Intro to ‘An Unethical Nightmare’


Intro by John R. Houk, Editor

Original post by Justin O. Smith

Posted April 14, 2018

I realize the news cycle today will focus on the U.S. military strike against locations believed to be chemical weapons development centers. The wicked Dems have even suggested that an attack on Syria is a smokescreen to obstruct Robert Mueller’s witch hunt against President Trump.

 

In reality, if there is any distraction in obstructing justice, it is the Deep State corruption beginning to unravel. The December 9 FBI raid of Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen at his home, office and hotel is an unrepentant attempt to keep the Deep State conspiracy against the President from unraveling.

 

At first many believed Mueller directed the raid to occur. But to avoid the appearance of conflict, Mueller turned over some info on Cohen financial practices to the DOJ that resulted in some judge certifying a search warrant against Cohen.

 

As far as I know to date, the actual reason has not been disclosed to the public. The guess is Cohen allegedly may have tried to cover any financial tracks leading to himself by manipulating how a payoff to porn star Stephanie Clifford (stage name Stormy Daniels) had occurred. Apparently, the payoff and confidentiality contract were legal, but the “how” may have been accomplished illegally.

 

The concern is the FBI search warrant execution may have resulted in attorney-client privilege between President Trump and Michael Cohen unrelated to any Cohen financial impropriety probably will be violated. My concern and your concern should be the Deep State FBI-DOJ Trump-haters will manipulate the attained search warrant data to be used against the President. AND if you think no such manipulation is capable by the FBI, you should think of Obama’s cadres of unmaskers, leakers and liars were unleashed on candidate and President-Elect Trump which includes Crooked Hillary paying for the highly discredited Steele Dossier.

 

JRH 4/14/18

Please Support NCCR

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

An Unethical Nightmare

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 4/12/2018 10:19 PM

 

The rule of law and President Donald Trump came under one more withering attack on April 9th 2018, through the FBI and Department of Justice raid on the office of Michael Cohen, the President’s personal lawyer, and under Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s initiative and direction, as he stepped outside the purview mandated for the “Russia collusion” investigation, in an attempt to find any wrongdoing by the President. This attack is largely political revenge and a fishing expedition designed to unseat President Trump and keep some very real criminals out of prison, like Mueller himself, and Hillary Clinton.

 

The Justice Department issued a warrant for the FBI to search for evidence surrounding a $130,000 dollar payment from Cohen to pornography actress Stephanie Clifford, aka Stormy Daniels, who allegedly had an affair with Pres. Trump in 2006. Cohen has repeatedly stated that the President had no knowledge of the payment, intended to buy Daniel’s silence.

 

Many problems with this investigation exist, and Mueller and his team appear to be desperate to find wrong doing and a crime committed by the President, in a manner no better than Good Ol’ Stalin who was often quoted as having said “show me the man and I’ll show you the crime”. In a year’s time, Mueller has yet to find any Russian collusion by President Trump.

 

Also, according to world renown lawyer and author, Alan Dershowitz, this recent action violated President Trump’s attorney-client privilege and his 4th and 6th Amendment Rights, which prohibit the government from intruding on the privacy of attorney-client rights of citizens. These FBI agents and prosecutors have no right to view confidential materials between a client and their lawyer, and this alone constitutes a core violation of both Cohen’s and the President’s rights, even if the government never uses the confiscated material.

 

If anyone should lose their job and be prosecuted, it should be Mueller for obscuring the fact that Hillary Clinton authorized Russia to receive 25% of the United States’ total uranium resources, through a corrupt Uranium One deal, for a payment to the Clinton Foundation of $145 million dollars, when Mueller was the FBI Director. This deal allowed Russia to eventually gain majority control of those resources. And so, Hillary too should be in prison for treason.

 

Weren’t the Russians just as dangerous when Mueller headed the FBI?

 

Where is Mueller’s investigation into the false Steele Dossier, Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS and the Hillary Clinton campaign? Each used Russian sources to leak unproven rumors and smears against Donald Trump in an attempt to ensure his defeat in 2016.

 

Where are the investigations and prosecutions of James Clapper, John Brennan, Susan Rice, Samantha Power and others for unmasking innocent Americans caught in surveillance and illegally leaking their names to the media? Where is the prosecution of Comey and McCabe for leaking information on their investigations of the 2016 campaign and lying about it to investigators?

 

Equally corrupt, the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is the same man who allowed an illegally presented FISA warrant to be used against then candidate Trump and who appointed Mueller Special Counsel; subsequently, Mueller hired 17 political hit-men, nine of whom are Clinton donors and the remainder being Clinton supporters, with the exception of one. Rosenstein personally signed off on Monday’s warrant and the FBI’s decision to raid Cohen’s office.

 

Dershowitz recently told Fox News: “If this were Hillary Clinton [having her lawyer’s office raided] the ACLU would be on every TV station in America jumping up and down. The deafening silence of the ACLU and civil libertarians about the intrusion into lawyer-client confidentiality is really appalling.”

 

The double standard is all too evident, since it is common knowledge now that Obama’s politicized FBI and DOJ protected Hillary Clinton, after revelations she was using a private computer server to transmit classified top secret information to unauthorized personnel, and they allowed her to delete 33,000 documents from her server during the following three weeks. The FBI and DOJ also allowed Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s personal lawyer, to invoke attorney-client privilege to prevent the FBI from further investigating Hillary Clinton’s email scheme, even though Mills too was under investigation at the time. Mills even stormed out of a meeting with the FBI in May of 2016, because a question supposedly breached that privilege.

 

As Andrew McCarthy of the National Review observed: “It was astonishing that the Justice Department indulged [Mills’] attorney-client privilege claim, which frustrated the FBI’s ability to question her … But it is simply unbelievable to find her turning up at Mrs. Clinton’s interview [and] participating in the capacity of a lawyer under circumstances where Clinton was being investigated over matters in which Mills participated as a non-lawyer government official.”

 

It may seem counter-intuitive, but the President must fire Mueller and Rosenstein and damn the consequences, while at the same time, he must demand that a judge require all of the seized documents to be reviewed by a court in order to determine which are relevant to any investigation and which violate attorney-client privilege. The President has the right and the authority to fire Robert Mueller for exceeding his original mandate, and by defending his own rights under the Constitution, he ultimately defends and protects individual Americans against an increasingly intrusive federal government.

 

In the meantime, one must assume that Mueller’s hit team, without any morals and unrestrained, will continue to lie, cheat, perjure themselves and mislead the American people, if that’s what it takes to secure Trump’s impeachment, and possibly a criminal conviction, in their attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election. It is left to us — Conservative America — to see through the lies and hit back harder and more determined by telling Congress, in no uncertain terms, that they had better throw their full support behind the President or look for another job

 

President Trump has committed no crime, but he remains the target of the Mueller inquisition and an unethical nightmare of a frame-job against him, all in the name of maintaining the elitist Establishment status quo and securing their unchallenged lock on the reins of power.  And it must be stopped — the lies and attempts to manufacture crimes — before it does more irreparable damage to our Republic and moves the nation closer to all out civil conflict, because this is not justice. It is a continued coup from within our own government.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_________________________

Intro to ‘An Unethical Nightmare’

Intro by John R. Houk, Editor

Posted April 14, 2018

_______________________

An Unethical Nightmare

 

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links are by the Editor

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

How House Democrats’ FISA Memo Confirms Republicans’ Charges Of Abuse


If you only watch or read Lame Stream Media (aka Mainstream Media – MSM), you’d think Shifty Schiff’s Dem Party Minority Memo upstaged and refuted the Nunes GOP Majority Memo. Shifty’s Memo only obfuscates the actual facts found in the Nunes Memo. A close comparison of the two Memos shows that Shifty’s Memo corroborates Nunes but with a classic display look-here-instead-of-here language.

 

Jason Beale writing for The Federalist demonstrates just how shifty Adam Schiff is.

 

JRH 3/2/18

Please Support NCCR

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

How House Democrats’ FISA Memo Confirms Republicans’ Charges Of Abuse

 

By Jason Beale

MARCH 1, 2018

The Federalist

 

The Democrats on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) finally dropped their Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act abuse rebuttal memo Saturday afternoon, and the reaction is murky.

 

If you had your money on a comprehensive, point-by-point refutation of the “scurrilous allegations” of evidentiary malfeasance laid out in the majority (Nunes) memo, you’re going to need to cut a check. If your bet was on the construction and destruction of straw-men unassociated with the proceedings, and confirmation the use of raw, unevaluated intelligence to argue probable cause that an American citizen “knowingly acted as an agent of a foreign power,” you can proceed to the cashier window to redeem your ticket.

 

Some background. The HPSCI majority memo (the Nunes memo), which was released to the public on February 2, contained a number of specific allegations of inappropriate conduct by Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice officials seeking the approval of the FISA court (FISC) to monitor the communications of former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page. These allegations included the introduction into evidence of unconfirmed, uncorroborated sections of the infamous Christopher Steele dossier; the omission of material context in vouching for the reliability of their source (Steele); and the deliberate obfuscation of the fact that the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee paid for the dossier.

 

The Democrat HPSCI minority, led by Rep. Adam Schiff, fought the release of the Nunes memo on the grounds that it would recklessly expose sources and methods and, according to Schiff, erode public confidence in the FBI’s ability to protect sources to the extent that releasing the memo might enable another Oklahoma City bombing. Schiff and his colleagues composed a rebuttal, and assured us that it would effectively “correct the record” on the Nunes memo—particularly on the reliability of the evidence presented to the FISC, and the Nunes contention that the judge wasn’t fully apprised of the “partisan, political” provenance of the funding behind the dossier.

 

None of this came to pass with the release of the Schiff memo.

 

What Actually Happened Inside That Counter-Memo

 

A close read of the Schiff memo reveals the incredulity of the Nunes memo claim that the Steele dossier initiated the FBI investigation into Trump associates’ engagement with Russians. A close read of the Nunes memo reveals that it makes no such claim. In fact, the Nunes memo clearly states the investigation was initiated after the FBI received information concerning suspicious interactions between Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos and a sketchy professor with alleged ties to Russian officials.

 

It’s written very clearly in the memo, in plain English. Yet the Schiff memo works hard to undermine that strawman, and effectively confirms the Nunes memo description of the event that triggered the investigation.

 

Schiff then addresses the issue of source and evidence credibility. This is key to the Nunes memo allegations and to confidence in the FBI and DOJ officials charged with protecting every citizen’s Fourth Amendment rights, even in the course of seeking legal access to citizens’ most private communications.

 

In lieu of providing a single word of confirmation that any of the Page-related dossier information had been corroborated or validated prior to providing it to the court, the Schiff memo constructs a Page avatar whose past associations and contact with Russian spies, Kremlin officials, shady businessmen, and FBI agents represent an insurmountable trail of suspicion that can only be assumed to be criminally conspiratorial, and likely treasonous.

 

They do this by noting Page’s 2013-2014 recruitment attempt by Russian spies in New York City, whose approaches inspired the FBI to alert Page and warn him away. Those spies were eventually arrested and convicted of espionage offenses after an investigation aided by information Page willingly provided. They further highlight Page’s three-year residency working for Merrill Lynch in Moscow, separate trips to Russia in July and December of 2016, and numerous interviews with the FBI regarding, presumably, his interactions with Russians suspected of nefarious intentions.

 

Building a Tower of Suspicion Around Carter Page

 

All of this builds a tower of suspicion around Page, the idiosyncratic Naval Academy graduate whose quirky and paranoid behavior on nationally televised interviews has inspired the derisive head-shaking of dozens of talking heads. They chortle at the naiveté of this man’s eagerness to repeatedly throw himself into the lion’s den of “The Situation Room” or “All In with Chris Hayes.” They wonder what could possibly compel this man to subject himself to the open mocking of his declarations of innocence, again and again? The Schiff document describes an FBI/DOJ presentation of evidence that appears to draw from these instincts of suspicion and disbelief yet, significantly, offer no proof.

 

But they must offer proof, as Andrew McCarthy points out in the latest of his series of analytic National Review articles devoted to making sense of the FISA proceedings. McCarthy notes that: “(B)ecause Page was an American citizen, FISA law required that the FBI and the DOJ show not only that he was acting as an agent of a foreign power (Russia), but also that his ‘clandestine’ activities on behalf of Russia were a likely violation of federal criminal law. (See FISA, Section 1801(b)(2)(A) through (E), Title 50, U.S. Code.) It is the Steele dossier that alleges Page was engaged in arguably criminal activity. The Democrats point to nothing else that does.”

 

The Schiff memo offers that proof, the crucial passage of the Steele dossier undeniably used as the crux of their “criminal activity” contention. They present it as follows: “It is in this specific sub-section of the applications that DOJ refers to Steele’s reporting on Page and his alleged coordination with Russian officials. Steele’s information about Page was consistent with the FBI’s assessment of Russian intelligence efforts to recruit him and his connections to Russian persons of interest.”

 

“In particular, Steele’s sources reported that Page met separately while in Russia with Igor Sechin, a close associate of Vladimir Putin and executive chairman of Rosneft, Russia’s state-owned oil company, and Igor Divyekin, a senior Kremlin official. Sechin allegedly discussed the prospect of future U.S.-Russia energy cooperation and ‘an associated move to lift Ukraine-related western sanctions against Russia.’ Divyekin allegedly disclosed to Page that the Kremlin possessed compromising information on Clinton (‘kompromat’) and noted ‘the possibility of its being released to Candidate #l’s campaign.’ (Note: ‘Candidate #1’ refers to candidate Trump.) This closely tracks what other Russian contacts were informing another Trump foreign policy advisor, George Papadopoulos.”

 

The problem with this crucial passage is that it contains a fatal flaw, in that it is almost-certainly wrong. Page has testified repeatedly, under oath, that he had no such contact, meetings, or conversations with either Sechin or Divyekin. He did so both to the members of the HPSCI committee and during his numerous interviews with the FBI. He has further testified that he has never met Sechin in his life. He even issued a written denial in a letter he sent to former FBI director James Comey in September 2016, wherein he offered to meet with the FBI to resolve the issue.

 

If Democrats Are Right, Page Should Be Arrested

 

The Democrats show little faith in the disputed, yet legally essential, evidence of these “meetings.” In fact, they include in their memo this intriguing passage: “This information contradicts Page’s November 2, 2017 testimony to the Committee, in which he initially denied any such meetings and then was forced to admit speaking with (Arkady) Dvorkovich and meeting with Rosneft’s Sechin-tied investor relations chief Andrey Baranov.”

 

That’s one way of saying it. Another way to say it would be: “Carter Page’s testimony contradicts the unverified, third-hand hearsay information contained in the dossier, as he expressly denied meeting either of those officials. As to contacts with Russians unrelated to information contained in the Steele dossier, Page confirmed that he spoke with Arkady Dvorkovich and met with Andrey Baranov. “

 

But we don’t have to take Page’s word for it, nor should we. If there is evidence to the contrary, Page should quite rightly be arrested and charged with, at a minimum, lying to the HPSCI and to the FBI. Were there evidence or corroboration to confirm illicit engagements with Sechin and Divyekin, as reported in the dossier and declared to be credible by the FBI/DOJ officials testifying to the FISC judge, Page is dead to rights.

 

Yet Page walks free. The absence of evidence sufficient to arrest and charge Page with lying about his alleged treasonous and conspiratorial activities, coupled with the critical role those very allegations played in convincing a judge to approve a FISA warrant targeting his communications, leaves Citizen Page in a rather unique state of judicial and political limbo.

 

Yet for Page to regain his battered reputation and get on with his life, the FBI, DOJ, and HPSCI Democrats will have to admit that the information provided to the court regarding his activities in Russia was wrong. In doing so, they would have to further admit that the rest of the information in the 35-page Steele dossier was tarnished, and inadmissible. That’s not going to happen.

 

We Refuted Something Republicans Never Said

 

The Schiff memo confirmed that the Steele dossier was used to obtain the warrant. It added nothing to suggest that the dossier information had been corroborated. The Democrats aren’t talking about this part of their memo on cable news shows, because they would like you to forget it.

 

What they are talking about—a lot—is their refutation of a phantom Republican claim that the dossier triggered the FBI investigation. The Republicans made no such claim, but Schiff and his colleagues are nonetheless eager to address this straw man at every opportunity. Why? Because their focus isn’t on Page’s civil rights, or even on his possible guilt. They don’t seem to have much of an opinion on these either way.

 

Their focus is on the future, and the Democrats believe their immediate future depends on a positive (for them) outcome of the Robert Mueller investigation into Russian influence on the election. They fear the slightest acquiescence to doubt about the validity of the Steele dossier will somehow impact that investigation, and their future. Page is just some guy in the way.

 

In advance of the release of the Schiff memo, I wrote here that the only question it needed to answer was whether the Steele dossier information used against Page had been corroborated and validated prior to its use in the FISA court. That question was answered, albeit not intentionally. The information was not corroborated or validated. Although Schiff and his colleagues will do everything they can to convince you otherwise, it’s the only thing that matters.

___________________

Jason Beale (a pseudonym) is a retired U.S. Army interrogator and strategic debriefer with 30 years experience in military and intelligence interrogation and human intelligence collection operations. He’s on Twitter @jabeale.

 

Copyright © 2018 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.

 

Obama’s Genie


Joan Swirsky writing for the Canada Free Press takes a historical rundown of Barack Hussein Obama’s quest for power. She begins with his childhood by exposing all the lack of documentation that should be available for the public to view — but are not.

 

Swirsky runs through the political dirty tricks running unopposed from the State level including U.S. Senator. She homes in the lies and his eventual Deep State connections attempting to get Crooked Hillary elected. After the election failure, old Barry colludes with his Deep State comrades (including the Leftist MSM) to make up lying-dirt for the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump.

 

Despite all the lies against a sitting President, it is all beginning to unravel. I am with Swirsky wondering if justice will catch up to the kingpin of the Deep State – Barack Hussein Obama (aka Barry Soetoro).

 

Told as through the eyes of unwitting genie in the lamp.

 

JRH 2/27/18

Please Support NCCR

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

President Trump not only wiped out any shred of Mr. Obama’s so-called legacy, he effectively destroyed the fantasy of a magical genie that has guided the former community organizer’s lifelong obsessive mission to destroy America

 

Obama’s Genie

 

By Joan Swirsky 

February 27, 2018

Canada Free Press

 

 

Imagine a guy in his mid-thirties walking on a beach in Hawaii and seeing an object that actually looked like the genie lamp he read about in his childhood—the kind of lamp he could rub until a genie popped out and granted his most fervent wish.

 

Being a pretty ordinary guy—you know, the kind who hung out smoking pot, who slacked off in school, who didn’t get the girl and actually hated and was jealous of the guys who did—he asked for power.

 

Poof—the Genie granted him his wish, power beyond his wildest dreams.

 

To be sure, the Genie certainly didn’t know that this ordinary guy didn’t want merely to embarrass the guys he was jealous of, he wanted to destroy them. And not through the ordinary methods—knives, guns, poison, et al, although all of them might play a part one day—but through politics!

 

The most important thing the Genie didn’t know was that all those cool, get-the-girl guys were only symbols for the thing Mr. Ordinary hated most—America!

 

But too late—the Genie had given him the power to mobilize the entire world against the country he claimed was the place of his birth.

 

ONE LUCKY GUY

 

Who was this ordinary guy?

 

He said his name was Barack Obama and that he was born in 1961 to a white mother and black father from Kenya, Africa, who met at the University of Hawaii. Reporters had no interest in finding a marriage certificate, but—as leftists are so fond of saying—it’s only a piece of paper!

 

Two years later, the boy’s parents divorced and young Obama’s mother met and married another U. of Hawaii student, Lolo Soetoro, a native of Indonesia. In 1966, the couple moved to Jakarta, Indonesia, with five-year-old Barack, who was adopted by his new father, which according to Indonesian law would automatically make him an Indonesian citizen. His student ID card carried the name of Barry Soetoro. Four years later, Mrs. Soetoro gave birth to a daughter named Maya and sent 10-year-old Barack back to Hawaii to be raised by her parents.

 

In Indonesia, the reporting grows fuzzy, some saying that Barack attended a Christian school, others saying a Madrassa where he studied the Koran. The latter seems more probable as Mr. Obama himself described the Muslim call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.‚”

 

After high school, Mr. Obama studied at Occidental College in Los Angeles. But again, the media weren’t curious enough to ask for the transcripts and so none were ever produced. Was this to conceal Mr. Obama’s status as a foreign student? Mmmmm.

 

Then, he transferred to Columbia University in NY City. But strangely, no first-person reports ever emerged of any associations, sightings, relationships or dating of the Ivy League student—and, again, no transcripts.

 

Mr. Obama moved to Chicago in 1985 and became a community organizer—entering the profession of his own and Hillary Clinton’s idol, Saul Alinsky, the America-loathing Marxist whose book, “Rules for Radicals,‚” provided a blueprint for “fundamentally changing‚” the United States of America from a capitalist, free-market, U.S. Constitution-respecting, freedom-loving country into either a Communist paradise or an Islamic caliphate.

 

In 1988, our One Lucky Guy entered Harvard Law School where he became the first African-American editor of the Harvard Law Review….quite amazingly, seeing that he wrote not one article to earn this honor and that—ta da—no transcripts of his years in the law school ever materialized! The media once again demonstrated a remarkable lack of curiosity about who paid Mr. Obama’s immensely expensive tuition.

 

They also had no interest in asking Mr. Obama why Simon & Schuster cancelled the contract on the book they gave him a pricey advance for—Dreams from My Father—which was finally published in 1995 by Times Books (a division of Random House). Or how on earth his publisher, editor, and the professionals employed by the literary agency, Acton & Dystel, could all have gotten it wrong when they distributed a publicity brochure for the book that featured the author’s picture and a blurb that read: “Barack Obama, the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii”—a description future candidate and then Oval Office occupant Barack Obama would spend approximately two-million dollars on denying!

 

After Harvard, the new graduate joined a Chicago law firm where his supervisor was another Harvard Law School graduate, Michelle Robinson. They dated, then married. But surprise, surprise, there is no record of their marriage certificate, just as no photos of Michelle being pregnant with their two daughters and no birth certificates of their daughters exist in the public domain.

 

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

 

No, not the policy of favoring members of a minority group in job hiring, college admissions, etc., but rather the concrete steps a number of shakers and movers took when they began to think that Mr. Obama would be the perfect fit for Chicago “machine‚” politics.

 

In 1995, Mr. Obama’s mentor, the Communist Alice Palmer, announced that she was giving up her seat in the state senate to run for the U.S. Congress and anointed Mr. Obama her successor. She had personally introduced Mr. Obama to Bill Ayersthe anti-war founder of the terrorist group the Weather Underground Organization (WUO) who advocated killing 25-million Americans to actualize his goal of overthrowing America—and to Ayers’ partner in crime, his wife Bernardine Dohrn. According to writer Aaron Klein, a 1995 meeting in the Ayers’ living room “was said to have launched Obama’s political career.‚”

 

Mr. Obama’s political career was launched in the Ayers’ living room.

 

But after Mrs. Palmer suffered an unexpected defeat in the special congressional election, she decided she wanted her state senate seat back and asked Mr. Obama not to run. He not only refused to step aside but said he was going to pose a legal challenge to the legitimacy of the signatures she had amassed to qualify for the ballot. Using the same tactic, he got all four challengers—including Mrs. Palmer—knocked off the ballot so he could run unchallenged.

 

Mr. Obama spent three terms in the Illinois state senate—from 1997 to 2004—when he decided to run for the U.S. Senate. And whaddaya know! Trailing in third place, Mr. Obama magically—or you can blame it on the Genie—got some hack from The Chicago Tribune to publish salacious dirt on both rivals, which destroyed their candidacies and gave the nomination to, again, the unchallenged state senator.

 

That was in March. The following July, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) pushed for Senate-nominee Obama to give the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. It was a masterful presentation in which the extreme leftwing radicalism—which defined his years in community organizing and in state office and would go on to define his eight years in the Oval Office—was camouflaged to perfection.

 

“There’s not a liberal America and a conservative America,‚” he intoned to the audience, “there’s the United States of America. There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States…we are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.‚”

 

Yeah, right.

 

DEFINITION OF CHUTZPAH

 

On February 10, 2007, only three years into his first term, Senator Obama announced his intention to seek the presidency of the United States of America. Just as his three terms in the Illinois state senate had yielded a remarkably unremarkable record of boilerplate liberal “accomplishments‚”—with abortion, especially late-term abortion, and also killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions at the top of his list—so had his first three years in Washington, D.C.

 

But on August 28, 2008, the fledgling senator was nominated for president, defeating the perennial glass-ceiling candidate, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), and going on to defeat the Republican-in-Name-Only (RINO), Arizona Sen. John McCain.

 

Who, indeed, could manage to mobilize leftwing politics worldwide? Which included:

 

  • The entire spectrum of the American Democrat Party,

 

  • The worldwide America-loathing Muslim Brotherhood,

 

  • The bought-and-paid-for American media whores,

 

  • The impotent socialists of the European Union,

 

  • The impotent socialists and Communists of Venezuela, Cuba, and other utterly failed regimes,

 

  • The Muslim terrorist regime of Iran,

 

  • The dictator-populated United Nations,

 

  • The mal-educated millennials raised on leftist propaganda,

 

  • The bitter abortion-loving, man-hating feminists,

 

  • The pathological jealousy of all things successful,

 

  • On and on and on and on….all negative. [Bold text added by Blog Editor]

 

Of course, that ordinary guy was Barack Obama—a member of the infamous Choom drug-inhaling gang.

 

But his fans yearned to believe that Mr. Obama was not half-white but instead the Great Black Hope that would redeem Big Bad America from its racist past, and also that he was a successful author—but author Jack Cashill made a slam-dunk case in his blockbuster book, Deconstructing Obama: The Life, Loves, and Letters of America’s First Postmodern President, that it was Mr. Obama’s close pal, the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, who actually wrote the book.

 

And they wanted to believe that Mr. Obama was a very honest guy, which is why they nodded their heads affirmatively when he said that in over 20 years of sitting in the pews of the “Reverend‚” Jeremiah Wright’s church, he never ever heard the preacher’s anti-American, anti-Semitic rants.

 

Throughout the campaign (and well into his occupation of the Oval Office), a group of 400 leftist, ahem, journalists decided that they didn’t like authentic journalists questioning Mr. Obama on everything from the Constitutional eligibility of his candidacy to his longtime relationships with radicals like William Ayers and anti-American, anti-Semitic bigwigs like Rev. Louis Farrakhan. To prop up their candidate of choice, and to go after any of his critics and questioners with a vengeance, they formed JournOlist.

 

Sure enough, this overwhelmingly leftwing and deeply corrupt group refused to ask even one question about why Mr. Obama used a state of Connecticut Social Security number when he hadn’t lived one day of his life in that state, why he lost his law license in 2002 (or if, in fact, he ever took the Bar exam), why Michelle’s law license was inactivated by court order, why Mr. Obama never released more than a one-page medical report…the list of unasked questions goes on and on.

 

And when any moderate or conservative journalist asked him about saying during his campaign that he had traveled to all 57 states—I think one left to go” (did he mean the 57 states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference?), or in office when he stated that the people in Austria speak Austrian, or referred to military corpsmen as corpse men, or described his grandmother as “a typical white person‚”—you get the picture—the media whores immediately pounced, accusing any critic of being a “racist‚”

 

How clueless they were and are to this day of their own rank racism, in essence telling Americans that they’re not allowed to criticize a black man because he’s not smart enough or strong enough to take it…but they are and so they’ll defend him by insulting his critics. Cannot make this up!

 

THE COUP D’ÉTAT CABAL

 

America has had unlikely presidents before Mr. Obama, but none quite as unlikely. How did this happen?

 

For almost an entire century, and certainly since the tumultuous ‘60s when Bill and Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin and other far-leftists reared their seditious heads, the left has been looking for the one defining figure to get them over the goal line, that being literally overthrowing the United States of America—the land they loathe.

 

Jimmy Carter was a start, but the Dolly Parton fantasizer lasted only one term before America came to its senses and elected the genuine conservative Ronald Reagan. After enjoying two terms of peace and prosperity, Americans once again voted for Republican George H.W. Bush, only to boot him out in favor of the charming southerner Bill Clinton, whose victory, political pundits claimed, was helped immeasurably by the phony third-party candidacy of Texas billionaire business mogul Ross Perot, who bowed out of the race at the last minute, de facto throwing his votes to the man who would become known forever as “slick Willy.‚”

 

Clinton’s eight long years lasted largely because of a strong economy, job growth, a surge in homeownership, and Family & Medical Leave for 20-million Americans, et al—in spite of non-stop scandals, impeachment, perjury and the loss of the his law license, the accusation of rape, the stained blue dress, the pathetic wife, the mishandling of terror attacks, the proliferation of corporate scandals (numbering 86), allowing a floodgate of un-vetted immigrants into the country, the massacre at Waco, Texas, the colossal failure of Hillarycare, betraying America by selling advanced U.S. missile technology to our enemy, the People’s Republic of China, and threatening little Elian Gonzales at gunpoint.

 

Once again, America came to its senses and elected #43, the former two-term Governor of Texas George W. Bush, the son of #41. The affable junior enjoyed two terms until the coup d’état cabal was ready for their full-on assault on America. But “W‚” facilitated that assault by joining the left in their fantasy that Islam was “the religion of peace‚” and acknowledged himself that his “Mission Accomplished‚” banner was a bad idea, and that he failed to push for immigration reform. Others cite a skyrocketing deficit and that he waged two costly and ineffective wars (in Afghanistan and Iraq).

 

Over all these years, leftist heavy hitters were developing their takeover. Armed with multibillions of dollars from a handful of powerful America-detesting progressives, they covered every base, starting with the media whores who proved to be the easiest to buy and control. Next they bought every member of the Democrat Party, instructing them to sing one tune and one tune only throughout the candidate’s presidential campaign and his entire tenure…and that they, the real brains behind the coup, would provide both the tune and the lyrics.

 

Next, they recruited Valerie Jarrett, a longtime Chicago pal of Mr. Obama, as his consigliere to basically run the presidency, and speech writers to formulate every single solitary word that Mr. Obama spoke, even demanding that he use a Teleprompter to address a kindergarten class!

 

Within weeks or months, the honchos-in-chief delivered to their hand-picked puppet—that would be the guy who rubbed the genie lamp—the massive to-do list they had been working on for decades:

 

  • 11,000 pages of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare, aka socialized medicine),

 

  • Mountains of Environmental Protection Agency regulations that effectively killed the coal industry and other domestic energy sources, among other Draconian rules.

 

  • A blueprint for Common Core, aka socialized education (read, leftist propaganda),

 

  • An elaborate plan to destroy the military, as Matt Barber¬† spells out here, by, among other things, purging military commanders, enacting Rules of Engagement that militate against our success in combat, cutting military pay and benefits, cutting missile defense, et al.

 

 

  • Weaponized the Internal Revenue Service and, we now learn, the FBI, the DOJ, the DHS, and other agencies of the U.S. Government, a function, Tom Basile writes in Forbes, of Obama’s “dangerous arrogance of power.”

 

  • On and on and on and on.

 

ENTER THE GENIE SLAYER

 

The Obama regime, as Americans have now learned, was steeped, indeed marinating, in illegality and corruption. There was virtually no dirty trick they believed was beyond the pale, no department (FBI, anyone?) and no operative (Seth Rich, anyone?) beyond exploitable or dispensable.

 

They believed this because every single poll told them (and told America) that Barack Obama’s successor would be his former Sec. of State, Hillary Clinton, a woman who had elevated corruption, dishonesty, and malfeasance to a virtual art form.

 

In other words, with Hillary’s election, their dirty secrets would remain with them.

 

They welcomed the seventeen Republican candidates who ran against Hillary for president in 2016, especially the mega-mogul Donald J. Trump whose inexperience in the political world and colorful, tabloid-rich background made him the perfect target for their oppo-research team to skewer.

 

But as candidate Trump systematically leveled every opponent and Hillary was left to face the guy who labeled her “crooked Hillary‚”—inspiring the huge crowds he attracted to chant “Lock Her Up! Lock Her Up!‚”—Ms. Glass Ceiling began to devolve, relying on Democrat operatives like Donna Brazile to give her questions to upcoming debates and forcing her to commit unforced errors like calling Trump supporters, a month before the election, “a basket of deplorables.‚”

 

When the Obama/Hillary crew finally smelled the coffee of possible defeat, they hatched a plan to destroy a President Trump if, in fact, that eventuality came to pass. And it did. And they launched their plan—to produce a phony dossier and to accuse President Trump of colluding with Russia in order to win the election. Relevant to mention here that it was over a million dollars from Hillary’s campaign coffers that paid for MI6 agent Christopher Steele to compile the dossier.

 

Just as their moneybags donors had directed them during the Obama years, both the media whores and the Democrats stuck to the script—Trump-Russia, Trump-Russia, Trump-Russia. Former FBI Director Robert Mueller was anointed by another former Obama operative, Ron Rosenstein, to conduct the investigation.

 

Mr. Mueller hired—exclusively, with not one exception—Democrat prosecutors and lawyers, most of them contributors to Hillary’s campaign, to help destroy the newly inaugurated President Trump. They labored for over a year, with the oleaginous top dog on the intelligence committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), leading the charge.

 

The result: The stunning revelations of widespread, massive, endemic corruption and collusion with Russia—by the Democrats themselves! But not one scintilla of evidence against President Trump.

 

Yesterday, February 24, 2018, reporter Gabby Morrongiello of The Washington Examiner quoted former White House advisor Sebastian Gorka, who commented on the four-page memo released a few weeks ago by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA), which accused FBI and Justice Department officials of abusing their power and deliberately misleading the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to gain permission to surveil former Trump adviser Carter Page because of his contacts in Moscow.

 

[Surprise, surprise—10 of the 11 FISA court judges were appointed by Obama!]

 

“Remember,‚” Gorka announced at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, “we’re only at the beginning of FISA-gate, which eventually will be Obama-gate.

 

“It’s not the Ben Rhodes of the world, it’s not the John Brennans, it’s not the Susan Rices, who are only culpable for the criminal regime we had that spied on Americans illegally,” Gorka said, citing several senior Obama administration officials. “Guess what—somebody had to let them.”

 

“And guess what?” Gorka continued. “It’s the last president of the United States.”

 

Rep. Nunes apparently agrees, as he identifies Mr. Obama to WorldNetDaily.com as being the person who was really in collusion with Russia “for eight years and setting the stage for orchestrating a conspiracy theory of collusion between Moscow and Donald Trump during the 2016 election.‚”

 

Daniel Greenfield writes that “the Obama era is over. It was wiped from the pages of history in one night that left Congress and the White House in Republican hands. Obama’s…frantic efforts to campaign for Hillary did no good. The public…made it clear that he did not matter. Obama once thought that he belonged to the ages. Now he belongs in the rubbish bin.‚”

 

Maybe… but maybe not. President Trump not only wiped out any shred of Mr. Obama’s so-called legacy, he effectively destroyed the fantasy of a magical genie that has guided the former community organizer’s lifelong obsessive mission to destroy America.

 

Is it too much for the rest of us to fantasize that the man who once chanted “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for‚” will have a prosecutor replace the G in genie with a G for Gitmo?

___________________

Joan Swirsky [Bio and Archives] is an award-winning author and journalist. Her work can be found at joanswirsky.com

 

… copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the ‘fair use’ exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2018 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2018 Canada Free Press.Com 

 

About Us — Canada Free Press

 

Canada Free Press (CFP) is a proudly independent, 24/7 news site, updating constantly throughout the day. More than 100 writers and columnists file regularly to CFP from all corners of the globe. CFP rides on credibility and is edited by a lifelong journalist.

 

Canada Free Press does not sell, loan or give out its mailing list to anyone. You will receive a confirmation email back to the email you entered. You must respond to the email in order to receive our mail out of latest news and opinion.

 

Although we have been posting to the Internet for more than 14 years, on May 15, 2012 CFP celebrated its eighth anniversary as a daily. Espousing Conservative viewpoints, cornerstone of which focuses on love of God, love of family, love of country, CFP maintains a loyal and growing readership.

 

CFP senior journalist/editor Judi McLeod tries to answer each and every letter sent to CFP by readers. CFP’s main ongoing inspiration is to provide accurate and well-researched stories for a loyal readership that are not printed or posted elsewhere.

 

CFP’s Motto: “Because without America there is no Free World” is as meaningful today as it was when first adopted. America and the Free World must be guarded by all who believe in Liberty.  READ THE REST

 

Paddock Autopsy – You Make the Call


John R. Houk, Editor

Posted February 13, 2018

 

Stephen Paddock’s autopsy report was released according to a report February 9 from the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The autopsy should debunk some Conspiracy Theories and might add some fuel to other Conspiracy Theories.

 

BUT – BUT – BUT

 

Medium’s report on the Paddock autopsy shows the assassin’s Time Of Death to be at NOON the day after the Mandalay Bay Massacre. Talk about pumping air into multiple Conspiracy Theories!

 

JRH 2/13/18 (H/T Black Listed News)

Please Support NCCR

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

Las Vegas shooter’s autopsy gives no clues

 

By Jeff German and Anita Hassan

February 9, 2018 – 3:26 pm

Updated February 11, 2018 – 10:17 am

Las Vegas Review-Journal

 

Autopsy records obtained Friday by the Review-Journal shed no new light on what might have contributed to Stephen Paddock’s motives for committing the Oct. 1 Las Vegas Strip massacre.

 

The autopsy, which included toxicology tests and a brain examination, found that Paddock had anti-anxiety medication in his system. It also confirmed what authorities had previously said — that Paddock died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to his head after he opened fire at an outdoor concert from his 32nd-floor Mandalay Bay suite, killing 58 people and injuring hundreds more.

 

“It seems that based on the autopsy reports there were no physical excuses for what Steve did,” said his younger brother Eric Paddock, who lives in Orlando, Fla. “We may never understand why Steve did this.”

 

The bullet that killed Paddock entered the roof of his mouth and traveled to the back of his head and then upward without exiting his body, leaving fractured bones along the way, the report says. Paddock also had scrapes on his right upper calf and knee and a bruise on his left calf.

 

A separate examination of his brain done at Stanford University found no major abnormalities, including no evidence of Alzheimer’s disease.

 

Amounts of nordiazepam, oxazepam and temazepam, which are consistent with the anti-anxiety drug Valium, were found in his urine, a toxicology report shows. There was no mention in the results of substances associated with alcohol.

 

Paddock, 64, also had hypertensive cardiovascular disease, according to the autopsy report, which was prepared by Dr. Lisa Gavin of the Clark County coroner’s office. Gavin performed the autopsy Oct. 6.

 

The results of the autopsy and brain examinations have been long anticipated. Police have yet to determine a motive for the shooting, and speculation has swirled about mental or physical health conditions that might have provided clues to his violent behavior.

 

Last week, at the request of the Review-Journal and The Associated Press, District Judge Timothy Williams ordered Clark County Coroner John Fudenberg to turn over Paddock’s autopsy records to the news organizations, but Fudenberg refused to release it until it was finalized.

 

In the same hearing, Williams ordered the coroner to release autopsy reports of the 58 people Paddock killed at the Route 91 country music festival in the worst mass shooting in modern American history. Fudenberg released the reports the next day.

 

He said in December that Paddock, a high-rolling video poker player, committed suicide. He killed himself as officers closed in on his hotel room after he stopped shooting.

 

After Paddock’s body was cremated, Fudenberg last month released the remains to the shooter’s family.

 

Eric Paddock flew to Las Vegas to pick up the ashes after he was unable to get the coroner’s office to send him the remains.

 

The newspaper reported several days after the mass shooting that a local doctor had prescribed diazepam, known by its brand name Valium, for Stephen Paddock in June. The prescription was for 50, 10-milligram tablets.

 

Diazepam is a sedative-hypnotic drug in the class of benzodiazepines, which studies have shown can trigger aggressive behavior.

 

Samples of Paddock’s blood, urine and hair were used to perform the toxicology testing, according to the report released Friday.

 

Paddock’s Toxicology Report

 

Laura M. Labay, a forensic toxicologist with NMS Labs, a private clinical and forensic toxicology lab in Pennsylvania, reviewed the results at the request of the coroner’s office, according to the report.

 

“Specifically, you would like to know if substances found in Mr. Paddock’s biological samples may be the reason for the production of violent and aggressive behavior,” Labay stated in a letter Monday to the coroner’s office.

 

Paddock’s toxicology results also found arsenic, lead and selenium in his blood. Labay stated that arsenic and selenium, even at high levels, were not linked to violent and aggressive behavior. While lead can be associated with cognitive effects, there was not enough of it in Paddock’s system to show that it would cause such behavior, Labay noted.

 

Mercury was also found in Paddock’s blood, according to the toxicology report. Labay noted that mercury levels can rise because of seafood consumption or environmental exposure. Eric Paddock said his brother frequently ate sushi.

 

“My opinion is that if Mr. Paddock was experiencing toxicity to any of the identified elements he would have experienced a constellation of symptoms specifically related to that element’s known toxic profile,” Labay stated.

 

Paddock’s toxicology results also showed concentrations of substances associated with benzodiazepines, drugs prescribed for conditions such as anxiety, insomnia and agitation, Labay stated.

 

“The finding of these substances in urine and not in blood show that Mr. Paddock had previously used or was exposed to this drug class,” Labay noted.

+++++++++++++++++

Stephen Paddock Autopsy Reveals Time Of Death At 1200 Hours (Noon) The NEXT DAY

 

By Thomas Michael

February 11, 2018

Medium

 

Paddock & autopsy TOD

 

On February 9, 2018, late in the afternoon on a Friday, the Associated Press (AP) released the original PDF of Stephen Paddock’s autopsy results by linking to it in one of their articles. Rather quickly, within an hour or two, the autopsy report was spiked out of the article. Subsequent coverage by news outlets have covered the bombshell report by focusing on anti-anxiety medication being found in Paddock’s system, and how the autopsy reveals no clues on motive.

 

Either these news outlets have not seen the autopsy results, or they are boldly lying to their respective audiences. Coupling this with the fact that, somehow, the AP, who sued for the autopsy results, had to remove the most important part of their would-have-been-bombshell-article to appease what appears to be the law enforcement agencies tasked with investigating the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history, is not only mind-blowing but demonstrates the AP’s complicity in covering-up the truth. At the time of writing this, no news organization — mainstream or alternative — has officially covered this story.

 

What is being hidden from the public, and this appears to be the explanation as to why law enforcement has fought tooth and nail to not have Paddock’s autopsy results publicly released, is Paddock’s Time Of Death — his Time Of Death is 1200 hours (Noon) on 10/2/17; that is the day after the shooting, and approximately fourteen hours after the shooting into Route 91 ceased.

 

There really is no conceivable way to look at this other than that everything we, the public, have been told about the Las Vegas Massacre has been 100% a lie and is astronomically false.

 

Paddock’s Time Of Death is what they have been hiding.

 

Sheriff Lombardo has told the public that Metro and SWAT first arrived on the 32nd floor at approximately 10:17PM on October 1st, but they did not initially breach the suspect’s room because the shooting had already ceased. They breached the door to room 32–135 at approximately 11:20PM. And, according to the police scanner audio, officers did indeed arrive upon a dead body in 32–135 after breaching the door — but we now know that could not have been Paddock’s body, as he was not killed until the following day.

 

So, the police scanner audio from that night is real, because what happened that night is real, but clearly the crime scene is not real and is staged. We must also assume that everything that law enforcement has told us to this point about the shooting and subsequent investigation are categorically untrue, and that law enforcement staged the crime scene.

 

When you couple these new revelations with the revelations of the PR firm’s disinformation campaign, which is Democrat-operated, the so-called ‘Resistance’ botnet army pushing the PR firm’s disinformation on Twitter, the owner of the hotel where the crime occurred being an outspoken Trump critic during the 2016 election, and all of the different operatives that have been throwing shade on this investigation and covering-up the real crimes from day one — the picture becomes much clearer, and it is unfortunately very grim…

 

The Las Vegas Massacre appears to be an attack that targeted Conservatives, and it appears to have been orchestrated by the U.S. intelligence community.

 

This story is currently developing…

__________________

Las Vegas shooter’s autopsy gives no clues

 

Contact Jeff German at jgerman@reviewjournal.com or 702-380-4564. Follow @JGermanRJ on Twitter. Contact Anita Hassan at ahassan@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-4643. Follow @anitasnews on Twitter. 

 

Copyright © 2018 Las Vegas Review-Journal, Inc.

___________________

Stephen Paddock Autopsy Reveals Time Of Death At 1200 Hours (Noon) The NEXT DAY

 

Medium Homepage

 

Medium About Page

 

Ideas and perspectives you won’t find anywhere else.

 

Medium taps into the brains of the world’s most insightful writers, thinkers, and storytellers to bring you the smartest takes on topics that matter. So whatever your interest, you can always find fresh thinking and unique perspectives.

 

 

A platform built for…

 

advertisers

  • Not quantity
  • No sponsored content
  • No pop ups & banners
  • No clickbait
  • Not pageviews

 

people

  • quality
  • original ideas
  • clean reading experience
  • engagement & depth
  • viewpoints

 

READ ENTIRETY

 

Sharia CANNOT Coexist in Western Law


John R. Houk

© February 9, 2018

An email sent by Maryam Namazie via the organization One Law for All addresses how the British government is handling the existence of Sharia courts in the United Kingdom (UK). As of this writing I’m have difficulty connecting with the website. Either http://onelawforall.org.uk/ is having server problems or there might be some kind of IP blocking involved. But the organization’s Facebook page is still up and here is some info from their Facebook About Page:

 

No Religious Laws
One Secular Law for All
Rights are for People not Beliefs

One Law for All was launched in 2008 to campaign against Sharia and religious laws in Britain and around the world. Sharia law is arbitrary and discriminatory against women and children in particular and works against equality, citizenship and secularism.

Under its family code, Sharia law treats the testimony of women as being worth half of that of a man, child custody is decided in favour of fathers regardless of the circumstances, women do not have the unilateral right to divorce as men do and violence against women is endorsed. Under its criminal code, there are over 100 offences punishable by death, including apostasy, homosexuality and adultery. Sharia courts in Britain decide on both civil and criminal matters.

Proponents argue Sharia law is a matter of choice; however, many women are pressured into using these courts. Moreover, violence and discrimination are not legitimate choices.

Whilst the far-Right blames ‘Muslim immigration’ for the implementation of Sharia law, it is READ THE REST

 

One Law for All’s apparent primary purpose is fighting the legitimization of Sharia Law in the UK as a tacit coexistent rule of law. In reality though the organization is Left Wing and is not friendly to any religious faith. This means they would not promote a Christian heritage in the UK.

 

Namazie politically is a Communist. As to religion she is an ex-Muslim atheist from Iran living in the UK. Since I am Christian, I don’t have a problem with Namazie’s virulent anti-Islam stand, BUT she is a militant atheist in which Christianity is on her hate-list too.

 

Nonetheless, Namazie and I are on the same page when it comes to Islam.

 

Namazie is concerned that the UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd has not gone far enough pertaining to rejecting Sharia courts as equal to the British rule of law. As an American, accepting anti-Western (and in the case of the USA – anti-Constitution) Sharia is in my belief must be anathema in our society and rule of law.

 

Here is the Executive Summary Home Secretary Rudd presented to Parliament (the whole pdf is 48 pages):

 

The independent review into the application of sharia law in England and Wales

Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Command of Her Majesty

February 2018

 

Executive summary

 

In May 2016 the independent review into the application of sharia law in England and Wales was tasked with understanding whether, and the extent to which, sharia law is being misused or applied in a way that is incompatible with the law within sharia councils.

 

Sharia is an all encompassing term which includes not only law in the western sense of the word but religious observances such as fasting and prayer, ritual practices such as halal slaughter, and worship in general. Sharia is written jurisprudence and law developed on the basis of a diversity of opinions among jurists in the classical period of Islam. While many aspects of sharia have been modified or modernised in most Muslim countries, in the area of personal law, especially marriage and divorce, many Muslim societies still observe rulings of classical jurisprudence. The word sharia is used in diverse ways by Muslims and this leads to varying degrees of understanding and application.

 

This review was set up to focus exclusively on the work of sharia councils in England and Wales and not to look at sharia practices in general. These councils call themselves sharia councils because they deal with aspects of Islamic law. The review has collected written and oral evidence from a wide range of sources. These include a public call for evidence issued by the review Chair Professor Mona Siddiqui, and oral evidence sessions with users of sharia councils, women’s rights groups, academics and lawyers, as well as other key stakeholders.

 

There is no clear definition of what constitutes a sharia council. Sharia councils vary in size and make up. There is also no accurate statistic on the number of sharia councils, with estimates in England and Wales varying from 30 to 85. To the best of our knowledge, there are no sharia councils in Scotland. For the purposes of this review we are defining sharia councils as a voluntary local association of scholars who see themselves or are seen by their communities as authorised to offer advice to Muslims principally in the field of religious marriage and divorce.

 

Sharia councils have no legal status and no legal binding authority under civil law. Whilst sharia is a source of guidance for many Muslims, sharia councils have no legal jurisdiction in England and Wales. Thus if any decisions or recommendations are made by a sharia council that are inconsistent with domestic law (including equality policies such as the Equality Act 2010) domestic law will prevail. Sharia councils will be acting illegally should they seek to exclude domestic law. Although they claim no binding legal authority, they do in fact act in a decision-making capacity when dealing with Islamic divorce.

 

Common misconceptions around sharia councils often perpetuate owing to the use of incorrect terms such as referring to them as ‘courts’ rather than councils or to their members as ‘judges’.

 

These terms are used both in media articles but also on occasion by the sharia councils themselves. It is important to note that sharia councils are not courts and they should not refer to their members as judges. It is this misrepresentation of sharia councils as courts that leads to public misconceptions over the primacy of sharia over domestic law and concerns of a parallel legal system. The recommendations included in this report, such as changes to marriage law, are designed to promote equality between religions in ways that should challenge misconceptions of a parallel legal system and encourage integration.

 

In collecting its evidence the review looked to examine why sharia councils exist, who uses them and for what reasons. The evidence heard by this review indicates that the vast majority, in fact nearly all people using sharia councils, are women. In most of these cases (our evidence indicates over 90%) the women are visiting the council seeking an Islamic divorce. In attempting to understand what motivates women to use sharia councils the review found that there are many reasons why Muslim women seek an Islamic divorce. A key finding was that a significant number of Muslim couples fail to civilly register their religious marriages and therefore some Muslim women have no option of obtaining a civil divorce.

 

The review sought to understand what occurs at the sharia council and whether and to what extent the practices are discriminatory. The evidence collected by the review indicated a range of practices occurring in the sharia councils. The review found evidence of good practice but also clear evidence of bad practice. Furthermore, there is unanimous agreement among the sharia councils themselves that discriminatory practices do occur in some instances within the councils in England and Wales.

 

From the very beginning, the review panel established the principle that recommendations would be based collectively on the evidence it received rather than the personal opinions of the panel members. While there was broad and respectful consensus on most issues, this report also reflects the particular area where there was a level of disagreement.

 

It should also be noted at the outset that those proposing a ban on sharia councils provide no counter proposal or any solution for anyone seeking a religious divorce. It is clear from all the evidence that sharia councils are fulfilling a need in some Muslim communities. There is a demand for religious divorce and this is currently being answered by the sharia councils.

 

This demand will not end if the sharia councils are banned and closed down and could lead to councils going ‘underground’, making it even harder to ensure good practice and the prospect of discriminatory practices and greater financial costs more likely and harder to detect. It could also result in women needing to travel overseas to obtain divorces, putting themselves at further risk.

 

We consider the closure of sharia councils is not a viable option. However, given the recommendations also proposed in this report include the registration of all Islamic marriages as well as awareness campaigns it is hoped that the demand for religious divorces from sharia councils will gradually reduce over time. These key recommendations address the issue of current discriminatory practices identified within the sharia councils.

 

Here is One Law for All’s response.

 

JRH 2/9/18

Please Support NCCR

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

The Independent Review on Sharia

Sharia Laws are part of the extremist threat and not a solution

 

Sent from Maryam Namazie

Sent 2/7/18 5:35 PM

Via http://onelawforall.org.uk/ [My browser timed out connection]

 

Read this email online. [My browser timed out connection]

 

One Law for All rejects sharia review pdf

 

Rt Hon Amber Rudd MP
Secretary of State
Home Office
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF

 

6th February 2018

 

Dear Right Hon Amber Rudd, MP,

 

The Independent Review on Sharia: Sharia Laws are part of the extremist threat and not a solution

 

As black and minority women and human rights campaigners, we voice our dismay at the outcome of the independent review on Sharia laws commissioned by the government in 2016. Although the government has rejected formal recognition (through regulation), the way has been left open for the Sharia courts to continue to exist in a no-man’s land where they continue to produce discriminatory parallel laws while posing as an acceptable alternative dispute mechanism. Now they will be strengthened by a review that has endorsed their existence.

 

At the outset, we feared a whitewash but what we have seen is worse. The review is superficial, narrow and secretive; and completely lacks credibility. We protested when the Home Office appointed a theologian to lead the review and two Imams as advisers. How absurd that the Home Office now claims that the review ‘was not tasked with considering theological issues, for example whether Islam and Sharia law treat women in an unequal way’. Why then appoint three people whose only qualification for the job was their status as religious scholars?

 

Any review that is based on interviewing only eight women and a handful of organisations; and that provoked a boycott from most of the organisations that deal with women adversely affected by religious laws, cannot be considered legitimate. Demands for the acceptance of Sharia laws to govern family matters are part of a wider fundamentalist and ultra conservative goal to normalise profoundly misogynist values in the law and other public spaces. Our front-line experience has found clear evidence that both the intent and the process of the Sharia courts is abusive and discriminatory; that the Sharia bodies are run by organisations with links to extremist organisations; and promote the full range of fundamentalist goals such as strict gender segregation, imposition of hijabs and other dress codes, homophobia, bigotry and discrimination against non-Muslims and Muslim dissenters, blasphemy laws and attacks on apostates.

 

Our research also shows that they do refer to ‘courts’ and ‘Judges’, because of a clear intention of establishing themselves as a parallel law which ‘good Muslims’ must adhere to. The review suggests that that they are ‘Councils’ only and thus sanitises them.

 

In order to arrive at its conclusions, the reviewers conducted no investigation and ignored evidence that would have undermined their conclusions. They ignored the wider political fundamentalist drive to undermine human rights. They also ignored a considerable body of evidence submitted to the Home Affairs Select Committee in Parliament by members of our coalition and others. For instance, Maryam Namazie submitted two statements in evidence which contained details of statements made by Islamic law ‘Judges’, that exposed their wider political agenda. Knowing that hate speech and discriminatory speech is regularly erased from websites once it has been exposed, she had taken screenshots of their statements. She stated in conclusion, ‘despite all efforts to package Sharia’s civil code as mundane, its imposition represents a concerted attempt by Islamists to gain further influence in Britain’. If the reviewers did not wish to draw on our submissions, they could have applied some diligence and researched it themselves. Why did they not do so?

 

The coalition also gathered detailed testimony from many women. Unlike the reviewers, we did not ask for evidence solely from women who had experience of sharia courts, although we met and interviewed many who had tried to get a divorce under ‘sharia law’, were deeply traumatised by the experience and experienced further violence and abuse of their rights. We also published and put in evidence to parliament, a devastating letter signed by over 300 abused and marginalised women from all religious backgrounds expressing their fear of being controlled by religious laws.

 

Sweeping statements are made about the “choice” that Muslim women make to approach such councils without giving any consideration to the highly constrained religious context in which that “choice” is made. The review is utterly silent on the crucial concept of ‘zina’ (sex outside marriage), the grave sin punishable by death in many Muslim countries. It is fear of ‘zina’ which compels many women, even those with civil divorces to seek an Islamic divorce. Procedural changes in sharia councils will not diminish their role in spreading this concept; to which they provide the only ‘solution’. That is why use of Sharia bodies is increasing. Evidence before the Home Affairs Select Committee makes clear that fundamentalists insist that a civil divorce cannot be final. Yet earlier generations of women had civil marriage (as well as a Muslim marriage contract) and were satisfied with a civil divorce. Increased religious bullying is a major reason for women’s recourse to sharia, not simply their ‘conscience’. Indeed, the form of Sharia which the theologians of the panel have failed to challenge is much more regressive than Muslim personal laws in Muslim majority countries.

 

Unlike the review, we have shown that women cannot engage with Sharia Councils or the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal in relation to their divorce without this also impacting on their rights and freedoms in other areas. Our research shows that Sharia Courts/ Councils deal with more than divorce – they impose ‘mediation’, promote polygamy and child marriage, and interfere with child custody and criminal proceedings in relation to domestic violence. The review made no serious attempt to investigate these issues.

 

The review stands in direct contrast to the devastating observations made by Dame Louise Casey in her report in 2016 “women in some communities are facing a double onslaught of gender inequality, combined with religious, cultural and social barriers preventing them from accessing even their basic rights as British residents.”

 

A forensic examination of the operation of Sharia in Britain lays bare what fundamentalists do to achieve their goals, not merely what they think. We do not accuse them simply of ‘thought crimes’ but of promoting crimes and human rights violations.

 

The review is a botched attempt at consultation established with flawed terms of reference and an explicit disregard for gender discrimination. The government and the reviewers have failed the women most affected and ignored the concerns of rights advocates.

 

We will be providing a more detailed submission. Meanwhile, we call on you, as Home Secretary, to ensure that none of the recommendations contained in the review are implemented without consultation with those advocates who are able to make clear connections with extremism, fundamentalism and inequality. The government has, so far, failed in its duty to make an equality impact assessment, which it needs to do with the full weight of evidence before it. Continued indifference to the government’s duty to respect, protect and fulfil human rights will leave us in no doubt that there is no change to the social contract in which women’s rights are traded off as part of a process of appeasement of fundamentalists and extremists.

 

We look forward to your response.

 

Sincerely,

 

Gita Sahgal and Yasmin Rehman, Co-Directors, Centre for Secular Space
Pragna Patel, Director, Southall Black Sisters
Diana Nammi, Executive Director, Iranian Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation
Houzan Mahmoud, Culture Project
Sadia Hameed, Spokesperson, Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
Rumana Hashem, Human Rights Advocate
Nasreen Rehman, Human Rights Advocate
Gina Khan, Spokesperson, One Law for All
Maryam Namazie, Spokesperson, One Law for All

 

For more information, please contact Gita Sahgal at 07972 715090 or email onelawforall@gmail.com.

____________________

Sharia CANNOT Coexist in Western Law

John R. Houk

© February 9, 2018

____________________

The Independent Review on Sharia

 

One Law for All No Sharia Campaign (pdf manifesto)

 

2nd Steele Dossier, Dems & FISC Judges American Traitors


John R. Houk, Blog Editor

© February 6, 2018

 

Two posts (BPR & CFP) are telling their readers that more and more corruption is being exposed. Showing again that Dems LIE and the former Obama Administration is riddled with a load treasonous Deep State Comrades to the Constitution.

 

The BPR post is about two Senators (Grassley & Graham) of the Senate Judiciary Committee have sent a criminal referral to the FBI to investigate Christopher Steele lying under oath. A second deceitful memo authored by Steele evidently was fed “allegations” by Clinton associates against President Trump.

 

Judi McLeod has an interesting article at CFP indicating the black robed FISC Judges may have been in on Obama Administration, FBI-Leadership & DOJ-Leadership coup agenda to prevent or impeach President Trump depending on the November 2016 election results.

 

Talk about a swamp needing drained. These nefarious actions if ever successful renders our Constitutional Republic null and void!

 

JRH 2/6/18

Please Support NCCR

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

Second memo triggers ’emergency review’ request: Hillary’s people were ‘feeding’ info to dossier author

 

By Luis Miguel 

February 5, 2018 

BizPac Review

 

Christopher Steele isn’t getting off the hook so easily.

According a memo released by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday, Steele, the former British MI6 agent who compiled the Trump dossier commissioned by Fusion GPS, was fed allegations from Clinton associates during his research on President Trump, Fox News reports.

 

Fox News VIDEO: Criminal referral says Clinton associates fed info to Steele

http://video.foxnews.com/v/embed.js?id=5726475066001&w=466&h=263Watch the latest video at foxnews.com
The Monday memo is an unclassified, redacted version of a criminal referral filed on Jan. 4 by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) that suggests Steele lied to the FBI about his contacts or that the FBI misrepresented Steele’s statements.

 

Grassley and Graham wrote to the Justice Department in January, requesting an investigation of Steele. The Senators now ask the FBI for an emergency review of their criminal referral so that it can be made public with limited redactions.

 

In the memo, the lawmakers state “there is substantial evidence suggesting that Mr. Steele materially misled the FBI about a key aspect of his dossier efforts, one which bears on his credibility.”

 

Christopher Steele. (Photo by Victoria Jones/PA Images via Getty Images).

 

One portion of the heavily-redacted memo claimed that Steele received information from “a foreign sub-source who ‘is in touch with (redacted), a contact of (redacted), a friend of the Clintons, who passed it to (redacted).”

 

“It is troubling enough that the Clinton Campaign funded Mr. Steele’s work, but that these Clinton associates were contemporaneously feeding Mr. Steele allegations raises additional concerns about his credibility,” Grassley and Graham wrote to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in January.

 

The Grassley-Graham memo says that Steele used the information from the “foreign sub-source” to write an additional document related to President Trump’s ties to Russia that was not included in the infamous dossier published by BuzzFeed in January 2017, the Washington Post reports.

 

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA). (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite).

 

According to the memo, Clinton associate Cody Shearer was in contact with Steele about anti-Trump research. Jonathan Winer, an Obama State Department official, was a connection between Steele and the State Department during the 2016 election.

 

A House Intelligence Committee memo declassified on Friday revealed that the largely unverified Steele dossier, which was paid for by the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign through the law firm Perkins Coie, was used by the FBI to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on Trump associate Carter Page.

 

Friday’s memo showed that the FBI was aware of the dossier’s origins but did not disclose that information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court when applying for a FISA warrant.

 

The FBI opposed the release of the Grassley-Graham referral, saying the Bureau “respects” the committee’s desire for transparency but that it “cannot and will not weaken its commitment” to protecting classified information.

 

Sens. Grassley and Graham said the FBI’s remarks “mischaracterize and misstate” the amount of classified information in the document, and have asked the Bureau and Justice Department to “immediately review the classified referral in light of [Friday’s] declassification and provide the Committee with the declassified version by no later than February 6, 2018.”

 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik).

 

Despite Democrats’ best efforts, the Clintons’ full role in the Russia-Trump investigation is coming to light.

 

+++++

Obama’s FISA Men In Black Played Key Role in Russian Election Conspiracy

 

By Judi McLeod

February 5, 2018

Canada Free Press

 

FISC Membership – CFP

 

Add Barack Obama-appointed Foreign Intelligence Court (FISC) members to the braggadocio list of the “17 intelligence agencies” that Hillary Clinton openly bragged about at the Oct. 19, 2016 presidential debate when she told debate host Chris Wallace that “17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed”, the highest levels of the Russian government, including Putin himself had been caught up in “an effort to influence our election”.

 

What Clinton was, in essence saying, was that the fix was in; that Candidate Donald Trump would have zero chance of beating the rap of colluding with the Russians because “17 intelligence agencies”, including FISA judges, were at the ready to smear him as a Russian spy to discredit, first his candidacy, and then his unwanted and unexpected presidency.

 

Clinton’s admission made on national television during the University of Nevada presidential debate was jaw-dropping in its breath-taking brazenness for any who were aware.

 

Now that it’s out there, heads should roll. (video 25:16 mark)

 

CFP VIDEO: Third and final Presidential Debate (Trump/Clinton – 1:37:27)

http://players.brightcove.net/1155968404/r1WF6V0Pl_default/index.html?videoId=5178362196001
Up to the present, millions suspected the FBI, the DoJ, Jim Comey and Robert Mueller of foul play.

 

FISC sat quietly back in obscurity with no one noticing the key role it played in the Hillary Clinton/DNC-manufactured ‘Russians-stole-the-election’ conspiracy.

 

But Obama’s Men in Black were onboard from the get-go:

 

“Is it surprising that nearly all of the judges who serve on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA)– the court that gave the go-ahead to wiretap the Trump campaign–were appointed by Barack Obama? (Media Equalizer, Feb. 5, 2018)

 

According to Media Equalizer, in fact 10 of the 11 judges were Obama appointees,  including Rudolph Contreras who was recused from the Michael Flynn case for undisclosed reasons, and granted the warrant based on fake material provided by the Clinton campaign after another judge denied it.

 

“Trial lawyer Robert Barnes notes that the FISA court does not operate like other courts. Because the court’s jurisdiction is limited to legitimate security threats, its judges are supposed to hold the evidence they consider to a much higher standard.

 

 

 

 

 

“As NPR noted in 2013, the FISA court has not really functioned like a typical federal court since 2008 when Obama took office.

 

“It “became less a court than an administrative entity or ministerial clerk,” said William Banks, director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University. “They weren’t reviewing law anymore; they were simply sort of stamping papers as approved or filed.”

 

“That a DNC sponsored document that was poorly written and riddled with spelling errors was considered to meet the court’s high standard raises serious concerns. It is also important to recognize the damage caused by the judges at the FISA court when they used their secretive status to influence America’s most important political election.”

 

In order to keep presidential election campaigns safe from the sabotage of Hillary Clinton’s boasted “17 intelligence agencies”, patriots must learn to see through major media distractions.

 

During the 2016 election campaign Clinton tore a page from Obama’s stylebook.

 

Barack Hussein Obama wasn’t kidding when he boasted just five days before the 2008 presidential election that he intended to “fundamentally transform America”.  People were too caught up in the media hype that presented him as the Messiah to take the radical Marxist at his word.

 

Hillary Clinton wasn’t kidding when she outed the 17 intelligent agencies at the last presidential debate before election at the University of Nevada debate.

 

She counted on people being too caught up in her health issues, including her could- have-been-staged faint routine which televised her being shoved like a side of beef into a parked van on the 15th anniversary of 9/11.

 

Time for patriots to return presidential election campaigns to We the People.

 

Boot spy agencies out of the American election campaign process.

 

(#BootSpyAgenciesOutOfTheAmericanElectionCampaignProcess)

__________________

2nd Steele Dossier, Dems & FISC Judges American Traitors

John R. Houk, Blog Editor

© February 6, 2018

__________________

Second memo triggers ’emergency review’ request: Hillary’s people were ‘feeding’ info to dossier author

 

Luis Miguel is a South Florida-based writer covering politics, society, and culture.

 

© 2018 BizPac Review. All Rights Reserved.

__________________

Obama’s FISA Men In Black Played Key Role in Russian Election Conspiracy

 

Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years’ experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com. Older articles by Judi McLeod

 

Copyright © Canada Free Press

 

Liberty’s Worth


Justin Smith writes about how FISA warrants violate the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment:

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

Justin is absolutely correct. On a personal level, I feel during war that security overrides Rights. Friends we have been in a state of war with Islamic terrorists since September 11, 2001.

 

NOW! I have found myself modifying my perspective of the Patriot Act and FISA warrants. Once it has become apparent that Executive Administration of President Barack Hussein Obama weaponized FISA warrants in an effort to maintain a Left-Wing government under Crooked Hillary, I have begun to re-think my concept of the usage of FISA warrants used without probable cause against U.S. citizens. Incidentally, FISA Warrants were not designed for U.S. citizens but rather against non-citizens that might pose a terrorist threat against Americans.

 

In FISA abuses the FBI, Intelligence Agencies, the State Department and probably more from the Executive Branch; used back door unmasking to spy on American citizens as well as potential dangerous foreign entities.

 

These FISA abuses under Obama (who also weaponized the IRS and what else?) have made America a Leftist police state with the full cooperation of the MSM that pro-Leftist in influencing America.

 

Well that is enough of me. Read Justin Smith’s take on how the Fourth Amendment has been unconstitutionally annulled.

 

JRH 2/4/18

Please Support NCCR

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

Liberty’s Worth

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 2/3/18 3:34 PM

 

One’s liberty is the most precious thing next to life itself, and Americans must stop standing in silence, while Presidents, past and present, and Congressmen erode and trample our Fourth Amendment Right, no matter their intentions, through Orwellian legislation that directly contravenes it. Everyone must vociferously and fiercely oppose and counter these so-called “leaders” and their illegal violations of the Constitution, by replacing all those, who recently voted for the FISA Reauthorization Act of 2017, because no one, even in the name of national security, has any right or authority to take our liberty.

 

The FISA Reauthorization Act passed in the House, 256 to 164, on January 11th, and it passed by 65 – 34 vote [Blog Editor: Justin’s original text said the FISA reauthorization succeeded by only one vote. I did not find that vote, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t occur. Many votes often occur until a final vote is taken which often appears different than previous votes for constituents who agree with the majority vote.] in the Senate [S. 139], on January 18th; and, through the House vote on Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, the House rejected the USA Rights Act, 233 to 183, and its requirement that officials must obtain warrants before searching and reading Americans’ emails, after they are acquired in any surveillance operation.

 

Bulk surveillance on all Americans without a warrant, heretofore known to be unConstitutional, is now deemed acceptable by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and the U.S. Congress, but incredulously, they do make one exception. A warrant is required for the emails of the subject in an open criminal investigation, where no national security concerns exist, thus providing criminals more rights than normal, law-abiding everyday U.S. citizens.

 

One must also be shocked by House Joint Resolution 76, which was passed by this Congress and signed by President Trump on August 22, 2017. It allows the searches of homes and businesses without any warrant, in areas adjacent to the Washington [D.C.] Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and extending miles outward in all directions, and far into nearby regions of Maryland and Virginia.

 

All of the aforementioned goes against the Fourth Amendment, which states that Americans’ rights “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.”

 

In a ninety-nine page opinion for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Judge Rosemary Collyer had many harsh terms for the Obama Administration. She noted that the Obama administration had ignored Section 702 procedures designed to ensure Americans’ civil rights were safeguarded, as any administration performs the necessary work to provide for our national security. Collyer charged that Obama’s administration had violated Section 702’s requirements and created a “very serious Fourth Amendment issue.”

 

The serious nature of these developments is further highlighted by new evidence exposed by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, who has deep insight through a “top secret” clearance. He charged on January 18th, that seen through the prism of overt pro-Hillary bias and anti-Trump prejudice exhibited by the CIA, FBI and other agencies and their use of National Security Agency secret information for political purposes, they were all untrustworthy with our information and the nation’s intelligence secrets. The many abuses under the Obama Administration exposes the danger of giving too much power to our intelligence agencies, who seem far too willing to use stored metadata for harassment, blackmail and to further their own political agendas.

 

FBI Director Christopher Wray viewed Nunes’s classified House Intelligence Memo on Sunday January 21st. The next day Deputy Director Andrew McCabe announced his “retirement”. McCabe was named in the memo, as the person who used the unverified Steele Dossier to illegally obtain a FISA warrant against President Trump.

 

The House Intelligence Committee Memo released on February 2nd shows that a presidential campaign was spied on. An unverified dossier, that nobody will stand by under oath was used in an illegal manner to obtain a FISA warrant. And yet, with this knowledge in hand seven days before the House vote, Representative Nunes and twenty-one other House committee members kept over five-hundred of their colleagues in the dark, about domestic spying abuses, while the debate on that very issue was ongoing, and they voted to expand the power of those who abused it.

 

Surely the expansion of FISA would never have passed the Senate, if the damning information contained in the House Intelligence Committee Memo had been released seven days earlier. If just one conscientious senator had known of the NSA and FBI abuses concealed by the House Intelligence Committee, and changed his vote, the expansion would have failed.

 

Any American paying attention is now asking, “What is going on with our government?” They know that the Fourth Amendment has been abrogated, gutted, by the very representatives and senators who swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend our U.S. Constitution.

 

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) had vowed to fight reauthorization of Section 702 without reforms. Just prior to the vote on the USA Rights Act, he stated: “Our Founders gave us the Fourth Amendment to prevent a tyrannical government from invading our privacy, and we are fools to relinquish that hard-won right because of fear. The Founders did not include the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights as a suggestion.”

 

Significantly, on January 11th, President Trump noted that Section 702 was used to “badly surveil and abuse the Trump campaign“, as he expressed skepticism regarding FISA. At the very least, this should have withheld his signature, until FISA was reformed. He would have served America better, if he had followed his initial gut instinct.

 

After signing the bill, President Trump falsely told America that it only targeted foreigners. Is this another case of Trump being easily manipulated by his advisors, or is it one more instance of his own lack of knowledge and preparation on an issue?

 

The FISA Reauthorization Act is now in place until 2024. Each day from this point on, all of us must demand it be rescinded, and before we allow its renewal, it must be reformed.

 

Liberty is the essence of our natural state, so when Congress acts to limit our liberty in favor of greater security, obtained through a FISA operation with highly questionable results in the war on terrorism, they are philosophically, historically and constitutionally wrong. Our liberty is of infinitely greater worth to us, than the security we have instructed Congress to ensure.

 

Congress’s recent actions are moves to permanently destroy our right to privacy, exalting safety over liberty and providing neither. And in the process, limited government is being undone, right before our eyes.

 

As Ludwig von Mises reminds us, government is essentially the negation of liberty. If anyone truly believes that monitoring everyone in America is the least restrictive way to keep us safe, let that person surrender his own privacy. The rest of us will retain ours and provide for our own safety.

 

I did not consent to the abrogation of my Fourth Amendment Right, and I don’t imagine most of America did either. Our rights are inalienable and cannot be separated from us, not by Congress, not by anyone.

 

By Justin O. Smith

________________

Edited by John R. Houk

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

 

© Justin O. Smith