Dangerous Times


Justin Smith nails the sentiment on how real Americans must stand with President Trump even if he is not the perfect Conservative the Conservative-minded voting base that made him POTUS views flaws. Despite a lack of Conservative bona fides, President Trump drives the American Left into apoplectic fits and the President does have an agenda that makes America great.

JRH 5/22/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Dangerous Times

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 5/19/2017 7:03 PM

 

I was a “Never Trump” guy for a matter of only days, during the Republican primary for many good reasons, that remain true and valid today. But DAMN. Come on people. All of you are out there proclaiming your Conservative and Christian principles and your love for America, but you are sitting quietly by, even now, and watching Her be destroyed before your very eyes. Conservative principles are great. I’m every bit as conservative as any of you, probably more so, however, if you really need this explained to you, here goes.

 

98% of all news reports on Trump over the past three months, according to a recent Harvard study, have been negative [Blog Editor: Actually, depending on the news outlet the percentage ranges from 80% to 98% being the worst].

 

What does this tell You?

 

Concerning the Trump-Russia Scandal, initially beginning as a counter-intelligence investigation into Russia hacking the election, there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF “COLLUSION” between Trump and the Russians. Aside from this fact, he is the President and he is empowered to speak to foreign heads of State on any issue by right of being Our President; if you seek real collusion, just look at when Obama was caught on an open mike, on March 26th 2012, telling the Russian President to wait until after the election, and he could “be more flexible”. Just look at Hillary Clinton’s deals to give away American uranium resources to Russia, as Secretary of State [Blog Editor: See how the Leftist MSM twist the truth into a lie with semantic spin moves].

 

Still Trump was acting accordingly, when he fired FBI Director Comey, because Comey was compromised from his affiliations with Clinton; he accepted $6 million from the Clinton Foundation, when he was CEO of Lockheed, and he mishandled the Clinton investigation into her handling of Top Secret and Classified information, trying to play both sides of the fence. Trump had to fire him. [Blog Editor: See HERE, HERE & HERE]

If James Comey believed President Trump was really trying to influence his investigation into Gen. Michael Flynn, when the President asked if he “could let it go”, then why did hid he wait three months to bring it up, and only after he was fired? Why is this memo, yet to be seen, just now being mentioned? If this memo exists, then James Comey’s ethical behavior once again comes under scrutiny. [Blog Editor: Justin’s wondering is right on the money! See HERE]

 

Comey evidently didn’t really believe that President Trump was trying to obstruct justice at the time. If he did, he was duty bound by law to report the conversation immediately to the House Senate Intelligence Committee.

 

Pragmatist, liberal Democrat, conman, convert to conservatism, Great American. Put any label you choose, however true or untrue it may be, on President Donald J Trump. The reality remains that President Trump has pursued more conservative items in his first 100 days than many “Never Trump” proponents suggested he would, and he saved the Supreme Court from going completely fascist. And I believe him to be a Fine American truly working to save this Exceptional America of Ours.

 

I’m not debating the pros and cons of what he’s done. I will say, that attempting to present a GOP healthcare bill and the trillion-dollar budget shouldn’t have occurred.

 

What many seem to miss is this. Trump has given the GOP both Houses of Congress under the Republican platform and a Republican nominated U.S. President, and this can act as a respite from the transformation of the nation into a total authoritarian socialist country in which citizens answer to government bureaucrats; this is where Obama and the Progressive commies were taking us.

 

Remember Trump’s great words only days ago at Liberty University. He said, “In America we don’t worship government, we worship God.” These words will flow throughout history, however, they also solidified the D.C. Establishment’s view that Trump is dangerous. And immediately afterwards, all manner of hell broke loose in the Left Wing media.

 

Now in desperation, the Democrats refuse to release their power and give up any gains under Obama, while America hears people such as Representatives Al Green (D-TX), Maxine Waters (D-CA) and prominent Democrat former Rep. Tom Perriello call for President Trump’s impeachment. We are seeing an inner struggle, that is nothing short of a coup attempt by Deep State bureaucrats in the FBI, CIA and NSA, “anonymous” leakers, the Leftist Commies in the “mainstream” media and their Progressive allies in both parties, as well as their strong-arm thugs in the streets. This is a total complete attempt to takeover, a very real coup attempt.

 

The Democrats might proceed with attempts to arrive at impeachment, but such proceedings cannot even reach the floor of the Senate without the Senate Majority Leader’s approval. McConnell hates Trump, but even he knows the proof of evidence has to be very solid, before moving for impeachment. Aside from all this, 25 Republicans would have to cross over and join the Democrats. That isn’t happening anytime soon, not without more substantial evidence.

 

Something that doesn’t exist cannot be found, no matter how much the Democrats wish their Lie to become the Truth.

 

Yes, Trump should survive impeachment attempts, but he and his administration will remain under constant attack. In order to minimize the efforts of the Progressive Democrat Communists, Trump must immediately embark on a purge of all Obama bureaucratic holdovers and replace them with solid Conservatives, Christians and Constitutional-minded Patriotic Americans.

 

Keep your precious principles, but don’t attack the Republican President, regardless of his lack of conservative credentials, and don’t inadvertently or willingly join in the clamor for impeachment, when there is absolutely zero grounds for it, and it is completely unwarranted. Do not aid this coup.

 

If you and other Republicans jump on this pile of manufactured Democratic manure, you are setting in motion a terrible precedent for the future and possibly dooming America to becoming just like the banana republics where the” rule of law” means little and men answer to dictators, rather than the State answering to their citizens. You and your ilk are aiding in the destruction of our Republic.

 

Trump is America’s Man, but only if You’re one of the people who want out from under the Globalists and the Establishment DC fascists. If this all out assault on the Trump administration and President Trump continues, the path ahead looks very much like another Civil War brewing. Whether America on the whole understands just how much so, these are the most dangerous times America has ever witnessed in my sixty years of sunrises. Don’t let the sun set on Our Republic.

 

By Justin O. Smith

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All source links and any texts embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Fourth Estate Coup D’état Against U.S.A.


John R. Houk

© May 20, 2017

 

During the Primary/Caucus period of the GOP nomination for POTUS, I was not a supporter of Donald Trump. My support was behind stalwart Conservative Senator Ted Cruz. The same Senator dubbed by then candidate Trump as ly’n Ted. (Man, that annoyed me.)

 

But much to my then surprise, The Donald won the GOP nomination. Regardless of my distrust Trump’s Conservative bona fides, I was hugely amused with the rancorous needling of Leftists with campaign promises that sent the Left – including the Left Stream Media – into apoplectic fits of temper tantrums.

 

AND SO, I got behind Donald Trump even though the Leftist MSM was convinced by their polling that there was no way that Crooked Hillary could be beaten in the 2016 election.

 

AND THEN the Trump revolution had manifested. The American voters in a majority of States thumbed their noses at the Leftist MSM as The Donald became President Elect on election night 2016.

 

That is when ALL H – E – Double Hockey Sticks broke out among the Leftist Dems who were certain the continuation of the dismantling of our American Constitution to transform our nation into a godless Big Brother State would continue with Crooked Hillary after the corrupt President Obama left Office.

 

With that in mind, I just read a fascinating essay that I believe rings very true by James Downton at The Federalist. Downton believes a coup d’état began to dismantle Trump’s Administration and came under attack even before he took his oath of Office as President of the United States of America. A coup that as yet has no defined leader but rather is perpetrated by what many call the Fourth Estate of our government – Federal Bureaucracy. In case you are unaware or didn’t pay attention in High School, the Federal Bureaucracy has ZERO standing in the U.S. Constitution as an independent Branch of the Federal Government. This Federal Bureaucracy stretches among the three Constitutional Branches of government; viz., Executive, Legislative and Judicial.

 

I should point out that the author Downton goes out of his way to say his essay is not a defense for President Trump but rather a condemnation of this Fourth Estate coup d’état undermining the U.S. Constitution and the Republic.

 

Here’s a tease from Downton’s:

 

Arguably, what has been branded as “The Resistance” — but in actuality is the totalitarian might of the administrative state and their partisan allies — began with the Democratic Party’s scorched-earth campaign against the political nominations of the Trump White House. But beyond the partisan rancor of the legitimate and often frustrating nomination process, more sinister forces were at work.

 

JRH 5/20/17

Please Support NCCR

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

We Are Watching A Slow-Motion Coup D’etat

This coup d’etat is not only about President Trump. It represents not the rule of one man or even many, but by the multitude of our elites.

 

By James Downton

MAY 19, 2017

The Federalist

 

It’s nearly incontrovertible that a slow-motion coup d’etat is now taking place. Since November 9, 2016, forces within the U.S. government, media, and partisan opposition have aligned to overthrow the Electoral College winner, Donald Trump.

To achieve this they have undermined the institutions of the Fourth Estate, the bureaucratic apparatus of the U.S. government, and the very nature of a contentious yet affable two-party political system. Unlike the coup d’etat that sees a military or popular figure lead a minority resistance or majority force into power over the legitimate government, this coup d’etat is leaderless and exposes some of the deepest fissures in our system of government. This coup d’etat represents not the rule of one man or even many, but by the multitude of our elites.

This article outlines the mechanisms, institutions, and nature of this coup d’etat; not in defense of President Donald Trump — who has proven himself bereft of the temperament of a successful president — but in defense of the institutions of our republic that are now not just threatened, but may very well be on the verge of collapse.

‘1984’ Is An Apt Comparison, But Not As the Left Thinks

Shortly after the inauguration of Donald Trump as the 45th president of the United States, a sort of “meme” appeared among activists on the political left comparing the status of the United States to that of George Orwell’s “1984.” “Think pieces” from The New YorkerCNNThe Atlantic, and Salon drew comparisons between President Trump and the brutally authoritarian future Orwell envisioned. In April of this year, screenings of the film version of Orwell’s dystopian novel were hosted around the world. “1984” surged up Amazon’s bestseller list. The tragedy of this exercise was that the comparison was very apt, but for different reasons.

The villain of “1984” isn’t a “man” but an entity — a bureaucracy with an authoritarian impulse. Big Brother isn’t so much a man or a leader but a symbol of the omnipotent reach of the bureaucratic state that dominated the dystopian future. The fear of an elected leader turning into a tyrant — as the political Left and some on the political Right feared in Trump — doesn’t play into the narrative of the novel. Rather, it is the fear of a nearly faceless administrative state; a state that has achieved a near totality in terms of tyranny.

This fear of the administrative state was a key feature among at least two individuals writing at the Claremont Review of Books, Publius Decius Mus and professor Angelo Codevilla. Decius’s “The Flight 93 Election” essay acted as a sort of rallying cry for some conservatives and small-“r” republican intellectuals against the very real fear that a Hillary Clinton victory would cement the totalizing power of the administrative state — that is career bureaucrats and administrators who view the virtues of the republic as something to be washed away and remade in their own “progressive” image. Decius writes:

If conservatives are right about the importance of virtue, morality, religious faith, stability, character and so on in the individual; if they are right about sexual morality or what came to be termed “family values”; if they are right about the importance of education to inculcate good character and to teach the fundamentals that have defined knowledge in the West for millennia; if they are right about societal norms and public order; if they are right about the centrality of initiative, enterprise, industry, and thrift to a sound economy and a healthy society; if they are right about the soul-sapping effects of paternalistic Big Government and its cannibalization of civil society and religious institutions; if they are right about the necessity of a strong defense and prudent statesmanship in the international sphere—if they are right about the importance of all this to national health and even survival, then they must believe—mustn’t they?—that we are headed off a cliff.

For Decius, Trump represents the final option to head off the transformation of the American republic into an administrative state where bureaucrats would wield an immutable regulatory dictatorship over the American citizenry.

Codevilla, prescient, went a step further and surmised that the republic was already dead; the Caesarism of an imperial presidency had already usurped it:

Electing either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump cannot change that trajectory. Because each candidate represents constituencies hostile to republicanism, each in its own way, these individuals are not what this election is about. This election is about whether the Democratic Party, the ruling class’s enforcer, will impose its tastes more strongly and arbitrarily than ever, or whether constituencies opposed to that rule will get some ill-defined chance to strike back. Regardless of the election’s outcome, the republic established by America’s Founders is probably gone. But since the Democratic Party’s constituencies differ radically from their opponents’, and since the character of imperial governance depends inherently on the emperor, the election’s result will make a big difference in our lives.

If asked at the time of authorship, one doubts either man could have predicted the swiftness in which the administrative state would be able to consolidate power and isolate the presidency. Yet that is what has exactly occurred. With the aid of the media and the Democratic Party, the institutions of the republic are crippled, the levers of power having been seized not by the elected but by the unelected bureaucratic state — from ideologues at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the partisans and paranoid who inhabit our intelligence community.

The Administrative State Versus the American People

Arguably, what has been branded as “The Resistance” — but in actuality is the totalitarian might of the administrative state and their partisan allies — began with the Democratic Party’s scorched-earth campaign against the political nominations of the Trump White House. But beyond the partisan rancor of the legitimate and often frustrating nomination process, more sinister forces were at work.

Mother Jones, unwittingly, sheds light onto the mindset of the administrative state in a piece detailing the resistance of EPA bureaucrats. An anonymous and unelected government employee wrote to Mother Jones laying out a lengthy argument justifying his or her resistance to reforms by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and objection to directives from the White House:

What type of nation are we when we allow our leaders to sign into law a rule that makes it EASIER for mining companies to pollute local waterways? These same politicians will try to convince their voters that making it easier to pollute local streams is somehow good for them… [The anti-democratic notion that careerists at the EPA have a greater authority than the will of the people and their elected representatives is astounding and stands against concept of a representative republic]

Here in the US, those of us who work to protect the environment and human health from corporate pollution are lucky enough that we do not live under the specter of murder. We are, however, acutely aware that the forces behind these heinous crimes against environmental activists abroad are the same forces that are working against us in the US today. And make no mistake: These forces are poised to grow even stronger…

..Will the capture of EPA by corporate interests be swept up in all the other horrifying news of the day or week? Or will the public finally decide that it is not acceptable to allow EPA, the only agency with a mission dedicated to protecting the environment, to be systematically dismantled, allowing those at the top to further concentrate wealth and power among themselves? Despite the long odds we face, we will never stop working to protect every person’s right to have a healthy place to live, work, and play. And if the new administrator casts me out of the job I love, I will not stop working toward the principles that have always animated my life. This is who I am, and that will never change. I stand in solidarity with brothers and sisters that work to protect human rights, human health, and the environment here in the US and all over the world. The struggle continues.

This is not the words of a dutiful civil servant but of a partisan tyrant who would see his own view, his own agenda, and his own lens of politics dominate over that of the elected government of the United States. In their minds they are but a guardian of the people, albeit one that must stand up to and ultimately negate the will of that very same people. Were the United States governed by a different political system, this view of the role of the unelected and their duty to act as sovereign over the people might even be admirable, but that is not a republican system.

Which Side Is Really Treasonous?

Complicit with the authoritarian nature of the administrative state is factions within the United States intelligence community both inside and outside the White House. They have engaged in a campaign of selective leaks and plots to undermine the president of the United States and weave a media narrative of Russian influence, conspiracy, and now obstruction of justice. With their media allies, they have leaked information and intelligence that — while lacking any actual criminal element — has allowed a narrative to arise that casts a dark shadow over the White House and those who live and work in it.

A narrative comprised of the Russian government “hacking” the presidential election, collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and Trump being compromised by the Russian government dominated the media before the final votes of the election were even tallied. Skepticism was suspended for what can only be described as a concerted effort to undermine the elected president of the United States.

Shortly after the inauguration, this narrative escalated via select leaks — and was admirably exacerbated by White House actions. We now face a crisis over a fired director of the FBI, with current and retired officials spinning stories to the media with little basis other than the whispers of anonymous sources.

We are told that President Trump demanded a loyalty oath from FBI Director James Comey, demanded Comey drop the FBI investigation into the foreign connections of Gen. Michael Flynn, and that this constitutes obstruction of justice and, in the most hysterical cases, that this among other offenses even constitutes treason.

Yet in all of this we have yet to see the purported Comey memo detailing some of these moments — although from the media treatment it is understandable that many would constitute the media reports as truth. The meeting between President Trump and the Russian foreign minister has resulted in a similar tale of collusion and gross breach of intelligence tradecraft, with Trump’s national security advisor and the secretary of State, both present for the meeting, have both denied.

The Media Slips Loose the Dogs of War

In all of this, the media has abandoned their role as watchdogs with a healthy dose of skepticism and become the propaganda arm of the unelected administrative state, complicit in and even cheering on the actions that have superseded the will of the people. A cursory glance at the social media feeds of most Washington DC-based press more than illustrates this.

Bolstered by their partisan allies, the media has acted as a beachhead for the assault on the Trump administration. Partisan organizations like Media Matters for America have helped to provide ammunition to the media and pour fuel on the fires of resistance among partisan activists. Eric Boehlert, a former journalist and now a writer at Media Matters, tweeted, following the revelation of a possible memo from Comey: “Trump obstructed justice THREE WEEKS INTO HIS FIRST TERM”

Eric Boehlert @EricBoehlert

Trump obstructed justice THREE WEEKS INTO HIS FIRST TERM

5:40 PM – 16 May 2017

Boehlert provides no actual evidence of obstruction of justice. Rather, he runs with an intentional media narrative that the mere whisper, the idea, is in-and-of-itself proof that obstruction occurred. Thus Boehlert is affirmative in his tweet, not speculative. Because the administrative state, the progressive political partisans, and the media oppose the Trump administration, any whiff of maleficence is treated as the Gospel Truth.

Boehlert’s follow-up tweets provide insight into the mindset that has taken over our media and political institutions. “Comey’s firing signaled the end for Trump; he upset forces that were unseen to him. [sic] and now they’re exacting revenge…..as they should”

Eric Boehlert @EricBoehlert

Trump obstructed justice THREE WEEKS INTO HIS FIRST TERM

5:40 PM – 16 May 2017

This should be a disturbing revelation, even one coming from a mind so addled and partisan as Boehlert’s. Justice, properly pursued, is a good end, but what Boehlert is cheering on is the revenge of a man who was legally and constitutionally fired. This is the partisan nature of the administrative state revealed. Partisans of the political Left cheering on bureaucrats to help create a narrative and the appearance of malfeasance where there has yet to be any evidence of such.

Boehlert continues: “ftr, these leaks are unusual: Mon, WP got scoop then quickly lots of reporters filled in. today, NYT, then lots of reporters filled in.”

16 May

Eric Boehlert @EricBoehlert

Comey’s firing signaled the end for Trump; he upset forces that were unseen to him. and now they’re exacting revenge…..as they should

 

Eric Boehlert @EricBoehlert

ftr, these leaks are unusual: Mon, WP got scoop then quickly lots of reporters filled in. today, NYT, then lots of reporters filled in.

5:46 PM – 16 May 2017

“ie.e. this is a quality roll-out. Q: will there be another tomorrow?”

16 May

Eric Boehlert @EricBoehlert

ftr, these leaks are unusual: Mon, WP got scoop then quickly lots of reporters filled in. today, NYT, then lots of reporters filled in.

 

Eric Boehlert @EricBoehlert

i.e. this is a quality roll-out. Q: will there be another tomorrow?

5:53 PM – 16 May 2017

“after today, how does he not apt special prosecutor??”

16 May

Eric Boehlert @EricBoehlert

Rosenstein looking even worse this week…..

 

Eric Boehlert @EricBoehlert

after today, how does he not appt special prosecutor??

5:58 PM – 16 May 2017

These series of tweets illustrate the broader problem of collusion between the various elements of the partisan Left, the media, and the administrative state. The attack on Trump from within and without is coordinated and purposefully geared to make a lack of evidence seem like a mountain of evidence and be as damning as possible, although what it truly amounts to is a paper tiger. With the administrative state leaking and the partisans giving context, the media gins up a plot that declares Trump guilty of crimes of which there is no concrete evidence he committed. This is how you build the consensus behind a coup d’etat.

A Smear Production Factory

One only need look at the case of Sebastian Gorka to see just how far and how petty the media has gone to act as the enforcer of the administrative state. Some in the intelligence community and partisan bureaucracy viewed Gorka unfavorably, resulting in an organized campaign in the press against him.

The magazine Forward began running poorly sourced articles tying Gorka to a Hungarian order of merit called the Vitézi Rend, which, during World War II, had factions that supported the Hungarian dictator Horthy, the Imperial House of Habsburg, and the Nazi party. Despite no clear evidence, Forward labeled Gorka, in essence, a Nazi. The media ran with that narrative, bolstered by activist campaigns by partisans of the Democratic Party and those opposed to Gorka in the intelligence community.

In truth, the real objection to Gorka was his view of Islam as a civilizational confrontation and of radical Islam as a hostile force against the West. There as yet remains no evidence of Gorka or his father being tied to the Nazi party in any way — yet that did not stop journalists from surmising on social media that Gorka’s immigration to the United States and status as a U.S. citizen should have been blocked and should be revoked.

The scale of the administrative state and its allies’ war against the duly elected government of the United States should be startling. The media should be an institution of skepticism and concern for this usurpation, yet they have chosen to be complicit. In this, Codevilla is correct. We have emerged into a new system of government, though perhaps not truly an imperial one.

Whereas some continue to try and enforce republican values and norms, a large swath of what administers the government of our nation has chosen to embody the Roman dictator Sulla — in the form of a multitude of bureaucrats and careerists; a dictatorial court without an emperor to bring them to heel.

We may already be past the point of no return. Some in the White House made it a point to seek dismantling the administrative state, but it appears the administrative state is more than capable of fighting back and seizing additional power through leaks, obstinacy, and partisan rancor — ensuring its survival and propelling what can only be described as a coup d’etat.

James Downton is the pen name of a Federalist contributor who is contractually prohibited from writing publicly about politics under his real name.

______________________

Fourth Estate Coup D’état Against U.S.A.

John R. Houk

© May 20, 2017

_____________________

We Are Watching A Slow-Motion Coup D’etat

Copyright © 2017 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.

Was Obama’s White House Politicizing Intelligence To Influence The 2016 Elections


Intro to ‘Was Obama’s White House Politicizing Intelligence To Influence The 2016 Elections’

Blog Editor John R. Houk

By Fred Fleitz

Posted 4/6/17

 

The Dems and the Leftist Mainstream Media (MSM) have been hell-bent to disqualify President Trump since election day 2016. All disqualification agendas seem to gravitate around President Trump colluded with Russia to win over Crooked Hillary.

 

It is my belief the “collusion” accusation is horse pucky, but Russian attempts to manipulate the American voter is very possible. AND if POSSIBLE turns into reality, Russia needs to suffer any kind consequences the Trump Administration is willing to inflict. By inflict I mean at least with a Cold War-style agitation to see how far the Russians are willing to confront the still most powerful nation in the world which of course is the United States of America.

 

That being said, the continuous disparaging of President Trump should be examined by the Trump Administration Department of Justice for crimes by Dems, the Left MSM, current government civil servant lifers loyal to BHO AND former Obama Administration Officials INCLUDING the treasonous former President Barack Hussein Obama.

 

My thoughts on American collusion with evil leads me to a Fred Fleitz article entitled, “Was Obama’s White House Politicizing Intelligence To Influence The 2016 Elections”.

 

JRH 4/6/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Was Obama’s White House Politicizing Intelligence To Influence The 2016 Elections

 

By Fred Fleitz

April 6, 2017

The Federalist

 

The truth is that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies did not conclude that Russia tried to interfere in the election or help Trump win. Not even close.

 

Although there are strong indications the Obama administration abused intelligence collection by U.S. agencies to gather information on the Trump campaign to leak to the news media, it also appeared to abuse another U.S. intelligence mission: intelligence analysis.

 

Congressional Democrats and the mainstream media consider it gospel truth that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to help Donald Trump win. But should we treat this assessment as true in light of major errors in U.S. intelligence analysis in the past and its politicization? Is something gospel truth just because U.S. intelligence agencies say it is?

 

The truth is that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies did not conclude that Russia tried to interfere in the election or help Trump win. Not even close.

 

What Intelligence Has Really Confirmed About Russia

 

U.S. intelligence agencies issued two assessments on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The first was an October 7 statement by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that said WikiLeaks disclosures of Democratic emails during the election were “consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts” but did not say there was any evidence of Russian involvement.

 

Moreover, although this statement said the U.S. intelligence community held this position, the memo was issued by only two agencies, and was called a “Joint DHS and ODNI Election Security Statement.” Hillary Clinton seized on this statement in the last presidential debate on October 19 by inaccurately claiming “We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin.”

 

The fact that this memo was not an intelligence community document issued by all agencies with equities in this issue was very unusual. It also was suspicious that an unclassified intelligence analysis so advantageous to one presidential candidate was issued just before the election and only two weeks before the last presidential debate. In my view, this looked like looked like a clumsy attempt by the Obama White House to issue an intelligence assessment to boost Clinton’s presidential campaign and hurt the Trump campaign.

 

The second intelligence assessment on this question, issued on January 6, 2017, I believe represents a serious instance of a presidential administration manipulating U.S. intelligence analysis to issue a politicized analysis to sabotage an incoming president from a different political party. The January 6 analysis found that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election and hurt Hillary’s candidacy to promote Trump. The assessment said this interference came at the direction of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

 

What About All the Missing Intelligence Agencies?

 

Like the October memo, congressional Democrats and the news media have said this was the unanimous conclusion of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies. But also like the October memo, this was not the case. The January 6 assessment was an “Intelligence Community Assessment.” Such analyses are usually issued and cleared by most if not all U.S. intelligence agencies and have a statement on the first page that usually reads “this is an IC-coordinated assessment.”

 

The January 6 Intelligence Community Assessment lacked such a statement because it reflected the views of only three U.S. intelligence agencies: Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and National Security Agency. The CIA and FBI concluded with high confidence that Russia intervened in the election to help Trump win. NSA concluded this with moderate confidence.

 

Why did other U.S. intelligence agencies with major equities in this issue not participate in the January 6 assessment? Why were the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security part of the October assessment but not the January one? Where were the Defense Intelligence Agency, the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, and the military intelligence agencies?

 

The January assessment also was very unusual because it was such a conclusive analysis of a very controversial subject with no dissenting views. Based my CIA experience, this is unprecedented and makes me wonder whether intelligence agencies that may have dissented were deliberately excluded.

 

There also is the question as to whether this assessment was written to conform to a predetermined conclusion by the Obama White House to undermine the Trump administration. The U.S. intelligence community has played political games like this before with interagency assessments to promote political agendas. One of the most notorious examples of this was the controversial 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program that was intended to undermine President Bush’s Iran policy.

 

There Are Indications Intelligence Has Been Politicized

 

CIA Director John Brennan’s role in approving this assessment raises serious questions about whether it was manipulated for political reasons. Brennan has been heavily criticized for politicizing intelligence for the Obama administration. This includes the role he played in the 2012 CIA talking points on the Benghazi terrorist attacks. He also has been openly and extremely hostile toward Trump before and after the election.

 

Given FBI Director James Comey’s statements at a recent House Intelligence Committee hearing that the conclusion in the January 6 assessment that Russia intervened in the election to help Trump was based on logic and not evidence, it is hard to believe this was not a pre-cooked conclusion driven by the highly partisan Brennan.

 

I strongly believe that if there were any evidence that Russia intervened in the election to help Trump win, or that Russia and the Trump campaign collaborated to affect the outcome of the election, this intelligence would have been leaked by Obama holdovers in government and the so-called “Deep State” to The New York Times long ago. The fact that Comey could not point to such evidence and this information has not been leaked suggests there is no such evidence because this didn’t happen.

 

The current congressional investigations of possible Russian interference in the election and the Obama administration’s misuse of U.S. intelligence collection to surveil the Trump campaign must also include whether intelligence analysis was politicized to damage Trump’s candidacy and presidency. These investigations must look at how the above analyses were drafted, who drafted them, and why some agencies did not participate. The committees also need to uncover any evidence of the White House trying to influence the outcome of these assessments or excluding certain agencies from participating.

 

It is time to call out Democrats and reporters who portray the idea that Russia intervened in the election to help Trump win as established truth because it is the unanimous assessment of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies. I expect the congressional investigations will conclude this claim is false and actually represented a deliberate effort to manipulate intelligence analysis to undermine the Trump presidency.

 

________________

Fred Fleitz is senior vice president for policy and programs with the Center for Security Policy. He worked in national-security positions for 25 years with the CIA, the State Department, and the House Intelligence Committee. Follow him on Twitter @fredfleitz.

 

Copyright © 2017 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.

 

Do YOU Trust Benghazi/Bergdahl Liar?


John R. Houk

© April 5, 2017

 

Susan Rice is a typical lying Dem that unmasked Trump campaign staff names that did NOTHING illegal while using an investigation of Russian collusion/voting interference as a MERE excuse to politically impugn Donald Trump during the 2016 election and during the Obama lame duck period leading President Trump’s inauguration!!!!

 

AND even more reprehensible is the Left Stream Media either didn’t report on Ly’n Rice or defended her for doing nothing wrong while simultaneously still stick to the UNPROVEN – ergo lie – accusation the President Trump colluded with the Russians to defeat Crooked Hillary in the 2016 election cycle.

 

Susan Rice Lying to Americans on 5 MSM Networks

 

 

For any American to believe Rice’s words that she “leaked nothing to nobody,” were also duped by her lies about Benghazi and her lies the traitor Bergdahl was an upstanding loyal American: “He served the United States with honor and distinction …”

 

VIDEO: Susan Rice: Bergdahl Served With ‘Honor and Distinction’

 

Posted by PoliticalTurkey1

Published on Jun 2, 2014

 

Hmm … IF SUSAN RICE SAYS SHE DIDN’T UNMASK TRUMP SURVEILLANCE FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES, I CAN CONFIDENTLY SAY “I DON’T BELIEVE HER!”

 

I have found loads of articles that question the veracity of Susan Rice and Barack Obama. The Left Stream Media will not take up the question of reliability because they are essentially a propaganda of Obama, The Dems and the Left in general.

 

I am cross posting two articles. One from The Federalist posted today and another from Fox News’ Adam Housley post on April third. At the end, I will provide some links (perhaps some excerpts) from other sources that pretty much have the same opinion about Susan Rice but may add some details lacking between each article.

 

JRH 4/5/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Why Susan Rice’s Role In The Obama Spying Story Is A Big Deal

 

By Mollie Hemingway

April 5, 2017

The Federalist

 

Susan Rice was one Obama official who requested the unmasking of Trump associates’ information that was widely disseminated. Here’s why that’s significant.

 

Since Donald Trump won the election for president in November, U.S. media outlets have received and eagerly published selective, damaging leaks about him from anonymous intelligence officials. The general effort, which appeared highly coordinated, was an effort to delegitimize Trump’s election and paint him as a stooge of Russia or otherwise unfit for office.

 

The media outlets claimed their information came from very highly placed officials in the Obama administration. Even if they hadn’t claimed their anonymous sources were Obama officials, the information they were leaking, such as the name of a U.S. citizen caught up in surveillance by the Obama administration, would have been known only by highly placed intelligence officials.

 

As the publishers of the information that was illegally disclosed, many media outlets weren’t keen to make a story, much less a big story, about the leak campaign by Obama officials. This despite the fact that the same Obama officials who had run the infamous Iran Echo Chamber operation, in which reporters were duped into reporting the Obama administration’s spin on the Iran deal, had bragged that they’d continue a highly developed communications operation in the Trump era.

 

In early March, Donald Trump tweeted out a series of unsubstantiated claims:

 

Trump Tweets on BHO Wiretapping

 

 

Two weeks ago, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes, revealed that he’d seen dozens of reports featuring unmasked information on Trump and his associates and family members. He said these reports arose out of incidental collection during FISA surveillance, had nothing to do with Russia, were disseminated widely throughout the intelligence agencies, and contained little to no foreign intelligence value.

 

It should go without saying that the country’s powerful surveillance capabilities are not to be used against American citizens so that such unmasking should be exceedingly rare, be done for only the strongest reasons, and make pains to avoid the appearance of politicization. Nunes said the incidental collection might be legal but the unmasked dissemination of information about political opponents was disconcerting.

 

Despite the bombshell allegations, many in the media responded by downplaying or denigrating his news, distracting with process complaints, or quickly thrown-together stories from anonymous sources with no evidence claiming more breathless wrongdoing with Russia.

 

On Monday, Eli Lake of Bloomberg Views reported that sources said “Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.” Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the National Security Council’s senior director for intelligence, was conducting a review of unmasking procedures when he “discovered Rice’s multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities.”

 

Susan Rice was Obama’s National Security Advisor for his second term.

 

Again, many in the media are attempting to downplay, denigrate and distract, some are doing so shamelessly. Here are five reasons why this is a story worth covering:

 

1) Susan Rice’s Story Changed Dramatically From Two Weeks Ago

 

Two weeks ago, PBS’ Judy Woodruff asked Rice a very general question about Nunes’ claims:

 

JUDY WOODRUFF: I began by asking about the allegations leveled today by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes that Trump transition officials, including the president, may have been swept up in surveillance of foreigners at the end of the Obama administration.

 

SUSAN RICE, Former U.S. National Security Adviser: I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today.

 

I know nothing about this, she said.

 

Yesterday, in a damage control interview with prominent Democratic journalist Andrea Mitchell, Rice admitted her unmasking efforts and said they were routine. Mitchell’s 16-minute interview involved no tough questions. Mitchell asked, “Did you seek to unmask the names of people involved in the Trump transition?” Rice responded in the Clintonian fashion, “Absolutely not for any political purposes.” A natural follow-up would have been if she requested the unmasking for any other purpose. It didn’t occur to Mitchell. Instead she followed-up with the related question, “Did you leak?” to which Rice responded, somewhat confusingly, “I leaked nothing to nobody.”

 

Somehow Rice tried to claim later that her initial statement of having no clue about Nunes’ earlier claim was not at odds with her 16-minute answer about her unmasking efforts.

 

Rice has a reputation for dishonesty, most notably for her claim that a September 11, 2012, attack in Libya that killed four Americans was a spontaneous result of anger at a video critical of Islam. At the time she said this, the State Department knew well that it was a coordinated terrorist attack.

 

Rice also falsely claimed that Bowe Bergdahl “served the United States with honor and distinction,” when critics began raising questions about why President Obama traded high-value Taliban detainees and a ransom for the Army deserter. Bergdahl is expected to face a court-martial in August for desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. His desertion was already known at the time Rice made her comments.

 

2) The Unmasking Was Related To Political Information

 

When Nunes first alerted the public about his concerns over the unmasking and dissemination, he noted that the information had nothing to do with Russia and had little to no intelligence value. Lake reported that Rice’s multiple unmasking requests were related to reports on Trump transition activities. She is said to have requested the identities of Americans in reports of monitored conversations between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition and in surveilled contact between the Trump team and monitored foreign officials.

 

“One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration,” according to Lake.

 

When Rice gave her interview to the friendly journalist Mitchell, she gave a hypothetical example of when it would be appropriate to request an unmasking of a U.S. citizen’s name that was caught up in foreign surveillance. She said that if two foreigners were talking about a terrorist attack to be committed with a U.S. citizen, she would seek out that name. That’s a great hypothetical. And no one is making the claim that Susan Rice sought to unmask a Trump family member or transition member’s name because she believed they were about to set off a bomb. They are making the claim that the information in the reports was politically valuable and related to the Trump transition.

 

3) Susan Rice Worked In The White House

 

Rice was known as Obama’s “right-hand woman,” “like a sister,” and was his National Security Advisor throughout his second term.

 

Weeks ago, diplomat Richard Grennell said that if Rice were involved, that would implicate President Obama:

 

‘But within that realm there could have easily been a political calculation to listen in, and then to take those transcripts and the summaries of those transcripts, make sure that those in the NSC and the political people – like Ben Rhodes and Susan Rice – make sure that they have them so they can leak them to reporters.’

 

‘I think that it would be easy to figure out if Susan Rice and Ben Rhodes knew about this,’ he added, ‘because if they did, clearly President Obama knew about it.’

 

Even if Rice wasn’t working with Obama on this effort or informing him of her activities, her role as National Security Advisor means her unmasking request in this instance doesn’t make sense, according to Andrew McCarthy. If the identities of U.S. citizens had intelligence value, it would have been unmasked by agencies that conduct investigations, he wrote:

 

Consequently, if unmasking was relevant to the Russia investigation, it would have been done by those three agencies. And if it had been critical to know the identities of Americans caught up in other foreign intelligence efforts, the agencies that collect the information and conduct investigations would have unmasked it. Because they are the agencies that collect and refine intelligence ‘products’ for the rest of the ‘intelligence community,’ they are responsible for any unmasking; and they do it under ‘minimization’ standards that FBI Director James Comey, in recent congressional testimony, described as ‘obsessive’ in their determination to protect the identities and privacy of Americans.

 

Understand: There would have been no intelligence need for Susan Rice to ask for identities to be unmasked. If there had been a real need to reveal the identities — an intelligence need based on American interests — the unmasking would have been done by the investigating agencies. The national-security adviser is not an investigator. She is a White House staffer. The president’s staff is a consumer of intelligence, not a generator or collector of it. If Susan Rice was unmasking Americans, it was not to fulfill an intelligence need based on American interests; it was to fulfill a political desire based on Democratic-party interests.

 

It is unclear what President Obama knew about Rice’s successful request to unmask information on Trump transition members.

 

4) This Substantiates Nunes’ Claim

 

When Nunes told the public that information about the Trump team had been collected, unmasked, and widely disseminated, many media figures questioned the legitimacy of his claim. With the news that no less than Susan Rice requested unmasking of political operatives, it appears that Nunes was onto something.

 

Also of note, Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democratic member on the committee, had been very upset with Nunes for telling the public and the White House about the reports he’d seen before briefing the committee. However, after Schiff saw the information, he more or less went quiet. He didn’t say the reports were a distraction or unimportant, unlike other Democratic operatives.

 

5) Civil Liberties Questions Remain

 

The most frequent defense of the Obama administration’s unmasking efforts is that incidental information collection on U.S. citizens is routine, and that requests to unmask that information about U.S. citizens is also routine. When we learn more about the widespread dissemination of such information, we can anticipate that the media and other Democrats will say that such dissemination is more than routine.

 

When Nunes revealed the collection, unmasking, and dissemination news, he specifically referenced the incidental information collection on members of Congress during the Iran deal. The U.S. spies on foreign leaders, including Benjamin Netanyahu and his advisors. As a result, the Obama administration picked up information on politically valuable information:

 

White House officials believed the intercepted information could be valuable to counter Mr. Netanyahu’s campaign. They also recognized that asking for it was politically risky. So, wary of a paper trail stemming from a request, the White House let the NSA decide what to share and what to withhold, officials said. ‘We didn’t say, ‘Do it,’ ‘a senior U.S. official said. ‘We didn’t say, ‘Don’t do it.’ ‘

 

Stepped-up NSA eavesdropping revealed to the White House how Mr. Netanyahu and his advisers had leaked details of the U.S.-Iran negotiations—learned through Israeli spying operations—to undermine the talks; coordinated talking points with Jewish-American groups against the deal; and asked undecided lawmakers what it would take to win their votes, according to current and former officials familiar with the intercepts.

 

The Bush administration also collected and used information on members of Congress this way.

 

In some ways, this “routine” defense of collecting and disseminating information on political adversaries is the most disconcerting. The federal government’s surveillance powers are intense, from metadata collection to surveillance of communications. Such information is easily weaponized and exceedingly difficult to oversee for accountability purposes.

 

As one journalist who used to be worried about such things wrote a few years ago:

 

Instead, the NSA’s approach of grabbing up every bit of information that it can guarantees that the metadata and sometimes even the content of legislator communications are swept up, and will continue to be available to a secretive class of executive branch employees for years to come. There is obvious potential that this will be exploited with abusive intent–it isn’t like we’ve never had a president try to spy on his political opponents before! But even absent any nefarious motives, incidentally collected data could damage the integrity of our political system.

 

Members of the media should try to cover, rather than cover up, this aspect of the story. The civil liberties of U.S. citizens are of vital importance and the unmasking of information on them should not be routine, not regular, and not a light matter.

 

The media have thousands of questions to force answers on regarding this important story. As Ari Fleischer wrote on Twitter:

 

About Susan Rice: The President’s National Security Advisor has authority to request unmasking of American names from intel agencies.

 

But in this instance, I am stunned by the lack of curiosity most media have shown about the facts and circumstances present here.

 

This is a good example of media giving soft coverage to President Obama while they’re hard on the GOP in general & Trump in particular.

 

Bear in mind, Rice is the official who praised Bowe Bergdahl for his ‘honorable service’ & claimed he was captured ‘on the battlefield.’

 

She also said two weeks ago in a TV interview that she didn’t know anything about the unmasking.

 

I would have thought the media would ask tough questions. There is no reason this should be a FOX News and conservative press issue only.

 

If I were a reporter, I would want to know why Rice sought the unmasking. The FBI is investigating possible Trump collusion, not the WH.

 

How often did she ask? What reasons did she give? (Each request is tracked and catalogued in writing by the NSA. A procedure exists.)

 

The info would have been provided ONLY to her as the requester. It is highly classified. Did she share it? With whom? Why?

 

If she shared it with anyone, why did she do so? What did they do with it? Did they give it to the media or tell media about it?

 

One of the reasons we live in a polarized era is because too many reporters look the other way at issues like this. Bias is real.

 

It’s not too late. The press knows how to dig and get answers. I hope they do so.

 

It’s not just Rice. She wasn’t the only person to request the unmasking of Trump officials regarding politically sensitive operations, and she wasn’t the person who requested that Flynn’s name be unmasked, meaning she requested at least one other Trump associate’s unmasking. We still don’t know who committed the crime of leaking Flynn’s name to the Washington Post. It’s time to start working on covering this story, rather than running interference for anonymous sources.

 

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingway

 

+++

Susan Rice requested to unmask names of Trump transition officials, sources say

 

By Adam Housley

April 03, 2017

Fox News

 

Multiple sources tell Fox News that Susan Rice, former national security adviser under then-President Barack Obama, requested to unmask the names of Trump transition officials caught up in surveillance.

 

The unmasked names, of people associated with Donald Trump, were then sent to all those at the National Security Council, some at the Defense Department, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and then-CIA Director John Brennan – essentially, the officials at the top, including former Rice deputy Ben Rhodes.

 

The names were part of incidental electronic surveillance of candidate and President-elect Trump and people close to him, including family members, for up to a year before he took office.

 

It was not clear how Rice knew to ask for the names to be unmasked, but the question was being posed by the sources late Monday.

 

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

 

Such amazing reporting on unmasking and the crooked scheme against us by @foxandfriends. “Spied on before nomination.” The real story.

 

5:15 AM – 3 Apr 2017

 

“What I know is this …  If the intelligence community professionals decide that there’s some value, national security, foreign policy or otherwise in unmasking someone, they will grant those requests,” former Obama State Department spokeswoman and Fox News contributor Marie Harf told Fox News’ Martha MacCallum on “The First 100 Days. “And we have seen no evidence … that there was partisan political notice behind this and we can’t say that unless there’s actual evidence to back that up.”

 

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, asked about the revelations at Monday’s briefing, declined to comment specifically on what role Rice may have played or officials’ motives.

 

“I’m not going to comment on this any further until [congressional] committees have come to a conclusion,” he said, while contrasting the media’s alleged “lack” of interest in these revelations with the intense coverage of suspected Trump-Russia links.

 

When names of Americans are incidentally collected, they are supposed to be masked, meaning the name or names are redacted from reports – whether it is international or domestic collection, unless it is an issue of national security, crime or if their security is threatened in any way. There are loopholes and ways to unmask through backchannels, but Americans are supposed to be protected from incidental collection. Sources told Fox News that in this case, they were not.

 

This comes in the wake of Evelyn Farkas’ television interview last month in which the former Obama deputy secretary of defense said in part: “I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill – it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration.”

 

Meanwhile, Fox News also is told that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes knew about unmasking and leaking back in January, well before President Trump’s tweet in March alleging wiretapping.

 

Nunes has faced criticism from Democrats for viewing pertinent documents on White House grounds and announcing their contents to the press. But sources said “the intelligence agencies slow-rolled Nunes. He could have seen the logs at other places besides the White House SCIF [secure facility], but it had already been a few weeks. So he went to the White House because he could protect his sources and he could get to the logs.”

 

As the Obama administration left office, it also approved new rules that gave the NSA much broader powers by relaxing the rules about sharing intercepted personal communications and the ability to share those with 16 other intelligence agencies.

 

Rice is no stranger to controversy. As the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, she appeared on several Sunday news shows to defend the adminstration’s [sic] later debunked claim that the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on a U.S. consulate in Libya was triggered by an Internet video.

 

Rice also told ABC News in 2014 that Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl “served the United States with honor and distinction” and that he “wasn’t simply a hostage; he was an American prisoner of war captured on the battlefield.”

 

Bergdahl is currently facing court-martial on charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy for allegedly walking off his post in Afghanistan.

 

Adam Housley joined Fox News Channel (FNC) in 2001 and currently serves as a Los Angeles-based senior correspondent.

 

+++

SOURCES: SUSAN RICE BEHIND UNMASKING OF TRUMP OFFICIALS

White House counsel reportedly ID’d former national security adviser

 

By GARTH KANT

Updated: 04/03/2017 at 11:05 PM

WND

 

WASHINGTON – Multiple reports indicate former National Security Adviser Susan Rice was the Obama administration official who requested the unmasking of incoming Trump administration officials.

 

Mike Cernovich broke the story in an article in Medium on Sunday that said, “The White House Counsel’s office identified Rice as the person responsible for the unmasking after examining Rice’s document log requests.”

 

Unmasking is the revealing of names within the intelligence community of U.S. citizens whose communications were monitored during foreign surveillance.

 

According to Fox News, the unmasked names of people associated with Donald Trump were sent widely to top officials in the Obama administration.

 

That is a potential felony.

 

The unmasked names were reportedly sent to every member of the National Security Council, former Rice deputy Ben Rhodes, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, then-CIA Director John Brennan and some officials at the Defense Department.

 

The NSA is required to remove the names of Americans incidentally collected during foreign surveillance before sharing intelligence with other agencies unless there is an issue of national security, but Rice reportedly requested the unmasking of the identities of Trump associates.

 

Sources said …….

 

+++

BOMBSHELL REPORT: Obama National Security Advisor SUSAN RICE Behind Unmasking Of Trump Transition Team

 

By BEN SHAPIRO

APRIL 3, 2017

Daily Wire

 

In a massive scoop, on Monday morning Eli Lake of Bloomberg reported that Barack Obama’s national security advisor, Susan Rice, repeatedly requested information from the intelligence community on members of the Trump transition team and campaign, unmasking them to an audience beyond the intelligence community in the process. Normally, raw intelligence masks the identity of American citizens caught up in legal surveillance of other targets.

 

Here’s Lake:

 

In February [National Security Council senior director for intelligence] Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice’s multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the attention of the White House General Counsel’s office, who reviewed more of Rice’s requests and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy. The intelligence reports were summaries of monitored conversations – primarily between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition, but also in some cases direct contact between members of the Trump team and monitored foreign officials. One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration. 

 

Rice denied that she knew anything about members of the Trump transition caught up in incidental intelligence gathering last month. As Lake also points out, the revelation that Rice requested the documents would explain House Intelligence Chair Devin Nunes’ trip to the White House two weeks ago – he needed to go there to view Rice’s missives. It would also explain why Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the most ardent Trump critic on wiretapping and leaks, suddenly went silent over the weekend after seeing documents the White House presented to him.

 

This is indeed a huge story for the Trump White House. It doesn’t change the inaccuracy of Trump’s accusations that he was wiretapped by the Obama administration – there is still zero evidence to support that claim. But it demonstrates that the Trump team was not only targeted by members of the Obama intelligence community for unmasking and likely leaking, but that such unmasking went to the very top of the Obama administration.

 

And here’s another inconvenient fact …

 

+++

Benghazi Liar Susan Rice’s Treachery Continues

 

By Daniel John Sobieski

April 4, 2017

American Thinker

 

Call it the tale of two National Security Advisers, Michael Flynn and Susan Rice. As much as Flynn has taken fire as being an architect of unspecified “collusion” with the Russians, Susan Rice has been like the iceberg that sank the Titanic — barely visible above water but dangerous enough to threaten the Trump administration’s ship of state.

 

As reported by Circa News, Rice, while serving as Obama’s National Security Adviser, requested the unmasking of the names of Team Trump officials mentioned in the so-called “incidental” surveillance  of the Trump transition team:

 

Computer logs that former President Obama’s team left behind in the White House indicate his national security adviser Susan Rice accessed numerous intelligence reports during Obama’s last seven months in office that contained National Security Agency intercepts involving Donald Trump and his associates, Circa has learned.

 

Intelligence sources said the logs discovered by National Security Council staff suggested Rice’s interest in the NSA materials, some of which included unmasked Americans’ identities, appeared to begin last July around the time Trump secured the GOP nomination and accelerated after Trump’s election in November launched a transition that continued through January.

 

The intelligence reports included some intercepts of Americans talking to foreigners and many more involving foreign leaders talking about the future president, his campaign associates or his transition, the sources said. Most if not all had nothing to do with the Russian election interference scandal, the sources said, speaking only on condition of anonymity given the sensitive nature of the materials.

 

Ordinarily, such references to Americans would be redacted or minimized by the NSA before being shared with outside intelligence sources, but in these cases names were sometimes unmasked at the request of Rice or the intelligence reports were specific enough that the American’s identity was easily ascertained, the sources said.

 

Well, isn’t that special? While Trump’s pick for this sensitive post was under scrutiny, Obama’s adviser was doing opposition research which involved data mining classified intelligence reports. Rice requested the unmasking of names, something only three people, according to Circa, were authorized to do:

 

Dozens of times in 2016, those intelligence reports identified Americans who were directly intercepted talking to foreign sources or were the subject of conversations between two or more monitored foreign figures. Sometimes the Americans’ names were officially unmasked; other times they were so specifically described in the reports that their identities were readily discernible. Among those cleared to request and consume unmasked NSA-based intelligence reports about U.S. citizens were Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice, his CIA Director John Brennan and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

 

If Susan Rice had worked for Richard Nixon, she could have been one of his Watergate “plumbers”, perhaps retiring as plumber emeritus. We are all familiar with Susan Rice’s tour of the Sunday talk shows after the Benghazi terrorist attack. That was no accident, but a calculated part of the Obama administration’s disinformation campaign to protect President Obama’s reelection chances and …

 

+++

‘Absolutely false’: Top Obama adviser denies she ‘unmasked’ Trump associates for political purposes

 

By Natasha Bertrand

April 4, 2017

Business Insider

 

Former national security adviser Susan Rice told MSNBC on Tuesday that allegations she “unmasked” associates of Donald Trump for political reasons while she served in the Obama administration were “absolutely false.”

 

Bloomberg and Fox on Monday reported that Rice had tried to unmask, or learn the identities of, officials on Trump’s transition team whose conversations with foreign agents — or conversations those agents were having about the transition officials — were incidentally collected during routine intelligence-gathering operations. The Daily Caller then reported that Rice had created a “spreadsheet” with the names she had unmasked.

 

“The allegation is that somehow Obama administration officials utilized intelligence for political purposes,” Rice told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. “That’s absolutely false. [Yeah right, & she never lied about Benghazi either]

 

“I was the National Security Adviser.  My job is to protect the American people and the security of our country.  That’s …

 

+++

Rand Paul calls for Susan Rice to testify on unmasking Trump officials

 

By Juliegrace Brufke, DCNF

April 4, 2017 

BizPAC Review

 

GOP Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said he believes former National Security Advisor Susan Rice should testify before Congress on her request to unmask the names of Trump transition officials collected during routine intelligence-gathering operations.

 

Paul argued the situation should not be downplayed, saying reforms need to be made to prevent individuals from being blackmailed on personal aspects of their lives through unmasking. He noted there was nothing stopping the former administration from looking through Trump officials and national security advisors’ conversations during the transition window.

 

“If it is allowed, we shouldn’t be allowing it, but I don’t think should just discount how big a deal it is that Susan Rice was looking at these,” he told reporters Monday. “And she needs to be asked, ‘Did President Obama ask her to do this? Was this a directive from President Obama?  I think she should testify under oath on this.”

 

Paul said he has long thought there are too many people with the ability to unmask individuals.

 

“The law says you can’t reverse target people, but how would you know that once you get inside the brain and the people that are unmasking people,” Paul continued. “So, what if I decided to unmask and I’m there and I only unmask the conversations of my Democrat opponents — shouldn’t there be more restrictions for unmasking people in the political process?”

 

He said he believes there should be …

++++++++++

VIDEO: Susan Rice Requested Intel to Unmask Names of Trump Transition Officials

 

Posted by Lionel Nation

Published on Apr 3, 2017

 

BloombergView’s Eli Lake reports that White House lawyers last month learned that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

The pattern of Rice’s requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government’s policy on “unmasking” the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally. Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something like “U.S. Person One.” Not this time. It was Suzie, kids.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-03/top-obama-adviser-sought-names-of-trump-associates-in-intel

The Official Lionel READ THE REST

 

+++

FORMER US ATTORNEY JOSEPH DIGENOVA: SUSAN RICE ORDERED SPY AGENCIES TO PRODUCE ‘DETAILED SPREADSHEETS’ INVOLVING TRUMP

 

By ALICIA

APRIL 4, 2017

Patriot Tribune

 

I CAN’T SAY I’M REALLY SURPRISED CONSIDERING THIS IS THE SAME LYING FRAUD WHO GOT HER JOB AS NSA ADVISER AS A POLITICAL FAVOR FROM OBAMA/CLINTON FOR BEING THE FRONT-PERSON IN THE BENGHAZI VIDEO LYING SCHEME.

 

And she did this all on her own, huh? Do you believe that?

 

Daily Caller:

 

Former President Barack Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice ordered U.S. spy agencies to produce “detailed spreadsheets” of legal phone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides when he was running for president, according to former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova.

 

“What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals,” diGenova told The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group Monday.

 

“The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with,” diGenova said. “In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the calls.”

 

Other official sources with direct knowledge and who requested anonymity confirmed to TheDCNF diGenova’s description of surveillance reports Rice ordered one year before the 2016 presidential election. More

 

VIDEO: Hannity: Susan Rice has a lot of explaining to do

 

Posted by Fox News

Published on Apr 3, 2017

 

Multiple reports reveal the former Obama adviser requested the names of Trump transition team members be unmasked.

 

+++

Former US Attorney: Susan Rice Ordered Spy Agencies To Produce ‘Detailed Spreadsheets’ Involving Trump

 

By Richard Pollock

04/03/2017 10:08 PM 

Daily Caller

 

Update: In response to a question Tuesday from NBC News reporter Andrea Mitchell, former Obama White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice denied that she “prepared” spreadsheets of surveilled telephone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides. The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group, however, reported that Rice “ordered” the spreadsheets to be produced.

 

In addition, former U.S. Attorney Joe DiGenova, one of TheDCNF’s sources, said Tuesday in response to Rice that her denial “would come as quite a surprise to the government officials who have reviewed dozens of those spreadsheets.” 

 

 

+++

No Proof of Trump-Russia Collusion but Lots of Evidence of Obama Spying

 

By Onan Coca

April 4, 2017

Constitution.com

 

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson ripped the national media to shreds while condemning the Obama era White House for wrongfully spying on American citizens for political purposes.

 

Carlson argued that while media continues to focus in on some phantom collusion between President Trump and the Russian government, something for which they have NO PROOF, they are actively ignoring the real scandal unfolding before their eyes. Susan Rice, one of President Obama’s closest advisors, has been caught wrongfully unmasking members of the Trump campaign and transition teams for what seem to be nakedly political purposes. How do we know she did it for political purposes? Many of the reports now being produced show that the data that Rice was collecting had nothing to do with Russia or other national security issues, meaning that she unmasked the names of members of the Trump team without cause.

 

This fact is what Carlson finds most disturbing because it means that civil libertarians were right all along – there really is NOTHING we can do to stop the government from spying on us.

 

 

VIDEO: Tucker: Susan Rice revelation more disturbing than Russia

 

Posted by Fox News

Published on Apr 3, 2017

 

Carlson then transitioned into a conversation with former Obama advisor David Tafuri, a conversation that grew quite heated when Tafuri argued that the Russia story was the real issue here. Carlson pressed, as he has done time and again with liberals and journalists, for Tafuri to present ANY EVIDENCE that there was collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. Or, for that matter, for Tafuri to present any evidence that Russia had any impact on the recent election. Of course, Tafuri could provide none, nor has any liberal politician or liberal member of the media been able to show a tangible connection between Russia and recent events.

 

 

VIDEO: Rice unmasked as Team Trump unmasker: What it really means

 

Posted by Fox News

Published on Apr 3, 2017

 

+++

FAKE-NEWS GIANTS CLAIM SUSAN RICE SPY SCANDAL IS ‘FAKE’

Chorus of legacy media: Nothing to see here

 

By ALICIA POWE

April 4, 2017

WND

 

WASHINGTON – Is it a real story, or is it fake news?

 

That’s the raging debate about the exploding scandal over Susan Rice’s “unmasking” of incoming Trump administration officials when she served as President Barack Obama’s national security adviser.

 

Despite some likening the White House use of classified leaks for political purposes to a scandal bigger than Watergate, media outlets Tuesday were shooting down – or flat-out ignoring – the blockbuster report that verified the Obama administration surveilled the Trump team.

 

 

+++

Susan Rice Responds To Trump Unmasking Allegations: “I Leaked Nothing To Nobody”

 

By Tyler Durden

Apr 4, 2017 9:47 PM

ZeroHedge

 

If anyone expected former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, the same Susan Rice who “stretched the truth” about Benghazi, to admit in her first public appearance after news that she unmasked members of the Trump team to admit she did something wrong, will be disappointed. Instead, moments ago she told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell that she categorically denied that the Obama administration inappropriately spied on members of the Trump transition team.

 

[Several MSNBC Tweets of Mitchell/Rice interview]

 

We doubt that anyone’s opinion will change after hearing the above especially considering that, in addition to Benghazi, Rice is the official who praised Bowe Bergdahl for his “honorable service” and claimed he was captured “on the battlefield”, and then just two weeks ago, she told PBS that she didn’t know anything about the unmasking.

 

Unfortunately, Mitchell’s list of questions did not go so far as to ask about her false claim in the PBS interview, in which she said “I know nothing about unmasking Trump officials.”

 

It is thus hardly surprising that now that her memory has been “refreshed” about her role in the unmasking, that Rice clearly remembers doing nothing at all wrong.

 

On Monday night, Rand Paul and other Republicans called for Rice to testify under oath, a request she sidestepped on Tuesday. “Let’s see what comes,” she told Mitchell, when asked if she would testify on …

______________

Do YOU Trust Benghazi/Bergdahl Liar?

John R. Houk

© April 5, 2017

___________

Why Susan Rice’s Role In The Obama Spying Story Is A Big Deal

 

Copyright © 2017 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved

____________

Susan Rice requested to unmask names of Trump transition officials, sources say

 

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2017 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.

 

[Blog Editor: FYI, I did not get Fox News permission to cross post. If requested, this cross post will be removed.]

Obama’s Saboteurs


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

 

JRH 3/14/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Obama’s Saboteurs

Undermining Our Republic

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 3/13/2017 12:30 PM

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Posted by Wesley Veras

Published on Mar 4, 2017

@OBAMAFORPRISON2017 SHARE IT/MAKE IT VIRAL.]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Posted by The PolitiStick

Published on Mar 4, 2017

 

Full Pirro/Lewandowski interview HERE.]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

By Justin O. Smith

___________________

Edited by John R. Houk

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

 

© Justin O. Smith

TOP 10 ESTABLISHMENT-MEDIA COVER-UPS OF 2016


This end of the year post from WND examines the Fake News from the Leftist Mainstream Media (MSM) which found excuse after excuse for people to look the other way from Obama/Clinton corruption.

 

(I left the gratuitous WND promotional links as they appeared on their website.)

 

JRH 12/31/16

Please Support NCCR

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

OPERATION STRIKE

 

TOP 10 ESTABLISHMENT-MEDIA COVER-UPS OF 2016

WND’s annual review presents news that wasn’t ‘fit to print’

 

December 30, 2016

WND

 

Leftist MSM Fake News Journalists

 

At the end of each year, many news organizations typically present their retrospective replays of what they consider to have been the top news stories of the previous 12 months.

 

WND’s editors, however, long have considered it more newsworthy to publicize the most underreported or unreported news events of the year.

 

WND Editor and CEO Joseph Farah has sponsored “Operation Spike” every year since 1988, and since founding WND in May 1997, has continued the annual tradition.

 

Here, with the contribution of WND readers, are the 2016 picks:

 

1. The contents of the Podesta emails:

 

The hacking of emails belonging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, certainly drew attention, with President Obama punishing Russia for the alleged act this week, without any hard evidence. Podesta, himself, declared the hacking of election-related emails the political equivalent of the 9/11 attack.

 

What was largely missing in establishment media coverage of the approximately 50,000 Podesta emails released by WikiLeaks, however, was the content of the messages. The emails shed light, for example, on Clinton campaign collusion with the media, pay-to-play schemes involving the Clinton Foundation when Clinton was secretary of state, Clinton’s profiting from Wall Street bankers and the DNC’s rigging of it primary at the expense of Bernie Sanders.

 

john-podesta

John Podesta

 

Here are a few of the many revelations:

 

  • In a March 4, 2015, email to Hillary Clinton’s lawyer Cheryl Mills, Podesta asks if they should withhold email exchanges between Clinton and President Obama that were sent over Clinton’s private server a day before the House Benghazi Committee privately told Clinton to preserve and hand over all her emails.

 

  • Hillary Clinton’s paid speeches to Goldman Sachs and other financial firms, a point of contention during this year’s primary, were the subject of an email to Podesta. Excerpts from some of the speeches had been flagged by Clinton’s research team, including the necessity of having “both a public and a private position” on issues. It was just part of “making sausage” in the political arena, she said, that certain positions on issues needed to be kept hidden from the public.

 

  • Some “flags” in Hillary Clinton’s paid speeches were noted in a Jan. 25 email from campaign research director Tony Carrk to top Clinton advisers, including Clinton’s declaration, “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”

 

 

 

  • Podesta discussed fomenting “revolution” in the Catholic Church with a progressive activist while Hillary’s communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, mocked Catholics who speak out against the liberal social causes of the Democratic Party.

 

  • Clinton, who has accused Trump of praising Vladimir Putin, called the Russian leader in a 2014 speech “engaging” and “a very interesting conversationalist.” Excerpts from Clinton’s speeches were contained in a document emailed to Podesta to point out quotes that could harm the campaign.

 

  • Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon alerted staffers that the Justice Department was proposing to publish Clinton’s work-related emails, contending it showed collusion between the Obama administration and Clinton’s campaign. Fallon wrote that “DOJ folks” told him a court hearing in the case had been planned.

 

 

  • King Muhammad IV of Morocco made a $12 million pledge to fund the Clinton Global Initiative conference, but only if the likely presidential candidate attended the event as a speaker. Hillary’s top aide, Huma Abedin, wrote in a January 2015 email that “if HRC was not part of it, meeting was a non-starter.” Then she warned: “She created this mess and she knows it.” Hillary ended up not attending but her husband Bill did.

 

  • In a leaked 2013 paid speech to the Jewish United Fund of Metropolitan Chicago, Hillary said Jordan and Turkey “can’t possibly vet all those refugees so they don’t know if, you know, jihadists are coming in along with legitimate refugees.” Two years later she called for a 550 percent increase in the number of Syrian refugees coming to the U.S. largely from United Nations refugee camps in Jordan.

 

  • The Clinton campaign tried to reschedule the Illinois presidential primary to lower the chances a moderate Republican would get a boost following the Super Tuesday primaries. “The Clintons won’t forget what their friends have done for them,” wrote Robby Mook, who later became Clinton’s campaign manager, in the November 2014 email to Podesta.

 

Sign the petition encouraging Congress and President-election Donald Trump to defund, discount and deport the United Nations.

 

2. The true Obama economy:

 

President Obama repeatedly has boasted that he pulled the U.S. economy from the brink of depression and into robust growth, and Politico declared in December that Trump will inherit an “Obama boom,” handing his successor “an economy that’s now the envy of the world.”

 

president-obama-white-house-photo

President Obama (White House photo)

 

But voters apparently thought otherwise, particularly the working class in the rust belt who flipped their Democratic-leaning states to Donald Trump. And there are economists who share their skepticism of the “Obama recovery.”

 

Heartland Institute Senior Fellow Peter Ferrara, the author of a report titled “Why the United States Has Suffered the Worst Economic Recovery Since the Great Depression,” noted Obama and his defenders often point out the recovery was especially strong given the depths of the financial crisis. Ferrara said that’s exactly backward.

 

“The American historical record is the worse the recession, the stronger the recovery. So there should have been an economic boom coming out of the recession in the summer of 2009. Here we are, eight years later, and that still hasn’t happened,” Ferrara said.

 

He said it has not happened because Obama pursued a Keynesian economic strategy that is a proven failure.

 

“Keynesian economics is a doctrine that the road to economic recovery is to increase government spending, deficits and debt. If that sounds crazy, it is crazy. It was introduced in the 1930s. It failed to end the Great Depression, but extended it and made it even worse,” Ferrara explained.

 

Obama issued labor regulations in the last year of his presidency estimated to cost the economy roughly $80 billion over the next 10 years and eliminate 150,000 jobs, according to a report from the National Association of Manufacturers.

 

Ferrara pointed out there was twice as much economic growth under Jimmy Carter as under Obama in his first term.

 

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

 

Under Obama, poverty rates skyrocketed and the middle class suffered a fiscal punch to the stomach, with income falling throughout his entire two terms in office.

 

But Ferrara has hope that President-elect Donald Trump will pursue a Reagan-like economic agenda.

 

“The reason Trump is going to create a boom is because every one of the key policies is doing the opposite of what Obama did,” Ferrara said. “He has proposed to cut taxes like Reagan did. He has proposed to reduce regulatory burdens like Reagan did. He will appoint good members to the Fed that will restore sound monetary policy that will stabilize the dollar over the long run.”

 

3. The doubling of the national debt under Obama

 

president-obama-white-house-photo-2

President Obama (White House photo) 2

 

Perhaps the biggest symbol of Obama’s economic legacy is the national debt.

 

Currently at $19.9 trillion, it is projected to hit $20 trillion by Inauguration Day, up from $10.6 trillion when Obama entered the White House in 2009.

 

It means Obama will have added to the debt as much as all previous 43 presidents combined.

 

Whether the economy is up or down, Dave Ramsey’s “Total Money Makeover” is a proven plan for financial fitness

 

Two graphs illustrate why many financial analysts are concerned. The first shows the steep climb in debt under Obama.

 

obama-debt-chart-1-total-us-national-debt-in-absolute-amount-may-17-2016

Millions of Dollars  — Federal Debt: Total Public Debt – Source: Treasury Department Fiscal Service

 

The second shows the sharp rise in total U.S. credit market debt, including household debt and credit card debt, that has occurred since the 1980s. The total U.S. credit market debt hit a high of approximately 385 percent of U.S. Gross Domestic Product in 2009-2010 during the recession brought on by the collapse of the U.S. subprime mortgage market at the end of President George W. Bush’s second term in office.

 

obama-debt-chart-2-total-us-credit-market-debt-as-of-gdp-may-17-2016

%GDP – US Total Credit Market Debt %GDP – Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

 

The graph shows the ratio of total U.S. credit market debt to the GDP has fallen off in recent years, down to a current level of about 355 percent of GDP.

 

The drop-off has occurred only because household debt has been declining since 2010 while government spending has continued to rise.

 

Among the many concerns is that the staggering increase in U.S. national debt over the past eight years has limited the ability of the federal economy to stimulate the economy. Typically, monetary policy has employed deficit spending, a tool popular with economists who follow Keynesian principles of economic theory.

 

Last June, the Congressional Budget Office issued a 2015 budget assessment concluding that the long-term outlook for the federal budget has worsened dramatically in the wake of the 2007-2009 recession and the subsequent slow recovery.

 

As a result, budget deficits rose, totaling $5.6 trillion in the five years between 2008 and 2012. Four of the five years had budget deficits larger in relation to the size of the economy than any budget deficit since 1946, the year immediately after the end of World War II.

 

The CBO concluded that the federal debt held by the public nearly doubled during this period. In 2015, the federal debt held by the public was equivalent to 74 percent of U.S. GDP, a higher percentage than at any point in U.S. history, except for a seven-year period around World War II.

 

The CBO further projected that with the continued aging of the population and the rising of health-care costs, the federal deficit will grow from less than 3 percent of GDP in 2015 to 6 percent in 2040, at which point the federal debt held by the public would exceed 100 percent of GDP – a level considered by many traditional economists to be seriously detrimental to U.S. economic growth.

 

4. Illegal aliens’ impact on national presidential popular vote:

 

Shortly after the election, as the media was making hay of Hillary Clinton’s margin of more than 2 million in the national popular vote, Donald Trump tweeted that he won the popular vote as well as the Electoral College tally “if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally,” prompting a media uproar.

 

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram insisted there “has been no evidence of the widespread voter fraud that would have had to taken place to give Clinton millions of illegitimate votes.”

 

But voter-integrity activists, who point out that 19 states did not require identification to vote Nov. 8, believe Trump may be right.

 

illegal_aliens2

Illegal Aliens

 

Catherine Engelbrecht of True the Vote, who waged a years-long fight against the IRS over its targeting of conservative groups, pointed out that without voter ID, “fraud has been institutionalized,” allowing non-citizens to flood voter rolls.

 

While there are no reliable figures yet on the number of illegal-alien voters, indications of the impact are there, said the Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky, a leading researcher of vote fraud.

 

He cited a case brought by the Public Interest Legal Foundation that found some 1,000 non-citizens registered to vote in just a eight Virginia counties shortly before the election. Many already had voted in prior elections.

 

And, he noted, a 2013 national survey by John McLaughlin found 13 percent of non-citizen Hispanics admitted they were registered to vote.

 

Just months before the 2016 election, von Spakovsky had warned that several organizations, such as the League of Women Voters and the NAACP, were fighting efforts to clamp down on non-citizens voting illegally, and they were being aided by the Justice Department.

 

He said the organizations sued in Washington to reverse a decision by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission that would have allowed Kansas and other states, including Arizona and Georgia, “to enforce state laws ensuring that only citizens register to vote when they use a federally designed registration form.”

 

William Gheen, president of the non-profit Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, noted Obama admitted to Spanish language TV audiences comprised of illegal immigrants that illegals would face no hindrances to voting.

 

Even a Pew Trust study, Gheen noted, concluded the nation’s voting systems “are plagued with errors and inefficiencies that … fuel partisan disputes over the integrity of our elections.”

 

ALIPAC released dozens of pages of documentation showing 46 states have prosecuted or convicted cases of voter fraud. It found that more than 24 million voter registrations are invalid, more than 1.8 million dead voters are still on rolls and more than 2.75 million Americans are registered to vote in more than one state.

 

The Florida New Majority Education Fund, Democratic Party of Florida and the National Council of La Raza currently are under investigation for alleged voter-registration fraud.

 

Steve Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies said that if one looks at the likely 21 million non-citizens in the United States, based on the 2015 American Community Survey, there is the high probability that a substantial number voted.

 

5. Obama’s stealth moves to force U.S. communities to receive Muslim immigrants

 

protestors-against-illegal-aliens

Protestors Against Illegal Aliens

 

Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of America can be seen in the large numbers of Somali and Syrian refugees that have been planted against the will of the people in small-to-mid-sized cities such as Bowling Green, Kentucky; Owensboro, Kentucky; and Erie, Pennsylvania.

 

Meanwhile, Minnesota and Ohio continue to be sent Somali refugees even though Minneapolis and Columbus have had terror recruitment problems within their Somali communities.

 

But Obama’s concentration of so many refugees in one place is a clear violation of statutes directing the Office of Refugee Resettlement to “insure that a refugee is not initially placed or resettled in an area highly impacted by the presence of refugees or comparable populations.”

 

Ann Corcoran, a leading refugee watchdog who authors the Refugee Resettlement Watch blog, believes the Obama administration and the federal resettlement contractors are deliberately trying to turn red states blue by injecting them with refugees who are likely to vote for Democrats.

 

“Of course it would take a while with refugee numbers, but add in the illegals, et cetera, in those states and, yes, it is about turning the state,” Corcoran said. “Consider it the California model – it worked there!”

 

WND’s Leo Hohmann, the author of “Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest Through Immigration and the Resettlement Jihad,” said the State Department is bringing the refugees in so fast now that it’s difficult to find places to house them.

 

America is headed down a suicidal path – but it’s a subtle invasion. Get all the details in Leo Hohmann’s brand-new book “Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest Through Immigration and Resettlement Jihad,” available now at the WND Superstore.

 

Through the first 11 weeks of fiscal year 2017, the United States received 23,428 individuals as “refugees,” according to the Refugee Processing Center. At this rate, the U.S. will resettle roughly 110,580 this fiscal year, which would exceed President Obama’s target of 110,000.

 

Contrast that with last year, when the U.S. received only 13,786 “refugees” through the first 11 weeks of FY 2016. The country would end up receiving 84,995 by fiscal year’s end.

 

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

 

More than 97 percent of the Syrian refugees admitted so far this fiscal year are Muslims, as were more than 99 percent of Syrians admitted last year.

 

Hohmann said the U.S. has had the opposite of “extreme vetting” of Syrians over the past eight years.

 

“It’s gone from slack to even slacker,” he observed. “Back in the spring, Obama cut the screening period on Syrian refugees from 18-24 months down to three months by sending more screeners to the United Nations camps in Jordan and setting up a template that basically takes the refugees’ story of who they are and runs a search of social media and government databases to see if they can refute that story.

 

“Since there is little to no law enforcement data available on people who claim to be Syrians and false passports are easily purchased on the black market, we have no idea who these people are coming to our country as so-called Syrian refugees.”

 

While many Americans worry about the influx of Syrians, the U.S. has taken in even more refugees from Somalia this year. Through the first 11 weeks of FY 2017, the U.S. resettled 3,269 Somali refugees. At this rate, the country would absorb more than 15,550 by fiscal year’s end. At this point in FY 2016, the U.S. had only admitted 1,721 Somali refugees on its way to taking in 9,020 for the year.

 

More than 99.9 percent of the Somalis admitted this fiscal year are Muslims, as was the case in FY 2016 as well.

 

Hohmann noted Somali refugees are probably an even bigger risk than Syrians, as Somalis have committed several terrorist attacks on U.S. soil recently.

 

“There’s been no debate in Congress or the media asking the obvious questions: Why is America still taking thousands of refugees every year from Somalia more than 25 years after that country’s civil war broke out?” Hohmann asked. “How many is too many, and why aren’t the Somalis doing a better job of assimilating? Dozens have gone off to fight for overseas terror organizations while even more have been charged, tried and convicted here at home of providing material support to overseas terrorists.”

 

The migrant disaster in Germany should serve as a warning to the United States. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, after welcoming more than a million Muslim refugees with open arms in 2015 and into the first half of 2016, did a sudden about-face after the terror attacks started piling up and the campaign season neared.

 

She said such a mass influx of refugees “should never be repeated” in Germany and has even talked about the need to “ban the burqa.”

 

Pamela Geller, author of “Stop the Islamization of America,” sees a troubling aspect of the recent Berlin truck attack that applies to the United States, which has seen eight bloody terror attacks on its soil in less than 18 months – all carried out by Muslim migrants or sons of migrants.

 

“Will Democrats continue to demand that we also import these invaders?” Geller said in an email to WND. “We dodged a bullet — and a truck — with Hillary Clinton, who pledged to increase Muslim ‘refugee’ immigration [from Syria] by 550 percent.”

 

6. Huma Abedin’s connection to the Muslim Brotherhood:

 

huma-abedin

Huma Abedin

 

Hillary Clinton’s longtime top aide and confidante Huma Abedin was a central figure in the 2016 presidential campaign, particularly as emails she sent and received while serving as Clinton’s deputy chief of staff for operations at the State Department came under the FBI’s scrutiny, culminating in a bombshell announcement by FBI Director James Comey 11 days before the election. Comey announced that the bureau had reopened its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information after discovering 650,000 of Abedin’s State Department emails on a computer owned by her estranged husband, Anthony Weiner, who is under investigation for allegedly sexting a minor.

 

But almost entirely ignored during the campaign by establishment media or dismissed as irrelevant were Abedin’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi Arabia, including her position in her family’s institute, which was established by the Saudi government and supported by a prominent financial contributor to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.

 

Abedin served for several years as an assistant editor for the institute’s journal, while her father was editor and her mother a co-editor.

 

Alongside Abedin on the editorial board also was Abdullah Omar Naseef, the founder of the Rabita Trust, a financial institution founded prior to 9/11 for the explicit purpose of funding Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.

 

While Abedin was working with Naseef, she was in the White House working as an intern.

 

Abedin then became an aide to Hillary Clinton, a senior adviser to Clinton’s senatorial campaigns and office, and eventually deputy chief of staff at the State Department.

 

Former CIA officer and current vice president with the Center for Security Policy in Washington Clare Lopez notes that it was during that period of time when U.S. foreign policy “flipped on its head.”

 

The U.S., she said, went from “going after jihad and jihadist like al-Qaida to, in Libya, for example, aiding and abetting known al-Qaida jihadist militias to overthrow a sitting, sovereign government led by Moammar Gadhafi, no choir boy, to be sure, but our ally at the time.”

 

“All of this happened during the period of time when Clinton was secretary of state and Huma Abedin was at her side, whispering in her ear,” Lopez said.

 

The purpose of the Abedin-run institute, as WND has reported, is to instruct Muslims in foreign countries how to live according to the dictates of Islamic law, or Shariah, so they can fulfill the ultimate objective of making Shariah and the Quran the ultimate authority in the world, overturning “man-made” institutions such as the U.S. Constitution.

 

A Muslim Brotherhood document entered as evidence in the largest terrorism-financing trial in U.S. history shows the Brotherhood’s aim is to carry out “a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.”

 

But Philip Haney, a former DHS subject matter expert on Islam, says Hillary Clinton’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood are even “broader and deeper” than Abedin’s, citing, for example, Clinton’s leadership promoting a U.N. resolution favored by the 57-nation Organization of Islamic Conference, which is run by leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

The resolution would effectively criminalize criticism of Islam.

 

In a Dec. 14, 2011, speech, Clinton said the resolution “marks a step forward in creating a safe, global environment for practicing and expressing one’s beliefs.”

 

“By endorsing U.N. Resolution 1618, by default Hillary Clinton is aiding and abetting the Muslim Brotherhood, on a macro, global level,” Haney says.

 

The U.S. government’s cooperation with its “enemies within” is graphically recounted through the eyes of a Homeland Security officer in “See Something Say Nothing.”

 

WikiLeaks founder Assange said the thousands of documents released by Wikileaks through its “Hillary Clinton Email Archive” contain some 1,700 emails that connect Clinton to al-Qaida and ISIS in both Libya and Syria, demonstrating Clinton supplied weapons to ISIS via Syria.

 

8. The threat of ISIS and its Islamic roots

 

Two conflicting views of the enemy the United States faces in the so-called “War on Terror” were on display as Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and President Obama responded to attacks by Muslims in Minnesota, New York and New Jersey over one September weekend during the presidential campaign.

 

dhs-secretary-jeh-johnson-reacts-to-sen-ted-cruz

DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson reacts to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, confronting him at a Senate hearing June 30, 2016, with testimony of former DHS officer Philip Haney that his agency “purged” records related to terrorism.

 

Trump, chastising Clinton and Obama for refusing to name the enemy “radical Islam,” called the threat a “cancer from within” while Clinton reiterated the Obama administration’s insistence that calling ISIS, the Islamic State, Islamic would play into the hands of the jihadist group and its allies.

 

White House spokesman Josh Earnest downplayed the war against ISIS, saying “in some ways, this is actually just a war of narratives” against a “poisonous, empty bankrupt mythology.”

 

That attitude was summarized by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, in the title of a Senate hearing he held in June, “Willful Blindness: Consequences of Agency Efforts To Deemphasize Radical Islam in Combating Terrorism,” in which former Department of Homeland Security officer Philip Haney testified that the administration “purged” more than 800 of his records related to the Muslim Brotherhood network in the U.S. because they somehow were an offense to Muslims.

 

Two days later, when Cruz confronted Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson with Haney’s testimony, Johnson insisted he had no knowledge of the incident and had never even heard of Haney. But in January, Johnson was reported saying that he not only knew about Haney’s claim, he had read an article the retired DHS officer wrote in the Hill, the influential Capitol Hill newspaper.

 

It’s no wonder that in an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria earlier this month, Obama admitted that he was taken by surprise by the rise of ISIS as a territorial power in 2014, which he once dismissed as “the JV team.”

 

fbi-director-james-comey

FBI Director James Comey

 

In May, FBI Director James Comey said that of the nearly 1,000 FBI cases across the country looking at people who may have been “radicalized online,” about 80 percent are tied to ISIS.

 

Meanwhile, as many as 1,750 ISIS jihadists have returned to Europe with orders to carry out attacks, a European Union report warned in December.

 

In June, ISIS claimed responsibility for the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, as 50 people were killed at a packed gay nightclub by Omar Mateen, who was described by the ISIS Amaq news agency as an “Islamic State fighter.”

 

In another example, two Wisconsin men were arrested in Texas on charges of providing material support to ISIS. They were traveling to Mexico and allegedly had plans to travel on to Iraq or Syria.

 

In Maryland, a pro-ISIS imam at the center of a terrorism probe celebrated ISIS killings and immolations on Facebook and issued a fatwa against feminism through an Islamic law center he started in near the nation’s capital.

 

8. The establishment media’s ‘fake news’:

 

So far there’s been no solid evidence that Russian “fake news,” as the establishment media seem to believe, propelled Donald Trump to an astonishing victory over Hillary Clinton.

 

ferguson-mo-riots-black-lives-matter-junk

Protests in Ferguson, Mo., turned violent after Officer Darren Wilson was not indicted in the shooting death of Michael Brown.

 

But in recent decades, and this year is no exception, the establishment media itself has been shown to be a purveyor of fake news, defined as the dissemination of false information from the government or a favored group.

 

Familiar memes are: the Benghazi 9/11 attack that killed four brave Americans was caused by a YouTube video, Michael Brown had his hands up and shouted “Don’t shoot” before Ferguson cop Darren Wilson shot him and man-caused global warming is settled science.

 

Some would argue a prime example this year was the assertion, reported as “settled science,” that Donald Trump was a buffoonish clown who had no chance of winning the Republican nomination, let alone the White House.

 

WND columnist Jack Cashill recalled others over the years:

 

2013: Obama speechwriter Ben Rhodes ran the successful, if thoroughly dishonest, “Iran-deal messaging campaign.” As the Times conceded three years later, the story the White House told America about Iran “was largely manufactured for the purpose for selling the deal.”

 

2012: A week after the Benghazi attack, Obama told David Letterman, “Here’s what happened. You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character.” The media, in the person of CNN debate moderator Candy Crowley, preserved Obama’s presidency by insisting Obama said Benghazi was a terrorist attack from day one.

 

2012: On Anderson Cooper’s “AC360,” CNN reporter Gary Tuchman, working with an audio design specialist, concluded that George Zimmerman referred to blacks as “coons.” This was one of a dozen fake news stories created to paint Hispanic civil rights activist and Obama supporter Zimmerman as a brutal racist in the shooting death of his thuggish attacker, the 6-foot-tall “little boy,” Trayvon Martin.

 

2011: Obama laid out the case for intervention in Libya, claiming that if he “waited one more day,” Gadhafi would have unleashed a massacre in Benghazi that would have “stained the conscience of the world.” Democratic Mideast expert Alan Kuperman did the calculations the media refused to do, writing two weeks later, “The best evidence that Gadhafi did not plan genocide in Benghazi is that he did not perpetrate it in the other cities he had recaptured.”

 

2006: “Unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return.” So said Al Gore at the premiere of his movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”

 

2004: The story supposedly was that the Bush White House willfully leaked the name of CIA agent Valerie Plame to discredit her allegedly whistleblowing husband, Joseph Wilson. After a year of Watergate-style hysteria, and eventually a movie, it turned out that Bush’s critics in the State Department accidentally leaked this utterly inconsequential bit of information.

 

2004: Following Barack Obama’s convention speech, the media openly celebrated what biographer David Remnick called Obama’s “signature appeal: the use of the details of his own life as a reflection of a kind of multicultural ideal.” The details, however, were false. Despite his parents’ “improbable love,” infant Obama never spent a night under the same the roof as the old man and no more than a few weeks, if that, in the same state.

 

2004: On “60 Minutes,” Dan Rather attempted to derail President George Bush’s re-election campaign by claiming Bush went AWOL from his Air National Guard service. The documents proving this claim turned out to be fake. That did not stop Hollywood from trying to exonerate producer Mary Mapes in the absurdly titled 2015 movie “Truth.”

 

Back in 1996, Time magazine decried the “national epidemic of violence against black churches.” In fact, more white churches than black churches burned that summer, fewer than normal in both cases, and at least as many by Satanists as presumed racists.

 

In 1999, to justify bombing Serbia, President Clinton accused the Serbs of “genocide.” He claimed they murdered “tens of thousands of people” and compared their actions in Kosovo to the Holocaust. The media played along. In the war’s wake, however, international teams could find no signs of genocide. “We did not find one – not one – mass grave,” said the Spanish surgeon in charge.

 

10. Anti-Trump hoax incidents

 

To fuel its narrative that the election of Donald Trump had brought about unprecedented expressions of hatred toward minorities, the media breathlessly reported “hate crimes” purportedly committed by Trump supporters.

 

donald-trump

Donald Trump

 

Many of those reports, however, turned out to be hoaxes, while actual crimes committed by anti-Trump rioters were virtually ignored.

 

NBC News reported an openly bisexual Chicago student claimed she received anti-gay, pro-Trump notes and emails after the election such as “Back to hell.” Taylor Volk of North Park University said she was a victim of “a countrywide epidemic all of a sudden.” But later, a university investigation found Volk had fabricated the messages.

 

A whiteboard message “Bye Bye Latinos Hasta La Vista that roiled the campus of Elon University, including condemnation from the president, turned out to have been written by a Latino student who saw it as a joke.”

 

Bowling Green State University student Eleesha Long falsely claimed to have been attacked on the school’s Ohio campus by three white men wearing Trump T-shirts just one day after the election.

 

In Philadelphia, a rash of “white supremacist” graffiti declaring “Black Bitch” and “Trump Rules” turned out to have been done by a black man.

 

A black man in the Boston area admitted he fabricated his claim that he was forced to run for his life after being threatened with lynching and told, “It’s Trump country now.”

 

In another case, a Muslim woman at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette claimed two white males tore off her hijab. But the woman later admitted she made up the story.

 

The controversial Southern Poverty Law Center issued a report in November that compiled 867 alleged incidents of “harassment and intimidation” in the 10 days that followed the presidential election.

 

But many turned out to be hoaxes and most of the incidents on SPLC’s list, while deplorable if they actually happened, did not include physical violence, meaning the use of the term “attack” was misleading. Most of the incidents were uncorroborated assertions of verbal threats or racist comments that don’t appear to rise to the level of a crime, including chalking the word “Trump” on a university sidewalk and middle school students chanting “Build the wall!”

 

security-rushes-trump-off-stage-11-5-16

Donald Trump was rushed offstage by members of his Secret Service detail during a rally Nov. 5 in Reno, Nevada, after a person in the crowd shouted that someone had a gun.

 

Further, SPLC’s definition of “haters” and “extremists” has been at variance with the mainstream. The organization, for example, labeled former GOP presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson an “extremist.” After a nationwide backlash last year, the organization apologized and removed the post.

 

But the SPLC website still has a negative “file” on Carson that insists he has said things that “most people would conclude are extreme,” such as his belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

splc-senior-fellow-mark-potok

SPLC Senior Fellow Mark Potok

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center is expose in the Whistleblower issue “THE HATE RACKET: How one group fools government into equating Christians and conservatives with Klansmen and Nazis – and rakes in millions doing it”

 

When SPLC issued a widely cited survey-report charging Trump’s election sparked “hate crimes” in schools against minorities, it censored its finding that at least 2,000 educators nationwide reported racist slurs and other derogatory language against white students.

 

10. Democrats’ rigging of their own primary to make sure Bernie Sanders lost

 

sen-bernie-sanders-i-vt

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

 

As columnist Ron Hart put it: “Democrats and the legacy media got all twitchy after losing the election, saying the Russians rigged it. WikiLeaks released DNC emails showing how the DNC plotted to undermine Bernie Sanders in their primary. So to recap, if I understand what the left is saying here, Putin might have rigged our election by revealing how Democrats rigged their election.”

 

The WikiLeaks emails, released just days before the party’s presidential nominating convention, showed how top officials at the DNC privately planned to undermine Bernie Sanders’ campaign.

 

In one email, DNC press secretary Mark Paustenbach wrote to communications director Luis Miranda about planting a narrative to the media that Sanders’ “campaign was a mess.”

 

In another email in early May, DNC Chief Financial Officer Brad Marshall brought up Sanders’ “Jewish heritage,” suggesting the DNC get someone in Kentucky and in West Virginia, which were holding upcoming primary elections, to ask if the candidate believes in God.

 

“He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist,” Marshall wrote.

 

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz – who was forced to resign because of the revelations – wrote in May that Sanders “isn’t going to be president” and “has no understanding of” the Democratic Party.

 

_____________

Copyright 2016 WND

 

The HUMILIATING Truth About Obama’s Presidency Revealed Just Weeks Before He Leaves Office


If you can believe pollsters that typically pull the Left/Liberal line of disinformation (I mean look at polls and Trump’s victory on November 9), President Barack Hussein Obama is leaving Office with a whopping 58% favorability rating.

 

I found an article by Terresa Monroe-Hamilton that show the obvious incredulity of that Obama favorability poll.

 

JRH 12/28/16

Please Support NCCR

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

The HUMILIATING Truth About Obama’s Presidency Revealed Just Weeks Before He Leaves Office

 

By Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

Originally Right Wing News

December 27, 2016

Posted by TMH

NoisyRoom.net

 

Barack Obama will leave office with a 58% approval rating. I don’t know about you, but I find that impossible to believe. He has all but destroyed this country over the past eight years. The list of damages is too long to really go through. Among his greatest crimes are Obamacare, which destroyed the greatest health system in the world. He gutted our military and destroyed the morale of our troops, basically leaving us severely exposed to our enemies. The Iran deal nuclearized the greatest terrorist threat on the planet, all funded by the United States. He opened our borders wide to an invasion and is still bringing in thousands of Muslim refugees that aren’t vetted. And let’s not forget that he brought the Muslim Brotherhood into the White House and got four men killed in Benghazi. His last and possibly most transparent crime was against Israel at the UN, where Obama joined with the jackals and stabbed Israel in the back.

 

Only one in seven Republicans approve of his job performance and I think that number is way too generous. According to Pew Research, 88% of Democrats approve of Obama, while on 15% of Republicans approve. Again… not buying those numbers. Almost a third of this country has been out of work for years… regardless of the unemployment numbers they parade around, which is a massive manipulated lie. Businesses have fled this country at an astounding rate to escape taxes and regulations… all thanks to Obama’s Marxism.

 

Obama limousine – SS Agent

 

From the Daily Mail:

 

President Obama’s job approval rating is a healthy 58 per cent as he begins his glide path out of office, but that number hides a partisan split among Americans that’s wider than any outgoing president has seen since at least the 1960s.

 

During a November 17 press conference in Germany, Obama claimed that ‘based on current surveys of public opinion in the United States, it turns out that most Americans think I’ve done a pretty good job.’

 

But that assessment hides a deep divide: While 88 per cent of Democrats told Pew Research Center pollsters that they have a favorable view of Obama’s work in the Oval Office, just 15 per cent of Republicans agree.

 

That gap – 73 per cent – is far larger than what Gallup polls recorded at the end of the Reagan and Clinton administrations, and as both George Bushes prepared to leave the White House.

 

Obama’s average approval rating across all eight years of his presidency also shows the largest partisan breach measured since opinion surveys began separating data by political party affiliation during the Eisenhower administration.

 

The 73-point party gap is the largest ever measured since pollsters started recording approval ratings during the Eisenhower years. There is such a huge gap between the left and the right now, it is staggering and frankly, frightening. When you see such a disparity between political entities within a country, it usually means you are on the cusp of a civil revolt of some sort. I’m hoping and praying that President-elect Donald Trump can fix enough of the damage to stop that from happening here. The communists have been successful in tearing us apart and causing upheaval and chaos. Thank God Hillary Clinton did not get elected… she would have finished us off, I have no doubt of that.

 

Obama claimed last month that ‘the majority of Americans think I’ve done a pretty good job’. No, they don’t. Only the uninformed or the ones that are communists or Islamists do. That’s the brutal truth. Obama also claimed that if he ran against Donald Trump, he would have beat him. Again, no… he wouldn’t have. Americans are sick of the corruption, Marxism and lies brought on by Barack Obama. That is what he will truly be remembered for. He took Saul Alinsky to heart and really should be included with the other rebel that Alinsky honored… Lucifer: “Lest we forget at least an over the shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which), the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.” ― Saul D. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. That’s one hell of a legacy. Just sayin’.

 

bho-58-approval-73-gop-disapproval

President Barack Obama has a 58 percent approval rating as he leaves office, but that number hides a massive 73-point gap between Democrats and Republicans.

 

bho-favor-dems-88-gop-15

Pew’s numbers show 88 percent of Democrats and just 15 percent of Republicans currently approve of Obama’s job performance.

 

 

bho-after-8-yrs-67-pt-approval-highest-gap-in-history

Averaged over Obama’s eight years in office, approval of the outgoing president’s Oval Office work drew a 67-point partisan gap – the largest measured in more than 60 years.

 

________________

© 2016 NoisyRoom.net

 

Terresa Monroe-Hamilton [Profile from Right Wing News]

 

Terresa Monroe-Hamilton owns and blogs at NoisyRoom.net. She is a Constitutional Conservative and NoisyRoom focuses on political and national issues of interest to the American public. Terresa is the editor at Trevor Loudon’s site, New Zealtrevorloudon.com. She also does research at KeyWiki.org. You can email Terresa here. NoisyRoom can be found on Facebook and on Twitter.