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

 

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

 

Obama’s Saboteurs


Justin Smith nails the Obama criminal spying on political opponents straight on the head.

 

JRH 3/14/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Obama’s Saboteurs

Undermining Our Republic

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 3/13/2017 12:30 PM

 

Setting a dangerous precedent for the future of America, the New York Times, the Washington Post and other Leftist propaganda machines and an army of the Obama administration’s holdovers, nothing less than saboteurs, have waged a war of innuendo and speculation and felony leaks for months in an attempt to destroy President Donald Trump’s administration and the government American voters demanded. They have turned their backs on the Constitution and the American people, their oath to protect and defend both, and they have sought to undermine our democratic process and the Republic of the United States of America.

 

Classified information leaked to the media – a felony – set speculation in motion as the New York Times and the left-leaning Mother Jones alleged collusion between Donald Trump and his advisors and Russia for the past six months, even though their own reports show an initial Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) warrant targeting Trump and several associates was denied and nothing criminal was ever proven. And, according to Heat Street [HERE & HERE], a more narrowly drawn FISA warrant was granted in October to investigate the Trump campaign’s alleged links to Russia’s Alfa Bank and SVB Bank; the FBI found nothing “nefarious” and attributed the raised alarm to “spam”.

 

Essentially, Donald Trump was not named in the second FISA warrant, but surveillance of him and his inner circle, private citizens such as Michael Flynn, Roger Stone and Paul Manafort, continued up to the general election [HERE & HERE]. One can only surmise that Obama and his leftist minions banked on finding information that would defeat Trump; and after Donald Trump won, they continued surveillance in hopes of eventually impeaching and unseating President Trump.

 

If phone calls to Russia merit an investigation, shouldn’t Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been investigated for accepting a $145 million bribe from Russia and ROSATOM [HERE & HERE] in exchange for helping them acquire twenty-five percent of America’s uranium resources? Oh, wait a minute — Hillary is a Democrat, so just overlook any criminal behavior.

 

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) suggested the Obama administration’s extensive surveillance of Trump’s presidential campaign was troubling but not surprising. Hatch “suspected that they were going to do that anyways.”

 

How could the media and the Obama machine — the Obama Foundation, billionaire George Soros and Organizing for America — not expect Trump to counter-punch? But incredulously, they were unprepared for President Trump’s March 4th 2017 allegation on Twitter that former President Obama “had my wires tapped in Trump Tower just before the victory”.

 

Who in the Obama administration ordered the FISA wiretaps and why?

 

U.S. citizens normally cannot be searched or subjected to electronic eavesdropping without probable cause of a crime, however FISA makes exceptions if there is probable cause they are agents of a foreign power. No one person can state with a straight face that “Trump is a Russian spy”.

 

Retired Lt. Colonel Tony Shaffer, a defense intelligence officer trained by the CIA (Fox News), said, “I put this right at the feet of John Brennan and Jim Clapper, and I would even go so far as to say the White House was directly involved before [Obama} left”. He also asserted that it was clear sensitive information was divulged to the media by people who had access to beyond Top Secret material.

 

[Blog Editor: Here’s a Youtube video of Shaffer on Fox & Friends Weekend

 

VIDEO: Lt. Col. Shaffer: Potential Obama Wiretapping Is ‘Soviet-Level Wrongdoing’ @OBAMAFORPRISON2017

 

Posted by Wesley Veras

Published on Mar 4, 2017

@OBAMAFORPRISON2017 SHARE IT/MAKE IT VIRAL.]

 

On the same day of President Trump’s bombshell, Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s former campaign manager, told Judge Jeanine Pirro (Fox News) that the Obama administration was also “listening to conversations between then-Senator Jeff Sessions and the Ambassador from Russia while he was in his U.S. Senate office’. (And) the fact that the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act is being used to listen to a political opponent is “very, very damaging”.

 

[Blog Editor: Here’s a Youtube video of Pirro/Lewandowski interview:

 

VIDEO: Corey Lewandowski: Obama Bugged Sessions Meeting With Russian Ambassador

 

Posted by The PolitiStick

Published on Mar 4, 2017

 

Full Pirro/Lewandowski interview HERE.]

 

Please note that Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and many other Democrats met with this same Russian Ambassador. Their hypocrisy is on full display.

 

Some sort of surveillance of the Trump campaign occurred, if one can believe James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence. Clapper told NBC and ABC News that during his tenure in the Obama administration, up to January 20th 2017, there wasn’t any collusion or collaboration between Donald Trump’s campaign and the government of Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

 

The NYT’s story “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides” on January 19th 2017 states: “The FBI is leading the investigation, aided by the National Security Agency, the CIA and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks … intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the [Obama] White House.

 

With FBI Director James Comey’s motivation suspect, he asked the Justice Department to confirm that President Trump’s allegation was “absolutely false”. This was followed recently with Congress’s demand for any and all documents concerning any Department of Justice investigation of President Trump and his campaign.

 

Once the Democrats had their “uh oh moment”, as Garth Kant of WND called it, they realized that a scandal bigger than Watergate was beginning to unfold. The Obama Justice Department had apparently used its legal authorities to target a political opponent and a presidential candidate.

 

Any outrage from the Obama White House is extremely exaggerated. Obama does not deny that Trump was being monitored by his Justice Department, and any spying on his arch rival, a man with the ability to diminish his legacy, was done with Obama’s blessing. Only a fool could believe that Obama was ignorant of the spying. [Editor’s Bold Text]

 

From the DOJ’s seizure of Associated Press phone records and Fox News reporter James Rosen’s email records, to heavy IRS scrutiny of the Tea Party and on to the NSA’s warrantless mass surveillance of American citizens, the Obama administration’s enthusiasm for surveillance and using government power against its political enemies is a matter of shameful record. Obama’s and the Leftists’ so-called “Resistance” to the Trump administration has developed the feel of a not-so-covert coup against President Trump. [Editor’s Bold Text]

 

Americans are entitled to the full truth surrounding former President Obama’s use of nation-state resources for the purposes of political gain. Sycophantic rogue agents of the NSA, the CIA, the FBI and the Justice Department, all Democrat ideologues and communists, have apparently subverted the U.S. Constitution and spied on President Trump’s presidential campaign in a manner that was not approved by any court, in order to derail his election and the Democratic process, leaking sensitive national security secrets along the way. And anyone involved, including Obama, must be prosecuted and placed behind bars. [Editor’s Bold Text]

 

By Justin O. Smith

___________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text enclosed by brackets and all source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

ONLY Refugees that Support U.S. Constitution


want-muslim-refugees-next-door

John R. Houk

© January 30, 2017

 

Leo Hohmann has typed an article warning that Homeland chaos is on the way to confront Trump’s campaign promises on illegal immigrants and Muslim refugees. To be honest the article is also a WND promo for Hohmann’s book “STEALTH INVASION: MUSLIM CONQUEST THROUGH IMMIGRATION AND RESETTLEMENT JIHAD”. If the stealth-invasion-bk-jkbook is as informative as the Hohmann article, it is a must to get a hold of.

 

I pray political correctness does not pressure President Trump to cave in on his campaign promises on vetting Muslim Refugees. I have noticed the MSM has gone out of its way to highlight so-called peaceful Muslims out of the USA doing business yet now are not allowed back in to see their families residing on American soil.

 

Off the top of my head (no pun intended), a Muslim Ethiopian who is a British citizen has resided in Oregon for ten years. He communicated to his family in Oregon he may not be back to see them in Oregon for some time because he is a Muslim.

 

This is an example of crap news coming from the American Left.

 

ONE: The Trump EO refers to refugees from seven particular nations. NOT Muslims!

TWO: If the Ethiopian is a British citizen residing in Oregon already for ten years, he is not subject to the 7-nation refugee moratorium – HE’S A BRIT.

 

These kinds of stories are pure poppycock.

 

On the other hand, I do realize there are already unvetted Muslim refugees on American soil largely due to Obama’s Multiculturalist agenda. These refugees may have expected some family members from the 7-nation refugee moratorium and now there is a freeze for at least 90 days. That doesn’t mean those family members have a radical Muslim agenda against the USA. IT DOES MEAN those family members must be vetted to insure they have no hatred of America or any nefarious designs based on potential hatred. So, protest all you want. The USA has no need for foreign American-hating Muslims that feel they are on a divine Quranic mission.

 

Yesterday I blogged on some AWESOME vetting technology that President Trump could employ to make the vetting process move faster. The technology is called “COGITO”.

 

Now back to the Hohmann article.

 

Hohmann believes there are what he calls three flashpoints that will inspire the “global Islamic movement and its allies on the political left” to “confront” Trump’s policies:

 

  • Moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem

 

  • Declaring the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization

 

  • Restricting Islamic immigration into the U.S.

 

Trump confront back and I believe he will. BUT – If for some reason the American Left hamstrings President Trump, there is a Second Amendment option for private citizens to organize and confront back on American soil. Begin with confrontational peaceful protest. Then if the American Left and/or Muslims supporting Islamic Salafist ideology ups the ante with violence, be prepared to ante up ourselves.

 

JRH 1/30/17

Please Support NCCR

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

3 ‘TRIGGERS’ FOR ISLAMIC UPRISING UNDER TRUMP PRESIDENCY

Airport protests just the start of ‘chaos’ planned by Muslim Brotherhood

 

By LEO HOHMANN

Updated: 01/29/2017 at 10:52 PM

WND

 

airport-protests-led-by-cair-per-trump-immigration-eo

Major airports saw protests led by CAIR and other groups in defense of continued, unrestricted immigration from seven countries President Donald Trump says are harboring terrorists.

 

A former Homeland Security officer who spent years screening Muslim immigrants points to three “triggers” of confrontation between the new administration of Donald Trump and the global Islamic movement.

 

These three issues will spawn a violent backlash in response to Trump as he attempts to implement what many believe are long-overdue reforms.

 

And Trump has already bumped head-on into one of the hot-button issues – Muslim immigration.

 

Philip B. Haneyphilip-haney

 

According to Phillip Haney, a founding member of the Homeland Security Department and author of the book “See Something Say Nothing,” the stars are lining up for a major confrontation with the global Islamic movement and its allies on the political left.

 

The “flashpoints” to watch going forward are these:

 

  • Moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem

 

  • Declaring the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization

 

  • Restricting Islamic immigration into the U.S.

 

Trump’s executive orders slapping a 120-day moratorium on refugee resettlement and a 30-day ban on those entering on visas from seven terror-sponsoring countries has been met with protests Sunday at airports in New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Detroit and Minneapolis.

 

In Hamtramck, Michigan, the nation’s first city to elect a Muslim-majority city council, protesters descended on City Hall Sunday with signs that included “Ban Bannon” and “We are all Immigrants.”

 

There were no such protests when former President Obama restricted Christian refugees from entering the U.S. from Syria, Egypt, Pakistan and other Muslim countries.

 

As Trump tries to rein in concessions given to the Muslim Brotherhood by the previous administrations of Clinton, Bush and Obama, he should expect the Brotherhood and its allies on the left to push back with hell’s fury, Haney said.

 

There will be lawsuits, ugly protests, and an all-out effort to create chaos in the streets of U.S. cities, he predicts.

 

What do YOU think? Are you concerned about an Islamic backlash to Trump? Sound off in the WND Poll!

 

The reason is simple. This isn’t 1968 or even 1978, when Islam in America consisted primarily of a few thousand Nation of Islam and Black Panther activists.

 

Islam, particularly the Salafist brand of Sunni Islam promoted by the Muslim Brotherhood, whose stated goal is to spread Shariah throughout the world, has been allowed to establish a major foothold in America.

 

More than 300 U.S. cities and towns have been stacked with Sharia-compliant Muslims through refugee resettlement and myriad other visa programs that have been expanding for four decades.

 

Meanwhile, groups that agitate for Muslim “civil rights,” which tend to manifest as special privileges not afforded to Christians, have been empowered. Thanks to the expanded immigration, the U.S. Muslim population has exploded to 3.3 million, the number of mosques has grown exponentially and the Council on American Islamic Relations or CAIR is now a force to be reckoned with despite its ties to extremist organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, Haney said.

 

“There’s this concept of the observant Muslim base, it’s a global observant base, and that’s what the Muslim Brotherhood has done here in America since the 1960s is build up that observant Muslim base,” Haney said.

 

America is on the same suicidal path as Europe but is it too late for Donald Trump to fix the problem? Get all the facts in Leo Hohmann’s brand-new investigative book “Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest Through Immigration and Resettlement Jihad.”

 

In a document seized by the FBI and presented at a terror-financing trial in Texas in 2007, the Brotherhood referred to this process as building “settlements” in the U.S. that would eventually subjugate all other religions.  Doubters can read the Brotherhood’s strategy in the Brotherhood’s own words in a document titled the “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.”

 

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Russia have all banned the Muslim Brotherhood for its terrorist connections and seditious strategies.

 

A bill on Congress, the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act, would do the same thing, declaring CAIR and other Brotherhood-affiliated group as terrorists.

 

“Now the U.S. has a new president who is considering doing the same thing and CAIR is crying about Islamophobia,” Haney said. “And that’s why they need to be designated as terrorists.”

 

Trump is already showing a pattern, a trend of behaviors, which indicates he plans to follow through with campaign promises related to Israel, terrorism and immigration, Haney said.

 

The main school of Islamic jurisprudence in North America, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America or AMJA, issued a fatwa which it called a “roadmap” for Muslim reaction in the wake of Trump’s election victory.

 

“They are expecting him to actually do what he said, so the AMJA steps in and provides a Shariah-compliant roadmap on the way that they should respond,” Haney said. “They have set the parameters of the acceptable response based on Shariah law. They included not only 32 Quranic verses woven into the roadmap but several other references to the hadith.

 

“The AMJA put this statement out and mobilized the observant Muslim base calling on them to be prepared to respond.”

 

And it’s not just Muslims who will join in this monumental push back against Trump.

 

As seen at protests in major U.S. airports Sunday, the radical left is eager to take up the crusade of Muslim activism. Haney says it’s not just American Muslims who will join this fight, either, but global Islamic extremists who are invested in destroying Israel, propping up the Muslim Brotherhood, and continuing the flow of Shariah-compliant Muslims from the Middle East into Western democracies.

 

“These three points will trigger conflict between the global Islamic community and the Trump administration,” he told WND. “There aren’t any other issues that have the volatility to precipitate actions up to and including violence.”

 

Haney said the three trigger points will affect three different areas: The Israel policy will affect the political arena, the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist declaration will affect law enforcement, and the immigration issue will affect the fabric of American society, halting the process of Islamization and civilization jihad that has been steadily occurring for the last 35 years and which was placed into overdrive under Barack Obama.

 

“It’s not about Trump. It’s about America,” Haney said. “America has had the audacity to pick someone different from what the world wanted, which was someone who would not be submissive to the global Islamic movement. So America is now going to become the focus of this backlash.”

 

In fact, the hardcore Islamic extremists affiliated with the Brotherhood and their allies among the hardcore left are already mobilizing a pushback for the cause of Shariah law. These troops have enjoyed complete cooperation from the U.S. government over the last eight years, Haney said, and to an extent for the last 20 years going back to the Bushes and Clintons. All of these administrations reached out to the Muslim Brotherhood-linked organizations for advice and counsel, inviting them to the White House, the State Department, and the departments of Homeland Security and Justice.

 

Trump has signaled a different approach by talking about moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, declaring the Brotherhood a terrorist organization and restricting Muslim immigration while shifting the government’s focus to rescuing Christian refugees. These were three untouchables under previous U.S. administrations and by even talking about these actions Trump must be prepared for a strong reaction, both foreign and domestic, Haney says.

 

The Brotherhood’s self-avowed goal is to spread Shariah around the globe. In the U.S., it works through a network of alphabet-soup organization that include CAIR, the Muslim Student Association or MSA, the Islamic Society of North America or ISNA, the Islamic Circle of North America or ICNA, and the Muslim American Society or MAS.

 

These Brotherhood-linked groups work to infiltrate and influence America’s critical institutions –government and law enforcement, the educational system and the nation’s churches and synagogues. The overall goal of this three-pronged attack is to wear down these institutions’ defenses to Shariah concepts, such as the idea that criticism of Islam or its prophet is off limits and makes one an “Islamophobe” worthy of second-class status. Criticism of Christianity continues to be popular sport in American society but criticism of Islam is socially unacceptable in the media, pop culture, business, academia or law enforcement. This is essentially a voluntary implementation of the Islamic blasphemy law – which is the beginning of Shariah – Haney says.

 

The most important Islamic voice to watch in America is the AMJA – the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America. This is the group of scholars that Muslim clerics look to for guidance on what to teach in America’s mosques, more than 75 percent of which have been funded by Saudi Arabia and 85 percent of which are led by foreign-born imams.

 

The AMJA issued a fatwa following Trump’s election, offering a “roadmap” forward on how U.S. Muslims should react to the changes Trump might try to implement. This roadmap informed the U.S. Muslim community that the rise of Trump held the potential to be a “calamity” for their future in this country.

 

While urging them not to panic, the AMJA then dropped the bombshell that the “worst of the worst” in America were those who try to destroy Muslim civil rights organizations, a direct reference to CAIR, ISNA, MSA and their overarching sponsor, the Muslim Brotherhood. The fatwa went on to warn Muslims that they may have to take drastic actions that they don’t want to take but which will please Allah, quoting almost word for word from the Quran.

 

America is on the same suicidal path as Europe but is it too late for Donald Trump to fix the problem? Get all the facts in Leo Hohmann’s brand-new investigative book “Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest Through Immigration and Resettlement Jihad.”

 

“It’s all intertwined,” said Haney. “It’s all coming together as we predicted.”

 

Watch video trailer for “Stealth Invasion,” which former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is calling “the must-read book of 2017.”

 

VIDEO: Stealth Invasion – Official Trailer

 

Posted by WNDTV

Published on Dec 21, 2016

 

Use the PROMO CODE Stealth25 when you order Stealth Invasion from the WND Superstore and you’ll receive 25% off your purchase: http://superstore.wnd.com/Stealth-Invasion-Muslim-Conquest-Through-Immigration-and-Resettlement-Jihad-Hardcover

Civilization jihad calls for changing a nation by changing its people and its values—gradually, over time.

Stealth Invasion blows the lid off a corrupt, fraudulent program that has been secretly dumping Third World refugees, many of them radical, on American cities for three decades.

Americans have been kept largely in the dark about the radical plans to permanently transform their nation. Until now.

 

After Trump announced the first round of his border security and immigration crackdowns Wednesday, CAIR Director Nihad Awad immediately ramped up his rhetoric. He denounced the administration’s actions as “Islamophobic” and compared refusing Muslim refugees to previous U.S. policies of “slavery” and denying women the vote.

 

These are fighting words, Haney said, and sure enough CAIR’s chapters in New York and Dallas responded with their own press conferences, tweets and rallies denouncing Trump.

 

CAIR was also front and center in the protests at American airports Sunday.

 

This is just the beginning of what will be an ongoing battle of wills between Trump’s administration and the Shariah-supportive Muslim community that feels emboldened by its allies in the media and among what are mainly Marxist and left-leaning professors, lawyers and community organizers, Haney said.

 

Haney, who co-authored the whistleblower book “See Something Say Nothing” upon leaving DHS, says to watch the three trigger points going forward.

 

Any one of those three issues will be viewed as part of the “calamity” that the AMJA roadmap fatwa warned was coming under a Trump administration.

 

Trump will be challenged to find some Muslims who are not affiliated with Brotherhood organizations and give them a voice that offers an alternative to the intolerance and extremism put forth by CAIR, which has direct ties to Hamas and has had nearly a dozen of its current and former leaders investigated and charged with terrorist-related crimes.

 

See WND’S Rogue’s gallery of terror-tied CAIR officials

 

Trump comments about moving the embassy to Jerusalem reverberated all the way to the slums of Sadr City in Iraq, where Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr said a U.S. Jerusalem embassy would be tantamount to an all-out war against Islam.

 

“Just the fact that our ambassador said he will move his residence to Jerusalem is provocative enough,” Haney said. “It’s a declaration of war against the USA, and Sadr is saying the Shia will fill in the void if Sunnis don’t do what they’re supposed to do.”

 

On the immigration front, Trump said he plans to restrict visa permits for 30 days from seven Islamic countries, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan and Libya, while pausing all refugee resettlements for four months or until “extreme vetting” practices can be developed.

 

These would seem to be rather mild responses to the uptick in Islamic terrorism both in Europe and the United States over the last three years. Jihadist attacks on U.S. soil have included the Boston Marathon bombing, the knife attacks at a mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota, and at Ohio State University, the Orlando nightclub mass shooting, the Chattanooga shooting at a Navy recruitment center, the pipe bombing in Manhattan, and the San Bernardino shooting. All of these attacks were carried out by Muslim immigrants or sons of Muslim immigrants.

 

But the Muslim Brotherhood-linked organizations know the importance of the Islamic principle of al hijra, the Arabic term for “migration.” Their prophet, Muhammad, used it to perfection in his conquering of Medina back in the seventh century and it has been a favorite tactic of Shariah-adherent Muslims ever since.

 

The prayer by Imam Mohamed Magid at Trump’s inaugural prayer service in the National Cathedral last Saturday amounted to a “a signal flag,” to the Muslim community, Haney said. “The context of the verse he quoted from the Quran just happens to be related to the AMJA roadmap fatwa, so what he did was he waved a signal flag and told the Islamic community, here I am, I’m making a declaration that we should stand up and oppose the calamity of the Trump administration.”

 

Magid’s Muslim Brotherhood credentials are impressive. He’s past-president of ISNA, he served on Obama’s CVE or “countering violent extremism” steering committee and he is imam of the ADAMS mosque that was at one time under investigation by the federal government for ties to Hamas. And if that’ snot enough, he’s listed on the AMJA website as a shake and a fatwa expert. A shake in Islam is higher than imam.

 

“That means he’s a trained Shariah specialist,” Haney said. “But here he is at the National Cathedral in Washington delivering an inauguration prayer.”

 

Haney goes back to the allegory Trump used of draining the water out of the swamp.

 

“Your work really begins after the water is taken out,” he said. “You have to see what is actually buried down in the muck and mire. And if Trump has experts who are qualified to go in and conduct a forensic analysis, they’re going to find all kinds of stuff there and it will set in motion a whole sequence of events, if they can catch their breath and take a look at it. It will set off a sequence of events that will allow law enforcement and immigration officials to honestly evaluate the status of our current immigration policies and they’re going to find that there are a lot of problems with it, whether it’s the State Department issuing visas to folks they shouldn’t be, the way the USCS process people coming into the country on visas and green cards, all the way to the United Nations itself and how it does the initial selection and vetting of the refugees.

 

“So this examination, if it is thorough, is going to set off a lot of events that are going to expose the methods of the Obama administration as providing no oversight or protection whatsoever.”

__________________

ONLY Refugees that Support U.S. Constitution

John R. Houk

© January 30, 2017

_________________

3 ‘TRIGGERS’ FOR ISLAMIC UPRISING UNDER TRUMP PRESIDENCY

 

© Copyright 1997-2017. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

THE CONSTITUTION vs. THE CONSTITUTIONALIST


constitution-convention

Intro to ‘THE CONSTITUTION vs. THE CONSTITUTIONALIST

Edited by John R. Houk

By J.B. Williams

Posted December 30, 2016

 

I am a great believer in the foundation of the U.S. Constitution. And by foundation, I mean the rough Original Intent (more detail of Originalism) of America’s Founding Fathers that were invested in framing our Republic’s Founding Document.

 

That being said, I am hardly a Constitutional expert. Academically I proceeded only to a Bachelor of Arts in History from a small college in the central part of Washington State (the more Conservative side of the Leftist State and in a day and time when Profs were fairly equal in Liberal and Conservative viewpoints).

 

BUT, I can read the Constitution and The Federalist Papers (the selling point of the Constitution). THIS MEANS lame duck President Barack Hussein Obama – a self-described Constitutional expert – has gone to great lengths to promote the concept of a Living Constitution which essentially tosses out the Original Intent to be replaced with a make-it-up as you go along rule of law to fit whatever Elitist concept of man-law is valid for the day.

 

J.B. Williams has some thoughts on Original Intent that most will agree with and some – including myself – thoughts Originalists might have to think twice about.

 

JRH 12/30/16

Please Support NCCR

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

THE CONSTITUTION vs. THE CONSTITUTIONALIST

 

By J.B. Williams

December 29, 2016

NewsWithViews.com

 

After many years of abusive and tyrannical federal intrusions into state, local and private personal affairs, protected freedoms and liberties, well beyond the constitutional authority granted to the federal government in the U.S. Constitution, it has become necessary to return to our founding principles and values, to restate and enforce the Rule of Constitutional Law in preservation of our once free republic.

 

It has also become socially popular to proclaim the name of constitutionalist, an indication of both knowledge of and reverence for our Charters of Freedom. Yet too many constitutionalists are not even vaguely familiar with the Charters of Freedom, often calling for alterations to our form of self-governance in the name of constitutional conscience, but at odds with constitutional text, wisdom and intent.

 

The Obama Administration has indeed been historic in many ways, first and foremost, the failed but extreme effort to “fundamentally transform” our sovereign Constitutional Republic into a secular socialist member of a criminal global commune. No previous President has ever done so much to destroy the republic or their own political party, Obama having lost the Democratic Party more than 1000 political seats in less than eight years.

 

The 2016 revolt of the people that resulted in the historic election of political outsider Donald J. Trump also resulted in Republicans gaining control of both chambers of Congress, 2/3 of the state governorships and all but 13 of the 50 state legislatures. In short, the Obama era has been disastrous for both the country and his party.

 

Still, even Barack Hussein Obama claims constitutional expertise and reverence, as he works day in and day out to destroy everything the Founders created some 240 years ago. Like many modern lawyers trained in Common Law [noun: common law is the part of English law that is derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes;] instead of Constitutional Law based in Natural Law, experts with a left-leaning agenda may be experts, but use that expertise to undermine and subvert the Rule of Constitutional Law rather than uphold and preserve it. Three great examples of this is demonstrated by the open assault on States’ Rights, the call for congressional term limits and the end of the Electoral College.

 

Because the vast majority of Americans stopped being forever vigilant in self-governance long ago, many now seek what they believe to be shortcut solutions to solve the natural consequences of a society no longer informed or engaged in self-governance. These notions are at odds with both constitutional text and intent.

 

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

 

People have referred to the U.S.A. as a “democracy” for far too long. The Founders took great pains to avoid establishing a pure “popular vote” only form of democracy, referred to by our Founders as nothing more than “mob rule.”

 

To assure that the U.S.A. would never be a pure democracy ruled by popular referendum alone, the Electoral College was created to prevent an entire nation from falling under the rule of “the mob” huddled in a handful of high population centers which always lean left politically due to the inherent challenges of inner city life.

 

The 2016 election provides a perfect example of exactly what the Founders had in mind when they established the Electoral College. Of our 50 states in the union, Trump won 30, or 60%. Of our 3142 counties across the country, Trump won 2523 (80.3%) to Clinton 490 (15.6%). Without the Electoral College, Hillary Clinton would have (allegedly) won the 2016 election by popular vote (pure democracy), despite 80.3% of the counties and 60% of the states voting against her.

 

I say “allegedly” because the actual popular vote numbers are horribly tainted by vote fraud and illegal alien votes in places like California. We actually don’t know (and never will know) the real outcome of the legitimate popular vote, which is again, why the Electoral College exists.

 

To eliminate the Electoral College would be to destroy the Founders constitutional guarantee to every state of the union under Section 4 of Article IV, a republican form of government, as opposed to a democracy.

 

So, why do many modern self-proclaimed constitutionalists demand an end to the Electoral College?

 

CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS

 

Many constitutionalists seek a quick fix for a general lack of public oversight of congress by arguing in favor of congressional term limits. Once again, this concept is wholly at odds with constitutional text and intent.

 

To be certain, past alterations in constitutional intent for congress, such as the 17th Amendment which ended states representation in the U.S. Senate by using popular vote instead of state legislatures to elect senators, along with the power of incumbency, has made the concept of term limits look attractive to many.

 

But as is the case with all alterations to the original design and intent, those alterations come at a high price. Some even seek term limits for the U.S. Supreme Court, at risk of great peril. Members of that court or any other can be removed from the court in an instant for anything deemed to be “bad behavior,” which should certainly include failing to uphold and enforce the Supreme Law of this land.

 

The House of Representatives (by congressional district) was originally intended to be the most powerful branch of the federal government, as it was designed to be the branch closest to the people with only two-year terms. Members are term limited to two years of service, unless the people re-elect.

 

The U.S. Senate was originally designed to represent States’ interests only, which is why senators were to be elected by State Legislatures (not popular vote) and each state assigned the same number of senators regardless of population, two per state. The passage of the 17th Amendment eliminated the U.S. Senate as a body representing State interests and essentially eliminate states’ rights in the process. Senators are term limited to six years of service unless reelected.

 

The problem is the people are not forever vigilant. Incumbency has become so powerful not just because of the money available to incumbent’s vs challengers, but because the people tend to reelect repeatedly unless a senator is such a bad actor that they simply must replace them.

 

The downside to additional term limits is that it is not the incumbents being tossed out, but rather the voters. The will of the people is overruled by the clock. No matter how good a member of congress might perform, they are forced to leave when the clock runs out. There are no guarantees that the seat will be filled with someone better suited to the position, just because the clock ran out. In fact, more often than not, we would end up with someone worse, as most decent and honorable people do not seek public office at all.

 

Had the Founders seen a need and benefit to additional term limits, they would have placed them in Article I of the U.S. Constitution. They didn’t… So, why do many constitutionalists seek to alter the Founders design when it comes to term limits?

 

STATES’ RIGHTS

 

The primary rights of every state of the union is to be secure in their independent sovereignty and they are guaranteed a republican form of government, not a democracy.

 

So, when the federal government becomes abusive or destructive of state sovereignty and rights, it is the power of each state to check the federal government and force it back into constitutional boundaries, alter or abolish it altogether.

 

For the past eight years of the Obama regime, many states have sought to check the federal government abuses by numerous means, from State Level 10th Amendment bills like The Balance of Powers Act to individual issue nullification efforts, or even chatter about State Conventions and secession, all of it thwarted by left-leaning politicians and courts seeking to expand federal authority beyond constitutional boundaries via broad interpretations of federal supremacy.

 

Now that Trump will be taking the reins of the federal government on January 21, 2017, even many democrat politicians are suddenly supportive of 10th Amendment protections against federal abuses of power – something they entirely opposed while their dictator-in-chief was in power.

 

But once again, many constitutionalists overlook the power of the 10th Amendment and the states to force the federal government back into constitutional compliance in their efforts to find a quick cure-all for federal tyranny. They know that the federal government was created by and exists at the pleasure of the member states, but fail to look to those states to solve federal abuses and expansions of power.

 

The truth of the matter is that no matter which political party or person is in power at the federal level at any given time, none of them will operate within constitutional boundaries unless forced to do so by the states and the people.

 

The Constitution vs. The Constitutionalists

 

Not everyone who claims the title of constitutionalist is one. Many have never even red the document much less the underpinning for everything in it, Natural Law. Thus, many find themselves working for “unconstitutional” solutions to problems easily remedied within the original constitutional text and intent.

 

Political points of view and related agendas drive the dialogue. People with progressive-leanings interpret constitutional text entirely different than those with libertarian-leanings. Those who think we are a democracy will interpret text entirely different than those who know why we are a republic. The agenda drives the interpretation, instead of the original text and intent driving the agenda.

 

No true constitutionalist believes that the original document can be improved upon with additional alterations. Every real constitutionalist knows that the document has been altered far too much already. The solution is not to alter it further, but rather to unwind some of the past alterations that have served only to undermine the original text and intent.

 

When considering which “constitutionalist” to follow in your political activism, look at who is seeking to further amend the original document vs who is looking to restore and enforce the original text and intent.

 

Despite the human tendency to see ourselves as the smartest person in any room these days, the reality is there is no one alive today who is wiser than the original Founders. There is no one alive today who can improve upon the divinely inspired work of our Founding Fathers.

 

Only someone who understands this is a true constitutionalist!

 

______________

© 2016 JB Williams – All Rights Reserved

Click here to visit NewsWithViews.com home page.

 

JB Williams is a writer on matters of history and American politics with more than 3000 pieces published over a twenty-year span. He is co-author of the just released book – TRUMPED – The New American Revolution – with co-author Timothy Harrington, published by COFBooks.com. He has a decidedly conservative reverence for the Charters of Freedom, the men and women who have paid the price of freedom and liberty for all, and action oriented real-time solutions for modern challenges. He is a Christian, a husband, a father, a researcher, author and writer as well as a small business owner. He is co-founder of action organizations The United States Patriots Union, a civilian parent organization for The Veteran Defenders of America. He is also co-founder of The North American Law Center, a citizen run investigative legal research and activism organization focused upon constitutionally protected Natural Rights under Natural Law. Williams also co-hosts TNALC Radio every Sunday evening at 5:00 PM ET with TNALC Lead Counsel Stephen Pidgeon and he receives mail at: jb.uspu@gmail.com

 

Web site 1: www.PatriotsUnion.org

Web site 2: www.VeteranDefenders.org

Web site 3: www.COFBooks.com

Web site 4: www.TNALC.org

Web site 5: www.patriotvoice.net/TNALC

E-Mail: JB.USPU@gmail.com

 

Obama Sells Out Israel – No Surprise


John R. Houk

© December 24, 2016

 

 un-security-council-anti-israel-resolution

UN Security Draft Resolution Condemning Israel over Jewish Settlements in eastern Jerusalem and Judea-Samaria

 

President Barack Hussein Obama has betrayed Israel by allowing the UN Security Council to create a binding international resolution that steals the eastern half of Jerusalem as well as Judea and Samaria (renamed the West Bank by a conquering Jordan in 1950) to create a national state for a group of Arabs that NEVER had an individual nation or a heritage to Judea and Samaria. Indeed, the name these Arabs are appropriating had a closer historical connection to Jews than it ever did to Muslim Arabs – Palestine.

 

The very name “Palestine” was coined by Romans weary of Jewish rebellions against Roman conquest. The English version of the word Palestine comes from the ancient enemies of Israel – the Philistines.

 

After the Romans expelled or killed most of the Jews from their national homeland the Romans decided to call the area Palastina after the Jewish ancient enemies as part of a de-Judification plan to end Jewish rebellions. Here is a decent run-down of the word “Palestine”:

 

What Does “Palestine” Mean?

 

It has never been the name of a nation or state. It is a geographical term, used to designate the region at those times in history when there is no nation or state there.

 

The word itself derives from “Peleshet“, a name that appears frequently in the Bible and has come into English as “Philistine”. The name began to be used in the Thirteenth Century BCE, for a wave of migrant “Sea Peoples” who came from the area of the Aegean Sea and the Greek Islands and settled on the southern coast of the land of Canaan. There they established five independent city-states (including Gaza) on a narrow strip of land known as Philistia. The Greeks and Romans called it “Palastina“.

 

The Philistines were not Arabs, they were not Semites. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs. The name “Falastin” that Arabs today use for “Palestine” is not an Arabic name. It is the Arab pronunciation of the Greco-Roman “Palastina” derived from the Peleshet.

 

How Did the Land of Israel Become “Palestine”?

 

In the First Century CE, the Romans crushed the independent kingdom of Judea. After the failed rebellion of Bar Kokhba in the Second Century CE, the Roman Emperor Hadrian determined to wipe out the identity of Israel-Judah-Judea. Therefore, he took the name Palastina and imposed it on all the Land of Israel. At the same time, he changed the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina.

 

The Romans killed many Jews and sold many more in slavery. Some of those who survived still alive and free left the devastated country, but there was never a complete abandonment of the Land. There was never a time when there were not Jews and Jewish communities, though the size and conditions of those communities fluctuated greatly. (The History and Meaning of “Palestine” and “Palestinians”; Derived from Tzemach Institute for Biblical Studies; Indaweb.com)

 

roman-destruction-of-2nd-temple-by-francesco_hayez

Roman Destruction of Second Temple

 

Yup Pilgrim, NO Palestinian Muslims of nationality or heritage. AND YET American Leftists and EU Multiculturalists are intent on stealing from Jewish Israel and give to interloper Arab Muslims who stole the name Palestine and Palestinian:

 

Under the Ottoman Empire (1517-1917), the term Palestine was used as a general term to describe the land south of Syria; it was not an official designation. In fact, many Ottomans and Arabs who lived in Palestine during this time period referred to the area as “Southern Syria” and not as “Palestine.”

After World War I, the name “Palestine” was applied to the territory that was placed under British Mandate; this area included not only present-day Israel but also present-day Jordan.

 

Leading up to Israel’s independence in 1948, it was common for the international press to label Jews, not Arabs, living in the mandate as Palestinians. It was not until years after Israeli independence that the Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were called Palestinians.

 

The word Palestine or Filastin does not appear in the Koran. The term peleshet appears in the Jewish Tanakh [Blog Editor: Christians call the Tanakh the Old Testament] no fewer than 250 times. (Israel: Origins of the Name “Palestine”; Jewish Virtual Library)

 

After reading this information it should boggle an honest person’s mind as it does mine, that the Obama Left and Europeans under the auspices of the EU would rob land from Israel!

 

Most Americans are still very supportive of Israel and its existence. The American Left that believes in the existence of Israel yet supports Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) against Israel because of the idiotic belief the Jewish State is occupying Palestinian land are unwittingly supporting the Muslim-hatred to kill all Jews. Pay attention Left Wing Jews in America that support BDS.

 

Ergo we Americans that believe in protecting Israel’s heritage need to shout loudly from the rooftops about the Lame Duck Obama move to screw Israel by abstaining from the UN Security Council resolution that robs land from the Jews. Whoever wrote the New York Sun editorial suggesting that Congress divest American support to the United Nations is brilliant!

 

JRH 12/24/16 (Hat Tip: Don Moore of private Blind Conservative List)

Please Support NCCR

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

A Problem From Hell, Indeed

 

Editors

December 23, 2016

New York Sun

 

The best way for President-elect Trump to view the Obama administration’s betrayal of Israel in the United Nations is as the starting bell for a campaign to defund the world body. This is already being signaled by Senator Lindsey Graham, who chairs the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs. That gives him direct oversight of our U.N. budget. It puts him in perfect position to ally with Mr. Trump in charting a course away from a United Nations that has jumped its traces.

 

The resolution just passed by the Security Council, though ostensibly even handed, crosses a line that the Council has heretofore, and for good reason, shrunk from crossing. It seeks to expose Israel to legal action from an international boycott movement. President Obama, all too typically, seeks to blame Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has had the temerity to assert the right of Jews to settle in the biblical homelands of Judea and Samaria. The right policy would be to support such settlements, which are intrinsic to the Zionist ideal.

 

Instead, Mr. Obama has given us a study in perfidy. He had Secretary Kerry and Ambassador Power stand silent while the plot was being hatched. He allied with far-left factions on a policy that emboldened Israel’s foes to advance a measure could make Judea and Samaria Judenrein. Even Egypt, once it understood President-elect Trump’s position, was loath to present the measure to the Security Council. Ambassador Power claimed to be acting in the spirit of President Reagan, who never in a million years would have let such a resolution pass.

 

Samantha Power – US Ambassador to UN
U.S. State Department via Wikipedia
HELL HATH NO FURY: Hell hath no fury like Congress scorned seems to be the message from Senator Lindsey Graham in face of the prospect of the Obama administration betraying Israel in the Security Council. The vote today underlines the fact that the UN itself has become a problem from hell, to use the phrase Ambassador Power made famous in another context. The ambassador abstained today from a resolution aimed at the delegitimization of the Jewish state.

 

It’s not just Reagan who is being mocked. Ambassador Power sought to cloak her abstention in the mantle of Presidents George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush, though no such resolution passed — or even was permitted to come to a vote — during their presidencies. All of them would have vetoed such a resolution. The ambassador’s claims are part of the sneakiness, the dissembling with which she has conducted her diplomacy. She owed no special loyalty to the Jewish community, but made, nonetheless, promises that she has now broken.

 

The United Nations proceeded against a clear signal from the incoming administration and the Congress. The Security Council knows that the measure is a major departure from anything it has done before; it is worse than the measure the Obama administration vetoed in 2011. It will trigger within the United Nations court systems legal warfare that will bedevil Israel for years, exposing it to suits at, among other venues, The Hague. The UN itself has become — to use Ambassador Power’s phrase in a different context — the problem from Hell.

 

President-elect Trump gets all this. “The United Nations,” he told Aipac during his campaign, “is not a friend of democracy, it’s not a friend to freedom, it’s not a friend even to the United States of America where, as you know, it has its home. And it surely is not a friend to Israel.” The Security Council’s action today underlines the shrewdness of Mr. Trump’s plan to nominate, in David Friedman, an ambassador to the UN who understands the principle of Jewish settlement in the Biblical homeland. Mr. Trump himself this afternoon said things will be different come January 20.

 

What a tragedy all of this is for the world body that, almost 70 years ago, gave birth to the Jewish state. Israel today stands as the United Nations’ only enduring achievement. In any event, the time has come to deal with the problem of the United Nations itself. Mr. Trump can start this off by working with Mr. Graham and the bipartisan coalition he promises to curb funding for the UN. He can proceed with moving our Israel embassy to Jerusalem and enforcing American laws restricting funding of the Palestinian Arabs. In other words, he can address the problem from Hell in its own house.

_________________

Obama Sells Out Israel – No Surprise

John R. Houk

© December 24, 2016

_______________

A Problem From Hell, Indeed

© 2002-2016 TWO SL LLC, New York, NY. All rights reserved.