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

 

Government Corruption Prosecutes Bundys


John R. Houk

© March 18, 2017

 

I am guilty of not following the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) persecution of the Bundy family over grazing rights for their cattle and attempts to protect those cattle from BLM confiscation.

 

There are those that truly believe the Bundys are criminals for not paying exorbitant grazing fees and then resisting the BLM for attempting to take the Bundy cattle to pay for those back exorbitant fees.

 

Catherine Crabill pretty much sums up how the government has gone from protecting U.S. citizens to thrive to using Big Brother tactics for Leftist environmentalism, Crony Capitalism or both:

 

While many remain oblivious to the strangulation of our most fiercely independent and productive citizens, the American Rancher, this last week’s news cycle sputtered out incomprehensible sound bites about Nevadan Rancher, Mr. Cliven Bundy.

 

Sometime in the mid 1800’s, long before Nevada was a territory, much less a state, Cliven Bundy’s ancestors settled a tract of land to raise a family and provide a livelihood ranching cattle.

 

In 1946 another debacle of a government agency was created, The Bureau of Land Management.

 

Like every single government agency, without exception, the BLM became a bloated bully who’s main contribution to the western states, in particular, was to destroy life, liberty and personal property.

 

52 other families in Clark County Nevada alone, had long since given up fighting the BLM. Grazing rights were/are typically denied under the guise of protecting “endangered species”, (a common practice nationwide to destroy watermen, farmers, and ranchers), or grazing fees are raised until those, like the Bundy’s, who dug the wells, fenced the land, and managed it just fine, are driven off or bankrupted.

 

The BLM also threatened the Bundy’s because they declared he owed them more than a million dollars in said “grazing fees”. I’ll say it again, for using the land that has been in his family for 7 generations.

 

THERE IS MORE (NOTHING LESS THAN TREASON, SEDITION AND EXTORTION IN NEVADA! Posted by DEAN JAMES – By Catherine Crabill; American Freedom Fighters; 4/15/14)

 

I was gratified when all those defendants were exonerated by jury trial pertaining to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge standoff. Unfortunately right after their jury exoneration the BLM and other Federal Agents arrested them for another trial over a standoff that took place prior to Malheur in Bunkerville Nevada area of the Bundy Ranch cattle operations.

 

This government persecution continues with the appearance of COVER-UP:

 

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has requested an investigation into allegations that employees of the Bureau of Land Management destroyed federal records, tampered with witnesses and obstructed a congressional investigation.

 

 

The original report details how BLM employee Danial Paul Love [aka Dirty Dan] used his position to gain entrance for family and friends to the Burning Man festival — held on BLM-managed land — and assign a security detail to his party and provide overnight lodging for these attendees.

 

 

It then goes on to document ways Love attempted to instruct witnesses and influence the testimony of colleagues questioned by investigators.

 

The Oversight Committee’s letter cites the report’s allegations of email scrubbing, conspiracy to change and withhold records for an impending congressional inquiry, and coaching witnesses as having the potential to taint the investigation and undermine trust in BLM’s law enforcement office. For this reason, Chaffetz asked for further scrutiny of Love’s actions.

The entire letter can be read on Oversight’s websiteREAD ENTIRETY (Committee to investigate whether feds obstructed probe into Burning Man fraud; By Tony Ware; Federal Times; 2/21/17)

 

More on Dirty Dan:

 

An investigation accusing a federal agent of misconduct and ethics violations could derail one of the most high-profile land-use trials in modern Western history.

 

 

But a Jan. 30 report by the Department of Interior’s Office of the Inspector General appears to raise serious questions about the BLM special agent in charge of operations during the standoff, who is expected to be a key witness for the government in the case.

 

The report, which does not identify the agent by name [Yup, it was Special Agent In Charge Dirty Dan], cites ethical violations that occurred in 2015 at the annual Burning Man event in Northern Nevada’s Black Rock Desert.

 

Federal investigators said the agent wrongly used his influence to obtain benefits for himself and his family members at Burning Man, abused federal law-enforcement resources and intimidated other BLM staff to keep quiet about his conduct. They also accused the agent of manipulating BLM hiring practices to help a friend get hired.

 

 

Whipple said the report paints a picture of an agent with a personal agenda and no regard for the rule of law. He said his client long has maintained that Love dangerously orchestrated events during the Bundy standoff to “enhance and enrich” his personal profile and “to make a name for himself.”

 

 

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Las Vegas also declined comment. Spokeswoman Trisha Young said Friday the witness list in the Bundy Ranch trials has been sealed and is not open to the public, and she declined to speak about Love’s role in the case.

 

Individual federal prosecutors assigned to the cases did not return calls.

 

 

“It’s in an ethics report. I think everything is up for grabs — misuse of the vehicles, using intimidation,” Gordon said. “This stuff, it suggests that he’s willing to cheat and lie for his job.”

 

She said defense attorneys involved in the Bundy Ranch trials might not be able to show juries the inspector general’s report [Why the H-E-Double Hockey Sticks NOT! Where’s the justice in suppressing the IG Report?] but could question Love about specific incidents raised in it.

 

 

Investigators said when they began looking into the complaints, the agent called other employees and encouraged them not to cooperate. He told them “I don’t recall” was a valid answer to investigators’ questions, the report said.

 

Investigators said the agent used intimidation to discourage his co-workers from speaking with investigators, telling one: “You know, if you don’t side with me, grenades are going to go off and you’ll get hit.”

 

 

On websites and social-media posts dedicated to the Bundy Ranch standoff, Love is accused of ratcheting up the conflict.

 

Recorded exchanges purportedly between Love and right-wing internet radio host Peter Santilli during the standoff show just how quickly events escalated as each man threatened the other with arrest.

 

Love maintained he had the federal courts on his side and wanted to end the standoff peacefully. Then he told Santilli that the protesters didn’t have enough people to hold off law enforcement, saying, “You better hope that 10,000 show up,” according to one website.

 

Santilli is one of the 17 facing charges.

 

 

For two decades, the BLM repeatedly ordered Bundy to remove his cattle from federal lands and in 2014 the agency obtained a court order to seize Bundy’s cattle as payment for more than $1 million in back fees. In April, the BLM, led by Love, implemented a roundup of 1,000 head of Bundy’s cattle ranging on public land.

 

Bundy fought back, issuing a social-media battle cry to help defend his land rights against federal agents. Supporters, including members of several militia groups, streamed to the ranch from several Western states, including Nevada, Arizona, Idaho and Montana. They showed up with rifles and handguns, determined to keep government agents at bay.

 

READ ENTIRETY (BLM misconduct probe may derail Bundy Ranch standoff trial; By Jenny Kane and Robert Anglen; azcentral.com; 2/3/17 9:58 p.m. MT – Updated 2/4/17 11:45 a.m. MT}

 

Journalist Pete Santilli was arrested under the Obama Administration DOJ claims he did not have a Free Press right for reporting on the Bunkerville Standoff:

 

Reporter Pete Santilli had his hearing in Nevada on Monday on trumped up charges he is facing for his reporting on the Bundy Ranch Siege in 2014. As he left the courtroom in chains, he cried out, “I’m a journalist. This is what they do in Communist China!”

 

READ THE REST (Federal Government Throws Journalist into Prison for the “Crime” of Covering BLM Protests! By Tim Brown; Eagle Rising; May 2016)

 

The corruption can be seen with Defense Attorneys and the Prosecution sparing about what evidence is admissible and about which witnesses will be allowed to testify:

 

A downtown Las Vegas courtroom provided scenes as wild as a Western movie Monday when federal prosecutors and defense attorneys battled over nearly every piece of evidence presented in the trial against six of rancher Cliven Bundy’s supporters.

 

Defense attorneys tried to block a government witness from testifying. A prosecutor invoked an evidence rule that led even the judge to flip open a legal handbook. A juror made a wisecrack that caused one lawyer to raise concerns of potential bias.

 

By 4 p.m., U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro had sent the jury home early and told them not to return until Wednesday.

 

The day’s most hotly disputed footage was played outside the presence of the jury when defense lawyer Todd Leventhal tried to bring into evidence a video from the April 2014 standoff in Bunkerville. The video was captured by a Fox News cameraman, and Leventhal, who represents Bundy supporter O. Scott Drexler, wanted the judge to let him play it when he cross-examined Bureau of Land Management Ranger Gregory Johnson.

 

Johnson testified as a government witness Monday. On April 12, 2014, he was recorded on dashboard camera footage using a megaphone to repeatedly order protesters to disperse.

 

The protesters, who were gathered near the site where federal authorities had been impounding Bundy’s cattle, screamed angrily. At one point on the footage, authorities referenced a man walking towards them — “blue shirt, looks like press.”

 

The cameraman was identified in court only by his surname, Lynch. Defense lawyers tried to use the footage he captured to bolster their arguments that protesters could not understand law enforcement’s instructions from 200 yards away on a windy day.

 

On the video, Lynch walks toward the cattle impoundment site where federal authorities were headquartered.

 

“I do not have a weapon — I am shooting for Fox News,” he yelled. “May I approach so this doesn’t end in bloodshed … the people don’t want to get hurt.

 

“You are in violation of a U.S. District Court order,” Johnson’s voice boomed over the megaphone.

 

“I am the press!” Lynch shouted.

 

“Go back.”

 

“Why? Why can’t you talk to me?!”

 

“You are in violation

 

“I have no weapon! Are you really gonna shoot these people?” Lynch exclaimed. “We can’t hear your announcement that far away.”

Navarro would not allow the video into evidence Monday, but she told Leventhal he could play it for jurors if he calls Lynch as a defense witness.

 

READ THE REST (Tempers flare, nerves fray in trial against Bundy supporters; By JENNY WILSON; Las Vegas Review-Journal; 3/6/17 8:54pm)

 

Recall above info in which Special In Charge Dirty Dan Love is accused of ethics violations and witness intimidation. Dirty Dan is the guy in charge yelling at the Fox News cameraman for documenting the standoff. Dirty Dan’s BLM Agents tried to confiscate the Bundy Cattle and intimidated the Ranchers into arming themselves with vicious actions against the protestors.

 

Guess what? The Federal Prosecutor is trying to prevent Defense access to Dirty Dan at the trial:

 

It appears the government wants to hide the illegal actions it has taken, along with those of the Bureau of Land Management in the Bundy Ranch trial that is soon to begin.

 

On Tuesday, Prosecutors in Las Vegas filed a Motion In Limine  in the case of The United States vs Cliven Bundy et al.  They are hopeful that Nevada District Court Judge Gloria Navarro will allow the US central government to “cover-up” any wrong doing by Bureau Of Land Management agents during the 2014 Bundy Ranch siege.

 

An attorney for one of the defendants told Guerilla Media Network, “It’s a shocking blatant attempt by the Government to cover-up the brutal conduct of BLM agents that caused a near catastrophe in Bunkerville, Nevada during the impoundment of rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle.”

 

Guerilla Media Network reports:

 

The motion is a draconian attempt at best to “protect” government agents from being exposed to further scrutiny during the upcoming Nevada trials in which they will be under-oath to tell the truth.

 

 

The defense in this case is centered around civil rights violations of the Bundy family and protestors who came to Bunkerville, Nevada to protest an overreaching government agency who had beaten and incarcerated Cliven Bundy’s son Dave Bundy and other protestors, used a stun gun on his son Ammon Bundy, viciously attacked Mr. Bundy’s sister Margaret, and terrorized peaceful protest with threat of snipers and military force.

 

“It is what it is and we will fight it,” said Chris Rasmussen, attorney for reporter and radio show host Pete Santilli.  “The government wishes to eliminate anything we could use that goes to the defendants’ state of mind .. and we cannot allow that to happen. These people were frightened and there was a reason they reacted the way they did.”

 

“Do we or do we not still live in America?” said former Nevada State Assemblywoman Michele Fiore on Tuesday in response to the motion.  “One way or the other the truth will be told and I would like to see them stop me from voluntarily giving my testimony when this trial begins.”

 

Fiore has already told about some of the evidence that is known to exist concerning the criminal BLM, including audio and video from body cameras, and even spoken out on their crimes on the Nevada Assembly floor.

 

VIDEO: Michele Fiore: Government Alters Dashboard/Body Cam Video In Nevada Bundy Case

 

Posted by Pete Santilli Show

Published on Oct 3, 2016

*** Please help support our mission in Nevada by contributing at http://thepetesantillishow.com/donate or direct to our Paypal account: peter@petersantilli.com .

Defendants in the case of United States vs Cliven Bundy et al .. are accusing the BLM [Bureau of Land Management] and the FBI of altering dashboard and body-cam video in an attempt to cover-up their aggressiveness during the 2014 protest that led to the arrest of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and 18 others.

Defendants are also accusing the FBI “infiltration team” who posed as a documentary film crew called Long Bow, of editing video at crucial moments to make defendants who gave interviews look guilty of crimes they did not commit.

On at least 5 different occasions the defendants in the case say that video used to gain their indictments and create the Governments narrative that has kept them all in jail pending trial, was clearly altered at crucial moments to hide what they believe would expose the BLM as the aggressors and not the “victims” as Prosecutor Steven Myhre contends.

We have found at least 5 different clear cases of evidence tampering and have only viewed 1/4 of the discovery that was recently released to us by the Prosecutors office say defendants, who have begun the process of creating a power point demonstration that will be viewed by defense attorney’s on October 7, 2016.

… MORE VIDEOS

 

Carol Bundy, Cliven Bundy’s wife, reacted in a similar manner, “So what kind of defense are we allowed to have if we can’t tell the truth?  Because if the Government has it’s way it looks like we will not be allowed to have any defense at all.”

 

 

Judge Navarro has demonstrated that she is just as corrupt as the BLM and the politicians surrounding what is going on in Nevada.  Just look at what she has done to Santilli and Cliven Bundy.  Does anyone really believe she is not going to accept this motion? READ ENTIRETY (Prosecutors Seek to Protect BLM from Scrutiny in Bundy Ranch Trial; By TIM BROWN; Freedom Outpost; 1/28/17)

 

Now for the article that got me started on this brief excursion of government cover-up and corruption. This article is specifically about the Prosecutors preventing Dirty Dan to be confronted by the Defense as the accuser of the Bunkerville Standoff Defendants.

 

JRH 3/18/17

Please Support NCCR

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

The Utter Hypocrisy of the Government in the Bundy Ranch Trial

 

By TIM BROWN

MARCH 16, 2017

Freedom Outpost

 

The utter hypocrisy that is being demonstrated in the Bundy Ranch trial by those who swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution from both foreign and domestic enemies is quite telling as to the level of corruption we are seeing in our land today.  Furthermore, it is demonstrating that many of those who have taken that oath not only don’t know what the Constitution says, but also have become the very domestic enemies they proclaim to oppose because of their ignorance.

 

First, take this update from Guerilla Media Network’s Deb Jordan.

 

VIDEO: Bundy Trial Update: Judge May Not Allow Defendants Biggest Accuser To Be Questioned In Front Of Jury

 

Posted by Pete Santilli Show

Published on Mar 10, 2017

 

call Daniel P. Love to the stand she is leaning heavily toward not allowing the defense to call him to the stand either. In a shocking statement made outside the earshot of the Jury this past Friday, Navarro said that she has no obligation to allow the defense to call the former Special Agent in Charge of the Bundy cattle impoundment to the stand for the purpose of impeaching his testimony to the grand jury .. Also this week Dennis Michael Lynch took the stand ..

Please help support us in Nevada by contributing at http://thepetesantillishow.com/donate or READ THE REST

 

“Judge Gloria Navarro presiding over USA vs Cliven Bundy says, if the Prosecution does not call Daniel P. Love to the stand she is leaning heavily toward not allowing the defense to call him to the stand either,” Jordan wrote.  “In a shocking statement made outside the earshot of the Jury this past Friday, Navarro said that she has no obligation to allow the defense to call the former Special Agent in Charge of the Bundy cattle impoundment to the stand for the purpose of impeaching his testimony to the grand jury.”

 

No obligation?   This is the government’s star snitch, I mean witness, Bureau of Land Management agent Daniel P. Love.  Perhaps, the reason lies in the fact that the BLM’s conduct at Bundy Ranch was thuggish and tyrannical (Watch Video evidence of their misconduct here and here).  Perhaps, the reason lies with the fact that Love was found guilty of misconduct by the Inspector General on a number of issues, including using his influence to obtain tickets and special passes to the Burning Man festival in the Nevada desert.  He was also instrumental in driving Dr. James Redd to the point of suicide over his collecting of Indian Artifacts in 2009.

 

As for Judge Navarro, citizens are planning to issue a letter to Congress calling for her impeachment due to her conduct in the case.

 

However, that is not the whole of what is taking place in Nevada.  The Nevada Independent reports:

 

Although no shots were fired that day, federal officers previously testified that alarming investigative intelligence, combined with the guns present in the agitated crowd and para-military dress of some of the protesters, made them afraid for their safety. Six defendants the government describes as Bundy’s gunmen are on trial accused of  threatening and intimidating BLM and U.S. Parks Service law enforcement officers.

 

In recent weeks, on cross examination, the defense has managed to portray the federal cops as inexperienced wannabes who lacked judgment and overreacted under stress. After the decision was made to discontinue the roundup, some of BLM rangers and Park police initially refused orders to put away their weapons, stand down and pack up. Some of their responses under oath made them appear more fearful than professional.

 

But the defense this past week had little success with Metro Sgt. Tom Jenkins and none at all with Sheriff Joseph Lombardo.

 

Additionally, there was testimony by Metro Sgt. Tom Jenkins, who claimed that protesters were flashing handguns and rifles “from the time we got there until the time we left.”  However, he remained steadfast in his claims even though lengthy recorded exhibits didn’t always agree with his testimony.  Someone is not being truthful or has a really bad memory that cannot be trusted.

 

Jenkins claims his officers were “scared” and “crying.”  Really?

 

I wonder if Sgt. Jenkins thought there was fear in the hearts of the Bundys and their supporters over this?

 

https://youtu.be/9p0YemhFnw8

 

or this?

 

https://youtu.be/LhJ6H9vlEDA

 

Then there was testimony from Lombardo.  Again, from The Nevada Independent:

 

When Lombardo’s took the stand Thursday, he reminded those who have followed his career that the public needn’t worry about his leadership skills. An assistant sheriff at the time of the standoff, Lombardo accompanied Sheriff Doug Gillespie to Bundy’s makeshift stage outside his ranch in an attempt to cool the heated rhetoric and avoid bloodshed. He stood patiently during Bundy’s windy grandstanding and impossible demands — disarm all federal law enforcement and bulldoze the entrance booths at the region’s federal conservation and recreation areas — and then returned to Las Vegas believing the botched cattle roundup was reaching a peaceful resolution.

 

For the first time jurors saw video of the elder Bundy holding forth with armed, uniformed members of the Arizona State Militia, who call themselves the “Praetorian Guard,” standing guard. Dozens of his hundreds of followers were armed with handguns and rifles.

 

When Bundy instructed his followers to go get his cattle, Lombardo’s day grew complicated and dangerous. He attempted to negotiate with one of Bundy’s sons, Dave Bundy, in a plea for patience and enough time to allow the BLM to make a safe exit.

 

It was Lombardo, jurors learned, who essentially put his career on the line to overrule BLM Supervisory Special Agent Dan Love and press for the release of the impounded cattle during the height of the armed standoff’s tensions.

 

“He advised me they were federal cattle and it was his decision,” Lombardo said.

 

Fortunately, Lombardo prevailed.

 

On what constitutional basis do Cliven Bundy’s cattle become “federal cattle”?  There is no victim any what the government is portraying here.  Furthermore, just because a video shows armed citizens protecting one another from a tyrannical BLM, something that even Sheriff Lombardo was willing to stand up to, doesn’t mean they were breaking the law.  Seriously, is no one reading the Second Amendment?  Do none of these people know why we have it and what provoked the writing of the Second Amendment?  or the First? or the Third? or the Fourth, etc. etc.?

 

While the author of the Nevada Independent piece concluded, “Bring guns to a peaceful protest, and you’re bound to get everyone’s attention,” what he failed to identify is who brought them first.  The response of protesters with guns was an equal and measured defensive response to tyrants, period.  Now, you can see the utter hypocrisy and lack of moral compass that is on display in this case.

 

________________

Government Corruption Prosecutes Bundys

John R. Houk

© March 18, 2017

_________________

The Utter Hypocrisy of the Government in the Bundy Ranch Trial

 

Copyright © 2017 FreedomOutpost.com

 

The Faking News Fakers: ‘Wiretaps? What Wiretaps?’


Every day I try to move awake from Fake News Conspiracies and Obama’s Deep State outrages, THEN I run across another news story that simply brings my blood pressure to a boiling point.

 

I propose to aggregate some of these news tidbits I consider to be acts of treason.

 

I will begin with a stand-alone cross post from Mark Alexander of The Patriot Post looking at the hypocrisy of the Leftist MSM in posting news that fingers a wiretap against Trump YET denies that President Trump has any proof of being wiretapped.

JRH 3/8/17

Please Support NCCR

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

The Faking News Fakers: ‘Wiretaps? What Wiretaps?’

The Trump/Putin myth — delegitimizing Trump’s election to keep the administration off-balance and derail his agenda.

 

By Mark Alexander 

Mar. 8, 2017

Email Update Sent 3/8/2017 1:07 PM

The Patriot Post

 

“But the fact being once established, that the press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood, I leave to others to restore it to its strength, by recalling it within the pale of truth. Within that, it is a noble institution, equally the friend of science and of civil liberty.” —Thomas Jefferson

 

NYT on Wiretapping & Fake News Denial

 

Despite all the fake media hysterics, keeping the “Trump and Putin rigged the election” myth alive has nothing to do with facts. But it has everything to do with delegitimizing Trump’s stunning victory, keeping his administration off-balance and derailing his agenda.

 

As usual, leftists and their media sycophants never let facts get in the way of a political hatchet job.

 

Last weekend, Donald Trump tweeted a sensational claim — that the Obama administration tapped his phones during the 2016 presidential campaign between Trump and BO’s corrupt heir-apparent, Hillary Clinton. The Democrats’ public relations department, a.k.a. the mainstream media, responded with howls that there was no evidence of any wiretaps, much less evidence Obama knew about any wiretaps — just more Trump paranoid hysteria.

 

However, Patriot Post editor Thomas Gallatin provided a heap of evidentiary substance for Trump’s claims, given that news of wiretaps on senior Trump leadership, while Obama was in office, had been widely affirmed by the same Leftmedia outlets now denying Trump’s claims about wiretaps. Some of the more notable MSM print and talkinghead “journalists” even cited these wiretaps as sources for their “reports” on Trump.

 

Gallatin pointed out that the MSM was “disingenuously dismissive” in rejecting Trump’s charge, especially given that an initial request to wiretap Trump’s team was turned down by the FISAC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court), but subsequent requests were granted.

 

Allow me to elaborate.

 

In June 2016, after Trump had clinched the Republican nomination, Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch tried to meet secretly with Bill Clinton on a tarmac at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. A few days later, after a visit to the White House, Lynch’s Department of Justice asked the FISAC for wiretaps not just for communication devices in Trump’s office but specifically for Trump’s phones.

 

This request never would have been submitted without Lynch’s consent, which she never would have given without Obama’s consent. (If only the NSA could produce a transcript of that conversation.) While FISAC most often rubber stamps requests, the court denied the Obama administration’s first request because it was a fishing expedition based on speculation of criminal activity.

 

On 21 July Trump became the Republican nominee. A week later, The Washington Post and other media outlets began propagating the Trump/Putin collusion myth.

 

In October, a month ahead of the presidential election, looking for any shred of evidence that might corroborate the myth, Obama’s Department of Justice again asked FISAC for wiretap warrants for Trump’s office, this time (according to our sources) omitting Trump’s name specifically and making the request on broad speculation about national security concerns. FISAC approved that request, and since such permissions apply, by extension, to others mentioned in the intercepted communications, we may fairly assume that Trump’s name was mentioned and, consequently, his lines were monitored.

 

Recall if you will that a week before the election, Hillary Clinton posted this social media message: “Computer scientists have uncovered a covert server linking the Trump organization to a Russian-based server.”

 

Huh? Did she mean the “scientists” at the Department of Justice? Was she confusing this with the discovery of her own “covert servers”?

 

In fact, no such evidence of the Russian link has been discovered.

 

Sidebar: However, there were direct links between Tony Podesta, brother of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, and Russians, who paid him more than $170,000 for six months of “consulting” to influence Clinton and ensure, once elected, she would reduce the sanctions Obama was compelled to impose after Putin invaded Ukraine. His firm was paid $24 million in fees in 2016, mostly from foreign interests.

 

Back to the media’s now-acute case of wiretap amnesia — they now insist that Trump’s wiretap accusations have no merit.

 

Allow me to direct your attention to a headline on the front page of The New York Times on Inauguration Day, January 20th, which boldly cites Trump wiretaps as its source for information regarding assertions about collusion between Russia and Trump’s campaign leadership team.

 

According to Times writer Michael Schmidt, “American law-enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broader investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President elect Donald J Trump. … The FBI is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the CIA and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. … The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing. [So, why is this front-page news on Inauguration Day?] One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.”

 

Got that? Again, “some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House” — while Obama was still in office.

 

This week, the same Times writer, Michael Schmidt, under the headline “Trump Offering No Evidence,” asserts that Trump “accused former President Barack Obama of tapping his phones at Trump Tower the month before the election, leveling the explosive allegation without offering any evidence.”

 

The same “no evidence” headlines were atop The Washington Post and other MSM outlets.

 

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

 

Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!

 

5:35 AM – 4 Mar 2017

 

For the record, while Trump’s social media wiretap messages were intended to imply that Obama had knowledge of the wiretaps, as is too often the case with such “loosely worded messaging,” he provided the MSM yet another “huge” opening to focus on the fallacy of his “literal message.”

 

Frankly, all of us should be able to take the literal words of a United States president posted on social media, literally. There is now a predictable MSM blowup pattern when Trump’s version of literal departs from the rest of the world’s reality, and these self-inflicted wounds continue to cost him precious political capital.

 

In this instance, the MSM used his literal messages to divert from the questionable legality of the wiretaps and their propagation of the Trump/Putin myth, and focus instead on the fact there is currently no evidence of Obama fingerprints on, or knowledge of, those wiretaps — even though Schmidt wrote in January that the wiretapped communications were provided to the White House while Obama was in office.

 

Let me reiterate: The July and October wiretap requests never would have been submitted without Lynch’s consent, which she never would have given without Obama’s consent. But there will likely be no fingerprints or electronic trail on these consents. Obama’s staff would have most certainly ensured that he had “plausible deniability” in regard to any knowledge of politically motivated wiretaps.

 

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey concludes, “I think [Trump is] right in that there was surveillance and that it was conducted at the behest of the attorney general — at the Justice Department.” But proving it is another matter.

 

That notwithstanding, there is plenty of reason for anyone with an ounce of healthy skepticism to conclude, with high probability, that Trump’s communications were intercepted and, with a reasonable level of confidence, that Obama was aware of those wiretaps.

 

Of course, the first victim within Trump’s administration to be felled by these “non-existent wiretaps” — orchestrated and illegally released by some yet-to-be determined government hack while Obama was in office — was Trump’s nominee for National Security Advisor, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.

 

Flynn, as you may recall, was the most vocal former high-ranking military officer who opposed Obama’s nefarious “Iran Nuke Deal,” which is precisely what put him in the sights of Obama’s deep state operatives who remain within the FBI and/or CIA.

 

After his confirmation in January, Flynn was bushwhacked with a complicated web of media accusations based on wiretap transcripts, which were illegally distributed to Obama-friendly MSM outlets.

 

Though the Flynn transcripts indicated no wrongdoing, in February he fell on his own sword and resigned in order to minimize the collateral political damage to the Trump administration. (For the record, the CIA and the Departments of Justice and Treasury are now being sued by Judicial Watch, on behalf of Flynn, to see whose fingerprints are on those wiretaps.)

 

Amid the wiretap wars this week, you may have missed this conclusion about the Trump/Putin election collusion from former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. According to Clapper, there wasn’t “any evidence” found by the CIA or FBI in their investigations that would indicate “any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians.”

 

The New York Times conceded as much in January and again in February, so why was this a front-page headline story?

 

But as noted previously, the Leftmedia never let facts get in the way of a political hit piece — until they’re caught in a BIG propaganda lie. In the light of truth, the political cockroaches scurry for cover.

 

Andrew McCarthy, a former assistant U.S. attorney and respected legal analyst, summarized the lie: “The specter of an investigation — breathless media reports of FISA-court applications, wiretaps, surveillance of agents of a foreign power, and mysterious servers; painstaking analysis of shady financial transactions involving Russian banks and funding streams — seems to make the outlandish conspiracy impossible to dismiss out of hand.”

 

McCarthy continued, “Into this misleading ‘Russia hacked the election’ narrative, the press and the Dems injected a second explosive allegation: Not only did Russia hack the election, but there are also enough ties between people in the Trump orbit and operatives of the Putin regime that there are grounds to believe that the Trump campaign was complicit in Russia’s hacking of the election. Transparently, the aim is to undermine the legitimacy of Trump’s election victory.”

 

As for the Leftmedia retreat, McCarthy notes, “Now that they’ve been called on it, the media and Democrats are gradually retreating from the investigation they’ve been touting for months as the glue for their conspiracy theory. It’s actually quite amusing to watch: How dare you suggest President Obama would ever order surveillance! Who said anything about FISAC orders? What evidence do you lunatic conservatives have — uh, other than what we media professionals been reporting — that there was any investigation of the Trump campaign?”

 

Constitutional attorney Mark Levin, former chief of staff to Ronald Reagan’s Attorney General Edwin Meese, asserts that while “No evidence is found” tying Trump or anyone on his team to Russia, “the wiretaps continue.”

 

Levin concludes, “The issue isn’t whether the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign or transition of surrogates; the issue is the extent of it.”

 

Which leads me back to my original assertion: The Trump/Putin myth being propagated by the Democrats and their Leftmedia propagandists has nothing to do with facts and everything to do with derailing Trump’s agenda. However, Trump’s social media messages are certainly assisting their cause.

 

Footnote: Unfortunately, some of the “conservative media,” most notably Fox News, are reading off the same Beltway memos being broadcast by the Leftmedia — but then they also have advertising to sell… Fox News now has a lower rating for “somewhat credible” and higher rating for “not credible” than CNN, according to recent news credibility polling.

 

Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post
Pro Deo et Libertas ~ 1776

 

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertas — 1776

___________________

Your Patriot Post team of editors and staff depend entirely on the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you. We are not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we do not accept advertising. Thank you for supporting the Patriot Fund!

 

The Patriot Post is protected speech pursuant to the “unalienable rights” of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In God we trust. Copyright © 2017 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.

 

REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with our Terms of Use, with the following citation: “The Patriot Post (http://patriotpost.us/subscribe/)”

 

The Patriot Post
PO Box 507
Chattanooga, TN 37401

 

About The Patriot Post

 

“Our cause is noble; it is the cause of mankind!” —George Washington

 

Mission

 

From our 1996 inception, with sage advice from conservative protagonists William F. Buckley (National Review, Emeritus), Ed Feulner (Heritage Foundation, Emeritus) and our National Advisory CommitteeThe Patriot Post has been steadfast in our mission advocating for individual rights and responsibilities, supporting the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and promoting free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values.

 

Thanks to our fellow Patriots across the nation, and our devoted team of editors, technical and creative staff, and support personnel, The Patriot Post has grown from its humble beginnings into a highly acclaimed touchstone of Liberty for conservative leaders across our nation, and the leading online resource for First Principles.

 

Our objective is to equip the current generation of American Patriots with the right information to more effectively “Support and Defend” the unalienable Rights of Man, as enumerated in our Declaration of Independence, and codified by the Rule of Law enshrined in our Republic’s Constitution. Since our first day in circulation, The Patriot has been an indispensable resource for the force multipliers in our ranks, who have enlisted many others to the eternal cause of Liberty.

 

The Patriot Post frames current political and policy issues in the correct constitutionally constructionist context established by our Founders and supported today by the plurality of Americans who uphold the most basic tenet of our Republic: “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

 

Operations

 

The Patriot Post—inspired by our READ THE REST

 

Will Plame Lie Repeat with Flynn?


valerie-plame-2

John R. Houk

© March 2, 2017

 

Michael Ginsberg has some interesting speculation pertaining to Mike Flynn’s resignation as National Security Advisor to the President. Ginsberg senses a witch similar to the experience of Scooter Libby. The Dems hunted President Bush and wanted him to go down in flames.

 

When nothing else worked, the Dems fabricated a felony committed by Scooter Libby while he was Chief of Staff for then Vice President Cheney. The Dems talked their way into having a Special Prosecutor assigned to investigate who might have revealed that desk jockey Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. The accusation occurred because Plame’s name became public in a news story in regard to the now largely discredited report of Joe Wilson. Wilson – a Dem acolyte – was dispatched the nation of Niger to investigate if there was any accuracy to Intel reports that Saddam Hussein was trying to import uranium yellow cake for a nuclear weapons program.

 

Libby AND no one else was EVER convicted of releasing Plame’s name. When the connection failure occurred in the Special Prosecution, Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald went after Scooter Libby for lying even though the truth was a mix-up of memory. Yup, that was the ONLY egregious crime to get a conviction. And even that conviction is tainted with prosecutorial misconduct by preventing exonerating evidence from the Defense effort.

 

Ginsberg senses a repeat of a “no there – there” prosecution instituted under the pressure of Dems who can’t stand that Crooked Hillary lost to President Trump.

 

Plamegate Witch Hunt Articles

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JRH 3/2/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Trump Should Beware Of The Flynn Affair Becoming The Plame Game

mike-flynn 

The resignation of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn bears more than a few disturbing similarities to a scandal that brought the Bush administration to its knees.

 

By Michael Ginsberg

MARCH 1, 2017

The Federalist

 

Ever since the inauguration, Democrats have been searching high and low for ways to discredit and undermine the Trump administration. Some Democrats, such as Maxine Waters, have openly admitted they want to impeach President Trump and are on alert for any possible grounds.

 

Dan Rather has gone on record comparing the Mike Flynn affair to Watergate, and pundit Sally Kohn tweeted a step-by-step recipe for removing President Trump and replacing him with Hillary Clinton. Not a day goes by that the media doesn’t seize upon some alleged Trump gaffe, misstep, or scandal or, when all else fails, supposed dysfunction in the Trump White House.

 

It is obvious that Democrats and the media are intent on strangling the Trump administration in its crib. They seek every weapon to accomplish this goal. They slow-roll the confirmation of Trump’s cabinet. They play up the argument that Trump lost the popular vote. They regularly attack him and his advisers as a racist and anti-Semitic. So far, despite the exhausting, daily swirl of hyperbolic reporting, the Trump administration has more or less stayed on course in implementing its policies.

 

However, this does not mean danger does not lurk. The scandal and resignation of former National Security Adviser Flynn bears more than a few disturbing similarities to a scandal that, a decade ago, brought the Bush administration to its knees. I am referring, of course, to the Valerie Plame affair.

 

You Remember the Valerie Plame Affair

 

The Plame affair started innocently enough. The Central Intelligence Agency sent a former ambassador, Joseph Wilson, to Africa to investigate the possibility that Saddam Hussein sought yellowcake uranium to support an illicit nuclear program. According to Wilson, the CIA greenlighted the trip to answer a question Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had asked the CIA regarding Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium in Africa.

 

Wilson reported his findings to the government. He also took to the pages of The New York Times to discuss “What I Didn’t Find in Africa,” detailing how he had concluded that Hussein had not sought yellowcake from Africa. He also claimed intelligence had been “twisted” to “exaggerate” the threat of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

 

The Bush administration, unaware of who Wilson was or why the government had sent an administration critic like him on this mission, endeavored to find out. Reporter Bob Novak was also curious, and he learned that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, worked at the CIA and had recommended her husband for the mission. Novak duly published his findings. Not long after, all hell broke loose.

 

Wild accusations immediately overtook the Bush administration. Wilson accused the administration of outing his wife as a CIA officer to retaliate for his article. Many people thought a White House staffer leaked Plame’s name to Novak. Wilson himself blamed Karl Rove, saying he wanted to see Rove “frog-marched” out of the White House “in handcuffs.”

 

MSNBC gleefully jumped onto the story—it was a staple of Keith Olbermann’s “Countdown” for years. Others suggested the Bush administration had violated the Espionage Act or other laws protecting CIA officers. Antiwar Democrats made Plame and Wilson antiwar heroes and martyrs.

 

Finally, the Bush administration buckled to external pressure and named a special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, to investigate who leaked Plame’s name. Fitzgerald learned that Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage had leaked Plame’s name to Novak. Despite this mystery, he continued investigating. Eventually, he brought one man to trial: Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, for perjury.

 

The Trial Was Really Political Sabotage

 

Although the trial was for perjury, its purpose for the antiwar left was to put the Iraq War and entire Bush administration on trial. The trial intended to make the war and administration illegitimate and, essentially, wreck its ability to function.

 

That it did. The administration and press was consumed by Fitzgerald’s investigation. In fact, it is now known that Libby had argued for a surge much earlier in the Iraq War but was unable to push his position strongly because the Plame affair so badly consumed him. Libby was forced to resign as Cheney’s chief of staff in October 2005, and only at the end of 2006—after another year of bloodshed—did the United States implement the surge strategy Libby had advocated.

 

A 2007 Washington Post editorial noted a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee determined that nearly all of Wilson’s claims were false. The Post acknowledged there was no nefarious conspiracy to destroy the careers of Wilson and Plame. Worse, journalist Judith Miller stated in her 2015 book that Fitzgerald withheld evidence from her that led her to testify falsely. In effect, she recanted the testimony Fitzgerald used to win Libby’s conviction.

 

Nevertheless, the damage was done to the Bush administration’s ability to fight the Iraq War and take other policy actions, from reforming Social Security to eliminating the Syrian nuclear reactor at al-Kidar to dealing with Iran.

 

The Flynn Dox Might Be a Fishing Expedition

 

The matter that led to Flynn’s resignation has more than a whiff of déjà vu all over again. Once again, we have a high government official forced to resign not for his actions, but for supposed untruths he told about his actions after the fact. In this case, Flynn is supposed to have misled the FBI by stating he did not discuss sanctions during a call with the Russian ambassador to the United States in December 2016.

 

Supposedly transcripts of the call exist, though they have not been made public. Surely the transcripts are available to the FBI agents who interrogated Flynn. They could easily determine exactly what Flynn discussed with the Russian ambassador without needing to interrogate Flynn. Interrogating Flynn about a telephone call whose contents were already available to the FBI could serve only one purpose: to create a perjury trap for Flynn.

 

This has obvious similarities to what happened to Libby in the Plame matter. Even though the Plame special prosecutor knew the Plame leaker was Armitage, he continued to investigate and supposedly caught Libby in a perjury trap.

 

It was perfectly proper for Flynn, the incoming national security adviser, to speak with foreign countries’ ambassadors to the United States. That is what transitions are for. It is ludicrous to believe that an incoming administration can take no action and talk to no foreign representatives before noon on January 20. That is absurd, and I strongly doubt the Obama team met this standard. The point of a transition is to be able to hit the ground running and maintain continuity in government, including in relationships with foreign countries.

 

So what did Flynn in was not the fact of his call to the Russian ambassador, just as Libby was not done in by leaking Plame’s name (as he wasn’t the leaker). Both cases involved “a cover-up in search of a crime,” as columnist Charles Krauthammer has said.

 

Flynn Also Has Plausible Deniability

 

One can also easily imagine a scenario in which Flynn did not believe he had discussed the new Russia sanctions but, in a strict interpretation, one might believe he did. If during the call the Russian ambassador asked about the sanctions, and Flynn said “We are going to review the entire Russia policy, but I can’t discuss the sanctions or anything else specifically,” did Flynn discuss the sanctions?

 

Another similarity between the Plame and Flynn affairs is that the Democratic Party is deliberately muddying their meaning to inflate their significance. In the Plame case, the trial became a proxy for the entire Iraq War effort. Recall that many Democrats initially voted for the authorization to use force in Iraq and only turned against the war when the United States began suffering setbacks.

 

Democrats, led by their presidential candidates including John Kerry, justified turning against the war by claiming President Bush had lied them into supporting it. They proclaimed Libby’s perjury conviction as proof. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated, “the [Libby trial] testimony unmistakably revealed—at the highest levels of the Bush administration—a callous disregard in handling sensitive national security information and a disposition to smear critics of the war in Iraq.”

 

The Democrats thus deliberately and strategically used a narrow perjury conviction to discredit the entire Bush Iraq policy and build a larger story of the nefarious, lying Bush administration—while conveniently eliminating their culpability for supporting the Iraq War.

 

Democrats are taking the same approach with Flynn’s call, blowing it up into evidence that the Russians and the Trump team somehow conspired to get Trump elected. The nub of the entire Flynn controversy is that Flynn talked to the Russian ambassador just as the Obama administration began taking action against Russia for its supposed meddling in the presidential election. That is, Democrats’ ginned-up, recently discovered concern about Russia is what underlies the entire Flynn matter.

 

The Obama administration only began taking a hard line on Russia in the last few weeks of its tenure, probably to help reinforce the notion that Russia somehow helped Trump win. Russia’s invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine and indiscriminate bombing and atrocious human rights violations in Syria led to no serious consequences from the United States. Only when the Democrats went looking for someone to blame the election loss on did Russia enter the crosshairs.

 

Democrats Are Being Vindictive Losers

 

Unable to win the election, the Democrats have resorted to lawfare to re-litigate the election and destroy the elected president. Democrats did not win at the ballot box and are determined to tie the winners in knots to prevent them from governing. By muddying the waters and conflating small incidents with their larger conspiracy theories, they hope Americans will assume that where there is a whole lot of smoke, there must be some fire, even if Democrats are manufacturing the smoke.

 

The Trump administration needs to understand the game Democrats are playing and rewrite the rules. First, it must not appoint a special prosecutor under any circumstances. In her book, Miller says Libby’s lawyer told her “Fitzgerald had twice offered to drop all charges against Libby if his client would ‘deliver’ [Vice President] Cheney to him.” The Trump administration cannot similarly allow a special prosecutor to run wild in search of a high-ranking scalp.

 

In addition, the congressional committees investigating the Flynn matter need to avoid getting drawn into a witch hunt for senior Trump officials. Republican leadership must maintain firm boundaries around any investigations and avoid the fishing expedition Democrats desperately desire. A fishing expedition will tie up enormous resources in document requests, interviews, and testimony, distracting from Republicans’ policy work. Such distractions would be a victory for the Left.

 

The investigating committees need to be very careful their investigation does not expand into any and all communications with and ties to Russia of anyone associated with the Trump campaign. The entire argument that the Russians “hacked” the election to affirmatively assist Trump is an edifice of innuendo. Congress must not add more bricks to it.

 

The investigating committees should also focus on the leakers of the information about Flynn’s call transcripts. These leaks are unacceptable and possibly criminal. They may also represent the presence of anti-Trump bureaucrats attempting to undermine the elected president. Unlike anything President Trump has done, this is a real threat to democracy and the will of the electorate.

 

Double Down, Trump Team

 

Second, the Trump administration needs to accelerate the pace of appointing officials to staff the government. Federal agencies have had weeks without political leadership as the Democrats have bogged down the confirmation process to an unprecedented degree. Democratic-leaning bureaucrats have had weeks to create all kinds of mischief, from inappropriate and potentially illegal leaking to organizing resistance at the Environmental Protection Agency and elsewhere. The agencies need adult supervision immediately.

 

Third, the Trump administration needs to change the subject. It got off to a good start by replacing Flynn with Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster. It now needs to move forward on its priorities: tax reform, budget cutting and seriousness about controlling the national debt, and Obamacare replacement. These three initiatives are likely to unleash as big an economic boom as we’ve seen in the twenty-first century. Bill Clinton proved people will tolerate a lot during good economic times.

 

That said, the Trump team should be aware that the Flynn resignation is a bad precedent, just as the Libby prosecution was. It’s a template for how to drive Left-displeasing officials from office. The Trump team will need to be vigilant against Democrats’ future deployment of lawfare to claim other scalps.

 

The Trump administration is off to a good start and is building momentum to pursue conservative wish-list items such as tax reform and Obamacare repeal. Democrats know this, and will do everything they can to derail these efforts. With Flynn, Democrats proved they are prepared to run the Plame play from their scorched-earth playbook. The Trump team needs to be prepared for next time to effectively defend against it.

_________________

Will Plame Lie Repeat with Flynn?

John R. Houk

© March 2, 2017

_______________

Trump Should Beware Of The Flynn Affair Becoming The Plame Game

 

Michael is an attorney in Washington DC for the U.S. government, and a 2002 graduate of Harvard Law School.

 

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

 

Norma McCorvey is with Jesus


norma-mccorvey-quote-undoing-roe-v-wade

John R. Houk

© February 19, 2017

 

Roe v. Wade legalized baby-killing as a form of birth control in America in 1973. In case you didn’t know it, Roe was a pseudonym for Norma McCorvey. At the time McCorvey was 23 when she wanted to end an unwanted pregnancy. Because of Texas law against abortion she ended up giving birth but gave the child up for adoption.

 

The American took up McCorvey’s case to legalize baby-killing for birth control and won for Roe-McCorvey two-years later before the Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision favoring “privacy” over an unborn child’s right to life.

 

In 1989 McCorvey publicly made known she was the “Jane Roe” of Roe v. Wade – still a proponent of baby-killing.

 

In 1995 Norma McCorvey came under the influence of Reverend Philip (“Flip”) Benham and understood that killing an unborn child was murder. She then became a Pro-Life champion to save the lives of unborn children from legalized genocide. Rev. Benham first came to prominence as an Anti-Abortion activist via Operation Save America (OSA) and lately the Leftist Multiculturalists hate him for his pro-Biblical views that agrees with God that the LGBT lifestyle is an abomination.

 

rev-benham-baptizing-norma-mccorvey-1995

Rev. Benham baptizing Norma McCorvey 1995

 

Norma McCorvey has passed in this life on February 18, 2017 and now resides with Jesus Christ the Son of God and Savior.

 

Here is the Christian Newswire article that outlines the life of the redeemed.

 

JRH 2/19/17

Please Support NCCR

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

The Death of Roe

 

Contact: Rev. Flip Benham, 980-722-4920; 

Rev. Rusty Lee Thomas, 254-715-3134

Sent February 18, 2017 3:38 PM

Sent from Christian Newswire

 

“O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory” (1 Corinthians 15:55)

 

WACO, Texas, Feb. 18, 2017 /Christian Newswire/ — Right after Norma McCorvey’s conversion to Christ, she wrote, “I’m Norma McCorvey, the former Jane Roe of the Roe v. Wade decision that brought legal child killing to America. I was persuaded by feminist attorneys to lie; to say that I was raped, and needed an abortion. It was all a lie. Since then, over 50 million babies have been murdered. I will take this burden to my grave. Please, don’t follow in my mistakes.”

Operation Rescue/Operation Save America is pleased to report that she did not go to the grave with that burden. She went to the grave with the salvation of her Lord. He took the burden, her debt of sin upon Himself and through His crucifixion and resurrection, redeemed Miss Norma’s guilt-ridden soul. The old Norma died (Pre Roe) and a new Norma emerged (Post Roe).

When she struggled with the overwhelming guilt of her involvement with abortion, Rev. Flip Benham, who baptized her, gave her this reassuring Scripture, “I sought the LORD, and he answered me; he delivered me from all my fears. Those who look to him are radiant; their faces are never covered with shame.” (Psalms 34:4, 5)

Rev. Flip Benham, former National Director of OR/OSA, states, “The three people most instrumental in ushering us into the era of Roe v. Wade, Dr. Barnard Nathanson (founder of NARAL), Sandra Cano (Jane Doe of Doe v. Bolton), and Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade), are now all in the great cloud of witnesses cheering us on as we continue to fight for the lives of our Lord’s precious preborn babies. All three lied or were lied to, to give us this damnable law. All three were sinners saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. All three, in their Christian years, did their very best to undo the lies that gave us Roe v. Wade. All three are today more alive than they have ever been. All three have run their lap of the race. It is our turn now! Good night for now Miss Norma – we will see you in the morning!”

Rev. Rusty Lee Thomas, current National Director of OR/OSA states, “Looking back on how the Lord has used this ministry, we rejoice in the thousands of lives that have been spared, the souls that have been saved, like Miss Norma, and the many death camps that have been shut down. We pray the death of Roe (Miss Norma) prophetically signals the death of Roe vs. Wade. May the destroyer of men made in the image of God be destroyed in Jesus’ mighty name!”

 

For those interested in Miss Norma’s reflections, here is her poem called Empty Playgrounds: afterabortion.blogspot.fr/2003/05/empty-playgrounds-poem-by-miss-norma.html

 

For her full story, check out her book Won by Love, www.amazon.com/Won-Love-Norma-McCorvey/dp/0785286543

______________

Norma McCorvey is with Jesus

John R. Houk

© February 19, 2017

______________

The Death of Roe

 

Christian Communication Network, 2020 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006

 

Christian Newswire is the most used and most recognized distributor of religious content news releases in the nation.

 

Over 2100 public policy groups, government agencies, PR firms, religious organizations, think-tanks, watchdog groups, advocacy groups, coalitions, foundations, colleges, universities, activists, politicians, and candidates use Christian Newswire to distribute their news releases.  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

 

Understanding The Communist Role In Driving The Current Chaos In America


Dee Fatouros provides an intro to some G. Edward Griffin info on Communism in America pointing out the similarities of the present to the Marxist agenda of the past. Look at today’s street chaos and the obstructionism of the Dems in Congress.

 

There is an hour and fifteen-minute video seminar conducted by Griffin in 1968 at the end. I mention this because you will notice a portion of the monologue would be politically incorrect today. AND YET a very informative seminar.

 

g-edward-griffin-1968

Edward Griffin 1969

g-edward-griffin

Edward Griffin present day

 

 

 

JRH 2/12/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Understanding The Communist Role In Driving The Current Chaos In America

 

lenin-communist-america Lenin-Communist Revolution

 

Posted by Dee Fatouros

By G. Edward Griffin

February 11, 2017 10:12:00 AM

The Realistic Observer

 

A fairly brief, but most informative read. I’m sure the reader will recognize much of what is being said as occurring today, class warfare, racial strife, big government, disinformation, (fake news), “protests” etc.

Like Jihad, Communism has its stages and its soldiers. The CPUSA is quite powerful in America and many members of Congress are followers. They are but one of the more effective occupants in the toolbox of the globalist drive for world domination. Many see Globalism as rebranded Communism, and indeed, there are undeniable similarities, but that is another discussion. The end game by any other name is world domination, loss of national sovereignty, and world wide totalitarian oppression of the world citizenry.

At the end of this write up is a video (made in 1969) discussing Communism in America, and its approach to fomenting internal revolution.  It is prescient, an hour long, but can be listened to. By the way, this video was made when Blacks were politically correctly referred to as Negros. Do not be offended.

At 21 minutes into it, he discusses African American Manning Johnson’s awakening as to the true motives of the using Black Americans as cannon fodder for the beginning revolution which resulted in his leaving the Communist Party.

Johnson wrote an insightful book, “Color Communism And Common Sense”, in 1935 in which he exposed the truth of the Communist purported “concern” for the American Negro and its attempted manipulation of them into becoming the spearhead of the  revolution in America. He also discussed the created racial divide and its intended purpose. This book is as pertinent today as was in 1935.

 

“Color Communism And Common Sense”.


Contents 

Preface by ARCHIBALD B. ROOSEVELT
I In the Web
II Subverting Negro Churches 
III Red Plot to Use Negroes 
IV Bane of Red Integration 
V Destroying the Opposition 
VI The Real “Uncle Toms” 
VII Creating Hate 
VIII Modern Day Carpet Baggers 
IX Race Pride Is Passé 
X Wisdom Needed
 

Appendices

 

WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT THE PLANNED U.S. CIVIL WAR
by G. Edward Griffin

 

This week’s news is dominated, once again, with reports of violent demonstrations against the Trump administration. We have seen violent demonstrations before, but something new has been added that is profoundly significant. It is the rhetoric of civil war and revolution. 

The organizations spouting civil-war rhetoric are following a playbook taken from the writings of Vladimir Lenin, founder of the Communist Party. It is a rhetoric that demonizes all enemies as ‘capitalist exploiters’ (in America, where there still is a latent affinity to capitalism, the word ‘Fascism’ is preferred.) and calls for an overthrow of the government. Followers are not supposed to think about what would replace it but, for those who are curious, the answer is a ‘socialist’ government responsive, not to big business, but to the people. 


You may think that, boisterous as these demonstrators are, and although they can draw a few thousand youngsters to their events, they are but a tiny fraction of the population and could never pose a serious threat to any government. But how wrong you would be. 


Major political changes always are achieved by minorities. All revolutions are the work of less than three percent of the population, and the American Revolution was no exception. It’s not how many people there are, but how well organized they are and where they are. If the three percenters are influential in a nation’s power centers (political parties, government agencies, courts, military, schools, activist groups, labor unions, etc.), then the odds are in their favor. The masses will follow the winners. 


When you look at the rag-tag bunch carrying placards and shouting obscenities, you may be comforted thinking that they have no influence in the real power centers, but be mindful that street theater is only half the picture. Classic communist strategy involves, not one, but two types of revolution. The first is by force and violence (they call it a war of national liberation), but the other is political and peaceful (what they call a proletarian revolution). 


The two are designed to work together, one from the bottom (masses in the streets) and the other from the top (agents inside government waiting for an excuse to introduce legislation that will move the nation closer to the Leninist ideal. The strategy is, not to conquer in one fell swoop, but to do so by a series of steps, each one seen by the public as a necessary compromise to end the violence. 


In 1969, I delivered a lecture on this subject, entitled More Deadly than War. That was in the day when I was hanging out at the communist book store in Los Angeles doing research on collectivism, so I was loaded with communist publications to illustrate my message. The presentation was recorded on black-and-white film, released in VHS format, and then forgotten. Someone put it on YouTube about five years ago so, when we created our Reality Zone YouTube channel last year, we copied it to that collection. 


It has been almost fifty years since I gave much thought to that lecture so, when I started to write this commentary, I decided to watch it again to see what I said. Frankly, I was blown away by how every point applies directly to what is happening today.


If you are interested in my analysis, here is the link. (video below)

 

VIDEO: More Deadly Than War – A Lecture by G. Edward Griffin [1:14:36]

 

Posted by Reality Zone

Published on Oct 8, 2016 

 

…The Blueprint for Revolution in America….

This address by G. Edward Griffin, given in 1968, is as current as today’s headlines. Mr. Griffin shows that the Leninist strategy for conquest involves two kinds of revolution: One is violent; the other is non-violent.

While most people think only of violent revolution, the non-violent phase is where most of the action has been in the United States. Leninists call it the Proletarian Revolution and it involves the gradual transition to Marxism (which is merely one form of collectivism) by use of the ballot box. Control is achieved through economic pressures rather than guns and executions.

This program shows how Leninists utilize mass-membership organizations, politicians, and the parliamentary process to bring about totalitarianism with little opposition from those who are being subjugated.

For more information, visit http://www.realityzone.com

 

___________

EDWARD GRIFFIN – Non-Real Observer Bio

 

EDWARD GRIFFINis a writer, documentary film producer, and Founder of Freedom Force International. Listed in Who’s Who in America, he is well known because of his talent for researching difficult topics and presenting them in clear terms that all can understand.

 

He has dealt with such diverse subjects as archaeology and ancient Earth history, the Federal Reserve System and international banking, terrorism, internal subversion, the history of taxation, U.S. foreign policy, the science and politics of cancer therapy, the Supreme Court, and the United Nations.

 

His better-known works include The Creature from Jekyll Island, World without Cancer, The Discovery of Noah’s Ark, Moles in High Places, The Open Gates of Troy, No Place to Hide, The Capitalist Conspiracy, More Deadly than War, The Grand Design, The Great Prison Break, and The Fearful Master

 

Ed is a graduate of the University of Michigan where he majored in speech and communications. He is …  READ ENTIRETY

 

Congress Investigates Federal Climate Study After Whistleblower Exposes Fake Science


global-warming-hoax-exposed

Americans are becoming aware of the Left Stream Media’s Fake News. Now Americans should examine the evidence of the Fake Science that global Leftists promote to ram the Climate Change hoax down our throat.

 

JRH 2/10/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Congress Investigates Federal Climate Study After Whistleblower Exposes Fake Science

 

By Julie Kelly

FEBRUARY 10, 2017

The Federalist

 

The scientific community and media outlets that claimed Trump will silence scientists are now attacking one of their own for speaking up.

 

Congress is ramping up its investigation into a key climate study, now under further scrutiny after a federal whistleblower raised more questions about it this week. The scandal some are referring to as “Climategate Two” (you can learn about the first Climategate here) is quickly escalating after Dr. John Bates, a former top scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), exposed how an ex-colleague mishandled a report on global warming right before a major international climate conference in 2015.

 

House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith said during a Tuesday hearing that NOAA “has deceived the American people by falsifying data to justify a partisan agenda.” He will now push for all documents related to the climate study, materials he requested via subpoena in 2015 after Obama Administration officials refused to disclose them.

 

What Bates Revealed About a Famous Climate Study

 

The explosive allegations from Dr. Bates were detailed in the Daily Mail and on the scientific blogClimate, Etc. on February 5. Bates accuses Tom Karl, former director of the NOAA office responsible for climate data, of manipulating temperature readings, failing to archive data, and ignoring agency protocols to rush publishing his study that debunked the well-known pause in global warming at the beginning of this century.

 

At the time, climate activists were in a panic because the premier scientific body in charge of climate science—the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—admitted the rise in global temperatures had basically stalled from 1998 to 2012. This bombshell was included in the IPCC’s 2013 report, which would serve as the main primer leading up to the United Nations’ Climate Conference in Paris two years later.

 

World leaders were poised to obligate their countries (er, taxpayers) into paying hundreds of billions to ease climate change. The inconvenient truth that plenty of evidence showed the planet was not significantly warming would be hard to climatesplain away. To give the climate leaders a big assist, Karl worked with a team of scientists to prove the pause didn’t happen, and claim global temperatures were rising just as fast as they had been at the end of the twentieth century.

 

Karl specifically cites the IPCC report in the introduction of his paper published in Science in June 2015, a few months before the Paris conference. Under the headline, “Walking back talk of the end of warming,” the authors said, “Here, we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than those reported by the IPCC. These results do not support the notion of a slowdown in the increase in global surface temperatures.”

 

The paper concludes that “the IPCCs statement is no longer valid.” In other words: settled.

 

The Climate Change Study Was Rigged

 

But Bates says the researchers “put a thumb on the scale” to reach their conclusions. He reveals other alarming details, like how the computer used to process the data suffered a complete failure. Chairman Smith responded immediately to Bates’s allegations, thanking him for “exposing the previous administration’s efforts to push their costly climate agenda at the expense of scientific integrity.”

 

Shortly after Bates’ exposé was posted, climate skeptics and conservative outlets began reporting on it—including Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Times (my piece in NRO is here). And of course it wasn’t long before climate activists and their media propagandists seized on Bates, attacking his credibility and motives while insisting Karl’s report was indeed credible and backed up by other scientists.

 

True to form, the same media that helped promote Karl’s study before the Paris climate conference overlooked key parts of Bates’s account. Neither the Washington PostNew York Times, nor the Associated Press mentioned IPCC as the source for the global warming pause, the main reason for Karl’s rebuke. Nor did they mention Bates’ shocking claim that the computer used to process the data had crashed.

 

Media Rushes to Defend Karl’s Study

 

Other lowlights from that group include the following.  New York Times headline: “No Data Manipulation in 2015 Climate Study, Researchers Say.” Reporter Henry Fountain starts by smearing the Daily Mail reporter who wrote Bates’ exposé, excusing away the accusations and claiming the global warming pause became a “cause célèbre among climate change denialists.” Fountain then cites a few scientists who support Karl and finishes up insisting the study had no impact on the Paris accord.

 

Associated Press headline: “Major Global Warming Study Again Questioned, Again Defended.” Reporter Seth Borenstein referred to the scandal as “bickering,” a “kerfuffle,” and a mere “hubbub” about data management and storage.

 

Washington Post headline: “As the Planet Warms, Doubters Launch a New Attack on a Famous Climate Change Study.” Do you really need anything after that? Reporter Chelsea Harvey refutes every point of Bates’s account and cites “multiple” scientists who support the Karl study. (Bates said in his blogpost he first offered his story to the Washington Post last year and they declined. Shocker.)

 

The Media Weren’t The Only Study Apologists

 

The media weren’t the only Karl study apologists. Rush Holt, the head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) which publishes Science, testified at Smith’s hearing on Tuesday. Holt brushed off the allegations—this was about 48 hours after the article posted, basically no time to check the veracity—calling it an “internal dispute” and concluding it’s “not the making of a big scandal.” Another committee member warned Holt to withhold judgement on the matter until the matter was fully investigated.

 

There’s a little (a lot?) of irony to this whole affair. The very same scientific community and liberal media outlets that have been hysterical since November 8, claiming the Trump Administration will silence scientists and have a chilling effect on science, are the very same people now attacking one of their own for speaking up. Chalk this up as one more example of liberal hypocrisy, exposed thanks to Donald Trump.

 

______________

julie-kelly

Julie Kelly is a National Review Online contributor and food policy writer from Orland Park, Illinois. She’s also been published in the Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Forbes, and The Hill.

 

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