter were Reps. Adam Schiff, Mike Conaway, Peter King, Frank LoBiondo, Tom Rooney, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Michael Turner, Brad Wenstrup, Chris Stewart, Rich Crawford, Trey Gowdy, Elise Stefanik, Will Hurd, Jim Hines, Terri Sewell, Andre Carson, Jackie Speier, Mike Quigley, Eric Swalwell, Joaquin Castro and Denny Heck.

 

Trust the government? Maybe you shouldn’t. Read the details in “Lies the Government Told You,” by Judge Andrew Napolitano.

 

+++

A Watergate-style Threat to the Democratic Process

 

By CLIFF KINCAID

March 21, 2017

Family Security Matters

 

NYT Front Page – Trump Wiretapped

 

A special report from the Accuracy in Media Center for Investigative Journalism; Cliff Kincaid, Director.

 

[AIM CIJ Director’s Note:

 

UPDATE: Former NSA/CIA contractor Dennis Montgomery has told Accuracy in Media through his attorney Larry Klayman that it is entirely possible that the British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) was used as a back channel to collect and pass information-based on electronic surveillance of Trump associates and Donald J. Trump personally-to officials in the Obama administration. Montgomery said the procedure known as shell-game eavesdropping, in which the NSA can deny they are wiretapping, and the GCHQ can also deny that they are wiretapping, could have been used in this case. In other words, the NSA, CIA or FBI would ask the British to conduct the surveillance on behalf of the U.S. government so that U.S. officials could deny their own involvement.

 

Montgomery said that he has provided extensive evidence of illegal wiretapping by U.S. intelligence agencies to the FBI, but that the Bureau has failed to act on the evidence since he provided it almost two years ago.

 

Judge Andrew Napolitano of Fox News had said, “The NSA has given GCHQ full 24/7 access to its computers, so GCHQ – a foreign intelligence agency that, like the NSA, operates outside our constitutional norms – has the digital versions of all electronic communications made in America in 2016, including Trump’s.” [Bold Text Editor JRH] However, it may be difficult to find Obama’s personal “fingerprints” on what happened, Napolitano warned. Under these circumstances, the House Intelligence Committee should ask FBI Director James Comey about Montgomery’s evidence of illegal wiretapping and then call in Montgomery for his own personal testimony. Klayman says Montgomery can shed important light on how Trump and many other innocent people can be targeted.

 

  • Please call the office of Rep. Devin Nunes at 202-225-4121 and urge that Congress question FBI Director Comey about the Dennis Montgomery case.]

 

(Editor’s Note: Public hearings on this controversy are scheduled for March 20 and 28 by the House Intelligence Committee.)

 

Senate Intelligence Committee leaders from both parties, Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Mark Warner (D-VA), have issued a disingenuous statement [1] that “no element of the United States government” surveilled “Trump Tower.” They dishonestly evade the fact that media reporting [2] two days earlier had said that British intelligence operating at U.S. behest had likely been implicated in wiretapping Trump and Trump associates, all at the instigation of the U.S. government.

 

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said on March 16 that Fox News [2] sources have reported [3] through retired Judge Andrew Napolitano that then-President Obama had used two officials to arrange with the British NSA, called GCHQ or Government Communications Headquarters, to carry out the wiretapping of both Trump and Trump associates. (See this AIM [4]guest column.) The British now dispute this claim.

 

This evasive use of British spying is done in order to leave no American “fingerprints [5]” on the highly illegal operation, as the White House quoted Judge Napolitano. It is a long-standing practice under treaty-like intelligence agreements that British intelligence can use NSA facilities, and vice versa, for shell-game eavesdropping.

 

The trick is for the two agencies to swap places so that the NSA can deny they are wiretapping, and the GCHQ can deny that they are wiretapping. The Brits are trying to escape in between these moves of what a key expert has called the US-UK “wiretapping shell game.”

 

This is the first time that news sources [2] have explicitly stated that Obama personally ordered the wiretapping of Trump himself, through Obama officials going to the British, though it has been implied in the past by the suspicious lack of any circumspect denials, even when The New York Times said on January 19 and 20 that “wiretapped communications” went to the Obama White House. No one in the article said “Obama White House-but not Obama personally.”

 

Consider how one important person-President Trump-got the clear media message that he was indeed the target of the spying: President Trump told Fox News’s Tucker Carlson that he read this New York Times story of January 20 before he tweeted about Obama “wiretapping” him. White House spokesman Spicer quoted from this article.

 

President Trump told Carlson on Fox [6] on March 15 why he tweeted what he did: “Well, I’ve been reading…I think it was January 20…New York Times article where they were talking about wiretapping….I think they used that exact term.”

 

NEW YORK TIMES (print edition) Jan. 20, 2017, Headline:

 

Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides”

 

“found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing … [but]

 

“… Wiretapped communications had been provided to the [Obama] White House.”  [Emphasis added; bracketed [ ] text added.]

 

And since the “wiretapped communications” had been given to the Obama “White House,” according to The New York Times [7], it naturally leads to the inference that Obama himself knew and approved of the “wiretapping” of the Trump team. Otherwise, the question would indeed be Watergate déjà vu: What did Obama know and when did he know it?

 

Remember, this is the same New York Times, along with other hostile media, that is attacking President Trump for making what it calls “baseless” and “unsubstantiated” claims of Obama administration wiretapping of Trump. It is its own reporting that President Trump was referring to.

 

The Times hypocritically suppresses its own front-page headline stories about “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides” which claimed that these “wiretapped communications” reports went to the Obama White House (New York Times [7], Jan. 20, 2017).

 

White House spokesman Spicer forcefully made this point to the press, which viciously dodged his points to continue insisting [8] that “there’s no evidence of this” at all, repeatedly and rudely interrupting Spicer in an acrimonious confrontation.

 

Again, the question is: What did Obama know and when did he know it?

 

How the “Wiretap Shell Game” Works

 

Some reports claim that the Obama administration sought and/or obtained FISA Court warrants to tap phone calls and hack emails in Trump Tower.

 

But FISA warrants are routinely avoided by a little-known intelligence trick of using U.S.-British intelligence “reciprocity agreements” to dodge U.S. laws and vice versa. There are now direct reports [5] of this Obama-orchestrated British wiretapping of Trump, cited by the White House to back up President Trump’s statements and tweets.

 

The British are issuing denials [9]. But it is well-known that U.S. intelligence agencies can routinely arrange for British intelligence officers to use NSA facilities to spy on Americans, so that the U.S. agencies can claim that “they” (the U.S.) did no wiretapping or surveillance of Americans. It is a type of “plausible denial” government lie (see more on this in the appendix to this article). [Bold Text Editor JRH]

 

The strange involvement of an “ex” British MI6 agent, Christopher Steele, in conducting “opposition research” during a U.S. election has raised no questions in the left-wing media. It bears consideration, as it could represent in reality a British “reciprocity” covert operation on behalf of Obama’s CIA, one to fabricate discrediting disinformation about Trump, not a mere intelligence-gathering or wiretapping operation.

 

The exact means and exact agency by which this wiretapping, or much of it, has been done had been left unclear until now, when the claimed British connection surfaced. These types of British surveillance wiretaps are known as operations under “UKUSA” and “BRUSA” intelligence “reciprocity” agreements, which are the functional equivalent of formal treaties in the spy world.

 

Such “reciprocity” operations are designed to evade the laws of each country, the U.S. and the UK, by having the British spy on Americans who the Americans want spied on, and having the Americans spy on the British who the Brits want spied on. [Bold Text Editor JRH] Each side then exchanges the wiretap and other data the other side wants, thus without directly incriminating themselves. UKUSA reciprocity treaty “requests” have the force of direct orders to the other country’s intelligence agencies.

 

The wiretap data is exchanged under bogus traditional claims of the “extreme sensitivity” of “foreign liaison” intelligence, in order to obstruct outside oversight and thus in reality conceal surveillance of questionable legality. The UKUSA arrangements go beyond mere data searches and exchanges, by having, for example, British agents use NSA equipment and facilities on a rental lease basis to spy on the Americans that U.S. agencies want surveilled (and vice versa) so that the best equipment in the best position of access is used.

 

Former Justice Department Nazi-hunter John Loftus has documented how this British-U.S. “wiretap shell game” works, and pointed out how it is used to spy on political candidates in elections, and is covered up from Congress. Loftus reported:

 

“Over the years the British back-channel inside the NSA was used for a variety of political dirty tricks. A large number of American candidates for public office have been placed under electronic surveillance by British intelligence officers sitting at their ‘temporary listening post’ at [NSA] Fort Meade.” [Loftus [10]Secret War Against the Jews[11], 1997, p. 195]

 

The media have been saying that their government sources report that the CIA-NSA-FBI intercept targeting of Russians shifted to the targeting of the Trump team by September, 2016-possibly as early as June, 2016. There are reports of rejected FISA court applications in June [12] and July [13] of 2016 which would indicate that change of focus. (Incidentally, rejections by the FISA court are normally almost unheard-of.)

 

The BBC’s twist on the third alleged try at a FISA warrant, allegedly granted on October 15, was that it was narrowly drawn against only two Russian banks. But the BBC was at pains to assure us that they had an unnamed source who said that “three of Mr. Trump’s associates were the subject of the inquiry.”

 

“But it’s clear this is about Trump,” the source told the BBC [13].

 

New York Times Lies About Its Own Reporting

 

Meanwhile The New York Times [14] is doubling down on its lies, pretending it never reported that Trump or his aides had been wiretapped [7], and with supreme chutzpah claims, “It is not clear why Mr. Trump thought he was wiretapped or what led him to make the claim.” Again, look at the front-page New York Times headline.

 

The New York Times has been forced by confused readers to grudgingly admit [15] that President Trump’s tweets on Obama’s wiretapping actually do “echo certain aspects of The New York Times’s reporting from recent weeks.” But they try to offer up sorry excuses to explain away the glaring contradiction in their own reporting of Obama administration wiretapping of Trump and/or Trump people-and then their denials of it. The New York Times claims [16] that what they originally said was that Obama officials merely investigated past wiretap data in archives of “routine” surveillance already done, but did not wiretap into future data.

 

But the New York Times stated in January [7] that after past recordings of phone calls of Trump people had been checked, that the FBI “asked” the NSA to continue to “collect as much information as possible”-evidently without restraint or limitations-in what were clearly all future wiretapped calls between Russians and Trump people. It’s known as an intelligence “collection requirement.” (New York Times on January 20 [7] and February 14 [17];  see also the BBC [13] on January 12.)

 

White House spokesman Spicer, days before the Times’ excuse-making, clearly explained [16] that President Trump’s tweets on March 4 were based on open-source news media reporting of the wiretaps-thus including The New York Times-over the last few months.

 

In fact, the news media have been reporting [18] since at least September 23, 2016, that U.S. intelligence has been “actively monitoring” the “talks” (conversations), “wiretapping” the phone “calls,” and intercepting other communications of Trump aides or Trump himself-communications allegedly made with the Russians.

 

“Active monitoring” means wiretapping and surveillance of future phone calls, emails, texts, and other communications on an ongoing basis.

 

Not a shred of any New York Times or other reporting since September, 2016 on the “wiretapping” of Trump and/or his aides has demonstrated any concern whatsoever for Trump’s civil rights or the sanctity of the election process. No concern was expressed by the CIA, FBI, NSA or other agencies, or by the Obama White House-or by the media doing the reporting. In fact, they have been quite excited and eager about the prospect of illegal snooping on Trump.

 

As White House spokesman Spicer pointed out, efforts were made by Obama officials during their last days in office to lessen the protections of wiretap data in order to spread more widely any highly-sensitive wiretap data on Trump. The New York Times reported [19] on March 1 that the Obama administration’s lowering of “classification levels” of NSA data was done to “spread” the Trump wiretaps around various agencies and even foreign governments (see Obama DNI James Clapper’s orders lowering security protections of raw NSA intercept data, December. 15, 2016).

 

The New York Times had originally reported [20] on January 12 that this massive lowering of NSA wiretap data security was in contrast to Obama’s previous tightening of regulations in 2014, after the Snowden mass leak, to give “privacy protections to foreigners,” like they were Americans. But not for Trump.

 

The New York Times headline story [19] on March 1 that said Obama officials had “Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking” also admitted that officials say that alleged Trump collusion with Russia “has not been confirmed” in any of that intelligence wiretap data.

 

So what were they “rushing” to “preserve?” It is the purported Trump “conspiracy” with Russia that is utterly unsubstantiated and baseless. Wiretapping one’s political opponents in an election, as Obama or his minions have done, is a classic Watergate-style threat to the democratic process.

 

The Fake “Trump Dossier”

 

“As part of the inquiry,” wrote The New York Times, this “wiretapping” was done by the CIA, FBI and/or NSA to try to “investigate” the alleged Trump-Russian connections claimed in what is known as the (fake) “Trump dossier”-within a broader investigation of alleged Russian hacking and other supposed election interference (NY Times, January 20 [7]February 14 [17], 2017).

 

This “Trump dossier” is the controversial document composed by ex-British agent Christopher Steele, who had been paid by Hillary Clinton’s still unidentified backers to do election “opposition research” against then-candidate Trump. It is riddled with absurd self-contradictions and vile allegations against President Trump.

 

The “dossier [21]” cannot even make up its mind, so to speak, as to whether the Russians did spend “years” passing political dirt on Hillary Clinton to Trump to help “cultivate” relationship with him-or did not in fact ever pass such info to Trump (Steele report [21], June 20, 2016). There are at least eight different origins of the hacked or leaked DNC emails claimed in the “dossier,” including that Trump hacked them, not the Russians, or that they were all just “created” or “made up.”

 

The one-party opposition media have managed to ignore the ridiculous contents of the bogus “Trump dossier” with its raving lunatic absurdities.

 

For example, thousands of Russian retirement “pensioners,” according to the “dossier,” did the hacking of the DNC emails and passed them on to Russian officials, apparently in secret meetings at (we infer) park benches and shuffleboard affairs in Miami and elsewhere (Steele reports 095 and 111 [21] and Newsweek [22], November 4, 2016).

 

These Russian retirement pensioners living in the U.S. are “hacking…cyberoperatives” according to Newsweek, in its pre-election article [22] heavily based on Steele’s “Trump dossier,” oblivious to the patent absurdity of the claim.

 

You will not hear about that from the anti-Trump media, which so desperately wants the “Trump dossier” to be believed, regardless of whether any of it is true.

 

Appendix:

 

Former Justice Department Nazi-hunter, John Loftus, has explained how this US-British reciprocity scheme-or “wiretap shell game,” as he calls it-works. Loftus’ evidence of the top secret trick of US-British, NSA-GCHQ wiretapping of Americans is based on numerous NSA sources and others from many agencies stretching back decades, including censorship of this information from his and another expert’s early book manuscripts because of “classification” (Loftus [10]Secret War Against the Jews [11], 1997, pp. 188-195, 548-9).

 

According to Loftus this is how the illegal wiretapping “game” is played:

 

“… the NSA headquarters [at Fort Meade, Md.] is also the chief British espionage base in the United States. The presence of British wiretappers at the keyboards of American eavesdropping computers is a closely guarded secret….”

 

“The NSA is a giant vacuum cleaner. It sucks in every form of electronic information, from telephone calls to telegrams, across the United States. The presence of British personnel is essential for the American wiretappers to claim plausible deniability.

 

“Here’s how the game is played. The British liaison officer at [NSA Hq] Fort Meade types the [NSA-supplied] target list of ‘suspects’ into the American computer. The NSA computer sorts through its wiretaps and gives the British officer the recording of any American citizen he wants.

 

“Since it is technically a British target of surveillance, no American search warrant is necessary. [Loftus’ italics] The British officer then simply hands the results over to his American liaison officer. Of course, the Americans provide the same service to the British in return….”

 

“According to our sources, this duplicitous, reciprocal arrangement disguises the most massive, and illegal, domestic espionage apparatus in the world….

 

“Through this charade, the intelligence services of each country can claim that they are not targeting their own citizensThe targeting is done by an authorized foreign agent, the intelligence liaison resident in Britain or the United States” [Loftus, pp. 189-190; endnotes omitted].

 

Loftus describes how the courts tried to shut down some of the domestic wiretapping abuses, and how the FBI succeeded in evading the judiciary. Then the Bureau got its dream come true with the FISA law, which only applied to U.S. agencies, not the British:

 

“In 1978 Congress finally passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FIS) Act [or FISA], a feeble attempt to stamp out some of the worst excesses of domestic espionage…. [But FISA] was restricted only to targeting by American agencies, leaving the British liaison officer with a major loophole. The restrictive language added to the FIS Act [FISA] left unchanged the arrangement under which the British wiretapped American suspects and then passed on the information to the NSA.”

 

“To this day Congress does not realize that the British liaison officers at the NSA are still free to use American equipment to spy on American citizens. And, in fact, they are doing just that. Congress has been kept in the dark deliberately” [Loftus, pp. 191-2].

 

Naturally, such dirty-trick U.S.-British spying schemes have led to political abuses. In a comment of eerie timeliness today, with the claims of Obama directing the wiretapping of candidate Trump through British intelligence, Loftus states that:

 

“Over the years the British back-channel inside the NSA was used for a variety of political dirty tricks. A large number of American candidates for public office have been placed under electronic surveillance by British intelligence officers sitting at their ‘temporary listening post’ at [NSA] Fort Meade.” [Loftus, p. 195]

 

___________

 

[1] statement: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/16/senators-no-indications-trump-tower-subject-surveillance.html

 

[2] media reporting: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/03/14/judge-napolitano-three-intel-sources-say-obama-looked-to-brit-agency-to-spy-on-trump/

 

[3] reported: http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/03/14/judge-napolitano-why-there-may-never-be-proof-even-if-obama-spied-trump

 

[4] AIM: http://www.aim.org/guest-column/obama-british-intel-agency-conspiracy-to-spy-on-trump-exposed-by-nj-judge/

 

[5] fingerprints: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/14/plot-thickens-in-probe-house-it-contractors.html

 

[6] Fox: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/03/16/carlson_to_trump_why_not_gather_evidence_confront_intelligence_agencies_if_you_were_wiretapped.html

 

[7] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html

 

[8] insisting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/03/16/sean-spicers-angry-lonely-defense-of-trumps-wiretapping-claim-annotated/

 

[9] denials: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39300191

 

[10] Loftus: https://www.amazon.com/Secret-War-Against-Jews-Espionage/dp/0312156480

 

[11] Secret War Against the Jews: https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0312156480

 

[12] June: https://heatst.com/world/exclusive-fbi-granted-fisa-warrant-covering-trump-camps-ties-to-russia/

 

[13] July: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427

 

[14] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/trump-wiretap-claim-obama-comey-congress.html

 

[15] admit: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/public-editor/trump-obama-wiretap-liz-spayd-public-editor.html

 

[16] claims: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/us/politics/kellyanne-conway-obama-microwave-surveillance.html

 

[17] February 14: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html

 

[18] reporting: https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-s-intel-officials-probe-ties-between-trump-adviser-and-kremlin-175046002.html

 

[19] reported: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/politics/obama-trump-russia-election-hacking.html

 

[20] reported: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/nsa-gets-more-latitude-to-share-intercepted-communications.html

 

[21] dossier: https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia

 

[22] Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-russia-hillary-clinton-united-states-europe-516895

 

______________

Fox News Censors Judge Andrew Napolitano

John R. Houk

© March 22, 2017

 

Further Reading:

 

https://www.intellihub.com/fox-news-pulls-judge-napolitano-off-air-after-trump-wiretap-claims

 

http://noisyroom.net/blog/2017/03/21/trump-vs-fox-news-on-wiretapping/

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/03/judge_napolitano_pulled_from_fox_news_airwaves.html

 

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/silenced-judge-napolitano-reportedly-suspended-by-fox-news-after-claiming-obama-used-british-intel-to-spy-on-trump_03212017

 

___________

WHISTLEBLOWER’S LAWYER: COMEY ‘FALSELY’ DENIED EVIDENCE OF SURVEILLANCE

 

Click here for reuse options!

Copyright 2017 WND

_________

A Watergate-style Threat to the Democratic Process

 

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism. He can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org

 

 

The views expressed in the articles published in FamilySecurityMatters.org are those of the authors. These views should not be construed as the views of FamilySecurityMatters.org or of the Family Security Foundation, Inc., as an attempt to help or prevent the passage of any legislation, or as an intervention in any political campaign for public office. COPYRIGHT 2016 FAMILY SECURITY MATTERS INC.

PUTIN’S REAL SYRIA AGENDA


While Dems are crying about the unproven collusion between President Trump and the Russians to win Election-2016 AND ignoring Dem collusion with the Russians (which is better documented), Russia is quietly changing the balance of power in the Middle East by colluding with Iran for geopolitical regional power.

The Dems are either saps or more than willing to stealthily cooperate with the former Soviet Union whose President is a former uber-spy Vladimir Putin.

 

JRH 3/20/17

Please Support NCCR

************

PUTIN’S REAL SYRIA AGENDA [Summary/Intro]

 

By Genevieve Casagrande

Mar 20, 2017

Institute for the Study of War [ISW]

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s primary objective in Syria is to constrain U.S. freedom of action – not fight ISIS and al Qaeda. Russia’s military deployments at current levels will not enable the Iranian-penetrated Assad regime to secure Syria. Moscow’s deepening footprint in Syria threatens America’s ability to defend its interests across the Middle East and in the Mediterranean Sea. The next U.S. step in Syria must help regain leverage over Russia rather than further encourage Putin’s expansionism.

 

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) produced this report with the Critical Threats Project (CTP). The insights are part of an intensive multi-month exercise to frame, design, and evaluate potential courses of action that the United States could pursue to destroy the Islamic State in Iraq and al Sham (ISIS) and al Qaeda in Syria. The ISW-CTP team recently released “America’s Way Ahead in Syria,” which details the flaws in the current U.S. approach in Iraq and Syria and proposes the first phase of a strategic reset in the Middle East.

 

+++

Putin’s Real Syria Agenda

By Genevieve Casagrande and Kathleen Weinberger

March 2017

ISW – PDF

 

Russia’s intervention in Syria in September 2015 fundamentally altered the balance of the Syrian Civil War.1 Russia re-established momentum behind Syrian President Bashar al Assad and his Iranian allies at a moment when major victories by ISIS and Syrian rebels threatened to force the regime to contract into Syria’s central corridor.2 The capabilities Russia deployed were not limited to the airframes, artillery, and personnel needed to conduct a counter-terrorism or counterinsurgency mission, however. Russia deployed advanced air defense and ballistic missile systems, naval units, air superiority aircraft, and other capabilities in a display of major Russian force projection in the region. Russian President Vladimir Putin is altering the balance of power in Syria and the Eastern Mediterranean through sustained Russian military operations and additional deployments of high-end capabilities.

 

Russian Force Projection

 

Russia ultimately seeks to expand its permanent naval and air bases on the Syrian coast in order to further project force into the Mediterranean and Middle East. Russia’s establishment of an anti-access and area denial (A2/AD) exclusion zone from its bases at Latakia and Tartous allows Russia to create de-facto no fly zones in the Eastern Mediterranean as well as over most of Syria. These A2/AD zones constrain U.S. freedom of movement and ultimately raise the cost of U.S. involvement in Syria.3 Russia deployed the naval version of the S-300 to protect the airspace over Latakia airbase in Syria in November 2015.4 Russia also deployed the S-400 in late November 2015 shortly after the Turkish downing of a Russian jet.5 Russia has since deployed an additional seven S-300 systems in an effort to build in redundancies, advance the integration of its air defenses, and provide more comprehensive coverage.6 The S-300 and S-400 systems are road mobile and interoperable, increasing the difficulty of neutralizing the systems. [See Appendix I]

 

Putin wants to challenge the U.S. and its allies by increasing Russian military and political influence in the Middle East. Russia has rotated a wide range of naval vessels to participate in the conflict in order to demonstrate the capabilities of these units and Russia’s willingness to deploy them in the Mediterranean. Russia has deployed some of its most advanced non-nuclear naval capabilities to the Eastern Mediterranean.7 Russian subsurface and surface vessels successfully engaged ground targets in Syria after launching Kalibr cruise missiles from the Mediterranean and Caspian Seas.8 Russia has shown it can undertake precision strikes with the nuclear-capable Kalibr cruise missile at significant distance.

 

Russia also maintains anti-ship capabilities in the Mediterranean, including the Bastion-P coastal defense system. Russia demonstrated the land attack capabilities of the Bastion in November 2016.9 Russia has also deployed battle cruisers that bring advanced anti-ship and air defense capabilities off the Syrian coast. Russia’s deployment of its much-ridiculed aircraft carrier the Admiral Kuznetsov nevertheless showcased its force projection capabilities and intent to exhibit its naval presence in the Mediterranean.10 [See Appendix II]

 

Putin has deployed air defense and anti-ship systems to Syria in order to threaten the United States. Russia does not need these systems to support the counter-terrorism campaign it claims it is waging against anti-Assad opposition groups in Syria. Those groups do not operate aircraft or naval vessels. Russia also deployed the nuclear capable SS-26 ‘Iskander’ ballistic missiles to Syria and used the systems to attack opposition held terrain.11 The Iskander missiles provide no meaningful additional advantage against the opposition. The only conceivable target for these advanced systems is the U.S. and its allies. [See Appendix III]

 

Constrain U.S. Freedom of Action

 

Russia has used its deployment to constrain U.S. freedom of action and limit American policy options in Syria. Russia deployed the S-300 and S-400 air defense systems to deter the U.S. from direct military action against the Assad regime through the unilateral establishment of a no-fly zone. Russia has also forward deployed assets beyond its air and naval bases on the coast in order to further complicate the personnel are primarily concentrated in Latakia, Aleppo, and Tartous Provinces, but are also active in Hama, Homs, Damascus, and Hasakah and include a wide range of units including air assault, tank, medical, naval infantry, and special operations forces. [See Appendix IV]

 

Russia has intentionally removed potential U.S. partners within the armed opposition from the battlefield in Syria. Russian airstrikes from October 2015 to March 2017 have primarily targeted the mainstream Syrian opposition – not ISIS – in order to ensure the opposition’s defeat through its submission, destruction, or transformation. The Russian air campaign has driven what remains of the mainstream opposition closer to Salafi-jihadi groups, which are stronger and better able to defend against intensified pro-regime military operations. Russia is also exacerbating radicalization through its deliberate, illegal targeting of civilians. Russia has consistently targeted hospitals, schools, and other critical civilian infrastructure throughout the sixteen months of its air campaign.

 

Russian Testing Grounds

 

Russia has also used sustained use of transport aircraft in Syria to exercise the Russian military’s overall combat readiness and force projection capabilities. Expeditionary logistics and force projection is difficult for militaries to exercise, in general. Russia is exercising expeditionary logistics by air and sea in Syria.13 Russia is refining its ability to deploy its military personnel and equipment rapidly at a large scale in order to message its ability to threaten the U.S. and its NATO and European allies. Russia announced its intent to prioritize the development of naval equipment for troop transport on March 8 in order to increase the Russian Navy’s ability to provide logistical support in Syria and in other coastal zones.14 Russia also re-supplies and provides combat support for prospect of direct U.S. strikes against the Syrian regime for fear of inadvertently hitting Russian troops. Sources estimated that Russia maintains between 1,500 and 4,000 military personnel in Syria.12 These forces in Syria through frequent deliveries from Russian Il-76 and An-124 transport aircraft. As of October 2016, these transport aircraft were making multiple trips to Syria each month and it is likely that these aircraft continue to make regular trips to Syria. [See Appendix V]

 

Limitations of Russian Capabilities

 

Putin faces a number of economic and military constraints that limit the resources Russia can bring to bear in Syria. Russia’s economic crisis has forced Russia to balance limited resources across key theaters like Ukraine, the Baltics, the Middle East, and domestically in Russia. Putin has opted to pursue multiple, mutually reinforcing lines of effort using a diverse set of naval, air, missile, and ground capabilities in Syria. The overlap allows Russia to extract significant benefits with minimal cost. The Russian military has demonstrated its many shortcomings during its deployment to Syria, including frequent friendly fire incidents, losses of Russian aircraft, a poor performance by Russia’s aging aircraft carrier the Admiral Kuznetsov, and reports of mechanical failure of Russian equipment.15

 

The Russian deployment, at current levels, will be insufficient to grant Assad victory over the opposition, al Qaeda, or ISIS. Russia, Iran, and the regime have been unable to sustain significant simultaneous operations against ISIS and the Syrian opposition, despite Russia’s considerable airframe deployments. Russian airframes were unable to prevent ISIS’s recapture of Palmyra in December 2016 alongside a final pro-regime push to defeat the opposition in Aleppo, for example.16 Russia has instead used ‘cessation of hostilities’ agreements to drawdown its airstrikes against the opposition and surge its air campaign against ISIS for limited periods of time.17 Salafi-Jihadi groups have meanwhile begun to consolidate the opposition under more effective command-and-control structures, increasing rebels’ capabilities and resiliency.18 This dynamic will not only lead to a protracted and bloody civil war for the foreseeable future, but it ultimately raises the requirements for the U.S. to deal with the conflict.

 

Implications

 

Russia is both an unacceptable and ineffective partner against jihadists in Syria. The Russian deployment is inconsistent with Putin’s narrative that Russia intervened in Syria in order to combat terrorists. Many of its capabilities have no utility in the anti-ISIS fight. Putin instead seeks to use Russia’s deployment to subordinate U.S. military action and policies to Russian objectives in Syria. Russia’s aggressive deployment to Syria intends to deter the U.S. from intervening for fear of incurring significant costs. Russia has largely pursued its objectives in Syria with impunity. It has deprived the U.S. of freedom of maneuver, disrupted U.S. partnerships with key allies in the region, and facilitated Russia’s emergence as a geopolitical force in the region. Any potential partnership with Russia in Syria will further strengthen jihadists and force the U.S. to capitulate to a Russian vision for the broader Middle East that endangers America’s security interests.

 

Genevieve Casagrande is a Syria Analyst at the Institute for the Study of War. Kathleen Weinberger is a Russia and Ukraine Analyst at the Institute for the Study of War. Institute for the Study of War Twitter: @TheStudyofWar Critical Threats Twitter: @criticalthreats

 

[Blog Editor: From this point forward the rest of the report are the Appendices (i.e. charts) and Notes. The last section is actually longer than the report itself. To view the Appendices and Notes go to the PDF.]

 

____________________

©2007 – 2017 THE INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF WAR

 

Who is ISW

 

We are on the front lines of military thinking.

 

Our Mission

The Institute for the Study of War advances an informed understanding of military affairs through reliable research, trusted analysis, and innovative education. We are committed to improving the nation’s ability to execute military operations and respond to emerging threats in order to achieve U.S. strategic objectives. ISW is a non-partisan, non-profit, public policy research organization.

 

Our History

Dr. Kimberly Kagan founded ISW in May 2007, as U.S. forces undertook a daring new counterinsurgency strategy to reverse the grim security situation on the ground in Iraq. Frustrated with the prevailing lack of accurate information documenting developments on the ground in Iraq and the detrimental effect of biased reporting on policymakers, Dr. Kagan established ISW to provide real-time, independent, and open-source analysis of ongoing military operations and READ THE REST

 

Fatah blatantly supports terror – findings presented in US Congress


In case you were unaware, Fatah is the terrorist organization of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) umbrella of Jew-hating Islamic terrorists. AND the PLO is the backbone of the Palestinian Authority (PA) – HERE & HERE. The PA is the so-called governing organization that four military/economic powers – Quartet (which includes the U.S. government) have demanded Israel commit national suicide to create a sovereign nation for the fake Palestinian people.

 

Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) has presented a roughly 47-page report on how Fatah is supporting blatant terrorism against the Jewish people of Israel.

 

JRH 3/20/17

Please Support NCCR

*****************

Fatah blatantly supports terror – findings presented in US Congress

 

By Itamar Marcus and PMW staff

Mar. 17, 2017

Palestinian Media Watch

 

Yesterday, Palestinian Media Watch presented its report Fatah Votes for Terror to the House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle EastIncluded as an appendix to that report is a new collection of examples which show that Fatah continues to blatantly incite and glorify terror in 2017.

 

 

Posted text: “My weapon has emerged”

Text on image: “From my wounds, my weapon has emerged.

Oh, our revolution, my weapon has emerged.

There is no force in the world that can remove the weapon from my hand.

My path is bitter, your path is bitter, tread on my ribs and advance

How much this revolutionary people has sacrificed to live freely.”

[Official Fatah Facebook page, Feb. 7, 2017]

 

The picture to the right, which Fatah posted on its official Facebook page and appears in Appendix 2 of PMW’s report, is just one of countless examples of the party’s violence promotion.

 

Click to view Fatah Votes for Terror Appendix 2: Fatah terror promotion continues in 2017

 

Fatah promotes terror during times characterized by daily terror attacks as well as during relatively peaceful times. In Fatah Votes for Terror Appendix 3, PMW documents that Fatah actively glorified terrorism on its Facebook page throughout the terror wave of 2015-2016.

 

The image below, which Fatah posted to its official Facebook page and appears in Appendix 3, glorified the ongoing violence and promised more to come:

 

Posted text: “We march, we are not afraid of the fire and we do not fear death. With blood we will redeem the homeland and saturate its ground. The anniversary is approaching.” #The_51st_anniversary_of_the_beginning _of_Fatah’s_activity”

Text on image: “Half a century has passed and we have never abandoned our weapons”

[Official Fatah Facebook page, Dec. 26, 2015]

 

Click to view Fatah Votes for Terror Appendix 3:

Fatah Facebook posts glorifying Palestinian terrorists during the 2015-2016 terror wave

 

The large number of examples documented in these appendices show that terror support is fundamental to Fatah’s ideology. This documentation is of paramount importance when examining whether the Palestinian Authority, with the Fatah Movement as its leading party, can be seen as a peace partner. Is Fatah leading the Palestinian people toward peace or toward continued terror?

 

Click to view PMW special report Fatah Votes for Terror in pdf

 

Click to view Appendix 2: Fatah terror promotion continues in 2017

 

Click to view Appendix 3: Fatah Facebook posts glorified

 

Palestinian terrorists during the 2015-2016 terror wave

 

__________________

© 1997-2017 Palestinian Media Watch|Reproduction Rights

 

About PMW

 

Founded in 1996, Palestinian Media Watch is an Israeli research institute that studies Palestinian society from a broad range of perspectives by monitoring and analyzing the Palestinian Authority through its media and schoolbooks. PMW’s major focus is on the messages that the Palestinian leaders, from the Palestinian Authority, Fatah and Hamas, send to the population through the broad range of institutions and infrastructures they control.

PMW’s many reports and studies on Palestinian summer camps, poetry, schoolbooks, crossword puzzles, religious ideology, women and mothers, children’s music videos and the PA’s indoctrination of adults and children to seek Shahada (Martyrdom), have had significant impact on the way the world sees the Palestinians. PMW has presented its findings before members of US Congress and READ THE REST

 

Government Corruption Prosecutes Bundys


John R. Houk

© March 18, 2017

 

I am guilty of not following the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) persecution of the Bundy family over grazing rights for their cattle and attempts to protect those cattle from BLM confiscation.

 

There are those that truly believe the Bundys are criminals for not paying exorbitant grazing fees and then resisting the BLM for attempting to take the Bundy cattle to pay for those back exorbitant fees.

 

Catherine Crabill pretty much sums up how the government has gone from protecting U.S. citizens to thrive to using Big Brother tactics for Leftist environmentalism, Crony Capitalism or both:

 

While many remain oblivious to the strangulation of our most fiercely independent and productive citizens, the American Rancher, this last week’s news cycle sputtered out incomprehensible sound bites about Nevadan Rancher, Mr. Cliven Bundy.

 

Sometime in the mid 1800’s, long before Nevada was a territory, much less a state, Cliven Bundy’s ancestors settled a tract of land to raise a family and provide a livelihood ranching cattle.

 

In 1946 another debacle of a government agency was created, The Bureau of Land Management.

 

Like every single government agency, without exception, the BLM became a bloated bully who’s main contribution to the western states, in particular, was to destroy life, liberty and personal property.

 

52 other families in Clark County Nevada alone, had long since given up fighting the BLM. Grazing rights were/are typically denied under the guise of protecting “endangered species”, (a common practice nationwide to destroy watermen, farmers, and ranchers), or grazing fees are raised until those, like the Bundy’s, who dug the wells, fenced the land, and managed it just fine, are driven off or bankrupted.

 

The BLM also threatened the Bundy’s because they declared he owed them more than a million dollars in said “grazing fees”. I’ll say it again, for using the land that has been in his family for 7 generations.

 

THERE IS MORE (NOTHING LESS THAN TREASON, SEDITION AND EXTORTION IN NEVADA! Posted by DEAN JAMES – By Catherine Crabill; American Freedom Fighters; 4/15/14)

 

I was gratified when all those defendants were exonerated by jury trial pertaining to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge standoff. Unfortunately right after their jury exoneration the BLM and other Federal Agents arrested them for another trial over a standoff that took place prior to Malheur in Bunkerville Nevada area of the Bundy Ranch cattle operations.

 

This government persecution continues with the appearance of COVER-UP:

 

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has requested an investigation into allegations that employees of the Bureau of Land Management destroyed federal records, tampered with witnesses and obstructed a congressional investigation.

 

 

The original report details how BLM employee Danial Paul Love [aka Dirty Dan] used his position to gain entrance for family and friends to the Burning Man festival — held on BLM-managed land — and assign a security detail to his party and provide overnight lodging for these attendees.

 

 

It then goes on to document ways Love attempted to instruct witnesses and influence the testimony of colleagues questioned by investigators.

 

The Oversight Committee’s letter cites the report’s allegations of email scrubbing, conspiracy to change and withhold records for an impending congressional inquiry, and coaching witnesses as having the potential to taint the investigation and undermine trust in BLM’s law enforcement office. For this reason, Chaffetz asked for further scrutiny of Love’s actions.

The entire letter can be read on Oversight’s websiteREAD ENTIRETY (Committee to investigate whether feds obstructed probe into Burning Man fraud; By Tony Ware; Federal Times; 2/21/17)

 

More on Dirty Dan:

 

An investigation accusing a federal agent of misconduct and ethics violations could derail one of the most high-profile land-use trials in modern Western history.

 

 

But a Jan. 30 report by the Department of Interior’s Office of the Inspector General appears to raise serious questions about the BLM special agent in charge of operations during the standoff, who is expected to be a key witness for the government in the case.

 

The report, which does not identify the agent by name [Yup, it was Special Agent In Charge Dirty Dan], cites ethical violations that occurred in 2015 at the annual Burning Man event in Northern Nevada’s Black Rock Desert.

 

Federal investigators said the agent wrongly used his influence to obtain benefits for himself and his family members at Burning Man, abused federal law-enforcement resources and intimidated other BLM staff to keep quiet about his conduct. They also accused the agent of manipulating BLM hiring practices to help a friend get hired.

 

 

Whipple said the report paints a picture of an agent with a personal agenda and no regard for the rule of law. He said his client long has maintained that Love dangerously orchestrated events during the Bundy standoff to “enhance and enrich” his personal profile and “to make a name for himself.”

 

 

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Las Vegas also declined comment. Spokeswoman Trisha Young said Friday the witness list in the Bundy Ranch trials has been sealed and is not open to the public, and she declined to speak about Love’s role in the case.

 

Individual federal prosecutors assigned to the cases did not return calls.

 

 

“It’s in an ethics report. I think everything is up for grabs — misuse of the vehicles, using intimidation,” Gordon said. “This stuff, it suggests that he’s willing to cheat and lie for his job.”

 

She said defense attorneys involved in the Bundy Ranch trials might not be able to show juries the inspector general’s report [Why the H-E-Double Hockey Sticks NOT! Where’s the justice in suppressing the IG Report?] but could question Love about specific incidents raised in it.

 

 

Investigators said when they began looking into the complaints, the agent called other employees and encouraged them not to cooperate. He told them “I don’t recall” was a valid answer to investigators’ questions, the report said.

 

Investigators said the agent used intimidation to discourage his co-workers from speaking with investigators, telling one: “You know, if you don’t side with me, grenades are going to go off and you’ll get hit.”

 

 

On websites and social-media posts dedicated to the Bundy Ranch standoff, Love is accused of ratcheting up the conflict.

 

Recorded exchanges purportedly between Love and right-wing internet radio host Peter Santilli during the standoff show just how quickly events escalated as each man threatened the other with arrest.

 

Love maintained he had the federal courts on his side and wanted to end the standoff peacefully. Then he told Santilli that the protesters didn’t have enough people to hold off law enforcement, saying, “You better hope that 10,000 show up,” according to one website.

 

Santilli is one of the 17 facing charges.

 

 

For two decades, the BLM repeatedly ordered Bundy to remove his cattle from federal lands and in 2014 the agency obtained a court order to seize Bundy’s cattle as payment for more than $1 million in back fees. In April, the BLM, led by Love, implemented a roundup of 1,000 head of Bundy’s cattle ranging on public land.

 

Bundy fought back, issuing a social-media battle cry to help defend his land rights against federal agents. Supporters, including members of several militia groups, streamed to the ranch from several Western states, including Nevada, Arizona, Idaho and Montana. They showed up with rifles and handguns, determined to keep government agents at bay.

 

READ ENTIRETY (BLM misconduct probe may derail Bundy Ranch standoff trial; By Jenny Kane and Robert Anglen; azcentral.com; 2/3/17 9:58 p.m. MT – Updated 2/4/17 11:45 a.m. MT}

 

Journalist Pete Santilli was arrested under the Obama Administration DOJ claims he did not have a Free Press right for reporting on the Bunkerville Standoff:

 

Reporter Pete Santilli had his hearing in Nevada on Monday on trumped up charges he is facing for his reporting on the Bundy Ranch Siege in 2014. As he left the courtroom in chains, he cried out, “I’m a journalist. This is what they do in Communist China!”

 

READ THE REST (Federal Government Throws Journalist into Prison for the “Crime” of Covering BLM Protests! By Tim Brown; Eagle Rising; May 2016)

 

The corruption can be seen with Defense Attorneys and the Prosecution sparing about what evidence is admissible and about which witnesses will be allowed to testify:

 

A downtown Las Vegas courtroom provided scenes as wild as a Western movie Monday when federal prosecutors and defense attorneys battled over nearly every piece of evidence presented in the trial against six of rancher Cliven Bundy’s supporters.

 

Defense attorneys tried to block a government witness from testifying. A prosecutor invoked an evidence rule that led even the judge to flip open a legal handbook. A juror made a wisecrack that caused one lawyer to raise concerns of potential bias.

 

By 4 p.m., U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro had sent the jury home early and told them not to return until Wednesday.

 

The day’s most hotly disputed footage was played outside the presence of the jury when defense lawyer Todd Leventhal tried to bring into evidence a video from the April 2014 standoff in Bunkerville. The video was captured by a Fox News cameraman, and Leventhal, who represents Bundy supporter O. Scott Drexler, wanted the judge to let him play it when he cross-examined Bureau of Land Management Ranger Gregory Johnson.

 

Johnson testified as a government witness Monday. On April 12, 2014, he was recorded on dashboard camera footage using a megaphone to repeatedly order protesters to disperse.

 

The protesters, who were gathered near the site where federal authorities had been impounding Bundy’s cattle, screamed angrily. At one point on the footage, authorities referenced a man walking towards them — “blue shirt, looks like press.”

 

The cameraman was identified in court only by his surname, Lynch. Defense lawyers tried to use the footage he captured to bolster their arguments that protesters could not understand law enforcement’s instructions from 200 yards away on a windy day.

 

On the video, Lynch walks toward the cattle impoundment site where federal authorities were headquartered.

 

“I do not have a weapon — I am shooting for Fox News,” he yelled. “May I approach so this doesn’t end in bloodshed … the people don’t want to get hurt.

 

“You are in violation of a U.S. District Court order,” Johnson’s voice boomed over the megaphone.

 

“I am the press!” Lynch shouted.

 

“Go back.”

 

“Why? Why can’t you talk to me?!”

 

“You are in violation

 

“I have no weapon! Are you really gonna shoot these people?” Lynch exclaimed. “We can’t hear your announcement that far away.”

Navarro would not allow the video into evidence Monday, but she told Leventhal he could play it for jurors if he calls Lynch as a defense witness.

 

READ THE REST (Tempers flare, nerves fray in trial against Bundy supporters; By JENNY WILSON; Las Vegas Review-Journal; 3/6/17 8:54pm)

 

Recall above info in which Special In Charge Dirty Dan Love is accused of ethics violations and witness intimidation. Dirty Dan is the guy in charge yelling at the Fox News cameraman for documenting the standoff. Dirty Dan’s BLM Agents tried to confiscate the Bundy Cattle and intimidated the Ranchers into arming themselves with vicious actions against the protestors.

 

Guess what? The Federal Prosecutor is trying to prevent Defense access to Dirty Dan at the trial:

 

It appears the government wants to hide the illegal actions it has taken, along with those of the Bureau of Land Management in the Bundy Ranch trial that is soon to begin.

 

On Tuesday, Prosecutors in Las Vegas filed a Motion In Limine  in the case of The United States vs Cliven Bundy et al.  They are hopeful that Nevada District Court Judge Gloria Navarro will allow the US central government to “cover-up” any wrong doing by Bureau Of Land Management agents during the 2014 Bundy Ranch siege.

 

An attorney for one of the defendants told Guerilla Media Network, “It’s a shocking blatant attempt by the Government to cover-up the brutal conduct of BLM agents that caused a near catastrophe in Bunkerville, Nevada during the impoundment of rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle.”

 

Guerilla Media Network reports:

 

The motion is a draconian attempt at best to “protect” government agents from being exposed to further scrutiny during the upcoming Nevada trials in which they will be under-oath to tell the truth.

 

 

The defense in this case is centered around civil rights violations of the Bundy family and protestors who came to Bunkerville, Nevada to protest an overreaching government agency who had beaten and incarcerated Cliven Bundy’s son Dave Bundy and other protestors, used a stun gun on his son Ammon Bundy, viciously attacked Mr. Bundy’s sister Margaret, and terrorized peaceful protest with threat of snipers and military force.

 

“It is what it is and we will fight it,” said Chris Rasmussen, attorney for reporter and radio show host Pete Santilli.  “The government wishes to eliminate anything we could use that goes to the defendants’ state of mind .. and we cannot allow that to happen. These people were frightened and there was a reason they reacted the way they did.”

 

“Do we or do we not still live in America?” said former Nevada State Assemblywoman Michele Fiore on Tuesday in response to the motion.  “One way or the other the truth will be told and I would like to see them stop me from voluntarily giving my testimony when this trial begins.”

 

Fiore has already told about some of the evidence that is known to exist concerning the criminal BLM, including audio and video from body cameras, and even spoken out on their crimes on the Nevada Assembly floor.

 

VIDEO: Michele Fiore: Government Alters Dashboard/Body Cam Video In Nevada Bundy Case

 

Posted by Pete Santilli Show

Published on Oct 3, 2016

*** Please help support our mission in Nevada by contributing at http://thepetesantillishow.com/donate or direct to our Paypal account: peter@petersantilli.com .

Defendants in the case of United States vs Cliven Bundy et al .. are accusing the BLM [Bureau of Land Management] and the FBI of altering dashboard and body-cam video in an attempt to cover-up their aggressiveness during the 2014 protest that led to the arrest of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and 18 others.

Defendants are also accusing the FBI “infiltration team” who posed as a documentary film crew called Long Bow, of editing video at crucial moments to make defendants who gave interviews look guilty of crimes they did not commit.

On at least 5 different occasions the defendants in the case say that video used to gain their indictments and create the Governments narrative that has kept them all in jail pending trial, was clearly altered at crucial moments to hide what they believe would expose the BLM as the aggressors and not the “victims” as Prosecutor Steven Myhre contends.

We have found at least 5 different clear cases of evidence tampering and have only viewed 1/4 of the discovery that was recently released to us by the Prosecutors office say defendants, who have begun the process of creating a power point demonstration that will be viewed by defense attorney’s on October 7, 2016.

… MORE VIDEOS

 

Carol Bundy, Cliven Bundy’s wife, reacted in a similar manner, “So what kind of defense are we allowed to have if we can’t tell the truth?  Because if the Government has it’s way it looks like we will not be allowed to have any defense at all.”

 

 

Judge Navarro has demonstrated that she is just as corrupt as the BLM and the politicians surrounding what is going on in Nevada.  Just look at what she has done to Santilli and Cliven Bundy.  Does anyone really believe she is not going to accept this motion? READ ENTIRETY (Prosecutors Seek to Protect BLM from Scrutiny in Bundy Ranch Trial; By TIM BROWN; Freedom Outpost; 1/28/17)

 

Now for the article that got me started on this brief excursion of government cover-up and corruption. This article is specifically about the Prosecutors preventing Dirty Dan to be confronted by the Defense as the accuser of the Bunkerville Standoff Defendants.

 

JRH 3/18/17

Please Support NCCR

*****************

The Utter Hypocrisy of the Government in the Bundy Ranch Trial

 

By TIM BROWN

MARCH 16, 2017

Freedom Outpost

 

The utter hypocrisy that is being demonstrated in the Bundy Ranch trial by those who swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution from both foreign and domestic enemies is quite telling as to the level of corruption we are seeing in our land today.  Furthermore, it is demonstrating that many of those who have taken that oath not only don’t know what the Constitution says, but also have become the very domestic enemies they proclaim to oppose because of their ignorance.

 

First, take this update from Guerilla Media Network’s Deb Jordan.

 

VIDEO: Bundy Trial Update: Judge May Not Allow Defendants Biggest Accuser To Be Questioned In Front Of Jury

 

Posted by Pete Santilli Show

Published on Mar 10, 2017

 

call Daniel P. Love to the stand she is leaning heavily toward not allowing the defense to call him to the stand either. In a shocking statement made outside the earshot of the Jury this past Friday, Navarro said that she has no obligation to allow the defense to call the former Special Agent in Charge of the Bundy cattle impoundment to the stand for the purpose of impeaching his testimony to the grand jury .. Also this week Dennis Michael Lynch took the stand ..

Please help support us in Nevada by contributing at http://thepetesantillishow.com/donate or READ THE REST

 

“Judge Gloria Navarro presiding over USA vs Cliven Bundy says, if the Prosecution does not call Daniel P. Love to the stand she is leaning heavily toward not allowing the defense to call him to the stand either,” Jordan wrote.  “In a shocking statement made outside the earshot of the Jury this past Friday, Navarro said that she has no obligation to allow the defense to call the former Special Agent in Charge of the Bundy cattle impoundment to the stand for the purpose of impeaching his testimony to the grand jury.”

 

No obligation?   This is the government’s star snitch, I mean witness, Bureau of Land Management agent Daniel P. Love.  Perhaps, the reason lies in the fact that the BLM’s conduct at Bundy Ranch was thuggish and tyrannical (Watch Video evidence of their misconduct here and here).  Perhaps, the reason lies with the fact that Love was found guilty of misconduct by the Inspector General on a number of issues, including using his influence to obtain tickets and special passes to the Burning Man festival in the Nevada desert.  He was also instrumental in driving Dr. James Redd to the point of suicide over his collecting of Indian Artifacts in 2009.

 

As for Judge Navarro, citizens are planning to issue a letter to Congress calling for her impeachment due to her conduct in the case.

 

However, that is not the whole of what is taking place in Nevada.  The Nevada Independent reports:

 

Although no shots were fired that day, federal officers previously testified that alarming investigative intelligence, combined with the guns present in the agitated crowd and para-military dress of some of the protesters, made them afraid for their safety. Six defendants the government describes as Bundy’s gunmen are on trial accused of  threatening and intimidating BLM and U.S. Parks Service law enforcement officers.

 

In recent weeks, on cross examination, the defense has managed to portray the federal cops as inexperienced wannabes who lacked judgment and overreacted under stress. After the decision was made to discontinue the roundup, some of BLM rangers and Park police initially refused orders to put away their weapons, stand down and pack up. Some of their responses under oath made them appear more fearful than professional.

 

But the defense this past week had little success with Metro Sgt. Tom Jenkins and none at all with Sheriff Joseph Lombardo.

 

Additionally, there was testimony by Metro Sgt. Tom Jenkins, who claimed that protesters were flashing handguns and rifles “from the time we got there until the time we left.”  However, he remained steadfast in his claims even though lengthy recorded exhibits didn’t always agree with his testimony.  Someone is not being truthful or has a really bad memory that cannot be trusted.

 

Jenkins claims his officers were “scared” and “crying.”  Really?

 

I wonder if Sgt. Jenkins thought there was fear in the hearts of the Bundys and their supporters over this?

 

https://youtu.be/9p0YemhFnw8

 

or this?

 

https://youtu.be/LhJ6H9vlEDA

 

Then there was testimony from Lombardo.  Again, from The Nevada Independent:

 

When Lombardo’s took the stand Thursday, he reminded those who have followed his career that the public needn’t worry about his leadership skills. An assistant sheriff at the time of the standoff, Lombardo accompanied Sheriff Doug Gillespie to Bundy’s makeshift stage outside his ranch in an attempt to cool the heated rhetoric and avoid bloodshed. He stood patiently during Bundy’s windy grandstanding and impossible demands — disarm all federal law enforcement and bulldoze the entrance booths at the region’s federal conservation and recreation areas — and then returned to Las Vegas believing the botched cattle roundup was reaching a peaceful resolution.

 

For the first time jurors saw video of the elder Bundy holding forth with armed, uniformed members of the Arizona State Militia, who call themselves the “Praetorian Guard,” standing guard. Dozens of his hundreds of followers were armed with handguns and rifles.

 

When Bundy instructed his followers to go get his cattle, Lombardo’s day grew complicated and dangerous. He attempted to negotiate with one of Bundy’s sons, Dave Bundy, in a plea for patience and enough time to allow the BLM to make a safe exit.

 

It was Lombardo, jurors learned, who essentially put his career on the line to overrule BLM Supervisory Special Agent Dan Love and press for the release of the impounded cattle during the height of the armed standoff’s tensions.

 

“He advised me they were federal cattle and it was his decision,” Lombardo said.

 

Fortunately, Lombardo prevailed.

 

On what constitutional basis do Cliven Bundy’s cattle become “federal cattle”?  There is no victim any what the government is portraying here.  Furthermore, just because a video shows armed citizens protecting one another from a tyrannical BLM, something that even Sheriff Lombardo was willing to stand up to, doesn’t mean they were breaking the law.  Seriously, is no one reading the Second Amendment?  Do none of these people know why we have it and what provoked the writing of the Second Amendment?  or the First? or the Third? or the Fourth, etc. etc.?

 

While the author of the Nevada Independent piece concluded, “Bring guns to a peaceful protest, and you’re bound to get everyone’s attention,” what he failed to identify is who brought them first.  The response of protesters with guns was an equal and measured defensive response to tyrants, period.  Now, you can see the utter hypocrisy and lack of moral compass that is on display in this case.

 

________________

Government Corruption Prosecutes Bundys

John R. Houk

© March 18, 2017

_________________

The Utter Hypocrisy of the Government in the Bundy Ranch Trial

 

Copyright © 2017 FreedomOutpost.com

 

Judge Watson’s TRO is teeming with Evidence of Bias and PREJUDGEMENT!


Paul Sutliff cites from Judge Watson’s TRO to demonstrate the injunction does not even come close to Constitutional mustard and thus should be disqualified immediately by SCOTUS. Sutliff goes further and demands that Judge Watson’s blatant politicization above the Constitution is grounds for impeachment from his Judiciary Office. For that matter, it should be grounds for impeachment of any Judge or Justice that cites non-constitutional circumstances above the U.S. Constitution.

 

JRH 3/17/17

Please Support NCCR

******************

Judge Watson’s TRO is teeming with Evidence of Bias and PREJUDGEMENT!

 

By Paul Sutliff

March 16, 2017 3:38 PM

Paul Sutliff on Civilization Jihad

 

Judge Derrick Watson TRO against Trump EO Travel Ban

 

As I read the Order Granting the Temporary Retraining Order (TRO) in STATE OF HAWAI‘I and ISMAIL ELSHIKH vs. Donald J. Trump, et. al., I began to wonder how this document was written with any assemblance of juris prudence professionalism. I say this knowing it is practically impossible for a judge to write a 42 page document excluding the title page which makes 43 in a matter of two hours. I took an extra step to verify this by talking to lawyers who had seen judges using their clerk’s assistance to complete maybe 12 pages in two hours due to needed discussion and citation verification not to mention proof reading.

 

I suggest every American read this ruling to discover what I did. Namely, that US District Court Judge Derrick Watson who awarded the TRO had the majority of the decision pre-written prior to entering the court! This TRO then becomes an example of unethical conduct of a judge.

 

The State of Hawaii presented a case claiming economic hardship should these six countries be banned. Among the claims of economic hardship was a statement that tourism declined by 100 persons from the Middle East. Notably absent is whether there was an increase or decrease in tourism for the month in question as compared to last year.

 

Yet, even Judge Derrick Watson admits in a FOOTNOTE:

 

Footnote 8: This data relates to the prior Executive Order No. 13,769. At this preliminary stage, the Court looks to the earlier order’s effect on tourism in order to gauge the economic impact of the new Executive Order, while understanding that the provisions of the two differ. Because the new Executive Order has yet to take effect, its precise economic impact cannot presently be determined.” (pgs. 20-21)

 

The State of Hawaii made the outlandish claim that the University of Hawai’i would suffer economical hardship. Absent is a statement of how many students from these six countries currently are enrolled and how many are generally recruited a year. Somewhat humorously, the state claimed:

 

… that any prospective recruits who are without visas as of March 16, 2017 will not be able to travel to Hawaii to attend the University. As a result, the University will not be able to collect the tuition that those students would have paid.

 

Oh, the insanity! The college can NOT collect from students who can NOT legally enter the United States is a hardship??? Well just how many students are we talking about? Better yet, are these foreign students being given state or federal grants that enable them to attend the University of Hawai’i?

 

The State of Hawaii went on and stated that if the ban goes into effect it will likely cause the closing of the Persian Language and Culture program. Oh the insanity in deleting a program that requires TWO instructors!!! Below is a screenshot pulled from their site listing their academic instructors! ALL TWO OF THEM!!!

 

Persian Language & Culture Profs screen shot

 

Dr. Ismail Elshikh is listed as the co-litigant. Interestingly this name is misspelled possibly purposefully because his name is listed in news articles as “Ismail El Sheikh.” While it is not uncommon for Arabs to use various transliterations of English for their name, it is not acceptable for someone who has lived in America for some time to do this. I want to have this issue resolved and to understand the meaning behind the misspelling.

 

Dr. Ismail El-Sheikh claims that his children are suffering hardship because his mother-in-law is not able to come to America, though it was established that she is in the process of being able to come due to family being here.

 

Dr. Ismail El-Sheikh is quoted in the TRO as having stated:

 

  • … that the effects of the Executive Order are “devastating to me, my wife and children.” Elshikh Decl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 66-1.

 

  • “deeply saddened by the message that [both Executive Orders] convey—that a broad travel-ban is ‘needed’ to prevent people from certain Muslim countries from entering the United States.” Elshikh Decl. ¶ 1

 

  • “Because of my allegiance to America, and my deep belief in the American ideals of democracy and equality, I am deeply saddened by the passage of the Executive Order barring nationals from now-six Muslim majority countries from entering the United States.”; id. ¶ 3

 

  • [“My children] are deeply affected by the knowledge that the United States—their own country—would discriminate against individuals who are of the same ethnicity as them, including members of their own family, and who 25 hold the same religious beliefs. They do not fully understand why this is happening, but they feel hurt, confused, and sad.”

 

I am further at a loss when I read on page 23-24:

 

Vasquez v. Los Angeles Cty., 487 F.3d 1246, 1250 (9th Cir. 2007)  (“The concept of a ‘concrete’ injury is particularly elusive in the Establishment Clause     context.”). “The standing question, in plain English, is whether adherents to a religion have standing to challenge an official condemnation by their government of their religious views[.] Their ‘personal stake’ assures the ‘concrete adverseness’ 24 required.” Catholic League, 624 F.3d at 1048–49.

 

The TRO was awarded with the claim that it violates Dr. Ismail El-Sheikh’s First Amendment rights! Yet his rights have never been in violation! At no time, and in no place in the TRO does it state that his rights were in question!! Rather the statement is that NON-Citizens First Amendment rights are being violated!!!

 

The bill makes no illusions to religion at all. Even though they do quote an adviser to the president they do not provide proof that there is a ban on a religion. Which of course can be easily disproved by naming off Muslim countries that have no ban!

 

On Page 27 the ruling states:

 

(“Plaintiffs’ alleged injury is not based on speculation about a particular future prosecution or the defeat of a particular ballot question. . . . Here, the issue presented requires no further factual development, is largely a legal question, and chills allegedly protected First Amendment expression.”); see also     Arizona Right to Life Political Action Comm. v. Bayless, 320 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]hen the threatened enforcement effort implicates First Amendment [free speech] rights, the inquiry tilts dramatically toward a finding of standing.”). The Court turns to the merits of Plaintiffs’ Motion for TRO.

 

The mentioning of freedom of speech makes no sense here! Is this evidence that Judge Derrick Watson could not find judicial reasoning to support his conclusion?? Can anyone see logic in this ruling?

 

The TRO decision states:

 

“Indeed, the Government defends the Executive Order principally because of its religiously neutral text —“[i]t applies to six countries that Congress and the prior Administration determined posed special risks of terrorism. [The Executive Order] applies to all individuals in those countries, regardless of their religion.” Gov’t. Mem. in Opp’n 40. The Government does not stop there. By its reading, the Executive Order could not have been religiously motivated because “the six countries represent only a small fraction of the world’s 50 Muslim-majority nations, and are home to less than 9% of the global Muslim population . . . [T]he suspension covers every national of those countries, including millions of non-Muslim individuals[.]” Gov’t. Mem. in Opp’n 42.

 

The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. The Court declines to relegate its Establishment 31 Clause analysis to a purely mathematical exercise. See Aziz, 2017 WL 580855, at *9 (rejecting the argument that “the Court cannot infer an anti-Muslim animus because [Executive Order No. 13,769] does not affect all, or even most, Muslims,” because “the Supreme Court has never reduced its Establishment Clause jurisprudence to a mathematical exercise. It is a discriminatory purpose that matters, no matter how inefficient the execution” (citation omitted)). Equally flawed is the notion that the Executive Order cannot be found to have targeted Islam because it applies to all individuals in the six referenced countries. It is undisputed, using the primary source upon which the Government itself relies, that these six countries have overwhelmingly Muslim populations that range from 90.7% to 99.8%.12 It would therefore be no paradigmatic leap to conclude that targeting these countries likewise targets Islam. Certainly, it would be inappropriate to conclude, as the Government does, that it does not. (p. 30-31)

 

Interestingly, this statement quotes the last judge who ruled against President Trump’s Executive Order on immigration restrictions but tries to hide doing so in not revealing the citation:

 

the Supreme Court has never reduced its Establishment Clause jurisprudence to a mathematical exercise. It is a discriminatory purpose that matters, no matter how inefficient the execution.

 

Worse still is the lack in understanding that they are using math to justify their reasoning while stating that math should not be used for this purpose. This also demonstrates that the judgement was given prejudicially be not applying statistical analysis in math to examine why those six countries were deemed to be terrorist supporter countries. This provides a one-sided view. Something judges are not supposed to do.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

This TRO’s standing is based on a belief that people who are not American citizens are under the US Constitution! This is highly misleading, unethical and teem of nothing but judicial activism!

 

Where is the outrage? Why are the major media outlets not asking these questions? Because it would not fit their narrative? If Judge Derrick Watson is not removed for unethical and unConstitutional activism, all of America will suffer! Call your Senator ask for Judge Derrick Watson to be impeached today! The evidence is all in the TRO.

__________________

Edited by John R.  Houk

 

About Paul Sutliff

 

I am writer and a teacher. Here is a link to my publisher and my latest book portraying the truth about Civilization Jiihad

 

Using Islam to Vet Muslims


Leftist Judges continue to shoot down the vetting of refugees from nations which Islamic terrorism is rampant:

 

Hours after a federal judge in Hawaii issued a nationwide temporary restraining order against President Trump’s travel ban, U.S. District Court Judge Theodore D. Chuang, in Maryland, issued a nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the 90-day ban against travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Chuang’s order denies the plaintiffs’ request to block other parts of Trump’s March 6 executive order, including the temporary ban on refugees. READ THE REST (Trump Travel Ban Blocked Nationwide By Federal Judges In Hawaii, Maryland; By RICHARD GONZALES; KUT.org; 3/15/17 10:00 p.m. ET, 3/16/17  12:58 pm, Updated 3:30 a.m. ET)

 

None of these Judges cite the Constitution in their Judicial injunction but do use plenty of President Trump’s pre-election campaigning as if Free Speech is hog-tied in America as in Europe.

 

With that in mind, the Bill Warner suggestion for vetting Muslim refugees would probably make these activist Leftist Judges apoplectic.

 

JRH 3/16/17

Please Support NCCR

*******************

Using Islam to Vet Muslims

 

By Bill Warner

Mar 15 2017

Political Islam

 

To vet Muslims, don’t talk about Islam; instead talk about the fruit of the Islam. Here is an example: wife beating. No apologist can support wife beating, but wife beating is found in the Koran and the Hadith:

 

Koran 4:34 Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and … send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them.

 

Dawood #2142 Umar reported the prophet as saying: “A man will not be asked as to why he beats his wife”.

 

I object to any wife beating doctrine. I don’t want immigrants/Muslims who believe in wife beating to be my neighbor.

 

The Islamic doctrine supports: slavery, torture, Kafirs must submit to Sharia, wife beating, inferiority of women, political assassin. I reject Sharia, wife beating, torture, killing of Kafirs. Notice that I do not say I reject Muslims.

 

So ask an apologist: Do you support wife beating? Assassination? Killing apostates?

 

You say you don’t know enough to quote Koran and Hadith. Then go ask Imam Google. The hadith and Koran verse I used came from web searching: “wife beating Koran”. Finding this kind of information used to be hard, now it is simple.
Why do we want to bring in anybody who buys into wife beating, the inferiority of Kafirs, assassinations?

 

So, deal with the fruit of Islam, not Islam. Ask the apologist to agree with this evil fruit of the doctrine, for instance, wife beating. Notice the method: Talk about the source doctrine and its fruit.

 

Is it fair to ask if a Muslim follows the doctrine? If not, will they condemn it?

 

VIDEO: Bill Warner, PhD: Using Islam to Vet Muslims

 

Posted by Political Islam

Published on Mar 15, 2017

_________________

© 2007-2017 CSPI, LLC. all rights reserved.

 

About Political Islam

 

What is Islam?

 

Islam is a cultural, religious and political system. Only the political system is of interest to kafirs (non-Muslims) since it determines how we are defined and treated. The Islamic political system is contained in the Koran, the Hadith (the traditions of Mohammed) and his biography, the Sira.

 

Our Mission

 

Political Islam has subjugated other civilizations for 1400 years. Our mission is to educate the world about political Islam, its founder Mohammed, his political doctrine and his god, Allah.

 

The Five Principles

 

Islam’s Trilogy of three sacred texts is the Koran and two books about the life of Mohammed. When the Trilogy is sorted, categorized, arranged, rewritten and analyzed, it becomes apparent that five principles are the foundation of Islam.

 

All of Islam is based upon the Trilogy—Kora, Sira (Mohammed’s biography) and Hadith (his Traditions).


Most of the Islamic doctrine is political, not religious. Islam is a political ideology.

 

Islam divides the world into Muslims and unbelievers, kafirs.

 

Political Islam always has two different ways to treat kafirs—dualistic ethics. Kafirs can be abused in the worst ways or they can be treated like a good neighbor.

 

Kafirs must submit to Islam in all politics and public life. Every aspect of kafir civilization must submit to political Islam.

 

These Five Principles can be put in five words—Trilogy, politics, kafirs, dualism and submission. These five words bring clarity and READ THE REST