Fox News Censors Judge Andrew Napolitano


John R. Houk

© March 22, 2017

 

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

 

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

 

 

Posted by HX Video

Published on Mar 14, 2017

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

JRH 3/22/17

Please Support NCCR

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

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

 

By BOB UNRUH

March 22, 2017

WND

 

Larry Klayman

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

But he said the testimony has been essentially ignored.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Klayman said that is exactly what Montgomery has done.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

“Indeed, there is,” he wrote.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

+++

A Watergate-style Threat to the Democratic Process

 

By CLIFF KINCAID

March 21, 2017

Family Security Matters

 

NYT Front Page – Trump Wiretapped

 

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

 

[AIM CIJ Director’s Note:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides”

 

“found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing … [but]

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

How the “Wiretap Shell Game” Works

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

New York Times Lies About Its Own Reporting

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The Fake “Trump Dossier”

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Appendix:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

___________

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

______________

Fox News Censors Judge Andrew Napolitano

John R. Houk

© March 22, 2017

 

Further Reading:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

___________

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

 

Click here for reuse options!

Copyright 2017 WND

_________

A Watergate-style Threat to the Democratic Process

 

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

 

 

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

PUTIN’S REAL SYRIA AGENDA


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

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

 

JRH 3/20/17

Please Support NCCR

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

PUTIN’S REAL SYRIA AGENDA [Summary/Intro]

 

By Genevieve Casagrande

Mar 20, 2017

Institute for the Study of War [ISW]

 

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

 

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

 

+++

Putin’s Real Syria Agenda

By Genevieve Casagrande and Kathleen Weinberger

March 2017

ISW – PDF

 

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

 

Russian Force Projection

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Constrain U.S. Freedom of Action

 

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

 

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

 

Russian Testing Grounds

 

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

 

Limitations of Russian Capabilities

 

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

 

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

 

Implications

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

____________________

©2007 – 2017 THE INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF WAR

 

Who is ISW

 

We are on the front lines of military thinking.

 

Our Mission

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

 

Our History

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

 

Fatah blatantly supports terror – findings presented in US Congress


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

 

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

 

JRH 3/20/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Fatah blatantly supports terror – findings presented in US Congress

 

By Itamar Marcus and PMW staff

Mar. 17, 2017

Palestinian Media Watch

 

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

 

 

Posted text: “My weapon has emerged”

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

Oh, our revolution, my weapon has emerged.

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

Click to view Fatah Votes for Terror Appendix 3:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Click to view Appendix 3: Fatah Facebook posts glorified

 

Palestinian terrorists during the 2015-2016 terror wave

 

__________________

© 1997-2017 Palestinian Media Watch|Reproduction Rights

 

About PMW

 

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

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

 

THE END OF PALESTINE


palestine-flag-1939

Daniel Greenfield gives out a dose of reality pertaining to a Two-State Solution between the Jewish State of Israel and the Islamic terrorism of Arabs that made up a non-existent Palestinian nation.

 

JRH 2/18/17 (Hat Tip Donald Moore – Blind Conservatives)

Please Support NCCR

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

THE END OF PALESTINE

 

By Daniel Greenfield

February 16, 2017

FrontPageMag

 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam

hamas-terrorists

Palestine is many things. A Roman name and a Cold War lie. Mostly it’s a justification for killing Jews.

 

Palestine was an old Saudi-Soviet scam which invented a fake nationality for the Arab clans who had invaded and colonized Israel. This big lie transformed the leftist and Islamist terrorists run by them into the liberators of an imaginary nation. Suddenly the efforts of the Muslim bloc and the Soviet bloc to destroy the Jewish State became an undertaking of sympathetically murderous underdogs.

 

But the Palestine lie is past its sell by date.

 

What we think of as “Palestinian” terrorism was a low-level conflict pursued by the Arab Socialist states in between their invasions of Israel. After several lost wars, the terrorism was all that remained. Egypt, Syria and the USSR threw in the towel on actually destroying Israel with tanks and jets, but funding terrorism was cheap and low-risk. And the rewards were disproportionate to the cost.

 

For less than the price of a single jet fighter, Islamic terrorists could strike deep inside Israel while isolating the Jewish State internationally with demands for “negotiations” and “statehood.”

 

After the Cold War ended, Russia was low on cash and the PLO’s Muslim sugar daddies were tired of paying for Arafat’s wife’s shoe collection and his keffiyah dry cleaning bills.

 

The terror group was on its last legs. “Palestine” was a dying delusion that didn’t have much of a future.

 

That’s when Bill Clinton and the flailing left-wing Israeli Labor Party which, unlike its British counterpart, had failed to adapt to the new economic boom, decided to rescue Arafat and create “Palestine”.

 

The resulting terrorist disaster killed thousands, scarred two generations of Israelis, isolated the country and allowed Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and other major cities to come under fire for the first time since the major wars. No matter how often Israeli concessions were met with Islamic terrorism, nothing seemed able to shake loose the two-state solution monkey on Israel’s back. Destroying Israel, instantaneously or incrementally, had always been a small price to pay for maintaining the international order.

 

The same economic forces that were transforming the world after the Cold War had salvaged “Palestine”. Arafat had lost his sponsors in Moscow, but his new sugar daddy’s name was “Globalism”.

 

The Cold War had been the focus of international affairs. What replaced it was the conviction that a new world tied together by international commerce, the internet and international law would be born.

 

The demands of a clan in Hebron used to be able to hijack the attention of the world because the scope of the clash between Capitalism and Communism could globalize any local conflict. Globalization was just as insistent on taking local conflicts and making them the world’s business through its insistence that every place was connected. The terrorist blowing up an Israeli pizzeria affected stock prices in New York, the expansion prospects of a company in China and the risk of another terrorist attack in Paris. And interconnectedness, from airplane hijacking to plugging into the international’s left alliance of global protest movements, had become the  best weapon of Islamic terrorists.

 

But now globalization is dying. And its death may just take “Palestine” with it.

 

A new generation of leaders is rising who are actively hostile to globalization. Trump and Brexit were the most vocal rebukes to transnationalism. But polls suggest that they will not be the only ones. The US and the UK, once the vanguards of the international order, now have governments that are competitively seeking national advantages rather than relying on the ordered rules of the transnational safety net.

 

These governments will not just toss aside their commitment to a Palestinian state. Not when the Saudis, Qataris and countless other rich and powerful Muslim countries bring it up at every session.

 

But they will be less committed to it.

 

45% of Americans support the creation of a PLO state. 42% are opposed. That’s a near split. These historical numbers have to be viewed within the context of the larger changes sweeping the country.

 

The transnationalists actively believed that it was their job to solve the problems of other countries. Nationalists are concerned with how the problems of other countries directly impinge on them without resorting to the mystical interconnectedness of everything, from climate change to global justice, that is at the core of the transnational worldview.

 

More intense competition by Western nations may make it easier for Islamic agendas to gain influence through the old game of divide and conquer. Nations facing terrorism will still find that the economic influence of Islamic oil power will rally the Western trading partners of Islam against them.

 

But without the transnational order, such efforts will often amount to little more than lip service.

 

Nationalist governments will find Israel’s struggle against the Islamic invaders inconvenient because it threatens their business interests, but they will also be less willing to rubber stamp the terror agenda the way that transnationalist governments were willing to do. The elimination of the transnational safety net will also cause nationalist governments to look harder at consequences and results.

 

Endlessly pouring fortunes into a Palestinian state that will never exist just to keep Muslim oil tyrants happy is not unimaginable behavior even for a nationalist government. Japan has been doing just that.

 

But it will be a less popular approach for countries that don’t suffer from Japan’s energy insecurity.

 

Transnationalists are ideologically incapable of viewing a problem as unsolvable. Their faith in human progress through international law made it impossible for them to give up on the two-state solution.

 

Nationalist governments have a colder and harder view of human nature. They will not endlessly pour efforts and resources into a diplomatic black hole. They will eventually take “No” for an answer.

 

This won’t mean instantaneous smooth sailing for Israel. It will however mean that the exit is there.

 

For two decades, pledging allegiance to the two-state solution and its intent to create a deadly Islamic terror state inside Israel has been the price demanded of the Jewish State for its participation in the international community. That price will not immediately vanish. But it will become easier to negotiate.

 

The real change will be on the “Palestinian” side where a terrorist kleptoracy feeds off human misery in its mansions downwind of Ramallah. That terror state, conceived insincerely by the enemies of the West during the Cold War and sincerely brought into being by Western transnationalists after the Cold War ended, is a creature of that transnational order.

 

The “Palestinian Authority”, a shell company of the PLO which is a shell company of the Fatah terrorists, has no economy worth speaking of. It has foreign aid. Its diplomatic achievements are achieved for it by the transnational network of foreign diplomats, the UN, the media and assorted international NGOs. During the last round of “negotiations”, Secretary of State John Kerry even attempted to do the negotiating on behalf of the Palestinian Authority in the talks with Israel.

 

Take away the transnational order and the Palestinian Authority will need a new sugar daddy. The Saudis are better at promising money than actually delivering it. Russia may decide to take on the job. But it isn’t about to put in the money and resources that the PA has grown used to receiving from us.

 

Without significant American support, the Palestinian Authority will perish. And the farce will end.

 

It won’t happen overnight. But Israel now has the ability to make it happen if it is willing to take the risk of transforming a corrosive status quo into a conflict that will be more explosive in the short term, but more manageable in the long term.

 

Prime Minister Netanyahu, in stark contrast to rivals on the left like Peres and on the right like Sharon, is not a gambler. The peace process was a big gamble. As was the withdrawal from Lebanon and the expulsion from Gaza. These gambles failed and left behind scars and enduring crises.

 

Unlike the prime ministers before and after him, Netanyahu has made no big moves. Instead he serves as a sensible steward of a rising economy and a growing nation. He has stayed in office for so long because Israelis know that he won’t do anything crazy. That sensible stewardship, which infuriated Obama who accused him of refusing to take risks, has made him one of the longest serving leaders in Israeli history.

 

Netanyahu is also a former commando who participated in the rescue of a hijacked airplane. He doesn’t believe in taking foolish risks until he has his shot all lined up. But the time is coming when not taking a risk will be a bigger risk than taking a risk. Eventually he will have to roll the dice.

 

The new nationalist wave may not hold. The transnational order may return. Or the new wave may prove darker and more unpredictable. It’s even possible that something else may take its place.

 

The status quo, a weak Islamist-Socialist terror state in Ramallah supported by the United States, a rising Muslim Brotherhood terror state in Gaza backed by Qatar and Turkey, and an Israel using technological brilliance to manage the threat from both, is already unstable. It may collapse in a matter of years.

 

The PLO has inflicted a great deal of diplomatic damage on Israel and Hamas has terrorized its major cities. Together they form an existential threat that Israel has allowed to grow under the guise of managing it. The next few years may leave Israel with a deadlier and less predictable struggle.

 

“Palestine” is dying. Israel didn’t kill it. The fall of the transnational order did. The question is what will take its place. As the nationalist wave sweeps the West, Israel has the opportunity to reclaim its nation.

_____________

ABOUT DANIEL GREENFIELD

 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

 

READ MORE

 

© COPYRIGHT 2017, FRONTPAGEMAG.COM

 

ABOUT FPM

 

FRONTPAGE MAG IS A PROUD PROJECT OF THE DAVID HOROWITZ FREEDOM CENTER

 

The DHFC is dedicated to the defense of free societies whose moral, cultural and economic foundations are under attack by enemies both secular and religious, at home and abroad.

 

The David Horowitz Freedom Center combats the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values and disarm this country as it attempts to defend itself in a time of terror.  The leftist offensive is most obvious on our nation’s campuses, where the Freedom Center protects students from indoctrination and intimidation and works to give conservative students a place in the marketplace of ideas from which they are otherwise excluded.  Combining forceful analysis and bold activism, the Freedom Center provides strong insight into today’s most pressing issue on its family of websites and in the activist campaigns it wages on campus, in the news media, and in national politics throughout the year.

 

David Horowitz began the Center for the Study of Popular Culture in 1988 to establish a conservative presence in Hollywood and show how popular culture had become a political battleground. Over the next 18 years, CSPC attracted 50,000 contributing supporters and established programs such as READ THE REST

 

The 9th Court Usurps Power!


Richard Clifton, Michelle Friedland, and William Canby.
Richard Clifton, Michelle Friedland, and William Canby.

9th Circuit Appellate Justices Richard Clifton, Michelle Friedland, and William Canby.

 

Justin Smith reasoning demonstrates the hypocrisy and idiocy of the American Left’s rabid reaction to President Trump temporarily banning immigration and refugees from seven nations that Islamic terrorism is a hotbed of death.

 

JRH 2/14/17

Please Support NCCR

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

The 9th Court Usurps Power!

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 2/13/2017 7:19 AM

 

President Trump doesn’t need to issue any new travel ban order, that may or may not please the anti-American activist judges of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal or other supporters of Islam and Sharia law (see Justice Elena Kagan’s tenure at Harvard University), open borders and international communism in the Supreme Court and within America’s own population. His original order was well within the U.S. Constitution and the law, and, in order to stop this current intrusion on the President’s authority in areas of foreign policy and national security, a usurpation of power and a judicial coup d’état, President Trump should defy the 9th Court and set to work with the Republican majority and any agreeable Democrats to limit the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution and reclaim stolen legislative powers for Congress.

 

It has universally been acknowledged for over 230 years that the President, the United States Commander-in-Chief, has broad authority and great leeway in all matters of immigration and foreign policy and national security [Judge Napolitano & NRO], which places the recent ruling of leftist activist judges Michelle Friedland (Obama appointee) and William Canby Jr. (Carter appointee) on par with an act of treason. These two judges are so willing to give President Trump a political black eye, allowing Trump’s “Muslim ban” campaign statements to be used in the evaluation of his executive order, that they have ignored the law, circumvented the Constitution and violated the separation of powers clause between coequal branches of government; and, they have blatantly dismissed the reality  of refugees, who can’t prove who they are and whether or not they have any ties to Islamic terrorist groups, while allowing district judge James Robart, another leftist activist judge (notwithstanding being a Bush appointee), to absurdly overrule the President of the United States on border security during wartime.

 

There is not any manner of violation against the U.S. Constitution and the 1965 Immigration Act in President Trump’s travel ban. Trump isn’t discriminating against anyone, but rather, he is looking at seven nations from a security threat assessment, which were already determined to be state sponsors of terror by former President Obama and his advisors, addressed in Section 1187 (a) (12) of an Obama-era provision of the immigration law.

 

And also in his executive order, President Trump expressly cites 1182 (f), enacted in 1952, which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such time as he may deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants … “. [Blog Editor: bold-italics is Editor’s]

 

In 1893, America was detaining approximately 20 percent of all hopeful immigrants reaching Ellis Island, due to sickness and disabilities, and anarchists and the insane were automatically rejected [Blog Editor: History.com point 4-  Immigrants were subject to physical and mental exams to ensure they were fit for admittance to the United States]. About two percent of these immigrants were judged unfit to become U.S. citizens and sent home on the next ship. By the 1920s, our government established quotas based on nationality and skill. And the majority of Americans have always understood that just like anyone has the right to decide who enters their home, so too, our nation has that same sovereign right.

 

No “moral obligation” to these refugees exists that can compel us to allow them to enter without knowing for certain who they are. The moral obligation to open our doors, often mentioned by the Leftists and International Communists, doesn’t mean America must throw reason and caution to the wind.

 

People who do not share our values — Islamofascists seeking to reach America’s shores and murder Americans — and anti-American “refugees” seeking to transform America into a Balkanized hell are not welcome here.

 

Why weren’t all of these anti-American leftist judges evoking Emma Lazarus and Lady Liberty lifting her lamp “beside the golden door” when President Clinton sent little 6 year old Elian Gonzalez back to a communist dictatorship in Cuba, under the executive branch’s broad power? Or when President Obama turned away real refugees fleeing Castro’s oppression “yearning to breathe free“? [Blog Editor: See Also Breitbart & 100% Fed Up]

 

America doesn’t have to destroy its cultural identity by helping foreigners, but this is precisely what Democrat commie bastards such as President Johnson and Senator Ted Kennedy intended to accomplish through the 1965 Immigration Act. This one law has eroded our cultural identity severely and created extremely detrimental demographic changes over time. And most recently, former President Obama specifically brought in one million immigrants from Muslim majority countries like Kosovo, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan, even though these countries were the origin of terrorists that have already attacked America.

 

Many of America’s “progressive” Leftists consider the destruction of America, as we know it, to be a desirable goal, however, most Americans reject their fundamental change. Americans who love this country want a strong America, that will be able to defeat the dangerous ideologies currently threatening Western Civilization.

 

Rebuke the disingenuous pious progressives who decry those of us supporting the President’s executive order as anti-immigrant and issue flowery utterances on sanctuary, when sanctuary is for the truly persecuted innocents, like the Christians in the Middle East. Exercising our first responsibility to protect ourselves and Our Beloved America bears no shame.

 

Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ala) stated that Trump’s executive order was “plainly legal” under both statute and the Constitution, adding: “No foreigner has a constitutional right to enter the United States and courts ought not second-guess sensitive national security decisions of the President. This misguided ruling is from the 9th Circuit, the most notoriously left-wing court in America and the most reversed court at the Supreme Court.

 

Representative Mo Brooks (R-Ala) said, “Unfortunately, American lives are at risk until this unfounded and reckless [9th Court restraining] order is reversed by the Supreme Court.”

 

How can Americans trust unreliable and corrupt courts with our national security? The Supreme Court ruled Obamacare to be both constitutional and a tax, after Obama called it a “penalty” for years. The courts have overturned the will of ‘We the People’ in numerous referendums and centuries of traditions and hundreds of state and federal laws, so that they could manufacture non-existent rights to abortion and deviant, perverse homosexual “marriage” [coupling], rights that cannot and never will be found in Madison’s Constitution.

 

Judges and justices are not empowered by the Constitution to make U.S. law or govern the nation. Those duties fall solely to Congress and the President.

 

Pat Buchanan observed on February 10th that President Andrew Jackson defied Chief Justice John Marshall’s “prohibition” against moving the Cherokee Indians across the Mississippi and to the western frontier. He also noted President Lincoln considered sending U.S. troops to arrest Chief Justice Roger Taney, when Taney declared Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional.

 

President Trump must simply defy U.S. District Judge Robart’s overly broad and illegal restraining order, upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal. He must order Homeland Security and his State Department and Justice Department to continue executing his executive order which is in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and existing law, because his act is a rare and righteous moment in this war against terrorism, the Islamofascists, the Radical Left of America and the International Communists, who seek our demise. And a Constitutional crisis is much preferred over more murdered innocent Americans.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_____________

Edited by John R. Houk

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

 

© Justin O. Smith

On Defining Religion


nonie-darwish-2-i-will-not-submit

Ex-Muslim Nonie Darwish explains the reasons that Islam has absolutely NO harmony with the Western perception of values and religious freedom. The last sentence of this essay Darwish asks:

 

Is the First Amendment a suicide pact?

 

JRH 2/13/17

Please Support NCCR

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

On Defining Religion

 

By Nonie Darwish

February 12, 2017 5:00 am

Gatestone Institute

 

  • What the West does not understand is that Islam admits that government control is central to Islam and that Muslims must, sooner or later, demand to live under an Islamic government.

 

  • The majority of the world does not understand that much of the American media is in a propaganda war against the Trump administration simply because he names Islamic jihad and would prefer to see a strong and prosperous America as a world leader rather than to see a dictatorship — secular or theocratic — as a world leader.

 

  • Islam claims to be an Abrahamic religion, but in fact Islam came to the world 600 years after Christ, not to affirm the Bible but to discredit it; not to co-exist with “the people of the book” — Jews and Christians — but to replace them, after accusing them of intentionally falsifying the Bible.

 

  • Islam was created as a rebellion against the Bible and its values, and it relies on government enforcement to do so.

 

  • Political and legal (sharia) Islam is much more than a religion. Is the First Amendment a suicide pact?

 

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) said that President Donald Trump’s 90-day ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries is “a religiously based ban,” and “if they can ban Muslims, why can’t they ban Mormons.” This has become the position of the Democratic Party and the mainstream media, which has influenced not only the American public but has convinced the majority of the world that America is “bad.” How can we blame the world, and even a good segment of American citizens, for hating America when such disingenuous and misleading claims are aired to the world from US officials and broadcast by American television channels?

 

The majority of the world does not understand that much of the American media is in a propaganda war against the Trump Administration simply because he names Islamic jihad and would prefer to see a strong and prosperous America as a world leader, rather than to see a dictatorship — secular or theocratic — as a world leader. He ran as a Republican; meanwhile, Democrats and the mainstream media refuse to engage in respectful and legitimate debate on the most vital threat to Western civilization in the twenty-first century: Islam. Truth has become irrelevant; people seem to prefer a political game of tug-of-war to sway public opinion against the Trump Administration, and, presumably, to elect Democrats forever. That is how the system is set up.

 

Political discussions on television have become extremely frustrating; they have turned into shouting matches and name-calling at the least informative levels. Television hosts often become instigators and participants in the shouting matches. The thinking is apparently that the louder they get, the more attractive the program will be. Meanwhile everyone is talking at once; the viewer cannot hear anyone, so the program could not be more boring.

 

Under the US Constitution, freedom of religion is protected. and Islam has been welcomed inside the West on that basis as one of the three Abrahamic religions. According to Western values and the Western understanding of the word, “religion” is supposed to be a personal relationship with God, where free will is of utmost importance; the believer has authority only over himself or herself when it comes to religious laws or punishing sins (such as leaving the religion or committing adultery) — quite different from criminal laws intended to protect society. Western values also allow followers of a religion the freedom to proselytize, but never by resorting to government enforcement.

 

Bottom line, the Western definition of religion is in harmony with the Biblical values of the human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that all human beings are created equal under the law. It is considered a basic Western value to view God, family and country as a top priority.

 

Now let us compare these values to Islamic values:

 

  • Muslim citizens have the right to punish other citizens with humiliating, severe, cruel and unusual punishments such as death, flogging and amputation, for sinning against Allah, the Quran or Islam. Those “crimes” include leaving Islam, being a homosexual, or committing adultery. And if the Islamic government does not enforce such punishments, any Muslim on the street has the right to apply the punishment against another Muslim and not be prosecuted. That is why apostates, such as myself, cannot visit any Muslim county; the fear is not only from Islamic governments but from anyone on the street.

 

  • Being a Muslim is not a personal relationship with God, as it is under the Bible, but is enforced by the state at birth. When a child is born in Egypt to a Muslim father, the birth certificate is stamped “Muslim” and all government-issued documents as well. A child must learn Islamic studies in school and practice Islam throughout his life. In Egypt, the twin sons of a Christian divorced mother were forced to take Islamic studies and become Muslim just because their originally-Christian father converted to Islam. Today, in Egypt, I am still considered Muslim and such a status could never change if I ever lived there again.

 

  • Islamic law and leaders rely on government enforcement — under penalty of death — to keep Muslims within Islam and to convert the minority Christian population into Islam. Islamic sharia law, obliges Islamic states to enforce religious law, and if the Muslim head of state refuses to follow religious law, sharia permits the public to use force to remove the head of state from office.

 

  • Islam claims to be an Abrahamic religion, but in fact Islam came to the world 600 years after Christ, not to affirm the Bible but to discredit it; not to co-exist with “the people of the book,” Jews and Christians, but to replace them — after accusing them of intentionally falsifying the Bible. Islam was created as a rebellion against the Bible and its values, and relies on government enforcement to do so.

 

The tenets above are just a few of the differences in values between Islam, the Bible and the Western concept of religion. What the West does not understand is that Islam admits that government control is central to Islam, and Muslims must demand to live under an Islamic government sooner or later. That might explain the reason for the eternal violence in nearly all Muslim countries, between government being in the hands of a religious theocracy or of the military. Islam, as it is practiced today, has violated all Western definitions of religion and values.

 

Political and legal (sharia) Islam is much more than a religion. Is the First Amendment a suicide pact?

 

THE FIRST AMENDMENT

1st-amendment-image-source-brent-payne-flickr

 

___________________

Nonie Darwish, born and raised in Egypt, is the author of “Wholly Different; Why I chose Biblical Values over Islamic Values.”

 

© 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute. [Blog Editor: I did not ask for permission to re-blog this essay from the Gatestone Institute. If requested I will remove the post.]

 

About Gatestone Institute

 

“Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.” — John Adams

 

Gatestone Institute, a non-partisan, not-for-profit international policy council and think tank is dedicated to educating the public about what the mainstream media fails to report in promoting:

 

  • Institutions of Democracy and the Rule of Law;

 

  • Human Rights

 

  • A free and strong economy

 

  • A military capable of ensuring peace at home and in the free world

 

  • Energy independence

 

  • Ensuring the public stay informed of threats to our individual liberty, sovereignty and free speech.

 

Gatestone Institute conducts national and international conferences, briefings and events for its members and others, with world leaders, journalists and experts — analyzing, strategizing, and keeping them informed on current issues, and where possible recommending solutions.

 

Gatestone Institute will be publishing books, and continues to publish an online daily report, www.gatestoneinstitute.org, that features topics such as military and diplomatic threats to the United States and our allies; events in the Middle East and READ THE REST

 

Obama’s Insidious CVE


catastrophic-failure-islamic-terrrism

John R. Houk

© February 9, 2017

 

Americans that have not been brainwashed by eight years of the Obama Administration in collusion with the Leftist MSM, should not be surprised at the Dems and media excoriating President Trump’s protection of American from Islamic terrorism.

 

Obama and the Southern Poverty Law Center (More specifics on the SPLC from the Social Contract Press) were fairly successful in purging Law Enforcement of knowledgeable Counter Terrorism experts. Then proceeded to label Conservative organizations, Traditional Values Christian organizations and Counterjihad organizations as bigoted, hate-inspiring, and Islamophobic American right wing terrorists.

 

Check this out:

 

Unreal… Obama’s DHS Continues to Target Conservatives & Liberty Lovers As Terrorists (Video)

 

It’s an Obama bizarro world
The Obama administration holds peace talks with Taliban killers but treats patriotic Americans as terrorists.
Go figure.

 

The Department of Homeland Security is continuing to target patriotic Americans and conservatives who “believe that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack” as terrorists.  They even have this listed in their latest report.
This is unbelievable.

 

VIDEO: DHS continues to target conservatives and ignore Islamists


 

[Not part of Gateway Pundit article but important] Posted by usACTIONnews

Published on Jul 9, 2012

“Groups that believe that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent.” describes potential terrorists? WTH? DHS is using left wing hate groups and even Islamic groups with ties to terrorism as consultants to determine who are threats.

From a Jan, 2011 article “How Dept. of Homeland Security identifies ‘right wing extremists’:

The radical leftist group Southern Poverty Law Center has partnered with the Department of Homeland Security in a ‘Working Group’ called Countering violent Extremism to paint conservatives as hate groups and extremists.

Former Attorney General Edwin Meese says it is “despicable” for the Southern Poverty Law Center to classify the Family Research Council and a dozen other top conservative organizations as “hate groups” similar to the Ku Klux Klan.

The SPLC has a history of targeting conservatives and conservative groups as racist, homophobic, or extremist if they disagree with the radical left positions of the SPLC on any number of issues. An article at Discover the Networks.org says “What makes the Southern Poverty Law Center particularly odious is its habit of taking legitimate conservatives and jumbling them with genuine hate groups (the Klan, Aryan Nation, skinheads, etc.), to make it appear that there’s a logical relationship between say opposing affirmative action and lynching, or demands for an end to government services for illegal aliens and attacks on dark-skinned immigrants. The late novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand called this “the broad-brush smear.””

…..
The SPLC has joined the Department of Homeland Security in a ‘Working Group’ called Countering violent Extremism. John Cohen, President and CEO of SPLC is listed as a member and Laurie Wood, Analyst, Southern Poverty Law Center/Instructor, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center is listed as an ‘expert in subject matter’. The members of the group also include three from Muslim organizations but we don’t see any conservatives. (see the list at the end of the report)

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) which has been determined by the courts to be a terrorist support group proudly points out on their Facebook page that its Michigan members ‘participated a Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Working Group meeting with law enforcement officials and community advocates in Dearborn, Mich.'[ibid].

So we have the Southern Poverty Law Center, also known as The Church of Morris Dees, which calls groups and individuals like the Family Research Council, Eagle Forum, the Heritage Foundation, Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Rep. Steve King (R-IA), and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) ‘right wing extremists’ and the Council on American-Islamic Relations which the FBI has proven to be linked to a terrorist organization teaming up with the US Department of Homeland Security to determine what groups in America should be categorized as ‘extremist’ and potentially violent.

Now you can see why the DHS came out with its Rightwing Extremism report in April of 2009 that warned of potential violence by people against illegal immigration and gun control, and returning military veterans. Now that’s change.

[The rest of the Gateway Pundit article is an excerpt of above info] (Unreal… Obama’s DHS Continues to Target Conservatives & Liberty Lovers As Terrorists (Video); By Jim Hoft; Gateway Pundit; 7/11/12 4:45 am)

 

If you want to see the idiotic SPLC list of legitimate Counterjihadists labelled as dangerous right wing hatemongers, you can go to this one of many titles (this one 10/25/16): “A Journalist’s Manual: Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists”.

 

Here is an excerpt pointing to the Obama purge of anything Islamic from training manuals and official reports:

 

 

In another example of the administration’s ability to make key words disappear, a 2013 Judicial Watch report revealed that the FBI scrubbed its law enforcement training material of any language that might be deemed “offensive” to Muslims. Per those guidelines, hundreds of references to “Muslim,” “Islam” or “jihad” were removed from the 2004 9/11 commission report.

 

U.S. Government Terrorism Terminology References

 

The witnesses provided more evidence to corroborate these findings. Mr. Philip Haney, a retired Customs and Border Protection Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, revealed that the CIA has scrubbed more than 800 law enforcement records that were almost all connected to the Muslim brotherhood.

 

The first “great purge,” he said, was in 2009. Yet, in 2012 they didn’t just modify the records, they eliminated them out of the system, which, he noted, bypasses security protocol in Homeland Security. READ ENTIRETY (Cruz Hearing Exposes the Obama Admin’s History of Purging References to Islamic Terror; By Cortney O’Brien; Townhall; 6/29/16 9:15 AM)

 

More details on the Obama purge by Patrick Poole 3/26/14: “A detailed look at ‘the purge’ of U.S. counter-terrorism training by the Obama administration”.

 

So, why the heck am I rehashing Obama’s treacherous history after a majority of States elected Trump over Crooked Hillary? BECAUSE America’s Left is doing everything from lying, Fake News, civil disturbances, and questionable legal procedures to prevent President Trump from following through on his campaign promises.

 

I was alerted by email via Counterjihadist writer Paul Sutliff, that the Donald is going undo Obama’s Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) agenda which focused on White Supremacists. Please recall from above, that the Obama Administration lumped Conservatives, Christian Values and Counterjihadists with right wing extremists.

 

The new agenda focus will be Islamic terrorism. Paul Sutliff’s email alerts the reader he has been writing about the CVE agenda for some time:

 

Last night I was about to go to sleep and a friend called full of excitement saying did you see what Trump just did? He ended CVE! CVE is Countering Violent Extremism. I have written a few articles exposing their friendliness with the Muslim Brotherhood and the granting of special privileges for members of the Muslim Brotherhood. I wrote Why is Heritage Foundation Promoting Countering Violent Extremism (CVE)? (Part 1 of 3) on May 13, 2016, I wrote My What Strange Bedfellows the Heritage Foundation Has! on May 26, 2016 which further exposed the CVE and on July 5, 2016 I wrote Countering Violent Extremism: A Ghost Buster Solution to a Real World Problem. These articles earned me an interview with Vlad Tepes of TheRebel.media. Maybe Trump is reading my stuff, but I think it is more likely that he has hired good people!

 

SO imagine my excitement with that news! All I can say now is thank you Mr. President. You have earned my prayers and respect.

 

Get informed on Obama’s CVE in Paul’s articles linked above. For your convenience, I am cross posting the Tepes-Sutliff interview from The Rebel linked above.

 

JRH 2/9/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Paul Sutliff interview (Part II): “Countering Violent Extremism” strategy is anything but

 

Posted by VICTOR LASZLO

REBEL COMMENTATOR

July 16, 2016

The Rebel

 

This is the second part of the interview with Paul Sutliff. Paul explains the US Government’s use of the office of Countering Violent Extremism to assist the Muslim Brotherhood, and of all things, fund mosques.

 

VIDEO: Paul Sutliff interview Part II The CVE


 

Posted by Vlad Tepes

Published on Jul 16, 2016

 

The first part of the interview can be seen here at The Rebel. 

 

His books can be purchased at Amazon.com

Civilization Jihad and the Myth of Moderate Islam

and Stealth Jihad two: American Colleges. 

 

Paul’s website is here.

 

At the end of the interview, Paul mentions Stephen Coughlin, the retired Maj. who was in Army intelligence. His website is hereand an interview he did for the Rebel can be seen here.

 

+++

Blog Editor: Here is a cross post from PJ Media by Patrick Poole CVE:

******

Trump Seeks to End Obama’s ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ Scam

 

By PATRICK POOLE

FEBRUARY 5, 2017

PJ Media

 

Among the litany of Obama administration disasters, the rapid collapse of his “Countering Violent Extremism” (CVE) agenda is among the most consequential.

 

But groups in line to receive federal CVE grants announced just days before the end of the Obama era are now whining as the Trump administration seeks to put an end to the CVE scam.

 

Driven directly from the White House, the Obama administration’s CVE agenda was a replacement following a purge of counter-terrorism training across the federal government during 2011-2012 in response to a targeted series of reports by far-Left bloggers and reporters claiming widespread bias and “Islamophobia.”

 

Many of those claims were later debunked, but with the damage done the administration’s purge pressed ahead as it implemented CVE at the demand of Islamic groups, some of whom were directly involved in the formation of the administration’s CVE policies.

 

But as it became apparent that terror recruitment was escalating rapidly at nearly the same time that CVE was being imposed on agencies and departments across the board, the inability of CVE to actually countering any “extremists” was exposed. The same Islamic groups that urged the imposition of CVE then turned against the efforts when they realized that CVE was still primarily directed at the growing threat of Islamic recruitment, and not towards stigmatizing the administration’s perceived domestic political enemies.

 

By January 2015, Politico was already declaring that CVE was a complete flop:

 

POLITICO

@politico

 

No answer for homegrown terrorism? Obama’s plan to combat radicalization is a flop, critics say.

POLITICO Twitter Photo

 

No answer for homegrown terrorism?

Obama’s plan to combat radicalism is a flop critics say.

politico.com

 

The CVE pilot programs in Minneapolis, Los Angeles, and Boston were already so unsuccessful that the media had to announce they were off to a “slow start” a year ago:

 

WTOP

@WTOP

 

Effort in 3 US cities to combat extremism off to slow start https://t.co/4DMrdthiUn 

 

8:30 AM – 24 Mar 2016

 

The failures of the program were so pronounced that NPR conceded the point, claiming that even if the CVE programs were not effective they still somehow helped the communities.

 

NPR Popular 

@nprpopular

 

Whether It Works Or Not, U.S. Anti-Radicalization Plan Can Benefit Communities https://t.co/Xn34FdLc4N 

 

7:15 AM – 3 Apr 2016

 

As I noted in an assessment of Obama’s CVE policies here at PJ Media last year, and in a separate monographmeasuring Obama’s policies by his own stated White House goals, the CVE program was proven to be a complete failure in the very three areas it was intended to support: community engagement, training, and counter-propaganda.

 

It’s no surprise then that one of the first moves by the Trump administration will be to shut down the failed CVE program, as reported by Reuters:

 

Reuters Top News

@Reuters

 

Exclusive: Trump to focus counter-extremism program solely on Islam – sources https://t.co/9wHw9pKAn6 

 

Trump – CVE

 

7:11 PM – 1 Feb 2017

 

That decision in turn set off a wave of complaints by groups that were hoping to receive federal CVE grants that were rushed out by the Obama administration in its last few days in office:

 

CVE Community 

@CVEcommunity

 

Statement by @DHSgov‘s Jeh Johnson Announcing 1st Round of Countering Violent Extremism Grants

 

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/13/statement-secretary-jeh-johnson-announcing-first-round-dhss-countering-violent #CVE #PVE

 

2:58 PM – 13 Jan 2017

 

Those would-be federal grant recipients are now turning to the media to air their complaints:

 

Adam Goldman

@adamgoldmanNYT

 

Pointing to Trump, Groups Reject U.S. Aid to Fight Extremism w/@mattapuzzo https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/us/politics/trump-muslim-groups-aid-extremism.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share 

 

5:09 PM – 2 Feb 2017

 

One of the first groups that took to the media was the Twin Cities-based Ka Joog (which in Somali means “stay away”). Ka Joog had already been one of the groups to receive $300,000 in federal money and another $250,000 appropriated by the state of Minnesota, and was in line to receive another $500,000 federal grant from Homeland Security.

 

Star Tribune 

@StarTribune

 

Citing “unofficial war on Muslim-Americans” launched by Trump, Minneapolis nonprofit rejects $500,000 federal grant https://t.co/lIlfSIw5j5 

 

12:25 AM – 2 Feb 2017

 

AVE 

@ave_org

 

Somali nonprofits get federal grants to counter extremism, Minneapolis #CVE https://t.co/obtvf32BuV 

 

7:30 AM – 19 Jan 2017

 

Ka Joog has been one of the premier programs that CVE defenders have pointed to in calling for additional funding for the CVE program.

 

And yet in one of the group’s most visible failuresthe nephew of the organization’s executive director was recruited by the Islamic State and eventually tried and convicted in federal court.

 

Another Twin Cities groups, Heartland Democracy, was scheduled to receive $165,000.

 

That group had been among the first to participate in a pet “deradicalization” project by the chief federal judge in Minnesota who tried many of the Islamic State recruiting cases.

 

But court documents exposed that Heartland Democracy had no experience in “jihadi rehab,” and its curriculum was described as “more high school civics course than religious deprogramming.”

 

The Daily Beast

@thedailybeast

 

Group With No Jihadi Experience Rehabs ISIS Recruit: http://t.co/8jWwAioziU 

 

8:35 AM – 25 Aug 2015

 

The Daily Beast reported on the regimen established for their first “deradicalization” client:

 

He and a Somali-American mentor began to work through an extensive reading list, which included Richard Wright’s Native Son, a novel about growing up poor and black in the 1930s, and an article by Native American author Sherman Alexie about how poetry freed him from the “reservation” of his mind.

 

McKinley would not say how often Yusuf met his mentor.

 

“We met with him regularly, I don’t know the number of times a week,” she said. When pressed on whether they met weekly, biweekly, or at a different pace, McKinley would not clarify. “We met with him regularly.”

 

Court documents also reference Yusuf meeting with religious leaders, but McKinley wasn’t sure about that.

 

“I don’t know if he’s met with any religious leaders,” she said in response to a question about meeting with imams. “I mean, he’s an adult, he can get any visitor he wants.”

 

That first client was sent back to jail after a search of his room at a halfway house found a box cutter.

 

The Obama administration’s CVE programs have a lengthy history of failure:

 

  • As I reported here at PJ Media just a few days ago, an Associated Press investigation into the Pentagon’s $500 million WebOps program to counter Islamic State propaganda found widespread incompetence and corruption. According to whistleblowers, civilian Arabic specialists with no understanding of Islam tried to defeat complex religious justifications for terrorism, resulting in the program becoming a laughingstock in jihadist circles.

 

  • In December 2014, the New York Times reported that the then-head of Special Operations Command, Major Gen. Michael Nagata, convened a series of conference calls with outside experts attempting to understand why the message of the Islamic State had grown so dangerous. But after the Obama administration’s counter-terror training purge, Gen. Nagata was forced to admit that “we do not understand the movement, and until we do, we are not going to defeat it….We have not defeated the idea. We do not even understand the idea.

 

  • In September 2011, Obama signed an executive order creating the State Department’s Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications (CSCC).One of their early failures was a graphic video produced called “Welcome to ISIS Land,” targeting would-be Islamic State recruits. The center’s director was quickly replaced. Then a Twitter campaign, “Think Again Turn Away,” was largely panned by terror experts who claimed the effort was largely ineffective and was actually legitimizing the terrorist narrative. A panel of outside experts convened by the State Department agreed, finding that the CSCC was so counterproductive to its mission that they questioned whether the U.S. government should be involved in counter-propaganda at all. The center was promptly closed.

 

  • One of the first CVE guidelines produced by the Department of Homeland Security in 2011 was to instruct federal agencies to avoid using “trainers who are self-professed ‘Muslim Reformers,'” and yet documents uncovered regarding meetings with DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano show the agency soliciting advice from known extremist groups and controversial Islamic leaders. Some of these extremist leaders even held official positions advising DHS. Last June, when the DHS Countering Violent Extremism Subcommittee released its recommendations urging $100 million in new CVE funding, it urged banning the use of “jihad” or “sharia” in training — two very common terms used by terrorist recruiters. One of the subcommittee members, a Syrian immigrant, had previously said that the 9/11 terror attacks had “changed the world for good.” And in DecemberDHS teamed up with the State Department to bring in the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an organization that the Justice Department had argued in federal court had supported terrorism, to teach a CVE course for French officials. Even though the State Department programs have been universally panned, it was reported last August that they had tripled the budget.

 

  • In implementing the Obama administration’s CVE agenda, the FBI had conducted a wide-scale purge of its terrorism training curriculum at the request of Islamic groups claiming it was biased. In a move questioned by members of Congress, the FBI classified the identities of the outside experts brought in to censor the material. A subsequent review of the censored terror-training material discovered suspect and inconsistent standards in purging the curriculum. More recently, a FBI website and video game (“Don’t Be a Puppet”) intended to target youth vulnerable to terrorist recruitment was launched, and then suspended after just a day in response to complaints of Islamic groups, terror experts, and even teachers unions that the effort was biased, ineffective, and encouraged students to inform on each other. Some of the criticism came from the FBI’s own Muslim outreach partners that were brought in to advise the bureau on its CVE policies.

 

So it’s no great mystery why the incoming Trump administration began discussions about scaling back and ending Obama’s CVE program.

 

Others contend that the CVE grants were political payoffs to groups to enlist their aid in scuttling counter-terror programs and to silence any possible criticism of the Obama national security and foreign policy agenda.

 

The chairman of one group that was scheduled to receive a $400,000 CVE grant, Life After Hate, has publicly launched attacks on the incoming Trump administration and even called for the violent removal of President Trump one day after his inauguration.

 

Meanwhile in Minneapolis, as Ka Joog declines the $500,000 in announced DHS CVE grants the group has quickly transitioned from attempting to deradicalizing area Somali youth to publicly declaring that President Trump is engaged in “an official war against Islam” — parroting a standard terrorist narrative.

 

But as mentioned previously, the nephew of the executive director who had participated in Ka Joog programs was still recruited to join the Islamic State.

 

In another instance, an Islamic State recruit from Alexandria, Virginia, later captured by Kurdish troops and currently facing federal charges, lived less than 50 yards from one of the Obama administration’s top go-to CVE experts.

 

If these so-called CVE “experts” can’t prevent their closest relatives or neighbors from joining terrorist groups, why should the Trump administration continue to entrust them with our national security?

 

Despite all the media hand-wringing, it seems that questioning the effectiveness of Obama’s CVE program is entirely in order given its constant track record of failure.

 

Yet in light of the current media climate, the new administration should expect that it will come under fire for whatever they eventually replace the failed CVE agenda with. And the Islamic State and other terrorist groups continue to recruit and encourage supporters to conduct attacks inside the homeland.

 

Ending the CVE scam would be a good first step in reversing the corrosive policies established by the Obama administration that have hampered and sometimes punished our law enforcement and national security professionals for doing their job.

___________________

Obama’s Insidious CVE

John R. Houk

© February 9, 2017

_________________

 

Paul Sutliff interview (Part II): “Countering Violent Extremism” strategy is anything but

 

Copyright © TheRebel.media. Some rights reserved.

 

___________________

Trump Seeks to End Obama’s ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ Scam

 

Copyright © 2005-2017 PJ Media All Rights Reserved.