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

 

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

 

Here’s How the New Christian Left Is Twisting the Gospel


Intro to ‘Here’s How the New Christian Left Is Twisting the Gospel

 

Edited by John R. Houk

By Chelsen Vicari

Intro posted March 16, 2017

I found an awesome article at CharismaMag.com warning of the dangers of “Progressive” Christianity particularly among those ministries that describe themselves as Evangelical. In essence, the warning is the Progressive Evangelicals are diluting Christian Morality with feel-good secular sensualism and calling it in effect contemporary morality that fits the times we live in.

 

Here is the Biblical warning that I believe is a good introduction to the Charisma article by Chelsen Vicari:

 

Matthew 24: 23-26, 37-39; 2 Peter 2: 1-5, 9-10, 12-16 (NKJV):

 

Matthew

 

23 “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand.

 

26 “Therefore if they say to you, ‘Look, He is in the desert!’ do not go out; or ‘Look, He is in the inner rooms!’ do not believe it.

 

37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

 

2 Peter

 

Destructive Doctrines

 

But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does[a] not slumber.

 

Doom of False Teachers

 

For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly;

 

then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries,

 

Depravity of False Teachers

 

12 But these, like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption, 13 and will receive the wages of unrighteousness, as those who count it pleasure to carouse in the daytime. They are spots and blemishes, carousing in their own deceptions while they feast with you, 14 having eyes full of adultery and that cannot cease from sin, enticing unstable souls. They have a heart trained in covetous practices, and are accursed children. 15 They have forsaken the right way and gone astray, ***following the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; 16 but he was rebuked for his iniquity: a dumb donkey speaking with a man’s voice restrained the madness of the prophet. (Editor’s bold text)

 

*** Blog Editor it is important to recognize what the sin of Balaam is:

 

Nevertheless I have a few things against you, for you have there those who hold to the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit fornication… (Rev 2:14)

 
By the end of the fourth ‘parable’ of Balaam, both he and Balak the king were fully aware of God’s purposes for Israel.  The utter impossibility of using any kind of divination against Israel was now obvious to the badly shaken king and to the seer also – whose eyes God had opened.

 

 

But Balak and Balaam each worshipped their own gods. Balak’s god had already proven impotent, unable to stop the Israelite advance, nor to even allow them to be cursed. Balaam’s gods were money, prestige and position.  He would not defect from them even in the face of the power of the God of Israel!

 

It would be a long trip home for Balaam, this time he would not be accompanied by the Arab nobles who had crossed the four hundred mile desert twice previously to court him. There would be lots of time to think though. But there would be no reward, no honor nor prestige for him, he had failed to successfully overcome Genesis 12:3, he simply couldn’t curse Israel. The God of Israel could not be induced to turn against them.

 

 

Balak and Balaam met again apparently, and organized a Pagan festival at Baal Peor, that is “Lord of the Opening”, within range of the encamped children of Israel. Paganism was and is a sensual affair – altars to Baal were set up, choice offerings of beef were set upon the grills, sensual music was conducted and the wives, daughters and virgins of Midian and Moab were presented as sacred prostitutes to any and all who were drawn to the party.

 

And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. And they called the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people did eat and bowed down. And Israel joined herself to Baal Peor, and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel. (Numbers 25:1-3)

 

To the ones who left the camp of Israel, following the siren sound of the pagan music, the festival to Baal could be rationalized as just a sensual experience and nothing more. The aroma of the choice steaks cooking on the altars of Baal, the pleasures of the wine and women of Midian was all just a little relief from the monotony of a lifetime in the desert eating manna. We don’t really believe in Baal, we just need to blow off a little steam.

 

But to God these experiences represented so much more. ISRAEL HAS JOINED HERSELF TO BAAL PEOR, she has yoked herself to an alien god, she has played the harlot! So it is today that too often even a confessing Christian can also rationalize that compromise with fornication, pornography, worldliness and false religion are meaningless when it isn’t. Perhaps a similar soul killing plague is broken out among us also, and we just don’t realize it!

 

When a plague broke out in the camp of Israel, it almost looked as though Balaam’s teaching would obtain the intended result. God had not turned against Israel, but by Balaam’s counsel, Israel had turned against God, and would now pay the price of judgment against them.

 

READ ENTIRETY (Balaam: The Doctrine of Balaam Part 5; By Pastor Bill Randles; Believers in Grace Ministries; 6/20/10)

 

Enticing teaching of the Left is the very moral dilution that explains the general destruction of the Christian foundations that have made America that one time shining light on a hill. America’s beacon of righteousness is diminished and we can look at the Secular Humanist agenda that has been filtered down from Left Wing Activist Courts, the Democratic Party and most recently former President Barack Hussein Obama.

 

AND NOW, Chelsen Vicari’s waring on the effects of Progressive Christianity.

 

JRH 3/16/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Here’s How the New Christian Left Is Twisting the Gospel

 

By CHELSEN VICARI

March 15, 2017 12:00 PM

CharismaMag.com

 

Couple of Christian Millennials – © Istockphoto/Thomas_EyeDesign

 

Peek behind the curtain of some “progressive” or “hip” evangelical churches, past the savvy technology and secular music, and you will find more than just a contemporary worship service. You’ll find faith leaders encouraging young evangelicals to trade in their Christian convictions for a gospel filled with compromise. They’re slowly attempting to give evangelicalism an “update”—and the change is not for the good.

 

It’s painful for me to admit, but we can no longer rest carefree in our evangelical identity—because it is changing. No doubt you have seen the headlines declaring that evangelicalism is doomed because evangelical kids are leaving the faith. It is no secret that there is an expanding gulf between traditional Christian teachings and contemporary moral values. But the sad truth is that the ideological gulf between America’s evangelical grown-ups and their kids, aka the millennials, seems to be widening too.

 

Somehow the blame for this chasm is being heaped on traditional churches. They are accused of having too many rules as well as being homophobic and bigoted. Yes, we’ve heard those false claims from popular culture in its desperate attempt to keep Christianity imprisoned within the sanctuary walls. But now popular culture is being aided by Christ-professing bedfellows whose message to “coexist,” “tolerate” and “keep out of it” is more marketable to the rising generation of evangelicals.

 

The seasoned Christian soldiers are noticing these distortions of the gospel. But for young evangelicals, the spiritual haze is harder to wade through. Desperate for acceptance in a fallen world, many young evangelicals (and some older ones) choose not to take Christ out of the chapel, and so they are unwittingly killing the church’s public witness. In this uphill cultural battle, mired by scare tactics and fear, three types of evangelical Christians are emerging:

 

  • Couch-potato Christians:These Christians adapt to the culture by staying silent on the tough culture-and-faith discussions. Typically, this group will downplay God’s absolute truths by promoting the illusion that neutrality was Jesus’ preferred method of evangelism.

 

  • Cafeteria-style Christians:This group picks and chooses which Scripture passages to live by, opting for the ones that best seem to jive with culture. Typically, they focus solely on the “nice” parts of the gospel while simultaneously and intentionally minimizing sin, hell, repentance and transformation.

 

  • Convictional Christians:In the face of the culture’s harsh admonitions, these evangelicals refuse to be silent. Mimicking Jesus, they compassionately talk about love and grace while also sharing with their neighbors the need to recognize and turn from sin.

 

I know about these three types of Christians because at one time or another, I have fallen into each of these three categories. My parents will tell you that even though I was raised in church, I morphed into a full-fledged feminist, told my parents they were ignorant for not endorsing homosexuality and bought into the distorted social justice rhetoric that confuses caring for the poor with advancing socialist or big government systems and demonizing the United States for its free-market system.

 

I’m not ashamed to share my story because my experiences and those of my fellow bold evangelicals are a testimony of God’s awesome, transforming power. Being countercultural for Christ isn’t easy. What does the Great Commission say? Jesus commanded us to go, “teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:20a).

 

Where Did We Go Wrong?

 

I see so many parents scratching their heads trying to figure out where they went wrong with young evangelicals. Following the instructions of Proverbs 22:6—”Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it”—many evangelical parents took their children to church and prayed with them every night before bed. Yet the values those children now hold dear do not reflect the traditional teachings of Jesus.

 

To be perfectly clear, I want to let you know up front that this isn’t a parenting how-to guide that, if followed, will lead your loved ones to salvation. Instead, what I can offer you is a glimpse into the world of a 20-something who sees thousands of young evangelicals being spiritually and emotionally targeted on Christian university campuses, in college ministries and at churches nationwide by a growing liberal movement cloaked in Christianity.

 

Research tells us evangelicals are drifting further away from the orthodox truths their parents and grandparents held dear.

 

Our churches have rarely—if ever—faced the exodus we are seeing today. This will have a direct effect on the spiritual and moral values that will shape the nation in the coming years. That is why it is urgent that concerned Christians start acting now before the situation gets worse.

 

The Collision of Faith and Culture

 

Faith and culture will continue to collide in America. The culture wars, the growth of family, the success of missions, the prosperity of our great nation—the future rests on millennial evangelicals’ worldview. And that is cause for concern, because something has gone wrong with young evangelicals’ theology.

 

The millennial generation’s susceptibility to “feel-good” doctrine is playing a big part in America’s moral decline. Millennials’ religious practices depend largely on how the actions make us and others feel, whether the activities are biblical or not. For example, we only attend churches that leave us feeling good about our lifestyle choices, even if those choices conflict with God’s clear commandments. We dismiss old hymns that focus on God’s transforming salvation, love and mercy and opt for “Jesus is your boyfriend” songs. Or we contribute to nonprofits that exploit and misuse terms such as justice, oppressed and inequality because tweaking the language makes us feel more neutral, less confrontational.

 

Popular liberal evangelical writers and preachers tell young evangelicals that if they accept abortion and same-sex marriage, then the media, academia and Hollywood will finally accept Christians. Out of fear of being falsely dubbed “intolerant” or “uncompassionate,” many young Christians are buying into theological falsehoods. Instead of standing up as a voice for the innocent unborn or marriage as God intended, millennials are forgoing the authority of Scripture and embracing a couch potato, cafeteria-style Christianity, all in the name of tolerance.

 

This contemporary mindset is what Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German theologian whose Christian convictions put him at odds with the Nazis and cost him his life, called “cheap grace.” In his book The Cost of Discipleship Bonhoeffer wrote: “Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.”

 

Right now, cheap grace theology is proliferating around evangelical Bible colleges, seminaries and Christian ministries.

 

Christian Doctrine Hijacked

 

It is not that millennial evangelicals were not taken to church by their parents. It is that their training has been hijacked by ineffective and sometimes intentionally distorted doctrine.

 

As constant and pervasive as the attacks on Christianity are at public universities, it is important to remember that millennials’ worldviews do not start taking shape after they move out of their parents’ houses. Their understanding of Jesus’ teachings and cultural convictions begins to form while they are still at home and under the influence of their local church.

 

What I hope and pray evangelical parents and leaders come to realize is that the church has been too trusting. In our jam-packed lifestyles, parents have treated Sunday school as they do softball or ballet class—drop off the kids for an hour, then pick them up and hope they learned something.

 

Early on in my Sunday school teaching days, my co-teacher and I followed the curriculum pretty narrowly, the exception being that my co-teacher had an outstanding knowledge of biblical history that he imparted to the kids.

 

We taught all about Jesus’ birth, resurrection and saving grace. Thinking the fluffy kids ministry curriculum covered all of the necessary bases, I felt confident these kids had a firm grasp on their Christian worldview. Boy, was I wrong!

 

One day my co-teacher and I decided to play “True or False.” We casually went down a list of worldview questions with our class, sure that our little evangelicals would nail every question correctly.

 

No. 1: Jesus is God. “True.” Great job.

 

No. 2: Jesus sinned. “False.” Bingo!

 

No. 3: Jesus is one of many ways to heaven. “True.” What?!

 

Shocked is the only way to describe how I felt. Hadn’t they been listening to us? When I asked who taught them that, one girl said, “Coexist.” Yes, these young evangelicals had been listening to their Sunday school teachers and their parents, but they had also been listening to their public school teachers, TV celebrities and rock stars.

 

Youth ministers, volunteer leaders and pastors also have to start preparing these kids to deal with the very real hostility that faces young evangelicals.

 

If we never talk about abortion in church, how can we expect the rising evangelical girl to calmly explain the option of adoption to her frightened best friend who just admitted she is pregnant?

 

What will surprise you is how much young evangelicals actually crave honest discussions about abortion, sexuality, sexual exploitation, feminism and radical Islam. My friend and Evangelical Action adviser Richmond Trotter has two non-negotiable topics when addressing youth: creation and life. Having volunteered in church youth ministry since 1996, Richmond is not afraid to have serious discussions about what Scripture says about abortion, evolution and homosexuality. Make no mistake: The trend away from biblical truth is not concentrated in the hipster city limits. It is unfolding in the crevices of America’s plains, hills, mountains and swamplands. All across this nation, “old-fashioned” conservative evangelicalism is being traded in for a bright and shiny, mediocre Christianity.

 

If America’s evangelicals disengage from the public square and fail to engage the rising generation of Christian leaders, then we risk losing our public voice, then our religious liberty, then liberty altogether.

 

What Happened to the Religious Right?

 

The last several decades witnessed tremendous evangelical influence in the United States. Leaders such as Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Tim and Beverly LaHaye, Paige and Dorothy Patterson, James Dobson and James and Betty Robison made a bold impact on America’s families, churches and government. Now that those few leaders are aging or retiring, or have died, there are very few traditional evangelical leaders left holding the torch, and even fewer candidates to whom they can pass it.

 

But religious convictions in America are not on the verge of disappearance just yet. There is still hope. In the book God Is Alive and Well: The Future of Religion in America, Gallup Inc. Editor-in-Chief Frank Newport opines: “Christianity will prevail in the U.S. America will remain very much a Christian nation in the decades ahead, albeit less so than in the past because of an increase in Americans who don’t have a religious identity.”

 

Heed the Warning Signs

 

Evangelicals and culture warriors in the U.S. do not have to look far to discover what happens when Christian denominations give up on their traditional convictions and teachings. All we have to do is look at the dwindling memberships of mainline Protestant denominations.

 

In order to safeguard the trajectory of young evangelicals, we must uphold the authoritative Word of God. It is imperative that those in a position to influence millennials have transparent and honest discussions about the culture wars in which evangelical youth are already engaging. Otherwise they will be silent and accepting in the face of persecution and false doctrine.

 

The importance of arming the next generation of evangelicals cannot be overstated. If we continue to follow the example of mainline Protestants, evangelicalism will have a gloomy future. We must offer sorely needed leadership, but before we can do that, we need to know exactly whom and what we are up against.

 

______________

Chelsen Vicari serves as the Institute on Religion and Democracy’s evangelical program director. Prior to joining the IRD, she worked for Concerned Women for America.  She holds a bachelor of science in political science and history and a master’s degree in international politics. Her articles on evangelicalism and public policy have appeared in TheBlaze, The Christian Post and RealClearReligion. She recently wrote her first book, Distortion, from which this article is excerpted.

 

In her book Distortion: How the Christian Left Is Twisting the Gospel and Damaging the Faith, Chelsen Vicari reveals the disturbing truths behind liberal teachings. Using her own experience, Vicari shows how the deception impacts Christianity and the church. This book can be found wherever Christian books are sold or at amazon.com or christianbook.com.

 

© Copyright 2017 Charisma Media, All Rights Reserved.

CHARISMA MAGAZINE — EMPOWERING BELIEVERS FOR LIFE IN THE SPIRIT

 

About Charisma Magazine

 

To passionate, Spirit-filled Christians, Charisma is the leading charismatic media source that inspires them to radically change their world. Since 1975, Charisma magazine has been a trusted source of news, teaching and inspiration to help spread the gospel of Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit.

 

As the voice of the charismatic movement, Charisma has steadily combined award-winning news coverage of what the Holy Spirit is doing around the world with relevant, timely messages from leaders in the Spirit-empowered community. Yet even from its earliest days, Charisma has always been about more than what’s on the pages of a monthly magazine.

 

In the 1990s and 2000s, Charisma led the way for Christian news outlets through such vehicles as a news wire service, television news specials and a robust website. At the same time, the magazine’s live conferences and events, which featured a who’s-who list of today’s top Christian leaders, drew tens of thousands.

 

Today, Charisma continues to expand as a multifaceted media source that reaches millions each month. Charisma News has developed into its own brand under the Charisma umbrella, offering 24/7 coverage for believers who want the latest news delivered with trusted insight from a Spirit-filled perspective. Charisma magazine, meanwhile, has grown beyond print into the digital realm of apps, rich-media-filled tablet editions, a robust website, social media platforms and various other online vehicles.

 

While the charismatic movement in America has changed, the Spirit-empowered community is now the largest segment of evangelical Christendom around the world. And READ THE REST

 

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

BOTH RINOs & Leftists Malign Trump Tweets


John R. Houk

© March 13, 2017

 

I saw on Fox News that Senator John McCain is publicly telling President Trump to put-up or apologize to the treasonous President Obama pertaining to the accusation of wiretapping during the 2016-election cycle. I don’t have the Fox News clip but here’s the CNN clip that Fox was referring to:

 

VIDEO: McCain: Provide wiretap evidence or retract

 

Posted by CNN

Published on Mar 12, 2017

 

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said that President Trump should provide evidence for his unsubstantiated claim that former President Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower or retract the accusation.

 

My God! McCain might as well stop being a RINO and out right join the Deep State Democratic Party and become an overt Obama minion. No wonder McCain lost to the Marxist oriented Obama in 2008.

 

McCain is making all kinds of noise that more news will come out connecting President Trump yet keeping silent (copying MSM) on mounting evidence of Russian links to Crooked Hillary and family marking political favors for God only knows what nefarious purposes.

 

Check this out from Angry Patriot:

 

While the liberals are trying their hardest to set up the Republicans in questionable ties with Russia, it seems as though it is being used as a distraction to hide the Democrats’ own connection with Russia.

 

Hillary Clinton’s election campaign manager, John Podesta, was on the board of a small energy company, Joule Unlimited, when it was given $35 million from a Russian government fund which has ties to Putin. (via Breitbart)

 

This information was discovered in a 56-page report titled, “From Russia with Money: Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset, and Cronyism.” Podesta did not disclose this, although he is required to do so by law.

 

This was written by a non-partisan government watchdog group, the Government Accountability Institute (GAI). Stephen Bannon, the Executive Chairman of Breitbart and the Chief Strategist in the Trump Administration, is also the Executive Chairman of GAI.

 

During the “Russian reset,” then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was the flag bearer of U.S. involvement in Russia’s technology initiative, called Skolkovo, which is intended to be the Slavic version of Silicon Valley.

 

This “innovation city” was to be located outside of Moscow and employ 30,000 people. Their technologically advanced facilities would be under the strict control of the Russian government. In 2013, the building was described, by Slate, as reminiscent of the Soviet “utopia” building projects.

 

The GAI report revealed that the Department of State, under Hillary Clinton, recruited companies like Intel, Cisco, and Google to participate in Russia’s project. Of the 28 companies that participated in Skolkovo, 17 were donors to the Clinton Foundation or had paid Bill Clinton to speak.

 

As Clinton’s involvement increased in the project, so did the chance that this technological investment was actually a way to spy on American military technology. In 2014, the FBI gave out an “extraordinary warning” to the companies participating in Skolkovo.

 

Podesta failed to mention that he had memberships to the board of this company, even while knowing that Russian investment in it may have been an attempt to steal our military technology. It all seems a bit suspicious. Why was Clinton, the U.S. State Department, and John Podesta tied up in this affair?

 

It would appear that they are the ones that need investigating into Russian ties rather than anyone in the Trump administration. (BREAKING: Hillary Connected to $35 MILLION Russian Bribe. Is This Treason? Angry Patriot; March 2017)

 

I can understand the Leftist MSM not picking up connections between Crooked Hillary and the Russians, but what Senator McCain goes after Trump for proof NOW when even the MSM has suggested improper violations of Obama Administration of wiretapping is just nuts. McCain would serve American Patriotism and the GOP better if he called out Obama to prove President Trump is incorrect.

 

Here are some news tidbits that implicate Obama wiretapping much more than President Trump angrily tweeting villainous Obama wiretapped the Trump campaign in a moment of emotional display.

 

JRH 3/13/17 (Hat Tip: Donald Moore of Blind Conservatives List)

Please Support NCCR

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

DC Secrets and Lies

 

By Clarice Feldman

March 12, 2017

American Thinker

 

 

A quick look at Obama’s history reveals he has always had the inclination, motivation, and opportunity to snoop on and disseminate information about his political opponents. It’s how he made his political career: getting his opponents’ private divorce records unsealed and leaked with the help of the Chicago Tribune.

 

He and his administration continued this pattern and practice of skirting laws throughout his eight years in office, As Matthew Vadum reminds readers:

 

“Obama used the IRS to target conservative and Tea Party nonprofits, along with Catholic, Jewish, and pro-Israel organizations. He brazenly lied about it, too. His Justice Department surreptitiously obtained telephone records for more than 100 reporters.”

 

Wikileaks revealed that under Obama, the NSA intercepted conversations of numerous foreign officials, including UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, Angela Merkel, Benjamin Netanyahu, Silvio Berlusconi, and Nicolas Sarkozy.

 

So it is rather astonishing that so many disregard Trump’s claim that Obama and his aides spied upon him and his staff. There were several means at his disposal for him to do so, and it is increasingly likely that they did so. He apparently sought — twice — to get the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to approve tapping Trump communications, and was turned down once, in June of last year — a rare occurrence as in 10,000 applications in a six-year period only two were rejected. Reportedly the Obama administration tried again, using a slightly modified request and received permission. Heat Street reported this on November 7.

 

This week, investigative journalists Sara Carter and John Solomon confirmed that the FISA court warrant was granted in October.

 

 “What we don’t know is who was connected to that FISA,” Carter said on Sean Hannity’s show Wednesday night. “What was that FISA looking at? That is very highly classified. Nobody wants to talk about that particular FISA, right now. They said it did have to do with the Russian hacking on a very broad level, but it didn’t hone in directly on Trump is what I was told,” she said.

 

In addition to the FISA warrant in October, the FBI obtained a separate warrant that same month to look into a computer server tied to then-candidate Donald Trump’s businesses in Trump Towers (but not located in Trump Towers). According to the report, the feds used traditional investigative techniques to examine allegations of computer activity tied to two Russian banks and there had been no intercepts of Trump’s phone or emails.

 

The FBI quickly concluded, “the computer activity in question involved no nefarious contacts, bank transactions or encrypted communications with the Russians.”

 

The months-long FBI counterintelligence investigation into Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential campaign briefly investigated a computer server tied to Donald Trump’s businesses near the end of the election but has not gathered evidence of election tampering to date that would warrant criminal charges against any of the president’s associates, Circa has learned.

 

But a FISA warrant is not the only way to surveil communications. Under Chapter 36 of Title 50 of the US Code, and pursuant to Executive Order 12333, the president can authorize electronic surveillance without a court order, and we don’t know if Obama utilized one of these means as well. Nor can we ascertain who’s leaking, as on his way out of office –-17 days before his term was up — Obama allowed the National Security Agency to circulate such intercepted messages among 16 other intelligence agencies without following longstanding protocols designed to insure privacy of those involved in the communications, in effect inviting selective leaking by partisans in those agencies.

 

This week former NSA official Bill Binney confirmed the veracity of Trump’s claim that his conversations had been tapped and monitored and claimed it was done outside the courts.

 

Binney told Fox the laws that fall under the FISA court’s jurisdiction are “simply out there for show” and “trying to show that the government is following the law, and being looked at and overseen by the Senate and House intelligence committees and the courts.”

 

“That’s not the main collection program for NSA,” Binney said.

 

In any event, both the former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and the head of the FBI James Comey have stated without equivocation that there was no evidence found of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia.

 

On the other hand, there is increasing evidence of Russian ties to Hillary Clinton and those closely connected to her.

 

Jerome Corsi connects a Russian billionaire to Putin with close ties.  He provides documentary “evidence of the circuitous path the Russian government has been using since Hillary Clinton was secretary of state to make large financial payments to John Podesta and to the Clinton Foundation.”

 

These transfers were made at the same time Hillary Clinton was transferring “U.S. advanced technology to Russia.”

 

John Podesta is not the only family member enriched by the Russians. His brother Tony also rode the Russian gravy train.

 

Russia’s largest bank, Sberbank, has confirmed that it hired the consultancy of Tony Podesta, the elder brother of John Podesta who chaired Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, for lobbying its interests in the United States and proactively seeking the removal of various Obama-era sanctions, the press service of the Russian institution told TASS on Thursday.

 

[snip]

 

Previously, The Daily Caller reported that Tony Podesta was proactively lobbying for cancellation of a range of anti-Russian sanctions against the banking sector. In particular, he represented interests of Sberbank and was paid $170,000 for his efforts over a six-month period last year to seek to end one of the Obama administration’s economic sanctions against that country.  Podesta, founder and chairman of the Podesta Group, is listed as a key lobbyist on behalf of Sberbank, according to Senate lobbying disclosure forms. His firm received more than $24 million in fees in 2016, much of it coming from foreign governments, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

 

Former President Barack Obama imposed the Russian sanctions following the break out in violence in east Ukraine in 2014.

 

Podesta’s efforts were a key part of under-the-radar lobbying during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign led mainly by veteran Democratic strategists to remove sanctions against Sberbank and VTB Capital, Russia’s second largest bank.

 

[snip]

 

The lobbying campaign targeted Congress and the executive branch, with Podesta and other lobbyists arranging at least two meetings between Sberbank officers and Department of State officials, according to Elena Teplitskaya, Sberbank’s board chairman, who spoke to House aides in August.

 

[snip]

 

The Podesta Group represented Sberbank and its subsidiaries, Troika Dialog Group in the Cayman Islands, SBGB Cyprus Ltd in Nicosia, Cyprus, and SB International in Luxembourg. Troika Dialog also was related to Klein, Ltd., a Cayman Island organization that once funneled tens of millions of dollars to environmental groups to oppose low-cost fracking in the U.S., which was hurting the Russian oil industry.

 

[snip]

 

Sberbank was the lead financial institution in the Russian deal to purchase Uranium One, owned by one of Bill Clinton’s closest friends, Frank Giustra. Giustra and Bill Clinton lead the Clinton-Giustra Enterprise Partnership, an integral part of the Clinton Foundation. Giustra has additionally donated $25 million to the Clinton Foundation.

 

Giustra sought to sell his stake in uranium reserves that included ore deposits in the Western United States, and Hillary Clinton, who as secretary of state, approved the sale. And in one felled swoop, 20 percent of America’s uranium ore was sold to the Russian state atomic agency.

During the pending sale, the Podesta Group represented Giustra’s company and tried to advance the transaction.

 

So there probably was surveillance on Trump and his associates, although no connection with Russia was established with them. Instead, all the connections to Russia were with Clinton and her closest associates.

 

What we also know was that, like Hillary Clinton, the Congressional Democrats repeatedly demonstrate a shocking disregard for national security. The Daily Caller has documented what the mainstream media is largely ignoring: the fact that dozens of Democratic congressmen, including the former head of the DNC, engaged three brothers from Pakistan and two of their wives at salaries multiple times over those similarly situated (over $4 million), gave them passwords, and allowed them access to sensitive computer files, even though it is impossible to fathom how people with their record of financial troubles got security clearances. These brothers are presently under criminal investigation accused of stealing House computer equipment and transferring information from Congressional files to a personal server. They owe $100,000 to an Iraqi businessman believed to have with ties to Hezb’allah who is a fugitive from U.S. authorities. This week, to cap it off, the brothers are under investigation for kidnapping and holding prisoner their stepmother to prevent her from seeing her dying husband in Pakistan.

 

Politico reports that Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the former head of the DNC, refuses to fire one of the brothers even though he is banned from the House network. She’s keeping him on as an “adviser.”

 

Really, it’s impossible to parody Democrats these days. It would be too unbelievable.

 

+++

SUPERSTAR REPORTER GOES PUBLIC WITH OBAMA’S CREEPY SPYING ON HER

Shares bizarre details about hacked computer as she investigated scandals

 

By GARTH KANT

March 12, 2017

WND

 

Former Attorney General Eric Holder and former President Obama

 

“It was one of those pictures which are so contrived that the eyes follow you about when you move. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption beneath it ran.” – George Orwell, “1984” 

 

WASHINGTON – The woman who is perhaps the nation’s top investigative journalist is fighting back against Big Brother.

 

Sharyl Attkisson shared with WND a detailed and harrowing description of what it was like to experience a reality straight out of Orwell: The reporter claims she was spied on by the Obama administration while investigating its scandals.

 

What tipped her off?

 

Imagine what it must be like to watch your computer turn itself on and off.

 

“That’s one visible sign I noticed over many months,” Attkisson told WND in an email interview.

 

“At the time, I suspected it was some sort of phishing program seeking my passwords and contacts, and was confident my computer had sufficient protections. I never suspected it was connected to an intrusion of my systems until sources and forensics told me that it was.”

 

She also watched a different computer that she used delete files by itself.

 

After Attkisson released a video showing that as it was happening, Vox’s Max Fisher claimed it was more likely that she had a stuck backspace key.

 

Sharyl Attkisson

 

WND asked, as an Emmy-award winning investigative journalist and now the anchor of her own Sunday morning national TV news program, Full Measure,” did she find Fisher’s claim that she was confused by a keyboard plausible?

 

“It was just a silly attempt by a noted propagandist blog that had no firsthand information to deflect from the surveillance,” she replied dismissively.

 

“The ‘expert’ didn’t even know enough to understand there is no ‘backspace’ key on the computer shown, and — in any event — that holding down such a key cannot duplicate the super fast deletions demonstrated at the beginning of that particular video clip.”

 

What do YOU think? Will President Trump spy on American citizens like Obama did? Sound off now in the WND Poll!

 

The five-time Emmy Award winner and recipient of the Edward R. Murrow award for investigative reporting announced in January she is suing the Justice Department and seeking $35 million in damages for illegally hacking her computers and monitoring her work between 2011 and 2013.

 

Three separate computer forensic exams of her computers revealed what appears to be stunning evidence pointing straight to the Obama administration.

 

“The most important and irrefutable finding is: forensic evidence of a government-owned I.P. (internet protocol) address accessing my computer,” Attkisson told WND.

 

She said she was told that was “better evidence than the U.S. had when it accused China of various acts of hacking into our government, which the government accepts as proven.”

 

Her computers were examined by three independent forensics examiners including: a confidential source, an examiner hired by CBS News, and an examiner hired by her attorney.

 

What they found is just stunning.

 

Attkisson provided an itemized overview of some of their findings, and described what a confidential source and examiner hired by her attorney found:

 

  • “A government-owned I.P. address was used to access my computer.”

 

  • “We are able to see instances of exact date and time that the intruders entered my computers, and the methods they used to do so.”

 

  • “They used commercial, non-attributable software proprietary to the CIA, FBI, NSA or DIA.”

 

  • “The malware was constantly running on my computers. It included a feature that logged my keystrokes, accessed all my emails and collected my passwords.”

 

  • “Skype was surreptitiously used to listen in on audio.”

 

  • “My smartphone was also infected.”

 

  • “Three classified documents had been put on my computer.”

 

  • “Once sources notified me that I was likely being surveilled, and I discussed this in emails, the intruders took steps to erase evidence of their presence. However, the deletions themselves create a record of evidence.”

 

CBS and its analyst found:

 

  • “Attkisson’s computer was accessed by an unauthorized, external, unknown party on multiple occasions in late 2012.”

 

  • “Evidence suggests this party performed all access remotely using Attkisson’s accounts.”

 

  • “An intruder had executed commands that appeared to involve search and exfiltration of data.”

 

  • “This party also used sophisticated methods to remove all possible indications of unauthorized activity, and alter system times to cause further confusion.”

 

  • “[Attkisson’s] systems were indeed subject to non-standard interactions between June 2012 and January 2013.”

 

  • “Definitive evidence that shows commands were run from Sharyl’s user account that she did not personally authorize.”

 

  • “This history has been deliberately removed from Sharyl’s hard drive.”

 

  • The intruders conducted an inordinate number of internal computer clock “time stamp” changes, likely to try to confuse any forensics that might be conducted.

 

Why her?

 

WND asked the former CBS Washington bureau investigative correspondent, did she think the administration considered her a foe? And acted to stop her out of purely political concerns?

 

“I have no idea, the perpetrators would have to answer that question and they certainly aren’t stepping forward,” she replied.

 

“But,” she continued, “my computer intrusions occurred in context of the Obama administration’s crackdown on whistleblowers and a lot of my work deals with whistleblowers.”

 

“Additionally, we know the administration was aggressively trying to control the narrative on a number of stories it saw as damaging, especially as the re-election year of 2012 shaped up.”

 

Attkisson detailed her experience under surveillance in 2014 in her highly acclaimed New York Times bestseller, “Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington.”

 

Stonewalled by Sharyl Attkisson

 

Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, records previously obtained by the government watchdog group Judicial Watch indicate Attkisson was targeted by the Obama administration because of critical reporting.

 

In 2014, Judicial Watch said it “obtained an October 4, 2011, email to White House Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz, Attorney General Eric Holder’s top press aide, (in which) Tracy Schmaler, described Attkisson as ‘out of control.’

 

“Schmaler added ominously, ‘I’m also calling Sharryl’s [sic] editor and reaching out to Scheiffer’ (an apparent reference to CBS’ Chief Washington Correspondent and Face the Nation moderator Bob Scheiffer). Schultz responded, ‘Good. Her piece was really bad for the AG’ (attorney general.)”

 

Given that Obama’s Justice Department had labeled her as “out of control” and tried to get the reporter’s employer to rein her in, WND asked Attkisson:  What did she make of an administration that seeks to control reporters?

 

“I expect it,” was the sober response. “But it’s our job to resist it and we aren’t doing a very good job of that as an industry.”

 

(Attkisson described problems endemic in the news media, including the genesis of fake news, in an interview with WND in December previewing her new book titled “The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote,” due to be published on May 22, 2017.)

 

The Smear by Sharyl Attkisson

 

Did she think her experience and that of the Associated Press and Fox News reporter James Rosen (both spied on by the Obama administration) were part of a pattern?

 

“Yes. I was informed about my case prior to us knowing about any of the other cases, just before the Snowden revelations, and prior to former DNI (Director of National Intelligence James) Clapper falsely telling Congress that the government was not collecting data of millions of Americans…but all of these events occurred in the same general time frame.”

 

So, was it the administration that was “out of control?”

 

“You decide!” she replied, echoing a famous news slogan.

 

Investigating the truth about her own story, the award-winning reporter has faced what she called a Catch-22 dilemma.

 

“To find out who accessed my computer, we need the government’s cooperation, but the government isn’t cooperating.”

 

“In my lawsuit, we seek to learn who had access to the I.P. address that was used to infiltrate my computer,” she continued. “To date, the Department of Justice has taken multiple steps to block us from finding this answer.”

 

However, her persistence has revealed some compelling results.

 

“Finally, at my request, the DOJ (Department of Justice) Inspector General’s office sent investigators to look at a separate computer, my personal home computer.”

 

Attkisson said that although the Justice Department’s inspector general’s office will not release their notes and records, “and have improperly failed to respond to my Freedom of Information Act request for the information,” their forensics investigators reported to her that they found the following on her personal computer:

 

  • “Evidence of suspicious deletions of files that could not have been done by me.

 

  • “Use of my computer in ‘advanced mode’ (which was not done by me).”

 

  • “‘Someone’ installed software onto my desktop and executed it and overwrote some important logs effectively covering their tracks and erasing much evidence of their actions.”

 

  • “As with my CBS computer, they found a lot of unusual time and date setting changes on my personal computer as well (15 times in four days).”

 

  • “They executed data recovery, recovering previously deleted logs.”

 

Attkisson said the forensics examiners working for the Justice Department’s inspector general “told me they believed the intruder(s) were actually working in my house at the computer conducting these acts, rather than conducting them remotely, but, in fact, the acts were conducted remotely, as with the work computers referenced above.”

 

“Furthermore,” she continued, “the examiners indicated that prior to their supervisors signing off on their findings, ‘somebody’ narrowed their mission to only reporting on any ‘remote’ intrusions (i.e. not addressing the suspicious forensics they found by someone they believed was actually in my house working at the computer.)”

 

And that’s when the investigation hit a wall.

 

“At this point, as their report was sent to higher-ups for approval, they dialed back their communications with me and would not deliver the promised final report or the notes that went with it.”

 

Attkisson said she filed a FOIA to obtain them but it was ignored. Many months went by.

 

“When Congress pressed the issue, the DOJ IG issued only a summary and emphasized there was no evidence of ‘remote’ intrusion in that computer and left out the suspicious forensics they discovered,” explained the investigative super-sleuth. “To this day, the DOJ IG has failed to properly respond to my FOIA requests seeking the full information and report.”

 

As a result, “Many in the media misreported that this DOJ IG report was somehow conclusive evidence that my computers had not been infiltrated.”

 

“In fact,” she clarified, “the DOJ IG didn’t even examine the primary computers in question — referenced in the other exams above— because CBS would not allow them to look at the computers.”

 

Did she think the problem was specific to the previous administration, or was it due the growth of the surveillance community, its powers and lack of oversight?

 

“I think this is an outgrowth of technology that makes such surveillance possible, politicians and corporate interests who are willing to use it for improper purposes, and a weak and conflicted news media that has done little to stop it.”

 

Finally, WND said it would be remiss if it did not ask the ace reporter if her experience had given her any insight into President Trump’s accusations that his campaign had been spied on by the Obama administration.

 

However, Attkisson said she has not looked at, or reported, on those allegations.

__________________

BOTH RINOs & Leftists Malign Trump Tweets

John R. Houk

© March 13, 2017

________________

DC Secrets and Lies

 

© American Thinker 2017

 

About American Thinker

 

American Thinker is a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans. Contributors are accomplished in fields beyond journalism and animated to write for the general public out of concern for the complex and morally significant questions on the national agenda.

 

There is no limit to the topics appearing on American Thinker. National security in all its dimensions — strategic, economic, diplomatic, and military — is emphasized. The right to exist and the survival of the State of Israel are of great importance to us. Business, science, technology, medicine, management, and economics in their practical and ethical dimensions are also emphasized, as is the state of  READ THE REST

___________

SUPERSTAR REPORTER GOES PUBLIC WITH OBAMA’S CREEPY SPYING ON HER

 

Copyright 2017 WND